DCS Longevity

[Shaman]

If you want your wish to be granted. Do not buy just one copy of EDs products you are insterested in. Buy them all.

[theGozr]

I really think the RoF format is the best.. One world different aircraft modules that work in the same environment.. something like FC2.0 and Black-Shark. Than yes buy the plane you want to pilot.

on different sides.

[EtherealN]

Something like FC2 and Black Shark? I'm not sure what you mean here, Gozr.

[theGozr]

They connect ..

[EtherealN]

But Gozr... That's already what ED is doing. :P

[PeterP]

Reminds me of the ending of "The Waltons" ...

Never mind...

 

 

 

;)

edit:

I'm used to like this kind of endings... really!

 

 

 

edit++:

I have my own thinking of that (like probably many said before)

-Its up to us how we will handle it what comes down the road...

 

- good night Gozr - good night Bumbblbee - good night GGThaors -good night Dimbag- good night EtherealIn - good night all!

Edited September 27, 2011 by PeterP

[theGozr]

Is A10 compatible with FC2.0 ? Online

 

??

[EtherealN]

Is A10 compatible with FC2.0 ? Online

 

??

 

FAQ here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=67747

 

Q: Is DCS: A-10C Warthog online-compatible with DCS: Black Shark and Flaming Cliffs 2?

A: We hope to be able to release a compatibility upgrade for DCS: Black Shark. This would give Black Shark all the features of A-10C, except the flyable A-10C. A compatibility upgrade for FC2 is being considered.

[theGozr]

Haaa Ok that would be the way ;) but the considered from DCS is more like "no".. imo.. But i really hope so :)

 

Thanks for the Faq heads up :)

[EtherealN]

Well, if you're hoping to get that, do remember that back in the beta that line read "a compatibility upgrade for FC2 is unlikely". :)

 

That change doesn't mean it's actually going to happen though, of course, it just means that they're looking at it and know the users want it. :)

There is a mega-thread somewhere in the lockon section.

[theGozr]

Well for FC:2.0 the problem is the over simplified main aircraft FM / and tech but the SU25's are possible and would be a great addition .. The big problem imo is that there is no enemy.. feels like a "single player but online" and also a land design that make better sens would be a huge plus ;)

[PeterP]

I never felt alone when a whole AAA bunch was firing at me at once while flying along with my buddy's...

but I get your point...

as I said

-Its up to us how we will handle it what comes down the road...

:D

-only felt very lonely when hanging in my parachute (-when I'm lucky to get so far)

[theGozr]

Maybe an SDK could fix or add many things ;)

[PeterP]

so once again:

- good night Gozr - good night Bumbblbee - good night GGThaors -good night Dimbag- good night EtherealIn - good night all!

and yes... -good night to the Waltons too! :D

Edit: (almost forgot) - good night PeterP !! ;)

 

Big Edit: (to give you a little insight why I so much like DCS as it is)

Dear Gozr,

two years back I was flying only FS9/FSX helicopters because I was so unsatisfied what other simulations gave me about interaction to the "outside world" (Falcon included) ....( - hope you get my point...even through language barriers- and flying helicopter is anyway most of the time a greyhounds job...)

Now as DCS- is there at it's state - it's getting more interactivity with AI units as I believed to see in such a small time frame...

So - much is done - but also much has to be accomplished! - but I'm happy! -and yes- I want also more- but I'm happy!

 

Edit +++:

so lets read the OP again:

Here is my wish,

I wish that DCS continues to release these amazing flight sims and continues to expand upon it's already wonderful product. I wish that with each modular release that there will be compatability patches and continual updating to the older modules so they can all be flown together. I wish that ED, TFC and DCS continues to have a solid fan base and can grow as a company so they can provide us with these sims for many years to come.

It seems to me that our "wishes" (lol) are resting upon the shoulders of DCS and their team to continue to provide the simming community with great products such as A-10C and the KA-50. The flight sim world has changed over the years and were running out of options as consumers. It's such a relief to have a new, fresh sim to fly rather than decade old revamps.

Thank you DCS, keep up the good work.

 

B

Edited September 28, 2011 by PeterP

[theGozr]

;) gn

[Milene]

Oh really? Was Black Shark outdated when it came out? Was the A-10 outdated when it came out? Do you have any idea of what's in store? ;)

 

Yes, Black Shark was apart from the helo model and the cockpit outdated. The landscape was horrible.

 

A10 is not outdated and i like A10 but alot of the AI planes have textures from 1998. I dont know about you but that seems a bit outdated dont you think?

[ruso]

To say that Black Shark is old is not having any idea of simulation. Pay more money for new updates. It is true that I wish I A10C scenarios in my BS but everything will come and I look forward to right? DCS.

[sobek]

Yes, Black Shark was apart from the helo model and the cockpit outdated. The landscape was horrible.

 

A10 is not outdated and i like A10 but alot of the AI planes have textures from 1998. I dont know about you but that seems a bit outdated dont you think?

 

Well, call me pedantic, but a lot of things you argue don't add up. You say that the terrain in BS was outdated, yet in A-10 it is not. Well, guess what, terrain hasn't changed since BS, apart from the grass. :)

 

Do you even know what sims looked like in 1998? I'll give you a refresher

 

None of the planes you would encounter look that bad.

Edited September 28, 2011 by sobek

[EtherealN]

I feel caution is needed whenever someone is tempted to say something looks X amount of years old based purely (I suppose) on memory. I remember Quake 3 as being a wonder of beauty and detail and not much has happened except for some post-processing and bloom and stuff... then I google for Q3 images and is shocket at how ugly it was. :P (example: http://pccheatz.com/Images/Q3.jpg )

 

Our memories are not fact, they're memories. And interestingly, it is neurologically impossible to ever remember something without changing the memory; every time you remember something, the brain puts it into a sort of context update. In this specific case, the memory might be of a low-detail texture, but you having seen later textures like that (And indeed aircraft in general) causes the memory to increase the level of detail in the memory, giving the impression that nothing has happened since then. Pretty cool stuff, and it's a lot of fun to re-visit old games and even old TV series and see how terribly wrong one's recollection of them is. (I nearly cried when I saw how terribly bad the acting was in Airwolf and Space: Above and Beyond... :( I remembered them as awesome. :D )

[cichlidfan]

...thinking about my copy of the Outer Limits series...:P

[Phantom88]

I was going to say something........but I can't remember!:megalol:

......ok i'm leaving now......[shuts door quietly]

[theGozr]

Here what we do not want anymore in DCS... ;)

 

[Newt]

Here what we do not want anymore in DCS... ;)

 

 

Haha, this is a cool picture! :thumbup:

[zipdigital]

Modularity

 

My thoughts as a new A-10C player, Flanker 2.0 "veteran":

 

I think DCS is on the right path. I feel a single "environment" is key to expanding the DCS product line. But I think the reliance upon the old assets, such as terrain, models, and textures dating back to the Flanker days is a secondary hurdle. These "old" objects, even today, have higher fidelity than many new products I've seen. Time will help with each, Nellis/Nevada is already in production. I see it only as a matter of time before objects get a stream of updates too. (I am inclined to help with this as I used to do 3d modeling from blueprints...for fun. Does ED evaluate player-made models for consideration in patches? What kind of poly counts are we looking at per LOD level?)

 

ED seems to be much of the way there, in regards to creating a "world" for objects to exist in, but in a sim like this, that is a daunting task for programmers and asset creation alike. A "sim environment" consists of boatloads of math in regards to physics and math I can't even start to begin comprehend. (Isn't Yo-Yo the genius behind the physics and math? I am still learning who does what). I don't include flight models because every vehicle, be it a tank, boat or plane will have its own dynamics since land water and air are quite different mediums to travel, but those dynamics must still interact with the rest of the world. Prop planes, helicopters and jets all fly via different means, but are all effected by lift, inertia, gravity and a myriad of other factors within the same "environment." Props pull the plane through the air while jets push, ...so to speak. Specific modeling for specific vehicles is still necessary. This is where I see specific vehicles getting their own modules within the DCS universe. KA-50 is a module, A-10C is a module, but both exist within a DCS environment. (And will hopefully one day be compatible for joint multiplayer ops.)

 

If/when ED succeeds in creating an environment in which physics and effecting factors like weather, pressures, atmospheric variances and who-knows-what-else are there for other modules to use, I suspect the creation of flight/dynamics models of specific vehicles can be easier to implement within the same environment.

 

I think this is ED's long term goal, a grand simulation in which smaller simulations will live. (And hopefully coordinate) So as far as longevity goes, I suspect we are only at the beginning.

 

And with this diatribe, I end my first post. lol

 

ED, godspeed and thank you.

[Ghillied raptor]

I don't understand, we have a high fidelity simulator and you're complaining that the graphics are outdated? I feel it's stellar for what it has already done and the graphics are quite good. Hell, DCS: A-10 runs better on my PC than 'Mount And Blade' and that's saying something. It's hard to compare simulators to say, games like battlefield 3. Especially a game so big in scope and focus that I'm worried that many features (like cross compatibility between modules and even a lot of new future modules) will never see the light of day. I can understand the want for a better product, but given the circumstances and even so, I believe it's already the best there is, bar none.