03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[Yellonet]

Indeed it was nice. BTW...Anyone here have any connections to a major media outlet?? DCS needs a major stage to get more attention. :D

I've heard of something called yootuub, do you reckon that could be used somehow?

 

:P

 

[ishtmail]

There are about a gazillion DCS movies on youtube and there's no hype about them. Why would a new youtube channel change that?

 

I mean, sure, you can make a pretty neat looking video, but we'd need a lot more glare, flare, shine and mammary glands if we were to attract a wider audience.

 

That being said, I think people who are into flight simulations, will sooner or later find their way to DCS. The main flight sim hubs out there report on DCS goings on quite regularly.

Other people who prefer CoD will... well... prefer CoD, and no amount of pretty youtube videos would change that.

 

Except maybe if JJ Abrams were to direct it.

 

 

EDIT:

Maybe, MAYBE, there's one way... Get Psy to use DCS footage in one of his inane babble of stupid videos. That would surely generate a billion views from an audience worldwide.

But would you like DCS to be in any way connected to Psy? Opa Sukhoi Style?

Edited May 10, 2013 by ishtmail

[cichlidfan]

Billboards, that's the ticket!! We need DCS billboards along the worlds highways. :D

[ericoh]

HAH! Infact i found out about DCS A-10C by a random click on a random youtube video! I wouldve never ever stumled over it otherwise. It realy has a marketing problem ^^ Oh btw im working in marketing lol

[Raven68]

Billboards, that's the ticket!! We need DCS billboards along the worlds highways. :D

 

You might have something there cichlidfan!!! With all this hacking and coding knowledge on these boards there could be a few here that may be able to patch into some of these new electronic billboards along the highway. :smilewink:

[Yellonet]

There's never any mention of DCS, or flight sims in general on any major games site, Gamespot, IGN and the like, the rare reviews I've seen leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe we could start spreading the word of DCS to forums on some of these games sites.

[Rusty_M]

A lot of them reviewed Black Shark. Some reviewed A-10. Remember IGN complaining that the maverick's rocket motor didn't burn all the way to the target? Then it all went quiet. Maybe I should review some modules on VoxelArcade. I know it's hardly high-profile, but I don't see anything else I could do.

[EtherealN]

According to ED the AFM is the hardest part, and if you think building 2 different AFM's is not gonna slow down the progress of the F/A-18C:

a) The F/A-18C AFM is completed

b) You are wrong.

 

Sorry I'm late, flew to russia and have been busy. :)

 

First: where did ED state that?

And no, even if that was true, a and b does not follow.

 

Serioulsy, I do not understand where you get those ideas from.

 

It is different people that work of different parts, according to their speciality. This is exactly the same thing as why you don't have an artist do netcode. Also, something being difficult is not (necessarily) the same as that thing taking more man-hours. (Percentage of available man-hours adjusted for their specialities might be different though, and other projects - including military - might of course influence this.)

 

Everything depends on the available resources.

 

But specifically, to your question: how did you reach the conclusion that:

 

1) F-15C and Su-27 will be given AFM's.

2) These aircraft will, in future, be developed into A-10C level modules.

 

...lead you to concluding that they were delayed by this?

Your conclusion requires that "A-10C level" does not require - indeed should not have - an AFM. THAT is my point. And the MA project indicates this quite nicely, as you are aware.

 

A possible cause for the delay is that the current engine can't handle radars in a realistic way and the engine need to be reworked. In either case, ED should tell us the real reasons, and not try to sneak around the issues.

 

So... since when do the avionics people develop AFMs?

 

Yes, the avionics are a massive deal. But what you need to remember is that it is different people doing it. (And no, telling people of another speciality to do it instead does not mean it gets done faster nor better, same way you don't tell a sysadmin to write an operating system.)

 

See my point now?

[SkateZilla]

the most the AFM guys would need to know in regards to avionics is prolly the Arg Animation Numbers for the Gauges and Instruments that are linked to the flight model DLL/Binaries.... and that's if they dont already have them in an externalized cockpit system.

 

there's prolly an entirely different group of programmers working on avionics and cockpit systems.

 

*gotta love my random off the wall assumptions.

[Dejjvid]

Sorry I'm late, flew to russia and have been busy. :)

 

First: where did ED state that?

And no, even if that was true, a and b does not follow.

 

Serioulsy, I do not understand where you get those ideas from.

 

It is different people that work of different parts, according to their speciality. This is exactly the same thing as why you don't have an artist do netcode. Also, something being difficult is not (necessarily) the same as that thing taking more man-hours. (Percentage of available man-hours adjusted for their specialities might be different though, and other projects - including military - might of course influence this.)

 

Everything depends on the available resources.

 

But specifically, to your question: how did you reach the conclusion that:

 

1) F-15C and Su-27 will be given AFM's.

2) These aircraft will, in future, be developed into A-10C level modules.

 

...lead you to concluding that they were delayed by this?

Your conclusion requires that "A-10C level" does not require - indeed should not have - an AFM. THAT is my point. And the MA project indicates this quite nicely, as you are aware.

 

 

 

So... since when do the avionics people develop AFMs?

 

Yes, the avionics are a massive deal. But what you need to remember is that it is different people doing it. (And no, telling people of another speciality to do it instead does not mean it gets done faster nor better, same way you don't tell a sysadmin to write an operating system.)

 

See my point now?

 

Actually, i don't see your point ;)

 

If ED have two devs focusing on AFM's. Both are busy on project A, i can't see how they can code on project B at the same time.

 

And about the AFM's for the F-15C and Su-27, Wags stated it in his update:

Both of these aircraft will have the same detailed 3D models, cockpits and sounds of the Flaming Cliffs 3 versions, but we will be adding an Advanced Flight Model (AFM) for each.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Dejjvid

[Pikey]

I really have no idea why people get all internet-angry when features are added. It's a great thing that ED are adding AFM and 3d pits to the two key planes because it's where the heart of the multiplayer is right now. Core pvp and casual players. I would rather the skies be full of migs than be empty and i'm unloading a full rack of vikrs on units below. What is the point of multiplayer combat if it doesn't present a threat? Folks are getting so upset about being killed in multiplayer. But then if you dont want a challenge go make a few trucks to kill in a single player mission? It's a game, and a great game at that. Don't get mad. Get even. Or hide behind a house.

[fedor]

ED....we don't want a FC aircraft updates now...WE WANT A DCS: Fighter. The

community need this and then you can make updates about anything. Is this hard to understand?

[Pizzicato]

Is this hard to understand?

 

It's roughly as hard to understand as the idea that this very vocal community represents only a fraction of the wishes and desires of ED's much wider consumer base.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Pizzicato
typo

[Hellfire257]

Actually, i don't see your point ;)

 

If ED have two devs focusing on AFM's. Both are busy on project A, i can't see how they can code on project B at the same time.

 

Coder A is working on AFM because he specialises in physics and flight models. Coder B is working on avionics because that is what he is used to coding.

 

This is why coders work in teams. This technique is known as parallel development. Development teams very rarely work in a single stranded linear fashion, as per your example.

[cichlidfan]

...this very vocal community represents only a fraction of wishes and desires of ED's much wider consumer base.

 

^^^ Exactly.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

...and since coder A has nearly finished the Su-27 and F-15C AFM, they can announce that while coder A works with the F/A-18C's AFM (which has probably been in the works for a while).

 

Or perhaps coder A finished the F/A-18 and that's why he's working on the Su-27/F-15C.

 

Either way, we won't be getting it until the systems and avionics are laid out anyway. Why keep the whole developing team on hold if you can use it wisely and attend the wishes of everyone - we'll be getting our fighter alright, while the lower fidelity (not low, just LOWER than DCS) aircraft get a few miles closer to their DCS modules :)

[SkateZilla]

...and since coder A has nearly finished the Su-27 and F-15C AFM, they can announce that while coder A works with the F/A-18C's AFM (which has probably been in the works for a while).

 

Or perhaps coder A finished the F/A-18 and that's why he's working on the Su-27/F-15C.

 

Either way, we won't be getting it until the systems and avionics are laid out anyway. Why keep the whole developing team on hold if you can use it wisely and attend the wishes of everyone - we'll be getting our fighter alright, while the lower fidelity (not low, just LOWER than DCS) aircraft get a few miles closer to their DCS modules :)

 

that's a lot of assumptions regarding coder A's assignments...

[Lucas_From_Hell]

They're all hypothetical examples to try to get across that the Su-27 and F-15C World modules will not affect or delay the upcoming DCS:F/A-18C module, no actual assumptions made :)

 

Just fairly annoying to see such a strong reaction about a realism improvement just because it is not what one share of the costumer base wants (even though it reflects the majority of the market - including new players), especially considering that the main reason there's been such an outrage is because people get the idea that anything that's released before DCS:Fighter is putting said module off, while that's not really true considering it has been discussed over an over by people from ED that right now the biggest setback of this kind of aircraft is the accurate implementation of radar and other systems within the engine and also within the confidentiality restrictions which come with nearly any modern active military equipment. AFM implementation won't do any harm to pretty much anyone.

 

PS: My apologies to said coder A for the misunderstanding though, keep up the good work Mr. A :D

[EtherealN]

Actually, i don't see your point ;)

 

If ED have two devs focusing on AFM's. Both are busy on project A, i can't see how they can code on project B at the same time.

 

And about the AFM's for the F-15C and Su-27, Wags stated it in his update:

 

How about this then:

Project X has two parts. A and B.

A is expected to require 2 years.

B is expected to take 1 year.

 

Shoul part B's coders spend 1 year on paid vacation, or might it be useful for them to spend that free year on something else, preferably within their field?

 

And no, it is not (necessarily) possible to speed up part A. Too many chefs etcetera.

Edited May 11, 2013 by EtherealN

[3instein]

LOL, I think this thread has left the building and got a taxi.

 

I personally,though disappointed that I won't be flying an F-18 or any other HF aircraft for probably 2+ years,I will buy the planned modules stated.

I don't own FC3, so the chance to fly other aircraft in DCS World appeals to me very much and for ED to be rid of ties to other publishers is a leap forward at least.

 

The future does indeed look bright for ED and their partners,and I am glad to be a passenger on this journey.

I have been flying sims since the early 80's and seen them come and go,so I applaud ED for their vision and tenacity.

Mick. :thumbup:

[Dejjvid]

Coder A is working on AFM because he specialises in physics and flight models. Coder B is working on avionics because that is what he is used to coding.

 

This is why coders work in teams. This technique is known as parallel development. Development teams very rarely work in a single stranded linear fashion, as per your example.

 

O M G, you cant take my example with two "AFM devs" and assume one of them is a avionics guy to prove your point.. :megalol:

 

Ok, let's put it like this.

 

We have ONE dev assigned to do three different AFM's.

 

If he is currently working on project C (50% done).

Suddenly he have to switch to project A and B and finish them.

Is project C delayed?

[ishtmail]

Jebus, Dejjvid...

 

Which AFM project has been announced, that has now been delayed with the announcement of SU27 and F15C AFMs?

 

As far as I know, only these two AFMs are being developed, and only these two have been announced for sure, to be completed in the following months.

 

So how can these two AFMs DELAY anything?

 

 

If you're thinking about DCS:FA18, that's a project that's still in PLANNING, ergo the developer working on AFMs has his hands free to do SU27 and F15C AFMs. By the time ED goes into real FA18 development, the dev will already have finished SU27 and F15C AFMs and will be able to do his part for FA18 (which will need several other developers, 3D modelers and designers to complete).

 

So, I just don't see any delays here.

[Yellonet]

that's a lot of assumptions regarding coder A's assignments...

Yeah, I mean WTH man, give coder B and C some love!

[EtherealN]

O M G, you cant take my example with two "AFM devs" and assume one of them is a avionics guy to prove your point.. :megalol:

 

Ok, let's put it like this.

 

We have ONE dev assigned to do three different AFM's.

 

If he is currently working on project C (50% done).

Suddenly he have to switch to project A and B and finish them.

Is project C delayed?

 

Your question cannot be answered, because there is insufficient information.

ONLY if literally EVERYTHING else in the project is already complete can you make that assumption. Why are you assuming such things?

 

Please check my last response once more.

[Rusty_M]

Yeah, I mean WTH man, give coder B and C some love!

 

No need. Coder C's busy getting love from Jenny in Accounts.