DCS: Black Shark 1.0.1 Read Me

I will happily pay five times the current price for the next engine, if it sorts the trees and AI issues :P When it comes to sims, I'm a Ferrari man.

I'm sure you all knew that you can't really have two people working on the same piece of code at the same time. Highly impractical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Programming :smartass: But I know what you were trying to say, I'm just teasing.

I will happily pay five times the current price for the next engine, if it sorts the trees and AI issues :P When it comes to sims, I'm a Ferrari man.QUOTE]

 

 

:thumbup: Me too!

 

Just to chime in on this thread...

 

Eagle Dynamics Update – 03 May 2009

 

There are multiple projects ongoing at Eagle and I thought a brief status report may answer a lot of questions:

 

1- DCS: Black Shark Patch. The patch is in-work and we still hope to release it in the next month or two. In addition to fixing a few remaining show-stopper bugs, a lot of time is being used to re-record some of the training tracks that were broken as a result of patch changes. After that is all done, we need to take care of the patch localization.

 

2- DCS: Black Shark Localization. Aside from the Spanish version, all versions have been completed. However, the team is focused on correcting errors introduced when the French version was duplicated. The Spanish version is wrapping up localization and we hope to release it in the next month or two.

 

3- DCS: A-10C Warthog. Parts of the team are already focused on this project and more will be shifted to it once the Black Shark tasks are completed. Progress is good and we plan to release much more information about this come summer time.

 

4- Lock On: Flaming Cliffs. This franchise will see further development in 2009 now that Black Shark is wrapping up. Once details are hammered out, we will be able to provide more information.

 

__________________

Matt Wagner

Producer, TFC/Eagle Dynamics

 

As far as I'm concerned, [TFC/ED] are doing a lot of work to bring something to everyone, even some unexpected work on LockOn:FC. This patch may not 'fix' all of the issues we have, but nevertheless we are assured they are doing they're best to put collidable trees and better AI into the DCS sim. I remember words to this effect; "take your frustration, multiply by ten, and you'll be close to how [TFC/ED] feels!"

 

I'm pretty sure it's been said that the limitations of the current engine are the reason for the trees being only shaders, correct me if I'm wrong. In the new DCS:Warthog engine, will we not see collidable trees??

 

Anyway, they brought us DCS:BlackShark in a condition a little less than perfect, with the promise of patches and a new engine down the road...and we knew all this before we purchased our copy! The patch is more or less on-track; so is DCS:Warthog. We can be patient, positive, and supportive.....

 

...or we can act like unsupervised children on a Halo forum, and act superior to one another, argue, and be downright negative.

 

Your choice...

 

I say, :thumbup: Bravo TFS/ED, cant wait for the new patch/fixes, and bring on DCS:Warthog!!

Anyway, they brought us DCS:BlackShark in a condition a little less than perfect

in a more perfect state then other games that are released.

Longbow had no trees at all.

Comanche 3 / 4 was rather a great looking helo-game than a simulation.

EECH has large green blocks with a forestgreen texture. You had to aim very good for the few trees besides that.

EE2 had more trees, granted, but the engine couldn't deal with the additional load of calculating the collision boxes so trees and collision-boxes were not aligned.

 

Gunship! was one of the few games that had collideable vegetation (even massive forests, bushes, etc) and quite good AI, but it was hardly a simulation either.

 

 

@ ruprecht:

 

You always have to make compromises, when you're honest. If you want to make a 100% perfect project in ALL ASPECTS, you'd never sell anything because you'd never finish it. That's true for all sorts of business to my experience.

 

@ Innerloop:

 

And where do you draw the line? DCS is not opensource. It's a product released by a company and you have to draw a line in legal terms to ensure that your hard work will make enough money to feed your family. So you cannot just give away the source-code to the public and say "here you go, make something of it, but please don't sell it as yours".

You can open certain aspects, release tools how to make certain parts available for modding and creating addons, etc. and be open for ideas and valid concepts. But that is exactly what ED is doing, so you're running in open doors here, IMHO.

And hiring more people, hell, if ED would make money from DCS like Blizzard does from WoW, I bet the team would have 10 times more people working on it. ;)

like I said, IIRC.. I haven't used those in a long time...

The 1.0.1 patch will clock in around 600MB, fixing probably a total of over 200 bugs and problems as well as adding a number of gameplay features, many of which were specifically requested by the community. You will have to excuse some of us if we find it a bit inappopriate that this effort is labeled "rubbish" or "a joke."

We have been very clear on the forum about issues like collidable trees, development of ground AI and ME mapping difficulties. In particular, that all of these issues are systemic in nature and require develoment effort that is beyond the scope of a patch. We had not been shy to concede that the simulation is not perfect and the above shortcomings exist and are among the areas that could use further improvement. It is ED's intent to pursue these improvements as DCS code is developed. However, we also feel it's a worthwhile exercise to point out that no flight sim has achieved perfection in all of its core content areas and this is not a "cop out." It is a statement that points to the complexity of this type of software. We hope it helps the user, who may not have the benefit of a developer's point of view, understand that development of such software is measured in years and that some compromises are ineviatble for any combat simulator that aims for high standards of realism.

IMHO, the 1.0.1 patch is a good step forward to an already good product. Further and larger steps are in development. It clearly does not address every shortcoming of the simulation, but it would be unreasonable to assume it would do so, especially in regard to the deeper engine-related issues like collidable trees or a satellite view in the editor. In case you didn't already realize this yourself, we have been making an effort to communicate this ahead of time on the forum.

Yep, thats fair enough.

I Look forward to the development of this product. I'll just have to remember to avoid flying through the trees in future versions!!

1 Question for you though. Will the development of future aircraft sims become backwards compatible with BS via a patch (e.g the ME, graphics engine etc). Sorry if this has been answered before, searching throws up too much in all kinds of forums.

Hear hear. :thumbup:

It's a patch folks - not a new version.

Yep, thats fair enough.

 

I Look forward to the development of this product. I'll just have to remember to avoid flying through the trees in future versions!!

 

1 Question for you though. Will the development of future aircraft sims become backwards compatible with BS via a patch (e.g the ME, graphics engine etc). Sorry if this has been answered before, searching throws up too much in all kinds of forums.

Thats what ED are aiming for...interoperability between all of the Modules of DCS...

Correct, the idea behind DCS is to continually release new modules around new flyable aircraft that also include additional improvements to the rest of the simulation. Previous modules would be upgradable to the standards of the latest module, regardless of whether the player wishes to purchase the latest flyable aircraft or not.

We have taken a somewhat conservative attitude toward this plan as ED "digs into" the code to actually make it a reality, because accomplishing it is not so simple. However, it remains the plan for the next module - the A-10C Warthog - and hopefully beyond.

I'll just have to remember to avoid flying through the trees in future versions!!

So we avoid this problem next time, I'll say now that at this point the A-10C Warthog module is not planned to introduce collidable trees. Personally, I am hopeful that the follow-up does, but cannot say anything more definitive.

(Sensible, objective comment)

Noted, with apologies for any offence caused to the hardworking devs.

also will we still be able to use Acedy's incredible "ServMan" toolz? :)

I am working on the tool, and plan to release a compatibility update once the patch has been released, since it contains some changes to the API. :)

This is an awesome product for a 1.0.1 release and am glad that ED are taking the long term approach to the DCS series. Aircraft in sims have a very long shelf life so great to see a company realise this and build a working model around it.

This is only my opinion, it's not supposed to be aimed at anyone and I certainly don't expect a reply or for it to be a common opinion (i'm not trying to represent anyone apart from myself here.. is what I mean ;))

Good work on the issues fixed, most of them weren't personally issues for me though.

I was hoping that this patch was the AI/ME breakthrough that would turn DCS into a battlefield sim - that's what I thought the extra time taken to release was about.

Not a problem though - I've got my money's worth already and i'm happy to chill playing some of the new games/mods that are out atm, until DCS:A-10 is released. Then i'll check the forums and see if the 'breakthrough' has been made. :)

I'm impressed by how many things has been fixed. I couldn't find any info about editor map heading correction... Has that been fixed? I love to preparing complex missions but I didn't made any since I read about fixes in patch :)

Really can't wait for patch release day. Still DCS is most played game on my pc.

Not a complaint...but a suggestion. ;) Couldn't the placing units on the FARP problem be fixed by simply changing the icon? i.e put a square line around it and perhaps show where the helo pads are....

and / or have a ready made FARP maybe??

and / or have a ready made FARP maybe??

I assume you tried some irony there, joey ;)

But the FARP representation in the Mission Editor is quite awful - married to the fact that you need to start the full game+mission every time you want to place a unit and verify it's position.

So yes, a better representation of the units and it's positioning/orientation is a big "want asap" item. :)

didn't even attempt it... Can't really inject squaddie humour on a forum like this.

as in, a FARP template with everything you need but you can still edit and move* the units.

* multi unit move, either by drag a box and / or select individual units.

Bit OT but - The template is the best idea given the current ME - built with a reference unit at the center of the ME icon.

There's a couple drifting around that people have shared ...

Not to suggest that this is as good as actually displaying unit locations on the map (an item in the wishlist for years), but it does make it considerably easier:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=575910&postcount=38

Bit OT but - The template is the best idea given the current ME - built with a reference unit at the center of the ME icon.

There's a couple drifting around that people have shared ...

Too bad you can unly group 1 group there (units). :)

If you add buildings (static) you can only have 1 item in the template - because you can mark multiple items or manage multiple items.

Hence a request earlier to marke/manage multiple items in the ME too.

(And that copy / paste / templates is supported for it).

EB, yes Im a template addict - so being able to place templates which includes different kinds of objects (units + statics) is also a "want pretty please"

But here I am going OT - lets keep this in other threads :)

Just scanned the readme quickly. Didn't see anything about multi-monitor improvements. Has anyone heard whether any such changes might be part of the patch?

Having not read this entire thread, I want to remind people that ED has a history of overdelivering on what they publish in their read me's. Every patch or the three products, they seem to deliver much more then we thought or were lead to believe in a published account, and that is always a nice surprise.

Having read some of the posts, I will echo what has been said by some that we have been given a superlative product. A product that would seem to be far closer to proper function, than many projects that get released, seemingly just to grab your money, then needing patch after patch, just to make the software deliver acceptable function.

In this software developer we have something that I consider special. They listen to our comments and take the time to work on the patch, so that although we all will not be satisfied with everything, at least it will add to the overall usability of the sim, whilst promising to continue to support us, in the future. I was really pleased to hear of the intention to improve Lomac FC, as well as delivering new modules for Black Shark. Look at how many software producers, release the project, then reduce the team to a minimum to work on patches, whilst they look towards the next piece of software in the production line.

I think that ED is exceptional in their objectives, of continuing to support their customers by planning patches, upgrades and new modules.

Sure it would be great if a single patch could cater to every customers desire, but I think we should all be grateful, that ED listens and communicates with us. So personally I say, Thanks ED, for looking after us, the customer.

Golgotha

* Fixed the broken triggers in multiplayer.

- Does this mean the ka-50 client slots (holdingtime 23h) can be activated?

- Does this mean the flags are now global? At the moment all your flags are "false" if you are join a running game.