Cessna 172

[Rick50]

38 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. 

 

Um...  check Assetto Corsa. Among others.

[cfrag]

49 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

Thing is, civil flight seems silly for DCS.

Not necessarily. To me, DCS is a high-fidelity flight sim that happens to include weapons delivery in its scope. I personally like aviation and revel in procedures. Military aviation to me expands on what I like about GA in exactly the right parts. I'm not a great combat pilot, and I probably never will be. But I derive great pleasure from simply starting up a Hog or Tiger; just flying these great machines and reveling in their exquisitely simulated physical behavior is pure bliss. In VR, it transcend the real thing, as I have life-like access to planes that I'd never be rated for IRL.

Long story short, I don't mind GA planes using DCS as a platform. The Christen Eagle and Yak-52 (which feels eerily like I'd imagine a real-life PA-28 with a constant-speed propeller would) are essentially GA airplanes. I own both modules and truly enjoy taking them out for a spin (the Yak more than the eagle). It's just that to me mil aircraft are that much more interesting for their expanded scope and performance envelope. So it would be silly to waste DCS's  unique advantage on something that you can have in similar fidelity from other products like X-Plane or an MS product. DCS is a capable platform for hosting GA aircraft - if ED ever didn't know what to do next (after bringing us every mil aircraft available).

That being said, if ED were to publish another GA module, I'd purchase it sight unseen.

Edited April 9, 2022 by cfrag

[upyr1]

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

[Northstar98]

17 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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

Glad to see we're still keeping up the acronym zealotry, pretending it means anything.

I have a shop nearby called PC World, and yet they sell all manner of electronic devices; vacuum cleaners, washing machines, TVs, printers etc. Madness, right?

And with DCS, the game is called DCS World, and yet we don't have a world map, all our maps are flat, and most of them are practically adjacent to each other, what gives?

It's almost like the name is completely irrelevant, and doesn't mean anything.

 

And again, you realise that the most flaws, simplifications and omissions are found specifically in the combat simulation of DCS, right?

Relatively speaking DCS, as it stands, is a much better flight simulator than a combat simulator.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Glad to see we're still keeping up the acronym zealotry, pretending it means anything.

This is literally what the game is all about:

“Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.7 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. This free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It also includes a flyable Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft and the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter. An additional more than two dozen aircraft are available for purchase.”

As such this game doesn’t offer a very appealing environment or market for GA aircraft, which is why the CEII was such a flop. 

[MAXsenna]

which is why the CEII was such a flop. 

Who are you to say it was a flop?
You've been told numerous times they used to it to get experience for the Corsair.
I'm pretty sure that went well, and if they could cash in a little on the CEII, why not?

The MB-339 team went the other way. They gave it away for free at first, and now it's coming as a full flown super module. Yeah, it's a trainer. But now they have more experience, same with the C-101.

Don't you get it that these "simple" modules pave the way for more interesting and complex ones?
You should embrace it dude! And you'll eventually reap the benefit from those of us who are willing to fund parts of your, potential favorite, future modules that are yet to come.

Anyway, I know you're trolling and bored. But it such fun press "repeat".

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Exorcet]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This is literally what the game is all about:

“Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.7 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Have you noticed in the loadout screen there is a checkbox for civil aircraft on every plane?

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

As such this game doesn’t offer a very appealing environment or market for GA aircraft

You don't get to decide that, and if anything this thread makes you seem very much mistaken. If there wasn't an appealing GA environment, there wouldn't be a request for GA aircraft. DCS is a leader in flight physics and that's enough to attract civil aviation fans to it despite the fact that it may lack some features from other sims. Not to mention that combat aviation and civil aviation aren't rigidly separated in the first place. When a civil plane enters restricted airspace in the US or fails to respond to radio contact, it's the military that will respond. In other cases military aircraft may need be careful in identify other aircraft around them that may be civilian. Lastly let's not forget rebel/low intensity conflicts which may see the use of civilian tools as weapons. DCS is sorely lacking in civilian aviation partly because it's a combat simulator.

[Northstar98]

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This is literally what the game is all about:

“Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.7 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. This free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It also includes a flyable Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft and the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter. An additional more than two dozen aircraft are available for purchase.”

And?

Where in there does it say "no cvilian/unarmed aircraft allowed"? I'll tell you where - nowhere.

And if you're going to highlight military, let me remind you of the myriad of civilian assets included in the base game.

Plus, I'd like to highlight that this is the goal - we are leaps and bounds away from having the most authentic simulation of ground vehicles and ships possible.

25 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

As such this game doesn’t offer a very appealing environment or market for GA aircraft, which is why the CEII was such a flop. 

Doesn't even make a lick of sense, the poll disagrees with you, hell, even your own comments disagree with you.

And you have no idea that it was a flop, and your only metric for gauging it as such applies to the Hornet, Viggen etc.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

Who are you to say it was a flop?

Because it’s still in EA after four years. That fact speaks for itself. Such a simple aircraft shouldn’t take that long to develop unless it’s not selling enough to fund itself. 

[Northstar98]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Because it’s still in EA after four years.

So again, like the Hornet, like the Viggen, I'm sure the F-16 too.

I take it they were all flops?

Just now, SharpeXB said:

That fact speaks for itself. Such a simple aircraft shouldn’t take that long to develop unless it’s not selling enough to fund itself. 

Yeah, we'll just ignore that Magnitude 3 is much smaller team - you realise they're still working on the MiG-21bis right?

[MAXsenna]

Because it’s still in EA after four years. That fact speaks for itself. Such a simple aircraft shouldn’t take that long to develop unless it’s not selling enough to fund itself. 

Point is, I think they got what they needed. I purchased it just for kicks and support anyway. Have no idea why it is still in EA, and what's missing.
Doesn't seem to be many bugs or complaints, as the CEII forum has literally no traction at all.
One could consider that a success.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Tippis]

45 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This is literally what the game is all about:

“Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.7 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible. This free download includes a vast mission area of the Caucasus region and Black Sea that encompasses much of Georgia. It also includes a flyable Russian Sukhoi Su-25T ground attack aircraft and the famous WWII North American TF-51D fighter. An additional more than two dozen aircraft are available for purchase.”

In other words, since it's a military aircraft use the world over, and since it fulfils not just the same function as the TF-51D, but has seen (and still is in) active use in non-training operations, the 172 fits the description of DCS perfectly.

 

45 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

As such this game doesn’t offer a very appealing environment or market for GA aircraft, which is why the CEII was such a flop. 

You have yet to demonstrate how or why it can be considered a flop. Just because it's not appealing to you, doesn't make it appealing to other people. You are irrelevant and your well-established ignorance of DCS and everything it has to offer can never be used as a basis for generalising anything related to this game or its customer base.

 

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because it’s still in EA after four years. That fact speaks for itself. Such a simple aircraft shouldn’t take that long to develop unless it’s not selling enough to fund itself. 

No it isn't. If you're going to go down this idiotic route of absolute nonsensical pretzel logic, at least try to base it on some kind of known reality.

You're not living in the future. The year is 2022. Do the maths. Oh, and realise that by your logic, your darling Hornet module — the one aircraft you have any familiarity with — is a flop because unlike the CE2, it was released into EA in 2018.

You're just outright lying now to try to cover up your lack of awareness of how anything related to this topic works, when your usual insipid and ignorant trolling doesn't make any headway. You know how this will end: with the mods coming along and telling you to sopt.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Tippis

[Dragon1-1]

The good old Cessna is not a non-combat aircraft.  Yeah, that's not a whole lot of rockets, but there, it can shoot. It's an Irish FR172, if case anyone's wondering.

I would still prefer a Birddog, but then, the main difference between an early 172 and a 170 is the undercarriage, and given how simple an aircraft this is, both could easily be included in a module.

[SharpeXB]

21 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

DCS is a leader in flight physics and that's enough to attract civil aviation fans to it

That’s a rather optimistic assumption. 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… 

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.

[Beirut]

Does it have wings? Is it well modelled? Is it fun to fly? 

 

Sold! 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The good old Cessna is not a non-combat aircraft.  Yeah, that's not a whole lot of rockets, but there, it can shoot. It's an Irish FR172, if case anyone's wondering.

I would still prefer a Birddog, but then, the main difference between an early 172 and a 170 is the undercarriage, and given how simple an aircraft this is, both could easily be included in a module.

What a joke that would be for DCS

[Tippis]

33 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Have you ever felt turbulence in DCS? No… 

Yes. If you haven't, the only explanation is that you haven't actually played the game that much and that you only ever do quick air-start missions where you never really come across other aircraft. So, again, it helps if you try to base your argument in some kind of known reality rather than rely on assumptions borne out of nothing but your own ignorance and inexperience.

e: Oh, and I know that you know this exists and that you have experienced it too — at least one of the forms that exist in DCS — since you bring it up every time you troll a thread on the topic of air refuelling to keep it from being improved as well. So the level of honesty you're exhibiting in this line of argument is… low, let's call it.

33 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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.

How is it doubtful when they are already doing exactly that? Again, you're doubting actual reality as it exists… you know… out there — outside of your dreamworld — in that mystical place where the rest of us live.

29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What a joke that would be for DCS

Why? It fits all the true scotsman qualifications you keep piling on to try to categorise DCS as something it is not.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Tippis

[Beirut]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What a joke that would be for DCS

 

It's a joke I would be happy to fly.

 

A solid chunk of my DCS flights are just for the fun of flying. This is a rock solid premium flight simulator. I'm just here for the fun of flying. And if I can blow some ch!t up along the way, so be it. But first and foremost, it's about the joy of flying the airplanes.

[Mogster]

A while ago on the ACS podcast Ron Zambrano of Razbam mentioned the team had a working 172 in the DCS engine.
 

Just for internal use, no plans to licence and market it as a module currently though.

[Dragon1-1]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What a joke that would be for DCS

Yeah, a joke until you dive down on it, can't lock a Sidewinder, miss with the gun and then augur in because it flies so low and slow that you can't get a good firing solution with your million dollar fast jet.  

Currently there's no sim on the market that allows me to shoot rockets from a Cessna. DCS could fill that role. I believe there is a market for a low cost (WWII pricing or even cheaper) module consisting of an O-1, an FR172, and their civilian versions. Yes, the Pucara will soon be there to scratch the COIN itch to some extent, but a Cessna would be a wonderful entry-level module. Good for training, AFAC and COIN missions, also as a scout and a liaison aircraft.

[SharpeXB]

48 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

One could consider that a success

Success breeds imitation. Failure is an orphan. 
Have you seen anyone else make a GA module for DCS?

no. What does that tell you?

[MAXsenna]

Success breeds imitation. Failure is an orphan. 
Have you seen anyone else make a GA module for DCS?
no. What does that tell you?

You absolutely failed to see the point, or perhaps rather ignored it, (on purpose, I know).
GA aircraft will come. You know that CAM is also I pretty popular mod, right?
It actually has a "flyable" Cessna in it.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Have you seen anyone else make a GA module for DCS?

You mean like the Yak-52? Yes, we've seen that.

And the pure training variants — the C-101EB and L-39C — sure straddle that line pretty hard. And that's before we get into the modules that operate far better in GA tasks than as actual combat aircraft (UH-1, Mi-8), and the numerous community mods that have no combat capability whatsoever.

Your “no” here tells me that you aren't paying attention enough to have an informed, or even worth-while, opinion on the matter; that, as always, you're just trolling another wishlist thread because it does not conform to your strict, narrow, ignorant, and actively destructive desires as to what DCS should be to ensure it does not appeal to anyone else but you. This level of wilful ignorance is not a solid foundation for arguing your case against improvements to the game.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

You absolutely failed to see the point, or perhaps rather ignored it, (on purpose, I know).

Ok, you’re defining “success” as something other than commercial or as a loss leader. But the point still remains that nobody else has ventured into that market based upon what Magnitude did. 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s a rather optimistic assumption.

Well, you can have one data point - me!

I was drawn to DCS from a big civilian sim, and 99% of what I do is free flight - the exact same thing I did in that sim.

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

That segment plays DCS maybe 10% of the time

And you know this, how?

Is this another PIDOOMA statistic?

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Have you ever felt turbulence in DCS? No…

Yes...

It's been a setting in the weather options (i.e the weather settings, in the mission editor) for as long as I can remember...

You're kinda showing yourself up here...

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS is a great sim no doubt, in the realm of combat simulation.

Not really, that's where you'll find the most major holes in its simulation.

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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.

Where they also have more fierce competition...

I wonder what sim doesn't wouldn't have that?

Edited April 10, 2022 by Northstar98
clarity