Product Type Survey (forum vote)

[Mt5_Roie]

Not sure if were off topic with these discussion since the original poll just asked if we want DCS or FC quality stuff.

 

For me, DCS quality stuff is where my love is. I love having to take several minutes to get the aircraft started and warmed up. Many of my friends who come over to fly my pit just want to start in the air with targets nicely marked.

 

As far as price goes, It's hard to judge. I've payed 80-100 for X-plane every version that it came out. I"ve also payed anywhere from 20-60 dollars on a single aircraft for it that was nowhere near DCS level. If an aircraft that I had great interest in was developed with the DCS quality that I like, I would pay 100 easy for it. We saw a huge debate when the Huey came out for 50 dollars, I think we'll always see those kind of debates. But if you don't want to spend the money - then don't.

 

I also have understood that ED is a company and as such, needs to make money to remain open. While there are lots of DCS level guys here, there are a lot more FC level people out there. So it would make business sense for them to develop those sims as well. So polling wise, I want more DCS level...but from a business side I would be ok if they released FC level aircraft and let the third party guys take on the DCS level sims.

 

Personally I love Falcon BMS as well. I think it would be awesome to see the F-16 in the DCS world with DCS level.

[xXNightEagleXx]

That's easy! Eagle Dynamics is producing military grade simulation software in the first place. The DCS A-10C "module" was developed, to train the US Air National Guard Pilots during adaption trainings from the A-10A to the C model. Luckily ED negotiated to publish a non-military high-fidelity version... that is how we got a DCS Level A-10C for $60 rather than a lo fidelity one for $100 what I guess would never have covered the development effort, anyway.

That is why I believe we will change very little by ranting and barking up the tree, for features etc.

I believe ED will continue with DCS as long as they have ressources and contracts permit, but still there might be more going on in the background than simple Simulation Games for the public. And as long as they continue shelving out DCS Class Simulation modules, it's fine with me.

 

Well, as I said, I do a bit of trolling here, but the simple fact remains: $5 for one hour of entertainment! Is it a fair price or not? If you answer "yes", if every module gives you more than 8 hours fun when flying/using it is well worth $40... If your answer is "no" then you probably don't go to the cinemas (It's not worth the money)?:D

 

Another simple fact: Many luxury or high class products are too expensive for most people to be afforded. I would like cheap Ferraries or Rolls Royce either, or cheaper healthy food for everybody... :music_whistling:

Maybe the problem is that you don't have enough money to buy it at that price, which in turn leads you to the conclusion "that-it's-not-worth-$40" for you?

 

For me every module is worth $50-$60, and trust me, if I could speed up development for a Eurofighter Typhoon at DCS level, or a AH-64 Apache, I would pay $100 in the blink of an eye...

 

This forum is pretty full of this very discussion again and again. "It's to expensive! It's not worth the money! It has performance issues and ED needs to include <put whatever whish you have here>!"

 

The weird thing is, people complain about prices and still buy FSX modules for $60 plus with inferior quality without a problem. People complain about performance, but still buy any GTA, Battlefield, CoD Title and update their GPU boards for that, but complain DCS is not getting better performance, yet the CPU heavy Sim does not need upgrade of the GFX Cards.

 

IF you guys think that DCS Series is not worth the money, or lacking whatever, why don't you go and buy any alternative "realistic" Combat simulation you like? Any of the "better" products should do!

Go buy a high fidelity Combat Flight simulation like... eh, wait, ehm, maybe ArmA III with its huuuge Maps for fast combat jets?

Or how about Battlefield XVII with its nice realistic "ShootMe! Here I am" Target markers?

Or World of Tanks with its ultra realistic ground combat representation?

Or you may fly the Apache in Combat Helo... Ok, you may need to wait until it is available somewhere next(?) year?

Or Steel Beasts Pro, utterly realistic with its state of the art graphics?

Or buy FSX with Acceleration pack and a bunch of cheapy $50 Add-Ons that hopefully support weapon modelling and may be even targets?

Or Falcon BMS if you have a legal copy of original 90ies Falcon 4.0? ...from my point of view the only real alternative to DCS at the moment.

 

There are so many "alternatives" available, you don't have to buy a DCS title you deem unworthy of your money.

 

But please, allow us other folks to like DCS and its fidelity, the attractive pricing for a 50 hours plus entertainment package per module and point us to a good alternative if you know one, so we can try it and compare it to DCS. :thumbup:

 

Just to be clearer by extending your example of FSX and combat flight simulators, it is possible to say something like that about DCS. As you said FSX it is not a combat simulator even with fighters addons because although the aircraft behavior are good the whole combat system are practically non existing thus leading to a non complete product, well it is almost the same for DCS. In dcs we have aircraft behavior (which also FSX provides), we have some realistic avionics but it ends up here. We don't have a properly COMBAT flight simulation SCENARIO, probably for you it is enough but it is not even close to realism, it just remind. DCS world is perfect for lands units, but it is too small for air units since a war scenario implies that some situations cannot be provided in a small scenario like this.

 

For me DCS A10C, could be easily compared to ARMA with very detailed avionics and amazing aircraft behavior. That's all! Now reminding my words i would repeat if it was just a matter of that, it would be nice, but you have to put on the balance also the VERY poor performance and some lacks. All that together just does not justify anything above 40$. Each improvements raise that price limit by an amount!

Would you find a FSX realistic if it only had 3 airports, with almost none ATC , no tower and no navigation just takeoff and land? Surely no, even with a high fidelity avionic! Obviously those are keys aspect fundamentals for a civilian flight simulator, for a combat flight simulator you aspect long flight plans where everything can happen (not due to trigger but just plans overlapping between your, enemies and lands units). Where you have to judge each thing that you do and do it the properly way not only for the whole time you are inside enemy space but also when you are inside your own air space! I don't find realistic when the whole enemy space reside in a bubble where inside that bubble you are in danger outside that bubble you can also fall in sleep. I could make much more example but i guess that it would be useless.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Not sure if were off topic with these discussion since the original poll just asked if we want DCS or FC quality stuff.

 

For me, DCS quality stuff is where my love is. I love having to take several minutes to get the aircraft started and warmed up. Many of my friends who come over to fly my pit just want to start in the air with targets nicely marked.

 

As far as price goes, It's hard to judge. I've payed 80-100 for X-plane every version that it came out. I"ve also payed anywhere from 20-60 dollars on a single aircraft for it that was nowhere near DCS level. If an aircraft that I had great interest in was developed with the DCS quality that I like, I would pay 100 easy for it. We saw a huge debate when the Huey came out for 50 dollars, I think we'll always see those kind of debates. But if you don't want to spend the money - then don't.

 

I also have understood that ED is a company and as such, needs to make money to remain open. While there are lots of DCS level guys here, there are a lot more FC level people out there. So it would make business sense for them to develop those sims as well. So polling wise, I want more DCS level...but from a business side I would be ok if they released FC level aircraft and let the third party guys take on the DCS level sims.

 

Personally I love Falcon BMS as well. I think it would be awesome to see the F-16 in the DCS world with DCS level.

 

Totally agree with you. I don't see why there should be only "simulators" out there. There are others people that enjoy much more FC and they deserve that product.

 

At the same i can clearly say that DCS A10C provide only aircraft behavior and avionics (which is good for a flight simulator), but a COMBAT flight simulator it not a matter of flight and shoot but a matter of tactics, attitude, doctrine and experience on how to deal with a 300mn flight plan where 150 mn is inside enemy air space. This is the same difference between arma and bf3, it is not a matter of aim and shoot, but a matter of tactics, attitude, doctrine and experience!

Having a poor war scenario for AIR UNITS makes it a good flight simulator but a bad combat simulator!

Edited June 3, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[winz]

Because FS series show a very valid engineering approach with code optimization but still realistic behavior. The only defect of a non 100% dynamic code is that it might not allow simulate a non ordinary situation, but at the same time 100% dynamic code might not allow it due to bugs or lack of parameters. Why does it matter? Well in theory the non dynamic provide almost the same result with much less computer power, obviously if the code is poor it will struggle the same way.

No, just no. The stock planes in FSX are terrible to fly with. They have no weight and can be thrown around like paper planes., they are anything but realistic.

 

Comparing DCS flight modelling with FSX is silly, just silly.

You should realize that DCS is approaching the lvl of fidelity professional solutions have, and those are worth much more than $60 a licence key. Just because it doesn't have fancy terrain engine and whatnot, doesn't mean it isn't worth $60. Oh, and I think DCS is much more optimized than FSX, that 7 year old piece of a sim has performance issues even on modern rigs. And that's with simple flight modelling...

[xXNightEagleXx]

No, just no. The stock planes in FSX are terrible to fly with. They have no weight and can be thrown around like paper planes., they are anything but realistic.

 

Comparing DCS flight modelling with FSX is silly, just silly.

You should realize that DCS is approaching the lvl of fidelity professional solutions have, and those are worth much more than $60 a licence key. Just because it doesn't have fancy terrain engine and whatnot, doesn't mean it isn't worth $60. Oh, and I think DCS is much more optimized than FSX, that 7 year old piece of a sim has performance issues even on modern rigs. And that's with simple flight modelling...

 

In fact i added in theory. But you have to consider something, FS allow third parts addons and we all know that 99,9% addons out there are from third part companies. As a programmer i can clearly tell you that a software that deals with external addons sooner or later someone will pass the limits and if you are talking about a game with a very distant view, a lot of objects (active and passive), a lot of dynamics calculation (in contrary to eg BF3), etc.... it happens easily.

As a programmer i tell you that flight simulator is pretty optimized!

Are you a programmer? have you experience with directX, opengl and moreover code optimization? Or at least a GUI using API interfaces?

 

Let's be clear that i'm not defending FSX nor i'm a fanboy, in fact i would never suggest as a professional simulator if the main target is to train uncommon situations!

 

UPDATE:

 

Last time i've ran it i had all maximized, resolution 5736X1080, trackir and still very smooth, although was without addons just for a test.

Edited June 3, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[xXNightEagleXx]

For last i will just add that someone might be misunderstanding my words. I'm not saying that DCS A10C sucks. Under some points of view it almost has no rival, it is just amazing.

It falls when you take in consideration AIR Units combat scenario (which requires a lot of changes, specially maps dimension) and performance.

 

Solved one of these it would make a huge jump and considering today's rivals, DCS A10C would be close to the be the best. If it improves the combat scenario and make it properly to air units, well....Falcon BMS might become history! This is what i'm waiting for, a complete modern combat simulator like for example Cliffs of dover is for WW2 air units.

Edited June 3, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[winz]

In fact i added in theory. But you have to consider something, FS allow third parts addons and we all know that 99,9% addons out there are from third part companies. As a programmer i can clearly tell you that a software that deals with external addons sooner or later someone will pass the limits and if you are talking about a game with a very distant view, a lot of objects (active and passive), a lot of dynamics calculation (in contrary to eg BF3), etc.... it happens easily.

As a programmer i tell you that flight simulator is pretty optimized!

Are you a programmer or have you experience with directX, opengl and moreover code optimization? Or at least a GUI using API interfaces?

 

Let's be clear that i'm not defending FSX nor i'm a fanboy, in fact i would never suggest as a professional simulator if the main target is to train uncommon situations!

Yes, the life of FSX lies in the wast amount of addons available for it. Now let us look on the pricing. I.e. PMDG $70, A2A p51 Model + AccuSim - $30 + $25.....Enviromental addons like REX $44.95...

 

Stock FSX has to do very little calculation. It has a simple flight model, it has no AI (that scheduled traffic without a flight model cannot be called AI), no ground pathfinding, no real system modeling, no dmg modeling, no balistic computation... It's 'very distant view' is AFAIK limited to 10nm for dynamic objects (airplanes). Dense autogen will butcher FPS even on modern rig.

Yes, there are people who are able to make DCS lvl aircrafts, I don't think anybody questions that (belsimtek is one example), but those people will have such addons priced as a DCS lvl module, because doing them requires full dedication, skill and lots of knowledge about the modeled platform.

 

Oh, and don't go all 'I'm a programmer' on me. Yes, I'm a programmer with master degree in software engineering, if you need to know.

[mmaruda]

BMS will not become history soon for a couple of reason and dynamic campaign is only one of them. There are also other theaters than Korea to fly, the mission planing is outstanding, the F-16 is a multirole aircraft and they are working on the Hornet too (full sim version), not to mention it does not require such a beast hardware as DCS (in fact it has dual core support from the start) and has better networks stability (from my experience at least).

 

Now that said DCS IS superior in terms of simulation detail, but some things need to be improved. For that ED needs money and thus a wide customer base is better. We will not have much chance of regular evolution of DCS, if the customer base is a niche with a niche.

 

I don't think that having more mid-fidelity modules would mean that ED will shift resources from DCS level aircraft. The ability to reach a broader market will mean they have more income and resources for the whole DCS World in general. It's not really a bad thing, it just provides more choice for everyone. If someone does not like full study-sim, that does not exclude them from playing DCS and those who prefer higher fidelity can just not buy the easier stuff.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Yes, the life of FSX lies in the wast amount of addons available for it. Now let us look on the pricing. I.e. PMDG $70, A2A p51 Model + AccuSim - $30 + $25.....Enviromental addons like REX $44.95...

 

Stock FSX has to do very little calculation. It has a simple flight model, it has no AI (that scheduled traffic without a flight model cannot be called AI), no ground pathfinding, no real system modeling, no dmg modeling, no balistic computation... It's 'very distant view' is AFAIK limited to 10nm for dynamic objects (airplanes). Dense autogen will butcher FPS even on modern rig.

Yes, there are people who are able to make DCS lvl aircrafts, I don't think anybody questions that (belsimtek is one example), but those people will have such addons priced as a DCS lvl module, because doing them requires full dedication, skill and lots of knowledge about the modeled platform.

 

Oh, and don't go all 'I'm a programmer' on me. Yes, I'm a programmer with master degree in software engineering, if you need to know.

 

Good so you should know that the algorithm course is about to teach you how to calculate algorithms cost, reproduce a desired behavior and more important how to improve it with similar result but a high cost reduction. Which i hardly find it DCS A10C does properly, and i say it comparing to what i have seen and did.

 

By the way as i said a post above, it is not only a matter of performance but also COMBAT flight simulation which is more important to simulation since performance can be solved by wasting money on hardware instead a closed software does not allow improvements easily even if you have money to waste unless the software house do it.

 

Another thing that you have to consider is that a third part software must increase the price due to 3 factors :

 

- Personally i don't know if MS requires royalties payments, but if they do expect some price increase.

- As a software engineering you should have studied operations research and economy (i have studied economy degree itself since i started the university as economy degree), so you should know that the price curve relies on the selling curve so since a third part software will never sell more than the base and maybe not even half (not considering piracy situations) then proportionally it must demand more money to sustain its business. ED do all buy itself and a good bundle might allow to sell everything for a high but still acceptable price. Now if they are overloading themselves with projects hard to sell or non attractive is just a sign of bad business. They should analyze what it is necessary and what will sell. As a teacher told me once it is pretty easier to develop software than sell it (oversize can happens easily).

- Today everyone knows that FSX without addons is nothing, they know that addons are vital for those who seek realism as air breath. Some will just pay for no matter what and selling for less money will not mean high sells because simulation's customers are very limited if confronted to console's customers.

 

Last 2 points can be tagged as pure business! We all have seen amazing programmers/companies getting broke when it's a matter of business.

Edited June 3, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[xXNightEagleXx]

BMS will not become history soon for a couple of reason and dynamic campaign is only one of them. There are also other theaters than Korea to fly, the mission planing is outstanding, the F-16 is a multirole aircraft and they are working on the Hornet too (full sim version), not to mention it does not require such a beast hardware as DCS (in fact it has dual core support from the start) and has better networks stability (from my experience at least).

 

Now that said DCS IS superior in terms of simulation detail, but some things need to be improved. For that ED needs money and thus a wide customer base is better. We will not have much chance of regular evolution of DCS, if the customer base is a niche with a niche.

 

I don't think that having more mid-fidelity modules would mean that ED will shift resources from DCS level aircraft. The ability to reach a broader market will mean they have more income and resources for the whole DCS World in general. It's not really a bad thing, it just provides more choice for everyone. If someone does not like full study-sim, that does not exclude them from playing DCS and those who prefer higher fidelity can just not buy the easier stuff.

 

In fact i said, Others and I have no right to say that "Arcade" games must stay out and ED must only works on full sim. No way! I support them to increase their customers base.

 

I was only replying to the 100+ $ guy! Just too expensive for the final product if considerate it as a AIR COMBAT SIMULATORS. If we are talking about AVIONICS SIMULATORS then it is AMAZING (imagining it without those huge performances issues).

 

Since i was looking for a AIR COMBAT SIMULATOR, I'm still glued to BMS because it just delivers a better overall simulation (without even considering DCS performance issues), just like CoD delivers a good WWII simulator.

Edited June 3, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[GGTharos]

ED has never made an arcade, or 'Arcade' game. Yes, there is arcade mode in FC, and DCS, but it isn't the main focus.

 

In fact i said, I or others have no right to say that "Arcade" games must stay out and ED must only works on full sim.

[xXNightEagleXx]

ED has never made an arcade, or 'Arcade' game. Yes, there is arcade mode in FC, and DCS, but it isn't the main focus.

 

In fact i quoted myself! I was meaning simplified version for one reason or another in confront of others modules

[winchesterdelta1]

Both.. So i didn't vote.

[mmaruda]

ED has never made an arcade, or 'Arcade' game. Yes, there is arcade mode in FC, and DCS, but it isn't the main focus.

 

That is the result of a sort of elitist thinking. Back in the day, Lock On was considered realistic and frowned upon only by the Falcon crowd (though I don't think it happened on a regular basis). Now a lot of people think that unless something has click-able pit, it's 'arcade'. That is just wrong.

 

Personally I consider this a harmful exaggeration as it diminishes anyone who flies FC3 and this is not an easy 'game'. Even without click-able pits it still is hard and demanding. Proper radar operation in air combat requires at least as much attention and knowledge as most of the standard stuff you do in the Ka-50 and A-10C.

[xXNightEagleXx]

That is the result of a sort of elitist thinking. Back in the day, Lock On was considered realistic and frowned upon only by the Falcon crowd (though I don't think it happened on a regular basis). Now a lot of people think that unless something has click-able pit, it's 'arcade'. That is just wrong.

 

Personally I consider this a harmful exaggeration as it diminishes anyone who flies FC3 and this is not an easy 'game'. Even without click-able pits it still is hard and demanding. Proper radar operation in air combat requires at least as much attention and knowledge as most of the standard stuff you do in the Ka-50 and A-10C.

 

Lol, i hope you are quoting just because i wrote it and not because you really think that i find it is an arcade game or i will think that you just write things without even read. I made clear that the avionics are pretty realistic and i never ever had mentioned cockpit (although less functions means less plane and procedures realism which lean to a less realist avionics). We have quite valid flight model in FC3.

 

Clickable cockpits bring all to the realism point. So we can clearly divide between 3 types of customers

 

1. those who prefers totally arcade game (WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF NONE OF DCS PRODUCTS). All that matters is a simplified radar system, unrealistic flight structure limits (Usually you gonna see high joystick pulls with lost of speed but not immediate stalls), easy lock system and fire, fire, fire if possible about 10+ missiles.

 

2. Those who prefer high fidelity flight model (which seems your case). It doesn't need to have a high fidelity avionics which leads to learn all procedures. It just have to provide a high fidelity flight model that takes care of the limits structures (usually you gonna see more accurate joystick use to avoid stalls and get the best turning ratio). The war scenario must be acceptable, not realistic but if it let's you to use weapons properly similar to real life well it is enough. Probably with a preference to smaller missions.

 

3. those who prefer high fidelity combat simulator. It is just not a matter of flight models (which you can find in many simulators, some better implemented ) but also a matter of how to deal with some situations. Learn how to behave once inside enemy territories, when to engage and when to avoid due to many factors (fuel, weapons, priorities), stay focus once inside own territory, etc..... well just a real war scenario.

[winz]

Good so you should know that the algorithm course is about to teach you how to calculate algorithms cost, reproduce a desired behavior and more important how to improve it with similar result but a high cost reduction. Which i hardly find it DCS A10C does properly, and i say it comparing to what i have seen and did.

I don't follow. FSX and DCS are using fundamentally different approaches for flight simulation. Each has it's plus and cons. The DCS one, beeing more complex, is sure to be more resource heavy. You cannot say that FSX is more optimized just because its algorithm requires less resource. That's just flawed. The lvl of DCS flight simulation is beyond anything you can accomplish with the approach FSX has taken. Is the increased fidelity worth the performance costs? Imho it is. My experience is that DCS is able to put smile on non-simmers faces, just because the sensation of flight is absolutely amazing. This is something I was never able to achieve in FSX.

 

I'm not saying that DCS is the mother of optimization, parts of the engine are outdated and perform terrible on newer architectures. But ED is well aware of these issues, but drastic changes to the engine just cannot appear out of thin air, as you should know.

 

By the way as i said a post above, it is not only a matter of performance but also COMBAT flight simulation which is more important to simulation since performance can be solved by wasting money on hardware instead a closed software does not allow improvements easily even if you have money to waste unless the software house do it.

But ED is trying to increase the COMBAT part as well. It's providing a common enviroment for different platform, creating a virtual battlefield. What players do with it is not EDs responsibility. ED is constantly increasing the tools mission designer have at their disposal.

 

Another thing that you have to consider is that a third part software must increase the price due to 3 factors :

 

- Personally i don't know if MS requires royalties payments, but if they do expect some price increase.

- As a software engineering you should have studied operations research and economy (i have studied economy degree itself since i started the university as economy degree), so you should know that the price curve relies on the selling curve so since a third part software will never sell more than the base and maybe not even half (not considering piracy situations) then proportionally it must demand more money to sustain its business. ED do all buy itself and a good bundle might allow to sell everything for a high but still acceptable price. Now if they are overloading themselves with projects hard to sell or non attractive is just a sign of bad business. They should analyze what it is necessary and what will sell. As a teacher told me once it is pretty easier to develop software than sell it (oversize can happens easily).

- Today everyone knows that FSX without addons is nothing, they know that addons are vital for those who seek realism as air breath. Some will just pay for no matter what and selling for less money will not mean high sells because simulation's customers are very limited if confronted to console's customers.

- Affaik they don't.

- ED also have to develop and support the platform as well. Remember that DCS world is free.

- Theeen, why should ED sell their product for less? I still don't understand why DCS modules are, by your opinion, overpriced.

ED is in business for 20 years and afaik it's the only company that survived the decline of sim popularity. So I think they got their 'economics' right ;)

[xXNightEagleXx]

I don't follow. FSX and DCS are using fundamentally different approaches for flight simulation. Each has it's plus and cons. The DCS one, beeing more complex, is sure to be more resource heavy. You cannot say that FSX is more optimized just because its algorithm requires less resource. That's just flawed. The lvl of DCS flight simulation is beyond anything you can accomplish with the approach FSX has taken. Is the increased fidelity worth the performance costs? Imho it is. My experience is that DCS is able to put smile on non-simmers faces, just because the sensation of flight is absolutely amazing. This is something I was never able to achieve in FSX.

 

I'm not saying that DCS is the mother of optimization, parts of the engine are outdated and perform terrible on newer architectures. But ED is well aware of these issues, but drastic changes to the engine just cannot appear out of thin air, as you should know.

 

 

But ED is trying to increase the COMBAT part as well. It's providing a common enviroment for different platform, creating a virtual battlefield. What players do with it is not EDs responsibility. ED is constantly increasing the tools mission designer have at their disposal.

 

 

- Affaik they don't.

- ED also have to develop and support the platform as well. Remember that DCS world is free.

- Theeen, why should ED sell their product for less? I still don't understand why DCS modules are, by your opinion, overpriced.

ED is in business for 20 years and afaik it's the only company that survived the decline of sim popularity. So I think they got their 'economics' right ;)

 

Luckily they are good in their business or else we would find ourselves without a promising company that invest on combat flight simulators.

 

By the way i might have expressed myself wrong, i didn't mean that all modules should cost less. Some are just amazing that's it, not perfect but amazing at least potentially speaking.

As i said in my first post AT THIS STAGE considering all those negatives reports. If they improve it they will make the big step according my requirements and then they could ask even 250 $ for the license, i will be there buying!

 

 

When i brought FSX as example of optimization i never mentioned flight model optimization itself. Those time are gone! Now we need dynamic flight model which is what DCS offers(amazing flight model)...END OF DISCUSSION too much cons in FSX path. That said, FSX was an example of what optimization can do and if we look at DCS WORLD we'll see that it isn't properly optimized. The neck of the bottle is not in the flight model but in the rest of the world, including the graphic engine.

The bad part is that the WORLD environment is not even that complex, i would have understood if we had this performance with a complex world as Falcon BMS (but let's be clear not that world because bms is outdated and can be clearly improved). All that we have is a limited combat war scenario that struggle even on high end pc. Do you really think that it is normal to flight at 60FPS when looking straight but once you turn it drops to 20-30? I don't think so.

 

Again DCS WORLD (IN GENERAL) FLIGHT MODEL = AMAZING

DCS WORLD (IN GENERAL) COMBAT WAR = VERY VERY LIMITED

 

Surely they are improving but still does not worth 100$ once they make that jump i will just say SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY

 

UPDATE : With DCS world not even complex i meant in confront to what i would have expected to today in 2013, which is something years ahead Falcon BMS core.

UPDATE 2: I forgot that DCS world is free which is amazing and i thanks ED. Honestly on one hand i am disappointed because i didn't know that it was free, if i new i wouldn't have bought it. On the other hand i'm happy because probably i would have remained with a bad impression. Now i know that this series have a lot of potential, we just have to be patient have hope that they keep improving.

Edited June 3, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[shagrat]

First of all you don't have to be aggressive or sarcastic.

I ain't! I may be a bit provoking (...) "Well, as I said, I do a bit of trolling here" (...), but meant no offense, just to promote a different point of view and get people to think about it.

What is funny is everybody is omitting the answer to the question if you deem $5 per hour of entertainment worthwile?

 

What is the problem to acknowledge, that for one hour movie we gladly pay $5 or more, but we complain about $50 for a game entertaining us for more then 10 hours minimum, even in its current imperfect state?

 

For me that sounds a bit hypocritical, but that is just my oppinion. In the end it's everybody's own personal decision to spend his hard earned money on what he likes. Be it movies, fast shiny cars or combat simulation games.

 

Do you tell the guy in the Ferrari that his shiny car was not worth the money? That it needs too much expensive fuel? Really?

 

Comparing ARMA and BF is just arrogant because you imply that people are stupid. You place those game in the same category as high fidelity combat flight simulator (if you do that kind of example obviously you do imply it ), i guess that smarter people doesn't.(...)

 

You imply a lot into my comparison, that was nowhere said. And again no answer to the question I put up: What is your alternative to DCS? What is the product available on the market that is better / worth the money compared to DCS?

 

And by the way. Of course you can cite ArmA, CoD and Battlefield as Multirole Combat simulations!

A simulated combat environment where the player can take command of multiple ground and air platforms to recreate a battlefield experience.

At the moment these are the only competitors to a Digital Combat Simulation (DCS World!) which tries to do this as high fidelity sim.

 

Still DCS gets a lot of ranting for the lack of fidelity with Combined Arms (in fact many people complain that CA is inferior to ArmA), so may be your grading of DCS as a Combat Flight Simulator is not correct?

 

I am quite sure everybody understood what I wanted to point out by these comparisons, as did you, even if you tried to twist my words.

 

So again the central question: If DCS is not worth buying at the moment, what is the alternative? What combat simulation / Combat flight simulator is the better deal? :music_whistling:

Edited June 3, 2013 by shagrat

[TimeKilla]

 

Personally I consider this a harmful exaggeration as it diminishes anyone who flies FC3 and this is not an easy 'game'. Even without click-able pits it still is hard and demanding. Proper radar operation in air combat requires at least as much attention and knowledge as most of the standard stuff you do in the Ka-50 and A-10C.

 

I think you might find he was talking about game mode and not the FC3 aircraft some that do have the AFM and only lack click able cockpits

[xXNightEagleXx]

I ain't! I may be a bit provoking (...) "Well, as I said, I do a bit of trolling here" (...), but meant no offense, just to promote a different point of view and get people to think about it.

What is funny is everybody is omitting the answer to the question if you deem $5 per hour of entertainment worthwile?

 

What is the problem to acknowledge, that for one hour movie we gladly pay $5 or more, but we complain about $50 for a game entertaining us for more then 10 hours minimum, even in its current imperfect state?

 

For me that sounds a bit hypocritical, but that is just my oppinion. In the end it's everybody's own personal decision to spend his hard earned money on what he likes. Be it movies, fast shiny cars or combat simulation games.

 

Do you tell the guy in the Ferrari that his shiny car was not worth the money? That it needs too much expensive fuel? Really?

 

 

 

You imply a lot into my comparison, that was nowhere said. And again no answer to the question I put up: What is your alternative to DCS? What is the product available on the market that is better / worth the money compared to DCS?

 

And by the way. Of course you can cite ArmA, CoD and Battlefield as Multirole Combat simulations!

A simulated combat environment where the player can take command of multiple ground and air platforms to recreate a battlefield experience.

At the moment these are the only competitors to a Digital Combat Simulation (DCS World!) which tries to do this as high fidelity sim.

 

Still DCS gets a lot of ranting for the lack of fidelity with Combined Arms (in fact many people complain that CA is inferior to ArmA), so may be your grading of DCS as a Combat Flight Simulator is not correct?

 

I am quite sure everybody understood what I wanted to point out by these comparisons, as did you, even if you tried to twist my words.

 

So again the central question: If DCS is not worth buying at the moment, what is the alternative? What combat simulation / Combat flight simulator is the better deal? :music_whistling:

 

Peace :)

[plexi]

Its Fab

 

I find that DCS is great. For me, and I do realise everyone is different, it gives me a great insight as to what it takes to fly these things and isn't the challenge what its all about? not forgetting the sense of satisfaction when it all goes to plan. Yeah ok it does have a steep learning curve but hey, what's the rush...its not as if there's a war on eh?!.......there is...Damn.:doh: