Another 3rd party flyable idea!?

[zazz]

So far, the conscent on the 3rd party flyable seems to be "you can't make it realistic enough, don't bother". SO....

Why not create a "perspective" flyable? Something totally made up. But, not something "out of this world",

A jet/helo that the community creates from ground up? Something that is realistic, yet non-existent in real life? Not too far out?

I'm not talking about an X-wing or nothing here, but a solution to the "not real enough" dilllema.

 

 

Any comments?

[glottis]

The level to which ED are modelling things, it seems like inventing something new would actually be harder - you'd need to be an aircraft engineer yourself to design something that would get off the ground!

 

Although community projects have achieved great things before, I think the fact that ED have a team of maths professors and hardcore programmers working for (minimum!) 9 months to get the next module up and running is a bad sign for would-be amateur creators :(

I say this as a computer-game programmer myself - I'd be very intimidated to even try something like you're suggesting (sorry to be so negative though!).

[-Nighthawk-]

Whole point of a simulation is to simulate real world objects (aircraft, cars etc.) making up things would just be crazy and an arcade game (even though the flight characteristics may be based on physics)

 

I would much prefer a real object be simulated then something made up, just seems kinda childish

[Francous]

Zazz yes it should be fun if the futuristic planes performances are very respected to a certain global law or rules with the idea of the maker.. It is not bad to ask actually.. It could be a simulation but not an actual simulation.. You can do an Air combat futuristic simulation of the year 2059 as long as the physics are extremely respected .

It can be real fun but hard .

 

Never stop to imaginate and try ;) and never stop to ask questions.

 

S~

[EtherealN]

If the main objective is to just test out various crazy designs, get yourself a copy of X-Plane. It's FM also works on calculating forces based on airflow and all that jazz. No combat scenarios as far as I know tho - but the version of the sim I have is a couple of releases old.

 

EDIT: Link for anyone that doesn't know of it: http://www.x-plane.com/

 

There is a lot of silly fun you can have with that thing, like testing whether your aircraft design would fly under the atmospheric conditions that exist on mars. :D

Edited February 16, 2009 by EtherealN

[MBot]

Nah, I still think somebody should do a OV-10 :)

[BaD CrC]

I don't think you are talking to the right community zazz (although you are very welcome). As mentioned, I suggest you to have a look at the X-Plane community. X-plane aircraft builder is probably the best you can find for the public, taking into account each element's physical and aerodynamic properties. There's a big community within the X Plane one that specialised in experimental planes which doesn't exist in real life.

[Nayles]

Any comments?

 

Really bad idea tbh.

 

What is it you most enjoy about DCS Black Shark if it isn't the realism? :doh:

[zazz]

It's not a bad idea, it's a terrible idea. That's the point.

 

And it IS the realism that I enjoy about BS, but I'm saying that a plane that doesn't exist could still be realistic

 

Not 2059, how bout 2009? Or even 1999 technology? I'm not talking about an enginering masterpiece with all the bells and whisles, just a reasonable war bird that employs RL weapons and systems?

 

I'm just throwing things out there. I was drunk when I posted anyhows, hehehe

[CE_Mikemonster]

The Ka-50 hardly exists, hahahaha

[zazz]

lol, great point.

 

There's only what, a dozen ka-50 made to the day? Most of them differ in the onboard systems... And between all of us, BSers, we crashed about 100,000 of them by now... Why is that degree of unrealism ok, while any other isn't?

 

Shit, how bout every time you crash and die, the game automatically uninstalls, and your serial number is discontinued? Keep it real, people

[EtherealN]

Well, it wouldn't have worked commercially if ED had to limit themselves to selling 12 licenses.

 

Not to mention the small problem of whether any were crashed during beta testing... :D

[CE_Mikemonster]

Hehe :thumbup: It's ok, they had Immortal set to 'on' .

[-sulan-]

I bet some talented and educated 3rd party guys could make a Cessna or similar that's up to "DCS standards", or some bush plane...

Might be fun to fly as the insurgents :D

 

Would be a great addition me thinks, to fool around with.

[zazz]

Hell, thats what i'm saying - living up to DCS's standards, yet not being bound to real life...?

[Grimes]

Drunk or not you raised a decent point there zazz. Regardless of how many stupid or not fully simulated mods that would come out theres bound to be a few that are enjoyable and fun. The real potential doesn't lie with aircraft, but with surface vehicles. How much different would the game be if you had a ground forces mod, where it was 4 ka 50s vs 4 humans controlling various ground units?

 

Even with what sulan said in regard to a cessna or bush plane... you gotta get your feet wet somewhere before trying to model something crazy complex like a modern day just fighter.

[MBot]

Also keep in mind that the tools are supposed to integrate 3rd party flight dynamic systems, not edit the existing ones. The way I understand it, this means someone still has to program a flight model from scratch.

[Shaman]

3rd party effort to build L-39 trainer in DCS level of complexity, this would be great :)