To me it's a game that simulates flying an aircraft.It can't be 100% realistic and we shouldn't expect that simulation to mirror the RL aircraft for $39.99. That's my opinion anyway.

If this was a multi-million dollar simulator to train real pilots then yes,it needs to be as accurate as possible.

When I look back over the years at the flight sim community and how they react to what they are given,the massive arguments,the fallout etc,I can't see why anyone would want to keep developing these games for us,I really don't.

Wow, where were you hiding in the last thread?

Flight sims always attract a lot of "attention to detail" & other passionate commentary. It is part of what makes it a great community and a place where I learn new things every day. But there needs to be a balance of respect between developers & community & too often both parties fall short of this.

Developers need to recognise the passion, embrace open discussion + implement changes to address negative feedback. But they should also not allow attention to detail to distract from the bigger goals of expanding the sim and making a profit. Without a viable business there will be no flight sims & we will all be poorer.

Community members need to contain their passion - to avoid being so negative & repetitive that it puts new members off buying the sim & joining the community.

ED "utter ineptitude & incompetence" did not deliver the greatest modern jet flight sim we have today. No-one should lose perspective on this.

How many man hours would you consider justifiable to fix this problem Ice? A problem that really isn't going to amount to a significant change in the performance of the flight model. A problem that the vast majority of even the hardcore players didn't notice until it was brought up by people who only know because they happen to work on the airplane.

Another thing to consider is that if they delve into the code to fix this, what is the likelyhood of something else in the engine model becoming nerfed ?

Yo-Yo cannot play around with the FM without (absolute data) otherwise the FM may even get worse until he may find a balance? How long flying blind would this take? I can only imagine.(Years)

Yo-Yo is into mathematical perfection with everything he does, if he could get anything 100/100 or a better way to say it (More In range) I believe he would try, but he needs more detailed information which is not available.

ED Pickup the pieces for ww2, it was a very nice thing for ED to do and try and fix it. Perhaps they shouldn't have now? and not put so much pressure on them selves.

How accurate is accurate enough?

Sure, we can aim for 100%. Sure, it's unreasonable to expect 100%. Sure, it's fun enough to sit at 96% or 98% or whatever number you want to come up with.

The problem here is that a fault has been pointed out... by reputable forum members... with evidence... and even some RL pilots weighing in (from what I understood). Then DCS turns around and says it doesn't need fixing. The problem here is that a gap in accuracy has been pointed out, evidence given, and DCS chooses to make excuses or ignore the problem completely.

Will it be a noticeable effect? Not for the majority of users. Will it change anything? Again, not for the majority of users. But that's not the point. This small example is one of many, many instances where DCS has been shown gaps or bugs or problems and has chosen to ignore community help and feedback. You don't have to look far to find threads about problems with existing modules that have been around for a good while now and the problems have still not been addressed. What makes it even worse is that DCS then turns around and bans those community members.

Daz and myself and others have been saying for a long time now that DCS is spreading itself too thin. So many modules, 3rd party, etc. and they don't know if they're coming or going. At their current pace, their code will be "old" by the time they're done with it, then we're probably looking at DCS 3.0 which will take another 5-10 years.

I also doubt that DCS/ED will read this thread and acknowledge their shortcomings. They don't do it on their home turf, what makes you think they'll do it on foreign ground? Sure, you can hope for the best, but I won't be holding my breath if I were you.

You mentioned F-14 and F-18.... if DCS knew what they were doing, we'll be further along with these two modules than we currently are. Heck, if they want all the moneys, why is LN doing the F-14 and not DCS themselves? I remember shortly after DCS A10C came out, speculation arose about the next DCS module... how long ago was that? In the meantime, between A10C release and today, how many other DCS modules have been released or "in the works"? How many times have DCS been "distracted"? Again, this simply shows evidence of lack of planning and vision within the organization.


I agree, but in this example, devs have dropped the ball more often.... then walk around acting as if nothing happened. Then ban you for calling them out on it.


Fair point. Let's expand the sim into WWII.... but let's not give them a theatre to fly in or ground assets to fly against. Let's make a sim, leave it half-done, then ban the people who show us our mistakes and gaps. Let's sell campaigns, then break it as soon as we patch the game.


Community members are in no obligation to contain their passion. A smart company will find a way to tap into this and profit. Would you buy a 98% complete Gazelle or a 60% complete Apache? Would you buy a 98% complete Mirage or a 80% complete Tomcat? So no, community members are justified in their passion.

Constructive comments and fair points are made about the sim all the time. Negativity and repetitiveness goes to ED/DCS because there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.


Hahahahaha!!! "Greatest modern jet flight sim"?!!? I think you're confused.... or only have a very narrow experience with regards to flight sims. Think of it this way --- if ED did not have the "utter ineptitude & incompetence," we **WOULD** have the greatest modern jet fight sim. But ED **IS** inept and incompetent, and that's why we are where we are.

Apologies for singling out eonel's post like this, but I just can't stand it when people go all the way out the other extreme and make it like ED/DCS is God's gift to the simulation world, or that we should be grateful that they're doing this for us because there's "nobody else out there." They aren't God's gift.... they could be close, but they choose to adopt their attitude/policy and just continue to shoot themselves in the foot each and every time. They also aren't the only ones "out there," and frankly, the other group makes THIS group of "professionals" look like bumbling idiots.

Great post.

When I look back over the years at the flight sim community and how they react to what they are given,the massive arguments,the fallout etc,I can't see why anyone would want to keep developing these games for us,I really don't.

Is this because of some issue with the ITT? Is it a symptom of a different issue, perhaps hidden deeper?

Usually it ends up being an issue with expectations and flying technique.

The fact is, some current behaviors in the DCS A-10C cause an inability to properly interact with systems that are actually fully modeled by ED. Unfortunately they're just modeled with a few inaccurate data points which cause tangible differences in the way we operate the airplane compared to the way T.O. 1A-10C-1 says it operates; and the way T.O. 1A-10C-1-1 says it performs; and the way AFTTP 3-3.A-10 says you should operate it; and the way AFI 11-2A-10C Vol 3 says you're required to operate it. This is not an opinion. It's verifiable, even with publically available documents.