Are Hardcore DCS study sims going away?

[Risk]

I joined three squads over the last three years and they have all since disbanded. Most claimed that they were not happy about the direction DCS was going. It seems that the feeling was that DCS was moving away from developing realistic Jet aircraft (study sim). I understand that there is a lot of effort going on with third party mods, but we have not seen anything to date that suggest that anything will come close to the level of detail that was place on the A-10C by DCS. This is the level of detail that DCS put out that raised the bar, including a manual that made me feel like I was learning to fly a real military jet aircraft.

 

I guess I am asking the big question: is it time to hang things up? The updates don't really say anything new that we haven't already heard over the last few years. I appreciate the need to keep things quite to prevent mud slinging, but if DCS is waiting on Mod development to take the sim to the next level then we have to be more realistic about the future. What do you guys think?

[NineLine]

The F-18 promises to be comparable to the A-10, I dont think study sims are going anywhere....

[jazjar]

Well the people in your squads are misinformed and wrong. Nowhere did the 3rd parties ever say that their teams are not trying to make their aircraft realistic.

[neoshi]

I think DCS just wants to focus more on the core simulation engine development and a few study sim aircraft, but is relying on the third party developers to supplement community wishes in terms of various selection of aircraft and varying degrees of detail.

[Ali Fish]

And the P51 raised the bar even more, when it comes to bare bones flight physics. my guess is these people took flaming cliffs 3 in the wrong way.

[159th_Falcon]

DCS is certainly not dying, but whit the recent announcement of the DCS F35 i cant help but feel that standards are being lowered.

 

DRASTICALLY.

 

Simply because, just a couple month's ago, ED (mods and testers) were saying themselves it simply was not possible to simulate such aircraft.

Certainly not on DCS level.

 

Also, in the F35 thread it has been repeatedly said that's there is an surprising amount of publicly available data on the F-35.

Yet no one bothers to post links, and\or sources.

 

Personally, i'd be already happy if they could make the F35 to the current FC level of fidelity.

 

And label it as such, instead of DCS.

 

There is an announcement from the same developer i am very much looking forward to though.

Which is the development of new terrain.

[PeterP]

Are Hardcore DCS study sims going away?

Yes!

Study-Sims are dead long ago ... but it seems that no one told it to them! - so they still do what they always do.

 

Edit:

Serious??!!

It took you 8mins to come to this conclusion - and you want to speak about study-sims ? Are you serious - I'm ashamed!

So yeah, I guess this is one of those 3rd party products that'll have a pretty low standard, as fully opposed to Belsimtek's Huey. ED should have a veto to stop low quality products from being introduced to DCS. I hope they do.

Edited June 17, 2013 by PeterP

[NineLine]

Little harsh...

 

Update: Ok, so it's not ED behind it, but 'Kinney Interactive'...

Looking at their website, it looks pretty amateuristic. Not impressed by this David Kinney guy, actually, he's a total joke, wearing his flight gear while he's never had anything to do with flying, according to his own website:

 

 

So yeah, I guess this is one of those 3rd party products that'll have a pretty low standard, as fully opposed to Belsimtek's Huey. ED should have a veto to stop low quality products from being introduced to DCS. I hope they do.

[Wolfie]

F-35, they should stick in FC3. Nuff said.

 

Still, I am not that impressed with the simulation of the Huey either. Nor its cockpit graphics. This is what I was afraid of coming from 3rd party developers. Hopefully, DCS continues to churn out the beauty that is Warthog and Shark.

[PeterP]

"...and make it compatible wit arma and/or battlefield "

... is what you forgot to add.

[cichlidfan]

"...and make it compatible wit arma and/or battlefield "

... is what you forgot to add.

 

 

:lol:

 

Must spread rep...

[kk0425]

"...and make it compatible wit arma and/or battlefield "

... is what you forgot to add.

 

I think this picture shows how I feel about that.

 

[GodsPrototype]

I think your squads were the ones going in the wrong direction, not the study sims. DCS is improving every month and getting closer to an even more advanced and complicated sim. More simulation, more realism, more fun!

[Ali Fish]

DCS is certainly not dying, but whit the recent announcement of the DCS F35 i cant help but feel that standards are being lowered.

 

DRASTICALLY.

 

.

 

wow you really have hit the nail on the head there. exactly what you have said has been in the back of my mind ever since a few certain announcments have been made. i would have never forseen the latest modern topguns getting announced before anything more appropriate and far more interesting and absolutely "DO-ABLE" older aircraft. none of it makes sense.

 

i suggest any future models get the DCS stamp of approval. or not. make it clear from the get go! because nobody around here is going to be happy with any tom foolery.

 

and yeah im happy with stating study sims are nearly extinct.

 

and this too has been puzzling me, i merely ask why cant i have my apache AH64D on the other hand of the full study sims only ethos/quality question.

 

 

Simply because, just a couple month's ago, ED (mods and testers) were saying themselves it simply was not possible to simulate such aircraft.

Certainly not on DCS level.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Ali Fish

[PeterP]

 

and this too has been puzzling me, i merely ask why cant i have my apache AH64D on the other hand of the full study sims only ethos/quality question.

..I tell you why: Because you started to believe some posters .

 

And some of this 'posters' are maybe now in the same situation like you. - it's up to you if you believe me.

[Ali Fish]

..I tell you why: Because you started to believe some posters .

 

And some of this 'posters' are maybe now in the same situation like you. - it's up to you if you believe me.

 

i KNOW i KNOW lo l:thumbup: ive made various posts suggesting a few things that are seemingly becoming true yet shot down at the time. one of the last was called DCS:aerobatics i think, only to get shot down in terms of concept by some folks who felt they were definetly in the know. it says Combat sim in the title so theres no chance your getting a BAE Hawk blah blah.

 

 

So applying critical thinking to this, quite simply put, its now down to ED`s vetting abbility to provide the community with guaranteed quality content from these 3rd party developers. who will be the first group to fail ? surely that has to be part of the statistics or does anything go ?

 

On a side note, ive watched the whole world go by and get better day by day in terms of similar technologies whilst im still sitting in 10 year old scenery with sub par graphics for todays generation, a continual abuse of very much out of date content through a seemingly modernised version of DCS so iam no stranger to not believing what iam told especially here. its marvelously handled with zero information from the horses mouth. marvelous. and yeah too much time has gone by milking what was concieved too long ago.

 

another thought i have is that ED isn`t so strong, and its now relying on this 3rd party concept. because im thinking this could have easily happened long ago. but it didnt, apply your pro`s and con`s and im left with a conclusion. we are a dying bread. Yet it is only ourselves that keep it alive, imagine the mainstream doing this without major change for so long. i dont think so.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Ali Fish

[basset]

Oh yes - the death of the flight sim - that's been going on now for how long? 12 to 15 years?

 

God forbid a hard core sim with a clickable chickenpit is released - it will never sell.

People do not want to sit and click switch's for 10 minutes to start the engine. Right.........

 

We are in the midst of the "Golden Age of Flight Sims" NOW. And its only going to get better.

 

Thank You DCS!

[leafer]

"...and make it compatible wit arma and/or battlefield "

... is what you forgot to add.

 

Somehow I'm the only one that doesn't get this joke.

[Exorcet]

DCS is certainly not dying, but whit the recent announcement of the DCS F35 i cant help but feel that standards are being lowered.

 

DRASTICALLY.

 

Simply because, just a couple month's ago, ED (mods and testers) were saying themselves it simply was not possible to simulate such aircraft.

Certainly not on DCS level.

 

Also, in the F35 thread it has been repeatedly said that's there is an surprising amount of publicly available data on the F-35.

Yet no one bothers to post links, and\or sources.

 

Personally, i'd be already happy if they could make the F35 to the current FC level of fidelity.

 

And label it as such, instead of DCS.

 

There is an announcement from the same developer i am very much looking forward to though.

Which is the development of new terrain.

 

F-35, they should stick in FC3. Nuff said.

 

Still, I am not that impressed with the simulation of the Huey either. Nor its cockpit graphics. This is what I was afraid of coming from 3rd party developers. Hopefully, DCS continues to churn out the beauty that is Warthog and Shark.

 

It works both ways. If you don't know what's available in terms of information/data, you can't say "Oh F-35 would be great for FC, but terrible for DCS". By your (at least Falcon's) admission, for all you know F-35 could be the most accurate module to date.

 

Even if it is not, how does it in anyway indicate lowered standards? DCS has become a modular system with multiple developers. One of those developers thinks differently from another, this isn't surprising. They may have difference resources as well. And whether you care for what they're selling or not, they're helping to sustain what you want to buy.

 

When it was originally announced long ago that ED would only look at a certain minimum standard of information when creating modules, and that level excluded anything more cryptic than the A-10, I was disappointed. I don't see how anyone couldn't be. Nothing would stop them from making A-10's while at the same time making other levels of fidelity that are just as much simulators as the A-10. And, just as it has been with current modules, as new information comes to light, changes can be made. The A-10 has already had systems and flight model updates. There is no reason other modules can't.

 

If F-22, F-35, Pak-Fa, B-2, whatever can't be done to A-10 level that's perfectly fine. Just do them to the level that's possible. Better than waiting 50 years to get something that's still going to be inaccurate to some degree anyway.

[Boris]

In my opinion things have never looked better!

 

In fact I got back into simming after many years (pre black shark), to find that the community is positively abuzz and a lot is happening, plus flight sims (especially DCS) have never been better.

 

Most complainers today are just spoiled. Back in the day even hard core simmers were perfectly happy with an aircraft that was even 50% accurately modelled. Rivet-counting was a phrase that once was used to mock the hardest of the hard core. Now people actually literally count rivets.

Sims like Black Shark and A-10C have raised the bar very high. Which is great. But we should put things into perspective.

 

Even an F-35A, if it lives up to the promises made, will be unbelievably more detailed, both graphically and technically, than anything the combat simming community had 10 or 15 years ago.

[Cedaway]

Do you (not to a particular person) think that ED should give the clearance to Kinney without having some guaranty?

Wags has well stated that errr. Wait, I just copy/paste his post:

 

"A few comments after skimming this thread:

 

1- More so than ever, we carefully vet a third party developer that we partner with. We do not provide an official DCS development license lightly. Both myself and our studio director had long discussions with KI and we both believe that they are up to the task given their past experience, staff skill set, data / SME access, finances and professionalism. Over the years we have been approached by many "scammers", KI is certainly not one of them.

 

2- While we do not expect the F-35 systems to be 100% accurate, we don't expect them to be. I'm sorry to break the news, but several of the A-10C systems are missing and a few more I had to redesign due to sensitivity issues. However, we believe (like the A-10C), KI can provide a close proximity to the real aircraft to the "DCS level". I think many of you would be surprised just how much open source data there is on the F-35.

 

3- Rather than rush to judgement now, how about letting KI prove or disprove our confidence in them? As I like to say, the proof will be in the pudding.

 

Matt

__________________

DCS World: http://www.dcs-world.com

 

Asus P6T, i7 975 @ 3.33, 6 GB DDR3, GTX295 (both GPU enabled), Win7 64, and HOTAS Warthog / CH Pro Throttle.

 

EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Always in motion is the future"

 

So, for me it's clear, wait and see what's coming...

Why not a good surprise? But well, in this particular case (F-35), haters will always hate... as well as optimists will always see the glass half-full...

Edited June 18, 2013 by Cedaway

[Boris]

Do you (not to a particular person) think that ED should give the clearance to Kinney without having some guaranty?

Wags has well stated that errr. Wait, I just copy/paste his post:

 

"A few comments after skimming this thread:

 

1- More so than ever, we carefully vet a third party developer that we partner with. We do not provide an official DCS development license lightly. Both myself and our studio director had long discussions with KI and we both believe that they are up to the task given their past experience, staff skill set, data / SME access, finances and professionalism. Over the years we have been approached by many "scammers", KI is certainly not one of them.

 

2- While we do not expect the F-35 systems to be 100% accurate, we don't expect them to be. I'm sorry to break the news, but several of the A-10C systems are missing and a few more I had to redesign due to sensitivity issues. However, we believe (like the A-10C), KI can provide a close proximity to the real aircraft to the "DCS level". I think many of you would be surprised just how much open source data there is on the F-35.

 

3- Rather than rush to judgement now, how about letting KI prove or disprove our confidence in them? As I like to say, the proof will be in the pudding.

 

Matt

__________________

DCS World: http://www.dcs-world.com

 

Asus P6T, i7 975 @ 3.33, 6 GB DDR3, GTX295 (both GPU enabled), Win7 64, and HOTAS Warthog / CH Pro Throttle.

 

EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Always in motion is the future"

 

So, for me it's clear, wait and see what's coming...

Why not a good surprise? But well, in this particular case (F-35), haters will always hate... as well as optimists will always see the glass half-full...

 

Sounds rather solid to me...

[WildBillKelsoe]

I don't think Eagle Dynamics would risk an announcement of a module with an outside company without making sure it WILL appeal to the general public. Now it may not be full of avionics, full of flight model behaviour, but we, as genuine DCS customers, have never been failed by ED. I don't think in this market, ED wants to lose customers, let alone this economy. I have total confidence in ED and even if they go down a notch or two, I'll accept because the previous 3 modules proved that ED aims to please and I AM pleased! We just have to start to learn not to poke other people in the face.

 

 

I will not reply to any more skepticism/rant threads. I will hold my piece and I will continue to support ED for personally, I was not a combat flight sim nut until I got Blackshark 1.0 on steam.

[Ells228]

Guys, do you really think the A-10C is 100% accurate to the real one.

Do you think you could just walk up to one at an airshow, jump in in it and start it, of course not.

 

There has to be some degree of artistic licence here, and as Matt said some sensitivity issues as well.

 

I agree that 3rd party dev's should announce the level of realism that they are attaining too and trust me there a re a lot of hoops to jump through before getting the licence from ED to develop.

 

Why have ED gone down the direction of 3rd party add-ons? Well that's their decision and I for one are very thankful for it.

As a virtual pilot I get to fly a lot more aircraft from different teams.

 

Add to this the stuff that ED id doing with CA etc. and it "enhances" the realism feel for me.

 

Are we a dying breed, most certainly not. Are more and more air forces around the world turning to flight simulators to train their pilots, you bet they are.

Are more and more flight candidates going through fast jet programmes that have used flight sims since they were young, yep again.

Does it give them an edge over someone that hasn't had any flight sim experience, well I'm sure there is a study out there for that but I would think so.

 

I think it's very exciting times going forward for DCS, ED and it's partners.

 

On the F-35 issue, well we had the same thing go around when we announced the Typhoon. If they have the data, if they have the MNF licence to sell it and it works damn well, who am I to know if it's exactly like the real one or not, probably never unless an F-35 pilot tells me so, in fact same with the A-10C and an A-10C mechanic has told me it's not quite like the real one. Doesn't stop me enjoying many hours flying it ;)

 

Based on the background of the KI team I'd say they're in with a damn good chance of developing a fairly realistic air plane there.

As long as they state which level of fidelity it is when I buy it, it's my choice to get it or not.

 

I'm sorry you can't base a company or "team" by their website. Our one is shocking and hasn't been updated in 2 years and is on my to-do list but I'm busy coding the HUD at the moment, so what would you like my priority to be there ;)

 

All my own opinion of course and some very interesting debate going on in here.

 

Chris

[159th_Falcon]

Guys, do you really think the A-10C is 100% accurate to the real one.

Do you think you could just walk up to one at an airshow, jump in in it and start it, of course not.

 

Think your wrong here Chris, things like security aside, i think its perfectly possible for someone which can start up the DCS A-10C to start up the real thing.

 

Weather he will be doing it in a safe and approved manner according to the procedures is a different thing.