The 'bis' doesn't cover the Vietnam War

[NineLine]

It is your responsibility as a mission builder to ensure historical accuracy in loadouts/airframe assignment etc, if you want the developer to do all the legwork for you in that regard, expect a much higher priced module.

 

Naw, I dont think you are looking at a higher price, this feature will need to be added in some form sooner or later as we get more era specific theatres and units... I mean even just for the auto-mission generator alone, it will be a must when we get WWII units in the sim.

[bin801]

I think many here are aware of that, but starving DCS vpilots make do with what they have. Btw the 109K4 and 190D9 are not the correct variants for the Normandy map either.

 

When ED gives you an orange, you can still make some kind of apple pie... just with oranges... uhh, yep.

 

Totally agree

[cichlidfan]

Naw, I dont think you are looking at a higher price, this feature will need to be added in some form sooner or later as we get more era specific theatres and units... I mean even just for the auto-mission generator alone, it will be a must when we get WWII units in the sim.

 

You are right but I suspect that it won't be at the detail level that Vampyre is looking for. I that it will be a more general period grouping. If ED tried to pin down exact time frames for every aircraft and weapon model, it would only lead to endless arguments about when and where something was, or was, not used.

[kontiuka]

Naw, I dont think you are looking at a higher price, this feature will need to be added in some form sooner or later as we get more era specific theatres and units... I mean even just for the auto-mission generator alone, it will be a must when we get WWII units in the sim.

Heh, ya right now you do an autogen with a P-51 and you end up attacking SA-15s.

[NineLine]

You are right but I suspect that it won't be at the detail level that Vampyre is looking for. I that it will be a more general period grouping. If ED tried to pin down exact time frames for every aircraft and weapon model, it would only lead to endless arguments about when and where something was, or was, not used.

 

 

I would be happy with the service dates being added to the units, and then the ability to limit those units by that service date, then the mission builder would be responsible to place the correct units if they were building a historically correct mission. That would atleast cut down on the list of units if we do indeed get not just WWII units but other eras as well...

 

So I set my mission to 1944, and you have an option to limit units by that date, or an option to ignore that date and have all units available. Something simple like that.

[NineLine]

Heh, ya right now you do an autogen with a P-51 and you end up attacking SA-15s.

 

Well if you limit it right now, by service date, you wouldn't get much to fly your Mustang against :)

[Toxic]

I am just happy that we have a 21 :)

[kontiuka]

Well if you limit it right now, by service date, you wouldn't get much to fly your Mustang against :)

I guess that's true.

[Vampyre]

You are right but I suspect that it won't be at the detail level that Vampyre is looking for. I that it will be a more general period grouping. If ED tried to pin down exact time frames for every aircraft and weapon model, it would only lead to endless arguments about when and where something was, or was, not used.

 

What exactly are you thinking with the general period grouping? How would you imagine the periods be broken down?

[cichlidfan]

I mean that if you set a mission date for Aug 5, 1942 and a specific weapon or aircraft was not actually available until January, 1943, don't expect the ME to have that discriminating of a filter for available aircraft and weapons.

[Vampyre]

I would indeed like to see missiles, rockets, bombs and gunpods included in the service date timeline. I'm not sure if internal weapons can be edited in this fashion at all so I don't expect that to be a feature as I am imagining it. What is needed is an in service from and to date for the objects in question be it aircraft, weapons, ground units, or ships. The strike fighter series of games proves that it can indeed be done in a very simple fashion. How detailed it becomes depends on how realistic ED wants to make it.

[msalama]

its just going to take some time to get there.

 

True, but the overall feel of the series as it stands now is one of incompleteness regardless.

 

Now I can live with that quite happily since all I really need for the time being is a Huey, some badguys and a map to fly the bugger on. But others seem to disagree, and I kind of understand their position as well...

[msalama]

...that discriminating of a filter for available aircraft and weapons.

 

Why not? As I remember it, even IL-2 had that aeons ago already.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

A higher priced module, like the Strike Fighters 2 series?

 

In all fairness, open architecture has been a cornerstone of that series since its inception, and allowing a date range for weapons loadouts, variants, or skins is as easy as adding a line in a config file. I would also like to see something like that in DCS. It's not a lot of work to add that to a database, and I'm sure you would have somebody creating a mod enhancing those capabilities.

 

I'm in agreement with Vampyre on this one, if for no other reason that if a checkbox were implemented this would at least reduce the number of loadout combinations visible onscreen (making for a less cluttered interface).

 

EDIT: we already have national restrictions on aircraft that requires modding a lua file to work around, or unrealistic affiliations (i.e. A-10C for everybody); being able to uncheck this for sandbox builders would be a good thing I would think.

 

You know, I'd hurl money at the monitor if we were to get Strike Fighter content in DCS. Fishbeds vs. Crusaders hnnnnnnnnnng

[NeilWillis]

DCS World can't be all things to all people just yet.

 

Right now, the only way you can look at things is that it is a work in progress, and just lately that progress has leapt ahead, and promises a lot more to come yet.

 

Frankly, it is good that we have any mark of any airframe at this stage. Will variants arrive so you can be historically precise - probably not for a long time to come, if ever, given the limited client pool, and limited funds available to most of us.

 

Whilst some people see such things as the exact mark of a given aircraft being required to reproduce a certain era, others just see a MiG-21, and that's good enough. Both views are OK among like-minded people, so find your particular niche, and go with it. It is however human nature to be individuals, and I can promise you, trying to persuade everyone that your way is the right way is a recipe for disaster. Live and let live!

 

Is he right? Definitely. Does it matter? To some, absolutely. To others, not a jot.

 

If we had a Phantom, it probably wouldn't be a Nam variant either, but you can bet it'd be going head to head with the Bis, in vertical scissors, and probably with a built in gun too. Would it be 'Nam reincarnate? Nope, but it'd still be rewarding to many.

 

You could say the same about just about every other encounter, especially the A-10C flying over Georgia!!!

 

It is what it is, until you personally decide to create the correct variant - if you have the time resources and skills - until then, it is what it is. Like it or lump it.

[tsb47]

Everyone appreciates the fantastic works of the developers in getting DCS to where it's at now. But a lot of DCS users - including me - would like to recreate Vietnam-era air battles, with period correct aircraft models, weapons and maps. All we're doing is asking for what we want. What is the harm in that?

 

In my opinion, those who poo poo others' feature requests are doing DCS, its community and its developers a big disservice. They stop developers from getting feedback on what the community wants (and will pay them for).

 

In the same vein, it's annoying to see "I'd really like to see this feature" posts being replied to by other (non-developer) members saying "You'll never get that feature - what a silly idea!". Unless the responding member is a developer, it seems unlikely they're in an informed position to comment on whether a feature is going to be considered for implementation or not. So I don't think such posts add much to the conversation.

[Hadwell]

I think these guys put in their time and effort to make something they actually liked and enjoyed making, I'm always sure someone who has pride in the things they do and actually wants to make something will create a better product than someone who just makes something because they were told to.

[tsb47]

I think these guys put in their time and effort to make something they actually liked and enjoyed making, I'm always sure someone who has pride in the things they do and actually wants to make something will create a better product than someone who just makes something because they were told to.

 

I totally agree... but:

 

1. We are asking, not telling.

 

2. I think someone can like, enjoy and have pride in making something they were asked to make. Particularly where the request comes from a mature, loyal and appreciative fan-base, like we have for Mig 21 and DCS, and is made to a group of consummate professionals, like Leatherneck.

 

3. It would be very surprising if the developers did not like feature/module requests from the community. After all, they are getting direct feedback from their customers about what they want to buy from their businesses.

[Hadwell]

Well asking as if its common sense "why isnt this already a thing?" Style and expecting anything from it is as close to telling someone as it gets without downright saying "make this now!"

[Angelthunder]

Well,for one thing.We don't even have a Vietnam map yet and probably will not get one for least a couple of years.I'm sure some day well get other variants of the same aircraft or helo.But not until the game improves and we get more things added to it.

[NeilWillis]

Everyone appreciates the fantastic works of the developers in getting DCS to where it's at now. But a lot of DCS users - including me - would like to recreate Vietnam-era air battles, with period correct aircraft models, weapons and maps. All we're doing is asking for what we want. What is the harm in that?

 

In my opinion, those who poo poo others' feature requests are doing DCS, its community and its developers a big disservice. They stop developers from getting feedback on what the community wants (and will pay them for).

 

In the same vein, it's annoying to see "I'd really like to see this feature" posts being replied to by other (non-developer) members saying "You'll never get that feature - what a silly idea!". Unless the responding member is a developer, it seems unlikely they're in an informed position to comment on whether a feature is going to be considered for implementation or not. So I don't think such posts add much to the conversation.

 

Why do other posters here say "you won't get that"?

 

Because we live in the real world, and know just how much work goes into one of these modules. The MiG-21Bis too years to reach release, and will have cost the developers an absolute fortune before a single copy was sold.

 

In order to recover those costs, they have to be sure the module will sell, and recover that outlay.

 

One Mig-21 will sell well - and be popular. But frankly, releasing a second just to satisfy the historians here - that may just well be too big a risk.

 

Also, having seen how long some bug fixes take to materialise, it is patently obvious that the developers have a huge amount of work on their hands, and are far far more likely to come up with one of the myriad other aircraft that are not represented at all in DCS World yet, which will naturally attract far more interest and sales than a slight variant of an existing model.

 

Here on DCS World, we call that common sense.

 

I think you'll find that this thread began not as any kind of request, but merely as a gripe, stating that some of us here are just ignorant of the facts. Read it again, just that entry, and not the rest, and then consider what the replies are responding to.

 

Anyone is entitled to make any request they want, but the perceived tone of the thread ruffled feathers, and got a response.

 

 

Keep in mind, I am not asking/demanding new modules here, only the re-evaluation of an apparently collective approval of a false notion prominent on the forums here.

 

This is typical of the kind of thread drift we get here. Don't twist the argument, and don't imply that I am trying to prevent people asking for specific additions/developments.

 

What I objected to was the fact that someone was trying to talk down to people. The reality is, we have ONE variant of the MiG-21, and we have ONE variant of the Bf-109 too. Does that simply mean we cannot simulate Nam, or D-Day? Does that mean we can only fly a period covering three weeks in July 19 blah blah blah because later, the aerial we see if we look very carefully at the right rear of the F-97 clearly shows it is the Mk 43b/6 model, and not the Mk 43b/5.

 

As I already stated, some see that as a real problem, and that's all well and good. Just don't expect to find your views are universal.

 

Oh, and don't put words in anyone's mouths either.

[Harle]

Everyone appreciates the fantastic works of the developers in getting DCS to where it's at now. But a lot of DCS users - including me - would like to recreate Vietnam-era air battles, with period correct aircraft models, weapons and maps. All we're doing is asking for what we want. What is the harm in that?

 

In my opinion, those who poo poo others' feature requests are doing DCS, its community and its developers a big disservice. They stop developers from getting feedback on what the community wants (and will pay them for).

 

In the same vein, it's annoying to see "I'd really like to see this feature" posts being replied to by other (non-developer) members saying "You'll never get that feature - what a silly idea!". Unless the responding member is a developer, it seems unlikely they're in an informed position to comment on whether a feature is going to be considered for implementation or not. So I don't think such posts add much to the conversation.

 

Why would I care what particular variant flew in Vietnam? If I was given the terrain, I'd be flying a bis there just fine.

[Hadwell]

Given time, I'm sure at least some variant of the F-4, f-18, f-14, maybe a few more migs, and some new maps will be released... it's just the time scales for these really ambitious projects, mostly because of the nicheness and the small dedicated teams, rather than large corporations developing them... a 30 year old might wonder if they'll be retired by the time the exact plane they want is done lol...

 

on the same note, all the systems that are in the mig-21 that are the same in say... the mig-23(autopilot and rwr for example), they don't need to reprogram, everything in dcs is modular, so the more planes they make that you don't want, the easier it is for them to make the planes you do.

 

but flight sims are a lot more complicated than they were back in the il2fb days, you can't expect 20 variants of one plane anymore...

Edited February 15, 2015 by Hadwell

[tsb47]

Given time, I'm sure at least some variant of the F-4, f-18, f-14, maybe a few more migs, and some new maps will be released... it's just the time scales for these really ambitious projects, mostly because of the nicheness and the small dedicated teams, rather than large corporations developing them... a 30 year old might wonder if they'll be retired by the time the exact plane they want is done lol...

 

on the same note, all the systems that are in the mig-21 that are the same in say... the mig-23(autopilot and rwr for example), they don't need to reprogram, everything in dcs is modular, so the more planes they make that you don't want, the easier it is for them to make the planes you do.

 

but flight sims are a lot more complicated than they were back in the il2fb days, you can't expect 20 variants of one plane anymore...

 

Agreed and understood. If making a Mig 23 is made easier by having a Mig 21bis, then presumably a Mig 21 PFM (for example) would be even easier again because of the greater number of shared systems?

[Hadwell]

the systems, as in the code... not the 3d and texture work or the flight model changes...