Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World

 

When did they say it wasn't new? I thought it was supposed to be the most technologicaly advanced module yet?

A technologically advanced module is not the same thing as a technologically advanced aircraft (although the 'Vark certainly has some of that too, especially for its era). Side-by-side multicrew has been a long-standing technical challenge, for instance, as has ground-mapping radar — both of which such a module would need to a much higher degree than anything they've made so far.

Hell, if they really wanted to make something technologically advanced, as in a real programming challenge, something like the EA-6B or even (just to hammer the point home) the KC-135 MPRS would offer headaches like nothing before it ever has.

Also its not the F-111 because they've said they won't do a Tornado. The Tornado has a ton of people clamoring for it and it would probably be way more profitable but they don't want to deal with its multicrew. And for some reason they've stated side by side multicrew is harder than for and aft. See working multi crew in L-39, Yak-52, C-101,F-14 and even the Christian Eagle. And then failed multicrew in gazelle and still waiting on multicrew in the Huey.

Also its not the F-111 because they've said they won't do a Tornado.

Hogwash. That they won't do a Tornado means they won't do a Tornado. They might've mentioned multicrew in that context, but that doesn't mean they're staying clear of all two seaters. We know it's something they wanted to do since the Huey came out.

But there's nothing mind melting about an F-111.

Of course it is, it's a two-seater bomber with terrain-following radar, swing wings ("challenging to fly", though that's a bit of a stretch) and maybe also some EW options. It was quite advanced for the time, and would require some really fancy coding to handle its radar equipment.

Again, they explicitly said not new. F-35 was my favorite until I head about that. Your picks are pretty much all disqualified by that single statement. It's vague, but a Gulf War-era aircraft like the F-111 fits it perfectly. It's not historical, like Vietnam-era birds, and it's not new, like F-35.

Also its not the F-111 because they've said they won't do a Tornado.

:huh: That does not follow.

And for some reason they've stated side by side multicrew is harder than for and aft. See working multi crew in L-39, Yak-52, C-101,F-14 and even the Christian Eagle.

The thing is, of those, only the F-14 really qualify as “working”, and it still has a few odd quirks to it that you just generally don't notice because the crew don't sit right next to each other. The rest have been plagued by syncing issues that simply cannot be allowed to exist in a side-by-side configuration. The Gazelle is the only on that has tried, and it failed at that just like with everything else in that module.

Given the vague mumblings about their getting the Huey to some almost kind of sort of working(ish) state, it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that they've overcome some important part of that hurdle and would like to make use of it in a much higher-profile module.

I think you're letting wishful thinking get in the way. I've never seen them say its not new. If you can link me to that I'd appreciate it, but if its been lost in the mess of the forums I understand. But I see mind melting in EDs context as something they never thought they'd be allowed to do. Which is either semi modern russian, which they've said it isn't. Or very new western.

I think you're letting wishful thinking get in the way.

That applies to new (and Russian) aircraft more than anything. :D

Russian yes, but new... No. Oh no no no. I like the 50s-80s. My Absurd wishlist aircraft include the F-106 and F-94. I would be much happier with a F-111 than what I think we're going to end up with.

Not 100% but I think I was the one who said “mind melting “ about 950 posts ago and I was being facetious. Don’t get hung up on that particular verbiage.

as far as front back vs side by side multi crew. In the F14 unless your outside looking in, you never see, only hear jester so a desynch wouldn’t be nearly as obvious as looking to your right while actually in the cockpit. Seems like a totally different animal to tame but what do I know....

I thought it was big newy or nineline who originally said it? Well regardless, what I perceive as EDs own hype for it has me convinced its going to be something very new.

I thought it was big newy or nineline who originally said it? Well regardless, what I perceive as EDs own hype for it has me convinced its going to be something very new.

ED will fall flat on their face with all this hype. Its going to be another AMRAAM/JDAM carrier with nothing new except a different flight model. The most "eagerly awaited" Module in DCS is the Su-27SM3, given that it was apparently already being developed, then cancelled, in 2013. But by using the phrase "eagerly awaited" and "brainmelter" in relation to another half-finished NATO 4th gen, they played themselves.

Luckily there is another well-known game developer headed towards at least low fidelity 4th gens. So whether its going to be it or ED, we will not have to wait for a modern russian jet more than 1-2 years.

While I agree this is overhyped I don't get why you're sticking a finger in EDs eye. They've said they're trying to mKe a 29. I believe them when they say Russian companies and government and difficult to work with. I just don't see the point f insulting and trying to goad ED into making one by mentioning another sim.

 

ED will fall flat on their face with all this hype. Its going to be another AMRAAM/JDAM carrier with nothing new except a different flight model. The most "eagerly awaited" Module in DCS is the Su-27SM3

Is it?

No doubt something that will be a total hotcake, but the most eagerly awaited?

And according to that interview Flankers are off the table completely including the mid-80s Su-27S.

I think we need to face reality here: the early 80s Project 9.12 MiG-29 Fulcrum A is the best we're going to get for a very long time.

In my opinion, ED kinda shot themselves in the foot with doing post 2000s variants of the Hornet and F-16, basically knowing that we probably couldn't have a peer contemporary. IMO 80s variants would be more preferable factoring the overwhelming majority of basically every asset in DCS. I mean there is not one single air defence system in DCS, at all, that is newer than the early 90s. None. Only thing that might be is the Chinese ships, but that's it.

• SA-10B/S-300PS? Early-to-mid 80s
  
• SA-15/9K330? Mid 80s
  
• SA-19/2K22? Early-to-mid 80s
  
• SA-2d/S-75M? Early 70s
  
• SA-3b/S-125M/M1? 70s
  
• SA-5b/S-200M? 70s
  
• MIM-104C Patriot? early 90s
  

 

 

In my opinion, ED kinda shot themselves in the foot with doing post 2000s variants of the Hornet and F-16, basically knowing that we probably couldn't have a peer contemporary. IMO 80s variants would be more preferable factoring the overwhelming majority of basically every asset in DCS. I mean there is not one single air defence system in DCS, at all, that is newer than the early 90s. None. Only thing that might be is the Chinese ships, but that's it.

• SA-10B/S-300PS? Early-to-mid 80s
  
• SA-15/9K330? Mid 80s
  
• SA-19/2K22? Early-to-mid 80s
  
• SA-2d/S-75M? Early 70s
  
• SA-3b/S-125M/M1? 70s
  
• SA-5b/S-200M? 70s
  
• MIM-104C Patriot? early 90s
  

True, but then again ED is not making a coherent complete Sim, only a Sandbox where to place ultra realistic Modules.

And general public prefer new and fancy over coherency, or even logic LOL mos people wanna be maverick shooting everything on the sky and ground BUT have an "assurance" that is "realistic" so its totally True...

In that box we are stuck, and it doesn't matter if there's a credible opfor, or even a credible map for a coherent conflict with a peer opponent. ;)

So going back on topic, the "new" module could be anything from the Spirit of Saint Louis to the Space Shuttle...

 

True, but then again ED is not making a coherent complete Sim, only a Sandbox where to place ultra realistic Modules.

 

I think they will since with dynamic campaign some scattered assets from different eras wouldn't have much sense.

 

I think they will since with dynamic campaign some scattered assets from different eras wouldn't have much sense.

I truly hope so LOL

It's very strange, TBH, considering they already made a two-seater L-39 that works perfectly well. Side by side is a challenge (and would fit the "milestone" part), but multicrew in general has been a thing for a while.

Side-by-side is not really a challenge by the programming perspective, unless the DCS core itself is so badly programmed and designed that they barely can get any two-seater working... (Still waiting UH-1H and Mi-8 to have that in great manner).

That is why it can't be "brain melting" feature at all.

They've said they're trying to mKe a 29.

For a moment my heart stopped as I read that you said "They've said they're trying to make a KA-29." and not a "MiG-29" as with KA-29 they would truly start with nice troop transport/attack helicopter for Russian Navy, and then later offer KA-27 for Anti-Submarine Warfare (KA-27PL), search and rescue (KA-27PS), anti-ships variant (KA-27M) and maybe even civilian versions as for similar markets as L-39 was.

Yea, sorry about the lazyness and typos. And interesting aircraft for sure but low on my list.

 

ED will fall flat on their face with all this hype. Its going to be another AMRAAM/JDAM carrier with nothing new except a different flight model. The most "eagerly awaited" Module in DCS is the Su-27SM3, given that it was apparently already being developed, then cancelled, in 2013. But by using the phrase "eagerly awaited" and "brainmelter" in relation to another half-finished NATO 4th gen, they played themselves.

Well, Su-27SM/2/3 would truly do many happy, but I think that the problem here is that ED has made very bold claims of the demand of unknown product, without us knowing really the geographic target.

Like if we take a 10 000 customers that has approached ED by telling their wishes that what should be developed as "AMAZING!" features, we should very well already know what it is, but setting own filters that it is not yet mentioned, revealed etc. It really is cutting very popular and often heard dreamlist targeted aircrafts off from it.

We don't even know what "brain melting" truly can mean, like it very well can be F-18D/E or what would F-14D do?

They likely have it narrowed so down to something very specific that will anyways drop from off from many wishlist that it might be hard to say "eagerly waited".

I can really think just few, but already mentioned, western aircrafts, but there are few other Soviet aircrafts that has even higher demand by some polls, but everything is just behind "We can't, sorry, don't ask".

But we will likely soon get revelation of this teasements, and there is high risk that it will really be so down in many wishlists that it is nothing as hyped.

Also we might not even get a reveal soon. If its something thats pending a contract they could already be working on it but not be able to announce it until paper work is signed. Deadlines for that stuff can easily get pushed around for buisness reasons or covid.

 

I think they will since with dynamic campaign some scattered assets from different eras wouldn't have much sense.

It does make sense if you can fill the one and specific year of the history when flyable high fidelity module is meant to reflect (so our Hornet is only to be flown in missions from 2005, not from 2004 or 2006 or any other year) with an good group of AI aircrafts that match for that one specific year. The ED (or their partners) don't need to develop complex playable modules, just a lots of various variants of most common aircrafts. Then the player can be set play against those AI aircrafts, but not against other humans in that dynamic campaign, that would be flying aircrafts from other year (like F-16C from 2006).

Suddenly the dynamic campaign becomes very useful for various aircrafts for different modules as you get to set campaigns at different maps and different years by using flyable modules as the base for the scenarios.

 

When did they say it wasn't new? I thought it was supposed to be the most technologicaly advanced module yet?

When did they say that?. AFAIK they just said that it was "a very complex" aircraft and that it was "a challenge to fly"

What modern aircraft would fit with the latter? - certainly not the F-35.

We may be running into the problem that we're half remembering something bignewy or nineline said and cant even remember if it was forums, Facebook, or discord.

Yeah complex, and "face melting/mindblowing" or whatever.

But so far:

Its not RED, and its certainly not a mig29. And its not redo of something already in the game.

That leaves: US or Euro.

Also not too old or not too modern.

US:

Its pretty unlikely to be an F15, though that would be pretty straightforward for them to do IMO. But see "redo". Very slim chance of an F14D as well.

My best guess US. F117 based on that. Its old enough, declassed enough (about the only thing that would be classed are stealth details that they won't need, just RCS=marble or whatever) Otherwise its off the shelf tech/systems. It might be popular with strike crowd, but I mean dropping 2xGBU would get old quick IMO.

Second guess: 5th gen (22/35), but I really think it would really screw up DCS MP, so I don't really want it.

Euro:

Maybe some Gen4.5. And since the Typhoon is spoken for (see above comments about 5th gens). It might be Rafale, or Grippen, or if you go old school maybe a tornado.

IDK,

I think long term strategy wise ED has kinda pooched it by starting off with the most modern variants of stuff. The early models would be far easier to do, and then you could up-charge for a later and more capable version. I.e. F16A or block 30C, then upgrade to the block 50. You basically shorten development times into more feasible chunks, you grow the plane set rationally, you charge for more "complex" features stuff like D/L, HMCS, etc. Like if we had an F18A it would have been done long ago, same for an early viper. And the more advanced systems would be in development. It would also mean a much larger overall historical space for missions, so instead of having to "gimp" the current viper, you'd have a much closer version of what you wanted.

The other half of this is that at some point they run out of "uber" planes under the current model. I mean sure the Viper sold like gangbusters, and likely an F15C/F18E will too. But then what? Maybe the F22 if thats feasible, but then what? I mean there aren't alot more "modern" planes left. Same for the Euro stuff, you got 1-2 modern ones there.

And really, I mean its a slightly different airframe, dropping/shooting largely the same point-n-click weapons, which at some point gets old.