What about a C160 Transall ?

[morse]

Hi,

 

This afternoon, I saw for the first time this DCS Gazelle module which looks incredible with all the details and all the features in it. So congratulation to the Polychop's team :thumbup:

 

The goal of this topic is to suggest a futur aircraft for this team, because I read that they are looking for EC665 Tiger, NH90 or rafale, and I hope that they could find documentation/feedback about one of those aircraft to make it.

 

However I doubt that they will find documents easily because they are quite recent aircraft.

 

So what about a C160 Transall ? It is a good plane with a lot of capabilites and we haven't yet a cargo plane in the game. As Transall will be retired soon, maybe they will find some information easily.

 

[QuiGon]

Instabuy!

[1.JaVA_Platypus]

It can be something to 'lure' the FSX/X-plane crowd over. More DCS customers means more money for ED (or polychop) this means more beautiful modules for everyone! :)

[dimitriov]

It could be very interesting, but may be hard to build a campaign around it :D

[microvax]

Instabuy, perfect for blueflag. Cann do pretty amazing short takeoffs and landings.

 

Here just some german standard short landing approach. The madness doesnt stop with the BO105 anti tank flying ! ;D

[ame]

[/ame]

[morse]

wow, a lot of enthousiat like me for this plane :joystick:

 

Yeah it can be a bit repetitive campaign with a lot of paradrop and cargo missions in all weather, day and night.

 

I wonder if this kind of plane could bring something in the game, in MP campaign for instance.

For example, if a squadron is on this kind of aircraft, can they bring ammo, soldiers or other stuff in a base which can be then use later by other player ? It is a sort of dynamic campaign and it could be a nice feature to make resuply with real player and no more AI planes.

 

However I think that the amount of work for this kind of aircraft may be about the same than for an helicopter or a fighter because devs will have to work "only" on the cargo management (implement features to load and unload cargo/para etc), fight model and graphism of the plane. There are no guns so no need to work on it :pilotfly:

 

 

EDIT : For the NH90 there is already a "non-official" team working on it. It is REDWING and this is their teaser :

 

[ame]https://vimeo.com/154438672[/ame]

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145691

 

And as we can see there are some AI Tiger in this clip

Edited April 11, 2016 by morse

[borchi_2b]

The Tiger is wrong in shape.

 

Watched the Video a couple times to see how well this is done.

I am not commenting any further on the video.

 

What would be kind is, when you have promotion of other devs, maybe post it in thier dev area

 

;)

[QuiGon]

wow, a lot of enthousiat like me for this plane :joystick:

 

Yeah it can be a bit repetitive campaign with a lot of paradrop and cargo missions in all weather, day and night.

 

I wonder if this kind of plane could bring something in the game, in MP campaign for instance.

For example, if a squadron is on this kind of aircraft, can they bring ammo, soldiers or other stuff in a base which can be then use later by other player ? It is a sort of dynamic campaign and it could be a nice feature to make resuply with real player and no more AI planes.

 

These tasks (cargo/fuel/troop transport) are already available (and necessary) in the dynamic online campaign "Operation BlueFlag": http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160525

For now those tasks have to be done with Hueys and Hips which causes long travel times. So a C-160 (or any fixed wing transport) would be welcomed!

[CHDT]

No, we need more trainers.

[QuiGon]

No, we need more trainers.

 

For a moment I thought you're serious :lol:

[Badger1-1]

+1 for Transall, skip the Stuka and build this one, I bet a lot more would buy this instead ;)

[morse]

personnaly I will prefer a NH90 or Tiger with this great Gazelle because i'm fan of those helicopter BUT if those aircraft can't be made, I will be glad to have a Transall to drop something somewhere or on someone ^^

[WinterH]

I would like something like this. Though, if given choice between Transall and Stuka, Junkers, by far, obviously :P.

 

On topic though, I do think there is room for light cargo aircraft like these in DCS, which can takeoff-land over decently flat patches of dirt, aren't so large, heavy and long ragne that they'd be out of context in DCS. If such modules lead to an overhauled logistics system for DCS, that could a very big plus for mission building :).

[QuiGon]

I would like something like this. Though, if given choice between Transall and Stuka, Junkers, by far, obviously :P.

 

On topic though, I do think there is room for light cargo aircraft like these in DCS, which can takeoff-land over decently flat patches of dirt, aren't so large, heavy and long ragne that they'd be out of context in DCS. If such modules lead to an overhauled logistics system for DCS, that could a very big plus for mission building :).

 

That would be great, because an overhauled logistics system is one of my favorites on the wishlist.

[Mt5_Roie]

While I think a transport airplane would be cool....I see that more in the realm of FSX and X-plane. I think what you would need it at least some method to fire at something to qualify as "Combat" in Digital Combat Simulator. So I would recommend the AC-130.....lots of firepower.

[QuiGon]

While I think a transport airplane would be cool....I see that more in the realm of FSX and X-plane. I think what you would need it at least some method to fire at something to qualify as "Combat" in Digital Combat Simulator. So I would recommend the AC-130.....lots of firepower.

 

Combat doesn't necessary mean "to fire", especially today armies all over the world consist of more combat support units (like logistics units) than actual combat units. So in my opinion the C in DCS also includes combat supporters like military transport planes.

Or to put it in another way: They have a camouflage painting and can fire flares don't they? :D

Edited April 11, 2016 by QuiGon

[Mt5_Roie]

Fair point. I would get any transport if it was available. But I would get a jet or helicopter first.

 

 

Combat doesn't necessary mean "fire", especially today armies all over the world consist of more combat support units (like logistics units) than actual combat units. So in my opinion the C in DCS also includes combat supporters like military transport planes.

Or to put it in another way: They have a camouflage painting and can fire flares don't they? :D

[morse]

As Sir Winston Churchill said : «La guerre est une opération de transport. Le meilleur transporteur en sortira vainqueur»

 

in english : "War is a transport operation . The best carrier will emerge victorious". :thumbup:

 

Even if C160 have no weapons or no combat role, it is one of the main piece of a war, a freighter and a paratroop plane

[dimitriov]

Ok then 2 problems :

 

1) No paratroopers in DCS quite stupid for a paratrooper plane :D

2) No possibility to land correctly on grass, due to a very strangely coded ground.

 

It may be hard ;)

 

Nicolas

[morse]

Ok then 2 problems :

 

1) No paratroopers in DCS quite stupid for a paratrooper plane :D

2) No possibility to land correctly on grass, due to a very strangely coded ground.

 

It may be hard ;)

 

Nicolas

 

Yeah that's a shame :cry:

 

So good bye transall dream :(

 

 

Anyway, I'm sure that no matter your choice, it will be done with passion, good details and a great flight model. Now i'm just curious to see which aircraft you are planning for :D

[hector_evc]

+1 for Transall, skip the Stuka and build this one, I bet a lot more would buy this instead ;)

 

+ 1 for the Stuka....

 

 

Regards.

[Mt5_Roie]

There are other factors besides a great plane to think about. You have to look at what information you can get. In order to buid a real FM, you need lots of data. Wind Tunnel data, flight test data, pilot review, etcs....you also need as much technical information as possible...like manuals. Not just flight but service manuals as well. So lots of info needed.

 

So can all this information be gathered for the C-160? I would think it'd be easier to find it for the C-130 vs C-160....but again if you have the right sources.

 

Also there licensing issues as well....if you can get it or not.

[nomdeplume]

1) No paratroopers in DCS quite stupid for a paratrooper plane :D

 

Would not be impossible for them to add, though. They already have parachuting pilots, and they have some infantry units as well. All it needs is the will to make some parachute units that become infantry when (and where) they land.

 

The really hard part would be the mission editor UI to make them do something useful once landed.

 

2) No possibility to land correctly on grass, due to a very strangely coded ground.

 

One of the most interesting things mentioned in the latest DCS Newsletter was the implementation of different runway types for the Normandy map, and placeable airfields. So it's not so far-fetched to think we might one day have placeable grass airfields that are perfectly landable.

 

Also, you can already land on roads without problems, so there's a fine workaround already. :thumbup:

[QuiGon]

Ok then 2 problems :

 

1) No paratroopers in DCS quite stupid for a paratrooper plane :D

2) No possibility to land correctly on grass, due to a very strangely coded ground.

 

It may be hard ;)

 

Nicolas

 

2: Aren't the WW2 planes able to operate from grass?

[morse]

2: Aren't the WW2 planes able to operate from grass?

 

Yes indeed but the DCS World engine is a bit... bugged with land surfaces as dimitriov reminded me :D

 

So even if the plane can land on all surface IRL, it's not often the case in game.

It seems that we can only land on airfield, road and... that's it !