Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Frostiken]

I don't know where you play, but at least online A2A is fairly big.

 

Missing the point, why model a dedicated air to air aircraft when a multirole would work just fine without really missing anything?

 

Especially since, theoretically, you could strip the conformal tanks off a certain multi-role fighter and have a turbocharged F-15 with a spectator :D

 

And? How does that stop anyone from enjoying an F-15C in a flight sim? You may as well say that there's no market for MSFS ;)

'Anyone'? It would stop a non-insignificant number of people, methinks. IL2 has done better commercially than Lock-On and I think that's in part because WW2 dogfighting has a decidedly different pacing and tone than a modern fire-ze-missilez air combat simulator. Air combat in WW2 planes is less removed, more visceral, more personal and in-your-face, and you can do the whole thing with swarms of planes without shattering reality. Generally speaking, those are all gameplay elements that work in all types of game that people enjoy and are commercially successful, moreso than 'wait for lock, push button, win' elements.

 

I'm not sure what your point is, all I'm saying is that given the choice between an aircraft that can carry AIM-120s and 20mm and only engage aircraft and an aircraft that can carry AIM-120s, a 20mm, and GBU-38s, one is going to offer more opportunities and thus engage people's interest more. Since I think we can agree that the F-15C has zero military market potential, this means ED would be working on the module simply to make money from consumers, and that's my entire point here: there's no possible way whatsoever you could make as much money from a very role-limited aircraft like the F-15C as you could from any of the other offerings.

 

As for MSFS... there's a fine line there between genuine psychosis and just playing around with flight, and I don't think you should seek credibility by using the market of people who fly real-time flights from Sydney to Los Angeles as some sort of litmus test of what is interesting for the average flight-simmer.

 

Naval ops are now the only unexplored area left, since A10c and F16 cover the rest. There hasn't been a dedicated naval game a LONG time and people want new stuff besides the usual combat and avionics.

 

Location opportunities aside, I don't see at all how naval ops (now that's a buzzword that's starting to grate on me...) constitute being as interesting as you all are making it out to be, such that you're even calling it a "dedicated naval game". It takes three seconds for you to launch off the catapult. It takes about as long to stop once you hit the deck. Taking off isn't the hard part, so effectively all naval ops is doing is adding an extremely difficult landing procedure to the game. This is hardly the gameplay revolution you all hype it up to be. I'm not saying that it's shit or anything, but making it sound like carrier takeoffs and landings are going to revolutionize the module despite the fact that they represent such a small aspect of the entire experience is like claiming a certain FPS is great simply because of an awesome quick-time event it had.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Frostiken

[Phantom88]

I certainly Hope the next Aircraft will be Multirole.With New Maps and Terrain in the works it would be a shame not to have Air to Ground Radar.

 

Release The Kracken!!!!..... Errr I mean MudHen!!!!;)

 

[GGTharos]

Missing the point, why model a dedicated air to air aircraft when a multirole would work just fine without really missing anything?

 

Especially since, theoretically, you could strip the conformal tanks off a certain multi-role fighter and have a turbocharged F-15 with a spectator :D

 

I agree, but I'm not missing the point :)

 

'Anyone'? It would stop a non-insignificant number of people, methinks. IL2 has done better commercially than Lock-On and I think that's in part because WW2 dogfighting has a decidedly different pacing and tone than a modern fire-ze-missilez air combat simulator. What's the next closest thing you have to that? Ace Combat? Hah.

 

Yes, indeed WW2 is more popular because of the closeness and ze lack of mizzilez. But that doesn't stop all-out missile-slinging air to air peeps... there are more of them than you think (and fewer of them than they think :D ).

In any case, just because you don't see it, doesn't mean other don't.

 

]As for MSFS... there's a fine line there between genuine psychosis and just playing around with flight, and I don't think you should seek credibility by using the market of people who fly real-time flights from Sydney to Los Angeles as some sort of litmus test of what is interesting for the average flight-simmer.

 

No, I -see- the average flight simmer play in servers. There's a bunch of air to air only servers and the tend to be popular, be they gunzo or missile-slinging.

 

Location opportunities aside, I don't see at all how naval ops (now that's a buzzword that's starting to grate on me...) constitute being as interesting as you all are making it out to be, such that you're even calling it a "dedicated naval game".

 

Location: 'Oh look, water.'. :D

[Frostiken]

Well it does mean being able to use the Black Sea region a bit more creatively, ie: being able to treat the entire area as hostile instead of inexplicably operating an entire AEF from a crappy Georgian airfield where panels shake themselves off every time you taxi.

[FWind]

I certainly Hope the next Aircraft will be Multirole.With New Maps and Terrain in the works it would be a shame not to have Air to Ground Radar.

 

Release The Kracken!!!!..... Errr I mean MudHen!!!!;)

 

tink about the FAC(A) ,it just a plane take the role of JTAC

[Booger]

Missing the point, why model a dedicated air to air aircraft when a multirole would work just fine without really missing anything?

 

Especially since, theoretically, you could strip the conformal tanks off a certain multi-role fighter and have a turbocharged F-15 with a spectator

 

Actually, you missed the point.

 

Look at what you typed in your first sentence, then apply it to the A-10.

 

My entire point is that as a business, ED would have a better chance at longevity of their current product sales by releasing an F-15C than they would with releasing a multi-role aircraft.

 

Think about it. If we had DCS: Hornet instead of DCS: Warthog, and the next plane was the Hog, who would be the people that would buy it? Hardly anyone (except for the uber Hog fans). Why would you when you have a badass A/G platform already? If we had DCS: Hornet and the next plane was the Eagle, who would by that? Again, the same type of folks.

 

Least you forget, ED is first and foremost in business to sell products & make money.

 

Who would buy the DCS: Eagle right now? A lot of people. Why? Because people are scratching the walls with bleeding nails for a fast mover.

 

If ED kicks out a multi-role with this next release, they'll end up cutting off a few toes in the long-term. Maybe that's their plan anyway since they know they'll make bank up front on a multi-role airframe. There's still a huge demand for Russian aircraft as well as helicopters, so the long-term plan won't be completely moot. What it will effect (I suspect) is the "retaining" profits of existing products.

 

To dumb it down--if you had your DCS: Hornet, would you pay for a DCS: Warthog upgrade? Some would, but I doubt it would be a huge number. Why? Like you said: "a multirole would work just fine without really missing anything". That's lost profits my friend.

 

Eventually a multi-role would have to be released (if this is their plan) but really, the current market at this "tier", there is no mad rush.

 

 

Maximizing profits. It's nothing personal, just business.

[Frostiken]

The opportunities for ground combat are a lot more varied than for air combat. Everything that flies has to contend with other aircraft in an offensive or even defensive role. The reverse is not nearly as true. In an air superiority aircraft, what's happening on the ground below you is meaningless - tanks, BTRs, MANPADs, ZSUs, and maybe even SA-19s would be of significantly reduced consequence. There's a reason fighter aircraft are only equipped with RWR systems - in their typical threat environment, the only things that can reach them are radar-guided missiles fired from BVR, so a MWS is meaningless. In fact, due to the total lack of ground warfare capability, mission designers would have to ensure that a totally defenseless air superiority fighter wouldn't be shoved into situations where it was flying around SA-10 sites... you'd have to go with the old fallback of calling in the finger of god SEAD squadrons which fly through and blow up everything with a radar within 30 miles, and even in the A-10 we all agree that that's just too much.

 

To dumb it down--if you had your DCS: Hornet, would you pay for a DCS: Warthog upgrade? Some would, but I doubt it would be a huge number

Actually, I disagree, the A-10 is an extremely unique aircraft with a role not even F-15Es can truly match. You're also discounting something else - the A-10 has an immense amount of 'sex appeal'. It's absolutely well-known by everyone, there's all kinds of stories circulating about it, everyone knows about what it does and what it can do. DCS: A-10 has definitely brought a lot of fresh faces in because it's such a flying celebrity.

 

I would guess in terms of public-eye publicity based on how often they are seen, how famous they are, and how unique they are, you'd have the following order of a handful of planes I thought up:

 

1) F-14 (Top Gun / Final Countdown - the quintessential movie plane)

2) SR-71 (Utterly unmistakable, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the USAF knows the Blackbird and any number of half-true things about it)

3) A-10 (Again, totally unmistakeable, and just like the SR-71, everyone knows something about it whether its true or not (firing the gun will cause so much recoil the plane will stall, etc.))

4) F-22 (The Air Force has literally plastered it on everything, it's got lots of stories in the news (mostly for the worse))

5) AV/8B (It's well-known because of how unique it is, a major air show attention-getter)

6) F-16 (Thunderbirds, been in plenty of movies, countless games and simulators, tons and tons of footage of it out there)

7) F-15 (Lots of footage of both varieties, lots of great facts make it a decently-publicized aircraft though far from being a spotlight whore like the F-16, though I would agree there is a bit of a large gap in knowledge compared to the F-16)

8) F/A-18 (Blue Angels, been in a couple of games, the only non-airshow time I can remember seeing it on TV was in "Behind Enemy Lines").

...

893) Ka-50 (What?)

Edited February 20, 2012 by Frostiken

[Booger]

I'm not suggesting it's not. Did you not see in the previous page that I too hope for a multi-role aircraft also? Just because I'm cheering for an F/A-18C myself, that doesn't mean I'm blind to the reality that it may not be the best financial choice.

 

The points you keep bringing up are the same arguments for the Mustang. You have this two-dimensional view of a grand war where every single DCS airplane will take to the skies and kick ass. While some groups will utilize all of the DCS planes, many will not.

 

Some groups don't even bother with the Ka-50. Why? They have a very capable strike aircraft in their inventory (A-10). What do you think will happen to the A-10 once a multi-role plane is produced?

 

If you're the type of desktop pilot that likes A/A, then an air superiority plane is your ticket. If you're that guy who likes to kick dirt, then you have the A-10. If you like both, buy both.

 

Look around. Folks LOVE multi-player action that isn't limited to just one realm of the environment. Yes as GG has mentioned, there are those die-hard PvPers, but the majority of folks that I've played with love the coordination & collective effort of the whole.

 

If there's only one airplane that does it all, what's the point of even making more?

[Frostiken]

The Mustang was a pet project that they decided to take the extra step to just try to get some cash out of, not really comparable.

 

That said I'm unsure if I'll get Mustang (at least right away)... I still insist it would be better if they made a somewhat fictionalized version of it with some basic avionics and ability to carry a couple of modern weapons (hydra rockets, AIM-9s, maybe the odd JDAM) so it would have its own unique appeal (an EXTREMELY CAS aircraft... :D). As it is yet-another-WW2-aircraft doesn't offer anything that IL2 hasn't offered in 19 previous games...

 

Some groups don't even bother with the Ka-50. Why? They have a very capable strike aircraft in their inventory (A-10). What do you think will happen to the A-10 once a multi-role plane is produced?

It's also a helicopter, it's Russian, nobody knows what the hell it is, it's damned hard to fly, it precursored DCS: A-10 so it hasn't (up until BS2) aged well, and they both had a military contract, which meant ED wasn't relying on the consumer market to make their money.

 

You seem to have missed the first part of my post up there where I pointed out that there isn't a dedicated anti-air aircraft out there that has a market for a contract, because, if you haven't noticed, pure air/air fighters are going obsolete in every air force. Even the F-22, the replacement for F-15Cs, has a bomb bay. That point was made specifically in conjunction with the reduced appeal of an air/air only fighter, as ED wouldn't have fat wads of taxpayer cash to throw around and have to rely on consumer sales to recoup their costs.

 

I also pointed out that the simplified version of the F-15C we already have in FC2 is 'good enough', because that aircraft simply doesn't need to do very much. All the basics are there, the flight model probably isn't the most accurate, and you have a functioning radar, CMD, RWR system... you even get your moving map and SIT display. What more do you need?

 

What you should be asking yourself is after the FC3 release and compatibility, what demand would there be for the same aircraft a lot of people already own that just has a bit more polish on it?

Edited February 20, 2012 by Frostiken

[Dudikoff]

Look around. Folks LOVE multi-player action that isn't limited to just one realm of the environment. Yes as GG has mentioned, there are those die-hard PvPers, but the majority of folks that I've played with love the coordination & collective effort of the whole.

 

Probably why I prefer the 80s aircraft rather than the modern "one-thing-does-it-all" concept. When you have specialized aircraft with unique systems, there's more interest in trying them all and more thrill with a dependence on the supporting aircraft. Once you go multi-role, IMHO it starts becoming into getting only more of the same.

 

I mean, what would be the big defining difference in user experience between flying a standard A/G mission in the F-15E, F-16D or F/A-18D? Yes, some are more agile in dogfight, some carry more and fly further, but e.g. flying a typical destroy a bridge mission in any of the three would feel very much alike (usually flying high, locking the target with e.g. a SAR radar, dropping JDAMs at the worst or some standoff thing like JASSM). You'll be using same or very similar weapons while flipping same or very similar switches while browsing through same or very similar MFDs. Now, compare this with flying the same thing in e.g. A-6E or even F-16A and using dumb bombs only (or even LGBs which still require you to get much closer) :)

 

I'm being rather simplistic here, but I hope you get my point (I will take the luxury and presume that there is in fact a point in what I said).

[sorcer3r]

[...]

 

I would guess in terms of public-eye publicity based on how often they are seen, how famous they are, and how unique they are, you'd have the following order of a handful of planes I thought up:

 

1) F-14 (Top Gun / Final Countdown - the quintessential movie plane)

2) SR-71 (Utterly unmistakable, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the USAF knows the Blackbird and any number of half-true things about it)

3) A-10 (Again, totally unmistakeable, and just like the SR-71, everyone knows something about it whether its true or not (firing the gun will cause so much recoil the plane will stall, etc.))

4) F-22 (The Air Force has literally plastered it on everything, it's got lots of stories in the news (mostly for the worse))

5) AV/8B (It's well-known because of how unique it is, a major air show attention-getter)

6) F-16 (Thunderbirds, been in plenty of movies, countless games and simulators, tons and tons of footage of it out there)

7) F-15 (Lots of footage of both varieties, lots of great facts make it a decently-publicized aircraft though far from being a spotlight whore like the F-16, though I would agree there is a bit of a large gap in knowledge compared to the F-16)

8) F/A-18 (Blue Angels, been in a couple of games, the only non-airshow time I can remember seeing it on TV was in "Behind Enemy Lines").

...

893) Ka-50 (What?)

 

I guess F-18 is almost better known than the F-16:

 

 

(DCS: F18, Nevada, Alienmod. :pilotfly: :D)

[Frostiken]

All those F/A-18s exploding - should've put them in my sig!

[Dudikoff]

It's also a helicopter, it's Russian, nobody knows what the hell it is, it's damned hard to fly, it precursored DCS: A-10 so it hasn't (up until BS2) aged well, and they both had a military contract, which meant ED wasn't relying on the consumer market to make their money.

 

DCS:BS was a military contact? Wasn't aware of that. Though it would explain the level of detail present there, I don't really see why would the Russian military pay for some form of a simulator for a helicopter variant they barely posses and use.

 

You seem to have missed the first part of my post up there where I pointed out that there isn't a dedicated anti-air aircraft out there that has a market for a contract, because, if you haven't noticed, pure air/air fighters are going obsolete in every air force. Even the F-22, the replacement for F-15Cs, has a bomb bay.

 

IMHO, there were not really that many "pure" A2A aircraft, anyway (and those would be mostly bomber interceptors from the nuclear war focus of the Cold War, e.g. an F-106, Lightning, Su-15, etc.). Most of the later planes sometimes used as dedicated A2A were also required (at least at some point) to be built/modified with some tactical A/G capabilities in mind, as well (e.g. the F-15A could technically carry and deliver dumb A/G weapons, the F-16A while developed as a pure dogfighter for the USAF was built with the same ability so it could be exported). So, my point being is that the multi-role demands (as cost-cutting measures) are not something recent, even in the USAF. It's not exactly as if the A2A aircraft are becoming extinct, it's more like that the tactical strike aircraft have died out with the development of the precision munitions. So, there was no longer a need for dedicated "bomb trucks" so the A2A airplanes were being modified to perform the strike roles in addition to their base capability.

 

In that regard, saying that the F-22 has a "bomb bay" per se is a bit far fetched considering its internal weapons bay is inherent to its stealth design. It was definitely not designed with that much multi-role in mind (they would put a longer weapons bay in that case), but as before with the F-15/16, you can always tack on some A/G capability to withstand cost-cutting winds of the new administration :)

Edited February 20, 2012 by Dudikoff

[Demongornot]

I wonder see the Hornet but not matter what the next will be.

I wonder see THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywrekEIJIg

I talk about the vapor and the flexibility of the wings, the pilot body with NICE animation fluid and realistic and the custom camera.

I wish see that on the next DCS

[EtherealN]

It's also a helicopter, it's Russian, nobody knows what the hell it is, it's damned hard to fly, it precursored DCS: A-10 so it hasn't (up until BS2) aged well, and they both had a military contract, which meant ED wasn't relying on the consumer market to make their money.

 

First of all, military contrats, when they come, are not a cash cow. They're a cost+ arrangement. And they do not include what ou see in a consumer product. Case in point would be theAFM in A-10C; the USAF/ANG did not want that (AFAIK) and it was made for the consumer.Same thing for the graphical doodads like the new cockpit system etcetera. That's all development costs that have no offset in the military version. Do not overestimate the profits that can be had in military DTS contracts.

 

But secondly, and more importantly, nobody knows what the hell the Black Shark is? What? It's a legendary bird that has a long history in computer games (lets not forget Novalogic for example). But even bigger is the fact that it is a flying icon. You know Airwolf, right? That's the Black Shark - but for russia. It had it's own TV--series. Don't make themistake of thinking that just because something is relatively unknown in the west, there is not much of a market for it. While we westerners are busy playing HAWX the russians and CIS countries still have a love for proper flight simulators, and of course a simulation of one of russias most well known helicopters is right up there. :)

 

Lastly, ED does not need contract to make a good DCS product. What it needs is information, which is easier to get if you have a contract of course, but not absolutely critical (depending on airframe, of course).

[Bearitall]

Okay Okay, Apples and Oranges...that's what most of the conversation here is about..at this time DCS has already pre-determined what Aircraft is to be simulated..whatever the outcome I am sure it will be great and all this bickering will slowly tone down...then everyone can get back to flying ..instead of being critic's.. its easy to be a arm chair critic...but the down fall of this is everyone butting heads over nothing that they themselves can not really change...

 

Just My Opinion..waiting for the P-51D Mustang to take on GGTharos...LOL

 

:music_whistling:

Edited February 20, 2012 by Bearitall

[Tucano_uy]

But it's taking foooorrreeeeeveeeeeeeerrr. Man we've waited soooo long that I've started playing "words with friends" on my iPhone against my wife. That bad the wait is...

[Frostiken]

But it's taking foooorrreeeeeveeeeeeeerrr. Man we've waited soooo long that I've started playing "words with friends" on my iPhone against my wife. That bad the wait is...

 

A guy at work did that and found out she was cheating on him.

 

No really, there's an app that lets you cheat on 'Words with Friends'.

[Tucano_uy]

I know. Don't tell my wife.

[Phantom88]

But it's taking foooorrreeeeeveeeeeeeerrr. Man we've waited soooo long that I've started playing "words with friends" on my iPhone against my wife. That bad the wait is...

 

Please don't engage Actor Alec Baldwin in a game.........I don't want to miss my flight;)

[Booger]

...

 

Semantics. I'm discussing why it might be the F-15 (an aircraft I clearly pointed out that it wasn't my first choice personally). You seem to be arguing beyond that scope, but mainly because it doesn't mirror the aircraft you want.

 

You seem to have missed the first part of my post up there where I pointed out that there isn't a dedicated anti-air aircraft out there that has a market for a contract, because, if you haven't noticed, pure air/air fighters are going obsolete in every air force.

 

I didn't miss it, I ignored it. It's a strawman argument.

 

Even the F-22, the replacement for F-15Cs, has a bomb bay. That point was made specifically in conjunction with the reduced appeal of an air/air only fighter, as ED wouldn't have fat wads of taxpayer cash to throw around and have to rely on consumer sales to recoup their costs.

 

Apparently the concept of business longevity completely escapes you. See the examples in my previous posts. You don't have to agree with something to understand it.

 

I also pointed out that the simplified version of the F-15C we already have in FC2 is 'good enough', because that aircraft simply doesn't need to do very much. All the basics are there, the flight model probably isn't the most accurate, and you have a functioning radar, CMD, RWR system... you even get your moving map and SIT display. What more do you need?

 

This paragraph is funny. It's the very argument I present/the very reason WHY it's reasonable to expect ED to produce an F-15C. You just spin it to support your own conclusion. While I agree that a multi-role is a more superior aircraft, it's also the very reason why it wouldn't be produced yet.

 

Your comparison between an FC & a DCS airplane is quite troubling. To suggest we "suck it up" because it already exists in a lesser quality (yet compatible) product is idiotic at best. I'll remind you again (since you didn't get it the last 5 times I've said it) that I'm hoping for the Hornet also, but I wouldn't shed a single tear as long as it's a fighter.

 

To answer your question, what I need is a DCS aircraft, just like pretty much everyone else I suspect. Why? Because FC ISN'T "good enough".

 

What you should be asking yourself is after the FC3 release and compatibility, what demand would there be for the same aircraft a lot of people already own that just has a bit more polish on it?

 

Still, you persist.

 

People have died saying less blasphemous statements than that.

 

Be thankful we've evolved.

[PlainSight]

 

Who would buy the DCS: Eagle right now? A lot of people. Why? Because people are scratching the walls with bleeding nails for a fast mover.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[JS]

They don't have to be crazy-detailed like the A10c, sheer number of planes available should make it worth it.

 

That's your opinion. And there are plenty of other options than DCS if that's enough for you. But I'd rather have one "crazy detailed" aircraft than a dozen that are less well done.

[Bearitall]

That's your opinion. And there are plenty of other options than DCS if that's enough for you. But I'd rather have one "crazy detailed" aircraft than a dozen that are less well done.

 

FC3 project is the " Nimitz " carrier group...:music_whistling:

 

This is where all this speculation is going..

 

No one will come out of this happy because they won't get the Aircraft they wanted...

 

These members who constantly bicker about this and that I suggest go back to " Pong "..

 

We should be happy that DCS have made a major step forward in the advancement of their product..look before FC2 came out..it took years to wait now we got spoiled on expecting everything on a silver plater..well " No! " they already have pre-determined what craft is coming out..so start buying up all the kleenex for those sobbing members...:music_whistling:

 

 

Apples and Oranges...

Edited February 20, 2012 by Bearitall

[GGTharos]

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