DCS

[Monostripezebra]

just some more tunnel fun

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Monostripezebra

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Talk about deep strike, eh?

 

I welcomed the Hornet by flying ACM against one in the Tiger. Gave the bastard a nice surprise by turning the tables against it, then hitting a nice top-down shot to seal the deal.

[Wolf8312]

6 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

 

I'll get the map but not the F-18. The Harrier is $90Cdn and I'm sure the F-18 will be the same on Steam. That's a whack of dollars. The map should about the same as the Nevada map, around $66Cdn. And I really like the Nevada map.

 

If there was a simplified version of the F-18, as there is with the F-15, I'd definitely grab it, but I'm not one of you hardcore techno flyers. Honestly, I spend more time just flying around as a tourist for fun in DCS than fighting. So a new map is a better investment for me.

 

There is a way round complex start up proceedures that I use when I first get a module and just want to try it out and have fun without sitting through endless tutorials. Take whatever mission you want to fly and load it up via the mission editor and then click on your AC and in the details menu select 'take off from ground hot'. You can then watch a quick you tube video that will tell you how to use the weapon systems and then you are pretty much free to fly and just blow stuff up! I actually fly DCS pretty casually myself as well!

 

 

[Aap]

7 hours ago, Tuesday said:

I'm not sure which aircraft are selected yet, but they are making an FC4 which will consist of 4 pre-existing full-fidelity modules available at an FC3-level of operation.   Non-clickable, and simplified systems and weapons employment.

 

If for some reason they include the F/A-18, you will have exactly that - an FC3 F/A-18.  They haven't announced which 4 yet (doubting they will be new modules, however).

 

As far as I have understood, the modules will be ED's own modules and won't be WWII modules. That only leaves four aircraft (one helicopter) on the plate.

[Danziger]

So FC4 would be an F18, another A10, the Albatros, and the Ka50?

[BeastyBaiter]

I haven't heard anything about them being existing planes. In fact I was under the impression they specifically weren't going to do that. But maybe I missed something. In any case, the Hornet is a blast but it is very, very early access. It doesn't have IFF, so air to air is problematic outside visual range. For air to ground, it has unguided weapons only and suffers from super glitchy weapon selection and targeting. The Zuni rockets work as they should but everything else I've tried (including the other rocket types) are unusuable due to targeting inaccuracies or more often, being unable to even select them despite being mounted on the plane.

 

As for the plane itself, the startup procedure seems complete as does basic flight and navigation stuff. However, pretty much everything weapon or targeting related is non-functional (no IFF, no helmet mounted display, no datalink, no targeting pods...). They did get the absolute most basic air to air radar functionality in, but that's about it. And as said, IFF isn't working. With all that said, I still enjoy it. I'd rather be able to play around with it as it's developed than have to wait another 6 months for them to mostly finish it before trying it out.

 

For those wondering how the Hornet handles currently, it reminds me of a Zero. It's super agile at low speed and has a good power to weight ratio (when clean) but the controls quickly get stiff as the speed picks up. Its top speed is also a bit lackluster, being only Mach 1.8 when clean and more usually around Mach 1 to 1.2, depending on altitude. With a full load of bombs, it's subsonic even at full afterburner.

[CanadaOne]

4 hours ago, BorysVorobyov said:

So FC4 would be an F18, another A10, the Albatros, and the Ka50?

 

No F-104?

 

Now I'm sad again.

[Danziger]

Just now, CanadaOne said:

 

No F-104?

 

Now I'm sad again.

I was hoping for some F-100 and F-105 action against the MiG-19 that is coming up. An earlier MiG-21 variant would be good too.

[CanadaOne]

They should do a FC Century Fighters edition.

 

All that shiny steel.

[Danziger]

1 hour ago, CanadaOne said:

All that shiny steel.

Aluminum.

[Wolf8312]

Normandy is not so bad to be honest. I think the very last recent update maybe solved the damage model problem or at least made it better.

Trees low down are the biggest problem for me, they just look like cartoons.

Flight models seem good and I couldn't say which flight model is better but I think DCS seems to feel faster. Could anyone with a better understanding of the physics or the real planes, perhaps tell me which flight model (BOS/DCS) seems the most realistic, or just offer an opinion? I've noticed that DCS seems to be able to keep the dora at full throttle for longer.

Clickable cockpits in DCS are of course a big plus, but really its just nice to know the option is there to be honest and I mostly map vital buttons to my peripherals anyway.

The damage model at least on the dora is pathetic in terms of looks and feel though. You look to your side and realize suddenly that some git has painted some bullet holes onto your plane when you were not looking! There is often no real feeling that you have taken any damage even using a jetseat in USB mode!

Though the cockpits look much better in IL I do think in a way BOS/K/M are kind of lucky, because the graphic engine they happen to be using just lends itself better to VR somehow. It's magical in a way, because very few VR games are able to look as good as BOS does when you a pushed so close to, and up against a VR games textures.

DCS has fantastic graphics in 2D, but up close in VR the textures are not as nice in some situations, and the AA or MSSA helps but there is still way more shimmer in DCS/VR but this is perhaps a fault of the method of AA they are using.

Another big thing in favour of BOS/M/K is the colour, though I have to say DCS has a much better method of altering gamma. In IL I have to put my gamma down to 0.6 (It constantly resets itself fsr) and enable night mode on the Vive itself. But sweet Jesus BOS/M/K when you are up in the clouds looking down on the world below it really is very convincing. DCS can be as well, but because of problems like the trees (again its not all trees in all situations forrests for example often look great), and shimmer its generally less consistent. 

The only real problem BOS has with shimmering in VR (with landscape filters and MSSA) is on low cloud lines other than that it really creates a more smoother and therefore realistic impression. But then again without cocunuts cloud mod, BOS also has its own problems with AA (clouds) since the big update. Or at least it did the last time I checked!

[Archie]

Quick question, can you uninstall the 'stable' version of DCS and just keep the open beta? I need to save some ssd space.

[Wolf8312]

10 minutes ago, 6./ZG76_Archie said:

Quick question, can you uninstall the 'stable' version of DCS and just keep the open beta? I need to save some ssd space.

 

Yeah you can, I only have the open beta and dont bother with the stable as it's not really stable enough to deserve to be called stable anyway!

[Archie]

Excellent, thanks!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I highly recommend trying takeoffs in stormy conditions:

 

[Wolf8312]

26 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I highly recommend trying takeoffs in stormy conditions:

 

 

 Said no pilot ever! ?

[Lusekofte]

20 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

What are your impressions of the new map? Might pick it up when it's out on Steam.

 

I agree with 

20 hours ago, dburne said:

It is gorgeous along with the F/A-18.

 

But I have no Hornet, the map is excellent for choppers and run super smooth

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

1 hour ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

 Said no pilot ever! ?

Ekhem, you can risk virtual life in such event. In reality, I sure as hell wouldnt try. 

[Archie]

Finally got the beta installed, plus the Hornet and Persian Gulf. Only had a couple of minutes to jump into the cockpit (didn't even have my controls plugged in!) and it is totally stunning in VR!

[CanadaOne]

2 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I highly recommend trying takeoffs in stormy conditions:

 

 

Excellent! That looks like fun. 

 

Checked Steam a minute ago and still no Persian Gulf map. Should be tomorrow. I'm grabbing it right away.

[dburne]

8 minutes ago, 6./ZG76_Archie said:

Finally got the beta installed, plus the Hornet and Persian Gulf. Only had a couple of minutes to jump into the cockpit (didn't even have my controls plugged in!) and it is totally stunning in VR!

 

Yeah, I have spent some time yesterday and today doing carrier takeoffs and landings. It really is gorgeous in VR.

 

When you get a chance check out the fly by view sound.

Then do it again on full afterburner.

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by dburne

[Monostripezebra]

the weird blue is actually a bit fixable, see Kartoffelhero for reference:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su9T3H_FWOc

Edited May 31, 2018 by Monostripezebra

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I've noticed it obviously, but to be fair it doesnt bother me that much. The feeling of being surrounded by the storm and from the moment of take-off the complete loss of terrain below were more important.  

[BeastyBaiter]

6 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Flight models seem good and I couldn't say which flight model is better but I think DCS seems to feel faster. Could anyone with a better understanding of the physics or the real planes, perhaps tell me which flight model (BOS/DCS) seems the most realistic, or just offer an opinion? I've noticed that DCS seems to be able to keep the dora at full throttle for longer.

 

 

The only way to really judge speed is in VR, on a monitor they use different FoV's by default and matching the two would be tricky. The other thing is the DCS WW2 fighters are faster, the Fw-190D9 is a hell of a lot quicker than a 190A5. I haven't bought bobp and so can't comment on 109G14 vs DCS 109K4. But from a physics standpoint (I have a B.S. in Physics), both are plausible when airborne and I find the two very similar overall. DCS's 190D9 flies like a bigger, heavier, more powerful BoK 190A5. That's exactly what you'd expect if both are modeled well.

 

The only real difference I find is in ground handling. BoX's tendency to have planes spin around when coming to a stop seems more than a little exaggerated but generally they handle as expected. DCS makes no attempt at realistic ground handling though. It uses the old on rails approach that was largely abandoned in the 1990's in favor of a more slip and slide approach (see WT for modern example). Neither slip and slide or on rails approach are even remotely realistic but on rails does result in a very abrupt change between airborne and not airborne flight modeling. It's rather interesting from a physics and programming standpoint. I'm pretty sure they have two entirely different physics engines, one for on the ground and a different one the instant one wheel leaves the ground.

[CanadaOne]

38 minutes ago, BeastyBaiter said:

 

But from a physics standpoint (I have a B.S. in Physics) . . .

 

Can you do that blackboard stuff, where you talk to yourself in mathematical formulas?  

[CanadaOne]

Okay, it's June 1st.

 

Where's my Persian Gulf map on Steam?

[Picchio]

13 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

DCS makes no attempt at realistic ground handling though. It uses the old on rails approach that was largely abandoned in the 1990's in favor of a more slip and slide approach (see WT for modern example). Neither slip and slide or on rails approach are even remotely realistic but on rails does result in a very abrupt change between airborne and not airborne flight modeling. It's rather interesting from a physics and programming standpoint. I'm pretty sure they have two entirely different physics engines, one for on the ground and a different one the instant one wheel leaves the ground.

 

I don't have a B.S.in Physics,  but what you're stating here seems to me so far away from any observable factuality of DCS' modules... ?

Edited June 1, 2018 by Picchio

[BeastyBaiter]

Try a tail dragger in DCS sometime and lock the tail wheel. You'll notice they travel in a perfectly straight line. Now hop in your car and keep the steering wheel perfectly straight with a cross wind or a slanted road. You will quickly run off the road cause the car won't go straight despite the steering being set to go straight forwards. That's just one element of DCS's on rails ground handling. The whole thing is just too rigid. In the real world, tires and suspension flex a bit and surfaces aren't perfectly flat. BoX doesn't have anywhere near perfect ground handling, but lock the tail wheel here, power up and you'll slowly drift off course. That's how it's supposed to work. Nevermind the wheel sticking issues DCS has always had, though admittedly that's a lot less problematic in the modules.

 

Overall I think DCS does  jets well, but their engine is ill suited to prop aircraft and tail draggers in particular.

 

Edit: I should point out I haven't had any of the prop planes installed in over a year, but they went years without being updated prior to that, so I'd be surprised if this has changed any.

Edited June 1, 2018 by BeastyBaiter

[9./JG27golani79]

Sorry, but no - even with locked tailwheel you dont travel in a perfectly straight line in DCS tail draggers.

You constantly need to work to stay on course - if you dont, you will crash your plane sooner sooner than later.

[dburne]

15 minutes ago, BeastyBaiter said:

Try a tail dragger in DCS sometime and lock the tail wheel. You'll notice they travel in a perfectly straight line. Now hop in your car and keep the steering wheel perfectly straight with a cross wind or a slanted road. You will quickly run off the road cause the car won't go straight despite the steering being set to go straight forwards. That's just one element of DCS's on rails ground handling. The whole thing is just too rigid. In the real world, tires and suspension flex a bit and surfaces aren't perfectly flat. BoX doesn't have anywhere near perfect ground handling, but lock the tail wheel here, power up and you'll slowly drift off course. That's how it's supposed to work. Nevermind the wheel sticking issues DCS has always had, though admittedly that's a lot less problematic in the modules.

 

Overall I think DCS does  jets well, but their engine is ill suited to prop aircraft and tail draggers in particular.

 

Edit: I should point out I haven't had any of the prop planes installed in over a year, but they went years without being updated prior to that, so I'd be surprised if this has changed any.

 

The Spit can be a handful on ground handling for sure in DCS. 

[Sokol1]

2 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

Try a tail dragger in DCS sometime and lock the tail wheel.

 

Well, this "on rails" show that skill of average DCS player is very poor, because the majority complain about taxi in tail draggers, specially in Spitfire. ?

[Blutaar]

Im not sure but there is a setting for ww2 planes. Rudder assist or was it ground assist? Maybe that is the problem with "on rails" here?

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

Try a tail dragger in DCS sometime and lock the tail wheel.

 

One thing is taildragger, another thing is powerful engine . I am not quite sure what game engine is simulating ground-handling , torque, sidewind landing and takeoff best. Because none I ever tried seems convincing.

I never flown a powerful WW2 taildragger , but there is enough sources to compare it with, frankly I think piloting a Cessna in good wether and visual condition only take a short while. Even a Bell 206 chopper is easy in forward movement in these conditions and are flying on reels.

However when something go wrong , things change ,this is when you need years of experience and training ,  we cannot compare the real thing with simulator in any way. We are only a bit more qualified  than someone never flown a simulator. There are simply too many factors involved in a flight to compare it with any game engine . 

Edited June 1, 2018 by LuseKofte

[Poochnboo]

23 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

Said no pilot ever! ?

You made me laugh!

[Tuesday]

4 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

Try a tail dragger in DCS sometime and lock the tail wheel. You'll notice they travel in a perfectly straight line. Now hop in your car and keep the steering wheel perfectly straight with a cross wind or a slanted road. You will quickly run off the road cause the car won't go straight despite the steering being set to go straight forwards. That's just one element of DCS's on rails ground handling. The whole thing is just too rigid. In the real world, tires and suspension flex a bit and surfaces aren't perfectly flat. BoX doesn't have anywhere near perfect ground handling, but lock the tail wheel here, power up and you'll slowly drift off course. That's how it's supposed to work. Nevermind the wheel sticking issues DCS has always had, though admittedly that's a lot less problematic in the modules.

 

Overall I think DCS does  jets well, but their engine is ill suited to prop aircraft and tail draggers in particular.

 

Edit: I should point out I haven't had any of the prop planes installed in over a year, but they went years without being updated prior to that, so I'd be surprised if this has changed any.

 

Sorry, but that is not correct.

 

When updates are applied, the Rudder Assist in the settings for each aircraft has a tendency to reset to 100% and must be returned back to 0%.  Otherwise, you will experience what you're describing.

 

 

[Guest deleted@30725]

Just rant, not news.

 

I really wish DCS had started a train of thought and finished it.

 

At the moment it's currently a bunch of planes with no cohesive binding.

 

FC3 is a set of similar era and equally matched aircraft that are fun to fly. This one aspect of DCS is probably the best part of DCS while the extra, complicated A10C fits a variety of theaters with it's night capability, ground attack and air to air abilities. A large learning curve and a modern pit makes this a deep and rewarding experience while buying into a plane that is useful in most sorties. Black shark is the helicopter equivalent. A rotary gun platform. Some planes like the corean jets are a lot of fun. The saber is a fantastic historical representation, but put into the mix of online and it pretty much has no use except for fighting its arch enemy. Modern jets go against interesting, ageing  relics with prop planes and some helicopters thrown in. The ai at the time of using DCS didn't use the same flight model so could survive massively unrealistic amounts of damage making for a non-fun experience, unless you fired a missile. Flying the huey was one of my favorite helicopter game experience ever, but without Vietnam this old beast feels lost, out of place. I'm being handed the keys to the museums piece and allowed to tear round the local countryside. But making vietnam would be a huge undertaking within itself requiring extra planes, units, etc. So can't see that being a thing or corea.

 

I wonder if beyond the clickable pits DCS is really worth buying into, at least for ww2. It could be the best helicopter sim, the best jet sim, maybe even the best ww2 sim, but the timeline is jumbled and it's certainly more sim than game. It can lack atmosphere and picking up invisible troops in the huey and dropping off real ones is plain jarring. The novelty of starting your own ww2 plane wears off after a while even if it's fun and the free frogfoot plane is as good as the A10a for ground attack.

 

DCS seems to try to do too much. It makes some of the most complicated, full real planes, but doesn't pad out the game aspect. What Il2 looses in plane modelling and detail it makes up in atmosphere, the feeling of actually being a pilot in your plane and really valuing your virtual pilots life. Dogfights are just as fun in Il2 as DCS. Spotting is a lot easier and I never miss my clickable pits in Il2, even if moving the mouse to press the virtual lever feels more normal than pressing a key.

 

I don't know why I'm triggered by the way DCS is being developed. It's just curious to see how this product is evolving. At times it feels like a technical 'look what we can do' experience. I just wish they would finish one train of thought, but it doesn't matter. There is no shortage of people willing to take the gamble on DCS so my rant is meaningless.

Edited June 1, 2018 by deleted@30725

[Lusekofte]

14 minutes ago, BFBunny said:

I really wish DCS had started a train of thought and finished it.

 

 

You put the words to one sentence , witch I have been looking for several years. I love a lot of aspects about DCS . But that is the most frustrating part. Well put sir

[DaveP63]

1 hour ago, BFBunny said:

I really wish DCS had started a train of thought and finished it...

 

 

 

Agree with the entire thing! Well said.

[Taxman]

2 hours ago, BFBunny said:

Just rant, not news.

 

I really wish DCS had started a train of thought and finished it.

 

 

You got that right.  With the release of the Hornet I wonder if WWII will ever get any love from DCS☹️ 

 

[CanadaOne]

The Hornet sells for $103Cdn.

 

Yeah... right. 

 

But I did just buy the Persian Gulf map ($66Cdn.) and am re-installing a fresh copy of DCS on my new 500GB SSD. Lotsa room for new DCS maps.