Good one!

That could be all well and true, but what if it was a third party developer (like CaptainSim) that just likes to do transport and utility types of aircraft? A third party team doesn't sap any resources from ED.


Well, I don't think the Hawk will come multi-seat capable, wheras the L-39 (I suspect) is going to be the technology demonstrator for multi-seat programming. The whole learning to walk before running concept I suppose. So I think the L-39 might be the egg even though the Hawk (chicken) might come first (might?)..


Exactly. And it dovetails in nicely with those who want more immersive content in DCS World. If you have willing victims participants that want to fly the C-130 and get escorted by the fast jet, pew pew pew types..that is a win/win for everyone.

BeachAV8R

+1000

When you take DCS level aircraft modeling AND add good mission design AND add qualified human flight members AND add out-of-flight support AND add clever enemy tactics AND add close-knit tactical practice with your "team" it's very fun. When you're at your limits just to operate your aircraft and the only way the mission is won is if everyone does their small part, it's very rewarding.

It's also near impossible to arrange.

I fly to the farp that is designated as a pickup zone I hit F10 and select load toops then select Para Igla Team. They get on board and I fly to different spots on the map and drop them off so they can shoot missiles up Fighter butts so they have to fly 15000 feet higher than they want too. Sometimes I put them on Mountains to fool them. Sometimes it works... sometimes it doesn't.

in the scenario I explained the enemy airfield was outside the drop off zone. So it wouldn't let me off load. (it really disappointed me).

That's awesome..

Heck yeah, that's me!

I'm getting back into Black Shark next week now that I've sorted out the DCS World module install stuff, and I'm the target "mildly hardcore" audience that everyone seems to want but can't articulate the sim well enough to attract.

Back when the 2GvSAP were all available at the same time we'd fly together on a little map I made with adjustable triggers (the more the players, the tougher the enemy, and players taking different slots would generate different scenarios; of course it and the campaign I made are all broken now). I'm a firm believer in learning only that which is necessary to work the aircraft and systems, and IMHO the startup procedure isn't necessary.

I never begrudge those who like delving into the deep system and like it when my squaddies would be comparing notes on why their birds weren't acting right ("Did you set the bubble pump actuator to 'blue spark' before selecting the harmonic oscillator in triangle mode?") I don't need to set waypoints in the nav system since either it should be put in as a function of a single objective mission or within a set sector of operations (and in a reasonable multi-player mission one shouldn't spend more than fifteen minutes to an engagement area in the air most of the time).

Black Shark in particular is very scalable and approachable in "sim" mode if one wants to use the available shortcuts, focus only on the basics of flying, navigating, targeting, and shooting using line of sight. Yes, one can cue multiple targets, but I don't. I slew the pip, select a target, push the button to de-select, move the circle, and select a different one if I want to change it. I also lock the gun and pip forward to strafe Infantry or use the rockets.

Then again I don't use a GPS in the real aircraft I fly, preferring a paper sectional, compass, and landmarks. Steam gauges FTW. And even then, the only ones I ever routinely bother to look at are oil pressure and temp. So long as the big fan in front is turning I can work out altitude and airspeed by sight and feel, and RPM by sound. On landing, it's the turn and bank indicator that I glance to, as the bubble is important when flying a tail dragger. On takeoff I'm somewhere between Vx and Vy, but rarely at either by the numbers.

Modern jets, though, do leave me cold. They're not really aircraft. They're weapons platforms. One's real role is to manage all the weapon systems, including targeting, radar, and all manner of fussy gizmos. The upside is that they're deadly lethal in real life. The downside is that they're not "fun" in the same way that adjusting a carburetor on a car isn't fun when compared to driving down a winding road. The life of a strike pilot is all about systems management to get to Point A in the X,Y, and Z coordinates where one will use electronic systems F through K to put munitions D and G onto targets AB4206 through AB4218. Modern dogfighting is highly coordinated using air and ground radar systems and guidance using an infrastructure that ensures no pilot is alone in the fight scanning the sky in fear of the Hun in the Sun. In the most successful A2A engagement the winner never even sees the plane he shot down until it fireballs or leave a really big greasy smoke trail to the ground (if that).

It's pretty neat if folks want to try and replicate that in a simulation, but it's a tough sell to the average flight sim guy, and impossible for a casual gamer. To get it right would also mean that somebody needs to play AWACs control and air coordinator. Being told where to go and what to do when one gets there just doesn't fit into the narrative we've been conditioned to when thinking about combat pilots, but it's the modern reality, and has been since the 1960's.

It is exactly what I was after. Waited a long time since Falcon 4.0 and BMS for something like DCS. I hope they keep producing high fidelity modules.

If you're doing it on a home computer, it's a game. It may be a high fidelity game, but it's a game. And the people who enjoy this "game", would probably find being strapped tightly into an ejection seat, stuck sucking the hose for hours on end, not nearly as enjoyable. No one likes it. Most hate it enough that they would not want to do it for a living. Lot's of dudes have quit military flight training because it wasn't the glamor and glitz they expected it to be.

I've always said that flying in a military aircraft will cure most people's desire to fly in a military aircraft. It's OK when you get used to it, even good at it. But it's different than playing a game. Much different. If you want to get close, maybe have your buddy kick you in the nuts while you try and play DCS. Having to concentrate on what your supposed to be doing, even while you become more and more uncomfortable. Because that's really what air combat is about.

This is a review of the then "soon to be released" Comanche 4 in 2001:

"NovaLogic made it clear as development of Comanche 4 was nearing completion that it was slanted to mass market appeal, that is, Comanche 4 would be more of a helogame than a helosim. It was dubbed "Action Shooter in the Sky" and has been designed to allow quick access to the pilot's seat."

"Slanted to mass market appeal" should result in a huge success. Comanche 4 was the last in the Comanche series to be released. There was no Comanche 5. "Lite" versions of flight sims are usually the last version to be released as they almost always flop. So far the only one I've seen work is WarThunder, and it has free entry and I've read Gaijin is still trying to figure out how to make money on it. Just read a gaming magazine article about this that was published over 10 years ago. The intoxicating thoughts of reaching the masses has been the undoing of flight sim publishers since the beginning of PC gaming.

"PC games are dead, consoles are the future" has been the cry of publishers since the first Game Boy came out 25 years ago, seemingly forgetting gamers evolve "from" consoles (whether its Intellivision and ColecoVision or Xbox and PlayStation) not "towards" them. Consoles are nothing new. There will always be publishers swinging for a home run (and more often than not striking out) and others who are singles and doubles hitters often with a better long term track record.

The small cottage industry that surrounded MSFS for years seems to contradict that. And MSFS was never regarded as a "high-fidelity" bleeding-edge simulation.

Jane's did this trick for years and sold rather well. Jane's simulations reached everyone. The F-15 title still stands as a gold standard for flight simulators. Bleeding edge realism and simplified settings for the novice.

And it was a best-seller.

I can testify that historically video game series (Diablo 3, Ninja Gaiden 3, Resident Evil 5, Silent Hill: Homecoming, Worms new attempts at 2D) often crash badly when they attempt to appeal to a different userbase than their original one.
As it turns out there’s quite a few gamers that want serious games and quick sales are not worth destroying your street cred for. I’ll think three times before buying any of the above game series again.

Compare with the Western success of Demon's Souls... and its sequel Dark Souls and its expansion and its other sequel and its three expansions.
I suppose Spelunky is another example of another quite new game that survives on its difficulty.

In other words it’s great that DCS maintains close to the highest level of simulation possible. I only wish they had more experienced mission designers because the included ones really do blow.

I admit it. I get military grade simulators at work.

I play games at home for fun.

I still can't believe someone called this a "military-grade simulator". No, just no.

I was going to start arguing with you about this, but I guess I don't see the point.

I'm a Commander in the U. S. Navy with almost 20 years of service. I started my career as a pilot. I've flown plenty of military-grade simulators, as well as experienced many other types of military simulation, not just flight simulation.

I think DCS is military grade. But I'm not going to try to convince you. I have the credentials to make the statement and I stick by it.

Why not? Steel Beasts Pro is.

As for the original statement, I'm of the view (as others are in this thread I've read) that it doesn't matter to me whether it's high or low fidelity. As long as it's a model I'm remotely interested in, I'll grab it though I would admit I wouldn't be paying the £30 for a low fidelity aircraft.

My problem with DCS is the avenue it's taking. For me, when you spend time starting up, switching on systems, flying a route, dropping ordinance, flying back and landing, and that's pretty much all you do, then I want what I do to make a difference. I want to know what I just did has had an impact - not just a successful mission.

In other words, I want DCS world to be a living, ever changing battlefield. Online or offline (though I'd prefer offline)...I want the front to be moving and more than that I want my actions to count.

As for the servers not being full...I have NEVER been on a DCS server. Two reasons are 1. I don't care much for online gaming and, more importantly for this sim, 2. I'm just crap at it...and there's plenty of people who are not.

I'm not even talking about h2h play and not wanting to get beat. I'm talking about the high fidelity models, what they require to fly and basically showing myself up. Some of you people treat this like the military grade simulator (I believe it could be/is). That's not at all a bad thing - it's great that you can do such a thing - but n00bs like myself are unlikely to show up...as would be the case with War Thunder.

That's why I never attend an online session...maybe others are the same.

LOL, interested in knowing why.

I got some insight and I tell you- DCS is pretty much spot on as a Military Grade Simulator.

I invite you to try my Hollo Pointe server and the variety of missions there. Lots of folks join the server and 'do their own thing', with little or no chat or Teamspeak. The missions will give you feedback of your progress, so you know that you are making a diff. The #1 rule is no team killing or risk a permanent ban.

WC

TBH, military-grade simulator is what they build for the ANG. This isn't it.

Let's see. Trees that aren't physical objects and invisible to the AI. BMPs far more dangerous than actual AAA, essentially zero shrapnel damage, every flying vehicle being able to absorb absurd amounts of damage. Hueys can fly after direct A-A missile hits, A-10s can sometimes fly after more than half a dozen MANPAD hits, B-52s never go down from just one A-A missile, B-1s can take even more, etc. This is why I currently consider DCS to be a game, as opposed to a simulator of any sort.

If SB had allowed T-72s to take several SABOT hits point blank in the rear, see and travel through buildings of any size and shape, I'm fairly certain it would not have been used as a military simulator. Why DCS should be held to lower standards is as per usual beyond me.