DCS Fragmentation

[S3NTRY11]

Before I get to the crux, and before I cop the hot flame of overreaction, I just want to say that this is a concern, not a criticism, and am more opening up a dialogue about the issue, than anything; I would like peoples opinions. I'm sure there are many that won't even see it as an issue at all.

 

I feel that the DCS series is becoming a little fragmented. I think it first occurred with the P51, and was furthered by the UH-1 (although, to be fair, the Huey really is able to span eras like no other system).

 

I think that there needs to be a tighter binding between releases and the era that releases are associated with. While I can fully appreciate that people would find appeal in releases like the P51, UH-1 and F35, the problem occurs that there's no real opposing analogue for what is being released, and it's happening with a lot more frequency.

 

The A10 had the SU25, and KA50 from the same era, but everything since has be anachronistic. The P51 is by itself, without much air or ground kin (Dora is on its way, but not exactly era-comprehensive); the Huey has nothing from its defining era (Mig21 is on its way, but again, no real comprehensive ground or air components).

 

When the F35 is released it will again be effectively in its own element - I don't really see many situations where many aircraft will co-exist in genuine multiplayer scenarios (it's similar to pitting the P51 against the F18 - compleetely unmatched, so it will effectively live by itself in the air - dominating).

 

It just seems like there should be more focus on the main era of 4th generation aircraft and systems, because

• So much of the assets already exist;
  
• So many of the avionics systems already exist;
  
• It allows for scenarios involving more aircraft types;
  
• The environment can feel more alive with similar systems;
  
• It doesn't feel like a joyflight scenario because there's nothing around that is from the same era (scenery, assets, etc); and
  
• Resources can be more focused.
  

 

ED obviously have their plan, and A10c was such a stand-out product ( I cannot wait for the F18 ), I just feel that with the advent of 3rd Party developers coming on the scene, the focus is wavering. Am I justified in thinking so?

[Double_D]

Before I get to the crux, and before I cop the hot flame of overreaction, I just want to say that this is a concern, not a criticism, and am more opening up a dialogue about the issue, than anything; I would like peoples opinions. I'm sure there are many that won't even see it as an issue at all.

 

I feel that the DCS series is becoming a little fragmented. I think it first occurred with the P51, and was furthered by the UH-1 (although, to be fair, the Huey really is able to span eras like no other system).

 

I think that there needs to be a tighter binding between releases and the era that releases are associated with. While I can fully appreciate that people would find appeal in releases like the P51, UH-1 and F35, the problem occurs that there's no real opposing analogue for what is being released, and it's happening with a lot more frequency.

 

The A10 had the SU25, and KA50 from the same era, but everything since has be anachronistic. The P51 is by itself, without much air or ground kin (Dora is on its way, but not exactly era-comprehensive); the Huey has nothing from its defining era (Mig21 is on its way, but again, no real comprehensive ground or air components).

 

When the F35 is released it will again be effectively in its own element - I don't really see many situations where many aircraft will co-exist in genuine multiplayer scenarios (it's similar to pitting the P51 against the F18 - compleetely unmatched, so it will effectively live by itself in the air - dominating).

 

It just seems like there should be more focus on the main era of 4th generation aircraft and systems, because

• So much of the assets already exist;
  
• So many of the avionics systems already exist;
  
• It allows for scenarios involving more aircraft types;
  
• The environment can feel more alive with similar systems;
  
• It doesn't feel like a joyflight scenario because there's nothing around that is from the same era (scenery, assets, etc); and
  
• Resources can be more focused.
  

 

ED obviously have their plan, and A10c was such a stand-out product ( I cannot wait for the F18 ), I just feel that with the advent of 3rd Party developers coming on the scene, the focus is wavering. Am I justified in thinking so?

 

 

I dis-agree with you on this..DCS/ED is doing the wise choice..of deversifying to please the mass in offering different aircraft for all.

 

A smart company grows and stays in business is one that see the whole picture outside of the box..and expands as the need arises...

 

By improving on the engine core of Lock On...they maintain their core members and expand to a new larger user base..

 

As for aircraft meeting each other of the same era..DCS did announce for the P-51D Mustang they did say that the FW-190 is in the works along with other projects..same goes for the Jets..

 

I think you are getting ahead of yourself..

 

Cheers..:thumbup:

[S3NTRY11]

...deversifying to please the mass in offering different aircraft for all.

 

A smart company grows and stays in business is one that see the whole picture outside of the box..and expands as the need arises...

 

I see what you're saying, but I'm more of the opinion that you're better off doing one thing really well, rather than attempting to overstretch for little return. Was the P51 really all that popular?

 

As for aircraft meeting each other of the same era..DCS did announce for the P-51D Mustang they did say that the FW-190 is in the works along with other projects..same goes for the Jets..

 

I did acknowledge that, but also stated that it's a little strange for old birds to be zipping about in the modern era... with no other assets from their era present.

 

I think you are getting ahead of yourself..

 

I disagree, I think this is the perfect time to be speaking of it.

[cheap charlie]

Before I get to the crux, and before I cop the hot flame of overreaction, I just want to say that this is a concern, not a criticism, and am more opening up a dialogue about the issue, than anything; I would like peoples opinions. I'm sure there are many that won't even see it as an issue at all.

 

I feel that the DCS series is becoming a little fragmented. I think it first occurred with the P51, and was furthered by the UH-1 (although, to be fair, the Huey really is able to span eras like no other system).

 

I think that there needs to be a tighter binding between releases and the era that releases are associated with. While I can fully appreciate that people would find appeal in releases like the P51, UH-1 and F35, the problem occurs that there's no real opposing analogue for what is being released, and it's happening with a lot more frequency.

 

The A10 had the SU25, and KA50 from the same era, but everything since has be anachronistic. The P51 is by itself, without much air or ground kin (Dora is on its way, but not exactly era-comprehensive); the Huey has nothing from its defining era (Mig21 is on its way, but again, no real comprehensive ground or air components).

 

When the F35 is released it will again be effectively in its own element - I don't really see many situations where many aircraft will co-exist in genuine multiplayer scenarios (it's similar to pitting the P51 against the F18 - compleetely unmatched, so it will effectively live by itself in the air - dominating).

 

It just seems like there should be more focus on the main era of 4th generation aircraft and systems, because

• So much of the assets already exist;
  
• So many of the avionics systems already exist;
  
• It allows for scenarios involving more aircraft types;
  
• The environment can feel more alive with similar systems;
  
• It doesn't feel like a joyflight scenario because there's nothing around that is from the same era (scenery, assets, etc); and
  
• Resources can be more focused.
  

 

ED obviously have their plan, and A10c was such a stand-out product ( I cannot wait for the F18 ), I just feel that with the advent of 3rd Party developers coming on the scene, the focus is wavering. Am I justified in thinking so?

 

I agree, my P51 is in the hanger. If I bought the P51 purely excited by historic prop aircraft I would have walked by now. There is not even a campaign for it and is in la la land in multi player

However the A10 keeps me in the game......... the P51 is a big dissapointment

[TZeer]

A non issue imo.

 

People will buy and invest in the modules that interest them.

 

ED delivers the DCS World core, 3rd parties deliver the product they can based on their experience and knowledge.

 

Forcing everyone to build modules around your personal preference wouldn't necessarily mean you would get an overall better final product....

 

And there's more to multiplayer then "air quake"

[Double_D]

 

 

 

I did acknowledge that, but also stated that it's a little strange for old birds to be zipping about in the modern era... with no other assets from their era present.

 

I do believe you see P-51D Mustang's and other aircraft of that era still flying around today, the age of the jet engine..and yes there is a great following..of the Mustang and other vintage aircraft..

 

 

I disagree, I think this is the perfect time to be speaking of it.

 

I am sure they are aware of the different views for what direction DCS/ED should go but they are there and we are here..if we knew better then we would be in the driver seat..if you dis-agree with the vintage aircraft no one is forcing you to purchase...DCS/ED are looking forward to a new level for the aircraft simulations..and offering to please all masses...

 

If they had not added the P-51D I know in my view I would have not made another purchase since FC2..but in doing so..I have now made many more purchases..like CA,DCS-A10c,Huey and hopefully many more exciting addons to follow...:thumbup:

[Double_D]

I agree, my P51 is in the hanger. If I bought the P51 purely excited by historic prop aircraft I would have walked by now. There is not even a campaign for it and is in la la land in multi player

However the A10 keeps me in the game......... the P51 is a big dissapointment

 

No one forced you to make the purchase..if your mind set was on Jet aircraft then why purchase a prop plane..

 

Myself I like the deversity..of the direction they are going makes for a more robust product..:thumbup:

[Bandit.]

i think that dissimilarity in air combat is actually accurate. most real life scenarios offer this.

 

look at the persian gulf war. imagine a conflict usa vs iran and you will probably find f22's going up against f-4, f-5, mig29, mirage or f14's.

 

I do agree that if you introduce a new aircraft providing an acceptable counterpart would be nice but some of the different era mismatches are actually probable in real life so I dont really see the problem.

[Vivoune]

Personally I both agree and disagree with you s3ntry. On one hand it's disturbing to see all this 'variety' and anachronism on the other hand I kinda see ED's public as a steady line, all modules being dots scattered widely along the whole line, in time the huge gaps will probably be filled but until then it tries to evenly place dot so most people can get something to enjoy. Personally I buy all I can to support ED, but the A-10C is the sole module that keeps me around.

[winz]

The first thing you have to realize is that not releasing p-51 or Huey (which isn't even done by ED) would not yield another 4th gen aircraft. We would have what we have now, minus the p-51 and Uh-1.

 

It's not fragmentation, it's expansion. DCS World is a great platform for different eras, not just late 80s (where even the A-10C doesn't have a place). But you have to start somewhere and take it step by step. Developing a full ww2/70s/21th package at once is just not feasible.

[S3NTRY11]

A non issue imo.

 

People will buy and invest in the modules that interest them.

 

ED delivers the DCS World core, 3rd parties deliver the product they can based on their experience and knowledge.

 

Forcing everyone to build modules around your personal preference wouldn't necessarily mean you would get an overall better final product....

 

 

I think you've almost entirely missed my point.

 

Your implication that it's due to my personal preference is way off. If DCS was all WWII I'd be saying it should stick to WWII or bring in modern-era when it has enough assets to do it justice. My personal preference has little (nothing) to do with it. Please re-read my post.

 

And there's more to multiplayer then "air quake"

Not sure where you got "air quake" from.

[S3NTRY11]

no one is forcing you to purchase...

 

This argument kinda works against itself in this context.

[TZeer]

Not sure where you got "air quake" from.

 

When the F35 is released it will again be effectively in its own element - I don't really see many situations where many aircraft will co-exist in genuine multiplayer scenarios (it's similar to pitting the P51 against the F18 - compleetely unmatched, so it will effectively live by itself in the air - dominating).

 

 

If DCS was all WWII I'd be saying it should stick to WWII or bring in modern-era when it has enough assets to do it justice.

 

That would reduce the total people playing DCS, and it would reduce the revenue for ED, in the end making it even harder to make high fidelity modules.

[S3NTRY11]

i think that dissimilarity in air combat is actually accurate. most real life scenarios offer this.

 

look at the persian gulf war. imagine a conflict usa vs iran and you will probably find f22's going up against f-4, f-5, mig29, mirage or f14's.

 

I do agree that if you introduce a new aircraft providing an acceptable counterpart would be nice but some of the different era mismatches are actually probable in real life so I don't really see the problem.

 

Fair point, but there's no realistic scenario where this is possible with the assets that exist or are on the horizon. But I do see what you're saying. Mig21 vs f35 - fair enough. F18 vs Dora... maybe not.

 

Personally I both agree and disagree with you s3ntry. On one hand it's disturbing to see all this 'variety' and anachronism on the other hand I kinda see ED's public as a steady line, all modules being dots scattered widely along the whole line, in time the huge gaps will probably be filled but until then it tries to evenly place dot so most people can get something to enjoy. Personally I buy all I can to support ED, but the A-10C is the sole module that keeps me around.

 

I guess my point is that those gaps you speak of aren't big, they're HUGE, to the point that high-fidelity systems will simply never span them.

 

The first thing you have to realize is that not releasing p-51 or Huey (which isn't even done by ED) would not yield another 4th gen aircraft. We would have what we have now, minus the p-51 and Uh-1.

That lends itself to my point, I think that if 3rd Party devs were working on similar airframes it would add cohesion to the whole package.

Developing a full ww2/70s/21th package at once is just not feasible.

If you focused on one I would say it's much more achievable in a reasonable timeframe with 3rd Party support.

[Double_D]

The first thing you have to realize is that not releasing p-51 or Huey (which isn't even done by ED) would not yield another 4th gen aircraft. We would have what we have now, minus the p-51 and Uh-1.

 

It's not fragmentation, it's expansion. DCS World is a great platform for different eras, not just late 80s (where even the A-10C doesn't have a place). But you have to start somewhere and take it step by step. Developing a full ww2/70s/21th package at once is just not feasible.

 

 

Well said!

[S3NTRY11]

That would reduce the total people playing DCS, and it would reduce the revenue for ED, in the end making it even harder to make high fidelity modules.

 

I disagree. I think the effort spent on the P51 would have been spent on common era assets. What you would lose in P51 customers you would likely pickup in people buying whatever modern era aircraft was developed.

[Double_D]

Fair point, but there's no realistic scenario where this is possible with the assets that exist or are on the horizon. But I do see what you're saying. Mig21 vs f35 - fair enough. F18 vs Dora... maybe not.

 

 

 

I guess my point is that those gaps you speak of aren't big, they're HUGE, to the point that high-fidelity systems will simply never span them.

 

 

That lends itself to my point, I think that if 3rd Party devs were working on similar airframes it would add cohesion to the whole package.

If you focused on one I would say it's much more achievable in a reasonable timeframe with 3rd Party support.

 

 

A successful company expands to all levels it can achieve..staying focused on one ( let's say one aircraft ) as a company its assets will be limited in growth...in order to expand into other aircraft takes money..to develop whether real or simulated..DCS/ED took this direction to expand this simulator..plus adding other developers into their development team..to help expand..it is up to you to choose what direction you wish to go and not judge on what other members are forced to choose..I personally like " Options " of what to purchase and what doesn't appeal to me..remember not everything is a high priced sports car...some like vintage vehicles..

[Double_D]

I disagree. I think the effort spent on the P51 would have been spent on common era assets. What you would lose in P51 customers you would likely pickup in people buying whatever modern era aircraft was developed.

 

Once again I mentioned if it weren't for the P-51D I would have still only be using the FC2 version..

 

The P-51D gave more interest for me and I do believe others to continue to see and make purchases in favour of future developement of other aircraft..

[winz]

That lends itself to my point, I think that if 3rd Party devs were working on similar airframes it would add cohesion to the whole package.

The problem is that 3rd party devs are free entities. You cannot force them to develop something they a) don't want to b) don't feel confident enough to do.

Just because Belsimtek did a great Uh-1 sim doesn't mean they are cappable of doing a great Ah-64 Sim. Beczls Mig-21 looks great, does that mean he is able to do a DCS level Tornado, or any other 4th gen airframe? And If not, then he shouldn't be allowed to develop for DCS World, because of your 'fragmentation'? ;)

 

It has to work the other way around, if DCS World proves its capability as a base platform for an era then more developer focusing on that era(currently developing for other platforms) will come to DCS.

[Cedaway]

For Single player Missions and campaign:

Since we have consistent / coherent maps, assets (ground-naval-air), to 'immerse' the player, why not go with diversification. Some missions/campaign are well done, other suffers or will suffer from that uchrony or from simply the place of the world the events take place (For example, I don't like the idea of P-51d fighting FW-190D9 above the current map)... One good point was that there are some great people working at ED and in collaboration with 3rd parties to make those missions 'credible' (Like the amazing UN UH-1H campain).

 

One thing, especially for the WW2 era aircraft:

What I would like to see for this particular era is :

- Scenaries where actual aerial battle took place

- Great amount of aircraft aloft (not just 2 or 3 but massive air raids with bombers and fighters like during the warmest part of the battle of Britain and the retaliation by the allies up to the heart of Germany)

OK, OK, for that, some would call and say 'go play IL-2 or CLOD,...' Yup, that's fair. But I hope see a day that we could choose our era/scenary in relation with our aircraft into DCS World. (Not for tomorrow but it's still a hope)

First great enhance to come: EDGE. After this, maybe should we see 3rd parties develop and release terrain packages or 'era of assets' packages (like Beczl did with his enhanced ground objects mod IIRC)

 

For Multiplayer sessions:

Since the host can choose the 'ROE', no problem.

[TZeer]

I disagree. I think the effort spent on the P51 would have been spent on common era assets. What you would lose in P51 customers you would likely pickup in people buying whatever modern era aircraft was developed.

 

And I disagree with you :)

 

Modern era aircraft would take much longer to develop, simply by all the avionics and systems you would need to simulate.

 

With a less complex AC, they use shorter time, and it generates revenue.

Also remember all the other stuff they work on. EDGE, DCS World, network improvement, bug fixing on existing modules.

 

Just because a certain module is out of beta doesn't mean they have the resources available at that time to start on a full fledge high fidelity fast mover. So in that case it's a clever move to work on a less complex aircraft until the necessary resources are available.

[Double_D]

Case in point: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=108332

 

Not everyone has the same view of what aircraft..this would be a stalement in the chess world..other than the fact " Edge " comes out on top...

[Cedaway]

I disagree. I think the effort spent on the P51 would have been spent on common era assets. What you would lose in P51 customers you would likely pickup in people buying whatever modern era aircraft was developed.

 

Valid point, but I'd take the opposite direction: It's great from ED to have open the gates to the WW2 era... But now, someone has to cross that gate and continue that way...

ED opened many doors but can't develop all era/aircraft by itself. ED had the great idea to 'open' DCS World to 3rd parties. It's merely up to them now to 'fill the gap'. Again, I hope EDGE will come with good surprises and could make 3rd party scenaries possible.

[BIGNEWY]

It really all comes down to the mission designer, to include or exclude an aircraft based on what the mission objectives are.

 

For shrek missions we run as many aircraft as possible, even have P-51's in bird dog roles.

 

Sure there will eventually be a split depending on the aircraft, but I see it as DCS expanding into new avenues, hell if we Had DCS Vietnam with the HUEY and cobras and all the rest of the vietnam era I would be in there all the time.

 

Whatever happens DCS is going to be great, the community needs to adapt and make it there own which ever way it goes, its up to us.

[S3NTRY11]

remember not everything is a high priced sports car...some like vintage vehicles..

 

If you like vintage vehicles, you're not going to buy one that's half-Murciélago, half-Flint.