DCS: P-51D Mustang Coming in 2012

[159th_Viper]

however it was born from the same world as LOMAC, contains the same aircraft and ground units (mostly) and borrows much from the original game....

 

As Lomac was to Flanker. In any event, to date the individual series has largely been focussed on aerial units. Having due regard to that, LOMAC and DCS do not have the same flyable aircraft at all.

 

As regards to the other content and game-mechanics/engine etc etc, I would go so far as to say it borrows very very little. DCS is FAR, FAR ahead of LOMAC. I thought that was common-cause?

 

This is probably what lead us to believe that DCS had the same priority of delivering a modern combat experience (modern meaning not vintage).

 

I cannot reasonably buy that argument - too much information to the contrary has already been given. I can only assume that linguistic difficulty for English-non-first-language speakers is to blame, which is eminently reasonable, hence the attempts to clarify the situation, alternatively merely a matter of selective perception, which would of course be unreasonable in itself :)

Edited January 31, 2012 by 159th_Viper
Typo

[chaos]

What seems to be getting lost here is the intent of ED. P-51 "for demonstration purposes" does not mean lo fidelity or a one-off product. Hopefully this product (P-51) will spin off into a completely different era of aerial warfare (including appropriate terrain and opposition). Maybe(!) we'll get a Korea or Vietnam type simulation along the way as well. I'm not privy to ED's business plan but I would welcome many (professional) developers as 3d party contributors and build on the framework that is the DCS engine.

 

I can't wait to fork over my $50 or whatever to play P-51D. It's not like we're drowning in flightsims anyway... Cheer up people!

[159th_Viper]

hmmm another DCS product that promises to be so hard that only the true hard core simmer should ever contemplate trying to take off. I have heard that before.

 

I never said it to be hard :)

 

What I was alluding to is that there are select parameters for the aircraft to function in in order to function as it should in order to avoid it killing you. Should you not comply, the aircraft will attempt to maim you. It is a lot more unforgiving than the A-10.

 

It's getting to know those parameters that is the challenge - it's not hard: I never said it was. It's all there in the paperwork - it just takes time and dedication to learn.

 

 

Young men of 18 were flying these in combat after a few hours training

 

And how many of them did not make it back? Combat was often the least of their worries - was often the attempt of getting back to terra firma that got them killed.

[636_Castle]

Where do you see that? How does the Kamov then fit into that equation?

 

That'd be in the description of DCS: A-10C's campaign itself.

 

"For the second time in the beginning of the 21st century, Georgia has been invaded and occupied by hostile forces."

 

That'd lead me to believe we're fighting in the 21st century. I don't know how much time really needs to be spent on debating whether or not the DCS world is modern or not. Last time I checked, the new Batumi airport terminal in the DCS world was opened in 2006. Last time I checked, Crimea wasn't part of Ukraine in the 1940s. I think we can put a pin in pretending the DCS world looks like it did in the 1940s, with the construction, renovation, and territorial changes that have been made in the last 5 decades.

 

That is so, but that is not what you said. We are after all referring to the DCS series now.

 

I never referred to the DCS series. I said people were attracted to Eagle Dynamics because of their original products...which were jets, unless I missed something.

Edited January 31, 2012 by 636_Castle

[john_X]

you're right and i'm not against P-51 but we're expecting the next DCS fighter for a long time, and as nothing was said about it recently(what type of aircraft, features etc), and the P-51 came up, it's obvious we are afraid that the next DCS module may not appear this year either. We need news, screens in other words no secrets.

[bluepilot76]

I never said it to be hard :)

And how many of them did not make it back? Combat was often the least of their worries - was often the attempt of getting back to terra firma that got them killed.

 

True enough, apparently more were killed trying to land 109s than actually shot down. I think.

 

I am looking forward to the challenge.

 

Anyway people, who says prop aircraft have no place in a modern conflict. In another 50 years when it all goes Mad Max we'll probably be fighting it out in hot air balloons.

[EtherealN]

I never referred to the DCS series. I said people were attracted to Eagle Dynamics because of their original products...which were jets, unless I missed something.

 

Actually, speaking for myself, I did have LOMAC and FC (even review codes) way back when, but until DCS:BS I was mainly flying IL-2 when flying "for fun". It was the Black Shark that brought me here "properly". ;)

 

People come to these products for all sorts of reasons. Those that came for pointy-nose jets will get their fill when that product is finished. Now imagine how it would be if the rotorheads were complaining about every single DCS product that isn't a helicopter? "But I came to DCS for helicopters, it's what DCS was about!!!" Etcetera. ;)

 

All good things come to those who wait, and that includes a jet fighter. :)

[159th_Viper]

That'd be in the description of DCS: A-10C's campaign itself....

 

Yes, which in turn relates to the specific module, ie the A-10C, within the DCS series. Just because one module plays out in the 21st century does not mean that all other modules have to follow.

 

I don't know how much time really needs to be spent on debating whether or not the DCS world is modern or not.

 

None whatsoever if you had due regard to the F.A.Q.:

 

Q: Will a world war 2 era map be included?

A: No, DCS is an open simulation environment, it is not a simulation of a specific time period.

 

Any clearer than that it cannot get.

 

I never referred to the DCS series. I said people were attracted to Eagle Dynamics because of their original products...which were jets, unless I missed something.

 

Yeah - and I would have thought that those very people clearly understand the obvious distinction between the two separate and distinct product-lines, ie LOMAC and DCS. In this instance we are only discussing/referring to one.

[bluepilot76]

I was attracted to the DCS series because of Wags video in the Blackshark that showed the most realistic looking clickable cockpit I had ever seen. Even the fact it was a wierd helicopter was not able to stop me getting it.

 

I am looking forward to being able to sit in a similarily realistic P51 cockpit and go into massive death match furball on the free for all server. Or pylon racing, or spot landing competition, or aerobatic displays, or formation flying or hopefully (one day) shooting down some FW190s over Berlin..

 

I didnt like LOMAC much after a little while of flying around because it was a bit too arcade-y.

[636_Castle]

This discussion is FUBR lol. How can anybody else not realize the massive contradictions that are going back and forth here? I guess I'll go back to flying around in Lock On: *Modern* Air Combat: Flaming Cliffs 2, watch ED update airport construction continuously to be on-par with a modern map, fly through campaigns that take place in the 21st century, fly around over civilian AI vehicles manufactured in a modern era, with modern territory separation according to the official DCS map, and then await the release of DCS: P-51D, where we will then begin pretending we've been in a simulation that was never a modern environment.

 

We're just gonna start acting as if we're in a sandbox.

 

I wonder why the older models of AI aircraft were removed from DCS, like the F/A-18A. I mean..it's not like we're striving for a time period. Right?

Edited January 31, 2012 by 636_Castle

[159th_Viper]

How can anybody else not realize the massive contradictions that are going back and forth here?

 

Enlighten us.

 

Do not just allege generalities - if there are 'massive contradictions', point them out specifically and we can attempt to clarify in order to eliminate confusion, especially for those new to the forums.

[john_X]

i'm thinking further..When we get the P-51 we'll fly it over Russia or we'll receive Europe terrain too?

[159th_Viper]

i'm thinking further..When we get the P-51 we'll fly it over Russia or we'll receive Europe terrain too?

 

F.A.Q:

 

Q: Will a world war 2 era map be included?

A: No, DCS is an open simulation environment, it is not a simulation of a specific time period.

 

Q: How is the P-51 supposed to fit into DCS? This makes no sense to me.

A: DCS is an open simulation environment, not confined to any one era, level of fidelity, or 1st party development. In the future ED and 3rd parties may add all sorts of different units ranging from gliders to X-51s.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84678

[Eddie]

This discussion is FUBR lol. How can anybody else not realize the massive contradictions that are going back and forth here? I guess I'll go back to flying around in Lock On: *Modern* Air Combat: Flaming Cliffs 2, watch ED update airport construction continuously to be on-par with a modern map, fly through campaigns that take place in the 21st century, fly around over civilian AI vehicles manufactured in a modern era, with modern territory separation according to the official DCS map, and then await the release of DCS: P-51D, where we will then begin pretending we've been in a simulation that was never a modern environment.

 

Well, given that half of the 'modern' aircraft, ground units and weapons in DCS are actually not 'modern' at all, many actually no longer being in service. And the fact that many of the 'modern' aircraft and ground vehicles and weapons currently in use around the world at not even modelled in DCS. Please explain how DCS simulates a 21st century scenario.

 

Also, how do you define 'modern'. Given that the actual definition of the world modern in the english language in the context of a period in time and history is any time between the end of the middle ages (16th century) and the present day I'd say the P-51 (and any other aircraft for that matter) fits nicely in to a 'modern' world.

[Dimebag]

All good things come to those who wait, and that includes a jet fighter. :)

Can I hold you to that? :renske:

[636_Castle]

Honestly guys just nevermind...

 

We're gonna start using dictionaries and stuff to keep ourselves safe?

 

I don't need to explain how DCS simulates 21st century scenarios. Read the campaign description. In which scenario would I be using an A-10C other than a modern scenario? Seriously?

 

We're so far away from logic, that logic is a dot off in the distance now.

 

Don't incorporate Lock On: Modern Air Combat into DCS multiplayer if we're not going to be simulating modern combat across all platforms.

 

Just give me my A model Hornet back, and F-111 back as AI aircraft in DCS, and I'll be happy.

[bluepilot76]

I pretty much gave up on IL2 when the spaceships started appearing around the servers. I can see why so many people are concerned about the P51 making its debut in DCS.

 

Its going to be a bit rubbish if you are up to your neck in SOIs and CDUs in your A10 and some punk pulls up in a P51 and starts riddling you full of holes.

 

I think we just have to trust the mission designers to keep things sane?

 

Other than that, the argument about it holding up the next big thing is just silly. It s like being 5 again and wishing santa claus would hurry up. So the next big thing comes out then what? Happy?- or start wishing for the next big thing. What if its not your favorite Jet? Just be glad of what weve got and hope that it keeps getting better.

[Dimebag]

My only concern is if it will be a match made in heaven. Let's hope so. And if it's not then any serious online servers will just not include it, and have a separate mustang only server.

[Eddie]

You see now this is where you're missing the point castle. DCS does simulate some aspects of 21st century warfare, BUT that isn't all it simulates.

 

The CONCEPT behind DCS is that it isn't retricted to any set dates in history or a specific conflict. The fact that up to now the aircraft released have been quite recent does not mean that DCS simulates the 21st century aviation environment.

 

In fact, apart from the A-10C very few aspects of Modern (by you definition) warfare are simulated at all, and the A-10C is the odd one out purely because it's a 21st century aircraft surrounded by 1980s and 1990s equipment and aircraft. And in terms of being 'modern', even the A-10C modelled in DCS is not modern as it's quite a way behind the A-10Cs actually flying today.

[EtherealN]

Castle, you are confusing individual mission and campaign design, with the product itself.

 

And of course, remember that the A-10C is actually a lot more modern than most of the things in FC. While the Black Shark is essentially 80's tech (+ ABRIS). You are taking a single instance and turning it into a rule, which is actually the opposite of "logic". ;)

 

Yes, one of the scenarios of DCS A-10C is set in a fictional second Georgian/Russian war. So? You could also have a mission in BS that is set in the 80's. And in FC there's been squadrons (most notable 51st, but possibly more that I have't noticed) that ran "80's" scenarios implemented through prohibiting the use of, for example, the charlie-slammers. They understood the point quite well - it is what you make of it. Want 21st century? Make a mission that is 21st century. Want 80's? Make a mission that is 80's. Going back further than that has been a problem due to the specific aircraft modeled, but as has been stated in interviews for more than a year: there is nothing about DCS that says other time periods don't belong. In fact, I believe it was roughly a year ago where Matt explicitly stated this, and it probably has been stated earlier as well, that's just the first time I remember for sure.

 

Really, it all is whatever you make with it. You don't have to do what others do any more than you absolutely have to play on the 51st's 80's scenario. But you have the option. And options are good!

[john_X]

F.A.Q:

 

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84678

 

i wasn't asking if there will be a world war 2 era. I was asking if will we have Western and Central Europe terrain, for general simulation not a specific time.

[EtherealN]

The answer for this is most likely: "not on release", however the note regarding vehicles applies; there may be more maps developed by ED and/or 3rd parties.

[john_X]

thinking that you have a lot of talented people on this forum who may offer their help, would ED agree to help a parallel team, made by self-offerer people, to create Europe terrain? I know i am insistent but i think we miss the most important part of the world's map, not because we talk about Europe,but because is the place where most of the Air Forces join together(including USAF) in most important exercises, and in the past is the most offering war theatre, world war 2, cold war etc.

 

I am one of the guys who would share their help for free, to create Europe.

[159th_Viper]

thinking that you have a lot of talented people on this forum who may offer their help....

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=84717

[Cali]

"Goes and throws another bag of popcorn in the mircowave, then starts looking for the F-16 start up guide"