Non Combat Aircraft

[Northstar98]

Well, you're right indeed when you say I probably wouldn't mind so much if that would be the case. I would indeed not mind so much then. But I would still mind, just to a lesser degree because I have to reasons why I'm strictly against civil aircraft:

 

1. Putting resources into the development of civil aircraft would mean less resources that could be used for the development of military aircraft.
   
2. The title, which definitely says Digital Combat Simulator. I still don't understand why there should be civil aircraft. That would make DCS a totally different product, because it's not just some flight simulator, it is a milsim - a military simulator. That also means that it is not even restricted to aircraft, but it could also include other modules like vehicles or ships as long as they are military in nature.
   

If there would be more than enough ressources (which is not the case yet) then the first reason would no longer be valid, but the second one would still hold true.

 

That's fair enough, I meant that in a hypothetical future where we have hundreds of military aircraft including variants and upgrades. The thing is DCS yes, it's Digital Combat Simulator, but the thing is, DCS is the best one out there - I'm comparing it to FSX, P-3D and X-Plane. Out of all of them DCS has the best mix of realism, graphics, features, immersion, support and realism. FSX is no longer supported by Microsoft and is stuck. P3D is essentially a modified FSX, it's still shackled to it's outdated flight model and all things that make FSX a less than ideal simulator. Sure P3D is far ahead of FSX, it's the only thing keeping it alive but it is still a modified FSX, it's also not designed for the consumer market. X-Plane still is in development (like DCS) but at the moment is still inferior in graphics and flight systems modelling.

 

The truth is DCS has the potential to do absolutely everything, and I mean absolutely everything. That's why I think aircraft should be unrestricted. If you look at the difference between DCS as a military simulator and any other flight simulator is DCS A: simulates flight far better and B: In DCS you can do combat. DCS shouldn't be just an over glorified Strike Fighters 2 - it is so much more than that. That's my argument. Having civil aircraft doesn't change DCS as a combat simulator, because you can already fly non-combat aircraft and still have pleasant gameplay experience without combat. DCS doesn't force you to do anything, you are free and open to do what you please - because it's a more-or-less open world sandbox simulator. We haven't got the 'world' part yet and I might argue that DCS World should include the 'world' but as much as I'd like it we do not need to discuss that again, at least not now. That's what DCS really is - a sandbox. You can play DCS for years on end without doing any combat whatsoever and still have an enjoyable experience - of course it's not for everyone, but you have the potential to do that.

 

Adding civilian aircraft doesn't take the combat nature away from DCS - it's still there, it's only going to expand with more aircraft. Sure, at the moment DCS isn't for huge airliners because we don't have intercontinental map sizes. We also don't have the thriving addon development yet. I mean when you compare this: https://www.fspilotshop.com/ to this: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/ the difference is substantial. On one end if you want to fly something particular you probably can find it. If you want a detailed area to fly over chances are you probably can, so for FSX/P3D users it doesn't matter what get's developed.

 

From my own standpoint I live in the UK, I'm used to seeing UK aircraft. I'm interested chiefly in the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm, both historically and at present. At the moment in DCS we have one of the aircraft operated by the UK - the BAe Hawk, which still is in development. VEAOs Hawk beats the FSX Hawk hands down.

 

Personally I'm not interested in flying people from place to place, I'm much more interested in a C-130 or [insert military transport aircraft here] however, for the sake of variety I wouldn't mind seeing something like a stunt plane, which often feature at military airshows or a light aircraft (they have after all been used in operations with narcotics). This doesn't mean that I wouldn't want one day to fly something like a 727 or even Concorde or something like that (obviously we're limited in maps, ideally I'd prefer to have a baseline world and then have addon maps that improve certain areas - exactly the same system in FSX, in that sense the maps we have now would be those addon maps that improve particular areas - though and I can't stress this enough we do not need that discussion again). Adding variety though ultimately means there's more potential for people to jump ship (like I have) to DCS because it has more potential than P3D or FSX and modules can be made with more features implemented, to better standard, more real to life. Sure at the moment DCS has nothing like the scale of P3D, but that doesn't mean it will always be like that.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Northstar98

[FragBum]

I have no doubt that such aircraft would be fun to some (many?) players, but a combat simulator is just not the right place for that.

 

Although, then there are players like me, in 2.x I have clocked up a few hounded hours flying and a few thousand landings in Huey and Gazelle and now dabbling with KA-50 & WWII aircraft in NTTR and Normandy and even thinking of a Cobra and waiting for Mi-24 and maybe the F-4E, even the BO 105 and I haven't fired a single shot.

 

< Oh and 138 crashes, syht happens. :P >

 

It's not that I don't plan to I just enjoy the SIM flying. :thumbup:

Edited July 28, 2017 by FragBum
<edit>

[David OC]

It still needs to make sense to build something for DCS World.

 

The Bede BD-5 would be a good marketing ploy and would be real good fun in this sim and not much to it either, coding wise. Yo-Yo could knock out the FM while having lunch.:)

 

Having Civi aircraft would not take up resources if a new Developer wanted to do one, look how fast RAZBAM is up to speed in DCS because of there previous experience and collected knowledge in other sims.

 

Now if PMDG was to approach ED, no one would complain, the market here tho would dictate what they build. I know I would buy the KC 135 off them for DCS, it wouldn't be to hard for them to do either, as it is in line with there other aircraft and contacts with Boeing. This would make it easy on their skill set too, as they don't need to learn how to code weapons and weapon systems.

 

Think I would buy an A2A Cessna O-2 Skymaster that was used in the Vietnam War. Again it would suit and speed up this type of developer, not modeling weapon systems in DCS straight off the bat. They could start with the Cessna 172, it was used as a trainer in the air force in 1964.

 

I don't think you would see a developer here that has built military aircraft, going out of their way here to build non mil aircraft.

 

The one that makes real sense to do first:

C-130 Hercules

AC-130 gunship

 

.

Edited July 28, 2017 by David OC

[QuiGon]

That's fair enough, I meant that in a hypothetical future where we have hundreds of military aircraft including variants and upgrades. The thing is DCS yes, it's Digital Combat Simulator, but the thing is, DCS is the best one out there - I'm comparing it to FSX, P-3D and X-Plane. Out of all of them DCS has the best mix of realism, graphics, features, immersion, support and realism. FSX is no longer supported by Microsoft and is stuck. P3D is essentially a modified FSX, it's still shackled to it's outdated flight model and all things that make FSX a less than ideal simulator. Sure P3D is far ahead of FSX, it's the only thing keeping it alive but it is still a modified FSX, it's also not designed for the consumer market. X-Plane still is in development (like DCS) but at the moment is still inferior in graphics and flight systems modelling.

Yeah, it's kinda cool that a milsim is also the best flight sim out there, which is why I can totally understand your desire to have all kind of aircraft in this sim and not just military aircraft. The thing is, althougn I can understand that desire, I just don't share it. ;)

 

DCS shouldn't be just an over glorified Strike Fighters 2 - it is so much more than that. That's my argument. Having civil aircraft doesn't change DCS as a combat simulator, because you can already fly non-combat aircraft and still have pleasant gameplay experience without combat.

Here I really disagree, because I'm already annoyed by all this aerobatic stuff in DCS. I'm not a fan of all the trainer aircraft (to put it mildly) and it would only get much worse if there would be all kind of civil aircraft. I don't see DCS as the total sandbox game that you see. For me it's clearly a military simulation and should be restricted to that.

 

Personally I'm not interested in flying people from place to place, I'd rather have something like a C-130 or a C-17 or [insert military transport aircraft here] however, for the sake of variety I wouldn't mind seeing something like a stunt plane, or a light aircraft (they have after all been used in operations with narcotics). It also brings an element of friendly fire into the equation. Adding variety though means people are more likely to jump ship (like I have) to DCS because it has more potential than P3D or FSX modules can be made with more features implemented, to better standard, more real to life. Sure at the moment DCS has nothing like the scale of P3D, but that doesn't mean it will always be like that.

That would be way too much variaty for me. I'm a milsimmer at heart, which is why I love DCS and its community and I would rather see it to be expanded by land and sea combat instead of civil aviation. I would rather have a small community focused on that aspect than a community that is divided into all kinds of aspects which IMHO would also harm the development of the game in the long term, because of different philosophies.

Edited July 28, 2017 by QuiGon

[Gierasimov]

This thread is so entertaining guys and gals !

Reading your arguments puts a smile to my face, as for one, there are non-combat assets in DCS already. Secondly, imagine another 3rd party joining with PFM/AFM civil jet - it would be up to them to sell it and numbers would speak for themselves if it was worth the effort.

We know what is in the pipeline already, and third - most important for me - there is so much more to complete / finish off before moving ahead...

DCS 2.5 is not even out yet, almost all other modules are either WIP, alpha or beta and yet most of us are arguing about usability of civil a/c. Like there were none in the real life right?

[hannibal]

whats wrong with the P-51 that comes free? ;)

[Northstar98]

Yeah, it's kinda cool that a milsim is also the best flight sim out there, which is why I can totally understand your desire to have all kind of aircraft in this sim and not just military aircraft. The thing is, althougn I can understand that desire, I just don't share it. ;)

 

That's completely fine QuiGon, you don't have to share my opinion, personally I don't think that that we absolutely should be forced to have variety, it's more a question opening up doors so that there's better potential for variety, even if that includes civil aircraft.

 

I think at the moment sure we have a fair number of aircraft but thing about it this way. At the moment (not including works in progress) we have 3 dedicated CAS aircraft, 2 of those are variants of the same aircraft and 1 of them still uses a model from LOMAC (it is however free of charge). We have 2 general purpose helicopters (UH-1H and Mil Mi-8MTV2). We have 5 attack helicopters (Ka-50, SA-432M/L/), we have 4 jet trainers, 2 of them versions of one aircraft and the other 2 still very much WIP. We have 4 CAS aircraft, 1 of them fully modelled, 2 of them variants and the other 2 variants as well (A-10A/C and Su-25/T). We have 10 fighter aircraft, 3 of them closely related variants (MiG-29A/S/G), 6 of them FC3 (Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29A/S/G, F-15C) 2 of them 50-60s aircraft (F-86 and MiG-15Bis), 1 of them a lightweight fighter (F-5E) and another a more general fighter-interceptor (MiG-21Bis). We have one dedicated strike aircraft with a larger focus on anti-ship (AJS-37 Viggen)

 

Here I really disagree, because I'm already annoyed by all this aerobatic stuff in DCS. I'm not a fan of all the trainer aircraft (to put it mildly) and it would only get much worse if there would be all kind of civil aircraft. I don't see DCS as the total sandbox game that you see. For me it's clearly a military simulation and should be restricted to that.

 

That's your opinion and I respect it. DCS is however marketed as a sandbox simulator on the products page. Yes I know, it doesn't mention non-combat aircraft or civil aircraft but it also doesn't say they can't exist either.

 

Let's pause for a moment, and I know I've asked a similar sort of question before, I apologise but let's say, hypothetically that you got all the aircraft you personally want in DCS as a strictly military simmer, however large that list might be, hypothetically speaking. Would it bother you as much that you saw development into non-combat aircraft? but lets pretend you got all the aircraft you personally want. Would you mind so much if after you got all that, that say 3rd parties started developing more non-combat aircraft?

 

That would be way too much variaty for me. I'm a milsimmer at heart, which is why I love DCS and its community and I would rather see it to be expanded by land and sea combat instead of civil aviation. I would rather have a small community focused on that aspect than a community that is divided into all kinds of aspects which IMHO would also harm the development of the game in the long term, because of different philosophies.

 

If you think about it though this is down to priorities and resource limitations. I of course would put any military aircraft, ship or ground vehicle above a civilian one. Simply because that's higher priority I think resources should be more focused towards those things. I mean personally my list for combat improvements, as well as general improvements I could talk about for absolutely ages before even talking about 'adding more' the principle thing I like in DCS is that it's quality over quantity, in DCS I feel like there isn't much more I could do without doing it for real to improve the experience. FSX on the other hand is quantity over quality. There are super good third parties who make quality aircraft (though still inferior to DCS as before) and there are some that make tonnes of really rather rubbish stuff that you'd expect from a freeware addons site. In any sense FSX/P3D are always going to be inferior because of this, and because they are not as true to life as DCS is, neither of them have the same sort of potential is DCS could have in an ideal world. Plus in DCS the combat is actually close to very realistic something that all other mainstream flight simulators, apart from a very select few which also IMO inferior, because they don't have the best mix of realism, immersion, graphics, gameplay, potential and freedom that DCS has to offer. AFAIK FSX and P3D don't even have mission editors.

 

That's all I'm going to say though - I'm not trying to steal development away from combat aspects and implementing new technologies and features. That's where the priority is, that's where resources have to be focused on. What I am saying is that in the future, when DCS has a more comparable scale as FSX has then maybe we'll get to see variety and everyone can be happy. Of course I'm a bit too much of a dreamer though... I cry everytime :cry:

Edited July 28, 2017 by Northstar98

[QuiGon]

Let's pause for a moment, and I know I've asked a similar sort of question before, I apologise but let's say, hypothetically that you got all the aircraft you personally want in DCS as a strictly military simmer, however large that list might be, hypothetically speaking. Would it bother you as much that you saw development into non-combat aircraft? but lets pretend you got all the aircraft you personally want. Would you mind so much if after you got all that, that say 3rd parties started developing more non-combat aircraft?

No, I probably wouldn't mind so much then as I do now, but I still would mind, because for me it's not just about ressources, it's also about the mindset of the community. How this game is beeing played in multiplayer and what is beeing discussed on the forums. I prefer that to keep military focused.

 

This thread is so entertaining guys and gals !

Gals? :huh:

Did I miss something? :D

Edited July 28, 2017 by QuiGon

[WinterH]

There are some gals in the community, though not sure if any of them post here much :). In context of this thread, there's none I guess :P.

[=Mac=]

Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 people on board died.

 

Real life military involvement in civilian aviation. Can DCS simulate THIS type of Fog Of War?

 

The Yakovlev Yak-40 (Russian: Яковлев Як-40; NATO reporting name: Codling) is a small, three-engined airliner. It is the world's first commuter trijet. The maiden flight was made in 1966, and it was in production from 1967 to 1981. Introduced in September 1968, the Yak-40 has been exported since 1970.

 

But in DCS, the Yak 40 is AI only.

 

Sometimes, civilian aircraft intrude into the military conflict environment. A military mission is occasionally necessary which can be quite tricky. (9/11 being case in point. What do you do? What are the ROE in such cases? With DCS Straits of Hormuz coming up, civilian operations including the human element are mandatory, I would think.)

[QuiGon]

Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 people on board died.

 

Real life military involvement in civilian aviation. Can DCS simulate THIS type of Fog Of War?

 

The Yakovlev Yak-40 (Russian: Яковлев Як-40; NATO reporting name: Codling) is a small, three-engined airliner. It is the world's first commuter trijet. The maiden flight was made in 1966, and it was in production from 1967 to 1981. Introduced in September 1968, the Yak-40 has been exported since 1970.

 

But in DCS, the Yak 40 is AI only.

 

Sometimes, civilian aircraft intrude into the military conflict environment. A military mission is occasionally necessary which can be quite tricky. (9/11 being case in point. What do you do? What are the ROE in such cases? With DCS Straits of Hormuz coming up, civilian operations including the human element are mandatory, I would think.)

Yeah, these kind of scenarios are the only ones where civilian aircraft would be interesting for me as well, but they are too small and few too justify the development of a high fidelity airliner for DCS. I would welcome some AI-only airliners though.

 

There are some gals in the community, though not sure if any of them post here much . In context of this thread, there's none I guess .

That's hard to believe :D

[SkateZilla]

The Environment is a Combat Environment,

 

That Doesn't mean Civilian Aircraft and Vehicles cannot be done.

[OfficerAMR]

I like the idea of a strategic airlifter, something along the lines of the AN-124,IL-76/C-17,C-5. I think they'd provide a new and interesting challenge.

May not be to everyone's taste. However the thought of airdropping supplies, vehicles and paratroopers sounds interesting to me.

 

As for pilotable commercial airliners, I really don't see the point, maps are too small even to really support a medium sized airliner, and I guess this is the reason why the only commercial aircraft we have is the YAK-40.

[Northstar98]

I like the idea of a strategic airlifter, something along the lines of the AN-124,IL-76/C-17,C-5. I think they'd provide a new and interesting challenge.

May not be to everyone's taste. However the thought of airdropping supplies, vehicles and paratroopers sounds interesting to me.

 

As for pilotable commercial airliners, I really don't see the point, maps are too small even to really support a medium sized airliner, and I guess this is the reason why the only commercial aircraft we have is the YAK-40.

 

Map size also restricts usage of mainstream strategic/tactical air-lifters, aside from maybe helicopters.

 

For paradropping/airdropping yes, but that requires new technologies to be developed.

 

I'd love to see strategic/tactical airlifters in the future, but maps will have to get larger before we the full potential of them realised.

[Sweep]

I'd love to see strategic/tactical airlifters in the future, but maps will have to get larger before we the full potential of them realised.

 

I've always thought that a few more low detail areas with some airfields (or maybe FARP-like spawnable airfields) would be good for that kinda thing.

 

Wonder what ED thinks...

[Baco]

well Argentina used a couple of Boeing 707 as long range recon planes, our navy has some Beahcrafts turbo twins, in the role now, and we certainly used the Fockers F 28 as long range recon also. Many good men died on those machines...no defenses no weapons, a couple even evaded a few missiles too.

Althow the mainstay was the C-130 defying the British blockade till the last day of the war.

Hercules where the first flight in and the last out. Also it can be turn into a "Spook" for Vietnam:

Puff the magic Dragon has a ring to it ;). It wpuld also prove interesting to go spoofing missiles in Afghanistan...

[Northstar98]

well Argentina used a couple of Boeing 707 as long range recon planes, our navy has some Beahcrafts turbo twins, in the role now, and we certainly used the Fockers F 28 as long range recon also. Many good men died on those machines...no defenses no weapons, a couple even evaded a few missiles too.

Althow the mainstay was the C-130 defying the British blockade till the last day of the war.

Hercules where the first flight in and the last out. Also it can be turn into a "Spook" for Vietnam:

Puff the magic Dragon has a ring to it ;). It wpuld also prove interesting to go spoofing missiles in Afghanistan...

 

Like I said, most military transport aircraft are just civillian aircraft painted a different colour, from the pilot's perspective it's exactly the same experience.

[Magic Zach]

Well, DCS actually already has a flyable reconnaissance aircraft...

 

low and behold, the TF-51D-20NA.

Actually, in all honesty, I would support (more) recon aircraft, although combat aircraft are still priority.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using Tapatalk

[VampireNZ]

In theory it might sound interesting, and maybe I am a bit biased basing my opinion on RL experience, but a non-combat aircraft such as strategic, even tactical, airlift would be as boring as batsh... in no time flat - trust me.

 

If you want the airlift experience just takeoff in ur jet, set the AP, slowly climb to 20k, level off and wait...for hours.

Want the low level tactical experience, takeoff in your jet, fly really slowly and only move the stick 1/2" in each direction...then if you want to really pump up the experience by including a para drop...as you fly over a waypoint, flick a switch on your instrument panel to illuminate the green drop light in the back.

 

P-3 antisubmarine warfare could be a bit more interesting, as flying 200KIAS 250' over the ocean at 60 deg AOB is fairly unique. But again pilots use autopilot 100% of the time even while doing ASW by setting baro or rad alt hold and just steer the aircraft where the TACCO tells them. They don't even control the aircraft speed, the FE does.

In any case that would still be a combat aircraft, so meh.

 

A littlebird recon chopper however - now we are talking! (Kinda Gazelle-like but the 500 rocks)

Edited August 4, 2017 by VampireNZ

[Northstar98]

In theory it might sound interesting, and maybe I am a bit biased basing my opinion on RL experience, but a non-combat aircraft such as strategic, even tactical, airlift would be as boring as batsh... in no time flat - trust me.

 

While true for you maybe, not for me - like I've said 80% of the time in DCS I'm not even using weapons I'm literally just flying - my main aircraft I fly now is the Viggen, which a fair bit (say 60% of the time maybe) I'm using the autopilot and I don't find myself bored in any way.

[Fri13]

There are needs and wishes about this. Like having a civilian aircrafts to other flight enthusiasts so they could fly commercial flights etc and then there would be a need for military flight enthusiast a means to do air patrols, air policing, interceptions, protections etc etc.

 

But let's be honest, you only need a few "cool guys" to ruin those gameplays by them going to hunt and shoot them down "for fun". So it would need to be private servers where you get access to get "to have fun" in different scenarios where everyone knows the "rules of engagements" etc.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Fri13

[WinterH]

Private servers are the only thing I care about anyway.

 

Sent from my ASUS_Z00ED using Tapatalk

[michelip]

While true for you maybe, not for me - like I've said 80% of the time in DCS I'm not even using weapons I'm literally just flying - my main aircraft I fly now is the Viggen, which a fair bit (say 60% of the time maybe) I'm using the autopilot and I don't find myself bored in any way.

ReconXPanzer's last post strikes a chord with me. I, too, often fly DCS aircraft in non-combat mode because I just like to improve my "virtual airmanship". I find just as much pleasure in a really good landing or accurate navigation, as in a kill.

I have been flying with civilian Flight sims for years, but in my view (with a few exceptions) the visual, technical and operational standards of their planes are not up to DCS standards . In all conflicts there are aircraft that do not carry ordnance, but which play vital roles in support (take the Ju 52 and Dakota in WW II, and the Hercules and refuelling and electronic surveillance planes in more recent times.) Towing military gliders, troop transport, refuelling & reconnaissance are all valid wartime tasks.

The above posts show that there will be no consensus, but if DCS were to post a brief well worded online survey they and the commercial modders would get a good indication of the most popular views.

Regards to all,

Mich.

Edited August 4, 2017 by michelip

[Northstar98]

But let's be honest, you only need a few "cool guys" to ruin those gameplays by them going to hunt and shoot them down "for fun". So it would need to be private servers where you get access to get "to have fun" in different scenarios where everyone knows the "rules of engagements" etc.

 

To be honest no scenario is free from idiocy, there's nothing stopping purposeful annoyance just because some moron seeks to ruin everybody's fun. There's nothing stopping someone on my team attacking me purposefully and ruining the fun.

 

Private servers are the only thing I care about anyway.

 

Same goes for me - >99% of the time I'm in SP the remaining <1% I'm on a server that I'm hosting, that I'm in control of, flying a mission that I've designed. There's normally only 2 or 3 of us, myself included flying free flight scenarios and just enjoying DCS for what it is, even though only 15% of the time we're employing weapons or actively performing combat operations. Because DCS doesn't restrict or force us into doing a set thing unlike other simulators out there, we have freedom which is why DCS appeals to me like no other.

 

ReconXPanzer's last post strikes a chord with me. I, too, often fly DCS aircraft in non-combat mode because I just like to improve my "virtual airmanship". I find just as much pleasure in a really good landing or accurate navigation, as in a kill.

 

I have been flying with civilian Flight sims for years, but in my view (with a few exceptions) the visual, technical and operational standards of their planes are not up to DCS standards.

 

Same, I am an ex-FSX player, I invested heavily in it. When I saw pictures of DCS I turned my nose up and disregarded it. I then actually downloaded it, saw what it was all about, I pretty much immediately jumped ship to DCS. DCS beats FSX hands down, it has a vastly superior FDM, as well as damage model and the ideal future potential is far superior. Sure DCS has it's flaws, it has areas that are inferior to FSX but not many. DCS, out of all flight simulators and combat simulators has the best mixture of immersion, systems modelling, graphics and realism, added onto that the combat aspect is realistic, you have a sandbox environment where you can do exactly as you please. No other simulator comes close to that, at least not on the consumer level. I truly believe that DCS is as close as it gets on my screen without doing it for real.

 

In all conflicts there are aircraft that do not carry ordnance, but which play vital roles in support (take the Ju 52 and Dakota in WW II, and the Hercules and refuelling and electronic surveillance planes in more recent times.) Towing military gliders, troop transport, refuelling reconnaissance are all valid wartime tasks.

 

Exactly, and the piloting experience of these aircraft will be near identical to any other civilian aircraft of similar performance, it's not for everyone but we have players who would benefit from piloting this aircraft.

 

The thing is adding civilian or non-combat aircraft doesn't take anything away from DCS, it only adds, I'm only interested in addition, not subtraction. Plus these aircraft are likely to not have as many classified systems. Data and SMEs should also be easy to source, meaning development time is quicker and easier (which is part of the reason why we have quite a few jet trainers).

 

You see DCS allows me to appreciate the aircraft for what they really are, it gives me a sense that I'm almost really doing it, at least as closely as possible to the real thing on consumer grade hardware. DCS is after all a sandbox simulator - as it should be.

 

Now I know that non-combat aircraft aren't high priority, as they probably should be. We have a limited selection of aircraft and excruciatingly long waiting times for new ones. Personally I'm more focused on seeing new technologies and features developed where feasible than adding new, even if it means for a reasonable fee for the amount of work. I mean I've got a whole dissertation of things on my wishlist long before I get to adding [insert aircraft here] or [insert map here]. I've thought about posting but then I thought no and never did, because I get the feeling that such a thing isn't welcome here and that what I propose will only invite grumbling. Oh well...

Edited August 3, 2017 by Northstar98

[MickeEinSweden]

Hello :) There have been several threads in the wishlist uring the Years for planes like Hercules and Dakota among orthers. We are not alone in enjoying succ aircrafts and wanting them too as modulens in DCS. But We are sadly not in majority, so it will not happen in the forseeable future I presume. Cheers