Jump to content

How do you use DCS World?


Murmur

How do you use DCS World?  

329 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you use DCS World?

    • Mainly for combat operations
      124
    • Mainly for non combat (civil) operations (i.e. focusing on systems operation and flight model)
      39
    • Both
      166


Recommended Posts

Both.

 

I noticed my flying had become weak and needed to revise the basics.

 

So jumped into the A-10C, training was a bit heavy going, so after a couple of days, I jumped into the Huey for a little light relief (combat) but later got caught out by a VRS whilst landing.

 

That led to reading FAA helicopter, controlled airspace, etc. pilot manuals, practicing 'touch and go's' and 'patterns' and looking at how I did in 'Tacview'.

 

Once I felt I'd got close enough (not to FAA standards), I returned to some Huey combat missions (with a little mission editing on the side).

 

Next week it might be combat or patterns or a different aircraft altogether (I've room for improvement in all areas :) )

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This of course is typical of the "Combat Sim" genre. I guess U could have the 747 shot at by some rogue ex-CIA operative, to get that same experience in FSX .

 

They both do have their merits of course.

I fly for a living and have had lots and lots of failures that were not the result of being shot at. Systems failures have many root causes - and I'd guess that even for military aircraft, non-combat systems failures have resulted in more emergencies and losses than combat related damage. The end result is the same however.."hours of boredom punctuated by minutes of sheer terror.."

 

BeachAV8R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love challenge and flying is my obsession so combat and flying is what am go for.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Intel® Core™ i7-6850 CPU@3.60GHz @4.068

Asus ROG STRIX X99 GAMING ATX Motherboard

64 bit operation System- RAM 32.0 GB

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 WindForce OC 8GB

- Disk Drives KINGSTON SVP200S37A 1tb/WDC WD 10EZEX-00ZF5A0 - Samsung ssd 1tb 840 series.

- 3 Samsung 27"SyncMaster 3D Game monitors - Windows 8.1 Pro - TM Hotas Warthog-Trackir5 pro-Saitek Rudder Pedals-Cougar MFD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a real world commercial pilot, and I've been involved with flight sims since the original Falcon stick plane came out on the PC, I've gone through all of the available flight sims over the years and been involved with this product since Flanker was first released.

 

What has transpired over the years in computer flight simulations is simply amazing, with the current leaders over the last many years being DCS on the military side and X-Plane on the civilian side. Sadly, most if not all of the great flight simulations - The Jane's series, Microsoft Flight Simulator and others have lost funding, gone out of production and disappeared with the popularity of the x-boxes that have taken over the home gaming industry.

 

That said, in my opinion, DCS is far ahead of X-Plane in the replication of aircraft flight models and creating a realistic world in which to fly that doesn't require a super computer to get frame rates at a level where the flying actually feels like real flying.

 

While DCS is an incredible military flight simulation, I believe it could also create a strong following with the civilian simulator pilot community who are interested in the same level of fidelity and complexity without the military combat theme. Ever since Microsoft Flight Simulator X stopped development, the civilian flight simulator options available, have done little to fill the void. I believe a great deal of interest in the civilian flight simulator community is still there as some third party developers still attempt to work with an aging and buggy FSX engine.

 

One of the biggest problems with Microsoft Flight Simulator, in my opinion, is that it tried to do too much. Sure it was great to think you were flying out of any airport in the world, but the rendering and flight model fidelity suffered for it and quite honestly, few who used the simulation, needed all of that. MS attempted to do too much to soon with FSX considering the computing power available on home computers at the time and that is what, in my opinion, led to the continuous buggy software and loss of sales.

 

I believe civilian add on modules to the DCS world with the excellence in graphics and aircraft flight model fidelity would bring a whole new following of flight simulator enthuses and customers to DCS, who while interested in the same level of complexity of simulated aircraft operation, have no desire in the military aspect that DCS is today.

 

ED - if you're listening, it might be something to think about.


Edited by ronht
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the question was open to interpretation. For me, option 2 to use DCS for mainly civil operations and flight model could be construed as a mandatory part of using an aircraft which means the only answer could be 3. Ie, if I never drop a weapon, is that a non combat operation? Or if i train a squadron mate on formations and tac turns or holding patterns, is that using it under the pretence of B? Most of the flight is non combat - we spend a lot of time doing civilian type things like departure, route and recovery. Perhaps 80% of our time.

However I assumed you didn't mean this when I answered A.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer flying than shooting. I use weapons of course, but this is only distraction from confined area.

If it wasn't excellent flight and systems simulation, I wouldn't be interested.

My wish is cumulative wear for piston engine aircrafts (warbirds can be treated as privately owned) and more space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the poll really misleading

 

 

It is a bit. Left to interpretation as those that say "Flying" include (for the most part) system failures caused by combat in their statements fall back to the "Combat" side of the question.

 

What would be more accurate is, How many use the "Free Flight" offering in DCS. This being the "Just Flying the Aircraft" portion of the Pole. As "Free Flight" offers pure Aviation with out "Combat".

 

Then one would have a truer answer as to the "Civil" aviation the users keep mentioning, yet seem to include combat elements in their descriptions.

This was a Boutique Builder iBuypower rig. Until I got the tinker bug again i7 920 @3.6Mhz 12Gig Corsair XMS3 ram 1600 Nvidia 760 SLi w/4Gig DDR5 Ram Intel 310 SSD HDD 160 Gb + Western Digital 4Terabyte HDD Creative SB X-Fi HD Audio Logitech X-530 5.1 Surround Speaker System Dual Acer 32"Monitors. PSU 1200 w Thermaltake Win10 64Bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's high time ED puts the hornet on the back burner in favor of a 737 we can some day fly around Nevada. I simply can't contain my enthusiasm.

 

Well, I guess this is a sarcastic post, but the fact is that according to this poll 60% of DCS owners use it also (or mainly) as a civil flight simulator, so your sarcastic idea might not be such a bad idea after all. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is this guys -

 

The more appeal DCS has to a wider customer base, the more income they make to continue to improve, expand and support this great software far into the future. And with it's modular design you don't have to buy anything you don't want, it can be just what you want it to be for everyone.

 

You only have to look back on Falcon and the Jane's series of good aircraft simulations that no longer exist to see what I'm talking about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is this guys -

 

The more appeal DCS has to a wider customer base, the more income they make to continue to improve, expand and support this great software far into the future. And with it's modular design you don't have to buy anything you don't want, it can be just what you want it to be for everyone.

 

You only have to look back on Falcon and the Jane's series of good aircraft simulations that no longer exist to see what I'm talking about.

Well, we're already kind of seeing a bit of a transition already. The Huey is a good example. Initially, the "civilian" version just had civilian liveries but still retained some military artefacts - external hard points, flex sights, whatever. But eventually, they came out with a pure civvy version with none of that stuff. Some of the prop trainers coming out in the next little while would also be good candidates. As far as aircraft with absolutely no military aspect ... well, I'd prefer they be much lower on the priority list. Some may say they shouldn't be on the list at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mainly use DCS for focusing on systems operation and flight model to then go and be able to focus on Combat Operations, meaning when i properly Master the first then i will probably spend 80% of my flying in the second :)

 

Phanteks Enthoo Evolv Tempered Glass, Asus ROG Maximus IX Hero, Intel i7 7700K @ 4.8, Corsair HX 1000i, Nzxt Kraken 62, 32gb DDR4 3000Mhz Corsair Dominator Platinum, Nvme SSD Samsung 960 Evo 1Tb, Asus Strix OC 1080ti, Philips 43" 4K Monitor + 2 x Dell 24" U2414H, Warthog HOTAS, Track IR 5, Obutto R3volution, Buttkicker Gamer 2, MFG Crosswind pedals, Occulus Rift CV1, Windows 10 Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use it for both, sometimes i just jump into a free flight over the cities and mountains.

 

I really wouldn't have any problem at all if a third release a regional, or particular civil jet with DCS level modeling of systems and flight model, i can easily even see some VIP escort missions. Can you imagine being in a version of a civilian jet equipped with a basic defense suite like flares and chaffs trying to avoid incoming long range strikes maneuvering as hard as possible and popping flares, while your escorts engage the aggressors.

 

Besides that just for being a civil jet with DCS level would be very interesting. Even me would buy such module on sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more appeal DCS has to a wider customer base, the more income they make to continue to improve, expand and support this great software far into the future. And with it's modular design you don't have to buy anything you don't want, it can be just what you want it to be for everyone.

Exactly! And the one thing that always leaves me scratching my head when I read people sort of talking down the civil flying aspect of a sim is that expansion in that direction can ONLY improve the combat flying aspect. I mean, if you want to fly combat in a populated, realistic world, you NEED the civil side stuff. ATC improvements, weather improvements, and what combat pilot is going to complain about the ability to see DCS quality civil content in their combat world? DCS: Boeing 737, DCS: Grand Caravan, etc.. Wouldn't you want to see these aircraft taxiing around and bringing DCS World alive?

 

I'll go one better. It isn't unusual in a combat environment to see these types of aircraft operating in a civil aviation manner. Go to Afghanistan or Iraq and you'll see airbases with AH-64s, F-16s, Boeings, cargo planes, etc...all operating in their respective ways. There is plenty of room for inclusiveness in DCS World.

 

And it becomes doubly attractive if you are talking about bringing in established FSX or X-Plane developers that don't sap any strength away from ED or Belsimtek or Leatherneck..ie: Carenado, Flight1, CaptainSim, etc..

 

It's a win/win with no downside in my opinion.

 

BeachAV8R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While learning to use all the systems is a really amazing part of the experience, and speaks to the fidelity of the higher quality modules like the A-10c, a large part of those systems are the combat systems. Understanding how to acquire targets and properly engage them with the different types of ordnance is just as much of learning the systems as learning the avionics. Understanding how to control the aircraft in normal and abnormal conditions is important to utilizing them in a combat scenario, but the goal of trading in a combat aircraft is to use it in combat, or at least in combat training scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the question was open to interpretation. For me, option 2 to use DCS for mainly civil operations and flight model could be construed as a mandatory part of using an aircraft which means the only answer could be 3. Ie, if I never drop a weapon, is that a non combat operation? Or if i train a squadron mate on formations and tac turns or holding patterns, is that using it under the pretence of B? Most of the flight is non combat - we spend a lot of time doing civilian type things like departure, route and recovery. Perhaps 80% of our time.

However I assumed you didn't mean this when I answered A.

 

Formation flying falls under combat training. If you consider the fact the world of civilian flight generally prefers planes stay as far away from each other as possible. There is kind of a lot missing from DCS to be a worthwile civil sim. To learn any of the modules in their entirety pretty much means learning things that would solely have combat in mind. These being combat aircraft and all, even flying them at the edge of their envelope pretty much constitutes combat preparation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! And the one thing that always leaves me scratching my head when I read people sort of talking down the civil flying aspect of a sim is that expansion in that direction can ONLY improve the combat flying aspect. I mean, if you want to fly combat in a populated, realistic world, you NEED the civil side stuff. ATC improvements, weather improvements, and what combat pilot is going to complain about the ability to see DCS quality civil content in their combat world? DCS: Boeing 737, DCS: Grand Caravan, etc.. Wouldn't you want to see these aircraft taxiing around and bringing DCS World alive?

 

I'll go one better. It isn't unusual in a combat environment to see these types of aircraft operating in a civil aviation manner. Go to Afghanistan or Iraq and you'll see airbases with AH-64s, F-16s, Boeings, cargo planes, etc...all operating in their respective ways. There is plenty of room for inclusiveness in DCS World.

 

And it becomes doubly attractive if you are talking about bringing in established FSX or X-Plane developers that don't sap any strength away from ED or Belsimtek or Leatherneck..ie: Carenado, Flight1, CaptainSim, etc..

 

It's a win/win with no downside in my opinion.

 

BeachAV8R

 

There can be a few downsides:

 

1) Possibly less of a focus on combat based features. Civil only players will not care for the ability to create loadouts for AI tanks, or more tweaking for armored vehicles ability to track and hit fighter aircraft, or the modelling of war ship counter measure systems. Civil traffic and other support systems mainly centered around civil airports will be their top priority. Which group will ED cater to?

 

2) ED has limited resources. Even if they had more money, they would need more competent developers, possibly a studio relocation to support this expansion, ect. Maybe they will be able to support combat aviation fans even better while support a growing civil aviation aspect to DCS. But it would not be surprising if they can't. BIS can not even accomplish multiple areas with any decent fidelity with ArmA despite having a larger player base (and likely much more sales).

 

3) Splitting of the MP community. Payware maps are a problem. Not everyone will have all of the maps even if the average forum member does. More than likely, the forum regulars are not in the majority. This becomes a problem if you are casually trying to play online and are not part of a dedicated group. Add in other features, like addon ATC, addon civil traffic expansions, ect. and the game will end up like FSX. Most FSX players wouldn't be able to play online with each other because they are essentially running a unique version of their game with many different addons ranging from terrian, clouds, traffic, and more.

 

Planes which are viewable/playable as AI only to everyone and only controllable to those who bought them is one thing. Quickly opening a mission and plopping down a plane they do have is rather easy. Getting everyone else to figure out what type of clouds, civil traffic, other ect. addons they have to enable/disable is much more time consuming.

 

** Third point talks more about 3rd party addons branching out and making addons that are not flyable aircraft than civil aviation. Only reason I included it is because these types of addons seem very popular in FSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

Just to add to your point, for every third party aircraft, ED is ultimately responsible for ensuring it meets their level of quality. So, ED has to become quite familiar with the aircraft in question. This means time and resources that could be spent elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Possibly less of a focus on combat based features. Civil only players will not care for the ability to create loadouts for AI tanks, or more tweaking for armored vehicles ability to track and hit fighter aircraft, or the modelling of war ship counter measure systems. Civil traffic and other support systems mainly centered around civil airports will be their top priority. Which group will ED cater to?

I'll counter that with - maybe some of those civil side guys will bring something to ED that will improve the DCS World combat environment. Again, better weather, better ATC, better AI, who knows?

 

 

2) ED has limited resources. Even if they had more money, they would need more competent developers, possibly a studio relocation to support this expansion, ect. Maybe they will be able to support combat aviation fans even better while support a growing civil aviation aspect to DCS. But it would not be surprising if they can't. BIS can not even accomplish multiple areas with any decent fidelity with ArmA despite having a larger player base (and likely much more sales).

I don't see why that would be the case. Third parties have their own "studios" (virtual or otherwise). ED might have to up the quality assurance and integration staffing, but otherwise I don't see why it would be a big hit to ED.

 

3) Splitting of the MP community. Payware maps are a problem. Not everyone will have all of the maps even if the average forum member does. More than likely, the forum regulars are not in the majority. This becomes a problem if you are casually trying to play online and are not part of a dedicated group. Add in other features, like addon ATC, addon civil traffic expansions, ect. and the game will end up like FSX. Most FSX players wouldn't be able to play online with each other because they are essentially running a unique version of their game with many different addons ranging from terrian, clouds, traffic, and more.

How is that any different than releasing dozens of aircraft modules? And as far as I know, you can fly online with FSX pretty much with whatever add-ons you want installed on your local machine. As long as the MP core components are always common, I don't see a problem there. VATSIM is populated with hundreds (thousands?) of people with varying FSX installs and it doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

Again, I don't see the downside of widening the DCS World base.

 

BeachAV8R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...