Do not get your hopes up just yet people but there is something happening here.

Hopefully it does not fold like Kinney Interactive, Coretex, and the other 10 3rd party developers.

Confirmed by NineLine himself.

Expect a 4 year + build, it would be interesting to see what comes of it.

Source

I am Curious of the 'EDSA' bit, EagleDynamics teaming up with a developer called SA? anyone able to shed a bit more light on who is ESDA?

**Reserved for future review if\when it turns sour**

Apparently that is the acronym for ED as a registered Swiss company.

Eagle Dynamics SA
Av. de Florimont 3,
1006 Lausanne, Switzerland
CH-660.2.221.000-8

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/legal/

Thank you, cichlidfan

F-16 !!!

There won't be any ground radar and the a/a/ missiles will still be broken.

Doesn't SA mean corporation?

yes - is is ED S.A.

I wish them all the luck with that project. They may really be asking for it this time, it'll be compared to the BMS implementation to no end and the dynamic campaign feature of BMS will be put to the forefront even more, greatly highlighting ED's big gap even if they do make it to BMS-level or better in implementation.... which is highly doubtful to start with. Maybe after a 5-year development and a 2-year beta period, they will approach what BMS is **NOW** so who can tell what BMS of +7 years from now would look like?

I'll be 60 by the time the F-16 is released in early beta ...

You're either very young or very optimistic!

it is going to take at least 3 years for it to be released - the average wait time being 4 to 5 years, so I am being optimistic

3-5 years from the time they get started on that module. With 2.5 on their plate plus the Hornet, I don't think ED has the spare staff to even go and make coffee, let alone start on yet another complex, modern, multi-role aircraft. So 3-5 years development, which starts 2-3 years down the road, round it off to 10 years from today? That's barring any private contract delays

now that Eagle Dynamics is a Swiss firm maybe things will change

3-5 years is probably the time frame buyers should have - once the Hornet is out and they have the code framework my guesstimate is 3 years for a finished product, one has to be positive about this

But it will be pretty looking

That said, I imagine it will still find a customer base. If you're the type of person who's invested in building a home F-16 pit for BMS, are you really not going to buy the DCS module just to take it for a spin?

But yeah, I think 4 years from now DCS will need a lot more features that are back filled, including a campaign/career mode (I rather like the way that the new career mode works in IL2 BOK, myself) to stay relevant.

For me, career mode + F/A-18 = happiness. A viper would just be icing on that cake.

I know a lot of people talk about dynamic campaigns and it certainly is a popular feature for flight sims, but many simply don't have any desire for such a feature. Personally I've never once looked at DCS and thought "I really wish this game had a good dynamic campaign". There are probably a dozen changes to the mission editor alone I'd like to see implemented before any time is put into a dynamic campaign.

But I agree, the comparisons to Falcon certainly be brought to the forefront. I don't see that as a bad thing though. With luck the Hornet built some common ground work that can be used, but I still think it will be many years before we see a playable F-16 in any form in DCS.

While I agree that ED has a lot of work to do to get everything right with what they have already released, I would love seeing a dynamic campaign at some time in the future.

Yeah, that's the important bit, innit? Maybe up the minimum requirements to 128GB RAM?



I have XP11 and FSX; I don't need or want to buy an F-16 in any of those sims. Why spend money on an inferior product when there's a superior one available?

It will still find a customer base as "superior" may be subjective; I'm sure if they made an F-16 at FC3 levels, it'll still find a customer base. It'll probably be the same people who buy every module as well.



There are a lot of things to change with the sim itself, so good luck to them if they decide to take this on. Maybe there is a reason why, even after that silly poll, that ED has not taken this project on yet. Maybe even at their current state, ED knows they cannot survive if they take this on.



Exactly! This may actually turn out to be a very good thing..... for BMS

I don't believe this will ever be a real comparison to BMS. Simply because if it does not meet the expectations then the community/ED or whatever will simply says that it is not an ED product so maybe if it were an ED product then the result would be totally different.

If it's done by "EDSA & BST" then does that not make it an ED project? So if it's done by EDSA & BST, it's actually a product of BST and not by ED?

I'd be all over a FC3 level F-16! I'd also argue this is would be the better approach for ED, frankly.

For me, the reason I've never really been able to get into BMS is that there's no "dip your tow in the water" approach. An FC3 level module would be both quicker/easier to develop, and be more approachable for those who don't want to take the time to learn every single system in an F-16. It's 'lack' of features in that case would be an asset.

I would certainly buy an FC3 level F-16. That would be perfect. I also agree that it would likely be simpler, cost less up front and take less time (and more time = more lost money). I know some people will complain like they always do, but I think it would sell fairly well. They can always make a full fidelity module down the road and re-used the flight model, artwork and sounds.

Now according to some posters they claim an FC3 level modern fighter won't be that much cheaper or easier to make. I'm a bit skeptical of that, but I assume simplified avionics will save a lot of programming time. As seen with the Hornet, it seems as though the various avionic systems seem to take the longest.

If they had remained at the FC3 level, we'd have WHOLE lot more airplanes and a MUCH more satisfying game, I think. I fly the F-15 a lot. It's fun. And it cost me 9.99! A game a couple of steps above the complexity of Strike Fighters but with the present, state of the art graphics, would have been perfect. I tend to think that things got a bit overly ambitious.

Yup!!!

+1

And I would by a FC3 level AH-64A or D in a heart beat and if a study version was released down the road it would be icing on the cake.

FC3 level planes/heli's would really help getting new blood (the younger generation as well as ppl with limited time) interested in flight sim's! As mentioned above FC3 level planes/heli's could always be followed by same plane/heli as a study sim. This way they would probably sell two product's to many customers interested in a specific plane/heli instead of one.

As already mentioned, if they had this approach long time ago we would have many more planes/heli's today and maybe also stable base game.

Really don't understand their thinking to label current version as release version due to the many issues still remaining???

I'd think so as well. But even an FC3 level plane won't be $10. It was only that cheap because of the FC3 bundle and that it was an update applied to older aircraft. I'd expect an FC3 level plane to be $30-40 at release if it is an advanced aircraft like an F-16. I'd happily buy an F-16 pack that came with multiple variants for a little more though. But I think that ship has sailed long ago. It seems like ED is only interested in high fidelity modules. Perhaps military interest is the driving force behind the F-16 module which would mean high fidelity.

I don't think an FC-style DCS module will ever be made again.

I somewhat understand the sentiment, but I don't understand what you mean by no dip your [toe] in the water approach? Maybe start a thread on the Falcon 4 sub-forum to explain this so we don't clutter up this thread, but would love to know what you mean.



Not if ED is up-front and honest and clear with what they're setting out to achieve and do it. Hype-ing the hell out of things and then failing to deliver is what gets them.


It's not the avionics systems that are causing the delays.


No. FC3 has set a precedent and they'd have to start hype-ing the thing to justify a release at that price. Maybe bundle it with an opposing aircraft, come up with something like EECH or EEAH and it'll sell for that price. But then again, people are buying 60% of current modules at 100% of it's price, so....



The same reason they issued a "fix" to the memory issue by making an excuse and increasing the minimum requirements for their game.

whatever form the DCS F-16 takes - it will probably arrive no sooner than 2021-22 and be out of beta by 2023-24.

What ED does or says is largely irrelevant. Few people read the forums or fall for marketing gimmicks. An FC3 level aircraft will bring out a massive wave of complaining. Bringing an F-16 will also bring a massive way of complaining. "We can play it in Falcon!" "F-16s are done to death!" "Not another western plane!" An FC3 level F-16 will bring out the whiners in full force.


It's not the avionics systems that are causing the delays.
[/quote]

Then what exactly is it?



Not to anyone who uses some common sense. FC3 was an upgrade to aircraft many of us had paid for many times over (LOMAC, FC, FC2, FC3). Hence the lower price - it was an upgrade. Something from the ground up will understandably cost more. And an F-16 is more advanced, even if simplified, than an A-10A or Su-25. It would likely require more work and therefore cost a bit more ($30-40).

Bundling it at a discount is a great idea but if one module is done they may as well release it first without waiting for another. Developing two similar opposing modules is always a great idea (IMO). F-16C Block 52 and MIG-29K would go well together.

I think you mean Hornet. DCS F-16 may be announced in 2021.

if they start developing the F-16 next year that is when those who want to buy it should expect it to arrive, who knows ? maybe the DCS F-16C will be out of beta in the time for LockonFiles.com 20th anniversary ...

If....

when the time frame to release is years from now - there is also the "who cares" reaction ....

Frederf said:


I agree, programmers are bored with developing games like FC3, but posts on this website demonstrate that's what sells! (Number of posts on FC!)

In addition, developers use very high end systems to develop software... time is money they may have 20 code windows open at one time, (but text is minimal) but developers usually develop on high end systems and dont worry about user specs....that's not a consideration for the developers, but IS a consideration for the producers.

Most developers want to push the envelope, that is, they want to develop something state of the art, unfortunately for the company, many users like those here, dont care, they want reliable functional code so they can play in the same manner they have in the past only with, better graphics and most sophisticated electronic modeling.

I think the next and most difficult step is creating a new engine that utilizes multiple cores, a real challenge as its conceptually difficult to split and anticipate user input to effectively utilize multi-core processors.

My hat off to DCS, for taking on this task...other than hard core developers at BMS that do it for the personal satisfaction and challenge what other companies are treading here? Easy for non-programmers to criticize!

My only criticism of DCS is the number of projects and partially finished projects they have on board , but I suspect they need the money to stay alive! Too bad!

Easy to say another company will take up the niche, but will they be better? Il-2 Cliffs of Dover, folded and taken over by Team Fusion dedicated hard core enthusiasts, similar scenario to BMS, code ahead of its time, not until adoption of more powerful computers, and extensive mods came along to give the game a new life.

Fortunately for users, programmers are always pushing the envelope, they are years ahead of the users conceptualization, but sadly bullet-proof functionality always lags behind, and that's where the users and money lies!

My SSD packed it in last week, new one finally arrived. 2 ways to look at it......I can only put it down to the fact that it was old age or it could be fact that DCS was installed on it. Either way.....Back in action gents.

The fact that it rained the last two days, i think that was EDs fault too.

not necessarily, you are clearly being prejudiced against ED!
if where you live is suffering a drought
and
out of the blue
it started to rain - suddenly
and it continued to rain for two whole days
and that could be tied, in some way, to DCS
you would be grateful.

I always wondered if the weather settings in DCS has the power to influence weather ... pity there is no DCS map for where I live ...

but when I fly P3D, and it is raining here , where I am
I noticed that it is also raining in P3D when I fly over home ...

is it a coincidence ? I don't think so.
( )

That is true



Nothing on here is representative of anything. While we are mostly negative on here, go to Facebook or ED forums and "what sells" may be totally different.



And that's a perfecly legit way to alienate your customers. Oh, you don't have at least 32 GB RAM? No SLI 1080Tis? No 1TB SSD? Then you're SOL as you don't meet this game's minimum requirements. No. Smart devs also think about how their product will scale with different hardware. It's useless developing the perfect game for a 1080Ti if it will look like crap on anything other than a 1080Ti.



Are you talking about other devs or are you including ED devs in your statement? If you're talking about other devs, maybe you are right. If you're talking about ED, then I'm not sure if it's the devs fault or someone higher up in the management chain but fact still remains the end product is a mess. Reliable functional code that blames RAM usage on number of units on the map? Code that renders MP almost unplayable for the most cases?



So for you, it is the attempt that deserves recognition, not the end result of that attempt? So if they bite off more than they can chew.... hats off to them? That's weird.



Again, biting off more than they can chew, so they're now borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Had they managed their project better, a fact often raised in these forums, they'd be in a better financial position and they'd have a happier, more content user base.



Have you seen the bar that ED has set? It's not hard to be "better" at it. I'm sure if ED releases stuff in a broken beta state 4 years late, the next company might be able to release stuff in a less broken beta state 2 years late without much effort, but I hope whoever picks up the mantle will know how to manage the project properly and will know how to make realistic targets and deadlines and actually meet those targets and deadlines.

You guys are talking like they would be rebuilding the wheel. They are about to launch a full-fidelity FA18. that means alot of the tech will be reused.

Now to build anything like Microprose's dynamic campaign engine would take that long, for sure, but making another US FIghter, now that they have the systems to push the F14, 18, and AV88, shouldnt take that long, really. stuffs not hard-coded

They are not releasing a full fidelity FA/18........not even close.

And based on their previous history, we are unlikely to ever see it being completed either.

^^^ this

The only rain ED creates are tears of disappointment. Which makes me wonder, what update did ED release in the last 2 days??

Not a single word about 2.5 progress in today's newsletter......it's all about the new map!

Perhaps the renamed beta has fixed itself and no more effort is required.

Wait for when the paid DLC comes out with it and consumers have to pay for the buildings. After the balls up with Nevada a patch or so ago, ed's think tank will no doubt see their failure as a way to turn it into a positive. Like ThreeLine did with the so called 'memory leak'

Seems like you are greatly unaware of how the "launch" of the Hornet is going to happen. Might be best to familiarize yourself with that first.

As for re-using tech, ED is indeed "rebuilding the wheel". Either that or the Hornet has more A-A radar modes than the Eagle? Either that or the Hornet uses different weapons from the Eagle?

I'd argue the two most relevant data points are the previous DCS aircraft, Blackshark and A-10C. They both did eventually reach "full fidelity", or at least as "full" as is realistically feasible for a public desktop based simulation.

The key word in that sentence of course, is "eventually"

Yes, but releasing the Shark and the Hog at... say 90% feature complete is not the same as what features are in the Hornet when it releases.

So far we've not seen any A-G radar yet and ED are just working on the other A-A modes. Heck, the Hornet won't even release with the AIM-120s! So a 30% feature complete is not the same as how the Hog and Shark was released.

Right, but you were saying the previous history was informing how the hornet launch would go: "and based on their previous history, we are unlikely to ever see it being completed either."

and I'm saying they've a pretty good history of releasing top-notch modules...eventually.

Any while yes, they've never released something as complex as the hornet before, that's the exact point: it motivates the completion of the hornet because it's the gatekeeper for showcasing the versatility of platform in both the retail and contractor space.

A-10C did not reach full fidelity as is realistically feasible for a public desktop-based simulation. It has lots of errors and omissions still which are well within the ability of the programmers and hardware to model correctly. The previous releases made no mention of incompleteness and were not complete then nor now. The Hornet is specifically planned not to be complete at release which is a step backward. The only motivation to complete a project is a customer base that demands completion in exchange for currency. Pre-order numbers for the Hornet suggest that the base is not sizeable.

Sorry, yes. I should have included clearer reference to the Hog and Shark but I assumed it was understood that these two were the last time ED did something right. When I mean "based on previous history," think of it as "post Hog and Shark release".


Yes, and we will have peace on Earth.... eventually.


They fumbled their own release of 2.5. They've already set the expectations for Hornet release to be very, very low. It can showcase the versatility of the platform (I assume you mean DCS Core) but it won't be able to do that until it is mostly feature-complete, say about 80-90% which will happen... eventually. I fear that with the pace at which ED works, by the time the Hornet becomes everyone's wet dream, the rest of the flight simulation world and technology will have moved on and that it will be old news by that point.

Yes, but what percentage would you say that the A-10C is at compared to a full fidelity release? Still way up there compared to other modules.

Now what percentage would you say the A-10C was at its release compared to how the Hornet will be at its release? Big, massive step backwards IMHO.

I am wondering if it is intentional? Probably some things the government won't disclose to a foreign (especially Russian) contractor or won't allow in a commercial product. Just like how ED had to entirely omit the more modern RWR of the Su-25T. Not that the plane was of the fidelity of the A-10C, but the Russian government wouldn't allow ED to model the more modern equipment.

My understanding is the A-10C shown in DCS is very out dated in any case as there have been various Suite upgrades.