Ich bin hin und her gerissen was meine Bewertung angeht, einerseits ist DCS schon echt super wenn man ernsthaft Millitär Sims Fliegen möchte, da es viele verschiedene Flugzeugmuster gibt und da liegt der Hase im Pfeffer begraben.

Ich möchte darauf aufmerksam machen, das sich meine Bewertung jetzt NUR an die Preispolitik der Flugzeug-Module von ED selber richtet und das sich diese Bewertung wieder ändern kann, sofern eine verbesserung eintritt.

Das Spiel an sich macht höllisch Laune (was meine Std mit dem SIM belegen), vor allem mit anderen zusammen und vieles funktioniert schon ganz gut. Also nochmals, meine Bewertung umschließt rein die Preisgestaltung und die Umstände dessen:

ED schafft es einfach nicht, Flugzeuge die sie selber anbieten, auch fertig zu stellen.
Viele werden in der Alpha veröffentlicht um Geld in die Kasse zu spülen, an sich mittlerweile eine gängige Praxis und wäre auch verzeihlich (Der Käufer wird ja informiert, das es eine Alpha ist), dies setze aber voraus, das die Arbeiten an den Flugzeugen fertig werden.

Bestes Beispiel hierfür sind die letzten Flugzeugmuster: F-16 und F-18
beides super Flieger, aber seit langer Zeit immer noch nicht komplettiert und die Entwicklung kriecht wie eine Schnecke, dass eine Entwicklung Zeit benötigt ist klar, aber dann die Muster mit versprechen der raschen Fertigstellung in einer sehr frühen ALPHA Version in den EarlyAccess Verkauf zu bringen und dann so gut wie nichts weiter passiert, ist eine frechheit.
Ich habe nichts gegen EarlyAccess und Veröffentlichung im Alpha Stadium (habe schon so manches Game gekauft in EA und Alpha), so kommt Geld in die Kasse, aber eine Fertigstellung sollte dann erbracht werden.

ED verkauft lieber unfertiges um den RUBEL am rollen zu halten (Super Carrier, jetzt neu angekündigt der Eurofighter, P-47...)
Aufgrund dessen, werde ich diesen SIM (so leit es mir tut) im Aktuellen Status negativ bewerten.

Ich möchte zum schluss noch anmerken, das es auch Flugzeug-Module von Drittanbietern
gibt (M2000, F-14 Tomcat...) die von meiner Bewertung NICHT betroffen sind.
Die F-14 ist ein super Beispiel wie eine Entwicklung von ALPHA und EA zum fertigen Produkt sein kann, ein TOP Produkt.

Wie gesagt, meine Bewertung bezieht sich rein auf die Module-Politik, auch möchte festhalten, dass dies Bewertungssystem von STEAM leider nur 2 Möglichkeiten bietet (Top / Schlecht).

Am liebsten wäre es mir, wenn dies feiner eingestuft werden könnte, wie mit einem Sternesystem, dann würde mein Negativ Daumen etwas nach oben wandern und meine Bewertung besser verstanden werden.

DCS ist sehr geldsüchtig und verlangt für ein flugzeug 73 € ich glaub ich spinne da ist sogar war thunder billiger

ich glaub man muss echter Pilot sein um das zu können ich brauch gefühlt 9000 000 tasten um normal fliegen zu können nix für einen noob wie mich ^^

---

Before you invest your valuable time and hard-earned money into DCS, you should know the truth behind the game and its developer. This isn’t just a review; it’s an important breakdown of the realities surrounding DCS, its business practices, and why many players feel both awe and frustration. If you’re considering joining the community, this is a must-read.

---


Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) isn’t just a game—it’s a study sim. This means it offers an unparalleled level of detail and realism, requiring players to dedicate countless hours learning the intricate systems of modern and historical aircraft.

The visuals are breathtaking. From the stunning aircraft models to the dynamic weather effects, every detail adds to the immersion. Flying with friends in multiplayer is where DCS truly shines, delivering experiences that feel as close to real aviation as a simulation can get.

However, it’s not all smooth flying. Behind the beautiful exterior lies a game that’s heavily burdened by technical and managerial shortcomings. If you’re considering diving into DCS, there are some critical things you need to know.

---


DCS is built on a very old engine with legacy code that struggles to keep up with modern gaming standards. While updates are regularly pushed, the core infrastructure is woefully inefficient. As a result, the game relies heavily on brute-force hardware to maintain acceptable performance.

Even with a high-end PC, you’ll likely face challenges in maintaining smooth frame rates—especially in complex missions or when using VR. It’s a frustrating situation, considering the hardware requirements feel unnecessary for what the game offers. DCS doesn’t utilize hardware efficiently, and instead, it demands top-tier specs to compensate for its outdated engine.

For a game released in 2008, this reliance on raw power instead of optimization is unacceptable and a significant barrier for new players.

---



For many, the true issue with DCS lies not in the game itself but in the company behind it—Eagle Dynamics (ED). To understand the growing dissatisfaction in the community, you must look at the connection between ED and its parent company, The Fighter Collection (TFC).

TFC is a private UK-based organization focused on restoring historical military aircraft. Noble as that mission may sound, this relationship creates a troubling conflict of interest. Under the leadership of Nick Grey, who oversees both TFC and ED, many believe DCS primarily exists as a revenue source to fund TFC’s restoration projects rather than as a dedicated flight simulator platform.

This dynamic has resulted in a damaging cycle:

• Aggressive Monetization: New modules, campaigns, and features are pushed out constantly, often in unfinished states.
  
• Unfinished Products: Promised features like Vulkan integration and the dynamic campaign remain in perpetual limbo.
  
• Neglect of Existing Modules: Older modules rarely see meaningful updates, despite being sold at premium prices.

One of the most shocking examples of ED’s questionable practices is the ongoing sale of the F-15E Strike Eagle module. Developed by third-party team Razbam, the module was highly anticipated but quickly became a disaster.

Razbam reportedly went unpaid by ED, leading to the dissolution of their development team. The module has since been abandoned, with no updates or support expected. Yet, ED continues to sell it as a full-price DLC without disclosing its unfinished and unsupported state.

💔 This is outright deception:

• Customers are not informed that the promised features are unlikely to ever materialize.
  
• There’s no warning or disclaimer, leaving buyers unaware of the risks.
  
• Refunds are nearly impossible to obtain, especially through platforms like Steam.

ED knowingly leaves customers in the dark to maximize profits, prioritizing monetization over transparency and customer satisfaction.

---


DCS modules are expensive, often costing more than AAA games. While the depth and realism might justify the price for some, the issue lies in the delivery:

• Modules Are Frequently Incomplete: Many are released in unfinished states, with key features missing and updates delayed indefinitely.
  
• Paid "Upgrades": Recently, ED began charging for minor graphical improvements to older modules, despite these updates feeling like they should be free.
  
• Core Features Are Still Missing: Promises like Vulkan support or the long-awaited dynamic campaign remain unfulfilled.

These issues highlight a troubling pattern: ED focuses on revenue generation at the expense of delivering a polished, reliable product. For a game so deeply rooted in community trust, this is a massive betrayal.

---


One of the most frustrating aspects of ED’s management is their lack of transparency.

• Updates are delayed without explanation.
  
• Announcements are vague or misleading.
  
• The community is often left in the dark for years regarding the status of promised features or fixes.

This lack of communication, combined with aggressive monetization, leaves players feeling exploited. Instead of fostering goodwill, ED’s actions create an environment of distrust and disappointment.

---


If you’re considering joining the world of DCS, here’s what you need to understand:

• It’s Expensive: Modules cost as much or more than AAA games, and you’ll need multiple to get the full experience.
  
• It’s a Commitment: Learning to operate these aircraft can take weeks or months. This is not a casual game.
  
• It’s Hardware-Intensive: Without a top-tier PC, you’ll face significant performance issues.
  
• The Company is Controversial: ED’s business practices and lack of transparency have alienated a large part of the community.

---


DCS is an amazing platform with the potential to be the ultimate flight simulator, but it’s held back by mismanagement and corporate greed. The game’s depth and realism are unparalleled, but these strengths are overshadowed by Eagle Dynamics’ troubling priorities.

💡 For New Players: Be aware of the risks before investing your time and money. Understand that many modules are incomplete, performance can be frustrating, and the company’s practices often leave players feeling exploited.

💡 For Veterans: It’s painful to watch a platform with such potential repeatedly fail its community. The aggressive monetization, broken promises, and lack of transparency are not just disappointing—they’re unacceptable.

Until Eagle Dynamics addresses these core issues, DCS will remain a deeply flawed masterpiece. It’s a game that inspires awe in the skies but leaves many players grounded in frustration.

Kostenlos spielbar mmmmhhhh Wenn du 5 Inhalte runterladen willst, biste fast 200€ los. Das ist von kostenlos spielbar sehr weit entfernt

DCS is weird in that it is extremely polarizing. Either you buy it and it becomes the only game you ever play, in which case the game is an easy recommend and offers literally thousands of hours of fun. Or you dabble, like I do, and you constantly wonder if the time, money, hard drive space, and headache is worth it. Its an example of a game that is obviously well made with a dedicated fan base, but is nevertheless likely a 'pass' for most gamers, and even some fans of the genre.

The Good:
The game is well made. It runs well on my older midtier machine, it plays nicely with basically any peripheral made in the last decade, 1080x60 is not hard to hit, and the game will look very nice while you play it. The terrain is detailed and looks like real places, especially at altitude. Ground units look good from most perspectives, move well, and are fun to shoot. For a while at least. Explosions and smoke are awesome and watching an enemy aircraft disintegrate at 10nmi is sweet. Of course the most important factor is that the aircraft are modeled well, they are easy to fly, keybind setup is a snap (actually the simplest in any modern flightsim I've played), and the game models systems to a level of detail that no other game has yet matched. So your in cockpit experience is totally unique, and very realistic compared to the workload of actual combat pilots. IDK that DCS can make you a good IRL pilot, but it *feels* like it could and thats what were paying for, right?

The Objectively Bad:
But there are problems. The air AI is much improved now over older versions, but of course once you get over the hurdle of learning your aircraft the AI isn't all that hard. A human will always present more of a challenge, but then what game isn't that true for? Ground AI, OTOH, is horrific. I've seen twenty year old games with better ground AI than modern DCS. Static vehicles have two modes. They sit, motor running, in the open until they take damage. If they take damage, they move 100m in a random direction (hopefully not into a building) then stop, and NEVER move again. AI ground radars are always on, never off, never move (unless set to by a scenario designer), so attacking them is easy. And AI anti-air weaponry is hyper accurate, with a perfect knowledge of your location, speed, and altitude, at all times. You will literally never surprise a ground installation, and the first round from a 1950s SPAA can dot your fancy multimillion dollar F-15E. Not to mention helocopters, which are almost always going to be in range of AA, AA which has been tuned to present stiffer opposition to fixedwing jets. Oops. Oh well, you only paid what $70 for that Apache module? NBD right?

I harp on ground attack because it gets into many of the core problems with DCS, its filled with these bugs and issues which seem small and petty at first. I just want to hunt MiGs in my F-16 and who cares about the rest? Until you realize that ground attack is at least *half* of all the sorties youll do and is a major part of the game play loop, something most DCS aircraft are designed for. Planes like the A-10 and F-15E are ground attack first as well. So that part of the game being static and stagnant is an issue. But there is so much of DCS thats like this. The included campaigns are fun, but there is not (yet, its still in development hell) a dynamic campaign generator. User made scenarios are of course an option, but thats still limiting. Some modules are still stuck in early access and many never finish, but still charge you full price. Features are added at the Dev's and 3rd party's own speed, so for example the F-15E which is IRL used as a multirole aircraft is stuck in ground attack within DCS because the 3PP devs modeled unremovable conformal fuel tanks. Features are still missing in the supercarrier expansion, despite being four years old (but hey, thats still early access DLC! And also a requirement for most F-18 campaigns, which you already spent $80 on). Scenario design, which I mentioned I think is important before, is further complicated by the chaotic way in which new aircraft is added to the game. Modules are done on an individual basis, with little regard to era play or what might be required to run MP servers or create interesting campaigns. The Russians lack almost any ground attack aircraft, making server play for them a huge challenge. WWII is a joke. The early Cold War lacks enough interesting planes, flyable or AI only, to make interesting campaigns. The list goes on.

The Ugly:
There is a lot of drag on DCS, drag which piles up year over year and which the devs are just unwilling or incapable of fixing. The game gets bigger and bigger, the problems mount more and more, but the solution seems to be to just develop and release more NATO jets. And thats the real issue with DCS, IMO. Is it doesn't respect the average player. The DLC pricing is honestly a joke, at $80/plane $55 per map and $10-15 per scenario (not on sale). Some of the older jets are actually a good deal, and are feature complete, and the FC3 jet pack (the only bundle deal available) is a fantastic starting point for new players. But keep in mind the basic gameplay loop. You buy a jet to fly it, you need missions to fly, and the missions have requirements for terrain and assets. Say you buy the F-18. You want an add-on campaign, which costs money, the campaign requires Supercarrier, which is Essentailly a map pack-level purchase, PLUS a new map to play on. $80+$40+$60+$15=$195 to take your jet out into an operation which may or may not even be fun, as campaign quality is quite uneven! And thats buying at least one DLC, Supercarrier, which is still not finished. Where half or more of your sorties involve dropping bombs on trucks that just kind of.... sit there. Maybe drive down a preplotted road, but dont react at all when the first LGB hits the convoy.

Flight simming is expensive and hard. DCS makes it harder by aggressively monetizing a mediocre product rather than putting in the work to upgrade the experience. You have to buy a stick, throttle, peddles, and PC equipment (at least an HDD, because even basic installs are over 200GB! with mine being 300gb, but with some players have 600gb+!). But then ED hits you with astronomic costs for content which is only soso. Yeah, the new F-4 cockpit *looks* good, but so does a picture. You could (and I have) spent many a pleasant night learning how to manipulate the controls and the cockpit instruments to put warheads on foreheads. But once you pull yourself out of the pit, there is very little worth doing in DCS. Aircombat is okay, but only with humans. Ground combat is bland at best, aggressively broken at worst. And youre going to find yourself stuck in the editor as much as in the pit, so I hope you find level design fun. To do all this, you'll spend as much as a half dozen *other* games.

If you have the hunger to totally master a simulated cockpit, if you flew these jets IRL, if you *know* you want to play DCS and get lost in it, do it. For some people this is THE game and they will sink thousands of hours, thousands of dollars, into totally immersing themselves in it. Sweet, good on them. If youre a normie, if you don't know and are on the fence, if youre more interested in WWII or WWI simming, if youre budget conscious, triple think DCS. For the amount of hours I have in game, with the amount of money I've spent on maps and jets, I would say my purchase was not worth it. I'll keep playing, though I don't know if I will keep *paying*, but that is honestly a sunk cost fallacy. Every day I have the itch to uninstall and get that 300gb of HDD space back for things that may actually be fun. But then what would I do with this stick? And so it goes....

Ich möchte dieses Spiel mögen, aber es wehrt sich mit Händen und Füßen dagegen.
Bei einem Simulator erwartet man selbstverständlich, dass er umständlich ist und eine lange Einarbeitung voraussetzt, gar keine Frage.
Umso wichtiger ist es, dass das Spiel detailliert erklärt wird. Genau dafür gibt es eine umfangreiche Tutorialserie, allerdings liegt genau an dieser das Problem. Die Flugpunkte für das Navigationstutorial stimmen ab einem gewissen Punkt nicht mehr mit den Toren, die zu durchfliegen sind überein. Der Autopilot, der im Zuge des Tutorials aktiviert werden soll nimmt 3 Tore mittelmäßig gut mit und steuert einen dann geradewegs in einen Berg, die Tore sind davon allerdings weit entfernt. Nach etwa 26 Toren gehts dann auf eine etwas längere Reise. Das nächste angezeigte Tor liegt allerdings mitten in einer Reihe, also ist nicht ersichtlich in welche Richtung es zu durchflogen werden soll. Der Autopilot ist auch hier keine Hilfe. Auch die Wegpunkte sind hier völlig unbrauchbar, diese schwanken willkürlich hin und her und irgendwann geht's dann geradewegs 90 Grad in den Boden.
Das Flugzeug redet mir durchgehend Warnungen zu, was mir aber nichts bringt, da ich kein Russisch kann. Zudem sind die folgenden Gatter nicht immer leicht zu finden, da die Navigationspunkte wie erwähnt nicht mit diesen übereinstimmen und das Cockpit der SU-25T sehr viele Einschränkungen hat, welche in etwa 50% der Fälle exakt das nächste Tor überdecken.

Die Landung ist auch sehr schlecht konzipiert. Der Anfang macht eine elendig Lange Erklärung, welche zwar nett ist, aber nicht zu überspringen ist. Gerade bei soetwas kompliziertem wie einer Landung, welche man gerne regelmäßiger üben möchte stört das ungemein, dass ich jedes mal über 5 Minuten warten muss um es erneut zu versuchen. Zudem wird einem der Landeplatz 17 zugewiesen, wie ich den finde wird aber nicht erklärt. Auch eine Erläuterung ob noch Punkte folgen werden, oder man den Schritt abgeschlossen hat und nichts mehr folgt oder es noch etwas zu tun gibt sucht man vergebens.

Ich werde es weiter versuchen, aber das Spiel ist nicht nur kein Deut einsteigerfreundlich, sondern versucht diese möglichst aktiv vom Spiel fernzuhalten.

Pay Razbam!

VR mode tried to kill me via flashing light

Zu komplex um Spaß zu haben.....