Cessna 172!

A C-172 is ultimately not interesting to me as it is limited as to what i can do with it. However, if you think low and slow, why not a OV-10 Bronco ?

OV10 Bronco with this system would be very interesting:

P6iI9NfNTpk

I would 100% purchase a C-172, and like #73, would love other GA aircraft. FSX is ridiculously outdated now, despite amazing addons. A Boeing 707 is a particularly relevant aircraft if we want to look at larger ones, because it has so many potential military uses with 'just some changes'.

Doesn't matter. Still a cool groundpounder I'll certainly buy outright :thumbup:

WELP MY STATEMENT WAS MADE OBSOLETE VERY QUICKLY, WASN'T IT?

All air forces in the world do initial training or screening in small prop planes. I guess, but I'm not sure, that Russia uses Yak-52 for basic training, USAF uses Diamond (looks like DA20) etc. I agree that having such a plane in DCS would be interesting, for RPG purposes, and for training in general (shooting ILS approaches in a fast jet is not the best way to learn if you've never done it).

Approaches don't work properly in here anyway, so it's a moot point.

While there is the crowd that bleats 'no way something that can't shoot has no place in DCS!1' or 'I'd rather buy XY' I think it's proven fact in many threads that there IS a demand for GA aircraft in DCS.

 

That has nothing to do with wanting to change what DCS is (in respect to the C) but that we have maybe the best flightsim around and are not really using it to it's full potential.

 

People keep sending me over to FSX, P3D and X-plane for my GA needs but simple truth is, they can't satisfy me. DCS flightmodel can. DCS theatres can.

 

People are very vocal about ED/3rdy partys NOT making GA aircraft under the impression that this would take away from other projects. I think that is very far fetched and I am 100% sure that we will get GA aircraft in DCS at some point. Maybe not this year, not the next, but they will come.

 

It just makes sense!

Those other sims you mentioned have the aircraft you want and the flight model is better anyway, not to mention all the proper approaches, plates and other charts. It doesn't make sense to do GA aircraft here. The ones that are actually needed are already not being done. ED is all over the place with aircraft and there is no organization. It's a free for all, do what you want, let everyone piece it together.

I see your 172 crudboy and raise you a caravan

When a Cessna Goes to War

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a21986/when-a-cessna-goes-to-war/

or a 206

or

Those other sims you mentioned have the aircraft you want and the flight model is better anyway, not to mention all the proper approaches, plates and other charts. It doesn't make sense to do GA aircraft here. The ones that are actually needed are already not being done. ED is all over the place with aircraft and there is no organization. It's a free for all, do what you want, let everyone piece it together.

Flight model in all other flightsims is inferior to DCS. That is not even worth argueing about, the lines in the sand are very clear. The closest sim is X-plane and over there the 3rd party devs struggle to come up with something that comes even close to DCS. I own said sim and various high level studysim aircraft and feel that I am not talking out of my ass here. :D

What does hinder me to do IFR approaches and procedures in DCS? Really what are you talking about? Wrong headings because of magnetic variation? Or did they get for example NTTR all wrong? And even more with that logic our other Jet's and heli's in DCS wouldn't need precision instruments. Can't even do it why have it? Really confused.

Why is ED developing a garmin then?

By the way your last sentence sounds very clear like you are on of the 'ED shouldn't make X but Y' kind of guy. As I said I don't see the conflict. A 3rd party making a GA aircraft 'steals' nothing from you. ED making a GA airplane doesn't block the production of other things. You can see the arguments on this line of argument being regularlry dismantled in WW2 topics.

I get it. No WW2. No time area X. Only what YOU want. And you will strongly argue against something that YOU don't want. Okay. But atleast back it up.

DCS devs have shown that they tend to go for aircrafts they have access too. What better plane in this than C172?

+1

Not a 172; a T-41!

Or better yet, an O-1 Birddog and an 0-2 Mixmaster. Cool skins, lots of cred, neat weapons.

Or how about an L-4 for the Normandy map (sorry, thread creep...)

The fact that I've flown all of these IRL has nothing to do with my comments...:^)

Vulture

You can fly a 172 in real life for as many hours as you would want to fly one if you didn't purchase the Warthog, massive monitor, speakers and computer.

In fact for a full on sim setup you could get a PPL I bet.

Lets not have a 172, the most boring of boring planes. lol

You can fly a 172 in real life for as many hours as you would want to fly one if you didn't purchase the Warthog, massive monitor, speakers and computer.

 

In fact for a full on sim setup you could get a PPL I bet.

 

Lets not have a 172, the most boring of boring planes. lol

If you find any plane to be "boring," I suggest you find a new hobby. Aviation and simulations aren't for you in that case :)

+1

I also agree that going back to FSX, P3D, or X-Plane doesn't cut it compared to DCS. I have all three, keep going back because I want to fly some GA occasionally, and find the experience lacking.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Heatblur or any of the other 3rd party devs should work on these aircraft (unless they want to, of course). They have their lists of military aircraft they want to do, and I say more power to them. What you need is a third party developer that from the beginning says they're not interested producing military aircraft. Or someone who wants to go out making GA aircraft that were converted for limited combat use. That way no one can accuse them of slowing down production on more military based aircraft.

I'm a sucker for almost all aircraft, so there's rarely a bad AC to be included in the sim if it's well modeled. I'm really looking forward to the A-29, so it's natural that I'd love a 172 or Caravan, unarmed or armed.

While I am not outright and arbitrarily against civilian aircraft in DCS, I do think that opening that particular floodgate would bring a whole heap of issues. DCS is a fairly (and thankfully) closed environment where third parties have to (ideally) follow specific standards of quality and detail. In fact, you could even make the argument that developers like Heatblur, Belsimtek, and even RAZBAM are pushing DCS further as a combat simulation by bringing their own specific requirements and developer tricks to the table.

The problem with opening DCS World up to civilian aviation is that you would essentially be creating a situation where DCS is set up to fail. Right now, FSX, P3D, and X-Plane are kings of civilian flight simulation because they have built MASSIVE third party support. You have literally hundreds of different third party aircraft, map assets, and even external flight models, weather, and various utilities. On paper, this sounds amazing but in practice, due to the nearly nonexistent quality standards (since nobody is really enforcing anything), you have a whole lot of substandard (sometimes free, sometimes not) third party stuff. I mean, sure, you have great teams like PMDG and A2A Simulations but you also have a ton of third parties who either release far less detailed or even substandard work.

Now, to make matters even more complicated, you have a MASSIVE and dedicated civilian flight sim community who will immediately move into the DCS community and EXPECT DCS World to deliver EXACTLY what they get in FSX, P3D, or X-Plane. I am not just talking about a massive selection of civil aircraft in a variety of detail levels but also the worldwide map, civilian style ATC, ground assets, fully detailed airports (on a world-wide scale of course), and all the other elements that they have gotten over the past twenty-five-plus years of civilian flight simulation.

To put it bluntly, that is not a floodgate that Eagle Dynamics should open since DCS World can't compete with heavyweights like FSX, P3D, or X-Plane on the civilian side of things quickly enough to prevent a public relations disaster. The moment a Cessna or a Airbus make it to DCS is the moment where countless FSX focused youtubers, AVSim, and other flight sim communities will yell on the mountaintops that DCS is awful because it does not have the exact same stuff they get in FSX.

At this point, it is better that DCS World is combat focused because that is what it was designed for to begin with. It does air combat really well (in contrast to the rather poor combat that comes with something like FSX's Tackpack) even if it struggles with elements like ATC and other civilian flightsim staples.

Now, Eagle Dynamics had the right idea with the L-39. It created a module that has both a combat and a civilian element. If you want civilian flight simming in DCS, the L-39C is a good way to handle that. You get a aircraft that makes sense in the setting, has a combat connection, but can also function 100% as a civilian aircraft.

If Eagle Dynamics and its third parties wanted to take that idea and roll with it, you could potentially end up with more modules with two versions of aircraft (when realistically applicable). You could end up with aircraft like a flyable C-130 that also includes a L-100 for civilian flight. Likewise, a U-27 module could also include a Cessna 208 version. Picking aircraft that can serve both civil and military applications would allow for civil simmers to come into DCS without creating the impression that DCS is trying to come into the civil simulation market in a way that could backfire on Eagle Dynamics or even the hardcore combat flight sim enthusiasts that enjoy DCS as it is.

Finally, we come to another key element to think about. Some on this thread had said that having civilian aircraft could help newer DCS players learn and train before hopping into more dedicated (and often higher performance) military aircraft. Moving past the fact that we already have the L-39C to provide that kind of thing (and the F-5E to a degree), would such "training" aircraft really sell to newer players coming into DCS? Do you think that a new player would say to themselves "You know, I really want to fly the MiG-21Bis module but I suppose I should spend another $60 so I can practice on the L-39C first."

This is the problem with the training aircraft argument. I love that we have them and I love flying the L-39 in DCS myself but it is the kind of module that a ENTHUSIAST buys and not a new player coming into the hobby or DCS specifically. New players are going to be attracted to the combat aircraft and will go straight there. So, with that in mind, using the argument that civil aircraft would help players ease into military aircraft kinda falls apart. It works in real life but gamers coming into DCS won't really want to do the figurative drivers ed before driving the Ferrari F1 car.

At this point, ED should do what it wants to do and if that means sticking to the "combat" part of "Digital Combat Simulator", more power to them. If they want to branch out, I hope they are careful and don't try to draw the FSX crowd to fast or else it will backfire on them and it will hurt the sim.

I see your 172 crudboy and raise you a caravan

 

 

 

 

When a Cessna Goes to War

http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a21986/when-a-cessna-goes-to-war/

 

or a 206

 

or

I love the door gun on a Cessna.

I do not know if a 172 but some support plane, tanker, transport, awacs, that not everything in the war is combat

Do you mean like this?

A little Cessna to get back home from the airfield base would be great :D

please no

Why do the 172 when we can do ultralights!

A glider? :smilewink:

A glider? :smilewink:

Horsa for the Normandy map :thumbup:

C130, hawkeye, viking...

I have had different opinions, but those were quite a long time ago.

It would be nice to have an aircraft with at least some minimal COIN capability, whether that be from field modifications or built into the aircraft before it's sent into war. An AT-802 would be pretty solid, but I'd wager its name has been beaten into this thread plenty by now.

Some medium props/turboprops could also be nice for STOL transport and cargo near the battlefield, especially whenever grass runways come into play, like a Skyvan

or a Skytruck

Another suggestion for a COIN aircraft, the weaponized CriCri :P joking of course!

Some medium props/turboprops could also be nice for STOL transport and cargo near the battlefield, especially whenever grass runways come into play, like a Skyvan

 

 

Used to fly in these to go to work, man they are noisy and they rattle like they are falling apart, I cursed the day they swapped the Bandeirante for the skyvan on the route I used.