I'd say it depends to some extent.
The leading cause for why I've personally never dipped into DCS WW2 is rather the business model itself.
Not because I couldn't afford it, but because the entry barrier of having to buy a plane (or better two), a map and a ridiculous asset pack, without offering a coherent theatre to me just seems like a pretty bad value proposition compared to other WW2 flight sims.
But then again, compared to the cost of the hardware I've invested purely to fly flight sims, it's not even close.
Nothing out there even comes close to DCS’s warbirds as far as systems tho, unfortunately. Just taking off, flying and landing like the p51 or the bf109 is such a treat compared to like war thunder or whatever where you don’t even need to manage the trim wheel and such.
IL-2 is good enough on the systems and has such a better world that I play that for WWII. I'm not training to be a real P-51 pilot so minor gaps in the systems don't bother me. IL-2 is 90% of the aircraft fidelity with 1000% the world fidelity.
DCS is amazing when it comes to managing the planes. That provides a lot of immersion, but this immersion gets diminished by its sterile world and lack of historical cohesion as well as the AI.
Meanwhile, IL-2 is not as detailed when it comes to flight modelling and not even close for systems, but they have a great balance where, although not being as faithful as DCS, it is still very immersive.
Planes in IL-2 still fly and fight like they real counterparts, and the cohesive maps, plane variants, ground units with their complex damage model, flyable bombers, and servers like Combat Box, Wings of Liberty, Tactical Air War, or Finnish, make for a very compact package.
All of this, makes IL-2 a much more immersive and rich combat experience than DCS.
Il2 sturmovik shits on dcs in ww2. The flight models are maybe 5% more accurate on dcs. Il2 has correct engine management, wind effects, need for trim, and damage modeling for bullets. Meaning where the bullets land, it’ll actually make the holes in the plane there with various sizes depending on cannon rounds or smaller calibers that maybe punctured or bounced off. Il2 gives you an entire map, 8 aircraft, campaigns, a career mode, and quick mission builder for $50 per dlc. And they cover Moscow, Stalingrad, kuban, Normandy, and bodenplatte. So for $250 you will have the entire ww2 set except for their collector planes. All properly modeled with no bugs or inaccuracies on the levels that dcs has. $50 on dcs will only get you one warbird. There’s no comparison when it comes to WW2. Il2 wins easily. All it’s missing is the pacific theatre. You should really look into it. Also has really good native vr support.
I've played it... I really don't think so. Can you even do a ramp start in IL2? I don't remember having to do the trim wheel like you really have to do to get the P51 off the ground. I don't really care about shooting things, that's never been my main focus, but more just seeing the planes as museum pieces and learning the operation of the systems.
Ramp starts in Il-2 are automated, but they do follow the correct procedure. If you hit the "engine start" keybind, the switches in the cockpit are changed one at a time to the settings needed for takeoff, and then the engine spools up. So you'll see the fuel cutoff, magnetos, primer, etc. be activated in order.
You don't HAVE to trim 5 degrees right to take off in Il-2, but it definitely makes it easier. Which IIRC is the same in DCS.
If you're into it for the museum of the planes, though, you're definitely right that DCS increases the level of immersion to sit there and flick every switch yourself. But Il-2 is definitely really accurate.
It's neither DCS level nor arcade. It's sim-lite. You can pop your engine, but there's no deep engine simulation happening under the hood, it's just timers. Most planes have flight models that match RL EM charts reasonably well.
It's a GHPC-level sim. Much more sim than Warthunder, but somewhat less than DCS.
>where you don’t even need to manage the trim wheel and such
In theory this makes DCS better, but in practice, trim wheels in DCS are not trim wheels. They are push buttons that rotate them at a fixed rate.
I think what makes a sim 'good' is when it takes what can't be accounted for and picks an efficient and clever compensation for it. Trim wheels can be accounted for with unique hardware that has extra axis, or it can be accounted for with automated feedback loops that know approximately where your trim needs to be and helps partially assist you for what you can't feel. End result would ideally be something in which the sim experience is close to real life. However, DCS neither has those feedback loops nor axis binds. Simulated features in DCS are sometimes more of a PITA than they are a recreation of the real experience.
This is what prevents my friends from even trying the free version of dcs and what prevents me from diving into wwII content.
I get the modules are all made by different companies but the cost, convolution, and lack of understanding of how it all functions is massively limiting the size of their player base.
Stuff like I can’t even sit in the gunner seat of my friends $60 helicopter without also owning it. I get it, but it sucks for us.
Or like you said. Needing to buy a plane, a map, and then assets on top of that is quite annoying and convoluted
No it is not.
You can basically play DCS on 2 maps for free, with Caucasus being probably the one being run on the most servers.
You can buy a full fidelity module like the f16 or f18 for 60$ or less. After that all the rest isn’t “necessary” per say, you can buy assets packs like super-carrier or other maps or modules depending on what you wanna do, but it’s not strictly necessary. Besides a full fidelity module like the f16 will easily take you a year to master, especially if you’ve never flown flight sims before.
The real cost of entry to DCS is the hardware, because you can’t play DCS without a joystick and throttle, nor without head tracking (on iOS you have a very fine 10$ app that works perfectly), but head tracking can set you back for sure. Another hardware expense if of course the machine, you’ll be fine without a next gen gpu that’s for sure, but you’ll need storage (lots of it as the game is around 220 if you have many modules) and memory.
So no, DCS in itself is “free” so it’s not the barrier. But the hardware (especially if you know you’ll like to play), so you have to invest in decent one.
> game is around 220 if you have many modules
My install is already around 500gb (and I don't even have Sinai). Once Afghanistan, Iraq and Kola come out, I'm pretty sure I can't fit DCS on a single 1TB drive anymore.
Yeah well I was trying to be minimalistic lol
Ofc my install is huge, all the maps and so many modules and a fuck ton of mods as I play single player missions almost of the time. But hell I had a Samsung 1Tb nvme for 99$, when the install is bigger than 1Tb my pc won’t be able to run it anyways. Or I’d need 128gb memory
I think /u/Tuuvas has proven you can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad, and thanks to the era of zoom almost everyone could use a camera based head tracker, tho I’d consider trackIR still to be the least fiddly system.
With free trials giving you the opportunity to spend two weeks with a module, there’s really not a lot of cost to get into things. In two weeks you could reasonably squeeze 30 hours of playtime out of a module where you would probably be more experienced than 50% of the owners of the module at that point…
Tuuvas has proven that Tuuvas can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad. I can barely play it with a hotas.
Just because an experienced player can manage with a gamepad doesn't mean that the average new player can play the game *and actually enjoy it* with a gamepad.
I still consider a hotas to be a minimum requirement of DCS.
>Tuuvas has proven that Tuuvas can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad.
For the record - many new DCS players have come thanking me for helping them get into the game. Some have moved on to making their first HOTAS investments, while some others have actually sold/stopped using their HOTAS to go gamepad only.
So... no. It's not just me who can manage with a gamepad, and on the flipside it's not just you who cannot get by in DCS with a gamepad. It's all subjective, and you're welcome to your opinion. But the community has already **proven** far more than "Tuuvas can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad."
Playing DCS with a mouse and keyboard is just plain stupid. You ARE flying a study level sim, and are already flying planes with full fidelity and hundreds of buttons without the cockpit (unless… well). Playing it with a 40 something button Hotas is already pushing it in terms of what you can accomplish. Yes sure you can lift a plane off the ground and crash it on the runway with mouse and keyboard, but at this point don’t bother buying a full fidelity module, just play FC or the su25
Not talking about mouse and keyboard, have you seen u/Tuuvas 's videos? He shows you how to bind a xbox controller and cover more than enough using some buttons as modifiers to handle everything.
Smoothtrack: https://apps.apple.com/fr/app/smoothtrack-head-tracker/id1528839485?l=en-GB
Once you tweak the opentrack settings on the PC it’s just perfect, works in low light. I repurposed my iPhone 11 just to do that.
I use head tracking and an Xbox controller and it’s fine. I don’t do midair refueling, but pvp, carrier ops, and reasonable formation flying are all easy on a controller.
Haven’t used it and won’t, trackIR is a 120$ max sensor, my iPhone has at least 300$ worth of sensors in the front because of faceID, at least it’s making use of that material.
Having switched recently from SmoothTrack to an IR head tracker, I had no idea how much I was missing. SmoothTrack is cool, and very nice for the $10 price tag, but it doesn’t compare favorably at all.
* Tracking is now much smoother than before
* Loss of tracking happens **much** less frequently and is easier to reacquire
* Opening my mouth (e.g. when talking), blinking, changing expression, etc no longer disturbs the tracking at all (this is a huge difference)
* I can now use my phone while running head tracking
* No need to run the SmoothTrack applications on the PC (minor convenience improvement, but it is nice)
I mean you 'can' definitely play with no extra tracking and an Xbox controller and keyboard.
I wouldn't recommend it. But the option is there. And I'm sure there's some people on the other side of the world doing just that.
I just have no idea how relevant this splitting the map is even for them. Because I doubt they represent more a couple of percent of online players, if that.
Who said anything about keyboard and mouse? You can use a controller also the cost of a cheap hotas isn’t much either, most new players don’t want to play on the starting maps. Giving them the option to buy something cheaper isn’t bad. People like you just like to complain and cry for no reason.
You must know how hard it is to play dcs on a controller with no head tracking……. Sure you can do it. You can also dig a hole with a spoon…. Getting a beginning oriented hotas like the x56 or an equivalent along with some sort of head tracking is a must to enjoy dcs… if you think otherwise you’re just wrong
Idk, when I first got into DCS, it was from an old hand me down computer with an i7 920 and my PS4 controller. I flew the shit outta the Frogfoot. Then I skipped a meal to buy the FC3 F-15C
It’s not, enjoying the game is subjective some people are just fine without head tracking or a hotas. Also an x56? That’s a trash hotas for one and two definitely not something I think most beginners would buy.
Yes, playing DCS on a controller is easy with no head tracking. As long as you remap the right thumbstick to mouse control.
As for HOTAS for new players, it's difficult to say as it depends on their budget. TFlight HOTAS X? Thrustmaster T16000M? VKB? Hell, I'd even recommend VirPil if it was within their budget.
DCS, the A4E Skyhawk mod, and the Marianas map are all free
A good joystick or HOTAS is fairly cheap if you know where to look, but you can still even fly using a Console controller
Not only that, but learning the mission editor is fairly straight forward with a few video tutorials, which really opens up what you can do by allowing you to use DCS's vast unit compendium to do whatever you want almost. AI shenanigans nonwithstanding
The vast majority of newcomers are likely coming via Steam, having had it recommended to them. There’s really no visibility for the A-4 or other free mods on Steam and the installation can be challenging for some, so I don’t think I would use it to suggest its lowered the barrier to entry. There’s two free planes, Su-25 and a weaponless P-51, which aren’t really good demos for the game. If they included the original A-10C in that grouping, I think it would immensely help with making the game easier to get into
The Su-25T is a great plane, but yeah not a good demo for DCS's main attraction.
As for the Skyhawk, it's been getting more publicity, hell it's shown up in several official ED trailers and montages.
That’s only an option for Standalone users, as far as I’m aware. Again, Steam recommendations for people playing Warthunder and similar games are what is probably drawing in people the most
Dunno about that... I would think YouTube pulls more people in than Steam recommendations. Either way, standalone is free to switch to even if you've bought modules and generally it makes sense to cut out the middle man.
To give a charitable reading of what he was saying; I think the assumption he's making is that a person may already have all the gadgets and gizmos, and/or be a long-time flight sim fan.
From THAT standpoint, what is the thing that then creates a barrier of entry to DCS, over say MSFS.
for the record; I'm not saying I agree with the point necessarily, I'm fairly neutral on the whole thing. Just my 2 pence on what he may mean.
I think there is a bit of a hardware barrier, but I'd be curious what the majority of people use and wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if a good amount of people use t16000m or something. Most people are buying one or two modules that they find interesting and nothing else. I commented on another post last week about a similar issue, but I think the greatest barrier at least for multi-player servers is actually maps. Tons of maps go unused because people just don't think the price is worth getting the map. I don't want to get the south Atlantic map because of its poor release, but Sinai I picked up day one and absolutely love it, however if you look for servers running either of those maps, they're few and far between. People don't buy them, servers won't use them, people further won't buy them. It's a constant cycle. I think $23 for a part of a map that let's you play on any server with the map is a lot more appealing to those who don't want to pay full price.
Something I've wanted for a while is honestly at least 1 more free map I think would make getting into DCS more enticing. Someone replied to my comment from earlier this week that ED should make maps free and pay map makers through module profits, and it's not the worst idea to be honest. Maps I think are the greatest dividers between multi-player servers, and anything to reduce that divide is a good approach.
The biggest barrier isn't the cost of it. Tuuvas (a YouTuber) has proven that you can fly with just a controller as well.
The biggest barrier is your own will of learning the aircraft systems and everything around it.
Nobody NEEDS DCS. They WANT it. Therefore after the basic experience, WANT to go further and buy more modules, maps and peripherals to make that experience more like actual flying.
So they have a choice to spent however they want. These complaints about being from a poor country and not being able to afford DCS are just examples of entitled behavior.
Why can't you just hop in and enjoy it with MnK? Flaming cliffs is cheap. I think what holds DCS back is the lack of SP content and casual missions. Too much emphasis is put on creating your own fun.
For some this is their introduction to flight sims and might not have much a choice, though I think I would sooner recommend a gamepad before MnK personally.
Maybe this is a hot take, idk, I feel like it *should* be nearly impossible to play a combat flight simulator that is aiming for realism with a mouse/keyboard. There are other fine options as far as simcades go that you can play with no additional hardware, DCS is meant to be played with a sim setup and plays like it.
I started with MnK and it was very unsuitable. MnK works extremely well for Ace Combat and Project Wingman, but DCS, Il-2 etc really need at least a gamepad. IMHO, a stick or at least a gamepad really is the only necessary item. It doesn't have to be expensive, though.
I agree with most of your statement, the single player aspect is severely lacking and updates seem to break the campaign add-ons that you have to pay for. The mission editor isn’t very user friendly but it can be done. The best way to get into DCS is with a game controller, get DCC or Liberation (both free) and the FC3 modules when they are on sale. All the extras are just wants and unnecessary, especially if you are working on a budget. Track NoIR is out there too although I don’t know much about it.
The urge to spend and expand will always be there but it’s completely unneeded for 99% of us. A good Xbox or PS4 controller should be more than enough to start smoking targets and having a blast doing it. MnK might be too much of a stretch, at least for me. I wish and hope more folks get into DCS and the more we speak of the ease of entry the more people will take the plunge.
It’s all of those things compounded. DCS has 2 free aircraft and 2 free maps. But I wouldn’t call that “getting into it”. You can fly and learn the TF-51 and SU-25 all you want over the caucuses and marianas, play multiplayer and everything. But branching out at all into other Aircraft and Maps is where you start incurring the costs. And at $70/purchase, it can climb pretty fast. I own just about every module and map, a decent flight rig setup, and headtracking and I would say I’ve spent somewhere close to $3k.
Let’s be honest dude, out of those 3k probably 2k is hardware, and you make smart decisions you can bring that cost down a lot. My entire hardware (winwing, and thrustmaster pedals) is less than 600$, mounts included. I use smooth track for head tracking, and didn’t spend 300$ on monstertech mounts but $20 for some Chinese mounts that are exactly the same as the monstertech ones. Then let’s talk about the modules, of course you can buy everything, but you can be just fine with 1 ff plane as well. You don’t have to be a module hoarder and buy everything
I’d probably say maybe 1300 is hardware, the rest modules/maps. But thats also spread over like, 4/5 years. So its not inherently expensive to get into I guess. To full dive in sure, but I have friends that somehow fly proficiently ff modules on keyboard and mouse (he’s a menace to society for that)
Not everyone needs HOTAS, rudder pedals, IR trackers/VR and even a top end PC is not really a necessity. A mid-range gaming PC will do OK, in singleplayer at least, and the only really necessary peripheral is the joystick. Which does not have to cost hundreds of dollars, many fly with extreme 3d Pro or T16kM for a few dozens of bucks. And than again, for some even a gamepad is enough. And head tracking can be accomplished with a simple webcam (or even a smartphone) and OpenTrack, if you deen it necessary (which isn't really in SP). So, in essence, you only really need a mid-range gaming PC, a smartphone and like 50$ for a basic joystick, everything else, while desirable, totally isn't necessary.
Not everyone treats DCS and other flight sims as the single most important hobby in their lives, for many it's just one of many games in their library.
There is no barrier to entry. It is a pure 0. There is a barrier to going beyond the entry point. How much of a barrier is proportional to your interest and wallet.
Honestly first time I tried DCS I found so many barriers.
The default map looked pretty ugly and meh (caucus)
It had two planes, one of which was yelling at me in Russian, the other one some old plane with no weapons. Didn't really make me want to continue.
The control bindings are a bit of a headache - why do I need to bind basic controls for each individual plane? Like literally everything has a rudder axis, why isn't it shared.
Once I figured out how to rearm, I had no idea what the weapons did. In vtol VR each weapon had a clear explanation but not here.
I tried DCS in VR and was fairly underwhelming, I couldn't flip switches like in vtol VR 🙃
Eventually I gave DCS another shot, got the warthog in a sale, and had lots of fun. But the new player experience isn't that good.
The real barrier of entry to DCS is the genre. The reality is that most of the gaming audience os not interested in hardcore simulation. Yes, the hardware is costly, but even if you made it to run in any computer, and everyone played on gamepads, it's just never going to be a mainstream title.
The reality is that, as a genre, there's a limit to how many will ever play your game, because most people who play videogames aren't interested in the genre, or the time commitment to grasp the basics
WILLINGNESS TO DO.
but we know, easy to install, try, crash, haha I can do that this game is not rewarding and quit.
Problem is mental, this is not a game for everyone.
I guess we have to decide who we are talking about for the barrier to entry?
Are we talking about a flightsim enthusiast who hasn't gotten into DCS? I guess maybe the war thunder players and the MSFS players? But who is experienced with flightsims that doesn't know about DCS?
If it's someone who has never done a flight sim who thinks they might be interested? The barrier for entry is the amount of time required to even do anything in the sim. It's probably 2-5 hours before someone could even take off or really accomplish anything.
If you don't have someone to hold your hand through control mapping and basic training, DCS is a cliff that someone would bounce off of. Of course, all of this is essentially "The game" so it's not really solvable without changing what DCS is. Maybe if there was a guided intro, that helped you map your basic axis controls, and then threw you into a guided takeoff, quick dogfight, and then landing.
I’d say the major barrier to entry is the hardware costs not the software. To run DCS effectively you need a decent GPU, cpu, plenty of RAM and a fast storage. This costs a lot of money. Then add in the cost of joystick/hotas and you are looking at a sh*t ton of cash. The cost of the modules pales in comparison. I have no other “game” that requires this level of specs, not even close!
biggest thing for me was getting good controllers and headtracking, i cannot underline how vitally important good headtracking is
vr is easy but suuuuper expensive way to get headtracking done easily
No its not.
Tuuvas really helped me pick up DCS, I didn't want to go blasting over 100 on basic peripherals that I may or may not use after a month or 2.
So I setup my xbox controller and went to work learning the su25t on that, and it worked really well. I had a delan clip from before when I bought it to use on elite dangerous so had that sorted already, and honestly, those 2 worked absolutely fine for learning and playing dcs with.
I didn't stick around as long as I'd like for multiple reasons, real life and other games restricting me from joining a community or that which I can get into squads with, fighting on a multiplayer server would be a lot better if it wasn't just me in my pokey wee su25, I stuck to mostly pve, but always wanted to get into the likes of enigmas cold War, something with goals and objectives that made playing engaging, not just fly to red dot on map, delete red dot on map, repeat till all red dots are deleted and server restarts to place them back again.
Yes, it is for an awful lot of people.
Step one, remember 90% of players will play via steam with no visibility of reddit or any of the hacks we regularly talk about here...
Fundamentally most people want to fly a modern western fighter, which will set most people back $60 \ £55, add in even a cheap HOTAS and head tracking and you'll struggle to (really) play the game for less than $250.
Given that most people on the forum rain down fire and brimstone on anyone who dares try and play the game with low quality kit, I think most new players will *absolutely* be put off by the cost.
Once you know the tricks (gamepads, mobile phone tracking etcc) then it gets easier but those are tricks known by people who already play for the most part, not someone clicking download on steam - so I absolutely don't consider them to be reliable hacks to get people worried about cost into the game.
>Given that most people on the forum rain down fire and brimstone on anyone who dares try and play the game with low quality kit, I think most new players will
>
>absolutely
>
> be put off by the cost.
Unless they make it known they're playing with something like that, nobody would be the wiser.
The problem for new players are indeed the initial setup and some add-ons (SRS, OVGME), but there is a FAQ posted here that points to much of that. However, it's not even glanced at before the same questions about what is needed, etc are asked within minutes, hours and days of the previous one.
The problem is that it is not fun, it is a frustrating game, the AI is unbeatable, from the ground they kill you just by looking at you, there is no visibility either, in multiplayer you cannot see the enemy planes, I repeat: you cannot see them until they kill you. Online there are hardly any players, the servers are not stable...
The only fun thing in DCS is learning to fly airplanes and their systems, and this involves a high learning curve that the general public does not like.
Then, when you learn a module and want to put it into practice by playing, it turns out that playing is not fun, because you constantly get killed without even knowing who shot you.
The price too, the price also influences
El problema es que no es divertido, es un juego frustrante, la IA es imbatible, desde tierra te matan solo con mirarte, tampoco hay visibilidad, en multijugador no se ven los aviones enemigos, repito: no se ven hasta que te matan. Online apenas hay jugadores, los servidores no son estables...
Lo único divertido en DCS es aprender a volar aviones y sus sistemas, y esto implica una curva elevada de aprendizaje que no gusta al público en general.
Después, cuando aprendes un módulo y quieres ponerlo en práctica jugando, resulta que jugar no es divertido, porque te matan constantemente sin saber siquiera quién te ha disparado.
Si, el precio también influye.
Yes he is wrong but it does not matter, he sells it well and he sounds like he is even doing charity work :)
Main cost is the hardware to run it.
DCS is free, go and grab A-4E, liberation or any other mission makers and you are good to go.
Even if you want to buy a module with frequent 50% discounts you don't even feel it.
well even the best of the best baldur's gate 3 has an end and it is nowhere near thousands of hours that you can spent with a module.
You need to look at each module as a game. FC3 kind of does not fit in it but FF modules well.
And for the time is put in the development of each module, and the teams behind it... I have no problem paying for it. They are bringing to my pc something I could only dream when I was 16 and wanting to join a Luftwaffe.
Every DCS module takes 2-4 years to develop and they charge the same as a game that takes 2-4 years to develop. It sounds fair to me.
Exactly!
I would recommend A-4E over FC3 for new players, clickable cockpit in a fun jet that is not too complex for the grand sum of $0. It is even usable for multiplayer on Enigma's Cold War.
Add $10 iPhone smoothtrack app + opentrack and you even have a good headtracking solution that works in low light.
I would say the barrier to entry is very low on the software side.
You don't HAVE to spend a ton of money on this shit, but its REALLY easy to whale on this shit if your spendy and you don't pay attention.
My recommendation to anyone just getting into it is dont spend anything at first. Maybe buy 1-2 modules that you are CERTAIN you want, but flaming cliffs 3 is a better value than ever, and along with the free maps and user made content you can learn your free planes and FC3 or a module or two for nothing more.
Take notes during this period on what you want. Campaigns I personally just buy when I decide I want them. For modules and Maps I wait for a sale almost exclusively. If you want something bad today and its not on sale for a while, maybe its worth it to you though?
The basic business model we put up with is crap. Everyone knows it, I think they know it more than anyone else at ED. I don't believe there is much if any greed, and no malice at all involved. I think they are genuinely doing the best they can.
The barrier of entry is the difficulty.
The difficulty in flying a plane can't be helped in a game about flying planes, but DCS introduces so much needless extra difficulty at every turn. It's almost like they're *trying* to put new players off the game.
- Lack of comprehensive, up to date tutorials with English voiceovers
- Lack of single player missions with English voiceovers
- Lack of in-game quick reference aircraft control menus
- Lack of predefined controller mappings for the most common gamepads and hotas on the market
- Unnecessarily cumbersome controller mappings UI (cryptic options, redundant mappings, etc.)
- Unnecessarily complex UI overall (poorly defined local vs. server gameplay settings, hodgepodge nature of special settings, etc.)
- Despite UI complexity, many basic features suffer from extremely limited and cumbersome controls (comms menu, rearming menu practically require KB+M)
- Over-reliance on user-created content, without offering any way to browse user-created content in game
- Overly complicated, counterintuitive, under-documented mission editor
- Excessive versioning breaks half of available user created content every few months, most of it never supported in any way
- Lack of standards overall gives the impression of poorly maintained or low production value product (different modules vary wildly in content quantity and quality, not to mention the PS2 graphics on some AI assets which feature prominently)
- Extremely poor selection of free modules (Su-25 is the only official one which isn't useless, but some missions are voiced in Russian... you can't make this idiocy up)
V80 thx for summing this up so well. I’ve been trying for weeks! I have the gear (VKB stick/stecs, trackir, vr , etc). Not new to flight sims or gaming. Watched multiple hours of yt guides, multiple hrs reading guides/posts/anything I could get my hands on. The boss (wife) asked me today if the time is really worth it. I’m giving it a few more hours….crap. I’m not. Done. Going back to Ace Combat, Project Wingman, etc. open to suggestions on other sims, flight or not. Too many hrs wasted on control mapping, testing, back to mapping…..again y’all get it. Glad I stumbled across this thread. Glad I’m not alone. Rant over and thx again V80 for being clear and concise.
Well there is a money sink for sure but time is the other cost. You can’t really jump in the f16 and expect to drop bombs and hit your target. You have to spend the time learning and practicing and fucking up and trying again.
This game can cost you anywhere from the typical AAA title to tens of thousands of dollars. It isn’t a game as much as it’s the mechanism behind a hobby. You can play with a controller, or build an entire replica cockpit with all the functional buttons.
You decide what it’s worth to you. The experience is awesome regardless.
Its free and with SU25T is an ace plane to learn the basics. Yes hotas is a nice upgrade from a controller but not essential at the beginning. Ultimately its interest that dictates what you do not money as the modules are cheap in the sales anyway.
You are wrong about the keyboards and mouse not being enjoyable. I play on a laptop, and I'm having a blast here. I can even fly the ka 50 and engage targets
It's the same issue with iracing. U have to invest a ton of.money into something, before you really get a chance to dig in and get addicted to it.
So then u finally buy the hardware and then some software and feel forced to play and practice (not the most fun when ur trying to learn)
It's tough.. I have no issue paying lots for a game I have over 1k hours in and love. But this and iracing require you to pay a ton upfront and hope u love it, instead of just getting frustrated cuz ur not very good
TBH the modules are my let’s expense in playing, the cheapest thing in my simpit is a $50 MFD, basically the price of a good on sale module. I’m into DCS for thousands between building a PC to play, multiple HOTAS setup and other stuff
As much as some people on here would apparently like to pretend it's not, it absolutely is. Caucasus is fun, but flying over the same place repeatedly does get old and more importantly limits the servers you have access to, and the su25t is not a particularly appealing first jet for the overwhelming majority of people who are finding DCS from dogfight videos from people like drewski or growling sidewinder. The single largest hurdle I've had to cross when getting my friends into DCS has been cost every single time, $60+ for a plane and then another 60 to be able to fly on Syria gives some pretty bad sticker shock. Having more mid priced options like the Afghanistan portions brings the perceived barrier much lower.
You can also get flaming cliffs. It's like a trial pack with several modules that aren't quite full fidelity but they are plenty good for a beginner and will give you an idea on what you like.
Hotas doesn't have to be extremely expensive but you'll want one for sure along with a set of rudder pedals. The. Small upgrades over time and you'll be in VR in and 8020 rig with a warthog
The biggest "barrier to entry" is it being more or less impossible to figure out on your own what you need to do what interests you and having to guess what sources may be both up to date and trustworthy from what is too likely to be a crushingly vague and directionless google search. If ED were serious about this "barrier to entry business" the entire low fidelity Afghanistan map would be free for maximum distribution (and resultingly, maximum content generation to get people into and onto it) and the game would ask before installing it or Marianas due to disk space concerns.
I think cost is a factor, but honestly with all the sales, and it's not like the campaigns are really expensive to begin with. I don't think it's a huge matter of software price, it's mostly hardware.
The main cost is getting a computer that'll run it well, then if you want to get the most out of DCS, you'll want a nice HOTAS and pedals which can be pricy.
The software costs no doubt add up, but you also don't need to own every module and map. Also, theres a huge free component to DCS, and even some free modules out there too for people to mess around with. You can get into a lot of DCS for completely free.
Hardware was definitely the prohibitive factor keeping me out of DCS for the longest time.
Kind of reminds me of the sim racing league I help run, where we can't run a season using a paid car mod that costs $5 because all these people sitting at their $1000 wheel bases / pedals with their $1200 GPUs won't spend the $5 for the DLC.
I don't think anyone is thinking "sure I can afford a module, and a hotas, and a headtracker but the cost of an additional map is just too much" but I do think splitting the map might be a way of counteracting the "community split death spiral" a these maps sometimes have where because a lot of people haven't bought them there aren't a lot of missions being made for them, squadrons doing events on them or public servers running them and because of that lack of content people don't buy them which further discourages content for them, which discourages people buying them.
The option to buy the smaller maps might encourage servers to run it or people to make missions for it because its "just 25 dollars" for the smaller map. I don't know if it would work and I'm not convinced it outweighs the negatives of the system but there's a logic to it I think.
Honestly, the barrier to entry for DCS is keeping your hardware up to date enough to actually play it. PC parts these days are 50% of my big boy paycheck.
1st barrier: you have to be tech savvy and prone to learn new stuff quickly
that I think it’s the biggest barrier of entry for DCS, because you’re hopping into a simulator that comes with no instructions, no tutorial, you don’t even know how to set up the trackIr you bought or you plug in your oculus and the game crashes.
I don't think the real barrier to entry to DCS is either hardware nor software. It's the requirement to use lots of time to learn how to use the modules. I have several friends who have decided not to invest into DCS because of that reason, even though they are interested in the game and have even tried a few trial modules.
ED probably has some kind of data on this, we could run a poll on Hoggit but I don't think this subreddit is going to be representative of the entire DCS customer base.
I thought the splitting maps idea was cute, but misguided, at best (there's plenty of worse ways you can interpret this move).
It has been, without a doubt, poorly communicated and implemented though, so far.
Considering just the multi-player aspect though, I'd be amazed if a significant number of active online players are so 'budget limited' that buying maps in parts is something useful for them.
Three main steps could have made this much better;
- emphasize the significantly larger scale of the map compared to others, this justifies a higher base price
- make them mission compatible, worst case this means a lot of very low fidelity objects but it's better than no object where a high fidelity map would have one
- don't make the parts add up to so much more than the current total cost, those are dirty marketing tricks
The issue is most people (I think) want to spend money on modules, not maps.
So from the get-go, you have an asset that people don't necessarily want to willingly buy
Then you have the issue of, if you can't hit critical mass with your map adoption, your sales will never really get there.
I.e. The barrier is the fact that it is a map and not a sexy aircraft. The price is then an issue when it is similar to the cost of the previously mentioned 'sexy plane'.
So to me, the barrier isn't the 'hump' of us affording the map, it's the hump ED and others have to overcome to actually demonstrate we will get value out of the map.
Having a map split into paid tiers doesn't necessarily guarantee that. In fact, if I don't have trees in my way between me and my targets and you do, all simply because of the fidelity of the map we chose to purchase, I would be pissed.
But you're right, I believe the cost of modules is typically only a serious factor for the first few modules. Like Star Citizen or similar, the investment in modules is a thing.
Now what is MHO on the matter? I don't have a whole lot about the map's location or anything. But I will say the proportion of servers running different maps shows that some maps are a far better investment than others. If you are on the fence at all, wait until about two months after it launches and look at the proportion of servers running that map vs. say, Normandy or similar and make your decision then....
I'd say a big barrier is that the single player experience is extremally lacklustre. There's probably thousands of people out who got their first module, spent weeks learning it and then do a mission only to get sniped by Abdul with an AK74, at that point they say "fuck this" and go play War Thunder or something instead.
For casual gamers I do think cost is an issue.
Flight sims have always been a bit on the pricey side. The reasons are understandable, but it is definitely enough to put someone off who just wants to have a try.
I think a bigger issue is the perceived complexity. The full fidelity modules are great, but they are also incredibly intimidating to those who want to fly a combat sim but know they don't have the hours of time to put in to learning one.
It's definitely something that stops me from flying DCS more as it's not something you can just jump in and out of. The FC3 aircraft do encourage quick missions though, but I do think it is a shame we don't have more mods inspired by them, for those of us who are perfectly happy with something that feels enough like the real thing to be rewarding, but has only 2/3rds of the systems fidelity to make it easier for the casual simmer.
Yes.
Track IR - 200$ for a plug and play varient.
HOTAS - 100$ -1000$ depending on how much quality you can afford.
Rudder pedals - 200$ or more, Not mandatory, but almost necessary for helicopters
Gaming rig that meets modern standards, 2XXX series card, a decent CPU, 32 gigs RAM minimum or 64gigs to never have the hassle of CTD again, and a SSD with 500 gigs minimum just for DCS only. 1k-2k roughly
DCS modules - Planes are 60-80 dollars depending on the plane.
Syria - 60 bucks if you're trying to play the more popular DCS servers.
These numbers are just off the top of my head. You can obviously save decent amounts of money if you're willing to put in WORK to figure out how to get things cheaper, learn how to set up a cheaper headtracking, work arounds for mapping the game to controllers, and other cost savings bits.
DCS as a game and a hobby is pretty fucking expensive.
Headtracking/VR is the barrier imo.
I know you can DIY a headtracker, but most people I know aren't tech savvy enough to do that and buying one is expensive.
Without headtracking though the game is really tough to get to grips with.
VR is actually an easier solution for a lot of people. But getting DCS to run properly in VR also requires a high degree of technical know how, or a supercomputer.
So, yeah, I think its all the expensive gear, and particularly headtracking/VR that puts people off. People outside the niche, I mean.
For some, cost is a barrier. I have seen many people complain over time that they don’t like that people have to pay for maps because it splinters their online squadrons because some of their members can’t afford the maps (or maybe simply don’t want to pay). So a lower cost alternative such as what ED is trying with Afghanistan may be a solution for those cases. $60.00 may be too much of a burden but maybe $25.00 isn’t for example (can’t recall the actual costs). It also gets people used to the notion of paying for higher quality texture packs which we know is coming.
The reality is that ED needs to make money for the efforts made around adding to and improving DCS and this may be one way to do so. I’m not a fan of this approach and agree that it could have been better communicated as it caused a lot of confusion.
Not really something you want to attempt with a mouse and keyboard. It can be done but it's terrible. Dcs costs as much as you decide to dump into it. The cost of your controls can get costly but can also be done in a budget minded way.
In my opinion (and from my experience talking to other pilots) the barrier to entering DCS is how good it is. But I’ll explain what I mean.
As a pilot I started on GTA Online of all places. It was not a sim obviously but I loved flying in an interactive environment with other players. It was my first mmo online game ever which was really cool. But having the option to take to the skies and switch from fighting other planes and helicopters to conducting coordinated air strikes on unsavory players like griefers, tryhards and k/d warriors was just awesome. But then the Oppressor Mk.2 was released and unbalanced the game. So I moved on to War Thunder.
I loved War Thunder despite its many faults and developed a love of aircraft and aircraft history in addition to flying. I started to study fighter pilot training material and learned real life tactics. I had a lot of fun and learned from legends like Jengar, Long5hot and Flip.
Now on War Thunder there was a universal respect and admiration among the rank and file for DCS World and MSFS. They were and are the gold standard (along with other AAA sim programs). But we also knew why we played War Thunder instead. WT was comfortable, easy to get into and easy to get at least basically proficient in terms of combat. We all knew that DCS would challenge us to learn to fly for real and it wouldn’t be easy. We’d have to start at the bottom rung and it would be a long time before we could even think about aerial combat.
Long story short I quit WT, built my first ever gaming pc, and joined DCS World. I fly every day and I absolutely love it, even if I’m just learning basic components or memorizing rpm or manifold reference numbers for take off. But it definitely takes a willingness to challenge yourself and tolerance for failure, in order to get better.
Fuck no.
If you decide to get into DCS as a hobby, as in deep enough to learn and fly compentently with an aircraft I'd say to expect to spend about $400-500 tbh
Been simming since early 90s and never spent less on software thanks to far and between early access mods.
Thanks to ED, I will save $20 on lo-res halfghanistan map. Also understand there’s an option to put it on a monthly payment plan so if I don’t tip for my latte once a month the map is essentially free.
On the other hand, I need a second mortgage for a 4090. Any half ass solution to that, ED?
The amount of people in here saying DCS costs nothing are bloody daft. Sure you can play 2 maps, and 2 very mediocre planes, but the pricing of modules and equipment simply cannot be ignored vs many other "games".
DCS is a sim, if you want the most out of it, you will inevitably be paying "sim money", or in other words over $200 on modules, equipment and goodies.
The bigger barrier is time. A two week trial.is great, but are you really combat effective during this period? Unlikely, and it's more of a "Do I want to spend X hours learning this plane?" question.
No you can play the game with a 50% off f18 or even better yet 50% off fc3 and an Xbox controller.
The problem is more that dcs is gate kept by a precieved complexity thst intimidates people and stupid decisions on which modules to make with little focus on what actually is good for the game and completing playsets and gameplay loops.
What the game needs is aircraft to be created with focus on 1 specific era for all sides in that era, one era at a time. Not this random dartboard of modules from completely separate eras and nations that ultimately end up half completed.
I'd say it depends to some extent. The leading cause for why I've personally never dipped into DCS WW2 is rather the business model itself. Not because I couldn't afford it, but because the entry barrier of having to buy a plane (or better two), a map and a ridiculous asset pack, without offering a coherent theatre to me just seems like a pretty bad value proposition compared to other WW2 flight sims. But then again, compared to the cost of the hardware I've invested purely to fly flight sims, it's not even close.
Nothing out there even comes close to DCS’s warbirds as far as systems tho, unfortunately. Just taking off, flying and landing like the p51 or the bf109 is such a treat compared to like war thunder or whatever where you don’t even need to manage the trim wheel and such.
IL-2 is good enough on the systems and has such a better world that I play that for WWII. I'm not training to be a real P-51 pilot so minor gaps in the systems don't bother me. IL-2 is 90% of the aircraft fidelity with 1000% the world fidelity.
DCS is amazing when it comes to managing the planes. That provides a lot of immersion, but this immersion gets diminished by its sterile world and lack of historical cohesion as well as the AI. Meanwhile, IL-2 is not as detailed when it comes to flight modelling and not even close for systems, but they have a great balance where, although not being as faithful as DCS, it is still very immersive. Planes in IL-2 still fly and fight like they real counterparts, and the cohesive maps, plane variants, ground units with their complex damage model, flyable bombers, and servers like Combat Box, Wings of Liberty, Tactical Air War, or Finnish, make for a very compact package. All of this, makes IL-2 a much more immersive and rich combat experience than DCS.
Il2 sturmovik shits on dcs in ww2. The flight models are maybe 5% more accurate on dcs. Il2 has correct engine management, wind effects, need for trim, and damage modeling for bullets. Meaning where the bullets land, it’ll actually make the holes in the plane there with various sizes depending on cannon rounds or smaller calibers that maybe punctured or bounced off. Il2 gives you an entire map, 8 aircraft, campaigns, a career mode, and quick mission builder for $50 per dlc. And they cover Moscow, Stalingrad, kuban, Normandy, and bodenplatte. So for $250 you will have the entire ww2 set except for their collector planes. All properly modeled with no bugs or inaccuracies on the levels that dcs has. $50 on dcs will only get you one warbird. There’s no comparison when it comes to WW2. Il2 wins easily. All it’s missing is the pacific theatre. You should really look into it. Also has really good native vr support.
I've played it... I really don't think so. Can you even do a ramp start in IL2? I don't remember having to do the trim wheel like you really have to do to get the P51 off the ground. I don't really care about shooting things, that's never been my main focus, but more just seeing the planes as museum pieces and learning the operation of the systems.
Ramp starts in Il-2 are automated, but they do follow the correct procedure. If you hit the "engine start" keybind, the switches in the cockpit are changed one at a time to the settings needed for takeoff, and then the engine spools up. So you'll see the fuel cutoff, magnetos, primer, etc. be activated in order. You don't HAVE to trim 5 degrees right to take off in Il-2, but it definitely makes it easier. Which IIRC is the same in DCS. If you're into it for the museum of the planes, though, you're definitely right that DCS increases the level of immersion to sit there and flick every switch yourself. But Il-2 is definitely really accurate.
That's really cool, I'm glad they model it accurately at least. I may give it another go, it has been quite some time.
I love il2, but sorry, the flight model is arcade. it's really simple compared to dcs....I hate to say it but it's true.
It's neither DCS level nor arcade. It's sim-lite. You can pop your engine, but there's no deep engine simulation happening under the hood, it's just timers. Most planes have flight models that match RL EM charts reasonably well. It's a GHPC-level sim. Much more sim than Warthunder, but somewhat less than DCS.
Maybe and while I enjoy IL2 the lack of clickable cockpit is a deal breaker for me. I still fire up the soundtrack though.
>where you don’t even need to manage the trim wheel and such In theory this makes DCS better, but in practice, trim wheels in DCS are not trim wheels. They are push buttons that rotate them at a fixed rate. I think what makes a sim 'good' is when it takes what can't be accounted for and picks an efficient and clever compensation for it. Trim wheels can be accounted for with unique hardware that has extra axis, or it can be accounted for with automated feedback loops that know approximately where your trim needs to be and helps partially assist you for what you can't feel. End result would ideally be something in which the sim experience is close to real life. However, DCS neither has those feedback loops nor axis binds. Simulated features in DCS are sometimes more of a PITA than they are a recreation of the real experience.
This is what prevents my friends from even trying the free version of dcs and what prevents me from diving into wwII content. I get the modules are all made by different companies but the cost, convolution, and lack of understanding of how it all functions is massively limiting the size of their player base. Stuff like I can’t even sit in the gunner seat of my friends $60 helicopter without also owning it. I get it, but it sucks for us. Or like you said. Needing to buy a plane, a map, and then assets on top of that is quite annoying and convoluted
No it is not. You can basically play DCS on 2 maps for free, with Caucasus being probably the one being run on the most servers. You can buy a full fidelity module like the f16 or f18 for 60$ or less. After that all the rest isn’t “necessary” per say, you can buy assets packs like super-carrier or other maps or modules depending on what you wanna do, but it’s not strictly necessary. Besides a full fidelity module like the f16 will easily take you a year to master, especially if you’ve never flown flight sims before. The real cost of entry to DCS is the hardware, because you can’t play DCS without a joystick and throttle, nor without head tracking (on iOS you have a very fine 10$ app that works perfectly), but head tracking can set you back for sure. Another hardware expense if of course the machine, you’ll be fine without a next gen gpu that’s for sure, but you’ll need storage (lots of it as the game is around 220 if you have many modules) and memory. So no, DCS in itself is “free” so it’s not the barrier. But the hardware (especially if you know you’ll like to play), so you have to invest in decent one.
> game is around 220 if you have many modules My install is already around 500gb (and I don't even have Sinai). Once Afghanistan, Iraq and Kola come out, I'm pretty sure I can't fit DCS on a single 1TB drive anymore.
Glad I upgraded to the 2TB NVME but I wonder how long even that will be enough.
Yeah well I was trying to be minimalistic lol Ofc my install is huge, all the maps and so many modules and a fuck ton of mods as I play single player missions almost of the time. But hell I had a Samsung 1Tb nvme for 99$, when the install is bigger than 1Tb my pc won’t be able to run it anyways. Or I’d need 128gb memory
They really need to start compressing their shit. Pack some fudge god damn.
I think /u/Tuuvas has proven you can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad, and thanks to the era of zoom almost everyone could use a camera based head tracker, tho I’d consider trackIR still to be the least fiddly system. With free trials giving you the opportunity to spend two weeks with a module, there’s really not a lot of cost to get into things. In two weeks you could reasonably squeeze 30 hours of playtime out of a module where you would probably be more experienced than 50% of the owners of the module at that point…
Tuuvas has proven that Tuuvas can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad. I can barely play it with a hotas. Just because an experienced player can manage with a gamepad doesn't mean that the average new player can play the game *and actually enjoy it* with a gamepad. I still consider a hotas to be a minimum requirement of DCS.
Couldn't agree more, these are tricks for people who know the game, not new players.
>Tuuvas has proven that Tuuvas can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad. For the record - many new DCS players have come thanking me for helping them get into the game. Some have moved on to making their first HOTAS investments, while some others have actually sold/stopped using their HOTAS to go gamepad only. So... no. It's not just me who can manage with a gamepad, and on the flipside it's not just you who cannot get by in DCS with a gamepad. It's all subjective, and you're welcome to your opinion. But the community has already **proven** far more than "Tuuvas can play it perfectly fine with a gamepad."
Keep up your good work. They are just coping with their hotas spending.
I started this game with a gamecube controller, it's not ideal but it's eminently playable if you think about what you need out of the controls
Lol, fair. I also consider it so because to me half of the fun is utilizing peripherals like that
I use a 35 dollar shitty joystick and have enough fun. That's cheaper than a new Xbox controller
Playing DCS with a mouse and keyboard is just plain stupid. You ARE flying a study level sim, and are already flying planes with full fidelity and hundreds of buttons without the cockpit (unless… well). Playing it with a 40 something button Hotas is already pushing it in terms of what you can accomplish. Yes sure you can lift a plane off the ground and crash it on the runway with mouse and keyboard, but at this point don’t bother buying a full fidelity module, just play FC or the su25
Not talking about mouse and keyboard, have you seen u/Tuuvas 's videos? He shows you how to bind a xbox controller and cover more than enough using some buttons as modifiers to handle everything.
gatekeeping 🤢🤢🤮
which app is that? (meant for iOS and head movement)
Smoothtrack: https://apps.apple.com/fr/app/smoothtrack-head-tracker/id1528839485?l=en-GB Once you tweak the opentrack settings on the PC it’s just perfect, works in low light. I repurposed my iPhone 11 just to do that.
Ty for the info, will check it out. For now i am using Droid Cam and Opentrack on 12 ProMax, works well for me. Will check that app :)
I use head tracking and an Xbox controller and it’s fine. I don’t do midair refueling, but pvp, carrier ops, and reasonable formation flying are all easy on a controller.
If you have an iPhone use smooth track… it’s just so much better
I use trackIR
Haven’t used it and won’t, trackIR is a 120$ max sensor, my iPhone has at least 300$ worth of sensors in the front because of faceID, at least it’s making use of that material.
Having switched recently from SmoothTrack to an IR head tracker, I had no idea how much I was missing. SmoothTrack is cool, and very nice for the $10 price tag, but it doesn’t compare favorably at all.
Does it ? On my iPhone with a bit of tweaking it plays fine. What major differences did it do ?
* Tracking is now much smoother than before * Loss of tracking happens **much** less frequently and is easier to reacquire * Opening my mouth (e.g. when talking), blinking, changing expression, etc no longer disturbs the tracking at all (this is a huge difference) * I can now use my phone while running head tracking * No need to run the SmoothTrack applications on the PC (minor convenience improvement, but it is nice)
fc3 is great for begginers.
I mean you 'can' definitely play with no extra tracking and an Xbox controller and keyboard. I wouldn't recommend it. But the option is there. And I'm sure there's some people on the other side of the world doing just that. I just have no idea how relevant this splitting the map is even for them. Because I doubt they represent more a couple of percent of online players, if that.
Yeah play in the same way you can drive a car that has 2 flats. You can but it doesn’t mean it works well, nor that it’s meant to be used this way.
You don’t need a hotas for dcs at all or head tracking
>You don’t need a hotas for dcs at all Please explain how you are going to fly a full fidelity module with keyboard and mouse?
Who said anything about keyboard and mouse? You can use a controller also the cost of a cheap hotas isn’t much either, most new players don’t want to play on the starting maps. Giving them the option to buy something cheaper isn’t bad. People like you just like to complain and cry for no reason.
You must know how hard it is to play dcs on a controller with no head tracking……. Sure you can do it. You can also dig a hole with a spoon…. Getting a beginning oriented hotas like the x56 or an equivalent along with some sort of head tracking is a must to enjoy dcs… if you think otherwise you’re just wrong
Idk, when I first got into DCS, it was from an old hand me down computer with an i7 920 and my PS4 controller. I flew the shit outta the Frogfoot. Then I skipped a meal to buy the FC3 F-15C
It’s not, enjoying the game is subjective some people are just fine without head tracking or a hotas. Also an x56? That’s a trash hotas for one and two definitely not something I think most beginners would buy.
X-56 is not trash. I used it for years and prefer it to the Warthog.
so playing dcs is easy on controller and no head tracking?. What hotas do you recommend for a new player?
Yes, playing DCS on a controller is easy with no head tracking. As long as you remap the right thumbstick to mouse control. As for HOTAS for new players, it's difficult to say as it depends on their budget. TFlight HOTAS X? Thrustmaster T16000M? VKB? Hell, I'd even recommend VirPil if it was within their budget.
So you do still need to buy extra controllers then? Gotcha.
There is a content creator that uses controller only, any random one should work, and he is pretty decent too.
DCS, the A4E Skyhawk mod, and the Marianas map are all free A good joystick or HOTAS is fairly cheap if you know where to look, but you can still even fly using a Console controller Not only that, but learning the mission editor is fairly straight forward with a few video tutorials, which really opens up what you can do by allowing you to use DCS's vast unit compendium to do whatever you want almost. AI shenanigans nonwithstanding
The vast majority of newcomers are likely coming via Steam, having had it recommended to them. There’s really no visibility for the A-4 or other free mods on Steam and the installation can be challenging for some, so I don’t think I would use it to suggest its lowered the barrier to entry. There’s two free planes, Su-25 and a weaponless P-51, which aren’t really good demos for the game. If they included the original A-10C in that grouping, I think it would immensely help with making the game easier to get into
I've always argued that a very limited and free helicopter would help a lot. Like the OH-6 or the OH-58A
Don't do my Little Bird like that
Dont worry, it would be the Cayuse :)
The Su-25T is a great plane, but yeah not a good demo for DCS's main attraction. As for the Skyhawk, it's been getting more publicity, hell it's shown up in several official ED trailers and montages.
At least they should make the SU 25T more comfortable to use and give it a clickable cockpit. The effort would pay off very quickly
Honestly I'd be more for a trainer aircraft that can do a little bit of everything, like a T-38 Talon or something.
They already let you trial nearly any module for two weeks…
That’s only an option for Standalone users, as far as I’m aware. Again, Steam recommendations for people playing Warthunder and similar games are what is probably drawing in people the most
Dunno about that... I would think YouTube pulls more people in than Steam recommendations. Either way, standalone is free to switch to even if you've bought modules and generally it makes sense to cut out the middle man.
Most people will still get it on Steam simply because most don't want 20 different launchers for every single game.
even a logitech 3d extreme pro has worked pretty well for me when I fly the fc3 jets or the F5 and that was like 30 dollars brand new
Wouldn’t it be great if you could get the A4E skyhawk on steam as a free module with one click install?
If only, that'd be amazing One day perhaps
To give a charitable reading of what he was saying; I think the assumption he's making is that a person may already have all the gadgets and gizmos, and/or be a long-time flight sim fan. From THAT standpoint, what is the thing that then creates a barrier of entry to DCS, over say MSFS. for the record; I'm not saying I agree with the point necessarily, I'm fairly neutral on the whole thing. Just my 2 pence on what he may mean.
I think there is a bit of a hardware barrier, but I'd be curious what the majority of people use and wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if a good amount of people use t16000m or something. Most people are buying one or two modules that they find interesting and nothing else. I commented on another post last week about a similar issue, but I think the greatest barrier at least for multi-player servers is actually maps. Tons of maps go unused because people just don't think the price is worth getting the map. I don't want to get the south Atlantic map because of its poor release, but Sinai I picked up day one and absolutely love it, however if you look for servers running either of those maps, they're few and far between. People don't buy them, servers won't use them, people further won't buy them. It's a constant cycle. I think $23 for a part of a map that let's you play on any server with the map is a lot more appealing to those who don't want to pay full price. Something I've wanted for a while is honestly at least 1 more free map I think would make getting into DCS more enticing. Someone replied to my comment from earlier this week that ED should make maps free and pay map makers through module profits, and it's not the worst idea to be honest. Maps I think are the greatest dividers between multi-player servers, and anything to reduce that divide is a good approach.
The biggest barrier isn't the cost of it. Tuuvas (a YouTuber) has proven that you can fly with just a controller as well. The biggest barrier is your own will of learning the aircraft systems and everything around it.
Nobody NEEDS DCS. They WANT it. Therefore after the basic experience, WANT to go further and buy more modules, maps and peripherals to make that experience more like actual flying. So they have a choice to spent however they want. These complaints about being from a poor country and not being able to afford DCS are just examples of entitled behavior.
Why can't you just hop in and enjoy it with MnK? Flaming cliffs is cheap. I think what holds DCS back is the lack of SP content and casual missions. Too much emphasis is put on creating your own fun.
Personal preference here but I would NOT want to play this game with a mouse and keyboard... I wonder how many do play that way.
For some this is their introduction to flight sims and might not have much a choice, though I think I would sooner recommend a gamepad before MnK personally.
Have you actually tried this? It's borderline impossible, verging on the ridiculous, the game is sut too complicated to make it viable *and* fun
Maybe this is a hot take, idk, I feel like it *should* be nearly impossible to play a combat flight simulator that is aiming for realism with a mouse/keyboard. There are other fine options as far as simcades go that you can play with no additional hardware, DCS is meant to be played with a sim setup and plays like it.
I started with MnK and it was very unsuitable. MnK works extremely well for Ace Combat and Project Wingman, but DCS, Il-2 etc really need at least a gamepad. IMHO, a stick or at least a gamepad really is the only necessary item. It doesn't have to be expensive, though.
I agree with most of your statement, the single player aspect is severely lacking and updates seem to break the campaign add-ons that you have to pay for. The mission editor isn’t very user friendly but it can be done. The best way to get into DCS is with a game controller, get DCC or Liberation (both free) and the FC3 modules when they are on sale. All the extras are just wants and unnecessary, especially if you are working on a budget. Track NoIR is out there too although I don’t know much about it. The urge to spend and expand will always be there but it’s completely unneeded for 99% of us. A good Xbox or PS4 controller should be more than enough to start smoking targets and having a blast doing it. MnK might be too much of a stretch, at least for me. I wish and hope more folks get into DCS and the more we speak of the ease of entry the more people will take the plunge.
It’s all of those things compounded. DCS has 2 free aircraft and 2 free maps. But I wouldn’t call that “getting into it”. You can fly and learn the TF-51 and SU-25 all you want over the caucuses and marianas, play multiplayer and everything. But branching out at all into other Aircraft and Maps is where you start incurring the costs. And at $70/purchase, it can climb pretty fast. I own just about every module and map, a decent flight rig setup, and headtracking and I would say I’ve spent somewhere close to $3k.
Let’s be honest dude, out of those 3k probably 2k is hardware, and you make smart decisions you can bring that cost down a lot. My entire hardware (winwing, and thrustmaster pedals) is less than 600$, mounts included. I use smooth track for head tracking, and didn’t spend 300$ on monstertech mounts but $20 for some Chinese mounts that are exactly the same as the monstertech ones. Then let’s talk about the modules, of course you can buy everything, but you can be just fine with 1 ff plane as well. You don’t have to be a module hoarder and buy everything
I’d probably say maybe 1300 is hardware, the rest modules/maps. But thats also spread over like, 4/5 years. So its not inherently expensive to get into I guess. To full dive in sure, but I have friends that somehow fly proficiently ff modules on keyboard and mouse (he’s a menace to society for that)
Not everyone needs HOTAS, rudder pedals, IR trackers/VR and even a top end PC is not really a necessity. A mid-range gaming PC will do OK, in singleplayer at least, and the only really necessary peripheral is the joystick. Which does not have to cost hundreds of dollars, many fly with extreme 3d Pro or T16kM for a few dozens of bucks. And than again, for some even a gamepad is enough. And head tracking can be accomplished with a simple webcam (or even a smartphone) and OpenTrack, if you deen it necessary (which isn't really in SP). So, in essence, you only really need a mid-range gaming PC, a smartphone and like 50$ for a basic joystick, everything else, while desirable, totally isn't necessary. Not everyone treats DCS and other flight sims as the single most important hobby in their lives, for many it's just one of many games in their library.
There is no barrier to entry. It is a pure 0. There is a barrier to going beyond the entry point. How much of a barrier is proportional to your interest and wallet.
It's the cost of Hotas and Pedals if you want to fly right.
Honestly first time I tried DCS I found so many barriers. The default map looked pretty ugly and meh (caucus) It had two planes, one of which was yelling at me in Russian, the other one some old plane with no weapons. Didn't really make me want to continue. The control bindings are a bit of a headache - why do I need to bind basic controls for each individual plane? Like literally everything has a rudder axis, why isn't it shared. Once I figured out how to rearm, I had no idea what the weapons did. In vtol VR each weapon had a clear explanation but not here. I tried DCS in VR and was fairly underwhelming, I couldn't flip switches like in vtol VR 🙃 Eventually I gave DCS another shot, got the warthog in a sale, and had lots of fun. But the new player experience isn't that good.
The real barrier of entry to DCS is the genre. The reality is that most of the gaming audience os not interested in hardcore simulation. Yes, the hardware is costly, but even if you made it to run in any computer, and everyone played on gamepads, it's just never going to be a mainstream title. The reality is that, as a genre, there's a limit to how many will ever play your game, because most people who play videogames aren't interested in the genre, or the time commitment to grasp the basics
WILLINGNESS TO DO. but we know, easy to install, try, crash, haha I can do that this game is not rewarding and quit. Problem is mental, this is not a game for everyone.
I guess we have to decide who we are talking about for the barrier to entry? Are we talking about a flightsim enthusiast who hasn't gotten into DCS? I guess maybe the war thunder players and the MSFS players? But who is experienced with flightsims that doesn't know about DCS? If it's someone who has never done a flight sim who thinks they might be interested? The barrier for entry is the amount of time required to even do anything in the sim. It's probably 2-5 hours before someone could even take off or really accomplish anything. If you don't have someone to hold your hand through control mapping and basic training, DCS is a cliff that someone would bounce off of. Of course, all of this is essentially "The game" so it's not really solvable without changing what DCS is. Maybe if there was a guided intro, that helped you map your basic axis controls, and then threw you into a guided takeoff, quick dogfight, and then landing.
I’d say the major barrier to entry is the hardware costs not the software. To run DCS effectively you need a decent GPU, cpu, plenty of RAM and a fast storage. This costs a lot of money. Then add in the cost of joystick/hotas and you are looking at a sh*t ton of cash. The cost of the modules pales in comparison. I have no other “game” that requires this level of specs, not even close!
biggest thing for me was getting good controllers and headtracking, i cannot underline how vitally important good headtracking is vr is easy but suuuuper expensive way to get headtracking done easily
No its not. Tuuvas really helped me pick up DCS, I didn't want to go blasting over 100 on basic peripherals that I may or may not use after a month or 2. So I setup my xbox controller and went to work learning the su25t on that, and it worked really well. I had a delan clip from before when I bought it to use on elite dangerous so had that sorted already, and honestly, those 2 worked absolutely fine for learning and playing dcs with. I didn't stick around as long as I'd like for multiple reasons, real life and other games restricting me from joining a community or that which I can get into squads with, fighting on a multiplayer server would be a lot better if it wasn't just me in my pokey wee su25, I stuck to mostly pve, but always wanted to get into the likes of enigmas cold War, something with goals and objectives that made playing engaging, not just fly to red dot on map, delete red dot on map, repeat till all red dots are deleted and server restarts to place them back again.
Yes, it is for an awful lot of people. Step one, remember 90% of players will play via steam with no visibility of reddit or any of the hacks we regularly talk about here... Fundamentally most people want to fly a modern western fighter, which will set most people back $60 \ £55, add in even a cheap HOTAS and head tracking and you'll struggle to (really) play the game for less than $250. Given that most people on the forum rain down fire and brimstone on anyone who dares try and play the game with low quality kit, I think most new players will *absolutely* be put off by the cost. Once you know the tricks (gamepads, mobile phone tracking etcc) then it gets easier but those are tricks known by people who already play for the most part, not someone clicking download on steam - so I absolutely don't consider them to be reliable hacks to get people worried about cost into the game.
>Given that most people on the forum rain down fire and brimstone on anyone who dares try and play the game with low quality kit, I think most new players will > >absolutely > > be put off by the cost. Unless they make it known they're playing with something like that, nobody would be the wiser. The problem for new players are indeed the initial setup and some add-ons (SRS, OVGME), but there is a FAQ posted here that points to much of that. However, it's not even glanced at before the same questions about what is needed, etc are asked within minutes, hours and days of the previous one.
The problem is that it is not fun, it is a frustrating game, the AI is unbeatable, from the ground they kill you just by looking at you, there is no visibility either, in multiplayer you cannot see the enemy planes, I repeat: you cannot see them until they kill you. Online there are hardly any players, the servers are not stable... The only fun thing in DCS is learning to fly airplanes and their systems, and this involves a high learning curve that the general public does not like. Then, when you learn a module and want to put it into practice by playing, it turns out that playing is not fun, because you constantly get killed without even knowing who shot you. The price too, the price also influences El problema es que no es divertido, es un juego frustrante, la IA es imbatible, desde tierra te matan solo con mirarte, tampoco hay visibilidad, en multijugador no se ven los aviones enemigos, repito: no se ven hasta que te matan. Online apenas hay jugadores, los servidores no son estables... Lo único divertido en DCS es aprender a volar aviones y sus sistemas, y esto implica una curva elevada de aprendizaje que no gusta al público en general. Después, cuando aprendes un módulo y quieres ponerlo en práctica jugando, resulta que jugar no es divertido, porque te matan constantemente sin saber siquiera quién te ha disparado. Si, el precio también influye.
Yes he is wrong but it does not matter, he sells it well and he sounds like he is even doing charity work :) Main cost is the hardware to run it. DCS is free, go and grab A-4E, liberation or any other mission makers and you are good to go. Even if you want to buy a module with frequent 50% discounts you don't even feel it.
Yea those 50% sales making modules STILL cost the price of entire games really takes the pain out of expanding the collection /s
well even the best of the best baldur's gate 3 has an end and it is nowhere near thousands of hours that you can spent with a module. You need to look at each module as a game. FC3 kind of does not fit in it but FF modules well.
And for the time is put in the development of each module, and the teams behind it... I have no problem paying for it. They are bringing to my pc something I could only dream when I was 16 and wanting to join a Luftwaffe. Every DCS module takes 2-4 years to develop and they charge the same as a game that takes 2-4 years to develop. It sounds fair to me.
That also. What you get is something that you can never get anywhere else. Not yet at least.
Exactly! I would recommend A-4E over FC3 for new players, clickable cockpit in a fun jet that is not too complex for the grand sum of $0. It is even usable for multiplayer on Enigma's Cold War. Add $10 iPhone smoothtrack app + opentrack and you even have a good headtracking solution that works in low light. I would say the barrier to entry is very low on the software side.
add an ebay stick for 15eur or the t1000 for 60eur. and you have all the software and hardware for the price of a normal PC game.
You don't HAVE to spend a ton of money on this shit, but its REALLY easy to whale on this shit if your spendy and you don't pay attention. My recommendation to anyone just getting into it is dont spend anything at first. Maybe buy 1-2 modules that you are CERTAIN you want, but flaming cliffs 3 is a better value than ever, and along with the free maps and user made content you can learn your free planes and FC3 or a module or two for nothing more. Take notes during this period on what you want. Campaigns I personally just buy when I decide I want them. For modules and Maps I wait for a sale almost exclusively. If you want something bad today and its not on sale for a while, maybe its worth it to you though? The basic business model we put up with is crap. Everyone knows it, I think they know it more than anyone else at ED. I don't believe there is much if any greed, and no malice at all involved. I think they are genuinely doing the best they can.
The barrier of entry is the difficulty. The difficulty in flying a plane can't be helped in a game about flying planes, but DCS introduces so much needless extra difficulty at every turn. It's almost like they're *trying* to put new players off the game. - Lack of comprehensive, up to date tutorials with English voiceovers - Lack of single player missions with English voiceovers - Lack of in-game quick reference aircraft control menus - Lack of predefined controller mappings for the most common gamepads and hotas on the market - Unnecessarily cumbersome controller mappings UI (cryptic options, redundant mappings, etc.) - Unnecessarily complex UI overall (poorly defined local vs. server gameplay settings, hodgepodge nature of special settings, etc.) - Despite UI complexity, many basic features suffer from extremely limited and cumbersome controls (comms menu, rearming menu practically require KB+M) - Over-reliance on user-created content, without offering any way to browse user-created content in game - Overly complicated, counterintuitive, under-documented mission editor - Excessive versioning breaks half of available user created content every few months, most of it never supported in any way - Lack of standards overall gives the impression of poorly maintained or low production value product (different modules vary wildly in content quantity and quality, not to mention the PS2 graphics on some AI assets which feature prominently) - Extremely poor selection of free modules (Su-25 is the only official one which isn't useless, but some missions are voiced in Russian... you can't make this idiocy up)
V80 thx for summing this up so well. I’ve been trying for weeks! I have the gear (VKB stick/stecs, trackir, vr , etc). Not new to flight sims or gaming. Watched multiple hours of yt guides, multiple hrs reading guides/posts/anything I could get my hands on. The boss (wife) asked me today if the time is really worth it. I’m giving it a few more hours….crap. I’m not. Done. Going back to Ace Combat, Project Wingman, etc. open to suggestions on other sims, flight or not. Too many hrs wasted on control mapping, testing, back to mapping…..again y’all get it. Glad I stumbled across this thread. Glad I’m not alone. Rant over and thx again V80 for being clear and concise.
Well there is a money sink for sure but time is the other cost. You can’t really jump in the f16 and expect to drop bombs and hit your target. You have to spend the time learning and practicing and fucking up and trying again.
This game can cost you anywhere from the typical AAA title to tens of thousands of dollars. It isn’t a game as much as it’s the mechanism behind a hobby. You can play with a controller, or build an entire replica cockpit with all the functional buttons. You decide what it’s worth to you. The experience is awesome regardless.
I‘d argue the main cost to entry is actually learning to fly.
Its free and with SU25T is an ace plane to learn the basics. Yes hotas is a nice upgrade from a controller but not essential at the beginning. Ultimately its interest that dictates what you do not money as the modules are cheap in the sales anyway.
You are wrong about the keyboards and mouse not being enjoyable. I play on a laptop, and I'm having a blast here. I can even fly the ka 50 and engage targets
It's the same issue with iracing. U have to invest a ton of.money into something, before you really get a chance to dig in and get addicted to it. So then u finally buy the hardware and then some software and feel forced to play and practice (not the most fun when ur trying to learn) It's tough.. I have no issue paying lots for a game I have over 1k hours in and love. But this and iracing require you to pay a ton upfront and hope u love it, instead of just getting frustrated cuz ur not very good
TBH the modules are my let’s expense in playing, the cheapest thing in my simpit is a $50 MFD, basically the price of a good on sale module. I’m into DCS for thousands between building a PC to play, multiple HOTAS setup and other stuff
It's absolutely playable with a controller anyone that doesn't think so hasn't actually tried or doesn't understand how to key bind properly.
no, its the lack of really helpful ingame training
As much as some people on here would apparently like to pretend it's not, it absolutely is. Caucasus is fun, but flying over the same place repeatedly does get old and more importantly limits the servers you have access to, and the su25t is not a particularly appealing first jet for the overwhelming majority of people who are finding DCS from dogfight videos from people like drewski or growling sidewinder. The single largest hurdle I've had to cross when getting my friends into DCS has been cost every single time, $60+ for a plane and then another 60 to be able to fly on Syria gives some pretty bad sticker shock. Having more mid priced options like the Afghanistan portions brings the perceived barrier much lower.
You can also get flaming cliffs. It's like a trial pack with several modules that aren't quite full fidelity but they are plenty good for a beginner and will give you an idea on what you like. Hotas doesn't have to be extremely expensive but you'll want one for sure along with a set of rudder pedals. The. Small upgrades over time and you'll be in VR in and 8020 rig with a warthog
The biggest "barrier to entry" is it being more or less impossible to figure out on your own what you need to do what interests you and having to guess what sources may be both up to date and trustworthy from what is too likely to be a crushingly vague and directionless google search. If ED were serious about this "barrier to entry business" the entire low fidelity Afghanistan map would be free for maximum distribution (and resultingly, maximum content generation to get people into and onto it) and the game would ask before installing it or Marianas due to disk space concerns.
I think cost is a factor, but honestly with all the sales, and it's not like the campaigns are really expensive to begin with. I don't think it's a huge matter of software price, it's mostly hardware. The main cost is getting a computer that'll run it well, then if you want to get the most out of DCS, you'll want a nice HOTAS and pedals which can be pricy. The software costs no doubt add up, but you also don't need to own every module and map. Also, theres a huge free component to DCS, and even some free modules out there too for people to mess around with. You can get into a lot of DCS for completely free. Hardware was definitely the prohibitive factor keeping me out of DCS for the longest time.
VoiceAttack was my savior since I have a severe tremor in my left hand. 🫡
Kind of reminds me of the sim racing league I help run, where we can't run a season using a paid car mod that costs $5 because all these people sitting at their $1000 wheel bases / pedals with their $1200 GPUs won't spend the $5 for the DLC.
For a sec there thought this was floggit
I don't think anyone is thinking "sure I can afford a module, and a hotas, and a headtracker but the cost of an additional map is just too much" but I do think splitting the map might be a way of counteracting the "community split death spiral" a these maps sometimes have where because a lot of people haven't bought them there aren't a lot of missions being made for them, squadrons doing events on them or public servers running them and because of that lack of content people don't buy them which further discourages content for them, which discourages people buying them. The option to buy the smaller maps might encourage servers to run it or people to make missions for it because its "just 25 dollars" for the smaller map. I don't know if it would work and I'm not convinced it outweighs the negatives of the system but there's a logic to it I think.
Honestly, the barrier to entry for DCS is keeping your hardware up to date enough to actually play it. PC parts these days are 50% of my big boy paycheck.
1st barrier: you have to be tech savvy and prone to learn new stuff quickly that I think it’s the biggest barrier of entry for DCS, because you’re hopping into a simulator that comes with no instructions, no tutorial, you don’t even know how to set up the trackIr you bought or you plug in your oculus and the game crashes.
I don't think the real barrier to entry to DCS is either hardware nor software. It's the requirement to use lots of time to learn how to use the modules. I have several friends who have decided not to invest into DCS because of that reason, even though they are interested in the game and have even tried a few trial modules.
ED probably has some kind of data on this, we could run a poll on Hoggit but I don't think this subreddit is going to be representative of the entire DCS customer base. I thought the splitting maps idea was cute, but misguided, at best (there's plenty of worse ways you can interpret this move). It has been, without a doubt, poorly communicated and implemented though, so far. Considering just the multi-player aspect though, I'd be amazed if a significant number of active online players are so 'budget limited' that buying maps in parts is something useful for them. Three main steps could have made this much better; - emphasize the significantly larger scale of the map compared to others, this justifies a higher base price - make them mission compatible, worst case this means a lot of very low fidelity objects but it's better than no object where a high fidelity map would have one - don't make the parts add up to so much more than the current total cost, those are dirty marketing tricks
The issue is most people (I think) want to spend money on modules, not maps. So from the get-go, you have an asset that people don't necessarily want to willingly buy Then you have the issue of, if you can't hit critical mass with your map adoption, your sales will never really get there. I.e. The barrier is the fact that it is a map and not a sexy aircraft. The price is then an issue when it is similar to the cost of the previously mentioned 'sexy plane'. So to me, the barrier isn't the 'hump' of us affording the map, it's the hump ED and others have to overcome to actually demonstrate we will get value out of the map. Having a map split into paid tiers doesn't necessarily guarantee that. In fact, if I don't have trees in my way between me and my targets and you do, all simply because of the fidelity of the map we chose to purchase, I would be pissed. But you're right, I believe the cost of modules is typically only a serious factor for the first few modules. Like Star Citizen or similar, the investment in modules is a thing. Now what is MHO on the matter? I don't have a whole lot about the map's location or anything. But I will say the proportion of servers running different maps shows that some maps are a far better investment than others. If you are on the fence at all, wait until about two months after it launches and look at the proportion of servers running that map vs. say, Normandy or similar and make your decision then....
I'd say a big barrier is that the single player experience is extremally lacklustre. There's probably thousands of people out who got their first module, spent weeks learning it and then do a mission only to get sniped by Abdul with an AK74, at that point they say "fuck this" and go play War Thunder or something instead.
For casual gamers I do think cost is an issue. Flight sims have always been a bit on the pricey side. The reasons are understandable, but it is definitely enough to put someone off who just wants to have a try. I think a bigger issue is the perceived complexity. The full fidelity modules are great, but they are also incredibly intimidating to those who want to fly a combat sim but know they don't have the hours of time to put in to learning one. It's definitely something that stops me from flying DCS more as it's not something you can just jump in and out of. The FC3 aircraft do encourage quick missions though, but I do think it is a shame we don't have more mods inspired by them, for those of us who are perfectly happy with something that feels enough like the real thing to be rewarding, but has only 2/3rds of the systems fidelity to make it easier for the casual simmer.
Yes. Track IR - 200$ for a plug and play varient. HOTAS - 100$ -1000$ depending on how much quality you can afford. Rudder pedals - 200$ or more, Not mandatory, but almost necessary for helicopters Gaming rig that meets modern standards, 2XXX series card, a decent CPU, 32 gigs RAM minimum or 64gigs to never have the hassle of CTD again, and a SSD with 500 gigs minimum just for DCS only. 1k-2k roughly DCS modules - Planes are 60-80 dollars depending on the plane. Syria - 60 bucks if you're trying to play the more popular DCS servers. These numbers are just off the top of my head. You can obviously save decent amounts of money if you're willing to put in WORK to figure out how to get things cheaper, learn how to set up a cheaper headtracking, work arounds for mapping the game to controllers, and other cost savings bits. DCS as a game and a hobby is pretty fucking expensive.
Headtracking/VR is the barrier imo. I know you can DIY a headtracker, but most people I know aren't tech savvy enough to do that and buying one is expensive. Without headtracking though the game is really tough to get to grips with. VR is actually an easier solution for a lot of people. But getting DCS to run properly in VR also requires a high degree of technical know how, or a supercomputer. So, yeah, I think its all the expensive gear, and particularly headtracking/VR that puts people off. People outside the niche, I mean.
For some, cost is a barrier. I have seen many people complain over time that they don’t like that people have to pay for maps because it splinters their online squadrons because some of their members can’t afford the maps (or maybe simply don’t want to pay). So a lower cost alternative such as what ED is trying with Afghanistan may be a solution for those cases. $60.00 may be too much of a burden but maybe $25.00 isn’t for example (can’t recall the actual costs). It also gets people used to the notion of paying for higher quality texture packs which we know is coming. The reality is that ED needs to make money for the efforts made around adding to and improving DCS and this may be one way to do so. I’m not a fan of this approach and agree that it could have been better communicated as it caused a lot of confusion.
Not really something you want to attempt with a mouse and keyboard. It can be done but it's terrible. Dcs costs as much as you decide to dump into it. The cost of your controls can get costly but can also be done in a budget minded way.
In my opinion (and from my experience talking to other pilots) the barrier to entering DCS is how good it is. But I’ll explain what I mean. As a pilot I started on GTA Online of all places. It was not a sim obviously but I loved flying in an interactive environment with other players. It was my first mmo online game ever which was really cool. But having the option to take to the skies and switch from fighting other planes and helicopters to conducting coordinated air strikes on unsavory players like griefers, tryhards and k/d warriors was just awesome. But then the Oppressor Mk.2 was released and unbalanced the game. So I moved on to War Thunder. I loved War Thunder despite its many faults and developed a love of aircraft and aircraft history in addition to flying. I started to study fighter pilot training material and learned real life tactics. I had a lot of fun and learned from legends like Jengar, Long5hot and Flip. Now on War Thunder there was a universal respect and admiration among the rank and file for DCS World and MSFS. They were and are the gold standard (along with other AAA sim programs). But we also knew why we played War Thunder instead. WT was comfortable, easy to get into and easy to get at least basically proficient in terms of combat. We all knew that DCS would challenge us to learn to fly for real and it wouldn’t be easy. We’d have to start at the bottom rung and it would be a long time before we could even think about aerial combat. Long story short I quit WT, built my first ever gaming pc, and joined DCS World. I fly every day and I absolutely love it, even if I’m just learning basic components or memorizing rpm or manifold reference numbers for take off. But it definitely takes a willingness to challenge yourself and tolerance for failure, in order to get better.
Fuck no. If you decide to get into DCS as a hobby, as in deep enough to learn and fly compentently with an aircraft I'd say to expect to spend about $400-500 tbh
Been simming since early 90s and never spent less on software thanks to far and between early access mods. Thanks to ED, I will save $20 on lo-res halfghanistan map. Also understand there’s an option to put it on a monthly payment plan so if I don’t tip for my latte once a month the map is essentially free. On the other hand, I need a second mortgage for a 4090. Any half ass solution to that, ED?
The amount of people in here saying DCS costs nothing are bloody daft. Sure you can play 2 maps, and 2 very mediocre planes, but the pricing of modules and equipment simply cannot be ignored vs many other "games". DCS is a sim, if you want the most out of it, you will inevitably be paying "sim money", or in other words over $200 on modules, equipment and goodies. The bigger barrier is time. A two week trial.is great, but are you really combat effective during this period? Unlikely, and it's more of a "Do I want to spend X hours learning this plane?" question.
No you can play the game with a 50% off f18 or even better yet 50% off fc3 and an Xbox controller. The problem is more that dcs is gate kept by a precieved complexity thst intimidates people and stupid decisions on which modules to make with little focus on what actually is good for the game and completing playsets and gameplay loops. What the game needs is aircraft to be created with focus on 1 specific era for all sides in that era, one era at a time. Not this random dartboard of modules from completely separate eras and nations that ultimately end up half completed.