Mi-28 Havoc?

[joey45]

don't you mean Simulation...

[BBQ]

Nice.

 

"Helicopters can't fly; they're just so ugly the earth repels them."

Whoever has said this, i guess he refers to the Mi-24.:P

 

Edit: Mi-24 not Mi-28

[Sundowner.pl]

@Allo, I'm not saying that Apache and Tiger fly the same. They do not, but they fight the same, use similar tactics etc. In game I would rather see a new approach to do things, than the same but in different machine (Tiger vs Mi-24 here).

[DANWATTO]

Can we hope for one day the Su-25T in DCS with a clickable cockpit?

 

Or the other FC planes?

 

The shkval and vikhr are already there, so you just have to do the rest :)

 

For multiplayer, the KA-50 and AH-64 are counterparts.

 

For the A-10, it needs the Su-25T on the other side.

 

We could have some awesome games then, with a flight on ka-50 spotting targets for the su-25 flight, versus AH-64 and A-10 killing targets on our side

 

:joystick:

[enigma6584]

I'm in agreement with Danwatto. IMHO balance is one of the important keys to the modules system for DCS. We've got an excellent and immenseley fun Russian helicopter. Now we need a western helicopter. Considering the geographical area and forces which would be opposed, AH-64A since most NATO countries utilize this aircraft. Many customers of the DCS series would be flying their own countries helicopter with that bird. AH-64D is only for a select few and as mentioned by others, less data on it which is unclassified.

 

Turkey (important geographical player in Black Sea) just bought the Italian attack helicopter.

 

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/agusta/

 

A-10C is coming for the west, we need Su-25T for the east.

 

One fighter from the west side, one fighter from the east side.

[sobek]

A-10C is coming for the west, we need Su-25T for the east.

 

One fighter from the west side, one fighter from the east side.

 

This is not the way it works, guys. Go walk your thoughts to the outside of the box.

[EtherealN]

A DCS:Su-25T is unlikely, since (afaik) it isn't operational in any airforce wherefore it's unlikely that any airforce would care to give ED a contract (and thereby knowledge transfer).

 

But

For the A-10, it needs the Su-25T on the other side.

 

Why? Does a non-operational aircraft balance against an operational aircraft?

But it's probably moot anyhow, since if we are lucky FC2 will be compatible online with not only DCS:BS but also DCS:A10C. That's something the future will have to tell though.

 

But people need to drop this strange idea that you need a "balance" aircraft - for ground attack. The Ka-50 would never be tasked with an anti-air mission. Neither would the A10. So why would "balance" be improved through giving them some airborne adversaries? This isn't airquake. ;)

 

Although in a dogfight between the A10 and Su25 I'd definitely go for the 25. Nice energy advantage.

[Boberro]

Yep, frog pwns hog :D

[topol-m]

So many different dreams... Yet the A-10C module is several months from release, probably meaning that after several more the work on the 3rd DCS module will start. Why not give us a little hint on the course of development? I mean there may not be a contract yet, but at least there are 2-3 most promising variants that I hope are known and discussed. Can you tell us what these are? That would limit our fantasies and exclude some impossible ones and the not very likely ones.

[element1108]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's either the F-18 or the AH-64A. In the latest TFC video they showed an F18 taking off from a carrier and there's been a lot of talk about AH...but who knows. Speculate as much as you can, we won't be getting a hint as to what the next module is quite yet.

[159th_Viper]

....Why not give us a little hint on the course of development?.....

 

Because E.D. know Full Well that the moment they do just that, the Community will Pounce on it like a Submariner on his Mistress at Shore-Leave........:wub:

 

We -The Community - Will then Spend the following Months/Year Hanging onto that Thread of Info as if our very Lives depend on it, Nurturing it and Fostering it, until we Live and Breathe it's very essence........Until the Day of Reckoning :cry:

 

Yeah: D-Day comes and Lo and Behold - Our Wee Titbit of Info we so Fondly received, that we Nurtured and Fostered through Rain and Snow/Typhoons and Blizzards......Turns out we were Misguided in a coupla assumptions :doh:

 

And Then..........As sure as God made Little Green Apples - Hell and Damnation: Fury and Moans, with Threads exploding on the Boards, Recriminations Flying about, Pilots getting Flamed/Sinners getting Tossed, Carcasses of Banned Fellow Community members littering the Runways and Virtual Airways.........

 

Sadly I Digress.......Hint on the Course of Development? About as Rare as Rocking Horse Shite I would have thought - Let's Hope I have erred in my assumption :D

[jctrnacty]

Need unclass data. If we get that, then perhaps in the future as modules.

 

Hi Wags, could you point which planes or helicopters have unclassified data, i mean possible to be modeled in future DCS modules?

 

You said Apache A , A-10, what are the others?

[EtherealN]

Hahah, yeah Viper, I suspect you're not too far off the truth.

 

It has happened before that ED was begged into giving statements like "we are looking at doing X" or "we hope to release X around Y" and there is invariably a crowd of people that over the course of a few months morph those into "we will be doing X" and "we will release X around Y" and get upset when it doesn't happen.

 

Therefore it's a sensible thing to only release information that is set in stone. Less flamewars that way, and I like it when I don't have to issue warnings to people. :P

 

EDIT

jctrnacty, note that the post you are quoting is several years old. :P

 

Aircraft that have previously been shown to have had some work done on them, if my memory serves, is the F16, Mi24 and Ah64a. (At least, I think there were some WIP-screens of cockpits made for those.) However, and this is important, this does not mean that any of those will become a DCS product. Hopefully they will, but don't jump to conclusions. :)

Edited December 20, 2009 by EtherealN

[EvilBivol-1]

Well, I can say this - there's a lot of really cool stuff in development! :D

[amalahama]

Well, I can say this - there's a lot of really cool stuff in development! :D

 

Oh please please ED, don't go bankrupt!!

 

Regards!

[Boberro]

Share with us what those thigs are :P

[EtherealN]

DCS:Grob109 ;)

 

EDIT: Okey, that thing hasn't actually been in combat, so let's go for DCS:Skylane instead. At least that one was converted into the bomber role by some guerillas. :D

But personally I'd still love a DCS:AT802U.

 

Such a beautiful aircraft. :D

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/photos-new-gunship-flies-to-pa.html

Edited December 20, 2009 by EtherealN

[enigma6584]

A DCS:Su-25T is unlikely, since (afaik) it isn't operational in any airforce wherefore it's unlikely that any airforce would care to give ED a contract (and thereby knowledge transfer).

 

But

 

 

Why? Does a non-operational aircraft balance against an operational aircraft?

But it's probably moot anyhow, since if we are lucky FC2 will be compatible online with not only DCS:BS but also DCS:A10C. That's something the future will have to tell though.

 

But people need to drop this strange idea that you need a "balance" aircraft - for ground attack. The Ka-50 would never be tasked with an anti-air mission. Neither would the A10. So why would "balance" be improved through giving them some airborne adversaries? This isn't airquake. ;)

 

Although in a dogfight between the A10 and Su25 I'd definitely go for the 25. Nice energy advantage.

 

I think you are missing the point in terms of so called "balanced" aircraft. For me personally, I'm not talking about "dogfighting" something like an A-10C against an Su-25. I'm talking about learning and loving to fly the eastern aircraft utilizing the advantages and disadvantages with respect to avionics and tactics. Learning how Russia might actually use what-ever particular type of aircraft we're talking about.

 

Then, to be able to take a western aircraft in the same category and learn how a western country would fight this particlar machine with its unique advantages and disadvantages in terms of avionics and tactics.

 

Right now I'm having a blast learning the Ka-50 and just digging into what this helicopter is all about. I'm learning the advantages and disadvantages of its avionics, weapons and what tactics are better and what tactics are worse. There is a way to fly and fight it and there is a way not too.

 

What I'm saying is now it would be great to have a western attack helicopter and learn how it would be operated differently in terms of tactics, weapon capabilities, night vision optics etc.

 

Learning and understanding (as best we can through a pc simulation) how these machines are different and how they might be used by their respective users in similar combat conditions is what gets me "hard" so to speak.:music_whistling:

 

Sooner or later, we'll have the A-10C. Wonderful! I will enjoy learning that beautiful beast and understanding how my country might be using this asset. I would also love to be able to take the Russian equivalent and use it in the same combat situation and see how it would be used differently.

 

The same would go with fighter aircraft. I think this is what most people mean when they ask for balance with DCS modules. At least this is what I mean when I ask for balance.:thumbup:

 

Cheers.

[EtherealN]

enigma, it sounds to me like you are more looking for something to use for comparison rather than "balance". The latter is usually, within a computer game context, used to denote an even playing field for opponents in a competition (be it against AI in an RTS "skirmish" game, against a human player, or between components of the same game in the case of an FPS where there's often a singular weapon that is "unbalanced" through being better than all other weapons in all cases).

 

As for thinking that your idea of balance is what people are asking for... I don't share your confidence. I assume you did not see all the threads (before 1.0.1) about how DCS:AH64a needs to happen quick so that the Ka-50 would have something to fight. (Whereafter some of us were left wondering why a Ka-50 and AH64 would be sent out to fight each other. :P ) That kind of "balance" was achieved in 1.0.1 through the Ka-50 being made flyable with all countries.

 

That said, I might have given a knee-jerk reaction to the word and if so I do apologize.

[Cyclic]

I would think before long BS will need some new spice thrown into its arena to keep the interest up whilst DCS continue their hard dedicated work on the next flight models to be released. How about having some more basic models that would not need to much work on but would add some more fun to the existing game in Multiplayer. Say a flyable MI28 transport helo or a flyable UH60 so proper SAR and Escort missions with Human pilots can take place using KA50 escorts. Yes we can do that now with AI units but they always find some reason to run away when the shit hits the fan.

Someone mentioned an Africa terrain, this would probably be the best looking of them all and fairly easy to recreate as most of the land is low hilly scrub land with sparse tree and rocky out crops but just enough of a terrain to use for hiding in, have you ever noticed how much more realistic the terrain in BS looks under winter conditions with various shades or browns and snowy whites compared to the summer greens that start to take on a cartoony look?

As DCS are dedicating their time quite rightly to producing a variety of the best air combat platforms as realistically as possible maybe they could give the community the tools and code to allow them to make some of the other units as mentioned above on a limited scale.

Just Food for Thought.....

[sobek]

DCS continue their hard dedicated work

DCS is the product, Eagle Dynamics is the Studio.:)

 

 

How about having some more basic models that would not need to much work on but would add some more fun to the existing game in Multiplayer.

There is and never will be such a thing as a basic model in DCS. We got FC2 for that, it's even MP compatible with DCS.

As DCS are dedicating their time quite rightly to producing a variety of the best air combat platforms as realistically as possible maybe they could give the community the tools and code to allow them to make some of the other units as mentioned above on a limited scale.

The tools are in the works, probably. Nobody knows when they will be released to the public.

(Oh and btw., the Mi-28 is a combat chopper, not SAR.);)

[Cyclic]

Eagle Dynamics Studio - Yes I stand corrected.... Forgive my ignorance..

 

Only ever flew A10 in FC, but as far as I can remember non of the helos were flyable. Has that changed?

 

Would be nice if we did see some tools for the community to work with. And I stand corrected again on Mi28 but in my haste a 2 was added to what should have been the Mi8/Mi17 Hip

 

Let me know if I need to brush up on anything else:book:

[Tbag]

Perhaps after the A-10A and Apache A; those will NOT change. After that, most anything could still happen and often does.

 

A-10A :beer:

[sobek]

A-10A :beer:

 

Necrophile :D

[Boberro]

A DCS:Su-25T is unlikely, since (afaik) it isn't operational in any airforce wherefore it's unlikely that any airforce would care to give ED a contract (and thereby knowledge transfer).

 

 

IIRC all Russian 25T models (about 6 or 8 ) have been upgraded to TM version. Total amount IIRC is 10 or 12 models. So they are used... :)