DCS Tucano

Leatherneck's Mig-21 is arguably the best quality module available, along with the A-10C, KA-50, Mig-15 and Sabre... . Razbam might be developing the Harrier and Tucano, but they have a long way to go in meeting Leatherneck, ED and Belsimtech's quality. Regardless of my opinion, Razbam will surely be one of the big dawgs in DCS, exciting times ahead.

 

Wonder if the Harrier will be coming out the same time as Leatherneck's F-14?

sorry i wasnt clear..

i meant in terms of 3rd party aircrafts in development...

but yess.. i want the tomcat already!

If it'll take 12-18 months to develop a new a/c from scratch to beta (and sale) in DCS, I would rather the devs (ie. ALL devs including ED) think first:

 

1. what combat scenario are we trying to replicate? ie. modern (FA/18, Tornado, etc) or WW2 (Zero or Betty or B25 or JU88) or Vietnam (Mig 17, F4, A4, A6, F105, F111, etc)

2. how easy is it to replicate? (ie. is it declassified? currently flying? access to current/former pilots?)

3. WHERE will it get used? ie. Caucasus? NTTR? new map?

4. What type of role does/did the aircraft do? ie. fighter superiority? fighter/bomber? bomber? multi-role? training?

5. Will there be demand for it? ie. will it be financially viable? Very important as their sales pay their mortgages. No point investing time/money on a training a/c that noone will buy.

 

We don't need any more training a/c. Yes I understand these were first used by devs to get a handle of DCS but they are past that now.

 

What we should do is have a list of MUST HAVES for each combat scenario ie. at a minimum. THEN, the devs can build it.

While you have your concerns, and valid ones from a certain perspective too, not everyone look at things the same way. I do look forward to historical scenarios being a possibility too, but they just aren't that important for me.

So for me ;

1 - Irrelevant. I care about aircraft replicated very realistically, but I really just don't care about replication of particular scenarios. Aircraft is what matters for me primarily in DCS. Yes, plausible matchups to said aircraft is also very important, but I just have no interest in replication of history, I care about aircraft, their performance, and their weapons / systems. I have no interst in replaying history. It is fine, and understandable others are very interested in it, but I am just saying it isn't be all end all for everyone. Matchups are coming and will come with time, they don't need to only focus in detriment of any other module that could readily be worked on.

2 - Yes, this is important, completely agree you on this one.

3 - Totally irrelevant for me too. I have no problem using anything over Caucasus, or another map I may acquire in future, if I ever do so.

4 - Not sure what this means, an aircraft role is it's role, be it transport, trainer, attack, air superiority or multirole... While getting a healthy mix of roles represented is good and important, I don't think someone should abandon building a model they can / want solely on the basis of it's intented role or how populated said role in DCS is.

5 - What's the point of even stating this one :)? Development studios are businesses, we can be sure they care about this and calculate it more than any of us.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't intent to appear agressive here. That really is not my intention. Contrarily, I am just trying to voice that, I truly hope development of aircraft won't be limited to "lets create exact replicas of [put some war here] aircraft". We had that type of sim for DECADES. It leaves out some potentially very interesting and virtually very underrepresented aircraft. I am more interested in seeing and using those aircraft, and therefore prefer development studios NOT to limit themselves to "lets create [whatever war] in DCS".

Yes, I understand the wish for complete scenarios and it is fine. But matching modules are coming along, theaters are also on the way. With time, scenarios are already becoming viable to reproduce in DCS. But lets not forget there are some of us who are more interested in individual aircraft than playing out history all over again. Development studios should decide whatever they feel like, and hopefully not some random laundry list put by community. Otherwise, we'd need to fly 10 different versions of F-16 as modules :).

Leatherneck for example is saying they care about creating maps, AI assets and matching modules to aid with scenarios coming along. But, they also thankfuly creating obscure aircraft like Viggen too, so I believe they are balancing things very nicely.

Now, for the Tucano itself... It is beautiful, and is an aircraft I have been somewhat interested in. If it has armament, great! If not, well I'll probably still get it sometime for some free flight or air race type of things. To be honest though, I will probably need to get this one in a sale, since there are too many aircraft I am waiting to get, F-5E, Viggen, Corsair, Mi-24 and Harrier to name a few. Not to mention F-18, F-15E and any possible Russian aircraft that may eventually come. But I am still looking forward to Tucano, hopefuly to an armed one. I want to get it, and will do so, but it will need to be a bit down on priority list for me. Probably many other will feel this way too and yes this is admittedly a risk development studios should consider with their aircraft but, it is a risk which is theirs to calculate and take. It may not be the best seller, but there seems to be many people interested in it, and if they already have a model more or less ready, and if aircraft itself is relatively simple and they can pull it off with relatively low effort, why not.

"Every developer should do things according to my point of view, and they should not spend absolutely any effort on anything else" argument we start see a lot around here is getting a bit old :).

Why did you guys cancel the T-2 and then start work on yet another trainer? I sincerely don't understand this from a business point of view :huh:

Man is this going to be an expensive year. But for me the Tucano is welcome, last tour was at RAF Linton On Ouse and they used to do engine runs not far from our house.

Mrs had a migraine one time, and stomped down there to get them either find out what's wrong with it or turn the damn thing off, that cost me a few beers lol, they are noisy sods.

When I was single at Brize the VC-10's could be howling for hours, music.

To be honest, on DCS i am more interested in the flying (what is it like to fly plane x?) than the fighting part, so even if they introduce something that doesn't have a real opponent but is rather unique in some of its characteristics i will gladly buy it.

While you have your concerns, and valid ones from a certain perspective too, not everyone look at things the same way. I do look forward to historical scenarios being a possibility too, but they just aren't that important for me.

So for me ;

1 - Irrelevant. I care about aircraft replicated very realistically, but I really just don't care about replication of particular scenarios. Aircraft is what matters for me primarily in DCS. Yes, plausible matchups to said aircraft is also very important, but I just have no interest in replication of history, I care about aircraft, their performance, and their weapons / systems. I have no interst in replaying history. It is fine, and understandable others are very interested in it, but I am just saying it isn't be all end all for everyone. Matchups are coming and will come with time, they don't need to only focus in detriment of any other module that could readily be worked on.

2 - Yes, this is important, completely agree you on this one.

3 - Totally irrelevant for me too. I have no problem using anything over Caucasus, or another map I may acquire in future, if I ever do so.

4 - Not sure what this means, an aircraft role is it's role, be it transport, trainer, attack, air superiority or multirole... While getting a healthy mix of roles represented is good and important, I don't think someone should abandon building a model they can / want solely on the basis of it's intented role or how populated said role in DCS is.

5 - What's the point of even stating this one :)? Development studios are businesses, we can be sure they care about this and calculate it more than any of us.

 

Please don't get me wrong, I don't intent to appear agressive here. That really is not my intention. Contrarily, I am just trying to voice that, I truly hope development of aircraft won't be limited to "lets create exact replicas of [put some war here] aircraft". We had that type of sim for DECADES. It leaves out some potentially very interesting and virtually very underrepresented aircraft. I am more interested in seeing and using those aircraft, and therefore prefer development studios NOT to limit themselves to "lets create [whatever war] in DCS".

 

Yes, I understand the wish for complete scenarios and it is fine. But matching modules are coming along, theaters are also on the way. With time, scenarios are already becoming viable to reproduce in DCS. But lets not forget there are some of us who are more interested in individual aircraft than playing out history all over again. Development studios should decide whatever they feel like, and hopefully not some random laundry list put by community. Otherwise, we'd need to fly 10 different versions of F-16 as modules :).

 

Leatherneck for example is saying they care about creating maps, AI assets and matching modules to aid with scenarios coming along. But, they also thankfuly creating obscure aircraft like Viggen too, so I believe they are balancing things very nicely.

 

Now, for the Tucano itself... It is beautiful, and is an aircraft I have been somewhat interested in. If it has armament, great! If not, well I'll probably still get it sometime for some free flight or air race type of things. To be honest though, I will probably need to get this one in a sale, since there are too many aircraft I am waiting to get, F-5E, Viggen, Corsair, Mi-24 and Harrier to name a few. Not to mention F-18, F-15E and any possible Russian aircraft that may eventually come. But I am still looking forward to Tucano, hopefuly to an armed one. I want to get it, and will do so, but it will need to be a bit down on priority list for me. Probably many other will feel this way too and yes this is admittedly a risk development studios should consider with their aircraft but, it is a risk which is theirs to calculate and take. It may not be the best seller, but there seems to be many people interested in it, and if they already have a model more or less ready, and if aircraft itself is relatively simple and they can pull it off with relatively low effort, why not.

 

"Every developer should do things according to my point of view, and they should not spend absolutely any effort on anything else" argument we start see a lot around here is getting a bit old :).

lol don't worry mate, points well made. Thats what forums are for - healthy and logical discussion with different points of view. Most of my time is spent online playing on MP servers so my points are from that view so to speak. I still believe though re my point 4 ie. at the end of the day, the devs aren't doing this for the love (well not JUST for the love), they need this to be financially viable. How else can they pay for developers full time for 12-18 months to develop something.

I just think though, from a MP perspective....if you had to jump online on a normal scenario (attacking or defending against enemy AI with AAA and/or manpads), how success would the Tucano be? The Tucano is more something you'd employ if you had total air superiority and against lightly defended targets. Throw in some manpads there and they'd be running away quicksmart!! I still apply the 80/20 rule...80% of sorties in DCS are made by 20% of a/c eg. F15, A10, Mig21, maybe M2000 now.

I'm so pleased (as I'm sure the devs are) that there are so many experts around to tell them how to do their work

And i'm so pleased that take the effort to misinterpret my post, OR don't even bother to read TWO whole sentences and implying i'm a know-it-all dork.

I am sincerely interested in the reasoning they cancelled a trainer in advanced state of development to switch it for another trainer. I'm not telling anyone how to do their jobs, and that should be obvious by reading my post correctly.

The Super Tucano would have been a far better choice on my opinion.

The Super Tucano would have been a far better choice on my opinion.

+100 better avionic, better engine, better weapons....

The Super Tucano would have been a far better choice on my opinion.

But then again it might have been harder to get the information about the Super Tucano.

But then again it might have been harder to get the information about the Super Tucano.

Yeah, as always, that's the problem.....

... implying i'm a know-it-all dork.

I didn't say that at all - it's what you read into my post.

See how that works?

I'm just fed up of everyone laying out plans for how things should be done, in their point of view, on a release page/announcement/discussion and then trying to say that it somehow is not condescending to the person or team that are releasing said module.

You can call a cat a fish - but it won't swim.

Edit - I've deleted the post, as you found it so offensive.

It would be an interesting aircraft, but not one that I am likely to buy. The exception would be if it really was dual control and could be used to train for some of the other aircraft - as in the RAF. Can't say I'm overly interested in flying missions against defended targets in it!

But then again it might have been harder to get the information about the Super Tucano.

You guys understand many of the systems used in commercial simulators are not like their real counterparts, right? Even on the A10 from DCS or in BMS Vipers, some of the systems are guesses and simplifications.

I think this plane is cool, but at the same time I'm thinking this could be an F-16 or at least 75% of an F-16.

Well done all, keep up the good work. It took 66 posts before someone wishlisted an F-16, next aircraft thread let's see if we can break 100 posts before the falcon gets mentioned.

I would be very interested in flying the tucano, simply for the fact that almost all air force pilots from almost all air forces learn to fly on a high performance turbo prop before they go on to specialise in fighters or heavies.

But then again it might have been harder to get the information about the Super Tucano.

oooo super sekrit classified documents on a propeller ground attack aircraft.

no one can know, its just too high tech, jet CAS platforms like the A10, su25, or Av8b/ Gr Harrier have nothing on it. Its even more advanced systems than F22 .:smartass:

There isn't anything even remotely secret about the Super Tucano. The reason they picked the trainer Tucano instead is because they want the trainer version more than the attack version. It's that simple. Don't like it? Don't buy it. I happen to be among those who won't buy it.

Egar apparently has a passion for this aircraft by the look of the model. That is exactly what I like to see when developers decide to build a DCS module. That means they are going to be committed to modeling the aircraft to exacting details. I like flying the planes and this one looks like a little turboprop hotrod. We do not have any turboprops in DCS yet so this could definitely be an interesting plane to fly regardless of it's combat capabilities.:thumbup:

Have cash...ready to buy...

Well done all, keep up the good work. It took 66 posts before someone wishlisted an F-16, next aircraft thread let's see if we can break 100 posts before the falcon gets mentioned.

 

 

LOL... Well, the F-16 should have been in LOMAC, Flaming Cliffs from day one.. Maybe taking the spot of one of the two Mig-29's ;)

 

Oh look... A Tucano turbo prop driven trainer... Neat-O (Looks fantastic. Sure it will be fun to fly, I'll buy it regardless)

 

 

LOL... Well, the F-16 should have been in LOMAC, Flaming Cliffs from day one.. Maybe taking the spot of one of the two Mig-29's ;)

 

It's my hypothesis that they never included the F16 into LOMAC was prevent a direct comparison between it and the very-much-alive-at-that-time Falcon 4.0.

I personally feel that the F16, F22 and F35 would be welcomed additions to DCS. It is 2016, after all.

There isn't anything even remotely secret about the Super Tucano. The reason they picked the trainer Tucano instead is because they want the trainer version more than the attack version. It's that simple. Don't like it? Don't buy it. I happen to be among those who won't buy it.

Why the point of a unarmed prop trainer. We have the tf51 for that.

Why not add both a trainer and prop attacker that would be interesting to have.

I think we need to convince the devs to make the attacker version. Besides money talks I'm sure much more people would buy it then, hence the incentive for the devs to make it

It's my hypothesis that they never included the F16 into LOMAC was prevent a direct comparison between it and the very-much-alive-at-that-time Falcon 4.0.

 

I personally feel that the F16, F22 and F35 would be welcomed additions to DCS. It is 2016, after all.

F22 and especially f35 are too new to model. I mean the f35 just started entering service. And as such 5th Gen fighters too classified even the f22 which has been in service since 2005

And what would the f22 fight? Pak fa which only protypes exist?

F22 would be the best air superiority plane hands down.

For what it doesn't knock out in bvr it has super maneuverability due to thrust vectoring engines meaning it can dogfight extremely well too no problem.

I mean only people with a machoistic desire for challanged would dare fight raptors in 4th generation planes

Well, one thing I learned with the advent of the internet is that there are an awful lot of selfish people in the world. I've never seen so much "I want, I want - you shouldn't do that because I want this!"

However, the point I would like to make on those bashing any type of aircraft that could possibly be a trainer or not suit exactly what they want and therefore shouldn't exist for anyone else either, is that these kind of modules - especially types like the Tucano - are very likely to tempt non-combat simmers to just dip their toe in the water and see what it's all about.

Mentioning the TF-51D is enough is pretty ludicrous, considering it's age and the complexity of operation compared to modern props.

I know plenty of civvy flyers who have zero desire to fly combat missions, but really enjoy flying combat aircraft. Many think that if they fly DCS World, that one way or another they are going to be put into some kind of combat situation. These kinds of modules are the perfect way to lure them over.

they might only ever just fly the trainers and non-com versions of the Hip and Huey - but they will add to DCS World and the dev's income, and that can only be good for everyone.

Then the devs will have more success and more dollars to maybe start on the combat modules that some are saying should be concentrated on, to the detriment of everything else.