DCS

[InProgress]

16 hours ago, Cunctator said:

 

Not the F-14B, the only one currently flyable, USN only and it will get its official campaign on the Caucasus map. What would you do if some news site reports tomorrow that Iran has retired the last Tomcats? Uninstall the module because there no more realistic future scenarios left? Play Gulf of Sidra or Desert missions forever, never utilizing the F-14 in the fleet defense/ bomber interceptor role it was designed for? 

I am not really sure why you care in the first place. It's up to personal preferences and mine don't like playing ww2 game without historical realism. If there were no fw190 in stalingrad then i won't fly it there. Simple. Future scenarios are diffrent, i don't mind playing as iran who somehow (explained in the story) would get F14B and fly it. Does not matter if tomorrow they get rid of all F14. I also don't mind "what if" scenarios. But it's always better if it's realistic.

 

But again, it's someones personal preference and if i play WORLD WAR 2 game, this is what i came for, ww2. Not made up battles. While they can be fun as some extra campaign or something, like sea lion in many games, including CloD, it's just a small part of the game. Something you can try for fun, not entire game. And DCS does not care whatsoever about historical accuracity. This is why i said if you like this in games, then you won't like ww2 dcs. If someones dont mind then he can go for it.

 

All this is still nothing in compare to horrible planning, even if they let 3rd party do some planes, they should have some standards and create planes that would make sense. In modern jets it's quite easy. In ww2 they failed, we have 1944+ planes from western front, now we got old i16, we know they are making pacific now. It's simply ridiculus. Instead of focusing on 1 theatre and making as many planes for it as possible they just let 3rd party do 2 planes here, 2 planes there etc.

Edited May 14, 2019 by InProgress

[Cunctator]

2 hours ago, InProgress said:

I am not really sure why you care in the first place. It's up to personal preferences and mine don't like playing ww2 game without historical realism.

 

Than why do you come here and complain about what others are doing in their spare time? Some like sandbox games, some not. I am looking forward to fly the Corsair in DCS. For me, it's neither "ridiculous",  "horrible planning" nor "a waste of resources". If a 3rd party thinks that there is a market for a particular aircraft or want to have it modeled for themselves they should be able to do it. Just because something doesn't make sense for you does not that everybody else has to agree with you.

[Herne]

23 hours ago, Fennec said:

But now that i have tried it, i have to say i am in love with the concept. As much as i find it unnecessary in a WWII prop plane,  here with all the electronics, radio, radar and weapons subsystems to operate, it is so much more immersive and feel so important to have access to every single switch in the cockpit and learn it by heart. Assigning these things on shortcuts would be an absolute hell to use it. 

 

It's immersive for sure, but there are downsides, particularly for more casual players. It takes time to learn your aircraft procedures and systems inside out. Practice makes perfect so you need initially at least some "intensive" time, or at least I do. Then there is the "If you don't use it, you lose it" problem similar to the real world I guess, where you really need to take the time to stay current or you will forget things. 

Makes it harder to put DCS down for a few months and jump straight back in imo.

there are some fundamental things in DCS which I am struggling with at the moment. Making sense of the features on the F10 map, so I know in the WW2 online servers where the objectives are and where I should go. Using comms, even simple ATC comms. sometimes I seem to be able to communicate while on the ground but not in the air. etc etc. Just  little  things which I do not currently understand, and need to take a little time. One user on this forum has already offered to help me out on TS, and I am reminded now that I should make the time to take him up on it.

i'm sure once I get a grip on these background things, that I might enjoy flying in DCS a lot more.

[Fennec]

So far I have only seen youtube videos of DCS WWII stuffs but it "feels" like DCS is really setup people who enjoy either pure flying sensations when it comes to prop planes and trainers/aerobatics and people who want a modern jet/helicopter experience with all the systems simulated and environment around it ( ground radars, awacs, radio procedures, anti air batteries etc..) for either "what if" or more realistic scenarios.

 

The reason I love BoX so much is the fact that they really want to re create the historical context of major WWII battles with the right maps, planes, units, timescale, ground troopsetc... and go into lengths to make it as immersive as possible for the player to really feel as one of those pilots that flew those missions for real.

 

Personally I cannot wait for IL2 BoX to move into the Pacific battles with as much details as they've put in BoS or BoK. They do this really well and it is consistent with their initial objectives when they started BoS.

 

I am not qualified to tell what are the differences in FM between both sims regarding prop planes ( and dont own any in DCS bar the free TF51) but even though I would understand why having the Corsair or any other iconic WWII plane in DCS would get attention and love for passionate flyers, I would rather have DCS devs to focus on what i think is unique to their sim that nobody does better,  meaning modern jets implemented with all their systems to an insane level of details.

 

Initially i wanted to buy the Korean wars early jets like MiG15 or F86 but when I ve been told that you just get the airplanes without the historical context of the battle simulated, it was a deal breaker for me. 

 

Since they allow third parties to develop planes in DCS, I dont see the problem but Id rather have ED really focus on channeling their energy towards more consistency in terms of time period (modern) and plane types ( military jets/ helicopters) than jumping from A to Z without adding more depths to the modules already released in terms of the environment where they fought and historical content. 

 

BoX did a bit of that by releasing BoBP without B17s and a strategic bombing campaign but they have been honest telling us that the engine would likely not handle 4 engines well at high altitude and who wants to fly a 8 hour mission from England to Germany and back to drop bombs on factories/cities anyway, aside from a few passionate people.

 

Going forward with DCS, in my personal opinion/taste, having the F16, the Tornado or a MiG 29 high fidelity would be amazing. For anything WwII related, I would rather purchase an IL2 expansion but that is just me.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Fennec

[InProgress]

55 minutes ago, Cunctator said:

 

Than why do you come here and complain about what others are doing in their spare time? Some like sandbox games, some not. I am looking forward to fly the Corsair in DCS. For me, it's neither "ridiculous",  "horrible planning" nor "a waste of resources". If a 3rd party thinks that there is a market for a particular aircraft or want to have it modeled for themselves they should be able to do it. Just because something doesn't make sense for you does not that everybody else has to agree with you.

Because i can, sorry it's not fairy land when everyone must love everything. Some things suck and if someone ask about the game before he buys it then he has all the rights to know about it. And yes, for me it's "ridiculous",  "horrible planning" and "waste of resources". Bad normandy map with german plans that never flew there, i16 that has nothing to fight and nothing to fly over, now pacific when western front is still a joke. I have all the right to complain about it as much as you can love it.

 

Also you are the one who started to cry because i don't like how dcs works now. I did not force you to anything. Where the hell did you take that part where everyone must agree with me from?

[LuftManu]

DCS works really well with aircraft after WW2. As many have said, WW2 is something that is fixed. Why? Well, I think it was an important historical event ?

 

More modern scenarios like 70's, 80's and such will always work better than some Japanese Spitfires against galactical empire Ratas. I enjoy DCS for what it is. Even if they don't offer accurate context, the aircraft indeed are. 

 

For aviation enthuasiast, knowing everything about a plane is a great experience. That thing mixed with a context and such might also be great but is not happening. ED now just sell planes made by other third parties. Those third parties are responisble for what they do and I don't think the modern sceneario is going to be anywhere at risk because of this. Taking this into account, it's a shame and a gift that DCS WW2 are still being worked on.

 

 Finally, a great DM is coming and more aircraft are about to be released but in my opinion DCS WW2 has already lost.

 

Many people who fly DCS are not interested in props. The one that are interested in props fly or have flown Il-2. People who want to get into props are hesitant to expend a fortune and the lack of content against it's competition, if we can call that Il-2*, is something a new DM or 2 new planes aren't going to fix.

 

If I  wanted a WW2 experience I would buy Il-2 because of that. DCS planes are great and offer great quality but they only offer that. Il-2 in the other way might not offer that level of complexity for each plane but it doesen't need it to work.

 

The MP scene is abandoned. It's a ghost town. It reminds me of CloD. Going to be a little bit popular when the P47 drops, the A8 or even the corsair but will be more anecdotical than anything.

 

The road has been already paved by Il-2. Some like it, some not. But they have won the time race and the quality too. Not everything that seems difficulty is realistc and not everything that shines is beautiful. At the end of the day, I sit on my sofa, fire up the game and I am flying in a WW2 formation in minutes. Il-2 work for me.

 

*Il-2 doesn't get in that extreme level of complexity, it offers something similar but at a different level.

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, Fennec said:

Initially i wanted to buy the Korean wars early jets like MiG15 or F86 but when I ve been told that you just get the airplanes without the historical context of the battle simulated, it was a deal breaker for me. 

 

Well when it comes to MiG 15-21 they are probably the most fun fixed wing you can get

 

Why are we so fixated in a war conserving most people for five years. Syria and Jemen lasted longer. 

Personally I am more of a pre war aviation geek. Spanish civil war would have suited me best. Or Finnish winter war 

Edited May 14, 2019 by LuseKofte

[Fennec]

Hopefully we cant get that in IL2 at some point Lusekofte.  If they make a Leningrad front, they could put a map that encompasses Gulf of Finland and Estonia/Latvia, so we could have the Soviet-Finnish war and even a user made Kurland pocket campaign. 

 

I am with you on this too, I would love pre war stuffs in IL2 though it could be a long wait as it is less attractive for them commercially.

 

In my order of preference for the next IL2 expansions : 1944 Bagration ( one of the largest op of all time, i would not understand if they dont finish the eastern front, i bought IL2 for that initially) then the Pacific ( carrier ops, exciting atmosphere and beautiful scenery, torpedo and dive bomb ops which i love so much, plenty of fun with ground attack and lots of really nice airplanes on all sides) could be absolutely amazing. 

 

For DCS, never tried helicopters unfortunately and they cant touch still classified stuffs like Eurocopter's Tiger but they could put the AH64 Apache perhaps?  I think DCS is also due a high fidelity modern Russian jet module like a MiG 29 since we have several Nato birds already and will hopefully get the F16 "soon". Then maybe a British jet in parrallel from a third party like Tornado would be cool.

 

For Mig15/21 and F86, I would consider it once i resplenish my wallet if they would include a great campaign or if there was say a dedicated server about the Korean war where many people would fly all the time. But if it is just to merely fly it alone over a Nevada map, i dont know... as good as the plane is, i would get bored quickly.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Fennec

[gn728]

Might have to wait a bit for the F-16

 

https://www.standard.net/news/military/russian-jailed-in-weber-county-charged-with-smuggling-f-/article_b7055cb8-d770-5b23-bf66-785104ff5152.html

[nirvi]

10 minutes ago, gn728 said:

Might have to wait a bit for the F-16

 

https://www.standard.net/news/military/russian-jailed-in-weber-county-charged-with-smuggling-f-/article_b7055cb8-d770-5b23-bf66-785104ff5152.html

 

Official Statement:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3910712#post3910712

[Jaws2002]

17 hours ago, gn728 said:

Might have to wait a bit for the F-16

 

https://www.standard.net/news/military/russian-jailed-in-weber-county-charged-with-smuggling-f-/article_b7055cb8-d770-5b23-bf66-785104ff5152.html

 

 

Yeah it's on RT as well. [edited] The thing is this guy was arrested [edited] and extradited to USA.

 

Anyway. It looks like it's not slowing down the developement of the F-16. here's the official press release by ED:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=240962

 

Quote

"Lausanne, 14 May 2019.

The Eagle Dynamics group, headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, confirms that one of its employees has been jailed in the State of Utah (USA) on charges of seeking to procure, export and sell restricted US fighter jet manuals, in particular the F-16.

Eagle Dynamics confirms that it was not involved in any way in the actions of its employee who acted in a purely private context and for his own personal interests.

The Company develops all of its DCS aircraft game modules exclusively on the basis of publicly available information and has never used nor tried to obtain any classified information.

The Company launched an internal investigation into the actions of its employee, and found nothing in the company's records that relates to the facts that are being held against him. The investigation confirmed in particular that no company resources were used and that no export restricted documents were obtained or stored within the company's systems. Furthermore, the Company confirms that the employee was not involved in any of the work or research pertaining to the development of the Company's upcoming F-16 module.

The development of the F-16 and other modules currently in the pipeline will continue in order to further enhance the simulation experience of DCS World. These events will not affect Eagle Dynamics' commitment to its users and faithful community. 

Thank you,
Matt Wagner
Senior Producer, Eagle Dynamics SA

Edited May 15, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin

[SovietAce]

12 minutes ago, Fennec said:

For DCS, never tried helicopters unfortunately and they cant touch still classified stuffs like Eurocopter's Tiger but they could put the AH64 Apache perhaps?  I think DCS is also due a high fidelity modern Russian jet module like a MiG 29 since we have several Nato birds already and will hopefully get the F16 "soon". Then maybe a British jet in parrallel from a third party like Tornado would be cool.

Sadly no full fidelity MiG 29 will be developed anytime soon. ED claimed that they cant do more modern jets than MiG 23, because Russia wouldnt allow it. (Which is weird statement for several reasons).  Its kinda shame. I would payed anything for FF MiG 29 or Su 27.

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi guys,

 

Previous topic about that incident was locked so please do not discuss it on this one. 

 

Haash

[Gambit21]

5 hours ago, LF_Gallahad said:

DCS works really well with aircraft after WW2. ?

 

 

They should use that as a slogan for their WWII content.

[Fennec]

1 hour ago, SovietAce said:

Sadly no full fidelity MiG 29 will be developed anytime soon. ED claimed that they cant do more modern jets than MiG 23, because Russia wouldnt allow it. (Which is weird statement for several reasons).  Its kinda shame. I would payed anything for FF MiG 29 or Su 27.

 

That is really a terrible news, I did not know about that :(( 

 

Surely everything has changed since the early MiG 29As compared to the modern ones like MiG29K carrier versions?

 

I mean they exported it all over the world since more than 30 years so it is not like it is confidential ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Lusekofte]

32 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

They should use that as a slogan for their WWII content.

 

Well I really do not feel sorry for anyone that buy a WW2 content in DCS , except those whom took part in the kickstarter.

How DCS works and WW2 modules in special is well known and informed. Even the kickstarters knew there where risks.

If you look at it as a complete CFS you are going to be very disappointed. 

But the modules themselves are in general wonderful. And the simulation is in my opinion great, there is no better for choppers.

The constant beating of this dead horse is not really relevant, it is a established truth. But people make do with what they got despite competition from a game you find better.

 

In my opinion the discussion about the "better" is irrelevant.

You cannot claim that, If one brand do not ring your bell and the other does , who am I to tell you this is wrong

Edited May 14, 2019 by LuseKofte

[Rolling_Thunder]

I would take anything Wagner says with a bucket of salt. He and sithspin are quite quick to throw folk under a bus.

3 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

How DCS works and WW2 modules in special is well known and informed.

Like this

As a basic outline, here are our current development intentions:
...
March 2015 - P-47D-30 

...4 years and still waiting yaaaaaaaawn

 

 

[nirvi]

10 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

 

Well I really do not feel sorry for anyone that buy a WW2 content in DCS , except those whom took part in the kickstarter.

How DCS works and WW2 modules in special is well known and informed. Even the kickstarters knew there where risks.

If you look at it as a complete CFS you are going to be very disappointed. 

But the modules themselves are in general wonderful. And the simulation is in my opinion great, there is no better for choppers.

The constant beating of this dead horse is not really relevant, it is a established truth. But people make do with what they got despite competition from a game you find better.

 

In my opinion the discussion about the "better" is irrelevant.

You cannot claim that, If one brand do not ring your bell and the other does , who am I to tell you this is wrong

 

I took part in the kickstarter and already got more out of it than I invested, it was a really good deal for me ?

I have no problem in waiting for my P-47 and Me-262, it will be worth it.

[Lusekofte]

9 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

I would take anything Wagner says with a bucket of salt. He and sithspin are quite quick to throw folk under a bus.

Like this

As a basic outline, here are our current development intentions:
...
March 2015 - P-47D-30 

...4 years and still waiting yaaaaaaaawn

 

 

 

The P 47 is not something you paid for and that simply is not relevant for my post. I have waited for the Hind a long time. I can choose to find a way to be pissed off by that.

But honestly that gain no one. If you choose to have a grudge for delays or things not going to happen , what should we say about PTO in GB series. I bought Kuban, BOPB , FC and that tank thing for supporting development of PTO. Now the PTO section is closed for replies. 

DCS modules take a long time to develop, and 3. party developers are apparently producing out of own preferences, well known fact and not really a subject of discussion anymore. Latest I 16 is undeniable a delight to fly, but a utter waste of time in the environment we got. I hear rumors of a Corsair too. If that is true madness is complete, but I am sure there will be a lot of happy campers out there utilize it, and I probably buy it. Just because it is cool. It can be used in a Korea scenery. 

My view on the whole thing is, I am deeply disappointed I am not able to enjoy Great Battles series the way I hoped, yet I see so many who do. That means Developers have done a good job. Counting active multiplayers in DCS it is even more popular. So that means despite the fact you are not able to enjoy DCS it do not mean it is a failure.

That said I cannot disagree on the points made on the negative side, most of it is true.

2 hours ago, nirvi said:

 

I took part in the kickstarter and already got more out of it than I invested, it was a really good deal for me ?

I have no problem in waiting for my P-47 and Me-262, it will be worth it.

Well I am glad you feel like that, I met a lot of people saying they felt screwed over. 

If GB and DCS had not existed , I would not have spent several thousands $ making do, I probably spent them in a more intelligent way, so well we just have to learn playing with the toys we got

Edited May 15, 2019 by LuseKofte

[Herne]

14 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Well I really do not feel sorry for anyone that buy a WW2 content in DCS

 

I know I am taking this comment out of context, but just want to say that I tried the F14 for the first time last night. Started on already in flight scenarios just to rush to get a feel for the thing. I LOVED IT !! what a beauty to fly with default curves. I still have bindings left to set up even after just throwing this thing around in close up combat, and flying low through the Caucasus valleys. I had a great time.
 

It was such a positive experience, which actually made me feel quite angry about how the Spitfire feels like such an abomination with it's default curves. I have real buyers regret for that thing. P51 is lovely, Had a quick go in the 190 which was also ok, but the spitfire ! I've never had to mess with curves in my life, and I really resent that in this case that I really have to.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, LuseKofte said:

DCS modules take a long time to develop

Other publishers prove that you can make modules that well exceed DCS modules (especially since we're talking WW2 stuff here) in far less time.

[Archie]

5 hours ago, nirvi said:

 

I took part in the kickstarter and already got more out of it than I invested, it was a really good deal for me ?

I have no problem in waiting for my P-47 and Me-262, it will be worth it.

Exactly the same for me.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Other publishers prove that you can make modules that well exceed DCS modules (especially since we're talking WW2 stuff here) in far less time.

 

Yes I know, but by now everyone should know the the timespan from saying they going to make a module, and it ready if it actually getting delivered , is well known. 

I simply do not understand why people get upset, what said and what you get and when is totally open . You won't know, period. And this is my point.

I am not in any way defending that situation, but as long as there are no competitors we have two choices . Dealing with it, or don't fly.

Spending years getting emotional about the same issue simply is not healthy

Edited May 15, 2019 by LuseKofte

[Rolling_Thunder]

4 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

 

The P 47 is not something you paid for and that simply is not relevant for my post. 

As a kickstarter backer, it is something I've paid for along with the 262, so it is relevant. And while ED talk of the 190a and mosquito and nothing of the 262 it becomes increasingly clear ED really don't care about their customers. While others bend over, with an awkward smile on their faces, for Wagner and sithspin to happily shaft them, I will not.

[ST_ami7b5]

For my $20 invested into kickstarter I received Dora, Normandy map and WWII Assets Pack.
Not a bad deal IMHO.

[Daff]

Gotta have that Corsair... ?

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

As a kickstarter backer, it is something I've paid for along with the 262, so it is relevant. And while ED talk of the 190a and mosquito and nothing of the 262 it becomes increasingly clear ED really don't care about their customers. While others bend over, with an awkward smile on their faces, for Wagner and sithspin to happily shaft them, I will not.

OK then you come under the part I do sympathize with.  But any Kickstarter program is a risk. This time the company exist and you do have a case. Often that is not the case

43 minutes ago, ST_ami7b5 said:

For my $20 invested into kickstarter I received Dora, Normandy map and WWII Assets Pack.
Not a bad deal IMHO.

Well some do not think so. 

But I find that a fair compensation 

Edited May 15, 2019 by LuseKofte

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

I simply do not understand why people get upset, what said and what you get and when is totally open . You won't know, period. And this is my point.

It is not a problem about things taking a tad longer. It is about announcing a product while you are only still dreaming about it but when you are still lacking a realistic schedule for delivering. Things taking twice as long as planned are well the difference about going belly up financially or running a sound business. Another problem is when things take awfully long, you have no idea what corners they cut for getting it finally out there. We have witnessed drastic differences there.

 

The idea like "it's just a flight simulator anyway" and that "3rd party are just placing in the store what they think will sell" are simply no excuse for what is happening.

 

Fact is, as a flight simulator, DCS is just way under water. For instance XP runs circles around DCS when it comes to that. Lacking weather (No, just "clouds", "fog", "wind" are not weather!) as well as a full globe (does not have to be VFR quality, but it has to be there) is just where it starts and enough to just drop DCS of the flight sim list.

 

What it truly is is a combat flight sim. And for combat, you need something that can shoot as well as something to shoot at. If you don't deliver both, you have no real product. With the jets, they do have that. Mostly. That is where the whole thing works. It might work with choppers as well, as you have both something to shoot (or transport) as well as something that fights you. Also, you fly mostly short missions and the lack of weather is less important.

 

It is very apparent that what we are getting is a fringe benefit resulting from a wholly different product (the "professional" one), where shortcomings that well can ruin a game are irrelevant. It would also explain why certain producers are not bankrubt by the way they are doing busines.

 

A2A Simulations for instance just gave a dev update, mentioning precisely such. They made the T6-ATexan II and the T-38 for the Air Force. They plan on releasing them accusimmed as well, but they said it would take some more time as what is good for the military is a pain in the neck in the guise of a computer game. (And we get a newly made B-17 and the Cub, YEAHH!!). The big Spitfire simulator posted earlier in this forum is also based on their technology and we might get an accusimmed Mk.IX as well.

 

TL;DR There are those two issues that give DCS that acquired taste. Most professional (read: military) stuff in effect does not need things we can have page long feuds and rants about. (DM, anyone?) and they get tacked on later when it becomes suitable to do so. And the other issue is that some (not all!) developers would do good in hiring a producer that is at least 1% of what Jason is. The mix of both makes DCS a very special blend.

 

[Lusekofte]

I do not disagree. I just advise people to take this situation in consideration, before they get involved with DCS. I owned the first lock on 

I found it hard to be a part of the ed community and getting involved in it for many years. 

But what can one do? If you like to fly, you need to like what you fly and that means you got to choose the best available toys around. For me that is currently DCS. And others might go for Great battles. 

By now if you choose DCS and still get pissed about how it is. You have chosen wrong and should have known better

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Fact is, as a flight simulator, DCS is just way under water. For instance XP runs circles around DCS when it comes to that. Lacking weather (No, just "clouds", "fog", "wind" are not weather!) as well as a full globe (does not have to be VFR quality, but it has to be there) is just where it starts and enough to just drop DCS of the flight sim list.

 

 

What it truly is is a combat flight sim. And for combat, you need something that can shoot as well as something to shoot at. If you don't deliver both, you have no real product. With the jets, they do have that. Mostly. That is where the whole thing works. It might work with choppers as well, as you have both something to shoot (or transport) as well as something that fights you. Also, you fly mostly short missions and the lack of weather is less important.

 

 

Without addressing some of the other points you made, let me just speak to the paragraphs above.  I think you are being a little narrow in your definitions.  Recently, a guy I know in DCS had the opportunity to get several hours on a professional Bell 206 full motion sim.  His -only- experience is flying DCS helicopters like the UH-1, Mi-8, and Gazelle.  Granted, this guy is a really good DCS helicopter pilot, but he was able to start the thing up without tutorial from the instructor, hover perfectly, fly around like a boss, land on a ship, and even was successful doing several autorotations.  I don't know about you, but I'm very impressed that he can do all that (especially the autorotations) just from being a DCS helicopter pilot.   DCS certainly sounds like a "Flight Simulator" and not just a "Combat Flight Simulator" to me. 

 

Do I like seeing Christen Eagles and Yak-52's in there?  Not really...especially if they suck resources away from a war aircraft.  And even then, some of the aircraft choices could be better.  But if somebody just wants to fly around and doesn't have a need to do combat, why not?

 

Now sure, if you want a sim in which you can fly a transatlantic flight in a Concorde or something, then I guess you have to find something else.

Edited May 15, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[ZachariasX]

I most certainly think that some modules are top notch in their own way (everyone has different priorities, gamers, developpers). Thus, you saying that people learned a lot from using them seems very plausible to me. Myself, I own most of their modules and I don not regret having bought them, even the WW2 stuff (although I find them too pricey for what they are). Many of them I bought early accesss. Having stayed clear of the Hawk, I can say that essentially they always delivered for what I possibly could have asked for with the respective module. I also said before that I consider the F-14 a true reference product that sets the bar for flight simulators now and in the future.

 

But one has to keep in mind that ED and some module producers maybe not always have the exact same priorities and one should see my comment above in this light.

 

Maybe I should clarify why I put so much emphasis on "the full globe" as well as on weather. It is not really about this, a large "map" can do that:

4 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Now sure, if you want a sim in which you can fly a transatlantic flight in a Concorde

 

What I mean is essentially the difference about a terrarium and nature, if you pardon my analogy. A map with static weather is a terrarium. A globe with dynamic weather is nature. Flight is something that occurs as an interaction between you (your aircraft) and your environment. There is a marked difference when you are in a terrarium instead of nature, your life expectancy just increased drastically (unless you are a cricket put to the spiders), even though you might be sitting on similar rocks. This is not just semantics. Even as a combat pilot, chances that (ever changing) weather will claim you are usually drastically higher then an enemy shooting you.

 

In order to make your local weather (what we use as our terrarium athmosphere), you require a dynamic athmosphere that is diverse over time and distance. You happen to cross that in your aircraft. Turbulences are where differend winds are meeting. Not everywhere. I can well understand that most will not miss such, as we never had that in combat sims. It is an expensive thing to add, and most like the blue sky for maximum dakkadakkadakka. In reality, clouds make up most of what you are seeing as your environment. You are seeing them as much or even more often than the ground. Weather is allowing or denying you certain flight routes. But you are not missing what you never had. Especially when it is a headache that can be a greater danger than the enemy. Winter '45 featured apalling weather in western Europe. This means, you technically should invest in making clouds nice, as that is what you would be seeing in reality rather than seeing the ground. There is really nothing to cruising in static athmosphere. It is as eventful as driving on cruise control on an empty highway. In reality, this is seldom what is happening, and this is where things get interesting, especially if you bet your real hide on you reaching your airport safely.

 

The full globe also has its use in making maps contingeous. The He-111 can reach all maps in BoX in one flight. As we have it now, there is no reason to tip off the tanks. Imagine we had a globe with 1 km2 resolution and our maps patched on that. You could fly from map to map. You could have various LODs too for that. However, doing so would probably give a penalty in overhead that we direly need for DM etc. So, it is a tradeoff that sets the combat sim apart from the flight sim (as I see them). Two contingeous maps are more than twice as good as two individual ones. Also, it is the only way to make the B-17 a viable module. Then again, If you could make 4 million km2 maps, you can make the whole globe as well. Also, if your world is not round by the time you're doing such large maps, your map is gonna be heavily distorted.

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by ZachariasX

[Monostripezebra]

Still the area where DCS shines: Helicopters and longlineing loads, this time with engine out:

 

[Jade_Monkey]

Last night i finished the Spitfire campaign “The big show”, i'd say it's a 6.5/10. I think it's a bit too simple, straight to target, engage, straight to base. Anyone could build those missions with the simple editor. However, it still conveys the feeling of taking off, forming up, flying with slipper tank, manage fuel, engage, land, which I guess is what most real life flights were like.

 

I moved on to the “Blue nosed bastards of Bodney” campaign for the P51 and as soon as i started the second mission (first is just an intro flight), i run into trouble using the fuel tanks. Turns out there is a known bug that has been there for at least 6 months where the droptanks  have no fuel or they just don't work. Apparently this was a woking feature and broke after a patch.

 

This would never happen with IL2. The devs would have released a hotfix the next day or the next week if it was a tough bug.

Ironically I got the DCS content because of this post (this map in particular), which made me too eager to use western front airfields to even wait for BOBP full release. I don't regret the purchase but I can't wait to see what the IL2 is going to deliver. I'm very excited about the upcoming formation improvements, that's going to be a massive win for SP immersion.

[Lusekofte]

6 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

going to be a massive win for SP immersion.

 

That would be great. I have opposite experience about SP. 

but that is because I only flown chopper campaigns.

Fixed wing is currently only single missions for learning. Got a year project learning the Harrier. Semi interest in jet planes are a bitch. Interesting but not enough. 

GB career need in my point of view improvement in some areas. It do not miss much I think. To improve my experience on SP in GP I consider buying the fighter scripted campaigns. I liked havoc and sea dragon campaign. And that tells me there are reasons to be optimistic on GB singelplayer

  

[-TBC-AeroAce]

O dear, 

 

This dev team say they do not what to do what others are doing!

 

But others seems to think different

 

 

[JG4_Sputnik]

what?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

search for DCS i16

DCS has just taken the P!!!!!!!

and this sim said we will not do what they do ...

[JG4_Sputnik]

Yeah I know the I16 in DCS is out - so now there are two I16's out, as well as K4 and soon the A8. Still not getting your point...

Who did say that that they won't do what who does?

[Ribbon]

I like dcs planes (ww2 and jets) but it's SP and MP feels poor.

I simply don't see these two sims as competition, dcs is study sim and with i16 they don't have counterpart to create historical missions, so while few other dcs ww2 planes arrive il2 will be on it's 9th expansion.

Il2 still best ww2 combat/flight sim!

 

What i don't like in dcs are those low quality PG and Normandy semi-historical maps they sell for 40$ a piece, they don't worth 2$ imo, pure robbery!

 

 

[Trooper117]

There is no competition between DCS and GB... they are two different animals.

I have a dog and a cat, it's ok to have both. 

I also have GB series and DCS, it's ok to have both.

I have RoF and WoFF UE, it's ok to have both.

 

I also do not have a clue what the OP was babbling about... to many Smarties I guess...