What Ultimately Determines Wishlist To Reality

[mrmertz]

Lol...sorry about typo in Title!

 

Thought I would post this here hoping a dev or two may actually look to see what consumers are requesting with great wads of cash in their pockets are proposing.

 

But my question is what exactly determines which aircraft are feasible to make it from wishlist to a full fledged PFM module while others got shot down in their tracks as "not doable"? For instance, yes I and others would have like to seen an F-4 Phantom variant to go along with the Huey and a new Vietnam map to boot wouldn't have hurt either for the realism and immersion factor but in another posting was told no, you won't see the F-4 in a DCS module for purchase. It is modeled however in AI form, so we know it can be modeled (and yes I know there is a huge difference between just modeling an AI aircraft versus fully flyable and PFM modeled aircraft, but what exactly keeps certain aircraft "out of the race" into becoming a module in the first place? Money? Aircraft complexity? Two or more crew members?

 

The F-4 already has been modeled as an AI aircraft, so we know that can be done. There are plenty of two or more crew membered aircraft in modules and PFM flying around already both in prop and jet, so that's out. Is the aircraft just so complex that it doesn't justify the expense?

 

Just stumped as how some are classified as "you'll never see it released as a DCS module" while others whom seem to be no more different in terms of complexity make it into the line up. Does it have to do with some sort of licensing agreement?

 

Just wondering. Besides the F-4 never being able to make it into the lineup, which others have been shot down as not feasible as to making it from dream to reality? Maybe a link here? I'm new and just getting into DCS and must say blows everything else away. So would that mean an f-105 Thud would be out of the picture too because of ????

 

So, what's the bottom line? Marketing versus costs of development? Confused.

 

Thanks!

Jeff (again)

Edited December 10, 2014 by mrmertz
Title Typo

[Kuky]

Well, to model something as accurate as possible you need to have real data, info, FM charts, systems and most likely access to real aircraft, (and for military aircraft you'd probably need their/military approval to create such software for the public in the first place)

 

So if you don't have those you can't model it... not accurately anyway, if you create a module of such aircraft anyway it'll be based on guesses and ED are not about such modules for DCS aircraft.

[Darkwolf]

What Ultimately Determines Wishlt To Reality

 

 

Business.

 

Eagle Dynamics is a company. They need to pay their employee and make benefits in order to run. So, to keep it simple, like any other each plane / map / new feature is like a new product.

 

Those products have cost (devellopment) and revenue (sales). They will consider viable project and devellop them. Beside this, as a company, they have to consider all the legal liability (copyright) and things that are impossible to devellop.

 

For example, F/A-18, which is a very well know plane, is an heavy investment with a heavy potential. BF-109 is a lesser costly project but with faster income. DCS-2 is a project that won't bring any money straight away, but keeping the customer base by providing superior simulator environment, hence supporting the sales of other products.

 

Or I may be completely wrong and they just choose random planes after a few bottle of vodka but I doubt about it :P

 

 

That would be nice from Wags to jump in here.

[Roadrunner]

maybe we should create a sticky thread with FAQ for this topic, as the answers are widespread over the forum and the question arises frequently.

 

anyway, here are some answers:

 

- licence costs. i.e. pman from veao said in an interview, that BAE wanted to give them the same licence agreement as a real manufacturer would get. would have been expansive i guess, anyway, getting a licence that still let you make profit is not always easy.

 

- why AI and not full modeled? well, kind of has to do with the licence. in a full module the real thing is eventualy copied as close as possible, therefore, even as virtual thin, you copy the work of others. for an AI you only have the shape and roughly matching simple flight model, no big deal there.

 

- the company itself might dedicate itself to specific airframes they like. dont forget, not much profit in this genre, so most folks are driven by their passion, and doing something you dont like is not realy an option there.

 

- data availability, existing airworthy aircrafts, pilots who fly/flew the aircrafts, number of still secret systems, thats another part. how close to the real thing does the company want to go? i.e. there are no secret systems in a fokker DR.1, think about a raptor, almost everything there is secret.

 

- time / workforce, how many plans has a company, how many projects in the making, do they have the knowledge, the manpower? VEAO for example seams to go up step by step, the hawk is fairly easy from the systems side, no MFD's or something like that. one has to learn step by step, and that makes high end jets something that is planed, but needs more time.

 

maybe that helps a bit, and as said above, maybe we should do a sticky FAQ for this topic.

 

regards,

RR

 

PS:

that information must not be perfect or complete, any corrections and/or additions welcome.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Roadrunner

[marluk]

Hi Jeff,

 

You mention F-4 Phantom. Indeed many of us would like to see it modeled in DCS, but the problem lays is social reason. If modeled properly it would require two pilots for combat missions. One pilot is not enough because at the time it was overwhelming for one pilot to manage all systems in the combat.

So how many users of DCS has partner pilot to fly with him regularly. Not much I guess. So all dual seat planes where both pilots are required to fly the plane are automatically rejected.

 

This is just guessing but I think there is some true here.

Edited December 10, 2014 by marluk

[Belgeode]

Hi Jeff,

 

You mention F-4 Phantom. Indeed many of us would like to see it modeled in DCS, but the problem lays is social reason. If modeled properly it would require two pilots for combat missions. One pilot is not enough because at the time it was overwhelming for one pilot to manage all systems in the combat.

So how many users of DCS has partner pilot to fly with him regularly. Not much I guess. So all dual seat planes where both pilots are required to fly the plane are automatically rejected.

 

This is just guessing but I think there is some true here.

 

You raise an interesting point Marluk, but I think they can work around that. The F-14 tomcat is another really awesome plane I have been dying to see in DCS World, that requires two people (pilot and RIO). In the past I have flown it in games like Falcon (Openfalcon), and the workload did not seem to be any more than say the F-15 in DCS. If they were to do it "right", I imagine the complexity to be on par with the warthog, which is to say a handful but doable for one person.

 

The hardest part with both planes would be how to portray the backseater (as pop up windows like the Huey cargo sling camera? as a seat you can jump into thus putting the plane on autopilot while in it?).

 

At this point I would be happy to see BOTH the phantom and tomcat made in the style of the F-15. It does not have to be all out like the warthog.

 

Of course I would also like to see the CH-47 Chinook helo as flyable too, but who knows if we will ever get that one either.

[marluk]

You raise an interesting point Marluk, but I think they can work around that. The F-14 tomcat is another really awesome plane I have been dying to see in DCS World, that requires two people (pilot and RIO). In the past I have flown it in games like Falcon (Openfalcon), and the workload did not seem to be any more than say the F-15 in DCS. If they were to do it "right", I imagine the complexity to be on par with the warthog, which is to say a handful but doable for one person.

 

The hardest part with both planes would be how to portray the backseater (as pop up windows like the Huey cargo sling camera? as a seat you can jump into thus putting the plane on autopilot while in it?).

 

At this point I would be happy to see BOTH the phantom and tomcat made in the style of the F-15. It does not have to be all out like the warthog.

 

Of course I would also like to see the CH-47 Chinook helo as flyable too, but who knows if we will ever get that one either.

 

Of course, it is doable to model dual seat plane so one player can fly it. But jumping from one seat to another and using autopilot or some kind of AI is fidelity compromise.

 

I believe it could be done at Flaming Cliffs fidelity level, but I think that ED is aiming on high fidelity for future DCS planes.

 

On the other hand we have multi crew Huey already, so everything is possible. Maybe they decide to create dual seat plane in the same way.

 

If ED decides to create such plane I'm voting for F-14 :).

 

For me, and my free time that I have for DCS, it has enough planes already. I would be happy to see more investment in content. For instance Warthog has great training missions. Why all other modules doesn't keep the same standard? If somebody decide to create similar or better training or some other kind of missions I would buy them too. There is one third party project - Maple Flag Missions, and it is great but I would like to see something more interactive, live and less script.

[SilentGun]

Ide vote an F-16C as for it is the most unclassified modern jet probably in the world. I don't know if other people agree but surely would buy more than one and share if with friends. my 2 cents

[Nate--IRL--]

Another reason is permission of the copyright holder and or relevant government Dept, needs to be acquired.

 

Nate

[kontiuka]

You raise an interesting point Marluk, but I think they can work around that. The F-14 tomcat is another really awesome plane I have been dying to see in DCS World, that requires two people (pilot and RIO). In the past I have flown it in games like Falcon (Openfalcon), and the workload did not seem to be any more than say the F-15 in DCS. If they were to do it "right", I imagine the complexity to be on par with the warthog, which is to say a handful but doable for one person.

 

The hardest part with both planes would be how to portray the backseater (as pop up windows like the Huey cargo sling camera? as a seat you can jump into thus putting the plane on autopilot while in it?).

 

At this point I would be happy to see BOTH the phantom and tomcat made in the style of the F-15. It does not have to be all out like the warthog.

 

Of course I would also like to see the CH-47 Chinook helo as flyable too, but who knows if we will ever get that one either.

Leatherneck Simulations has been laying some tantalizing hints that their next aircraft will be an F-14. Nothing confirmed yet though.

[mrmertz]

Hi Jeff,

 

You mention F-4 Phantom. Indeed many of us would like to see it modeled in DCS, but the problem lays is social reason. If modeled properly it would require two pilots for combat missions. One pilot is not enough because at the time it was overwhelming for one pilot to manage all systems in the combat.

So how many users of DCS has partner pilot to fly with him regularly. Not much I guess. So all dual seat planes where both pilots are required to fly the plane are automatically rejected.

 

This is just guessing but I think there is some true here.

 

So based on that I guess no flyable WW2 bombers then would be available. Bummer.

[mrmertz]

Not necessarily, I am sure that having the computer handle some of the tasks involved in flying a complex bomber when there is no one in multiplayer to help pilot the bird, isn't out of the question.

 

So with that being said, not to beat a dead horse, would be nice if they could incorporate that same tasking to the back seater if flying solo in an F-4E. If indeed, such tasking would be available and work in a realistic manner.

 

Since they are flirting with the B-17 in the new theater module and talk of being even at some point flyable, would be cool to be able to implement a single player into the element instead of always having to play multi simply because it's a multi-command aircraft. I'd love to fly solo missions in a B-17 or B-24 during a career while having an all AI crew, so long as it could be integrated correctly. Perhaps even let the AI take over then go man the bomb sights at the critical,time would jazz things up even more....but would probably have the devs pulling their hair out too.

[Nooch]

VEAO will make a WW2 bomber, after the DC3 Dakota. If I remember correctly, they talked about a 2016 release.

 

The hardest part with both planes would be how to portray the backseater (as pop up windows like the Huey cargo sling camera? as a seat you can jump into thus putting the plane on autopilot while in it?).

 

Concerning the F-14, no need to lock the plane on autopilot mode when you jump in the RIO's seat. The RIO also have a stick, proper gauges and is able to control the plane.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Nooch

[Bullitt]

A good way to implement a backseater would be to use a simple communication/command menu in line with comms. You could have commands for them to select targets on the radar call out visuals, ect. It would cool in a ACM situation to have an AI able to give regular updates bandit is now at 3 O'Clock or warning when someone gets on your tail. And if feasible implement a multilayer option allowing 2 humans in multiplayer to assume pilot/WSO role.

[SDsc0rch]

...

 

Concerning the F-14, no need to lock the plane on autopilot mode when you jump in the RIO's seat. The RIO also have a stick, proper gauges and is able to control the plane.

 

nope, not in navy aircraft -- NFOs do *not* pilot the aircraft

 

USAF, yes - there is a stick in the back seat

[Belgeode]

Leatherneck Simulations has been laying some tantalizing hints that their next aircraft will be an F-14. Nothing confirmed yet though.

 

There seems to be a couple groups that may or may not be working on a Tomcat. All I am saying is... I want in on the quality assurance testing action, know what I mean? Heck I'll make squadron skins for them all day long as payment.

[Belgeode]

VEAO will make a WW2 bomber, after the DC3 Dakota. If I remember correctly, they talked about a 2016 release.

 

 

 

Concerning the F-14, no need to lock the plane on autopilot mode when you jump in the RIO's seat. The RIO also have a stick, proper gauges and is able to control the plane.

 

 

nope, not in navy aircraft -- NFOs do *not* pilot the aircraft

 

USAF, yes - there is a stick in the back seat

 

 

I was going to say... pretty sure the RIO in a Tomcat never had a way to pilot the plane... at least in the models of Tomcats I have seen over the years.