I think thirdwire fans should see this for DCS

[+Julhelm 266]

What kind of bothers me is that the DCS audience might not be very interested in anything that isn't 'modern fast-mover'. I'd be inclined to port over my Model 200A VSTOL jet along with a sea control ship.

[+streakeagle 867]

As long as the DCS majority is made up of people wanting A-10C level of realism, it doesn't make sense to release a "what-if" aircraft. These guys are already upset that an F-22 is planned when the performance and operation of that aircraft remain classified, so providing and aircraft that never flew is not likely to draw a crowd. On the other hand, if the SF type customers start showing up in numbers who are looking for variety, you might score well and it is a decent opponent for the MiG-21bis given that the imminent 3rd party and FC3 releases and current flyables are not exactly the best match-ups.

[+Julhelm 266]

That has nothing to do with 'realism'. It's the same old as with the subsim people talking about 'realism' when they're really talking fidelity and historical accuracy. I don't see how what-if is less realistic if the design is well-documented and well-researched.

[+Stary 2,427]

DCS will loose the realism requirements for 3rd party mods to an extend IIRC

[+streakeagle 867]

That has nothing to do with 'realism'. It's the same old as with the subsim people talking about 'realism' when they're really talking fidelity and historical accuracy. I don't see how what-if is less realistic if the design is well-documented and well-researched.

 

You may not see it -- but by your own admission FSX sales of your model surely reflected it. No amount of research can produce truly accurate flight modeling for something that never flew. Most planes that sell well are historically significant in some way. They are also normally one of the most capable of their generation. There are some "what-if" planes that tend to get demanded, but even most of those actually had flying prototypes like the XB-70. But an obscure aircraft that nobody has ever heard of that never even reached the flying prototype stage isn't going to draw the sales that a far more famous aircraft like an F-20 Tigershark might get.

 

Personally, I love the SF2 version of the Convair. It is different and fun yet clearly a believable aircraft. However, like most other addon aircraft, it doesn't survive the next patch/game release and I primarily prefer to fly historical matchups using random single missions -- having the Convair pop up was an undesired effect.

[JediMaster 451]

I don't know, I could imagine some people being more interested in some of the Luftwaffe's unbuilt prototypes than a failed program like the F-5G/20. I've certainly enjoyed flying them in Il-2:46. Generally speaking, planes that didn't reach production aren't as well known right out of the gate because so few existed and there wasn't much that they could do as a result. That means no exploits to read about other than test flights at most.

[+Julhelm 266]

You may not see it -- but by your own admission FSX sales of your model surely reflected it. No amount of research can produce truly accurate flight modeling for something that never flew. Most planes that sell well are historically significant in some way. They are also normally one of the most capable of their generation. There are some "what-if" planes that tend to get demanded, but even most of those actually had flying prototypes like the XB-70. But an obscure aircraft that nobody has ever heard of that never even reached the flying prototype stage isn't going to draw the sales that a far more famous aircraft like an F-20 Tigershark might get.

 

Personally, I love the SF2 version of the Convair. It is different and fun yet clearly a believable aircraft. However, like most other addon aircraft, it doesn't survive the next patch/game release and I primarily prefer to fly historical matchups using random single missions -- having the Convair pop up was an undesired effect.

I think the current combat sim community as reflected by the DCS and ARMA crowd is an unimaginative one. Just look at how they whined that ARMA3 was going to be set in the future. It sucks because there are so many other avenues of air combat that could be explored but are commercially unviable as the only available platform around is DCS.

[+streakeagle 867]

I would be one of the ones whining about the setting of ArmA3.

I have no interest in playing Zombie games either.

I want to simulate specific equipment in specific circumstances... usally historically accurate or hypothetically probable with existing equipment/orders of battle.

You can like whatever you like... but that's what I like and why games like OFP and SFP1 were appealing to me as opposed to fanciful console games.

[JediMaster 451]

I don't see the big difference.

 

Where is Everon? Takistan? Chernarus? None of those places exist. Might as well be fighting on Pandora or Tattooine. The equipment was usually real, but half the forces using them weren't. Now BIS is playing fortune teller, and not that far out either. I mean, even the great Arthur C Clarke thought in the late 60s we'd have permanent bases on the Moon by the 1990s.

 

I think it's obvious that after modeling current military equipment for the last 10 years BIS was interested in branching out to stuff on the drawing boards or concepts. Big deal. It's not like there won't be a bus load of mods of the current stuff for it. I mean, people hardly touch the stock Arma 2 stuff anyway!

[+Stary 2,427]

but playing A2 you instantly knew you're either in, say Chechenya (Chernarus -based largery on RL parts of Czech Republic) or A-stan (Takistan) and the bad guys are well... bad

[+streakeagle 867]

The difference is, if I wanted a futuristic fps game, I would have been buying one all along. I used to play table top miniatures games all the time. WW3 never happened in Europe and my table did not make a very good model of Germany either... but all of the equipment existed and the data tables were as accurate as possible given that much of the info was at least partially classified. OFP/ArmA is my replacement for those games. M60A3s and M1A1s vs T-72s and T-80s... M-16s vs AK-47s. Whether I am recreating battles that actually happened or experimenting with hypothetical ones that could have happened, realistic tactics got realistic results. SFP1's fictional desert never bothered me too much aside from the fact that it should have been Israel from the start. The aircraft and weapons performed close enough to their real world counterparts that I could test real world encounters and expect comparable results. If I wanted otherwise I would play Tom Clancy games, not ArmA. As long as they keep the real stuff there, I could care less if they have fictional stuff to expand their audience. Might as well build in a stock Zombie mod if it generates more revenue... but if the elements I enjoy go away, so do my dollars. I spend my money on things that cater to my wants and needs, not on things that cater to the masses. They already own console game development, do they have to come steal the few good PC sims that are left on the market? Third Wire and Bohemia games are supposed to tap the niche markets missed by the mega-million blockbuster games, not become just another console game or iPad app that is indistinguishable from the dozens already saturating the market.

[JediMaster 451]

Third Wire and Bohemia games are supposed to make money when they tap the niche markets missed by the mega-million blockbuster games, not become just another console game or iPad app that is indistinguishable from the dozens already saturating the market unless that makes them more money.

 

There, fixed that for you.

 

When more people buy your game in a few months over 2 years after release because of a zombie mod than did in pretty much the entire previous release period, you take notice.

 

Will Arma 3 have Day-Z built-in to sell more people on paying full price? Or will it be a separate game totally? You know they're crunching the numbers and whichever will make them more is the way they'll go.

[+Julhelm 266]

The fun thing with Streakeagle's rant about ARMA becoming a zombie game is that DayZ is much more hardcore simulation than stock ARMA2 ever was and that's exactly why it's so popular. If anything DayZ is proof that hardcore sim done right can be very successful commercially.

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, because it's a more hardcore simulation of that situation, even if the situation itself is fantastical. That's really my point. Take Birds of Prey for the consoles. All real planes, all real history, real weapons, etc. But the game itself is very UNreal because of how it's constructed.

Then DayZ comes along with "zombie outbreak", never considered realistic because the whole scientific thing just fails on so many levels, but the way it models that world is uncompromising. Of course, I could argue that if the game wasn't MP only it would fail because they could never model the survivor AI to that same level. Just from playing a game like Left 4 Dead the game is almost unplayable solo because your allies are so brain dead.

 

Personally I'd rather Arma 3 use weapons that don't exist yet but get it closer to real than to have current or historical weapons but give up on things like, I don't know, tank physics?? When I can drift a T-80 like Paul Walker in Tokyo, I think some tweaking is needed!

[+streakeagle 867]

If others like playing ultra simulations of killing zombies or futuristic fighting with hardware that doesn't exist, more power to them.

With rare exceptions, I don't want or need to play science fiction games.

Whether that fiction is zombies or future hardware.

If a developer wants my money, they have to give me what I want.

 

Since I am obviously in the minority and businesses succeed by catering to the majority, that puts me up against the wall.

OFP and SFP1 were both targeted at people with my interests.

OFP did quite well without having science fiction (though it could be modded to have such).

If "indie" developers like Third Wire and Bohemia discover that they can get the real money from the masses, who is left to cater to me?

The answer is no one.

 

Except that DCS seems to be opening up a path the other developers claimed was impossible: survey sim covering all of aviation history, but with each aircraft being detailed to the level of a study sim.

Still waiting to see ED defy all the claims: big companies say their is not enough money in flight sims, little companies say they don't have the budget to make anything better than flight games.

ED may hit the niche just right as Microsoft has folded and X-Plane just doesn't compete with DCS on a lot of levels.

[JediMaster 451]

Except that DCS seems to be opening up a path the other developers claimed was impossible: survey sim covering all of aviation history, but with each aircraft being detailed to the level of a study sim.

Still waiting to see ED defy all the claims: big companies say their is not enough money in flight sims, little companies say they don't have the budget to make anything better than flight games.

ED may hit the niche just right as Microsoft has folded and X-Plane just doesn't compete with DCS on a lot of levels.

 

They never said it was impossible. In fact, several claimed it was and said they were doing just that. Then, inexplicably, just when it was starting to take hold, they'd start over again. To whit: Falcon 3, OFT, MiG-29, Hornet...???? Sorry, we're working on Falcon 4, starting over again!

Over and over, they quit expanding what they have and start from scratch on a "new and improved" engine that costs more to make but gives the user less than they had before. We waited in vain for the F-15E expansion for F4. I think it was less than 6 months between its announcement and the shuttering of the doors. Then F4:AF promised to revive that, and it apparently sold WELL over their projections, and...nothing. They did nothing for so long they lost the rights, and it's done. All they needed was another plane cockpit, another flyable plane (like the F-15E) and they could've continued on, but they didn't. Why not? Who knows?

 

Anyway, I'll give even odds that DCS will be replaced by DCS World 2 or whatever long before it gets even CLOSE to what you're talking about. We'll have as many flyables as one of SF2's titles, done to DCS or "close" levels yes, but then something will happen and ED will decide to start over again. I mean, if Black Shark 2 and Flaming Cliffs 3 hasn't convinced you of that...

[+Julhelm 266]

Well to be honest, back then technology was moving at such a rapid pace that the filled polygon graphics of Falcon 3 were obsolete at almost the time it came out.

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, but other sims out the same year (SWOTL) were still using sprites!

 

The failure of F4 to come out when it was first supposed to (late 95/early 96) and getting pushed back did allow for 3D tech to get in there, but frankly that should've been Falcon 5 by then. It would've been 3 years after F4, if that had come out four years after F3.

 

Of course, you could argue F4 didn't REALLY come out till the end of 99 when the 1.08i patch was released, as that's when the development actually stopped.

[Spinners 15,985]

I'd be grateful if someone could prod me when an F-4 is released...

[+daddyairplanes 10,139]

Might as well build in a stock Zombie mod if it generates more revenue...

nah Wrench's Zombie squad is better

 

however for now i'm stuck with TW due to 1. cost of DCS 2. the fact i have all major SF2 titles and 3 most importantly, Phantoms.

Edited August 24, 2012 by daddyairplanes

[+SkateZilla 49]

DCS World is Free, and you get the SU25T for free with it, i dont think you can play online unless you buy a Module.

Next time steam has a Sale on DCS A-10C, Buy it, dont download it from steam, goto DCS's site, download the A-10C 1.1.1.1 Standalone installer, Install it,, and use your Steam key to activate it. Then download and Install the DCS A-10C DCS World Module. Most of us are running the DCSWorld and DCS A-10C 1.1.1.1 Side by side because World still has some Multi-player bugs.

 

i think I've spent about $12 on DCS A-10C.

 

Modules Currently In Beta:

P-51D

MIG-21bis

 

Modules in Development

 

Beczl:

MIG-21bis, MIG-23MF (possible SU-22)

 

Iris Simulations:

F-14D, F22A, T-38, F-15E (Originally stated F-14 would be done first, but i think his MicroJet test bed will be done first)

 

CoreTex Designs:

F-18E

 

VEAO:

Bae hawk and EuroFighter

 

RAZBAM:

AV-8B, with plans for A-6, A7, A-4, F-4 variants and a bunch of others over a time period. (Had a list somewhere)

 

Skunkworks

F-104G

 

PeyVolt:

Mirage F-1, (Possible F-18C Spanish Airforce?)

 

VTAI (Doesn’t Have Contract w/ DCS)

F-16C (doubt it will be DCS Quality, the shape of the model isn’t even correct, also See Eagle Dynamics)

 

Eagle Dynamics:

DCS Neveda, Once done and released, 3^rd Parties will be allowed to generate terrains.

 

Possible Modules from Eagle Dynamics in development

DCS F-18C (Been Rumored for a while, plus with Eagle Dynamics Assets acquisitions)

DCS F-16x (Eagle Dynamics just built an extremely detailed F-16 Model and was showing off renders, for use in a future module?).

 

Skate Zilla HD Studios:

4 Projects in development, not gonna make official until I have working proof of concept to submit to Eagle Dynamics.

[+SkateZilla 49]

Except that DCS seems to be opening up a path the other developers claimed was impossible: survey sim covering all of aviation history, but with each aircraft being detailed to the level of a study sim.

Still waiting to see ED defy all the claims: big companies say their is not enough money in flight sims, little companies say they don't have the budget to make anything better than flight games.

ED may hit the niche just right as Microsoft has folded and X-Plane just doesn't compete with DCS on a lot of levels.

 

do you know how much people spend on FSX Terrain Addons Alone?

 

BS2 was to bring BlackShark to the Same level as A-10C1.1.1.1, so they could be integrated in multi-player.

 

DCS World is a Shell of engines, it creates a standardized application environment, which makes it easier and quicker to integrate complex content.

 

Flaming Cliffs 3 is to bring Flaming Cliffs Aircraft to the DCS World Level. (Visually and Flight model wise at least, not sure if all the Pits will be clickable and stuff).

DCS A10 and BS2 have both been upgraded to the DCSWorld Level.

Edited August 24, 2012 by SkateZilla

[JediMaster 451]

I don't know if the official features list of FC3 has been released yet. At this point other than "it's coming" we know little.

 

Lemme guess...you're gonna put a CVN into DCS World?

[+SkateZilla 49]

Matt already said FC3 will be a DCSW Module, and will require LOMAC to be installed as well.

 

 

I cannot say what Im building

[JediMaster 451]

Matt already said FC3 will be a DCSW Module, and will require LOMAC to be installed as well.

 

 

I don't think either of those qualify as "features." More like "installation prerequisites."