BO-105 HKP-9A progress news

[ebabil]

this sim has too much potantial, there are lots of chopper pilots who love to fly rescue missions, fire fight missions or just going from a point to a point. etc. i don't think that this is a waste of resources.

[Askerov24]

If I'll get all those variants done, then, we have:

 

- PAH 1A1 (HOT)

- VBH (Reccon)

- HKP-9A (TOW)

- Civil (Red Bull like)

 

please consider, that everything is subject to change ...

Just wow! I hope we will get all of them :thumbup:

[msalama]

but anything more than skins is going to divert resources away

 

Not necessarily, or not that much anyway. What if the commonality between the two is ~100% minus the weapon systems?

[Rogue Trooper]

Wallet is ready for this bad boy.

[Tirak]

this sim has too much potantial, there are lots of chopper pilots who love to fly rescue missions, fire fight missions or just going from a point to a point. etc. i don't think that this is a waste of resources.

 

.... Firefighting missions? Please no, you guys have Take on Helicopters and FSX for the civil aviation junk, lets keep the priorities straight with the shooting and the blowing of things to smithereens.

[rrohde]

.... Firefighting missions? Please no, you guys have Take on Helicopters and FSX for the civil aviation junk, lets keep the priorities straight with the shooting and the blowing of things to smithereens.

 

I have to say that I agree 100%.

[Aginor]

While I think that military applications should have priority I disagree with your statement, especially with the wording.

I have absolutely nothing against doing such stuff now and then, and I think it has a place in DCS because in most countries the military helps with such stuff. If you want to be like a real military heli pilot, you need to do that stuff once in a while. That's cool.

If someone creates assets that can be used in such missions and a mission designer decides to make a mission with them you are free to not play them. But you should understand that people want to play them, and they want to play them with the great simulation environment that we have: DCS. FSX helos suck. Don't know about the other thing but I don't care much either. There is no replacement for the DCSW helis.

[VincentLaw]

.... Firefighting missions? Please no, you guys have Take on Helicopters and FSX for the civil aviation junk, lets keep the priorities straight with the shooting and the blowing of things to smithereens.

I have seen plenty of fires started at airfields in DCS (especially when the Fw 190 came out). Someone should put them out! I am extra likely to buy modules that bring unique capabilities to DCS, even if it is not an aircraft I would normally be interested in. It disappoints me that the fire trucks already present in DCS have no functionality. Edited November 14, 2015 by VincentLaw

[ebabil]

.... Firefighting missions? Please no, you guys have Take on Helicopters and FSX for the civil aviation junk, lets keep the priorities straight with the shooting and the blowing of things to smithereens.

 

tkoh and fsx can offer very less on helicopter side and they are old now. i played fsx-fs9 about 10 years but i didin't touch their choppers.

 

i don't know if you ever tried uh-1 or mi-8 in full scale mp mission, but they also become junk even their armaments.

 

when nttr is released, we will have lots of buildings and areas that we will be able to use our choppers with. i really like roof top landings or hovering in order to fast rope squad deployment, or emergency rescue from a fire or a sinking boat.

 

i remember the mission at uh-1 campaign which we had to rush a wounded soldier to the hospital and i had a lot of fun.

[Yurgon]

FSX helos suck. Don't know about the other thing but I don't care much either. There is no replacement for the DCSW helis.

 

I tried Take on Helicopters once. It looks to be a fun game, but in terms of flight model, it felt waaaay off. Of course DCS is my only frame of reference so I might be entirely wrong, but from what I've gathered TOH is really a game with relatively good flight dynamics, but nowhere near DCS level.

 

That said, with a group of fellow simmers one of my favorite DCS missions has 3 or 4 of us flying slick Hueys with M-60 door gunners (so that the AI gunners point out enemy locations rather than kill them) and one or more Ka-50 or A-10C for CAS (some of the guys prefer to fly CAS in MiG-21... to each their own :D). The Hueys pick up wounded all over the mission area, and that mission is intense fun to fly.

 

I think in some cases people take the C in DCS a bit too literally. :smartass:

[Tirak]

 

I think in some cases people take the C in DCS a bit too literally. :smartass:

 

When it comes to sorting priorities, you're darned right I take it literally. Civil stuff should be the backburner, only after the actual fighting elements have been included. Development time shouldn't be allocated to civilian models at the expense of the military ones.

[Hook47]

please put the civil version at top of your to do list

 

Meh, please do not! I wouldn't mind it but this is not Digital Civilian Simulator! Combat versions first I say :)

[VincentLaw]

Development time shouldn't be allocated to civilian models at the expense of the military ones.

However, developers with interest in civilian models should not be turned away. The first priority of the developer should be to create a product line that sells enough copies to keep them afloat. The second priority of the developer should be to develop things that they enjoy. If the developer does not like any of their own products, then it will result in a worse experience for everyone.

[Yurgon]

When it comes to sorting priorities, you're darned right I take it literally. Civil stuff should be the backburner, only after the actual fighting elements have been included. Development time shouldn't be allocated to civilian models at the expense of the military ones.

 

Sheesh, is this the Spanish Inquisition? I didn't expect that kind of uncompromising response. :D

 

We obviously disagree, but let me try to refine my point.

 

DCS is a combat simulator, and from my position, a DCS module is not required to be a combat aircraft itself, because the environment already provides the combat scenario. The trainers are a good example, as they integrate nicely into the DCS environment even if they themselves are unable to carry weapons.

 

Ultimately, however, I think it's not our position to tell the devs whether to invest their resources in this or that direction, unless they specifically ask for our feedback.

 

After all, this is the BO-105 PAH1A1 forum so my impression is that the priorities have long been set strongly in your favor. I was just pointing out that on top of the armed variant, there would be ample use for unarmed or entirely civilian versions. :smartass:

[Cykyrios]

Sheesh, is this the Spanish Inquisition? I didn't expect that kind of uncompromising response. :D

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

 

More seriously though, I don't think asking for civilian versions to be a top priority is the way to go, but neither is dismissing them altogether. I personally find myself flying the Huey without hardpoints more often than with them, just because I love flying around with it, away from the battlefield. Those who would tell me to go play FSX or X-Plane don't realize (or don't care) that would require buying another game with separate modules, and even that wouldn't be as good as DCS (I really like the damage model of aircraft, even if it has its own issues, and no other sim will give let you break half of your heli after a hard landing).

 

However, once the original military version is ready, I don't get why a civilian version should not be added, whether it requires only removing the hardpoints, or tweaking the cockpit a bit as well. Aerobatics, formation flight, simple fun, all of these are possible with slick versions, so why not have them? It's not like the devs will ditch everything military to work on a single civilian version...

[Johnny Dioxin]

So all of the fire-fighting gear seen on military airfields are, in fact, civilian and operated by civilians are they?

 

Because that's what is being inferred here. :P

[NeilWillis]

Not necessarily, or not that much anyway. What if the commonality between the two is ~100% minus the weapon systems?

 

Your point is? If there is 100% commonality, except for skins, why would a civillian version be necessary in the first place?

 

However, as there are always panels to control weaponry, sights, external mounting points etc, the chances of 100% commonality are zero. Unless of course you can name any such cross overs?

 

Exactly what percentage of people here want to just fight fires? 5%, 10%? More? Maybe 15%? If so, how many civillian version purchases might be made?

 

My point is that although there will of course be people wanting civil variants, the total demand for them will be less than for the core module raison d'etra, and as such, how many designers will expend valuable time and effort for such a minimal return?

 

No one is trying to deny you anything, but the problem will be demand versus supply. A module will need to sell X number in order to justify the initial expense to a developer. If they don't expect to sell enough copies, they will not invest time and money. DCS World is still a niche end of the market. What chance a niche end of a niche end of a market?

 

It is that simple, and not in the slightest bit controversial. If there was enough interest we'd get them, but frankly I can't see it happening, can you?

[VincentLaw]

Exactly what percentage of people here want to just fight fires? 5%, 10%? More? Maybe 15%? If so, how many civillian version purchases might be made?

The market for a civilian version is not completely the same as the market for military versions. I have almost no interest in the military versions of the BO-105, and the only reason I am even here right now is because of discussion of a potential civilian version. If exclusively civilian aircraft can make enough sales to be profitable in other sims, then they should be able to in DCS as well. I think if we can attract more members of the civil simulation community to DCS, it will make the military component more successful as well.

DCS World is still a niche end of the market. What chance a niche end of a niche end of a market?

I think the mistake here is that civil flight simulation is not a niche inside of a DCS, but a niche outside of DCS. Working on this component will expland DCS to make it less niche (without compromising simulation fidelity), which is a good thing.

Edited November 15, 2015 by VincentLaw

[Tirak]

It's not like the devs will ditch everything military to work on a single civilian version...

 

They asked that the Civilian version be given top priority, thus the reaction from those of us who play DCS because of the combat.

[VincentLaw]

They asked that the Civilian version be given top priority, thus the reaction from those of us who play DCS because of the combat.

By "they" you mean a single person 33 posts ago? In that case I think it is an overreaction. I still think the military version should have higher priority.

[NeilWillis]

I think the mistake here is that civil flight simulation is not a niche inside of a DCS, but a niche outside of DCS. Working on this component will expland DCS to make it less niche (without compromising simulation fidelity), which is a good thing.

 

It'd be great if DCS World was to become popular as a civilian flight sim platform, and stealing FSX and other sim fan bases, but given the limited map areas available, I couldn't really see that happening any time soon. The more people that buy DCS World the better it would be for everyone, no matter what area they're interested in, but I can't see it catching on unless there is a global map, huge numbers of civil aircraft including flying pigs, which I simply haven't seen, have you? I can't see IL2 BOS becoming a civil aircraft simulator either!

[Yurgon]

I can't see IL2 BOS becoming a civil aircraft simulator either!

 

DCS currently covers some 70+ years of aviation, including props, jets and helicopters with exceptionally detailed and realistic flight and systems modeling.

 

I agree that the map concept lacks something that FSX delivers, and besides a dynamic campaign this would be my strategic goal if I had a say in DCS core development - creating a true representation of the globe, probably with the ability to cover specific areas with (today's) detailed maps. Then DCS would probably appeal to a much larger audience.

 

With different maps currently in development, I guess we'll be "limited" to these areas for the foreseeable future, though.

 

In any case and coming back on topic, whatever versions of Bo 105 and Gazelle will be insa-buys for me, I like agile and small helicopters. :)

 

Without armament, they'd still be cool scout and special action helos, and with anti tank missiles they'd be a perfect addition to Huey- and Hip-squads that cover some more or less heavy lifting and self protection. :thumbup:

[Vectury]

(...) I still think the military version should have higher priority.

 

With you there!

I am not that excited about a civilian version of the BO-105, but that's just me. I'm sure there is a market for it, but it will remain a niche. But since DCS is a combat sim, military versions in-game should always have priority over civilian aircraft.

[Avimimus]

Sure. The military version is higher priority.

 

However, DCS level flight dynamics and systems modelling make civilian flying much more interesting than XP or FSX - you'll have to admit that. You can't blame us for desiring quality.

[NeilWillis]

Very true. There's definitely room in the marketplace for a high fidelity civil flight sim covering the whole globe.