homepage Forums Air Combat & Civil Aviation DCS World DCS F/A-18C Progress Update.

cockpit's fan is not even moving....

pffffffffff

When a lot of what a product is marketed as fails to appear, or is quietly crossed off the list, it impacts on the quality of it.

I'd have a beer, too, but I just want one.

We all know BST's products are still missing stuff, but what exactly have they struck off the feature list per se?

Okay, now that IS unacceptable. Why would you even bother simulating magnificent helicopter of glorious Mil design bureau if you are not going to take the time to simulate ingenious soviet climate control solution?

Please feel free to deliberately miss point because you don't like it. You know exactly what I mean to say, but you just want to be a jerk about it. Unless you were shot in the head with a 30mm shell you can't possibly fail to understand. In return, I will now attempt to be a bigger jerk where possible, because I do not wish to allow you to be the bigger one. Why? Why not?

In case you WERE shot in the head with a 30mm shell:

FSX is easier to develop for than DCS World

The small number of developers who are capable of making planes for both are picking the easy route over the hard one

If FSX didn't exist, they would have no choice but to make DCS planes instead, because FSX doesn't exist. Because it's not there.

I find the concept of a driving sim where you get in a car and drive from home to work and back and occasionally drive across state on a vacation dull and boring. I feel the same way about FSX.

I would love a world where FSX never existed so all developers would be devoting time to DCS World instead, no matter how "hard" it is

But please, feel free to once again insist that nothing would be different if FSX didn't exist. Whether you want to say it's "at fault" or not is an issue of semantics.




The Jedi Master

Why do you assume they'd go to DCS instead? Let's face it, FSX has more customers for a reason, despite DCS being more suited for combat sim. Who knows, maybe the vast majority of the market wouldn't settle for a bug, delay and crap PR riddled game, even if FSX a would just disappear?

Ah, not so fast: who's to say even under that scenario, developing 3d party modules for DCSW would be any more economically viable?

Yes, it's easier to develop on a platform that hasn't changed for almost a decade. Also, everything you said about DCS applies to the entirety of the flight sim scene.

That's because YOU people are always whining and complaining... //runs away

FSX was designed to survive off addons from day 1

But of course: FSX is just a platform for add-ons, without add-ons, FSX is junk.

Not sure where that leaves DCSW though.

Same boat conceptually, different boat in practice.

A-10C, KA-502, and FC survived as separate sims just fine. It just made sense to merge everything under one engine and one set of shared resources.

Instead of having 3 installs, where the only difference was the player aircraft folder.
Ie, 4-8GB of identical files for AI, maps, objects, system, UI/Menu, etc And 200-600mb of files unique to the player aircraft.

Actually, BS2 never existed 'alone' since it was created to be network compatible with A-10C. It also came out only nine months after A-10C, so the A-10C did not stand by itself for very long.

And KA-50 1.02 networked with FC2, but for the most part they were standalone since they each required their own install, regardless of network interplay.

Meh, 38 pages, is the Bug out yet? In beta? Where's the link??

Force10, Change the TITLE to "Development Chit Chat"

Almost ALL participants in the original topic helped steer this away from the OP's subject (yourself included). If the OP wants me to change the title I will�or he can do it himself.