Is it just me... or is DSC falling too far from what they are good and and what is unique in the flight sim market? DSC P-51 too me seems to be a more sim like FLIGHT game, really I fail to understand the purpose and direction... IMO, they should be sticking with what there good at, study sims... bring us the Longbow, F/A-18 and so on and so on... This is no bash against them, they can do what they want, and if this new direction works for them, then great... I'm am no hardcore flight simmer, but I do have and play both A-10 and Blackshark 1/2... because they are unique and rare games... why change direction? Just wondering... and again, JMO... don't expect everyone to agree or disagree.

Now to test out this new sim-FLIGHT game.

The P-51 was originally an internal project to showcase to 3rd party devs what could be achieved with the DCS engine - it got to a stage where they decided so much had gone into it, that they might as well complete it as full module.

The P-51 and the move to the integrated DCS:-World is the first step in attracting 3rd party development for Aircraft, Terrain etc.

IMO I think ED is looking to get some of the more reputable FSX devs to develop for DCS.

Nate

ahhh... understandable... like I said, if it works for them, then great. But I still like the idea of them being a unique, one of a kind, study sim developer.

I like Nate's idea.

Just chuck all those accusim warbirds in. And make it snappy.

Sorry for dragging this on, but - in what respect is DCS: P-51D not a study sim?
From where I am standing, it's the deepest study of the P-51 that has ever been released. And I am not convinced the Accusim one pars it, either. (It gets points for persistence modeling, but falls behind elsewhere.)

Comparing to "Flight", though, is something I'll refrain from commenting much on. My comments would probably not be fit for print. Have you looked at the product at all?

TFC P-51D looks like a very detailed, high fidelity aircraft. The YouTube video shows a cold and dark starting sequence as well as a short airshow and landing. It looks and sounds awesome during the flybys. If ED's intention is to model a WWII warbird to fly around in a modern environment, I can see where Mustang enthusiasts would enjoy that. Think addon for FSX. If their intention is to have 3rd party developers create new WWII era environments and adversarial aircraft for combat, then that seems to follow the DCS format. I would like to know what ED's future plans are for WWII aircraft. Even one axis aircraft would make it interesting for multiplayer dogifighting and missions. Like Magnum said, I'm very interested in future DCS study simulations. I'll buy the Mustang if I can eventually fly it into combat against enemy aircraft in a DCS world.

If M$ is giving up their civilian flight sim domination and ED is going after parts of it, what's the big deal? Only good things are for sim fans.
Looks like next possible toy is 109 so that would give adversary for Pony. Next terrain is Nevada. DCS-World will grow.

I'd propose that the two are not mutually exclusive.

That's cool. Personally, I'm more interested in the latter than the former, but would settle for both.

I'm with you 100% on that.

Is there multiplayer in the beta? So pilots on Teamspeak could fly together ...

Yes.

EDIT: Obvious caveat: it's a beta so things can break. But it should work.

MS Flight:
No Pit,
No Weapons,
No AI Flights,


DCS World:
Has Pit,
Has Weapons,
Has AI Flights.

Not a True Study Sim?? Really?? The manual is 186 pages,It's very,very detailed.The Mustangs two stage supercharger as well as K-14 Gunsight are modeled among numberous other features unique to The P-51.Are you sure you aren't flying in "Game" mode?

not to mention the guys that own ED wanted a P51 simulator because they own a P51.

I kinda agree with him. ED says that this P-51D thing won't delay the future jet DCS module but I know ED is not like EA or something big. They must be putting significant effort on this project. I was really disappointed when this was announced and now I am even more disappointed about the price. Well, the game itself seems superb though. Can't deny that.

One could see it as a proof of concept. Proving their engine can do 'slow' speed prop flight and give a believable flight experience.

First mastering the aircraft, and then dogfighting it against friends and unknow online opponents should give them a little less than a year to create an opposing aircraft.

I sympathize with Magnum's criticism (or maybe "doubt" is better). I and a few hundred others voiced the same on the DCS forum when the P-51 was announced. But after having bought it and played it for an hour or two I think I get it, at least partially. It's more like the first plane offered in a new sim to compete with FSX than a true DCS combat sim. Where ED lost me (and still loses me) is in showing this thing in the Warthog world shooting at Su25's and the like. Now that I can takeoff, shoot and land I am not really sure what to do with it. But if my purchase helps fund a single icon (DCS: World) and lets me drop the other nine, it's $40 well spent.

I'm thinking this could well be a litmus test; if DCS: P-51D sells well, they could possibly look to develop further WW2 era aircraft for DCS: World. So those of you sticklers, just get out there and buy the damn thing so those of us with the nous can get our mits on an Axis opponent post haste...!

I hope for a branching system of ever expanding DCS content that will have them doing modern combat, future modern combat, WW combat, armor, general aviation, airlines, etc... They have the platform, now all they have to do is plug in the content. I'm very excited about this (even though I'm not a huge fan of the P-51)..

I think it is important to look further down the road.

I hope so too.

Proof of concept = stage 1, opponent aircraft (Bf/FW) = stage 2, map (Bulge/Channel) = stage 3, ground targets = stage 4?

If ED wanted to really put some time into fleshing out this product, they could potentially grab a lot of fans from IL-2 (Series), BoB, and even FSX. The market for WWII style sims is huge (relatively speaking). WWII aircraft are, by nature, easier to start and get going so they are therefore more accessible to new players. I wonder what the future will bring.

WW2 planes are much easier to develop than EDs usual techno birds, there's obviously a big market for WW2 planes and with CloDs problems there's a bit of a hole in the market. I think the $40 price tag is a toe on the water, the vultures are circling. If enough people are prepared to pay $40 a flyable plane then I think we'll see a lot more in this direction from ED.

After some contemplation as others have said I think I'd rather ED stick to their modern stuff, I'm not convinced this won't impact on their future current technology releases.

You'd be surprised, the developers notes only hint at at the overall picture - but the detail in the P-51 systems is at least on par if not more detailed than anything ED have done yet - just because it doesn't have a computer and lights flashing in the cockpit doesn't mean it is easier to model. The Piston engine model, for example, is a first for ED. The complexity of that model would rival anything in the A-10.

Examples..
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1436727&postcount=1
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1441842&postcount=92

Nate

MS Flight is a slick core backbone focused primarily on mission content and graphics with lots of integration at the expense of depth of simulation. DCS is a clunky, late backbone focused primarily on depth of simulation at the expense of mission content (graphics are improving).

The concept of a unified environment (see also Rise of Flight) they do have in common but MS Flight and DCS are almost complete opposites in other important ways.

If you want unique, go Hip Hunting in an Mustang! Hour's o' Fun

This was a really good thread in so many respects. I agree with those that really wonder what it the point of flying the P-51 in a modern environment. I also agree that it might be worth the pricetag to just have one consolidated DCS:World to fly in. Personally I don't get it, though I love the P-51, but what is compelling about flying around the Black Sea and Georgia, among modern weapons and radars and defenses, in a WWII aircraft -- even if I do get DCS World along with it.

Now had you given me DCS World AND a new terrain (with WWII technology AI) and the P-51D, then I'd have done it and would have even paid more.

But good for them, I hope it works. I respect what DCS is doing and I certainly get the cash flow side of this. If they can generate some additional revenue now, then good for them and in the long run, good for us!

I wonder if you realise that DCS:World is the new base for ALL the DCS modules ?

You don't have to pay $40 to get it - that is the price for the P-51D module pre-order (which gives you Beta access)

DCS:World is in Beta too at present and as such ED have put all 5 files (4 for DCS:World and 1 for P-51D) in one Beta download area for now.

With the next patches for DCS:BS2 and DCS:A10C (Real Soon Now) you will be able to integrate with DCS:World - and assuming you own them, you've basically got a combined install "for free"). On top of which you get the FC2 Su-25T as a flyable

Once again - no reason to pay for P-51D unless you want to fly that plane

New terrain, well yeah - that's likely gonna cost you (as is the upcoming DCS:Mig-21)

Martin...

When I saw Wags' P-51 video on Youtube, where he's flying through gates, the first thing I thought of was FLIGHT. I know that's not very fair, but it's just a little irritating to be offered such a great P-51, and then fly it through gates. Or shoot weapons at targets that are 70 years out of the Mustang's era. Yeah yeah, beating a dead horse with that but...

I just went on and bought it... I DLd the beta last night and said something along these lines to myself..



+100%



The market is huge... and if they are smart they will tap into it.. This thing has everything that many have been clamoring for for years.. clickable pits.. pilots... total control... every function has a control.. from switching tanks to heating the guns.. This looks very very promising.. I know they said that they weren't planning to expand into another arena.. but even if they could really shake things up in the market by pursuing this.. right now 1C & Gaijin are the top dogs as far as WWII sims go with Gaijin running a distant second.. This could potentially change everything, especially iof they opened up a lot of the grunt work to 3rd party developers. Set the specs... and see what happens.. tweak what's bent till they get it right.. The Warbird feinds ... like yours truly will eat it up... unless of course they want to charge $40 a plane...

The Mustang is cool but if it teaches anything it is the absolute non-neccessity of a clickable pit in a classic plane. The P-51 is so simple you can learn it in 30 minutes as opposed to days in the A-10, F-16, Ka50, etc. If DCS: P-51 takes business away from CloD, it won't be for the later's lack of a real FM or detailed pit. It will be because CloD was just such a disappointing release and left some very huge expectations dashed.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't have to be about taking business "away" from someone else. I have CloD, I don't regret the purchase (well, not now, but I was frustrated in the early days), but it's not like I have to choose between purchasing CloD and DCS P-51D.

I think the market has room for multiple players - especially the WW2 market.

I know, this ^, a thousand times. I own several games where I walk around in first-person and shoot a weapon - we're allowed more than one

I'm admittedly a niche (but big) fan of WWII aviation and prop-planes in general, and that means I buy more or less anything in the genre as (a) I earn more than $40 a month and (b) the software really is the cheap part compared to the hours of entertainment it gives back. Try drinking wine or nice restaurants! For those who love sims I am always amazed at how tribal it gets to the extent of 'I shall not being buying Brand B, because I am a supporter of Brand A!!'

I realize people have limited leisure time, but as a hobby we do like to polarize a bit. I think we're at a great time for PC sims, especially flight and racing..

The drinking comparison is one I like to use myself actually. 40 dollars is, where I live, 4 beers. So yeah, I sacrifice one night out (well who am I kidding - not even half a night out ), and I get a high-fidelity simulation I can use in perpetuity? Even if I only run it for one night I'm still good on that equation. :P

But of course, this is a lot of exchange rate magic that is going on, and it'll be a lot worse for many countries. I'm just "fortunate" in where the exchage rates end up. But my typical metric is usually "do I expect to spend more time having fun with this thing than I spent working to make the money towards purchasing it?"

If the answer is yes, and I don't have other more pressing matters (like rent etcetera), then who cares if it's the same plane someone else already made a sim of? I'd be tempted to purchase the A2A P-51 just to spend a weekend carefully investigating the differences. Given my bias I'd probably end up assuming ED got it right and A2A got it wrong, but who cares? The A2A product gives me different abilities that the ED product doesn't - for example I'd be interested (if I get the time) to do a new round-the-world flight (with refueling stops obviously) in MSFS. Last time I did that was with a Beech Baron about a decade ago. :P

EDIT: And I realize it's a bit disingenious the way I phrased it at first - I _personally_ don't have to choose between CloD and DCS P-51D because I don't have to pay for P-51D. But I mean the general principle - I didn't choose between CloD and RoF, and my even though I don't make a fortune (compared to my country at least) I can still purchase pretty much every sim worth it's name that gets released and it's still a small part of my overall spending on games. :P

I buy just about everything too. I have avoided CloD just because I don't want to fund a train wreck.

I bought everything from IL2, RoF and the fighter collection (...Flanker 1.0 was my first sim). I don´t regret the few bucks I spend for all of them, because it is still a fraction of what i had to spend for the hardware to fly them. At the moment only RoF got me hooked, but to fly a good Mustang is great, and DCS:109 would be the big show for me Hopefully it will not be too late for a friend of mine ...he is 89 now - and didn´t fly the 109 since a few decades

That's pretty much me.. I have LOMAC & BS .. but the modern stuff just doesnt move me.. I never got FC.. I tell ya .. if they play their cards right this thing will sell like hotcakes.. I use a FFB stick .. so flying is awkward for me at best at the moment.. and I haven't even fully programmed my sticks yet.. but from the little I have experienced .. this is a great project with more potential than anything I have seen over the past few years.. Even if they wound up with a dozen or so aircraft .. if they were all done this well... it would do very well.. and some folks would be crying in their beer for sure... I have everything on low.. and it looks great.. I probably won't be able to really dive into this till after I move in 3 weeks .. but man o man am I impressed so far.. I just flew around.. down low.. and the feel of flight and speed is very natural .. The sound is great..

Bring on a 109G or Zero.

Then F4U and carrier ops!

I'm on the fence with this one. Not looking forward to just having only one WWII aircraft. They should release them in adversary paires. Zeke vs Wildcat, Spit vs 109, P51 vs 190 etc etc. So, untill I see at least one adversary for the P51 my wallet stayes closed. The market they're aiming at must be the folks that plunk down $40 for FSX addons. I'm barely used to RoF's pay per plane scheme for around $10 for a fighter and $15 for a bomber. I do like the WWII study sim approach so eventually I'll get onboard when there's something Axis to hunt.

I bought it and it's nice but I do kind of wonder what I paid for. I already have all their other products, so the $40 just for the plane seems a little steep in retrospect. If there were some AI units to go with it, that would make the price a lot more palatable. It's a beautiful simulation of the P-51D for sure.

I've never really been all that into civil aviation sims. They're okay, but I like to fight. Even though the guns and bombs on the P-51D work (random aside: the machine gun effects like the muzzle flash, tracers and particularly the ricochets are the best I've ever seen), it's pretty much a civilian, fly-around sim with some light target practice thrown in.

I suppose I'll just have to wait and see how things develop on the mod front. I've mostly shelved it until the FFB is implemented anyways.

That's a great idea.. and if they made them all late war versions it would eliminate a lot of the problems associated with multiple variant servers ... I think the $40 per plane will not go over well though.. no matter how well t is modeled .. In this economy people just do not have that kind of bread... The RoF model would work though so t would be a 10+ @ $40 vs 40+ @ $10 type of scenario.. and I think the latter would fly better than the former because the final numbers would be much higher at $10 per than $40 per.. Especially for folks like Aero who have already dropped full price for their other offerings... To expect someone to drop $40 continually for one plane is counterproductive IMO.. Even if they marketed it as a "If you by BS2 or/and FC2 at full price you can get the WWII add ons for $10 a plane ... that way they would kind of force people to at least look at their more modern offerings .. and who knows .. something might click. If not then they still got your $40 and you won't feel ripped off because you got something for your $40. They should market DCS world on either BS2, FC2 or the P-51 @ $40 and from there on out ... $10 a pop.

Eh, to my mind a "study sim" (as opposed to an aircraft add-on) includes an appropriate environment for the aircraft to be operated ina realistic manner . . . that part is currently lacking for DCS.

So making an in-depth simulation of an aircraft that is flying today...

There is a LOT of P-51's flying today. There are even direct derivatives that are still in (low-volume) production!

That said, here's what you are missing:
DCS: Black Shark is a study of the Ka-50 Black Shark.
DCS: A-10C Warthog is a study of the A-10C.
DCS: P-51D Mustang is a study of the P-51D.

Now, the key point here is that they are not called:

DCS: Russian Federation Army Aviation
DCS: US Air Force
DCS: US Army Air Force

There's a difference between simulating a given aircraft, and simulating a given war.

Or from wikipedia: "Modern jet combat aircraft and helicopters have a variety of complex electronic and weapon systems that are specific to a particular aircraft. This has led to a genre called the "study sim", which focuses on modelling an aircraft's systems as accurately as possible, often requiring thick manuals that rival the real manuals in detail."

Now, if you define it as "an accurate simulation of a given aircraft and it's full and complete operational history", then sure. :P But even your previously stated definition fits well with both the DCS Mustang and the A2A Mustang, since they are still being operated.

Also, from the DCS:P-51D FAQ:
Q: How is a P-51 supposed to fight in a modern Georgian war against modern aircraft and air defense systems?
A: It simply does not need to. It is up to the mission designer to put what units he or she wishes into the mission.

For example, the A2A Mustang is most definitely a study sim. Yet it's in FSX, cannot fight. How can that be a study sim? Through being a study of the aircraft.

That works (logically) if all you plan to do is study sim air racing. Not so much for simulating the P-51 as a combat aircraft.

The P-51 (or the A-10, or the Ka-50) are more than just aircraft, they are weapon systems. To accurately simulate them as weapon systems, you have to have an accurate combat environment along with the accurate flight environment. Else, it is just half a sim.

DCS A-10C and Black Shark have plausible tactical environments for their aircraft to operating in. The P-51 does not. Hence, as a study sim (or any kind of sim), it is incomplete and lacking.

And no, A2A planes are not "study sims." They are aircraft add-ons.

Sorry, your definition of "study sim" is different from most of everyone else.

As I said, IF that is what you put into the term, sure. But that's not what the definition says.

Is Flaming Cliffs 3 a study sim? It "studies" air combat. Does a good job of it even though system fidelity and detail is low. Except, that's not what people mean by "study". What is specifically meant by "study simulator", in the way the rest of the world uses the term, a "study" of the aircraft.

Again, if you want something else, that's fine. That's what you want. But saying "this is not a study sim" and then using a different definition of that term than the rest of the planet doesn't work. It's like saying Nascar isn't racing since they only drive in an oval, and since RACING is supposed to be a competition of skill, Nascar cannot be racing... Well, while I personally consider Nascar to be boring since they never learn to turn right, it's not my cup of tea - but it's still racing!

And, again, but your own critera, DCS P-51D is a study sim. It simulates an aircraft that is currently being operated (ED got the data from the TFC Mustang(s)), so simulating it in a modern environment is no problem at all since it's actually operated in a modern environment.

No difference between that and operating Ka-50's in a force-on-force scenario. It's a COIN bird that has not seen much updates since the soviet union collapsed, but we're operating it in Georgia as a front-line NATO vs Russia warfighter? Basically, your definition means that either no DCS product is a study sime (and ofc A2A's products aren't either), or all of them are.

I submit that you'll find things easier if you use the same definition as the rest of us. Now go check out the A2A Mustang as well, I've misplaced my FSX disc and can't test-fly that one until I find it.

In regards to the original thread question in the comparison of DCS P-51 to Flight.

Nuts.

I don't see this as a whole new direction for ED or that it should even be referred to as such. Its just an opportunity for simmers to experience an aircraft that, although it has been modeled in numerous flight sims previously it has not been done to the degree that DCS has modeled it.

Sure A2A have done one for FSX but IMO without the bullets and things to go boom it doesn't give me the feeling that I'm in a warbird that was designed to shoot enemy planes down and destroy units on the ground.

If anything ED have created a sim that many didn't expect and are beginning to truly appreciate. This is despite the endless calls for ED to model US front line fighters like mindless chimps who can't envisage the possibility of flying anything else!
How about a Chinese 5th generation fighter. That would really give them something to complain about!!

I wasn't a fan of the idea of the P51 when I heard of it either but having since bought it and flown it I don't regret it for a minute. I've been flying IL2 for many many years and it is great to at last see one of the planes from WWII now being done to a fine detail on ALL levels. I can live without an added WWII environment (although that would be even better) as just flying the plane well is such a challenge.

Maybe down the track?

That would be nice but not a necessity!

To be fair, the modular nature is all it really shares with flight. IMO that is in no way a bad thing. It's not as if they're creating ok-ish flight models which can only be piloted from an external POV.

It looks like a great plane. But will not buy until there is a proper place to fly it!!
BadBud
faceBook: San Diego SimFlite club

IMO if they did pairs at $40 it would be better. P-51 vs 109, P-47 vs 190, F4F vs Zero, that type of thing. Then you're paying essentially $20/plane, but not allowing the possibility that people will only buy one of them. So if you want to fly the Zero but not the F4F, you still have to pay $40...so maybe you'll fly the F4F too! Or maybe make it $50, so it's $25/plane. Given people will pay $60 for a mindless MP-only shooter like CoD or MoH or BF (don't even talk about their SP games, they're so short and scripted on-rails they might as well not bother making an SP), I don't think asking for $50 is out of bounds for 2 planes.

While I agree the environment isn't conducive to a P-51D, you can make missions without SAMs, with soft targets, light armor and AAA only, and fudge it. However, the lack of any A2A threat other than other P-51s is a bit of a downer. Just pairing a 109 in there would instantly improve it, even if it might get dull in the long run knowing the enemy will ALWAYS be a 109! However, given the development cycle, at some point the 47/190 pair would come out, and then your side would have 2 planes and the enemy would have 2 and it would expand logically.
Meanwhile, with each release they could throw in some WWII-era ground units that are easier to make than a plane. Maybe start with some tanks, add some APCs later, then boats or infantry.


The Jedi Master

"Given people will pay $60 for a mindless MP-only shooter like CoD or MoH or BF (don't even talk about their SP games, they're so short and scripted on-rails they might as well not bother making an SP), I don't think asking for $50 is out of bounds for 2 planes."

I'm not sure that's a very good comparison. My personal "perception of value" is that paying $60 USD for Battlefield 3 gives me more for my money than paying $40 for a beta of P-51D. (in actuality I paid closer to $100 USD for BF3 and still feel the same way) Paying $50 for TWO highly detailed planes is only SLIGHTLY better than paying $40 for one.

In BF3 I get several different environments (maps) to fight in, several different vehicles incuding air, land and sea, and a large variety of small arms to play with. It was enough to keep me busy for over 100 hours in multiplayer alone. And all of this was in environments that made sense for the game, and against opponents who fit the theme of the game as well.

For $40 I get one plane, that is 70 years removed from the era DCS A-10 takes place in. No suitable opponents or environments, and a handful of MS Flight style missions. My "perception of value" when it comes to P-51D is that it is way overpriced for what I'm getting and the expected amount of time I'd spend with the sim.

It's that "perception of value" that has people so divided over the sim. On one side are the diehard simmers who will happily pay any price for nearly anything detailed, and then happily spend hundreds of hours tooling around with it. The other side are people who are interested, but don't think it is worth that kind of money for the reasons already discussed. I personally would have already purchased P-51D if the price had been $10-20 USD. For that money I could happily tool around in the Mustang and go chase choppers or strafe trucks etc.

Now I'm looking forward to paying $30 for Combined Arms because that has a lot more "perceived value" to me.

Ah, well as I lost all interest in MP-only shooters about 10 years ago because I HATE public servers (and playing those games with like 3-4 people you know well is pointless), I find them all to be charging about 10 TIMES what I perceive their value to be.

I think I paid $7 for CoD 4, and as it took me 4 hrs to finish the SP part (I never touched MP) it was still too much. Haven't bought one since.

Last MOH I bought was Airborne for $10, that was ok for that price as the SP actually existed.
Last BF I bought was BF: Vietnam, but I preferred BF:42 and its 2 addons and the mods for it. Haven't bought one since, and I won't.

So, the problem obviously is that people like me that think BF is WAY overpriced are in the minority, leading devs to spend tens of millions making derivative games that offer nothing new to the mindless MP shooter but sell like cheap drugs, while devs that attempt to do more interesting games struggle.





The Jedi Master

I think you're being a little pedantic in your replies here....Nimits originally stated that in his opinion in wasn't a study sim because of the lack of appropriate environment. I also agree that it's fundamentally lacking especially when DCS are the devs that are really pushing the boundaries with realism and atmosphere, yet the release of the P-51 without anything related to go with it just completely goes against the grain.

You gave the example in the quote above about the P-51 simply not having to fight in a modern era against modern defense systems etc but then on the flip side of the coin, you have ED pushing their 'Combined Arms' with statements like this:

.

So its all a little confusing - the P-51 doesn't have to go into battle against modern era hardware....but feel free to do all of the above...it's like reading a small print disclaimer. Personally, I'd say that paragraph alone is enough to completely negate the term 'Study Sim' when the devs are pushing it as a feature of the game/sim. ED seem reluctant to give us any indication of the way future releases will work, when they'll be and what they'll be releasing. Like many others have mentioned previously, ideally there would be other aircraft from the same era to do battle with at the very least or a range of realistic targets to go up against. To my knowledge ED have only really said that other 'classics' will be released but the term 'classics' is obviously very broad and doesn't guarantee anything to anyone.

Personally, my biggest reservation since the announcement of BS2 is that ED still don't know where they are going and are making it up as they go along. There is no coherent path of integration, they are lacking in communication and are reluctant to announce what they are committing to for whatever reason....probably in case it doesn't work out. There is no doubt the P-51 is lovely to fly but in its existing guise I won't be spending any more money on ED's products until I can see where it is all going. I'm certainly not going to spend the money on the P-51 and Combined Ops if down the line it means we have to upgrade yet again to BS3, A10C 2 and FC3 just to get their products integrated of which most of us have already bought twice over just to get to the stage of where we are now and we're still awaiting the Nevada terrain/environmental engine which could also force additional changes and cost on us.

What are you on about?

Nate

Exactly what your quote says.

Until I can see that the release of Combined Ops and the Nevada Terrain doesn't require yet more payware/patches/upgrades such as BS '3' and A10C '2' and P-51 '2' (content we have already purchased) just to pay for integration work that was never scoped for, then I'll happily sit it out.

The complete lack of communication tells its own story in my opinion. Combined Ops was never mentioned until recently.....do ED actually know which direction they are going in? I'm losing faith and I'm probably not the only person.

Yeah they've not said a thing - certainly didn't set out a clear roadmap in November 2011.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81589



Nate

Yeah, well the quote below that you conveniently missed out underneath the November 2011 roadmap is my reservation:



Just like it did when the BS2 payware announcement came out of the blue. Like I said, I'll happily sit it out until I know where they're really going and how they're dealing with future integration work. ED haven't done anything of late that puts my mind at rest.

It might be clear to you, but having software that 'allows' other software to work with it (aka integrated) was the promise behind the first DCS BS module......and 'allows' became very different to 'having to pay additional funds to have an existing product work with a new one'

Fair enough, the move to DCS:-World (+ the free Su-25T) has pretty much made integration a given - you'll find out soon enough. CA will be in Open Beta this month if all goes well.

Nate

Since the term "study sim" is something we flight sim fans created on our own, I am not sure how pendantic one can be about the specific definition. But assuming we want to use Wikipedia as the source of all knowledge here, the Wikipedia article lists "Study Sim" as a sub-category of "Combat Flight Sim," and further defines "Combat Flight Sin" as a game "used to simulate military aircraft and their operations."

Considering about the most warlike thing you can do in DCS: P-51 is shoot down a KA-50 or land it on a Nimitz-class carrier, DCS is not accurately simulating the operation of the P-51 as a military aircraft.

Sure, if you choose the most arbitrary things you can do to not operate it realistically, then that are the things one would do in the sim. Thank god this list of yours is not exhaustive.

Finally! I agree, Nimits! Fist to the monitor, brother and gently dap mine. Yup, never mind what others have been doing because those are the only two war-like things you n I know how to do in DCS P-51D. Here's a toast to our lack of imagination. And here I thought I was the only simmer not mentally equipped to get down with other AI aircraft or fly a mission with other people online because DCS Stang is a pain in the beehind to fly. I, too, prefer Oleg's line up...IL2 on up to COLD where flying is easy as peeing.

To the dude complaining about ED's lack of direction. Frankly, I prefer the bull shizzle Oleg and his team have been shoving up my rear end about all the goodness CLOD could do. Oooh, and those screenies and newsies about their next big thing really help me forget about all the promises that were kept when CLOD was released. I'm no fan of ED's lack of PR and I loath the way they always seem to deliver exactly what they did not promise.

Thumbs up to both of you! Waaay up...

Well, still have not heard off any 1944-1945 era theaters, opponents, or targets in DCS for the P-51 to operate against. With people going on and on about how great a simulation of the flight and systems (such as they are) of the P-51 DCS has created (which I am inclined to believe), it is ironic to see people posting about how they are landing on CVNs , about as "gamey" a thing as one can do (and something no P-51 is equiped to do, or has done). Not sure I buy the "study sim" claim when said "study sim" is encouraging or even forcing people to use the hardware simulated in what in real life would be an impractical or implausible manner.

No matter how great DCS is, no one is getting a type rating in the P-51D from flying DCS (any more than anyone is going to be initial qual'ed in an A-10C), and a systems and switch simulator such as this very limited appeal, to me at least, as "fun." Guess I get enough of that kind of thing at work and in private flying. If I am going to just "fly around, I'd much rather rent a DA-20 or PA-28 than do it in front of a computer screen. No matter how accurate the physics of DCS: P-51 is, it is still a simulator game, and not a very fun (or historically correct) one at that, at the moment.

Don't let me stop y'all from enjoying it, but try to understand why some of us are still puzzeled/dissappointed at this offering.

No idea about the DCS P51 futures, but landing in < 1000 ft on a Nimitz class ain't that hard or impossible for a 51

Real P-51 is not stressed or approved for carrier landings, normal no wind landing distances for a P-51 would be ~2000ft (I know Nimitz is giving it an effective 20-30 knot headwind), and no carrier would allow a WWII era fighter (or any plane, for that matter) to land without a hook.

A prototype P-51 was developed for naval ops during WWII. A Mustang can and did land on a carrier, but its low speed flight characteristics were not suitable for deployment.



The Naval Mustangs

As for the DCS P-51, I thought it was an employee lark they decided to release for fun due to its quality.

You can hit the rudder in Falcon 4 and do a complete 360 without losing altitude, and I won't even go into Il2. You can get some kind of FAA rating from X-Plane, and we all know that thing has flaws in FM too, so the bit about not being able to get a type rating is just desperate.

Now, you do realize the landing speed for a lot of WWII planes is quite slow don't you? I think for a P-51D it's something like 98 knots or mph? If you flew it down just right then a modern carrier has plenty of runway for you to stop. The reason you can't do that in the real world is because it will end a person's career. I know you don't fly your favorite sim to real world military protocol, so come on...

I hear pictures say a thousand words, so to make this easy and short for us all:







Nimits, you're just not understanding what DCS World is. DCS:P-51D is not "a game". It's a module that plugs into DCS World. And DCS World can be whatever you (and all involved parties) make it be.

I want the dead rising from the grave, fire and brimstone raining down from the heavens, rivers and oceans boiling, cats and dogs living together...mass hysteria!!!!

Oh, that's right, the CloD forum got cleaned up. Guess I'll have to wait a bit then.



The Jedi Master

Comon EtherealN, you just photoshopped the bottom info line from dcs into a picture from IL2

Admit it.... You know you want to.

No, I get, just don't like it, I guess.

DCS is still a game, that people play, at the end of the day. Maybe a bit of a procedures trainer too, if you like. It is not real, not even close (no desktop "simulator" can be).

If FW-190 and B-17are coming to DCS, that's great! Still waiting for a comprehensive combat environemnt where I can play my on going fantasy of being a WWII fighter pi are coming lot, though.

Well, my point with "not being a game" is specifcally the "a" - that is, the singularis.

Think of it like FSX: you _can_ purchase that and play it as is, but the real beauty of it is when you bring it together with 3rd party content. That's what's happening with DCS World, and what P-51D, Combined Arms, and the announced 3rd Party projects are giving us.

This might offer some clarification:


Recently posted announcement/clarification. ( http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89885 )

Basically I think the confusion is that DCS was previously a "boxed product". You purchase one box and that's that. But it is now transitioning into being something larger.

Yeah, when we get there, it may well be high on my list. It seems obvious CloD is going nowhere fast, and while I don't quite agree with the extent of maligning of IL-2's FM, it is very long in the tooth. We are do for some good fresh WWII blood.

I definitely agree there. And CloD isn't that terrible now - I've played it a bit and did have fun, though for "old tech" I find RoF more enjoyable mainly because the FM "feels" better. I wouldn't have the first clue about whether it actually is better - at least not insofar as adequatly replicating the flight behaviour of the aircraft in question - but that's the feeling I get from it.

I'm hopeful for DCS though. What it'll basically take (I think, I least) is that people accept that getting a top-line simulation of WW2 simply will not be possible with "only" 40 to 60 dollars purchase price. The market is too small, even though WW2 is popular, to cover the costs of pushing the bar up further without charging more, and in this case I find it a nice model to let people pay for the specific things they want to use. Like, I'd imagine that if we get a DCS Fw-190, there will be people that want that plane but don't want the P-51D. Similarly, those that want the P-51D simply to fly it but aren't really interested in combat (and there's a LOT of those people, the success of A2A P-51D is a testament to this) will not be "forced" to use their money towards the development of a WW2 theatre.

the one big problem of course is - this will take time. But I think that in 4 years or so, when we look back, we'll see this as the time where huge things started happening.

I think some of us are not quite getting the concept. You only buy the planes you really want. It's unlike IL2, but with a few more 3rd Partay Deevelopers doing WWII we could have the best WWII era sim EVER! Remember that each plane is a study sim in it's own right, so why shouldn't they charge $40 a pop per plane?

Right now i play Rise of Flight, DCS A10-C, DSC P51-D and FlightGear. I hope they continue to create great simulator games.

I have the beta P51-D now and i like it, it need some tweaks but it's cool. Throw it against modern air defense hardware for which A10-C has countermeasures, but the mustang does not stand a change. This for me is simulation at it's best. Everything must live up to a certain quality standard., and like a sandbox one can toy with it in a simulated environment.

That being said, the P51-D is great for air races, but to be put in a WW2 simulated environment it needs opponents like the Messerschmitt Bf 109. Maybe they need to expand their userbase / customers, otherwise how can they make a living, not from selling a few products to a small group of sim gamers. I think creating tools for 3rd party developers is a good way to expand their business.

This is what is happening. I'd personally love for there to be a WWII era 3rd party dev to see the possibilities. Accusim perhaps?