Excited about Sabre but will only buy if authentic theater is provided

[Sceptre]

What I meant was that people in the thread were speculating about the release date. Suggesting was the wrong word.

[Home Fries]

Turkey flew the F-86 until 1968 and Yugoslavia until 1971. Plenty of other western nations represented in DCS also flew the Sabre.

 

In other words, while we don't have a historical use of the Sabre without Korea terrain, we can still create realistic hypothetical scenarios in the Caucasus. This will be especially true when the MiG-21 is released (even though the bis is 1972 and just a year more recent than Yugoslavia's F-86 usage).

[Bahger]

That's interesting, Home Fries. Is there any possibility of having era-appropriate objects, for ambiance, targets, verisimilitude etc., such as vehicles, radars, AD and such. Unlikely I know, but much easier to mod in than terrain, I assume.

[runny]

I only read OP and am in the same boat. There's more to a Vietnam era flight sim than airplanes. I'm not interested in the WWII stuff for the same reason. I have trouble enjoying a game where things are so mixed up. I'm confused why each developer is running in a different direction with this platform. Regardless, the sabre is cool but without the supporting assets it's just another oddball plane I can fly in Georgia but can't "use".

[greco.bernardi]

I agree....

I will buy a f86 and mig21 because i like to fly those planes.... but like a p51 i can't use in combat .

I will really appreciate when another airplanes of same era (50/60 years) goes to live as appropriate theatres of war.

 

Sorry for my bad english.

[Home Fries]

That's interesting, Home Fries. Is there any possibility of having era-appropriate objects, for ambiance, targets, verisimilitude etc., such as vehicles, radars, AD and such. Unlikely I know, but much easier to mod in than terrain, I assume.

Well, we would need the SA-2 to really push the IADS, but that might be a killjoy with the limited (nonexistent?) RWR capability of the F-86.

 

Still, we have the BMP-1, T-55, M-113, Zu-23, ZSU-23-4, and the trucks, all of which were in service in the 1960s. There's definitely enough to keep it both feasible and interesting.

[runny]

Well, we would need the SA-2 to really push the IADS, but that might be a killjoy with the limited (nonexistent?) RWR capability of the F-86.

 

Still, we have the BMP-1, T-55, M-113, Zu-23, ZSU-23-4, and the trucks, all of which were in service in the 1960s. There's definitely enough to keep it both feasible and interesting.

 

Yeah... But.

 

Only if you disregard the considerable other assets in the game. Pretty much everything other than what you listed plus the Huey. What's left is a pretty weak selection in my opinion. However, if you differ, that's fine, but you're still not going to be allowing those other units in your server (granted you have one) so the game is becoming split. Even if all eras had a full line of units and appropriate landscapes, you end up with multiple subsets in DCS which are not compatible with each other in terms of gameplay and immersion. I'd much rather see a focused effort by all the dev teams to work towards a common game, whatever it may be, to have one thing good instead of these seemingly arbitrary aircraft that don't belong with the other aircraft we have (or that have been announced).

 

Most aircraft buffs would agree that the sabre or almost any warbird is cool. But is it a good expenditure of resources to improve DCS as a game?

[=Mac=]

I will buy everything that DCS World will allow except Mods. Some things I have bought twice to reward ED.

 

The map has several features that I find important to me: large and small bodies of water, mountains, flat plains, and wonderful air/clouds. I don't care if the P-51 flies over Calais or Caucuses. It flies. So do all the others. When the Sabre comes out, of course I will fly it against the Eagle. And lose, certainly. But still, I will fly it!

[Exorcet]

Most aircraft buffs would agree that the sabre or almost any warbird is cool. But is it a good expenditure of resources to improve DCS as a game?

We already have the modern era fairly fleshed out in DCS. It's not like there is no relatively complete battlefield available in the sim. You can do a lot of stuff that's post Vietnam.

 

On the other hand while DCS is very good in physics and systems modeling for player aircraft, it is lacking in other areas. What exactly is the difference between T-80 and T-55? Or Patriot and Hawk? We have some capabilities modeled like range and firepower but we're missing significant things like EW which DCS doesn't really touch at all. The AI also tends to be simplistic in a few areas. You can combine a lot of units that might not be quite right by name, but in function would be fine given how things operate now.

 

Also, creating modules for DCS is a long process and apparently it's harder to do so the more modern you aim to be. That's a bit of a problem with the sim as it is now, with its modern era focus. As a result you see the 3rd parties focusing on other time periods. I don't think that there is a need to focus on one specific period, though WWII looks like it will grow the fastest because of simplicity and ease of information. The F-86 itself is adding to DCS. It's creating a starting point for the 1950's-60's era that others can build on. I suppose some people would rather have ED define an era for 3rd parties to work on and only accept products that fit. That may or may not be a faster way of doing things.

[Bahger]

I'm very grateful for ED/DCS and I've been supporting them enthusiastically with my money and hundreds of hours of time spent in mission creation for about twelve years now. DCS has been the only game in town for the serious combat flight simmer after the heyday of study sims for the PC ended. I imagine it is a lot more difficult, time consuming and expensive to develop full-featured study sims of modern aircraft with dedicated 3D environments, for modern systems vs. what developers faced in building products like Jane's sims, Tornado, Falcon and EF 2000 for 486, DOS and Pentium-era technology.

 

However, it is fortunate for DCS that they are the only serious developer left standing and do not have investors pressing them to rationalise or accelerate their product line because of the threat of competition. And I wouldn't want them to if it led to inferior standards, as, for all the seemingly piecemeal nature of the transition to a brave new dawn that we are all expecting to arrive -- in, what, two, five, ten years, who knows...? -- if there were another high-quality modern jet sim with a fully modeled theater and assets to come along, many DCS consumers would migrate. That is the risk DCS appears to be taking by supplying individual platforms of a very high quality but no battlefield context, no dedicated assets, no campaigns, no game. Interesting wars have been fought with decisive air power in the last twenty years, all untouched by DCS, including Kosovo, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan. Air power was decisive in the Falklands in 1982 and the Israelis are, as they have always been, on the forefront of its use in both wartime and as an asset against domestic terrorism. Many people, myself included, are happy, and grateful for the chance to test-fly high-fidelity individual platform simulations in the DCS world, but people in this thread who have -- politely and constructively -- pointed out that the diversity of aircraft lacks coherence and the continued absence of context weakens immersion have a valid point. I intend to stick with DCS but if a fully-featured, high-end jet study sim comes along, modelling any fixed-wing platform used extensively in combat in the last twenty years, with a dedicated theater, appropriate assets and adversaries plus a mission editor and a campaign of some kind (dynamic or not) I'll be there in a flash. Meanwhile I am not convinced that any of this is part of DCS's business plan. I did not like the stock campaign for A-10 and am not completely confident that the F/A-18 will be a fully-rounded simulation as described above. Perhaps their plan is to put all the tools to build good battlefield assets, campaigns and theaters in the community's hands while they concentrate solely on the aircraft...but who knows?

[Scrim]

When we get EDGE, we'll hopefully see new maps. IMHO, if EDGE is as close as they say, it'd be a waste of time and resources to do more maps now, before EDGE.

 

As for aircraft, we're seeing a very clear trend of 3rd party devs doing most of the modules because they can worry about that and nothing else. They will obviously make the modules they think will sell well, and since most people don't want a game that only covers the late Cold War - Today, that seems like a smart move.

[NineLine]

ED is still very much working on aircraft....

[Mizzy]

I'm getting the F-86 because I like the F-86.

 

Absolutely my view. I am getting it because I like it LOL

 

Mizzy

[kontiuka]

Absolutely my view. I am getting it because I like it LOL

 

Mizzy

well, that's a pretty frivolous reason.:D

[SkateZilla]

I'm getting the F-86 for multiple reasons:

 

A. Money to BST and ED

B. It's Fast(er) than the A-10C

C. It's PFM/ASM (Clickables!)

D. It's Shiney (I'm a Sucker for Shiney planes)

E. It's got Guns, and 6 of them :)

F. F-86 was my favorite Aircraft behind the F-14 growing up.

G. I can turn some AI Heads, as well as some Online MP Pilot's Heads with it, regardless of "Modern Environment".

H. It's Shiney.

I. I don't like having Greyed out Icons on my DCS Home Screen

[lunaticfringe]

What's fascinating is that I sincerely doubt, in the heat of a bounce, that anyone could tell the difference between the Georgian mountains against those of the Yalu region.

 

But hey, there's always the QF-86 role in the Nellis ranges.

[NineLine]

What's fascinating is that I sincerely doubt, in the heat of a bounce, that anyone could tell the difference between the Georgian mountains against those of the Yalu region.

 

But hey, there's always the QF-86 role in the Nellis ranges.

 

 

All mountains have the same effect on my aircraft when I slam into them, doesnt matter where in the world they are :)

[Stratos]

I will throw my two cents.

 

a) With proper Korean era vehicles and objects we can have better immersion. But we will need trucks, AAA, tanks and infantry. Ranger79 demonstrated that is a real possibility to add all those types of objects. So maybe a modder can make the same for the 50's? I can for sure create a list of the main type of vehicles we need that is not that long. Also P-51's were heavily used in the ground attack role during Korea, by USAF, ROKAF, SAAF and Australia so we can have a role for the Mustang.

 

USAF Mustang in Korea:

 

 

ROKAF Mustangs:

 

 

SAAF Mustang in Korea:

 

 

b) Very related with anterior post. If we can have a populated North Turkey (currently in the map but not populated) we can simulate a conflict in the 50's. Maybe a small war between Turkey +UN and USSR for a strip of terrain? Only problem I can see is the too modern airfields. and lack of airfields on Turkey.

 

Now If VEAO can build a T6 Texan we can have a human controlled Mosquito (FAC), that would be really great. In the Meantime a TF51 painted as a Mosquito will have to suffice.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Stratos

[javelina1]

I'm getting the F-86 for multiple reasons:

 

I. I don't like having Greyed out Icons on my DCS Home Screen

 

that's my top reason! :thumbup: :pilotfly:

[kazereal]

I'm getting the F-86 for multiple reasons:

 

A. Money to BST and ED

B. It's Fast(er) than the A-10C

C. It's PFM/ASM (Clickables!)

D. It's Shiney (I'm a Sucker for Shiney planes)

E. It's got Guns, and 6 of them :)

F. F-86 was my favorite Aircraft behind the F-14 growing up.

G. I can turn some AI Heads, as well as some Online MP Pilot's Heads with it, regardless of "Modern Environment".

H. It's Shiney.

I. I don't like having Greyed out Icons on my DCS Home Screen

 

:thumbup:

[Skulleader]

Like Skatezilla:

 

I'm getting the F-86 for multiple reasons:

 

A. I have the two modules of Belsimtek and for me they are awesome and perfect.

B. After to have seen the screenshots of this F-86 I found this new module veru beautiful, the 3D model is perfect for me.

C. It's PFM/ASM (Clickables!), yes I hate all the cockpits no clickable.

D. The textures metal are perfect.

E. The cockpit is very beautiful and awesome.

F. All the screenshots of this page are incredible and it's obligatory that I bought this F-86: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125313

G. My credit card is so excited and hot since I've discovered these screenshots.

H. The video is awesome, one other great module of BST, great work guys....

Edited June 5, 2014 by Skulleader

[SDsc0rch]

I'm getting the F-86 for multiple reasons:

 

- its a kickass jet

- PFM

- represents a historic era in history

.

.

.

- ED (!)

- Belsimtek (!)

- DCS (!)

 

#NuffSaid

[BabyJail]

Gonna get it because I also own the P-51. Which together with the F-86 should make for some awesome missions if we get a korean map!

[tusler]

Did he say shiney? Yea thats it, thats why I am getting it.

I like shiney planes too.

[Pizzicato]

I'm getting it primarily to support ED and Belsimtek.

 

It's not a particularly interesting aircraft for me, but I'm happy to do my bit to help keep ED and Belsimtek afloat while I wait for EDGE, the Su-27AFM, the F-18C and the AH-1.