Civilian aircraft functionality

[Jamesp1]

This is probably a silly question, but I've never got into the civilian flight sims.

 

Let's assume I'm flying a civilian aircraft in DCS such as the civ versions of one the trainers:

 

Is there any functionality DCS is missing over FSX or X-Plane such as civilian ATC etc?

[WinterH]

I'm not a civilian sim flyer but, from top of my head :

- ATC

- Gigantic terrain, even whole globe

 

These two would be primary things DCS would not be as good as those for people who primarily look for general aviation experience.

 

For those of us appreciate more the flight dynamics themselves, DCS is obviously ahead. So for smaller, not so long ranged aircraft for stuff like sight seeing, aerobatics, air races etc, DCS is just fine or even better. But for long range flight, navigation, etc, general aviation specialized sims are better. That's how I see it anyway.

[Ramsay]

Let's assume I'm flying a civilian aircraft in DCS such as the civ versions of one the trainers:

 

Is there any functionality DCS is missing over FSX or X-Plane such as civilian ATC etc?

Many DCS airfields are missing their correct navaids, papi, have wrong/fictional taxiways/terminal buildings, minor airfields are missing, etc, etc.

 

In the Caucasus Map it is very hard to find a airport that can be flown to a *real* AIP Chart, one has to get creative/make many compromises to fly realistic approaches and flights.

 

Most trainers/aircraft in DCS have 1970/80s avionics and lack the modern avionic upgrades used *today* and modelled in FSX i.e. Garmin GPS, etc.

 

I imagine this would be a "deal breaker" for many FSX pilots, despite DCS's superior flight and system modelling, as players look to simulate/learn real procedures, not fight a fictional war.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Ramsay

[SFC Tako]

I fly X-Plane every now and then and there is ATC, although it's pretty crappy in singleplayer. BUT, if you fly online there are some crazy IRL-people that do the ATC-job, free of charge. And as pointed out, some of the civilian sims have HUGE maps. In X-plane it's the whole world and that makes things really interesting for me. I can fly over the Andes and check out all the weird rock formations, I can fly down Grand Canyon and land on the river with a float plane, I can try out some "tough guy" flying in Alaska...etc etc. Besides all this, there are detailed airports and extra scenery you can buy to get things even more realistic.

 

I wouldn't recommend X-Plane to everyone though, it's flight model is said to be top of the line but when comparing to DCS...I don't know what they have been smoking. It's alright, yes, but it doesn't even come close to the feel in DCS.

[Northstar98]

Yeah, pretty much the same points as WinterH,

 

- ATC

- Terrain

 

Plus the outcry there would be from the community if a 3rd party decided to make a civilian or another non-combat orientated aircraft, for me I'd like to see a nice variety, I mean why not? (Aside from the ATC and the map size obviously) but think about it, we have one of, if not the best flight model for a PC flight simulator, definitely superior to FSX/P3D - it shouldn't be just reserved exclusively for just fighter aircraft and attack helicopters, but the player base isn't really there IMO compared to FSX/P3D. That being said DCS has a lot of growing to do until we see this kind of thing happening anytime though.

 

For me DCS is far ahead of FSX as far as a simulator is concerned, flight dynamics, damage modelling etc (sure, in some cases there are some very minor teething problems) but thats the critical advantage over FSX and P3D, now come the disadvantages:

 

FSX and P3D are huge, lots of 3rd parties, lots of addons to go around, everyone is happy and everyone has a good bet they'll find something they like and are happy with. There's a humongous amount of addons of differing types - from biplanes to water enhancements. Name an aircraft or a location and you can safely bet they've got it. DCS on the other hand is much smaller - only 6 licensed third parties and 22 separate aircraft - with only the A-10, MiG-29, Su-25 and Su-27 sporting different variants. So as a community we're pressed hard on choice, and if we can't find it at present, we hope it's on the long list of to get done.

 

Personally, as previously stated, DCS still has a lot of growing to do (and a lot is a humongous understatement), lot's of things to get sorted, both engine wise, feature wise and module wise, and even then it's a huge way to go untill we see something develop into something as big as FSX/P3D (both also have a lot resources to play with). Then we'll probably see the huge variety. It's all a question of priorities when we don't have a huge variety like FSX and P3D does.

 

I'd like to state also that the lack of variety in DCS not because of the efforts of 3rd parties and development teams, everyone has a huge amount on their plate and DCS is small in comparison with a massive focus on quality not quantity and rightly so, in order to get quantity and quality a lot of growing needs to be done = more 3rd parties and probably also bigger development teams - given that it's a pretty large undertaking to even become a licensed 3rd party this also is sadly unlikely, but a possibility, and DCS has a huge amount of potential.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Northstar98

[Aginor]

Yep, pretty much all the civilian planes, ATC, and the world.

Also there are lots of people in the community who would dislike it.

[Jamesp1]

Thanks guys, that's pretty much what I thought although I'd forgotten about the inaccuracies in the airport layouts.

 

I was just thinking of trying some very short flights between airfields in a L-39, practicing basic navigation and ILS.

[foxmaner]

The only problem I see is that the dcs map is to small. If just ED make a autogen technic and be able to make the whole globe.

 

I stopped play FSX not because I don´t like civilian planes, But because its such old, the game crashing, and the steering feels so odd that I switched to dcs and military planes instead.

[Northstar98]

Thanks guys, that's pretty much what I thought although I'd forgotten about the inaccuracies in the airport layouts.

 

I was just thinking of trying some very short flights between airfields in a L-39, practicing basic navigation and ILS.

 

Oh yeah, that's definitely possible.

[Northstar98]

The only problem I see is that the dcs map is to small. If just ED make a autogen technic and be able to make the whole globe.

 

I stopped play FSX not because I don´t like civilian planes, But because its such old, the game crashing, and the steering feels so odd that I switched to dcs and military planes instead.

 

Same really, plus to get it up to standard it takes a fair chunk of money (REX, ORBX, most of half-baked addons are at least £20-30 a pop, some are better than others but the most decent ones can get jolly expensive. On top of that its flight dynamics and damage modelling are awful (the latter is non existent!) sure there are some great and well respected add-ons, but DCS offered pretty much all of that in the first instance, and it has a crucial thing that FSX has lost... A development team.

 

Whilst I'm not someone that loves flying airliners, I definitely wouldn't say no to one, though I'd probably prefer a regional jet or something like a C-130, or VC-10 (RAF variants), Voyager MRTT those kind of aircraft. As well as some more classic aircraft (V-bombers etc). I also would definitely not say no, to something like a DeHavilland Dragon Rapide, C-47/DC-3 or a Grumman Goose for example.

 

I moved DCS not because I liked the aircraft available (well I like the Hawk very much, I think it's safe to say that I quite like the F-15 and the A-10) however, that being said after I purchased most of the modules each one seemed to grow on me a huge deal now I'm hooked, incredibly interested and now, once they're all finished up and fixed, I'll probably end up loving them all. But it was the realism, the immersion, the things you could do, the potential, those were the things that really hooked me. Plus of course the combat which adds the big win win that doesn't really exist in FSX. But DCS has its potential everywhere, I mean sure it's a combat simulator and will always be one, but that shouldn't necessarily mean it can only be a combat simulator.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Northstar98

[Cloppy]

For me the great thing about Xplane is you can make it (it's sky ground and buildings) look absolutely stunning for zero cost. Just bandwidth.

You also get lots and lots of free planes and addons that are mainly very decent.

A really strong developer community, where you get new and interesting things released all the time (daily).

I really enjoy flying the Piper Arrow III PA28R-200 around Wales. Learning to master it etc is some kick., My home town (it's roads and buildings)actually looks like they should. All for free...(OK I on the Piper in a youtube competition off Wycliffe Barrett).

I am hoping to learn vatsim and learn to converse with Air traffic Control one day..but really ain't got the bottle at the moment tbh. lol

I love FSX too. Orbx Wales is Stunning.

 

And I love DCS.

 

for me it is not really a case of "each to their own"..it is just great that there are so many good flight sims out there.

[Elwood]

Did you read the latest announcement about DCS 2.5, merges of 1.5 with 2.0, adding multimap support and Garmin navigation instrument?

 

 

Sorry not easy to post the link I'm in mobile...

 

 

Anyway this will make DCS even greater doing night long range bombing a real thing :-)

 

About civil flight, yep I love it, as I like the latest flight gear 2016.1 which is not ball at all!

[some1]

We don't have any more information on the Gramin features though. The real unit is about as complex as ABRIS in the Ka-50, so I doubt it will be given for free.

 

Apart from what others have said (ATC, Air Traffic, choice of aircraft, the whole world covered) civilian sims also have real time weather. DCS weather model is very basic by comparison.

[Northstar98]

Did you read the latest announcement about DCS 2.5, merges of 1.5 with 2.0, adding multimap support and Garmin navigation instrument?

 

Yep, the Garmin GPS system would allow navigation where this is difficult without either using VOR/TACAN/RSBN/ARK/NDBs etc. Few aircraft can actually display waypoints in DCS (I think only the Su-25T, A-10C and Ka-50 actually give an indication of not just heading and range, but altitude and speed. The rest can't tell you anything about waypoints set at all without using one of the NAVAIDS mentioned above or VFR.

 

As for the maps, it only really means that the 2 maps can coexist in one installation, I read about another development of mesh (T-5, procedural maps or something like that?) Which will increase the possible map size? I'll try and find it...

[Ramsay]

I was just thinking of trying some very short flights between airfields in a L-39, practicing basic navigation and ILS.

The L-39 is perfect for that.

 

However do note only 4 Russian airbases have the RSBN (DME) and PRGM (ILS) in the Caucuses map and that other airfields require NDB (marker) approaches without the benefit of DME/localizer/glide slope, so flying the L-39 is very "old school".

 

We started MP navigation/ILS training in Georgia with the Su-25T and moved to Russia for more realistic L-39 instrumentation to cover crosswind navigation, landing, etc. using Tacview for debriefs.

 

With a understanding of the basics it becomes easier to follow NDB approaches using velocity, timing and cockpit "runway picture" (rather than DME) throughout the Caucuses.

 

Currently we are working on the "cockpit clues" needed for visual landings, and it is working out well due to the fragile nature of the L-39 and frequent loss of instruments (pitot damage, loss of inverters, etc.) after being hit by ZU-23 AAA 23mm HE

[DUSTY]

I've been flying civilian Helo Ops on the Nevada Map and quite frankly it is brilliant. Bullets don't need to be whizzing around to have a challenging experience in DCS which is a testament to the sim. The level of map detail truly makes up for the lack of expansiveness in the terrain. Probably the best helo simulator available thanks to BST.

 

I used to be a mad keen FSXer flying everything from the PMDG airliners to choppers to the VRS Super Hornet. Haven't touched in it a couple years though.

 

The only thing that I miss about FSX is the connection to VATSIM to interact with human ATC and other traffic. And of course the ability to fly anywhere in the world.

[Elwood]

As I pretend to be a sailor sometimes I use the basic navigational skills, mainly on the Mig21.

So what I'm doing is night IFR flying with a printed version of our map Caucas and then with a clock and NDB navigation, I'm doing a nice job with interception and turing at specifc NDB crossing.

(yep without F10 map or the kneboard ones).

 

Its great and... find my way with the old style radio nav, I must say that the 21 is my Cessna 172P with the NAV/COM equipment :D

Am I the only one?

 

A bit OT but could be interesting playing on a multiplayer server without any help from maps :D

[Drag0nWIng]

Some guys are avionic (simulator) player, some guys are flight model (simulator) player,

those civil (avionic) pilots prefer to click the bottom rather then the swing the grip.

So I prefer the aerobatic or (small size, like Cessna 152, DA40 or some twin engine transporter) general aircraft come into dcs, they don't need such big terrain and full modeled avionic, and you don't need sit in there like a real civil pilot for many hours, much fun.

I've seen some documentary by NG (or discovery?) , The Taxi Aircraft in Alaska. They don't have much glass avionic and only have a simple runway on snow ground, they could run the company well for many years. It's still another type of "civil aircraft".

Edited April 5, 2016 by Drag0nWIng

[Northstar98]

Some guys are avionic (simulator) player, some guys are flight model (simulator) player...

 

I am both! :)