But the Russian planes?

[djembe]

Tell that to http://www.ubi.com/

 

This is a new simulator, nothing to do with ubisoft.

No plane is property of Ubisoft.

 

I think make a su25 is posible

[VAOZoky]

Su-27M

SU-30M/MKK/MKI

Su-27SKM

Su-27SM/2/3

Su-35BM/S

 

MiG-29S

MiG-29M

MiG-29SM

MiG-29SMT

MiG-29K

MiG-35

 

:santa:

[TurboHog]

Another wild theory:

 

Maybe ED is not developing the US fixed wing at all...

 

F-18 Super hornet is going to be a third party addon. Basicly the only option is DCS F-16 or DCS F-18C. I think the latter is not a smart move with the super hornet already being developed by a third party. The former is already there and known as Falcon BMS.

 

Maybe US = RU and we should be expecting something that starts with either Mig- or SU- ...?

 

But I don't think I'm right. Unfortunately. One day maybe... DCS Mig-29K? Russian carrier operations? :thumbup::thumbup:

[Silver_Dragon]

More plausible Mig-29A/Su-25/Su-27A, others coming with that has completed and the more news have prototipe, secrets system planes.

[Corsair]

Or Su-25TM (Su-39) or Su-25SM :)

[Mouse]

Ubisoft does not own the rights to the Flaming Cliffs series. They own the rights to original LOMAC package, which they refused to support further development on. The FC release was an Unofficial addon to LOMAC, and ED has the rights to do whatever they want to the T-Toad.

 

Technically ED even has the rights to re-develop the 27/33/25/29/15/10A for DCS as long as no original Ubi content is used in the development process. Indeed, do not forget that our A-10C was for a long time, slated as an A-10A release until the AF decided to help with further development of the -C project.

 

--------

 

What I really want to see is the F-CK-1A in DCS.

 

Ah, sorry, I was mistaken then. This is very good to know, though I wonder why they're even doing FC3 if that's the case?

[Zakatak]

Another wild theory:

 

Maybe ED is not developing the US fixed wing at all...

 

F-18 Super hornet is going to be a third party addon. Basicly the only option is DCS F-16 or DCS F-18C. I think the latter is not a smart move with the super hornet already being developed by a third party. The former is already there and known as Falcon BMS.

 

I am 90% sure that if DCS Fixed-wing Fighter is released, it's going to be the Charlie Hornet.

 

The F-15C is owned by Ubi, and they have the rights for it.

BMS has already aced the Falcon and topping it would be a difficult, and would require a dynamic campaign at the least.

The Superbug and Harrier are already under development by 3rd parties.

The F-15E and F-14 are 2-seaters, and considering that they chose the only 1-seater attack helicopter in history, they have little interest in them. Also, they are both being developed by IRIS.

The F-22 is under development, and the F-35 hasn't finished testing and has alot of classified information. Not to mention they would be completely unfair in an MP enviroment.

The domain name for a website with F18 in the title was a mystery that was never answered.

 

I would assume that ED would steer 3rd party developers away from any projects they are doing so they don't step in their work. So it will be the F/A-18C most likely, assuming that "US Fixed Wing Fighter" still applies, seeing as it is one of the only choices available.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Zakatak

[Teapot]

I agree with you Zakatak.

If I was a punter, I'd be betting on the Charlie Hornet as being odds on favourite to be the next jet.

[GGTharos]

We were supposed to get DCS: A-10A. This changed because of the A-10C contract AFAIK, not because of Ubi. Ubi doesn't 'own' DCS titled aircraft. They own the particular and exact collection of aircraft you're familiar with in LOMAC - ie. those exact 3D models, that exact simulation level, etc etc.

 

I am 90% sure that if DCS Fixed-wing Fighter is released, it's going to be the Charlie Hornet.

[Teapot]

Dammit GG! :D You've just thrown a spanner into my carefully crafted punting hypothesis!

 

OK I'll re-cast the oracle (where's that damn goat? :mad:).

 

Right, the juxtapositioning of goat entrails on the only fair unsullied maiden I could get my hands on, with such short notice (don't move Gertrude!), tells me that the GODS are indicating (after probing GG's fiendishly nefarious extrapolation of the facts on hand in order to cast the good forum denizens into confuzzlement) that it's probably going to be the SU27 ... :shocking:

 

Hey everyone! I have it on good authority that the NEXT DCS JET will be ... The SU27 Flanker! WHooooooweee! :megalol:

Edited June 27, 2012 by Teapot

[VAOZoky]

Im preaty sure that MiG's and Su's are owned by United Aircraft Corporation and not Ubisoft :megalol:, and i dont see any problem of creating them from scratch. Same thing for nato planes.

[Teapot]

Im preaty sure that MiG's and Su's are owned by United Aircraft Corporation ... Same thing for nato planes.

 

Ah mate, thinking outside the square! Good stuff! :lol:

[Boberro]

BMS has already aced the Falcon and topping it would be a difficult, and would require a dynamic campaign at the least.

 

It wouldn't require.

Does casual player know what dynamic campaign is? Not really.

 

Mostly Falconeers bable about it only... without reason at all as DC is not a must.

 

 

ED could say in how many engines new plane is equipped with :P It doesn't say exactly what plane it is, does it? No, so secret is being kept :D

Edited June 27, 2012 by Boberro

[PlainSight]

I agree with you Zakatak.

If I was a punter, I'd be betting on the Charlie Hornet as being odds on favourite to be the next jet.

 

I wish they'd do another map and just let the 3rd devs to do the planes. Since it takes more than two years to make one, they should get on it asap.

[BR55Sevas]

I tried to made Flanker Su-27SM3 modification, here is the some shots. But not sure if this project became 3d party module for DCSW.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2012 by BR=55=Sevas

[Zakatak]

I wish they'd do another map and just let the 3rd devs to do the planes. Since it takes more than two years to make one, they should get on it asap.

 

I believe a map for "Myanmar" is hiding in the files for DCS World, but it isn't finished or playable yet, obviously. If we had Black Sea/Georgia, Myanmar/Burma, and Nevada, that should be enough for awhile.

 

What ED needs to work on is creating a believable combat enviroment. DCS has matched or exceeded the renowned Falcon 4 and Allied Force, in areas like weapon models, flight models, 98%> functional cockpits. But it really missing that feeling of immersion, of a war. The lack of dynamic campaign, while sucky, isn't even necessarily part of the problem. I just can't put my finger on what it is. The whole DCS World feels very scripted.

[Weta43]

I want a Su-27SK

snap :-)

[Robin_Hood]

What ED needs to work on is creating a believable combat enviroment. DCS has matched or exceeded the renowned Falcon 4 and Allied Force, in areas like weapon models, flight models, 98%> functional cockpits. But it really missing that feeling of immersion, of a war. The lack of dynamic campaign, while sucky, isn't even necessarily part of the problem. I just can't put my finger on what it is. The whole DCS World feels very scripted.

 

I think ED is aware of this, and are constantly working towards a better immersion. Already with the A-10C, we can finally hear other planes communicate with each other, and that helps a lot. I'm sure they will keep on working on this kind of things. They are also working towards Dynamic Campaigns, one piece at a time (think Mission Generator and Ressource Management with DCS World's warehouses)

[PlainSight]

What ED needs to work on is creating a believable combat enviroment. DCS has matched or exceeded the renowned Falcon 4 and Allied Force, in areas like weapon models, flight models, 98%> functional cockpits. But it really missing that feeling of immersion, of a war. The lack of dynamic campaign, while sucky, isn't even necessarily part of the problem. I just can't put my finger on what it is. The whole DCS World feels very scripted.

 

I already started the topic some time ago:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=85277

[Mouse]

I believe a map for "Myanmar" is hiding in the files for DCS World, but it isn't finished or playable yet, obviously. If we had Black Sea/Georgia, Myanmar/Burma, and Nevada, that should be enough for awhile.

 

What ED needs to work on is creating a believable combat enviroment. DCS has matched or exceeded the renowned Falcon 4 and Allied Force, in areas like weapon models, flight models, 98%> functional cockpits. But it really missing that feeling of immersion, of a war. The lack of dynamic campaign, while sucky, isn't even necessarily part of the problem. I just can't put my finger on what it is. The whole DCS World feels very scripted.

 

The problem, I believe, is the mission editor. ArmA2 is pretty light-weight as a sim and unforgivably awful as a flight sim, but it's mission editor is much much much more powerful than what we have in DCS. Steel Beasts, which I just demo'd in anticipation of Combined Arms, also has a lot of nice options for unit behavior logic that I'd like to see in DCS.

 

The reason people want a "dynamic campaign" is undoubtedly one part persistence, but I think when it comes down to it, persistence is a distant second to being able to craft dynamic missions. That happens in the mission editor, which could be better.

 

I think Combined Arms has the potential to fix this, so I'm not going to kvetch until I've got my hands on it.

 

Oh, and, uh, Russian planes are good too! (Totally not off topic...)

[Pyroflash]

The problem, I believe, is the mission editor. ArmA2 is pretty light-weight as a sim and unforgivably awful as a flight sim, but it's mission editor is much much much more powerful than what we have in DCS. Steel Beasts, which I just demo'd in anticipation of Combined Arms, also has a lot of nice options for unit behavior logic that I'd like to see in DCS.

 

The reason people want a "dynamic campaign" is undoubtedly one part persistence, but I think when it comes down to it, persistence is a distant second to being able to craft dynamic missions. That happens in the mission editor, which could be better.

 

I think Combined Arms has the potential to fix this, so I'm not going to kvetch until I've got my hands on it.

 

Oh, and, uh, Russian planes are good too! (Totally not off topic...)

 

The mission editor as it stands is a constant WIP. It has seen many, many improvements over the past couple of years, and I see no reason why it should not continue to improve.

[roob]

I don't get it... The meaning of "russian jet" seems to be limited to only Su-27/MiG-29 and it's various versions in these threads. As of now we still only have one western jet and one eastern helicopter, apart from the Mustang. The MiG-21 will probably be the next finished jet, which is russian, and other than that it'll be a long time until we see ANY of the western jets currently in development.

[Pyroflash]

I don't get it... The meaning of "russian jet" seems to be limited to only Su-27/MiG-29 and it's various versions in these threads. As of now we still only have one western jet and one eastern helicopter, apart from the Mustang. The MiG-21 will probably be the next finished jet, which is russian, and other than that it'll be a long time until we see ANY of the western jets currently in development.

 

I think the issue most people have is probably with the fact that after the MiG-21Bis, there aren't going to be any Russian aircraft for the foreseeable future. However in terms of practical releases for the next year or so, the game shouldn't be too unbalanced when it comes to the ratio of Russian:American jets.

 

The real issue to me is the complete and total lack of European or Far Eastern aircraft being released or in queue. Come on guys, Japan, ROK, ROC (you know, Taiwan, not the PRC), and Europe have made some extremely competitive aircraft in recent years.

[Grimes]

The mission editor as it stands is a constant WIP. It has seen many, many improvements over the past couple of years, and I see no reason why it should not continue to improve.

 

This is very much true. :thumbup:

 

As for the topic, give it time, it will happen. Think of it as the more western aircraft that get made now, the less there are to make later. Also the need and desires of the community for un-modeled aircraft X will likely result in a decent market opportunity for anyone who wants to make the aircraft. But as it stands I'm perfectly happy with plenty of NATO aircraft being modeled. Afterall the sim handles Co-op scenarios quite a lot better than it does PvP.

[ogata321]

HIIIIIIIIIIIIND