Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Napa]

where?

 

Read my post please :wallbash:

 

The O/A-10C is exactly the same as A-10C. The designation OA-10C is just assigned to express the purpose of the aircrafts' current mission purpose which is in the case of O/A-10C an AFAC.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Innerloop

[Laud]

Wasn't the OA-10 the two-seater???

[egorter]

Wasn't the OA-10 the two-seater???

 

that is what I thought....

[Mugenjin]

that is what I thought....

 

Nope. Just like Innerloop said, it's a 'normal' Warthog used for FAC.

[Eddie]

Wasn't the OA-10 the two-seater???

 

 

No, that was the A-10B. And only 2 were ever made.

[Succellus]

And only one remain...

[vrv]

When I first started flying the Ka-50 I would get the overload when trying to maintain a stable hover near some trees, operating the Shkval to search for targets and set up the weapons all while monitoring my surroundings, making sure the rotors don't clash, glancing at the instruments occasionally and keeping the thing in the air. In the A-10 so far, even at low level / high threat, I haven't really felt the overload. Then again the LITENING is a heck of a lot more useful than the Shkval.

[ronht]

I'd love to see what DCS could do with a Harrier simulation. To me, it fits within the close-combat aspects of both A-10 and Black Shark.

[mattag08]

Alright ED. Here we go. Next two DCS modules:

 

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

 

AND

 

MiG-29SM

 

 

Rationale?

--Both aircraft are old enough and widely used enough to have declassified material available to people like ED.

--Both aircraft are very similar in air-to-air combat characteristics

--Both aircraft are multi-role fighters (adds more replay value and dynamics to the game).

[Kilonum]

I'd love to see what DCS could do with a Harrier simulation. To me, it fits within the close-combat aspects of both A-10 and Black Shark.

 

For this reason, I'd like the F-35, especially the B model (V/STOL ahoy!)

[Python]

I'd love to see what DCS could do with a Harrier simulation. To me, it fits within the close-combat aspects of both A-10 and Black Shark.

 

Wouldn't we all :pilotfly:

[ebabil]

aerosoft is developing a flight simulaiton is named jet thunder. that sim will include harrier, super etendart and puchara. i guess it won't be detailed as much as dcs's sims.

 

i like harriers too, but my very first favorites are f-a16 and f-14.

Edited February 24, 2011 by ebabil

[digitaljjd]

So when will they reveal what's next in the works? A month from now? 6 months from now, or is there an upcomping trade show or expo that ED routinely attends where they can make a surprise unveil?

[leafer]

I am sure the next module is going to be a variant of the F-15. Fo sure!

[Boberro]

I am sure it is either F-16 or F-18 ^^

Long time ago ED has requested informations about Carl Vilson Carrier Ship - it may be tip too ;]

[Mugenjin]

Since it's going to be a US fixed wing there aren't too many obvious choices.

So I think F-15/F-16/F-18. And all of these are awesome :D

[ben1101]

Well, Regards to the overload discussed two pages earlier, I make it a point to always fly with the AP Channels disengaged, unless for example following routes for long distances or needing alt hold etc. and I have no trouble (with head tracker) hovering, using the schvkal and searching and taking out targets etc.

 

But my history of simming has been from X-Plane where all the physics are over exaggerated so being able to hold precise hovers with minimal depth perception and visual cues is a very practiced skill.. Using the head tracker to accurately place the schvkal is no problem to bring the hammer down on surprise enemy encounters. (BTW I claim a fast mover kill on the 104th server by side slipping his strafing run on the cannons while locking him and shotgunning him with a vikhr, however he claimed "wire strike" :s )

 

The way systems are managed in the Shark are very efficient IMO and should not be a barrier to its selection other than the obvious - the fact that two sets of eyes are better than one.

 

wow. two pages. really? did I have to post this? huh..

Edited March 1, 2011 by ben1101

[Amuro]

I am sure it is either F-16 or F-18 ^^

Long time ago ED has requested informations about Carl Vilson Carrier Ship - it may be tip too ;]

F-16/F-18 is great. But ED requested information about F-22 cockpit too. They've probably got a F-22 military contract, , so you never know. :pilotfly:

Edited February 26, 2011 by Amuro

[CAT_101st]

F-16/F-18 is great. But ED requested information about F-22 cockpit too. They've probably got a F-22 military contract, , so you never know. :pilotfly:

If they got a contract for a F22 why would they ask us for cocpit ininformation. I would think they would be given every thing they need. I would guss that they would be adding it in as a AI plain only.

[JS]

I was hoping for a non-american aircraft next. It's a pain to have to use a calculator just to be able to read the gauges.

 

The absolute best would of course be if it was possible to choose between a metric and an imperial cockpit, regardless of where the aircraft comes from.

[nomdeplume]

If they got a contract for a F22 why would they ask us for cockpit information. I would think they would be given every thing they need. I would guess that they would be adding it in as a AI plane only.

Bear in mind that the software for the military isn't only about advanced flight modeling so pilots can train without having to go up in the aircraft. Military services have budgets for pilot training, they can afford to send them up in the real aircraft, and no simulator is going to 100% model the aircraft's flight characteristics.

 

The impression I got was that the A-10C desktop simulator was more about the avionics and engagement procedures. An accurate flight model no doubt is very useful, but it's not really the goal.

 

The info about The Battle Simulator suggests a similar set of flyables to what's in FC2, and I doubt that all of them are using even the Advanced Flight Model, let alone a DCS-level flight model. Often the point of these military training simulations is about command and control, using the right communications channels and protocols, and assessing the reaction of a commanding officer and their team to various situations. Ultra high-fidelity flight dynamics etc. aren't really that important; it's about training effective communications between all elements. All measurement systems are effectively arbitrary, so there's no point getting hung up on wanting to see the same units everywhere you look.

 

I was hoping for a non-american aircraft next. It's a pain to have to use a calculator just to be able to read the gauges.

So don't... I'm in a metric-using country and my only exposure to feet/knots/miles etc. is in simulators, and at first I was thrown by this as I don't really have any intrinsic understanding of how far 1,000 feet is or how fast 200 knots is. But I've come to realise it doesn't really matter all that much.

 

What matters is the effect of your airspeed and altitude on your aircraft's handling and weapons employment capabilities, as well as exposure to threats. Whether that's expressed in KPH and metres or knots and feet or furlongs-per-fortnight and astronomical units is pretty irrelevant, the only practical difference being that it's usually easier to work with whatever units the aircraft's gauges give you.

 

I do however have the units option set to metric, and in the same I'll sometimes jump to an external view or map view to check my speed/altitude in metric. Not because "555 KPH" means anything more to me than "300 knots", but because I like to try the conversions in my head and this gives me a way to easily check my result.

[hitman]

F-16/F-18 is great. But ED requested information about F-22 cockpit too. They've probably got a F-22 military contract, , so you never know. :pilotfly:

Im pretty sure ED doesnt have enough to make a simulation about the F-22. Call it a hunch.

[Emmer]

F-16 Fighting Falcon would be cool......:thumbup:

 

 

Edited February 26, 2011 by Emmer

[Rikus]

Has ED say something about when they will say what next DCS will be?

 

Greetings

[garengarch]

yes rikus

 

http://games.on.net/article/11576/Developer_Interview_DCS_A10Cs_Jim_Mackonochie