Cessna 172

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Perhaps “turbulence” is not the right term. “Air Mass Simulation” is what the other sim does.

Moving the goalposts, huh?

Well, you'll be happy to hear that DCS can also do an “air mass simulation” if you ask it to. And as mentioned, it has the turbulence you started out claiming didn't exist.

Just now, SharpeXB said:

I don’t believe DCS does any of that. 

As always, what you believe and how things actually are — in particular what DCS works — are wholly separate from each other with zero overlap.

[FlankerKiller]

So I just perused through this "discussion". A few points. Every Air Force base I've ever been too has an aro club. That and almost every pilot has time in a 172. I think the biggest thing that would make or break a 172 module would be the content that came with it. MFS had a really good pilot training "campaign". DCS can do this, and I think that having a campaign that walks you through basic pilot training would be nessasery to go with a 172. The advantage is DCS has really good physics and really good FM. So you might just pull off some of the Civilian flight sim community onto DCS. At least a few of those players would give at least one military aircraft a try. So yes I believe that a 172 would be a good addition. It can be a trainer, an observation aircraft, and civilian traffic. But it would need good content to go with it. I would definitely buy one if it had good reviews. 

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

So I just perused through this "discussion". A few points. Every Air Force base I've ever been too has an aro club. That and almost every pilot has time in a 172. I think the biggest thing that would make or break a 172 module would be the content that came with it. MFS had a really good pilot training "campaign". DCS can do this, and I think that having a campaign that walks you through basic pilot training would be nessasery to go with a 172. The advantage is DCS has really good physics and really good FM. So you might just pull off some of the Civilian flight sim community onto DCS. At least a few of those players would give at least one military aircraft a try. So yes I believe that a 172 would be a good addition. It can be a trainer, an observation aircraft, and civilian traffic. But it would need good content to go with it. I would definitely buy one if it had good reviews. 

 

I'm less on the content as I build 100% of my flights myself in the ME. For me it's all about the quality of the module; does it look fantastic and is the FM really really good? If yes, I'd buy it.

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

So I just perused through this "discussion". A few points. Every Air Force base I've ever been too has an aro club. That and almost every pilot has time in a 172. I think the biggest thing that would make or break a 172 module would be the content that came with it. MFS had a really good pilot training "campaign". DCS can do this, and I think that having a campaign that walks you through basic pilot training would be nessasery to go with a 172. The advantage is DCS has really good physics and really good FM. So you might just pull off some of the Civilian flight sim community onto DCS. At least a few of those players would give at least one military aircraft a try. So yes I believe that a 172 would be a good addition. It can be a trainer, an observation aircraft, and civilian traffic. But it would need good content to go with it. I would definitely buy one if it had good reviews. 

If it were up to me, you'd have the 172 as a flyable unit with options that would allow it to be used as a Forward Observer for Artillery or to direct Airstrikes. It would also come with some larger aircraft that aren't flyable, but can add civil air traffic, patrol planes, and VIP aircraft. Examples would include the 737-NG and Legacy, 747, 767, DC-10, and MD11 in both passenger a cargo configurations, as well as any 'special' configurations that the aircraft have been adapted to. E767, KC10, KC46 are examples. But that's just me.

[upyr1]

22 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

If it were up to me, you'd have the 172 as a flyable unit with options that would allow it to be used as a Forward Observer for Artillery or to direct Airstrikes. It would also come with some larger aircraft that aren't flyable, but can add civil air traffic, patrol planes, and VIP aircraft. Examples would include the 737-NG and Legacy, 747, 767, DC-10, and MD11 in both passenger a cargo configurations, as well as any 'special' configurations that the aircraft have been adapted to. E767, KC10, KC46 are examples. But that's just me.

Same

[Hammer1-1]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Look at the sheer size and breadth of content in the marketplace for that other game and the short time it took to get there. Then see how long it takes for a Dev to make a single simple aircraft for DCS. ED simply can’t compete in that realm.

Yeah Im gonna stop you right there because Ive quite a few aircraft in MSFS, and its Ace Combat 7 arcade at best. If THAT is your idea of a simulator, then its no wonder why you're this...i dunno. Just, no. Stop.

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Yeah Im gonna stop you right there because Ive quite a few aircraft in MSFS, and its Ace Combat 7 arcade at best. If THAT is your idea of a simulator, then its no wonder why you're this...i dunno. Just, no. Stop.

Well I’m just saying that this market crushes DCS so it’s doubtful anyone would make a GA module for this game when they’d sell 10,000x the copies over there. Sure the quality varies but some are really made as nice or better than DCS

Edited April 11, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Hammer1-1]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well I’m just saying that this market crushes DCS so it’s doubtful anyone would make a GA module for this game when they’d sell 10,000x the copies over there. Sure the quality varies but some are really made as nice or better than DCS

 

They crush it because its a cheap market! And no its not even close to DCS when it comes to ANYTHING else other than graphics. Maybe even ATC, but thats IT. Its Bing Maps with a variety of cockpits to choose from, thats all MSFS is.

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

And no its not even close to DCS when it comes to ANYTHING else other than graphics

Some of the aircraft there rival anything DCS has or exceed it. Not sure what you have for it but some of the content is very nice. The assumption that somehow the level of quality here is a sure winner is not certain. The quality of the CEII is abysmal, like the engine noise that’s just borrowed from the P-51 and bugs galore. Nothing to brag about here 

Edited April 11, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Hammer1-1]

Yeahhh. Avionics MAYBE Graphics, definitely. Just because they say so doesnt make it so. Ive a few of them floating around too, guess what I keep flying? Not them. Just cant wait for a decent heli in MSFS either, Im sure that will turn out as good as anything in FSX. Cant transition to hover in MSFS, cant transition from hover to fwd flight in MSFS, heli ops in MSFS is a big joke. Just...no. Again, ACE COMBAT 7 AT BEST. If thats your thing, go fly Ace Combat 7. And with that said, I can already tell you know nothing what you're talking about. When I can fly a 737 like those supermaneuverable aircraft in AC7, tells me everything I need to know about that flight sim.

I also like how the radar just....works. I can keep going all day long.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Hammer1-1

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Yeahhh. Avionics MAYBE Graphics, definitely. Just because they say so doesnt make it so. Ive a few of them floating around too, guess what I keep flying? Not them. Just cant wait for a decent heli in MSFS either, Im sure that will turn out as good as anything in FSX. Cant transition to hover in MSFS, cant transition from hover to fwd flight in MSFS, heli ops in MSFS is a big joke. Just...no. Again, ACE COMBAT 7 AT BEST. If thats your thing, go fly Ace Combat 7. And with that said, I can already tell you know nothing what you're talking about. When I can fly a 737 like those supermaneuverable aircraft in AC7, tells me everything I need to know about that flight sim.

I also like how the radar just....works. I can keep going all day long.

 

Yeah but CEII level quality in a DCS Cessna won’t win any awards either. 

[FlankerKiller]

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

 

I'm less on the content as I build 100% of my flights myself in the ME. For me it's all about the quality of the module; does it look fantastic and is the FM really really good? If yes, I'd buy it.

I mean of corse. But have you flown the virtual check ride/VFR maneuvers training mission for the C101? Really the C101 dose a lot of the training thing already. But having a VFR pilots license campaign would be pretty sweet. Hell look at what Razbam did with the AV8B training missions. A 172 with an IFR cockpit could really be a good opponent for some realistic pilot training. Both VFR and IFR. Most of us could use some touching up from time to time. And new players might actually get some benefit from learning to fly realistically. The reason I say this needs the content is because that is where the C101 falls down. So yes a DCS level cockpit and FM are essential. But having good content with it would set it apart. 

[Beirut]

54 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

I mean of corse. But have you flown the virtual check ride/VFR maneuvers training mission for the C101? Really the C101 dose a lot of the training thing already. But having a VFR pilots license campaign would be pretty sweet. Hell look at what Razbam did with the AV8B training missions. A 172 with an IFR cockpit could really be a good opponent for some realistic pilot training. Both VFR and IFR. Most of us could use some touching up from time to time. And new players might actually get some benefit from learning to fly realistically. The reason I say this needs the content is because that is where the C101 falls down. So yes a DCS level cockpit and FM are essential. But having good content with it would set it apart. 

 

Everything you said is spot on. I guess I'm just an outlier in that I never use any content other than the Mission Editor. I bought my first DCS plane in 2017, I just checked, and many more after that, and I have yet to fly a single campaign mission in DCS. And precious few tutorials. 

 

I understand a lot of people want content with their planes, and legitimately so. I'm just way at the other end and no content at all is fine with me. It's very possible I'm all alone with that point of view. 

[Exorcet]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s a rather optimistic assumption.

It doesn't really feel that way when I've seen it happen, ie with me. I have civil flight sims as well but I often find myself using DCS just to fly anyway. It's the quality of the FM's. That's alone is enough to make DCS aircraft desirable.

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You can look at the Navigraph survey for some insight here. It’s targeted more at the civ player. That segment plays DCS maybe 10% of the time, the largest share of that market is obviously that “Other Big Civy Sim”. One reason that keeps players in a certain game is their investment in add-ons. That’s huge in these other games. Flight physics alone is not enough reason for players to rush over to another sim. Combat players are all obsessed over this but civ players aren’t constantly flying at the edge of the envelope where this matters so much. And “Other Big Civy Sim” is more than good enough here, better in some ways. Have you ever felt turbulence in DCS? No… 

Why even separate the market into combat and civil players? Does that properly account for the group(s) with a mixed interest?

I'm sure investment (and also choice) have a lot to do with loyalty to a particular platform. You can't have an aircraft library like you can in X-Plane in DCS just because DCS doesn't offer civil aircraft yet, and that's certainly going to influence where some people go looking for a sim. If DCS had more civil planes I'm 100% certain the demographics would change.

 

Before the UH-1 and similar helicopters there were no transport missions in DCS. When the choppers came, so did the missions:

DCS is, as it describes itself, a sandbox. It's not limited to one particular niche of sim aviation.

As for turbulence in DCS it has a good wake turbulence model that impacts airport operations and has had general turbulence since forever. And of course the is further development planned for weather, so it's likely more is coming in the future.

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS is a great sim no doubt, in the realm of combat simulation. Overall though it’s losing its luster and showing it’s age in competition with “Other Big Civy Sim” which has it beat in every other criteria. So it’s doubtful any 3rd party would make civil aircraft for DCS when they could sell 20x as much on the “Other Big Civy Sim” marketplace.

I've avoided MSFS just because they don't have a demo to let me trial the physics. Until they do, it's inferior to DCS in everything outside the world map, and the availability of more civil planes. From the reviews I've read, there are some potential physics issues, which is a bit of a problem for a serious simulator. If there is competition for DCS, in my mind the big one is X-Plane 12.

4 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I understand a lot of people want content with their planes, and legitimately so. I'm just way at the other end and no content at all is fine with me. It's very possible I'm all alone with that point of view. 

You're not alone. I don't think I've flown a prepacked mission in a ED product since LOMAC in the mid 2000's. I'm pretty sure I have free campaigns from the NTTR preorder at least, but I haven't even gotten around to downloading them yet.

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but CEII level quality in a DCS Cessna won’t win any awards either. 

Nobody said it won awards, and there was a specific reason as to WHY that module was brought to DCS in the first place. And BTW, the CE2 is about as close to MSFS DCS gets. Id rather fly it than anything in MSFS. At least I know its flight model isnt cartoonish.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Hammer1-1

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Plane in DCS just because DCS doesn't offer civil aircraft yet, and that's certainly going to influence where some people go looking for a sim. If DCS had more civil planes I'm 100% certain the demographics would change.

You do realize something that stops DCS from being a civil sim is that I uses a flat earth map? That’s not going to work…

3 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Nobody said it won awards, and there was a specific reason as to WHY that module was brought to DCS in the first place. And BTW, the CE2 is about as close to MSFS DCS gets. Id rather fly it than anything in MSFS. At least I know its flight model isnt cartoonish.

 

That level of “quality” isn’t going to convert anyone to DCS… And what? Is it gonna take 4 years to make a DCS Cessna too?

[Hammer1-1]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You do realize something that stops DCS from being a civil sim is that I uses a flat earth map? That’s not going to work…

So?

[One Eyed Ross]

22 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I'm not sure how well the Cesan-172 would sell but an AI or OV-1 bird dog would be awesome 

You do know that the OV-1 Bird dog was a modified Cessna 172, right?

[SharpeXB]

Just now, Hammer1-1 said:

So?

So? That’s a big deal. Now I don’t think a round earth is really necessary for a combat game but it’s downright silly for any serious flight sim. 

[Hammer1-1]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

So? That’s a big deal. Now I don’t think a round earth is really necessary for a combat game but it’s downright silly for any serious flight sim. 

Why?

[One Eyed Ross]

On 3/3/2021 at 3:31 PM, cordite said:

Or a Bird Dog, should a Vietnam map surface.

 

Maybe an armed Caravan. But why bother with a 172?

well, the Bird Dog was a modified (slightly) 172, so I would love to have one here.  Failing that, I need to figure which prop plane to get to act as one.  I really think there is a niche to fill with a good spotter aircraft.  The 172 with rockets is what the original bird dog from Korea and Viet Nam was.  

We need some kind of spotter aircraft!  In a perfect world, we could get both the mil version of the 172 and an OV-10 Bronco...but I'd settle for either one.

[Hammer1-1]

4 minutes ago, One Eyed Ross said:

well, the Bird Dog was a modified (slightly) 172, so I would love to have one here.  Failing that, I need to figure which prop plane to get to act as one.  I really think there is a niche to fill with a good spotter aircraft.  The 172 with rockets is what the original bird dog from Korea and Viet Nam was.  

We need some kind of spotter aircraft!  In a perfect world, we could get both the mil version of the 172 and an OV-10 Bronco...but I'd settle for either one.

Id rather go for an OV-10. Theres something sexy about that aircraft that gives me wood.

[One Eyed Ross]

2 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Id rather go for an OV-10. Theres something sexy about that aircraft that gives me wood.

It was a beauty  no doubt about that....and could fill a bigger combat role that the 172 did (ordinance wise).  But, for those of us that love the A4 and F4, F105 era, we need the 172 bird dog, as well.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

170, to be accurate. If GA aircraft are to make into DCS, it's best to include ones with actual military variants.

337s > O-2A/B, with such a push for Vietnam as a theatre and conflict, a 337 running FAC would be real nice to have. Covey running FAC missions for a SOG recon team declaring Prairie Fire would be outstanding.


 

[One Eyed Ross]

Right, but the Army retained the O-1s while the Air Force and Gyrenes switched to O-2s and OV-10s.  Heck, I'd be happy with ANY of them, and have them be ED sponsored aircraft so that the servers would all have them.  

Some of us like jobs other than flying high and flinging missiles at other jets...