dcs of distractions

[NeilWillis]

The key is not to look at DCS World as a finished product. It has been evolving continuously. Everyone has their personal view of what should and shouldn't be happening.

 

3rd party devs choose what they choose because of numerous factors. Trainers are less complex than full blown modern fighting aircraft, so they have clearly represented a way of accessing the ED system, so naturally they appear first.

 

The only realistic way to look at the environment is long term. Sure things are a little off balance, and DCS World lacks a lot of the refinements that will make it tick everyone's boxes. The thing to appreciate is that as each phase reaches completion, other stuff will get the attention it deserves. You just have to stick around and let them get on with it.

 

It is pointless trying to suggest any period/genre should take centre stage, because the developer community is widespread, and everyone of the teams have their own agendas. Also, what one person loves, another is indifferent towards. That's what it means to be human.

 

Sure, every period needs more maps, more aircraft, more of everything. That's what will ensure more production teams join the growing market that is DCS World.

 

DCS World may not be perfect, but it is the best out there, and by the looks of things, it will continue to be the only in-depth simulation sandbox, so I can't see what they're doing to be as bad as people suggest. The time to despair is the time there isn't anything else to develop or improve.

[Raven68]

ED know from experience to only give info about the closest to release projects, if they give to much to early and there are delays some members of the community don't handle it well, either way ED can not win, so best to stick to what is working for them.

 

This is so true. 2.5 slated for this year, but fell short. Initially it was a tough pill to swallow for the community, but in time we learn to move on and wait. I do feel they made amends with the massive update to NTTR. I am loving it and it has eased the pain of the 2.5 delay.

[Patersonski]

With regard to WWII, I think it's important for DCS' revenues and I have a similar story to Art-J. I'm not much of a jet guy, only discovered DCS a few months ago, but was hooked by the Mustang. I've now bought the Dora, Black Shark, Huey, Mig-21, and Sabre. I bought the -21, which I've barely flown, because LNS are ultimately doing the Corsair and Iwo Jima map so wanted to throw them a few bucks, although the money has no doubt been spent on the Viggen and F-14. The money I paid ED is helping pay for the F-18, and Belsimtek probably used my cash to help finish the F-5E. Point of all this being I'm one of many WWII guys subsidizing the development of your beloved jets.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Patersonski

[JDarksword]

When the Normandy Map releases next year WWII will actually have a purpose.

[QuiGon]

When the Normandy Map releases next year WWII will actually have a purpose.

 

Or this year ;)

[Kev2go]

well regarding ww2. Il2 BOS may not nessarily cover the ww2 fix as it only covers the eastern front and the participating aircraft circa 1941-1943.

 

 

DCS Normandy ww2 will offer the European theatre, and what we have so far are late ww2 aircraft from 1944-1945.

 

TBH i feel that flight simcommunity needed a newer take on ww2 aircraft from the latter part of the war. Il2 1946 is really old now, and BOS and CLOD are more recent, but only cover earlier aspects of the War.

 

I think its a positive that DCS isnt just about strictly modern jets, but is expanding to include other eras of aviation, including legacy jets and even ww2 pistons. That way its going to attract more than just the : modern Multirole fighter Jet crowd. Whilst i too came here because Modern jets i enjoy all eras of aviation, so I honestly cant hate on 3rd parties or even ED for developing something other than modern jet fighters.

 

Also whats worth noting is that ED themselves only made 1 trainer ( with 2 versions of the L39), the other trainers are 3rd party modules. 3rd parties can ultimately choose what aircraft they want and develop it for DCS as long as it meets ED quality control standards. As said by others Your not forced to own aircraft you are not interested in.

 

To the OP As far as full simulated 4th generation fighter jets go, we do have 1 outside of FC3 that is fully clickable . The Mirage 2000C. something you can buy to get your modern jet fix until the F/a18 and/or F14 arrive

Edited December 5, 2016 by Kev2go

[WinterH]

I've discussed and articulated this half a billion times on these forums, as did many others, therefore I'll just get it off my chest by stating basically.

 

Simply, (addressing the OP) you're right that DCS can be a lot better sim than it is, and completely wrong with everything else in the post :).

 

Edit : well quickly reading through the whole thread, I see that my non-contributing post was not too necessary, but since thread started as getting weight off one's chest, I guess my post can be seen as fair game in that sense as well :D. Anyways, cheers and have a good one.

Edited December 5, 2016 by WinterH

[Kippy]

I've got quite a lot of frustration built up on this topic as well. Allow me to pitch in my two cents here.

 

I've in the DCS Community a fair amount of time - long enough to see the arrival of modules like the Huey and the P-51D. Having spent time seeing modules be developed and released, I've noticed a divergence in the DCS Community. There are those who look for aircraft simulation of all time periods and flavors, and those who wish to fly aircraft relevant to the modern world.

 

Neither of these groups are wrong; personally, I belong to the latter. And it seems that the latter is completely ignored. What many pilots here wish for, myself included, is a modern, relevant multi-role fighter such as the F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C/E; the list goes on. Instead, however, we've been greeted with aircraft such as the Mig-21, F-86, L-39, C-101, FW-190, etc. The pattern is that none of these aircraft are relevant to the modern world. While these modules are fantastic and I'm sure there are those who enjoy them, they are not what a majority of the players here are looking for.

 

What makes this issue even worse is that we've now seen Eagle Dynamics develop the Spitfire module and Normandy at breakneck pace, meanwhile the module that will clearly and obviously top the selling charts (F-18C) has taken the back seat to projects such as the Spitfire and Normandy. Why a Spitfire and Normandy, when an F-15E and an Afghanistan terrain will generate much more revenue?

 

Some say that the reason we do not have access to modern modules is the classification of documentation needed to create a study-simulation level module. Humbug, I say. At the beginning of the development cycle for the A-10C Suite 3 module, I'm sure that some data needed to model things such as avionics was classified, but yet we still have things like TAD and Datalink with the A-10C module. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe ED received the data they needed for a consumer module in exchange for paying the Air Force a slice of the money. To me, this makes total sense. And EVEN IF the data they give us in this exchange may not be 100% true to life, I guarantee that the F-15E (for example) module would top sales chart far beyond the 100% true to life Su-7.

 

So let's do some math. Let's say ED releases an F-15E module. This is obviously an instant buy for people who are here for modern jets. As such, sales will be phenomenal.

 

10,000 people buy the module at $49.99, generating $499,900 in revenue. The Air force takes it's share (let's say 20%.) leaving a total of $399,920.

 

Now, Let's also say that ED releases an Su-7 module. It's rather obvious that not many people have in interest in the Su-7 compared to an aircraft like the F-15E, and we'll say that she only receives half the sales of the F-15E module at $49.99, bringing in a total of $249,950.

 

Even after the Air Force took their share, they still made >$100,000 on the F-15E module compared to the Su-7.

 

And I think most of the anger comes from how little we know about the development cycle. (I'm looking at you, F-18C.) Every Friday when the weekend news is released, we flock to the forums like hungry seagulls hoping for news of the latest and greatest projects, but are instead met with news of a "Screenshot contest" and a new sale for 20% off on irrelevant modules that many will not buy anyway. I always leave the forum, muttering to myself in anger on these Fridays.

 

The lack of news drives irritability within the playerbase nuts. I don't care if the weekend news for the F-18C development is "We wrote 1 line of code this week," It's still news and we know what's being done.

 

[/rant]

Edited December 5, 2016 by Kippy

[probad]

you guys

[David OC]

Trainer aircraft are a good place for 3rd party's to sink their teeth into DCS and make some sales, unless you have the skill, experience and data of say RAZBAM. Very impressive first module and I'm sure they are very happy to see their aircraft in a simulator that they deserve. Same for their harrier too.

 

The speed now for the ww2 aircraft is because of the development and skills learned. Big difference between these and the F18. This is next evolution for DCS and development will cost big dollars, how many times more than ww2 aircraft and trainers? Then you need to make the sales to justify the money and time spent. I'm glad ED and 3rd Party's will do whatever it takes to stay in business first and be around for a longtime.

Edited December 5, 2016 by David OC

[Silver_Dragon]

Neither of these groups are wrong; personally, I belong to the latter. And it seems that the latter is completely ignored. What many pilots here wish for, myself included, is a modern, relevant multi-role fighter such as the F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C/E; the list goes on. Instead, however, we've been greeted with aircraft such as the Mig-21, F-86, L-39, C-101, FW-190, etc. The pattern is that none of these aircraft are relevant to the modern world. While these modules are fantastic and I'm sure there are those who enjoy them, they are not what a majority of the players here are looking for.

 

Your are wrong....As hundred on hundred previous say on that forums about hardcore and multi-role fighters planes........

https://forums.eagle.ru/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2973836

 

What makes this issue even worse is that we've now seen Eagle Dynamics develop the Spitfire module and Normandy at breakneck pace, meanwhile the module that will clearly and obviously top the selling charts (F-18C) has taken the back seat to projects such as the Spitfire and Normandy. Why a Spitfire and Normandy, when an F-15E and an Afghanistan terrain will generate much more revenue?

 

Your are wrong again..... Spitfire, Fw-190, Bf-109, Normandia WW2 (all WW2 modules), has build by old RRG Studios team integrate into Eagle Dynamics team. ED has centred on F/A-18C, DCS: World 2.5 and planned modules and maps.

 

Some say that the reason we do not have access to modern modules is the classification of documentation needed to create a study-simulation level module. Humbug, I say. At the beginning of the development cycle for the A-10C Suite 3 module, I'm sure that some data needed to model things such as avionics was classified, but yet we still have things like TAD and Datalink with the A-10C module. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe ED received the data they needed for a consumer module in exchange for paying the Air Force a slice of the money. To me, this makes total sense. And EVEN IF the data they give us in this exchange may not be 100% true to life, I guarantee that the F-15E (for example) module would top sales chart far beyond the 100% true to life Su-7.

 

A-10C was based on DTT (Desktop trainer) to the USA Air National Guard Military/Professional project. The ANG authorised to ED to build a A-10C entertainment product with some "cuts" and "material classified / systems" not implemented and / or simplified.

 

Professional Eagle Dynamics section:

http://www.thebattlesim.com/about/

 

You cant build a system, IP, etc meanwhile military has not approved them or get a license by Military / aviation companies. Remember the old legal issue with Il-2 Pacific Fighter vs Douglas / Boeing.

 

The "claim" modules has some years on the "Wishlist", meanwhile ED or 3rd party confirm them, none has been confirmed.

[Buzzles]

Lots of stuff

Not to rag on you, but most of your post isn't right and is ill-informed. Silver_Dragon has filled in the important points.

 

So let's do some math...[snip]

...the world isn't that simplistic at the very least, you never took development costs into account.

Some examples: ED have previously posted the FM for the 109k4 took > $120,000. Best case is all airplanes take equal effort on the FM front.

 

Then we talk about systems modelling. In your examples, the Su-7 is a much simpler aircraft than the F15-E. Knowing that all things aren't equal on this front, modern planes will probably cost more to develop, simply because they've got more features and systems.

 

And I think most of the anger comes from how little we know about the development cycle. (I'm looking at you, F-18C.) Every Friday when the weekend news is released, we flock to the forums like hungry seagulls hoping for news of the latest and greatest projects, but are instead met with news of a "Screenshot contest" and a new sale for 20% off on irrelevant modules that many will not buy anyway. I always leave the forum, muttering to myself in anger on these Fridays.

 

The lack of news drives irritability within the playerbase nuts. I don't care if the weekend news for the F-18C development is "We wrote 1 line of code this week," It's still news and we know what's being done.

That is your personal opinion and issue, and you are projecting that out and claiming the playerbase shares them.

 

Fwiw, all you're going to accomplish is that more developers will act like BST did with the Mig-15, where it was announced and released within a couple of months, and there was no clue whatsoever in the community that it was being worked on for the 12+ months before then.

 

Think it's time this thread was locked, it's obviously not going to go anywhere nice now.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Buzzles

[Kippy]

Not to rag on you, but most of your post isn't right and is ill-informed. Silver_Dragon has filled in the important points.

 

...the world isn't that simplistic at the very least, you never took development costs into account.

Some examples: ED have previously posted the FM for the 109k4 took > $120,000. Best case is all airplanes take equal effort on the FM front.

All due respect, I think you've missed the point. The whole point was to show that popular modules are likely to generate more in revenue despite the additional costs. In my experience owning a business, I found that larger, popular projects of course required more money but often payed off due to sheer number of sales. This is just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt. I've never designed modules for flight simulators, that's just how I think things would work with cost to produce compared to net revenue.

[Kippy]

https://forums.eagle.ru/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=2973836

Dead Link

 

Your are wrong again..... Spitfire, Fw-190, Bf-109, Normandia WW2 (all WW2 modules), has build by old RRG Studios team integrate into Eagle Dynamics team. ED has centred on F/A-18C, DCS: World 2.5 and planned modules and maps.

 

I apologize... that is my foul. But keep in mind that I get my information from the weekly news, and I was unaware of this. The information must be around somewhere, but this is one of my points. Maybe ED could have done some more in depth news on the Spitfire to let us know that RRG Studios was doing the work? However I thank you for pointing this out. It has changed my opinion a bit on the subject.

 

 

A-10C was based on DTT (Desktop trainer) to the USA Air National Guard Military/Professional project. The ANG authorised to ED to build a A-10C entertainment product with some "cuts" and "material classified / systems" not implemented and / or simplified.

 

 

 

You cant build a system, IP, etc meanwhile military has not approved them or get a license by Military / aviation companies. Remember the old legal issue with Il-2 Pacific Fighter vs Douglas / Boeing.

 

The "claim" modules has some years on the "Wishlist", meanwhile ED or 3rd party confirm them, none has been confirmed.

Well, the process to develop a module must be longer than I had thought. So what exactly would ED need to develop say an F-16C?

[Kev2go]

I've got quite a lot of frustration built up on this topic as well. Allow me to pitch in my two cents here.

 

I've in the DCS Community a fair amount of time - long enough to see the arrival of modules like the Huey and the P-51D. Having spent time seeing modules be developed and released, I've noticed a divergence in the DCS Community. There are those who look for aircraft simulation of all time periods and flavors, and those who wish to fly aircraft relevant to the modern world.

 

Neither of these groups are wrong; personally, I belong to the latter. And it seems that the latter is completely ignored. What many pilots here wish for, myself included, is a modern, relevant multi-role fighter such as the F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C/E; the list goes on. Instead, however, we've been greeted with aircraft such as the Mig-21, F-86, L-39, C-101, FW-190, etc. The pattern is that none of these aircraft are relevant to the modern world. While these modules are fantastic and I'm sure there are those who enjoy them, they are not what a majority of the players here are looking for.

 

What makes this issue even worse is that we've now seen Eagle Dynamics develop the Spitfire module and Normandy at breakneck pace, meanwhile the module that will clearly and obviously top the selling charts (F-18C) has taken the back seat to projects such as the Spitfire and Normandy. Why a Spitfire and Normandy, when an F-15E and an Afghanistan terrain will generate much more revenue?

 

Some say that the reason we do not have access to modern modules is the classification of documentation needed to create a study-simulation level module. Humbug, I say. At the beginning of the development cycle for the A-10C Suite 3 module, I'm sure that some data needed to model things such as avionics was classified, but yet we still have things like TAD and Datalink with the A-10C module. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe ED received the data they needed for a consumer module in exchange for paying the Air Force a slice of the money. To me, this makes total sense. And EVEN IF the data they give us in this exchange may not be 100% true to life, I guarantee that the F-15E (for example) module would top sales chart far beyond the 100% true to life Su-7.

 

So let's do some math. Let's say ED releases an F-15E module. This is obviously an instant buy for people who are here for modern jets. As such, sales will be phenomenal.

 

10,000 people buy the module at $49.99, generating $499,900 in revenue. The Air force takes it's share (let's say 20%.) leaving a total of $399,920.

 

Now, Let's also say that ED releases an Su-7 module. It's rather obvious that not many people have in interest in the Su-7 compared to an aircraft like the F-15E, and we'll say that she only receives half the sales of the F-15E module at $49.99, bringing in a total of $249,950.

 

Even after the Air Force took their share, they still made >$100,000 on the F-15E module compared to the Su-7.

 

And I think most of the anger comes from how little we know about the development cycle. (I'm looking at you, F-18C.) Every Friday when the weekend news is released, we flock to the forums like hungry seagulls hoping for news of the latest and greatest projects, but are instead met with news of a "Screenshot contest" and a new sale for 20% off on irrelevant modules that many will not buy anyway. I always leave the forum, muttering to myself in anger on these Fridays.

 

The lack of news drives irritability within the playerbase nuts. I don't care if the weekend news for the F-18C development is "We wrote 1 line of code this week," It's still news and we know what's being done.

 

[/rant]

 

 

Again you cant blame ED for what 3rd parties develop. outside of DCS ww2, they are focusing on modern aspects, and Map development. even for a seasoned developer like ED> for them the L39 wasnt jsut a trainer. ITRserved as a experiment for making multi crew work. taking a baby step before moving on and developing say a F15E.

 

thing is some of the 3rd party groups arent familiar with dcs engine so its easier for them to start by developing a trainer or a legacy aircraft that isnt as complex as a modern jet. modern jets are time consuming and very complex due to the modern avionics, even more so for a entirely new coming 3rd party developer.

 

You can see that EDs well into late stages of development the the F18C. as for 3rd parties Leatherneck is creating the F14, Razbam made the Mirage 2000c( and they have planned the Harrier), and Veo simulations has the Eurofighter typhoon planned. thats 4 relevant modern jets. Its just a matter of patience. your modern jets will arrive in due time. I don't see it as neglect.

 

 

in the long run i think it works out fine that DCS has allowed expanded thier player-base beyond just modern multi role crowd, simply by not objecting to what 3rd parties choose to develop, and fufilling DCS ww2 which was initially a Kick starter campaign, therfore not screwing over people who donated money for this project. ANd as noted ED isnt directly making Normandy or ww2 aircraft, as they absorbed developers from another studio.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Kev2go

[gospadin]

Anyone is free to step up and develop a plane they want to see in DCS.

 

All it takes is some skill and a few years of your free time.

[Buzzles]

All due respect, I think you've missed the point. The whole point was to show that popular modules are likely to generate more in revenue despite the additional costs. In my experience owning a business, I found that larger, popular projects of course required more money but often payed off due to sheer number of sales. This is just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt. I've never designed modules for flight simulators, that's just how I think things would work with cost to produce compared to net revenue.

 

I didn't miss the point that more "popular" models will sell well ("popular" is eye of the beholder. I don't care about the F-16 for example).

 

What I was refuting was your simplistic strawman that stated popular == profit, and completely ignoring the cost.

 

Did you know the A-10C module took around 4 years to make? Or that ED have been working on the F-18 for well over 2 years now (maybe even 3+)? That's not just something you can wave off when it comes to what gets developed and when.

[OttoPus]

In before the lock:

 

I'm part of a 50+ multiplayer group, and I can ensure you that the feelings Kippy brought up are shared by ALL of them (included the WWII guys).

 

And I bet that is the same for the vas majority of this community.

 

The truth is that a lot of us wish to expose their feelings like Kippy did, but we are all in fear of heavy moderation, bans, thread locking, newsletter / communications cuts, you name it.

 

Appeasement is not always the best customer to company communication model, sometimes you have just to spit it out loud.

 

No hard feelings of course, DCS is still a - very nice and realistic - spare time hobby :)

[BIGNEWY]

Ottopus, sharing feelings will not get you banned, the delivery of those feelings is generally the problem, which is why we have rules. But this is off topic, if you want to discuss moderation PM me.

[Kozmyk]

IL2:BoS just does not compare to DCS standards. Fun - yes. Better than WT - yes.

 

Many of us would not be here supporting DCS World now if it weren't for DCS WW2.

I had had my fill of jets during the LOMAC, Flaming Cliffs 1 era.

I got in for the WW2 Kickstarter and that led me back to Eagle Dynamics' products.

While I AM now enjoying the more modern era jets once more, I have all the modules except C-101, it is the prospect of viable WW2 planes and maps that excites me the most.

That's money that DCS would not have had if it weren't for DCS WW2.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Kozmyk

[Silver_Dragon]

I apologize... that is my foul. But keep in mind that I get my information from the weekly news, and I was unaware of this. The information must be around somewhere, but this is one of my points. Maybe ED could have done some more in depth news on the Spitfire to let us know that RRG Studios was doing the work? However I thank you for pointing this out. It has changed my opinion a bit on the subject.

 

You need make a Deep search to get some info in the forums and see them form a different perspective (not only centred on a newsletter).

 

WW2 FAQ:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=126824

 

Well, the process to develop a module must be longer than I had thought. So what exactly would ED need to develop say an F-16C?

 

That is only some "request" to a (add them your favourite aircraft's).

- Base technology (ground radar, multi-crew to a trainer version / 2 crew) and a long etc....

- IP and / or military approval (the very hard part, explained below) and of course approval to build a "entertainment version" and release them.

- approved procedure, system, weapons, wing tunnel flight model, engine performance data and a long etc (declassified and / or authorised).

- develop time (3-5 years), skilled personal and great quantity of founding (and of course dont interference with your military/professional and the To-Do planned and on develop entertainment market release projects).

- military and or technical personal to test and approve the model.

- Surely more and more requests....

 

About IP.... some facts....

- The previous A-10C approval with the DTT ANG. Ka-50 was based on a "technological demonstrator" with Kamov.

- Belsimtek need some mounts of negotiation with Bell Trexton to get a approval to release the UH-1H. Mi-8 was based on a professional flight simulator trainer (AVIA LTD/Concord XXI), approved to release some years after professional version was release.

- VEAO was initial plans to make a A-4 Skyhawk but deplete them with the licence money request to the IP was prohibitive expensive. The Hawk T.1 was require Royal Air Force (RAF) approval to release (2+ legal negotiation about a specific version). Now work with RAF on a Eurofighter Trainer, but the "approval" version to entertainment version has heavy restricted (actually on progress but not release date). Has other "military project" approved but not news about what model or if we can see them.

- Polychop required a EADS / German government approval to release the Sa342 Gazzele project and now await the approval to the Bo-105.

- Russian aircraft's has restricted by the "official secret military law", and actually has none russian confirmed as "hardcore" modules.

- ED require to all 3rd parties some type of gubernamental / professional and / or military "approval" to get a module develop into DCS: World.

[westr]

I know this is a shot in the dark and will make 0 difference but I want to get it off my chest anyways. DCS could have been 10 times the sim it is, if it was planned right from the beginning.

 

There is no reason to have 4 trainer aircrafts with such an incomplete sim. Even in real life the point of trainer aircrafts is the price/experience to run a real one. BUT this is a sim! I'd rather have my F-14 right away and crash it a million times as i learn. It makes no sense to have F-15, SU-27 modelled at FC3 levels, and have WW2 aircraft fully clickable. It doesn't even make sense to have WW2 in DCS yet. PERIOD. you really need to establish the infrastructure and modern aircrafts first, YOU are the only ones in the modern fighter jet business. IL-2 is available if people need their WW2 fix, but DCS is the one and only for modern fighters. If anything WW2 aircrafts are all about the dogfights, ballistics etc so it makes sense to have it like IL-2 level inside the cockpit. Fighters on the other hand need a fully clickable cockpit because of the complexity required in dealing with the systems.

 

Also your company has reached a size where it's almost inexcusable the amount of delays(due to stuff mentioned above most likely, and causing community jokes "TWO WEEKS"), the prices, the communication/transparency with customers about how far products are, and lastly the prices. In any product, as you go through many iterations and learning processes the level of complexity/quality increases or the time/price decreases. It saddens me that the A10C was released 5.5 years ago, and it trumps almost everything that has come out since. We expect the quality to go up ( and if that is impossible to do DCS world limitations that is understandable), but at least the price, and time between products should be drastically decreased as you learn the ropes with every new aircraft.

 

So for my wish, i hope you get to work on what i view as the important stuff for a modern combat simulator. Like a dynamic campaign (available in falcon for ages, I'm positive one can be made that is order of magnitudes better than theirs), Modern aircrafts(f16s rafale, f-35 :P or WHATEVER you guys can get your hands on for the public), and finally new MODERN conflict maps to match the aircrafts. Thank you for reading this and I'd love to hear what I'm missing out on or not seeing correctly. Also, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this.

 

For me I love all aviation and there will be a lot of sim lovers the same. So not only am I craving for a Tomcat in DCS I also cant wait for the Spitfire. Two of my very favourite aeroplanes. Now I have no problem with you expressing your opinion, we all have opinions, but I'd like to point out that the other sim you mentioned in your post, I own. I don't enjoy it. Haven't given up on it yet but certainly don't give it the sort of time I give to DCS. The graphics are fantastic yes. But the complexity of the modelling of an aircraft is not to the same standard and I'm not just talking of clickable cockpits. It was explained once by one of the moderators how much it actually costs to develop just the flight model on a DCS module. And it shows the FMs of the warbirds are fantastic. I want my favourite aircraft modelled and represented as realistically as possible and I know that's what I will get with DCS. So yes I want WW2 in DCS. Hell if DCS went down the route of WW1 I would be interested although I do think that would be a conflict of interest for them ATM. The delays are part and parcel of developing such complicated modules so yeah none of us enjoy waiting but most of us understand and we accept that you wait for good quality things. Pricing well that's to be expected for reasons I already explained. DCS is yet to realise it's full potential undoubtedly but when it does nothing out there will touch it as a simulation. Like I said please don't think you can't express your opinion but in this circumstance I don't agree. :)

[SilentWarrior]

The reality is, if you want high fidelity, you need to go for Air to Ground aircraft.

 

The Mirage while fun is no match for the other FC3 planes.

 

And all the other aircraft we currently have are hobby-only. I have a lot of fun flying all the choppers (i got them all) but the only one that gets anything done is the Ka-50. Same with the airplanes.

 

I have All high fidelity jets except for two of them and they are fun but useless in multiplayer.

 

I feel your pain, in multiplayer, in current PvP settings there is not even a single high fidelity match against the F-15 v SU-27 pair. I feel that even the Su-27 is lacking behind the F-15 by a big margin, but with its IR missiles and hardcore player base it evens out a little bit.

 

In any case... a little advise, in online forums its pointless to complain about the obvious. People will go after you like crack addicts for it.

 

It has happen to me over and over since I started to participate in forums/irc/etc back in 1997.

[myHelljumper]

The reality is, if you want high fidelity, you need to go for Air to Ground aircraft.

 

The Mirage while fun is no match for the other FC3 planes.

 

And all the other aircraft we currently have are hobby-only. I have a lot of fun flying all the choppers (i got them all) but the only one that gets anything done is the Ka-50. Same with the airplanes.

 

I have All high fidelity jets except for two of them and they are fun but useless in multiplayer.

 

I feel your pain, in multiplayer, in current PvP settings there is not even a single high fidelity match against the F-15 v SU-27 pair. I feel that even the Su-27 is lacking behind the F-15 by a big margin, but with its IR missiles and hardcore player base it evens out a little bit.

 

In any case... a little advise, in online forums its pointless to complain about the obvious. People will go after you like crack addicts for it.

 

It has happen to me over and over since I started to participate in forums/irc/etc back in 1997.

 

I do not agree with your reality, I kick Su-27 and F-15 all day in my mirage and I can be very efficient with a gazelle. Of course if you want it to be easier you can go for the most advanced aircraft.

[SilentWarrior]

I do not agree with your reality, I kick Su-27 and F-15 all day in my mirage and I can be very efficient with a gazelle. Of course if you want it to be easier you can go for the most advanced aircraft.

 

I am not too shabby with mirage either, but it does not mean they are on the same level.

 

Its very fun to go low and fast on the mirage and shoot people down when they are not expecting, and shoot down almost everyone in close dogfights but you can do that in the F-5 too. I am not saying the mirage is at the same level of the F-5 either by the way.

 

The gazelle is very efficient if the TA is not at 2 hours flight-time distance and has fewer than 3 targets lol.