Aircraft era fracture

[cichlidfan]

There's another mob doing WW1.

 

professional courtesy, and all that, to not cross over into the other realms?

 

Are you suggesting ED stay away from WWII? They certainly weren't the first.

[NineLine]

There's another mob doing WW1.

 

professional courtesy, and all that, to not cross over into the other realms?

 

Huh? Someone buy the rights to WWI?

[MBot]

I can sympathies with this feeling. I think it is a pity that so many resources are spent on different projects that hardly match together. It is not even so much that flyable airplanes don't belong together, but that so many different aircraft make it improbable that they will ever all fly in a fully fleshed out environment that fits them. What am I going to do with the F-86? Where will the Mirage 2000C fit in? I am talking about terrains, other (AI) aircraft, ground units, weapons, radio voice recordings, contemporary AI tactics etc.

 

That idea that with enough time this various scenarios will fill out on their own is a pipe dream in my opinion and fairly naive. For years we have been told that the flightsim business is hard and that resources are tight (and this is of course correct) and now many belief that *everything* (WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, 80s Cold War, etc. etc. etc.) will be fully realized? That is delusional. What we have now, random aircraft over random terrain, will be the fate of DCS for a long time. Eventually some assets might fit together, like an aircraft and a map. But I simply don't see that complete, consistent war scenarios, like for example the Il-2 FB Finnish Front, will ever happen in DCS with the current "all goes" approach (DCS WWII might be the very exception to this due to the very specific nature of the project).

 

I understand that DCS is what it is. It has become a sandbox and that it obviously something that many people enjoy. Unfortunately I am not one of them, and I feel that I am not alone. Instead of playing in a sandbox, I would have preferred to fly and fight aircraft through a fleshed out war, against an enemy that makes geopolitical sense, over a terrain that makes geopolitical sense, along AI aircraft and ground units that match, hearing voice comms that fit, watch the AI using tactics of the era.

[VincentLaw]

Some people lack vision. They can only see what fits into neat little boxes. DCS can be more than just another combat flight simulator. Telling third parties they are only allowed to develop a specific thing from a specific decade is not going to help anyone.

 

Think logically for a minute:

If RRG was not allowed to work on WWII, would they be developing an A-6 intruder?

Edited April 10, 2014 by VincentLaw

[sobek]

and now many belief that *everything* (WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, 80s Cold War, etc. etc. etc.) will be fully realized? That is delusional.

 

Is it really? What you describe is the situation that happened before DCS opened up to 3rd party developers. If the platform can establish itself on the market enough to be a longtime haven for 3rd parties to produce content in a way similar to what FSX is for civilian flight, it might very well happen. Maybe not to the extent that you envision and certainly not very soon, but to call people delusional based on an assessment from how things were 3 years back, i actually find that a bit offensive. It certainly is not good form. One might even say you are warping the current situation to fit your argument.

[MBot]

Some people lack vision.

 

Having followed the flightsim genre for 20 years, I would call it a reality check :) A "Century of Flight" combat-sim will not happen. Better to concentrate on less and flesh it out well.

[Scrim]

So why did you go to DCS then? I mean, it's been very clear all along that DCS is a sandbox sim.

 

I like Arma, so I play Arma. I don't play the new OFP games and complain that they are OFP instead of Arma.

 

Sorry, but why are people complaining about this? It's like painting your bedroom blue, and complaining that it doesn't look green enough. So why did you paint it blue then? Just like how blue isn't the only colour to pick, DCS isn't the only flight sim. If you throw up because the P-51D has a great flight model, but the radio comms and the trucks you're strafing aren't WW2 era, play another sim already.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Scrim

[NineLine]

Systems are in place your you to enjoy what you want and ignore what you dont want, nothing is forced on anyone. Plenty of room in this sandbox for everyone.

 

I can sympathies with this feeling. I think it is a pity that so many resources are spent on different projects that hardly match together. It is not even so much that flyable airplanes don't belong together, but that so many different aircraft make it improbable that they will ever all fly in a fully fleshed out environment that fits them. What am I going to do with the F-86? Where will the Mirage 2000C fit in? I am talking about terrains, other (AI) aircraft, ground units, weapons, radio voice recordings, contemporary AI tactics etc.

 

That idea that with enough time this various scenarios will fill out on their own is a pipe dream in my opinion and fairly naive. For years we have been told that the flightsim business is hard and that resources are tight (and this is of course correct) and now many belief that *everything* (WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, 80s Cold War, etc. etc. etc.) will be fully realized? That is delusional. What we have now, random aircraft over random terrain, will be the fate of DCS for a long time. Eventually some assets might fit together, like an aircraft and a map. But I simply don't see that complete, consistent war scenarios, like for example the Il-2 FB Finnish Front, will ever happen in DCS with the current "all goes" approach (DCS WWII might be the very exception to this due to the very specific nature of the project).

 

I understand that DCS is what it is. It has become a sandbox and that it obviously something that many people enjoy. Unfortunately I am not one of them, and I feel that I am not alone. Instead of playing in a sandbox, I would have preferred to fly and fight aircraft through a fleshed out war, against an enemy that makes geopolitical sense, over a terrain that makes geopolitical sense, along AI aircraft and ground units that match, hearing voice comms that fit, watch the AI using tactics of the era.

[NineLine]

Having followed the flightsim genre for 20 years, I would call it a reality check :) A "Century of Flight" combat-sim will not happen. Better to concentrate on less and flesh it out well.

 

ED has been positioning itself with partners that want to take care of different eras, yes they have done the P-51D, and started the 190, but RRG has take up alot of the Dora development under the ED name, so really I dont see what the issue is, their current development seems to be mostly modern stuff.

[VincentLaw]

Having followed the flightsim genre for 20 years, I would call it a reality check :) A "Century of Flight" combat-sim will not happen. Better to concentrate on less and flesh it out well.

Since you obviously didn't get it the first time: If RRG was not allowed to develop DCS: WWII, would they develop an F-16?

[MBot]

So why did you go to DCS then? I mean, it's been very clear all along that DCS is a sandbox sim.

 

One could argue that I did not go to DCS, DCS came to me. I follow ED's endeavors since the Flanker 2.0 forum. I think as a long-time customer it is perfectly reasonable to state that I personally don't like the path ED's products have taken.

[Scrim]

Well guess what? A lot of people do, no one is forcing you to play DCS, and courtesy of the free market, there is more than one flight sim in the world.

[MBot]

Since you obviously didn't get it the first time: If RRG was not allowed to develop DCS: WWII, would they develop an F-16?

 

You make a fine point and I agree, RRG would have probably done nothing else than WWII considering their background.

 

But then I am also asking the question after what time, if ever, will I be flying the upcoming F-86 or AH-1G in their respective historical environments? I have little interest in flying them for their own sake.

 

Just to be clear, I do not have the solution how to go about this 3rd party/lack of concentration situation. I am simply voicing that I am unhappy about the current direction of DCS and discussing it in a fellow flightsim community.

[Silver_Dragon]

Take account with EDGE, when that be release, 3rd parties can be access to SDK. Now only RRG Studios Partner have working on Normandia Map and expected more if sales get well. Not sure if Belsimtek have plans of build new Theater, but all will be posible.

 

We unknown if other parther or 3rd party no declarate have now in progress or making plans to new theather. Actualy some "Undeterminate" projects have in the shadows, expected to some info.

[Flogger23m]

I can sympathies with this feeling. I think it is a pity that so many resources are spent on different projects that hardly match together. It is not even so much that flyable airplanes don't belong together, but that so many different aircraft make it improbable that they will ever all fly in a fully fleshed out environment that fits them. What am I going to do with the F-86?

 

At least someone understands. We'll get members angry at FC3 level realism, yet for some reason cheer on biplanes going into combat against MiG-29s and SA-10s as if that is sensible or realistic. Flying realistic aircraft is part of the equation. Utilizing them in a realistic manner is the other half.

 

Learning systems is fine but when you have FC3 level of realism and especially study sim level you need to be able to use all of the avionics and put them to use. Otherwise they are largely going to waste since they can not be sensibly used in combat.

 

If someone wants to make a Korean War module then they should do that. It will have to include MiG-15s, C-53s, T-34s and appropriate anti aircraft weapons. They do not even have to pick a specific war; but there needs to be time period equipment to go along with the F-86.

 

 

Just to be clear, I do not have the solution how to go about this 3rd party/lack of concentration situation. I am simply voicing that I am unhappy about the current direction of DCS and discussing it in a fellow flightsim community.

 

It is pretty simple. They can choose to do aircraft from the 1970-modern times. Jaguar, Mirage F1, F-16, Su-17, MiG-29K are some examples. There are plenty of aircraft. Those who are just interesting in throwing switches and learning how to take off/land will be happy either way. Those looking to put their knowledge to the test and participate in combat will require a proper environment. From a sales perspective, building something that fits in the current time line makes the most sense as you can please both types of customers.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Flogger23m

[cichlidfan]

Take account with EDGE, when that be release, 3rd parties can be access to SDK. Now only RRG Studios Partner have working on Normandia Map and expected more if sales get well. Not sure if Belsimtek have plans of build new Theater, but all will be posible.

 

We unknown if other parther or 3rd party no declarate have now in progress or making plans to new theather. Actualy some "Undeterminate" projects have in the shadows, expected to some info.

 

With regard to the topic, the map is a relatively minor issue.

[NineLine]

With regard to the topic, the map is a relatively minor issue.

 

To some, some use it as an argument. Like flying the P-51D over a modern day Georgia.

[cichlidfan]

To some, some use it as an argument. Like flying the P-51D over a modern day Georgia.

 

There is validity to that point, in some cases. The terrain for Southeast Asia, or the Middle East, would look quite a bit different. However, the map has little value without the simulated hardware to support the time frame and that is a much bigger issue (and project).

[Wolf Rider]

You make a fine point and I agree, RRG would have probably done nothing else than WWII considering their background.

 

But then I am also asking the question after what time, if ever, will I be flying the upcoming F-86 or AH-1G in their respective historical environments? I have little interest in flying them for their own sake.

 

Just to be clear, I do not have the solution how to go about this 3rd party/lack of concentration situation. I am simply voicing that I am unhappy about the current direction of DCS and discussing it in a fellow flightsim community.

 

 

Different people have been calling out for different eras for quite a while now and it would be nice to have those eras. The Vietnam era, the Korea era, WWII with the European theatre being the various Fronts, plus the Pacific Theatre of Operations and the modern day era of Iraq and Afghanistan and of course SaR. Of notable comment in each place of the calling for, was the issue of intermingling of planes from different eras... and as much as some of us might not like this, it is going to happen regardless.

 

As far as era maps go, its only early days yet and I do hope that focus isn't given to just planes... that would be fine for those who just want a 200 plane hanger but I feel DCS (the product) would be going down the wrong track in doing that - the sandbox does need to be "fleshed out" properly - stocked maps are a defined by the very nature of the sim, a necessity

[NineLine]

There is validity to that point, in some cases. The terrain for Southeast Asia, or the Middle East, would look quite a bit different. However, the map has little value without the simulated hardware to support the time frame and that is a much bigger issue (and project).

 

An interesting note on that is the RRG guys hinted at being able to have different switchable time periods on one map... but it was never expanded upon... so I would be interested in seeing more on that in time...

[Scrim]

Those who are just interesting in throwing switches and learning how to take off/land will be happy either way. Those looking to put their knowledge to the test and participate in combat will require a proper environment.

 

Oh. Thank you for correcting me. See, I thought that I wanted to fly different specific planes and helicopters, even though I just wanted to learn how to fly them. But apparently I was wrong, because you're telling me that I'd be happy with any aircraft, since I'm not obsessed about having nationally, periodically and geographically correct enemies to shoot down and maps to fly on. I fully believed that, so thank you for telling me what I really think. While we're at it, what shirt should I wear tomorrow?

[cichlidfan]

...what shirt should I wear tomorrow?

 

A powder blue oxford goes with just about anything, fwiw. ;)

[HellToupee]

It is pretty simple. They can choose to do aircraft from the 1970-modern times. Jaguar, Mirage F1, F-16, Su-17, MiG-29K are some examples. There are plenty of aircraft. Those who are just interesting in throwing switches and learning how to take off/land will be happy either way. Those looking to put their knowledge to the test and participate in combat will require a proper environment. From a sales perspective, building something that fits in the current time line makes the most sense as you can please both types of customers.

 

Its pretty simple, they wont, 3rd party devs make what they want and are capable to make if they can't they will make nothing.

 

There is no need for entire theatres to come with every aircraft, when there is a critical mass of aircraft of an era then someone will step up and make one just like RRG with ww2.

 

They seem to be going in the right direction to me, building the foundation for many others to make sims.

[BIGNEWY]

I have only just seen this thread, I was busy flying my P-51 in a bird dog role over Georgia evading AAA and manpads . . . .

 

:P

 

I will get my coat.

[Exorcet]

You make a fine point and I agree, RRG would have probably done nothing else than WWII considering their background.

 

But then I am also asking the question after what time, if ever, will I be flying the upcoming F-86 or AH-1G in their respective historical environments? I have little interest in flying them for their own sake.

 

Just to be clear, I do not have the solution how to go about this 3rd party/lack of concentration situation. I am simply voicing that I am unhappy about the current direction of DCS and discussing it in a fellow flightsim community.

 

Just keep in mind that a plane's history isn't limited to the 3-5 years that it was cutting edge and in use by its country of origin. It can expand decades later.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Exorcet