Jump to content

CE2... Why? Good? Bad?


MrSloanes

Recommended Posts

If the totally free TF51 weren't in the game, I might agree with you.

 

If people want to buy it for acrobatics, fine we've got our novelty module now go knock yourselves out.

 

What I don't want to see is anymore simple GA modules that don't fit with the rest of DCS be developed just because they're easier to make.

i7-4790k @ 4.4GHZ, 32GB G. Skill Ripjaws DDR-2133 RAM, EVGA GTX 1080Ti FTW3, Crucial M500 SSD, VKB MCG, TWCS Throttle, MFG Crosswind, TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the totally free TF51 weren't in the game, I might agree with you.

 

If people want to buy it for acrobatics, fine we've got our novelty module now go knock yourselves out.

 

What I don't want to see is anymore simple GA modules that don't fit with the rest of DCS be developed just because they're easier to make.

 

Well, a lot of simple GA aircraft have found themselves re-purposed for combat and other military roles. The AC-208 is a great example. They exist simply because the nations operating them lack the funds for anything else. It's a reality of defense contracting that work arounds and solutions be found. If we want DCS to become a more accurate combat sim, then we need to accept the reality that warfare, much like nature, evolves in a manner to suit the pressures of the environment.

 

Those should be welcome in DCS.

 

That said, the closest I've seen a Pitts or competitor like the Eagle II come to the military was the camera work done by Art Scholl in Top Gun. So, you too, can enter yourself into an unrecoverable spin and perish. :thumbup:

 

So, really, I'd question the addition of the CE2 when there have been combat biplanes. The Falco? The F3F? The absolute legend that is the Swordfish? I'd be curious to see a much more in depth explanation as to why they chose the Eagle II.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the totally free TF51 weren't in the game, I might agree with you.

 

If people want to buy it for acrobatics, fine we've got our novelty module now go knock yourselves out.

 

What I don't want to see is anymore simple GA modules that don't fit with the rest of DCS be developed just because they're easier to make.

 

 

 

Its a test bed for them, it will enable them to make better modules in the future. Plus dcs expands a little in scope. I dont see any negatives, only some expectations werent met, and so the whining begins.

We all need good stick n rudder skills, a much overlooked aspect of flying these days ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think this is a fantastic idea. I mean have these naysayers ever actually seen one of these planes do its thing IRL? It's INCREDIBLY impressive and technical.

 

I can't believe anyone wouldn't want to fly such a crazy nimble aircraft

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the totally free TF51 weren't in the game, I might agree with you.

 

Yes, that undermines the whole "soften the learning curve" argument. Noobs will stick with the free plane rather than buying an additional module to help them learn the jet module they really want.

Would like to see:

Panavia Tornado

Panther AS565

English Electric Lightning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any aircraft is welcome in DCS, assuming it meets its quality standards. People who don't like it, shouldn't buy it. It is as simple as that.

I think the reason people are complaining is that there are a limited number of third party developers who develop a limited number of planes each year (like 3 or 4 total), while the list of planes that people want (Tornados, F-4s, F-16s etc) is insanely large. Who asked for an obscure aerobatic biplane?

 

That said, Leatherneck are a private company and they can do what they want. The CE2 is a unique plane to have in DCS and for that I do appreciate it, but I, nor almost everybody else, will be buying it unless it is priced much lower than normal.

 

It's not an inherently bad thing to have this plane, it's just that the work could have been spent on something people really wanted more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason people are complaining is that there are a limited number of third party developers who develop a limited number of planes each year (like 3 or 4 total), while the list of planes that people want (Tornados, F-4s, F-16s etc) is insanely large. Who asked for an obscure aerobatic biplane?

 

Pretty much this. Time is limited. Resources are limited. We better vote with our dollar so that the devs prioritize accordingly.

  • Like 1

My controls & seat

 

Main controls: , BRD-N v4 Flightstick (Kreml C5 controller), TM Warthog Throttle (Kreml F3 controller), BRD-F2 Restyling Bf-109 Pedals w. damper, TrackIR5, Gametrix KW-908 (integrated into RAV4 seat)

Stick grips:

Thrustmaster Warthog

Thrustmaster Cougar (x2)

Thrustmaster F-16 FLCS

BRD KG13

 

Standby controls:

BRD-M2 Mi-8 Pedals (Ruddermaster controller)

BRD-N v3 Flightstick w. exch. grip upgrade (Kreml C5 controller)

Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle

Pilot seat

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best analogy is; this is Jar Jar Binks, Yak 52 is Phantom menace, ED is George Lucas. Some will love them, some will hate them but in the end George will make bank out them either way.

  • Like 1

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, stop complaining about this. You have to keep some things in mind:

 

These military craft you all want modeled to super detail are expensive and time consuming to create. A-10C flight/systems model took three years to make. The F-18 took TWO YEARS of negotiations with the DoD. These are major drawn out ordeals that drain a lot of resources.

 

No one developer is apt to be able to handle more than one or two of them at a time, for starters. This isn't the sort of thing you can simply throw more code monkeys at and expect them to crap out Shakespeare.

 

If, by expanding into the "civilian market", which is much easier/cheaper/less headache to deal with (which most of these developers are ALREADY involved in for OTHER simulators, not to mention they may be able to pull some of their work over here, saving on time/resources they've already invested) we can only benefit, here's how :

 

If they start drawing some of the FSX/Xplane folks over here in larger number, they receive an influx of cash at no cost to you, giving them the very resources they need to create some of the aircraft on your wishlists. If you never see any of these people on a multiplayer server, or all they do is aerobatics, it doesn't COST YOU anything, but it DOES benefit you.

 

Think past the end of your nose, life is easier that way.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they start drawing some of the FSX/Xplane folks over here in larger number, they receive an influx of cash at no cost to you, giving them the very resources they need to create some of the aircraft on your wishlists. If you never see any of these people on a multiplayer server, or all they do is aerobatics, it doesn't COST YOU anything, but it DOES benefit you.

 

Think past the end of your nose, life is easier that way.

 

If ED wants money, like all of it, they need to do a three things:

 

1) Start adding and supporting a civilian aircrafts, as well larger maps. Meaning that civilian virtual pilots can come and traffic people and cargo from airport A to airport B etc inside a country, as between multiple countries, so then there are reason for military aircrafts to do the patrolling and policing etc. Civilian pilots to avoid conflict areas/countries etc.

 

But one can already see the challenge if the map needs to be a half europe or so. Possible with civilian air as you fly high and anyways more realistically and really get low only at the airports. But still one could do the take-off and landing with smaller passenger aircrafts even in current Caucasus map.

 

2) Get the Combined Arms module up and running. That so they can attract big chunk of the RTS gamers out there who loves games like "Wargame: Airland Battle" or the whole Wargame series all together by its cold war theme. Implement such simple camera and unit commanding system in DCS World units and mechanics and there would be lots of players to get their RTS experience going on at ground.

 

Implement a more realistic communication system than there is now with instant knowledge, so that RTS gamers need to communicate with the military virtual pilots, gather their own intelligence and talk it to them. So it would be slower paced combat (closer to Close Combat game series

) instead fast paced like in Wargame.

So that means virtual pilots would have a someone with CA module commanding ground troops, doing their tactics and following their strategy, that virtual pilots are supporting and implementing by themselves too.

 

It would lead a 24/7 server where different registered players are given different troops in control and different tasks (that is already partially supported in DCS) so that everyone ain't commanding everyone and that way even RTS gamers need to learn to play together as larger group. So troops are not started to move without higher level approval as everyone is trying to get commands from top to down and complete them. Server virtual pilots would have fun time when required air supports schedules comes and it is time when they can't fly, but someone else get to do the fun sorties...

 

3) SAM, EW, AWACS, GCI and ATCT implemented so that some players could get to operate a given positions with their limited capabilities. Communicate, report, deliver data to defense network, schedule landings, shoot at the enemies etc etc. Every single position could be fun. Like ATCT has the lists for take-offs and landings as expected, otherwise guide the air traffic around airport and operate the unscheduled aircrafts. Command the more common airfield services (repairs, emergency landings etc) and choose parking locations etc etc.

 

IMHO the RTS part would be most critical one, as it would give the access to ground troops as for the radar operations. Of course the radar operations could be a totally own module called even as "DCS: Radar Operator" or something if going so complex system.

 

But at this moment the games that has CA player with, are far more fun than just generic scripted missions. To time the attacks, to give the support and operate with ground troops is something totally different. Just like when you have a good AWACS or GCI that is guiding you to enemies etc, is more fun than flying alone blindly. But all requires a more realistic information network and its limitations. So if a ground troops recon force gets ambushed and engaged, that information doesn't arrive realtime to everyone else. Instead have the simulation for the radio calls to move between corresponding levels. So a any player can do mistakes and engage own troops.

 

The AI should be better than now, so the RTS player can leave or jump to some other position (commanding officer) so the AI follows given orders, like routes, schedules etc at least on basic level, and informs up if there is something questionable so human player can come to check things.

 

And such would nicely work with a rumored tank module (as ED wanted more info about them) with improved terrain engine and so on.

 

That could as well attract players who like something like Steel Beasts or Steel Armor: Blaze of War.

 

 

Aircrafts like CE2 or such would be there too to attract some players. As not everyone want to do only combat sorties, but could be there to train flying with other ones.

That is just the sad limitation that DCS is focused to combat and not to compete with other civilian simulators.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the bashing at all tbh.

 

Except for completing the MiG-21, the developers are not in any duty to us customers at all. I'm sure, they considered all the pros and cons of a development of such an aircraft and came to the conclusion that the benefits overcome the drawbacks.

Furthermore, ED apparently approved and gave their OK for such a development. If the decision of the devs were right in terms of a financial ammortization is up to their business plan, which is not my business and up to you and me, which in turn, is our business.

 

For me, i will probably refuse to purchase it but i very much appreciate the fact, that it is not only seen as a pure selling cow but also as a test bed for upcoming WW2 aircraft.

 

The next thing is, that they said that the MiG has not been forgotten but will be improved and they are working on it. As a conclusion, this should be the only thing we should bother with, because the MiG is the only dept, the devs still have to pay and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will buy this, looks like a lot of fun for more relaxed sessions :)

 

Thing is, It will probably do really well. I can see a lot of people buying this on Steam for their VR headset. The CEII will attract new players to DCS, and some of them are going to buy other modules down the line, like a Hornet or Tomcat. It is a win-win for everyone.

 

While I was hoping that M3's next aircraft would be something like a MiG, Id rather have small team developers focusing on smaller high quality passion projects and do them well.

Just the upkeep with patching "big titles" like DCS: MiG-21bis takes a lot of resources.

 

Leave the big and advanced titles to the bigger teams. I think M3 just might have found their own niché. Suprising aircrafts that will stir the pot a bit and bring something else to the table.

 

There are plenty of interesting aircrafts for both civilian and military use and it will be interesting too see where we are a couple of years from now. Maybe C-130's, An-2's, recon aircrafts, and even some GA aircrafts in the same airspace as our beloved fighter and attack aircrafts...

 

To me that sounds like a way more complete DCS World. Good luck on your release M3 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED need to go ahead and trade mark "Digital Simulator" as their main platform. Under it, we can have DCS, Digital Aerobatic Aircraft Simulator (DAAS)...hell they can bring them all in here, Truck Sim (DTS), Farmer Sim (DFS), Boat Sim (DBS), Space (DSS), What is the name of the sim with trucks driving in the Mud? We can call it DMS, M for Mud.

  • Like 1

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason people are complaining is that there are a limited number of third party developers who develop a limited number of planes each year (like 3 or 4 total), while the list of planes that people want (Tornados, F-4s, F-16s etc) is insanely large. Who asked for an obscure aerobatic biplane?

 

Honestly, if only one new plane come out a year, it would be more than enough to try and master :D

 

I'm absolutely fine with the CE2. Not super thrilled, but fine. I might even buy it.

 

In any case it's a testbed for the Corsair, which is still coming out, so nothing lost there. So I don't see the problem people have.

Is it because the Corsair is perceived as "delayed" now? Modules get delayed so often in DCS people should be used to it by now...

PC Specs / Hardware: MSI z370 Gaming Plus Mainboard, Intel 8700k @ 5GHz, MSI Sea Hawk 2080 Ti @ 2100MHz, 32GB 3200 MHz DDR4 RAM

Displays: Philips BDM4065UC 60Hz 4K UHD Screen, Pimax 8KX

Controllers / Peripherals: VPC MongoosT-50, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, modded MS FFB2/CH Combatstick, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Gametrix JetSeat

OS: Windows 10 Home Creator's Update

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would have been out a long time ago, if the 2/3 decision was in my favor :p

https://magnitude-3.com/

https://www.facebook.com/magnitude3llc

https://www.youtube.com/@magnitude_3

i9 13900K, 128GB RAM, RTX 4090, Win10Pro, 2 x 2TB SSD

i9 10980XE, 128GB RAM, RTX 3090Ti, Win10 Pro, 2 x 256GB SSD, 4 x 512GB SSD RAID 0, 6 x 4TB HDD RAID 6, 9361-8i RAID Controller

i7 4960X, 64GB RAM, GTX Titan X Black, Win10 Pro, 512GB PCIe SSD, 2 x 256GB SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm amazed that people are against any aircraft being developed for DCS World. If it's not your cup of tea, ignore it. If you like it, buy and fly it. Sure, DCS is a military flight sim in concept. In practice, it's many things to many people. We all use it the way we prefer to use it. Some enjoy only the combat. Others simply enjoy flying. Others a mix. And we all support it.

  • Like 1

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg

 

_____

Win 10 Pro x64, ASUS Z97 Pro MoBo, Intel i7-4790K, EVGA GTX 970 4GB, HyperX Savage 32GB, Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB SSD, 2x Seagate Hybrid Drive 2TB Raid 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the totally free TF51 weren't in the game, I might agree with you.

 

If people want to buy it for acrobatics, fine we've got our novelty module now go knock yourselves out.

 

What I don't want to see is anymore simple GA modules that don't fit with the rest of DCS be developed just because they're easier to make.

 

THAT ! Exact this :-) Agree 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm amazed that people are against any aircraft being developed for DCS World. If it's not your cup of tea, ignore it. If you like it, buy and fly it. Sure, DCS is a military flight sim in concept. In practice, it's many things to many people. We all use it the way we prefer to use it. Some enjoy only the combat. Others simply enjoy flying. Others a mix. And we all support it.

 

 

OK please explain, which reason for a flying farmers spraygun is in a

 

Digital

COMBAT

Simulator ?

 

Only for interest

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, stop complaining about this. You have to keep some things in mind:

 

These military craft you all want modeled to super detail are expensive and time consuming to create. A-10C flight/systems model took three years to make. The F-18 took TWO YEARS of negotiations with the DoD. These are major drawn out ordeals that drain a lot of resources.

 

No one developer is apt to be able to handle more than one or two of them at a time, for starters. This isn't the sort of thing you can simply throw more code monkeys at and expect them to crap out Shakespeare.

 

If, by expanding into the "civilian market", which is much easier/cheaper/less headache to deal with (which most of these developers are ALREADY involved in for OTHER simulators, not to mention they may be able to pull some of their work over here, saving on time/resources they've already invested) we can only benefit, here's how :

 

If they start drawing some of the FSX/Xplane folks over here in larger number, they receive an influx of cash at no cost to you, giving them the very resources they need to create some of the aircraft on your wishlists. If you never see any of these people on a multiplayer server, or all they do is aerobatics, it doesn't COST YOU anything, but it DOES benefit you.

 

Think past the end of your nose, life is easier that way.

 

If i enter a steakhouse i want for shure a steak and not a carot salade..if i enter a digital combat simulator i want combat simulations and the fitting aircraft... otherwise call it aircraft simulator and bingo.. but who needs, there a wonderful civilian sims already with growing amount of stuff much faster... maybe it would be better to focus onto the main aim ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...