DCS Fragmentation

[Double_D]

I wish I could fly that bird. I can't get it off the ground in sim mode. But then I stopped working with it a while back. I hope to get back into practice at some point and try to tame the beast.

 

You can always join us on Team Speak and our members will be more than happy to help get it off the ground amongst other flight senerio's

 

cheers

 

VTA-Double_D:thumbup:

[Hamblue]

I also think that there isn't a single focus but it might not be a bad thing.

What I do think is a bad thing is that a few years into the product line and we have a product called "World" that only encompasses an area about 1/4th the size of Iraq. With fast moving jets it's like swimming in a bath tub. Maybe Edge will surprise us and give us something more but even becoming an add on to another program like Xplane would make more sense.

 

Just my 2 cents, Keep the change ;)

[blksolo]

I too think that the P-51 is out of place,they should create DCS time frames for aircraft. For instance DCS Nam,DCS WW2,DCS Modern,and group aircraft and servers accordingly. If I'm on a mission in my F-15 and a P-51 patrol flies by realism just went out the window.

[pyates2104]

Fragmentation and the future

 

Firstly, thanks for starting this thread on a subject I think there is a wide variety of thought on.

 

I agree in principal that DCS should NOT be pandering to the masses and should concentrate on a structured platform geared to-wards quality and authenticity rather than a disparate collection of multi era aircraft and systems. Microsoft tried to pander with MS flight and got their claws clipped. I love the Huey, I love the A10C, I love the Mustang... I love all of them, however once the novelty wears off, I need something that is going to keep my attention. The only way to keep peoples attention is for there to be rich authentic single and multi player environments available and for the type of aircraft to support this. I'd much rather see development of more 80's and 90's era products that will expand the original genre. The Mustang is great, but what do you do with it? after multiple dogfights with 109's and a few strafing runs on low tech convoys, life gets a bit boring. Wouldn't it be better to develop MIG 23's, 29's F15 and Tomcat full def aircraft?

 

If DCS really want to cover all of these different eras, they need to enhance their existing ground units to also cover them, being able to select an era in the mission editors and generators would also ad to this. I still think however that to cover such a broad span of equipment, systems and theaters from the 1940's through to the present day is too much of an ask and would be unachievable.

[Double_D]

Firstly, thanks for starting this thread on a subject I think there is a wide variety of thought on.

 

I agree in principal that DCS should NOT be pandering to the masses

 

 

You are not serious! If they did that then they would/could lose a great number of New members who jumped on board with the new modules starting with the P-51D Mustang..

 

A developer cannot just focus on just one area..and hope that satisfies..the many that doesn't work..cause like me I would complain where is what I want and when..instead of this bird..think as a retail store..which has many products up for sale..and for all to choose at their desire...that how business works..supply and demand..

 

This thread story should end now..:thumbup:

[Exorcet]

being able to select an era in the mission editors and generators would also ad to this.

As a suggestion type mission design assist, this is a good idea. However to enforce hard limits isn't too helpful, or even desirable unless you're trying to recreate a 100% historically accurate conflict or mission. In other words, you would be limiting the sim only to combat that has taken place and eliminate any what if scenarios or interesting events that just missed occuring (ie if Ta-183 was able to be produced in numbers during WWII). Those are just as legitimate as recreating historical situations and may also be more interesting since you're not bound to a story that you know the ending to.

 

Short version: Some indication of unit timelines would be nice as a reference, but the editor should be as it is now with the ability to place anything anywhere.

[Double_D]

I too think that the P-51 is out of place,they should create DCS time frames for aircraft. For instance DCS Nam,DCS WW2,DCS Modern,and group aircraft and servers accordingly. If I'm on a mission in my F-15 and a P-51 patrol flies by realism just went out the window.

 

This is a good example of members not checking all relative posts..Matt sort mentioned of someways going into the development direction ...as far as F-15 and P-51D Mustang's will hardly occur...most jets missions will relate to only jets whereas the Mustang missions will relate to WWII era..

[TaliG]

Hi everyone.

 

There is no fragmentation in the DCS World, at least as you think of it. It just followed the path of MS flight simulator.

This is good because:

 

1. It gives oportunity to developers to produse material that in other sircumstances would have been descarded in the first place.

2. Broadens our comunity without forceing anyone to fly with or against something else that he fills it is not in his particular interest. (noone forces you to fly a SP or MP mission that you do not like)There are MP servers for averyone, SP missions for everyone, why not flying ''objects'' for everyone then?Noone forces you to include a glider in a pinpoint strike mission, how do you force someone that doesnt fly a long range bomber to not be able to take a glider and soar the winds?

 

Jetheads and mudmovers: please be more kind to our new prop:pilotfly: friends..this people come from an older era...

 

Oldtime :pilotfly: please be more kind to us :joystick:, because our litle dirty sicret is that we faithfully whait at least 7 years for a study fighter simulator and when we see others get what they want and quik...we feal :mad:

 

The REAL fragmentation is the ''EDGE'' that will come with Nevada.

It will bring us dx11 but please explain to me this:

Mister Wags said that DCS World is the base, right?

We only pay for modules, right?

Nevada will be a theatre module, right?

Please explain me how dx9 can coexist with dx11 in the same DCS World. (2 seperate theater of operations)

If they cannot coexist, am I going to be forced to buy Nevada to continue public MP and SP with dx11 suport? and dump my ''second neigborhood''?

 

Either this will be the largest DCS World fragmentation of all times

or I am just having a bad day:doh:

 

PS please be kind towards my pronunciation and grammar mistakes:(

[DeJohn]

I'm sorry you feel its fragmented, and I can see what you are saying. Awhile back I tried A-10C Warthog a friend of mine had. I found it a bit complicated for me, which in turn I never got into DCS. That is until they brought out the UH-1H Huey, now thats from my era and something I can understand, being a rotor-head myself.

So because of what ED has done has brought me and I'm sure many others into the DCS World where we might not have otherwise.

 

DJ

[farcry550]

I'm sorry you feel its fragmented, and I can see what you are saying. Awhile back I tried A-10C Warthog a friend of mine had. I found it a bit complicated for me, which in turn I never got into DCS. That is until they brought out the UH-1H Huey, now thats from my era and something I can understand, being a rotor-head myself.

So because of what ED has done has brought me and I'm sure many others into the DCS World where we might not have otherwise.

 

DJ

Same exact thing with me. Got the A-10C wanting to learn an aircraft, but it was just too complicated for me. I quit DCS for about a year until the P-51D came out. I decided to try that, and now I'm playing more than ever. I'm even starting to learn the A-10C and I can finally get the thing off the ground. Because they were diverse, I got into a wonderful hobby and now flying with a bunch of great guys learning the Mustang. I quickly became a VTA member with open arms, and I met them all because DCS decided to branch out a bit. I personally disagree with them being fragmented, and I am glad they are branching out to more types of crowds.

 

Farcry550

Edited July 9, 2013 by farcry550

[Slazi]

I like the variation. I admit the P-51 doesn't really have much use, but this originally was an internal test project that they decided to release because people might find it fun to fly.

 

I have all the modules now (P-51, Combined Arms, and FC3 in the sale) and having the ability to play with so many toys is great. It is up to mission makers to balance things.

 

Keep things the way they are. Allow people to do what they want. If one era is more popular, teams will want to release modules for that era because they will sell fast. I think DCS has a bright future with its open door policy.

[Flogger23m]

I agree with the P-51 but not the UH-1H. The P-51 is just far too dated and requires entirely new assets. The AAs, trucks, and armor do not match the timeline.

 

In time, a full WWII simulator can be made, but that will take a very long time judging by the rate ED releases content. By that time the P-51 will likely be very dated and in need of an upgrade. And then there is the new IL-2 game which will feature only on WWII and all of its assets.

 

I would rather have ED and others focus on the current theme of 1970-2000 aircraft. Aircraft and variants from the 60s can also fit in (such as the A-4) as equipment from the 60s, such as the SA-2, SA-3 and A-4 all served well into the 80-90s.

[Nirvi]

The REAL fragmentation is the ''EDGE'' that will come with Nevada.

It will bring us dx11 but please explain to me this:

Mister Wags said that DCS World is the base, right?

We only pay for modules, right?

Nevada will be a theatre module, right?

Please explain me how dx9 can coexist with dx11 in the same DCS World. (2 seperate theater of operations)

If they cannot coexist, am I going to be forced to buy Nevada to continue public MP and SP with dx11 suport? and dump my ''second neigborhood''?

 

Either this will be the largest DCS World fragmentation of all times

or I am just having a bad day:doh:

 

I guess it will work something like this:

You're in the MP Lobby and join a server running the current Georgia map -> DCS.exe starts as always, and you are flying on the DX9 Georgia map.

 

If you join a server with the Nevada map ->DCS_EDGE.exe or whatever will start and you are flying on the DX11 nevada map.

[Grimes]

As a suggestion type mission design assist, this is a good idea. However to enforce hard limits isn't too helpful, or even desirable unless you're trying to recreate a 100% historically accurate conflict or mission. In other words, you would be limiting the sim only to combat that has taken place and eliminate any what if scenarios or interesting events that just missed occuring (ie if Ta-183 was able to be produced in numbers during WWII). Those are just as legitimate as recreating historical situations and may also be more interesting since you're not bound to a story that you know the ending to.

 

I think I put in a request for that somewhere down the line as the units available needs to be filtered somehow as more eras are added. But you also brought up an interesting point of "what-if" and its power to create an interesting scenario. Probably one of the greatest games ever created was based on the idea of "what if Albert Einstein went back in time and killed Hitler?" The Soviets would totally have had Giant Squids attacking aircraft carriers thats what would happen! Ok that is an extreme example, but the concept still applies.

[winz]

I guess it will work something like this:

You're in the MP Lobby and join a server running the current Georgia map -> DCS.exe starts as always, and you are flying on the DX9 Georgia map.

 

If you join a server with the Nevada map ->DCS_EDGE.exe or whatever will start and you are flying on the DX11 nevada map.

Data definition (what map you fly) is separated from rendering pipeline you use (dx9, dx11). You can render the old Georgian map in DX11, there is nothing preventing that. What's more, it will most likely have better performance, because Dx11 is more efficient API.

 

From a programming standpoint I doubt they will keep the old rendering engine. Managing two separate engines is a nightmare. It is much more easier, and makes much more sense, to add support for the old terrain format into the new engine (the same way the current engine can handle both lom and edm model formats). The terrain will still look the same, because the underlaying data haven't changed.

Edited July 9, 2013 by winz

[TaliG]

Data definition (what map you fly) is separated from rendering pipeline you use (dx9, dx11). You can render the old Georgian map in DX11, there is nothing preventing that. What's more, it will most likely have better performance, because Dx11 is more efficient API.

 

From a programming standpoint I doubt they will keep the old rendering engine. Managing two separate engines is a nightmare. It is much more easier, and makes much more sense, to add support for the old terrain format into the new engine (the same way the current engine can handle both lom and edm model formats). The terrain will still look the same, because the underlaying data haven't changed.

 

 

Thanks Winz:thumbup:

If it is as easy as you say it is, then you just gave me the best painkiller around :smilewink:

I am an electronics eng. and the only think I know about game and grapphics engine programing is that it must be a hell of a dificult and complicated work to emplement...

That is why I was so match conserned about it.

[S3NTRY11]

I don't even really understand your OP. This fragmentation you speak of? How is it even a problem?

 

The only place where it will be an issue is air quake. Strictly set up A2A servers with not much else. In any other situation there is absolutely no problem at all.

 

It's a problem anywhere plausibility is an issue. Sure I mean if people feel the need to have completely asymmetrical whatever, fair enough, but many scenarios are just outrageous.

 

ED never intended to dictate 'focus', in fact, Matt specifically posted that DCSW will host any vehicle of any fidelity from any era.

 

Incidentally, regarding your concerns, it's wiser to focus on environment, because frankly, a lot of people do COOP, not PvP. They need a livelier environment to play in.

 

There's no reason to mix an F-35 and a P-51, but you can if you want to ... and if you don't want to, you can have COOP campaigns with a specific aircraft or mixed with other aircraft of a similar era.

 

I don't think I ever mentioned PvP per se. Though I guess that could be assumed. To clarify, I was mainly referring to COOP. And your point makes mine for me:

COOP with P51's? Cool - what's the scenario?

 

To go COOP against ground units from a completely different era? If that's your bag, I guess.

 

How can we fix the problem of low options for air frames? 3rd party development working in concert with Eagle Dynamics. Most of the video games I've played over the years that I've enjoyed the most allow and encouraged 3rd party development. I'm not talking about other video game developers though, I'm talking about community based mods. Operation Flashpoint, ARMA, and even The Elder Scrolls (I'm busting way into another genre there) are among the best games ever made and were the easiest to mod. This led to large amounts of awesome content (and some bad content as well). The beauty was that it was fan created and free.

 

The answer is slightly different in DCS. It takes a large amount of work to make a high fidelity module and therefore it can't be made free. That's cool. But the 3rd parties can work on modules and release the modules and the more the merrier. I'll buy the ones I want and I'll not buy the ones I don't want. If I want to fly it, I'll buy it (that's my new DCS motto). The more choices I have on the marketplace the more likely I'll find something I'm willing to drop money on and thus the more air frames I'll have to choose from when I fire up the simulation. And I want more because I've dropped over $650 just on human interface devices (most of them used) to make this more enjoyable.

 

Great post, cheers.

I guess my argument to this would be that (and I am repeating myself a little, sorry) because there are so few resources to develop with, producing a wide array of airframes over differening timeframes means that the enriching of one area is at the expense of another. ie more older airframes does nothing to enrich the main era of ED products (80's - 2000's), and with so little in the way of any other assets for the older airframes, you're better off getting a rich experience with something entirely developed as an older-era sim.

 

Paying for ED products also pays for further DCSW development.

 

Suppose ED goes under - in theory you can still develop for DCSW, but there will no longer be any improvements to it.

 

I'm not going to buy airframes simply to keep ED in business. There has to be some appeal. My original post does assume a few things, I'll admit. I mean if EDs numbers say WWII airframes were a brilliant idea, who am I to argue, but unless the supporting components exist, I'll pass, thanks all the same.

 

Regardless of whether it is or not, I feel that DCS: P-51D is the single best thing to ever happen to the flight sim world, without question. I bought DCS: A-10C, too, but I seldom fly it since the P-51 was released, and it was the P-51 which brought me to DCS in the first place. You may not care about the glorious old birds (most young people don't--in fact, most people don't), but there are those of us who do.

 

That's awesome, and it really is great to hear! I hope your experience is repeated often. How do you feel about not really having anything to shoot at? Not really an issue I take it?

 

Understand that some of us might not take kindly to your implied suggestion that we be marginalized & disenfranchised.

 

I understand that this would happen in my ideal world, yes. I'm not so sure you should be offended by it?

My opinion is based on what exists now and is coming down the pipeline in terms of much older systems being modeled. I think you're not going to be getting much joy for a while regardless of what I think.

 

Agreed. I spend far more time in the P-51 than I do anything else. I bought the P-51 and A-10 at the same time, bringing me into DCS, but I have everything. The P-51 is a more fun/challenging aircraft for just flying than any other besides the Huey, and despite what some people may imply, it is not combat ineffective in this world. It is a terror against Zu-23 AAA and APCs, and will often take quite a few hits while staying airborn and being able to limp back to base.

 

That's cool, it's good that you are having fun with it. I would just find going against Zu-23's to be a little jarring, not to mention repetitive.

 

As I type this post the Virtual Aerobatics server is the most populated server in the list and usually is. This speaks volumes about what the majority prefers in the MP community. :crash:

 

Excellent point!

Can I argue though that perhaps it's the most populated because there's no real defined mission end?

 

Firstly, thanks for starting this thread on a subject I think there is a wide variety of thought on.

 

Wow, somebody thanking me?

Money should be in your account soon. ;)

 

I agree in principal that DCS should NOT be pandering to the masses and should concentrate on a structured platform geared to-wards quality and authenticity rather than a disparate collection of multi era aircraft and systems. Microsoft tried to pander with MS flight and got their claws clipped. I love the Huey, I love the A10C, I love the Mustang... I love all of them, however once the novelty wears off, I need something that is going to keep my attention. The only way to keep peoples attention is for there to be rich authentic single and multi player environments available and for the type of aircraft to support this. I'd much rather see development of more 80's and 90's era products that will expand the original genre.

 

Yes, exactly! You get my meaning.

 

The Mustang is great, but what do you do with it? after multiple dogfights with 109's and a few strafing runs on low tech convoys, life gets a bit boring. Wouldn't it be better to develop MIG 23's, 29's F15 and Tomcat full def aircraft?

 

If DCS really want to cover all of these different eras, they need to enhance their existing ground units to also cover them, being able to select an era in the mission editors and generators would also ad to this. I still think however that to cover such a broad span of equipment, systems and theaters from the 1940's through to the present day is too much of an ask and would be unachievable.

 

Bingo. I was beginning to think I was the only one that thought this.

Not to say that what most are saying isn't valid - the fact so many disagree says clearly otherwise, but this is definitely the crux of things for me.

 

As a suggestion type mission design assist, this is a good idea. However to enforce hard limits isn't too helpful, or even desirable unless you're trying to recreate a 100% historically accurate conflict or mission.

 

Historically inaccurate or "creative" is one thing, implausible is another.

 

I'm sorry you feel its fragmented, and I can see what you are saying. Awhile back I tried A-10C Warthog a friend of mine had. I found it a bit complicated for me, which in turn I never got into DCS. That is until they brought out the UH-1H Huey, now thats from my era and something I can understand, being a rotor-head myself.

So because of what ED has done has brought me and I'm sure many others into the DCS World where we might not have otherwise.

 

Nice! And a fair point, that a few others have had similar experiences with. I think I underestimated the amount of joy people get out of some of the older stuff.

Overall this lends itself to what I was saying about the Huey being able to span eras. Have you had a play with the Black Shark since getting into the Huey? I think that would be a pretty awesome progression. Such a gnarly bit of kit.

 

I agree with the P-51 but not the UH-1H. The P-51 is just far too dated and requires entirely new assets. The AAs, trucks, and armor do not match the timeline.

 

In time, a full WWII simulator can be made, but that will take a very long time judging by the rate ED releases content. By that time the P-51 will likely be very dated and in need of an upgrade. And then there is the new IL-2 game which will feature only on WWII and all of its assets.

 

I would rather have ED and others focus on the current theme of 1970-2000 aircraft. Aircraft and variants from the 60s can also fit in (such as the A-4) as equipment from the 60s, such as the SA-2, SA-3 and A-4 all served well into the 80-90s.

 

Wholeheartedly agree with pretty-much all of this.

 

 

 

The "buying the ones you want and not the ones you don't" that I keep hearing may sound like a good argument, but its actually just a different phrasing of the point I'm trying to make - I will likely NEVER buy a WWII airframe, not because I don't like the era - I actually really do - but because the supporting components just aren't there. I bought FC3 purely because of EDs decision to give away the AFM with these airframes as a show of good faith. I really appreciated that. But there is simply zero incentive for me to buy the P51.

 

Let me guess "just don't buy it". Well yes, exactly.

[GabiLaser]

Well it's clear the OP has his mind set on his opinion. This is/was not a dialog. The P-51D was made as a side project, so it didn't detract from the making of other modules. Various teams do various projects because that's their desire; you can't grab them and 'unifiy' them to do the current era etc. using the fragmentation POV reasoning, because they don't want to, simple as that.

 

For the "discussion" (i.e. rehashing of the same original fragmentation points of view) to continue, the OP must ignore repeatedly this aspect. It simply has to be how he says: the fragmentation exists, and is detrimental to the sim. The argument will be won by sheer force of determination and repetition.

[S3NTRY11]

Well it's clear the OP has his mind set on his opinion. This is/was not a dialog. The P-51D was made as a side project, so it didn't detract from the making of other modules. Various teams do various projects because that's their desire; you can't grab them and 'unifiy' them to do the current era etc. using the fragmentation POV reasoning, because they don't want to, simple as that.

 

For the "discussion" (i.e. rehashing of the same original fragmentation points of view) to continue, the OP must ignore repeatedly this aspect. It simply has to be how he says: the fragmentation exists, and is detrimental to the sim. The argument will be won by sheer force of determination and repetition.

 

But I acknowledge people's good points wherever they are.

Has my opinion been swayed? No.

Do I sometimes need to iterate my point? Yes, because it seems as if my point was not understood in some cases.

 

It seems as if, to you, unless my opinion is changed it's not a dialogue?

 

I understand what you are saying regarding 3rd Party developers, but I think that is part of the problem I'm speaking of.

 

Also, did you just join this Forum to make this post? That's a little random.

Edited July 9, 2013 by S3NTRY11
clarification required.

[GabiLaser]

No, i joined in June, when i bought the P-51D. We are now in July :)

[S3NTRY11]

No, i joined in June, when i bought the P-51D. We are now in July :)

 

touché. Interesting first post.

[winz]

Great post, cheers.

I guess my argument to this would be that (and I am repeating myself a little, sorry) because there are so few resources to develop with, producing a wide array of airframes over differening timeframes means that the enriching of one area is at the expense of another. ie more older airframes does nothing to enrich the main era of ED products (80's - 2000's), and with so little in the way of any other assets for the older airframes, you're better off getting a rich experience with something entirely developed as an older-era sim.

And this where you are simply wrong. Once again, a 3rd party dev will do what they choose to do. ED saying to Bezcl "We don't want the Mig-21, it doesn't fit in our current era" would not transform into Bezcl automaticaly developing a 4th gen aircraft. Not to mention the community backslash from such restriction.. People looking forward for that plane (and there are a lot) would be pissed with such decision.

 

One thing all thriving 3rd parties platforms (FSX, ArmA, Oblivion, SimCity 4) have in common is little to none dev interference.

Yes there are few 3rd part devs for DCS World, because DCS World opened to 3rd party dev only recently. The aim now should be to attract more capabable 3rd party devs to the platform, and you don't achieve this by imposing restrictions.

[GabiLaser]

touché. Interesting first post.

 

BTW sorry for loading the incendiary ammo, it was used in certain cases in ww1 (which is my favourite era). I guess as virtual pilots, we are used to treat the forums also as a (turn based strategy) combat sim.

[311Gryphon]

And this where you are simply wrong. Once again, a 3rd party dev will do what they choose to do. ED saying to Bezcl "We don't want the Mig-21, it doesn't fit in our current era" would not transform into Bezcl automaticaly developing a 4th gen aircraft. Not to mention the community backslash from such restriction.. People looking forward for that plane (and there are a lot) would be pissed with such decision.

 

One thing all thriving 3rd parties platforms (FSX, ArmA, Oblivion, SimCity 4) have in common is little to none dev interference.

Yes there are few 3rd part devs for DCS World, because DCS World opened to 3rd party dev only recently. The aim now should be to attract more capabable 3rd party devs to the platform, and you don't achieve this by imposing restrictions.

 

I agree with this. If the problem with developing older air frames is the expense of newer ones, then the perfect solution is for ED to focus on what they want to develop for DCS world and let 3rd parties develop what they want. Then older air frames being developed either don't take away from ED development strategies or are PART OF ED development strategies in the event they are the ones doing the older air frames.

 

3rd party development is very, very, very beneficial to expanding a game and keeping it relevant for a long period of time. In an age where most highly successful game franchises are coming out with another installment of their game every 1 to 2 years and the players largely migrate to the new iteration and leave the old one in the dust, I find it refreshing to have and play a game for years and years. I still play Oblivion and have for a few years now. I even bust out Morrowind from time to time!

[Exorcet]

Historically inaccurate or "creative" is one thing, implausible is another.

Plausible is pretty flexible.

 

I already showed that P-51's were still on the front lines while the F-15 was in development and testing. If there was enough reason to bother, F-15 vs P-51 could have easily happened.

 

The P-51 is honestly as useable in DCSW right now as the Ka-50 and A-10. People just don't care for it because it won't be in the role it's famous for.