Aircrafts NEED for DCS

[zantron]

super sabre never gets love :( especially considering its vietnam service

[cichlidfan]

With all due respect I dont think that these aircraft are classified.

SU-27SM edition / Mig-23 / F-4E / TornadoIDS&ECR / Mil MI-24 / AH-64A / F-117 / F-5E / A-7E / A-6

 

With all due respect, what you think and reality are somewhat different. Especially with regard to Russian aircraft.

[Kozmyk]

Except we don't have the Vietnam era Mig-21, we have a later variant. So I think capabilities-wise the F-5E was a good choice as a rival.

Front line fighter of a major power vs export only plane.

Not really equivalents are they ...

 

The lack of the F-4 Phantom leaves a big hole where suitable rivals should otherwise be.

 

The fact that the MiG-21bis didn't make it to Vietnam. Entered front line service with USSR 1972, makes it's matching against the F-5E even less appropriate.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think the Freedom Fighter and it's variants are lovely looking aircraft.

I'm looking for front line equivalency in a Combat Simulator.

[Ultra]

Front line fighter of a major power vs export only plane.

Not really equivalents are they ...

 

Except that the F-5E was a frontline fighter for countries that fought against Mig-21s, and specifically later variant Mig-21s. The big one being Iran when it fought Iraq, but also Ethiopia when fighting Somalia.

 

The fact that the MiG-21bis didn't make it to Vietnam. Entered front line service with USSR 1972, makes it's matching against the F-5E even less appropriate.

 

No, because they fought each other elsewhere.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think the Freedom Fighter and it's variants are lovely looking aircraft.

I'm looking for front line equivalency in a Combat Simulator.

 

The F-5E didn't just sit around in US storage for years. It was a primary frontline fighter for many countries.

 

An aircraft doesn't need to be a world superpower's main go-to aircraft for 20 years to have legitimacy. The F-5E was an important plane for a lot of other countries.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

I agree with the OT...I dont understand the ED way to try to include 2 World War planes in DCS...I think this is not what DCS is made for...this is a MODERN air combat sim so I cant see the point in making a P-51 and even less making maps for them...this effort shoudl be redirected to "modern" fighter aircrafts/conflict maps

 

At the same time I cant believe how this sim lacks some of the most important/epic modern fighter aircrafts ever and specially when as the OT said there are not multi role fighters...

 

In other words............................................F-16C and F-18C...............................................:thumbup:

 

How can we get a Red Flag without F-16 and F-18...WTF?¿?¿?:lol:

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I agree with the OT...I dont understand the ED way to try to include 2 World War planes in DCS

Because, there is a consumer base willing to buy them.

 

...I think this is not what DCS is made for...this is a MODERN air combat sim

A set time period is not designated anywhere. This has been commented on before, actually. By the developers, themselves.

 

so I cant see the point in making a P-51 and even less making maps for them...this effort shoudl be redirected to "modern" fighter aircrafts/conflict maps

The point of making a map for 1940's piston fighters is so that they have a map they would fit in on.

 

At the same time I cant believe how this sim lacks some of the most important/epic modern fighter aircrafts ever and specially when as the OT said there are not multi role fighters...

 

In other words............................................F-16C and F-18C...............................................:thumbup:

 

How can we get a Red Flag without F-16 and F-18...WTF?¿?¿?:lol:

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they are and it takes time. Especially since we've seen previews of the F/A-18C they're making.

[QuiGon]

I agree with the OT...I dont understand the ED way to try to include 2 World War planes in DCS...I think this is not what DCS is made for...this is a MODERN air combat sim so I cant see the point in making a P-51 and even less making maps for them...this effort shoudl be redirected to "modern" fighter aircrafts/conflict maps

 

At the same time I cant believe how this sim lacks some of the most important/epic modern fighter aircrafts ever and specially when as the OT said there are not multi role fighters...

 

In other words............................................F-16C and F-18C...............................................:thumbup:

 

How can we get a Red Flag without F-16 and F-18...WTF?¿?¿?:lol:

 

I'm not sure if this comments is serious? DCS has no designated timeframe! There are a lot of users who like to fly WW2 stuff!

 

About modern fighters: Have you even read the previous comments?? In short: It's not easy to make them happen!

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

 

Because, there is a consumer base willing to buy them.

 

 

A set time period is not designated anywhere. This has been commented on before, actually. By the developers, themselves.

 

 

The point of making a map for 1940's piston fighters is so that they have a map they would fit in on.

 

 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they are and it takes time. Especially since we've seen previews of the F/A-18C they're making.

 

Yeah, sure...if ED implements tomorrow a tennis sim in Nellis AB and people liking tennis start buying DCS, does that means its a "good" movement for the sim just because there is a consumer base willing to buy it???...

 

we already have LOTS of WW2 sims out there and guess what?? they are not including a F-16 any time mate...modern combat flight sims are more sparse nowadays so why a P-51 here when we dont even have an F-18 yet?¿?.

 

Despite they are , of course, in their right to make whatever they consider good, I think its CLEAR this is, and has always been, a moder combat flight sim, in fact, the base game so was named as LO-Modern Air Combat. I know this is DCS but even then, I think is a BAD idea to scatter so much the DNA of the game...if we have mig29, su27, F-15, A-10,M2000, etc. why doing P-51, P-40, etc instead of F-18, F-16, Tornado, MF-1, etc. I find this a bad decision, but again, its a personal opinion.

 

I see so much effort doing things I find misplaced when at the same time the sim lacks others soooo necessary...

 

You said they are doing the F-18...yeah!, I know it...the problem is...how many time have they been working on it??...or even better...maybe if this could be just a modern combat flight sim we would already have that F-18 long time ago...and maybe the F-16, and the tornado, and so on...

 

And of course, dont get me wrong guys!, I dont want to upset people flying their WW2 planes, I just think this sim should be only focused in modern fighters as its almost the only real alternative to do it meanwhile WW2 sims are more common and focused on that kind of simulation...just my 2 cents.

Edited January 23, 2016 by watermanpc

[NeilWillis]

Of course, if you want a specific module to appear in DCS World, and you happen to have the finances to pay for it, I am sure no developer would turn you away - providing of course you also have the license agreement to reproduce the intellectual rights from the manufacturer or rights owners.

 

I believe £100,000 should cover most of the development costs.

 

Also, the time period that DCS World is or isn't designed to cover is an entirely moot point. ED had to pick up the pieces from a failed WW2 project, and the aircraft we see are the result of that. Get used to it, because they're here whether they interest you or not.

 

The bottom line about what modules we get or don't get is entirely up to whoever stumps up the money, resources and expertise. If you want to see something, and it isn't being developed or hasn't been announced as a future project, have at it! If you have a serious, and realistic business plan, ED will be happy to grant you a license. Otherwise, it is out of your hands isn't it.

[Mnemonic]

I believe £100,000 should cover most of the development

It was mentioned somewhere that the sum required for development of something as complex as A-10C is more than 1M USD

[NeilWillis]

Let them learn to walk before they run. Achieving A-10C status is very ambitious, so I just quoted the sum that VEAO quoted. Even that is an astronomical sum.

[Cripple]

Even that is an astronomical sum.

 

And, at 30-40 quid per aircraft, will take a large number of sales to even get that stake back - let alone make sufficient profit for future investment.

 

Which is why, as I have said in previous discussions, we (as a group) cannot afford to become elitist in either the choices of aircraft or our attitude to new blood (who may well ask daft questions or ruffle feathers). More punters = more sales = more cash = more planes = more choice = more punters = etc. No new blood will lead to a decrease in sales once we own all the modules we want. QED.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

I dont understand what has to do the money itself with what you do with it.

 

I dont have the money to do a DCS module (if thats what you wanted me to say :glare:), does that means I cant argue about what I think about including some things in the game and not including others???. Im not talking about quantities here,but priorities... it doesnt matter, 1$ or 1.000.000$. Basically this is what I wanted to say:

 

1$ spent in 2WW for DCS = badly spent dollar

 

1$ spent in Modern stuff = good spent dollar

 

IMHO.

[apolloace]

FULCRUMS ANYONE!

 

Dear ED,

 

The most neglected aircraft in the DCS series has been the Mig-29 Fulcrums! :(

 

You could have made a A10C-level sim with any of the variants i.e. Mig29A/S or Mig29G or Mig29K(carrier).

 

Would it have been more difficult than the Mig15 or Sabres? :mad:

 

Also I do not think any DCS enthusiast would mind flying & fighting in a study level FULCRUM.

 

This series deserves a study level FULCRUM aircraft.

 

Anyone listening?

 

Regards,

 

A MIG29 FAN

:)

[Evilducky]

So, DCS is not limited to "modern" aircraft. Its called Digital Combat Simulator. They are setting this up so that you can play any time frame of combat whether its WW1, or 2, Korean or whatever time frame you want.

 

Also, going by your logic, there is already an F16 simulator so why do we need another one? They do the WW2 and older aircraft first because it's 1 easier to get the info they need to make a DCS level aircraft and 2 because it brings in the extra money they need to continue the development of the game so that you can get the modern aircraft you're talking about.

[QuiGon]

Yeah, sure...if ED implements tomorrow a tennis sim in Nellis AB and people liking tennis start buying DCS, does that means its a "good" movement for the sim just because there is a consumer base willing to buy it???...

 

we already have LOTS of WW2 sims out there and guess what?? they are not including a F-16 any time mate...modern combat flight sims are more sparse nowadays so why a P-51 here when we dont even have an F-18 yet?¿?.

 

Despite they are , of course, in their right to make whatever they consider good, I think its CLEAR this is, and has always been, a moder combat flight sim, in fact, the base game so was named as LO-Modern Air Combat. I know this is DCS but even then, I think is a BAD idea to scatter so much the DNA of the game...if we have mig29, su27, F-15, A-10,M2000, etc. why doing P-51, P-40, etc instead of F-18, F-16, Tornado, MF-1, etc. I find this a bad decision, but again, its a personal opinion.

 

I see so much effort doing things I find misplaced when at the same time the sim lacks others soooo necessary...

 

You said they are doing the F-18...yeah!, I know it...the problem is...how many time have they been working on it??...or even better...maybe if this could be just a modern combat flight sim we would already have that F-18 long time ago...and maybe the F-16, and the tornado, and so on...

 

And of course, dont get me wrong guys!, I dont want to upset people flying their WW2 planes, I just think this sim should be only focused in modern fighters as its almost the only real alternative to do it meanwhile WW2 sims are more common and focused on that kind of simulation...just my 2 cents.

 

I say it again, this is Digital Combat Simulator and not LO-Modern Air Combat! So there is absolutely no reason not to make WW2 (or even WW1) stuff! The customer base is there, since none of the other available WW2 flight sims has clickable cockpits and such a detailed system simulation as DCS, which makes it unique. There is just no other WW2 flight sim that can provide these features.

And since this is DCS (a Air, Land and Sea sim) there will be more stuff in the future beside modern aircraft. There will be more detailed land and naval stuff as well. Combined Arms is just the first step.

[Sierra99]

The Mig-21 is receiving the F-5E as a counterpart in the future.

 

My only complaint is the number of F-5 / MiG 21 engagements is pretty low compared to F-4 / MiG-21 engagements...

 

However, I also know everything is being done to build systems etc for future aircraft...

[Frostie]

1$ spent in 2WW for DCS = badly spent dollar

 

1$ spent in Modern stuff = good spent dollar

 

IMHO.

 

Yes, thankfully only in your opinion, I guess it's easy to have such opinions when you're not trying to run a very successful aircraft simulation series in what is an extremely tough genre to survive in whilst making top quality products. Thankfully for the most part ED have their head screwed on in this department.

 

I'm sure they understand that an F-16 module is a very lucrative module and will most likely get around to it after the F/A-18 is complete, understandably their business plan is not all about one time big show but about longevity and quality. They could probably have given you an F-16 sim that surpases any other in fidelity by now but would it be as good an F-16 sim as they could make, probably not.

[NeilWillis]

I dont understand what has to do the money itself with what you do with it.

 

I dont have the money to do a DCS module (if thats what you wanted me to say :glare:), does that means I cant argue about what I think about including some things in the game and not including others???. Im not talking about quantities here,but priorities... it doesnt matter, 1$ or 1.000.000$. Basically this is what I wanted to say:

 

1$ spent in 2WW for DCS = badly spent dollar

 

1$ spent in Modern stuff = good spent dollar

 

IMHO.

 

Frankly, the arguments have all been had before, and what you want is your personal view only. What WW2 fans want is in direct opposition to yourself, and what developers do is based on a huge number of factors, not least of which is whether it will sell enough copies to justify developing it. For example, at least one developer has looked at and dropped the F4 Phantom because negotiations (which are also confidential matters, so none of our business) with the rights holders would go nowhere due to the high cost that the license purchase would have entailed.

 

To suggest that developers don't know the right aircraft to develop is quite naive. Do you honestly think they haven't done thorough research into the feasibility of ANY module they settle on?

 

Just do a quick search, and you'll find many many threads like this one, and each one says exactly the same. Trouble is, you and I are never going to be privy to the behind the scenes meetings and decision processes behind the modules.

 

I mentioned costs purely to show that not one of us is in a position to commission a module, so we will get what we get.

[Ultra]

My only complaint is the number of F-5 / MiG 21 engagements is pretty low compared to F-4 / MiG-21 engagements...

 

However, I also know everything is being done to build systems etc for future aircraft...

 

I get that, but it makes me feel better that the F-5 / Mig-21 engagements were better representations of the variants we will have in-game. I also know there were later variant F-4 /Mig-21 fights as well, but I guess I think they are equally appropriate opponents for the 21 based on the 21bis variant we have.

 

About the WW2 vs. Modern planes,

I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that the devs WANT to make WW2 (and Korean War era, etc...) planes. They are the ones who put in the hard work, so they should be able to choose the planes they want to make.

 

And also +1 to what NeilWillis said^^

Edited January 23, 2016 by Ultra

[WinterH]

These threads just won't die.

 

I used to wait for F/A-18 because I love the aircraft, now I'm anxious for F-18 to arrive primarily for another reason : so that not every 4th post or so will be "modern multirolez!" anymore...

 

Anyway, I am of hope that by mid-to late 2016, aircraft matchup issue will be thinned down quite a bit by addition of F-5E, hopefully a Mi-24, Viggen, and perhaps F-14 too, and who knows, may be even F-18. Thankfuly, many additional WW II modules are also on the way so that'll also be much more diverse soon. I do think by sometime in 2017, DCS will have well matching options across the eras in both modules, mission assets, and maps.

 

Hopefuly, by the hints and announcements we've had so far, over the next two years, there will be many 3rd and 4th generation supersonic jet fighters, including multiroles. Some 4th gens already started to arrive in Mirage, which I got myself for some fresh air, and enjoying so far. F-5E, AJS-37, F-14A&B, F/A-18C, and Eurofighter Typhoon (I guess it was Tranche 2 Block 5?) are all in development. Tornado and Mirage F-1 may also join the DCS stable. RAZBAM stated that after they are done with the Mirage, they will release Harrier II, A-7 Corsair II and F-15E Strike Eagle. Belsimtek will do both Mi-24 and AH-1, and Polychop are also doing anti tank helos.

 

Now, I really, really want to see more Russian fighters in mix, or may be Chinese too. But so far it seems these countries are really not so forthcoming regarding classified features of their newer jets. Even then, I think there are still some older gen yet fantastic aircraft we may hopefully get one day, be it MiG-23,27,25, perhaps even 31 if possible, as well as Su-17/20/22 and 24. If possible, and full fidelity MiG-29 & Su-27 would also be awesome. IF, somehow, someone gets clearance and data to do something like Su-30 (hopefuly MKI or SM), Su-35 or a late MiG-29, that'd be seriously awesome, but I just don't find it to be too likely.

 

Someone asked above "would doing a full fidelity MiG-29A & G & K be more difficult than F-86 & MiG-15?" (yup, K none the less!). Yeah, you bet! More so than combination of both probably... Also, while I would love full fidelity MiG-29K, I just don't see it happening since it barely entered service with Indian Navy and barely entering with Russian Navy.

 

People always say there are many WW II sims but no modern sim. Well guess what, there is no full fidelity WW II aircraft sim other than DCS, but there is a full fidelity F-16C sim, how about that :)? Well may be Il-2 CloD + TF mod can be considered somewhat full fidelity but, it is only focused on early WW II Battle of Britain.

 

Viggen, F-5, F4U Corsair, Mi-24. These 4 are the stuff I most eagerly wait currently. Oh, also any additional Bf-109 variants, I'll even buy Buchon :P.

 

Phew... long in short, yeah I agree there are some aircraft that would be really good to have in DCS, but there is nothing wrong with what is being developed & released, and it is getting more complete with time. Unlike most people think, DCS is not a modern air combat sim, but rather, Digital Combat Sim, without being tied to any era, and modules are arriving across the aviation history, from 40s, all the way to Eurofighter! Yes, currently one needs to strafe & bomb BTRs and T-55s in WW II birds but, WW II period ground units and map is also in development. I appreciate that everyone may not enjoy flying a WW II bird, or even MiG-21Bis, and that's fine for them. But we all need to remember this sim is not being developed for any one individual among us, rather, it caters to us all in different ways.

[Darkwolf]

1$ spent in 2WW for DCS = badly spent dollar

 

.....or not.

 

I never regretted a single cent of my P-51 purchase, and even the FW190 that I have flew a couple of time out of curiosity, I don't regret the purchase.

 

.... and i'm not rich, I'm nearly on the streets.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Well, I know development is a very complex task and I perfectly understand all what you guys told me although I still thinking there are many ways to do things.

 

Im the first one who said this is DCS and not LOMAC BUT, I also think its clear that most of the DCS users are in the boat for one reason...modern fighters!!...and Im just saying that looking for money attracting WW2 pilots is a mistake, even if thats the way to achieve future modern modules.

 

That way, whats stopping DCS to become some day in an "advanced" War Thunder??? even if its good, what would happen to the modern fighters lovers then??...because if in order to enjoy the F-18 I have to wait forever flying other kind of stuff I may not be interested in, then why play DCS???and, why to give my money to them?? and so, less earnings, as opposed to what some of you said ...having to wait 5+ years for something may be considered as not having that thing for many, because thats what happens when they are focused in so many things, nothing seems to finish.

 

 

I have nothing against WW2 aircrafts, damn!!, I love all kind of planes!!!(and anything with a couple of wings or blades:D) as most of us here, Im even one of those pilots in DCS but I just think there are other sims for this kind of simulation and whats more, there are NO other modern flight sims as DCS (Falcon lacks many things apart from simulation) so spending time/resources/effort/work/etc doing what others can do (and quite well) and NOT doing what only they can do is just an error.

 

About the investments, I know modern fighters must be harder and more resources demanding to simulate, but cmon, since lomac days we still not having the hornet?¿?¿?:huh:...If they release tomorrow the F-18 how many of us would buy it in the first 3 seconds at any given price??? even if they spend 1M$ (what could be a lot less) is there any other F-18 sim that could compete with it??NO. I (as most of us) would KILL for PFM a/o ASM F-16, F-18, Tornado, F-1, F-4, etc. maybe because there are NO other ways to fly those planes and so they would have the monopoly of them IN THE WORLD and you tell me they would not even sell to pay expenses, earn money and invest in future modules???

 

As always, this is IMHO, and I would like to remember you that we are in the same boat mates!!

Edited January 23, 2016 by watermanpc

[NeilWillis]

watermanpc, you ARE going to get the F/A-18, and like everyone else, you'll just have to wait patiently. We can all say some stuff we love, some we don't.

 

What I can't understand is why you consider that WW2 is covered elsewhere in anything like the detail that it is in DCS World? Maybe you aren't aware of how beautifully the WW2 stuff has been put together.

 

We get what you like and don't like, and we have heard it all before, from every other standpoint too. NOTHING you will say will cause ED or anyone else to cancel any of the current projects. Modern stuff is more limited for lots of reasons, not least of which you have already acknowledged. The truth is that for every F/A-18, we can probably have 2 or 3 WW2 modules or even Korean era jets for the same man hours - they're just far less complex, and much more practical to model.

 

Like it or not, for every modern airframe, you can expect to see several earlier types. And besides, there is a whole community to serve, and not just the modern jet fans. What makes your fraternity so special that no one else should get a look in? Why should ED and everyone else drop everything just to satisfy the whims of a single customer?

 

We are all in the same boat, so lets not all row the boat in different directions. You made your point in post one. We get it, and we do understand. The trouble is, for a lot here, WW2 is all that matters, and for others, the 70s alone counts. And then there is the helicopter fraternity. Then there are the carrier landing jocks. The Viet Nam fans. Then there are the WW1 fans, and then there are the armoured warfare guys. Then there are the guys who want to see the full training program catered for, from Grob Tutor to a fully implemented Hawk. Then there are the Russian airframe fans, and then there are the NATO only guys. Hell we even have people here who want alien starships and an X fighter! So, no, you are no different in thinking your particular fetish is the important one

 

Not everyone agrees with you. In fact for every fan of modern stuff there will probably be 3 who want something different, and why should they be any less worthy of attention than the modern frat pack? As for DCS World being a vehicle just for modern aircraft - with respect, but see above, and then show me anywhere where ED have said that it is aimed purely at modern warfare? It is in fact a sand box, where all forms of combat will eventually be modelled. Maybe not medieval knights just yet, but don't be surprised if a dev decides to set up a project for DCS World Horse Simulator. Or maybe a Mk52 Dragon complete with HUD and fire generators!

 

Your first post was fine, but to continue arguing a lost cause is not going to change a thing. Did you do the search for other arguments along these lines for every other genre? Trust me, we have heard it all before from just about every other perspective INCLUDING the modern comes first standpoint. You really aren't adding anything to the debate at all.

[Silver_Dragon]

the F-16, F-18, Tornado, F-1, F-4, Su-30, F-22, F-35, B-1, etc, etc, etc and a long etc modern aircraft has some problems.

 

- System modelling and confidential data.

- Restricted info and confidential / secret law.

- Constructor / air force / government license.

- Roadmap and project viability.

- Engine capability and implementation time.

- Technical problems.

- And a long etc.

And of course ED survival.

 

Some folks attack to ED of not see progress on the " high top" aircraft. The problems of that are if you require 4-6 years to build a high top aircraft (If approve, of course) and develop all required technology to build a project of that magnitude (ground radar technology, weapons systems, transonic an supersonic AFM, carrier environment, etc on F/A-18 module example)

 

your company can survive that 4-6 years without nothing economic inversions or cash incoming?

 

ED / Partners and 3rd parties need make "fast time / easy make money" projects to fill the develop time of the "high top" projects or go to very fast to bankrupt.

 

Of course, a "high top" project has none a gold mine. can convert on a disaster very fast if not make a good management.