Holy Grail and Time Machine - No life beyond the Hog?

[Jeesus]

First and foremost, before you put me on the middle of the town square half naked and start to cover my body with rotten tomatoes, this is neither a rant nor a complaint, only my small evil plan to generate an expanded discussion about the present and future of our common love.

 

Secondly, thank you for all the ED and 3rd party developer people out there for the (positively) ridicilous amount of effort and the extended awareness of the community stated bugs and problems to make the platform better with each and (almost :P ) *every iteration.

 

So, the idea of this thread was came to my mind one or two days ago when I stated my worries about the focus of DCS shifting towards the WW2 era over at the Screenshot thread (teasing about B-17s) and I got a reply like " you can have your jets why couldn't I have my props" than I just shook my head and asked myself: What kinda jets?. Let's face the truth, the first and to that point the only modern DCS fixed wing aircraft is the Warthog.

 

I just started wondering will there ever be a module as sophisticated as the A-10C or it's source code is the holy grail of dcs simulation and it's fidelity cannot ever be reproduced? (at least without the background founding of the military, because as far as I can recall and correct me if I'm wrong, it was a military project at first hand and become a declassified commercial project later).

 

Or should we just accept the fact that the dirty demand sitting on the back shelf of our brain to finally fly with the Hornet or "click the hell out" of the beautiful 6DOF cockpits of the F-15C or SU-27 etc. will remain unsatisfied and we have to stick with "systemwise easier to develop" (not a quote but stated similarly by Nate from the testers team) DCS modules (yes I am thinking about e.g. the Huey, Mustang, Dora, Buckeye etc. and before you crucify me again, I didn't say worse or less realistic, I have them all, I love them all, I know how difficult to learn to fly them, they are just simpler, no fancy computers, jammers, electronics).

 

What is your opinion?

[Flagrum]

First and foremost, before you put me on the middle of the town square half naked and start to cover my body with rotten tomatoes, this is neither a rant nor a complaint, only my small evil plan to generate an expanded discussion about the present and future of our common love.

 

Secondly, thank you for all the ED and 3rd party developer people out there for the (positively) ridicilous amount of effort and the extended awareness of the community stated bugs and problems to make the platform better with each and (almost :P ) *every iteration.

 

So, the idea of this thread was came to my mind one or two days ago when I stated my worries about the focus of DCS shifting towards the WW2 era over at the Screenshot thread (teasing about B-17s) and I got a reply like " you can have your jets why couldn't I have my props" than I just shook my head and asked myself: What kinda jets?. Let's face the truth, the first and to that point the only modern DCS fixed wing aircraft is the Warthog.

 

I just started wondering will there ever be a module as sophisticated as the A-10C or it's source code is the holy grail of dcs simulation and it's fidelity cannot ever be reproduced? (at least without the background founding of the military, because as far as I can recall and correct me if I'm wrong, it was a military project at first hand and become a declassified commercial project later).

 

Or should we just accept the fact that the dirty demand sitting on the back shelf of our brain to finally fly with the Hornet or "click the hell out" of the beautiful 6DOF cockpits of the F-15C or SU-27 etc. will remain unsatisfied and we have to stick with "systemwise easier to develop" (not a quote but stated similarly by Nate from the testers team) DCS modules (yes I am thinking about e.g. the Huey, Mustang, Dora, Buckeye etc. and before you crucify me again, I didn't say worse or less realistic, I have them all, I love them all, I know how difficult to learn to fly them, they are just simpler, no fancy computers, jammers, electronics).

 

What is your opinion?

 

Half a dozend planes are "in the making". What fact is there to accept? I mean until proven that all those will fail?

[Grigs]

I am pretty sure the F/A 18C will be on the same level. This opinion is realying on nothing but my feeling..

 

Difference to me, is that having a (nearly) fully clickable cockpit is harder to deal with while flying a fighter jet. And still, it should not be a huge inconvenient. There are not so much knobs and keys to be used while over the battlefield once you are engaging (as long as you have the HOTAS, and btw I really hope someone will produce the Hornet's one, and yes, I know there is a private project already).

 

*Finger crossed*

[Kaiza]

Personally I think that yes the A-10C is, and will remain, the holy grail for quite some time (at least for serving military combat aircaft). Unless ED or a 3rd party pick up another military contract it will be very difficult to match that level. For one- fidelity level is an exponential curve of effort. The last 10% is very hard to achieve and will only be appreciated by a minuscule amount of customers (unless they are a military customer) so there isn't much point if the module is made for the public. Dont get me wrong, i am sure the f-18 will be fantastic, but ED would be mad to sink money into modelling features that the consumer will not notice. Second, it is extremely difficult to develop something accurately without having a serving military operator to test and answer questions constantly at your disposal.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Kaiza

[Jeesus]

Half a dozend planes are "in the making". What fact is there to accept? I mean until proven that all those will fail?

 

That is true, but if you watch closely only the Mig-21 module is closing in to a DCS level like aircraft (kudos to Beczl from a fellow hungarian btw :) ). Buckeye and Hawk, although they are for sure going to be awesome but in the "system wise easier to develop" category. And the rest... well I'm not too convinced about them to be honest.

 

Edit: and belsimtek's Mi-8 of course, these guys are amazing.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Jeesus

[159th_Falcon]

ED's very own DCS F-18 (C?) will most likely be on par avionics wise whit A-10C and the KA-50.

At least, that's how they seem to advertise it.

 

Then there are 3rd party projects for F-15E i believe it was, aiming to be on par whit the aforementioned as well.

 

Only thing i am missing at this point is an modern(ish) Russian fighter.

Which will no doubt come to us at some point.

[Sharpe_95]

To be fair I think yours is a legitimate concern. However, while I personally feel that IF there was a magical way to get to a nirvana state (lets say a way of selecting eras to fly in with era specific maps and suitable aircraft of all shapes and sizes to and level of fidelity) there is, I think, a more pressing issue:

 

What is the likely shelf life of DCSW in terms of graphics, engine, code and support. Even microsoft flight simulator ran out of puff in 10 years or so. Combat flight sims are a niche of a niche market. Any 'genera' 'era' 'type' or 'generation' is also a niche. Hi fidelity is arguably another niche within all that.

 

Therefore I think the real question is: What does ED plan to do in the time that is left for DCSW. Even if we are generous and say its got a shelf life of 10-15 years, the rate of development is not such that the 'nirvana' state is ever likely to be reached. With all the good will in the world, ED and third parties can only do such much in so long and ED's current 'blind to era, blind to maps, blind to scenario' approach may need to become 'this (or these) specific eras, maps and genre's only'.

 

What then goes into it becomes a question of time vs cost vs interest. Sadly time is running out cost is high and as a niche market profit is small(ish) and interest is again a niche of a niche market.

 

I worry that ED may go 'WW2 only'. This is, of course, a personal view. I would much prefer the game to focus on modern aircraft, maps etc but at the end of the day ED will (rightly) look to its balance book first. You cant argue with the fact that FC3 and P51 have been their biggest sellers. [Edit: EDTharos has confirmed FC3 is their big seller but there is no info on the P51, so I retract the part above P51-thanks for the confirmation Tharos ;)]

 

I worry what this means.

-Sharpe

Edited August 7, 2013 by Sharpe_95

[PFunk1606688187]

The way I see it, if a WW2 fighter with a relatively shorter development cycle than a high fidelity modern jet packs their coffers so that they can afford to make that high fidelity modern jet, whats the issue?

 

Revenue from WW2 doesn't mean that it must be spent making more WW2. Diversity is smart, and obviously effective.

[Sharpe_95]

"The way I see it, if a WW2 fighter with a relatively shorter development cycle than a high fidelity modern jet packs their coffers so that they can afford to make that high fidelity modern jet, whats the issue?Revenue from WW2 doesn't mean that it must be spent making more WW2. Diversity is smart, and obviously effective."

 

P*Funk,

Its a fair point. But its said that money breeds money. ED have said they are a small team, therefore with all the good will in the world they cant do everything. If knocking out WW2 era aircraft is seen to be where the big money is - why not just keep doing it and forget modern stuff for the most part?

-Sharpe

Edited August 7, 2013 by Sharpe_95

[Irregular programming]

ED has made one world war 2 fighter and the sky is falling?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

What is the likely shelf life of DCSW in terms of graphics, engine, code and support. Even microsoft flight simulator ran out of puff in 10 years or so.

 

Eh? MS flight sim has been going for the best part of 30 years. If you're talking about FSX that's been going for 7 years and is still going strong, despite being unsupported (by MS) for a long time. Not bad considering that engine was, and still is, rubbish.

 

The DCS engine has matured nicely, and even without the planned improvements it would last a long time. Yes it takes a long time to develop additional content, but considering the 'world' concept it's actually quite new, I think there's reason to be optimistic about the long term future.

[Foul Ole Ron]

Its a fair point. But its said that money breeds money. ED have said they are a small team, therefore with all the good will in the world they cant do everything. If knocking out WW2 era aircraft is seen to be where the big money is - why not just keep doing it and forget modern stuff for the most part?

 

If ED were solely after "the big money" they probably wouldn't be in the business of making high fidelity flight simulations.

[Echo38]

You cant argue with the fact that FC3 and P51 have been their biggest sellers.

Source? I'm ready to believe that about FC3, but I'm highly skeptical of this claim regarding P-51D. (I'd love for it to be the case, but I'm not seeing it.)

[Sharpe_95]

No source I am willing to name. Maybe someone from ED or one of the mods might be able to confirm it? I agree that I am happy to believe it of FC3 but a little surprised by P51.

 

-Sharpe

Edited August 7, 2013 by Sharpe_95

[tintifaxl]

... I just started wondering will there ever be a module as sophisticated as the A-10C or it's source code is the holy grail of dcs simulation and it's fidelity cannot ever be reproduced? ...

 

It'll be very, very difficult, but I believe it will be bested. I'm an optimist :D

[GGTharos]

FC3 sells very well. There is no information regarding the P-51.

 

No source I am willing to name. Maybe someone from ED or one of the mods might be able to confirm it? I agree that I am happy to believe it of FC3 but a little surprised by P51.

 

-Sharpe

[SkateZilla]

1 Point 21 Gigawatts!

 

(will edit something relevant in this post as soon as I proof read it some.)

[Wrecking Crew]

Well, there could be an 'Era' feature that would match ground units with aircraft. Having a P-51D or a B-17 in a mission with BUK and Patriot air defense systems doesn't work. Even Hueys w/o and RWR is difficult in the 'modern' battlefield we have now in DCS World.

 

WC

[SkateZilla]

FSX is a No Growth Platform,

 

You can no longer activate your FSX License without being naughty.

[ALDEGA]

FC3 sells very well

Define "very well", and your source ... ;)

[GGTharos]

Baiting will get you nowhere.

[cichlidfan]

I believe Matt has made statements to the effect that FC3 outsells the other products, but nobody is going to quote or publish sales numbers for a privately held company without a better reason than this.

[skouras]

I believe Matt has made statements to the effect that FC3 outsells the other products, but nobody is going to quote or publish sales numbers for a privately held company without a better reason than this.

exactly

my opinion

is good to have differents eras of planes helicopters

i fly online everyday at least 4-5 hours

and i see people that flying all the projects in one server

for me the A-10 is awesome and the F-18 will be at the same level if not better

the question is

how long it will be take untill we will see it;)

[Sharpe_95]

FC3 sells very well. There is no information regarding the P-51.

 

Cheers Tharos,

I thought I had heard it somewhere :thumbup:

 

Ill edit my original statement to take off P51.

-Sharpe