DCS: CH-47F FAQ Discussion

[NineLine]

Added Block version and CMWS info to the FAQ:

What Variant is the DCS: CH-47F?
Currently, we are doing the CH-47F Block 1.

Will our CH-47F have CMWS (Common Missile Warning System)?
This is currently planned, but as with any defensive system for any aircraft, we need to carefully consider this system and implement it in a way that will not dip too close to a controlled and classified system. As such this will come later on in development. 

[ThorBrasil]

40 minutes ago, NineLine said:

As I understand it we are doing a Block 1 (need to add that to the FAQ) and that refueling is a Block 2 thing (someone can correct me if I am wrong) BUT the team would like to look at this down the road as they agree it would be a very cool feature to have.

Thanks for answering!

[Vortexstate]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Dear all, I have reopened this thread for questions about the CH-47, please try your best to keep it focused on that. Discussions about subscription models, other developers, etc are not going to be answered here. Thanks. 

I'm sorry, shouldn't we ask questions in the discussion thread...instead of the FAQ, which you'd think would be for official channels and would've been locked anyways? What about the wish list thread?

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

As I understand it we are doing a Block 1 (need to add that to the FAQ) and that refueling is a Block 2 thing (someone can correct me if I am wrong) BUT the team would like to look at this down the road as they agree it would be a very cool feature to have.

No, Block 1 aircraft can also refuel.

[Hawkeye_UK]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Added Block version and CMWS info to the FAQ:

What Variant is the DCS: CH-47F?
Currently, we are doing the CH-47F Block 1.

Will our CH-47F have CMWS (Common Missile Warning System)?
This is currently planned, but as with any defensive system for any aircraft, we need to carefully consider this system and implement it in a way that will not dip too close to a controlled and classified system. As such this will come later on in development. 

This would imply ED have controlled or classified information about the chinook subsystem's.  I find this highly doubtful and completely improbable.  ED may or may not have SME's with this knowledge but again i wouldn't expect them to release any information for a video game given the consequences.  Thus i'm not sure why we are even referencing classification of systems on this thread as a context of development, its very irrelevant given the people writing the code will not have the relevant clearances to be party to this information even.

[Vortexstate]

Just now, Hawkeye_UK said:

This would imply ED have controlled or classified information about the chinook subsystem's.  I find this highly doubtful and completely improbable.  ED may or may not have SME's with this knowledge but again i wouldn't expect them to release any information for a video game given the consequences.  Thus i'm not sure why we are even referencing classification of systems on this thread as a context of development, its very irrelevant given the people writing the code will not have the relevant clearances to be party to this information even.

The -10 is online, not sure if it's CUI, but it's online. That means they can without a doubt implement the CMWS, but I'm not sure of the legalities of that. They made the ICH-47F for the Italian government, so I wouldn't doubt they don't.

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, Vortexstate said:

The -10 is online, not sure if it's CUI, but it's online. That means they can without a doubt implement the CMWS, but I'm not sure of the legalities of that. They made the ICH-47F for the Italian government, so I wouldn't doubt they don't.

There is A LOT of stuff online and we have SMEs that know a lot of this stuff as well, but that doesn't always translate to being able to add it faithfully 1 to 1. But I hope you guys know we will do our very best to make an engaging and interesting (and believable) system even if a real CH-47 gup comes along and says "well it's not exactly like that" At the end of the day we don't want to get ourselves or anyone else in legal messes as well we do not want to risk real lives by compromising a system for the same of a sim/game. 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

This would imply ED have controlled or classified information about the chinook subsystem's.  I find this highly doubtful and completely improbable.  ED may or may not have SME's with this knowledge but again i wouldn't expect them to release any information for a video game given the consequences.  Thus i'm not sure why we are even referencing classification of systems on this thread as a context of development, its very irrelevant given the people writing the code will not have the relevant clearances to be party to this information even.

I cant say what we have or don't have mostly because I do not know right now. I know I helped steer 2 SMEs in the team's direction but as I stated above we want to make sure we don't do anything to jeopardize ourselves or anyone that helps us make the most realistic CH-47 possible. So for example on defensive systems, there might be some give and take. 

2 hours ago, Vortexstate said:

No, Block 1 aircraft can also refuel.

Good to know, this might be simply my misunderstanding of how it works. I think it still stands that the team would like to do it at some point though. 

[Vortexstate]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

There is A LOT of stuff online and we have SMEs that know a lot of this stuff as well, but that doesn't always translate to being able to add it faithfully 1 to 1. But I hope you guys know we will do our very best to make an engaging and interesting (and believable) system even if a real CH-47 gup comes along and says "well it's not exactly like that" At the end of the day we don't want to get ourselves or anyone else in legal messes as well we do not want to risk real lives by compromising a system for the same of a sim/game. 

I cant say what we have or don't have mostly because I do not know right now. I know I helped steer 2 SMEs in the team's direction but as I stated above we want to make sure we don't do anything to jeopardize ourselves or anyone that helps us make the most realistic CH-47 possible. So for example on defensive systems, there might be some give and take. 

Good to know, this might be simply my misunderstanding of how it works. I think it still stands that the team would like to do it at some point though. 

Yeah, I totally get that. I appreciate the work that's going into the Chinook, regardless if it's not as intended.

[Vortexstate]

Will we have the ability to change the engine inlet screens/EAPS?

[Hotdognz]

14 hours ago, NineLine said:

Dear all, I have reopened this thread for questions about the CH-47, please try your best to keep it focused on that. Discussions about subscription models, other developers, etc are not going to be answered here. Thanks. 

Thanks for re opening this important discussion, I feel doing this small step was a step in the right direction for a open conversation with ED staff.

Thank you very much

[NineLine]

15 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

Thanks for re opening this important discussion, I feel doing this small step was a step in the right direction for a open conversation with ED staff.

Thank you very much

I just wanted to slow it down a bit and get it back on track, we know what we want to do, but its important to make sure those are aligned with what all you expect which is ultimately more important. 

[cow_art]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

I just wanted to slow it down a bit and get it back on track, we know what we want to do, but its important to make sure those are aligned with what all you expect which is ultimately more important. 

That's fair, and great if you know what you want to do internally. But unfortunately we really don't know a lot about what you want to do, so it is pretty hard to give constructive feedback and ask questions.

So with this out of the way here are some things I would expect from an early access product that I would want to support:

• a finished flight model (this really is a minimum for me. I can live with lots of other features missing during early access, as long as I can have a fun time flying the Chinook. Please not another Apache-style release where the FM is still unfinished after 2+ years of early access)
• at least an indication what systems you currently plan to have ready for early access (a lot of the screens shown in the trailer are clearly placeholders / nonfunctional)
• an indication how you expect your novel logistics concept to work (if you are already working on it, I expect you have at least a rough outline that you can share?)
• an indication about the damage model. What do you plan to have ready for early access? At least some reasonable reactions to ground and weapons damage would be great.

Thank you!

Edited April 26 by cow_art

[Vortexstate]

16 minutes ago, cow_art said:

That's fair, and great if you know what you want to do internally. But unfortunately we really don't know a lot about what you want to do, so it is pretty hard to give constructive feedback and ask questions.

So with this out of the way here are some things I would expect from an early access product that I would want to support:

• a finished flight model (this really is a minimum for me. I can live with lots of other features missing during early access, as long as I can have a fun time flying the Chinook. Please not another Apache-style release where the FM is clearly unfinished after 2+ years of early access)
• at least an indication what systems you currently plan to have ready for early access (a lot of the screens shown in the trailer are clearly placeholders / nonfunctional)
• an indication how you expect your novel logistics concept to work (if you are already working on it, I expect you have at least a rough outline that you can share?)
• an indication about the damage model. What do you plan to have ready for early access? At least some reasonable reactions to ground and weapons damage would be great.

Thank you!

 

The flight model is what I'm most concerned about. I most definitely don't want to wait out the Chinook like how it's going with the Apache

[Hotdognz]

+1 for @cow_art comments, these are very much what I would like to see prior to the EA release.

I would also like to see what the novel logistics system that you are planning that are going to be available for us later on in EA and for the future of DCS core, I'm pretty sure the roadmap for this will have been discussed within ED and should really be available for all to see here as this also affects the Hind, Huey and Mi8.

Thanks you

[MorgothNL]

2 hours ago, cow_art said:

That's fair, and great if you know what you want to do internally. But unfortunately we really don't know a lot about what you want to do, so it is pretty hard to give constructive feedback and ask questions.

So with this out of the way here are some things I would expect from an early access product that I would want to support:

• a finished flight model (this really is a minimum for me. I can live with lots of other features missing during early access, as long as I can have a fun time flying the Chinook. Please not another Apache-style release where the FM is still unfinished after 2+ years of early access)
• at least an indication what systems you currently plan to have ready for early access (a lot of the screens shown in the trailer are clearly placeholders / nonfunctional)
• an indication how you expect your novel logistics concept to work (if you are already working on it, I expect you have at least a rough outline that you can share?)
• an indication about the damage model. What do you plan to have ready for early access? At least some reasonable reactions to ground and weapons damage would be great.

Thank you!

 

Same questions here. We now know the CH47 will basically be released featureless when I comes to anything outside of the ‘physical’ module itself. So then how about the core core concepts of the module?

- is the flight model 100% done? (with tweaks required in the future after testing and feedback ofc)

- does she have a full damage model? Or is it at invincible apache levels or even less?

- what about system limitations? Engine overspeed effects, airframe overspeed etc 

 

^^ these simple things are essential for basic implementation in any multiplayer server. Even though cargo etc is also 100% essential to the module, at least server hosts can give it the same CTLD options as other modules. But things like the Apache being near invincible long after the initial release, is really sad and unacceptable. 
 

Basically, is everything in place to prevent her from being called ‘broken’ aside from ‘very much incomplete and lacking’? 

[Phantom_Mark]

Will ED consider publishing a roadmap with this EA, and all future EA's , there is nothing I can see which would be outlandish about such a request and only serve to give customers more oversight about what they are entering into with EA products ?  It feels to me like the very least ED could do when requesting money for an EA product?

 

[Vortexstate]

I've got a few questions:

• Will there be changeable engine inlet screens/EAPS?
• Will failure, redundant, revisionary, and systems alike being modeled properly?
• Will the CMWS be modeled, or at least one for cosmetic appeal?
• Modeled Crew Chief/Flight Engineer AI or playable role? This is NEEDED

Please, no "we'll tell you when we have the news." Or any replies that don't give me any answers.

Edited April 26 by Vortexstate

[MorgothNL]

Also, was the Humvee in the trailer just a cheating photoshop/3D model plugin to help sell the thing... or is there some actual system in development that will allowed it in a non-cheating way?

And will you make certain equipement removable to make her fit more into older scenarios (like CMWS)?

Edited April 27 by MorgothNL

[Tinman]

Well, there is not much "cheating" needed. Not more than in any other DCS trailer anyway. What do we actually see? A humvee inside a chinook and the ramp opening. It never drives out (or moves at all for that matter). While modeled cargo would certainly be a first for dcs, this can be cobbled together easily by taking the WIP chinook model and importing the existing, raw humvee model from their library.

To me it looks more like the usual Trailer-tactic of implying an idea/possibility and cutting to the next shiny thing before the limitations of the actual implementation (or lack thereof) becomes obvious.

 

That being said, I'm certainly excited about the Chinook (and the Logistics Gameplay, whenever it will materialize). Starting a Pre-Sale without any idea of what you are actually buying or at least a rough idea what is currently planned is utterly bizarre, though. Even by Eagle Dynamics Standards. I will probably buy it at some point, but certainly after it is clear what they are actually selling.

[Slippa]

On 4/25/2024 at 7:50 PM, NineLine said:

I think it still stands that the team would like to do it at some point though. 

The team and everyone else surely? May as well, go on, I’d have some of that .

[NineLine]

On 4/27/2024 at 11:46 AM, MorgothNL said:

Also, was the Humvee in the trailer just a cheating photoshop/3D model plugin to help sell the thing... or is there some actual system in development that will allowed it in a non-cheating way?

And will you make certain equipement removable to make her fit more into older scenarios (like CMWS)?

 

As far as I am aware it was driven in there, but it's not fully supported right now, rather this is the goal. 

[kendoric2]

Once it releases what are some of the operations we will be able to do? Vanilla DCS meaning no custom scripts from modders. Are we going to be able to pick up/ drop off troops? Are we going to be able sling vehicles? Are we able to load vehicles in like in the trailer and transport them?  Not asking what is planned but rather what we will be able to do upon release. 

[Lithion]

On 4/25/2024 at 5:42 PM, NineLine said:

As I understand it we are doing a Block 1 (need to add that to the FAQ) and that refueling is a Block 2 thing (someone can correct me if I am wrong) BUT the team would like to look at this down the road as they agree it would be a very cool feature to have.

Could you please include this in the FAQ, and remove the section on the store page which refers to A2A refuelling?

Quote

With the capability to cover extensive distances swiftly, the CH-47F can be outfitted with extended range fuel tanks and is compatible with air-to-air refuelling

As a non-native speaker it was quite difficult to discern whether or not it would actually include A2A refuelling, even though it's described on the store page as quoted above. 

[Hotdognz]

On 5/1/2024 at 2:38 AM, kendoric2 said:

Once it releases what are some of the operations we will be able to do? Vanilla DCS meaning no custom scripts from modders. Are we going to be able to pick up/ drop off troops? Are we going to be able sling vehicles? Are we able to load vehicles in like in the trailer and transport them?  Not asking what is planned but rather what we will be able to do upon release. 

My understand from the EA post by NL and BN are you wont be able to do any of that on release and it will requite the logistic code written in to DCS sore that will come within the EA release period, this could be up to 2 years away and may be well out to 5 years based on the SC module releases we have seen.

You will or should be able to do some of this things with 3rd party scripts like CTLD added to missions, but everything you load is invisible but does add weight.

Others can correct me if im wrong.

[NineLine]

5 hours ago, Hotdognz said:

My understand from the EA post by NL and BN are you wont be able to do any of that on release and it will requite the logistic code written in to DCS sore that will come within the EA release period, this could be up to 2 years away and may be well out to 5 years based on the SC module releases we have seen.

You will or should be able to do some of this things with 3rd party scripts like CTLD added to missions, but everything you load is invisible but does add weight.

Others can correct me if im wrong.

We don't have a timeline and we won't guess but many aspects of logistics are being done in DCS with mods, unlike the SC module which we are asking DCS to do things well beyond what anyone has done on a flight deck and carrier to date, so I know it's easy to drift down that path its not comparable.