DCS

[Lusekofte]

5 minutes ago, Danziger said:

I am not showing you anything. Maybe you don't understand? I was just trying to understand why someone would waste time here if they dislike IL*2.

Lack of interest not dislike , mostly because I only flown one campaign I liked (sea Dragons. Seems to me that campaign stretched the AI to its limits, a tad more and they go bananas. And MP simply do not appeal. I am waiting to the original planned follower Pacific. The only reason I still buy and I bought a lot. 

I like free flying in BOX, just for the flight, but atm I am more into choppers. 

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

 

I only flown choppers on cruisers and they are ghost ships, I almost miss those zombies walking in circles in BOX. good animation on humans are not the strength of DCS

 

Thanks - actually I wasn't even thinking of or expecting human animations, but other aircraft at least.

[Wolf8312]

3 hours ago, Danziger said:

So why constantly hang out on the forum of a game you don't like? 

 

Cause the IL-2 forums are much better/quicker, than the DCS forums, but whether you like DCS or BOX most, the two games/sims are at the end of the day, essentially identical. Great flightsims, that are far from perfect in very different ways. The topic being dicussed on both forums is exactly the same. Oh and because the DCS forums are like playing postal chess with a mummy...

Edited August 4, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Blooddawn1942]

More Yak-52 fun ?

 

[Monostripezebra]

Now with the latest patches and the revised trains on PG trainlandings have become possible for the huey:

 

 

Off course, this is just a further step in DCS: Tunnel Science to prove the existence of weird levitational underground effects that only occur on some modules like the Viggen, Huey and F5

https://www.reddit.com/r/floggit/comments/94rfu7/dcs_science_proving_levitation_tunnel_forces/

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Monostripezebra

[Rolling_Thunder]

On 8/4/2018 at 9:24 AM, LuseKofte said:

I say the same as PO 2 in this game, but lack of interest might be a obstacle for you

The PO 2 is relevant to what the BoX franchise is. This yak in a way is relevant to DCSs hodge podge uncoordinated mess of modules. it fits because it doesn't fit. There is a clear opening for DCS to expand it's WW2 modules. Why not Do a North Africa?  DCS likes it's deserts, SoH, NTTR. Way better performance than Normandy. We know BoX isn't doing Africa because of TF. If ED threw together a North Africa scenario I'm certain it would sell. It's one of the most requested theaters in the BoX polls. Hell I'd buy it and I'm very reluctant to give any more money to those clowns. They have the carrier tech. put in a WW2 carrier, seafires, sea hurricanes, wildcats/martlets. A couple of Italians, Some medium bombers. Make it FC level FFS it would sell. This yak along with the upcoming watered down MAC seems utterly pointless from a financial point of view.

[ZachariasX]

54 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

This yak along with the upcoming watered down MAC seems utterly pointless from a financial point of view

This Yak is in DCS because someone wanted it and paid ED in full. (And let ED sell it afterwards as well...)

[Dakpilot]

Most of DCS seems to be primarily from their commercial/military contract side and re purposed/hashed into a mainstream (combat?) flight sim, probably why it all seems so haphazard, excepting the 'still born' WW2 project which could not support itself on its own. 

For flight schools and owners of Yak-52 I imagine this module very useful, procedural training in VR must be quite cool. Wish that tech and the Mil-8 module had been available when I did that training/rating

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

The PO 2 is relevant to what the BoX franchise is. This yak in a way is relevant to DCSs hodge podge uncoordinated mess of modules.

 

Yes I agree the selections of planes is a mess, But still there are some I am very happy for.  Yak is one of them. I had a lot of flight time in it this 2 days relative to time available. And I can see many is happy with it, so I do not think this plane was a bad choice . For me a T 6 Texan or Harvard if you will would have been a better choice, Or a T 28. But like BOX not everything  gets your way. As I said before I am glad the PO 2 coming here , but I think it is more or less a novelty. aa and aaa with radar accuracy night and day will murder them. Still for me it will be a new favorite offline

[Tuesday]

2 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

The PO 2 is relevant to what the BoX franchise is. This yak in a way is relevant to DCSs hodge podge uncoordinated mess of modules. it fits because it doesn't fit. There is a clear opening for DCS to expand it's WW2 modules. Why not Do a North Africa?  DCS likes it's deserts, SoH, NTTR. Way better performance than Normandy. We know BoX isn't doing Africa because of TF. If ED threw together a North Africa scenario I'm certain it would sell. It's one of the most requested theaters in the BoX polls. Hell I'd buy it and I'm very reluctant to give any more money to those clowns. They have the carrier tech. put in a WW2 carrier, seafires, sea hurricanes, wildcats/martlets. A couple of Italians, Some medium bombers. Make it FC level FFS it would sell. This yak along with the upcoming watered down MAC seems utterly pointless from a financial point of view.

 

The Yak was made because they had a private contract to build it anyway; so why not sell what they've already done and made?  Can be used by the hardcore guys for training, and for recon / transport missions in MP servers like Blueflag.  The recon and transport missions I've found to be some of the more intense and rewarding ones, trying to sneak into FARPs or airbases under attack is not easy.

 

The North Africa idea is good and I agree with that.

 

Not sure why MAC is utterly pointless, they are trying to follow suit with IL-2 and release a package of aircraft. 

[Gambit21]

So...the carrier is always a barren, clear deck then?

No parked aircraft etc?

[Tuesday]

The mission builder is responsible to populate the carrier as they see fit.  ED is working on making an active deck crew that may interact with start up, take offs, and landings. 

 

There are carrier-based aircraft available in the mission editor in order to populate the deck (wings folded, etc.).  Anytime you see a clear deck it's likely the MB didn't want to take the time to do it, or forgot about it.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

57 minutes ago, Tuesday said:

The mission builder is responsible to populate the carrier as they see fit.  ED is working on making an active deck crew that may interact with start up, take offs, and landings. 

 

There are carrier-based aircraft available in the mission editor in order to populate the deck (wings folded, etc.).  Anytime you see a clear deck it's likely the MB didn't want to take the time to do it, or forgot about it.

Yep.

From MagzTV's Discord community:

Edited August 5, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Hoss]

That's what it should look like............. 

 

[Sokol1]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

So...the carrier is always a barren, clear deck then?

No parked aircraft etc?

 

Well, if a unimaginative mission builder just set a carrier and Yak-52, is what he get. 

 

 

[Wolf8312]

5 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

The PO 2 is relevant to what the BoX franchise is. This yak in a way is relevant to DCSs hodge podge uncoordinated mess of modules. it fits because it doesn't fit. There is a clear opening for DCS to expand it's WW2 modules. Why not Do a North Africa?

 

 

 I would like that too.

 

The yak is in because regardless of the setting, or terrain, many DCS customers pay primarily in order to own a realistic and fully functioning simulation of a yak. The most important thing to them are the modules and everything else is just peripheral or a bonus.

 

But to be honest in regards to the terrains and scenarios I don’t know why people don’t just use their imagination. When I fly WW2/DCS Caucasus, gulf or Nevada, I still tell myself I am in a world war 2 scenario as I just imagine it as a different place or obscure scenario! Good advice for flight sims and life in general is you’ll enjoy it more if you don’t think too much about it!

 

 In Normandy I don’t lose sleep over flying a certain plane in a slightly wrong time period, cause if I started worrying about problems like that I’d also have to start worrying that the graphics are not perfect, or the fact that really I am just playing a game.

 

Remember too, dogfights in a modern, sky scrapered metropolis are really fun, as thanks to the huge towers you get a greater feeling of speed, and you can weave in and out of buildings to escape bringing a whole new dynamic, and level of fun to the experience. 

 

But seriously DCS is supposed to be a hodge podge of uncoordinated modules because that’s why people love it. As where else does a game give you the ability to fly a realistic simulation of a jet, a helicopter, or World War Two planes?

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Wolf8312

[Gambit21]

2 hours ago, Sokol1 said:

 

Well, if a unimaginative mission builder just set a carrier and Yak-52, is what he get. 

 

 

 

I’ve yet to see a screen shot of anything remotely imaginative then. Maybe I just missed it?

[LukeFF]

11 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

But seriously DCS is supposed to be a hodge podge of uncoordinated modules because that’s why people love it.

 

That's a scary thought.

[Gambit21]

18 hours ago, Tuesday said:

The mission builder is responsible to populate the carrier as they see fit.  ED is working on making an active deck crew that may interact with start up, take offs, and landings. 

 

There are carrier-based aircraft available in the mission editor in order to populate the deck (wings folded, etc.).  Anytime you see a clear deck it's likely the MB didn't want to take the time to do it, or forgot about it.

 

OK - thanks. That's good to know at least.

I expected to see shots similar to the photo Hoss posted but haven't seen a one.

 

I don't have time to build campaigns for DCS, otherwise shots like above are exactly what you'd be seeing.

 

 

[Lusekofte]

Well I flown the Yak 52 a lot more, and I simply cannot praise it enough. This plane is actually in the price range of a Cessna and act like a war bird. 

Well buying it, not counting the oil consumption of a radial. But these planes fly today , and operators of them is not more wealthy than me. 

I can really relate to the possibility that I could fly this in real life, and it is something sobering about that fact.

Splendid physics and modeling, I compare it with the Huey and MI 8 in quality, I do not think it could possible be better

[Royal_Flight]

What DCS really needs is someone sitting at the top, setting the direction.

Deciding what to focus on, directing the development of maps, modules and assets so they’re coherent, and corralling the third-party teams so they’re all pulling in the same direction.

 

Then DCS would be brilliant. 

[Rolling_Thunder]

47 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

What DCS really needs is someone sitting at the top, setting the direction.

Deciding what to focus on, directing the development of maps, modules and assets so they’re coherent, and corralling the third-party teams so they’re all pulling in the same direction.

 

Then DCS would be brilliant. 

Yeah. If that was my company I would have fired wags a loooooooong time ago.

[Gambit21]

51 minutes ago, Royal_Flight said:

What DCS really needs is someone sitting at the top, setting the direction.

Deciding what to focus on, directing the development of maps, modules and assets so they’re coherent, and corralling the third-party teams so they’re all pulling in the same direction.

 

Then DCS would be brilliant. 

 

Yep - it's a shame really...or a sham?

[dburne]

DCS is quite good in what it excels at - more modern day jet fighter aircraft and choppers.

The F/A 18-C is a true work of art, even in the early access period. The KA-50 Black Shark is an incredible fighting machine. I've many hours logged in the KA-50, still in the learning stages of trying to get my arms wrapped around the F/A-18C. Getting pretty decent at the carrier landings, which is quite the rush.

 

IL-2 and DCS are two totally different animals, and they each are very good in what they do. IL-2 excels in WWII and  WWI combat, and the level of single player actions far exceeds that of DCS . I spend the bulk of my time in IL-2, but do enjoy DCS when I can also.

 

I honestly see no reason to be harsh with either sim. 

[Gambit21]

DCS should have picked a direction and carried it through...that's the point Royal Flight was making.

Modern day jets and choppers? Great, then that's what they should have had the 3rd party developers working on, not Korean War aircraft with no Korea, Vietnam aircraft with no Vietnam, and an incoherent WWII effort. That's the point...everyone pulling in the same direction as he said, and DCS would have been brilliant.

 

 

I say that as I guy who bought the Dora in good faith back in the day.

[BeastyBaiter]

There aren't any Vietnam era aircraft in DCS. The oldest planes in the game (post Korea) are from the mid 1970's and remain in widespread service today. I agree that the Korean War and WW2 stuff has been a waste of time though.

Edited August 7, 2018 by BeastyBaiter

[JG5_Zesphr]

The ww2 stuff was needed on a business level due to their partnership with the flying heritage collection 

[dburne]

WWII stuff.

Originally was a partnership between RRG Studios ( the guy who headed up Pacific Fighters - Luthier), and DCS. All development was to be done by RRG. It would have been a totally separate game from DCS.  They ran a Kickstarter Campaign to determine the level they would develop it to - I was in on the Kickstarter.

RRG crashed and burned, and Eagle Dynamics went ahead and picked up the pieces and saw it through mainly for all the Kickstarters that had already given a lot of money to the project.

Hence we have DCS WWII.

 

Due to my contribution I received all the WWII stuff - I have enjoyed the Spit somewhat and the pay-ware Campaign for it is pretty amazing. But I use IL-2 Great Battles for all my WWII single player action. IL-2's content for single player can't be touched.

 

[Herne]

On 8/5/2018 at 11:14 PM, Wolf8312 said:

 

 

 

But to be honest in regards to the terrains and scenarios I don’t know why people don’t just use their imagination. When I fly WW2/DCS Caucasus, gulf or Nevada, I still tell myself I am in a world war 2 scenario as I just imagine it as a different place or obscure scenario! Good advice for flight sims and life in general is you’ll enjoy it more if you don’t think too much about it!

 

 

 

 

I was actually really impressed with the DCS "quick mission builder" not played it for a while but I think it just drops you in what feels like an ongoing battle. I was flying i p51 but was going up against all sorts of modern stuff.

This inspired me to buy the Normandy pack and ww2 asset pack, which I had hoped would allow the quick mission builder to use assets of the period. Sadly I was mistaken. I hope they get round to making something like that though, because I think it could have so much replayability, and be a lot of fun.

[dburne]

14 minutes ago, =FEW=Herne said:

 

I was actually really impressed with the DCS "quick mission builder" not played it for a while but I think it just drops you in what feels like an ongoing battle. I was flying i p51 but was going up against all sorts of modern stuff.

This inspired me to buy the Normandy pack and ww2 asset pack, which I had hoped would allow the quick mission builder to use assets of the period. Sadly I was mistaken. I hope they get round to making something like that though, because I think it could have so much replayability, and be a lot of fun.

 

Yeah me too, can't really get a time specific period in the quick mission builder - they really need to add that functionality. 

[Monostripezebra]

Meanwhile, swedish carrierexperiments carry on..

 

Edited August 7, 2018 by Monostripezebra

[Gambit21]

On August 5, 2018 at 6:19 PM, Gambit21 said:

 

I’ve yet to see a screen shot of anything remotely imaginative then. Maybe I just missed it?

 

Quoting myself because somehow I missed Etendard's carrier screenie above - must not have loaded fast enough on my device the first time around. Anyway, great shot! Thanks for posting - that's what I'm talking about.

[Lusekofte]

Personally I think ED is busy with government stuff and are really not that dependent on income from DCS . They got a pretty large group of volunteer fanatics to run the site (my impression) I am not active there, so it might be a rumor. 

So the problem is those delivering products and they make modules they are allowed to do and people want to pay for. 

Personally I have absolutely no interest in the P 51, 109 and Dora, Not the Spitfire either, I am in for the jet modules and in special choppers. We are not so many dedicated chopper pilots, but the Jet is the majority. If I want to fly ww2 combat sim. For the combat sim sake I fly BOX or COD. because it is better CFS experience. If I want a complex flight in a WW2  plane I fly DCS , It offer a lot more to handle. I think you are theoretically capable to operate the weapon system on a A 10 after some years flying that sim. But I cannot confirm it, they say you are in for a lot more complexity flying Falcon BMS . Many years ahead you still learn. And I consider taking it on if time permits. I feel pretty fortunate having the possibility to fly all this, not long ago I believed our genre was dying

[Rolling_Thunder]

10 hours ago, dburne said:

WWII stuff.

Originally was a partnership between RRG Studios ( the guy who headed up Pacific Fighters - Luthier), and DCS. All development was to be done by RRG. It would have been a totally separate game from DCS.  They ran a Kickstarter Campaign to determine the level they would develop it to - I was in on the Kickstarter.

RRG crashed and burned, and Eagle Dynamics went ahead and picked up the pieces

There is zero official word on what happened to RRG. We don't know if they crashed and burned. If there has been any official word on what happened please link. Otherwise you're just circulating rumors.

 

[-332FG-Gordon200]

 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

8 hours ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

There is zero official word on what happened to RRG. We don't know if they crashed and burned. If there has been any official word on what happened please link. Otherwise you're just circulating rumors.

 

Actually, there is official word on what happened. They spent all the money but only got a small fraction of the work done, then became unresponsive towards both ED and forum backers, and in the end ED footed the bill and took over development to avoid having to refund 150k that someone else had spent.

 

See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824

[Aap]

Even if Luthier was declared as the main culprit of the stuff happening around DCS: WWII Europe 1944, the way how ED handled it was also kind of unbelievable.

Luthier said on Kickstarter that the entire project was to be funded internally and the kickstarter money was to be used only for extra testing and polishing the game.

So,  in this official announcement ED said that: "Where the other funding was coming from was undisclosed." ED knew that $150,000 would be enough to fund maybe one aircraft, but since Luthier said that he was able to fund this project otherwise, without telling how he intends to do it, and ED said, sure, go ahead and market it as a DCS mega-project?

 

So, let's imagine that I was just coming off a heavily overspent project that had been released with tons of bugs (let's call it CloD) and contacted Jason with my great idea: "Hey man, I was thinking that I could take your IL2 Great Battles series to a whole new theater - Vietnam. I will fund it internally, unfortunately I can't disclose it to you how, and will release it for free. Surely you have nothing against it, if I ran a Kickstarter with "IL2 Sturmovik Great Battles" name to attract people to put money into it?" What reply, if any, would you expect from Jason?

 

When things went south, the way Sithspawn was taunting the backers was also quite unbelievable. Wags at least had the sense to handle it so that majority of the backers were satisfied with the outcome. 

 

[Rolling_Thunder]

17 hours ago, 216th_Lucas_From_Hell said:

Actually, there is official word on what happened. They spent all the money but only got a small fraction of the work done, then became unresponsive towards both ED and forum backers, and in the end ED footed the bill and took over development to avoid having to refund 150k that someone else had spent.

 

See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824

Actually if you read the kickstarter it lists the project as

"The project is a joint venture between RRG Studios and Eagle Dynamics. "

it then lists the TEAM

RRG Studios

Eagle Dynamics

The Fighter Collection

Oleg Maddox

Ilya Shevchenko

Igor Tishin

Then it lists the PLAN

100% of the funds received will go towards the project. 

The money being raised is only a portion of the development budget. The majority of the programming, some aircraft art, and more, are the costs that the team is funding internally. 

Let me repeat "the cost that the TEAM is funding internally.

In case you missed it. The TEAM includes Eagle Dynamics.

Lets talk about unresponsive. Eagle dynamics have given no word on the 262. They have given a poor excuse for the stalled P47. 

The link you posted is sithspins damage control.

When the project went tits up wags stated that the topic of why RRG was no longer managing the project was not up for discussion and gave no official reason why. There still is no official word why and there never will be. 

 

THIS is the official word

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125454

Which also highlights my point above with this line

The vast majority of funds needed to finance this project have and will continue to come from Eagle Dynamics (not Kickstarter)

Edited August 9, 2018 by Rolling_Thunder
missing link

[dburne]

Good grief, a hell of a lot of stuff changed since that original Kickstarter. At least us backers got something for our money.

It's over. It's done. It's history.

 

I personally like Jason's comparisons with DCS in his recent interview with Froogle. Very professional and respectful.

Starts about the 32:30 mark.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by dburne

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

On 8/8/2018 at 3:25 AM, 216th_Lucas_From_Hell said:

Actually, there is official word on what happened. They spent all the money but only got a small fraction of the work done, then became unresponsive towards both ED and forum backers, and in the end ED footed the bill and took over development to avoid having to refund 150k that someone else had spent.

 

See here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824

 

[Edited] PR spin - cute.

Don't do that here.

 

Not an actual indication of anything that actually happened.

 

I love that [Edited] finally chose to change his name - too bad he'll never truly escape from all of the terrible, disenfranchising "PR" (public relations or public reprimand? Guess that's up to the reader...) he spent years pissing in to people's face.

 

On 8/8/2018 at 8:11 PM, dburne said:

Good grief, a hell of a lot of stuff changed since that original Kickstarter.

 

-snip-

 

Ummm... Not really... Still a lot of overselling, under delivering or genuinely avoiding the subject altogether.

 

Sucks they stepped in Luthier's turd but hey... It's not my business.

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Bearcat
PM Sent