I have been following the YAK-52 since it was 1st announced. Not an aircraft I would buy any time soon, however it looks as though confirmation from ED's community manager and it's 'official testers that the platform being DCS world is already looking to expand into General Aviation and Commercial aviation
No doubt this expansion will include Carenado, FlyJsim and many other aircraft 3rd party developers contracted to release civilian aircraft into the not so 'combat simulator'

Now this is 'breaking news' in the flight sim world.

It is all but confirmed with out an official press release that ED\TFC\Belsimtek are currently in negotiations with general aviation and commercial aviation sim developers to bring non combat aircraft to the series called Digital Combat Simulator.

After all, it was only a matter of time.....













Now these Community Managers and testers have inside information, they are posting as endorsed community managers and testers with out saying IMO or this is MO and not withstanding association with 'the employer' in which they are on the payroll

Evidence that there is GA and CA endorsements happening behind the scenes.


Source

Let me put this into perspective. Who in the sim world got into DCS with the release of the A-10C? I know I did, trainers, multiplayer cockpits came years after. Who actually has been in a multiplayer environment guiding those new DCS on how to fly the hawk, L-39 ect ect? I haven't.

Anyone saying they would love to fly GA or a POS prop plane and work their way into a jet is just wasting time. Buy X-plane 11 and fly in that if you want a stepping stone in the jet world. You can pick up x-plane 11 on steam for less than the cost of a single module in DCS. it comes with numerous planes and guides on how to fly....DCS doesn't offer any guides.

Just a waste of bandwidth from those endorsed by ED to get the message across that ED is heading in the GA\CA direction.

You're not allowed to complain because you can buy other modules no one is forcing you to buy Yak, therefore you have no rights, in fact you have no rights to say anything negative about Yak and you can buy other modules so be quiet troll -1 rep.
Sound familiar?

I personally like that uboats comment.

I never understood this "flight training" thing inside a simulator, you cannot fly the MiG-29A or Su-25T learning navigation and/or whatever they try to educate new players to know? As a new guy I should be happy and proud to try the A-10C after 4 weeks flying a L-39, Hawk (God forbid) or Yak-52? Seriously, in a simgame?

Nice comment from that "uboats" guy btw, perfect example of an apologista-muppet. Thank fekking God I don't live his life.

uboats comment to me reads "yes I support the intergration of GA\CA, GA\CA airports are already implemented into DCS so let's all sit back (Winfield over at SimHQ included), wait for Carenado to release some C-175's and have a campaign where we fly from one implemented airfield to another"

Ciribob who is now an ED tester can implement a "load civilians script" into a FlyJSim Airbus 350 and we can fly it from Butumi to Tbilisi until DCS build further maps so we can fly from Tbilisi to Toronto Canada. RRP of the airbus will be $79.95 USD

Ciribob's Complete Transport and Logistics Deployment script for those not familiar with Ciribob's claim to fame

CTLD script

1. If you're not interested in combat, then why fly DCS? XP11 or P3D offers a better experience, I'm sure, and for much less cost. Does DCS implement TACAN or VOR? Can you navigate IFR in DCS? I'm sure you can in XP11/P3D! Also, why wait for civilian aircraft to appear in DCS? They already exist in XP11/P3D

2. What interest would Carenado and the likes have for DCS? I've got a feeling the DCS market is far smaller than that of XP11/P3D, so unless they can import their work already done into DCS with minimal fuss, I don't think it'll be worth their time.

3. LOL at how they say pilots train on Yak first then onto jets. I thought this was a digital COMBAT simulator, not a digital TRAINING simulator.

4. If Burning Bridges cannot learn a combat aircraft since 2004, what magic does the Yak bring that will suddenly make everything click in his mind and he becomes a Sierra Hotel pilot?

5. The last post by John.... if people just want to fly around and learn aircraft, again, XP11 and P3D. Eat your heart out guys. Worldwide coverage, stupid number of aircraft to try out, and jump onto VATSIM or the like and even do real-world comms too!



The facepalm just amazes me.

I agree with all 5 points raised....Plus x-plane 11 is still cheaper than what the F-18C is when it is released, and still cheaper than the latest module is, that being the Harrier.

Ranting by those supporters using "prop planes" before venturing into "jets" is seriously a BS excuse to get GA and CA into the mix.

Oh I can't wait for the campaigns....it will be FSX type "drop bombs on snow caps to create avalanches for the skiers" in an R22 or pilot transfers to cargo ships so they can dock at Sochi based around the civilian oil rig campaign in the MI-8

I just realized --- XP11 and P3D are leagues more "modular" than DCS ever was! Do you see Laminar releasing a patch to accomodate the new aircraft Carenado has released? Do you see them releasing a patch when a new weather module is released? Suck on that, ED!

The bright side is that this whole thing is gonna blow in their hands***. It is obvious that sooner or later they will be forced to make DCS engine a true modular system.......however, knowing ED it will probably lead to a new development branch that will again decimate development progress pace.


***They are going to have too much aircraft that the idea of patching each aircraft will become near impossible

So over it. The LAST straw. Not. One. More. Penny. I will be dead and buried before they get their feces together.

GA\CA is only a matter of time before it becomes reality within DCS. Once the Commercial Airlines begin to roll out they can be posted on the Weekend not so Specials
Nineliner stated that he will be working on giving Combined arms a campaign and some much needed love. Here is a suggestion, implement playable passengers in a Cessna 172, In multiplayer a pilot can fly and the human can join as a passenger and aim out the window with an M-16 and shoot down F-15's
Happy days.

The video even has a touch of 'merican designed metal at the 13 second mark.

How many folk over on the ED fan pages have used the "Shut up and Take my money" gif? How many folk over there have expressed "first day buy for me" in regards to this particular facepalm?
All the time 2.5 was turning into a fiasco ED have been busy elsewhere. Go figure
Edit
I guess when you cant fix the combat part of digital combat simulator this is the next logical step.

Further to this statement, I have 'borrowed' some of the source code that is causing the memory leak in 2.5OB, it is as follows.

Current models of the PA-18 can also be modified with the droop tip. This modification actually adds 4 more
feet of usable wing and redirects the airflow in the wing tip area. Aircraft with this modification can safely fly
more slowly than aircraft without it

The PA-18 can be modified to provide a shooting window for the gunner. This window normally swings open
out of the way and allows adequate shooting room without the danger of hitting say parts of the aircraft

The PA-18 has good visibility and an overhead skylight which is essential for successful ADC operations. The
seats are modified and raised to a position so the pilot can look out of the skylight and keep track of target animals
while turning. The rear seat is also raised to provide the gunner a proper angle of fire.
The automatic nagger has become a standard item on aircraft used for aerial hunting. The flags are made of
brightly colored paper about 16 feet in length. They are dropped from the aircraft by pressing a button on the pilot's
control stick. The flags can easily be seen by both flight and ground crews and are used to mark den sites or
coyotes after they are shot
Flying Operations

The pilot and gunner must work as a team with full confidence in the other's judgement and ability. This
confidence can be gained only by working together and learning from each other on a daily basis. Low level flying
operations leave little room for error and a mistake made by either tire pilot or gunner can result in an accident In
recent years, the USFWS has adopted a safety training program for both pilots and gunners involved in low level
flying operations.

Source

Now we just have to wait and see if VEAO\Blue Sky Fail Simulations can (even this request would be a breakthrough for that failed developer) get a Piper Cub AFM right in Dovetails Flight Sim World. Just maybe they will release it for DCS World with human passengers and rifles so we can shoot down Hornets, Tomcats and the like.

All we need is Mexico map modeled and Texas, then Apache600 can make a campaign running drugs into the USA whilst dodging AH-1's, Huey's and fighter jets.....Ah a campaign that would actually be worth buying. A multiplayer\multicrew Dynamic campaign where anything is possible,

Mind you, I expect 15% of sales for the Piper idea and included campaign from both Apache600 (person behind the museum relic campaign) and the Piper Cub from VEAFail and a further 50% commission on sales for the idea of implementing Mexico and Texas from ED\TFC\Belsimtek

How long do you think before DCS ASK 21 with super-detailed real-world avionics? Should only take them a couple of years to make this

I haven't been following it and I did not read about this in any other forum - this is a bold move.

The civilian flight sim community is where I mostly have been these past 10 years and one thing I learned is how deeply it is attached to its flight sims , so much so, that there is still a big market for FS2004 and FSX products not to mention P3D v2 & v3, people invested huge amounts of money on them and are very reluctant to update to newer versions of it ( like in : P3D v3 32bits to P3D v4 64bits) and much less to switch from one platform to another (FS2004 to FSX), even when these are rather painless updates ( FSX to P3D v2/3).

Lockheed Martin P3D is IMO the benchmark , X-Plane is not far behind.

so moving into this market is not exactly easy, and there is another trend that makes it even harder and is a trend that I find worrying : some of the leading developers are switching to real world flight sim based training using the P3D platform and leaving the consumer market, which is what P3D is after all being developed for.

also P3D/FSX allows complete freedom and Independence to 3rd party developers.

so moving to Civilian Flight simulation is not something to be taken lightly, but considering that this particular developer has already released a trainer and has others in the pipeline, it is something that they had in mind for some time and it does indeed leverage the natural affinity of DCS as a learning tool.

1. People who are serious about civilian flight sims have sunk thousands of £££ into add ons and they naturally are hesitant to move to a different platform. Heck, moving from FSX to P3D may even encounter some resistance if their favorite mods or aircraft do not work or does not have a P3D version. How easy do you think it will be getting them to move to DCS?

2. People who are serious about civilian flight sims also participate in VATSIM or the like, adding real-world comms to their experience. They also probably have a lot of AI scripts for civilian flights to make their favorite routes as busy as it is IRL. If there's an Emirates flight coming in at 2pm, they'd probably have that scripted into their sim. What does ED have in terms of comms and AI commercial flight assets?

3. How many civvie flight sim enthusiasts really, really, REALLY want to fly only in Georgia/Nevada/SoH? The limited area of DCS is a serious factor to consider.


IMHO, ED will only attract a few curious civilian simmers, and that's it. A few combat simmers will try out a few GA aircraft and would either shift to the platforms that give a proper GA experience or would simply return to their pew-pew. They (ED) are already spreading themselves too thin with their current selection of aircraft. Instead of putting in more content for already-established modules, do we really need to branch out into yet another area of flight? Especially an area that is covered very, very, very well by big civvie flight sims?

anyhow, I am sure whatever comes out of this, it will be a good few years from now before we can see a DCS MH152 Broussard being released.

"I've got a feeling the DCS market is far smaller than that of XP11/P3D"

I don't think there is even any question about that. I'm sure it is. And that's probably what this is all about, more than anything else. Attracting some of those people over to DCS. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they test the waters with a small airliner, a metroliner or something, to see if that brings in some of the tubeliner crowd.

Well, I didn't have any numbers to back it up

As to attracting other people, I'm thinking there's not enough space in the DCS maps for an airliner to get to cruising altitude and then back down. Might have better luck with smaller GA aircraft that fly IFR - "I follow roads!" Anyway, I don't think branching out is a good idea. Know your core market and hit the bullseye. I guess ED doesn't know its core market as it's struggling with the "combat" part of its name?

I think as it is, XP11 has a better chances of morphing into a combat sim than DCS has of morphing into a civvie flight sim.

could work the other way round and those that fly only combat sims discover, like I did , the pleasures of flying a civilian flight sim and move to P3D for good




I don't believe that that is what this is all about - if all you want to is to create a training aid for a civilian aircraft the map that comes with DCS is more than adequate.

this civilian discussion is IMO, is much more about providing developers that already have some knowledge of DCS coding with the opportunity of offering the civilian training market another option, that is all, going to the expense of say, 10 years of development to recreate a modern equivalent of FSX is a waste of time.

you guys are not going to see DCS morphing in a civilian flight sim any time soon.

"10 years of development to recreate a modern equivalent of FSX is a waste of time."

And that, ultimately, is the most disappointing aspect of the whole thing. What it could have been, and probably should have been, by now.

Agree with Tom - DCS isn't going to morph into a Civil FS anytime soon. Sure it's going to have a few "non military" (remembering of course that the YAK is technically a warbird). Personally I think a few curious DCS people will pick it up and play around with it but it's really just those that want to remain within the same ecosystem of DCS rather than attracting those outside of it (IMHO).

I only talked about airliners since it was mentioned Why create a training aid for civvie aircraft in yet ANOTHER sim when it already exists in other sims with better after-training capabilities?



Does the civilian training market really need another option?



I hope so, but the rabid fans seem to think differently They struggle enough with what's on their plate at the moment....

no - but they are not going to create a new one, but use what they have to sell it as a civil flight sim platform



does not matter for the developer of a particular model - they are never going to be available outside its consumers



because those developing them are already used to the code - a P3D/FSX developer already has a market and the experience with the SDK as well as their own tools, those people would need to have a very good reason to spend years learning the DCS code all the while missing precious time and resources that they could employ to earn money doing something they already know



very few ...

I sent David an e-mail back in 2013 inquiring as to when IRIS was going to begin development of aircraft released for FSX. I asked for a time frame as it was publicly announced developers had left IRIS
and moved into other roles with 3rd party developers in DCS world (Namely Razbam\M2M). There was no press release on ED's behalf but there was at the time facebook posts from IRIS regarding development for DCS world.

This is his response dated 02/09/2013 I have withheld my real name as it was sent from my personal e-mail account.

IRIS - David Love-Brice <david@irissimulations.com.au>
Mon 2/09/2013, 8:40 AM

Dear (name withheld),

Thank you for your concern, however the developers you mention who have chosen to move on from our team here at IRIS had anything to do with our DCS Development.

Please rest assured, that our DCS Development is on schedule and proceeding as planned.

Kind Regards


David Love-Brice
Proprietor
IRIS Flight Simulation Software | IRIS Development Studios | IRIS Combat Simulations
Online: w: irissimulations [http://x.co/issaus] | f: facebook [http://x.co/issifb] |
Support: Knowledge Base http://x.co/issskb | Support Tickets http://x.co/isscst | support@irissimulations.com.au | skype: irissimulations-support |
IRIS Flight Simulation Software is a registered Australian Business - ABN: 54 044 292 336 | Also known as: ISS | IDS | ICS | IRIS
Phone: +61 (0)427 147038


It is fact that there has been no development news from IRIS regarding releases for DCS world for many years. Perhaps you are correct that the fan base for P3d\FSX is larger than DCS for General aviation but hypothetically if the maps improve and the so called 'world' is eventually mapped. Surely it is plausible that developers will begin to release GA\CA aircraft on this platform. After all, it is DCS world, not DCS Nevada, DCS Caucus or DCS Straight of Hormuz. It will happen....it is only a matter of time.

in my opinion, t is either you do P3D/FSX or you do DCS - and that is because most developers don't have the resources to do both, the code is completely different and the learning curve steep, we are talking of many years before anyone can be proficient.

P3D/FSX is a very competitive market were you are in competition with dozens of other developers, if you stop releasing new products you are out - so a P3D/FSX developer would have to become an ex-P3D/FSX developer for a while ... like Razbam.

and I don't see why a developer would want to leave a huge market like P3D v3/P3D v4/FSX/FS2004/FSX-Steam and X-Plane and move to a military flght sim were the bulk of its consumers would never buy their products, it is like being a niche player in a niche market.

there is a huge, and I mean incredibly huge installed base and ecosystem already in place - leaving it , it is a difficult decision.

Funny as,

However I can not wait to tow you with an F-15C beyond safe release speeds and test the structural integratory of the ASK-21 and see if the damage model is correct. Will the wings actually break off before 760 mph or during the breaking of the sound barrier at approx 761-769 mph or after 770 mph.

Even if the ASK-21 actually makes it past the sound barrier with no wings, I am curious to see if the aircraft is capable of withstanding the jet wash and the rivets are still intact (I mention rivets as it was a selling point on the MIG-21 that the rivets were of correct number) can withstand the forces and hold the sheet metal in place.

For the uninformed (new guys), revert back to the VEAFAIL hawk AFM\Damage model announcement here in SimHQ's very own forums.

Hence why I can not wait to take Ice up for a lap or few. If ED\TFC\Belsimtek are going to release aircraft and boast AFM standards, Ice has a point with the ASK-21, The official testers need to test structural integratory of all aircraft instead of people such as myself to see if the released module is actually true to form or just a guess as to what would happen in a real world situation if it was pushed beyond it's limits.

Yes your statement may be correct, however look at it from a business perspective. Fast forward 1 or 2 years and just say ED\TFC\Belsimtek have their Feces together (and fix the memory leak). In order to fund further development away from the boring campaign releases which has been mentioned numerous times in these forums. If we take campaigns out of the equation, GA\CA would bring in far more dollars for ED\TFC\Belsimtek than any campaign would bring in. Getting GA\CA developers on board would not only bring in bigger sale % for ED\TFC\Belsimtek but expand the flight sim enthusiasts away from FSX\P3d\X-plane.

Don't get me wrong, It is not a path I would choose. A C-185, Barron 58 and the like is not something I would invest in for DCS but ED\TFC\Belsimtek must surely be looking at the idea with some depth in order to fund the development it would take to release maps to cover the entire 'world'. DCS\TFC\Belsimtek are surely not going to get these funds from the sale of the hornet alone. Nor will DCS\TFC\Belsimtek get the funds from the sale of copious amounts of campaign sales at $10 a pop.

The bigger picture is, it is after all 'DCS World' and the development time is probably 10-20 years from now. The US Military are not going anywhere. The military contracts are not going anywhere, the development outlook is surely past mine and wags lifetime.

it could be possible that Dovetail might go bust and ED buy the rights, or perhaps an agreement is struck with General Dynamics P3d etc etc. Money talks in the simulation world.....ED\TFC\Belsimtek may actually be negotiating with developers already out there for a joint venture\merger IMO

Either way, Campaigns won't fund the maps alone to cover development of the so called 'world'

one cannot under-estimate how attached people are to their flight sims

there are guys that still fly FS2004

who would not buy FSX-Steam because it is sold by ... Steam

people who would not stop flying FSX for P3D

P3D v3 people who would not abandon their add ons for P3D v4 (I did)

I understand that , you invest time and money and don't want to change... I understand that as I cannot be too long away from P3D, I really enjoy flying over vast maps and exploring it ...

oh - back to DCS - it is going to be interesting to see how it will develop, but it may be a few years wait before you guys have the opportunity to fly a 737-8 into Gaudata Airport ... although I don't know if the runway can handle it

^^ This

Are you in possession of a time machine or some anti-aging device you're keeping from us??



Make sure you wear your nappies little girl because you know it's "fight's on!!!" as soon as that tow rope is released!




1. Look at it from the GA dev's perspective. How much work and learning needs to be done before a GA plane can be built and tested and released in DCS versus how much income is it expected to make? Even if you consider the lowly C150/152/172, a relatively simple aircraft and avionics data is widely available. Even if you consider it will be quick to learn ED code. What sales figures do you think you'll get for a Cessna in DCSW?

2. It'll take more than just GA aircraft to take civvie simmers away from their sim-of-choice. You'll have to offer something better. What does DCSW have in terms of GA comms? Civilian navigation systems? Not to mention the limited map area?

3. Now look at it from a civvie simmer's perspective. You have P3D which cost you US$60 for the software, maybe a few grand in $$$ in GA aircraft, airports, sky textures, etc. Give all that up to fly a few GA aircraft in a limited map with limited GA support? Or would you just load up a Georgia map in P3D and fly there?

The thing is --- combat aircraft simulation and civilian aircraft simulation are two very different things and both camps would do well to concentrate on their main market. FSX/P3D and XP11 are doing this very well. ED can't even get it's own sh!t together and already it's eyeing what someone else has on their plate? Please.

As I said before, it'll probably be easier for GA sims to add a few lines of code for a combat-lite feature. I know XP11 has just added some combat features on its lineup, but I'm new to XP11 so not sure how far in this goes, but just look at how people hacked FSX for FSX@war. Now imagine if you actually had dev support for that.



Doesn't matter because I don't think FSW and DCSW can mesh without major code re-writes, so even if ED gets the rights, it'll still be major work for them.



And if so, what makes you think ED is the one doing the buying?

If they absolutely MUST put GA airplanes in DCS, the smart way to do it would be to build models that can perform double-duty as civilian or combat a/c. The Cessna 337. The "Oscar Deuce" as they used to call it. Served as an FAC in Viet-Nam. And for many years afterwards. With rockets under the wings you can have guys marking targets for the fast movers. Might actually be fun! And the skin makers (Tom, you there?) can do a few pretty civilian paint schemes for whoever wants to just fly around looking at the scenery.
I suppose a KC-10 might even be a viable possibilty. Some people might actually like circling around waiting for F-15's to hook up to them (Not me, but who knows). Then Tom could do a nice American airlines paint job for it.
The Piper Cub might even work! It could be used over the Normandy map as an L-4. With a yellow paint job it's a Cub.
Hey, I'm just trying to think outside the box here. I'm just saying that there are better ways to do it if that's the way they want to go.

Call me crazy but I would love flying NOE avoiding the baddies to deliver cargo and troops in a C130.

And there's the C-130 Spectre Gunship version, if you want to kill something with it. Lots of somethings!

If this module comes out, I have no interest in being the pilot!!

Now, who wouldn't want to fly a huge, slow, monster of an airplane on a battlefield filled with SAMs and MiGs? You'd have the most thrilling three minutes you've ever had in a game.

There is no way FSW and DCSW would mesh with out re-writing all of the code if that happened. If Dovetail folded, bought out etc etc I would be looking at the developers jumping ship to work for ED on the DCSW project.





Fair point you raise Ice, Dovetail would surely have more of a 'cult' following with previous projects. Having Dovetail look at a takeover bid for ED\TFC\Belsimtek may happen but that is not going to take place any time soon. Not when there is a joint venture between USA and Russia in this project.

My comments and questions in this thread are my personal thoughts and opinions on the subject matter that ED\TFC\Belsimtek are not going to finish the so called world when when it takes 5- years to develop aircraft let alone leave many unfinished before moving on to the next one. GA\CA and further outside experienced developers
who already have completed aircraft in other sims such as p3d\FSX etc would only boost the development time, fund more positions within ED\TFC\Belsimtek to complete maps and get the world completed.

Yet we see ED employing a 'Community Manager' to monitor forum posts when that money could be better spent employing an experienced 3d artist like Tom_Weiss here at SimHQ who has a passion for the Sim community to work on projects like maps, or other aircraft.
For SixLiner to give up his day job at the printing press to work full time at ED, Wags must have made a substantial offer to go for an enthusiast of banning members, locking topics, moving threads to being paid a full time wage rather an enthusiast who has a passion and something useful to offer ED