Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Krippz]

Time to unite FC2 multiplayer with USAF noobs. Send them a suggestion will ya? :thumbup:

 

Pretty sure the FC2 multiplayer community would get spanked royaly :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

Not right away - but yeah. As soon as they learned the quirks of the sim ... USAF fighter pilots (be they pure A2A or otherwise) are very, very capable individuals who have their mutual support, tactics and teamwork down to a T. They are very capable competitors if they go at it seriously.

[OB1]

I doubt we'll see it, but DCS - Phantom would be almost as much of a dream come true as DCS - Tomcat. Absolutely love both. The only thing I can see a problem with is the fact that they're two seaters, and then you've got the whole problem of how do you as a player do both roles at once.

 

That ! my friend is my dream.. to have a multilayer cooperative tandem seat aircraft in DCS. I have never and will never play single player.. ever.. After many many hours/days/weeks/... of online cooperative gaming with like minded individuals the experience is unbeatable.

 

My ultimate dream is to see DCS evolve into a MMO VBS featuring a map of the world. I have high hopes for the devs of DCS. What they have achieved thus far is revolutionary. I have never had so much enjoyment in watching a development team with such dedication and passion grow, they are slowly but surely fulfilling my dream game.

 

*cough* a little off topic there.. Yes yes.. The F4E phantom is awesome... :D

[Speed]

While not as detailed as DCS-

 

You lost me right there:no_sad:

[VIKBELL]

I have WOV and it not even in the same ball park

[edward1976]

NO, NO and NO! AH-1 only!

[ААК]

I like the idea of the phantom and Mig 21 dual.

No Way! Of red to be powerful and tough MiG-23MLD!:D

[Oceansize]

DCS: X-Wing

 

Make it happen.

I have been dreaming of a study sim of the Millenium Falcon for decades now.

[98abaile]

I'd prefer a TIE fighter.:P

[leafer]

Pretty sure the FC2 multiplayer community would get spanked royaly :music_whistling:

 

Not on my watch, honey!

 

:D

[digitaljjd]

I have been dreaming of a study sim of the Millenium Falcon for decades now.

 

 

DCS Millennium Falcon YT-1300 light freighter (Modified)

 

 

[Yammo]

I would LOVE seeing SAAB JA37 Viggen in a sim other than mods!!! :P

It is truly a lovely aircraft.

 

I suppose worn out classics like F16 or similar will be next in line.

In any event, I do hope for some sort of multi-role fixed wing of the older

generation of planes where the button-pushing would be kept to a minimum.

:)

[Zakatak]

Can we have DCS: Mechwarrior?

 

I want to be able to hop into a Vulture or maybe Uziel, do a ramp start in my mechbay, then go kick some Clanner ass.

[Krippz]

F-16 (Any block) or F-15E. I'm not to keen on a F-18C/E atm;I would want it to be done right, pitching decks, carrier ops, better weather effects,etc.

[Jona33]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=44598

 

Link to a thread in Sim. research asking about CVN-70. Added with the F-18C.com domain name that was found then that might mean F-18 coming. Then again, plans change so maybe not. Still wouldn't mind the carrier ops.

[Frostiken]

The thing is, ED follows their military contracts as well... and I highly doubt the Navy wants an F/A-18C sim as the thing is completely antiquated and borderline obsolete (F-35).

 

I would imagine they're either doing it:

- "For fun".

- For a foreign country (ie: Canada?)

- The Navy is brilliantly using its resources.

 

I wish they'd just come out and tell us though... how long after KA-50 did we know about DCS: A-10? Seemed pretty quick.

[Cupra]

Yeah.. litte too fast. So we can still hope on F-16 :music_whistling::pilotfly:

 

But F-35 would be absoloutly impossible. Its still at prototype status with so much of problems that the implementing of those real bugs would be mor work than makeing a bugfree version :lol:

[Haggart]

@Zakatak:

Hell yeah. I'll take a thor or a daishi. Circle of equals, stravag!

[Frostiken]

F-35 would be amazing as there's been no sim for it to my knowledge (and not even those tacky early-90s 'sims'!). And, if the brochure is to be believed, is an immensely capable airframe.

 

Plus, VTOL! Maybe.

 

@Zakatak:

Hell yeah. I'll take a thor or a daishi. Circle of equals, stravag!

 

Thor? Vulture? Oh deary me - any trueborn worthy of their bloodname spits on the freebirth names!

Edited June 26, 2011 by Frostiken

[Zakatak]

@Zakatak:

Hell yeah. I'll take a thor or a daishi. Circle of equals, stravag!

 

I took on full Star of Vultures, not bad for a Surat, huh?

 

Bushwacker remains my favourite mech. Strap on a duo of SRM6's with an Ultra AC20 (1x MG for anti-infantry purpose), you got yourself a tough little bastard that can brawl with whatever those trashborn throw at you!

[Bumbblbee]

You know in my personal opinion about the F-18 (regardless of C or E, etc) is that all of these so called shortcomings that most people seem to feel the F-18 have can actually be seen as positives. For example the smaller payload. After flying off the carrier and a longer than average ingress to target than what we're used to (being on airfields close to the front lines for the most part) making sure that you get bombs on target or intercept the correct enemy flight is very important with a smaller ordinance load. When your used to carrying 6 mavs and then are reduced to four, you better make sure you are right on with JTAC and taking out the right set of armor. Next example the smaller fuel load. ED seems to have given us ample time and opportunity now to practice air-air refueling in a very easy to fly and "slow" jet.

How about taking off from the carrier, flying a SEAD mission feet dry far inland and then it being a requirement to refuel just to make it back to the carrier. I personally can see that being an awesome implementation to the series. Sure anyone can dump some bombs on target but are your formation and refueling abilities up to snuff...? There is of course an entire realm of air-air combat that ED has not focused on in the last two sims. But there have been many years now that they could be developing things behind the scenes. Carrier ops, obviously the ability to land on a standard airfield, air-air, air-ground, SEAD missions!

If anyone has a doubt that ED would release a sim that isn't of superb quality needs to get back in the pit of A-10 or Blackshark and remember the quality that they produce. If you disagree with me I'm sure you could just go back and reload Falcon... just imagine the possibilities of the introduction of a carrier based air frame. Not only for the next DCS module release but for all the future possibilities. When (who knows how long) before all the modules get tied together but you mission designers could certainly have some fun between having the ground attack air frames and interceptors all working together. Then throwing in an air frame that could perform both tasks would certainly be awesome.

It's not like ED has never touched base with carrier based aircraft. Of course that was man years ago now with the release of Lock On, but, we know it's been in their head before!

 

Thanks for reading my rant!

[Shinigami]

Well If they are going to make one of both I chose the Mig-21 is helluva fighter and I already have experience in flaying the mil sim of his. I even participate in the construction of one.

Edited June 26, 2011 by Shinigami

[OutOnTheOP]

Wait.... are you seriously suggesting a smaller payload and shorter loiter time should be seen as a positive thing? Are you crazy?

 

1) in Real Life terms, any aircraft that can carry 20 bombs 2000 miles can opt to carry 4 bombs 500 miles. An aircraft that can carry only 4 bombs only 500 miles may never opt to carry 20 for 2000. It just gives you less options. Therefore, I can do the same thing in a more capable aircraft if I so chose. F/A-18 gives me no added value.

 

2) I ASSUME you meant it was good in the SIMULATOR world, because it is more demanding of the player. Even so, longer ingress, smaller payload, and lower loiter time means you spend a higher proportion of your play time flying from point A to point B, and a correspondingly lesser time actually engaging in combat operations. Sounds mighty tedious to me. Sure, deep strike missions where you only make one pass on the target can be fun, but that's generally because they have an interesting ingress pattern (like the F-111 or F-15E). Thing is, with the super short legs of the F/A-18, you'll never do the low-altitude, high-speed dash penetration into the enemy rear areas. You just can't reach! And if you're tasked CAS or BAI, the short legs on the F/A-18 would just get boring quick. Make one pass on target and turn 'er on home. Snore.

 

3) Um... pretty sure you should ALWAYS be paying attention to the JTAC and ensuring to hit the right targets, regardless of HOW much ordnance you're carrying. If anything, the more ordnance you're delivering, the MORE careful you should be. As a real-life ground pounder, I'd be MUCH happier with a Hornet driver f*cking up and dropping 2 bombs on/near my position than a Mudhen crew accidentally pasting me with a couple dozen of 'em.

 

4) sure, you can claim the F/A-18 is more challenging for the player because it requires more A2A refueling. Thing is, I CAN opt to refuel just as often in an A-10 or F-15E if I chose to. I don't really see the fun in being FORCED to. (See point 1). If I had to go through the full start-up procedure every time I wanted to drop a single munition, you can bet I'd get mighty tired of the start-up proceedure. Same goes for A2A refueling.

Edited June 27, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[Zakatak]

Not EVERYTHING is going to be carrier ops.

 

And even though it is impossible, ED was nice enough to (somehow) drop Carl Vinson and Admiral Kuznetsov right beside the Georgian shoreline, so our hardpoints won't be consisting of 3 fuel tanks each mission.

[Frostiken]

I understand where you're coming from with being more demanding on the player, but that doesn't mean 'better', not in regards to what I want to do (tedious endless air refueling and laughable payloads), and certainly not in 'reality'.

 

Going back as far as ODS, F/A-18s have done little. Of the multirole fighters, the majority of the burden of operations is placed on F-15Es and F-16s, and that has shifted greatly in the last few years to solely on F-15Es.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Frostiken