What Add-Ons NOT to Make

[Chrono]

Since DCS is aiming to release 2 additional flyables in short order after the KA-50, and since they've stated that they're designing the core to allow additional jets, I wanted to do an alternative to the "What do we all want" thread. What do we NOT want?

 

Personally -

F-16 or F/A-18

Why? Been done to death. Especially the F-16. We don't need another Falcon sim.

 

F-15E

Why? Been done before and very similar to the F-16.

 

J-32

What's a J-32? I don't know, and neither do a lot of other people. Even if it might be "easy", don't give us an F-8D, A-7P, J-22SNP or some other alphabet soup from the 1960's or 70's that the US National Guard or a former Russian satellite still happens to be flying. Besides, Jet Thunder is working on some retro carrier ops with the A-7 and a...Mirage III, I believe.

 

What say the rest of you?

[Yellonet]

Well... if you know what not to do, you should also know what you think they should do. So what is it?

[Sundowner.pl]

F-16 or F/A-18

Why? Been done to death. Especially the F-16. We don't need another Falcon sim.

Last F-16 - was the Falcon 4.0 in 1998! 9 years ago ! Yes, there are some mods, but they don't change much. Year later was the Jane's F/A-18, only other sims later was just another repacks of old Korea sim.

 

F-15E

Why? Been done before and very similar to the F-16.

The last Strike Eagle Sim was Jane's one... also in 1998.

 

What say the rest of you?

I say you just scratched out 3 airplanes that most people would love to fly (multirole baby!) and didn't have chance to be seen on our computers for nearly a decade !

 

What we really don't need are the planes from 60's, like F-4 (except the the F-4F ICE), F-104s, F-105s etc. yes they would be fun to fly, but I rather see a Jaguar, Tornado, Mirage 2000, F-14, Su-30, F-16-50/52/I and other more modern jets and attack helicopters.

[Chrono]

Nope, I just know what they should NOT do. :)

[Chrono]

Last F-16 - was the Falcon 4.0 in 1998! 9 years ago ! Yes, there are some mods, but they don't change much. Year later was the Jane's F/A-18, only other sims later was just another repacks of old Korea sim.

 

The last Strike Eagle Sim was Jane's one... also in 1998.

 

I say you just scratched out 3 airplanes that most people would love to fly (multirole baby!) and didn't have chance to be seen on our computers for nearly a decade !

 

What we really don't need are the planes from 60's, like F-4 (except the the F-4F ICE), F-104s, F-105s etc. yes they would be fun to fly, but I rather see a Jaguar, Tornado, Mirage 2000, F-14, Su-30, F-16-50/52/I and other more modern jets and attack helicopters.

 

The reason the Falcon mods don't change much is because it's pretty much done. I'm sure it could use a bit more realistic damage model, graphics and bug squashing in the campaign, but when you've got OpenFalcon developers talking about the finer points of INS drift, I'd say that sim is "done".

 

I agree about 2-seat in the F-15E, but there's plenty of other 2 seat jets that haven't been given their due.

[RedTiger]

I agree with you for the most part. However you've basically limited your options to almost nothing if you discard the F-16, F-18, and F-15E -- not counting Russian aircraft of course. If the DSC series will give us ultra-accurate Su-30s and MiG-29SMTs...thats fine by me! :thumbup:

 

What's left? The F-15C/D? Ok. That'd be bloody awesome. Most people, however, don't seem happy having a detailed simulation of an air to air-only fighter. They always want something that can drop bombs. :disgust: :D So that rule's out the several other air to air candidates.

 

How about the F-22 and F-35? That would also be great, but impossible since not enough is known about them at this point. Then you'd also have the Air Quake crowd crying fowl about having such "unbalanced" planes in multiplayer.

 

I'm pretty sure that I've heard that eventually they're going to do the F-16 and a modern variant of the MiG-29. The other rumors about Black Shark and future sims have turned out to be true, so I'm guessing this one will probably be true too.

[Yellonet]

F-16 would be fine by me as I haven't really touched Falcon 4.0, I've tried it but it just wasn't immersive enough to get me interested. Besides as others have said, F4 is old.

 

Multirole aircraft are the most fun for all, and it needs to be widely used so that a lot of different scenarios and theatres can be created for it, F-16 fits that glove.

[MemphisBelle]

 

F-16 or F/A-18

Why? Been done to death. Especially the F-16. We don't need another Falcon sim.

 

Sorry, cant agree you. I´d like to get another simulator which offers the Falcon. The reason that an Falcon sim is already available shouldnt really count. How many racing car simulators are available?

 

F-15E

Why? Been done before and very similar to the F-16.

 

Sorry again...why do you say that the both ones are pretty similar to each other? I cant agrre...both models and aircrafts are pretty different to each other...please explain me your decision.

 

What say the rest of you?

 

I would be happy if the most flyable (after editing the meinit in Lock on) Jets, will be flyable edited directly from the creator of the game. If the DSC shall become the most realistic one, then they really have to offer more flyables then in Lock on.

[Sundowner.pl]

Chrono, if you wan't to scratch all the airplanes tat were already made... what will last ? MiG-31 ?

 

F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-14, F-4, F-22A, F-117, F-105, Kfir, MiG-17/21/23/25/29, Su-17/24/24/27s, A-10, Harrier, Mirages, Tornado, AH-64, Mi-24, Mi-28, B-52, F-5, B-2, Jas-39, Yak-38/141, F-35, A-6, A-4, A-7, Eurofighter, Jaguar, Rafale, Ka-50/52, AH-1, OH-58, B-1, Tu-95, J-7, Super Etnandant, Tu-160, Tu-26, Albatros

 

^ Those planes and helos were already in sims... so scratch them all, and tell me what's left ?

[ANGST]

I'd be happy to take any accurately modeled plane. From the F-100 , or F-106 to the F/A-18 E/F/G .

 

I think a cool addon-pak would be the EF2000 / Gripen / Rafael

 

hmm, how about an SU-24 ?

 

 

With the state of sims as they are now, how could one refuse anything that was done right.

[159th_Viper]

To date there has not been one Sim that has even come close to the Advanced Flight Model that the T-Frog currently offers - If DCS can model a Fast-Jet to the same standards as what they did with the T-Frog then I'll be estatic.

 

At the end of the day it will not matter whether it's a F-16, F-18, Mig or whatever.....bottom line is that No Sim has given us an Advanced Flight Model Fast-Jet, which in my opinion is where it's at first and foremost - so when it does happen it will be guaranteed to be Good, irrespective of the Jet that's chosen.

[S77th-konkussion]

Since DCS is aiming to release 2 additional flyables in short order after the KA-50, and since they've stated that they're designing the core to allow additional jets, I wanted to do an alternative to the "What do we all want" thread. What do we NOT want?

 

Personally -

F-16 or F/A-18

Why? Been done to death. Especially the F-16. We don't need another Falcon sim.

 

F-15E

Why? Been done before and very similar to the F-16.

 

I say you are wrong on multiple counts. With AFM's- the F16 and F/A 18 would be a huge success. Especially if the F/A 18 is really done well. (F16 data is obviously much easier to collect)

 

F15- meh.... I think this is also a good idea for the most part- again if we get AFM and some significant effort in the realism department this time. Tough task in many respects. The "C" might not be the most glorious choice for the wish list dreamer crowd (strike eagle)- but perhaps the best choice from the developers point of view.

 

J-32

What's a J-32? I don't know, and neither do a lot of other people. Even if it might be "easy", don't give us an F-8D, A-7P, J-22SNP or some other alphabet soup from the 1960's or 70's that the US National Guard or a former Russian satellite still happens to be flying. Besides, Jet Thunder is working on some retro carrier ops with the A-7 and a...Mirage III, I believe.

What say the rest of you?

 

I'm with you on this part. Hopefully they stick with the platforms that at least constitute the foundation of what is in use today SU30's, MiG29K. Keep it reasonably modern- but not so modern they have to significantly fake it.

[S77th-konkussion]

heh looks like someone is trying to import our existing forum status. (rep, join date, etc)

 

Careful with that- don't break it. ;)

 

gahhhh.. junior member again...

[Chrono]

Well, for certain, an F-16 would be a bore. If they did it right, then it'd be no more than learning a new keymap for OpenFalcon. For certain there'd be a different atmosphere, perhaps, but I don't care to relearn a slightly different implementation of an aircraft I already know pretty darned well.

 

As for the F/A-18 or F-15E, by the time they get to releasing that, there's a good chance that someone with access to Falcon 4.0's codebase (Lead Pursuit or otherwise) will have done or announced similar. And there's a possibility we'll see Fighter Ops do the same, although I'm not holding my breath there.

 

With 1, 2, and 3 F-16's over the last 10 years, and 1, 2, 3 F/A-18's, as well, not to mention mods that have kept the latter of each on the lists above up-to-date, and considering that there is a real possibility we're going to see 3 more F-16 or F/A-18 sims (from Lead Pursuit, an "illegal" update from another group, and possibly Fighter Ops), I just can't vote for these aircraft.

 

And sorry, an F-15E can carry some slightly different weapons, but it's basically doing the same missions with the same equipment as the F-16. It's got most of the same systems (Sniper Pod, radios, up-front-controls, TSD vs. HSD, more powerful, but very similar radar) as the F-16. Again, given that it was done pretty well 10 years ago, and the possibility that we're going to see some good mods for other sims, I'd rather see something else.

 

If it's done right, you can bet I'll fly it, but I'd like to see something a bit more untouched.

 

AFMs? Sure, great. But do it with another aircraft.

 

I'd almost argue they should have done the Cobra, rather than the Apache. When's the last time we got to land a chopper on a boat? DI's Apache? 12 years ago?

[FWT]

Beind a hornet fan id love to see a detailed sim for her.:)Although id like to see J35 and ET for example made so its futreproofed

[Chrono]

Chrono, if you wan't to scratch all the airplanes tat were already made... what will last ? MiG-31 ?

 

F-16, F/A-18, F-15, F-14, F-4, F-22A, F-117, F-105, Kfir, MiG-17/21/23/25/29, Su-17/24/24/27s, A-10, Harrier, Mirages, Tornado, AH-64, Mi-24, Mi-28, B-52, F-5, B-2, Jas-39, Yak-38/141, F-35, A-6, A-4, A-7, Eurofighter, Jaguar, Rafale, Ka-50/52, AH-1, OH-58, B-1, Tu-95, J-7, Super Etnandant, Tu-160, Tu-26, Albatros

 

^ Those planes and helos were already in sims... so scratch them all, and tell me what's left ?

 

 

Sure, but a study-sim hasn't been done for most of them. That's a mighty long list, and the F-16 has certainly been given the study-sim treatment. F/A-18 and F-15E were done to "80%" in the Jane's series. Do we really need to relive Jane's, with the addition of "well, here's the radio system you already know from the F-16 and OpenFalcon. In the F/A-18, the switch is over here, and in the F-15E, it's here".

 

What am I driving at?

 

I'd much rather see some in-depth simulation time given to something like the AWG-9 or AN/APG-71 or the Russian IRST system. I'm not interested in learning about "here's what the secondary bugged target icon looks like in the F/A-18, and in the F-15E, it looks like this". I already know how to use Western TWS, and how to utilize it in a combat situation.

[Boberro]

Hmmm I wanna F-16 and don't want F-16. From one side it was so many times.... but I rather feel <empty> when with so new machines there won't be F-16. Off course WELL DONE avionics like Lead Pursuit done so many years ago.... If I would have to choose F-15 vs. F-16 I bet 100% on F-16 Multirole Fighter.

[Wags]

Currently and in the future, a big factor that decides what new systems we put into DCS will depend on what other parallel projects we are working on. It's our hope and desire that we can cross-blend the best components of our entertainment and military training simulations. Other factors of course include what you guys are asking for, what we have good documentation for, access to SMEs, and if we have the technology to support the system.

[Chrono]

Currently and in the future, a big factor that decides what new systems we put into DCS will depend on what other parallel projects we are working on. It's our hope and desire that we can cross-blend the best components of our entertainment and military training simulations. Other factors of course include what you guys are asking for, what we have good documentation for, access to SMEs, and if we have the technology to support the system.

 

That makes the most business sense, for sure, and is completely understandable. I imagine that the military contracts are much more lucrative and allow you guys to be in much better shape, financially, after doing all the initial research. All that's left to commercialize is to cut out the classified stuff and make it possible to use a keyboard, not a custom-built pit.

 

But if you guys land a military contract to work on UAV trainers, that's out, too. :smilewink: No UAV sims! :cry:

[ANGST]

That makes the most business sense, for sure, and is completely understandable. I imagine that the military contracts are much more lucrative and allow you guys to be in much better shape, financially, after doing all the initial research. All that's left to commercialize is to cut out the classified stuff and make it possible to use a keyboard, not a custom-built pit.

 

But if you guys land a military contract to work on UAV trainers, that's out, too. :smilewink: No UAV sims! :cry:

 

UAV sim would be cool, you'd think you were just playing online, but in actuality you'd be flying a real CIA assassination mission :lol:

[Wags]

Yup, business-wise it does make the most sense for us. Unfortunately, we're not a collection of independent millionaires that are doing solely as a hobby. The company has to keep in the black to keep the doors open and pay staff or there will be no products from Eagle. It's a tough balance with trying to keep the company profitable while trying to meet consumer demands. Sometimes we cannot do both I'm afraid.

[Chrono]

Yup, business-wise it does make the most sense for us. Unfortunately, we're not a collection of independent millionaires that are doing solely as a hobby. The company has to keep in the black to keep the doors open and pay staff or there will be no products from Eagle. It's a tough balance with trying to keep the company profitable while trying to meet consumer demands. Sometimes we cannot do both I'm afraid.

 

Well, if push comes to shove, don't go the way of Microprose. I'd rather have any sim, than no sim, and that's my bottom line. :thumbup:

[Wags]

Oh yes, all the companies that have gone under that have specialized in sims is very much on our minds when we have to make tough decisions.

[Aeroscout]

Since DCS is aiming to release 2 additional flyables in short order after the KA-50, and since they've stated that they're designing the core to allow additional jets, I wanted to do an alternative to the "What do we all want" thread. What do we NOT want?

 

Personally -

F-16 or F/A-18

Why? Been done to death. Especially the F-16. We don't need another Falcon sim.

 

F-15E

Why? Been done before and very similar to the F-16.

 

J-32

What's a J-32? I don't know, and neither do a lot of other people. Even if it might be "easy", don't give us an F-8D, A-7P, J-22SNP or some other alphabet soup from the 1960's or 70's that the US National Guard or a former Russian satellite still happens to be flying. Besides, Jet Thunder is working on some retro carrier ops with the A-7 and a...Mirage III, I believe.

 

What say the rest of you?

 

Why no F/A-18? I know of one... no, just 2 sims with the F/A-18.

You seem to have no objections to the Su-27, well, if you count Flanker, Flanker 1.5, Flanker 2.0, Flanker 2.5, and Lock On... that's... 1, 2, 3, 4... 5 Flanker sims.

 

I don't think the flanker's been beaten to death, and definitely not the Hornet. The horent is a great combination of all the worlds of air combat. A2G, A2A, naval combat! It also has 1 and 2 person variants.

 

I don't really look forward to an F-16, but others might/do. An F-15E would be cool too. All I want are some fast movers. (A2A combat!)

[Boberro]

You seem to have no objections to the Su-27, well, if you count Flanker, Flanker 1.5, Flanker 2.0, Flanker 2.5, and Lock On... that's... 1, 2, 3, 4... 5 Flanker sims.

 

Eee sorry but Flanker NEVER been did like REAL (or similar to real) so we can't count it as SIM ;). Real is 0 Flanker sims.