Keep It Stealthy/Simple Stupid

[Saintan]

Hi all. Did a few searches to see if there was a relevant thread. If I missed it, Mods feel free to move me. :-)

 

I took a mental note of DCS a few years back, but didn't come on board until I stumbled upon the massive strides of this past year. I'm have A-10C and Hornet, but am more than happy with the Flaming Cliffs F-15C. I'm hoping for some stealth love (B2, F-117, F-22, F-35) in the future and more than willing not to have 'clicky-pits' to expedite take-off. :)

 

I can appreciate the time, talent, and resources that go into even Flaming Cliffs-level birds. I think it would widen DCS appeal and accelerate expanding the aircraft menu to have a 3rd (simple) tier of realism.

 

I know there's already a spectrum of 4(?) levels of flight-model complexity. To be honest I'd be content if INITIAL releases had only the most basic flight-model characteristics, as long general performance parameters, weapon selection, and avionics were in the ball park.

 

I guess I'm just reminiscing and longing for some old friends (Apache, Hind, Tornado, F-22, F-117) from my 386/486 days. :) Hell, let's toss in Megafortress' Old Dog B-52 and EECH's Comanche for shits and giggles. :pilotfly: Happy Friday! Cheers!

[QuiGon]

There are other flight sims for less complexity. DCS is all about high complexity and should stay that way IMHO as this is what makes it such a great sim.

[lemoen]

Of those you ask for, only the F117 is anywhere remotely possible.

[Saintan]

There are other flight sims for less complexity. DCS is all about high complexity and should stay that way IMHO as this is what makes it such a great sim.

 

Hey QuiGon. Totally agree that DCS should maintain and expand upon the complexity that so many of us know and love. However, adding less-complex options wouldn't dumb-down the overall DCS experience. I think it would widen the audience to include more casual simmers; who we could then indoctrinate into HOTAS-piccolo-playin' switch/button/dial/lever-mashing fiends. ;)

 

And yes there are "other" flight sims out there, but they are mostly ancient and those birds could use some DCS love. :) Cheers!

[Saintan]

Of those you ask for, only the F117 is anywhere remotely possible.

 

Hi lemoen. I'm pretty shure Apache and Hind are both on the developer roadmaps...

[Ronin14]

Apache and Hind are one thing, first generation Stealth Tech with common materials running into next generation and beyond isn't.

[Saintan]

Sig: DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Oh yeah! Swing-wingin' some JP233 pain on enemy pavement! :thumbup:

[Quadg]

the complexity of DCS is just the challenge my mid life crisis was looking for

and its way safer than fast women or motorbikes.

I don't need the developers to expedite anything for me.

in fact they need to make it harder...

 

if you asked to make dark souls easier on the dark souls forum, you would get lynched. :)

 

dumbing down is the other end of the market. why I'm at this end. and its about as far this end as you can go...

[Scooternutz]

Of those you ask for, only the F117 is anywhere remotely possible.

 

 

Yep, F-16 Flight Control System, F-18 Avionics, B-52 Guidance System.

 

 

 

From the documentaries I have watched the major thing that was classified was the shape. Did you know one of the nicknames was the "Cockroach?" How bout that!!!!

[ivo]

the complexity of DCS is just the challenge my mid life crisis was looking for

and its way safer than fast women or motorbikes.

I don't need the developers to expedite anything for me.

in fact they need to make it harder...

 

if you asked to make dark souls easier on the dark souls forum, you would get lynched. :)

 

dumbing down is the other end of the market. why I'm at this end. and its about as far this end as you can go...

 

+100

[Guppy]

This is going to sound harsh and abrasive and I do not mean it that way... but there are plenty of arcade style 'sims' out there for those who want even more simplicity (Ace Combat, etc.). DCS Flaming Cliff aircraft are pretty easy to get the hang of if you are willing to put a few hours into learning and take even more time to master. That is about, in my opinion, as simple as DCS should ever get. They take many, many hours to master. I think people just want to jump in and fly - unfortunately that's not how a -simulation- should be, ever.

 

I believe the reason for the different types of flight models was to keep track of the progress moving them over from old flight models. I do not believe it's intent was to make things easier, but I could be wrong.

[Pasquale1986]

First, I am - same as Qui Gon - not a fan of too much simplification in DCS. Imho even FC-3/4 fidelity Level should only be used when neccessary - e.g. Russian 4th Gen fighter aircraft. The question is, how much simplification and gestimating would be necessary to get anything stealthy in the air? I think we would end up with something like whats flying around in FSX or P3D - that imho is not desirable.

 

 

 

I would love to see some heavies as flyable modules in the future like the B-52H but regarding the B-52H or a B-1B DCS has an engine limitation that - to my knowledge - limits us to two eninges per aircraft.

 

 

Cheers

[eaglecash867]

Yep, F-16 Flight Control System, F-18 Avionics, B-52 Guidance System.

 

 

 

From the documentaries I have watched the major thing that was classified was the shape. Did you know one of the nicknames was the "Cockroach?" How bout that!!!!

 

Yup. They also called it the "Stinkbug".

[Scooternutz]

This was the shiznit!

 

 

Had a Microsoft Sidewinder joystick and almost ended my new marriage.

[Saintan]

I'm disappointed that some think I've in any way suggested taking something away; vs providing more options. Must really get some knickers in a knot to have the Game Flight and Game Avionics modes that currently exist for our beloved A-10C, F/A-18C, etc.

 

I can only imagine the grinding of teeth at the very existence of the Gameplay tab in the options menu. I'm all for continuing and enhancing the growth of the study-level modules. I think it's an obvious win-win to open the door wider, grow our numbers, and increase revenue to our awesome developers.

 

In my original post I emphasized "INITIAL" release when promoting a greater variety of modules faster; granted requiring simplification to expedite. I can't see it as a negative to have early-access to incomplete or imperfect aircraft flight-models and avionics and enjoy the half-full cup while waiting for it to fill. Oh, wait...that's exactly the way things work now with the early-access study sims! ;)

 

Ok, that last bit was a big stretch for comparison in trying to drive my point. Respect to those who have the time and interest to become systems experts in order to successfully blow shit up and not die and one's own throttle and/or stick hand. ;)

 

If we never see another non-clickable 'pit or simple/advanced flight-model again, I'll still continue with and love all the DCS goodness currently on board, and yet to come. Cheers all!

[Gierasimov]

No, it ain't

 

Of those you ask for, only the F117 is anywhere remotely possible.

 

Nighthawk's technology is still classified (and some jets were re-activated too).