Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Amuro]

Like what? Shoot, i won't say to anyone...;)

Like this, the Macross VF-1? :lol:

 

[Limelime]

Hello, why not an Eurofighter Typhoon, for the next DCS Aircraft?

[Boberro]

As same as why not Su-34, Su-35, PAK-FA, F-22, F-35 ect.... simply too new and restricted.

[aaron886]

Why do people still post the same things in here over and over? I want F-14. I want Eurofighter. I want F-35. I want it now, when do I get it???

 

Sad yet hilarious.

[VMFA117_Poko]

I want... I want... Naaaah, I'm not gonna tell. :D

[joey45]

As mick Jagger says..

 

"you can't always get what you want, But if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need"

[element1108]

FA18E.

 

I know this is an aircraft thread, but as it's been mentioned a few times, if ED were to develop a Modern Tank Sim with this much attention to detail........:surprise:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/

 

let the armored guys do their thing, and our aviation guys do theirs./..:pilotfly:

[OutOnTheOP]

You're missing the point. It's not about "letting the armored guys do their thing"; it's about having the full digital battleground. The ideal is to have a series of modules covering EVERY force on the battlefield. The T80U armor company trying to sieze town? Human players. The Stryker infantry task force trying to stop them? Human players. The A-10 CAS they're calling to help? Human. The SA15s trying to shoot them down? Human. The F-16s providing SEAD? Human. The Sukhois scrambling to intercept them? Human. The Ticonderoga targeting their aircraft shelters with tomahawk to catch them on the ground? Human player. The Akula trying to sink it?.... well, you get the point.

 

It's a lot more fun when both the guy trying to kill you AND your target are human controlled. It makes things a lot more challenging and a lot more unpredictable- one might say, the ultimate dynamic campaign. Of course, fighter and attack aircraft are simply easier to simulate, because they are naturally single-man systems, so you can simulate EVERYTHING. Other systems would require some simulation compromises- after all, who really wants to play the part of the loader on a howitzer, or damage controlman on a destroyer?

 

If we could get a simulation of armored vehicles allowing each player to play as a platoon leader or company commander (with direct control of his own tank, of course), SAM simulation at the battery level, ships simulated at the command level (with the option for human players down to the ship section level), and some "higher command" interface for support arms such as supply convoys and the placement and allocation of artillery assets (their fire missions requested and controlled by human FOs and armor or infantry players), it would be amazing.

 

Of course, it would also be a HUGE project.

[rattler]

Newer Aircraft

 

I would like Ed to look more at European Air Craft rather than redo of planes which have already been done. Give us something new and refreshing. I agree F-15, Mig-29, Su27 etc. is getting a little old. Give this sim. a more European feel. My 2 cents.:book:

[element1108]

You're missing the point. It's not about "letting the armored guys do their thing"; it's about having the full digital battleground. The ideal is to have a series of modules covering EVERY force on the battlefield. The T80U armor company trying to sieze town? Human players. The Stryker infantry task force trying to stop them? Human players. The A-10 CAS they're calling to help? Human. The SA15s trying to shoot them down? Human. The F-16s providing SEAD? Human. The Sukhois scrambling to intercept them? Human. The Ticonderoga targeting their aircraft shelters with tomahawk to catch them on the ground? Human player. The Akula trying to sink it?.... well, you get the point.

 

It's a lot more fun when both the guy trying to kill you AND your target are human controlled. It makes things a lot more challenging and a lot more unpredictable- one might say, the ultimate dynamic campaign. Of course, fighter and attack aircraft are simply easier to simulate, because they are naturally single-man systems, so you can simulate EVERYTHING. Other systems would require some simulation compromises- after all, who really wants to play the part of the loader on a howitzer, or damage controlman on a destroyer?

 

If we could get a simulation of armored vehicles allowing each player to play as a platoon leader or company commander (with direct control of his own tank, of course), SAM simulation at the battery level, ships simulated at the command level (with the option for human players down to the ship section level), and some "higher command" interface for support arms such as supply convoys and the placement and allocation of artillery assets (their fire missions requested and controlled by human FOs and armor or infantry players), it would be amazing.

 

Of course, it would also be a HUGE project.

 

 

I've not missed the point, this topic has been discussed to death in here and as much as I'd LOVE to see this, I don't see it happening for a LONG time if at all. The fact of the matter (not including development time and resources) most players do not have the time to spend 4 hours plus a day planning, coordinating and executing to the precision required for this type of full scale sim to be successful. WWII Online, isn't a best seller and it allows you to do a LOT.

 

What if you're mobile sam operator is an idiot and goes off to do his own thing, what if 70% of your forces do that? It's hard enough to coordinate in an online environment with LOMAC and Black shark let alone a global simulator. At least with AI ground units they, for the MOST part do what you ask them to do.

 

I don't think the market is ready for this, hence lets make the best possible product for the target niche.

 

Of course this is just my opinion and my logic may not make any sense, but I am almost 100% confident we won't see a full scale high fidelity, multi role digital simulator for 10-15 years at LEAST.

 

Hopefully I'm wrong ;) and I will gladly eat my words if I am.

 

NOTE: There are a TON reasons I can think of having seen many posts on this over the years, just too many to post...i've left a LOT of very valid points out hehe.

[element1108]

I would like Ed to look more at European Air Craft rather than redo of planes which have already been done. Give us something new and refreshing. I agree F-15, Mig-29, Su27 etc. is getting a little old. Give this sim. a more European feel. My 2 cents.:book:

 

The KA-50 has never been done, neither has the A-10C...so that point doesn't really hold up :).

 

Also keep in mind they're are LOADS of factors that go into the selection of a module.

 

That said, euro flavor wouldn't be a bad thing :)

[rattler]

The KA-50 has never been done, neither has the A-10C...so that point doesn't really hold up :).

 

Also keep in mind they're are LOADS of factors that go into the selection of a module.

 

That said, euro flavor wouldn't be a bad thing :)

 

Thank you. Yes I know the detail of the ka-50 and a-10c have not been done to this degree. My point is we have been flying them, at least the A10C. Other, especially Euro aircraft would be I think welcome, in the degree of the KA-50 and A-10C.

 

As I said , I am glad you agree that a Euro flavor would be nice.

 

Not to steal this post but to address an earlier comment on ground units under human control. This is a Flight simulator not a battle ground although there is an AI element for a/c with ground attack abilities. Why would ED do an "Armed Assult" type simulator when this is a combat aircraft flight simulator. Now modules that put a/a and a/g aircraft together for attacking and protecting units etc. on the ground is the absolute best way for ED to proceed. We are a small market why compete with one already well established. Foolish move.

[GGTharos]

The absolute best way for ED to proceed is to follow their business plan, which means that the next module will most likely be developed from knowledge gained through existing contract for military simulation.

[rattler]

The absolute best way for ED to proceed is to follow their business plan, which means that the next module will most likely be developed from knowledge gained through existing contract for military simulation.

 

Could one assume from this that it would be aircraft only? Could this contain Euro a/c as they are in AI use in FC2 as with all other previous simulations including DCS. I understood and I could be all wrong but is DCS not an aircraft simulation? By the modules released that would be considered by DCS they all are aircraft or helos.

 

Don't get upset I am only asking questions. You are always a good source of correct information. Merry Christmas.:thumbup:

[EtherealN]

Whether an aircraft is in "AI use" is irrelevant. The gains from having an AI plane in place is absolutely nil when it comes to making a DCS simulation of said aircraft.

 

It could be a european aircraft. Basically, it could be any aircraft where modelling it to DCS fidelity would not require classified material to be available to the consumer within the simulator, and for the military contract it obviously also has to be something where a military force in the world wants a DTS of it to fullfill their training requirements.

[rattler]

Whether an aircraft is in "AI use" is irrelevant. The gains from having an AI plane in place is absolutely nil when it comes to making a DCS simulation of said aircraft.

 

It could be a european aircraft. Basically, it could be any aircraft where modelling it to DCS fidelity would not require classified material to be available to the consumer within the simulator, and for the military contract it obviously also has to be something where a military force in the world wants a DTS of it to fullfill their training requirements.

 

Thank you my friend. Very well explained. Appreciated. Have a great Xmas.:thumbup:

 

Pete

[OutOnTheOP]

ArmA? Oh, lord no. Who said anything about making a game like that? The key flaws there are an overabundance of vehicles, no class restrictions, and a scoring model based upon "kills" rather than accomplishing mission objectives. The fact that Joe Rifleman can jump in an abandoned tank or aircraft at a whim really kills it too.

 

No, you'd have to have defined roles, an established rank hierarchy, and assign score to the accomplishment of mission objectives (which should ideally be terrain or key unit focused) rather than based on number of kills. Besides, ArmA is the ultimate expression of a "survey" sim, that attempts to simulate everything, but does nothing well. A DCS series would simulate each and every weapons system in minute detail.

[robmypro]

A super hornet with multiplayer capability - I.e. 2 people can be in the same jet.

[Napa]

ArmA? Oh, lord no. Who said anything about making a game like that? The key flaws there are an overabundance of vehicles, no class restrictions, and a scoring model based upon "kills" rather than accomplishing mission objectives.

 

Firstly, sorry for off topic.

and secondly, I agree with your remark about ARMA2 being a "survey" sim (considering its used properly).

 

- Having an overabundance of vehicles is what makes life easier in ARMA2 and more fun. I underlined the fact that they make life easier because being on foot (all the time) in a hostile territory and on a really large scale environment can be quite boring and personally I find it masochistic :P.

 

- The class restriction is again something that can be avoided to make the sim more enjoyable. I don't fully agree with this though. I find that class restriction is a lot more fun and a much better training method.

 

- AFAIK the fact that the scoring model is based upon kills is because there are no scripted events. Everything is AI driven and this is something that gives you a lot more freedom from what you asked for. But... some people love it :P

[element1108]

Scoring system seems overrated to me. You either succeed at a mission objective or fail it, what exactly do the reward of points do?? (Curious).

 

As far back as Super Mario 1 I never really paid any attention to the points. It all depended whether or not I beat the level...I don't think i've ever paid attention to a point system in what...23 years?

 

This is just me though I don't expect everyone to adopt that system (no i never cared about "HIGHEST SCORES" for streetfighter or any arcade game either hehe.

 

Back on topic: Maybe a Christmas miracle will happen and ED will BRIEF us on the future module??? ;) ;) ;) (seriously highly doubt it, but it would be a hollywood stereotyped CHRRRRRRRRISTMAS MIRRRRRACLE of epic proportions for this community.)

 

All us gathered around the ED tree, Producer Matt Wags in his rocking chair rocking gently back and forth with the aircraft manuel held up like a story book.

 

We're all wide eyed face in palms, lets crossed circling the chair ... Matt reads to us...

 

"The startup procedure for INSERT AIRCRAFT NAME HERE begins with.......

 

 

multirole capabilities......

 

in A/A radar mode.....A/G radar mode...

 

datalink air born targets....

 

landing/takeoff speeds.....

 

 

I'm so lost in my own fiction I doubt I'll ever come back!

 

±HAPPY HOLIDAYS COMMUNITY AND ED!±

Edited December 21, 2010 by element1108

[Sticky]

That depends, if rank and medals are based on the score, then it has a point, but if those are based on flight hours only then yeah, points are pointless ;)

 

Edit: sorry, looks like you werent talking about EDs products, but Arma2

Edited December 21, 2010 by Sticky

[Limelime]

Hello, if it's the F/A-18E, there will be carrier operations?

[TeeJay82]

Stupid pole :S

 

I WANT EM ALL!!!!!!!

[LordWolf]

NUUU I want F22 :(

[element1108]

Another F-22 mention, the thread has come around what? It's 102nd circle? :thumbup: