Migratingcoconut

Guess so, most people think it's plenty. Never used it much myself. I got rid of that one on the poll.

Thanks for the breakdown of these, I think you brought up a lot of salient points. I had similar thoughts when I was trying to figure out what to ask people and had a difficult time deciding how to word things so I just kind of winged it. I was really trying to see what people got out of the free planes; like if they thought they made any impact on their decision to put $ in the sim or not, or if they were just skipped because they already knew what module they wanted to buy. So far I like the discussion this one has generated. When it comes to the question of the trials, I think you made a false dichotomy with buying cars. They are simpler things to learn and get a grasp of. You drive a car up and down a few roads and you got the idea of it pretty fast, there is not much to get to know. With DCS planes, there's a lot of different functions to learn, kinds of maneuvers, systems to work, cockpit layout, etc. They have a lot more complexity in a way that cars do not tend to in my opinion. I think as well that by asking 'enough', I was of course begging the question...because it's literally the question being asked. If I was begging the question as you say, then the answers would be mostly negative, but it seems people understood what I really meant as asked as I read it. Also, I did not know steam users lack access to free-trials. This kind of stuff is why I avoid steam whenever I can. So unfair. In short, the questions were more made to generate discussion rather than be highly decisive, because I really want to hear peoples stories most of all. I think I could have thought them out better though, so I'll get on with mending that. I think ultimately until anyone from ED can weigh in, this matter will largely be subjective and speculative as you say. I'm just hoping it's found to be of value. I'm probably going to be editing the OP itself too at some point, and rather heavily in light of what you pointed out as well as my own dissatisfaction with how some of my points came across to others thus far. So, overall thanks again.

I completely forgot about that, yeah it basically is just that. Where did they announce it? I don't remember seeing it on the news updates.

First off, I know I'm going after sort of low hanging fruit here with this suggestion since I would agree that the free plane(s) are not really what should be the highest priority compared to the core free content that ED is ramping up and focusing on. Now that we have the demo system where you can try most of the paid modules out for two weeks per half year, I figure most wouldn't consider a new free plane at all, but I beg to differ. I think there is still something to be done with this concept. Most of what I bring up will be centered around the new user experience as that is what I believe to be the more relevant perspective to grasp here, and unfortunately, it is hard to poll the applicable audience (new users & those who decided after checking out the base game not to pursue it). It would be great if we could poll both to figure out how to improve the base game, but I'll just use my imagination as someone who fits into neither category. The free birds I figure the idea with the two free planes was/is: Give new users something to play with which does not detract from the selling-point of the paid modules while still offering enough to entice those who want the challenge which the authenticity of paid modules presents. So in my mind (and I could just be getting a wrong read on things here) what justifies a module being free is that it is removed enough from the paid-experience while giving enough of a piece of the pie so as to scratch that itch if it's there to be scratched. If it's not there, then people who should get turned away do get turned away, right? Basically the way they can still result in a net gain is they must wet the appetite of potential customers without satisfying them too much, since they must function as a demo and not the whole product. Even if I am wrong about that being the reason for why they were added, I still think that is the right philosophy when it comes to free planes in DCS. This thread is essentially suggesting this idea be embraced as a base premise, and I'll get to how I think this would best be accomplished in a bit. So, the issue: Both the TF-51 and Su-25T in my opinion do not work well at this. What I have to say is easiest stated in an analogy: If DCS is a pie, it has to have the pastry & the filling. The pastry is the immersive flying aspect of the sim, and the filling is the combat aspect of its gameplay. In order for free planes in DCS to entice people to eat more of the pie, they need to taste like the pie. In order to taste like the pie, they must have both the pastry and the filling. In my opinion neither do, but rather one (TF-51) is like eating just pastry, and the other (Su-25T) is like eating only the filling. Neither represent most of the paid modules, and this problem is even better illustrated if we go by what modules are most popular; they reflect the two free planes even less. In essence, the two free planes are too far removed from the paid-experience in concept that I fear they may be turning people away from the paid modules unnecessarily. Someone will fire up the TF-51 and be like: wow this one is too hard and ungainly.' Then they get in the SU-25T and are like: 'Well this is like a game; not what I'm really looking for.' What evidently sells best are the planes which are fairly easy to learn to fly (like jets vs props) but have all the immersive minutia that add up as well as many combat roles to keep people happy with them. My issue gets down to the fact that no matter how much time you spend in the two, you do not get a real DCS experience-they fail to demo DCS correctly. So, what about the fact that FC3 is a thing? Well, it is, and some people do prefer that experience to the full fidelity stuff, but definetly not most. What about the trials then? Don't they kind of nullify the concept being suggested here? Probably not due to the fact that steam users don't get to enjoy this, but perhaps when/if that is fixed it may well do so. Still, one will not be able to develop proficiency with any module in the time frame allotted by this system which is the only real advantage of a new free plane from the user perspective. For ED however, the benefits are greater I think. Like how advertising DCS as a free to play full-fidelity combat sim will carry much more weight to it in light of the pie analogy, and I think that is significant. Free-to-play doesn't mean demos. The demo is mostly there to help people decide which plane they want if they are already planning on putting money into the game. Adding a new free plane which offers a proper permanent demo long term can grow on people in ways the demo system cannot, even if every user had access to it. I am not saying I think the demo doesn't make new customers, though, as I am certain it does. What I am getting at is that I suspect adding something more permanent will attract enough people to offset the cost of developing the free module in question. But it has to be very specific to not cause problems, and this is very important given what I said earlier about the 'wetting' of appetetites. So what would make a better candidate for a free plane/free planes? So, my suggestion is first that only one plane be added to test the concept, then if the results are good for ED, as the game grows, add another free plane only once the era they represent becomes the vogue, and never before. It may look like: start with one, then in like 2 years one more, then maybe a third years later. Nothing super duper drastic or draining on their resources. Now for deciding on what plane first: I think it would be best not to invest an ungainly amount of resources into anything which certainly won't directly make more $ and will be difficult to verify when it comes to any potential indirect financial effects which come after implementation. One thing is for sure, I think; it would, no matter what it is, bring more people into DCS at the very least. It would need to be a plane which in development terms is not an ambitious project (like the F/A-18C or C-130J). This means no new groundbreaking features that ED is not already working on in their current efforts to improve the core game. It must necessarily still be removed from the paid experience, just not in a way that the current free birds are, like I said. This new approach should come in the form of a full fidelity plane which can only do a low amount combat roles and be limited at those few it can fullfill at all. This is the 'narrow slice of the pie'. An aircraft which can 'do it all' like the A-4 Skyhawk mode (air to air, air to ground, lots of potential roles) are probably also naturally always going to be difficult and costly projects, and I would be concerned that they might detract from some paid modules. The era I am considering is the most popular one which is modern era. Therefore my current top suggestion for a free plane is this: The F-117A has already been requested at least twice in this forum, so I won't go on and on about it in detail here. It fulfills all of my criteria with the only potential exception being: 'no new groundbreaking features that ED is not already working on in their current efforts to improve the core game'. This is because (maybe outdated info on my part) stealth is not really simulated in a realistic fashion yet, and they would have to develop that part of the core game which would affect every other plane in the game. Thing is, I am sure they are getting around to that as I don't see why they would just leave something so essential to the game like radar signatures in this current state given that IR signatures are getting revamped and who doesn't sure radar in this game? So perhaps this will end up being a boon, as the F-117A might be the best way to get around to revamping that part of the game and would provide a great test to said features rather well. I do firmly believe that the F-117A specifically would be a good investment long term (if simulating stealth is not a massive hurdle, which, it may still be idk), since it is so niche in its role that it will not steal the thunder from any paid module that is out, in development, or even planned. All while introducing people to modern avionics of military aircraft. As for any other free planes afterwards, they must fit similar criteria, limited but very demonstrative of what DCS does best. If you agree with my premise, which do you think should be added if not the F-117A? If you disagree with my premise, what do you think would be a better way to bring people into the paid full-fidelity modules? EDIT 3-5-23: Clarification: I know I can't know how feasible my suggestion truly is. The point is: If this does hold water, ED will never know if they don't look into it, which is why I started this thread. They might just say 'no it's not possible' and in that case they lose nothing by analyzing it.

My vote is for the C-141 Starlifter which earned the nickname 'Hanoi Taxi' for sending troops to Vietnam and bringing them back once their service was done. It had a much longer service life compared to the likes of the C-17 and C-5, I am pretty sure they were run way past their life expectancy, basically until they were about to fall apart before we developed new planes in-category. The A model was used during Vietnam and the longer B model was used after. Pretty much paved the way historically for the US modern transports and is rather unsung.

I did not know it had RATO bottles, but that figures as they even put them on the MiG-21. Parachutes would be useful for getting stopped in much shorter distances but then I imagine you are ferrying it back to the longer runways at the lightest possible weight at best from there which would be pushing it. Also I included some of your other points into the main post since I thought they were quite good: namely how the RD could make room for the larger conventional loads. That would be like a mission editor type option I think similar to how you can remove addon armor, exhaust IR suppressors, and cargo doors off of the Mi-8.

Seeing the similarity between the loadouts and such, it really seems like it would be pretty easy to make them all. The only real standout difference is the trainer variant since it has an extra bulge on top. The others just have stuff added and perhaps slightly different cockpit layouts/bulges under the nose.

Tu-22 'Blinder' "one of my more unfortunate creations." ~Andrei Tupolev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ INTRO: Tupolev's other designs were more well received by their pilots after all, and perhaps it would be easier to recommend them instead given some are already AI. So, why do I recommend this one? Lets find out: This video does a better job than I could of describing this plane, its many quirks that make it unique, and its history: Some interesting facts to summarize in case you skipped or missed anything: It's a Mach 1+ single pilot strategic bomber (+ 2 non pilot crew), super high landing speed, ejects downwards, gear sometimes vibrates off the plane during rollout, cant see runway on approach thanks to instrument panel shape during left crosswind, if aoa gets too high during approach the engines will drag you to the ground due to their weight on the tail, and over 1 in 5 were lost in accidents. Also it carried booze. VARIANTS: The two variants I would leave out are the strictly recon and strictly electronic warfare versions (RDM & E variants) because even if that isn't too boring to justify, I'd wager the kub ELINT system and electronic warfare systems are not public knowledge, but I am not sure. Iron bombs though should be relatively easy and the Kh-22 is already in the game on AI planes. Any sub-variant with 'D' means it has a fixed refueling probe on the nose. All in service received this upgrade if they didn't crash first. Without further ado here are the 3 broad variants which I am interested to see from most to least preferred (with sub-variants listed): Tu-22B: Initial version put into service. Conventional bomber. Superseded quickly in own role by R variants. Accounted for 15 out of 311. Tu-22R: Recon variant. Did away some old flaws. Field modifiable to restore B variant capabilities. Accounted for 127 out of 311. Tu-22RD: You know what the D stands for & this is the most important version to add in my opinion. Tu-22RDK: Had the Kub ELINT system added for locating radars. Unknown how many got this upgrade, or if bombing capability is retained with this. Tu-22RDM: Side looking 'Shompol' radar in bomb bay with noticeable fairing in the belly. Likely no bombing capability here. Fewer got this upgrade. | Tu-22K: Kh-22 'Kitchen' cruise missile carrying variant for anti-ship/carrier strikes. Only gets a single missile. Accounted for 76 out of 311. Tu-22KD: You know what the D stands for. Tu-22KPD: P means it has the kub ELINT for finding radar emitting targets and uses the anti radar version of the kh-22. Some got this upgrade. | Tu-22U: Trainer variant which had an extra cockpit above where the normal one is. Accounted for 46 out of 311 Tu-22s made. Tu-22UD: You know what the D stands for. PROS & CONS OF DEVELOPING: Pros: In spite of its imposing looks it would not be very demanding in terms of DCS core capabilities and ground breaking features. Those few unique features it does have don't add up to much of a negative. The main thing going for it is how simple it is. No fly-by-wire, no radar for air-to-air missile shooting, and no glass cockpit with extensive screens and menus to model & integrate with weapons like on more modern planes. Given the versions I am suggesting, we could start with only dumb bombs and the tail gunner in terms of offensive capability, and these things are way less complicated than stuff 3rd party devs have been doing for many years. One other thing going for it is noticeable from a gameplay standpoint. It was flown by a single pilot and for a strategic bomber this is unheard of. Many people talk about how they don't like dealing with Jester or Petrovich to manage their systems, and this is a somewhat different animal to those. From a pilots perspective, yes, you still have a weapons officer. But this is a strategic bomber; the only one in which the pilot's flying duties can be the single player's own alone. I am guessing DCS sim pilots will find this more fun than having to always share those responsibilities. The weapons officer can only see out either side so I imagine as the pilot you will be the one hitting the bomb release. Speaking of crew, I don't think the interior would be too difficult to model since each is rather confined, and the compartments are small. The bomb bay perhaps may be larger but simpler than a cockpit. When it comes to the other stations, I am really not sure what a navigator does exactly or if that is even a seat worth filling in DCS, so perhaps someone may fill me in. The weapons officer I think is mainly there to operate the 23mm radar guided tail gun. Then 3D modeling: There are surviving examples like the one pictured above among others out there. I am sure this would be achievable to a high standard. Given all of that, it would probably be at a lower price point compared to stuff like the F-15E coming out since there is not a whole lot to simulate comparatively. That being said, if any devs would want to go all out on stuff like hydraulic systems, the gear-shaking itself apart and the like; by all means I would welcome it even if it justified a higher price. 3rd party devs more and more seem to be embracing minutia like this lately in their latest work which is great. This plane would disproportionately benefit from that nuance given it's reputation. And with all of that said, we would be getting an entirely new animal in DCS; a true strategic bomber which at top speed would stand a real chance at running away from threats. Cons: There are really only two. Flight modeling: By far this will be the most problematic, and is the obstacle standing in the way of getting more soviet aircraft in the game. Even this old and outdated aircraft is still largely classified and there is no sign of this changing. The real hurdle is the aerodynamic data, I think. DCS prides itself as a platform which provides the best possible flight models, and the best way to ensure accuracy is to have the actual recorded data from those who designed, tested, and operated the real things. The latter may be possible, but seems unlikely in light of it's reputation as mentioned. The former two, not a chance. So a full Professional Flight Model is out of the question. But I am not entirely sure that is a deal-breaker. If we look here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/ there is some interesting info. We can see there are certainly other alternatives to a full PFM. My interpretation of this is that it would require the developers to try and recreate the plane virtually and simulate aerodynamics based on their own model so they can iron make the flight model 'from scratch', but perhaps my phrasing is off or I am just wrong. I am guessing if this were possible then this is where the most painstaking work would be done. At least jets are easier to simulate accurately than props. Sound Modeling: I have no idea if any of the surviving examples still run. The only other aircraft to use its engines were the VM-T Atlant (Carried the Russian space shuttle Buran, both retired long ago), and the Caspian Sea Monster. Do any of these 3 types still run? Better yet, do any of their engines? If not I don't know how the sound can be modeled to an acceptable standard. PROS & CONS POST-IMPLEMENTATION: Pros: We would have the first strategic bomber bolstering the already somewhat under-armed soviet/OPFOR side of things in multiplayer servers. A very unique plane in DCS in terms of: Having a more modern gunner position as a fixed wing. Unique multicrew unlike the helis or twin-seat aircraft which have so far been implemented. Unique and very heavy munitions which can be used for targets of opportunity, unlike the coming MOAB (See C-130 FAQ video on youtube). Would be one of the heaviest flyable aircraft in DCS yet next to the coming C-130J Would not be hindered at all lacking its nuclear capability since the bomber demonstrated more than adequate conventional capabilities IRL. It would make a viable recon plane in cold war servers should such mechanics make it into the core game. Cons: This may give a sort of asymmetric advantage in multiplayer situations when it comes to the fact these things are perfectly capable of loft-tossing MOAB equivalent ordinance (FAB-9000s) at supersonic starting speeds with rather decent accuracy while avoiding AAA return fire + they can start this attack from beneath surface radar coverage. They did this reliably IRL during the Iran-Iraq and Chadian-Libyan war. AI bombers on the other side may counteract this just fine though as a balance mechanic. What may also take the edge off this unique capability is the fact that they will be limited in the airfields in which they can operate from due to high take-off & landing distances. This means the enemy will likely target their airfields more often and so they will need to be more heavily defended. SUMMARY: Once airborne they are quite unruly and will be vulnerable to supersonic fighters especially. This will mean that they are more prone to attrition if used carelessly and will punish mistakes on the part of the pilot especially ruthlessly. This demand for more skill from the players crewing it in terms of planning and pure flying finesse is where DCS ought to shine, I figure. Whether that is a con or not is up to you to decide. Overall their affect in DCS multiplayer is up to some speculation, but I think this would add something truly awesome and unexpected. Keep in mind that when this bomber first went into service, it could pretty much outrun anything else which had the armament to try and shoot it down, as mentioned in the video. With the F-100D Super Sabre on its way as well as the presence of several sub-sonic planes from the cold war in DCS, we might have some pretty interesting what if scenarios to try out. Should just one get through to a target with a good crew in control; ouchy. It would be interesting to see how much the munitions and airframes would need to be limited in the cold war servers to get a proper balance, but I definitely think every flight in one of these, especially with a crew of players trying to do their tasks (flying, defensive gunnery, and navigation) would be a unique adventure each. FINAL NOTES: There is an AI Tu-22 being worked on, you can see some progress here by Hawkeye60: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/318989-su-15-flagon-by-marco1985_it/#comment-5152022 Also read this post: The idea in the last part of this post, in reply to a call for more REDFOR aircraft, is slowly already coming to fruition with the 3rd party development of the MiG-17 and Su-17/22 Fitter by Red Star simulations and Magnitude 3 respectively. Gives me a good feeling that one may look into this. LASTLY: If you have any more info on this plane/its variants please post a reply, I'd love to know more. Don't pull a WarThunder and leak stuff. If you are supportive of this being added, then giving this thread a good rating can potentially attract the right attention to it. If not then leave a suggestion if you'd like, and please be nice. Addenda: Some stuff which I feel deserves to make it into this post which was brought up by others: The recon variants if implemented could have options in the mission editor to remove the camera equipment and allow for heavier conventional bomb loads. Nuclear munitions are ignored as ED has stated they do not ever plan to implement those, and this would have basically zero impact on the viability of this as a module in DCS given its conventional capabilities. I have also updated the pros & cons sections accordingly to other points I think are important which Vampyre made below.

I was thinking of making a thread asking for the Tu-22 Blinder, do you have more info on this? Links perhaps? I'd love to know about it before I post.

About half the time at random when trying to fly as CP/G seat with a friend in the pilots seat, he will wait until all loaded in and then ill get loaded into the front seat. After this he cold starts and all seems well until he either takes off or begins taxi. At this point I realize we (on my end only) are at a perfect standstill. He could be doing barrel rolls on his screen and I am sitting in a running apache sitting statue still watching the cyclic whirl around following his movements. This occurs when I host a server by hitting 'New Server' in the Multiplayer menu, so not a dedicated server. No problems past this since this is such a massive problem for us.

So this is something I have wondered about for a long time. My only issue in the whole game is that if I load into multiple maps without shutting the game down, it just guzzles my RAM usage till it crashes/freezes my pc. I do not understand why it cannot just dump the info when I exit the Mission Editor. Furthermore within one long sitting in the ME it will eventually do the same (cache in ram until no more is left available and crash). Does the game just need a RAM cleaner? One we can configure? My system has a GTX 1080 which is old now, and it's got that 8 GIGs of VRAM. CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-7700K. 16GB RAM. Running DCS on a PCie 3.0 1TB NVME SSD. Lastly: Is DirectStorage something I have to turn on? I'm not sure if I have it.

My jaw is on the floor. This looks outstanding. Well done so far and good luck!

I was ready to make the same thread myself, but yeah the B-25 is a great idea, not only is it a shut-up-and-take-my-money module if full fidelity for me, but it seems like a logical next step for DCS. We fairly recently got the first set of radial engine planes modeled wonderfully. Then we got the first twin in the form of the Mosquito. Next up: twin radial. And in the far future assuming it is executed well it may open the possibility for larger and more complex bombers from the era. Where the sim is right now and the developers experience this seems like the next sort of healthy challenge, the next rung in the ladder toward things like the B-17 or B-29 someday. But back to my main point, as mentioned by others, the B-25 served in most theaters and was super versatile. That is important because having such a module developed gives each potential buyer more reasons to consider it (think F-18s popularity), whereas if they went for the B-26 there is a lot of scenarios of combat and gameplay where it just would not be able to do anything. The B-25 as far as I'm aware had all kinds of weapons; forward facing guns, bombs(obviously), parachute bombs, rockets, flares, and even torpedo's as well. First variant: I 100% think the B-25J-NC should be highest priority as it was the most produced and the most iconic to my eyes. It should feature the glass nose and while it is not the one used in the Doolittle raid, we could perhaps larp on the essex carrier coming out with the F4U. Second variant: and guess what? its in many ways the same one, a B-25J-30-NC. This one pictured still flies and I had the pleasure of crawling around in it once. Should make it an easier project given the commonality between the two for the devs. Other variants: While the earlier versions of the aircraft did serve more in Europe and with the USSR they were not nearly as widely produced. I would be interested in firing the 75mm cannon from one, but those versions of the aircraft had some slight differences in the shape of the vertical stabilizers/rudders, and empennage that would make them a more laborious task for the devs, so I won't push as hard for those, not that they aren't cool. Lastly: Since there are many surviving examples of these today, it seems like it may be possible to utilize that fancy scanning technology that is being used to develop the F4u's interior. Overall this plane is something I have felt would be an excellent idea. If done well it could make the whole WW2 aspect of the game much more developed and enticing. Perhaps we will already be seeing this soon with the corsair, another versatile aircraft. If so I hope developers take that hint and move forward with this specifically, and not something else like it because IMHO the B-25 is the best thing that can happen after the F4U for previously stated reasons. If any developer/company would take up this as a project it seems very realistically achievable and like it would be massively beneficial.

Bump +1