How come there's no F16 / F22 in the game?

[mvsgas]

So were are getting Strait of Hormuz Map / Middle East terrain in the future right ? Man, the F16 would perfectly fit in to this scenario !!! , together with F18...

 

The F16 (A, C, block 50) is just simply much too awesome for not getting any attention by ED sooner or later...

 

Its like writing a book about pop stars and not mentioning Michael Jackson in a single line ;-)

 

That would be great F-16 map since Oman, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain all have F-16...

other map ideas

It could be a 10 year plan. Norway map for F-16A, Korea for KF-16, Middle east for F-16C and E, etc. :thumbup:

 

Edit:

They could make any map and have F-16.

South China Sea= Malaysia, ROC/Taiwan and Thailand

Indonesia= Singapore and Malaysia

Strait of Hormuz= Pakistan, Oman, UAE and Bahrain

Mediterranean SEA= With Greece, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Italy (former F-16 user) and Israel

Europe= Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Poland

[mvsgas]

DCS: RF-16 ;-)

Not sure they ever made one

 

that "other sim" has a fully modeled F16C Block50/52.

Not fully modeled, close, very close. For example; FLCC panel, B/D model fuel gauge is not right, no ALE-50, INS not fully modeled, JFS, many systems are mix from different years and blocks, etc. For our intend and purposes, good enough.

[cichlidfan]

Not fully modeled, close, very close. For example; FLCC panel, B/D model fuel gauge is not right, no ALE-50, INS not fully modeled, JFS, many systems are mix from different years and blocks, etc. For our intend and purposes, good enough.

 

Of course, that other sim isn't licensed by LM, either, which might also be a stumbling block for ED. Especially since LM happens to have their own flight sim.

[Ripcord03]

Of course, that other sim isn't licensed by LM, either, which might also be a stumbling block for ED. Especially since LM happens to have their own flight sim.

 

It cant be too much of a Problem, A-10C Thunderbolt II is a combination of Fairchild/Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. LM actually helped do a majority of the upgrades from the A to the C varient. or rather the are the lead on the partnership team that does the upgrades.

 

Quote from LM on the A-10C:

 

"Since 1997, the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin-led A-10 Prime Team have worked closely to significantly digitize the A-10A Thunderbolt II close air support fighter to its A-10C configuration, enabling employment of new GPS and inertially-guided munitions, fingertip control of aircraft avionics and integration of Litening and Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods through a program called Precision Engagement (PE).

 

The improvements automate many functions (navigation, weapons employment and communications) previously performed manually by the pilot, while also providing enhanced situational awareness and the ability to deliver precision-guided air-to-ground weapons. The upcoming addition of a Helmet Mounted Cueing System (HMCS) in Suite 7 will allow for even greater efficiencies in targeting and situational awareness.

 

The most extensive upgrade in the A-10's celebrated 35-year history, Precision Engagement combined multiple upgrades into a single contract award.

Awarded to Lockheed Martin in 2001, the government-industry partnership has enabled the modifications to be completed earlier than planned and at lower cost."

 

Although that may be why we will never get HMCS in the A-10C xD

 

From Grumman: "In 1987, the ™A-10 OEM Team and all A-10 assets were acquired by Grumman Corporation from Fairchild Republic Company, and are now part of the Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems Eastern Region, presently partnered with Lockheed Martin Systems Integration as a member of the A-10 Prime Team."

Edited July 13, 2016 by Davison

[Fri13]

You'd want the two seat version of the F-16?

For training and such. We have a disk seat trainers like L-39 that can't do well in aerial combat but then fight little bit against the idea to train in simulator. Unless you fly L-39 in a real world.

 

Both could come in same module like L-39 has C and ZA and F-18 get owns etc. So F-16A and B in one. The C updated block versions could be in my opinion a own module then later for list price requiring to own F-16A/B first.

[Vitormouraa]

It cant be too much of a Problem, A-10C Thunderbolt II is a combination of Fairchild/Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. LM actually helped do a majority of the upgrades from the A to the C varient. or rather the are the lead on the partnership team that does the upgrades.

 

Quote from LM on the A-10C:

 

"Since 1997, the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin-led A-10 Prime Team have worked closely to significantly digitize the A-10A Thunderbolt II close air support fighter to its A-10C configuration, enabling employment of new GPS and inertially-guided munitions, fingertip control of aircraft avionics and integration of Litening and Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods through a program called Precision Engagement (PE)."

 

Actually when Lockheed Martin got their two contracts to 'upgrade' the A-10A, six years after the end of Gulf War, in 97, then 2001, they had problems to make the JDAMs work in the A-10, then Boeing helped them, which for me is funny..

 

I recommend the reading of 'A-10 Thunderbolt II Units of Operation Enduring Freedom 2008-14 (Combat Aircraft)', fantastic book!

Edited July 13, 2016 by Vitormouraa

[Angelthunder]

Are they planning on releasing them? :pilotfly:

I think your more likely to see a fully modeled F-117 Nighthawk in DCS someday than a F-22 Raptor as that fighter is still new and heavily classified.As for the F-16,i assume will see it later down the road among the most other requested aircraft like the F-4 Phantom II or AH-64 Apache soon.

[Kev2go]

Not sure they ever made one

 

 

Not fully modeled, close, very close. For example; FLCC panel, B/D model fuel gauge is not right, no ALE-50, INS not fully modeled, JFS, many systems are mix from different years and blocks, etc. For our intend and purposes, good enough.

 

thats probably due to error, and lack of information, not nessarily due to classified data obstruction them. BMS is essentially an overhaled engine, kind of how Il2 1946 had the jet era mod.

 

im pretty sure ED or licensed 3rd party put in greater priority on obtaining or getting contacts for open source information. There on so much a small group of non profit modders , can do without having a dedicated researcher(s), and or getting a former F16 pilot as a "quality assurance" for the project.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Kev2go

[Vitormouraa]

If they make a DCS F-16, it would be the best simulation out there available for public. :)

Edited July 13, 2016 by Vitormouraa

[agentdarnell]

ED knows by now how many of us would really want and love the f16. I am wondering first if it is not already in the works. If it is not and if it is not planned I wonder if it is because they are worried that there are too many variations out there and that it would make too many people upset with just one version they would make. People would complain it is not the version they wanted and cause a big uproar. Maybe they would rather just not make it and make no one happy than make many people upset lol.

[Mainstay]

F16C Block30/32/40/42 would be nice

[StandingCow]

ED knows by now how many of us would really want and love the f16. I am wondering first if it is not already in the works. If it is not and if it is not planned I wonder if it is because they are worried that there are too many variations out there and that it would make too many people upset with just one version they would make. People would complain it is not the version they wanted and cause a big uproar. Maybe they would rather just not make it and make no one happy than make many people upset lol.

 

I'd bet it's already in the works, but they are probably focused on the F/A-18 first. I know we aren't supposed to go by ED's military side of the company... but since they are working one we may get a declassified version.

[mvsgas]

ED knows by now how many of us would really want and love the f16. I am wondering first if it is not already in the works. If it is not and if it is not planned I wonder if it is because they are worried that there are too many variations out there and that it would make too many people upset with just one version they would make. People would complain it is not the version they wanted and cause a big uproar. Maybe they would rather just not make it and make no one happy than make many people upset lol.

 

The Mig-21 must have many more variation than the F-16, there are more countries flying it, many more where made and it still flying 60 years after the initial model flew. Leatherneck manage to make a good model of a specific version and Belsimtek did it with the F-86. ED or other partner could do the same with the F-16. I also do not think the F-16 is different than other aircraft in terms of versions. For Example the block system has been used since the 1940. P-47, F-86, F-4 and F-15 all have different blocks. For some reason in the F-16 it became more common to identify some of the differences by mentioning the block.

People will find something to complain about no matter what ED or a third party does. If they make a very specific F-16 ( an Egyptian block 40 with the capabilities it had in 2000) or if they make an amalgam like other sims have, people in general will complain.

Edited July 13, 2016 by mvsgas

[The Black Swan]

The F-22 is considerably more modern and automated than both of those.

Just look at the cockpit.

 

EDIT:

Although I am ready to admit that it could be kinda interesting in some aspects, just like a Eurofighter. Still if I have the choice, I'd pick any 4th gen aircraft over the F-22.

 

If you are talking about fly-by-wire then it should really just be more maneuverable.

As for other systems, usually when something is simplified in a newer aircraft there are plenty of new features that the pilot has to operate. There may be more automated systems, but there would also be plenty of newer/additional tasks that the pilot could be doing as well. Just because the pilot is using more softkeys, touchscreens, and security codes doesn't mean that there would less interesting tasks to preform.

I just can't understand saying the raptor would be boring when we have no DCS level sim of it available to the public. And when we don't know all the details of what the pilot can/has to do in combat senarios....

Edited July 13, 2016 by The Black Swan

[112th_Rossi]

If you are talking about fly-by-wire then it should really just be more maneuverable.

As for other systems, usually when something is simplified in a newer aircraft they're are plenty of new features that the pilot has to operate. There may be more automated systems, but there would also be plenty of newer/additional tasks that the pilot could be doing as well. Just because the pilot is using more softkeys, touchscreens, and security codes doesn't mean that there would less interesting tasks to preform.

I just can't understand saying the raptor would be boring when we have no DCS level sim of it available to the public. And when we don't know all the details of what the pilot can/has to do in combat senarios....

 

I wouldn't think it would be boring. But since theres no way we can get truely accurate information about the jet, it will always be an approximation and not a simulation. That's not what DCS is about.

[The Black Swan]

I wouldn't think it would be boring. But since theres no way we can get truely accurate information about the jet, it will always be an approximation and not a simulation. That's not what DCS is about.

 

I agree they shouldn't do it until they have the right info, I was just responding to Aginor saying it would be boring because of the new automatic systems (which we don't have all the details about)

[Aginor]

I agree they shouldn't do it until they have the right info, I was just responding to Aginor saying it would be boring because of the new automatic systems (which we don't have all the details about)

Yeah, you're probably right, I can definitely follow your reasoning.

(but we will probably never know, like you said)

[JABO2009]

To sum this thread up, the F16 - whatever version -as long its a combat ready version- would be highly welcomed by the DCS crowd and would fit perfectly in every future terrain development we can think of..

 

Hoping for Wags and Team to read these lines and for the circumstances/licenses developing in a way to make the F16 finally reality in DCS.

[Weasel]

I also hope ED announces a DCS F-16C soon (hope block 50/52) and I really think they will do that soon after the release of the hornet. That they make a F-16 for the battle simulator gives me some hope ;-)

 

One problem is the (ground) radar but as ED modeled a full functional radar system for the hornet it makes it much easier to release other fighters. But first they are still working on the hornet, hormuz map, carrier/naval operations and the integration of DCS World 1.5 & 2.0.

 

A DCS F-22 Raptor would be very interesting or the F-35 but they are too classified to make a modul with DCS (high level) standard. I am very excited to see what we can expect with the EF 2000 Modul as there is also a lot of information classified.

[Vitormouraa]

B52 would be the best IMHO.

[The Black Swan]

Love the f-16 but mabye they should work on a soviet fighter like the mig-29 with clickable cockpit after the hornet. DCS has a large community that would like a soviet fighter and unless I'm mistaken the only high level one we have is the mig-21. Again love the f-16 but the hornet would satisfy me, so mabye we should give some attention to those who might prefer more eastern fighters. Remember guys... We are getting the f-14 from leatherneck too. :smilewink:

[mvsgas]

A full modeled Mig-29 would be cool. I would like a Mig-29A or G

[Vitormouraa]

F-16C B52 would be a dream...

[MikeMikeJuliet]

I know this is all opinions, and you lot may have yours, but let us think about the whole thing for a second.

 

F-22 would be a bad addition to the sim considering the complete package. Why? There is nothing that can fight it! Oh yes, it is fun to shoot Su-27s out of the sky when thy never realize it, but for how long? Once? Twice? In my opinion an earned victory is way more interesting than a laughable roflstomp where the enemy never even had a chance. So even if we were magically provided a full fidelity F-22 there would be no sense putting it into multiplayer, or to any other interesting missions anyway. Operating the systems within the plane might be interesting, but fighting with it... it's not a fight if you just kill the opposition when there is nothing theh can do. It's just a massacre.

 

Now consider modern planes as a whole as well. I tend to find that the most interesting gameplay comes from the need to use your brain instead of integrated systems. Older planes with less capabilities need other planes with them to succeed. I find it much more interesting to have a COMAO of multiple different aircraft with different purpose, than just "oh it's another F-18". That way protecting key assets would also be more critical because you just can't change roles on the fly. Think of the possibilities in scenarios...

 

Now don't take this the wrong way. I absolutely enjoy any aircraft we get. It's just that I find older aircraft usually make things more interesting. You fly and fight with them. Modern planes are just "operated".

 

Feel free to disagree.

 

EDIT: I cracked so hard at an autofill text... it's corrected now. Damn phone virtual keyboards...

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

Edited July 14, 2016 by MikeMikeJuliet
Dem typos

[The Black Swan]

If you prefer older air combat that's perfectly fine.

But I hope they don't choose not to include any aircraft based on if it's too powerful...

This isn't a game that needs balacing, it's a sim that does simulating.

And if by some MIRACLE we got the f-22, it wouldn't be unstoppable. At BVR mabye. But in a dogfight it still produces a heat sig.

And that's saying a lot for me since I've been a biased raptor fanboy ever since I played f-22 lighting 3 when I was really young.