statrekmike

While I am not outright and arbitrarily against civilian aircraft in DCS, I do think that opening that particular floodgate would bring a whole heap of issues. DCS is a fairly (and thankfully) closed environment where third parties have to (ideally) follow specific standards of quality and detail. In fact, you could even make the argument that developers like Heatblur, Belsimtek, and even RAZBAM are pushing DCS further as a combat simulation by bringing their own specific requirements and developer tricks to the table. The problem with opening DCS World up to civilian aviation is that you would essentially be creating a situation where DCS is set up to fail. Right now, FSX, P3D, and X-Plane are kings of civilian flight simulation because they have built MASSIVE third party support. You have literally hundreds of different third party aircraft, map assets, and even external flight models, weather, and various utilities. On paper, this sounds amazing but in practice, due to the nearly nonexistent quality standards (since nobody is really enforcing anything), you have a whole lot of substandard (sometimes free, sometimes not) third party stuff. I mean, sure, you have great teams like PMDG and A2A Simulations but you also have a ton of third parties who either release far less detailed or even substandard work. Now, to make matters even more complicated, you have a MASSIVE and dedicated civilian flight sim community who will immediately move into the DCS community and EXPECT DCS World to deliver EXACTLY what they get in FSX, P3D, or X-Plane. I am not just talking about a massive selection of civil aircraft in a variety of detail levels but also the worldwide map, civilian style ATC, ground assets, fully detailed airports (on a world-wide scale of course), and all the other elements that they have gotten over the past twenty-five-plus years of civilian flight simulation. To put it bluntly, that is not a floodgate that Eagle Dynamics should open since DCS World can't compete with heavyweights like FSX, P3D, or X-Plane on the civilian side of things quickly enough to prevent a public relations disaster. The moment a Cessna or a Airbus make it to DCS is the moment where countless FSX focused youtubers, AVSim, and other flight sim communities will yell on the mountaintops that DCS is awful because it does not have the exact same stuff they get in FSX. At this point, it is better that DCS World is combat focused because that is what it was designed for to begin with. It does air combat really well (in contrast to the rather poor combat that comes with something like FSX's Tackpack) even if it struggles with elements like ATC and other civilian flightsim staples. Now, Eagle Dynamics had the right idea with the L-39. It created a module that has both a combat and a civilian element. If you want civilian flight simming in DCS, the L-39C is a good way to handle that. You get a aircraft that makes sense in the setting, has a combat connection, but can also function 100% as a civilian aircraft. If Eagle Dynamics and its third parties wanted to take that idea and roll with it, you could potentially end up with more modules with two versions of aircraft (when realistically applicable). You could end up with aircraft like a flyable C-130 that also includes a L-100 for civilian flight. Likewise, a U-27 module could also include a Cessna 208 version. Picking aircraft that can serve both civil and military applications would allow for civil simmers to come into DCS without creating the impression that DCS is trying to come into the civil simulation market in a way that could backfire on Eagle Dynamics or even the hardcore combat flight sim enthusiasts that enjoy DCS as it is. Finally, we come to another key element to think about. Some on this thread had said that having civilian aircraft could help newer DCS players learn and train before hopping into more dedicated (and often higher performance) military aircraft. Moving past the fact that we already have the L-39C to provide that kind of thing (and the F-5E to a degree), would such "training" aircraft really sell to newer players coming into DCS? Do you think that a new player would say to themselves "You know, I really want to fly the MiG-21Bis module but I suppose I should spend another $60 so I can practice on the L-39C first." This is the problem with the training aircraft argument. I love that we have them and I love flying the L-39 in DCS myself but it is the kind of module that a ENTHUSIAST buys and not a new player coming into the hobby or DCS specifically. New players are going to be attracted to the combat aircraft and will go straight there. So, with that in mind, using the argument that civil aircraft would help players ease into military aircraft kinda falls apart. It works in real life but gamers coming into DCS won't really want to do the figurative drivers ed before driving the Ferrari F1 car. At this point, ED should do what it wants to do and if that means sticking to the "combat" part of "Digital Combat Simulator", more power to them. If they want to branch out, I hope they are careful and don't try to draw the FSX crowd to fast or else it will backfire on them and it will hurt the sim.

If we are only talking about PvP servers like the 104th, it may be better to avoid putting yourself in situations where you are meeting other (especially FC3) players head-on. Instead, observe their usual routes as they head into action and find a way to avoid coming into their radar scan area. A few of those FC3 planes are going to always out-range and out-shoot you so instead of fighting them head on, find a way to come in from a angle and a altitude that they don't expect. The thing is, on the PvP dogfight servers, it usually kinda boils down to both sides just kinda taking off and meeting each other in the middle. The enemy players are going to expect you to follow that same route, don't. Be unpredictable and try to exploit lapses in situational awareness.

So what are the chances that at least the Viggen's hotfixes will see a release on 1.5 Open Beta this Friday as well? It seems silly to arbitrarily hold back those fixes for 1.5 if they are already ready to go.

This may be a silly question but I have searched the flight manual, Chuck's guide, and this forum itself to find the answer. Anyway, I found the flood lighting on the L-39ZA just fine but I was wondering where the actual instrument lighting is located. I can't seem to find it anywhere.

I am not going to jump on this "LN is just in it for the money and does not care about is!" bandwagon. They have a history of timely and attentive bug-fixing and I don't see how that has changed significantly. If this issue were entirely in their hands, it would have been fixed already, I suspect that they are waiting on ED for something.

Is this something we might see in a hotfix or is this something we could see next Friday?

If I were you, I would start looking into learning the basics of the mission editor, it is shockingly easy to handle once you watch a few tutorials on youtube. Keep in kind, I say this as a person who is not amazing with editors. The DCS editor is really intuitive and learning to make your own missions will save you the time and effort involved in trying to find ones that others have made that suit your needs.

It does not take long at all to learn RSBN, it is far quicker to do so than to wait for someone to make a mod for you.

This is the kind of thing I like to hear and it is why I play DCS. Keep up the good work!

If we go by that kind of thinking, there is zero reason to strive for any kind of realism in DCS, we can just throw out all those old standards and just kinda do whatever. It does not matter since it is all just simulated on our computers anyway. Seriously, the point of these DCS modules is to STRIVE for realism whenever it is possible.

learning the start-up for the P-51 literally takes just a few minutes.

The real aircraft is only able to handle one air to ground weapon type at a time, this is modeled accurately in the sim. If you want to do air to ground missions, you need to pick ONE weapon type since that is all the plane can handle. For example, you can carry a full load of Snakeeye's or a full load of Mk-82's, you just can't mix them.

I also hope it gets fixed in the upcoming patch, this is one of those things that really needs to work to make the plane functional for a wider variety of mission types.

That is the best possible outcome, I am one of those players that like the alignment time being correct so having a option to do so is exactly what I wanted.

Honestly, if they are gonna add any new air to ground, I would like to see a "simulated nuclear bomb" in the same vain as the one for the MiG-21, it would actually give us a reason to use the fully modeled LABS system on the plane that is (as of now) serving no real purpose.

If that is indeed the case, I hope they don't make a habit of that kind of thing.

Is anyone getting some odd bugs after doing this mod? I noticed that after doing the mod, the alarm that goes off when you drop the centerline droptank no longer goes off, when you switch the FBW mode to A/A, it gives you the alarm. Not a big deal, you can just silence the alarm but I was wondering if i did something wrong here.

All the details were clearly outlined in the post he linked.

The early F-15E's were very capable, even by modern standards.

Hopefully it is a early E model since that may mean higher systems accuracy. I would rather not see a trend start where full DCS modules are made with a significant amount of guesswork.

If I were RAZBAM, I would just implement the full INS alignment time first and foremost, get the whole thing where it needs to be in order to be realistic and then start thinking about some sort of option for those that don't want to wait the full eight minutes. I would prefer that DCS modules continue doing what Eagle Dynamics started with the A-10C and try to keep everything as realistic as possible. To be blunt, I find that getting upset at long alignment times is a choice. I find that the alignment time gives me a chance to jot down any notes I need, make sure I am clear on the mission objectives and perhaps even brief other players on what is to come. I choose to not even really be bothered by the alignment time because I can always find something to fill that time with. let RAZBAM do it correctly and then start thinking about a option for those who can't live without it.

Well, as I said, I have nothing against server enforced options since this seems more like a multiplayer/PVP concern than a single player/co-op one. If it bothers you to wait the eight minutes, there should be a option you can enable to shorten it to your taste while not encroaching on the experience of those who do want the full alignment time.

I can understand that a eight minute alignment time may be off-putting to some but I really don't think we should start reducing it arbitrarily either. This is the kind of thing that may work well for the multiplayer crowd and I fully understand that, but in the end, if we start (as the community and not developers) picking and choosing what realistic elements we want and what we don't, we start setting a pattern where the players with the loudest voices on forums start setting up the baseline level of realism that EVERYONE will get. There have been many games that started with a eye towards realism only to go the entirely opposite way due to pressure from PVP/competitive centric players. Please note, I have no issues at all with a server enforceable option to reduce alignment times, this would allow the action packed dogfight centric servers to have their quick alignments while more realism focused servers can keep everything consistent (instead of having some players using a 2 minute option and others using a 8 minute option). I will personally stick with the realistic alignment times, I have no problem with waiting since if gives me a chance to go over all the mission info and make sure I have everything laid out for those flying with me.

Adding a globe module seems like a good solution but you end up with a couple of problems. The first is that we don't really know if the DCS terrain engine can handle that scale on a level that would satisfy VFR flying. Those who fly 747's at 40,000 feet may not mind rather basic textures or terrain modeling but we really don't know how well the DCS engine can handle a entire globe. The second issue is that you will have to find a way to support 3rd party improvements on a existing map since we all know that the civilian players will want to encourage the FSX terrain payware modders to make content for the DCS globe map. This would be a logistical nightmare with DCS in its current configuration. I don't have a issue with flying without shooting, it is not that I find civilian flying boring, it is that I don't really see how you can make DCS a "all in one" solution that will satisfy both the civil and military flyers equally. Everything about DCS (as it stands now and in the known future) is geared for combat flying in some form or another. If DCS were to push to become the "all in one" solution, I fear it would get bogged down with expectations from those who have been so used to the 3rd party content (of wildly varying quality) that they are used to on FSX or X-plane. I think this is where you could get a good compromise. C-130's, E-3's, KC-135's, and even militarized Piper Cubs and the like are the perfect compromise. You could still do civil style flights but also open up options that actually contribute to DCS's core intention as a product. DCS does have great flight dynamics, great weapons and systems modeling, and even great terrain modeling due to the smaller scale. What it does not have is any real provisions for FSX style gameplay and in order to get that stuff working, you are looking at a far more involved process than what we find with FSX and the like. The problem here is that every new airplane, every patch, every terrain choice, and any other addition you can think of has to go through ED directly. This would clash badly with the expectations of those coming from FSX since those third parties did not need to deal with such a thing, they could just release their content directly to the consumer without any sort of quality standards, without waiting for Microsoft to integrate needed features or systems, and without having to wait on Microsoft's patch schedule. With DCS, everything has to go through ED and while this is fine with military level stuff, it will really cause friction with the massive civil aviation crowd who are used to having a HUGE selection of addons that release direct. The other issue is cultural. FSX and the like have been around a long time and have their own cult followings. Those folks are very, very used to how things work for FSX and may find that the differences with DCS hard to live with (slower content releases, less third party freedom). You may also see some friction in the community. You would have some players on the civilian side demanding more attention without realizing that they are not the dominant playerbase for DCS. This could cause friction on the forums that simply does not need to be there. At the end of the day, I don't have a huge issue with civil aircraft in DCs, I just can't really find a good reason as to why it would be a good idea to push in that direction. DCS is a combat sim and the ONLY one that really does what it does. Why should it assume the responsibility of being a "all in one" solution when that invariably would lead to compromises on one level or another. DCS is just not a open enough platform to get the kind of content you might expect for something like FSX and the like and to be honest, that is what makes DCS kinda special, there are harsh standards that civil cims have yet to assume and probably could not without significant pushback from 3rd party developers who are used to a more lax system.

We are getting into pointless semantics, my point is that all of the inteceptors in DCS currently also can serve other roles. It is easy to make a mission for the MiG-21 where you only shoot down big slow bombers but a real challenge would be to make missions where you employ it for CAP against other fighters, ground attack, or even air superiority. The same goes for the MiG-15, sure, it is a interceptor on paper but it was the mainline fighter during the Korean war and used for anything from ground attack to basic fighter duty. The Mirage is the same case, you can say it is just a interceptor but it is very much a front line fighter, interceptor, and light ground attack fighter. Saying that DCS has too many interceptors misses the point. the interceptors we have all can do many roles, you as the player just need to be willing to challenge yourself. You need to be willing to play actual missions that put those aircraft in the roles they actually served, this kind of mission structure will not be found on servers like the 104th but instead on co-op missions and solo missions. To put it more directly, it is very rare that I use the interceptors in DCS for just shooting down bombers, I tend to look at what those planes actually did, what supporting aircraft worked with them and what their realistic opponents might have been and then I design missions around that. It sounds like you just need to branch out, explore what those aircraft are actually capable of doing and what roles they could do in real life (outside the basic bomber interceptor role).