Hi guys, I been in flight sims since the 80s. I own several DCS titles. Something we are desperately in need of is a dynamic campaign and/or more of a directed development focus that leads to a meaningful (or series of meaningful) theaters of simulation. That is, rather than allowing the various developers to create a hodgepodge of planes, we need ED to direct those that want to develop new planes for DCS to do do so with those that make sense for a defined theater of operations. In other words, less like Microsoft Flight Simulator and more like Falcon 4.0, European Air war, TFX and other titles that got us veterans committed to combat flight simulators and thousands of dollars invested in rigs and equipment to go with it.
Recommendation:Take more of a project-to-military-contractror approach and open up contracts to build planes that are meaningful for the conflict, era and terrain environments that you have developed and will be developing. It's really getting out of hand. What sense does building an F-86, Huey, Christiansen and Mig-15 to then only fly around Georgia, Persian Gulf and Nevada??? We need some kind of linkage and vision so that it all makes sense such that the planes and helicopters come together in their correct theaters of operation. Heck, you could even bid out the dynamic campaign work as a project. I love DCS but after spending time learning all of the switchology and systems in these planes we need something more in tune with combat simulation and gameplay. Your work with DCS (especially with Virtual reality headsets) has been a breath of fresh air. Now we just need that air to be meaningful.