SDK released to everyone

I don't see why releasing the sdk would undermine the business model.

I mean lastly integrating the modules or mods should be up to ED, to have final QA, like apple for the app store.

 

But in the end i think releasing the sdk (or whatever is needed to create new modules) would lead to more modules (also high quality stuff).

 

I mean if you first need to sign contracts or found a company prior to creating stuff and see how the development process is like, then we'll maybe miss out on a lot of talented guys who don't get started with content creation in the first place.

I don't see why releasing the sdk would undermine the business model.

I mean lastly integrating the modules or mods should be up to ED, to have final QA, like apple for the app store.

 

But in the end i think releasing the sdk (or whatever is needed to create new modules) would lead to more modules (also high quality stuff).

 

I mean if you first need to sign contracts or found a company prior to creating stuff and see how the development process is like, then we'll maybe miss out on a lot of talented guys who don't get started with content creation in the first place.

 

It depends on what you can do with SDK. As already stated in discussion , for the majority of people that would try and use the info and tools, it would be far beyond their needs and skills, and they can already do a great deal with currently available info and tools. And they should start there. I don't think it would lead to more modules , but it can allow more featured ones.

Tools and info != quality (But + skills and knowledge, it can).

 

If and when they reach the limits of what they can do with this , then making the sdk a application process is the next step.

 

I think the current roadblock is that process is not built around this type of modder (or mod community project) its currently only tailored to a full commercial developer. The process is quite stringent as a result.

 

I would like to see that process made easier for teams with a proven ability and they just want access to features that they are hitting limits on in their project. which means ED would need to change the process (to also allow for this type of modder) or make a additional tools to allow this.

 

The issue around this is probably one of resources and time on ED's part to do that. They would need to see enough value to do this. There also may be an NDA (non disclosure agreement involved), as the SDK could be used to hack , ripoff intellectual property of current devs etc and damage the game for example, not everyone is a "good guy".

It's not quite a simple and cut and dry as it appears on the surface.

 

A full SDK may not be required , just more featured unlocked (how? I don't know enough about the underlying engine to say). I'd like mods to be able to for example access more features of the ATC, radio coms with AI is something that is limited with current base tools for example. People involved in such projects could prob answer better what things they find they can't do with current mods then me.

 

 

More free maps would also be cool, if the ability for the community to do that was possible... just think...

(and map making is a big project too BTW if you want it accurate )

 

For REF# I also play car race sims, and I know its takes ppl a long time 1-2 years just to do a quality racetrack (alone as apart time "for fun" thing, but that doesn't mean ppl are not making professional grade stuff, they are.).

 

 

AND I care not about mod dross that gets made , but those few gems that get produced are often fantastic, and you have to start some where, or have a background already... That argument is just plain bunk!

Edited February 15, 2020 by Stix_09
clarity of writing

Fictional maps could work just as good, and maybe even better for some competitive scenarios where balance and symmetry play significant role.

 

I'm sure you are correct , and I suspect the DCS purists will also spit the dummy on fictional stuff... I care not myself , though I prefer real maps.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Stix_09
removed white space

Hi +9999999999 to this

 

 

Maybe it doesn't have to be the full SDK, but just those bits that allows proper interaction with the core - even if modders must still have to program most of the features.

 

 

Or it can be released for educational / non commercial use only.

 

 

Having to sign an NDA for having access to the API is madness in my opinion.

 

 

Best regards

Having to sign an NDA for having access to the API is madness in my opinion.

As an fyi, the NDA isn't just for the SDK. It includes such things as direct support from ED, access to the internal bugtracker, access to dev builds, debug tools, docs etc...

 

Honestly, having what's essentially the equivalent of paid support can be a godsend when you run up against a brick wall when you're programming something against an API.

Not having it means you can be in for very bad times, even with good docs.

As an fyi, the NDA isn't just for the SDK. It includes such things as direct support from ED, access to the internal bugtracker, access to dev builds, debug tools, docs etc...

 

Honestly, having what's essentially the equivalent of paid support can be a godsend when you run up against a brick wall when you're programming something against an API.

Not having it means you can be in for very bad times, even with good docs.

 

 

I get that full SDK comes with some support from ED, and as they get no revenue from any non commercial mods, it would just be another admin expense and resource sink for them. Having access to the a full SDK and the internal bug tracker could also be abused by "black hats" in the community. On the other side of that coin is ED can benefit from content that improves the appeal of DCS to new members, and or keeps existing members coming back, or adds content that they can't include (for many reasons, not necessary for a lack of want to add it), or helps resolve problems with DCS.

 

I think it may come down to ED just allowing more feature access, or limited SDK without the same associated support from them. Some thought would need to go into how it could work and benefit all parties. It is not a cut and dry thing, so less clear to the layman.

 

 

But you have to take the approach "how can we make it work" , and not "why it will not work".

Edited February 18, 2020 by Stix_09
typo

I think "one" of the biggest limits of current non official mods is around the radio.

This places real limits on using mods in game, when you can't interact properly with AWAC, carriers, ATC , and AI planes.

 

Quote from one of the people that worked on the A-4E,

 

" that is it in a nutshell, carrier ops were the real issue, the rubberbanding on spawn meant we could not spawn at same time as Hornets or Tomcats,

lack of in-sim radio meant we could not interact with ATC, AWACS or the Boat, the need to use Easy Comm's led to problems with the Harriers in our org, and those are all a result of ED not sharing the SDK, the dev team here did a fantastic job and stretched the Scooter to the limits of what could be done with the tools available"

Maybe one day ED with make features like this avail to modders, without requiring the full SDK or some limited version, that does not require a commercial developer application.

NOTE: This is not about accusation, there are good reasons for the way things are, but I do believe "positive" discussion on this is healthy , and it may lead to some change in a good way for all.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Stix_09
removed whit space

I'm going to disagree with offering the SDK to all, but it'd be nice if they'd create a "Speculative" set of standards which allows for development without hard numbers, so long as the developer is using actual tools to develop a reasonable speculative flight model. I.E. what CubanAce has done with the Su-57, and the F-35A/B/C project appears to be doing. Now take that to a professional level, with access to the SDK, and the other high standards, we could see 5th gen modules formally supported with the caveat "may not fully represent real world performance". We already have the low fidelity FC3 set, I don't see why we can't have speculative aircraft that are within the realm of reality, just with stealth. Heck, it'd actually not be that far off to take the F-18C and A-10C II HMD programing, mash it together, and slap it in an F-35. Then add the see-through system (this has been done on P3D, and we have port over models from Razbam already, if it can be done there, it can be done here with greater existing support). There's nothing legally wrong with selling a product that doesn't exactly match what it's claiming to mimic, as long as you inform the customer that this particular product meets a different set of standards that doesn't require a manual to prove the capabilities and performance. Heck, I've seen many a sim over the years selling itself as a sim, and not even clarifying that it's accuracy can't be verified, so I don't think a speculative series would ruin anything legally. It might hurt sales of other modules, but I can't exactly refund my modules, and even if I could, I wouldn't because I've gotten hundreds of hours out of them. That'd be unethical. 

SDK for all is a bad idea for me. I don't want to see some bad quality add-ons as we can have on other sims. DCS modules are a guarantee of quality and that why I buy those modules.

10 hours ago, Cthulhus said:

SDK for all is a bad idea for me. I don't want to see some bad quality add-ons as we can have on other sims. DCS modules are a guarantee of quality and that why I buy those modules.

You can already download mods. Non official cdk stuff won't be forced to be installed, and can and will be banned on those servers where it isn't needed. So, any other points for "bad idea"? 

I don't know why y'all resurrected a two year old thread but they're not going to do that. It doesn't matter if anybody likes it/dislikes it, or whether you think the reasons are valid. It's not going to happen.

I'm for it.  I just want to make some tiny maps for heli / vehicle wars.

 

I find it strange ED won't release SDK.  But yeah, they have said they won't release it in another thread.

 

So, take it as you will.

Edited April 7, 2021 by 3WA