Aircrafts NEED for DCS

Let them learn to walk before they run. Achieving A-10C status is very ambitious, so I just quoted the sum that VEAO quoted. Even that is an astronomical sum.

Here in Austria, that "astronomical sum" will buy you 1.3 man years for a decent engineer or programmer (MSc in engineering and a few years job experience) including ancillary wage costs and equipment, less for someone who has lots of experience. So let's be extremely optimistic and say that it will buy you 5 man years in Russia. That won't even suffice for a simple trainer aircraft.

Ok, ok, then all my posts here are just because I want to make ED to satisfy ME, a single customer :huh:...g r e a t!:closedeyes:

I guess ED should rename DCS to "every single thing in the world simulator" then, because it looks like now, everything they add to the sim is "good" for it and must be there for anyone who wants anything...I wonder why the entire rest of sims are just focused and try to stick as much as possible to what they try to simulate instead of spreading the spectrum of simulated stuff...train simulator is for trains, farm sim, is for farming, il2 is for WW2 fighters, etc.

DCS can be whatever ED wants it to be, but I have no doubt it "was" a modern combat sim at least since FC, and there, is when I try to share with you how I feel about having to wait for 10 years to get a module while other kind of stuff is released.(and no, Im not talking only about the Hornet)

But you are right, maybe nothing I can say will cause ED or anyone else to change their minds...and Im sorry if I upset someone btw, it wasnt my intention...remember, we are in the same boat...

You haven't upset anyone watermanpc.

You are just factually incorrect in you assertions. LOMAC may have been a sim for modern aircraft only, but DCS World was always designed to be an expandable environment in which modules of all kinds could be used - not even just aircraft! DCS World - I don't read anything in that that implies modern only, so why do ED need to change the title?

You are expressing your own views, so how can you possibly be speaking for anyone but yourself?

Yes we are definitely all in the same boat, and you can ask any one of us what we want - we'll all say something different.

All I, and everyone else is saying is that you have your views, others have their own. ED and all the developers have their own ideas about what is and isn't needed too. The difference is, they get to decide what to produce, and we get to decide what we buy, not what they develop.

One thing you can count on. DCS World isn't exclusively a modern environment - or what the hell are the 1940s, 1950s and later aircraft doing in it? You seem to have missed that tiny fact. Or are you suggesting that ED want only modern in their environment, but all the developers are being rascals and doing naughty things here?

 

1$ spent in 2WW for DCS = badly spent dollar

 

1$ spent in Modern stuff = good spent dollar

 

IMHO.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

And there are a lot of folks that would take exception to those statements.

There will be different maps for different Eras. So Everything will eventually have its place in DCS World.

Try to have the foresight to see the big picture. And oh yeah....WIP!!!

We are fortunate to have this, we should appreciate what we have and look forward to its development.

If an aircraft is available and I get the chance to learn and fly it, I don't give a rats @&$ where and with what other planes are in the sky at this point. It will all come together eventually.

Waterman pc, I understand that _you_ want modern fighters.

Me? I don't care about the Era of the airframe.

What I care about is fidelity. A dumbed down version of a modern day fighter aircraft sucks in comparison to a full fledged 1940's or 1970's fighter that has all the documents available so it flies true to its real in the flesh counterpart.

I want this Sim to appeal to as many players as possible.

They are trying to get RTS elements into it with CA. I hope that it will bring those into the game.

I want this Sim to appeal to the Arma guys. Or any Squad based combat game.

I would love to pick up a squad in my Huey, drop them off in the middle of battle and have them relay info to the Warthog and Su-25 guys. Lase for them, drop smoke, shifting the battle. Or have a Human SAM network. This will give you and me so much more experience and opposition than just dropping a missile down range in BVR and see a pixel go boom somewhere in the distance. .

They are willing to risk implementing multicrew and that is truly groundbreaking. Flying multi crew bombers, helo and modern fighters. Or 40's equivalents.

That will draw a large number of people in.

So while you want modern fighters and nothing else, I encourage you to assemble a team to develop both the engine, planes and the systems needed for this to do even a little bit of what DCS does today and in the future.

Vote with your wallet, the devs will figure it out. That said, one doesn't need to look too hard at the MP server list to figure out where most of the interest is in DCS. On a related note, I too found VEAO's comments on module development a little surprising. That is an awfully small amount of money for labor and seemingly too large if it is for everything but labor.

watermanpc remember what is DCS: World:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) is a free-to-play digital battlefield game, focusing on simulation of military aircraft. It includes the FREE Su-25T and TF-51D aircraft and it is extensible through additional DCS modules as well as user-made add-ons and mods.

 

DCS World includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region that encompasses much of Georgia - the location of the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008.

 

This all allows the creation of engaging, real-world combat missions in this flashpoint region. DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units. DCS World allows both realistic game play and more relaxed game play to suit the player.

That not change from 2012.

This thread should be locked. It's an ill-informed opinion piece that's just going to cause an upset as these type of threads always end up doing, as proven in the multiple that have come before.

Ok, guys, I also understand everything you said, and of course I understand what "DCS World" means and that this is not Lomac.

I would absolutely LOVE to enjoy a complex and full WORLD filled with all kind of vehicles (air/ground/sea) perfectly simulated driven by people liking to be a pilot or a SAM, or a Hammer, or heli, or a ship, or infantry or whatever, that would be mind blowing...there is just one little problem...TIME!...I bet ED could provide us with all that stuff, but I would like to be yet "alive" to see it :) ...

Having said that, I also think that even if this is a "world" where everything could be done, what I mean is that in first place, I still thinking the essence/soul of ED is Modern combat sims and in second place, could anyone imagine a DCS without F-15,mig29, su27,m2000 now, etc...NO!...can you imagine it without other stuff...yes!

I would not have any problem getting more, and more planes of all times (who would?:)) but if we had some "basic" modern combat fighter most people feel are lacking first...so what I think is they should be a priority, due to that "first" modern world they originally created, just that.

Anyway, I hope to be wrong, and I wish we ALL get what we want as soon as possible (2016 looks promising) as this is the main issue for me...the time they need to do so many things that may take forever sometimes...

Thanks for your replies!!:thumbup:

This thread should be locked. It's an ill-informed opinion piece that's just going to cause an upset as these type of threads always end up doing, as proven in the multiple that have come before.

This kind of comments should be blocked, as this is a discussion forum & we should be able to discuss anything freely as long as it is not a political topic! :mad:

This kind of comments should be blocked, as this is a discussion forum & we should be able to discuss anything freely as long as it is not a political topic! :mad:

+1...we are discussing as gentlemens with respect in a free exchange of ideas...whats the problem??:huh:

This thread should be locked. It's an ill-informed opinion piece that's just going to cause an upset as these type of threads always end up doing, as proven in the multiple that have come before.

This kind of comments should be blocked, as this is a discussion forum & we should be able to discuss anything freely as long as it is not a political topic! :mad:

Actually, censorship in any form is utterly wrong.

If no rules are being broken, what is wrong with a healthy debate? I may think that the OP was incorrect, but I would defend his right to say what he likes here as long as he is breaking no rules.

We will very rarely all agree on things here, but if you have a view, say it, but just be ready to accept criticism as well. Watermanpc has said what he wanted to say, read the replies, and responded. I can't agree with his standpoint, but why does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to say it. Where exactly has he been so terrible that we should delete the thread?

My real pet hate in DCS World, and one I will always take issue with is blatant knocking or negativity. It adds nothing to any debate, and just turns developers against us. However, that kind of thing is also a breach of the rules, whereas nothing said here has ever crossed that line.

I only objected to BUZZLES statement to lock this thread!

I am also for a free exchange of ideas with fellow simmers........

:) :)

Yes, understood, the quote didn't include the bit where you quoted the other guy, so that was misleading. I will set that right. My apologies for that.

I'm all for free speech, but a number of you guys aren't actually discussing anything.

This thread pretty much consists of posts stating people's opinions on the current development of DCS World not being to their liking as their isn't enough "modern combat aircraft", and in some cases outright stating they think development of anything but that is a waste of time and effort.

People stating their opinions isn't a discussion. Discussions start with a question.

They're also opinions which appear to be based on lack of information: Razbam have just released the M-2000C, which is could easily be classified as a modern combat aircraft (into service in '82, a mere year before the beloved Hornet). They've also announced they're doing a Harrier and eventually the F-15E.

ED are doing an F/A-18 variant, which is most definitely a modern multi-role aircraft.

LN are doing the F14, the 'B' version from the 90's is a modern combat aircraft. You could also argue the case for their Viggen being modern considering the AJS version we're getting is from ~1992.

Polychop look like they will be doing a Tornado at some point, and VEAO are definitely doing a Eurofighter.

You may be unhappy right now as to what aircraft are available, but looking at what modules are in development and what's coming, there is a clear focus on modern combat aircraft from both ED and the current batch of third parties.

...and Im just saying that looking for money attracting WW2 pilots is a mistake, even if thats the way to achieve future modern modules.

I came back to Eagle Dynamics products BECAUSE of the WW2 aspect.

I'd had my LOMAC and FC#1 experiences many years ago and jets alone would not have had me spending money in their shop.

I Do now enjoy the modern stuff once more with the added complexity that modern computing allows but I yearn for a thoroughly populated and mapped DCS WW2. Hopefully that won't be too far away .

Yeah, sure...if ED implements tomorrow a tennis sim in Nellis AB and people liking tennis start buying DCS, does that means its a "good" movement for the sim just because there is a consumer base willing to buy it???...

Yes, it is. You don't have to partake of that content. I certainly wouldn't, as Tennis is tuuuuurrible. But, that content still benefits you, over all, in that it provides the developers with additional funding.

we already have LOTS of WW2 sims out there and guess what?? they are not including a F-16 any time mate...modern combat flight sims are more sparse nowadays so why a P-51 here when we dont even have an F-18 yet?¿?.

What difference does it make?

The reasoning for the P-51D's existence is because the Fighter Collection paid to have it developed, I believe. Either way, it's here.

And, again, we're getting an F/A-18C. But, it's not so simple as merely making a model and throwing code at it. It should not surprise anyone that a Mustang is in DCS before a Hornet; one of them is a great deal less complex and limited in performance, role, and abilities.

Despite they are , of course, in their right to make whatever they consider good, I think its CLEAR this is, and has always been, a moder combat flight sim, in fact, the base game so was named as LO-Modern Air Combat. I know this is DCS but even then, I think is a BAD idea to scatter so much the DNA of the game...if we have mig29, su27, F-15, A-10,M2000, etc. why doing P-51, P-40, etc instead of F-18, F-16, Tornado, MF-1, etc. I find this a bad decision, but again, its a personal opinion.

You'd be incorrect.

This isn't LOMAC, anymore. It says right on the DCS world page itself: "DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units."

I see so much effort doing things I find misplaced when at the same time the sim lacks others soooo necessary...

I don't know if you're privy to what happened to the WWII project, but in short? The old team was assimilated by ED. They're the ones responsible for the WWII content.

You said they are doing the F-18...yeah!, I know it...the problem is...how many time have they been working on it??...or even better...maybe if this could be just a modern combat flight sim we would already have that F-18 long time ago...and maybe the F-16, and the tornado, and so on...

That is a huge leap of logic. It's not just a matter of making an aircraft for the sim, again. Boeing is going to be very keen to know what you're doing with a depiction product that it owns. Not only that, DCS World needs a tremendous amount of work before the F/A-18C can really be utilized within it. That's really what 2.0 is going to open up.

Hornet's gonna be complex. It's going to take quite a bit of time. That kind of huge gap in development needs to be filled with some kind of income. So, that's really the value of these old piston fighters. You can turn one of these out a lot faster than a 4th gen fighter and that can help bring income that can be used to support the team on the way to the big pay off that will be the Hornet.

And of course, dont get me wrong guys!, I dont want to upset people flying their WW2 planes, I just think this sim should be only focused in modern fighters as its almost the only real alternative to do it meanwhile WW2 sims are more common and focused on that kind of simulation...just my 2 cents.

Il-2 '46 is ancient.

BoS is decent, but severely lacking in content and players.

CloD is decent only after it's been modded.

None of them approach the level of fidelity that's achieved in DCS.

So, really, look at these piston fighters as a much needed cash infusion. They're here to stay and they're really pretty important from a business standpoint. Gone are the days of Microprose, sadly. I'm willing to bet ED doesn't get half of that kind of budge and about half the size of the team.

You really should never look at DCS with an exclusive outlook. If there's a consumer base willing to buy something, then ED or one of the third parties should provide. Everyone benefits, that way. The people with a desire to fly WWII fighters get a high fidelity simulation, ED gets paid and, in turn, ED puts that money into developing its own projects for the future which may interest you. The Hawk was something that never greatly interested me. I got the C-101 because it was really cool on paper. I got L-39 because I've flown one. The Hawk just didn't do it for me. That said, I still benefit from the Hawk's existence in that others bought it and developers got paid for it. ED gets a piece of that pie, after all.

For me it'll be the MiG-29K, MiG-29SMT, MiG-35, Su-27SM3, Su-30SM, Su-30M2, Su-35S and PAK FA in addition to the MiG-31, Su-24 and Su-34 already included but currently AI-only. As for helicopters, I would like to see the Mi-35M and Ka-52, in addition to a flyable Mi-24 and Mi-28.

Yes, it is. You don't have to partake of that content. I certainly wouldn't, as Tennis is tuuuuurrible. But, that content still benefits you, over all, in that it provides the developers with additional funding.

 

 

What difference does it make?

 

The reasoning for the P-51D's existence is because the Fighter Collection paid to have it developed, I believe. Either way, it's here.

 

And, again, we're getting an F/A-18C. But, it's not so simple as merely making a model and throwing code at it. It should not surprise anyone that a Mustang is in DCS before a Hornet; one of them is a great deal less complex and limited in performance, role, and abilities.

 

 

You'd be incorrect.

 

This isn't LOMAC, anymore. It says right on the DCS world page itself: "DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units."

 

 

 

I don't know if you're privy to what happened to the WWII project, but in short? The old team was assimilated by ED. They're the ones responsible for the WWII content.

 

 

That is a huge leap of logic. It's not just a matter of making an aircraft for the sim, again. Boeing is going to be very keen to know what you're doing with a depiction product that it owns. Not only that, DCS World needs a tremendous amount of work before the F/A-18C can really be utilized within it. That's really what 2.0 is going to open up.

 

Hornet's gonna be complex. It's going to take quite a bit of time. That kind of huge gap in development needs to be filled with some kind of income. So, that's really the value of these old piston fighters. You can turn one of these out a lot faster than a 4th gen fighter and that can help bring income that can be used to support the team on the way to the big pay off that will be the Hornet.

 

 

 

Il-2 '46 is ancient.

BoS is decent, but severely lacking in content and players.

CloD is decent only after it's been modded.

 

None of them approach the level of fidelity that's achieved in DCS.

 

So, really, look at these piston fighters as a much needed cash infusion. They're here to stay and they're really pretty important from a business standpoint. Gone are the days of Microprose, sadly. I'm willing to bet ED doesn't get half of that kind of budge and about half the size of the team.

 

You really should never look at DCS with an exclusive outlook. If there's a consumer base willing to buy something, then ED or one of the third parties should provide. Everyone benefits, that way. The people with a desire to fly WWII fighters get a high fidelity simulation, ED gets paid and, in turn, ED puts that money into developing its own projects for the future which may interest you. The Hawk was something that never greatly interested me. I got the C-101 because it was really cool on paper. I got L-39 because I've flown one. The Hawk just didn't do it for me. That said, I still benefit from the Hawk's existence in that others bought it and developers got paid for it. ED gets a piece of that pie, after all.

Ok mate!, I get it!...thanks for (all) your detailed explanations...I guess you all are right...just hope we get some important (and quite old now btw) fighters like f18 and f16 any time soon...meanwhile its nice to enjoy WW2 fighters also, which I also love of course...:thumbup:

Ok mate!, I get it!...thanks for (all) your detailed explanations...I guess you all are right...just hope we get some important (and quite old now btw) fighters like f18 and f16 any time soon...meanwhile its nice to enjoy WW2 fighters also, which I also love of course...:thumbup:

It does suck having to wait as long as we do for a much needed fighter like the Hornet and the Viper, but what else can we do, really? :pilotfly:

Free FC cessna/tucano as a trainer. Would be a blast for new player introduction.

It does suck having to wait as long as we do for a much needed fighter like the Hornet and the Viper, but what else can we do, really? :pilotfly:

Well, I guess we should do what we are here for...just FLY ;) and enjoy what we already have (modern, old, or whatever):smilewink:...and at least the hornet will see the light some day (the Viper not sure :cry: but I still having some hope on it) :thumbup:

For me it'll be the MiG-29K, MiG-29SMT, MiG-35, Su-27SM3, Su-30SM, Su-30M2, Su-35S and PAK FA in addition to the MiG-31, Su-24 and Su-34 already included but currently AI-only. As for helicopters, I would like to see the Mi-35M and Ka-52, in addition to a flyable Mi-24 and Mi-28.

At last! Somebody wished for the Mig29 variants/Russian fighters as first preference!:thumbup:

Anyone listening out there?

:) :)

He's not alone in that. I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone that on the English forums planes made by English speaking countries tend to be favored, but I am more interested in a balanced approach. I'd like the MiG-29A to go with the Mirage 2000C plus the MiG-23MLD and MiG-25PD to go with the upcoming F-18 and F-14's. DCS: Su-25SM (or comparable) would also be a good idea to go alongside the A-10C. Everyone here keeps demanding more western aircraft, but as it stands today, there are about a dozen western jets in development and zero eastern aircraft to go with them. Right now it isn't a problem since all we have are a couple ground pounders, some trainers, the Mirage 2k, MiG-21 and then FC3. But in a year when we have 3-4 DCS level western jet fighters and still just the MiG-21 + FC3, it's going to be more problematic. Stretching 2+ years out, it gets a whole lot worse.

Note: I'm ignoring the F-86 and MiG-15 in the above statements as they are reasonably self contained.

Yeah, I really hope to see multiple Russian jets announced too. Personally, have always been a bit more interested in them anyway, but even leaving that aside, soon virtual skies will become incredibly monochrome, with everyone flying different shades of blue...