Anyone else getting a little bit bored with BS?

[Frederf]

I have to say that I'm not bored of the DCS terrain. There's so much of it and I've barely flown over 10%! I could imagine a real FalconAF like war-engine dynamic campaign over the current DCS terrain.

 

It would have supply limitations, persistent troop models, pre-flight planning, ground or air FAC interaction, and it would be FUN.

[Speed_2]

Are you trying to give me a leason? if you are you are barking on the wrong tree budy :music_whistling:

 

FYI... I am flying realistic and I do like realism... what you obviously failed to see is that I was saying that people should not be complaining about the Georgian map because it is more than enough what MAJORITY of players preffer...

 

Also what OTHER SIMS you are refering to that have so much more then DCS? F4? pfft... how large is the Korea map by the way? is it more than 800x800km? (after checking it says: "The combined territories of South and North Korea is 244100 square kilometers" so lot less than 800x800km) Not to mention you want to compare fighter jet sim like F4 with helicopter sim like DCS BS (which by the way is way better then F4 in simulation departement in every way: graphics, sound, cockpit, avionics, FM... well fair enough.. it only has one extra thing... a dynamic campaign, but in my opinion that's not that so much worth because when you fly online you have same if not better realism as you fly against real people and not just AI)

 

Again you show that you have not put any thought into this and do not understand what I am saying. Are you implying that you think that because the combined area of North and South Korea would be 494km square, then the Falcon 4 Korea theater, among the smallest of the Falcon 4 theaters, would only be 494 km square?!?! It's got sea, and parts of China, Japan, and Russia in it as well. From DIRECTLY measuring it, one can see that it's around 1000km on a side.

 

Secondly, you are again ignoring the more important fact that the DCS theater is UNFINISHED, and even though it is 800km of the side, perhaps a third to a half of its land area is not populated with objects.

 

Third, you have never ever flown Falcon 4 online if you think that the dynamic campaign is of no value in multiplayer. Any campaign mission can be flown online, and people can even play as the opposing side.

 

Finally, there is ALOT more to consider than just how well the aircraft is modelled. DCS no doubt models the Ka-50 better than the F-16 is modelled in Falcon 4. That alone makes DCS worth playing. However, Falcon 4 has MANY other simulation advantages and features that DCS does not have- for example, while the radio is more realisticly modelled in DCS, what you can DO with your radio is vastly more realistic in Falcon 4. Multiplayer integrates SEAMLESSLY into Falcon 4, and ANY flight can be flown in multiplayer. The dynamic campaign is not "one little thing", it adds ENDLESS replay value. Flights are organized into PACKAGES, and the AI aircraft actually (usually) try to do their jobs. There is a persistant world, even in tactical engagements (single missions). You can jump into ANY F-16 or even non F-16 in any phase of that aircraft's mission. Seamless integration between the 3d world and 2d world... and the list goes on and on.

 

Some of the versions of the Open Falcon mod are even addressing the areas where DCS trumps Falcon 4, such as a 3d clickable cockpit, avionics modelling, radio modelling, etc.

 

In the end, neither DCS or Falcon 4 is necessarily a better sim than the other, as each has its pros and cons. That's why I still fly both! I mean, I gotta do SOMETHING else when I get tired of flying the same DCS mission for the tenth time...

Edited November 30, 2009 by Speed_2

[Speed_2]

Let's stop this argument about long missions - the fact is some people don't have three hours to spend on a mission and some people dont!

 

That's why you have a time compression system that actually works, and the option of whether you want to take that three hour flight or not. With a dynamic campaign, you get to pick and choose your mission you want to fly, so if you only like short missions, then you only choose short missions to fly. You can even MAKE your own missions, especially in F4 AF. It's incomparably better than the DCS system.

[VMFA117_Poko]

I'm not bored yet. In matter fact every other games bored me quicker. As polish proverb [EDIT: "quote" ;)] sais: "even ham can be over-eaten".

Edited November 30, 2009 by Poko24

[Warbird_242]

Although, to be annoyingly pedantic that isn't actually a proverb :P

[VMFA117_Poko]

Maybe "quote" I had in mind... (?) :P

[Speed_2]

M8, all the user created campaigns for F4 are broken. There's so many bugs in those, you can only call them early WIP at the most. I won't even start to talk about the ATO, because it's such a mess. Problem is, work on those has stopped. So don't bring your 'F4 has so many wonderful campaigns' bull along, coz it ain't true. ;)

 

When did I ever say that "F4 has so many wonderful campaigns?!" You're putting words into my mouth I NEVER said. Campaigns and theaters are DIFFERENT things. The campaigns only work correctly in Korea and Balkans. Other than that, I use the "messy" Tactical Engagement editor (which you apparently never learned how to use correctly) to create very fun tactical engagements. Such as this:

That's my personal simulation of ODS, several hundred sorties- maybe 500 or more, I don't wanna count- over about 5 hours. Imagine trying to make something like this with DCS's CURRENT mission creation system... OMG.

 

Or the ultimate in a LONG, fun, historically-based mission: Operation Opera (Israel's 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor):

 

Now DCS does have the advantage of having triggers, but Falcon 4 does have SOME triggers that run autonomously, such as "if the runway is destroyed, then the flight is cancelled prior to takeoff".

 

Both of these missions I have flown in multiplayer several times, with great success. So don't downplay the value of Falcon 4's addon theaters.

 

As it stands, I just don't see DCS heading in the direction that will give it capabilities and content like what Falcon 4 has, and it concerns me, but the future is yet to be written. I'm itching to see what info ED releases on DCS A-10 in January.

 

And please, for god's sake, don't think I am saying Falcon 4 is a BETTER sim than DCS. Parts of it are better, and parts are worse. BUT, Falcon 4 has been flown for over 10 years now, and DCS would be wise to learn from the best features of Falcon 4 that have kept it such a lively and replayable game over all these years, and I'm NOT JUST TALKING about the dynamic campaign. If DCS doesn't do this, then it's quite POSSIBLE that one of the two other realistic combat flight sims SUPPOSEDLY in development- the secret project from Lead Pursuit or Fighter Ops, will eventually steal the market away from DCS.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Speed_2

[EtherealN]

Secondly, you are again ignoring the more important fact that the DCS theater is UNFINISHED, and even though it is 800km of the side, perhaps a third to a half of its land area is not populated with objects.

 

Ehm... No.

The land you are talking about just isn't part of the theater. The DCS terrain has added areas like that to avoid the IL-2 phenomenon of flying and fighting right next to areas where terrain suddenly stops.

 

Again though, I'm still waiting for information to show that Falcon terrain is more detailed. All screenshots I've found are horrible, extremely repetitive, and the best "terrain" I found was a payware addon that only replaces the textures.

 

If we move on to FreeFalcon I found terrain that was worse in mesh detail than IL-2. Timestamped with July this year. Openfalcon equally fails to impress. The terrain mesh is of such low detail that I might as well play IL-2 or (almost, since I still have that original box too :P ) Falcon 3.

 

The dynamic campaign is not "one little thing", it adds ENDLESS replay value.

 

Oh come on! That is marketspeak at it's best. I grew tired of those repetitive campaigns faster than their IL-2 counterparts. As far as dynamic campaigns goes I'd much rather play EECH. (Although both EECH and Falcon suffer some very bad realism problems in that your lowly pilot is given strategic command over the theater. How any person who cares about "realism" would live through that blatant concession to "playability" I do not know.)

 

Flights are organized into PACKAGES, and the AI aircraft actually (usually) try to do their jobs.

 

Actually or usually? Serious difference between those two.

As for DCS and FC - they do indeed do their jobs. Only issue is that their "jobs" are defined by the mission designer. That compaint seems frivolous at best.

 

There is a persistant world, even in tactical engagements (single missions). You can jump into ANY F-16 or even non F-16 in any phase of that aircraft's mission. Seamless integration between the 3d world and 2d world... and the list goes on and on.

 

Did we completely abandon realism at some point here? I thought you were a realism junkie, but now you are parading arcade machine features as a good thing?

 

Some of the versions of the Open Falcon mod are even addressing the areas where DCS trumps Falcon 4, such as a 3d clickable cockpit, avionics modelling, radio modelling, etc.

 

As someone already mentioned - there's a very real difference between making a button show the correct thing, and making a button show a correct thing for a correct reason. An example would be the long and arduous chase for the laser rangefinder bug. People were basically having bugs that looked almost exactly like expected behaviour caused by DCS correctly modelling the strain on the laser and lens from it's operation.

 

In the end, neither DCS or Falcon 4 is necessarily a better sim than the other, as each has its pros and cons.

 

But the proponent of one of them just threw up a list of HAWX features as "pros". Come on.

 

I gotta do SOMETHING else when I get tired of flying the same DCS mission for the tenth time...

 

Well, that sounds amazingly like when I fly the "same" Falcon mission for the 200th time. Sure, exact enemy package differs by an aircraft here or there, and the name of the city below us changes, but... It's the same mission. Just like it was in EECH, IL2, Rise of Flight etcetera.

[Speed_2]

Ehm... No.

The land you are talking about just isn't part of the theater. The DCS terrain has added areas like that to avoid the IL-2 phenomenon of flying and fighting right next to areas where terrain suddenly stops.

Then what is the area of the map that is fully populated and "part" of the theater?

 

Again though, I'm still waiting for information to show that Falcon terrain is more detailed.

It's not, that's one of the advantages of DCS.

 

Oh come on! That is marketspeak at it's best. I grew tired of those repetitive campaigns faster than their IL-2 counterparts. As far as dynamic campaigns goes I'd much rather play EECH. (Although both EECH and Falcon suffer some very bad realism problems in that your lowly pilot is given strategic command over the theater. How any person who cares about "realism" would live through that blatant concession to "playability" I do not know.)

I may have exaggerated a little bit, but perhaps I felt the difference between the replayability of a dynamic campaign and the replayability of a scripted campaign NEEDED exaggeration- it doesn't even compare in my book.

 

 

Actually or usually? Serious difference between those two.

As for DCS and FC - they do indeed do their jobs. Only issue is that their "jobs" are defined by the mission designer. That compaint seems frivolous at best.

Frivolous? Ok YOU can spend the hours and hours organizing and linking different aircraft in the same package in DCS. It's mostly a mission creator and structure perk advantage that Falcon 4 has over DCS, but that's important when you are creating your own missions, or trying to figure out what flight out of the myriad of friendly flights is your escort.

 

 

Did we completely abandon realism at some point here? I thought you were a realism junkie, but now you are parading arcade machine features as a good thing?

You'd have to be retarded not to see the advantage of being able to jump into a flight at any time. It is most advantageous in testing missions. It would really really suck if I had to edit the mission or fly it all the way through every time I wanted to test a certain part of it.

 

It's also a perk you can use to your advantage in the dynamic campaign. Since AWACs does not vector aircraft to intercept enemy aircraft, it can be very advantageous to jump into an F-16 on BARCAP and intercept some enemy aircraft that are about to strike a high value target. I do not do this OFTEN, as I like flying a mission from start to finish. Still, it's a perk, and it's just plain dumb not to list it as such.

 

But the proponent of one of them just threw up a list of HAWX features as "pros". Come on.

First of all, it's just dumb to say that because something is in HAWX, it's not a good idea. That is what you are implying, and I know for a fact that you are smarter than that. Secondly, how would I ever know what was in that game? I wouldn't touch HAWX with a 10 foot pole.

 

 

Well, that sounds amazingly like when I fly the "same" Falcon mission for the 200th time. Sure, exact enemy package differs by an aircraft here or there, and the name of the city below us changes, but... It's the same mission.

 

No, it's not. All missions in single Falcon 4 dynamic campaign are different from each other. You're just describing being bored of the game. That's different. You don't think that REAL pilots over long conflicts got the same feeling that you describe, that the "exact enemy package differs by an aircraft here or there, and the name of the city below us changes, but... It's the same mission." Compare that to DCS scripted missions, which, ARE truely the same mission. Sure, you can put SOME random elements into it, but only a few random elements unless you want to spend forever making a mission.

[Warbird_242]

come on guys! You both have very good points but they conflict so just accept that pleassse :)

[EtherealN]

Then what is the area of the map that is fully populated and "part" of the theater?

 

There's parts of Crimea terrain there, but not populated. Same with the north-east part, same in the east, and same for norther Turkey.

 

I may have exaggerated a little bit, but perhaps I felt the difference between the replayability of a dynamic campaign and the replayability of a scripted campaign NEEDED exaggeration- it doesn't even compare in my book.

 

Which is the beauty of a powerful and detailed mission and campaign editor and the vast amount of user-created missions and campaigns available from sites like LockOnFiles and linked on this forum's relevant sections.

 

Frivolous? Ok YOU can spend the hours and hours organizing and linking different aircraft in the same package in DCS. It's mostly a mission creator and structure perk advantage that Falcon 4 has over DCS, but that's important when you are creating your own missions, or trying to figure out what flight out of the myriad of friendly flights is your escort.

 

Weird, I have distinct memories of having no such issues even as early as FC1. Indeed, my escort was helpfully labelled "escort". ;)

 

You'd have to be retarded not to see the advantage of being able to jump into a flight at any time. It is most advantageous in testing missions. It would really really suck if I had to edit the mission or fly it all the way through every time I wanted to test a certain part of it.

 

I am retarded, am I? Oooh, dangerous ground there sir. I'd advice you to watch your language quite carefully. ;)

As it happens, the current incarnation allows you to very easily view these behaviours. Fly it once, then load the track and see what different flights did. Or fly it and mid-flight open F10, select a visible flight (set who is visible in the ME), and look at them to ascertain what they are doing.

 

It sounds to me now that what you are doing is, once again (like with the terrain editing) complaining about the absense of features that are already in there, but that you never thought to look for.

 

It's also a perk you can use to your advantage in the dynamic campaign. Since AWACs does not vector aircraft to intercept enemy aircraft, it can be very advantageous to jump into an F-16 on BARCAP and intercept some enemy aircraft that are about to strike a high value target. I do not do this OFTEN, as I like flying a mission from start to finish. Still, it's a perk, and it's just plain dumb not to list it as such.

 

So Falcon's AI is broken, the player is able to intervene, so this is a pro? Why not just fix the AI issue? Like, f.ex, a CAP or Intercept flight would in Lockon and DCS...

 

First of all, it's just dumb to say that because something is in HAWX, it's not a good idea. That is what you are implying, and I know for a fact that you are smarter than that. Secondly, how would I ever know what was in that game? I wouldn't touch HAWX with a 10 foot pole.

 

My point was that you are a self-labelled "arrogant realism-obsessed Falcon junkie", yet several of your arguments are more akin to HAWX than anything a realistic simulator has set it's sights on doing.

 

No, it's not. All missions in single Falcon 4 dynamic campaign are different from each other. You're just describing being bored of the game. That's different.

 

Yes. Because someone said that the variation given by this feature offered "ENDLESS" [sic] replayablity.

 

You don't think that REAL pilots over long conflicts got the same feeling that you describe, that the "exact enemy package differs by an aircraft here or there, and the name of the city below us changes, but... It's the same mission." Compare that to DCS scripted missions, which, ARE truely the same mission. Sure, you can put SOME random elements into it, but only a few random elements unless you want to spend forever making a mission.

 

Incorrect. Checked out the amount of random elements in the OilWars campaign Wags made? Noticed how, on analysis of the missions, they were "easily" transformed into different missions depending on previous success?

[Feuerfalke]

It really makes me wonder how so many people insist they got bored with BS, yet make it so darn obvious, they only scratched the surface and don't know anything about the simulation, the editor, the engine, the map and even the Shark itself. :music_whistling:

 

How can you get tired of something you never did? :huh:

 

Yes, it has lost the sparkling effect of being a brandnew release, but if you want such a feeling you better play Sims and be happy to buy a dull addon every few months.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[159th_Viper]

 

How can you get tired of something you never did? :huh:

 

 

Amen!

[Warbird_242]

It really makes me wonder how so many people insist they got bored with BS, yet make it so darn obvious, they only scratched the surface and don't know anything about the simulation, the editor, the engine, the map and even the Shark itself. :music_whistling:

 

How can you get tired of something you never did? :huh:

 

Yes, it has lost the sparkling effect of being a brandnew release, but if you want such a feeling you better play Sims and be happy to buy a dull addon every few months.

 

I think the problem here is that many people simply don't have the time to make missions with complex triggers etc and explore every function of the KA. If you like to accurately replicate every RL procedure then fine, but I'd say the majority of gamers, whilst interested in the flying bought this for combat, and I think the general consensus is the combat capability ( of the sim not the KA-50) is a bit limited, without more intelligent AI etc etc

[Grimes]

Just because Crytek doesn't choose to create a game like Black Shark doesn't mean their engine is incapable of it running something like Black Shark. I fail to see why many sim/ PC players tend to look down upon others who choose to play games with less realistic modeling of aircraft physics. I don't know why this is so common, maybe simmers have a sense of elitism about it, possibly there is too much pride involved, or perhaps they are just upset that others are intentionally trying to have fun in their games. Simply because someone doesn't appreciate games that accurately recreate the hydraulic system of a combat helicopter doesn't mean they are lesser beings.

 

The point is quit looking down at those who play FPS, Hawx, BF2, enjoy flying in Arma, or any other game that doesn't "meet the standards" of DCS. But rather, look at them as a potential market to expand the genre to. "Say, you liked dog fights in Battlefield 2 huh? Well if you want something more complex out of the a game, then check out "xxxxxxxx" (< Any decent flight sim game).

[Glowing_Amraam]

Well put Grimes.

 

Before flying with Lock On, i was playing with the planes in Battlefield 1942, MS Flight sim, and even before that, i was playing with those "iF-22" games by Novalogic etc... And after hundreds of hours messing around with the Choppers in BF 2 (yes, you heard me, bf 2), settling down with the Black Shark for the first time wasn't as challenging as it could've been ;)

 

Obviously it's day/night difference in the FM etc, but the general "helicopter principles" were already mastered.

[Speed_2]

There's parts of Crimea terrain there, but not populated. Same with the north-east part, same in the east, and same for norther Turkey.

Which is exactly my point- isn't that about a third to a half of the land on the DCS "map"? I'm not complaining about the fact that they use less detailed land areas on the edges of the detailed zones we are supposed to fly over to avoid the edge-of-the-world issue. My problem is that if the theater is not extended, the size of the detailed area is going to be a hinderence to realism starting with DCS A-10.

 

Weird, I have distinct memories of having no such issues even as early as FC1. Indeed, my escort was helpfully labelled "escort". ;)

Well, my point was that it's EASIER to find, not impossible. What happens if you have multiple escorts? Then you have to look through the briefing to see exactly which. This is a VERY minor point anyway, so it's silly to really even debate it. The vastly better reason that Falcon 4's mission creation and package system is better is that it is MUCH easier and quicker to modify and add flights and packages.

 

 

I am retarded, am I? Oooh, dangerous ground there sir. I'd advice you to watch your language quite carefully. ;)

Never said that, I said "You'd have to be retarded" a very common and informal way of saying "one would be dumb to". That does not imply a specific person is dumb.

As it happens, the current incarnation allows you to very easily view these behaviours. Fly it once, then load the track and see what different flights did. Or fly it and mid-flight open F10, select a visible flight (set who is visible in the ME), and look at them to ascertain what they are doing.

 

It sounds to me now that what you are doing is, once again (like with the terrain editing) complaining about the absense of features that are already in there, but that you never thought to look for.

Is there any way to jump into control of a flight in the middle of that flight's mission? I can't imagine how, because an aircraft that is designated as being able to be player or client controlled does not fly unless the player or client is in it. Please tell me if I'm wrong and detail how this is done.

 

So Falcon's AI is broken, the player is able to intervene, so this is a pro? Why not just fix the AI issue? Like, f.ex, a CAP or Intercept flight would in Lockon and DCS...

Can you manually add flights from the F10 map in DCS in the middle of a mission? Because you can in Falcon 4.

 

There's more reason than just that that makes being able to join mid flight a good feature. I can't count the number of times that our wing has scheduled a flight, and then a person shows up late after we have already taken off. That person simply jumps into the cockpit of the bird that he would have taken if he hadn't been late. It's not as fun or realistic as being on time, but it's better than not flying at all!

 

It's a "pro" for many reasons. Really, you're having a utter lack of imagination to not see how this is an excellent feature.

 

My point was that you are a self-labelled "arrogant realism-obsessed Falcon junkie", yet several of your arguments are more akin to HAWX than anything a realistic simulator has set it's sights on doing.

What "points"? I was only aware of one point that you had an issue with not being realistic, and I think I have sufficiently detailed why it is a good feature.

 

Incorrect. Checked out the amount of random elements in the OilWars campaign Wags made? Noticed how, on analysis of the missions, they were "easily" transformed into different missions depending on previous success?

 

But still not nearly as varied as what a true dynamic mission generator will give you.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Speed_2

[Speed_2]

Well put Grimes.

 

Before flying with Lock On, i was playing with the planes in Battlefield 1942, MS Flight sim, and even before that, i was playing with those "iF-22" games by Novalogic etc... And after hundreds of hours messing around with the Choppers in BF 2 (yes, you heard me, bf 2), settling down with the Black Shark for the first time wasn't as challenging as it could've been ;)

 

Obviously it's day/night difference in the FM etc, but the general "helicopter principles" were already mastered.

 

I'd agree with this also. While Longbow 2 was not even remotely close to realistic compared to DCS BS, it taught me how rotory aircraft fly.

[Kuky]

Falcon 4 should die out... I mean really. The good thing ED made DCS is to move away from LockOn engine because of its limitations and that's a good thing... Falcon 4 should do the same... stay as it is, what it was (best sim of its time and for good few years but its way outdated now) and instead of trying to bring little improvement with every new OF etc they should just drop the whole thing and start again on new sim.

 

The one and only thing that makes a sim last for years in my eyes is good level of realism of the aircraft, FM etc... the randomisation comes from playing with and against people, online. This way you really don't need dynamic campaigns. The only thing I find not good enough in BS is that infantry and vehicles stay in one spot as you shoot at them... but I know this could be changed with trigers only that does complicate things as it has to be done manually in mission editor... and it takes forever. If this kind of behaviour would be part on AI it would make things much better.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Kuky

[Speed_2]

Falcon 4 should die out... I mean really. The good thing ED made DCS is to move away from LockOn engine because of its limitations and that's a good thing... Falcon 4 should do the same... stay as it is, what it was (best sim of its time and for good few years but its way outdated now) and instead of trying to bring little improvement with every new OF etc they should just drop the whole thing and start again on new sim.

I agree. It should. It was about time over five years ago that someone came out with something that is clearly better in all aspects. I'm hoping that DCS eventually becomes that. DCS A-10 is going to strike a massive blow to Falcon 4, that's for sure- and it's a good blow to strike, as we desperately need a new fixed wing modern combat sim.

 

The one and only thing that makes a sim last for years in my eyes is good level of realism of the aircraft, FM etc... the randomisation comes from playing with and against people, online. This way you really don't need dynamic campaigns. The only thing I find not good enough in BS is that infantry and vehicles stay in one spot as you shoot at them... but I know this could be changed with trigers only that does complicate things as it has to be done manually in mission editor... and it takes forever. If this kind of behaviour would be part on AI it would make things much better.

 

I'd agree with this IF you could make the majority of vehicles and aircraft human controlled.

[element1108]

Multirole fighters on a 15 year old game shouldn't be compared to a more recent 1 year old helicopter sim. If you're bored of the campaign, might I suggest joining a squad. 159th for example, fighter, strike and attack wing (attack =ka50). Now all will operate under the same umbrella. Talented mission designers and dedicated squad nights. Fly with rl pilots vs ai or opfor. That beats any single player dynamic campaign in my opinion.

 

My advice is join a squad, you'll learn lots and develope a new appreciation.

Edited November 30, 2009 by element1108

[Kuky]

IL-2 series held me for good 4 years... it was flying online that did it... there were quite a few aussies making online campaigns (some recreation of historical missions) and it was lot of fun and variety... yes, eventually you still get bored with it, such is life... Falcon4 was great for its time... something better (in fighter department) is coming soon... I think it might be FC 2.0 as a good start

[Feuerfalke]

Falcon 4 should die out... I mean really. The good thing ED made DCS is to move away from LockOn engine because of its limitations and that's a good thing... Falcon 4 should do the same... stay as it is, what it was (best sim of its time and for good few years but its way outdated now) and instead of trying to bring little improvement with every new OF etc they should just drop the whole thing and start again on new sim.

 

Really? And why should it die out?

 

Everything that lives does it, because there is a place for it. If Falcon4 is still played on a broad basis, including tournaments and large online squads, then because it still has something other games don't have. As in nature things only die out, when something more successful replaces it.

 

The fact that Falcon4 still lives, despite of the original development having stopped over a decade ago does not raise the question why nobody noticed it has to be killed, but in which regard Falcon4 is so successful that it has not been surpassed by other simulations, including LockOn and DCS.

 

Maybe you are right and A-10C will kill Falcon4, but I honestly doubt it. And the reason is pretty simple: The F-16 is a very renown multi-role jet, with tons of information available, including models of the cockpit and even complete simulation cockpits. Despite the A-10C's possibilities, it is no multi-role jet and there is virtually no information available on the plane, neither about cockpit configuration nor general functions.

 

IMHO DCS will not be able to kill Falcon until ED implements a renown western fighter of at least the popularity of the F-16, fully supports cockpit builders online and offline and integrates a dynamic campaign.

[element1108]

Killing falcon probably isn't DCS's intention. Plennnnntlybof room for all sims these days gents. Falcon 's penis is no larger than DCS's.

[H-street]

i've read lot of good things about Falcon 4.0 level of realism but the graphics are ugly compared to Lock on/DCS

 

Don't think its been mentioned but there is a great graphic's updated version of Falcon 4.0

 

its a FREE mod for FALCON, a google search would help you find it. It

Falcon 4.0 to some

.

 

DCS is great, but until it becomes a living breathing battlefield (a la F4) i'll stick with F4 for campaigns.

 

DCS is fun for startups, and flying but lacks that feel of being the pilot