World War III module?

[blackbelter]

Well then your major gripe seems to be that the name (and only the name) WWIII would somehow make DCS less realistic. Of course that is an oppinion one can have, though I do not understand it.

It is my feeling, true. It is not like the name of any campaign. It is the official DCS titles that we are talking about. It is the first thing that people hear about when they come to DCS. It is about how DCS advertises itself, and it is about first impression and other marketing-related issues. I feel sorry that you cannot get it.

 

I do wonder though how you feel about the label "Flaming Cliffs", which is simply pure nonsense.

"Flaming Cliffs" is OK, since it is nothing historical, and could very well have happend thousands of times in real life. In contrary, WWIII lives on papers, not in real life.

 

DCS currently features the Ka-50, the A-10C, UH-1H and the P-51D in the Caucasus. Next products are most likely the F-86, AH-1G, MiG-21Bis, Mirage 2000C and Nevada. It is my personal oppinion that some more guidance and coordination would not hurt.

 

As far as we know, we do have many awesome campaigns making using of available planes in realistic scenarios. I don't see how people are confused by the presence of many different types of aircrafts. And if they are, I don't think a simple label can help much here.

 

For those that want a combat FSX this is great I guess, but unfortunately it is not what I am looking for.

Maybe DCS is not what you are looking for indeed. So far, DCS seems to be aiming at a sandbox for military aircrafts and related. People can be as creative as they would like to be in creating campaigns. I don't see how that could be a wrong strategy.

Edited March 21, 2014 by blackbelter

[MBot]

Allowing third party devs to make aircraft from any period they want makes DCS a more attractive platform for third parties. Attracting more developers will probably get a single time period filled out with modules faster than enforcing restricted focus to that specific period would. We all have seen how long it takes ED to develop modules by themselves.

 

The way DCS works now, "a single time period filled out with modules" will never happen. Exactly for the very reason how long it takes to develop modules. I think large parts of the community are seriously naive to think that with enough time, something like a consistent Vietnam war scenario for example will ever come together spontaneously.

 

Of course I do not say that developers should be forced to do anything. But some more coordination would be so much better than everyone coocking his own soup. I am simply disappointed by the thought that DCS will always be that collection of random parts. I love Rise of Flight because it models the West Front and the major participating aircraft. I am looking forward very much to Battle of Stalingrad, because it has a clearly defined scale, the fitting map and the important aircraft to bring it to life. I am not interested in learning to operate an aircraft, I want to expierience flying and fighting an aircraft through a war. But that is not the way DCS works...

[VincentLaw]

I think large parts of the community are seriously naive to think that with enough time, something like a consistent Vietnam war scenario for example will ever come together spontaneously.

We already have the Mi-8 and UH-1H. There is an AH-1G, A-7, MiG-21, and F-100 in development. There are already many AI vehicles applicable to Vietnam like the T-55, M113, ZU-23, ZSU-23, OH-58, CH-47, CH-53, C-130, B-52, F-4, F-5, or F-14 for late war. Some of those are the wrong variant, but I think that could come together.

 

Likewise, we are not far off from having a WWIII environment.

Edited March 21, 2014 by VincentLaw