It's been a great relationship, with more than a few ups and downs along the way, but I am saying goodbye to Falcon. I remember buying Falcon 4 in 1999. I still have the spiral bound manual, and it is still a beauty. But it wasn't until 4 or 5 years ago that I seriously got into it. I met some friends online, and started the journey of discovering the incredible F-16 Falcon. Being able to engage A-A and A-G targets, learning about all the weapons systems, and countless other skills was really an amazing experience. Not to mention the Campaign! We had a server running a war 24/7 and we would join it every day, and find a totally new reality. That campaign engine has its limits, but wow was it good. One weekend while visiting my parents, I was helping my dad clean out the garage. What do I run across in one box? A 3.5" disk for Falcon. It was a previous version (I think just Falcon). We talked about it, and how the engineers over at Douglas played it for hours.

But all good things come to an end, and now I am starting a new journey with DCS. I am not sure which aircraft to start with, but I do have a few (rather limited) choices. And to support ED, I have purchased everything over the past few years, even though I was flying Falcon. The Black Shark looks interesting, but I have only really known fast movers. The A-10 might be worth a go, although I would miss tthe A-A dogfights. And then there's the P-51. Somehow it just doesn't do it for me. I could check out the SU25T, but without a clickabout cockpit and extreme AFM it could be a letdown.

I am actually not sure which direction I am going, and I would love to know what you guys think. I am also eagerly waiting to find out what Wags and Company have in store for us next. I expect that whatever fixed wing US aircraft they announce will be my next Falcon. In the meantime I will start learning about DCS, flying missions, and making sure my rig is up to snuff.

Anyone has any recommendations on aircraft? Where should I start getting serious? It's DCS or bust from here on out.

Really depends on what you want. The most challenging to fly is of course the Ka-50, in which I've spend more hours flying in an empty map doing (or trying to do) acrobatics. Instrument and avionics wise the A-10 is the best. As for the Su-25, it does have an AFM, and although it's a bit more versatile than the A-10 since it can do SEAD, its avionics/system symplicity makes it less interesting.

Maybe hold out for just a bit more time, some of the third party developers have a bunch of fast movers in production, some of them with similar fidelity as other DCS modules ( The F-15 will be one of them ). http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3584763/IRIS_Flight_Simulations_takes_.html

I'm waiting for a fast mover myself, I don't want to start learning an aircraft I have no interest in. I would dive down in any length manual for the F-15, that's for sure :

The downside I predict once fast movers come in is that the current map we have will start to look VERY small.

robmypro, as a simmer who has flown AF, then DCS A10C since Beta 3, then moved to BMS, I would say you will never say goodbye to Falcon. Why? Simply because of the dynamic campaign. Compared to that, the "campaigns" in DCS are going to feel very static and empty. A good mission designer can make a theatre come alive a bit, but nothing like Falcon wherein things are also going around you, other aircraft are doing their own mission as you are doing yours. Nothing gets more alive than that. So enjoy learning DCS, but don't say goodbye to Falcon just yet!

As to your question, I heartily recommend the A10. First, let me say why I don't like the other aircraft:
P51 - the theatre, opposition, and targets are too... modern for this aircraft. Until they can create an era-specific theatre for this, I'd lose the "suspension of disbelief" too soon to make it any fun.
Su-25 - although I loved the other fast movers from FC2, the Su-25 never really caught my attention. In DCS, the lack of clickable cockpit is the main drawback for this aircraft.
Ka-50 - let's just say that having one flight model for single-player and a different one for multiplayer really killed it for me. Aside from that, you are too task-saturated just flying the helicopter. It's a fun aircraft to fly, but not so when you have to fly-and-fight in it.

At the moment, I feel that DCS A10 is the most complete aircraft they have at the moment so that is the one most worthy of investing time in. Learn the ropes in version 1.1.1.1, the DCS World module seems to be a bit buggy at the moment --- but you can have both versions installed in your PC so get both and you can jump between one or the other if you want to.

Good luck!

I don't know where you got that idea - the mission options decide the Easy or real flight model, not multiplayer.

Nate

I realize that but after joining a few MP servers, I wondered after the 3rd or 4th time why my Ka-50 was handling rather beautifully, not like the b*tch it usually was, whereupon I was told that the FM was usually changed in MP because the AFM was too taxing "computation-wise" for the MP environment. SP was fine, but not in MP. Can you confirm that then? Will a MP server be having difficulties if there were, say, 10 Ka-50s all with AFM in a mission with A10s and all the other flights in a typical MP mission?

No that's not correct, the FM is calculated on the client - position, orientation and speed are then transmitted to the server.

Whoever told you that was very mistaken.

Nate

I want some of what your smoking FM is no different


I'm the exact opposite I find the A-10 to taxing, once you get the Autopilot and Flight director down the Ka50 is a beast. I enjoy the su25t as well (still going to fast)...I guess I just dislike avionics

Thanks for the confirmation, Nate! Good to know, thanks!

shadylurker, I have found the A-10 simply a beauty to fly. With the right trim, it'll fly itself off the ground and if set up correctly, you can even do a hands-off landing. I easily yank-and-bank too much that the stall horn blares in my ear constantly, but if I am patient enough it turns rather quickly anyway. Flying AND fighting in an A-10 is simply a breeze, and the autopilot makes things easy. While the Ka-50 can be fun to fly as well with the appropriate aids on, it is difficult to do so without the controls interface graphic up (sorry, can't remember the proper name for that image that shows you joystick and rudder position). Flying and fighting in the Ka-50 is a chore, you are either flying OR fighting, can't do both.

That and the only really reliable weapon I find for it is the Vikhr and the cannon... the bombs simply do not make sense unless you are bombing a helpless building or vehicle and the rockets --- well, all I can say is "why?!" I must say though, that cannon on the Ka-50 is simply awesome!

A-10 is DEFINITELY the direction you're going to want to travel but it will undoubtedly require some adjustment. The key assignments are absolutely daunting though profiles for a range of joysticks are available and quite easy to acquire. I didn't have the patience and figured for the time I was going to mess around with trying to figure out what would work for me I just invested in the TM Warthog setup. Good lord, am I ever glad I did.

You don't need to be told that there are some substantial differences in the capabilities between the two aircraft. With the Falcon your best defense is speed- getting in and out either destroying air defenses before they can shoot you down or getting your licks in fast before the SAM crews can wipe the sleep out of their eyes (sorry crew). With the hog, the mentality is substantially different. Information is your friend, and you needn't be in any particular hurry to acquire it.

The autopilot functions of "maintain altitude / bank" which allows you to orbit pretty much head down in the cockpit changed the whole sim for me. This allows you to orbit around a chosen point for literally hours if needed- I could get information on hazards, do a thorough scan of an area, assess hazards, designate targets (or hazards, or both) with markpoints in a favourable order, coordinate an attack with my flight and then on our final approach systemically irradicate everything at once at a painfully slow 280-300kts. It's a perfect example of the young bull and the old bull sitting up atop of the hill looking down at a herd of cows. "Eh pops... let's rush down there and $%#$ one of them cows!" "No son... let's go down there nice and slow like and #$%#$% them all."

Wise!

I have been thoroughly disappointed in this latest "patch" / "module" and it hasn't been a smooth transition at all but there's certainly promise and good community support. Eventually I'm certain the kinks will be worked out- but until such a time... I'll probably just hang out on 1.1.1.1- the full download of A-10 without DCSQW.

Welcome to the community!

Thanks guys! Good information. Thanks for the clarifications, too, Nate! You get around!

Man, there is no way in Hades that I am dumping Falcon! That would be for me like dumping IL2 after discovering Rise of Flight. I love hearing "Welcome Back!" from tower when I return from a hairy but successful mission. I still haven't found a sim experience that quite matches that. No, BMS stays until somebody out there realizes that the "smoke and mirrors" aspect of a dynamic campaign bothers only the developer, not the player.

It doesn't help that Aeyes has released a new cockpit for BMS either. lol.

Dumping Falcon is harder than it looks.

Why don't those guys (BMS + Aeyes) make a DCS: F-16C then?




The Jedi Master

Because there is more to BMS than "just the F-16." Even if you put an F-16 in DCS, it won't replace BMS unless something in the "core" of DCS changes.

If the dynamic campaign is so critical (I think it is) why not have a kickstarter campaign? ED sets the goal of what it needs to undertake such a massive effort. Say $50,000 (just an example). You can choose what level you want to pay, and for a minimum amount you get the mod when it is released. Then it becomes put up or shut up for the community.

I am not suggesting we front all the development, but if a sizeable portion can be easily funded, that would send ED a clear message.

What do you think Nate?

Better idea:

You get a couple guys that can show they have the skills to make a good DC. You then incorporate in some fashion (whatever is convenient, depends by country of course), contact Eagle Dynamics, and get licensed. Then do kickstarter to fund yourselves, quit your day jobs, and make it happen.

Not sure why you are asking me - I'm only a tester

Myself, I'll wait for EDs current DC plans to mature.

Nate

You realize for those of us flying ED sims since Flanker 1 we don't honestly believe that. After 15 years, I don't think we should be expected to wait any longer. Now if you're saying they didn't have any REAL DC plans until very recently, and therefore they were lying about making a DC earlier, that's different. Or if you're saying they've made and repeatedly abandoned plans over the past 15 years, that's again something different.
I remember VERY well the pre-LOMAC release discussions about the DC for it. The promise was it would be post-release, or part of an addon like the Flanker 2.5's MiG-29K was. Then it was going to be that other guy making a "plug in" DC for extra money IIRC. Years passed and that plan just evaporated.

When Black Shark was announced and the existence of a DC was denied for it, I threw in the towel. I no longer ask about it. I don't pine for it. I accept ED won't do it. For whatever reason, their vision of how to do a DC is unattainable for them. Others have done it, including Thirdwire (which is done by ONE man), but I guess in typical DCS style they have a massive plan they want to do and if they can't manage THAT then they're not doing it at all. Fine, whatever. If one appears, great. I have ZERO anticipation for it at this point.

I think the phrase is "left money on the table". That's what ED has done IMO for the past 10 years. DCS has its place, but it's not what a majority of simmers want. Majority of HARDCORE simmers, maybe, but like all gaming genres there are more casual ones (who also are rarely vocal but do speak with their money) than hardcore ones. Where they would've done better is expanding Flaming Cliffs.

I thought LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs was perfect. The perfect blend between fidelity, realism, and fun. A-10C and even BS can get a bit daunting at times with the workload. Even the Su-25T can be a bear in complex combat situations. The F-15C, Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29, A-10A...they were just FUN to fly. If you have 30 mins, you can get something done in LOMAC. Not in DCS, good luck even getting to your target in that amount of time.

FC2 being "FC1 with the 1.13 patch in the DCS terrain with BS MP ability" was IMO a shot too low. Maybe it was all they could manage at the time, but FC3 being FC2 for DCS World REALLY sounds too low. Sure, I want FC in DCS World, and I'll likely buy it (despite having bought LOMAC, FC1, AND FC2) even if it's indeed nothing more than "FC2 for DCS World". But I think each new FC release should've added more flyable planes. F-15E, F/A-18, F-16, F-14, MiG-31, ANYTHING. The LOMAC level was fine and I think it would've sold great and not scared people off for being too hard.

Unfortunately, that's the downside to the 3rd party devs being allowed into DCS. Now that they can all do it, one plane at a time, we'll be charged for each plane we want at a higher fidelity than most really need. ED won't be expanding the FC line. I think releasing sets of planes at a lower fidelity that integrate together, like Thirdwire does with SF2 titles, would've been great. I mean, that's what CA is...FC for ground units.




The Jedi Master

ED always had plans for a DC and has not given up. However, there are other things at play and frankly, a DC has not been possible. There are plenty of reasons, they're all either technical or business (technical tends to follow business).



Actually, they survived. If they dove into DC creation they'd have bought the farm. And that again, is for technical and business reasons.



And that is exactly why this level of simulation is allowed in DCSW.



Actually, you can easily do this in DCS, with DCS aircraft. It's all about your style of play.



That's because you're blind to a whole bunch of other things that these upgrades did for the game. I won't be rehashing them here, you can revisit old threads yourself.



There are no downsides. There will be a good number of aircraft released at slightly more than FC level (you might see more animation in the cockpit, etc), as well as those with much higher fidelity. You're making a mountain out of molehill.

CA isn't FC for ground units. That was put in there because people wanted the capability, but the point of CA is high-level tactical and strategic control of assets you would normally not command.

A DC would probably cost closer to $1000000, not 50k. No, I'm not pulling your leg.

Well that went off on a tangent.

As for the DC the phrase "Expect nothing and you won't be disappointed" seems to be what you are following. That's a good way to look at it, considering EDs track record on the subject.

Lock On level aircraft by 3rd parties is OK by ED as long as they are not using the DCS name in the title. There are still minimum requirements 3rd parties must meet however.

As for what feature FC3 will have - this is unannounced at this point.

Nate

Don't be modest Nate! You can tell us. We won't tell a soul. I promise. Lol

Ah, keeping the dreaming alive Nate?

Pre-LOMAC and post its release those discussions were endless, lengthy, detailed, with people even making 3rd-party development proposals.

After LockOn 1.02 patch and FC.1.1 release it was blindingly obvious to me that with the Ai still so poor and also wayward, going off-mission all of the time, not following plans, incapable of stealthy low-level flight, which remained so amazingly dysfunctional for so long, a DC was never going to be viably within that mess. It would have to be cleaned up first.

So like you and others I kept waiting, ... and waiting, ... and ... still nothing occurred, the exact same bugs and gross dysfunctions persisted, year after year, new-release after new-release, patch after endless patch.

Almost no development and de-bugging of the critical areas that would enable detailed planning and flight, let alone the complex mission generation of a DC. It was out of the question, when ED couldn't even recognise, diagnose and remedy the earlier extremely damning and overwhelmingly obvious major bugs and dysfunctions.

It's taken all these years to get this DCS World module 'hub' to finally knock this previously spastic sim into a viable condition in which a DC can at least be contemplated.

As a result I simply can't accept that ED can manage to knock out a credible functional DC.

Let alone that one is actually 'maturing', in the back-offices and workstations at ED HQ (for what else are we to make of Nate's comment, but to take it as an implied allusion that would lead one to think a DC is actually in development and 'maturing'?), especially one that works acceptably within the next 5 years.

So it's not surprising F4-BMS remains the high-water mark and viable.

But then, if ED merely suggests a DC is on the way, then doesn't that tend to take the wind out of a competitors sails and even their dev effort?

Oh yes.

But is any of it true? (remember Fighter-Ops and ED's Navada-Terrain MIA)

I'd be very surprised if it were, but in either case, ED can't expect us to not voice a wee bit of scepticism about such implied nebulous allusions to a DC waiting in the wings.

It would be a master-stoke if combined with a multirole release though ... sorries, just keeping the dreaming alive Nate.

My 1 little sentence produces posts like that? If you want to accuse me of lying, fine, I don't care, no need to so long-winded about it.

The stated position from ED is that there is a design in place for a DC and it will be implemented iteratively. First iteration was the random mission generator. The next piece of the jigsaw is the theatre wide resource manager in FC3. After that who knows. It certainly won't be done quickly, It will be done a sustainable pace.

Nate

Holy conspiracy Batman

You're right, stuff like that never happens in real life between competitors.

Don't take it personally Nate. What you're taking from this, is not the intension. There's a very long track-record of this sort of commentary about a future DC, coming from ED (that predates your current role as a tester spokesman community-informer ... oh no, that didn't come out right either ... lol), so it's not unreasonable to ask; "But is any of it true". And also to be almost unreservedly sceptical.

I realise ED has a mission generator (had one in LOMAC) and is working on an in-depth resource management arrangement. And I certainly do give credit to you for the actions you took to raise the low-level flight and tactical planning issues, I've complained bitterly about previously. Those have now been largely and speedily resolved, within DCS World. And that with the many other changes has changed the DCS sim paradigm radically for the better. I think I can put some of that down to you (although I can see there was work already being done on all this for DCS World).

I just think your statement that says you'll wait for ED's DC to mature is a bit much, but you're clearly a infinitely patient man.

Respect.

Fair enough, perhaps I read too much into your post. As I said to JM, "Expect nothing and you won't be disappointed" is a reasonable viewpoint to take, going on past experience.

Nate

Huh?

Now maybe I'm a bleeding ijit - hell, just ask my long-suffering wife - but that's precisely the reason why I love the DCS series to bits myself. Because y'know, all that good ol' arcade-type systems "management" where you "press I to start engine and w1N t3H W4r" by furballing for 5 whole minutes is getting rather long in the tooth by now, no?

But each to their own of course. As for me though, what I really don't get is when folks want realistic sims and then complain afterwards because they're too realistic

Back on topic, it appears that BMS has sucked me back in, and so has FSX. Now that I FINALLY have FSX running and looking good, I may spend some time between FSX, BMS and DCS. God I am going to need some good checklists!