Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Cali]

Frostiken, you are wrong about A2A, there are a lot of other factors that come into play. You have range, defensive/offensive, altitude difference, missile speed, missile type, radar and setting up for the shot, F-pole/A-pole.....etc. Some fights come down to WVR, but most would prefer to kill there enemies BVR.

[Zakatak]

Also, if you were to face a USAF F-16 against an RCAF F/A-18C, the F-16 would obliterate the F/A-18. Nothing against the RCAF, but unless Canada's built their own radar package, the F/A-18s radar is going to be far less powerful than USAF versions simply because that's how export aircraft work. We nerf the **** out of planes, and any sort of defense item sold to another country has been meticulously detailed - if we sold you a countermeasures pod, you can guarantee that any flaw in the tuning agility or limitations in how it works has been noted so it can be exploited.

 

The CF-18 has been upgraded to AN/APG-73 standard, aswell as a new avionics suite, improved electronic warfare abilities. Canadian pilots receive more training then American pilots (not on par with Isreal, but were pretty damn good). We wouldn't be given "dumbed down" equipment because you have no reason to. We will not rebel against you, we have the budget, what is the point? I've seen F/A-18's get behind F-16's before, it can happen. The F-16 might win, but 'obliterate' is not the word to describe it.

 

EDIT: It's just CAF now. No 'Royal' in it.

[KillarZ]

Ultimately though, DCS is about air-to-ground warfare and is why I highly, HIGHLY doubt there will ever be an air interceptor study-sim - because nobody wants to fly around waiting for radar contacts to fire some missiles off at, and then turn around and go home - ED has spent too much time on all the ground warfare stuff to try to push a game where all you can do is ineffectually strafe them with your gun and dodge SAMs

 

LOL that was funny I'm sorry and I mean it in a nice way(the sorry at least). Give me some better reasons why they wouldn't make a fighter besides spending too much time on ground units. I'm pretty sure the majority of people would prefer a fighter for the next DCS aircraft and not an aircraft dedicated to ground pounding. And explain to me if they were never going to make a DCS fighter than why did the purchase the www.f-18c.com domain, it may or may not be the next aircraft but purchasing this alone gives enough information that ED are interested in fighters. I found the fourm that shows this info:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=70924&highlight=DCS+f-18c

 

see for your self

[nomdeplume]

I'm pretty sure the majority of people would prefer a fighter for the next DCS aircraft and not an aircraft dedicated to ground pounding.

The post you quoted said I highly, HIGHLY doubt there will ever be an air interceptor study-sim. A multirole fighter is not the same as an air interceptor. Of course 'everyone' wants a fighter that can do 'everything'. Fewer people will want an aircraft that can only do A-A; and the suspicion is that more people would be interested in a dedicated ground-attack aircraft than would be interested in a dedicated air-to-air aircraft, if they had to choose.

 

I don't agree with Frostiken's reasoning mind you, I think he's gotten cause-and-effect reversed here. ED could make air-to-air combat as central to DCS as the ground combat currently is 'simply' by spending as much time on air-to-air as they have on air-to-ground. I think it's more likely that the platform they're simulating dictates the elements of the game world they spend time enhancing, and focussing on air-to-air combat wouldn't have made much sense for either Black Shark or Warthog.

 

so how do you decide which one's better?

 

The F/A-18 can take off from carriers. The F-16 can't. Ergo, the Hornet is 'better' in the context of the second part of the statement ('for any given situation').

 

For a specific mission the Viper could do, it'll almost certainly be better at it than the Hornet ('any aircraft is better than the F-18 for a given situation').

 

Or put it like this: someone says, we need an aircraft to carry out <specific mission here>. You can pick an aircraft that will do the job better than the Hornet.

 

Now if someone says: we need an aircraft to carry out a mission. What aircraft do you suggest? The Hornet's about as good an answer as you can give; it can probably do whatever the task turns out to be, even if wouldn't do it as well as a better-suited aircraft (but since you don't know what the task is, you can't determine what aircraft would be better suited).

 

Yes, the person asking you to suggest an aircraft to carry out a mission without telling you what the mission will be is a douche, but that's not the point. :D

[Eddie]

..........but no aircraft is better then the F-18 for any given situation.

 

Typo there, you meant to say F-16. :D

 

[Eddie]

Yeah I'll believe that when I see it :D

 

I'm not saying air-to-air isn't fun, but if that was the only thing you could do, what would be the point?

 

Take the campaigns, for example. Imagine you were in an F-15C instead of an A-10C - would the campaign really matter? Fly to X, shoot down MiGs. The only weapons you can pick from are AIM-9Ms, AIM-9Xs (maybe), and AIM-120Cs.

 

Yeah, I'm not feeling it. It would undoubtedly have its moments, but for that to be the only thing the module really offers... nah. Air-to-ground presents far more possibilities than air-to-air really does.

 

Offline perhaps it could get a bit stale, but in the multi-player environment flying an escort/TARCAP/Sweep as part of a package of multiple flights of different aircraft types it'd be fantastic.

 

Of course, just to be clear, you won't find me punching holes in the sky in a pure fighter. I'll leave that to people who like to wear pink and use moisturiser.

[GGTharos]

Then I think it's obvious that you don't really know much about air to air combat - even less than us armchair fighter-pilot-wannabes!

 

I would argue that there's far, far more ways to approach an air-to-ground situation, multiplied by your various weapons with their own delivery methods and specialized purposes, whereas there's only really three approaches to air-to-air - BVR missiles, WVR missiles, and ACM (and WVR / ACM tends to be the same thing).

 

That would be because you don't know much about BVR :D

 

Disclaimer: In a single player setting your options may indeed be limited. This is unfortunately an AI issue, not so much an A2A issue.

 

I also think part of the reason I'm turned off by this is because most of the excitement is going to be had in WVR engagements, and I got tired of aerial gunfights in WW2 combat sims, where that's all aerial combat *is*.

 

Edit: Sniped by Eddie :P

[leafer]

Love the beast but it has no guns! :D

[chaos]

leafer wrote ; Love the beast but it has no guns!

 

Aaaargh! F-4E! Know thy planes ;)

[OB1]

Love the beast but it has no guns!

 

 

The M61 20mm Vulcan Gatling gun pod :D

Edited June 23, 2011 by OB1

[Speed]

F-4 on a Vietnam DCS map would be great. Sometime in the future after ED adds alot more, and destroyable, trees, and bigger maps. :thumbup: Preferably after they get a ground commander mode and a limited first person mode too :)

 

Of course, this would require that ED make this just for the sake of making a commercial product with no military spin off (the commercial products are currently the spin-off of military products).

[Relayer]

I doubt we'll see it, but DCS - Phantom would be almost as much of a dream come true as DCS - Tomcat. Absolutely love both. The only thing I can see a problem with is the fact that they're two seaters, and then you've got the whole problem of how do you as a player do both roles at once.

[VIKBELL]

I like the idea of the phantom and Mig 21 dual. All those years in front line Cold War warefare. Sell as a dual set both unclassified for years well exported.

[Nate--IRL--]

While not as detailed as DCS (Or even FC) Take a look at Strike Fighters 2 by Thirdwire for F4 Fun.

 

http://www.thirdwire.com/index.htm

 

Nate

[Zakatak]

DCS: X-Wing

 

Make it happen.

[Frostiken]

Frostiken, you are wrong about A2A, there are a lot of other factors that come into play. You have range, defensive/offensive, altitude difference, missile speed, missile type, radar and setting up for the shot, F-pole/A-pole.....etc. Some fights come down to WVR, but most would prefer to kill there enemies BVR.

 

There are factors involved with a BVR engagement, but it's all part of a BVR engagement. Just because he's at a higher altitude than you doesn't actually make it a newer and more exciting situation than if a tank convoy was driving east instead of west.

 

The point is this - let's say there's vehicles on the road. You have the choice of strafing them with a gun (which changes your range engagement, your attack profile, opens you up to AAA threats), you can use an AGM-65 (you have the screen, you select targets, get in the range envelope), you can use an LGB (allowing you to buddy laze, bomb lofting). None of those options are alike and depending on the situation on the ground or weather-wise your options could disappear or open up dramatically.

 

You have three choices in an F-15C - lock them up with radar and fire an AIM-120 / AIM-7 (unlikely, they're almost never anymore in the USAF), close range and lock them up with an AIM-9 (or fire a -9X OBS for LOAL), or strafe them with guns.

 

Don't argue petty semantics about how 'flying defensively' somehow changes the fact that you're still pointing your radar at them and waiting for the shoot tone/light. Might as well argue that strafing with guns is different because I can use HEI mix instead of CM...

 

Canadian pilots receive more training then American pilots (not on par with Isreal, but were pretty damn good).

 

Uh huh :)

 

We wouldn't be given "dumbed down" equipment because you have no reason to.

You would, because that's just how export aircraft work. Everything in our books labaled 'NOFORN' and 'Classified' isn't going to leave the country.

 

Give me some better reasons why they wouldn't make a fighter besides spending too much time on ground units. I'm pretty sure the majority of people would prefer a fighter for the next DCS aircraft and not an aircraft dedicated to ground pounding. And explain to me if they were never going to make a DCS fighter than why did the purchase the www.f-18c.com domain, it may or may not be the next aircraft but purchasing this alone gives enough information that ED are interested in fighters.

 

I got sniped by this one but I said dedicated air interceptor. You know, like the F-15C - "Not a pound for air to ground." The F/A-18C isn't a dedicated air-interceptor.

 

I don't agree with Frostiken's reasoning mind you, I think he's gotten cause-and-effect reversed here. ED could make air-to-air combat as central to DCS as the ground combat currently is 'simply' by spending as much time on air-to-air as they have on air-to-ground. I think it's more likely that the platform they're simulating dictates the elements of the game world they spend time enhancing, and focussing on air-to-air combat wouldn't have made much sense for either Black Shark or Warthog.

 

I understand what you mean by this but not what result you expect - AI and mission design aside, all the weapons and aircraft already exist, and the F-15C already functions in a workable format in LOMAC, so what more could they do to make it more engaging than pickling off a slammer at a contact 40 miles out?

 

Now if someone says: we need an aircraft to carry out a mission. What aircraft do you suggest? The Hornet's about as good an answer as you can give; it can probably do whatever the task turns out to be, even if wouldn't do it as well as a better-suited aircraft (but since you don't know what the task is, you can't determine what aircraft would be better suited).

An F-15E hands down. The F/A-18C cannot physically carry enough 'stuff' to be outfitted for 'every role', not if it wants to actually reach its target without falling out of the sky for lack of fuel.

 

 

Then I think it's obvious that you don't really know much about air to air combat - even less than us armchair fighter-pilot-wannabes! ... That would be because you don't know much about BVR.

 

How about you educate me with your infinite knowledge on the topic and provide your professional references and real-life experience for everything you mention. Or instead can you please not be a complete condescending asshat? That post was pretty much completely uncalled for.

 

Pray tell me how the actual air-to-air engagement in DCS: F-15C is going to be worlds apart from the air-to-air engagements already available in Falcon 4 or, even, LOMAC.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Frostiken

[GGTharos]

Do a search on 'missile tactics' on this forum and see what you get.

 

If you've flown falcon or LO and your experience with air to air is 'burning holes in the sky', you're doing it wrong. Now, if you're all about the single play, then I can't blame you, AI can't do much for you in terms of excitement (which begs the question - how can hitting relatively static targets be any more exciting? Because you have 3 different modes of attack? I have those in air to air, too - not to mention different types of aproach to a target which I may or may not have to VID, which may or may not have certain capabilities, all of which changes my tactics. What if I have A2G guys I'm fighter-sweeping for? What about my wingmen? ;) )

 

How about you educate me with your infinite knowledge on the topic and provide your professional references and real-life experience for everything you mention. Or instead can you please not be a complete condescending asshat? That post was pretty much completely uncalled for.

 

Pray tell me how the actual air-to-air engagement in DCS: F-15C is going to be worlds apart from the air-to-air engagements already available in Falcon 4 or, even, LOMAC.

Edited June 24, 2011 by GGTharos

[Frostiken]

No, you misunderstood - I completely understand. I get it. I really do. It's a shame that you don't. I won't waste my breath on why I don't argue with what is tantamount to petty semantics, but it suffices to say that I'm sure if you wanted to talk enough, you could make a DCS: U-2 simulator sound exciting. In the end, you still only have three weapons that are all employed in the exact same fashion. That's what you don't get. Whether you have to 'close to get a VID' is totally, 100% irrelevant. Whether you maneuver to fire your missile in a way that maximizes the pK is totally, 100% irrelevant. AIM-120s and AIM-9Ms are all still employed in the exact same fashion. Everything that you do up to that point is aerial maneuvering and you do *not* need an air-to-air sim in order to experience that.

 

I said that air-to-air could be exciting. Air-to-air is one of the reasons I'm looking forward to whatever multi-role fighter we get. Air-to-air only, however, would bore me to tears after... what? A month maybe?

 

I'm not the only one who's expressed that sentiment. You may get a raging nerd-on for anything with the DCS name on it, but I don't, so please stop inferring in your passive/aggressive way that you think I'm clearly the most colossally ****ing stupid man on the planet because I dare to disagree with your almighty notion of what will maintain the interest of a gamer for the longest. To that I'll simply point out that there are people who get genuine excitement flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong in FSX so please stop pushing your opinion around as some sort of yardstick of intelligence.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Frostiken

[104th_Crunch]

DCS: X-Wing

 

Make it happen.

 

Ahh... another excuse to post this pic

 

One thing about A2G vs A2A MP. Ground AI, for that matter any AI of any game/sim is not like going against a human. With a human it will play out different every time. Being good at BVR/WVR involves as much depth and strategy as going in for a good ground attack. I think even more.

 

Edited June 24, 2011 by Crunch

[Speed]

Ahh... another excuse to post this pic

 

One thing about A2G vs A2A MP. Ground AI, for that matter any AI of any game/sim is not like going against a human. With a human it will play out different every time. Being good at BVR/WVR involves as much depth and strategy as going in for a good ground attack. I think even more.

 

 

That depends on the human you are going against :D

 

It requires not just strategy, but considerable knowledge of both your own capabilities and the enemy capabilities. As old Sun Tzu says,

 

"If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles."

Edited June 24, 2011 by Speed

[GGTharos]

Yep ... some people will just fly straight and level into your missile ... everyone's gotta start as a newb - those who stick with it are able to give you plenty of challenge eventually :D

[Speed]

Yep ... some people will just fly straight and level into your missile ... everyone's gotta start as a newb - those who stick with it are able to give you plenty of challenge eventually :D

 

I remember a funny quote about the AIM-7 Sparrow in the Gulf War. It was something to the effect of "while Sparrow had a fairly high pk in Operation Desert Storm compared to previous conflicts, it always has done well against non-maneuvering targets" :D

[Krippz]

That depends on the human you are going against :D

 

Agreed. I've found well designed missions in A-10C (and there are quite a few really good ones floating around) to be just as entertaining and satisfying as flying CAPS and Slow CAPS in FC2. I get your argument though; definitely not as dynamic as a FC2 server but then again the majority of the time that I flew FC2 I felt as if I was engaging simulated drones :joystick::pilotfly::D

[GGTharos]

Ouch! :D

 

Funny thing I read in one of the USAF simulation studies - for a simulator used to teach tactics, not a DTS - the pilots complained that the AI were sometimes too good, while the accompanying human opposition was not good enough!

[Sov13t]

Ouch! :D

 

Funny thing I read in one of the USAF simulation studies - for a simulator used to teach tactics, not a DTS - the pilots complained that the AI were sometimes too good, while the accompanying human opposition was not good enough!

 

Time to unite FC2 multiplayer with USAF noobs. Send them a suggestion will ya? :thumbup: