Some good discussion, here's my take... 1) Fix the AI aircraft, they don't seem to care about engine management, WEP all the way 2) Fix the silly ultra accurate AAA, as currently it ruins ground attack and makes the Epsom and Charnwood campaigns unplayable. 3) Bring on the dynamic campaign. I personally don't think cost is an issue, very reasonable in game terms.
In order to make the WW2 theater more complete we really only need different versions of planes we already have. For example the 109G, Fw190A5, P-47D-10, or -22, really anything before the -25. An older P-51 would be nice and maybe a Spit MkV or an earlier -9 variant. I would also like to see more variation in ai flown planes, B-26s, Lancasters, He111s and so on. I think you're right about the lack of variety but I'm with Enigma on this, I don't think full fidelity is needed for every airplane in the sky. All that said, I'm not sure I agree with you on the main barrier to entry being cost. I think it's much more complex than that, and too much for the comment section.
Look, Bf 109 K, Fw 190d, Thunderbolts D30 and D40 are totally out of place over normandy in June 1944. Give us a Bodenplatte map at least. Winter 44/45. I would prefer accurate Airplanes over Normandy/Britain Bf 109 E and F vs Spitfire Mk I to V, in 1941 would be a banger. This planes are also evenly matched. Or what about P40s and Hurricanes. Bf 109G 6 to 10 and fw 190a5 vs older version of the spit MK IXs, P38s and Razorback P47s. Now we are getting a late war corsair, which is to old for Korea. WTF. Wildcats vs Zeros would be far more interesting.
As someone who is going to eventually get Dcs ww2, I can say that cost is a big factor. But another thing is that I have spent years going down the aviation rabbit hole, and even now I don’t yet have the game. Dcs ww2 inherently has a very small audience
Enigma said something like would you prefer 100 FC3 style planes or 10 full fidelity. A lot of people people said the 10, but you have to bear in mind they would be "in development". Why also not have a lower fidelity version of all planes to lower entry barriers. No wonder so many more are playing IL2 when the entry price is about a tenth.
ED hasn't been able release WW2 AI aircraft they talked about 6 years ago now, so thinking much will happen because they go "low fidelity" isn't correct. The problem is that DCS WW2 is the unwanted stepchild in DCS, they WW2 team is very small, and they apparently have to work on other things too. ED could release 20 AI WW2 aircraft in a couple of years if they wanted to(as in shift priority from other things to WW2) we'll see what happens when all this core engine upgrades are complete and with DCS PTO. They will never make low fidelity aircraft, But hopefully, they'll release more AI aircraft and more full fidelity aircraft.
@FalconAC yeah I think they think, why invest time and money in ww2 Europe, when we have hard competition. And can just do jets which they have almost monopoly on. Hopefully with PTO being undiscovered country in modern combat sims. They'll go harder into that. They've said we'll get various AI assets for both sides and probably full fidelity Japanese aircraft in the future.
I think low fidelity is too general: low fidelity cockpit but radar, RCS, weapons, and flight model should be (almost) high fidelity. E.g. radar detection ranges etc. E.g. flight model should be accurate enough to not allow low fidelity modules to cheat or to fall behind FF modules too much. Maybe the problem is that even all the FF modules use different algorithms to calculate physic stuff like radar, jammers, RWS, effects on FM due to damage. I think that is where VTOL has an advantage: since it does not have to be true to real life, it can use a harmonized approach. Same radar in two different fighters would still behave the same while in DCS if there would be two F-16C by two different module makers both would be different.
All great points. I'd add that DCS as a whole suffers with their product strategy. Seeming random plane selections, separate maps that don't specifically complement anything other than a couple of planes. Their is no balance. Just a collection of puzzle pieces that we try to put together to do something fun with.
This why one of the big reasons I’ve got DCS and several handfuls of planes but never play it. It’s an incoherent mess. Planes with no era maps to fly on, mission maps association, careers, etc. whereas with IL2 I get that. DCS strikes me as a just a wild free for all.
I fully agree. There is no coherence in DCS product planning. For e.g., Marianas map...great battles took place there in 1944: no Zero no Hellcat (couple yrs from now maybe), Marianas map is modern day. I mean, why. South Atlantic? Cool we can recreate the Falklands/Malvinas War: map is modern day, Harrier is the US version, no Etendard and the Skyhawk isn't even an official mod. Incoherence to the max. Again, why...
The main problem with DCS WW2 is the same as with DCS modern: a dead, lifeless battlefield. The modules themselves are amazing. But ED has never invested in making the environment feel authentic, and has done a pretty poor job of improving AI behavior. WW2 was a massive conflict. To actually feel like a compelling WW2 experience, the battlefield should feel and look active. There should be entire DIVISIONS of combat vehicles on the front lines; there should be the near-constant flash of artillery fire from the forward batteries. There should be dozens if not hundreds of AAA sites on the map. There should be logistics traffic choking the roadways from beach to the front lines (and from German supply depots to the front). There should be dozens of flights of allied and enemy aircraft going about their missions that you can run across; including missions that have nothing to do with intercepting or being intercepted by the player. But instead, the map feels empty, and adding anything more than a tiny handful of units takes ages in the mission editor, and kills game performance. Hopefully the (practically mythological at this point) Vulkan and dynamic campaign engine remedies some of these problems.
you're are correct about the environment, but from i've heard they have a very small team on ww2 side and progress is slow, imagine how long it will take them to push it out and probably in tandem with f4u and f6f plus the time to polish them which could be 1 to 2 years, only then will ED think about switching focus and who the fuck knows which brilliant idea will pop in they head
I agreed with many or your points from the game play experience perspective. I bought DCS 2 years ago mainly because I wanted to fly combat aircraft in VR, definitely I wanted to dogfight WW2 Aircraft, I was a mega fan of history channel’s Dogfights, and after a huge investment in hardware, and quite some expense in software is a dream come true and worth every penny, now I bought IL2 and I found it so generic compared to DCS, not only in flying characteristics, but in configuration options with my controllers. More aircraft available definitely, but I enjoy learning every model in detail, and programming my virtual controles as closed as the real cockpit to maximize immersion , so every cockpit is unique, is time consuming but worth it. DCS is a digital museum, you will arrive as a dogfighter and will end up as an aviator. And is getting better and better.
So basically your solution is to make DCS warthunder. The only thing that DCS has is its HIgh Fidelity. It takes effort to learn each module and to fly it against another player. This would basically mean some kid can hop in with his Xbox controller and destroy you while your worried about engine management, weapon selection, and actually flying the aircraft like it should be. A Barrier to entry is a GOOD thing, but that barrier should be skill and learning and not monetary. I agree in the current state things need to change but by dialuting the experience is not an answer. This is the same opinion I gave enigma. What ED needs to do is make the asset packs and maps free as a start.
The problem is not the modules. There were sims that literally featured 1 aircraft and they were still very popular. The thing with DCS it feels like one of those ultra hgihly detailed racing games when it comes to the cars but you are driving through an empty dull and repetitive world. The peak of your interaction is the swriches you turn on and off in your cockpit. The outside world is not engaging.
Absolutely this. We don't *really* need more *player* aircraft modules, we need a reasonable selection of AI aircraft in secondary roles (transports, glider tow, dive bombers, ground attack, light bombers, liaison, maritime patrol floatplanes, etc), and we need an easy-to-use system to populate the battlefield with enough ground and air units to actually feel like an active WW2 theater of battle, without taking days of work in the mission editor (and crashing the game due to the poor system resource management the game currently has which prevents it from populating many vehicles). We also really need more naval assets; at least one destroyer, light cruiser, and light surface combatant (such as minesweeper, armed trawler, motor gunboat, torpedo boat etc), heavy transport ship, and coastal transport ship per faction.
I mean, Falcon BMS has really only one full fidelity plane (F-16), but AFAIK there's not as puch PvP multiplayer going on. I think most people are flying singleplayer or PvE coop (I hate AI wingmen! I hate AI wingmen!) and there's no lack in variety in AI OPFOR aircraft, even though some of these are probably not accurate to their RL counterparts (MiG-23 OP, pls nerf). But I doubt you can have good PvP gameplay if everyone is flying the same plane.
A big additonal issues with World War 2 DCS is the ridiculous AI flight model for damaged aircraft. Case in point: just last night while playing around in a mission I shot a B-17 with at least a dozen 30mm HE shells, plus lord knows how many 13mm rounds. Whole chunks of the wings and tail were gone, the right aileron was blown off, half the tail was gone and all four engines were completely stopped. And yet the plane was able to turn around and then glide all the way from the Normandy coast to a successful landing on an airstrip in England, from an altitude of about 3000m. Never once stalled or lost any airspeed.
I agree that we need more variety, but the only thing that DCS has over IL2 is the full-fidelity cockpits. By introducing partial fidelity warbirds we get two problems: First is it removes the selling point of DCS over IL2, and the second is it causes an imbalance of gameplay where the full-fidelity fliers have to do more cockpit work during combat while the partial-fidelity fliers don't.
If developers would create 2 distinct levels online where players must choose which level they want to fly in. Top gun level DCS MODULE FULL FIDELITY. NEWBEE Level semi clickable cockpits slightly higher level than IL2. All available only on PC No console controllers. Assets & maps should be combined at lower level @ the TG level have it the way DCS has it presently. This way you separate the sim pit aviators, from the table top fly n’ shooters. (Please if u read this feel free to poke holes in this idea, I’d love to hear them.
It’s normal for most deluxe games today to cost near $90 so DCS is priced consistent with other games today. That’s not a big barrier for someone who can afford the PC to play on. It seems many video gamers just don’t have jobs 😉 The level of fidelity that DCS aircraft have will by nature prohibit the game from having 50-something flyable aircraft. That’s just what it is. If someone wants a game with lots of low fidelity planes that game is War Thunder. IL-2 is sorta in between DCS and WT. But it would quite literally take Eagle Dynamics 50 years to make 50 WWII aircraft all to their high standards. No game can be everything to everyone. ED has stated many time that they have no planes for more FC style low fidelity modules. The cost savings imagined for those is probably overestimated.
I agree that the monetary barrier to entry is pretty high and that more planes would be cooler, but if they went lower fidelity, what would set it DCS apart from IL-2? I like the high fidelity. Maybe start with low fidelity models that are worked on towards a full fidelity model? having to buy maps on top does suck though.
I Just bought The Channel Map, Normandy 2.0 Map, P47 ThunderBolt (i cant fight for crap in it way too heavy), BF109 K-4, and the WW2 Asset Pack. i love DCS but yes I wish it was easier for them to add more war birds :(
i love the 4ya ww2 server, but it's like the same 10 missions over and over with maybe 1 that actually has some dynamic weather. i'd like to see a popular ww2 server that wasn't necessarily historically accurate with more variety in missions and weather.
I think one of the other factors is the reputation/stigma that DCS has with people who mainly play other sims like War Thunder, IL2, MSFS, etc. Watching videos, reading comments, and seeing stuff on social media, it seems like a lot of people just expect aircraft in DCS to be an unfun experience due to perceived learning curve, price, or system requirements. They just don’t know none of those things have to be a (disqualifying) factor, or that those things aren’t actually really that different from what they’re already playing.
One airplane in War Thunder can set you back hundreds of dollars and hours. And then there is no enjoyment flying sim mode when everyone else is flying in arcade mode. ILS is mediocre. MSFS is, well, MSFS. Personally, I spend hours just learning each of the warbirds on DCS. All of the steps and the steep learning curves? Thousands of young men did it in real life 80 years ago. In reality, what hurts DCS the most is the laziness of the younger generations. I have jets, rarely fly them. I have mods, only fly the hercules mod and the Bronco. Everything else is wasted space on my hard drive. In reality, guys won't flinch to spend thousands on hotas and sim pits and of course gaming pc's and VR, but they whine like little babies when they have to spend $50 on a module. Hell, we've all but put track ir out of business with the new open source free/almost free software available. I flew Hi Tech's Aces High for years until I finally broke down and spent the money on a PC that could fly DCS. For me it's not a game. I could play Aces High for game play. It's about getting to do something I'll never be able to do in real life. Learning how to start, take off, fly and fight, and finally land and park a war bird. That's why I stick with DCS.
The plane set just isn't there. Personally I like the "realism" of the DCS plane systems and flight model over something like Il2. But there's no "realistic" experience to be had on a DCS server when everyone I'm flying against is in k4 or dora
Some people want to feel as close to what it would have been like to fly in battle that is where the complexity comes in ! If we all took the time to find out the massive cost and effort and the genius of developers then you realize that these modules are worth the cost ! Accuracy is the thing we should all strive for ! DCS is challenging but that is where the experience comes from ! For others there is War thunder !
@@sharpe3698 I don't fly online. I make my own missions and fly. It takes money and man hours to develop these mods. When the new ones roll out everyone is excited and full of piss and vinegar. At the end of the day, nothing is good enough. Like I said earlier. You cannot learn to fly a plane you'll never be able to fly anywhere else. Not with the level of realism in DCS. Guys have made dozens of mods, but when DCS updates their system nobody updates the mods, because after all, they're free mods. Nobody works for free anymore.
I agree totally with DCS shooting itself in the foot with its monetization strategy. The barrier to entry for warbirds is a huge problem. I dont have any interest personally in playing a low fidelity module. Nor do I want to fly against people flying on easy mode. Planes you just press a button and throttle up. Personally, the reason DCS is the only video game in the flightsim genre i play. Is the physics and intricacies of operating each aircraft. You can be the best pilot in one, but not be able to get any others off the ground. Which is unique to DCS because of the high fidelity. Id however like to see tons more ai aircraft. Im not saying im right, and fc3 is wrong. Im simply just stating my opinion.
You make some valid points. The reason I like to fly the DCS modules is because of the details. What makes it more realistic is that you learn to start the engine, look after and manage all the systems and actually have to learn to fly the aircraft. It takes time, patience and lots of practice to become proficient. Just like the real thing. IL2 is fun, but it is easy. Within an hour or two you can be an ace, which is fun, but it isn't the way it is in real life. I will say that it is playing IL2, and wanting to learn more, that led me to fly the DSCS warbirds. The best answer to you that I can give is that both have something to offer, so play both....
I agree completely about the need for a free WWII map as well as making the asset pack free. That barrier to entry definitely needs to be lowered. I also agree with increasing the number of lower fidelity AI aircraft to fight against. Making the game more accessible to those on limited budgets is absolutely the right move, and I think it will ultimately result in more revenue for Eagle Dynamics, rather than less. However, I completely disagree that DCS should be copying IL-2's model for low-fidelity, player-controlled planes. THAT barrier to entry is what makes DCS unique. When it comes to the quality of the full-fidelity aircraft, you said it yourself, there is nowhere else like DCS. I would much rather that DCS continue to be that special, unique place than to dumb it down to attract the masses who can't be bothered to learn how an airplane works and who already have plenty of other games they can play. This modern trend that thinks that making a game "accessible to the casual gamer" requires making it easier to win is moronic. Remember the time when even simple, old Nintendo games happily announced "Game Over," when you died, and then you had to start all over again? Remember how amazing it felt when you finally beat THOSE games? Modern games where you are carefully shepherded through save checkpoints toward an almost-inevitable victory don't come anywhere close. That's because overcoming difficulty is rewarding. Even modern blockbusters like Minecraft and Fortnite, different as they are from DCS in genre, are popular because they are HARD. They require practice and mastery in order to succeed. Simpler competitors have come and gone, almost without notice. DCS IS HARD. DCS SHOULD BE HARD. Mastering a full-fidelity aircraft should take time. The greater challenge makes success more rewarding. That challenge is what keeps players coming back instead of hopping to whatever the newest AAA title is, as most other gamers do. DCS isn't for everyone, and it should not attempt to be. Finally, just because a community is small doesn't mean there's something wrong with it. Small communities also tend to be incredibly loyal, and they're grateful for having found a niche that understands their unusual needs and desires. Disregarding their wishes will be seen as a betrayal. I obviously want to see Eagle Dynamics be successful, but I think they can do that by implementing your other suggestions and without selling their soul.
I'm a real world pilot. I have flown both WW1 and WW2 era aircraft. I love DCS. No it isn't easy and prob scares away a lot of typical average gamers. Good! I would rather fly with dedicated fans who take the time to train and learn the systems.
@@chrisgrube-he1gr 100%. I know ED has to make money, but for those of us who are dedicated to their product, we have no interest in making it accessible to 12 year-olds who want to fly with their XBOX controller and shout abuse at people on the radio when they lose. No thanks. I know not everyone can afford a full setup, but then why are they targeting a market who can’t afford their product?
@@mrcat5508I don’t want to stop you! You are interested in aviation and that’s great! However, aviation is not easy. It is fun partly because it is not easy. It challenges you to learn, to improve yourself, and to try new things. If you remove those things, you remove some of reward and joy of the accomplishment of learning to fly. Put more simply: Why do people climb mountains? Surely, the view is part of it. But, a lot of the attraction of climbing a mountain is that a mountain is hard to climb. The value of the achievement is related to the challenge required to achieve it. As you train and work hard, the mountain becomes easier to climb, and you become a stronger person, physically and mentally. DCS is a mountain worth climbing, because it is hard, and you will have to learn new things to climb it. If ED chops down that mountain for you now, what will you have to work towards? What will challenge you when you’re an adult? Some things in the world are not meant for 12 year-olds, because you have some growing yet to do. If you want to embrace the challenge now, you’re most welcome, but do not ask that the mountain be chopped down for others and the challenge ruined for others just because you are not YET ready to face it. Embrace the challenges, they are where the rewards lie. That’s a lesson not only for DCS, but also for life.
@@WingC3 yeah I know, I didn’t actually think you were trying to stop me, and as a 12 year old I see how the game is not made for 12 year olds at all. I’m the only kid in my middle school with any interest in military aviation. Also, I already have a hotas and the bf 109 and f6f in msfs (both full fidelity), so I’m not completely new, and I like full fidelity
I enjoy very much DCS, but damn! I love IL-2! I have 2,000 hours in DCS (mainly flying the awesome Mi-8, Mi-24, Ka-50, A-10CII, and MiG-21, and occasionally the Bf-109), and thousands of hours more in IL-2. I certainly prefer the high-fidelity planes of DCS, but I love the variety, the look, the feel, the career, multiplayer/COOP, and the quick missions of IL-2--I'm in virtual WWII, (and WWI). The IL-2 Devs are ramping up to some fantastic toys coming the next few years, they're getting back on the work train. We should give more respect to the beauty, and very hard work, of IL-2. It has its flaws, surely, but it does give a distinctive, I'd even suggest unmatched, virtual WWII experience.
Maybe it’s me but aaa is mud. Absolute dogwater. There’s zero suppression modelled and every gun shooting is a sniper. It completely ruins any thought of ground attack. This is my number one wish for dcs to fix.
Even worse, it's not just the actual AAA guns that fire like they're manned by T-800 terminators. Every pintle-mounted machine gun on every tank and truck shoots as if they're radar-guided, hydraulically-actuated automated turrets, using perfectly calculated lead angles and rock-solid mounts with no dispersion from recoil.
Exactly, I've always said the AAA needs sorting out as it ruins any ground based sorties, the Epsom and Charnwood campaigns are virtually unplayable because of this. Fix the AI (both air and ground units) and bring out the dynamic campaign - sorted.
Great points. With the upcoming (soon hopefully) new ww2 content, I genuinely hope dcs ww2 gains some momentum, it’s my absolute favorite era to fly in the sim.
As you were talking I was thinking… “ok, good points… here was me thinking he was going to miss the point of DCS completely and say FC3 for WW2” … and then you said it. No FC3, thank you. It would kill the already small niche while not shining at the one thing DCS really shines at - the immersion of having to really learn your aircraft and knowing your enemy also had to. Agree with all your other points, but personally I’d rather not ever get one more WW2 plane in DCS than see FC3. I think most WW2 players would agree. The solution is lowing the barrier to entry and investing in the product line by updating (and finishing) modules and fleshing out one theatre rather than jumping from low hanging fruit to low hanging fruit leaving us with this pick ‘n’ mix plane set. As well as marketing. ED’s amateur marketing “strategy” of FOMO with sales every month and looking for any new excuse to extent the sale as it’s the only time they really sell anything is dated and ineffective as mostly they just sell another plane to existing customers as any new players get 50% off first buy anyway. I often wonder how much work as a percentage it would take to make variants of modules, or why they make 2 maps (and a revamp) of literally the same stretch of France. Mind boggling.
To compare DCS to the likes of IL2 and Warthunder I think just can't be justified. The great detail put into the full fidelity of these DCS modules I think is a godsend to scratch my itch. Quite frankly if I'm not happy with something I've paid good money for I don't go and buy more but rather move on. The fact that alot of people expect something for free is a lot too ask of anyone. They are selling a product and literally no ones twisting your arm to support them. As far as Microsoft Flight sim is concerned well it's an option if you'd rather fly around in circles for that whole time. Frankly the modules DCS develop are great in my opinion and I'm glad I've been with them from the start... "keep doing what your doing Eagle Dynamics I will support you all the way".
i think the WW2 community for DCS is small b/c there IS the option of IL-2. No such option exists for more modern aircraft. Sure, DCS aircraft are far more realistic but lets face it, warbirds dont have the complexity of systems modern aircraft do so Il-2 modules are often....realistic enough. I would like to see 3rd party devs create more ww2 hi-fidelity modules but the demand isnt there; nor do i think it will be even if there is a larger variety. At least not until most IL-2 players decide to come over.
In my opinion, ED should try the following: - An FC3 type module from ww2, with classic warbirds, such as the Stuka, BF 109G, Spit MkV etc; - Develop Dynamic Campaigns. - Add more AI planes in WW2 Asset pack, like B-24, Tempest V, BF110, etc - Increase German aircraft modules, adding FW190F8/A9; BF109G10 If ED implements these things it will definitely improve the acceptance of its ww2 world.
For me the biggest problem with DCS WW2 is the poor visibility of other aircraft which makes spotting and ID so difficult. Maybe with later jets where you've got HUD and radar screens and homing missiles it's not a problem, but for WW2 visibility is everything. Combat just isn't fun if you can't find or see your opponent and no-one wants to team kill because they couldn't ID that vague blob. ED have tried to bodge things to help with ludicrous spotting blobs and immersion destroying symbols but what's really needed is a render engine that makes things more visible. I seldom have trouble spotting, IDing and judging angle-off in IL2 but in DCS my opponent is often just a faint flicker on the ground or a vague blob in the sky, or is just invisible. I do love DCS, but for me it's more of a WW2 flight simulator. I like the full fidelity thing, start-up, take-off, navigate to a ground target, drop some bombs on it, fly home and land, maybe with a shot-up plane, but if I want WW2 air to air combat I'll usually choose IL2 because it's much more fun.
Great video as always Jebus. I think it's an interesting point on the assets pack. Everything is included for the modern theatres so why not WWII? Although, with the cost of peripherals and a PC that can run DCS well, is the cost of $15 really a deal breaker? Agree with other comments here on FC3. I'm here for the fidelity. I like Enigma's server but I think he's dead wrong on the FC3 front. If I wanted less fidelity I would go play war thunder or IL2.
I have read some of the comments on this video and I understand that people love the full fidelity aspects of DCS, and I can see that people think that some are put off by that very complexity, here's my take: I AM put off by the complexity and learning curve of the planes in DCS. Having tried at least 3 of them, many of the jets feel unfun as a result. Every time I try DCS I feel the crushing weight of all the studying I will have to do in order to get anywhere. I don't really want to play a button-pressing simulator. I don't want to learn long procedures and spend time figuring out how to manage the plane's onboard computer system before I can even take off, let alone attempt to get into battle. I can tell from watching discussions on discord servers that this is the challenge that many players relish. They're interested in mastering the plane's systems, and some of them aren't even that good at the combat aspects because they're so focused on this. Now to DCS WW2: Some of the above applies there although I do find it satisfying to learn the Spitfire or 190's startup procedure and be able to take off and fly them. Compared to IL-2 I find DCS' map absolutely useless. When flying I can't really match towns to what I can see on the map, in DCS the ground seems very cluttered and towns don't really have a distinct shape. I play in VR, and when I activate the map in DCS it completely blocks any view of what the plane is doing. This means I have to switch to the map, glance at things and then close it as quickly as possible, because there's a massive danger of the plane going into a bank or starting to dive. In IL-2 in VR, the map is a floating window as though the pilot is holding a paper map up in front of his face. I can still see what the plane is doing at the corners of the map, I can turn my head away from it. Much more usable. DCS desperately needs more variety of planes. There's a Ju-88, A20, even a B-17 in the game, but you can't fly them (although I don't expect the B-17 to ever be a playable plane). Dogfights will gravitate towards the "best" planes, so that means it will almost always be 109s vs Mustangs. There need to be ground attack aircraft and other viable fighters that will be flown BY HUMANS. I don't care about AI aircraft. I don't care about whether or not they are full fidelity, ED just needs to make sure that more planes are created. More maps are needed, because constantly fighting over Normandy is boring. Contrast this to IL-2, where a server can be running any one of a large number of maps. There are a large number of planes I can fly. I can attempt a bombing run in a variety of planes, defend targets against bombers, engage in the endless fighter-on-fighter fights near the front line etc. There is more to do, and more interesting situations I can get myself into in IL-2. I don't particularly care that the flight model might not be as accurate in IL-2. None of us are ever going to get to fly in a 109, Spitfire, Ju-88 etc so we have no way of judging how realistic they are although to be honest, the handling of the warbirds in DCS feels weird and I don't feel like anyhing is wrong/simplistic in IL-2's flight model. That's coming from someone who plays MSFS, flies RC planes etc. Even though DCS is a study level situation, even though I built a full simpit and spent lots of money on it, in the end these are GAMES and they must attract players to play them. I don't really care if DCS has a very convincing simulation of a bf-109 K with all the buttons and systems fully modelled, if I'm playing on a server with 3 other people and never see another plane it feels pointless. DCS WW2 could be great, but needs more of everything except clicky buttons that take years to develop. More planes, more maps, more things that will actually attract players.
I think clickable cockpit is an absolute must! The only way I was able to finally play the FC3 planes (and IL-2 for that matter!) was by getting some really cool button boxes, kinda styled like MFDs but the "display" was an insert for a printout card saying what the buttons do... amazing and cheap solution :) The fidelity of the aircraft can still be reduced and obviously not simulate ALL systems but come on... not having a clickable cockpit is just ridiculous nowadays :D
I disagree. As much as we need more Third Reich and Imperial Japan planes, an FC3 type approach is not the way to go for me. FC3 is DCS in cheat mode for me, and as much as I understand why servers like ECW have no alternative than to use FC3 planes to thicken up certain deficiencies in a lack of air frames, I personally detest flying a full fidelity mod against FC3 as I systems and engines to manages, whereas they just bind a few keys and off they go. FC3 needs to be phased out and replaced by full fidelity modules of the same planes. I know this won’t happen, certainly not anytime soon at least, but for me it’s all down to ED needing to up their game a bit. If you look at MSFS, they seemingly have new very high quality (some not so high) quality planes appearing on both their in sim store and on third party sites almost weekly. I think ED should court the likes of Just Flight, who seem to produce massively realistic and system complete planes much much quicker than ED or their partners do. There’s obviously a market our there for ultra realistic flight simulation, and MSFS is proof of that, and ED either through marketing or some other method of raising their profile, need to tap into the communities like MSFS and show them that there’s another place with realistic planes, that actually have damage models and deployable weapons and that flying skills can be pushed further than just out and return flights from your local aerodrome. The problem I feel with ED, is that they’re big enough to do what they’re currently doing but seem to struggle taking the next big step in their company’s growth, where they will be able to attract the likes of Just Flight who could potentially churn out warbirds for us at a rate not seen since the WW2. It’s a dream I know.
There is no cheat. FC3 flight models are some of the best in DCS. The system modeling is a bonus in full fidelity because you get more features. Where the real difference is in starting the planes up, with prop planes there would probably be little difference. FC3 standard of aircraft is on par or better than il2 standard. FC3 FM model so much more dynamics and more so than many 3rd party DCS modules. If FC3 made prop planes then engine management would be part of that just like il2. The FM, systems management and 3d models of say seven prop planes in an FC3 style pack would take more resources and time than making one full fidelity plane.
@@MultiVeetaI’m not meaning the flight models, but the systems of FC3. Take the M2000C V the SU27 for example, which are similar vintages with similar systems and weapons, but the FC3 video game style radar that just works with a button push, but the Mirage takes much much more realistic effort to acquire and maintain a radar lock. This is just one example but there are many, and my own experiences in IL2 just left me feeling that although they have a wide variety of planes, they all largely felt the same
@@UkDave3856 The M2K is one switch to power on. It is one press to get lock. Both M2K and Su27 have hi prf, med prf and interleave prf. Both suffer ground clutter effects. Both suffer from the Doppler shift. Both have the same RCS effects. Su27 is stuck in 4 bar scan. M2K has a selection of bar scans to choose from. M2K has same hud CQ modes plus it has insta lock frontal target mode. The M2K has to iff radar locks. The Su27 has to iff eos locks. Once the M2K is started up and fenced in it is virtually the same operation as the Su27 and in some instances the M2K is better. The M2K is the most advanced radar in DCS more than any other including full fidelity modules, but this is because of what it shows, it shows false contacts etc. but it is one radar not the example of all. Things like this can be turned off in cockpit. And it also has bugs, it showed range to ECM in the hud for a long time for example. Your opinion of FC3 is way off the mark.
I will keep beating the P-38 drum. It would work during almost all timeframes of the war in both the PTO and ETO. It’s a fighter, it’s an attack plane, it can bomb. Plus it’s cool. I’m not going to get onto my (very unpopular, I know) soapbox about ED branching into the PTO without fully fleshing out the ETO…. And yes, I do want WWII carrier stuff; that isn’t the issue.
Buying the map and the plane is the issue. Normandy comes with the assets but it’s a steep buy in. However, if you’re even considering DCS, you have a sim setup, which means you can afford it. However, there needs to be more of a community around the WW2 stuff. And more planes… I want a multi crew B26
I don't understand, if you want FC3 style, just go Il2 ? I mean you point out the strength of DCS, then you say 'let's go simpler'. I agree that WW2 assets pack should be free though. And hopefully we get free WW2 Mariana soon 👌
And honestly DCS being 'hardcore' kinda filter the population playing too, we have player that are willing to do things right, learn and fly as you would in real life. If you come up with entry level planes, I would expect much more friendly fire or people just ramming into targets.. Just my though.
Been playing War Thunder for a decade, never really liked for IL2 for a reason cant really explain. Tried DCS first time a couple of years ago and really love the feeling of flying in DCS! It's amazing. But the main reason I never really started playing it, other than my old pc struggled with it, is the extreme user unfriendliness. Everything is so unnecessarily complicated. And I consider myself on occasion , a reasonable patient person. It's not the plane itself, it's a SIM ofc it takes some time to learn... it's everything else. You have to for example, be a programmer just to get the view controls like zoom somewhat comfortable. And every little tweak disappears for every update (at least it did 3 years ago) So many tutorials fideling around with settings reshade renaming mission files importing to get replays to work etc (and then watch your plane crash on take off although you flew for half an hour) I Imagine that also is something scaring people away. It's hard to just jump in and play and have fun. Got a new PC last week so I gonna give it a new try....
I think low fidelity FC3 like modules is not the way to go. For me this would be further increasing a split in the player base between people wanting to fly FF and people flying FC3 like airplanes. FC3 also takes away a lot of the system and parameters management out of the picture. Would it bring more people to the WW2 scene ? Sure, I do think so, but I also believe it would a kind of sub community that wouldn't mix well with the FF guys. But that's just my opinion. When looking a the Cold War/Modern modules, I often see newcommers buying the plane they like the most and learning to use it. Relatively few of them go the FC3 way. For me what makes this work, and is lacking in WW2, is the diversity in maps, assets, IA planes and generally available content. If we had more maps of different parts of the world, more assets to interact with and more diverse planes, not just fighters as AI or FF, it would make the WW2 scene already more appealing to players and 3rd party devs. I am glad to see ED working on a PTO asset pack, as it goes in the direction of bringing more content for WW2, but i'm pretty sure it won't be free with the Marianas. And generally speaking I don't think we should be expecting free stuff from ED for much longer. We've seen it with the B1 and B52 that released for free in lesser quality 3D and are planned to be available in full quality as part as a "new product" from ED.
It's great fun in WWII, the warbirds are super easy to learn and they aren't very expensive, but the complete lack of AI planes to fight against is abysmal... there's only two bombers, the Ju-88's and B-17's, there's no stukas, He-111's, B-24's and the stupid assets pack should've just been included in Normandy 2.0. ED has sort of abandoned it for the most part and there's very few servers to enjoy. it's barely keeping it alive.
This is true for all of DCS content, there never is just a single purchase which can be made. For example, F18 and F14 really requires the carrier module to get the most of it, campaigns for individual planes have to be bought separately, those campaigns have themselves requirements like maps or content packs. It's just their business model and is not unique to WW2. What they really need to have is bundles that provide a complete experience, with appropriate assets, maps, and missions to go with the plane. The free content in base DCS is essentially just the "bundled" content that is appropriate for blackshark.
I’d like to see more WWII Pacific Theater modules. However, the F4U has been long in development. When released, hopefully with its Essex-class carrier, they will be alone at sea. There are modded versions of Fletcher-class destroyers and Iowa-class battleships, but they are hardly functional with very generic damage modeling. But I can see potential for some very engaging action here. The largest carrier battles were fought over Midway, mid-‘42, and the Philippine Sea, mid-‘44. I’d say concentrate on the Marianas map, but a WWII version of it with some WWII-era airfields. Then what’s needed is the carrier battle groups…task forces…on both sides and a bunch of AI carrier planes. Mainly, fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers of both sides…which can also be used as scout planes. The F6F is supposed to be in development. That and the Corsair will be the core of player engagement, but with an array of supporting AI modules, it could work. Not only the aircraft modules, but ship modules are very interesting. I have had hours and hours of fun using the Samuel Chase amphibious transport ship in the Marianas map. I used the FW190s with IJN skins to attack a group of transports at sea. I place a few Fletchers and a Pensacola for escorts. I then man a gun on the Chase. Unfortunately, when I do that, all the other guns on the ship are silenced. There needs to be a mix of AI guns and multi-player guns on ships. Nonetheless, it made for a battle reminiscent of a Pacific Theater battle. I built a mission where the planes attack in waves and from various directions. I like to man the 5” or 3” guns, but it is very difficult to judge range and the shells seem to explode at one, fixed distance. So, I maybe score one hit in 200 rounds. I do this in VR, so there’s unfortunately no gunsights, either. Still, it’s a blast playing this. With several improvements, I think a lot of people would enjoy it. If this ability to man guns was available for every ship, and if manning a gun mount wouldn’t disable AI on all other guns on the ship, it could be really cool. But there’s even more potential. The 40mm gun mounts were usually twin and quad mounts directed by a separately mounted Mk51 director with lead computing reflector sight. One or more mounts could be linked to a Mk51. And the 5” gun mounts were usually directed by a Mk33 or Mk37 director, connected to radar and a set of ballistic computers (WWII era analog computing). Only the 20mm mounts were hand-aimed from the gun mount. The 5” shells could be contact fused, time fused (time delay set right before loading into the gun breech), and variable timed (VT) proximity fused. As well as star shells for illumination in night surface battles. Combine all this with a CIC (combat information center) on each ship, with a realistic surveillance radar scope and lookout’s binoculars, and it should be a fantastic Pacific Theater.
I hope ED will see your video. This is a big big problem and currently Il-2 have challenges with the community, also the new Combat Pilot sim is far from release. Good time to build the ww2 community. Part of our squadron have already moved to DCS, but due to the high buy in prices, most of our guys have to stay at IL-2, even they would leave IL-2 due to the strange plane performances etc. . On the other hand DCS needs more axis planes, like the 110, 410, Ju-88 for the European front.
Excellent ideas! Imagine then, perhaps, the WW2 Assets pack has 4-6 low fidelity planes added. These could be early war or maybe Pacific - this might be best given the Marianas map and the upcoming modules for this theatre, even though personally I’d prefer something European. I have most modules including all the WW2 ones, they are what attracted me to DCS in the first place. Even so, I fairly regularly take out the A-10a, Su-25 (T and non T), the F-15C, the Mig 29s and sometimes flankers. They enable me to have a quick fly out without having to check the manual, Chuck’s Guide or look at key assignments as unless I’ve ‘flown’ an FF module recently, I usually need a refresher. But with Flaming Cliffs 3 stuff I can jump in and have some fun whilst concentrating almost completely on tactics rather than switchology. Given that DCS has a poor (but improving) interface outside the cockpit I think that even though FC3 was almost an accident, it’s a great feature of the sim that can ease people into it. And the fact that Japanese and other warbirds don’t have the definitive datasets gives the low fidelity route an excellent justification without breaking the concept of study level simulation on the full fidelity stuff. I actually stated my modern (this century, anyway) virtual flying in War Thunder. And although I had a fairly short period of enjoyment when I’d learned how the game works but hadn’t yet been sucked into the grind, I really found the hand waving for realism annoying. For example, Russian stuff is all made to published specs but in reality none of their stuff lives up to the designs. IL2 suffers this too, to a degree. Whereas DCS has the bearing weakness in the P-47 which means there are times it has to be babied. Not forcing planes to fit to a gamification balance model goes with my more simulator enjoying approach as well. Anyway, to have even a handful more flyable (and even some AI only!) modules would be fantastic and low fidelity is a good thing if done right.
I have only really ONE thing you said that I'd like to change for the changes you're talking about, tho I want this to be a new standard for FC3 aswell, I want them to take a month or two and Change FC3 into Medium Fidelity, or Half Clickable cockpits, don't need ALL the buttons and dials to move and do something in the plane, just the interactivity that matters, and I think the WW2 modules pack should have that from the start, IF they add a FC3 style WW2 Planes pack. I do agree 150% that the few planes we have need more Versions from the start of their production and all the way up to the end of their life years, pre and post WWII end. Pasific theater is def needed, thankfully Marianas is getting a WWII facelift at some point, but we def need some WW2 Japan and so on. Wake island and all that.
Warbirds spotting is broken planes just do a magic trick and disappear into thin air while you keep your eyes at the ball. And no it didn't went under my nose. And the FW190 A8 you can kick it on its tail without worrying about engine overheating. And what is the deal with the wing increasing and decreasing in size while you look over it while scanning the horizon.
All good points. The biggest problem for me is the performance of the game in general. My PC is decent enough for Il2, but not so much for DCS. That's where the cost to enjoy DCS really hurts, not the AC or the modules. It just doesn't run smooth enough to really enjoy with most gear. My PC is better than the casual flight sim user, so if one wants to enjoy it, the user has to spend a lot on hardware.
IL2 GB: Dynamic campaign for early Eastern Front, mid-war Eastern Front, late Western Front, wide variety of planes such as fighters, medium bombers, dive bombers, transport planes and even a glider. The Damage model is nice. The AI is ok. Lots of DLCs but with an affordable entry price. IL2 CLOD: Battle of Britain and North Africa historically accurate, good variety of early war planes, very good flight/damage models. Good entry price. IL2 1946: Huge variety of planes and maps, including the entire WW2 period on different fronts, including PTO, all planes have decent flight/damage models, the AI is decente, the mission editor allows you to create large and complex missions that are not possible in other games of the genre, and with mods the game becomes a very enjoyable WW2 experience. It has a small number of active players and the entry price is the minimum. War Thunder: The most successful in terms of PVP, it has a huge variety of planes, including fighters, light, medium, large bombers, night fighters, etc. Battles are historically inaccurate, WT is more focused on PVP and grinding. The Flight/damage models are unrealistic, but they're good from a more arcade perspective. If you just want to play with simplified WW2 fighters, it's free. DCS: Late Western Front limited to France (Summer '44 - Autumn '44), not historically accurate, with little variety of planes (two for each nation) and two maps covering different portions of the same front, Flight model is inconsistent, AI overperforms, has no Dynamic campaign and linear campaigns are paid. The community is small but active, the entry price is expensive. I like all these games but in my opinion, when it comes to WW2, DCS is the least attractive at the moment. Something like an FC4 or FCWW2 would take DCS to another level.
Prices are an issue. As you can see with the high discount for the rather young Mosquito during sales.. I always think of getting it. But i got the P-47 as allied Airframe. Looking forward to the La-7, but there could be a map for the central part of the eastern frontline (Russia). With 109E, Spitfire Mk iV/V and Hurricane you could run a "Battle of Britain" Scenario.
the lack of a hot start/air start for war birds is frustrating for me as it feels so much slower then say ECW and an f5 or mig17 etc. Taking off in a warbird is very hard -v- ECW f5 is easy etc. I generally fly EWC but do love my spit/105 /mossi/etc just set up all my missions as air start to make them fun and faster.
I’m having issues identifying enemy planes, I fly a p51D and can’t identify axis. Usually shoot at spitfires, or to scared to shoot unless someone shoots at me first.. which usually gets me into trouble. Any advice on plane identification?
Unfortunately, it mostly comes down to practice. There are a load of plane silhouette comparisons online that are worth studying. If you can get a vertical view, look at the wing form. If in doubt, what you're doing is best: hold fire until you have positive ID. You can always try to get close enough to see the roundels on wings to be sure. In WW2 you need to be close to engage anyway, so it's not that much closer to be able to make out markings
I own FC3 and woud buy WW2-FC3 anywtime. WW2 assets are also a problem... paying for map, I can understand that. I understand that assets cost something... but they are kinda passive thing for us as a buyer. They just should be in game. I've recently bough a few warbirds just because they are fun and I wanted to put my new pedals to better use... but so far I'm hasitating about the map (Normandy? Channel? Both? That's quite a lot...) and while 15 for WW2 assets on sale is not that much, it is merely a barrier to play some campaigns and/or join a server. Why is it there? It should be in the game, period.
ED never had a plan. They only got into WWII aircraft because a 3rd party partner started developing the FW-190D9 and ME-109K4 and then went belly up. At that time, all that existed in the genre was the TF-51. Instead of making a plan, shoving everything off the table, thinking up what a good idea would be and working for that, they just plodded along, said they'd complete the ME-109K-4 and FW190D-9, because they felt guilty about their partner going belly-up, and for no other reason. Not because it was a good idea with merits which could stand on it's own two feet - nothing. Just a short point about very late war environment; you cannot play it, because the lopsided situation of the allies having air superiority does not make for a playable environment, where you have even teams. The allies slowed and stopped aircraft development toward the end of the war. The P-51D didn't change from early 44 until the end of the war and the K only had a slightly different propeller and some engine setting, which were all reversed in the field after only weeks, and yet the Germans, in oder to compensate for allied air superiority, kept developing their aircraft; thus the D-9 and K-4. So now you have equal numbers of the very last versions of German fighters going up against mid-to-later war versions of allied fighters, which is lopsided at best and completely unrealistic and unplayable. ED never tried to plan anything like they seem to be doing down with the cold-war era. I'm not even sure if this is an actual plan, or just a great coincidence, but suddenly there are a large number of cold-war era aircraft coming out shortly or in development. This will have a huge synergy effect for the era aircraft, especially with the Kola map coming in soon as well. Caucasus, Kola, northern Israel (Syria), and southern Israel (Sinai), and there is a huge environment for cold war to go along with all the aircraft. The environment if fairly well represented. ED should have done the same with WWII. But not Battle of Britain. That's been done. The market is saturated. But with just a hand full of aircraft, they could have done early war Pacific. Imagine an F4F Wildcat, SBD Dauntless, and an A6M2 Zero as flyable aircraft, with TBD Devastator, B5N Kate, and D3A Val as AI. Add other as they come; Betty, Corsair, PBY, all put together on a map of Guadalcanal and some surrounding islands and you'd have a unique set of aircraft in a unique environment, at an absolutely thrilling time in the war in which nobody had superiority, which I know the community would be enthralled with, and which could be built on linearly and logically along the calendar, adding new aircraft, new maps, ships and technologies. That would have be an outstanding project for ED to undertake, instead of the mamby-pamby goalless direct it is going in now.
Some good points but I would like to point out that the entire point of DCS is to have a ultra realistic experience. To do that it takes the developers enormous amounts of time to make this possible. I personally appreciate that and the experience and detail to me is worth every penny. So if ya want the detail and the experience that means you need to pay a bit then that's ok by me.
I love IL-2 but I would definitely get into DCS WWII if it was less expensive. I already fly a few modern jets in DCS, and spent probably around 300€ in total already just on DCS modules. I am not spending another 100++€ just to get something that I can get out of IL2 for half the price.. It just doesn't make sense that their prices are so high! That's my opinion at least.
DCS high fidelity focus attracts the high fidelity crowd and the high fidelity crowd wants more high fidelity modules. I don't know if adding more FC3 modules will wick away profits from FF planes or bring in more people but I'm guessing they don't want to risk it.
The cost isn't the main issue, it's not dirt cheap, but so are all games these days. We need to consider this game is developed for a small amount of players, some AAA(A) aren't and they asking 60-70€... I think more variation is needed. The good of this game is also the bad, the high level of detail limits ED of just easy adding additional ai modules. If im remember correct the will be an AI zero at some point (from the developers of the corsair)
DCS is about the plane itself and game second. IL-2 is about the game more and less of the plane. If DCS had a Flaming Cliffs 3 for WW-2 it would be IL-2. I have both. Each has its pros and cons.
If DCS was smart it would make a free Flaming Cliffs version of Zero so people would rush to buy upcoming Hellcats and Corsairs. Other non-clickables as an Pacific and Europe Asset packs hopefully with some torpedo and dive bombers.
Very good reasoning! Imo, the selection of flyable planes is not bad, it can grow steadily. But it would be exciting to have many more different plane types to fight, even if only AI controlled. AI planes can be integrated into the multiplayer environment to increase the number of ecounters. For the time being, I'm sticking to IL-2 ;-)
You are spot on. The cash barrier to entry really holds back WWII. I have a lot of friends who want to get into this but you need Normandy, a plane, and the WWII assets and all of these pieces are overpriced. It is insane.
I think the best solution would be to make a WWII map and the asset pack free and just not put the planes on sale if that poses problems. Lol you just said this as I typed it 😅 It’s definitely a more realistic ask than development of an FC3 pack imo, one costs them a bit financially but potentially increases returns long term. The other would be costly and time consuming to develop even lower fidelity modules with no guarantee of any sales because at least for now, the interest isn’t there. I am often tempted to fly in WWII, I remember learning about how you have to manually balance the fuel and thinking that sounded really interesting - but then I look at the blistering lack of variety and just go back to Cold War jets…
The reason the planes is small is because ED has said they will make an aircraft they can’t fly or talk people who have flown. So for example a JU-87 because none of those fly any,ore, and no one is alive who flew them. Sad but that is the down side to DCS right now.
The key missing variety for me are the contrasts between era's during the war. Relative aircraft performance changes during the war. Let's say you love flying FW-190's - Being forced to late war only in Anton, is a vastly different experience than 190A0-A3 early war. Spit V is not Spit IX :) 109E4/E7 would find something to do with I-16 - add a map and some AI. The Corsair clearly needed a Zero. I strongly prefer DCS aircraft. Oleg Maddox put clickable cockpits his last version of Il-2. Shame 1C didn't follow that thread. Only in this manner can you actually experience the human factors differences in aircraft design between nations.
There's a lot more to full fidelity than clickable cockpits. All the internal systems are modelled, every flight surface, electrical systems and so forth. Requires a lot of research and fine tuning. Hence why dcs module development is so slow compared to other flight sims
DR, one more question regarding Cost ! If a player wants to jump on a Random "Cold War" server , what planes can they Fly ? SU25 T is Free ! ..Helicopters ? F5, Mirage ? So NO cost to join MP Cold war Servers !
Not sure I understand the questions, but a lot of cold war servers run caucuses, so beyond the cost of the module there are no other costs. Good example is ECW when it's of caucus, where you can literally play for free using the the community A4 mod
I love DCS WW2 planes and maps but the problem is, unlike IL2, I don’t feel like I’m flying around in a war. Having the same ATC as the Cold War maps is silly. I know that the multiplayer servers are more immersive but like the majority of DCS players, I never touch multiplayer and have zero interest in it. Until we get dynamic campaigns in DCS I will continue to treat it like MSFS. I won’t be investing much in this era. Unfortunately WW2 is not the only issue. Until we get a Vietnam map many other new planes will be off my list as well. Not sure their strategy and thinking?
I won't never ever buy any FC3-style module. (I own FC3, but have never flown an aircraft from this package and have absolutely no interest in it) I play DCS because of the high fidelity modules. I will buy every high fidelity WW2 module though ;) (next will be: F4U, F6F and LA-7) Why should anyone buy fc3 style ww2 modules for dcs when the better alternative in this case is IL2.
Yeah but if you think about it, even if you yourself don’t buy the pack, you’ll still get more variety in combat by being able to face off against a bigger variety of planes
@@Shakedown1969 And then we have the problem that high fidelity modules compete against low fidelity modules in multiplayer. On the one hand, sophisticated engine management, on the other hand, not, for example. While this is certainly not a big problem in a PVE scenario, it becomes a problem in PVP at the latest. That's one of the reasons why so many people are waiting for redfor full fidelity modules (modern and cold war)
I've got some thoughts on this. I think the Pacific Theatre is a mistake, as it's spreading the butter out even more. In my opinion they should focus on one theatre at a time and curate a proper ecosystem for that first, and only then move on to a different theatre/timeframe, and hopefully with some overlap so they can recycle assets. My dream map would be an Italy/Sicily map, possibly all the way down to Tunisia, which would fit well with the planes we've got but also allow for the P-38, P-40, C.205, and so forth. Another option would be a Central European map covering the Eastern Front 1944, which would be a natural habitat for the La-7 and the German warbirds, but also cover a huge swathe of the Allied planes as lend-lease.
DCS does a great job making aircraft and map modules. However, they are very poor at sales, business, and keeping their customer based informed. All aircraft should be sold as a "package". Aircraft and maps should be sold together as a package at a lower price. Every WWII aircraft gets a free WWII Asset Pack. This will increase sales and eventually profits. DCS also needs to "fix" the aircraft they have already sold. I stopped playing multiplayer. I now use Retribution, and I tweak it in the Mission Editor.
Given the level of sophistication / simulation is the same between all DCS aircraft (minus fc3 style), you simply get more bang for your buck just by comparing a 4th gen fighter and all it's systems simulated to a WW2 aircraft with its limited avionics. I personally think there needs to be a bigger price difference between WW2 and modern planes.
Don’t we have plenty of ww2 modules? We currently have at least 4 high fidelity plane types on each side? I think that’s fairly good compared to modern era where’s there’s literally no high fidelity red planes available and aim120 everyday…
WW2 is almost entirely late war ETO. So the only setting is the Normandy campaign. If you fly on allied you will only ever come up against a 109K, or if you're lucky, one of the two 190s. It feels really sparse and I believe this is one of the major reasons why the era has so little population (there's basically one active populated server, and even that is normally dead mid-week)
Fair enough. Good points all and all i do agree that WW2 has some additional obstacles compared to the other theaters/eras. I love the idea of an FC3 for WW2, that we badly need!!@@Dr_Jebus
@@WhiskeyHunterVAT69 no plans that I know of, and since WW2 isn't really fleshed out, I wouldn't expect so any time soon. If you want a fun WW1 though, IL2 has two WW1 expansions including a career mode now. Not as full fidelity as DCS, but very good all the same
What about 50% discount for your first order? 65$ for this pack of P-51D + Normandy 2.0 + WW2 Assets is not really that steep. Of course not for everyone but if you can't spend this kind of money on game, you probably have bigger problems to face.
Big big no-no to non full fidelity aircraft in DCS. Enigma really did not make good points in that video at all in my view. That aside, Non full fidelity defeats DCS' point, its strong suit. No for ww2, no for cold war, and no for any period imo.
I have to disagree with you. I think you are exaggerating the barrier. It's all about the expense of any hobby, Hobbies are expensive, regardless what kind of hobby it is. Most people interested in flight sims understand the cost, and the computer itself is the major expense, along with the control hardware. They generally have a good rig to start with unless they are strictly a console player. I think dumbing down the aircraft is not the way to go. I believe ED was working on a easy flying game called Modern Air Combat, but not sure if they are still working on that or not. Not sure if you have an ear to the ground, but Wags has indicated they are reaching the end of modern fighters, which leaves the older gen fighters and WW2 to be the arena they will focus on. What's frustrating is how slow they are to build out these warbirds, and as you pointed out, everyone is tired of flying the same old map. If you've seen the 2024 and beyond video, you will notice they are getting the WW2 version of the Marianas in shape, the Hellcat, the F-4u, the later gen Skyraider are getting created. They will be getting the Forrestal class carriers. They have teased that someone will be creating a real Mitsubishy (pretty sure I mucked that word up, lol!) Zero. There will be a Northern Australia map (hopefully including Malaysia and Indonesia portions), along with pacific assets built. I see much potential for the war birds in the future- I hope you have a pair of sunglasses, because the future is bright for DCS. Disappointments - hell yes, I wish they could create a map of the European conflict, Europe is small in relation to some of the maps that are being created, and I truly wish they could take these maps and intelligently combine them to load when needed for some of the long bombing missions. I agree, they need to provide a free full Fidelity war bird, not just a plane with no guns on it, they need to provide a free to learn on helicopter also. The DCS Sand Box is large and it takes a lot to create something interesting in it. They need to get more involved in the pilot training with full courses available when you buy your first aircraft. That has always been my pet peeve, they give it to you and then you're basically on your own from there on.
It cost money. That's what sucks about it. There's nothing wrong with this as a sim, it cost too damn much money and there's Community mods out there that are free.
Hell No!! The only reason why we the WWII dcs community chose DCS over IL2 is due the fidelity and the quality of each aircraft.... How you are gonna think that downgrade such quality will improve DCS ww2? Those who want many aircraft should go IL2 and leave DCS alone. Those who wants fewer aircraft but good realistic quality, welcome to DCS. I agree with the price issue, but leave the quality alone. That is what makes DCS especial
dcs is too expensive to get into in general. I have had their modules in wishlist for years but i just can never justify a purchase of anything to myself - too much money and time are needed to be sunk into it . Certainly if the prices were lower it would be more attactive. I dont know why that isnt the case when it comes to games just being completely digital now -its not as though a company has to pay for the creation of each copy of the game.
I really hope they jump on the WW2 era, I really like the idea of "guns only" air battle in ww2 planes. but as you mentioned, i don't want to spend an extra 100 Euros just for that experience. especially if i don't like the experience after a while. and a FC 4 is definitely needed in the game. that could bring in some new players. i kinda wish the DCS community was more open for less fidelity craft. Maybe have flaming cliffs 4, 5 and 6 be 8ish craft per pack and have a community vote on which one to make full fidelity? even if they don't do full fidelity would be really fun to have 8-24 new craft within 3 years.
Instead of making DCS more like IL2 why not just buy IL2? I own all of the DCS WW2 content (since I can not resist a new WW2 aircraft release) but hardly ever fly it since is so limited in scope. In particular the lack of a dynamic career mode like IL2 kills it for me. I can only fly the same scripted campaigns so many times until they become boring. I hate knowing in advence how a mission will play out. I have no interest is making my own missions since I will know in advance how it will play out. Major change is needed to make DCS a reasonable choice for WW2 simulation I don't see that happening any time soon.
What about airframes that served across those periods, like the P-51D and F4U, both of which fought in WW2 and in Korea alongside F-86s and MiG-15s? Or A-26s that fought from WW2 through Vietnam? Putting an artificial barrier between arbitrarily chosen time periods seems counterproductive to me.
Hi Dr J. Some of your points I agree with. Plane Variety, yes ! But this goes Back a lot Further when Planes were Selected by Another Dev...That Dev Collapsed...DCS Tookover and Honored and delivered those Planes (minus Me 262). Hence the plane selection we have in DCS WW2 today.......Where I disagree (1) Cost ! Most serious Flight Simmers have Spent Thousands on their PC and Hardware ! Is a Hundred Dollars Expensive for a Plane and Terrain ? (2) Single Player Content . I can say , Reflected and others have given me Hours and Hours of Great Single Player Flying ! (3) Multiplayer ! I dont know the numbers who bought DCS and how many are Single Players and Online Players.... What I do Know from this and "Other" Sims, Is that the MP voice is Loud on Forums and YT etc. How much of the Player base do they Represent ? I dont Know !... MP players show how they get 6 kills ! Wow ! They Know every Map and Airbase and Runway ! They Have SRS and Discord and they Have a Club that Single Players have to try to absorb before joining their Club. Doc, Do you think MP attendance is a Sign of a Sucessfull Sim ? ....Maybe , Try and Encourage More SPs over to MP . Otherwise, you sound like another MP (I want Now ) complainer ! Doc, All due respect mate !
I don't feel that wanting a healthy MP is detracting from a healthy single player. I play both. I enjoy both. But as it stands, most of the time I can't do multiplayer WW2 as there is basically one populated server and that is often empty during the week. I don't see how bringing more players into the game would hurt singleplayer
Eagle Dynamics should just do this, for example, AI only versions of 6 planes A6M Zero, Ki-84 Hyate, Ki-43 Hayabusa, D3A Val, B5N Kate, B6N Jill, additionally at least one Japanese carrier and Japanese naval assets ie. destroyers, cruisers, a BB or 2 and some landing craft. These 6 aircraft should then be developed into an FC type low fidelity release. After that any of them that can be developed further into high fidelity releases developed further. This would give ED the ability to begin testing the flight models long before they ever get flown by players as the flight models are going to be one of the really big issues in getting high fidelity releases for any Japanese WWII aircraft beyond documentation on all the systems. It's the problem with DCS in all era's really, not quite enough aircraft or assets to really do complete era simulations. Vietnam is a great example as we don't have a proper map and we are missing several aircraft needed to really do a proper simulation of the conflict. I'm looking at you HeatBlur with the A6E Intruder.
In principle I agree with your and Engima's idea of an FC4/FCWW2 style pack. In practice I'm not sure if it'd really solve the issue. Full disclosure I know jack all about software development, but I do wonder how much of a dev/money sink 'clicky pits' are versus the actual fidelity of the flight model, engine modeling, ect. If it was just the cockpit interactions that were missing but everything else was at or near FF, ok groovy. But if it uses an SFM, I think that'd really hurt the experience. At that point might as well play War Thunder.
I've never had any aviation youtubers like Rex or Bismarck plug in dcs as a sponsor. Money obviously not a factor to let's say Wt players who's accounts cost in 4 digits (accumulated over a decade) what is not clear is simply- what do I get in return? How come there nothing out there from dcs to wet my appetite? I get ads from wot, wows and wt and bunch of other games. Where's dcs?
That is a good point. Dcs could probably do with more sponsorships or generally helping the existing content creators. Though WT and other free to play games do tend to be much heavier on marketing than paid games like DCS and IL2. But having some more marketing beyond the sale trailers couldn't hurt
I agree with others here. Pretty eye candy and all but product strategy is non-existent. It’s various dev groups pulling in all directions. For instance Heat Blur and their upcoming F-4. Other than boom and zoom videos where’s the Vietnam theater of operations map that hey are best known for? Where’s the career to start off in and build up over time? Where’s the scenario packs? Where’s the incentive to start a continued service in such a plane? There isn’t. Unless you just keep building seperate scenarios yourself with the pain staking editor. The fans of DCS will call me out here but out of the box I get all that with IL2, particualty with the time period maps that coincide with the aircraft in question and a career mode on top of that if I wish. The other big thing is I don’t know if it’s the latest fad or what, but aircraft in DCS seem to be in “early access” for eternity, literally. So you’re paying for a high fidelity aircraft up front that hopefully, someday before you die, will actually be a finished product.
Its not a case of flyable airframes, its the lack of AI content be it ground or air. The WWII asset pack is quite honestly a joke, charging for AI content? Seriously? Now don't get me wrong, I love what ED have done / doing with DCS, I own most of the ED catalogue. But... Either hire more hands to create the content or call it a day and tell the users there you go, thats all folks and leave future content development to the 3rd party modders. Whilst I own all the WWII modules I never fly them in a combat scenario, there is just no point. There is no real reason to when there are other sims out there that cater for the genre that are a darn sight cheaper and have a lot more "oomph" to them. I was opposed to ED going down the Warbird route when first announced and I still am, DCS, in my humble opinion, should stick to the Cold War /Modern era. Just my two penneth and a shrug to anywho who feels my opinions are salty.
Some good discussion, here's my take...
1) Fix the AI aircraft, they don't seem to care about engine management, WEP all the way
2) Fix the silly ultra accurate AAA, as currently it ruins ground attack and makes the Epsom and Charnwood campaigns unplayable.
3) Bring on the dynamic campaign.
I personally don't think cost is an issue, very reasonable in game terms.
You nailed it.
In order to make the WW2 theater more complete we really only need different versions of planes we already have. For example the 109G, Fw190A5, P-47D-10, or -22, really anything before the -25. An older P-51 would be nice and maybe a Spit MkV or an earlier -9 variant. I would also like to see more variation in ai flown planes, B-26s, Lancasters, He111s and so on. I think you're right about the lack of variety but I'm with Enigma on this, I don't think full fidelity is needed for every airplane in the sky. All that said, I'm not sure I agree with you on the main barrier to entry being cost. I think it's much more complex than that, and too much for the comment section.
Nobody will fly planes with worst performances that the now available planes... ( Mosquitoes are almost disappeared from multi player servers )
Look, Bf 109 K, Fw 190d, Thunderbolts D30 and D40 are totally out of place over normandy in June 1944.
Give us a Bodenplatte map at least. Winter 44/45.
I would prefer accurate Airplanes over Normandy/Britain
Bf 109 E and F vs Spitfire Mk I to V, in 1941 would be a banger. This planes are also evenly matched. Or what about P40s and Hurricanes.
Bf 109G 6 to 10 and fw 190a5 vs older version of the spit MK IXs, P38s and Razorback P47s.
Now we are getting a late war corsair, which is to old for Korea. WTF.
Wildcats vs Zeros would be far more interesting.
As someone who is going to eventually get Dcs ww2, I can say that cost is a big factor. But another thing is that I have spent years going down the aviation rabbit hole, and even now I don’t yet have the game. Dcs ww2 inherently has a very small audience
Enigma said something like would you prefer 100 FC3 style planes or 10 full fidelity. A lot of people people said the 10, but you have to bear in mind they would be "in development".
Why also not have a lower fidelity version of all planes to lower entry barriers. No wonder so many more are playing IL2 when the entry price is about a tenth.
ED hasn't been able release WW2 AI aircraft they talked about 6 years ago now, so thinking much will happen because they go "low fidelity" isn't correct. The problem is that DCS WW2 is the unwanted stepchild in DCS, they WW2 team is very small, and they apparently have to work on other things too. ED could release 20 AI WW2 aircraft in a couple of years if they wanted to(as in shift priority from other things to WW2) we'll see what happens when all this core engine upgrades are complete and with DCS PTO. They will never make low fidelity aircraft, But hopefully, they'll release more AI aircraft and more full fidelity aircraft.
I don't like the Warbird flight models in DCS. Too much on rails. Much prefer IL-2 for warbirds and DCS for jets.
@@Gunfreak19 I think you are right, must not be the money there unfortunately.
@FalconAC yeah I think they think, why invest time and money in ww2 Europe, when we have hard competition. And can just do jets which they have almost monopoly on.
Hopefully with PTO being undiscovered country in modern combat sims. They'll go harder into that. They've said we'll get various AI assets for both sides and probably full fidelity Japanese aircraft in the future.
I think low fidelity is too general: low fidelity cockpit but radar, RCS, weapons, and flight model should be (almost) high fidelity. E.g. radar detection ranges etc.
E.g. flight model should be accurate enough to not allow low fidelity modules to cheat or to fall behind FF modules too much.
Maybe the problem is that even all the FF modules use different algorithms to calculate physic stuff like radar, jammers, RWS, effects on FM due to damage.
I think that is where VTOL has an advantage: since it does not have to be true to real life, it can use a harmonized approach. Same radar in two different fighters would still behave the same while in DCS if there would be two F-16C by two different module makers both would be different.
All great points. I'd add that DCS as a whole suffers with their product strategy. Seeming random plane selections, separate maps that don't specifically complement anything other than a couple of planes. Their is no balance. Just a collection of puzzle pieces that we try to put together to do something fun with.
This why one of the big reasons I’ve got DCS and several handfuls of planes but never play it. It’s an incoherent mess. Planes with no era maps to fly on, mission maps association, careers, etc. whereas with IL2 I get that. DCS strikes me as a just a wild free for all.
Hear, hear!
@@crackerbarrel6965 Agree with this whole heartedly.
I fully agree. There is no coherence in DCS product planning. For e.g., Marianas map...great battles took place there in 1944: no Zero no Hellcat (couple yrs from now maybe), Marianas map is modern day. I mean, why. South Atlantic? Cool we can recreate the Falklands/Malvinas War: map is modern day, Harrier is the US version, no Etendard and the Skyhawk isn't even an official mod. Incoherence to the max. Again, why...
The main problem with DCS WW2 is the same as with DCS modern: a dead, lifeless battlefield.
The modules themselves are amazing. But ED has never invested in making the environment feel authentic, and has done a pretty poor job of improving AI behavior.
WW2 was a massive conflict. To actually feel like a compelling WW2 experience, the battlefield should feel and look active. There should be entire DIVISIONS of combat vehicles on the front lines; there should be the near-constant flash of artillery fire from the forward batteries. There should be dozens if not hundreds of AAA sites on the map. There should be logistics traffic choking the roadways from beach to the front lines (and from German supply depots to the front).
There should be dozens of flights of allied and enemy aircraft going about their missions that you can run across; including missions that have nothing to do with intercepting or being intercepted by the player.
But instead, the map feels empty, and adding anything more than a tiny handful of units takes ages in the mission editor, and kills game performance.
Hopefully the (practically mythological at this point) Vulkan and dynamic campaign engine remedies some of these problems.
A tu pc no le gustaría ver eso..
you're are correct about the environment, but from i've heard they have a very small team on ww2 side and progress is slow, imagine how long it will take them to push it out and probably in tandem with f4u and f6f plus the time to polish them which could be 1 to 2 years, only then will ED think about switching focus and who the fuck knows which brilliant idea will pop in they head
I agreed with many or your points from the game play experience perspective. I bought DCS 2 years ago mainly because I wanted to fly combat aircraft in VR, definitely I wanted to dogfight WW2 Aircraft, I was a mega fan of history channel’s Dogfights, and after a huge investment in hardware, and quite some expense in software is a dream come true and worth every penny, now I bought IL2 and I found it so generic compared to DCS, not only in flying characteristics, but in configuration options with my controllers. More aircraft available definitely, but I enjoy learning every model in detail, and programming my virtual controles as closed as the real cockpit to maximize immersion , so every cockpit is unique, is time consuming but worth it. DCS is a digital museum, you will arrive as a dogfighter and will end up as an aviator. And is getting better and better.
Damn that was enjoyable to read. Thanks :)
@@julpeuzinthank you for your kind words
So basically your solution is to make DCS warthunder. The only thing that DCS has is its HIgh Fidelity. It takes effort to learn each module and to fly it against another player. This would basically mean some kid can hop in with his Xbox controller and destroy you while your worried about engine management, weapon selection, and actually flying the aircraft like it should be. A Barrier to entry is a GOOD thing, but that barrier should be skill and learning and not monetary. I agree in the current state things need to change but by dialuting the experience is not an answer. This is the same opinion I gave enigma. What ED needs to do is make the asset packs and maps free as a start.
The problem is not the modules. There were sims that literally featured 1 aircraft and they were still very popular. The thing with DCS it feels like one of those ultra hgihly detailed racing games when it comes to the cars but you are driving through an empty dull and repetitive world. The peak of your interaction is the swriches you turn on and off in your cockpit. The outside world is not engaging.
Absolutely this. We don't *really* need more *player* aircraft modules, we need a reasonable selection of AI aircraft in secondary roles (transports, glider tow, dive bombers, ground attack, light bombers, liaison, maritime patrol floatplanes, etc), and we need an easy-to-use system to populate the battlefield with enough ground and air units to actually feel like an active WW2 theater of battle, without taking days of work in the mission editor (and crashing the game due to the poor system resource management the game currently has which prevents it from populating many vehicles).
We also really need more naval assets; at least one destroyer, light cruiser, and light surface combatant (such as minesweeper, armed trawler, motor gunboat, torpedo boat etc), heavy transport ship, and coastal transport ship per faction.
Well said! Spot on!
I mean, Falcon BMS has really only one full fidelity plane (F-16), but AFAIK there's not as puch PvP multiplayer going on. I think most people are flying singleplayer or PvE coop (I hate AI wingmen! I hate AI wingmen!) and there's no lack in variety in AI OPFOR aircraft, even though some of these are probably not accurate to their RL counterparts (MiG-23 OP, pls nerf).
But I doubt you can have good PvP gameplay if everyone is flying the same plane.
A big additonal issues with World War 2 DCS is the ridiculous AI flight model for damaged aircraft.
Case in point: just last night while playing around in a mission I shot a B-17 with at least a dozen 30mm HE shells, plus lord knows how many 13mm rounds.
Whole chunks of the wings and tail were gone, the right aileron was blown off, half the tail was gone and all four engines were completely stopped.
And yet the plane was able to turn around and then glide all the way from the Normandy coast to a successful landing on an airstrip in England, from an altitude of about 3000m. Never once stalled or lost any airspeed.
I've thought from the beginning that DLCs like WWII Assets, Supercarrier and Combined Arms should have been added to the base game.
I agree that we need more variety, but the only thing that DCS has over IL2 is the full-fidelity cockpits. By introducing partial fidelity warbirds we get two problems: First is it removes the selling point of DCS over IL2, and the second is it causes an imbalance of gameplay where the full-fidelity fliers have to do more cockpit work during combat while the partial-fidelity fliers don't.
This it is only the clicky cockpits.
If developers would create 2 distinct levels online where players must choose which level they want to fly in. Top gun level DCS MODULE FULL FIDELITY. NEWBEE Level semi clickable cockpits slightly higher level than IL2. All available only on PC No console controllers. Assets & maps should be combined at lower level @ the TG level have it the way DCS has it presently. This way you separate the sim pit aviators, from the table top fly n’ shooters. (Please if u read this feel free to poke holes in this idea, I’d love to hear them.
It’s normal for most deluxe games today to cost near $90 so DCS is priced consistent with other games today. That’s not a big barrier for someone who can afford the PC to play on. It seems many video gamers just don’t have jobs 😉
The level of fidelity that DCS aircraft have will by nature prohibit the game from having 50-something flyable aircraft. That’s just what it is. If someone wants a game with lots of low fidelity planes that game is War Thunder. IL-2 is sorta in between DCS and WT. But it would quite literally take Eagle Dynamics 50 years to make 50 WWII aircraft all to their high standards. No game can be everything to everyone. ED has stated many time that they have no planes for more FC style low fidelity modules. The cost savings imagined for those is probably overestimated.
I agree that the monetary barrier to entry is pretty high and that more planes would be cooler, but if they went lower fidelity, what would set it DCS apart from IL-2? I like the high fidelity. Maybe start with low fidelity models that are worked on towards a full fidelity model? having to buy maps on top does suck though.
I Just bought The Channel Map, Normandy 2.0 Map, P47 ThunderBolt (i cant fight for crap in it way too heavy), BF109 K-4, and the WW2 Asset Pack. i love DCS but yes I wish it was easier for them to add more war birds :(
i love the 4ya ww2 server, but it's like the same 10 missions over and over with maybe 1 that actually has some dynamic weather. i'd like to see a popular ww2 server that wasn't necessarily historically accurate with more variety in missions and weather.
Wolf Pack server
I think one of the other factors is the reputation/stigma that DCS has with people who mainly play other sims like War Thunder, IL2, MSFS, etc. Watching videos, reading comments, and seeing stuff on social media, it seems like a lot of people just expect aircraft in DCS to be an unfun experience due to perceived learning curve, price, or system requirements. They just don’t know none of those things have to be a (disqualifying) factor, or that those things aren’t actually really that different from what they’re already playing.
One airplane in War Thunder can set you back hundreds of dollars and hours. And then there is no enjoyment flying sim mode when everyone else is flying in arcade mode. ILS is mediocre. MSFS is, well, MSFS. Personally, I spend hours just learning each of the warbirds on DCS. All of the steps and the steep learning curves? Thousands of young men did it in real life 80 years ago. In reality, what hurts DCS the most is the laziness of the younger generations. I have jets, rarely fly them. I have mods, only fly the hercules mod and the Bronco. Everything else is wasted space on my hard drive. In reality, guys won't flinch to spend thousands on hotas and sim pits and of course gaming pc's and VR, but they whine like little babies when they have to spend $50 on a module. Hell, we've all but put track ir out of business with the new open source free/almost free software available. I flew Hi Tech's Aces High for years until I finally broke down and spent the money on a PC that could fly DCS. For me it's not a game. I could play Aces High for game play. It's about getting to do something I'll never be able to do in real life. Learning how to start, take off, fly and fight, and finally land and park a war bird. That's why I stick with DCS.
The plane set just isn't there.
Personally I like the "realism" of the DCS plane systems and flight model over something like Il2.
But there's no "realistic" experience to be had on a DCS server when everyone I'm flying against is in k4 or dora
Some people want to feel as close to what it would have been like to fly in battle that is where the complexity comes in ! If we all took the time to find out the massive cost and effort and the genius of developers then you realize that these modules are worth the cost ! Accuracy is the thing we should all strive for ! DCS is challenging but that is where the experience comes from ! For others there is War thunder !
@@sharpe3698 I don't fly online. I make my own missions and fly. It takes money and man hours to develop these mods. When the new ones roll out everyone is excited and full of piss and vinegar. At the end of the day, nothing is good enough. Like I said earlier. You cannot learn to fly a plane you'll never be able to fly anywhere else. Not with the level of realism in DCS. Guys have made dozens of mods, but when DCS updates their system nobody updates the mods, because after all, they're free mods. Nobody works for free anymore.
@@wildcard3233 Agreed
I agree totally with DCS shooting itself in the foot with its monetization strategy. The barrier to entry for warbirds is a huge problem. I dont have any interest personally in playing a low fidelity module. Nor do I want to fly against people flying on easy mode. Planes you just press a button and throttle up. Personally, the reason DCS is the only video game in the flightsim genre i play. Is the physics and intricacies of operating each aircraft. You can be the best pilot in one, but not be able to get any others off the ground. Which is unique to DCS because of the high fidelity. Id however like to see tons more ai aircraft. Im not saying im right, and fc3 is wrong. Im simply just stating my opinion.
You make some valid points. The reason I like to fly the DCS modules is because of the details. What makes it more realistic is that you learn to start the engine, look after and manage all the systems and actually have to learn to fly the aircraft. It takes time, patience and lots of practice to become proficient. Just like the real thing.
IL2 is fun, but it is easy. Within an hour or two you can be an ace, which is fun, but it isn't the way it is in real life. I will say that it is playing IL2, and wanting to learn more, that led me to fly the DSCS warbirds.
The best answer to you that I can give is that both have something to offer, so play both....
I agree completely about the need for a free WWII map as well as making the asset pack free. That barrier to entry definitely needs to be lowered. I also agree with increasing the number of lower fidelity AI aircraft to fight against. Making the game more accessible to those on limited budgets is absolutely the right move, and I think it will ultimately result in more revenue for Eagle Dynamics, rather than less.
However, I completely disagree that DCS should be copying IL-2's model for low-fidelity, player-controlled planes. THAT barrier to entry is what makes DCS unique. When it comes to the quality of the full-fidelity aircraft, you said it yourself, there is nowhere else like DCS. I would much rather that DCS continue to be that special, unique place than to dumb it down to attract the masses who can't be bothered to learn how an airplane works and who already have plenty of other games they can play.
This modern trend that thinks that making a game "accessible to the casual gamer" requires making it easier to win is moronic. Remember the time when even simple, old Nintendo games happily announced "Game Over," when you died, and then you had to start all over again? Remember how amazing it felt when you finally beat THOSE games? Modern games where you are carefully shepherded through save checkpoints toward an almost-inevitable victory don't come anywhere close. That's because overcoming difficulty is rewarding. Even modern blockbusters like Minecraft and Fortnite, different as they are from DCS in genre, are popular because they are HARD. They require practice and mastery in order to succeed. Simpler competitors have come and gone, almost without notice.
DCS IS HARD. DCS SHOULD BE HARD. Mastering a full-fidelity aircraft should take time. The greater challenge makes success more rewarding. That challenge is what keeps players coming back instead of hopping to whatever the newest AAA title is, as most other gamers do. DCS isn't for everyone, and it should not attempt to be.
Finally, just because a community is small doesn't mean there's something wrong with it. Small communities also tend to be incredibly loyal, and they're grateful for having found a niche that understands their unusual needs and desires. Disregarding their wishes will be seen as a betrayal. I obviously want to see Eagle Dynamics be successful, but I think they can do that by implementing your other suggestions and without selling their soul.
I'm a real world pilot. I have flown both WW1 and WW2 era aircraft. I love DCS. No it isn't easy and prob scares away a lot of typical average gamers. Good! I would rather fly with dedicated fans who take the time to train and learn the systems.
@@chrisgrube-he1gr 100%. I know ED has to make money, but for those of us who are dedicated to their product, we have no interest in making it accessible to 12 year-olds who want to fly with their XBOX controller and shout abuse at people on the radio when they lose. No thanks.
I know not everyone can afford a full setup, but then why are they targeting a market who can’t afford their product?
@@WingC3I’m a 12 year old getting into Dcs. You can’t stop me!!!!
@@mrcat5508I don’t want to stop you! You are interested in aviation and that’s great!
However, aviation is not easy. It is fun partly because it is not easy. It challenges you to learn, to improve yourself, and to try new things. If you remove those things, you remove some of reward and joy of the accomplishment of learning to fly.
Put more simply: Why do people climb mountains? Surely, the view is part of it. But, a lot of the attraction of climbing a mountain is that a mountain is hard to climb. The value of the achievement is related to the challenge required to achieve it.
As you train and work hard, the mountain becomes easier to climb, and you become a stronger person, physically and mentally.
DCS is a mountain worth climbing, because it is hard, and you will have to learn new things to climb it. If ED chops down that mountain for you now, what will you have to work towards? What will challenge you when you’re an adult?
Some things in the world are not meant for 12 year-olds, because you have some growing yet to do. If you want to embrace the challenge now, you’re most welcome, but do not ask that the mountain be chopped down for others and the challenge ruined for others just because you are not YET ready to face it.
Embrace the challenges, they are where the rewards lie.
That’s a lesson not only for DCS, but also for life.
@@WingC3 yeah I know, I didn’t actually think you were trying to stop me, and as a 12 year old I see how the game is not made for 12 year olds at all. I’m the only kid in my middle school with any interest in military aviation. Also, I already have a hotas and the bf 109 and f6f in msfs (both full fidelity), so I’m not completely new, and I like full fidelity
I enjoy very much DCS, but damn! I love IL-2! I have 2,000 hours in DCS (mainly flying the awesome Mi-8, Mi-24, Ka-50, A-10CII, and MiG-21, and occasionally the Bf-109), and thousands of hours more in IL-2. I certainly prefer the high-fidelity planes of DCS, but I love the variety, the look, the feel, the career, multiplayer/COOP, and the quick missions of IL-2--I'm in virtual WWII, (and WWI). The IL-2 Devs are ramping up to some fantastic toys coming the next few years, they're getting back on the work train.
We should give more respect to the beauty, and very hard work, of IL-2. It has its flaws, surely, but it does give a distinctive, I'd even suggest unmatched, virtual WWII experience.
Maybe it’s me but aaa is mud. Absolute dogwater. There’s zero suppression modelled and every gun shooting is a sniper. It completely ruins any thought of ground attack. This is my number one wish for dcs to fix.
💯
Even worse, it's not just the actual AAA guns that fire like they're manned by T-800 terminators. Every pintle-mounted machine gun on every tank and truck shoots as if they're radar-guided, hydraulically-actuated automated turrets, using perfectly calculated lead angles and rock-solid mounts with no dispersion from recoil.
Exactly, I've always said the AAA needs sorting out as it ruins any ground based sorties, the Epsom and Charnwood campaigns are virtually unplayable because of this.
Fix the AI (both air and ground units) and bring out the dynamic campaign - sorted.
Great points. With the upcoming (soon hopefully) new ww2 content, I genuinely hope dcs ww2 gains some momentum, it’s my absolute favorite era to fly in the sim.
As you were talking I was thinking… “ok, good points… here was me thinking he was going to miss the point of DCS completely and say FC3 for WW2”
… and then you said it.
No FC3, thank you. It would kill the already small niche while not shining at the one thing DCS really shines at - the immersion of having to really learn your aircraft and knowing your enemy also had to.
Agree with all your other points, but personally I’d rather not ever get one
more WW2 plane in DCS than see FC3. I think most WW2 players would agree.
The solution is lowing the barrier to entry and investing in the product line by updating (and finishing) modules and fleshing out one theatre rather than jumping from low hanging fruit to low hanging fruit leaving us with this pick ‘n’ mix plane set.
As well as marketing.
ED’s amateur marketing “strategy” of FOMO with sales every month and looking for any new excuse to extent the sale as it’s the only time they really sell anything is dated and ineffective as mostly they just sell another plane to existing customers as any new players get 50% off first buy anyway.
I often wonder how much work as a percentage it would take to make variants of modules, or why they make 2 maps (and a revamp) of literally the same stretch of France. Mind boggling.
To compare DCS to the likes of IL2 and Warthunder I think just can't be justified. The great detail put into the full fidelity of these DCS modules I think is a godsend to scratch my itch. Quite frankly if I'm not happy with something I've paid good money for I don't go and buy more but rather move on. The fact that alot of people expect something for free is a lot too ask of anyone. They are selling a product and literally no ones twisting your arm to support them. As far as Microsoft Flight sim is concerned well it's an option if you'd rather fly around in circles for that whole time. Frankly the modules DCS develop are great in my opinion and I'm glad I've been with them from the start... "keep doing what your doing Eagle Dynamics I will support you all the way".
i think the WW2 community for DCS is small b/c there IS the option of IL-2. No such option exists for more modern aircraft. Sure, DCS aircraft are far more realistic but lets face it, warbirds dont have the complexity of systems modern aircraft do so Il-2 modules are often....realistic enough. I would like to see 3rd party devs create more ww2 hi-fidelity modules but the demand isnt there; nor do i think it will be even if there is a larger variety. At least not until most IL-2 players decide to come over.
There's one other option for modern aircraft and that's Falcon BMS.
In my opinion, ED should try the following:
- An FC3 type module from ww2, with classic warbirds, such as the Stuka, BF 109G, Spit MkV etc;
- Develop Dynamic Campaigns.
- Add more AI planes in WW2 Asset pack, like B-24, Tempest V, BF110, etc
- Increase German aircraft modules, adding FW190F8/A9; BF109G10
If ED implements these things it will definitely improve the acceptance of its ww2 world.
For me the biggest problem with DCS WW2 is the poor visibility of other aircraft which makes spotting and ID so difficult. Maybe with later jets where you've got HUD and radar screens and homing missiles it's not a problem, but for WW2 visibility is everything. Combat just isn't fun if you can't find or see your opponent and no-one wants to team kill because they couldn't ID that vague blob. ED have tried to bodge things to help with ludicrous spotting blobs and immersion destroying symbols but what's really needed is a render engine that makes things more visible. I seldom have trouble spotting, IDing and judging angle-off in IL2 but in DCS my opponent is often just a faint flicker on the ground or a vague blob in the sky, or is just invisible. I do love DCS, but for me it's more of a WW2 flight simulator. I like the full fidelity thing, start-up, take-off, navigate to a ground target, drop some bombs on it, fly home and land, maybe with a shot-up plane, but if I want WW2 air to air combat I'll usually choose IL2 because it's much more fun.
BMS smart scaling *cough cough*. It can't be that hard to just make a plane a bit bigger the further it is away, right? Falcon could do it long ago.
Great video as always Jebus. I think it's an interesting point on the assets pack. Everything is included for the modern theatres so why not WWII? Although, with the cost of peripherals and a PC that can run DCS well, is the cost of $15 really a deal breaker? Agree with other comments here on FC3. I'm here for the fidelity. I like Enigma's server but I think he's dead wrong on the FC3 front. If I wanted less fidelity I would go play war thunder or IL2.
I have read some of the comments on this video and I understand that people love the full fidelity aspects of DCS, and I can see that people think that some are put off by that very complexity, here's my take:
I AM put off by the complexity and learning curve of the planes in DCS. Having tried at least 3 of them, many of the jets feel unfun as a result. Every time I try DCS I feel the crushing weight of all the studying I will have to do in order to get anywhere. I don't really want to play a button-pressing simulator. I don't want to learn long procedures and spend time figuring out how to manage the plane's onboard computer system before I can even take off, let alone attempt to get into battle. I can tell from watching discussions on discord servers that this is the challenge that many players relish. They're interested in mastering the plane's systems, and some of them aren't even that good at the combat aspects because they're so focused on this.
Now to DCS WW2: Some of the above applies there although I do find it satisfying to learn the Spitfire or 190's startup procedure and be able to take off and fly them. Compared to IL-2 I find DCS' map absolutely useless. When flying I can't really match towns to what I can see on the map, in DCS the ground seems very cluttered and towns don't really have a distinct shape. I play in VR, and when I activate the map in DCS it completely blocks any view of what the plane is doing. This means I have to switch to the map, glance at things and then close it as quickly as possible, because there's a massive danger of the plane going into a bank or starting to dive. In IL-2 in VR, the map is a floating window as though the pilot is holding a paper map up in front of his face. I can still see what the plane is doing at the corners of the map, I can turn my head away from it. Much more usable.
DCS desperately needs more variety of planes. There's a Ju-88, A20, even a B-17 in the game, but you can't fly them (although I don't expect the B-17 to ever be a playable plane). Dogfights will gravitate towards the "best" planes, so that means it will almost always be 109s vs Mustangs. There need to be ground attack aircraft and other viable fighters that will be flown BY HUMANS. I don't care about AI aircraft. I don't care about whether or not they are full fidelity, ED just needs to make sure that more planes are created. More maps are needed, because constantly fighting over Normandy is boring.
Contrast this to IL-2, where a server can be running any one of a large number of maps. There are a large number of planes I can fly. I can attempt a bombing run in a variety of planes, defend targets against bombers, engage in the endless fighter-on-fighter fights near the front line etc. There is more to do, and more interesting situations I can get myself into in IL-2. I don't particularly care that the flight model might not be as accurate in IL-2. None of us are ever going to get to fly in a 109, Spitfire, Ju-88 etc so we have no way of judging how realistic they are although to be honest, the handling of the warbirds in DCS feels weird and I don't feel like anyhing is wrong/simplistic in IL-2's flight model. That's coming from someone who plays MSFS, flies RC planes etc. Even though DCS is a study level situation, even though I built a full simpit and spent lots of money on it, in the end these are GAMES and they must attract players to play them. I don't really care if DCS has a very convincing simulation of a bf-109 K with all the buttons and systems fully modelled, if I'm playing on a server with 3 other people and never see another plane it feels pointless. DCS WW2 could be great, but needs more of everything except clicky buttons that take years to develop. More planes, more maps, more things that will actually attract players.
Exactly, IL2 is the game for you anyways. Why make DCS into IL2
I think clickable cockpit is an absolute must! The only way I was able to finally play the FC3 planes (and IL-2 for that matter!) was by getting some really cool button boxes, kinda styled like MFDs but the "display" was an insert for a printout card saying what the buttons do... amazing and cheap solution :)
The fidelity of the aircraft can still be reduced and obviously not simulate ALL systems but come on... not having a clickable cockpit is just ridiculous nowadays :D
I disagree. As much as we need more Third Reich and Imperial Japan planes, an FC3 type approach is not the way to go for me. FC3 is DCS in cheat mode for me, and as much as I understand why servers like ECW have no alternative than to use FC3 planes to thicken up certain deficiencies in a lack of air frames, I personally detest flying a full fidelity mod against FC3 as I systems and engines to manages, whereas they just bind a few keys and off they go.
FC3 needs to be phased out and replaced by full fidelity modules of the same planes. I know this won’t happen, certainly not anytime soon at least, but for me it’s all down to ED needing to up their game a bit. If you look at MSFS, they seemingly have new very high quality (some not so high) quality planes appearing on both their in sim store and on third party sites almost weekly. I think ED should court the likes of Just Flight, who seem to produce massively realistic and system complete planes much much quicker than ED or their partners do. There’s obviously a market our there for ultra realistic flight simulation, and MSFS is proof of that, and ED either through marketing or some other method of raising their profile, need to tap into the communities like MSFS and show them that there’s another place with realistic planes, that actually have damage models and deployable weapons and that flying skills can be pushed further than just out and return flights from your local aerodrome. The problem I feel with ED, is that they’re big enough to do what they’re currently doing but seem to struggle taking the next big step in their company’s growth, where they will be able to attract the likes of Just Flight who could potentially churn out warbirds for us at a rate not seen since the WW2.
It’s a dream I know.
There is no cheat.
FC3 flight models are some of the best in DCS.
The system modeling is a bonus in full fidelity because you get more features. Where the real difference is in starting the planes up, with prop planes there would probably be little difference.
FC3 standard of aircraft is on par or better than il2 standard. FC3 FM model so much more dynamics and more so than many 3rd party DCS modules.
If FC3 made prop planes then engine management would be part of that just like il2.
The FM, systems management and 3d models of say seven prop planes in an FC3 style pack would take more resources and time than making one full fidelity plane.
@@MultiVeeta Well said.
@@MultiVeetaI’m not meaning the flight models, but the systems of FC3. Take the M2000C V the SU27 for example, which are similar vintages with similar systems and weapons, but the FC3 video game style radar that just works with a button push, but the Mirage takes much much more realistic effort to acquire and maintain a radar lock. This is just one example but there are many, and my own experiences in IL2 just left me feeling that although they have a wide variety of planes, they all largely felt the same
@@UkDave3856
The M2K is one switch to power on.
It is one press to get lock.
Both M2K and Su27 have hi prf, med prf and interleave prf.
Both suffer ground clutter effects.
Both suffer from the Doppler shift.
Both have the same RCS effects.
Su27 is stuck in 4 bar scan.
M2K has a selection of bar scans to choose from.
M2K has same hud CQ modes plus it has insta lock frontal target mode.
The M2K has to iff radar locks.
The Su27 has to iff eos locks.
Once the M2K is started up and fenced in it is virtually the same operation as the Su27 and in some instances the M2K is better.
The M2K is the most advanced radar in DCS more than any other including full fidelity modules, but this is because of what it shows, it shows false contacts etc. but it is one radar not the example of all. Things like this can be turned off in cockpit.
And it also has bugs, it showed range to ECM in the hud for a long time for example.
Your opinion of FC3 is way off the mark.
I will keep beating the P-38 drum. It would work during almost all timeframes of the war in both the PTO and ETO. It’s a fighter, it’s an attack plane, it can bomb. Plus it’s cool. I’m not going to get onto my (very unpopular, I know) soapbox about ED branching into the PTO without fully fleshing out the ETO…. And yes, I do want WWII carrier stuff; that isn’t the issue.
Buying the map and the plane is the issue. Normandy comes with the assets but it’s a steep buy in. However, if you’re even considering DCS, you have a sim setup, which means you can afford it. However, there needs to be more of a community around the WW2 stuff. And more planes… I want a multi crew B26
Just an FYI, the Zero shown in the 2024 and Beyond video was an actual Zero, not a painted 190. Thanks.
Oh?
I don't understand, if you want FC3 style, just go Il2 ? I mean you point out the strength of DCS, then you say 'let's go simpler'. I agree that WW2 assets pack should be free though. And hopefully we get free WW2 Mariana soon 👌
And honestly DCS being 'hardcore' kinda filter the population playing too, we have player that are willing to do things right, learn and fly as you would in real life. If you come up with entry level planes, I would expect much more friendly fire or people just ramming into targets.. Just my though.
Been playing War Thunder for a decade, never really liked for IL2 for a reason cant really explain. Tried DCS first time a couple of years ago and really love the feeling of flying in DCS! It's amazing.
But the main reason I never really started playing it, other than my old pc struggled with it, is the extreme user unfriendliness.
Everything is so unnecessarily complicated. And I consider myself on occasion , a reasonable patient person. It's not the plane itself, it's a SIM ofc it takes some time to learn... it's everything else. You have to for example, be a programmer just to get the view controls like zoom somewhat comfortable. And every little tweak disappears for every update (at least it did 3 years ago) So many tutorials fideling around with settings reshade renaming mission files importing to get replays to work etc (and then watch your plane crash on take off although you flew for half an hour)
I Imagine that also is something scaring people away. It's hard to just jump in and play and have fun.
Got a new PC last week so I gonna give it a new try....
I think low fidelity FC3 like modules is not the way to go. For me this would be further increasing a split in the player base between people wanting to fly FF and people flying FC3 like airplanes. FC3 also takes away a lot of the system and parameters management out of the picture. Would it bring more people to the WW2 scene ? Sure, I do think so, but I also believe it would a kind of sub community that wouldn't mix well with the FF guys. But that's just my opinion.
When looking a the Cold War/Modern modules, I often see newcommers buying the plane they like the most and learning to use it. Relatively few of them go the FC3 way. For me what makes this work, and is lacking in WW2, is the diversity in maps, assets, IA planes and generally available content. If we had more maps of different parts of the world, more assets to interact with and more diverse planes, not just fighters as AI or FF, it would make the WW2 scene already more appealing to players and 3rd party devs.
I am glad to see ED working on a PTO asset pack, as it goes in the direction of bringing more content for WW2, but i'm pretty sure it won't be free with the Marianas. And generally speaking I don't think we should be expecting free stuff from ED for much longer. We've seen it with the B1 and B52 that released for free in lesser quality 3D and are planned to be available in full quality as part as a "new product" from ED.
It's great fun in WWII, the warbirds are super easy to learn and they aren't very expensive, but the complete lack of AI planes to fight against is abysmal... there's only two bombers, the Ju-88's and B-17's, there's no stukas, He-111's, B-24's and the stupid assets pack should've just been included in Normandy 2.0.
ED has sort of abandoned it for the most part and there's very few servers to enjoy. it's barely keeping it alive.
This is true for all of DCS content, there never is just a single purchase which can be made. For example, F18 and F14 really requires the carrier module to get the most of it, campaigns for individual planes have to be bought separately, those campaigns have themselves requirements like maps or content packs. It's just their business model and is not unique to WW2.
What they really need to have is bundles that provide a complete experience, with appropriate assets, maps, and missions to go with the plane. The free content in base DCS is essentially just the "bundled" content that is appropriate for blackshark.
I’d like to see more WWII Pacific Theater modules. However, the F4U has been long in development. When released, hopefully with its Essex-class carrier, they will be alone at sea. There are modded versions of Fletcher-class destroyers and Iowa-class battleships, but they are hardly functional with very generic damage modeling. But I can see potential for some very engaging action here.
The largest carrier battles were fought over Midway, mid-‘42, and the Philippine Sea, mid-‘44. I’d say concentrate on the Marianas map, but a WWII version of it with some WWII-era airfields. Then what’s needed is the carrier battle groups…task forces…on both sides and a bunch of AI carrier planes. Mainly, fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers of both sides…which can also be used as scout planes. The F6F is supposed to be in development. That and the Corsair will be the core of player engagement, but with an array of supporting AI modules, it could work.
Not only the aircraft modules, but ship modules are very interesting. I have had hours and hours of fun using the Samuel Chase amphibious transport ship in the Marianas map. I used the FW190s with IJN skins to attack a group of transports at sea. I place a few Fletchers and a Pensacola for escorts. I then man a gun on the Chase. Unfortunately, when I do that, all the other guns on the ship are silenced. There needs to be a mix of AI guns and multi-player guns on ships. Nonetheless, it made for a battle reminiscent of a Pacific Theater battle. I built a mission where the planes attack in waves and from various directions. I like to man the 5” or 3” guns, but it is very difficult to judge range and the shells seem to explode at one, fixed distance. So, I maybe score one hit in 200 rounds. I do this in VR, so there’s unfortunately no gunsights, either.
Still, it’s a blast playing this. With several improvements, I think a lot of people would enjoy it. If this ability to man guns was available for every ship, and if manning a gun mount wouldn’t disable AI on all other guns on the ship, it could be really cool.
But there’s even more potential. The 40mm gun mounts were usually twin and quad mounts directed by a separately mounted Mk51 director with lead computing reflector sight. One or more mounts could be linked to a Mk51. And the 5” gun mounts were usually directed by a Mk33 or Mk37 director, connected to radar and a set of ballistic computers (WWII era analog computing). Only the 20mm mounts were hand-aimed from the gun mount. The 5” shells could be contact fused, time fused (time delay set right before loading into the gun breech), and variable timed (VT) proximity fused. As well as star shells for illumination in night surface battles.
Combine all this with a CIC (combat information center) on each ship, with a realistic surveillance radar scope and lookout’s binoculars, and it should be a fantastic Pacific Theater.
I hope ED will see your video. This is a big big problem and currently Il-2 have challenges with the community, also the new Combat Pilot sim is far from release. Good time to build the ww2 community. Part of our squadron have already moved to DCS, but due to the high buy in prices, most of our guys have to stay at IL-2, even they would leave IL-2 due to the strange plane performances etc. . On the other hand DCS needs more axis planes, like the 110, 410, Ju-88 for the European front.
Excellent ideas! Imagine then, perhaps, the WW2 Assets pack has 4-6 low fidelity planes added. These could be early war or maybe Pacific - this might be best given the Marianas map and the upcoming modules for this theatre, even though personally I’d prefer something European.
I have most modules including all the WW2 ones, they are what attracted me to DCS in the first place. Even so, I fairly regularly take out the A-10a, Su-25 (T and non T), the F-15C, the Mig 29s and sometimes flankers. They enable me to have a quick fly out without having to check the manual, Chuck’s Guide or look at key assignments as unless I’ve ‘flown’ an FF module recently, I usually need a refresher. But with Flaming Cliffs 3 stuff I can jump in and have some fun whilst concentrating almost completely on tactics rather than switchology. Given that DCS has a poor (but improving) interface outside the cockpit I think that even though FC3 was almost an accident, it’s a great feature of the sim that can ease people into it.
And the fact that Japanese and other warbirds don’t have the definitive datasets gives the low fidelity route an excellent justification without breaking the concept of study level simulation on the full fidelity stuff.
I actually stated my modern (this century, anyway) virtual flying in War Thunder. And although I had a fairly short period of enjoyment when I’d learned how the game works but hadn’t yet been sucked into the grind, I really found the hand waving for realism annoying. For example, Russian stuff is all made to published specs but in reality none of their stuff lives up to the designs. IL2 suffers this too, to a degree. Whereas DCS has the bearing weakness in the P-47 which means there are times it has to be babied. Not forcing planes to fit to a gamification balance model goes with my more simulator enjoying approach as well. Anyway, to have even a handful more flyable (and even some AI only!) modules would be fantastic and low fidelity is a good thing if done right.
I have only really ONE thing you said that I'd like to change for the changes you're talking about, tho I want this to be a new standard for FC3 aswell, I want them to take a month or two and Change FC3 into Medium Fidelity, or Half Clickable cockpits, don't need ALL the buttons and dials to move and do something in the plane, just the interactivity that matters, and I think the WW2 modules pack should have that from the start, IF they add a FC3 style WW2 Planes pack.
I do agree 150% that the few planes we have need more Versions from the start of their production and all the way up to the end of their life years, pre and post WWII end. Pasific theater is def needed, thankfully Marianas is getting a WWII facelift at some point, but we def need some WW2 Japan and so on. Wake island and all that.
Excellent points!! I am 70r newbie and WWII is a good place to learn flying before complexity of electronics
but had JUST purchased P51, Normandy and WWII assets literally 30 seconds before watching this video 🙃🙃
Warbirds spotting is broken planes just do a magic trick and disappear into thin air while you keep your eyes at the ball. And no it didn't went under my nose. And the FW190 A8 you can kick it on its tail without worrying about engine overheating. And what is the deal with the wing increasing and decreasing in size while you look over it while scanning the horizon.
Yeah, the level of detail phase in is a bit odd right now
All good points. The biggest problem for me is the performance of the game in general. My PC is decent enough for Il2, but not so much for DCS. That's where the cost to enjoy DCS really hurts, not the AC or the modules. It just doesn't run smooth enough to really enjoy with most gear. My PC is better than the casual flight sim user, so if one wants to enjoy it, the user has to spend a lot on hardware.
IL2 GB: Dynamic campaign for early Eastern Front, mid-war Eastern Front, late Western Front, wide variety of planes such as fighters, medium bombers, dive bombers, transport planes and even a glider. The Damage model is nice. The AI is ok. Lots of DLCs but with an affordable entry price.
IL2 CLOD: Battle of Britain and North Africa historically accurate, good variety of early war planes, very good flight/damage models. Good entry price.
IL2 1946: Huge variety of planes and maps, including the entire WW2 period on different fronts, including PTO, all planes have decent flight/damage models, the AI is decente, the mission editor allows you to create large and complex missions that are not possible in other games of the genre, and with mods the game becomes a very enjoyable WW2 experience. It has a small number of active players and the entry price is the minimum.
War Thunder: The most successful in terms of PVP, it has a huge variety of planes, including fighters, light, medium, large bombers, night fighters, etc. Battles are historically inaccurate, WT is more focused on PVP and grinding. The Flight/damage models are unrealistic, but they're good from a more arcade perspective. If you just want to play with simplified WW2 fighters, it's free.
DCS: Late Western Front limited to France (Summer '44 - Autumn '44), not historically accurate, with little variety of planes (two for each nation) and two maps covering different portions of the same front, Flight model is inconsistent, AI overperforms, has no Dynamic campaign and linear campaigns are paid. The community is small but active, the entry price is expensive.
I like all these games but in my opinion, when it comes to WW2, DCS is the least attractive at the moment. Something like an FC4 or FCWW2 would take DCS to another level.
Prices are an issue. As you can see with the high discount for the rather young Mosquito during sales.. I always think of getting it. But i got the P-47 as allied Airframe. Looking forward to the La-7, but there could be a map for the central part of the eastern frontline (Russia). With 109E, Spitfire Mk iV/V and Hurricane you could run a "Battle of Britain" Scenario.
the lack of a hot start/air start for war birds is frustrating for me as it feels so much slower then say ECW and an f5 or mig17 etc. Taking off in a warbird is very hard -v- ECW f5 is easy etc.
I generally fly EWC but do love my spit/105 /mossi/etc just set up all my missions as air start to make them fun and faster.
I’m having issues identifying enemy planes, I fly a p51D and can’t identify axis. Usually shoot at spitfires, or to scared to shoot unless someone shoots at me first.. which usually gets me into trouble. Any advice on plane identification?
Unfortunately, it mostly comes down to practice. There are a load of plane silhouette comparisons online that are worth studying. If you can get a vertical view, look at the wing form. If in doubt, what you're doing is best: hold fire until you have positive ID. You can always try to get close enough to see the roundels on wings to be sure. In WW2 you need to be close to engage anyway, so it's not that much closer to be able to make out markings
I own FC3 and woud buy WW2-FC3 anywtime. WW2 assets are also a problem... paying for map, I can understand that. I understand that assets cost something... but they are kinda passive thing for us as a buyer. They just should be in game. I've recently bough a few warbirds just because they are fun and I wanted to put my new pedals to better use... but so far I'm hasitating about the map (Normandy? Channel? Both? That's quite a lot...) and while 15 for WW2 assets on sale is not that much, it is merely a barrier to play some campaigns and/or join a server. Why is it there? It should be in the game, period.
ED never had a plan. They only got into WWII aircraft because a 3rd party partner started developing the FW-190D9 and ME-109K4 and then went belly up. At that time, all that existed in the genre was the TF-51.
Instead of making a plan, shoving everything off the table, thinking up what a good idea would be and working for that, they just plodded along, said they'd complete the ME-109K-4 and FW190D-9, because they felt guilty about their partner going belly-up, and for no other reason. Not because it was a good idea with merits which could stand on it's own two feet - nothing.
Just a short point about very late war environment; you cannot play it, because the lopsided situation of the allies having air superiority does not make for a playable environment, where you have even teams. The allies slowed and stopped aircraft development toward the end of the war. The P-51D didn't change from early 44 until the end of the war and the K only had a slightly different propeller and some engine setting, which were all reversed in the field after only weeks, and yet the Germans, in oder to compensate for allied air superiority, kept developing their aircraft; thus the D-9 and K-4. So now you have equal numbers of the very last versions of German fighters going up against mid-to-later war versions of allied fighters, which is lopsided at best and completely unrealistic and unplayable.
ED never tried to plan anything like they seem to be doing down with the cold-war era. I'm not even sure if this is an actual plan, or just a great coincidence, but suddenly there are a large number of cold-war era aircraft coming out shortly or in development. This will have a huge synergy effect for the era aircraft, especially with the Kola map coming in soon as well. Caucasus, Kola, northern Israel (Syria), and southern Israel (Sinai), and there is a huge environment for cold war to go along with all the aircraft. The environment if fairly well represented.
ED should have done the same with WWII. But not Battle of Britain. That's been done. The market is saturated. But with just a hand full of aircraft, they could have done early war Pacific. Imagine an F4F Wildcat, SBD Dauntless, and an A6M2 Zero as flyable aircraft, with TBD Devastator, B5N Kate, and D3A Val as AI. Add other as they come; Betty, Corsair, PBY, all put together on a map of Guadalcanal and some surrounding islands and you'd have a unique set of aircraft in a unique environment, at an absolutely thrilling time in the war in which nobody had superiority, which I know the community would be enthralled with, and which could be built on linearly and logically along the calendar, adding new aircraft, new maps, ships and technologies.
That would have be an outstanding project for ED to undertake, instead of the mamby-pamby goalless direct it is going in now.
Some good points but I would like to point out that the entire point of DCS is to have a ultra realistic experience. To do that it takes the developers enormous amounts of time to make this possible. I personally appreciate that and the experience and detail to me is worth every penny. So if ya want the detail and the experience that means you need to pay a bit then that's ok by me.
I love IL-2 but I would definitely get into DCS WWII if it was less expensive. I already fly a few modern jets in DCS, and spent probably around 300€ in total already just on DCS modules. I am not spending another 100++€ just to get something that I can get out of IL2 for half the price.. It just doesn't make sense that their prices are so high! That's my opinion at least.
As an Aussie if there was a low or full fidelity CAC Boomerang or Wirraway I'd be all over WWII.
DCS high fidelity focus attracts the high fidelity crowd and the high fidelity crowd wants more high fidelity modules.
I don't know if adding more FC3 modules will wick away profits from FF planes or bring in more people but I'm guessing they don't want to risk it.
The cost isn't the main issue, it's not dirt cheap, but so are all games these days. We need to consider this game is developed for a small amount of players, some AAA(A) aren't and they asking 60-70€...
I think more variation is needed. The good of this game is also the bad, the high level of detail limits ED of just easy adding additional ai modules.
If im remember correct the will be an AI zero at some point (from the developers of the corsair)
Actually hoping that FlyingIron the devs doing the A-7 do their P-38L that they did for MSFS for DCS
DCS is about the plane itself and game second. IL-2 is about the game more and less of the plane. If DCS had a Flaming Cliffs 3 for WW-2 it would be IL-2. I have both. Each has its pros and cons.
If DCS was smart it would make a free Flaming Cliffs version of Zero so people would rush to buy upcoming Hellcats and Corsairs. Other non-clickables as an Pacific and Europe Asset packs hopefully with some torpedo and dive bombers.
Very good reasoning! Imo, the selection of flyable planes is not bad, it can grow steadily. But it would be exciting to have many more different plane types to fight, even if only AI controlled. AI planes can be integrated into the multiplayer environment to increase the number of ecounters.
For the time being, I'm sticking to IL-2 ;-)
You are spot on. The cash barrier to entry really holds back WWII. I have a lot of friends who want to get into this but you need Normandy, a plane, and the WWII assets and all of these pieces are overpriced. It is insane.
I think the best solution would be to make a WWII map and the asset pack free and just not put the planes on sale if that poses problems.
Lol you just said this as I typed it 😅
It’s definitely a more realistic ask than development of an FC3 pack imo, one costs them a bit financially but potentially increases returns long term.
The other would be costly and time consuming to develop even lower fidelity modules with no guarantee of any sales because at least for now, the interest isn’t there.
I am often tempted to fly in WWII, I remember learning about how you have to manually balance the fuel and thinking that sounded really interesting - but then I look at the blistering lack of variety and just go back to Cold War jets…
The reason the planes is small is because ED has said they will make an aircraft they can’t fly or talk people who have flown. So for example a JU-87 because none of those fly any,ore, and no one is alive who flew them. Sad but that is the down side to DCS right now.
The key missing variety for me are the contrasts between era's during the war. Relative aircraft performance changes during the war. Let's say you love flying FW-190's - Being forced to late war only in Anton, is a vastly different experience than 190A0-A3 early war. Spit V is not Spit IX :) 109E4/E7 would find something to do with I-16 - add a map and some AI. The Corsair clearly needed a Zero. I strongly prefer DCS aircraft. Oleg Maddox put clickable cockpits his last version of Il-2. Shame 1C didn't follow that thread. Only in this manner can you actually experience the human factors differences in aircraft design between nations.
FC3 WWII , no thanks, we can do IL2 instead which already has plenty of planes. The fidelity of DCS planes is what makes it stand out.
is making a cockpit clickable really a limiting factor? I've never made any DCS mods but it was really simple to do in X-Plane
There's a lot more to full fidelity than clickable cockpits. All the internal systems are modelled, every flight surface, electrical systems and so forth. Requires a lot of research and fine tuning. Hence why dcs module development is so slow compared to other flight sims
DR, one more question regarding Cost ! If a player wants to jump on a Random "Cold War" server , what planes can they Fly ? SU25 T is Free ! ..Helicopters ? F5, Mirage ? So NO cost to join MP Cold war Servers !
Not sure I understand the questions, but a lot of cold war servers run caucuses, so beyond the cost of the module there are no other costs. Good example is ECW when it's of caucus, where you can literally play for free using the the community A4 mod
I love DCS WW2 planes and maps but the problem is, unlike IL2, I don’t feel like I’m flying around in a war. Having the same ATC as the Cold War maps is silly. I know that the multiplayer servers are more immersive but like the majority of DCS players, I never touch multiplayer and have zero interest in it. Until we get dynamic campaigns in DCS I will continue to treat it like MSFS. I won’t be investing much in this era. Unfortunately WW2 is not the only issue. Until we get a Vietnam map many other new planes will be off my list as well. Not sure their strategy and thinking?
I won't never ever buy any FC3-style module. (I own FC3, but have never flown an aircraft from this package and have absolutely no interest in it) I play DCS because of the high fidelity modules. I will buy every high fidelity WW2 module though ;) (next will be: F4U, F6F and LA-7)
Why should anyone buy fc3 style ww2 modules for dcs when the better alternative in this case is IL2.
Yeah but if you think about it, even if you yourself don’t buy the pack, you’ll still get more variety in combat by being able to face off against a bigger variety of planes
Ugh...I don't know.. maybe like a Pacific Theater?
@@Shakedown1969 And then we have the problem that high fidelity modules compete against low fidelity modules in multiplayer. On the one hand, sophisticated engine management, on the other hand, not, for example. While this is certainly not a big problem in a PVE scenario, it becomes a problem in PVP at the latest. That's one of the reasons why so many people are waiting for redfor full fidelity modules (modern and cold war)
When i want to fly WWII, i fly IL-2. Because of the reasons listed. And well the modelling isnt as bad as you make it seem.
I've got some thoughts on this. I think the Pacific Theatre is a mistake, as it's spreading the butter out even more. In my opinion they should focus on one theatre at a time and curate a proper ecosystem for that first, and only then move on to a different theatre/timeframe, and hopefully with some overlap so they can recycle assets. My dream map would be an Italy/Sicily map, possibly all the way down to Tunisia, which would fit well with the planes we've got but also allow for the P-38, P-40, C.205, and so forth. Another option would be a Central European map covering the Eastern Front 1944, which would be a natural habitat for the La-7 and the German warbirds, but also cover a huge swathe of the Allied planes as lend-lease.
DCS does a great job making aircraft and map modules. However, they are very poor at sales, business, and keeping their customer based informed. All aircraft should be sold as a "package". Aircraft and maps should be sold together as a package at a lower price. Every WWII aircraft gets a free WWII Asset Pack. This will increase sales and eventually profits. DCS also needs to "fix" the aircraft they have already sold. I stopped playing multiplayer. I now use Retribution, and I tweak it in the Mission Editor.
I can’t wait to buy the f4u Corsair
Given the level of sophistication / simulation is the same between all DCS aircraft (minus fc3 style), you simply get more bang for your buck just by comparing a 4th gen fighter and all it's systems simulated to a WW2 aircraft with its limited avionics. I personally think there needs to be a bigger price difference between WW2 and modern planes.
Don’t we have plenty of ww2 modules? We currently have at least 4 high fidelity plane types on each side? I think that’s fairly good compared to modern era where’s there’s literally no high fidelity red planes available and aim120 everyday…
WW2 is almost entirely late war ETO. So the only setting is the Normandy campaign. If you fly on allied you will only ever come up against a 109K, or if you're lucky, one of the two 190s. It feels really sparse and I believe this is one of the major reasons why the era has so little population (there's basically one active populated server, and even that is normally dead mid-week)
Fair enough. Good points all and all i do agree that WW2 has some additional obstacles compared to the other theaters/eras. I love the idea of an FC3 for WW2, that we badly need!!@@Dr_Jebus
Well said, DCS has so much potential. Wish they would see that.
More AI aircraft types is all I'd ask for.
Long shot I know, but I wonder if they will ever have WW 1 maps and planes. *shrug-
@@WhiskeyHunterVAT69 no plans that I know of, and since WW2 isn't really fleshed out, I wouldn't expect so any time soon. If you want a fun WW1 though, IL2 has two WW1 expansions including a career mode now. Not as full fidelity as DCS, but very good all the same
What about 50% discount for your first order? 65$ for this pack of P-51D + Normandy 2.0 + WW2 Assets is not really that steep. Of course not for everyone but if you can't spend this kind of money on game, you probably have bigger problems to face.
Big big no-no to non full fidelity aircraft in DCS. Enigma really did not make good points in that video at all in my view. That aside, Non full fidelity defeats DCS' point, its strong suit. No for ww2, no for cold war, and no for any period imo.
I have to disagree with you. I think you are exaggerating the barrier. It's all about the expense of any hobby, Hobbies are expensive, regardless what kind of hobby it is. Most people interested in flight sims understand the cost, and the computer itself is the major expense, along with the control hardware. They generally have a good rig to start with unless they are strictly a console player. I think dumbing down the aircraft is not the way to go. I believe ED was working on a easy flying game called Modern Air Combat, but not sure if they are still working on that or not.
Not sure if you have an ear to the ground, but Wags has indicated they are reaching the end of modern fighters, which leaves the older gen fighters and WW2 to be the arena they will focus on. What's frustrating is how slow they are to build out these warbirds, and as you pointed out, everyone is tired of flying the same old map. If you've seen the 2024 and beyond video, you will notice they are getting the WW2 version of the Marianas in shape, the Hellcat, the F-4u, the later gen Skyraider are getting created. They will be getting the Forrestal class carriers. They have teased that someone will be creating a real Mitsubishy (pretty sure I mucked that word up, lol!) Zero. There will be a Northern Australia map (hopefully including Malaysia and Indonesia portions), along with pacific assets built. I see much potential for the war birds in the future- I hope you have a pair of sunglasses, because the future is bright for DCS.
Disappointments - hell yes, I wish they could create a map of the European conflict, Europe is small in relation to some of the maps that are being created, and I truly wish they could take these maps and intelligently combine them to load when needed for some of the long bombing missions.
I agree, they need to provide a free full Fidelity war bird, not just a plane with no guns on it, they need to provide a free to learn on helicopter also. The DCS Sand Box is large and it takes a lot to create something interesting in it. They need to get more involved in the pilot training with full courses available when you buy your first aircraft. That has always been my pet peeve, they give it to you and then you're basically on your own from there on.
Tienes razón, totalmente de acuerdo.
It cost money. That's what sucks about it. There's nothing wrong with this as a sim, it cost too damn much money and there's Community mods out there that are free.
Hell No!!
The only reason why we the WWII dcs community chose DCS over IL2 is due the fidelity and the quality of each aircraft....
How you are gonna think that downgrade such quality will improve DCS ww2?
Those who want many aircraft should go IL2 and leave DCS alone. Those who wants fewer aircraft but good realistic quality, welcome to DCS.
I agree with the price issue, but leave the quality alone. That is what makes DCS especial
dcs is too expensive to get into in general. I have had their modules in wishlist for years but i just can never justify a purchase of anything to myself - too much money and time are needed to be sunk into it . Certainly if the prices were lower it would be more attactive. I dont know why that isnt the case when it comes to games just being completely digital now -its not as though a company has to pay for the creation of each copy of the game.
I really hope they jump on the WW2 era, I really like the idea of "guns only" air battle in ww2 planes. but as you mentioned, i don't want to spend an extra 100 Euros just for that experience. especially if i don't like the experience after a while. and a FC 4 is definitely needed in the game. that could bring in some new players. i kinda wish the DCS community was more open for less fidelity craft. Maybe have flaming cliffs 4, 5 and 6 be 8ish craft per pack and have a community vote on which one to make full fidelity? even if they don't do full fidelity would be really fun to have 8-24 new craft within 3 years.
Agreed and agreed.
Instead of making DCS more like IL2 why not just buy IL2? I own all of the DCS WW2 content (since I can not resist a new WW2 aircraft release) but hardly ever fly it since is so limited in scope. In particular the lack of a dynamic career mode like IL2 kills it for me. I can only fly the same scripted campaigns so many times until they become boring. I hate knowing in advence how a mission will play out. I have no interest is making my own missions since I will know in advance how it will play out. Major change is needed to make DCS a reasonable choice for WW2 simulation I don't see that happening any time soon.
Dcs should be Korea vietnam Persian gulf up to early 2000s. Planes and helis. Then ww2 be separate on the same engine.
What about airframes that served across those periods, like the P-51D and F4U, both of which fought in WW2 and in Korea alongside F-86s and MiG-15s? Or A-26s that fought from WW2 through Vietnam?
Putting an artificial barrier between arbitrarily chosen time periods seems counterproductive to me.
@@bronco5334 I don't care for any of it beyond the more modern myself. Start at the jets that were useful then.
@@MrGs500f Oh, well, by all means, if that's all YOU like, then fuck everyone else's preferences, amirite?
Hi Dr J. Some of your points I agree with. Plane Variety, yes ! But this goes Back a lot Further when Planes were Selected by Another Dev...That Dev Collapsed...DCS Tookover and Honored and delivered those Planes (minus Me 262). Hence the plane selection we have in DCS WW2 today.......Where I disagree (1) Cost ! Most serious Flight Simmers have Spent Thousands on their PC and Hardware ! Is a Hundred Dollars Expensive for a Plane and Terrain ?
(2) Single Player Content . I can say , Reflected and others have given me Hours and Hours of Great Single Player Flying !
(3) Multiplayer ! I dont know the numbers who bought DCS and how many are Single Players and Online Players.... What I do Know from this and "Other" Sims, Is that the MP voice is Loud on Forums and YT etc. How much of the Player base do they Represent ? I dont Know !...
MP players show how they get 6 kills ! Wow ! They Know every Map and Airbase and Runway ! They Have SRS and Discord and they Have a Club that Single Players have to try to absorb before joining their Club.
Doc, Do you think MP attendance is a Sign of a Sucessfull Sim ? ....Maybe , Try and Encourage More SPs over to MP . Otherwise, you sound like another MP (I want Now ) complainer !
Doc, All due respect mate !
I don't feel that wanting a healthy MP is detracting from a healthy single player. I play both. I enjoy both. But as it stands, most of the time I can't do multiplayer WW2 as there is basically one populated server and that is often empty during the week. I don't see how bringing more players into the game would hurt singleplayer
Eagle Dynamics should just do this, for example, AI only versions of 6 planes A6M Zero, Ki-84 Hyate, Ki-43 Hayabusa, D3A Val, B5N Kate, B6N Jill, additionally at least one Japanese carrier and Japanese naval assets ie. destroyers, cruisers, a BB or 2 and some landing craft. These 6 aircraft should then be developed into an FC type low fidelity release. After that any of them that can be developed further into high fidelity releases developed further. This would give ED the ability to begin testing the flight models long before they ever get flown by players as the flight models are going to be one of the really big issues in getting high fidelity releases for any Japanese WWII aircraft beyond documentation on all the systems. It's the problem with DCS in all era's really, not quite enough aircraft or assets to really do complete era simulations. Vietnam is a great example as we don't have a proper map and we are missing several aircraft needed to really do a proper simulation of the conflict. I'm looking at you HeatBlur with the A6E Intruder.
Absolute GARBAGE Microsoft needs to re-imagine Combat Flight Simulator 1 2 & 3
In principle I agree with your and Engima's idea of an FC4/FCWW2 style pack. In practice I'm not sure if it'd really solve the issue. Full disclosure I know jack all about software development, but I do wonder how much of a dev/money sink 'clicky pits' are versus the actual fidelity of the flight model, engine modeling, ect. If it was just the cockpit interactions that were missing but everything else was at or near FF, ok groovy. But if it uses an SFM, I think that'd really hurt the experience. At that point might as well play War Thunder.
Wow, that was on point😅
Solomon and guadalcanal
I've never had any aviation youtubers like Rex or Bismarck plug in dcs as a sponsor. Money obviously not a factor to let's say Wt players who's accounts cost in 4 digits (accumulated over a decade) what is not clear is simply- what do I get in return? How come there nothing out there from dcs to wet my appetite? I get ads from wot, wows and wt and bunch of other games. Where's dcs?
That is a good point. Dcs could probably do with more sponsorships or generally helping the existing content creators. Though WT and other free to play games do tend to be much heavier on marketing than paid games like DCS and IL2. But having some more marketing beyond the sale trailers couldn't hurt
Left Shift + Left Ctrl + Y
I agree with others here. Pretty eye candy and all but product strategy is non-existent. It’s various dev groups pulling in all directions. For instance Heat Blur and their upcoming F-4. Other than boom and zoom videos where’s the Vietnam theater of operations map that hey are best known for? Where’s the career to start off in and build up over time? Where’s the scenario packs? Where’s the incentive to start a continued service in such a plane? There isn’t. Unless you just keep building seperate scenarios yourself with the pain staking editor. The fans of DCS will call me out here but out of the box I get all that with IL2, particualty with the time period maps that coincide with the aircraft in question and a career mode on top of that if I wish.
The other big thing is I don’t know if it’s the latest fad or what, but aircraft in DCS seem to be in “early access” for eternity, literally. So you’re paying for a high fidelity aircraft up front that hopefully, someday before you die, will actually be a finished product.
Its not a case of flyable airframes, its the lack of AI content be it ground or air. The WWII asset pack is quite honestly a joke, charging for AI content? Seriously? Now don't get me wrong, I love what ED have done / doing with DCS, I own most of the ED catalogue. But... Either hire more hands to create the content or call it a day and tell the users there you go, thats all folks and leave future content development to the 3rd party modders. Whilst I own all the WWII modules I never fly them in a combat scenario, there is just no point. There is no real reason to when there are other sims out there that cater for the genre that are a darn sight cheaper and have a lot more "oomph" to them. I was opposed to ED going down the Warbird route when first announced and I still am, DCS, in my humble opinion, should stick to the Cold War /Modern era. Just my two penneth and a shrug to anywho who feels my opinions are salty.