Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World

[Jester986]

I'd wish we could get a comment on what they're looking at after all the super planes are done. Vietnam makes the most sense but would they do that if they don't think they'd sell? Or will they just accept what they think will be diminishing returns? Sell us better moderb ai assets to fight in our super planes?

[Northstar98]

Baco said:

 

True, but then again ED is not making a coherent complete Sim, only a Sandbox where to place ultra realistic Modules.

True, though at least WWII is getting something coherent, in fact WWII is probably the most fleshed out era in DCS, with both full-fidelity modules on BLUFOR and REDFOR, as well as a decent match of air defences, tanks and other vehicles on both sides.

I just find it kinda off that we have these realistic modules, but so far can't really put them in a realistic (or at least alternate history) mission due to a lack of consistent assets.

Baco said:

And general public prefer new and fancy over coherency, or even logic LOL mos people wanna be maverick shooting everything on the sky and ground BUT have an "assurance" that is "realistic" so its totally True...

True, but then we do end up forced into DCS: The Final Countdown, at best against non-peer forces and at worst BLUFOR on BLUFOR...

Personally I'd love to get an 80s Germany map with contemporary assets to boot... Literally a perfect dream come true for me.

Harlikwin said:

Second guess: 5th gen (22/35), but I really think it would really screw up DCS MP, so I don't really want it.

For me it's not only that, in SP I think they'll end up as pretty boring modules at least for me personally. Plus there's modelling an AESA RADAR (and an advanced one at that), and the bare bones EW, I could go on.

But it's still just yet another AMRAAM/JDAM bus, just with even longer range AMRAAMs like AIM-120C-7/D. The sensors would be godly compared to anything else (especially the F-35).

Would I purchase it? Probably, but I'd be reluctant to, and even then its only really out of novelty, going up against things 40 years out of date (at best) will probably get boring quickly - I mean it's like taking an F-15C up against a Bf-109 - it's the exact same age gap. I mean 5th generation just seems completely out of place in DCS IMO, only now not only is there the problem of lack of appropriate REDFOR - BLUFOR also don't really have anything either besides (arguably) the Nimitz-Roosevelt CVNs and the Arleigh-Burke Flt IIA 5"/62 (which as of right now only has 1 Tomahawk variant and the SM-2).

I mean, even long range RADARs, we only have what, 5? Of which 1 is completely non-functional eye-candy, the main 2 that work are graphically outdated (by a long way), the other mostly the associated SA-3 search RADAR, and the other is WW2. All of them are REDFOR, not a single one BLUFOR.

Harlikwin said:

I think long term strategy wise ED has kinda pooched it by starting off with the most modern variants of stuff. The early models would be far easier to do, and then you could up-charge for a later and more capable version. I.e. F16A or block 30C, then upgrade to the block 50. You basically shorten development times into more feasible chunks, you grow the plane set rationally, you charge for more "complex" features stuff like D/L, HMCS, etc. Like if we had an F18A it would have been done long ago, same for an early viper. And the more advanced systems would be in development. It would also mean a much larger overall historical space for missions, so instead of having to "gimp" the current viper, you'd have a much closer version of what you wanted.

Absolutely, a million times freaking this. I could not physically agree more.

Harlikwin said:

And really, I mean its a slightly different airframe, dropping/shooting largely the same point-n-click weapons, which at some point gets old.

And this too.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Jester986]

 

True, but then we do end up forced into DCS: The Final Countdown, at best against non-peer forces and at worst BLUFOR on BLUFOR...

 

Personally I'd love to get an 80s Germany map with contemporary assets to boot...

 

I've been planning Army and airforce versus navy and marines civil war set of missions...

 

[Northstar98]

Jester986 said:

 

I've been planning Army and airforce versus navy and marines civil war set of missions...

I mean your missions are yours to do what you want with - that's absolutely fine and that's absolutely the way it should be. The problem for me is that I can't set up a peer-to-peer mission while keeping the assets historically consistent, I cannot do it.

You can set-up a scenario like you described just fine, I on the other hand, cannot.

• If I go WWII I'm all set, easily the most fleshed out era, most things considered (well, apart from naval assets).
• For the 50s I've basically got 3 aircraft, and nothing else (ZSU-57-2 is on the way, and the WWII asset pack can be used as a stand in).
• Nothing for the 60s apart from the stuff from the 50s, though there are definitely more ground vehicles etc.
• 70s there's the MiG-21bis and F-5E-3, most likely the earlier F-14A too, but that's it. A lot more air defences and ground vehicles, as well as a number of others assets.
• 80s there aren't any modules apart from FC3 and the later F-14A, even though the vast majority of assets fit here.

Fast forward to the 2000s and 2010s, there's most of our popular BLUFOR modules, a handful of Chinese ships, the GREENFOR JF-17, and a few tanks and that's it, no air defences whatsoever and little to no other AI assets.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Jester986]

 

I mean your missions are yours to do what you want with - that's absolutely fine. The problem for me is that I can't set up a peer-to-peer mission while keeping the assets historically consistent, I cannot do it.

 

You can set-up a scenario like this just fine, I on the other hand, cannot.

 

If I go WWII I'm all set.

For the 50s I've basically got 3 aircraft, and nothing else (ZSU-57-2 is on the way, and the WWII asset pack can be used as a stand in).

Nothing for the 60s apart from the stuff from the 50s, though there are definitely more ground vehicles etc.

70s there's the MiG-21bis and F-5E-3, most likely the earlier F-14A too. A lot more air defences and ground vehicles.

80s there aren't any modules apart from FC3 and the later F-14A, even though the vast majority of assets fit here.

 

Fast forward to the 2000s and 2010s, there's most of our popular BLUFOR modules, a handful of Chinese ships, the GREENFOR JF-17, and a few tanks and that's it, no air defences whatsoever and little to no other AI assets.

 

I completely agree with you. I wish this wasn't the case. I'd much prefer a historical conflict but this is what I'm going to do to make the most of DCS. That's actually why I'm so excited for Razbams Falklands map. It's not unreasonable to think we could get every air asset (except black buck) flayable.

 

 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

I like the analog stuff. I have the F-5, F14 and F18 and virtually never put up the f18 because It flies itself (in my mind, don’t get offended).

it just takes no effort to flip around. First time I pulled and ripped the wings off the f14 Inwas hooked.

AGAIN. That doesn’t mean I’m a stone cold killer in the F18, can’t even use the radar but it just doesn’t feel to me like Im flying.

F4 would be hot.....

[Harlikwin]

 

I mean your missions are yours to do what you want with - that's absolutely fine. The problem for me is that I can't set up a peer-to-peer mission while keeping the assets historically consistent, I cannot do it.

 

You can set-up a scenario like this just fine, I on the other hand, cannot.

• If I go WWII I'm all set, easily the most flushed out era, considering most (well, apart from naval assets).
  
• For the 50s I've basically got 3 aircraft, and nothing else (ZSU-57-2 is on the way, and the WWII asset pack can be used as a stand in).
  
• Nothing for the 60s apart from the stuff from the 50s, though there are definitely more ground vehicles etc.
  
• 70s there's the MiG-21bis and F-5E-3, most likely the earlier F-14A too. A lot more air defences and ground vehicles.
  
• 80s there aren't any modules apart from FC3 and the later F-14A, even though the vast majority of assets fit here.
  

Fast forward to the 2000s and 2010s, there's most of our popular BLUFOR modules, a handful of Chinese ships, the GREENFOR JF-17, and a few tanks and that's it, no air defences whatsoever and little to no other AI assets.

 

Yup this is the exact set of issues in DCS. I mean fine its a sandbox, but its crappy sandbox at the moment. Hopefully they start filling some holes in the planeset.

 

The biggest issue is the big holes in the planesets for online use.

 

All you FF red jets currently extant and incoming are from the 70's or earlier.

And almost all your FF blue jets start in 2000+

 

Given the fact we can't have modern red (2000+), then the logical thing to would be to fill in the blue/red set in the older decades, which to a point is happening, just waay too slowly for anyones taste. And the big module the F4 (used by everyone) seems to be a super low priority, though it would solve 90% of the balance issues for the earlier scenarios. Its just an ugly unicorn :) (Rhino, ha ha)

[Harlikwin]

 

I completely agree with you. I wish this wasn't the case. I'd much prefer a historical conflict but this is what I'm going to do to make the most of DCS. That's actually why I'm so excited for Razbams Falklands map. It's not unreasonable to think we could get every air asset (except black buck) flayable.

 

 

Yeah, IDK, its not gonna be particularly historic for a looong time tho.

 

They did say they would do the Sea Harrier at some point (after the 23, and 15E) but thats years out. And then there's nothing else, no one is doing an A4, or mirage III, or Etnards.

[Jester986]

Well Razbam is planning to do them all. They're working on Sea Harrier and Pucara. They've said the Mirage III will be flyable and They've waffaled back and forth on making the Entendard flyable. Of course that is about 36 years of development time... Hopefully other devs will jump in and help out.

[Evoman]

I like the analog stuff. I have the F-5, F14 and F18 and virtually never put up the f18 because It flies itself (in my mind, don’t get offended).

it just takes no effort to flip around. First time I pulled and ripped the wings off the f14 Inwas hooked.

AGAIN. That doesn’t mean I’m a stone cold killer in the F18, can’t even use the radar but it just doesn’t feel to me like Im flying.

F4 would be hot.....

 

I totally agree. The newer fly by wire aircraft are easy to fly at the edge but the compromise is a computer dampened experience. But with the F-14 you can actually feel like you are in full control of it and I love all the feed back that the aircraft gives off. You don't need all the top tech to be a Top Ace. Check out what the IAF top Ace Giora Epstein says about his experience flying the Mirage III vs the F-16 at 42:08.

 

 

[Etha2007]

 

ED will fall flat on their face with all this hype. Its going to be another AMRAAM/JDAM carrier with nothing new except a different flight model. The most "eagerly awaited" Module in DCS is the Su-27SM3, given that it was apparently already being developed, then cancelled, in 2013. But by using the phrase "eagerly awaited" and "brainmelter" in relation to another half-finished NATO 4th gen, they played themselves.

 

Luckily there is another well-known game developer headed towards at least low fidelity 4th gens. So whether its going to be it or ED, we will not have to wait for a modern russian jet more than 1-2 years.

 

IIRC, the Su-27SM3 didn't get cancelled. It got cease and desist(ed).

[Mike_Romeo]

Just hypotetical, could it be the EA-6B ? Its not in service any more and would be "brainmelting" if it comes with proper electronic warfare simulation and multicrew.

[lmp]

An EW plane would be a lot of work for not enough market appeal. Nothing exciting is happening in the pilot's seat, you can't really conduct any mission by yourself, and on a successful mission you don't even see any weapons being fired, let alone pull the trigger. It's still better than an ASW platform, but nope, not happening.

 

Regrettably, I don't think ED is willing to move too far out of their money printing comfort zone of the Western multirole fighter.

[Northstar98]

Mike_Romeo said:

Just hypotetical, could it be the EA-6B ? Its not in service any more and would be "brainmelting" if it comes with proper electronic warfare simulation and multicrew.

Given the current state of Electronic Warfare in DCS:W, probably no.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Baco]

And lets face it Anyone can do fbw computer driven sims...

 

The hard part is getting the FM and the feel of an aircraft right, and that´s what ED does best ans its squandered in uber modern planes instead of iconic planes with character like 70s and 80s ones....

 

Just develop MAC and give the kids the 22´s 35s 47´s (PAK), etc with aesa and super cruise...

 

For us hardcore guys leave us a DCS with the legends and century planes...

 

[sparrow88]

Just hypotetical, could it be the EA-6B ? Its not in service any more and would be "brainmelting" if it comes with proper electronic warfare simulation and multicrew.

 

Four seater EW plane? Thats rather unlikely.

 

F117? - very interesting, but I wonder if they will get enough data on its RCS and how it changes from different angles. Without that it would be rather underwhelming to drop those 2 GBUs all the time

 

F-111? - For me it doesnt bring anything new to DCS and never ever would I call this brain melter.

 

Rafale - Its a bit older than Typhoon, around the same age as our current F16 and F18, but Razbam would be expected to get that license first since they cooperate with AdA. Certainly face melting and something new (especially if it would come with Charles de Gaulle)

[Northstar98]

sparrow88 said:

 

Four seater EW plane? Thats rather unlikely.

 

F117? - very interesting, but I wonder if they will get enough data on its RCS and how it changes from different angles. Without that it would be rather underwhelming to drop those 2 GBUs all the time

Agreed, the F-117 is certainly very interesting, though for me solely because of its penetration abilities. It is however limited to just 2 bombs

As for RCS? Meh, it's just a single value in DCS, it doesn't care about aspect and I don't think it cares about whether or not the landing gear is down or bomb bay doors open. That and RADARs that aren't on a player aircraft (and even then mileage sometimes varies) are usually pretty simplified, but enough to get the job done. They certainly don't use any kind of raycasting to accurately determine returns, much less do they care about the shape of the aircraft.

sparrow88 said:

F-111? - For me it doesnt bring anything new to DCS and never ever would I call this brain melter.

Well it's a totally different, basically being the first real tactical bomber in DCS, and the first big-ish player module, it also already has its perfect contemporary (even if AI) in the Su-24M.

If it did get done, it would probably be the first module with a TFR.

Relatively significant in Vietnam, Libya and ODS. One big thing for me is that it fits the overwhelming majority of assets already present in DCS.

sparrow88 said:

Rafale - Its a bit older than Typhoon, around the same age as our current F16 and F18, but Razbam would be expected to get that license first since they cooperate with AdA. Certainly face melting and something new (especially if it would came with Charles de Gaulle)

Meh, I kinda disagree, but only on a matter of opinion alone.

It's definitely interesting out of novelty and is a very pretty and capable aircraft, but when I look at everything else around it in DCS, I'm kinda dissuaded.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Worrazen]

 

Is it?

 

No doubt something that will be a total hotcake, but the most eagerly awaited?

 

And according to that interview Flankers are off the table completely including the mid-80s Su-27S.

 

I think we need to face reality here: the early 80s Project 9.12 MiG-29 Fulcrum A is the best we're going to get for a very long time.

 

In my opinion, ED kinda shot themselves in the foot with doing post 2000s variants of the Hornet and F-16, basically knowing that we probably couldn't have a peer contemporary. IMO 80s variants would be more preferable factoring the overwhelming majority of basically every asset in DCS. I mean there is not one single air defence system in DCS, at all, that is newer than the early 90s. None. Only thing that might be is the Chinese ships, but that's it.

• SA-10B/S-300PS? Early-to-mid 80s
  
• SA-15/9K330? Mid 80s
  
• SA-19/2K22? Early-to-mid 80s
  
• SA-2d/S-75M? Early 70s
  
• SA-3b/S-125M/M1? 70s
  
• SA-5b/S-200M? 70s
  
• MIM-104C Patriot? early 90s
  

 

Right, but it's not a story, it's not final fantasy or the legend of zelda, and even tho I'm a big fan of Zelda, I don't want it like that with DCS, I like it that it's not some scripted "feed the consumer" entertainment that feels too babysitting, it's really more natural approach of a sandbox sim, and once they populate it, you would be able to imagine that story and configure it for that purpose, but I agree that they're not force-feeding some specific story in some specific time frame, that would be felt as a subjective bias, so having it random like that it's better in this regard.

[Etha2007]

And lets face it Anyone can do fbw computer driven sims...

 

The hard part is getting the FM and the feel of an aircraft right, and that´s what ED does best ans its squandered in uber modern planes instead of iconic planes with character like 70s and 80s ones....

 

Just develop MAC and give the kids the 22´s 35s 47´s (PAK), etc with aesa and super cruise...

 

For us hardcore guys leave us a DCS with the legends and century planes...

 

Are you saying that anyone who likes modern FBW driven computer aircraft should go play MAC instead, and that the only planes with any "character" are older ones from the 70s? Really?

[Baco]

 

Are you saying that anyone who likes modern FBW driven computer aircraft should go play MAC instead, and that the only planes with any "character" are older ones from the 70s? Really?

 

No, not at all, sorry it came out that way.

 

What I am Saying is, Any sim company can Make a FBW Modern Jet and make it "feel" realistic... if Microprose lunches a sim tomorrow the easy thing is to gtet computer systems working on a sim.. the Hard par is to get the FM and " feel" of the aircraft on a PC.

 

On the other side DCS is specificaly special in this regard, they have an engine that really makes you feel the plane...

 

I have been simming since 1985, and I still get goose bumps when I fly the Tomcat.. with all the shaking and noises and complex FM.. and the F 5, Mig 19, F 86, Mig 15 al planes you can almos feel inside.. VR and a bas motion thingy and you could swear you are there....

 

Modern FBW jets fly perfectly on their own, so if they are on rails or not its the same... Unless you look very very closely (no I am not saying that hey don't have complex FM, I am saying that 90% of the time you don't FEEL it)... so you can get away with a not so sophisticated FM...

 

I hope I made my point clear. No offense meant to those who fly complex modern jets...

 

And mi intention was to say. Make MAC Fast so everybody that is asking for super modern, half or low fidelity modules, can have their wish and leave DCS -where you can´t put modern jets because of Classified , or non existent documentation, or not enough level of detail known, to make the DCS standards- for the ultra fidelity old models that CAN be build.

[Northstar98]

Worrazen said:

 

Right, but it's not a story, it's not final fantasy or the legend of zelda, and even tho I'm a big fan of Zelda, I don't want it like that with DCS, I like it that it's not some scripted "feed the consumer" entertainment that feels too babysitting, it's really more natural approach of a sandbox sim, and once they populate it, you would be able to imagine that story and configure it for that purpose, but I agree that they're not force-feeding some specific story in some specific time frame, that would be felt as a subjective bias, so having it random like that it's better in this regard.

Huh?

I want to keep DCS as a sandbox, make no mistake about it. People should be free to make whatever scenario they want, regardless of how fictional or whatever.

And no, there shouldn't be a definite, Zelda-like (?), specific story, where the outcome is known; it should be left up to the mission designer and preferably be made dynamic, from there it's up to the players to decide the outcome. All I want to do is set the scene.

It doesn't have to be any particular historical mission, it can be totally made up. It's little more than pick a decade and pick a target, then craft the mission around that. The problem is, apart from WWII, I can't pick a decade and stick with it, while keeping it peer-to-peer.

It's no different whatsoever from what SF2, Cold Waters or even BMS sets up. They all essentially pick a decade and have comprehensive assets from that decade, and the missions are alternate history.

It doesn't have to be one decade in particular, but generally they pick 1 or 2 and then have assets that fit around them. In DCS we go all the way from the 1940s to the mid 2010s, but only WWII is really fleshed out if you consider basically everything. Practically every other non-player assets that isn't WWII fits the mid-to-late Cold War and while there's a number of player modules (+ FC3) if you go decade by decade there's really not much (see below).

Most of our popular BLUFOR modules are post 2000s, which fits next to nothing considering everything else.

Of course, if you want to set-up a non-peer-to-mission, where there is era disparity between the 2 sides, that's absolutely fine. The difference is you can do missions like that; if I want to set-up a peer-to-peer mission, where assets on both sides are roughly from the same decade (not necessarily balanced, that's not what I'm going for), at worst I straight up can't, and at best I'm heavily constrained.

• If I go WWII I'm all set, easily the most fleshed out era, most things considered (well, apart from naval assets).
• For the 50s I've basically got 3 aircraft, and nothing else (ZSU-57-2 is on the way, and the WWII asset pack can be used as a stand in).
• Nothing for the 60s apart from the stuff from the 50s, though there are definitely a few more ground vehicles etc.

Then onto the mid-to-late Cold War, where the vast majority of assets fit.

• 70s there's the MiG-21bis and F-5E-3, most likely the earlier F-14A too, but that's it. There is essentially a comprehensive set of SAMs (even if they're missing a fair number of battery components and only 1 variant and no MANPADs), there's a decent-ish number of ground vehicles but not really comprehensive.
• 80s there's only the Mirage 2000C (arguably?) and the later F-14A, as well as FC3; even though the vast majority of assets fit here (including all of those from the 70s and even the late 60s), there's also more ground vehicles and air defences and basically every REDFOR ship that's present (even if the majority of them are in dire need for a major facelift).
• 90s there's only really the AJS-37 and F-14B, and they're both basically start of the 90s. Though there are a few vehicles that are specific, but most of the stuff here is stuff from the 70s and 80s).

Then onto the 2000s and 2010s where the majority of our popular BLUFOR modules live; the AV-8B NA, both A-10Cs, the F-16CM, and F/A-18C; there's the GREENFOR JF-17. But aside from that there's only a handful of tanks (Merkava IV, T-72B3 obr. 2016 and the ZTZ96B) and the Chinese Asset Pack ships. But that's it.

Now fine, if you don't mind mixing stuff around, then fine, go for it. But if I want to set-up a mission of a a particular decade, and keep it peer-to-peer, WWII is my best bet. Sure I can use workarounds like restricting weapons and turning data-links off etc, but it's still just a workaround.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[sparrow88]

 

Well it's a totally different, basically being the first real tactical bomber in DCS, and the first big-ish player module, it also already has its perfect contemporary (even if AI) in the Su-24M.

 

If it did get done, it would probably be the first module with a TFR.

 

Relatively significant in Vietnam, Libya and ODS. One big thing for me is that it fits the overwhelming majority of assets already present in DCS..

 

We have Corsair 2 in development since February that is a real tactical bomber with TFR.

 

Is it really that big? It seems around the same size as tomcat. Maybe slightly bigger but still I wouldnt say this differrence would qualify as face melting. But as you said its all personal opinion- for me Rafale is face melting simply because everyone thinks its too new to be simulated in DCS. Even Tomcat D would be face melting because ppl want it but it was said many times by HB that they wont do it.

 

 

[Fri13]

We have Corsair 2 in development since February that is a real tactical bomber with TFR.

 

We might do have A-6 Intruder as well, it is under development by Heatblur. They are developing it from standpoint to be easy convert from AI only to playable module if they just get licensing for it.

 

Is it really that big? It seems around the same size as tomcat. Maybe slightly bigger but still I wouldnt say this differrence would qualify as face melting. But as you said its all personal opinion- for me Rafale is face melting simply because everyone thinks its too new to be simulated in DCS. Even Tomcat D would be face melting because ppl want it but it was said many times by HB that they wont do it.

 

But one of the points was that it is "eagerly awaited" and that is very tough thing to crack as you would need to have people already given their opinions in some manner to them that "When X is coming", "are you going to do X?", "if X comes I will totally buy it" etc.

 

So as while we (ED forum community) can't come up with a 1-2 aircrafts that are clearly the most wanted to be announced (one point was it has not been announced) module in the future, it is very difficult to say what is "melting" kind effect when X gets announced.

What is certain is that it will be unwanted for many, but many will be very joyful and hopefully will not suffer brain melting experience because of that and die....

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

I’m still guessing either an Intruder, phantom, corsair Or crusader.

I know everY one of these has been discussed and the pros, cons of each based on the original context post. That said, the programers stepped out of this conversation a long time ago and all of our “conclusions “ seem to be based more on each other’s past posts than anything official.

All the above are high demand type aircraft. (No plane will ever be 100% for everyone). Period correct given where we seem to be map wise. Each brings something pretty “mind melting” to the sim be it side by side multiplayer of the A-6 and wild weasel capabilities, Phantom with some new form of multiplayer functionality that may be far superior to the jester setup, Crusader and corsair a bit more “standard” but certainly higher demand, period correct and opens door for a Vietnam area of operations.

Or they could just be laughing at us.....

 

 

[Jester986]

Both corsair and crusader are already in development by third parties.