Would you fly Civilian/military cargo plane in DCS? Adapting the C-130...

[nessuno0505]

Maybe a c-130 can be difficult due to the 4 engines, but surely I would fly an awacs, cargo or tanker in DCS, and there are models with just 2 engines to choose.

 

 

 

[Svsmokey]

I'd go for an AN-2 myself . The larger aircraft require multi-crew , which is still problematic in DCS , if the Huey and Albatross (both out for years) are any indication .

[Evoman]

The good thing about the E-2 Hawkeye is that it shares the same engines and wings as the C-2 grayhound. So even if the C-2 were to come first because it is less complex it would help further along the development of the E-3 because most of the engine and wing data can be reused.

 

 

 

[ebabil]

How about prop effects ? Torque , P factor , angle of attack effects , rotating slipstream effects at different attitudes , pitch vs rpm , airframe stability at different rpms due to more or less centrifugal forces , asymetric engine out effects with engines mounted further outboard than a twin-engine fighter , and so on ad-darn-near infinitum .

 

To say nothing of modeling 4 engines and their respective systems .

 

This is a simulation man, you gotta do something, you can't just make a 3d model and release. Of course you need to do make some real stuff. This can't be comparable to making a ground radar which we still don't have after a year. Think about weapon sub systems, radar modes, weapon behaviors, flight models, fly by wire, spins, aoa

[portman]

I'd go for an AN-2 myself.

Yep! :thumbup:

[jojyrocks]

You are correct that a typical fighter module could take usually take 2-3 years to develop with their advanced radar targeting systems and various weapons systems. So then a plain C-130 without those added complexities should be simpler to develop in theory taking less time than usual. Let that sink in for a bit. :smilewink:

 

 

 

 

What about the crew numbers and modeling that or on how many of those crew/seats to make playable or not?

[jojyrocks]

It depends mate, in what do you base your answer? I knew a lot of people that would instantly buy a C-130, people that are even strange to DCS World. But they would even turn to DCS if they have that... so I guess it depends on the public.

 

There are a lot of people that don't like fighters and would rather do some other type of flight.

 

 

DCS - Digital COMBAT simulator. Only 2 or 3 planes are not combat oriented, but they are simple and short range models.

 

 

 

The maps aren't even big enough...

 

 

Oh, dont like fighters?...I think X Plane 11 and upcoming MS 2020 is right up their ally. If they like to just do sight seeing and fly around. I wonder why are they in DCS if they dont like fighters...sounds like its just a very few. Majority still loves fighters (at least the DCS folks), period. Rest of those who dont like are doing their rounds at X plane 11 and waiting for MSFS 2020.:noexpression:

[jojyrocks]

You are correct that a typical fighter module could take usually take 2-3 years to develop with their advanced radar targeting systems and various weapons systems. So then a plain C-130 without those added complexities should be simpler to develop in theory taking less time than usual. Let that sink in for a bit. :smilewink:

 

 

 

 

Also, if it were that easy as you say...why hasn't any of the devs not made one until now, hmm? Let that sink in for a bit.:smilewink:

 

 

 

The majority crowd here is for combat planes...

[Evoman]

Also, if it were that easy as you say...why hasn't any of the devs not made one until now, hmm? Let that sink in for a bit.:smilewink:

 

 

 

The majority crowd here is for combat planes...

 

 

You still will never know 100% how the public will react to something new even if your an expert. My personal view is that a non-combat support military aircraft would be a hot seller because it would appeal to the current DCS player base just because it so different from everything else currently available. Plus I bet it would generate a big interest from other sims pilots further increasing the usual sales numbers.

 

 

 

Here are some examples of unlikely sales success among other industries.

 

RC Airliner: Last year an RC airplane company that mostly produced Warbirds and Fighter jets just like all the other RC companies (because it was a safe investment and guaranteed to sell well) took a chance and made a Boeing 737 look alike model. That model is now one of the companies top sellers. Here is the forum so you can see for your self the reaction it got and why it continues to be so popular.

 

https://www.hobbysquawk.com/forum/rc-airplanes/rc-civil-commercial-jets/215182-official-freewing-twin-70mm-al37-airliner-thread

 

 

The fast and the Furious. When the original low budget movie was about to be released movie critics tore it apart and said it was so bad and that it would flop at the box office. I don't need to explain how wrong the critics were because they did not foresee or comprehend how this movie would appeal to so many others.

 

 

The Subaru Outback. According to American tastes and sales statistics wagons are not popular in the United States. However the Outback defies those odds by being the only wagon that sells well in America.

 

 

 

So the moral of the story is you just never know.:smilewink:

Edited April 8, 2020 by Evoman

[jojyrocks]

You still will never know 100% how the public will react to something new even if your an expert. My personal view is that a non-combat support military aircraft would be a hot seller because it would appeal to the current DCS player base just because it so different from everything else currently available. Plus I bet it would generate a big interest from other sims pilots further increasing the usual sales numbers.

 

 

 

Here are some examples of unlikely sales success among other industries.

 

RC Airliner: Last year an RC airplane company that mostly produced Warbirds and Fighter jets just like all the other RC companies (because it was a safe investment and guaranteed to sell well) took a chance and made a Boeing 737 look alike model. That model is now one of the companies top sellers. Here is the forum so you can see for your self the reaction it got and why it continues to be so popular.

 

https://www.hobbysquawk.com/forum/rc-airplanes/rc-civil-commercial-jets/215182-official-freewing-twin-70mm-al37-airliner-thread

 

 

The fast and the Furious. When the original low budget movie was about to be released movie critics tore it apart and said it was so bad and that it would flop at the box office. I don't need to explain how wrong the critics were because they did not foresee or comprehend how this movie would appeal to so many others.

 

 

The Subaru Outback. According to American tastes and sales statistics wagons are not popular in the United States. However the Outback defies those odds by being the only wagon that sells well in America.

 

 

 

So the moral of the story is you just never know.:smilewink:

 

 

 

 

Well then...

 

 

If it is profitable as you say, and easier to make than combat planes here as you say. Then WHY have the developers NOT made any plans or announcement on those? So far they have NOT shown any indications on those kinda planes....:noexpression:

 

 

DCS does not HAVE any large maps to make those planes enjoyable to fly...that is one factor out of many.

 

 

 

There is X Plane 11 and MSFS 2020 on the competition. They got large maps for these planes and hardly any combat planes or very few.

 

 

 

 

 

So far...no indications from any of the DCS developers.

[The_Pharoah]

sometimes I think the whole dev pipeline goes all over the place when developers focus on building stuff thats potentially 'easy' vs what the game really needs. Eg. the Christian Eagle. Diff schools of thought obviously however I think they (including ED) forget that this game is called Digital COMBAT SIMULATIONS ie. combat. The Christian Eagle belongs in FSX or FS2020 not DCS IMHO. I wish they would focus on things that enhance gameplay especially:

1. aircraft/maps/assets for specific battles or wars so that you have things that actually went up against each other (like WW2)

2. more maps

3. more focus on logistics (life blood of any army) eg. supply trucks, shipping, cargo, etc

4. support aircraft like the E2

[LucaATC]

100%. Would love C-2 and E-2, considering they already have the exterior model. It would be the last piece in the puzzle for all these Carrier Air Wings.

[Sonoda Umi]

100%. Would love C-2 and E-2, considering they already have the exterior model. It would be the last piece in the puzzle for all these Carrier Air Wings.

 

Don't forget EA-6B

[KIKE92]

What about this bad boy, now that we're getting submarines that actually submerge i think this could be interesting, or the gunship variant

 

 

 

[Pyker]

If there was a big plane (C130) that can do it all (cargo, dropping paratroopers, refuelling, with the station for the guy who handles'the boom or whatever it's called), I'd pay up to 50 bucks for it. Not more.

Could be fun, flying between mountains, landing at night, being chased and shot at and making it back to base on one engine...

Surface to air recovery would also be fun.

 

But after the other modules are finished and the AI and the ATC are improved, not before.

 

Edit: I wouldn't need it to be super-high-fidelity(no ramp start or fully clickable cockpit needed)

Edited June 4, 2020 by Pyker
Addition

[jojyrocks]

Keeping in mind that its already take VERY long to create single fighter module with two seat and playable at that is already taking almost 2-3 years to finish.

 

 

 

I wonder...how they are even going to pull this off...IF they are EVER going to do thing like C-130? They got 4 engine to model and several seat functions and some are asking gunship platform of the C-130 variants, yes and its own specific positions to man. A basic C-130 got 5 crew members and AC-130/Gunships got like 13. So how many seats would they opt for making it function? Some are finding it difficult to make it like Heatblur format F-14 jester AI seater. So that is hell lot of work to commit for.

 

 

 

The only feasible seems just one of those C-2 greyhound. Also its just a transport carrier. The only interesting part is the carrier landing part and thats just it.

 

 

Would ED ever model the E-2 Hawkeye and its complicated radar? Its got a crew of 5...

[Pyker]

Well, a somewhat simplified flight model would be enough for me, for starters. It should be able to model stalls but I wouldn't need spins, right ? It's not like wére going to dogfight or do aerobatics.

Engine management, well, if that was my thing I'd be playing xplane or IL2.

One station for the pilot would be enough to start with. And a Jester-like AI for the rest. More stations later if sales are good.

So maybe one should ask: how many would buy a C130 module that's not much more complex than an FC3 module?

 

If it comes with a dozen well designed missions, I would.

[jojyrocks]

Well, a somewhat simplified flight model would be enough for me, for starters. It should be able to model stalls but I wouldn't need spins, right ? It's not like wére going to dogfight or do aerobatics.

Engine management, well, if that was my thing I'd be playing xplane or IL2.

One station for the pilot would be enough to start with. And a Jester-like AI for the rest. More stations later if sales are good.

So maybe one should ask: how many would buy a C130 module that's not much more complex than an FC3 module?

 

If it comes with a dozen well designed missions, I would.

 

 

 

 

FC3 planes aren't complex nor clickable...its mostly simplified stuff. C-130 along with clickety cockpit and more seats with Jester like AI would be tough to program. I mean, heatblur is the only separate company to use this feature.

 

 

 

I think most are expecting clickable Civilian/Military cargo planes. Not simplified FC3 stuff.

[CAmastersgt]

I've flown in the cockpit of a C-130, takeoff and landing. It's awesome fun. I'd buy it over any current module I don't own. Just the fun of it. AC-130 version would be nice too.

[Pyker]

I've flown in the cockpit of a C-130, takeoff and landing. It's awesome fun. I'd buy it over any current module I don't own. Just the fun of it. AC-130 version would be nice too.

 

What's the minimum level of detail that you would require to buy it ? Fully clickable cockpit or simplified ? More than one station?

[Evoman]

What's the minimum level of detail that you would require to buy it ? Fully clickable cockpit or simplified ? More than one station?

 

 

With ED stating that they will no long be developing simplified modules for DCS, I think fully clickable modules are the only way to go nowadays.

[Kang]

I believe an FC3 kind of transport wouldn't be a whole lot of fun anyway. I mean, with all systems simplified and semi-automatic, you'd end up with very little to do. A decent level of fidelity would leave you with engine management, proper navigation and a few test switches to play with. Of course both would kind of depend on having an improved way of handling internal cargos as a whole.

[Montes]

An e2 could be done even simulating the radar as they do now, only working if the plane is in the indicated place. We must also think that the flight model in DCS is superior to that of other simulators.

[Evoman]

An e2 could be done even simulating the radar as they do now, only working if the plane is in the indicated place. We must also think that the flight model in DCS is superior to that of other simulators.

I totally agree that an E-2B Hawkeye with a simulated radar but with a full fidelity flight model would still be very popular until they can get an accurate radar done. But I rather they do the C-2 Grayhound first because it could be fully simulated and open the door to cargo transport missions in DCS. And since the C-2 shares the same engines and wings with the E-2 a good amount of the work will already be done when they go to start development on the E-2.

 

 

[The_Pharoah]

OP Question: Would you fly Civilian/military cargo plane in DCS?

My response: HELL.YES.

 

:)