No, I will contest your opinion. Protesting is not what I am doing.
Ooo..kay.... Grammatical rivet counting aside...
Originally Posted By: LukeFF
Oh, my word. Again, FSX never has been marketed as a game that has air combat as a primary feature. It's quite obvious to everyone in the room that people fly FSX to (wait for it) learn how to fly a plane and learn the ins and out of it.
OK - So, just trying to get this straight, your stance is that ED should absolutely not let DCS evolve into anything other than a combat flight simulator? Just trying to get what your point is.
Originally Posted By: LukeFF
No, I am not, and I'm not hardly the only one who feels the way I do. Go back and take a look at when DCS:P-51 was announced: plenty of people were asking what in the world they were supposed to do with a 1940s-era aircraft on a modern-era map. Learn procedures and fly helo transport missions? Sure, that's fine, and I have no issues with people who want to do that, in either DCS or FSX. What I've been trying to get at is that's never been the primary marketing strategy of DCS to model planes just so people can fly around and enjoy the scenery. The vast majority of people right now who buy DCS titles do so because the planes featured can blow other stuff up and do so in high-fi detail. Perhaps that will change in the future, but right now DCS has nowhere near the same number of flyable aircraft to be called an alternative to FSX.
Thank you - that actually makes my argument for me. Precisely. What. I've. Been. Saying. Rome wasn't built in a day.
