Jump to content

Military vs Civil Simulation


borchi_2b

Recommended Posts

So... you want to either do check rides or play "Mayday" the game?

I want diverse aviation experiences. You could say that current DCS is just "CAS and dogfights", but that wouldn't change the depth on the combat side. There's as much depth on the non combat side as well.

 

It may just be me, but I enjoy fighting things that at least potentially can shoot back, flying up to fly next to a 747 and flying in formation with it while the 'terrorists' are 'subdued' doesn't exactly sound like a lot of fun when compared to doing pop up bombing attacks on SAMs.

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.

 

Like I said before, if civvy only companies want to come over and produce jets, fine, but if there's ever any question between the Learjet flight model getting tweaked versus the Crusader's cannon jam logic getting fixed, not a moment should be delayed on that Crusader.

I don't mind if the devs do as they like. If one of them wants to prioritize civil planes over combat, that's fine. It's not like it would set back the combat aspect of the sim. If they want to focus on combat only that's fine, but it leaves the civil module market open to whoever is interested.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Flying a 747 doesn't stop things from shooting at you anyway.

 

 

I don't mind if the devs do as they like. If one of them wants to prioritize civil planes over combat, that's fine. It's not like it would set back the combat aspect of the sim. If they want to focus on combat only that's fine, but it leaves the civil module market open to whoever is interested.

 

The problem is that the very act of creating the 747 module would be resources away from other modules that can actually interact with each other to fight. The 747 module would be a big target and nothing else, for that we have AI planes, no need for the full module treatment. If someone wants to throw out a whole bunch of SFM AI Airlines, more power to them, but I don't want to see precious resource time go into something that is so incompatible with combat modules, and couldn't be used to its full extent anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the very act of creating the 747 module would be resources away from other modules that can actually interact with each other to fight.

That depends on who is making it and what else they are making. It doesn't have to take away from anything. Even if it did, I don't see a problem.

 

The 747 module would be a big target and nothing else, for that we have AI planes, no need for the full module treatment.

The reason to have the module would be to fly the plane. You can't do that with AI planes. You can't coordinate very well with AI planes either. All besides the point as there is no reason why the 747 module needs to be used in a combat setting to be added to DCS. It's like any other module, buy if you want, and use it however you like.

 

If someone wants to throw out a whole bunch of SFM AI Airlines, more power to them, but I don't want to see precious resource time go into something that is so incompatible with combat modules, and couldn't be used to its full extent anyway.

It's as usable as any combat module. We already have UH-1/Mi-8 non combat missions and years of virtual aerobatic flight. The non combat aircraft fit in already and they're not even here.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on who is making it and what else they are making. It doesn't have to take away from anything. Even if it did, I don't see a problem.

 

Unfortunately our fundamental beliefs on how DCS should be done are completely at odds on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remember there is more to large planes than flying 10000000000 miles

 

You couldn't simulate transatlantic flights on [current] DCS maps, but you could still fly a 747 around it and do something meaningful. If anything I'd take a DCS 747 to takeoff and land. Why not?

Because no one would develop full fidelity 747 for a sim that has 400x400km map, limited wx and limited atc.

 

The problem is that the very act of creating the 747 module would be resources away from other modules that can actually interact with each other to fight.

 

So if I sign a contract with ED and Boeing to make DCS 747, you would consider that "resources away" from military modules, even if I never wanted to make any military module anyway?

 

 

There is no way DCS can be considered a good civilian simulator platform without resolving map size problem, and Wx engine problem. I hate to say this but when P3D become 64bit platform no one would hope about DCS as civil platform anymore.


Edited by =4c=Nikola

Do not expect fairness.

The times of chivalry and fair competition are long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see DCS become the flightsim to have for all simmers, civvy and mil alike, for two reasons.

 

First, because I like to fly all sorts including civil heavies, and DCS has the very best flight models.

 

Second, the civvy market is much bigger than the mil one; getting as many of the civvy simmers over to, and investing in, DCS the better.

 

However, a big attraction of FSX/P3D/X-Plane (that DCS currently lacks) is that you can fly anywhere in the world.

 

I think ED would have to get the whole world into DCS before capturing the civvy market and that would be a huge job, even with a low res environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, the civvy market is much bigger than the mil one; getting as many of the civvy simmers over to, and investing in, DCS the better.

 

That's what most military simmers do not understand. Military sim market is miniature compared to civ sim market.

Do not expect fairness.

The times of chivalry and fair competition are long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I here a lot of I am not interested. I think this attitude is fine. The beauty of it is, you do not have to be interested in civilian aircraft. DCS has left the door wide open for creating individual modules and not forcing you to buy something you would not fly. I for one support the thought of bringing Civi aircraft to the world. I would really be interested in seeing an ATR 42/72 come to the game.

 

The glorious thing about DCS is their is room for what everybody wants. With third parties getting involved, all it takes is a spark for people to start creating maps and environments for the civilian sector. There is plenty of great ideas implementing civilian aircraft into a combat zone and using them for transport, recon ect. But there is also room for people who just love aviation and want to fly the most accurate aircraft available to simmers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two years ago I flew from Kuwait International to Washington Dulles... halfway around the world on one flight. That is what you need to bring in the large civilian aircraft virtual pilots to DCS. To successfully implement large civilian transports, large military transports and strategic bombers the maps in DCS need to be much larger than they are currently capable of making. They are just barely big enough for the aircraft we currently have. I do see a market for civilian helicopters, regional airliners such as the CRJ or SAAB 340, and back country bush planes like the Twin otter or Turbo Porter, tactical transports up to about C-130 size and maybe medium bombers like the Tu-22M3. Not all civilian aircraft interest me but I would definatly be in the market for modules that would be challenging to operate.

 

A Pilatus Turbo-Porter would be awesome to try to land on the side of a mountain in Indonesia. Even a small twin like the Do-228 landing at Lukla Nepal or Fokker 50 into Ísafjörður Iceland

 

Look up Paro in Bhutan. Landing in a bathtub to say the least.

Now this would be a map to remember.

 

HIMALAYA Conflict zone.........

Greek/German origin.

Flying sims since 1984.

Using computers since 1977.

Favored FS's:F/A18 Interceptor, F19 Stealth Fighter, Gunnship, F16 Combat Pilot, Flight of the Intruder, A320, Falcon 4.0, MSFS 2004-X, DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no interest in civilian aviation, although I respect the dedication civ simmers put into their hobby. I wouldn't be have any problem with DCS being expanded to civ aviation if it weremt for the possible knock on effects it would have to combat sim development, but thankfully I think that even if civ aviation were eventually planned, we wouldn't see it for many MANY years until DCS had evolved past what is required for us combat simmers.

 

When you consider that for DCS to become a replacement for FSX/pr3pared/etc, it would need a spherical and continuous globe, much better navigation/radio/ATC facilities, better weather and atmospheric simulation and god knows what else, it will probably be a long time before DCSW is at a stage where it can support that and it's clear that the combat side of things is being developed first. My only concern once we do reach that point would be that ED would be focusing so much on the world that they wouldn't spend as much time on combat aircraft development, but by that time there would be so many third parties that I don't think it would be an issue.

 

We also need to consider the logistics. Right now the core game has to be updated every time a new module is released and every time a module needs to be updated. If DCSW were to be an FSX replacement, due to the way the game updates each module, the core install would be so unwieldy that it'd be impractical. I think we're likely to see a completely new engine and modules being handled differently before DCS civil aviation takes off in any meaningful way or at all. By the time we've got 30 combat modules the core install is going to be so big and the updates either so big or so frequent that something will have to give. I don't know how other sims do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] By the time we've got 30 combat modules the core install is going to be so big and the updates either so big or so frequent that something will have to give. I don't know how other sims do it.

 

Differential updates - this is not rocket science and is already in place as I was able to see. Right now things are a bit more complicated, engine updates are more frequent and this is what gave us such big amount of data to download.

Romanian Community for DCS World

HW Specs: AMD 7900X, 64GB RAM, RTX 4090, HOTAS Virpil, MFG, CLS-E, custom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally wouldnt buy a Civil Aircraft for DCSW there are already enough sims for them around.

 

DCS should stay a Combat Sim and thats the reason why Im here - for any kind of Air combat. Ok some Freeflights are a nice Change some times too ;)

 

If someone decides to make a Civil Plane than please dont make it interrupting other processes of developing a Combat related Plane.

 

Thats my opinion.

 

Regards

Griffon26

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Never parachute into an area you've just bombed

You never have too much fuel, unless you burn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't have a military application, I am not interested in having it in DCS to be honest, unless the dev making it was unable to make a military aircraft.

 

Basically the only time I would take a Civil aircraft in DCS is if the alternative was no aircraft at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personal I would not buy any single civilian aircraft. If I would fly civil aircraft, I would use for eksembel FSX who is already based and specialize in this area.

I think it is wrong to mix these areas together, as it would undermine what DCS stands for and what the majority of us are here to do. In my eyes, it would be a huge mistake to do.

 

If you open up this area, there will always be battles between whatever the next flight must be civilian or military. And It's not because there are many companies here that are lining up to push new aircraft out the door. I my openion there are still many things that could be done better in the already platform we have today. Naval battles, more land-based battles with Combined Arms, just to name a few. Why make a uncompleted platform bigger and create more unhappy customers?

 

If you want to make something that looks like a little civilian, create flyable transport aircraft, refuel aircraft and reconnaissance, which is able to mark targets on the map.

Intel I7 4770K, Evga 1080 FE, win10 64Pro, 32GB ram, TracIR 5, Hotas Warthog, MFD Cougar x2, MFG Crosswind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither for nor against myself, but I'd sure fly multiengine transport planes in DCS if we had them. Who in their right mind _wouldn't_ want to pilot a DCS-level Herc or a C-49? And throw in the gunship versions as well to shut up the naysayers hehe ;)

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion the appeal of DCS is learning the skill of operating the weapon systems on various types of aircraft. Be it setting up LGBs on an A-10 and designating targets with a targeting pod, or manouvering around the sky in a P-51 trying to get a firing solution on a 109. I feel DCS should be focussed on military aviation and should be kept that way. Having said that I do also feel there could be a place for aircraft such as a C130 dropping supplies on a specific area, and not neccesarily ordinance. Of course that's my opinion and i know there are many civil aviation simulaton fans out there. I would have thought they would find the DCS maps to small for their enjoyment.

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is wrong to mix these areas together, as it would undermine what DCS stands for and what the majority of us are here to do. In my eyes, it would be a huge mistake to do.

 

It doesn't have to change anything though. All that would have to happen is say, PMDG brings their 777 or whatever from FSX to DCS. Nothing else needs to change. Some people mention maps, ATC, etc, but if the people mentioning these problems aren't the people who are going to buy civil modules, the complaints don't matter. I'm willing to buy civil modules and all I need is the plane itself.

 

If you open up this area, there will always be battles between whatever the next flight must be civilian or military.

I don't see why. If everyone continues what they're doing now, and some third party comes to make civil planes, what changes? Nothing on the military side. If that same third party goes on to improve ATC or weather, etc, everyone gains.

 

Also take a look at the "battles" in the 3rd party forums we already have over too much WWII/not enough Vietnam/not enough helicopters. It's hardly like the entire community is united and totally content with everything just because everything is combat related.

 

there are still many things that could be done better in the already platform we have today. Naval battles, more land-based battles with Combined Arms, just to name a few.

I agree, but I don't see how civil aviation has a negative impact on any of that. As it is, ED manages the core sim and most of the module making falls on the 3rd parties. Introduce civil sims, and ED still manages the core sim, there is nothing more they need to do.

 

If you want to make something that looks like a little civilian, create flyable transport aircraft, refuel aircraft and reconnaissance, which is able to mark targets on the map.

To be honest I don't understand why people are fine with transports, but not airliners or GA. They're practically the same thing from a gameplay standpoint.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to change anything though. All that would have to happen is say, PMDG brings their 777 or whatever from FSX to DCS. Nothing else needs to change. Some people mention maps, ATC, etc, but if the people mentioning these problems aren't the people who are going to buy civil modules, the complaints don't matter. I'm willing to buy civil modules and all I need is the plane itself.

 

To be honest I don't understand why people are fine with transports, but not airliners or GA. They're practically the same thing from a gameplay standpoint.

 

the whole community is based on everything that has to do with combat, military, whatever and look how big the yelling, crying and arguing is already about new modules, upcoming modules, models that are already released and all the other stuff

 

now you want to throw all the civ. aviation fans (that are unarguably more than us) into this ??

 

why can't you fly your PMDG 777 in FSX ? 99,9 % of the flight its flown by AP like all other airliners.... the systems are modelled like in the real thing even in fsx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think DCS will ever be able to compete with the usual flight sims for the simple reason that they offer what DCS can't and will never be able to, the whole world (even with lower details).

 

That takes out all scenery developers from the equation (DCS needs maps, sceneries are secondary at this point) and the development of airlines (considering how important the whole FMC programming is, SID/Stars and so on). But turboprop transport planes, helicopters and other similar aircrafts can be enjoyed both here and on other sims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]WIN 10, i7 10700, 32GB DDR4, RTX 2080 Super, Crucial 1TB SSD, Samsung EVO 850 500GB SSD, TM Warthog with 10cm extension, TIR5, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Wheelstand Pro, LG 40" 4K TV, Razer Black Widow Ultimate KB[/size]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the whole community is based on everything that has to do with combat, military, whatever and look how big the yelling, crying and arguing is already about new modules, upcoming modules, models that are already released and all the other stuff

 

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.

 

now you want to throw all the civ. aviation fans (that are unarguably more than us) into this ??

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.

 

why can't you fly your PMDG 777 in FSX ? 99,9 % of the flight its flown by AP like all other airliners.... the systems are modelled like in the real thing even in fsx

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.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you don´t see them vs us, but I don´t want to experienced that you where wrong. I think you are wrong, when you say Civil modules won't change anything. This is a production of military aircraft, where it takes at least 1 to 2 years in order to produce an aircraft. Should the small resource that is available open up for a market where all will have their unique and special aircraft that you would like to fly.

I think there are two really good simulator on the market already as cope with this very well. If you wish to fly civilian, you might use them

Intel I7 4770K, Evga 1080 FE, win10 64Pro, 32GB ram, TracIR 5, Hotas Warthog, MFD Cougar x2, MFG Crosswind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...