Cessna 172

[Exorcet]

16 hours ago, killkenny1 said:

Why? For that there is MSFS/P3D/XPL.

Just the convenience of having everything in one sim is a selling point. DCS is just as good for casual flying as the other sims. Map detail is generally better and the Gulf map shows that they can reach decent sizes, big enough for 737 at least. I haven't bought MSFS yet, but I have FSX and XP11. DCS is just more comfortable to use and definitely at the top when it comes to modeling aircraft. I've probably done more free flights in DCS than every other sim combined.

 

Then of course the military aspect of DCS is actually more of a reason to include civilian aircraft. We only recently had the neutral coalition added, it would be nice to have some civilian planes to go with it for mission building purposes. Even better if they could flyable and you could interact with them like you might in real life.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Ok so a 172 with a USAF livery 

Hey if a 3rd party Dev wants to waste their time with this I suppose it’s their choice

 

So you are 100% sure that it wouldn't be profitable to make a Cessna 172 (or alike) to DCS World.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

although I’m sure ED has some say in what gets added to DCSW

 

Do they? I am not sure sure about it anymore.

 

As Razbam decided to make a MiG-23MLA by themselves without discussing with ED, and then announced it as total surprise to ED as well.

 

ED was reserved that plane to themselves, but they couldn't do anything about it that Razbam stole that from them.... They were forced to bend to the will of the Razbam there.

 

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

You can use the search function to read all the other ridiculous threads on this topic... 

 

Yes, ridiculous things are out there. But a small cargo, recon, training etc aircraft that are used by militaries are not one of them.

And if somewhere is something ridiculous, it doesn't make something else ridiculous...

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

So you are 100% sure that it wouldn't be profitable to make a Cessna 172 (or alike) to DCS World.

Seeing that the poll is 2:1 against yeah I’d say that’s a safe assumption. It would be 1,000x more profitable to make one for this other big civy flight sim.

 

[reece146]

I'm all for any type of civilian aircraft in DCS. As someone stated above, the flight models are so good in DCS it seems to be a waste to only have jet propelled bomb trucks and spamaraamers.

 

That said, if a case can be made for a civilian aircraft that was used in the military (i.e. have two variants) that makes a lot of sense. For me something like a Cessna O-1 Bird Dog would be great. I enjoy the Yak, the Edge and the CEII; wouldn't mind some more aircraft that can be pushed into bush plane service or pure aerobatic usage as well.

 

Some of the best times I've had in DCS have been putting the Yak down into a tricky mountain valley or plateau to visit a outpost I've placed in the mission editor. Even replicating real life Georgian airports has been fun.

 

A float plane that can land on some of the mountain lakes on the Caucasus map would be great - reminds me I need to spend some time with the float plane mod.

 

Variety is the spice of life. Not everyone uses DCS the same way you do.

 

 

[SharpeXB]

Maybe you guys all live in a cave but there’s absolutely no point in any other company making a civilian flight simulator right now. That market is owned. 

[Schwarzfeld]

[Northstar98]

On 3/4/2021 at 10:08 PM, SharpeXB said:

Maybe you guys all live in a cave but there’s absolutely no point in any other company making a civilian flight simulator right now. That market is owned. 

Do you think there's no point competing on the clouds, weather and lighting too? Funny how they got upgraded pretty sharpish after the release of that other sim, it's almost like competition isn't truly dead after all, odd that.

And what are you so afraid of exactly? Is this like the whole shtick with the trainers some years back? Back when the only modules we were getting were jet trainers and it seemed that everybody was throwing their hands in the air, screaming that the sky was falling?

I see you're still keeping up the acronym zealotry (even though DCS is better at simulating flight than combat, look at EW for a starter, let alone the sensors and damage modelling most of the time). 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Do you think there's no point competing on the clouds, weather and lighting too? Funny how they got upgraded pretty sharpish after the release of that other sim, it's almost like competition isn't truly dead after all, odd that.

 

And what are you so afraid of exactly? Is this like the whole shtick with the trainers some years back? Back when the only modules we were getting were jet trainers and it seemed that everybody was throwing their hands in the air, screaming that the sky was falling?

 

I see you're still keeping up the acronym zealotry (even though DCS is better at simulating flight than combat, look at EW for a starter, let alone the sensors and damage modelling most of the time). 

 

What differentiates DCS is that it’s a combat simulation, not just flight. It has realistic weapon systems and damage models etc. Making civy aircraft for DCS was a bad idea before 2020 and even a worse idea after. ED would do better to keep the focus on what makes this product unique and not try to imitate another sim that they have no chance of competing with. Bring on the AH-64, that’s the sort of aircraft DCS can do better than anyone but forget Cessnas. Those are done just as well elsewhere so there’s no need for them here. 

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Maybe you guys all live in a cave but there’s absolutely no point in any other company making a civilian flight simulator right now. That market is owned. 

The market is disagreeing with you.

[SharpeXB]

40 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

The market is disagreeing with you.

The poll here is 2:1 against. What’s your point?

 

Any other company making civy flight sim games is going to die a slow death, crushed by the behemoth. Figure out some other game to make but not one where you fly a Cessna. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Exorcet]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The poll here is 2:1 against. What’s your point?

 

Any other company making civy flight sim games is going to die a slow death, crushed by the behemoth. Figure out some other game to make but not one where you fly a Cessna. 

 

What's the significance of 2:1 against? That's not even necessarily negative. If we expand it to the size of the entire DCS player base, 1 in 3 players would buy a Cessna. Sounds like a good business case. It's clear that there is portion of DCS players willing to pay for civil modules in this thread, and the other versions of it that have popped it. There is no almighty "behemoth" crushing the market.

[SharpeXB]

57 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

There is no almighty "behemoth" crushing the market.

Wow... there sure is. We aren’t here to compare games but you should check out what the current offering of flight sim games (or game) is like out there. The genre will become a virtual monopoly. 

[Northstar98]

On 3/5/2021 at 12:38 AM, SharpeXB said:

What differentiates DCS is that it’s a combat simulation, not just flight. It has realistic weapon systems and damage models etc.

And that's exactly where you'll find the most holes in its simulation.

And I mean damage models? Apart from WWII aircraft most of it is much more simplified.

Quote

Making civy aircraft for DCS was a bad idea before 2020 and even a worse idea after. ED would do better to keep the focus on what makes this product unique and not try to imitate another sim that they have no chance of competing with. Bring on the AH-64, that’s the sort of aircraft DCS can do better than anyone but forget Cessnas. Those are done just as well elsewhere so there’s no need for them here. 

The F-16 was done just as well, maybe even better, in another sim too. So what, there was no need for one here? 

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[shu77]

One of the devs either polychop or Razbam has a C-172 module privately, it came up in an interview. the big issue with releasing it is paying Cessna for the privilege I believe. 

[Buzzles]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

What differentiates DCS is that it’s a combat simulation, not just flight. It has realistic weapon systems and damage models etc. Making civy aircraft for DCS was a bad idea before 2020 and even a worse idea after. ED would do better to keep the focus on what makes this product unique and not try to imitate another sim that they have no chance of competing with. Bring on the AH-64, that’s the sort of aircraft DCS can do better than anyone but forget Cessnas. Those are done just as well elsewhere so there’s no need for them here. 

 

Is your issue with ED doing a civvy aircraft? I agree that ED should focus on the sim and military craft, but if a third party wants to bring a civvy aircraft to DCS, are you saying they should be stopped?

Edited March 5, 2021 by Buzzles

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Buzzles said:

 

Is your issue with ED doing a civvy aircraft? I agree that ED should focus on the sim and military craft, but if a third party wants to bring a civvy aircraft to DCS, are you saying they should be stopped?

 

A third party is free to waste whatever money they like. 

5 hours ago, shu77 said:

One of the devs either polychop or Razbam has a C-172 module privately, it came up in an interview. the big issue with releasing it is paying Cessna for the privilege I believe. 

So basically a DCS version of that aircraft wouldn’t be profitable enough to justify that expense? There’s obviously no issue making this aircraft for other sims where it will sell better.

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And that's where you'll find the most holes in its simulation.

 

And I mean damage models? Apart from WWII aircraft most of it is much more simplified.

By comparison civy sims have no damage model. Again this is what makes DCS unique. 

[Northstar98]

On 3/5/2021 at 1:49 PM, SharpeXB said:

By comparison civy sims have no damage model. Again this is what makes DCS unique. 

DCS is hardly unique because it has a damage model, one that in most cases is very simplified and even the more advanced one could still do with some work being done. This is before we talk about structural damage and graphical representations of structural damage, which IMO, is done a lot better in another, WWII sim.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Yes, for sure !

[AndyJWest]

I think it would be a mistake for ED to create civilian aircraft for DCS. There is quite sufficient demand for more military stuff - which is where their expertise lays - to keep them occupied, and profitable, for a long long time.

 

If a third-party developer wants to give it a try, and thinks they can make money at it, why not? I doubt very much I'd buy it (MSFS meets my needs well enough for civvy sims, despite its issues, and Cessnas are about the least interesting aircraft out there, as far as I'm concerned), but if other people want a C-172 in DCS, it won't affect me, so good luck to them.

[Sr.]

I'd rather they finished texturing the Grand Canyon on the NTTC map 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Sr.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

DCS is hardly unique because it has a damage model, one that is mostly completely simplified and even the more advanced one could still do with some work being done.

Again, this and realistic weapon systems i.e. combat is what differentiates DCS from the civilian flight sims. Those don’t have damage models and only have perhaps some rudimentary weapons. 

[Northstar98]

On 3/5/2021 at 3:31 PM, SharpeXB said:

Again, this and realistic weapon systems i.e. combat is what differentiates DCS from the civilian flight sims. Those don’t have damage models and only have perhaps some rudimentary weapons. 

But if your point is x is already done well in something else...

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[bbrz]

On 3/4/2021 at 3:51 AM, SharpeXB said:

...I believe has a commercial/ military customer 

Erm, the same goes for the 172 and a number of other civil aircraft

[Fri13]

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Do you think there's no point competing on the clouds, weather and lighting too? Funny how they got upgraded pretty sharpish after the release of that other sim, it's almost like competition isn't truly dead after all, odd that.

 

Actually ED has been developing the new weather system for 5 years at least, well before the MSFS20 was even rumored. It was just logical thing to do in improvements. BUT, instead ED going for a cheap clouds and integrating a real weather system like was the trend back then, they started with a actual weather system development from the moisture development to clouds etc. And it is not wonder that Microsoft has been with similar way as well, because they were after all developing totally new engine from scratch instead just trying to bolt something in to MSFX. 

 

So it isn't about competition, just normal evolution. 

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And what are you so afraid of exactly? Is this like the whole shtick with the trainers some years back? Back when the only modules we were getting were jet trainers and it seemed that everybody was throwing their hands in the air, screaming that the sky was falling?

 

I personally didn't really get the trainers back then in the DCS, as you can crash so many times you want to learn one module. But, let's say that the new maps, lighting system and all made flying far more interesting than just a combat, as there is more things to do than just do combat in 12'clock, 0 wind and 0 everything. So it educated me that the trainers are actually very much fun to fly, especially the Yak-52. And I still don't like the WW2 era fighters.... Not for me.

So I would like to see a Cessna 172 in DCS, if not for enjoyment, then at least compare it to others that how it behaves. And maybe that is something people are afraid, that it would not be up to standard in elsewhere and it would then be used as a weapon against other modules by not being "good" when it isn't. 

 

17 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I see you're still keeping up the acronym zealotry (even though DCS is better at simulating flight than combat, look at EW for a starter, let alone the sensors and damage modelling most of the time).

 

Those are the things that really needs big improvements, upcoming FLIR overhaul is very much needed. Hopefully it will include the sensor updates as well, the coming damage modeling is huge thing, after all we are the ones who are taking fire and damage and not some civilian airliner. 

 

Electronic Warfare could be improved multifold just with very simple modeling, as it is so terrible, and yet we have no top modules with some kind electronic jammer and counter-jammer systems etc. Heck, even a chaff and flare that any other simulator use is just rolling a dice. Huge changes could be made with very simple and small changes. And they could have been done like 10 years ago already. 

 

That is why I almost still laugh when I hear that DCS stands for "Digital Cockpit Simulator" as everything outside the cockpit is... Not really simulated. 

 

1 hour ago, Sr. said:

I'd rather they finished texturing the Grand Canyon on the NTTC map 

 

Sir, do you know how long the Grand Canyon is? It will take a lot of paint!

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, shu77 said:

One of the devs either polychop or Razbam has a C-172 module privately, it came up in an interview. the big issue with releasing it is paying Cessna for the privilege I believe. 

 

Interesting. Do you remember what interview it was about (and more accurately then in what position etc)?