Ability to fly other aircraft

[Guest Tree Stalker]

Hi All

 

First post here and I'm a little confused as to what we can fly in DCS BS as there are Bells, Tornados and Chinooks also in the screenshot section.

 

I'm led to believe it's open source so people WILL make other aircraft for it, however as stock, are we only liable to fly the KA-50?

 

Regards,

[Vesperatus]

You can only fly the Ka-50.

 

It is NOT open source.

 

Developers are creating modules ( really, stand-alone games ) that you will be able to play together. ie : The A-10 will be able to shot down the KA-50 once released.

[weasel75]

Maybe just a "mix-up"?

 

The DCS-system is "open" in the meaning of further extension and allowing user-modification (to a certain degree (while trying to maintain a balanced and fair MultiPlayer-experience)).

Yet, it is proprietary in the meaning of the "original" developers keep the solely right to create future modules (A-10, AH-64, ... ?).

 

And pardon, but I also think your posting could easily be a lame provocation... or do you *really* think, you can control *any* vehicle you can see on a screenshot of a game/simulation?

If true, then helicopters in Half-Life, dozens of planes and tanks in Falcon 4.0, spaceships in Doom 3, Fighter-crafts and walkers in Quake 4, and hundreds of other games must have been a major disappointment to you.

I am baffled how you can cope with all that disappointment! Respect, Bro!

 

Over n Out!

 

PS: I am a defender of OpenSource, but I also understand why a certain game/sim might need profound financial background ... so I bite the bullet and buy the game .. it is from a relatively small and very dedicated group of developers ... and man, for me they are worth the support :)

[triple]

It's not about quantity, its about quality.

[WynnTTr]

I would rather fly one aircraft done right and with minute detail than a plethora of craft that is done with half-arsed realism.

There's a game that allows you to fly other craft - the Battlefield series.

[Frakin Toasters]

I would love there to be an array of aircraft released for this sim with the same study, detail and depth as the Ka-50. Such as the basic Super-cobra, the Comanche (what a ship!), and the Hind. It would be fantastic!

 

I hope these guys never stop making these games, i really do.

[EtherealN]

Make sure to buy the modules even if they aren't your fav aircraft and I'm sure they'll be able to continue. :)

 

Personally I have the fortune that they've selected aircraft that I just massively love. The Werewolf has been a pet of mine since when I was barely a teen, the A10 is probably one of the most beautiful killer beasts ever, and the Apache is just so brutal looking you can't avoid loving it.

 

The only thing that would make their release schedules better is if they made a Su-25 implementation for the DCS series, but even if that doesn't happen in the foreseeable future I'll still have LockOn:FC for that. :D

 

But yeah, I do wish the Comanche would be possible as well, but I suspect that it having never entered service and quite likely still having classified details in it's stealth implementation will make it unlikely. :(

[triple]

I've been lucky to live very close to an A-10 base for a while, ill get a kick out of flying em.

 

Devs: I know they don't exist anymore but include the 104th out of westfield!

[EtherealN]

If by 104th you mean a specific squadron, you just need someone to make a skin. Not locked to what is made at ED HQ for that.

[Frakin Toasters]

I personally find the A-10 a little overrated. But that could be just because helicopters are more my thing, and i already feel they've been there and done that with Lockon. It seems making a dedicated A-10 expansion is just treading the same ground, even if it is more detailed and on a better engine.

 

Also, on the Comanche, it wouldn't be too hard. Other games have done the cockpits, and they wouldn't have to give away any of the stealth technology just to make it a sim.

 

Although I guess there wouldn't be a lot to base the game on with a Comanche as it probably wouldn't do a lot other than spot targets, and there are no examples from reality from which to base missions.

[EtherealN]

Well Toasters, it's also a massively updated version of the plane, the A10C as opposed to the regular A10 of LockOn.

 

And Frakin Toasters, yes they would. For the stealth to be a feature at all they would have to release information on how the surfaces and radar absorbants interact with the radar beams. This is information that would reveal a lot about the state of american stealth technology and I suspect they want to keep that under wraps. Doing the cockpit is a very small thing in the circumstance, and that other people have made arcade implementations of the aircraft has no bearing on it's feasability for DCS.

 

Also, there were two Comanche's built and I believe they now live in a museum, and it's designation of RAH-66 stands for "Reconnaissance Attack Helicopter 66". If you look at a picture of them you'll find a retractable autocannon, weapon stowage bays with Hellfires and I believe they were planned to feature detachable wing pylons for external fuel tanks and/or additional weaponry.

[Frakin Toasters]

Not really dude, it's a game, it's not like it uses particle physics to make intricate calculations based on material density and surface composition. It could very easily just be worked around. One could use their imaginations and ad-lib in some alternatives that already exist in modern technology. Sure it might not be 100% sim-approved and based in reality, but i'd rather play an extremely close rendition/interpretation of a comanche than not at all.

 

Stop thinking so non-laterally, man!

[GGTharos]

DCS modules are based on aircraft simulations contracted to military entities. So yeah, dude, it's a 'game' alright. ;)

[element1108]

Commache vs hokum...bam, there's your commache ;)

 

The A-10C is the next module based on the fact that a military contract was recently finished so most of the ground work is done.

 

I think the whole point of the DCS name is to bring realism...so not having information on stealth technology would sort of make that attempt pointless.

 

I'm an aviation fan, so I'll take whatever they throw at me...chopper or fighter/bomber.

 

As a A-10 fan I can say that LOMAC leaves much to be desired as an a-10 sim. There are a HELL of a lot of buttons in the cockpit that I can't click...and there's a canopy bar that gets in the way sometimes I"d like to LEAN around. ;)

[Sharkster64]

I have to agree with the comments about just another A-10. This series started off with a helicopter and I would like to see it go in that same direction. I'm more pumped about getting the two seat AH-64a apache than just another A-10. I bought this game because I am fascinated with helicopters. I can't wait to try out the two seat multiplayer apache. It will be nice to concentrate on flying the chopper and leave the targeting and weapons deployment to the gunner. That is part of the excitement, working as a team. Then it would be nice to see the Hind. I think DCS is going in the wrong direction by implementing the A-10 and the fighters. I think they should concentrate on providing the multiplayers a stand off weapon to the Black shark before implementing the A-10 and the fighters. How are these multiplayers maps supposed to work when you have an A-10 and a Blackshark. What happens when we get the AH-64a. Now it will be A-10 and AH-64 versus Ka-50? That is hardly evenly matched. Who will want to fly the Ka-50 on multiplayer just so they can get owned. I'm sorry DCS but you guys are completely going in the wrong direction. :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

Actually they're doing things right, and they know it ;)

[Chibawang]

Not really dude, it's a game, it's not like it uses particle physics to make intricate calculations based on material density and surface composition. It could very easily just be worked around. One could use their imaginations and ad-lib in some alternatives that already exist in modern technology. Sure it might not be 100% sim-approved and based in reality, but i'd rather play an extremely close rendition/interpretation of a comanche than not at all.

 

Stop thinking so non-laterally, man!

 

No, it's not a game. It's a simulation in every aspect, and that is very different from a game, particularly in depth and enjoyability. Going by your post, what you want is something entirely different than DCS. Why do people insist on watering down the DCS standards just so they can fly their favorite aircraft? Actually, this would be "retreading old ground," as you say; much more so than making an A-10C module. They did what you're asking very well with LOMAC, now it's time for something different. If you want it to be a glazed over mock up based on shoddy information, do it yourself instead of asking a very serious and respectable developer to throw their principles of design and quality out for your benefit.

 

I'm sorry if that's a bit harsh, it just seems like there's a new thread exactly like this every few days, except with helo "x" or jet "y" instead of the comanche. I resent seeing so many people ask ED to lower the bar on their principles of design and quality with this product line, especially considering all the hard work, time and dedication that it took to bring a sim to the civilian market with such amazingly rich depth. I can't help but think ED must feel similar when they read these posts.

 

edit: Looks like I responded too slowly, there's already another selfish, whiney post telling ED how to do their job. Not everyone is solely interested in helicopters. I like both, but I prefer jets and am a HUGE A-10 fan. There's also alot of like minded people out there waiting for a fixed wing sim of DCS caliber very anxiously, so I think they are trying to please as many people as possible as quickly as possible. You heli dudes got the first go around (bastards!:pilotfly:), now it's the jet jockies turn: deal with it. AS for multiplayer, it's always been ED's intention to make it a coop oriented experience, at least early on. None the less, there are plenty of ways to balance having A-10's and KA-50's in the same map, on opposing factions or an alliance. Really though, my main problem with all this boils down to the fact that I would be extremely happy with with any aircraft modelled with the DCS quality of simulation, and I don't understand why more people don't feel the same.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Chibawang

[EtherealN]

Toasters, the reason why DCS is so great is the very fact that they don't "use their imaginations" and "ad-lib" some alternatives. Playing an "interpretation" of a Comanche might be fun and all, but it has been done allready. (And quite well, tbh.)

 

So while it may be an entertainment product, it is one that caters to simulation fans and makes every attempt to be as true to the real thing as it is possible to be on a PC. If they were to suddenly start guesstimating they would be destroying all the marketing and branding they've done for DCS. When you purchase a DCS game you'll know it is a very detailed simulation based on the real thing, and for as long as they have real-life data from their military projects I expect they'll want to keep it that way - and that's the way I like it.

 

If they end up running dry on airframes that they can model to DCS-level fidelity, then I would be open to them launching a more gamey simulation, but I expect that to be under a different brand name so as not to dilute something that I hope will become a by-word for maximum realism and massive attention to detail.

 

Not really dude, it's a game, it's not like it uses particle physics to make intricate calculations based on material density and surface composition. It could very easily just be worked around. One could use their imaginations and ad-lib in some alternatives that already exist in modern technology. Sure it might not be 100% sim-approved and based in reality, but i'd rather play an extremely close rendition/interpretation of a comanche than not at all.

 

Stop thinking so non-laterally, man!

[Sharkster64]

Actually they're doing things right, and they know it ;)

Well of course they are doing it right in their minds, they are trying to make a profit by appealing to the Helicopter fans and the jet fans. It's not like I don't know whats going on. They should be releasing these modules with two helicopters rather than one, (Ka-50 and AH-64A) and two jets rather than one, (SU-39 and A-10). This would give the multiplayers a standoff weapon. The way I look at it, you could still make them all separate, charging for each aircraft individually, but selling the standoff aircraft at the same time. I would buy both the AH-64a and the Black Shark at the same time.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Sharkster64

[Frakin Toasters]

Oh mate, get over it. I did not steal your rattle or your candy.

 

People get so desperately bothered when people suggest that it is a game. Well y'know what? Simulators can be whatever you want them to be. I am not spending hours each day just trying to take off in the damn thing in full simulation mode because i want to fly the real thing, or because i wish i could. I do this because i get a lot of enjoyment out of it. It's a challenge, and is satisfying. I am not "Missing the point". To me it is a simulator, wrapped in a game. And if you don't like the way i think, then i don't really care, but stop throwing wobblies if someone sniffs at the word "game". It's a friggin' forum, it's for expressing ideas, oppinions, thoughts and desires. If you want to pretend you're a real pilot and brag about how you can fly a Ka-50, then go ahead, but don't steal my right to feel what i choose to feel, and i won't judge you for yours.

 

Anyway, i wasn't being entirely serious about the whole ad-lib thing, i was messing about for the most part. Of course DCS isn't going to do something like that, do you think i'm daft enough to believe that? I was provoked into a debate, so i was playing devil's advocate if anything.

[joey45]

you do know that there are books and stuff about stealth...

 

So what is stealth and how does it work???

[Chibawang]

Well of course they are doing it right in their minds, they are trying to make a profit by appealing to the Helicopter fans and the jet fans. It's not like I don't know whats going on. They should be releasing these modules with two helicopters rather than one, (Ka-50 and AH-64A) and two jets rather than one, (SU-39 and A-10). This would give the multiplayers a standoff weapon. But of course then they couldn't charge for four modules instead of two. But the way I look at it, you could still make them all separate, charging for each aircraft individually, but selling the standoff aircraft at the same time. I would buy both the AH-64a and the Black Shark at the same time.

 

To my knowledge there has been substantially little profit for Black Shark so far, and I really doubt that is their main motivation for how they do things. If it were, they would probably just stick with military contracts. And to say that two aircraft modules should be priced the same as one is ridiculous and clearly shows your ignorance on what it takes to produce them. In any case, I really doubt you would have been more happy to have waited an extra year or so for any release whatsoever just so your ideas of how multiplayer should be were implemented.

[Frakin Toasters]

Also, by the term 'Game' that i used earlier, i didn't actually mean it in the sense of an arcady thing, i meant it is computer-based, it's not real.

[Sharkster64]

Yeah, there has been substantially little profit because the game has not yet been released in stores. We'll see how much profit this game brings in when the game is in stores. I've talked to flight simmers out there that didn't even know this game existed. We'll see how much profit this game brings in when they release the Apache module. I'm sure it will eat up the A-10 profits. As for your comment about me being ignorant about two modules being priced as one, you obviously didn't read my whole post. I stated that they should release two modules at once but charge for each one seperately. I wouldn't expect them to release them both in one module and charge for only one. I think the ignorant one here is the one who can't read!!!

[Chibawang]

[EDIT BY MOD: RULE 1.2] Anyway, I think I've wasted enough time on this for the night, this dorky-make-believe-fighter-pilot is signing out. Have fun, whatever that might mean to you.

 

Roger Wilco,

Over & Out

 

I think the ignorant one here is the one who can't read!!!

 

[...] Ok really this time, peace and love to all the peoples of the world, good night sirs.

Edited March 28, 2009 by Acedy