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

[norm]

Note, another "sim" area of interest could be UAV? How about a sim piloting a UAV for ground attack/recon? With that level of down and dirty, I guess the ground AI and immersion would need to be top notch.

 

i think that would get dull fast, because if you have a sim with only one plane with a max load out of 2 hellfire's, there is not much room for variation.

[Fearless]

For me, definitely the Apache AH-64A

[Silent Warrior]

Nnnnnnecro? Anyway, since I didn't vote last year (apparently), I'm voting for fighter now. Points for style if it comes with SEAD-capabilities (F-16/18, Tornado, Typhoon (pipe-dream), whatever). I want to murder the damn things. And I'll be really appreciative of a working invulnerability-switch...

[Sharkster64]

Would love to see the apache all the way. Or a cobra gunship. I would be happy with any other chopper to fly to tell you the truth.:joystick:

[Svend_Dellepude]

I'd like to see the MIG-21. It's AFAIK one of the most produced planes and it's never been done in a serious flightsim.

No advanced electronics, just good old flying and energy management if you want to survive.

[Ulrich]

I'd like to see the MIG-21. It's AFAIK one of the most produced planes and it's never been done in a serious flightsim.

No advanced electronics, just good old flying and energy management if you want to survive.

 

You forgot radar and autopilot. ;)

[HiJack]

WindWeapon, a plane doesn't get less classified because multiple nations are involved in the development. It just means that the people who hold the classified information are spread over more than one country.

 

Similarly, there are still many points about the F16 that are classified. I'd expect that this would (at a minimum) include specific parts about the radar, RWR, as well as ECM and other pods in use. To get a completely declassified F16 (so to speak - an "opensourced" one :P ) you'd have to go for older blocks of it - basically systems that are no longer in use or considered general enough that there is no hazard in having them public knowledge.

 

The F35 has a new datalink, the mentioned stealth systems and many other details. They're not going to drop the secrecy of those things just because it'll be entering service - that's when the secrecy actually becomes important! To keep something secret while developing it and then show it to the world when you start actually using it would, for lack of a better word, be stupid.

 

Google is not a source for this. To base a simulation off of it that wants to claim the level of realism DCS aspires to you can't go by what some website says - you have to have it confirmed to be accurate.

 

Finally, even IF they get hold of classified information (f.ex through leaked or cracked documents), they still cannot make a simulator based on it. I don't think Wags, as an american citizen, wants to face trial for treason after the DoD hears about international distribution of state secrets... ;)

 

The way to get it into DCS is to get detailed data, and permission to use said data. There are two ways to do this - either have a good connection to the producer of the aircraft (like Kamov) and get permission to develop the product that way, using real data, or get a military contract (for example with the US ANG for the A10C) and get permission to use that data in a commercial product as well.

 

But until someone persuades the us DoD that they should put one of their most modern, top secret, weapon systems into a commercial product I strongly doubt we'll see DCS:F35 anytime soon.

 

So what you’re saying is that if you just want to blow things up and don’t care about the reality in things you should go with HAWX or some other FlyByShooter :P Guess this leaves out most of the users on this forum :smartass:

[EtherealN]

No, what I am saying is that DCS sets a standard that simply doesn't allow for a DCS:F35 unless serious miracles happen, simply because the compromises that would be required would dilute the trademark.

 

Products like Flaming Cliffs are better at that, since they are survey simulators and the trademark will not be damaged by some compromises with realism.

 

Though I'm curious what makes you think that "most of the users on this forum" don't care about realism. Have you seen the bitter debates about R-27ET vs R-27ER in Flaming Cliffs? :P

 

Btw, Svend_Dellapude, have you seen the MiG-21 upgrade packages offered by IAI (or was it Rafael?) and other companies? You can get your MiG-21 strapped with a lot of fancy stuff nowadays. ;)

[Svend_Dellepude]

You forgot radar and autopilot. ;)

 

I know but beside those there's not really many buttons to press.

It's a good old aircraft that has been flying for many years and never made flyable in a sim. just a da** pitty.

[EtherealN]

I know but beside those there's not really many buttons to press.

It's a good old aircraft that has been flying for many years and never made flyable in a sim. just a da** pitty.

 

Fff.

Chuck Yeager's Air Combat by Electronic Arts. That was good stuff. :)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

I was just thinking of this subject again today.

 

One thing that crossed my mind was that, after we get the fighter to make everyone happy (so that helicopter pilots will have their share of fun with the Ka-50, attack pilots will torture ground troops with their Warthogs and fighter pilots will spoil the helicopter and attack pilot's fun with their fast-movers :D), one thing that would come handy would be a trainer. This way, we'd be able to do instruction, and a proper training routine instead of just jumping into the plane and shooting everything around, in both MP and SP.

 

Good thing about trainers is they don't have many classified systems and are fairly simple. Another advantage is they can play light attack and intercept low-performance aircraft. Also, they're good for training close-combat with guns only.

 

In this case, options are many. MB-339 (or MB-326), BAe Hawk, Magister (classics never die :D), Alphajet, C-101, L-39, EMB-312 (Tucano, maybe in AT-27 variant for A2G capabilities), T-38 (maybe too advanced in this case - better make a F-5 instead :music_whistling:), Yak-130 (probably too modern for Russia giving away some details on it, but worth asking for), M-346 (same case)...

 

But better to whine for a Fighter before asking a trainer. Plus, we don't even have the second module and I'm asking for the 4th :P

[EtherealN]

What they have against them though is that it might be hard to sell them. I believe high-fidelity trainer jets would have better market viability on the FSX scene. Though I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

 

Just make it DCS:SK60 instead of those other boring things. :P

 

But on the other hand, once the 3rd Party Toolset is complete it might be an interesting project for the community to build.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Didn't think of that.

 

So true, EtherealN.

 

Now back to whining (in Metallica style!): "Give me fuel, give me fighters, give me that wich I desire" :punk:

[EtherealN]

Ugh. Metallica should have stopped after Justice For All. :P

 

And shush about those fighters. You can have your fighter after I get my A10, Su-25 and Pucara. And AT-802U. That one is important. :D

[Svend_Dellepude]

/\ /\ /\ /\

 

HEAR HEAR

[isoul]

(I love the way discussions getting held in this forum)

 

So what you’re saying is that if you just want to blow things up and don’t care about the reality in things you should go with HAWX or some other FlyByShooter :P Guess this leaves out most of the users on this forum :smartass:

 

Rusty, I do believe that most of the users here are interested for realism! If I wasn't interested in realism why should I waste so much time learning all the procedures the Ka-50 requires to just fly and kill stuff?

 

On other threads I 've seen ED asking for people's experience on details like the color of tracer bullet glow and the composition of AA units in RL armies... I said "Oh my God! These people are really taking things seriously!!!". I am really amazed by the professionalism ED shows in developing DCS! Even a friend of mine that has served in the army, although not fun of sims or DCS, he was surprised by the ED's effort!

 

WindWeapon, a plane doesn't get less classified because multiple nations are involved in the development. It just means that the people who hold the classified information are spread over more than one country....

 

They're not going to drop the secrecy of those things just because it'll be entering service - that's when the secrecy actually becomes important!

...

 

Just to supportthese arguments... Secrecy on how weapons operate are some kind of "insurance" to the producer company/nation that their weapon will be sold to more customers or it will be somehow more intimidating to their enemies. Putting your enemy against the "unknown" is something that always appeal to any army and secrecy is the way to achieve it. That's why many details about military equipment in service will remain secret until the equipment becomes outdated...

[WindWpn]

Regarding the "realism" in DCS; I guess there is a "Catch 22" here where current modern aircraft platforms could likely not be modeled? Take any modern fighter, or even attack chopper, if some aspect of that platform is "classified" then we cannot see it in-game? I guess I am wondering if there simply is no way around a certain level of "creative license" when creating "realistic" modern aircraft sims. As noted, "survey sims" may be the term for a DCS: F-35, or for that matter a DCS: F-16 MLU, Eurofighter, etc...? Bottom line is that much could likely be accurately simulated, but certain aspects may have to be "creatively guessed" or approved to create as accurate a model as possible. I am all for realism, and definitely do not want to see implementations which are way off base, but I believe the real selling point for DCS is the high fidelity of the 3D fully accessible cockpit and flight modeling, along with terrain detail and the simulated combat experience. Really, the fully clickable 3D high res-cockpit does it for me.

 

DCS: Blackshark is simply the best out there for really getting into the cockpit and feeling like you are in full control of the aircraft (blows FSX away for simply the "cockpit experience"). However, if there was some aspect of the ABRIS which is classified, and DCS had to "creatively model" that element, we would likely never know, since its classified.

 

I guess if only full realism is the avenue (which I am not against), then perhaps following the A-10, other "retired" or soon to be retired aircraft come to mind such as the F-14, or even the F-117, though perhaps some aspects of the F-117 remain classified even though it has been retired. Of course there are the Gen 2 or Gen 3 aircraft which likely could be fully modeled.

 

All in all, I/we all look forward to every new module of DCS which comes online, and as soon as it does, I definitely will be updating my DCS sim!

[EtherealN]

Well, that depends really, WindWeapon. For example, remember that the A10C is a new aircraft (if I remember right, conversion training from the A version to the C version is 3 months - and that's training on basically the same airframe, so all of that is new systems and new tactics allowed by those systems) with many secret components.

 

The key is that TFC/ED got a military contract on the airframe, which allowed significant transfer of knowledge which in turn allowed them to do DCS:A10C instead of the originally planned DCS:A10A. So even new aircraft can be turned into DCS modules, but it requires a way for ED to legally get the knowledge of the aircraft that is required to make a faithful model, and of course get the legal right to make a commercial product.

 

What I think is the breakoff point (and note, that's me personally, I'm not in the loop there) is when you have to perform guesswork about fundamental aspects of the aircraft, as opposed to possibly leaving out minor functions. For example, I believe there are some functions present in the A10C DTS contracted by the US armed forces that will not be present in DCS:A10C - but the thing there is that to notice that they are missing you actually have to know what was there in the first place. There are systems that'll make a civilian go "oh wow awesome" even though some functions in those systems have been removed simply because they are classified.

 

Think of it like this - you can make a perfectly good simulation of a Formula 1 car without simulating exactly how a top-secret new type of fuel valve operates. Anyone who doesn't drive the real thing won't have reason to notice.

 

So when you say...

However, if there was some aspect of the ABRIS which is classified, and DCS had to "creatively model" that element, we would likely never know, since its classified.

... you are very close to the truth. :)

 

But in cases of aircraft like the F35, F22, Rafale and so on the amount of things that are classified is at the level where it's just not possible to make something realistic. It's one thing to simply "omit" a few functions that you are not allowed to use, it's a whole other thing to approximate how fundamental characteristics of the aircraft operates.

 

And yes, many parts of the F117 remain classified, since any foreign power that gets hold of that data might get an accelerated start in catching up to US stealth technology. (Compare it to the nuke race, where there is a serious difference between catching up to a force that has thermonukes while you have nothing, and a force that has thermonukes while you just had a spy hand you a complete dataset on the regular fission nukes. The soviets "caught up" faster than anyone expected precisely because they were given a LOT of data by very well placed agents in the Manhattan project.)

 

Some people have claimed that a lot of the Russo/Indian progress in Stealth tech was kickstarted by NATO failing to bomb the wreckage of the 117 that was downed over Serbia during Allied Force. (Obviously though, if anyone here has the connections to plausibly confirm/deny that, they'd be on a paygrade where they simply won't. :P )

Edited January 18, 2010 by EtherealN

[CptKanito]

Some sort of Two seater aircraft in DCS would be something i'd kill for tbh :D

[Frazer]

What would make sense:

 

Ka-50 >< AH-64

Su-25 >< A-10

Su-27 >< F-15

Mig-29 >< F-16

 

And then, driving tanks would "complete" the war scenario.

 

Thing is though, what we need most is a new game engine in my opinion, but that is off topic.

[Warbird_242]

Harrier!!! No one has and probably no one will succesfully attempt it! but it would be perfect!!! And btw I know about jet thunder ;) I reckon it's going to fail though :/

[L4key]

Can't we have a 'what kind of thread do you want to see next' thread? This has been done to death! zzzzz

 

Tornado btw ;)

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Not sure.

 

Jet Thunder is probably going out at the same time DCS:Badass Fighter (call it the third DCS title :music_whistling:).

 

It's just an educated guess, but I'm thinking Thunder Works will be able to finish the project in less than two years. If they take more than that, we'll probably see Storm of War: Falkland (either official or unofficial add-on), or something like that.

 

Although we (myself included) have shown many suggestions, we're forgetting the workload that comes with it.

 

I'll use my own example: European and South-American (specially Brazilian) aircraft operational in many countries. Sure, it would be nice to have them. Just picture yourself shooting stuff up in your AMX, for example. Now you have an AMX fully modeled, DCS level and can blow stuff up just like the real one - wonderful. But... Now you need to include an A-29 for CAS, model a F-5EM (probably with a new 3D-model, as the current one isn't exactly good), MAA-1 Piranha, A-Darter and Python and Derby missiles (actually, the last two and its variants would actually come in handy for FC 2.0, as we still have Israeli aircraft shooting American missiles :(), without mentioning all the A2G ordenance, all the ERJ-145 family, a Mirage 2000C, and a Rafale/Super Hornet/Gripen NG, depending on the final result of the FX-2 competition. Also, ED would have to model an Mi-35M, Cougar and Super Cougar helicopters, KC-130 and KC-137 aircraft to refuel your AMX, and CASA C-295 for tactical transport. This only in the Air Force inventory. As it's a ground aircraft, it would be reasonable to model Brazilian Army units (although most of these are already modeled for other countries). If we're just considering Caucasus scenario, Navy wouldn't be that essential (but as we already have US navy units there, it wouldn't be totally discarded).

 

And, now is the beauty of the whole thing: guess what, the AMX is also operated by Italy (which, honestly, could be included from the very start :mad:). So, get all this stuff and add all the Italian Air Force, Army and maybe Navy units.

 

Woah, would add a lot to the sim, right? Yeah, absolutely. But would take much more time and resources to make. AND there's still the chance of some jerk don't like it and asking stuff like "why you didn't model a American plane instead of this Latin crap?!" or "where's my Russian plane, man??"

 

Some would love it. I'd wait for it patiently :D. But, unfortunately, most wouldn't. Or you actually would wait for a Aeronautica Militare + Força Aérea Brasileira pack? If so, ED, we might have something here :music_whistling:

 

But, going back, we need to take in consideration all of these factors when we suggest one of those birds to a developer that wants to please as many people as possible, including themselves. Sometimes, although the idea is good, it's totally unpractical (by the way, anyone actually thinks we'll get any of these suggestions in short term? I truly hope so, but I don't think that, even having one of the closest developer-player relations, the devs are taking our personal wishes as real suggestions.)

[DaWu]

a dynamic campaign. black shark got boring so fast and I went back to falcon just for the campaign

[Lucas_From_Hell]

DaWu, this thread is dedicated for aircraft. There's a sticky called "DCS Wish List", for such purposes.

 

But, just taking the chance, people involved with ED have already countered this "I want dynamic campaign because otherwise it's boring" argument, and with fairly good reasons. Good campaigns make it dynamic enough. No study simulator gets boring because it lacks a dynamic campaign. It might get boring to you, but not just because of it ;)