DCS

[Wulfen]

1 minute ago, =11=Herne said:

 

I'm not so sure. Take the spit for example, there were no two seat trainers. Pilots would basically learn to fly in bi planes, then get a bit of cockpit familiarisation, read the pilot handbook, but would basically have to get a feel for the aircraft through there own experience. I think pilots were going to front line units with only ten hours on type.

 

Basically if you can fly a tail dragger with no problems you should have no problems learning to fly a spit. I remember an american who flew spits on recon in the war saying that he had no problems with it in the air or on the ground. His unit just received the spits and they had to fly them with no type training.
 

I think I saw the same guy on youtube, great story,

 

 

I don`t know to be honest, just that they are more twitchy and temperamental in DCS vis-à-vis IL2.  Both enjoyable in their own right.

[ZachariasX]

21 minutes ago, Wulfen said:

As these planes weren`t exactly easy to master in real life, I have to accept that DCS sims are more realistic and definitely less flattering to a sim pilots ego

Are we back to the „more difficult is more realistic“ argument?

 

Although we have to keep in mind that using desktop sticks with no feedback whatsoever, one probably tends to be more twitchy on the stick as one would be with the long floor mounted control columns.

 

However what is clearly strange is the tendency of the DCS birds to wobble, to maintain a pendulum motion along pitch or yaw axis after a sudden input that is followed by centering the stick. In BoX, this got mended with updates resulting in a slightly different feel. Much better now IMHO.

 

But in my experience, no aircraft exhibits this wobbling motion, even when kicked hard with the rudder or with a hard jerking on the stick. Resulting oscillations are very slow, in the order of 1/s and they are damped quickly. Even planes that are neutral on the controls don‘t do this wobble. Giving yaw input makes the nose go left or right like a gun turret. There is no wobble. In more neutral aircraft the nose follows yaw farther and with less effort. But that is about it.

 

Now you can say that in thise powerful warbirds it is different because of XY, and maybe you‘re right. But by this spring I should know for sure.

 

Until then, I consider the wobble a sim engine artifact.

 

Also, I don‘t think of the DCS warbirds as particularly awesome. For ~50$ modules, that is just where the bar is today. They are pretty and have buttons in the cockpit to click. You can follow through the PN and your A/C will do as expected. But there is little extra systems modeling beneath the hood. E.g. with the Spitfire, it is impossible to overprime the engine. Whatever you do, it will result in fuel starvation requiring you to pump fuel pressure again. Also you cannot start your engine unless you put on contacts after the prop is turning. Things that are reasonable for cold starts should not be a condito sine qua non when the engine is warm and full of fuel.

 

For combat sims, thise birds may be top notch (and you pay top $ for them) but for payware sim aircraft they are not that special.

[Wulfen]

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Are we back to the „more difficult is more realistic“ argument?

 

Although we have to keep in mind that using desktop sticks with no feedback whatsoever, one probably tends to be more twitchy on the stick as one would be with the long floor mounted control columns.

 

However what is clearly strange is the tendency of the DCS birds to wobble, to maintain a pendulum motion along pitch or yaw axis after a sudden input that is followed by centering the stick. In BoX, this got mended with updates resulting in a slightly different feel. Much better now IMHO.

 

But in my experience, no aircraft exhibits this wobbling motion, even when kicked hard with the rudder or with a hard jerking on the stick. Resulting oscillations are very slow, in the order of 1/s and they are damped quickly. Even planes that are neutral on the controls don‘t do this wobble. Giving yaw input makes the nose go left or right like a gun turret. There is no wobble. In more neutral aircraft the nose follows yaw farther and with less effort. But that is about it.

 

Now you can say that in thise powerful warbirds it is different because of XY, and maybe you‘re right. But by this spring I should know for sure.

 

Until then, I consider the wobble a sim engine artifact.

 

Also, I don‘t think of the DCS warbirds as particularly awesome. For ~50$ modules, that is just where the bar is today. They are pretty and have buttons in the cockpit to click. You can follow through the PN and your A/C will do as expected. But there is little extra systems modeling beneath the hood. E.g. with the Spitfire, it is impossible to overprime the engine. Whatever you do, it will result in fuel starvation requiring you to pump fuel pressure again. Also you cannot start your engine unless you put on contacts after the prop is turning. Things that are reasonable for cold starts should not be a condito sine qua non when the engine is warm and full of fuel.

 

For combat sims, thise birds may be top notch (and you pay top $ for them) but for payware sim aircraft they are not that special.

As I said I don`t know to be honest, only the real pilots can deliver an appropriate judgement on what is the more realistic model. I agree with you on the price, I wouldn`t pay it and bought the warbirds and virtually the rest of the DCS modules at the 50% sale price or less, except for the F/A-18 & F-14. I have to say the F/A-18 is worth the price and knowing Heatblur I believe the F-14 will be worth the pre-order price. I have a problem with IL2 in relation to the price of the new collector aircraft at $20. It`s too expensive for what it delivers and in comparison to DCS modules on sale for ~$30 or less, and is way overpriced. I think $10 is a fair price for any collector plane especially on sale. I have all the IL2 stuff from BoS to TC & FC, plus all the collector planes, but I am not going to give $20 for the new one.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Wulfen

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Trim the Spit properly, predict its behavior and take-off is easy. P-51 for example is very easy to take-off. The hardest for me was D-9. I'm not a fan of concept of harder means more realisitc but I honestly dont feel DCS is that hard. It just requires you to feel and understand machine. Also, I dont have any wobble or pitch instability issues. Having a joystick instead of full length stick in the pit, there is a need to apply a fair amount of curvature and maybe a tiny bit of saturation. Once I've found a sweet spot, to me P-51 is a lot more stable any Il-2 fighter.

 

As for comparison to reality ... in reality pilot has a lot more feedback since you actually sit in cockpit, not see the cockpit projected on your monitor.

 

7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

For combat sims, thise birds may be top notch (and you pay top $ for them) but for payware sim aircraft they are not that special.

To be fair the only comparison that comes to my mind in this range of prices is P3D and FSX (with stuff produced by Milviz or A2A Simulations). Its still a 50 $ module, Im not sure what impression or speciality you are looking for. Real aircraft cost substantially more.  

[ZachariasX]

Just now, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

To be fair the only comparison that comes to my mind in this range of prices is P3D and FSX (with stuff produced by Milviz or A2A Simulations). Its still a 50 $ module, Im not sure what impression or speciality you are looking for. Real aircraft cost substantially more.  

That is what I‘m talking about, yes. I don‘t care much for the rest. Had too much of that 15 years ago.

 

And getting an hour on the real one is about exactly hundred times the price of the DCS Spit. And another multiple times more difficult to explain to your spouse.

[Herne]

3 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Trim the Spit properly, predict its behavior and take-off is easy. P-51 for example is very easy to take-off. The hardest for me was D-9. I'm not a fan of concept of harder means more realisitc but I honestly dont feel DCS is that hard. It just requires you to feel and understand machine. Also, I dont have any wobble or pitch instability issues. Having a joystick instead of full length stick in the pit, there is a need to apply a fair amount of curvature and maybe a tiny bit of saturation. Once I've found a sweet spot, to me P-51 is a lot more stable any Il-2 fighter.

 

As for comparison to reality ... in reality pilot has a lot more feedback since you actually sit in cockpit, not see the cockpit projected on your monitor.

 

To be fair the only comparison that comes to my mind in this range of prices is P3D and FSX (with stuff produced by Milviz or A2A Simulations). Its still a 50 $ module, Im not sure what impression or speciality you are looking for. Real aircraft cost substantially more.  

 

P51 handles really nice in the air, even without curves. I'm using an x55 hotas. 

Not that fond of the spit IX in DCS though. I had no problems with take off flying or landing, but found that trying to get the sight on a static ground target in the epsom campaign, was actually quite a bit more difficult than I felt it should be. I'm loathe to try curves, but might have try it and see if it helps me bond with it.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

X55 is really not a great stick. My brother used it for Huey flying so I;ve borrowed it a couple times. Not a pleasent experience for me.

Try Phils curves, this should help quite a lot:

 

I know Yo-yo explained somewhere on Ed forums why controls are so sensitive by default. I think he basically aimed to code control inputs as if you were using a stick of exact size as in specified aircraft. 1:1 copy sort of. And Spitfire in reality had a very sensitive elevator controls, with very short stick movement leading to stall. So coupled with joystick like X55, Cobra M5 or T16.000 it certainly must give a feeling of instability. 

[ZachariasX]

9 minutes ago, Wulfen said:

As I said I don`t know to be honest, only the real pilots can deliver an appropriate judgement on what is the more realistic model. I agree with you on the price, I wouldn`t pay it and bought the warbirds and virtually the rest of the DCS modules at the 50% sale price or less, except for the F/A-18 & F-14. I have to say the F/A-18 is worth the price and knowing Heatblur I believe the F-14 will be worth the pre-order price. I have a problem with IL2 in relation to the price of the new collector aircraft at $20. It`s too expensive for what it delivers and in comparison to DCS modules on sale for ~$30 or less, and is way overpriced. I think $10 is a fair price for any collector plane especially on sale. I have all the IL2 stuff from BoS to TC & FC, plus all the collector planes, but I am not going to give $20 for the new one.

I bought most of the DCS modules, mostly out of the sherr curiosity about learning the aircraft. Bottom line, they entertain my curiosity to be top investments. The WW2 birds less so, as I knew the planes at least in part, so it is more just starting up and flying and then all is as it should be minus some kinks that are a bit weird in my personal taste.

 

The F-86 is great fun, simple and rewarding to learn, same the Mig-15 and surprisingly the F-5. The F-18 is fantastic, although complicated enough that I‘m still nowhere with it. I also got the F-14 as it really looks promising. My biggest worry is not having the time to really learn them. But so far, these jets are top notch.

 

But for fragging, IMHO nothing beats BoX, especially in FC flavor.

 

The collectors planes are expensive compared to the rest, but seen in how much entertainment you get for thise 20$, they are great value. You can even teach the kids (or spouse) flying on the Po2. As you can put a machine gun on it, they‘ll love it too.

 

Besides, it is a bad feeling associated to opening the BoX hangar and not having all aircraft there.

[Lusekofte]

On what to compare, in my taste, PO 2 was reinventing GB series, I havent had the same feeling since I flew LAGG 3 when the game came out, to be honest I prefer P 51 in DCS before P 47 in this. I am really confused. I guess planes that make you feel the flight dynamics the most in GB series is my all time favorites. in some planes I personally do not get that. In DCS the lack of environment is something you take with the brand. Flying choppers there is quite opposite , the flight dynamics is wonderful then

[Wulfen]

8 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I bought most of the DCS modules, mostly out of the sherr curiosity about learning the aircraft. Bottom line, they entertain my curiosity to be top investments. The WW2 birds less so, as I knew the planes at least in part, so it is more just starting up and flying and then all is as it should be minus some kinks that are a bit weird in my personal taste.

 

The F-86 is great fun, simple and rewarding to learn, same the Mig-15 and surprisingly the F-5. The F-18 is fantastic, although complicated enough that I‘m still nowhere with it. I also got the F-14 as it really looks promising. My biggest worry is not having the time to really learn them. But so far, these jets are top notch.

 

But for fragging, IMHO nothing beats BoX, especially in FC flavor.

 

The collectors planes are expensive compared to the rest, but seen in how much entertainment you get for thise 20$, they are great value. You can even teach the kids (or spouse) flying on the Po2. As you can put a machine gun on it, they‘ll love it too.

 

Besides, it is a bad feeling associated to opening the BoX hangar and not having all aircraft there.

Yes with you on the Sabre, and both MiG`s, especially the 21 are great fun to fly. I find the Harrier a very versatile aircraft for A2G, I have to get stuck into the A-10C. The F/A-18 I find is relativity user friendly and extremely easy to fly with the fly by wire system. Even the trainers are quiet good especially the C-101CC with it`s ordnance choices. The heli`s I picked up in the bundle which was great value, and the MI-8 really is good fun mastering the startup with the bank of buttons and switches, with the Huey used for trimming the grass. I dip into to them as I fancy, but a dynamic campaign is badly needed and seems on the way. For the depth and complexity of the systems there is good value in DCS, but the WW2 planes are best got on sale, as the depth of systems is not there or could it be on that generation aircraft. DCS actually said their best profit to work involved margin comes from the WW2 warbirds, due to their lack of complexity, just compare a project like the F/A-18 or Heatblur`s F-14 to the Spitfire or P-51, and then look at their prices. DCS are seemingly getting into WW2 in a big way due to this factor with a range of aircraft such as the P-47 & Mosquito slated for 2019, as well as a new WW2 map. DCS could develop 2 or 3 WW2 birds in comparison to completing the F/A-18 and it`s subsystems. 

I agree, for the best WW2/battlefield feel IL2 has it nailed. It doesn`t need the clicky aspect for WW2 aircraft due to the lack of modern systems. Now if IL2 ventured into the jet era such as Korea, Vietnam etc. things might change, but I doubt it. 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Wulfen

[Lusekofte]

Med and KIA evac by night

Edited December 27, 2018 by LuseKofte

[Wulfen]

1 hour ago, LuseKofte said:

Med and KIA evac by night

Are they missions/campaign? I have all the campaigns, just haven`t done the MI-8 ones yet. Too busy messing with the mission creator myself.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Wulfen

[Lusekofte]

Yes spring Tension campaign   Wonderful mix og missions

[Lusekofte]

Deploying troops up in the mountains, hard mission heavy heli and high altitude make mistakes costly when attempting to land

[Monostripezebra]

IT`S CHRISTMAS AGAIN!!

 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Monostripezebra

[Danziger]

Hmm...

CE2 or F14? 

[Monostripezebra]

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Monostripezebra

[dburne]

Interesting news today about the new upcoming MAC product.

Going to have 4 maps and 14 aircraft  initially, along with entirely new interface and redesigned mission generator.

Slated for 2019 release.

 

[wowbagger]

I hope that's a general release mission editor and it spurs a flurry of user made missions.

 

It would be great if ED can find a way to update the game without breaking missions so easily. They have adopted a strange strategy of not making copious amounts of campaigns available, even though admitting the vast majority of buyers are single players. If I were a developer, I'd hire some talent to put out a new campaign at least every year for all of my modules. Personally, when I have bought modules, the main decider was the amount and quality of the campaigns available. Razam made a smart move grabbing the services of Baltic Dragon. And I own the Mirage and now the Harrier almost solely because of that fact. During the latest sale, and against my better judgement, I grabbed the Mig-15, only because the Museum Relic campaign gets so much praise.

 

I hope the Viggen and F-14 campaigns are of great quality.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Pudu

[Danziger]

Has M3 said what kind of campaigns will be coming with the CE2?

[Bremspropeller]

A Night Witches campaign possibly? ?

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Just flying the Spitfire..

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by LLv34_Flanker

[Sokol1]

Yak-52 "cross country".

 

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

On ‎12‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:50 PM, dburne said:

Interesting news today about the new upcoming MAC product.

Going to have 4 maps and 14 aircraft  initially, along with entirely new interface and redesigned mission generator.

Slated for 2019 release.

 

 

what is MAC? Do you have a link?

[dburne]

21 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

what is MAC? Do you have a link?

DCS Modern Air Combat.

New upcoming separate product from ED, simplified cockpits and a new single player/multiplayer environment.

Initially with 4 maps and 14 aircraft I believe. And new Mission Generator.

 

Trailer:

 

Edited January 3, 2019 by dburne

[II./JG77_Manu*]

21 minutes ago, dburne said:

DCS Modern Air Combat.

New upcoming separate product from ED, simplified cockpits and a new single player/multiplayer environment.

Initially with 4 maps and 14 aircraft I believe. And new Mission Generator.

 

Trailer:

 

 

Thanks for that. I just checked an article because I can't watch vids right now, it doesn't look that special there: 

https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/13/17570028/modern-air-combat-eagle-dynamics-announcement-price-release-date

 

According to the article only maps and aircraft we already have, probably sold with simplified mechanics and as a pack. I don't see what it will change in the current clutterfest of DCS. Now if they would include as 4 maps Korea, Vietnam, Gulf region and Central Europe (for a fictional hot cold war) and 14 respective aircraft that fought there, it would be a real story (comparable to new theatres for IL2 Great Battles being announced). But this Mac seems really nothing new...

[dburne]

23 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Thanks for that. I just checked an article because I can't watch vids right now, it doesn't look that special there: 

https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/13/17570028/modern-air-combat-eagle-dynamics-announcement-price-release-date

 

According to the article only maps and aircraft we already have, probably sold with simplified mechanics and as a pack. I don't see what it will change in the current clutterfest of DCS. Now if they would include as 4 maps Korea, Vietnam, Gulf region and Central Europe (for a fictional hot cold war) and 14 respective aircraft that fought there, it would be a real story (comparable to new theatres for IL2 Great Battles being announced). But this Mac seems really nothing new...

 

I think the big difference is in the more the simplified cockpits. Not quite as much to learn there, hence a much lower learning curve over the complex aircraft cockpits of DCS.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

13 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

I think the big difference is in the more the simplified cockpits. Not quite as much to learn there, hence a much lower learning curve over the complex aircraft cockpits of DCS.

 

I don't know to be honest. I own both FC3 aircraft and full fidelity models. I don't think it is easier to fly FC3 aircraft combat effective then full fidelity models. Well, you have to learn the start-up procedure, but in flight more often then not I find it easier to fly the full fidelity aircraft, because you don't have to remember tons of buttons you set to your Hotas (and which are different for every model / heli), but only have to remember where the buttons are in the aircraft cockpit, which is a lot easier at least with my mind (and in VR). 

[DD_Arthur]

I'm looking forward to MAC very much in the fall of 2018 lol.

 

Oh well, DCS.........

[wowbagger]

2 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I don't know to be honest. I own both FC3 aircraft and full fidelity models. I don't think it is easier to fly FC3 aircraft combat effective then full fidelity models. Well, you have to learn the start-up procedure, but in flight more often then not I find it easier to fly the full fidelity aircraft, because you don't have to remember tons of buttons you set to your Hotas (and which are different for every model / heli), but only have to remember where the buttons are in the aircraft cockpit, which is a lot easier at least with my mind (and in VR). 

 

 

Yes, having buttons you can see and push is much easier than committing arbitrary keystrokes to memory.

 

Also, 9 times out of 10 I use autostart in the full fidelity models because the fun for me is flying and enjoying the world, not staring at buttons and MFDs while sitting in the hangar.

[Wulfen]

3 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

I don't know to be honest. I own both FC3 aircraft and full fidelity models. I don't think it is easier to fly FC3 aircraft combat effective then full fidelity models. Well, you have to learn the start-up procedure, but in flight more often then not I find it easier to fly the full fidelity aircraft, because you don't have to remember tons of buttons you set to your Hotas (and which are different for every model / heli), but only have to remember where the buttons are in the aircraft cockpit, which is a lot easier at least with my mind (and in VR). 

I agree, the full fidelity models are more straight forward to navigate due to the clickability of their cockpits. Once you know your aircraft's layout, then it`s a non issue. Saying that, MAC is for new entrants to the franchise and is welcome, giving people the option to choose what suits them best.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Wulfen

[Jaws2002]

Another reheated  DCS meal. 

This guys sold the same thing a thousand times.   

Now, the new graphics engine looks really good, but, man, do the like to sell the same damn planes over and over.

 

I'm not surprised. We live in a dark era of flight sims development.

[wowbagger]

B         

F

 

1

0

9

 

?

 

 

(Just kidding)

 

 

 

(No, I'm not.)

[Wulfen]

19 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

Another reheated  DCS meal. 

This guys sold the same thing a thousand times.   

Now, the new graphics engine looks really good, but, man, do the like to sell the same damn planes over and over.

 

I'm not surprised. We live in a dark era of flight sims development.

If you have the full fidelity modules already, then I see no reason to buy it. So the point is a bit moot. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Wulfen

[Wolf8312]

On 12/28/2018 at 1:21 AM, LuseKofte said:

On what to compare, in my taste, PO 2 was reinventing GB series, I havent had the same feeling since I flew LAGG 3 when the game came out, to be honest I prefer P 51 in DCS before P 47 in this. I am really confused. I guess planes that make you feel the flight dynamics the most in GB series is my all time favorites. in some planes I personally do not get that. In DCS the lack of environment is something you take with the brand. Flying choppers there is quite opposite , the flight dynamics is wonderful then

 

Yeah in VR too the chopper experience is close to perfect. Try flying the hero campaign in VR! You have to fly out to three different oil rigs in terrible weather conditions. Fantastic VR experience, and unlike the WW2 side of things where the best I can hope for are my own shoddy missions, the missions in the campaigns are polished and proffesional and utterly ooze atmosphere. Feels so close to the real thing some times. At one point out over the icy ocean I nearly lost control of the AC and down to a watery grave. I actually felt a sense of the panic and confusion for a moment, and the relief when I recovered was delicious!

 

On 1/4/2019 at 4:10 AM, Jaws2002 said:

Another reheated  DCS meal. 

This guys sold the same thing a thousand times.   

Now, the new graphics engine looks really good, but, man, do the like to sell the same damn planes over and over.

 

I'm not surprised. We live in a dark era of flight sims development.

 

You haven't been buying the same module over and over again have you? Cause to be fair if so, that would kinda be your fault! ?

 

They're just trying to attract a bigger market for players who don't want the overwheming complexity of DCS and something more accessible. More players, means more money, more money means more development.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Wolf8312

[sevenless]

Quote

 

P-47D Thunderbolt, DCS: de Havilland Mosquito FB Mk.VI, and DCS: Fw 190 A-8 Shrike

These three aircraft are well underway and we plan to release one or more in 2019. With the addition of the new damage model, dynamic campaign, new World War II maps, and more units added to the World War II Assets Pack like the Ju-88, Bf 109G, C-47, A-20G, and others, DCS World War II will continue to grow and bring great new gameplay!

 

 

From the Weekend News. That dynamic Campaign mode and the other WW2 map would be interesting to see.

 

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, Wolf8312 said:

You haven't been buying the same module over and over again have you? Cause to be fair if so, that would kinda be your fault! ?

 

They're just trying to attract a bigger market for players who don't want the overwheming complexity of DCS and something more accessible. More players, means more money, more money means more development.

 

 

No I haven't. They just make new versions of the game and bring back the same planes over and over.

 First was Lock On, then came Flaming Cliffs (same planes just a bit more advanced), then came DCS, then FC2, Then Black shark 2, then new versions of everything, and so on. Some of the planes are there since 2000. 

They should have started fresh at some point instead of carrying a bunch of archaic parts of this game from installment to installment. 

I mean, just look at the way they use skins in DCS. It's such a retarded obsolete way to deal with paint schemes, yet it's still used since the early days of Lock On.

  Maybe that's why the game is a hundred gigs. 

 

Edit..

 

And btw, some of the planes you had to buy again, if you wanted to use them in the new version of the game. Look at the Black shark. It was the first thing released in DCS, so it's not a ported plane from Lock On. You can't use the original plane in the current DCS. You have to buy it a second time... I liked that one, but I'm not buying the same plane again, just because they tweaked the graphics in the game.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Jaws2002

[nirvi]

 

[Trooper117]

I'll never buy the thing, but visually it looks great 

[Danziger]

I think MAC is made more for people like me. I don't have a lot of free time to spend on games but I love to blow off steam in flight sims. I've been using most of my free playing time working on my MiG-3 project so that is even less flying time for me. Lately I don't even have the stick connected and use the mouse aim function flying QMB missions to check my textures. I'll usually get distracted for a bit and blow some stuff up. 

 

 

Being able to jump into a jet for a quick 20-30min mission after work before the kid gets home sounds fun.