DCS Flying Legend Aircraft

[bluepilot76]

Maybe ED has seen what sort of action is going on in ROF, seen a massive hole open in the market for WWII since COD was a disaster, and decided to stick there toe in the water with a "Flying Legend". A little bit of map somewhere (just get the boys from the Nevada terrain to do a bit of overtime) and before you know it you have Spitfire Vs 109 online dogfight heaven over dover.

 

Id be in.

[Krippz]

The parallel development isn't hogging resources. If say, for example, cockpit work has finished on one project, those devs move onto the next project, etc - so in some ways you can have things being made in parallel.

 

I'm inclined to believe that there is a lot of credence in what Moa is saying as he has a wealth of experience. I am also inclined to give Eagle Dynamics the benefit of the doubt because they have been doing this a long time; that's not to say that they can't do things better or differently.

 

An example:

 

To a layperson working on multiple projects in parallel may seem like the most efficient way to get things done. With effort a development team may be able to finish a goal five times faster, but this only reduces the time for the development process as a whole by a little. In contrast, one may need to perform less work (working with laser focus) to finish twice as fast. No one know's but ED though.

 

I guess the point is no one knows ED's internal software development process better than ED; however as Moa is an expert on software development consulting he has credibility to opine. I guess what we can take away from this is as a business it's in their best interest to get as many products out as possible to keep the cash coming in (i.e. a release a couple years isn't doing it for them).

Edited November 15, 2011 by Krippz

[Dudikoff]

You can speed it up, but it takes a time and you need suitable people for this. You can add experienced teammate. Both of them shares opinions, the first one can't stand without second and second without first. They make very close team. Relying on one person is for me doubtful in longer perspective.

 

OMG, it was just an example.. I thought it was clear that without some insight on ED internal development process or how many people are working on FMs, A/G radar, etc. this discussion and "helpful" suggestions are useless. So I was just trying to counterpoint the post given by Moa which involved a lot of people being shuffled around various tasks to speed up the development of the next module dramatically (which went against some things I experienced in the software development). I mean, this is not some common web client application development we're talking about here. It would probably take enough time and effort to get new people involved into these topics that it would take less time for the original small team to do it without this extra "help" (note: all is hypothetical and written as an example only).

[VBARhino]

Well this would be sweet to see...

 

P-51D & A-10C Heritage Flight by Nathan Truninger, on Flickr

[Executioner]

Hi Executioner. Nice to meet another professional developer on the forums.

 

I need more time for all this - at the moment I get a chance for a few comments on a couple of forums - even added together it's not enough time to play the bloomin' games! ;) Anyway - here - have a long post :music_whistling:

 

Even if you disagree with my comments on resourcing at least you might agree that BMS is making great strides (visit their forums sometime) and will become a significant competitor for the mind-share (and modding talent and has kept FC/FC2 relevant for most of us) in this niche quite soon. Like I said, I conclude this given the numeric evidence I've seen in player flight hours.

 

pax

 

I don't disagree that it's possible to extend resourcing on a project at any time (given funding). It is dependant on available skill-sets and experience, however. I can definitely see a competent developer take a few weeks to a month to get to grips with sections of a codebase such as this (again - dependant on clarity of code and so on), even on their own with limited input from other members of the team - after that (as a lead on the development) you'd have to ramp-up the feature requests they get to work on and see how things went. Time is never something you have enough of is it ;)

 

I think BMS is rather a special case - if you don't already fly that sim chances are slim that you would switch from DCS. If you already mod for it, then you will have a choice to mod for both right up until one or other product takes you away more permanently (I suspect ED will win this one, given the time-frames of F4 releases in the past in comparison and the features that are added with each iteration of DCS).

 

As for the most interesting thing for me (as a developer, naturally) - it is this: DCS as an engine, as it stands currently - is looking like it is in a position to have airframes developed within it, mostly separate from the engine development itself (in terms of api). Up until now, each airframe has required an "adjustment" to the core in order to allow for various physics and simulation elements to be included. THIS will be partly why BS2 exists in the form it does and why it is being charged for - the act of moving the BS1 airframe to the current release iteration of the engine has required ED, by the looks of things from the outside, to almost go back to first principles for the helo and then continue on through the testing and adjustment that is required for release. In addition to that the other teams available have been working on content and features to go along with this engine integration and the result is a "new" simulation that marries all these things together in a neat bundle for our purchase and enjoyment. At this point it is likely that 1.1.1.0 and BS2 could share the engine in a single location (what is left is the extra "glue" that is always needed in these cases, but the engine itself is pretty much identical).

 

I would suspect the "glue" for future airframes is now manageable and a workflow exists for pulling the engine at any point to test against BS2 and A10C (plus DCS:Next and probably DCS:FL). Witness FC3 - which I suspect is an indication that the airframe teams can lift and integrate those earlier planes and do the same for them as was done for the K/A-50. I'm hoping that ED are now seeing their original dream/aim of a DCS-level airframe every 9 months or faster coming to pass from now. As a fellow developer from the trenches I congratulate them if this is the case - there is nothing more satisfying than watching a system you've developed have features added to or re-used (by yourself and others) with "ease" compared with the version you were working on previously :)

 

Modularisation is the key. Remember we've watched them do this previously with the sound engine and we are all about to witness this again with the Nevada terrain (and the EDGE upgrade). This reduction in overall workflow means the individual teams working on either terrain or airframes can concentrate on their particular tasks without constantly having to work with, or wait for, the core engine guys.

 

I also suspect they are already well on the way to what people call a DC. In ED's case it will be an interesting affair - we are likely to see manually run conflicts, alongside AI decisions - both live and after-action - alongside set-piece missions. First chance/part being the randomising mission creator that we have currently - the second being the JTAC/Commander system that is coming for $20 - then onwards as the steps and releases allow.

 

Wags was right on the money. 2012 is going to be a busy year for fans and developer alike I think :D

 

(and you all thought the most exciting bit was the new fixed wing airframe - pfffft - shame on you! :smilewink:)

[Eihort]

Why do you propeller heads insist on barging into perfectly good jet sims?

[Bearitall]

Well this would be sweet to see...

 

P-51D & A-10C Heritage Flight by Nathan Truninger, on Flickr

,

 

Well with this new... news..of the Legends..I am wondering will their weapons be active..for good old fashion " Dogfighting " Mustangs/Spitfires/FE109 in " Dogfights " action...Hmmmm...:thumbup:

 

If this is so..then damn I am in all the way I am in anyways..I love the P-51D Mustang always have...I love this vintage Aircraft....but to have DCS having weapons active would be a bonus for me...

 

:pilotfly: As a young lad..I built two models of the P-51D Mustang...and cheerished them dearly...just a beautiful machine..

Edited November 16, 2011 by Bearitall

[joey45]

^^ REF photo.. Would of looked better if it was a P47 with the A10.

[aaron886]

Why does everyone insist on putting ED into the combat sim box? Are they banned from making a simulator of a beautiful aircraft for the sole purpose of doing just that? These aircraft still fly today, they don't have to be crammed into overplayed WWII genre.

 

Since when was a flight sim not good enough? Why does everything in PC simulation have to be weaponized? And WHY does everyone insist on making up their version of the future instead of just waiting for news and watching the development process? Chill out and let things pan out people, these speculation threads get ridiculous here.

[VIKBELL]

I would like th F-4 Phantoms as part of the flying legends.:)

[Bearitall]

Why does everyone insist on putting ED into the combat sim box?

 

Are you serious!!! DCS/Flaming Cliffs is a combat sim...if not then why oh why all the missles and machine guns..geez...man chill go fly FSX if you are tired of Combat...:music_whistling:

 

Are they banned from making a simulator of a beautiful aircraft for the sole purpose of doing just that? These aircraft still fly today, they don't have to be crammed into overplayed WWII genre.

 

Since when was a flight sim not good enough? Why does everything in PC simulation have to be weaponized? And WHY does everyone insist on making up their version of the future instead of just waiting for news and watching the development process? Chill out and let things pan out people, these speculation threads get ridiculous here.

 

Bud I think you should chill out..if it was up to you maybe these Jets went weaponless...

 

Oh! PS: I don't think you'd be happy with anything else.. unless you suggested it to be what you want or what it should be..no one is more important than you am I right....

 

And why not go back to an era where " Dogfighting " skills were sneaking up his six and gunning him down rather than shooting a missle from miles away and you don't even get to see your opponents face..WWII is where the real " Dogfighting " skills were at..

Edited November 16, 2011 by Bearitall

[Snoopy]

I would LOVE to have this in the sim :D

 

[Bearitall]

I would LOVE to have this in the sim :D

 

 

Ah yes, the Phantom F4E and the F86 Sabre..sweet..my other passion is the F4E Phantom...

[Ghillied raptor]

Why does everyone insist on putting ED into the combat sim box? Are they banned from making a simulator of a beautiful aircraft for the sole purpose of doing just that? These aircraft still fly today, they don't have to be crammed into overplayed WWII genre.

 

Since when was a flight sim not good enough? Why does everything in PC simulation have to be weaponized? And WHY does everyone insist on making up their version of the future instead of just waiting for news and watching the development process? Chill out and let things pan out people, these speculation threads get ridiculous here.

What's wrong with putting weapons on planes? They are just as fun to fly without the weapons and they are by no means compulsory. If it might entice non-simmers to pick up the DCS series, I'd say that's a win-win scenario.

 

Additionally, military aircraft is good fun to fly and are pretty fast, durable and in some cases manoeuvrable. That's a high performance craft you're looking at. I'll wager most people would rather drive a Lamborghini than a mini-van. Same thing goes for aircraft. Why settle for less? I'm in no way opposed to normal aircraft. You know, the harmless kind ;)

Edited November 16, 2011 by Ghillied raptor

[Eihort]

Why does everyone insist on putting ED into the combat sim box? Are they banned from making a simulator of a beautiful aircraft for the sole purpose of doing just that? These aircraft still fly today, they don't have to be crammed into overplayed WWII genre.

 

Since when was a flight sim not good enough? Why does everything in PC simulation have to be weaponized? And WHY does everyone insist on making up their version of the future instead of just waiting for news and watching the development process? Chill out and let things pan out people, these speculation threads get ridiculous here.

 

If I want to fly WWII or civilian aircraft, I have other games for that.

[Moa]

Why does everyone insist on putting ED into the combat sim box? Are they banned from making a simulator of a beautiful aircraft for the sole purpose of doing just that? These aircraft still fly today, they don't have to be crammed into overplayed WWII genre.

 

Since when was a flight sim not good enough? Why does everything in PC simulation have to be weaponized? And WHY does everyone insist on making up their version of the future instead of just waiting for news and watching the development process? Chill out and let things pan out people, these speculation threads get ridiculous here.

 

Good post. Shame I can't give you additional rep at the moment.

[GGTharos]

Not true. ;)

 

And why not go back to an era where " Dogfighting " skills were sneaking up his six and gunning him down rather than shooting a missle from miles away and you don't even get to see your opponents face..WWII is where the real " Dogfighting " skills were at..

[GGTharos]

DCS was never meant to be just a jet sim. Did you know it could also simulate say, a helicopter? :D

 

How about an Arleigh burke? I'd LOVE to park THAT next to Anapa and watch the reds beg me to let'em take off! ;)

 

Why do you propeller heads insist on barging into perfectly good jet sims?

[Bearitall]

Not true. ;)

 

Really how so?

Edited November 16, 2011 by Bearitall

[GGTharos]

You may want to have a peek at USAF/RuAF and European (real) air force curriculums, if you're able to find them. There's more dogfight training than there was in WW2 (not that there weren't well-trained pilots in WW2, but the level of training and 'bfm skills' quickly went down as the war dragged on).

[Bearitall]

You may want to have a peek at USAF/RuAF and European (real) air force curriculums, if you're able to find them. There's more dogfight training than there was in WW2 (not that there weren't well-trained pilots in WW2, but the level of training and 'bfm skills' quickly went down as the war dragged on).

 

Roger that...well remember as the war dragged on the more skilled pilot became scarse...dying off... due to being tired and making bad mistakes..from the constant Combat flights against the German bombers..and fighter escorts..

[GGTharos]

Exactly correct :)

 

Roger that...well remember as the war dragged on the more skilled pilot became scarse...dying off... due to being tired and making bad mistakes..from the constant Combat flights against the German bombers..and fighter escorts..

[VincentLaw]

(since everyone else is doing it)

Why does everyone insist on putting ED into the combat sim box? Are they banned from making a simulator of a beautiful aircraft for the sole purpose of doing just that? These aircraft still fly today, they don't have to be crammed into overplayed WWII genre.

 

Since when was a flight sim not good enough? Why does everything in PC simulation have to be weaponized? And WHY does everyone insist on making up their version of the future instead of just waiting for news and watching the development process? Chill out and let things pan out people, these speculation threads get ridiculous here.

I agree. I definitely have more fun just flying around in DCS than I do in FSX. I generally find the flying aspect in combat focused flight simulators better than in civil simulators, not because of the combat, but because of the damage modeling. When I smash hard into the ground, I like my gear to collapse. I like to see parts get smashed up and fall off. So when I finally come screeching to a halt without exploding, I feel like I accomplished something. Its so much more rewarding than the line of text in MSFS that randomly says "overstress" before unceremoniously forcing you to restart the game. If I cut the corner too close while flying through a canyon, I want it to end in a glorious ball of fire.

 

I will definitely be doing a lot of DCS: Legend in Nevada just to enjoy the flight model.

[Bearitall]

(since everyone else is doing it)

 

I agree. I definitely have more fun just flying around in DCS than I do in FSX. I generally find the flying aspect in combat focused flight simulators better than in civil simulators, not because of the combat, but because of the damage modeling. When I smash hard into the ground, I like my gear to collapse. I like to see parts get smashed up and fall off. So when I finally come screeching to a halt without exploding, I feel like I accomplished something. Its so much more rewarding than the line of text in MSFS that randomly says "overstress" before unceremoniously forcing you to restart the game. If I cut the corner too close while flying through a canyon, I want it to end in a glorious ball of fire.

 

I will definitely be doing a lot of DCS: Legend in Nevada just to enjoy the flight model.

 

LOL...sooooo your a crash and burn type of guy..the mechanic's will begin to hate you ..cause of all the fixing up they have to do...LOL

[Bearitall]

An example of different nations in the Battle of Briton..