What Am I Paying For?

Don't get me wrong here.

But what am I paying for in all of this?

Wonderful that DCS World is free, but to get anywhere you need to buy the new maps, get the latest aircraft, and we are talking in the area of $60.00 a shot.

I have bought three planes in excess of the freeies that come alone with the download (1.5)

But Now version 2.0 is the hope of the future. I understand that Rome wasn't created in a day, but...

A Whole lot of the info out there doesn't follow with the latest version and you better be careful of the downloads you add because some are for version 1.2 and will cause 1.5 to crash and no one cares to tell you whiich one is which. Think I'm kidding or just ragging? Go on the forums and read it for yourself.

I think this game (sim) is the best I have ever come across, But does DCS know where this is going to end?

That this rate, and these prices, I believe this sim is doomed to the same fate as Strike Fighters and Falcon 4.0 AF.

What does thou think to be so?

Switching from first version to 2nd version of DCS World has been and will continue to be a bumpy ride. When the "Merge" occurs I think it will be much smoother sailing.... or flying.

Wait for a good deal when low price special sales occur.

By that time a lot of the bugs are worked out positively, usually.

As to 2.0 , 16GB ram is almost not enough, now! Will be interesting when the merge occurs.

A Whole lot of the info out there doesn't follow with the latest version and you better be careful of the downloads you add because some are for version 1.2 and will cause 1.5 to crash and no one cares to tell you whiich one is which. Think I'm kidding or just ragging? Go on the forums and read it for yourself.

You need to understand that DCS World has been around since 2012 and a lot of mods have been made in the ensuing years. Some have been updated and some have not. However, they are community made mods based on the existing code at the time. It is not the fault of ED that their code has evolved and the mods have been rendered unusable.

If the post date for a mod is more than six months old it is highly likely that there will be issues so you just have to be careful, make backups, and do a bit of research before using an old mod.

No

I hope not

I love my A-10C. That $60 is moot after 6 years. Combined Arms is a regular role and it is a blast IMO once learned. The older FC3 a/c are there and my F-15C flies well and is still a challenge in A2A. My friends are talking about their F-5 and Viggen, and the WWII stuff. Third party work is in parallel with the engine development.

I'm surely not the oldest user of ED products, but I've been around for a while. And I think the future looks very bright right now.

We're getting more and more high quality modules. The work ED has done in terms of graphics and terrain engines is just outstanding. Coming from 1.2, the new graphics engine is a massive leap ahead, and the stunning new Nevada terrain is also way beyond the old Caucasus map. With Normandy just around the edge, it seems this map is going to be even more beautiful. Plus, Caucasus is going to get a major overhaul as well.

Then the modules. ED/TFC themselves are kicking out great stuff, and I just can't wait for the F/A-18, though the Hog is currently my favorite aircraft of all of them - even though it was only their second fully clickable module. The depth of the modelling is just amazing.

And then we have an increasing number of 3rd parties providing us with new toys at a much higher rate than ED could on their own.

I'm now at a point that I don't buy anything just because it gets released. Most of all it doesn't make much sense to me to own something I won't have the time to learn anyway. That said, I never regretted my last minute decision to get the Viggen pre-release, what a fantastic module!

So, I don't know what you're paying for. I am paying for very high quality content that's there for hours and hours of fun, while also providing me with an amazing community and Multiplayer environment. :thumbup:

Wonderful that DCS World is free, but to get anywhere you need to buy the new maps, get the latest aircraft, and we are talking in the area of $60.00 a shot.

...

That this rate, and these prices, I believe this sim is doomed to the same fate as Strike Fighters and Falcon 4.0 AF.

Have you seen what is the price of other sims out there? .. x-plane costs 60 bucks too .. and every add-on for it has a cost too, for example the MD-80 costs 60 bucks also.

And did you check P3D? ... it costs us$200 unless you are a student ... and its add-ons also have a price, a single airport can cost 30 bucks.

Of course, there are hobbists that can release skin and mods for free, but when you want to create content for a living, you have to find a way to fund your work, and that most commonly is through a selling price.

Im not sure what do you want here ... free planes? Free campaigns? Free terrains? ... perhaps you should consider creating something simple yourself, like a skin for an aircraft ... then when you realize the time needed for it, perhaps you will understand better why somethings have a price.

Regards.

He look serious?

Don't get me wrong here.

But what am I paying for in all of this?

Wonderful that DCS World is free, but to get anywhere you need to buy the new maps, get the latest aircraft, and we are talking in the area of $60.00 a shot.

I have bought three planes in excess of the freeies that come alone with the download (1.5)

But Now version 2.0 is the hope of the future. I understand that Rome wasn't created in a day, but...

A Whole lot of the info out there doesn't follow with the latest version and you better be careful of the downloads you add because some are for version 1.2 and will cause 1.5 to crash and no one cares to tell you whiich one is which. Think I'm kidding or just ragging? Go on the forums and read it for yourself.

I think this game (sim) is the best I have ever come across, But does DCS know where this is going to end?

That this rate, and these prices, I believe this sim is doomed to the same fate as Strike Fighters and Falcon 4.0 AF.

What does thou think to be so?

Lots going on behind the scenes LocoCoco, First off all, the modules in DCS are the best you can buy in the sim market anywhere for the FM's and system modeling.

Take the A-10C for example at $39. This still blows me away with it's system modeling now and I have had it forever and it still takes me a bit to get back into it after taking some time off using other modules.

You could make it your sim career if you wanted to, just like in the military. If you stop flying for a while your proficiency goes way down.

This leads me now to why the A-10C still (2010) sets the bar height for all flight sims, A-10C was originally created to train the military from the A-10A to the A-10C (See picture). This is also good for us as we get the latest sim tech partially funded by these contracts.

This also answers your "doomed" glass half empty line. ED works in both the consumer and commercial side.

Old Interview: Matt Wagner On Black Shark 2009

Rock Paper Shotgun: Would ED rather work on sims for the military or the public? I get the feeling defence departments pay more and complain less.

"Matt: We want to work on both! The developments are very much complementary. We have a development engine, which for want of a better term we call TFCSE (The Fighter Collection Simulation Engine). This engine is under continuous development and enhancement. Therefore the military gains an advantage of using technology that is state of the art, and the public get an entertainment title that has improved fidelity from our military experience (obviously limited to those are areas that are not classified!). We therefore can amortise our development costs across two markets, to the benefit of all. Military contracts are not a license to print money, as often they are required to be done on a “cost plus” basis, and I can assure you that they are very demanding as the simulation has to be perfect so as not to introduce “negative training”. In addition, gaining/winning military contracts is highly unpredictable, whereas for entertainment titles, we can plan a business over several years."

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/01/18/matt-wagner-on-black-shark/

There is no aircraft on the market that comes anywhere close , that I know of? To the A-10C's FM and system modeling. Perhaps PMDG aircarft? They still do not have multiple weapons and the weapon systems modeling to go with it. The cost of a PMDG module? Very expensive.

This still also goes for the Ka-50, 2009! for the helicopter side of things.

Each aircraft module is like a new game in many respects. The time it takes to master just one is huge. I do feel like the maps should perhaps be a bit less expensive as frankly (sorry guys) Nevada is not impressive by modern standards. Go look at Star Citizen's procedural planet tech

Each aircraft module is like a new game in many respects. The time it takes to master just one is huge. I do feel like the maps should perhaps be a bit less expensive as frankly (sorry guys) Nevada is not impressive by modern standards. Go look at Star Citizen's procedural planet tech

! They are giving fully explorable entire planets at something like each being 10% or more the actual size of Earth with a much higher level of fidelity than DCS small maps , but then Star Citizen is VERY well funded, but I hope that tech trickles down to where in a few years we can have maps like that in DCS. DCS is a niche market, one that I might add I'm thrilled is being satisfied. Not nearly enough truly "hardcore" sims on the market. Give me the fully manual cold start to shut down baby!

Could be a long while before DCS is able to do something like that as a great deal of the PC power is dedicated to FM's, AI, realistic real time weapon ballistics. Plus how the maps are done now take plenty of time to do, as they need to be accurate for the commercial training market, The consumer side maps are this way also as this too fits in with the marketing for both perhaps.

I cannot see ED going down the fake terrain / tiling worlds path as this is not the market there in? Who knows tho, down the line when we have 50 gigahertz processor and can handle all this realistic DCS physics stuff.

I would be very happy now with having better ATC and weather, clouds etc and then to really bring our overclocked PC to a crawl, just throw in some very realistic turbulence modeling.

Each aircraft module is like a new game in many respects. The time it takes to master just one is huge. I do feel like the maps should perhaps be a bit less expensive as frankly (sorry guys) Nevada is not impressive by modern standards. Go look at Star Citizen's procedural planet tech

! They are giving fully explorable entire planets at something like each being 10% or more the actual size of Earth with a much higher level of fidelity than DCS small maps , but then Star Citizen is VERY well funded, but I hope that tech trickles down to where in a few years we can have maps like that in DCS. DCS is a niche market, one that I might add I'm thrilled is being satisfied. Not nearly enough truly "hardcore" sims on the market. Give me the fully manual cold start to shut down baby!

Maybe, but that is neither Nevada, nor Normandy, or anything a flightsim would need in terms of realism. Actually it isn't even on Earth.

Sorry, but for me a Utopia "Planet 6532-Alpha" flying around a G7 Type sun in a galaxy far, far away, has no advantage over Nevada with accurate Las Vegas, or Normandy, Strait of Hormuz or even Caucasus with places I can do maps and attack plans on Google maps.

:dunno:

Plus ED already uses procedural grass/vegetation in Nevada.

Thanks for the replies.

As I tried to get across, I'm not really complaining or crying, I was just sitting and wondering where all of this might be going. I have not been around these parts for long so it has been very helpful to get the prospective of people who have been a round a lot longer and actually have their finger on the pulse.

I'm not looking for anything free. I know this work takes time and effort and I hope to continue to support it. My fear, I guess, is that one day it will simply be gone and we are all on our own. I'm just hoping that doesn't happen and your post have made me feel a whole lot better about that.

Thanks again...

Maybe, but that is neither Nevada, nor Normandy, or anything a flightsim would need in terms of realism. Actually it isn't even on Earth.

 

Sorry, but for me a Utopia "Planet 6532-Alpha" flying around a G7 Type sun in a galaxy far, far away, has no advantage over Nevada with accurate Las Vegas, or Normandy, Strait of Hormuz or even Caucasus with places I can do maps and attack plans on Google maps.

:dunno:

 

Plus ED already uses procedural grass/vegetation in Nevada.

I wasn't suggesting ED use Star Citizen's alien worlds, but rather that in time the same tech could be used to generate much, much larger maps for DCS with higher level of fidelity. Locations can still be hand crafted, such as Las vegas and the surrounding area etc.

Anyway I didn't mean to derail, I just meant to say my only complaint about DCS is the map size and level of detail compared to the tech now available.

I don't think DCS will ever be finished as we think of in most game.

It's a platform that has and will evolve over time. DCS ww2 was a kickstarter project that failed and has been taken on by ED. The a10c was originally made to train real pilots which has been around since 2011.

"but rather that in time the same tech could be used to generate much, much larger maps for DCS with higher level of fidelity"

Sorry but - No, not higher fidelity ...

Fidelity is a measure of the realism of a model or simulation, what you're asking for would be less real, but more pretty (& perhaps more visually immersive).

All that would happen if E.D. were to take your advise is that the other 95 % of the posters here that are after 'fidelity' would be more up in arms than you are.

Please note that I don't mean to tear down the work ED has done, I'm very much a fan of ED and DCS. What I'm arguing here is the idea that modern procedural tech plus manual editing and handcrafted locations would not be able to produce a much better result.

 

Sorry but - No, not higher fidelity ...

 

Fidelity is a measure of the realism of a model or simulation, what you're asking for would be less real, but more pretty (& perhaps more visually immersive).

 

All that would happen if E.D. were to take your advise is that the other 95 % of the posters here that are after 'fidelity' would be more up in arms than you are.

I disagree, and I think that your impression of the accuracy/realism/fidelity of the Nevada map is absolutely incorrect. I fairly recently spent a week in Las Vegas, flew in and out in the window seat of an Airliner, and flew for several hours in a helicopter at both low and fairly high alitude from Vegas, to the Hoover dam, to the Grand Canyon, and back again. Maybe the terrain contour is close, maybe not, but I can tell you it looks a hell of a lot different from reality in every single regard. As far as the city many of the major landmarks are missing, though I'm glad at least my personal favorite building is there.

On Caucasus at least rivers flow up and down hills, end mysteriously and suddenly, roads run humorously off camber on the sides of steep hills, and go to nowhere and end. Some of this might be limited to StarWays and Barthek as I often run those. I haven't flown nearly as much in the wilderness of NTTR yet so I don't know whether some or all of those are untrue in NTTR.

If you are suggesting that using modern tech to generate procedural textures and flora, to make riverbeds that don't climb uphill in both directions, roads that are graded instead of just following natural contours, etc. would mean that it's not possible to model as many atmospheric factors influencing flight I disagree with that as well.

@David_OC Star Citizen is modeling very complex flight model physics as well, and claims that they will also be running advanced physics related to atmospheric conditions and projectile trajectory etc. though all but the flight model physics are yet to be seen.

Anyway, I rest my case.

Please note that I don't mean to tear down the work ED has done, I'm very much a fan of ED and DCS. What I'm arguing here is the idea that modern procedural tech plus manual editing and handcrafted locations would not be able to produce a much better result.

 

 

I disagree, and I think that your impression of the accuracy/realism/fidelity of the Nevada map is absolutely incorrect. I fairly recently spent a week in Las Vegas, flew in and out in the window seat of an Airliner, and flew for several hours in a helicopter at both low and fairly high alitude from Vegas, to the Hoover dam, to the Grand Canyon, and back again. Maybe the terrain contour is close, maybe not, but I can tell you it looks a hell of a lot different from reality in every single regard. As far as the city many of the major landmarks are missing, though I'm glad at least my personal favorite building is there.

 

 

On Caucasus at least rivers flow up and down hills, end mysteriously and suddenly, roads run humorously off camber on the sides of steep hills, and go to nowhere and end. Some of this might be limited to StarWays and Barthek as I often run those. I haven't flown nearly as much in the wilderness of NTTR yet so I don't know whether some or all of those are untrue in NTTR.

 

If you are suggesting that using modern tech to generate procedural textures and flora, to make riverbeds that don't climb uphill in both directions, roads that are graded instead of just following natural contours, etc. would mean that it's not possible to model as many atmospheric factors influencing flight I disagree with that as well.

 

@David_OC Star Citizen is modeling very complex flight model physics as well, and claims that they will also be running advanced physics related to atmospheric conditions and projectile trajectory etc. though all but the flight model physics are yet to be seen.

 

Anyway, I rest my case.

This may sound harsh or like I am knocking your point. But all I am really doing is showing you another side of this thing.

There are other flight sims out there that cost much more than DCS and charge more for the terrain and it's still not of DCS quality. I have another sim that was mentioned earlier in this thread that I had been flying for several years before I started getting into DCS.

Just like everything you are saying, rivers were terrible, terrain (even in well marked cities like Chicago, Paris, and Las vegas) was all generic with minimal or in most cases no landmarks, and very unrealistic. Empty airports everywhere. I even purchased their las Vegas terrain and it was much more of a circus cartoon than the DCS NTTR map. It got to the point to where I just hated using it. As of a few months ago this other Sim company released their newest version with all new updated tech and terrain generators, blah blah blah yet it still looks like a cartoon and you still have to invest hundreds of dollars to get anything out of it that as realistic as DCS is putting out.

I too have been and will be in Vegas many many times. I know the place very well, and much is missing from DCS's version. But still....much more is missing from the other pay version. And honestly, I don't think that you are going to find any version in a sim that's as accurate as reality for countless reasons. It's just silly to think that your going to get that kind of detail. The other sim that I am talking about gets a lot of complaints about the graphics and how a lot of people cannot use it because their computer cannot handle the mass amounts of (albeit) generic scenery. Many people have to run the sim at minimum settings. And the creators of the sim readily admit that there is no computer out there that is capable of running it at max settings. I for one believe that. And yet again, it's still not as attractive as DCS is. Not to mention that the flight model isn't even in the same class as DCS (we could go on for days about it's terrible flight model), and it's clouds and weather isn't as good as DCS. Yet it has been updated to a new and better version that'll set you back $60, and still hundreds more if you want to make it worth flying. Noooo thanks. The detail (as vague as it may seem to some) in DCS is plenty fine with me and I'm happy to pay for it because I've owned the other software, and it's no better than DCS. In fact....I don't fly the other any more. DCS is so much better on all levels.

I believe that there are people who have an unrealistic expectations of computer games and simulators. I use to be one of them. The day I started realizing that it's a computer and not reality, and started understanding that there are limitations on both my side and the developer's side and stopped trying to compare 0's and 1's to reality. That was the day that I really started enjoying my flight sim.

It's just not real, and we cannot expect it to be.

@zimmerdylan Your reply was well worded and thought out.

I have some idea of the limitations, and I agree that DCS puts out a great product that in my opinion when it comes to the "whole picture" is head and shoulders above anything else.

The terrain could be better, and amazing tech is on the horizon for terrain generation and editing resulting in dramatically better detail and excellent performance. I digress.

"but rather that in time the same tech could be used to generate much, much larger maps for DCS with higher level of fidelity"

 

Sorry but - No, not higher fidelity ...

 

Fidelity is a measure of the realism of a model or simulation, what you're asking for would be less real, but more pretty (& perhaps more visually immersive

I have a question about fidelity since it has been mentioned.

If I were to have access to a helium balloon model in the engine, think of a child's party balloon. So I have an 'accurately' modeled helium balloon my pilot character is standing there holding it by the string and it floats me overhead.

The question is, would that balloon move at all? Is there actually a wind that exists in the game engine? Are there invisible forces constantly swirling around everything? Is one of the most basic environmental forces modeled? One that in fact is kinda critical to the very aspect/focus of the sim, flight. I know you can set wind speed in the editor, but curious if I set wind to 100knots, would it actually move something? Make sense?

Edit:I forgot to say since Vegas has been a focus. My girl said to tell you she wants you guys to turn on the fountains at the "Bellagio". So make it happen please.

One that in fact is kinda critical to the very aspect/focus of the sim, flight. I know you can set wind speed in the editor, but curious if I set wind to 100knots, would it actually move something? Make sense?

.

A crosswind certainly has an effect on plane when taking off and landing. High drag bombs get blown way off target. Smoke from chimneys shows an effect of wind.

No, wind is a force that is directly calculated to the FM. That is also the reason why we won't be able to get glider-esque aircraft like the U-2.

A crosswind certainly has an effect on plane when taking off and landing. High drag bombs get blown way off target. Smoke from chimneys shows an effect of wind.

I understand the 'setting' has an effect on some things, was just not sure if it is actually an all encompassing 'actual' global environmental effect. I mean wind is not constant, it ebbs and flows, gusts arise and fall, dead lulls there, the jet stream up high..etc. Wind is not like a fan turned on. It has 'life' to it, a dynamic, not a static, force. Just trying to understand how deep 'fidelity' goes when it comes to the environment.

The wind seems to be just a constant force although it varies with height. So yes more like a fan than the real thing.

There is a wind & has been since the first Black Shark release, which will be 'constant' if no turbulence is set up, and won't be if it is,

See:

xpZy4djjc2k

No, wind is a force that is directly calculated to the FM. That is also the reason why we won't be able to get glider-esque aircraft like the U-2.

Lets say "wind is a force that is directly calculated to the FM of aircraft, (& the smoke, and the rain, and bullets, cannon round, missiles, tank shells, & pretty much anything else that moves through the air)."

It's a simulation, not a real world, but there is a wind value for everywhere at any time, and anything that interacts with the air in the model will attempt to calculate the effect of that wind on its behaviour.