Next aircraft speculation

[Zibell]

Everybody complains that everyone is developing useless trainers, which, ok, I partly agree. There's FSX that you can buy for a fiver on sale and shove some fairly good freeware trainers in and fly all over Starship Earth with them.

 

Now these dudes are (possibly) doing an actual fighter for once, one that they (possibly) have access to and is (possibly) highly unclassified.

 

Everybody complains again.

[WinterH]

Well obviously they are not done to what we come to expect of DCS in terms of fidelity, and I don't have anything against those done as well. Eventually, I will be getting and enjoying those aircraft quite deeply too.

 

Yet, between choices of those and the aircraft that are very interesting yet left obscure in sim world, my choice leans much closer to latter.

 

I find a profound lack of imaginativeness in line of thinking that believe first and foremost virtues for a DCS module candidate are "popularity", proliferation, and historical significance, or even relative combat provess in their timeframe.

 

Yes, all those teen seriess fighters are very interesting on their own, and as stated I don't have an issue with them included, heck, I would certainly buy and fly them. But I find it surprising simulation community isn't eager to get their hands on many fascinating aircraft we never could in ANY fidelity.

 

Obscure doesn't necessarily mean bad in simulation in my opinion :). Dare I say, the more obscure, the better, for me anyway... :)

 

Besides, some of the more popular aircraft already are coming like F-14, F-18, Mirage 2000, Eurofighter Typhoon etc.

 

Anyway, while this is a speculation thread, I still think we're starting to drift way off topic here :).

[Terrificfool]

Everybody complains that everyone is developing useless trainers, which, ok, I partly agree. There's FSX that you can buy for a fiver on sale and shove some fairly good freeware trainers in and fly all over Starship Earth with them.

 

Now these dudes are (possibly) doing an actual fighter for once, one that they (possibly) have access to and is (possibly) highly unclassified.

 

Everybody complains again.

 

 

Have to agree with Zibell on this one.

 

It's potentially a Mach 2 fighter with Skyflash (or AMRAAM) and AIM-9 with the capability to operate from short airfields with a thrust reverser? Or perhaps its an air-to-ground variant with several anti-ship or a2g missiles at its disposal?

 

I guess it's not really relevant to DCS though because it doesn't take off from an aircraft carrier or feature aerial refueling :pilotfly:

[OutOnTheOP]

Yet, between choices of those and the aircraft that are very interesting yet left obscure in sim world, my choice leans much closer to latter.

 

I find a profound lack of imaginativeness in line of thinking that believe first and foremost virtues for a DCS module candidate are "popularity", proliferation, and historical significance, or even relative combat provess in their timeframe.

 

If there were one, single, solitary "common" modern multirole jet, I would agree. But there's not.

 

One single F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, F-4, Su-27, F-15E, Tornado, Eurofighter.... *anything* a bit more mainstream, then yes, I would agree. But this is like if they announced DCS WW2, and the second plane they announced were the Bolton Paul Defiant!

 

This just seems to me like an odd choice so early in development. Not saying they shouldn't do it, or even that I wouldn't be interested in it... but I don't think I'd be interested enough to shell out more than maybe $15 sale price, because I doubt I would fly it any more than as a "huh, I wonder how this one works" curiosity; once I had a passing grasp on the avionics... well, I doubt it would get much stick time. Just like I'd be curious to try out the Defiant, but knowing that it would only get stick time purely as a curiosity, I would have to weight my outlay in cash against the amount of time I'd put into it. It's a matter of investment (my time and money) versus return.

 

Yes, all those teen seriess fighters are very interesting on their own, and as stated I don't have an issue with them included, heck, I would certainly buy and fly them. But I find it surprising simulation community isn't eager to get their hands on many fascinating aircraft we never could in ANY fidelity.

 

Well obviously they are not done to what we come to expect of DCS in terms of fidelity, and I don't have anything against those done as well. Eventually, I will be getting and enjoying those aircraft quite deeply too.

 

Ok, but the same argument can be made the same for either side, here. As in, of course I'd like the Viggen, but "when they get around to it". If we can wait "until they get around to" an F-16, we can wait until "they get around to" a Viggen.

 

The thing is, in DCS, I want planes I will fly in virtual combat. That's why I'm not as interested in the "unusual" aircraft. If my primary intention is fly them around and learn their cockpits and avionics peculiarities, I can get much of that experience on other well-developed platforms. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a well-modelled Viggen for MSFS somewhere that has a pretty good simulation of the avionics.

 

It's potentially a Mach 2 fighter with Skyflash (or AMRAAM) and AIM-9 with the capability to operate from short airfields with a thrust reverser? Or perhaps its an air-to-ground variant with several anti-ship or a2g missiles at its disposal?

 

Yes, but the same could be said about an F-16, or some of the Su27 derivatives. Or a J-10. Or an F-4. Or any number of other aircraft (well, ok, aside the thrust reverser part). So the question is then again: why the Viggen and not something else? I would be far more enthusiastic about a Gripen, even. I just don't see it making real good return on investment for LNS. Maybe the business model is to get rare, "interesting" birds out early, so that the modern-multirole-starved audience is happy to buy anything that scratches the itch, before they're all sated on the common aircraft and no longer interested in buying more?

 

*edit* also, an F-16, the most ubiquitous fighter aircraft in the west, hasn't even been ANNOUNCED. As best as anyone knows, NO ONE is making one. Nor an F-4. Nor an F-15E. In fact, there's pretty much nothing for the USAF but the A-10. Everything else is naval, or European. VVS is in the same boat: nothing modern. The two main air forces in the world have nothing to represent them in DCS.

Edited May 25, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Art-J]

^ I'd hazard a guess that licensing is still THE most important factor here, at least when attempting to make anything above FC3-level aircraft.

[King_Hrothgar]

I don't think these companies care if you're doing a battlefield series level plane or full DCS study sim. To them it's a name and a 3d model. In any case, I agree that DCS is moving towards a troubling place in regards to plane lineup. Some here may say that common planes have been done to death, but I have to ask when the last time anyone here saw a reasonable fidelity MiG-23, 25 or 31 was? I don't think I've ever seen them as anything but AI. And it isn't like the F-series planes have been done to death either. Since the last serious F-16 sim was released, there have been 5+ serious CFS's released that had a Bf-109 in it. And yet people clamor for more WW2.

 

In regards to LNS itself, 2 out of 3 jet fighters/attackers as major types isn't a bad ratio. The thing that concerns me with DCS's future plane lineup actually has nothing to do with LNS itself, it's the combined efforts of all the various developers. As it stands, there are about a dozen western jet fighters being developed, there are zero eastern block fighters in the works. That's a very serious problem unless the USA decides Queen Elizabeth has been sitting on her throne far too long and opts for a little regime change.

[Trailer]

While I'm all for new fighter aircraft, the Viggen doesn't exactly excite me, just as the MiG-23 doesn't really excite me. I know it's all just rumors, but it's perplexing. If it were just for flying around, ok...but combat? A challenge is one thing, but going up against Eagles or Flankers in a MiG-23 is just suicide and masochism.

 

If there's going to be something from Saab, bring on the Gripen.

[Dudikoff]

If there were one, single, solitary "common" modern multirole jet, I would agree. But there's not. One single F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, F-4, Su-27, F-15E, Tornado, Eurofighter....

 

The modern multi-roles are also the most complex to make (like F-16, F/A-18, F-15E from the list). Not even ED have released one yet so it's not reasonable to expect that 3rd parties would tackle one of those before a) they build their experience and code base working on the simpler planes b) the main engine adds the support for some of the necessary features. And this is without getting into potential licensing issues for those types which are generally unknown.

 

A challenge is one thing, but going up against Eagles or Flankers in a MiG-23 is just suicide and masochism.

 

Who says you have to fight Eagles and Flankers?

Edited May 25, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Art-J]

I don't think these companies care if you're doing a battlefield series level plane or full DCS study sim. To them it's a name and a 3d model.

 

I was thinking about Pman's posts explaining the fiasco of VEAO study-level Skyhawk and Phantom II concepts. When You want to make a simplified plane it falls under "artistic impression" category and the main thing companies care for is trademarked plane name and external model. When You want to make a deep study sim, it falls under "systems simulation" category and then, yes You need producer's licence (read: crapload of money) and sometimes government green light to proceed.

 

So all depends how detailed sim one wants to make. Very detailed might not be a problem for old Euro designs, was a legal/financial problem for old US designs (VEAO attempts), I suspect will be even bigger problem for any relatively modern design, unless some gov contract is involved (A-10C).

Edited May 25, 2015 by Art-J

[Cobra847]

I was thinking about Pman's posts explaining the fiasco of VEAO study-level Skyhawk and Phantom II concepts. When You want to make a simplified plane it falls under "artistic impression" category and the main thing companies care for is trademarked plane name and external model. When You want to make a deep study sim, it falls under "systems simulation" category and then, yes You need producer's licence (read: crapload of money) and sometimes government green light to proceed.

 

So all depends how detailed sim one wants to make. Very detailed might not be a problem for old Euro designs, was a legal/financial problem for old US designs (VEAO attempts), I suspect will be even bigger problem for any relatively modern design, unless some gov contract is involved (A-10C).

 

Note that VEAO's Licensing requirements do not necessarily apply to us.

We have our own set of requirements and criteria which we use to decide on whether development is feasible or not.

 

As far as rarity/popular aircraft goes; I'd argue that we just announced by far the most popular aircraft out there.

Keeping a healthy mix going forward is just as important as maintaining a good return on investment, and I believe we will achieve that balance.

[BlackLion213]

As far as rarity/popular aircraft goes; I'd argue that we just announced by far the most popular aircraft out there.

Keeping a healthy mix going forward is just as important as maintaining a good return on investment, and I believe we will achieve that balance.

 

Can't argue with that. Most of us are going to be happy with any aircraft that you release, the MiG-21 was definitely a "case in point" for me. We just can't wait to see what is next. :thumbup:

 

-Nick

[zaelu]

Thanks Cobra for reply. So it might be Viggen after all . Any chance for at least a Draken A.I.? :P

 

IMHO DCS can put a firm foot in sim market after all the main Fs and Migs and Su's are done to "DCS level". When we have at least one version of F14/15/16/18/ Mig-21/25/29/31 Su/17/22/24/25/27 at full DCS Level we can consider the pillars are done and all the not so important planes can come after that. Any time I see a plane that is secondary in "the food chain of skies" being announced I consider to be another delay in DCS development. I don't mean the most powerful fighters as I mean the widely used by airforces in real conflicts.

 

Same goes for helicopters (see NH-90 instead of a BlackHawk for example) or WW2 planes (Buchon instead o an 109E/F/G or even a Yak/Lagg).

 

Anyway, I think I am more eager to hear about next maps in development than new planes...

[Vampyre]

I think a possible Viggen (be it AJ/JA/AJS) module has a unique opportunity right now. The community is hungry for a western fast mover right now and if LNS can have it ready before the Typhoon, Mirage 2000C, F/A-18C or even the Tomcat then they have the possibility to maximize sales of a Viggen module. As for the popularity of any module, I don't think that is necessary as long as the people building it are passionate about it. That ensures that the highest quality product in the end.

 

As for the other two planes, I am now back to suspecting the Viggen, and possibly the J2M Raiden or F4U Corsair... still not certain on which one or both though. If there will be only one Viggen type built I hope it is a AJ-37.

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Vampyre

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I'm just going to stop guessing. No matter what the unannounced aircraft end up being, I'll be buying them anyway lol.

 

Yup. Preeeetty much.

 

"Oh Jesus Christ, Leatherneck, you made a friggin' Transavia PL-12 Aitruk? An AIRTRUK? FOR DCS!? WHY WOULD YOU MAKE A--why am I typing in my credit card number without realizing it?"

[MBot]

I think a possible Viggen (be it AJ/JA/AJS) module has a unique opportunity right now. The community is hungry for a western fast mover right now and if LNS can have it ready before the Typhoon, Mirage 2000C, F/A-18C or even the Tomcat then they have the possibility to maximize sales of a Viggen module. As for the popularity of any module, I don't think that is necessary as long as the people building it are passionate about it. That ensures that the highest quality product in the end.

 

I completely agree. While the Attack-Viggen might not enjoy the widespread popularity as for example the teen-fighters, it will probably be the first DCS level western fast jet. As such it will receive a lot of attention from the community. And if people are willing to have a closer look at the Viggen (which they will as long as there is no F-XX drowining it), they will surely realize that this is a very attractive and capable fighter.

 

For me the important thing is that a module features an aircraft that is historically significant (which the Viggen is, forming the backbone of Sweden's defence) and that we have a good theater to fly it in. LNS has previously indicated that they are committed to build maps and supporting AI units, so I remain confident.

[Rogue Trooper]

For me a DCS Viggen would be great.

I think it would be interesting to see how this bird performs in DCS, there may even be a few surprises in terms of the aircrafts ability once(if) it gets its DCS wings.

[Dahlbeck]

... it will probably be the first DCS level western fast jet. As such it will receive a lot of attention from the community....

 

I can't recall (or find in the forums) what Cobra/LN said earlier about the order of release for their three modules. Were the two still unknown modules supposed to be released before or after the Tomcat?

[MBot]

I can't recall (or find in the forums) what Cobra/LN said earlier about the order of release for their three modules. Were the two still unknown modules supposed to be released before or after the Tomcat?

 

I remember that the 2 would come before the Tomcat. The last newsletter also mentioned that technologies developed for the next aircraft (HUD and navigational equipment) would help develpment of the Tomcat, which implies that the F-14 is further back in the queue.

[IJN Nagato]

From the teaser leatherneck showed, for the love of god let the rising sun flag stand for that they are making a Japanese ww2 aircraft. Most likely a Ki-43 or A6M, since we have two of those still flying. If it's a Japanese prop, I'll pay you twice the amount it sells for. XD

[Lucas_From_Hell]

An extra selling point for the Viggen is that we currently have no fast and highly capable aircraft. We are so busy with the CAS/MRF bubble that we often ignore the Cold War love of supersonic attack planes. Viggen, Aardvark, Su-7 all the way to 22, MiG-27... It will be a blast to work interdiction and defense missions while knowing I am not dead meat against a fighter :D

 

PS: That photo Cobra posted, we are positive that is not a Lansen right?

[Dahlbeck]

The picture was just the tip of an rb04 missile, so it could be a Lansen. However, the Lansen is a two-seater with the navigator responsible for some crucial but probably crude 50s/60s avionics. So it seems unlikely given that multicrew isn't ready yet and they're developing Jester AI for the Tomcat.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I recognised that photo from somewhere, it's from the Lansen's Wiki page actually. Who knows, maybe the navigator AI is the feature they are working on for the future? It would make sense to start light after all, considering the complexity of the F-14.

 

Either way, here's the full photo aptly named Robot_04_Lansen.jpg. Besides the name, the camouflage (or lack thereof) points towards a 32 too.

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by Lucas_From_Hell

[BlackLion213]

The other issue that makes the Lansen less likely is that Cobra described one of the aircraft as "modern" (with the other "expected" to be a WWII aircraft). I don't think that the Saab 32 would qualify as modern, it's more of a contemporary of the MiG-15bis/MiG-17, F-100, or Dassault Mystere.

 

-Nick

[Dudikoff]

The other issue that makes the Lansen less likely is that Cobra described one of the aircraft as "modern" (with the other "expected" to be a WWII aircraft). I don't think that the Saab 32 would qualify as modern, it's more of a contemporary of the MiG-15bis/MiG-17, F-100, or Dassault Mystere.

 

And the third reason is that Lansen would totally blow compared to Viggen (I presume in sales, too). I'd presume only the most hard-core fans of that plane would prefer to fly that ungainly museum piece.. I know LN won't do this to us (and themselves) ;)

Edited May 27, 2015 by Dudikoff

[BlackLion213]

And the third reason is that Lansen would totally blow compared to Viggen (I presume in sales, too).

 

I was trying to be more diplomatic... :music_whistling:

 

-Nick