03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

it would be nice to have in game voice comms via the FM/AM Radios.

Isn't there a mod for integrating TS3 with the in-game radios somehow? But apart from that, I don't see how you could prohibite team players using TS for voice comms, regardless of what DCS and/or mission makers enforce. Or did I completely miss your meaning there?

yes

It should also model things such as signal strength, terrain blocking, attenuation and more.

This part already gets done. :)

Though of course, good question whether the same code can be used for real-time-comms. Hopefully.

I must say...I cannot wait to see more about the AFM for the flanker. WOW!! Just imagine...that ED render where the flanker taxis more realistically than the current DCS world. :D WHEE!! :D

There is something important though here, see these statements:

 

- "LOFI" development does impact hifi development.

- "LOFI" development does not impact hifi development.

- "LOFI" development does not necessarily impact hifi development.

 

In this specific case:

 

Step 1: We have the new F-15C pit. Keeps simple systems and SFM.

Step 2: Develop AFM. Release an F-15C that keeps simple systems but has SFM.

Step 3: Develop the rest.

 

The logic one needs to use if proposing that the mentioned products will "delay" hifi modules thereof would also require that development of the F-15C pit for FC3 also "delayed" hifi module thereof - but how can that be so when that pit is prepped and ready for said hifi module?

 

If the proposal was to make and release a "mid-level" (non-clickable but AFM) AT-802U, then yes - THEN it would be reasonable to assume this might delay hifi F-15C's. But some serious contortions of logic are required to see an F-15C AFM being developed and then say "but this will delay an A-10C level simulation of the F-15C". That is one heck of a logical somersault. :P

Your arguments are only valid when we're dealing with transferable work and you know perfectly well that not all work is transferable. Now we're discussing '27 and '15 for DCS vs FC so obviously these are the same machines but I also remember claims that X does not delay Y from the past, when X and Y were not about the same machines.

Even with the same machines in the works not all work is transferable and ED clearly does not have enough resources to throw around, e.g. even if the same machines are to be implemented in DCS and FC, there's still... testing.

Even when I'm outright wrong so far it still weird that ED is fine without knowing what their customers really want (ED doesn't know whether a person buying FC3 wants to play FC3 or just supports ED). Especially in the 'big data' times when any bank would like to know whether you like busty brunes or skinny gingers, so they can use the information to tailor their '''''''''products''''''''' to you.

Even when I'm outright wrong so far it still weird that ED is fine without knowing what their customers really want (ED doesn't know whether a person buying FC3 wants to play FC3 or just supports ED).

This is all the more an argument towards the insignificance of hardcore simmers compared to FC clientele, numberwise.

Hi Bucic.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1753897&postcount=755

From earlier in this thread. ;)

Gateway modules...

Taking the F-15C/SU-27 and Separating them from LockOn/FC3,

Giving them their Own Module Binaries, And AFM is a Step to the DCS Fidelity Modules.

So,

FC3, SFM+LockONScript Systems

Fighter For DCSWorld, Individual Binaries+AFM+LockOnScript Systems

DCS Fighter, Individual Binaris+AFM+High Fidelity Systems+Clickable Pits.

The F-15C/SU-27 Modules are part of the Progression to the DCS Modules.

Given that FC3 is doing the best sales wise, and there are still people holding out because they only want to fly 1 of the fighters,

or they are not able to acquire a legal copy of LockOn because of region restrictions.

They are offering the F-15C/SU-27 Modules separately.

It's Win-Win for ED. More Customers can Fly the planes without the LockOn Hassle, and More revenue coming in to apply to development of DCS Fighter.

The Simple Answer is, if you dont want it, dont buy it.

AFM Alone is worth $15-20... but the pricing hasnt been released yet, but either way, I support ED and DCS Development, so, F-5C+AFM, I'll be buyin' it.

if you dont want it, dont buy it.

That's the way I do things.

Admittedly, every World module released thus far has had something I wanted to at least try, so I bought them all. I think Combined Arms took me the longest between beta release and purchase (apart from A-10, but I didn't have a PC to run it)

I'm just saying that situations weren't always like in the 'Su-27 FC > Su-27 DCS' case and won't always be.

Hi Bucic.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1753897&postcount=755

 

From earlier in this thread. ;)

That's where I agree with you! :)

I'm out. I surely find more serious culprits in ED products than release scheduling.

I wish they could make an AFM for SU-33.....

I think the future looks good. I know ED are doing what's best, but just to play devil's advocate... heck, why not make a game similar to Air Combat 5 for the PC to generate funds. Why not just make a First Person Shooter?

I think the answer is you can still make money in a niche market. People will pay for what they want. I like what is going here. ED have a passion for Flight Sims. That is why they are not making an Aircombat like game or FPS.

You could wait for a DCS level fighter, with nothing new while you wait, and no funds for ED. Even better though is releasing things like AFM for F-15/Su-27. The work can go towards DCS F-18, it generates funds for ED, and something new for us while we wait. It is a win-win situation for sure. The wait is still hard though :)