Simming the stealth fleet; a matter of time?

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/lockheed/f-117nighthawk/to-1f-117a-1-utility-flight-manual-f-117a-aircraft.html

I think it would be great for scripted missions. Released along with a campaign it would be great.

For multiplayer, not so much, because I've noticed most pilots are pansies and don't like flying at night, which would be required for the F-117. Okay, maybe a little unfair, but it does break the Su-25 and KA-50 unless someone brings flares. Still though, I've noticed there are virtually no night missions now in MP.

Nah, I don't think most people in multiplayer would see that jet modeled right cruising in quiet at 35 k jenking in. If it had a raptor fc3 style watching it's back?

Read the thread title. The reacts so strong, got about as deep as a puddle

100 dollars take my money ed

In a dynamic DCS WORLD the raptor and the nighthawk not only make sense, but are paramount to REALISM if it truly is the STATUS QUO.

Having no competition is generally taken as an admission of being the best from your vanquished. Woe unto the vanquished, but you must seek new pinnacles or risk growing fat on the laurels.

There is no reason dcs world should end in 1986, imho. Stealth aircraft are a real facet of doctrine. Same with advanced long range anti stealth techniques and ground based ewl.

I mean, if you want guys do the U2 or the SR71. It's dcs world not flanker 5000, or what have you. There are strong polarities in this community at large , and in the macro. I'm a polarizing figure, so in saying that don't take my seldom rhetoric vitriol in anything but a metaphorical context ever, it's literally what I'm good for and why I have a roof over my head.

Good morning

One thing to consider is that developers need to make money. And to make them, they should strive to appeal to the largest possible crowd to get the investment back. We already have people complaining about "useless trainers" or "why would you make this version when the other one is better". With literally every aircraft people wish for, we always get "I would totally pay 100 bucks for a glider" posts, which is nice, but consider this.

If you were a dev, would you:

- Develop a single trick pony that flies straight, drops one bomb, flies back - only because it's a legendary and historically significant aircraft. Then hope there will be enough enthusiasts buying it for that very reason.

- Develop an aircraft filling various roles or perhaps one that has potential to engage the player with countless hours of content and therefore can attract customers simply because of its fun factor.

Good point George, that's why we need F-16 mod :D sorry guys, can't resist :D

One thing to consider is that developers need to make money. And to make them, they should strive to appeal to the largest possible crowd to get the investment back. We already have people complaining about "useless trainers" or "why would you make this version when the other one is better". With literally every aircraft people wish for, we always get "I would totally pay 100 bucks for a glider" posts, which is nice, but consider this.

 

If you were a dev, would you:

 

- Develop a single trick pony that flies straight, drops one bomb, flies back - only because it's a legendary and historically significant aircraft. Then hope there will be enough enthusiasts buying it for that very reason.

 

- Develop an aircraft filling various roles or perhaps one that has potential to engage the player with countless hours of content and therefore can attract customers simply because of its fun factor.

That makes sense broadly, but I don't feel ED has ever shyed away from unusual or niche aircraft. In fact I seem to recall wags mentioning they look for unusual aircraft, not just the f-35 or something. I can't remember the exact quote. Point is, we ended up with and Albatros, Viggen, F-5, Su-25, Mi-8 even an A-10, which is quite unusual. The Hornet will probably sell more units than any prior module, but I really respect ED for championing some unusual, niche choices. It seems to work quite well for them, and we get to fly things we might never have thought we would - like a Viggen! Or a 117

I'm curious George, would you buy a stealth fighter module? :) I have a theory that goes hand in hand with the asset pack criticism - people buy anyway because it's good for the community. We are a supportive lot aren't we. Sometimes I get surprised when I see how many modules I've bought! How'd that happen ;)

I believe the Hornet would make ED richi rich (its also a prayer from me). Same with the Falcon. Whoever have the license from ED for making F-16 module would be very lucky. Lets see....

George I hear your point, which is why I said 100 bucks for FC3 fidelity stealth fleet, the 22, 117. The 35 is brand new, but when you realize one of the main features of the 35 is the 6° of freedom virtual hud like every plane has in a VR HMD with hud mode only anyways, I'm not quite as militant.

Even all the block 50 through 80s have HMD off bore. In dcs off bore HMD plus hud mode only plus IRL HMD = 5gen

Here is the reality; there is that OTHER GAME, the 16 year old one, with a huge roster , which is basically study quality, and a really good campaign.

They are working on rift and vice support. They give that game away for free. The base vanilla is less than 8 American dollars.

This is an eventuality, this WILL happen, your business model IS going to be undercut. And on day one when it does, you have to compete with every f16, up to five theatres , co op, dynamic campaigns, difficult AI...

This is an eventuality, in business you look at market share and profit margin. You're about to lose the "plus cost "game. I'm not biased, I always eat.

If someone puts prime rib in the table for free, who ya going to blame then? Money? Time? Dev cycles?

There is reality, and there is idealism.

The problem with the stealth fleet is they all rely on systems, and system performances, that simply aren't modeled well right now.

We could possibly do the 117 and do it well, but the truth is I don't think I'd be interested in it until we had some real consequences for bombing said targets. Hell, we can't even disable runways right now, bomb/destroy ATC buildings, etc.

I'd love the F-22 though, a new HOTAS, supercruise, 120-D/9-X/SDB, and datalink/EW stuff.

mvsgas,

it looks from those pictures as if it has no RWR? Am I blind or did it really have no RWR?

Here is the reality; there is that OTHER GAME, the 16 year old one, with a huge roster , which is basically study quality, and a really good campaign.

 

They are working on rift and vice support. They give that game away for free. The base vanilla is less than 8 American dollars.

 

This is an eventuality, this WILL happen, your business model IS going to be undercut. And on day one when it does, you have to compete with every f16, up to five theatres , co op, dynamic campaigns, difficult AI...

 

This is an eventuality, in business you look at market share and profit margin. You're about to lose the "plus cost "game. I'm not biased, I always eat.

 

If someone puts prime rib in the table for free, who ya going to blame then? Money? Time? Dev cycles?

 

There is reality, and there is idealism.

And then there is the lengendary f-14 tomcat, iconic f-18 hornet, and unique harrier; all plus high fidelity carrier modules.

I don't want to start a flame war, I'm just trying to say that "undercut" is a little extreme IMO. ;)

I know an a former Nighthawk pilot that now Flys the F-22. He would beg to differ. From what little we talked about (as in could talk about other than missions), the Nighthawk was one hell of a bird. All her computers did was help with the fly by wire commands in stability.

You still had to manually fly around enemy aircraft with search radars on, and avoid multiple types of Sam sites from various headings, heights, etc. Then on target you still had to find it, lase it, and drop your weapons, all the while getting the hell out of dodge, plus aerial refueling I was told was a mission in itself. The final version was also all glass cockpit, making it even easier to use.

The hard part would actually be adding in the correct amount of stealth, while giving enemies bonus to attack while using triangulation radars/ECM detection, and adding the natural instability to the airframe based on its shape. As to simming the flight data and characteristics, just put in the American A7 Corsair, full weight, but maximum engine performance and turning ratios set to 85% of Mach 1.

In a dynamic DCS WORLD the raptor and the nighthawk not only make sense, but are paramount to REALISM if it truly is the STATUS QUO.

...

There is no reason dcs world should end in 1986, imho. Stealth aircraft are a real facet of doctrine. Same with advanced long range anti stealth techniques and ground based ewl.

Here is the reality; there is that OTHER GAME, the 16 year old one, with a huge roster , which is basically study quality, and a really good campaign.

 

They are working on rift and vice support. They give that game away for free. The base vanilla is less than 8 American dollars.

 

This is an eventuality, this WILL happen, your business model IS going to be undercut. And on day one when it does, you have to compete with every f16, up to five theatres , co op, dynamic campaigns, difficult AI...

 

This is an eventuality, in business you look at market share and profit margin. You're about to lose the "plus cost "game. I'm not biased, I always eat.

 

If someone puts prime rib in the table for free, who ya going to blame then? Money? Time? Dev cycles?

 

There is reality, and there is idealism.

Your pushing realism on one hand and have no way to achieve that in the other with the F-117, F-22, and F-35 platforms. So much is classified and so little is known, just look at every thread EVER started on them on this forum and nearly everyone only wants it if it's done right and everyone (somewhat mistakenly, as there are some things every other module doesn't do for the same reasons) says it can't be done right.

Then you go on to talk about a sim that's put together by what is no doubt a very talented and charitable team, but they're working with something that's incredibly dated at a very base level, and takes the average experienced user something in the neighborhood of thirty minutes to figure out how to connect with multi-player, and even then have to put up with "<ThatOtherGame>isms". Their controls menu is god awful to work with. The object models are schitzophrenic with awesome looking F-16s and a Nike-Herc system made out of cardboard models. Another strike against realism is that they don't model a system unless the know everything about it, so things like ECM break their own rule by only getting "Close enough". Plus you have other aircraft that have the same radar shoe-horned into them, no matter what they are.

There are some things it does -incredibly- well, such as IADS modeling, just having an F-16, and the dynamic campaign, but these aren't things that are completely exclusive and could appear in DCS at a later date.

It's not even close to what DCS has accomplished for the average user. They're completely different products, aimed at almost totally different people, and I'll be amazed if they can ever pull off VR support as they were never able to get simple 3D stereoscopic to work. That other game never has and never will be a threat to DCS and ED in the flight sim market, ever.

No, the sim doesn't have to stop in the 80s, however, that's one of the most interesting times and one of the most well studied, and now that multitudes of information is being declassified about planes from that era allowing the kind of in-depth simulation the average DCS user wants, we're going to see more and more modules along this line. The A-7, F-14, F-18, the MiG-23 and the Mi-24 -someone- is working on are on my short list for buying.

I'd almost bet money we'll see all those aircraft in DCS, flying on Hormuz, before DCS loses money and users to that other game. I'd also definitely bet that we'll see F-14 and F-18 before we see VR support over there, too.

Your pushing realism on one hand and have no way to achieve that in the other with the F-117, F-22, and F-35 platforms. So much is classified and so little is known, just look at every thread EVER started on them on this forum and nearly everyone only wants it if it's done right and everyone (somewhat mistakenly, as there are some things every other module doesn't do for the same reasons) says it can't be done right.

With regards to the F-117 it's totally achievable. Almost everything on the aircraft is declassified (mvsgas will probably know the specifics) and easily replicable. The F-117 essentially used the same as what we already have with the A-10C's TGP in DCS. Lase a target and guide a bomb to it. That's already well implemented in DCS. It's stealth features were hardly state of the art either, as mvsgas mentioned it basically flew in a straight line and hoped it wasn't spotted!

The reason the F-117 hasn't been picked up by a dev (or not that we know of) is that the idea keeps getting shot down because it would be 'too boring' and 'overly monotonous'. I couldn't disagree more, everyone enjoys different things and if developed by a reputable 3rd party team (or ED themselves) it could actually sell quite well. If you'd have asked me if I wanted to see a Viggen in DCS last year I'd have said god no, it didn't interest me. But Leatherneck / HB have completely changed my mind. I'd buy it purely on the basis of it being so well done!

I think we all accept the F-22 and F-35 are beyond the scope of what's declassified at the current time. The F-35 more so than the F-22 I'd imagine.

Although the mission profile would be very bland, I imagine this module would absolutely fly off the shelf: No-one has made a stealth aircraft simulator in many years so I expect many people (including myself) would buy this for the unique experience.

Actually, I wonder if the mission profile would be somewhat similar to civilian flight sims? Just a thought...

well I have to disagree, not to flaunt my bona fides, but the f-22 is currently being replaced, the DOD is blathering their mouths left and right, concurrently about the shitty processors and the lack of a production line for 22's. A dassault used an IRST sensor to cloud bait a 22 at red flag and kill him with a MICA IR. The 22 doesn't have an ACMI catalog computer, like the grippen, the rafale, and the typhoon, it uses an obsolete processor family, and in the event of catastrophic losses, it cannot be replaced.

the f-22 came off a strip of skunk paper in 1971, and basically got the Boyd treatment thanks to the LFW and the fighter mafia through it's second stage of development, great, it became less shitty than the swept wing abortion it was meant to be, but still gets stalked and murdered by dis-invited french jets.

The DOD has spent billions pumping optic and anti MW tech in the past 5 years, they have leaked a vast amount of both concept and logistical support into the halls of academia to speed up the process. Directed energy weapons, and certain LO techniques I will not divulge here are in the hands of export states, first party developer nations are working on airframes, sub orbital, cheshire, you name it.

you're talking about the hegemony of a generation that has already been defeated in the black world, and exists in the uneducated public concept of what "stealth" means now.

And I tell you confidently, gumption and XBOX level technology from the 2003's can observe your 22 and your 35 and your 117a...don't believe me, call the Serbians.

good luck out there.

I think it had less to do with the Serbs technology and more to do with poor mission planning on the part of the F-117s.

But back to topic I for one would buy and use a DCS F-117, it would add a unique experience to the gameplay. You could make pretty instense missions in heavily defended air space with some low flying and single one pass strikes and then have to come off target quick and run for home dodging enemy QR scrambles. IDK Just some first day of war stuff.

I think it had less to do with the Serbs technology and more to do with poor mission planning on the part of the F-117s.

And some out-of-the-box thinking by the guy-that-wrote-the-book.

dis-invited french jets.

What does this even mean?

And what does cloud baited mean ?

Personally I am not interested in anything that is still classified. 1986 is a great era to simulate. Missiles were average so there were more merges and fun. Who wants to fire active missiles and then run away.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Who wants to fire active missiles and then run away.

 

I do. So does anyone and everyone who is actually flying that jet up there in that hostile sky. The objective after all is to finish your mission, and come back in one piece. You might like airquake, and thats fine, but there are a lot of us who appreciate the care that goes into all of these simulations and like to follow realistic procedures, including the one that allows you to live longer than your opponent.

Stay away from any airframe that is still highly classified as the F22 and F-117.

..and I agree, the F22 is a disaster for said reasons. Billions got wasted for an airplane of questionable use vs. a moderate enemy.

Make it WAY cheaper and easily reproducable and you can sustain in A2A warfare over time.

my 2 cents as an armchair pilot that in reality hopes those airplanes can save my family and nation from bad things happening. I severly doubt that F22 could do that. I'd rather have 200+ EF2k and those baguettes from France ;)

Fair enough to each his own, and it is a realistic Tactic. Problem is that the missiles are secret so the simulation is flawed. I hate Airquake I fly almost solely on servers that have no active missiles, at least the missiles present are somewhat realistic and so properly allow realistic tactics.

Please dont get me wrong I love DCS and am on most afternoons when home, i just feel that trying to simulate classified missile systems is best left alone because invariably there is a major conpromise. Which was part of the OP's question about the F117.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

A lot of info is out there. We already do know what the missiles are "capable" of. You don't need to simulate an exact replica. But something that performs the way it should perform on paper is good enough.

However there are too many problems with the missiles in this game already. Even the really old missiles are not performing to specs. Until this gets fixed this conversation is basically moot.

(I agree with you on the classified part though, especially with regards to aircraft systems, the F22 is something I would rather not see in DCS)