Non Combat Aircraft

I know DCS is Digital Combat Simulator however, in order to perform combat a number of non combatants are required.

What is preventing the [insert other sim] addon makers doing study sim level C130 (for example).

Do the community ever see non combat craft sims, I know it is not everyone's cup of tea but there are people flying 767s across the Atlantic in some other sims, it would be no different someone getting an AWACS up or a tanker.

Or a mission to protect a VIP flying in a BAe 146, I would play the VIP pilot.

Another area I was considering was surveillance, which I suppose is another thread. Could the ground modelling of future maps be so good we could perform surveillance with non combat aircraft?

I would find a reconnaissance aircraft with optical camera systems interesting in MP-scerarios... kind of what we have with the Viggens ability to do reconnaissance with its RWR.

You could fly above the enemy territory high and fast to take pictures for strikers to use in their missions.

Certainly this would be for the minority of players, but I would find it compelling to have *someone* on a server flying recce and BDA.

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

I'd be happy with an Robinson R44 Cadet (actually used as a trainer for some countries) and it would make learning it cool. :thumbup:

Just wondering why no one is 'porting' FSim craft to the free DCS World?

I think some of the devs are ex FSX but is DCS so much more accurate/more work that we cannot attract some more 3rd party mods?

PS. I am in no way criticizing the aircraft available, just thinking if DCS is more accurate, is a free download with paid addons, then actually many of the Flight Simmers would prefer a higher fidelity sim and DCS could take a bigger share of the FSX addon market.

Mike said it would be a minority, I dont think so, there are hundreds and thousands of FSX civvy pilots who could be supporting ED to build the DCS World.

As DCS is a combat simulator I'm totally against having civilian aircraft in it but I would love to have non combat aircraft (C-160!) though.

I am totally for civilian aircraft of certain sorts, and find it very funny when people say they are completely against civilian aircraft yet are totally for non-combat aircraft so long as they are painted green apparently :). DCS' official product definition itself is worded in such way that is pretty inclusive of civilian aircraft, and quite explicitly at that.

However, this has been discussed many times over in the past, and "porting" is apparently more or less rebuilding from scratch, both code-wise and visual-wise. Besides, markets are very different (as sampled above by QuiGon for example). Expectations of fidelity are vastly different as well, and some DCS module which community are sneering at wildly, would be seen as pretty good quality FSX add-ons. Finally, it is just more demanding, laborious, and difficult to make things for DCS, than those other sims.

Some FSX devs apparently don't like having to sign NDAs and contracts with ED for getting a peek at SDK either.

So yeah, uncertain market for their aircraft, almost as much effort to rebuild each aircraft, on top of learning to develop for it in the first place. I suppose these are why we don't see an exodus of FSX devs coming here, bringing their products with them.

Edit: Oh, and I'd much sooner buy an aerobatics aircraft than a C-130, which I probably may not buy at all. I'm game for smaller, more bush-flight friendly cargo planes like Caribou though, which someone was trying to create for DCS.

I am totally for civilian aircraft of certain sorts, and find it very funny when people say they are completely against civilian aircraft yet are totally for non-combat aircraft so long as they are painted green apparently :).

Nothing funny about that. A tactical military transport aircraft is useful for combat operations. Especially if I think about the popular Blue Flag dynamic multiplayer campaign I can think of various uses for them (e.g. delivering Fuel to airbases or dropping paratroopers on an objective to capture it).

DCS' official product definition itself is worded in such way that is pretty inclusive of civilian aircraft, and quite explicitly at that.

Uhm, where? I just looked it up and it says:

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) is a free-to-play digital battlefield game, focusing on simulation of military aircraft.

Whis is pretty unambiguous.

Ok just checked, apparently they've edited the definiton one of these days, and it doesn't mention that part anymore it was in there before though. But I maintain that "civvie=not fine, cargo plane=fine" is totally funny, regardless of how you try to cut it :).

DCS isn't particularly good for long passenger (or funnilly cargo) flights of large and heavy tranport aircraft, but there are other kinds of civilian aircraft that can be pretty challenging and fun to have simulated in DCS level, and DCS would be right home for modeling their intricacies. Aerobatics aircraft and helicopters would be an example.

I wouldn't mind for FSX level C-130, Cessna Bird-Dog or Stinson L-5...

From a marketing perspective, I would do the Bede BD-5 and give it away for Free! Stop twitching Wags...:)

There is no one in the flight simming world that would not want to fly James Bond's little jet speedster built to the DCS level!

RIP Roger Moore

Have a Dedicated Roger Moore 007 livery for the great man.

BD-5J, which boosted performance to 305 knots (565 km/h; 351 mph)

The Bede BD-5 has held the Guinness record for the World's Smallest Jet for more than 25 years.

9d2KRxDFYl0

7TFHxj9sGWQ

http://bd-micro.com/

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/homebuilt-aircraft-and-homebuilt-aircraft-kits/kits-and-plans/00---c/bede-bd-5

DCS isn't particularly good for long passenger (or funnilly cargo) flights of large and heavy tranport aircraft, but there are other kinds of civilian aircraft that can be pretty challenging and fun to have simulated in DCS level, and DCS would be right home for modeling their intricacies. Aerobatics aircraft and helicopters would be an example.

I have no doubt that such aircraft would be fun to some (many?) players, but a combat simulator is just not the right place for that.

Again, getting stuck at a character in a title. DCS is much better as a flight sim than combat sim in my opinion anyway. Nothing other than "I'd rather prefer effort spent on something military even if I may not buy it", which is frankly narrow minded in my opinion. But at this point we obviously won't get anywhere other than a meaningless back & forth so I'll let it rest, these stuff were discussed a lot a year or two ago anyway :).

BTW funny mentioning BD-5, I think Iris was trying do one (may be even free) back when they were trying to develop for DCS many years ago :p. Though, from their reputation they just may be one of the devs we're better off not having here.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00ED using Tapatalk

I'm with WinterH, as a simulator DCS beats FSX and P3D hands down (as an ex-FSX player). It's probably the only sim out there with proper helicopter dynamics and a full mission editor and not forget a sandbox (which is what it's advertised as being).

Against non-combat aircraft? Quick someone hide the TF-51D before anyone notices!

I'd welcome just about any civilian or non direct combat aircraft - I treat DCS as a flight simulator (which it is) not a glorified Strike Fighters 2 (which it is way more than). 75% I'm just flying the aircraft around anyway.

Sure there are priorities - there has to be priorities, resources aren't abundant and we only have 7 official 3rd parties, 2 of those originating from one. Out of the 7 only one of them has released multiple aircraft (Belsimtek). VEAO, Aviodev, Heatblur, RAZBAM, Polychop and Magnitude 3 LCC have all as of typing this only released 1 aircraft. Out of those, only Polychop has given us multiple versions. So we don't exactly have a whole host of aircraft to play with. Unlike FSX which if you want to fly something, you probably can. I don't see why the simulator with the most potential, with the best mix of immersion, graphics and realism should be restricted to one type of aircraft. Ultimately widening the variety increases the player base - larger player base = more income = greater potential for production.

In the distant future though, when maybe maps are bigger I certainly won't say no to any strictly non-combat aircraft or civilian aircraft. Many military aircraft are just developments of civilian aircraft anyway. I mean the difference between military transport aircraft and civilian aircraft is military aircraft will probably be fitted with countermeasures, might have the capability to be air-refuelled, painted a different colour and carrying something different. Apart from that, from a pilot's perspective it's the same.

I'm all for that!

Bring some really typical / representative civilian, or even cargo aircraft....

And a glider !!!!!

Nothing funny about that. A tactical military transport aircraft is useful for combat operations. Especially if I think about the popular Blue Flag dynamic multiplayer campaign I can think of various uses for them (e.g. delivering Fuel to airbases or dropping paratroopers on an objective to capture it).

Civil aircraft can be just as good then. From carrying high value targets, to being hijacked and needing to be intercepted, etc. They can also add to fog of war, requiring you to check what you're shooting at.

DCS isn't particularly good for long passenger (or funnilly cargo) flights of large and heavy tranport aircraft

Well if it's training flights, delivery flights, or airshows anything fits. You may not be able to simulate the most routine uses of these planes, but you can certainly fit things that they actually do into the sim.

I'm all for civilian aircraft. DCS flight model is the best hand down, I want it to be my military and civil aviation sim.

Civil aircraft can be just as good then. From carrying high value targets, to being hijacked and needing to be intercepted, etc. They can also add to fog of war, requiring you to check what you're shooting at.

I was waiting for this comment and it took a little longer than I thought it would, but yeah, you can do that of course, but that still doesn't make it a military aircraft. So yes, as WinterH said, I'm that narrow minded on that C-charackter in the title (no offense taken ;)), because I have absolutly no interest in civilian aviation. That's why I don't want the devs to put time and effort into developing civilian aircraft for this sim if they could put that into the development of more military aircraft (including non-combat military transport aircraft).

That's what I want, but I do understand that other people here have other opinions on that which is fine. So I'll put it to a rest here untill the next of these threads will be created and the discussion starts all over again, because it is as WinterH said:

But at this point we obviously won't get anywhere other than a meaningless back & forth so I'll let it rest, these stuff were discussed a lot a year or two ago anyway .

We agree on this at least :D

I was waiting for this comment and it took a little longer than I thought it would, but yeah, you can do that of course, but that still doesn't make it a military aircraft. So yes, as WinterH said, I'm that narrow minded on that C-charackter in the title (no offense taken ;)), because I have absolutly no interest in civilian aviation. That's why I don't want the devs to put time and effort into developing civilian aircraft for this sim if they could put that into the development of more military aircraft (including non-combat military transport aircraft).

 

That's what I want, but I do understand that other people here have other opinions on that which is fine. So I'll put it to a rest here untill the next of these threads will be created and the discussion starts all over again, because it is as WinterH said:

 

We agree on this at least :D

Think about it though QuiGon, you don't want to see DCS developers make civil aircraft because you'd rather have combat aircraft right? Problem is we have a limited selection of aircraft. So it's hugely important that devs take into consideration what they next develop to make it appeal to most people right? Unbfortunately for us and this is what sets DCS on the backfoot compared to FSX and P3D is that there are thousands of 3rd party addons and hundreds of 3rd parties with tonnes of aircraft each - if you want to fly something particular, chances are you can. If you want to fly something over a particular area again, chances are you can (you obviously get the whole world but to have it properly detailed is another issue).

I mean in DCS (and this is current situation I'm not including planned releases) we have ED and 7 third parties, 2 of those came out of 1 third party and I hear Polychop are also most likely going to split. Now ED have released 12 aircraft, out of these 12, 5 of them have different variants accounting for an additional 6 aircraft. That totals 18 individual aircraft (though still not types). Out of those 18 half of them are FC3 level aircraft - no clickable cockpits. Out of those 18 at least one of them was jointly developed, but it's still FC3 level (F-15C). With the 7 third parties, 2 of them are different splits of what was one third party, with talks of Polychop doing the same. Out of these third parties only 1 of them has made more than 1 aircraft module (Belsimtek), 2 of these 3rd parties have slow development due to difficulty in maintaining and procuring the modules. Out of those 7 as well, only 1 third party has made a module with multiple variants. All in all were very confined with what we can do in DCS, we have an adequate variety but still leaves a lot to be desired. So we have to have priorities, which is why I respect your stance.

Now if we had a much wider selection of aircraft available, with multiple variants and with resources more abundant than they are now, so development time is shorter, I wouldn't think you would mind so much, because the variety is already there. The production of aircraft is already high, so there's less waiting around for new aircraft. Now I realise that adding more resources doesn't necessarily mean faster procurement time for aircraft in all cases, but I think it would help. Ultimately my maain priority is DCS 2.5 so everyone can work on 1 version, develop aircraft for 1 version not 3 which is 3x the workload.

But if we had the resources and procurement time was smaller, I get the feeling you wouldn't mind so much if some civil aircraft got developed agreed? Let us know what you think.

Ollie

How about a 707? or was it a 747? Don't remember! LOL Dam age!

A team member has sent me one to look at.

Let me see if it works in sim............

DCS is not limited to Combat Aircraft, if a 3rd Party, partner or ED themselves wish to do a Civilian Aircraft there would be nothing stopping them.

That Being Said, All C-130's are Currently Grounded.

What about the simulator title? Wouldn't Digital Combat Simulator make less sense after every new civil aircraft released?

What about the simulator title? Wouldn't Digital Combat Simulator make less sense after every new civil aircraft released?

Not necessarily, DCS is after all the best simulator around, it has the best combination of realism, gameplay, features, graphics and potential - it shouldn't be restricted because of it's name.

Ultimately everyone has aircraft that they really want to see in DCS but at the moment we're in a less than ideal situation - very few aircraft, many lacking any variants with only 7 third parties, and out of those 7 only 1 has released more than 1 aircraft - and that 3rd party has closer ties with ED. Currently we have a small variety of aircraft and development time seemingly takes aeons - for very good reason. We also have a finite number of maps with finite usable sizes. If we had more variety and more resources and thus maybe meaning module development took months instead of years then I doubt people would have much of a problem with civil aircraft coming to the table.

Plus more aircraft variety also might mean a larger player base. I used to play FSX for flying around, I thought it was the closest I could get, I dabbled with Lock On years ago but couldn't get my head round it so I stuck away from it. I here of DCS and I think pah, an inferior sim to FSX so I kind of turned my nose up and cast it aside. Then I saw videos of it and I thought - actually blows FSX clean out of the water. So I downloaded it, actually realised it was way better! And within a month FSX was gone and in comes DCS, far better than I thought and I can't believe I didn't find it sooner. The only problem I had is that sometimes I just wanna do free flight stuff, I get enjoyment out of aviation regardless of what it is. And I liked the variety of aircraft - there's thousands of them, I mean I don't think any of them are as good as DCS aircraft, they're shackled to the outdated FSX flight model and engine, which lets them down. I also liked the freedom of having the whole world to play with. I could recreate the Black Buck raids during the Falklands war with little difficulty (though obviously - no mission editor - a real immersion killer).

That's why I think DCS should allow for any aircraft or unit, seriously - any of them. Because it is the future, it has so much potential, and to me outclasses competition.

Like I've said previously, it's a question of priority and what's feasibly possible.

3Go's Biller's 707!

WIP

[...]

But if we had the resources and procurement time was smaller, I get the feeling you wouldn't mind so much if some civil aircraft got developed agreed? Let us know what you think.

 

Ollie

Well, you're right indeed when you say I probably wouldn't mind so much if that would be the case. I would indeed not mind so much then. But I would still mind, just to a lesser degree because I have to reasons why I'm strictly against civil aircraft:

1. Putting resources into the development of civil aircraft would mean less resources that could be used for the development of military aircraft.
   
2. The title, which definitely says Digital Combat Simulator. I still don't understand why there should be civil aircraft. That would make DCS a totally different product, because it's not just some flight simulator, it is a milsim - a military simulator. That also means that it is not even restricted to aircraft, but it could also include other modules like vehicles or ships as long as they are military in nature.
   

If there would be more than enough ressources (which is not the case yet) then the first reason would no longer be valid, but the second one would still hold true.

Ok I've said I won't go on, but since discussion is continuing, feels like I should chime in one more in light of what is said since ;).

While we don't yet have an exceedingly huge choice of aircraft, I honestly believe we are also past the point where it could be said that the choice of aircraft in the sim is not large either. It is indeed fairly large at this point, and ED, as well as at least half of the 3rd parties, planning to release something in following 12 months to add quite a number into the mix.

Currently, if we count aircraft and variants of aircraft available to fly (excluding the MiG-29 types however, and counting them as one since they are kinda too similar, also excluded the TF-51), we have 28 distinct military aircraft for a virtual pilot to choose from. If we count two other MiG-29 versions and the TF-51, that'd make it up to 31. And like I've said, in coming months, there are multiple modules likely to see release to bump the number further up: F/A-18C, F-14A & F-14B, AV-8B NA. We may perhaps, even see C-101CC and P-40F becoming a thing in next 12 months. So, I really don't think we are still at the point where it can be said that the choice of aircraft to fly in DCS is limited.

Yes, it isn't huge, but it isn't small by any means anymore.

We have 9 studios, with some of them being able to work on multiple aircraft concurrently (while admittedly, others very slowly on even one). So again, not abundant, but not really small either by any means. There also are many others who are working on projects, aiming to eventually apply for 3rd party license: Tailored Radials, Blackcat Simulations, Deka Ironwork Simulations, OctopusG are a few that come to mind, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few. Besides, it doesn't necessarily need to be one of these 9 studios who will be doing a hypothetical civvie bird, it can be a new group, and indeed, if Tailored Radials can really work it out, what they are working on is a Caribou, which is both a military transport and a civilian one. A bold first step I would say...

So, I do believe at this point, time is ripe if someone wanted to create a Su-26M or Zivko Edge for me ;). Or may be a skycrane.

Currently the only argument to put up is, what QuiGon says "I only want effort to be spent on military things", which we'll have to just agree to disagree. But I'll reiterate for this once, that it is essentially a selfish way of thinking. Do you even buy everything QuiGon? If someone creates a module a person is uninterested in, they just won't buy it, military or not, so it really shouldn't make any difference, aside from insisting on that C word.

Now, do I think we'll get non-combat modules soon, but if someone wants to do one, I really don't see any legitimate reason why not.

It seems this same discussion was running again almost exactly a year ago, and I've written this one back then, so instead of recycling the same things, I'll just link it: clickity.