Military vs Civil Simulation

[Vedexent]

Honestly though, what are you going to do with civilian aircraft apart from aerobatics? The maps are small, with only a handful of airfields and just a bunch of navaids. This is going to get old very quick.

 

Fly them ;)

 

Some of us just love aircraft - regardless of their use.

 

I'm happy learning the systems and flight idiosyncrasies of almost any aircraft. I get enjoyment from learning to use NDB navigation in the Sabre and learning to chuck nukes over the horizon with 'em :)

 

Combat aircraft typically have more things you can do with them, and more aspects to learn (you know, all the actual combat) - and learning to do "all the things" with a combat aircraft, and learning to do them well, is more of a challenge.

 

For people who take this approach, a civilian aircraft is just a bit more skimpy on "things to learn", but it's still totally viable.

 

This is not to say that this approach is inherently "better" than any other approach to aircraft. However you approach aircraft, and derive enjoyment from flight simming, works for you, and is every bit as "valid".

 

I'm just saying that learning to fly civilian aircraft in DCS would totally work for some of us.

 

I agree 100% with you that the maps need to be larger, and more varied, to really make non-combat aircraft more viable, however.

 

---

 

And if the aircraft is Polychop? I'm likely to give it a try based on the quality of the Gazelle so far.

[Eight Ball]

Honestly though, what are you going to do with civilian aircraft apart from aerobatics? The maps are small, with only a handful of airfields and just a bunch of navaids. This is going to get old very quick.

 

If you are going down that route, maybe don't do a civilian aircraft, but instead lay the ground work for it first: bigger maps, better terrain meshes, airfields, VORs and NDBs, and the ATCs would need some love too. :music_whistling:

 

You have to think outside the box. At the huey release, we had no troop transport, no sling load operation, we still don't have multicrew. Those feature have been added step by step or still being worked on.

But it hasn't prevented DCS from quickly becoming the benchmark in helo simulation.

 

Instead of solely focusing on what DCS is today, you have to realize what ED is trying to achieve, what's their long term goal with the sim.

They're not working on a modern Falcon4, they're not trying to be the military counter-part to X-plane or FSX.

They are working on DCS, a true "sandbox simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.

 

Those who fail to acknowledge that will never understand why everything is "taking so long". But once you take that into account, it makes perfect sense.

[Sporg]

Fly them ;)

 

Some of us just love aircraft - regardless of their use.

 

I'm happy learning the systems and flight idiosyncrasies of almost any aircraft. I get enjoyment from learning to use NDB navigation in the Sabre and learning to chuck nukes over the horizon with 'em :)

 

Combat aircraft typically have more things you can do with them, and more aspects to learn (you know, all the actual combat) - and learning to do "all the things" with a combat aircraft, and learning to do them well, is more of a challenge.

 

For people who take this approach, a civilian aircraft is just a bit more skimpy on "things to learn", but it's still totally viable.

 

This is not to say that this approach is inherently "better" than any other approach to aircraft. However you approach aircraft, and derive enjoyment from flight simming, works for you, and is every bit as "valid".

 

I'm just saying that learning to fly civilian aircraft in DCS would totally work for some of us.

 

I agree 100% with you that the maps need to be larger, and more varied, to really make non-combat aircraft more viable, however.

 

---

 

And if the aircraft is Polychop? I'm likely to give it a try based on the quality of the Gazelle so far.

 

You have to think outside the box. At the huey release, we had no troop transport, no sling load operation, we still don't have multicrew. Those feature have been added step by step or still being worked on.

But it hasn't prevented DCS from quickly becoming the benchmark in helo simulation.

 

Instead of solely focusing on what DCS is today, you have to realize what ED is trying to achieve, what's their long term goal with the sim.

They're not working on a modern Falcon4, they're not trying to be the military counter-part to X-plane or FSX.

They are working on DCS, a true "sandbox simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.

 

Those who fail to acknowledge that will never understand why everything is "taking so long". But once you take that into account, it makes perfect sense.

+1 to both these answers.

 

And good catch Eight Ball. ;)

[adonai]

FSX, X-Plane & Prepar3D here.

 

IMO DCS does choppers really well. I'm hoping that eventually it will expand to include civilian aircraft and I would ditch all my other flightsims in favour of DCS if it had an expanded *real* world environment AND civilian aircraft (transports will be a good start).

 

Keep in mind that over the the years I have spent a LOT of money on my civilian flying fix. My expenditure on DCS has been a splash in the bucket by comparison .. and I know that I'm not unique in this.

 

Agreed. And personally, many people are forgetting one of, if not the most important, part of any sustained combat is logistics. If you can't get your assets on station to project whatever fast fighters/choppers or ground units in a meaningful way then you can't fight a war, period.

 

While this isn't exactly topical to adding civilian aircraft to DCS, I do think that fleshing out transport/support assets in game would be a far better focus than jumping straight into the civ side of flying. We still have yet to fly manned aerial refueling, equipment+man paradrops, or tackle the materials and basing side of supporting large dynamic single/multiplayer campaigns in game yet.

 

In my opinion, these pieces are necessary first and foremost before thinking of a crossover. I would be ecstatic flying a c130, 160, or even a caravan/172 if it meant I'm still contributing to the overall progress and results of a mission or campaign just in another dimension. While some of the "combat" hardliners say they would pay less for a civ/transport platform, i think you'd find plenty of fsx/p3d types willing to spend pmdg type money (with accompanying fidelity of course) on aircraft not including 10 hardpoints and afterburners that still have a tangible necessity in missions in game; whether single or multiplayer. I think in and of itself that could justify an expansion into trans/support aircraft while appeasing to all the different types of us sim/real pilots that call flight simulation our primary hobby.

 

Just my 2cents :)

[rogonaut]

Agreed. And personally, many people are forgetting one of, if not the most important, part of any sustained combat is logistics. If you can't get your assets on station to project whatever fast fighters/choppers or ground units in a meaningful way then you can't fight a war, period.

 

While this isn't exactly topical to adding civilian aircraft to DCS, I do think that fleshing out transport/support assets in game would be a far better focus than jumping straight into the civ side of flying. We still have yet to fly manned aerial refueling, equipment+man paradrops, or tackle the materials and basing side of supporting large dynamic single/multiplayer campaigns in game yet.

 

In my opinion, these pieces are necessary first and foremost before thinking of a crossover. I would be ecstatic flying a c130, 160, or even a caravan/172 if it meant I'm still contributing to the overall progress and results of a mission or campaign just in another dimension. While some of the "combat" hardliners say they would pay less for a civ/transport platform, i think you'd find plenty of fsx/p3d types willing to spend pmdg type money (with accompanying fidelity of course) on aircraft not including 10 hardpoints and afterburners that still have a tangible necessity in missions in game; whether single or multiplayer. I think in and of itself that could justify an expansion into trans/support aircraft while appeasing to all the different types of us sim/real pilots that call flight simulation our primary hobby.

 

Just my 2cents :)

 

spock would be proud^^ hope the devs see this in a similar manner:)

 

+1000

[Laobi]

I could type out a huge list of reasons why I think civilian aircraft would be great for DCS, including being able to ditch the other 3 flight sims I currently own. It's something I've been thinking about for a while, particularly after an argument on another forum about it a while back. I made a video on the topic recently:

 

[ame]

[/ame]

 

Hope it doesn't break any forum rules, if it does please delete.

[Frank00]

Do to the fact that the discussion started,

would you like to have more civil planes in DCS?

Could the name DCS still work if it could replace simulation titels like FSX?

 

What are your thoughts on this.

 

I myself think that the civil sector is a huge market and as it was posted, for helicopters there are a lot of missions planable in a civil enviroment.

 

 

For me DCS must stay combat simulator there are enought civilian simulator to fill civilian simulation dream.

[gospadin]

I appreciate DCS being combat focused, but at the same time, the IFF panels for just about all modern military aircraft support Mode 3/A+C operation, which allows them to fit perfectly into the civilian ATC network.

 

If people wanted to run civ+mil mixed servers, I'm 100% in favor of it. Ultimately DCS:W is the engine, and doesn't care about any specific plane. Let 3rd parties build any aircraft they want for DCS:W, civilian and military.

[predattak]

Well one thing is for sure, before going to civil planes they really need to update in a BIG WAY the ATC system.. as of today that part is almost inexistent.

When you fly civil jets ATC becomes a big part of the fun.

[7rooper]

No thanks. I wouldn't like to see civil simulation. We already have FSX, P3D, X-Plane & DT Fligh School for that purpose. Enough already with three trainers in DCS.

[PeroperoDokkiri]

I am somewhat biased since I don't fly anything but helicopters in sims, so I don't have much to say about fixed wing, but when it comes to helicopters- I will buy a cool, well developed civilian helicopter module any day. Or you could sell military helicopter, and either make a civilian version, or sell an "expansion" for couple $ for those who already bought military "base" version of the module. I am pretty sure ie. people would buy a Bell 205 with high skid/ emergency floatation system/ gps/ civilian radio/ mirrors as options if Belsimtek continued developing their module. On top of that there is a huge gameplay possibilities for civilian helicopters missions in DCS- cargo transport/ sling loading, medical operations (SAR, general casuality transportation etc), fire fighting, fields cropping, the list goes on and on. Now with Starway's and Barthek's textures DCS starts to look REALLY nice, and I am sure people who are flying x-plane/ p3d/ fsx would be surprised how little ED has changed in the scenery graphic departament, and how community managed to make this sim look sweet despite having to work within such dated engine frame.

[Montes]

Not only have fighter jets would be a nice experience in DCS . Give variety to create missions. Not to mention taking off from aircraft carriers with more than just a fighter. Greetings

[DerekSpeare]

Do to the fact that the discussion started,

would you like to have more civil planes in DCS?

Could the name DCS still work if it could replace simulation titels like FSX?

 

What are your thoughts on this.

 

I myself think that the civil sector is a huge market and as it was posted, for helicopters there are a lot of missions planable in a civil enviroment.

 

I'm sure I'm late to the party, but the DCS engine is a good base IMO for a full blown civil sim. Of course, it's not a light undertaking to make it so.

 

I think the Cessna 172 would be good, or perhaps the Grob 120. The sky's the limit!

 

:pilotfly:

[sirscorpion]

Zero interest in flying buss.

 

Asked around our Team speak, 5 guys online, all said no interest.

Edited August 5, 2016 by sirscorpion

[stewartforgie]

I'll have a C47 please. Don't bother to wrap it, I'll just take it with me. :)

[SnowTiger]

I don't think DCS should bother with civilian aircraft for several reasons.

For starters, you can already get these in FSX and many sim'ers don't want to learn via Study Sims.

More importantly though is the fact that the more DCS takes on its plate, the less attention other Mods will get. I think they are already over-loaded with the aircraft mods already in DCS (or on their way). I'd rather they focus on "X" number of aircraft and stick to those, making them the best they can possibly be and keeping them running (with fewer counter-productive patches).

[Devil 505]

I am all for civilian aircraft. People tend to complain about the maps not being to big or no point in being in a combat sim, but I respectfully disagree. I already know there are many out there who would not buy a civilian aircraft, but there are many out there that also want them.

 

How many of you F-15 Jockeys would like to fly an escort mission? Or chase civilian aircraft out of military airspace while not paying attention to Navigation or getting clearnace? Civilian helicopters doing runs out to the oil rigs when the Hormuz map is released or transporting employees from Vegas to Creech. Moving Navy personel from base to carrier ect. As far as the size of the maps go, I played FSX for some time and I rarely saw people fying 8+ hours one way trips. I know they exist and they are out there, however, I think the map sizes now and future ones are a good starting point for Civilian aircraft.

 

Its pretty simple actually, if there is a third party dev that wants to make kick ass civilian aircraft dont complain. Just dont buy. I think this mentality of taking away from the development process of good military aircraft is invalid. If they have the resources and want to make a go at it, I would buy it. Being an avid enthusiast of all aviation, if it flys, I am buying it.

 

No offense intended to those who are not on board with civilian aircraft. Just dont ruin it for the large majority of us that want it. See you online gents.

 

Robert

[shagrat]

Airforce rent Civilian Airlines to get Military personnel into theater. Does this make them military or civilian?

 

I'm for everything a dev throws at us as long as I enjoy flying it.

 

One of the most interesting and challenging aircraft in DCS is the Huey... and not especially in a combat role, only.

[NeilWillis]

I see the focus of DCS World as different from the civil aircraft sims that are very well represented out there, but that doesn't mean we have to say no to civil modules within the game.

 

My issue is more to do with the fact that we have a huge list of military aircraft that we'd like to see here, so what is the point lengthening that list, and delaying the important stuff by watering it down with civil aviation modules?

 

I guess the bottom line is whether or not enough units would sell to justify the investment in them, and I suspect the answer to that would be an emphatic no in the sort term at least.

 

Would I be against them? No. Would I buy them? Also, no..

[QuiGon]

Airforce rent Civilian Airlines to get Military personnel into theater. Does this make them military or civilian?

 

Civilian ;)

[Neldrion]

Priority list

 

1. Flyable: keep DCS World main focus on higly detailed ultra realistic dedicated combat aircraft

 

2. Non-flyable: Maybe add some civil / unarmed military AI aircraft (not flyable by player) to simulate real world traffic around airports and in no-fight areas

 

3. Flyable: Maybe add unarmed military aircraft like AWACS, tankers, cargo, reconnaisance, surveillance drones etc.

 

I think to put in the classical FSX civil airliners is not advisable for Eagle Dynamics.

[rogonaut]

I am all for civilian aircraft. People tend to complain about the maps not being to big or no point in being in a combat sim, but I respectfully disagree. I already know there are many out there who would not buy a civilian aircraft, but there are many out there that also want them.

 

How many of you F-15 Jockeys would like to fly an escort mission? Or chase civilian aircraft out of military airspace while not paying attention to Navigation or getting clearnace? Civilian helicopters doing runs out to the oil rigs when the Hormuz map is released or transporting employees from Vegas to Creech. Moving Navy personel from base to carrier ect. As far as the size of the maps go, I played FSX for some time and I rarely saw people fying 8+ hours one way trips. I know they exist and they are out there, however, I think the map sizes now and future ones are a good starting point for Civilian aircraft.

 

Its pretty simple actually, if there is a third party dev that wants to make kick ass civilian aircraft dont complain. Just dont buy. I think this mentality of taking away from the development process of good military aircraft is invalid. If they have the resources and want to make a go at it, I would buy it. Being an avid enthusiast of all aviation, if it flys, I am buying it.

 

No offense intended to those who are not on board with civilian aircraft. Just dont ruin it for the large majority of us that want it. See you online gents.

 

Robert

 

that makes sence, why not? shooting down a cessna with narco drug trafficers on board or transporting fuel in blue flag with a hercules c-130 - hell yea!

[MoGas]

Civil planes are needed....look at the NTTR extansion, some civil Helicopters like a Bell 407, MD500, EC145 or fix wing aircrafts like a Beech C90, Cessna Caravan and so on....

[Vinny002]

Hi, guys!

 

How about a civilian bowing 747-200 "classic" in DCS world? Thanks!

 

Cheers,

Vincent

[Wolf8312]

As much as I appreciate take off, flying, and landing I dont think flight sims would hold my interest if there was no combat side to it though people have made some good points as to why it would enhance the overall DCS experience.

 

I just personally wouldnt fly them for long. In that sense I am not a real flight sim enthusiast I guess and actually find it rather perplexing why anybody would want to undertake flights in a simulator, flying from one country to another in real time?

 

It fascinates me to be honest that I am missing what such people get out of it, and I'd really like to know! I think its a almost a form of meditative relaxation for them!

 

For me the combat side of DCS, is what I turn to when I have learned how to take off, fly, and land, and though I do love simply flying around Vegas and would love to try some civillian airplanes I know they wouldnt hold my attention for long so I dont think I personally would buy them but it would be cool to see them implemented.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Wolf8312