Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Tucano_uy]

My question is, why so much secrecy from ED?

 

My possible answers:

1) they are not 100% sure it will happen.

2) it's not going to be what the community is hoping for (be it eagle, viper or hornet). In that case they'll loose support (people will stop buying extra copies of what's available now and later P51, nevada, etc. to support DCS:Multirole fighter).

3) to keep the business plan secret from competitors (who? I'm sure that anybody really, commercially, interested in knowing what ED is busy with, have means to find out).

4) keep everybody expectant to keep the interest high. It's beeing way too long and some people will be delighted and others very disappointed.

5) they don't know yet. They may have a bunch of bits and pieces that eventually could make one plane or another.

 

If nothing of this, why keeping the secret for longer?

[206 Burner VR]

Next aircraft must be F-18 . Other aircraft will be total shit like mustang.

[jp203000]

Competitors are already there, one of them is seven-G having many features DCS don't have. ED should know time means money , ED should put out their most Competitive product as soon as possible.

Edited February 18, 2012 by jp203000

[comie1]

My question is, why so much secrecy from ED?

 

My possible answers:

1) they are not 100% sure it will happen.

2) it's not going to be what the community is hoping for (be it eagle, viper or hornet). In that case they'll loose support (people will stop buying extra copies of what's available now and later P51, nevada, etc. to support DCS:Multirole fighter).

3) to keep the business plan secret from competitors (who? I'm sure that anybody really, commercially, interested in knowing what ED is busy with, have means to find out).

4) keep everybody expectant to keep the interest high. It's beeing way too long and some people will be delighted and others very disappointed.

5) they don't know yet. They may have a bunch of bits and pieces that eventually could make one plane or another.

 

If nothing of this, why keeping the secret for longer?

 

It's marketing strategy 101

And we have no idea of the budget/timeline/other restrictions that could hinder any progress or even worst case scenario halt the whole program.

A promise undelivered is more damaging than no promise at all.

[Demongornot]

I love the Super Hornet !

I want carrier OPS and feel the power of the catapult !

[LostOblivion]

Yeah, okay.:laugh:

 

We'll see who is right when the time comes.:)

 

You still won't be right even when the F/A-18 is released. Your argument boils down to whether you can decide what aircraft is next based on the current facts, which nobody can.

[GGTharos]

My question is, why so much secrecy from ED?

 

My possible answers:

1) they are not 100% sure it will happen.

2) it's not going to be what the community is hoping for (be it eagle, viper or hornet). In that case they'll loose support (people will stop buying extra copies of what's available now and later P51, nevada, etc. to support DCS:Multirole fighter).

 

I don't think either of these would be a real possibility. Just about any western jet that ED makes will be wanted by /some/ part of the community anyway.

 

3) to keep the business plan secret from competitors (who? I'm sure that anybody really, commercially, interested in knowing what ED is busy with, have means to find out).

4) keep everybody expectant to keep the interest high. It's beeing way too long and some people will be delighted and others very disappointed.

5) they don't know yet. They may have a bunch of bits and pieces that eventually could make one plane or another.

 

If nothing of this, why keeping the secret for longer?

 

Any and all of these (and potentially some reasons no one is thinking of) could be potential reasons to some degree.

 

For sure, one of them is being roasted for talking about things too early, and then having to change plans.

[Phantom88]

GGTharos...." For sure, one of them is being roasted for talking about things too early, and then having to change plans."

 

Apache?:D

[GGTharos]

I guess you -could- say that. Some years ago ED posted a lineup of modules and the order they'd like to do them in (or no particular order, I forget which ... ) but things didn't turn out that way - ie. plans changed, the DCS A-10A became an A-10C, and the Apache had to be pushed back. Again, IIRC and AFAIK. It's just an example of stuff like that.

 

GGTharos...." For sure, one of them is being roasted for talking about things too early, and then having to change plans."

 

Apache?:D

[jp203000]

Can hacker gain access to ED's computers and steal some pictures from their computers and post here.

LoL!!!!!!!!!

[IceFire]

Man, that was truly funny. You should be a stand-up comedian :-)

 

 

 

While I do not enjoy being paraphrased and stuff taken out of context.. That comment was merely stating that Others have and ARE creating a very realistic F18 simulation. And your perception is what allows you to believe that a simulation is realistic or not. and the information for building a F/A-18/E is out there and available.. my WIKI comment was to be taken for what it was worth.

 

 

And there's where you go wrong. We don't want MSFS. We want virtual instruments simulated to REALITY. Not some guess at what they might be. Thats the reason I stick with DCS.

 

If I wanted a GUESS, I could just download the F-35 mod for MSFS or whatever cheap sim. There's already a cheap SuperBug sim out for MSFS if I recall anyway.

 

 

Again my point is a SIMULATION that you PERCIEVE to be realistic. Get the picture ?

 

Your perception allows you to believe that an A10 Simulation from ED is the best there is as far as simulation goes.. everything works, the plane flys correctly blah blah blah... But that is just to your perception.. An actual A10 Pilot may decide that its unrealistic and unflyable. Same with FSX... I believe that FSX is one of the most real sims out there (with the propper addons and planes) but is unflyable as a real simulation with the default program.

 

Your perception is the Same perception that my 5 year old gets when he flys FSX on game mode... OMG DADDY I'M FLYING ITS SO REAL !!

 

Thats what makes perception amazing and also a liability

[PlainSight]

Next aircraft must be F-18 . Other aircraft will be total shit like mustang.

 

:thumbup: +1rep for the truth

[Jona33]

While I do not enjoy being paraphrased and stuff taken out of context.. That comment was merely stating that Others have and ARE creating a very realistic F18 simulation. And your perception is what allows you to believe that a simulation is realistic or not. and the information for building a F/A-18/E is out there and available.. my WIKI comment was to be taken for what it was worth.

 

 

 

 

 

Again my point is a SIMULATION that you PERCIEVE to be realistic. Get the picture ?

 

Your perception allows you to believe that an A10 Simulation from ED is the best there is as far as simulation goes.. everything works, the plane flys correctly blah blah blah... But that is just to your perception.. An actual A10 Pilot may decide that its unrealistic and unflyable. Same with FSX... I believe that FSX is one of the most real sims out there (with the propper addons and planes) but is unflyable as a real simulation with the default program.

 

Your perception is the Same perception that my 5 year old gets when he flys FSX on game mode... OMG DADDY I'M FLYING ITS SO REAL !!

 

Thats what makes perception amazing and also a liability

 

If there is information available from wiki on everything then how come ED had to ask the militaries permission to model certain parts of the aircraft. "We had to write a big list of everything we wanted to model for the 'Whoever it was' to read and then they told us where to back off a bit."

 

We know DCS A-10 is real because REAL world pilots have flown it and used it for their training. The military wouldn't buy something that isn't realistic would they.

 

@Paraglider, in my respectful opinion, bullsh*t. :D The mustang will be great fun. There's plenty of people wanting it. Read the announcement thread.

[92nd-MajorBug]

We know DCS A-10 is real because REAL world pilots have flown it and used it for their training. The military wouldn't buy something that isn't realistic would they.

AFAIK the version bought by the USAF/ANG/whatever doesn't include a flight model, only the avionics

[Jona33]

AFAIK the version bought by the USAF doesn't include a flight model, only the avionics

 

I was talking about avionics. Still AFAIK various US pilots did fly it and say the flight model was very good.

[Impact]

We should organize some kind of lottery, and if someone guesses the plane right, he gets a free copy of the simulation :lol:

[Scoggs]

 

We know DCS A-10 is real because REAL world pilots have flown it and used it for their training. The military wouldn't buy something that isn't realistic would they.

 

@Paraglider, in my respectful opinion, bullsh*t. :D The mustang will be great fun. There's plenty of people wanting it. Read the announcement thread.

 

Do you honestly think that they would be allowed to release the exact software the military uses?

[EtherealN]

Further, the military buys things for purposes different to the consumers. The A-10C flight model was, if I remember right, not included in the DTS. They don't need it for a procedure trainer aimed at being a conversion trainer for existing A-10A pilots that are converting to Charlies - they already know how to fly the plane!

 

(Which incidentally can serve as a reminder to people who think the consumer market is just an afterthought for ED. It isn't. It's important, and major pieces of the software is developed specifically for it. Those who aren't above doing some digging in archives can probably find some interviews with Matt on the topic.)

[Zakatak]

Is the AV-8B Harrier II+ out of the question for the next sim? Fixed-wing, US aircraft, never done before, definite possibility. Having both the VRS Superbug and DCS Super Hornet out seems... redundant. Same is true for me if we got DCS Falcon (thanks to the new BMS Falcon 4).

[Frostiken]

All things considered, I think the avionics modeling is probably the most nightmarish part of making these aircraft. You're basically programming a computer to work within a computer alongside other fake computers, inside a game.

 

If you guys are doing the F-15E... may god have mercy on your souls.

[Zakatak]

I say when the US Fixedwing is done, we throw the A-10C, USFW, Ka-50, and (clickable) SU-25/T, as well as every square inch of terrain done thus far, put it all in one game and call it DCS: Lock-on. Then any aircraft done after that is just added in with DLC.

[EtherealN]

Well, the key there is that you don't really have to "simulate" the computer in the truest sense of the word. You need to have the correct input give the correct output, and then find a good way to abstract the more computation-intensive parts of that. But yes, agreed, most people grossly underestimate the effort required to create DCS-level avionics modeling.

[Scoggs]

All things considered, I think the avionics modeling is probably the most nightmarish part of making these aircraft. You're basically programming a computer to work within a computer alongside other fake computers, inside a game.

 

If you guys are doing the F-15E... may god have mercy on your souls.

 

Inception Meme popped in to my head there.

[ALDEGA]

The point GG is trying to get across to you is that NO website, anywhere, can be treated as an accurate source of data for any in service aircraft.

The official Kamov website doesn't even show the correct number of crew for the Ka-50 ... :D

[Spook]

DCS Phantom F-4