F-16

[QuiGon]

While the Viper might sell more for us who are in countries that operate them, the Hornet from a gameplay poimt of view for marketing will attract more people IMO

Well, the Hornet might sell more for the players who are in countries that operate them. ;)

[Svend_Dellepude]

Is it here yet!? :D

[David OC]

Thread bump. You would want PW engines over GE??? I cant even talk look at you now :D

 

I believe that ED chose the Hornet over the Viper for the sole reason you can do more with it than an F16 module. As much as I want an F16 module, the Hornet can do everything the Viper can do in terms of weapons but brings in a whole bunch of fans wanting carrier operations. While the Viper might sell more for us who are in countries that operate them, the Hornet from a gameplay poimt of view for marketing will attract more people IMO

 

 

Well, F/A-18C is going to have 'a full pack' of complex features needed for other modern jets - AG radar, JHMCS, Link 4/16, HUD repeater, automatic landing, AA radar + long range missiles, 3 displays in the cockpit (one with different rendering method), 2 mission computers, Digital FCS, supersonic flight, arrested landings, HARM, Walleye, JDAM/JSOW, etc... So, yes new complex products will be done faster after F/A-18C.

 

The Post

 

 

F16 Could be sooner than later perhaps, would still be a long ways off.

 

If you were to take this underlying tech from the F18 above, modified and merged if with the research and work already started here, then....mmm

 

.

[SkateZilla]

ED Already had Skylark build a New Exernal Model, and they had a Cockpit done a while ago,

 

Both would need to be revamped for PBR and stuff.

[Gierasimov]

Oh yes it is!

 

Is it here yet!? :D

 

Apparently, it is!

 

Early, internal version though...

[Hawk_UK]

I have been reading through this thread and noticed that the issue of "Licencing" has been put forward many times as a likely reason for the F-16 aircraft module not being developed/released:

In my opinion from all the evidence, I doubt very much that any DCS aircraft module has an "Official" aircraft manufacturers product licence?

It would be such a huge sales advantage to promote the fact of having obtained an "Official" product license that to leave that fact out of any sales promo would be a major mistake by any developer(ED or 3rd party).

 

 

So no. I don't think licencing has anything to do with why we haven't seen an F-16 DCS Module released; I personally think it has more to do with the time, complexity and gathering of all the data and reference material required to complete such a project that is the reason we haven't yet seen a F-16 in DCS World as yet? Plus there maybe capabilities needed in the F-16 that ED hasn't developed for DCS as yet and the devs are awaiting further developments in DCS World to allow a full fidelity version to be possible?

[MikeMikeJuliet]

I have been reading through this thread and noticed that the issue of "Licencing" has been put forward many times as a likely reason for the F-16 aircraft module not being developed/released:

In my opinion from all the evidence, I doubt very much that any DCS aircraft module has an "Official" aircraft manufacturers product licence?

It would be such a huge sales advantage to promote the fact of having obtained an "Official" product license that to leave that fact out of any sales promo would be a major mistake by any developer(ED or 3rd party).

 

 

So no. I don't think licencing has anything to do with why we haven't seen an F-16 DCS Module released; I personally think it has more to do with the time, complexity and gathering of all the data and reference material required to complete such a project that is the reason we haven't yet seen a F-16 in DCS World as yet? Plus there maybe capabilities needed in the F-16 that ED hasn't developed for DCS as yet and the devs are awaiting further developments in DCS World to allow a full fidelity version to be possible?

 

The licensing issue is in regards to intellectual rights management. ED nor any 3rd party cannot create a representation of a company's product and sell it. This has been the case with aircraft and cars to name a few in any game, regardless of the level of simulation. Meaning even if the thing only looks like the aircraft you need to have an agreement on the subject. And usually the price-tag goes up with added realism (i.e. the actual simulation). If you use someone else's creations in one of your own, you need to have an agreement/a license. A creation in this case is an aircraft, real or simulated.

 

And it is not about the visuals, the simulation or systems either. ED or the 3rd parties can't use trademarked names either without official agreement from the license holder. For example, ED couldn't call the F/A-18 module "Hornet" if they did not have an agreement in place with Boeing, since "Hornet" in the context is a trademarked name.

 

 

Plus, remeber for example that the A-10C is endorsed/approved by the USAF. Without their approval the aircraft would only be in the hands of the military, and would not have been ever released to the general public.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

Edited September 17, 2017 by MikeMikeJuliet

[Neon]

Been said more than I can count but I agree we need a f-16

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[P.Carrasco =Keep Flying=]

Let's say the true!

If some one do the plane...

We will all buy It (get my money):lol:

We need this plane here in DCS not in other app.

our next purchases, F-14, F-18, Av-8b

we are already agonized over waiting for these modules :thumbup:

[Maverick_NL]

It would be great to have an F16 in DCS.

[Shadow KT]

To be honest, I've had enough of people asking about a F-16..... I cannot understand why you want this single engine, mediocre (I am going to get so much flak for this) jet instead of an F/A-18 or anything similar. I am actually happy that we are not getting an F-16 and we are getting the Hornet. I don't see how it is any better

[Flappie]

What if people just want to fly her because she's being flown a lot? (4500 produced F-16 versus 1500 produced F/A-18 )

 

People do see them flying. People do want.

[Spudknocker]

I would say that an F-16 is probably in the pipeline at some point, the intro graphic on the F/A-18 videos shows a MiG-29, F/A-18 and an F-16.

 

The F/A-18 has carrier capability and this adds a lot of varied gameplay not just land basing which the F-16 would be. I think this would give players more of a challenge and a way to extend peoples playtime with the module. I believe this is the rational that Wags laid out in the intro video.

 

At a very very basic level the F-16 and F/A-18 in terms of systems aren't that different just look at the cockpits side by side (seat angle and sidemount sick non-withstanding). Because of the similarities in systems and what would have to be programmed into DCS I believe a F-16 could be developed relatively quickly after the Hornet lays the ground work.

 

So in ED's mind I think they probably sat down and said, lets build a hornet first because of the more varied gameplay carrier capability brings to the table, and with all the ground work laid in terms of systems (like A2G radar) then we can build an F-16.

 

Anyway my 2 Cents.

[Evoman]

To be honest, I've had enough of people asking about a F-16..... I cannot understand why you want this single engine, mediocre (I am going to get so much flak for this) jet instead of an F/A-18 or anything similar. I am actually happy that we are not getting an F-16 and we are getting the Hornet. I don't see how it is any better

 

I understand your perspective. But you have understand there are unfortunately a lot of people that base their preference on a jet first on looks then performance then mission it was actually designed for. I for one am quite content with my Viggen and will be even more with the F-14 and F/A -18 for a long time. However I would actually like to see the F-16 sometime in the near future for the sole purpose of getting more people interested in a full fidelity modules and away from those easy FC3 modules.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Evoman

[Shadow KT]

What if people just want to fly her because she's being flown a lot? (4500 produced F-16 versus 1500 produced F/A-18 )

 

People do see them flying. People do want.

 

Hey, I was just saying I am not seeing a logical/performance wise reason to want it so badly. But if people want it so much, I am fine with it. Nobody can stop you from liking what you like and hoping for ED to create it. :thumbup:

 

There's just been so many threads about it xD

 

 

It is just a joke :lol:

 

 

+1 for Evoman and Spudknocker

Edited October 4, 2017 by Shadow KT

[Fox One]

I cannot understand why you want this single engine, mediocre (I am going to get so much flak for this) jet

 

Just out of curiosity, what is mediocre about it in your opinion? A few examples please.

[Boberro]

F-18 is not so cool like F-16 is. It is legendary plane which should have place in this game.

F-18 is not so popular, neither so fun :P

[mvsgas]

PW engine stall/stagnations

 

[mvsgas]

. I cannot understand why you want this single engine, mediocre (I am going to get so much flak for this) jet instead of an F/A-18 or anything similar.

 

I can see why you feel threaten by the F-16, Romania, Greece and Turkey have them, so your feel surrounded by F-16, I get it.

[Shadow KT]

Just out of curiosity, what is mediocre about it in your opinion? A few examples please.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I doesn't excel in anything compared to an F/A-18. I'd even go as far as to say that the Hornet is more capable than the F-16, just by the fact that it can do carrier operations. F-16 is not a better fighter than an F-15C, it definitely not a better CAS jet than an A-10C, or a ground attacker/multirole than an F/A-18C, which has more operational options.

 

Just my 2 cents on it.

 

F-18 is not so popular, neither so fun :P

 

Pretty sure the Blue Angels are the most recognisable air-show team and they fly it.

 

If by "fun" you mean maneuverable and agile, from what I've read they are pretty evenly matched, tho the F-16 has one less engine to spare ;)

 

I can see why you feel threaten by the F-16, Romania, Greece and Turkey have them, so your feel surrounded by F-16, I get it.

 

Hah, did you have to do a comprehensive google research for this ?

 

Cheers guys. Maybe one day you will get the Viper/Falcon or how ever you call it :thumbup:

Edited October 5, 2017 by Shadow KT

[Neon]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I doesn't excel in anything compared to an F/A-18. I'd even go as far as to say that the Hornet is more capable than the F-16, just by the fact that it can do carrier operations. F-16 is not a better fighter than an F-15C, it definitely not a better CAS jet than an A-10C, or a ground attacker/multirole than an F/A-18C, which has more operational options.

 

Just my 2 cents on it.

 

 

 

Pretty sure the Blue Angels are the most recognisable air-show team and they fly it.

 

If by "fun" you mean maneuverable and agile, from what I've read they are pretty evenly matched, tho the F-16 has one less engine to spare ;)

 

 

 

Hah, did you have to do a comprehensive google research for this ?

 

Cheers guys. Maybe one day you will get the Viper/Falcon or how ever you call it :thumbup:

 

 

 

It’s Viper

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jazz_44]

I would say that an F-16 is probably in the pipeline at some point, the intro graphic on the F/A-18 videos shows a MiG-29, F/A-18 and an F-16.

 

The F/A-18 has carrier capability and this adds a lot of varied gameplay not just land basing which the F-16 would be. I think this would give players more of a challenge and a way to extend peoples playtime with the module. I believe this is the rational that Wags laid out in the intro video.

 

At a very very basic level the F-16 and F/A-18 in terms of systems aren't that different just look at the cockpits side by side (seat angle and sidemount sick non-withstanding). Because of the similarities in systems and what would have to be programmed into DCS I believe a F-16 could be developed relatively quickly after the Hornet lays the ground work.

 

So in ED's mind I think they probably sat down and said, lets build a hornet first because of the more varied gameplay carrier capability brings to the table, and with all the ground work laid in terms of systems (like A2G radar) then we can build an F-16.

 

Anyway my 2 Cents.

 

I tend to agree. Once the F-18C is out with all of its features, it would certainly allow for an F16C development (avionics wise). ED can also develop the F16A which would be much simpler. I think we will see the Fighting Falcon in DCS at some point.

[some1]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I doesn't excel in anything compared to an F/A-18. I'd even go as far as to say that the Hornet is more capable than the F-16, just by the fact that it can do carrier operations. F-16 is not a better fighter than an F-15C, it definitely not a better CAS jet than an A-10C, or a ground attacker/multirole than an F/A-18C, which has more operational options.

 

Not really. F-16 is a better dogfighter. It has superior visibility from the cockpit, better turn rate (9g vs 7,5 in the Hornet) and better power-to-weight ratio. Hornet has higher manoeuvrability at low speeds and can fly higher AoA, but it bleeds energy fast.

 

For BVR, it's mostly the radar. Hornets have better radars than average USAF F-16 block, but the modern F-16 blocks sold to other countries have equal or better radars than F/A-18C.

 

For ground attack both platforms are about equal. F-16 has better fuel economy, those two engines in the F/A-18 can use all the fuel really fast.

 

While the F/A-18 can land on a carrier, it can't land on a regular airport in bad visibility because it lacks ILS. At least the US Hornets can't.

 

I've linked some time ago a good comparison of the two airframes by a pilot who flew both, worth reading.

https://fightersweep.com/1494/hornet-vs-viper-part-one/

https://fightersweep.com/1539/hornet-vs-viper-part-two/

https://fightersweep.com/1904/hornet-vs-viper-part-three/

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

[drutku]

it's hard for me to understand why dcs lacks f16. It's the most successful military jet aircraft of modern era.

[mvsgas]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I doesn't excel in anything compared to an F/A-18.

 

Not really. F-16 is a better dogfighter. It has superior visibility from the cockpit, better turn rate (9g vs 7,5 in the Hornet) and better power-to-weight ratio. Hornet has higher manoeuvrability at low speeds and can fly higher AoA, but it bleeds energy fast.

 

For BVR, it's mostly the radar. Hornets have better radars than average USAF F-16 block, but the modern F-16 blocks sold to other countries have equal or better radars than F/A-18C.

 

For ground attack both platforms are about equal. F-16 has better fuel economy, those two engines in the F/A-18 can use all the fuel really fast.

 

While the F/A-18 can land on a carrier, it can't land on a regular airport in bad visibility because it lacks ILS. At least the US Hornets can't.

 

I've linked some time ago a good comparison of the two airframes by a pilot who flew both, worth reading.

https://fightersweep.com/1494/hornet-vs-viper-part-one/

https://fightersweep.com/1539/hornet-vs-viper-part-two/

https://fightersweep.com/1904/hornet-vs-viper-part-three/

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

 

SHaDoW STeP BG, to add to what Some1 posted. Some F-16 had specialize versions (specifically talking about USAF/ANG units. Other countries have many specialize versions themselves)

- For Example, Block 40/42 where originally specialize for low altitude terrain following flight at night or in bad weather and with precision bombing with the AAQ-13/14. Did the USN F/A-18C/D had any terrain following? Honestly asking, I do not know. I know USMC had F/A-18D with this mission but it require two personnel and do not know if it had TFR.

- Also Block 50/52 had original mission of SEAD/DEAD. Block 30/32 could carry and utilize AGM-88 but block 50/52 with HTS pods could more precisely direct the weapon, track targets and save location/ positions. Additionally, with the CCIP upgrade, now Block 40/42/50/52 have the equal SEAD/DEAD capabilities. Same question, any USN F/A-18C/D dedicated SEAD/DEAD versions?

 

At any rate, I'm not trying to change your mind nor arguing your point, simply stating mine.