Jump to content

Surprised with a few questions


arraamis

Recommended Posts

I stumbled upon the news {DCS: A-10C} by accident and think it will be a great improvement over the previously released version.

 

But, I am curious about the why's.

 

Why the A-10C?

Why not, a Multirole Fighter?

 

The introduction of a model that is, in its older form {A-10A}, flyable in the recently released FC2, doesn't IMHO add anything substantial to the series. I know there are several cockpit and weapon enhancements, that favor the newer version A-10C, over the older, but, it is still an A-10 variant - That has been flyable since the original LockOn.

 

The NATO side has had a (CAS) and an Air superiority tactical fighter, but no multirole fighter, which would IMHO, add considerable balance to the sim.

 

Russian side: Su-25, Su-25T, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29A, Mig-29C and the KA-50.

NATO side: F-15C, and A-10A.

 

I was hoping to hear some encouraging news, about a carrier-based multirole fighter {Ideal situation} on the NATO side - Especially since several multirole models are available ingame already as non-flyables. But that doesn't seem to be in the works and I'm having a difficult time understanding the why's.

 

 

To conclude, I was a little hesitant about submitting this thread, knowing that many, quite possibly, will reply emotionally, without understanding the content. But, keeping these thoughts to myself wouldn't help to gain a greater understanding about DCS's future plans - Nor would it aid in understanding the big picture.

 

So, there it is!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why A10C?

Because there was a military contract for a simulation of it, giving very good access to data and knowledge transfer while allows for a level of fidelity that is way higher than what would be possible for most (if not all) multirole fighters.

 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that the A10C is anything like the A10A in FC2. The transition to C-model is a very major upgrade to it's systems and capabilities, and the flight model is completely replaced. (A10A in FC2 uses the "SFM", A10C uses a model that is not just one but several divisions higher up both in detail, fidelity and capability.)

 

Multiroles being "available ingame already as non-flyables" - that is completely irrelevant. Taking one of those and making it into a DCS is bigger than the whole development work on FC2. Basically, you cannot just modify one of them and make them flyable and give them a cockpit. That would be a bit like taking a small one-family house and converting it into a record-breaking skyscraper - having the house doesn't help, and you'll end up removing it completely anyhow.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple answer would be that ED has been doing a A-10C trainer for the US ANG and have secured the rights to create a entertainment product from that trainer (as far as I can remember).

Second, it is not meant as a product for the Lock On/Flaming Cliffs series but for the Digital combat Simulator series, none of the planes in the FC series has even a fraction of the functionality that will be in the DCS series. with regard to multirole ac then one reason I could se is the radar modelling, I don't think that DCS has a proper A/G radar modelled yet.

 

Staffan

http://www.ipms.dk

i7 9700K, Asus Z390 Prime A, Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 4, GeForce RTX 2080 Ti STRIX ROG, Fractal Design Define R6, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind, Oculus Rift S. 32 GB 3200 MHz RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The NATO side has had a (CAS) and an Air superiority tactical fighter, but no multirole fighter, which would IMHO, add considerable balance to the sim.

 

 

Which sim? Lock On - Modern Air Combat, Flaming Cliffs in both versions 1.1 and 2.0 and DCS series are completely different simulators that only visually might look alike...I see no flyable A-10A in DCS...

 

A-10C is IMHO a good option in many ways:

-modern ground pounder/FAC/CAS aircraft of USAF and ANG that will be present at every battlefield within next 15-20 years.

-lots of A-10C data declassified (thanks to ED), DCS modules are based upon real data and not on "what ifs" like most of the sims today nad years before

-shares a lot with US multirole fighters (F-16C), just look at the MFDs and available functions

-next module could be a dedicated fighter and the mix of two could lead to Multirole fighter modules with DCS

-why F-16C, we're all kinda sick and tired of it

-there's no other A-10C sim in the market but most of us already played many F-16 sims, F-15E Strike Eagle, Eurofighter, F/A-18...you name it...


Edited by Vekkinho

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The A10C is an excellent choice: a high fidelity version of it for the pc doesnt yet exist and we are overdue! I fully support and will purchase this.

"You see, IronHand is my thing"

My specs:  W10 Pro, I5/11600K o/c to 4800 @1.32v, 64 GB 3200 XML RAM, ASUS RTX3060ti/8GB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which sim? Lock On - Modern Air Combat, Flaming Cliffs in both versions 1.1 and 2.0 and DCS series are completely different simulators that only visually might look alike...I see no flyable A-10A in DCS...

 

A-10C is IMHO a good option in many ways:

-modern ground pounder/FAC/CAS aircraft of USAF and ANG that will be present at every battlefield within next 15-20 years.

-lots of A-10C data declassified (thanks to ED), DCS modules are based upon real data and not on "what ifs" like most of the sims today nad years before

-shares a lot with US multirole fighters (F-16C), just look at the MFDs and available functions

-next module could be a dedicated fighter and the mix of two could lead to Multirole fighter modules with DCS

-why F-16C, we're all kinda sick and tired of it

-there's no other A-10C sim in the market but most of us already played many F-16 sims, F-15E Strike Eagle, Eurofighter, F/A-18...you name it...

 

Several of your statements fall flat on logic - especially since the A-10 has been flyable since Lockon. And certainly there are few claiming to be sick of the Hog.

 

Also, To suggest that there is a complete separation between the sims is somewhat ludicrous - otherwise we wouldn't need to have lockon installed as a foundation, prior to installing FC1 or FC2. So, you're wrong .... they are not completely different!

 

And lastly, no where in my post did I mention the F-16 ... I stated a multirole carrier based fighter.

 

*******

 

My thanks go out to slug88, EtherealN and Danish_Squid, for the very informative replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several of your statements fall flat on logic - especially since the A-10 has been flyable since Lockon. And certainly there are few claiming to be sick of the Hog......

 

One cannot even begin to compare FC2 A10 vs DCS:A10C......But if you really want to, think of it this way:

 

Spend 5 min on this:

 

rocking-horse-LG-765b100.jpg

 

 

Then attempt to spend 5 min on this:

 

cowboyrodeocigerette.jpg

 

 

Trust me - Destined to Fail!

 

Then again - Don't take my word for it: Wait and see ;)

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the only reason that you have to have LOMAC installed prior to installing FC2 is for licensing reasons: Ubisoft still owns the rights to LOMAC and its expansion packs in the West, and they implemented the requirement, presumabely so that they could benefit from further sales of LOMAC. Note that the Russian version of FC2 does not require LOMAC to be installed. Why? Because LOMAC was originally released by a different publisher in Russia, and so Ubi has no rights there.

 

Furthermore, I think it is correct to say that FC2 and DCS are "completely different simulators that only visually might look alike". The A-10C of DCS will be completely different than the A-10A of FC2 and before. You need only spend a few days with DCS:BS to see why that is so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot even begin to compare FC2 A10 vs DCS:A10C......But if you really want to, think of it this way:

 

 

You clearly and grossly, misread my statements, there was no comparison made between the FC2 A-10 and the yet to be released DCS A-10C. You cannot compare something that is distributed to something that is in production.

 

The logic that fails is that "one would get tired of flying a particular flight model version of a F-16, FA\18" because he owned Falcon 4 or FA\18 hornet. This previous usage and ownership would, as a result, exclude that one from wanting any high fidelity version of the F-16\FA\18 released in the future. This is illogical!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You clearly and grossly, misread my statements, there was no comparison made between the FC2 A-10 and the yet to be released DCS A-10C. You cannot compare something that is distributed to something that is in production.!!

 

 

........

 

 

 

.....The introduction of a model that is, in its older form {A-10A}, flyable in the recently released FC2, doesn't IMHO add anything substantial to the series. I know there are several cockpit and weapon enhancements, that favor the newer version A-10C, over the older, but, it is still an A-10 variant - That has been flyable since the original LockOn......

 

 

Well then - you certainly fooled me :thumbup:

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems there is a general misconception, arraamis, which might lead to the "misunderstandings".

 

Vekkinho's stated:

Which sim? Lock On - Modern Air Combat, Flaming Cliffs in both versions 1.1 and 2.0 and DCS series are completely different simulators that only visually might look alike...I see no flyable A-10A in DCS...

 

And you replied:

Also, To suggest that there is a complete separation between the sims is somewhat ludicrous - otherwise we wouldn't need to have lockon installed as a foundation, prior to installing FC1 or FC2. So, you're wrong .... they are not completely different!

 

You probably missed his point, before jumping in his face, because LO/FC and DCS ARE completely different simulators. The engine may not be to whatever extend, but the content and level of realism most surely is.

 

And then this:

The introduction of a model that is, in its older form {A-10A}, flyable in the recently released FC2, doesn't IMHO add anything substantial to the series. I know there are several cockpit and weapon enhancements, that favor the newer version A-10C, over the older, but, it is still an A-10 variant - That has been flyable since the original LockOn.

 

This also sounds as if the A-10C will be added to LockOn/FC-Series, in which it was flyable in it's older version before. But the A-10C will not be an addon for LockOn or a new version of FlamingCliffs, but a module of DCS. And if the new product DCS: A-10C will be compatible with LockOn/FlamingCliffs isn't even know at this time.

 

So, I think there could be a general misconception here, about what LockOn, what FlamingCliffs and what DCS is.


Edited by Feuerfalke
  • Like 1

Gigabyte GA-Z87-UD3H | i7 4470k @ 4.5 GHz | 16 GB DDR3 @ 2.133 Ghz | GTX 1080 | LG 55" @ 4K | Cougar 1000 W | Creative X-Fi Ti | TIR5 | CH HOTAS (with BU0836X-12 Bit) + Crosswind Pedals | Win10 64 HP | X-Keys Pro 20 & Pro 54 | 2x TM MFD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are MANY who want a nato multirole fighter F14, F16, F18 ect.... for now A-10c was first on deck.

For me F16 should be next for a TREMENDOUS number of reasons but that and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee. :music_whistling:

 

AHEM HARRIER... cough....cough TORNADO cough sorry lol...

 

Honestly guys, give the Brit's a chance for a chance :P.

 

You guys can add me to the list of those wanting a multirole fighter - I'm not particular to one over the other ... just make it so.;) A Tornado would be a dream ... but I wouldn't be disappointed if a FA\18 showed up for the party.

 

 

You probably missed his point, before jumping in his face, because LO/FC and DCS ARE completely different simulators. The engine may not be to whatever extend, but the content and level of realism most surely is.

.

 

I'm not clear on the meaning, "jumping in someone's face", but I digress.

 

If you, along with others choose to believe that two sims distributed under different license agreements, but have the same developers, same code with enhancements and more importantly, the same engine - make them "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SIMULATIONS", that is your prerogative and choice.

I choose to acknowledge a different perspective .... they are NOT "Completely Different Sims".

 

-Lockon with code enhancements and additional craft = FC1

-FC1 with Additional code enhancements, GUI modification and additional enhanced craft = Blackshark

-FC1 GUI interface modification and additional code enhancements = FC2

-All previous code\GUI enhancements and additional enhanced craft = DCS:A-10C

 

Maybe we're using different dictionaries, but last I checked:

 

Different - "not alike in character or quality; differing; dissimilar: The two are different." ... dissimilar, unlike, separate, distinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well then - you certainly fooled me :thumbup:

 

 

LOL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Intel i7-4790k | Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo heat sink | Thermaltake Core V71 case | 750W EVGA PSU | 8gb G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 RAM | MSI Z97 Gaming 5 LGA 1150 motherboard | Samsung SSD | ASUS STRIX GTX 970 | Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog | TIR 5 | Razer Deathadder | Corsair K70

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you, along with others choose to believe that two sims distributed under different license agreements, but have the same developers, same code with enhancements and more importantly, the same engine - make them "COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SIMULATIONS", that is your prerogative and choice.

 

No, that is by ED's definition, period, end of story. You're entitled to your opinion, you're still incorrect.

I choose to acknowledge a different perspective .... they are NOT "Completely Different Sims".

 

You are wrong.

 

-Lockon with code enhancements and additional craft = FC1
Yeah, we can go with that one a bit.

 

-FC1 with Additional code enhancements, GUI modification and additional enhanced craft = Blackshark
Untrue, a lot of code was ripped out and rewritten. Aside from looks, it has next to nothing in common with FC1.

 

-FC1 GUI interface modification and additional code enhancements = FC2

Incorrect, in the same way BS != FC1 + 'some enhancements'

 

-All previous code\GUI enhancements and additional enhanced craft = DCS:A-10C
Also incorrect, a lot of code ripped out, rewritten, huge amounts of functionality added and in some cases re-developed.

 

Maybe we're using different dictionaries, but last I checked:

 

Different - "not alike in character or quality; differing; dissimilar: The two are different." ... dissimilar, unlike, separate, distinct.

Correct. FC1 differs from FC2 which differs from BS which differs from the Hog.

 

Each product is (sometimes for reasons you may not be aware of and will not be aware of), in fact, distinct, no matter how much you wish and opine for it to be otherwise :)

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going by the journals & FAQ's.

 

Will Flaming Cliffs 2.0 use the same "engine" as Black Shark?

 

A: It would be more accurate to say that both Flaming Cliffs 2.0 and Black Shark use the same generation of The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE).

 

The initial release of DCS (the Black Shark module) uses a modified version of The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE). This is the same engine we used for earlier entertainment and military-grade simulation products. This engine provides worlds that are much, much larger and much greater rendering distances. As such, object density cannot be as high or suffer significant frame rate slow-downs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One cannot even begin to compare FC2 A10 vs DCS:A10C......But if you really want to, think of it this way:

 

Spend 5 min on this:

 

rocking-horse-LG-765b100.jpg

 

 

Then attempt to spend 5 min on this:

 

cowboyrodeocigerette.jpg

 

 

Trust me - Destined to Fail!

 

Then again - Don't take my word for it: Wait and see ;)

 

Hahaha you my friend are a master of wit :D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going by product releases ;)

 

Just because some (even major) components are the same, it doesn't mean the product is. It's a software thing, it's a project thing, and it's a management thing. A lot more goes into a single project that looks the same as another one to you than you might think.

 

Plus, saying 'this plus some enhancements' devalues it and is non-factual.

 

I'm going by the journals & FAQ's.

 

Will Flaming Cliffs 2.0 use the same "engine" as Black Shark?

 

A: It would be more accurate to say that both Flaming Cliffs 2.0 and Black Shark use the same generation of The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE).

 

The initial release of DCS (the Black Shark module) uses a modified version of The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine (TFCSE). This is the same engine we used for earlier entertainment and military-grade simulation products. This engine provides worlds that are much, much larger and much greater rendering distances. As such, object density cannot be as high or suffer significant frame rate slow-downs.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...