Jump to content

VEAO Spitfire Mk XIV Dev Diary


Pman

Recommended Posts

As Neil said we are two separate companies.

Whilst ED will allow us to use some functionality within DCS we have to produce our own products independently.

 

Thanks,

Chris.

 

I said you are 2 seperate companies, he only pointed that they are totally different birds, it is typical from him to put words on other people's mouth, as if I assumed you 2 are doing the same aircraft. :huh:

 

for sure they are different airplanes, like BWM 5 Series Limousine and Touring are 2 different cars, they have different handling, require different tyre pressure, different performance, and a different price. The 2 Spitfire undeniably share a lot and have a lot of visual components in common, in the cockpit inside and outside. Technically there is a lot of reuse.

 

But again, I am aware that you are 2 seperate companies with 2 separate tresories and one cant share his work with the other. Still, I wish it would be possible.

Link to comment
  • Replies 343
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

it is typical from him to put words on other people's mouth, as if I assumed you 2 are doing the same aircraft. :huh:

 

 

Thanks for making this a personal attack yet again TomCatMucde!

 

If you are aware of the facts, then your point is entirely spurious, and redundant. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt, but as you clearly want to point out how daft your statement was, then go ahead, knock yourself out! If you can read Roman numerals, you'll see that they are in fact distinct marks of the same original design. XIV, and LF IX. That's a Mk 14 and a Mk 9 to you.


Edited by NeilWillis
Link to comment
Thanks for making this a personal attack yet again TomCatMucde!

 

If you are aware of the facts, then your point is entirely spurious, and redundant. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt, but as you clearly want to point out how daft your statement was, then go ahead, knock yourself out! If you can read Roman numerals, you'll see that they are in fact distinct marks of the same original design. XIV, and LF IX. That's a Mk 14 and a Mk 9 to you.

 

you have no idea about software development, technically there is a lot of reuse in terms of software development. The reuse is not done because simply because both companies dont share their software components NOT because they are different models.

 

Whether my point is redundant or not, it is my right to express regrets that the sharing and reuse is not possible between ED and third party developers. And you saying that this reuse is technically not possible is simply wrong.


Edited by TomCatMucDe
Link to comment

Here we go again!

 

Actually I said nothing at all about the technical possibilities, or the similarities or differences between the two entirely separate projects. The possibilities are entirely moot as the intellectual properties belong to two entirely separate and distinct organisations. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I wish there were fairies, but I wouldn't consider voicing my wishes any more relevant than you wishing for the unlikely eventuality of shared resources to be pooled.

 

Some opinions are best just not shared for obvious reasons. Yours, because it isn't going to happen and mine because wishing for fairies might make my masculinity questionable. My wish is just as valid, and just as likely. So I wouldn't make a song and dance of yours, and I promise not to make a fuss about mine. Deal?

Link to comment
you have no idea about software development, technically there is a lot of reuse in terms of software development. The reuse is not done because simply because both companies dont share their software components NOT because they are different models.

 

Whether my point is redundant or not, it is my right to express regrets that the sharing and reuse is not possible between ED and third party developers. And you saying that this reuse is technically not possible is simply wrong.

 

Actually you are wrong.

 

Technically it would be quite difficult (if not impossible) in Theory for us to share an asset such as a cockpit model. It would prove alot of work and to be honest it is alot easier for us as a developer to use our own model within our control. Even things like systems and functions would be alot of work to do.

 

So no it would not save much time or work to share assets like that.

 

Pman


Edited by Pman
Link to comment

The Conversation About Not Sharing Code, along with the snide remarks can End now.

 

Everyone compiles their own code,

 

in 2016, theres a good chance of common code in 2 entirely different projects by non related companies.

 

When you have 2 related studios compiling code for similar project running on the same platform, common code is unavoidable.

 

Even so, and Even with common similarities, sharing code isnt garaunteed to save time, specifically if the 2nd studio has to re-write the unique code he/she has already written to work with code he was given.

 

Similar Aircraft Visually does not mean EDs Coders and VEAOs coders are writing their codes exactly the same.

Every Coder has their own way ofnscripting items, every studio has their own way of managing code/scripts across multiple projects.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Actually you are wrong.

 

Technically it would be quite difficult in Theory for us to share an asset such as a cockpit model. It would prove alot of work and to be honest it is alot easier for us as a developer to use our own model within our control.

 

So no it would not save much time or work to share assets like that.

 

Pman

 

you know for sure your work better than I do. But if the infrastructure was allowing it, sharing (or licensing) component in principle should speed up the development. For the Hawk you used the SFM which is ED components and fined tuned it, because, I guess, it is faster than developping yours for a start.

 

Anyways, the ED ecosystem doesnt allow, or make it difficult to share components. That's not something that will change with this discussion.

Link to comment
The Conversation About Not Sharing Code, along with the snide remarks can End now.

 

Everyone compiles their own code,

 

in 2016, theres a good chance of common code in 2 entirely different projects by non related companies.

 

When you have 2 related studios compiling code for similar project running on the same platform, common code is unavoidable.

 

Even so, and Even with common similarities, sharing code isnt garaunteed to save time, specifically if the 2nd studio has to re-write the unique code he/she has already written to work with code he was given.

 

Similar Aircraft Visually does not mean EDs Coders and VEAOs coders are writing their codes exactly the same.

Every Coder has their own way ofnscripting items, every studio has their own way of managing code/scripts across multiple projects.

 

agree. Sharing code and components has to be integrated in the concept from the beginning of software develppment and when the eco system allows it. Only then it speeds up things.

 

Anyways, it was a side discussion. I end my 2 cents here.

Link to comment
you know for sure your work better than I do. But if the infrastructure was allowing it, sharing (or licensing) component in principle should speed up the development. For the Hawk you used the SFM which is ED components and fined tuned it, because, I guess, it is faster than developping yours for a start.

 

Anyways, the ED ecosystem doesnt allow, or make it difficult to share components. That's not something that will change with this discussion.

 

Not quite the same thing, the SFM mechanic is a core aspect of the sim carried over from previous iterations of DCS. An example would be reuse of sidewinders which is a core feature inside DCS.

 

A cockpit or a unique system model is something else entirely as it requires dll compilation and all sorts of garbage.

 

Do I wish it was different? Not so sure, I know that we for sure appreciated the independence with our work, we can work to our own schedules and workflows, which considering the diversity of our guys is a good thing.

 

We have what we have and we have no complaints about that :)

 

Pman

Link to comment
Nice to know I'm not the only fairy fan :thumbup:

 

We are talking Fairey Gannet, Firefly and Swordfish which are all essential for carrier ops of course!

 

:music_whistling: :music_whistling: :music_whistling:

 

Ohhhh DCS: Stringbag!

 

Imagine the rage as F15's fall out of the sky trying to slow down enough to take a shot.....

Link to comment

Seriously though, I could see Swordfish server titles already "Swordfish VS UH-1H".....And the Huey would have the performance advantage.....

 

Anyway, I just want to give my money to anyone that makes a Spitfire/s. The proverbial "shut up and take my money" rings in my ears every time I see update pictures.

Link to comment

The Swordfish discussion is of course very subjective but I'd really like it. I mean, it took part in sinking the Bismarck AND the Taranto raid. And they had no radar or early warning detection systems, no ILS/GPS, no beep-boop silly electronics whatsoever. It was just very manly flying back then, stiff upper lip and all that ;) Oh, and all this in a slow airplane facing very heavy ack-ack. Those young men were PILOTS and if I can get any chance to experience their ordeal, in the safety of my home of course, well sign me up! :)

Link to comment

Wow.

 

 

I wasn't really interested in getting a late war Spitfire, but i'm getting REALLY tempted right now....

 

One question though: Didn't the real RN218 have a much lighter paint camo?

 

 

 

 

Now i know by the looks of it ED and veao are making spits? Maybe been brought up already, So ill ask for my own knowledge, Do you guys swap information or codes, To help each module along, Or are they two complete different objects?

It's all on the previous page mate

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...