I'm new to this forum. Is it always like this? Filled with self enitiled people complaining and demanding?

I think everyone would be better off if we just went and flew the flight sims available now and before you know it, FC3 will be released, then we'll have a dynamic campaign and 20 different modules and you can find something new to complain about

Welcome Aboard!

If you have a problem with a forum where people feel like they are "entitled" to an opinion, then maybe this isn't the place for you? One of the great things about SimHQ is they allow both sides to be expressed, as long as it doesn't violate the user agreement. The opinions in this thread mostly seen as negative, are things that would make the sim better, which would make users like me open up my wallet and buy everything they had.

It is good to have respectful, critical commentary... It does help shape the path forward. If nobody ever voiced support for a dynamic campaign going forward we might never get one.

Despite EECH's campaign shortcomings..it was a great little battlefield they created. My hope is ED will seize the opportunity to really satisfy all types of players in the future. They have the talent to make it happen...so we'll see..

BeachAV8R

Thanks for the welcome!

Sorry if I came across wrong. I'm obviously not against different opnions and discussions. When I said "entitled", I didn't mean they feel entitled to an opnion, but that they feel games developers owe them something. It's just that, as I read this topic it seemed to be going backwards forwards like this

"Why release P-51 without WW2 setting or opponents?'
"It is what it is, maybe they'll be added"
"But it's pointless without them"
"Okay, don't buy it in its current state"
"But everyone else has a DC"
"They are working on it"
"But I don't want to play without a DC"
etc.

But yes, point taken. 'The Squeaky wheel get the oil"

No worries! It's just the nature of the passion of simming. The way these threads go is similar to surfing the web: You start with a specific subject in mind and the next thing you know, your watching an Australian hurdler doing a sexy dance. A thread might start on one topic, and then it spirals into how many rivets are on the canopy of a certain plane. I would like to think the one thing we all have in common is that we want to play and work towards having great sims.

Initially I came looking for help with A10 but just happened to bump into the P-51/had no idea it was even in the works. While I won't complain about additional aircraft, unfortunately I'm inclined to agree with the people who feel they're going about things wrong. While I realize a DLC type scenario is pretty well here to stay in the flight-sim world, (and am also all about supporting developers/niche's), I simply can't shell out $40 some per aircraft, especially when that much basically gets you nothing to go/do with it. (coming from a member a mostly non-combat flight sim squad) Here's to hoping both content included AND price changes, but @ this juncture I'm not holding my breath for a DCS-World success story any more for than I am that Cliffs of Dover ever really gets fixed, lol. I have no doubt my squad mates will feel similar.

Also, at this point I don't remember which individual here stated that no other flight sim producers have managed to stick around for long in the last decade or listen to their community, but they obviously don't know much about Rise of Flight. WW1's definitely an even smaller niche than most other aspects of flight, but things seem to be going quite well over the front. From within such a niche, they've also managed to pull out a business plan that feels much more realistic and promising. Anywho, on to my A10 question..

Waiting?
I've been waiting since EAW, for more than 10 years, for a realistic P-51 to show up in a flight sim, in a WWII setting, with a campaign. I don't want to fly jets, I'm a WWII prop fan.
All the other WWII aircraft have been modeled properly, I've flown the 109, spit, 190, Corsair, F6F and more Russian planes than you can shake a stick at...etc...but never the ONE I want, not modeled or balanced properly.
What was that they called it...."Dispersion"?...lol...and the plane flew like it had a full tank of gas behind the pilot seat.
You name a sim that modeled a Mustang realistically. I haven't seen it.
Wonder why I read nobody flew the Mustang in FB online?....a real slug, I understand.

I just 'heard' that 'IL2 1946' modeled it, with mods and patches, properly....so I just now ordered the parts for a new PC, and bought the game....on that 'hint' of hope alone. I'd given up on the 1C Forgotten Battles line. I'll give it another shot, appears I may have missed out on the 'one' they finally got right, maybe.

I've been waiting so long an ISP offering DSL showed up in the middle of the forest, where I retired to.
I can now 'possibly' fly online, when I get my new PC put together....if a DSL is fast enough. Maybe I won't need a dynamic campaign. BTW seems Paul Lowengin doesn't have a problem creating one, and he does it for free. Seems some people have had so much, they don't appreciate what they've gotten.

Forty bucks????
I just spent about two grand on the parts for a new machine, just to fly this plane.

I can wait another year for a 'real' P-51 with a campaign to show up 'DCS'. No problem.
At least someone is making the effort.

I thank them for that.

Just happens, I like the Mustang.
Sure seems there are more than a few, that really hate to hear anyone say that.
Can't figure it out.

You've got it wrong. I don't think anybody dislikes the fact that they're making a P51. The current issue many of us have is while there's talk of the ability to make a proper campaign in the future, that's all it is.. talk, which by my understanding, isn't from anybody official. Then you've got the price. I understand $40 not being that bad if it's your favorite aircraft. For those of us whom it's not, it's a little hard to swallow. Especially with no promise of anything to ever go with it. (when it's been pointed out that it doesn't require that much effort to assemble a decent campaign) Also, would you be willing to shell out $200 for say 4 more aircraft? For most of us that's simply not an option. People can argue that one doesn't have to purchase every plane sold, though most just aren't going to be satisfied possessing only one, two or even three. While I understand we'll never get the number of aircraft older games provided, (due to how much more complicated modeling's become), $40 each, (again, with no additional content), is just too much.

As far as waiting, I too am accustomed to it and will continue to do just that. (I'm a WW1 buff who never thought RoF was gonna get published. was also stuck on 26.4 dialup until recently, lol) Sadly, given the price & lack of content included with the P51, (or even official word something's in the pipeline), they'll have to wait/I can't support their efforts yet. My squadmates feel the same way, as I'm sure many do. I've got my fingers crossed things will change in the future though!

Regarding 1946, while the P51 may not be what you think it should be, so long as you're running one of the latest game builds, (my squad runs/recommends v4.10.1m), it's probably about as good as you'll find in anything newer than EAW. I've got a squadmate who's specialized in it/feels it's one of the best fighters in the game & he can definitely stomp me no matter what I'm flying.

That's where I went wrong. I gave up too soon.
But I stuck with IL2 from the beginning, FB, AEP, BOE, Pacific Fighters, I bought them all, then went to the 4.04m version, then they stuck the .50 cal. guns with 'dispersion'. And I gave up, never loaded a higher version, left the forums, I heard the 4.07 version was worse for the Mustang.

You're right, I should have hung on a little longer.
But the machine I was running was hanging on by it's fingernails, 40-50 fps.

Lian-Li PC65b blk Alumn Case
Corsair 550w PSU
ASUS P4P800 Deluxe MOBO - 865PE Chipset
PIV - 3.0 GHz/oc 3.4 GHz - 800FSB Hyperthreading
2GB of 'matched' Patriot SDRAM 3200LL DDR 400
NVIDIA XFX 7900GS DDR3 AGP 4X/8X
Santa Cruz - Turtle Beach sound card
40 GB Ultra ATA/100 Hard Drive (7200 RPM)
WinXP

So I gave up.

Glad to hear the 4.10.1m version corrected it.
When I get my new build done, that's the first thing I'll do, count on it.
I should be booting up by Monday. My old keyboard isn't USB....lol...it's got the 'round' green plug.
Had to order a new keyboard to get into the BIOS.

ASUS SABERTOOTH Z77 LGA 1155 Intel Z77 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard
CASE Cooler Master HAF 932 RC-932-KKN5-GP R
PSU CORSAIR HX750 750W RT
Intel CPU i5-3570K Ivy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) 77W Quad-Core HD Graphics
MEM CORSAIR Vengeance 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
EVGA GeForce GTX 670 FTW 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP SLI Support
2 - Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s
Win7 64bit Pro

Now my only problem will be getting online with a DSL.
But campaigns are all I've been playing for 10 years, one mission EVERY day.
Really, 'every day'.

And I understand most people aren't that interested in the P-51, but I was....it was always MY plane.
Everyone has one, it's just that 'mine' was neutered, and I never flew the 'real' one...but I bought all the games, looking for it.

But again, you're right...the $100-$200 'add-ons' will certainly get old fast....

Sorry, I didn't know the Mustang was done right, in the later version.....glad to hear it.
Figures, I left the movie before the good guys won......'Murphy's Law'....

Another problem with a new system....anyone know how to get Win7 64bit, to operate a joystick with Force Feedback?
I understand it's hard to find drivers with a 64bit OS....and my MSSWFF2 won't cut it anymore.
I liked the Warthog HOTAS, but heard it's not force feedback.
Murphy's on my back again????

I must agree with the general observation by WileyE that DCS suffers from too few cans and too many can openers. The lion's share of the focus is on aircraft to do activities with and not the activities themselves. That is just the experience of the player. Notice that has nothing to do with ED's marketing, future plans, what I'm entitled to, other software, etc. Those are sideshow distractions to the main fact, the end user experience. We can argue how and why all we like but the actual state of affairs is inescapable. In fact I think even more broadly DCS can be described as having that 'made by engineers' quality to it; things are functional but don't work in a human sense.

Marketing-wise I'm sure DCS is doing fine. We all know that the customer base is always impulsive, short-sighted, and unsophisticated. We will happily buy dozens of can openers without cans to open, provided the can openers are shiny. Business success is not good enough. I am not a stock holder. It actually has to be satisfying to use. Customers when asked will consider improvements to the ME UI a waste of resources but complain, "We did this mission 10 times this week. I wish we had some new ones." Long-term thinking is not customer thinking. Of course "sugar candy" is necessary, gaining money and attracting customers. Low profile improvements are of no use if the company goes out of business or the customer base is tiny.

If a developer was to stand over my shoulder on a typical play session, so many 'could be better' aspects become exceedingly pronounced strictly from a user experience point of view. Sometimes it feels as if resources were misallocated because the CBU-97 is cool and all, but I would happily trade it for an ATC that worked. Perhaps I will do a typical session journal once to highlight just how many small things are counter to satisfaction.

I post these concerns not to be negative, but because I care about the thing. "Go post somewhere else" or "if you don't like it, don't buy it" miss the point. There is no satisfaction in "I told you so." Choosing between "be quiet and nevermind the iceberg" or "abandon ship" is not good enough. I want to stay on the ship and to prevent it from sinking.