Jump to content

Civil Aircraft in DCS? - A personal résumé and essay


henhag

Recommended Posts

(I'm new to the forums, I hope this is the right section for this topic)

 

 

Fellow DCS players,

 

I know that you probably don't want to hear this again and again, but I think that DCS could be a great environment for civil simulation.

Shots fired, so please allow me to explain it:

(What follows is just my personal opinion as a DCS player, who is flying "just for fun")

 

Eagle Dynamics simulation engine allows for highly realistic flight models, some of the most accurate in the flight simulation world. When looking at the Nevada and Strait of Hormuz terrain modules,

they are huge and include multiple cities modeled in an outstanding level of detail. Considering current simulators, DCS combines both accuracy of simulation with pure eyecandy.

While I agree that some maps might be rather small for fast fixed wing aircraft, a helicopter ride between two airfields can take several hours.

Back in 2011 Bohemia Interactive released "Take On Helicopters" that featured a 3800 km² piece of Seattle metropolitan area. ( http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/tkoh_pre-order_1280x800_5_4.jpg ).

I've used this simulation for a while myself, but the flight models aren't even close to DCS World. TKOH is based on the rather old ArmA2 engine, so we're not speaking about eyecandy here...

Then there are several other simulators (P3D, FSX, etc.) in which you can sometimes even fly to every location in the world. But when you arrive there, well, you might be disappointed by the way it looks.

These simulators aren't focused on looking great or entertaining the pilots/players, the main intention is to simulate an aircraft in a high level of technical detail.

Some simulations even use flight models that are inferior to those used in DCS, but the whole point is that you can train specific procedures and tasks you would encounter as a real life student pilot/ pilot.

So therefore, I might refer to these simulators as "educational software" (please take it with a grain of salt).

 

 

And then we have DCS World.

We all know how great this "game" looks and how accurate and detailed the flight models are. We have maps of several hundred thousand square kilometers,

some (DLC) maps include famous cities with great architecture and landscape. Comparing the graphics, DCS stands out from the whole flight simulation branch.

The flight models are at eye level with the competitors, most of the time they are even superior.

 

Everyone in the DCS community is asking for more modules, more aircraft, more maps, more features. And at the same time, we're constantly nagging for faster releases, faster bugfixing and faster updates.

Understand that DCS developers are rather small. Go to the flight manual of your favourite module and read the credits. Sometimes you'll see twice as many testers as actual company members.

To provide updates/ new content faster, every business has to grow. And to grow, they need revenue. As Eagle Dynamics themselves stated in their recent open letter ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196539 ),

the development of the P-51D was twice as cost-efficient as the A-10C.

Let me compare this to a car manufacturer, the Volkswagen Group. Volkswagen owns brands like Lamborghini, Bentley and Bugatti. But the real money is made with the affordable brands like VW, Seat, Skoda, Audi.

Without the "everyman car" brands behind them, these luxury manufacturers couldn't exist. The Christen Eagle II and EDs Yak-52 were developed for internal reasons and then released to the public as a bonus.

A bonus for us, the players. And a bonus for the developers. Buying these (civil) modules actually benefits the development of new combat aircraft. With the income generated by these modules,

the developer can hire new programmers and artists, thus speed up the release schedule.

 

What would be so wrong having civil aircraft and helicopters in the game?

I assume that there would be five types of players in the community, if ED decides to open the doors for civil modules:

 

[TABLE]A) The milsim players, that only fly combat aircraft

B) The milsim players, that fly civil aircraft for fun

C) The civil sim players, that fly combat aircraft for fun (and might become members of group B in the future)

D) The civil sim players, that only fly civil aircraft.

E) The "I just enjoy flying" players, that use all aircraft in both combat, aerobatics and civil scenarios[/TABLE]Group A,B,C and E are already existing and there is a peaceful and harmonic coexistence. Group C+E will usually be found on the aerobatics servers, while A+B populate the combat servers.

Speaking of the supposed "Group D", we would either find them on the aerobatics servers, or on civil sim servers with missions created specifically for their likings.

And before someone says "this will split the community" - no, but it offers plenty of room for an expansion. Highly accurate combat flight simulation is a rather small niche, the market for civil simulations seems to be much bigger.

 

 

With civil aircraft included in the outstanding DCS environment and the strong companies and communities supporting it, we can attract many players of both civil and combat simulation.

This could make DCS the most attractive platform for 3rd party developers. :)

 

 

Best regards,

Hendrik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

couldn't read whole post but for me, civil planes are always welcomed

FC3 | UH-1 | Mi-8 | A-10C II | F/A-18 | Ka-50 III | F-14 | F-16 | AH-64 Mi-24 | F-5 | F-15E| F-4| Tornado

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: CH-53 | UH-60

 

Youtube

MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this optimistic post.

PC Specs / Hardware: MSI z370 Gaming Plus Mainboard, Intel 8700k @ 5GHz, MSI Sea Hawk 2080 Ti @ 2100MHz, 32GB 3200 MHz DDR4 RAM

Displays: Philips BDM4065UC 60Hz 4K UHD Screen, Pimax 8KX

Controllers / Peripherals: VPC MongoosT-50, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, modded MS FFB2/CH Combatstick, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Gametrix JetSeat

OS: Windows 10 Home Creator's Update

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other point as, if civilian aircraft has banned by the community, the 3rd parties can turn to other platforms outside DCS World. A civilian aircraft has more easy to build (no combat systems), and get "easy" cash to build more "military" aircraft's.

 

Some examples:

- Yak-52 by ED

- Christen Eagle II by M-3

- Polychop with a question about a "civilian" Gazelle.

 

The stament of DCS World has only by "military" has very "poor" actually on a competitive market as the simulator world.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read often that civilian aircraft can only be a good thing to DCS. But it's still just speculation. Civilian aircraft are actually needed for combat scenarios, because DCS is not a large scale war simulator implying 100% military equipment yet (in other words, no dynamic campaign).

How DCS can face the other historic actors is still a mystery, no one can predict a success. But I'm sure it will perform poorly for years because it's not just about the quality of aircraft modeling, but it's about the environment. Things like proper ATC, theaters, weather, multiplayer, all of this in the global form and size. Many of us will die of old age before the day when DCS will catch up with the others.

I'll buy :

МиГ-23МЛД & МЛА МиГ-27К МиГ-25 Mirage III F-4E any IJ plane 1950' Korea Dynamic campaign module

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that - at least in the multiplayer environment, the most flown servers are all aerobatics and unarmed, I'd say civil airframes have a bright future in DCS World.

 

The bottom line is the bottom line. If they sell, we'll get more of them. If they fail to sell, they'll fall by the wayside.

 

The problem with forums is that we hear from the noisy minority in a lot of cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I welcome civilian aircraft as well but they have to be the right ones. In my opinion, the Christen Eagle II is not the best choice. It is an obscure and unique aircraft that may only appeal to a small minority in a community that is already small and unique. If civilian aircraft are to be successful in DCS, a foundation of some of the most famous and popular aircraft must be made before developing more unique aircraft. For example, an aircraft such as the Cessna 172 makes a lot more sense. It is famous, known by all, widely used in all countries and it can be utilized by so many people for anything from flight training to just flying around. It is the most produced aircraft of all time and I would imagine that the data needed to develop it is widely available. If time and effort is going to be taken away from the development of military aircraft to develop civilian aircraft, it has to be worth it. An aircraft like the Cessna 172 in DCS would bring much more people into this sim and potentially provide a tremendous amount of revenue. If ED is changing directions and looking at civilian aircraft, maybe they can recruit some developers from others flight sims in order to get their products into DCS.

i5 7600K @4.8GHz | 1080 Ti | 32GB 3200MHz | SSD | DCS SETTINGS | "COCKPIT"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lack of focus is concerning. There needs to be an effort to keep things focused on appropriate aircraft for theaters and as opponents. DCS is becoming an unfocused airplane sandbox. I'm surprised that ED doesn't restrict what can be developed in order to see that it is in line with the overall picture.

 

But, I'll take what's available when it's released. I love all aircraft, so I'll just keep buying and flying what they give us, whatever it is.

 

Look on the bright side: if you're really bothered by stuff that gets released, you can use them for gunnery practice. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side: if you're really bothered by stuff that gets released, you can use them for gunnery practice. :D

 

You don't even have to purchase them to do that with the AI. :thumbup:

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't even have to purchase them to do that with the AI. :thumbup:

The ineffectiveness of 50 caliber guns in this game has lead to many Fw-190's and MiG-15's to be riddled with M61 vulcan shells and sometimes AIM-120 warheads. It might not be historically accurate, but it sure can be fun.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that - at least in the multiplayer environment, the most flown servers are all aerobatics and unarmed, I'd say civil airframes have a bright future in DCS World.

 

The bottom line is the bottom line. If they sell, we'll get more of them. If they fail to sell, they'll fall by the wayside.

 

The problem with forums is that we hear from the noisy minority in a lot of cases.

 

Actually......That's a really good point. And probably the best argument for civil AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's absolutely no reason why civil and military aircraft can't get along.

 

In fact, I can think of some rather fun multiplayer missions based loosly on the COIN stuff going on in South America:

 

Some players being drug runners using small GA planes (ie, Cessna 172's), some AI (or other players) simply being GA traffic, and then a few players in light military aircraft tasked with hunting and stopping the drug runners.

 

Ultimate cat and mouse game in the foothills and valleys :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the maps stay small in scale then there is no reason to have aircraft like the 737. The size of the maps are important for large airliners but for planes like the Cessna 172, Pilatus PC-6, Beech King Air, SAAB 340 or Shorts 330 they are good enough. To keep things interesting for civil pilots the DCS "World" has to get bigger even with the smaller civil planes. The fun is not only in operating the aircraft, but going to different locations as well. Hopefully this can be realized in the future.

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mainly thinking about helicopter gameplay when creating this thread, but in the end I adressed civil aviation in general.

The DCS map sizes and cities would be more useful for rotary wing aircraft, imho.

Airliners could be a nice addition to AI traffic, for player controlled vehicles I had helicopters and small to midsized aircraft (single or twin engine) on my mind :)

A learjet, Twin Otter, Cessna or maybe even a DC-3 (bundled with a C-47 for WW2 :smilewink:) could fit in quite well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it as a great opportunity. I love going to that other sim and fly civilian planes from time to time, only to be reminded how gamey they feel after DCS. I always wished DCS had a Cessna 172 for instance.

 

It will surely attract a lot of new players which means a lot of extra income that can be reinvested into DCS.

 

The only thing tat worries me a little is that there are so many military planes missing from current scenarios, civilian planes might slow things down even more, but then again, they may not. They might bring so much more money to the table that ED can hire more people and make the development of military planes speed up. It's all speculation and I'm no expert.

 

Bottom line is that DCS is far ahead of any other flight sims on the market, and the more planes we have the better, be that civilian or military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that DCS is far ahead of any other flight sims on the market, and the more planes we have the better, be that civilian or military.

 

While that 'may' be true. The problem lies in the fact that DCS has so few developers working on aircraft that anything that dilutes their output in the area of combat aircraft is a detriment. The total pool of dev teams for 'those other' sims is at least ten times greater than what DCS has. To make matters worse DCS is losing dev teams to other sims. VEAO is basically gone, even though they never made more than one incomplete aircraft, the loss still matters and another dev team is unsure whether their next aircraft will be for DCS or another sim. Yet a third team (M3), which still hasn't gotten their FM sorted for the only aircraft they have produced, is also looking at civil aviation as their salvation.

 

The bottom line is that their are only two companies that have successfully produced back to back combat aircraft for DCS. That would be ED and Belsimtek. Heatblur does not count since they have, as Heatblur, only produced one. Razbam does not count since the Harrier is still a WIP.

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@cichlidfan

 

If a new 3rd party dev came along to DCS and said they only wanted to make civvie aircraft, would you be against it?

 

I would not be against it, but I would be unlikely to purchase their products. For example, DCS does not have a civilian aircraft environment. ATC, and civilian traffic, are both a critical part of that environment and I don't see them being suitable, in the near to mid future.

 

I have nothing against the aircraft themselves but civilian flight sims are as much about the environment as they are about the aircraft and DCS does not have the proper environment to support them.

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, DCS isn't open world.

 

If someone wants to make a civ server and put-put around in DCS' environment, more power to them. No fighting required/needed.

 

While yes, "realism" would be lacking, it's generally that way now with the rest of us (particularly in Nevada). I've been with vPilots in this sim, as well as other sims, who put focus on ATC efforts treating the airports like non-towered anyway. While an effort to establish a smarter DCS:ATC/AWACS would be nothing short of badass, it's not a necessity. Frankly, unless you're flying on vatsim or pilotedge, you're generally not experiencing it much anyway.

 

In fact, if there was a growing civ market, and they pushed for improved ATC, the rest of us could benefit from it too.

 

In the end, if it's possible, then do it! Leave it to the server admins to sort out. If they say no civ or no mil, then let that be the end of it.

 

Combat Arms, WWII, nor early cold war planes weren't Armageddon for "traditionalist modernist" DCS. The civvy side of the house wouldn't be either.

 

I was around these parts right before the DCS:BS release; when ONE developer made ONE aircraft. Now there are many making many, with multiple maps and endless potential. I don't give two shakes how one defines "fun" as long as it doesn't encroach on mine. Since we would generally be on different servers, I don't care what they do, and they shouldn't care what I do.

WinX | i7 7700K @ 4.5 | ROG Maximus IX Hero| ASUS ROG GTX 1080 @ 8/256 | G.SKILL TridentZ @ 32 | Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO | SanDisk SSD Plus 240 & 960 | Acer XG270HU 27 2560x1440 | AOC E1659Fwu w/TM Cougars | TM Warthog #53817 w/Monstertech HOTAS Mounts | CH Pro Pedals | Track IR 5 | Razer Blackwidow X Tourney, Naga Epic Chroma, Blackshark | Plugable USB 3.0 7-port hub

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

There are logistic roles in combat missions that cannot be manned by players yet. These can be filled with interesting unarmed aircraft like the Mi-6. Also logistic units are requested by people who don't sound like they're very civilian focused.

 

And there could be all kinds of interesting mixed scenarios. https://aviationanalyst.co.uk/2018/12/14/norwegian-air-boeing-737max-8-stuck-in-iran/

SA-342 Ka-50 Mi-8 AJS-37 F-18 M2000C AV-8B-N/A Mig-15bis CA --- How to learn DCS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally speaking, DCS: Cessna 172 would be in instant buy for me.

 

 

DCS: Boeing 737 on the other is something I *might* pick up in sale. Or not. Flying those big things just isn't really for me.

 

 

As for ATC and other objections, I think that it's a chicken and egg discussion. Without civil simulation focus (and customer base) in DCS, this will probably never happen, but on the other hand, maybe they are not here because somethings are still missing.

 

 

On the other hand, I think that flying a plane like the 172 in DCS can also be very enjoyable and educational even without accurate ATC etc. Just look at the Yak-52, which is great in my opinion.

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...