Jump to content
No.322_LuseKofte

DCS news

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

 

and the F16 on preorder may 22. 

I actually think I buy that. A very good ground pounder that can defend itself

 

Tough to beat a Viper...that's why it's been in service for so long.

Then you'll have a reasonable stand-in for the F16N Aggressor, which would come in handy for an F-14 Top Gun campaign.

 

F16N

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's room for both sims, no idea why people stir up so much drama. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Gameplay is not deeper in the mind of ground pounders. Only dogfighters.

 

There are no WWII ground pounders available in DCS. That fact alone makes BoX gameplay deeper in that area. When thinking of ground-pounding with fighters  - still can't see DCS anywhere close to BoX in gameplay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Tough to beat a Viper...that's why it's been in service for so long.

You can do it with a Mig-21.

 

But I agree that the successor to the F-16 would have been easier to shoot down. It a much better target for a passive seeker. And it moves less readily out of aim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

There are no WWII ground pounders available in DCS. That fact alone makes BoX gameplay deeper in that area. When thinking of ground-pounding with fighters  - still can't see DCS anywhere close to BoX in gameplay. 

Yes you are correct , this is why I do not fly WW2 planes in DCS 

Well I do fly them , but more like a FSX thing of flying. For military use I have abandoned WW2 and gone to the hippie age

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

There are no WWII ground pounders available in DCS. That fact alone makes BoX gameplay deeper in that area. When thinking of ground-pounding with fighters  - still can't see DCS anywhere close to BoX in gameplay. 

 

I find that the fire and smoke effects are so tightly rationed in BoX that it takes all the satisfaction away from ground pounding.  No matter how many ground attack aircraft get added, it feels like a very hollow, sanitary experience when all trace of your actions vanish and start getting swept under the rug after just twenty seconds. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I find that the fire and smoke effects are so tightly rationed in BoX that it takes all the satisfaction away from ground pounding.  No matter how many ground attack aircraft get added, it feels like a very hollow, sanitary experience when all trace of your actions vanish and start getting swept under the rug after just twenty seconds. 

 

It is a bit Hollywoodish some times, DCS got this dejavu from older sims, They have improved a bit.

The dust and smoke did however make problems in real life too, but I guess it got something to do with density that make it feel overwhelming..

I find myself annoyed by DCS lack of difference in AP and HP rounds in KA 50. It might be a slight difference but in my eye it is minimal. 

What keeps impress me is GB DD , and updates. They still take the time and money on things we haven't really payed for or expected. You can almost feel a dedication glowing in the screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Fennec said:

So this Fw-190 will be made by ED and not a third party?  Surely that means that their other WWII modules are selling well then if they focus so much resources on those WWII prop planes?

 

It is not a good news for the IL-2 BoX community because it means that it will be divided even further... 

😕

 

I hope that 777 will survive this...

I don't think Il-2 is threathened in any way.

The DCS WW2 online community is less than 1% of DCS. Il-2 offers more things than DCS. What DCS does the best is to represent an aircraft but usually fails what to do with that aircraft. Looks like the A8 is a great choice but I can say almost for sure than they would need more than an A8 or a future P47  to do something. Also, DCS and Il-2 are two different animals. If we were to compare, Il-2 has the adavantage of being cheaper and have x10 more online activity.

 

In my opinion and as I already said, Il-2 has already won the race of WW2 market. There is no way DCS will offer in the next 1/2 years the same context and content like Il-2 (Coops, Vehicles, Mp, VR performance, Maps, DM, Visibility, Special effects, Sounds). And who knows what we will be fliying in Il-2 on those years. Maybe are we already in the Pacific?
😀

 

I think I am getting the A8 because I love the plane and I want to know everything about it. DCS is the place to that. If I want to use it, I will be flying on BOBP in my career having fun or with my squadmates doing a coop mission.

Il-2 will always have that aura of progression that DCS lacks. Even if one or two individuls hate Il-2 because it's not their cup of tea in the choice of planes, Il-2 doesn't stop growing and that gives me hope.

 

PS: I will always prefer to have 80% of deep info on systems and a great working context than a 100% plane and nothing to do with it.

Actions speak louder than words and a great product will always shine even if other things are great on their own.

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Also, DCS and Il-2 are two different animals. If we were to compare, Il-2 has the adavantage of being cheaper and have x10 more online activity.

 

I agree with your points , but if you search servers (all servers you find quite a lot servers with 30 + players on ordinary days and double that in late evenings and weekends.

Like in GB Thursdays Fridays and Sundays are most popular days.

DCS is not really that more difficult to learn, in the end of the day I think GB aces will be aces in any DCS server. I do bad in both, I fly slow things mostly and I simply do not pay attention.

If you take away the endless learningcourve of tactics and strategy of dogfighting I find DCS more interesting.

If you like hunting for other planes and challenge of dogfights in WW 2 planes, I see no reasons for anyone to fly other stuff than GB, and use DCS for doing something else once in a while. For them GB offers a total complete package in right timeframe. Planes and FM will deviate from real world , but in general historical performance up against each other are realistic on most planes

Edited by LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS have done many things well, which IL2 GB can look up to it.(excellent user manual, training missions, high quality cockpit etc)
and I think they're on the way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

 

I agree with your points , but if you search servers (all servers you find quite a lot servers with 30 + players on ordinary days and double that in late evenings and weekends.

Like in GB Thursdays Fridays and Sundays are most popular days.

 

Sorry but I haven't seen this on a daily basis. All I could find is one server with mostly 15 people in a simple designed mission. And most of them use Caucasus many times because not everybody owns Normandy yet.

If I want to play DCS I know I will have to do some SP, I bought EPSOM and CHARNWOOD and had a good time but I can't get more of it.

This is an image just 5 mins ago. In a low playerbase hour. As you can see, 4 players in the most populated server (1 is the server slot)
1899f2c93fab1853bd9fa7e7c882a9b0.png
Whereas in Il-2:
41edfc979010867ddf8db1d3a103a39d.png

 

Also, a good squadron with editors and content will make everything lively. The next week we are going to sink some destroyers with Stukas being covered by 110 on the Black Sea. The last week we did a convoy attack.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of DCS WW2. I recently bought Bf 109K4 module. Sadly I didnt have much time to master it properly, but from some time I spent with it, I must say that only advantages I saw against BoBb version is clickable cockpit and soundtrack. In other things BoX feels much better, not even considering gameplay perspective. So I dont really think that DCS can treathen BoX in this area ever.

But I must say that after trying Yak 52, I kinda got in love with clickable cockpits, I hope that K4 get some update. With DM update and dynamic campaing comming, It could be fun to fly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Sorry but I haven't seen this on a daily basis. All I could find is one server with mostly 15 people in a simple designed mission. And most of them use Caucasus many times because not everybody owns Normandy yet.

 

 

Sorry you ment WW2 and I ment in general, you are of course right. 

58 minutes ago, SovietAce said:

Speaking of DCS WW2. I recently bought Bf 109K4 module. Sadly I didnt have much time to master it properly, but from some time I spent with it, I must say that only advantages I saw against BoBb version is clickable cockpit and soundtrack. In other things BoX feels much better, not even considering gameplay perspective. So I dont really think that DCS can treathen BoX in this area ever.

But I must say that after trying Yak 52, I kinda got in love with clickable cockpits, I hope that K4 get some update. With DM update and dynamic campaing comming, It could be fun to fly. 

 

Yes and clickable cockpits is not really needed on WW2 , some say it is more immersion. I guess if you fly VR and use those finger pointers that is on development I can see a good use for it. But using a mouse do not give the same feeling. In some of the planes in GB I just get a feeling of really sit in the cockpit. It might be the same you talk about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Sorry but I haven't seen this on a daily basis. All I could find is one server with mostly 15 people in a simple designed mission. And most of them use Caucasus many times because not everybody owns Normandy yet.

If I want to play DCS I know I will have to do some SP, I bought EPSOM and CHARNWOOD and had a good time but I can't get more of it.

This is an image just 5 mins ago. In a low playerbase hour. As you can see, 4 players in the most populated server (1 is the server slot)
1899f2c93fab1853bd9fa7e7c882a9b0.png
Whereas in Il-2:
41edfc979010867ddf8db1d3a103a39d.png

 

Also, a good squadron with editors and content will make everything lively. The next week we are going to sink some destroyers with Stukas being covered by 110 on the Black Sea. The last week we did a convoy attack.

 

 

When making generalizations about DCS Multiplayer numbers, I think you need to be very clear that you are specifically talking about servers offering WW2 specific scenarios.   For jet and helicopter pilots, it's not how you describe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

When making generalizations about DCS Multiplayer numbers, I think you need to be very clear that you are specifically talking about servers offering WW2 specific scenarios.   For jet and helicopter pilots, it's not how you describe it.

I meant and mean WW2 of course :)

I hope I didn't offence anybody. I fly DCS too and have bought nearly everything. Just expressing my opinion about what they both offer in a WW2 level.

Edited by LF_Gallahad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No doubt that you are right about the differences, this is what i was saying too too ( historical immersion, campaigns, more planes per expansion, etc makes IL2 superior for a more comprehensive Ww2 experience in sp )

 

However one cannot ignore the customers budget and pricing. For instance I discovered DCS about more than a week ago and bought 4 hf modules and one map. 

 

This far exceeded my initial budget and means that I will not be purchasing TC, FC and BoBP any time soon.

 

Yesterday i was watching a DCS channel on youtube to check how the WWII DCS birds fly 

 

These guys have invested quite a bit in DCS WWII and even if the sp is incomparably better and more immersive in IL2,  it is likely that some of them may not purchase IL2 GB simply because they have invested a lot in DCS or because WWII may not be their only interest in terms of planes they want to fly ( but having "a bit of Ww2" in DCS means that some may not go for IL2).

 

What i meant is that both sims achieve very different objectives and have a different audience for the most part. However  a part of the audience would happily jump from one sim to another, from Il2 to Falcon4BMS, Xplane or DCS

 

And like WarThunder did for instance, i believe that having alternative WWII content to IL2 can syphon potential revenues away from IL2 for all those customers who want both ideally, but cannot afford both at the same time and thus have to make a choice. ( and then with new modules coming out, if someone chooses to invest primarily in DCS, it means he will invest minimally in IL2 and possibly abandon it eventually).

 

I am not saying this represents most customers as most of them would purchase both. But yeah of course IL2 has a bright future ahead of it, i really hope so as i started in the original one back in 2003 but i cant help thinking that if there is more WWII content indirectly or directly competing with IL2, it can inly fragment the Il2 BoX crowd further.

 

Edited by Fennec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Fennec said:

These guys have invested quite a bit in DCS WWII and even if the sp is incomparably better and more immersive in IL2

 

Might be in WW2 never tested those, but 4 out of 5 campaigns for MI 8 beat the crap out of IL 2 campaigns in my opinion. Infact that is why I fly DCS regular.

I was advised to try out fighter career in IL 2 and see how I found those. IL 2 careers are very repetitive in my opinion and lifeless. Cannot really get into them. 

Sea Dragons and Havoc over Kuban is a different story, so I might pick up some more scripted campaigns.

Thing with DCS campaigns at least 3 of those I flown, they got actors to make the experience better, and some of the triggers and random engine failures you can encounter 

makes it very immersive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oh yes LuseKofte, that is possible though i can't confirm as i have only tried the Mirage campaign (only 3 missions, spent most of my time learning :) so far and a bit of the unofficial/user made AV8B Harrier one. 

 

Yeah in DCS it tends to be hand crafted like Sea Dragons in IL2BoX, but i was talking about WWII. In Il2 there is this dynamic campaign generator which as far as i am aware, does not exist yet for DCS WWII content, that is what i meant. 

 

But definitely,  i get what you mean when you say that it can feel lifeless, as a user made and handcrafted campaign with love and passion will always be much better than dynamic ones.

 

But Dynamic ones allow you to play for months and have a different experience every time with a 'continuity' ( track records, awards, squadron history etc) which can help increase the immersion in a different way, especially in a sim like IL2 that attempts to simulate the historical battle itself, not just the plane you're flying. 

Edited by Fennec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SP may be lacking on default, but I cant say a bad word about Bluenosed Bastards campaign. Really enjoyed it. And with very open and easy to use even by inexperienced guys Mission Editor, you can create mission that will satisfy your immersion and realisim needs. This is exactly what my squadron did, we've created a 1944 Normandy mission that basically works as a CO-OP (due to lack of organized Luftwaffe squadrons, Ai tends to be more reliable in terms of presence). This mission is based on actual reports and front situation prior to June 1944, with the aim to create as realistic environment as possible, which is provided by presence of over 2.000 entities (originally at least, it turned out to be a little bit too much as you will see on the video below, now its been reduced a bit) on "German" side with indepth AA defense and targets up to 30-40 km inland, presence of radar observation from Britain and very basic GCI to check if skies are clear or not. Now, not everyone is interested spending half an hour or more on the way to France, than dance around AA and fly back but thats just another of trying to feel how it was when guys did similar missions 70+ years ago.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an updated to be functional ATC is payware now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least for the carriers, so it seems. Very disappointed about this decision. Advanced ATC should be core technology of DCS and thus free of charge. 

 

I don't mind paying for a dedicated carrier module with fancy deck crew and all those stuff. But they should really consider to give access to advanced ATC for all users imho. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 5:18 AM, LuseKofte said:

Yes you are correct , this is why I do not fly WW2 planes in DCS 

Well I do fly them , but more like a FSX thing of flying. For military use I have abandoned WW2 and gone to the hippie age

 

I hear ya. DCS is my new FSX.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 3:49 PM, Fennec said:

  Surely that means that their other WWII modules are selling well then if they focus so much resources on those WWII prop planes?

 

They say that WWII planes are ways more easy, cheap and fast to make than jets, so why not? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS and Las Vegas both have these moments, when you wake up hungover and feel you just crashed in the wrong place..

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nice video Mono, I grew up watching Airwolf on the french tv so those chopper vids are striking a chord here ☺️  At dusk it makes it a bit "romantic" as well.

 

Sokol, I was more expressing the fact that I would prefer third parties to handle WWII in DCS as in my opinion, the focus of DCS "should" be on modern machines as that is what draws most people to it and what they do best IMHO, and also what justifies the price tag in my view.

 

But apparently WWII now sells very well too so i was just expressing my regret because frankly  if what you say is correct ( and i think you are right) then they should bring the price of single WW2 modules down because there is obviously wayyy less work to make an I16 than a super realistic F14 Tomcat with all its systems simulated  and an AI Jester on top of it. 

 

If they would cut the WWII module prices by half and provide a campaign and its map with it, i would definitely buy it, otherwise no way.. except maybe a P38 later on...else i ll wait for a massive discount and will stick with IL2 for the time being for anything WWII related.

 

But if ED was channeling all this energy to make more high fidelity modern or cold war stuffs like Apache helicopters, F15 ,Tornado, MiG 25/31/29 etc.. I would buy those instantly because there is no one else on this market but that is just my own opinion and i totally respect people who think the complete opposite, not interested by 1970/80's machines and would rather use the potential of the DCS engine for their favourite prop birds.

 

 

Btw talking about Airwolf, we have the Nevada map already in DCS and could definitely make a fantasy Airwolf module, I would buy that without any hesitation, would be so awesome!! :)) 

 

 

 

Edited by Fennec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

 

They say that WWII planes are ways more easy, cheap and fast to make than jets, so why not? 

 

Because the DCS player base are just not that interested. Just look at the ED forums. 2 new entries F16 viper and 190a. Everyday I see a maximum of 4 people viewing the 190a section and 20-40 people viewing the F16 section. 2nd most popular, right now, is the F14 heatblur section, 3rd is the mods section. Personally I'd like ED to concentrate on the core engine, modern airframes and maps instead of wasting time on WW2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes i thought like you initially but apparently their WWII modules sold pretty well which is why they made quite a few and plan to add more. 

 

Maybe the forum activity is not representative of it?  I dont know but perhaps one of the reasons despite the inflated prices for these simpler modules is that the planes are still high quality and really well done, i've watched a few videos and it is true that doing some ground attack in DCS is quite impressive graphically (ground explosions, smoke effects, weather effects etc are really classy and immersive) , plus the fact that the planes are fully clickable with beautifully crafted cockpits and exteriors probably attracts many people to them.

 

Also DCS tends to have this reputation of having the most realistic and complex FM so maybe some people assume that it is the gold standard for WWII as well. I dunno, just speculating here. Then maybe IL2 is not as well know and as much advertised to the general public whereas DCS seems to have high exposure for a simulator which can make it easier to attract newcomers to flight simulations who want relatively simple aircraft to learn and fly rather than jumping straight into a Hornet. 

 

The F16 is logically very popular because people are apparently waiting for it since a long time from what i've read and it is a plane that was exported quite a bit.. about 25 countries have the F16's in their arsenal (including Poland where i live) so it makes sense that many DCS fans want to have a chance to fly the plane that their country's airforce is flying. I mean it is like us for the Mirage.. It is likely 99% of French people who own DCS have bought the Mirage 2000. 

 

Edited by Fennec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Because the DCS player base are just not that interested. Just look at the ED forums. 2 new entries F16 viper and 190a. Everyday I see a maximum of 4 people viewing the 190a section and 20-40 people viewing the F16 section. 2nd most popular, right now, is the F14 heatblur section, 3rd is the mods section. Personally I'd like ED to concentrate on the core engine, modern airframes and maps instead of wasting time on WW2. 

 

I think Wags said a long time ago already that DCS WWII modules are quite popular and that level of interest vs cost of production of these more simple planes makes it interesting (profitable) for ED. Second, even if their current player base was not that interested in WWII, that does not mean that ED should or would not want to expand their player base. Lots of people in general are interested in WWII aviation and the planes are also a lot easier to learn, so it is easier for a more casual gamer to jump in, too, compared to modern planes, where you really have to spend time to learn them properly. Their biggest problem currently is that there is not really much to do with these WWII planes, once you have learned them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You ever think maybe the reason they're so profitable is not because of the number of sales. The production cost of say the spitfire would be, at the very most, a quarter of that of the hornet. Yet they sell for the same price. In my example they would only need to sell 1 spitfire to make the same profit as 4 Hornets. Some DCS users will buy everything they release. There's the profit.  Everything I've read and experienced from ED tells me Wagner is full of sh1t and really cant be believed anyway. I don't see a future for DCS WW2. Especially when they charge extra for WW2 assets. At the weekend I tried to join the only WW2 server that had any population, 8 players, I timed out, tried again and was told I had the wrong client. Beta not release.

Yes there's room for both simulators, BoX for WW2 and DCS for modern. DCS are now doing what they should have done years ago, the likes of the F18, F16, F14. Hopefully the hind will lead to the AH64. Concentrate on those types of airframes and they will be printing money. Trying to grab every market, trainers, ww2, 50s, modern just leads to a frustrated player base,  fractured workforce and slow production. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Because the DCS player base are just not that interested. 

 

Yes, but they can want expand/diversity  that player base, targeting people that don't have much interest in modern jets.

I for example like of early jets (MiG's, USAF 60's jets...), but care little about "F-kk" and "Su-xx". :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but tell me you're not frustrated by the lack of period appropriate theatres. I have the sabre and mig 15, if I could, I'd give them away. I have accepted there will be no theater and ground assets appropriate for them unfortunately. They serve no purpose in a modern battlefield. Which is the frustration with DCS I'm talking about.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many like ww2 planes in DCS. 

But many of them also recommend il 2 instead 

of a ww2 module in DCS to interested 

that does not mean they do not like the modules. 

I find them very interesting to fly. 

I don’t say they are better but in my case the P 51 and Spitfire gives a great feeling of being in a real war bird I know there are issues in DM 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2019 at 11:35 AM, Danziger said:

So an updated to be functional ATC is payware now?

From what I read the new carrier comes with new naval ATC which is payware, which wont be implemented in the existing carriers. However land based ATC while being revamped will be implemented in the core game for free. I could be wrong though, "everything is subject to change"

Also the new carrier is the "new WW2 asset pack". From what I'm reading.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=241232

It looks like the Heatblur Forestall will be the carrier of choice in MP.

Edited by Rolling_Thunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yeah that carrier could actually be amazing and quite unique in the way it is implemented but it is true that it could create a mess online between those who have it and those who dont.

 

Btw just want to thank the IL2 devs over here who allow this thread to even exist... 

 

Maybe they shouldnt actually because censorship is quite brutal on the ED official forums...just mention or praise some features of IL2 or criticize DCS a bit and boom...North Korean style commissar steps in and erases it.. I ll move to Hoggit i guess but that was shocking.

 

 

Edited by Fennec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fennec said:

 

Btw just want to thank the IL2 devs over here who allow this thread to even exist... 

 

 

It's in the free subject thread, of course they are going to allow it... plus, they are not in competition with DCS, as the two sims are totally different beasts.

There is no ''you must have one or the other''... most CFS enthusiasts have them both and enjoy them both, plus several other WWII titles.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...