Evoman

As much time as it has taken me in just practicing at getting good at landing on aircraft carriers and refueling with the Tomcat I have had plenty to do as is without it being fully complete. And recently I was practicing carrier traps with the Hornet and it was taking me a considerable amount of time just because I got so used to the Tomcat. In my view there is still a lot to learn about the Hornet that by the time you think you got every thing down a new feature will be out to learn. Plus I as mentioned carrier capable aircraft require constant practice to stay consistent and qualified. lol

I have had the Viggen for some time and while it is not as capable as the Hornet it is still a joy to fly and operate. So I would recommend to just go ahead and get the Hornet this time around to take advantage of the sale. Then later on when there is another good sale you can get the Viggen so you can experience this great aircraft. That way you can have the right tool for the job depending on what you need out of an aircraft for a particular mission.

I think the best investment would be to build something similar to the PC in this guide for $580 that uses mostly new components and a used GPU which in this case is an RX 580. They can now be found used for around $100. Now if you want to go even cheaper and refurbish something older with a few new parts check this build out. Just make sure the the system has at least an SSD, 16GB RAM and a decent GPU like an RX 580 8GB and it should run DCS pretty smoothly at 1080p.

News flash I just ran read a news article that the USAF is sending a hulk of a B-1 Lancer from the bone yard to the to the National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University in Kansas. "Researchers there will 3D scan the entire airframe to create a highly detailed "digital twin" model to help identify areas of the aircraft that suffer high levels of fatigue and otherwise collect data that could help predict future maintenance needs among the B-1Bs still in service." This maybe the perfect opportunity for ED to see if they can take advantage of the project or even helpout benefiting them in bringing the B-1 to DCS. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33151/air-force-sends-full-b-1b-airframe-from-boneyard-to-kansas-to-create-its-digital-twin

I was going to bring up this same exact reality check. But you put into better words. Thank you.

Of all the helicopters to offer for free I could not imagine a more perfect option than the H-13 just because its simplicity. It is so simple that I imagine that the development would take little work compared to the usual module. Plus giving it away will pay for its self many times over by all the interest it would bring DCS.

Here is a good video about the Yom Kapor war in which The Mirage III was used. An interesting part of this video is what one of Israels top Ace said about the difference between the Mirage III and the F-16 @42.09 min towards the end. The Mirage III was one of the last pure fighter jet experiences there were. Just by my experience with the F-14 and the F-16 I can already tell that the F-16 is a very easy to fly computer dampened experience but with the F-14 you can actually feel like you are in full control of it. And I love all the feed back that the aircraft gives off.

There have already been countless request for the various C-130 variants. A while ago Razbam had asked their Facebook followers what non combat aircraft would they like to see come to DCS and the top requested airplane was the C-130. It might not be the AC-130 but it will be a good start so the other variants can more easily follow. Also keep in mind that DCS currently has a two engine limit that it can simulate. So that will have to be addressed and updated before hand.

I am with you on the G-2 Greyhound. Not only would it be a great fun short to medium range transport but it would fit perfectly into DCS current map size and Naval operations. It would also be a good starting point towards the development of the E-2 Hawkeye in the future since they share the same engines and wings. No war is won with fighter jets alone.

This is my most awaited map. But I feel like we would have to wait till we get the F-4 Phantom or A-7 Corsair that are currently in development.

Sounds like a good marketing idea to me to generate more interest in the helicopter modules. I had to look it up but instantly recognized it from the old MASH TV show.

If you do not understand why then you have obviously not done enough research to understand how modules are developed for DCS. But I will explain in simple steps. 1. Data - All necessary data of the flight model, and other systems is needed to develop an aircraft module of this caliber. 2. Classification status - The aircraft sensitive systems like the radar and weapons systems have to be declassified to an extent. 3 License -A license must be obtained from the original aircraft manufacturer to have the permission to sell an official module under the full models name. Having a license also grants access to the necessary data to develop a module.

From my experience Heatblur has been doing a great job at finishing up their modules in a fair amount of time. It all depends who the developer is.

If you have not noticed already DCS needs to keep developing and selling modules to keep the lights on. So even if a module does not interest you, the sales that come of it will benefit you in funding those improvements that you so desire in the long run. Plus you should actually be happy for a module that will be popular not only with Europeans and South Africans but with anyone else that has a preference for older aircraft. More sales = improvements. :smilewink:

Until the Russian government relaxes the restrictions it has, it will continue to be difficult to develop a full fidelity module. Check out this podcast for more details as to why Russian aircraft are difficult to do @11:18. https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

Here is a request for a unique carrier-capable attack aircraft that is actually feasible and would probably appeal a lot to the Tornado fan club because the Buccaneer was its predecessor and it was one of the last all British made combat aircraft. Some interesting facts about the Buccaneer is that it was capable of flying at very low altitudes for a long distance at high speed. In the late 1970’s the Buccaneer had attended Red Fag, in which none of the American aircraft of the time could score a hit against a Buccaneer. For more details of what made it so special check out this video: Prior to creating this new thread, I did some research and found that back in 03/2016 the BANA Project was announced in the below thread that was going to develop the Buccaneer for free distribution. But it seems like the project lost momentum and stalled since then. Which I am actually happy it did because it would had used a simplified flight model and would had lacked the quality of a proper licensed module. Plus, it would have had all of the same limitations the A-4 currently has. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163181

A while ago Razbam had asked their Facebook followers which non-combat aircraft would everyone be interested in. And the top requested aircraft was the C-130. Just because a new module is of a fighter jet, that does not necessary mean it will be a sales success. Because there will always be those groups of people that will have a particular preference for a century fighter, Vietnam era, 4th gen or helicopters. But something like a C-2 Greyhound, C-130 or even a Transall C-160 could have the potential to appeal to all those groups just because its so different and it ain't just another fighter jet. Plus like I had mentioned before there are a fair amount of DCS players that never even fly their fighter jets in combat because all they like to do is just fly around. So something like a medium sized transport aircraft would not only interest them but they might actually be interested in flying cargo missions and even participating online for the first time. And by the way those other civilian flight simulators you mentioned do not have and will not have a working aircraft carrier to make something like a C-2 Greyhound or E-2 Hawkeye worth it or half as enjoyable.

This is exactly why a C-2 Greyhound would be so useful and fun for short to medium range cargo transport runs. This would be a hot seller just because there is nothing else like it in DCS. Everyone one already has plenty of jets but no one has a fun little transport that can do carrier traps with a buddy.

There has been plenty of talk about it in several other threads before. The interest is defiantly there but as I understand it DCS has its limitations with simulating more than twin engines. So before any developer can take on a project to do a heavy, DCS will have to be updated to support it. You also have to take into consideration that the heavies would require a multi crew to operate. So that would also add complexities to the development.

You still will never know 100% how the public will react to something new even if your an expert. My personal view is that a non-combat support military aircraft would be a hot seller because it would appeal to the current DCS player base just because it so different from everything else currently available. Plus I bet it would generate a big interest from other sims pilots further increasing the usual sales numbers. Here are some examples of unlikely sales success among other industries. RC Airliner: Last year an RC airplane company that mostly produced Warbirds and Fighter jets just like all the other RC companies (because it was a safe investment and guaranteed to sell well) took a chance and made a Boeing 737 look alike model. That model is now one of the companies top sellers. Here is the forum so you can see for your self the reaction it got and why it continues to be so popular. https://www.hobbysquawk.com/forum/rc-airplanes/rc-civil-commercial-jets/215182-official-freewing-twin-70mm-al37-airliner-thread The fast and the Furious. When the original low budget movie was about to be released movie critics tore it apart and said it was so bad and that it would flop at the box office. I don't need to explain how wrong the critics were because they did not foresee or comprehend how this movie would appeal to so many others. The Subaru Outback. According to American tastes and sales statistics wagons are not popular in the United States. However the Outback defies those odds by being the only wagon that sells well in America. So the moral of the story is you just never know.:smilewink:

The good thing about the E-2 Hawkeye is that it shares the same engines and wings as the C-2 grayhound. So even if the C-2 were to come first because it is less complex it would help further along the development of the E-3 because most of the engine and wing data can be reused.

You are correct that a typical fighter module could take usually take 2-3 years to develop with their advanced radar targeting systems and various weapons systems. So then a plain C-130 without those added complexities should be simpler to develop in theory taking less time than usual. Let that sink in for a bit. :smilewink:

It always makes me scratch my head when I see someone make a comment that is so narrow minded. Its like they can't comprehend there being more than a hand full of people out there that would be interested in anything other than a fighter jet. Either that or they just disregard the facts so that their own persona agenda for their dream jet is attended to before anything else. Even though the C-130 is not at the top of my list I have a pretty good idea based on many comments I have read over the years that it would be a hot seller enough to risk betting the farm on it. I totally agree that a C-130 would interest more people outside DCS than any fighter jet could. I would even say a C-2 Greyhound or E-2 Hawkeye would also draw in similar interest. There are a lot of people out there that just like to fly around. Here are just a few of many comments I have seen to put things in perspective. ThorBrasil: “What DCS lacks is a transport plane. F-16 was the last fighter I will buy.” Montes: “Yes, airplanes that are not just fighter, we don't all want to fight all the time.” Aluminum Donkey: “I've blown a thousand bux or thereabouts on DCS World, and all I ever really do in it is some furballs and fly around like a civilian flight sim, admiring the scenery. Maybe try to strafe the civilian traffic now and then.”

I recently tried out the Harrier in the free to fly days and also found it to have too much of a work load to do anything in it. Even though I still think the harrier is a cool aircraft it is simply not for me. The Hornet on the other hand I did not mind at all. It had an acceptable work load level while still renaming enjoyable to operate. But since I already have the Tomcat and I am still learning it I don't really have a need for the Hornet. The Viggen has become my most favorite aircraft not necessarily because of its sharp looks but mostly because its simplicity to operate. It has been the only aircraft I have flown so far that fits my comfort level of complexity like a glove. It's like I just understand it. Then the F-14B is my second favorite. I had missed the F-16 tryout, but I still would like to check it out to see how I would like it.

One thing is to like an aircraft for its looks and another thing it is to actually like to operate it. Like the Viggen has become my most favorite aircraft not necessarily because of its sharp looks but mostly because its simplicity to operate. It has been the only aircraft I have flown so far that fits my level of complexity like a glove. It's like I just understand it. Then there are aircraft like the Harrier that I like for its looks and capabilities but I just get annoyed by all the procedures to do anything in it. I am glad I was able to test it out before I bought it. Its still a cool aircraft but its just not for me. As for my request I would like a nice simple but brute powered F-4E.