More realistic than arma?

[Bepis]

Thinking about buying.

[Nyaznable]

A million times more

[fearlessfrog]

For individual vehicles, especially the aircraft, then yes, DCS is more realistic. Aircraft like the A10C, the P-51 etc have a lot of depth and simulation modelling, much more so than ARMA3. The DCS A10C was actually used by the US Air National Guard in helping convert types as a cockpit familiarization tool.

In terms of infantry, ARMA is stronger on the ground.

For Armor, the Combined Arm's strength is in tatical situation planning and especially in CO-OP with others in Multiplayer. It is not yet a full armor simulator, like Steel Beasts and really more about a 'Joint Task Force' situation, that involves air assets.

Here's a JTAC example for the A10C, using realistic procedures:

http://youtu.be/-w1_lMzybXQ

Here's an example of Combined Arms gameplay:

http://youtu.be/yOmp6etNwB8

Hope that helps.

[GenBrien]

depends of the plane. DCs A-10C is the simulator used by the USAF, so yes, it's more realistic than Arma

[Nyaznable]

fearlessfrog lähetti viestin:

In terms of infantry, ARMA is stronger on the ground.

For Armor, the Combined Arm's strength is in tatical situation planning and especially in CO-OP with others in Multiplayer. It is not yet a full armor simulator, like Steel Beasts and really more about a 'Joint Task Force' situation, that involves air assets.

I would like to point out that DCS is not trying to be an infantry "sim", the ground assets are on more of a macro scale.

[Raptor13270]

If you're talking about infantry or ground assets, its nowhere close to ArmA.

If you're talking about aircraft however, ArmA's flight model is considered as an arcade flight model with lots of hand holding.

[Nyaznable]

You could also just try the free su-25 to get some idea of what it is like.

[Big Ram]

In terms of flight simulation, yes, DCS is significantly more realistic than Arma. DCS is widely accepted as the most advanced flight simulation available outside of the military.

[fearlessfrog]

Duck Hunter lähetti viestin:

fearlessfrog lähetti viestin:

In terms of infantry, ARMA is stronger on the ground.

For Armor, the Combined Arm's strength is in tatical situation planning and especially in CO-OP with others in Multiplayer. It is not yet a full armor simulator, like Steel Beasts and really more about a 'Joint Task Force' situation, that involves air assets.

I would like to point out that DCS is not trying to be an infantry "sim", the ground assets are on more of a macro scale.

That's true, I didn't want to give the impression it's really like a first-person infantry sim.

[Ivana Humpalot]

Always good to see developers interacting with and helping players.
This and the impressive gameplay videos have tickled my fancy and I am about to give DCS a try, however, I must admit the advanced controls and difficulty seems abit daunting to me.

I do hope afew newbie questions are in order:

Is it possible to change settings to less realistic?
Can you skip takeoff and landing?
Is there a timeskip feature?
If I could learn and play (for example) Rise Of Flight without difficulty, should I be able to learn the control for DCS?

Regards

/Me

[fearlessfrog]

Yes, there is a game mode per module, but if you are ok with Rise of Flight then you'll certainly be ok with Flaming Cliffs / FC3 (and the free Su25T) and Sim mode.

The Instant Start for each module has air starts, and you can finish a mission without landing, if objectives are met. You can also change the time rate, but do be on autopilot first.

[Ivana Humpalot]

fearlessfrog lähetti viestin:

Yes, there is a game mode per module, but if you are ok with Rise of Flight then you'll certainly be ok with Flaming Cliffs / FC3 (and the free Su25T) and Sim mode.

The Instant Start for each module has air starts, and you can finish a mission without landing, if objectives are met. You can also change the time rate, but do be on autopilot first. :D:

Thank you very much.

The answers were both quick and carried with them good news indeed.
It seems I shall climb into the cockpit and try this out first hand.

Tip of the hat to you sir.

Kind regards

/Me

[Raptor13270]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOhT0lVDLQA

This will be the most important thing that you need to know when playing Flaming Cliffs 3's fighters.

[R2COM]

DCS Combined Arms so far looks like a joke. I respect Black Shark 2 and A10-C warthog, and going to spend some time learning it. But what is the point of making combined arms?

I was thinking to buy it, just to support developers but I am not too sure about it.

If DCS does reslistic sims, please make EVERYTHING realistic, or do not make it. It is pointless to spend time on toy stuff, there are already tons of games which do simplified vehicle combat, for example ArmA 3 with its joke simulation of vehicles (I play it mainly for infantry).

But I really REALLY REALLY want to see something like DCS: Combined Arms 2, where ALL vehicles would be FULLY simulated! All switches and everything clickable inside a tank! No more funny simplistic 1st person view with "radar" and other stuff. Just all view from inside! Challening stuff! I want this!

[kazereal]

r2com lähetti viestin:

DCS Combined Arms so far looks like a joke. I respect Black Shark 2 and A10-C warthog, and going to spend some time learning it. But what is the point of making combined arms?

It's not supposed to be a "tank driving sim" but more about "tank commander", point being that you can be JTAC on A-10C and command ground forces. The ability to drive them is just a "bonus" and not the actual point of it.

Let's see if it develops in the future to be a more full ground vehicle simulation also.

[Raptor13270]

Here's your future tank driving sim right here.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121008

"5 - In additional to our traditional focus on aircraft, we are also gradually expanding and improving the ground combat component of DCS World. Not only does this include continued improvements and additions to Combined Arms, but also work towards our first DCS level armor vehicle simulation." - ED Newsletter, March 28th 2014