DCS Heavies

[Sierra99]

No offense - but since Call of Duty I feel like everyone is font of the AC130 :) .... It may be cool looking and good for room clearing in afghanistan.... .....but I just don't see where it could fit in a modern battlefield such DCS's one with SAMs, mig-21's, Su27s....

 

 

UH, Brother just to bring you up on current events, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran... ARE the "Modern Battlefields" of today. Kosovo was the last real shooting war that involved competent Surface to Air / Air to Air threats. Simply put, any theater you can imagine an A-10 being employed would also be appropriate for the AC-130. Both are tasked with supporting troops in contact.

 

 

Still - I would appreciate a few tactical bombers such B1 or others similar stuff....)

 

The B-1B is not a tactical bomber. It is a strategic bomber capable of employing conventional munitions such as JDAMS... The B-52 can do the same thing and BOTH have been employed in that role... But it is not a tactical asset in the sense you are implying. The Mudhen or 16CG would be a better choice as a "tactical bomber"...

 

For C130', C-17 and others.... Could be fun if some gameplay was involved, such .... ... a dynamic campaign with ressources management :)

 

I flew "Heavies" for 22 years in the air force... I'm not sure the aspects that made it fun in real life will transition to a sim... unless you can simulate per diem and Mai Tai's on the beach after a long flight:thumbup:

[Blaze]

^^ seriously :) It's gonna be 3rd party devs (read: community) that make DCS even better.

 

Blaze... do you have any info on time (cost, resources required, etc) / value for developing a new aircraft module for DCS? I mean... is it even possible to make any $$ making a module for DCS? What's the reality?

The reality is don't go into making a module for the money. Go into it because it's something you really want to do. The extra cash on the side is just a small bonus that you can use to fund future modules you want to develop, donate, etc. It's up to you. Cost required depends, most of the programs you need to develop run in the thousands of dollars depending on if you already own them or not. Time you put into development is up to you. I can say that our team is a little behind in development simply because this isn't our full-time job, it's our hobby! We can't devote nearly the same amount of time to it as other companies who do this (literally) for a living. But it's a labor of love and we enjoy it. :)

 

Also... in all seriousness... we are at the mercy of ED for multiplayer, multi-human vehicles at this point, since it's not written into the sim (as I understand it), right?

Multiplayer can only be changed or updated by ED as far as the code goes. Multi-human vehicles are a goal, and we have reached the first step with the Huey which is multi-positions for a single player. You can cycle through the different positions, but this doesn't allow you to have 4 human players in all positions. This is the ultimate objective obviously. ED really doesn't do much as far as features go when third party developers make requests. They simply provide the capability in the code for our request and then it's up to us to develop these features with the new "gateway" given to us.

 

And we'd need ED to update their code to allow for slinging equipment / vehicles and loading vehicles / equipment into aircraft. It's not possible at current state, right?

ED would have to provide the capability, and it would be up to the developers to do the rest.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Blaze

[starsky396]

I'm guessing no AC-130 simulator anytime soon. ED already has a contract with the military, meaning they cannot give it to consumers. Look here:http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=31558&page=4

 

There are no plans to include the AC-130 IR sensor operator station in DCS. Among other reasons, we have no permissions to do so from our client.

[159th_Falcon]

What i don't get though;

KA-50 happened because they had done work for KAMOV

A-10C happened because they had done work for US Air National Guard

But the AC-130 cant happen because there developing it for the USA????

 

I would say it CAN happen because there developing it for USA.

 

Also mind, Wags is specifically referring to the IR operator station, not the entire plane.

[Home Fries]

Still, you could write a mission where the fast movers and SEAD had to clear the area for a C-130 to come in and drop the MOAB.

 

That has potential. :devil:

[Darkwolf]

Someone needs to make it happen otherwise I'm going have to get my own team together and develop the aircraft myself

 

I can help you .... Err... Ahem.....when i'm done with C++ lessons. And for now i only studied the few first page. So i should be able to help......... in a few decades....

[arteedecco]

...

I flew "Heavies" for 22 years in the air force... I'm not sure the aspects that made it fun in real life will transition to a sim... unless you can simulate per diem and Mai Tai's on the beach after a long flight:thumbup:

 

LAUGH! But you couldn't have a beer while you flew... ;) technically.

[Hueyman]

Would really love a Hercule too... I already love the updated 3D model, very nicely done.

 

Hope DCS will also take this direction in the future, war is not just a fighters/CAS planes affair

[Grigs]

The next lines are going to be written by a guy with a swiss heart (but not patriotic nontheless ;)):

 

If the upcoming Eagle Dynamics Graphics Engine allows terrains with higher resolution, that might also permits landings/takeoffs from airstrips (let's even dream about performing in the mountains on glaciers).

 

I am here especially thinking about the Pilatus-PC6 with its STOL ability and its commercial success. Of course it does not enter into the "heavies" category. But while reading different posts in this thread, I thought about it since there is a public who wants to fly other things than fighters and choppers (but still military, not civil aviation). Someone also mentioned the risk to be bored and somebody else talked about the current maps' size.

 

This is simply an idea. I am throwing it out there to see people's reactions. I do not expect to see such plane coming out anytime soon. One of the advantages of such project, I guess, is that it could be developped but a third party. But hey, I am not saying that third parties are not able to give birth to more complex birds though ;).

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2014 by Grigs

[KennethBF]

We can actually have many civilian aircraft in the DCS world to make logistics missions for the military. I would like to see large aircrafts in the DCS. I have talked to several who fancy some large aircraft in the DCS. Remember many of us flying in DCS like variety. I do not mind sitting in a 737 at 30,000 feet to transport infantry to the battlefield.

 

Remember that civilian aircraft are on the wings even where it is war and where there is unrest.

 

So, bring us the big birds. Please!!

 

I'd like to se the old B 707 and the B 727

 

Captain sim B-707 FSX:

 

Captain sim B-707 (E-3) FSX:

Edited February 11, 2014 by KennethBF

[Grigs]

We can actually have many civilian aircraft in the DCS world to make logistics missions for the military

Well I understand what you are saying, but those are technically state aircrafts and not civil ones. That is what I meant, just to be accurate.

 

Let's not talk about the civil part in this thread ,)

[Revan]

well, for military heavies, we should get the DCS: B 52

 

and for the civies, we need all of them, 747s, 737, ect. Especially with nevada

[Buzzles]

Not quite a heavy, but I'd like to see a DCS: DC3 (aka C-47 Skytrain) :)

 

With the P51D already in the game, and the soon inclusions of the P47, FW190 and BF109 thanks to the WWII module, I think it could be a nice addition.

[The_Pharoah]

Whilst I'm a fan of heavies, keep in mind that DCS is primarily a combat flight sim and so flying around in a C130H would get very boring very quick, unless you had something else to do eg. Spectre or cargo dropping or para drops, etc.

 

I'd rather they focus their energies on:

 

1. new maps

2. heavies but with offensive capabilities (eg. B1B, F111, B52 even)

[Exorcet]

Whilst I'm a fan of heavies, keep in mind that DCS is primarily a combat flight sim and so flying around in a C130H would get very boring very quick

AFM by itself is fun, a C-130 or C-17 would be fine. And if you wanted to do something else, you could. Ideally, you'd want a cargo drop to fully modeled, but nothing is stopping you from doing a run without any cargo.

 

At the very least, a few more civilian AI are needed along with some fallibility in IFF sensors, that would be a nice and realistic change. In the long term, I'm hoping DCS expands its combat side as well as becoming a complete replacement for FSX.

[The_Pharoah]

Don't get me wrong...if they released a C130 AND a C17, I'd be one of the first to purchase it....but just thinking of how I would use it.

[Hueyman]

The PC-6 is my favorite plane, after the B-17

[badger66]

Oh yeah. And cause its a J it will pressurize!

 

Your kiddin right ?

 

The Herk is the backbone tactical delivery aircraft ..... spending time certainly being shot at and they pressurise it ..... the TWATS !!!

 

Ive worked on many a Herk and they always carry damage especially in the main landing gear bulkhead and the skins around the cargo door and the door itself . ..... never seen a clean one except for new or fresh overhaul .

[badger66]

SU-24 Fencer

[Darkwolf]

Well, regarding heavies, i would rather prefer a P8 or a P3. That would be more fun than simply go from A to B. Or an AWACS with some kind of "tactical interface that could interact with IA such Combined arms"

Big toy + ASW/ASuW combat would be a hit. Yet DCS doesn't support bathimetry as far as i know. :(

 

Dangerous Waters was a hell of a game :)

 

[Mainstay]

My list of heavies i wanna see

 

1 : B1B Lancer

2 : Tu-160 Blackjack

3 : Tu-95/142 Bear

4 : An-124

5 : C5 Galaxy

 

Semi heavy

 

6 : Su-24 Fencer

[Wolf Rider]

C-5M Super Galaxy, with loading capability? :music_whistling:

[Grigs]

At the very least, a few more civilian AI are needed along with some fallibility in IFF sensors, that would be a nice and realistic change

 

I could not agree more with you! That is exactly my opinion as well. A distinction should be made though between war & peace time. If you want to simulate a training session (and we need a few more options for that, but new subject), then airways should be busy. If you are in a campaign, then the battlefield should be a no flight zone.

 

Besides, civil traffic opens new possibilities:

- Day/night interception of civil aicrafts (with the upcoming F/A 18C, it would be possible to put its floodlight in use).

- Interception on slow movers, if we get some as well (quiet challenging)

- In my dreams, you can even force a civil airliner to land on an airbase.

- It creates an environment which could give birth to another module and type of gameplay: ATC (ACC, APP, ADC)

 

But I would not make civil flights flyable (only AI).

 

Okay, blame is on me for writting all of this after saying "let's not talk about that." Could not help myself.

My point is that "simply" adding non-flyable airliners in our sky would be a welcome addition ;)

[KennethBF]

Whilst I'm a fan of heavies, keep in mind that DCS is primarily a combat flight sim and so flying around in a C130H would get very boring very quick, unless you had something else to do eg. Spectre or cargo dropping or para drops, etc.

 

I think a lot of people will dissagree to that. It's fun to fly, even though you do not shoot someting.

 

Let's get the civ in to DCS :)

[Grigs]

I don't really see the fun in flying civil planes in a multiplayer environment.