Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Frostiken]

... and that's the end of that discussion.

 

It works if you think of it as a metaphor for the Cold War.

[Booger]

BMS completely changed the fighter scene these couple of months, we can't go past that. So why buy something when BMS does the same thing way better for basically free? Cos once you know one "teen" fighter, you know'em all.

 

I agree. The opportunity for ED to make a significant impact on the Falcon community is gone. Adding insult to injury, it's the type of aircraft people want (fast mover). Adding high fidelity to the dynamic campaign Falcon is well known for, I don't see Falcon folks coming over in waves.

 

I wouldn't say "way better". Falcon's strength is it's DC. ED's strength is it's aircraft fidelity. While both fail at landscape (currently), it's left to which you prefer in the end.

 

All is subjective and folks will more than likely follow where their friends go.

 

But that's a completely different topic. To be honest, I'm not sure why the pro-BMS light was brought here in such a detailed way.

 

DCS fighter will have to do so much more, especially after FC3, where those planes and cockpits will look even more similar to DCS series.

 

Let's be real here. The main selling point of FC is the online capability with DCS aircraft. It's a necessary evil (due to the lack of aircraft in the DCS inventory) that I'm sure ED would love to get rid of.

 

I now sincerely believe ED should work only on FC3, bringing all those fighters in one game and as detailed as possible, with working cockpits, 6dof,... They don't have to be crazy-detailed like the A10c, sheer number of planes available should make it worth it. mig 29 and su30 on one one side, fa18 and f15 on the other, plus addon planes afterwards. If done well, it wouldn't matter what the competition does, because lomac is still the only game with russian jets.

 

Absolutely not. If DCS aircraft are to be pushed out faster, it should be because they have more manpower, not because of the lack of realism.

[VFA41_Lion]

A-10C is close air support... F-15E, F-16, and F/A-18 can not do it as well because they can't really do low and slow with a titanium bathtub for protection. What the Strike Eagle can do is precision strikes on fixed targets really well, or carpet bombing. The Falcon and the Hornet are capable of air cover, suppression of enemy air defences, strike, and pretty much everything in between, though the Hornet can also serve as tankers and dedicated electronic warfare planes.

 

The A-10 can only really do close air support. Strike would be possible if in the mission editor we could place groups of structures rather than just one structure at a time *hint hint*

[VincentLaw]

Let's be real here. The main selling point of FC is the online capability with DCS aircraft. It's a necessary evil (due to the lack of aircraft in the DCS inventory) that I'm sure ED would love to get rid of.

 

I agree, I was hoping the FC line would eventually be phased out, but it looks like that will not be able to happen for a long time. Now when I say that I am sure a bunch of people immediately want to pounce, so I will expand that statement, keeping the word "phase" in mind.

 

If you think of three difficulty and fidelity levels, Low, Medium, and High, you can think of DCS as including Low and High, and FC as including Medium. If ED made a DCS: Su-33 though, they have already done Medium, so then they could make one product that has Low Medium and High for less effort than starting from scratch. That would satisfy more people, and hopefully not scare medium people away when they imagine the unnecessary option of putting it on high.

 

Now the only thing that is missing, and certainly a large appeal of FC, is getting a bundle of airplanes. For that of course, you can imagine that the older DCS module sales will start dropping over time, Often times when you go to the store, you will see multipacks of several movies or games sold together as one unit, like an "anthology" or something. So at some point in the future years from now, there may be a "DCS Anthology: Flaming Cliffs" that includes all of the (now DCS) FC airplanes with a value price, and everyone should be happy. That is just an example though, you could bundle anything together as you see fit.

 

Then of course it brings up the problem of having to exit the program and restart to switch airplanes, which I imagine can be fixed at some point (although not without a large amount of effort), but this probably all belongs in a different thread. I'm not really sure what this thread is good for though so...

 

...On topic: DCS: AT-802U would be cool.

 

For all the people arguing about why ED should/should not make a multirole aircraft. Keep in mind that a multirole airplane will never be as good as a (well designed) specialized airplane (in its specialty). So people are going to buy DCS: F-18 and naturally not perform as well as people in other planes. A-10 is better at CAS, F-15C is better air superiority, MiG-31 is better at bomber interception... I think you get the point. Certainly it is fun to be able to do everything at once, but I don't think that multirole is market suicide when the multirole plane will be consistently outperformed in certain areas.

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Not really, and here I'll give Frostiken some credit:

 

Most people WILL pick the multirole fighter as they tend to find that more fun. That said, there's still a pretty good market out there for specific purposed aircraft as well.

 

What happens in an online server really depends on how the mission is set up, you could have a scenario where two eagles have to defend against eight russian aircraft (real scenario practiced by USAF, IIRC up to 4 fighters, up to 4 strikers).

[Booger]

Now the only thing that is missing, and certainly a large appeal of FC, is getting a bundle of airplanes. For that of course, you can imagine that the older DCS module sales will start dropping over time, Often times when you go to the store, you will see multipacks of several movies or games sold together as one unit, like an "anthology" or something. So at some point in the future years from now, there may be a "DCS Anthology: Flaming Cliffs" that includes all of the (now DCS) FC airplanes with a value price, and everyone should be happy. That is just an example though, you could bundle anything together as you see fit.

 

+1

 

This is exactly what will be faced eventually. While there are promos currently to stimulate new sales, the burden of obsolete airframes isn't much of a factor. The Shark for all intents & purposes may have been "trumped" by the A-10, it's still unique enough.

 

Once the multi-role is introduced, what you said is exactly what I would expect to see happen.

 

For all the people arguing about why ED should/should not make a multirole aircraft. Keep in mind that a multirole airplane will never be as good as a (well designed) specialized airplane (in its specialty). So people are going to buy DCS: F-18 and naturally not perform as well as people in other planes. A-10 is better at CAS, F-15C is better air superiority, MiG-31 is better at bomber interception... I think you get the point. Certainly it is fun to be able to do everything at once, but I don't think that multirole is market suicide when the multirole plane will be consistently outperformed in certain areas.

 

His argument is based on real world costs (as he explained). Of course multi-role is cheaper in the long run, it's a no-brainer...but in contrast that's comparing apples to clipped toenails in a virtual world.

 

Multi-role isn't suicide as you put it. Yes a multi-role plane would bring in big revenue. It's the the difference between fast cash & long term revenue. If ED were to release a Hornet or Falcon, the only real big money maker would be the other or the eastern equivalent. That's a window of maybe 6 years or so, hardly something I would like my retirement plan based upon.

 

It's simple supply & demand. If there's no demand for an air superiority fighter after they release a multi-role one, why would they invest in making it? To please fanboys? I'm sure they wouldn't mind if say, a private contract stirred their interest. The chances of that? Highly unlikely.

 

In the same breath, yeah you would want to ensure you don't miss the window of golden opportunity. BMS as I understand also has carrier ops implemented as well as an F-16 with an F/A-18 skin. I'm sure hard choices have/will be made.

 

Of course, numbers could be off a bit, but it's still short-term focus. It's also based off of the current technology. Beyond the scope of aircraft alone, Plainsight wasn't wrong when he suggested that ED will eventually have to "wow" us again. This is obviously well known or else they wouldn't bother with Combined Arms.

 

It's a difficult battle to obtain customers, but it's an even harder battle to retain them over time.

 

Now, if they can do all of that & step up their production...

[Grimes]

Between all of the major teen fighters and their variants I think each has enough unique aspects to be marketable regardless if one of the others was already released. Part of it relies on how many products we get between the releases. For example if we get either the F-16 or F-18 followed by 2 different Russian fighters, or anything non-American, then the appetite for another teen fighter would certainly exist. It simply doesn't make sense to make any teen fighter to be directly followed by another teen fighter.

 

Personally I want to see a multi-role simply for the options it provides. I love doing CAS and SEAD, but I also enjoy air 2 air combat. I also like the idea that it gives me more options for mission building but actually limits some of the capabilities due to it not "being the best". With both the F-16/F-18 you must make a trade-off decision when tasked with CAS/SEAD roles regarding your mission capable payload.

[Booger]

I don't think that holds true Grimes. If you were talking multi-role specifically, I would completely agree with you. Since your statement blankets "teens", I think one would impact the other.

 

Let's strip away all the nonsense and look at it with a quick Q & A...

 

If the F-15 were offered next, would folks buy it? I think the majority of folks would. After Black Shark, there was a demand for fixed wing, which the A-10 has filled very nicely. Now the mob is hungry for a fast mover.

 

If a multi-role were offered next, would folks buy it? Hell yes (can I get an amen?).

 

If the F-15 were offered AFTER the release of a multi-role (near or distant future), would folks buy it? I don't think there would be a high demand for it.

[Phantom88]

If ED/TFC are going to base their Next Module decision on customer interest/Demand than Naval Ops would be the right choice.A F/A-18 Legacy or Rhino would be an incredibly big seller and generate even more interest from the casual flight simmer and give DCS customers a new aspect to the the game.Naval Operations.

Can you say"Rhino.......Call The Ball"?

[ALF7]

100% F-18...

[Wuber]

Hi guys,

 

I'm new, so that means I haven't read everything, so go easy on the responses.

 

First of all, I like to say dat I hope the F-15 is being made in the DCS games. I like the F14 and I like the F18 a bit less, but I truly think those planes are milked dry. Flight simulator has them and when I was growing up I saw them a lot in flightsims of that time. I kind of got bored of them.

Second of all, there is no such thing as overrealistic flightsims. For people who will never make or never want to become a real pilot in the air force, but love realisme in games, this is great. In my opinion, this is as real as it is going to get.

 

I also read about that people want a multirole fighter and that someone said it is not proffitable enough for ED to do so. I agree with that someone. If you don't buil it up en you put a multirole fighter on the market, you lose a lot of customers. Let's be real. People want multirole fighters, because they want to be able to do everything at once and be able to switch role at any second, like for example in playing first person shooters online. No specialization. If they can do everything already, whats the use of buying the rest.

 

I believe I even read that someone disagreed, because he said that people would buy the games anyway, because a multirole fighter wasn't specialized in a speciffic role and therefore pull customers so they can be better at a single role and so have your own role in a team. I disagree. I have seen games made so they had to word in a team. Nobody did it and went of to fight for theyre own killstreaks. If you have a multirole fighter thats exactly what is going to happen. People are going to be interested in their own scores and don't give a crap about the big picture. Why would they, they can do everything on theire own and don't care about the rest. They don't even know them anyway. Multirole fighters will destroy teamspirrit. Unless they are in a clan or with a bunch of friends or something.

 

Hope you were able to follow me :P Probably not haha. But anyway, this is my opinion. By the way, I'm not english so there is a lot of misspelling in here :P

[Frostiken]

A F/A-18 Legacy or Rhino would be an incredibly big seller and generate even more interest from the casual flight simmer and give DCS customers a new aspect to the the game.

 

Claiming 'casual simmers' would be 'incredibly' interested in the F/A-18 is a bold claim. The aircraft is as obscure, boring, and underwhelming as you can get. It's never broken any useful records and it's always sort of been a second-line unit in any conflict it's been in. In fact, the only thing you can actually claim about it that's noteworthy in a combat capacity is that it has at least attended most wars, and it's carrier-capable.

 

You can like the F/A-18 all you want, but I'm utterly bewildered about where all this perception of massive fandom surrounding it is coming from, like it's the most well-known fighter in the world. Anything useful you can say about the F/A-18's combat history, according to the wikipedia page, basically ends the exact moment the Gulf War did. If you compared fighter aircraft to cars, the F/A-18 ain't exactly a Bugatti Veyron. Or a McLaren F1. Or even a supercar. It's more like a used BMW.

 

Naval Operations.

Three seconds for the catapult to throw you off the front. Three seconds to stop once you hit the deck. I'm not seeing this as being the revolution that completely changes the game that people insist it will be. 99.9% of the game is still you flying around above some sort of planar surface you can't touch without exploding, dropping bombs on bad things or shooting missiles or bullets at other bad things. Simply being more air-capable than the A-10 adds significantly more than where you take off and land from does, and that's a fact. Edited February 22, 2012 by Frostiken

[Wuber]

Quote:

Naval Operations.

Like I said, stop beating this drum. Unless they've invented a submersible aircraft 'naval operations' involves three seconds for the catapult to throw you off the front, and a couple minutes to line up your approach and three seconds for you to stop. 99.9% of the game is still you flying around above some sort of planar surface you can't touch without exploding, dropping bombs on bad things or shooting missiles or bullets at other bad things.

 

 

 

How true.

[GGTharos]

Claiming 'casual simmers' would be 'incredibly' interested in the F/A-18 is a bold claim.

 

They're pretty interested.

 

The aircraft is as obscure, boring, and underwhelming as you can get. It's never broken any useful records and it's always sort of been a second-line unit in any conflict it's been in.

 

There are a bunch of countries using it as their front-line unit ;)

 

In fact, the only thing you can actually claim about it that's noteworthy in a combat capacity is that it has at least attended most wars, and it's carrier-capable.

 

Not to mention the only multirole fighter so far to actually do something multirole: Shoot down a pair of MiGs and carry on to blow their ground target.

 

You can like the F/A-18 all you want, but I'm utterly bewildered about where all this perception of massive fandom surrounding it is coming from, like it's the most well-known fighter in the world. Anything useful you can say about the F/A-18's combat history, according to the wikipedia page, basically ends the exact moment the Gulf War did. If you compared fighter aircraft to cars, the F/A-18 ain't exactly a Bugatti Veyron. Or a McLaren F1. Or even a supercar. It's more like a used BMW.

 

You can dislike the hornet all you want, but there's no denying that plenty of people like it. ;)

[robmypro]

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.

 

I have the original spiral bound manual from 1998. The Falcon is just an incredible simulation. The thing that is great about the F-16 is the multi-role capability. We once did an online campaign (it lasted 2 weeks and ran in real-time) and every mission was different. Sometimes we'd have to take out ground forces, and then we'd do SEAD. The bastards would be rebuilding a bridge we just took out a few days earlier.

 

It's really a war simulation with a balls to the walls F-16 sim thrown in for good measure. DCS sims are the same level, which is a huge compliment. And BMS just upped the stakes big time with a new graphics engine, 3d clickable cockpit, and more. It's brilliant.

[Phantom88]

Frostiken,I wish I had a dollar for every Battlefield3 SuperHornet Carrier Launch that's posted on You-Tube,I'd be a rich,rich man.Yes,It's my opinion that Gamers,Casual flight simmers as well as hard-core DCS/BMS Study Sim Types would flock here in Droves to buy a DCS High Fidelity F/A-18C or E.

 

As for your opinion as it's limited role in recent Wars I believe it's record speaks for itself,It's been successful in Multirole SEAD with The AGM88 Harm Missile in the 1st and 2nd Gulf War as well as pinpoint strikes on ground targets and A/A Mig Kills.

 

The F/A-18 is "The Fist of The Fleet"and The Fleet knows no boundaries.Naval Ops would be incredible immersion and really open up DCS to a whole new aspect.Along with Carrier Launch and recovery there's also Hornet to Hornet Air refueling,Anti-Ship missions,Anti-Sub missions and Carrier Defense.

 

Really I'd be Equally as Happy if DCS Announced tomorrow that the next module was a F-15E Strike Eagle,I've loved The MudHen since my Jane's Strike Eage days.But it's my opinion that a Naval Aircraft would be more appealing to a broader audience and generate more interest and in turn more Daddy WarBuck$ for ED/TFC.

[VincentLaw]

I disagree. I have seen games made so they had to word in a team. Nobody did it and went of to fight for theyre own killstreaks. If you have a multirole fighter thats exactly what is going to happen. People are going to be interested in their own scores and don't give a crap about the big picture.

 

This is kind of my point though, if people want kill streaks they are going to want to fly DCS: F-22, not a multirole fighter. That is at least until DCS has players driving tanks. I have played games where the objective is not based around how many kills you get, but there are a lot of people that will ignore the goal and just try to get as many player kills as possible anyway. These people won't care if their airplane has bombs on it or not.

 

(for anyone that has a problem with F-22: insert "Best Fighter X" instead)

 

On the other hand, in the single player environment where there is not such a rush for player killing, people will probably lean more towards multirole. This is probably where most of ED's customers spend most of their time anyway.

 

@ Frostiken: I would be just as happy with DCS: Su-33 or Rafale M in place of an F-18. Those 3 seconds make a difference for me, but maybe I am just weird. F-35B kind of takes half the fun out of it too.

[GGTharos]

This is kind of my point though, if people want kill streaks they are going to want to fly DCS: F-22, not a multirole fighter. That is at least until DCS has players driving tanks.

 

Then we'll be blowing up airborne threats to the tanks - and the striker pilots will continue to complain that we're just after 'kills streaks' and attacking 'poor defenseless strikers' who 'are just killing grounds things and not doing any harm' etc etc.

[OutOnTheOP]

Since when does the Hornet have anti-submarine capabilities?

 

Also, Hornet-to-Hornet AAR is a cute trick, but it's not as though the procedure is significantly different from refueling off a KC10 (or 135 with the adapter)... unless you mean flying the tanker Hornet, and that would be *almost* as tedious as an SR71 simulator (another aircraft whose appeal I cannot fathom)

 

I will grant that the Hornet does open up one (just one) additional mission profile you wouldn't get with most other fighters: standoff anti-shipping.

 

I won't comment on whether the Hornet is attractive to some gamers; I only know whether it's attractive to me, or not. Personally, I go with 'not'. As has been pointed out before, nothing about it's performance or capabilities is exactly unique, nor is it the "best" at much of anything. It does everything, but it does it in a mediocre manner. And "carrier operations" may be kind of neat for a minute or two, but frankly, there's not that much procedurally different from a standard landing run-in, except you're coming in steeper and leave out the flare. It's nothing I'd get excited about. Especially if they model the automated approach systems. At least in the A-10, you have to fly your approach for yourself!

[joey45]

I hope ED won't only focus on US airframes but get to do some Eurpean stuff aswel as some Russian gear aswel..

Edited February 22, 2012 by joey45

[GGTharos]

It'll out-alpha the daylights out of just about anything else that's it's peer.

 

As has been pointed out before, nothing about it's performance or capabilities is exactly unique, nor is it the "best" at much of anything.

[Zakatak]

"Any fighter is better then the Hornet for any given situation, but no fighter is better then the Hornet for any situation given." - anonymous

 

I'm biased towards the legacy Hornet mainly because I'm Canadian. Although I don't see how the Hornet could possibly be a "bad" option. It can do pretty much any role, it can operate land or sea, night or day. There is little to no classified information regarded its systems. If DCS takes the Super Hornet route, then the Navy can use it to train pilots (like the A-10C). People say "carrier ops, nuthin' special", but I would personally love to land in peasoup fog at night going off nothing but my instruments, wouldn't you? Even if carrier ops aren't your thing, they can always include a Canadian/other campaign. I suppose limited ammunition and range could be a problem, but I don't mind having to refuel/reload halfway through a mission providing the carrier is relatively close to shore. I haven't had to refuel for the sake of safety in an Eagle Dynamics game yet (only for a challenge). So ya, that's my defense for DCS Hornet.

 

Warning, honest opinion ahead! I love the F-15/22, but the idea of being limited to one country, one role, one branch bores me. If we get something that isn't the Hornet (preferably legacy), give me the Mudhen or AV-8B+. Strike Eagle is the sexiest plane ever made, and no Harrier sim exists since Jet Thunder is pretty much dead.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Zakatak

[Frostiken]

It'll out-alpha the daylights out of just about anything else that's it's peer.

 

Unfortunately it can't take that much advantage of that. Poor G-loading means you can't take advantage of high-AOA at any significant speed, and engines that are barely more powerful than the A-10s means that if your enemy counters your loss of speed by throwing on the gas and climbing, the F/A-18 can't really do much to stop them.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Frostiken

[FWind]

in TBS have it AC-130U

http://www.thebattlesim.com/index.php?scr=news&news_sid=19&lang=en&end_pos=3

[GGTharos]

The first statement is patently untrue. 7.5g is quite adequate for a lot of BFM. Dogfights can mature very quickly and get low and slow, or at least slow -and the hornet has plenty of advantage there. Sure, you're limited to gunning the bandit on the first turn if he puts on the gas, but that doesn't necessarily mean the fight's over.

 

Throw in missiles too and the opposition starts having a harder time.

 

This air to air combat stuff isn't so black and white.

 

Unfortunately it can't take that much advantage of that. Poor G-loading means you can't take advantage of high-AOA at any significant speed, and engines that are barely more powerful than the A-10s means that if your enemy counters your loss of speed by throwing on the gas and climbing, the F/A-18 can't really do much to stop them.