Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Frostiken]

DCS Phantom F-4

 

Close.

 

[213]

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.

 

protip: when someone says that kind of thing, they should follow up with an explanation as to why.

[Cornbread]

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.

 

Dude, so meta! You just blew my mind grapes.

[213]

that would have been more clever and honest without the tautology. a computer within a computer was enough. the addition of "game" was superfluous.

 

also, it's not that other computers besides the players' is modeled. the other aircraft operations do not function like the players'

[Zakatak]

protip: when someone says that kind of thing, they should follow up with an explanation as to why.

 

protip: when someone says that kind of thing, they should follow up with an explanation as to why.

 

I would just prefer it. Wouldn't you?

 

What seems more efficient:

- Flaming Cliffs

- Black Shark

- Flamings Cliffs 2

+ Compatibility patch

- DCS A-10C

+ Compatibility patch

- Black Shark 2

+ Compatibility patch

- Flamings Cliffs 3

 

60$ for each iteration, each a slight improvement in graphics/gameplay over the last. Why not this?

 

- DCS Lockon

+ Black Shark

+ Map Extensions

+ Su-25 (new flight model)

+ A-10C

+ Nevada

+ Black Shark 2 additions

+ Flaming Cliffs 3 additions

+ F/A-18? (guessing here)

 

The main game being 40$ (with Flaming Cliffs equipment), with each new aircraft being another 30$ (10$ for terrain/other). Graphics and otherwise being updated continously and free.

[PlainSight]

^That's how ROF grows, from a buggy game to the top sim, with continuous development and constant flow of quality stuff. It's very simple to update, works great and everything is in one place. It wouldn't be possible to include all this stuff in the first release.

 

ED should pull all these iterations together under one roof, before releasing even more.

[206 Burner VR]

Only hornet can win pussy's ! :D

[FWind]

An updated F15 or a new F16or/and F14! would be nice. And needed I think.

the F14 is best

[206 Burner VR]

the F14 is best

 

correct ... F-14 is awesome but F-18 must win :D

[JS]

You are both wrong, in the order of greatness the list of the "Big Four" is:

 

1. F-15

2. F-14

3. F-16

4. F-18

 

:music_whistling:

Edited February 19, 2012 by JS

[Boberro]

F-16 pwns all :D

[MTFDarkEagle]

Harrier.

 

If that isn't going to be the one, F-18 (preferably an early version).

[Jona33]

Harrier.

 

If that isn't going to be the one, F-18 (preferably an early version).

 

I can dream.

[robmypro]

I would like to change my vote. Now that i have had a chance to check out BMS Falcon i would rather see an F/A-18 instead. BMS just killed the F-16 for me. It is amazing.

[Booger]

BMS killed the Falcon for you. It is amazing?

 

Huh what?

[robmypro]

BMS killed the Falcon for you. It is amazing?

 

Huh what?

 

It killed any desire i have to explore it in another sim. In other words, i wouldn't purchase a DCS version of it, since it has been done well enough. Now an F/A-18...

[Pilotasso]

With all due respect, your being a bit shortsighted but, then when the SIM is released you might change your mind. :P

[Speed]

Getting a F-16C in DCS would be sorta like reuniting with an old friend. I sure as hell wouldn't mind.

[joey45]

I will buy the F/A-18 module IF they do FAA colours for it.

[Phantom88]

I would like to change my vote. Now that i have had a chance to check out BMS Falcon i would rather see an F/A-18 instead. BMS just killed the F-16 for me. It is amazing.

 

That's quite a compliment for a sim that's,What? 14 yrs old now?

That IS Amazing.I've heard this now from several people,there has to be some truth to it.

[PlainSight]

I would like to change my vote. Now that i have had a chance to check out BMS Falcon i would rather see an F/A-18 instead. BMS just killed the F-16 for me. It is amazing.

 

Until BMS puts out THEIR fa-18 :devil:

 

They're so close, i did some traps with included fa18, but it's not finished YET.

[Booger]

While I would agree that BMS put out a nice product (I fly it too), I don't think it's the end-all-be-all of F-16s. I just can't see it being as simple as that (and really, it never is).

 

Unless ED & BMS are shaking hands at some kind of compatibility capability (yeah, no), you're leaving out a very large piece of the picture. Really, with that same reasoning, DCS: Hornet shouldn't be made because of VRS' product.

 

:doh:

 

In respect to the topic, I think that focusing strictly on the F-16 & F-18 is equally shortsighted. If ED releases either one of the multi-role airframes, it's safe to assume it'll impact future A-10 sales, leaving it pretty much to the die-hard Hog fans.

 

If a dedicated air superiority aircraft is released (F-15C), there's no encroaching between the roles, leaving an incentive to purchase/upgrade both.

 

Why?

 

It's a no-brainer that the typical modern military aviation simmer wants a fighter. The market has and no doubt will continue to demand it. What would be the incentive for the average desktop pilot to buy/upgrade the A-10 if the F-16/18 is released? Why would a new (or old) player buy the F-15 later if the 16/18 is released? Further, do you think the A-10 would have sold as well as it has if the 16/18 had been made before it?

 

My guess is hell no.

 

It wouldn't be much of a surprise if ED as a company capitalize on it for the sake of longevity. Nonetheless, it'll be interesting to find out what decision was made...someday...or I might get fed up with this crap since DCS isn't the only modern high fidelity sim on the market anymore :music_whistling:

 

While I too am hopeful that the next aircraft is the F-16 or F-18 for my own selfish reasons, smart forward thinking points to the F-15C. DCS: Eagle would be aok in my book.

 

So yes I agree that it shouldn't be the F-16, the justification certainly isn't solely because of BMS.

[PlainSight]

Naval ops are now the only unexplored area left, since A10c and F16 cover the rest. There hasn't been a dedicated naval game a LONG time and people want new stuff besides the usual combat and avionics.

[Frostiken]

If a dedicated air superiority aircraft is released (F-15C), there's no encroaching between the roles, leaving an incentive to purchase/upgrade both.

 

Two problems:

 

1) There's zero market whatsoever for a military product for the F-15C. Nobody is buying them anymore. They're getting very old, their role is fairly marginalized by other aircraft at this point, and their expiration date is rapidly approaching. The airframe is done and in twenty years probably will have been retired completely.

 

2) The simulation aspect of that would be niche at best, even with the market around here. "Not a pound for air to ground" means... what, flying around in circles, pickling off a few AMRAAMs, and flying home. Modern air engagements are not what you see in WW2 where you have two dozen planes swirling around and the combat lasts for a few minutes. It's short and brutal. You'd have to have players facing laughably implausible numbers of enemies to make any sortie interesting for most players, in the realm of air-quake. Any realistic scenario would have you spending more time waiting for INS to align than you would ever spend in a dogfight.

 

Frankly, I think the F-15C works just fine as a Lock-On module simply because there just isn't very much that that aircraft does.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Frostiken

[GGTharos]

2) The simulation aspect of that would be niche at best, even with the market around here. "Not a pound for air to ground" means... what, flying around in circles, pickling off a few AMRAAMs, and flying home.

 

I don't know where you play, but at least online A2A is fairly big.

 

You'd have to have players facing laughably implausible numbers of enemies to make any sortie interesting for most players, in the realm of air-quake. Any realistic scenario would have you spending more time waiting for INS to align than you would ever spend in a dogfight.

 

And? How does that stop anyone from enjoying an F-15C in a flight sim? You may as well say that there's no market for MSFS ;)