Is DCS:BS a Lock-On Killer ?

[GGTharos]

ED has not and will not receive classified data, just to clear that up.

 

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.

[Vekkinho]

Perhaps, but LITENING and Sniper XR targeting pods as well as SADL presented with DCS:A-10C work like IRL, yes?!

 

I can't find any links on how these things work so I assume data on it is exclusive to ED, right?!

[GGTharos]

ED has the operation manuals ... without SECRET inserts.

And yes, since this comes from the Desktop Trainer, they are operated like the IRL ones - if there's some SECRET insert in the manual that changes modes of operation, ED doesn't have it.

 

Perhaps, but LITENING and Sniper XR targeting pods as well as SADL presented with DCS:A-10C work like IRL, yes?!

 

I can't find any links on how these things work so I assume data on it is exclusive to ED, right?!

[Sarge55]

Back on subject - It will be a while before DCS will push LO into the history books because as others have pointed out there is only a helicopter right now in DCS and rumors of the A-10C being delivered some time in 2010.

 

The variety of LO will keep it popular until DCS has at least one aircraft from each group, helicopters (done), ground attack (soon I hope) and fighters (who knows).

 

To answer an earlier slightly off topic question someone had regarding whether North Americans prefer US aircraft over Russian, I actually prefer the Su-25 and Su-25T over the A-10 in LO as they are a little more challanging to fly and fight. I'll no doubt love the DCS A-10 for those reasons when it comes out (until they produce a Su-25T).

[Kula66]

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.

 

Now you are being funny ... The A-10s data link system is more sophisticated that the horrendous collection of electronics that make up the Eagle ... I really don't think so.

 

And they do have ESM you know, ESM includes radar warning systems ;)

Edited October 24, 2009 by Kula66

[GGTharos]

You just babble on, Sir. :D

[monotwix]

Radar warnings.

[Pilotasso]

After the initial fascination, I think DCS actualy lost some momentum. The Ka-50 was barely operational, much of the airframes were prototypes, and its not a known by the western aviation fans.

 

We realy have to wait for the few first jets for DCS. One still wont kill LOMAC because it will remain the only DACT SIM for quite a while. I guess at least for anohter 3 years.

 

Also LOMAC looses activity online during the summer and initial months of autumn whem many people here ruturn to university or school.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

DCS: Black Shark isn't a Lock On killer, that's for sure. But the DCS series as a whole will probably be.

 

I'm not very sure if it was a good move to launch the first two series focusing in ground-attack aircraft. But I'll certainly buy DCS: A-10C when it's out :D (same worth for Black Shark, as I couldn't find it anywhere. By the way, was it actually released as a hard copy or only online download? If the latter is true, maybe that's why I couldn't find it anywhere :music_whistling:).

[Pilotasso]

^^^^ Also bear in mind that DCS might attract a different audience type than LOMAC.

 

LOMAC is a survey SIM and it reflects on the way its players act on multiplay for the most part. It gets a bit arcadish at times. In DCS things will be very different perhaps losing some of LOMAcs audience (to HAWX) but attracting other types. Perhaps from the falcon community who knows. :D That would be ironic but we cant expect them all to convert. At least I did (much for the fault of the SIM's old age).

 

In this way DCS probably wont actualy never kill LOMAC.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

LOMAC losing audience to HAWX?! No way. I'm aware that Lock On is a survey simulator, but it is realist most of the times. Of course, if you set all difficulty settings to easy, it will be arcadish. I've never seen such an unrealistic aviation game (I refuse to call that a simulator) as HAWX, honestly. It might be good for fun, but for the flying itself...

 

I hope DCS attracts more hardcore virtual pilots and convert those who aren't yet. I think that at the exact time a fighter-based DCS title is out, it will steal most of Falcon's audience.

 

I won't comment much further because I don't know some details:

 

1.Will a DCS title ever contain more than one variant of an aircraft (for example, F/A-18E and F, it someday we get an DCS: Super Hornet, and so on)?

2.Will DCS: A-10C and subsequent titles install OVER Black Shark or in a separate folder with no interaction between them?

 

The reason I want to know the versions thing is already happening now. The Ka-52 is gaining space on the airforce. The options would be to ignore it completely, insert it in another patch (this being the reason for question 2) or making another title just about it. The first and last ones would piss some users off, because or they will miss the aircraft forever, or the will have to expend more money for a variant.

 

(Só ao terminar de escrever a mensagem percebi que você era de Portugal :doh:)

[GGTharos]

1.Will a DCS title ever contain more than one variant of an aircraft (for example, F/A-18E and F, it someday we get an DCS: Super Hornet, and so on)?

 

No. One aircraft per module.

 

2.Will DCS: A-10C and subsequent titles install OVER Black Shark or in a separate folder with no interaction between them?

 

Separate - it's a separate product.

 

The reason I want to know the versions thing is already happening now. The Ka-52 is gaining space on the airforce. The options would be to ignore it completely, insert it in another patch (this being the reason for question 2) or making another title just about it. The first and last ones would piss some users off, because or they will miss the aircraft forever, or the will have to expend more money for a variant.

 

Since there's no military simulation contract for the Ka-52, it isn't going to happen in DCS.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Thanks for the quick reply, GGTharos.

 

The Ka-52 was just an example, anyway.

 

But regarding to multiplayer, how it will work? Players will be only able to fly coops or missions agains the same sort of aircraft, or there will be some interaction? I hope I'm not being too abusive on the questions, it's just curiosity.

[GGTharos]

The plan is to have the modules interact with each other - ie. you could play in the same game online with an A-10C while someone else flies a Ka-50, etc.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Good to know. Actually, not just good, excellent :D!

 

A good excuse to test the Ka-50's damage model under GAU-8 fire :gun_smilie:

[Eddie]

I think that at the exact time a fighter-based DCS title is out, it will steal most of Falcon's audience.

 

 

Not unless future DCS modules include a mission planning screen at the very least, and even then unless a dynamic campaign comes along I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

DCS at present is a fantastic flight simulator, but until the above features come along that's all it can be. Those of us in the Falcon community fly Falcon because it's an air combat simulator, the DCS world is far to sterile and missions have a scripted feel that just ruins the whole thing. And the fact that I/we can't get together at the mission planning screen and discuss/plan loadouts and flightplans means that for multiplay Falcon still wins hands down.

 

I truly hope that one day I/we can put falcon to rest and switch to DCS or another Sim, but it's just not going to happen without the features above.

 

As for DCS replacing LOMAC, I can't really comment tbh. Never saw the appeal of LOMAC personally, it has none of the features mentioned above, nor does it have functional cockpits or well modelled systems. I suppose it's ok for people starting out in the world of military flight sims but that's it.

[GGTharos]

Not unless future DCS modules include a mission planning screen at the very least,

 

DCS continues to evolve with each module.

 

and even then unless a dynamic campaign comes along I wouldn't hold your breath.[/quote[

 

... and you overestimate dynamic campaigns.

 

As for DCS replacing LOMAC, I can't really comment tbh. Never saw the appeal of LOMAC personally, it has none of the features mentioned above, nor does it have functional cockpits or well modelled systems. I suppose it's ok for people starting out in the world of military flight sims but that's it.

 

Funny, real world military pilots play LOMAC; perhaps you should learn the meaning of 'to each his own'. ;)

[Pilotasso]

BAck then when I played Falcon 4 and its derivatives I could only play its campaigns if I skipped classes or had too much time on my hands to waste. :D

 

Today I just want to play some quality time in a fairly realistic simulator with other humans over the net. It wont consume hours in a row, I have only some time after dinner and before getting to bed (gotta get up at 6:30 AM for work, it hurts).

 

Also dynamic campaigns dont quite always work too well after a while. AI doesnt take very logical tactical decisions, troops seem just going arround korea like rats in a maze.

[Eddie]

DCS continues to evolve with each module.

 

Indeed, as we're told, that is the plan. But until such features arrive it's very much hurry up and wait.

 

and even then unless a dynamic campaign comes along I wouldn't hold your breath.[/quote[

 

... and you overestimate dynamic campaigns.

 

Parhaps you underestimate the value of a dynamic campaign? After 10 years of flying Falcon nearly every day, it's still fresh and exciting. Sadly DCS:BS is already somewhat stale for me.

 

Funny, real world military pilots play LOMAC; perhaps you should learn the meaning of 'to each his own'. ;)

 

I'm well aware they do, I know a few of them. Real military pilots also play the sims and battlefield 2, it's a meaningless comment imho. Never meant to imply there is anything wrong with LOMAC, merely trying to give the view of much of the Falcon community.

 

If DCS can convert a large proportion of the F4 community, it'll be very good for the series indeed, just like converting large numbers of the LOMAC community. These day I only fly with a small group of friends made in old VFWs, but out of that group of avid simmers I am one of only two who purchased DCS:BS and the only who actually flys it at all, due to the reasons I posted previously and also due to the aircraft type simulated.

 

I think many of the same factors will apply to the LOMAC community, I suspect a lot of it's members aren't/won't be interested in a study sim. So in order to prosper DCS will have to pull across a decent proportion of both the LOMAC and F4 community. Which imho is going to be very difficult indeed.

[Kirai]

 

Parhaps you underestimate the value of a dynamic campaign? After 10 years of flying Falcon nearly every day, it's still fresh and exciting. Sadly DCS:BS is already somewhat stale for me.

 

 

I agree. I love dynamic campaigns and I wish DCS would make it possible. Right now it is an realistic sim but without a dynamic campaign it falls back a bit I think. +1

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I'm with Tharos, you're putting too much value in dynamic campaigns.

 

As a IL-2 player, I can say that, after a while, static campaigns get more exciting than the dynamic ones.

 

It's exciting at the begining, but then you see that they just repeat themselves, it feels a bit artificial, not really dynamic.

 

When we're talking about scripted campaigns, even considering that they don't change that much, they have what the so-called dynamic campaigns don't have: the personal touch. It adds a lot when you have a good editor behind the campaign. Plus, there are some nasty surprises that no campaign generator can give you.

[Eddie]

snip

 

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that you've not played Falcon? I don't know what dynamic campaign engines you have experiance with, but I somehow doubt it's F4's.

 

The biggest advantage of the campaign engine is realism, for example everytime you fly a mission there are countless aircraft in the airspace flying missions of their own, and then the ground war going on below you. None of it is scripted it's all happening in real time, there are no missions in the way DCS/LOMAC has them it is simply a continuous real time world.

 

Too many sims/games give you the impression that you are the most important entity in the world, everything revolves around you. You should however be just another pilot in another aircraft carrying out his assigned mission, and that's it. That is what a well made dynamic campaign engine gives you.

 

Of course the big problem is that a dynamic campaign engine is very difficult and time consuming to produce, hence nobody has done it succesfully since Falcon. I and many others continue to hope someone will someday do it, but to be honest I/We become ever more doubtful, that there is a developer out there with the drive, ambition and resources to do it.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Are you experienced with IL-2's DGen, anyway?

 

You have tons of flights non-related to you, and, in most of the times, you play minor roles in the campaigns. But after a while it just looses that 'new' feeling. And then someone creates a new one. And you play it until you get tired, and so on...

 

That's why I prefer the static campaigns. As you normally don't play major roles in these ones also, the writer can brings lots of surprises, and play with your mind, challange you to do crap just by daring you. And he can innovate in all directions. No campaign generator is as complex as the human brain. That's why I think dynamic campaigns aren't as important as you're saying.

[Eddie]

Il-2 has a semi-dynamic campaign, it doesn't even compare.

 

I agree that a well made static mission/campaign can be great if done properly, the problem is they only have a set number of missions to fly. Which as you rightly pointed out in your post causes them to become stale over time.

 

A truly dynamic campaign doesn't have this problem. For example I'm currently halfway through the 5th day of my current F4 campaign having personally flown 25 missions, and the ground offensive hasn't even started yet. The longest I've seen was 17 days with well over 100 human missions flown, each one of them very different. My point here is that there is no set number of missions, and each time to run the campaign it will be totally different as each unit will be placed differently at the start and different targets will be hit in a different order by different aircraft at different times. The other advantage is that there is no such thing as a multiplayer/single player mission or campaign, anything can be played either way and at any time. I've lost count of the number of times i've got guys in to help with a difficult objective in a personal campaign.

 

A static or semi dynamic engine simulates a mission/set of missions with a few variables thrown in, a dynamic campaign simulates a war and all the complexities therein.

 

Anyway, I think this one has gone far enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Ah, got your point now, Eddie (altought I think you've been flying way too much missions. 5 missions per day?! I'd quit :D!).

 

Well, maybe I'll give it a try, and if it's that good, I'll probably stick to it until DCS: F-16 is out :music_whistling:

 

The problem with IL-2 is that you know what happened. In Lock On, DCS and Falcon, the events are totally fictional (maybe based in some actual conflict, but limited to that), and you can insert almost anything there that it can still be truth.