What about a C160 Transall ?

[BaD CrC]

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

 

 

1) Paratroopers can just be a new bomb model with a lot of vertical drag :)

2) I love choppers!

[QuiGon]

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 !

 

I meant ingame. The WW2 planes can already operate from grass in DCS.

[Elwood]

Yes please!

C160 can be a refuel tanker as well and specops deployment will be great.

[morse]

I meant ingame. The WW2 planes can already operate from grass in DCS.

 

Ah ok, didn't know that because I'm not up to date with all WWII fighters and other modules relesead after :music_whistling:

 

@Lima : yeah I forgot that ! It's true that the C160 can refuel other aircraft with it's own fuel.

 

However, even with that I don't believe that polychop will make only a refueling campaign :lol:

 

So as we said fixed wing like C160 could :

 

- land on grass/road/airfield

- refuel if fonction integrated

 

We just haven't the "more" important : paratroopers :cry:

 

So the C160 will stay a "DCS dream" until we have paratroopers I think..

 

 

-------------------------------

 

So if the C160 is a dream, what about an EC725 Caracal ? It's a bit like the french combination of a huey and an mi8 :D

It may be less dificult to introduce in game and built a campaign around it.

 

It can make sling load, insertion, SAR, CSAR, CAS, Spec Ops, air-refueling ... And the Gazelle need a friend !

Some pics of the "beast" :music_whistling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by morse

[QuiGon]

Ah ok, didn't know that because I'm not up to date with all WWII fighters and other modules relesead after :music_whistling:

 

@Lima : yeah I forgot that ! It's true that the C160 can refuel other aircraft with it's own fuel.

 

However, even with that I don't believe that polychop will make only a refueling campaign :lol:

 

So as we said fixed wing like C160 could :

 

- land on grass/road/airfield

- refuel if fonction integrated

 

We just haven't the "more" important : paratroopers :cry:

 

So the C160 will stay a "DCS dream" until we have paratroopers I think..

 

You forgot the most important feature:

- logistics: transporting supplies to the front

 

That is badly needed. In the dynamic MP campaign Operation BlueFlag, we need to use Hueys and Mi-8s for that task which often means long flights, if you have to transport supplies over great distances.

[Johnny Dioxin]

Somewhere I have a photo of a nice paint scheme on an Austrian Transall with some kind of anniversary for the squadron. It was at the RAF Waddington airshow in '96 or '97.

 

I'll see if I can dig it out :)

 

Oh = I spent many hours in Pumas in the '80's - but I've never seen one like that!

 

Yes, please! :D

[Cool Breeze]

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

In the last couple of news letters DCS has talked about improving the ground coding. They have also been playing with user friendly airfields that can be placed where we would like them. Don't forget the Normandy map. While I don't know much about it. Better ground handling for takeoff and landings are a must have for that period. Not to mention the STOL and VTOL aircraft in the pipeline from other developers. Grass runways and more complex FOB operations are an almost must have for the future. While the Georgia map may take some time to updated. I'm very optimistic about the new maps!

[Elwood]

@Lima : yeah I forgot that ! It's true that the C160 can refuel other aircraft with it's own fuel.

 

However, even with that I don't believe that polychop will make only a refueling campaign :lol:

 

A refuel campain can be the most boring thing ever :D

But let say during a transport mission you can refuel some fighters which are escorting you!

Edited April 15, 2016 by Elwood

[Johnny Dioxin]

Sorry, guys, I spent ages looking through my photo collection, but couldn't find the pics I was talking about.

 

It was a nice scheme, too. Oh well. I remember uploading it to Flory Models Website when he was building a huge model of one - so I know it's around somewhere. Never mind. :(

[Fri13]

In the last couple of news letters DCS has talked about improving the ground coding. They have also been playing with user friendly airfields that can be placed where we would like them. Don't forget the Normandy map. While I don't know much about it. Better ground handling for takeoff and landings are a must have for that period. Not to mention the STOL and VTOL aircraft in the pipeline from other developers. Grass runways and more complex FOB operations are an almost must have for the future. While the Georgia map may take some time to updated. I'm very optimistic about the new maps!

 

 

Having a Mission Editor placeable airstrips sounds interesting, but fairly limited IMHO.

 

Well, russian aircrafts doesn't have a problems to use harshest and most simplest airstrips for operations regarding FOD and suspension. But same cant be said for most(?) Western aircrafts that are more vulnerable to FOB.

 

So hopefully there are then as well a structures that you can place on roads and automatically snaps on them like ground units when you place them on roads.

 

And then get some emergency parking spaces with nets to be placed and get to draw a taxi path to the airstrip. That would be very important when doing missions for Swedish, Finnish and Russian operations with possible Viggen (etc) for swedish, F-18 for finland etc.

 

I as well hope the new terrain improvement means more random to height map.

[dimitriov]

Technically, the Mirage F1 is able to land on improvised airstrip.

 

But I'd prefer to see individual FARPs for example. Because the current ones are...

 

It wouldn't be hard to do by ED. 2 types of individual FARPs, visible, and invisible.

[FishDoctor]

This is DCS. C stands for Combat. A Transall is just an AI target.

 

Whats with the C-101 and the other Trainers? ;)

[morse]

So a chopper like gazelle is just a target pratice for F15 ? Because it can just fly slowly, fire 4 missile and bye bye ? Or be killed easily by a poor 4x4 armed ? An what about trainers ? This isn't an argument.

 

C stands for Combat yes, which mean hostile environnement for all kind of aircraft. That said, a C160 is a combat plane made to transport cargo and soldiers from a secure point to a hostile point. It can also perform refuel for aircraft

 

At war, we need combat plateform like rafale, F15, Su 33, gazelle, Apache, Hind etc but we also need cargo plane to bring ammo, medical supply, gear, weapons etc.

 

In a war, logistic is one of the main objective as we can learned from history. During WWII, Allied bomber were destroying factories and german U-boat were sinking Allied ships because without logistic the ennemy is weak.

 

 

So the C160 or an other cargo plane will fit perfectly in DCS, especially in dynamic campaign as Blueflag

 

 

EDIT : was overtake by FishDoctor :D

Edited April 17, 2016 by morse

[Badger1-1]

+1 !

[QuiGon]

This is DCS. C stands for Combat. A Transall is just an AI target.

 

I'm all against adding civil aviation to DCS, but the C-160 is everything else than a civil airplane. It is a military tactical transport plane made for use in war and other kinds of combat operations (not just to provide logistics, but also to drop paratroopers). It is therefore equipped with countermeassure systems like chaff and flare dispensers in it's newer variants.

I don't see why this shouldn't fit into a Combat Simulator!

Edited April 18, 2016 by QuiGon

[Empennage]

A fixed wing turboprop transport is a day-one preorder for me.

 

Hopefully one equipped with a more modern avionics suite like the EFIS 854 TF; something like this with FMC + ND screens instead of only steam gauges

Edited April 18, 2016 by Empennage

[Volator]

C-160 Transall for DCS would be incredibly awesome!

[Johnny Dioxin]

tbh I'd prefer a C-130 :)

 

I already know the procedures, too, so....

 

Can't beat the sound of them allisons in full reverse thrust (they don't half sound not bad going forwards, too).

 

This was before the crappy propeller upgrade, of course!

[Mt5_Roie]

Add some jato bottles to it, and she makes for a fun takeoff too. I'm also in favor of a C-130 as well. Guess only time will tell.

 

tbh I'd prefer a C-130 :)

 

I already know the procedures, too, so....

 

Can't beat the sound of them allisons in full reverse thrust (they don't half sound not bad going forwards, too).

 

This was before the crappy propeller upgrade, of course!

[Buzzles]

This is DCS. C stands for Combat. A Transall is just an AI target.

 

ED think DCS is a sandbox though:

DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units

Personally, while the C-160 is cool, if we're going to see a heavy transport, it's got to be a C-130 :)

[BaD CrC]

Why does it have to be a US transport? What about russians one?

[Angelthunder]

Will have to wait to see what ED plans are after they release the F/A-18 Hornet,carrier aviation and get DCS World 2.5 into beta.But i would love to see them develop a non-combat military aircraft like a transport after the Hornet like a C-130 Hercules or use the AI default IL-76 Candid or An-24 Coke with PFM/ASM modeling with troop and cargo supply deliveries like weapons and vehicles among other things.

[QuiGon]

ED think DCS is a sandbox though:

 

Personally, while the C-160 is cool, if we're going to see a heavy transport, it's got to be a C-130 :)

Neither the C-130 nor the C-160 is a heavy transport. That would be a C-5 or C-17.

 

well in my sandbox a cargo plane that is not bristling with guns has an in infinitesimally small importance ratio. If it don't put warheads on foreheads, do not waste time with it. There are a zillion things more important.

 

And BTW this thread should be in the wish list section.

I see why there's USMC written all over you, because they sometimes fail to recognize the importance of proper logistics to warfare ;)

 

Why does it have to be a US transport? What about russians one?

The C-160 Transall is french/german and has never been used by the US :)

[King_Hrothgar]

The thing about these sorts of wishlists is it's not so much a question of whether or not people want it, but how many people want it over all the other possible options. Who here wants a C-160 more than an AH-64? Who wants a C-160 more than a Tornado? Who wants a C-160 more than a Su-17? Who wants a C-160 more than a B-25? The list goes on and on. There are an awful lot of aircraft I would greatly prefer over any fixed wing transport. And then there is the question of what people are actually willing to pay for it. I'd happily pay $60 for an AH-64 or Tiger and I'd grudgingly pay $10 for a C-160 (PFM/ASM only, wouldn't bother with a free download without).

[QuiGon]

The thing about these sorts of wishlists is it's not so much a question of whether or not people want it, but how many people want it over all the other possible options. Who here wants a C-160 more than an AH-64? Who wants a C-160 more than a Tornado? Who wants a C-160 more than a Su-17? Who wants a C-160 more than a B-25? The list goes on and on. There are an awful lot of aircraft I would greatly prefer over any fixed wing transport. And then there is the question of what people are actually willing to pay for it. I'd happily pay $60 for an AH-64 or Tiger and I'd grudgingly pay $10 for a C-160 (PFM/ASM only, wouldn't bother with a free download without).

 

That's right, but you forgat the most important consideration: What are the devs able to do. Meaning, is there enough documentation available to develop a certain aircraft to the standards of DCS (classification) and can they get the rights to do so (license)?