Is DCS:BS a Lock-On Killer ?

[Exorcet]

No, it isn't. Nevermind the fact that LO has the A, and DCS has the C and they're a world apart in reality - the DCS A-10 is NOTHING like the A-10 in LO.

 

It doesn't fly the same, it isn't operated the same way, and so on and so forth. That's like saying 'I wouldn't mind flying the DCS F-15C, but that's already in LO' ;)

Oh, I realize that the A-10 is upgraded in DCS, I just meant I'm fine with the A-10 in LO because I like fighters more than attack planes. But of course, I could change my mind if I got a chance to fly it.

 

Is there a DCS demo?

[GGTharos]

No, unfortunately there is not ... and obviously there's no DCS A-10 yet.

[wilbur81]

I would be curious to know how many US vs. russian/european customers actually fly LOFC and BS. I would imagine that the majority of US customers prefer the F-15C and the A-10 over the russian aircraft. I would also imagine that the majority of Russian and/or European customers prefer the Russian jets/helicopters. I would imagine that for both US and Russian/European customers, the majority prefer fastjets over choppers. The question that I would like to know, then, is who are ED's biggest customers? If US/western customers, then, give us F-15s, F-18s, and F-16s. If Russian/Eastern customers, then, give them more SUs and Migs. There's a reason why fastjet sims are so popular... They're at the top of the aviation foodchain. I wish ED could separate into US and Russian developers. Being American...I'd love to see their focus on Eagles, Hornets, Falcons, and Raptors. The Russian folks can focus on the Flankers, Fulcrums, and Frogfoots. For now, I think the majority of ED's staffers are Russian. And they do brilliant. Either way, keep up the good work ED and modders!

[GGTharos]

The knowledge you are asking for is a trade secret. In any case, the next module is dictated by military, not flight simmer, requirements and wishes.

[Groove]

I love flying the thing around but the AI and terrain modelling are poor.

 

As for the terrain, real helo pilots say that this is the best terrain engine they ever flew in a simulator because of all the nice details flying NOE ;)

[Boberro]

As for the terrain, real helo pilots say that this is the best terrain engine they ever flew in a simulator because of all the nice details flying NOE ;)

 

It doesn't change fact terrain looks poor.

 

If Falcon had been released recently and it would be only one game on market, I could say also it has the best terrain used in simulator but it doesn't change true terrain is low.

 

Did i write sentence correctly (gramatic ect? ) :D

[JG-1_Vogel]

I really love flying the Kamov, its a masterful piece of work and I think anyone who doesn't fly it is REALLY missing out on something... even if you don't really like helicopters!

 

One thing I think that will hurt the DC series is MP. I think they should release a Western and Eastern aircraft of similar types at the same time, or close together. This would make online games much more interesting, and open up the possibilities of flying a Red Flag type mission using DCS airframes (drool!). For an example, we have the A-10C coming up. It would make sense for ED to have a Su-25 module to compliment the A-10, it would give people the chance to fly against each other without seeing A-10 v A-10 brawls. Similarly you could have a F-16 & MiG-29 module (awesome!) or a F-15 & Su-27 module. It gives the chance for people have good fights online with a variety of aircraft. It would also most likely increase sales a lot, as it would cater for the Viper fan boi's in the West (like me!) and the Fulcrum fans in the East (I love the mig too lol). Win - win situation for ED.

 

Even if the "package" was £60 or more I would happily pay that for DCS quality.

 

Personally... I'm just begging for a Harrier module! :pilotfly:

 

Imagine how this would be taken up by online squads, it would sell very well I think. Only then I think will Lock On be "dead", as people will be able to get the veriaty of aircraft that they enjoy in LO in DCS, only with the pure win factor of DCS detail. :joystick:

Edited October 23, 2009 by 159th_LoneWolf

[Kuky]

I don't understand what's the deal with people requesting multplayer PvP in A-10 or any helicopter or strike aircraft... they are not meant to be used to attack other strike aircraft or helicopters, they are used to attack ground units... it makes sense to have fighter aircraft released in pairs, but to me it doesn't have to be for Ka-50, Apache, A-10, Su-25 etc... you don't use them for PvP scenarios... if you are, you are not using the aircraft to it's purpose and I don't like to see online missions with Ka-50 vs Ka-50 especially when ground units are of the same time also...

[GGTharos]

I will say this again then, since people keep missing this little bit of information ;)

 

Modules will come out for single aircraft a piece.

The subject of the next module is typically decided by military contracts, rather than what people wish for (although such may serendipitously coincide!) until such a time, I imagine, as ED has no more military contracts.

The speed of development of the modules is dictated by a desire to release modules every 9 months, and potential interruptions from other projects.

 

These are the very basics.

 

 

I think they should release a Western and Eastern aircraft of similar types at the same time, or close together.

[Exorcet]

I would be curious to know how many US vs. russian/european customers actually fly LOFC and BS. I would imagine that the majority of US customers prefer the F-15C and the A-10 over the russian aircraft. I would also imagine that the majority of Russian and/or European customers prefer the Russian jets/helicopters. I would imagine that for both US and Russian/European customers, the majority prefer fastjets over choppers. The question that I would like to know, then, is who are ED's biggest customers? If US/western customers, then, give us F-15s, F-18s, and F-16s. If Russian/Eastern customers, then, give them more SUs and Migs. There's a reason why fastjet sims are so popular... They're at the top of the aviation foodchain. I wish ED could separate into US and Russian developers. Being American...I'd love to see their focus on Eagles, Hornets, Falcons, and Raptors. The Russian folks can focus on the Flankers, Fulcrums, and Frogfoots. For now, I think the majority of ED's staffers are Russian. And they do brilliant. Either way, keep up the good work ED and modders!

 

I don't want to lose the Russian stuff. I like it mixed the way it is.

[RedTiger]

 

One thing I think that will hurt the DC series is MP...

 

I doubt that very seriously. People tend to over-emphasize the relationship between multiplayer and popularity. For everyone one guy in a clan/guild/squad, there's 10 who play offline or just bought the game because the box looked cool. I cite this now and wil continue to cite this -- when Unreal Tournment added the ability to set up a user ID to track player stats via a login to a server the developers discovered something they didn't expect; the majority of people were playing against AI bots and never set foot in a game vs. real people. Every UT since has had a single player campaign mode.

 

I could be way off since DCS is not UT, but this relationship makes enough sense where I'm willing to bet its the same with *any* such sim/game that also has multiplayer.

[Kula66]

As for the terrain, real helo pilots say that this is the best terrain engine they ever flew in a simulator because of all the nice details flying NOE ;)

 

I think that says more about other sims than about how good BS is ... lack of tree modelling and large terrain mesh sizes being the most obvious points. Yes it looks stunning from up high, but near to the ground it looks decidedly 90s. I am really hoping this is an area that gets addressed in the A-10 mod.

 

I've only ever seen military sims on TV and have been appalled by the poor video definition - I guess they focus on 'switch-ology' and procedures.

 

A2G needs good terrain - it DOES influence RL tactics.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Kula66

[Kula66]

The subject of the next module is typically decided by military contracts, rather than what people wish for (although such may serendipitously coincide!) until such a time, I imagine, as ED has no more military contracts.

 

How is this going to work? ... The military will never allow details of their key fighter systems to be released to either the public or a Russian sim developer, so if they are funding/steering development decisions, this implies we will never see things like the F-15 or Su-27s in DCS?

[KeyCat]

As for the terrain, real helo pilots say that this is the best terrain engine they ever flew in a simulator because of all the nice details flying NOE ;)

 

Then they haven't tried flying NOE in ArmA II (with high details and VD)!

 

Not that you can compare the rest of these two (where DCS:BS wins hand down, no doubt!) but when it comes to the terrain etc. DCS:BS falls quite flat IMO and the not collidable trees and also not breaking the AI's LOS are dealbreakers for me in a heli sim so I'm on standby and fly LO:FC until the future DCS terrain engine gets implemented.

 

A2G needs good terrain - it DOES influence RL tactics.

 

+1

 

Just my 0.20 SEK and YMMW!

 

/KC

Edited October 24, 2009 by KeyCat

[Fish]

Yes it looks stunning from up high, but near to the ground it looks decidedly 90s. I am really hoping this is an area that gets addressed in the A-10 mod.

 

A2G needs good terrain - it DOES influence RL tactics.

 

Ive been in and out of sims since early 90's, and also FPS. And while it would be nice if terrain was as good close up as a good FPS, For me its go be 'smooth' first and foremost, on a reasonable spec'd rig. I think ED have done a great job with this as is. While fancy hdr stuff and volumetric trees would be great, they would not really enhance the playability of the game hugely, and in fact if they reduced FPS, would probably take away from it. Very detailed vegetation and building etc are essential for FPS games, because of the tactical way the player interacts with them. Its not the case with a flight simulator. I would much prefer to see better damage modelling of ground and ai vehicles, in preference to more up to date graphics, as this would enhance the game's playability.

 

Would be nice to have a game with the simulation and AFM of BS or even FC, merged with the detail of an FPS such as ArmaII. Then we could fly like real pilots, and fight like infantry in the same battlespace. But I think thats a long way away.

[Kula66]

But I think thats a long way away.

 

Its probably do'able on current hardware IF you could use those other 7 cores! But, being a programmer, I fully understand how much of a leap that is!

[Majesco]

IMO, Lock On is a DCS-BS killer, LO is much better than DCS-BS at gunshot dogfight and flight formation :D

DCS series shoud have more fighting planes

[GGTharos]

Exactly the same way it has been working so far.

Do you think the A-10C does not have 'key fighter systems'?

 

How is this going to work? ... The military will never allow details of their key fighter systems to be released to either the public or a Russian sim developer, so if they are funding/steering development decisions, this implies we will never see things like the F-15 or Su-27s in DCS?

[Kula66]

I think the A-10 has far fewer high-tech secret systems that the F-15/Su-27 ... Yes. No radar, on-board jammer and only basic ESM.

 

Or are you saying ED has been contracted to produce a 15 sim for the USAF?

Edited October 24, 2009 by Kula66

[GGTharos]

I think the A-10 has far fewer high-tech secret systems that the F-15/Su-27

 

I think you are wrong.

 

... Yes. No radar, on-board jammer and only basic ESM.

 

It doesn't have a radar, but it does have a sophisticated data link. It has no ESM whatsoever, and neither does an F-15 or Su-27; and it doesn't really matter if your jammer is podded or not, neither ED nor you will be seeing any interesting data on it.

 

Or are you saying ED has been contracted to produce a 15 sim for the USAF?

 

Nope.

[Kula66]

I think you are wrong.

 

Well, we'll just have to disagree ...

 

It doesn't have a radar, but it does have a sophisticated data link.

 

Not the A model ... and I don't think a data-link is quite it the same league as a radar with NCTR, various modes of operation etc ... but again, you are entitled to your opinion, ;)

[GGTharos]

Well, we'll just have to disagree ...

 

You can disagree all you like. You're wrong.

 

 

Not the A model ... and I don't think a data-link is quite it the same league as a radar with NCTR, various modes of operation etc ... but again, you are entitled to your opinion, ;)

 

DCS isn't modeling the A-10A. It is modeling the A-10C. Further, you are certainly entitled to your opinion that a datalink is somehow less 'key' than a radar with NCTR and multiple operation modes, or less sophisticated, but you are still erm, wrong. Lack of buttons to fiddle with for you does not translate into a lack of sophistication or secrecy for a given piece of equipment.

[Vekkinho]

I will say this again then, since people keep missing this little bit of information ;)

 

Modules will come out for single aircraft a piece.

 

The subject of the next module is typically decided by military contracts, rather than what people wish for (although such may serendipitously coincide!) until such a time, I imagine, as ED has no more military contracts.

 

Now you're being funny...

 

This is where I just mentioned chances of seeing the DCS:MiG-29K/KUB module in the future, seems like me thinking wishful, right?

 

And you replied with that.

 

So now with MiG-29K/KUB in service with Russian Navy in the future please explain why DCS:MiG-29K would be someone's mindtrip?!

Don't you think MiG-MAPO would be interested in desktop sim for training real RuAF pilots for some carrier ops i.e. military contract with ED very alike?!

[GGTharos]

Now you're being funny...

 

This is where I just mentioned chances of seeing the DCS:MiG-29K/KUB module in the future, seems like me thinking wishful, right?

 

And you replied with that.

 

So now with MiG-29K/KUB in service with Russian Navy in the future please explain why DCS:MiG-29K would be someone's mindtrip?!

 

Because you're equating existance of aircraft = DCS contract. This is not the case.

 

Don't you think MiG-MAPO would be interested in desktop sim for training real RuAF pilots for some carrier ops i.e. military contract with ED very alike?!

No. I will not think that until I hear ED has got a contract for it. Again, my statement stands. ED gets these contracts, but these contracts don't have to be your pet aircraft. As far as I there's no contract for mine.

 

New aircraft does not automatically equal ED simulation contract. Far, far from it. The contracts that ED DOES get will dictate the next module. Assuming those don't hit your desired AC, and at some point ED runs out of military projects, then you might see your pet plane simulated, as priorities will shift.

 

Do you want to say that those are possibilities? Sure, they may well be. But to say you should expect them? I think not.

Edited October 24, 2009 by GGTharos

[Vekkinho]

You misunderstood me, MiG-29K/KUB are not new aircraft, they're like 3-4 years old (protos and demo birds) but they've never been used in Russian airforce/navy so far. But as you might have heard that shall happen in a year or two:

Russian Navy to buy 24 MiG-29K carrier-based fighters

 

09/10/2009

 

MOSCOW, October 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Navy will buy at least 24 MiG-29K (Fulcrum-D) fighters to be deployed on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, an unnamed Defense Ministry official said on Friday.

 

He added that deliveries of the carrier-based multirole fighters would start in 2010.

 

The MiGs will subsequently replace the Su-33 (Flanker-D) carrier-based fighters, even though their service life does not expire until 2025.

 

Military analyst Konstantin Makiyenko suggested that production of new Su-33 aircraft was possible but not cost-effective, given the small production volumes, whereas considering that India has already contracted 16 MiG-29K's and could place an order for another 28, the latter option is more financially viable.

 

The 24 aircraft will cost an estimated $1 billion.

 

So chances of ED getting a contract with RAC-MiG on creating a DCS:MiG-29K/KUB are not to be ridiculed or seriously doubted!

 

If ED managed to sign a contract with USAF on A-10C with all classified data laid before them, there're even better chances of getting the same from RAC-MiG for a MiG-29K.