+1.

I get the feeling they're hunting for a government contract again. Remember, we've yet to see ED release a DCS product that wasn't born of a government project.

I know they're working on the baby bug, but I can't fathom how they're generating sufficient cash-flows right now. The previous two products, the Huey and hip, weren't theirs (although I presume they charge a commission of sorts on third party modules?) and I can't see the A-10A or SU-25 modules being big sellers as they're (by ED's admission) essentially what you get with FC3.

So to me, it's possible they're hunting contracts again.

Indeed it is the Holy grail.
Micropose we heading towards a similar project with Gunship and tank platoon,
unfortunately for Games fans Hasbro bought out micropose and that was the end of that project.
Realistically DCS is the only company who could do it but it would take a major overhaul of there Game engine.

DCS: P-51D
DCS: UH-1H
DCS: Mi-8
DCS: Combined Arms
Flaming Cliffs 3


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wCENdyC2pQo/UqcqzV4I3FI/AAAAAAAANHU/av_uwloqLw4/s1600/MargeCarMeme.png

The graphics engine is getting overhauled. Other stuff will come in time as well.

So as I figured, the CA stuff isn't at "the expense" of the other stuff. These people are separate and it's not a great idea to just transfer people around, especially if they're modelers and not coders and you don't want them messing with code.




The Jedi Master

You're right on the P-51D, I forgot that.

The UH-1H and Mi-8 aren't ED's. They're Belsimtek products.

I don't consider DCS Combined arms a "DCS level product" insofar that it's not a detailed systems focused study of an aircraft (or piece of armor). Also, wasn't CA part of a gov project as well (or at least a bid for one) to train forward observers?

Flaming Cliffs 3 isn't a DCS level product. In name or practice.

Didn't ED actually say a while ago that they were going to be more specific with how the DCS label was applied?

In any event, let me restate:

We haven't seen a DCS level modern combat aircraft developed by ED that wasn't initially developed to fulfill a government contract.

How do you figure it's not at the other stuffs "expense"? Unless it's a third party, that means ED used it's -by their own admission, stretched- resources to hire developers for a new project, but not devote them mid-stream projects.

I understand that only so many people can work on a project at a time (one woman can make a baby in 9 months, but 9 women can't make a baby in one month and all), but if a company like EA can put thousands of developers on a title, than I think there's room to put more resources to current projects at ED.

Put another way, current projects are paying the opportunity cost of expanding CA.

From a retail standpoint, it doesn't make business sense to me, as the F/A-18C is (presumably....hopefully) closer to production and thus generating cash flows. This tells me this is part of a bid to make the sim a more fertile ground for contracts.

But I don't think ED is REALLY aiming to make the Abrams analog to DCS A-10C. I think instead they're going to pitch DCS World as an e-battlefield desktop sim.

Among both modern militaries, big business, and tweens, the latest thing to have is connectivity. A connected battlefield means lots of complex systems talking to each other, and lots of soliders who need to know how those complex systems work. It makes sense to teach people these systems on desktop sims first, as it imparts a basic understanding of the e-warfare environment before training on more complex (and expensive) simulators and live exercises. I think that's the angle DCS is best prepared to approach this market from, anyway.

Not trying to be smart... they admitted it.
Now there's a bit of way in believing everything you read online, but you have to draw a line somewhere.
And despite some shortcomings, I've yet never been lied by ED.

If you ever heard Wags describe - or read how he describes - DCSW, then you'll understand 'any vehicle, any era, any fidelity'.

I want my DCS: Airwolf.

Afterburners! Passing thru Mach 1! Launch Hellfires!




The Jedi Master

Manpads CA 1.2.8
http://youtu.be/KaTfW3zboAQ

Radar CA 1.2.8
http://youtu.be/rqPq2-rLxMk

Playing SAM in an MP server is looking a little more tempting now. Did they ever fix CA's UI with wide aspect ratios?

Some Combined Arms 1.2.8 Beta RC2
http://youtu.be/HF9O2o5jUTU
http://youtu.be/256YR3d8les
http://youtu.be/86_gzceR948
http://youtu.be/pSrfnUMAExc

Some 3 months after this thread started I'll admit I thought "1.5" would have been done by now, but I'm not really surprised it's not.




The Jedi Master

we are 1 step closer to infantry, man pads is like 30% feeling like a 1st Person Shooter.

The Jedi Master

Is it worth picking this up for armored warfare, yet?

+1


If dynamic lead better ballistics/ armour values/ better sound
Were implemented it would make CA a half decent tank sim I don't think it will ever be up to SB
Standard but having CAS and many of the other features of DCS World would compensate.
Some are speculating they may produce a full M1A2 module.
As a die hard Armour milsimer It would not bother me if ED did not implement the full turret interior.
Its great to look at but realistically you spend most of your time looking through your optics or on the map view

From ED Facebook, update to DCS: W 2.0 CA

https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics?ref=stream

Holy bejeezus.
That looks amazing!