DCSW - NexT DLC

[Finkeren]

They are, but not the WiP Corsair version, but like the BF 109 K-4 and Fw 190 D-9 "over Normandy", who cares?

 

Anyway, even Bf 109, Fw 190, I-16... "over Iwo Jima" will be common, after all this is " DCSWhatIfWorld".

And this, to me, is the deal breaker that makes this little more than a hugely detailed War Thunder with fewer aircraft to choose between.

 

I can kind of accept Fw 190s over Stalingrad and (to a lesser extent) hugely overrepresented MC.202s. At least the planes all fit in the time frame and fought in the theater. If nothing else it at least seems plausible.

[89-]

DCS at the moment and for the foreseeable future is primarily about modern aviation, not the WW2 stuff. It's single player campaigns for its modern aircraft are really well done and very convincing. The whole world is geared towards that, so criticism about WW2 shortcomings is off target imho. Yes, ww2/Korea birds in DCS are just museum pieces, but yes, modern fighters and choppers are very well integrated and very well catered for with matching content

Edited December 29, 2015 by 89-

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

I'm pretty sure Corsair was present there in the US Marine Squadrons.

Not exactly, in mentioned timeframe, when US Navy hit the island in June/July there were only Hellcats present (from the fighters). Sure, later on for island pounding there could be present Corsairs as well, but that is after all aerial opposition was eliminated. 

[SharpeXB]

after all this is " DCSWhatIfWorld". 

I think that will always be the case with DCS. As a study sim the aircraft are just too expensive to make the numbers that would be needed to fill out a period theater like Stalingrad or some specific scenario. That's fine. At most we can get semi period maps for the planes. But a BoS style equivalent, fully authentic battle and matched plane set, won't be possible. DCS is still great but it's a different style of sim.

[dburne]

I have a feeling once DCSW 2.0 gets finalized and all versions merged into one, things will start to happen at a more rapid pace.

[Dakpilot]

Sadly based purely on ED/Partners past experience/performance I do not share your optimism...rapid pace and DCS are not things I think of together

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SharpeXB]

I like DCS quite a lot. It's good to have both a study sim and mid-fidelity sim like BoS. They compliment each other well. But one game can't literally do it all. You can make full system high fidelity planes and at the same time have enough of those to make a real historical scenario.

CoD tried to go that route and failed. Full systems and clickable cockpits are mutually dependent but that raises the cost of each aircraft too much to make an air combat game. Even DCS with Flaming Cliffs went with simplified systems in order to fill out the roster.

The bottom line is with planes done to the level of DCS P-51D and Dora, an air combat game like BoS/BoM would literally take 20 years to make and cost $1,000 a copy. Literally. It takes over a year for ED to make one plane and then it's in Beta for another year or more. They cost $50 each. So multiply that by 20.

That's not a slight against ED by any means, their quality is fantastic and I really like the product. But it can never be the same kind of sim as IL-2

They're both great in their own way and in the end that's all that matters.

Edited December 30, 2015 by SharpeXB

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157420

 

So there is news update, they made it at the very last moment ... crazy guys. But it confirms what was known, though doesnt explain a lot of future developments. F4U-1D, Viggen, Tomcat soon ... maps and missions. 

On the other hand ... there wont be anything to look for the next 6-12 months from them. I mean if someone is interested in F-14. If not than that it seems it will take more than a year for F4U-1D to show up.

Edited January 1, 2016 by =LD=Hiromachi

[BeastyBaiter]

The AJS-37 and F-4U are planned to be released prior to the F-14. I doubt the F-14 will turn up this year as they claim, but it's a safe bet at least one of the other two will. Regardless, DCS is a miserable WW2 sim due to the limitations in damage modeling and the AI flight models. I don't see that part ever being a satisfactory experience. But as others have said, they do more modern stuff fairly well. DCS excels in 1970 to present and the modules falling within that time period can be a lot of fun. I've been having a blast with the Mirage 2000 fighting the People's Republic of New Mexico on behalf of the Kingdom of Nevada . And though I make fun of it like that, the map is actually pretty decent if you can ignore the city names and use it as generic middle eastern map #1. Other bits I'm looking forwards to are the F-5E and Gazelle, both of which will almost certainly be released before this summer.

 

Edit: On a related note, I think the pace of releases for DCS will increase but not because of ED or DCS 1.5/2.0. They will increase because the third parties have gotten their first aircraft out and should be able to deliver subsequent aircraft faster.

Edited January 1, 2016 by King_Hrothgar

[Guest deleted@1562]

I really like DCS for the choppers and modern planes. For WW2 I stick with IL2. Maybe the Corsair will be fun, if the carrier ops are sophisticated and I can use it as an attack plane on the enemy positions on Iwo.

Edited January 1, 2016 by 1./ZG1_Wittman

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The lads at Leatherneck are a nice bunch, it's good to see the 'Golden Age' of Cold War fighters is being developed and including overlooked goldies like the Viggen.

 

Hopefully we will see more Soviet aircraft joining up the line-ups, but right now MiG-21/MiG-29A/Su-25 against M2000/Viggen/F-14/F-5/A-10 sounds dreamy. Throw in the Mi-8 and Huey for diverse missions and you have all kinds of cool scenarios.

[johncage]

draken>viggen

 

they picked the wrong plane

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136404

 

So it turns out that some German (?) studio came up with an idea to produce Horten 229 V4 ... for the DCS. Suddenly the realism went out of the window. Also, its a bit funny to see the people who normally look forward to most realistic experiences and use that as an argument ... and suddenly they all approve the decision to build ... something that was never finished.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136404

 

So it turns out that some German (?) studio came up with an idea to produce Horten 229 V4 ... for the DCS. Suddenly the realism went out of the window. Also, its a bit funny to see the people who normally look forward to most realistic experiences and use that as an argument ... and suddenly they all approve the decision to build ... something that was never finished.

To be fair there were 4 Ho IX / Go229 protoypes build and 2 of them actually flew. Also V-3 is undergoing restauration in the USA, which combined with documents saved or captured during the war might allow for a realistic recreation of this particular aircraft and it's systems.

 

Also not every project announced is going to reach the public. I'm not very certain this will be accepted by ED as a new module anytime soon nor that it's going to make huge progress in future.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I'm just not sure what they try to achieve, they are a German company and they could help actually with the Normandy. Ju-87 is a great addition, its a first ground attack machine and even though it will be rather easy target for any Allied fighter as it was in reality, its just a unique and iconic warbird adding new opportunities to the product. 

It would be much more interesting if they would make something like Arado 234 (if they wanted some jet thingie) or possibly Anton, many people actually miss 190 A. 

[Feathered_IV]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136404

 

So it turns out that some German (?) studio came up with an idea to produce Horten 229 V4 ... for the DCS. Suddenly the realism went out of the window. Also, its a bit funny to see the people who normally look forward to most realistic experiences and use that as an argument ... and suddenly they all approve the decision to build ... something that was never finished.

I was going to make a joke yesterday that they'd soon be doing 1946 stuff, but thought it might be below the belt.

[johncage]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136404

 

So it turns out that some German (?) studio came up with an idea to produce Horten 229 V4 ... for the DCS. Suddenly the realism went out of the window. Also, its a bit funny to see the people who normally look forward to most realistic experiences and use that as an argument ... and suddenly they all approve the decision to build ... something that was never finished.

it's fascinating to watch them rationalize and justify everything eagle dynamics does. the cult mentality and blind obedience is insane. [Edited].

Edited January 31, 2016 by Bearcat
OFD

[BeastyBaiter]

The Ho-229 is just a symptom of the lack of focus. I don't view it as any worse than the inclusion of the P-51, Fw-190, Bf-109, MiG-15 and F-86.  Admittedly the others were made in greater numbers, but none of them really have a place in DCS. It's also not new news, they've had that on the back burner for over a year. They plan to do 3 choppers first, then probably a Stuka and then maybe if the stars align just right, the Ho-229. And it's worth keeping in mind that lots of third parties have made all sorts of plans and then never released anything or released a plane without a flight model and then disappeared off the face of the earth. I think they will release their Gazelle and probably Bo-105, but anything after that seems more like a wishlist than an actual plan to me. I suspect the Ho-229 will be the first thing to get dropped once they start releasing stuff and realize how much work it really is.

Edited January 4, 2016 by King_Hrothgar

[steppenwolf]

it's fascinating to watch them rationalize and justify everything eagle dynamics does. the cult mentality and blind obedience is insane. the dcs forums have for some time felt like a gathering of the scientologists of the sim world. at its nadir, mild criticism was a bannable offense.

It is fascinating. And these are just video games! 

[SharpeXB]

it's fascinating to watch them rationalize and justify everything eagle dynamics does. the cult mentality and blind obedience is insane. the dcs forums have for some time felt like a gathering of the scientologists of the sim world. at its nadir, mild criticism was a bannable offense.

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. Edited January 4, 2016 by SharpeXB

[BeastyBaiter]

True, but they have been hyper sensitive about it at times. I was once banned for a month for mentioning the damage modeling limitations while trying to help a newbie fight an AI MiG-15 with his F-86. Nothing in it was remotely critical, just advice to a new player on how to dispatch the AI. It's things like that that give them a bad name.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

On the positive side ... VEAO might finally release P-40F. It appears they fixed some problems with it and known to all Chuck will make and present few videos with it. 

[Urra]

True, but they have been hyper sensitive about it at times. I was once banned for a month for mentioning the damage modeling limitations while trying to help a newbie fight an AI MiG-15 with his F-86. Nothing in it was remotely critical, just advice to a new player on how to dispatch the AI. It's things like that that give them a bad name.

It seems there is a poor soul that got worse. Got banned for life because he was showcasing the product on youtube one day after it was released. Although I never joined their forum I will get banned for life for saying something anywhere else on the internet? I honostly dont understand how that is possible.

[SharpeXB]

Although I never joined their forum I will get banned for life for saying something anywhere else on the internet? I honostly dont understand how that is possible.

Why does it matter where somebody says what they say on the Internet? It's public. Anyone can read anything you post in public online. If they decide to take whatever action they want it's their forum. Membership in it isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's literally the only recourse they have for dealing with those who are just belligerent online.

[Urra]

Why does it matter where somebody says what they say on the Internet? It's public. Anyone can read anything you post in public online. If they decide to take whatever action they want it's their forum. Membership in it isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's literally the only recourse they have for dealing with those who are just belligerent online.

Agreed, but do they ban you based on your real name or the particular username? If so they must spend a bit of time searching for someone's real identity?

[BeastyBaiter]

Username obviously.

[1./ZG1_ElHadji]

it's fascinating to watch them rationalize and justify everything eagle dynamics does. the cult mentality and blind obedience is insane. the dcs forums have for some time felt like a gathering of the scientologists of the sim world. at its nadir, mild criticism was a bannable offense.

I was flamed for questioning how the 262 will be portrayed. I mentioned the fact the Jumo 004 was VERY unreliable because of poor materials etc. but the hardcore DCS fans didn't want to hear about that at all. I also questioned how reliable the sources from the period will be when it comes to making flight manuals etc. I have read a lot of books about the 262 and it's pilots and none mentions either manuals or proper training. They do mention that the 262 was a death trap though but aparently the average DCS fan knows better. It is surprising how many WW2 veterans actually play DCS by the looks of it...

Edited January 16, 2016 by -=XBOYZ=-ElHadji

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

I haven't heard any statement that the 262 was a "deathrap" and I agree it's technicle deficiencies might be displayed more catastrophic than they actually were, especially concerning the engines. Still it required great caution to operate and was a very different animal than other aircraft of the time. With the new technology pilots had to adopt facing new challenges with little to none training which made it more difficult (the pilot instructions for example forbids any turn manouvres against enemy fighters).

 

A more sufisticated reason for calling it a "deathtrap" to me would be the fact allies located their bases and let fighters orbit them waiting for 262s to return and than shoot them down. That was the only way to effectively fight them.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I still think its a bit speculative, I mean its not like Me 262 or anything related to ww2 will be released any time soon. Latest newsletter didnt even mention a Spitfire IX. It seems that they will beat it and make 1.5 year without a single ww2 related module. 

 

Afaik, there are quite a few documents to start with for Me 262. I know that there is :

- Jumo 004 B-1 Engine Start Manual

- Junkers Jumo Ersatzteilliste Jumo 109-004 B1 

-  Me 262 Betriebsanordnung

-  Me 262 Leistungssteigerung 

-  Me 262 Projektbaubeschreibung 

And there is of course complied in US Me 262 Pilots Handboook based on performance trials, interviews with pilots and German documents.

They certainly have more than this and I would not be worried about the sources, they must have plenty of them.  

[johncage]

Why does it matter where somebody says what they say on the Internet? It's public. Anyone can read anything you post in public online. If they decide to take whatever action they want it's their forum. Membership in it isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's literally the only recourse they have for dealing with those who are just belligerent online.

it has nothing to do with being belligerent. most of the people who got banned were not belligerent. it has to do with opposing the majority opinion that the developers can do no wrong. like i said, the atmosphere over there is like a cult.

I was flamed for questioning how the 262 will be portrayed. I mentioned the fact the Jumo 004 was VERY unreliable because of poor materials etc. but the hardcore DCS fans didn't want to hear about that at all. I also questioned how reliable the sources from the period will be when it comes to making flight manuals etc. I have read a lot of books about the 262 and it's pilots and none mentions either manuals or proper training. They do mention that the 262 was a death trap though but aparently the average DCS fan knows better. It is surprising how many WW2 veterans actually play DCS by the looks of it...

 

yeah, some people here don't seem to understand just how bad it got. you could eventually get banned for "disruptive behavior" simply by addressing all the people that are dogpiling on you. one thing they hate is any kind of criticism that comes from knowledge and facts. you point out discrepancies or if you show them you know more about something, it's like a defense mechanism, they just tear you to pieces. then you are the one who gets banned for trying to argue with them.

Edited January 16, 2016 by johncage

[6./ZG26_Emil]

If we have a F14 will it be possible to do Iraq-Iran war missions? I heard they're doing a Gulf map iirc

 

That is something I would be very interested in flying

 

Edit never mind it's a Strait of Hormuz map

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Emil

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I actually wanted to ask for something, dunno how many people fly DCS on daily basis but if anyone can provide a solution I'd be glad for any help. 

 

I've been flying lately after changing my monitor to new 24" model which does not have that high brightness, however when I launch DCS and fly the overall feeling is that game is too bright but there are absolutely no ways to lower brightness/gamma in menu, its like someone forgot that or deliberately set it fixed. I was thinking of adjusting my monitor brightness but doing it every time for just one game would be annoying. I know there are some things like Sweetfx or else, so I was wondering if anyone used that thing. Lowering of brightness would not only fix the main issue which is my eyes (I'm getting tired fast from looking at too bright scenery) and could possibly improve visibility. 

[DD_Arthur]

DCS 1.5 using SweetFX.

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Cool got any settings ? I'd need some lower brightness. I also try to figure how to stop loosing targets over the ground and on medium ranges, they just vanish completely. 

[89-]

Cool got any settings ? I'd need some lower brightness. I also try to figure how to stop loosing targets over the ground and on medium ranges, they just vanish completely. 

 

Try this option - it enlarges the enemy plane when it is at a distance. THus you can fly with realistic wideanlge view (humans have binocular vision after all) and at the same time have realistic angular sizes of enemy craft that are otherwise limited to narrow FOVs like FOV30. 

 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Cool got any settings ? I'd need some lower brightness. I also try to figure how to stop loosing targets over the ground and on medium ranges, they just vanish completely. 

You can try mine and tweak them to your liking:

SweetFX2.0_for_DCS_World_1.5_by_5tuka.zip

 

If it asks to replace files press [No], might have draged some non-SweetFx files in mistakenly.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Try this option - it enlarges the enemy plane when it is at a distance. THus you can fly with realistic wideanlge view (humans have binocular vision after all) and at the same time have realistic angular sizes of enemy craft that are otherwise limited to narrow FOVs like FOV30. 

I have that set. 

I can clearly see the objects enlarged at long distances, in fact that doesnt solve the issue and pretty much may confuse, as they are larger than the distance would indicate. Its very hard to judge how far they are unless you make full zoom and see really how big dot is.

 

The issue I'm having is medium range spotting, I see clearly objects at close distances and at far due to enlarged option, but when they get closer than far but still not close enough as 800-1000 m they are extremely hard to spot and easily vanish over the land or sea. 

 

 

You can try mine and tweak them to your liking:

SweetFX2.0_for_DCS_World_1.5_by_5tuka.zip

 

If it asks to replace files press [No], might have draged some non-SweetFx files in mistakenly.

Thanks Dennis, I will later on set them and see how it goes. 

[Brano]

If we have a F14 will it be possible to do Iraq-Iran war missions? I heard they're doing a Gulf map iirc

 

That is something I would be very interested in flying

 

Edit never mind it's a Strait of Hormuz map

 

full-24404-87279-hormuz.png

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

[6./ZG26_Emil]

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

 

Hmm well it's not really a good choice for a historical campaign. Yes we could have the US Navy patrolling but I don't think that much happened in that map area, it feels like another what if type deal.

 

I'd love Iraq versus Iran that was an 8 year war 70s-80s era aircraft including the Mig-21, Mig-23, Mirage, Mig 25 and F-14 and F-4, F-5 which is perfect for DCS and it would make a brilliant campaign

[Brano]

I was joking,of course

I'd love Iraq versus Iran that was an 8 year war 70s-80s era aircraft including the Mig-21, Mig-23, Mirage, Mig 25 and F-14 and F-4, F-5 which is perfect for DCS and it would make a brilliant campaign

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