Sierra99 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: Just because BMS exists doesn't mean ED can't / won't do one. you cannot deny BMS is extremely dated. The simple fact is, its a 25 year old program and it shows. Yes, BMS has some nice features but at the end of the day it is still a 25 year old program that simply doesn't compare to the capabilities and strengths of DCS. The Falcon 4 / BMS legacy will end in a heartbeat the moment an F-16 arrives in DCS: World. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Primary Computer ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5. -={TAC}=-DCS Server Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.
Revelation Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 The Falcon 4 / BMS legacy will end in a heartbeat the moment an F-16 arrives in DCS: World. Well I think the day DCS has an F-16C/D and a Dynamic Campaign. The Dynamic Campaign is the only reason Falcon 4 has lived as long as it has. Win 10 Pro 64Bit | 49" UWHD AOC 5120x1440p | AMD 5900x | 64Gb DDR4 | RX 6900XT
Tirak Posted December 5, 2015 Posted December 5, 2015 Just because BMS exists doesn't mean ED can't / won't do one. you cannot deny BMS is extremely dated. The simple fact is, its a 25 year old program and it shows. Yes, BMS has some nice features but at the end of the day it is still a 25 year old program that simply doesn't compare to the capabilities and strengths of DCS. The Falcon 4 / BMS legacy will end in a heartbeat the moment an F-16 arrives in DCS: World. It is taboo on these forums to discuss the features and advantages of BMS over DCS, as such I cannot offer a proper defense of my position, only that I believe in its current form your statements are inaccurate. I will not discuss BMS specifics in public for that reason, but as you have already seen, one developer has specifically stated they have no desire to compete with BMS, and ED is rather notably developing a module that is not 100% accurately portrayed in BMS, instead of taking BMS on directly. Given the rocky nature of the subject, I suggest we drop discussion of BMS here, and continue speaking about the Nighthawk, an iconic plane in its own right. Name recognition alone goes a long way, and for many, this unique aircraft, even if limited in mission scope, would no doubt draw significant sales. I would also note that mission scope is determined by players and mission designers, to be improvised, and for aircraft capabilities to be creatively experimented with, rather than using the Nighthawk in the most safe way possible as actual US SOP dictates.
JazonXD Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 The idea of an 117 would be awesome, but I don't think we're there yet. The role for the 117 as others have stated is for strategic bombing and in real war, this is very important because you can strike specific ammunition depots/supply lines...etc. This doesn't matter as much if at all in DCS so... My first priority aircraft would be F-15E. Just my two cents. AMD 5600X -- Gigabyte RTX 3070 Vision -- 32GB 3600MHz DDR4 -- HP Reverb G2 -- Logitech 3D Extreme Pro -- Thrustmaster TWCS BRRRT! Car and aviation enthusiast, gun nut and computer nerd!
artemeln Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 If you want. You can use this link. It.s my model F-117 https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B12oIA0HeWGtX3B4VUNqUHQ5WkU Intel Core i7 - 7800X, GeForce GTX1070 Ti, ASUS TUF X299 MARK 2, 32Gb DDR4 2400MHz Crucial Ballistix Sport, 500Gb SSD Western Digital Blue, 2Tb SATA-III Toshiba,
XeNoise Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 I fly only with fast movers but would totally buy a f-117 module. It's simply a fascinating aircraft which would also add some additional fun with stealth. :)
SDsc0rch Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 F-117 would be awesome in DCS i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
SDsc0rch Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 and you know.. i've posted this before i think it bears posting here in this thread as well... did i miss something? is this simulator called "Digital Old/Declassified/Defunct/Obsolete Combat Simulator"? in light of this latest, my message to devs or prospective developers who are "testing the waters" or "floating a trial balloon" to gauge customer interest... just don't unless of course, you really want to NOT make a high-fidelity flight sim just build it - the sales will come as someone told me, there will always be a million reasons NOT to do something but again - to devs who want to build for DCS... DON'T. TELL. US. JUST. DO. IT. i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Sweep Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 ^And we have a winner. F-117 please. I want to get shot down by SA-3-I mean bomb things in the middle of the night! :D Lord of Salt
KROLSKI Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 A lot of mentions are beeing made about out dated aircraft and such. The biggest issue developing modern aircraft is the data available that is usable and implementable right? That's why a lot of developers simply say "when we don't have the info we can't make it". Or real life manufacturers are not willing to corporate. Systems that are beeing kept under the radar (I chuckled when I wrote that down in a stealth jet post)So on and so on. Taking this in account it's kind of logical that "older" planes are beeing developed. Now aiming at the F-117, what is still classified about the plane? What I always thought still a whole lot.... Is there a chance that there will be a whole lot of guessing involved in this development? Not saying that's bad, but still. And is this maybe a sign that more developers are going to take this route for the future? Maybe it's a logical step to feed the wishes for more modern aircraft? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
gospadin Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 IMO, the biggest reason NOT to do certain planes is that supported maps aren't big enough. If you want to support F-111, F-117, F-15E, F/A-18E, F-104, or many other strike aircraft, you really need larger maps that exceed 1000 miles on an edge, where refueling is mandatory, initial staging is outside enemy detection range, etc. The typical DCS conflicts starting 100 miles apart aren't the proper arena for deep strike platforms. Maybe with ocean dominated maps in the future it'll work with DCS's engine. A theatre like this would be amazing, so much possibility: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2939478,22.451484,5.5z (zoom to 5.5) My liveries, mods, and missions for DCS:World M-2000C English Cockpit | Extra Beacons Mod | Nav Kneeboard | Community A-4E
Sweep Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 F-104 and something with 1000 miles. lol Seriously though, you can achieve longer flight times through better mission design. Or future map developers could make my day and add low detail airfields waaaay off map. I'll take all of the aircraft in your list and a theater like that (although it would be low detail, probably...). :thumbup: Lord of Salt
gospadin Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 and you know.. i've posted this before ... JUST. DO. IT. I agree. I'd much rather get a new model of a modern plane that's 80% accurate and 20% invented, as long as that's stated up-front at the time I buy it. I know radar capabilities won't be perfect match to real life, but it'll still be fun-as-heck flying the thing. My liveries, mods, and missions for DCS:World M-2000C English Cockpit | Extra Beacons Mod | Nav Kneeboard | Community A-4E
Focha Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 F-117! Sure! For what else do we have Groom lake now? :D ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits
TOYKILLA Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 A DCS Nighthawk would be great [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Thrustmaster Warthog SLM - F/A-18 , MFG Crosswind V2 , Cougar MFD`s , HP Reverb , PointCtrl , i9@5,1Ghz/2080Ti, :joystick: DIY 2DOF Motionsimulator with 4Ch Simshaker :joystick: https://www.facebook.com/micsmotionsimulator
Vampyre Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 Maybe when ED get finished with the F-117's first home, Tonopah, we will also have the F-117A to fly out of it. 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!"
SDsc0rch Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 nope not gonna happen - not with the reception it just received here : / congratulations guys - you killed it.. i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Mike Busutil Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 A theatre like this would be amazing, so much possibility: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2939478,22.451484,5.5z (zoom to 5.5) That map size would be amazing! Ok ED, let's make this happen for 3.0 :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Checkout my user files here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/user-is-Mike Busutil/apply/
Cool Breeze Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 IMO, the biggest reason NOT to do certain planes is that supported maps aren't big enough. If you want to support F-111, F-117, F-15E, F/A-18E, F-104, or many other strike aircraft, you really need larger maps that exceed 1000 miles on an edge, where refueling is mandatory, initial staging is outside enemy detection range, etc. The typical DCS conflicts starting 100 miles apart aren't the proper arena for deep strike platforms. Maybe with ocean dominated maps in the future it'll work with DCS's engine. A theatre like this would be amazing, so much possibility: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2939478,22.451484,5.5z (zoom to 5.5) Yowzas!:yes: I'm going to need a bigger SSD. Maybe terabyte range? Maybe one day as more maps arrive ED can "stitch" them all together! This would be amazing to fly through as the maps continue to grow larger! "For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Leonardo Da Vinci "We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch - we are going back from whence we came." John F. Kennedy
Angelthunder Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 nope not gonna happen - not with the reception it just received here : / congratulations guys - you killed it..Wait a minute.I believe there's alot of support for this aircraft in this thread alone to shut out the haters not wanting the plane.But i think they just want to see something else first before the F-117.
OnlyforDCS Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 nope not gonna happen - not with the reception it just received here : / congratulations guys - you killed it.. Seriously, I thought most of the people who flew DCS wanted high-fidelity modules, but there is a lot of support for the F117 in this thread so I guess I was wrong about about that. :noexpression: Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.
iLOVEwindmills Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 Though when offered the option to choose other things you get a list like this, http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2588249&postcount=102 So literally anything but a 117 if the option is given
Tirak Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 Though when offered the option to choose other things you get a list like this, http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2588249&postcount=102 So literally anything but a 117 if the option is given No, not literally anything but: A-3 Skywarrior :- 1 B-29 :- 1 B-52 :- 1 B-57 Canberra :- 1 Chinook :- 1 Dassault Etendard :- 1 Dassault Rafale :- 1 English Electric Lightning :- 1 Eurocopter Tiger :- 1 F-8 Crusader :- 1 Fiat G91 :- 1 IAI Kfir :- 1 MD-500 :- 1 MiG-17 :- 1 MiG-29 :- 1 Mosquito :- 1 Puma :- 1 S-3 Viking :- 1 Saab Viggen :- 1 Seaking :- 1 Shenyang J-8 II :- 1 Su-34 :- 1 T+A1:B62u-160 Blackjack :- 1 T-2 Buckeye :- 1 T-6 Texan :- 1 Tu-144 :- 1 Tu-95 Bear :- 1 UH-60 :- 1 Xian JH-7 :- 1 All of these got even less votes Also, given the off the shelf nature of most of the F-117's systems, someone still needs to give a reasonable explanation as to why it couldn't be a high fidelity module.
OnlyforDCS Posted December 9, 2015 Posted December 9, 2015 Also, given the off the shelf nature of most of the F-117's systems, someone still needs to give a reasonable explanation as to why it couldn't be a high fidelity module. Really? No I mean is this a joke or something? Did you miss the entire thread? Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.
Recommended Posts