DCS

[unlikely_spider]

38 minutes ago, CB77Don246 said:

DCS world (not my cup of tea) has just released P-47D and retails on steam at £32.99 our Battle of Normandy with 10 planes and terrain looks like a real bargain.

The levels of detail between most DCS and GB planes are not comparable. There is a reason for the price difference.

[DD_fruitbat]

40 minutes ago, CB77Don246 said:

DCS world (not my cup of tea) has just released P-47D and retails on steam at £32.99 our Battle of Normandy with 10 planes and terrain looks like a real bargain.

 

Does it?

 

 

 

 

[CB77Don246]

So you are saying GB Planes are not as detailed as DCS, well for me GB planes look stunning.

[DBFlyguy]

3 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

The levels of detail between most DCS and GB planes are not comparable. There is a reason for the price difference.

 

Yep, DCS has got to charge you extra for all those never to be finished products and bugs that will never be addressed ?

[DD_fruitbat]

12 minutes ago, CB77Don246 said:

So you are saying GB Planes are not as detailed as DCS, well for me GB planes look stunning.

 

They're not, its not a question for debate. That isn't necessarily a bad thing as it enables il2 to have many more planes, and both games have there distinct advantages. As Andy said, choice is good.

Edited July 16, 2020 by DD_fruitbat

[unlikely_spider]

4 minutes ago, CB77Don246 said:

So you are saying GB Planes are not as detailed as DCS, well for me GB planes look stunning.

Graphics are somewhat subjective, and I'll say that to me newer DSC planes look sharper than GB planes, though some of the older ones are showing their age while older GB planes receive updates at a more rapid pace. But the real difference is the number of systems that are modeled. Flying in GB is much more of an arcade experience vs DCS, where you have to learn all the same systems that a real pilot would.

Edited July 16, 2020 by unlikely_spider

[Rei-sen]

Say anything about DCS, but P-47 feels like a real fighter aircraft there.

[unlikely_spider]

25 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

 

Yep, DCS has got to charge you extra for all those never to be finished products and bugs that will never be addressed ?

Yes, as with anything, more complexity is likely the source of more coding issues. For example, you can't really have a bug with radio procedures, or fuel systems, if they are not even modeled in your sim.

DCS does have its issues, and if you look under my username (same as here) on their forums, you will see me call them out for some of them that should have been caught before release. But that doesn't change the fact that the planes occupy a very different world when it comes to how they represent themselves.

 

I play both happily. In GB, when I'm surprised to hear, for example, that an unexpected P-38 campaign is dropped in our laps, I'll jump right in and enjoy it despite the fact that I've not spent more than 5 minutes in that plane beforehand. And I'll rack up a bunch of kills right away.

 

In DCS, I have to really plan ahead when it comes to which modules I want to learn. Some of them, especially modern planes, can take months to fully learn. The P-47 manual is over 200 pages. And that's a breeze compared to something like the Harrier or A-10c, which are 600 or 700 pages long.

 

The difference is highlighted most starkly in startup, where in GB I can jump in most any plane and start the engine and take off without any research at all. At most, I have to read the few paragraphs that they put in the info page. In DCS, starting a new plane without research is certainly impossible. I have a few laminated cards printed out for my owned modules that I use for startup procedures. It's always a memorable experience the first time I can start a plane without looking at the card, and that engine sputters to life and the temps and other needles start to rise. But I keep the cards handy because I'll likely need them again if I step away from that plane for a while and come back. It's more of a realistic experience than GB, which is simpler and easier.

 

But like I said, I love both and go back and forth depending on my mood.

Edited July 16, 2020 by unlikely_spider

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

Different people have different desires and expectations when it comes to flight sims (or anything else, really). Having choices is good.

Plus different games should try and fill different niches and be good at different things. Its impossible for one game to be all things to all people...the ones that try don't tend to work out very well.

[DBFlyguy]

2 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

Yes, as with anything, more complexity is likely the source of more coding issues. For example, you can't really have a bug with radio procedures, or fuel systems, if they are not even modeled in your sim.

DCS does have its issues, and if you look under my username (same as here) on their forums, you will see me call them out for some of them that should have been caught before release. But that doesn't change the fact that the planes occupy a very different world when it comes to how they represent themselves.

 

I play both happily. In GB, when I'm surprised to hear, for example, that an unexpected P-38 campaign is dropped in our laps, I'll jump right in and enjoy it despite the fact that I've not spent more than 5 minutes in that plane beforehand. And I'll rack up a bunch of kills right away.

 

In DCS, I have to really plan ahead when it comes to which modules I want to learn. Some of them, especially modern planes, can take months to fully learn. The P-47 manual is over 200 pages. And that's a breeze compared to something like the Harrier or A-10c, which are 600 or 700 pages long.

 

The difference is highlighted most starkly in startup, where in GB I can jump in most any plane and start the engine and take off without any research at all. At most, I have to read the few paragraphs that they put in the info page. In DCS, starting a new plane without research is certainly impossible. I have a few laminated cards printed out for my owned modules that I use for startup procedures. It's always a memorable experience the first time I can start a plane without looking at the card, and that engine sputters to life and the temps and other needles start to rise. But I keep the cards handy because I'll likely need them again if I step away from that plane for a while and come back. It's more of a realistic experience than GB, which is simpler and easier.

 

But like I said, I love both and go back and forth depending on my mood.

I hear ya, I've got DCS too and several modules (Hornet, Viper, Harrier, Mirage, A-10C, Tomcat, Fishbed, FC3 and Supercarrier).  I definitely want more flight sims (civilian and combat) out there, definitely hoping to see a Falcon 5.0 from Microprose someday.  DCS has its strengths, there's definitely fun to be had when you don't encounter an annoying bug, I've just came to the realization, I'm really not a fan of how ED treats their customers and how they conduct business as a whole anymore.  The Supercarrier (which I pre-order in good faith) was my last DCS purchase until I see them truly get their act together across the board.  

 

In contrast, GB has just been knocking it out of the park, especially lately, are they perfect...no, I've got my list of things I wish the dev team did better too but I understand the decisions they've made and don't has a disdain for the organization like I do for ED.  Will I eventually get past my feelings towards DCS/ED eventually and start enjoying the game again... I hope so eventually.  

[unlikely_spider]

16 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

I hear ya, I've got DCS too and several modules (Hornet, Viper, Harrier, Mirage, A-10C, Tomcat, Fishbed, FC3 and Supercarrier).  I definitely want more flight sims (civilian and combat) out there, definitely hoping to see a Falcon 5.0 from Microprose someday.  DCS has its strengths, there's definitely fun to be had when you don't encounter an annoying bug, I've just came to the realization, I'm really not a fan of how ED treats their customers and how they conduct business as a whole anymore.  The Supercarrier (which I pre-order in good faith) was my last DCS purchase until I see them truly get their act together across the board.  

 

In contrast, GB has just been knocking it out of the park, especially lately, are they perfect...no, I've got my list of things I wish the dev team did better too but I understand the decisions they've made and don't has a disdain for the organization like I do for ED.  Will I eventually get past my feelings towards DCS/ED eventually and start enjoying the game again... I hope so eventually.  

I see. I don't have the Super Carrier, though I did consider it when hearing that Baltic Dragon was coming out with a campaign that takes place on it. Scripted campaigns are my primary thing in sims, and the BD campaigns are simply the most cinematic and immersive experience that I've seen in any flight sims, hands down. And the simple reason that you don't see a BoN badge under my name is the lack of news about scripted campaigns for it. I'm sure they will come in time, and I'll buy it then. I got bored quick with the built-in career.

 

But those are valid points concerning EA modules in DCS. After reading their statement about the F-16 taking a back seat to other modules in near-term development, I am glad I didn't drop $70 on that thing. Early Access modules on DCS are fairly viewed with scepticism, that is true.

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, CB77Don246 said:

So you are saying GB Planes are not as detailed as DCS, well for me GB planes look stunning.

 

The GB planes are beautiful and you can get great performance with a lot of them in the air. And the A2A action in GB is gorgeous and the damage modelling is really good.

 

DCS has better maps and lighting, more detailed planes, and a better mission editor. 

 

Both are a lot of fun.

[AndyJWest]

Having spent the past couple of weeks trying to learn how to land the Harrier in something vaguely resembling a safe manner, my Hornet skills have been rather neglected:

 

 

Needless to say, the LSO-bot called a waveoff, but at this point, it was rather academic anyway. Short of pulling a Pugachev's Cobra along the deck (which probably requires a little more airspeed), I was going to hit something, regardless. Somehow, it turned out to be a wire (the 4th one, I think), rather than the nearest parked Hornet. I think I'm going to move it before I try again. And try to improve my alignment...

 

The LSO-bot's assessment. Probably fair enough, in the circumstances:

 

The latest beta build has fixed some of the more annoying bugs introduced in the previous one, which is good. Though they seem to have introduced some new ones, which isn't. Then again, it wouldn't be DCS if they didn't...

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

AFU is my favourite three-letter-word.

[Lusekofte]

13 hours ago, Arthur-A said:

Say anything about DCS, but P-47 feels like a real fighter aircraft there.

I landed it and before I did I reduced speed a little too much 100 mph

I throttled up and had to take the stick all the way to left and same with rudders to prevent it to go around its own axis. 
This Torque effect is well described by pilots, DCS got something right going with the physics  You can really feel that in choppers. The P 47 is just a gem. Love it

14 hours ago, CB77Don246 said:

So you are saying GB Planes are not as detailed as DCS, well for me GB planes look stunning.

It is not about how it looks. But how it acts. 
How it feels and you really get a sense of sitting in a brute of a fighter.  P 47 in GB is 

a pussy compared to DCS. 
Youcan feel the torque effect , or rather it will slap you in your face if not careful. 
they are like day and night. GB bring a lot of other stuff DCS have not. 
And the P 47 in DCS looks better but that is not the point

Edited July 17, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Blooddawn1942]

Here we go.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Blooddawn1942

[Archie]

Oh my aching wallet!

[dburne]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

Oh my aching wallet!

 

I feel your pain, pre-ordered today also.

[unlikely_spider]

I almost pre-ordered, but being a single player guy, the fact that it may be a long time before campaigns come out for it, and that we will have the entire world in a month for under twice the price... 

[CanadaOne]

No pre-order on Steam. 

[Tycoon]

The map looks good, except for the far mountain rendering, I can't believe how bad it looks.

[Lusekofte]

20 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

No pre-order on Steam. 

You and your steam valve fetish.  
grow up, your a lumberjack and you are ok. 
you can do standalone, like us men do. 
you can do it

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

You and your steam valve fetish.  
grow up, your a lumberjack and you are ok. 
you can do standalone, like us men do. 
you can do it

 

Oh you're just a ray of sunshine aren't you.  

 

Not sure why I have DCS on Steam but it did end up that way. 

[DD_Arthur]

After updating to the latest beta am now getting "DCS has crashed" on start up.  Oh dear.

 

On the other hand, I've just watched Frugalsim's youtube report on MS Flightsim 2020 and DCS not starting......don't seem to matter any more...... 

 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Updated DCS and works just fine. Never use mods or other modifications, just the vanilla game.

[RAY-EU]

Next coming planes Eurofighter Typhoon , F15E ...

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by RAY-EU

[CanadaOne]

Was checking Steam to see if the Syria map was there, as if, and noticed a few of the planes went up in price. The F-14

 and F-16 jumped from $103 to $112Cdn. Ouch! The dollar must have tanked.

 

Glad I got my F-18 on sale. 

[Bremspropeller]

This (and the F-8J) are actually the airplanes that I'm looking most forward to flying in DCS.

 

 

 

That Transall at ~13m is really jinking ?

Edited July 23, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[THERION]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

This (and the F-8J) are actually the airplanes that I'm looking most forward to flying in DCS.

 

 

 

That Transall at ~13m is really jinking ?

 

Mirage F1 in DCS? Did I miss something? I'd die for this... 

[Bremspropeller]

A long way out, though...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=338

[ZachariasX]

The good old Mirage... 

Spoiler

 

 

[Bremspropeller]

The IIIS is the coolest III.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

3 hours ago, =o=THERION said:

 

Mirage F1 in DCS? Did I miss something? I'd die for this... 

 

http://www.aviodev.com/?page_id=74&lang=en

Looks far from finished...

[THERION]

1 hour ago, OpticFlow said:

 

http://www.aviodev.com/?page_id=74&lang=en

Looks far from finished...

 

Yes, I just had a look at it - might be dead before arrival. Pitty, RASBAM does not create the Mirage F1 and the Mirage III. Epic planes in my opinion.

[Tektolnes]

I'd prefer that Aviodev do it personally. They might be on the slow side but they did a ultimately great job with the C-101 and have made a very complete module with nearly full functionality and almost no bugs which they also continue to refine.

[THERION]

2 minutes ago, Tektolnes said:

I'd prefer that Aviodev do it personally. They might be on the slow side but they did a ultimately great job with the C-101 and have made a very complete module with nearly full functionality and almost no bugs which they also continue to refine.

 

Possible, I can't judge, but hey, if you tell us - good.

 

I was thinking about RAZBAM because they did and still do a great job with their Mirage 2000 and they have a very good connection to the "Armée de l'air", so

they might be at the right source.

[Bremspropeller]

They have always said the C101 was their priority and with this module almost complete, they'd shift more ressources over to the Mirage F1.

[Jade_Monkey]

On 7/16/2020 at 3:48 PM, DBFlyguy said:

Yep, DCS has got to charge you extra for all those never to be finished products and bugs that will never be addressed 

 

That never ending development is not cheap!?

 

 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

15 hours ago, THERION said:

 

Possible, I can't judge, but hey, if you tell us - good.

 

I was thinking about RAZBAM because they did and still do a great job with their Mirage 2000 and they have a very good connection to the "Armée de l'air", so

they might be at the right source.

 

I have the Mirage 2000C and it is nice, but still incomplete after so many years... And they picked the simplest version, the French interceptor, and not export 2000E variants like the Greek with Exocet anti-ship missile or the Indian with ATLIS II laser targeting pod and MICA-IR upgrade. Compared to the F-18 module and all it's systems and guided weapons, the Mirage is just a notch over the F-5E Tiger level... 

[DBFlyguy]

3 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

That never ending development is not cheap!?

 

 

Evidently not LOL