Day one purchase. I like the new features even more than I do the new aircraft. This is something that will get me back into combat flight simulations. Good show, DCS.
2 Likes
Same for me.
Closest thing to SF3 we’ll ever get…
2 Likes
I do hope it will come with some sort of improved campaign or mission generation, I would certainly find a module that offers a bit of quick combat enjoyable!
1 Like
I’ve been wondering this same thing. Every now and again, taking a quick flight up to blow things up can be fun, without having to sit through INS alignment and talking to ATC for taxi and takeoff instructions. Fingers crossed they can fill that gap.
1 Like
Agreed. Couldn’t have expressed it more clearly.
1 Like
I can’t remember where I read it, but I think the quick mission generator is supposed to get an update that’s supposed to make it more useful for "lite simmers’ like us.
2 Likes
You mean this?
2 Likes
Yep.
A mission generator would do more than just help lite simmers. Right now the MG is pretty good at setting the field for a force on force engagement. I have used the MG as a starting point for some shake and bake scripted missions. Hopefully the tweaks on their end mean fewer tweaks on the “shake and bake” end, such as a more balanced or purposed force and a more logical flow.
2 Likes
Just judging by the trailer, it looks as if DCS is making the statement they want their platform to have a footprint in every level of combat simulation complexity. They’re positioning themselves well, because it appears their greatest competition is War Thunder and Combat Air Patrol 2. I know the study-sim-level fans might not like this, but I doubt very seriously that KBM and hardcore players would be in the same server. I think this is going to be one of those situations when a rising tide lifts all boats; more revenue means more improvements, features, and modules. I really hope that DCS continues on and provides a Modern Air Combat version of all of their offerings. I’m not necessarily demanding that any of the other developers follow suit, but I think they’d get paid if they did.
This is a good thing, guys.
4 Likes
Not only I agree word by word to what you wrote, but I also wish more people would realize this.
This is not a Us versus Them (hardcore simmer vs casual users), it’s stretching a hand toward a lot of possible customers that are rightfully afraid by full blown military switchology!
So much good can come from this at so little risk…
2 Likes
Yes it is.
1 Like
You can be happy that ED is reaching out to the sim-lite crowd, that’s fine. It’s a bit disappointing to people who were hoping that ED would take this opportunity to expand rather the library rather than iterate through existing stock, but c’est la vie.
However treating clicky pits like they’re some sort of trial by ordeal is melodramatic hyperbole.
2 Likes
Whatever
Perhaps ‘fear’ isn’t the right word. ‘Intimidated’ certainly is. I recall that Jane’s USAF had clickable cockpits, but nothing on the scale and scope of DCS; I recall being very impressed with that feature, but it was hardly one I ever used. Once I realized I could map everything to an X-45 HOTAS, I quickly lost interest in switchable pits because it was (for me) an unneeded complexity that would quickly backfire on me once missiles were in the air. I didn’t want to be caught in a dogfight with an R-60 chasing me and have to reach over and grab a mouse to click a button. Talk about an immersion killer…
But, for some, they want that layer of complexity, and to them I say, “have all you like”. I’m glad that feature is there for their enjoyment, but I’m glad DCS recognizes that not all want that requirement forced on them.
3 Likes
I’m a bit contrary as I actually find having a clickable cockpit pretty handy, at least for the more administrative parts. I like to keep all my critical things on simple button or keybinds, but the less time-sensitive things in the cockpit itself. I do understand why a certain level of overall complexity can turn people off, though, but I think it’s easier to start out small rather than large.
But again, that is the point of MAC, to allow a easy on ramp to those that are intimidated or dont have the time for study sims, its for new people coming into the community, or those that have one or two modules and just don’t have the time for more. Its not for existing hard core fans, nor is it a slap in their face as development of ED’s unmatched high quality modules are still very much in high gear, as can be seen with the hot and heavy updates to the Hornet.
Those that want an expanded library are getting new aircraft such as the F-16, Hind, Cobra, F-14, F-15E, etc…
It makes more sense for new stuff to be brought in at the level most current users expect, and then later even these new ones could be converted to MAC aircraft. Or do you want them to spend their research time on unique MAC aircraft, which would end up delaying the new high fidelity stuff. It seems pretty easy to me what the answer is there.
4 Likes
I’m not trying to bash FC4. I expressed my views months ago. The ship has sailed. There is no point fighting it.
I took umbrage with the notion that there is a reason to fear DCS modules. There really isn’t. I remember the transition from FC2 and SF2 to the A-10C. I remembering being apprehensive because there was a reputation that it was button hell, and you had to master 4th Dimensional Groogy School Blitz Chess to fly it successfully. Those rumors were all wildly exaggerated. If you can successfully handle and FC aircraft, you can handle a full up ASM aircraft. As @Franze pointed, DCS aircraft are generally easier to use because you’re not artificially knee capped by the simplification. A bit of a steeper curve, but a far higher ceiling. Put another way, I’ve never had an experience in combat where I wished a DCS aircraft was simpler, I’ve had plenty where I wished a FC3 aircraft were more complex.
I’m not trying to pick on the people who aren’t interested in that systems depth. If that’s not your thing, cool beans, I’m not judging.
I was more annoyed that rhetoric like “rightfully afraid” reinforces an already exaggerated narrative about the difficulty of operating a DCS module. If you’re a player on the fence about taking the plunge and everyone is telling you its too hard and you won’t like it, you’re now dealing not just with the challenge of picking up the plane, but your own preconceived notions about how this isn’t for you. A person in that situation is more likely to give up rather than stick with it and break through to the fun bits.
I get that a selling point of FC4 is trying to alleviate that, but I can’t help but feel with the majority of modules chosen, the customer could save time and money simply cutting to the chase. Perhaps they would if we didn’t keep telling them each module is a mountain to climb.
2 Likes
It’s a fair point re not wanting to make it sound more intimidating than it is…but let’s face it, most of us here have upwards of 5-10 years of sim experience and generally have a keen interest to learn about this area: what is not intimidating to us probably doesn’t represent the gamer average.
I don’t disagree with you, picking up a Chuck’s guide and a DCS module you’ve never flown before isn’t that hard…but it is still a lot harder than pressing E for engine start and going shooty bang, which is the most complicated thing many of these gamers have done before firing up DCS for the first time. It’s a different level of commitment and offers a lot less hand holding - you need to actually go out of your way a bit to figure it out.
2 Likes
But the fact remains, there are many that do. I had a number of friends that I flew with with Flaming Cliffs, only to leave them behind when DCS A-10C came out, whether its real or imagined or a little of both, people are scared away by the learning curve, or control setup, time requirement.
FC will always be a good bridge for the gap between other games/sims and what DCS offers in its high end stuff. MAC will continue to do that, and more.
2 Likes