Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[EtherealN]

DCS: Schrödinger's Tomcat.

 

...wanted dead and alive.

[KillarZ]

"DCS Rhino........Call The Ball"

 

 

 

Yeaaa buddy. Any hornet with properly inputed carrier ops and ground crew and a good jet noise that would make it sound like a true hornet would be Amazing. Imagine this in DCS level of quality. Honestly if ED can master this they would master almost anything and probally get a lot more people interested in their products. Dreaming:music_whistling:

[Dimebag]

Yeaaa buddy. Any hornet with properly inputed carrier ops and ground crew and a good jet noise that would make it sound like a true hornet would be Amazing. Imagine this in DCS level of quality. Honestly if ED can master this they would master almost anything and probally get a lot more people interested in their products. Dreaming:music_whistling:

 

Pretty soon that dream might become a reality bud.

[Frostiken]

Yeaaa buddy. Any hornet with properly inputed carrier ops and ground crew and a good jet noise that would make it sound like a true hornet would be Amazing. Imagine this in DCS level of quality. Honestly if ED can master this they would master almost anything and probally get a lot more people interested in their products. Dreaming:music_whistling:

Doubt it - the F/A-18C is probably at the very bottom of most people's list as far as interest goes. I think more than a few people who don't hang out on this forum would get it and then complain about its crippled performance, as they'd be expecting a Superhornet, not the sad excuse for airpower that is the F/A-18C.

 

The A-10, F-15, F-16, and even the F-14 have a hell of a lot more sex appeal than the F/A-18, especially if we're talking the C. It's an all-around underwhelming jet and seeing as how it literally was second-best to the F-16, well, the Air Force agrees that it sucks.

 

Weeee 0.8 weight/thrust ratio. Weeee 7G limit even when slick. Weeee microscopic fuel tanks. Weeee terrible combat weight.

 

For any other discussion, see my sig and avatar.

 

EDIT: Also, carrier ops? Wowie, I'll make sure to take advantage of that in NEVADA. Not sure why that's such a massive turn-on for people seeing as how it literally involves the first five seconds and last five seconds of flight.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Frostiken

[Eddie]

EDIT: Also, carrier ops? Wowie, I'll make sure to take advantage of that in NEVADA. Not sure why that's such a massive turn-on for people seeing as how it literally involves the first five seconds and last five seconds of flight.

 

I think, apart from the challenge of t/o & landings on a carrier, the main advantage of a carrier borne aircraft would be the massive area of the theatre (the whole Black Sea) that would be opened up for use. Having such a large area of Sea available to sit your carrier would allow for a larger number of realistic scenarios as you wouldn't always have to use the few bases in Georgia, or even involve Georgia in the scenario at all.

 

As for the Hornet, I agree entirely, with the caveat that I do still have a sadistic desire to fly it and adapt to it's many short falls.

[Ghillied raptor]

Doubt it - the F/A-18C is probably at the very bottom of most people's list as far as interest goes. I think more than a few people who don't hang out on this forum would get it and then complain about its crippled performance, as they'd be expecting a Superhornet, not the sad excuse for airpower that is the F/A-18C.

 

The A-10, F-15, F-16, and even the F-14 have a hell of a lot more sex appeal than the F/A-18, especially if we're talking the C. It's an all-around underwhelming jet and seeing as how it literally was second-best to the F-16, well, the Air Force agrees that it sucks.

 

Weeee 0.8 weight/thrust ratio. Weeee 7G limit even when slick. Weeee microscopic fuel tanks. Weeee terrible combat weight.

 

For any other discussion, see my sig and avatar.

 

EDIT: Also, carrier ops? Wowie, I'll make sure to take advantage of that in NEVADA. Not sure why that's such a massive turn-on for people seeing as how it literally involves the first five seconds and last five seconds of flight.

Woah, you seem to hate carrier based aircraft. Is the F-18 really that bad? The superhornet that is.

[Dudikoff]

The A-10, F-15, F-16, and even the F-14 have a hell of a lot more sex appeal than the F/A-18, especially if we're talking the C. It's an all-around underwhelming jet and seeing as how it literally was second-best to the F-16, well, the Air Force agrees that it sucks.

 

YF-17 was somewhat slicker than the F/A-18 so it's not a fair comparison. Besides, if they chose the YF-16 because it was a better choice for them (the same engine family as in the F-15, better maneuverability, better range), that doesn't mean that the other one outright "sucked".

 

Weeee 0.8 weight/thrust ratio. Weeee 7G limit even when slick. Weeee microscopic fuel tanks. Weeee terrible combat weight.

 

Are you describing the Hornet, the Super Hornet or both? ;)

 

EDIT: Also, carrier ops? Wowie, I'll make sure to take advantage of that in NEVADA. Not sure why that's such a massive turn-on for people seeing as how it literally involves the first five seconds and last five seconds of flight.

 

It's not just taking off and landing, it's extra flexibility in possible mission types and scenarios and (as someone pointed out already) a better use of the map (hopefully, the Crimea would be mapped as well by release time).

[Phantom88]

Doubt it - the F/A-18C is probably at the very bottom of most people's list as far as interest goes. I think more than a few people who don't hang out on this forum would get it and then complain about its crippled performance, as they'd be expecting a Superhornet, not the sad excuse for airpower that is the F/A-18C.

 

The A-10, F-15, F-16, and even the F-14 have a hell of a lot more sex appeal than the F/A-18, especially if we're talking the C. It's an all-around underwhelming jet and seeing as how it literally was second-best to the F-16, well, the Air Force agrees that it sucks.

 

Weeee 0.8 weight/thrust ratio. Weeee 7G limit even when slick. Weeee microscopic fuel tanks. Weeee terrible combat weight.

 

For any other discussion, see my sig and avatar.

 

EDIT: Also, carrier ops? Wowie, I'll make sure to take advantage of that in NEVADA. Not sure why that's such a massive turn-on for people seeing as how it literally involves the first five seconds and last five seconds of flight.

 

I'm going to place my Nimitz class Carrier on Groom Lake and conduct Carrier Ops over Nellis just to Harrass You Strike Eagle Jockey's with my little Hornets!! :megalol:

[Rikus]

I think, apart from the challenge of t/o & landings on a carrier, the main advantage of a carrier borne aircraft would be the massive area of the theatre (the whole Black Sea) that would be opened up for use. Having such a large area of Sea available to sit your carrier would allow for a larger number of realistic scenarios as you wouldn't always have to use the few bases in Georgia, or even involve Georgia in the scenario at all.

 

As for the Hornet, I agree entirely, with the caveat that I do still have a sadistic desire to fly it and adapt to it's many short falls.

 

Yes, DCS Map is small for actual jets, we need bigger map

 

Another point to work for ED, not only another flyable plane, FC3 and BS2

 

We are tire of the small map. Will be cool if they add again the portion of map that they erase with DCS

 

Greetings

[near_blind]

The A-10, F-15, F-16, and even the F-14 have a hell of a lot more sex appeal than the F/A-18,

 

I'll give you number two and four, and three is debatible, but the A-10? Really? Don't get me wrong, i like the Hawg, and i'm still not all that cozy with the Legacy Bug, but i'll take a fighter with a T/W of 0.8, a top speed of Mach 1.7, and a fuel fraction of minuscule any day over a t/w of non existent, a top speed thrice that of a good baseball pitch, and Air/Mud until my eyes bleed.

 

I'm going to place my Nimitz class Carrier on Groom Lake and conduct Carrier Ops over Nellis just to Harrass You Strike Eagle Jockey's with my little Hornets!!

 

lol

[Squid]

Yes, DCS Map is small for actual jets, we need bigger map

 

Another point to work for ED, not only another flyable plane, FC3 and BS2

 

We are tire of the small map. Will be cool if they add again the portion of map that they erase with DCS

 

Greetings

 

i'd gladly welcome that too myself ! BUT they should at the same time change the graphics engine too if they do that, for me that is, as its still troubled by smoothness issues , in year 2011 .....

[Squid]

Although i have been waiting for a decade now for an ED Viper, still i would find the Hornet, both C/D and E/F one hell of an exciting simulation subject .... and the poll here maybe indicates its appealing to others too . Hornet posses, despite its all-around mediocrity, result of trying to combine many contradicting requirements in one platform and replace two (three or even more with E/F) different types in the more demanding environment of USN, a definitely unique personality and i also like very much the looks (for some reason reminds me the late 70s-80s perception of sci-fi intercepting, buck rogers, galactica, star wars, battle of the planets, space battleship yamato, robotech, i grew up surrounded by such imagery, grew up together with the hornet too :) Τhats probably another reason i find A-10 too amongst the hotest designs :) )

Edited November 21, 2011 by Squid

[EtherealN]

We are tire of the small map. Will be cool if they add again the portion of map that they erase with DCS

 

Ah, the dangers of fond memories: the DCS map is not smaller than the old one. ;)

 

[Frogisis]

C'moooooon F-15C...!

 

I'm sure this has been asked already, but is there some specific technical or legal reason they're keeping it a secret, or is it just good old fashioned showmanship? (Or a combination of both.)

Either way it bodes well for it being a "cool" plane, being either fancy enough someone out there thought they needed to make a rule against divulging it or awesome enough they feel confident letting it get built up.

...Or I guess it could just be one of those legal idiosyncrasies and right now someone is waiting for a call back from the intransigent company that owns the rights to the name and image of the E-9A Widget.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Frogisis

[Squid]

C'moooooon F-16C...!

 

I'm sure this has been asked already, but is there some specific technical or legal reason they're keeping it a secret, or is it just good old fashioned showmanship? (Or a combination of both.)

Either way it bodes well for it being a "cool" plane, being either fancy enough someone out there thought they needed to make a rule against divulging it or awesome enough they feel confident letting it get built up.

[Squid]

C'moooooon F-18C...!

 

I'm sure this has been asked already, but is there some specific technical or legal reason they're keeping it a secret, or is it just good old fashioned showmanship? (Or a combination of both.)

Either way it bodes well for it being a "cool" plane, being either fancy enough someone out there thought they needed to make a rule against divulging it or awesome enough they feel confident letting it get built up.

[159th_Viper]

 

I'm sure this has been asked already, but is there some specific technical or legal reason they're keeping it a secret, or is it just good old fashioned showmanship? (Or a combination of both.)

 

Us Old Timers should remember the outcries of righteous indignation and 'Off wi ya Heed' war-cries that resulted from previous announcements that, due to reasonable reasons unforeseen, were changed/had to be amended..........Oh the absolutely exquisite tantrums that were thrown.

 

Walk down memory-lane aside, all will be announced In Good Time I would have thought........Little bit at a time lest we all choke on the offerings :D

[ALDEGA]

There's always the commercial consideration that announcing a future product could affect sales of the currently available products ...

[Dudikoff]

Ah, the dangers of fond memories: the DCS map is not smaller than the old one. ;)

 

Interesting comparison, but (unless the post was edited) the original statement still holds - the currently mapped portion of the map is a bit small for fast fighter jet operations, though the last extension is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

So, I'm hoping that the upcoming module turns out to be a Hornet with carrier ops as it will add some much needed space (though extending the mapped area further to cover Crimea and maybe some Turkish airbases wouldn't hurt either :) ).

Edited November 21, 2011 by Dudikoff

[Dimebag]

There's always the commercial consideration that announcing a future product could affect sales of the currently available products ...

 

Then maybe they should just release the DCS fighter asap as thies is what most people are excited about

[ALDEGA]

... as thies is what most people are excited about

Maybe we should have a poll about that ;)

[hog_driver111th]

I just hope it's not a fighter only aircraft (F-15C) as it would be good to run some SEAD with fighter cover for the A-10s and Ka-50s. Oh, and I'm still all for a single and two seater (F-16C/D, F-15C/D/E, F/A-18C/D or F/A-18E/F/G)

[Phantom88]

SEXY? YOU WANT...........SEXY????????? TAILHOOKS ARE SEXY:thumbup:

 

[robmypro]

Just based on the posts here I would say it comes down to the Falcon vs. the Super Hornet. What about this. Since we cannot decide ED builds them both simultaneously. :-)

[nomdeplume]

I'm sure this has been asked already, but is there some specific technical or legal reason they're keeping it a secret, or is it just good old fashioned showmanship? (Or a combination of both.)

Probably a mix of reasons; one that hasn't been mentioned yet is that it's probably a bad idea to announce it before the feature set is confirmed. I mean, the moment they say "the next DCS module will be <x>" there will be a flood of questions: "will function <a> and weapon <b> will be modeled?" and "will we be able to do <c>?" and "what version of <d> will be included?" and so on and on and on.

 

Until they've actually "finished" it answering those questions will be very dangerous because of the backlash if it turns out they can't implement everything they initially planned to. Plus, people's imaginations tend to run riot and some people may start believing they're going to get all sorts of things that aren't/never were intended to be included, and be disappointed when it's not available in the finished product.

 

So for that reason, keeping the time between announcement of the aircraft and the announcement of the features of the module should probably be kept to a minumum; ideally they'd be done at the same time. IMHO.