gaspuch62 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 B-52 Stratofortress TU-95 Bear AC/C-130 Hercules AN-27 C-5 C-17 AN-225 B-1 TU-160 TU-22 B-2 I think it would be neat to have a heavy Bomber or transport in DCS. Might have to get a yoke though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Folgore1987 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 VEAO is developing a model of the Airbus A330. We might see some WW2 heavy bombers, namely the Avro Lancaster and the B-17 have been mentioned as planned for the future. The B-2 is probably classified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelthunder Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I believe there is already a wishlist somewhere about bombers.But i would like to see the B-1 Lancer,C-141 Starlifter,Galaxy,Globemaster III and Hercules.I also like old classic heavy planes from the 50's like the Peacemaker,Hustler,Stratojet,B-45 Tornado,A-3 Skywarrior/B-66 Destroyer bombers.SAC anyone.:thumbup:And the Douglas Globemaster II and Cargomaster aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
313_Nevo Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 C-130 An-12 :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangi Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 C-27J, AN-74, DHC-4. PC: 6600K @ 4.5 GHz, 12GB RAM, GTX 970, 32" 2K monitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaspuch62 Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 I believe there is already a wishlist somewhere about bombers. If there is, it's buried well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sapounas Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Why don't we (the users, anyone who can help) built a 7x7 family model? and for the 737 there is plenty of data.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG-1_Vogel Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Personally speaking, I really don't understand the desire for full civilian modules for DCS? I can understand C-130's, Globemasters and things like E3's/An-50's because they can fulfil a combat role but an Airbus? Seriously whats the point? FSX is where that sort of thing belongs IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farlander Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I want the Tu-95! Because Tsar Bomba, and 210PJ of pure awesomeness! (approximately 50 megatons of TNT) I dont want any of that airliner shit. That would just transform the game into a MH-17 simulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaOneSix Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Definitely not An-225, since there is only one of them flying in the world. But I would add Il-76 and An-124. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NRG-Vampire Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 :joystick: :pilotfly: heavy speedbirds :thumbsup: Tu-160 and B-1B :bounce: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBlemmen Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I want all of these as AI , none of them flyable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChoSeungWan Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Fully crewable strategic bomber DLC = :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djent33 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I want all of these as AI , none of them flyable. Why is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Personally speaking, I really don't understand the desire for full civilian modules for DCS? I can understand C-130's, Globemasters and things like E3's/An-50's because they can fulfil a combat role but an Airbus? Seriously whats the point? FSX is where that sort of thing belongs IMHO. Because arguably DCS has the better flight modelling, plus according to ED themselves (in the "What is DCS" thread), DCS is a sandbox not just a combat sim :) Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyre Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Personally speaking, I really don't understand the desire for full civilian modules for DCS? I can understand C-130's, Globemasters and things like E3's/An-50's because they can fulfil a combat role but an Airbus? Seriously whats the point? FSX is where that sort of thing belongs IMHO. That makes you at odds with ED then as they have stated clearly that DCS:World is intended for both military and civilian aircraft. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras, in different geographical locations and at different levels of fidelity. It is a true "sand box" simulation. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1480510#post1480510 I for one would love to have a 757, C-5B, C-17A, MC-130H, Tu-22M-3 and B-1B in the sim. Sometimes I just want to fly around and not shoot stuff... Perhaps move supplies from base to base on maps with limited supplies of weapons or run personnel//troops to an airbase. Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills. If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck! "If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Pharoah Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Because arguably DCS has the better flight modelling, plus according to ED themselves (in the "What is DCS" thread), DCS is a sandbox not just a combat sim :) Its called Digital COMBAT simulator for a reason. Thats not to say it can't be added (or shouldn't be) but DCS is primarily a combat sim so I think it should stay focused on this. There are hundreds of types of military aircraft when you go back to WW2 and since then (plus variants). Why divert limited resources to developing civilian a/c when they can focus on these? I'd take an F4U Corsair or F4 Phantom II or F105 Thunderchief over a B737 any day. Civilian flying (esp the heavy iron) is primarily about getting from Point A to Point B on time and safely to deliver cargo/pax. Good luck trying to fly this over enemy territory. Unfortunately MH17 (may they RIP) is a good example of when that happens. 1 AMD AM4 Ryzen7 3700X 3.6ghz/MSI AM4 ATX MAG X570 Tomahawk DDR4/32GB DDR4 G.Skill 3600mhz/1TB 970 Evo SSD/ASUS RTX2070 8gb Super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djent33 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 P-51 or Dora has no boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannibal Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 heavy bombers pointless unless we have continental maps.. 1 find me on steam! username: Hannibal_A101A http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197969447179 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tob.s Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 hi, first up +1 for the tu 160, big, fast and lots of possible tasks. It might be a bit to much firepower for most missions we have atm though (not speaking of the nukes). Some guys say its boring, but if its stealth is effective enough for taking out sams like patroit & co id also like an f117 - sneak in and open the path for the a10. Also the f111 would be nice with its wide variety off weapons and jamming. i cant say i like the direction in which current modules go. Theyre all great simulations and flying em is fun, but when i comes to flying missions online theyre useless. So when flying more complex missions ure still stuck on the oldest modules - su25, a10, ka50 and fc3 fighters. I realy hope for something that fits on the dcs battlefield, not super modern or super powerfull but still a threat for the enemy - something u can do more than just target practice and aerobatics with. Instead of concentreating on its strenghts ( the simulation off a complex & dynamic battlefield, combined operations, tactics & teamwork ) dcs splits up more and more, so we got ww2, 60s, 70s and 90s + trainers. Of course more variety means more market but trying to be everybodys darling seldom works. And now some guys also want civillian stuff - i guess what they realy want is a dcs fidelity civillian plane in microsoft fs enviroment as dcs doesnt have any features that would make flying from a to b interesting. It hasnt got the variety of airports/ map size or complex air traffic control. Wheres the point off flying civillian planes full of tourists from one military base to another ? "This is your captain speaking, if u look right ull see some patriot sites firing at us" - it simply doesnt fit. Maybee its me, cause for me, watching the autopilot fly a Boing soon gets boring. But i realy guess u civillian guys would be happier in fs / xplane. Its the same like flying a fighter in fsx - it could be a great simulation of the plane itself, but theres nothing for a fighter to fight with in fsx ( i havent flown fsx for years , so i dont know if thats changed, but i guess ull get the point ) So while im happy and excited about any new dcs plane, i also wish they used the time to make a plane that brings more possibilities to the battlefield and so extends the DCS gameplay, which is more than just flying around or dogfighting. My hopes are with the f18 and its ground radar and a Cobra with tows to be an alternative to su25 & ka50. my two cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Vulcan Victor Ascension Island to be added to VEAO's planned Falklands map... Might be a little bit too big though and i'd never have enough time. So also I require a winning lottery ticket so I can retire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelthunder Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) hi, first up +1 for the tu 160, big, fast and lots of possible tasks. It might be a bit to much firepower for most missions we have atm though (not speaking of the nukes). Some guys say its boring, but if its stealth is effective enough for taking out sams like patroit & co id also like an f117 - sneak in and open the path for the a10. Also the f111 would be nice with its wide variety off weapons and jamming. i cant say i like the direction in which current modules go. Theyre all great simulations and flying em is fun, but when i comes to flying missions online theyre useless. So when flying more complex missions ure still stuck on the oldest modules - su25, a10, ka50 and fc3 fighters. I realy hope for something that fits on the dcs battlefield, not super modern or super powerfull but still a threat for the enemy - something u can do more than just target practice and aerobatics with. Instead of concentreating on its strenghts ( the simulation off a complex & dynamic battlefield, combined operations, tactics & teamwork ) dcs splits up more and more, so we got ww2, 60s, 70s and 90s + trainers. Of course more variety means more market but trying to be everybodys darling seldom works. And now some guys also want civillian stuff - i guess what they realy want is a dcs fidelity civillian plane in microsoft fs enviroment as dcs doesnt have any features that would make flying from a to b interesting. It hasnt got the variety of airports/ map size or complex air traffic control. Wheres the point off flying civillian planes full of tourists from one military base to another ? "This is your captain speaking, if u look right ull see some patriot sites firing at us" - it simply doesnt fit. Maybee its me, cause for me, watching the autopilot fly a Boing soon gets boring. But i realy guess u civillian guys would be happier in fs / xplane. Its the same like flying a fighter in fsx - it could be a great simulation of the plane itself, but theres nothing for a fighter to fight with in fsx ( i havent flown fsx for years , so i dont know if thats changed, but i guess ull get the point ) So while im happy and excited about any new dcs plane, i also wish they used the time to make a plane that brings more possibilities to the battlefield and so extends the DCS gameplay, which is more than just flying around or dogfighting. My hopes are with the f18 and its ground radar and a Cobra with tows to be an alternative to su25 & ka50. my two cents...Yeah,i don't want to carry passengers to travel around from city to city,i have Flight Simulator 2004 for that.I want to carry missles,bombs,troops,SAR,Recon,ASW and maybe carry wounded soldiers from a battlefield to a military hospital.That would be interesting.:thumbup: Edited February 18, 2015 by Angelthunder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krazybiskit Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Here's a quick question. What does the "C" in DCS stand for? Yes, that's right "COMBAT".. I have no craving whatsoever to simulate flying a cargo plane of rubber dog crap out of Hong Kong. By the way, what happened to the B-17 that was being worked as a side project by a couple of forum members Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 IIRC work was suspended when the WW2 modules were announced as an "official" B17 is planned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djent33 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Speaking of heavy aircraft in combat environment and short sighting in terms of potential scenarios: Whether you are a cargo pilot or a bomber pilot you are doing it for the experience of carrying out the tasks such as dealing with payloads, routes, runway lengths, any possible threats etc, similar to what a fighter pilot would prepare for. In a scenario where a fighter pilot relies on information, team work, or a mission designer, how is this process different for a heavy wing pilot? The map is too small? Well, some may already know that when you substitute 30% of fuel for a cargo and find yourself in a holding pattern at low altitude the fuel burn can be pretty quick. Does an opinion make a difference for an intercontinental bomber? Guess: It can do missions thousands of miles away but it can’t do it if it’s 0.1 of the distance (sarcasm). If you a fighter pilot or trainee who chooses to escort AI rather than Pilots, the artificial reword is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts