Excited about Sabre but will only buy if authentic theater is provided

Fair enough, tomcatter, thank you and Javelina and others for responding to my point of view politely.

As I sit here and think about what a pleasure it would be to fly a well-simulated F-86, I feel my resolve not to buy it weakening, even though, as a maker of detailed, authentic missions, the lack of a historically suitable theater is a huge disincentive. Flying the Sabre in the existing theater becomes abstract and lacking in context, which is a shame.

I appreciate your point Sith, but nevertheless I think you understand the argument I am making, which is that, ideally, the ability to recreate real-life scenarios that replicate this aircraft's moment in combat would be very desirable to many of us. You make fun of simulating F-86 ops in Nevada, yet I am very aware of the extensive tactical/combat exercises conducted at Nellis for the F-86, both air-to-air and air-to-ground, often involving aggressor squadrons, and those could easily be recreated by by, and for, consumers who look for authentic rather than theoretical training or combat scenarios in high-fidelity flight sims. As for a Russian theater, it's easier to envisage early Cold War fighter operations involving a platform with as short a range as the Sabre's over western Russia and the German border, rather than deep into Georgia, so the point you make is very debatable even if the sarcasm indicates that you believe you are stating the obvious.

It's astonishing that some if you have chosen to respond to my moderately expressed and perfectly valid point of view with such pompous vitriol. And to accuse me of 'slating' the product is both inaccurate and a little infantile as I am doing no such thing. It has been ten, possibly even fifteen, years since ED has produced a new theater and it is not unreasonable to ask for one. Responding to my argument with such inappropriate, nerdy hostility is most unflattering to those of you who could not resist the urge to do so. NeilWillis, the length and tone of your responses here will prompt many reasonable people to question the state of your mental health, quite seriously. At the very least, you need to get some fresh air.

Any more astonishing than your soul destroying comments about someone's hard work over months or even years developing the masterpiece that the Sabre certainly appears to be?

I would also suggest you withdraw the personal remarks you have made. Perhaps calling my sanity into question is a little excessive and immoderate?

As for my outburst earlier, I apologise. I just saw red. But can anyone deny that I do have a valid point? We can't have everything totally perfected, and right now. Take a look at simple truth No 1.

Confucius says the F-86 flew over his house in 1948 and he lived in China!

Fair enough, tomcatter, thank you and Javelina and others for responding to my point of view politely.

 

As I sit here and think about what a pleasure it would be to fly a well-simulated F-86, I feel my resolve not to buy it weakening, even though, as a maker of detailed, authentic missions, the lack of a historically suitable theater is a huge disincentive. Flying the Sabre in the existing theater becomes abstract and lacking in context, which is a shame.

 

I appreciate you point Sith, but nevertheless I think you understand the argument I am making, which is that, ideally, the ability to recreate real-life scenarios that replicate this aircraft's moment in combat would be very desirable to many of us. You make fun of simulating F-86 ops in Nevada, yet I am very aware of the extensive tactical/combat exercises conducted at Nellis for the F-86, and those could easily be recreated by by, and for, consumers who look for authentic rather than theoretical training or combat scenarios in high-fidelity flight sims. As for a Russian theater, it's easier to envisage early Cold War fighter operations involving a platform with as short a range as the Sabre's over eastern Russia and the German border, rather than deep into Georgia, so the point you make is very debatable even if the sarcasm indicates that you believe you are stating the obvious.

I think the bottle neck that's stopping the new theatres of war is the development of Edge. Hopefully it'll be well worth the wait.

I'd rather have more aircraft and no maps than have no new aircraft/campaigns and tons of new maps.

If I have to choose between aircraft and maps, aircraft will always win. With aircraft (and their systems including weapons) modeled well, I can sacrifice the colors of the background if necessary. I get no entertainment from flying 3d shapes whose behavior has little to do with reality. But, the game/simulation I want includes an environment that is modeled as well as the aircraft. I can enjoy flying a MiG-21bis against an F-15C, but I can enjoy them more in a historical context such as Syria vs Israel over the Bekaa Valley.

If the F-86F can be seen the same as the P-51D, I thoroughly enjoyed flying the P-51D and could live with dogfighting another P-51 until the Fw190 was added without any regard for the terrain. Both Mustangs and Sabres tended to start their fights at high altitudes anyway, so the shape and/or color of the terrain is largely unimportant anyway. Having a proper Vietnam is much more critical for the ground hugging UH-1H.

What I would really prefer is a full global environment that would be populated as addons were released spanning both space and time.

I'd rather have more aircraft and no maps than have no new aircraft/campaigns and tons of new maps.

That's an interesting point. I agree. I imagine that it must be very difficult, expensive and time-consuming to produce hundreds of square miles of accurate, fully-rendered terrain in 3D so I am not taking that for granted. However, it is a pity that, in the time since ED first produced its Russia/Georgia theater, the A-10 has been deployed extensively in combat in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, the Hog will probably be out of service by the time we ever get the chance to fly the finest simulation of the aircraft ever to be made available to the public in any recreation of those theaters. I'll be up for building "historical" A-10 missions in these environments if I am still at it in twenty years, if someone comes up with the maps by then.

But can anyone deny that I do have a valid point? We can't have everything totally perfected, and right now.

I agree. And if you had made your argument politely and without massive patronisation, I would have conceded the point there and then.

I am not attacking or criticising either ED/DCS or its superb third-party developers. These products are a godsend to those of us who value uncompromising fidelity in all aspects of combat flight simulation. However, the tremendous efforts they have made in the last few years to broaden the range and appeal of their product and integrate high-quality input from trusted sources is hampered by one thing only, which is the rapidly widening gulf between recent, real-life deployment and use in combat of the aircraft they simulate and the available AO in DCS. Sooner or later, the viability and relevance of this superb family of sims will need to be updated with maps that reflect a very active era in the use of air power in regional wars around the world. I hope it will be sooner, but the extraordinary delay of Nevada does not fill me with confidence.

I think EDGE has a terrain editor that will allow 3rd parties to create maps. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Any more astonishing than your soul destroying comments about someone's hard work over months or even years developing the masterpiece that the Sabre certainly appears to be?

Now this I do not get. Just because people have worked hard on something does not mean it is good. I'm sure the folks over at Activision work hard on Call of Duty, but it is still a turd.

Now this I do not get. Just because people have worked hard on something does not mean it is good. I'm sure the folks over at Activision work hard on Call of Duty, but it is still a turd.

I very much doubt that the F-86 is a "turd" (interesting image though it evokes), in fact I bet it's great. To call my reservations about the lack of an accompanying AO "soul destroying", however, is pure hyperbole and completely misrepresents my intent in starting this thread. The map in which the new Sabre will fly is not within the control of the devs responsible for building the aircraft, therefore it would be idiotic to criticise them on this basis.

I think EDGE has a terrain editor that will allow 3rd parties to create maps. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I think you are right since RRG is using that for Normandy map I believe.

how long can they possibly expect us to put up with no new theaters?

Considering EDGE is finally being integrated to DCS and that old map engine has been a large limitation on the maps I think we are getting to good position of having more maps and theatres.

So hang in there for a while still.. :)

it's just too much of an immersion-breaker for me to have to fly the sim over Russia.

Now this I find hard to believe..

You don't find it distracting that you don't feel G-forces, smell kerosene or generally that you sit in some kind of apartment instead of an actual aircraft..? ;)

Now this I find hard to believe..

You don't find it distracting that you don't feel G-forces, smell kerosene or generally that you sit in some kind of apartment instead of an actual aircraft..? ;)

Fair enough. Just bear in mind that for many people, full immersion involves a fully-integrated battlefield, theater and (less important, IMO) campaign. However, the lack of one is not Belsimtek's fault and I am sure that ED is working hard on EDGE in order to address this issue. So...apologies if I sounded either demanding or peevish, as that was not my intention. It's just that, after spending literally hundreds of hours building very detailed missions for A-10C over about four years now, and having flown the sim all through LO, FC and BS I can no longer squeeze any more inspiration out of this theater; it is too familiar and too strategically distant from the real-life conflicts in which the platforms for which I build scenarios have been deployed in the last twenty years. I will probably buy the Sabre anyway...probably.

Now this I find hard to believe..

You don't find it distracting that you don't feel G-forces, smell kerosene or generally that you sit in some kind of apartment instead of an actual aircraft..? ;)

Is exactly why I have a cup of gas dangling in front of a fan, and a wife ready to kick me gonad when I pull on the stick. She loves me more every day!

Is exactly why I have a cup of gas dangling in front of a fan, and a wife ready to kick me gonad when I pull on the stick. She loves me more every day!

I am sure she does, and that is quite an image. Just be careful if she starts encouraging you to take up smoking when you fly. :P

It's just that, after spending literally hundreds of hours building very detailed missions for A-10C over about four years now, and having flown the sim all through LO, FC and BS I can no longer squeeze any more inspiration out of this theater; it is too familiar and too strategically distant from the real-life conflicts in which the platforms for which I build scenarios have been deployed in the last twenty years.

The map certainly has limitations and I think we all feel it. I might not be sick of it yet, but I do wish it wasn't so tiny. I feel at home flying the Ka-50 over it, but with the fighters I do tend up in all the same spots. It gets worse when I try to manage bombers and other large aircraft.

The thing is, there is EDGE. ED is developing EDGE to get around the problems of having the old engine/IG and there are many. They could make a new map anyway, but then they risk further delaying EDGE. We're just going through a tough time. We can't use EDGE yet and ED can't do anything on the terrain front without EDGE.

I'll say that Korea would be an excellent map. The war never really ended, and there's a good bit of water and islands beyond the main landmass which would cater to people like me who want those really really big maps. As much as I'm looking forward to Nevada, it wouldn't make it to my top 10 map list. All we can do now it wait. No one wants to hear that, but it's the only option right now.

Why the hell is there such a divide over the progress of work done by ED?

I don't understand you people. Half of you always complain over something as insignificant as the wrong color of a collision light, the other half of you scream "ignorant, u make it urself" every time someone questions when a dev will actually release something.

It's kinda obvious at this point DCS is a very slow progressing game. It takes a lot of time to do basic work with the SDK, hell I tried reskinning a F-15 this weekend and it took around 4 hours when I was done.

Now imagine coding thousands of lines of interlocking, interconnected, dependent scripts all interacting with a much larger world.

But it's no excuse to do nothing. I'm particularly upset with Leatherneck, simply because of how long it took. Does this mean I think they're purposefully being lazy? No, it doesn't. It means Im disappointed I didn't get my way the first time. No need to sugercoat it.

A new map will come with ED has the time to do it. Until then, taxi to runway, brakes on, throttle up.

Until then, taxi to runway, brakes on, throttle up.

Taxi to runway...

Taxi to runway...

Thank You!!! :thumbup:

I knew I was missing a step. ;)

I very much doubt that the F-86 is a "turd" (interesting image though it evokes), in fact I bet it's great. To call my reservations about the lack of an accompanying AO "soul destroying", however, is pure hyperbole and completely misrepresents my intent in starting this thread. The map in which the new Sabre will fly is not within the control of the devs responsible for building the aircraft, therefore it would be idiotic to criticise them on this basis.

And idiotic to make your purchase of their contributions so conditional?

The soul destroying remark is valid, simply because there are lots of posts similar to yours in which people consider sounding off about the lack of progress acceptable, when there is clearly plenty happening. Just take a look at the unofficial roadmap thread. As stated earlier, good things come to those who wait, and I am sure there would be far more progress if the developers had an income stream from our supporting them instead of sitting on the fence or waiting for the bargain basement sales to begin.

as far as I am aware, all aircraft occupy that enigmatic medium we call sky. It is composed principally of Nitrogen (2.0x10^25 molecules/m^-3), Oxygen (5.4x10^24 molecules/m^-3), Argon (2.4x10^23 molecules/m^-3), Water vapour (1.3x10^23 molecules/m^-3)and Carbon Dioxide (9.7x10^21 molecules/m^-3). Methane and other trace gases are also present in significant quantities + a large quantity of aluminium, tungsten, plastic and jet fuel are also present, though on a strictly temporary basis - subject to the laws of gravity.

 

All these figures are highly variable, so these are typical values.

 

My point is, that ALL of the aircraft simulated here fly in a virtual atmosphere that is an exact replica of the one we all occupy. As far as the F86 is concerned, it only interacts with terra firma on take-off and landing, or shortly after departing controlled flight.

 

Do you fly whilst looking critically at the ground, or can you not just for a few hours suspend your disbelief, and imagine that the hazy view of the lithosphere or asthenosphere you glimpse from your cockpit is in fact a forgotten small corner of a Korean field that is forever... (insert your chosen motherland here) in which your many mangled virtual corpses will be buried after the previously mentioned aircraft/ground interface (that's crashes and landings to us mere mortals)?

 

Call me sarcastic, call me anything you want, it matters not a jot to me. But let me point out a few simple truths.

 

1. Everything comes to he who waits.

2. We rely on the goodwill, and continued support of a small number of highly talented computer geniuses who's mysterious talents are a mystery to we mortals.

3. While many comments here are constructive, and have a purpose, might I suggest that those among us who find it hard to say anything positive, or that contribute towards the advancement of this amazing simulation keep those thought to themselves.

4. Buy the F86, or don't buy the F86, I am sure no one else here is worried whether or not you want it because you have a granny in the WRENS, or the particular field you plummet into is a paddy field, a crop or Louisiana's finest corn, or the latrine recently dug by the Georgian army private you just vaporised with a Mk-82 Air that the developers had the audacity to paint the wrong hue of olive green.

5. Stop annoying everyone with your I want it and I want it now drivel!

Make that man a moderator:thumbup:

In will get a F-86 because I like the F-86.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the OP does have a point, even if it wasn't put across in the most constructive manner.

Up until now, I also have bought everything that has come out if ED and Belsimtek's door, plus I backed the MIG-21 and the WWII series. I too will be waiting on a reason to purchase this aircraft other than just because it's new and if the Cobra doesn't get TOW missiles one way or another, the same goes for it as well.

Maybe I'm guilty of giving ED the wrong impression by buying every module released and them drawing the conclusion that what they are making is what I want with an aircraft seemingly picked from each decade since the 40's, but I for one want to see things matched up and balanced to bring some human vs human battles without having to fly the same aircraft.

And yes I know that there are flyable opponents to the P-51 coming, and I know Nevada's coming, but it's all taking a very long time and the roadmap isn't exactly clear...

Just be careful if she starts encouraging you to take up smoking when you fly. :P

lol But I kicked that terrible habit some 10 years ago. Hurrah! Anyway, so much for trying to lighten things up a bit in this thread with vivid humor. :D I guess some people just don't have that love of flight or they'd fly anywhere. It's all good though.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the OP does have a point, even if it wasn't put across in the most constructive manner.

 

Up until now, I also have bought everything that has come out if ED and Belsimtek's door, plus I backed the MIG-21 and the WWII series. I too will be waiting on a reason to purchase this aircraft other than just because it's new and if the Cobra doesn't get TOW missiles one way or another, the same goes for it as well.

 

Maybe I'm guilty of giving ED the wrong impression by buying every module released and them drawing the conclusion that what they are making is what I want with an aircraft seemingly picked from each decade since the 40's, but I for one want to see things matched up and balanced to bring some human vs human battles without having to fly the same aircraft.

 

And yes I know that there are flyable opponents to the P-51 coming, and I know Nevada's coming, but it's all taking a very long time and the roadmap isn't exactly clear...

I agree...

I have also bought every single DCS module, and I will most probably also buy the F-86, but I´m afraid it will end up like the P-51D as a hangar queen cause there are no real openents.

Well I know the FW-190 is there, but it´s still very limited what You can do with the P-51, except ground pounding.

Well, they did say there will be a MiG-15, so I don't know why there shouldn't be a fitting opponent.

Same with the P-51. Last time I checked there was a AI Dora, and a flyable Dora in the works.

I still understand the desire to have the rest of the environment fitting, though. But I guess we have to wait for an EDGE map SDK.