What exactly is this?

Skip the Mustang? That is a sad statement for a true sim pilot.

 

This only leaves me still wanting the F/A 18 w/Carrier Ops...the Carl Vinson looks so very lonely sitting out there...:pilotfly:

It's a beautiful plane, and of course a nice work from ED, but I'm more into modern era planes ;)

I'm sorry, this just keeps going through my head: " Spectrum HoloByte wants to expand its Electronic Battlefield Series to include not only low-flying A-10 "Warthog" tank-busters but also the ability to link up with a tank simulation on the ground."

I'm gonna need a piddle pack due to all this giddiness. :-)

Will this be a more of a simulation (Arma II level), or more of a game (Battlefield 3 like)?

I guess it's a development from this project, 2 years ago.

I guess it's a development from this project, 2 years ago.

Im pretty sure thats already started 5-6 years ago. - or more

ARMA II is not a "simulator" and surely is quiet arcade related to armoured or mechanizwd warfare.

If you want an armour simulator, try Steel Beasts Pro Pe. Less than that is just a game or arcade

And since I'm new to this please forgive me for asking an old question but we'll be able to plug in other games into this DCS Combined Arms interface like ARMA III or Steel Beasts Pro PE and interact with the DCS world of FC3 or FC2 or Black Shark or A10?

I think this is the amazing part, if it's really more than just a rumor. I'm trying to imagine how that will work out..

No.

I think CA is great, but as my violin competition adjudicator said about my playing, "Don't stop here, you've done great, but you need to go further with this." I think CA is great, but only if Matt & gang ;) keep on upping the realism of ground units from here. Look at what the ground AI does now, and look at SB Pro PE. The motions need to be more fluid, and the ability to find hull down positions automatically would be awesome as well, which brings us to armor, simply put, having different values for front/back etc. is nice, but you need to push it further. Have different values for things such as the gun mantlet, the glacis, etc. The ground AI took a big step forward with DCS A-10C with the smoke and the displacement (or was that black shark?). Keep going! Make tactics more individualized, and less group based (At least for NATO forces). This would result in more interesting battles A-10's and black sharks as well. I'm not saying to implement any of this in the first release, just incrementally. Thanks again for CA.

I think this is the amazing part, if it's really more than just a rumor. I'm trying to imagine how that will work out..

Wherever you heard the rumor, don't go back for more.;)

Damn, you guys have caused me to lose a bet with my best mate. I stated there was no way, we would ever see a real digital battlefield in our lifetime.

Never thought I would be so happy to lose a tenner ;)

If you guys pull this off, and from what I've seen so far, you certainly will. This is gonna be a Hugh step forward in pc simulation.

Only real issue I can see is deciding what you're gonna fly. A10, KA50, F14, F15, F22, Mig 21, SU25 or the P51 and if non of that takes your fancy. Or Go and play in the mud as a FAC or tankie.

Damn life is good, life is DCS.

Cowboy10uk

Shut up and take my money now....please? :D

Out

This is very cool.

This is very cool.

Yes, yes it is.

Nate

When the BETA comes out, I guess alot of questions will be answered. I have always enjoyed the vehicles in other games, but found the terrain way to restrictive. This will be a nice change of pace.

Cept the part where it takes u 15-20 mins to drive to your objective than "boom" from incoming vickers an or anti-tank guided rocket. Adds another level of realism an fear of death, but hopefully forces teamplay between Air an Land units. As someone said..wow. Just waiting for the pre-purchase button to magically appear:thumbup:

Cept the part where it takes u 15-20 mins to drive to your objective than "boom" from incoming vickers an or anti-tank guided rocket. Adds another level of realism an fear of death, but hopefully forces teamplay between Air an Land units. As someone said..wow. Just waiting for the pre-purchase button to magically appear:thumbup:

Indeed - Run and Gun is not what you want to do - co-ordination is required.

Nate

Indeed - Run and Gun is not what you want to do - co-ordination is required.

 

Nate

I think this is why I am somewhat leary of some of the aircraft being developed for DCS world. I understand the concept of baby steps... And i honestly hope all of these projects come to fruition.

That being said, I've been playing computer games pretty much continuously since 1993 when I got my first real PC. Some flight sims,mostly First person shooters. In that time I've had many games I was very happy with playing with friends ruined by "Improvements". Well thought out and fun games were ruined when an "improved" version catering to the ADHD segment of society. I don't wanna see DCS: World ruined just so people can make money.

What sort of improvements are you referring to that ruined past gaming experiences?

Isn't that the point of sequels and updates? To improve things from the previous iteration? Or are you just talking about some of the more massive changes between multiple products of the same version? e.g. the first Rainbow Six compared to R6: Vegas

On the plus side, the mission editor practically defines the gameplay within this simulator. If you don't like aircraft X or certain new features, don't put it in missions. Its as simple as that.

I wonder if they are getting help with CO from esim games because ya know steel beasts with troop deployments is win :P

On the plus side, the mission editor practically defines the gameplay within this simulator. If you don't like aircraft X or certain new features, don't put it in missions. Its as simple as that.

Neat, simple and final. I really like that.

Maybe there could be an FAQ (if there isn't one already), as this type of misconception appears quite regularly on this forum and on others.

There are other misunderstandings that seem to me to appear quite regularly as well, e.g.

Q. why pay $40 per plane. It should be $40 for the whole sim

A. Each aircraft is a study sim in it's own right. If you don't want to fly a particular aircraft then don't buy it.

Q. Why the Mustang, it doesn't fit.

A. (in 2 parts)

• It's a study of the P51-D Mustang, just as the A10 and the Ka50 are study sims of those particular aircraft. The end-user controls which planes fly via the mission editor .. yada-yada.
  
• DCS World is not a simulation that imposes a specific storyline. It's an open modular world and people are free to design their simulation experience as they wish. Of course the complexity of these storylines will depend on an expanding base of 3rd Party Modules to populate the sandbox concept of DCS World. This will happen eventually.
  

Q. Are you mad!? You've signed up 3rd Party Dev XYZ!? I've seen their product in Flightsim LMK and it was totally crap!

A. (in 2 parts)

• They are developing now for DCS: World ... not sim LMK. It is unreasonable to draw conclusions on such disparate platforms.
  
• Is it really anyones business who ED/DCS hire and fire?
  

etc .. etc .. you get the gist of it :D

You really deserve some Tea after all that sir! :D

The anticipation is almost killing me 8)- Don't think it'll matter which aircraft so long as mission makers offset/balance out for each aircraft they decide to use in missions. Maye like a10's for blue side an SU25's for red side etc with maybe ai controlled CAP aircrafted vice versa, IMO which is gonna make this experience so unique an very very interesting come game day 8)-

It opens up opportunities for modern prop aircraft, Pilatus, Tuscano etc.

You forgot the most important one. :(

You forgot the most important one. :(

Quiet you!