DCS: F-100D Super Sabre - Pre Purchase

[MigBuster]

 

 

 The long awaited and exceptionally detailed DCS: F-100D Super Sabre by Grinnelli Designs is now open for pre-order on the DCS E-Shop. Known as the “Hun”, this famed Cold War supersonic fighter-bomber delivers a raw, pilot-focused experience that rewards skill and precision. Read the full details below and check out the pre-order trailer here.

The DCS: F-100D Super Sabre brings a new Cold War icon to DCS. The first U.S. fighter capable of sustained supersonic speeds in horizontal flight, the “Hun” built its legacy on being a capable strike and close air support fighter-bomber, particularly over the jungles of Vietnam. It was also the first U.S. fighter-bomber dedicated to the suppression of enemy air defense missions. Its speed, power, and demanding handling tested and rewarded only the most skilled pilots.

The DCS: F-100D Super Sabre will also introduce the unique Zero-Length Launch (ZELL), recreating the Cold War concept of rocket-assisted launches from mobile platforms without a runway. Tested with the F-100D in 1958, the ZELL was designed to disperse fighters and keep them ready for combat at a moments notice if airfields were destroyed. In DCS, it opens new mission possibilities with rapid deployment from dispersed forward positions. Don’t miss the 30% discount on this brilliant aircraft pre-order. 

 

Text and images from Eagle Dynamics 

 

 

[streakeagle]

When Strike Fighters Project 1 was released, the flyable aircraft were the F-4B/C/D/E/J, F-100D, F-104G, and A-4E. DCS has the F-4E and now the F-100D. A free A-4E-C mod is available for download whose quality is comparable to payware. The F-104G is in progress (and a free VSN F-104C mod is already available for download). Red opposition already has the MiG-15bis, MiG-19P, and MiG-21bis. The MiG-17F is close to release. If Heatblur ever gets around to releasing a naval F-4 variant (or you download the free VSN F-4B/C mod), then DCS can pretty much match the original SFP1 lineup.

The F-8J Crusader and A-7E Corsair are in progress. Heatblur will eventually release a flyable A-6E. The A-1H Skyraider was cancelled by ED, but may get relicensed and continue moving forward. So, a Wings Over Vietnam equivalent plane set is not too far off. The biggest problem is the lack of a Vietnam map which presents performance problems with the current DCS World terrain/graphics engine.

It has taken a lot of years to reach this point and is going to take quite a few more to reach parity with the Strike Fighters series. But the results are amazing: both a survey sim allowing you to fly almost any aircraft on any map combined with a hardcore study sim for nearly every flyable aircraft. It is like combining Strike Fighters with Falcon 4.0. DCS also covers the main complaints against the Strike Fighters series: record and playback missions, air-to-air refueling, ejection sequences, dated terrain engine, and excellent online multiplayer that supports advanced scripting. 

Edited yesterday at 02:38 PM by streakeagle

[Flanker562]

I think DCS and SF1/2 have gone in different directions, despite being (as far as SF2 is concerned). Where SF1/SF2 have stagnated to a portion that buyer confidence is kinda not there. Its still a good game, and SF2 remains on my hard drive, but more and more DCS is better, just due to the fact that DCS is constantly evolving and getting better. I think the parity is totally different: TK wanted more of a "simple game" than the abject complexity of DCS. I mean both have their detractors, and DCS is far from perfect, given that fedliety is also a curse, where developers take a year or so to get a functional airplane and the way ED handles business with it's third party developers. ED is ED, and so on, but I don't think that DCS will also not take me away from the Thirdwire series. I hardly play DCS since I'm not in a milsim/virtual squadron, but overall I find sometimes that SF2 is just good fro hopping in a jet, and flying without al the clicky components that DCS offers. I mean sometimes people go overboard about the complexity, but sometimes even in some cases I just want to hop in, run the autostart, and then go fly.

As far as longevity, it remains to be seen if DCS can bring in the same jets as SF2 as far as stock aircraft that are present in the TW series of games. I mean its great , both have their detractors, and DCS is far from perfect, given that fidelity is also a curse, where developers take a year or so to get a functional airplane, and the way ED handles business with its third-party, sometimes people go overboard about the complexity, but sometimes, even in some cases, it's a welcome sight to see and interact with all those cute switches and do things that SF2 could never do in a million years. It remains to be seen that if DCS makes a Vietnam map, the desire for the older jets (and props) will turn out.

[streakeagle]

TK wanted a survey sim. But when you look at the changes from SFP1 to SF2, there were a lot of improvements in realism. The modeling of ECM was drastically improved and is still equal or better than the ECM modeling in DCS. The F-4 Phantom variants each had correct cockpits and systems (RWR/ECM changed constantly) with detailed flight model variations. The A-4 Skyhawk variants were the same way. The modeling of the F-14 and F-15 avionics were very realistic with the main limitation being the lack of clickable cockpits. At the very end, when SF2 North Atlantic did not do well enough, TK was threatening to start dumbing down the game to more of an arcade level by taking away mapped controls such as having automatic landing gear and flaps. Instead, he simply ceased production and migrated his idea of a simpler arcade level game to free-to-play Android games.

At that time, SF2 was a more realistic sim than LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs. Until the Heatblur F-4E was released, there wasn't a more realistic combat simulation of the F-4 in a PC game.

LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs had superior terrain graphics, but the 3d modeling/textures of aircraft in SF2 were more accurate and more detailed. It wasn't until DCS World Flaming Cliffs 3 that the flight and systems modeling of the F-15C exceeded the SF2 implementation.

DCS has come a long way. But still falls short of SF2 in several areas. The biggest one is the terrain: No Vietnam. But they recently released Cold War Germany which beats SF2 Europe and the Kola map which is superior to SF2 North Atlantic. There is no shortage of desert maps to beat SF2 Israel with Syria, Sinai, Iraq, and Persian Gulf. While TK never released a Korea themed expansion, the free mod version is comparable if not superior to official SF2 terrain. If DCS added decent Vietnam and Korea maps as well as the appropriate era asset packs to support them, it would be real close to surpassing SF2. The dynamic campaign for DCS World is still a long way off, but it should end up being superior to SF2 campaigns. In some ways, SF2 AI was better than DCS World, but a lot of AI improvements have been made recently and will continue to be improved to make the dynamic campaign work. Ultimately, it should be possible to have online dynamic campaigns similar to if not superior to Falcon 4.0/BMS.

SF2 would need a lot of money/time/work to get it up to modern standards: 1. Aircraft and cockpits with high poly counts/hi-res textures and fully modeled for looking in all directions. 2. VR support. 3. Proper online multiplayer support compatible with offline missions/campaigns. How many people would buy an upgraded SF2 compared to staying with the already established DCS World? Even when SF2 was at its best, it ran out of money while LOMAC continued to evolve. Arcade people have Warthunder. Hardcore people have DCS World. Is there a market for an in between game? I honestly don't know how DCS World has survived. It is a niche market. 

DCS World is going to have new competition: Il-2 Korea. Its existence may guarantee DCS never makes a Korea map. But Il-2 may discover why there has never been many Korea themed combat flight sims: everyone loves World War 2 and the only other popular era was the modern teen series fighters. World War I sims never do that well and Korea/Vietnam era sims are almost non-existent. It is a tough market. I hope SF2 continues to be playable despite its age and that both Il-2 and DCS continue to move forward.

[Flanker562]

Agreed, valid points too. I noticed that TK put WOE on Steam, and maybe that will attract more customers in the future for a game like what SF2 is. We're seeing a lot of people come in for SF2 though on this site, so that's a boon too. The only problem is as you said, the viability of the game,and the veterans who played SF2 don't always have  a good opinion of the lack of support and age of the game. Sure people do find new ways of keeping it relevant, but if TK moves the games to Steam, I would buy it myself (especially SF2) so I don't have to keep a copy of the installer on my hard drive. All I would need to do is log in to Steam, and redownload the game, and be set.

[Jimbib]

Sadly, TK has essentially never done any significant marketing for his portfolio of products, something that I wish he had done a lot more of over the years. Yes, he's got his social channels but I've noticed he basically ignores all comments underneath his posts (and has abandoned the discord) and he started them way too late in order to drive traffic to save the PC games. The only time I ever saw him consistently engage with customers was when he used to host his own forum at thirdwire.com.

I understand the counter point which is "a small business doesn't have time / money / resources for marketing" but that is exactly what is needed drive customers through the sales funnel to open their wallets and convince them to purchase it, especially when his SF2 collection is still $100 and consumer budgets are tighter then ever. (I have a very strong suspicion that the big influx of people joining CA are acquiring the installers from 'other sources' and then coming here looking for mods - there ain't no way they're all splashing out that much money for an unsupported game this old).

It's something I find very frustrating because in my opinion there has never existed a combat flight sim with a better combination of aircraft availability and "jump in, fly about, shoot bad guy", which I'm sure is the same for a lot of people still here at CA, but can't help feel the ball was dropped on the marketing / delivery side of things. I'm not saying it's the only reason why the PC games got left behind but it is a major contributing factor.

Regarding the DCS F-100... just watched the trailer linked by MigBuster and good lord that looks incredible, the detail and immersion are exceptional. I've not gotten into DCS properly yet but this could tip me to do so.

[Flanker562]

You'll find DCS more with a learning curve than anything else. The Mission Editor looks formidable to some, and flying isn't like SF2, where you have some ease. I have yet to start doing carrier ops in DCS, but with SF2, you can not do it for a year or two, and still trap fine. I don't know, ED has always focused on authenticity with a TLAR (That Looks About Right) methodology. They've improved customer service with people who beta test working with players on systems and the like, a step up from us beta testers bringing up an issue, and then them looking at us like we got something growing out of our forehead. Different times, and the only issue is the pacing of projects. It takes a long while for modules to get out of Early Access, and there's (somewhat understandable) commentary on (some say colorful) the forums, and if I didn't work for them for a time, I'd be saying the same thing, so I just got an edge on the projects that they work on, and more patient with the workflow. 

I don't spend a lot of time with DCS, not because of any past gripes and stuff, but sometimes I like Arma 3, where flying helos is a bit easier and something than other than fixed-wing, which A3 doesn't do that well, admittedly from some real-world pilots, but it's believable enough for me at the moment. Anyway, DCS is for the long haul, and I don't think that the unpopularity of the Strike Fighter series (I get quite a lot of views sometimes on my videos) was because of poor marketing, I think it was just not listening to it's customer base, and that was reflected back when they wanted us to crowdfund the Win10 update, where participation was very minimal. He gets most of his money from mobile games, and there's always somebody posting mobile screenshots on their Discord. I think TK is just a poor manager, and maybe just has a wrong attitude towards supporting his products. That's my read on the situation anyway. 

[Jimbib]

27 minutes ago, Flanker562 said:

You'll find DCS more with a learning curve than anything else. The Mission Editor looks formidable to some, and flying isn't like SF2, where you have some ease. I have yet to start doing carrier ops in DCS, but with SF2, you can not do it for a year or two, and still trap fine. I don't know, ED has always focused on authenticity with a TLAR (That Looks About Right) methodology. They've improved customer service with people who beta test working with players on systems and the like, a step up from us beta testers bringing up an issue, and then them looking at us like we got something growing out of our forehead. Different times, and the only issue is the pacing of projects. It takes a long while for modules to get out of Early Access, and there's (somewhat understandable) commentary on (some say colorful) the forums, and if I didn't work for them for a time, I'd be saying the same thing, so I just got an edge on the projects that they work on, and more patient with the workflow. 

I don't spend a lot of time with DCS, not because of any past gripes and stuff, but sometimes I like Arma 3, where flying helos is a bit easier and something than other than fixed-wing, which A3 doesn't do that well, admittedly from some real-world pilots, but it's believable enough for me at the moment. Anyway, DCS is for the long haul, and I don't think that the unpopularity of the Strike Fighter series (I get quite a lot of views sometimes on my videos) was because of poor marketing, I think it was just not listening to it's customer base, and that was reflected back when they wanted us to crowdfund the Win10 update, where participation was very minimal. He gets most of his money from mobile games, and there's always somebody posting mobile screenshots on their Discord. I think TK is just a poor manager, and maybe just has a wrong attitude towards supporting his products. That's my read on the situation anyway. 

Thank you for the pointers on DCS - I'm looking forward to getting stuck into it. I purchased the Nevada map a few years ago when it was discounted and might pick up one of the Middle East maps too.

As for SF2, that's a good point about not listening to the customer base, another major contributor as to why the PC games died - it's a shame he continuously locked / changed things in the coding which caused constant rework by the modders and didn't deliver on the features that the general fanbase like multiplayer etc.

I still feel that the marketing goes hand in hand with point about listening to the customers, it is one of the things that the commercially successful flight sims out there at the moment are all doing well, whether it be DCS, War Thunder (just about qualifies as a flight sim), Microsoft Flight Sim etc and something that TK never bothered with. They are hitting all the major points - producing content which draws people in, a well-built website, exploiting owned / earned / paid channels, advertising across multiple platforms, and then they follow up by converting them through their sales funnel, and they know how to appeal to their different audiences whether it's the high fidelity option (DCS) or the shoot em ups (WT). The flight sims that don't get their message out there about their USPs and why their product deserves consideration and a potential purchase tend to flounder and / or die.

 

[Flanker562]

adaptation might bring in customers, but if you're not reliably engaging with your customer base, it's a 

1 minute ago, Jimbib said:

Thank you for the pointers on DCS - I'm looking forward to getting stuck into it. I purchased the Nevada map a few years ago when it was discounted and might pick up one of the Middle East maps too.

As for SF2, that's a good point about not listening to the customer base, another major contributor as to why the PC games died - it's a shame he continuously locked / changed things in the coding which caused constant rework by the modders and didn't deliver on the features that the general fanbase like multiplayer etc.

I still feel that the marketing goes hand in hand with point about listening to the customers, it is one of the things that the commercially successful flight sims out there at the moment are all doing well, whether it be DCS, War Thunder (just about qualifies as a flight sim), Microsoft Flight Sim etc and something that TK never bothered with. They are hitting all the major points - producing content which draws people in, a well-built website, exploiting owned / earned / paid channels, advertising across multiple platforms, and then they follow up by converting them through their sales funnel, and they know how to appeal to their different audiences whether it's the high fidelity option (DCS) or the shoot em ups (WT). The flight sims that don't get their message out there about their USPs and why their product deserves consideration and a potential purchase tend to flounder and / or die.

 

I have some of the maps as well, but normally just fly on the base map. I did get the full Afghanistan map, as well as Iraq myself, since I served there. I got Kola, and the Persian Gulf, but yeah stick to the default map for training and stuff, and don't run missions other than to fly around and see stuff.

As for the rest I agree with you. A lot of games flounder because as you're right, marketing is also customer support. I mean I barely fly SF2 and frankly don't have much hope for it in the long run while everybody else draws in people. Kinda like how I respond to player requests/problems. I don't give an attitude (I might a little bit), but if there's an issue I solve it, for a free product. But for paid games they should present reliable customer service and so on, to keep the player base knowing that they care more than just the money.. Steam adaption might bring in customers, but if you're not reliably engaging with your customer base, dead product. I mean you hit the nail on the head, and I think that's what I inadvertently tried to say, even though looking back I didn't. But yeah that's the biggest gripe of Thirdwire. They have a decent product for it's age, but overall the constant wise cracks about TW and how they handle their customers, is well deserved in IMHO.