statrekmike

Good to hear, thanks for the update, it is good to know where things are at the moment. Keep up the good work, I look forward to flying it!

What makes you say this?

I have been thinking about how GCI would work in DCS, I mean, I know that it is still no doubt being worked on and that means that definitive answers might be difficult to give but I was wondering what the team has planned in that regard?

As far as I know, Eagle Dynamics is planning on making a proper DCS level Su-27 at some point in the future, the MiG-29 would probably have to be picked up by a third party as a result. It is possible, I mean, Leatherneck simulations has it's hands full with the MiG-21Bis at the moment but another 3rd party could take up the challenge of making a MiG-29.

In my personal opinion (and that is really important to keep in mind), I would rather not have another ground attack aircraft until we get a few more proper DCS level fighters in the air first, I think I would rather see perhaps a modernized MiG-21 version with the updated avionics and electronics before doing more ground pounding, I mean, we already have the Su-25 and the A-10 for that. Perhaps it would be better for DCS to have a couple of multi-role proper DCS level aircraft before we stick to ground attack only.

Hopefully he moves on soon, it would be good to finally get a look at what has been done thus far.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of maximum engagement range are we looking at with the MiG-21Bis? Does this aircraft carry anything like a medium range, radar guided missile?

That little picture is kinda a tease, I can't wait to see some larger ones, perhaps even external shots.

I don't know how effective the MiG would be without GCI, even a placeholder would work fine until a more detailed system could be put into place would be great. As far as losing weapons, hopefully we did not lose any air to air weapons, it does not have a ton of them to begin with.

Please don't take this as rushing or demanding a update or anything like that but we are now not far at all from the last known release date, if everything is still on schedule, we are not talking about months away, we are talking about weeks and as such, it is at critical time where promoting the product will be important, if anything, to offset the controversy that is apparently all but over. I know that this stuff takes time and that I don't really know at all what is going on behind closed doors but if the release date is still March 30th, well, I think some promotion will offset the controversy at this point. As I said, I don't mean to sound like I am demanding something, I am just concerned and it is a thought that entered my mind, you could already be up to something like it but I thought I would say it anyway.

This article seems slightly outdated but I could be wrong on that, things seem to be moving pretty quickly in regards to the proposed military budget cuts so the situation may be a bit fluid.

It is a nice dream but as it stands right now (business concerns not withstanding), no consumer level computer can really handle the level of CPU usage that having DCS and Arma together would require. I mean, lets look at DCS for a minute, the amount of CPU power devoted just for stuff we can't even see (flight model, physics, systems modeling, etc) is pretty impressive and it is why DCS is a pretty CPU heavy sim. Arma is the same, a lot of stuff happening in the background that we can't see that takes a ton of CPU power to really deal with. If you were to combine both, nobody could run it, more to the point, running a Arma level ground simulation in the scale you would need for DCS is not practical with computers as they are. So, it is a nice dream and a lot of folks bring it up but I don't think it will be happening any time in the near future.

That is your entirely subjective opinion and one that many here will no doubt disagree with.

As I said in my post in this thread, I don't think hardware is the reason DCS won't really work on something like the PS4, I mean, the folks who buy and play console games are looking for the living room gaming experience and while that is a difficult thing to define, I don't think hardcore sims are part of that at all. The big hurdle is really the open nature of most simulators, unlike Battlefield, Call of Duty or any other console centric game where all the content is pretty much made for you already by the developers, this won't work for simulators like DCS or even Arma, sims rely on community content to keep everything going and having fully featured editors kinda means that the PC is really the only platform that can make that work correctly. Also a problem is the cost of entry, we in the PC gaming community are used to very expensive peripherals and the flight simming crowd even more so, we don't see problems with putting down $200 to $450 for a HOTAS and other stuff, I don't think this will really work for a platform that relies on parents buying stuff for kids to make many of it's sales. So, no, it is not really the hardware specs that make it a bad idea, it is the platform itself and the expectations of those who go for console vs PC.

The problem is not one of hardware specs but of market demographics, consumer expectations and controls. 1.) Market demographics, Microsoft and Sony's shareholders are probably not the most in-touch when it comes to the desires and (more importantly) the potential desires of the gaming market, that is why they have been shooting for the lowest common denominator for so long that they have actually managed to lower the overall standard in gaming, both on console and PC. So, as such, gamers have almost been "trained" to like specific types of games more than others, heck, it is obvious that Ubisoft and EA and Microsoft spent a great deal of time trying to convince gamers that complex games are not desirable ,that they would not like them. 2.) Consumer expectations, this is a big one, most console gamers are looking for a experience that is a lot less involved than what you might find in even a survey sim like Flaming cliffs, the very nature of the console tends to encourage game designers to keep things simple, suited first and foremost for a controller, you have to be able to accurately control the game with the controls that come out of the box for the console, a flight sim can't work under those constraints no matter how good the gamepad is, especially not DCS World. More to the point, gamers are not going to go from sitting back on the couch or a easy chair to setting up pedals, a HOTAS and some sort of headtracking so that they can play a sim on a console, if they are willing to do that, they are already doing it on the PC as we speak. 3.) Hardware, more to the point, the price of hardware is a big issue, a lot of console gamers are younger, they will be hard pressed to convince mom and dad to but them not only the newest flight sim at $60 but also the $200+ HOTAS and other controls, in addition, these kinds of things are not exactly going to fly off the shelves at Best buy, Gamestop and Wal-mart, as such, they probably would not get carried in any great amount, let alone sold in any great amount. In the end, consoles serve a purpose and flight simming is simply not part of that, if you want a flight sim of DCS quality, you already have a PC, a flight stick and a copy of DCS anyway so putting it on the console will not serve any real purpose and be more hassle than it is worth in the short and long run.

I don't want you to think that I am arguing here, I am not, I understand what you are saying very clearly and I agree on many (if not all) points. That being said, I also fully understand the concern that the fans have for the state of the project (and the team making it), it is not the money invested that is causing a lot of the shock and confusion, it is the emotional investment that many have made, the anticipation that has been built up more and more with every update they released, every video and every screenshot that we salivated over. I mean, if this had been a a project that quickly fizzled after being announced (like some 3rd party projects we have seen come and go on this forum), sure, I bet a lot of folks would be able to just kinda move on. But we have been waiting for a long time for this, the anticipation was pretty great and thus this recent issue has a lot of us very concerned that not only did some of us invest money already but we already had a release date, we had already marked the proverbial calender. What is worse, it is all but done, that makes the whole thing very heartbreaking for some of us. With all that in mind, speculation is going to happen, I don't think it should be left to go unchecked, I would rather not see rumors but we are all sitting on our hands here, we don't really know what is going on and as such, speculation is not only natural but expected. Hopefully I am not overstepping here.

I might actually use it if the cockpit did not look like cardboard, hopefully they are close to giving us some news on that.

You don't need a SSD to play DCS smoothly, I agree with your other stuff but a SSD is not needed if you meet the minimum (preferably recommended) specs.

DCS Hawk please! This is a really great thing, very much in the spirit of the season :)

This patch is really shaping up to be a great one for Huey/Mi-8 pilots, I am glad to see both those projects getting plenty of love this time around.

I can understand a little frustration but the anger I am seeing on this forum is absurd, we do not know the whole story on ED's sale policy (at least I don't) and it has always been my belief that ED starts the sale and everyone just has to go along with it, it is not like Belsimtek controls the distribution alone, they have to sell through ED and if ED has a sale, well, that is that. It sucks when you spend more than you have to but I don't think this is a case of some guy behind a desk at Belsimtek laughing maniacally while he twirls his evil mustache. Seriously folks, this is getting kinda sad to see.

I remember you from the steam forums for ROF, I honestly don't know what you expect use to say, clearly you have already made up your mind on the way flight sims are now sold. Look, as others have already explained to you, The DCS modules are more or less completely separate products, they take a great deal of money, time and effort to create and end up being a terrific value if you are interested in flight simulation at all. As far as the sale, it is not some sort of conspiracy or something, you just got the game before it went on sale, it happens with EVERY product out there and you should know that by now, you don't have to like it but complaining wont change anything. I think you just need to change your approach to all of this (both DCS and ROF) and understand that the market is MUCH different than it was years ago, flight sims are not as popular and the fan base has shrunk significantly, this in conjunction with massively increased fidelity in the products increases not on the cost but also the time needed to make them. If you want a survey sim like the old Jane's stuff, well, that kind of thing was easier back then, cheaper and faster to produce, if you want something like DCS World, it has to be made in parts or else the development would take many years. Really, just think of each module as it's own product and DCS is the glue that allows you to play them all together online, you need to get this "DLC" thing out of your head because that is a steam thing, not a DCS thing. Seriously, I don't know what to tell you beyond that.

Does this mean that the Black shark 2 upgrade will also be on steam? it would be nice to not have to deal with that dance anymore and just have it all in one place.

Nope, not yet at least.

Given time, I am sure Ricardo (who has made fantastic high resolution skins for the A-10C and Ka-50 cockpits) will give the Huey some love.