Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Python]

I suspect many people would be happy to see DCS: F-16, I certainly would. :thumbup:

[cichlidfan]

I suspect many people would be happy to see DCS: F-16, I certainly would. :thumbup:

 

287 according to this poll.

[cichlidfan]

Lets ask them to start kickstarter for DCS: F-16 C, and then they would see how strong we want it :) I think it would easily get $500.000 to 1000.000$ don't you think so ?

 

A kickstarter would require a commitment to make it. If ED wanted to commit to that then they would have already done so.

[NineLine]

So in other words they don't want to do it in near observable future, I am afraid that with such politics this company might fail and vanish from modern combat sim arena, as Maddox did from WW II after IL2 CoD disappointment . no offence , just my suggestion.

 

There are more factors to which aircraft they do then simple explanations than that. Dont assume they are oblivious to the popularity of the F-16.

[GGTharos]

Does it offend you that I don't care about F-16's, and want to see an F-15 instead?

 

So in other words they don't want to do it in near observable future, I am afraid that with such politics this company might fail and vanish from modern combat sim arena, as Maddox did from WW II after IL2 CoD disappointment . no offence , just my suggestion.

[GGTharos]

I didn't not get last sentence, of course F-16 is one of the popular aircraft in the modern sim industry , otherwise how would you explain lifespan of Falcon 4.0 with all its glory and reincarnations?

 

How do you explain the lifespan of LOMAC/FC/DCS? It's not that much older in this context.

 

but who cares it is the filling of reality in the cockpit what really matters not the terrain or other plains

 

I care. Flying is very visual, so yeah, I care. You know, part of the whole realism thing.

 

I not really sure about Ka-50 as I think this systems do not represent real analogs of Ka-50 to the depth

 

Yes they do.

 

So that's my question why is it not possible to do F-16 ,why is it not worth to spend time on it , and just do WWII and helicopter stuff:)

 

That's their business, not yours. Maybe it's that they have data/knowledge/access lined up for other things and they want to get them done while they can, or simply following their schedule etc.

 

I just don't get it , from every point of view it is only the benefit to the company. how is is possible to throw resources for WW II sim when you have Il-2 Battle for Stalingrad coming ? again no offence I just dont get it , if anyone agrees with me give your opinion

 

I disagree with you and I'll give you my opinion anyway: There's no need for you to get it, only ED needs to get it if they want to survive. Are they surviving? Yep. Are they doing well? Probably, as far as I know.

Do they need an F-16? No.

Could they do one? Sure, whenever they feel like it.

[NineLine]

They are doing the F/A-18, that is the only real reason you can assume they are not doing the F-16 or any other aircraft right now.

 

They are not doing WWII, that is RRG

 

They are not doing Helicopter stuff, that is Belsimtek

 

As I said, their choice of aircraft is based on more than just what you, me or the next guy wants next.

 

I didn't not get last sentence, of course F-16 is one of the popular aircraft in the modern sim industry , otherwise how would you explain lifespan of Falcon 4.0 with all its glory and reincarnations? and I am pretty sure you know why it is popular . 3-D models of aircraft beside f-16 are ugly there , but who cares it is the filling of reality in the cockpit what really matters not the terrain or other plains( although it is very pleasant if you have everything on top level, terrain, 3-d objects). and so fare I can not hear really strong argument against F-16 besides that it is difficult and other technical staff, but Ka-50 and A-10 was difficult too , right?, but here we are and we have this to outstanding products, I not really sure about Ka-50 as I think this systems do not represent real analogs of Ka-50 to the depth and there is some improvisation and emulation with civil analogs, but I hope A-10 does as much as it is possible.

So that's my question why is it not possible to do F-16 ,why is it not worth to spend time on it , and just do WWII and helicopter stuff:) I just don't get it , from every point of view it is only the benefit to the company. how is is possible to throw resources for WW II sim when you have Il-2 Battle for Stalingrad coming ? again no offence I just dont get it , if anyone agrees with me give your opinion

[GGTharos]

No it does not , F- 15 is nice bird, but I can live with FC3 level for this one so fare

 

I want a DCS one.

 

. as there is no A/G radar so you can operate with HOTAS

 

Yes there is.

 

but my point is that there is no hardcore sim yet for F-15 so fare and to do this bird it would take a lot of time , to make sure that everything is done properly , right ?

 

Okay, that's no different from any module.

 

and on the other hand we have Falcon BMS and what I am trying to say that this would help developers a lot to do quicker job and we would not wait another 5 years till it comes out . and I am sure everyone would be happy and would love F-16 even you.

 

No it wouldn't help the developers do anything, since they'd be doing the F-16 from scratch. What, you thought they'd just copy BMS?

[NineLine]

Okay my mistake, it seems you really are against F-16:) yeas they do F-16 from scratch but I can not understand why Falcon BMS would not help them? if for example Military version for A-10 did help to release DCS A-10? lets put it this way if one day the access to the real military simulator for F-16 or F-18 would be granted to the ED they just would say : Ahhh we don't need that it would not help us to do anything since we are doing our F-16/ F-18 from the scratch , and would not go there and study that sim? is this what you are saying ?

 

I doubt they could get anything too useful from BMS on the code end of it, of course depending on the sources of information, they might use the same sources depending on the variant...

 

Only the BMS guys know why the BMS guys arent interested in doing a DCS module, perhaps it is exactly that, nothing but info could be ported over from BMS, so they themselves would have to start from scratch when it comes to coding, and maybe they are content with what they have.

[GGTharos]

I can not understand why Falcon BMS would not help them? if for example Military version for A-10 did help to release DCS A-10?

 

'Falcon BMS' is not the military. Why ask for help from another flight sim maker? What kind of help?

 

lets put it this way if one day the access to the real military simulator for F-16 or F-18 would be granted to the ED they just would say : Ahhh we don't need that it would not help us to do anything since we are doing our F-16/ F-18 from the scratch , and would not go there and study that sim? is this what you are saying ?

 

They already have plenty of manuals for the operation of various F-16 blocks. If they could look at one of the military's simulators, it may help with clarifying some things.

 

Falcon BMS is not a military simulator. Understand? :)

[danilop]

ED will never make DCS: F16. There is perfect hard core one already (BMS), although the sim and the world it runs in is not on par with DCSW.

 

That is extremely hard act to follow. And it's (almost) free. The sole reason why no one in DCS universe even dares to tackle the project.

 

Now DCS: F-16 BMS module, that would be something ....

[NineLine]

OK got it , so there is still a hope for Multi- role fighter to be released , and then another question is this a F-18 C or F-18 E if you know by any chance

 

ED is doing the C

 

Someone else is doing the E http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=255

[NineLine]

ED will never make DCS: F16. There is perfect hard core one already (BMS), although the sim and the world it runs in is not on par with DCSW.

 

That is extremely hard act to follow. And it's (almost) FREE. The sole reason why no one in DCS universe even dares to tackle the project.

 

That is nonsense... ED is not avoiding the F-16 because of any other company.

[danilop]

I said "no one", not ED specifically ;)

[NineLine]

I said "no one", not ED specifically ;)

 

 

Still nonsense ;)

[danilop]

Sour grapes ...

[NineLine]

okay i guess there is bad communication here. i know BMS is not military but it is helpful as it is working model for what ED would try to do if they would deride to do F-16. Falcon BMS did a lot of research for this particular aircraft and Falcon 4.0 was polished and updated during significant period of time, and from my point of view a lot of systems and avionics are simulated close to the reality comparable to the A-10 C in DCS. but as I understated this thing does not matters and would not be any use.

 

 

Nothing from BMS will translate over to DCS really.... and they are trying to get rid of code from 10-20 years ago, not add more of it ;)

[NineLine]

Again maybe I am not clear , not to translate just look how systems work there push the buttons see MFD pages , see HUD indications and so on explore and then do this thing in DCSW in addition to the materials that you have , i think it would help. but okay I understand existence of BMS totally useless and it is really does not matters if BMS exists or not , because it is not a military sim , but it is hardcore do you agree on that ?

 

 

Of course its hardcore, all I said was that the code from BMS would have to be completly redone from the ground up to be put in DCS, and who know what they based their systems and FM on, might not be the same things ED basis their on. Chances are its not, chances are that what BMS calls an AFM is completely different than what ED calls a AFM....

 

Anyways, we are waaaaay off topic now, I should delete myself ;)

[hannibal]

 

Anyways, we are waaaaay off topic now, I should delete myself ;)

 

good to have someone to put things in perspective.. everyone has a wish list. but sometimes reality is reality.. all the time actually lol

[Nealius]

Of course its hardcore, all I said was that the code from BMS would have to be completly redone from the ground up to be put in DCS, and who know what they based their systems and FM on, might not be the same things ED basis their on. Chances are its not, chances are that what BMS calls an AFM is completely different than what ED calls a AFM....

 

Anyways, we are waaaaay off topic now, I should delete myself ;)

 

BMS FM is taken directly from the Lockheed F-16 FLCS. (I heard some info was taken from NASA data as well, but I'm not sure). They pretty much took the real F-16 FLCS and somehow transplanted it into BMS, but I have no clue how they did it. Avionics are mostly taken from MLU tapes, but also match with a 1997 -34 manual.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Nealius

[GGTharos]

okay i guess there is bad communication here. i know BMS is not military but it is helpful as it is working model for what ED would try to do if they would deride to do F-16.

 

I understand exactly what you mean, and I will say this again:

 

You do not copy another simulator to do your own simulator.

 

Falcon BMS did a lot of research for this particular aircraft and Falcon 4.0 was polished and updated during significant period of time, and from my point of view a lot of systems and avionics are simulated close to the reality comparable to the A-10 C in DCS. but as I understated this thing does not matters and would not be any use.

 

I understand how that is how you see it from your point of view, but you're applying a completely incorrect process. ED doesn't need BMS' knowledge - no offense to them, that's not my point - ED has done plenty of studying of plenty of aircraft and they get their own, current SMEs to help them model things if required.

 

You do not go and claim realistic simulation when you basis is ... another simulation. It's not right.

[NineLine]

BMS FM is taken directly from the Lockheed F-16 FLCS. (I heard some info was taken from NASA data as well, but I'm not sure). They pretty much took the real F-16 FLCS and somehow transplanted it into BMS, but I have no clue how they did it. Avionics are mostly taken from MLU tapes, but also match with a 1997 -34 manual.

 

 

I dont know anything about their FM, so I cant say how it compares to anything else, all I said was it would more than likely be different. It wouldnt translate across to DCS in any form that I could imagine.

[RagnarDa]

I wouldn't be too surprised if they based their FM on the same NASA papers that CptSmipey used for his FM aswell as for that simulator or whatever it was that included the FLCS logic IIRC. There are actually surprisingly much aerodynamical data on different fighters out there on the internet ;)

[NineLine]

I wouldn't be too surprised if they based their FM on the same NASA papers that CptSmipey used for his FM aswell as for that simulator or whatever it was that included the FLCS logic IIRC. There are actually surprisingly much aerodynamical data on different fighters out there on the internet ;)

 

 

Well basing it on this or that is one thing, but how its translated into code and then into what you fly one screen is another, that is where the biggest issue would be to port something like that over, which would mean it would probably easier to start from scratch... that is all I am trying to say.

[SkateZilla]

ED will never make DCS: F16. There is perfect hard core one already (BMS), although the sim and the world it runs in is not on par with DCSW.

 

That is extremely hard act to follow. And it's (almost) free. The sole reason why no one in DCS universe even dares to tackle the project.

 

Now DCS: F-16 BMS module, that would be something ....

 

Do not make absolute statements that you do not have proof to back up.

 

A. BMS is not Perfect, it has it's own share of issues. (Not knocking BMSF4, as it's a extremely stable and well coded sim)

B. Had someone not leaked the Falcon4 Source Code, BMS, FF, etc wouldnt exist, and you'd be stuck with F4:Allied Force

C. BMS Falcon for the most part is separate from the F4 Series, as most of the content and engines that drive the sim have been replaced by the BMS Team.

D. A F-16C has never been confirmed as not being done, in fact there's a small amount of proof that it was being worked on at one point, including updates by Wags, 3d External Model Renders, and Cockpit Renders. And a Recent post by a ED Team member stating that F-16 was still active.

 

Asking BMS to do an F-16 Module is pretty much asking a competitor to make a product for it's own competition.

Edited February 14, 2014 by SkateZilla