Want F-117A Nighthawk - high fidelity module

[TotenDead]

Только что, Tippis сказал:

Enough that it was worth making. All other considerations are irrelevant, especially such niche and wholly ignorable aspects as “multiplayer efficiency”.

Yak wasn't made for DCS, but it was later added with no effort because why not

 

Только что, Pikey сказал:

So it ends up a high altitude night attack profile with little to no interaction with any enemy

That might work well in PVE or on 60s-70s servers, but against 80s, not to say modern-ish DCS awacs and fighters - not so much. That would be a constant struggle

[Northstar98]

21 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

That so called minority is thousands of players, so that pretty much describes the overall popularity.

 

Haha what? What kind of alternative statistics planet have we gone to?

 

A minority can still be a large number - it doesn't stop it from being a minority.

 

1% of the country I live in is over half a million people, would you seriously tell me that that 1% describes the overall picture, because it's still a big number? Even though it doesn't represent the remaining 99%?

 

I mean let's think about this for a second Toten: if I have a population of 10 million people, and 1% of them are under 160cm tall (about 5 foot 3 - fairly short), are you going to tell me that people in this country are short, because the 1% that are is still a big number of people? 

 

The majority of players play single player, and given that it's a majority of people, there are more players that don't play multiplayer than do. So your multiplayer analysis (which I bet is just based on servers you personally visit) doesn't apply to most people playing DCS.

 

Quote

And again, most players have only a few (one or two) modules at best. And of course they mainly buy big dogs like 16/18 in the first place. Few purchase less capable stuff if they have enough time and money 

 

And you know this, how?

Edited March 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[Tippis]

Just now, TotenDead said:

Yak wasn't made for DCS, but it was later added with no effort because why not

And that doesn't change the fact that it was included and was worth making in spite of the apparent narrow niche for it. That is still all that matters. The F-117 has also been made for other platforms, so you're really just introducing an argument in its favour here: it already exists, so why not add it?

 

2 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

That so called minority is thousands of players

…and still remains a minority. They are inherently not indicative or representative of what would interest people and what would sell.

 

Just now, TotenDead said:

That might work well in PVE or on 60s-70s servers, but against 80s, not to say modern-ish DCS awacs and fighters - not so much. That would be a constant struggle

That would cover the majority of cases then, so that's not really much of a problem. Nor is it really an argument against this particular aircraft because it's universally applicable — you can always invent some scenario where it would be “a constant struggle” for any given aircraft to participate in some meaningful way. There's an utterly trivial solution to that: don't put that aircraft in that scenario.

 

If you want a solid argument against the F-117, you actually need to go down the exact opposite alley to what you're saying here: that it wouldn't work well given the current state of PvE. With as limited as AI detection schemes and engagement logic is, there would really need to be a few upgrades to the core DCS engine for the F-117 to properly do its thing. It can already be done, but requires a fair amount of trigger and script juggling, and that's would be the only downside: a lack of content because of annoying engine limitations. But again, that logic applies to just about all aircraft anyway so if that was the guiding principle, we'd still only have the A-10 and Ka-50.

[Northstar98]

8 minutes ago, Tippis said:

And that doesn't change the fact that it was included and was worth making in spite of the apparent narrow niche for it. That is still all that matters. The F-117 has also been made for other platforms, so you're really just introducing an argument in its favour here: it already exists, so why not add it?

 

…and still remains a minority. They are inherently not indicative or representative of what would interest people and what would sell.

 

That would cover the majority of cases then, so that's not really much of a problem. Nor is it really an argument against this particular aircraft because it's universally applicable — you can always invent some scenario where it would be “a constant struggle” for any given aircraft to participate in some meaningful way. There's an utterly trivial solution to that: don't put that aircraft in that scenario.

 

If you want a solid argument against the F-117, you actually need to go down the exact opposite alley to what you're saying here: that it wouldn't work well given the current state of PvE. With as limited as AI detection schemes and engagement logic is, there would really need to be a few upgrades to the core DCS engine for the F-117 to properly do its thing. It can already be done, but requires a fair amount of trigger and script juggling, and that's would be the only downside: a lack of content because of annoying engine limitations. But again, that logic applies to just about all aircraft anyway so if that was the guiding principle, we'd still only have the A-10 and Ka-50.

 

Exactly!

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[jojyrocks]

49 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

Learning to deal with stealth fighters has been happening way before RED FLAG.   RED FLAG is a large exercise which can and often does include foreign allies.   You can bet the USAF has been 'learning' how to deal with stealth fighters and weapons in exercises which are not public for the past couple of decades.

 

 

Maybe they are studying IR signature aspect as well...among the other radar signature tests that the F-117 still is seen doing, experimental flight tests.

 

They could have been studying the F-35 and the F-22. But the F-117, I think, provides much better training or sample as IR signature testing as it has specifically designed non afterburning engines.

 

 

And since they are still flying in these experimental test flights. I do think a full on module is remotely possible to make to levels of DCS standards. If it does happen, it would be a miracle!

 

But we certainly do expect UPDATE AI MODEL of this F-117, that can happen, it should. Current model is not withstanding! The thing is, It simply cannot be shot down by missiles. At least for me, this strange phenomenon happens. There is something very strange with the damage modeling.

[Mars Exulte]

35 minutes ago, Pikey said:

This is a case of not giving people what they think they want, just keep giving them what they need.

  Like the folks clamoring for a fully realised B-52 with all crew stations, because any of them are REALLY going to sit there for hours on end staring blankly at a screen and row of switches in DCS' sterile environment

 

33 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Enough that it was worth making. All other considerations are irrelevant, especially such niche and wholly ignorable aspects as “multiplayer efficiency”.

  As I recall the Yak-52 was made for somebody else via contract and brought over to DCS in tandem, so its creation presumably had relatively little ''cost''. That said not every module is going to as popular as some others, so it's not really that big a deal.

 

36 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

That so called minority is thousands of players, so that pretty much describes the overall popularity. And again, most players have only a few (one or two) modules at best. And of course they mainly buy big dogs like 16/18 in the first place. Few purchase less capable stuff if they have enough time and money 

  If we're talking about the online MP community, it's hundreds to maybe a couple thousand in total. The logical majority of the population required to sustain the game is considerably larger. That said, while that's a sufficient sample size for most reference cases, in this instance the two groups are largely polar opposites. The ''vocal'' DCS online crowd is heavily biased toward PVP activities, so SURPRISE, they fly the derpiest planes they can derp almost exclusively.

[MAXsenna]

I can understand arguments from both sides. Sort of. I just don't understand why anyone would oppose the idea of a module if a developer deemed it lucrative to make one.
I would definately get the F-117, even if it has limited use in DCS as it is today.
Currently I have all helis, and all coming are on my priority purchase list.
I have three WWII fighters. But I will get the rest, and I am eagerly waiting in huge anticipation for the Mosquito.
Only four jets are lacking in my hangar.
The Yak and CE II, I have absolutely no interest in. But who knows. I had no interest in the C-101, but tested it in free to play last spring and immediately fell in love and purchased it. So I will probably get them anyway, as support to ED and other devs. As I probably will for all other modules on the way.
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Exorcet]

F-117 would be nice to have. Yes stealth is classified, but sort of like ECM there is enough information to make a good guess. It might not exactly match the F-117's real life radar signature, but it could capture the basic behavior. We already see this in game. Fighter radars struggle to detect the F-117 while AWACS and EWR can spot them fairly easily.

 

Carrying two bombs is no less fun than the F-16 being limited to two HARM, and as real life shows we don't have to limit ourselves to following waypoints and dropping bombs. The F-117 can be used as a stand in for a fighter in training missions. It's not all that limited an aircraft, and whether or not it's as popular as others doesn't really matter. It just needs to be popular enough to sell.

[Northstar98]

On 3/20/2021 at 4:58 PM, Exorcet said:

F-117 would be nice to have. Yes stealth is classified, but sort of like ECM there is enough information to make a good guess. It might not exactly match the F-117's real life radar signature, but it could capture the basic behavior. We already see this in game. Fighter radars struggle to detect the F-117 while AWACS and EWR can spot them fairly easily.

 

In terms of stealth, if you really wanted to go that route, we know what the geometry of the aircraft is, and we know the physics of how it works.

 

The problems here mostly concern the fidelity of RADARs in DCS and how RCS works in DCS.

 

Namely RCS being a single value regardless of aspect and configuration, as well as the RADAR band not being accounted for (this is also useful for ECM systems, which for aircraft typically only operate on specific bands, RADARs outside those bands shouldn't be able to be jammed). 

 

Quote

Carrying two bombs is no less fun than the F-16 being limited to two HARM

 

Exactly - if I have a bombing mission in the Hornet using the GBU-10/24/31/AGM-62/Mk84, I take external wing tanks and don't mount anything on the centreline, I'm also limited to 2 bombs.

 

It's the same with the Viggen and its dedicated anti-ship missiles - if I need to strike multiple targets, I take more aircraft.

 

All it does is change how I go about the mission, where I don't see a problem.

 

Quote

The F-117 can be used as a stand in for a fighter in training missions. It's not all that limited an aircraft, and whether or not it's as popular as others doesn't really matter. It just needs to be popular enough to sell.

 

Agreed.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

In terms of stealth, if you really wanted to go that route, we know what the geometry of the aircraft is, and we know the physics of how it works.

 

The problems here mostly concern the fidelity of RADARs in DCS and how RCS works in DCS.

 

Namely RCS being a single value regardless of aspect and configuration, as well as the RADAR band being accounted for (this is also useful for ECM systems, which for aircraft typically only operate on specific bands, RADARs outside those bands shouldn't be able to be jammed).

True. We could hope that a F-117 module would be the motivation needed to make these things a priority. Indirectly the benefits would flow into other modules and improve DCS as a whole.

[XpRiV]

Hi Guys, 

 

If you aren't aware, this Mod is out and is really good with a nice cockpit. I love flying around NTTR in it.

 

https://grimreapers.net/2021/03/03/f-117a-nighthawk-mod-download-installation-setup-operation-guide-dcs-world/

[Lace]

F-117 would be a day 1 EA purchase for me, no question. Still not sure why all the air quakers out there don’t get it that some of us are genuinely interested in aviation and love variety. It’s not just about how max detection range, TWS and how many AMRAAMs can be bolted on. Some of us just love aircraft. The F-117 would offer a very different, more suspenseful and planning oriented experience than say a air superiority fighter or CAS platform, it’s all still part of the rich tapestry that is modern (ish) air combat.  I get the multi-role stuff has wider mass-market appeal and therefore brings in the money, but with the new dynamic campaign that is planned, then hopefully we might see some other types to keep us genuine enthusiasts happy.  Bring on the wobblin’ goblin’, the Predator, Sparkvark, Viking, Bronco and all the other oddballs which will never see light of day on an MP server. 
 

And regarding the Yak, if you haven’t tried it you are missing out. Me any the boy spent a good few hours practicing formation Aeros this afternoon.  It may be unfinished but it is a great module! 

[sirrah]

I doubt if the F-117 would be a lot of fun to fly. I'm afraid it will become boring quickly.. That said, if the module became available, I'd definitely buy it 

 

If only for the looks and its unique characteristics..

 

(Took this picture at Mildenhall air fete, somewhere around 1998-2002)

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

On 3/31/2021 at 8:24 AM, sirrah said:

I doubt if the F-117 would be a lot of fun to fly. I'm afraid it will become boring quickly.. That said, if the module became available, I'd definitely buy it 

 

If only for the looks and its unique characteristics..

 

(Took this picture at Mildenhall air fete, somewhere around 1998-2002)

Fun is subjective. Just because you think it wont be fun for you dosent mean its not for me therefore we should not get it

Edited April 1, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[sirrah]

6 hours ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Fun is subjective. Just because you think it wont be fun for you dosent mean its not for me therefore we should not get it

 

Geez... That's quite a skill, bending my words into negativity...

 

How is "I doubt it'll be fun" the same as "nobody will like it"?!

 

I even said I'd buy it, if it were available..

 

 

But ok, for the grammar police (you know, not everyone here is native English):

"Personally, I doubt if the F-117 would be a lot of fun to fly, for me"

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

25 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Geez... That's quite a skill, bending my words into negativity...

 

How is "I doubt it'll be fun" the same as "nobody will like it"?!

 

 

Talk about "word bending"  when you try to completly remove the context so you can get yourself out from what you just typed

[sirrah]

4 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Talk about "word bending"  when you try to completly remove the context so you can get yourself out from what you just typed

 

I wonder how/why this thread just went sideways. I shared my opinion and additionally posted a photo, which I thought people here might like.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I thought that's what happens on a forum.

 

But ok.. let me be the one to deescalate then..

 

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended someone, or rained on anyone's parade.

[IkarusC42B Pilot]

12 minutes ago, sirrah said:

 

I wonder how/why this thread just went sideways. I shared my opinion and additionally posted a photo, which I thought people here might like.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I thought that's what happens on a forum.

 

But ok.. let me be the one to deescalate then..

 

I'm sincerely sorry if I offended someone, or rained on anyone's parade.

The thread didnt went sideways and nobody is buthurt. You typed that you doubt its fun and i told you its subjective and now you cant accept that. Thats all there is to it

Edited April 1, 2021 by IkarusC42B Pilot

[Kev2go]

On 3/19/2021 at 5:55 PM, bies said:

 

 

"FlyingIron Simulations" - 3rd party doing A-7E Corsair II for tge DCS is also making F-117.

For now F-117 is for a civilian XPlane 11. I hope for DCS also to show it's full potential in a military sim.

 

Just look at their two dev blog Pages:

 

https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/introducing-flyingiron-f-117-nighthawk

 

https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/f-117-nighthawk-development-update-1

 

 

 the 1992  F117 Flight manual (Dash 1 ) lists various supplements associated with it, and it says the dash 34 ( non nuclear weapons delivery) is classified "secret". So unless weapons manual got declassified since that publication date there won't be available information to model its weapons systems, something needed for a combat simulator like DCS. Its probably why ironworks are only doing a F117 for a  civil aviation sim.

Edited October 27, 2024 by Kev2go

[F-2]

20 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

 the 1992  F117 Flight manual (Dash 1 ) lists various supplements associated with it, and it says the dash 34 ( non nuclear weapons delivery) is classified "secret". So unless weapons manual got declassified since that publication date there won't be available information to model its weapons systems, something needed for a combat simulator like DCS. Its probably why ironworks are only doing a F117 for a  civil aviation sim.

 

Tough to know the answer to that. Generally it’s 25 years for declassification but it might be exempt or the official retirement date in 2008. You could file a request to the Air Force and ask

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

15 hours ago, F-2 said:

Tough to know the answer to that. Generally it’s 25 years for declassification but it might be exempt or the official retirement date in 2008. You could file a request to the Air Force and ask

Long shot, but it's not like it can hurt to try.

Or maybe it can? The ETs from Area 51 might come get you!

But, the F-117 is still in some limited service, as well.

[bies]

On 3/20/2021 at 1:28 AM, Mars Exulte said:

Whether you think it fits or would be cool is largely irrelevant. Stealth technology for aircraft is probably the most closely guarded military secret out there, next to nuclear weaponry. It's not going to happen, period, full stop, no point in pretending otherwise. DCS isn't Xplane.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

9 minutes ago, bies said:

WELP

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Real F-117 Nighthawk is FBW, which all simed aircraft do. It had flight characteristics , stability, when all FBW computers were working, and overall aerodynamic performance of A-7D/E Corsair II. In fact A-7 were used for pilot training and flight hour maintenance at Tonopah where initial F-117 program was based out of in early to mid 1980's. So a realistic A-7 module with modified aircraft geoemtry and internal radar visibility, would give an decent approximation of F-117 experience. 

F-117 is still in limited active service with USAF. Aircraft are in controlled environment storage, not parked outside at AMARC . Most of its systems, especcially communication, navigation, and defensive electornics are highly classified.

Landing gear is from F-15.

Becouse it was intended for nightime deep penetration, it is mostly an instrument flight aircraft. DCS is really a VFR flying club. For most part, IMHO.

[MAXsenna]

Real F-117 Nighthawk is FBW, which all simed aircraft do. It had flight characteristics , stability, when all FBW computers were working, and overall aerodynamic performance of A-7D/E Corsair II. In fact A-7 were used for pilot training and flight hour maintenance at Tonopah where initial F-117 program was based out of in early to mid 1980's. So a realistic A-7 module with modified aircraft geoemtry and internal radar visibility, would give an decent approximation of F-117 experience. 
F-117 is still in limited active service with USAF. Aircraft are in controlled environment storage, not parked outside at AMARC . Most of its systems, especcially communication, navigation, and defensive electornics are highly classified.
Landing gear is from F-15.
Becouse it was intended for nightime deep penetration, it is mostly an instrument flight aircraft. DCS is really a VFR flying club. For most part, IMHO.

Why bother when the F-117 is inbound?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk