Rikus Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I was thinking, when will DCS will stop adding more and more planes, and give more attention at things to improve the sim. For example, the simple radar air to air, still the same from LOMAC 1.02? Very simplified 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The radar improvement has a feature under DCS: W by ED. That is no work of the Partners or 3rd Parties. Your modules will be make under that premise. And a 3rd Party don't put your product line vs ED don´t improve a feature, only adapt your work to DCS: W present functionality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flagrum Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) You mean the dozend of aircrafts ED has released since the P-51D? edit: But maybe you are right and a proper radar representation would hugely benefit the Ka-50 and the A-10C! Edited June 20, 2014 by Flagrum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven68 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 ED will continue to work on the core of DCSW. The partners and 3rd parties have no bearing on that as they are the ones that are releasing aircraft. I'm sure it's all happening in the background and we have seen a lot of improvements outside of what you are seeking. For example, MP is getting better and better. Intel i5-9600K @ 3.7GHz Gigabyte Z370XP SLI Mobo G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 2070 8GB 256-Bit GDDR6(Assume the latest driver version) Thermaltake Water 3.0 Certified Liquid Cooling System Windows 10 Professional Oculus Rift-S /TrackIR 5 in case VR dies Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog w/ Thrustmaster T-Flight Rudder Pedals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kefuddle Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 With helo sims to the fore, the issue with the trees really really really needs to be sorted. I remember Janes Longbow back in the day. A superb sim that stated it would not render trees that served no functional purpose and thus detracted from properly simulating helo tactics and combat. Oh, and the comms system so that it is VAC friendly. Yes please. Looks like my post morphed into a wishlist. I'll get my coat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
element1108 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The issue with trees will most likely be addressed with EDGE. I can't imagine them doing a new engine without addressing that. Pretty graphics are one thing, but so are so many core features to a combat sim I just can't see them forgoing that. As for radar, when we get our F18C I can imagine major tweaks in that area, the aircraft itself demands it. You need to keep selling stuff to pay for development of core engine stuff. Not doing so will run the consumer side of ED dry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven68 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 With helo sims to the fore, the issue with the trees really really really needs to be sorted. I remember Janes Longbow back in the day. A superb sim that stated it would not render trees that served no functional purpose and thus detracted from properly simulating helo tactics and combat. Oh, and the comms system so that it is VAC friendly. Yes please. Looks like my post morphed into a wishlist. I'll get my coat... Agreed on Janes Longbow. I still have the CD! It will be interesting to see if/how ED will handle trees. It seems to be a point of focus with EDGE. Still no info on that, that I am aware of to date. Intel i5-9600K @ 3.7GHz Gigabyte Z370XP SLI Mobo G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 2070 8GB 256-Bit GDDR6(Assume the latest driver version) Thermaltake Water 3.0 Certified Liquid Cooling System Windows 10 Professional Oculus Rift-S /TrackIR 5 in case VR dies Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog w/ Thrustmaster T-Flight Rudder Pedals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
159th_Viper Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 When? Never. 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 More sharing options...
WinterH Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 While some stuff in DCS core does indeed need improvement (major improvement for some of them), more aircraft is hardly anything to complain about. More so when you consider majority of the aircraft are being developed by 3rd parties, which has nothing to do with DCS core features development. Especially some eras need to get fleshed out. Thankfully late WW II is getting quite nicely populated by many types of aircraft somewhat soon. I'd love to see mid or early WW II fighters and bombers too. In similar fashion, 50s-70s period is getting quite alive as well, with many options from F-86 to MiG-21, A-4 and many armed trainers all of which can do both dogfights and some ground pounding (well in case of A-4C only guns dogfights I guess :P). But you see, there are many more time periods / aircraft functions to be covered (a true multirole being one, which is being worked on by ED). So, I believe a parallel effort is needed on both providing new / more aircraft and fixing core bugs & adding core features. Modularity of DCS looks like it's not putting any blocks against both efforts move on in parallel and independent of each other. Don't get me wrong, lack of ground unit AI, questionable performance of many weapons, hallucination trees which are there but not there, are all pretty important issues. But current roster of aircraft isn't terribly diverse either. Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V DCS-Dismounts Script Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exorcet Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It looks like the planes are responsible for the improvements. A-10 > requires JTAC, add JTAC to DCSW FC3 > AFM missile budgeted for with this project UH-1 > Multiseat, sling loads F/A-18C > Radar model required, advanced radar model added to DCSW (?) Carrier operations (?) Awaiting: DCS F-15C Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 - A-10C have JTAC, and JTAC has present on CA. - A-10A is out of discussion meanwhile a "Advance System Model" will be implemented or ED export that feature to other modules. - Missiles has no only of FC3, has a DCS: W feature, that is WIP. - Multiseat need implemented into DCS: W before Parthers or 3D Modules can be implemented (WIP). Sling Load has on WIP. - F/A-18C has on progress and no release. Carrier operations can will be implemented by ED in the future, if enter on your near plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDsc0rch Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 this is just a "theory" --- if you have better information, please educate me WHAT IF (and this is pure speculation on my part) ED's core constituency/customer is the military and govt contracts for flight sim software is what funds development of new features ?? A-10C was "first" a govt project and then was "dumbed down" and "civilianized" for public consumption - am i correct? and there are intimations from the 3rd party developers that they are likewise talking with govts for their projects what if all of these projects are this way? i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flagrum Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 this is just a "theory" --- if you have better information, please educate me WHAT IF (and this is pure speculation on my part) ED's core constituency/customer is the military and govt contracts for flight sim software is what funds development of new features ?? A-10C was "first" a govt project and then was "dumbed down" and "civilianized" for public consumption - am i correct? and there are intimations from the 3rd party developers that they are likewise talking with govts for their projects what if all of these projects are this way? Then we would get aircrafts. ...? :huh: What kind of answers do you expect here? It is no secret that there are connections between ED, (some/several) 3rd party devs and the respective military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDsc0rch Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 just saying.. we can request all we want here - if development isn't "commissioned" by the (real!) paying customer, none of what we say/request here matters also, what appears to be a functional progression has been identified http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1856923#post1856923 perhaps a more full understanding of progress in DCS would include the idea of "...as directed by govt backed contract" perhaps the development timeline is affected by these relationships i'm just trying to understand - that's all i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts