[quote=Ronin_germany][quote=Woofie_Dog]
C...
They already committed that sacrilege with the chally .And lets face it...even a fully playable asset's fidelity isn't 100 percent in anyway shape or form(not compared to DCS anyway).But I see it as I do in DCS...A FC version of a Mig-29 is 100 times better than not having a Mig to fly.If I had a choice...of course I'd pick an A10C level version...but not always.Most times I fly an A10A because I have to relearn aircraft due to not flying one for a long period of time.Its an issue that's getting addresed by ED with a new Lock on modern aircraft product.And in DCS you can (and I do) jump from asset to asset in game play.
The FCS of the CR2 is quiete up to standart, thats what counts for me.
A generic Weapon system just to gun, even if it has the outside apperance of another tank does nothing for me...nah thanks.
And in I assume in DCS you can not jump from asset to asset, if you do not own the model for it....
Make no mistake...I'm not comparing tank to tank with DCS..I am comparing the "fidelity" of its assets though...say the blackshark,A10C or the hornet ,to an Esim leopard or Abrams.NO contest there.They are waaayyy different standards.
On one side you seem to say ArmA level tank models are good enough, then you bring on DCS level of model fidelity...what is it the?
Helicopter are a bit more complex the tanks, so I'm not sure what you are comparing here. What do you think is missing in SB's M1 and Leo models?
I thought it was obvious...You have to keep track of context of the whole conversation
I say arma models are just as good as esim in non playable realm yet are playable in arma. IE the new armata. New game asset...big whoop, its not playable.
I say arma has a huge jump on gaming assets in terms of type...thus the helo reference (and others)
I say in the context of fidelity...DCS is superior. ie the leopard,abrams vs A10 blah blah comment.
Keep the context of a continuing discussion...in context.
