DCS

[Trooper117]

1 minute ago, messsucher said:

 

 But so what?

 

So what nothing mate... 

[AndyJWest]

Is this a five minute argument, or have you booked the full half hour?

[messsucher]

1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

Is this a five minute argument, or have you booked the full half hour?

 

For me it is a trip to go buy extension cord, which I much more boring than this debate, I can tell.

[dbzero]

The whole topic of immersion and reality is an interesting one and I would argue the 2 are merging at a rapid pace.

 

I had a long discussion with nephew who is currently in flight training in the Air Force and what the future may hold as AI, VR, unmanned aircraft and economics are on a collision course. 
 

COVID has only accelerated things. 
 

but that’s a topic for another thread.

[Lusekofte]

Some planes or choppers are by me treated as a simulator. MI 8 is one of them. KA 50 more game than sim. Huey game same with Gazelle. 
The moment you reenact a mission as realistic as possible it is treated as a sim. If it infact is pr definition is less interesting. I have moments, or rather had moments of sim experience in GB too. 
In FB I call all these DCS, GB and FS 2020 a game. It seems to piss off people, and are the reason I do it. 
But let us all agree it is a stupid topic to discuss. I like flying I 16 in DCS same with P 51 and P 47. I do not in GB. It do not need further explanation, it is subjective and preference.  I uninstalled GB but not DCS. It is again subjective and my preference. 

[messsucher]

They are a bit academic topics. Meaning doesn't matter much in real world when you boot up your computer.

[AndyJWest]

My computer exits in the real world. Unless the real world is a computer simulation...

[dbzero]

Back to the subject at hand DCS. There are subs in the game. I’ve tried to use them in the mission builder and see how they would do against a aircraft carrier as well as see how destroyers go about performing ASW.

 

Unfortunately I still haven’t figured out how to place them submerged. The mission editor doesn’t seem to be able to do that or maybe I haven’t figured it out yet. 
 

The few videos I have seen so far show the subs on the surface and as expected they don’t last long...

[messsucher]

In academical world everything exists in paper only ? Guess it was predecessor to VR ?

[DD_fruitbat]

18 hours ago, dbzero said:

As much as I want a Pacific version of IL2 a DCS Zero is a pass for me. Without a Pacific theater and appropriate opponents to fight its holds Zero interest.

 

Same reason no interest in I-16. In IL2 yes -has a place and feel appropriate.In  DCS meh. Just feels out of place.

 

If I want something like the I-16 or Zero to just fly around in I’ll wait till it comes out in FS2020.

 

Be interesting to hear what the damage modeling will be on a DCS Zero will be. Will it be like the F-16 was at release as non-existent damage modeling or as sturdy as a P-51 or P-47...

 

I’d get excited if IL2 released a Zero. I’d even pay for a DLC. You already have P-39s, P-40s and A-20s as well as P-38s which would allow for some appropriate historical battles and the damage modeling would be present and probably appropriate at release.

 

While it’s true the P-51 and P-47 did encounter the Zero and DCS has them, so does IL2. Seems like a not so fair matchup. 
 

This is what I think when I hear DCS. Zero seems out of place.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you that the i16 is completely out of place, when you consider the other warbirds and maps. It exists though because a team wanted to make it.

 

Just to clarify a couple of other things you've mentioned a few times now, one, the F16's damage model being non existent on release. That is correct. For the few weeks while it was just on the beta version it didn't have one, but first release on stable, iirc it did. It certainly wasn't very long anyway, and I can attest  to that as I have died many times in it.

 

Re the Zero, its going to be an ai only accompaniment (as far as we know now) to the corsair and lexington carrier being made, same team making them all. And separate to that is ED's own Marianas map.

 

More generally and to all,  one of the things that is being worked on, and is in closed testing right now is an extensive re working of the damage model for all planes, particularly the warbirds as the initial code was never designed with them in mind, as has been repeatedly acknowledged. It is the most anticipated feature coming, that I'm looking forward to.

 

But most importantly, as a few people have mentioned above, all the flight sims we play are just games. I could pick faults and strengths in both il2 and DCS for hours, but truthfully, id rather just play both of them, and bitch about them to my squadmates as we're flying together. 

 

Thankfully, i'm not married to any flight sim, and therefore cheating is not a moral issue when i fly one, one day, and another the next as it appears to some people....

 

Combat flight sims are such a niche product,  anyone think any new companies other than 1C and ED is going to be appearing soon, given the huge  costs involved now to get models up to what the community demands?  Microsoft will be your only hope, so probably best to enjoy what we have.

 

I

[dbzero]

31 minutes ago, DD_fruitbat said:

 

 

I agree with you that the i16 is completely out of place, when you consider the other warbirds and maps. It exists though because a team wanted to make it.

 

Just to clarify a couple of other things you've mentioned a few times now, one, the F16's damage model being non existent on release. That is correct. For the few weeks while it was just on the beta version it didn't have one, but first release on stable, iirc it did. It certainly wasn't very long anyway, and I can attest  to that as I have died many times in it.

 

Re the Zero, its going to be an ai only accompaniment (as far as we know now) to the corsair and lexington carrier being made, same team making them all. And separate to that is ED's own Marianas map.

 

More generally and to all,  one of the things that is being worked on, and is in closed testing right now is an extensive re working of the damage model for all planes, particularly the warbirds as the initial code was never designed with them in mind, as has been repeatedly acknowledged. It is the most anticipated feature coming, that I'm looking forward to.

 

But most importantly, as a few people have mentioned above, all the flight sims we play are just games. I could pick faults and strengths in both il2 and DCS for hours, but truthfully, id rather just play both of them, and bitch about them to my squadmates as we're flying together. 

 

Thankfully, i'm not married to any flight sim, and therefore cheating is not a moral issue when i fly one, one day, and another the next as it appears to some people....

 

Combat flight sims are such a niche product,  anyone think any new companies other than 1C and ED is going to be appearing soon, given the huge  costs involved now to get models up to what the community demands?  Microsoft will be your only hope, so probably best to enjoy what we have.

 

I

Ah... well that puts things into a different context and light. I was under the impression the Zero was going to be another pay plane and had no idea of the separate map and carrier and Corsair. I should have gotten my facts straight first.

 

The creator of DCS did do a youtube and acknowledged the criticism and I'll give him credit for that. He also stated he is not getting any money from all this and he is doing it out of passion which is commendable. I've spent a small fortune on DCS and I don't regret it. I see it the same way as I do buying stocks. Its a risk and some don't pan out and other take a long time to pan out, and I enjoy playing the game.

 

But there are a lot of people who are not in the same shoes as me and making the initial investment and then spending $79 for an add on aircraft-some of which aren't fully bake is something else all together.

 

As I've said in the past I buy flight sims-many of which I don't play much because I want to support them. I grew up playing them and I don't want to see them die. If I do criticize some things, its not done out of spite, but to they to bring attention to things that need to be improved.

 

Many times in my life people have said things to me I didn't like or wanted to hear, but they were things I needed to hear and in the end I was abetter person because of it.

[CanadaOne]

6 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

 

I uninstalled GB but not DCS. It is again subjective and my preference. 

 

With the beauty of the DCS P-47 and the excellent Channel map, it's understandable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DBFlyguy]

People can play whatever they want, for whatever reason they want.  These are all just games. I enjoy IL-2 more than DCS and there's no point trying to convince someone who feels the opposite.  Different strokes for different folks.

 

This however was pretty entertaining to watch today:

 

 

Best part was Mover calling out Youtube "tryhard" Growling Sidewinder who has an entire channel on dogfighting but didn't bother to sign up for the competition two years in a row ?

 

I think it'd be cool if IL-2 had something like this for a charity, would be a good cause while also bringing more eyes onto IL-2

Edited October 3, 2020 by DBFlyguy

[dbzero]

13 minutes ago, DBFlyguy said:

People can play whatever they want, for whatever reason they want.  These are all just games. I enjoy IL-2 more than DCS and there's no point trying to convince someone who feels the opposite.  Different strokes for different folks.

 

This however was pretty entertaining to watch today:

 

 

Best part was Mover calling out Youtube "tryhard" Growling Sidewinder who has an entire channel on dogfighting but didn't bother to sign up for the competition two years in a row ?

 

I think it'd be cool if IL-2 had something like this for a charity, would be a good cause while also bringing more eyes onto IL-2

I enjoy watching their videos but in an online fight I’d be lucky to last 30 seconds.

[messsucher]

4 minutes ago, dbzero said:

I enjoy watching their videos but in an online fight I’d be lucky to last 30 seconds.

 

Good stuff, very good. 1:47 pretty epic kill. Those planes are awesome.

[BraveSirRobin]

If ever there was a time for @raaaid to offer his insights on reality and flight sims, this is it.

[messsucher]

2 hours ago, DD_fruitbat said:

 

 

I agree with you that the i16 is completely out of place, when you consider the other warbirds and maps. It exists though because a team wanted to make it.

 

Just to clarify a couple of other things you've mentioned a few times now, one, the F16's damage model being non existent on release. That is correct. For the few weeks while it was just on the beta version it didn't have one, but first release on stable, iirc it did. It certainly wasn't very long anyway, and I can attest  to that as I have died many times in it.

 

Re the Zero, its going to be an ai only accompaniment (as far as we know now) to the corsair and lexington carrier being made, same team making them all. And separate to that is ED's own Marianas map.

 

More generally and to all,  one of the things that is being worked on, and is in closed testing right now is an extensive re working of the damage model for all planes, particularly the warbirds as the initial code was never designed with them in mind, as has been repeatedly acknowledged. It is the most anticipated feature coming, that I'm looking forward to.

 

But most importantly, as a few people have mentioned above, all the flight sims we play are just games. I could pick faults and strengths in both il2 and DCS for hours, but truthfully, id rather just play both of them, and bitch about them to my squadmates as we're flying together. 

 

Thankfully, i'm not married to any flight sim, and therefore cheating is not a moral issue when i fly one, one day, and another the next as it appears to some people....

 

Combat flight sims are such a niche product,  anyone think any new companies other than 1C and ED is going to be appearing soon, given the huge  costs involved now to get models up to what the community demands?  Microsoft will be your only hope, so probably best to enjoy what we have.

 

I

 

These discussions are interesting for me because I made my choice of BoX purely on paper, and don't really have time to compare the games myself. If I could chose I would learn to fly in DCS and do combat in BoX. But it does not work that way, need to learn everything in one simulation.

[CanadaOne]

I go with what's enjoyable. And DCS has a lot to enjoy.

 

Really looking forward to the DCS Mosquito. if the cockpit is as good as the DCS P-47, it's gonna be fantastic.

 

[DD_fruitbat]

21 minutes ago, messsucher said:

 

These discussions are interesting for me because I made my choice of BoX purely on paper, and don't really have time to compare the games myself. If I could chose I would learn to fly in DCS and do combat in BoX. But it does not work that way, need to learn everything in one simulation.

 

And that is a completely valid view point. Time investment is unfortunately the biggest issue,  when we can finally afford the toys  necessary!

 

But as I said,  flight sims are not wives,  you are under no obligation to have one...

 

 

[CanadaOne]

8 minutes ago, DD_fruitbat said:

 

And that is a completely valid view point. Time investment is unfortunately the biggest issue,  when we can finally afford the toys  necessary!

 

But as I said,  flight sims are not wives,  you are under no obligation to have one...

 

 

 

Definitely want more than one! 

 

...plane that is.

 

I want them all! Might get the Fw-190D9 on the next sale. Tried it during the free trails and it was pretty sweet.

 

[Lusekofte]

9 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

I go with what's enjoyable. And DCS has a lot to enjoy.

 

Really looking forward to the DCS Mosquito. if the cockpit is as good as the DCS P-47, it's gonna be fantastic.

 

Fingers crossed. 

[nirvi]

Weekend Update:

Air Combat New Features



Our improved AI will encompass variable decision making protocols dependent on a continuously calculated environment in order to enhance fight/disengage/run behaviour. The AI will make emergency landing decisions on land or water (ditch), it can also react in case of sudden attacks even if the attacker is not visible. If there is light damage, it will attempt to evade the ‘unseen attack’ and search for the attacker. When damage is more serious, it will evade and RTB where and when possible. Potentially the damage can be too high and the only solution is bailing out.

Damage Model - Development Progress



Closed beta testing is now in final stages as we plan to release for public testing at the end of this month. The new damage model will also be integrated into WWII AI bombers.

Each aircraft has unique hydraulics, pneumatic and electrical systems and materials. As a result, the predicted damage depends on the type of munition, munition velocity dependent on distance and location of impact. The internal effects such as engine/radiator damage, coolant or oil temperature variation, loss of pressure, loss of control or other effects will generate the corresponding internal and/or external visual effects.

We have deployed this technology to all our World War II fighters, and we trust that the long wait will be worth it and we hope that it will be to your demanding expectations.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2020 by nirvi

[Sokol1]

Wow. Looks like we a have a convincing fuel fire in CFS. 

[messsucher]

 This big talk about the damage model is truly a biggie. The only reason I have not been interested of DCS is that people has said it does have bad damage model.

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, messsucher said:

 This big talk about the damage model is truly a biggie. The only reason I have not been interested of DCS is that people has said it does have bad damage model.

 

The DCS top dog, Nick Grey, said in an interview months ago that the DCS damage model "sucks balls". Ya gotta love that level of honesty about a product's weaknesses from a developer. 

 

 

He also said they were working on fixing it, and it looks like he was speaking the truth. 

[Eisenfaustus]

Read somewhere they were working on a dynamic campaign system. 
 

Has any of you a clue whether it will also be for WWII or just modern age aircraft?

 

And wether there is any rough eta?

[Lusekofte]

On 10/9/2020 at 10:50 PM, Sokol1 said:

Wow. Looks like we a have a convincing fuel fire in CFS. 

So true. 
To me WW 2 is not that important to me in DCS, But I do like the P 47, P51, I16 and lately the Spit. Even better than GB. But that is just for flying, and for that I prefer Mig 52 most of all, if you count out choppers. But I am glad it get love
 

Edited October 10, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Gambit21]

Hmmm....

 

Corsair plus Pacific map coming as well.

Any eta on that?

 

Will they call an audible and make the Zeke flyable I wonder?

 

 

[Lusekofte]

3 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

Hmmm....

 

Corsair plus Pacific map coming as well.

Any eta on that?

 

Will they call an audible and make the Zeke flyable I wonder?

 

 

I have not seen anything yet. Corsair has been talked about for a while. Pacific map suppose to be free. But to me they must make flyable general purpose aircraft for ww2 to even bother take a look. No freaking cfs make ww2 planes of my. Interest anymore. 

[DD_fruitbat]

17 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Hmmm....

 

Corsair plus Pacific map coming as well.

Any eta on that?

 

Will they call an audible and make the Zeke flyable I wonder?

 

 

 

Corsair and AI zero and Lexington are being made by the same team, this vid was from, back in may, you'll probably particularly like it landing on the carrier at around the 15 min mark.

 

It's been pretty quite ever since though....

 

 

 

The Marianas map is in house Eagle Dynamics, and will come in 2 flavours, 1940's and present day, and I suspect will be out much much sooner and is definitely happening, and is due to be a free upgrade, which is nice.

[Lusekofte]

Typical   AI ! zero

Nothing is full hearted

[Gambit21]

10 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 

You make it sound almost as bad as an AI only B-25. 

 

An AI only B-25 in the midsts of many other appropriate, flyable AC.

 

BoS didn’t open with a flyable LaGG and an AI only 109. Let’s keep it apples to apples.

 

10 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

But seriously folks... if there is an AI only for-now Zero, at least it's a start. More will follow.

 

I’m sure...about the time our sun begins to expand.

 

10 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

Hell, go up into General Discussion here and mention a Zero or a Corsair, AI or otherwise, and watch the whining start.

 

Apple/Orange thing as no PTO maps exist in GB.

 

10 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

There are some who won't just complain about an AI only plane - they'll whine about the plane being made at all. 

 

Apple/Orange thing again 

 

10 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

The point being that we flightsimheads are a funny bunch.

 

Yep but given the point you’re making or rather the context that you’ve presented, I’ll refer back to the apples and oranges.

 

That said - down the road a ways, I’ll take what I can get. No danger of me installing DCS at this juncture. My Dora grows rusty.

[Lusekofte]

My point of view is , not making it just shows the interest in making pto. 
Half done half motivated just to show the cystomers. You got this and do not hold your breath while waiting. Because we gonna make a IL 10 next

DCS is my go to for a module or two. Not for battle. Nothing will ever be complete

Edited October 15, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[CanadaOne]

4 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

An AI only B-25 in the midsts of many other appropriate, flyable AC.

 

BoS didn’t open with a flyable LaGG and an AI only 109. Let’s keep it apples to apples.

 

 

I’m sure...about the time our sun begins to expand.

 

 

Apple/Orange thing as no PTO maps exist in GB.

 

 

Apple/Orange thing again 

 

 

Yep but given the point you’re making or rather the context that you’ve presented, I’ll refer back to the apples and oranges.

 

That said - down the road a ways, I’ll take what I can get. No danger of me installing DCS at this juncture. My Dora grows rusty.

 

That's quite the fruit salad. Many apples and oranges. 

 

And there is no reason to think DCS' WWII gameplay will not keep expanding. So the "BoS didn’t open with a flyable LaGG and an AI only 109" isn't really applicable. They started with just a P-51 and now it's a half-dozen study level planes and two maps, one of which is The Best looking WWII map available. Not to mention the WWII Assets which also continues to be updated. It's not perfect, but seeing as how there are basically only two options for WWII flightsims, it's normal that both don't follow the same path. DCS is giving us more of a sandbox. That's not everyone's cup of tea, but seeing as how they continue to expand their WWII game, it's obviously something many people do enjoy.

 

The way I see it is this: Planes and maps, just give me more of each. I'll figure out what to do with them. 

[Lusekofte]

Well GB might have it all. But it got it in my opinion or rather for me wrong. 
As a busyness model they might have a winner but latest packs is in my opinion a candybox for short term thinking customers. 
I am seriously fed up with it. But reinstalled it today for a taw flight with DBS guys. Fir DCS it is another matter. You always have something to do that your not fed up with. 
But this pto map with one flyable corsair is just to laughter at, with a cynical sound and spit coming out The mouth and a touch of sarcastic tone with a grin in your face and angry eyes with a red shine in your face

[CanadaOne]

42 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

I get it - I’m all for a sand box.

Ironically I think GB does a better job with that - meaning all the toys in my sand box match.

 

I have my sand, a little green bucket, a little plastic shovel, a few little moulds to build sand castles with, a little plastic dump truck. It all goes together. 

This is why I find the whole DCS “sandbox” thing a bit misleading - I’m all for a true sand box. 

 

You want symmetry in your sandbox? 

 

That sounds so... limiting. More toys!  More maps + More planes = More fun. 

 

Just for the sake of it, I took a look on Steam for who plays what, though obviously this is not the final word on anything:

 

CS:GO: Rank #1 - 440,000,000 hours played  

FS2020: Rank #91 0 5,000,000 hours played

DCS: Rank #340 - 600,000 hours played

IL2: Rank #662 - 178,000 hours played

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Lusekofte,

Why do you have to pit the two simulations against each other?   Can't speak for anyone else, but I can be interested in both sims, without one prejudicing my view of the other.  I keep both of them up to date.  Sometimes I'm on an IL-2 kick, sometimes want to do more with DCS.  They complement each other, imo.

Edited October 15, 2020 by SeaSerpent

[CanadaOne]

2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Lusekofte,

Why do you have to pit the two simulations against each other?   Can't speak for anyone else, but I can be interested in both sims, without one prejudicing my view of the other.  I keep both of them up to date.  Sometimes I'm on an IL-2 kick, sometimes want to do more with DCS.  They complement each other, imo.

 

He's a passionate man! 

 

I absolutely want both sims. But until BoX makes it easier and more fun for me to make my own flights, my money is going to DCS. In the time I spent $20 on BoX, I spent a good $300 on DCS.

[Lusekofte]

I have been and are for all sims. I do not put them up against eachother. I just convinced I will not follow GB any further in the path chosen. If yoy read what I said in the matter I say for me it is not the sim of choice as is. I wish it was. 

Edited October 15, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Gambit21]

 

6 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

I absolutely want both sims. But until BoX makes it easier and more fun for me to make my own flights, my money is going to DCS.

 

Does the DCS editor have randomized logic, zone triggers, event triggers and such?