This is a P-51 simulator right?

My question is: What, apart from the obvious joy of flying a (presumably) meticulously modelled P-51, does this sim have to offer?

AI? Campaigns? Multiplayer? Is there any attempt whatsoever to place the P-51 in some kind of relevant context here or is it just tooling around in a '51, doing nothing much but looking really badass?

Well I think they are wanting to add WW2 era fighters/bombers to supplement the P-51, but its not quite in the sim yet.

AI, yes P-51s have AI
There is a challenge campaign that sort of teaches you how to fly and fight.
Multiplayer... oh there is plenty of multiplayer opportunities. While P-51D vs P-51D dogfighting might not be ideal its still quite enjoyable.


Also a reason I've read for why the made the P-51 is so that they have a Flight module for propeller aircraft.

Cool, some serious tutorial action, I like that. Developing good airmanship is half the fun of these simulations IMO.

Hopefully someone picks up the ball and runs with this, a fully developed sim along these lines could be very popular. I'd probably buy it just to fly the Pony but I'm definitely not interested in shooting down AI or pvp P-51s, that would just feel wrong.

Thanks for the reply mrskortch.

Will they ever outsource to anyone to build an actual career mode for the new DCS world . . . ?

I wouldn't hold my breath. In my opinion they quite screwed the whole thing. They had a well modeled plane (A-10), they only needed a good campaign engine, and then they could release more planes WITH a campaign to fly them... Instead, they went for the MS Flight Sim approach: planes without purpose. No enemies, no war, no fun. Just take off, fly and land a perfectly capable WAR machine... Even worse, they add planes that can't coexist. I really don't get it.

Given this level of stupidity, I'd say they'll continue to add plane after plane until people stop buying them, and then, instead of just releasing a freaking campaign, they'll keep adding a Dr1, a Catalina, a Boeing 737 and even a colorful kite, and finally they will go out of business wondering what went wrong.

I had such high hopes for this "now A-10, tomorrow a dynamic campaign" kind of deal, but nope...

On the other hand, I think they're doing a great job. Even in it's early beta state the Mustang is great, and I think ED's ambitions go beyond just being an MS Flight clone. Look at Combined Arms for example.

Wow. DCS:Kite. If you don't like the way a kite flies, don't buy it. But they can be tricky.

Also can you tell me the next lotto numbers from your crystal ball? Seeing as you're predicting the future with some certainty.

You seem to have lost the post where they mentioned that the P-51 started out as a side project by ED developers. It was never intended to be released until Wags or some other high management saw it and decided that instead of letting the work go to waste, use the opportunity.
We're still getting our fast jet and CA - who needs a campaign when that's released? Besides apart from Falcon, you'll never see a single player dynamic campaign again. DC's aren't the norm and Falcon was an aberration.

You're also forgetting that other planes are being made by THIRD party developers for DCS:W. IMO, it's better to have that than just waiting for official planes from them.

Level of stupidity? Nah, they made a shrewd business move. With MS Flight effectively killing third party development, something had to fill the void. DCS:W did just that. Iris is only the first to join in. Don't like to fly a particular aircraft, don't buy it. If you don't want to see a particular aircraft in your world, don't allow it.
It's all about options and now we got a whole lot more.

I completly agree with you WileECoyote!

And the worse part is that DCS doesn't have the biggest advantage of FSX which is that it doesn't model the entire world (just like FSX does). That said, the map (and future maps) of DCS are TINY compared to FSX. While it's not "my thing" I can see the purpose of having lots of "unrelated" if you have an entire world to fly to. Unless DCS starts modeling the entire planet like FXS does, I also don't see this aproach from ED guys being a sucessfull one. And the curious thing if what WileECoyote says will happen (DCS commercial failure) the devs and fans will blame pirates and that nobody likes or wants to buy flight sims.
Not wanting to extend any longer I agree with WileECoyote, if ED guys don't change their posture and dedicate DCS only to what it seemed to have been projected which is to be a credible COMBAT simulation (and a P-51 together with F-15s and A-10s is nowhere credible!) I also predict what DCS will fail. Again and of course then the blame will fall towards the pirates and that most people don't seem to like to play flight sims

FSX/Accusim = GREAT system details and the globe to fly in. Persistant wear is GREAT but no weapons/combat damage. Boring after a little while.

DCS:P-51 = Very good systems detail and weapons and combat damage but small maps and no persistant wear. Also no WW2 enemy. Still beta.

I wish they would join forces so I could have my B-17 III.

Strange, dynamic campaigns are what about 75% of the market constantly harps on about in every combat sim forum. It's unusual that so many developers should be so blind to the elephant in the room in their dash for MMORPG dollars.

They're basically storming past an unlocked bank with the safe open to steal some kids lunch money.

But ED are developing a DC. What sim is based on a MMORPG type system?

Nate

At the moment War Thunder, and there has been some talk that 1C is going this route however I have seen nothing concrete on that subject.

Indeed, I know that, but the point is the same: why weren't they developing something that could integrate with what already existed? And that's because:




You have planes but you don't have wars. They came up with this schema that the only thing it does is to allow for planes to be made and purchased. No attempt what so ever to create a Digital Combat Simulations experience.



The only option I would want to have is the one they sold us in the first place: a believable campaign with very well modeled planes and environment. For just flying planes people can go with FSX or X-Planes and that's what I think would happen. 40 bucks for just a plane (P-51) ? It won't long last.

I tend to disagree with this kind of opinion, given how detailed the DCS aircraft are modeled I think it's a fair price. However. Most, if not all, arguments have been exchanged about this, so how about this: If ED goes bankrupt, feel free to announce here or elsewhere in capital letters "Told you so". If, on the other hand, ED is still in business in, say, two years, you open a new thread right here and publicly announce that you were wrong. Game on? :-)

I think this is the first step in something that will be very exciting long term. Remembering the P-51 was produced as a labour of love by a few DCS programmers in their spare time. Give it a year and I think you will see WWW2 era maps being developed and opponent aircraft.

The point is to support this project now. Don't wait for them to add more content.

Well, I don't want to hand over my hard earned without some kind of assurance that the title will be developed within some kind of desirable context. (IE: me getting to set fire to BF-109s and FW-190s in a nice campaign at some point)

I'm happy to support the industry in general but I'm not completely indiscriminate in the way I do so.

Incorrect. It's not "75% of the market". It's "a large portion of people on internet forums", which might look impressive but is still only a fraction of a percent of the "market". Most people that purchase combat simulators never post on a forum.



For the reasons mentioned above, it's not that developers are blind, nor making a dash for MMORPG dollars. (That's random? Where did that come from?)



An unlocked bank with an open safe makes you no good if it costs more to get close to it than there is in that safe. Let's illustrate this in an easy fashion:

1) Companies in the recent decade that have made good(ish) DC's: Microprose and Razorworks.
2) Companies in the recent decade that have made a good(ish) DC and were rewarded with enough sales to stay in business: none.

There's a lot more to market analysis than looking at what a vocal minority is saying on the interwebs. No matter how cool a feature is, said feature has to pay for itself. Even if and when it might mean additional sales, perhaps even substantially increased sales, you still need to consider the fact that development time is a lot of money paid up front, and the additional revenue must offset both the costs in time and development money but also capital costs, cover delays in getting revenue on working capital etcetera etcetera. Simply saying "we'll make the most awesome thing ever" is a sure way to end up never releasing a product at all because you run out of money - or, if you release, not making enough to pay your debts.

If you've ever wondered how Falcon could have lasted this long, all you have to do is look at the challenges facing ED. Study sim? Check. Dynamic Campaign? Check. Everything just works together perfectly? Check. I have a feeling Falcon will be around for another 20 years. Allied Force is awesome, and BMS has raised the bar again. But I am rooting for and supporting ED. This is a tough challenge!

Yeah, the big deal though is that ED of course has to do this from a business standpoint. ED could make the most awesome thing ever if they decided to go balls to the wall and kill BMS. But it would be almost guaranteed to kill the company. A lot of people often seem to confuse lasting power of a simulator with commercial success. A business can't just make "the best product ever" and have that automatically translate into commercial success.

Therefore, things take time, since ED has to go about this in a sensible way, which it is doing.

Let's see - Flanker 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, Flamming Cliffs 1 and 2, LOMAC, BS 1 and 2, A10C, P-51. Company is still going strong.

Name another company that still produces flight simulators? None.

Yes someone pops in here and tells they are wrong and should create World of Tanks or such. Makes perfect sense.