gunterlund21 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 A couple of thoughts came to mind as I get my mits on the new DCS world. First of all I love the idea of an open world. I think its going to be great for the community and this brand. Two things that Id like to get more clarity on however. 1. Mission making. Will there be a clear mechanism to let people know what vehicles are in a mission. Im sure in the near future there will be a cornacopia of jets and planes to choose from but how will we know if we have the right ones to fly in the mission. Since we will be buying aircraft piecemeal not everyone will have the same set of aircraft. Mission making could get tricky. 2. Aircraft quality. Is the technology available in this system to bring the electronics closer to real world level. As we know the Su-27 and 29 radars were very rudimentary compared to other products such as Falcon. I hope people will take the time to model their products carefully and bring them as true to life as possible. Otherwise this product will turn into a re-dress MS X. I love it so far and its a nice opportunity to fly the SU-25 again. Keep up the good work. DCS. I was in Art of the Kill D#@ it!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTommy Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Welcome to the forums: Point 1: It is all up to the mission creator to make it clear in the title & description what planes are needed for a missions. Also for single player missions it would appear there is a file system to allow airframe specific missions to be located so they only show up under that airframe type tab. Missions creators could make auto install exe to place files in the correct location. (i haven't looked into this file system, but that is how it looks) Point 2:.. are you implying the systems on the DCS products are sub standard? You won't find a higher fidelity representation that the A10c or Blackshark. Everything from Flaming Cliffs is effectively a legacy product and should be viewed as such. The su27/29 must be 10 years old now.. need to wait for the yet to be announced fixed wing fighter under development for higher fidelity systems. Edited May 3, 2012 by MadTommy typo i5-3570K @ 4.5 Ghz, Asus P8Z77-V, 8 GB DDR3, 1.5GB GTX 480 (EVGA, superclocked), SSD, 2 x 1680x1050, x-fi extreme music. TM Warthog, Saitek combat pro pedals, TrackIR 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 dcs has no flyable su 27, and ed never made su 29 sim, i think you got the wrong company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudikoff Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 dcs has no flyable su 27, and ed never made su 29 sim, i think you got the wrong company. He was referring to the future possible user add-ons and the MiG-29. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunterlund21 Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Hi all Thanks for the replies. Point 1: It is all up to the mission creator to make it clear in the title & description what planes are needed for a missions. Also for single player missions it would appear there is a file system to allow airframe specific missions to be located so they only show up under that airframe type tab. Missions creators could make auto install exe to place files in the correct location. (i haven't looked into this file system, but that is how it looks) Ah yes I did view the new directory tree and it does look like there are discrete entries per airframe. Duly noted. Look forward to seeing how the data resides when BS2, A-10, and Mig-21 integrate. (Im a huge fan of the first two and in particular BS2) Point 2:.. are you implying the systems on the DCS products are sub standard? You won't find a higher fidelity representation that the A10c or Blackshark. Everything from Flaming Cliffs is effectively a legacy product and should be viewed as such. The su27/29 must be 10 years old now.. need to wait for the yet to be announced fixed wing fighter under development for higher fidelity systems. No not implying substandard at all. Your right those previous titles are very old and Im sure at the time there was a conscious effort to present the electronics as is. My interest is most definitely in new aircraft at the fidelity of both BS2 and A-10. My worry on A-10 is wasnt that purposely built for a military client then ported to civi use thus giving us a huge gamit of systems that might not have otherwise been included? Will others have access to the resources that DCS had in making that sim as far as how systems work etc. in particular radar. Id hate to see a new version of the Flanker come out with the same 10 year old systems. Anyways just food for thought. Look forward to flying with everyone on the net. I was in Art of the Kill D#@ it!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadTommy Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 My interest is most definitely in new aircraft at the fidelity of both BS2 and A-10. My worry on A-10 is wasnt that purposely built for a military client then ported to civi use thus giving us a huge gamit of systems that might not have otherwise been included? Will others have access to the resources that DCS had in making that sim as far as how systems work etc. in particular radar. Id hate to see a new version of the Flanker come out with the same 10 year old systems. Anyways just food for thought. Look forward to flying with everyone on the net. My understanding is that the availability of data and ED's access to said data/systems is key to what airframe they produce/develop. As i understand it if they can't do it justice they wont make it. Of course there will always be some systems kept secret on a modern military product. The only way to have full access for the public would be on a now completely redundant airframe. This is from long gone discussions on these boards... god knows where said post are now! i5-3570K @ 4.5 Ghz, Asus P8Z77-V, 8 GB DDR3, 1.5GB GTX 480 (EVGA, superclocked), SSD, 2 x 1680x1050, x-fi extreme music. TM Warthog, Saitek combat pro pedals, TrackIR 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 rule of thumb, if many chinese journalists have documented its workings during airshows and crawled inside its intake to take photos, then it may be public enough to do accurately and authentically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts