DCS Features Wish List

[Bulletstop]

Honestly and this is only a hope, to have colliable tree's one day. :)

As it is I really have no issues with the terrain per say, I still use valley's and ridge to hide and run pop up when I have a good chance of scoring a kill.

Just my 2 cents. :)

Bullet

[toby23]

Interesting reading what you guys have to say...

Feuerfalke, you should chill out, it's just a game...

You didn't write it, so don't take the comments so personally... :smilewink:

 

My original point was simply that i would like to see some more variety in scenery and better graphics outside the cockpit or a more open engine that i and other developers could produce add-ons for.

 

I have made various add-ons for various sims and would love to help out making the DCS world a prettier one because for some people, eye candy is as important as a great flight model.

 

Check this thread to see some screenshots showing what I see when I fly in FSX.

I'm not comparing DCS to FSX, i'm just using it to make a point.

 

FSX is older than DCS but because it has a relatively open architecture and a solid fan base, developers are busy releasing high quality add-ons for it on a regular basis, see Lotussim L39, Real Air Duke, Tongass Fjords, the list goes on. None of these add-ons come from Microsoft, they are all from external developers. With the demise of ACES and the shift in focus to consoles, who knows how much longer this will go on. I hope at least for a couple of years.

 

Technology has now reached a point where people can achieve very realistic and believable graphics on their systems with very playable frame rates. I need at least 25fps for a game to appear smooth. Maybe for you, 15 is enough...

 

My point is, look what you can do these days, even with older software... DCS needs to improve its looks if it wants to be taken seriously by developers. Unfortunately a kick ass flight model and cockpit aren't enough these days... And neither is a basic sim like FSX. To get the most out of it, you need talented developers to release great add-ons as well.

[SnowTiger]

I am a nubee so I don't expect my thoughts carry much if any weight here, but I thought I'd simply add my thoughts regarding terrain quality/resolution.

I too would of course love to have high definition/high resolution terrain. It certainly would add to the overall realism.

However, I do also understand that DCS is probably hoping to attract as many people as possible, especially considering the overall complexity and learning curve of this Sim/Game. Thus having reduced or simplified terrain resolution allows more people to enjoy BS, without having to have a "smokin' hot computer and graphics card".

But there might be a reasonable solution for this.

If DCS were to consider allowing us to use Optional Terrain Resolutions as does "Aces High 2", then those with more powerful systems (such as my own) could then install the High Res Terrain files if we want. Those with lesser systems could just use the default terrain files, which are still pretty darn good.

Edited September 17, 2009 by SnowTiger

[Callsign.Vega]

Interesting reading what you guys have to say...

Feuerfalke, you should chill out, it's just a game...

You didn't write it, so don't take the comments so personally... :smilewink:

 

My original point was simply that i would like to see some more variety in scenery and better graphics outside the cockpit or a more open engine that i and other developers could produce add-ons for.

 

I have made various add-ons for various sims and would love to help out making the DCS world a prettier one because for some people, eye candy is as important as a great flight model.

 

Check this thread to see some screenshots showing what I see when I fly in FSX.

I'm not comparing DCS to FSX, i'm just using it to make a point.

 

FSX is older than DCS but because it has a relatively open architecture and a solid fan base, developers are busy releasing high quality add-ons for it on a regular basis, see Lotussim L39, Real Air Duke, Tongass Fjords, the list goes on. None of these add-ons come from Microsoft, they are all from external developers. With the demise of ACES and the shift in focus to consoles, who knows how much longer this will go on. I hope at least for a couple of years.

 

Technology has now reached a point where people can achieve very realistic and believable graphics on their systems with very playable frame rates. I need at least 25fps for a game to appear smooth. Maybe for you, 15 is enough...

 

My point is, look what you can do these days, even with older software... DCS needs to improve its looks if it wants to be taken seriously by developers. Unfortunately a kick ass flight model and cockpit aren't enough these days... And neither is a basic sim like FSX. To get the most out of it, you need talented developers to release great add-ons as well.

 

Wow, those screenshots you posted of FSX are very impressive. Too bad they never made a combat simulation off of that engine! I find flying from point A to point B just to look out at the scenery a little too mundane for me.

 

What impresses me the most in those screenshot's is how realistic everything looks. In BS, the cockpit and aircraft models are great. The outside world, not so much. BS's outside world look's a bit more well; computer generated and sterile.

[Speedbrake]

I would like to see DCS A-10C and the promised patch to LOMAC before we add to Black Shark's eye candy. The simulation is well done, sound and detailed sufficiently to really give the flavor or real combat, IMO.

[Kilo_60]

I would like to see DCS A-10C and the promised patch to LOMAC before we add to Black Shark's eye candy. The simulation is well done, sound and detailed sufficiently to really give the flavor or real combat, IMO.

 

Yes, but who cares about grass blades being modelled when your in an A-10 screaming along at 600 meters AGL and at 180 kts (A-10, ED Screens). I'd rather prefer to see the grass blades when I'm hovering just a few meters high.

 

Ground terrain is most important when your low and slow as in a Heli Sim. :smilewink:

[questerymj]

Just like I'd mention in another post:please add duplicated HUD/MFD image into shared memory for 3rd applications to acquire and import to other monitor!:D

[sobek]

Yes, but who cares about grass blades being modelled when your in an A-10 screaming along at 600 meters AGL and at 180 kts (A-10, ED Screens). I'd rather prefer to see the grass blades when I'm hovering just a few meters high.

 

Ground terrain is most important when your low and slow as in a Heli Sim. :smilewink:

 

You have to understand that adding stuff like that would have taken another few months to complete and set the release date of bs further back, which at some point, was just unreasonable. Be patient, who knows what features might still creep into BS.

[159th_Viper]

The Tools exist to create/improve/add Scenery and was provided by ED to aspirant modders to Improve overall Gameplay/Eye-Candy. Now rather than calling for Improved Scenery and the like from the ED Team, should we not be Humbly Requesting talented Modders to attend to various Projects on the Communities' behalf in areas that, once identified, need the most improvement?

 

Personally I am of the opinion that asking the Dev Team to Cough Up while the Tools are there for All in any event is just a bit Presumptious - The least we can do is make the effort.

 

The above scenario is not without precedent: ARMAII for example has a dedicated Forum for Add-Ons/Mods in progress/Request for said Add-Ons/Mods.

 

I've always maintained that if you want a thing Bad Enough, it's best to attend to it Yourself.......That way you're sure it will be Done!

 

Food for Thought..........

[ARM505]

I think we're all being spoiled by ARMA II actually.....

 

I can:

 

-Walk around heli, admiring little rivets etc, then climb in.

-Startup, watching nearby grass blowing in the downwash, maybe a rabbit run away into the bushes.

-Hover around a more 'living' world, street signs, tables, chairs (as an example of level of detail), easily generated civilian life, a wide variety of vehicles both mil and civilian etc.

-Use different positions in the heli, ie crew chief/door gunners of transport helos's.

-Watch infantry running about in a plausible manner below me, taking cover, crawling etc.

 

This of course doesn't mention the negatives (poor flight modelling, abysmal systems modelling, reduced visual range etc), but it does make the world far more 'alive' when it comes to terrain. Which perhaps causes some increased expectations.

[toby23]

Perhaps a more open engine that we could also easily develop add-ons for?

I am sure that with all the talent out here, DCS could be so much more.

- edited -

 

159th Viper, I think that part of the problem is that the tools are slowly becoming available but the fact that ED insist on retaining any rights to any add-ons has pushed professional developers away.

Maybe this changed but I remember reading that any add-ons developed with the ED tools remain property of ED.

No 3rd party payware developer will agree to this.

 

Plug-Ins

10 months after Wags' original post, as promised, the terrain tool was released in May.

The problem is it's not a terrain tool, it's a plug-in for 3ds max7 according to wags, or 3ds max8 according to the wiki.

 

Why can't it be a plug-in for DCS so that everyone can use it?

As it stands now, it's limited to 3d modellers, who, with all due respect, aren't always texture artists as well.

 

If I could somehow use a plug-in for DCS to generate landclass or place ground textures and models that I have created, I would have already released a freeware city or airport for Black Shark.

Give me a vector based editor that automatically maps textures to existing terrain, or terrain made by someone else, and I'll give you great ground graphics in Black Shark!

 

According to this thread, the two or three people trying to develop add-ons for Black Shark, are having a hard time.

A requirement of 3ds max 7/8, is perhaps also a hindrance. 3DS Max has a very steep learning curve for beginners.

 

 

Terrain

Regarding terrain tools, it seems like Hawg11 and luckybob9 are the lucky ones who understand how it all works.

I wish them all the luck in the world because I want to see some believable terrain asap in Black Shark.

 

 

Two worlds collide

I am a graphic designer and can find my way around 3d programmes but I am not a 3d modeller.

I could make the DCS world prettier if I knew what I had to edit.

 

In FSX, I know what I have to do to change the ground textures, water textures, sky textures, to edit scenery and to create missions and add-ons.

I have the freeware tools and utilties to do this.

Granted, DCS is younger but being based on the same foundation as Lock On, I had hoped that by now, we would have seen a couple of utilities aimed at developers who want to produce add-ons for Black Shark.

 

In DCS, we can make small changes to specific graphic files but only because we have ModMan.

We cannot change the clouds or the position or layout of airports/ runways/ buildings and forests and if we can, where is the instruction manual/ forum to help us learn how to?

 

 

History

How did Teka Teka or Mitch find out how to improve LOMAC so much? Probably through trial and error, maybe they are talented programmers, I don't know.

I do know that I have been trying to improve how Black Shark looks since it was released at the end of last year and I have not been able to change much.

 

Some of the biggest improvements for me have been Tango Romeo's excellent Shark Pit, the ENB Series Mod and, without blowing my own horn, my camouflage pilot texture, edited airport frequency and dirty glass mods.

Notice how these are mostly visual mods that improve the visual quality of the game.

For me, everything else works ok, I don't play online and I am a visual person, so I focus on making a game look prettier.

 

 

A bad workman blames his tools

If we could just have some simple tools, for example:

 

1. 3d object placement for missions and scenery

2. Spline based airport editor like ADE for FSX.

3. Support for freeware 3d utilities like GMAX.

4. A public forum for developers to help each other

 

Thanks for listening, sorry if I rambled.

I just want DCS to look as good as FSX with all the add-ons.

 

Toby

[Kirai]

I'd rather have smarter AI and proper trees than better graphics

 

I agree. This is a simulator and is supposed to simulate a real military helicopter in action so the first thing is to improve the AI and the textures that simulate real combat. I would ofcourse love to see nicer terrain too but first of all I want to have a simulator that responds like the real thing in warfare and DCS is close but some things is just irritating like the AI and the ability to use ground as cover.

[sobek]

159th Viper, I think that part of the problem is that the tools are slowly becoming available but the fact that ED insist on retaining any rights to any add-ons has pushed professional developers away.

Maybe this changed but I remember reading that any add-ons developed with the ED tools remain property of ED.

No 3rd party payware developer will agree to this.

 

IIRC this is not true. Only add-ons that are being fully incorporated into the game have to be submitted to ED, and payware add-ons have to pay "royalties" but not abandon the rights to their product.

 

Edit: After some reading i have found that what you said is true regarding the terrain.

Edit (again): Current state is that there is no mention of these agreements in the post, for whatever that means.

Edited September 18, 2009 by sobek

[159th_Viper]

 

Thanks for listening, sorry if I rambled.

I just want DCS to look as good as FSX with all the add-ons.

 

Toby

 

No need to apologise - I dare say constructive rambling for the purposes of obtaining/clarification of what is needed to get the job done is what is lacking :)

 

You have made a lot of sense with your post as above - would be interesting to note a response from the Dev Team as to whether the Tools required in order to facilitate the process as mentioned by yourself are capable of being provided.

 

My Admiration to You and all the Modders out there willing to sacrifice their time and energy for the Masses :thumbup:

 

~S~

[Kirai]

159th Viper, I think that part of the problem is that the tools are slowly becoming available but the fact that ED insist on retaining any rights to any add-ons has pushed professional developers away.

Maybe this changed but I remember reading that any add-ons developed with the ED tools remain property of ED.

No 3rd party payware developer will agree to this.

 

Plug-Ins

10 months after Wags' original post, as promised, the terrain tool was released in May.

The problem is it's not a terrain tool, it's a plug-in for 3ds max7 according to wags, or 3ds max8 according to the wiki.

 

Why can't it be a plug-in for DCS so that everyone can use it?

As it stands now, it's limited to 3d modellers, who, with all due respect, aren't always texture artists as well.

 

If I could somehow use a plug-in for DCS to generate landclass or place ground textures and models that I have created, I would have already released a freeware city or airport for Black Shark.

Give me a vector based editor that automatically maps textures to existing terrain, or terrain made by someone else, and I'll give you great ground graphics in Black Shark!

 

According to this thread, the two or three people trying to develop add-ons for Black Shark, are having a hard time.

A requirement of 3ds max 7/8, is perhaps also a hindrance. 3DS Max has a very steep learning curve for beginners.

 

 

Terrain

Regarding terrain tools, it seems like Hawg11 and luckybob9 are the lucky ones who understand how it all works.

I wish them all the luck in the world because I want to see some believable terrain asap in Black Shark.

 

 

Two worlds collide

I am a graphic designer and can find my way around 3d programmes but I am not a 3d modeller.

I could make the DCS world prettier if I knew what I had to edit.

 

In FSX, I know what I have to do to change the ground textures, water textures, sky textures, to edit scenery and to create missions and add-ons.

I have the freeware tools and utilties to do this.

Granted, DCS is younger but being based on the same foundation as Lock On, I had hoped that by now, we would have seen a couple of utilities aimed at developers who want to produce add-ons for Black Shark.

 

In DCS, we can make small changes to specific graphic files but only because we have ModMan.

We cannot change the clouds or the position or layout of airports/ runways/ buildings and forests and if we can, where is the instruction manual/ forum to help us learn how to?

 

 

History

How did Teka Teka or Mitch find out how to improve LOMAC so much? Probably through trial and error, maybe they are talented programmers, I don't know.

I do know that I have been trying to improve how Black Shark looks since it was released at the end of last year and I have not been able to change much.

 

Some of the biggest improvements for me have been Tango Romeo's excellent Shark Pit, the ENB Series Mod and, without blowing my own horn, my camouflage pilot texture, edited airport frequency and dirty glass mods.

Notice how these are mostly visual mods that improve the visual quality of the game.

For me, everything else works ok, I don't play online and I am a visual person, so I focus on making a game look prettier.

 

 

A bad workman blames his tools

If we could just have some simple tools, for example:

 

1. 3d object placement for missions and scenery

2. Spline based airport editor like ADE for FSX.

3. Support for freeware 3d utilities like GMAX.

4. A public forum for developers to help each other

 

Thanks for listening, sorry if I rambled.

I just want DCS to look as good as FSX with all the add-ons.

 

Toby

 

You did not ramble at all. What you did was to explain in a way that even I that knows nothing about this get the point so I salute you, well done :thumbup:

[Chibawang]

Well gents, it's been said time and time again, but unfortunately the truth remains: Although Eagle Dynamics is a very hard working company with lofty goals, they are also a very small, overwhelmed and underfunded company. Fans have been asking for tools like this for ages, and I'm sure they would love to provide them but it's simply not reasonable to expect everything we want exactly when we want it.

 

I think the best thing we can do to this end now is spread the word and encourage sales. If the game's popularity grows, so can the workforce to develop it further, and at some point the community can begin to carry the torch with mods as well. I think the A-10C module will bring a huge new wealth of people to the series, it's much more accessible and desirable to a Western audience. Hopefully that will kick start this thing in the right direction.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is have patience, understand what you're dealing with here and appreciate it for what it is. I see a bright future for this sim if the community will just stay behind it. So in the mean time, let's try not to go around frothing at the mouth for new content. Alright, that's it- I'm stepping off the soapbox now. :smilewink:

[SnowTiger]

Just a Thought regarding this Thread

 

I am of course very new to DCS: BS.

I do have Lock On but actually never really have had opportunity to get into it like I would have liked. I would especially like to fly an A-10 Warthog, so I am happy to hear that it will be the next airframe/sim developed for DCS or ED (I'm not sure who does what). I did fly the A-10 a few times in lomac, but then I got too much work to really get into it. Now I have simply Too Much Time on My Hands.

Perfect timing for DCS: Black Shark to be available. yeehaww !

 

Anyway, with regards to Terrain etc, I can appreciate why the terrain/image resolution is where it is (which isn't at all bad). It does make the game/sim more playable by more people. And maybe there will be an "Optional Update" for Hi-Res Terrain like "Aces High ll" has.

 

In the meantime, I have read in this thread (this page too I think) that there may be (or might already be) an opportunity for us to model terrain in the Game Editor using 3DS Max.

I don't know if that will improve the graphics resolution or not. But I agree with a previous poster who mentioned that there is a heavy learning curve for 3DS Max.

That said, it would be nice if we could model 3D Terrain and other 3D items using the Best 3D Modeling Software on the market (when considering Functionality versus Price .. Free). That is SketchUp (now called Google SketchUp).

SketchUp is an extremely easy program to learn and unbelievably functional considering the limited number of tools.

However, even if SketchUp files cannot themselves be used in BS, SketchUp can and does export to 3DS Max very easily.

Therefore, one could model in SU and convert to 3DS Max and then import (or whatever) into BS.

 

Just the same, I still think having optional graphics resolution files available would be fantastic. That way those that can run detailed graphics at higher resolutions could do so and those that can't, still have an extremely well detailed terrain to fly around.

I mean lets face it, the present terrain/image resolution is already great and suitably functional without "having" to do anything.

 

I just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth (.985 cents with today's inflation).

[joey45]

159th Viper, I think that part of the problem is that the tools are slowly becoming available but the fact that ED insist on retaining any rights to any add-ons has pushed professional developers away.

Maybe this changed but I remember reading that any add-ons developed with the ED tools remain property of ED.

No 3rd party payware developer will agree to this.

 

it will stop them making money out of ED, unlike what is happening with the MSFS. I will not buy an addon that costs the same [if not more] then the game it's for.

[GGTharos]

I believe that clause was removed a while ago.

[Griffin]

it will stop them making money out of ED, unlike what is happening with the MSFS. I will not buy an addon that costs the same [if not more] then the game it's for.

 

I don't think Microsoft is losing money because of that. Customers still need to have the actual sim to use the add-ons. It's just a different approach. Microsoft makes the basic sim with little content and simple aircraft to get the casual, non-hardcore simmers, to buy it and rely on 3rd party developers to create the real complex aircraft. Seems like a good deal for all. That might not work for DCS though, at least with the 3rd party aircraft.

It's also good to remember that some MSFS add-ons are extremely well modelled (even to the same level as DCS) and have taken years, lots of expertise, research and money to develop. Some are even used to train real pilots in airlines. They also have to compete with other 3rd party products.

[Hawg11]

The Tools exist to create/improve/add Scenery and was provided by ED to aspirant modders to Improve overall Gameplay/Eye-Candy. Now rather than calling for Improved Scenery and the like from the ED Team, should we not be Humbly Requesting talented Modders to attend to various Projects on the Communities' behalf in areas that, once identified, need the most improvement?

 

Personally I am of the opinion that asking the Dev Team to Cough Up while the Tools are there for All in any event is just a bit Presumptious - The least we can do is make the effort.

 

The above scenario is not without precedent: ARMAII for example has a dedicated Forum for Add-Ons/Mods in progress/Request for said Add-Ons/Mods.

 

I've always maintained that if you want a thing Bad Enough, it's best to attend to it Yourself.......That way you're sure it will be Done!

 

Food for Thought..........

 

I agree 100%!!!!!

[greg765]

For me,the most important for DCS is to stay realistic.:thumbup:

 

I'd like an IA that cannot see behind the trees.(It's better for tactical flight and realism).

I also would like the UH-60 Gunner to be abble to fire with his machine gun.Because otherwise he isn't really usefull.

 

I hope you have understood what I've said,my English is so bad...:music_whistling:

[Feuerfalke]

it will stop them making money out of ED, unlike what is happening with the MSFS. I will not buy an addon that costs the same [if not more] then the game it's for.

 

I think the opposite is true.

 

The more commercial 3rd-party groups create high quality content for a game and see that they can make money from it, the more the producers of the original game profit, because some details of the enhanced game catch somebodies interest.

 

Just imagine what would happen if somebody would produce a realistic European theater of war, based on a detailed 10m mesh with tons of objects and famous locations like Berlin or the real Fulda Gap Scenario the BlackShark was designed for.

 

You really think that would lower sales for BlackShark?

[Chibawang]

3D Sound Implements

 

I've been meaning to suggest this for ages, so I suppose I might as well do it now while I'm reading this thread and thinking about it... :music_whistling:

 

I would like to see an option to separate cockpit sounds (comms, betty, etc.) and external sounds into independent audio channels, allowing a user to recreate a military simulator type audio system wherein headphones relay internal cockpit sound while the speaker system handles all external sound.

 

I've never used such a setup, but as you can imagine it would greatly increase the believability of being in the hot-seat of an enclosed cockpit. Sound is one of the most important facets of immersion, and unfortunately, it's also one of the most underdeveloped in the sim. I don't know how much work this would be to implement, but it seems like it would be relatively simple for something with such a huge payoff.

 

Anyway, that's all I want for Christmas. It would be great to get some feedback on this idea from a team member, if possible.

[sobek]

I've been meaning to suggest this for ages, so I suppose I might as well do it now while I'm reading this thread and thinking about it... :music_whistling:

 

I would like to see an option to separate cockpit sounds (comms, betty, etc.) and external sounds into independent audio channels, allowing a user to recreate a military simulator type audio system wherein headphones relay internal cockpit sound while the speaker system handles all external sound.

 

I've never used such a setup, but as you can imagine it would greatly increase the believability of being in the hot-seat of an enclosed cockpit. Sound is one of the most important facets of immersion, and unfortunately, it's also one of the most underdeveloped in the sim. I don't know how much work this would be to implement, but it seems like it would be relatively simple for something with such a huge payoff.

 

Anyway, that's all I want for Christmas. It would be great to get some feedback on this idea from a team member, if possible.

 

Go MP, get a second soundcard, let TS (or vent) use one, let BS use the other, voila.

 

Your request: When the sound engine is able to handle multi channel audio, then it sould be possible to grant your request (if you have a multichannel audio card), however, i don't think that many people would use it, so it's probably not going to happen.