DCS World or Helicopter World

[Revan]

Right. But most of the F/A-18 fans want Carrier Ops. You can start without them but eventually you must give them what they want. Besides, Naval Ops open the door to other popular Carrier aircrafts, for example: Tomcat, Harrier, Intruder, Corsair, etc.

 

 

you forgot the F-4E :)

[Growler]

you forgot the F-4E :)

 

Right but I prefer the F-4J :)

[ironmarc]

Have ED officially announced F/A-18 as the next module?

 

I would imagine that Sukhoi Su-27 would be made available earlier.

I know that the staff at ED is small and that some of them are or were engineers that worked with aircraft industry before, but I suppose that chances are that they didn't work for Boeing, McDonnel Douglas, etc... But instead for what is now the UAC.

 

Anyway, I think the actual reason that originated all of this debate is that ED decided to become more ambitious and increase the full scope of the simulation they are developing, but I guess you all know that their studio is small, doesn't have a huge budget and with this they are trying to do more with less.

 

That's because I think Tishin believes that if DCS World becomes a compreheensive and complete "digital combat simulator" platform, we'll see it's reputation and market grow. If it becomes so complex that it makes Arma III look like a 5th grade science project and Battlefield 4 look like a potato, not just a combat flight sim, but a compreehensive war simulator, with World War II included as well, I think it'll be the talk of many gamers, especially the ones that are a bit older.

 

Or maybe zombies in DCS World. It worked well for Arma.

[Lucifah]

Or maybe zombies in DCS World. It worked well for Arma.

 

:megalol:

 

My impression is that gamers are definitely NOT the target group for DCS, and I'm thankful for that!

I wouldn't mind "fetch quests" though... aka Huey missions with sling load :music_whistling:

[uboats]

 

Mig-21bis is also looking great and will work better for people who want combat airplanes, although it might be a bit outdated compared to the threats it's gonna be facing but that problem might go away if more comparable planes and equipment are released in the future. ( fingers crossed that F-100D will follow soon)

 

Other than these two, what else is new for jet fans in DCS?

New flight models for two jets that have been around since 2003?

F-18C is far, far away according to Wags and Super Bug developers aren't really keen on giving out information. ( can't really blame them)

That's it. IRIS is pretty much gone, Kinney is gone, Mil-Sim gone, RAZBAM is being awfully quiet...

 

 

Unfortunately, mig-21 is probably gone. wait for upcoming news.

IRIS gone? What about F15E?

[hreich]

Unfortunately, mig-21 is probably gone. wait for upcoming news.

IRIS gone? What about F15E?

 

What's that abotu Mig-21? Is't it due to get out in March?

[Lusik]

MiG-21 was announced for the 30th of March but little is known about F-15E I think.

[tsumikae]

But the modern combat needs a modern heli. We were promised an Ah-64A after the A-10C

 

Surely you mean the AH-64D ?

Because the A variant is definitely not more modern than the KA-50. It's an older heli with slightly inferior performances overall. Also, like the Shark no radar, and unlike the shark no GPS.

[Dun_Aenghus]

Surely you mean the AH-64D ?

Because the A variant is definitely not more modern than the KA-50. It's an older heli with slightly inferior performances overall. Also, like the Shark no radar, and unlike the shark no GPS.

 

The AH-64D's avionics and Longbow radar still contain classified information, meaning it cannot be modelled to DCS standards. The AH-64A on the other hand can be done accurately.

[AlphaOneSix]

Because the A variant is definitely not more modern than the KA-50. It's an older heli with slightly inferior performances overall. Also, like the Shark no radar, and unlike the shark no GPS.

 

Hm? The AH-64A most certainly does have GPS, at least the "-49" version that was supposedly in the works by ED. It also has RWR and FLIR. The performance of the two is very similar, although the Ka-50 can go faster in a straight line. I'm not sure what makes it "less modern" than the Ka-50 we have in-game now.

 

I suppose if you're only measure of "more modern" is which one was introduced into service more recently, then yes, the Ka-50 wins that by about 10 years. The AH-64A version that ED was supposedly working on, however, was an upgraded version that is actually newer than the Ka-50 we have in-game.

[tsumikae]

My bad, I thought we were talking about the original A variant, wich had none of that (edit: radar and GPS, I mean).

 

From what I read, GPS were installed on the A since 1993, and every A upgraded with the longbow radar (among other upgrades) automatically earns its D graduation. I didn't know that A variants were ever fitted with radars.

Edited February 24, 2014 by tsumikae

[AlphaOneSix]

No A-model ever had a radar, you are correct there.

 

When I was in the military, we added GPS to our A-models in 1990 (temporary, ad-hoc install) followed by "officially" built-in GPS in 1992. Later, the Fire Control Computer was updated to add GPS functionality which tied the GPS into the aircraft systems very tightly.

 

While the original A-model did not have GPS, it did have a doppler navigation system with an inertial navigation system, so it wasn't completely in the dark.

[JayPee]

DCS World or Helicopter World

 

My bad, I thought we were talking about the original A variant, wich had none of that.

 

From what I read, GPS were installed on the A since 1993, and every A upgraded with the longbow radar (among other upgrades) automatically earns its D graduation. I didn't know that A variants were ever fitted with radars.

 

 

They weren't, only test platforms. The test platform of the A equipped with a RADAR was conveniently called the B. After that, more upgrades were implemented which lead to what we now know as the D model. Initially that model without the RADAR was called the C model. Because by the time the aircraft entered production state, having a RADAR was the only difference left between the C and D, hence they decided to simply call it the D model, either with or without RADAR. The D model was later on upgraded to D block 2. Ultimately it is upgraded to block 3 however the upgrades are significant enough that the decision has been made to name it E instead of D block 3.

 

In short, 3 default types exist as of today:

The A, the D w/ LB, and the D w/o LB. Of which the latter two are gradually upgraded to E models.

 

Additionally the UK has a custom D model called the AH Mk 1 (UK naming convention to 'mark' everything) or WAH-64D (US naming convention, they added the W because Westland builds it under license), the IAF has a custom D which they call the AH-64D Seraph, and the JSDF has a custom D yet they don't have a seperate name for it.

[ricktoberfest]

Btw, I'm pretty sure it's possible to simulate classified systems. You only have to know what it does, not how - and make a sim to match those features. As info becomes available the simulation can be upgraded.

[outlawal2]

Btw, I'm pretty sure it's possible to simulate classified systems. You only have to know what it does, not how - and make a sim to match those features. As info becomes available the simulation can be upgraded.

 

Careful, you will once again open a painful little can of worms and the forum will go nuts again...

[JayPee]

DCS World or Helicopter World

 

I was a bit stubborn in the past too but we can't expect ED/TFC to model something their primary customer does not want them to model. If you want a high fidelity 64D for use with real world TTPs you'd need a sort of unofficial indie community making use of undisclosed reference material. And even then it is possible that certain parties will try to make a case indicating you based a product on information they do not want you to have. Although theoretically a software developer is free to let his inventiveness get the best of him. If his work happens to resemble actual functioning of an existing machine then that is obviously a coincidence...

Edited February 25, 2014 by JayPee

[osram]

Some people might know me from my huge rant regarding the development of FW190 in the FW190 thread.

 

My main criticism usually was, that ED should actually focus their resources on aircraft which actually fit in the era and battlefield of a modern military simulation, in order to get content and multiplayer diversity/completion growing as fast as possible. While I am still unhappy about internal focus on FW190, due to its WW2 scenario. I am glad to see how many third party modules were, and will be released. Happy about their quality.. and happy about what is to come from that corner, even for full realism aircraft. Some more modern era aircraft will hopefully be coming from that corner in time. Another good thing is, that some of the WW2 mumbo-jumbo... will now actually be covered through the IL-2 kickstarter project. Which will: A) Save resources for ED to focus on modern era. and B) cover the WW2 market... at the same time. Which is a very good solution, from my POV.

 

If ED is able to convert these rather smart moves and circumstances into the release of timely modern era content, which fits well with existing aircraft... i.e. the battlefield, I have a really good feeling. Especially considering a new Engine or Nevada Map is underway too. Introduction of DCS World and it's modular functionality seems to really pay off. Especially when it comes flexibility... and resources. Glad to see that ED is actually heading in the right direction. And I'm totally looking forward to what is about to come. Also introducing cockpit/model updates and AFMs for existing/amazing aircraft like SU-27 Flanker is great too: I totally love the SU-25 T. Despite it's low-fidelity.

 

Those quality, but low-fidelity-system aircraft.. will actually gap the bridge for non-hardcore sim-market... or beginners. And it is great to get some more variety in that regard. In my case for example, I enjoy the KA-50... and the SU-25 T. Sometimes it's just nice to have simplified "routes" to access weapons systems etc. Despite low fidelity systems. Since refreshing the hi-fidelity systems, after a period of not playing much... can be annoying too. Both low and hi fidelity have their advantages and target market. Totally hyped to see how this will go on over the next few months and years.

 

Good Job - ED! :pilotfly:

Edited February 27, 2014 by osram

[The_Pharoah]

Agree with you Osram. I've posted previously about how a lot of the servers are dead (ie. if you find any) because it just kills the whole immersion when you're flying a modern US front line a/c (A10C with F15 escort) which is complemented with russian SU-25Ts for SEAD, P51s (wait, what??) for....something....whilst US Army 60's era Hueys (which haven't been used by the US Army for goodness knows how long) flies in to insert troops.

 

Hopefully someone in ED is making the right decisions as to the utilisation of limited developer resources ie.

- improving DCS World

- creating a new map (Nevada with EDGE tech)

- improving CA

- creating a new high fidelity a/c (eg. FA/18).

 

Just #1 and #2 alone will gobble up resources...they MUST decide what exactly they want to focus on and FINISH IT before moving onto something else.

[msalama]

whilst US Army 60's era Hueys (which haven't been used by the US Army for goodness knows how long) flies in to insert troops.

 

So what? The current map covers most of Georgia, and the Georgian air force still has UH-1Hs in active service:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SSCN5027.JPG

[JayPee]

FYI Georgian AF doesn't exist anymore. What's left has been migrated into the land forces

[The_Pharoah]

So what? The current map covers most of Georgia, and the Georgian air force still has UH-1Hs in active service:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SSCN5027.JPG

 

They got A10s and F15s too?

[docfu]

DCS: The World's Most Realistic Flight Simulator...

 

Except for that Georgian-flown P-51 Mustang...

[msalama]

They got A10s and F15s too?

 

The so-called blue coalition would have those in the plausible (although IRL horrendous and tragic) scenario of Georgia joining the Nato and Russians throwing a tantrum over it. So what's your point, no use of imagination allowed or what?

 

Except for that Georgian-flown P-51 Mustang...

 

1) Use of said plane is by no means mandatory in the context of 2000s Caucasus

 

2) Use of said plane is by no means mandatory in the context of 2000s Caucasus

 

3) I've been told there's a WW2 addon in the works

 

4) Oh and before I forget, use of said plane is by no means mandatory in the context of 2000s Caucasus

 

I hope this clears it up a bit?

[osram]

Well. I'm glad some people like Pharao, and actually many of my DCS friends, see the problem with unfitting types of aircraft...

 

The so-called blue coalition would have those in the plausible (although IRL horrendous and tragic) scenario of Georgia joining the Nato and Russians throwing a tantrum over it. So what's your point, no use of imagination allowed or what?

 

 

 

1) Use of said plane is by no means mandatory in the context of 2000s Caucasus

 

2) Use of said plane is by no means mandatory in the context of 2000s Caucasus

 

3) I've been told there's a WW2 addon in the works

 

4) Oh and before I forget, use of said plane is by no means mandatory in the context of 2000s Caucasus

 

I hope this clears it up a bit?

 

... Others apparently don't.

 

Even though it is perfectly obvious that flying or buying modules someone dislikes is not mandatory. Resources and time still had to be "wasted" on the creation thereof. It's kinda cool to fly around with some historical stuff for enthusiasts, sure. Even I bought the P-51, just to support ED (Like many other modules, actually). Nevertheless I don't see how it helps the general fun and scenario within multiplayer though. It's simply out of scope. Cannot be integrated in a nice, modern multiplayer map, i.e. "battlefield scenario". There is no need to "defend" your beloved historical aircraft. I like that kind of aircraft too...

 

I just believe those should not be the main focus. Many people are just waiting, barely playing DCS... hanging out. In hopes of a new modern aircraft to pop up in order to have some fresh multiplayer stuff to get into with their friends and online-buddies. And it is critical to be modern aircraft. What good is it to have a couple of P-51 dogfighting with some FW190 on specialized multiplayer servers. If many others are actually waiting to finally get back into the full scale modern battlefield with new modern content/modules?

 

As Pharaoh stated before: I believe it is absolutely critical for ED to take steps in the right direction. The direction can only be things which contribute to the already amazing modern battlefield stuff. In order to have that full mp-immersion, with all sorts of modern.. competitive aircraft. Even flying a KA-50 or SU-25T at low speed/altitude to sneak through the threatening dogfights going on above, in order to reach and destroy the next targets on the subsequent waypoint is so much fun. With a bit of luck you actually have some teamplay, teamspeak and fighters covering your rear in order to win the mission. Throw in some CA-commander stuff in there.. and Voila. You have an amazing MP-experience. Even on a non-coop map.

 

That's what DCS is and should be about.

 

What good is it to make a couple extra bucks with the sale of WW2-content, if the active playerbase to be seen on servers actually shrinks? For my part I will be holding back on "charity" module purchases, unless we are actually seeing modules which help the modern era multiplayer problem. And actually contribute to that part of DCS. Contribute to it's core: Modern PVP or Coop multiplayer. I know that within my own community many people have a similar attitude and dissatisfaction at the moment.

 

Once the multiplayer improved, we can start looking at the sidedishes and extravaganza. Vegetables. Stuff like WW2 content or random aircraft which have no real role or "place" in larger multiplayer scenarios. Just to reiterate: I'm not against that kind of aircraft. I just hope that ED is mainly focusing on modern content in the near future. Since, imho, only that kind of content will have a true impact on increasing multiplayer fun. That's what a game should be about. Simulator or not. Fun & Multiplayer.

[tsumikae]

I don't think a good game is defined solely by its multiplayer quality. But since it's multiplayer in DCS world we are talking about, I'll add my two cents. I bought the Mustang module as well to have a little fun and support ED in the process, but I don't enjoy that much flying old planes either. That said, I can completely understand that others actually do. The WW2 module popularity shows that well enough. The time and efforts ED spent on developing that module was definitely not wasted, for those who enjoy it. Also, I have no problem at all logging on a server that allows cooperative flights between anachronic aircrafts. It can be a lot of fun, and by judging the amount of people playing on those unrealistic servers, it does not appear to be a problem for most of us. I may be wrong, though, but time will tell.

 

The way I see it, DCS World is the common base for flying specialised, separated modules, that have no connection whatsoever. Each of these modules are state of the art, high fidelity objects meant to be learnt, mastered and flew as stand alones and multiplayer. Those are the main games, DCS World is the support. And since it's DCS world, why not letting people have fun mixing all of those aircrafts if they want to? We are not forced to fly our KAs along with P51 against a bunch of Hueys dropping troops over a city in the Russian Caucasus, we just can. DCS world can do that, so why not? For the sake of realism in a public accessible military aircraft simulation?

 

I think it's far better to let people be creative and play the way they want without any restriction. If one wants to make a more realistic server fitted with believable scenarios, they can. I personnaly enjoy both types, depending on the mood. I don't enjoy much old planes, as I said, but enjoy sharing a game with those who do.