Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Dudikoff]

Exactly! :D

 

I'm open to other craft also, I just dislike the F-16 and F/A-18 for various reasons one is the fact that neither of the two can achieve mach 2. If it can't achieve mach 2 then I am not interested. I know speed is not everything to a plane but the F15E can achieve mach 2.5+. I know that is whne its empty of course but that's much better than mach 1.8 (Super Hornet).

 

Though I'd say your speed argument wasn't clearly put, I think I see what you mean since I've always found both of those airplanes somehow bland and uninteresting for a specially immersing flight sim experience. Thus, I hope it's the F-15E at least, if it's a fighter bomber.

 

Though, since the USAF has finished testing the AN/APG-63V(2) AESA on F-15Cs and started equipping it's remaining C/D fleet with the V3 version which will last through the next decade (according to an article I read), perhaps they ordered a simulation for these? Not sure what are the interface changes for the pilots regarding these (and if they are significant enough to warrant a training simulation)?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Dudikoff

[Ryback]

DCS is capable of simulating just about anything you want.

 

DCS is capable of simulating just about anything you want+Second AI pilot=F-15E..

 

Am i too high?:pilotfly:

I have a feeling that such a thing will come that everyone will have quite a shock.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

BTW Freefalcon guys stop posting forum addresses , patch days, future plans.

It's really irrelevant with the subject.We are waiting next big step in the history of flightsims, you are still on another page.This is DCS Wish List thread when we say F-16, you can NOT just throw a forum address and be gone.And whatever it comes as future project of FF,i'm still NOT AND WON'T be convinced if it can keep up with DCS, neither functional nor graphical..

I must say i find really rude that in the wish list thread you can just offer another game..

Edited May 10, 2011 by Ryback

[sid]

If it's gonna be F-18 please make it the F variant so we can play two in one aeroplane

[Shnider]

Exactly! :D

 

I'm open to other craft also, I just dislike the F-16 and F/A-18 for various reasons one is the fact that neither of the two can achieve mach 2. If it can't achieve mach 2 then I am not interested. I know speed is not everything to a plane but the F15E can achieve mach 2.5+. I know that is whne its empty of course but that's much better than mach 1.8 (Super Hornet).

 

Surely you would prefer the mach 1.8 of the super hornet to the 380KIAS of the a-10?

and what about the F-111? that can do mach 2.5

[Dudikoff]

Surely you would prefer the mach 1.8 of the super hornet to the 380KIAS of the a-10?

and what about the F-111? that can do mach 2.5

 

IMHO, there's a difference in that these are highly specialized planes so you get extra kicks from learning their specific systems, mission types, etc. You are also rather vulnerable in them against enemy fighters which can give you extra satisfaction points of accomplishment (if you survive the interception).

 

The F-16s and F/A-18s (and F-15Es to a large degree) on the other hand are kind of generic in nature and don't seem to bring significant differences in ways you fly or operate them. They have similar cockpits, have (roughly) similar flight specs, use (roughly) the same weapons, fly the same mission types, etc. So, if you flew one, it's like you flew them all in a way (except for dogfighting where their flight spec differences come into play). Sure, it's the nature of multi-role fighters, but it somehow kills the fun for me. Plus, all these planes are old and well known so any novelty factor has worn off a long time ago.

 

But I'm just being subjective most probably as I prefered the 80s Cold War background and those planes and levels of electronics and equipment.

[Shinigami]

Well if they thinking in making again a bomber plane at least make a F-117, I liked the old one the DOS version the one that before start ask you if you have a monocrome or a 6 color display sht I'm getting old if no one remember that one....

 

Shinigami Out....

[GGTharos]

Yep, that's what us non-reals pilot would think. Not even close. Neither the F-16 or F-18 can fly the F-15E's deep penetration conventional or nuclear mission. The F-15E can't fly the SEAD mission.

 

For the most part, the F-18 is still reasonably unique in the anti-ship mission.

 

The F-16s and F/A-18s (and F-15Es to a large degree) on the other hand are kind of generic in nature and don't seem to bring significant differences in ways you fly or operate them.

[durka-durka]

I think it would be good to have another helicopter. Ideally a Merlin or Black hawk.

 

A DCS Blackhawk, even though it's a transport, would be great fun. Think of the missions one could have with it.

[digitaljjd]

-If only this was DCS Harrier :(

 

[Frostiken]

The F-16s and F/A-18s (and F-15Es to a large degree) on the other hand are kind of generic in nature and don't seem to bring significant differences in ways you fly or operate them.

 

I'd make the argument that while you can say they're fairly 'generic' with a few exceptions, the F-15E is the superpowered version of the three, as it has the longest range, highest speed, largest carry weight, best radar, a built-in jamming and RWR system, and probably the biggest potential inventory of weaponry and other cool toys in the Air Force, everything from Small Diameter Bombs to recce ground mapping radar pods :D

 

There is only a tiny list of things the F-16 and F/A-18 has over the F-15E.

 

1) Mavericks - the F/A-18 and F-15E can only apparently carry two Mavericks, and I doubt you'd *ever* see an F-15E carrying one. We have Maverick video lines but we don't even bother fixing them because we'll never carry one. The F-16 can allegedly carry 6, however I think for safety reasons it's limited to 4.

 

2) HARM - Both the F/A-18 and F-16 can carry HARM pods and missiles. While HARM makes SEAD missions fairly easy, it's worth noting that HARM is *not* mandatory for SEAD - in OOD, F-15Es were responsible for more than a few radar and SAM site neutralization, and youtube videos will reveal AGM-130 application against SA-10s. Still, HARM is its own advantage so I'll leave it. But hey, the A-10 doesn't have HARM either and it works just fine against SAM sites :)

 

3) F/A-18 can do carrier ops which many consider a huge bonus. Additionally, both are single-seaters which has its own developmental advantage. Then again, Janes F-15E did a two-seater back in 199X so...

 

EDIT: I'd also like to mention a few other things:

 

1) Classification level for the F-15E is still pretty high on a few things, as it's still undergoing *very* active modding and upgrading. While the A-10 finally got the A-10C to 'modernize' them, the F-15Es in the past four years have undergone at least two extensive modifications. Naturally the scope and nature of these mods isn't open to discussion, but there is unfortunately a large amount of classification involved. The Suite 7 mod which adds even more hardware is already in the pipe.

 

2) The USAF may very well be in need for an F-15E simulator / trainer. I'll mention that the most up-to-date computer-based simulator I've seen and used by the USAF for the F-15E is made by Boeing, and it's extremely poor. There's no cockpit to hit switches, only bare minimum. No emergency procedures or anything, it's basically just a bare-bones drop-bombs-on-Vegas trainer. Given the active development of the F-15E I would not be surprised to see demand for a trainer program.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Frostiken

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Psst *shameless plug* Mention DTS for the A-10C :D

[Speed]

If it's gonna be F-18 please make it the F variant so we can play two in one aeroplane

 

It's going to be a c... unless ED registered f-18c.com just to play a joke on us.

 

http://www.whois.net/

 

Look up f-18c.com.

 

Don't hold your breath, it's probably going to take another 1.5+ years. Think about all the work that ED still has to do fixing up A-10, and then integrating Black Shark (honestly, if the Black Shark upgrade is going to take a lot of effort, I think ED should just make the Black Shark integration patch cost money). Then they also have whatever unknown-to-us military contracts they are working on.

 

I would be careful about thinking that just because we are probably getting an F-18C, that we are also going to get carrier ops. I don't believe that US carriers are allowed to operate in the Black Sea (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits ). We could very well end up getting land-based only F-18Cs. Not to mention that carrier ops would require a monumental improvement in DCS aircraft AI, ground crew/deck crew AI, animations, etc, but ED is up to the challenge, no doubt, if they decide to take it on.

 

A middle eastern theater with carrier ops for DCS F-18C would be to die for.

 

IF we DO get an F-18 module, it would be a great time to convert DCS into first person flight sim (walk to the briefing room, walk to the hanger, etc). A carrier has all that stuff right there in one spot. Hell, we can already get out and walk up to a UAZ and then get in, why not an F-18?

Edited May 11, 2011 by Speed

[Shnider]

It's going to be a c... unless ED registered f-18c.com just to play a joke on us.

 

http://www.whois.net/

 

Look up f-18c.com.

 

Don't hold your breath, it's probably going to take another 1.5+ years. Think about all the work that ED still has to do fixing up A-10, and then integrating Black Shark (honestly, if the Black Shark upgrade is going to take a lot of effort, I think ED should just make the Black Shark integration patch cost money). Then they also have whatever unknown-to-us military contracts they are working on.

 

I would be careful about thinking that just because we are probably getting an F-18C, that we are also going to get carrier ops. I don't believe that US carriers are allowed to operate in the Black Sea (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits ). We could very well end up getting land-based only F-18Cs. Not to mention that carrier ops would require a monumental improvement in DCS aircraft AI, ground crew/deck crew AI, animations, etc, but ED is up to the challenge, no doubt, if they decide to take it on.

 

A middle eastern theater with carrier ops for DCS F-18C would be to die for.

 

IF we DO get an F-18 module, it would be a great time to convert DCS into first person flight sim (walk to the briefing room, walk to the hanger, etc). A carrier has all that stuff right there in one spot. Hell, we can already get out and walk up to a UAZ and then get in, why not an F-18?

 

wow that is really cool I can't wait to try carrier ops!!!

carriers may not be allowed there or whatever but you can already place them on the mission editor so i don't see why it wouldn't happen

[Frostiken]

A middle eastern theater with carrier ops for DCS F-18C would be to die for.

 

At the same time, the idea of having to hit two tankers every sortie because you burn off half your fuel just flying over the water would make me want to eat a bullet :p

[Laud]

At the same time, the idea of having to hit two tankers every sortie because you burn off half your fuel just flying over the water would make me want to eat a bullet :p

 

As a sim-pilot you can easily forget those RL fuel-issues, as you will not fly any 2+ hours ingress/egress legs, do you?

 

So a DCS F/A-18 would surely be a lot of fun! :smilewink:

[Ryback]

It's going to be a c... unless ED registered f-18c.com just to play a joke on us.

 

http://www.whois.net/

 

Look up f-18c.com.

 

 

How the hell did you find this out? Any relations to Nostradamus in your family?:)

Respect buddy..:worthy:

[Shinigami]

As a sim-pilot you can easily forget those RL fuel-issues, as you will not fly any 2+ hours ingress/egress legs, do you?

 

So a DCS F/A-18 would surely be a lot of fun! :smilewink:

 

Well a simjunkie friend of mine likes to fly Havana-Montreal the two 7 hour legs fly so I'm guessing that some people thinks that fast forward isn't part of the simulation.

 

On my side if I don't get the FF feature I don't play cause is very tiring to see 2h the same landscape, also the bombing part is always more fun than the going or return fly

[Speed]

At the same time, the idea of having to hit two tankers every sortie because you burn off half your fuel just flying over the water would make me want to eat a bullet :p

 

Actually, that's the best part.

[Speed]

How the hell did you find this out? Any relations to Nostradamus in your family?:)

Respect buddy..:worthy:

 

There were multiple posts about this last month :smilewink:

[Speed]

-If only this was DCS Harrier :(

 

 

Why in gods name do people keep wasting their time building combat jets for a game where you can't blow anything up? It's completely beyond me.

 

Oh the other hand, what I think it shows you is that if ED or someone else were to make a flight simulation engine that could support independent developer projects as easily as FS X, AND supported actual combat dynamics and weapons physics, there could be a huge market and array of projects developed.

[Jona33]

Actually, that's the best part.

 

Yeah. Nothing like a nice aerial refueling in a mission. Although you might need some sort of checkpoint for a two hour flight just to get there because not many people can play for 4-5 hours straight.

[Laud]

Starting with minimum fuel, so you have to meet the tanker at least once, is quite nice.

 

But honestly: I like it realistic and kinda hardcore, but flying two hours straight with autopilot on, is a waste of time when you got a squadron running you need to work out trainings and missions for. ;)

[Frostiken]

As a sim-pilot you can easily forget those RL fuel-issues, as you will not fly any 2+ hours ingress/egress legs, do you?

 

So a DCS F/A-18 would surely be a lot of fun! :smilewink:

 

As a sim pilot, I don't get paid to do it and thus after my job of working on real aircraft 10+ hours a day, the last thing I want to do is the mind-numbing frustration of trying to accomplish the overly-difficult task of in-flight refueling in DCS!

 

There's a big difference between the kinds of people who play sims... for example, people who invest the incredible time, money, and effort into building entire cockpits... those who play FSX and join those surreal servers where you have people playing sim ATC to people flying sim cargo planes of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong...

 

Yeah I'll pass on the six hour sortie.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Frostiken

[mintsauce]

I would be delighted with DCS F16, AH64 or F/A18.

 

However, if ED do decide to go with the Apache, then it has to be the Longbow. What's the point in going with anything else? You'll just feel like you're flying an inferior aircraft if it's not a Longbow.

 

Same goes for the F/A18 - it HAS to be the Super Hornet. They're better in every possible way, even down to looks. I couldn't stand to fly a C when I know that the E and F are available.

[nomdeplume]

I couldn't stand to fly a C when I know that the E and F are available.

But if they weren't flyable in DCS, they wouldn't be available now, would they? :)