DCS Flying Legend Aircraft

LOL...sooooo your a crash and burn type of guy..the mechanic's will begin to hate you ..cause of all the fixing up they have to do...LOL

I agree with Vincent, and I know you're joking, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're "crash and burn guys"!

I believe a lot of what contributes to the feeling of speed and height is the sense of danger - the sense of what's going to happen if you do cut that corner too early, or fail to pull up in time.

In some respects, the more detailed and brutal the damage model, the more likely we are to try to preserve the condition of our plane!

Okay let me explain why I would like to see these " Legends " aircraft weapons ready...

Firstly since DCS's engine is weapons capable it would be easy for them to impliment it..also the aircraft detail and like some mention their damage model's are excellent..and the added mod's of " Air and Ground " units by members is well above average to the point of amazing..and DCS's detail to flight dynamics is extremely great it would be a nice addition to their Sim series..I feel as great as IL-2 and its new added additions..DCS doing this could again put themselves ahead of the pack in the Flight sim industry..not that they needs this..for instance in FSX where A2A Simulation has done a extremely great job of the P-51D Mustang(soon Accu-Sim Mustang)/Accu-Sim Spitfire/Accu-Sim B-17..there is only just flying around no combat as to say...meaning in FSX its just for flying around..I find that okay to do for awhile then after it sort of gets boring..so if DCS is only making the " Legends " flight only without weapons...then its just an extension of FSX..:)

But to add to this I would still make the purchase ... so early 2012 is not coming fast enough....

You all know that DCS means Digital Combat Simulator? It even says in the title. It will be a weaponized combat aircraft no matter what.

There is FSX if you dont like war.

You all know that DCS means Digital Combat Simulator? It even says in the title. It will be a weaponized combat aircraft no matter what.

 

There is FSX if you dont like war.

A weaponized combat aircraft then it be a big " WoW " for me then..

I agree with Vincent, and I know you're joking, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're "crash and burn guys"!

I believe a lot of what contributes to the feeling of speed and height is the sense of danger - the sense of what's going to happen if you do cut that corner too early, or fail to pull up in time.

 

In some respects, the more detailed and brutal the damage model, the more likely we are to try to preserve the condition of our plane!

I remember how happy I was when on my 1st landing of the A-10C I Blew-out all my tires:lol:

Finally a non-scripted landing!!

There is FSX if you dont like war.

Ah, so you like war then? I assume you've been in combat? ;)

Seriously, where does this idea come from that someone has to be opposed to combat simulation in order to be perfectly fine with a non-combat one? One does not follow the other. What if what they specifically like is flight simulations, with combat or not being irrelevant as long as the flight is quality?

I'm definitely in that camp. I don't have some specific need for things to blow up all around me for me to have fun any less than I need things to blow up in front of me for me to enjoy watching a movie. I happen to love flying, and when doing it on a desktop simulator I like ralistic flight simulations. I stand perplexed at the idea that people would somehow be weird, on a flight simulator forum, through saying that what they care about is the flight simulation... ;)

Weapons and combat can make things more exciting, yes, and I enjoy shooting stuff in DCS as much as the next man, but it's not the only way to make things exciting.

(since everyone else is doing it)

 

I agree. I definitely have more fun just flying around in DCS than I do in FSX. I generally find the flying aspect in combat focused flight simulators better than in civil simulators, not because of the combat, but because of the damage modeling. When I smash hard into the ground, I like my gear to collapse. I like to see parts get smashed up and fall off. So when I finally come screeching to a halt without exploding, I feel like I accomplished something. Its so much more rewarding than the line of text in MSFS that randomly says "overstress" before unceremoniously forcing you to restart the game. If I cut the corner too close while flying through a canyon, I want it to end in a glorious ball of fire.

 

I will definitely be doing a lot of DCS: Legend in Nevada just to enjoy the flight model.

+1

DCS:ATR 72–500 please

Nobody in is mind, and that have for somehow experienced combat (or trained intensively for it, to the point of hate) likes War. Period. War is something that Humankind can be ashamed of.

We all been here for the adrenalin of sheer combat and adventure... something that young ones pursuit for thousands of years. And for that is the importance of History, to remember ourselves our flaws.

So, who wants to fly FSX? :D

I just hope ED aren't taking on too much at the moment. The compatability patch for a-10c, bs2 and fc3, FC3, DCS: Flying legends, and DCS: Fighter Jet. Thats four separate projects, i worry we may not see the most important of these projects, which is the DCS : Fighter if they don't really focus their efforts. IMO, in order of importance, they should focus mostly on DCS : Fighter Jet, compatability patch, FC3, then if they have some spare time give us the living legends. As exciting as it is to have all of these programs on the horizon, I would sleep better to know they are committed to the most important of these projects.

Nobody in is mind, and that have for somehow experienced combat (or trained intensively for it, to the point of hate) likes War. Period. War is something that Humankind can be ashamed of.

"War is not nice." Barbara Bush (a favorite from OFP)..

I just hope ED aren't taking on too much at the moment. The compatability patch for a-10c, bs2 and fc3, FC3, DCS: Flying legends, and DCS: Fighter Jet. Thats four separate projects, i worry we may not see the most important of these projects, which is the DCS : Fighter if they don't really focus their efforts. IMO, in order of importance, they should focus mostly on DCS : Fighter Jet, compatability patch, FC3, then if they have some spare time give us the living legends. As exciting as it is to have all of these programs on the horizon, I would sleep better to know they are committed to the most important of these projects.

They are commited to all the projects, if not I don't think they would publicly state what their intentions are. It's not like this community doesn't "explode" when something doesn't go our way :D

The key is the right hangar in Nevada...

That's a big hint here :)

?

and:

Hi beczl, nice models you have here

What is your copyright policy regarding them? Do you want them included into an official DCS setup?

.......

Or at least that's my wishful thinking ;)

I'll join you in that wishful thinking. :)

I'll join you in that wishful thinking. :)

+1

+1

The parallel development isn't hogging resources. If say, for example, cockpit work has finished on one project, those devs move onto the next project, etc - so in some ways you can have things being made in parallel.

A perhaps more efficient way of dealing with such scheduling woes would be to identify development bottlenecks and remove them, either by retraining existing staff or systematically hiring new people. Manufacturing engineering certainly holds that bottlenecks in a process are never healthy in the long term.

I guess it would help people's confidence in ED's ability to execute parallel development if they had demonstrated that they were able to meet their own goals in terms of release cycle and backwards compatibility.

Why does everyone insist on putting ED into the combat sim box? Are they banned from making a simulator of a beautiful aircraft for the sole purpose of doing just that? These aircraft still fly today, they don't have to be crammed into overplayed WWII genre.

 

Since when was a flight sim not good enough? Why does everything in PC simulation have to be weaponized? And WHY does everyone insist on making up their version of the future instead of just waiting for news and watching the development process? Chill out and let things pan out people, these speculation threads get ridiculous here.

Because the C in DCS stands for Combat, perhaps ;) I have to agree with those concerns to a large extent, losing focus is rarely a way to improve - "jack of all trades, but master of none" comes to mind.

DCS was never meant to be just a jet sim. Did you know it could also simulate say, a helicopter? :D

 

How about an Arleigh burke? I'd LOVE to park THAT next to Anapa and watch the reds beg me to let'em take off! ;)

I'd much prefer a DDG-51 module, actually. Look at it this way, even if ED never gets around to releasing another helicopter, Black Shark and the engine changes required to make it work will have left a lasting, useful legacy. It introduced clickable cockpit technology, infantry, sophisticated AI helo FMs, realistic AI helo behaviour, improved ground unit AI, a more detailed armour damage model and much more. All of which moved DCS forward a great deal as a simulation of modern warfare and will continue to be much appreciated no matter what the future flyables will be.

However, if it turns out that ED lacks the resources to provide a proper environment for Flying Legends beyond the initial release, what benefits relevant to the DCS world will it have yielded? Virtual photo ops and air racing, as has been a popular suggestion here and elsewhere? That's a somewhat meagre result considering the effort, don't you think?

"jack of all trades, but master of none" comes to mind.

For sake of argument: if this is true, and we state as a premise that ED has proven themselves a master of combat simulations (which is my opinion of course, but meh) - what would happen if they made a non-combat simulator?

They'd have less work to do. The things needed for the non-combat simulator are already done for the combat simulators. ;)

I think that my only comment to you is 'Oh Ye of little faith'. :D

ED know what they're doing and why they're doing it. They're also enterpreneurs and may be taking a risk here and there.

All I'll leave you with is this hint: Think big picture.

what would happen if they made a non-combat simulator?

Different strokes for different folks, but I think 100% of the people present on these forums have interest in combat flight simulation. The number is not 100% in terms of fans on these forums of non-combat flight sims. While I appreciate business rationale to increase customer base, the current customer base, that made ED what it is today in terms of their non-military work, should be catered to for their support. Of course it seems that ED is trying to cater to us and increase their customer base, which is excellent!

For sake of argument: if this is true, and we state as a premise that ED has proven themselves a master of combat simulations (which is my opinion of course, but meh) - what would happen if they made a non-combat simulator?

 

They'd have less work to do. The things needed for the non-combat simulator are already done for the combat simulators. ;)

Your premise is flawed IMHO - I certainly agree that ED are currently the best (a relative measure) combat simulation developer, but they are not perfect (an absolute). So there is still room for improvement and the state of the art does not stagnate either ;)

I think that my only comment to you is 'Oh Ye of little faith'. :D

 

ED know what they're doing and why they're doing it. They're also enterpreneurs and may be taking a risk here and there.

 

All I'll leave you with is this hint: Think big picture.

Don't get me wrong, I hope they pull it off, but the publicly available information does raise some questions. I just like their combat sims too much to be comfortable with the idea of ED spending resources on something else ;)

Your premise is flawed IMHO - I certainly agree that ED are currently the best (a relative measure) combat simulation developer, but they are not perfect (an absolute). So there is still room for improvement and the state of the art does not stagnate either ;)

My point is that IF what ED is doing is a non-combat simulator (I'm sure you understand I cannot comment), the requisites for a civvie aircraft are things they have to do anyways for military simulations. ;)

However, if it turns out that ED lacks the resources to provide a proper environment for Flying Legends beyond the initial release, what benefits relevant to the DCS world will it have yielded? Virtual photo ops and air racing, as has been a popular suggestion here and elsewhere? That's a somewhat meagre result considering the effort, don't you think?

A thought - & I guess it depends on the implementation, but putting another aircraft into DCS that doesn't require major code reworks & additions may be a signal to 3rd parties that creating additional aircraft as "drop in's" for the environment is possible ?

A perhaps more efficient way of dealing with such scheduling woes would be to identify development bottlenecks and remove them, either by retraining existing staff or systematically hiring new people. Manufacturing engineering certainly holds that bottlenecks in a process are never healthy in the long term.

 

I guess it would help people's confidence in ED's ability to execute parallel development if they had demonstrated that they were able to meet their own goals in terms of release cycle and backwards compatibility.

 

 

 

Because the C in DCS stands for Combat, perhaps ;) I have to agree with those concerns to a large extent, losing focus is rarely a way to improve - "jack of all trades, but master of none" comes to mind.

 

 

However, if it turns out that ED lacks the resources to provide a proper environment for Flying Legends beyond the initial release, what benefits relevant to the DCS world will it have yielded? Virtual photo ops and air racing, as has been a popular suggestion here and elsewhere? That's a somewhat meagre result considering the effort, don't you think?

I agree the " C " stands for Combat..and yes it would be nice for the legends having combat weapons ready to do old fashion dogfights..

I also agree if it " Flying Legends " only goes as far as photo ops and racing then why bother..I am for the old fashion " Dogfights " with the P-51D or a FE-109..I know it seems taking a step backwards..but I think its a step forward if they provide a out standing " Flying Legends " flight model's then IL-2 look out..:thumbup:

I

C does stand for Combat.

Nate