Flyable civilian aircraft like Cessna 172

[Sn8ke_iis]

LOL at people that think they can control the development path of DCS and tell people not to talk about this and post on another forum.

 

When DCS gets a Cessna 172 I'll gift you the module to support the development. Your opinion isn't market research. I'll buy a dozen copies and gift them to friends so they can learn to fly and get into the game.

 

There's obviously demand for this. Stop trying to take a dooty in the sandbox and go copulate with your wife or something. Jeez...

 

This is not a zero sum game. If you don't understand the importance of growing the player base you are just being obtuse. This isn't taking away resources from your pet module that you want developed, it's not preventing them from finding bugs that really bother you. It increases revenue and the player base which allows the development of new modules and features. I don't see how someone can argue against that and reconcile the logic. Combat aircraft and civilian aircraft don't exist in alternate realities. Hey, but what do I know, I just make my living analyzing companies for investors.

 

Anyone who has played the GA sims and compared them to the most recent versions of DCS can see that DCS is better. That's why people are requesting this. There was no way that 3-5 years ago developers had a crystal ball to see where DCS is at now. Now that they do they can develop for DCS now. I don't think the market for people flying an airliner back and forth is as big as you think it is. Add up all the people flying combat sims and that's a lot of people. Either way I would have to look at sales data that these companies don't release. Where are you getting your market data other than your personal opinion? I tried filtering flight sims by best selling on Steam. No such option, only relevance to your search term. On Amazon the top 2 selling flight sims are combat related. You know what they say about opinions...

 

Edit: Just found the top flight simulator on Steam by player count. It's not DCS, the name rhymes with "Boar Blunder" and is definitely combat related. And it should be obvious now why DCS is making MAC. We need to poach all those players.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Sn8ke_iis

[rjetster1]

^^^^^ Exactly!^^^^ Now that we have that out of the way, who is making the Cessna?

[SharpeXB]

Anyone who has played the GA sims and compared them to the most recent versions of DCS can see that DCS is better.

DCS is better in terms of flight modeling only. And just to a degree depending on what you compare it to. The civ flight sims are good enough after all to be used in pro simulators.

What DCS lacks compared to these other sims and what makes them appealing for civ flight simming is just the huge variety of aircraft and scenery. DCS doesn’t have a global map or real time dynamic weather. And adding these to a combat sim would be greatly mis-focused and a drain on resources. This game can’t become DCFSX-Plane.

 

This topic is scope creep at its worst.

[Sn8ke_iis]

DCS is better in terms of flight modeling only.

 

And graphics. I've tried them all, DCS is the winner hands down and has the best 4K performance too. Compared to FAA certified sims in years past I'm sure DCS could get certified as well. Not sure what the current requirements are. I think this is all just a matter of when, not if. They already said new AI and ATC is two weeks...I'm curious how difficult it would be for Airfoil Labs to adopt their code to the DCS SDK.

 

If if it ever gets released I'll gift you one and you can tell me what you think.

 

And what's wrong with a little feature creep? We already have a functioning sand box sim.

 

My wish besides AI and ATC would be enhanced pilot avatars and squadron management with the ability to get into the cockpit and/or steal vehicles to get back to friendly lines if you get shot down. But I digress...

[msalama]

I would buy DCS: C47/DC-3 in a heart beat, and have a blast flying the old Gooney....

 

Yeah, me too, a fully modelled Dak - or any multi-engine transport for that matter - would be a first day buy for me. And for the naysayers: no war without supplies and no supplies without heavies ;)

[msalama]

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

 

No need, because it's being currently debated right here. And the reason is there's clearly a demand for DCS civvie craft whether you like it or not. Hey, just grin and bear it :D

[Aluminum Donkey]

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

 

Cessna 172

Cirrus SR22

Piper Comanche

 

Etc

 

 

We all have our opinions, but I'd really, I mean REALLY prefer it if Eagle Dynamics stuck with simulating high-performance military aircraft. Props or jets, WW2, Korean War or modern, doesn't matter to me--heck, a WW1 fighter would be interesting, but I doubt it would be much to fly in a sim (save for hours of flying just to cover a short distance!)

 

For me, DCS World was always a great air *combat* simulation.

 

I know the four jet trainers are legit military aircraft, but I find them dull. If people love 'em, that's cool.

 

But, none of this Cessna/Piper/Cirrus stuff, please. Plenty of sims for that. ED have limited resources and I like seeing them go into kickass modules like the F/A-18, the F-14 etc.

 

 

Just my opinion :)

 

 

AD

[msalama]

a Cessna 337 that could double as an O-2

 

Yeah, a package containing both the civvie and the mil (O-2A) version. Would buy it immediately!

[RuskyV]

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

 

Cessna 172

Cirrus SR22

Piper Comanche

 

Etc

 

 

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...

 

The thing missing in all civil flight sims (and one that DCS does really well) is having missions that give you a reason to fly in the first place. I love the idea of flying out to a location to drop off or pick up people in cessna or some sort of rescue mission or even fire fighting, you could be flying a police helicopter intercepting criminals or aiding DEA agents in a drugs bust somewhere. DCS has an excellent flight model system and to not use this for other forms of precision flying is bit of a waste.

True the ATC is close to abysmal compared to the competition but given that "one day" it will improve then i it could eventually really lend itself to civil flying.

 

I love DCS for its combat aircraft but im not going say its only good for just combat, i think it would be a very worthwhile investment to encourage people over from the civil flying and into DCS, this would benefit all fans of flight and with a larger player base how would this not be beneficial to all?

 

That being said DCS definitely needs improvement to its weather system and particularly ATC in order for the civil flyers out there to have a good enough reason fly less with "other simulators"and take part in DCS.

[Mr_Burns]

I doubt ED would turn away a committed 3rd party wanting to put a Civilian Aircraft in the system.

 

 

If the model has a business case then why would anyone care?

 

 

Dont add it to your server if you dont want it.

[Northstar98]

Sn8ke_iis said:

LOL at people that think they can control the development path of DCS and tell people not to talk about this and post on another forum.

 

When DCS gets a Cessna 172 I'll gift you the module to support the development. Your opinion isn't market research. I'll buy a dozen copies and gift them to friends so they can learn to fly and get into the game.

 

There's obviously demand for this. Stop trying to take a dooty in the sandbox and go copulate with your wife or something. Jeez...

 

This is not a zero sum game. If you don't understand the importance of growing the player base you are just being obtuse. This isn't taking away resources from your pet module that you want developed, it's not preventing them from finding bugs that really bother you. It increases revenue and the player base which allows the development of new modules and features. I don't see how someone can argue against that and reconcile the logic. Combat aircraft and civilian aircraft don't exist in alternate realities. Hey, but what do I know, I just make my living analyzing companies for investors.

 

Anyone who has played the GA sims and compared them to the most recent versions of DCS can see that DCS is better. That's why people are requesting this. There was no way that 3-5 years ago developers had a crystal ball to see where DCS is at now. Now that they do they can develop for DCS now. I don't think the market for people flying an airliner back and forth is as big as you think it is. Add up all the people flying combat sims and that's a lot of people. Either way I would have to look at sales data that these companies don't release. Where are you getting your market data other than your personal opinion? I tried filtering flight sims by best selling on Steam. No such option, only relevance to your search term. On Amazon the top 2 selling flight sims are combat related. You know what they say about opinions...

 

Edit: Just found the top flight simulator on Steam by player count. It's not DCS, the name rhymes with "Boar Blunder" and is definitely combat related. And it should be obvious now why DCS is making MAC. We need to poach all those players.

Absolutely freaking this

[WARNING - DEATH BY WORDS IMBOUND]

Former FSX player here, mainly flying tactical transports/narrow body stuff and helicopters - DCS eclipses it in graphics, performance, FDM (especially with helicopters, I can't stress that enough, just how much better a job DCS does at replicating helicopter flight dynamics), immersion, not to mention actually having a freaking mission editor included.

I always thought PAH, I have the best simulator and didn't give DCS a chance, that all changed when I downloaded, I remember my first landing in the Su-25T, I remember hearing a bang, took a look outside and saw that a tyre had burst and I was just I was flabbergasted, I just couldn't believe that individual tyres bursting was simulated, you can mock if you like, but in FSX all you get is a frozen screen with a little message saying 'crash' or 'aircraft overstressed' before being sent to the main menu - I know right? Immersive

Now I mentioned the FDM of DCS with regard to helicopters, because FSX's version is how helicopters behave is absolutely, without a doubt apalling, they behave like fixed wing aircraft with pitch and throttle essentially reversed, no VRS, no translating tendencies, no blade-flex, limited implementation of ground effect. DCS offers so much more that it's on a different planet. I mean could you imagine how great ©SAR missions would be in DCS if properly implemented?

The systems implementation in DCS is at the very least on par with those in FSX, but IMO DCS nails the authenticity and immersion better than what FSX has to offer.

Now yes DCS doesn't have a world map and a limited number of theatres, and of those theatres only a fraction of the map space is detailed - a big bummer, this probably won't change all that much in the next decade, apart from more (hopefully larger) maps.

DCS also has very limited ATC capabilities as well as not having any pushback tugs, it also doesn't have fuel trucks actually implemented as such (i.e give them a suppliers list like we have for airfields and ships, just with no weapons and either a limited amount of fuel (which should be either less than or equal to the amount it can actually carry or unlimited) now FSX doesn't do this either, it has pushbacks and their actually present and modelled at airfields and they work.

And last but by no means the least the weather - very limited in DCS with not many controls, no possibility of forecasting (i.e beginning and end states for weather), only 1 cloud type and no control over precipitation intensity, we also have no thermals, ridge or wave lift, which okay, we don't have any gliders, but they could make for things like turbulence.

Overall I don't get why anyone thinks civilian aircraft should be blocked, nothing will change DCS to anything other than a combat simulator, you literally lose nothing. I know people are going to start screeching what the acronym means, because that's such a controversial thing having just whats exclusively in the name - I mean, shall I get the pitchforks out to PC World because they sell vacuum cleaners, TVs and washing machines? Or Card Factory for selling balloons? Or literally any other company who sells anything else that isn't exclusively in the name? No, because that would be ridiculous, just apparently not here...

It's the same thing we had with trainers, "oh my god the sky is falling! The sky is falling! It's DCS not DTS *triggered* I mean come on...

Yes, DCS should focus on the combat aspect but that shouldn't mean that the only thing we're ever allowed to do with this great platform is that - I for one, get plenty of pleasure just flying stuff around (and because I suck at combat - shut up), and I think the sandbox nature of I can do whatever I want in DCS, combining with it's superior qualities is exactly the sort of thing I'm after, and for me it's definitely worth the compromise - and speaking of which, I'm sick and tired of other people telling me what it is I want/look for in a flight sim. Because for me, because even though I'm a former FSX player I put graphics > ATC, I put FDM > a less detailed world map, and I put quality over quantity and that's exactly what DCS brings.

Mr_Burns said:

I doubt ED would turn away a committed 3rd party wanting to put a Civilian Aircraft in the system.

 

If the model has a business case then why would anyone care?

 

Dont add it to your server if you dont want it.

In fact ED in the past have said that they won't censor non-military aircraft types should a 3rd party wish to pursue them.

Edited September 28, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[SharpeXB]

And what's wrong with a little feature creep? We already have a functioning sand box sim.

Because every feature added to DCS comes at the expense of something else. So instead of a CEII that really doesn’t belong in the environment and concept of DCSW we could have had perhaps a WWII era biplane such as a Tiger Moth or Stearman. 3rd party devs aren’t an exception to this fact either. In place of a C172 that doesn’t belong in Digital Combat Simulator we could get something more appropriate and interesting.

 

I love DCS for its combat aircraft but im not going say its only good for just combat, i think it would be a very worthwhile investment to encourage people over from the civil flying and into DCS, this would benefit all fans of flight and with a larger player base how would this not be beneficial to all?

Enticing the civ sim players into DCSW would require extensive features that are superfluous to a combat oriented sim. Mainly a global map, worldwide airports and real weather. A single well done Cessna isn’t going to bring thousands of new players just because it’s FM might be good. And DCS simply can’t match the volume of content those other sims have which is a big factor in their appeal. Going in that direction would be a big waste of resources that could be better used for other features.

Edited May 4, 2019 by SharpeXB

[Canada_Moose]

Lol, I would say “real weather” or at least a better weather engine are pretty important in dcs as well. :)

Edited May 4, 2019 by Canada_Moose

[Rudel_chw]

A funny piece about how some O-2 got to Vietnam:

 

https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/how-to-get-an-o2-from-wichita-to-vietnam/

 

Worth the read :)

 

[SharpeXB]

Lol, I would say “real weather” or at least a better weather engine are pretty important in dcs as well. :)

By that I mean “real time” weather where the sim reads the real current weather. Not really relevant for a combat sim nor really usable in the case of mp or sp campaigns. But in civ sims it’s an easy way to get realistic weather without having to set it all up.

[rogonaut]

@Lunatic98 +1

[Kang]

A funny piece about how some O-2 got to Vietnam:

 

https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/how-to-get-an-o2-from-wichita-to-vietnam/

 

Worth the read :)

Interesting read indeed, thanks for sharing.

[Rudel_chw]

Interesting read indeed, thanks for sharing.

 

You are welcome ... the O-2 has quite a few combat tales, in spite of its civil origins ... another example:

 

https://airfactsjournal.com/2016/06/put-budweiser-vietnam-flying-story/

 

:)

[Spathiphyllum]

A superb AN-26 module would be awesome, not only as a civilian aircraft but also as a military / cargo aircraft to transport soldiers and equipment from A to B. It's cruising speed (around 450 km/h) would also perfectly suit the current maps such as the Caucasus and the Gulf, resulting in flight times up to 75 minutes depending on route / task.

 

This modules, along with a much needed weather enhancement would surely put me back in front of DCS.

[SmirkingGerbil]

Gonna waffle a bit here. I did joke about shooting down Cessna's and remarked about "Combat" in the DCS title, and yes that is why I am here first and foremost. I do share some of the concerns regarding development resources if Civvy craft start showing up . . . however:

 

Long term, a true world, with the integration and interaction of land, sea, air is a worthy goal. Other games are trying this, and falling short, also monetizing it to death, and rightfully upsetting the playerbase of those games. The two I can think of off hand with "worlds" are World of Tanks and War Thunder. Of course they had mixed results, and never delivered on true integration in order to nickel and dime the player base.

 

So DCS, certainly stands to gain, as they don't play monetizing games and use in-game micro-transactions or other silly schemes to "upgrade" units. You get a fully functioning unit, integrated into all the worlds with DCS to some degree.

 

So long term, DCS should investigate Civilian aircraft, as it would open up new vista's and interactions for larger scale missions etc. Plus it would be blissfully free of the nonsense I have experience first hand in one of the above titles in regards to "payola" etc. That is the one thing I have always loved about DCS - no funny games with modules, you buy, you play, no cash grab schemes and "extra content" shop stuff. Everyone is flying, driving, the same thing with the same capabilities.

 

So yeah, long term Civvy aircraft, and an expansion of the "World" and interaction among all these elements would be a smart move by DCS. I think there is an entire untapped market for DCS in this regards, and they do it so much better than anyone else.

 

 

:thumbup:

[msalama]

What none of them include is a damage model

 

Except that some civvie addons actually have it already.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/blvizt/you_shall_not_pass/

[SharpeXB]

Except that some civvie addons actually have it already.

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/blvizt/you_shall_not_pass/

It’s far from the detailed DM that DCS has. Might vary between aircraft. I haven’t experienced any DM in that sim.

[msalama]

It’s far from the detailed DM that DCS will have.

 

Fixed that for you.

[SharpeXB]

Fixed that for you.

Yeah I don’t see the makers of civ sim aircraft doing this for a Cessna

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3900137&postcount=194

[Exorcet]

Yeah I don’t see the makers of civ sim aircraft doing this for a Cessna

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3900137&postcount=194

Well, it will have to happen for the Yak-52 and Christen Eagle. Or if doesn't then a detail damage model isn't necessary for DCS. EFM is also more flexible than ED's PFM. There is already some variation between developers, so maybe civil sims even with the detailed model just wouldn't have the level of detail that military aircraft do.

 

 

Also thinking about, system failures are part of civil flying, so there already is a reason to model the internal of civil aircraft even if it's for a different purpose than DCS.

 

 

 

A damage model doesn't seem like a stumbling block in my opinion.