Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World

[Northstar98]

The Apache module will most likely be an AH-64A, though we'll wait and see until it gets formally announced (whenever that might be).

[Dragon1-1]

Ah, I didn't realised that'd been explicitly excluded, rather than people just guessing it had been due to the reasons you mention.

Several very good fits have been. This is why I call out the F-111F with such certainty. They're keeping it a surprise, but they've excluded enough so nothing else is left. :) Admittedly, it might be a helicopter of some description, and a Cobra variant could kind of fit, though I'm not sure if this one wasn't talked about earlier.

 

That is, unless they make something weird that nobody here actually wants, but some other research told them will sell.

[bies]

 

AFAIK, this cockpit is from the prototype only. The production model had MFDs, initially green and white displays then replaced with LCDs.

 

Exactly that. The full analog instruments cockpit is prototype.

[Buzzles]

Several very good fits have been. This is why I call out the F-111F with such certainty. They're keeping it a surprise, but they've excluded enough so nothing else is left. :) Admittedly, it might be a helicopter of some description, and a Cobra variant could kind of fit, though I'm not sure if this one wasn't talked about earlier.

 

That is, unless they make something weird that nobody here actually wants, but some other research told them will sell.

 

Fwiw, the Cobra isn't a surprise either, previously announced as BST were doing it on the backburner before they were reabsorbed back into ED.

[Fri13]

It is interesting detail that word "aircraft" is used instead "airplane" or more specific "fighter" or "bomber" etc. As they didn't want to rule out the possibility for helicopters.

 

There are many helicopters that would be "brain melting" but only few comes to be demanded (like UH-60 or Eurocopter Tiger) that is regardless very niche in the forum, but who knows what it is then in their non-vocal customers that doesn't have forum presence...

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

I don't know. Most non-attack helicopters are not all that complex to operate. Their difficulty comes not from switchology, using MFDs or anything, but from the fact that they're helicopters, inherently hard to fly in first place and flying some seriously demanding missions. The ones people want aren't all that peculiar. Commanche or Cheyenne would certainly qualify as "mind-melting", but as it happens, it is exactly because of that they didn't enter actual service, and some people would be outright opposed to including one of those.

[lmp]

What's the selling point of the F-111 though (as a DCS aircraft)? Do you believe the sales would justify the considerable expenses?

[Northstar98]

The main selling point is probably going to be it's payload and range capability, as well as being a historical icon (though mileage may vary).

 

It's also the first real bomber module in DCS.

 

 

That said, I think the developers best poised for the development of an F-111 is probably Heatblur, and I have doubts that it's the module being developed by ED.

 

[bies]

It's also the first real bomber module in DCS.

AJ-37 Viggen is the first bomber, it's swedish counterpart of Tornado IDS and F-111. Slightly smaller with shorter range due to Swedish requirement.

And like Tornado ADF later it had also fighter variant JA-37.

[reece146]

111... Century aircraft...?

 

I doubt it's the 111, seems kind of esoteric with not a lot of broad appeal. Don't get me wrong, i like the plane and would most likely buy it just to experience the ejection process with the "capsule". :lol:

 

Seems kind of like a module more likely done by a third party to me.

[MAXsenna]

I'm quite confident that Nineline has confirmed in a previous post in this thread that is not the F-111, though I would love to see it.

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

 

[SharkWizard]

What about the F-106? The air-2 would be a brain- and facemelting missile in any event.

Also flying with an eye-patch like a pirate would be "interesting" to say the least and especially in VR I'd surmise.

 

[lmp]

Seems kind of like a module more likely done by a third party to me.

 

Precisely. It doesn't fit in with ED's profit first approach. It's too obscure and too much of a one trick pony for them. Look at it this way. They already started working on the Phantom. Now they want to do this thing (instead? along side?). It has to be something of at least comparable notoriety or capabilities. The F-111 isn't. As for the other criteria... You really have to squint hard in some cases. Brain melter? Why, what does it have or do that some other aircraft doesn't already? I mean a qualitative, not quantitative difference that really matters. A few more LGBs doesn't cut it. Neither does a WSO sitting side by side rather than in the back/front. That's a programming challenge, not a new brain melting feature. Also, is it really difficult to fly? Maybe I don't know about some particular characteristic of the thing, but swing wings and non 9G rated airframe alone doesn't sound particularly challenging.

 

Is it 100% certain that this thing has to be American? I know it's not "red" but maybe European or Israeli or something else? Maybe something that they once said they wouldn't do somehow became possible?

[splash]

my question is, when is ED going to announce this module.

[Northstar98]

AJ-37 Viggen is the first bomber, it's swedish counterpart of Tornado IDS and F-111. Slightly smaller with shorter range due to Swedish requirement.

And like Tornado ADF later it had also fighter variant JA-37.

 

Eh, I guess, the F-111 is definitely more of a pure tactical bomber though it's only payload is bombs really (well, it can carry the M61 Vulcan and the AGM-130, as well as the AIM-9 purely defensively, unless we're talking about the Australian F-111C which can do a fair bit more AFAIK).

 

Anything low-level interdictor/strike gets my vote.

 

111... Century aircraft...?

 

While I understand why you might say so, I don't think it's part of them.

 

AFAIK the Century series is only the F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105 and F-106

 

I doubt it's the 111, seems kind of esoteric with not a lot of broad appeal. Don't get me wrong, i like the plane and would most likely buy it just to experience the ejection process with the "capsule". :lol:

 

Seems kind of like a module more likely done by a third party to me.

 

Agreed, and while I have very strong affinity for the F-111, I don't see ED doing one given that it's basically single-role in that it can only do A/G, and ED seems to stray away from doing those sort of aircraft. I also don't think it'll be profitable enough to meet their requirements given how complicated it is (different TGP, twin-seater/multicrew, TFR, swing-wings, twin (temperamental) engines).

 

It would also probably require ED to overhaul interactions with the water, seeing as that ejection capsule is designed to float - so we'd get our first full fidelity boat module in DCS too! :D

 

As Heatblur are the only 3rd party to deliver a complex swing-wing aircraft, focused on Cold War modules from the mid 70s to early 90s, and have experience doing the TF30s (although the wrong variant and the TF30-P100 was a redesign AFAIK) I'd say they're best poised to deliver one.

 

If the F-111 is confirmed not it, what really could it be?

 

F-117 seems like a possible candidate, but essentially has the same mission as the F-111, only IMO, more boring (higher-altitude, low-observability, only has 2 GBU-10/12/27/31/38 and nothing else). I'm not particularly interested in post 2000s 4+ gen aircraft, when there's next to nothing peer that fits them.

[SovietAce]

my question is, when is ED going to announce this module.

 

Probably near end of year. Most likely in "2021 and Beyond" video.

[Schnelli]

In the interview Simon Pearson said that they won´t do a Tornado because it is a two seater. I think the same point can be applied on the F-111.

[Northstar98]

 

Probably near end of year. Most likely in "2021 and Beyond" video.

 

Yeah, the F-16C was announced in the

, and the

was out early February of this year, given that it hasn't been announced yet, best guess is that it will sneak it's way into the 2021 one, if there is going to be one.

 

In the interview Simon Pearson said that they won´t do a Tornado because it is a two seater. I think the same point can be applied on the F-111.

 

Yeah, I really have doubts that the secret module is an F-111, as much as I want one.

[reece146]

Another random thought...

 

ED has been working hard on adding/improving the underwater 'landscape' in their terrains. The intention is to add subs - did I read that somewhere?

 

ASW? It's kind of a missing genre in game currently.

 

P-3 with involved multi-crew and/or a carrier based ASW rig? <sorry not up on US Navy carrier based ASW stuff - S3?>

 

ASW is not logistical per se so can't use that argument; the Anubis Super Herc shows how practical/graceful a Super Herc can be so similar performance envelope I guess in spite of having a pair of engines slaved together... code changes... Carrier borne ASW is only two engine so maybe that is more realistic as an ED deliverable and slots into the Supercarrier milieu nicely.

 

Probably can discount this thought right away - lots of work to do to deliver this.

[Seaeagle]

In the interview Simon Pearson said that they won´t do a Tornado because it is a two seater.

 

Oh I didn't see that - I know that they said they weren't interested in the Tornado, but are you sure its because its a two-seater?.

 

I think the same point can be applied on the F-111.

 

.....and the Apache.

 

He also said that they wouldn't do the F-15C because, being a pure fighter, its a "low-demand" product.....so is anything Russian apparently.

 

So whats left that could be considered "eagerly awaited" and not already announced/teased or refuted?

 

[Seaeagle]

Another random thought...

 

ED has been working hard on adding/improving the underwater 'landscape' in their terrains. The intention is to add subs - did I read that somewhere?

 

ASW? It's kind of a missing genre in game currently.

 

ROFL - seriously?.

 

P-3 with involved multi-crew and/or a carrier based ASW rig? <sorry not up on US Navy carrier based ASW stuff - S3?>

 

Which ASW platform can you think of that isn't at least a "two-seater"? :)

 

ASW is not logistical per se so can't use that argument; the Anubis Super Herc shows how practical/graceful a Super Herc can be so similar performance envelope I guess in spite of having a pair of engines slaved together... code changes... Carrier borne ASW is only two engine so maybe that is more realistic as an ED deliverable and slots into the Supercarrier milieu nicely.

 

Yeah - they would just need to start developing the entire naval side of the sim, which has been pretty much dead in the water since Flanker 2.5.......submarines would also be nice(especially working ones) for ASW operations :) .

 

Probably can discount this thought right away - lots of work to do to deliver this.

 

I think that would qualify as the understatement of the year :) .

[Schnelli]

Oh I didn't see that - I know that they said they weren't interested in the Tornado, but are you sure its because its a two-seater?.

 

Couldn´t find the time stamp rigth now, but yeah.

About the Apache it might be different. It´s probably more comparable to the Hind than a Tornado or Tomcat.

[Dragon1-1]

It's very strange, TBH, considering they already made a two-seater L-39 that works perfectly well. Side by side is a challenge (and would fit the "milestone" part), but multicrew in general has been a thing for a while.

[lmp]

Selling a new module and marketing it around side by side multicrew would be in bad taste when there are two modules released years ago that already advertise that as a future feature.

 

As for ASW, I don't see a point. It would require a whole new layer of simulation (or several), there's no fun in it for the pilot and there's next to no spectacle. Your prey cannot shoot back and there's very little interaction with anything already in the game.

 

An AEW platform would be better. An E-2 perhaps for the added challenge of carrier ops. It would at least interact with the existing units (and since there may be an IADS module on the way...). But it's still a long shot.

[Northstar98]

Another random thought...

 

ED has been working hard on adding/improving the underwater 'landscape' in their terrains. The intention is to add subs - did I read that somewhere?

 

Meh there is a sea floor, but there's no 'underwater' as such. So far the SoH/PG map, Syria and the Channel seem to have accurate depth maps (at least for their included charts, where bathymetric contours seem to align.

 

The Caucasus however is just a solid layer of 100m/328ft until your about 3-10km from the coast (from my limited testing), however it should go down past ~2000m/6000ft if this is any accurate.

 

The Channel is more difficult to test, but it seems about right-ish (it's not like there's massive variations in depth, nor is it particularly deep), I don't think the Lobourg Channel is there though (should go down to ~80m/250ft but only goes to half that in DCS).

 

Even so, submarines are in their absolute infancy, only fixed-depth, gyroangle, straight running torpedoes are modelled. No sensors at all as far as I can tell (even if animated), apart from the CA periscope, but it's bare bones. Submarine dynamics aren't there either (i.e how they change depth, they don't pitch at all, they move vertically). Submarine wakes aren't dynamic, (i.e they don't form around the sail/conning tower when that's out of the water, same for masts and antennae). Submarines sound identical to on the surface as they do submerged, and DCS doesn't compensate their speed submerged vs surfaced - for example, a Type 7 u-boat should only be able to manage ~7 knots submerged, but in DCS it can do 20+ which it can do on the surface, but can't do underwater. Snorkels aren't a thing yet, nor is there any ASW weapons present in DCS, short of bombing/AI torpedoing submarines close to/on the surface.

 

There's also no SONAR at all, in any form, or countermeasures or tactics.

 

ASW? It's kind of a missing genre in game currently.

 

Basically everything naval that isn't pure carrier operations (and communications still has a way to go) is kinda missing, apart from the real basics (i.e firing anti-ship missiles across a bearing, naval gunnery (even if the RoFs are pretty off), and air defence. Credit, where it's due though I don't want to take any dumps here; there is more implemented (especially graphically) than other combat flight simulators and when ED gets it right, they definitely deliver.

 

 

 

• Ships blindly follow waypoints, they don't manoeuvre defensively at all to incoming threats. (To give ED credit, they did implement offensive manoeuvring for the MTB and U boat, which is a fantastic step in the right direction).
  
• Ships have an incredibly limited damage model, there's no real internal damage modelling or subsystem damage (as far as I can tell) and how ships sink is always the same regardless of what hit it and where.
  
• Ships still have a limited implementation in terms of dynamics and don't fully interact with the water; for larger vessels this isn't so bad, but for smaller vessels you can get them to do complete rolls when turning at high speed. Probably low-priority though.
  
• Ships have no countermeasures, be it chaff or ECM, nor are the decoy launchers animated/have any arguments for.
  
• No control over formations besides the initial set-up, unlike ground vehicles and aircraft.
  
• The Ticonderoga-class CG and Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62 DDG don't have all the weapons available to them, the Arleigh-Burke hull numbers are early-to-mid 2000s ships, as such they should have access to the RIM-162 ESSM, RIM-174A Standard ERAM, not to mention, we don't have any control over what loadouts they have.
  
• Some naval guns should have a variety of ammunition types/fuzing available, for instance the AK100 on the Grisha-V, Neustrashimy and Krivak-II should have a contact-fuzed HE round (UOF-58 w. V-249 fuze) and anti-aircraft UZS-58 w. DVM-60M1 remote fuze and UZS-58R w. AR-32 RADAR fuze). The AK-130 also has the same equivalent rounds (F-44, ZS-44 and ZS-44R), as does the AK-176 (UOFB-62 HE and UZSB-62RP).
  
• The Phalanx CIWS is firing the wrong ammunition (w. the wrong dispersion).
  
• No ASW weapons, (though Mk32 torpedo tubes are animated on the Arleigh-Burke) and no ASW sensors at all (let alone tactics).
  
• Some RADARs aren't implemented, such as the independent search modes on the 4R33 "Pop Group' FCR for the SA-N-4 SAM system, the MR360 'Cross Sword' FCR for the SA-N-9 SAM system and the SPG-62 CWI RADARs to provide terminal homing SARH guidance for the SM-2.
  
• Ship naming is still kinda all-over the place, the supercarriers are absolutely fine given they're unique. But for other ships, in English localisation it would be better to name them by classification -> class/sub-class/NATO Reporting name -> Project Number and Name (if applicable). For instance the USS Arleigh-Burke IIa should be renamed 'Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62 (late) DDG' (the USS Arleigh Burke is a Flt. I ship); the FF 1135M Rezky should be renamed Krivak-II class FF (Pr. 1135M "Burevestnik-M" SKR)
  

 

 

P-3 with involved multi-crew and/or a carrier based ASW rig? <sorry not up on US Navy carrier based ASW stuff - S3?>

 

Very unlikely given absolutely no ASW weapons or sensors exist and torpedoes are still in their most rudimentary form. Buoys I guess could just be a floating, animated 3D model at this stage, but without any form of SONAR engine and underwater modelling there really isn't much point.

 

ASW is not logistical per se so can't use that argument; the Anubis Super Herc shows how practical/graceful a Super Herc can be so similar performance envelope I guess in spite of having a pair of engines slaved together... code changes... Carrier borne ASW is only two engine so maybe that is more realistic as an ED deliverable and slots into the Supercarrier milieu nicely.

 

Probably can discount this thought right away - lots of work to do to deliver this.

 

All I'll say further is that any naval platform, particularly one dedicated for ASW seems incredibly unlikely, even if I would really like the naval environment to be better developed, but it's just not a priority (nor maybe it should be at the moment) and DCS is currently not really in a position for them just yet.