Military vs Civil Simulation

It really comes down to maps. If the NTTR map was expanded to include California (particularly Southern California), then you could include things like Pilot Edge (http://www.pilotedge.net/), VATSIM which might attract some folks from XPlane, FSX and P3D. Although the graphics with EDGE are fantastic, it can't compete with a worldwide map. I have to tell you, after flying the graphics with NTTR map, it's hard to go back to XPlane.

We'd have to hear from the Devs if they can even go bigger with the NTTR map within the same engine. The borders already have low res or medium res areas and they would have to be bumped up if expanded. I'd imagine adding larger cities or multiple large cities would have some effect on the maps.

NTTR map is beautiful and DCS has great flight characteristics but if you just want to fly around take out the training P-51, one of huge allotment of jet trainers, or simply fly around the unarmed huey. I hope none of the devs waste time on civilian planes ... C-130 or military tanker/transports are good IMO if they want to go the non-combat route.

A turboprop trainer like the Tucano might be a good compromise, as well as giving pilots the option of 'starting a career' up to the fast jets.

I'm kinda torn on this debate,i would like to see a new civilian flight simulator that uses the same techniques that ED uses to make realistic graphics in maps such as Nevada and fully clickable aircraft from general aviation to passenger aircraft and helos.On the other hand,this is a combat simulator and it doesn't have realistic weather that FSX had.Plus i think this sim should expand on it's combat simulator theme by going into other forms of combat & non-combat roles like ground warfare with drivable tanks and anti-aircraft weapons,Naval warfare with controllable ships & submarines and other military aircraft that perform different tasks.

Yes, I pointed that out, it's not that bad. At least not to me. Civil modules won't change anything in this regard. In fact, we're already having a discussion on civil modules without any even being planned. This also isn't first thread.

 

 

I don't see an us vs them, I just see more modules, but maybe that's because I'm interested in both sides already. I don't fly DCS to be in a combat only sandbox. I fly DCS because the aircraft models are great.

 

 

I don't want to bother with FSX because it's not DCS. I like DCS as a platform more, having everything in one place is great. Also, getting FSX to even install was a pain as the disk did not even show up in my ODD for the longest time.

 

AP flight depends on what you plan to fly. For a transatlantic flight sure. DCS doesn't support that at this time, and I plan to do more than that with these modules.

+1

Completely my idea!!

Imagine, thatt companies like ORBX and Aerosoft should also develop sceneries, using the new engine of ED: we would all benefit!

After a long track of simming, of more than 25 yrs, and a recent 3 yr process of selection and "filtering", in which I re-evaluated FSX, X-Plane 10, IL-2 CoD, IL-2 BoS / BoM and DCS World, I have settled with only two simulators:

- Condorsoaring for virtual gliding when not able to fly for real...

- DCS World for rotary wing, ww2 fighters and from time to time maybe a ride on the L-39 or any other special modern jet module I may decide to buy.

Simply can't find any match for DCS in terms of flight dynamics, attention to detail in modelling of a specific aircraft module, ...

I would surely like to fly a nice Civil aircraft, like an aerobatic airplane or even a glider if the weather model one day get's updated to cope with the sources of lift we use in gliders :-), but

although I didn't like combat simulation, the truth is I became addict of ww2 combat.....

I don't understand why people are fine with transports, but not airliners or GA.

Because you want to keep your troops supplied or stop fighting. Whereas flying them to, say, Bahama for R & R is somewhat _less_ important here I'd imagine ;)

I would like to see civil aviation segment in DCS.

specially now, when we have highly detailed city like Las Vegas and a civil airport.

I think PPL , CPL campaigns for rotorcraft/fixed wing may be popular.

Because you want to keep your troops supplied or stop fighting. Whereas flying them to, say, Bahama for R & R is somewhat _less_ important here I'd imagine ;)

We'd like our passengers to be packing heat and jumping out at 2000 ft over an LZ or rolling the cargo out of a moving plane with a parachute attached. Combat landings and takeoffs ... not silverware while on autopilot.

Fully agree, I would buy a Hercules, C-17 or A400M but not a civilian airliner (except Concorde I guess!)

Personally, I really dislike the idea of civil aviation (or any civil stuff) in a Combat Simulator. I'm really not interested in civil modules and certainly won't buy any.

To avoid misunderstandings I want to make clear, that unarmed doesn't necessary mean civil. I would very much welcome a C-160 Transall or C-130 Herkules module :)

Do what you like. Having 747's in DCS doesn't mean you have to use them at all. Combat isn't all about shooting either. In fact, it's far more interesting when there are things to do other than shoot. The F-15 only carries 8 missiles, you can get rid of them in 30 seconds. Then what? Identifying targets and assessing the battle are vital to a good mission in my opinion. You don't need to shoot to enjoy DCS. Flying a 747 doesn't stop things from shooting at you anyway.

The best line i read in these forums so far. Very well put.

As a matter of fact i believe that the entire non combat part of..... combat is by far more rewarding or at least is what makes combat rewarding at all.

Fly safe!

Would be nice to have transport aircraft. I'd buy a IL-76 or a C-130 instantly. Pure GA, i don't know, probably would not buy any.

Airforce One, now that would be a legit "civil" 747 target, it even has some self defence measures

;)

Airforce One, now that would be a legit "civil" 747 target, it even has some self defence measures

;)

Because listening to a 12 year old scream about how you can't shoot down the president on VOIP is exactly what DCS has been missing...

Because listening to a 12 year old scream about how you can't shoot down the president on VOIP is exactly what DCS has been missing...

Much as it goes against common sense to even reply to that post - how is this any different from a child 'screaming' about anything they don't like?

What a really silly thing to post. Also sounds like the pot calling the kettle black ;)

Much as it goes against common sense to even reply to that post - how is this any different from a child 'screaming' about anything they don't like?

 

What a really silly thing to post. Also sounds like the pot calling the kettle black ;)

Oh it's no different technically, but the difference in experience is I've never run into that 12 year old playing DCS, I ran into versions him all four times I tried to play FSX online, twice ironically as "Air Force One".

Airforce One, now that would be a legit "civil" 747 target, it even has some self defence measures

;)

Harrison Ford?

This is a combat related sim... Adding general aviation to this sim would ruin it! Last thing we need is a bunch of turds running around in their FSX quality Cessna 1/72's etc

Adding a C-17, C-130, etc to fulfill a logistical gap would be cool though.

Adding general aviation to this sim would ruin it! Last thing we need is a bunch of turds running around in their FSX quality Cessna 1/72's etc

Well that's the point: if GA modules were to be developed, they wouldn't be FSX quality, but DCS quality. This in itself makes quite the difference, as the vast majority of FSX aircraft is of poor quality, with only a handful payware ones that would approach DCS standards.

And then again, you can't ruin a sim by adding more optional content, whether or not someone would be able to fly around with their 172 would be up to the mission maker/server admin.

Expecting a combat sim to have combat-only content is perfectly understandable, but if the DCS quality standards can be achieved in general aviation modules, then why not use this as an opportunity to attract more customers? I'm sure there are people on these forums who would buy at least one such module (and it would also be an opportunity to have proper ATC).

would buy at least one such module

I would. But the ATC would have to be realistic / proper, or there's no point.

Harrison Ford?

Would that be a separate DLC download?

But anyway, back on topic: While this is a digital combat simulator we do need an independent 3rd party / civilian non combatant in the conflicts so that we have to make proper identification before opening fire at BVR.

It is up to the mission designers to either include or exclude combatants or non combatants, they set the balance of the missions and the objectives that the people playing through the mission have to achieve.

Now as to whether I would want to fly a 747/A380 through a combat zone - maybe not.

as long as there are still a lot of possibilities for military modules (especially military helicopters! ;) ) I would not spend dev time for civilian modules.

Just my opinion.

Why not DCS as Digital civilian Simulator when there is a market for that with an option to mix it with Military. I would like to fly modern military Jets looks like Hornet, F-16-C, Tornado, F-14 ......

Many happy landings for 2016 !

The anti-civvy people seem to all use multi-player as an against argument.

I'm willing to bet there a lot more single-player users than multiplayer.

So how would DCS Cessna 172 (for example) harm you exactly?

The anti-civvy people seem to all use multi-player as an against argument.

 

I'm willing to bet there a lot more single-player users than multiplayer.

So how would DCS Cessna 172 (for example) harm you exactly?

Cost value proposition. Civilian aircraft are simpler, and easier to model. More information about them is available so fewer hurdles to their creation. And, has been pointed out, there is a much larger market for civilian flight sims, than military ones (god only knows why). So if a company looking to make a module looks at it, he sees this:

I can spend years of effort, researching difficult to obtain information, modeling incredibly complex systems, and selling them to a smaller audience by making a military module, or i can spend a quarter of that time making simpler modules and selling them to a larger audience by doing a civilian one.

It's a no brainer.