Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Laud]

I still think that having a single and 2 seat of the same plane would be awesome for teamwork and training (especially training, with refueling, TOs and Landings...)

 

Agree! Multiplayer 2-seater would be a whole new and for sure a great experience!

[Amuro]

Agree! Multiplayer 2-seater would be a whole new and for sure a great experience!

Do you think it would be hard to find NFO's/Nav's to fly with in a 2-seater in multiplayer? I can imagine most people would want to be pilot. (not saying I'm not one of them)

Edited February 16, 2011 by Amuro

[hog_driver111th]

Do you think it would be hard to find NFO's/Nav's to fly with in a 2-seater in multiplayer? I can imagine most people would want to be pilot. (not saying I'm not one of them)

 

I would definitely fly as an IP/Nav if it made for good teamwork... and I know a few others that would gladly fly in the backseat working the systems rather than flying (since they are better flying a bus in FSX than a fighter).

[Napa]

If it's all that simple I strongly recommend to think about why they put two guys in the aircraft, when one can do the job...

 

How will you switch to the backseat while you're maneuvering offensive/defensive???? ...and vice versa: How will you switch to the pilot seat to maneuver the aircraft while you're operating the radar/weapon-systems???

 

That's a good question.

 

But read again my post. I said that it could be simple by simply having control of the aircraft while you are on the back seat. I don't see any reason why shouldn't I have control of the aircraft with my HOTAS if I seat on the back.

 

Is it unrealistic? Yes. It is a good solution though. Be able to fly (and fight) the aircraft regardless of which seat you are. Sure, some systems like MFDs, CDUs that really needs a mouse to operate faster and more efficient should be excluded but simpler tasks like controlling the A/C, controlling the autopilot, flaps, gear, lights, radio etc etc etc I think the most logical thing to do is to make them usable using HOTAS or keyboard commands regardless if you are front or back.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Innerloop

[Rikus]

MIG29K, SU27, SU33

 

But they are not in the list.

 

Greetings

[Laud]

Of course you could control the aircraft from the back in some cases (as long as you're not doing something which is controlled by the stick of the back-seater), but wouldn't it be sweet to see where you're flying to??? ;)

 

If the aircraft would be on DCS-standards you will NOT be able to do both jobs simultaneously.

 

About guys want to be pilot or navigator:

For virtual squadrons I think all members would need to be capable of both jobs, just because for each training there will someone missing and thereby you may end up with 4 pilots and 6 navigators -> messed up.

[Python]

Cant be uglyer than a bucaneer

 

Hey, you leave our beautiful little duckling alone :)

[joey45]

The Bucc is not ugly.. it is a work of art and very high tech for its time.

[xhaos]

For virtual squadrons I think all members would need to be capable of both jobs, just because for each training there will someone missing and thereby you may end up with 4 pilots and 6 navigators -> messed up.

 

 

Just like IRL all would be able to do both, not as good to both though. also from my days in virtual sqns, i guess there will be permanent couples.

 

On a side note, I have spoken to many of my friends over time for such a possibility, and many of them told that they would prefer to fly back seat for many reasons, such as: can't dogfight, more fun to be the shooter etc...

[Succellus]

Well for single player stand point, the was a not so high fidelity simulator :) that did the job pretty well called F14 Fleet Defender :D !!!

It was a 2 seater, and it was a bit doughting to do the 2 guys job at the time, cause intruments required (now imagine on a DCS lvl) much keyboard work and thats mean hand out of stick, out of situational awareness time.

Of course with phoenix setting a stable AP and jumping operator seat was feasable you had room to do that.

But in Middle range it was getting daunting.

 

Then there s Internet conexion issues, which are present now with sngle seaters, imagine with multi seaters, multi plane A2G, G2A, A2A, G2G engagements....

 

Doable it is, sure, almost anything is, but the AI would have to be cranked to fill the locking shooting, situation awareness, com with pilot(or operator) and receiving order from pilot...This mean crank up V.A.C to a better state than we actually have.

How would you tell op AI to lock and shoot at 1 o clock plane at 10 miles and not 1 o clock plane plane at 2 miles ? Cause the former is turning to get bearing and the later fleeing and will get out of range in less than 2 sec due to speed/path ?

Or how will AI pilot comunicate with operator (you), without sounding like BB.

There s many issues beyond jump front rear especially due to the high fidelity sytem we get in DCS.

 

BTW i m not agaisn t it, far from it. I would like it much for obvious reasons.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Succellus

[Laud]

You have a lot points there, that I also had in mind. It's sure makeable, but how good would be???

[hog_driver111th]

I think you guys are missing the point that I made the other day. If ED could make a single seat (F-15C, F-16C, F/A-18C or E), then it would be great if they could make the 2 seater version (F-15D or E, F-16D, F/A-17D or F) of the same jet so we have both a single and 2-seater.

 

Here's how I see it would work. A pilot joins up with a NAV in a 2 seater. If the NAV should exit, the pilot (as in real life) can still do the basic functions, but would otherwise bug out and head home to grab a single seat version. If the Pilot should exit, the navigator has the choice of moving up front, flying from the back seat, or exiting to grab a single seat.

 

I understand all your points being made, but my suggestions were towards having 2 versions of the same jet to allow single and tandem seating. For those who only fly alone, fine, fly the single seat. If you have someone to fly with, fly the tandem. Of course, adding in an AI into the backseat would be ok, but I'm sure there would be plenty of issues there with the AI not doing what you would expect or want it to do.

[Laud]

I get your point! You're talking about Trainer-Versions of specific aircraft. But in my eyes this is more a secondary feature of having a two seater.

 

I'd guess most of us here want to fly an operational two seater, where both guys have real jobs when it comes to blow things off.

 

And when we talk about this kind of two-seater, all the previous mentioned issues become valid.

[hog_driver111th]

True, and I would love to have a fully functional 2 seater, which could be also used as a trainer. I do see issues with having a 2 seater where an AI would then take the place of a missing pilot or nav, but that's where having a single seat option would benefit.

[phant]

If will F/A-18s the new flyable, it would be nice to have, at some point, the

for training.

 

It would be "easy" (imho), to obtain manuals, performances, data, etc... , without the "problems" about armament's data.

 

Bye

Phant

Edited February 17, 2011 by phant

[Eight Ball]

How would you tell op AI to lock and shoot at 1 o clock plane at 10 miles and not 1 o clock plane plane at 2 miles ? Cause the former is turning to get bearing and the later fleeing and will get out of range in less than 2 sec due to speed/path ?

Or how will AI pilot comunicate with operator (you), without sounding like BB.

 

Well, it could be a similar to ArmA, you open your radio menu, choose copilot, then choose target and a new menu would pop up with all the target you've spotted so far. They could be organised in many ways, by range, by threat level, by "spotted order",...

So it would look like this :

- Open the radio menu

- choose copilot and access the copilot radio menu (say F1)

- choose target (say F1 too)

- 1.unkown plane, 3 miles, 12 O'clock (F1)

2. Ennemy plane, 1.5 miles, 1 O'clock (F2)

3. Friendly plane, 0.4 miles, 5 O'clock (F3)

and so on

You can also imagine another submenu right after the Target one, with

1. Ennemy, 2. Friendly, 3. Neutral, 4. Unkown.

This would make each list shorter and avoid an accidental friendly fire.

As for the communication between player and AI I don't see why it couldn't be similar to when you're talking to your wingman.

[Laud]

1. Those infinite comm-menus waste to much time in combat situations (this is also valid for actual wingie communication, which is the reason why flying with an online squadron is 100 times better than with those AI bots).

 

2. How well does it work in ArmA to get the guys do exactly what you want them to do??? please don't answer this one...

[MotoX Racer]

http://games.on.net/article/11576/Developer_Interview_DCS_A10Cs_Jim_Mackonochie

 

Jim Mackonochie: Coding has already started on the next aircraft in the DCS series. All I can say is that it will be a USA fixed wing aircraft!

[garengarch]

http://games.on.net/article/11576/Developer_Interview_DCS_A10Cs_Jim_Mackonochie

 

Jim Mackonochie: Coding has already started on the next aircraft in the DCS series. All I can say is that it will be a USA fixed wing aircraft!

 

we f**king know !!!!!!

 

:P

 

Please AT LEAST skim the forums before posting?

Edited February 17, 2011 by garengarch

[ArcticAge]

It would be graet if the next DCS-Module would be an Eurofighter Typhoon or a Panavia 200 (PA-200) Tornado

[power5]

Hah, a euro fighter would be awesome but at less than 8 years in service I am really doubting a DCS level sim will be coming anytime soon.

[Laud]

Geez, that thing ain't even developed to it's final stage and therefor not yet cleared for each intended weapon system etc. etc. etc.

 

Forget it for the next 15-20 years...

 

Further it cockpit looks like a video game - that sucks. ;)

[Eight Ball]

1. Those infinite comm-menus waste to much time in combat situations (this is also valid for actual wingie communication, which is the reason why flying with an online squadron is 100 times better than with those AI bots).

 

2. How well does it work in ArmA to get the guys do exactly what you want them to do??? please don't answer this one...

 

Erh, no need to tell me the game experience is better and deeper online, this is true for every single game nowadays and that's the whole point of playing online.

But his question was clearly about communication between player and AIs.

There's no hundreds of solution avaible right now. So if ED ever make a 2 seaters it will be better to be able to communicate with your WSO, even if it has to be through infinite communication menu, than nothing at all.

If commands stay in the same order you'll get used to it quickly and you'll only need to have a brief look at it.

 

As for ArmA, I think it's one of the more complex and effective yet easy to handle communication system I've seen. You just need some practice and then, as I said, you don't even look at it, you know the commands order by heart and you're able to give orders really quickly. I don't have any problem to get my team mates do what I've ordered them, simply because there are several ways to communicate with them. You just have to learn their limits, what's the proper order to give for achieving a specific action.

I'm not saying this system is perfect but in the end it's all about adaptation and practice.

 

And I never said ED should follow the same path, I was just giving piece of answer showing how it was in another game. There are many ways to improve this system and to make it more suitable for flightsims needs

Edited February 17, 2011 by Eight Ball

[hitman]

Lot of noobs here nowadays............

[Mugenjin]

Lot of noobs here nowadays............

 

who woulda thought :music_whistling: