What about a C160 Transall ?

I'd pay 40$ max for a welldone transport plane. But probably would only get one.

I do not agree "don't do x when you can do y instead" mentality towards DCS modules. I may not buy everything but they all add to DCS in a way and they all have their fans.

If a developer decides doing any particular aircraft is a good idea, let them do it, whether it'll sell well or not is their risk to take, and while I may have many other aircraft I would prefer before, my prference shouln't be to detriment of diversity.

That's right, but you forgat the most important consideration: What are the devs able to do. Meaning, is there enough documentation available to develop a certain aircraft to the standards of DCS (classification) and can they get the rights to do so (license)?

I didn't forget, I simply ignored it since there are literally thousands of possibilities even if you ignore every single transport ever made. Many of those thousands will be possible, though not all.

I'd pay 40$ max for a welldone transport plane. But probably would only get one.

 

I do not agree "don't do x when you can do y instead" mentality towards DCS modules. I may not buy everything but they all add to DCS in a way and they all have their fans.

 

If a developer decides doing any particular aircraft is a good idea, let them do it, whether it'll sell well or not is their risk to take, and while I may have many other aircraft I would prefer before, my prference shouln't be to detriment of diversity.

I agree variety is important. I have absolutely no interest in buying every single 4th generation fighter ever made. I have the Mirage, will add the F-18C and would like to add an eastern equivalent if ever made, but that's it. I have no interest in an F-14/15/16 in addition to those aircraft. The thing is, there is a staggeringly huge list of aircraft not in DCS that aren't transports that fill roles that DCS doesn't represent well or at all. We do not have a single production attack helicopter (Ka-50 is prototype), we do not have a single scout helicopter (Gazelle will fix this, but still missing eastern equivalent), we do not have a single eastern 4th gen fighter, we do not have a single 3rd gen fighter of any nationality, we do not have a single super sonic attacker, we do not have... get the idea? Transports are on that list of do not haves, but I don't think many people would place them as a higher priority than all the other things we don't have.

FSX, X-Plane & Prepar3D here.

IMO DCS does choppers really well. I'm hoping that eventually it will expand to include civilian aircraft and I would ditch all my other flightsims in favour of DCS if it had an expanded *real* world environment AND civilian aircraft (transports will be a good start).

Keep in mind that over the the years I have spent a LOT of money on my civilian flying fix. My expenditure on DCS has been a splash in the bucket by comparison .. and I know that I'm not unique in this.

FSX, X-Plane & Prepar3D here.

 

IMO DCS does choppers really well. I'm hoping that eventually it will expand to include civilian aircraft and I would ditch all my other flightsims in favour of DCS if it had an expanded *real* world environment AND civilian aircraft (transports will be a good start).

 

Keep in mind that over the the years I have spent a LOT of money on my civilian flying fix. My expenditure on DCS has been a splash in the bucket by comparison .. and I know that I'm not unique in this.

Agreed. And personally, many people are forgetting one of, if not the most important, part of any sustained combat is logistics. If you can't get your assets on station to project whatever fast fighters/choppers or ground units in a meaningful way then you can't fight a war, period.

I'd buy it as long as those facets are integrated as well.

Ah ok, didn't know that because I'm not up to date with all WWII fighters and other modules relesead after :music_whistling:

 

@Lima : yeah I forgot that ! It's true that the C160 can refuel other aircraft with it's own fuel.

 

However, even with that I don't believe that polychop will make only a refueling campaign :lol:

 

So as we said fixed wing like C160 could :

 

- land on grass/road/airfield

- refuel if fonction integrated

 

We just haven't the "more" important : paratroopers :cry:

 

So the C160 will stay a "DCS dream" until we have paratroopers I think..

 

 

-------------------------------

 

So if the C160 is a dream, what about an EC725 Caracal ? It's a bit like the french combination of a huey and an mi8 :D

It may be less dificult to introduce in game and built a campaign around it.

 

It can make sling load, insertion, SAR, CSAR, CAS, Spec Ops, air-refueling ... And the Gazelle need a friend !

Some pics of the "beast" :music_whistling:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It looks so sweety. I wanne touch it :joystick:

While I think a transport airplane would be cool....I see that more in the realm of FSX and X-plane. I think what you would need it at least some method to fire at something to qualify as "Combat" in Digital Combat Simulator. So I would recommend the AC-130.....lots of firepower.

Yeah ! Every mission with the Spooky will be accomplished in 2 minutes ...:)

Yeah ! Every mission with the Spooky will be accomplished in 2 minutes ...:)

Unless the enemy is something else than poor insurgents without decent AA and fighter jets ;)

Having the possibility to make AAR with the C160 or other would be so cool (I mean being the "refueler")

I'm all for a transport / refuel aircraft. Even if it were just "flaming cliffs level". Does every aircraft really need to be full fidelity? Still a ton of people still flying the F-15.

any cargo plane is instant buy for me

yep, i bought a version of C160 Transal for FSX, i was very happy to found it, i hope it come also for DCS, i like transport/refuel jet, C160 Transal,A400M,C130 Hercule, C17, C5,C295, C130 spectre? that miss a little in DCS with mission