Don't get me wrong; I have most of the DCS stable: A10, FC3, F 15 module etc. I have enjoyed many hours playing them, particularly A 10. But I have stopped buying anything from DCS, and the reason is best encapsulated by the release of the Sabre. Sure, it's a really well done, high fidelity simulation of the Sabre. But it is all rather sterile; that's all it is: a technical simulation...nothing else. Kinda what's the point if all you can do is fly around a completely implausible location, in a completely disjointed and unrelated series of flying times. Plus...that location in the Crimea is really getting old. It got old with A 10 and it is now really old. So I for one won't be buying it until DCS:

1/ provide a decent, plausible campaign to go along with the Sabre;
2/ provide a Korea environment in which to fly the Sabre; flying it around the Crimea in a rapidly ageing engine simply doesn't cut it; and
3/ it would be good to update the terrain engine; it's quite old now and us showing its age.

In my view, DCS just can't throw out technical simulations WITHOUT all the other bits that make a truly good simulation, and the release of the Sabre is a classic example of what is wrong at the moment with DCS' approach to thus genre. I know many will not agree with me, but I also know others do. In short, I want to send a message to DCS to lift their game and reach their full potential. Wags...pls take notice! Until they do, I for one will be voting with my wallet, and keeping my readies in my wallet.

PS: I am posting here because judging on past form, this type of critical post on the DCS forum would last about two nanoseconds before being removed by the moderators. At least this site allows sensible and reasoned critique of our favourite sims!

Do people agree with my view? Observations...objections....agreements...let's hear them...

Apoll

The joy of this simulation is that it gives you the flexibility to play the way you want. If you prefer to only play with era-representative platforms, that is your prerogative. You don't have to buy any modules you don't want, which you already know, and you can still enjoy the modules you do like.

If you fly online, you may run across servers that host missions that offer aircraft that you don't feel are representative for the mission/era. You can choose to give feedback to the server owner, just not play under those circumstances, or provide and host missions that meet your needs (you're probably not the only one that feels that way). All your choice.

Of course, flying the A-10C without a wingman, a proper loadout, in formation, following USAF tactics is considered unthinkable by some folks out there as well. It's all a matter of personal taste and what you get out of the experience. For example, I'm loving flying the P-51D in combat missions alongside A-10Cs, Su-25Ts, and Ka-50s which could be considered implausible and disjointed and unrelated, but it sure beats Minesweeper.

As for the other items, the F-86F is still in open beta - I'd wait until it's released to judge the level of the campaign missions. Also, ED has repeatedly indicated they're working on a new engine and terrain. I don't see how a respectfully worded request for a specific Korean terrain would be deleted or cause for deletion or banishment.

Fair points EinsteinEP. Yes..I guess I prefer the complete package...historical framework in which to place a technically superb rendition of a plane. Just adds that immersion that I crave with my flight sims that I think is lacking with DCS at present. Mind you...the A 10 is superb...even placed in the implausible Crimea. Re the new terrain engine....we'll, yes, it's coming. It seems to have taken forever, but I guess it is coming. I for one think not before time, and that'll do a lot to keep me interested in DCS. It will be great to see a new engine...

Not so sure I share your faith in the DCS forums....I'm pretty sure I'd have started a flame war by now...or had my post deleted. A guy suggested much what I've said about wanting a proper Korea environment in which to fly the Sabre a couple of weeks ago, even going so far to say that he would not buy it unless such an environment was provided, and the response was colourful to say the least!

Anyway, thanks for comments.

Apoll

Don't I remember a similar discussion when the P-51 was announced?

I am enjoying the Sabre because its always been a plane I loved way back when I built models of it as a kid. Sure, its not realistic to fly it over Crimea, but the scenery looks simular to parts of Korea, and thats enough for me for now. I created a few senarios where I can fly against several Mig 15's and Im having lots of fun with it.

However, I can see your point. More scenery areas please (Im tired over Crimea) and updates for the graphics engine. This is all coming soon, so Im not worried about it. Im really looking forward to Nevada and hopfully more areas to follow. The detail of these aircraft are fantastic and thats what keeps me using it. I just hope Edge comes soon!

Rob

Well, the Sabre seems to be a step in the right direction, seeing as how it was release with a MiG-15.

The issues that I foresee with DCS is as you say though how to make in enjoyable in the long run. Not so much maps as key features that makes it something that is still funny after you've learnt a module. With a complete lack of smart scaling, realistically limited AI planes and a dynamic campaign, it's not something I really see happening.

Smart scaling is needed because frankly, you just can't see anything either on the ground or in the air at even semi realistic distances. The only alternative is to use labels. I did some dogfighting with the Sabre today, but just ended up getting PO'd because planes I chased turned up so suddenly I frequently overshot them.

Realistic AI behaviour is obviously needed. If you use say a P-51 vs an AI P-51, and the AI FM seems to have been developed by the Warthunder devs, something is very wrong, and it will make the game play against AI very boring and frustrating.

None of those things seem to have gathered any attention from the devs, and that's an issue. Especially considering the WW2 project they've jumped in to. Just how they think it will be received when the AI planes will be almost unbeatable because it's good old fashioned dogfighting instead of BVR, but against reality defying AI pilots, or how A-G will work out with planes that lack targeting pods remains to be seen, but by judging at how it's been approached in the past, I doubt they will even recognize the existence of that problem.

Another piece to this are sets of Country / Era ground units.

Did any of the developers hint at new ground unit packages?

---

Maybe this could be an option for Mission Builders when a new mission is created -- to choose the era of armor,,, we already have to choose the countries for a new mission.

Makes me wonder where the Map selection will be done.

WC

That's more or less my view on DCS. The thing is I really like the "learn da plane" part of the sim and I strongly manage my expectations about any enjoyment outside of that. I always suggest that view to others. There's a lot of Soon! TM features and potential that gets a lot of hype. Madness comes from trying to play the game as current while holding it to the expectations predicted from future upgrades.

SP is hit and miss based on mission content. I've had pleasing and frustrating mission scenarios. MP is hit and miss depending on organized group or if you can stomach the launch-die-respawn airquake mode.

I hope the jigsaw pieces start landing in place to make a cohesive game out of these separate technical elements sooner than later.

There's already a field for map selection in the mission editor. It's on the "create new mission" page along with coalitions (I only ever noticed it when I imported the old beta nevada map a while ago to see if it would work).

I think it would be really handy to have an "era" option so you could filter units according to the period(s) you wanted to use.

I'm with you every step of the way, Apoll. I was the guy that started the huge bunfight on the DCS forums when I said that without an appropriate theater and battlefield assets, I would not buy this module, or for that matter any more aircraft simulations, however well crafted, that are released into the vacuum that is DCS's ancient, inappropriate, over-familiar and out of date Crimea theater.

I am surprised that what looked like a well-organised simulation studio (DCS) appears to have become this profoundly unsynchronised collection of incomplete, incompatible, "modular" products. I bought into the DCS A-10 Beta when the Nellis terrain was six months away; that was five years ago, and still no Nellis. Their business plan -- or lack of one -- is so odd to me; do they not realise that the kind of serious simmers who buy these high fidelity platforms want some level of both immersion in the appropriate historical context and, more importantly, to me at least, a tactically detailed and realistic battlefield?

DCS talks about this new terrain engine of theirs, but who is to say it will not follow the same sliding timescale as Nellis? I do not have a confident gut feeling about DCS's ambitions in the realm of terrain/theater modelling and campaign design. I may be wrong but I suspect that if this modular, licensing/outsourcing model sustains them financially, I'm not sensing any great enthusiasm on their part to provide traditional flight sim assets like campaigns and detailed battlefields. I have tremendous respect for their accomplishment in modelling the A-10C but I found the campaign unplayable and the canned missions risible; for such a knowledgeable group of people their attempts at mission design have been inexplicably half-assed. That's why I made and published many missions for the A-10C and it's not patting myself on the back excesively to say that they were all at least ten times as good as anything that came with DCS A-10C.

I know some people will find this critique too harsh but I come by it honestly after being a customer of ED/DCS for fifteen years. I think their business plan is a mess; it's an improvised concoction held together by duck tape and I am not hearing anything from Wags apart from pro-forma statements that lack the power of enthusiasm, let alone true conviction. Until they get their act together, they won't get another buy from me, which is a shame, as the Sabre looks terrific and I'd buy it in an instant if I did not have to fly it in that ancient theater that they should have put out to pasture years ago.

^ The Caucasus could pass for eastern Korea no problem as long as the units were correct.

"Hmm. Ok, then. It's decided. The next map will be 'Trenton'."

Wow!! Bahger, they really did not like your post! But I agree with you 100% Confirms my wisdom of posting here rather than at DCS. I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I reckon that is what I'd get over there. Anyway, I do hope they'll come through eventually...until then, no more buying their stuff.

Apoll

This is a tough one for me to answer.

On the one hand, I fully agree with the OP. I am a fan of the Sabre, but I just don't see much point if buying to fly in DCS as DCS currently stands. I choose to vote with my wallet on this one, and I'm holding out until I start to see some cohesiveness with the product.

But having said that, if it was a Phantom instead of a Sabre then I probably would be a Day 1 purchaser...I'm a huge, huge fan of the Phantom.

And so, ultimately, maybe that's the strategy. Because I for one would be a sucker for a study sim of a plane I'm super-enthusiastic about, regardless of available theater, etc. Perhaps that's DCS's angle, to keep pumping out the planes because many of us will buy the study sims, even at the expense of gameplay.

Fine. While you guys are "no more buying their stuff" could you move off to another forum and leave us who "are buying their stuff" in peace?

Yesterday evening I was flying online the new F-86. We took off, did some nice formation flying, escorted bombers enroute to bomb some bridges, then defended them against a trio of Mig-15s. We also did some dogfighting among ourselves.

Loved every minute of it.




I applaud the guys at ED for what they're doing.

So Fridge what you want is an echo chamber.

How are things going to get fixed or changed if all the company hears is "Everything is awesome".

BTW, just for the record that is exactly what the Microsoft Flight forums were like on MS, I wonder how that worked out for them.

Depends on the level of abrasiveness I'd guess. My personal critique thread is still there, for example:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127039

No-one wants an echo chamber. But the following:



...is exactly why I'm buying study sim modules for DCS.

No. I have no problem with criticism or opinions and I don't want an echo chamber.

What I do want is a conversation that builds the hobby, not one that destroys it. It's a fine line, I know, but a vocal minority is starting to take over these forums and drive away discussion. A vocal minority that have no intention of being positive, who just want to turn a thread negative and watch the fireworks. Many who enjoy walking that fine line between getting banned and seeing just how much anger they can churn up.

If you have decided "no more buying their stuff" is the path you want to take, express your opinion and move along. If your opinion is that polar that everything you want to write has to be a dig at the product or at the people who enjoy the product, move along.

There are many opinions and comments being made buy people who are willing and want to see these products, and the hobby, improved. But if you have no intention of working with people, then why are you here? IE: Look at the title of this thread. DCS Sabre: What is the Point? To fly the F-86. If you don't want to, then don't buy it, move along.