DCS Fragmentation

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.

...

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.

I think the Mig21 is a good example of something that can feasibly straddle eras. And its avionics would not be as complex as the A10.

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.

...which leads to the fragmentation I speak of.

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.

Don't want to develop? Fair enough, but to say ED has no sway in what 3rd Party devs develop is a little naive.

As capability, I totally disagree, look at ED themselves, they did a great job of both A10 and KA50, which are fairly different platforms in almost every way.

Seeing what I have of the UH-1 (I don't own it as yet; loads of youtube), I think the team behind it would be capable of many things.

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.

I'd already own UH-1 and doing the same if we were there, trust me! Lets see what EDGE can bring us in this regard!

Don't want to develop? Fair enough, but to say ED has no sway in what 3rd Party devs develop is a little naive.

Ed has no word in what 3rd party is going to develop. If 3rd party wants to develop A but ED wants B, then 'all' they can do is ban A. They cannot force the dev to develop B.

So the result of stoping this 'fragmentation' would not be more 4th gen aircrafts, or more 80s assets. Because you cannot force 3rd parties to develop them if they don't want to.

As capability, I totally disagree, look at ED themselves, they did a great job of both A10 and KA50, which are fairly different platforms in almost every way.

a)ED has more resources (man-power, access to sme, $) than most 3rd party dev (my wild guess would be than all 3rd party devs).

b)And they did great job because they got tons information via cooperation with Kamov and developing a A-10C avionics desktop trainer for National Guard. If 3rd party dev wants similar lvl of fidelity they need similiar kind of information and access to SME. I.e. Beczls has contant to several people from Hungarian airforce that flew the Fishbed as well as big collection of various manuals. His skills (which are unquestionable) wouldn't be worth a dime if he did not have that kind of information.

Seeing what I have of the UH-1 (I don't own it as yet; loads of youtube), I think the team behind it would be capable of many things.

The team is capable of many things, but they need information and sme. If you have a studio with people that focused (as part of hobby, or job) on airframe A for several years, then they will have hard time do a DCS lvl simulation of airframe B. Getting all the information and access to SME is one of the hardest things (if not the hardest) of DCS lvl simulation development.

S3ntry, I think you're worrying too much. DCS is a great simulation platform. It is continuously expanding and improving through the dedicated effort of ED and its 3rd party devs.

Its versatility is its strength. We can't change that and shouldn't want to. I think the diversity in modules is a very important reason for the continued quality of the platform. Through the large variety of systems being modeled as well as the variety of people developing them, flaws in DCS World will be uncovered very efficiently and ED has shown their dedication in fixing them.

And as to the development of content for 4th/5th generation aircraft: there will be enough expansion in that direction. I think its safe to say that through the legacy of Lockon, DCS still has the broadest customer base there and 3rd parties as well as ED themselves also want to make money.

S3ntry, in all fairness, IRL tech gaps are also surprisingly huge. Not sure that's a relevant point but for example sometimes in active ops French Armée de Terre gladly enjoy a lot of the US's equipment because French sometimes just are too short on equipment that would be tedious acquiring when their US buddies have it by the hundreds and merely have got to ask to have it delivered. Another example, even though the Rafale is around, a big part of the Armée de l'Air still 'have to' exclusively use previous designs such as various Mirage variants. It takes decades and decades to develop something, bring it on the field and make it relevant. An F-18 going up against an F-4 for example doesn't sounds too out of place to me considering there's a difference IRL between what a country has best to offer and what it can afford to actually use despite what's it's going to be match up against. Taking the last module, the Huey as an example, just because it's not used within it's apogee environment doesn't make it any less relevant.

That said, if you find such an argument isn't valid in this debate then I'll just say that in the end it all comes down to the server rules and the community to compartmentalize various modules in a believable manner. Like every mature and sandbox software it comes down to what's being done with it, ED and 3rd parties just selling us the tools. DCS Wolrd is a very recent change in the DCS universe and all that 3rd party thing is also just starting, give it a few years, I'm sure by then there will be plenty of modules the would make you feel today's huge gaps like ephemeral disparities.

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:

+1+1+1+1+1 exsetra exsetra exsetra exsetra well you get the idea.

i got the P-51 plus the Huey cause i like that erra and the P-51 happens to be my fave war bird. i do have all the modules and enjoy them all but they have a place and time to fly them.

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

I reallly hate to say this but you are being very closed minded..and to go back to the very beginning of this thread I do believe that you are only wishing your point of view..not others..because you immediately dismiss their views...this is not good..

If you wanted to make it a better constructive view you should have made this along with a poll rather than just your view and hope everyone agree's with you ..but I don't agree with you as others in this thread..only afew mention to somewhat agree..

I briefly did a coding course and one thing that stands out the most to me..is that my instructor said " Get the Product out there and worry about the bugs/issues after.." getting the product out there generates revenue..and revenue pays employee's..and helps the company grow..most issue you speak of is DCS-World core related..so no revenue is generated..since it is free..that said the new aircraft you wish..will only be a distant dream...

I advise to read up on Company marketing stratigies..then you will see the inner workings of all this..

I will no longer respond to you ..will leave this to the developers to straighten your queries out...:thumbup:

Yes, I too think the fragmentation effects of the rockets and bombs need improvement. :music_whistling:

I briefly did a coding course and one thing that stands out the most to me..is that my instructor said " Get the Product out there and worry about the bugs/issues after.." getting the product out there generates revenue..and revenue pays employee's..and helps the company grow..most issue you speak of is DCS-World core related..so no revenue is generated..since it is free..

while that might be correct for an indie developer, it's no way to run a professional company. Imagine Microsoft putting out the next windows without any kind of bug fixing...

And saying that DCS World is free is just a marketing strategy. You basically pay for the whole engine and map everytime you buy a module.

is this forgetting that the main source of income is not only the commercial market, but also (and it may be the largest source) military and professional market. Keep in mind that you also DCS: World is developing in recent times to what customers want Are we going to ban World War / World War II / Korea / etc because according to some positions "not profitable"?. Each part of the community will have its simulator area you like. Now if we followed those views ..... banen vehicles, ships and airplanes certain only because according to these positions "are not profitable." I think so far, none of the ED modules has failed.

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.

No, you aren't. 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.

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?

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 see what you are saying but I personally disagree. While I don't completely agree with the strategies of Eagle Dynamics I think that this is the correct direction to go in the long run. And I'll try to explain why as quickly as I can.

My main issue with DCS World is a distinct lack of air frames I can fly. Add to that the fact that I really don't see myself paying $40 for each module (or $20 for each one on sale) and chances are I'm never going to have a ton of planes or choppers to fly. That's okay, because the modules are highly detailed and require AND allow a large amount of practice time which leads to a large amount of enjoyment and utility.

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.

In my mind, the more people that make air frames the better. If someone made a Wright Flyer I'd contemplate buying it. I'd think about a Sopwith Camel or a Fokker Dr 1. I'd certainly think about a P-47 Thunderbolt or a de Havilland Mosquito. There are planes I won't buy but if others have a desire to fly them then I hope someone makes them.

Well, that's my not so concise 2 cents.

Imagine Microsoft putting out the next windows without any kind of bug fixing...

Don't they? I'm kidding, I know they debug a lot but man...what's left is still pretty buggy. Kind of like the RROD they "fixed" on the Xbox...they fixed it by removing the red ring.

But yeah, I agree, most devs I think do their best to rid the software from bugs to a point that it is usable and then release it. Or so it seems. Some devs will even push back a release if they don't feel the software is ready. That would be tough to do if you need to see some returns on your work and had people expecting a release, not to mention the competition getting a start on the market before you.

while that might be correct for an indie developer, it's no way to run a professional company.

Wrong..it refers to all companies...that do any sort of developement

Imagine Microsoft putting out the next windows without any kind of bug fixing...

When I made that statement it was also meant as the developer would make patches as needed..Microsoft does this almost on a daily basis...

And saying that DCS World is free is just a marketing strategy. You basically pay for the whole engine and map everytime you buy a module.

No, not really you are mostly paying for the new addon module..without DCS-World the modules won't exist..and won't allow 3rd parties to exist in DCS plans of expansion..

Reason if you pay for a new module and like you say you are paying for DCS-World, then how would the 3rd parties get their share..and do they pay a royalty to DCS for being allow to develop a module to be incorporated into the DCS-World core...I think not..3rd parties also have to pay someone to help develop their product..3rd parties do not do their modules for free..example " Bell Huey " module.

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 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.

I don't think so. P-51's saw combat up until the 70's and 80's when F-15's were flying around.

The F-35 fits in perfectly. Sure it will be the best plane available, but many times one side has this advantage. Adding the F-35 lets us simulate a balanced war and an unbalanced one (and actually the F-35 can be used in both cases realistically). Not giving us the F-35 limits what we can simulate.

EDIT

My bad, the last P-51 in combat was 1969, Football War. Still, point stands. And I don't think they were retired immediately after that, but I'm again unsure.

I don't see fragmentation or similar problems being causes here. DCS allows us to simulate P-51 vs Fw-190 along with F-15 vs Su-27. One isn't necessarily hurting the other. And we have access to the F-15 vs P-51 case, which while it might seem crazy, is not necessarily so.

I don't see fragmentation or similar problems being causes here. DCS allows us to simulate P-51 vs Fw-190 along with F-15 vs Su-27. One isn't necessarily hurting the other. And we have access to the F-15 vs P-51 case, which while it might seem crazy, is not necessarily so.

I agree! Plus, this way we actually can play around with the F-15 vs P-51 case. If DCS simulated only one time period we would not necessarily be able to try out "historically inaccurate" cases like that (which I think are actually a lot of fun :thumbup: ).

For example: if you want a challenge, try flying one of the A-10C missions with the P-51 instead. Or try the other way if you want to feel powerful! :D I'm glad we can do this, thanks to DCS being able to simulate many different types of aircraft and time periods.

Besides, we know what some of us (the community) want; what about what Eagle Dynamics want? It's not all about us, remember. ;) From what Matt has posted it sounds like ED wants to build a simulator that is not restricted to one time period or type of aircraft. And they are doing exactly that!

I'm really looking forward to the day I can blast through a WW2 scenario in my carrier-launched Hornet. :D Anyone remember the movie The Final Countdown? :P

--NoJoe

Was the P51 really all that popular?

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

^favourite movie ever.

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

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.

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

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. It's also maneuverable enough to avoid many of these hits to begin with. Hit the deck and weave between buildings! Try downloading my P-51 Krasnodar map that I uploaded a few days ago if you haven't done so already. If you get shot down in a P-51, you can be back in the air in no time.

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: