DCS

[WheelwrightPL]

This Friday they moved DCS 2.5 from Beta to a "Stable Release" which includes a big list of improvements ( https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2019-02-08_ReleaseUp ).

I am especially intrigued by the Viggen, I like its ruggedness and versatility, its design philosophy reminds me of a WW2 aircraft.

Can anybody confirm if the new DCS version is a marked improvement ?

[nirvi]

The DCS F-14 manual is now available as web-version:
http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/index.html

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

[AndyJWest]

Bought the Gazelle in the sale. My first landing didn't go entirely as planned. 

 

Once I'd sorted out the trim, put a bit of curve on the cyclic, figured out what the piece of string was for, and then taken a look at Chuck's guide*, it went a lot better. Flies very differently to the Huey, due to the stability augmentation system, and actually seems quite tame.  Weapons systems look complex though.

 

* Fly first and read the manual later, my motto for maximum excitement. For extra fun, find out what switches do by operating them in flight. Not recommended for big red handles, or anything with yellow diagonal stripes.

Edited February 13, 2019 by AndyJWest

[Boomotang]

I don't understand the apples and oranges comments. They're basically the only two combat flight sims out there, especially with good VR. Flying warbirds and modern jets are obviously way different, but there definitely is overlap in the two games, and when you step back and think of the broader picture (combat flight sims) there is a whole lot to compare. It's really helpful for people getting into this genre to have discussions where more experienced players can share the pros, cons, and differences of each without the drama. Knowing the differences in AI, campaigns, map details, graphics, control configuration, optimization, available planes, VR functionality, mission editing capabilities, etc. is far from useless. Not only does it show you where you might want to put your efforts, but it also gives you a good picture of what is available.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Boomotang

[JonRedcorn]

Click pits in ww2 planes are cool but they are super cool in modern jets, playing with the displays and dropping jdams on lasered targets at 25k is always fun.

 

I don't think it's necessary to have fun in a ww2 sim. I like both games and don't really care to compare them. Ones a study sim the others a combat sim.

[Wolf8312]

On 2/13/2019 at 8:56 PM, AndyJWest said:

Bought the Gazelle in the sale. My first landing didn't go entirely as planned. 

 

Once I'd sorted out the trim, put a bit of curve on the cyclic, figured out what the piece of string was for, and then taken a look at Chuck's guide*, it went a lot better. Flies very differently to the Huey, due to the stability augmentation system, and actually seems quite tame.  Weapons systems look complex though.

 

* Fly first and read the manual later, my motto for maximum excitement. For extra fun, find out what switches do by operating them in flight. Not recommended for big red handles, or anything with yellow diagonal stripes.

 

The hardest thing you will learn in the gazelle is how to get it into a stable hover! Learning the right seat weapons systems is a breeze. The HOT weapon system on the left is a little more difficult but mainly because it requires a stable hover! It did take me a while to learn that module to the point where I could participate in the campaign though, as navigation is also a factor. Worth learning though!

[AndyJWest]

2 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

The hardest thing you will learn in the gazelle is how to get it into a stable hover! 

...

 

Yeah, it seems a bit more tricky to hover than the Huey. Or maybe I just need more practice. I get the impression that the tendency to move bodily sideways with changes in yaw input is more pronounced, and if you aren't careful, you can end up overcorrecting this, which can get ugly quickly. I think that was what went wrong with my first landing.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I fly EuroCopter products in real life and find the Huey credible. The EC120 and AStar are a little twitchy and I've never flown a real Huey. That said, I'm pretty sceptical the Gazelle flys that way in real life. It's worse than our original A3, if you know what I mean. If it does, I'd want nothing to do with it and there are certainly better platforms for the modern military.

Edited February 19, 2019 by II/JG17_HerrMurf
fat fingered AC type

[9./JG27golani79]

Best helos in DCS for me are Mi-8 and Huey.

 

Haven't flown the BS that much but the Gazelle I like the least.

[AndyJWest]

I never really got on with the Black Shark, since I always seemed to be fighting the trimmer system. It probably works better with force feedback.

[nirvi]

 

[Danziger]

Anybody in the know about that Modern Air Combat title? There was a trailer teaser a long time ago saying release date was autumn 2018. Did someone forget to release it?

[Beazil]

6 minutes ago, Danziger said:

Anybody in the know about that Modern Air Combat title? There was a trailer teaser a long time ago saying release date was autumn 2018. Did someone forget to release it?

Information on this has been difficult to find.  Just the original announcement, and that's pretty much it.

[Royal_Flight]

7 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Information on this has been difficult to find.  Just the original announcement, and that's pretty much it.

 

Maybe someone realised what a mystifyingly pointless idea it was to try to sell existing DCS aircraft twice, minus their unique selling point, and pulled it. 

 

I hope so, anyway. 

[Alexmarine]

On 2/23/2019 at 1:49 AM, Royal_Flight said:

 

Maybe someone realised what a mystifyingly pointless idea it was to try to sell existing DCS aircraft twice, minus their unique selling point, and pulled it. 

 

This. Instead of that they should have chosen some modern jets that they know they can't fully make as full fidelity modules but only as FC3 quality modules. Would sell equally well between newcomers and people who already fly in DCS.

[Wolf8312]

On 2/23/2019 at 8:49 AM, Royal_Flight said:

 

Maybe someone realised what a mystifyingly pointless idea it was to try to sell existing DCS aircraft twice, minus their unique selling point, and pulled it. 

 

I hope so, anyway. 

 

Aw man not this again! If they were really trying to sell it twice, they would be targeting the customers that have already paid for it once, which obviously isn't the case. Do we really need to state for the millionth time why, and for what reason they wanted to make it?

[Rolling_Thunder]

23 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Aw man not this again! If they were really trying to sell it twice, they would be targeting the customers that have already paid for it once, which obviously isn't the case. Do we really need to state for the millionth time why, and for what reason they wanted to make it?

Yes you do.

If they put in a FC level AH-64, AH-1, a frikin Phantom they would sell many many more modules than stripping down existing modules. Not only would they capture new customers but existing ones, hell I have FC but if there was an Apache in MAC I would seriously consider it. Lets be honest a FC mig 21 is not going to sell as well as a FC apache. Even the most adamant ED supporter can agree with that.

[Beazil]

I actually don't support  paying $60 to $90 per plane for a glorified startup sequence and no real setting or coherent plane set, training module, or campaign.  I was looking forward to a unified control setup with FC level fidelity that would help to transition to the more in depth modules.  This was the main reason I was interested in the title.  

[DD_Arthur]

36 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

I actually don't support  paying $60 to $90 per plane for a glorified startup sequence and no real setting or coherent plane set, training module, or campaign.  I was looking forward to a unified control setup with FC level fidelity that would help to transition to the more in depth modules.  This was the main reason I was interested in the title.  

 

Understand completely. 

 

I'm looking forward to purchasing MAC....and hoping it actually happens.  As to the time scale?  Well it is DCS so it could be anytime from here to er,  eternity

[Royal_Flight]

2 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Aw man not this again! If they were really trying to sell it twice, they would be targeting the customers that have already paid for it once, which obviously isn't the case. Do we really need to state for the millionth time why, and for what reason they wanted to make it?

 

That’s part of the issue, they don’t seem to know who they are targeting. 

 

A big part part of the DCS appeal is the high-fidelity systems modelling, and the modern jets. 

 

If you’re interested in learning and using the avionics and systems then MAC offers you nothing, whether you’re an existing customer or not.

 

If you like modern jet aircraft and don’t mind the depth of systems or the learning curve, then MAC is just a simplified version of what’s already on sale. 

If clickpits are a deal-breaker there’s still FC3.

 

If you’re not a current DCS customer then the above points apply in reverse:

- if you aren’t interested in systems modelling then DCS may not be on your radar, or if it is it probably doesn’t appeal;

- if you aren’t interested in the plane set then you likely don’t care;

- if clickpits are a deal-breaker there’s still FC3.

 

ED then still has the problem of how to advertise this to new customers without coming across like they’ve taken the main aspect of their sim and arbitrarily removed it.

 

 

We know DCS’s biggest problem is incoherence - nothing fits together properly in any combination that makes the slightest bit of sense. Instead of doing anything at all to combat that, with MAC they’re now burning development time and effort in extending that incoherence into another dimension - now not only do aircraft not fit into each other’s locations or timelines, but they now also don’t even match in terms of systems modelling, which is reaching for a meta-level of random confusion, at least from a platform development perspective. 

 

 

DCS is crying out for aircraft that work together on a map where they have a plausible reason to be there.

I don’t imagine any great number of people have been clamouring for a version of DCS with fewer options - so who is the target audience supposed to be?

 

The ironic thing is, War Thunder has already started putting in jets with guided missiles, and given ED’s notoriously glacial pace of development there’s a chance that, by the time ED have taken a handful of interesting modules and stripped out the interactivity, War Thunder will have beaten them to it. 

 

/rant. I say this as someone who enjoys DCS - it’s just frustrating when it could be much better with a bit more thought. 

[Danziger]

Bought the Gulf of Persia map. 

[=WoVi=cercataa]

On 2/22/2019 at 5:53 PM, Danziger said:

Anybody in the know about that Modern Air Combat title? There was a trailer teaser a long time ago saying release date was autumn 2018. Did someone forget to release it?

 

It now seems it's gonna be a standalone game, instead of module like FC3.

The latest news is an interview with PC Pilot

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=228251&highlight=MAC

 

BTW, I'm quite new to DCS, and before starting I though the same about Nevada, but now I'm excited about making some red flag or aggresors campaigns, like real pilots do before going to the battlefront

 

On 2/25/2019 at 12:01 AM, Royal_Flight said:

/rant. I say this as someone who enjoys DCS - it’s just frustrating when it could be much better with a bit more thought. 

 

If you look at the previous article, you'll see they are spliting it in 2 layers:

• The simulation engine
• UI Layer
  • DCS: Access to everything
  • MAC: Everything simplified

If they do it well, it could bring a lot money from people looking for arcade gamming, but scared to play DCS.

 

In fact, you can already make DCS arcade, not only with FC3, if you look at the options: Cheat Controls, Simplified flight model, Game Avionics Mode, etc ...

Edited February 28, 2019 by =SFF=_cercataa

[dburne]

There is some new "eagerly awaited new Eagle Dynamics feature" 

coming in an update tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what it is.

[[PFR]Sarpalaxan]

Mig 19!!!

[LLv24_SukkaVR]

4 hours ago, dburne said:

There is some new "eagerly awaited new Eagle Dynamics feature" 

 coming in an update tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what it is.

 

Cows?

[Picchio]

New damage model. And cows.

[BOO]

9 hours ago, dburne said:

There is some new "eagerly awaited new Eagle Dynamics feature" 

coming in an update tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what it is.

With so many unfinished and unrealized things on the "eagerly anticipated" list, dangling carrots in front of an expectant and excitable crowd is a dangerous enterprise. As is dropping anything too big immediately before a weekend.

 

[Gambit21]

13 hours ago, LLv24_T_Sukkaa said:

 

Cows?

 

FFS let me tell you I'd take a cow simulator from ED if they would just provide a completed, fully realized cow release with appropriate pasture, cows, appropriate secondary farm animals,  food items, damage model.

 

Unfortunately we'd probably get a single cow species, a bus station map, and an AI Triceratops.

[Feathered_IV]

18 hours ago, dburne said:

There is some new "eagerly awaited new Eagle Dynamics feature" 

coming in an update tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what it is.

 

Instead of just clicking on the .exe, players will be able to start the game manually.  It will be thrilling.  

[Gambit21]

Manually compile the start up directory one file at a time...oh the immersion.

[LuftManu]

4 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Manually compile the start up directory one file at a time...oh the immersion.

That would surely go faster than the release of the F-14. It's like a horse giving birth at this point lol

[Danziger]

8 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

That would surely go faster than the release of the F-14. It's like a horse giving birth at this point lol

Wasn't it supposed to be released this month?

[LuftManu]

8 minutes ago, Danziger said:

Wasn't it supposed to be released this month?

Yes but the constant "It's about to come" since December has got many fed up

[Danziger]

1 minute ago, LF_Gallahad said:

Yes but the constant "It's about to come" since December has got many fed up

Yeah I bought it when it was posted on the webstore. I had seen video reviews of it from youtubers so I thought it was out. Boy was I wrong. That is the last thing I buy from Heatblur/Leatherneck/Magnitude3LLC that's for sure. They spend so much time and effort hyping up what they are working on that it probably is causing some of the delay. Then with the constant delays people get sick of looking at reviewers hyping it up even more while they still have to wait months and years past the stated release date.

[=WoVi=cercataa]

43 minutes ago, Danziger said:

Wasn't it supposed to be released this month?

 

It was this spring, so yes, the dealine must be the 21st of this month

[Feathered_IV]

2 hours ago, Danziger said:

Wasn't it supposed to be released this month?

 

I wonder how the P-47 is coming along.

 

 

[Brano]

Wake me up when Mi-24 and map of Afghanistan is released. If Dassault Mirage IIIC and Sinai-Suez canal map is released earlier, you can wake me up as well.

[LuftManu]

38 minutes ago, Brano said:

Wake me up when Mi-24 and map of Afghanistan is released. If Dassault Mirage IIIC and Sinai-Suez canal map is released earlier, you can wake me up as well.

Are you into crysleep?

[Urra]

1 hour ago, Brano said:

Wake me up when Mi-24 and map of Afghanistan is released. If Dassault Mirage IIIC and Sinai-Suez canal map is released earlier, you can wake me up as well.

Dreaming is cheaper option. Good call.