Varis

@3WA it's practically all there already. ED needs to do what it does best and add value to that. Even the 20 years back UT engine just might have been better in FPS infantry combat than today's DCS one... adding in ATGM launchers probably changes it a bit but still... :ermm:

If you're looking for A2A aircraft (already have a gazelle) it looks like F-18 and the 2000 are the only study level options. F-18 sounds like it will get used a lot in the long run (also F-14 will probably have some 6 months later release so near term the F-18 should be more stable). Survey level aircraft is more interesting for me (at the moment) but you'll basically get all of those with the MAC release - still a few months off. F-18 could then be the reasonable buy (if you think a bit more in long term) unless you want to invest in a single survey level craft just before MAC? (Actually more interested in the PG map in the bundle - expect to get much usage of it for the Gaz and Ka-50.)

Probably trimming the aircraft takes more time than setting up the game. The millions of keybindings though! :mad: Great thread! My man cave is much like the above. I'd need a HOTAS + pedals + head tracking combination. What would be the mid range budget range for DCS? Also can you still use old joysticks with a game port connection in this decade? I'm primarily helicopter oriented. Looking to try a few fixed wing with DCS as well plus I'll be flying various things in games like ARMA to Star Citizen. We've come a long way from the 320x200 resolution computers with 64kB RAM for flight sims :pilotfly: Those were the days... took a VERY long vacation at some point and I've never even built a simulator setup with pedals and such.

I've understood the hornet is the only true multirole aircraft in current DCS? I'm looking to buy it as well but just because of the PG deal currently open and it would be my first touch into fixed wing with DCS. (And first fixed wing experience in 25+ years … MAC is still maybe a month or two away.) I'm not that interested in the carrier or ground combat aspects yet; near term it's more the air to air capability which shouldn't be too shabby on the F-18 either. Does the F-18 look like it's one of the better modules, in terms of a progressing development and a good quality?

The ED marketing&pricing&sales department must be one busy place to work nowadays :D Maybe explains some of all those map + single aircraft deals. ED should work with some business school to make a case about this. The students would love it for sure :smartass: Single aircraft deals would be the easy way out. (Also, why not let the customer choose what they want...) Possibly looking to buy a few more helis down the road... Right now only Ka-50 and Gazelle (have you thought about a free to play helicopter?). Going to last me a while, I'm afraid, though.

I guess an issue esp. with SP is that you're not looking at maps or planes, it's combination of the map + aircraft you want. Makes it a bit tricky to build a collection, unless you buy a lot to guarantee many potential "hits". ED's extensive roadmap really helps us out though! I noticed there's been tons of promotional bundles with Nevada + aircraft. Maybe ED is actively trying to help out with this issue so customers can get some actual use from their hundreds of bucks spent. Other possible explanations would be that it's just something nice which you can bundle together and market. (But then again, all those Red Flag campaigns.) Also maps don't seem to sell that well for some reason so it may also be an attempt to sell content that isn't returning its development costs. Kinda makes me wonder why, Caucasus has been the only DCS map I've been looking at for the last 6 years, time for a fresh breath lol. Helisimmer actually gave a quite high score for the Nevada map. Persian Gulf fared even better.

Actually the roadmap 2019-2020 looks pretty good for maps and helicopters. Agree that they should be a bit of a priority. Of course even more important is to keep up the quality of released content. Not to mention many long missing improvements to the core engine, gameplay and components. (CA and multiplayer to mention just some.)

Some things I forgot to mention/discuss: Giving enhanced control of AA units to players can make a LOT of sense. FPS for direct fire guns, RTS/systems UI for multi-component SAM sites and such. For one thing, there are tons of targets on the sky that are already manned by players. Creating a couple of manned AA systems would give a whole new challenge and increased resistance to the air players. I think helicopters are very different from jet platforms - and combined arms aspects might be more important for us helicopter pilots. Jets swoop in, hit (or miss) a target, the swoop out while evading the odd SAM launch - all in the matter of a few seconds, while helicopters linger at the edges of the battlefield, always present and ready to roll with the punches of the battle, while receiving fire from honestly pretty much every calibre of weaponry on the battlefield. The interactions are just a bit more intimate and personal there. The helicopter aspect might be something for ED to consider. I think there really hasn't been a truly worthy helicopter game on this decade but ED stand a chance to still make it (at least for the early 2020's) - what was in Black Shark creates quite an expectation what could be a decade later, if ED is willing to learn and iterate to bring the gameplay into today's world. Infantry would be an important part of the equation - although I understand we're talking pretty ambitious goal setting here. The CA is a dangerous tool. For one thing, it exposes all the illogic and cut corners that might exists in the ground warfare by bringing it right under the player's nose. True the CA can also be a crutch and a workaround to get over stupid AI / game engine issues - but if the core of JTAC skill is how to get over (or abuse) the sometimes sorry state of game implementation, the gameplay experience suffers and can do so for the whole team: they depend on the success or failure of the JTAC for the outcome of the mission. The cost of a truly noteworthy CA brush-up could be countless hours spent in implementing AI and redesigning the maps and the engine at the ground level.

It's funny. For a long time, I thought DCS = CA, pretty much. (* Also for the 6 years that passed, it's the reason why it stayed on my radar. (It's really that long - I even looked up our 10 page thread on the regular gaming forum.) Some recent events made DCS very relevant again so I added CA + Gazelle to my collection. After 3 missions of CA, the impressions are a bit underwhelming - capricious at worst, maybe somewhat tedious at best. Feels like it violates several core principles of good RTS design. Then again there are some positives, eg. I like the simulation feel to the battle. Gazelle on the other hand is fun and interesting in a way that's different from the rest. That 40 bucks feels really steep for CA. 15 years ago it could have been an interesting RTS game (with some polish). But it's really hard to evaluate except in a very subjective way without knowing what is ED's strategy and goals with the functionality. I can only hope that the price is a signal to the gaming community that something big is coming in CA 2.0. What we can wish from CA depends much on the resources available. Making a FPS infantry shooter would be a whole new project, and TBH a bit of an odd choice. Parallels to RTS/RTT and WarGame is solid thinking - basically the root of things is already there in current CA. Making an FPS armor (mechanized) game could be a possibility but would require changes to maps, the engine, much new game design and so on; it could have benefits for air warfare too. The problem with all this is that there is competition; in some genres there is LOTS of competition, which on top typically has several years of head start. The key is to ask what kind of value CA provides to players and who are the target group of this module (ground warfare enthusiasts on Steam? high flyer lead customers who will brush $40 under Miscellaneous in their gaming budget?). There are already some very good examples how you can seamlessly integrate different gameplay elements, study those and you're starting to understand what you are trying to do. Make it all rewarding, meaningful and integrate well with the rest of DCS -> profit. Another possibility would be to work on other similar extensions to the game and engine. For example an operational/strategic level campaign engine for full base management, supply, logistics... Often the best game companies seem to be really good in some (unique) core areas. They focus on them while running for a number of other goals as well. Sometimes they are something necessary for a game experience that is an entertaining whole - often they are not something to write home about or even something which everybody involved wants to forget as quickly as possible. (* Several reasons why that might have happened, eg.: