The Battle Simulator by The Fighter Collection

It's more the other way round, the F-18C can be done, because ED has contracted a license to do so, and clearance from the military/manufacturer.

I remember a discussion about the AH-64 years ago when it was just DCS: A-10C. There was a notion like "won't happen"...

Doesn't rule it out forever, "Everything is subject to change", but I really wouldn't get my hopes high.

The negotiations for license, clearance and restrictions seems to be one of the major points always underestimated.

Yet everybody knows, if a bunch of lawyer's involved, it gets hairy. :D

The negotiations for license, clearance and restrictions seems to be one of the major points always underestimated.

To me this is always the biggest obstacle to any module being done.

While I generally agree with that, I think it depends on the module.

Some obscure WW2 plane might not be a problem licensing-wise, but you might have a hard time to get all the sources on everything.

For a ~1970s plane you might have access to everything you like, but possible licensing issues.

For a modern one you have the licensing issues, and also lack of access to material (just because it isn't there, or because of classified information).

And then of course more complexity means more work, which might be a factor if resources are limited.

So yeah, that's pretty much it. I also think one reason for people not understanding how licensing could be a problem are those who look at other, maybe older or less complex sims or games and say "hey, they got that license, so it cannot be that hard to get" but forget that a license and/or permission will become much harder to obtain if there is much simulation depth, like in DCSW.

Some obscure WW2 plane might not be a problem licensing-wise, but you might have a hard time to get all the sources on everything.

Remember the Oleg Maddox - Douglas issue by WW2 aircrafts.

Yeah, that's why I said it might not be a problem. Of course it may be one. It is just a bit less likely, especially when it is not an iconic aircraft and/or not from a manufacturer that still exists.

While I generally agree with that, I think it depends on the module.

Some obscure WW2 plane might not be a problem licensing-wise, but you might have a hard time to get all the sources on everything.

 

For a ~1970s plane you might have access to everything you like, but possible licensing issues.

 

For a modern one you have the licensing issues, and also lack of access to material (just because it isn't there, or because of classified information).

 

And then of course more complexity means more work, which might be a factor if resources are limited.

 

So yeah, that's pretty much it. I also think one reason for people not understanding how licensing could be a problem are those who look at other, maybe older or less complex sims or games and say "hey, they got that license, so it cannot be that hard to get" but forget that a license and/or permission will become much harder to obtain if there is much simulation depth, like in DCSW.

This! Exactly this!

Good comment :thumbup:

Remember the Oleg Maddox - Douglas issue by WW2 aircrafts.

No, do tell.

We are getting increasingly offtopic here, but long story short, as far as I remember it because that was a long time ago:

The aircraft manufacturer's (Northrop Grumman IIRC, not Douglas?) trademarks were used without permission.

License fees were demanded and the whole thing went back and forth for a while between Ubisoft, Northrop Grumman and Maddox games.

If you want to know more just google "Oleg Maddox Northrop Grumman license", I don't think this is a topic for these forums.

I don't know if this is really that much off topic.

After all, the current status could very well be the consequence of exactly what was written above: a number of planes with different realism and simulation-depth scattered over a pretty long period of time.

Planes that have barely any regional or chronological connection.

And that again is quite the opposite of what the OP posted and - what I think - we all are wanting - possibly including ED themselves?

But looking at it from the outside, it remains a question wether this is due to legal issues or simply a matter of available budget, manpower and technology.

I guess we will have to see.

To: ED re; The Battle Simulator

I'm interested about the TBS.I emailed Matt Wagner but didn't received any reply yet if the TBS is still active.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm interested about the TBS.I emailed Matt Wagner but didn't received any reply yet if the TBS is still active.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

http://www.thebattlesim.com/

is this active ? the Battle Simulator? im interested to avail of the software for our training.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

thank u guys

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Remember the Oleg Maddox - Douglas issue by WW2 aircrafts.

I'll be showing my (Old) age here to Young "Whipper Snappers ";) but I remember this very,very well.But it was perticularly about "Grumman" Aircraft.I believe Ubi-soft and in turn Oleg got sued because IL*2 Pacific Fighters came with a "Grumman Labeled" F4F WildCat and F6F HellCat,The Grumman Corporation is still in business and legally protected by Northrop Grumman Corp.

Not sure if it's been posted before but I just found this on Facebook

Attention, Attention!! Video of last minute

Second professional video Alabama, EDGE technology based FortRucker

-------------------

We scenery of Alabama-USA in World DCS flight simulator based on EDGE, professional product Eagle Dynamics, includes facilities FortRucker military base

 

Now the EDGE is 10 times better.. ;)

Not sure if it's been posted before but I just found this on Facebook

 

The video has very old (2012)

What Facebook?

I don't how to get the link to said post.

It's from someone named Edward Torres.

The post is from 2013

Edward Torres have a simulator friend by Colombia. Normally them post some of my post on simulation pages on FB, surely when I post the same video on 2013 on my 21Squad FB page, he shared them.

You can find them on avia ts ytb channel. Quite old

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

yes avia ts dont put new videos from a year old.

Hints of future / upcoming content from ED's other Product

A specific 1 engined lightweight multirole USAF fighter , a specfic rotary attack helicopter and some new maps, Potentially also coming to DCS i would think if its being mentioned on TBS. ( professional/ Military grade version of DCS):

"The Battle Simulator (TBS) is a networked, multi-purpose combat simulation environment that encompasses tactical and procedural training in a highly realistic environment. The simulation focus of TBS is on fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft that currently include the A-10A, A-10C, F-15C, Su-25, Su-25T, Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29, L-39C/ZA, and the Ka-50. Other aircraft are in development such as the F-16, F/A-18, and AH-64. Additional aircraft can be developed based on client needs. TBS also includes the ability to direct land and naval forces and operate as a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) from a first person perspective. All of this is seamlessly integrated in a common network environment."

"TBS allows the import of multiple theater map environments. The Black Sea region map consists of the western Caucasus and includes much of Georgia. The Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) has the largest contiguous air and ground space available for peacetime military operations in the free world. Other map environments are also in development that include the Strait of Hormuz, Afghanistan, Syria, and Crimea."

:music_whistling:

http://www.thebattlesim.com/

That's old news. They have been listed on the tbs site for years. And the fact that something may be coming to TBS does not necessarily mean that it will be coming to DCS. There could be all sorts of government- and manufacturer permissions and licenses preventing that. So there's no point in speculating.

Other upcoming modules include a pink pachyderm, and a porcine advanced flight modelling project.

Alternatively, we can instead rely on the 100% accurate announcements made by ED themselves regarding what is and isn't in the pipeline.