Many years ago, a small development team released a 640X480 VGA flight simulator titled Su-27 Flanker. I was in graduate school at the time and happened across this title while browsing the shelf of a local software vendor.
As a young boy and now an adult, I have a passion for flight, for military and civilian aircraft. From the Atari 2600, to the Commodore 64, to the SEGA Master System, and my first PC, flight simulation is my passion, my hobby, and what I enjoy. It led to my pilots license (SEL) and to the fateful encounter with The Fighter Collection (TFC) / Eagle Dynamics (ED) Su-27 Flanker.
This was a fresh product from an obscure development group simulating an aircraft I have never heard of before but I could not stop flying. In a world dominated by NATO ... yuck so much NATO, it was refreshing to have such a perspective. This was a stick and keyboard simulation that shaped how I play Digital Combat Simulation today - no HOTAS just a good ole Logitech Extreme Pro 3D and a backlit (gotta be modern) keyboard.
As the years passed, Su-27 Flanker evolved into version 1.5, the Commander's Edition featuring the MiG-29K, Flanker 2.0 with improved graphics and the Su-33, Lock-On (A-10A and F-15), Flaming Cliffs (FC)introducing the Su-25 and Su-25T, and presently Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) continuing the legacy and passion of military flight simulation.
However, I have been unable to shake a feeling that somewhere, somehow, the direction ED is taking DCS appears wrong. While learning the A-10C which is a beautiful work of art, I became troubled that an Oort cloud of options would eventually lead DCS into an unfortunate but all too familiar world of conglomeration that dilutes and possibly pollutes DCS and causes irrevocable and ugly change.
Beginning with Su-27 Flanker, ED / TFC morphed that product into Lock-On - Modern Air Combat. DCS changed the genre with pluggable modules and subsequently Third Party Development (TPD) to bolster and assist the already overwhelmed development group. This is wonderful and, quite frankly, this is awesome.
But, I am unable to turn my thoughts from an approaching cross-road in which DCS may become something malignant, loosing purpose and becoming befuddled by poor progression. At Lock-On, the focus was modern air combat and the introduction of FC made that mantra all the more apparent. I thought DCS would continue this approach toward module development. Even Combined Arms (CA), although not everyone's favorite, was a novel and modern approach to achieve a Digital Combat Frontier.
It is my opinion ED has lost its' focus and, with time devoted to what I consider diversionary activities such as the aggregation of the WWII project, TPD (more on this), and offset interests that ED presently has, DCS may fall prey to a comeuppance that leads to its eventual decline in favor of other products. In other words, I see DCS becoming the proverbial "Jack of all trades" and "master of none".
There are already WWII simulations that exist and in far greater depth and purpose than DCS ever will achieve. The market is saturated from Maddox to other developers; clearly these aircraft have been touched upon and it brought almost dismay to my heart when considering how this will negatively impact DCS. The introduction of the WWII theatre in both ground and air assets is, in my opinion, time that could be devoted to completing other tasks and delivering combat with a modern approach. Certainly, excluding the free P-51 module, DCS out of the box spans the cold war through modern time in the air and on the ground.
TPD - quite frankly a blessing and a curse ... the nail driven deep into the coffin of DCS development one at a time or causes the product to shine. Let's write about my favorites; Well done products, baked at the right temperature and with exotic seasonings for just the right touch: Leatherneck MiG-21bis (fantastic) or the Belsimtek Mi-8 (talk about big, heavy, and challenging but I love it) and even the Belsimtek F-86 Sabre (not owned but I read a MiG-15bis is on its way to challenge the newcomer). Thank you ED for TPD but, without measure and constraint, sufficient scrutiny and focus, it becomes the dagger in the back of DCS that bloats and transfigures the simulation into something it may never have been intended for.
My biggest pet peeve at the moment is a lack of apparent focus by ED on DCS to deliver top notch quality development modules; it almost appears that ED is maintaining DCS while TPD grows it. I believe ED has to consider the impact of broadening their development scope to include practically everything, the amount of time they spend outside of key areas like EDGE on projects that do not add value, and their need to continue to make DCS what Su-27 Flanker promised; what is that? In my mind a focus on Russian military armed service equipment and a modern approach to it. I understand NATO has a place and would like to see it present as well but this can't happen until a refocus occurs.
Fortunately there are some great TPDs present and ready to fill the gap but only if they can deliver and, at this point, it appears they are. However, what is becoming unacceptable is a growing trend of Beta release and explosion of TPD modules that needs to be addressed. TPDs are doing a good job but this fire-and-forget mentality has to stop or DCS is forever relegated to unfinished products and lost clarity of focus.
Aside, there is some equipment I would like to see in DCS and here is my plug: Mi-24 Hind, MiG-25 or MiG-31, the Su-38, and the Su-35. The F/A-18A ... although NATO is a desire of mine including the F-14D but only if done properly, i.e. no junk! and quit sending Beta hounds. I think this is my greatest consternation with ED and DCS/TPD and I remain hopeful an Overlord or Overseer has a watchful eye out because I am just a n00b who likes to go mach 1 with my hair on fire! :joystick: :pilotfly: :book: :helpsmilie:
