Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[jp203000]

it must be a versatile flighter. so probably F18-E ,possibly F16. F5 mum` a bombshell!

Edited August 23, 2011 by jp203000

[Cupra]

If not F-5, lets make MiG-28 :megalol:

[Daze]

I would like the F-16, if not then F-18, if it isn't either of those then F-15 or F-14 would do...

[VBS_Nero]

Su-34

[Speed]

Su-34

 

+1

 

Probably too heavily classified though.... but it's a damn cool jet.

[R.Loewenherz]

Hello,

 

I'm new to this forum; I like FC2, haven't tried BS and A10C, because I'm interested in Cold War era planes and weaponry. Air Combat and ground pounding is much more fun without AMRAAM and JDAM in my eyes, so here's my suggestion for the DCS team:

 

Try a cold war spin-off with a few planes like the F-4E/F/G, the Tornado, F14 and F/A-18A/C on the western side, and MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-25 on the eastern side. Those planes in addition with the ones we already have in FC2 (F15, A-10A, MiG-29, Su-25 and Su-27) should be rather easy to do research on, as some of them are already out of service. Not that much classified information. This also applies to the AAM employed in this era.

 

Greets

Richard

[GGTharos]

BS is as cold war as it gets.

 

And I completely disagree: Neither AMRAAM nor JDAM makes A2A or A2G any less fun.

In addition, please show me this unclassified information you speak of :)

[Pougatchev]

Agreed with TeaserMan :D (i'm joking ;) )

 

What we can see in manuals are just basic FM informations, all the real curves, and system utilities are classified for a lot of planes, like for the Tomcat and the Mirage 2000 for example.

 

Yes you can find some manuals on the net, with some good informations, but strangely, weapons use for example, are totally unfoundable.

 

The only way is for old planes or unclassified one's...

 

The Ed's way (I think) is to have a military collaboration for use in the civilian market or use legal manuals who are public.

 

I remember in the past a french simulator on the Rafale F1 who modelised very nicely the weapons simulation, Few days after the first beta release, Dassault have cut this project with the law.

[KaspeR32]

 

What we can see in manuals are just basic FM informations, all the real curves, and system utilities are classified for a lot of planes, like for the Tomcat and the Mirage 2000 for example.

 

I thought the Tomcat has been decommissioned. I'm surprised there isn't information available for that plane.

[GGTharos]

Why? Just because it's decomissioned, does that mean its onboard technology is no longer classified? So what if it's older than that of an F-22? F-15's still use similar technology, as do F-16's, and F-18's.

 

Secrets are secrets, period.

 

I thought the Tomcat has been decommissioned. I'm surprised there isn't information available for that plane.

[Pougatchev]

Agreed with decommissioned, but that's very hard to find anything who are talking about weapon use, and weapons capabilities, the question is why?

 

Some planes are totally decomissioned but found anything about weapons is again and again a Headbreaker :(

 

PS: GG is going to burn he's keyboard... Hmmm, am I so slow? xD

[KaspeR32]

 

Secrets are secrets, period.

 

Just seems that if EA were able to get so much information on the A-10C that is still very much in use, and are able to make it authentic enough for DCS standards, why would it be so difficult to get "enough" information from a decommissioned plane and still have it meet DCS standards?

 

I'm not sure if that makes sense after reading but, yeah.

[Pougatchev]

" why would it be so difficult to get "enough" information from a decommissioned plane and still have it meet DCS standards? "

 

I think because they need a military contract or simply the authorization...

 

In some case informations are available but you can't use it in simulators or other stuff...

[sobek]

Just seems that if EA were able to get so much information on the A-10C that is still very much in use, and are able to make it authentic enough for DCS standards, why would it be so difficult to get "enough" information from a decommissioned plane and still have it meet DCS standards?

 

The only thing really sensitive about the A-10C is the RWR and MLWS suite, the detection capabilities and the symbology. Stuff that you don't even miss, if you don't know how (and how well) it works in the first place.

 

On the other hand, a fighter radar is a pretty substancial part of the avionics and you are going to find next to nothing on what current or last gen fighter radars are capable of.

[vrv]

You can find classified information by

 

[csper]

I want two-seat F-18..

[Aginor]

I'd prefer the one-seater. F-18C it is for me.

[csper]

I want it too, but flying with a friend in one aircraft is more enjoyable for me. :)

[Aginor]

I want it too, but flying with a friend in one aircraft is more enjoyable for me. :)

 

I would agree but my internet-bandwith is quite low, so I know I will be flying a lot alone. :(

[csper]

Yes you are right about this. If so I want ED to make two-seat and single seat F-18s. If they do this, it will be perfect for everyone. :)

[Frostiken]

On the other hand, a fighter radar is a pretty substancial part of the avionics and you are going to find next to nothing on what current or last gen fighter radars are capable of.

 

Sad but true. Not all of it is classified, but it's almost impossible to sort out what is and what isn't. Almost all of our theory books for the AN/APG-70 is wrapped up inside a Secret TO.

 

Even knowing the system inside and out I can't specify what is and isn't classified about it. I know a few things, but for all I know certain modes of operation are classified which give it capabilities Russians would drool over. Well, Russians 25 years ago, maybe.

 

Air Combat and ground pounding is much more fun without AMRAAM and JDAM in my eyes, so here's my suggestion for the DCS team:

I've heard this expressed a few times, I personally don't get it. There's next to nothing in terms of games that approach those weapons with anything more than a console gamer's moronic mentality (see: HAWX) so those don't count, whereas the whole dakka-dakka-dakka WW2 approach to air combat and dive bombing is so insipid, repetitive and dull I swear I will never play a WW2 flight sim ever again...

 

I guess something like the F4 is a compromise, but I personally prefer the modern theater as the larger variety of bombs gives you a lot more options in mission design and execution, whereas in an F4.... what, you have iron bombs, some rudimentary CBUs, and napalm.

 

F-15's still use similar technology, as do F-16's, and F-18's.

 

Hey, don't be so mean - F-15Es have all kinds of exciting and new parts inside them :) We just haven't gotten our fancy new AESA radars yet... :(

 

F/A-18Cs probably don't though, because that's the only way I can imagine that insipid, hateful little thing - terrible even under the avionics panels.

[Laud]

Frostiken is right with a point he made: Guided weapons beeing available doesn't mean you have to use them exclusively. Look at RL loadouts: These things are expensive, so not every stinky APC will be engaged with a horrible expensive weapon-system. You can always downgrade the loadout you use, but you can never upgrade to weapons that aren't put into the game by the devs. I second his point of view: Make as much as possible available, so we'll have a longlasting ever changing flying experience.

[GGTharos]

Sad but true. Not all of it is classified, but it's almost impossible to sort out what is and what isn't. Almost all of our theory books for the AN/APG-70 is wrapped up inside a Secret TO.

 

May as well keep it all secret so that people aren't tempted to go 'not sure if I should say this' ... and then reveal things about NCTR algos/limitations, tie-ins with the TEWS, and who-knows-what else. So I think anyway.

 

 

with anything more than a console gamer's moronic mentality (see: HAWX)

 

You're going to stop this. Yes, I mean the namecalling. You don't think highly of certain things. We get it. Tone the rethoric down.

 

I guess something like the F4 is a compromise, but I personally prefer the modern theater as the larger variety of bombs gives you a lot more options in mission design and execution, whereas in an F4.... what, you have iron bombs, some rudimentary CBUs, and napalm.

 

Frankly I think modeling an F-4 would be a bit of a problem - think about it this way, and I mean in terms of radar work ... you have an analogue radar which has to be worked on by a back-seater. Finding SME's to help model it authentically is probably not very likely at this point either.

It's far easier and more convenient to model a modern, digital radar IMHO.

 

Hey, don't be so mean - F-15Es have all kinds of exciting and new parts inside them :) We just haven't gotten our fancy new AESA radars yet... :(

 

F/A-18Cs probably don't though, because that's the only way I can imagine that insipid, hateful little thing - terrible even under the avionics panels.

 

 

If you saw how tricked out the Canadian and Australian 18A+'s are, your eyes would pop out of their sockets :)

 

Anyway, all I was saying is that by getting yours hands on APG-9 details, you could theoretically derive some of the functionality and limitations of an APG-63 or -70. (We already know the -65 was compromized ... poor hornets).

[thaisocom]

I want two-seat F-18..

Me too! :thumbup:

[gabesta]

I've always loved the F-15, but a part of me really wants to try out carrier ops in a DCS sim, so I'd be ok with an F/A-18 or even an F-14. (Honestly, since it's DCS, I'd probably be happy with DCS: C-2).

 

It would be especially nice if TM happened to make a HOTAS product for the new aircraft.