Sharpe_95

Actually, this is a really good question. While I personally don't want to fly Civilian aircraft I see absolutely no reason why they cant/shouldn't be incorporated in the sim (preferably by a 3rd party not ED -Hornet,Hornet,EDGE,Hornet,Nevada,Hornet). I honestly believe that IF ED expand this game the way they say they could (EDGE, New Maps, different eras of flight, new HiFi and LoFi aircraft, improved AI+ATC, better AI interaction/direction (via combined arms) dynamic campaign etc) then this sim/environment has the possibility of becoming THE only place for combat flight sims. If you extend that to commercial flight and ED has essentially cornered the flight sim market. Assuming it 'works' this would be great news for everyone and would draw all 3rd party devs to DCS, making the game bigger and bigger. I see no reason why commercial flying should not be excluded from this. -Sharpe

A) Because it wasnt a requirement B) Odds are on the GAU gets in the way :-S Can I highly recommend Dragons mission and training packs for missions. -Sharpe

Cheers Tharos, I thought I had heard it somewhere :thumbup: Ill edit my original statement to take off P51. -Sharpe

No source I am willing to name. Maybe someone from ED or one of the mods might be able to confirm it? I agree that I am happy to believe it of FC3 but a little surprised by P51. -Sharpe

Id take a Spit - but am I the only one who likes the Typhoon (WW2 and modern although in this instance I refer to WW2 of course). -Sharpe

"The way I see it, if a WW2 fighter with a relatively shorter development cycle than a high fidelity modern jet packs their coffers so that they can afford to make that high fidelity modern jet, whats the issue?Revenue from WW2 doesn't mean that it must be spent making more WW2. Diversity is smart, and obviously effective." P*Funk, Its a fair point. But its said that money breeds money. ED have said they are a small team, therefore with all the good will in the world they cant do everything. If knocking out WW2 era aircraft is seen to be where the big money is - why not just keep doing it and forget modern stuff for the most part? -Sharpe

To be fair I think yours is a legitimate concern. However, while I personally feel that IF there was a magical way to get to a nirvana state (lets say a way of selecting eras to fly in with era specific maps and suitable aircraft of all shapes and sizes to and level of fidelity) there is, I think, a more pressing issue: What is the likely shelf life of DCSW in terms of graphics, engine, code and support. Even microsoft flight simulator ran out of puff in 10 years or so. Combat flight sims are a niche of a niche market. Any 'genera' 'era' 'type' or 'generation' is also a niche. Hi fidelity is arguably another niche within all that. Therefore I think the real question is: What does ED plan to do in the time that is left for DCSW. Even if we are generous and say its got a shelf life of 10-15 years, the rate of development is not such that the 'nirvana' state is ever likely to be reached. With all the good will in the world, ED and third parties can only do such much in so long and ED's current 'blind to era, blind to maps, blind to scenario' approach may need to become 'this (or these) specific eras, maps and genre's only'. What then goes into it becomes a question of time vs cost vs interest. Sadly time is running out cost is high and as a niche market profit is small(ish) and interest is again a niche of a niche market. I worry that ED may go 'WW2 only'. This is, of course, a personal view. I would much prefer the game to focus on modern aircraft, maps etc but at the end of the day ED will (rightly) look to its balance book first. You cant argue with the fact that FC3 and P51 have been their biggest sellers. [Edit: EDTharos has confirmed FC3 is their big seller but there is no info on the P51, so I retract the part above P51-thanks for the confirmation Tharos ;)] I worry what this means. -Sharpe

Id rather pull my toe nails out than have this kind of thing in DCSW. [Edit: That's unfair, I would love for it to 'arrive' and to 'work', but I don't want ED wasting time on it.] Don't get me wrong, its a great idea and IF they could make it work it would be really fun. Realistically though, its never going to happen, far less work. Practically speaking the best we can (or should) hope for is control of 'unit' level movements and orders via CA as is, (I believe) being worked towards. I can see this working like a more intuitive, better and more effective version of the dynamic campaign in Falcon 4. In the mean time, if your a soldier sim fan? Play ARMA. Just like I wouldn't go to ARMA to fly the A10, I wouldn't expect soldier simmers ever to arrive in DCSW and do solider simming. -Sharpe

If they are it will be to their significant detriment. If we assume CD release first and that theirs is an acceptable and reliable model and ED release their legacy Hornet some months later I ask the following: Who will 'downgrade' from F/A18e to F/A18c? I suspect the answer will be 'very few'. This will cost ED money and wasted time just because they made decisions that led to the F/A18c being delayed and therefore released after the CD product. I can see people 'upgrading' from C to E. I really cant see many going from E to C. I therefore hope ED are not sleeping with their Hornet - it would be a grave mistake. -Sharpe

Without trying to kill the mood, I am just holding my breath and hoping that this isn't further evidence that DCSW/ED may become WW2 specific or focused. Assuming it doesn't, as usual more modules are good. -Sharpe

Rammit - fantastic pole! But can I suggest that you provide a brief syntax for your poll. Not everyone will be sufficiently cognisant with certain differences between the types. For my part it will be any multirole attack/strike aircraft. Carrier based is kinda like asking people if they want an extra £50. It adds a layer of fun and can always base from land if you dont want to go all 'Maverick and Goose' ;) Can you see where I am going. F/A18c all the way for me. Now if only someone had some productive and interesting news to share with us after nearly 3 months of silence..... -Sharpe

Well I can recommend the 'Jack Bauer' profile for the x52: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=58484 However, I would say that mine is a heavily modified version of this and I would urge you to do the same (using the JB profile as a starting point). Ultimately, what makes sense to someone else may not get the job done for you. Plus, if you end up using things like VAC/TARS or anything else that requires key strokes that you make want on your HOTAS you will have to modify it anyway. Good luck, and welcome to the sim. Regards, -Sharpe

Well if that's the game your playing the poll said pick one of the ten choices. You did miss one of the first lines that said "moving away from 1.2.5/stability". Lets be fair the whole point about stability is starting to get boring. You think there is anyone out there that wants a stable platform more than ED? They dont make money off patches, they know poor performance decreases their reputation and constantly working on bug fixes wastes time, resources and money and takes it away from them developing new content/making money that will make DCSW a better place for us all. Asking to put stability into this poll is pointless as A) its topic of choice atm and obviously most people would pick it. B) Its subjective. Its probably impossible to make the game 100% stable 100% of the time, so who sets what level of stability is acceptable? C) Its like asking you if you want free money - of course you do. Post your issues in the bug pages. If you want to flame ED then do it in this weeks Wagdate or the 1.2.5 patch notes topic and MOVE ON. -Sharpe

This person misses the obvious statement made at the start of the poll. Stay on topic and please keep stability 1.2.5 flaming to the many other forum posts. -Sharpe

Hi Streakeagle, Yes I have rather let you down here haven't I :doh: Sadly there just wasn't room in the poll for this kind of aircraft. In my mind it would have fitted into the HiFi option, but now you have said it I see that both the HiFi and classic options dont really get the job done. -I shall remedy this with an era specific poll within 24 hours. -Sharpe

Lol that would have been one way traffic methinks ;) Besides - you can only put 10 in -Sharpe

williang83: I sympathise with your position, but I think automag928 does have a point. The good old days of the 90s are gone, HiFi (and even LoFi) flight sims are a niche of a niche market. With everything ED 'plans' to do in the future, I think DCSW is going to be the only place to be for combat flight sims. This will make ED very powerful company and central company for combat flight sims - a very good thing for us all. On the subject of stability, the way I look at it is that yes some patches are better than others, but this is an ever changing (and expanding) complex multiplayer environment. I treat it as being in a perpetual state of beta - this is normal for MP games using a similar model. With the LONG list of what is coming out in the 'future' (ED never give hints as to what this really means) I expect this to continue as a natural part of DCSW's development. 'Growing pains' if you will. I am sure there is noone more eager for the sim to 'just work' than ED - they have bigger fish to fry and probably want to crack on with new modules, EDGE, maps, dynamic campaigns etc. Broken patches is causing them to slow down and fixing bugs doesn't make them money. On the reverse of this coin, I really do sympathise. We all have the things we 'want/expect' from DCS/ED. I find it amazing to the point of a deliberate kick in the shins the fact that ED have made no comment on the F/A18c since May 17th. They tell us its being developed alongside everything else, but all we have heard from the last two months of wagdates is: AFM/LofI, Dora, improved graphics for none playable modules and, of course, patch details. (With a brief vacation to Nevada). Evidence across the forums suggests people are interested in 3 things: 1) Stability 2) EDGE 3) F/A18c or some other HiFi multirole Sadly, we have a company that is funded in the UK, managed/produced from the US and developed in Russia. Thus keeping things running smoothly going to be a challenge if only for that, even if you ignore the wider (and more important to ED) issue of remaining afloat money wise. However, for all ED's faults, DCS is the only thing out there that does this, and even if it was broken (I don't think it is) it would still be twice as good as the alternatives. Lets just hope ED manage all they are hoping to achieve and soon, and maybe, just maybe, choose to show us a better look on the inside (with all due respect to everyone, least of all Wags and ED) Wagdates just aint doing it for me. For my part, I really think the frustration everyone has is due to people not seeing what ED are getting up to behind closed, locked, sealed, guarded (with German police dogs, machine guns and mines) doors. As the people with Cortex Design F/A18e banners signatures say: "More news to the front" One would hope (dare I say expect) that we should hope to see improvements to the stability over the course of the next 0-18 months. During which time one would very much hope that ED have completed all the things they have on their 'hit list' and had some months to stabilise the game. All things told, providing ED remain afloat and keep turning out new content and keep things fixed I think this sim will be in a k**k a**e place :thumbup: Hang tough mate - I am sure it will all be good soon, I don't think everyone's patience will hold otherwise :) -Sharpe

Lol - P*Funk, another person 'cheating' with a vote and an aside :smilewink: Man I wish there was an option to make the poll like a 'pick your top three' I think it would have said a lot more than to get people to pick 1 thing only. As others are doing it, I shall break my own rule and put my top three in :music_whistling: 1+2) F/A18c and EDGE - don't mind in what order so long as they are close together. 3) Dynamic campaign (very narrowly ahead of improved AI etc) ^ Do ya see what I did there :doh: Not that I wouldn't take most of what's on that list if it all came at the same time (coming to a DCSW near you some time soon) :pilotfly: -Sharpe

Guys, If I can kindly ask people to try and stick to topic, and the specific stuff ED has put on its development list. Obviously we all want a stable game - probably ED more than anyone. So lets take that as a given. I don't think I have missed out SU-27. If they do it as a HiFI then it falls into the 'High Fidelity modern multi role aircraft' (I think its multi-role - if not replace 'multi role' with 'single role'). If they do it as a LoFi then it falls under the 'Low Fidelity modules' ticket. E.g. means 'for example'. I am not putting aircraft up their as absolutes. -Sharpe

What's multi-threading anyone? -Sharpe

Wags: "DCS Open Beta Testing As DCS World ever increases in complexity and scope, along with a continued expansion of new modules, the testing task has reached the point where we cannot expect our internal and external test teams to catch all the problems in a reasonable amount of time. As such, starting with DCS 1.2.6 we will first be releasing new DCS versions as open beta. Our team and the external testers will be closely monitoring reports and entering valid bugs into our bug tracking database. We will ask reports only be submitted for new problems that did not exist in the prior version. We sincerely hope this will improve the quality of the final version." -Pretty much status quo then............. -Sharpe

My guess: ....We are working on fixing 1.2.5, more news as it comes in, weekly patches etc..... ....Dora.... ....AFM.... ....Improved AI/Non playable content graphics.... - Perhaps some Nevada (although it was discussed about a week or two ago so I doubt it). - Maybe (if we are lucky) some EDGE news, but I doubt that too. - Nothing on F/A18c. Something tells me I will be fairly close (hope I am wrong though and its the total opposite and we get loads of F/A18c/EDGE/Nevada news) -Sharpe

Originally Posted by 141st_casper First graphics need to be developed ! Then F/A-18C! LOL - Aw that's cheating - that's kinda like two votes :smilewink: -Sharpe

B17 or Lancaster - but I think heavy bombers would be 'odd' in the current DCS environment. I dare say if DCS or a 3rd party made a WW2 environment for them to fly in then the world is their oyster :) -Sharpe

Hi Guys, For a bit of fun (and to get away from all the 1.2.5/poor stability talk) how about this: I have tried to 'bundle up' and categorise ED's future developments that they have suggested they are working towards. Which are you most looking forward too? Sorry for crude categorisations, but the list would be too long otherwise. 1. Upgraded graphics Engine (EG: EDGE) 2. Improved/Updated legacy AI unit graphics (EG: New Reaper module) 3. Low Fidelity modules (EG: FC3 F15c or the Advanced Flight Models like FC3/AFM:A10a) 4. High Fidelity modern multi role aircraft (EG: F/A18c) 5. High Fidelity modern single role aircraft (EG: F15c) 6. High Fidelity 'classic' aircraft (EG: FW190 Dora) 7. Dynamic Campaign 8. Improvements to AI operation/Interaction (EG: Improved ATC, CA Interactions, better AI unit behaviour etc) 9. New Maps (EG: Nevada) 10. Improved mission editor -Sharpe