Cessna 172

[Dragon1-1]

Just give it a tailwheel, WP and an M-16 you can fire out of the window, and call it an O-1E.  Of course, all analog gauges and stuff, no modern era Garmin MFDs or anything like that. Great big manual lever for flaps, too, none of that fancy electric controls. For the red side, we should get an An-2, so we could have a Vietnam FAC dogfight, WP rockets vs. a single .50 strapped on top of the wing.  

On a more serious note, we should really get an O-1E as an AI aircraft, at least. The Phantom was used as a FAC aircraft, but most of the time it was birds like Birddog, Skymaster and Bronco that did this kind of work. It's not a complex aircraft, but it is an absolutely vital part of a period-accurate combat sortie.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[Black_Dynamite]

1 hour ago, Zius said:

Sounds good to me!

 

When it comes to GA, I have to be honest, the CE II is not the plane I fly the most, but I started her up the other day and was again impressed. What a joy it is to fly!

 

I do hope some developer sees the potential in making 172 for DCS as well!

 

Honestly, I almost think that a 172 with clickable pit would be perfect as part of the free, base DCS download. Easy to learn, a good introduction into DCS but with full features. Such a module would go a long way at getting new users and users transferring over from the civ sims started. Also, a 172 should be comparatively low resource for ED to implement and maintain.

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Black_Dynamite said:

I almost think that a 172 with clickable pit would be perfect as part of the free, base DCS download

For a game called Digital Combat Simulator? That doesn’t make any sense. 

[Tippis]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

For a game called Digital Combat Simulator? That doesn’t make any sense. 

It makes as much sense as, oh about 20% of the aircraft already in the game. In fact, given its extensive military use, it makes a lot more sense than a fair few of the modules we already have. But of course, that would require knowing anything about what DCS is, what it offers and what those offerings actually represent…

Maybe try that.

[Black_Dynamite]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

For a game called Digital Combat Simulator? That doesn’t make any sense. 

It makes as much sense as the TF-51, with which I have great fun in between playing with the jets by the way.

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, Black_Dynamite said:

Also, a 172 should be comparatively low resource for ED to implement and maintain.

Given that the CEII has been stuck in early access for 4 years I say that statement is overly optimistic. 

Edited April 9, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Black_Dynamite]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Given that the CEII has been stuck in early access for 4 years I say that statement is overly optimistic. 

Why has the CEII been in early access for 4 years?

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Given that the CEII has been stuck in early access for 4 years I say that statement is overly optimistic. 

Eh, no. But the Hornet has — they're very different things. But ok, never mind how you managed to confuse those two, so what? What has the status of dozens of module to do with the requirements for what's being suggested here? Even given your normal proclivity for fallacious reasoning, this non sequitur is pretty extreme…

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Black_Dynamite said:

Why has the CEII been in early access for 4 years?

Clearly there aren’t enough people buying it to fund its development. It’s a civilian aircraft in a combat game. Go figure. It’s really out of place in DCSW

14 minutes ago, Black_Dynamite said:

It makes as much sense as the TF-51, with which I have great fun in between playing with the jets by the way.

The TF-51 is the training version of a combat aircraft. ie it fits in DCSW

[Rick50]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Given that the CEII has been stuck in early access for 4 years I say that statement is overly optimistic. 

Er... well... I partially disagree.

The CEII was made not by ED's devs, but by Magnitude 3 LLC, the people who made the MiG-21Bis and soonish the  F4U-1D. Maybe an F-8 Crusader after that.

ED's own teams have done some amazing things too. But Magnitude and ED are not the same people, AFAIK. 

I have no idea why the CEII is still in EA, doesn't make sense to me either.

 

[Tippis]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Clearly there aren’t enough people buying it to fund its development.

So obviously, the Hornet is an even larger commercial failure since it has been around for even longer and still hasn't been able to get out of the EA phase. Is this your argument? Is this how you assume — without any shred of evidence or basis — that work on modules is prioritised?

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s a civilian aircraft in a combat game.

So is a fair portion of the modules in the game, and they keep making those modules so it's clearly a niche that has a sufficiently large market for them to keep doing it. Just because you have no idea about how these planes are used doesn't mean they are out of place — it just means you have no idea. That is all. Don't generalise from your cluelessness.

Also, if you bothered to get over your standard aversion to research and looked the plane you, you'd quickly notice that it's also a military aircraft. Are you saying that those have no place in this supposed combat game you're envisioning?

Edited April 9, 2022 by Tippis

[MAXsenna]

Anybody else but me that have a strong feeling of an old married couple?

You guys keep it up, at least it seems you're not bored.

[Black_Dynamite]

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The TF-51 is the training version of a combat aircraft. ie it fits in DCSW

No offense, but that sounds more like an opinion rather than a fact.

[Rick50]

1 minute ago, Black_Dynamite said:

No offense, but that sounds more like an opinion rather than a fact.

???

Sorry but his statement about the TF-51  IS fact, not opinion.

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, Black_Dynamite said:

No offense, but that sounds more like an opinion rather than a fact.

More to the point, it applies equally to the 172, probably more so than the TF-51 since it has seen actual in-theatre use…  

[Black_Dynamite]

1 minute ago, Rick50 said:

???

Sorry but his statement about the TF-51  IS fact, not opinion.

Not the part that it is a trainer version of a combat aircraft. But rather the part that this gives it a place in DCS where other non-combat planes don't. That is an opinion.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Black_Dynamite said:

No offense, but that sounds more like an opinion rather than a fact.

How is that an opinion? The TF-51 is indeed the trainer version of the P-51 which is a combat aircraft. 
See “variants” section here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang_variants

Just now, Black_Dynamite said:

Not the part that it is a trainer version of a combat aircraft. But rather the part that this gives it a place in DCS where other non-combat planes don't. That is an opinion.

Again the game is Digital Combat Simulator. 
And yeah you can see how poorly the non-combat CEII did here. 

[Black_Dynamite]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

How is that an opinion? The TF-51 is indeed the trainer version of the P-51 which is a combat aircraft. 
See “variants” section here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang_variants

What I meant was the conclusion derived from this. I think it is an opinion that this gives the TF-51 a place in DCS where other non combat aircraft don't have one.

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

How is that an opinion?

Because you're assuming that “it fits” just because it's a trainer aircraft, while deeming it not worthy to extend the same logic to a different plane that fills the same role on top of being an aircraft that is in active non-training use by various armed forces. This makes it not just an opinion, but a highly hypocritical one.

  

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And yeah you can see how poorly the non-combat CEII did here. 

Where can we see that, exactly?

Edited April 9, 2022 by Tippis

[Black_Dynamite]

Guys, after some short wikipedia research, may I present to you the "T-41 Mescalero":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_T-41_Mescalero

Is now everyone happy?

[SharpeXB]

30 minutes ago, Black_Dynamite said:

What I meant was the conclusion derived from this. I think it is an opinion that this gives the TF-51 a place in DCS where other non combat aircraft don't have one.

Why would there be non-combat aircraft in a combat game anymore than non-racing cars in a racing sim? Makes no sense. 

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Why would there be non-combat aircraft in a combat game anymore than non-racing cars in a racing sim?

You know that most racing sims do have non-racing cars, right?

And as you can clearly see from what's on offer in the module list, DCS is not “a combat game” to nearly the extent you so desperately wish it to be to make your argument work. Ultimately, every single one of your attempted arguments so far has only served to demonstrate why the 172 should be in DCS, completely contrary to your stated stance — it's one of the unfortunate side-effects of not having a solid factual basis to stand on and trying to replace it with assumptions and guesswork instead…

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Why would there be non-combat aircraft in a combat game anymore than non-racing cars in a racing sim? Makes no sense. 

Agreed. Which begs the question: wtf are the Christen Eagle and Yak 52 doing in DCS? I own both and I enjoy them both (although I feel that the CE is a bit cartoonish). The answer is: we are aviation enthusiasts. If it flies, we want it. If it has guns, so much better.

Let it go. I purchase any module for DCS. Let's not be too picky. 

 

[WRAITH]

"ED DCS WORLD" - to have commercial aviation and military all in one sim would be my dream!

A cost saver as well imagine!

+1 yeah for sure Cessna C172 is just the start!
 

[Rick50]

I don't really have a hard opinion on this subject. 

On the one hand, civil aircraft in DCS seems to be slightly off topic for this DCSWorld... I mean, the distances are especially short for civilian flights... even single engine private owned aircraft. It seems a silly addition when 98% of the content is related to combat of some kind.

BUT... and this is a big butt...

... I'm also a big fan of civilian aero too, and civil flight sims... and the last thing I want is to stifle a dev from making a cool vehicle of any kind, from doing so in the sim platform of their choice. If they are putting in the effort, I don't want to stand in their way!!

 

Thing is, civil flight seems silly for DCS. At this time. But ED have invested a LOT  of money time and effort for more than two decades, and held firm in their commitment, grown to be known even beyond the normal "flightsim geek squad", in part thanks to Youtube videos that get shown to many that live beyond simulation forums. When I think of ED's future, I believe they will be expanding significantly. I think there will be a "world wide map" of some kind, indeed they have announced that they have started a bit of work on it, though some years away from play use. I believe there will be increases in the quality of the maps. I believe ground vehicles will see expansion, possibly including a sequel to Combined Arms. 

Look at the history of a certain very VERY well known sim developer from Washington State: started off making very simple flight sims. But those spawned SOOO many versions of the SAME programming world:  fictional fantasy combat dogfighters of a 1930's style that was just good ol' fun!  Train simulations, ship simulations including sailing ships I think, it spawned at least three realistic (for their time) combat flight of ww2 including the Pacific.  There is literally an entire INDUSTRY of companies small and medium who support and are dependent on that series of products, bringing everything from whimsical topics to super-realistic addons that can and are used to train real aircrews (PMDG). And last but not least, the system was leased to Lockheed Martin who made it into their own kind of product that helps train civilians, entertains at the retail market, helps train professional pilots and special purpose military training that's probably mostly still secret. 

I could imagine a similarly bright future for ED's system/products, and for their devs. So while I too wonder "why a C-172? LOL!!", I also say "bring it on!!"