DCS Discussion

[JasonPratt]

...wait, back up. DCS doesn't offer a Strike Eagle package for the F-15?  ???

Because I thought the F-15 Strike Eagle was a very decent atg fighter. Not like a Warthog of course but maybe on par with a F-111 if not better.

[Jarhead0331]

...wait, back up. DCS doesn't offer a Strike Eagle package for the F-15?  ???

Because I thought the F-15 Strike Eagle was a very decent atg fighter. Not like a Warthog of course but maybe on par with a F-111 if not better.

No...the FC3 F-15 is the F-15C.  The F-15E Strike Eagle is in development by Razbam, the same team that made the M2000, Av8B and Mig-19.

[Toonces]

I just started playing Combined Arms again; I posted about it last page. 

I think it's worth it.  It's not highly accurate like the flight modules.  But, you can control all your ground forces and play the game much like an RTS, and you can jump into first person and actually drive and fight the vehicles on the ground.  The potential is amazing. 

Just go into it knowing what you're getting.  It's not Steel Beasts.  I'd put it more on par with a lite version of ARMA.  But when you consider the depth of the sandbox you're using the vehicles in, I think it's amazing.

You definitely should check out some YouTube videos if you're on the fence.

[mikeck]

If I'm not interested in taking 1st person control of anything (other than my dCS aircraft) and just want to plan battles and be able to interact with ground forces, is it worth it? JH seemed to think the organic editor can do that but does CA offer something else other than control that I might miss otherwise?

I guess what I'm looking for is an AI that can organize an attack and execute it on its own while I provide CAS that actually impacts the battle

[Yskonyn]

CA doesn't provide any added functionality other than direct ad-hoc unit control via the F10 map, for your goals.

The 'self running AI' you can already create with the Mission Editor through triggers, zones and waypoints. CA wont really change anything regarding this.

[mikeck]

Ok. Thank you

[Redwolf]

...wait, back up. DCS doesn't offer a Strike Eagle package for the F-15?  ???

Because I thought the F-15 Strike Eagle was a very decent atg fighter. Not like a Warthog of course but maybe on par with a F-111 if not better.

They tend to model the simpler first versions. Probably because it's the only hope to get accurate information. The Strike Eagle had quite a few upgrades and who knows what Israel did to them.

[JasonPratt]

The Strike Eagle had quite a few upgrades and who knows what Israel did to them.

I expect if they just made the F-15 into the Batwing, they must be close in principle into what Israel did to them.  8)

[mikeck]

...wait, back up. DCS doesn't offer a Strike Eagle package for the F-15?  ???

Because I thought the F-15 Strike Eagle was a very decent atg fighter. Not like a Warthog of course but maybe on par with a F-111 if not better.

They tend to model the simpler first versions. Probably because it's the only hope to get accurate information. The Strike Eagle had quite a few upgrades and who knows what Israel did to them.

That makes sense. Since an aircraft model scheduled to be in service for the next 20 years Is going to have a substantial amount of classified capabilities. Classified you have to guess that's not what DCS is. I wondered why they did not do the F-18E/F super horny but this is probably why. So much of the capabilities of that aircraft are still highly classified.

From what I understand, the US even limits aerobatic displays conducted at airshows so as to not give up the full  capabilities.   I've read articles where super hornet pilots swear up-and-down the aircraft can fly and fight with angles of attack even higher than the F 35 (which is pretty damn amazing even if it's almost true). Never mind trying to model highly classified radar and sensor capabilities for a new aircraft.

I'm happy with 3rd/4th gen aircraft...Although I am kind of surprised that the F-4 Phantom has not been modeled. it's use was extensive in duration, numbers and operators. it is the defining aircraft for an entire war and generation of US  airmen...independent of all the different capabilities as in uses.  In fact,  I think the DCS world could use a dedicated "wild weasel " SEAD" aircraft which the F-4 Phantom performed admirably and it's twilight years

[Redwolf]

Even if the newer plane revisions were not classified, it might have components that cannot be modeled even with full info.

Think about car simulators and the adaptive suspensions most new higher quality cars have (usually via electric cutoff valves in the damper). To simulate this it doesn't buy you much to know the damper values relative to applied electric voltage. What you need to know is what the computer decides to send to the damper at what time. That is a complicated thing based on user preference, jaw sensor, car lean, whether you think it is an emergency braking maneuver etc. Unless you get access to the car's software source code you have a computer randomly pulling on the wheels in the real car and you cannot simulate this.

[mikeck]

Even if the newer plane revisions were not classified, it might have components that cannot be modeled even with full info.

Think about car simulators and the adaptive suspensions most new higher quality cars have (usually via electric cutoff valves in the damper). To simulate this it doesn't buy you much to know the damper values relative to applied electric voltage. What you need to know is what the computer decides to send to the damper at what time. That is a complicated thing based on user preference, jaw sensor, car lean, whether you think it is an emergency braking maneuver etc. Unless you get access to the car's software source code you have a computer randomly pulling on the wheels in the real car and you cannot simulate this.

Sure, you could phrase it like that! Lol...I prefer "it's too hard"

[trek]

OK people, I need some advice/opinions. I'm looking at two aircraft on the DCS Steam Sale: The Hornet and the Harrier. Since I'm far from the best jet-jockey which one of the two is the easiest to get into and flying. On the DCS user site there seems to be enough user SP missions for both of them, although the Hornet seems to have more. Also, since the Persian Gulf map is on sale is that a must have for these two birds or can I have enough fun without it? And finally does any one know what the PG Map DL size is? Thanks.

[Cougar_DK]

OK people, I need some advice/opinions. I'm looking at two aircraft on the DCS Steam Sale: The Hornet and the Harrier. Since I'm far from the best jet-jockey which one of the two is the easiest to get into and flying. On the DCS user site there seems to be enough user SP missions for both of them, although the Hornet seems to have more. Also, since the Persian Gulf map is on sale is that a must have for these two birds or can I have enough fun without it? And finally does any one know what the PG Map DL size is? Thanks.

I would go with the F-18 first then. Its a lot easier to get up in the air and down again (not carrier landings though, they take some serious training hours).
I have both planes but have most hours in the F-18 since its capable of all mission types, from interceptor to bomber.

You don't need any maps - only buy something you want to fly over. Again I have them all and the PG is great, but my favorite is still Caucasus a frosty early morning :)

The maps are pretty big, not really sure how much the dl size is, but installed its around 32gb.

[Jarhead0331]

OK people, I need some advice/opinions. I'm looking at two aircraft on the DCS Steam Sale: The Hornet and the Harrier. Since I'm far from the best jet-jockey which one of the two is the easiest to get into and flying. On the DCS user site there seems to be enough user SP missions for both of them, although the Hornet seems to have more. Also, since the Persian Gulf map is on sale is that a must have for these two birds or can I have enough fun without it? And finally does any one know what the PG Map DL size is? Thanks.

I would go with the F-18 first then. Its a lot easier to get up in the air and down again (not carrier landings though, they take some serious training hours).
I have both planes but have most hours in the F-18 since its capable of all mission types, from interceptor to bomber.

You don't need any maps - only buy something you want to fly over. Again I have them all and the PG is great, but my favorite is still Caucasus a frosty early morning :)

The maps are pretty big, not really sure how much the dl size is, but installed its around 32gb.

I respectfully disagree with Cougar...I think for a beginner who is looking for the easiest module to learn and fly, between the Harrier and Hornet, the Harrier is the much simpler of the two. Yes, VTOL and STOL stakes some practice, but it can also be flown conventionally until you're ready for that challenge. Also, the avionics and systems are a little less sophisticated so the learning curve is a somewhat more shallow. For instance, the Harrier has no radar at all, whereas the Hornet has a complex one with many modes. The Harrier mixes digital systems with analog and I think it strikes a great balance. Personally, with the sale, I would get both and the PG map. The two aircraft together are my favorite and the PG map is the most enjoyable for me to fly.

[trek]

So, you two are reflective of everything I've seen and heard on the forums, reviews, etc. Good points all around though. And JH you're probably right as I should buy all three items. Since I'm a little more old-school in age and mind I guess I'll probably start with the Harrier and maybe get the Hornet later as well as the map. I've still got ten more days on the sale. You both helped me decide as I was first going with the Hornet brain-wise but my heart was leaning toward the Harrier.

Wish me luck and seems to me JH that you recommended Grim Reapers vids on YouTube as good learning tools, so I'll be watching those as needed.