StressLess

Sorry meant it as a more generalized, somewhat rhetorical, question... A social observation if you will... I don't think think this mystery plane is the MIG-29A as a couple of months ago there was a big kerfuffle about how they can't do MIGs or SUs or (insert redfor here)s because of politics. This mystery sandwich was served up well before that, so the possibility of the MIG-29A would be a more recent development... So we come back the the Apache as the most likely, and for many this would be a brain melter (especially of it's the Longbow version), or the F-111 Aardvark.

You mean the Magic 8-Ball was wrong about it being the Tornado?? Bite your tongue for that blasphemy! Magic 8-Ball is NEVER wrong (only merely incorrect, on occasion). I wonder if we are all on the same page on what the term "brain melter" actually refers to, though?

You know what would REALLY be brain melting?? Zero (0) aircraft modules in the early release stage at any one single point in time, any one day, in the near future... You know what would be EVEN MORE brain melting?? Zero (0) modules of ANY kind (aircraft, terrains, campaigns, etc.) in the early release stage at any one single point in time in the near future... Of course, such a thing might be construed by some as one of the signs the Apocalypse is upon us (the real one that is, not one of these bullshift fake end-of-the-world events that you keep hearing about ad nauseam)! But I'd settle for any missile capable redfor aircraft with radar at this point, though I still expect the mystery aircraft to be the Tornado...

Ok then! Glad we've straightened that out and have put it behind us now! On to other, more interesting, topics... The Osprey would be an interesting module for DCS (from an enthusiast standpoint), it'd be nice to have another carrier capable aircraft. And even though it's only recently been deployed (in the grand scheme of things), it was developed in the 1980's so there may be a chance of getting the proper permissions to do this module right by ED. My question is what variant would be suited to DCS, and how would it fit into what's already available in the DCS sim world?

Wow! Touchy!! I simply made a declaratory statement directed at all readers and allowed them to identify with it or not, there was no specific intent to hit a nerve! But here in this statement I am talking to the one I quote above specifically. just because you're not in the market for it doesn't mean a market doesn't exist. It's fine that not every aspect of DCS suits you, it means you're normal. Welcome to the human race! We are in a thread in the DCS wishlist category talking about a mystery aircraft that ED will be announcing sometime this year. I think it's going to be the Tornado, but thought that an AWACS would be a cool alternative as well, especially if it were integrated into a sophisticated dynamic campaign system with an AI that could manage human input as well during the campaign. Now even if they didn't do an AWACS that way, it'd still be cool way to do a dynamic campaign and a giant leap forward from earlier attempts. But adding in the ability for air traffic control by players to DCS would be welcomed by many. Both player driven ATC and AWACS would be great too, even without a dynamic campaign! And at the risk of repeating myself, just because you (the reader) are not in the market for it doesn't mean a market for it doesn't exist! Now lighten up and don't take everything so personally, we're here talking about a game, mind you, A GAME! LOL!

Along those same lines, did you know that among the civilian aviation sims there are entire groups dedicated to doing air traffic control in multiplayer. And that they actually run schedules, with certain people assigned to particular airports and times being on-duty (usually based on where they live), and if they can't make it, they get someone to cover for them? They even use voice comms and such as a part of it... They also have groups dedicated to pilots who actually do scheduled flights out of assigned airports at assigned times, and are serviced by the air traffic controllers I mentioned above. I mean, the buzz over the release of this new MS civilian flight sim is not JUST about how beautiful it is, it's about how this will be servicing the community as a whole! There's been discussions on how to grow DCS, and this is certainly an area that should be looked at! But not just air traffic control, but extending that to AWACS and such, which you simply CAN'T get in a civilian aviation sim! Just because YOU (the reader) may not the market for it, doesn't mean there ISN'T a market for it! But tethering the dynamic campaign to the functionality of the AWACS in the theater would make for a great way of interacting with the campaign at the mission level. I mean, having multiple missions going on at the same time on a multiplayer server thru this would make game play so much better for all the participants, whether flying a mission or coordinating from the AWACS. At that point you could have a DCS MMORGP with a ongoing dynamic campaign that can actually be influenced by the players and yet still be unique enough each time you log on to be challenging. No MMORPG in any genre can offer that right now...

Why would you need to model the AWACS radar system at all? The AI in a dynamic campaign would be keeping track of all the same information that would be available for an AWACS (which is actually only a subset of ALL the information being tracked), so all you would need to do is emulate the operation of an AWACS with the ability to manually take over certain aspects of it in single or multi player. I mean you'd do a full pro level study simulation of the aircraft itself, at least from the aspect of the cockpit and flight systems (though with a competent AI pilot, if needed). But the payload in the body of the plane (where the magic happens) can all be emulated from the dynamic campaign AI interactively, where the player(s) can adjust the operation of dynamic campaign at the tactical level through the AWACS interfaces. Doing it that way, the AWACS radar system becomes as simple as determining what data wouldn't be physically available due to the radar's limitations (as the AI is all-seeing, limiting intel would be needed to make the game more competitive). Of course, this is based on the assumption the dynamic campaign is truly dynamic and isn't being faked or fudged too heavily (which happens a lot). Even then, this could still work.

So what if this mystery aircraft were a fully functional AWACS and was one of the lynchpins of a dynamic campaign engine (allowing both single and multi player play)? Wouldn't that would be a mind melting milestone, an unprecedented paradigm shift? Wouldn't that be an excellent follow-up to the Supercarrier module just released into EA? I still think it's the Tonado, though the F-111 is sounding better and better as a runner up. But an AWACS sure would be enough to make up for it not being a redfor aircraft (if that be the case)!!

Back in the 1970's when VW Bugs were ubiquitous and cheap, people would take the chassis and power train from the VW and build up dune buggies and kit cars. It's the kit cars which are of interest here, since you had exotic sports car bodies available in kit form (actually, you still do), one of the more popular ones was the Nova by Sterling Kit Cars. The Nova looked a LOT like the European sports cars of that era (Lotus, Ferrari, etc.), and while they SOUNDED like a Porsche, the kit cars didn't HANDLE like a Porsche! So what would happen if a Sterling Nova kit car were to show up at a Run-What-You-Brung race at the local track and a Lotus or Ferrari showed up as well, and the challenge was on? How would that VW Bug chassis and powertrain perform against either sports car? So while the FC3 planes look great, under the hood is more or less a VW Bug chassis and powertrain like a kit car! And racing kit cars vs. other kit cars is a cool and pretty exciting thing in and of itself, even if it's not like doing it with REAL sports cars! And racing kit cars has challenges all it's own and is more accessible to the average joe as well (I'm not ragging on FC3, it is what it is)... Which brings me around to my original question, if it's not clickable (read - pro level study simulation) why bother in DCS? I see these vids on YouTube all the time, something like 2x F-16 vs. 5x MIG-29 (basically sports cars vs. kit cars), and it doesn't make sense to watch them! Now when I see vids that say 2x F-16 vs. 10x MIG-21bis and think that might be interesting as it's pro level sim vs. pro level sim (though 2x F-16 vs. 12x Mustangs might be EVEN more entertaining, or 1x F-15 vs. 3x MIG-29!). Why waste time building a kit car when all the time and resources can go into the real (cough, cough) thing? I mean the community can make all the kit cars it wants (and it does) thru modding. Just throw on a new body and tweak the flight model a bit and you have a new kit plane! You can't do that with the pro level study sims...

If they're non-clickable, why bother??

It's referred to as the "Mirage 2000C" on both the RAZBAM website and in the RAZBAM DCS module manual. Where did you get the idea they didn't call it the "Mirage 2000C"? https://razbamsimulations.com/index.php/dcs/mirage-2000c Licensing aircraft is a very complex topic that's affected by so many factors and can vary depending on the level of the simulation being created (say an arcade level vs. a FC3 level vs. a professional study level simulation), the country in which the licensing is to take place, or how old the aircraft being simulated is, among other factors (such as patent, trademarks, copyrights, classification level, etc.)! There is no one size fits all, but if not addressed by the developer it can cause anything from the company being shut down, to settlements being paid in court, to being jailed in some cases. Licensing has it perks as well, it can provide access to important performance data not available in the public domain and such, it can make or break a product's feature set. So these developers have it get it right or face losing everything and more. And these various factors can make some aircraft easy to license or develop on, while making other aircraft simply unavailable for simulation...

I've posted several times in this thread about how the Tornado is likely to be the ONLY possible answer to the question of what this yet-to-be-announced mystery module will be!

No, it actually doesn't! Each module is a separate product and each developer is responsible for their own licensing of the aircraft. The aircraft module and DCS World are two entirely separate products! And it's ALL about the licensing, so if a 3rd party is able to get the license necessary to build a redfor module, then THEY could build the module and make it available for sale on ED's DCS World platform. The problem ED has is, basically, that they are prohibited from having the license and developing the product themselves due to the jurisdiction their company resides in. Question becomes, if a 3rd party in another part of the world manages to wrangle a fixed wing redfor license, will they be able to sell the resulting module in Russia and associated jurisdictions?

Excellent choices! I'd put order of preference of these at 1. clickable Mig-29A, 2. AH-64, 3. Tornado, and 4. Yak-3. Unfortunately, the least likely one is the clickable Mig-29A, while the most likely one is the Tornado and is almost certain to be the mystery module...

The MOST important part of any new release is the licensing, as without this (or a legal way around it) DCS could lose everything it's built up over the last few decades. This kind of rules out the SU-27 or the MIG-29, or their derivatives (which sucks). Second most important part is support for the systems needing to be modeled in DCS World, which rules out anything with stealth technology (F117, F-22, RAH-66 Comanche, etc.) given the current roadmap for DCS. So, given the recent acquisition of the Eurofighter license by a new team developing for DCS World, it would make absolute sense that the Tornado license is also available from the same entity as the EF2000 (and is likely much cheaper). There's nothing about the Tornado that is difficult to simulate that isn't already supported in DCS World, such as no need for stealth technology, so it's a good fit for the sim. And it certainly meets up with the hype surrounding this TBA aircraft! It's highly likely that the Tornado is the mystery aircraft we are discussing in this thread.

Cha-ching! @Vertigo72 comes thru and I finally got my money back, thanks man! But like many of the others in this thread, I'm bailing out also! It's been great, and it's been fun, but I can't say it's been great fun... PS- @Vertigo72, don't forget to let us know when either the mothership lands or when FS2020 actually develops a ground war feature for their sim, whichever comes first!

I'm insulted, that's ME that keeps pointing out that this is simply about your wanting to get the modules for (almost) free! Keep your opposing thread participants straight would you?? Actually there's a pool going on what naïve or simply asinine idea you will come up with next and I'm behind a bit 'cause you have come up with some REAL doozies that truly stretch the imagination! Question is whether we can keep you going long enough for me to win my money back...

So fixing DCS World involves scrapping it and going with a different product that has little to do with the primary niche that DCS World currently dominates? And you're saying your ideal version of DCS World is something other than DCS World? Sounds like you took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in a part of town you just don't want to be in, and instead of turning around and leaving you want ED to screw the rest of us over just to fit your idea of perfect? :doh:

What's any of this have to do with the lame idea of ED destroying themselves by going subscription? BTW - you're being fast and loose with the term "credible military sim" here, even kind of overselling it a bit (ok, overselling it a lot)! I don't get the impression that you actually understand the niche that DCS occupies in the part of the military sim market that's accessible to us mere civilians! Their closest competitor is IL-2 Sturmovik, who themselves produce aircraft that compete strongly with the simpler FC level of aircraft modeled in DCS. And IL-2 doesn't do modern aircraft at all, though in the slice of the milsim niche they do service, they make a great product! But who else makes professional study level simulations of military aircraft and landscapes of ALL eras that are affordable and available to the general public worldwide? If you haven't yet, listen to the Nick Grey interview done at the Grim Reapers YouTube channel on the P-47 where he does a DEEP dive into how modules are developed (starts at ): Of note is that those who purchase early access modules subsidize the cost of development not only with the dollars spent but with the effort put forth as beta testers as well, shaving what could be hundreds of dollars off the cost of the modules otherwise, as well as halving the time it takes to develop these modules vs. ED doing everything in house. Without their current business model, doing what ED does would not be practical at all! If they had to release ONLY completed modules, there would be no DCS World! Or we would be limited to the simple FC level of modeling you see in all other milsims, relegating DCS to being just another "Johnny Come Lately". It's hard to second guess more than 30 years of milsim development and marketing from the armchair perspective of a end user!

@Vertigo72 wants to get access to all the modules for (almost) free rather than pay for them like the rest of us have. In another message thread he even proposed making access to the beta version of DCS subscription as a way of doing this (so not only will no new DCS users be generated to help pay for this, ED would lose most of their beta test team as a result of such a lame idea as well)... Yeah, he's shown that he's pretty naïve about business and the game development industry! But, MAN, does he want what he wants, damn the rest of us!! Of course by now he's so far into this he needs to try to save face from looking like an idiot, so I can't imagine he'll give this dead horse up anytime soon! :pilotfly:

Hawking that getting your modules for (almost) free crap still?? Nice twist, subscription betas! I thought going subscription would attract tons of new users to DCS to help pay for things, so how in the name of all that's holy will making the beta a subscription service bring in new users to carry the load (not that you ever answered that question about the stable version in your other thread on subscriptions either)?? Do you know what a grifter is? It's a person who gaslights others to get things for free... Hmm, now why did THAT just come up, and why does it seem so relevant?

You mean the one they offer for free? Why, that's pretty easy to answer: Speaking of DCS World, if FREE with 4 working aircraft isn't currently bringing in millions of new users to the game, how is charging for a subscription going to do it?!?!? You've yet to explain the mechanism of how this is supposed to work! Inquiring minds want to know...

:prop: Let us know when the mothership lands....

But it DID correctly represent THAT market (home owners), so renting a home to home owners IS not a viable business model... Just like making module owners "rent" the modules they own is not a viable business model either... I think you're on to something here! :doh: PS- You're SO silly, I really hope they don't ban you for using naughty words to cuss me out a few messages back in this thread... I forgive you!! BTW- I don't think ED is going to ignore basic economics just so you can get (almost) free modules, but they seem to be open to doing more free weekends with particular modules, so you actually MAY get the chance to try them out before deciding to save enough money to eventually purchase them for yourself. TIP - wait for the sales!

And yet they DO and they HAVE, both the Black Shark 2 and the A-10 modules for example! :yay: The analysis you and others have presented in various postings on this thread seem to ignore a most basic fact, a fact so basic that it undercuts what might otherwise be a proposal worth considering by ED. So just what is this most basic fact? Except at it's most basic level (the free version), DCS is not readily accessible to the average gamer with only a casual interest in military aviation. DCS does a good job at addressing this with it's free entry into the DCS experience, but military aviation is still a tiny niche when compared to the entire gaming universe as a whole (also keep in mind that quite a few people are literally forced into subscriptions with Adobe and Autocad, but people aren't generally forced into playing games). And those of us who are willing to spend 15 minutes just to get the aircraft ready to fly before we ever get off the ground are an even smaller niche... We also happen to be the ones willing to spend US$80 on a professional level module for an aircraft that is legendary, even though that module is NOT completely developed yet! We love the ability to be a part of the development process and are willing to even pay for this privilege! Yes, it's a privilege to be a part of the development process for such unique and outstanding products and to help shape their future. And not just a part of that process, but an integral part of that process as Nick from ED pointed out in the P-47 video posted in an earlier message on this thread, participation without which developing these products would be virtually impossible... To try to destroy the DCS experience just to get modules for (almost) free is just wrong on so many levels (and I'll note that while this motive has been spun by others previously in this message thread it's not been refuted at all, but rather tacitly admitted to).