Regarding the F-16C module in progress

[NRG-Vampire]

yes of course :hehe:

it has "indirect" connection :D

[carss]

I can only imagine the excitement if it became official, but if there was one to be made, I think the Block 40 or Block 52 might just make the cut, don't you think?

[probad]

all i can imagine are more awful duplicate wishlist threads.

[NineLine]

all i can imagine are more awful duplicate wishlist threads.

 

This is true, what is going to be the common wishlist items if we finally get an F-16??

[Schwarzfeld]

Um. I humbly submit the A-6E Intruder for next most annoying WHEN ARE WE GETTING THIS AIRPLANE MODULE thread :)

[mvsgas]

...what is going to be the common wishlist items if we finally get an F-16??

 

:D:smartass: It will be;

- Why can we have this version? or Why did they pick this version? or How come it does not have weapons Y or pod X? etc. etc.

Like every other module wish list out there, so the same.

[probad]

dcs as we know it would end with the f-16

 

in its place would be falcon world, development of all airplanes and assets exist solely to support the f-16 community

 

the f-16 is to planes what the ar15 is to guns

 

 

also blk60 when

[JABO2009]

may it be in 2 , or may it be in 5 years, no matter what, I'll wait till the day the F16 gets done. Full clickable Cockpit, full A2A and A2G mode ..and this in DCS .. :notworthy:

 

and btw: yes there are many annoying wishlist threads out there, but this can never be the case for an F16 :D

[SkateZilla]

This is true, what is going to be the common wishlist items if we finally get an F-16??

 

Dynamic Campaigns :lol::lol:

[PeaceSells]

With so many planes that never had had a study sim released, why would you want so much a second study sim of the F-16? If you asked me, it'd be more interesting to see a study sim of a Mig-29 (or another "virgin" plane).

 

But of course I wouldn't mind the F-16...

[NRG-Vampire]

Dynamic Campaigns :lol::lol:

 

:smilewink: terrains like Colorado, Afghanistan, Corsica, Bangladesh etc. will be more popular assuredly :yes:

[=OPS=Slider]

You have seen the cockpit screenshots in the update post by Wags?

 

Have you seen the date, which says it was in 2008?

[shagrat]

Dynamic Campaigns

:megalol:

[ViFF]

Even if a full fidelity DCS F-16 module released today, aside from graphics, it would be a shell of what is available in BMS 4.33 and it's amazing dynamic campaign.

 

I will continue to hope that the core engine/systems of DCS are fleshed out as opposed to just new modules.

 

 

Although the dynamic campaign of BMS is not really dynamic, and offcourse I would love to see modules for F-16, AH-64 and Mi-24, but in my opinion the last sentence does have tremendous merit because it highlights a couple of underlying issues that are creeping up on DCS, being the self proclaimed "Sandbox Simulation" that it is.

 

IMHO there are two underlying problems with focusing on high fidelity modules at the expense of fleshing out the core engine/systems that exray mentioned above.

 

The first underlying problem is that at some point there will be so many high fidelity modules that many virtual pilots will reach their limit of how many modules they can enjoy due to the amount of time needed to become reasonably proficient at flying and fighting and utilizing the systems of these highly technical simulations of airplanes. I don't know who has the time but I can hardly imagine myself being able to hop in the F-16, then the F-18, then the Viggen, then the A-10C, then the MiG-21, then the F-5E, then the Ka-50, etc... Each with their 300 to 400 page manual... At some point even the most proficient virtual pilot who has no life outside his PC living in his parents basement will reach their saturation point where they simply don't buy new modules because the alternative is having purchased everything and sucking at everything.

 

The second underlying problem is that while concentrating on creating modules the sandbox part of the simulation remains just that: a barren sandbox, albeit with the tools to create scenarios in the virtual world, but without continuity and without any simulation of the rolling and manipulating the underlying logistics and dynamics of a virtual battlefield. I think the most striking example is the slot based GUI that limits all content creators to a very narrow scripting of content. Trying to reach above this requires learning lua code, a curve way to steep for the general user.

 

IMHO there should be more focus on tools for creating content with built-in real world dynamics. Finite state machines that have the ability to run persistent world virtual battlefields containing Order of Battle (OOBs), tables of equipment that get updated, logistic movements of equipment and energy and supplies and reinforcements, squadrons and units on the battlefield aggregating and de-aggregating into and out of FRAG lists, Air Tasking Orders, etc.

 

For example I don't want to choose a pre-scripted "slot", but rather choose an aircraft squadron that is currently based at airbase "x" look at the list of missions that is constantly being generated for that squadron, choose an appealing mission and fly it, and finally in the de-brief see how the actions and accomplishments of the mission has affected (and will affect) the battlefield.

 

Sorry to derail, but in my opinion this is becoming important for DCS.

Edited January 30, 2017 by ViFF

[shagrat]

Although the dynamic campaign of BMS is not really dynamic, and offcourse I would love to see modules for F-16, AH-64 and Mi-24, but in my opinion the last sentence does have tremendous merit because it highlights a couple of underlying issues that are creeping up on DCS, being the self proclaimed "Sandbox Simulation" that it is.

 

IMHO there are two underlying problems with focusing on high fidelity modules at the expense of fleshing out the core engine/systems that exray mentioned above.

 

The first underlying problem is that at some point there will be so many high fidelity modules that many virtual pilots will reach their limit of how many modules they can enjoy due to the amount of time needed to become reasonably proficient at flying and fighting and utilizing the systems of these highly technical simulations of airplanes. I don't know who has the time but I can hardly imagine myself being able to hop in the F-16, then the F-18, then the Viggen, then the A-10C, then the MiG-21, then the F-5E, then the Ka-50, etc... Each with their 300 to 400 page manual... At some point even the most proficient virtual pilot who has no life outside his PC living in his parents basement will reach their saturation point where they simply don't buy new modules because the alternative is having purchased everything and sucking at everything.

 

The second underlying problem is that while concentrating on creating modules the sandbox part of the simulation remains just that: a barren sandbox, albeit with the tools to create scenarios in the virtual world, but without continuity and without any simulation of the rolling and manipulating the underlying logistics and dynamics of a virtual battlefield. I think the most striking example is the slot based GUI that limits all content creators to a very narrow scripting of content. Trying to reach above this requires learning lua code, a curve way to steep for the general user.

 

IMHO there should be more focus on tools for creating content with built-in real world dynamics. Finite state machines that have the ability to run persistent world virtual battlefields containing Order of Battle (OOBs), tables of equipment that get updated, logistic movements of equipment and energy and supplies and reinforcements, squadrons and units on the battlefield aggregating and de-aggregating into and out of FRAG lists, Air Tasking Orders, etc.

 

For example I don't want to choose a pre-scripted "slot", but rather choose an aircraft squadron that is currently based at airbase "x" look at the list of missions that is constantly being generated for that squadron, choose an appealing mission and fly it, and finally in the de-brief see how the actions and accomplishments of the mission has affected (and will affect) the battlefield.

 

Sorry to derail, but in my opinion this is becoming important for DCS.

For myself, this sounds good in an all out war scenario, but I actually like the current campaigns, with rebel armies, counter insurgency and asymmetric warfare.

So dynamic campaign will generate the typical "cold war gone hot" missions, but nothing to recreate recent conflicts.

[QuiGon]

Dynamic Campaigns :lol::lol:

True Words! :D

 

:smilewink: terrains like Colorado, Afghanistan, Corsica, Bangladesh etc. will be more popular assuredly :yes:

More than Dynamic Campaigns? :huh:

Pretty sure not. Just take a look at this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=64161 ;)

 

Have you seen the date, which says it was in 2008?

I did ;)