Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[hitman]

But...the Hornet is so fricking ugly :D

Ugly?! If it wore a miniskirt, I would knock the bottom out of that thing.

[Succellus]

Cant be uglyer than a bucaneer or a Yak 38 !!!

Its just that.... if you painted it black whith its belly white it looks exactly like a penguin.

[Succellus]

Ok doing some 1+1 now i m sure next DCS aircraft is f 18 X/X i would shoot E/F.

I think G still have too much stuff Undisclosed.

[vrv]

Jim Mackonochie: Coding has already started on the next aircraft in the DCS series. All I can say is that it will be a USA fixed wing aircraft!

Head over to the official site to pre-order the game now, and gain entry to the existing beta version. We've spent some time with the latest version and it's shaping up to be every simmer's wet dream, even if Kelly McGillis isn't included!

 

http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/02/developer-interview-dcs-a10cs-jim.html

[000BIGMAC000]

I'm hoping for a F/A-18C/D model....but E/F would also be fantastic... I really like the legacy hornet.

 

I would equally embrace an Eagle or Viper sim....any variant.

[Eight Ball]

Hi everyone, first post ^^

 

I'm sorry if it has already been said - I haven't read the 200 pages of the thread - but don't you guys think it might be the F-15E ?

 

I know DCS:A10C is still in beta but when you take a look at all the aircrafts the F-15E is definitely one of the most well modelised. Other planes, like the F16 or the F18 doesn't meet this level of details. It really seems they're modelised like planes you wont get to see closely, just like in LOMAC, while the level of details on the F-15E is astonishing.

 

It would be weird to spend so much time on a plane, adding so many details, if only AIs could enjoy it and I can hardly believe each planes will meet this standart.

I know it's a 2 seaters and this bring up some problems, having to deal with an AI in the cockpit has never been seen before in Lock On, but hey, Jane's did it 12 years ago, I'm sure ED is capable of that.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Eight Ball

[sobek]

^^It is highly unlikely.

[Eight Ball]

It was just a thought :)

I just find out someone actually made a dedicated thread about this, sorry.

[Napa]

Its highly unlikely because most systems are way too classified. If ED models F-15E it will not be modeled at the same standard as A-10C or KA-50... and thats a fail in ED logbook.

[xhaos]

it would be really really amazing, but with all the classification involved with its avionics, it wouldnt be anywhere near the level of the BS or the warthog.

[sungsam]

Yes, but the same applies for F18. I think F16 is a more suitable peak, but this is clearly an assumption. After all, ED gives priority to military contracts. :smilewink:

[Amuro]

Yes, but the same applies for F18. I think F16 is a more suitable peak, but this is clearly an assumption. After all, ED gives priority to military contracts. :smilewink:

No, I think the F-18 is just as suitable if not more. Just look at the VRS Superbug for FSX, simply amazing.

[Succellus]

One point is why would they want a Nimitz class carrier informations for modelling and ETC, certainly not to put a F16 or F15.

So i would guess f18 is the next plane. Question is: C/D or E/F ?

 

As for extremely modelled planes or vehicle we can t despise the fact that 3rd parties are used ar a f15 fanatic employee could have taked it on itself to deliver the extremely well modeled plane.

[hog_driver111th]

I just hope (I think I said this already) that whatever they bring out, -15,16,18..., that they make a single and tandem seat aircraft. It would be great for training, plus coordination. If you don't have someone to fly with on a mission, take the single seat. If you do, take the 2-seater.

[Laud]

I really really like the idea of flying a 2-seater combat aircraft online.

 

The only point that might be frustrating with a multiplayer 2-seater would be that if one of them two has a disconnect the other one would be messed up too. It's like your pilot/backseater suddenly dies. The only solution for this would be an AI automatically kickin in to fill the gap (plus giving you the possibility to chose which seat you want to take and which seat the AI should fill), which sounds kind of complex to code.

[Succellus]

Um 2 seats are out of question afaik. But this is old news.

Hind Anyone ?

[GGTharos]

No, they're not. There's fundamentally no reason ED could not do a multi-crewed aircraft if so required.

[Laud]

So there are already concepts how to handle the issue(s) I mentioned?

 

No, they're not. There's fundamentally no reason ED could not do a multi-crewed aircraft if so required.

[GGTharos]

I think you misunderstand what I wrote. Read what I wrote again - that is ALL it means, there's no 'read between the lines' or anything of the sort.

[Napa]

Why does a 2 seat version has to be so complex with an AI? :huh:

 

you switch to back seat and still be able to keep control of the aircraft. :P

 

For example: If you need to quickly work on some systems (physically flying the aircraft, autopilot, lights, flaps, gear etc etc etc) that are located in the front seat and you are currently in the back seat searching for targets, then you can still engage/disengage those systems through key commands or HOTAS.. IMO I don't think its necessary to physically be in the front seat to engage those systems (and other systems that are located in front)... and vice versa.

 

Unless there is something else I didn't think of yet :music_whistling:

[Laud]

I don't read between the lines. I just tried to point out why I think it's complicated to do a 2-seater. You said they could do one. So I asked if they already thought about possible obstacles of that task. Don't worry, I'm not one of those who will follow with "it will be a mudhen then!!". Just a straight question.

[Laud]

If it's all that simple I strongly recommend to think about why they put two guys in the aircraft, when one can do the job...

 

How will you switch to the backseat while you're maneuvering offensive/defensive???? ...and vice versa: How will you switch to the pilot seat to maneuver the aircraft while you're operating the radar/weapon-systems???

 

Why does a 2 seat version has to be so complex with an AI? :huh:

 

you switch to back seat and still be able to keep control of the aircraft. :P

 

For example: If you need to quickly work on some systems (physically flying the aircraft, autopilot, lights, flaps, gear etc etc etc) that are located in the front seat and you are currently in the back seat searching for targets, then you can still engage/disengage those systems through key commands or HOTAS.. IMO I don't think its necessary to be in the front seat to engage those systems (and other systems that are located in front) at all times... and vice versa.

 

Unless there is something else I didn't think of yet :music_whistling:

[hog_driver111th]

There's fundamentally no reason ED could not do a multi-crewed aircraft if so required.

 

Exactly. Whether ED figures out a way to make a 2 seater work or not (which is highly possible and probable) is dependant on them getting a contract and putting the effort towards it. I still think that having a single and 2 seat of the same plane would be awesome for teamwork and training (especially training, with refueling, TOs and Landings...)

Edited February 16, 2011 by hog_driver111th

[GGTharos]

Ah, I understand. :D

 

My point is simply that it is a problem that has been solved before; if they decide to do a 2-seater, they'll figure out a way to deal with the AI, disconnections, etc etc. Basically none of those are obstacles that could not be overcome.

 

I don't read between the lines. I just tried to point out why I think it's complicated to do a 2-seater. You said they could do one. So I asked if they already thought about possible obstacles of that task. Don't worry, I'm not one of those who will follow with "it will be a mudhen then!!". Just a straight question.

[Laud]

Good to hear!

 

You know, there're always the same issues with non-coding folks:

 

1. They think of some tasks beeing more simple than they are

 

2. They think of some tasks beeing more complicated than they are

 

:D