Would you purchase a DCS level flyable air-to-air refueler?

[Cibit]

Had a guest at the b&b works as the boom operator. Says it's just a glorified petrol pump attendant:) also had a guy who built and operated the B52 simulator in the early 70's and a fighter controller moving up to the nearby RAF station:)

[OutOnTheOP]

Besides, I'm a chopper pilot primarily in DCS - I don't need an in-flight refueller. :P:D

 

MH-60L DAP/ MC-130P combo?

[SFJackBauer]

I read up a bit about the A330 MRTT. Apparantly, it can double as a cargo plane or troop transport. That would add some appeal, I think.

 

Yes. It would be more appealing to me if they modeled the airframe in several configurations. Tanker-only is maybe, but if its a tanker+cargo plane, it would be good. And if it was a tanker+cargo+early warning radar (like the IL-76 or the B-767) that would be an insta-buy.

[Pman]

I voted yes. Really interested in the Airbus A330 MRTT that VEAO plans to release. It's less about the tanking for me and more about learning to fly a big plane like that in a simulator that works well with my computer.

 

Yes thats right, We started looking into it as we needed a tanker for the Typhoon as the current western tanker wont refuel it.

 

It sorta grew from there that if we are going to make a tanker anyway, why not look at making it a flyable aircraft, this is obviously dependent on us being able to get multicrew working correctly etc etc

 

VEAO has half the aircraft ever made on their list.

 

Dont think I'd go that far, but alot of my choices are themed etc

 

Pman

[Pman]

Yes. It would be more appealing to me if they modeled the airframe in several configurations. Tanker-only is maybe, but if its a tanker+cargo plane, it would be good. And if it was a tanker+cargo+early warning radar (like the IL-76 or the B-767) that would be an insta-buy.

 

The number of man hours to do something like that to DCS levels is astronomical.

 

Tanker and Cargo maybe, AWACS I'm sorry is out of the question for us

 

Pman

[USSInchon]

I think it would be interesting to see a flyable tanker. I think a much larger map and multiple crew capacity would make it much more palpable as the tanker would be more of a requirement rather than a novelty. At present I would like to see an AI KC-130 for the hornet or at least the KC-135 wtih Mk32B wingtip drouge pods for NATO support.

[KLR Rico]

I'll buy anything released for DCS, but a tanker would be a waste of resources that could be spent on "fun" planes.

 

I've been working the KC-135 for the last 4 years and I've flown on a few AR missions. While it's awesome seeing another plane that close in flight and the view from the boom pod is pretty amazing, the whole flight profile isn't terribly exciting. Basically standard IFR flight and at some point another plane flies up and the boomer sticks the nozzle in the other jet, then they go away and then it's back to a regular IFR flight and landing. :)

 

Don't get me wrong, it's fun to watch & experience, but there's not a whole lot more to it than flying any IFR flight in FSX aside from the CRM and specific AR procedures. The boom doesn't do a whole lot, it looks a lot tougher to be a receiver. However, I'm a huge fan of anything DCS and I'd buy it, I just think there are other heavy aircraft with a lot more exciting missions, even a slick C-130.

Edited September 24, 2014 by KLR Rico

[Python]

I would buy it for sure, if only to get an accurate handling large aircraft. I like that DCS is very much branching out, while modern fighters are my thing, I'll buy everything that is made to a good standard within DCS. This includes all trainers which I have a fondness for.

[Aginor]

Hmmmm....

I chose number three. But only because I can't imagine having fun with that.

 

Still an interesting idea, I guess.

[Raven Morpheus]

Besides, I'm a chopper pilot primarily in DCS - I don't need an in-flight refueller. :P

 

MH-60L DAP/ MC-130P combo?

 

As much as I love the Black Hawk and it's variants, it's a modern helicopter and I'm not that much into modern air combat (although I do sometimes wish we could emulate the 160th SOAR), mainly because it's very one sided - I've yet to see the Taliban, Al Qaeda or IS display air superiority or engage in any sort of air combat with helicopters and/or jets, probably because they have none! You have to go into the realms of fantasy and concoct scenarios between US/UK/NATO forces and Russia/China for any sort of a balanced conflict where aircraft become anything but an "uber" weapon available to one side only.

 

So, yeah a Black Hawk and/or it's variants would be a nice addition to DCS, if only to fly around in and do a few "Black Hawk down" type missions, drop some troops off, and shoot some poor insurgents on the ground who can't really respond, but I doubt any missions would require the use of a in-flight refueller as the map wouldn't be big enough.

 

So, again, as a chopper pilot I don't need an in-flight refueller. :P

Edited September 24, 2014 by Raven Morpheus

[Random]

If it was a Victor I would. (Especially if the bomber version came later)

 

If it was a VC10 I would.

 

Anything else woukd be a maybe.

[Darkwolf]

So Jaguar "won't sell enough" - "A330 MRTT" Will ? LOL I can smell a military contract behind - which is all the good i wish the VEAO team :) :) :)

[Python]

If it was a VC10 I would.

 

:thumbup:

[Exorcet]

Yes. Even if I never used the refueling capability, it could be a nice stand in for an airliner until someone actually gets around to making one of those. I'd then have the refueling to fall back on if I wanted to. Actually, using the jump to aircraft feature, I could get around the drunk guy in the KC-135 and refuel myself before jumping back into my fighter and going to work.

[Pman]

So Jaguar "won't sell enough" - "A330 MRTT" Will ? LOL I can smell a military contract behind - which is all the good i wish the VEAO team :) :) :)

Difference here is that we have to model the MRTT anyway and get it functioning as a tanker for Dcs for Typhoon or you have no refueling for tiffie

 

Jury is still out on Jag, sorry no changes on that front

 

Pman

[kontiuka]

Difference here is that we have to model the MRTT anyway and get it functioning as a tanker for Dcs for Typhoon or you have no refueling for tiffie

 

Jury is still out on Jag, sorry no changes on that front

 

Pman

I guess the upcoming hornet could make use of it too since it's a basket feeder.

[VincentLaw]

Difference here is that we have to model the MRTT anyway and get it functioning as a tanker for Dcs for Typhoon or you have no refueling for tiffie

Technically blue has the S-3B tanker for probe refuelers, but the model is really outdated, so I am happy with the A330 getting done.

[OutOnTheOP]

As much as I love the Black Hawk and it's variants, it's a modern helicopter and I'm not that much into modern air combat (although I do sometimes wish we could emulate the 160th SOAR), mainly because it's very one sided - I've yet to see the Taliban, Al Qaeda or IS display air superiority or engage in any sort of air combat with helicopters and/or jets, probably because they have none! You have to go into the realms of fantasy and concoct scenarios between US/UK/NATO forces and Russia/China for any sort of a balanced conflict where aircraft become anything but an "uber" weapon available to one side only.

 

So, yeah a Black Hawk and/or it's variants would be a nice addition to DCS, if only to fly around in and do a few "Black Hawk down" type missions, drop some troops off, and shoot some poor insurgents on the ground who can't really respond, but I doubt any missions would require the use of a in-flight refueller as the map wouldn't be big enough.

 

So, again, as a chopper pilot I don't need an in-flight refueller. :P

 

What, because there aren't any plausible near-peer foes out there? I mean, it's totally inconceivable that NATO and Russia could ever come into conflict over, I dunno, territorial disputes in Ukraine? Or Maybe China/ US-ROK-Japan over claims to fishing/ mineral rights in international waters?

 

I mean, by that logic, everything (EVERYTHING!) in DCS other than Mustang-Dora is completely ridiculous. After all, when is the last time F-15s, A-10s, or any other NATO jet operated against WP gear over Georgia?

 

No, you're right, anything involving two sides with capable air forces is just silly fantasy :megalol:

 

Seriously, though: I think it's important that we have *plausible* match-ups, but that doesn't mean they have to be re-hashes of actual historical engagements. After all, if you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion, then the only fights worth simulating are actual historical dogfights between two specific tail numbers flown by two specific pilots on a specific historical day, replicated turn for turn and move for move... and at that point, you might as well script it instead of trying to fly it

Edited September 26, 2014 by OutOnTheOP

[Exorcet]

Seriously, though: I think it's important that we have *plausible* match-ups, but that doesn't mean they have to be re-hashes of actual historical engagements. After all, if you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion, then the only fights worth simulating are actual historical dogfights between two specific tail numbers flown by two specific pilots on a specific historical day, replicated turn for turn and move for move... and at that point, you might as well script it instead of trying to fly it

Agreed. I understand some of the desire for historical missions, but sometimes I wonder why it's taken so far. Why is it so unacceptable to fly a situation that never actually occurred?

 

To each their own as long as they don't try to drag everyone else into their way of thinking only though.

[Raven Morpheus]

snip...

 

 

I agree, adhering 100% to history, blow by blow, shot by shot, isn't feasible nor interesting.

 

However, on the other hand I don't care much for 100% "what if" scenarios full of wild speculation on "what could be".

 

There is a middle ground - as campaigns in IL2 1946 show.

 

And although we're not told everything I'm sure there wasn't much air combat in Ukraine recently, if there was even any at all. None of the conflicts you mention have escalated to such a degree where they could be simulated in DCS in any meaningful or interesting way, in my opinion.

 

Modern conflict is very one sided whether you like it or not, because of the type of "enemy" forces currently being engaged in "major" conflicts. Currently there is no major conflict between NATO/UK/US/RoK/Japan and Russia/China or anyone of similar stature (if there is anyone) and I don't believe, because I've seen how conflict has been resolved for the last 30 years between all major players, that there ever will be.

 

It would simply not be financially prudent, for a start, for any of the major players to go to war with each other and their respective leaders and ours know that. We are in a mutually agreed stalemate, for want of a better term, and I can't see that ending unless something goes very very wrong, and if it does we'll be in WW3, and you and I won't be worrying about how authentic our flight sims are!!

 

So yes anything where the US/UK/NATO etc. (i.e. the west) goes to war with an equally capable force such as Russia/China is fantasy, because the last time they were at war with such a force was Vietnam (and even then the US had air superiority), which ended in 1975. All conflicts since then where the west has been involved have been the west vs technologically disadvantaged/inferior forces, or just didn't amount to much combat, if any, just peacekeeping and patrolling.

 

DCS, to me so far, is a collection of aircraft all thrown together with a single map and fictional campaigns that bear little resemblance to actuality, but if you don't think about them too much can be quite plausible. Kind of like the Gran Turismo of flight sims - one or a few tracks and 100's of cars to race on them regardless of whether the cars would race there in actuality.

 

That doesn't mean we can't enjoy what is in DCS, and want for additional items though (although as I said I don't see the need for a air-tanker), but if you can have hyper-realistic flight/avionics models where speculation is kept to a minimum (I'm assuming ED and co. don't speculate wildly on how a particular plane/helicopter behaves), why not strive for the same realism/authenticity from the maps, missions and campaigns?

 

:)

Edited September 26, 2014 by Raven Morpheus

[mmaruda]

Air-to-Air Refueler? Really? What's next? DCS: Hot Air Baloon? DCS: Flying Broom? DCS Barking Legends: The German Shepard?

 

I have an idea: why don't we focus on actually encouraging the devs to finish the current products in beta, deliver EDGE, or what's it's called now, the Nevada map that has been promised like ages ago and actually make DCS stand for Digital COMBAT simulator? Because currently it's more like Digital Confusion Simulator:

 

- last aircraft fully released that actually makes sense in the current environment is the A-10C

 

- modules stay in beta and remain unfinished, while new beta's roll out the door every month - the community is fine with that lol

 

- sales on new modules appear a month after the release while the products

are still in BETA!

 

- new useless planes are announced almost daily making this a poor man's FSX (because in FSX you can actually fly somewhere else than Georgia), while the community applauds - since you are so happy about the newly announced DCS M-18B Dromader, don't be surprise that the Hornet doesn't come out until 2025

 

- multiplayer is atrocious: no favourite server option, no server search by name, no built in voice chat, no access to options once online, terrible sync issues (people flying through mountains, inability to land on ships if you are not the host etc, inconsistent damage modeling throughout clients, I could go on)

 

- is FLAK ever coming to DCS?

[VincentLaw]

Air-to-Air Refueler? Really? What's next? DCS: Hot Air Baloon? DCS: Flying Broom? DCS Barking Legends: The German Shepard?

Excellent suggestions. I have added all of these to my day-one-buy wish list. The playable German Shepard is actually the only reason I bought ARMA 2. Maybe if you are lucky I will also announce my useless DCS mod soon.

[kontiuka]

^^^

Guys, sorry to be a pseudo mod here but I made this poll to talk about air-to-air refuelers, not EDGE or Nevada or FSX or ARMA. Thanks!

 

P.S.

 

Please don't turn this into a wish list ...

Edited September 26, 2014 by kontiuka

[mmaruda]

I guess there are people who would like to fly tanker, but I think this being a combat simulator, we need stuff to do combat in... And combat that actually makes sense...

[KLR Rico]

^ Tanker pilots log "combat" hours and get "combat" metals. ;)