DCS WWII: Europe 1944

Although it would be amazing. I don't see how it would be feasible to develop a "combat" flight sim where every aircraft is modeled at the level of the DCS P-51. The game would take too much time to develop and end up costing $$$

Something on the level of Flaming Cliffs sounds realistic to expect.

A-10C and Black Shark work as both hi fi study and combat sims because they're ground attack. They are the only flyable aircraft in the game

Can you imagine a hi fi Flaming Cliffs where every plane in the game came with a 670 page manual?

P-51 is awesome. But it's only one plane

No WWII map

Until recently, no AI opponents

No single player WWII missions

No multiplayer, really

Flying the plane is challenging enough to be a game in itself but at the end of the day there's nothing much to do in the Mustang (yet?)

A successful combat sim by definition has to have more than one plane in it. And to do that it's necessary to simplify the operations.

And really, all the complex operation even in the A-10 is fun, but once you fully learn it and it all becomes memorized and you can start and operate everything without thinking, it doesn't really matter if it comes at the expense of the whole rest of the game.

Realistic flight models? Yes

Realistic damage models? Yes

Operating the most important systems? Yes

But the need to click on every battery switch and fuel pump isn't necessary for a good combat sim

Well we shall see what they propose...

the need to click on every battery switch and fuel pump isn't necessary for a good combat sim

The need to toggle every battery switch and fuel pump is necessary for a realistic combat flight sim. Whether this realism is good or not is the subjectivity in contention. But, again, there are more than a few less-than-realistic sim-games of the sort you & Cobra are advocating, so why are you even interested in DCS--the one sim which has the core attribute of offering max aircraft realism? I'm a bit perplexed because you guys are kind of like someone coming onto a meat forum and lauding tofu.

I'm not an engineer myself, so I don't know how noticeable such an increase in accuracy is. However, it's the development attitude that is important to me: "let's get it right, as much as possible." Too many times, with lesser sim-games, I've seen a different attitude: "meh, this is good enough; no one will notice/care that it's wrong/missing." And in most cases, it's true, the players don't notice. But I notice. I've noticed in far too many cases, in other sim-games, fidelity problems which the developers rely on (with reason) the vast majority overlooking.

 

I'm exasperated with "sim" developers throwing around terms like "realism" and "high-fidelity" when their actual attitude towards those things is half-assed. Eagle Dynamics is the only exception I've ever seen, as a company. (There are individual people who are also exceptions within other development studios, I think, but the companies in which they work hold them back.) I am convinced that the core problem here is that 99+% of "simmers" & developers have only a cursory interest in real flight. [looks at RAZBAM-Cobra]

 

Eagle Dynamics is the only extant development company which has proven that it is generally comprised of people who have a true passion for flight, instead of the more typical "yeah, flying's cool, but how tiresome to have to memorize all those buttons and switches." Or, conversely, "look at how realistic our procedures are! ... Flight model? What's that?" There are a few companies who make sim-games with great flight physics but half-assed systems, and there are a few companies who make sim-games with thorough systems but half-assed flight physics. E.D. is the only one I've seen that does both thoroughly, and this makes them an invaluable singularity. Those who don't appreciate it ... I have to wonder why you're even here.

Your assertion is just hilarious considering I just spent another all-nighter on the MiG, doing stuff like tweaking screw positions, depths, adding subtle bevels and actually modelling weld-lines, all to make it more realistic and authentic.

Just because I personally favour having more gameplay elements to immerse me and hold my interest does not mean I do not appreciate a comlex simulation of all systems and flight physics

The need to toggle every battery switch and fuel pump is necessary for a realistic combat flight sim. Whether this realism is good or not is the subjectivity in contention. But, again, there are more than a few less-than-realistic sim-games of the sort you & Cobra are advocating, so why are you even interested in DCS--the one sim which has the core attribute of offering max aircraft realism? I'm a bit perplexed because you guys are kind of like someone coming onto a meat forum and lauding tofu.

We're responding to your assertion that Rise of Flight is not a sim.

We're responding to your assertion that Rise of Flight is not a sim.

If it were a good simulation of the aircraft portrayed, then there would be a reasonably accurate portrayal of the processes required to manage the engine & systems. There isn't, so it's half-sim. It only simulates about half of what is required of the pilot to operate the aircraft from the moment that he climbs into the cockpit.

Imagine a person who can fly a real airplane, but only if someone else starts it up for him and adjusts the systems during the flight to keep things running smoothly. If that person called himself a pilot, wouldn't you think that just a little pretentious? I feel the same way about sims. Calling it a sim when it only teaches you some parts of flying, but not about managing your engine & systems, is what I'd call pretentious and inaccurate.

In an effort to avoid further expounding on this point, I'll quote an old post of mine:

I agree that aerodynamics is more essential to the flight sim than systems management, but for a true flight sim, both are necessary. The original purpose of a flight sim was to help teach students how to fly airplanes. (Naturally, sims cannot replace real flight training, but they can augment it.) As a training tool, then, a flight simulator should teach the user--as much as is possible with the medium--every aspect of piloting the aircraft being simulated. Only DCS does this; I think that A-10C users could start up a real A-10 (although I wouldn't recommend trying it unsupervised!). Meanwhile, R.o.F. players have no idea how to start any real Great War airplanes (or even keep the engines properly running during flight), because R.o.F. is more a game than a training tool, and does not teach much about the real aircraft's operation besides stick, rudder, & throttle. Which doesn't make R.o.F. bad--it's a fine game, and I enjoyed it greatly during my time with it. But I'm looking for the most realistic simulation of piloting a warbird that one can get on a P.C., and only DCS offers that.

 

My meter of a flight sim is this: if an experienced sim-pilot could hop into the real airplane without any prior training other than the flight sim, and start it, taxi, take off, and land reasonably well without your instructor assisting more than a tiny bit, then the simulator has done its job. If, on the other hand, he hops into the real airplane and can't figure out how to get it started, and can't figure out how to keep his engine running properly after someone else starts it for him, then there's something wrong with the simulator. A game like that can be considered a flight sim, but, by that reasoning, a person who can fly a real airplane only when someone else starts the engine for him is a pilot.

(Since writing that post, I've been informed that a few pieces of the A-10C startup are missing due to contractual obligations, but I suppose that can't be helped. This is about as close as we can get.)

I'm not an engineer myself, so I don't know how noticeable such an increase in accuracy is. However, it's the development attitude that is important to me: "let's get it right, as much as possible."

They model part of an engine to perfection (have yet to see proof of that), but don't model combustion air dynamics or environmental changes?

We're both here because we like DCS, but I can accept less than perfect (80-20 rule). Perfect is the enemy of good.

Watson-Watt, who developed early warning radar in Britain to counter the rapid growth of the Luftwaffe, propounded a "cult of the imperfect", which he stated as "Give them the third best to go on with; the second best comes too late, the best never comes".

I am convinced that the core problem here is that 99+% of "simmers" & developers have only a cursory interest in real flight. [looks at RAZBAM-Cobra]

I think you've just disqualified yourself.

They model part of an engine to perfection [...] but don't model combustion air dynamics or environmental changes?

One step at a time. : )

One step forward isn't as good as two steps forward, but it's better than no steps forward. And it's a veritable ****ton better than a few steps backwards, which is what Cobra proposed. I don't care how many rivets and panel lines he models accurately; if he feels that starting up the aircraft isn't an important thing to simulate accurately ... I really don't have much else to say here.

It would be very interesting to get real hard data, but lacking that I am still willing to bet that no more than 10% of DCS users (not forum regulars) do a manual start (in any of the aircraft) on a regular basis.

One step at a time. : )

One step forward isn't as good as two steps forward, but it's better than no steps forward. And it's a veritable ****ton better than a few steps backwards, which is what Cobra proposed. I don't care how many rivets and panel lines he models accurately; if he feels that starting up the aircraft isn't an important thing to simulate accurately ... I really don't have much else to say here.

You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth.

What I very specifically said is that I PREFER development focus on gameplay elements like Dynamic Campaigns, weather simulation, advanced rendering techniques and more, as opposed to spending that dev time simulating minute detail that, as mentioned, has a diminishing level of return the deeper you go.

Obviously I'm on the DCS forum so I must enjoy the complex study-sim model too..

I also said it's not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE (see Falcon 4..). It's just my preference. It doesn't make a sim like RoF, IL-2 any less of a sim. The focus is just in a differnet place.

The need to toggle every battery switch and fuel pump is necessary for a realistic combat flight sim. Whether this realism is good or not is the subjectivity in contention. But, again, there are more than a few less-than-realistic sim-games of the sort you & Cobra are advocating, so why are you even interested in DCS--the one sim which has the core attribute of offering max aircraft realism? I'm a bit perplexed because you guys are kind of like someone coming onto a meat forum and lauding tofu.

Oh don't get me wrong. I love the switches and full systems. I just don't see how it will be possible in an air combat sim. Cliffs of Dover tried it and went bankrupt.

DCS is awesome. But notice the "air combat" realm of DCS World is semi-sim. That's because it's not feasible to make the many flyable planes all necessary for air combat scenarios all full-sim.

ED has a great solution where all the semi and full sim planes occupy the same world. The same could be true of the new WWII world. Certainly the P-51 and Dora will be full sim. But there needs to be many more semi sims like Flaming Cliffs to fill out the roster.

That's what I expect to see. One more day to find out...

We're responding to your assertion that Rise of Flight is not a sim.

Yes. Rise of Flight IS a combat sim.

It's just not a study sim.

I'm with echo38. It's not a sim if it intentionally cuts corners to make it easier. The DCS P-51 is the best prop sim available and will continue to be so after BoS, which we know is going to have FC3 style systems management.

Rise of Flight shares in aspects of simulation, but also shares in aspects of a first person shooter game with wings.

I really doubt that producing WW2 aircraft to DCS P51 standards can be done quickly. I think we'll see Luthier's team releasing planes with AFM but with a reduced level of systems modelling and cockpit interactivity.

I hope we'll continue to see "DCS" WW2 releases. I fantasise about DCS Spitfire IX, DCS Tempest, DCS Mosquito, DCS P38...

Personally, I'm awaiting the infrastructure to support these WWII DCS titles to bring true immersion to the 'sim'. Believe it's going to be a long wait at best.

The P51 is unique in its level of detail and apparently accurate internal systems modelling. Because of that I get a lot of enjoyment flying it around on its own.

A WW2 environment would be great, but seriously unless someone's been secretly working on a historical map of Europe for the last couple of years then we're in for a long wait.

Sept. 1 at last ...

yeah, today is the day :bounce:

where are you Luthier ?

and what's going to come up on kickstarter ?

Still the 31st on this side of the world :) Hopefully it will be there by the time I wake up.I have such high hopes for this project, Im sure it will be revolutionary.

Just Pass 0:17 UTC, and waitting.

Gonna wait till at lest 1500 UK time for this..

Place your bets...

0438 Moscow time now :)

Last I heard,Luthier was in Maui.-10 GMT:D

According to Jason over at 777 the flight models are not exact and never will be, so that sort of takes it out of the SIM realm..

The sim/game thing is really a bit silly. All of the flight products out there are 'entertainment' products.

The sim/game thing is really a bit silly. All of the flight products out there are 'entertainment' products.

Somewhere along the line the games started calling themselves Simulations and no one has done anything about it.

When you cut the throttle fully back and your plane still climbs, there is something wrong as the modeling of reality just isn't there....:pilotfly:

Somewhere along the line the games started calling themselves Simulations and no one has done anything about it.

Companies often refer to their products as 'new & improved' without any significant evidence of either, excepting the label on the package.

However, I don't lose any sleep over it. :)

Btw, regardless of any flaws, I own every single piece of ROF, consider it some of the best 'entertainment' on my computer and think that it is worth every penny.