DCSW - NexT DLC

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I was joking,of course

 

Amen to that.And Israel-Arab Wars (Six days war,Yom Kipur) on top of that.I would pay fortune for that

 

He he Brano :D and Damn right!

 

Did you fly Wings over Vietnam or Strike fighters? I can't remember which one I had but they had mods for those type of missions/campaigns

[Brano]

WoW,WoE,Strike Fighters...all of them Good old times for good old "tubes"

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Why so gloomy about Hormuz.You can chase Somalian pirates! No other game will give you such opportunity

That's Gulf of Aden, not straights of Hormuz. Other side of Arabian peninsula.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159076

 

So much for the VEAO releasing anything ...

[HippyDruid]

 

 

I think it's been said somewhere before but each aircraft costs roughly £100,000 to develop...

 

Interesting to hear this information from 3rd party developers.

So they need to sell at least 3300 copies at £30 before even considering a profit? 

[VR-DriftaholiC]

Am I the only one wishing DCS would model some of the bigger planes and bombers from WWII. I know they mentioned som AI only B17 or something but man I would gladly pay to fly them.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Fly B-17, get taken out by S-300.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

With the new engine bigger bombers should be quite possible theoreticly, but I don't know if we see such an ambicious projet any time sonn during the coming years realisticly.

 

If Polyshop can release their Stuka module we have a first non-fighter WW2 aircraft module. That could help to encourage other developers to also get their hands WW2 bomber aircrafts.

[Urra]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159076

 

 

 

So much for the VEAO releasing anything ...

This update is very similar to the one given 3 months ago. Its mostly the same info.... so p40 delayed a year because the engine shakes? How strange of an update....

[Ace_Pilto]

An F4U-1 and what else for Iwo Jima? Aircraft carrier? AI opposition (air and ground)? Not going to be much good on its own...

 

I'm sure you'll be able to fly it through some rings in the sky though, that should be fun.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

This update is very similar to the one given 3 months ago. Its mostly the same info.... so p40 delayed a year because the engine shakes? How strange of an update....

Well, not quite right. The last news I've heard before Christmas was that they are close to releasing it and Chuck was supposed to record two gamplays with it to show how nice it is. One way or another they pulled the P-40 from pre-sale on their own website and they still cant finish Hawk EFM. Thats a one big fail considering their massive plans for this year. 

[Saurer]

I honestly don't have many hope for the Buchon now anymore

[Brano]

That's Gulf of Aden, not straights of Hormuz. Other side of Arabian peninsula.

Right,my bad

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I honestly don't have many hope for the Buchon now anymore

 

I don't know why in hell anybody would want a Buchon in the first place... Especially in the scope of a WWII sim that is never going to happen because of misguided development choices like such.

Am I the only one wishing DCS would model some of the bigger planes and bombers from WWII. I know they mentioned som AI only B17 or something but man I would gladly pay to fly them.

 

So... Many... Buttons... So... Many... Levers...  

 

-snip-

 

If Polyshop can release their Stuka module we have a first non-fighter WW2 aircraft module. That could help to encourage other developers to also get their hands WW2 bomber aircrafts.

 

I would be genuinely surprised if this WWII thing goes anywhere in the next 5 years.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[Saurer]

I don't know why in hell anybody would want a Buchon in the first place... Especially in the scope of a WWII sim that is never going to happen because of misguided development choices like such.

 

I just like it, and the misguided development choises started with the K4 and a Normandy map and not with any of the random staff VEAO or any other 3 party Dev does

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I just like it, and the misguided development choises started with the K4 and a Normandy map and not with any of the random staff VEAO or any other 3 party Dev does

 

I don't disagree with you but I also can't see how, at all, that invalidates the fact that the Buchon makes less sense for a WWII scenario than a K-4 in the Pacific would... Just sayin'.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, one thing with a Buchon is that considering their claims for the costs of producing a single aircraft ... how would they even imagine it being profitable. I dont know a single friend flying DCS who would be interested in Buchon. On the other hand G-6 AS or FW  190 A-8 could attract a lot more. And would fit the Normandy. 

I'm genuinely curious how VEAO figured they can make a road map with about as many aircraft as ED is working on which rarely are related to each other - and they expected to make money on that.

Other thing is how ED will react if such situation will continue. 

Edited January 21, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Urra]

Well, not quite right. The last news I've heard before Christmas was that they are close to releasing it and Chuck was supposed to record two gamplays with it to show how nice it is. One way or another they pulled the P-40 from pre-sale on their own website and they still cant finish Hawk EFM. Thats a one big fail considering their massive plans for this year.

 

Thanks, you are right. Its just in that update they said the plane jumps too much when driving on grass or something.

[Ace_Pilto]

I honestly don't have many hope for the Buchon now anymore

 

And nothing of value was lost.

[Chuck_Owl]

Well, not quite right. The last news I've heard before Christmas was that they are close to releasing it and Chuck was supposed to record two gamplays with it to show how nice it is. One way or another they pulled the P-40 from pre-sale on their own website and they still cant finish Hawk EFM. Thats a one big fail considering their massive plans for this year. 

 

Last time I heard, Hawk is on track... but validating a flight model is more time-consuming than meets the eye (especially if you work with consultants that have pressing matters to attend to on a daily basis). I tested the first iterations of the Hawk EFM and, to the risk of repeating myself, it's like night and day. It's something that needs to be experienced by yourself to truly understand what I mean by that.

 

Other videos will come for the Hawk and P-40, rest assured. VEAO wants to make it right and are definitely taking the means to get there.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Last time I heard, Hawk is on track... but validating a flight model is more time-consuming than meets the eye (especially if you work with consultants that have pressing matters to attend to on a daily basis). I tested the first iterations of the Hawk EFM and, to the risk of repeating myself, it's like night and day. It's something that needs to be experienced by yourself to truly understand what I mean by that.

 

Other videos will come for the Hawk and P-40, rest assured. VEAO wants to make it right and are definitely taking the means to get there.

I can believe that, but from consumer point of view they just lost a lot of credibility. That may affect possible sales and cut the profits. Maybe instead of great plans they should have started like LN with one module but polished every patch.

[Chuck_Owl]

I can believe that, but from consumer point of view they just lost a lot of credibility. That may affect possible sales and cut the profits. Maybe instead of great plans they should have started like LN with one module but polished every patch.

 

They intend to regain that credibility, but for that they need to

1) Release EFM and finish Hawk (i.e. new cockpit textures)

2) Have a smooth P-40 release

 

I think it's been clearly stated that it's their game plan for now and we can assume that this is where their energy is currently being spent.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Chuck_Owl

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, I wish them best despite pessimism. Hope they can solve the problems. 

Edited January 21, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[LukeFF]

 

 

I don't know why in hell anybody would want a Buchon in the first place... Especially in the scope of a WWII sim that is never going to happen because of misguided development choices like such.

 

They flew in the Battle of Britain!...oh wait, that was a movie.   

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Spitfire looks so damn cool but else ...

 

"Our goals for DCS World War II remain unchanged and are still focused on a stable of WWII aircraft in addition to a 1944 map of Northern France with period ground units. We hope to finish the Spitfire IX in mid-2016 followed by the P-47D at the end of the year. We will also continue to fine-tune the P-51D, Fw 190 and Bf 109."

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter29012016.html

 

Without those 3rd parties they are really going nowhere at this rate of things. 

[Saurer]

Wasn't the Spitfire supposed to be a clipped wing one?

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yeah, it was supposed to be ...

 

Anyway, there is also 3rd parties stuff : " In the first half of 2016, several new 3rd party aircraft modules will also be launched. These include the F-5E Tiger II by Belsimtek, the SA342 Gazelle by Polychop Simulations, and the AJS-37 Viggen by Leatherneck Simulations." 

It seems that most interesting module, F4U, will be in the second half of 2016 :/

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

Clipped wings Spit is being developed by VAEO.

 

Mark XIV.

 

Strange how long does it take to model a plane in DCS. Mid year for Spit. It's in development for two years now or so.

 

BoS and BoM level planes done in 6 weeks.

 

ED has more employees as well.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, but the detail they put. One thing that makes them so complicated is all the systems inside, I really sometimes think there is just too much modeled. It goes into a detail irrelevant to the most of the users.

And at the same time it fails in other areas on basics. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[LukeFF]

 

 

F-5E Tiger II by Belsimtek, the SA342 Gazelle by Polychop Simulations

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............... 

[9./JG27golani79]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............... 

 

lol .. so is your comment ..

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............... 

Well, to be honest those are just third parties. And Polychop is in the meantime working on Ju-87. First they got to prove themselves. 

I guess the biggest thing this year will be LN Tomcat. If it arrives. 

[Finkeren]

Well, but the detail they put. One thing that makes them so complicated is all the systems inside, I really sometimes think there is just too much modeled. It goes into a detail irrelevant to the most of the users.

And at the same time it fails in other areas on basics.

True.

 

It's so unfortunate. There is a certain deeper level of detail that I'm genuinely missing from BoS/BoM, but DCS just doesn't present a viable alternative.

[HippyDruid]

There is a certain deeper level of detail that I'm genuinely missing from BoS/BoM, but DCS just doesn't present a viable alternative.

 

A very good point.

 

I find some of the features of DCS are great. For instance making requests to ATC for startup/takeoff etc, or landing then requesting rearm/refuel. These are just simply brilliant in my opinion. I would love to see them in BoS(M).

 

Pure speculation time:

I've always had the impression, DCS World and their whole game/simulator side of things are a just a side project for Eagle Dynamics while they're working on some unmentionable military thingy. I've never gotten that 'all-hands-on-deck' feeling at their forum like I have here.

I like their product, but where exactly is it headed?! 

[Urra]

A very good point.

 

I find some of the features of DCS are great. For instance making requests to ATC for startup/takeoff etc, or landing then requesting rearm/refuel. These are just simply brilliant in my opinion. I would love to see them in BoS(M).

 

Pure speculation time:

I've always had the impression, DCS World and their whole game/simulator side of things are a just a side project for Eagle Dynamics while they're working on some unmentionable military thingy. I've never gotten that 'all-hands-on-deck' feeling at their forum like I have here.

I like their product, but where exactly is it headed?!

 

This is exactly the feeling I got after one year. The have their military projects, and they do the flight sim stuff on the side. It's weird, but taking all the info together regarding their projects, it's hard to dismiss this tinfoil hat theory...

[Dakpilot]

This is exactly the feeling I got after one year. The have their military projects, and they do the flight sim stuff on the side. It's weird, but taking all the info together regarding their projects, it's hard to dismiss this tinfoil hat theory...

 

 

I don't really think it is speculation or tin foil hat theories at all, their commercial and military business is their primary focus and everything else (gaming wise) is a spin off it has always been that way

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[BeastyBaiter]

It's not exactly a secret either. Their very first DCS module, DCS: Black Shark, is an entertainment version of a sim they made for Kamov. DCS: A-10C is the same, it's a home version of a program they made for the USAF. Even the P-51D was made for a client and then offered to everyone else. With that said, I think this will be a good year for DCS. They should get 1.5 and 2.0 merged together and combined with some excellent modern-ish additions to the lineup (F-5E, SA-342, AJS-37), we have a lot to look forwards to. I still think their WW2 project is a dead end and nothing they wrote effects my opinion on it. The problems are in the core game engine, simply throwing more flyable aircraft at us isn't going to solve it. But on the 1970's to 1990's side of things, it looks promising. On a related note, the added airfields to NTTR should make it much more usable as a generic desert map.

 

As for development time, aside from clearly being a side project for ED, it's also a side project for most of the 3rd party devs too. The guys at VEAO and Aviodev are working on DCS as a side job and I get the impression most of them are amateurs at that, hence the painfully slow progress they make. LNS was originally a side job for them but they've since added a few full time developers. I think the main guys are still part time though. I'm not sure about RAZBAM, I get the impression they have 2-3 full time guys but no one else. BST is the only one that seems to be a truly professional full time team working primarily on DCS, they seem to get modules out at a rate of 2 every 3 years. Still a long time, but a lot more reasonable than 2+ years per plane.

[IVJG4-Knight]

I don't know why some people think they can badger and badmouth developers on their own forum and not get banned. It's their forum. The rules are clearly stated for everyone.

 

In my case i presented evidence of post ww2 weapon trials made in US that show what kind of damage certain weapons do.The damage model is so bad that when i shot i planes tail with 30 mm ammo the propeller governer stopped working.It's the only thing that fails ever .There are no radiator leaks , no fuel fire and the list goes on.

And a moderator tells me (In the meantime they changed the tune of course) : "You need to practice if you want to be like the ww2 aces ;)" .

 

But the reason i got banned is because when the same moderator posted "Any bug can be resolved with practice". I responded with "that's nonsense".You sell me planes for 60 dollars a piece and offer me that damage model and than you tell me "Any bug can be resolved with practice" . The p51 was released more that 3 years ago it's not like they didn't have time.

 

If you play il2 BOS right after DCS ww2 the difference in damage model quality is insane,

Edited January 31, 2016 by IVJG4-Knight

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, that is absolutely correct. Me and Solty fly on daily basis P-51s and .50 cals prove utterly useless because K-4 damage model is not even worth calling a beta. In the meantime M2 is primarily loaded with M2 ball ammunition, with only a single M8 API for three or four ball rounds. You cant even ignite them which was the major point in that kind of weaponry. Instead you have to count on sufficient damage to the structure, when the damage model itself is quite resistant. 

In the meantime as you say when object receives hits with HE to the tail, damage is actually happening to the frontal section. Rarely there are situations when coolant leak actually affects the flight and causes the loss of the machine. 

 

And this is by far most unexpected considering amount of detail put into the models. You got batteries modeled, each gun is separately modeled as well, radio, radar, compass ... dozens of things. But according to Sithspawn damage models will be vastly improved in 2.0

 

BTW. Knight, by any chance you have a link to that discussion where you provided evidence of the gun lethality ?

Edited January 31, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Feathered_IV]

Strange how long does it take to model a plane in DCS. Mid year for Spit. It's in development for two years now or so.

 

BoS and BoM level planes done in 6 weeks.

 

ED has more employees as well.

 

 

Luthier mentioned the development time for a DCS WW2 aircraft and the Spitfire in particular would be about 5 months the produce.  This can be seen in one of the kickstarter videos at about the 7:50 mark.

I don't know what changed since then though.  Whether people were taken off the project, it got a lower priority or something else.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KARx6C6Y4r8

Edited January 31, 2016 by Feathered_IV