Black Shark 2 Released

[Chizzy101]

Wow....for me this is great timing. I've just put together a new machine with a core i7 2600, 64 bit Windows 7, gtx 580, solid state drive for the OS and flight sims and a 27" monitor. I had been flying Black Shark as was just thinking it looked a bit old compared to DCS: A10 and *BAM* I hear about this!

 

As much as I like DCS: A10, my heart belongs to the Shark. Downloading now, can't wait to see the new cockpit! :thumbup:

[Napa]

If you don't activate BS it won't let you install BS2.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

I am thinking there would have been a lot less bitching if ED had released a free compatibility patch for BS along with a paid upgrade for BS2. But having said that i will still pay the $20 to upgrade BS. But i can also see where people are coming from.

 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Petoulet]

Like I said, I know what the procedure is. However, given the amount of editing/modding I've done to my installation I don't want to uninstall it yet as I fly with my squad in BS1 for now.

I'll wait for a fixed exe.

 

Hello,

 

Same for me, I'm waiting impatiently the new install...

 

Please can you confirm me that only the .exe will be modified? So that I can download all the .bin waiting this new installer?

 

Thanks.

 

Pétoulet.

[audax]

I think you hit the nail on the head.

The problem is that their DCS Modules and FC are not modular at all. For BS2 they had to remove most parts of the A-10C and put the Black Shark parts back in, but the aircraft is not really decoupled from the engine, so this was quite some work.

And because tons of things were changed in WH they can't make BS1 MP-compatible with WH. Now they need to port the FC stuff to the WH engine...

 

You can see that very good in the LUA-files, lots of names are specifically for the WH but are now used for BS stuff. One example for that is the multi-monitor config where the Shkval and ABRIS are now called LEFT_MFCD and RIGHT_MFCD.

 

But now that they've done all that porting, the next "engine-hop" hopefully won't be so hard. :)

[Heli Shed]

Well done ED.

 

A little dissapointed to be frank that what was essentially a tested patch has been released as a seperate product rebranded as Blackshark 2.

 

Hmmm...... oh well, modern economic times i spose means that even now we pay for patches?

 

To be frank, i`m sort of playing devils advocate to so much speculation and controversy about BS2. Fact is, i`ll buy it, will continue to and actually would pay 3 times the amount. There isn't a FM that exists that has the acccuracy and diligence in a product.

 

fairplay.

 

'T'

Edited November 5, 2011 by Tyger

[Trident]

I am thinking there would have been a lot less bitching if ED had released a free compatibility patch for BS along with a paid upgrade for BS2. But having said that i will still pay the $20 to upgrade BS. But i can also see where people are coming from.

 

Sounds good in theory, but I get the impression that the code changes required for compatibility are actually inseparable from the issues which made the update so time-consuming and difficult that ED was forced to charge money for it. So it was either a paid upgrade or nothing at all, although like you I can see how it rankles from the consumer's point of view as such problems aren't their fault and communication was lacking.

 

Suffice it to say that, going by E-B's post on ED's future plans, they are also unhappy with the current state of affairs and do not wish to repeat this model if they can help it. I hope they succeed in that endeavour.

[ZQuickSilverZ]

The problem is that their DCS Modules and FC are not modular at all. For BS2 they had to remove most parts of the A-10C and put the Black Shark parts back in, but the aircraft is not really decoupled from the engine, so this was quite some work.

And because tons of things were changed in WH they can't make BS1 MP-compatible with WH. Now they need to port the FC stuff to the WH engine...

 

You can see that very good in the LUA-files, lots of names are specifically for the WH but are now used for BS stuff. One example for that is the multi-monitor config where the Shkval and ABRIS are now called LEFT_MFCD and RIGHT_MFCD.

 

But now that they've done all that porting, the next "engine-hop" hopefully won't be so hard. :)

 

I do not see why your even bringing up Flaming Cliffs 2. When DCS Blackshark came out it was never advertised to be compatible with the Lock On brand. FC2 and DCS BS were made online compatible because (in my opinion) DCS Apache fell through the cracks and ED needed an online offering to keep thier brand viable until they could build up thier stable. I believe ED had full intentions of delivering an airframe every 9 months, but not being able to publicly release DCS Apache started a whirlwind of complications of scheduling and development that we are still feeling the effects from (ED correct me if I am wrong).

 

DCS MODULES are different. They were advertised to be modular and online compatible from the very beginning, hence the name MODULES (FC2 is not a DCS Module). So to charge someone money to get online compatibility for a product thats whole concept was based on modularity and online compatibility is a slap in the face. I do not expect ED to bring DCS BS to the DCS WH graphical standard for free. I do expect them to keep the online compatibility for free.

Edited November 5, 2011 by ZQuickSilverZ

[EtherealN]

(ED correct me if I am wrong).

 

I can't go into details (since, frankly I don't have all of them, I was not part of the tester team back then), but your description of events is wrong.

 

My understanding of it, and this is me as a user with some insight in how the thing works, is that they gave FC2 compatiblity because they could, and because they knew people would like it. Indeed, from what I understand, the whole FC2 project itself was one big fanservice. You think ED enjoys giving phonecalls to UbiSoft for permission to market a product ED itself paid for in the west? I don't know ED's lawyers, but I know I wouldn't.

 

DCS MODULES are different. They were advertised to be modular and online compatible from the very beginning,

 

If by "from the very beginning" you mean "prior to DCS:BS release this was stated as the ambition and wish of the team", and after that they have been very careful to NOT promise it. Indeed, the word always was "we hope to be able to". Explicitly stated not as an advertisement of feature, not a promise, only a "we'd like to do this and we're trying to make it happen".

 

Seriously, why do you think ED is being tight-lipped nowadays? Precisely because people take loose statements about intent and ambition and blow them up into promises and then get upset.

 

In my opinion as a moderator that browses the forum for way too many hours every day, everyone who is unhappy about a perceived lack of information and news should look in the mirror.

 

I do not expect ED to bring DCS BS to the DCS WH graphical standard for free. I do expect them to keep the online compatibility for free.

 

I hope you realize that software is a complex thing where different parts interconnect in complex ways. I'm not a programmer, I don't have code access, but from what I do know I suspect that "just online compatibility" wouldn't be much easier... As has been mentioned - A-10C uses a new radio system, so compatiblity is impossible without that. AI is updated and things have to be adjusted for that - and for BS it has to be made to slot in well with human helicopters. Campaigns have to be playtested for everything - you have several hundred missions with randomized elements that all needs to be checked right there, complicated by the fact that new map (needed for online...) may need re-tooling them, and AI updates force re-checks of mission balancing.

 

This is a snowball running down a hill, getting bigger and bigger. If you want to compare BS2 with a patch for BS in the money, then BS2 would cost it's 20 dollars and the patch would cost something like 17... This is the point where I, if I were a project lead (and I do project handling, but not for ED) would either drop the whole thing entirely or just simplify it to one solution and charge what's necessary to cover it.

 

ED aren't moneygrubbers, they are passionate people who love their craft and do what is necessary to make things happen - and sometimes this includes asking to be paid for their work.

 

Look back a bit! People say they already got the self-shadowing thing with DCS:A-10C, but conveniently forget the fact that this was given to them FOR FREE! This was not an advertised feature, this was something that matured in time for inclusion in a patch cycle, and was given to all of us for no extra charge. (And that also, of course, ignores that self-shadowing A-10C cockpit is not the same as self-shadowing Ka-50 cockpit, each has to be re-done to new standards and all of that has to be checked and debugged.)

[audax]

I bring out Flaming Cliffs 2 because in the technical view FC -> FC2 is the same as BC -> BC2.

 

They can't bring online compatibility without porting the module to the new engine which also adds the new graphical stuff.

[MemphisBelle]

I do expect them to keep the online compatibility for free.

 

This is not possible, since the graphic Engine has changed a lot from BS to WH. That´s why they decided to "upgrade" the BS product to BS2. It´s just a technicale thing to become the promised compatibility realized.

 

back in 2008 when BS has been released it seems not to be evaluable about how much further engines will provide graphicle differences between the Modules.

 

I do really expect to pay an additional fee for each Module, to become the compatible with each other, which doesnt really make me cry, since every Module is a Masterpiece of work.

[Renato71]

I do not see why your even bringing up Flaming Cliffs 2. When DCS Blackshark came out it was never advertised to be compatible with the Lock On brand. FC2 and DCS BS were made online compatible because (in my opinion) DCS Apache fell through the cracks and ED needed an online offering to keep thier brand viable until they could build up thier stable. I believe ED had full intentions of delivering an airframe every 9 months, but not being able to publicly release DCS Apache started a whirlwind of complications of scheduling and development that we are still feeling the effects from (ED correct me if I am wrong).

 

DCS MODULES are different. They were advertised to be modular and online compatible from the very beginning, hence the name MODULES (FC2 is not a DCS Module). So to charge someone money to get online compatibility for a product thats whole concept was based on modularity and online compatibility is a slap in the face. I do not expect ED to bring DCS BS to the DCS WH graphical standard for free. I do expect them to keep the online compatibility for free.

 

ED need to rethink and redo its project management.

Then, all the process of patching and upgrading will be much easier.

 

When DCS went public, I was also under strong impression that there will be ONE DCS, and that ANY AND ALL following aircraft will be addon modules. Sadly, when WH come out, what could be read between the lines now became obvious.

 

From the standpoint of end-user it is very hard to follow any such development.

 

As for FC2 - I consider it to be total waste of developers time. Why? Well, apart from net compatibility, nothing much has been changed. Again, speaking as regular - nonprofit and noncleric - end-user.

What was invested into it could be invested into something... well... fully operational?

 

BS2? Well, I'm not interested into A-10, and had no time to fly and enjoy Ka-50 properly. And for Ka-50, I already have what I need. Few minor improvements and graphical buffs will not help me fly better.

 

 

Although, a dynamical campaign could be helpful ;)

[Renato71]

People stop crying; what about those ps3 and xbox games; they release maps all the time and they cost money; what about playability; those console games you play them until you finish them and that is it. They also cost almost 60 dollars when new; black shark is only 20 dollars.

I play FC2 almost every week and still get spanked by some guys on the servers; let alone the shark; I haven't learned all the systems yet.

 

What are "ps3 and xbox"?

 

BS is not 20 USD:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?end_pos=1322&scr=shop&lang=en

 

DCS: Black Shark (DVD box) - 40 USD, or

DCS: Black Shark (English download version) - 40 USD, plus

DCS: Black Shark 2 Upgrade (English download version) - 20 USD

----------

60 USD

 

Or:

DCS: Black Shark 2 (English download version) - 40 USD

 

Note: not commenting the prices, but rather the poor, poor math skills.

[EtherealN]

ED need to rethink and redo its project management.

Then, all the process of patching and upgrading will be much easier.

 

As ED reps have stated in this thread and elsewhere: they are. ED is not happy about having to do it this way and are working on making things smoother for the future. As for what the solution ends up being and when it can be perfected is up to the code wizards.

[EtherealN]

As for FC2 - I consider it to be total waste of developers time. Why? Well, apart from net compatibility, nothing much has been changed. Again, speaking as regular - nonprofit and noncleric - end-user.

 

Except for a major overhaul of the flight model (all planes were meticulously checked to make sure things got as close as was possible within the confines of SFM), big improvements to missiles (again, within the confines of the underlying system) etcetera etcetera.

 

Of course, not everyone will see this, some of these things are such that you need to be a grade-a sim nerd with good knowledge of the subject matter to notice, but the difference between FC1 and FC2 as far as realism goes is a major thing, in my opinion. In FC2, I actually have to use REAL tactics! Imagine that! I can't barrel-roll everything anymore... :D

[Muse]

To help alleviate some of concerns raised here about the general direction of DCS development, I can say that ED understands that production of individual titles, which need to be continually updated separately in order maintain compatibility is not a sustainable system in the long term. It continues to be our goal to develop a truly modular system with a unified world into which individual products can be plugged into and maintained up to date. Creating a technological and financial infrastructure for such a system is challenging, time-consuming and expensive, in particular when the realism bar for player-controlled and AI units, as well as the rest of the virtual world are so high. We know this has been a vision for many simmers and sim developers for a long time, including ED, but there is a reason why it hasn't happened yet. We will continue to work to try and make it a reality.

 

I find it is just a pity that post was not "writing" as soon ... a sincere mea culpa and would put forward more, I think, forced compliance simmers and more willing customers that we are "a small gesture."

 

If you do not acknowledge you to be planted, or only half-words, you can stash it under the carpet, how can you expect us to continue to take your ad seriously? "We will continue to work to try to make it a reality". OK, how many reading this will say like (and it will be difficult to give them wrong): "I ​​expect to see now" ?

In short, you've probably made ​​some progress (some of which are not visible), but for the comm 'they are still far off. Unless it is cultural?

 

Thanks to EvilBivol

 

friendly ;)

Muse

[Dudikoff]

Of course, not everyone will see this, some of these things are such that you need to be a grade-a sim nerd with good knowledge of the subject matter to notice, but the difference between FC1 and FC2 as far as realism goes is a major thing, in my opinion. In FC2, I actually have to use REAL tactics! Imagine that! I can't barrel-roll everything anymore... :D

 

I presume that with all this hard work on moving the FC to DCS:BS standard, it would require much less effort now to do an FC3? Just guessing, but perhaps a lot of people would prefer flying those fighters compared to the Ka-50 till the next module is done. And the improvements in ME, graphics and AI would be very welcome.

[Renato71]

Except for a major overhaul of the flight model (all planes were meticulously checked to make sure things got as close as was possible within the confines of SFM), big improvements to missiles (again, within the confines of the underlying system) etcetera etcetera.

 

Of course, not everyone will see this, some of these things are such that you need to be a grade-a sim nerd with good knowledge of the subject matter to notice, but the difference between FC1 and FC2 as far as realism goes is a major thing, in my opinion. In FC2, I actually have to use REAL tactics! Imagine that! I can't barrel-roll everything anymore... :D

 

Su-27 HUD still not realistic, many other functions are missing, Su-25T was initially released with incorrect TV modes, many valid complaints about missile and aircraft FM, each aircraft has it own level of FM, no dedicated server, crappy integrity check, lagging/FPS issues that directly influence the aircraft and weapon performance especially in MP, difficult MP game search, removed options to create your own payload in-game and to use your own bort, graphic tweaking that can make object non-existent as damage models or obstacles, not being able to see MP progress/situation, no option for MP autobalance...

 

Dude, anybody can compile list of dissatisfactions with FC2 that as as long as a list of improvements.

 

Not my intention to troll or go off-topic!

Just to point out that to me - AS AN AVERAGE END USER - 20 pages of minor improvements and bugs mean much less, then to well-above-average-worshiper.

[EtherealN]

I presume that with all this hard work on moving the FC to DCS:BS standard, it would require much less effort now to do an FC3? Just guessing, but perhaps a lot of people would prefer flying those fighters compared to the Ka-50 till the next module is done. And the improvements in ME, graphics and AI would be very welcome.

 

Personally I would guess that the effort would be comparable to BS1 -> BS2. Why? Both FC2 and BS1 are equally "behind". ;)

[159th_Viper]

I presume that with all this hard work on moving the FC to DCS:BS standard, it would require much less effort now to do an FC3? Just guessing, but perhaps a lot of people would prefer flying those fighters compared to the Ka-50 till the next module is done. And the improvements in ME, graphics and AI would be very welcome.

 

And it's this very guessing that gets one into trouble. Guessing leads to speculation and rumours which lead to presupposition and before you know it the innocent guesses have metamorphisized into supposed 'Legitimate Expecatations' where, if not delivered upon, leads to the very sort of behaviour as experienced in this very thread.

 

It's a very fine line.

[Renato71]

As ED reps have stated in this thread and elsewhere: they are. ED is not happy about having to do it this way and are working on making things smoother for the future. As for what the solution ends up being and when it can be perfected is up to the code wizards.

 

I would be happy to accept any number of years waiting for ED's modules if they fix their project management.

 

Just one example, since there are so many people comparing ED products with titles that are of no interest to me:

 

World of Tanks

 

You run the game and it automatically displays latest news, automatically updates localizations, automatically updates game engine, automatically updates vehicles...

Then you go to garage, where you can choose among the vehicles that you own.

 

So, why not make DCS launcher that will automatically check/update/upgrade/announce/localize/blahblahblah, then it will take you to your hangar, where you will be able to choose what you want to FLY with, not what you want to be COMPATIBLE with :)

 

Not to mention MP search from many FPS titles that I do not play any longer, but can google about...

[EtherealN]

Renato, aircraft FM and missile FM for FC has to live with the limits set by the engine. As you may have noticed, ED wants to make more detailed things than that - it's called "DCS" - but since this is a HUGE job for each aircraft, FC offers those that want it a lower-fidelity simulation that includes more aircraft.

 

If you want it "fixed", wait for DCS modules of all those aircraft. Yes, you will wait for quite a while. FC2 is an option for those that do not want to wait, which a lot of people do not, and I see nothing wrong in this.

[EtherealN]

I would be happy to accept any number of years waiting for ED's modules if they fix their project management.

 

This is not a question of project management.

This is a question of software engineering. If you have a degree in that discipline, and work experience in relevant software design disciplines, feel free to comment. :)

 

World of Tanks

 

You run the game and it automatically displays latest news, automatically updates localizations, automatically updates game engine, automatically updates vehicles...

Then you go to garage, where you can choose among the vehicles that you own.

 

By "vehicles you own" I assume you mean "vehicles you purchased for real money either directly or through monthly subscription in the 'premium account' system to the tune of 10 dollars a month, where said 'premium account' is pretty much a necessity to get anywhere because the entire system is such that you'll make a loss on using any high-level tank that is not directly purchased for real money (what is the Löwe after the patch? 15 dollars?)"....

 

... Sir, I think you picked the wrong example. ;)

 

But sure, I'll ask Matt if ED would like to introduce pay-for-ammunition, a system where you pay 10 dollars a month to be able to afford repairing your bird... ... ... ...

 

:)

 

(As a sidenote, I do enjoy WoT, for all it's wrongs, but seriously now. :) )

[Warmonger]

...

By "vehicles you own" I assume you mean "vehicles you purchased for real money either directly or through monthly subscription in the 'premium account' system to the tune of 10 dollars a month, where said 'premium account' is pretty much a necessity to get anywhere because the entire system is such that you'll make a loss on using any high-level tank that is not directly purchased for real money (what is the Löwe after the patch? 15 dollars?)"....

 

... Sir, I think you picked the wrong example. ;)

 

But sure, I'll ask Matt if ED would like to introduce pay-for-ammunition, a system where you pay 10 dollars a month to be able to afford repairing your bird... ... ... ...

 

:)

 

(As a sidenote, I do enjoy WoT, for all it's wrongs, but seriously now. :) )

 

Really? I play WoT and have never had a Premium account. I paid a small amount to get me started, which I used to get some extra room to store more tanks, and later after much playing, used to purchase 1 premium tank (as it was cheap at the time). I've never bought ammo either (I'm assuming you are referring to the premium ammo). If you want to play it at higher level, getting involved with the clan wars then Premium ammo would be needed. Otherwise, you can pay almost nothing and still really enjoy WoT.

[Dudikoff]

Personally I would guess that the effort would be comparable to BS1 -> BS2. Why? Both FC2 and BS1 are equally "behind". ;)

 

Yes, of course, but minus the cockpit rebuilding, since FC2 doesn't have 3d cockpits anyway? And if I understood correctly, the cockpit took a fair amount of efforts. It's a bit hard to be aware of the amount of changes needed to be done since we don't have a real change log or information on how long exactly the BS2 development was taking since it was never announced.

 

And it's this very guessing that gets one into trouble. Guessing leads to speculation and rumours which lead to presupposition and before you know it the innocent guesses have metamorphisized into supposed 'Legitimate Expecatations' where, if not delivered upon, leads to the very sort of behaviour as experienced in this very thread. It's a very fine line.

 

That's taking it rather far in this case. I think it was a legitimate question in an open discussion waiting for a confirmation or a denial by someone who knows more of the amount of efforts needed. It's not like FC3 was ever announced or promised. But I see where your concern comes from. If you go too far with the answer and community gets its hopes raised up and the FC3 never gets delivered, it could generate some complaints that it was "hinted at" and expected and not delivered, although it would take "only minimal efforts".