DCS

[Lusekofte]

I will buy the map and the pack, but I am not sure I will fly WW2 planes. Perhaps I will , maybe I simply haven't give it a chance. then again I have too many things to do besides sim. I might have to divorce and get a permanent vacation to do it all

[Silver_Dragon]

DCS World Week Update 19 March 2017 (English version) 

[Dakpilot]

They need to lower prices, whats the point anyway with having such a pricewall when the most copys of the game are just that, copys and not disks with casings and handbooks, man i looked to my Falcon 4.0 box right now laying next to me, what a nice time it was, i miss it.

 

With enough interest from people, achieved through lower prices i can imagine DCS WW2 to be the top dog in the ww2 sim market, they just need more planes and a scenraio first, dont get me wrong BoX is nice but its not that good in the sim part of things yet, its maybe a better game from a players pov but from a simers pov i dont think it is but it would be a good second place if they make a few things better, now BoX is first place because there is nothing else besides just 2 older games where no new content was added, we will see how CloD evolves now but it needs time.

 

Before i forget, its just my opnion, and if BoX makes some, in my opinion, needed changes i will continue buying all the stuff they throw at me and play it regularly even if DCS would make it but i dont think that ED will lower there prices so it will not threaten BoX.

 

Its really sad when i think about it, imagine this genre would be much bigger, which means more money, look how fast other genres evolved, there is big competition in the gaming industry so they push like crazy, we just lack the numbers.

Even if i dont like most of todays games that much but there are great games comming out regularly that i enjoy, its not a problem when there are games that are just bad you dont need to buy them.

 

Maybe Star Citizen can give the sim genre a nice push if its finally released, in 10 years haha but more people would buy a stick and from there its not far to try out planes in atmosphere instead of planes in space.

 

Everyone goes on about Falcon 4, how they miss it, what a great dynamic campaign , manual etc. 

 

while conveniently forgetting to mention that it went bankrupt after a whole 2 years and the team was laid off, with the code then being leaked

 

the much lauded (correctly) campaign only worked properly after years of community effort

 

as an example of a commercially sustainable or successful project it is a terrible example (unless avoiding reality with a heavy dose of rose tinted glasses)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Blutaar]

Wow, looks like i pulled a trigger.

 

You just didnt get my point, the point was that a long time ago there where big boxes and handbooks with disks and keyboard charts, not only for sims and it was freakin normal at that time, it was just an excample for a good package where you have it all, a big box, a damn CD, a really good handbook, a keayboard chart and a huge korean map, that was the reason to take Falcon 4.0 as an excample for the glory days of handbooks and stuff and that i miss these times, i should have put this passage into a new sentence sry.

 

And i allways thought Falcon 4.0 was the end because of a down spiral in the whole sim genre, i guess that you know better and that we dont have that today because you will go bankrupt like MicroProse if you do so, pff cmon, its just maximizing profit and nothing else that we get a DVD in a DVD case with just the steam installer, consoles on the other hand have a bit more i know but nothing compared to the past.

 

Anyway, it seems you just wanted to diss someone you dont like and thats ok but next time read the whole post to get the context right, 50$ is to much for just one plane or one map no matter how good they are modelled and with a lower price I think more people would buy DCS, this would lead to more planes because people want more and maybe they earn more money that way i dont really know but i dont think that they will earn less then they did now, i could be wrong of course.

 

If i interpret more into your sentence as you wanted, then im really sry but implying that i am an idiot to take Falcon 4.0 as a commercial succes triggered me a bit, i didnt take Falcon 4.0 as a commercial success i didnt know much about it i just think it has the perfect overall package, i would pay 100$ for a game with that extend today, DCS Falcon BMS World 3.0 yeah.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Everyone goes on about Falcon 4, how they miss it, what a great dynamic campaign , manual etc. 

 

while conveniently forgetting to mention that it went bankrupt after a whole 2 years and the team was laid off, with the code then being leaked

 

the much lauded (correctly) campaign only worked properly after years of community effort

 

as an example of a commercially sustainable or successful project it is a terrible example (unless avoiding reality with a heavy dose of rose tinted glasses)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

ITT 1946 was a bad game because it only did XYZ properly after years of community effort

ITT COD was a bad game because it only did XYZ properly after years of community effort

ITT ROF was a bad game because it only did XYZ properly after years of community effort

ITT moot point is moot

[Blutaar]

Im thankful for all the bad games that came out when they are modable, mods are great and we should demand and support mod friendly games.

 

I play Dangerous Waters with the RA 1.41 mod right now, its such a nice sim still after all those years, not that i mean its a bad sim at stock but with mods its just better and i modded it myself a bit so my Seawolf is a little bit quiter at slightly faster speeds, its supposed to be the quitest nuclear attack submarine at that time by a margin so i wanted it to be exactly that.

 

I dont care if its kind of cheating, everyone can chosse for themselfes when they play offline, to have options is allways better as to have none or just a few.

 

edit: Mods can help to greatly increase the lifespan of a game, thats profen over and over.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Ishtaru

[Finkeren]

ITT 1946 was a bad game because it only did XYZ properly after years of community effort

ITT COD was a bad game because it only did XYZ properly after years of community effort

ITT ROF was a bad game because it only did XYZ properly after years of community effort

ITT moot point is moot

Only ClOD was a bad game before the community took over.

 

The original IL-2 was an instant classic, which became legen... -wait for it- ...darned good with the release of Forgotten Battles. The community has added a lot to it to try to keep it up to date, but for its time it was amazing.

 

RoF was ambitious and quite good as a simulator, when neoqb first launched it in its very incomplete state. 777 then took the solid foundation and built a proper game on top of it and refining the sim along the way. I never used a mod for RoF, and it's still to this day very good.

[Sokol1]

 

 

Everyone goes on about Falcon 4, how they miss it, what a great dynamic campaign... bankrup...

 

 

True, today try make good SP contend is wastage of resources/time, for actual "Cheers!" crowd just a "Fast Food" QM based campaign is sufficient for games became commercial success.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

 

True, today try make good SP contend is wastage of resources/time, for actual "Cheers!" crowd just a "Fast Food" QM based campaign is sufficient for games became commercial success.

 

Hopefully that is tinged with sarcasm because that has clearly not been the case for BOX.

 

One of the greatest complaints is the lack of compelling SP content, especially a worthwhile DCG, and it has been this way since the very beginning.

Only ClOD was a bad game before the community took over.

 

The original IL-2 was an instant classic, which became legen... -wait for it- ...darned good with the release of Forgotten Battles. The community has added a lot to it to try to keep it up to date, but for its time it was amazing.

 

RoF was ambitious and quite good as a simulator, when neoqb first launched it in its very incomplete state. 777 then took the solid foundation and built a proper game on top of it and refining the sim along the way. I never used a mod for RoF, and it's still to this day very good.

 

 

 

[Finkeren]

Problem with the "joke" is, that it's actually true in case of ClOD.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Problem with the "joke" is, that it's actually true in case of ClOD.

 

Point

 

Head

 

Reference

 

The point of the reference is over your head. I was generalizing.

 

All games are bad because they only did XYZ after years of community effort <--- this statement is an informal fallacy.

[Finkeren]

Yes, I understand what you meant.

 

Problem was, that you confused it by including an example, where the statement was actually true.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Yes, I understand what you meant.

 

Problem was, that you confused it by including an example, where the statement was actually true.

 

Touche. However, if you understand what I meant than I think you get the point of what I'm saying.

 

I feel that what Dak stated was a formal fallacy - the fact that the community improved something, or the timeline that it took to improve something, doesn't quantify the point.

[Finkeren]

Agreed.

[Dakpilot]

What I stated regards falcon 4's wonderful campaign ETC. is no formal fallacy or any other BS phrase, simply that as a commercial venture it bankrupted the dev's

 

often people lament at missing features, great fat printed manuals and real discs in boxes, the reality was (even if these things are desirable) commercial failure, the fact modders picked it up and made it better and useable after a few years and for free is good for the users in a (selfish) way, but ultimately the failure is/was not a good thing for the industry or the customer, CLoD being the latest example

 

I fully agree that DCS is expensive, (probably too expensive) but similar to MANY civil sim modules, however using failed commercial projects as examples for a different pricing structure, and what was good/desirable in a game/sim seems redundant at best.

 

DCS and BoS would have ceased to exist already if they followed a model doomed to failure by commercial realities proven by past results

 

Falcon 4 did not last 2 years, CLoD did not even make it out the gate, and even if it worked moderately well at release and sold in reasonable numbers, would likely not have seen  a sufficient return on investment (likewise the stillborn DCS WWII project),  ROF and IL-2 both lasted for many years and are still dev supported to a degree, DCS and BoS are still here and the only supported 'current mainstream' CFS available

 

"what a nice time it was, i miss it."

 

rose tinted glasses are fun but not useful in the real economic world, quite simply it was not a nice time unless a 2 year existence and bankruptcy was cool..the end user, us did not really gain from that

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Feathered_IV]

 

 

 

True, today try make good SP contend is wastage of resources/time, for actual "Cheers!" crowd just a "Fast Food" QM based campaign is sufficient for games became commercial success.

 

 

 

Quite the opposite.  It is no coincidence that flight sims began hemorrhage fans at exactly the same time that the singleplayer experience went out the window.  

[Gambit21]

Well Oleg,didn't pay much attention to single player.

Coming from European Air War to IL2 was a huge let-down in that department.

[Dutchvdm]

Well Oleg,didn't pay much attention to single player.

Coming from European Air War to IL2 was a huge let-down in that department.

 

The first Il-2 had a pretty basic campaign, but with Forgotten Battles the game received a very good SP upgrade and the more dynamic campaign with real pilot rosters was introduced. It wasn't all that bad. But i have to agree that i had the same feeling with the first Il-2 coming from EAW.

 

Grt M

[Blutaar]

"what a nice time it was, i miss it."

 

Dakpilot, can you not just apologise to me for misinterpreting me?

 

I clearly said that i dont mean that Falcon 4.0 is my example for cheaper games or commercial succes you clearly make that out of thin air, i just mean that the package was superb and that it was normal back then to have such packages in games, you must be a fool if you dont think that it was a good time for us, i dont care for corporations if they get more money or none, its there buisiness, they make huge ammounts of money if they do it right so my compassion is limited for them even if they are in the simgenre today.

 

Imagine IL2 were just one of many games like shooters today, do you think that this would be a bad thing if a few go bankrupt when they do [edited] games, thats modern society and nothing we discoverd yesterday, high risk but high gain, if you make a bad job you should accept the consequence.

 

If it was a bad sim in the beginning then it is a good thing to slap them for that with low sales, like a said before the whole simgenre was going down at that time if im not completely wrong + the enormous hardware hunger you needed, the bad software overall and realism never seen before, very complex stuff, they had trouble before Falcon and even without Falcon 4.0 produced they would go the same way as they did in my opinion but im sure im just wrong mr. "i just know better then you [edited]".

Edited March 21, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin
lenguage

[ram0506]

Guys, this is the DCS News Thread! Please stick to the topic.

[Blutaar]

You are right i apologise, i just cant take it when someone misunderstood me because he is to lazy to read the whole context and repeats the bs again.

 

Ok back to topic, kind of, i watched the stream about the normandy map, oh boy that view, i really like that map and purchased the whole package even if i think its way too much money.

[Dakpilot]

Guys, this is the DCS News Thread! Please stick to the topic.

 

The off topic is a direct result from an opening statement in a post relating to DCS

 

"They need to lower prices, whats the point anyway with having such a pricewall when the most copys of the game are just that, copys and not disks with casings and handbooks, man i looked to my Falcon 4.0 box right now laying next to me, what a nice time it was, i miss it."

 

it is related to price of DCS modules, it's pricing policy and the relevance of remaining in business and even producing a product commercially, something that Falcon 4 failed at.

 

I find it (DCS pricing structure) too expensive for me, but many more people buy similar modules for civil flight sims with a similar level of detail/fidelity and cost to DCS, it may just be that this is a real world market price for the amount of work involved...?

 

saying "they need to lower prices" is fine and an valid opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, but not when compared to a financial failure that was not commercially sustainable 

 

If I misinterpreted anything fine, but this is far from the first time Falcon 4 has been given as an example of what was great about flight sims from an earlier era, (-my rose tinted glasses comment) because in my opinion going bankrupt is not great, or anything to emulate. (even if modders create a fully useable product years later)

 

and back on topic, I also feel the colour pallette of Normandy map needs some adjustment for a more natural look

 

@ Ishtaru, you have directly called me a fool, lazy and a know it all who in your words  is "mr. i just know better then you [edited]

it is rather unlikely you will be getting any apology from me..

 

carry on gents I have said all I wanted

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited March 21, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That map is downright gorgeous 

 

The only thing that gets me is, that for June the ground looks a little too green. I have no idea, how Normandy looks at that time of year, but Denmark definitely isn't that uniformly green when viewed from above.

 

How does it look then? Here in Bavaria it looks exactly like this

http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=efedeb-1490123741.jpg

The village i grew up. Made even in August, still all very green

[AndyJWest]

How does it look then? Here in Bavaria it looks exactly like this

http://www.bilder-upload.eu/show.php?file=efedeb-1490123741.jpg

The village i grew up. Made even in August, still all very green

 

As your photo shows, the well-tended lawns in the foreground are greener than the agricultural land in the background .

[II./JG77_Manu*]

As your photo shows, the well-tended lawns in the foreground are greener than the agricultural land in the background .

 

Jep, wheat and corn fields are obviously less grean, but then non-agricultural land looks exactly like the "well-tended lawns" colorwise. I guess there were not so many wheat and corn fields in the Normandy at that time, but you can see plenty of them i the vid anyhow. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by II./JG77_Manu*

[SYN_Haashashin]

Guys, this is the DCS News Thread! Please stick to the topic.

 

Enought said.

[Gambit21]

Well back on subject the post/DCS update posted by Silver_Dragon above yields what once again is a nice, fully operational collection of still screen shots - nice looking no doubt.

I'm left with the impression that they're energy might be best spent on making it a tactical armor sim with aircraft playing the secondary roll. 

 

Users will have tactical map with Strategic campaign aircraft...that makes sense I guess....

 

Give me the P-47 for a nice 9th Tactical Air Command post-invasion campaign...and an appropriate 109 and 190.

Also, make that campaign...I don't have the time.

 

Also don't leave me with the impression that I'm giving something up on the flight model/physics department when coming from Box...you've had enough time to shake the wrinkles out.

Also might as well throw an Oscar in there at this point....because why not.

I do want it all to work - just not holding my breath.

I flew the original Flanker, Flanker 2.0, I bought Lock On, (then unistalled because of the crappy flight model/canned landing physics on the F-15) I had high hopes for DCS.

I bought the Dora (wish I hadn't right now)

 

Nice looking shots though...I seriously would be into the armor aspect.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Gambit21

[Guest deleted@30725]

Sooo when is the F-16 coming to DCS so we can all stop playing Falcon 4.0 BMS for it?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Sooo when is the F-16 coming to DCS so we can all stop playing Falcon 4.0 BMS for it?

 

SR-71 should come first - I need something to intercept in my mix of 40's, 50's and 90's aircraft.

[ZachariasX]

SR-71 should come first - I need something to intercept in my mix of 40's, 50's and 90's aircraft.

The Blackbird? The "combat area" would be barely big enough to fly a full circle at cruise speed. You have choice of two missions then: Right hand turn, then second mission is the left hand turn...

[nirvi]

UH-1 flight on the Normandy map:

[Feathered_IV]

I think I sense the first DLC campaign coming on....

 

[Brano]

Great poster!

[Gambit21]

UH-1 flight on the Normandy map:

 

 

That says it all right there.

[JG5_Zesphr]

That says it all right there.

almost like a helicopter is a more suitable vehicle to explore the map in than a plane.... 

[BOO]

I was just gonna buy it and wait to see what come of it but now -- Now I will fly my huey for an hour in it  then THEN wait to see what comes of it all.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

The Blackbird? The "combat area" would be barely big enough to fly a full circle at cruise speed. You have choice of two missions then: Right hand turn, then second mission is the left hand turn...

 

This sounds like an engaging, deep experience to me.

[Lusekofte]

Sometimes I fly serious, but other times I fly like I know it is just a game

 

[ZachariasX]

This sounds like an engaging, deep experience to me.

As long as the Fw190 that you're intercepting is turning the same way as you are it maybe is.

[Silver_Dragon]

DCS World Week Update 09-17 April 2017 (English version)