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 Sunday 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.

[streakeagle]

TK started with an almost completely open sim, which resulted in his IP getting pirated. 3d models were stolen. It was interesting that he never resorted to anti-piracy systems as it is very clear that a lot more people pirated the games than bought them. TK's decisions were logical. He locked down files that were costing him time and money. To say he wasn't listening simply isn't true. He spent a lot of time on Sim HQ forums both prior to and after the release of SFP1. A lot of the things that were implemented from Wings Over Vietnam to Wings Over Europe to Wings Over Israel were exactly what people had been asking for. SimHQ forums became hostile to TK. He opened his own forums and never looked back. The transition to SF2 marked the beginning of the end. Most people who bought one or more of the SFP1/WoX games never bought any of the SF2 games. The criticism was valid: why buy the same game(s) twice? Modded versions of the older series were largely comparable to the new series. Each SF2 release returned less revenue: notice I didn't say profit because as far as I can tell, TK was losing money throughout SF2 development, particularly when he developed the mission editor and North Atlantic.

Apparently, the free-to-play games were much more profitable. 3d models/texture quality are much lower requiring less time to add new aircraft. Virtually no cockpits modeled. Minimal controls. He doesn't even have to interact with the customers anymore, which greatly reduces stress.

He did attempt a crowd-funded cleanup of SF2 to make it more Windows 10 friendly. But that didn't draw enough support, perhaps deservedly so since SF2 generally works ok on Windows 10 and Windows 11 for most people and there would have been no new content.

What's left is still a decent workable game with tons of mod support and room for many more.

But for me, SF2 has been dead for years. DCS World isn't that much harder to fly than SF2. Hop in an F-86F or F-5E: you can use a key-combo cheat to get started up, then you largely have the same controls you would have had mapped in SF2. Most of the older aircraft don't take that much effort to do a full-blown by-the-manual startup. Again, the F-86F and F-5E are great examples. I have been looking forward to the GD F-100D. It will be even more fun than the SF2 F-100D with its higher fidelity flight model and systems modeling. The GD F-100D will support one of the most challenging aspects of DCS: inflight refueling. It will essentially be a supersonic F-86 with poor handling qualities and less maneuverability. DCS will now have the entire line of fighter designs produced by Edgar Schmued: P-51, F-86, F-100, and F-5. 

[streakeagle]

As for TK/Third Wire putting Wings Over Europe on Steam: I think you will find that it was the publisher, Strategy First, that put it on Steam. If you read the reviews, it is evident that it is an old, buggy, unpatched build so people who buy it have to find their way to Third Wire's website to get the most recent patch. But at $8.99, it is a steal compared to $39.99 on Third Wire's website. I suspect TK keeps his prices high to encourage people to buy the final all-in-one SF2 package. But most people don't understand that it is worth the $99.99 price tag and just buy one of the other SF2 games for $39.99. Of course, this is where the open game framework hurt TK: if you buy the right game, you can get mods to make it anything you want without having to buy the all-in-one package.

Edited Monday at 08:50 PM by streakeagle

[Viggen]

I've wanted to get into DCS for a while. Messed about with it a couple times, but never had the hardware to really appreciate it until now. The F-100D was one of the first planes I flew the night my grandmother bought me Wings Over Europe at a Best Buy and I think this module will be what finally gets me to finally, seriously consider picking the game up. 

[Flanker562]

That's like the major difference with the games,, I run it on my settings, and it runs fine, but surely it'll choke at some point, and like, some people on SimHQ were saying a laptop couldn't handle it, but if you get a decent gaming laptop, though. It's easy to run SF2 and all the mods (just takes a while to load, longer than DCS) and barely a hiccup. DCS? Yeah I run it on my settings and it runs fine, but surely it'll choke at some point, and like, some people on SimHQ were saying a laptop couldn't handle it, but if you get a decent gaming laptop you can run DCS fine. Sure, you're not running it high-end (unless it's like Alienware), but overall the sim is easy to fly and just gotta watch out for the learning curve, but I don't see ED products as "easy as SF2" though. There's more to learn, like with the F/A-18C, I've yet to trap on a carrier, all because of the procedures I don't know yet. So some may see it that way, but I doubt that SF2 allows all the same gameplay and learning curves. That's my opinion though.

[MigBuster]

It would be somewhat disingenuous to make out DCS is anything like SF2. You can however try a lot of the DCS stuff before you buy so that is definitely recommended.

In SF2 you may have been used to modding, and focusing on units, variants of aircraft or historic air battles, AND were still able to play the game.

I haven’t flown the DCS Spitfire for a few years, but in a sense “I can jump” into it by selecting a free flight mission. But the engine will seize up if you don’t know what bits you need to control the temps. I couldn’t fly a proper mission because I have forgotten how to take off and land. I would need to relearn that (tail draggers are a nightmare in this game).

The last time I jumped into the AV-8B a load of the avionics had changed from when I was using it properly online years before. After about two days relearning Mavericks – Okay I will put that to one side.

The commitment of time is immense and likely not practical for most. Quite frankly even if I had time to play DCS to the level I want to I wouldn’t because I would go mad.

 I do not feel the single player offline side has improved in 15 years since it became DCS. So, it is nice to learn about an individual aircraft. Some bought player campaigns (single scripted missions) can be good but anything with aerial combat are somewhat ruined by the terrible AI. Some are not really for casual gamers.