Jump to content

Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World


phant

Recommended Posts

Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

Isn't that "mostly" exactly what they've done? I mean I understand our 18 is a little after that but I think if you limit the weapons you take with it it's pretty close to a 90's 18 right? Same with the 16 right?

 

I mean... in the 2000's wasn't the navy largely flying the super hornet? The AF was just loosely hanging onto the 16 waiting on the F35 delays...

 

I'm just saying that aside from available ordinance we really have the airframes you desire... but with the ability to run them into the 2000's if we desire also...

 

No?

 

I'm not an aviation history buff (or a strict timeline purist...) so maybe I'm missing something. Aside from the S/N's our 18 and 16 are pretty much the same thing as was used in the 90's?

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's be honest, more modern, more low hanging fruit from a marketing perspective. If a 2000s + aircraft is, let's throw about 15-20 percent more effort than an 80s-90s one [...]

 

Is that really through though? If ED made the F/A-18A and F-16A, both aircraft would probably have been out of early access within a few months of their initial release and ED would be free to peruse new (paying) projects. Now these aircraft are in stuck in early access for years with ED mostly working on avionics subsystems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red planes ASAP! Nonclickable Mig31 and Su 35 please ED just fricken do it allready. It would be 2 bestsellers of all nonclickable modules!

Anybody who`d like to fly these jets please comment and give high rate this thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278780

 

If they're non-clickable, why bother??

HP Z230 - Win10 Pro, i7-4770@3.30Ghz, 16GB RAM, EVO 1TB SSD x2, GTX 1660 Super 6GB, Quest 2 VR/TrackIR5; GIGABYTE AERO 17 HDR XD - Creator series laptop

DCS World - Terrains: all; Modules: all but MB-339, Mirage F1, Mosquito, I-16, MiG-19P, Yak-52, F-5E, L-39, C-101, MiG-15bis, MiG-21bis, & F-86F; Campaigns: various

On My Radar - The Typhoon, and I'm still hoping for a Norway map to go with it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're non-clickable, why bother??

 

For those who fly FC3 planes wouldn`t be an issue. If so then why not? Plus we`d have solid Red force to fly against. They are no where near to be a match for Bluefor. Red team with all missing planes pus their earliest versions of present jets is in very bad shape for even dreaming about parity. Not a worthy adversary! Put in one word - incomplete.


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red planes ASAP! Nonclickable Mig31 and Su 35 please ED just fricken do it allready. It would be 2 bestsellers of all nonclickable modules!

Anybody who`d like to fly these jets please comment and give high rate this thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278780

 

As someone who would love to get many, many more red aircraft, this would be such a shame to see... low fidelity renditions of aircraft that can only have questionable accuracy.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who would love to get many, many more red aircraft, this would be such a shame to see... low fidelity renditions of aircraft that can only have questionable accuracy.

 

I get it man. You`d like to have clickable active service russian jets. You know better than all of us here that it`s not gonna happen. Same way US won`t allow for F35 snd F22 to be full fidelity. Do you doubt accuracy of russian aircraft present in the game? Plus main reason for these 2 birds is to heal crippled multyplayer.

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I can understand the wishing for a competative modern Redforce and acknowledging the lack of it in DCS , I really hope whatever it is , its not any other 4gen or newer ,be it Red or Blue.

Because its glaringly obviously that ED is already in way over their head with their two 4gen projects and I absolutely don't see them successfully doing another.

It would be literally years in developement , slow everything down even more and sap ressources from the badly needed overhaul..

 

So hoping for a somewhat simpler, cold war 3rd gen or something that can be completed quicker without years for DDI sub-pages, 20 radar modes and 300 mio weapon combos.

 

But I think they probably might go again for big PR-announcement and marketing hyperbole- I.e. F-35 or something along those lines.

 

Regards,

Snappy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

It would have also achieved Nick Grey's whole "goal" of "dogfighting" without having to push the various absurdisms that they have foisted on us over the years to Nerf Fox3 BVR stuff.

 

I mean 70s/80's was all about you get 1 crappy BVR shot on the way in and then to the merge with fox2's.

 

Plus the aircraft were much more closely matched during the cold war as well.

Can't really agree here. I of course understand it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually really enjoy modern avionics. Sensor management, datalink, target sorting, sensor fusion etc. I understand these systems are far harder to code than 80s tech, but as someone working in STEM, I also find most 80s tech to be very basic. Nothing against the folks who like it, fo course. But what drew me to DCS in the first place was the A-10C, with its sophisticated avionics suite and modern systems.

 

Plus, modern fighters are pushing ED's developers forward, into more complex system and network modeling and that's always a good thing. Imagine if one day, they could utilize their datalink code in order to simulate an IADS, for example. Or build upon the current code and include other assets as donors, such as Aegis cruisers.

The vCVW-17 is looking for Hornet and Tomcat pilots and RIOs. Join the vCVW-17 Discord.

CVW-17_Profile_Background_VFA-34.png

F/A-18C, F-15E, AV-8B, F-16C, JF-17, A-10C/CII, M-2000C, F-14, AH-64D, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3
-
i9-13900K, 64GB @6400MHz RAM, 4090 Strix OC, Samsung 990 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that really through though? If ED made the F/A-18A and F-16A, both aircraft would probably have been out of early access within a few months of their initial release and ED would be free to peruse new (paying) projects. Now these aircraft are in stuck in early access for years with ED mostly working on avionics subsystems.

 

Yeah, I think ED mostly shot themselves in the foot with going too modern too fast. I mean we had the whole F5 v mig 21 thing forever, with the M2k/viggen thrown in the mix.

 

Going from that technology wise, it would have been a much better idea to develop 80's era jets like the F16A, F18A and F15A, A10A vs the then FC3 mig 29/ su27.

 

FM wise we know ED can do the work, and the avionics on those birds were much simpler, yes more "knobs" and dials. But really the F16A would have been a very simple plane to do and with the proper Doug masters memes probably very popular.

 

Then you could ease into PGM's with the earlier generation TGP's (which well sucked relative to what we have now, but it would have provided some of the same capability).

 

And you could pretty credibly do the early mig29A and Su-27 for opfor, not to mention the 23.

 

 

Also, I think from a sales standpoint its pretty much suicidal for them to do the earlier stuff now and ask full price for it. I think far fewer people will want to buy a F16 Block 25 or 30 now that the 50 is here and does way more. Because for a good chunk of the community they want the "I win" button on the latest uber plane.

 

I honestly think if they did lets say something like a mid block F16A it would have sold at full price, then a Block 30 F16C also sold at full price, and then block 50 F16C at some "upgrade price from the block 30". It would have totally worked, development would have been simpler in many ways since you aren't adding too much functionality at once but rather in pretty well defined "eatable" Blocs.

 

I mean consider the F16A vs the F5E we had. APG-66 radar was the big "improvement" radar wise, so you spend a decent time developing the new radar model for it, including ground modes, and lets say you are also doing the APG-65 for the hornet, you add some TWS modes as well. The 16A didn't really use much in the way of fancy PGM's but did have some decent additions of CCIP/CCRP modes for dumb bombs (so you can accurately implement that tech rather than the arcade mode stuff we had/have). And of course everyone's favorite mavs. Then for the Bloc30 ish Viper you can make it the night attack version and add lantrin, your radar development is mostly done since the 68 did add a few things, but was fairly close to the 65 on the hornet. You redo the aero/engine of course. And for the coup-de-grace, you add in a properly modeled AAMRAM. Plus your "learning" curve on that A/C is significantly shorter since you already know some of the pitfalls of making its junior brother.

 

The community of course buys the A viper because its new and shiny, and the Block 30 because its "much more capable", and the same goes for the 50.

 

But now we have the Bloc 50 for better or worse. And I really don't think the majority of the customer base is gonna full price for an earlier bloc, or 16A. So those never get made.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that "mostly" exactly what they've done? I mean I understand our 18 is a little after that but I think if you limit the weapons you take with it it's pretty close to a 90's 18 right? Same with the 16 right?

 

I mean... in the 2000's wasn't the navy largely flying the super hornet? The AF was just loosely hanging onto the 16 waiting on the F35 delays...

 

I'm just saying that aside from available ordinance we really have the airframes you desire... but with the ability to run them into the 2000's if we desire also...

 

No?

 

I'm not an aviation history buff (or a strict timeline purist...) so maybe I'm missing something. Aside from the S/N's our 18 and 16 are pretty much the same thing as was used in the 90's?

 

I mean the Airforce is still flying the F16 today... And worldwide there are still legacy hornet operators. But unfortunately no, there is decent sized gulf from what was flying in the 80's vs what we have. Aside form the "C" designation, the jets we have are far more advanced than what was flying in the late 80's and early-mid 90's with the same designation.

 

For the early lot F18C's,

No datalink (the big one).

 

TGP: And while a few of early F18C's did have nighthawk pods, there were 2 pods that took up 2 stations, and generally were pretty poor from a performance standpoint. Even a 1999 vintage Litening (first version) was much more basic than what we have now.

 

Navigation suite was also much more basic, no fancy moving map for instance or GPS etc.

 

No JHMC's either.

 

Weapons integration wise, it depends on when, but variously no AAMRAMs, No JSOW/JDAM, SLAM-ER. Limited GBU ability (unless with the nitehawk pods).

 

The various MFD pages were also much more basic than what we have now.

 

Radar wasn't fully fleshed out either.

 

The Viper is even more convoluted, but consider that we have the Block50 viper... And the early C's started at block 25.

 

So, our viper has better, radar, a much bigger engine for a start, and I think a whole different intake geometry. So overall the engine model and FM would be somewhat different.

 

No Link 16

No NVG compatible cockpit for most of them

Weapon wise, of course no Fox3's, no JDAM/JSOW etc.

TGP if any would be limited to the old lantrin etc.

MFD's were simpler/less useful etc.

No HMTS

APG68v1 vs V5 (v1 was less capable)

 

And while I agree that to a point you can "sort-of" simulate some of the simpler things by limiting weapons (what a few online servers do for the 80's). The actual avionics give these fighters alot of advantages in those early scenarios that they wouldn't have IMO. Especially datalink, and the better TGP's and radars. Not to mention the nav system stuff.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't really agree here. I of course understand it's a matter of personal taste, but I actually really enjoy modern avionics. Sensor management, datalink, target sorting, sensor fusion etc. I understand these systems are far harder to code than 80s tech, but as someone working in STEM, I also find most 80s tech to be very basic. Nothing against the folks who like it, fo course. But what drew me to DCS in the first place was the A-10C, with its sophisticated avionics suite and modern systems.

 

Plus, modern fighters are pushing ED's developers forward, into more complex system and network modeling and that's always a good thing. Imagine if one day, they could utilize their datalink code in order to simulate an IADS, for example. Or build upon the current code and include other assets as donors, such as Aegis cruisers.

 

I get where you are coming from. But really are any of these super modern systems modeled with any decent level of detail? I mean when I look at the current FLIR picture I pretty much want to get off the bus. Not to mention the magical coordinate generating capabilities. Or our magically guiding fox3's that we had for years and years.

 

On the datalink thing, while IRL yes, its an important part of a real world IADS net as well. I don't think ED is gonna bother trying to do that with their spagetti code. If we get IADS it will be its own "magically approximated" thing.

 

Given that the systems are somewhat simpler combined with actual good documentation and still living pilots, I think doing earlier eras technology at a higher fidelity would have been a much better way to go. Plus it gives you somewhere to actually go. I mean we aren't getting a f35 or F22 anytime soon IMO.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multyplayer state is broken. There are crouds of F14s noob tubing living shit out of everything that moves out there. And half of Blue planes endup on Red side. To remedy complete uslessness of Reds. When you talk about F14 - Mig 31 is only worthy adversary. Same interceptor role same punch.

SU 27M/35 has upgraded fox 2 and 3 with better chareateristics. And can compete with nato planes. As for time and effort to make them. These are easyest birds for ED to make coz they allready have them.

These two platforms needed in MP solely to provide Reds with R77M and R-37 missiles. To remedy their catastrophic helplessness. And it seems one little thing is forgotteen here.

-It`s a digital COMBAT simulator first and foremost.

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't our Su-27 the "S" variant already? We need something a little more modern IMHO, such as the "SM" or "SM3" variant, or even better, the baseline Su-35 (or one of its its derivatives).

 

Yes, we have the first serial production Su-27S model. But everything after that has a glass cockpit. Su-27 went very modern very rapidly. So while already a next variant wouldn't be like ours by the displays (datalinks, RWR, radar etc).

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because its glaringly obviously that ED is already in way over their head with their two 4gen projects and I absolutely don't see them successfully doing another.

It would be literally years in developement , slow everything down even more and sap ressources from the badly needed overhaul..

 

So hoping for a somewhat simpler, cold war 3rd gen or something that can be completed quicker without years for DDI sub-pages, 20 radar modes and 300 mio weapon combos.

 

I love this post. We need new FC4 planes: Su30, Su35, Su24, Su34. Or, we need FF cold war Red jets: Phantom, Flogger, Foxbat, Fitter.

 

Who is calling the shots at ED? What is the vision for the future? Currently we have Blue v Blue Red Flag scenarios over a Georgia/Russia map. There is nothing wrong with that if that's what consumers want.

 

My only disagreement is that the Hornet is a smashing success. Not finished but a wonderful product. Have not bought the Viper yet but I have been impressed by seeing it in MP and videos. It will be a success eventually.

  • Like 1

HORNET/VIPER/HARRIER/SABRE/FISHBED/FROGFOOT/HOKUM/HIND/JUG/ISHAK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with 3rd gen Redfor stuff is that it's great, but wouldn't address the capability gap between the reds and the blues we have. Especially in A-G role. And we already have MiG-21 and 23 is coming. And problem with modern FC4 stuff is that it's doubtful that they can have all of their much wanted functionality unleashed without full-fidelity systems model, or, at the very least, a clickable cockpit. Too many interactions with planes systems are needed to use keypad. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multyplayer state is broken. There are crouds of F14s noob tubing living shit out of everything that moves out there. And half of Blue planes endup on Red side. To remedy complete uslessness of Reds. When you talk about F14 - Mig 31 is only worthy adversary. Same interceptor role same punch.

SU 27M/35 has upgraded fox 2 and 3 with better chareateristics. And can compete with nato planes. As for time and effort to make them. These are easyest birds for ED to make coz they allready have them.

These two platforms needed in MP solely to provide Reds with R77M and R-37 missiles. To remedy their catastrophic helplessness. And it seems one little thing is forgotteen here.

-It`s a digital COMBAT simulator first and foremost.

 

The problem with the F14, is that while the kinematics of the phoenix are sort of decently modeled (aside from the odd stupid high G turns). Its using the old missile API, meaning things like magic tracking and INS. Which result in unrealistic "launch and leave" tactics. IRL the missile needed to be fully supported until active which required the RIO to do it (at least the A's did).

 

IF HB actually models the downsides of using the phoenix, especially the A-models, it will be significantly more bearable. And even more bearable if they model the downsides with the AWG-9 radar (Which they are at least starting to do).

 

But really, the main issue with most f14 servers is the widespread avaiability and misuse of the missile. IRL carriers had a pretty limited load of them (~100-200 max or so), and some yeet-fest server they would be gone in in 10 minutes. I mean most shots you see of the F14 actually being used they carry 2, not 4, not 6 (Can't even recover with 6 IIRC).


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think ED mostly shot themselves in the foot with going too modern too fast. I mean we had the whole F5 v mig 21 thing forever, with the M2k/viggen thrown in the mix.

 

Going from that technology wise, it would have been a much better idea to develop 80's era jets like the F16A, F18A and F15A, A10A vs the then FC3 mig 29/ su27.

 

FM wise we know ED can do the work, and the avionics on those birds were much simpler, yes more "knobs" and dials. But really the F16A would have been a very simple plane to do and with the proper Doug masters memes probably very popular.

 

Then you could ease into PGM's with the earlier generation TGP's (which well sucked relative to what we have now, but it would have provided some of the same capability).

 

And you could pretty credibly do the early mig29A and Su-27 for opfor, not to mention the 23.

 

 

Also, I think from a sales standpoint its pretty much suicidal for them to do the earlier stuff now and ask full price for it. I think far fewer people will want to buy a F16 Block 25 or 30 now that the 50 is here and does way more. Because for a good chunk of the community they want the "I win" button on the latest uber plane.

 

I honestly think if they did lets say something like a mid block F16A it would have sold at full price, then a Block 30 F16C also sold at full price, and then block 50 F16C at some "upgrade price from the block 30". It would have totally worked, development would have been simpler in many ways since you aren't adding too much functionality at once but rather in pretty well defined "eatable" Blocs.

 

I mean consider the F16A vs the F5E we had. APG-66 radar was the big "improvement" radar wise, so you spend a decent time developing the new radar model for it, including ground modes, and lets say you are also doing the APG-65 for the hornet, you add some TWS modes as well. The 16A didn't really use much in the way of fancy PGM's but did have some decent additions of CCIP/CCRP modes for dumb bombs (so you can accurately implement that tech rather than the arcade mode stuff we had/have). And of course everyone's favorite mavs. Then for the Bloc30 ish Viper you can make it the night attack version and add lantrin, your radar development is mostly done since the 68 did add a few things, but was fairly close to the 65 on the hornet. You redo the aero/engine of course. And for the coup-de-grace, you add in a properly modeled AAMRAM. Plus your "learning" curve on that A/C is significantly shorter since you already know some of the pitfalls of making its junior brother.

 

The community of course buys the A viper because its new and shiny, and the Block 30 because its "much more capable", and the same goes for the 50.

 

But now we have the Bloc 50 for better or worse. And I really don't think the majority of the customer base is gonna full price for an earlier bloc, or 16A. So those never get made.

 

Well said. The same also applies to RAZBAM and the Harrier. They could have initially made a simpler Desert Storm-era AV-8B which would have allowed them to concentrate on getting the basic systems done and perhaps get it out of early access after a reasonable time. After achieving this, they could have sold a separate AV-8B N/A at full price for new customers or at a discount for existing Harrier owners, concentrating on all the fancy new year 2000+ avionics features and weapons.

 

Instead this is another aircraft stuck in eternal early access, burning up their company resources without generating new income. The upcoming F-15E is going to be exactly the same...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said. The same also applies to RAZBAM and the Harrier. They could have initially made a simpler Desert Storm-era AV-8B which would have allowed them to concentrate on getting the basic systems done and perhaps get it out of early access after a reasonable time. After achieving this, they could have sold a separate AV-8B N/A at full price for new customers or at a discount for existing Harrier owners, concentrating on all the fancy new year 2000+ avionics features and weapons.

 

Instead this is another aircraft stuck in eternal early access, burning up their company resources without generating new income. The upcoming F-15E is going to be exactly the same...

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably an outlier here, but I'd love to see the A-7E and/or the F-8.

 

That said, I'd like to see all modules already released fixed / finished before moving on to new stuff.


Edited by jmarso
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably an outlier here, but I'd love to see the A-7E and/or the F-8.

 

That said, I'd like to see all modules already released fixed / finished before moving on to new stuff.

 

?

What do you mean?

Those two aircraft are already announced by 3rd party and both are already in some early stage of developement.

Agree with your statement of finishing the released modules before ED pushes out new stuff.

 

 

Regards,

 

Snappy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

 

Also, I think from a sales standpoint its pretty much suicidal for them to do the earlier stuff now and ask full price for it. I think far fewer people will want to buy a F16 Block 25 or 30 now that the 50 is here and does way more. Because for a good chunk of the community they want the "I win" button on the latest uber plane.

 

I honestly think if they did lets say something like a mid block F16A it would have sold at full price, then a Block 30 F16C also sold at full price, and then block 50 F16C at some "upgrade price from the block 30". It would have totally worked, development would have been simpler in many ways since you aren't adding too much functionality at once but rather in pretty well defined "eatable" Blocs.

 

I mean consider the F16A vs the F5E we had. APG-66 radar was the big "improvement" radar wise, so you spend a decent time developing the new radar model for it, including ground modes, and lets say you are also doing the APG-65 for the hornet, you add some TWS modes as well. The 16A didn't really use much in the way of fancy PGM's but did have some decent additions of CCIP/CCRP modes for dumb bombs (so you can accurately implement that tech rather than the arcade mode stuff we had/have). And of course everyone's favorite mavs. Then for the Bloc30 ish Viper you can make it the night attack version and add lantrin, your radar development is mostly done since the 68 did add a few things, but was fairly close to the 65 on the hornet. You redo the aero/engine of course. And for the coup-de-grace, you add in a properly modeled AAMRAM. Plus your "learning" curve on that A/C is significantly shorter since you already know some of the pitfalls of making its junior brother.

 

The community of course buys the A viper because its new and shiny, and the Block 30 because its "much more capable", and the same goes for the 50.

 

But now we have the Bloc 50 for better or worse. And I really don't think the majority of the customer base is gonna full price for an earlier bloc, or 16A. So those never get made.

 

I'd rep that post if it still was possible. That way we would have had many winners. It would have been possible to use the earlier model for 1982 Lebanon War for example and still be hyped to get the additions of later blocks, especially the one with both LANTIRN pods the bl50 doesn't use anymore. Overall it would cover more time periods more accurately and they'd generate more revenue from the F-16, since the multi versions thing. I liked the other sim for having like 30-40 109s and the same amount of Spits, because almost every variant was there in the end. In DCS, we very much have to substitute literally everything by one of the most modern variants for practically every conflict. And it's more than just taking off the AMRAAMs and JDAMs... DCS has the stand of being the most accurate sim, yet people fly MiG-21bises as if they were F-13s, same with literally every other aircraft in the sim. If you really want to nail it, you hardly get a decent scenario together at all. Even the Channel map inconsistently covers multiple time periods at the same time as has been pointed out by philstyle.

The problem of course heavily depends on available data, and how easy it is to get that, so we'll probably have to live with that for a while, and TBH it's way better than not having the things at all.

 

I love this post. We need new FC4 planes: Su30, Su35, Su24, Su34. Or, we need FF cold war Red jets: Phantom, Flogger, Foxbat, Fitter.

 

I'd actually prefer getting some more and new FC grade planes over having MAC in the pipeline. MAC is something most DCS players don't need, it's rather aimed at getting new chaps into the community with a step that's even placed before going FC3. They should take the planned accessibility things and improve the game mode we already have with that. That way they'd also avoid having to service two products at the same time (plus there's already TBS as well). And it probably would enable us to get planes where the detailed data is not (yet) available. And there'd always be the option to upgrade any FC grade aircraft to DCS levels if available data provides for.

 

In the end I might probably end up buying MAC just to support the crew, but never even install it at all...

 

Instead this is another aircraft stuck in eternal early access, burning up their company resources without generating new income. The upcoming F-15E is going to be exactly the same...

 

I guess there is a reason they chose to do the Mudhen. There are quite some commonalities and shared systems with the Hornet, Mudhen and Harrier II. They already said they'd wait on ED's implementation of the AG radar before even starting to work on the B+, and they'd probably try to get more tech from ED that's in the Hornet and also would apply to the Harrier as well. Now with the F-15E, they'd get new revenue for releasing that into early access and from that be able to model systems that will also go into the AV-8.

 

I'm probably an outlier here, but I'd love to see the A-7E and/or the F-8.

 

You're definately not. Can't wait to have the last of the gunfighters from M³ and even more so the FlyingIron Corsair II that I'd probably take over having an A-6 any day. In short: You'll get both, they're in the works already by 3rd parties.

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no, it was stated that it was being handled by the fixed-wing team, that means something entirely different.

 

So quickly the truth becomes distorted. It was stated that the reason we hadn't heard yet about the mystery module was that the modern jet team are busy with viper, hornet and hog2. It was the intention that the MJT would be unburdened first before this new module is announced.

 

There was no indication given whether it be fixed wing or rotary, all that was implied is that the MJT will be involved in its production, from that we can estimate that the module will probably be a modern MFD machine.

476th Discord   |    476th Website    |    Swift Youtube
Ryzen 5800x, RTX 4070ti, 64GB, Quest 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the original topic I'll throw in my 2 cents.

 

1. The new aircraft is something that is meant to be a "Milestone" for DCS. Now I'm going to assume that means its something they we thought we couldn't get in DCS before or don't have a thing like it before but I will also run through the other interpretations people have made.

 

2. Its an aircraft that they have not announced before. This was confirmed by Nineline meaning stuff like the F-4 and possibly Cobra are out the window for now. (I'm hesitant on the Apache because they've talked about it but never said "We are currently working on it" while Wagner said its a "When not if" project I'm still putting it to the side for now.

 

Oh and to rub the salt in the wound Nineline explicitly said its not the F-4 Phantom. (RIP me and my fellow F-4 fans).

 

So that leaves the question, what could it be? Well we have a few options.

 

Tornado - Its a module people have wanted for a while and it's licence has been fought over by RAZBAM and Polychop since like 2014. ED has to clear aspects of modules and it is in their ability to just take the licence from my understanding out from under people and make it their own plane. They could do this with the Tornado but I don't reaaallly see it a "milestone" aircraft. Its not the first European aircraft, we already have multicrew on the F-14 and soon to be Hind and F-15E and we have swing wings on the F-14 as well...so I'm doubtful this is it.

 

A-6 Intruder - Its well known that HB is doing the AI A-6 and that RAZBAM said they couldn't make a flyable module because "Someone already has the licence" but like above, ED could pull the blanket out from under Heatblur and make it themselves, frankly I'd be a little pissed as I feel HB would do a better job if that was the case but its probably unlikely.

 

Russian plane? Well it would be a milestone if somehow they were able to get around the laws preventing full fidelity Russian planes, I've heard the Russian air force was thinking of retiring their Su-27(MS???) one earlier models and if they did it would be up for grabs as a full module...but this is uncertain and you wouldn't devote resources on a hunch it goes out of service.

 

AH-64A or D Apache - They are going to make one. This is known. question is given the vocabulary used in the 2020 Beyond video and other posts after does it count as "Milestone"?. Problem is I'm not sure it does. We already have multicrew on the Hind, its not the first NATO chopper as we have the Gazelle and soon Kiowa. The only 2 things I've found on the forums that relates to this would be perhaps it being a "Milestone" in the grander gaming/sim community in retrospect to DCS rather then it being something new within DCS itself. Something like it would be the first game to represent all branches of the US military to such a high detail? USAF, USN, and Army?. The other thing would be perhaps the first game to model the Apache to such a detail before. But in the terms of DCS it doesn't really add anything new but rather just expands on ideas related to the Kiowa and Gazelle.

 

F/A-18E/F - Theres a very small option that its a Super Hornet of some description as whatever was pulled from the 2020 Beyond video would have been announced before knowledge of the Eurofighter Typhoon even swept over our smooth brains and thus you could pull the "MOST MODERN BLUEFOR PLANE" argument as a "Milestone". Boeing really likes DCS and actually sponsors the F-15E project openly (its how we are getting it even in the first place) so I think the idea of carefully crafted (so no classified info is leaked or if Boeing just modifies the information like they do with the normal F/A-18 in DCS) I think its more possible then people think but still unlikely I feel.

 

And here we get to my curve ball answer.

 

I reckon there is a lot of merit to be given to the F-111. DCS has lacked any kind of Tactical bomber for years. Its pretty much A-10C ---> B-1 Lancer in terms of scale for BLUEFOR. Its not MASSIVE like a flyable B-47 or B-52 or B-1 would be and would make a perfect fit along side the Su-24. "The First flyable Tactical bomber" in DCS fits the "Milestone" pretty well and its a plane many have wanted but has never been really announced in any capacity fitting along with NineLine's posts. It shares a lot of the weapons and systems from other BLUEFOR aircraft and would make sense as being so large why they might have struck it from 2020 video.

 

TL : DR, I feel it will either be the Apache or the F-111


Edited by Southernbear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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