We need some big iron here!

[msalama]

C'mon ED, do one of these pretty please:

 

https://streamable.com/gea3p

 

And give us a gunship version (do they exist?) or at least a troop transport & the anti-civvie whiners will stay quiet too :D

 

I've got a POWERFUL urge of flying some fat bottom iron for a change, but what say you? Yay or nay?

[Northstar98]

+1 Maybe not a huge priority but yes +1 though our maps are a little small for such an aircraft to be operated to it's full potential.

[msalama]

True, but you could still do stuff like low-level cargo and paradrops ;)

[Northstar98]

True, but you could still do stuff like low-level cargo and paradrops ;)

 

I suppose so, but this also requires more work to facilitate paradropping and then actual have the paratroopers behave like soldiers after they land. It would also be good if applicable ground vehicles could have a transport state (something like a checkbox "is cargo" for example then once landed the vehicle returns to a normal unit). It's just at the moment cargo doesn't really do anything.

 

Another missing piece of the puzzle is to actually have troops etc actually physically present inside the aircraft when being embarked. At the moment it's like the troops walk up to aircraft then despawn when disembarking they suddenly spawn near. It would be nice if it were possible to somehow get the soldiers to physically enter and sit-down inside. Same goes for paradropping vehicles and pallets.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Northstar98

[msalama]

True, adding an IL-76 would mean implementing extra functionality too if we were to actually use the plane for anything. But one can always dream...

[msalama]

Or how about this? Maybe the coolest turboprop heavy hauler in existence :D

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/An-22_is_landing_on_unpaved_runway.webm

[ex81]

++++1

I totally agree with you folks, but dream on. What we wish would be organizing a whole battle field.

I see pilots entering their jets, soldiers climing into their helis and last not least headlights for civil vehicles in the dark. I keep on dreaming .......

[Northstar98]

Again whilst I wouldn't say no to these aircraft (nothing wrong with a bit of variety) and as much I'd like to see tactical airlifters (the CaptainSim C-130 on FSX was my first payware aircraft addon that I loved).

 

But I feel that at the moment DCS is lacking in features these aircraft deserve to make them truly worthwhile. Not only is this the more logistical aspect, as discussed above with y'know the cargoes that do something (I always liked the idea of 'unpackable' cargoes that can be folded up and transported then assembled in mission (key obvious candidates are tents and HESCO walls but nothing stopping other field facilities from being constructed - though this would require even more work with engineering vehicles) the other thing as discussed above is again, actually seeing what I'm transporting in the back (such as embarked soldiers, pallets, vehicles etc).

 

The other problem is that the IL-76 and the An-22 are primarily strategic airlifters - longer range, heavy lift aircraft designed to provide airlift over large distances - from home airbases to the theatre of operations - at the moment our maps pretty much just constitute the theatre which is more appealing to tactical airlifters - designed to be within a theatre - things like the infamous C-130 but also the C-160 and the C-27 (there are others out there). For Russian aircraft the main one I can think of is the An-26. If someday maps get larger, certainly intercontinental then maybe we could then step up to strategic. But at the moment I feel like were trying to build a house without any foundations.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Northstar98

[msalama]

Yeah, it's complicated, because the maps are too small and the sim lacking functionality for their effective deployment. And developing DCS-level multiengine transports is expensive and time-consuming anyway, meaning you can't sell them for $49.99 if you want to make a profit, meaning they'd be expensive to purchase, meaning most folks wouldn't, meaning no-one will make them. Damn... :cry:

[Northstar98]

Yeah, it's complicated, because the maps are too small and the sim lacking functionality for their effective deployment. And developing DCS-level multiengine transports is expensive and time-consuming anyway, meaning you can't sell them for $49.99 if you want to make a profit, meaning they'd be expensive to purchase, meaning most folks wouldn't, meaning no-one will make them. Damn... :cry:

 

Well actually the transport aircraft shouldn't have classified systems on them, or at least certainly less classified systems than direct combat aircraft. Now that's not to say they won't have complicated systems but it should be easier accessing SMEs and documentation on tactical airlifters currently in service as opposed to fighter aircraft currently in service.

 

Adding the logistical element to make such aircraft more worthwhile though and making maps suitable for airlifters is the tricky bit, unfortunately it's low priority because most people see DCS as an overglorified Strike Fighters 2, even though it's the best consumer flight simulator out there as far as I'm concerned. And if you try to bring non-direct combat assets forward as a request or even much larger maps spanning serveral countries/intercontinental and in my experience it get's a bit well, how do I put it aside from "CRY HAVOC! AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR!" around here :lol:

[exray]

Strong nay - this just isn't the right platform for these types of aircraft.

[Northstar98]

Strong nay - this just isn't the right platform for these types of aircraft.

 

With DCS in it's current state agreed. But in the future I personally wouldn't shut the door, but a lot of things I feel would come first as they are higher priority.