Jump to content

Flyable civilian aircraft like Cessna 172


remi

Recommended Posts

With xplane getting native VR support I decided to give her a try again. And it just doesn't hold a candle to DCS... Yes the world is bigger but that's it. I'd be happy to see some GA in DCS. We already have a smidge of it. In my okpinion the d C!!!!!! s people need to chill out. They're so worried about resources being drawn away from their pet project they want to see done when it could dramaticly increase the total amount of resources available to DCS. I want to see it remain primarily a combat game too, but a Cessna 172 with a damage model would be cool.

 

 

" . . . the d C!!!!!! s people need to chill out. "

 

DCS, a.k.a Digital COMBAT Simulator - it is after all their mission, bread and butter, and the main draw for most of us. I wouldn't go to hard on us combat focused simmers, after all, it is why we are here. :thumbup:

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to have civilian aircraft for learning how to fly.

 

Cessna 172, Cirrus SR22, Piper Comanche

 

I feel like the X-Plane simulation is very lacking for flight models, and DCS would be a much better platform to work with.

 

However, ATC interaction would still be very limited...

 

As someone who flies both XP and DCS, and has their PPL, I'm gonna let you in on a great little secret:

 

If you want to learn how to fly civilian general aviation, DCS already has everything you need:

  • Basic flight training is as well covered by the the Yak-52 as the C172
  • The Yak also has retractable gear like the Comanche, and is a genuine aerobatic airframe (want to learn how to fly REALLY well? try aerobatics, esp in formation)


  • Precision approach, radio navigation, all-weather ops: C-101 or L-39
  • Basic GPS: L-39 with NS 430 (or Yak / C-101 with pop-up window NS 430)
  • Glass Cockpit / Auto Pilot / advanced nav / GPS / INS / flight plan: Harrier or A-10C
  • Multi - engine: A-10C

 

Maybe you don't have a lot of money? The 100% free Su-25T has much of the above, just without an interactive cockpit.

 

Want a surprisingly effective, almost intuitive, way to learn high-precision approaches and navigation concepts? Get the Su-33 and use it's carrier ILS and nav system (if you don't catch a wire, you weren't precise enough!). Literal bonus is that it's only $15, full price!

 

Finally, if you want to keep it simple and get The One plane that is the best overall flight trainer, go directly to the A-10C and know you never need to look back!


Edited by coduster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, if you want to keep it simple and get The One plane that is the best overall flight trainer, go directly to the A-10C and know you never need to look back!

I agree with that!

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should they be prohibited from trying? Or would the decision be theirs?

They could certainly try. The reasons why they have not so far?

- DCS required level of detail and accuracy is very high. Some civ sim aircraft are very well done and equal to DCS or even beyond with some “reality expansion” packages and maintenance modeling. What none of them include is a damage model which I assume DCS would require. Civ sims are flight sims and not crash sims.

- The market for these planes in civ sims is probably 10x the size of DCS so it probably isn’t worthwhile to port these over given the above.

 

This has all been debated before, try the search function.

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- The market for these planes in civ sims is probably 10x the size of DCS so it probably isn’t worthwhile to port these over given the above.

 

 

The point isn't to get DCS players to buy civilian planes and make a few more dollars. It's to get civ sim players to buy DCS planes and make a lot more dollars for exactly the reason you describe. Bigger player base means more development for DCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point isn't to get DCS players to buy civilian planes and make a few more dollars. It's to get civ sim players to buy DCS planes and make a lot more dollars for exactly the reason you describe. Bigger player base means more development for DCS.

DCS doesn’t have the features civ sim players want. Chiefly a global map and real time weather.

 

This is the wrong forum for this request. You should ask this topic on those other manf forums.


Edited by SharpeXB

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other things to consider, IMO:

-if we can’t have pilotable modules, at least we could have civilian AIs.

 

-There are situations in which civilian and military aircrafts interact with each other; these ones come to my mind now:

-military planes escorting politicians flying on civilian planes,

- military planes warning and, if necessary, attacking, civilian aircrafts flying over areas where they should’t fly.

 

-We could experiment/train by doing things like trying to escape a fighter while flying an Edge 540.

Planes: FC3, Spitfire, Harrier, F-14, F-18, MiG-21, Edge 540 - Helicopters: UH-1H, Mi-8 - Environments: Persian Gulf, Supercarrier

PC specs in the spoiler

 

I run DCS 2.7 using:

MasterWatt 550 semi-fanless and semi-modular, core i7-3770 (4 cores @ 3.8 GHz) with 8 GB DDR3, GTX1050 Ti (768 cores @ 1.8 GHz) with 4 GB GDDR5, 5.1 sound card, 240 GB SSD, Windows 8.1T.16000M FCS Flight Pack (i. e. stick+throttle+rudder pedals), opentrack head trakcer

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most are overthinking this… DCS is only going to get better and better, hardware is going to get better and better… no reason not to have a civilian aircraft if someone wants to develop it. I will definitely purchase!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point isn't to get DCS players to buy civilian planes and make a few more dollars. It's to get civ sim players to buy DCS planes and make a lot more dollars for exactly the reason you describe. Bigger player base means more development for DCS.

 

This, and the "crossover" airframes like:

O-2 Skymaster (my wish) - same armament as UH-1 Bushranger (miniguns & rockets)

Armed Caravan (Hellfires and TPOD)

and the bigger, more obvious ones as mentioned

KC-135

(K)/(A)C-130

 

I don't know what the numbers are, but if the non-combat/military & unarmed Yak-52 and CEII are worth developing, surely at least the Skymaster and Armed Caravan would be, as well.

I mean, hell, the Armed Caravan is single engine, *fixed* gear!


Edited by coduster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite all the whining, this is going to happen. :) Really looking forward to GA planes and ED & 3rd party devs have proven they don't care about the small vocal part of the community that demands 'my way or the highway'. IMHO it's only a matter of time that we see one of the iconic GA planes and probably even bigger stuff.

 

 

Also: I vehemently dispute that X-Plane flightmodel is in anyway better than DCS flightmodel or better suited for GA/Civillian flying. In fact my experience is the opposite. And I am talking about DCS module price level studysim payware. Not. Even. Close.

 

 

Let's face it, every argument you guys make against 'other then my preferrred type of airplane-in DCS', can be easily countered. I have not read anything yet in this thread or any other before, that holds up to any scrutiny. And I have to say, if you look at it this way, there is only a lot of toxic air left.

 

 

Yes you lot are playing DCS differently, hold different things in higher regard then the player next to you. Supposedly most don't even care for MP. If a few of these vocal chaps had their say, we would not have any kind of WW2, probably no hueys/mi8 (can't really fight!!1) and def. no trainers/aerobatics planes. Modern planes, carrier ops etc. I love it like the next guy, but that does not completely satisfy my aviation needs. The 'other sims' mentioned don't either for various reasons.

 

 

ED & 3rd party devs have proven that different modules don't take away from one thing but rather add to the whole, making this a good thing. Sorry if DCS is not going in the way you guys like, for me personally it's looking better than ever! =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite all the whining, this is going to happen.

And you know this, how?

 

Once again you’re asking this question on the wrong forum. You should ask it directly to those 3rd party vendors.

They will likely tell you the obvious. That the cost to develop for DCS is too high compared to the small numbers they’d sell here vs the other civ sims.

 

ED struggles to keep its plans going for just what’s on their plate now. I don’t think they need any more distractions like civilian non combat aircraft that really won’t have much appeal in a combat oriented sim like this.

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They will likely tell you the obvious. That the cost to develop for DCS is too high compared to the small numbers they’d sell here vs the other civ sims.

 

ED struggles to keep its plans going for just what’s on their plate now. I don’t think they need any more distractions like civilian non combat aircraft that really won’t have much appeal in a combat oriented sim like this.

 

Cogent points, and I'd agree that this type of stuff is not something ED themselves should take on.

 

And I am sure the non-DCS dev shops are all aware of the various simulators in the market. And realistically, they would've built for DCS if they thought it was worthwhile.

 

OTOH, we've got dev shops like Razbam & Aviodev, one who (used to) dev for FSX / P3D but now appears to exclusively(?) dev for DCS, and the other that started business with an unarmed trainer. So the logical economics argument may simply be false - who knows?

 

Anyhow, some of us will continue to vote for (and buy) the crossover / non-military airframes, and hopefully the trickle of hits we've gotten so far will continue!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really are some fabulous aircraft in P3D and XPlane. More a P3D guy myself and the A2A, Realair stuff is just so well modelled.

 

What I would like to see in DCS would be a good C130 or C17 type module. I think with some good missions / campaigns flying these type of aircraft could be quite tense and well suited to the environment. Im sure Baltic Dragon could think up some great story lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you know this, how?

 

Because they've said as much, plus the multiple GA aircraft we already have. As for what ED have on their plate, with literally every aircraft that gets added that's only going to increase. What those aircraft are doesn't matter.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they've said as much, plus the multiple GA aircraft we already have.

There is only one real GA aircraft in DCSW. The Yak is a military trainer, The CEII and the reason for creating it was unique and may not prove successful. The reason for the Yak is unique as well.

I can’t see 3rd parties creating full on GA aircraft for DCS. The reasons for this are really clear and shouldn’t require so much explanation and discussion.

Again the most direct way to get this question answered is go post this on a forum for Caranado or one of the other companies. The answer won’t be found here and this topic has already been discussed to death.


Edited by SharpeXB

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flight models of DCS are absolutely fantastic. Certainly better than FSX and X-Plane.

 

As DCS gets better and better, the other sims will be harder and harder to tolerate. There's also a ton of people who would switch over to DCS if given the opportunity.

 

 

 

For those who hate redundancy, I look forward to hearing from you how you dread that precious resources are spent on the F-16 module since BMS is an alternative. :doh:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen, the world doesn't have to be black and white. There could be ways to test the waters for expanding DCS into new avenues like that. I'm talking about reconnaissance, I'm talking about logistics, I'm talking about Forward Air Control.

 

There is no point in one 'vocal minority' fighting the other 'vocal minority'. There can be sufficient interesting ideas for developments that both fit in the combat world and aren't all fighters and bombers. See where it all goes from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...