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.