Wag's DCS: World Video

[+Dave 2,322]

Trolling the internet forums and there sure are a lot of "That's too many US planes." Which is a far cry when everyone was saying there is too many Russian planes. Complainers are gonna complain and whiners are going to whine. Just wish they would stifle it.

[+streakeagle 871]

It doesn't matter what anyone else says or does. All that matters is what is actually released for sale to the public and how well those sales do. Aces High faces similar complaints, but they hold polls to see what planes to add next and US aircraft almost always take the top 3 spots. Developers with limited resources are going to focus on what they perceive to be the most profitable options.

 

Fortunately, Aces High also adds unique interesting aircraft in addition to the most popular ones. TK did the same with the SF series: wrapping some less popular aircraft up with popular ones so that everyone would be happy. Of course, TK refused to release even one flyable opposition aircraft within the jet series. But unlike SF2, DCS is a multiplayer environment and decent opposing aircraft are a necessary component if you want people flying on both sides. ED would be smart to make DCS modules out of the aircraft from FC3 as quickly as possible (which I think they are doing). If the MiG-21bis is done as well as the A-10C, it will become my primary ride. I would also love the chance to fly the MiG-23, so I hope that is the next aircraft after the MiG-21bis from that developer.

 

People should voice their preferences, but they should also wait to see what is actually released. There are long lists of planned modules. So far, none have been released. The MiG-21bis and UH-1H should actually be available in just a few weeks/months. However, given the nature of a DCS level model, I think it will be years before any other 3rd party releases a worthwhile addon. Anyone that produces one sooner will probably be releasing a less than accurate module. As long as the MiG-21bis and UH-1H come out as well as I hope, I can be patient for the others. I hope the developers doing the F-104 are as capable as the developer doing the MiG-21, which would make a great matchup.

[JediMaster 451]

Yeah, "announced" and "released" are two different worlds.

 

As I noted to someone else making the complaint that not enough Euro planes were being done, who's buying? DCS' primary markets seem to be the US and Russia...so naturally they get the most. How many people would spend $50 for a DCS Mirage simulation? I'm sure lots of Russians have zero interest and a lot of Americans wouldn't want to fly a "French" plane. So if the effort involved is the same, wouldn't you make a plane likely to sell more?

[+Dave 2,322]

As I noted to someone else making the complaint that not enough Euro planes were being done, who's buying? DCS' primary markets seem to be the US and Russia...so naturally they get the most. How many people would spend $50 for a DCS Mirage simulation? I'm sure lots of Russians have zero interest and a lot of Americans wouldn't want to fly a "French" plane. So if the effort involved is the same, wouldn't you make a plane likely to sell more?

 

Thats how I see it JM, the devs know an F/A-18C will sell more than a Mirage would.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Theres a Tornado, Typhoon and Hawk in the works, and a Mirage 2000, all european last time I checked :)

Lke Dave said, some people just like to b****.

 

Craig

[+streakeagle 871]

Really, given all the projects announced, the only thing to complain about is the time it takes to create a module. But if you want clickable cockpits with high fidelity systems modeling in a small, barely profitable niche market, you have to wait as very small teams do the research on the real systems and try to figure out how to code them in DCS. I don't really expect the flight models to be all that good, at least on the first releases. The drive to start making a profit will override the desire to provide a high fidelity flight model. Given how hard it is to get the necessary data and translate it into the game engine, I expect the 3rd party FMs to be closer to the simple FMs of FC3 rather than detailed to the level of A-10C. If they prove me wrong, then I will be pleasantly surprised rather than expecting A-10C quality and being disappointed to get FC3 quality.

[Ruggbutt 45]

IMHO Eagle are doing the a/c that they believe will sell very well. They let the 3rd party groups choose from the rest. I saw somewhere someone was doing a T-38. Yeah, not interested one bit.

[+Dave 2,322]

Yeah a T-38 not so much. Now an F-5!

[Dusty Rhodes 1]

Some people want a flight sim and quart of blood from ED. They think every flight sim should grant all their wishes of what they, as the individual, think should be in a flight sim. This just in: YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. I get a kick out of people who bitch that this isn't in there or that isn't in there. Hell even I do it without knowing it when it comes to a Dynamic Campaign. A certain website I know is doing this all the time to DCS. Won't name it as I am not interested in a flame war. Flight simmers are their own worst enemy.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dusty Rhodes

[JediMaster 451]

I think flight sims can make it on the 85% rule. If it's 85% of the real thing, that's good enough. Those who demand 100% will always be disappointed.

 

What really bothers me is that after decades of simmers saying "modeling systems/flight/combat/the war is more important than eye candy", we now have CloD lovers bashing 777 and the DN engine that will be used for the sequel because they feel that it will not look as good as CloD. Personally, I think both ROF and CloD look "good enough", and ROF has trees that are solid! I don't find CloD's appearance superior in any substantive way. For every thing I think it did better, ROF does something else better. So their claims of CloD's "clear" superiority are a big joke.

 

However, from even Il-2 we know the answer: the smaller the map, the better the terrain can look for the same performance. As tired as I am of the DCS region, shifted SE from Flanker 1 thru LOMAC to A-10C/DCS World, I will admit it's very expansive and does feature some differing terrain including ports, cities, plains, mountains/valleys, and of course the sea. The maps in Battlefield look a LOT better in return for them being crossed by a plane in less than 30 seconds!

[FastCargo 412]

Yeah a T-38 not so much. Now an F-5!

 

Yea, I don't understand this either.

 

Obviously I have a personal interest...but it doesn't make sense from a financial point of view. FSX is about flyin', DCS is about shootin'. T-38s do a lot of the first, a little of the second. And there is already a decent one for FSX.

 

You would think an F-5 would be a MUCH bigger draw. So many nations have had them at one point or another, you'd be casting a pretty wide net.

 

FC

[Ruggbutt 45]

Even if they did do an F-5, I can think of several dozen planes that I'd prefer to see.

[+GGTharos 0]

That depends on what you consider to be a flight model. ED tends to include everything from modeling fuel and electrical flows and hydraulics to how the aircraft flies - to be the flight model.

 

The A-10C is not easily repeatable in terms of fidelity, you will see some devs try to go in that direction, and others might pump out something between FC3 and A-10C with varying levels of complexity (Eg, something like a Su-25 but with more/clickable avionics). I suggest dropping the idea of 'I'll be dissapointed if it isn't like A-10C' right now, because that's a rather tough act to follow.

 

The drive to start making a profit will override the desire to provide a high fidelity flight model. Given how hard it is to get the necessary data and translate it into the game engine, I expect the 3rd party FMs to be closer to the simple FMs of FC3 rather than detailed to the level of A-10C. If they prove me wrong, then I will be pleasantly surprised rather than expecting A-10C quality and being disappointed to get FC3 quality.

[+SkateZilla 49]

Welcome to CA GGTharos!

[paulrkiii 16]

Yeah a T-38 not so much. Now an F-5!

 

Some virtual organizations are looking forward to a dedicated training ACFT, I know we in the 476th vFighter Group hope to use one of the upcoming trainers (T-38 or Hawk)for our vTraining Squadron.

[+SkateZilla 49]

MIG-28s! No one's been this close before!

[JediMaster 451]

Something tells me making an F-5 part of the T-38 package would be nontrivial. There are enough differences to make it a totally different plane.

 

I also think the T-38 will be a mistake as far as how many sales it will get. Other than seeing it on the ramp or in the pattern at Nevada, it really doesn't "fit" anywhere. I suppose you could fly against it in training at Nevada as well, but when you could just put real red air in that situation (unlike in the real world) why bother?

[MigBuster 2,884]

Maybe there was a spare model going - from Fighter Ops for example

[+Dave 2,322]

Something tells me making an F-5 part of the T-38 package would be nontrivial. There are enough differences to make it a totally different plane.

 

I also think the T-38 will be a mistake as far as how many sales it will get. Other than seeing it on the ramp or in the pattern at Nevada, it really doesn't "fit" anywhere. I suppose you could fly against it in training at Nevada as well, but when you could just put real red air in that situation (unlike in the real world) why bother?

 

Agreed. The F-5 would be perfect for aggressors though.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Agreed. The F-5 would be perfect for aggressors though.

So would the Su27SM...................

[FastCargo 412]

I always thought training in a trainer in a virtual air force to be kind of redundant.

 

What I mean is this...in a simulated environment, everything is controlled. The idea is to use the simulator to get you up to speed in procedures and maneuvers that cannot be practiced in the aircraft (losing an engine on takeoff for example).

 

But for normal procedures, it doesn't matter how much you practice in the simulator...you get on to the 'line' and a whole bunch of new stimuli are competing for your attention. In the real world, these real world training flights teach you to 'timeshare', to build that basic 'airmanship' that you carry onward from aircraft to aircraft.

 

But assuming you're spending the jack on flight simulators for PCs, you probably already have as much basic airmanship as you are going to get in a simulated environment. Much better to spend your time getting up to speed on the specific aircraft you want to fly, and specific tactics your squadron/clan/troop/whatever wants you to learn.

 

The only time I would spend on building a basic training program is if someone wants to learn who has no idea what military flying (or flying in general) is.

 

FC

[+streakeagle 871]

I can understand those who want to simulate being a real fighter pilot... studying and performing all of the associated qualifications. Kind of like leveling up in WoW. The equivalent is "boot camp" in an infantry tactical shooter game. It all depends on your own definition of "fun". I use the shooting range in Steel Beasts Pro PE to get my reflexes and precision up where they need to be for being a gunner. It gives me time to make mistakes and keep going instead of restarting the whole mission every time I get killed. However, it uses exactly the same tank with exactly the same ammo against the actual targets with the only differences being that they don't shoot back and you get a steady flow of clear targets instead of alternating between being overwhelmed and having little or nothing to shoot. It is also very quick as opposed to spending weeks or even months working your way up the virtual fighter pilot school curriculum.

 

But consider that DCS isn't just trying to be the best combat flight simulator, but also trying to grab the market share being abandoned by Microsoft. There are plenty of people who enjoy flying any and all types of aircraft in FSX who could just as easily be flying in DCS as the plane set and terrains are expanded. The fact that there is now a pay-for online FSX based simulated flight school for combat pilots is indicative that a market may exist for realistic trainers.

 

If I was going to pay a monthly fee to fly, it would be (and has been in the past) Aces High. With AH, I can fly any aircraft I want and choose between various servers ranging from all-out war, dueling, training, historical, etc. Wasting time flying according to someone else's rules doesn't really appeal to me. I haven't joined any virtual squadrons for that very reason. Expecting me to pay for something I won't even do for free is a bit unrealistic. But clearly, some people feel differently and some developers seek niches other developers won't touch.

 

Looking at it from the current DCS 3rd party developer's perspective, it seems many want to get familiar with developing for the DCS engine by working their way up from trainers. Taking on the most complex aircraft possible such as an F-15E, F-14D, or F-22 leads to years of no profits in the hope of scoring the big cash with a brilliant final release. If the lessons (and code?) learned from each project can be used as building blocks for the next level, you could get to the high end types almost as fast while getting a chance for profits releasing the basic and intermediate complexity aircraft. A T-38 to F-5 to F-16A to F-16C type of progression could make a lot of sense if plenty of people would buy the T-38 and/or F-5.

 

I don't know if I will buy every DCS release, but I am a fan of the T-38 and the F-5. So, if someone made decent DCS addons of the T-38A, F-5A, and/or F-5E, my money is ready and waiting. But the T-38A needs to make up for its lack of combat capability by coming with very well done Thunderbird skins, preferably all of the variants actually used from initial delivery, to the Bicentennial to the diamond crash.

[FastCargo 412]

Looking at it from the current DCS 3rd party developer's perspective, it seems many want to get familiar with developing for the DCS engine by working their way up from trainers. Taking on the most complex aircraft possible such as an F-15E, F-14D, or F-22 leads to years of no profits in the hope of scoring the big cash with a brilliant final release. If the lessons (and code?) learned from each project can be used as building blocks for the next level, you could get to the high end types almost as fast while getting a chance for profits releasing the basic and intermediate complexity aircraft. A T-38 to F-5 to F-16A to F-16C type of progression could make a lot of sense if plenty of people would buy the T-38 and/or F-5.

 

Here's the thing...you are burning money building a non-combat aircraft for an air combat sim. You can just as easily learn how to move up to more complex aircraft by building an earlier year vintage aircraft that people want. Oh, like an F-5, or F-105, A-4, A-7, A-6.

 

And DCS filling the spot left by MSFS? I'll believe that when I start seeing airliners being released and ultra detailed terrains with awesome airports.

 

I want DCS to succeed...but some of the things I'm seeing have me concerned.

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

Well, it's up to the 3rd parties to decide what they want to make. I get the feeling some of these are FS9/FSX ports so they can spend minimal time on research and modeling and spend it all on integrating the systems. But if they waste resources on a plane no one buys, it's ultimately their fault.

 

I agree they could start with older planes that have easier cockpit systems first, but very few seem to be taking that route. Not being in the least involved with it, how is the MSFS market for those planes? Are there a lot of pre-80s combat aircraft available to a good level of detail and quality?

[+streakeagle 871]

There are those in the DCS world that detest the very idea of even bothering to release the P-51D who have no objections to the T-38. They see DCS as a "modern" jet sim. Personally, I want a complete simulator that is capable of simulating all aspects of flight and combat to the highest practical realism level, which really translates into a complete physics model: aerodynamics, mechanics, the Earth, etc. for flight, avionics, sensors, weapons, etc. and decent AI. If DCS succeeds in doing all that, why can't it be a replacement for FSX? Won't a T-38A modeled on a DCS:A-10C level be equal to or better than any T-38 ever released for FSX? What DCS needs right now as much or more than a rapid expansion in the range of flyables is realistic terrain other than Georgia. I would prefer a full blown globe that could even be flat and/or mostly blank until filled in by addons. Adding in land combat and presumably sea combat is icing on the cake.