SDK released to everyone

NO NO NO NO NO released the SDK would be death. Look how much it screws with android phones. Apple took the right step and everything needs to go through them. Android phones are a virus infested swamp and forever different versions. You never know what you are going to get.

I would suggest releasing the API though or at least charging the third parties to use it as long as they have a legit product. That way the A-4 could use the radio and such.

TBH I think for community teams that have proved they can product quality content (like a-4E/ MB-339) I'd like to see them have the ability to enable features that are locked behind the SDK.

The amount of work involved to produce content of that quality is substantial. AND yes I also would not like to see a pollution of low quality mods (or UFO"s in DCS).

BUT

I only see this adding to DCS sales if a few more planes could be added into the free game. I really don't see that being a sales loss to ED, quite the opposite.

Also I really can't see this creating a huge quantity of free user made modules(impacting sales) , when they would need to be of a certain quality standard like this (it takes a long time to make mods of this quality, and teams like these should be helped, so it can be added to free part of DCS.

TBH I think for community teams that have proved they can product quality content (like a-4E/ MB-339) I'd like to see them have the ability to enable features that are locked behind the SDK.

 

The amount of work involved to produce content of that quality is substantial. AND yes I also would not like to see a pollution of low quality mods (or UFO"s in DCS).

BUT

I only see this adding to DCS sales if a few more planes could be added into the free game. I really don't see that being a sales loss to ED, quite the opposite.

 

 

Also I really can't see this creating a huge quantity of free user made modules(impacting sales) , when they would need to be of a certain quality standard like this (it takes a long time to make mods of this quality, and teams like these should be helped, so it can be added to free part of DCS.

I believe if the moders that produced content like a-4E/MB-339 can contact ED and go as 3rd party via official channel if they wish to put the required effort. This way they will also make money.

To the contrary...

If it was up to me I would say this is a bad idea and a huge mistake, fortunately, it is not up to me, so I am going to say this--

There is nothing really stopping skilled teams from applying to become ED's 3rd party, then I can vote with my wallet.

If it was up to me I would say this is a bad idea and a huge mistake, fortunately, it is not up to me, so I am going to say this--

 

There is nothing really stopping skilled teams from applying to become ED's 3rd party, then I can vote with my wallet.

Pretty much. If they can't muster the organisation and resources for that, they don't need it. See Blackcat's failed Tu-22 for an example of why thingsvwork the way they do

I believe if the moders that produced content like a-4E/MB-339 can contact ED and go as 3rd party via official channel if they wish to put the required effort. This way they will also make money.

No, not talking about making money, that creates all sorts of licensing issues with intellectual property of the planes and systems. I'm talking about quality community mod like the A-4E and to keep it free (as in freedom to use). You missed the point. Its not always about making money for the team in question. These are community teams , not commercial projects, with hours of work put in because that are willing to spend their free time on something they enjoy.

But that also doesn't mean that it makes DCS of less value to new user, quite the opposite, in many games its created more sales. Some have exploded because of mods or been given new life. Its just a case of how ED manage it.

Even if its not allowing access to a the full SDK , maybe just an adjustment with more hooks into game features is all that's required.

We are still talking about controlled SDK access or at least not locking features behind it. I've never seen a project where mods have impacted sales. Its almost always the opposite.

This type of thinking is very short sighted.

Pretty much. If they can't muster the organisation and resources for that, they don't need it. See Blackcat's failed Tu-22 for an example of why things work the way they do

That's pretty disrespectful for those teams to say that, considering the efforts they have already made to produce such quality projects. Hundreds of hours have already gone into such projects.

And you also missed the point. Some features require the SDK to get access to

You understand the SDK means Software Development Kit? Without an SDK mod scope is limited , things like the radio and ATC coms limitations for example. (The SDK is required to make them fully functional)

Its nothing to do with licenses or money.

This mod is an example of something as good as many (if not better) than some current paid mods. (and its not impacting sales or quality of dcs right now, thats just BS to say so)

I have heard nothing here that is a realistic reason (if managed right) where this can't work and be of great value to dcs.

(basically talking about free value to dcs, increasing the value of DCS, plane mods just scratch the surface)

Like I said managed right is massive potential value to dcs. The resistance in this thread is quite absurd.

I don't know enough about process to apply for sdk , but it sounds like the current blocks are due to only allowing commercial companies access. Much of the info is not public from what I've tried to find, until you apply for one.

Maybe someone that actually done this could confirm.

I know what SDK means. The point is in order to build an aircraft, you need a team of experienced people and some resources. If you can't put together the minimum needed, then you're not a professional group capable of turning out a real product. If you want access, apply for it.

You people act like you think the community is going to crank out tons of ''professional grade'' stuff, and they're not. The few that can actually do it, can do it through the available avenue. You just sound like some random dude like a million others clamoring for mods/planes like they appear out of nothing. Not to denigrate the community mods, but they're NOT on the same level, simply because they have clicky cockpits doesn't change that.

There is a way for people to get the sdk. Anybody interested should look into it. If they're not willing to do that, then they don't need it. Ladt thing we need is more half baked crap.

I know what SDK means. The point is in order to build an aircraft, you need a team of experienced people and some resources. If you can't put together the minimum needed, then you're not a professional group capable of turning out a real product. If you want access, apply for it.

 

You people act like you think the community is going to crank out tons of ''professional grade'' stuff, and they're not. The few that can actually do it, can do it through the available avenue. You just sound like some random dude like a million others clamoring for mods/planes like they appear out of nothing. Not to denigrate the community mods, but they're NOT on the same level, simply because they have clicky cockpits doesn't change that.

 

There is a way for people to get the sdk. Anybody interested should look into it. If they're not willing to do that, then they don't need it. Ladt thing we need is more half baked crap.

Thats just nonsensical, If u don't like a mod , don't install it , no one is forcing you too. And I've already made it clear (well I though it was pretty obvious) that I know the amount of work/skills required to make a good mod was substantial. So you saying the two mods I've used as example are half backed crap? I have a degree and experience in programming I know whats involved in this type or project (not the graphics and fm/dm's etc, but also substantial time and talent )

Please point me to the to the application process. I'd like that.

EDIT:

(this explains why these guys will not make it a commercial project, BUT it does require actual reading of the posters comments... neither do I want these to be commercial, and that's not because I would not pay for it, I would.)

Quote from one of the devs on redit

While this is a nice thought and a common refrain and we appreciate this kind of enthusiasm, it's extremely unlikely that this will ever occur. In addition to a lack of startup capital, the fear of reception of the product once people might have to pay for it, the geographic and time zone constraints of the far-too-few developers (who cannot risk upending their lives to switch careers on such a risk), the inability to compensate the dozen or so contributors who no longer work on the project makes this wholly unfeasible. Ethically, the only way to do something like that would be to start an entirely new project, which our current resources and team couldn't possibly support.

 

As such, our aim is to continue to keep true to gospadin's original vision for the module: to create a solid open-source, well-featured module that can serve as a model or basis for others to create such mods for DCS world, and so continuing to maintain (and hopefully improve) the module with the help and support of community members can really be our only feasible goal.

full article:

I'm currently reading through these dated doc's, though much is not in these still from my reading.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116901

The application process is you contact the company yourself and negotiate terms. There is not a ''apply here'' button. Write to the company, bring a portfolio, you know, like the professional you say you are, and see what happens.

I did not say the community projects are half baked. I said releasing it would generate a ton of half baked drivel. Take a walk through the mod section, there's plenty of it. I said they are NOT on par with the commercial products, and they are NOT, although they make an excellent portfolio offering.

And thanks for making my point!

Those guys indicate fear of reception because they don't have the resources, manpower, or time to dedicate to a project of that scope, and they know from observing the treatment commercial devs get that people willwig the F out when it breaks and they can't keep up. Expanding the complexity of the project 10+ times sounds like a GREAT idea. So, some of the only people who COULD do anything themselves admit it would be too much trouble.

Or we could, like, accept this is a ridiculous notion and move on to something useful. I'm reminded of a couple vocal forumites who swore up and down about ED's competency and policy, and they were all EXPERTS and gonna go start their own sim and blah blah blah. Yeah, didn't happen, and people waving about their credentials as self qualifiers are usually best ignored. They bitch the loudest and do the least.

 

Please point me to the to the application process. I'd like that.

1] get a team

2] make a proof of concept

3] make a business plan

4] contact Wags

There's two choices. It's not negotiable

You retain full control of your mod, you can't charge money for it, you have some things limited, not much, but silly things like you see lacking on the aeromacci and A4.

or

You do as said above, you relinquish at least some control of what you want to do, at least as far as ED sets the requirements. You get some limited support but can generate the full requirement for an ED module. It has to be signed off by ED, it becomes DLC, you lose some control of what you want to do because it needs to meet requirements.

There is no half way point. To develop on a free but licensed intellectual property of ED, you are only allowed to do it their way, which, is absolutely normal and I dont understand why folks dont get it.

@zhukov032186 My request was ironic...

From your comments I hear your listening. I'll just agree to not agree with your "arguments", because we know each other so well.

My apologies and thanks to those that answered anyway, for the specific details.

5} then go to the Winchester...

There's two choices. It's not negotiable

 

You retain full control of your mod, you can't charge money for it, you have some things limited, not much, but silly things like you see lacking on the aeromacci and A4.

 

or

 

You do as said above, you relinquish at least some control of what you want to do, at least as far as ED sets the requirements. You get some limited support but can generate the full requirement for an ED module. It has to be signed off by ED, it becomes DLC, you lose some control of what you want to do because it needs to meet requirements.

 

There is no half way point. To develop on a free but licensed intellectual property of ED, you are only allowed to do it their way, which, is absolutely normal and I dont understand why folks dont get it.

For those interested A-4E ver 1.4 upcoming info link:

I think one of the current features they can't do is radio coms with AI, so its not possible to use the A-4Eand have wingmen control of the AI.

I'm still working my way through all this to understand the limitations of not having an SDK. I still think it's an impressive piece of work considering its a community effort.

Seriously, why the A-4 guys (or anyone interested in creating quality stuff) don't want to contact ED and make it official module ? If they don't want to charge cash it is still possible - remember DEKA made J-11 ? MiG-21 also started as a mod and switched to official. I-16 is similar 1 person show as well. I think this is the way to do it, create very good mod, when you reach a point you are limited by the lack of SDK, contact ED and discuss further progress.

Seriously, why the A-4 guys (or anyone interested in creating quality stuff) don't want to contact ED and make it official module ? If they don't want to charge cash it is still possible - remember DEKA made J-11 ? MiG-21 also started as a mod and switched to official. I-16 is similar 1 person show as well. I think this is the way to do it, create very good mod, when you reach a point you are limited by the lack of SDK, contact ED and discuss further progress.

The a-4 team answered this question a few months ago. I can't find the statement at the moment, but it was along the line that for sdk you need to have a business relation with ed. Also if it gets added as an official module, they need licensing from the manufacturer and for the a-4 they said that it was to expensive and complicated. I think for Deka it was possible because they made the j-11 just as a preparation for the jf-17 when they already had the contract with ed.

Everybody talks about modules (aka planes). I think SDK for terrain and terrain objects is far more fruitful. Making planes and aircraft systems is really hard and I wouldn't expect many, if any, user made planes of high quality. Below seems self evident:

The hard part is the coding of entire electrical, fuel, and avionics systems in a functionally accurate fashion. Each aircraft takes 3-5 years to produce for an entire team of dedicated professionals.

Top of my wish list is large terrains. I do believe DCS miss out on a significant customer base of hard core simmers by not having big terrains to navigate given that DCS offers the best quality flight model and planes systems simulation on the market. I did note one 3rd party saying they want to make civilian planes and see no reason DCS couldn't be a civilian sim as well.

Customer made terrains wouldn't be great, at least at first, but something is better than nothing. Here is where the user base could be harnessed. We can't mention other flight sims, so I'll only say I know of other sims with tons and tons of user made terrains. I also remember the vitality and enthusiasm that happened there.

Seriously, why the A-4 guys (or anyone interested in creating quality stuff) don't want to contact ED and make it official module ? If they don't want to charge cash it is still possible - remember DEKA made J-11 ? MiG-21 also started as a mod and switched to official. I-16 is similar 1 person show as well. I think this is the way to do it, create very good mod, when you reach a point you are limited by the lack of SDK, contact ED and discuss further progress.

Licensing is the issue IIRC. If its in DCS "officially" it needs a real license otherwise ED gets sued by the OEM. And licenses cost money etc.

Seriously, why the A-4 guys (or anyone interested in creating quality stuff) don't want to contact ED and make it official module ? If they don't want to charge cash it is still possible - remember DEKA made J-11 ? MiG-21 also started as a mod and switched to official. I-16 is similar 1 person show as well. I think this is the way to do it, create very good mod, when you reach a point you are limited by the lack of SDK, contact ED and discuss further progress.

Licensing is the issue IIRC. If its in DCS "officially" it needs a real license otherwise ED gets sued by the OEM. And licenses cost money etc.

Yes

You can't sell anything without licenses from the manufacturer.

ie if u put a radar system in plane it needs license from owner, plane needs license, usually any name brand item/component etc (basically almost any component or plane needs licenses to make commercial sale)

That's why in games you often see no-name brands on stuff ( just look at car sims , same issue, even name race tracks etc)

Then you may have to comply with owner of the intellectual properties conditions as well, what ever you negotiate with them. Some will not even allow you to use the item at all.

Its a complicated time consuming process to go through. And that is only part of the problems, once you make something a commercial product.... (read back previous page. My post and you can see some of the other reasons (direct from a community dev)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4206915&postcount=33

See also post #37 by Pikey (previous page)

Everybody talks about modules (aka planes). I think SDK for terrain and terrain objects is far more fruitful. Making planes and aircraft systems is really hard and I wouldn't expect many, if any, user made planes of high quality. Below seems self evident:

 

Top of my wish list is large terrains. I do believe DCS miss out on a significant customer base of hard core simmers by not having big terrains to navigate given that DCS offers the best quality flight model and planes systems simulation on the market. I did note one 3rd party saying they want to make civilian planes and see no reason DCS couldn't be a civilian sim as well.

 

Customer made terrains wouldn't be great, at least at first, but something is better than nothing. Here is where the user base could be harnessed. We can't mention other flight sims, so I'll only say I know of other sims with tons and tons of user made terrains. I also remember the vitality and enthusiasm that happened there.

I totally agree, but for majority of stuff , you don't need a full SDK. DCS is already quite mod friendly as it is. I'd love to see some more free maps for sure , who wouldn't , however that is a massive job too (if u want an accurate representation , you would need to also make many new 3d assets). Not sure if you would need SDK to link into DCS , but I think would.

Map access is a very contentious issue in DCS, it creates division in the player base. There is a new free map coming (thank god , yes).

I like what IL-2 GB has done, you can only use maps you don't own in multiplayer (not on your own server though), and you still need to own the planes/vehicles. That would be cool to in dcs....

DCS is the only real full modern era combat sim on the market , (IL-2 GB series is also ww2 combat sim, has good flight models , very good damage models (nothing is perfect) but DCS goes deeper in terms of systems and cockpit modeling. Microsoft Flight Simulator X also but that's not a combat sim , so none of the fancy avionics and weapons, so less complexity ... (there are some others , not trying to make a comparison of what is better than what, each does something better and worse)

Modules and stuff in DCS cost a lot in relation to the time spent making them , then you have to make a profit as well. A lot of people don't get the time and research involved in doing quality accurate stuff, (including all the test , bug fixing and performance tuning). There is a lot of admin stuff behind the scenes too , its all $cost for a developer in DCS.

And if is commercial then you also have to document and support it... You can't blame community projects that don't want to go there, however that doesn't mean features of dcs could not be made avail to them, currently unavailable without the sdk.

I'd like to see some way to allow that to happen, but how is the question?. (my knowledge of dcs development is not that deep , yet...)

Currently that is not available , you are either in or out (I get the reasons, why its like it is, I'd just like that to have more flexibility then we currently do.)

@ everyone saying ''HODOR YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT'' because of my comment about Unreal.

Yes, actually, I do. Coding is coding, it's true. FM coding is not technically speaking any different from any other form of coding. Lines of code are lines of code.

The complexity is that in DCS case they are modeling a real world aircraft to high detail. There is a very low margin of error for how ''things are supposed to work''. For example, Star Citizen is project wise as complex as any other game, DCS included. But it's a SCI-FI UNIVERSE WITH SPACESHIPS. They can do whatever the F they want.

In DCS the aircraft must adhere very closely to provided documentation with low margin for error. It is not enough that it looks like an F-16 and behaves in a fashion appropriate for a fighter jet. It is essential that it behave across a wide regime of flight profiles in the (or almost) exact fashion as a real F-16, and while doing so the systems, avionics, etc etc must ALSO behave extremely similar to the real thing with ''authentic'' not being good enough.

End result, no lines of code are not magically harder to write, but the requirements placed on those lines of code, the ''game engine'', is a lot more complicated!!! That's not debatable. It's a fact. Yes other game engines could do something similar, some do, Unreal could but does not, end result THIS project is MORE COMPLICATED than a lot of those others.

So, trim your neckbeards and stop waving your nonsensical e-credentials at me, I neither care nor am I wrong. Have fun!

...

There's no a single video game in the world ever made that suffered from rich modding scene.

 

All that being said, ED is doing what they are think is best for their software. I wish them good luck.

Yes and some have even been given new life (like IL-2 COD) due to community efforts, good on ya! You get the idea.

and @zhukov032186 . No comment , the effort is wasted!

Yes and some have even been given new life (like IL-2 COD) due to community efforts, good on ya! You get the idea.

 

 

and @zhukov032186 . No comment , the effort is wasted!

Yep, an abandoned shell of a game was given new life, but none of that cost the company money because you still had to buy the game in the first place. It's outright detrimental for their pocket book to hand out the SDK and even allow the possibility of competing free products. It's not rocket science. Safe to say those thriving mod scenes also require purchase of the base game and asset packs, which isn't the case here. The aircraft ARE the money makers.

Yep, an abandoned shell of a game was given new life, but none of that cost the company money because you still had to buy the game in the first place. It's outright detrimental for their pocket book to hand out the SDK and even allow the possibility of competing free products. It's not rocket science. Safe to say those thriving mod scenes also require purchase of the base game and asset packs, which isn't the case here. The aircraft ARE the money makers.

I can comment on this but I choose not to, so...

Its prob better we ignore each others posts. Our thoughts are diametrically apposed , and it would just derail the discussion. I would never agree with your sentiments on this.