DCS: P-51D Mustang Coming in 2012

[EtherealN]

Now go, and open the P-51D Subforums! :)

 

All in good time. :)

[Laud]

I notice many threads already that would suit better in a common DCS thread, instead of being posted in either DCSBS or DCSW.

 

You're right. I also just thought, that a common DCS thread would be useful maybe. But there are already sooo many subforums here...

[EtherealN]

I hope they stick to that attitude!!!

 

A combat sim is always a cometitive platform. Opening all doors to 3rd party stuff does a) let ED loose the final quality control and b) open up the doors for all possible types of cheating.

 

Well, there is a possible middle ground where ED selects partners to work with and has some control over what is done and how. Whether it's worth the extra administrative work of being involved in Q/Aing another developer's product is up to ED to decide.

[rfxcasey]

Off a cliff? So dramatic? You're outlook is highly negative for something that really shouldn't make or break your day in such a profound way. Perhaps you feel you're being treated unfairly?

 

Try to enjoy the simple things mate...if not, then please allow those who do enjoy the simple things to enjoy them.

 

If you're blind to the facts then I can't fault you. But if you just can't handle the facts, then I guess I can't fault you for burying your head in the sand like an ostrich though that is the kind of thinking that causes the problems in the first place, no offence.

[aaron886]

Well, there is a possible middle ground where ED selects partners to work with and has some control over what is done and how. Whether it's worth the extra administrative work of being involved in Q/Aing another developer's product is up to ED to decide.

 

Yes, yes, and yes. This is the correct way to handle it, and it should be pursued aggressively!

[GGTharos]

That is a well laid out explanation instead of what amounts to ranting though.

 

And ED knows and understands this. I think their plans are not very transparent to the public, and they're not saying a lot of things - so I'll comment on the evidence so far, going further than the Pony itself:

 

Terrain: Nevada is on the way with a new terrain engine. Most people haven't thought about this much, I bet but realize this: This means two maps for DCS/FC3. Does it mean you can add terrain to those products then? I'd say yes! Want to add germany? Go for it!

 

The P-51 itself: It's a P-51. In the DCS world. Other than ED needing time to produce things, I don't think ED into one-offs. Just my opinion, but hey, what do I know.

 

SDKs: ED has provided some things to work with in terms of terrain. Many endeavors were started, many are dead in the water - I don't think that particular part was ED's fault, though there's always room to improve in the tools they offer. What about SDKs for vehicles? A long time ago, Matt posted something about the PCIP, IIRC. Just because they've not got around to that yet, doesn't mean they've given up.

 

That's my take on things from a public view of things that have been shown so far.

 

I think most people have no problem with a P-51... everyone likes getting new things. It's the integration into the existing environment that has people worried. Flying a Mustang around the Southern Caucasus (in an environment designed for modern combat simulation with limited navigational infrastructure and a cursory weather simulation) isn't going to get many people too excited. No affront intended towards ED, but I believe that's the root of the indignation.

[GGTharos]

If you're blind to the facts then I can't fault you.

 

The fact that ED is working on new a new terrain engine?

The fact that ED is working on additional ME capabilities?

The fact that ED is working on additional FM capabilities?

 

The fact that ED is constantly improving its product? Or are you refering to some things that you've made up on a long road of slipperly slope logic?

[EtherealN]

Yes, yes, and yes. This is the correct way to handle it, and it should be pursued aggressively!

 

Depends a lot on the economics of it though. That model would include ED effectively spending money up-front on a product they might not even be 100% sure will ever be released, let alone pay good royalties. I guess they could require purchase of a license to do 3rd party stuff to balance that (sort of like how iD used to require both up-front money and royalties from developers looking to use their latest tech).

 

Business is always complex, and fronting cash for unsure propositions is always dangerous. I guess it depends on how risk-averse you are. :)

[rfxcasey]

Civilian aircraft don't have six .50 cal machine guns ;)

 

They do after the A-Team gets their hands on them.;)

[Frostie]

Can't wait for DCS:FastJet-18 to get announced so we can whine about not having a BF-109 already. :doh: j/k

[Bearitall]

Can't wait for DCS:FastJet-18 to get announced so we can whine about not having a BF-109 already. :doh: j/k

 

:music_whistling:

 

Those are separate projects and don't interfer with each other...:thumbup:

 

I am also gonna add the A2A Simulations version of the P-51D Mustang along with the The Fighter Collection - P51D Mustang..its my baby..along with some others...

 

Stay tuned...for announcements in Multi-player TCL-Team Combat League thread about upcoming Events...

[Frostie]

:music_whistling:

 

Those are separate projects and don't interfer with each other...:thumbup:

:wasjokingBanana:

Sorry, can't read that, i'm only understanding you when you type in the big letters.:idea:

[Bearitall]

:wasjokingBanana:

Sorry, can't read that, i'm only understanding you when you type in the big letters.:idea:

 

I only write in large letters for those who fail to read properly the post so they can't miss read it..you don't fall in that catergory..LOL

[Laud]

Well, there is a possible middle ground where ED selects partners to work with and has some control over what is done and how. Whether it's worth the extra administrative work of being involved in Q/Aing another developer's product is up to ED to decide.

 

As many referred to FSX, I did too. :music_whistling:

 

Your concept would of course negotiate my two points. :thumbup:

[tflash]

I must say I do like the idea of flying mixed missions online between A-10C and P-51D. Must be really awesome and gives a true COIN feeling.

 

The A-10C can communicate to the jtack, use its sensors to identify targets and talk the P-51D in. I also think the WP rocket will become important.

 

I'm unsure about night ops, since I guess the P-51D cockpit will not be NVG compatible?

 

I still would advocate a small GPS receiver to be mounted in the P-51 to simplify navigation. A 600 $ GPSMAP 196 would be the first thing I would buy if I were planning to fly a warbird for an extended period of time.

[some1]

Other than ED needing time to produce things, I don't think ED into one-offs. Just my opinion, but hey, what do I know.

 

From the simple customer perespective, ED has delivered so far:

 

1 helicopter

1 attack aircraft

1 scenery area

 

Ok, Black Shark has been sold to us twice, and let's not forget about FC/FC2/FC3 trilogy :P

[EtherealN]

...and note that they got integrated with each other... ;)

[HungaroJET]

FC3 will have AFM .

 

I guess it should be a question. ^

You should ask Yo-yo - he is the mathematician / programmer - but i think we will get the ~same FM as in FC2.

AFM for Su-25 + T.

SFM for others.

...but maybe (i hope) i will wrong ;)

[EtherealN]

I'd note that FC3 is not the topic of this thread, and specific features for that product are yet to be announced (beyond compatibility). Anything beyond that is speculation and I'd caution against it, since speculation from one person is easily misunderstood as a statement of fact by another.

[TheNewDivide91]

Glad that the P-51D was the plane of choice! It will be fun to learn to fly a WW II plane at the level of detail that ED puts into it's aircraft. KA50 and the A10 have been great, regardless of what is said.. They have my support. Thanks for the great products!

[aaron886]

SDKs: ED has provided some things to work with in terms of terrain. Many endeavors were started, many are dead in the water - I don't think that particular part was ED's fault, though there's always room to improve in the tools they offer.

 

I have to respond to this. The tools provided thus far are the most user-un-friendly development tools I've ever worked with. The process is so confusing, convoluted, poorly documented, and strangely arranged that it's nearly impossible to learn. I'm not trying to insult the person who made the tools, who clearly made them to suit his own devices, but they're just unusable for end-users. That's why so many projects have stalled out, my own included. Just the most incredibly aggravating and arbitrary errors kept bogging me down. I'm well-used to correcting errors and quickly learning a workflow for "modding" ED's simulators, but terrain creation is absolutely ridiculous.

 

What I don't understand is WHY the scenery is done in such a strange and illogical way... It seems like the terrain engine was cobbled together over the years since Flanker.

 

I sincerely hope ED has made a real turn-around with the new terrain engine. (I hope it's really new, and not just added features!) If they possess the technical knowledge, now is the time to carefully set up for success with future developments in terrain design. World terrain needs to be a consideration to maintain an edge in what is essentially a wide-open simulation market. You could argue that as a developer of combat simulations, ED doesn't need anything beyond "theater" scale, but I would disagree. If the advent of DCS: P-51D is any indication, ED is interested (or at least progressing) in far more than the cookie-cutter combat simulation.

 

 

 

Just because they've not got around to that yet, doesn't mean they've given up.

 

It's been seen time and time again that 3rd party development is what a simulator survives on, to the advantage of the developer. People's interest in a simulator will die very quickly without it. I hope ED has learned that lesson from others and plans to make good on it!

 

 

Business is always complex, and fronting cash for unsure propositions is always dangerous. I guess it depends on how risk-averse you are.

 

True... but the dividends may not be paid immediately. It's an investment in delayed effect. It's pretty hard to argue that 3rd-party development doesn't draw in a user-base. In fact it accounts for a huge portion of the user-base of every other major simulator title floating around. (FSX, X-plane, Falcon... even when they were being developed!)

 

This is going to sound awfully pretentious... but it's also an investment into a community simply based on goodwill and a desire to provide the best simulation experience for the customer. Business is business, of course, but nobody gets into the business of producing flight simulations without caring about the product, it's use, and it's user.

[LZ_Xray]

'Not enough'. A bunch of .50 API's raining down on your armor from above will mess up almost anything. I'll point out that this is close to the size of the A-10's API subcaliber penetrators. Of course the .50's won't be quite as powerful, but a Shilka isn't a T-80, and that pony can put out a LOT of .50.

 

And I think that 5-inch HVAR's if modeled would do quite a number on any vehicles, including T-80's.

[Mandrake5]

The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics will release their next Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) aircraft in 2012: the legendary P-51D Mustang. The Mustang was among the best and most well-known fighters used by the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. Possessing excellent range and manoeuvrability, the P-51 operated primarily as a long-range escort fighter and also as a ground attack fighter-bomber with bombs, rockets, and machine guns. The Mustang served in nearly every combat zone during WWII, and later fought in the Korean War.

 

The DCS: P-51D Mustang will be modelled at the same exacting detail as the existing Ka-50 Black Shark and A-10C Warthog Digital Combat Simulation (DCS) aircraft and it will be online compatible with them. Based on many years of restoring, flying and maintaining Mustangs, The Fighter Collection brings its unique ability to portray this aircraft in its full glory.

 

The P-51D will be the first aircraft in the Flying Legends series that focuses on historical aircraft that have set benchmarks in combat aviation. This series of simulations demonstrates the broad scope of DCS simulation environment and its ability to introduce aircraft from all eras into a common simulation environment. While the P-51D started as an internal technology demonstration, it has evolved into an independent product that adds an all new dimension to the DCS universe. The development of the P-51D and other Flying Legends series aircraft definitely does not preclude the continued development of modern aircraft.

 

More details of DCS: P-51D Mustang will be made available closer to product release later this year.

Where's the bit about parallel development of a modern aircraft sim for 2012? Was there another announcement, if so where? I know FC3 has been mentioned in an earlier statement, but nothing here. So no need to get sniffy and start patronising people.

 

Don't be surprised by the cynicism among DCS customers who thought ED was busy developing a range of compatible modern aircraft to further expand the DCS universe. There's nothing wrong with radically and suddenly changing direction, it's their prerogative, but the above statement that P51 will be online compatible with A10c and Black Shark only adds to the confusion - clearly they are not designed to be part of the same universe.

 

A better statement might be to explain that the P51 module includes other non-flyable WW2 aircraft and suitable maps (if indeed it does) for stand-alone playability. If this is not the case, then this should be explained too. In short, it's a rather confusing/unclear announcement from an otherwise fantastic company, hence the hullaballoo.

 

 

Originally Posted by Mandrake5

...bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla ...

 

Learn English. It's more than a language; it's a life skill :thumbup:

[EtherealN]

I totally agree with you aaron886, but since I don't have any specific information I have to bring up the caveats to any idea I bring up. I think it's the best way to make sure there is quality in any 3rd party stuff and there's no cheating introduced through them, but there is a workload and depending on ED's financial situtaton (which I have no clue about) this might not be any problem at all - or it might be a show-stopper. (At least as far as my concept goes. An argument could be made that if it wouldn't be workable they should go for the more open, FSX-style, approach, but that costs time and money too; and remember that having that model to service the community did not save FSX, and Falcon only got there after a source code leak and the demise of the developer. :P )

 

Basically, I think it's a good middle-ground, but not having the information needed to judge it properly I don't want to state it with any certainty. :)

[DayGlow]

So you won't buy the next fast jet sim because of this? Many people aren't that interested in the P-51, but you think it will turn them off of the whole series?