'Someone' figured it out when DCS was announced to begin with. As you were likely told, 'all in good time and as resources permit'.

It was impossible for them to ignore your genius any longer.

Nate

Don't forget the whole domain purchase ED made of f-18c. com (space added by me) about a year ago:

http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/2011/03/30/dcs-f-18c-on-the-horizon/

Granted I'm not sure if they renewed the domain this March.

Or another scenario has occurred:

They are working on multiple AC and depending on contractual obligations they may release something other than the one they originally intended. For example: let's say the F-18 was their next "intended" release. Let's say the Navy has issue with the commercial version that push its release back, but the AF has no issues with the commercial version of the F-16. So instead of identfying the F-18 is the next AC and later having to change it and face backlash from the whiners in the community, they chose to keep most information close to their chest until they have things written in stone - so to speak.

Bottom line is ED has been releasing a lot more information then they did leading up to the release of DCS A-10C. I welcome the tidbits even if the juiciest of details is still a closely guarded secret.

The biggest news item has to be the "core" concept. While impressive and praiseworthy it's also something that lots of people have expressed as either a good suggestion or downright baffling that it wasn't done this way from step one. Maybe it's what they were attempting all along and only recently gained the ability or confidence to proceed. A core (hopefully free) GUI/ME backbone with plug in content has been the elephant in the room for a while.

P-51 is clearly a side project. If it has significant "environment content" (terrain, opposition aircraft, period-specific AI modeling) I will be greatly surprised. DCS has always been first and foremost about operating the aircraft. Always secondary has been interactions with the environment. It's going to be really fun for people that get a thrill out of authentic operation of such an airplane and disappointing for those that focus on setting, mission, etc.

FC3 I think will be great. Bringing "lite" survey sim'd planes to the DCS suite has to blow the doors wide open for full spectrum operations in multiplayer. 4x A-10, 4x Ka-50 MP missions are certainly fun but going broad with the aircraft spectrum must make it better if for no other reason than to deconflict the roles. I would hope that the DCS nextjet radar would form a basis for a FC3 simplified radar. That alone could make the jump from FC2 to FC3 for "lite" other airplanes worth it.

I can't get myself angry for ED/TFC going at whatever pace and picking whatever aircraft. I'm not that much of a sports fan. All aircraft are fun, especially if they are quite different compared to the last.

Wait, why can't they build the 3d model and work on the sim foundation at the same time? I presume those are two different skill sets?


Also, unless the core system allows for new, third-party aircraft (with matching cockpits...) then I'm "meh" on the whole thing. I suppose it's main advantage will be getting off the "release a new plane, upgrade all the old stuff" plan they took with A-10C integration.

I love DCS so far, but we need to start seeing new aircraft more than once every 2.5 years. Guys like VRS have shown that small, dedicated teams can produce DCS quality aircraft if you let them focus on one thing: the aircraft.

No.

What you are thinking about is SFM aircraft.
DCS products are not just one order of magnitude more detailed. It's several orders of magnitude.

To be quite honest (and I can't give specific unfortunately) there are some aspects of how detailed it is that has me in awe - and that most people will never notice. (And on the question why bother doing that when customers won't notice it - each released product is also a sort of "demo" that shows prospective military clients "look what we can do for you if you only ask", which of course can also feedback to the customer market through getting more knowledge transfer through military the contracts.)



Which basis? FC? There is nothing in the FC2 F-15C that even gets close to being "good enough" to act as a start for a DCS Eagle, aside from possibly the exterior model, which is a microscopic part of the overall work.



ED did renew the domain.
However, a domain costs some 10 dollars a year and takes a couple minutes of work per year to keep alive... Do NOT draw any conclusions on it. I personally have held on to a domain I would like to use at some point for a private project of mine, and since it was free I grabbed it to make sure no-one else will take it from me before I get to a stage where I can make my project reality.



There is wisdom in this post.



GUI/ME is already "free", since you can download without purchase, and you are not requested to activate until you start the simulation proper. You can use the ME to your heart's content without even having an account on digitalcombatsimulator.com, much less paying for it. (Sure, you can't play-test your missions, but that's another thing.)



3D models can be worked on before foundations are there, but 3D models of an aircraft is a very small thing compared to even only the radar backbone. Remember, ED already has 3D cockpit models for the F-16 and Mi-24, and I think there was an AH-64A shown at some point as well. (But this is foggy old memories.) But there being an Mi-24 pit model doesn't mean DCS: Hind is the next product.



Q: How is the P-51 supposed to fit into DCS? This makes no sense to me.
A: DCS is an open simulation environment, not confined to any one era, level of fidelity, or 1st party development. In the future ED and 3rd parties may add all sorts of different units ranging from gliders to X-51s.

From the FAQ: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84678

Hi!


No, i'm fully aware of this and i agree with you - Research is part of the job and the time spent in research cost money. It's not like they going to use google to check how a MFD work on a F18 or a F15 - I'm no expert, but i know a little in R&D. If they actually started working on research, they already allocated ressource and money on it. I don't see them going backward choosing another jet, That would be time lost and money lost. "unless", they are at a level they didn't went really far in the project.... or don't started at all.

Thus i'm desperate about that conclusion, i'm still happy to have FC3 and P51 coming in - whatever they release I'll get it



Greetings from Belgium !


Wolf

Don't forget what is already available in the DCS series...
There's an awful lot of more-than-superior-and-totally-on-par-with-A10 3d models and (I assume) Flight models.
What good would it do to to release a study-sim like A10 but with reduced/non coherent FM for the other planes/helos?

Just my opinion, anyway.
Peace.

Darkwolf, what you are not understanding is that you are still thinking too far into the project.

At present the ED AFM, to take an example, has been used to model three aircraft (on the consumer market): the Su-25, the Ka-50, and the A-10C. It is also in use for P-51D. Now, if you want a modern jet fighter, I think you'll find something that's very different: whichever one you choose, you need to have the AFM capable of properly handling the transonic and supersonic. This is non-trivial.

(A few of the bugs in Ka-50 behaviour does indicate that these regimes are not yet modeled at all.)

Thus, before you can even start working on the FM, you need to have the engine itself have all the requisite infrastructure for it.

Same thing goes for radar. If you want DCS level radar modeling (that is, a modeling of it that is true to the intent of the DCS series, as opposed to survey-quality radars like in FC2), this is something that hasn't been done before. We're talking MAJOR work before you even get to modeling a specific radar - and it's only when you start working on a specific radar that you get to a specific plane (and in some cases - not even then, since a given radar system is not necessarily unique to a specific aircraft).

Basically, your "conclusion" is based on an incomplete understanding of the scope of this kind of project.