Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 20 of 54 1 2 18 19 20 21 22 53 54
#4256050 - 05/04/16 04:08 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
Force10 Offline
I'm just a
Force10  Offline
I'm just a
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,183
CA

Everything you stated Jedi shows precisley how BMS can be competition for DCS. I think what you should be saying is "BMS can't compete with FC3 for ease of use"...that's seems more like the case.


Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
The systems on the plane is NOT the end game for me, it's using the plane in a realistic battlefield.



If you want a realistic "living" battlefield...DCS can't compete with BMS in this area. Like you...sometimes I just want to fly a quick sortie without having to "think" too much about getting ordinance off the plane. Even though I own FC3...I generally fire up Strike Fighters 2 with one of the various mods I have. For me it's about the campaign in most all flight sims...and DCS campaigns have a "One and done" feel to them.

I have not purchased any of DCS's pay ware campaigns, but I noticed that they only come with 3 activations. At first this bothered me a little bit, but in the end...how many times do you re-fly a DCS campaign and expect it to be different? This is where a campaign system like BMS shines IMO.

I would agree with you that BMS might not fit your particular set of needs...but to make the sweeping statement and analogies that it can't compete with DCS doesn't apply to the hardcore crowd that wants a complex sim.

wink


Asus Z87 Sabertooth motherboard
Windows 7 64 bit Home edition
Intel I5 4670K @ 4.4 ghz
16 gig 1866mhz Corsair Vengence Pro memory
EVGA GTX 970 Superclocked 4gb Video Card
Intel 510 series 120gb SSD (boot drive)
Samsung 840 1TB SSD
Onboard Realtek sound
______________________________________________________

Oddball from Kelly's Heroes: "If we're late, it's cause we're dead"



Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4256060 - 05/04/16 04:32 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: streakeagle]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
MigBuster Offline
Member
MigBuster  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,169
UK
Originally Posted By: streakeagle
BMS is not Falcon 4.0? It may be heavily modded with new graphics and all kinds of refinements. But fly BMS or vanilla Falcon 4.0 the way I like to fly (focused purely on close range air-to-air) and there is very little difference after all of these years: in a 1 vs many air-to-air fight that goes WVR, get ready for the Conga line. If you have enough ammo, a dog chasing his own tail can eat it right up.

Whereas the "lite" SF series modeling of multiplane dogfights approaches historical results when given an accurate initial setup and the right pilot quality settings. I like clickable cockpits, but that is the last thing I am looking for in a combat flight sim. First would be flight modeling (including the look and feel when starting up, taking off, and landing), then the performance of weapons and systems (which is quite separate from the detail of the controls), then the AI's ability to fly and employ weapons and systems, fully detailed clickable cockpits is the icing on the cake.



The AI in Falcon is very impressive in A-A IMO and has actually been improved quite a lot (again in 4.33)...but it is optimised for using missiles and associated BVR tactics which is where 99% of the fighting is.

Yes there are certain jets that are good WVR in Falcon.........not sure whether the issue is individual FM, AI level or due to mode (e.g. instant action).

You said it there AIM-9X / JHCMS / AMRAAM is no place for you...they say modern flying is more systems management.

As for easy.........clickable pits do make things a lot easier........and dropping JDAM / JSOW / JASSM / LJDAM / SDB makes bomb dropping easy peasy even on RL avionics...........how did it go "I flew the whole mission on Altitude Hold"......it's amazing stuff and great fun.

So three very diverse but totally amazing simulators DCS/BMS/SF.....spoilt is all I will say.

#4256061 - 05/04/16 04:32 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 79
Derby Offline
Junior Member
Derby  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 79
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
Originally Posted By: Force10
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
that's why I can't bring myself to even try BMS.


Sorry Jedi...I'm not going to put much stock into someone that states "BMS can't be considered competition" from someone that hasn't even tried it. The rest of your argument is just noise since you don't have first hand knowledge of what you're talking about.

BMS is NOT Falcon 4.0 or AF. I'm a long time Falcon 4.0 and AF veteran myself(since 98)...and BMS was a breath of fresh air. It's not just graphics...the systems have been upgraded substatially.

Even with your excellent memory...you won't be able to deploy any weapons without learning the NEW procedures.


That's what you're not getting--I don't care about that. The first time I tried the F4 RP in like 2002 I quit after an hour when I realized I couldn't drop an LGB because they added numerous steps to the procedure. The original F4 was as realistic as I needed it to be. I went for the RP/SP and so on because they added more depth to the world and corrected some of the deficiencies, not because I felt like it was too easy to drop bombs in F4.
I don't get enjoyment from switches. I don't get enjoyment from learning systems. I enjoy a plane that flies and fights realistically, but it's not my job. The systems on the plane is NOT the end game for me, it's using the plane in a realistic battlefield.

I've found many of the "no more FC3 planes, only DCS!" people seem to have latched onto using them as procedures trainers as the fun. I don't find that fun. It's the airplane equivalent of Linux vs Windows. When I fly, I want to use Windows, I don't want to have to worry about command line switches and remembering which command for which directory.

Here's the thing--I'm flying a sim. A sim which is to simulate not only an airplane, but a battlefield, and a pilot. I'm not in it to learn so much that I could hop in the actual plane and use it. That is too far. I don't care about radios, navigation beyond using a map (ie VOR/DME/ADF), tank pressurization, any of that. The pilot in the plane has to know that, but I expect it to happen automatically.

Imagine if you had to keep pressing a button on the keyboard to inhale, another to exhale, one to blink, one to make your mouth move to talk...there is a certain amount of work that is manual yet automatic. I expect the pilot I'm playing as to know that stuff already. I issue a command such as "drop gear" and I expect the gear to go down because the pilot knows how to do it. I don't want to have worry about unlocking it, moving the lever, all that stuff you need to do in MiG-21. Yeah, it's real, but no, I don't want to have to worry about it.

The problem is sims tend to fall into two extremes--do almost everything for you with a totally unreal world where 30 planes get thrown at you in one mission while success or failure hinges 100% on you, or do nothing for you at all while success or failure seems based less on your skills flying and fighting and more on whether you remember which button to hit in which sequence to make the missile actually come off the rail and guide, just so it can sail off to nowhere.
I want the middle ground, the one that could actually appeal to people by being grounded in reality but not requiring weeks of classroom study to be competent. Extra systems can be added in for the people that want it, but I don't want the two options to be "god mode radar and one button lock-shoot-kill" or graduate level avionics course work.




The Jedi Master


I can fully understand your point of view and I don't see why DCS can't offer both, especially since they've opened up to 3rd Party devs, but like a lot of the DCS crowd I'm the exact opposite. I'm very happy with the direction DCS is going and I really hope that they are going to continue that way because they are the only developer on the market who is willing to develop and support a complex simulator like DCS. I'll be honest, I wouldn't buy a FC3 level plane - they do not appeal to me.
Everytime I get up in the F-15 I whish the radios, the INS and other nav systems and the radar were simulated in detail. For me, it would increase the useability of the airplane immensely. I don't think I'm going to touch it apart from some very short flights once the F/A-18 and the F-14 are out.

Take the Gazelle for example. I just spend a weekend learning its system and handling characteristics. I'm in no way an expert on the thing but I can fly it pretty well - I know how to start it up, shut it down and use most of its systems (next step is the NADIR). It's the most fun I've had with a helicopter in DCS and I've flown and enjoyed the Huey extensively: I've done everything from simple navigation flights to Gunship and troop transport, MEDEVAC, CSAR etc. I also dabbled with the Mi-8 but I think it really needs Multicrew to make it enjoyable to me.

I love the A-10C, it's my go to fixed wing in DCS because of its complexity and detail, the MiG-21 and Mirage 2000C being a close second and third.

With all that being said there are mods coming up that might be right up your alley: an A-4 and a Buccaneer. I'll try them because they are free but I honestly can't see myself flying them a lot.
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163181
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159823

Last edited by Derby; 05/04/16 04:34 PM.
#4256093 - 05/04/16 05:59 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Jedi Master]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Offline
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted By: Jedi Master
I'm getting the Hornet because I want the Hornet, not another A-10C-level plane, but I will fly it like it's a FC3 plane. I will never learn more than the basics I need to fly and fight. I've had the MiG-21 since release and still have barely managed to learn enough to fight a single underarmed fighter or a transport.


The Jedi Master


Agreed with you. If I get the Hornet I'll just learn enough for basic combat, and maybe the few air to ground weapons I use the most. Probably the AGM-65, 88 and 84. I won't bother with the radio functions and just use F10 to navigate.

#4256274 - 05/04/16 11:06 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
toonces Offline
Member
toonces  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
Honolulu, Hawaii
I totally get where you're coming from, JM. I always thought that Freefalcon was the best version of Falcon 4.0 because it was complex, but not overly complex. Truly, I'm struggling to keep my head above water with BMS anymore. I really should invest the time to learn and play it properly.

@ Streakeagle- I know you probably won't try this, but if you're into WVR fighting you might want to at least consider trying BMS with Molnibalage's 80's theater. He did a lot of work tweaking the entire database to get it accurate to about mid-1980. The F-16s don't even have AIM-7s! It will get you WVR a lot, but it's brutally hard without the BVR weapons.

I'm not sure it even works with the current 4.33.1 version of BMS, but if you're interested I can try and find out.

On topic, I'll probably buy and invest the time to learn F/A-18C and/or F-14, so maybe the discriminator is how much I want to fly the plane to decide how much time I'm willing to spend trying to enjoy it.


"A week or even a month for someone basically saying "shucks, this is pants" maybe. But their banhammer only has the forever setting. Gotta set phasers to stun for the localization of female undergarments, not kill yo." - Frederf
#4256287 - 05/04/16 11:37 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: toonces]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
@ Jedi:

The mistake you made was comparing BMS vs. DCS. Both are study-level sims. If you had said BMS vs. FC3, then it would align more with your statements about FC3 and what you're looking for in the game.

Having said that, there aren't really too many steps in employing weapons in study-level sims. You can drop stuff CCIP/CCRP and be done with it. You can designate a steerpoint for an IAM and drop it. It's when you get to fancier stuff such as ripple-dropping IAMs onto different targets, LGBs, buddy lasing, target handoff, etc. that all the other systems come into play. All those "options" needs "menus" in order to be set properly and work properly.



Originally Posted By: toonces
I totally get where you're coming from, JM. I always thought that Freefalcon was the best version of Falcon 4.0 because it was complex, but not overly complex. Truly, I'm struggling to keep my head above water with BMS anymore. I really should invest the time to learn and play it properly.

I'm curious as to what has been added that made BMS "overly complex"?


- Ice
#4256292 - 05/04/16 11:58 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
toonces Offline
Member
toonces  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
Honolulu, Hawaii
A simple example would be the requirement for a data cartridge and radio management in BMS. In Freefalcon your data cartridge was automatically set...there was no need to set threat points, EWS systems, etc. And the radios auto-tuned to the correct frequency, for example the correct tower for whatever airfield you were within range of. BMS adds these requirements and, while they're certainly realistic, they add a layer of complexity that, for me, is unnecessary. It actually detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

There are other weapon employment requirements that exist in BMS that simply were not there in Freefalcon. Specifics elude me at the moment, but I can assure you that I find it much more difficult to drop a weapon like a HARM or LGB in BMS than it was in Freefalcon.

I don't say this to take away from BMS, but rather that, for me, I had plenty of complexity with Freefalcon.

Similarly with DCS, I would like more options below the "DCS-level" aircraft. I'd spend more time with the FC3 lineup, which are quite well done, if I didn't have to map every single one of them to my HOTAS, and if I didn't have to have so many keyboard commands memorized/written down to do simple functions. This is where the clickable cockpit becomes important. Being able to adjust MFD functions, for example, or flip a switch like the gear or hook or lights or whatever, with a mouse is far easier for me than having to hunt for the correct key stroke.


"A week or even a month for someone basically saying "shucks, this is pants" maybe. But their banhammer only has the forever setting. Gotta set phasers to stun for the localization of female undergarments, not kill yo." - Frederf
#4256316 - 05/05/16 01:36 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,749
streakeagle Offline
Senior Member
streakeagle  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,749
Seffner, FL USA
Originally Posted By: toonces

@ Streakeagle- I know you probably won't try this, but if you're into WVR fighting you might want to at least consider trying BMS with Molnibalage's 80's theater. He did a lot of work tweaking the entire database to get it accurate to about mid-1980. The F-16s don't even have AIM-7s! It will get you WVR a lot, but it's brutally hard without the BVR weapons.


This still wouldn't overcome the limitations of the AI. It is the least capable air-to-air AI I can recall in any of the sims I have ever played (except maybe Jane's USAF?). Aside from somewhat ugly terrain, SF2 provides a much better experience out of the box without any modding with the added bonus that I get to fly the most accurate rendition in any combat flight sim of the overall flight and combat capabilities of my all-time favorite, the F-4 Phantom.

Super agile, light-weight, fly-by-wire, fire-and-forget 90% PK missile carrying F-16's in a modern Korea represent pretty much the exact opposite of what I prefer to fly. If I loved the F-16 the way I loved the F-4, I would learn to tolerate the AI and almost exclusively fly BMS. But in the same way that I appreciated the greatness of DCS:A-10C, but never flew it much, I appreciate all the things that BMS does yet still don't like it and won't invest much time in it.


Last edited by streakeagle; 05/05/16 01:44 AM.

forum: a public meeting or assembly for open discussion
discussion: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic
censorship: practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable
#4256723 - 05/05/16 10:14 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: streakeagle]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted By: toonces
A simple example would be the requirement for a data cartridge and radio management in BMS. In Freefalcon your data cartridge was automatically set...there was no need to set threat points, EWS systems, etc. And the radios auto-tuned to the correct frequency, for example the correct tower for whatever airfield you were within range of. BMS adds these requirements and, while they're certainly realistic, they add a layer of complexity that, for me, is unnecessary. It actually detracts from my enjoyment of the game.


Data cartridge simply allows for so many "customization" options that can further add to the immersion -- put pre-planned threats (SAM rings), put a tanker track or FLOT on the MFD, customize your CMDS programs for the upcoming mission and anticipated threats, mark your alternate airfield, and so on. However, you don't have to do this if you don't want to. You can set your CMDS programs once and just use them again and again and again. The absolute minimum you'd have to do is to set UHF 15 to Tower frequency and it'll set it to your airfields frequency. If you keep flying out of Kunsan, you can even skip this step.... but I'd recommend making it a habit so as not to forget it if you suddenly fly out of a different airbase.

Simply put, the DTC can be set once and then forgotten or minimally adjusted for each flight. The complexity is there if you want it, but you can fly without it.


Originally Posted By: toonces
There are other weapon employment requirements that exist in BMS that simply were not there in Freefalcon. Specifics elude me at the moment, but I can assure you that I find it much more difficult to drop a weapon like a HARM or LGB in BMS than it was in Freefalcon.


More difficult? Or was FF just "less realistic"? I don't know, I never touched FF. I would be more inclined to think that as more accurate avionics gets implemented, more options or more steps get added but these are more along the line of how it is done in the real jet.


Originally Posted By: toonces
This is where the clickable cockpit becomes important. Being able to adjust MFD functions, for example, or flip a switch like the gear or hook or lights or whatever, with a mouse is far easier for me than having to hunt for the correct key stroke.


Yep, that's why I love 3D cockpits! Less memorizing keystrokes and more of simply "doing" things!


Originally Posted By: streakeagle
Super agile, light-weight, fly-by-wire, fire-and-forget 90% PK missile carrying F-16's in a modern Korea


Ah, if only this was true! 90% PK is overrated, but I guess that depends who is firing and who is fired upon. Suffice to say I've seen many a TacView of good pilots evading 4 or even 6 AIM-120s, go into a dogfight on the defensive, manage to reverse the positions, and take out the other guy with a guns kill. But for AI, yeah, it can be dumb for most of the time.


- Ice
#4256736 - 05/05/16 10:36 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
theOden Offline
Member
theOden  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,614
oh yes, FreeFalcon had a more "automated" environment and as toonces says - many of the extras in BMS falls into button mashing area.

With DCS labled, or should i say non-FC, planes it has moved even more into forcing the player to learn and repeat procedures.

What we lost on the way is the very "Air Combat Simulation".

I want to use the planes as the tools they are in a war zone, if I missed setting a frequency isn't really relevant such as what profiles I can fly with the known opposition and what muntions I should have best success carrying.

Can my striker engage that two ship heading for me and still manage my primary mission or should I evade, or even RTB and save my flight for the next mission.

Air Combat Simulation, not Airframe Simulation.

I can admit I do like all details of the A-10C, P-51D and MiG-15. But I think i experience much less air combat today compared to earlier in sims such as FreeFalcon or IL2.

To keep true to the topic, new campaigns are ok and could help move me (us?) back to aircombat but when presented and created as a mafia brotherhood, something is missing.

#4256762 - 05/05/16 11:51 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
toonces Offline
Member
toonces  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
Honolulu, Hawaii
^ Yes. Freefalcon was definitely less realistic and automated many things that require more attention or steps in BMS because they're implemented more closely to real life.

The nice thing about DCS is that you can have your cake and eat it too. If you want the super hard core realism, you have A-10, etc. If you want the lite experience you have FC3. What I'm saying is that I wish there was a middle ground between these two levels of realism, or at least that the FC3-level planes had a clickable cockpit- for the reasons I've already mentioned.

I've never built a flight simulator or DCS aircraft, but I have to think there are realism shortcuts they could take that would a) allow that middle ground I'm talking about, and b) allow them to crank out a module more quickly because it requires less development.

Those guys making the Buc and A-4 mentioned earlier are on the right track. I wish DCS would embrace that, and just add that little more to make them really awesome.

On subject, scripted campaigns do absolutely nothing for me. In fact, I'm probably the anti-Streakeagle in this regard. I'm either all-in on dynamic campaigns, or else multiplayer. ARMA 3 is a classic example of a sim that keeps me highly entertained completely due to its multiplayer aspect.


"A week or even a month for someone basically saying "shucks, this is pants" maybe. But their banhammer only has the forever setting. Gotta set phasers to stun for the localization of female undergarments, not kill yo." - Frederf
#4256770 - 05/06/16 12:15 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Doesn't the A-10C have scalable difficulty? I remember there was the DCS-level then there was the 3rd-person view with a 360 "radar" biggrin That would be cool, although I assume it would also mean a lot of work.

As for what you are saying toonces and theOden, I totally get you. IIRC in AF, threats and waypoints and stuff were automatically entered in the DTC. Such is the price we pay for "customizability," perhaps? Anyway, I wonder if you select a flight in BMS, fast-forward the time to just AFTER takeoff, and enter the jet... would that be configured "properly"? Maybe just skip to just before the IP and then you skip the ramp start, ingress, etc. and go straight to the action?

As for the airbase frequency issue, if we implement it as you suggest, then we end up with DCS-style comms menu where you select which airbase to talk to.... sure, that'll work, but I find the "menu" to be weird. Heck, I find the whole comms system of DCS weird (disclaimer: if they've changed the comms menu in the last 4 years, then I'm talking about the old menu system) and had to "talk" to AI or airbases by saying the menu numbers instead of the actual command phrase.


- Ice
#4256805 - 05/06/16 01:28 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
toonces Offline
Member
toonces  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 850
Honolulu, Hawaii
Well, BMS isn't going to start redacting their realism, so the discussion is moot. I can tell you that everything with comms worked fine the way it was in Freefalcon and below. Yes, I understand there are advantages to the way it is done now, I'm just saying that it's one extra step I personally don't need.

It's funny but back way before BMS went live, maybe 6-12 months prior, I was talking to Hustler (Steve) on the phone. Hustler ran Freefalcon. We were talking about the future of Freefalcon and he started talking about BMS, which I was pretty unfamiliar with. He had spoken with Cobracab, and Hustler was telling me that BMS's vision was to make Falcon 4 so realistic that players would need to refer to actual F-16 flight manuals to fly the sim!

In essence my reply was that that would be an epic failure, that normal simmers would balk at that kind of realism and flock to Freefalcon.

We all know how well I called that!

So, perhaps, again, I've got this all wrong. Maybe the masses are clamoring for the full DCS treatment of each and every new module. It's not how I feel, but I could have this totally wrong about everyone else.


"A week or even a month for someone basically saying "shucks, this is pants" maybe. But their banhammer only has the forever setting. Gotta set phasers to stun for the localization of female undergarments, not kill yo." - Frederf
#4257004 - 05/06/16 01:46 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
scrim Offline
Member
scrim  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,180
To me at least, it's not just about modelling everything from the details of every radar mode down to the air conditioning; It's about providing an environment to put all of this to practice as well. That's what I like about BMS, that it provides all of these different weapons and features, and a dynamic campaign where it's all useful. Unlike DCS, where it just doesn't matter if they'd get an F-16 with everything it has in BMS. The fun would stop dead in its track the moment I'd learned it all, because from that point onward it wouldn't be much more than a target shoot occasionally interrupted by an AI trying to shoot back.

#4257263 - 05/06/16 11:21 PM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Yeah, this is why I didn't get the SuperBug.... sure, it looks pretty on the screenshots and maybe it has accurate avionics, but I'm not interested in just flying around.

toonces, what exactly are you referring to that is "moot"? As for BMS, yeah, they are striving for "as accurate as possible" which is a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you're looking for. On the plus side, they at least know what they want and the path they make towards their goal is clear so as a simmer, I know exactly whether BMS is going to be worth my time or not.


- Ice
#4257278 - 05/07/16 12:54 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 293
EightBall Offline
Member
EightBall  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 293
Bubbelgium
Originally Posted By: - Ice
On the plus side, they at least know what they want and the path they make towards their goal is clear so as a simmer, I know exactly whether BMS is going to be worth my time or not.


Fact is, ED also know what they want. It's just that some people can't cope with ED's long term goal.

With DCS, ED isn't trying to create a modern Falcon4 or a military counter-part to FSX and X-Plane.
As explicitely written on the DCS World product page : DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

This is something new, this is something different. Some people are surprised it takes time, those who understand it, aren't.

Last edited by EightBall; 05/07/16 12:56 AM.
#4257279 - 05/07/16 01:22 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: EightBall]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted By: EightBall
Fact is, ED also know what they want. It's just that some people can't cope with ED's long term goal.

That may very well be true, but that isn't shown in any way at all in their track record.

Originally Posted By: EightBall
As explicitely written on the DCS World product page : DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.

In other words, "spread ourselves too thin that the product suffers from lack of focus."

As for the long term goal/taking time, I'm pretty sure my grandkids will enjoy DCS. thumbsup


- Ice
#4257281 - 05/07/16 01:36 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate Offline
Member
Nate  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
Originally Posted By: - Ice
As for the long term goal/taking time, I'm pretty sure my grandkids will enjoy DCS. thumbsup


I will be ecstatic, if anybody can achieve what they're aiming to do, quicker.

Nate

#4257285 - 05/07/16 02:02 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 293
EightBall Offline
Member
EightBall  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 293
Bubbelgium
Originally Posted By: - Ice
I'm pretty sure my grandkids will enjoy DCS. thumbsup

Yup, ED will most likely be the only currently active developer still around at that time.

Last edited by EightBall; 05/07/16 02:02 AM.
#4257313 - 05/07/16 04:27 AM Re: Campaign after Campaign? - is this the new focus [Re: EightBall]  
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
Johnny_Redd Offline
Member
Johnny_Redd  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
Originally Posted By: EightBall


Fact is, ED also know what they want. It's just that some people can't cope with ED's long term goal.

With DCS, ED isn't trying to create a modern Falcon4 or a military counter-part to FSX and X-Plane.
As explicitely written on the DCS World product page : DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

This is something new, this is something different. Some people are surprised it takes time, those who understand it, aren't.

It's a shame that, unlike FSX and X-Plane, the sdk isn't available for all. Where would Razbam be without the FSX sdk. It's a shame that DCS is so closed off from the modding community. Yes there are modders but they are restricted to texturing. those modders that produce aircraft get no help from ED. It surprises me but the buccaneer and the A4 mods in development show more work than same 3rd parties have shown and those guys should be congratulated for working in such a mod unfriendly environment.
I don't think you know EDs long term goal, I'm not sure ED are 100% sure of their long term goal outside of their military contracts. As a consumer product, these study sim planes make zero financial sense. They take years to develop, They are not what the consumer wants, let's be honest, given the choice of the l-39 or an F-16, who would chose the l-39? If it wasn't a military contract there's no way they'd make money on that choice. Given the choice of Nevada or Afghanistan who would chose Nevada?
If ED were given a military contract tomorrow to model the F35 for military training the Hornet and everything else would be put on hold. That's the way it is. ED are not an entertainment company. There really is no long term goal for the consumer product.


DCS Kickstarter
Wags July 2014 "In this July 2014 update, the primary news is in regards to the restructured backer rewards. After a careful review of the older system under RRG, we found it financially unattainable."
Wags October 2017 "the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft. In fact, the P-51D Mustang has twice the cost effectiveness of the A-10C Warthog."
Page 20 of 54 1 2 18 19 20 21 22 53 54

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0