SDsc0rch Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 i don't think any aircraft is "out" at all i think it has more to do with complexity and time required to build these modules yes, i think there should be a priority on mainstream (strike eagle, viper, DCS-level eagle, current russian jets..) - but i also think important aircraft (like the F-117) have a place in the DCS stable eventually i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
mvsgas Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) I really want to know mvsgas, was the plane really that much of a bitch to maintain that you hate it forever and ever? :megalol: Simple answer: yes. :smartass::D - Technical manuals where very poor. Fort example, there where several items which where grounding, meaning the aircraft could not fly without them, yet there was no manuals for them. ( not even mention). - Another example was the leak limits from the flapperon Integrated Servo Actuator (ISA). IIRC. ...The first drop it's consider residual fluid and it should not be counted, start counting from second drop. If second drop exceeds the minimums, it is still withing limits... They where overly complicated. On the emergency procedure (EP) for evacuating the cockpit (maintainers needed to know this from memory when becoming engine run qualified) To jettison canopy pull canopy jettison handle straight up, this will jettison the canopy. Do not rotate handle CCW and pull. Rotating canopy jettison handle CCW and pulling will jettison the seat causing severe injury or death Another thing that drove me crazy was the air of arrogance many people had when involve with the aircraft for many years. The love to say: " We where the only aircraft to go to down town Baghdad, attack and not get hit" to whish I say: The Isreali AF did it with F-16 many years before and did not need Apache helicopters to open the way. LM is pretty ridiculous about simple things. On the F-16 left and right brakes where the same, you just move two lines. On the F-117, they where the same as well, but Lockheed Martin would not certify the brakes if we order one part number and move the lines, so we had to order additional brakes. It was like that for several parts. Some trouble shooting was non existent and in many occasions we just had to change parts and see if the problems was solve. For every hour of combat it needed 4 to 5 hours of maintenance. The only good thing was the engines, reliable as hell and would endure crazy abuse. I got other reasons. Edited December 4, 2015 by mvsgas To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
mvsgas Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 Oh for heaven's sake why not just an f-16 or rafale or something. Why does every developer seem bent on modelling the most obscure or specialised aircraft they can think of. What next? The Goodyear blimp? Keep it mainstream people - you just might attract some customers! :thumbup: To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
Winfield_Gold Posted December 4, 2015 Posted December 4, 2015 Why does every developer seem bent on modelling the most obscure or specialised aircraft they can think of. What next? The Goodyear blimp? ! What's wrong with the Goodyear blimp? after a couple of kids, I can honestly say i'm happily in love with the Goodyear blimp....
Bullfrog_ Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Oh for heaven's sake why not just an f-16 or rafale or something. There is nothing "Just" about an F-16, Rafale, F-15E or all the other modern fighters people are asking for. 1
Mike Busutil Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Why not just say yes to every aircraft proposed by developers and when it's available, don't buy it if you don't like it... If Kinney Interactive would've gotten more support from us here we would've already had the F-35 in DCS by now. Edited December 5, 2015 by Mike Busutil [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Checkout my user files here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/user-is-Mike Busutil/apply/
AMEDooley Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 [\QUOTE] For every hour of combat it needed 4 to 5 hours of maintenance. The only good thing was the engines, reliable as hell and would endure crazy abuse. I got other reasons. I would kill for 4 or 5 hours of maintenance. We were at closer to 10 on the hornet and are the same on the 16. That's good for maintenance per hour of flight. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
PiedDroit Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Why not just say yes to every aircraft proposed by developers and when it's available, don't buy it if you don't like it... If Kinney Interactive would've gotten more support from us here we would've already had the F-35 in DCS by now. Well... People didn't buy it, so... :music_whistling:
Revelation Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Well... People didn't buy it, so... :music_whistling: Technically it was never up for sale, there was a crowd funding campaign that was scuttled by members in this very community. The same ones that also complain about lack of content, no new maps and not enough news updates.... Win 10 Pro 64Bit | 49" UWHD AOC 5120x1440p | AMD 5900x | 64Gb DDR4 | RX 6900XT
AMEDooley Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Why not just say yes to every aircraft proposed by developers and when it's available, don't buy it if you don't like it... If Kinney Interactive would've gotten more support from us here we would've already had the F-35 in DCS by now. It's missing the tgp in the nose lol [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
PiedDroit Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Ok, ok, back on F-117. As some said already, this aircraft is a legend and certainly deserves a place in DCS. I would certainly buy it at least to be able to fly one of those night bombing missions, but that would not happen too often, I guess. I just don't know if the current radar threat model is complex enough to replicate the challenges of slipping unseen through a SAM network. With this aircraft we could make some awesome hide and seek missions - one player takes the F-117, take off location and target are randomly selected (by mission design). Other players must intercept it before it makes it to the target :D
Mike Busutil Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 It's missing the tgp in the nose lol Here you go ;) But back to the F-117 :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Checkout my user files here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/user-is-Mike Busutil/apply/
TomOnSteam Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 For every hour of combat it needed 4 to 5 hours of maintenance. The only good thing was the engines, reliable as hell and would endure crazy abuse. I got other reasons. I would kill for 4 or 5 hours of maintenance. We were at closer to 10 on the hornet and are the same on the 16. That's good for maintenance per hour of flight. That's the nice thing about a simulator, no maintenance required :) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cockpit Spectator Mode
mvsgas Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 ...same on the 16... F-16? What block where you working? We flew block 40 four time a day in the ROK, never experience what your talking about. No in Osan and not in Kunsan, or any other base for that matter. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
SDsc0rch Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 adding a 117 would *necessitate* re-engineering the radar model just like they've made a "PFM" for the flight model - bring up the level of fidelity i think that would be a good thing i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
StandingCow Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 F-16 is out because BMS exists, Rafale is out because the French are incredibly protective of any information regarding their equipment, so there would be zero chance of accurate implementation at a DCS level. The Nighthawk is frankly one of the most iconic aircraft in the world. The first stealth warplane, famous for their role at slipping in past Iraqi air defenses and wrecking everything they went after. You would be hard pressed to find a more recognizable plane. I really want to know mvsgas, was the plane really that much of a bitch to maintain that you hate it forever and ever? :megalol: BMS has nothing to do with why we don't have an F-16 in DCS... I have to wonder if the big wait was the air to ground radar being introduced. F-16 would probably be one of the biggest sellers next to the F-14 and F-18. 5900X - 32 GB 3600 RAM - 1080TI My Twitch Channel ~Moo
Angelthunder Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 I know some may not like to see a aircraft that carries a limited number of bombs.But i think it would be cool to see the first ever stealth plane in DCS(i don't count Polychops upcoming Horton fighter as one).:DI doubt we will get others like the F-22 Raptor,Lightning II or B-2 Spirit anytime soon.
Pman Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 BMS has nothing to do with why we don't have an F-16 in DCS... Source? Was certainly one of the big 3 reasons why we made it very clear that we would never do one... Pman
Pman Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 From what I understand, most DCS module purchasers are not even active participants in this forum.. Very VERY true Pman
SDsc0rch Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 well i certainly hope SOMEONE has the [nevermind] to build a viper for DCS! BMS or no BMS, DCS needs it because it is so pervasive, capable and...... "fun" and it would sell like nothing else - mark my words i agree, the bar has been set - and any dev taking up the challenge would have their work cut out for them (because for sure comparisons would be made) - but for petes sake, the dev who DOES stand up? my goodness would they be handsomely rewarded maybe no dev would do it - maybe only ED would be qualified to take on such a project...... ?? i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Mr_Burns Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 I dont know this for sure, but at the same time the F-117 was fielded it is rumored to have a companion..its more than a rumor..... But what would be enjoyable about the F-117 I would imagine is trying to keep it stealthy as you fly against AA and A2A radars, but being as though this is Stealth we are talking about and the companion is perhaps still flying... Who, outside of the inner circle, would be able to simulate accurate stealth.... Noone, therefore no DCS bird.... Close the thread.
StandingCow Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Source? Was certainly one of the big 3 reasons why we made it very clear that we would never do one... Pman No source, just my own speculation, and apparently ED has been working on one in house. I mean BMS has the F/A-18 now (although I don't think it is as in depth as the F-16), would that mean you wouldn't touch that now either if it weren't already in development by ED? Personally I strongly feel the F-16 would be a big seller in DCS as I said earlier. You are certainly more in the know than I am on the subject. Edited December 5, 2015 by StandingCow 5900X - 32 GB 3600 RAM - 1080TI My Twitch Channel ~Moo
Winfield_Gold Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 ED has been working on one in house. I am curious, I heard the same thing that the F-16 implementation was happening for Prepar3d. Who do you think will release one first? ED or Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d?
StandingCow Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 I am curious, I heard the same thing that the F-16 implementation was happening for Prepar3d. Who do you think will release one first? ED or Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d? Well... again pure speculation... I assume ED was waiting for A2G radar implementation to be finished, same with why we don't have the F/A-18 yet. I have no idea who will come out with one first though since I don't follow prepar3d at all. 5900X - 32 GB 3600 RAM - 1080TI My Twitch Channel ~Moo
Svend_Dellepude Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 ED was actually developing an F-16 module for DCS a couple of years ago. I am curious, I heard the same thing that the F-16 implementation was happening for Prepar3d. Who do you think will release one first? ED or Lockheed Martin's Prepar3d? ED has been working on a new 3d model but not a new module AFAIK. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Win10 64, Asus Maximus VIII Formula, i5 6600K, Geforce 980 GTX Ti, 32 GB Ram, Samsung EVO SSD.
Recommended Posts