Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[blkspade]

I imagine something like a coop mode w/ a two seated aircraft (F-15E perhaps?), one playing the pilot, one the RIO/WSO.

 

That's more practical, but you know what everyone really wants is server with a squadron of dual seaters. Besides creating a separate 2 player only experience would be counter intuitive to the less fragmented design of DCS World.

[arteedecco]

On the surface, multiplayer dual seat aircraft sounds so awesome. Then I can imagine the nightmare ED trying to implement it on top of the potential netcode issues...

 

Okay, so help me out. I've been ruminating on your post...

 

What am I missing... ARMA does this without issue. Yes... serious lack of systems fidelity... so is that where they get the "savings" in lag / performance they need to make it possible?

 

And even more simple... what about all the other (much older) sims that allow multi-human playable craft (WWII games with bombers and gunners, etc... no noticeable issues).

 

And how is this different from BF series... all the way back to BF1942, BF2... and on.

 

What is the difference between the problems all those other titles have faced / overcome and what ED is up against for multi-human playable craft?

 

Thanks for the insight.

[AngryBird]

P-8 Poseidon Possible In DCS?

 

 

If you know the P-8 then you know its awesome for those of you who don't already know of its awesomeness see this.

 

I was recently looking for a P-8 in FSX thought that maybe there would have been a modification to the PMDG 737 NGX but have yet to have had any joy in doing so. This got me thinking, DCS being a very versatile format for such an aircraft this could be an absolutely brilliant module.

 

Let me know what you guys think. :thumbup:

 

AB

[Stealth_Eagle]

Yes, it is possible but unlikely that anyone will make it since it is not a "mainstream" aircraft and this fact applies to bombers (think B-52) since there would only be a handful of us flying them.

[Hubris]

Do you mean flyable or just in game?

[schroedi]

Making a flyable anti submarine aircraft wouldn't make any sense because there is no water modeled in DCS (real water not only the surface). If you want to control an ASW aircraft buy Dangerous Waters, there you can sit down in P-3 Orion or in a MH-60 Seahawk and hunt for subs or surface ships. I admit that Dangerous Waters is nowhere near realistic as DCS planes like the A-10C or the Ka-50 but compared to the "radar engine" in DCS I think they did quite well with the underwater "acustic engine" in Dangerous Waters.

Edited April 25, 2013 by schroedi

[VIKBELL]

I would love to have B-52.

[The_Pharoah]

Russian planes are ugly, horrible, color is color old refrigerator : (

 

lol totally agree. Same thing for the passenger jets.

[IonicRipper]

I like the Russian jets but I much prefer the American cockpits and avionics, they're so much better IMO.

[AngryBird]

I would love to see heavies in DCS among them a AC-130 comes to mind as does the B-52 and many more it would be sweet if subs were modeled in DCS.

[blkspade]

Okay, so help me out. I've been ruminating on your post...

 

What am I missing... ARMA does this without issue. Yes... serious lack of systems fidelity... so is that where they get the "savings" in lag / performance they need to make it possible?

 

And even more simple... what about all the other (much older) sims that allow multi-human playable craft (WWII games with bombers and gunners, etc... no noticeable issues).

 

And how is this different from BF series... all the way back to BF1942, BF2... and on.

 

What is the difference between the problems all those other titles have faced / overcome and what ED is up against for multi-human playable craft?

 

Thanks for the insight.

 

Having played quite a bit of arma the experience is far from perfect, and largely dependent on player latency. My opinion is also based on observing the oddities in the DCS engine as far as multiplayer behavior. The fact that all the games you've mentioned were designed for such functionality from the get go, as opposed to it being an afterthought. Also the fidelity of a DCS title would lots more information transmitted back and forth between crew members then any of those other titles would call for.

[dr_After]

Poseidon would be useless without good submarine campaign and environment. I love Dangerous Waters - although it is mainly sim of submarines and sensors, the aircraft model is very basic - all fun is in playing seek and hide using sonobuoys, towed arrays, sonars, thermal layers, etc. It's a whole new world, so I don't think it will be ever implemented in DCS.

[arteedecco]

... based on observing the oddities in the DCS engine as far as multiplayer behavior.

What are some examples of oddities... and you're just talking from playing experience, right?

 

The fact that all the games you've mentioned were designed for such functionality from the get go, as opposed to it being an afterthought.

Yeah... why ever did they not design in MP (multi-human) playable vehicles from the beginning? I guess cause A-10C was originally based on the software they wrote for the US ANG SIM / training? So no need for MP in same craft... do I have my history right?

 

Also the fidelity of a DCS title would lots more information transmitted back and forth between crew members then any of those other titles would call for.

Hmm... see I don't think there's that much more really. Each player has the same code-base... most of what needs to get handled for fidelity is done client-side... and simply needs a state update indication from the other person in the craft.

 

So let's see... F-15E example... Backseater locks up a target on the radar... state change to pilot player... pilot player gets state change indication and their game client handles all the "fidelity" of mapping out what happens next.

 

High volumes of data back and forth between clients would come from bullets, missiles, projectiles... and aircraft and vehicle positions... configuration changes. That would be significant, but certainly nothing more than ARMA.

 

I mean... the fidelity all comes in on client side... so seems to me it's just a matter of writing the code... nothing insanely unique to DCS.

 

Is my analysis off?

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it before but...

 

How about a Mirage 2000C module? :music_whistling:

 

France replaced all of their M2000C fleet by the 2000-5, with different engine and avionics, and those are slowly being replaced by the Rafale.

 

The only country operating the Mirage 2000C ATM is Brazil, with 10 aircraft on lease, but the maintenance contract expires this December, and there are virtually no engines left for them (the production line was shut down, and France has taken all reserves for their Mirage 2000B trainers).

 

As far as I can tell, all other countries are operating customised variants with a different avionics suite, new radars, weapons and etc. (and many already fly Mirage 2000-5 and variants).

 

It's a very capable multi-role fighter with tremendous manouverability, and a plane I believe all pilots are fond of in a way or another - and now that its operators have moved on from it, I'm inclined to believe there isn't as much classified information as there is regarding current front-line fighters like the latest F-16 or F/A-18 variants.

 

Anyone here supports this proposition? Give the people a Mirage 2000 :D

[Mr_Burns]

C-130 would be good, you could have it escorted by fast movers.

[blkspade]

What are some examples of oddities... and you're just talking from playing experience, right?

 

 

Yeah... why ever did they not design in MP (multi-human) playable vehicles from the beginning? I guess cause A-10C was originally based on the software they wrote for the US ANG SIM / training? So no need for MP in same craft... do I have my history right?

 

 

Hmm... see I don't think there's that much more really. Each player has the same code-base... most of what needs to get handled for fidelity is done client-side... and simply needs a state update indication from the other person in the craft.

 

So let's see... F-15E example... Backseater locks up a target on the radar... state change to pilot player... pilot player gets state change indication and their game client handles all the "fidelity" of mapping out what happens next.

 

High volumes of data back and forth between clients would come from bullets, missiles, projectiles... and aircraft and vehicle positions... configuration changes. That would be significant, but certainly nothing more than ARMA.

 

I mean... the fidelity all comes in on client side... so seems to me it's just a matter of writing the code... nothing insanely unique to DCS.

 

Is my analysis off?

 

There are occasions we clients don't see the exact same things going in the environment, or a larger then normal delay before a change get synchronized among other players. I once somehow managed to continue flying for nearly 10mins on a server that had actually crashed. My game still seemed the think I was connected, other people were in the player list but things had become too quiet. After few unanswered chat messages I decided I would land and realized I only had basic flight control interaction. Then there's the warping, which isn't really something that can entirely be fixed as is the nature of internet gaming. But the same things that cause people in other jets to warp potentially opens the door for a whole bunch functionality issues for a shared aircraft.

 

Yeah the never had a reason before for multi-human vehicles. For the ones that could potentially be developed, ones that have limited to no overlaping/shared controls (transport chopper with door gunner) would probably be the least problematic.

 

When FC3 was brought in to the fold with DCS there was an increase of network bandwidth affecting performance and stability and server capacity. The game likely transmits everything to everybody regardless of relevance of that data between clients. My point about fidelity means an increased number of potential interactions, with some element of data attached to be shared with the crew, yet on the back-end goes out to everybody on the server. Data which could also be very important given the situation and not even make it with reasonable latency if at all. This includes the complete lack of input being mistaken as input due to data corruption. Imagine the jet warping we have now while sitting on the ground where the player isn't even doing anything, now extrapolate onto an F-15E with dual flight controls.

 

As far as ARMA is concerned, Dedicated Server support, built-in voip and handling 64+ players. Of course they been building to operate on that scale since OFP. Many things would be "simply" a matter of writing the code, except its seemingly not so simple.

[GGTharos]

Yeah... why ever did they not design in MP (multi-human) playable vehicles from the beginning? I guess cause A-10C was originally based on the software they wrote for the US ANG SIM / training? So no need for MP in same craft... do I have my history right?

 

Your assumption is not correct (and it is an assumption, not history). Lock-On had a dual-seat feature designed around LAN play where latency was minimal. It also used TCP for networking instead of UDP. As long as you used LAN, or had very very low network latency, the dual-seat feature would work. If the latency wasn't good, the de-sync made thing unplayable.

 

The network code evolved to UDP, and this feature was dropped since there are no guarantees for latency, etc etc.

 

Hmm... see I don't think there's that much more really. Each player has the same code-base... most of what needs to get handled for fidelity is done client-side... and simply needs a state update indication from the other person in the craft.

 

So let's see... F-15E example... Backseater locks up a target on the radar... state change to pilot player... pilot player gets state change indication and their game client handles all the "fidelity" of mapping out what happens next.

Things may seem simple but they're really not.

 

High volumes of data back and forth between clients would come from bullets, missiles, projectiles... and aircraft and vehicle positions... configuration changes. That would be significant, but certainly nothing more than ARMA.

 

I mean... the fidelity all comes in on client side... so seems to me it's just a matter of writing the code... nothing insanely unique to DCS.

 

Is my analysis off?

Yep. You actually do need high speed data transfer for a bunch of things. For example, it's important to see the TDC move, and see its correct position since some elements of tactics and situational awareness depend on it.

 

In other words, the instruments must be synchronized. This is different from say, the nav system where all you have to do is send the correct control sequence to switch to a given waypoint, and then that's all you need to send ... same with flaps. It's a state change to the button, and then all the animations will play correctly on both clients.

 

But things like moving the TDC need constant and fast data rates. When we tested LEAVU with higher data rates, we had to force the update rate down to avoid doing bad things to the datalink.

 

Perhaps there are some clever solutions to these problems, and it helps that these aircraft have significant levels of automation, but there are definitely a bunch of not-so-easy-to-resolve issues.

 

Even for throttles and stick you ideally want to transmit smooth movement, though of course this is already done in-game in many ways.

 

For gun rounds and missiles, data-rates don't need to be terribly high. In those cases, you only need to send start/stop firing events, and the client does the rest.

[arteedecco]

^^ Thanks for the responses @blkspade and @GGTharos

That all makes sense.

 

So is there a difference between DCS and ARMA2 for example, in terms of why they've got it and DCS doesn't yet? Is it just that for ARMA they decided to stick with the mutli-human playable aircraft from the beginning?

[blkspade]

^^ Thanks for the responses @blkspade and @GGTharos

That all makes sense.

 

So is there a difference between DCS and ARMA2 for example, in terms of why they've got it and DCS doesn't yet? Is it just that for ARMA they decided to stick with the mutli-human playable aircraft from the beginning?

 

I wouldn't think its that specifically. The two game engines are just radically different, as are the people that program them. What works in arma you could probably lend to the fact that everything about the vehicles is super simplified. The pilot/driver is in control of updating the crews position, and that is pretty much the extent of interaction between players sharing a vehicle. That isn't even always a perfectly smooth experience, but its close enough for something not particularly time sensitive.

[GGTharos]

It's not just that, like I said LO had it from the start, but then the network engine was overhauled and this feature was dropped.

 

In part it is also probably a matter of features=time, and I imagine ED decided to spend their time implementing other features.

 

Also, you may have noticed that in ARMA, desync in vehicle can be and often is quite horrible. If the other guy (especially the pilot) gets bad framerates/stutter for a moment, what you'll see is that you're flying like a UFO as he lags.

 

So is there a difference between DCS and ARMA2 for example, in terms of why they've got it and DCS doesn't yet? Is it just that for ARMA they decided to stick with the mutli-human playable aircraft from the beginning?

[Leviathan]

Agree.

 

Netcode and thus player interactions in the same vehicle in Arma2 is far from perfect. I remember one occasion where I was the gunner in an Apache or Viper and on my screen it looked like the chopper was making a looping and crashing right into the ground, although after some stuttering I could see that we had been on a horizontal flight plan all the time, and still were flying without having crashed.

 

Lag like this e.g. between Pilot and Gunner happens often in Arma2 (The good thing is that Arma is still playable with lag most of the time).

[arteedecco]

^^ Didn't say "perfect"... just possible. Maybe put a ping limit in-place ... or a warning / alert to let people know they are going to potentially experience lag / warping.

 

If it were impossible, ED would have come out and said it... we're simply discussing the details of making it happen.

 

I think everyone agrees it would be nice to have. As GGTharos said... features=time. If they can do it and maintain a high enough integrity to the sim experience then I imagine they'll do it. Simply hoping they'll look into it in detail again (post FC lessons learned etc) and see if there's a way.... sooner rather than later.

[nick10]

Please. Someone. An F-86.

[Mike Busutil]

Agreed.... ^

[Squid]

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RC-F-86-Sabre-EDF-50mm-KIT-Radio-Remote-Control-Jet-J-Power-Sky-Angel-/170844900484?pt=AU_Toys_Hobbies_Radio_Controlled_Vehicles&hash=item27c7264c84