Cessna 172

[lcabc888]

I think its good to have some civil planes in DCS.

[killkenny1]

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

[YSIAD_RIP]

Maybe a Cessna O-2A Skymaster.  

https://blog.museumofflight.org/vietnam-war-pilots-and-the-planes-they-flew

[Mars Exulte]

17 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

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

 

  Realistically, the military aircraft with all their radar and weapon systems are really complicated, so probably discourages a lot of 3rd parties. Remember, whether you buy it or not, every module sold, ED gets a cut of, which can then go toward all these expensive overhauls people are always clamoring for. More money = good, not bad.

 

  And for the players themselves, those other sims generally have really inferior aerodynamic and systems modeling. So, there's an appeal to people who want those planes, but ''better''. A DCS Cessna 172 is unlikely to be like a ''Other'' Cessna 172.

 

  We should never discourage people from building more planes and modules. It literally costs us nothing, but expands the core game's income and by extension capability. Imagine what DCS would be if they had MSFS 2020 budget. Pretty damn mouth watering. If there are devs that want to produce those planes, and infrastructure for them, it only benefits us.

[killkenny1]

12 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

  Realistically, the military aircraft with all their radar and weapon systems are really complicated, so probably discourages a lot of 3rd parties. Remember, whether you buy it or not, every module sold, ED gets a cut of, which can then go toward all these expensive overhauls people are always clamoring for. More money = good, not bad.

 

  And for the players themselves, those other sims generally have really inferior aerodynamic and systems modeling. So, there's an appeal to people who want those planes, but ''better''. A DCS Cessna 172 is unlikely to be like a ''Other'' Cessna 172.

 

  We should never discourage people from building more planes and modules. It literally costs us nothing, but expands the core game's income and by extension capability. Imagine what DCS would be if they had MSFS 2020 budget. Pretty damn mouth watering. If there are devs that want to produce those planes, and infrastructure for them, it only benefits us.

 

Oh, I am all for devs making a plane they want, although I am not sure if it will be easy to market something like 172 for Digital Combat Simulator. For average player who wants to learn something like Cessna I don’t think it’s a really good value, as you only get a handful of maps to fly in. I know, it really doesn’t matter where you fly it, but somewhat I wouldn’t want to learn flying Cessna in Syria (nothing against the country). Normandy is nice though.

But since this is Cessna, meaning it would be VFR, I would personally prefer to learn to fly in the area I am more familiar with, ergo whereabouts I live. Although for XPL/P3D some additional scenery might be required to make it look right. 

And I’m not even talking about ATC... Even a bit lackluster ATC from P3D is ahead of barebones DCS ATC. But in P3D you can play online and find “real life” ATC to practice, I am not sure if you can find something like that in DCS... (granted I think it probably would be possible, it’s just no one foes it as it is not required)

 

Now I cannot judge aerodynamics, I am not a pilot, so cannot say what is realistic and what is not, but systems wise I completely disagree that other sims are inferior in modeling it. Have you tried A2A Cessna, FSLabs A320 or Majestic Q400 in P3D? Those have really, really great systems modeling. I imagine why someone might think DCS is better in systems simulation due to it being a milsim, so it has an additional layer of weapons system simulation, but you can’t fault other sims for not having it as something like A320 doesn’t have weapons...

The FSLabs A320 has all your typical FBW laws, alpha floors simulated, with addional niceties like icing simulations and ACARS, whereas Pro version of Majestic Q400 simulates circuitbreakers. Circuitbreakers! Show me a DCS module which has that kind of simulation.  [False claim on my side. Some of them do have interactive C/Bs and others don't]

 

In conclusion, sure why not, if someone wants to make a Cessna 172, knock yourself out. After all there are CEII and Yak-52 (which I own, but still haven’t flown to this day). But I’m just not sure if one will be able to successfully sell something like this in DCS then competition is better suited for it. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by killkenny1

[Evoman]

I also think that the Cessna O-2A Skymaster would not only be more interesting but would also be very useful in future Vietnam scenarios. The Skymaster is one of those unsung heroes from Vietnam. See the video below to see why.

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Evoman

[Dangerzone]

I voted no. I didn't do it to burst anyone's bubble or say that 'no one shouldn't, I have no problems with someone wanting to make a C172 on their own dime - knock yourself out. I just don't think there would be that much uptake/interest. (I could be wrong too. The C130 has a lot of interest in DCS - although I think it's practicality to fit within DCS is far more compatible with missions and scenario's than a C172 and that contributes largely to it's success).

 

My concern (and the reason I voted No) is if this was going to be a commercial operation that it wouldn't be successful (financially) - and that then leads to a failure when it comes to 3rd party development. The more 3rd party success stories DCS gets the more attention from other potential 3rd party developers, and a win for everyone. However if people see failed attempts, it discourages, instead of entices and a loss for everyone. 

 

A O2 Skymaster for Vietnam could be interesting if there is enough interest in Vietnam era. However given the lack of WW2 servers online and not knowing how successful that is - I would like to see the effort going in to what has the highest probability of being another success story.

 

As for C172's. Other FS's have more servers, more online players, more people willing to be real human ATC. While there may be a few solo players interested in flying a 172 in the DCS world - I don't think it's something that would catch on and be a success story.

[Irishlad200000]

As a RL pilot of light aircraft, I can see the interest in making civil aircraft. The flight model in DCS supercedes the other sims! With the addition of new weather, it will be better! I think there is better feel and control compared to the other sims!

[Fri13]

43 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

The FSLabs A320 has all your typical FBW laws, alpha floors simulated, with addional niceties like icing simulations and ACARS, whereas Pro version of Majestic Q400 simulates circuitbreakers. Circuitbreakers! Show me a DCS module which has that kind of simulation. 

 

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/helicopters/magnificent_eight/?PAGEN_1=4

 

 

Pretty standard stuff in DCS... If not counting the FC3 modules.

 

[cordite]

Or a Bird Dog, should a Vietnam map surface.

 

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

[Fri13]

What comes to civilian aircraft, I think we need them. We require them.

 

As we need to be able perform the normal military duties at peace time, meaning to go and intercept the unknown aircraft or one that doesn't respond to radio etc. 

Like what example M2000C has with police lights etc. 

 

We need as well missions for COIN. It means trafficking via small planesz where as well small ships and boats and all kind other stuff.

 

That is what is content that L-39, C-101 and even F/A-18C requires. 

 

But.... 

 

I don't think we need to fly any large aircraft like A320 or 747 etc. Just have those as a civilian air traffic package.

 

But we need small planes. Cessna 172 would be great to be intercepted, to be checked etc. To be used for flight trainings and as well promo the flight modeling etc.

 

Like, while DCS is about Digital, Combat, Simulator, it as well is about flying military aircraft missions and duties. 

 

Yak-52 is great plane.... It really is. 

C-101 is one of the best, arguably even better modeled than F/A-18C or A-10C.

 

The L-39 came to DCS because there was a high demand for training purposes in real world for it. Why it flight modeling is really, really polished.

 

Yak-52 because there is as well need for a flight training from first phase, with simulator even!

 

I do see potential to sell small civilian aircraft. All the way to the small/medium transport aircraft. Like U-6A Beaver or Anton An-2.

L-20A Beaver

STOL utility transport aircraft for the U.S. Army, later redesignated U-6A in 1962, 968 built.

[Mars Exulte]

@killkenny1

 

I really don't know about circuit breakers persay, or to what extent they're simulated. I mean, many/most of the DCS aircraft have them, and you have to interact with them during startup, etc. Now, whether or not you can have an electrical surge or something that trips them, I dunno, that's most likely going to be a result of battle damage around here. Eating a bunch of 23s from a Shilka or an AMRAAM or two is likely to do more than trip a breaker, though, so they're probably moot from that aspect

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Evoman said:

I also think that the Cessna O-2A Skymaster would not only be more interesting but would also be very useful in future Vietnam scenarios. The Skymaster is one of those unsung heroes from Vietnam. See the video below to see why.

 

 

 

 

The skymaster is my Cessna of choice

[SharpeXB]

You must have not noticed that this game is Digital Combat Simulator...

[bbrz]

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You must have not noticed that this game is Digital Combat Simulator...

Did you notice that there's a Yak-52 in your Combat Simulator?

 

172 = No

337 = Yes

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, bbrz said:

Did you notice that there's a Yak-52 in your Combat Simulator?

 

172 = No

337 = Yes

It’s a military trainer and I believe has a commercial/ military customer 

What poll results are you looking at? this one is 68/32 % against

 

Also the realm of civy flight simulation is now firmly dominated by a behemoth that no other company can complete with. 

[killkenny1]

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/helicopters/magnificent_eight/?PAGEN_1=4

 

 

Pretty standard stuff in DCS... If not counting the FC3 modules.

 

 

Nice. Don't own those modules, so didn't know.

And I guess I was wrong in this regard. Checked some modules right now, some of them do have interactive C/Bs i.e. F/A-18, F-5, whereas others don't i.e. M2000C, F-14.

 

9 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

@killkenny1

 

I really don't know about circuit breakers persay, or to what extent they're simulated. I mean, many/most of the DCS aircraft have them, and you have to interact with them during startup, etc. Now, whether or not you can have an electrical surge or something that trips them, I dunno, that's most likely going to be a result of battle damage around here. Eating a bunch of 23s from a Shilka or an AMRAAM or two is likely to do more than trip a breaker, though, so they're probably moot from that aspect

 

I was wrong about C/B aspect in DCS (see above). Some A/C have it while other don't. Although you don't usually interact with them during the startup procedure, at least the ones I remember (JF-17, F/A-18, M2000C, F-14).

 

Anyway, my point is that other sims can have deep systems modeling as well. It's not a feature particular to DCS World only. So I find your argument regarding that to be false.

It just depend how far addon developer wants to go.

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by killkenny1

[Fri13]

16 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

 

Nice. Don't own those modules, so didn't know.

And I guess I was wrong in this regard. Checked some modules right now, some of them do have interactive C/Bs i.e. F/A-18, F-5, whereas others don't i.e. M2000C, F-14.

 

 

Yes it is little "hit and miss" still. What I have found is that C-101 developers has truly put a lot of effort for the stuff that clear majority in the DCS world users never even care about or miht even read, as for them the planes are just "take-off, blow some stuff or blow up yourself, repeat" as that is where the "fun" is. 

But Aviodev put a lot of effort for the emergency procedures, the faulty systems etc that if you want to, you need to know how to do the procedures properly. As that is the training aircraft and its purpose is to train you for the emergencies as well.

 

I do wish that all would really go as far they just can go by the official technical specifications and then by educated guesses, and implement those things.  

 

16 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

I was wrong about C/B aspect in DCS (see above). Some A/C have it while other don't. Although you don't usually interact with them during the startup procedure, at least the ones I remember (JF-17, F/A-18, M2000C, F-14).

 

But similar thing is in the other sims, where the DCS World great modules does, is something.

 

16 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

Anyway, my point is that other sims can have deep systems modeling as well. It's not a feature particular to DCS World only. So I find your argument regarding that to be false.

It just depend how far addon developer wants to go.

 

Sure they can have them, or not have. Similar thing is in the DCS. But it is not to put DCS World down that it couldn't do it. Question is again just about the developers will to go those extra streps. So your argument to promote others as better is just false. As some developers has put lot of effort in the MSFX or X-Plane 11 and so on. But when there is no one really at least trying to require a standard to be met, there will be way too much "clutter" that doesn't even have proper cockpits instruments done. While we are to thank the ED to at least trying to maintain high quality of standard to meet. And they totally shouldn't be giving a slack to some studios right now for their behavior for not implementing the core functions of the aircraft no matter how challenging it might be for them. That is reason as well why we have so few aircraft in DCS World and why there was only KA-50 and A-10C for so many years before anything else appeared (IIRC it was the MiG-21Bis?) to it. And now there are some people thinking that it would be nicer to have more sooner and faster if we could lower the standard. And I disagree on that point. 

 

But, that doesn't mean that there can't be studios to come to DCS World and start modeling a simpler aircraft, with less features, with less complex systems to be coded. And focus for a great solid flight modeling.  And that is where a Cessna 172 or a likes would very well be welcomed, to do something like example TF-51 is by ED to show the proper flight modeling for a propeller aircraft and WW2 kind cockpit functions why it is free. Or show a Su-25T for how you can have a complex military aircraft to complete wide variation of the missions (even more than a F/A-18C still today) but just limited to non-clickable cockpit but advanced flight modeling. 

 

It is true what you say that there are people who want to fly in their home area etc. But not everyone is interested about that, nor they even have a home airfield modeled in those famous civilian flight simulators. Like look at the MSFS20 today, it has really just a handful highly detailed airfields and rest are just satellite imagery. Their promoted idea of "whole world" as a satellite mapped terrain to fly by using the Navteq (from ex Nokia etc) that has done all the heavy work, they still need to go and build those places manually and sells then those locations. And I don't know, but as that was the big business in the MSFX and X-Plane, it likely is in the MSFS20 as well that you go and buy those custom made add-ons to get your wanted areas that are then limited in scale. 

 

The MSFS looks amazing from a 15 000 ft. But it doesn't look so great when going down for low and slow. That is when already DCS World starts to put nicer details as they are manually done even at the ural. 

 

But, for your point someone learning to fly a cessna -like aircraft in the DCS World Maps? There are many who would like that. But the current thing has been the lack of great visuals. The 2.5.6 that brought new lighting system is amazing, the up coming weather system is very much required (not that current old one couldn't make some very great visuals)  but we still need more improvements to the terrain by the randomized clutter (random generated by the map developers, not on-run by client computer) so there would be more to hide troops on the round and more to visually be challenged to find something and places to hide helicopters flying low etc. But that is different topic all together again.

 

So when you example said:

Quote

And I’m not even talking about ATC... Even a bit lackluster ATC from P3D is ahead of barebones DCS ATC. But in P3D you can play online and find “real life” ATC to practice, I am not sure if you can find something like that in DCS... (granted I think it probably would be possible, it’s just no one foes it as it is not required)

 

You can always install something like this for DCS World:

 

https://www.lotatc.com/

 

 

 

That is just again one of the external applications that some people needs to install to help the pilots to fly. 

I don't like the idea, as I don't like the idea of the SRS being external app either, why I agree with ED that they need to do their own VoIP system. 

If the LotATC would be sold in the ED Store as a module, managed by the DCS module manager and be like a Combined Arms module, I wouldn't have problems with it.

But that is as well why we need the third party developers to become official studios, and more of them. 

 

But, if those do not want to do that, then I am totally fine if ED does their own similar as that would be part of the DCS World then. 

As I see the DCS World as multilayer system:

 

DCS Combined Arms (as RTS game at strategical and tactical level, playing as individual units as SAM operators or tank commander/gunner, to command naval units)

DCS ATC for traffic controllers (civilian and all airports etc as should)

DCS GCI for Soviet style combat network (SAM network, AWACS, individual more special units etc all in one).

DCS AWACS (a screen station, not to fly but handle combat operations)

DCS Carrier/Base (mission planning, briefing, intelligence management etc). 

 

And nothing should be required to be installed outside of the DCS world. We already have a radio systems working based LOS and distance, take that principle and start using it to make internal in-game proper radio system for talking (VoIP) and datalinks etc.

That is for multiplayer, not so much for single player where it is 1 player vs AI.

 

Someone would be very easily able to write even a simple ATC AI to perform the basic functions that would be superior to what there is now. 

But then we return to common question, why should any one care about any of that stuff that ATC or someone else would say to you? You want to land, YOU LAND! You want to take-off now, you take-off! 

And that is where the Dynamic Campaign engine becomes critical part. Where we should get dozens/hundreds of AI elements that are not aware of each others unless going through a proper communication system. We need penalties for shooting friendlies, to fail in the mission (you failed to stop the enemy advance or assist friendlies to capture a train station etc) and you should feel bad for doing so, as well fear doing so as you get penalized from it somewhat. 

 

There is lots to offer then for a civilian pilots if there is built-in air traffic and you could even complete some simpler civilian missions (that DCS World campaigns covers like oil rig building etc) like taking small group of people for sight seeing where you need to fly at specific distance and time the given point (they can be scientists or what ever) or you transport some light cargo, medicine or equipment. You could go to do search and rescue at forests and mountains or something similar.

 

A clever campaign designer would allow to combine those scenarios to military parts, and eventually combat.

And even at the war time, civilian air traffic happens else where than no-fly-zones.

 

 

DCS World doesn't fit any means to any larger passanger airliners or private corporation jets etc. Those can be left out on the spot. But lots of thins for a small cargo planes and so on would possible be included. 

 

The Caucasus map has plenty of nice locations to go visit and check out, but if primary group has already only focused to F-15 or F/A-18C and blowing each others up, it requires research and base work to get people interested about aviation in proper manner first.

 

Like take that LotAtc and fill the sky with Moose Random Air Traffic  

 

And now you have plenty of stuff to do.

If we would get a proper IFF system even done (all public unclassified information btw that is required to implement them properly) it would make more good for the DCS than not. 

 

Alone that RAT does M2000C far more nicer to fly as you can train for air interceptions. If you just would yet have the aircraft properly follow you or your commands if required etc. It could be cool to sometimes be required escort the aircraft to specific airfield.

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s a military trainer and I believe has a commercial/ military customer 

What poll results are you looking at? this one is 68/32 % against

 

This poll is more about "Do you want a Cessna 172 or F-15E?" than it is "Would you want to have some people flying Cessna 172 Yak-52 in DCS World?"

 

If there is a 70% of the people who go "I want a F-22" and "I don't want any museum piece to fly, I want latest!" then what you are expecting from a polls?

 

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Also the realm of civy flight simulation is now firmly dominated by a behemoth that no other company can complete with. 

 

That is a wrong attitude. As it is not even to begin with "compete" but about focusing to DCS World itself and what to offer for all DCS World users. 

 

If someone starts a thread "AIM-120 is broken" it will heat up the discussion for next 5 years about "balance" and how amazing the AIM-120 is etc.

If someone starts a thread "I want to have more dangerous SAM systems by making them more realistic" you get heated and insulted etc as no one wants to get shot down from the sky by "über SAM system you can't notch and chaff and self-destruct by flying 1 meter above scripted altitude limit)". 

 

If 30% of the people would be willing to buy a Cessna 172 for DCS World, that is A LOT. And if that would be available for DCS World, that would be amazingly simulated, it could bring a lot more offerings and lot more players.... 

 

Does everyone need to agree with everything that could be on the market for DCS World?

I am not interested WW2 modules at all, but I do not go voting those down, or tell that they need to be removed etc. 

If I am not interested about a F-104 being in a game, I don't buy it, but I don't go telling "No, it shouldn't be as it is so crappy!". 

 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

10 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

@killkenny1

 

I really don't know about circuit breakers persay, or to what extent they're simulated. I mean, many/most of the DCS aircraft have them, and you have to interact with them during startup, etc. Now, whether or not you can have an electrical surge or something that trips them, I dunno, that's most likely going to be a result of battle damage around here. Eating a bunch of 23s from a Shilka or an AMRAAM or two is likely to do more than trip a breaker, though, so they're probably moot from that aspect

 

Part of the damage modeling is the systems modeling. And it is about your electronic wires connecting various systems, as well the hydraulics etc. 

 

Problem is that those connections has not been done properly. It is a large hitbox that gets damaged and assumed things happens. But a more accurate damage modeling requires wires going through certain parts, and you can very well just snap the wires and lose something there.

 

This is reason why the new damage modeling takes years to make, as it is not just large part thing, but you need to actually model each wire line/channel, as with hydraulic line, fuel line, oil line etc. 

It is easier to start with a WW2 aircraft that has few wires and few cables and so on. And then take a modern fighter with a 15 km of wires (of course no individual wires are modeled but the channel where they move). Then comes another major feat to beat, stress damage. You get a hole to wing that didn't cut wires or other pipes, but how does your wing withstand now a G forces?

 

The major electricity malfunctions that I experience in DCS is the Mi-8 and its generators... You can trip them in various scenarios and turning some stuff off with circuit brakers allows you to have some flexibility for other systems. 

 

But how many anyways have "allow random problems" enabled in their missions? Not so many. 

Same can be asked "allow INS drifting" or if we could "allow GPS jamming" etc. 

 

More errors, more challenges, more malfunctions, more negative things to aircrafts and DCS World customer base starts to be feeling threaten that their fun is taken away. As they can't just take-off and go zooming and booming. 

Like how many would really love the idea that after flying 30 min to area in A-10C, having one successful bomb release and you notice that your avionics compartment cooling system is dead and heats up your electronics so you need to return to nearest base ASAP or you lose all systems? You need to know how to shut down non-critical systems to eliminate excess heat generation, to either gain speed to get more air or altitude to get cooler air. 

 

We already have people going nuts about a TGP starting to burn its laser... What then when a individual display goes hazy, or we get the TGP realistic drifting and shaking even with area track etc? Incapability to lock Maverick on targets past 2-3 nmi instead of current 6-12 nmi? 

 

People are happy until you brake their dreamy bubbles with perfect systems.

Like talk to the fighter pilots and many of them have many cases where take-off has been cancelled etc as they noticed the errors in the instruments, something that majority doesn't even know how to look. 

 

What if the start-up procedures with actually looking for all the proper voltages and temperatures, RPM etc would really start to be mattering as there could be a high change (lets say 5-10%) that malfunction or erroneous reading is given? How many would spot that voltage reads 22.1 V instead required 23.4 V and know that is a repair?

 

Yet we have these people in the WW2 modules that are upset when a cooling or heatup problems are not modeled properly. Like how big thing it was that UH-1H didn't have some EGT problems modeled? People love about these things. Some people wouldn't care less.

 

If we would just go for the general audience in modeling, we would be still in the Lock-On.

Years back I didn't think that I would enjoy Yak-52 as much as I do these days. As going just for a flight, old school navigation, just admiring the terrain areas etc. It is nice to fly around example Syria in the "no-man-lands" areas and see the details that map designers has put there. Yet, it would be nice to have a debugging system in the DCS that allows to log a map position with press of a button so that log could be sent to developers for problem solving in the map. As there are lots of small things off. But it really should be like a TOO button or RECCE EVENT where you just fly over and press button. 

 

And you can't really do that while zooming at sky in F-15 at Mach 0.6. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

As it is not even to begin with "compete" but about focusing to DCS World itself and what to offer for all DCS World users. 

And the chief thing that makes DCS World unique is combat simulation. It’s better to keep the focus on what sets DCS apart from other flight sim products. Especially when that other product has an incomparable level of resources. 

[killkenny1]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Sure they can have them, or not have. Similar thing is in the DCS. But it is not to put DCS World down that it couldn't do it. Question is again just about the developers will to go those extra streps. So your argument to promote others as better is just false. As some developers has put lot of effort in the MSFX or X-Plane 11 and so on. But when there is no one really at least trying to require a standard to be met, there will be way too much "clutter" that doesn't even have proper cockpits instruments done. While we are to thank the ED to at least trying to maintain high quality of standard to meet. And they totally shouldn't be giving a slack to some studios right now for their behavior for not implementing the core functions of the aircraft no matter how challenging it might be for them. That is reason as well why we have so few aircraft in DCS World and why there was only KA-50 and A-10C for so many years before anything else appeared (IIRC it was the MiG-21Bis?) to it. And now there are some people thinking that it would be nicer to have more sooner and faster if we could lower the standard. And I disagree on that point.

 

Not sure where I was promoting others as better aircraft systems wise than DCS...

I was telling the OP that his claim that other sims are worse than DCS is false, not the other way around.

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

It is true what you say that there are people who want to fly in their home area etc. But not everyone is interested about that, nor they even have a home airfield modeled in those famous civilian flight simulators. Like look at the MSFS20 today, it has really just a handful highly detailed airfields and rest are just satellite imagery. Their promoted idea of "whole world" as a satellite mapped terrain to fly by using the Navteq (from ex Nokia etc) that has done all the heavy work, they still need to go and build those places manually and sells then those locations. And I don't know, but as that was the big business in the MSFX and X-Plane, it likely is in the MSFS20 as well that you go and buy those custom made add-ons to get your wanted areas that are then limited in scale. 

 

The MSFS looks amazing from a 15 000 ft. But it doesn't look so great when going down for low and slow. That is when already DCS World starts to put nicer details as they are manually done even at the ural.

 

Can't talk too much about MSFS, haven't spent a lot of time in it, but P3D has tons of scenery, from global to local, from payware to freeware. And it's true that you won't be able to find 100%  of stuff you are looking for, but a lot of it is there. Even with just global scenery/meshes available for my area it was enough for me to go "yes this is that coast, yes this is that road leading from A to B, etc." And it looks like MSFS is headed that way. I was already able to find a few local international airports and landmarks for the area I live (eastern Europe) completely free. And that's only a few months have passed since it's release. Their satellite data makes redundant things like 3rd party global landmass/meshes/etc. and that's already great.

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

You can always install something like this for DCS World:

 

https://www.lotatc.com/

 

 

Good to see there is an option like that.

[Fri13]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And the chief thing that makes DCS World unique is combat simulation. It’s better to keep the focus on what sets DCS apart from other flight sim products. Especially when that other product has an incomparable level of resources. 

 

Having a some small civilian aircrafts are not out of the "combat aircraft" simulator context.

There are many of such that are used by military.

 

Like Cessna 172 variant for military is the The Cessna T-41 Mescalero for US Air Force and other air forces.

 

"A number of air forces, including Saudi Arabia and Singapore, purchased various civilian models of the Cessna 172 for use in military training, transport, and liaison roles."

 

 

There are various other aircraft like small Cessna 402 or even Cessna 152 that has been used in military.

A "combat aircraft" doesn't mean literally that you need to be firing missiles or have a cannon in it. You can be unarmed aircraft and totally fill the category of "combat aircraft".

 

Notice that the point is that aircraft in the DCS should be somewhat anchored to the military, like the Yak-52 that was used as Soviet military primary trainer.

Same way we should have other similar manner civilian small aircraft for various other reasons as already explained.

 

It by no means mean that suddenly there needs to be the Boeing 747 being as full fidelity module, even when it is as VC-25 in service. Reason is that it is just too big for the maps sizes. Of course a KC-130 could be used for air tanker as there is other things to do in that with the combat aircraft in that size class. 

 

All the arguments about 172 not being "combat aircraft" and out of the DCS World "focus" is just grasping straws. 

[Fri13]

Just now, killkenny1 said:

 

Not sure where I was promoting others as better aircraft systems wise than DCS...

I was telling the OP that his claim that other sims are worse than DCS is false, not the other way around.

 

If we go look other sims like X-plane 9, X-plane 10 and MSFX, they are bad. We can look the other ones as well as mentioned, but they were behind DCS World at the time.

The MSFS20 is huge improvement for the flight modeling alone over previous one. But we are talking already 2020 year, not 2016 or 2017 etc. Developments happens everywhere.

But the generic part for those others is that their quality is lower as there is so easy to go produce some cheap models that lowers the general quality. That doesn't mean there ain't some superior models out there totally deserving high praises. 

 

Just now, killkenny1 said:

Can't talk too much about MSFS, haven't spent a lot of time in it, but P3D has tons of scenery, from global to local, from payware to freeware. And it's true that you won't be able to find 100%  of stuff you are looking for, but a lot of it is there.

 

Yes, some people like to go for the scenery route, some don't care so much.

 

Just now, killkenny1 said:

Even with just global scenery/meshes available for my area it was enough for me to go "yes this is that coast, yes this is that road leading from A to B, etc." And it looks like MSFS is headed that way. I was already able to find a few local international airports and landmarks for the area I live (eastern Europe) completely free. And that's only a few months have passed since it's release. Their satellite data makes redundant things like 3rd party global landmass/meshes/etc. and that's already great.

 

The satellite data is used in DCS as well, but for the small map download sizes the detailed terrain areas are just kept small. And if you do not want to make invisible walls, you need to eventually render flat areas after map. There is no way around it, unless you go streaming the map data over already huge Google/Amazon/Azure kind data servers that are used anyways by millions of people every hour. 

 

What one can find in the Microsoft Bing Maps, they can find in the MSFS20. Is it pretty? No... Is it impressive? Yes.

Like take a Google Earth in VR, and just move around various cities and other places. It is impressive, even when there are clearly many ugly things that simply satellite mapping can't do. 

And that is why Apple purchased C3 from SAAB.

 

 

 

As that kind technology is used by various militaries exactly to generate maps in huge areas. Where some countries has done it decades ago by hiring people to map every location by foot in their countries. Where results are that you can pull out a map and you can navigate yourself to location that is like 50-100 km from nearest city to very specific large rock that is in size or larger than a 1 cubic meter. Technology just makes things easier and simpler, but still no matter of the maps, when you are taking your troops for a defensive position you need to scout the landscape yourself before making plans. Same way that before you move your troops for attack, you need have recon to find the enemy and the area so you can plan how to do it. Just looking a map is not enough. And lots of things are just made on the spot when the time comes. 

 

ED has options for Open Street Maps data to automatically allocate proper building types on Caucasus map etc. Get roads etc. Have the altitude data etc and dig in for manually clean/polish places. So does almost any other who just wants to do so, depending does the map SDK support importing data in what manners. And that is what MS does for their FS20 as they need to go and manually do all the main airports and such to be pretty and functional. 

 

But back to the main thing, DCS World would benefit a lot from a Cessna 172 or An-2 kind aircraft. All kind missions possibilities. 

This is same thing why we need more civilian boats and ships, even when this is not a sailing simulator and point is not to even become anything like a Sailaway, it is just that there is a need for the content to make the world. 

 

And Yak-52 is amazing addition to the DCS World. Cessna 172 would be as well, as it would just bring more customers in who might be then interested about the fighters, just like those fighters are brought to those other simulators as people are interested about them. 

It doesn't just go that people who want fighters is not interested about good basic light aircraft to fly around.  

[SharpeXB]

40 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Having a some small civilian aircrafts are not out of the "combat aircraft" simulator context.

There are many of such that are used by military.

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

 

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