The definition of DCS?

Hi all,

This may very well be a silly question, or answered somewhere else, but I've found myself asking "what is the definition of DCS?"

In the past I have been able to have an absolute certainty that if the product is branded "DCS", it will be made to the highest standard with regards to flight models, avionics, etc. Due to this the DCS brand has allowed me to buy the simulator without a doubt, knowing that I would get something at A-10C-level fidelity.

Now, with the birth of DCS World and the integration of third party titles capable of being DCS level products, I ask myself:

What are the official requirements a simulator needs to fulfill in order to be allowed to use this brand, with regards to accuracy and fidelity?

Another thing that cause me some concern is the rumoured integration of FC3 (a survey sim) into DCS World, a move that I feel would bring it under the DCS umbrella of products. Right now the SU-25T has been included in World (for free, I know, and that's nice), but it's not clearly separated from the Study Sim variety of aircraft.

Right now every available module is listed in the menu of DCS World, and if one does not own the module in question, it's there with a dollar sign over it. I'm worried that this menu is going to be cluttered with survey-sim level aircraft at some point in the future, very far from the DCS icon I'm clicking in order to start it up.

The main reason I made this thread is that I feel that I would like to know what, in the words of ED, makes DCS what it is today.

In short, I'd like some reassurance that it's safe to buy the pig in the bag, assuming the bag is labeled DCS, as I've done before.

So, pardon the ramblings of a (hopefully unduly) worried fellow. I'm hoping this does not offend anyone and in case it does, please let me know so I can clarify things. ;)

I think many of the fears expressed lately about DCS are reading too much into too little.

Again, based on what little we know, not all products designed for DCS will be allowed to carry the DCS label. It depends on the level of quality. IRIS, for example, expressed interest in being allowed to use the DCS name for one of their aircraft. I forgot which, but it wasn't the F-22. That implies the F-22 will not be allowed to use the DCS name, even if it is a module for DCS World.

Is the SU-25T really an exception? Perhaps not. I got the feeling that it was one of the more high-fidelity aircraft out of FC2. I would not be surprised if this plane gets a big overhaul as part of a commercial upgrade, similar in some ways to the Ka-50 going from BS1 to BS2.

Ultimately I just don't see how more content can be bad for DCS World. I don't see "survey" quality content replacing EDs work, as they've made it pretty clear that they're interested in doing only the most detailed simulations.

I think the best way to understand DCS now is as a combat-oriented counterpart to FSX and X-Plane 10. Third party products may vary in quality, but ultimately ED is most likely going to keep doing what they're doing by developing both the simulation environment and high fidelity aircraft.

I welcome the third-party developers. I'm afraid all this nay-saying is going to drive them away, because they will be afraid no one will purchase their content. Is it better to have an IRIS F-22, however realistic they can make it, or absolutely no F-22 at all? I fail to see how not having the option can be a good thing, and fears that F-22s will dominate the skies in multiplayer are just absurd. If they do, it's entirely the community's fault for creating and hosting missions like that.

I hope third-party development can fill the gaps that ED, with their limited resources, cannot. If ED never plans to make a Kiowa Warrior, but a third-party developer wants to, they shouldn't be discouraged just because they might not match the quality of A-10C. If it can take a realistic place in the sim and enhance the experience of other pilots flying alongside it, whether or not they're interested in it themselves, then why not?

I've had trouble following the logic of some of the worries people have. People will buy and fly what they feel meets their standards and pass on those that they feel don't. In the context of squadron, it'll just be a multi-player extension of that mindset. The importance is that everything is on a common core and you choose what you do and don't care to use. If DCS remained fractured, Eagle Dynamics would have ended up spending longer and longer on each successive project and would have ended up with a really fractured logistical mess for maintaining support on all the separate titles. Frankly, Eagle Dynamics shifting to a core platform and allowing for 3rd party development is the best thing that has happened to DCS. It ensures a healthy and busy release schedule of products that ED might not otherwise be able to do on it's own. It's a win-win situation for both ED and us as users. We all have the capability to vote on what aircraft meet our standards with our pocketbooks. Nothing worrisome there imho.

I think the idea of change scares some people though.

I think many of the fears expressed lately about DCS are reading too much into too little.

 

Again, based on what little we know, not all products designed for DCS will be allowed to carry the DCS label. It depends on the level of quality. IRIS, for example, expressed interest in being allowed to use the DCS name for one of their aircraft. I forgot which, but it wasn't the F-22. That implies the F-22 will not be allowed to use the DCS name, even if it is a module for DCS World.

 

Is the SU-25T really an exception? Perhaps not. I got the feeling that it was one of the more high-fidelity aircraft out of FC2. I would not be surprised if this plane gets a big overhaul as part of a commercial upgrade, similar in some ways to the Ka-50 going from BS1 to BS2.

 

Ultimately I just don't see how more content can be bad for DCS World. I don't see "survey" quality content replacing EDs work, as they've made it pretty clear that they're interested in doing only the most detailed simulations.

 

I think the best way to understand DCS now is as a combat-oriented counterpart to FSX and X-Plane 10. Third party products may vary in quality, but ultimately ED is most likely going to keep doing what they're doing by developing both the simulation environment and high fidelity aircraft.

 

I welcome the third-party developers. I'm afraid all this nay-saying is going to drive them away, because they will be afraid no one will purchase their content. Is it better to have an IRIS F-22, however realistic they can make it, or absolutely no F-22 at all? I fail to see how not having the option can be a good thing, and fears that F-22s will dominate the skies in multiplayer are just absurd. If they do, it's entirely the community's fault for creating and hosting missions like that.

 

I hope third-party development can fill the gaps that ED, with their limited resources, cannot. If ED never plans to make a Kiowa Warrior, but a third-party developer wants to, they shouldn't be discouraged just because they might not match the quality of A-10C. If it can take a realistic place in the sim and enhance the experience of other pilots flying alongside it, whether or not they're interested in it themselves, then why not?

I agree completely. In the end (as it has always been) it is up to the mission builders to create a rewarding/fun/interesting or realistic experience for the pilots in the servers. As far as I'm concerned 3rd party developers can create whatever they want: DCS Flying Pancakes with frickin laser beamed melted butter. If I find it unrealistic or cheap/silly then I won't put it in the missions I make. I'll take a critical look at what people say about FC3 and then decide on that one after it comes out. That being said, I'm really excited about all the 3rd party projects and the new developers. They all seem to be "in touch" with what the community wants.

I think you can only judge something on what it has done, and not on what it might become. But the question is valid because of so many possible changes incoming. DCS is changing. CA is just around the corner and its not a high fidelity sim, but rather a connective tissue between them. Then we have third parties. Whilst i have no doubt on Mig-21 from Beczl, F-22 has to be dubious, at least until it is demonstrated at the level he has in his post.

Since I can pick and choose though, I have absolutely no worries I will be entertained.

For clarification, I'm not overly concerned about DCS World as a whole; I think that's a brilliant idea. Just the feature of being able to fly any plane from within one core program (and not having to install multiple versions of the terrain) is just splendid.

My worries lie more with the brand itself, as I'm genuinely curious what the core values of DCS are. Most of it seems to be conjecture based on the previous titles released, but there has, to my knowledge not been an official statement saying "This is DCS: when you buy a product with this brand you can expect the following level of fidelity, etc."

What's the acceptable lower limit for realism?

For instance, how much guesswork is allowed in constructing the systems and flight model?

How many systems in a plane are allowed to go unmodeled?

Stuff like that has been on my mind lately. ;)

I can't say I'm expecting it to happen, but I'd be a bit disappointed if, say DCS: JAS 39 Gripen was released, but only half the systems were modeled. Obviously I should do my due diligence in these cases, but out of curiosity... would that sort of thing be allowed in a DCS-branded product?

The main reason I made this thread is because of that single question.

It's not a huge issue, though. As it's been said, if something interests me I'll buy it, otherwise not.

I'm going to blame curiosity on this one, though. :P

It's a good question, if only to protect what it's been up until now.

Wags posted this a few days back...

As we have stated many times over the past several years, DCS is meant to include systems from different eras, at different locations, and at different levels of detail. We do not expect, or honestly want, all DCS aircraft to be at the A-10C level that is simply too much for many players. Quality does not necessarily equal complexity.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1472745&postcount=88

I share some of the Ops concerns/curiosity. And given that ^ post by Wags it does see to be a shift for ED then in the type of product they put out/ associate the DCS brand with.

I agree that it is perfectly fine for them to develop and include less detailed aircraft from third parties. You don't have to buy them after all, and it's revenue to make making more cool stuff for us.

But... you cant help or blame some of the trepidation of the community toward some of the new aircraft. When DCS first came out (and up to a week ago) I was under the impression that any Aircraft that ED would release or was part of DCS would be of the highest detail and technical level possible. Even to the point that they would not make (or consider making) an aircraft if they did not have full access to all Flight Data and Weapons systems and Avionics information. I kind of liked this ethos and was happy to wait the development time and the fact we would only see Aircraft that where modelled as close to reality as they could be..

I don't know what it was, but something set a large portion of the community to view DCS in this frame of mind, this is why you get threads like this one. Which I think is perfectly reasonable. Maybe it's because all we have had up to know is fully detailed and advanced sim aircraft. but I feel that it was stated some where, or some time ago that the DCS brand was all about Ultra detail and high fidelity simulation of any released aircraft.

But again, I know it must be frustrating for ED to read threads like this but they must understand, it is what we have come to expect from DCS. However, I understand (and I'm sure others do too) that there is room in DCS for them to include aircraft of lower fidelity. There is a lot of money to be made from this area.

Personally, I really would like if Ed still strived to make the most realistic sims themselves. And kept the DCS brand for that.

Why don't they put an F-22 into FC3 and make DCS: MiG-29? I love the MiG-29!!!

There was always going to be different levels of complexity via integration of flaming cliffs aircraft.

I was worried too first thinking of a A2A between a FC2 plane and a DCS F18 and how fair that would be.

But agreed, we can still choose what we fly and so can the mission builders.

Btw does anyone know...if FC3 gets compatible to DCSW but is still binded with some rights to ubisoft which is why you need the lomac installation still...couldn't they just bring those updated planes into DCSW as modules to get rid of ubisoft once and for all.

Well I guess the answer is as long as anything from the FC planes is used they cant sell it under a different name, right?

I welcome the third-party developers. I'm afraid all this nay-saying is going to drive them away, because they will be afraid no one will purchase their content. Is it better to have an IRIS F-22, however realistic they can make it, or absolutely no F-22 at all? I fail to see how not having the option can be a good thing, and fears that F-22s will dominate the skies in multiplayer are just absurd. If they do, it's entirely the community's fault for creating and hosting missions like that.

+1

/KC

Btw does anyone know...if FC3 gets compatible to DCSW but is still binded with some rights to ubisoft which is why you need the lomac installation still...couldn't they just bring those updated planes into DCSW as modules to get rid of ubisoft once and for all.

Well I guess the answer is as long as anything from the FC planes is used they cant sell it under a different name, right?

Nobody knows yet - but I'd be very surprised if the original Lock on wasn't a requirement for FC3.

Nate

Three copies of LockOn here, and lots of disk space. All set! :D

Back to the OP's original concerns: You at least have to consider that ED themselves have an "evolving" concept of what DCS is supposed to mean. Ever since it was decided to create a new title for what was originally a proposed helicopter add-on for Flamming Cliffs or Lockon (I don't recall which), the target has moved. I don't completely fault ED for that as the market has moved too. When FC2 "merged" with Black Shark I thought things had finally returned to a happy equilibrium. But again the target is moving. Personally, although this once drove me nuts, I no longer care. As long as the goal is to bring the multiplayer community together as opposed to dividing us among a host of incompatible or barely compatible products, I'll be happy. And if we can bring the desktop icon count down to say, two, I will be downright ecstatic.

Why don't they put an F-22 into FC3 and make DCS: MiG-29? I love the MiG-29!!!

But if that would make you happy, then what is so bad about the way it is now?

You are basically asking for what we are getting, the one difference might be that the F-22 icon wouldn't be in DCS World, but instead be included in FC3. F-22 won't be DCS, and such a thing was never intended. Why does the branding matter so much? It seems that not calling it DCS isn't enough for some, but that is must be labeled as nonDCS to be OK.

ED should just do away with FC (and the need to install LOMAC). Just add FC level planes to DCS World for those who want them and keep making DCS A-10C level modules for the high fidelity fans. If FC being integrated into DCS (as was the case with BS, and will be the case with A-10) is not enough to spark comments, why is adding FC modules to DCS World so bad? It's the same thing.

The original Lock On installed on your HD will be a requirement for FC3.

Thanks Jim.

Nate

As we have stated many times over the past several years, DCS is meant to include systems from different eras, at different locations, and at different levels of detail. We do not expect, or honestly want, all DCS aircraft to be at the A-10C level that is simply too much for many players. Quality does not necessarily equal complexity.

I think this is the only thing Wags has said that I firmly went with....

-1

Will third party developers be able to release scenery and atmosphere updates ala Real Environment X etc?

If they want, yes. However the SDK for that is not ready so I imagine anybody intending to do so will wait for that.

Nate

The original Lock On installed on your HD will be a requirement for FC3.

is it planned to have some kind of package (FC1+FC2(if needed)+FC3) ?

thx

What is the Definition Purpose and Plan of Development?

Hi,

Just sharing my view and opinions here,

Good Post - What is the Definition Purpose and Plan of DCS?

I have always found Forums clumsy, hard to see what the Big Picture is also very hard to communicate with as you don’t see the real person and the emotion, so bare with me on this post.

What I understand as my view as it should be for DCS going forward is that DCS will be an aerial fighter combat study simulator with many air crafts on offer.

Digital Combat Sims is to combine all projects under one main project to deliver a simulated effort of an Air Force and strategic WAR experience

• DCS World
  

More here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=87426

• DCS Combined Arms
  

More here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89468

• Realistic Theaters with Dynamic WAR Campaigns
  

More here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=64161

So what is “DCS Big Picture” it seems like that it is heading down the path of the original Microprose Falcon 4.0 concept now released as BMS4.32 free community project.

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0

Also here http://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/content.php

Which in my opinion, is exactly what a Combat Sim should be, now with 3rd Parties coming on board the dream is achievable and a complete aerial combat and encompassing ground battlefield intelligence to survive real war experiences is the direction it should take with DCS Series.

This meaning that all real time info is relative to air craft avionics and information using (AESA Radar) A-G Radar A-A, Radar, Data Link Cartridge, GPS etc all based on situational awareness with carrier operations and AWACS all air and ground intelligence operations.

If this is the case to simulate true Military and Air Force operations then it will be the best Simulator ever.

Although I must state only super hi-fidelity air craft with true flight modeling, realistic avionics with 3D full clickable cockpit is what most serious simmers want.

But if it’s a half ass attempt then it sucks apples big time and all the hype will be lost I guess as those who are aware of the Falcon 4.0 concept will most likely just leave the DCS brand and support the Falcon 4.0 Combat Simulator.

I don’t want that to happen, I would love for the DEVS to post a Development Plan on where DCS is heading and what would be the fighter jets that will be available.

Yeah I know how this might sound but I guess it is a product we the customers pay for right and there are many Falcon 4.0 fans here.

I hope for the best anyway all my opinions aside, I hope that all plans are successful with DCS.

I would really like to hear from a DEV Please? Thanks!

Thanks

WRAITH

I have always found Forums clumsy, hard to see what the Big Picture is also very hard to communicate with as you don’t see the real person and the emotion, ...

so bare with me on this post.

I would really like to hear from a DEV Please? Thanks!