GA Planes

[Tirak]

The advanced level of systems management and flight physics that DCS has is perfect for GA aircraft. ED would own the flightsim community if they went that route.

 

Not everyone wants to see a Cessna in DCS but not all flight simmers want to go bomb a bride in an F-18 either.

 

I say bring all the aircraft in that we can and if you choose not to fly one, don't...

 

It would only work for very short ranged small aircraft. Lets face it, most of the FSX community actually wouldn't want to come over to DCS because the map in DCS is tiny compared to what they get to play on. You can fly across the globe in FSX. DCS offers only short hops between regional airfields. I think people get too caught up in how pretty DCS looks and forget that it has some serious limitations when it comes to civilian aircraft.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

It would only work for very short ranged small aircraft. Lets face it, most of the FSX community actually wouldn't want to come over to DCS because the map in DCS is tiny compared to what they get to play on. You can fly across the globe in FSX. DCS offers only short hops between regional airfields. I think people get too caught up in how pretty DCS looks and forget that it has some serious limitations when it comes to civilian aircraft.

1+

This!!!

[rjetster1]

You can shuttle back in forth with the Janet 737 out of Vegas to Area 51. That could be modeled nicely.

[Capn kamikaze]

DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units. DCS World allows both realistic game play and more relaxed game play to suit the player.

 

That reads to me like they're referring to the AI ground vehicles, ships and aircraft, to add some realism, not that they intend it to be for general aviation.

[MVSokie]

doesn't the TF-51 count as a non-combat aircraft? just asking......

[PiedDroit]

doesn't the TF-51 count as a non-combat aircraft? just asking......

You're right, but what's your point? Please elaborate.

[Evilducky]

Im down for adding civi airplanes, even if they are little C172's. A lot of times I just fly this game to fly. I dont always want to be in a combat aircraft.

[MVSokie]

You're right, but what's your point? Please elaborate.

 

There is nothing to elaborate on, the "point" was there is already a non-combat plane in the game. please calm down it was only a statement not a challenge.

There is also a fair number of non-combat "official campaigns" in the game too.

[Teapot]

The idea for adding civil aviation to DCS would ideally incorporate the world map as well.

 

And someone mentioned that the FSX crowd want to port to DCS because it's pretty. I doubt anyone thinks that. I'd be happy with an ORBX full world or an X-Plane type full world if I was just interested in *pretty* ... No, I think the primary reason people would want the DCS treatment for civil aviation is because it's DCS; who model amazing systems & flight models.

 

People in FSX and in X-Plane have been wanting a combat module for those sims for years ... FSX got there after a fashion (TACPAC) but doesn't compare to the potential that DCS has to offer; namely a COMPLETE & integrated experience.

 

What about resourcing? I know DCS is a small team; but if they got a toe-hold into the civil aviation market they'd be tapping into the largest and biggest spending demographic in the flight simulation hobby, so of course the ED team would likely have to expand to cater for this but imagine this for a moment ... what do you think would happen when the likes of PMDG, A2A, MILVIZ, AirFoilLabs, ORBX, ASN Weather Gen, REX Weather Gen etc. all start creating content for DCS?

 

When that happens, I reckon DCS would reach a tipping point into the Golden Era for flight-simming; combat & civil.

 

For planting the idea of this super-charged marketing strategy, all I ask is free access to all DCS content into perpetuity back-dated to today ;).

 

Worried about the DCS name? No worries ... DC2S might work. The C2 refers to Combat and Civil.

 

IMO (and opinions are common as muck lol) ... DCS:Combat&Civil (DC2S:World) as described above would massacre FSX, Prepar3D & X-Plane.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Teapot

[shagrat]

A proper *sandbox* sim won't channel the player into a specific role. Basically what a sandbox should provide is an open world where the player is pretty much left to their own devices on how the world will operate and develop. It's NOT on rails, so players are free to recreate RL environments if they choose, but equally free to fly in a polka-dot C-47 transports airlifting popsicles into beleaguered Berlin in a heavily modified WWII scenario.

 

Courtesy of Wikipedia

 

L-19/O-1 Bird Dog, used by Forward Air Controllers during the Vietnam War

 

The Stinson L-5 Sentinel was a World War II era liaison aircraft used by all branches of the U.S. military and by the British Royal Air Force.

 

Douglas C-47 flareship FACs began the forward air control mission in South Vietnam

 

During the 1960s and 1970s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-controlled airline Air America operated up to 23 PC-6s at a time. Many of these were operated in the South-East Asia region, including South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. The type was used for various missions including paradropping supplies to troops, passenger transport, psy ops, reconnaissance, prisoner conveyance, airborne radio relay, and other intelligence operations.

 

GAF Nomad is a twin-engined turboprop

Military operators

Nomad N22B at the Museum of Australian Army Flying in 2007.

 

Indonesian Navy Nomad N24A in 2007.

Philippine Air Force Nomad N22SL at Mactan–Cebu International Airport in 2012.

Australian Army Aviation

173rd Aviation Squadron - one N22 (prototype, leased), 20 N22B , four N24A

School of Army Aviation (two N22B seconded from 173rd Aviation Squadron specifically to train Papua New Guinea Defence Force student pilots)

Royal Australian Air Force - one N22B, one Nomad Searchmaster, three N24A

No. 75 Squadron RAAF

Aircraft Research and Development Unit

Indonesian Navy - 42 N22B and N24A Nomad - 23 in storage: status AOG, 19 airworthy and six in service.[13]

Papua New Guinea Defence Force

Philippine Air Force - 20 Nomads (three in service)

Philippine Navy - 15 N24A Nomad

Royal Thai Air Force (N22B)

Royal Thai Navy (N24A)

Australian Customs Service (Coastwatch)

United States Customs Service

 

DHC-3 Otter - Military operators

Argentine Air Force: Former operator

Royal Australian Air Force: Two Otters (RAAF serial A100-1 and 2) were in service with the RAAF from 1961 to 1967. The aircraft were used for passenger and freight transport duties at the Weapons Research Establishment, Woomera, South Australia.

No. 1 Air Trials Unit

Bangladesh Air Force: Former operator

Burma Air Force

Khmer National Air Force: Former operator

Royal Canadian Air Force .. etc etc

 

DHC-6 Twin Otter

CC-138

Twin-engine STOL utility transport, search and rescue aircraft for the Canadian Forces. Based on the Series 300 aircraft.

UV-18A

Twin-engine STOL utility transport aircraft for the U.S. Army Alaska National Guard. Six built. It has been replaced by the C-23 Sherpa in US Army service.

UV-18B

Parachute training aircraft for the United States Air Force Academy. The United States Air Force Academy's 98th Flying Training Squadron maintains three[30] UV-18s in its inventory as free-fall parachuting training aircraft,[31] and by the Academy Parachute Team, the Wings of Blue, for year-round parachuting operations. Based on the Series 300 aircraft.

UV-18C

United States Army designation for three Viking Air Series 400s delivered in 2013.[32]

Operators[edit]

 

Beechcraft

Military aircraft

 

A USAF T-6A Texan II out of Randolph Air Force Base

Beechcraft UC-43 Traveler Earliest and impressed examples were stock, others had minor alterations to meet Military specifications.

Beechcraft AT-7 Navigator/C-45/UC-45/CT-128 Expeditor Model 18s built for the Military with minor modifications.

Beechcraft AT-11 Kansan Military derivative of the Model 18 fitted for training bombardiers and gunners

Beechcraft CT-134 Musketeer Canadian military derivatives of the Musketeer/Sundowner series.

Beechcraft AT-10 Wichita Twin-engined trainer built primarily of wood.

Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly Prototype 1944 twin-engined attack aircraft.

Beechcraft T-34 Mentor & T-34C Turbine Mentor Single-engined two-seat trainer loosely derived from straight tail Bonanza.

Beechcraft XT-36 Cancelled trainer and transport aircraft.

Beechcraft L-23, U-8A through U-8E Seminole Off-the-shelf Twin Bonanza.

Beechcraft T-42 Cochise Off the shelf Baron.

Beechcraft Model 73 Jet Mentor Prototype for two-seat tandem jet trainer.

C-6 Ute/U-21 Ute Off the shelf King Air.

Beechcraft U-8F (or later) Seminole Military version of Queen Air.

Beechcraft C-12 Huron/RC-12 Guardrail/CT-145 Super King Air Super King Air for US and Canadian militaries.

Beechcraft T-1A Jayhawk Military version of Model 400 used as a trainer for pilots of large aircraft in the US military.

Beechcraft T-6 Texan II/CT-156 Harvard II redesigned Pilatus PC-9 turboprop two-seat trainer for JPATS competition.

 

Beechcraft King Air C90

Military operators

 

US Army VC-6A,(LJ-153), used by Wernher von Braun, displayed at White Sands Missile Range Museum

Algeria

Algerian Air Force[26]

Argentina

Argentine Army Aviation - One King Air 100.[27]

Barbados

Barbados Defence Force[citation needed]

Bolivia

Bolivian Air Force - One King Air 90, One King Air F90.[28]

Canada

Canadian Forces Air Command / Royal Canadian Air Force

Eight C90A King Airs were operated by Bombardier Aerospace as civil-registered trainers on behalf of the Canadian Armed Forces between 1992 and 2005.[29] Since 2005 the Allied Wings consortium has operated seven civil-registered C90B King Airs on behalf of the CAF/RCAF.[30][31][32]

 

Cessna's - don't even get me started on the Cessna's - 337, 185, 210, 182 ... etc

 

There are plenty more examples.

 

Most people who say *NO* to GA planes in a purportedly *sandbox* sim have a very narrow point of view as to what combat roles aviation can participate in. E.g. I mostly play casevac and resup roles ... or WWII.

The fast jests and the A10 leave me cold and uninterested apart from the fact that they're airplanes ... I love em all.

From my own military experience I can say that the bulk of the flying I did (as a grunt) was in aircraft that have a civvie counterpart E.g Nomad, P-6, Kiowa, Huey

 

You want fantasy? Go fly around in a sky exclusively full of F-18's, SU-27's & A-10's ... if you want real, then put some meat into the sim.

Yep, very good list.

 

And if we get the option to bind resupply planes to warehouse stock via editor functions or lua... that would give the whole sim a nice twist.

[Bersagliere81]

I'd love DCS to have conflict zones (caucasus, nttr map..), while airliners fly worldwide like p3d.

Airliners means cargo planes, and that would be intresting

[yipster]

GA aircrafts don't get my vote.

 

But, I'm voting for human controlled stations like the KC-135 boom operator or the AWACS with a funcitoning radio / IFF. Something like CA but support miliatry aircrafts.

 

MQ9 reaper station for AFAC, anyone?

[NeilWillis]

Definitely Yipster, trouble is, there is a cogent argument to be made for just about anything with wings or rotor blades (and maybe an awful lot of stuff without either of those things too!).

 

I guess all we can say with certainty is that there is plenty of scope for the expansion of DCS World to keep an infinite number of developers busy for years and years to come - which is definitely a good thing.

[PiedDroit]

Well said teapot, I think it's exactly what dcs needs as its a pretty shallow sand box as is and the combat aspect has allot to be desired. Bring on civilian air traffic and hopefully a weather modeling system along with it that mimics other said sims.

+1!

I think this post sums it up pretty nicely.

Bring on civ planes (as in TeaPot's list) and improve sandbox and combat aspect.

[The Black Swan]

But why would anyone want to spend their free time flying a Cessna when the can fly a P-51? Lol

Sorry I just don't get it. I like the idea of a deeper sim but I'd much rather ED devote their time to military aircraft. Think just how long it takes them to put out current modules/major updates to DCS. If the civ flight market took over they would quickly become just about that, even if they hired more programmers, because the demand for that is so high. Not only that ED gets a lot of support from TFC and TBS. ED is really a combat sim from the ground up. If we ever run out of military fighters/bombers to make modules out of then fine make civ stuff lol. But until then there are Plenty of civ flight sims out there for the other market.

[PiedDroit]

But why would anyone want to spend their free time flying a Cessna when the can fly a P-51? Lol

Sorry I just don't get it. I like the idea of a deeper sim but I'd much rather ED devote their time to military aircraft. Think just how long it takes them to put out current modules/major updates to DCS. If the civ flight market took over they would quickly become just about that, even if they hired more programmers, because the demand for that is so high. Not only that ED gets a lot of support from TFC and TBS. ED is really a combat sim from the ground up. If we ever run out of military fighters/bombers to make modules out of then fine make civ stuff lol. But until then there are Plenty of civ flight sims out there for the other market.

Those planes would be done by 3rd parties.

[Pman]

I personally don't see the problem with GA aircraft, It is already well known that we have made a couple of extreme aerobatic aircraft for tech demos etc. I wouldn't rule out a public release of those in the future.

 

Would we ever do one? Tbh if there was the interest in the team to do it then yeah, why not?

 

I'd find it quite interesting to do a small seaplane and move from river - river and lake - lake etc.

 

I'd take the fidelity of DCS as sufficient to overcome the shortfalls of the map size.

 

Just my opinion :)

 

Pman

[codefox]

But why would anyone want to spend their free time flying a Cessna when the can fly a P-51? Lol

Sorry I just don't get it.

 

Guess there'd be a few reasons. I own all the modules and I fly pretty much every single one of them and still get back to fly some stuff like a 172 or Beaver in other flight sims.

Thing about DCS is that it's just unmatched in terms of flight physics, damage model and systems simulation and so, yes, I would even take out a Cessna if I had a P-51 standing next to it. Just for the sake of flying a fun aircraft that's simulated sophistically.

I would rather buy a C172 for DCS than I would buy one for FSX.

 

And.. don't get me wrong, I know that DCS is a combat simulator. I enjoy almost every single module out for DCS, be it a trainer or a war machine like the Hog. I know how to use them in combat, I have fun in combat but yet DCS is my go-to flight sim for almost every occasion, even if it's just about flying around with friends.

[WinterH]

I would enjoy some GA aircraft being added to DCS. I myself would probably get not more than finger of a hand, probably less. On the other hand they can introduce a whole slew of people into DCS.

 

A misconception in people's mind is that civilian aircraft equals to big airliners and those require a different environment than the one DCS provides. I partially agree second part of that sentence, and outright disagree the first part. Some small passenger / cargo planes would be right at home in maps like Caucasus, and to a degree Nevada. GA helicopters are nowhere better at home than DCS. Aerobatic / racing aircraft, for which flight modeling is of primary importance, is nowhere more at home than DCS. These do not require DCS "to turn into something else / shift development focus to civilian only things", not at all.

 

In recent months, this subject has become VERY popular and hotly debated. We may or may not eventually get civvie modules, time will show. However, there are reasons for prefering DCS with some types of civilian aircraft, good ones at that. On the other hand, I myself, have not seen so far any well articulated and reasonable arguments for NOT wanting any civilian aircraft.

 

To avoid a huge wall of text, here is an article on the subject on twomoreweeks :

 

http://www.twomoreweeks.net/index.php/a-bold-prospect-exploring-the-possibility-of-civilian-aircraft-for-dcs/

 

Written by yours truly :).

[Jeepyb]

Why not something as a cessna L-19 ? People could use them as GA aircrafts, or they could be used as forward air control/ target designating like they were used in Vietnam for example. Some of them were even fitted with rocket launchers (mainly phosporus rockets for target designation) and small bombs !

[The Black Swan]

Those planes would be done by 3rd parties.

 

Yes but ED has to quality check everything... Which is a lot more involved than it sounds.

 

Guess there'd be a few reasons. I own all the modules and I fly pretty much every single one of them and still get back to fly some stuff like a 172 or Beaver in other flight sims.

Thing about DCS is that it's just unmatched in terms of flight physics, damage model and systems simulation and so, yes, I would even take out a Cessna if I had a P-51 standing next to it. Just for the sake of flying a fun aircraft that's simulated sophistically.

I would rather buy a C172 for DCS than I would buy one for FSX.

 

And.. don't get me wrong, I know that DCS is a combat simulator. I enjoy almost every single module out for DCS, be it a trainer or a war machine like the Hog. I know how to use them in combat, I have fun in combat but yet DCS is my go-to flight sim for almost every occasion, even if it's just about flying around with friends.

 

Oh don't get me wrong I love the idea of ANY replicated aircraft, it's just from a development standpoint why would you want 3 people from the development team (whether 3rd party or not) developing a private jet when they could be helping make a f-16, or if you want non combat, a C-130. Why make a civ plane when you still have SO many military aircraft from different eras/countries to put effort into instead?

Does nobobody see what I'm getting at? If ED had to start testing 3rd party civ aircraft while the civ sim market FLOODED into DCS, it would strike a heavy (if not fatal) blow to EDs goal of making THE combat simulator. At least in our lifetime...

[codefox]

f ED had to start testing 3rd party civ aircraft while the civ sim market FLOODED into DCS, it would strike a heavy (if not fatal) blow to EDs goal of making THE combat simulator. At least in our lifetime...

 

Not necessarily. ED is a business, which means they need revenue. Masses of players coming to DCS will generate lots of revenue. Lots of revenue means they can get more resources for further development, positively affecting both sides of the community.

 

My feeling is that it would open up a whole different world for DCS from which everyone could profit, but that's just my two cents.

[PiedDroit]

Yes but ED has to quality check everything... Which is a lot more involved than it sounds.

Indeed you're right although this is not much different for other aircraft (I mean, the ones you don't buy).

If there is a market for those planes and they go through the same pipeline as the other ones, that shouldn't make a difference.

Regarding who wants to fly what, it's really a matter of taste, I personally don't care much as long as the core sim remains combat oriented.

[The Black Swan]

Not necessarily. ED is a business, which means they need revenue. Masses of players coming to DCS will generate lots of revenue. Lots of revenue means they can get more resources for further development, positively affecting both sides of the community.

 

My feeling is that it would open up a whole different world for DCS from which everyone could profit, but that's just my two cents.

 

If you take that point of view then ED as a business would put the most lucrative part of their business in highest priority.... Which would be the civ sim market...

 

And again there is the question of why develop a civilian rescue chopper when you could develop a MILITARY rescue chopper.... Or a passenger jet when you could a B-1. I get what your saying I just think the transition to what you're talking about could destroy the momentum ED has in developing DCS as a military sim at least for a while

[msalama]

Well, adding 100% civvie planes to DCS would at least give the insurgents and drug runners something to creep about in ;) And while that may not be the best use of scarce development resources, what we'll ABSOLUTELY need in the future is unarmed transports if we really want to get realistic about this.

 

And hey, if you're doing some big mil iron anyway, why not add civvie versions where applicable as well? They're not that far apart...