Jump to content

Cessna 172


lcabc888

Cessna 172  

188 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we have a C172 in DCS?



Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Evoman said:

However I would very much like to see ED implement a flight training program to mimic as much as possible how the military would train new pilots.

 

Good luck with this considering the majority of DCS players don’t even have the patience to learn how to start the aircraft. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Evoman said:

I understand that the Cessna 172 would be a great aircraft for beginners to start out flight training with. However I can't realistically see it coming to DCS anytime soon as a stand alone module unless a private party were to contract ED to do it like how the Yak-52 was done.

However I would very much like to see ED implement a flight training program to mimic as much as possible how the military would train new pilots.

It would be great to start off with the Cessna 172 then move on to T-34/T-6 then T-45/T-2 or TH-57 for those interested in helicopters.

With the OH-58 Kiowa now in development it would be great if ED is able to work something out with the 3rd party so that a TH-57 variant could be made so that it could be included with the DCS free download. This alone would pay off in the long run because it would train many new and experienced fixed wing pilots to fly helicopters that would lead to more helicopter module sales.

 

pilot-training-pipeline-l.jpg

Chart is kind of outdated. Take out T-34. Replace P-3 with P-8. That would be a bit more accurate. Might do well to remove F-18C/D, EA-6B, and a few of the choppers too.


Edited by Bailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the "Soviet line" is here already, - Yak-52 (almost done) and L-39:) Why not to have a "Western line"? At least "Western line" can have "western" instruments and data on V speeds and radios and e.t.c:)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bailey said:

Chart is kind of outdated. Take out T-34. Replace P-3 with P-8. That would be a bit more accurate. Might do well to remove F-18C/D, EA-6B, and a few of the choppers too.

 

It might be outdated in the present day but it would actually fit the current aircraft timeline that are present in DCS some of which are much older than the 1990's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
1 hour ago, frostycab said:

I'm not saying I'm totally against the idea, but when it comes down to making a payware module I just wonder if it would be worth the effort. I'd love to see how sales of the Christen Eagle or Yak compare to those of the combat modules. 

I imagine they'll be a lot less, though the other thing to consider is the cost to develop these modules, which will likely be much lower for more simple stuff.

But it's impossible to make anything other than a speculative conclusion without the numbers.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2021 at 6:51 PM, 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

 

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

How about that military trainer Christian Eagle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Phoschek said:

How about that military trainer Christian Eagle?

Obviously I’m referring to the Yak 52

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Obviously I’m referring to the Yak 52

But he's not. He's referring the Christen Eagle, which is not a military trainer and which ruins your complete lack of anything remotely resembling an intelligent, coherent, or rational argument just as well. So what you're referring to is is not really relevant, now is it? Same as always when you go after a wishlist thread (in spite of the mods repeatedly telling you to stop trolling them) with your pointless whinging.

As for the poll results, they show a significant portion of responders being interested. You have yet to understand how polling and statistics work, huh? Given how fond you are of quoting them, it's gut-bustingly funny how completely incapable you are of actually deriving any kind of understanding from them. 😄

  • Like 2

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d buy a 172. I enjoy the Yak52 it’s great for exploring new maps and sometimes I just want to fly. I have MSFS and enjoy it for what it is but I’d just much rather fly in DCS physics.

I can imagine Cessna would be jumpy about including the aircraft in what’s so far a combat sim though, possibly no damage model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, frostycab said:

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but wasn't the Christen Eagle partly or wholly commissioned by a 3rd party? I'm sure I read that somewhere years ago, but sure enough to say I'm sure. 😛

  Too many of these guys take the mentality ''if this or that dev is making a *insert thing I don't like* then they aren't making *insert thing I do like*''. No, the devs make things that THEY like (because it sucks years of their lives) and if some random 3rd party from MSFS wants to make a 172 (for example) and don't want to have to deal with complex avionics like on an EA-18 and you don't let them do it, then you don't get an EA-18, you just get nothing and so does ED's revenue stream.

  • Like 4

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind an O-1 and/or O-2 in DCS. Not much in terms of armament (read: two racks of willy peter and your trusty M-16), or in terms of thrust for that matter, but in the right conditions, one could really light the fire under the Charlies, way back in 'Nam. 🙂 In the same way, the reds should get an An-2, these were sometimes armed with .50s and PKs, and in a few cases, used to actually dogfight the FACs! As described by this ridiculously obscure song:

Yes, that's a real incident, Nail 57 in the song was the callsign of one Jerry Stephan, who flew the O-2 "Kudy Jay" over Vietnam.
blog-kudy-jay-02-db-sween-edit.jpg

Guys like him definitely deserve more recognition, if you type "Nail 57" into Google together with some Vietnam war-related keywords, it mostly tries to point you to nail salons in Vietnam, so I'd say there's some room for improvement here. 🙂 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted no, developing modules takes time and if someone wants to do something quicker and easier I'd say go ww2.

That said, if a c172 should come to DCS, I'd like to have the damage model too. And ED could develop some sort of simplified transponder / IFF, even without going deep in system modeling if they can't, but if you have to activate a code on your transponder, you can forget to do that, or do it wrong, or do it right but you are a GA plane. BVR and interception missions in multiplayer could be more interesting if you have to visually identify your target before shooting an amraam. There would be ROE, and that would be an interesting thing to add.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, frostycab said:

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but wasn't the Christen Eagle partly or wholly commissioned by a 3rd party? I'm sure I read that somewhere years ago, but sure enough to say I'm sure. 😛

Close, that was the Yak-52. ED were commissioned to make it.

The CE was built because Magnitude 3 wanted to make a prop aircraft before they started on the Corsair to get some more experience and build up tools.


Edited by Buzzles
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, both the CE2 and the -52 were testbeds for new engine sims, since they differ quite a bit from the bajillion-hp barely-contained-explosions you see in the WWII fighters. If there was ever a small chance of them wanting to build other kind of prop planes than classic dogfighters (and there has always been every indication that such planes are planned In The Future™), getting the coding basics for a few more engine types would be a good and sensible foundation to build on.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 3

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • Thanks 1

"Yeah, and though I work in the valley of Death, I will fear no Evil. For where there is one, there is always three. I preparest my aircraft to receive the Iron that will be delivered in the presence of my enemies. Thy ALCM and JDAM they comfort me. Power was given unto the aircrew to make peace upon the world by way of the sword. And when the call went out, Behold the "Sword of Stealth". And his name was Death. And Hell followed him. For the day of wrath has come and no mercy shall be given."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that an increased product inventory brings new/more customers is real. I came to explore the Combined Arms module, and since that time have purchased all but one of the props with no regrets getting either of the CEII/Yak 52.

Now I plan to start adding jets/helicopters to that list, but absolutely love the work that has been put into DCS WWII planes. So if planes like the CEII were the stepping stones needed to help develop/improve WWII capabilities in DCS World, then adding them to the DCS list of available planes is a win/win because even if you aren't particularly interested in fighter aircraft, there is a good chance you will eventually want to at least explore them.    

It all starts with a love for flying.


Edited by Callsign112
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of "internet drama" could have been avoided if the poll would have been titled differently.

Instead of "should we have a C-172 in DCS", maybe use "would you buy a C-172 module for DCS" instead? Maybe something to keep in mind for similar polls in the future.

I voted "no", but not because I think there shouldn't be one, rather than that I personally would not purchase one for DCS. To help give potentially interested 3rd-party-developers a realistic forecast.

Other than that, the more modules available, the merrier. If any dev believes there's a market for product XY, go for it! 🙂  With 3rd party developers in the mix, it's not a zero-sum game.


Edited by Jayhawk1971
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jayhawk1971 said:

A lot of "internet drama" could have been avoided if the poll would have been titled differently.

Instead of "should we have a C-172 in DCS", maybe use "would you buy a C-172 module for DCS" instead? Maybe something to keep in mind for similar polls in the future.

I voted "no", but not because I think there shouldn't be one, rather than that I personally would not purchase one for DCS. To help give potentially interested 3rd-party-developers a realistic forecast.

Other than that, the more modules available, the merrier. If any dev believes there's a market for product XY, go for it! 🙂  With 3rd party developers in the mix, it's not a zero-sum game.

 

Based on the point you raised, the way the survey is currently worded then is probably more appropriate because the results will represent both groups of people, the ones that don't think it should be there and wont purchase it, and the ones that don't mind, but wouldn't buy it anyway.

But the results are very favorable IMO as far as feasibility goes. Not many modules will attain a 100% sell rate, and 60% is probably not that far from the average. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But the results are very favorable IMO as far as feasibility goes.

How does a nearly 2:1 “no” vote lead to that conclusion? 🤔

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How does a nearly 2:1 “no” vote lead to that conclusion? 🤔

Nearly 40% are in favour of it, that's not an insignificant percentage...

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...