DCS needs two-seater planes/helicopters

[Rapier-VCG-]

Been following this thread for a little while now, and while the possibility of being able run a crew aspect in multiplayer does sound very enticing, my concern is in regards to stability in multiplayer as well as single player. Now anyone who has played online knows that each connection to the server is different, so how will they address the lag issue not to mention packet drops.

Now I would be happy with a working cockpit, and the ability to hand off targets to a AI gunner who will engage targets within a specific set of criteria that you the pilot and commander would have to maneuver the aircraft into to get a engagement from the AI gunner. Keep in mind this would be for rotary aircraft, but I am sure something could be thought up to utilize the navigator aspects in fighters

[janpitor]

 

Pretty sure :thumbup:

[piipu]

There are already two multi-crew aircraft in the sim. What we need is the ability to operate them with two people, which Belsimtek has already committed ED to doing, not more aircraft that need two people to operate them.

 

Are you referring to the Huey and Mi-8? Because those are completely useless without any sort of defensive systems. We need helicopters like the Mi-28, Apache and modern Cobras that can actually have a chance of surviving a Stinger or Igla missile fired at them. In the Akula you are dead 100% of the time unless the missile happens to come from right in front of you in an angle that is not obstructed by your cockpit, and even then only if you weren't so busy with the Skhval and all the other systems you need to worry about. Sure, even a Huey is useful if your enemies are only infantry with AKs and RPGs but that is really atrociously boring. We need proper combat helicopters, not those useless choppers from the early 70's.

[Flycat]

Well,Arma had already developed mulit-crew system.We can drive the tank as the gunner or driver and fly the heli together.

So I think we also could do it on DCS.

In fact,I'm looking forward to have the tomcat.

LOL

[ChickenSim]

As mentioned in numerous other threads, I would also like to see dual-seaters implemented.

 

How hard it is to develop, difficulty finding people to play with, or "what I'd do if someone lags" is irrelevant to me. The cooperative experience of sharing a cockpit is too good to pass up, and can also be used as a trainer or as a tool for easing people into the scary (oft expensive) world of study sims.

 

I'd really like to see some variant of the Hornet (either D or F), given their multi-role nature. It has a robust mission set in both air-to-air and air-to-ground (the Marine Corps uses them as all-weather strike aircraft). It's capable of performing all functions of OAS and SEAD, and opens up a lot of multiplayer opportunities for simulating FAC(A), TAC(A), and SCAR in large scale missions with a variety of other platforms being flown. Plus there is the added bonus that variants of these airframes and models are already being created, lessening the workload somewhat for the developer.

 

If not a Hornet, a Strike Eagle would do nicely.

 

As for helicopters, a more modern AH-1 or an AH-64 would be amazing.

Edited May 16, 2014 by ChickenSim

[howie87]

In my opinion this is essential for the Hawk, Huey and Mi8. It would enable virtual squadrons to effectively train new pilots and double the combat effectiveness of the helicopters. Later fast jets would be improved even more by adding 2 seater options.

[EchoMasterMind]

As mentioned in numerous other threads, I would also like to see dual-seaters implemented.

 

How hard it is to develop, difficulty finding people to play with, or "what I'd do if someone lags" is irrelevant to me. The cooperative experience of sharing a cockpit is too good to pass up, and can also be used as a trainer or as a tool for easing people into the scary (oft expensive) world of study sims.

 

I'd really like to see some variant of the Hornet (either D or F), given their multi-role nature. It has a robust mission set in both air-to-air and air-to-ground (the Marine Corps uses them as all-weather strike aircraft). It's capable of performing all functions of OAS and SEAD, and opens up a lot of multiplayer opportunities for simulating FAC(A), TAC(A), and SCAR in large scale missions with a variety of other platforms being flown. Plus there is the added bonus that variants of these airframes and models are already being created, lessening the workload somewhat for the developer.

 

If not a Hornet, a Strike Eagle would do nicely.

 

As for helicopters, a more modern AH-1 or an AH-64 would be amazing.

 

+1

This is pretty much all I have to say about twin-seater jets. It would be a great addition to DCS.

[Aginor]

Well, I'm all in favour of multi-crewed stuff.

Especially if said stuff is also flyable alone.

 

So if they give us a Tomcat or a Phantom or a Tornado or a SU-34 I hope they find a way to create an AI guy in back that is

- not magically better than a human (for example unnaturally good in spotting enemies)

- not useless (like in making it impossible to operate the aircraft as a singleplayer dude)

 

So yeah, I really hope that ED/BST/VEAO/others get that working. Starting with the Hawk and the Huey, those are great testbeds. Then something more complex, like an F-4 or F-14 or F-15E. Or all of them. :)

EDIT: Forgot the heli guys. For those a MI-24 or AH-64 would be great of course.

[Buzpilot]

yes but not very high on the priority list. even if they develop it , i'm not sure how well its gonna work simply becouse you're playing over the internet , what happens when someone lags or something? hmmm...

 

To prevent server lag, the codes between multiplayer clients is simplified, and syncing cockpit systems takes too much, probably.

Not sure if it's possible to have multiplayers having a second peer to peer connection for syncing alone, is that possible?

[PFunk1606688187]

Im not going to get into the details of it other then we have made no secret of the fact that we are looking seriously at this for the hawk

 

That said. I wish the quoted text above was true. It is not.

 

Pman

 

Well I don't want to tell you your business, and I'm not an expert, but somehow some guy in his spare time managed to do quite a bit of work to sync up the PMDG 737NGX.

 

http://www.desk-pilot.com/#

[Pman]

Well I don't want to tell you your business, and I'm not an expert, but somehow some guy in his spare time managed to do quite a bit of work to sync up the PMDG 737NGX.

 

http://www.desk-pilot.com/#

 

I appreciate that its been trialed in other flight sims, But DCS works very very differently to DCS.

 

Sadly its not as simple when you are talking the degree of fidelity that DCS provides vs other flight sims.

 

Re Buzzpilot's question, to the best of my understanding that connection is not possible at this stage.

 

It is possible within DCS but its a case of a combination of 3rd parties and ED getting it working and it will take time. I couldnt even begin to think of an ETA of it on the Hawk at this moment in time. But as soon as we can we will incorporate it into the Hawk

 

Pman

[PFunk1606688187]

Sadly its not as simple when you are talking the degree of fidelity that DCS provides vs other flight sims.

In all fairness the fidelity of something like a PMDG aircraft is pretty damned high, higher than with most FC3 aircraft I'm pretty sure. The systems complexity and depth of whats modeled is pretty high. Granted the biggest issue with syncing a shared cockpit seems to be the avionics, like the FMC, but overall thats not really necessary for the most basic of flying experiences.

 

What is the difference if all you need to do is be able to share the state of button clicks, with the non-lead pilot basically being slaved to the state of the lead pilot's craft? What I mean is if your goal was literally to have someone just sit in the same plane as a person flying, able to flip some switches like on radios and experience the same flight path with limited latency.

 

To me it doesn't really seem to matter what fidelity of systems we're really dealing with here when the bulk of what creates a shared cockpit is basically just button presses and switch states that all exist in and are triggered by LUA code. The effect of those presses might be something beyond anything FSX does, but how different is a taxi light switch in a DCS aircraft to an FSX tubeliner?

 

It is possible within DCS but its a case of a combination of 3rd parties and ED getting it working and it will take time.

I think thats basically what I said. Its very possible, its just a matter of applying the time and resources to make it happen which would likely be considerable and usually that investment doesn't weigh well against its implied benefit, next to other concerns at least. There are so many things which require far more work right now and there are very few devs to go around.

 

I do hope that its on the map somewhere as with DCS World in its continuous state of game engine renaissance, now is the best time to incorporate it into the landscape, if not literally at least in terms of building into the new infrastructure the appropriate doors to its eventual implementation.

[Pman]

In all fairness the fidelity of something like a PMDG aircraft is pretty damned high, higher than with most FC3 aircraft I'm pretty sure. The systems complexity and depth of whats modeled is pretty high. Granted the biggest issue with syncing a shared cockpit seems to be the avionics, like the FMC, but overall thats not really necessary for the most basic of flying experiences.

 

What is the difference if all you need to do is be able to share the state of button clicks, with the non-lead pilot basically being slaved to the state of the lead pilot's craft? What I mean is if your goal was literally to have someone just sit in the same plane as a person flying, able to flip some switches like on radios and experience the same flight path with limited latency.

 

To me it doesn't really seem to matter what fidelity of systems we're really dealing with here when the bulk of what creates a shared cockpit is basically just button presses and switch states that all exist in and are triggered by LUA code. The effect of those presses might be something beyond anything FSX does, but how different is a taxi light switch in a DCS aircraft to an FSX tubeliner?

 

 

I think thats basically what I said. Its very possible, its just a matter of applying the time and resources to make it happen which would likely be considerable and usually that investment doesn't weigh well against its implied benefit, next to other concerns at least. There are so many things which require far more work right now and there are very few devs to go around.

 

I do hope that its on the map somewhere as with DCS World in its continuous state of game engine renaissance, now is the best time to incorporate it into the landscape, if not literally at least in terms of building into the new infrastructure the appropriate doors to its eventual implementation.

 

Alot of the things you would like answers to I cant get into due to NDA.

 

But comparing something like FSX with DCS is like comparing apples and oranges. They work so differently. Especially when it comes to ASM and Flight modelling. This makes it a very complicated feature to include.

 

As/when the feature does come it will be a full dual control, I don't agree that there is any value in adding twin seat control if only some of it works. When it happens, we will do it to the same degree of fidelity as the single stick.

 

But trust me in that if it was something we could do easily we would already have done it.

 

Pman

[sorcer3r]

As for helicopters, a more modern AH-1 or an AH-64 would be amazing.

 

I would be already happy with a modern equipped UH1. Seems to be really hard to implement modern stuff (e.g. MWS) in DCS modules. :(

[[DBS]TH0R]

First they need to sort out their MP code in the first place, to prevent lagging and zooming. Then we can request a dual seater which would of course be a awesome. :)

[PFunk1606688187]

Alot of the things you would like answers to I cant get into due to NDA.

 

But comparing something like FSX with DCS is like comparing apples and oranges. They work so differently. Especially when it comes to ASM and Flight modelling. This makes it a very complicated feature to include.

I just don't understand how flight modeling and ASM has anything to do with it when we're talking about the switch states which are themselves not high fidelity simulations, just the switches which trigger commands that tell the game engine to do the stuff that is really complicated.

 

Surely you're not telling me that flipping the taxi light on and off in a shared cockpit is just as complicated to accomplish as syncing the CDU INS/GPS and target data in a tandem cockpit?

 

 

As/when the feature does come it will be a full dual control, I don't agree that there is any value in adding twin seat control if only some of it works. When it happens, we will do it to the same degree of fidelity as the single stick.

TF-51 jumpseat as proof of concept. Seems like that'd be the obvious place to start as its a very simple aircraft with no avionics and nothing for the passenger to do but look around. It also means that the free part of DCS will be instantly available to anyone who wants to ride along with an experienced pilot, meaning you can probably get the hooks in them even faster because they won't need to learn how to start up a P-51 to see how cool it all is. Sounds like rock solid marketing to me.

 

As far as other aircraft with dual controls, for the purposes of teaching people to fly its greatly advantageous and just plain fun. When people suck at DCS and need to learn its hardly avionics you're gonna sit them down and work on first.

 

Lastly, even single seat aircraft could have a sync'd spectator mode where you could literally watch someone's inputs as they describe to you how to fly something or how to go about performing a complicated combat task or whatever. Even if the systems aren't sync'd just seeing how someone sets themselves up for a bombing run, or the flow of someone in a dogfight would be pretty cool.

 

I get it though, you're a salesman. You won't compromise your product with a half finished thingy, etc etc, whatever. DCS however is pretty much a perpetually unpolished, poorly optimized, work in progress. Nothing is ever done. There are bugs that seriously detract from the fidelity of every module that will probably never get fixed.

 

New things also come to DCS really slowly. Most people here would probably jump at the chance to share a cockpit with a friend, even if its incomplete.

[Pman]

I just don't understand how flight modeling and ASM has anything to do with it when we're talking about the switch states which are themselves not high fidelity simulations, just the switches which trigger commands that tell the game engine to do the stuff that is really complicated.

 

Surely you're not telling me that flipping the taxi light on and off in a shared cockpit is just as complicated to accomplish as syncing the CDU INS/GPS and target data in a tandem cockpit?

 

 

 

TF-51 jumpseat as proof of concept. Seems like that'd be the obvious place to start as its a very simple aircraft with no avionics and nothing for the passenger to do but look around. It also means that the free part of DCS will be instantly available to anyone who wants to ride along with an experienced pilot, meaning you can probably get the hooks in them even faster because they won't need to learn how to start up a P-51 to see how cool it all is. Sounds like rock solid marketing to me.

 

As far as other aircraft with dual controls, for the purposes of teaching people to fly its greatly advantageous and just plain fun. When people suck at DCS and need to learn its hardly avionics you're gonna sit them down and work on first.

 

Lastly, even single seat aircraft could have a sync'd spectator mode where you could literally watch someone's inputs as they describe to you how to fly something or how to go about performing a complicated combat task or whatever. Even if the systems aren't sync'd just seeing how someone sets themselves up for a bombing run, or the flow of someone in a dogfight would be pretty cool.

 

I get it though, you're a salesman. You won't compromise your product with a half finished thingy, etc etc, whatever. DCS however is pretty much a perpetually unpolished, poorly optimized, work in progress. Nothing is ever done. There are bugs that seriously detract from the fidelity of every module that will probably never get fixed.

 

New things also come to DCS really slowly. Most people here would probably jump at the chance to share a cockpit with a friend, even if its incomplete.

 

Regarding your first section with taxi light etc - NDA

 

I have never doubted the benefits of having dual controls, Its not a case of not wanting to do it just a case of not being able to do it at this point in time. For the time being we have many more important things to dedicate manpower too.

 

Speaking as a pilot from the Virtual Horsemen we are looking forward to taking people for rides like you say. But working from this side of the fence I know the vast amount of work it will take to get it working as well.

 

It will come, I just cant say when

 

Pman

 

P.s if you saw the work load I have to deal with you would retract that Salesman remark :P

[hypersonik]

YES, I am expecting it a year after the helo infantry transport is complete :P :detective_2:

[PFunk1606688187]

Regarding your first section with taxi light etc - NDA

Its a shame. I have no problems being proven wrong by knowledgeable people, when they have permission to share that knowledge anyway.

 

 

P.s if you saw the work load I have to deal with you would retract that Salesman remark :P

 

Heh, I just meant with respect to that single comment, not to your whole job. I had no intention of denigrating your work.

 

I am looking forward to the Hawk and I very much like how I see VEAO do business. Thanks for sharing what info you can.

[Devil 505]

You guys are forgetting the two seater of all two seaters! BAM!!!!

Edited May 17, 2014 by robert.clark251

[Cali]

Lots of people want it, but I'd rather fly and do everything in my jet by myself. Although it would be cool, we'll see what happens.