WW2 multiplayer preferences?

Hi everyone,

Since DOW is going away for public play, and at least part of the reason seems to be lack of attendance, I was wondering what kind of play our community is actually looking for. When DOW was fairly new I flew there frequently, but I stopped attending as the server progressed and changed away from my preferences. I'm usually the 100% realism guy in other sims, but in DCS you just can't see s*** (so glad this will change in 2.0), so I'm prepared to make compromises.

Anyway, I sometimes run dogfight maps with aircraft visible on the map, and sometimes the f5 view allowed, too. There are no fancy objectives because the point is just to have dogfight practice, and my opinion is that with so few people online there isn't much point in running larger maps with objectives. That kind of play requires a critical mass of players which we've never had.

So, what are your preferences when it is unlikely that more than 8 people will be on a map?

Startup options: always cold start / options for engine running starts / options for air starts

Map Settings: no aircraft icons / only your aircraft / fog of war enabled / all aircraft visible

visibility aids: no aids / f5 view / icons

Required time to find combat: 1 minute / 5 minutes / 10 minutes / 15 minutes / no guarantee of combat

Objectives: none, just air combat / simple objectives that require ground attack / complicated objectives that require some kind of logical sequence to accomplish

Weather: good flying weather / mild crosswinds or clouds / inclement weather

AI aircraft: no AI, ever! / a few AI aircraft / many AI aircraft

TS availability: not interested / optional / must have

----------------

Can you think of others? There are enough of us for there to be reliable online air combat, but very few are actually willing to be the first one into an empty server. I sometimes run my maps for an hour or two hoping someone shows up, and it rarely happens. So what is it going to take?

Thanks for your feedback.

Warbirds are difficult to start, taxi, takeoff and land with. After pulling those off, climbing to a decent altitude, and flying for minutes and minutes and... well (mutually) not find a foe even though you know they're just somewhere near you, it gets difficult to hang on. I'm not joking with the following : once we were flying one vs one with a friend, me in Dora and he was in a Mustang, and with F10 map full. I was watching the track after the session and then I've found at one point, we flew a close formation for like 20 seconds or so while looking for each other to fight :D.

Therefore, while normally I'd prefer it to be more on the realistic side, for WW II servers a compromise can be better in engine's current state.

So :

- Startup : Mainly runway start and air start options, for people who'd want, a few rampstart slots can always be included as well. Runway starters, mainly for A-G, at least can shut down the engine and rearm for any ordnance they like, and takeoff without hassle of taxiing and locking tail wheel :D.

- Map : Allies only, people can communicate combat is "around where I am" at least, but it wouldn't be magic-radar-show-all either.

- Visibilty : I'd want to say no aid, even with all visibility difficulties.

- Time to combat : 5 minutes can be good I guess

- Objectives : Yes, nothing too fancy, but some incentive to have ground attack too. Navigation can be similar to 104s missions : Bullseye at the same point for both sides, at about 5 mins from start position, and ground forces of both parties can be closing on each other etc. Everyone can fly a heading to bullseye. That would also help with finding foes, probably. May be, achieving destruction of certain ground units would enable additional aircraft slots (that can be starting in a better position etc). This way, it wouldn't be "team deathmatch fragfest", but it wouldn't be a very complex operation needing many human pilots on both sides.

- Weather : Good or mild clouds.

- AI : May be a few, especially if players are few

- TS : Would be rather nice to have, optional, but an important optional...

Such an accessible setup would, in my opinion would increase number of people who would like to take part in WW II online combat. I myself never joined one of the servers, tried to entice a few fellows I usually fly with, but even in our "we all know each other, we're in same TS channel, and F10 is full" sessions, visibility was a problem, and going thorugh laborous process of starting and taking off in a WW II bird, only to find nothing, or get shot down without seeing anything repeatedly frustrated everyone away from the idea of joining servers.

But if a server like this would be available often, it could, quite probably change the things for better.

Hi everyone,

 

Since DOW is going away for public play, and at least part of the reason seems to be lack of attendance, I was wondering what kind of play our community is actually looking for. When DOW was fairly new I flew there frequently, but I stopped attending as the server progressed and changed away from my preferences. I'm usually the 100% realism guy in other sims, but in DCS you just can't see s*** (so glad this will change in 2.0), so I'm prepared to make compromises.

 

Anyway, I sometimes run dogfight maps with aircraft visible on the map, and sometimes the f5 view allowed, too. There are no fancy objectives because the point is just to have dogfight practice, and my opinion is that with so few people online there isn't much point in running larger maps with objectives. That kind of play requires a critical mass of players which we've never had.

 

So, what are your preferences when it is unlikely that more than 8 people will be on a map?

 

Startup options: always cold start / options for engine running starts / options for air starts

 

Map Settings: no aircraft icons / only your aircraft / fog of war enabled / all aircraft visible

 

visibility aids: no aids / f5 view / icons

 

Required time to find combat: 1 minute / 5 minutes / 10 minutes / 15 minutes / no guarantee of combat

 

Objectives: none, just air combat / simple objectives that require ground attack / complicated objectives that require some kind of logical sequence to accomplish

 

Weather: good flying weather / mild crosswinds or clouds / inclement weather

 

AI aircraft: no AI, ever! / a few AI aircraft / many AI aircraft

 

TS availability: not interested / optional / must have

 

----------------

 

Can you think of others? There are enough of us for there to be reliable online air combat, but very few are actually willing to be the first one into an empty server. I sometimes run my maps for an hour or two hoping someone shows up, and it rarely happens. So what is it going to take?

 

Thanks for your feedback.

Well, SOMEone has to be first! Even on a stripped-down mission server....

I seemed to find players on DoW regularly, and I don't think attendance is the driving factor for the decision, from conversation. When you speak of "community", I get that you are referencing a part of it - the flight and fight kind? Air starts? Like an arcade??

I'm a great fan of the rotating missions with moderate to complex objectives. DoW wasn't an "AirQuake" server, though you could find that with the AI at times. Mission-based. Skills-focussed. If it's just "get in the air and shoot at stuff", then it isn't very interesting. I prefer not knowing when someone will pounce. Keeps me on my toes. Don't need a map telling me where my guys or the other guys are... finding them is part of my job up there, right? For my crew, TS3 and communications help get people back together. Finding the other guys? CAP. If it's just a simple brawl, we'll never get into navigation, wing tanks, center tanks, ordnance, altitude management, pitot and gun heat, etc.... I'm sorry, but I think the complexity is what separates it from jokes like WarThunder.

But, since you asked, and if I had to compromise from my end of the debate, here are my choices....

So, what are your preferences when it is unlikely that more than 8 people will be on a map?

Startup options: always cold start / options for engine running starts / options for air starts

No air starts. People really should know that getting it up and running is part of flying.

Map Settings: no aircraft icons / only your aircraft / fog of war enabled / all aircraft visible

Only your aircraft. This helps people see where they are individually. From there, they can tell their buds where they are and have some semblance of reality-based hook-up. All Visible? Screw it. Might as well throw darts.

visibility aids: no aids / f5 view / icons

No aids. Maybe F2 to help with runway layout.

Required time to find combat: 1 minute / 5 minutes / 10 minutes / 15 minutes / no guarantee of combat

None of the above. Might want to change this question to "Distance to Bull's Eye. Time is just a distance control in the environment you are creating. Even if someone is 2 minute's flying time away from the play pen, if they go the wrong way, it could be 20 minutes. Set a distance that gives them enough time to pick and achieve an altitude (for energy management), ready their gun sights and find the enemy. Aw heck, I guess that would be about 5 minutes anyway, so, yeah, 5.

Objectives: none, just air combat / simple objectives that require ground attack / complicated objectives that require some kind of logical sequence to accomplish

A mixture. If it's just ONE mission on the server, simple objectives would be my vote, but it sounds like you're looking for the lowest common denominator which would be air-only. My perfect choice would be a mix of moderate to complicated. I need to think, not just play an arcade game.

Weather: good flying weather / mild crosswinds or clouds / inclement weather

RANDOM. If its air starts and such, weather won't play much of a factor except to create some interesting effects.

AI aircraft: no AI, ever! / a few AI aircraft / many AI aircraft

User dependent. If there are one or two humans online, AI should spawn to make it interesting. Balance it out, unless the objective demands a level of difficulty for one side. I personally don't have a problem with 5 or 6 AI buggers up there if I have 3 or 4 good AI helping out. I'll fly that solo all day.

TS availability: not interested / optional / must have

Optional, with protest. I would like to see it mandatory, but some people can't /won't do it. If the goal is for solo people to fly en-mass and get their rocks off with the trigger, why bother with TS. But for a "community", it should be strongly encouraged almost to the point of Thou SHALT. I think everyone knows how to plug in a mic, and if they can download DCS and install /activate properly, they certainly can install something as simple as TS3.

Again, if you're going for lowest common denominator to attract 8 people or so, it might work. But it wouldn't be for me... I'll stick with the DoW guys even if it means fewer sessions, because it interests the inner-pilot I have. "Drainpipe", "Refuge", "Mud Skipper", "River Raiders", "Loose Lips", "Battle in the Bay".... these are classic missions, in my book. If I can't get to them often enough on their event schedule, I may ask permission to have the files and strongly consider setting up my own server. Might even get into mission writing myself.

But, I think we are coming at this from two separate directions. And that's okay, too. But to suggest that DoW has altered its role because of low attendance .... mmmmmm, naaaa. That ain't the whole story, and I can't elaborate.

Startup options: always cold start

Map Settings: no aircraft icons

visibility aids: no aids

Required time to find combat: 5 minutes

Objectives: simple objectives that require ground attack. Complicated objectives will only be viable (IMHO) when (or if) bombers eventually become available

Weather: good flying weather

AI aircraft: no AI, ever! (except bomber intercepts... but no WWII bombers are available yet without mods)

TS availability: must have

Startup options: Cold start preferred but depends on mission

Map Settings: No Icons

visibility aids: None

Required time to find combat: 10-15 minutes

Objectives: simple objectives that require ground attack. Complicated objectives will only be viable (IMHO) when (or if) bombers eventually become available

Weather: good flying weather

AI aircraft: Only on empty servers or greatly unbalanced teams

TS availability: Would be nice but not necessary

Startup options: both cold start & engine-running options available

Map Settings: no icons

visibility aids: none

Required time to find combat: 1 to 3 minutes

Objectives: none, just air combat

Weather: good flying weather / mild crosswinds

AI aircraft: when player count is very low

TS availability: It'd be nice.

Can you think of others?

The way I've always run my "instant action" missions in various flight sim/games was to have four to six air bases. The closest two are about a minute apart. The farthest are about three minutes apart. The closest pair has no anti-air defenses, so people who're mutually interested in quick dogfights can get into them quickly without having ack-ack spoil the fun.

The farther two pairs of airfields have AAA, to prevent griefers from keeping people grounded. If there's a vulture strafing everyone taking off, then people can fall back to the rearward flak-defended bases. This system works quite well for those (such as myself) who enjoy instant-action ground-start missions, without having to worry about constantly flying into flak while dogfighting, or getting base-camped. The east side of our Georgia terrain has a few bases positioned relatively favorably for this setup, although not entirely ideal.

There are enough of us for there to be reliable online air combat, but very few are actually willing to be the first one into an empty server. I sometimes run my maps for an hour or two hoping someone shows up, and it rarely happens.

I ran into this back when I hosted a dedicated server for Rise of Flight. Once you manage to get two or three people in, the rest usually follow, but almost no one wishes to be the first one (or second) flying around on an empty server, so servers other than the most popular one or two tend to be empty ~90% of the time. Unfortunately, I see no real solution to this, for any sim/game with a relatively low multiplayer population (~50 players on at any given time). However, AI which spawn when player count is very low could give people something to do while they wait for others to join.

So what is it going to take?

For me ... I only fly on max realism/difficulty settings, and pretty much only on quick-action missions with well-chosen planesets. The primary reason I never venture onto a public server in DCS is that there's currently no way to know what difficulty options any given server is running on. DCS 2.0 is to contain filter options; hopefully, this will include realism/difficulty filters. If there still aren't, I'll be pretty much guaranteed to continue to use my own server exclusively. (Private server, given that the population is much too low for me to justify dealing with the hassle of running a public one.)

Unfortunately, flight sim/game multiplayer communities tend to be more divided than others, with about three major categories ("realistic & historical," "realistic & non-historical," and "unrealistic & non-historical"), as well as various in-betweens. On most of the flight sim/games I've used, there are about ~two major servers and the rest of the players make do with what they can find. There's just no forcing these categories together--many (myself included) would rather find something else to do than be forced into a category they don't enjoy--and the multiplayer community for a hardcore flight sim isn't large enough to sustain all three populations comfortably.

So, yeah, I'm pretty darned particular about the way I enjoy flying. Any server I'll join has gotta be running max realism/difficulty options (even cockpit-switch pop-up labels are enough for me to write off a server), and it really ought to have bases set up so that I can get into a fight within a couple of minutes after wheels up. Some consider the latter to be simple impatience, but, to me, it's about maximizing the rate of learning. If one flies around for twenty minutes between every two-minute fight, then one only gets about six minutes of "learning time" per hour. At that rate, you'll never master it, not even after ten years of trying.

At high skill levels, that low rate isn't enough to even maintain the skills, let alone improve them further (I've watched my students "stagnate" at a certain point on the learning curve, when they were getting less than perhaps 25 min. avg. combat time per day). The difference between two pilots with 1000 total flight hours each, one of whom does (on average) 20 min of flying to get to a 2min fight, and the other of whom does 1min flying to get to a 2min fight, is 90 combat hours and ~670 combat hours, respectively.

Which isn't to say I never could enjoy a historical mission; in the past, I occasionally chose to fly (and even create) such missions. However, in general, I'm really not into that sort of re-enactment, and seldom engage in it. I love flying, not war. To me, dogfighting is something that ought to be a national sport, with real fighters & camera chaseplanes, which--if everyone were sane like me, regarding flying as the wonderful and perfectly natural activity it is ("if the gods had meant us to not fly, then they wouldn't have let us invent aeroplanes")--would be practiced & observed world-wide, instead of all the silly sports involving balls. Safely, of course, and not with real guns ... but this is quite the digression.

Startup options: cold start (because I like to change my fuel state) but I am ok with additional engine runinng stuff.

Map Settings: icons when a map is quite big, but if map is small then without icons. (with DCS visibility that gives ability to spot a plane from up to 5km with)

visibility aids: no aids except for big maps, you can give icons.

Required time to find combat: 5 minutes

Objectives: ground pound with convoys on the ground or just dogfight mission. So that finding targets would be easy.

Weather: good, some coulds would be cool.

AI aircraft: No AI. except for ground targets and possible bomber-like targets

TS availability: I'd like to see that :)

From Echo38, slightly modified:

Startup options: both cold start & engine-running options available

Map Settings: no icons

visibility aids: none

Required time to find combat: 1 to 5 minutes

Objectives: Air combat and optional ground targets

Weather: good flying weather / mild crosswinds

AI aircraft: Some until player count reaches a certain point

TS availability: It'd be nice.

Of course the biggest requirement in my opinion: Proper 1944 map, ground units and more planes!

Online combat right now is just stale.

Hi,

Startup options: always cold start

Map Settings: NO aircraft icons

visibility aids: no aids

Required time to find combat: 5 minutes but in case ground targets more than 5 minute

Objectives: combination Air to Air and Air to Ground

Weather: mild wind and turbulence and some clouds

AI aircraft: until there will be (?) number real players

TS availability: way not

AI aircraft: Some until player count reaches a certain point

I'd wondered if this were possible. Can a script spawn AI fighters whenever there are fewer than X players, and de-spawn the AI whenever player count is >X ?

I'd wondered if this were possible. Can a script spawn AI fighters whenever there are fewer than X players, and de-spawn the AI whenever player count is >X ?

I'm not sure about scripts, but it is possible to limit AI just using the regular ME. For example, I use trigger zones and set the AI to only spawn if no human groups are in the zone.

Interesting feedback so far. Keep it coming.

I'd wondered if this were possible. Can a script spawn AI fighters whenever there are fewer than X players, and de-spawn the AI whenever player count is >X ?

Yes, that's the system on the 9./JG 27 Flying Legends server.

Excellent. I've updated my previous post accordingly.

Startup: cold and running

Map settings: no icons

Visibility aids: no aids (he he :D)

Required time to find combat: 5 minutes

Objectives: A2a, A2G

Weather: good flying weather

AI aircraft: few AI

TS availability: yes please.

Startup options: options for engine running starts (i like cold starts but i don't see why it needs to be forced upon people)

Map Settings: no aircraft icons

visibility aids: no aids

Required time to find combat: no guarantee of combat

Objectives: simple objectives that require ground attack

Weather: good flying weather / mild crosswinds or clouds

AI aircraft: a few AI aircraft

TS availability: optional

I have no problems joining empty maps if i know the missions are somewhat interesting. Which also means must have some AIs.

Startup options: always cold start

Map Settings: only own aircraft.

visibility aids: none

Required time to find combat: 5 minutes

Objectives: simple objectives, like small buildings or trucks. Find where the combat usually takes place, and put them somewhere else. (but still close.)

Weather: good flying weather

AI aircraft: AI only for bombers if you add them.

TS availability: must have

Slightly related to the topic but, Dogs of War is back up right now, and running Itsy Bitsy. :thumbup:

Well, part of the reason I'm running this thread is because DoW has been mostly empty for many months now. The missions they run are really well designed, but from what I see here

1. People want short times to find combat (not just short times to the combat area)

2. Some want the option to skip the whole cold-start sequence every single sortie

3. Some want a little navigation help

Unwillingness to compromise on these things will not grow multiplayer. It needs to be worth someone's time to log on if they only have 30 minutes to play between work/kids/spouse, etc.

Count me in for 100% realism, that's what makes DCS DCS. However, I agree that mission range and scope can be limited to increase "playability." I felt that the DoW Killer Bees server (when it was around) offered a good compromise in this respect, but I personally had no problem with the other missions.

Startup options: always cold start

Map Settings: no aircraft icons

visibility aids: no aids

Required time to find combat: I think 5-10 minutes is the sweet spot for me. Less feels too gamey, more can feel like a chore to some people, though I don't mind sometimes.

Objectives: just air combat, or simple objectives that require ground attack

Weather: good flying weather or mild crosswinds or clouds

AI aircraft: Some, or many. AI are a necessary evil unless you have a suitably large player base, which DCS WWII will likely not have for a while. Hunting enemy AI with a human wingman is still a very rewarding gameplay experience for me.

TS availability: optional. For me it is a necessity, but new players have to start somewhere, and many will not want to jump into TS without trying the server first.

Count me in for 100% realism, that's what makes DCS DCS. However, I agree that mission range and scope can be limited to increase "playability." I felt that the DoW Killer Bees server (when it was around) offered a good compromise in this respect, but I personally had no problem with the other missions.

 

Startup options: always cold start

 

Map Settings: no aircraft icons

 

visibility aids: no aids

 

Required time to find combat: I think 5-10 minutes is the sweet spot for me. Less feels too gamey, more can feel like a chore to some people, though I don't mind sometimes.

 

Objectives: just air combat, or simple objectives that require ground attack

 

Weather: good flying weather or mild crosswinds or clouds

 

AI aircraft: Some, or many. AI are a necessary evil unless you have a suitably large player base, which DCS WWII will likely not have for a while. Hunting enemy AI with a human wingman is still a very rewarding gameplay experience for me.

 

TS availability: optional. For me it is a necessity, but new players have to start somewhere, and many will not want to jump into TS without trying the server first.

Yeah I always liked Killers Bees, the snow mission on the shore, and the 3 lakes mission. Could always find targets ... I mean other players or you could shoot up stuff on the ground when no one was around. Some complained about flight time on the three lakes mission but about the time I reached my usual combat altitude I was in the prime areas.

TBH no missions are really going to satisfy most DCS flyers until visually cues are fixed and we get some WWII ground/bomber units. You either get crap missions where everyone is launched from airfields that you can see each other from the ground, labels which are the worst, or larger missions where its very hard to find small groups of players.

Startup options: cold start only

Map Settings: no icons whatsoever

visibility aids: no aids

Required time to find combat: dunno, say 15 mins

Objectives: some ground attack tasks included so I can fly too ;)

Weather: variable as IRL w/ some night missions thrown in too

AI aircraft: should be used IMO

TS availability: optional

Just my $0.002 however

I prefer Cold Starts on the Tarmac.

And I don't mind having a few A.I. planes/pilots to fight. Maybe ..(IF Possible) the number of them could be determined by the number of Live Pilots Online ... i.e. if 12 people are online, we probably don't need any A.I.

I have always been an advocate for showing OUR Plane Only on the F10 Map.

I feel that ANY and ALL PILOTS MUST be able to Navigate in order to obtain their license (amongst tons of other skills of course). As such, a pilot should be able to determine their own location at any given time. Besides, we do have a Kneeboard upon which we can see our current location & direction. So why not on the F10 Map which is much more functional for zooming in etc (which can be very useful).

Whether or not the F10 Map should show anything else is up to y'all. If it showed ONLY those enemy that the individual has seen (and no one else), it "could" include those locations but only for those that have discovered the enemy positions ... say from some minimal distance/elevation ???!!!

Finally, I think it should be Mandatory that Everyone on the Server MUST use TeamSpeak (unless they provide technical reasons why they are unable to).

I am a bit surprised that so many of you always want a cold start. The only professional pilot I know says the best thing about flight sims is that he can skip that step and focus on the flying.

My opinion is that it is an important skill, but forcing it for every single sortie is a bit excessive because many are short on time.

I have always been an advocate for showing OUR Plane Only on the F10 Map.

I feel that ANY and ALL PILOTS MUST be able to Navigate in order to obtain their license (amongst tons of other skills of course). As such, a pilot should be able to determine their own location at any given time.

I'm baffled. If you say that a pilot must be able to manually figure out where they are on a blank map of the area (and I agree that they should), then why would you then advocate giving them a GPS so that they don't need to learn? This looks like a self-contradiction ... unless, that is, you're suggesting, rather, "The virtual pilot you're controlling knows where he is, so you the player don't have to, because the virtual pilot is navigating for you." Which is going into "virtual character skills" instead of "actual user skills;" but this is a high-fidelity simulator, not a stat-card RPG.

If you continue that "pretend character skills" line of thinking, and apply it to engine starts as well, then it'd be fine to use the automatic engine start cheat/aid because "the virtual pilot knows how to start the engine, even if you (the user) don't." Which, I hope you see, is insane, for a high-fidelity simulator. Take it further and you'd turn on the AoA-limiter cheat/aid in the P-51 because "your pilot knows how to avoid stalling." The only abilities that the virtual pilot is supposed to possess that the player/user does not, are abilities which flight sim users are incapable of acquiring themselves (as part of the learning process). Virtual arm strength and G-tolerance are the only ones I can think of.

You can't build up those two sitting in your desk chair, and many sim users are medically incapable of real flight, anyway, which is part (or all) of the reason why we grounded-for-medical folks are doing sims instead. But everything else, including navigation, is something the sim user can learn, and would have to in order to be able to effectively fly the airplane. It isn't an RPG, and the virtual pilot isn't supposed to be doing things for the user that the user could learn to do himself, as part of the simulation of operating the aircraft. Navigating is part of the pilot's job of operating the aircraft, and there's no reason why a hardcore sim user shouldn't be required to learn this skill, which is as important to the safe operation of a P-51, as learning to start the engine properly is.

Now if, on the other hand, you're making the (valid) argument of "I'm just playing a computer game, and I should be able to pick & choose which things I want to learn & which things are done for me with aids," then that's another thing (although it'd still seem odd that one would be making that argument in this thread, given that the OP implied that it was to be a sim-style server rather than game-style). DCS can be both a simulator & a game, yes, and the developers gave the users the ability to choose. But, it just isn't consistent that engine starts be manual but navigation not, if you're approaching this from a sim-user point of view (rather than that of a game-player). If it's a sim, and the user should thus need to learn to start his own engine, then the user should also need to learn to figure out where he is on a paper map of the area, 'coz the real P-51 didn't have a GPS, and a pilot needs to know how to do both of those things.

I am a bit surprised that so many of you always want a cold start.

 

My opinion is that it is an important skill, but forcing it for every single sortie is a bit excessive because many are short on time.

Agreed; this is why I suggested the option of both. For myself, I cold-start when I have time to fiddle around (e.g. I'm the only one on the server), but I want my ground crew to already have it running for me if time is pressing (e.g. there are people waiting for a dogfight).

Now, if you're cold-starting so infrequently that you have to look up the process in a checklist when you do cold-start, then you're not learning a skill that you should know, as a virtual warbird pilot. However, you don't need to cold-start every time to remain comfortable with the startup process.

I am a bit surprised that so many of you always want a cold start. The only professional pilot I know says the best thing about flight sims is that he can skip that step and focus on the flying.

 

My opinion is that it is an important skill, but forcing it for every single sortie is a bit excessive because many are short on time.

I think that perspective makes perfect sense for a real-life pilot who wants to use flight sims as a means of honing his craft. But if you're trying to immerse yourself in an authentic "WW2" experience, then start-ups, taxiing, take-offs, and landings are a huge part of that. For me, personally, it is half the game.

Think of it this way, if people want to fly WW2 planes and get into the action quick, there's any number of options out there: War Thunder, Cliffs of Dover, BoS, etc. What makes DCS unique is that 100% of the plane's systems are accurately modeled, and have to be used correctly. That's why we're all here, despite DCS' obvious shortcomings as a WW2 game.

But if you're trying to immerse yourself in an authentic "WW2" experience, then start-ups, taxiing, take-offs, and landings are a huge part of that. For me, personally, it is half the game.

 

if people want to fly WW2 planes and get into the action quick, there's any number of options out there: War Thunder, Cliffs of Dover, BoS, etc. What makes DCS unique is that 100% of the plane's systems are accurately modeled, and have to be used correctly. That's why we're all here, despite DCS' obvious shortcomings as a WW2 game.

An authentic simulation of flying in the Second World War would usually involve for flying for many hours without ever encountering an enemy aircraft; I certainly don't want that, and I doubt many (if any) others here do, either.

I love flying, and mock-dogfighting, not war. I'm not trying to immerse myself in an authentic WWII experience. I am, however, trying to immerse myself in an authentic WWII-fighter experience. In other words, I don't actually want a realistic simulation of flying an accurately-modelled P-38L in the Second World War; rather, I want a realistic simulation of flying an accurately-modelled P-38L in frequent dogfights amongst my friends & acquaintances. See the fundamental difference?

DCS is unique in that most of the aircraft's systems are accurately modelled, as well as having high-quality flight physics (for a P.C. program, anyway). There aren't any other sim/games that allow for as realistic of dogfights in as accurate a depiction of WWII fighters. That's why I'm here, despite DCS's shortcomings in terms of aircraft selection. [cough]P-38[/cough] ; )