Concerned Customer

[GGTharos]

... Or an F-15A/B/C/D, or an F-16A/B/C/D, or some F-18 variants, not to mention a bunch of other aircraft.

 

As far as I can tell, no one has announced F-16C, F-18C

[NineLine]

So in a reply to the OP, I kinda get what he means, I understand the worry of big projects being handed to some unknown and unproven groups. I personally dont know any of them, which means nothing of course.

 

I think some of this stems from the unknown factor out there, and thats what ED is working on next for its next plane. We all love what they have done with A-10, BS2, and now the P-51, so we are all excited about what is coming, then we see all these planes being tackled by 3rd Party Devs and planes we were hoping to see directly from ED are now in the hands of these are devs. Now thats not meant to be a bad thing, but of course if I save up the money to buy a Ferrari I dont want to have one built by Ford, of course Ford makes some good cars, but I wanted a Ferrari...

 

On the other side? Well I hate First Person Shooters now, why? Because they killed the User created end of the game world. I used to love to tinker with mods, maps etc. But now they have kept that all to themselves and charge for a couple maps here and there. What DCS is doing is going the opposite direction, allowing user content and I love that, heck I am making some myself when I am not making bottles and changing diapers. Now not all user content is created equal, but from the looks of it there is going to be some quality stuff, but as always, there is gonna be some crap and I hope we wont see alot of that, but its always a risk.

 

So what am I saying? I am very excited about some of the 3rd Party Devs, some give me cause to worry that they might not be up to the challenge, specially when they hold some of my favorite planes in their grips. But I am glad that DCS has evolved to allow the community to grow DCS world, because to be honest, if we had to wait on only ED modules we would go stir crazy :)

 

I really think when ED announces its next plane, it will relax a little tension, and people can enjoy some of the 3rd Party stuff a little easier...

[Wolfie]

... Or an F-15A/B/C/D, or an F-16A/B/C/D, or some F-18 variants, not to mention a bunch of other aircraft.

 

So there you go. :D

 

But I am glad that DCS has evolved to allow the community to grow DCS world, because to be honest, if we had to wait on only ED modules we would go stir crazy

 

Yep. ED doing it alone will take too long. Its good to have these third parties join. I hope soon, we will see some that will tackle realistic terrain, vehicles, and infantry as well.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Wolfie

[Wags]

There appears to be a few misunderstandings of 3rd party aircraft that have lead to some concerns. The primary one being the "watering down" of quality in the DCS brand name. A few points:

 

1- We are very careful about who we allow a license and we have high standards of what we will agree to publish through DCS. If a product is of low quality, it won't be integrated.

 

2- Except for very, very rare cases, one 3rd party choosing to do an aircraft for DCS does not preclude another 3rd party from doing the same aircraft.

 

3- We plan a very clear DCS branding (title) name distinction between Eagle developed DCS aircraft and those of third party. There will be no confusion of who developed the title.

 

Thanks,

Matt

[BIGNEWY]

There appears to be a few misunderstandings of 3rd party aircraft that have lead to some concerns. The primary one being the "watering down" of quality in the DCS brand name. A few points:

 

1- We are very careful about who we allow a license and we have high standards of what we will agree to publish through DCS. If a product is of low quality, it won't be integrated.

 

2- Except for very, very rare cases, one 3rd party choosing to do an aircraft for DCS does not preclude another 3rd party from doing the same aircraft.

 

3- We plan a very clear DCS branding (title) name distinction between Eagle developed DCS aircraft and those of third party. There will be no confusion of who developed the title.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

Thanks for the reply Wags :)

[Pyroflash]

I actually do have a question.

 

Will ED be willing to integrate 3rd party developed code e.g. realistic carrier ops, into the core framework if it is to a high enough standard? I only ask because if two third parties develop different ways of dealing with something integral to the game world (assuming they could even do this in the first place), it could cause a whole world of compatibility issues.

[Bucic]

I too was initially upset tat the Hornet was given to a third party developer

Forgive me, but could you throw me a link or something to explain this? I got lost in the recent hype. :noexpression:

[Ells228]

Thanks for clearing that up Wags

[Double_D]

Now that Wags, has cleared up the 3rd party concerns may we move onto other area's this same old questions over and over is giving me a headache..:music_whistling:

[PeterP]

And now the punchline:

 

maybe somone should open a poll about this question...:D

Now that Wags, has cleared up the 3rd party concerns may we move onto other area's this same old questions over and over is giving me a headache..

[NineLine]

There appears to be a few misunderstandings of 3rd party aircraft that have lead to some concerns. The primary one being the "watering down" of quality in the DCS brand name. A few points:

 

1- We are very careful about who we allow a license and we have high standards of what we will agree to publish through DCS. If a product is of low quality, it won't be integrated.

 

2- Except for very, very rare cases, one 3rd party choosing to do an aircraft for DCS does not preclude another 3rd party from doing the same aircraft.

 

3- We plan a very clear DCS branding (title) name distinction between Eagle developed DCS aircraft and those of third party. There will be no confusion of who developed the title.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

Thanks Wags, I wonder if some sort of basic guideline posted and stickied somewhere might be nice to have in the 3rd Party section, for people interested in getting involved or for those just interested in who is allowed to get involved.

[Wags]

Interested parties are always welcome to PM me and discuss such matters.

[SchniX]

Thx Wags!

 

But, the question is, third party aircraft will have the DCS standard? or, a bit lower, or the same(as we hope)?

And, If the quality is a bit lower than your products that's acceptable by you, ED?

 

And last question please, about the Flight Model issue, if there is no SDK for it for now, would you add the AFM to the third parties aircrafts, till there will be SDK? and not only FM, if the third parties will need information about aircraft systems etc..

 

Thx

A very concerned customer (;

[WildBillKelsoe]

shut up and take my monet!! I always confuse monet with money!

[EtherealN]

Thx Wags!

 

But, the question is, third party aircraft will have the DCS standard? or, a bit lower, or the same(as we hope)?

And, If the quality is a bit lower than your products that's acceptable by you, ED?

 

And last question please, about the Flight Model issue, if there is no SDK for it for now, would you add the AFM to the third parties aircrafts, till there will be SDK? and not only FM, if the third parties will need information about aircraft systems etc..

 

Thx

A very concerned customer (;

 

Please see this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1

[Jona33]

Forgive me, but could you throw me a link or something to explain this? I got lost in the recent hype. :noexpression:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=90154

[WildBillKelsoe]

Yes, I am sure it's just one example. If someone spends money betting on the future and the gamble doesn't pay off then don't blame the casino for any implicit responsibility you may have thought they had to provide you money for a holiday.

 

Edit, lets put it this way. IMHO the only investment you should really feel let down on is your love for the game. It never sat well with me that people might say I spent $$$, now it's owed to me.

 

Only lobbyists get that return.

 

^ That is a VERY GOOD example. I totally agree. You got hardware, use it either ways.

[LawnDart]

There appears to be a few misunderstandings of 3rd party aircraft that have lead to some concerns. The primary one being the "watering down" of quality in the DCS brand name. A few points:

 

1- We are very careful about who we allow a license and we have high standards of what we will agree to publish through DCS. If a product is of low quality, it won't be integrated.

 

2- Except for very, very rare cases, one 3rd party choosing to do an aircraft for DCS does not preclude another 3rd party from doing the same aircraft.

 

3- We plan a very clear DCS branding (title) name distinction between Eagle developed DCS aircraft and those of third party. There will be no confusion of who developed the title.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

Thank you for taking the time to quell some concerns.

 

Re: 1 - Is there a plan for 3rd party projects that end up with "lesser than DCS" -quality, but still more or less on par with FC a/c for approval as well? Just curious...

 

Re: 3 - Looking forward to reading about this branding distinction eventually. This is the kind of info I think many of us feel we want/need.

[Blaze]

Regarding number 1, I think there will/should be 2 types of product: DCS: XXXXX which is an aircraft on par with the A-10C as far as complexity, then there will be XXXXX for DCS World, which would be on par with FC-level aircraft (SFM with no clickable cockpit).

[JimMack]

Regarding number 1, I think there will/should be 2 types of product: DCS: XXXXX which is an aircraft on par with the A-10C as far as complexity, then there will be XXXXX for DCS World, which would be on par with FC-level aircraft (SFM with no clickable cockpit).

 

I agree, there will be 2 types, though I think FC-level aircraft may also come with clickable cockpits.

How will a potential customer know which type?

When the third party developer publishes a title, in the press release they will make it clear as to the level of detail, features etc.

I am sure the developer will also create and pre-release promo videos so one can see what you will be getting.

[GGTharos]

Why wouldn't there be something in between? A-10C like complexity is rather difficult and time consuming to achieve, IIRC.

 

Regarding number 1, I think there will/should be 2 types of product: DCS: XXXXX which is an aircraft on par with the A-10C as far as complexity, then there will be XXXXX for DCS World, which would be on par with FC-level aircraft (SFM with no clickable cockpit).

[falcon_120]

It's seems quite clear to me,when I buy a title I expect it to be quite clear about what is offering: list of features,complexity, etc... Then is up to everyone to choose tu buy it or not.

[SUBS17]

Grab why don't you wait until they finish their addons and then complain if you're not happy.

[HiJack]

There still are a lot of ppl on this site that needs help

[SUBS17]

After having seen the Mig21 interview and reading the Razbam T2 manual I can say both look very DCS from where I'm sitting. The more difficult ones to model are the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F22 but I'll wait and see what they come up with before judging it.:thumbup: