Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[SDsc0rch]

Difference is that a version of the F-14 is only in use by one other country (only a handful at that, and without support contracts), and all the rest have been retired from the US inventory. None are flown by the US military in any capacity.

 

The F4 on the other hand is not only still in US use (QF-4 etc..) but very much still a front line combat aircraft in a number of others, and it'll have various support contracts going on between said operators and US Defence Contractors via the DoD, plus sharing of technology etc...

 

Take that into account and it's pretty easy to see why they'd be okay with one but not the other.

 

makes sense..

 

 

==edit==

 

oh damnnnnn! i just realized something --- just think about the f-16

!!

 

in how many languages can you say "not in our lifetime"??

Edited April 15, 2015 by SDsc0rch

[Ultra]

makes sense..

 

==edit==

 

oh damnnnnn! i just realized something --- just think about the f-16

!!

 

in how many languages can you say "not in our lifetime"??

 

Oh gahhdd!

How did Falcon 4 do it?!

[King_Hrothgar]

You've never heard of Falcon 4.0 and the million or so additions to it? It all depends on how detailed you want it to be. Aerodynamic data shouldn't be a problem for just about any US (or Russian) plane and the same applies to basic operation of systems (what button does what). If you want to accurately model an ECM jammer to spec with all its functionality, you're going to have issues though. That would have to be faked. The F-4 has also be done before in various flight sims. Given that both have been done before, I can say with absolute certainty that they can be done again in DCS. But maybe not in a way that makes developers like the guys at VEAO happy. They might have to be done as FC3 level planes or as a hybrid of advanced and simple systems management.

 

Edit: Ninja'd.

[Ultra]

I guess it's obvious it's more complicated than just a Yes or No you can make it.

Seems like the short answer is: it probably won't be made anytime soon. :(

[SDsc0rch]

i'm not saying i know the answer - but if they govt won't permit modeling the f-4 due to it currently being operated by our allies, what does that say about the f-16?

 

where am i going wrong here??

[Solty]

I'd suggest you read that reply from Buzzles again ;)

 

Pman

I did, basically he says that US gov is ok with F-14 because it is scraped while F4 Phantom is still used on front lines and by other users around the world.

 

F/A-18 is still very much used as navy primary multirole-fighter and many countries use it like Finland, Spain, Australia, Canada, Switzerland etc., but we are still getting it for DCS. So foreighn sales are not a problem here. Even though it meets the Buzzles' criteria for beeing impossible to model.

 

F4 in version from 1970s is not anymore in use. This makes no sense. I am not telling thats your fault. Just stating that doesn't make any sense. I have a feeling that McDonnell are not realy easy to cooperate with.

 

Huh?

 

From the e-shop product page for the F-15C.

 

OK... so now I am super confused! F-15C the best scoring fighter with over 100kills to 0 losses in air to air combat is modeled to high standard, even though it is used by Izrael and Japan...

 

but F4 Phantom II is too big of a secret to model?!

Edited April 15, 2015 by Solty

[Solty]

Double post. Sorry

[agentdarnell]

This is a hard one. Maybe a large modern bomber like the b52, b1, b47,

Maybe an f111 or ac130

If it is to be a fighter then f22, f35, or f16

[NineLine]

OK... so now I am super confused! F-15C the best scoring fighter with over 100kills to 0 losses in air to air combat is modeled to high standard, even though it is used by Izrael and Japan...

 

but F4 Phantom II is too big of a secret to model?!

 

The flight model is PFM, but the system modelling is very basic. The SME's for the F-15C, as far as I know, only talk about the flight characteristics of the F-15C, not anything else.

 

As for the F4, people need to read what others have said. That almost any aircraft would be open to some form of simulation if the right agreement/contract could be met with the manufacturer or other source.

[Buzzles]

I did, basically he says that US gov is ok with F-14 because it is scraped while F4 Phantom is still used on front lines and by other users around the world.

 

F/A-18 is still very much used as navy primary multirole-fighter and many countries use it like Finland, Spain, Australia, Canada, Switzerland etc., but we are still getting it for DCS. So foreighn sales are not a problem here. Even though it meets the Buzzles' criteria for beeing impossible to model.

 

F4 in version from 1970s is not anymore in use. This makes no sense. I am not telling thats your fault. Just stating that doesn't make any sense. I have a feeling that McDonnell are not realy easy to cooperate with.

 

Solty, I think you might have missed what my post was pointing out as for reasons why things can or can't be done.

 

Whether an airframe is in active service isn't the primary deciding factor, nor is its age, but it is instead the various contracts around that airframe that dictate the decisions. The chaps at VEAO have explained that more than once, and it's the same concept that gets applied to contracts across any industry.

 

F14 vs F4 is good example as because the former isn't flying any more in the US and isn't supported at all by the DoD in the only other place it is flown, then it is a safe assumption that most if not all its contracts will have expired. The F4 airframe on the other hand is in active use in both the US and elsewhere which means it's got active contracts against it.

 

It's important to understand that it's the contracts themselves that'll have the limitations of what can or can't be done with various bits of information about the airframe.

 

With the F4, some of those contracts may have been written and signed decades ago, large parts may not be entirely relevent anymore, but while the contract is still active they still apply and have to be abided by.

 

 

As for the F-18 being done by ED, there could be any number of reasons:

It could be ED has a military or manufacturer contact to produce a non-commercial sim version like they've done with the A-10C and the Ka-50 or like VEAO are doing with the Eurofighter Typhoon.

It could also be down to the fact that contracts for that airframe are simply less restrictive in clauses regarding information about various aspects of the airframe.

It could also be that based on previous work then ED are on a preferred and vetted company list, allowing them to do things that others cannot.

It could be that all its non US users are tied into long term restrictive contracts for who supplies their military simulation software, so ED or anyone else creating a high fidelity sim will get the go-ahead as said sim won't put the supplier(s) at commercial risk due to them being protected by the contract terms.

 

It's all conjecture as one of the fun things about contracts is that their contents are pretty much always confidential. Sometimes even the contract itself is confidential. Pman will attest to this :)

 

The relevence to flight sims in general though is that older or inactive aircraft are probably going to be easier to get approval for simply due to the fact there's going to be a lot less red-tape wrapped around it.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Buzzles

[Hummingbird]

Since we're getting the F-14 & F-18 for sure (and the F-15E if I'm not mistaken?), my only other wishes would be the F-16 & F-8 (F-16 esp.!!), then I'd be completely satisfied with the US lineup for a looooong time.

[SDsc0rch]

we need a full-up DCS level F-15C

 

what we have now is a long-long way from simulating modern air combat

 

 

trust me, if you could see half the functionality of a real-world light-grey (radar, avionics/HOTAS, missiles..), you would be impressed ---- if its not your favorite flavor, fine i get that ---- but you would definitely want it on your side

[Mr_Burns]

Why is there not a thread on the F/A-18 progress?

 

I prefer the VEAO way of communicating but a one way thread on progress would be good any case.

[SilentGun]

Since we're getting the F-14 & F-18 for sure (and the F-15E if I'm not mistaken?), my only other wishes would be the F-16 & F-8 (F-16 esp.!!), then I'd be completely satisfied with the US lineup for a looooong time.

 

 

F-16!!! I also like the F-8 a lot but we need an F-16 in DCS.

[Greekbull]

F-16!!! I also like the F-8 a lot but we need an F-16 in DCS.

 

Yes! Agreed!

 

Hopefully something pops out soon cause we really have no multirole choices and it's very frustrating in DCS. I really hope the F-14 that LN is releasing has AG capability too.

[King_Hrothgar]

The MiG-21 has A-G capability as does the Su-27, MiG-29, F-86, MiG-15, upcoming F-14's and Mirage 2000C. If by A-G capability you mean laser guided weapons specifically, then that may have to wait for the F-18C.

[Prophet]

I think you mean radar guided.

 

I think the reason for no F18 progress thread is as usual it hard to show progress with code. I think most of the effort is probably going into the A-G radar, and I really hope into a much improved Radar and CM/ECM/ECCM environment. Opening with F18's and the Growler would be pretty cool. Once the framework for the A-G is made though I think you will see quite a few people trying to get some 3rd party aircraft out.

[Hummingbird]

Are there no plans for the F-16 in DCS?

 

Are there no plans for the F-16 to come to DCS?

 

EDIT: Mods please do write a note that you've moved my thread/post, otherwise the question looks rather out of place ;)

Edited May 4, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Ultra]

I'm sure, regardless of what some consumers think, the developers are reluctant to make the F-16 because of Falcon 4.0.

[NineLine]

I'm sure, regardless of what some consumers think, the developers are reluctant to make the F-16 because of Falcon 4.0.

 

Simply not true.

[jimcarrel]

No A6 in the Poll?

I had two of them suckers buzz me no more than a 200 feet off the ground out in the middle of nowhere full of low rolling hills, didn't see them 'till they were right on top of me.

 

Scared the bejabbers out of me, and from then on I wanted one. Plus I can still remember spending hours and hours with an A6 game (thought it was a sim back then, but what did anyone know back then)

 

You want ground attack? you got it, want night ops, you got it. You want carrier ops, you get that too! You want lots of choices for armament, it's got that.

[SilentGun]

Well I guess I'll take your guys word for it. :surrender:

 

Then I look forward to flying it soon. ;)

 

the unofficial roadmap shows the F-16C as "in progress" and silverdragon mentioned that it was hinted on the Russian side of the forums. :thumbup:

[BlackLion213]

the unofficial roadmap shows the F-16C as "in progress" and silverdragon mentioned that it was hinted on the Russian side of the forums. :thumbup:

 

In the DCS World 2 Froogle Sim preview (included remarks from an interview with Matt Wagner), Wags specifically mentioned that the new A-G radar developments for the F/A-18C would now allow an F-16C to be developed without any huge barriers from a avionics or flight model standpoint. He also denied to the interviewer that any F-16C was in active development when asked point blank (but what can you say to a question like that? :)).

 

It makes so much sense for the developers to get all 4 major US 4th generation aircraft into DCS, they were all multi-role (at some point in their careers) and very popular with sim users.

 

That said, I am also pining after more Russian/Soviet stuff - especially the MiG-23, MiG-25, DCS-level MiG-29, Su-15 (they'd be crazy to pick the Su-15 - but I like it none the less).

 

Though it's easier for me to take an interest in more Soviet stuff now that a Tomcat is inbound, it's my favorite aircraft. I would also buy an F-16C straight away - also an iconic aircraft that would be huge fun to fly.

 

-Nick

[Boss86005]

I hope a F-16C gets made for the NTTR map. Would be fun to have a Thunderbirds paint to fly at an airshow.

[Hummingbird]

It has to come at one point, it's the most widespread fighter in the western world, to not have it in DCS is almost blasphemous.