Aircraft unwish list ?

[King_Hrothgar]

Things I'd prefer not to see in DCS: anything civilian, anything pre-1950 (too late). The reasons are simple, the DCS cheater AI FM's may work fine with supersonic jets but they are a real problem with prop planes and low power jets. The damage modeling also doesn't play well with anything under 20mm, see F-86 vs MiG-15 for endless infuriating examples. The reason for no civies? Go play X-Plane if you want that.

[Exorcet]

Things I'd prefer not to see in DCS: anything civilian, anything pre-1950 (too late). The reasons are simple, the DCS cheater AI FM's may work fine with supersonic jets but they are a real problem with prop planes and low power jets. The damage modeling also doesn't play well with anything under 20mm, see F-86 vs MiG-15 for endless infuriating examples.

 

Why not just improve the sim? Even in FC2, there was small arms fire and slower aircraft (helicopter, A-10's even), so those flaws would still exist. Well the damage model issue would, there isn't really a fight model issue when it comes to flight dynamics. It's a systems model issue. The AI pilots don't have to manage a finicky engine. Given how sensitive the Su-27's engines are at present I'd think it'd be fair to lump that plane in with the props and MiG-15 when it comes to being overly durable.

 

The reason for no civies? Go play X-Plane if you want that.

Hardly a reason at all.

[King_Hrothgar]

If ED updates the game so AI use the same FM and DM as players, then I'd be all for adding WW2 stuff. But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

 

As for civy stuff, X-plane is a viable reason. A game should pick something and focus on it. Trying to be everything to everyone has never worked out well. Digital Combat Simulator should focus on combat aircraft.

[Charly_Owl]

I'll vote for F-8 crusader .

 

You. Have. No. Soul. :D

 

Things I'd prefer not to see in DCS: anything pre-1950 (too late).

 

I couldn't disagree more. WWII props are one of the best things that ever happened to DCS. But, once again, it's just my opinion.

 

Now, what I wouldn't want to see in DCS:

Erm... nothing comes to mind, really. I like flying everything. Especially Korea-Era, Vietnam-Era and WWII stuff.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Charly_Owl

[Exorcet]

If ED updates the game so AI use the same FM and DM as players, then I'd be all for adding WW2 stuff. But I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

They don't need to do that, the AI model just needs tweaking. Some kind of engine management system and a new damage model (which would be significant no matter what kind of aircraft we're talking about really).

 

As for civy stuff, X-plane is a viable reason. A game should pick something and focus on it. Trying to be everything to everyone has never worked out well. Digital Combat Simulator should focus on combat aircraft.

The latter part of this is what's significant. Allocation of resources is not inherent in the phrase "X-Plane". Just because X-Plane does something doesn't mean DCS can't do it and be as successful or better.

 

DCS with civilian planes is hardly trying to do everything anyway. It's just a being a flight sim with combat and civilian planes. There is also nothing to lose in letting devs develop civil aircraft. A 787 module isn't going to impact anything outside of letting people buy a 787 module.

 

Really when you think about it DCS is about the modules more than anything else. It's a good combat sim, but combat actually comes second place to modeling aircraft. My F-15 flies really nice, but I had to tell my wingman 5 times to engage the enemy before he stopped blabbering useless info about radar contacts.

[7rooper]

One plane that I wouldn't definitively want to see is the F-117. This plane can't carry more than two guided bombs and unable to defend itself. I don't think it would be entertaining to travel for hours, drop two bombs and come back all the times!!

[PiedDroit]

One plane that I wouldn't definitively want to see is the F-117. This plane can't carry more than two guided bombs and unable to defend itself. I don't think it would be entertaining to travel for hours, drop two bombs and come back all the times!!

There is a certain challenge in flying it:

- It's a brick with wings,

- You need to plan a route to avoid radars

- It needed careful maneuvering because a slight roll would change the reflection angle and make it more detectable

For those reason I wouldn't certainly dismiss it. Only problem is that it's quite classified so I don't know if a model accurate enough could be done.

 

The U-2 could give similar challenges, as flying it at the edge of it's flight enveloppe was very difficult as well.

[FlyingHighAU]

They are already in it.

 

There is no DCS: UAV is what I meant.

[Djent33]

There is no DCS: UAV is what I meant.

 

I don’t believe U.

[King_Hrothgar]

They don't need to do that, the AI model just needs tweaking. Some kind of engine management system and a new damage model (which would be significant no matter what kind of aircraft we're talking about really).

 

It's tough to stall fight planes with no stalls modeled. The engine management side is the least important aspect. It's the ability to fly straight up at 10km/h and shoot with laser beam precision that's the issue.

 

The latter part of this is what's significant. Allocation of resources is not inherent in the phrase "X-Plane". Just because X-Plane does something doesn't mean DCS can't do it and be as successful or better.

 

DCS with civilian planes is hardly trying to do everything anyway. It's just a being a flight sim with combat and civilian planes. There is also nothing to lose in letting devs develop civil aircraft. A 787 module isn't going to impact anything outside of letting people buy a 787 module.

 

But it does mean that time could have been spent making something more relevant to the game. X-Plane developers and DCS developers are not the same people for the most part. Those asking for silly things like DCS: Cessna 172 are not just asking for a 172, they are asking for a 172 instead of something else. Hence why I take issue with it.

[Exorcet]

It's tough to stall fight planes with no stalls modeled. The engine management side is the least important aspect. It's the ability to fly straight up at 10km/h and shoot with laser beam precision that's the issue.

That still doesn't require a player FM to fix though. As far as engine management goes, I'd expect that would help with the issue as the AI would burn their engines if they kept trying to hover.

 

 

 

But it does mean that time could have been spent making something more relevant to the game. X-Plane developers and DCS developers are not the same people for the most part. Those asking for silly things like DCS: Cessna 172 are not just asking for a 172, they are asking for a 172 instead of something else. Hence why I take issue with it.

Not necessarily. If some FSX devs making exclusively civil planes comes to DCS and makes those same civil planes, what is being lost?

[VincentLaw]

Not necessarily. If some FSX devs making exclusively civil planes comes to DCS and makes those same civil planes, what is being lost?

Correct. I would personally love to see some civilian developers enter the DCS development arena. The civilian fixed wing section of DCS doesn't really have any competition right now if you don't count trainers, and it might attract new fans to the sim too.

 

Also the idea that developing civilian planes cuts into military plane development overlooks the fact that many aircraft have both civilian and military uses: Mi-8, UH-1, A330, AT-802...

 

On topic: There is no aircraft that I do not want to see in DCS. If it can fly, I want to see it in DCS. (There are certain aircraft that I would rather see first though.)

[Djent33]

What should the action be for the aircraft who sit on the runway or take off in the opposite direction?

Kills.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Djent33

[Angelthunder]

I wouldn't oppose the idea of bringing in civilian planes as long as their utilized for both military & civilian roles.Like for example,police work,coast guard rescue or fighting fires or transporting military leaders aka liaison.

[msalama]

they are asking for a 172 instead of something else.

 

Not necessarily. Say there're 2 established devs, A doing X and B doing Y. Now enter C, a total newcomer to DCS. They say they're only going to do a 172 based on their market research, or they'll do nothing. Where's the "instead of" now?

[Ultra]

First off, I like threads like these. They're obviously thought provoking as shown by all the responses in a couple days.

 

As for aircraft, it would make me mad if we received a prototype version of a cool plane instead of one of the production models.

Here's an F-16!!!... just kidding its a YF-16 and it's missing a bunch of cool features!

I would just think about what could have been every time I flew it. :cry:

:D:D

[AdrianJ]

Not necessarily. Say there're 2 established devs, A doing X and B doing Y. Now enter C, a total newcomer to DCS. They say they're only going to do a 172 based on their market research, or they'll do nothing. Where's the "instead of" now?

 

Wow wow I don't understand the only logical thing for developer C to do would be Z. Where does 172 come from, ok is there some trickery in the question

[msalama]

Where does 172 come from

Comes from this imaginary developer saying they're only going to do the 172, or nothing at all. Now I'm _not_ saying any sane RL dev would approach DCS this way, but what if someone did regardless? Would you guys rather ban him from trying his luck with it?

[AdrianJ]

Comes from this imaginary developer saying they're only going to do the 172, or nothing at all. Now I'm _not_ saying any sane RL dev would approach DCS this way, but what if someone did regardless? Would you guys rather ban him from trying his luck with it?

 

No I don't want any developer or anyone banned, I guess if I didn't like a plane I wouldn't buy it. I can't think of any plane that I hate so much I wouldn't include it in missions and if I saw it on MP then I'd leave. :)

[ANGST]

One plane that I wouldn't definitively want to see is the F-117. This plane can't carry more than two guided bombs and unable to defend itself. I don't think it would be entertaining to travel for hours, drop two bombs and come back all the times!!

 

Ahh this is a good one.

 

While it would be fun for a little , I see not much replay value .

 

 

I'd rather have the F-8 then the 117

[Harpoon]

EDIT: just thought of something else I never want to see again... non-clickable cockpits. freaking F-15 and Su-27

 

No fun for the rookies, right?

Right??

Right???

 

At least include an option for NC cockpits. Optional is always the best option. ;)

[VincentLaw]

At least include an option for NC cockpits. Optional is always the best option. ;)

You are not required to click anything in the A-10C. Just use keyboard commands for everything!

[Folgore1987]

I think I wouldn't want the effort, resources and talents of the developers to be used to create variants of currently released modules.

Some people have been asking for variants of currently released aircraft and even of future releases... I think it's too early for this.

 

You want Vietnam War, Gulf War, etc? Well, it won't help having two MiG-21 variants, if there is no F-4, F-100, MiG-17, a jungle map of sorts, etc... So priority IMO is to EXPAND DCS, expand the amount of modules by itself, for variety sake, add every single aircraft that is meaningful, historical or simply that is available to be accessed and that would add something good to the overall sim experience and by that I mean, before adding more of the same, you look to add something that if it isn't meaningful, for example, if you release the Mi-24, I would place the Mi-28, for example at the bottom of the list, for the sake of prioritizing what is different from what is already available, another example would be the Huey and the Supercobra, I think since we already have one plus the Ka-50, the other one becomes less interesting, (for the time being of course).

 

Then, after expanding the modules "roster", I don't know if it's right to use this word in this context, then you think about adding all the variants of the F/A-18 and so on...

[VincentLaw]

another example would be the Huey and the Supercobra, I think since we already have one plus the Ka-50, the other one becomes less interesting, (for the time being of course).

Saying we should not have a Supercobra because of the Huey is like saying we should not have an Mi-24 because of the Mi-8. The Ka-50 does not fill the gap for American attack helicopter because it is not American. Contrary to your statement, I think the Ka-50 should give the supercobra priority over adding a second Russian attack helicopter to DCS.

 

While I do agree that the UH-1H makes the AH-1G largely redundant, the AH-1W is more like an AH-64 than a UH-1.

[Mojeaux]

Isn't it good to see the life back in the forum here again...keep it coming..Great topic..:smilewink: