I agree! But to be fair this is accually backwards. I just had to spend 9.99 to get falcon 4.0 after misplacing my original copy while moving. DCS is free to play, obviously you need to pay to get the modules (I've spent a lot on DCS) and 9.99 is a steal for a sim like BMS (awesome free mod). Like I mentioned earlier I play both depending on preference, I don't see a need to rack and stack.

Best $10 ever spent. lol

Yeah, play what you like. They both have pros and cons.

83% of internet statistics are made up...

thankfully I formed my opinion based on my day-to-day experience in the community and not by researching it

The modules are far too complex, the development time, for the complexity, is far too long. Dcs in its core form is a training aid for the military. As a consumer entertainment product it sucks. It really does. It's not ment to be entertainment. Folk who think the devs are doing this for the community are kidding themselves. There is no military sideline for the ww2 modules and look how far down the to do list that has slid. The amount of trainers being developed tells the whole story. Someone said they regret spending money on BoS, I regret every penny spent on dcs. The spotting issues made the ww2 aircraft all but useless unless they were used as ground pounders. The phantom trees are laughable for 2015. At least BoS has collidable trees, it has done many things wrong but that they got right.

Great post Johnny_Redd. That's pretty much what I'm trying to say- it's a great training aid but poor game. I wrote a long dissertation on that in a thread here a while back.

IMHO most of us want a game. We want a realistic sim, too, but more than that we want to be entertained. If you stripped out the dynamic campaign from Falcon and made it a TE sim only, like DCS, I don't think it would be nearly as popular as it is. Falcon and Jane's F/A-18 were both released about the same time, and we can see who got more of the modding love.

Edit: Here's the thread I stared on this topic, and it still seems relevant today.

DCS-It's not what you want post

they mismanaged their community, mishandled its expectations, mistreated its mod makers and broke their own self imposed deadlines time and again, I am sure that they expected things to turn out different, but it did not.

yet, we all are still around and playing the sim.

any news on when can we expect to see DCSW 2 released and the Spitfire, P-47D and Normandy map, will it ever see the light of day ?

Not really
I mean, for me I'm here to read looking for news that could indicate reasons to fly DCS more often than once every update release.

At best I goof around half an hour in the P-51 or Su-25 every second week trying to figure out why the heck I'm flying.
It sure looks good but the most important aspect, the game Component, is totally missing just like toonces say.

The only thing over the last half year that got me flying a few Days in a row was MBot's "dynamic singleplayer" missin that I ported to FC3 planes and a few others but even that one is on hold until 1.5 is out so I can see targets in the P-51 Before the bump into my fuselage.

(random mid sentence uppercase characters is handed to you all by this texteditor for reasons a European like me fail to see but I can't find the effort to correct them)

I'm playing once or twice a week, usually coop/training with my squad and I'm having the time of my life with DCS as far as flightsims go. If I would play DCS exclusively offline I'd play a lot less. And I feel for those wanting more singleplayer content.

Playing on the Blue Flag campaign server was the most enjoyable gaming experience for me since the days of the old IL2 online wars.

I've been bringing up these same points for a long time. NTTR and the level of fidelity it has been created to, was the give-away. And I'm sure we're not getting what is to be used by the military. Detail wise.

-Jeff

I am waiting on NTTR to pass final judgement.

But, seriously, ED is gonna have to move away from these training and ww2 aircraft and refocus on tactical combat jets.

The military doesn't need trainers in DCS IMHO. They're literally useless when they have the following two things:

1) Real trainers
2) If in simulation, a guy watching over your shoulder.

ED is doing one trainer, and various 3rd parties are doing their own.
Those are useful in a squadron context with the right people; some want to teach US instruments, some want to teach Russian instruments.

Some want to use a higher powered trainer, some lower powered.

As for WW2 planes, they're here to stay. Both ED and 3rd parties are working on those.


So, seriously, just because you don't like some type of aircraft, doesn't mean there aren't those who can appreciate it.

The issue of concern for me (and others) is dilution of limited resources.

You are correct, however, opinions vary now dont they...?

;-)

what we have is a hodgepodge of aircraft searching for a common theme ...

The player base don't need trainers in DCS IMO. They're literally useless when we have the following things
1. Ability to respawn
2. The ability to learn a real combat aircraft without the fear of destroying it.
3. The option to save ones money and not purchase the useless module.

I see absolutely no other reason to develop trainer aircraft than as a military contract. The tired old arguments from ED and their forum moderators concerning the kickstarter money being barely enough for one aircraft FM makes the decision to develop trainers for the gaming community mind bogglingly retarded. Seriously, how many folk are going to buy those things? Not enough to make the development time financially viable I'll wager.

I completely agree redd. It strikes me this is something they developed for another customer and are flogging to the general public.

Who here even knew of the albatross before this module appeared?

I'd also add that they managed to conjure up an actual L39 pilot just to give a video presentation? No, he was on staff to oversee accuracy for the military contract would be my guess. That's an expenditure they would not have paid out for on a module for the average punter.

The problem is that most modern jets have some parts of them classified. Good luck making high quality simulation when complete information not available. Hell, probably even older jets such as Su-24 still have some parts classified. Yet people still want modern DCS quality jet.

You'll never get true authenticity, and I would have serious reservations if you did. Don't forget that these are highly sophisticated weapons and no government in their right mind would allow the average joe to have access to a truthful represention of any aircraft.

A trainer? Not really an issue.

Who here would be okay with any person having in depth working knowledge of a modern, active aircraft?

Hard to say in some cases: the Bug has been around for over 30 years and I doubt there's ANYTHING not publicly known about it now. Undoubtedly why ED chose it for hardcore love...[heh that sounds wrong?].

Trouble is, too many resources are diverted by *cough* irrelevant and obscure jets. Third party devs, sure, but still you have to think diverting ED's internal dev attention in some respects.

If they had focused exclusively on the Bug, Id wager it would be out to us on beta or better now.

Hence my ongoing frustration.

There is no reason they (ED) can't either:

1) make a best guess approximation of classified portions of a modern jet

or

2) stick with somewhat older jets that are unclassified.

The F-4 Phantom is a perfect example of a jet that has never been properly modeled in a combat environment to my knowledge. With two-seat MP capability, and a perfect adversary like the MiG-21, this could be hugely popular IMO. Certainly moreso than an L-39.

Frankly, though, if something is classified, the only ones who will know exactly how their sim jet differs from the real jet will be people "in the know." Close enough really is good enough for a video game.