O-2A Skymaster

I already see myself orbiting for hours and marking stuff, bring it! :3

O-2A, yes.

 

 

 

Main reason: I have a Saitek Yoke waiting to be used for something in DCS :)

Same for me, I would love to have a use for my yoke in DCS.

And the sky master is one of my favorite GA aircraft, this thing would be awesome to have.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've in mind a different twin tail plane which would prefer honestly...

I've in mind a different twin tail plane that I prefer honestly...

 

+100

I would much rather have an OV-10 Bronco. The dual use aspect of the Push me Pull you (Military vs, Civilian) does nothing for me. The Bronco or Pucare would be awesome!!

I always find this threads amussing. :lol:

Somebody asks the comunity if there is an interest for an aircraft X and everybody comes here with "I prefer a Blimp or I rather have a Zeppelin, I would buy a balloon....." :smilewink:

I think the question of the thread was not "What aircraft would you prefer us to do? or what is your dream aircraft?"

I think we all agree we would love to have 600 modules available in DCS world, so even if one aircraft is not on someone's "list" it does not mean other 1000 guys would not dream to have it.

I'd rather have an V-22 Osprey in DCS World but that does not mean I would not love to have an O-2A as well :smilewink:

Explaining why your answer is "No" and helping developers by ensuring it's not just a guessing game about what airplane the community would like to see next seems perfectly productive.

Especially when developers are sometimes apprehensive about making aircraft that are too similar in form and function to other existing modules out of concern that sales wouldn't be as great.

So having an O-2A in DCS might be a death sentence for ever having an OV-10, and I'll take every opportunity I can to be as discerning and vocal as possible about which module I want to be the sure thing and which one I'd happily leave in question.

Explaining why your answer is "No" and helping developers by ensuring it's not just a guessing game about what airplane the community would like to see next seems perfectly productive.

 

Especially when developers are sometimes apprehensive about making aircraft that are too similar in form and function to other existing modules out of concern that sales wouldn't be as great.

 

So having an O-2A in DCS might be a death sentence for ever having an OV-10, and I'll take every opportunity I can to be as discerning and vocal as possible about which module I want to be the sure thing and which one I'd happily leave in question.

Usually the "death sentence" to a module is the lack of publicly available data and details, confidentiality of systems and parameters and last but not least legal issues with intellectual property and getting a license to use it.

It doesn't make any difference, if a million people chime in about "prefering a XYZ" as likely neither of the above mentioned issues is solved.

The only possible outcome I can see is, the developer get the impression their investment in research, documentation etc. for the O-2A was wasted and it isn't financially viable. So they might reconsider doing it... And that does not mean they can just switch to the plane you would prefer, but you won't get the O-2A and neither a OV-10 Bronco, at least not in the next 5-6 years likely.

If you ask me, I prefer an O-2A that will be developed over the possibility of a OV-10 in a couple years, that I cannot fly anymore, as by then I may be deaf and blind, and dying of old age. ;)

The Pucara was put to vote and turned down because of community reaction though.

To be honest I share Chicken's concern, that the introduction of a Vietnam era light attack/Observation aircraft will step on any other aircraft of that era. Because of that, I'm leery of seeing resources put into it given that in that era we have both the A-37 Super Tweet and OV-10 Bronco, which likely would not be produced if an O-2 got the go ahead.

With that said, an O-2 wouldn't be the end of the world in my opinion, and while it would struggle for purpose on multiplayer servers, if it came to pass in an environment with more Vietnam style aircraft, it could be quite immersive, and the plane will always hold a place in my hard because of Bat*21

Explaining why your answer is "No" and helping developers by ensuring it's not just a guessing game about what airplane the community would like to see next seems perfectly productive.

 

Especially when developers are sometimes apprehensive about making aircraft that are too similar in form and function to other existing modules out of concern that sales wouldn't be as great.

 

So having an O-2A in DCS might be a death sentence for ever having an OV-10, and I'll take every opportunity I can to be as discerning and vocal as possible about which module I want to be the sure thing and which one I'd happily leave in question.

By saying no because 1000 guys want 1000 different models of aircraft we are not voicing the "comunity" whishes.

Boicoting any aircraft that is not "your choice" would not make your choice more eligible. Imagine now the other 1000 guys with 1000 different wishes boicoting your aircraft just because it is not their selected model. Could happen. Can become a trend

Imagine now a deloper asks about if the comunity wants an OV-10 and everybody in the DCS forums that is not in love with this aircraft feels the impulse to vote againts it just because this is not their dream model. So while you may get a good number of supporters the rest of the comunity voting against would not make it look good.

What Furia said. Make the 0-2 and it will sell. Make a 337 model included and steal other flight sim customers.

Edit: Tell me Tucano vs. a drug smuggling skymaster wouldn't be awesome...

Usually the "death sentence" to a module is the lack of publicly available data and details, confidentiality of systems and parameters and last but not least legal issues with intellectual property and getting a license to use it.

 

It doesn't make any difference, if a million people chime in about "prefering a XYZ" as likely neither of the above mentioned issues is solved.

Assuming that those are problems in the first place, absolutely. But you won't know until you research those avenues.

I'm not presupposing that obtaining manuals for a light attack/observation aircraft first flown in 1965 is going to be prohibitively difficult, nor that any of the systems in an aircraft like that are going to be confidential or classified, especially for an aircraft that has already been replicated for other simulators.

OV-10A/D NATOPS, tactics manuals, maintenance manuals, and even line diagrams are already publicly available. There is even an OV-10 Bronco Association that could be a wealth of pilot, material, and reference resources that nobody would know about until they asked (provided they knew it existed in the first place).

By saying no because 1000 guys want 1000 different models of aircraft we are not voicing the "comunity" whishes.

Boicoting any aircraft that is not "your choice" would not make your choice more eligible. Imagine now the other 1000 guys with 1000 different wishes boicoting your aircraft just because it is not their selected model. Could happen. Can become a trend

Imagine now a deloper asks about if the comunity wants an OV-10 and everybody in the DCS forums that is not in love with this aircraft feels the impulse to vote againts it just because this is not their dream model. So while you may get a good number of supporters the rest of the comunity voting against would not make it look good.

If I'm reading you right here, I think I have an idea. Perhaps it would be more productive then for developers in the future to only release polls like this with "Yes" options.

You know, that way the community can't say "No", because you wouldn't like saying "No" to become a trend, because the only reason someone would be saying "No" is because they would prefer to purchase something different.

Just to rest you assured on 2 subjects:

Bronco..there was a thread around here, i posted my answer there.

Pucara..we are developing a South Atlantic terrain, there will be Pucaras..

About the O-2 Killing the OV-10..well, it's pretty much like when the AV-8B Plus is available it will most likely kill the AV-8B NA, but then again, you'll have both choices.

Assuming that those are problems in the first place, absolutely. But you won't know until you research those avenues.

 

I'm not presupposing that obtaining manuals for a light attack/observation aircraft first flown in 1965 is going to be prohibitively difficult, nor that any of the systems in an aircraft like that are going to be confidential or classified, especially for an aircraft that has already been replicated for other simulators.

 

OV-10A/D NATOPS, tactics manuals, maintenance manuals, and even line diagrams are already publicly available. There is even an OV-10 Bronco Association that could be a wealth of pilot, material, and reference resources that nobody would know about until they asked (provided they knew it existed in the first place).

 

 

 

If I'm reading you right here, I think I have an idea. Perhaps it would be more productive then for developers in the future to only release polls like this with "Yes" options.

 

You know, that way the community can't say "No", because you wouldn't like saying "No" to become a trend, because the only reason someone would be saying "No" is because they would prefer to purchase something different.

It isn't about the "No", option. The problem is when people say "No, I would like you to make another plane" when they mean "Yes, I would by an O-2A, but would happily buy an OV-10, as well".

As I said, it could lead to none of those planes seeing the light of day, if they get the impression nobody would buy it.

(...)

About the O-2 Killing the OV-10..well, it's pretty much like when the AV-8B Plus is available it will most likely kill the AV-8B NA, but then again, you'll have both choices.

I definitely will fly both, depending on mission requirements. The Radar is by no means superior to the ARBS for ground attacks.

The mix of both makes for a very good team...

About the O-2 Killing the OV-10..well, it's pretty much like when the AV-8B Plus is available it will most likely kill the AV-8B NA, but then again, you'll have both choices.

I don't think that's a fair comparison to make for a few reasons.

1) There are real world reasons that Harrier NAs and II+s work in tandem and I think that has an allure for people interested in immersion or realism.

2) In terms of development resources, making modifications to an existing airframe internally is less work and less risk than starting from scratch on a completely new aircraft.

For example, I really doubt that another third party developer would find it a sound business decision to come along and try to make a GR.7 from the ground up knowing that an NA/II+ is already on the market, despite how many fans there are of the RAF aircraft who would love to see a GR.7 or GR.9 represented as well.

Your decisions about which modules to pursue affects other developers' decisions in that manner.

So, I know you've said in 2016 that there won't be an OV-10 out of Razbam "at least not in the near future", but I (and many others, as evidenced by how this poll turned out compared to your last few) will be saving my hard-earned cash for the airplane I really want to fill this niche in DCS, and won't be paying for an aircraft that could put the other one at stake.

Especially as long as we (the community) think we have some say in the matter with polls like these, long before any formal announcements have been made.

It isn't about the "No", option. The problem is when people say "No, I would like you to make another plane" when they mean "Yes, I would by an O-2A, but would happily buy an OV-10, as well".

 

As I said, it could lead to none of those planes seeing the light of day, if they get the impression nobody would buy it.

In case my sarcasm wasn't clear, yes, that's all the more reason we who voted "No" should be vocal about why we voted that way and what we would prefer in the comments section.

Not interested in this one. The reason is simple, it's a super slow mudmover without guided weapons. Given how DCS handles AI gunnery and damage modeling, planes like this are useless for anything other than buzzing hotels in Vegas. Even the lowly L-39 puts this one to shame.

I won't buy any Vietnam War era module until there is a map of Vietnam with the pertinent assets. The same goes for any module whose historical characteristics or context does not fit PG, NTTR or Caucasus.

This would be sweet to spot targets. :)

Another great aircraft would be OV-1 Mohawk. For some reason I always thought that aircraft ugly in a beautiful way.

While not that high on my list and would rather have an OV-10, I do like the Cessna Skymaster and have had a nose around one at Wick airport while getting ready to fly a 152 to Orkney.

A couple of Skymasters seem to have the dubious reputation of having being shot down by a Cuban Mig 29 in 1996 too.

So, Prowler, or any other DCS developer out there...

why do you run these polls like you do? They seem to be really poor at giving you a notion of interest. There's no methodology behind them to speak of. Are these just personal initiatives of curiosity, or do they form part of a strategy on part of your company?

If you teamed up with ED, I think you could make a poll that would get some really nice data from the forumgoers.

First you make the poll available to all forum participants, instead of just those on your subforum. Say there's an active pop-up or a boldly advertised poll near the banner. Maybe promise X dollars' worth of modules in a lottery, drawn from all submitters. It's important to reach beyond your part of the forums, because if you only ask those who already frequent your forum, at best you're gonna learn that those who love your module A also want modules similar to A. No shit -- that's why they're here to begin with. The Cessna/Sukhoi/Bell fans are over in another forum.

To make this really worthwhile, you gauge people's interest in -several- aircraft. They should come in random order, feature a relatively simple and not overly beautiful picture, and be associated with a questionnaire that asks people how interested they'd be in buying that module. For that questionnaire, a standard index of 5 values (sure to buy! / considering buying / indifferent / not interested / will never buy or be interested) makes for easier statistical evaluation of the data.

You introduce the questionnaire with a profile section that asks very general questions: "check the modules that you own"; scale of 1-5 how interested are you in flying "fighters", "attack aircraft", "civil aviation", "support" etc. Scale of 1-5 what is your favourite era or generation of aircraft. Prop or jets. The questions they encounter here, and the way they answer them, will frame their later answers so it's best to leave things relatively open.

You follow that section with the main section, which is just one page at a time with one of the aforementioned aircraft and corresponding index question. You have a button at the bottom that says Next, another button that lets them conclude and submit their poll, and some text that says this is aircraft 1/100 (or whatever number). Before this section you've told them that you'll reward 50 answers with a potential prize of (say) 50 EUR worth. If they hold out until 100, they are in a lottery for 100 EUR. Etc. Keep incentivising people to go to the next aircraft, both seeking the reward of a lottery as well as finding out what the next proposed aircraft is going to be. ("oooh, is my favourite plane going to be in here! If not, I hope they have a box at the end where I can fill in my own proposal! Well shit it's not appeared yet and I'm at 130... might as well click another 20 and potentially win 150!")

Analysis is not the hard part; anyone with IBM SPSS and a few weeks of statistical knowledge can give you at least SOME valuable data, granted the methodology is sound. Online polling has a lot of shitty downsides and can also invite abuse. You negate the first by employing someone who has a bit of knowledge. You negate the latter by say, making the poll only accessible through forum accounts to negate the worst spam/scam effects.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more market analysis from ED so far. I'd really like to see some activity in that area.

This is a pass for me, there are plenty of simple military aircraft that can be done that fit with the other stuff. heck Ill pay for a semi decent SAM site module.

This is a pass for me, there are plenty of simple military aircraft that can be done that fit with the other stuff. heck Ill pay for a semi decent SAM site module.

Was thinking the same. I'm not interested in trainers and simple aircraft anymore for a while.

Would be amazing to have a good SAM battery / AAA simulator in DCS. SA2's and shilka for example would be an instant purchase for me.

The truth is that such polls are not really very useful. Poeple uses them just to voice their wishes or dreams about how the sim should be shaped.

There are those that think that anything that is not a modern Mach 2 fighter is a „waste of resurces“

According to this line DCS World would not have helicopters, WWII aircraft, not Combined Arms ect

Fortunately developers have a broader view about that something called „world“ is is not a catalog of 60 advanced fighters but a nice combination of different types of modesl with different performance, capabilities and even historically separated in time.

That is I hope DCS World concept.

There are some squadrond only dedicated to helicopters, others dedicated to WWII that would not agree that the developement is a „wate of resurces“

There are out there fascinating nimble aircraft that had more impact in aviation that so much vaunted high performance fighters.

In the Vietnam war the „bird dog“ or the A-1 Skyrider aircraft had an awesome hitory and performance that makes the F-4 or F-100 pale. Maybe some of you do not know that, maybe some of you do not care about that because of course all of us want an F-4, me incliuded.

What I do not want is a DCS World just full of the latest generation of fighters and nothing else to fly.

what happened to c-130??