What is Eagle Dynamics doing wrong?

[Python]

War thunder currently has more than two times the amount of players as COD (Black ops 2)? Get promoting FC3 ED, these guys don't know what they are missing out on...

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

If the argument is that DCS World is for modern airframes and hardware, how exactly are we defining "modern?" The MiG-21 is anything but that and was woefully obsolete in terms of technological sophistication by the 70s. The UH-1H is the same. This is why qualifying something as "modern" is such a subjective term. It's why I hated the name for Call of Duty 4; in twenty-thirty years, it won't be modern. The Huey and the Fishbed were both first designed and flown in the '50s and still soldier on today for the simple reason of economics; they're inexpensive and downright cheap compared to other aircraft. A Fishbed can be given an array of air-to-ground weapons and serve as a strike and CAS platform. It's utterly inferior in this role when compared to other modern strikecraft due to its small payload and outright refusal to go slow, but for many national air arms it's either Fishbed or go without.

 

With the Huey, it's a case of adaptability. The Huey's just a giant spacious box with controls at the front and engine ontop. It's easy and economical to maintain and operate while tackling a plethora of jobs. It's been given two engines, it's had its body work gutted and turned into the Cobra, it's been given rigid rotors and called the Venom, and despite all this there are air-arms still flying the original single engine Hueys for all the reasons aforementioned. It didn't even leave US Army Service until fairly recently.

 

The Fishbed and Huey are extreme examples, but examples all the same. What about some of the modules that seem to stick out like a sore thumb when compared to others?

 

P-51Ds didn't leave their last units until 1984 in the Dominican Republic.

 

F-86s didn't leave their last units until 1994 in Bolivia.

 

tl;dr, You fly an airframe until you can find a suitable replacement that makes more financial sense to move onto and can be afforded to be moved on to, or its role disappears. Sometimes, that day is a very, very, very long time away. Qualifying things as "modern" purely based on how sophisticated will leave your sim anemic in terms of choices.

 

I'm looking forward to DCS: Swamp Gas

 

Fixed that for you.

Edited July 10, 2014 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[kk0425]

 

Does this count? It flies and can do combat.

[cichlidfan]

Does this count? It flies and can do combat.

 

Perhaps, but an accurate in-depth model would fry your computer.

[McBlemmen]

War thunder currently has more than two times the amount of players as COD (Black ops 2)? Get promoting FC3 ED, these guys don't know what they are missing out on...

 

I feel like FC3 is VERY comparable to WT's full real battle, wich is dead. You wont attract an audience from the war thunder crowd for DCS , people who play full real already know DCS , iguarantee it

 

 

@OP : I completely agree , i'm getting a little annoyed with the amount of WW2 aircraft that are being announced recently , and now that ED has taken over the WW2 porject i fear the F18 is being pushed back even more.

 

I'm not saying people cant develop WW2 modules , i'm just annoyed with the fact every dev is doing it. That or trainer aircraft (heck , even leatherneck has signs of developing a WW2 module in the future)

 

I feel like saying this here is the equivalent of yelling out "i'm a pedophile" in a crowded street so i'm not even gonna bother checking this thread again. Just wanted to put in my opinion and hope not to get banned for doing so.

[kk0425]

The WWII genre is feeling a little played out over all types of games but in this type of gaming it's understandable. We demand as much accuracy as possible, but it's difficult, comparatively speaking, or impossible to get all the data on the various systems and performance data needed for 4th gen fighters. We can rule out 5th gen unless we want arcade mode. 3rd gen is about the best we're going to get if we want 100% realism. 4th gen is still going to omit some of the secret stuff, but the majority of it should be close enough for our needs. Remember, not even the A-10C is fully modeled to the newest IRL version and some things had to be contractually omitted.

[ShuRugal]

I'm gonna jump on with the OP on this one.

 

It's not that I have no interest in WW2 planes and WW2 environment, I would love to have a full WW2 environment of DCS quality.

 

The problem is, the DCS environment is not even remotely close to a fully-stocked WW2 environment, and Eagle does not have the manpower to get it there without sacrificing continued development on what they already have.

 

Seeing this is what frustrates me and most of the guys I fly with. Would a Focke-Wulf be fun to fly? you betcha. Is it gonna be worth a damn against the units we already have in game? Nope. Seeing ED spend their time on units which don't have much relevance to where the sim is right now is very disappointing.

[siipperi]

Problem I have with ED is their priorities and dev times. It takes half a decade to release full blown module and it seems their focus has been shifted away from the Hornet a little bit with ww2 fluff.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Problem I have with ED is their priorities and dev times. It takes half a decade to release full blown module and it seems their focus has been shifted away from the Hornet a little bit with ww2 fluff.

 

"Welcome to DCS World, the sim where the deadlines are made up and the time frames don't matter!"

[Boberro]

There is no such term as *time* in ED universum :P

Everything is timeless here.

[Sceptre]

"Welcome to DCS World, where everything is subject to change."

 

There I fixed it for you.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

I mean, and I would assume people play DCS because of its roots in jet fighters and bombers. If people want prop aircraft from back in the day, here is the link to War Thunder...

 

http://warthunder.com/

 

 

:doh:

[Double_D]

Problem I have with ED is their priorities and dev times. It takes half a decade to release full blown module and it seems their focus has been shifted away from the Hornet a little bit with ww2 fluff.

 

 

Wouldn't you like it done right the first time or you'd rather write countless bugs posts????:music_whistling:

[Gannet]

So when is DCS: Tyrannosaurus coming :lol:

 

I'm actually quite happy to see a range of aircraft from many eras. And if high quality content is coming out I don't mind what era it is.

 

That would actually be part of DCS Combined (rather short) Arms for ground combat :thumbup:

[NineLine]

Problem I have with ED is their priorities and dev times. It takes half a decade to release full blown module and it seems their focus has been shifted away from the Hornet a little bit with ww2 fluff.

 

We want the quality of the A-10C and the development times of War Thunder aircraft... just doesnt add up ;)

[outlawal2]

We want the quality of the A-10C and the development times of War Thunder aircraft... just doesnt add up ;)

 

Yep, human nature...

[Scrim]

Wouldn't you like it done right the first time or you'd rather write countless bugs posts????:music_whistling:

 

Yeah, it'd be a real shame if they didn't take plenty of time. The KA-50 would perhaps to this day be suffering from the Doppler and HUD not being repaired with the rest of the helo. Oh wait...

[NRG-Vampire]

© dynamics of the eagle fries your rig :megalol:

by the way: nice pic KK

 

Perhaps, but an accurate in-depth model would fry your computer.

 

 

Does this count? It flies and can do combat.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

There I sapped the fun out of it for you.

Allow me to return the favor!

[Echo38]

There are plenty of great flight games around where DCS will NEVER achieve such immersion like is in IL-1946 as example.

 

DCS: P-51D has a level of realism that that other thing never came remotely close to having ... it never even tried. No sim or game featuring WWII fighters has ever been made to the level of fidelity seen in DCS: P-51D, or even half of that level, and you damn well know it. How could I be immersed in a flying game when the physics are all wrong and the aircraft don't remotely match their real-life specifications? No, thank you! I'd rather have a sim, thank you!

Edited July 12, 2014 by Echo38

[Flagrum]

There is no such term as *time* in ED universum :P

Everything is timeless here.

That is inaccurate. There is time in the EDiversum - it is measured in the unit "Soon". The conversion rule for time-in-our-universum (variable t) to "soon" is: f(t) = soon. Longer time spans can be expressed as soon * soon or alternatively as soon²

[cichlidfan]

I used to remember the conversion from soon to eventually, but my math skills are a bit rusty. ;)

[Boberro]

DCS: P-51D has a level of realism that that other thing never came remotely close to having ... it never even tried. No sim or game featuring WWII fighters has ever been made to the level of fidelity seen in DCS: P-51D, or even half of that level, and you damn well know it. How could I be immersed in a flying game when the physics are all wrong and the aircraft don't remotely match their real-life specifications? No, thank you! I'd rather have a sim, thank you!

 

No "have realism" make you immersed but all general things.

I had immersion in games where graphic today sucks. But there is something more than that - Half Life even today is deeper than plenty of nowadays games.

 

IL-2 1946 is way over the DCS in aspect of II WW. I don't care about every button but general entertainment.

SO far you have funny DCS with 1-2 WWII planes and hip huraaaa XXI century buildings over Caucasus.

Really great, I am deeply impressed and touched to fight over 20 floor buildings and running away from Shilka :D

But hey, I can touch and switch THE button :D

 

DCS and II WW?

It is weird.

[NeilWillis]

I'd suggest you do whatever you feel you must Boberro. Your sig block might be rather offensive to some members of the community here. Didn't really think that one through did you?

 

Horses for courses is the expression I believe. WWII isn't best covered here if you want arcade, or simplified physics etc. I agree, if that's what you want, then IL-2 1946 (which I might point out is not WWII, but slightly later - but maybe that's splitting hairs?) maybe the simulator of choice.

 

DCS is a steadily developing, and, generally, far more in depth, platform. If you want everything now, you'll be disappointed. If you are patient, and have the highest of expectations, then I think DCS offers far more, to a far higher level of fidelity than any other platform currently available.

 

Are ED doing things wrong? For some, they'll never meet expectations because that's life. To others, emphatically yes - doesn't the popularity of this forum say anything at all about that?

[tarracta]

ED is for me a developer from the good old times.

 

I was a excited gamer in the '90th and '20th, but nowadays games are only sucking. The reason is the rise of the consoles, which destroy every "deep" gameplay because everything has to be simplified so you can play it with a few, bulky buttons. So autoaiming in shooters is standard just as well flying a plane with the thumb and 4 buttons.

 

ED is one of the last manufactures who says "cool, A PC keyboard has far over 100 buttons, a mouse is perfect for controlling and a real good joystick you can only have on an PC" - so *** off the consoles and use the advantages only a PC gives.

 

Of course i hate the long development times and especially the orientation to WW2 junkers, but nevertheless it's the last game which offers enough content to keep you with new "aha"-effects for years.