Eagle Driver

Suped up uber X-Wings? Did you read the opening post? The whole point of this is to create planes using realistically pheasible technology. I don't think the F-189 would be better than the Raptor, but it would be NICE to deviate from the same problems of 'not enough info' because of stuff being classified. There's a lot of stuff to know and work on, but just because it isn't real doesn't mean it has to be as fake as possible. Also, about beating out the world's top engineers, we'd have an advantage over them in being able to study, look at, and to a certain degree emulate thier work as opposed to starting from F-15 like they did with Raptor. In all likelyhood, the lack of total info would make it harder to create something of DCS or FigtherOps quality, but I think it would be very very feasible to create a fictional 4.5th or maybe 5th generation fighter at the LockOn level. We don't have to model every single fanblade of the engines, the precise dust pattern made by the main gear on a gravel strip, or the voltage used by the AESA, we can just fill it in to create a unique flying experience that cannot be suspect to infringing on classified data or be compared against a real thing by the group of cynics we simmers tend to be. X-Plane sounds interesting, never really paid attention to it. Is it possible to model radar and weapons systems in that?

Well, something to consider is that while the technologies you'd use would be realistic, they wouldn't have to be real. For example, the radar on the F-189 is similar to an APG-77, but there's no way we can realistically model an APG-77. The missiles are not real missiles, the guns are not real guns, but it's all pheasible with today's technology. This is what I was aiming for. Just throwing together real parts in a realistic way would be just as bad as trying to model a Raptor, impossible unless you're using old stuff. The challenge is to make it up to the standards of now, but having it be fictional, so classified information becomes a non-issue.

The AI seem good at it. I saw a Ka-50 in FC try to take on a whole squad of Hornets flying at Angles 20. He didn't last long, after one kill a phoenix from an escorting Tomcat got him. There was Kamov dust raining after that incident.

Happy Birthday! I think you need to take a day off and have fun with that DCS beta you've got. Just remember to work 4x as hard the next day ;). Y'know, DCS would make a great present for my birthday coming up real soon... in August.

Sounds fun, I kinda wanna do the whole helo vs fighter thing anyway after you've said that. Then again, I want to be on the F-15 side of the equation, I was really looking foreward to Kamov-CAP until DCS was announced.

Pic isn't showing for me... Anyway, I think that from this we might spawn a "planes you designed" thread or similar, to keep this one more on-track with any sim aspect of it. Opinions? As for the 60 years from now thing, I'd say that's a bit much, considering that 60 years from now was WWII. It would be hard for someone to realistically envision the F-22 back in 1947, and similarly we don't know what 2067 will bring. For all we know, there might be world peace by then, or worldwide nuclear winter. In 2067, fighters could use scramjets, or have moved away from jets entirely, just as we moved away from pistons after WWII. Aircraft could use lasers, they could dogfight on the moon, we don't know. To really make it realistic, you'd have to really design the whole thing yourself, that means you invent and engineer every part that isn't feasible with today's technology. Definately, we should stay in present-era technology, lest we make it any more jaw-droppingly impossible than it already is. Now, seeing as there is no "plane designs" thing yet, I'm going to put here a scan of the F-135A, a semi-stealthy aircraft that takes it's biggest advantage from it's missile armament. The missile, not drawn to completion, is called the AAM-120 "JAVLRAAM" and you can read about it in the attached document (requires MS Word... I think.) Aircraft and missile done in AutoCAD... in school! EDIT - Updated JAVLRAAM Files document for first time in 6+ months. Specifically, I adjusted the intercept process to make it more TWS-friendly. JAVLRAAM Files.doc

Ooh, predator. I hope it will be able to perform some actual significant role, unlike transports and recon in LO.

It's never pretty, but it might make it easier to think that they would've done the same to you many times over, and enjoyed doing so for their convoluted perception of Islam.

Maybe it means Shkval?

I know, and I'm not debating. I'm just saying that not only is it most likely for them to go fixed, it's also wisest. My vote for helo goes to AH-1W.

Realistic Fiction. What I mean is, don't research real planes, with real operations and real XY and Z. Make it up yourself. Not like AceCombat Falken death-plane with lasers all over, I'm talking realistic. I've been designing jets for a while, and I just recently got into drawing the cockpit of my F-189A Tyrannosaur, and I have been having the greatest urge to fly it! For those of you who don't know, (aside from Red Wyvern, that's all of you) the Tyrannosaur is basically a Raptor, but kinda different. I added some things, and probably made some worse. The most notable improvment I can think of is the IRDAR system, InfraRed Detection And Ranging, basically like the IRST of Flankes and stuff, but with much more modern IIR technology, and slewable between -10 and +95 degrees elevation using a Shkval-like think on one of the tailfins. This is just an example of the kind of stuff you can do, you could make a plane like the F-15, Hornet, Flanker, some helicopter, it's up to you *Points to all tens of thousands of DCS forum members* Remember, when you make it up, it can't be classified. Maybe you have an idea for a RWR that can tell you the range of an emitting radar based on it's type and signal strength, and displays that over a 3D map so you know exactly where it is (I call it EWANS, it's MINE!). The possibilities are endless, you can fix the mistakes and pitfalls of real-life and create some of your own for us simmers to deal with! I personally know one person who has designed an aircraft so magnificent, so revolutionary that an engineer who worked on the Eurofighter was impressed with it. It appears to be a generation ahead of Raptor, and he has more information on it than you can probably find on most 4.5-gen planes, certainly more than is available for F-22. If anyone is interested and has the resources (HAHAHA! Oh, that's a good one!) feel free to PM me and it can be discussed in more detail.

What if it's not a dedicated fighter on CAP or similar? I'm imagining that you're taking out targets, and an A-10 or something is doing thier commute to the Russian lines, and starts to see the Yanks blowing up around him, he's going to be bringing heaven and ---- down upon you real quick. This doesn't seem like an unlikely scenario, particularly with the Hawg which is, as you all know, designed to support and protect the very creatures you're going to be Vikhring. If I knew that the A-10A was flyable, and I will, then I'd really want some R-73's to outrange his Sidewinders. Honestly, I would be willing to give up the rockets in favor of some Archer action, I never liked rockets that much and I think the gun would do fine in that role for me. I'm not saying that you should model it, but I think the "little helo-helo combat" think is hokus-pokus, because there hasn't really been two major helo-operating powers going at it (unless Iraq was big on choppers, although I think we all know what lovely jet [strike eagle] took them all out on the ground.)

I think it would be wisest to move on to fixed-wing aircraft after the Ka-50 and Apache. After all, fixed-wing aircraft operate with a much wider range of roles and are much more diverse in general, leading to more varied gameplay. I personally think it would be wise to choose unique aircraft, my recommendation for the next Rus-US "set" is the F-14B/D (Seriously, the A was a debacle) and the MiG-31. These two are perfect counterparts, both designed with similar interception roles, yet with vastly different methods (well-rounded vs untouchable missile truck). Of course, the Tomcat would require that carrier operations be modelled well, and the MiG-31 would require the ability to see the curvature of the Earth. Can anyone here tell me that this wouldn't be cool?

Why would it not use the AIM-120D though? I mean, sure the current ones work fine, but the D will work better, provided there's good detection range. Speaking of AAMs gone SAM, I would love to see a Phoenix-based SAM... with thrust-vectoring.

Thing is, even if you're not looking for them, when they pop up an air target can be far more deadly than a ground-based one. Tanks can't chase you down.

Built for high-intensity but stuck in low-intensity situations... sounds like the US military to me. It's hard to built for a low-intensity conflict, I seem to recall a quote from somewhere saying that you cannot win a gerurilla conflict. Strange to think that the weaker the enemy, the harder the time a large military seems to have with it. Take Iraq for example, in 1991 it was almost easy to take out one of the largets armies in the world. Now the new one, the enemy is much less powerful yet much more difficult. Ka-50 as-is is certainly a strange combination.

So THAT'S why they have F-15's down there! I tells ya, that is one hot jet.

In your list of big-bad American SAM's, you forgot our best one. SLAMRAAM to the rescue, I'd take that over a Tor any day. Not sure about the comparative ranges, but if SLAMRAAMs start packing Delta model Slammers, it's all over for RWR-less Hokum. They don't call it the BS for nothing. :thumbup:

And just hope the mission builder didn't have the cajones to put in an Eagle or Flanker. I don't know how the AI will be on this front, but in LOFC they would instantly know where you were, that means helo-death unless that part's improved (I'm sure it is, right? Right!?)

Wow. Agility like that is beyond even the MiG-29OVT... Still, I like Kamov's approach to improve accuracy, quite effective I'd imagine, as agility is always good. Still, from a game aspect I'd really enjoy sitting in an Apache and shooting down a Hokum I'm flying in formation with. Shooting stuff that's not in front of you is always fun.

I read that it was for accuracy. They chose to give the helo itself agility and used a more fixed cannon, which results in a higher degree of accuracy that the Apache's chaingun for example. I think they said the Ka-50 itself could turn at a similar rate to the Apache's turret, seems fishy to me.

I do not think multiplayer would be much of an issue. If implemented, it would be easy to add something to the mission editor or even the options screen to completely take them out of the game if you so choose. Surely this would be the case for the most part in multiplayer. However, I think that as a single-player thing, it would be a nice option to have as a severe blow to an enemy airbase or naval force. Honestly, I don't think sinking a Nimitz Class ship is possible IRL without use of nuclear weapons, you sometimes simply need that one-hit knockout (admitted, it would be submarine-delivered in that instance). Also it should be clear precisely what a nuclear weapon is capable of. If you drop a nuke, it's not going to level the map, it's going to level Simferopol' airbase and the surrounding area, lots of gameplay still open, plus the added complexities of EMP and radiation that some players may very well enjoy the challenge of. As for the fact that there hasn't been nuclear conflict in 60 years: that's because there haven't been two nuclear-capable countries going at it in all that time. You have to admit, neither the US or Russia has gone in a very serious all-out campaign against a worthy adversary where nuclear power might become a viable option. DCS, on the other hand, simulates a conflict that might, if the mission builder so chooses, involve a nuclear strike. I now present to you a video, demonstrating in a very emotional way, a possible scenario that could be used with nuclear weapons in DCS. The video is made with Flaming Cliffs, good editing software, and a lot of time. I did not make it, I just like it.

I know it's been said before, just trying it nail it home a little more, pointing out reasons why it is cranking down the realism. With jets it's honestly not that bad, with looks anyway. But for a low-level chopper sim I think it deserves a change. At least with the new engine.

Oh, I have. If I even SAY the words "rudder" or "pedals" in the same five minutes, the response will always be an exhasperated "I know!" If Christmas doesn't see me with a set of pedals, I will simply buy them with my own money. Sure, it will eat up 90% of it, but it sounds like it'll be worth it. Proud owner of X52 Pro and TrackIR 4, hoping to complete my holy trinity set (term coined by SimHQ AFAIK).

Okay, I get it. Roger that, ignore the first part of my previous rant.