Aircraft unwish list ?

[The_Pharoah]

That's not true, but even if it couldn't be used to attack, that wouldn't make it a hanger queen at all.

 

I understand that people have preferences, but projecting opinion as fact doesn't really help. You wouldn't use it, but it's far, far, away from being useless.

 

Guys, I'm entitled to an opinion and thats my opinion. Its great that the C101 devs have actually developed and released something for DCS but I still stand by my opinion.

[Pman]

This VAEO Hispano Buchon. Complete waste of time, work and resources.

 

Hawk

C101

 

With all due respect.

 

I wasnt going to comment on this thread however...

 

Just because its not your cup of tea doesnt mean that its a "complete waste of time, work and resources"

 

I have a very clear development plan for VEAO and although not everything we do will be suited for everything I do believe that we have something for everyone.

 

Although this game has an element of combat in it, I do not believe that is all DCS is good for :)

 

I can easily envisage that we will at some point release a non combat aircraft or two

 

Pman

[skendzie]

I wasnt going to comment on this thread however...

 

Just because its not your cup of tea doesnt mean that its a "complete waste of time, work and resources"

 

I have a very clear development plan for VEAO and although not everything we do will be suited for everything I do believe that we have something for everyone.

 

Although this game has an element of combat in it, I do not believe that is all DCS is good for :)

 

I can easily envisage that we will at some point release a non combat aircraft or two

 

Pman

 

Awkward...:music_whistling:

 

But I can't say I disagree with the person you replied too. I don't consider it a waste of resources, but these are probably the only modules I have no intention of buying. I just have zero interest in flying these because I have zero interest in the aircraft.

 

Maybe if you put out a promotional video of the history of the airplane or tried to hype it up a little before release, there would be more people eager to pay top dollar for it.

 

I hope these aircraft lead to bigger and better things with your company but I just can't justify paying for half a product. Other modules include combat systems which in turn lead to multiplayer. If you can "just" fly the plane I don't see it worth being $40 or $50 DLC.

 

EDIT: Looking at the products again I see you actually can use the Hawk in combat and it's cheaper than I thought. That's nice. Still though, there are so many more modules that appeal more to me than the Hawk.

Edited March 10, 2015 by skendzie

[Exorcet]

Guys, I'm entitled to an opinion

I doubt anyone would argue. It goes for everyone though, and opinions can be responded to.

 

There is a difference between opinion and fact though. That you think something doesn't make it an opinion and "safe".

 

I could think that fighter jets are poor at maneuvering compared to bombers. Even if I proclaim that it's my opinion, that doesn't shield it from correction.

 

The C-101 is not useless in modern combat. That's a fact. It won't be a hanger queen in DCS. That's a fact and I know it because when it gets AFM and I buy it I'll be flying it. You wouldn't find it worth flying, that's an opinion, and that's perfectly fine.

[Pman]

As I said that's fair enough and we respect people's opinion :)

 

However one of the focus points we have to consider is expanding DCS's customer base.

 

One of the most effective ways to do that is to offer something different, if they already love what's going on they would already be here right? ;)

 

Now before anyone jumps on the maps/scenario bandwagon to attract people, it's not as easy as that to just make a map. By my rather conservative estimates it would take us at least a year to push out a map and we haven't done anything more then research at this point.

 

Expanding into different aircraft types is a quicker and move divergent way of bringing new people to DCS

 

As a pilot id love to see people clocking up hours in dcs c172 then xplane *burgh*

 

Pman

[q800]

I wasnt going to comment on this thread however...

 

Just because its not your cup of tea doesnt mean that its a "complete waste of time, work and resources"

 

I have a very clear development plan for VEAO and although not everything we do will be suited for everything I do believe that we have something for everyone.

 

Although this game has an element of combat in it, I do not believe that is all DCS is good for :)

 

I can easily envisage that we will at some point release a non combat aircraft or two

 

Pman

 

Mate. This is honest un-wish list. I'm just a dumbass with miserable 49$ in pocket to spend in a month and with some small amount of time to play DCS:). Buchon is ugly and boring and too similar to Bf-109 . It's not your fault :) I wouldn't even bother to read something about it. And i've got DCS: Bf-109. I'm completely not interested in buying it.

On the other hand i can't wait for Vampire and Meteor of yours. These are worth waiting. Cheers.

Edited March 10, 2015 by q800

[PFunk1606688187]

In the 476th we have these two brothers who joined us not long ago. One got the other into DCS and they both fly the A-10C with us. However, one brother simply wasn't keen on the A-10 at all, but his brother bought it for him anyway. It wasn't until he flew the P-51 though that he was interested enough to really think about the A-10 since he was a big WW2 simmer originally. If there was no P-51 in DCS for all I know we'd only have one of two brothers with us.

 

Wider appeal does have a value to the product as a whole. Whats more I'm sure that vSquadrons will be using trainer craft for just that, particularly once we get shared cockpit functionality.

[blkspade]

I am personally completely against non-combat aircraft in DCS, due in part to some conceptually broken elements in DCS that don't translate into a worthwhile civilian flight experience. Most obviously is the "Theater of Operations" map model. Many who are already primarily focused simulated airborne ordinance delivery, have complained of growing tired of Georgia, and yet upcoming maps will be smaller. Still functional for combat operation with crafty mission design, yet indefinitely bland when all that is left is going from Point A to Point B. Made especially worse if you're a transitioning sim pilot from a more thought out civil sim, where you've basically already learned to fly the plane. I don't think the ATC needs much elaboration.

 

There is really zero reason from a consumer point of view to invest in a DCS civilian flight module, if said consumer has only civilian interests. Besides that fact they probably have a large investment in FSX or X-Plane, Digital Combat Simulator doesn't even sound like the place they'd looking for their Cessna. It'd be like releasing DCS:CA Greyhound Bus, though the scaling is actually more appropriate.

[Exorcet]

I am personally completely against non-combat aircraft in DCS, due in part to some conceptually broken elements in DCS that don't translate into a worthwhile civilian flight experience.

Well, what's worthwhile is relative. If you're just not going to buy civilian modules that's fine. However, why oppose something that won't bother you?

 

Most obviously is the "Theater of Operations" map model. Many who are already primarily focused simulated airborne ordinance delivery, have complained of growing tired of Georgia, and yet upcoming maps will be smaller. Still functional for combat operation with crafty mission design, yet indefinitely bland when all that is left is going from Point A to Point B.

Not necessarily. The graphical detail in EDGE might lend itself more toward civilian flight that combat in some ways. The maps won't be bland even if they will start small (ED acknowledges that growth is possible, so we're not definitely stuck with small maps).

 

Personally for me, takeoff and landing are interesting enough, so even if it's just a short flight I don't mind. People like to say things like F-86's are useless without Korea and I see something similar here, like 777's are useless with the Atlantic Ocean. I don't think so, there are demo flights, ferry flights, etc.

 

 

Made especially worse if you're a transitioning sim pilot from a more thought out civil sim, where you've basically already learned to fly the plane. I don't think the ATC needs much elaboration.

I own FSX and XPlane. They are physics inferior to DCS, which is enough reason for me to prefer to do my civilian flying in DCS.

 

There is really zero reason from a consumer point of view to invest in a DCS civilian flight module, if said consumer has only civilian interests.

Why not? I think that's a preference thing. Again, physics are a big deal to me. Enough to trump what FSX and Xplane offer. Also, the people who would buy civ modules aren't limited to people with no interest in military modules.

 

Besides that fact they probably have a large investment in FSX or X-Plane, Digital Combat Simulator doesn't even sound like the place they'd looking for their Cessna. It'd be like releasing DCS:CA Greyhound Bus, though the scaling is actually more appropriate.

 

Then get the new simmers, or get the simmers invested into FSX and DCS to realize they only need the latter.

[msalama]

we will at some point release a non combat aircraft or two

 

If one of them is a Dak/DC-3/C-47, I'll buy it immediately and only fly supplies for the highest bidder thereafter 8) So who says civvie craft have no place in DCS? You lot need to get off that limited furball mentality and start envisioning a long campaign where logistics play a decisive part!

[blkspade]

Like I said personally, I don't care for them. Your POV though is as DCS customer already though. With that comes a certain level of bias that makes DCS Cessna an easier sell for you. Its not likely to sell particularly well inside the DCS community, let alone tapping into the incumbent civilian sim arena where people don't even realize DCS is a thing. That turns into a ROI issue at that point. I realize there are people into both sides of flight simulation, that wasn't the point being made in my statement. Its a niche genre on the whole that just has fewer people in that middle area, and graphical detail isn't the highest thing up on the list for most on either side (BMS?). Nothing wrong with ferry flights, but you don't lose the ability to do them with combat aircraft. Heck I fly the TF-51 around occasionally.

 

For me generally any combat aircraft is fair game regardless of theater as long as a contemporary enemy module exists. Which is made more important when the AI is stupid, broken, or owrks on "cheats".

 

Well, what's worthwhile is relative. If you're just not going to buy civilian modules that's fine. However, why oppose something that won't bother you?

 

 

Not necessarily. The graphical detail in EDGE might lend itself more toward civilian flight that combat in some ways. The maps won't be bland even if they will start small (ED acknowledges that growth is possible, so we're not definitely stuck with small maps).

 

Personally for me, takeoff and landing are interesting enough, so even if it's just a short flight I don't mind. People like to say things like F-86's are useless without Korea and I see something similar here, like 777's are useless with the Atlantic Ocean. I don't think so, there are demo flights, ferry flights, etc.

 

 

 

I own FSX and XPlane. They are physics inferior to DCS, which is enough reason for me to prefer to do my civilian flying in DCS.

 

 

Why not? I think that's a preference thing. Again, physics are a big deal to me. Enough to trump what FSX and Xplane offer. Also, the people who would buy civ modules aren't limited to people with no interest in military modules.

 

 

 

Then get the new simmers, or get the simmers invested into FSX and DCS to realize they only need the latter.

[Pman]

Like I said personally, I don't care for them. Your POV though is as DCS customer already though. With that comes a certain level of bias that makes DCS Cessna an easier sell for you. Its not likely to sell particularly well inside the DCS community, let alone tapping into the incumbent civilian sim arena where people don't even realize DCS is a thing. That turns into a ROI issue at that point. I realize there are people into both sides of flight simulation, that wasn't the point being made in my statement. Its a niche genre on the whole that just has fewer people in that middle area, and graphical detail isn't the highest thing up on the list for most on either side (BMS?). Nothing wrong with ferry flights, but you don't lose the ability to do them with combat aircraft. Heck I fly the TF-51 around occasionally.

 

For me generally any combat aircraft is fair game regardless of theater as long as a contemporary enemy module exists. Which is made more important when the AI is stupid, broken, or owrks on "cheats".

Speaking as a consumer and private pilot, ie not my role within dcs Dev.

 

I actually would fly whatever sim gives me the most real simulation available. To me the kind of scenery is nice etc but I wasn't to simulate flying aircraft as close to the real thing as I can from my home pc.

 

Big air liners are not my thing, hell although I fly (and have flown for a long time inside dcs before veao) alot in dcs I have probably done 10 combat missions in 5 years.

 

During my ppl I would happily have flown on flight aircraft for abit of virtual stick time and I can say with no doubt that flying dcs has improved my real life tail dragged technique. So the value as a learning tool in addition to a pure entertainment tool is there.

 

In my personal opinion there is so much more to the potential of DCS then BVR missile combat.

 

Pman

[NineLine]

In my personal opinion there is so much more to the potential of DCS then BVR missile combat.

 

Pman

 

Or I could just enjoy shooting your civilian aircraft while enjoying BVR missile combat :P

[blkspade]

Or I could just enjoy shooting your civilian aircraft while enjoying BVR missile combat :P

 

Could always go in for guns, and then everyone's happy.

[Pman]

Or I could just enjoy shooting your civilian aircraft while enjoying BVR missile combat

Spam chaff, flares! Rubber ducks!

 

Oh wait...

 

See you in hell sith!

 

Pman

[NineLine]

Could always go in for guns, and then everyone's happy.

 

Saving guns for Pman's chute ;)

 

Anyways... sorry for the OT... just had a shot... and I took it ;)

[AdrianJ]

Well to be honest I've had enough of this malarky and I'm unwishing everything, planes, helicopters and ground units. Now I'm looking for DGS (Digital Gardening Simulator)......

[NineLine]

Well to be honest I've had enough of this malarky and I'm unwishing everything, planes, helicopters and ground units. Now I'm looking for DGS (Digital Gardening Simulator)......

 

Begs the question, can you mow that new grass they have shown off for DCS 2.0? :D

[TwilightZone]

Well to be honest I've had enough of this malarky and I'm unwishing everything, planes, helicopters and ground units. Now I'm looking for DGS (Digital Gardening Simulator)......

Digital Gardening Simulator for all......:D

Edited March 10, 2015 by TwilightZone

[blkspade]

Saving guns for Pman's chute ;)

 

Anyways... sorry for the OT... just had a shot... and I took it ;)

 

I see what you did there btw, good one.

[7rooper]

I don't think developing variants of the same planes is a bad idea. No at all when they are so different or have been greatly upgraded like the SuperHornet, Strike Eagle, Ka-52.

[Echo38]

of cargo planes, trainers and relics that were sent to the scrap yards long before most people here were even born. It's exceedingly frustrating watching our modern air combat game get sucked into WW2 and the civilian side when there are already plenty of other current flight sims covering those topics.

 

Oh, come on. How many hardcore flight sims out there are covering WWII? If you count CloD as hardcore, that makes it exactly one, other than DCS, and how many fighters are even in CloD? Three, four ... ?

 

I've said it before: gripe about WWII fighters if you don't like 'em, but don't pretend us hardcore WWII-fighter folks have significant options beyond DCS. We don't. CloD is the only other thing that comes close, and ... well, I'm sure you've heard about CloD ...

 

There has never been a DCS-level P-38, F4U, F6F, A6M, Ki-43, P-40, etc., and, other than DCS, there's never been a P-47, FW 190, or P-51, either. Don't tell me there are plenty of flight sims covering those topics, unless you're counting the ones that don't bother to do it properly. Do I look like the kind of person who's interested in a flying game that only models half the aircraft?

 

There's only one viable option for maximum-fidelity WWII fighter sims, and that's DCS. Begrudge us the one sim we have, if you must, but don't pretend that we have other options within this niche.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Echo38

[King_Hrothgar]

IL2:BoS is a hardcore sim, it has 9 distinct planes and 11 if you count variants. Another 10 are planned for IL2:BoM which will be standalone or an addon like the original IL2 series. If you think BoS is not hardcore, then you don't think DCS is either since FC3 planes are substantially more simplified than those in BoS. One open source project and one closed project are enough for WW2 imho. Not that my opinion is going to stop VEAO from attempting to build the entire British fighter force from 1942 to 1955.

[NineLine]

Ok guys, lets not get into discussing other games. Keep the discussion on DCS World only please.

 

As for WWII in DCS... bring it, all eras, I want the ED treatment to all these planes...

[Jamovich]

Definitely not the Ader Eole ☺