MikeMikeJuliet

Well, the SA-2 asset itself doesn't solve the problem. I'm all in for this. With the option of actually working difficulties: the higher the AI difficulty, the more devious tactics and techniques they would use. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Coxy_99, if we/you can't find a reason for you to fly this - don't fly it. I do like Shmidtfire's point of view on this. The CE2 is still an option in a vast sea of military aircraft. No-one needs to feel at all threatened by this. In the end and despite my previous posts, all we can do is wait and see how this turns out. I mean, this could be the best module ever for VR users... it could be broken as **** and thus the issue is not if it is a civilian aircraft or not, but of quality... or it could be just as some predict - non-fitting into DCS and left with little-to no sales. We can merely wait and see. My OP proposal for this was and is, that something new could be tried with this module, as it's systems variety (= not many systems) would lend itself to this sort of "introductory/trial" model. Why not the L-39 or similar? Because I highly doubt ED would agree to change the monetization model for an aircraft already in sale/in the game. I bet the argument would be along the lines of "this would not be fair for the customers who already bought the aircraft". some1 - I believe Schimdtfire is referring to the overall negativity toward the module, not on this thread specifically. All in all, I am happy that this thread has stayed on a civilized level of conversation. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I don't know if this is the right thread... but here goes: Considering the just-published Hornet Caucasus video by Wags- is it just me, or do you feel that the sense of speed is way off... as if the trees were way too big. In the video, flight speed is around 700 KIAS. For reference, the sense of speed and motion in the Su-25 over Normandy (by Wags as well) seems to have similar sense of speed (a little lower), but that is played on a lower FOV (which decreases the sense of speed) and the speed in that is just below 700 KMPH! The difference in speed is almost 2x, but the Hornet video seems just slightly faster. As a reference I watched a RAF Typhoon video (albeit at a larger FOV) of a low-level flight at 400KIAS. On that the sense of speed seems much higher. Admittedly the rumble of the airframe and the larger FOV add to it, BUT, that is still 300 knots slower than the Hornet video. Links: Hornet: Su-25 over Normandy, good reference footage at around 2 minutes: The RAF Typhoon video. Check around 1:25: What's your take on this? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Good point. To me "a couple of weeks" is around 2 (since, you know... a couple is literally 2), so a few would be anything more than that. I know, I know, OT.

You have merit to your arguments, I can't dismiss those. I agree the CE2 is an odd bird in this environment - I hope it turns out to be a good one in it's own right. Indeed if it doesn't sell well it at least shows that this type of unarmed aircraft is not relevant in DCS. I guess all our speculations, suggestions and theses will be answered in 2018. In regards to the CE2 not being familiar to most pilots... In my understanding many, if not all civilian-sims have, at least in the past, come packaged with similar aircraft. Now my intention is not to claim those would behave the same as CE2 in here, be it better or worse - nor that those aircraft would have a huge playerbase. But, they do exist and I can't be the only one who has enjoyed one or two of those back in the day. RedBull AirRace has been known to be somewhat popular in some circles. I'm aware that, at least at this point and at this level, we all know CE2 doesn't need to exist in DCS (again, this is context related, in line with your thoughts). But as it is on it's way, I thought to see if something new could be done here to benefit players. In regards to the conversation of "why not just make it free". I know it would be awesome for us. But I highly doubt M3 will be giving this for free. This is why I tried to come up with a suggestion that would still make the money, and give us a little something good as well.

We do. Thing is, one of the selling points of the CE2 is the multiseat. TF-51, while it has two seats, doesn't work with multiseat MP functionality - at least currently.

The problem of "ye olde Caucasus" is soon gone if news are to be believed. M3 stated the CE2 would be released some time late Q1 2018, where as ED has stated DCS:W 2.5 to be released "within less than two months".

How does "within a few weeks" and "less than two months" conflict? A few weeks can be anything from 3 weeks onward basically. In other words, DCS:W 2.5 should arrive within 3-8 weeks.

This is very true. Then again, we are talking about an aerobatics aircraft here - not bringing a 747 into DCS. I'm not saying DCS should be riddled with all dem civil aircraft... I'm saying that I'm trying not to dismiss one when one is introduced. In my country, Military aircraft exist in the same airspace and aerodromes as civilian ones.

Two reasons: 1 - Because the CE2 is coming. I'm just trying to find a place for it instead of going about and spreading flames. 2 - Even if they are not complex, they are still more complex than the CE2. And some people just want to go about and fly around. Jets feel quite different than prop-planes. My point somewhat hinges on the idea of a civ-simmer coming to DCS. I admit that. It is not the strongest starting points, but such people do exist. As a side not - FC3 aircraft are all good and well, but wouldn't you want to showcase DCS with something that is fully modeled?

My point still stands. Any armed aircraft requires you to map controls and the start is a hassle. You also need to know how weapon systems work, at least partly. My premise is that here lies an opportunity to get players in, who come here primarily for the awesome flight models, and who have spent their time flying civilian-sims. In said cases I believe the easiest step to take is to come try how DCS handles under a familiar aircraft. If you only fly civ-sims a military aircraft with weapons is not going to feel familiar to you. You may disagree of course. It may be difficult to fly, but at the same time it is also responsive and something I personally would think people find fun just to try. And who ever said the front-seater can't take-off or land? The aircraft has fixed landing gear. That is the simplicity of it - you don't need anything other than the 4 axes on it to try it. Regarding the WW2 asset pack, that discussion is not relevant here. It is not about ED not being able to do it, it is about them not wanting to. Again, I am trying to find some use and a function for this bird without outright dismissing it completely - because it is going to be a part of DCS regardless of how much you, or me, or anyone else would want it out. Just for the record, I am an optimist - most of the time. I don't see any harm in trying. DCS is not going to change to a civil-airliner-sim because someone had the audacity to bring an aerobatics aircraft in here. The argument of the game changing it's format because non-armed aircraft are added is in my opinion ridiculous, but we can have a separate discussion on that. Aircraft fly the same regardless of what they carry under the wing... Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I'm not trying to be a salesman here. Quite the contrary. I hate bad business practices and unethical money grubbing. My point in all of this is that we as a community cannot do anything about CE2 coming to DCS. It is there regardless. And with the assumption that the flightmodel and what little systems it has are done well, I don't see why it shouldn't be put to good use. Military aircraft are my cup of tea, but to actively push the civilian planes out of DCS is just elitism.

I hear you, but: firstly - I never said this would be for training rookies - it would be for introducing to the DCS franchise in a fun way. secondly - I never said it would be too easy to control - but the ease of only needing to bind 4 axes to fly (no buttons whatsoever possibly) would decrease the hurdle to enjoy the sim. The pilot on the rear seat is still there, so one doesn't even need to know how to properly fly the aircraft. Similar to jumping in an actual real life CEII or equivalent aircraft. You get to try it, have some fun, see and feel the fidelity and so forth. I can't claim to know what it would require from ED:s part to implement such a feature. That said I doubt it would be that cumbersome. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

You are indeed correct. I misread the announcement info. I'll correct the OP.

Hello. As the conversation on the Christen Eagle II seems more polarized than the US political field, I'm trying to come at this whole thing from a different angle. Before any of you post your frustration on this thread consider the following: The Christen Eagle II is coming to DCS regardless of your frustration and negative view on the module. In that light, now that it is coming, we might as well find some use for it. Developers hear me out here: Consider a sim-player from the civilian-simulator side. What are the greatest hurdles to get to enjoy DCS? In my opinion: controls. Setting up controls and curves to axes is hard work for anyone coming in fresh. You all remember this when coming to DCS for the first time. With the Christen Eagle II, if I understood correctly, the front seat pretty much only has the control stick, rudder and throttle. Not much to bind to your controllers, eh? Keep this in the back of your head and read on. How would I introduce a civ-sim friend to DCS and it's awesome aerodynamic modeling (and systems)? I would like to show an aircraft that flies well, does not require a ton of preparation and is easy to fly. The Su-25T is not really a great aircraft to fly for starters - it is heavy and cumbersome in comparison + it is an DC3-level aircraft, so my friend wouldn't really get the message throught about "DCS has well made and clickable cockpits". The Civil-Mustang is powerful yes, and has a clickable cockpit... but boy WW2-planes are unforgiving to fly and to really enjoy it (and to have a positive introduction to the sim) requires some work with the control setup. After all this "prep talk" please consider the following: CE2 front cockpit would be free to fly in the multiplayer, if another player occupies the rear seat (i.e. spawns the aircraft). Let that sink in for a minute . . . Think of what this could mean: My civ-sim friend would get a free ride on an aircraft with enough power, responsive controls and easy, yet fully modeled systems. No need to set up controls in any complex way (you really need just the 4 axes - pitch, roll, yaw and throttle), and the rear seat pilot will control the systems, which then the front-seat pilot can see the effect of, allowing them to experience the "wonders of the clickable cockpit". Now say, on the same server, on the same airfield next to you spawns some fighters or attackers... they spool up, engines roar and they fly off to a mission, or do some aerobatics on top... Wouldn't that be an amazing selling point and an opportunity?! I know you can already spawn into the Su-25T, but you do that solo. Going in solo for the first time is, for some, a great barrier to entry. In a dual-seat aircraft the new player doesn't have to know how to fly the aircraft or operate the systems. He/she can just enjoy what is offered. This system would still run sales, since you couldn't fly the CE2 in SP, and you can't really operate it from the front seat alone (according to the information on the module description on your website), so saying this would just create endless free-loaders is a moot point. It should also be made so, that the front seat could only be spawned in once the aircraft's rear seat is occupied. An additional benefit from this is, that all those skeptics have a chance to try the flight model with someone - possibly driving sales. This would be a win-win for everyone. Firstly, your module would get additional visibility - most likely driving more sales. Secondly, the barrier to entry for DCS would be lowered. And thirdly, there would be a more comfortable free stepping stone for civ-simmers to join the ranks of DCS-simming and really get into the core of the game. There can never be too many simmers here - regardless of what they fly. Thank you for reading through this proposal. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

This is the most rational point on these forums. Bying everything is counterproductive. If you buy broken products, developers will create more broken products. If you buy every little side product developers will create more side products. I've been thinking about this whole thing and the direction DCS has taken of late. Firstly - The whole intentional hype train this week did not work at all for this module in the context of Digital Combat Simulator. Sure, the explanation is that this is a step towards more authentic WW2 aircraft - which is OK - but such hype for a non-combat module in a context where surely everyone expects a combat-capable aircraft (even the Yak can be fitted with rockets)... is beyond me. Secondly - If this is indeed the reason for the lack of polish and updates on the MiG-21 I think it is an inexcusable move that sadly tells something about the state of the industry when modules/dlc/expansions are left unattended to push out more products. Money needs to be made in the business - that is just the nature of things - but a product should be made feature complete at the first possible convenience and made sure it is fit for purpose (i.e. not ridden with bugs and with exceptable performance). And people somewhat accept the fact that this is an interleaved process with multiple modules. But even that is within the given context - which is combat. But there is a but. Firstly - Developers may choose to create any kind of module they wish. We as consumers are not entitled to choose what modules are made. We can however affect what gets sold and what doesn't. M3 chose to create this module for two reasons - To build themselves expertise on creating propeller aircraft, and because they do the studying, why not complete the study-module as a product? Secondly - I was pondering - apart from the context of combat - why do we not want non-combat? There are legitimate scenarios where you would be expected to operate at or near airfields with civilian traffic first and foremost. And think about it - what other sim has the handcrafted environments we have and will have in the near future with DCS 2.5? And the flightmodels? I admit, I haven't been touching civ-sims for a while, but all I've read and heard is that DCS boasts the best flight models and systems modeling there is. And there is another thing that M3 mentioned - opening DCS up to other-than-military-players. As long as the focus on the engine-side is primarily on the combat side I see no harm in this. It might open up possibilities we at this point don't know exist, and it allows the players from civ-sims to jump into DCS to try it out and hopefully stay as fully fledged players. There are never too many simmers here, agreed? Thirdly - On the technical standpoint, to have a working simulation for civilian flight, I only really see two issues with DCS. The ATC/radio system is a joke, and for long-haul aircraft the maps are too small. The latter, I assume, will not be rectified, as DCS maps are about combat theaters, not the simulation of a single globe. But the ATC is being worked on by ED - and as we have not heared of it for a long time I assume it has been reworked quite thoroughly. Yes, we also need IFR-plates for flying in IMC, but those would be welcome regardless of aircraft. So all in all - adding civilian assets to DCS does not in my opinion require any changes to the core game that would lessen or drive resources away from the combat aspect of the simulator. So would I have chosen CE2 as an aircraft if I ever made one? No, not likely. I might have started with a simple GA aircraft, and if I ever made it as a real module I would price it accordingly. An aerobatics aircraft in that sense seems odd. It is not really a good aircraft to simulate civilian traffic (as opposed to having a Dakota (which is also a military aircraft) or a Cessna Caravan-style aircraft that can emulate a hybrid airfield with military and civilian traffic. On the topic of pricing... 30 bucks?! I mean, the dumb one is not the one who asks, but the one who gives... but I can see this module lacking sales with that price point. Fair enough - the license might have cost the so much that they needed to up the price, but I assume this is going to sell well only during sales. I mean, the WW2 asset pack has the same price and that has things controllable in CA, and things that shoot back and populate the WW2-world... Heck, the A-10C at the moment is 40 euros! Just 10 more and you get an infinite amount more of systems and weaponry... TLDR - The hyping did not at all correlate with the module in the context of DCS. The pricing does to me seem excessive. And I don't see any real harm in having civilian assets and modules in DCS, quite the contrary. I hope this drives players to the sim. At this point in time I'm not interested in the module myself, but I have nothing against it. Just the circumstances. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Are the crickets used as a metaphor for us customers? They've gotta have known this would cause an uproar... But so many things don't add up... the loading error -video... The low framerate of the CE2 announcement video and the fact that it is made in 1.5 as opposed to 2.x or even 2.5 (like every other module-video recently). If that CE2 is able to hover by it's propeller, then I'll get it just to annoy the heck out of Harrier pilots :D

We must keep believing!

Whelp.... now we can say DCS has civilian aircraft. Perhaps that drives some civil-players to DCS. Though it sounds like a bit of a longshot. Then again, with the upcoming 2.5, the scenery for flying such a bird is top notch... but... c'mon! I'm throwing all my hopes on that plural "surprises".

How about this?:

I bet the hints have been purposefully built to create a massive anticipation for something like the SuperGaleb (to make people think this is going to be a flop) and then they pull the ultimate ace out of their pockets. Dolphin must literally be laughing his lungs out at this thread :D

Nah... the most use of the word disappointed/similar is in the VEAO Hawk threads unfortunately...

Yes please! This has been a PITA for a while now. Not really a problem during navigation (distance shows on the HUD), but when in combat and I need to call B/E info, I can't read the distance from the HUD if I'm on certain weapon modes...

Indeed. Visual effects seem to be ignored or downplayed by some with the premise of "it is about the combat and the systems, not the looks", but they fail to realize that the effects play a role in the combat and system usage. Some effects aid, some hinder - like canopy scratches, the HUD unreadable due to the sun or bright lights, displays being illegible due to high-g buffeting etc. There are a lot more factors in the thing we try to simulate here than some admit. Aircraft abd air combat are not sterile environments at all when it comes to effects and what they cause. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

While I wholly understand your concern, you need also to keep in mind, that the developers should not be thinking "Oh, our customer base cannot upgrade, so let us leave the simulator to a level that can be run on a lower end hardware - thus leaving out graphical and simulated content". DCS improves, and unfortunately, so do the requirements to play. Otherwise we will never get forward. That said, from what I've understood from Sithspawn having tested some future builds - the new versions should be roughly comparable with the current 2.1. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet