What about the Mirage2000-5 ?

[Veritech]

IMHO I think we should enjoy what we have. I know we'd love to have a 2k-5, a Rafale, a 27SM or even an F-22, but we all know deep inside that all those aircraft wether they are classified or their governments won't give a release on the data to make a proper realistic simulation on their performance and systems. I am really curious how "realistic" the Eurofighter Typhoon will be, having being introduced not so long ago (no matter how early the Tranche presented is).

[Kev2go]

well that other sim that cannot be named has a flyable and combat functioning M2000-5.

[jojo]

well that other sim that cannot be named has a flyable and combat functioning M2000-5.

 

With F-16 weapon system :music_whistling:

[Vladinsky]

well that other sim that cannot be named has a flyable and combat functioning M2000-5.

 

Yes, there truly are no limits to what one can do when accuracy and realism is not a priority.

Standards are a bit higher here in DCS though.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Vladinsky
Aw, sniped

[Kev2go]

Yes, there truly are no limits to what one can do when accuracy and realism is not a priority.

Standards are a bit higher here in DCS though.

 

ofc

 

1 is a free, and is done by community, and the other has proffesional paid full time developers with more resources

 

so ofc so id have faith in ED or any of 3rd party devs to make a even better module, than one done by community modders.

 

 

 

besides Veos EF typhoon is going to have to abandon some realsim and or functionality too, due to some aspects not being allowed to be modelled, they said so themselves, yet its still going to happen.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Kev2go

[QuiGon]

ofc

 

1 is a free, and is done by community, and the other has proffesional paid full time developers with more resources

 

so ofc so id have faith in ED or any of 3rd party devs to make a even better module, than one done by community modders.

AFAIK many of the third party devs aren't full time DCS developery. They do this in their freetime beside their real job!

 

besides Veos EF typhoon is going to have to abandon some realsim and or functionality too, due to some aspects not being allowed to be modelled, they said so themselves, yet its still going to happen.

It's just some systems and they said that all the restrictions are under the hood and the player won't notice them, which is a huge difference to a Mirage 2000-5 with complete F-16 avionics...

[Chrinik]

1 is a free, and is done by community, and the other has proffesional paid full time developers with more resources

 

so ofc so id have faith in ED or any of 3rd party devs to make a even better module, than one done by community modders.

 

It´s exactly the other way around...as soon as you start asking for money for a product, you are subject to a whole lot of legal nonsense what you can and can´t do.

 

If you make a free "interpretation" of an aircraft, you can almost do whatever you want with it. If you charge, there are legal reasons for copyright and IP, as you could be profiting from someone elses work. (Designers, Planners, Aviation Companies, Engineers etc.) Ontop of that is the possible "security" concerns, by letting the average joe in on "military secrets"...it is thus more likely to make modules of "Out of service" planes. You can make contracts with the militaries, which VEAO and ED had done, to get around this, but not everyone can.

 

This is why there is so many WW2 sims...easily available information, no red tape, no licence holders care.

 

So it get´s trickier, actually.

 

And no, I don´t believe any of the developers are "Full Time"...the amount and frequency of sales wouldn´t sustain a team´s salary for long. Developers also have lives and need food and housing...

Edited October 12, 2016 by Chrinik

[gavagai]

well that other sim that cannot be named has a flyable and combat functioning M2000-5.

 

I tried their 2000C for the sake of comparison after I purchased the Razbam module. It is very far below what we have here.

 

A DCS 2000-5 would be nice, of course. The reason why constantly see requests for upgraded Su-27s, Mirages, and other aircraft is because we'd like to see something that can compete with the F-15C. DCS multiplayer is a wasteland of F-15C spam and the only thing that can mitigate is another Fox-3 fighter with a radar powerful enough for BVR engagements.

[Kev2go]

It´s exactly the other way around...as soon as you start asking for money for a product, you are subject to a whole lot of legal nonsense what you can and can´t do.

 

If you make a free "interpretation" of an aircraft, you can almost do whatever you want with it. If you charge, there are legal reasons for copyright and IP, as you could be profiting from someone elses work. (Designers, Planners, Aviation Companies, Engineers etc.) Ontop of that is the possible "security" concerns, by letting the average joe in on "military secrets"...it is thus more likely to make modules of "Out of service" planes. You can make contracts with the militaries, which VEAO and ED had done, to get around this, but not everyone can.

 

This is why there is so many WW2 sims...easily available information, no red tape, no licence holders care.

 

So it get´s trickier, actually.

 

And no, I don´t believe any of the developers are "Full Time"...the amount and frequency of sales wouldn´t sustain a team´s salary for long. Developers also have lives and need food and housing...

 

 

F/A18C is still in service, but afaik ED did not get a military contract for it, and there seems to be public info available on it ( along with many other 4th gen aircraft from 80s -early 90s) including a manual(s). Save for some exceptions , anything that isnt 4.5 or 5th gen is likely possible to happen in DCS

 

If anything there are so many ww2 sims becasue that is whats more popular. and becasue it easier to model older aircraft when you dont have to deal with more complex physics involved for Supersonic flight, and missiles.

 

But either way even part time paid developers have greater incentive to get things done, modders who do things for free, its really a just a hobby for them. they arent likely to meet deadlines or have as well coordinated efforts as a company like ED would with paid people.

 

 

I tried their 2000C for the sake of comparison after I purchased the Razbam module. It is very far below what we have here.

 

A DCS 2000-5 would be nice, of course. The reason why constantly see requests for upgraded Su-27s, Mirages, and other aircraft is because we'd like to see something that can compete with the F-15C. DCS multiplayer is a wasteland of F-15C spam and the only thing that can mitigate is another Fox-3 fighter with a radar powerful enough for BVR engagements.

 

 

 

and with F14 coming from Leatherneck, we may see massive F14 spam :lol:, though it wont have Aim120s. SU27 isnt even that bad, it just lacks Fox 3's which could be fixed via modding. to allow for R77s. not realisitc but hey ive seen some servers have modded F15s with Aim54 phoenix missiles.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Kev2go

[myHelljumper]

You can find f18 manuals easly on internet, please find one on the 2000-5...

 

Dassault is very secret concerning their products.

Edited October 13, 2016 by myHelljumper

[Oceandar]

Just make something that seem realistic is just enough. We won't know the difference anyway. How hard is it ?

 

Gam Zeh Ya'avor - King Salomon

[myHelljumper]

Yeah, isn't it a simulator ? This is not that simple.

[Oceandar]

I'd add a word "game" in it..

 

Gam Zeh Ya'avor - King Salomon

Edited October 13, 2016 by Oceandar

[OperatorJack]

Just make something that seem realistic is just enough. We won't know the difference anyway. How hard is it ?

 

Gam Zeh Ya'avor - King Salomon

 

DCS isn't Strike Fighters 2

[Silver_Dragon]

If anything there are so many ww2 sims becasue that is whats more popular. and becasue it easier to model older aircraft when you dont have to deal with more complex physics involved for Supersonic flight, and missiles.

 

Talk with Yo-Yo, surely can say some world about "easy" develop

 

But either way even part time paid developers have greater incentive to get things done, modders who do things for free, its really a just a hobby for them. they arent likely to meet deadlines or have as well coordinated efforts as a company like ED would with paid people.

 

A little detail, modders dont have access to the SDK, great quantity of the DCS: W functionality can reach without them.

[Chrinik]

F/A18C is still in service, but afaik ED did not get a military contract for it, and there seems to be public info available on it ( along with many other 4th gen aircraft from 80s -early 90s) including a manual(s).

 

Exceptions prove the rule. I never said it´s impossible, first of all. Just that it complicates things. Otherwise we´d be swimming in 4th gen. And just because it´s possible for X (and look how long the development on THAT takes...about 9-10 years now?) does NOT mean it´s also possible for Y.

 

The F-18 is popular, old (in terms of airframe and service life), and alot of info might be available. You also don´t know how ED produced the more in-depth information on JHMCS, Aim-9X and so on. Maybe it´s publicly available, maybe you can buy them, or maybe someone simply told them...they did mention having two Hornet pilots floating around here somewhere...

 

From my limited experience, it also seems to be easier to get information from anything in the US arsenal, then anything else. Other Governments/Companies, other policies.

 

For example, Grumman might be very open about making Simulators out of their planes, while Lockheed or General Electric might flip out and C&D you immediately. You never know...

 

 

Save for some exceptions , anything that isnt 4.5 or 5th gen is likely possible to happen in DCS

Assumption. Maybe, but maybe not.

I´d wager the F/A-18C is going to be the most advanced and capable plane (let alone multi-role) for a VERY long time...

We have some 4th gen coming/in...M2000C marked the start, F14A/B, EF Typhoon, Hornet...But we are also getting ALOT of 3rd Gen in comparison.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Chrinik

[Chrinik]

Just make something that seem realistic is just enough. We won't know the difference anyway. How hard is it ?

 

Gam Zeh Ya'avor - King Salomon

 

No.

[Azrayen]

Developers also have lives and need food and housing...

Do they now? :huh:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding, you're right about this of course :D

[Kev2go]

Talk with Yo-Yo, surely can say some world about "easy" develop

 

 

 

 

there is a difference between easy and easier. you did not comprehend my meaning.

 

i did not say development is easy, but honestly anyone can agree that a subsonic aircraft with simple avoincs, and guns only ( such as ww2 fighters) are much simpler & therefore "easier" to develop than an aircraft supersonic 4th gen fighter with high tech electronics. its the same reason why some 3rd developers started with trainers. It was a way for them to get into DCs without having to make a more complex aircraft.

 

A little detail, modders dont have access to the SDK, great quantity of the DCS: W functionality can reach without them.

 

i was not specifically referring to DCS, it was meant as a very generalized statement about the development of games in general

 

 

Exceptions prove the rule. I never said it´s impossible, first of all. Just that it complicates things. Otherwise we´d be swimming in 4th gen. And just because it´s possible for X (and look how long the development on THAT takes...about 9-10 years now?) does NOT mean it´s also possible for Y.

 

The F-18 is popular, old (in terms of airframe and service life), and alot of info might be available. You also don´t know how ED produced the more in-depth information on JHMCS, Aim-9X and so on. Maybe it´s publicly available, maybe you can buy them, or maybe someone simply told them...they did mention having two Hornet pilots floating around here somewhere...

 

From my limited experience, it also seems to be easier to get information from anything in the US arsenal, then anything else. Other Governments/Companies, other policies.

 

For example, Grumman might be very open about making Simulators out of their planes, while Lockheed or General Electric might flip out and C&D you immediately. You never know...

 

 

 

Assumption. Maybe, but maybe not.

I´d wager the F/A-18C is going to be the most advanced and capable plane (let alone multi-role) for a VERY long time...

We have some 4th gen coming/in...M2000C marked the start, F14A/B, EF Typhoon, Hornet...But we are also getting ALOT of 3rd Gen in comparison.

 

 

but we do have a healthy bit of of 4th gen, just from, from Flaming cliffs. I have to agree, better to prioritize in developing new aircraft first, than remake already existing ones ( even if they arent full fidelitity) as a entirely fresh new aircraft not yet ingame will garner more interest. Besides ED isnt a very large team, there is only so much they can chew on. especially since they have been obviously busy all these years with 2.0, currently integrading 1.5 and 2.0, as well as other new maps like Straight of Hormuz or Normandy.

 

 

its just that it takes along time to make a full fidelity module especially one with complex avionics, which is the only primary ' we arent "swimming" in them. besides DCS isnt about strickly about 4th gen. some 3rd party devs are just trying to appeal to simmers interested in different eras of aviation. Its good to see ww2, Korean era - later cold war getting place in DCS. Its very reasonable to expect that over time ED will make full fidelty version of FC3 aircraft, and even an F16C, an aircraft that is even more popular than the F18. Its is after all the most exported western fighter series. Tornado is also possible from information available. and even an F15E. All "old" 4th gen fighters. though honestly that is subjective as to me a really "old" 4th gen fighter would be the F16A, F18A, or F14A, not the later C models.

 

You could even make an argument for cause and effect why we have 3rd generation projects. 1 dev makes Mig21Bis as thier first module, another BST creates F5E as a response so 1 aircraft isnt an "orphan" aircraft and has a actual oppponent to fight against. It wasnt even in thier original plans to create such a fixed winged fighter. then more developers follow up to create some additional legacy modules to offer more diversity in that area. Ultimaltely we will only end up with more 3rd gen aircraft because there are more aircraft from that era, than the 4th generation that can be done. When the day comes that we have the relevant 4th generation fighters, then developers will have no choice but to move backwards anyways.

 

really the few exceptions which i refer to are the m2000-5 or the su27 & mig29 SM, ( which are still 4.0 gen aircraft, not 4.5) or how Veo has contract for 4.5 gen EF typhoon.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Kev2go

[mrsteel]

I for one would love to see a Mirage 2000-5 in DCS, hopefully if theres enough info available, it'll be done.

[Lorenzo.D]

+1

 

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00LD utilizzando Tapatalk

[Xenovia]

that would be neat, much more up to date and better against the Flankers and Eagles for sure.

[Bacab]

The -5 is still a frontline fighter in the French Air Force. Moreover the MICA is the main air to air missile used to protect the French airspace. Therefore both the plane and its armament are heavily classified. Unlike the USA, France keep armament data classified even when they are decommissioned. Even older systems like those on board the Mirage III are still officially classified. The DCS M2000C is in this aspect an anomaly. I don't know what kind of agreement, if they have any, Razbam has with Dassault, the DGA... but it's unlikely to be valid if they decide to do a -5.

As for doing a FC3 level aircraft, ED specifically said they don't want a third party or themselves to do that kind of things.

[ZHeN]

anyone still expecting Mirage 2000-5 ? after last comment ?

 

although it's definitely not the first in this thread, which clears things out

 

8 pages of misunderstanding ...

[Azrayen]

Agreed with Bacab.

Don't hope/hold your breath, so you won't be disappointed/suffocate.