#4394040 - 12/09/17 05:54 PM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 85
Exorcet
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 85
|
I see the point in joining FC3 and WWII into DCS as all three are combat flight simulations. Why bring civvie ops into a combat flight simulation? What convenience would that bring especially considering FSX/P3D/XP11 exists?
Is it not preferable to have less installs and more consistency? I don't even really draw a line between civil and combat sims, I mean I even do plain old flying in DCS without weapons. For that matter interactions between military and civilian aircraft occur in reality, so adding civil planes to DCS even adds to the military side of the sim to a degree. Other options for civil flying exist, but they don't matter when discussing what I think would be ideal. Even if ED did decide to bring in civvie flight operartions, considering ED's development schedule, will it really be able to compete with P3D version 30 or XPlane 55? Well if it develops slowly I can enjoy it for what it is. I don't mind having Xplane, etc around. I'd just prefer if all my simming was in one box. And for that, you want to reinvent the wheel? Also, have you seen XP11's controller setup page? Compare that to DCS?
I don't know what you're arguing here. If DCS beings to develop a civil aviation side, the other options don't go away. It starts and it reaches its potential, or it doesn't, or perhaps it fails outright. DCS civil modules isn't really costing me anything. XPlane goes off from the actual geometry of the aircraft. You could probably model a brick but give it precalculated values and it will fly in DCS. I don't see how that proves your point.
XPlane uses the geometry to calculate values that lets the aircraft fly. DCS uses values calculated from the geometry outside of the sim (CFD/wind tunnel) to calculate values that lets the aircraft fly. They're not terribly different in principle. You could make a brick fly in DCS, but it would just made the coder of that brick a bad coder. They didn't put a brick in a wind tunnel to generate the correct values. That their brick flies is a result of their poor work, not a flaw of DCS. You were talking about models and I've just shown how models are actually more important in XP than in DCS. You were talking about flight and I've just shown how XP can claim more realism than DCS. Geometric models are more important in Xplane, but the ultimate physics flight model is on the same level as DCS. XPlane can't claim more realism. So why reinvent the wheel just so that you can click on one icon instead of having two icons to choose from on your desktop?
What exactly do you mean by reinventing the wheel? If it's about repeating work, that's fine. I'll take DCS civil side for what it is and let it grow. If it doesn't pan out I'll still have XPlane. If DCS fully satisfies my desires for civil sims then I can get rid of Xplane and have a consolidated flight sim program with less to manage in terms of software setup and hardware disk space/requirements. Show me a civvie sim that starts off with ONE aircraft...... and not even the basic or staple training aircraft but rather a complex aerobatic aircraft instead?
Technically DCS has 3 already, in the TF-51, UH-1, and Mi-8. The exact number doesn't matter, the point is your start with less and get more. That's not in any way unusual. Why wait when you can have both NOW? Also, some would argue that by the time you get what you want in DCS, you may be struggling with bad eyesight and arthritis at that point, plus having to pause the sim many times during a flight to go to the toilet Well like I said, I can wait while I have XPlane, etc. Basically I can carry on as normal and DCS civil will go on in the background. For all you know, you tried to introduce other people to DCS and they didn't play it because they were ALREADY involved in simulations that catered properly to civilian aviation, namely FSX/P3D/XP11..... so there is absolutely no case for DCS in this scenario. They didn't own any other modern flight sims. I showed off DCS and XPlane, and mentioned some other options that I did not own. They downloaded DCS and enjoyed it and expressed desire for an aerobatics plane in DCS. I don't think XPlane was tried, but I did recommend it. It wouldn't have made much of a difference though as the person in question is only a casual flight simmer. XPlane does have the nice advantage of being able to use local real life airports, which I demonstrated when I showed it off.
|
|
#4394050 - 12/09/17 06:36 PM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: Exorcet]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
Is it not preferable to have less installs and more consistency? How in the world does that even make sense? Do you only play ONE game? Do you struggle when going from one UI to another? First you say convenience, then you say consistency.... starting to struggle there? Also consider ED's development time, good luck with getting anywhere.... they now cover a bit of modern, Korea, WWII, and now civvie? Yikes! I don't even really draw a line between civil and combat sims, I mean I even do plain old flying in DCS without weapons. For that matter interactions between military and civilian aircraft occur in reality, so adding civil planes to DCS even adds to the military side of the sim to a degree. Other options for civil flying exist, but they don't matter when discussing what I think would be ideal. What a poor excuse.... flying a combat aircraft without weapons is not civvie flying.... if I can fly the F4 in XP11, does that make XP11 a combat flight simulation? No. As for adding civvie aircraft due to mil and civilian interaction..... how often does the CEII interact with mil aircraft? Might've been better to do standard GA aircraft and airlines. Grasping at straws now. Well if it develops slowly I can enjoy it for what it is. I don't mind having Xplane, etc around. I'd just prefer if all my simming was in one box. I am confident you're not holding your breath on this one. I don't know what you're arguing here. If DCS beings to develop a civil aviation side, the other options don't go away. It starts and it reaches its potential, or it doesn't, or perhaps it fails outright. DCS civil modules isn't really costing me anything. You were arguing about control interfaces.... please try to follow your own arguments. XPlane uses the geometry to calculate values that lets the aircraft fly. DCS uses values calculated from the geometry outside of the sim (CFD/wind tunnel) to calculate values that lets the aircraft fly. They're not terribly different in principle. You could make a brick fly in DCS, but it would just made the coder of that brick a bad coder. They didn't put a brick in a wind tunnel to generate the correct values. That their brick flies is a result of their poor work, not a flaw of DCS. Missed the point there. If you are harping about models and flight, then I've just shown how a brick cannot fly in XP11 but it can fly in DCS.... therefore, models are more important in XP11 and give you a better flight feel than in DCS, which just goes from numbers. Geometric models are more important in Xplane, but the ultimate physics flight model is on the same level as DCS. XPlane can't claim more realism. Source? And so a flying brick in DCS just because the relevant file has the appropriate values and XP can't claim more realism.... nice try. What exactly do you mean by reinventing the wheel? If it's about repeating work, that's fine. I'll take DCS civil side for what it is and let it grow. If it doesn't pan out I'll still have XPlane. If DCS fully satisfies my desires for civil sims then I can get rid of Xplane and have a consolidated flight sim program with less to manage in terms of software setup and hardware disk space/requirements. Ok. Good luck with you and DCS Civvie. Technically DCS has 3 already, in the TF-51, UH-1, and Mi-8. The exact number doesn't matter, the point is your start with less and get more. That's not in any way unusual. My bad... I meant ONE civvie aircraft. Please also learn to distinguish between a combat aircraft with no combat load and an actual CIVILIAN aircraft. They didn't own any other modern flight sims. I showed off DCS and XPlane, and mentioned some other options that I did not own. They downloaded DCS and enjoyed it and expressed desire for an aerobatics plane in DCS. I don't think XPlane was tried, but I did recommend it. It wouldn't have made much of a difference though as the person in question is only a casual flight simmer. XPlane does have the nice advantage of being able to use local real life airports, which I demonstrated when I showed it off. So you introduced DCS to them and it didn't stick.... maybe they were not interested in flight sims... again, no case for DCS here. As for "they"??? I thought only ONE guy expressed the desire for DCS and even then, he wanted aerobatics, none of the combat aircraft. Either way you're not making a good case for DCS here. Only one guy wanted DCS, and he wanted an aerobatic aircraft, and you don't even know if stuck with DCS or if he went back to his old flight sim.... which is more likely.... and therefore not really a win for DCS.
- Ice
|
|
#4394054 - 12/09/17 07:15 PM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: leaf_on_the_wind]
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 583
3instein
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 583
Falkirk,Scotland
|
No matter what some folk think, surely most would agree it is a strange aircraft to be making for DCS. They have stated that this is because they want to "find their feet" so to speak. The Fighter Collection has a decent collection of warbirds or at the very least a much better aircraft that they could'ave studied and then integrated into DCS? It wouldn't have garnered as much hate and disappointment I think. Mick.
"An appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile hoping he will be eaten last"
Winston Churchill
|
|
#4394066 - 12/09/17 08:05 PM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: leaf_on_the_wind]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Pooch
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Orlando, FL
|
Make it free with the next patch. People will use it if it's free. They may even say, "Hey! This actually IS fun! Maybe the SHOULD build more airplanes like this!" A Christmas present, if you will.
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
|
|
#4394096 - 12/10/17 01:19 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 85
Exorcet
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 85
|
How in the world does that even make sense? Do you only play ONE game? Do you struggle when going from one UI to another? First you say convenience, then you say consistency.... starting to struggle there?
Why do keep exaggerating? I don't play one game, but having one is simpler than having two or more, specially when 2+ introduces things like varying controls, options, and menus. Also consider ED's development time, good luck with getting anywhere.... they now cover a bit of modern, Korea, WWII, and now civvie? Yikes! Maybe it will never end up being able to compete with XP, etc, fully. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy any DCS civil modules. What a poor excuse.... flying a combat aircraft without weapons is not civvie flying.... if I can fly the F4 in XP11, does that make XP11 a combat flight simulation? No. As for adding civvie aircraft due to mil and civilian interaction..... how often does the CEII interact with mil aircraft? Might've been better to do standard GA aircraft and airlines. Grasping at straws now.
What am I grasping at? You keep making up arguments. The CEII isn't going to tick off every box for civil flight simming is it? You were arguing about control interfaces.... please try to follow your own arguments.
My confusion came from you stating that I was reinventing the wheel. Missed the point there. If you are harping about models and flight, then I've just shown how a brick cannot fly in XP11 but it can fly in DCS.... therefore, models are more important in XP11 and give you a better flight feel than in DCS, which just goes from numbers.
You seem to not understand how the flight models work. Your brick in DCS will only be a brick visually. DCS does not link the visual model to the physics. To actually model a brick in DCS would require you to do something put a brick in the wind tunnel. For that matter, Plane Maker only does calculations based on the shape of your aircraft. Engines are hardcoded if I remember, so it's not like you couldn't get a brick to fly in XPlane. They do the same thing, XPlane just pulls numbers from geometry. DCS pull numbers from outside the sim. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1774163&postcount=8And so a flying brick in DCS just because the relevant file has the appropriate values and XP can't claim more realism.... nice try. If the files had the appropriate values for a brick in DCS, said brick would not fly. Conversely in Xplane, add 1000000000000 lbs of thrust to the brick, and it flies. If we only go from an aerodynamics level DCS may pull even further ahead given that XPlane is intended to work with wings, but this is a guess on my part as I don't know XPlane's exact limitations. DCS however should be able to accept values for anything, on paper. My bad... I meant ONE civvie aircraft. Please also learn to distinguish between a combat aircraft with no combat load and an actual CIVILIAN aircraft.
You don't want to count the UH-1 and TF-51? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_204/205https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18815149/1945-north-american-p-51-mustangIf you want arbitrarily exclude them then the CE will be the first. So you introduced DCS to them and it didn't stick.... maybe they were not interested in flight sims... again, no case for DCS here. As for "they"??? I thought only ONE guy expressed the desire for DCS and even then, he wanted aerobatics, none of the combat aircraft. Either way you're not making a good case for DCS here. Only one guy wanted DCS, and he wanted an aerobatic aircraft, and you don't even know if stuck with DCS or if he went back to his old flight sim.... which is more likely.... and therefore not really a win for DCS.
OK sorry for the confusion. Yes one person I showed DCS to went on to play it and he's the one interested in aerobatics aircraft. He doesn't have any old flight sims. I mentioned that he has car sims. Again this isn't some triumph for DCS anyway, I'm just mentioning that I know someone who expressed interest in an aircraft like the CE in DCS. Thinking there is more to it than that is reading into things.
|
|
#4394098 - 12/10/17 01:27 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: Pooch]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
No matter what some folk think, surely most would agree it is a strange aircraft to be making for DCS. They have stated that this is because they want to "find their feet" so to speak. True, but why make a civvie aircraft to learn about making combat aircraft? How does the CEII connect to future combat aircraft offerings? Make it free with the next patch. People will use it if it's free. They may even say, "Hey! This actually IS fun! Maybe the SHOULD build more airplanes like this!" A Christmas present, if you will. If it's free, then there will be less complaints and less mockery....
- Ice
|
|
#4394099 - 12/10/17 01:38 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
|
No matter what some folk think, surely most would agree it is a strange aircraft to be making for DCS. They have stated that this is because they want to "find their feet" so to speak. True, but why make a civvie aircraft to learn about making combat aircraft? How does the CEII connect to future combat aircraft offerings? The answer is that it is a simple aircraft that uses a single prop. The single prop engine/flight model could be considered the basis for all single prop WWII aircraft.
ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
|
|
#4394101 - 12/10/17 01:56 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: Exorcet]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
Why do keep exaggerating? I don't play one game, but having one is simpler than having two or more, specially when 2+ introduces things like varying controls, options, and menus. You are the one making the claim that merging civvie and combat flight in DCS is advantageous or more convenient for reasons; I'm not the one exaggerating. Having different options, menus, UIs is simply the nature of things as these are designed with different goals in mind.... if you are struggling with the interface of games, then I think you have more to worry about. Maybe it will never end up being able to compete with XP, etc, fully. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy any DCS civil modules. Please let's not start with the strawman. I have no interest in whether you enjoy DCS Civvie or not. What am I grasping at? You keep making up arguments. The CEII isn't going to tick off every box for civil flight simming is it? I don't have the time to explain to you the points you are trying to make. I only have time to argue against them. Re-read the thread yourself. My confusion came from you stating that I was reinventing the wheel. Yes, I can see how you can be confused easily. Again, the thread is here for you to re-read at your leisure. You seem to not understand how the flight models work. Your brick in DCS will only be a brick visually. DCS does not link the visual model to the physics. To actually model a brick in DCS would require you to do something put a brick in the wind tunnel. You seem not to understand how the argument works.... if a brick cannot fly in XP because it is a brick.... but it can fly in DCS if a relevant file has the correct values, then what does that say about flight modelling and aircraft modelling in that particular simulation? For that matter, Plane Maker only does calculations based on the shape of your aircraft. Engines are hardcoded if I remember, so it's not like you couldn't get a brick to fly in XPlane. Please don't even think of going into engine arguments when you can't even follow previous arguments you were making. Let's stick to just a few, otherwise we'd be overloaded. They do the same thing, XPlane just pulls numbers from geometry. DCS pull numbers from outside the sim. If one thing pulls numbers from aerofoil shape and one thing pulls numbers from a file, then they are the same?? Lol! So a brick cannot fly in XP due to geometry but it can fly in DCS if the file contains the correct numbers, therefore XP and DCS are the same?? Lol! If the files had the appropriate values for a brick in DCS, said brick would not fly. Conversely in Xplane, add 1000000000000 lbs of thrust to the brick, and it flies. If we only go from an aerodynamics level DCS may pull even further ahead given that XPlane is intended to work with wings, but this is a guess on my part as I don't know XPlane's exact limitations. DCS however should be able to accept values for anything, on paper. So with the proper numbers, the brick can fly like an F-16 or an F-18 or an Su-33.... it can even turn and accelerate and stall like the relevant aircraft.... your only argument for XP is to add lots of thrust to it? Of course if you strap a rocket to anything, it will go forward or up or whatever.... I would not call that flying in our context of combat flight simulation. Good luck controlling that "flying brick" in XP. Nice try. My bad... I meant ONE civvie aircraft. Please also learn to distinguish between a combat aircraft with no combat load and an actual CIVILIAN aircraft. You don't want to count the UH-1 and TF-51? You linked a Bell 204/205.... I wonder why you didn't link the UH-1.... Anyway, you're missing the original question.... "Show me a civvie sim that starts off with ONE CIVILIAN aircraft...... and not even the basic or staple training aircraft but rather a complex aerobatic aircraft instead?"OK sorry for the confusion. Yes one person I showed DCS to went on to play it and he's the one interested in aerobatics aircraft. He doesn't have any old flight sims. I mentioned that he has car sims. Again this isn't some triumph for DCS anyway, I'm just mentioning that I know someone who expressed interest in an aircraft like the CE in DCS. Thinking there is more to it than that is reading into things. You were trying to make an argument that CEII is good for DCS because you had this one friend.... I was just pointing out the flaws in your argument. If you don't want to be scrutinized, maybe make your statements clearer and make sure your argument supports the point you're trying to make. Stumbling across this exercise then accusing other people of "reading into things" is just hilarious.
- Ice
|
|
#4394102 - 12/10/17 02:02 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: cichlidfan]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
No matter what some folk think, surely most would agree it is a strange aircraft to be making for DCS. They have stated that this is because they want to "find their feet" so to speak. True, but why make a civvie aircraft to learn about making combat aircraft? How does the CEII connect to future combat aircraft offerings? The answer is that it is a simple aircraft that uses a single prop. The single prop engine/flight model could be considered the basis for all single prop WWII aircraft. So what does the Spit, Bf 109, Dora, and Mustang have in common? Does each and every 3rd party have to "find their feet" in areas where such lessons have already been learned and have been implemented?
- Ice
|
|
#4394105 - 12/10/17 02:15 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
|
No matter what some folk think, surely most would agree it is a strange aircraft to be making for DCS. They have stated that this is because they want to "find their feet" so to speak. True, but why make a civvie aircraft to learn about making combat aircraft? How does the CEII connect to future combat aircraft offerings? The answer is that it is a simple aircraft that uses a single prop. The single prop engine/flight model could be considered the basis for all single prop WWII aircraft. So what does the Spit, Bf 109, Dora, and Mustang have in common? Does each and every 3rd party have to "find their feet" in areas where such lessons have already been learned and have been implemented? ED does not provide flight and engine model data to the third parties otherwise third party FMs could be called PFM (Professional Flight Model) instead of EFM (External Flight Model). Each dev team must develop their own flight model which is one of the reasons that these aircraft take so long since the FM is probably the biggest single coding task. Just my own speculation, of course.
Last edited by cichlidfan; 12/10/17 02:16 AM.
ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
|
|
#4394110 - 12/10/17 02:21 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: cichlidfan]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
ED does not provide flight and engine model data to the third parties otherwise third party FMs could be called PFM (Professional Flight Model) instead of EFM (External Flight Model). Each dev team must develop their own flight model which is one of the reasons that these aircraft take so long since the FM is probably the biggest single coding task.
Just my own speculation, of course. I'm confused.... if you're talking about FM, then won't it be different for each aircraft? Just because it's single prop doesn't mean the FM is anywhere close to each other.... a Texan will be different from a Cessna 172 will be different from a P-51 will be different from a WWI biplane despite them being single-prop. So what does the CEII flight model (single prop, bi-plane, aerobatic aircraft) have anything to do with future combat aircraft offerings?
- Ice
|
|
#4394114 - 12/10/17 02:31 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: leaf_on_the_wind]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
|
In my speculation, I am assuming that it is the engine/prop model that is significant. Beyond that I don't think anything else is relevant and feel that they produced this as a way to produce revenue in a shorter time frame.
Still just guessing here, since I don't feel that it makes a lot of sense.
I have nothing against the aircraft itself. I suspect, if well modeled, that it will be a lot of fun to fly.
ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
|
|
#4394118 - 12/10/17 03:04 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: cichlidfan]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
In my speculation, I am assuming that it is the engine/prop model that is significant. Beyond that I don't think anything else is relevant and feel that they produced this as a way to produce revenue in a shorter time frame. Still just guessing here, since I don't feel that it makes a lot of sense. Well, the part in bold does make sense... If that were the case, then they should say so and not present this product under the guise of "help us find our feet"I have nothing against the aircraft itself. I suspect, if well modeled, that it will be a lot of fun to fly. As per my argument with Exorcet above, if what you want is a well-modeled aircraft that is fun to fly, then FSX/P3D/XP11 does an awesome job of covering this genre with a bigger map to boot! A few comments from the YT video: Crimson_Ghost As a loyal Eagle Dynamics customer that currently owns every module, I will throw in my vote of disappointment. The only way this aircraft should be a module is as a free gift of some sort. Don’t get me wrong, I love civilian aviation. But we have P3D and XP11 for these types of aircraft. TheLT I was literally expecting anything but a puny mutha****n BIPLANE? SERIOUSLY? WHAT THE F, LN? In case you haven't noticed, we play DIGITAL COMBAT SIMULATOR. Let's spell it out, shall we? C-O-M-B-A-T. That's it. I am outta here. Was nice knowing you... Manzanita Keep your GA interests out of my combat simulator, thanks.
- Ice
|
|
#4394122 - 12/10/17 03:41 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
|
In my speculation, I am assuming that it is the engine/prop model that is significant. Beyond that I don't think anything else is relevant and feel that they produced this as a way to produce revenue in a shorter time frame. Still just guessing here, since I don't feel that it makes a lot of sense. Well, the part in bold does make sense... If that were the case, then they should say so and not present this product under the guise of "help us find our feet"No disagreement there. (Oh damn, I did it again. ) I have nothing against the aircraft itself. I suspect, if well modeled, that it will be a lot of fun to fly. As per my argument with Exorcet above, if what you want is a well-modeled aircraft that is fun to fly, then FSX/P3D/XP11 does an awesome job of covering this genre with a bigger map to boot! If you already know how to work within the DCS environment, and don't wish to branch out, then this makes a certain amount of sense. If you think that this type of aircraft is desired by the DCS customer base. Personally, I would have prefered a nice Sopwith Dolphin or Camel.
Last edited by cichlidfan; 12/10/17 03:42 AM.
ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
|
|
#4394124 - 12/10/17 03:49 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: cichlidfan]
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
|
No disagreement there. (Oh damn, I did it again. ) Yeah dude, you should seriously consider seeing a doctor If you already know how to work within the DCS environment, and don't wish to branch out, then this makes a certain amount of sense. If you think that this type of aircraft is desired by the DCS customer base. Personally, I would have prefered a nice Sopwith Dolphin or Camel. I think if you are genuinely interested in these genre or type of aircraft, you already know about the other flight sims and would probably have a significant investment in those. Even if you didn't, DCS would not do this justice. The map area alone is a hands down fail for DCS compared to the civvie sims, then there's the ATC issue, then there's the stable of aircraft itself.... simply put, I think what the other sims offer would be more than enough to overcome any hesitation due to "being familiar with the DCS environment".
- Ice
|
|
#4394137 - 12/10/17 06:12 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: Exorcet]
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
|
Is it not preferable to have less installs and more consistency?
I don’t think DCS would be the best example when using less installs/consistency as an argument when you need 3 very large installs of the same game depending on which terrain/airframe you want to fly due to the split dev streams. I’d probably go as far as saying the only consistency you have between the 3 installations is the GUI and the very poor control mapping implementation......and then some new patches force you to clear out the control mapping anyway and start over from fresh.
On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
|
|
#4394139 - 12/10/17 06:24 AM
Re: This weeks DCS "News" ...... seriously ?
[Re: - Ice]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
|
I think what the other sims offer would be more than enough to overcome any hesitation due to "being familiar with the DCS environment". I meant that in terms of the developer, not the customer. Btw, I do see a doctor, on a regular basis. He is an ARMA fan and, after seeing a picture of my pit, thinks I am nuts, so no help there.
Last edited by cichlidfan; 12/10/17 06:26 AM.
ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
|
|
|
|