What kind of aircraft do you wan't to see next?

[Krippz]

I'm not saying it's totally impossible, but just unpractical.

 

I think the AI can be implemented nicely, but with some restrictions. My true concern, however, is about the multiplayer. You have all sort of people in this community - Rambos, snipers, insane, Topper Harleys (mix of insane & Rambo :music_whistling:), Evel Knievels and everything else. Some of these don't mix. Just imagine: let's say we get DCS: Apache after the "Fighter" ("DCS: F-X" for now :D). A very professional guy, who follows checklists and manuals as bibles, joins as gunner. In the back seat, there's an Evel Knievel. Now, just picture the face of the gunner as that bridge passes right over his head with bullets going all around. Funny? Oh yeah. But not really nice for the poor gunner.

 

About the language problem, it isn't about discussing Shaekspeare (just imagined it... "To engage, or not to engage - That's the question"), but even the simple stuff. Accents just ruin it, and some are a bit shy on this matter. A Spanish gunner might not be able to communicate with the Russian pilot, for example.

 

It can be done if both know exactly how to procceed in flight and combat (what would almost cease the need for communications), but that's not always the case.

 

Some people don't fly with squadrons or whatsoever, so the random crew needs to be taken in account for that one, IMHO.

 

That's why, in a simple way, it's more practical to make: Single-seater. Multi-role. Modern. No one will dare to complain this way :)

 

I don't see how the potential problems are any different than playing a FPS like ARMA or Left 4 Dead. Sure if you play with random people you will find that eventually you'll get an unprofessional person in either the front or back seat of a 2-seater; but playing with friends would foster consistently great gameplay. I don't think your argument is strong enough to not model the AH-64 or any other dual seater.

[liotczik]

I've just come up with an idea, that there could be an additional option for multiplayer, where players could mark next to their names how they prefer to fly (like red icon for aggressive Rambo or blue for sneaky Fantomas and more) and what type of crewmember they would like the most - calm and checklist maniac pilot could make a good team with razor wild gunner. That way they could compose crews with the right attitudes, just like people tend to play on servers, where they feel comfortable with the usual company. Right now it's even more wild, because wingman can fly to where he wants and when you discover he's gone, it may be too late. In a two seater at least that wouldn't happen ;)

 

Also imagine how great training tool would be to introduce a two seater! You fly and instructor immediately gives you feedback on your performance, instead of evaluating track file and posting opinions on a forum. And if you think it's insane, know that we have here one guy, who learns people online, how to fly and fight in Sturmovik series. Graduating from his school is considered somehow prestige, so it could be done, in terms of playability. Another thing is Hovercontrol.com. Actually you can sign up there and ask for a multiplayer ride with an instructor sitting in another helo. He watches you and gives you feedback. After you pass an exam, you'll get your virtual "certified pilot" wings - kind of very nice feature.

 

I would love to see a DCS module devoted solely to training, featuring something like BAe Hawk and all the missions and campaign reflecting training syllabus for air force pilots. Most likely that won't ever happen, but it would save newbies a lot of hard work in order to find resources and learn them. Maybe we could see more numbers of educated, kind of professional virtual pilots, if our training was done in some organised manner instead of 'every man for himself'?

 

You may be surprised, but studies have shown, that it's easier to communicate for two people who know English only as a second language, than for English native speaker and a non-native. I can confirm that, as far as my experience goes.

 

By far I don't want to argue with you, Lucas, as your points are also somehow valid. It's just I remember sims like Gunship 2000 and Solo Flight and when I compare them to the modern sims, I see that "the best is yet to come". And that's the source of my enthusiasm :)

[norm]

i think maybe a F-4 variant could be good. it's a nice fighter, still in service in some countries, (Germany, Israel, etc.), and (this is a guess) not much probably is classified still pertaining to its systems. i would love to be able to fly something as a German. It's double ugly but still hot!:wub: also can someone confirm/deny my assumption.

Edited January 20, 2010 by norm

[EtherealN]

Isn't the german and israeli F4's currently operational only as recon birds? Was a while since I looked at that.

[norm]

here is a table i found that might be helpful http://i634.photobucket.com/albums/uu69/thenorm/operatinalPhantomscopy.jpg?t=1264038141[/img]"]http://

Edited January 21, 2010 by norm

[Bisch]

I see your point and for sure everything great has it's downside but don't apply almost all arguements to multiplayer in general?

Even random people back in 2002 didn't have a problem with playing as a team consisting of a truck (!) and a non-selfpropelling 88 AA Gun in World War 2 online. They were really having fun. No to mention those multicrew tanks and planes.

 

Many BS players are really searchig for teamplay and for new multiplayer motivation. Some may have not friends who also play and or like Sims but lot of us have. Some are even in squadrons. Still, you could find a partner here in the forums and you still could have the AI option (as well as the AI wingmen right now). And hey.... not everyone out there on game servers is a jackass

[funkee]

I'd vote for F16 Block 52 (C or D), but can't really imagine that poor russian bird in confrontation with the most advanced single-engine fighter of the world... So maybe the better choice would be AH64 or AH1? Apache vs Kamov - that makes some sense. Unless some opponent for future A10. In this case Su25T would be the best and natural balance for Warthog.

Edited January 23, 2010 by funkee

[Focha]

For me, by priority, rotaries all the way, don't mind being attack or utility, I voted for the utility because that would bring new interesting missions on CO-OP, UH-1, UH-60, Mi-17, CH-46, etc. For the attackers, AH-1W or T, AH-64A, Mi-24, Mi-28. Then I would go for fixed wing attackers or multi role fighters, A-10, Su-25, F-16, F18, etc. Finally I would go for superiority fighters, F-15C, Su-27, etc.

 

Regards.

[Celo63]

I would like to see either the BO105 and/or MD500 helicopters added to the collection at some point, purely for the edrenaline factor. I don't expect it to be the "next in line" but would like to see one of them included at some point, once the more popular demands have been met and the DCS series has matured.

 

Since the flight model is so good in DCS, it would be fantastic to exploit it to the max with such an agile machine. Not alot can beat the adrenaline rush of throwing a nimble helicopter around at low level, like Charlie Zimmerman does in this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNCZlQcvGw

 

For me as a dedicated rotor head, it is the ultimate helicopter experience and it would be a crying shame if it were not included in this excellent sim. I'm sure most helo pilots would agree with me.

 

They do have miltary roles to play, so it wouldn't be purely an indulgence. Also, they are simpler machines overall, compared to other military helos, so should be a bit easier to produce.

 

Please please please ED, make one of these for the ultimate thrill ride?

[Frazer]

Not alot can beat the adrenaline rush of throwing a nimble helicopter around at low level, like Charlie Zimmerman does in this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNCZlQcvGw

 

What is holding you back from doing this with the shark? Just load her up with no weapons and 25% fuel, the shark will be very maneuverable!

[liotczik]

I would like to see either the BO105 and/or MD500 helicopters added to the collection at some point

 

Another faithful one! Welcome aboard :beer:

[Celo63]

What is holding you back from doing this with the shark? Just load her up with no weapons and 25% fuel, the shark will be very maneuverable!

 

Nothing is holding me back. I do go out with no weps and light fuel for some fun, but it just isn't the same. The shark is just too big and heavy to even compare with what the 105 and 500 can do. We need a true hotdogger for the ultimate thrillride.

 

Thanks liotczik. Happy to be here. :thumbup:

[Bucic]

Nothing is holding me back. I do go out with no weps and light fuel for some fun, but it just isn't the same. The shark is just too big and heavy to even compare with what the 105 and 500 can do. We need a true hotdogger for the ultimate thrillride.

 

Thanks liotczik. Happy to be here. :thumbup:

It's like saying that chiwawa is more fun dog than rottweiler because it has less inertia :P

[CE_Mikemonster]

What is holding you back from doing this with the shark? Just load her up with no weapons and 25% fuel, the shark will be very maneuverable!

 

That's true.

 

I'm one for utility choppers because I think it would greatly improve gameplay, not for enjoying the performance. Landing some troops on a roof in a Little Bird would be great.

 

Big choppers (with gunners) would be rubbish to simulate, because I don't think the AI is up to the task of calling the same sort of commands and warnings that aircrew IRL do. (I would love to have a SAR chopper though.. Mmm.. Medevac.. But only with good, realistic AI)

Edited January 28, 2010 by CE_Mikemonster

[liotczik]

I just can't imagine anyone, who tried this, and was bored ;)

Video footage starts at 0:39

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I just can't imagine anyone, who tried this, and was bored

 

Well... :noexpression:

 

Despiste matter of personal taste, there's a major problem in having light utility lawn-mowers - their operational area.

 

You would need to model every single damn street, building and sign-post in south-west Russia and Georgia (and this without considering possible map expansions). Even if I was a guy who liked boredom and playing taxi for Army guys, I'd like to be bored in a fully modeled terrain. Landing on 3D rectangle painted as a building and seeing some people running wouldn't quite do it. Sure, I'd love to have a fully detailed map, but my FPS count seems to disagree.

 

Plus, this would call for a fully modeled infantry AI and everything else. Taking things all around, DCS would become DCS:Armed Assault 3 instead. I wouldn't like to have a little chopper just for having it. If to have one, bring the experience to DCS level, but this is just unpractical, IMHO.

 

Now, just for bothering, I can't imagine anyone doing this and feeling bored:

 

:D

[Eddie]

I just can't imagine anyone, who tried this, and was bored ;)

Video footage starts at 0:39

 

I honestly can't think of anything I'd like less from a sim, in fact I can't think of anything less fun than flying a glorified hairdrier around. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way at all, but if you want to fly unarmed transports FSX is already in the shops.

[liotczik]

You would need to model every single damn street, building and sign-post in south-west Russia and Georgia (and this without considering possible map expansions). Even if I was a guy who liked boredom and playing taxi for Army guys, I'd like to be bored in a fully modeled terrain. Landing on 3D rectangle painted as a building and seeing some people running wouldn't quite do it. Sure, I'd love to have a fully detailed map, but my FPS count seems to disagree.

 

For me, the current state of cities and buildings in DCS is quite enough, to participate in urban combat. Landing on the rooftops, sliding along roads, between buildings - all of that was done, with enough joy. Actually MP in good 'ol Counterstrike was equally fun as was in Modern Warfare, with all it's eyecandy glory.

 

Plus, this would call for a fully modeled infantry AI and everything else. Taking things all around, DCS would become DCS:Armed Assault 3 instead. I wouldn't like to have a little chopper just for having it. If to have one, bring the experience to DCS level, but this is just unpractical, IMHO.

 

Agreed on enchanced infantry modelling. However to become AA, you'd have to had the ability to play as infantry. Even now we have AI soldiers on the ground and I wouldn't call current Black Shark an AA clone. Also we have a possibility to drop them from like Mi-8, so the basics are already there.

 

Now, just for bothering, I can't imagine anyone doing this and feeling bored:

:D

 

Actually, I find it also amusing ;)

 

 

 

 

With that attitude, I can get twice the joy of flight, as you do :P

 

but if you want to fly unarmed transports FSX is already in the shops.

 

I can't fly FSX helos, surprised? They are too much away from how they should be and they tend to do different things, than I'd expect from them. Sure, I can take off, fly a distance and land in one piece, but completely without joy and immersion. Instead I fly X-Plane, in a beautifully crafted MD500, and the word is, that the OH-6 Cayuse modification is in the pipeline. Oh, by the way, with working armament :P Still, it's not the same, as it would be in a dedicated combat simulation.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Well, you do have a point there.

 

But I still think that, to model the experience of "glorified hairdrier" operations to the max, we would need many improvements, actually too many...

 

However, I like that shark-mouthed dude on the left side of your signature. Light Attack Mafia is the way :gun_smilie:

[amalahama]

Space shuttle, anyone?

 

Regards!!

[blaster454]

...

But, let's face it: as EtherealN pointed out, Soviet aircraft would be the best way to please as many people as possible.

 

They're just so popular everyone likes them (I challenge you to name 5 people who dislike them and have good reason to do so).

...

 

Well, I'll be number 1. I don't particularly dislike the Soviet era fighters but there are any number of airframes I'd rather see first ... most especially ground attack airframes.

 

As for a good reason for disliking them, I am unfamiliar with most of the soviet fighter aircraft and their employment history and tactics, and I have a very difficult time with cockpits and huds in Cyrillic.

 

And although I think the Russian combat sim market is big, I don't think the Western market is so small that it can--or should--be ignored. I think the successful niche market developer would be one who covered their niche as thoroughly as possible--and I do think ED is in that group of developers now (although they might not have been earlier in their history).

[Total]

The allure of the dogfight glory is definitely a high point in Lock-On.

 

I really enjoy the coordination of ground pounding. With LO 2.0, it's gonna be nice flying CAS while other aircraft fly cover. Should bring an entirely new element to the game.

[liotczik]

Space shuttle, anyone?

 

 

Orbiter - A free space flight simulator

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/

 

Bon voyage! :D

[norm]

My third suggestion that just came in to my head after reading an air and space article is the OV-10 Bronco. used for armed recon, and can carry troops.

[Luke.S]

erm does airwolf count as all of the above :P

 

except transporter