Black Shark 2 Released

[159th_Viper]

I dream of the day when DCS Su-27 or DCS MiG-29 or similar comes out... the day I will start planning/building my home cockpit...

 

+1.

 

I just need to figure out the best way to kick my Son out of his room and convert it into a man-hangar :D

[digitaljjd]

@ 159th Viper: Thanks. Fact is, everybody needs a refresher at some point, especially me. More training can never be a bad thing. :)

[Insanatrix]

Anything's possible, it's just a matter of where you spend your time; i.e. priorities. The directory structure of BS/FC2/A10C etc. strongly suggests they're keeping modularity in mind. It's just not the highest priority at the moment so they're not delaying development and improvements in order to maintain the modularity.

That assumes an engine upgrade wouldn't require any additional work/updates made to the aircraft themselves. That seems like a pretty bold assumption. Unless of course you're talking low-fidelity aircraft with little integration with the game world and only a set of generic parameters to adjust in order to give them unique flight models, weapons, sensors, etc. Or engine upgrades which have no meaningful effect on the flight experience...?

 

I don't think there's any reason to assume that the current model is the only one they'll ever use. Then again, it may be the only that's actually viable. Maybe having an integrated battlefield with every platform simulated in high detail costs more than $60 per product...

 

I think ED/TFC could have and should have communicated this plan better, but I don't think it's a bad plan. The main issue I can see is with die-hard rotorheads who only bought Warthog in order to support development of the engine, when they were under the impression they'd eventually get the new features developed for Warthog 'for free'. Now they're finding they actually have to pay for them 'again'. Many are probably happy to do so, but it'd be nicer to have the options presented up front rather than being 'tricked' into being extra-generous.

 

It all depends on how you write it. If you write it so that you can input Flight Model data,systems data, weapons data, avionics, etc.. It could be done. I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard, I'm not saying they could even do it now. But it could be done. It's also a better system and it was the idea they had but either they couldn't do it or they think that this is a better/easier way.

 

I would rather pay 100 dollars up front for the sim engine and possibly 20-30 per plane than wait till the 6th so called module following this system and this logic and pay $649.79 total if every module from this point on cost $59.99 and every upgrade for the older planes cost $19.99. I'm not saying they can't do it but I am saying it's going to cost them and it's going to cost us a whole lot more. that also doesn't factor in anything for stuff like Nevada or any kind of upgrades like that. Factor that in and your looking at close to $750-900 if you wanted Nevada with every module up to the 6th assuming it's $19.99

Edited November 3, 2011 by Insanatrix

[Tucano_uy]

Nate

Maybe having an integrated battlefield with every platform simulated in high detail costs more than $60 per product...

 

 

I doubt it will ever happen. The closest we will get to that is Arma2 or whatever comes next.

There isn't a market for a massive multi platform study sim.

 

There's barely one for a 3 platform sim, and I'm counting here DCS:Fighter.

 

Unfortunately

[jiblet]

Hope this is the right place for this question:

 

I was led to believe that the the training missions in BS are broken by the latest patches, so does BS2 have working Training Missions?

And are they interactive like A10, or non-interactive like BS1?

[159th_Viper]

Hope this is the right place for this question:

 

I was led to believe that the the training missions in BS are broken by the latest patches, so does BS2 have working Training Missions?

And are they interactive like A10, or non-interactive like BS1?

 

Non-interactive akin to BS1.

 

As stated previously, I'm 75% sure that the training consists of videos downloaded, accessed and viewed via the training section of the SP GUI. I'll confirm as soon as I am 100% certain, unless some other kind soul beats me to it in the interim.

[MemphisBelle]

What I´d really like to know, and therefor I request a statement by someone of the testing Team or ED itself is the answer on the question what happens to Black Shark and Warthog after Module 3 and 4 have been released? Will we need another upgrade up to BlackShark3, 4, 5 and so on...same for Warthog? Or will it be the only upgrade at the beginning of the DCSverse? Is it basically possible to become all modules compatible with each other without a need of hundrets of "upgrades" (after all modules are released)?

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

Dude, stop spamming...espacially with FC3...:D (the spamming was a joke...)

No, honestly. I dont want to have A FC3, this would mean the next Module to be released within the next Century, I am already 35 Years old now , and want to see the one or other fast mover over the skies of the DCSverse...while I am alive :pilotfly:

[spiral]

i'm a little pissed at this decision to make us pay for something that i already have, i feel like i'm being ripped off.

 

i already bought the Ka-50, i shoudn't have to pay anymore, yet here it is, and if i want to fly in the helo with other friends in the A10, i'm supposed to pay... especially given the fact that the modifications that are added in BS2 aren't enough to justify (in my view) the expense...

 

so... thanks... but no thanks.

[Mustur]

It takes a lot of work to bring the BS to to level of tech the A10C has, so I don't mind paying for that.

 

What I´d really like to know, and therefor I request a statement by someone of the testing Team or ED itself is the answer on the question what happens to Black Shark and Warthog after Module 3 and 4 have been released? Will we need another upgrade up to BlackShark3, 4, 5 and so on...same for Warthog? Or will it be the only upgrade at the beginning of the DCSverse? Is it basically possible to become all modules compatible with each other without a need of hundrets of "upgrades" (after all modules are released)?

 

I'd like to know the answer to these questions myself too.

[kylania]

It probably depends on if the basic DCS engine has changed appreciably from DCS A-10C to DCS F-18 or whatever the next one is.

 

Black Shark was hugely behind the curve in graphics, features and codebase. Three years of advancement meant that to make it work with A-10C you had a LOT of effort needed to bring the two products equal. That's why it's $20 to upgrade. Since there's a ton more to the upgrade than simply flying in the same sky.

 

So really the question isn't "Will I have to pay $20 per previous product for every new product" but instead should be "Will EDGE and the Nevada map, which we're going to pay for* with the Nevada upgrade, be included for Black Shark 2 as a patch?" That will be the next big technology upgrade.

 

Then there's the question of a dynamic campaign system and some blatantly missing features in the Mission Editor. Now that BS2 and A-10C have the same editor will those features be able to be added as a patch?

 

Have the DCS modules been synchronized sufficiently for future addons to work with both products? If so then I'm sure we'll just pay $60 per module and they'll "just work" instead of the irrational fear of $20 each previous product + $60 per expansion.

 

i'm a little pissed at this decision to make us pay for something that i already have, i feel like i'm being ripped off.

 

You're not being made to pay for anything you already have. You have BS1, it works just fine and plays with FC2 just fine. You're being asked to pay $20 for a drastically improved BS2 product which also includes the ability to fly alongside A-10C. That you don't have.

Edited November 3, 2011 by kylania
* No, beta people won't pay for the Nevada upgrade as ED has said.

[gagipro]

Hi all,

 

is BS2 ok for surround gaming now ??

 

Does anyone tested 3 monitors setup???

 

thx

[jiblet]

Ok, that's fine/understandable and slightly disappointing ;)

I never could get into BS1 and I blame the training for that as I am fine with A10...

 

But so long as the training stuff does actually work, Im happy to have another crack at it!

[MemphisBelle]

i'm a little pissed at this decision to make us pay for something that i already have, i feel like i'm being ripped off.

 

i already bought the Ka-50, i shoudn't have to pay anymore, yet here it is, and if i want to fly in the helo with other friends in the A10, i'm supposed to pay... especially given the fact that the modifications that are added in BS2 aren't enough to justify (in my view) the expense...

 

so... thanks... but no thanks.

 

I do actually not agree with you. We´re talking about a total amount of 39,99 + 19,99 = 59,98$...this are round about 44€...for a deep going Simulation incl. Compatibility to other deep simulated Aircraft(s). You wont find that anywhere (exept BIS =ArmAverse) else on the PC game market. You want to have an at least deep simulated Tank Simulator?...Pay twice or more.

 

I would agree with you if we would need a BlackSharl 3 and 4 and 5 and so on to keep it compatible with the next following Modules (see my post above). But as soon I´ve got to pay less then the fullprice for a Battlefield3 which is arcade pure and graps information of my whole system to tell EA, I like paying the worth price for that deep simulation.

Edited November 3, 2011 by MemphisBelle

[BaD CrC]

Well, Spiral, my guess is that if you are flying in a squad, the move to BS2 will be slow but unavoidable, and you'll be left alone with BS1 flying single player.

I think this is great to see ED maintaining the BS sim alive with a new version (I was kinda worry to see only 2 updates in 3 years, now I understand). I spent a lot of time, energy and money in this sim, and I am so glad these efforts won't evaporate after a couple of year as the game is aging. I wish BS will have the same life span as Falcon4.

[xhaos]

Are there any screens of BS2 or any video? I cant find anything.

[kylania]

Are there any screens of BS2 or any video? I cant find anything.

 

Screens: http://gamingshogun.com/2011/11/02/dcs-black-shark-2-released/

 

Video:

[MemphisBelle]

Just forgot (sorry if it has already been asked).

I just reinstalled BS1. Do I need to patch it with the available patches? Or can I just set BS2 ontop of a fresh installed BS1 (first release version)?

[Griffin]

Post 421

Post 422

Exactly Insanatrix. I'm not complaining here about anything, just stating the fact that the current way has no future for more than a couple of modules.

 

On the contrary I thank you ED and testers for the quality work they have done so far and I can't wait to give the beast a spin once again! Quality takes time and I'm happy to pay for it. :)

[spiral]

well, actually i'm in a squad almost entirely on the A 10C ever since the first Beta has been available, so i'm not flying in the 50 anymore, but that was only because the two modules were not compatible, but given the fact that i'm obligated to spend 20 bucks for a patch that i feel i should have for free, BS2 will just never be installed on my pc or bought from my wallet.

 

pretty soon, FC-3 is going to come out and you'll have to spend 20 bucks (again) for a game you already bought (twice: FC+FC²)!

 

 

right...

[159th_Viper]

Just forgot (sorry if it has already been asked).

I just reinstalled BS1. Do I need to patch it with the available patches? Or can I just set BS2 ontop of a fresh installed BS1 (first release version)?

 

No need to patch BS1.

 

BS2 will only look for installed and activated BS1 - It will install to a separate folder and not ontop of BS1.

 

They are two completely separate installs/products.

[MemphisBelle]

Screens: http://gamingshogun.com/2011/11/02/dcs-black-shark-2-released/

 

Video:

 

wow, the images are looking awesome...for those who already got it running, will the Pilot 3D Model will still be available?

 

Ah yes...to ED...please make the Pilots 3d Model enabale again in the Hog and further Modules...it looks a bit....funny to always look on an empty seat.

 

EDIT:

 

No need to patch BS1.

 

BS2 will only look for installed and activated BS1 - It will install to a separate folder and not ontop of BS1.

 

They are two completely separate installs/products.

 

 

Thanks for the update Viper

/EDIT

[Haggart]

I really dont understand the complaining about the 20$ IN THE WAY THEY'RE DONE.

 

What I mean is this: We do get essentially a new product; new engine BASED ON the Warthog-engine, new core systems etc. 20$ for this kind of dev time is small money, because you can't just take a totally different product and convert it on the fly.

 

Which leads me to my critisizm. What the hell is going on with the modular concept?

I've the feeling the dev's are on the wrong way if we count only the commercial non-secret part. What we have, is an FC2-engine and a warthog-engine, and with this upgrade, we integrate the shark in the warthog.

What we need, is a speratly branch for the engine, which is completly seperated and independend maintained from the flyable modules. Which would mean. seperat bought engine and seperate updates.

But, that would mean to have a big split, extension of inner-product API's etc. And thats a big additional work part, especially if it's like when ED has to develop in cases (once an Warthog for the USAF, once a Fighter for the Navy, etc). And considering the time we're in the dcs-series, I don't see there's a reasonable way to switch to a fully modular concept.

 

But anyway, loading up my debit card now.

[159th_Viper]

.......you'll have to spend 20 bucks (again) for a game you already bought (twice: FC+FC²)!

 

 

right...

 

There's no 'have to' at all. Your choice - purchase or walk away. Either way, your point has been made. Time to move along now ;)

[nomdeplume]

I would rather pay 100 dollars up front for the sim engine and possibly 20-30 per plane than wait till the 6th so called module following this system and this logic and pay $649.79 total if every module from this point on cost $59.99 and every upgrade for the older planes cost $19.99.

And I'd rather pay $2 per month for my electricity usage than $100+ per month. I guess it costs more to generate and provide me electricity than $2 per month though.

 

That was a bit facetious and I do understand what you're saying - but you're pretty much making numbers up based on pretty much zero understanding of the costs, time, etc. it takes to develop the modules. On the basis of pretty much zero knowledge of what they actually do in order to put these products in the market, you're saying "if they'd done it this way it'd be way cheaper!" I don't have any better understanding of those things than you, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're trying to deliver the best product possible for the best price possible, within all the constraints they have to deal with -- military contracts, publishing deals, desire to develop new airframes and features versus desire to support previous products, etc.

 

I'm not saying they can't do it but I am saying it's going to cost them and it's going to cost us a whole lot more.

So what you're saying is that ED/TFC decided to go with the option that would cost them and their customers more, when there was a perfectly viable option that would've allowed them to develop the products at a lower cost and with less customer frustration? That they, as a private company that lives or dies based on being able to deliver products their customers think are worth paying for, have chosen to use the least efficient development method that resulted in higher prices for their customers, so as to ensure their success in the marketplace..?

 

I'm not sure the logic stacks up, and I think that may be due to starting that particular train of thought with false assumptions.

 

I'm not saying they can't do it but I am saying it's going to cost them and it's going to cost us a whole lot more. that also doesn't factor in anything for stuff like Nevada or any kind of upgrades like that. Factor that in and your looking at close to $750-900 if you wanted Nevada with every module up to the 6th assuming it's $19.99

 

Not being a developer of high fidelity simulation software, I can't really judge how much it actually costs to develop this stuff, and what kind of prices are viable. And given the dearth of any kind of competition (aside from some prior efforts by companies who went out of business in the process) there's not really anything to use a comparison.

 

But, if the cost is somewhere in the region of $1,000 in order to fly 6 or so incredibly detailed aircraft with authentic flight modeling and avionics, then that seems like a reasonable price to pay, IMO. After all, I've spent at least that much on hardware, and the hardware wouldn't be worth a squat if there wasn't software available that made it worthwhile. Actually by the time 6 modules are out, I'll have spent way more than that on hardware - probably at least one if not two entirely new systems, even assuming it only took 6 years for 6 modules...

[BrumTx]

A few more screen shots would be nice before I part with my $20 and if anyone has time could the make a better change log (more details). From what I'm reading at the moment I'll most likely wait for the next A10c update but as Wags always quotes:

" EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE"