Next DCS Helicopter Wish List

[ricktoberfest]

Even the A model would have a huge advantage with the FLIR and separate gunner/pilot positions

[Strelok]

An AH-64D would make a great rival to the Ka-50

 

Yep, with this kind of new advanced technology its almost unstoppable :

[Mike Busutil]

Apache definitely get's my vote but with the dual seat modules inbound I'm not sure how the front seat optics controller would be correctly simulated in DCS.... (If at all) It requires you to hold it like a Playstation controller including buttons on the back. Sure the keyboard would work but...

 

Edited October 29, 2014 by Mike Busutil

[shagrat]

Kamov Ka-27 Helix would be my wish. It's already modeled in the game.

As is the Apache AH-64A and Longbow AH-64D... and the Mi-28 Havoc and the Mi-24 Hind, and the OH-58 Kiowa, and UH-60 Blackhawk, and the SH-60 variant, and there is a CH-47 Chinook and the CH-53 Sea Stallion...

[Mike Busutil]

And the Ka-50 Blackshark...

[Chappie]

Mi-24 Hind

 

In my opinion, the Mi-24 Hind should have already been implemented in DCS. I have seen 3D mesh of the gunner's seat done by ED. This is a Russian helicopter that was featured prominently in the Afghan war and is quite frankly way overdue.

 

The lack of attention given to the Mi-24 by ED is appalling. This helicopter is by no means a complex project and the instrumentation primitive at best. There is an AI version as well. I am not sure I understand the reasonable neglect occurring but this helo should be modeled now.

[SilentGun]

 

The lack of attention given to the Mi-24 by ED is appalling. This helicopter is by no means a complex project and the instrumentation primitive at best. There is an AI version as well. I am not sure I understand the reasonable neglect occurring but this helo should be modeled now.

 

 

First off every thing is extremely complex for a "DCS level simulation" and belsimtek is considering it.

[msalama]

This helicopter is by no means a complex project and the instrumentation primitive at best.

 

And you know this how? How many sims / sim modules have you written yourself?

[outlawal2]

The lack of attention given to the Mi-24 by ED is appalling. This helicopter is by no means a complex project and the instrumentation primitive at best. There is an AI version as well. I am not sure I understand the reasonable neglect occurring but this helo should be modeled now.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

LOL

 

Wow..

[Chappie]

And you know this how? How many sims / sim modules have you written yourself?

 

Have you observed how many steam gauges are in the hind? Of course you haven't. You know nothing of it or how the airframe is shared with the Mi-8.

[Flagrum]

Have you observed how many steam gauges are in the hind? Of course you haven't. You know nothing of it or how the airframe is shared with the Mi-8.

:doh:

[shagrat]

Have you observed how many steam gauges are in the hind? Of course you haven't. You know nothing of it or how the airframe is shared with the Mi-8.

Wow! We have a real expert here...

 

What do you think is more complex to develop an accurate set of steam gauges or an mfd with some lines and numbers green on black? Apart from the modelling of avionics, pitot tube reacting to surrounding air, gyros and so on... which has to be modelled for any aircraft?

So you have seen a Mi-8 cockpit? And how do you get to the conclusion it is the same as the Hind??? Just Google "Mi-24 Hind pictures" and think about tandem bubbles vs. Lorry driver cockpit.

[shagrat]

By the way, if it is that simple, go ahead! There is a thread about how to build a module from scratch. Search for 'wunderluft', you'll find it!

:doh:

[Chappie]

By the way, if it is that simple, go ahead! There is a thread about how to build a module from scratch. Search for 'wunderluft', you'll find it!

:doh:

 

Accuracy not needed or large time expenditure for DCS... just mod few files (instructions publicly available) and presto ... Hind with Hokum pit. This is not what I want! I don't imply it is easy but surprised not already in DCS. Belsimtek put out beta Mi-8 and I hope they follow on with Hind.

[Flagrum]

Chappie, you are probably confusing the age and the technology used in the real Hind and compare that to modern, maybe western helos.

 

Just because a tech is old and analogue does not mean that it is easy to simulate. A steam gauge machine is probably even harder to simulate than one with a glass cockpit: you have to simulate a lot of tiny details that are all analogue - and that is always hard for a digital computer and the maths involved. Alone the "lag" and vibration of the gauge hands ...

 

In comparisation, to make a MFD "look like" a real one is perhaps easier - all is digital. To display data, only a "print" statement is required - no math and formulas necessary.

[Flagrum]

Accuracy not needed or large time expenditure for DCS... just mod few files (instructions publicly available) and presto ... Hind with Hokum pit. This is not what I want! I don't imply it is easy but surprised not already in DCS. Belsimtek put out beta Mi-8 and I hope they follow on with Hind.

Ok, you are trolling. Nice try, though.

[shagrat]

Chappie, you are aware the Hind is already on BST's roadmap? ...I strongly recommend to do a little research on modelling complex system and think again. Please reconsider terms like "easy", "simple" etc. If it would be that easy we would have seen far more modules in the past two years...

[SilentGun]

Wow ok everybody's now hatin on chappie. Moral of the story is he wants a hind... And don't we all

[Fri13]

Apache definitely get's my vote but with the dual seat modules inbound I'm not sure how the front seat optics controller would be correctly simulated in DCS.... (If at all) It requires you to hold it like a Playstation controller including buttons on the back. Sure the keyboard would work but...

 

Just a new product to controller manufacturers to build.... Or how about buying a Saitek Yoke?

 

For that gunner use, I would by Yoke (around 50€ as new) and then buy a joystick board (around 30€) and then craft a own custom controller around, requires just some time around electronic store to find a wanted switches and buttons, then use my skills to solder and place to make plastic casts.

 

Result would be a dual-controller joined together and it would work in DCS as it accepts multiple controllers separated. So instead one cable, I would have two cables coming from custom yoke.

 

Done this for Russian HOTAS and works great.

I have a small idea to make custom stick to friend TM Warthog but I don't know does the stick axis base work without official stick connected? As the screw would allow very nicely to mount custom stick with own USB cable with more buttons, switches and hats than any sim-pervert dreams....

[outlawal2]

Wow ok everybody's now hatin on chappie. Moral of the story is he wants a hind... And don't we all

 

Nobody is "hatin'" on anyone, but you don't walk into a forum like this and start making baseless statements regarding a process that you clearly know nothing at all about..

 

Folks will respond to that in a less than positive way...

[Fri13]

And you know this how? How many sims / sim modules have you written yourself?

I believe that many now specifically want to misunderstand his words...

 

Compare A-10C and Su-25A and you get the idea....

 

How much there is technical and computerized technologies differences between those two?

 

ALOT!

 

Sure there is the data required for flight modeling but if DCS can apply a Blade Element Theory, then it is easy to make a AFM level by experienced modeler alone. Then it isn't much required for skilled modeler and coder to make a A-10A or Su-25A level cockpit (non-clickable) with 6-DOF functionality.

Just as quick example: Simple Plane maker tutorial Part 1: http://youtu.be/l4m2wRb7ZBA

 

Now, how long you think it would take from skilled modeler that has access to designs or samples and textures to build a FC3 level aircraft, when basic models are already done, weapons etc data and models exist etc?

 

Sure for PFM ED would need more real life data to confirm and adjust flight modeling and get externals etc more accurate, but I believe many would be happy to pay 25€ for "early access" that gets later updated to AFM/PFM with 20-25€ more....

 

I would be willing to pay 30-40€ for base model like Mi-24P and then 10-15€ for each variant like V and VP that requires just base model. Same thing with any existing module that has upgrades. Like when aircraft gets upgrades that simply change avionics and carried weapons only.

[Fri13]

Chappie, you are aware the Hind is already on BST's roadmap? ...I strongly recommend to do a little research on modelling complex system and think again. Please reconsider terms like "easy", "simple" etc. If it would be that easy we would have seen far more modules in the past two years...

For heart surgeon it can be easy to do heart transfers, but to me it would be trying to even dare hold the scalpel, never less to cut someone.

 

There are different difficulty levels and skills.

Even a driving a bike is very difficulty skill to learn, for some.

Learning to drive a car can be easy to many, but still many makes mistakes and peoples life's are in line. But some are skilled that they can handle a car in "impossible" ways, to most other people.

 

To many a Microsoft Office Excel is very complex, or the functionality of web browser in very basic level like address bar, history of visited web sites, bookmarks etc.

Like how many of you know what the web browser really does between typing address, hitting enter and reading loaded site? How many of you knows what the whole computer (all hardware and software) does on whole that short period of time between key press and loaded page on screen?

 

To some people making a DCS level module is a impossible task, but many knows how to do such things and they can do them if they have time and will to do them.

 

If you are doing alone something and it is your first one, it is hard, time taking process etc. But if you have done dozens of such things already, it is easy and simple thing to do.

 

But it doesn't mean you do one on weekend... But it doesn't mean it takes 10-15 years like you would be building a whole new real aircraft from scratch with latest theories and problems needing to be solved.

 

Making a DCS module of cold war era aircraft isn't like building a F-35.

 

The skills that DCS module developers have is great, but that doesn't make them better than people who work with projects like F-35 or PAK-FA. Otherwise F-35 would have been finalized in 1998-19999 period. Or it really takes a lots of time to make a single cauge with its needle and test it and think how to wire it etc....

 

Either we can laugh when someone say "its easy" that it means "done at weekend alone in drunk" or we can laugh that "it is like building a new aircraft from scratch".

Or we can simply be objective and consider that what the "it should be easy" really means, in context. Or do we need to get to discussions like does the different skins in DCS aircrafts affect to flight modeling and could we get models without paint to minimize the drag from paint?

[Chappie]

Please pardon my youthful exuberance. I fell in love with Russian aviation long ago when ED was just Su-27 Flanker. I followed the simulation to DCS World and quite frankly am looking for ED and 3rd parties to produce never before or little simulated Russian airframes. I am not really looking for more Janes simulations in DCS.

 

I grew up on over-simulated F-15s and F-16s and F/A-18s. When ED came along finally something refreshing and new. As I followed their progress, I became ever more interested in Russian aviation. Please pardon my attempts to see more Russian aviation represented in DCS.

[msalama]

You know nothing of it or how the airframe is shared with the Mi-8.

 

Whether I do or don't doesn't matter, because the salient point here is _you_ knowing nothing about the workload involved - and whether anything from the current Mi-8 would actually be transferable to a later-generation Hind at all.

 

PS. And oh yeah, if steam gauge planes are so much easier, then why did the LN MiG-21bis take so long to make?

Edited November 1, 2014 by msalama

[outlawal2]

Please pardon my youthful exuberance. I fell in love with Russian aviation long ago when ED was just Su-27 Flanker. I followed the simulation to DCS World and quite frankly am looking for ED and 3rd parties to produce never before or little simulated Russian airframes. I am not really looking for more Janes simulations in DCS.

 

I grew up on over-simulated F-15s and F-16s and F/A-18s. When ED came along finally something refreshing and new. As I followed their progress, I became ever more interested in Russian aviation. Please pardon my attempts to see more Russian aviation represented in DCS.

 

Now that is a posting we can all relate to! Very few on this forum would NOT like to see a HIND parked in our hangars, just don't underestimate the complexity involved with making a module up to the level of fidelity that we all hope for...

 

There is a REASON that there are only a handful of developers prepared to tackle a full on DCS module... The few devs we have so far have been excellent and have provided kick-ass modules but it has not been an easy road for any of them...

 

This stuff is complicated!

 

I am with ya in wanting certain modules to be made, but let's give them the time they need to complete them successfully..

 

...as well as the respect they deserve for wading thru the complexities and providing excellent simulations for us to thrash...

 

My hat is off to ED, Belsimtek, Leatherneck and VEAO for the work they have provided and continue to provide. And I am waiting to add to this short list hopefully soon..

 

:thumbup: