After the Tomcat?

I'm for the Intruder!!

Didn't Razbam already announce the A-6?

Didn't Razbam already announce the A-6?

Not officially. Massive wish list hread showed up for it then razbam announced the a7. But that will be a long time away.

I’d be happy with HB or RAZBAM doing an a6.

The tornado would be a good one to have as well, i would be happy either way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1

First gulf war model of tornado , would be nice. Because we may get full iraq map someday.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They do indeed.

Launch The Intruder!

I'm for the A-6 Intruder! But you guys deserve your Tornado, too. So many planes. Not enough developers. :( I think the planes should be developed in concert with Terrains, though. I think it would be beneficial for all the 3rd party developers. For instance, a Korea Terrain circa 1952. Along with that development should be development of an F9F-2 Panther, F2H-2 Banshee, F4U-4 Corsair, AD-4 Skyraider and HO3S-1 helicopter...as well as 3 classes of aircraft carrier, or at least the straight-deck Essex class carrier. That would take care of the US Navy side. On the USAF side, maybe the F-86A or E, F-80C, A-26 Invader, B-29 Superfortress. That's a lot of aircraft, but their systems should be simpler, maybe that would speed up development. Maybe also, Yak-3U, Yak-9 and Yak-11 fighters. But need a much better AI that might have to run on a 2nd computer, and provide dynamic weather. Another major terrain needs to be Vietnam. Which would be a very large terrain to include most of Thailand and Laos. And the various aircraft associated with it. More models of more complex aircraft here. It might be a 5-year project. But the A-6A can be in it. I think this would be better than having a scattering of really cool aircraft that never operated together in a theater.

Speed up development? Did you see how long it took for the Mustang and Sabre to come out? Or how long the Corsair is taking to come out? The modules take time, no matter what they are, and I have read at some point that making the older planes FM's is even tougher than the newer ones for lack of documentation.

I'm for the A-6 Intruder! But you guys deserve your Tornado, too. So many planes. Not enough developers. :( I think the planes should be developed in concert with Terrains, though. I think it would be beneficial for all the 3rd party developers. For instance, a Korea Terrain circa 1952. Along with that development should be development of an F9F-2 Panther, F2H-2 Banshee, F4U-4 Corsair, AD-4 Skyraider and HO3S-1 helicopter...as well as 3 classes of aircraft carrier, or at least the straight-deck Essex class carrier. That would take care of the US Navy side. On the USAF side, maybe the F-86A or E, F-80C, A-26 Invader, B-29 Superfortress. That's a lot of aircraft, but their systems should be simpler, maybe that would speed up development. Maybe also, Yak-3U, Yak-9 and Yak-11 fighters. But need a much better AI that might have to run on a 2nd computer, and provide dynamic weather. Another major terrain needs to be Vietnam. Which would be a very large terrain to include most of Thailand and Laos. And the various aircraft associated with it. More models of more complex aircraft here. It might be a 5-year project. But the A-6A can be in it. I think this would be better than having a scattering of really cool aircraft that never operated together in a theater.

I'm all for this! However an F-86A would be impossible as we already have the F-86F, and it's not wise to develop different iterations of the same aircraft. However I'd love to see some straight winged jets in DCS absolutely!

Speed up development? Did you see how long it took for the Mustang and Sabre to come out? Or how long the Corsair is taking to come out? The modules take time, no matter what they are, and I have read at some point that making the older planes FM's is even tougher than the newer ones for lack of documentation.

I wonder what documentation they used to make the F-86F's FM? Performance charts? Lift/drag curves? Weight and balance charts? Thrust and fuel consumption at various power settings at various altitudes and deviations from standard temperatures? Do they even go into that much detail? How close to the exact aircraft can we get? The AI models sure don't. AI climb profile: pitch nose up 45-deg, apply full power and climb at 190 KIAS...never mind if it's possible, just do it. LOL It should pretty much be, use climb power-setting, maintain 300 KIAS until Mach 0.7 and then maintain M 0.7 to desired altitude. That's what the manual says for the A-4B Skyhawk, and also for the B737-200, I think. Why can't the AI do that? Why can't the AI fly more smoothly instead of a negative 3-G push-over to descend 1000 feet, for example? And do the AI aircraft have a timer in place of a fuel gauge, BTW? Give a flight model to me with a rough visual model and instrumentation. Show me how to modify parameters. I think I could get it tweaked pretty close in about 3 months...and I'll do it for free. :) Well, I'll give it a shot, anyway. If I fail, fire me. :) If I succeed, give me more planes! Unless every change to the visual details, instrument panel and systems simulation affects the flight model because of processor load? I would think the toughest part would be the visual 3-D cockpit and the exterior artwork. I'll buy the F-14, BTW, as soon as its up for purchase...unless it's over $300, then I'll need to fly-before-buy. :)

3D modeling is tough I'm sure, but I have to believe that coding in system functions and flight models is tougher. Just an observation, I am a computer dumb@$$, so correct me if I am wrong devs??

~Rob

3D modeling is tough I'm sure, but I have to believe that coding in system functions and flight models is tougher. Just an observation, I am a computer dumb@$$, so correct me if I am wrong devs??

 

~Rob

You are exactly right. Making the cockpit visuals and the 3d modelling is simple compared to taking the systems and making them talk to each other correctly. This why you see so many early access models in DCS that barely change externally but launch with bugs/missing features.

Not to detract from the 3d modellers - they do a cracking job!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would like to see all carrier aircraft.

You are exactly right. Making the cockpit visuals and the 3d modelling is simple compared to taking the systems and making them talk to each other correctly. This why you see so many early access models in DCS that barely change externally but launch with bugs/missing features.

Not to detract from the 3d modellers - they do a cracking job!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree that coding the systems simulation would be difficult. First you have to know those systems well to code them. The fire control systems--multi-mode radar and lead-computing sight/HUD combined with different missiles and a gun. I'm impressed with the Viggen. I still haven't mastered how its navigation/targeting system works. The Swedish panel doesn't help, either. :)

But this is why I think older planes without these complex systems should be easier to develop. Such as the Grumman F9F-2 Panther and Douglas AD-4 Skyraider. Not any more complex than the F-86F Sabre, I would think.

I posted a while back in the DCS Wishlist thread, and I still think it holds weight...

I think ED, or a 3rd party developer, should develop an A-4 Skyhawk. In my humble opinion, a C-E variant.

Like Robert said above, any module is going to take time, but given the difficulty in finding documentation, and that difficulty probably being the biggest difficulty, I think the A-4 would be a perfect balance. Here's why:

It's a recent-enough aircraft to have full documentation, knocking out the big(biggest?) problem above.

It's also old enough that most (all? did the C-E models have a radar?) of the avionics are analog, and simple, much like the F-5. That knocks out precious time and effort needed to code modern computer-based things like FLCS, since the Skyhawk doesn't have them. Although the A-4 may have had an INS... please someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Then, there's all the fun stuff... She looks great, she's fast (though subsonic), very nimble, she can carry a massive amount of payload for her size, much like the F-5, and she's AAR capable.

And the coup de grâce, she's carrier capable!!

I think she's one of the next logical steps for DCS. But that's just me.

i'd love to see some eastern planes of the era "F14" to counter it a bit.

the only high fidelity enemy the F14 or F/A 18 have are some MiG 21's ... which aren't really on the same level.

Some MiG 29's or similar as high detail models would be great.

Otherwise western crafts would only fight western crafts all day long - which might be a bit boring don't you think?

can't argue with that

We're working on another complex jet which will make good use of our own technologies. We're also looking at expanding the F-14 product, but will look more closely at what exactly that means after release. That said, 2018 will be mostly the year of improvements to both the F-14 and Viggen.

 

We don't want to be stuck in the eternal Beta rut.

Another 2 seater perhaps? From Grumman, perhaps?

Yep....but this one :

so beautiful :pilotfly:

I am guessing the A-6 Intruder. Could be way off, but in the last update with all the F-14 pics and discussing the campaign, there was a lone A-6 photo in there.

I know Razbam had it in the pipeline or had talked about doing it, but who knows, maybe Heatblur has it and Raz is going to do the A-7 first. Either way, we got one heck of list of planes coming. Im excited.

Depends on what sort of A6 we're going to be getting.

Another 2 seater perhaps? From Grumman, perhaps?

 

Either a F-111 or a Tornado, because:

Swept Wings (like the F-14)

Ground Mapping Radar (like the Viggen)

Two Seater (like the F-14 - JESTER AI!)

and Thrust Reverse in case of the tornado (like the Viggen).

A Tornado would be nice. Kinda depends on what variant we get.

A Tornado would be nice. Kinda depends on what variant we get.

If there will be a Tornado it will be a Cold War Tornado IDS/GR.1 (same thing), maybe with some british Desert Storm upgrades (TIALD pod), but only maybe. Everything else is probably too modern and still in use.