SDK released to everyone

As the title says

Think of the possibilities where this Sim could go

There are so many talented people out there

Look at the A4E we got for an example

You also open the doors to a torrent of unfinished dross, as what's happened in other sims.

The curated world we live in does have its upsides for maintaining a quality bar.

Besides, I think you grossly missunderestimate the work required if you think the community are going to frequently produce ED/3rd party quality levels of work.

Using the Community A-4 as per your example, as good as it is (and it is), it's still using the SFM, and it's taken a couple of years for a team to get to its current level and get it out the door.

Do I think ED should be a bit free-er with it? Yes.

Do I think ED should just give it away? No.

Yeah but they did it without access to the SDK. They may not have taken so long if they had access

Yeah but they did it without access to the SDK. They may not have taken so long if they had access

It would have taken longer as it opens doors to more possibilities.

Giving everyone the SDK would directly undermine the whole business model :P

So no, they won't.

A controlled 3rd party supplier quality management, as provided by ED, in my view is a strong asset. With a glimpse to X-plane and FSX, community contributions lead to a hack of quality issues and finally overwhelmed 1st Level support and last not least a lot of frustration on the customer side.

Community mods may be for free, but it often requires a lot of understanding of the guts and bowels of the simulator. What is more, community mods in regular require other items, also stemming from the community side. But with different versioning cycles a lot of incompatbilities result.

As with bohemian interactive on Arma3, ED seems to provide a very well done quality support and lifecycle management on the software. This by pursueing a controlled 3rd party license management, and a quality controlled user file download service.

Thumbs up!

Well, I would be interested in making some fantasy planes. For instance, being able to add a 5th and 6th pylon to Shark, and then putting in a system to carry R-73's for defense against air threats ( since this is the worst threat on the battlefield ).

I'd also like to be able to edit the maps, and install 3D objects like castles and such. OP is right about the community. Look what they do in other games that let them have access to Editors / SDKs. Crysis, Arma, Unreal Tournament, Quake. All have GREATLY benefited from such.

...

As with bohemian interactive on Arma3, ED seems to provide a very well done quality support and lifecycle management on the software. This by pursueing a controlled 3rd party license management, and a quality controlled user file download service.

Thumbs up!

To this to work for ED as it does for Bohemia Interactive, DCS needs similar amounts of costumers. It doesn't, so until then... Not possible - no economics in it.

Also, ED gets most of it's revenue by selling modules - Helping the community to make free, competing, modules will directly undermine EDs income. It would have been different if the base-game would not have been free.

Releasing SDK to everyone is bad idea. ED maitain their lives by making quality modules, open the sdk to public would ruined its market. Different quality modules would appear, even some crazy ones, like alian flying saucer.... DCS is serious combat jets simulator.

Well, I would be interested in making some fantasy planes. For instance, being able to add a 5th and 6th pylon to Shark, and then putting in a system to carry R-73's for defense against air threats ( since this is the worst threat on the battlefield ).

 

 

I'd also like to be able to edit the maps, and install 3D objects like castles and such. OP is right about the community. Look what they do in other games that let them have access to Editors / SDKs. Crysis, Arma, Unreal Tournament, Quake. All have GREATLY benefited from such.

Some examples of exactly why not releasing the SDK is the right approach! :( :(

Hello 3WA,

I share your interest in creatkng landmark objects such as castles. Community members such as guys from virtual squadrons created some. Also upunauts helipads are awesome. But still, even this is a lot of work and also requires an autodesk 3DS license. This is currently the only 3D modeĺing tool to produce edm-files.

Perhaps in the future, ED could come out with an exporter plugin for blender. Who knows, but aeven such a plugin has to be programmed and also maintained according to blendee versioning. And software development is a costly thing. Im am professionally engaged in eGovernment software. Alone for 1 person day of development you have to add 2 to 3 days of planning and validation. For the life cycle after release you have approximately 4 days overhead on 1 person day programming. Quality oriented professional software dev is a hack of systems engineering overhead.

Perhaps one sentence to arma. Bohemian Interactive denies completely 3rd party dvelopment outside their liability. Mod makers will have to attend a training and a modmaker license, wich is a couple of 1000 $.

All other mods are outside any liability. The strategy to support commujity mods is a marketing question, and often mods, seekingly a mod produced by some lonely genuisnis a mod provided to most parts by the OEM.

Adding weapons to airplane is definitely hacking into the innerst of a module. Absolutely a job for the module providers.

Only the most elite of elite community members could attempt to do anything constructive with the SDK resembling a 'real' module. The rest wouldn't even know what to do with it and/or would produce hordes of drivel. Arma is easily modded(ish) and vastly more appropriate for amateur tinkering.

DCS, the general public has no business or real capability to mess with it, and as others mentioned it would directly undermine their source of income. If somebody CAN make use of the SDK they can get it by going through the appropriate channels that insure a modicum of quality control. It's not some secret magic locked away in a vault, it's just not accessible to random dickheads who couldn't use it properly anyway.

The community could maybe make AI items and static assets like bunkers. Dunno if survey level aircraft and vehicles would be a good idea but the DCS community is growing so new possibilities will open again in a few years.

Some examples of exactly why not releasing the SDK is the right approach! :( :(

Exactly what I thought as well:music_whistling:

Only the most elite of elite community members could attempt to do anything constructive with the SDK resembling a 'real' module. The rest wouldn't even know what to do with it and/or would produce hordes of drivel. Arma is easily modded(ish) and vastly more appropriate for amateur tinkering.

 

DCS, the general public has no business or real capability to mess with it, and as others mentioned it would directly undermine their source of income. If somebody CAN make use of the SDK they can get it by going through the appropriate channels that insure a modicum of quality control. It's not some secret magic locked away in a vault, it's just not accessible to random dickheads who couldn't use it properly anyway.

Yep, actually I would not put it that blunt, but this is how the situation is.:smartass:

Only the most elite of elite community members could attempt to do anything constructive with the SDK resembling a 'real' module. The rest wouldn't even know what to do with it and/or would produce hordes of drivel. Arma is easily modded(ish) and vastly more appropriate for amateur tinkering.

 

DCS, the general public has no business or real capability to mess with it, and as others mentioned it would directly undermine their source of income. If somebody CAN make use of the SDK they can get it by going through the appropriate channels that insure a modicum of quality control. It's not some secret magic locked away in a vault, it's just not accessible to random dickheads who couldn't use it properly anyway.

I guess, concerning SDK and API and wishlists, would it not be favorable to have a thread on the forum or so, or perhaps on the ED side, just to show what happens behind the curtain?

Respectively the word "dickheads", yeah I mentioned the same term on a meeting for eGovernment on the same topic last monday: could we not have, and have that, and have that??????

All it seems to the out-observers is a James Bond nerd sitting on a mouseless desktop hacking into the "NSA" and retrieves a 3D setup of the server rooms.... or a new community mod for whatever weapon system or whatever ...

This is not how software development works. And this is not how high-fidelity study-level-simulation works. People behind the curtain know, but people upfront the curtain cannot differentiate between Assassins Creed, Arma3, Prepar3D and DCS.

Perhaps a thread on how work is delivered behind the curtain will give customers and the community an idea of the task to deliver such an extraordinary simulation platform, such as DCS?

Just a proposal...:huh:

Well, I would be interested in making some fantasy planes. For instance, being able to add a 5th and 6th pylon to Shark, and then putting in a system to carry R-73's for defense against air threats ( since this is the worst threat on the battlefield ).

 

 

I'd also like to be able to edit the maps, and install 3D objects like castles and such. OP is right about the community. Look what they do in other games that let them have access to Editors / SDKs. Crysis, Arma, Unreal Tournament, Quake. All have GREATLY benefited from such.

Wow and huahhh!

Actually I am personally sitting just on an analysis description for the simulation market as such. And what you demand is in my view a strategic perspective for market players being huge. I really mean being huge. I do not mean ED with a turnover of definitely under 50 mio $.

What you demand is a very complex IT and sim-infrastructure that cannot be delivered by a current sim provider. This also includes Lockheed Martins Prepar3d.

This is - to be emphasized - not an ED statement, but my own. The overhead costs for graphics engine development and scenery development are rising and will not justify separate production in the future. Simulation markets such as for flight, maritime, alternate living, etc. will probably base upon a separate technology set, providing inter-OEM-community building.

In my guess, even steam is a bit too low, and too yesterday for thinking and acting that way.

Only an extended value chain with a centralized platform and service infrastructure can realize that.

But now, the market for entartainment and study-level simulation, for both aviation and maritime is too small (niche) and too fragmented in order to step into that direction.

I guess, you have to keep your dreams, and for the short run, just join a virtual squadron.... :thumbup:

So, my friend,

I wish you many happy landings!

@Varis

There is already a pipeline for the community to submit objects for AI. In fact, many new objects CAME from the community.

@shimasteama

I did not understand everything you said, but regarding ''behind the scenes'' there are many videos and threads of that nature available throughout a modules production, as well as commentary from devs. They're usually the ones stickied at the top, for example Heatblur's F-14 has great design info. The Yak-52 provides some behind the scenes info as well. There's tons of it available if people exert even a modicum of effort to look for it.

My phrasing... yes. Unpopular often. I'm pretty indifferent to how I'm received.

As for Unreal etc. Those are vastly simpler engines, primarily focused on graphics and rudimentary physics. Many competent 3d modelers/animators exist. That isn't the hard part. 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. That is all the 'behind the scenes' needed to know that it's a MAJOR undertaking unsuitable for parttime or amateur enthusiasts.

API yes... SDK no

First off, this would basically undo their whole business model, so I don't see ED doing this.

Secondly, I see some people saying "not give it away, but may be a bit more free with it".

Back when 3rd party train was first moving from the first stop, they were more free with it. After a multitude of closed shops and a few "delivered" modules of questionable quality, ED made their requirements more and more strict. Therefore, the trend is the opposite: ED has only been more stringent with giving SDK access, and for good reason in this case.

Perhaps a limited SDK / API access that allows certain things but leaves out others to allow the people wet their feet with module making could be a nice middle road. But providing that is also an additional effort, not a small one, and possibly a thankless one.

So while I would enjoy seeing something like that, I don't see it happening, and I can see a few reasons why it won't.

As much as I want this to happen I don't see this coming anytime.

Since 3rd party are most involved in aircraft modules I would love to see a simple terrain builder and an expanded Mission Editor. ù

I think in DCS we don't lack in aircrafts but in "things to do" :)

@Varis

There is already a pipeline for the community to submit objects for AI. In fact, many new objects CAME from the community.

 

@shimasteama

I did not understand everything you said, but regarding ''behind the scenes'' there are many videos and threads of that nature available throughout a modules production, as well as commentary from devs. They're usually the ones stickied at the top, for example Heatblur's F-14 has great design info. The Yak-52 provides some behind the scenes info as well. There's tons of it available if people exert even a modicum of effort to look for it.

 

My phrasing... yes. Unpopular often. I'm pretty indifferent to how I'm received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for Unreal etc. Those are vastly simpler engines, primarily focused on graphics and rudimentary physics. Many competent 3d modelers/animators exist. That isn't the hard part. 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. That is all the 'behind the scenes' needed to know that it's a MAJOR undertaking unsuitable for parttime or amateur enthusiasts.

Thanks for this behind the scenes info!

3-5 years of system research is tremendous, but it shows in the end. For contributions and questions about behind the scenes I will use the Chit-Chat section …

Yeah, I've always argued for making sure the core DCS is stable and stronger of a platform (AI, ATC, IR rendering, cockpit fidelity, memory management, vulkan API, Mission Editor) rather than a ton of varying modules/addons all over the place.

However, there's one thing that in regards to modules, it's time and reality. So if you don't catch the train, history could be forever gone.

“All the Tu-160 planes currently in service with the Russian Air Force will be fully modernized. Taking into account the pace of reproduction and the level of modern technology, I assume that it’s going to happen in the coming years,” Kobylash said.

We might never get to see the old Tu-160 in DCS unless ED finds some kind of a deal with Russian Govt in which they may, as it doesn't look likely they would just let one plane be left in the old-version state for museum/occasional flight, create a special archive of the material needed for digital reproduction (sound, visual, etc, the sound of button clicks, how they light up, remember those analog button lights are far different than digital leds or screens, the button material makes the final light look, etc and most importantly engine sounds)

THAT material be sealed in the Russian Govt possession and only released later on, in 10 years maybe.

I've already explained how such a deal could work for the Russian Govt:

- It doesn't have to be a full declassification, just to interested parties (ED) and under NDA, you get to play the correct simulation but the details of the calculations are either not present or are hardcoded.

- The archival material could be left sealed even from ED until some years after when Russian Govt decides it is ok, like after all the Tu-160 were converted to Tu-160M2

- When the material is unsealed for ED or other parties who may be interested it may come with a price tag if the RGovt feels like the deal isn't fair enough, like for covering costs of keeping archive/facilities would be fair.

- No need for some sensetive systems to be made public, a panel of experts from Military can go through the details and select which part is ok to disclose and at which level of detail.

The Tu-160 modernization article popped up when I was browsing some related (aerospace) current news, but I think I've mentioned this already, well I just went for another go at it, might be a better written summary than the last time.

 

 

As for Unreal etc. Those are vastly simpler engines, primarily focused on graphics and rudimentary physics. Many competent 3d modelers/animators exist. That isn't the hard part. 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. That is all the 'behind the scenes' needed to know that it's a MAJOR undertaking unsuitable for parttime or amateur enthusiasts.

No they are not "vastly simpler", neither is coding of an electrical system any harder or different than most regular game systems. Flight models are an exception as they are very specialized and there is no need for them in mainstream game industry - the requirements are slightly different (feel vs "realistic") but the work involved is similar.

Having said that, making games in general is hard, so I don't think releasing SDK would do what ppl think it would. At best it would produce a bunch of unfinished stuff.

For one I think ED should tighten their grip... I love third parties like Heatblur, Razbaam and Aviodev but still ED should be very very strict with the level of quality being released by third parties. More quality is best (Looking at you F-14!) but definitely not less (Damn you Hawk!).