DCS : Vietnam

[Lurker]

5 minutes ago, Andrew8604 said:

But, if a developer has gone to all the effort to make an F-4E, for instance, is it really that much more work to make the F-4D, or the F-4B? 

 

Yes, yes it is. I don't think a lot of people know how much work goes into each and every module. Just look at Heatblur's F14 as an example and how much work is going into two airframes that are (apart from the engines) for all intents and purposes almost the same airplane. Heatblur have gone above and beyond with including two versions of the F14 and yet they are harangued on the forums daily for more versions. Check your expectations. This a mistake that Heatblur and all other third parties will not repeat, or in the best case scenarios won't repeat for free.  

[Andrew8604]

29 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

The module production only can acelerate if more teams convert to official 3rd parties and move to build modules, no by degrade module quality or sell "shares".  About modules, A-6 has planned by Heatblur as future module, F-4 Phantom has some suspicious to any 3rd party can build them on a future. B-52 style modules has yet restricted by missing technology none implemented on the DCS core.

"Shares" is probably not the right term to use.  I didn't mean like an investment that's going to pay dividends.  The only "return" on the "investment" would be the personal joy of flying a well done module.  And no, I did not mean a reduction in quality.  They would still have to meet the highest standards. 

[Silver_Dragon]

I recomend check the story of the old "Tu-22M3" project by Troika.

 

The main problem on build a project has need resources before start, acurated info, a solid team and a good leadership to go them to the end. Has better centre on one project, as intent build all. ED, Heatblur and others has a long road on them, and has a example to follow them.

[Andrew8604]

4 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Yes, yes it is. I don't think a lot of people know how much work goes into each and every module. Just look at Heatblur's F14 as an example and how much work is going into two airframes that are (apart from the engines) for all intents and purposes almost the same airplane. Heatblur have gone above and beyond with including two versions of the F14 and yet they are harangued on the forums daily for more versions. Check your expectations. This a mistake that Heatblur and all other third parties will not repeat, or in the best case scenarios won't repeat for free.  

I can appreciate that it is a lot of work...a lot of work...to make these modules.  Exactly how much and how difficult it is to modify them, I don't know.  Unless I participate in making some of them, I can't entirely know.  I just know it's a lot and we pay very little for the incredible detail and authenticity.  I almost giggle to myself every time when I put on the VR goggles and sit in the cockpit with the canopy open.  I can't believe how realistic it all looks!!  I was surprised that Heatblur gave that 2nd F-14 for free.  But I also don't understand who makes these modules and how much money they make for creating them.  Are they basically volunteers, or do they get somewhat compensated for their time?  I don't know how many copies DCS sells.  1,000?  10,000?  But how many years of work did they put into the F-14B, for example?  But, too, there must be some commonality and experience gained with each module that can benefit making another.  Coding, for instance.  Each module must have sections of code that can be reused on other modules...no?

[Silver_Dragon]

9 minutes ago, Andrew8604 said:

I can appreciate that it is a lot of work...a lot of work...to make these modules.  Exactly how much and how difficult it is to modify them, I don't know.  Unless I participate in making some of them, I can't entirely know.  I just know it's a lot and we pay very little for the incredible detail and authenticity.  I almost giggle to myself every time when I put on the VR goggles and sit in the cockpit with the canopy open.  I can't believe how realistic it all looks!!  I was surprised that Heatblur gave that 2nd F-14 for free.  But I also don't understand who makes these modules and how much money they make for creating them.  Are they basically volunteers, or do they get somewhat compensated for their time?  I don't know how many copies DCS sells.  1,000?  10,000?  But how many years of work did they put into the F-14B, for example?  But, too, there must be some commonality and experience gained with each module that can benefit making another.  Coding, for instance.  Each module must have sections of code that can be reused on other modules...no?

 

By Heatblur, the F-14 project was near 6-7 years. RAZBAM Mirage 2000C has near 8 years by the continous updates.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Andrew8604 said:

For the F-105, again, the D variant would be the main one.  I see no reason to make the B variant.  Again, they modified the two-seat F-105F for "Wild Weasel" role.  And then came the F-105G, dedicated "wild weasel", which I think was updated F-105F's.  The "D" is the main one

The G was an upgraded F, the main differences between the F and G weasels were the G had a better RHWR and ECM pods mounted on the fuselage.  It was not uncommon for EWOs on EB-66s and F-105G/F to be cross trained. My did his tour in an EB-66. I'm not sure if they shared systems or were just similar.

Edited September 2, 2021 by upyr1

[Rick50]

Forget multiple variants, it may be TOO difficult to bring a single Phantom into DCS that would meet ED and us virtual fliers' minimum expectations.  

 

IF you get permission from Boeing...

 

IF you get permission from USAF USN, you still may run into issues with the remaining Phantom Phlyers in Japans' JSDF, Turkish defense ministries and so on. 

 

IF you get legal permission to obtain the manuals....

 

IF there are enough subject matter experts, people who flew them for real and remember how it all works... who have time and patience to share their extensive knowledge...

 

... the manuals that are needed to actually rrepresent the real aircraft systems, it's detailed flight envelope, it's fire controls... might not be available at any price. 

 

As for variants, I'll bet that there are many more differences that the general public is unaware of, which would vastly complicate making additional variants. How much would you pay for  a DCS Phantom with EVERY variant? And how many DCS flyers would follow you to that pricepoint? 

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, Rick50 said:

Forget multiple variants, it may be TOO difficult to bring a single Phantom into DCS that would meet ED and us virtual fliers' minimum expectations.  

 

IF you get permission from Boeing...

 

IF you get permission from USAF USN, you still may run into issues with the remaining Phantom Phlyers in Japans' JSDF, Turkish defense ministries and so on. 

A lot would depend on the Variants. If you are dealing with Vietnam era planes this might not be a problem.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

As for variants, I'll bet that there are many more differences that the general public is unaware of, which would vastly complicate making additional variants. How much would you pay for  a DCS Phantom with EVERY variant? And how many DCS flyers would follow you to that pricepoint? 

Before decding on a price point one must know how different the variants are in reality. Right now I would at least like some more AI Phantoms

[Andrew8604]

On 9/2/2021 at 8:33 PM, Rick50 said:

Forget multiple variants, it may be TOO difficult to bring a single Phantom into DCS that would meet ED and us virtual fliers' minimum expectations.  

 

IF you get permission from Boeing...

 

IF you get permission from USAF USN, you still may run into issues with the remaining Phantom Phlyers in Japans' JSDF, Turkish defense ministries and so on. 

 

IF you get legal permission to obtain the manuals....

 

IF there are enough subject matter experts, people who flew them for real and remember how it all works... who have time and patience to share their extensive knowledge...

 

... the manuals that are needed to actually rrepresent the real aircraft systems, it's detailed flight envelope, it's fire controls... might not be available at any price. 

 

As for variants, I'll bet that there are many more differences that the general public is unaware of, which would vastly complicate making additional variants. How much would you pay for  a DCS Phantom with EVERY variant? And how many DCS flyers would follow you to that pricepoint? 

Ok, I'll forget every variant of every make and model, then.  The sim has apparently reached its end.  I'll check back in 2024, maybe...or maybe not and see if anything new has come along.  I don't understand how the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10C and so forth ever came into the sim if it's all just too difficult.  I'll get off the forum.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Andrew8604 said:

Ok, I'll forget every variant of every make and model, then.  The sim has apparently reached its end.  I'll check back in 2024, maybe...or maybe not and see if anything new has come along.  I don't understand how the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10C and so forth ever came into the sim if it's all just too difficult.  I'll get off the forum.

 

That projecs has talk years of research before start to tipping code. F-14 take 8 years. M2000C near 9 years.

[upyr1]

My thoughts right now, I really don't want to see users speculating whether or not it would be too difficult too difficult to do X or Y, if the statement is based on pure speculation. I know it takes years of research to do a Mod up to Eagle's standard but in the meantime I'd at least like some more AI period AI assets. Right now we have the MIG-19, MiG-21 and F-5 but we lack the century series.   

[Evoman]

Lets be realistic. Based on what we know of the requirements that it would take to make just one variant possible it would pretty much depend on ED or 3rd party being able to get access to all the required licenses and documentation legally. So its fair to say that it would all depend on what would be available and feasible.

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Evoman said:

Lets be realistic. Based on what we know of the requirements that it would take to make just one variant possible it would pretty much depend on ED or 3rd party being able to get access to all the required licenses and documentation legally. So its fair to say that it would all depend on what would be available and feasible.

My problem is when the statement is based on pure speculation, if you tried to get all the information from Boeing, Grumman or Lockheed and got turned down then I will accept your view as being informed. In short don't kill the hope. Anyway can we at least get more Vietnam era AI assets? 

[Rick50]

On 9/4/2021 at 2:15 AM, Andrew8604 said:

Ok, I'll forget every variant of every make and model, then.  The sim has apparently reached its end.  I'll check back in 2024, maybe...or maybe not and see if anything new has come along.  I don't understand how the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B, and A-10C and so forth ever came into the sim if it's all just too difficult.  I'll get off the forum.

 

 

Drama.

 

No need to forget. I didn't say it COULDN'T be done, I said "MAY" not be possible. There is a HUGE distinction between those two.

 

You SHOULD check back in 2024... maybe by then you'll get a few screenshots of a Phantom cockpit. Maybe an EA release by 2026 or 7.  The Hornet took over 3 years, from public announcement to EA release. That's with ED's larger crew, two decades of experience making combat flight sim content, and supportive community. All those other aircraft took many years and hoops to jump through to get permissions and data, the Harrier by Razbam, and all the others you listed by ED's amazing team.

 

I'm curious about aircraft module projects that were started, not publicly announced, but failed in the dark, for this reason or that. We'll never find out, but I'm curious about past failed efforts, what the module was supposed be about, what kinds of reasons there were for the project failures, the ones we didn't hear about and likely never will. 

 

 ED themselves had made talk and even a couple of screenshots of the Phantom F-4, several years ago... and then dropped it. I do not know the reasons why they dropped it. More recently, they stated they would not be pursuing the Phantom, but that they'd be ok with a 3rd party publishing a Phantom for the DCS world. Think about  that... ED, with all it's capabilities, STARTED a Phantom... and then early on decided to stop. 

 

I'm not trying to kill off the dream...  but overly optimistic enthusiasm for a module that doesn't appear to be chosen by a dev, or announced is mildly silly, and that's fine, it's nice to dream of a brighter future!  I'm just offering a "devil's advocate" point of view so that people wandering into a thread don't get the mistaken idea that a Phantom or BUFF module is just months away from the store. People often jump to conclusions based on a few scraps of incomplete information, all the time.

 

But if anyone is confident it's doable and will sell well enough for a workable profit, then start a "Kickstarter" and promote it in the forums here, and other flight simulation forums, I bet you could get enough funding to get a project going.

 

[Rick50]

On 9/2/2021 at 4:16 AM, Andrew8604 said:

I can appreciate that it is a lot of work...a lot of work...to make these modules.  Exactly how much and how difficult it is to modify them, I don't know.  Unless I participate in making some of them, I can't entirely know.  I just know it's a lot and we pay very little for the incredible detail and authenticity.  I almost giggle to myself every time when I put on the VR goggles and sit in the cockpit with the canopy open.  I can't believe how realistic it all looks!!  I was surprised that Heatblur gave that 2nd F-14 for free.  But I also don't understand who makes these modules and how much money they make for creating them.  Are they basically volunteers, or do they get somewhat compensated for their time?  I don't know how many copies DCS sells.  1,000?  10,000?  But how many years of work did they put into the F-14B, for example?  But, too, there must be some commonality and experience gained with each module that can benefit making another.  Coding, for instance.  Each module must have sections of code that can be reused on other modules...no?

 

Yes, lots and lots of hours of work, possibly into 10,000 hours of work for a module? I don't know, but whatever it is, it's a LOT. You are also quite correct about the pricepoint being really small for what you get (as long as there aren't bugs that cause game crashes). 

 

I think the money is about getting enough hardware, and money to live while it's in development. In the linked thread about the TU-22 Backfire project, the 3d modeller's computer broke, and was still struggling to get a machine up to restart work 2 months later. It's also mentioned that for them (and others, I strongly suspect), this was a side-job, an unpaid hobby effort that might see income for the efforts years later if sold well. Meaning, there was no monthly income for doing the work. No boss to complain to about getting a raise, as there was no paycheques! You put in some Backfire work, when you have some spare time, maybe between dinner and sleep. Maybe on holidays when you don't have to work for the paycheque to pay rent/mortgage/insurance/food/kids and so on. 

 

So yes, I do think most simulation devs are basically volunteers, until after their first commercial success, at which point they maybe start to morph into an actual functioning company... at that point it might increase to full time employment for the partners who started it, and the hiring of outside contractors to help, maybe hire a few part time employees. 

 

They didn't have ED's resources, and there was a time that ED likely didn't have much resources either, they have been working and growing for more than two decades, with HUGE experience and many module successes (and earlier sim versions like Flanker 2.5, LOMAC / LockOn, and so on). 

Code reuse... that I don't know. I used to think it was easy to do exactly that, but one day I remember someone, from ED I think, explaining that many things you'd think code for could be re-used, either "had to" be re-coded from scratch, or was just as much work as coding from scratch.

 

Silver_Dragon posted this thread link, and since reading it myself, I understand why he did. The causes of project end, were a surprise to me, I hadn't even considered part of that as a possibility. Truly a must-read for anyone hoping to see complex modules for DCS, to appreciate the effort and understand:

 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

About F-4, ED has confirmed on a last interview the Phantom comming to DCS "Soon"....

 

[Rick50]

 

 

Ooh... that's great news, a major change from what I'd last heard!

 

AND a full fidellity Fulcrum Mig-29 ?!  Just days ago it looked to be not happening... 

 

Wow, well, I welcome all of it!

 

Did they mention if the Phantom is being worked on by ED or a 3rd party dev ?? I'm guessing it's too early to guess what variant or variants, unless they stated. I think when it was briefly discussed years ago I think they were aiming at a Gunslinger E, but that might have changed. 

 

Ok I just discovered I can get youtube to autotranslate... not perfect but makes the vid worth watching!

[upyr1]

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

I'm curious about aircraft module projects that were started, not publicly announced, but failed in the dark, for this reason or that. We'll never find out, but I'm curious about past failed efforts, what the module was supposed be about, what kinds of reasons there were for the project failures, the ones we didn't hear about and likely never will. 

I'm curious about this too- I don't think we'll ever known

 

7 hours ago, Rick50 said:

 

 ED themselves had made talk and even a couple of screenshots of the Phantom F-4, several years ago... and then dropped it. I do not know the reasons why they dropped it. More recently, they stated they would not be pursuing the Phantom, but that they'd be ok with a 3rd party publishing a Phantom for the DCS world. Think about  that... ED, with all it's capabilities, STARTED a Phantom... and then early on decided to stop. 

I'd like to hear from Eagle what happened- we might have our speculations but they are the only ones who know for sure. The issue might be Lock on or it might be something else. Unless they tell us we'll never know

 

 

 

[Rick50]

 

I'm curious but we'll never find out.

 

HOWEVER... ED stating that a Phantom is "SOON"... and since they have no 3rd party projects to evaluate... suggests to me that it "might"   be ED themselves who are making a Phantom (!!!!).

 

MIGHT. 

 

Don't take that as fact, I'm just guessing based on slivers of info... but this might be the best news for the F-4 that we've had since ThirdWire !

 

 

EDIT:

I only think it could be ED making it, because it was mentioned that ED did not have any current module submissions for evaluation at this time. However, thinking about the wording, that may be reaching for a conclusion too much. It may well be that ED knows of a 3rd party dev making a Phantom, that they think they are getting near completion or EA status, and will soon submit their module for evaluation and quality control. This interpretation seems more plausible, since just a year ago Nick Grey suggested in an interview with GR that ED would not be making a Phantom, but that 3rd party devs were welcome to do so for DCS (which is itself good news). 

 

Really, to my mind, as long as a Phantom module meets ED quality and high fidellity, with a minimum of bugs and crashes... really that's what I'm looking for, regardless of who makes it! 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by Rick50

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

 

I'm curious but we'll never find out.

 

HOWEVER... ED stating that a Phantom is "SOON"... and since they have no 3rd party projects to evaluate... suggests to me that it might be ED themselves who are making a Phantom (!!!!)

 

Don't take that as fact, I'm just guessing based on slivers of info... but this might be the best news for the F-4 that we've had since ThirdWire !

 

 

Now the questions are when and which version(s).  I figure we need a minimum of 2- one for the USAF and one for the Navy and Marines.  Though 3 would be nice- that would include at least one Royal Phantom and ideally there would be more.

Edited September 6, 2021 by upyr1