How about a DCS fighter in different stages or phases?

[falcon_120]

I've had a bit of a crazy idea,with FC3 coming in an unknown time I've been thinking

about this:

Would it be possible for ED to develop a DCS:F15 in different phases or stages?

Something like you pay for a DCS title (40$,50$,whatever)and at first you just get the FC3 F15,

after a bit of time you receive an update with just a 3d clickable cockpit but without

functions,maybe next month you get working radio panel,next month or two a working countermeasures

panel(CMS) and so on.

At first you deal with the simplied avionic you get with FC3 but you soon start getting upgrades,

like new radar modes,etc...

I know this is not the best way to develop a product but in the case of a plane already

there like the F15 perhaps is a good way to get money in advanced and to make the waiting more

bearable.

Don't be too harsh with this idea, I'm on holiday and maybe I have to much free time to think

about stuff like this :) .

[Revelation]

As much as I like the idea, I don't think it will work. FC3 will be out in due time, probably before DCS:Next is announced.

 

I simply think it would be more trouble than it is worth. Not to mention when an update "breaks" something else and people will come out in droves crying on the forums. ED has shown that they know what they are doing, I say we just continue to give them the chance and support to deliver.

[winz]

Not going to happen.

Integerating new functionality with old systems (you still want a functional plane in every iteration) would be a huge PITA and would require much unnecessary work.

Edited August 10, 2012 by winz

[EtherealN]

Not going to happen.

Integerating new functionality with old systems (you still want a functional plane in every iteration) would be a huge PITA and would requires much unnecessary work.

 

This.

[falcon_120]

Yes but you already have a functional plane,the FC3 one,my thoughts was that with other iteration you add some functionality to an already existing but simplified plane.

Anyway I know it's not going to happen.

[EtherealN]

Thing is it sounds easy when you express it in text like that.

 

But as far as software engineering, it's a nightmare.

 

Imagine making an automobile. Start with 4 wheels and a seat, nothing more. Then slowly turn it into a Ferrari. It will be one hell of a crap Ferrari and along the way the overall design will have had to be redesigned from ground up 20 times. It's just not an effective way to make a functional product.

[MemphisBelle]

FC3 and DCS are too much different to each other as they could merge while ongoing devprocess....so no chance..

[EtherealN]

FC3 and DCS are too much different to each other as they could merge while ongoing devprocess....so no chance..

 

Indeed.

The product at the "end of the line" would have quite literally nothing in common with where it started. Why spend time developing an intermediate step that you're planning to remove entirely 6 months down the line?

[Cali]

Gotta love new guys and their ideas.

[HiJack]

It is important to keep FC3 apart from the other DCS modules. FC3 should stay on it's own feet as an intro to flight sim's from ED.

 

(HJ)

[falcon_120]

Gotta love new guys and their ideas.

 

not so new ;), but got the point,a hell of a task.

[Deadsix]

It is important to keep FC3 apart from the other DCS modules. FC3 should stay on it's own feet as an intro to flight sim's from ED.

 

(HJ)

 

Why the segregation?

[Damage]

Why the segregation?

 

Because FC3 has many simplified systems compared to the Hardcore Modules such as A-10C and the Ka-50 Modules in DCSW.

 

To some degree its like mixing an arcade game with a flight simulation.

 

Its two different camps really and I can assure you that the two camps would not play nice together.

[Ramstein]

Because FC3 has many simplified systems compared to the Hardcore Modules such as A-10C and the Ka-50 Modules in DCSW.

 

To some degree its like mixing an arcade game with a flight simulation.

 

Its two different camps really and I can assure you that the two camps would not play nice together.

 

they worked good together in the past, why can't they now? I can say that everyone in our squad really enjoyed having FC2 with the DCS aircraft all together.. and look forward to FC3 integrated with DCS.. so, if you don't want it, don't buy it...

:doh:

[HiJack]

They will sure work great together on the same server. No problem there. FC3 should be kept strictly simple. New players can grow with the simulator and select a DCS level aircrafts after some time with the FC3 level aircrafts.

 

(HJ)

[159th_Viper]

Because FC3 has many simplified systems compared to the Hardcore Modules such as A-10C and the Ka-50 Modules in DCSW.

 

That's the point: Systems aside, the Flight Model is basically the same, more importantly, the weapons are the same and the principles of the fight remain the same, irrespective of whether it's DCS or FC3. So what if you have more buttons to physically press in the cockpit with your mouse in DCS - in FC3 you do the same but with keyboard or Flightstick.

 

Look how many threads are started with people moaning about the Su-25T, about how it cannot fly, about this and that......all because of the fact that it is too difficult to master in a short space of time and that as a result of a FC3-standard aircraft..........Nothing arcade there :D

[HiJack]

Precisely. I have a mission with the Su-25T on low fuel and broken HUD, broken autopilot, broken radio and a cloud base that covers all. If you can't find your way home and land safely in this situation you have not played the Su-25T enough :D

 

(HJ)

[Damage]

Flight models aside... I've played FC2 A-10A and DCS A-10C and to me there is a big difference between the two. I'm sure that FC3 and DCSW software will work together and allow both on the same servers and function OK. I also know for a fact that there are some A-10C / Ka-50 virtual squads that will not allow FC3 aircraft onto their server. I'm not going to get into a debate about all the reasons why. To each his own... have fun!

[monotwix]

Virtual squads that will not allow FC3 aircraft into their server? He He.

Mission designers again. AI will make decisions.

How about CA?

 

Can any one imagine the Blue Angels being so busy clicking the buttons/knobs during their performance.

F/A-18 Pilot COMM on 234 AM: ‘give me a minute I’m almost ready, let me just click this and turn that’ and I’ll be with you.

Edited August 11, 2012 by monotwix

[Echo38]

That's the point: Systems aside, the Flight Model is basically the same, more importantly, the weapons are the same and the principles of the fight remain the same, irrespective of whether it's DCS or FC3. So what if you have more buttons to physically press in the cockpit with your mouse in DCS - in FC3 you do the same but with keyboard or Flightstick.

One objection I have is that the simplified aircraft can (for example) start up almost instantly, while I'm still busy with my realistic startup procedures. This is one example of why his less-than-realistic systems management gives him an unrealistic advantage over me.

[Cali]

not so new ;), but got the point,a hell of a task.

 

I saw that you joined in 2004, just don't post much, that's what I meant. It's always cool to see some new ideas thrown around. :thumbup:

[monotwix]

One objection I have is that the simplified aircraft can (for example) start up almost instantly, while I'm still busy with my realistic startup procedures. This is one example of why his less-than-realistic systems management gives him an unrealistic advantage over me.

 

 

At what point in history of combat aviation did any pilot make decisions based on the time it takes for his adversary to prepare the start-up procedures.

What are you simulating, ie what’s the name of the game you are playing?

Edited August 11, 2012 by monotwix

[Paganus]

The great thing about having all these parts (DCS/FC3/CA) in the mix, is that we get to decide for ourselves what we want. Each squad, server, builder, and indiviual.

 

More options is better.

[159th_Viper]

One objection I have is that the simplified aircraft can (for example) start up almost instantly, while I'm still busy with my realistic startup procedures. This is one example of why his less-than-realistic systems management gives him an unrealistic advantage over me.

 

What advantage is there to be gained? A minute or two?

 

I agree that I have seen some ridiculous MP missions (Battlefield-esque) where you barely have time to take-off and climb to 4000m AGL before you've overflown the FEBA completely. In these instances the extra minute or two you are on the ground will definitely get you punished no doubt.

 

In normal instances, given well-structured missions (Oh how I miss the Kerch Straits battles), rest assured that no advantage is to be gained by start-up procedures.

[Grimes]

I agree that I have seen some ridiculous MP missions (Battlefield-esque) where you barely have time to take-off and climb to 4000m AGL before you've overflown the FEBA completely. In these instances the extra minute or two you are on the ground will definitely get you punished no doubt.

 

In normal instances, given well-structured missions (Oh how I miss the Kerch Straits battles), rest assured that no advantage is to be gained by start-up procedures.

 

There was a nice symmetry to the Kerch Straits as there were quite a few airbases on both sides that were roughly equidistant from the center. Plus it was a nice dividing line.

 

IMO any mission with fighters should have at least 300km between starting airbases and that is being generous. I personally prefer 400km+ and possibly have a FOB for rearm, refuel, and repair closer to the action, but not for spawning.