robmypro Posted November 11, 2011 Author Posted November 11, 2011 Yeah, it's not that it is an unheard of or silly idea ... just that currently it is highly impractical :) Why? Resources? You guys have enough credibility to start the ball rolling and then let other developers approach you. Let everyone else add the content. Just give them the tools and focus on the framework.
DethInACan Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 I like this idea but IMO it is too hard to do a "complete" battlefield (ie with a FPS element). HOWEVER, it seems to me that this could be doable with more aircraft. A-10s should be able to share the skies with community created aircraft and other DCS/ED products like the KA-52 all over a virtual battlefield. If you want to be the person flying the KC-135, why not? Why not add the option for user created aircraft in DCS A-10? It would take a bit of effort though. I can always dream! :)
Kenta Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 But, can and will the 3rd party producers be able to produce aircraft comparable to the detail that ED has put into the current DCS aircrafts? Failure is the mother of all success.
dooom Posted March 25, 2012 Posted March 25, 2012 I am always interested in these discussions as they are good for stimulating debate. I personally think the ability IS already there and being used by other titles to effect . Look at battleground Europe. The BE map is 30000km sq and includes all player units with enough fidelity for a ground sim. They lack fidelity of dcs in air though. Cliff of Dover has a battle area close to 10000 km sq and they are introducing drivable tanks etc as well It is happening and it is occurring with reasonable fidelity. The fidelity is what be maintained;however. The ground guys need to know that if they tuck a bofors or a shilka up beside a house under the canopy of tree coverage that their cover will hence be rendered to the eyes in the air . NOTHInG was more frustrating in battleground europenthen believing you where we'll hidden from enemies above, only to have them spot you in a forest because of the low priority render/low LoD of the trees. ASUS Tuf Gaming Pro x570 / AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ 3.8 / XFX Radeon 6900 XT / 64 GB DDR4 3200 "This was not in the Manual I did not read", cried the Noob" - BMBM, WWIIOL
robmypro Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 When I originally posted this, I really didn't think we would see this come to fruition for many years. But the new plans pretty much are dead on, so looking forward to spending a lot more time and money with DCS!
Nate--IRL-- Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Quick! Make more predictions!!!!! :) Nate Ka-50 AutoPilot/stabilisation system description and operation by IvanK- Essential Reading
Panzertard Posted June 4, 2012 Posted June 4, 2012 Quick! Make more predictions!!!!! :) Nate I predict: The world doesn't end in 2012, instead it ends when the server rotates the map. Besides, if someone really wants to connect the dots properly between ground, air and naval warfare - it's fair to expect they want their investment back. Getting 2-3 major companies working together without getting into a fight over ROI, well that's the impractical part. The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it's open | The important thing is not to stop questioning
robmypro Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Quick! Make more predictions!!!!! :) Nate I'm running out of them, Nate. But very happy to see the direction you guys are going. Combined Arms took me by surprise. Excellent idea. Once we get the 3rd party developers kicking in (within 12-18 months) the DCS universe will expand rapidly. Again, great job going in this direction. A lot of us had hoped for this, and you guys are the ones we want to see do it.
robmypro Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Quick question Nate. Will ED be reviewing 3rd party content before it is released? Or are you guys following the FSX approach where anything goes? How do you maintain the quality?
robmypro Posted June 4, 2012 Author Posted June 4, 2012 Okay Nate, here's a prediction. The next aircraft will be the FA-18E Super Hornet, with full on carrier ops. 2 for 2? 1
astrospud Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 Okay Nate, here's a prediction. The next aircraft will be the FA-18E Super Hornet, with full on carrier ops. 2 for 2? Don't tease me...:D Rectum non bustus
Teapot Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 Okay Nate, here's a prediction. The next aircraft will be the FA-18E Super Hornet, with full on carrier ops. 2 for 2? Really? I could wish that DCS's next jet is a Hornet C or even an F16 (we already know it's going to be a US fast mover). The E is still too new IMO. I'd be very happy with a BMS level DCS : F16 ... especially as I don't often play the implemented Dynamic Campaign in the former title. "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
Nate--IRL-- Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 Quick question Nate. Will ED be reviewing 3rd party content before it is released? Or are you guys following the FSX approach where anything goes? How do you maintain the quality? I've no idea - but I don't know if ED could actually prevent somebody from making a new module, free-ware or otherwise. Okay Nate, here's a prediction. The next aircraft will be the FA-18E Super Hornet, with full on carrier ops. 2 for 2? Fingers crossed! Nate Ka-50 AutoPilot/stabilisation system description and operation by IvanK- Essential Reading
astrospud Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 ... The E is still too new IMO. A-10C has only been around since 2005(ish?). I realise comparing the E to a C is apples and oranges, more so than A-10A to C, but I'm sure you get my drift. ;) Other simulation companies like Vertical Reality Simulations are implementing the F/A-18E to a high degree of detail, and AFAIK, this is without a military contract to tie-in to. Rectum non bustus
Teapot Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Other simulation companies like Vertical Reality Simulations are implementing the F/A-18E to a high degree of detail, and AFAIK, this is without a military contract to tie-in to. Hmm, if the Yanks wouldn't share something of this nature with us (as allies) ... makes you wonder how "high" the fidelity of systems and radar modelling is of anything built after the Korean War. And I imagine it's probably worse by a factor of magnitude for any of the newish Russian and Euro jets. Just as a point of interest :D. From News.com - KIM Beazley has told how Australia cracked top-secret American combat aircraft codes while he was defence minister in the 1980s. "We spied on them and we extracted the codes," Mr Beazley told Parliament during his valedictory speech today. Mr Beazley, who was defence minister from 1984 to 1990, said that when he took over the job he soon learned that the radar on Australia's Hornets could not identify most potentially hostile aircraft in the region. In other words, Australia's frontline fighter could not shoot down enemies in the region. Edited June 5, 2012 by Teapot "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
astrospud Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 And now he's our Ambassador to the US...Go figure, as the yanks would say! In terms of the Radar used in the F/A-18E (current talking point, now it would seem) I'm guessing the APG-73 would be modeled, as opposed to the 79, which AFAIK, is still classified tech. 1 Rectum non bustus
winchesterdelta1 Posted June 5, 2012 Posted June 5, 2012 And your dream came true :) And mine aswell. Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.
Teapot Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 And your dream came true :) And mine aswell. I've gone through the forums and didn't see any announcements ... did I miss something? "A true 'sandbox flight sim' requires hi-fidelity flyable non-combat utility/support aircraft." Wishlist Terrains - Bigger maps Wishlist Modules - A variety of utility aircraft to better reflect the support role. E.g. Flying the Hornet ... big yawn ... flying a Caribou on a beer run to Singapore? Count me in. Extracting a Recon Patrol from a hastily prepared landing strip at a random 6 figure grid reference? Now yer talking!
winchesterdelta1 Posted June 6, 2012 Posted June 6, 2012 My biggest wish for DCS would be to have a unified battlefield engine that other developers can create content for. DCS has already proved that multiple aircraft can exist within the same environment. The next logical step would be to license the engine so other developers can create content for that environment. If i'm correct your talking about the above right?? Other developers ar now able to develop content for DCS. Content like jets and ground vehicels. The whole forum is bussy with it :) I hope i did not misunderstood your entire post. Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.
Recommended Posts