Way we not have any airliners?

[msalama]

Civvie airliners perhaps not, cargo planes absolutely YES. We need logistics and supply ops too.

[moonshot]

The map size is enough

 

Respectfully disagree on that. Maybe if you’re flying tanker or awacs and loitering for hours the current map sizes are ok. But definitely not for realistic heavy logistics or bomber missions. I personally feel the maps are a little claustrophobic even in modern fighters. You can easily fly PG edge to edge on internal fuel alone in the F-18. People always complain about the difficulty of AAR, but the funny thing is that if you’re flying halfway realistic missions in DCS you rarely ever need to hit a tanker.

The current maps are more than big enough for helicopter ops, perfect for low and slow CAS missions, serviceable for a somewhat restrictive set of fighter ops, but way too small for realistic work with large transports or airliners.

Edited March 11, 2019 by moonshot

[Tom Kazansky]

Flying airliners with sims is all about: "From where to where do I fly today?" This question is easily answered with DCS-map-size. And there are not too many routes to fly.

I think it would be cool to have airliners but not rewarding for a long period of time.

C-130 and similar planes are a different story. Want to see those.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Tom Kazansky

[blkspade]

The thing the appeals most in Civil sims is a world map. Trade that for what we have in DCS, and you'd have 20min flights at the most. There are simply better sims for doing nothing more than taking off and landing. There'd be no point in having AI civil air traffic in a combat zone for several reasons. Key of which are the amount of things broken about the sim, and the resources it would take up. People still can't sort out how to not shoot down their own tankers and AWACS aircraft, and you just want to more things to shoot at it that shouldn't be shot at. TF-51D basically exists as an free introductory aircraft to clickable cockpits, to otherwise entice you to pay for the armed version.

 

I do think human flyable logistics aircraft do make loads of sense though. Not having AWACS and tankers flying a constant and predictable course. The only real use for tankers with the map sizes is in increasing on station time for a defensive CAP flight. Unfortunately that's frequently circumvented by placing the tanker so far out of harms way that you lose the benefit of tanking. Being able to radio the pilot and possibly have them meet you half way when the airspace is clear would be fantastic. Imagine an AWACS intelligent enough to extend away from an approaching threat to help out the friendly intercept flight.

[SharpeXB]

You have no idea how well it’s sell and neither do I.

A good airliner costs $90 in sims that have 10x the number of players DCS does. That’s what leads me to think it wouldn’t be profitable.

 

Please give up this discussion because you’ll all just end up comparing sims which is a forum rule no no.

 

Two words: scope creep. Keep DCS doing what it supposed to do.

 

Flying airliners with sims is all about: "From where to where do I fly today?" This question is easily answered with DCS-map-size.

I think what you meant to say is “This question is not easily answered with DCS-map-size.”

Players in civy sims want to be able to fly from anywhere to anywhere. That’s why they have global sized maps, not so you can literally fly around the earth. The DCS engine is probably not capable of that.

Edited March 11, 2019 by SharpeXB

[wilbur81]

DCS

:thumbup:

[Exorcet]

Now somebody said that not every flight is transatlantic - true, but not every flight is a quick 300km hop either...

Just for the sake perspective, airliner routes in the Gulf map are easily double that distance. You can also find small/mid size passenger aircraft that fly even shorter routes:

 

 

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-shortest-scheduled-airline-route-flown-by-a-737-or-A320-family-jet

 

Respectfully disagree on that. Maybe if you’re flying tanker or awacs and loitering for hours the current map sizes are ok. But definitely not for realistic heavy logistics or bomber missions.

You didn't read my post. I was replying to the notion of map size regarding civil sims. I know how small DCS maps are:

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3824704&postcount=6

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3825307&postcount=11

 

 

As small as they are though, civil aviation is absolutely appropriate. In fact I think you could argue that civil sims are easier to get to work on small maps than combat ones, partially for the reasons you mention. There really isn't such a thing as too short a flight outside of combat. In the extreme case you have aerobatics and demo flights which can have a trip radius of single digit miles. When it comes to combat flights you probably don't want to take off on top of the enemy S-300 site, so any sane mission probably needs to be bigger than the enemy's territory and then have additional space for friendlies to launch from. In other words military sims need bigger minimum map sizes than civil ones. On the upper end though, both civil and military flights have global range, so a world map is the ideal for both.

 

 

 

I personally feel the maps are a little claustrophobic even in modern fighters. You can easily fly PG edge to edge on internal fuel alone in the F-18. People always complain about the difficulty of AAR, but the funny thing is that if you’re flying halfway realistic missions in DCS you rarely ever need to hit a tanker.

Yep.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Oh no, the civilian aircraft are going to take over.

 

Just like the trainers did. And the sky is falling. Quick, everyone point out what the acronym means!

[moonshot]

This topic has already been discussed to death and deleted for forum rule violations.

Let’s not go there again.

Please give up this discussion because you’ll all just end up comparing sims which is a forum rule no no.

 

Interesting, I’m beginning to think you don’t understand the purpose of the Wish List subforum. I haven’t seen any rule violations, but you’d like this thread closed because of the potential for rule violations? And you’ve been around awhile so you know every topic has been discussed to death, but this particular one seems to have you uncomfortable enough to discourage any further discussion at all. Interesting indeed.

By the way, I don’t see “moderator” under your name. If the topic is so unpleasant for you I suggest just avoiding the thread altogether. :thumbup:

[SharpeXB]

In other words military sims need bigger minimum map sizes than civil ones. On the upper end though, both civil and military flights have global range, so a world map is the ideal for both.

Actually the civilian sims need larger maps, not for flight distances, but to give players the options of flying to or from anywhere. That’s a big appeal. I’m not aware of any major civ sims which don’t have global maps.

Combat sims like DCS only need theater sized maps and ones with much more detail to make them appealing. The large world size maps of course don’t have the detail like DCS does.

It’s a trade off or compromise you just can’t solve trying to mix sim products.

Global sized maps can’t or don’t have collidable trees. Combat sims need collidable trees.

 

Interesting, I’m beginning to think you don’t understand the purpose of the Wish List subforum.

Well I hope it’s not to scope creep ED into the ground. This wish would.

[Exorcet]

Actually the civilian sims need larger maps, not for flight distances, but to give players the options of flying to or from anywhere. That’s a big appeal. I’m not aware of any major civ sims which don’t have global maps.

 

 

I don't think that is strictly necessary though. It's as optional as having different theaters of war in a combat sim. As I said above you can fly aerobatics, which requires a map size of near zero even for the largest of planes. Then you have things like airborne tours and test flights which could work well in DCS and take advantage of the map detail we have while allowing different routes to fly. An example in NTTR would be an aerial Las Vegas tour flight vs the Grand Canyon. Ironically since the map is centered on a military test site though the center region would be off limits for this type of flying (except for the Aera 51 Shuttle or some other VIP type of flight perhaps). So a world map in a civil sim is very nice, and a major draw as you state, but optional. Civil sims have it because it's easier to include I imagine. As for a civil sim without the entire world mapped, Aerofly FS.

 

 

The only sims that would fully require a world map would be one where the only thing you could do is fly long transport/passenger flights, but that isn't really such a thing because if you can do the long flight, you can do the short one.

 

 

 

 

 

Combat sims like DCS only need theater sized maps and ones with much more detail to make them appealing. The large world size maps of course don’t have the detail like DCS does.

It’s a trade off or compromise you just can’t solve trying to mix sim products.

Global sized maps can’t or don’t have collidable trees. Combat sims need collidable trees.

DCS only recently had colliable trees added. As sorely lacking as they were, can they really be considered a necessity? If anything there are no trees over open water, so they are certainly not required if you're fighting on open seas. You can break it down by aircraft type as well. They're vastly more important for attack helicopters which rely on trees. Less so for F-14's that might never see a tree.

 

 

 

As far as mix and match, DCS has already partially solved the problem with varying levels of map detail. We can have a world map at the detail of the Persian Gulf. That's not an issue to worry about. The world map can be generic as it often is in civil sims and then have detail maps pasted on to it. I've said before that I'd take the ability to place airports in the barren wastes around our current maps. That alone would be a huge feature for DCS in my mind.

[SonofEil]

Combat sims like DCS only need theater sized maps and ones with much more detail to make them appealing. The large world size maps of course don’t have the detail like DCS does.

It’s a trade off or compromise you just can’t solve trying to mix sim products.

Global sized maps can’t or don’t have collidable trees. Combat sims need collidable trees.

 

It’s 2019, the world is literally the theatre. If you’d like to do missions similar to Isreal attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, we’ll need bigger maps. A B-52’s strike on ISIS HVT’s, we’ll need (much) bigger maps. You’re worried about scope creep, I welcome it. Besides some fun toys (Viggen, Mirage, F-18, upcoming -14 and -16, etc) DCS is actually extremely limited in its ability to simulate a modern conflict. Bring on the subs, ICBM’s, hell, anti-satellite weapons! Don’t forget ED has repeatedly stated their intentions to expand the scope of DCS to include non-combat aircraft (already happened, obviously) and a global earth. You should probably get used to the idea that DCS is going to grow beyond a few dogfighting jets.

(I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about with the collidable trees nonsense. Map size has no bearing at all on whether trees are collidable. Maybe you don’t remember the first ten years of DCS’s existence or the Lock On series before that. We seemed to get on ok without them.)

[Exorcet]

You’re worried about scope creep, I welcome it.

I agree with most of what you said, but the issue with scope screep isn't having more things. It's the devs having more work to do and us players not getting to see the results (or at least finished results) because they're too busy.

 

 

I think it's certainly something to be concerned about.

[SharpeXB]

You’re worried about scope creep, I welcome it.

“Scope creep” is not a positive thing. It means something getting out of control with features. Losing focus and trying to be everything to everybody and ending up as nothing.

[SonofEil]

Those aren’t actually our concerns at all, they’re company management concerns. I suppose you could spend your time worrying about ED staffing issues but I don’t know what good it would do.

On the bright side, according to the Wags interview today ED has added a lot of talent over the last two years and we’re just now beginning to see the fruits of their labor.

“Scope creep” is not a positive thing. It means something getting out of control with features. Losing focus and trying to be everything to everybody and ending up as nothing.

And for you that means including non-combat aircraft. It doesn’t for me.

[SharpeXB]

Map size has no bearing at all on whether trees are collidable.

I’m sure it’s a factor. In any case it’s the type of feature that’s important for a combat sim but not for a civilian one unless you plan to practice crashing aircraft. Same with damage models. I suppose you’ll want this DCS Airliner to have a damage model? $$$

[Tom Kazansky]

 

I think what you meant to say is “This question is not easily answered with DCS-map-size.”

Players in civy sims want to be able to fly from anywhere to anywhere. That’s why they have global sized maps, not so you can literally fly around the earth. The DCS engine is probably not capable of that.

 

 

Sorry for being unclear in this point, but I really meant it as I wrote. It is "easily answered" because there are not too many options on each map.

 

But we share the same opinion, so it's all fine. :thumbup:

[Northstar98]

Just for the sake perspective, airliner routes in the Gulf map are easily double that distance. You can also find small/mid size passenger aircraft that fly even shorter routes:

 

 

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-shortest-scheduled-airline-route-flown-by-a-737-or-A320-family-jet

 

Yep and small/mid sized are probably the more suitable candidates. And just because an aircraft can/has fly/flown a route inside the map distances we have doesn't really help if I'm honest, it still sorta makes it a bit pointless. I mean lets say you simulate a C-17 Globemaster III strategic airlifter, it has a range of ~4500km (ballpark numbers) - kinda silly in maps that reach 200-300km by 200-300km, well aside Caucasus, but 90% of that map is water, and only the eastern side has any detail at all.

 

Oh no, the civilian aircraft are going to take over.

 

Just like the trainers did. And the sky is falling. Quick, everyone point out what the acronym means!

 

Agreed :megalol:

Edited March 12, 2019 by Northstar98

[john9001]

C123 a smaller two engine version of the C130. It was used by the "Air America" group.

 

C-123 Provider of the U.S. Air Force, history and photographs

https://www.airplanesofthepast.com/c123-provider.htm

 

History and Development of the C-123 Provider. The rugged C-123 became an essential part of U.S. Air Force airlift during the Southeast Asia War, where it flew primarily as an in-theater airlifter and a Ranch Hand sprayer. Designed by the Chase Aircraft Co. just after World War II, and built by Fairchild, the C-123 evolved from earlier large assault glider designs.

[Baco]

LOL The arguments... for Nay!

1) teh apeal fo a Flight sim is FLYING, not sceneries, not systems, not bs. so yes ibelieve current engine of DCS is more apealing than ANY, I repeate ANY civ sim out there niethe roen has spins, stals, and one critical factor: damage model.. when you put a 747 don in x-plane or whatever, i gos crank, oh we crahs.. not BOOM, you don loose a wing or even an elevator ever, no bird strikes, no nothing....

 

2) the size of the maps, perfectly ok for short trips, arround 1.30 to 2.00 hours. Dont tell me civies spend more time in fligt, its all about shooting aproches right? once in route it can be 1 or 3000 miles of strait level flight.

 

3) Digital Combat SIM, sounds more like Dogmatic Comunity Simulators .

 

4) oh yeah the Civies will detract from more pressing COMBAT projects.. yeah like Magnitude you mean and the CEII? Point is, developers are going to develop whatever THEY decide and Fell Like. No constrain you or anybody else propose is going to change that fact. SO get over it.

 

5)If we ever got at least 0.1% of civil aviation enthusiast on to DCS we would triple or cuadruple the fan base. so more resources for your preciouse combat jets...

 

6) more divisions more niche is worst for DCS, we already have WWII vs Modern VS 70´s VS...

You see a patern here?

 

Conclusion: unfortunately I believe DCS does no handle well more than Two engines, so I see it very unlikely to get a Hercules or such. But I would give my left arm for a good module of a transport aircraft like an Embraer or a C-160 or an Airbus 235 or 295, not to mention a Dacota, or a flyable AN 26, hell even an AN-2, And if you realy want to hit jackpot, just give us a C-1 Trader or a C2-Greyhound ;)

[SharpeXB]

and one critical factor: damage model.. when you put a 747 don in x-plane or whatever, i gos crank, oh we crahs.. not BOOM, you don loose a wing or even an elevator ever, no bird strikes, no nothing....

Civ sims don’t need damage models because they’re flight simulators not crash simulators. Besides can you imagine the $$$ to create a DM for an airliner? Forget it...

[Kongamato]

I´m not interested in flying civilian or cargo planes in the limited maps of DCS. For that, the global sceneries of FSX and XPlane are way more adequate. But AI civil air traffic would be great. If enabled, would force the ROE of visually identify the targets before shooting the missile, which would be realistic and would add a plus of complexity to the missions.

[Northstar98]

Civ sims don’t need damage models because they’re flight simulators not crash simulators. Besides can you imagine the $$$ to create a DM for an airliner? Forget it...

 

What?

 

I don't understand what would be so difficult about building airliner damage models? It's nothing more than what we already have, maybe with more engines and that's it...

 

And the whole 'crash simulator' seriously? I mean, seriously Sharpe?

 

I reckon this whole debate about DM is going to go nowhere as it usually does... But have you seen the FDM of some of these simulators? It's one the things they really kinda suck at, y'know simulating flight - I know, I mean something you'd expect to be the focus of s flight simulator. Sure they do some systems well, in fact that's the only thing you really get with modules for those, and even then they're pseudo implemented. Something that isn't the case with DCS, well apart from a couple of complaints at some modules...

Edited March 16, 2019 by Northstar98

[nessuno0505]

I´m not interested in flying civilian or cargo planes in the limited maps of DCS. For that, the global sceneries of FSX and XPlane are way more adequate. But AI civil air traffic would be great. If enabled, would force the ROE of visually identify the targets before shooting the missile, which would be realistic and would add a plus of complexity to the missions.

 

That would be great, but first ED should improve distant objects spotting.

For what cargo planes is concerned, I'd like to fly a C-130 but I think a more-than-two engines plane can not be easily simulated with DCS graphic engine.

[SharpeXB]

What?

 

I don't understand what would be so difficult about building airliner damage models? It's nothing more than what we already have, maybe with more engines and that's it...

 

And the whole 'crash simulator' seriously? I mean, seriously Sharpe?

 

I reckon this whole debate about DM is going to go nowhere as it usually does... But have you seen the FDM of some of these simulators? It's one the things they really kinda suck at, y'know simulating flight - I know, I mean something you'd expect to be the focus of s flight simulator. Sure they do some systems well, in fact that's the only thing you really get with modules for those, and even then they're pseudo implemented. Something that isn't the case with DCS, well apart from a couple of complaints at some modules...

Civ sims don’t have DM because it would just add unnecessary cost and such for a feature that’s not important in a non-combat sim. These airliners are some large incredibly detailed products with all their systems modeled and already cost about $90

They will inform you about damaging the aircraft, crashing or extending the flaps at the wrong speed etc. But the point of a civ sim is not to make stuff go boom.