2 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

there was a rumor some 5 years ago, on the DCS forum, of some joint work with Orbx. Never went thru I suppose. 

The world map development is ongoing. It’s not exactly a simple project in DCS terms (objects need to be destructible)

 Orbx is making an individual map, and they are still at it.

3 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

there was a rumor some 5 years ago, on the DCS forum, of some joint work with Orbx. Never went thru I suppose. 

As Conundrum said.  The ORBX map of northern Europe is nearing release.  The world map is being developed similar to the way MSFS, with worldwide sat imagery on a mesh and procedurally added buildings etc.

The DCS flight model also strikes me as far superior to base MSFS game physics.  

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Remember version 3?

Yes, it was terrible! 

I really can’t see Microsoft re-entering this part of the market.

Thankfully…..

27 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Yes, it was terrible! 

I really can’t see Microsoft re-entering this part of the market.

Thankfully…..

I don't think it was bad at the time ! But what was better at the time? 

Since MS layoff Aces studio nobody could predict they would come back!

As a former USAF aviator, I would like to add my 2 cents. I flew B-52's during the Vietnam era and dropped bombs. I later flew the RF-4C in the US. In the B-52's we did a lot of "simulated" bomb runs. In the RF-4C I did a lot of photographic runs over many targets. I also participated in two Red Flags where weapons release was simulated. My point is that the military rarely does life weapon fire. These are done on designated ranges. Even BFM is simulated with Fox 2 or Guns, guns, guns calls. So, having live weapons in MSFS is like having a conceal weapon permit. You can carry your Glock but how often will you use it? (Hopefully never.)

What I love in DCS and wish we had in MSFS are the realistic flight models and operations. What DCS offers is a true combat environment where the enemy can shot you down. In the dynamic missions what you do can effect other aspects of the campaign. It would take a lot of programming to do this in MSFS.

Combat usually takes place in a small area, think Iraq or Ukraine. That is why the DCS Maps can be small in size. They are based on areas where combat has taken place or reasonably will happen. Shooting down unsuspecting airliners is unrealistic, even if you think of them as drug runners. 

A lot my flying in the RF-4C was cross-country. I went to different bases and once to an airshow. You can do this in MSFS. In the B-52D we usually took off, flew 10-12 hours, landed, and deplaned in the same spot we left 12 hours before. I don't think many of you want to do that. 

I would like to see somebody build the various military bases in MSFS to the quality of top civilian airports. Then I could fly cross-country from say Barksdale, AFB in Louisiana to Dyess, AFB in Texas. That would be like the airliner guys flying from St, Louis International to JFK. 

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't think it was bad at the time ! But what was better at the time? 

Since MS layoff Aces studio nobody could predict they would come back!

It was killed off - or rather shot down - by a Russian aero engineer and part time computer programmer called Oleg Maddox who produced a game called IL2 Sturmovik.

There was nothing revolutionary about IL2 but for the first time it brought everything together in one game; an accurate and believable flight and damage model, excellent graphics, good performance on an average pc, a decent GUI and a reliable multiplayer net code that could not be hacked.

It had the same effect on Combat Flight Simulator 3 as MSFS has had on P3D.

I don't miss being stationed at Barksdale AFB nor the loud smelly B-52s.

What a terrible first assignment for a first term Airman, but hey someone has to do it🤣

Good ole Barktucky 🤣

Edited February 5, 20242 yr by blueshark747

23 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

It was killed off - or rather shot down - by a Russian aero engineer and part time computer programmer called Oleg Maddox who produced a game called IL2 Sturmovik.

There was nothing revolutionary about IL2 but for the first time it brought everything together in one game; an accurate and believable flight and damage model, excellent graphics, good performance on an average pc, a decent GUI and a reliable multiplayer net code that could not be hacked.

It had the same effect on Combat Flight Simulator 3 as MSFS has had on P3D.

Not really, Nothing was revolutionary about IL2 when it first appeared other than Soviet planes . Oleg was pretty stubborn and often took some time to get convinced to change his vision "realism" and "damage" models to something actual real. It took a long time for Il-2 become popular in the west by that time MCS3 was long time abandoned.

 P.S. I knew Oleg personally and visited him in his office! Back in days I helped him with a lot of WW2 manuals, historic photo, documents and so on that I was able to obtained here. I scanned them and sent them to him. In addition, once in while in person I delivered requested materials him  directly in his office in Moscow. I even got honored by having 3d pilot modeled after me. LOL Good old time when we thought we are brother nations 😞

By the way some of Maddox Game engineers eventually moved working in DCS and IL2:Great Battles. That includes An.Petrovich who now  works  for MSFS team. 

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Not really, Nothing was revolutionary about IL2 when it first appeared other than Soviet planes

—————————

It took a long time for Il-2 become popular in the west by that time MCS3 was long time abandoned.

Read what I wrote again 😃.

Btw; IL2 was launched before CFS3. IL2 took off because of the free to play demo attached to all those pc magazines back then. A brilliant piece of marketing by UbiSoft.

I can tell you, it wiped out CFS3 virtually overnight. 
All is not lost however, my disc for CFS3 still does useful work. For twenty-two years it has been under one of the legs of my brother in law’s work bench, keeping it level.

p.s. brother nations? With the Bear? Yeah right. You guys have to make your minds up sooner or later…..

 

Edited February 5, 20242 yr by DD_Arthur

31 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

p.s. brother nations? With the Bear? Yeah right. You guys have to make your minds up sooner or later…..

 

 You don't how know how they hosted me back then! I got to meet and even bond with Polikarpov grand son (if know I-16 was his grandfather design), visited Oleg in his workshop, witness his employees at work and tons of work in progress! I was practically insider! There was  no hostilities of any kind. They knew who I was and where I was from. By the way Oleg made a trip to Chino air museum. Later I did couple trips on his behalf taking picture of different WW2 bird at specific angles and location. LOL

Those people knew me well. Even now beloved  DCS  knew me back then. DCS asked me to find A-10 pilot so they could test their A-10 model. I did found one a retired general and connected them! But in the end A-10 veteran declined to cooperate. Whatever his reason was he said he flew A-10A and DCS wanted A-10C. I even argue with DCS that A-10 is better than SU-25 and was able to convinced them when their get all data! LOL Sadly things changed after 2014...      

6 hours ago, jmig said:

As a former USAF aviator, I would like to add my 2 cents. I flew B-52's during the Vietnam era and dropped bombs. I later flew the RF-4C in the US. In the B-52's we did a lot of "simulated" bomb runs. In the RF-4C I did a lot of photographic runs over many targets. I also participated in two Red Flags where weapons release was simulated. My point is that the military rarely does life weapon fire. These are done on designated ranges. Even BFM is simulated with Fox 2 or Guns, guns, guns calls. So, having live weapons in MSFS is like having a conceal weapon permit. You can carry your Glock but how often will you use it? (Hopefully never.)

 

You summarize the issue very neatly. Not so long ago, someone questioned the rationale behind the Just Flight Vulcan, since it couldn't go and drop a nuclear weapon. In reality, the type flew hundreds of thousands of sorties, without ever dropping a nuclear weapon - so what is more authentic than that ?

You flew the B-52 ; have you contacted Simworks Studio at all?  They have a B-52 project on the go, and would bite your hand off if you offered your experience and knowledge.

14 minutes ago, Paul K said:

You summarize the issue very neatly. Not so long ago, someone questioned the rationale behind the Just Flight Vulcan, since it couldn't go and drop a nuclear weapon. In reality, the type flew hundreds of thousands of sorties, without ever dropping a nuclear weapon - so what is more authentic than that ?

Well said

Couldn't we just have searchlights and flak explosions over major German and British cities?

8 hours ago, dobee51 said:

Couldn't we just have searchlights and flak explosions over major German and British cities?

These things, every scenery dev would be able and free to do it ... if they wish so.

For me, it's not a moral issue. It's a live player issue. It's already annoying enough seeing dopes spawn on the runway at St. Barts in a 747. Now we're talking about giving them missiles? It'll be nothing but explosions at any popular "hangout" area, which will look stupid and probably not exactly do wonders for framerates either.

DCS is vastly superior for military-style flying, and the base sim is free. Grab an F18 and/or an F16 during one of their 50% off sales and you'll have a fighter sim that MSFS simply can't touch. I know, you can't fly all over the world in DCS but, you know what? When you're at 15,000 feet trying not to get shot down, you don't really notice the scenery beyond "the ground's that way, don't hit it."

Given there's no way MSFS will ever replicate what DCS can already do, I don't see the obnoxiosity that would result from live weapons as being worth the degraded fun we'd have shooting them.

 

Edited February 6, 20242 yr by eslader