This should be in Wishlist

[Mizzy]

I have wondered for years why DCS doesn't have a Hurricane either FF or AI !

Anyone care to comment why?

Mizzy

[Rudel_chw]

3 minutes ago, Mizzy said:

I have wondered for years why DCS doesn't have a Hurricane either FF or AI !

Anyone care to comment why?

Mizzy

most ww2 aircraft of dcs belong to the Normandy invasion period, and by that date the hurricane was no longer serving on that front. Maybe a hawker typhoon would be more appropriate 

[Droning_On]

easily solved... give us a MkII spit, Bf109E-3/E-4, He111, Do17, Ju88, Bf110, Bristol Beu Mk1 (for some nightime fun) and a HURRICANE let battle commence......

[OLD CROW]

On 2/19/2025 at 7:01 PM, Rudel_chw said:

most ww2 aircraft of dcs belong to the Normandy invasion period, and by that date the hurricane was no longer serving on that front. Maybe a hawker typhoon would be more appropriate 

- BF109 K-4 NEVER SAW NORMANDY

- FW190 D-9 NEVER SAW NORMANDY

- P-51 D LATE SUMMER 44

- SPITFIRE MK.IX MIDS 1943. 1944 MK IX's were overhauled with brand new more powerful Packard engines- renamed MK.XVI (not available in DCS) 

- I-16..... NO COMENTS... like the "new kid on the block" La-7

- .......

I can only see a timeless map of Normandy (no mulberry ports, no nothing for D-Day or Post Invasion) and only one human driven module that matches in Normandy time: FW190-A8. To justify this amalgam of modules put toghether in the same bag most people repeat the mantra/euphemism of: DCS is a Sandbox. Using that mantra logics and observing again the modules list why the request of a Hurricane module does seem absurd, well DCS WW2 ETOPS is absurd in itself for more than a decade? Seems that "nuts logics" imperates here. So why not a Hurricane? 

Edited February 21 by OLD CROW

[razo+r]

We are still promised some more AI aircraft with the assets pack. But that was 8 years ago (though not a Hurricane but a Typhoon)...

And if you look at the progress of WWII in DCS in general, you will understand that a Hurricane is probably far, far, far away in the future. Progress has been very little and they shifted now to pacific theater without finishing the european one.

[MAD-MM]

1 hour ago, OLD CROW said:

- BF109 K-4 NEVER SAW NORMANDY

- FW190 D-9 NEVER SAW NORMANDY

- P-51 D LATE SUMMER 44

- SPITFIRE MK.IX MIDS 1943. 1944 MK IX's were overhauled with brand new more powerful Packard engines- renamed MK.XVI (not available in DCS) 

- I-16..... NO COMENTS... like the "new kid on the block" La-7

- .......

I can only see a timeless map of Normandy (no mulberry ports, no nothing for D-Day or Post Invasion) and only one human driven module that matches in Normandy time: FW190-A8. To justify this amalgam of modules put toghether in the same bag most people repeat the mantra/euphemism of: DCS is a Sandbox. Using that mantra logics and observing again the modules list why the request of a Hurricane module does seem absurd, well DCS WW2 ETOPS is absurd in itself for more than a decade? Seems that "nuts logics" imperates here. So why not a Hurricane? 

Witch P51 Version had in 1944 Tail Warning Radar?

[grafspee]

8 hours ago, OLD CROW said:

- SPITFIRE MK.IX MIDS 1943. 1944 MK IX's were overhauled with brand new more powerful Packard engines- renamed MK.XVI (not available in DCS) 

This is a page for engine limitation for spitfire IX and XVI and tell me in which part of it merlin 266 is more powerful then merlin 66 which is modeled in DCS's spitfire ?

Both engines came with factory limits for 100 octane fuel and both engines got limits elevated for 150 octane fuel but we don't have that fuel in DCS.

Merlin 266 was exactly the same as merlin 66 which was mounted in MK IX LF for low altitude performance.

8 hours ago, OLD CROW said:

- I-16..... NO COMENTS... like the "new kid on the block" La-7

I-16 or La-7 is third party modules. There is no reason to blame ED that third party choose to model I-16 and La-7 and there is no reason to blame third party for not matching Normandy period map with their set of planes. 

[Gunfreak]

Both the P51 and P47 ED has made are 45 models. So for Normandy and Channel map. Only the Mossie, Spitfire and Anton is appropriate.

Dora, Kurfyrst, P51 and P47 are all aircraft used after Normandy stopped being combat theatre.

Of course ED could expand the channel map eastward to give us the low countries and extrem western Germany and suddenly all those aircraft we have in DCS would make sense(except for the lack of 150 octane in the Allied aircraft)

[Droning_On]

11 hours ago, razo+r said:

We are still promised some more AI aircraft with the assets pack. But that was 8 years ago (though not a Hurricane but a Typhoon)...

All I really need/want is a functional knee board with maps....surely cant be that hard !!

[Rudel_chw]

4 hours ago, Droning_On said:

All I really need/want is a functional knee board with maps....surely cant be that hard !!

the Spitfire already has a kneeboard with maps, surely you mean something else?

[OLD CROW]

18 hours ago, grafspee said:

This is a page for engine limitation for spitfire IX and XVI and tell me in which part of it merlin 266 is more powerful then merlin 66 which is modeled in DCS's spitfire ?

Both engines came with factory limits for 100 octane fuel and both engines got limits elevated for 150 octane fuel but we don't have that fuel in DCS.

Merlin 266 was exactly the same as merlin 66 which was mounted in MK IX LF for low altitude performance.

I-16 or La-7 is third party modules. There is no reason to blame ED that third party choose to model I-16 and La-7 and there is no reason to blame third party for not matching Normandy period map with their set of planes. 

Let's not get into stupid technicalities just to show the world how much you know about the subject, especially when they are obviously not the main point being discussed here. What is being discussed is that the OP wants the Hurricane, and it seems that the illogical reasoning of some users is trying to make him understand that this model has no place in DCS WW2 ETOPS.

By the way, and make sure this sticks in your head, no one is speaking badly about the work done by third parties. In my opinion, the development of these modules for DCS is the result of DCS's internal policies. We all want consistency in maps, modules, and assets to achieve some level of immersion—that is the only thing driving the work on PTOS, and I couldn't care less if the initial module is the F6F, the F4F, or the PBY Catalina.

Since you've gone so technical, can you answer the OP why early-war and mid-to-late war Soviet modules are justified despite lacking a historically accurate map and German aerial opponents, yet a 1939-40 Hurricane isn't?

What is being discussed in this post is the viability of that module, not "who knows more about the RR 266 with 100-octane or 150-octane fuel." Don't try to divert the discussion to unrelated topics that have no relevance here. This post is about addressing the elephant in the room.

[Art-J]

A little diversion was justified simply because your Spit assesment was not correct. "Our" Spit is roughly based on MH434 anyway, following the spec it featured all the way till the end of war and is more representative of majority of old workhorse LF Mk IXs serving in 1944 compared to new or Packard-converted ones.

Back to your question re. Soviet planes, however. They're justified for the same reason Yak-52 and Christen Eagle are. Someone thought they were cool and wanted to fly them in DCS. That's all that matters. Octopus-G lead dev is a Russian guy (IIRC) who loves Russian warbirds, wanted to recreate and fly them in DCS game engine and couldn't care less if they fit any map or period scenario. Neither he should care as these are clearly his passion projects. Moreover, if the '23 Christmas teaser was correct, he will create Po-2 next. Whether it makes sense in DCS ecosystem and will sell well is irrelevant. You can't tell the guy to develop other, Normandy-fitting aircraft is he's just not interested in them. He makes what he likes and will simply not develop anything else. It's either have whatever something or have nothing situation.

Same applies to Hurricane in my opinion. If we don't have it, to me that only means there are no devs interested in making one and that's that. Not fitting Normandy scenario very well probably is a factor, but a secondary one.

[grafspee]

@OLD CROW In DCS there is nothing like "justified module". Module will be a thing as long someone is willing to make plane for DCS. I think ppl who makes modules justify those based on completely different  criteria, i have some idea about that but i can say one thing for sure. Development of modules by ED or third party isn't based on historical consistency.

Like @Art-J said above. We don't have hurricane in DCS because no one was willing to develop that plane that's it, it does not matter how good or how bad it fit in historical map consistency. 

[Droning_On]

20 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

the Spitfire already has a kneeboard with maps, surely you mean something else?

so why does the map not change on the pilot character like the F-16 ??  having to bring up the kneeboard window breaks the realism

 

[Rudel_chw]

11 minutes ago, Droning_On said:

so why does the map not change on the pilot character like the F-16 ??

 

Ahh, now I understand your point.

 

11 minutes ago, Droning_On said:

  having to bring up the kneeboard window breaks the realism

 

Agree, but on my case I actually prefer the bigger size of the window, making for easier to read text ... but ofc everyone can use DCS in whatever way he likes best  

 

[Mizzy]

Sorry Guy's, I should have said the Hurricane is an airframe that is loved by many and we (me) can imagine things that are not historically authentic, it's not important to us, we just play for fun. But I see peoples point and appreciate it.

Mizzy

[Hammer1-1]

who cares if it never saw Normandy? plenty of other theaters across the aisle...

[Screamadelica]

I have a vague recollection from the dim, dark past that DCS are planning a Battle Of Britain era plane set for release at some point.

Hopefully in this lifetime. Fingers crossed.

A Hurricane would be just simply awesome.

[OLD CROW]

There’s something that doesn’t add up for me when it comes to active flight simulator companies: they all avoid recreating the last great battle between air forces. The pinnacle of aerial combat—where the objective was in the air for both attackers and defenders… yet no one wants to open that can of worms. Both ED and its WWII-focused competitors prefer to skirt around it.

In DCS, the map exists. It’s a paid map, but by now, it could be as free as the Marianas. I’m not talking about the Normandy map but the other one, which, for some strange reason, hasn’t been merged with Normandy. Once the "map issue" is resolved, I can’t quite understand why they’ve chosen to dive into such a technologically complex environment (in terms of software and hardware) instead of sticking to an already created setting (Map/Maps and Assets pack), where they would only need to focus on modeling iconic aircraft—planes that practically sell themselves since they exist in the public imagination and have tons of easily accessible information. There are even flyable models in countless collections and museums worldwide.

If 99% of those who own the K-4 were asked to swap it for an E-3/E-4 or their Spit Mk.IX for a Mk.Ia with just four measly .30 Browning machine guns per wing—or even for a Hurricane Mk.Ia—they’d do it without hesitation. And most importantly, they’d pay for it if it were a "sine qua non" requirement (since, after all, this is a business). That was the success of Cliffs of Dover more than 15 years ago.

If the limitation lies in the "complexity" of AI flight models… no problem! Just boost multiplayer: human pilot vs. human pilot. 95% of Cliffs of Dover simmers only wanted to experience firsthand what it was like to fly in a battlefield where, in a matter of seconds, a calm sky turned into a hornet’s nest, with up to 100 players on a server chasing each other in spirals toward the ground. I haven’t felt that sensation again since leaving that game. And if you connect any sunday to any WW2 server.... They're "walking deads": no hard feelings towards all gents that put their efforts on them. 

Flying military fighters as if they were Cessna 172s on a casual Sunday flight shouldn’t be the ultimate goal of a simulator that has the letter "C" for Combat in its name. And even now, after the release of the "PTOS PACK," that’s exactly what’s going to happen. I could understand it when the first modules came out over a decade ago, but at this point, it makes no sense.

I also don’t buy the idea that some "third party" will come in to save the DCS world—that’s not their responsibility. In my opinion, flying a Hellcat against an "AI piloted Zero-Sen" doesn’t appeal to me beyond the "15-day trial." However, piloting within a squadron of SBD Dauntless or D3A VAL, locating an enemy fleet, and learning how to execute dive-bombing runs amidst a storm of flak and bullets? Now that interests me—even in single-player.

If they listened more to their customers, I think they’d make better business decisions, and their audience would be happier—or at least less frustrated.

[Droning_On]

well said

[Slippa]

I’d love a Hurri. I never really understood the ‘44 DCS focus. If you could call anything focused, which we can’t really.

Bits and bobs might not all match up but it hasn’t stopped me flying around happily with all the props we have. I’m waiting for a Typhoon, a Corsair, Wildcat, Bearcat, Zero, Dauntless, B-25, B-17, Sunderland, C-47, Me110, He111, I’ve got carried away haven’t I…

Yeah, roll out our Hurri ED