For me it’s not that hard to believe in the developers regarding their announces of additions and improvements that may come to the DCS World core engine. Developing a combat flight simulation in that scale surely requires covering of many real life aspects to get the most immersive simulation out of it and that requires time, work, etc… as well.

I’m sure they are working on all these things at least they try to and of course things might change which reduce, speed up or even stop the development of new additions to DCS.

You can’t expect that everything a perfect flight simulation needs to offer will be worked on or even finished one day when there are plenty of other things left that need to be done which seem to be more important to work on, for example the merge of both versions or the continuing development of aircraft modules.

Now regarding developing these aircraft, they could also let the 3d parties do all that stuff but without ED updating the main core sim with A/G-, A/A radar and many other things RAZBAM wouldn’t even think about the addition of on an AV-8B+ with A/G radar. I think…

I’m not really that long into DCS or flight sims at all but for what I have expierenced so far is that for an almost 10 year old flight simulation that is still being worked on, developers have made very good progress so far.

And I’m sure ED and the 3d parties do their best to push up the quality of DCS World.


The slipping and sliding on the decks is, as far as I have been told, an issue between the PFM and the ship. So far, we don’t have a single module that is supposed to land on ships other than the Su-33 wich still has an SFM and doesn’t have that issue afaik. I’m sure it will be fixed for the AV-8B, F-14 and F/A-18


Cobra told me directly on the ed forum that the f-14 does not do this. I promptly responded with a veiled “prove it” statement. If that were true, that would then mean that Heatblur has figured out how to make them interact properly, despite every other module behaving weirdly on a moving deck.

To my original post: I define terrible as looking like something that defies physics and completely destroys immersion. I can deal with suspension not compressing 100% perfect, or the wire not being physically picked up by the hook. I just hope the notion of DCS naval ops doesn’t end up like Combined Arms where the realism ends when you hit the deck.


Sorry but that’s not true. The Mi-8 is perfectly capable for landing on a ship and used for that. Same goes for the Huey and Gazelle. All of them have AFMs.

I am not expecting any changes to be quick (hype be damned I was never easily excited and certainly won’t start because of any DCSW module) but if something is important to them they will have a hard time explaining to me why there wasn’t time to fix it in more than six years (ATC was broken since day one of DCSW and before that).

Also to those expecting a carrier to come with the Hornet: I am 90% sure Wags hinted that there will not be a carrier on Hornet release. In some live stream or so. I dont care. Plenty to do without a carrier.

I am a big fan of DCSW and follow it very closely, and that’s why those long standing issues bother me. Any time under a year is something I consider fast enough, but at some point things are starting to get ridiculous.


Notice how it catches the wire (no other PFM aircraft does this), it plants itself down, and it does not slide.


I’ve seen that. Looks pretty sweet. It also appears the ship is not moving. And I have not personally tested it, but I’m pretty sure the modules don’t slide on a still ship. There was a similar coding issue initially with some arma 3 carrier/ship mods that acted screwy while underway. Hence why the jets dlc is basically a reskinned parking lot.


Capable does not mean that shipboard operations are their primary environment. 99% of the time those helicopters are going to be operating from land bases or FARPs. Likewise there is at the moment, no PFM aircraft that can land or take off from a ship. I can easily see how ED has not deemed this a priority up until now.

There are only so many hours in the day, and ATC is clearly considered a low priority by ED. Same reason PFM aircraft slide on ships. Same reason the missiles have parachutes attached. Just because the ATC is important to you, doesn’t mean that the business weights it with the same importance.

There’s still a carrier in game, if the wires and catapults work, it’s good enough for the time being.


I have, they do.

Comparing and contrasting how physics works on a technical level in two unrelated games is never a great idea.


Well, they did say they want to improve ATC. They said they are working on it to have it ready for Nevada. That was a year before the planned release of Nevada, in 2014 or so.
And ATC is by far not the only one. But it seems whatever doesn’t contribute to making pretty screenshots without weather and at daytime isn’t priority. Fair enough. They just should say so.


Leaving intentions aside, as discussing those i find incredibly pointless, there’s 2 things that i have to of agree on with Aginor.

One is that in the last few years, comparatively little ground has been covered on features that enhance gameplay (as compared to stuff that falls mostly in the visual category). There are a multitude of long standing issues like the already mentioned AI, ATC and weather, there’s also the proper simulation of IR vision, missile and PGM flight models, missile guidance algorithms, then there’s the multiplayerwise catastrophic requirement for a GPU on MP hosts, server admins have to own 2 licenses of the game if they don’t want to host with their gaming machine which i also find problematic, even more so as hosting is expensive given the aforementioned hardware requirement, and i could go on with this but i think you get the point.

The second is PR, the way ED has handled feature announcements in the past IMHO has directly contributed to the disappointment/resignation that some people have in the community. I think that their current approach of being more uptight about upcoming stuff is a step in the right direction, however well organized PR and community management are still neglected posts for a company of EDs size.

That’s not to say that DCS is a bad product or that you’re not getting your money’s worth. I just hope that after the last few years initiative to bring DCS up to speed in the department of visuals (the results of which are IMHO outstanding), there will be an upcoming phase of pushing pending non-visual, directly gameplay related features that currently hold DCS back.


Yeah I really don’t want to drag the mood down.

DCSW has some really awesome stuff that just blows every other sim out of the water, but it is lacking in other aspects.
I’d love to at least hear about something gameplay related now and then.
The only thing in that regard at the moment is WW2 bomber formations. Nice but that’s the only one.


I think that is what is so exciting (among many reasons!) about the impending releases of Harrier, F-18, and F-14. These are three aircraft modules that are forcing all the devs involved to develop new game play systems that were not in the sim before. RIO for the F-14, VTOL for the Harrier, carrier ops and ground radar for the F-18 and so on. They literally can’t develop these aircraft without developing these technologies.

You can say a lot of things about them, and you may not be happy about the time scales involved, but you have to admit they are choosing top level goals that force them to innovate.


I think we all can agree that DCS is a huge undertaking.
Yes, there are features lacking, and wanting. There are bugs. We’re all waiting for something.
The last few years of development has been about a lot more than visuals though. Moving up to DX11 sure is a lot about visuals, as we’ve seen. But it’s also about future proofing.

DCS is one d…arn impressive project, and I just love it, warts and all. :wink:

However, we’re getting off topic.

How 'bout that Harrier, huh? It can take off vertically…!
Unnatural, I say! Unnatural… :nerd:


I just tested landing a KA-50 on a static carrier in 1.5 ob. It does not slide. Park one on a moving carrier and it moves, eventually breaking it self… And comparing two unrelated games would be pointless, but considering both games simulate flight, i think that would qualify a comparison. It really comes down to how the ships are modeled. It has to do with the texture/properties of the deck. The designers have to figure out how to achieve the “concrete” properties of a runway, but have it move as well. This issue is apparent in RAZBAM’s video. The harrier is basically floating on the deck, not sliding. If it was actually sliding, you would see skid marks like when I tokyo drift the P51 on landing.


Forget what I said about going off topic.
VIDEO!!! :movie_camera:


Which is the same amount of sliding I was getting on a moving Frigate in 2.1.



I’m not sure what you are saying. That Huey is clipping through the deck and moving all over the place. Essentially doing what the Harrier was doing.


Correct. It was also stationary. Currently they don’t need to be moving to slide.


Might be cool to just wait and see what ED comes up with. I gather they are quite aware of what parameters that need to be in place to provide a credible and authentic carrier experience.


@BeachAV8R The point was that apparently Heatblur has fixed this, thus putting it on the individual developers to model ships that correct it. In which case we will be waiting until ED unveils its new carrier.

Well in 1.5, the ships do not rock and roll like that when stationary, and since I’ve refused to buy normandy, no ships in 2.1 for me. If you put a stationary carrier down in 1.5 they stick like the AI does.

I just hope it doesn’t look like this at release. Check out this ultra scientific video I made on the current state of carrier physics.