Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Laud]

In Afghanistan, when requests for air support come in, there's but one airframe that every JTAC alive could only dream to have proving AOW, and that's the F-15E. A-10s are too slow to respond to urgent TIC requests, and F-16 / F/A-18s are simply incapable of providing the necessary support.

 

But here is a point where Squadrons and Single-Player have a different perspective on the requirements they want to see met:

 

While the F-15E would be the by far best choice for a Single-Player, the F-16 or F/A-18 would be preferable. And thats for the same reason for both: Payload!

 

It's all about mission-design: When you have to provide missions for a squadron with 10-16 active pilots, you have to put a sh!t lot of targets and triggers and appropriate timings into it. The less capable a single aircraft is, the less work you have to put into your mission-design.

 

So while I really like the Mudhen, I think it would be healthier for my spare time to hope for a Viper or a Hornet.

 

;)

[Frostiken]

Well just because you *can* load enough weaponry to devastate a small country doesn't mean you *have* to. If you look at that link to the loadouts I gave you, most of them are far under the maximum weight. To use the OEF example, there's two loadouts, one with four GBU-12s, and one with only two.

 

What would be an interesting feature would be limited supply resources so with a large squadron you'd have to divide up limited bombs between airframes, sort of avoid an 'all your eggs in one basket' affair. Let the mission editor decide how many munitions you get.

 

 

 

 

Also, 10-16 active pilots = 5-8 E-models. Sounds easier if anything.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Frostiken

[Laud]

Also, 10-16 active pilots = 5-8 E-models.

 

Well, yes, I sorta forgot the 2-seater-factor! :thumbup:

[Frostiken]

Well, yes, I sorta forgot the 2-seater-factor! :thumbup:

See? All is well :D

 

Besides, you have to admit the idea of being forced to design missions to accommodate 10-16 players is overwhelmingly retarded since the idea of a dozen F-16s engaging enemies in some sort of massive WW2 style aerial furball is so far beyond the realm of reality....

 

If anything, two-seaters will take the edge off of having to do such a thing, since real-life combat missions are typically only two- or four-ship affairs anyway.

[Laud]

See? All is well :D

 

Kinda, yes! ;)

 

Besides, you have to admit the idea of being forced to design missions to accommodate 10-16 players is overwhelmingly retarded since the idea of a dozen F-16s engaging enemies in some sort of massive WW2 style aerial furball is so far beyond the realm of reality....

 

 

If anything, two-seaters will take the edge off of having to do such a thing, since real-life combat missions are typically only two- or four-ship affairs anyway.

 

We already create missions, that are focused on 2-Ship engagements (for our squadron-trainings). And just because you want to avoid any kind of furball, you have to build about 6 target areas / areas of operation, each with their own units, triggers and timings. In case you want to have 2 2-Ships operate the same area, just not at the same time, you could add a tanker and let the first element refuel on RTB and the second one on ingress.

 

But whatever, it remains fact that a full MP-capable 2-seater would half the neccessary efforts.

[Weasel]

If the next aircraft would be the F-15E Strike Eagle and if the release will be in 2015 (or later), then we will hopefully get the new cockpit of the Strike Eagle with a 11 x 19in display :P There is a interesting report of the future of "Boeing's Fighter" in the Combat Aircraft magazine. (July 2011)

[Isegrim]

DCS PAH-1 :music_whistling:

 

[Frostiken]

If the next aircraft would be the F-15E Strike Eagle and if the release will be in 2015 (or later), then we will hopefully get the new cockpit of the Strike Eagle with a 11 x 19in display :P There is a interesting report of the future of "Boeing's Fighter" in the Combat Aircraft magazine. (July 2011)

 

First time I've heard of that... you sure it's not for export variants? I can see Singapore buying that... we don't even have V2 AESA radars yet, getting a cockpit overhaul to fit a bigger display in seems iffy to me.

 

Do you have the ability to scan the pages and send them to me in a .pdf? I'd like to hear more about what Boeing said on this.

[mooshim]

How is DCS A10c selling?

 

I'm very curious, but don't know how to determine our beloved sim's performance on the market.

 

Not sure if this info is available at all, but would anyone know where to find it?

 

Many thanks?

 

Moosh

[jctrnacty]

i hope its selling well...

[GGTharos]

It's selling well enough. No specific information is ever provided.

[LawnDart]

DCS: F-16C would likely boost revenue! :D

 

It would be interesting to see some numbers though, since console games are so much simpler and dominate the market vastly. Thank goodness we have ED, or the sim genre would be next to dead for military jets.

[Mohamengina]

I'm sure its selling a lot more now its on steam.

[Speed]

 

Also:

 

 

If only... I'm tired of getting "integrity check failed" every time I wanna nuke somebody :(

[mooshim]

DCS: F/A-18 would likely boost revenue! :D.

 

I'm with you :music_whistling:

[Frostiken]

DCS: F-16C would likely boost revenue!

 

God no. I'd rather eat a bullet than see "Yet Another F-16 Sim". Might as well slap a Call of Duty label on it for how boring and overused that airframe is. Back to Falcon 4 kthx.

 

DCS: F/A-18 would likely boost revenue!

 

Actually as a serious point, it probably wouldn't. The F-16, A-10, F-15, and even the F-14 have a lot of 'sex appeal' and the civilian sector are more familiar with them. The F/A-18C certainly does not. Compounding the problem is that almost anyone familiar with the F/A-18 is more likely familiar with the Superhornet, so people buying it and then finding that they're flying its retarded crippled cousin would probably confuse a lot of people. I have no doubt that the current DCS market would buy it up, but as for attracting new people, well, there's really nothing I could find that would draw me to the airframe. Certainly not based on how it looks, god no.

Edited July 24, 2011 by Frostiken

[Speed]

God no. I'd rather eat a bullet than see "Yet Another F-16 Sim".

 

This can be arranged if need be... just send me a PM if/when DCS: F-16C is announced :music_whistling:

 

I know a lot of other Viper fans would be happy to assist you as well :D

[Frostiken]

As much as I despise how limited the airframe is, I'd happily welcome F/A-18 over F-16 (come to think of it, they both have the same problems). The only point of complaint for Falcon 4 is the graphics which is rather stupid because with the right mods it's really not that bad.

 

DCS: F-16 would actually be a massive step back due to the lack of mods and environments, the uprooting of the community, as well as features that DCS simply doesn't offer like the dynamic campaign.

 

It has to be said that desiring an F-16 above all else is a really stupid and selfish desire, since having a NEW airframe not seen in a modern sim is a hell of a lot better than a copy-paste remake of a sim for a crappy little disposable single-engine piece of crap that the USAF can barely find a use for these days that is going to rapidly find itself rotting in the desert at Davis Motham... all because the graphics aren't quite pretty enough? What a waste of time and money.

 

I mean, what do you really expect? It's an F-16 sim. They don't exactly have creative freedom to fabricate cool new features for it. As was mentioned a while back, if DCS: F-16 comes out, all that you're going to find on this forum are people bitching that "Falcon 4 did ___ better".

Edited July 24, 2011 by Frostiken

[Burner]

For no complaints and major sales ED should go with DCS: F-22 Raptor but I still think it will be an F18

[Frostiken]

For no complaints and major sales ED should go with DCS: F-22 Raptor but I still think it will be an F18

 

That or F-35 which I think I'd like to see the most since I know almost nothing about it. But the F-22 is too classified, and the F-35 doesn't even functionally exist yet, so... old school 1970s airframes it is :D

[LawnDart]

Seems I opened Pandora's Box... :doh:

 

Sorry for the OT, but I'm guessing DCS: F-15E, heck maybe even a refined C model. The Strike Eagle would definitely sell!

[RadikCDN]

Seems I opened Pandora's Box... :doh:

 

Sorry for the OT, but I'm guessing DCS: F-15E, heck maybe even a refined C model. The Strike Eagle would definitely sell!

 

It's the apache; i'm afraid. Lots of pieces of code exist already. Even the model in game is 10x the detail of anything else. Destruction everything.

 

You can tell they are using this codebase as a boiler plate for the apache module.

[Frostiken]

It's the apache; i'm afraid. Lots of pieces of code exist already. Even the model in game is 10x the detail of anything else. Destruction everything.

 

You can tell they are using this codebase as a boiler plate for the apache module.

Except we already know it's a fixed-wing US Fighter.

 

And the same can be said of the F-15E - models and sounds for weapons like AGM-130s are in the files but not used in-game.

[VFA41_Lion]

There's a strong case for either F/A-18C and the F-15C/E. I would welcome both. :)

[Zakatak]

About 1/8th as much as games that are 1/8 as good. Still, considering the flight sim market, those are some good numbers.

 

The next sim would will be F/A-18C, I'm calling it now and willing to make 10$ bets. Yes, you will say "just because they have a website?!" to which I reply, what the hell is the point of an F-18c.com if it isn't a game?

Edited July 24, 2011 by 159th_Viper
Rule 1.1