Cowboy100 wrote:Things like ground handling, accurate FM, fuel and hydraulic systems modeling, 3D sound... basically everything that is held in high esteem and advertised as being a marvel in the sim world is more or less the norm for any given DCS module out of beta(excluding FC3).
That's btw something I do like in particular in DCS: while it is often brought up they are far from perfect, the mechanics of 'partial flight', that is when having one or more contact points with ground, are there and work. In FSX/P3D, this is specifically the
least credible aspect of simulation to me when compared against
how often one runs into it (every flight of mine includes ground portion). Especially with ASN/AS16, I get all kinds of weird and disproportional behaviour in crosswinds in particular. Also, the ground handling in general is far better realized in DCS, being apparently one of the inherent limitations in FSX/P3D.
That said,
CAPFlyer wrote:The reason is that DCS, as good as it is, is still not a procedural, systematic simulation of the way an airplane works. This is what AccuSim does.
Cowboy100 wrote: This is simply false. Without straying too much from topic, but the the DCS A10C is arguably the most accurate rendition of an aircraft (disregarding the software suite updates the real life counterpart has recieved).
...I am not that confident that there would be "the best from both worlds" that would end up to be the sum of two. Many DCS modules are impressive for sure, but they do have their limitations - some apparently only noticeable by someone with real-life counterparts, but others rather easily findable by little knowledge and experiment. And Accusim planes have their limitations too, and while for instance the system and engine simulations go as deep as ever on PC flight sim, they do appear to be necessarily simplified in many, many aspects. And when learning the "tricks" of any given simulation, it is not too difficult to find the limits of the realism.
Having been...well, perhaps part-time flight sim hobbyist for maybe like twenty years, I've been taking the claims of ultra-realism with smile, nod, and replacing the words of realism with "very good representation" or something. At this stage of computer age, no matter what simulation I've attempted (full cockpit sims included), they always are just renderings that attempt to create a believable simulation
within their scopes. Different simulation platforms / engines apparently do have very different scopes and approaches to the problems, and simulation techniques created for one may not be able to push it to the fullest on the other.
I don't see the need for Accusim on the DCS: it tackles the problems associated with designing high-end airplane simulations
for FSX/P3D. The DCS has its own set of limitations, being worked on by different groups of people. I don't see an unfilled "combination" where to specifically bring anything brand-new, only competition - that is, unless totally new segment was opened, perhaps DCS (Digital Civilian Simulation)
.
What I find amusing are the comparisons that are made in between two very often falling into mine-is-bigger-than-yours discussions by the supporters of either, I recall few of such discussions about DCS P-51 vs. A2A P-51. To me, different sims are like different tools, each (or most perhaps) having their places.
While I can see why some developers could do for multiple platforms, I understand why some perhaps don't. But this is only voicing my opinion, as always!
-Esa