Military vs Civil Simulation

[StandingCow]

Ehh, mid as well throw in my 2 cents... but I don't see much reason for civilian aircraft unless we had a MUCH larger map. The reason people fly in civilian aircraft games is sightseeing, not sure what purpose they would have in DCS.

[shagrat]

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.

In general I would not mind "civil" aircraft in DCS.

On the other hand, I'm a bit sceptical if civilian players would mix well with Fighter Jocks and loose trigger fingers.

 

So in the end we would likely see separate "worlds"/servers.

 

The pro arguments are definitely more diversity, mission options beyond standard military, and a large stable of FSX developers who may port their stuff by polishing the 3D model and redoing just the avionics.

 

The contra is more like map size and number of airports may not so easily accommodate virtual airlines.

 

A good compromise, that I would like to see, is transport (Chinook, C-5, C-130), special use (AC-130, Tankers), AWACS (Multicrew!) or bombers (B-1, B-2, or especially WW II Heinkel, Avro Lancaster, B-17 etc.)

 

A good old Jungle Hopper or 727/A320 Airliner is debatable. Though I won't mind if somebody makes them. Just curious if it gets enough sales to be financially viable.

 

If we talk about Helicopters though, hmmm, apart from an obvious bunch of military like AH-1 to 64, OH-58 Kiowa, Mi-28, Mi-24D(!) there are a couple civilian that could give loads of fun, say Alouette, Bell Jetranger, Agusta etc. :D

[spaceraver]

Hmm.

I really hope for a multiverse that is DCS at the core, but expanding to civil flights, RTS gamers, the Arma crowd.. But that is a long way to go to get there.

[Sryan]

 

The "small" size of the maps has been brought up as an issue, but I don't feel like it is. The black sea map alone took me eight hours to fly across from one edge to the other in the L-39. I do not see why you couldn't do an international flight from Georgia to Russia in it, let alone in the Straights of Hormuz map, which should have three to four different countries in it.

 

Just some thoughts on all this.

 

how many international flights are you going to do between russia and georgia are you going to do before you had enough of it? The idea is that we play this sim for years. and although there's enough airports to allow for plenty of routes you're not very likely to hit FL320 in an airliner unless you fly from krasnogar to Tblisi all day long. The map could easily be made more interesting for all audiences by adding parts of northern turkey, azerbaijan, crimea and other parts of russia, ukraine, bulgaria and romania to the map. However I think the current map is fine.

 

It would be to easy to assume that by allowing new 3rd parties to develop for DCS that the quality of those modules would skyrocket. I'm afraid all we would see is an influx of "SFM" quality planes. Even if they did increase in quality up to AFM/PFM level, I don't see what would stop them taking their high quality module to other platforms as well.

 

I personally hope we never get a globe map in DCS with low quality details wich we then need to enhance with payware scenery addons. I also only forsee problems considering the amount of mud movers we have. People would only choose terrain that is advantageous to them for spotting targets.

 

I personally wouldn't be in the market for something like an airliner and unlikely to buy something civilian unless it's something that really sparks my interest. with that being said I'd really love something big to fly in DCS. two modules I'd really love to see a B-1B Lancer and/or Tu22M backfire module some day. both more than 4 times as heavy as the biggest plane we can fly right now. they're still fast enough to fight and survive on the modern battlefield, sporting 4 man crews in real life they might just be managable to fly solo if we consider solutions like the partial automation on the Huey when you're not the pilot or what jester-ai could do for it if LNS made it available to other developers. The Tu22M backfire could be very interesting since it seems this year will be biased towards naval aviation with the release of the hornet, tomcat, SoH map and carrier modules. The backfire sports impressive anti-ship weapons and I imagine it would be an interesting scenario to defend your carrier from player intelligent strikes backed by player intelligent Su-33's. I'd also like some other stuff like the C-130. and while planes like the C-17 and B52 would be nice to have I don't think the current map sizes can really emphasize their strong points.

[shagrat]

(...)I also only forsee problems considering the amount of mud movers we have. People would only choose terrain that is advantageous to them for spotting targets.(...)

 

Bullshit! We had a similar discussion right before the 1.5 Upgrade introduced the "dreaded" model enlargement setting.

A small group of people "assumed" it would spoil the Sim/is gamey/ruins the experience and "people" would enforce small monitor resolution to "cheat" and get an advantage...

 

Now after we've seen the feature. Used it and know it, none of this really happened and mostly people like the option.

 

I'm not sure why people who obviously can only think of cheating all the time always assume that everybody else thinks alike?

 

From what I've seen "cheating" in DCS is rare to non existent (apart from the occasional incident on an "Air-Quake-Server" and that was more hacking).

 

Mostly advantages come in the form of Head tracking, better HOTAS, rudder pedals, Monitors or Simpits.

 

Especially the Mud Movers 90% of their time fight coop against AI, so why would you want to cheat a CPU?

 

And if "advantageous" terrain is an argument, well, simply replace the ground textures in Bazar?! Would look like crap, but enhance your spotting, with ruining the whole experience for you?

 

I personnally would love to see a globe introduced to connect for example the Caucasus map to upcoming Strait of Hormuz, or even to Nevada if somebody wants to do a cross Atlantic transit flight with aerial refueling...

 

It is nice to have options. :)

[Sryan]

*sigh* while you bring decent arguments to this discussion I do not understand why you felt the need to discard my argument as bullshit. I did not agree with the poster before me to turn this game into the russia-georgia express simulator but that did not justify me being disrespectful to his opinion in any way. I liked to think of my fellow simmers as connaisseurs in digital entertainment but if I see how toxic things sometimes get on here, or on other forums or against the very VEAO devs you tested for to the point they quit.

 

 

As for your arguments. The model enlargement is a setting in an options menu ( and I like it. In fact I think it would be made a bit more effective below 10km ). As for the equipment. nobody expects to be very competitive in a flightsim without some hardware. But what I would dislike is that if there where advantages in textures or other scenery stuff that was behind a paywall. Not that I care much, personally, I'm the 90% that mainly moves mud and ai planes.

 

You can have your global map to move about between maps or whatever. But I would dislike if we'd be given a low quality global map that we are then supposed to enhance with payware scenery and that's it. I'd rather have the very high quality pay to play maps we get now.

 

anyway, we're drifting off topic. Better get back to discussing civilian planes.

[shagrat]

*sigh* while you bring decent arguments to this discussion I do not understand why you felt the need to discard my argument as bullshit. I did not agree with the poster before me to turn this game into the russia-georgia express simulator but that did not justify me being disrespectful to his opinion in any way. I liked to think of my fellow simmers as connaisseurs in digital entertainment but if I see how toxic things sometimes get on here, or on other forums or against the very VEAO devs you tested for to the point they quit.

 

 

As for your arguments. The model enlargement is a setting in an options menu ( and I like it. In fact I think it would be made a bit more effective below 10km ). As for the equipment. nobody expects to be very competitive in a flightsim without some hardware. But what I would dislike is that if there where advantages in textures or other scenery stuff that was behind a paywall. Not that I care much, personally, I'm the 90% that mainly moves mud and ai planes.

 

You can have your global map to move about between maps or whatever. But I would dislike if we'd be given a low quality global map that we are then supposed to enhance with payware scenery and that's it. I'd rather have the very high quality pay to play maps we get now.

 

anyway, we're drifting off topic. Better get back to discussing civilian planes.

 

The "bullshit" was refering to the generalism "the people"...I explained, why I come to this conclusion

Maybe the wording is a bit harsh, so sorry, if this sounded like a personal affront.

 

In general I think, we already have the "paywall" as new maps as NTTR, Strait of Hormuz or Normandy are Terrain Modules you have to pay for.

So other than the option to fly from map A) to map B) over a procedurally generated terrain globe, I can see no difference.

We could (!) fly long distance over a globe if(!) we want to.

 

In my opinion, much better, than being stuck with just a 500 square mile scenario around Vegas or Abu Dhabi?

 

The payware decision was already done, by ED, so every new Map can either be standalone, small and limited, or part of a globe concept, where missions currently enforce the ownership of the according map? I must say I don't understand the point, if you are OK with a connected globular map approach, as the new maps won't come for free anyway, apart from the original Caucasus map.

:dunno:

Edited February 4, 2016 by shagrat

[DerekSpeare]

DCS could leverage their asset considerably by issuing licenses to create and sell new maps and new aircraft. FSX nailed this one by allowing people to create new content and easily add it into the sim - DCS not so much. MS isn't even getting paid off of it directly. ED could enjoy revenue streams from the issuance of licenses and collecting royalties on its sales.

 

I personally see DCS as the next platform on which a worldwide simulator could be built. DCS has the capability to be the next FSX and ED can profit handsomely from it if they wished to do so.

[Buzzles]

DCS could leverage their asset considerably by issuing licenses to create and sell new maps and new aircraft. FSX nailed this one by allowing people to create new content and easily add it into the sim - DCS not so much.

 

ED are doing just that already. Third Party Devs are now starting to produce a lot of content for us :) We've already got a number of third party aircraft, and at least two of the third parties are working on maps.

Plus ED already licence out the engine and tools for commerical applications.

 

I'm glad ED keep a strict hold of the reigns though, as for all the great 3rd Party Add-ons in FSX, there's a dozen bad ones. Plus there's a stronger QC and an enforcement that everything needs to play nicely with each other.

 

Reigning it back on topic though, I think the way for DCS World to go, at least for the near future, is like the Huey and Hip, with civvie configuration options alongside the mil versions.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Buzzles

[Rogue Trooper]

If there is a civilian version of the military module being produced then why not release it too. Both civil and military models expand the market for the developer. I would love the super light red bull aerobatic air frame to be released with the B0-105.

But for me the important part is “the civilian version” of the military model being released.

[Teapot]

If a developer decides to do civilian planes that is great imo.

 

There are plenty of non-frontline non-combat aircraft that fly support during a conflict.

 

Personally I would love for DCS to expand beyond being purely a combat simulator and being a complete sandbox simulator.

 

It would be great if DCS could be used to fly combat operations via VATSIM Special Operations.

[bkthunder]

Civil would be great! I can't wait to see an Extra 330 or Edge 540 modelled to DCS standards, because let's face it, the only sim that could decently simulate unlimited aerobatics is DCS.

[the_soupdragon]

I think it depends. I would rather unarmed military aircraft/Helos. Think Kiowa, chinook, OH-6 OH-1 or C130, caribou, Tweet/super tweet etc.......

 

That would really make things interesting. For me especially. I cant remember the last time I dropped a bomb or fired a gun it DCS. For me its all about the flying and navigating :)

 

SD

[rogonaut]

If a military version of a plane or helo has a civilian brother go for it, its probably not much effort and makes more diversity in flying and mission making. What i would luv to see is the maps grow and or merge so u can fly longer distances and refuel in air or what ever u wish for. Is it possibly to extend the Caucasus map to its neighboring countries? would be sweet:)

[Home Fries]

It wouldn't bother me if civilian aircraft were made for DCS, provided that (as rogonaut said above) the development efforts went into a military counterpart first. Using the huey as an example, it serves both military and civilian purposes, and the same flight model could be used for both with the difference being the weight (no hardpoints).

 

I think the closest we've been do general aviation are the trainers, which were not primarily weapons platforms. If there's a non-combat itch to be scratched in the DCS family, it would be trainers. Even then, trainers haven't been a hot commodity, though that may change when multi-seat is fleshed out.

 

Bottom line: I just don't see a dedicated development project for a strictly civil aircraft to be worth the effort.

 

Now the big question should be whether people want to fly military heavies (B-52, C-130, KC-135, etc.). While this isn't my cup of tea, I think you would get more support with a C-130 module than with a C172.

[shagrat]

This is a dopey thread. Alright fine. Polychop, make a C-172. Should take about a weekend start to finish. Charge these dudes $30 for a plane that can't outrun its own exhaust with a headwind (and I have a couple hundred hours of IRL GA flying experience to back up how dumb this whole thing is) and will take you all the way to the edge of the map in 2 hours. Loads of fun. After you're done flying you can drive over to McDonald's to round out your $100 hamburger realism session. Then you can fly back. That's a six hour day. Have fun.

Ehm, nobody asked for a 172 or similar...

The question was about civilian planes.

As there is a lot of dual use stuff out there, and TriStars were delivering UK Soldiers to Kabul under quite warlike conditions, even that would fit a realistic Combat Simulator...

For me personally, I can very well see C-130 (maybe with its buddy the AC-130), the Chinook, a flyable CH-53, maybe others.

As AI I would definitely love a few more civilian planes from business jets to Intercontinental Jumbo jets.

Add in a "neutral faction" that could represent innocent civilians it could spice up so many missions and COIN operations...

A Cessna 172 is not on my wish list, for sure.

[RetroBurn]

Not sure if this was stated before, but aerobatics and racing could be a nice add-on. I know we have rudimentary things like that already, but having racing aircraft in would be kinda cool as well.

[WinterH]

I'd pay for any of Edge, Extra, Su-26, Pitts etc. Well at least for one or two of them anyway.

 

While not my cup of tea, I can see civilian helicopters working well too.

[Teapot]

It's up to a developer really if they want to test the waters.

 

The decision to test these waters can happen despite the different opinions floating around the forums .. and we all know what floats.

 

In my opinion (& this opinion is just another floater among the general flotsam); Polychop should go ahead and build a civvie plane. The sales of that would provide a much better metric than forum chatter .. imo.

 

Yes .. I'd snap up a C208 (the Edit .. Cessna Caravan .. with the floats option) or a DHC-2 & 3 or Twin Otter in a heart-beat .. also used by a number of airforces btw. A pilatus porter would be awesome too .. we used to have those in the Australian Army.

What about an AS350 .. I'd have a sex change and have your baby for that. Cheers

Edited May 6, 2016 by Teapot

[Badger1-1]

Transports are needed, especially on Blueflag Server so any cargo plane would be good!

[Eight Ball]

Yes .. I'd snap up a C208 (the Edit .. Cessna Caravan .. with the floats option) or a DHC-2 & 3 or Twin Otter in a heart-beat .. also used by a number of airforces btw. A pilatus porter would be awesome too .. we used to have those in the Australian Army.

What about an AS350 .. I'd have a sex change and have your baby for that. Cheers

+1

I'd buy all of them.

The level of detail of the new maps aswell as their off-airfield capabilities would make them perfectly suitable. There can't be that much classified information about a C-208 or a Twotter...

 

And I know a good surgeon who could turn Teapot into a very attractive woman. Your call Polychop.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Eight Ball

[Coxy_99]

Id say combat HOWEVER a C-130 would not go a miss along with military transport.

[Lucifah]

If you do plan on making civilian aircraft, please focus on "hybrids" (models with military and civilian use) and make sure the military version gets most love.

 

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:

[Coxy_99]

If you do plan on making civilian aircraft, please focus on "hybrids" (models with military and civilian use) and make sure the military version gets most love.

 

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:

 

Thats easy shoot them down :thumbup:

[Cool Breeze]

If you do plan on making civilian aircraft, please focus on "hybrids" (models with military and civilian use) and make sure the military version gets most love.

 

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:

Polychop has said that they are only going to be working on aircraft for the foreseeable future. They aren't interested in building maps and terrain.