How do you use DCS World?

[TaliG]

There can be a few downsides:

3) Splitting of the MP community. Payware maps are a problem. Not everyone will have all of the maps even if the average forum member does.

 

This is happening already with the new ''edge'' maps. Those maps will be payware..

[BeachAV8R]

Just to add to your point, for every third party aircraft, ED is ultimately responsible for ensuring it meets their level of quality. So, ED has to become quite familiar with the aircraft in question. This means time and resources that could be spent elsewhere.

Well, again, taking a page from FSX development, people vote with their wallets. The vast difference in quality/completeness between something like Wilco and Level-D offerings is evident in their pricing, and overall acceptance in the community. It is almost self policing. And again, I don't think there is an aversion by most to FC3 level quality of modeling when it comes to expanding DCS World. Sure, you'll get the purists howling that not every switch and button is modeled, but you'll get plenty on the other side that rather enjoy flying something like the A-10A or Su-27 as presented in FC3. Different strokes for different folks so to speak, but they can all be brought under the DCS World umbrella.

 

I'm predicting - it is only a matter of time before we see a Grand Caravan or Cessna 172 in DCS World.

 

BeachAV8R

[BitMaster]

...... Try finding an equal adrenaline inducing experience in flying a 747 with 274 passengers on their way to Hawaii for a conference on "The New Technology of Shoe manufacturing". Just doesn't quite do it, for me anyway.

 

Great post, made me smile, true all the way IMHO.

 

 

Cheers ;)

 

Bit

[jcbak]

Both and I am enjoying a lot flying around in formation with my son.

That's fantastic. Your son will never forget it. He won't really appreciate it though until he has a son.

[BitMaster]

on the other hand, you don't need an AAA pointing at you to have some wet hands in DCS.

 

For any new model we get, it basically starts all over, read the manual, do the tutorials, familiarise with the plane for some hours, do touch and go - arounds, at day and night, good and bad weather, work the weapons, read up the tactics used for that AC, get on a server and FAIL ;)

 

I fly DCS not because it is easy, but because it is hard, very hard, it challenges me every time I go balls to the wall. Itmakes my hands wet and my brain empty and focused, nothing else but tunnel vision, my world, my DCS, my Love

 

Whomever you meet at Angels 10 in DCS is a hardcore Flight Simmer, some new to DCS, some veterans, but we all share the love to DCS because it is NOT played through in 1 weekend, not in 1 years and with those modules not in 5 years !

 

Bit

Edited November 24, 2014 by BitMaster

[hollywoodvillain]

It's hard to fathom why so many people would even consider DCS as a civilian flight sim when there are already several excellent established civilian sims already available and ready to fly. Doing so IMO is a disservice to DCS and the MULTIPLAYER community as a whole. To think that developing these kind of aircraft won't suck resources from ED is dreaming, as even third party airframes still require significant dedication from ED to integrate them into DCS world. Don't get me wrong I love civil aircraft also, but I really don't see the day when a whole gaggle of people are flying around in DCS blowing things up while someone else is sightseeing the Grand Canyon in a Cessna

[Auger73]

It's hard to fathom why so many people would even consider DCS as a civilian flight sim when there are already several excellent established civilian sims already available and ready to fly. Doing so IMO is a disservice to DCS and the MULTIPLAYER community as a whole. To think that developing these kind of aircraft won't suck resources from ED is dreaming, as even third party airframes still require significant dedication from ED to integrate them into DCS world. Don't get me wrong I love civil aircraft also, but I really don't see the day when a whole gaggle of people are flying around in DCS blowing things up while someone else is sightseeing the Grand Canyon in a Cessna

 

I agree that aircraft in DCS should have some sort of military application. Even though I fly DCS for both combat and non-combat (I really enjoy the updated & new FMs), I would probably not buy a non-military aircraft. I would be much less likely to buy an unarmed military aircraft as well (like transport, AWACS, etc.), although I might consider it. Even for combat trainer aircraft, such as the L-39 - the fact it has been used in combat makes it more interesting to me than a combat trainer aircraft that has never seen the front lines.

[Mogster]

I ticked both, I see no reason why DCSW shouldn't expand into civilian aircraft.

 

It wouldn't be ED making the maps and aircraft. OK the 3rd party developers will require some supervision but in the end I don't see how more available high quality content can be a negative for ED and the community. FSX is seriously last gen now, Prepar 3D doesn't see to be a great step forward.

[BeachAV8R]

It's hard to fathom why so many people would even consider DCS as a civilian flight sim when there are already several excellent established civilian sims already available and ready to fly. Doing so IMO is a disservice to DCS and the MULTIPLAYER community as a whole. To think that developing these kind of aircraft won't suck resources from ED is dreaming, as even third party airframes still require significant dedication from ED to integrate them into DCS world. Don't get me wrong I love civil aircraft also, but I really don't see the day when a whole gaggle of people are flying around in DCS blowing things up while someone else is sightseeing the Grand Canyon in a Cessna

 

The problem with your hyperbolic statement ("sightseeing the Grand Canyon in a Cessna") is that you already have people that fly DCS that never pull a trigger. It's hard to fathom for you because you have a narrow view of what DCS World should be..and that isn't wrong..it's just the way you personally view it. There were 18 people last night on one server flying aerobatics in multiplayer. Sometimes the flying trumps the combat. And again, sucking resources from ED - at what cost though? A bigger, more inclusive environment for the combat pilots to fly in? More money from their licensing agreements with those third parties? More targets for combat pilots? More infrastructure for combat pilots?

 

:cry:

 

BeachAV8R

[BeachAV8R]

I would be much less likely to buy an unarmed military aircraft as well (like transport, AWACS, etc.), although I might consider it.

Man, if I could have a C-17 that I could fly low-level to another airbase through enemy territory with a top cover..I'd be signing up in a second. Night, low level, NVGs, watching out for MANPADs. Maybe even a troop drop or cargo drop over an airfield. If your CAP gets shot down can you stay hidden enough in the valleys while the fighters search for you? DCS World needs dirt strips and C-130s..

 

:joystick:

 

BeachAV8R

[Auger73]

Man, if I could have a C-17 that I could fly low-level to another airbase through enemy territory with a top cover..I'd be signing up in a second. Night, low level, NVGs, watching out for MANPADs. Maybe even a troop drop or cargo drop over an airfield. If your CAP gets shot down can you stay hidden enough in the valleys while the fighters search for you? DCS World needs dirt strips and C-130s..

 

:joystick:

 

BeachAV8R

 

I agree that doing that type of mission could be really gratifying. I've flown more MP in the old IL-2, and am not as familiar with MP in DCS, but having victory conditions in MP including transporting cargo to forward airbases could be really interesting.

 

My main concern would be that you would be much more limited in the MP environment, as missions would have to be tailored to transport aircraft.

[jcbak]

There are a number of times I fly a simple cross country mission in IMC. Throw in some wind, thunderstorms and you have your hands full on the ILS approach. I enjoy that sometimes more than combat. I often take the TF-51 on an early morning flight and practice some aerobatics. I pre-purchased the Hawk just for that reason.... I appreciate the fact the DCS can be tailored to individual needs.

[BeachAV8R]

I'm fairly certain that triggers of victory conditions can be set for doing something like landing an aircraft at an airport or in a certain zone. (Don't quote me on that..)

 

Regarding limited MP environment - well, I think we are already seeing a bit of that with the vast array of modules available. There are going to be people that don't buy certain modules that will result in them being excluded from certain MP content. I don't know that there is any way to avoid that though. I mean, mission makers can be as inclusive as they can be, but the one guy that only buys the P-51 and wants to fly it in all MP missions is going to be severely limited by those mission designers that don't want to include the P-51 in their modern aircraft scenario (and I don't blame them). It will be interesting to see going forward whether more DCS modules results in a bigger community, or just a small and fractured one.

 

BeachAV8R

[BeachAV8R]

True story - I've gotten out of both the Citations I fly and the King Airs at various points in my career with my legs shaking a bit. Stupid decisions, unforecast weather, mechanical malfunctions..all of that can combine to make even the most ordinary flight extraordinary. I've got some of those moments highlighted in my logbook.. :)

 

BeachAV8R

[BeachAV8R]

PS - These opinions in no way negate my opinion that ED should put the F/A-18 at the top of the priority list. <g>

[Exorcet]

It's hard to fathom why so many people would even consider DCS as a civilian flight sim when there are already several excellent established civilian sims already available and ready to fly.

DCS being one single integrated program is one part. Another part for many people is that it is the best when it comes to physics.

 

I have FSX, the general controls (including menus, options, etc) are completely different from DCS. Also, in my specific case, my current computer doesn't want to read the disc. DCS works for me, and the aircraft are more accurate. If there is one thing that FSX has that really makes it valuable to me, it's the world map. Other than that though, I could live with the short coming of DCS in civil flight.

 

To think that developing these kind of aircraft won't suck resources from ED is dreaming, as even third party airframes still require significant dedication from ED to integrate them into DCS world.

If everything takes resources, it's all equal. ED doesn't think it's a problem, or they wouldn't bother with 3rd parties.

 

Don't get me wrong I love civil aircraft also, but I really don't see the day when a whole gaggle of people are flying around in DCS blowing things up while someone else is sightseeing the Grand Canyon in a Cessna

I don't see why this is ever brought up, no offense. Why would there be a sightseeing Cessna in a DCS combat zone? You'd have combat missions and you'd have non combat missions. The civil planes will be useful in both as well.

[hollywoodvillain]

Beach, while I do agree with some of yours and everyone else's points and opinion somewhat, I speak, because as you said it yourself,

It will be interesting to see going forward whether more DCS modules results in a bigger community, or just a small and fractured one.

BeachAV8R

I fear the latter. And the more it gets away from Digital Combat Simulator, the more of a fractured community it will be, rest assured. While I would absolutely LOVE to see a bunch of aircraft just "pop" into DCS, I've learned to be far more realistic and cautious in my hopes for these dreams. That being said, I hope everyone can understand my reluctance to be happy with the direction that some people want DCS to proceed in.

[Wrecking Crew]

I'm fairly certain that triggers of victory conditions can be set for doing something like landing an aircraft at an airport or in a certain zone. (Don't quote me on that..)

 

QED, even to the point of detecting a particular a/c and at a particular time in the mission.

 

WC

[VincentLaw]

It will be interesting to see going forward whether more DCS modules results in a bigger community, or just a small and fractured one.

I think that for singleplayer we don't need to worry about this. We are all united in our love for DCS, and these different specialties do not compete with each others markets. They will only bring in more people and make the core stronger.

 

For multiplayer, I believe the answer to that lies in compatibility. As long as people who own different modules are able to play together with their separate modules at the same time, I think it will only make the community stronger. What concerns me is things like payware maps. I think that is much more likely to damage the community than introducing civil aviation because it will severely restrict the number of multiplayer servers that players who don't own all (or any) of the maps can join, and it will probably only get worse as more maps are added.

 

mission designers that don't want to include the P-51

I think mission designers should include the Su-25T as often as possible, and this is why I liked RRG's original plan to make one of their airplanes freeware. I understand that modules are very expensive to develop, but I also think accessibility is important for stimulating the multiplayer environment. I could be wrong in this case, but some short term losses can be beneficial in the long run. Having pay gates to join almost any servers could turn away players who might be willing to buy modules later.
Edited November 25, 2014 by VincentLaw

[rjetster1]

Man, if I could have a C-17 that I could fly low-level to another airbase through enemy territory with a top cover..I'd be signing up in a second. Night, low level, NVGs, watching out for MANPADs. Maybe even a troop drop or cargo drop over an airfield. If your CAP gets shot down can you stay hidden enough in the valleys while the fighters search for you? DCS World needs dirt strips and C-130s..

 

:joystick:

 

BeachAV8R

 

I agree with this 100%! You start doing that and you may run the risk of a slow migration from the civilian flight sim world. Piloting a C-130 from a dirt strip… now you’re venturing into extreme excitement!

[BeachAV8R]

I still believe that if you pull a civil mindset person into DCS World flying a Caravan, you might find the introduction to a combat type environment will help them crossover into combat aircraft. And I agree with the assessment about the flight models. When the Su-25T was released way back when, I became a big believer in the fluidity and dynamic feel of DCS. Then the Ka-50 hit and I was like..whoa! While I still fly FSX and X-Plane, I'm a bigger fan of DCS and hope it will expand and nibble away at the margins of those.

 

Regarding the maps - again it might be a lose some, gain some type of scenario for MP. I mean, how many people have we lost over the last two decades due to continuously flying over the same geography (granted, with graphical upgrades over that period). New maps might split the community a bit, but I tend to believe it will bring back people that left, and probably lure in people that never flew it before. (Particularly if we are talking about a Middle East map at some point..)

 

One thing I do know..DCS is fast approaching my dream of a real modular system that was our fantasy way back in the Jane's days. Remember JF-15 and JF-18 menus - they had the option for selecting campaign areas but they never got past adding anything after the initial release. With DCS World - I'm optimistic that we are going to see expansion and continued development. That's a good thing in my book.

 

BeachAV8R

[hawk2495]

I've got to go with C. I've flown a lot of sims over the years, but nothing I accomplished in those compared to the outright enjoyment of finally being able to "master" just the startup sequence on the Hog. It took me a while to figure out what did what, and when. Though when I was able to put that all together, it felt awesome. Nothing else I've played has really had that kind of effect. Of course, I was promptly shot down after my first successful ramp start and takeoff, but hey...lol

[Echo179]

I meant to type this up earlier, but I was on my phone.

 

The main reason that I don't desire to see a big civilian focus in DCS is because while it is currently focused on being a high fidelity flight sim, the vision is much bigger. Look at the name for crying out loud! It is Digital COMBAT Simulator. The vision is to portray and simulate combat, which isn't just confined to aircraft. Now, if TFC and ED want to take everything they have for an engine that gives the game a great flight model and such, and open up development to third parties or modders to create civilian modules for a separate program, I could see that. Have a civil side and a combat side. As lessons are learned on either side that cross over, they can be shared and integrated.

 

Eventually, it seems like DCS is meant to be a full fledged battle simulator, where armor and ground forces are engaged, helicopters are in support, navies are duking it out, and jets are flying all over to dominate the air space. And within that, players would be able to command units, or take direct control of different assets. This is what I think Combined Arms is a test bed for. Think Arma, but on a much bigger scale.

 

This is why I think ED needs to keep focus on DCS being a combat sim first. While there is currently a vacuum in the flight sim arena with FSX left decaying, ED and DCS didn't get to where they are by chasing the quick buck and jumping on the band wagon. They saw the niche fanbase from IP's past, such as the Jane's series. I see DCS as what Jane's always wanted to grow up to be. It has the potential, and I think once EDGE is released, and the system plays better with people's hardware, the possibilities will be amazing!

[cichlidfan]

This is why I think ED needs to keep focus on DCS being a combat sim first.

 

You never know where ED will go next.

 

We even hope to look into a train simulation component in the future!

 

;)

[313_Nevo]

I think virtual combo and civ pilots have really much in common. It is obvious from this particular examples DCS TF51 and FSX TACPACK (not really first cross-examples on the market).

 

Yes, Beach put it little bit 'extreme' - C172 sightseeing - but hey, what about recon (Camberra), ecm (EF111), refueling/cargo (KC46), etc. kind of planes? Are they combat? Are they civil? I would say the third option [from poll], little bit from BOTH (yes, I also can understand the poll my way). ;)

 

So we can all meet in one single environment with people doing combo stuff and other bunch doing 'civ' stuff (remember movie Air America? civ pilot hired to do some cargo flying 'under fire').

And imho there is no need to restrict the MP session somehow. If you are up to the task to knockout the Su27 with your F86 then go get 'em boy! If you can crawl low-level with C-17 from one base to other then feel free...

 

But.. I dont want to know where ED with DCS is planing to go. If I will know, maybe I will be disappointed (sweet ignorance) :pilotfly:

Edited November 25, 2014 by 313_Nevo