Western biased .

[ishtmail]

DCS is to something like the falcon series what battlefield 3 is to doom. It's the next step in an evolution. It certainly did not invent the genre.

 

Good comparison. I would maybe also mention Arma 2 alongside BF3.

 

However, Battlefield is only one of the many branches into which Doom evolved. Today, CoD is much closer to Doom, being more arcade oriented, simpler, while Battlefield turned into a whole new beast. And the Battlefield players are quite different from casual FPS players that enjoy, for instance, the Crysis series. There's a lot more commitment to a Battlefield player compared to one that runs CoD or Duke Nukem 4 or Fear 3.

 

Like DCS A10C isn't for anyone, as simmers who just want to shoot at stuff won't really enjoy the entire clickology necessary to take full advantage of the DCS game, and will prefer FC3, while pilots who are dedicated to 100% realism won't settle for anything less than a DCS quality aircraft (as is evident in many threads about 3rd party airplanes, where everyone's first question is: will it be DCS fidelity?).

 

So: different branches, different markets, different players.

 

Anyway, DCS definitely pushed the hardcore sim to a whole new level. The idea of a hardcore sim existed before, but for the past several years, DCS has been the benchmark of what a real hardcore sim is.

[Eight Ball]

so ED went on with A10C, which they already had ready and just had to tweak it for consumer use.

 

Just to give to Caeser what belongs to Caesar, ED did a lot more in order to make DCS:A-10C

 

IIRC, ED was tasked by the ANG to make a desktop sim, a "system" sim.

No flight model, no map,...

The goal was to train A-10A pilots to the new A-10C avionics.

So yeah, they had the info but that's about it.

[Jona33]

They was a map and flight model but simplified no doubt.

[Eight Ball]

They was a map and flight model but simplified no doubt.

 

I stand corrected :)

 

And I'll add Wags answer in an interview with IGN :

 

MW: DCS: A-10C Warthog was an outgrowth of the A-10C Desktop Trainer we did for the Air National Guard, U.S. Air Force, and Reserves. Much of the A-10C specific avionics were brought over directly to the DCS A-10C. However, the 6 DOF cockpit, 3D model, flight dynamics, engine, hydraulic, electrical, lighting, emergency, flight control, and fuel systems are all new and much more advanced than the military version. After working on the software A-10C for a couple of years I had the opportunity to sit in the USAF full dome A-10C cockpit simulator. Based on our software, I was able to start up the aircraft, taxi, take off, navigate, kill the target, and land without a problem. I see no reason why one of our DCS: A-10C Warthog customers could not do the same.

Source

Edited November 27, 2012 by Eight Ball

[lucien]

 

New Eagle Dynamics theme song :P

[Steel Jaw]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not sure what to make of that...

[Cali]

Five years ago, there was no market for DCS fidelity aircraft. I have no idea why ED chose Ka-50, but developing that bird opened an entirely new world of simulations that us PC pilots never knew before that.

Maybe ED had the Ka-50 info on hand and made it as a hobby. Maybe it was originally developed as a simulation for the russian army, like A10C was for the US.

 

In any case, before Ka50, there was no DCS-fidelity sim market. Ka-50 was a success, so ED went on with A10C, which they already had ready and just had to tweak it for consumer use. Another success.

Now they have to start from scratch with the next airplane, so it's obvious they would choose one they can get the info for and one the community is interested in.

 

 

Seriously, comparing the situation 5 years ago with today makes no sense. Today, we live in an entirely different world. In a world where FC3 seems 'poor' and 'outdated', because ED spoiled us with their DCS products. 5 years ago, FC3 would seem like the best thing ever, today it's "meh" compared to A10C.

 

Guess you never heard of Falcon 4...DCS graphics are way better, but the simulation is about the same IMHO. I have just as fun flying BMS as I would flying DCS/FC3.

[G-Lock91]

I have just as fun flying BMS as I would flying DCS/FC3.

 

+1!

[Endy]

Guess you never heard of Falcon 4...DCS graphics are way better, but the simulation is about the same IMHO. I have just as fun flying BMS as I would flying DCS/FC3.

 

 

Yes, I take part in regular BMS events as well, but what bothers me in BMS is the graphics you mentioned. Don't misunderstand me, I play a lot of older games with worse graphics, but what bothers me in particular in Falcon is the difficulty of judging distance or altitude due to blurry textures and old engine. I sometimes find myself a bit disoriented due to that and my situational awareness suffers. It might be my problem but I heard a few people say the same. There is also some strange stuff going on with aircraft visibility and LOD models in the distance.

 

 

Also, the dogfighting part in BMS is a bit...strange I'd say. The AI seems to be a bit passive and moves like in tar. It's all a bit like slow motion. Not to mention AI's evasion capabilities for missiles are, well, let's say not the best.

 

So in many regards DCS feels way more natural and realistic, not only in graphics department.

 

But Falcon is a good sim too, with good flight model, well modeled weapon systems etc. and the definite advantage it has it the dynamic campaign, I hope we will get something similar in DCS someday :)

Edited November 28, 2012 by Endy

[Risk]

From what I have read, I get the impression that I should stop waiting for ED to release another American jet with the same hardcore development that went in to A-10C. I guess unless the US military is going to pay ED to develope another aircraft like what went into DCS A-10C, then I guess ED will not be releasing anything as exciting as we saw with the A-10C.

[Witchking]

From what I have read, I get the impression that I should stop waiting for ED to release another American jet with the same hardcore development that went in to A-10C. I guess unless the US military is going to pay ED to develope another aircraft like what went into DCS A-10C, then I guess ED will not be releasing anything as exciting as we saw with the A-10C.

 

Don't make assumptions. We know nothing about next in the dcs lineup.

[Risk]

Don't make assumptions. We know nothing about next in the dcs lineup.

 

I would like to believe your right, but with almost six years of waiting and every flight sim company eventually coming to end, it's hard to remain optimistic.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Risk

[Steel Jaw]

Don't make assumptions. We know nothing about next in the dcs lineup.

 

Perhaps neither does ED...'tis the problem perhaps.

[Risk]

Occam's razor summarized: all things being equal, the simplist explanation must be the truth. If ED were developing another hardcore jet similar to the level of functionality of the A-10C, then why wouldn't they want us know to keep us interested. The only possible conclusion is that they are not working on a new Jet Aircraft and they are developing DCS World to continue residual sales through the use of third party developers. There is a big difference between 3rd party mods and a 600 page manual and a highly functionally modeled aircraft with complex systems.

[Eight Ball]

How did you come up with 6 years of waiting ?

2010-2013 = 3 years.

 

then why wouldn't they want us know to keep us interested

While I don't always agree with the way ED communicates there's a reason why they're so secretive about their projects.

You don't need to look really far to see that sometimes communicating to early is the worst thing to do

Edited December 1, 2012 by Eight Ball

[Watari]

BTW it's more or less the same in a lot of countries, including France.

I'm really not sure it's western vs eastern. In my opinon, it's not likely to be a lot easier to make a DCS level Mirage F1 than a DCS level Su-27 (in term of access to documentation, right to reproduce and so on).

In fact, the USA seem to be an exception to me, with an ability to open their docs far more than the vast majority of the other contries (I'm not American, if you were wondering).

 

 

And thats the point for me! You need a lot of datas, infomation, the right and possibility to talking to ( high ranking) people to make a very accurate sim. Even thats what people expecting here. And when u have it the PERMISSION to use that knowledge for a mass markt, residential customers what ever.

 

What army would make that public? Even aircrafts how actually on duty in warzones?

 

That ED´s A-10C could happen is a little miracle for this small branche.

I guess it will be a preference for a while.

We cant expect something like that in the next time.

 

Just let us enjoy our hog! :thumbup:

[Eihort]

Transgressions?

The only transgressions I see might be the delays on some things, which are understandable considering the highest fidelity ED is making their stuff in. And long delays are normal even in other gaming branches. Duke Nukem 4ever anyone?

 

Bugs are normal for any type of software. The game of the year, Skyrim, was initially so buggy that it was almost unplayable.

 

Everything else is at ED's discretion, just like any other PC game developer out there. I don't see Valve taking orders on which weapons to model in their next first person shooter. I don't see Treyarch asking the community which city to demolish in the next CoD game.

 

With DCS, you get what you payed for: a perfected simulation of a single aircraft. Have you ever received less than that?

 

Here's a great example. You're comparing them to the most infamous and lengthy development periods (complete with tabloidesque drama). Also comparing them to Valve, which is notoriously tight lipped about their products under development, is also a bit misleading.

 

Conversely, it would be a bit misleading of me to compare them to say, Star Citizen, which is leading the way in terms of openess about their project, and rightly so, considering how much people have paid for it.

 

To make it more fair, the 3rd party developers for DCS World are incredibly more open about what's going on with their individual products because they've at least told us what aircraft they're working on and showing a lot more WIP information than ED.

 

There's also lots of little things like having to completely reinstall the software when it updated (and now post updater, extremely long and large downloads), lack of multi-core support, esoteric settings (what does 'scene' mean?) and a direction that only seemed to finally materialize when DCS World was released, which still seems to confuse a lot of people how FC2, BS1, BS2, FC3 should be installed.

 

Just because things are done a certain way, doesn't mean we just have to sit here and take it because we have no choice.

[Risk]

I'm not comparing anything. I just want to know if we will ever see another aircraft from ED with the same level of sophistication and realistic modeling that went into A-10C in another jet, or is it time to move on. The kind of work that went into A-10C requires a whole development team, it is not something a third party developer can realistic do.

[ishtmail]

There's also lots of little things like having to completely reinstall the software when it updated (and now post updater, extremely long and large downloads), lack of multi-core support, esoteric settings (what does 'scene' mean?) and a direction that only seemed to finally materialize when DCS World was released, which still seems to confuse a lot of people how FC2, BS1, BS2, FC3 should be installed.

 

Just because things are done a certain way, doesn't mean we just have to sit here and take it because we have no choice.

ED is continuously upgrading and updating their product according to the community's wishes and desires. Take the Updater, for instance: all of a sudden, you don't have to download the entire 5 gigs of data, uninstall and reinstall to get a new version set up. You just run the updater, the patch is relatively small compared to the entire DCS World package (where you got the 'extremely long and large downloads, I don't understand, as each update is done in a minute), and you keep all the settings and your activations.

 

This was obviously a feature that the community missed or wanted implemented, so ED did it.

 

What I'm trying to say is: they DO listen to suggestions on how to make their products better. As you can see on the forum, people keep reporting bugs, and those bugs get fixed in the near future.

 

BS1 to BS2 upgrade within DCS World COULD be done better, that's true (for instance, instead of looking for an installed BS1, the upgrade BS2 could simply ask the user for the original BS1 activation code).

As for the FC3 installation (the need for the original Lock On), that was already explained by ED as something Ubisoft demanded. It's a bit unconventional, but nothing that should twist your nipples the way it seems to.

 

It seems to me like a lot of people here complain that ED doesn't communicate with the users enough. But on the other hand, that's perfectly understandable if you only look at the problems the overly-early announcement of the Nevada map caused.

ED announced it, people expect it (for a while now), ED wants to make it perfect, people complain, ED announces a 'release soon', people's expectations grow, ED finds more problems with it so the development gets even more delayed, people get frustrated and start b*tching and moaning about it, and the whole discussion gets so out of hand that ED just stops posting about the progress.

 

Just looking at THAT, I can completely understand why ED won't announce anything concerning new airplanes, before they are 100% sure they can and will do it. With the impatient lot that lurks these forums, looking for something to complain about, it's better to make pleasant surprises than unpleasant ones. A hard lesson to learn for ED.

 

Now, users complain about the 'lack of communication about new projects', which is definitely better than having disgruntled users complaining about broken promises and long delays. In this particular situation, the complainers just end up looking needy, petty and impatient for no reason. Especially since ED keeps issuing new stuff on a regular basis. Just in 2012, DCS World, DCS P51D, DCS Combined Arms and Flaming Cliffs 3 were released. Not too shabby for a company that (as far as some users are concerned) aren't doing anything and should get off their asses and make some Russian planes.

[Eihort]

A simplified patching process of at least downloading incremental patches has been the standard for at least a decade. Doing it all online (some people were reporting that the updater was still DLing 5gigs of stuff) by clicking a button has also been a standard feature of Windows and other software as well.

 

That should have been implemented from almost day 1 of DCS World. You don't get credit for screwing things up, and then "listening to your customers" and "impementing new features" when it's an industry standard across the board.

[Kuky]

5gigs of update is super exaggerated... also does it take into account if people are modding their instal? Modding lot of textures, skins, models and sounds adds up, so modding less is more now.

 

About ED implementing auto updater... yeah it's not the best thing they didn't do it straight away... in fact not going DCS modular approach wasn't the best approach.. but they did get to it eventually (took few years ok) so at least ED got even now, and from now by the looks of things it only going to get better.

[ishtmail]

If I recall correctly, DCS modules did have incremental patches, that were smaller. In fact, don't take my word for it, see the 'Downloads' section of the Digitalcombatsimulator.com webpage.

 

As for the auto updating online feature in computer games, that is a bit of a novelty in the gaming world, which was made industry standard especially with the rising of popularity of Steam - and Steam really gained in popularity after 2007.

After that, many large companies incorporated the auto updater function with their platforms (for example, Ubisoft incorporated it into their Uplay platform in 2009).

Today, most developers don't have their own auto updaters, but depend on the updating functions of the distribution platforms (such as Steam, Origin, Xbox Live etc). Large companies like Ubisoft can afford developing their own stuff.

 

For a small developer such as ED to make their own auto updater is actually quite uncommon and is by far not an industry standard, and no, there is no logic in your statement that ED should have had it in there since day one.

 

 

It would be far more logical for ED to go to a large distribution channel like Steam, and take advantage of their distribution network (servers) and their updating service.

 

But seeing how DCS is a highly specialized niche, it makes more sense to do it the way they're doing it now, and I love how they embraced the possibility of using torrents, where fans can take some of the bandwidth for the distribution.

 

 

And last (but not least), DCS World was officially released (i.e. OUT OF BETA) in the summer 2012. The auto updater function was introduced on October 03 2012. In my book, that's almost day one. For some people, it's obviously not fast enough.

 

 

If you're not satisfied with Eagle Dynamics, their DCS products and their public engagement, you always have the option of leaving the DCS world, the forums, and finding another highest fidelity combat flight simulator developer.

[Eight Ball]

If I recall correctly, DCS modules did have incremental patches, that were smaller.

You mean when they were standalone ?

No...not at all :P

 

If you're not satisfied with Eagle Dynamics, their DCS products and their public engagement, you always have the option of leaving the DCS world, the forums, and finding another highest fidelity combat flight simulator developer.

You know this is not a bundle, people might not be happy about some particular aspect but it doesn't mean they hate ED or they are ungrateful, quite the opposite if you ask me (...what ?...you don't ask me ?...oh ok :D)

One would never progress if he was told all the time is job is wonderfull in every aspect. No one is perfect and ED is no exception.

 

If you have no critics to make towards ED, good for you, but don't bash other people for voicing their opinion.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Eight Ball

[ishtmail]

I have no critics towards ED. I do, however, contribute to making DCS products better, by reporting bugs that I find.

 

Criticism in the form of 'ED is screwing things up', 'ED lied', 'ED's transgressions' and 'ED is not doing enough to please me' are not constructive. They are just an expression of someone's own frustrations, when that person is incapable of seeing the big picture (the overall quality of DCS products) and keeps insisting on finding flaws, just so he can complain.

 

This type of behavior does not help anyone, least of all the products we are fans of.

 

Instead, make constructive comments by posting in the Wishlist, by finding bugs and reporting them etc. And DON'T b*tch and moan if your wishlist doesn't make it into the product, or if the bug you reported takes a while before it's dealt with by ED's dev team.

 

And make your constructive comments with some respect to a team of people who are obviously not thinking about profits (as there just aren't any in this business), instead of belittling them and insulting them.

 

 

In the end, everyone has to realize one thing: the things ED did well by far surpass the things ED did poorly.

[Eihort]

And make your constructive comments with some respect to a team of people who are obviously not thinking about profits (as there just aren't any in this business), instead of belittling them and insulting them.

 

The inaccuracy of that statement astounds me. They're not doing this for free.

 

My whole point is that ED goes and makes mistakes, and people like you tell us that we should be greatful for everything we've gotten and don't stop singing praises. My gratitude is the money I pay for these products, and if they make something I don't want, I simply don't buy it. This is why I don't own P-51, and I never will.

 

Giving ED a free pass for these types of things does nothing but encourage the state of thinking that is rife in the industry. "Let's not worry about it now, we can always fix it later." There are countless business models if ran that way would fail miserably. It's a bad practice and I'm not going to endorse it with words, granted I've already done that technically with my wallet. But as has been said, we don't have much of a choice.