Feelers - RAZBAM DCS: IA 58 Pucará

Voted no. I don't see any benefit of using this kind of aircraft in any kind of OP mission.

No.

 

In no particular order:

Mig-23, MiG-27, Mig-29, MiG-19, Su-15, Su-17, Su-24, Su-25, Su-27

F-8, F-15, F-16, F-22, F-84, F-100, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-111, F-4, A-4, A-6, A-7

Mirage III, Super Etendard, Jaguar, Tornado, Lightning, Sea Harrier, Hunter

 

Make a few aicraft from this list up to ASM/PFM standard and then we can talk about another unknown, light attack aircraft.

Great list, as far as fixed wing goes. Doubt we will see f22 or 35 anytime soon though.

Yes! turbo prop, coin attack aircraft, makes sense in map area (more sense than any US aircart in the Caucasus by the way) original design by Kurt Tank (need I say more)... huge variety of AG ordinance, two seatter... Never ever simulated before. Please I will by ten copies just to show support.

It was not designed by Kurt Tank... I think the aircraft that you are talking about is the Pulqui I and the Pulqui II!

But I would say YES, I'd like to see it in DCS, but at the same time, I'd like to see a Malvinas (sorry UK fokes, Falklands) as well, but for that we would need the Mirage III, the Nesher (Israeli bulilt Mirage 5), a Harrier GR1 and FRS1 and IAs Vulcans). Not to forget the Excocet armed Super Etendard.

Don't get me wrong, I'd defenitely go for it.

In general all planes could be interesting, if they were made well BUT:

There is something going wrong in DCS.

1. Sometimes the focus is on irrelevant and unimportant planes. We have a Hawk but no F-16, we have a C-101 but no Tornado, we have a Mi-8 but no Mi24 and the list of "sidekick planes" (and choppers) in the road map is long. I know a lot is classified but it doesnt help anyway. DCS is much too great, to let it sink in triviality.

2. Another thing is the question, how should a credible mission look like with such planes? What has an argentinian plane to do in caucasus, Nevada, Strait of Hormuz or Normandy (in WW2)? An example to make clear, what I mean: Meanwhile we have three WW2 planes but still no map or enemy fighters (except the planes itselfs, yeah!) or ground units for them and the Mig21 has still no good opponent. So we have a little bit WW2, a little bit cold war and so on. Would another plane like the IA 58 Pucará raise the mssing coherency. I guess not.

Of course, I know, Its not your faul, RAZBAM, but with a good choice for planes you can pave the way for DCS.

 

I really think, its time to fill the existing szenarios with more content to make them more reliable, before starting a new one. How about a F-4 Phantom as opponent to the mig-21 instead? Or any other plane which fits better into the flash points, we have.

 

A now you all can lynch me ;)

What does a swedish aircraft has to do with the Persian Gulf, Caucasus or Nevada? Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to get the AJ37... but it has nothing to do with any scenario that we have available, right now.

Gents, people have voted and decided..

For the time being (and it could be a long time) no Pucara from RAZBAM..

BUT..

Stay tuned...we are cooking a surprise for all of you (no, really, i don´t think you´ll see this coming)

Best regards

Prowler

I still think it's too early to include aircraft like the Pucara into the lineup. It serves no multiplayer role, and it runs counter to the current "era" of aircraft being included. The marching back of the clock on what era multiplayer fights in has already begun, servers are doing 80s nights more and more with reduced loadouts on the F-15s and SU-27s. The clock got ticked back more by the MiG-21 and the F-5E. Making aircraft that can exist on the same scale in terms of air combat as those two makes much more sense than a turboprop light attack aircraft. An F-100D, an F-8, supersonic capable aircraft that straddle the Gunfighter/Missile age satisfies the "Not so complex" requirement, while also fitting in with the more capable modules. Add in to the fact that these aircraft later in life often transitioned into a ground attack role, means they fit in and help generate a stepping stone for other aircraft in their range where they would be dominant dogfighters, while also fitting into slightly further ahead eras.

What multiplayer role would the L-39 and the Hawk has? They were made up, and so far everybody is happy with it. I think in a context of Blue Flag, a Pucara would kick a**.

Just my 2 cents.

What is it? a Rafale? Mirage III? B-52 (?)???

C'mon, tell us tell us!!!!

Anyway Prowler, don't disregard the Pucara. Lots of people are saying "no" because it's not a "popular" aircraft. I know some that we have available today became "popular" after they were released (for example, there were a huge amount of people who did not know about the existence of the AJ-37 Viggen).

What multiplayer role would the L-39 and the Hawk has? They were made up, and so far everybody is happy with it. I think in a context of Blue Flag, a Pucara would kick a**.

 

Just my 2 cents.

You're failing to understand the point of the L-39 and the Hawk. The Hawk came about in the age where all the companies were starting out and deciding to do simple trainers first to gain experience with the engine they'd be developing in. Thus the T-2 Buckeye, the Hawk and the C101. They weren't selected for multiplayer suitability, they were coding projects to gain experience and develop tools.

The L-39 is in a similar vein, its primary role to test the new multicrew code in a fairly simple aircraft. These planes are not designed to be multiplayer competitive, they're experience projects, and frankly, there has been a great deal of pushback against these light COIN and Trainer birds.

RAZBAM has grown up from doing trainers thanks to their Mirage release. They've already developed the tools and have gained experience, there is no need to do it again, and the community, as indicated by this poll, is sick of COIN birds.

A Pucara would be a worse sitting duck than an A-10 in Blue Flag, no smart weapons of any kind require it to get in close where ground fire is most dangerous to it.

You're failing to understand the point of the L-39 and the Hawk. The Hawk came about in the age where all the companies were starting out and deciding to do simple trainers first to gain experience with the engine they'd be developing in. Thus the T-2 Buckeye, the Hawk and the C101. They weren't selected for multiplayer suitability, they were coding projects to gain experience and develop tools.

 

The L-39 is in a similar vein, its primary role to test the new multicrew code in a fairly simple aircraft. These planes are not designed to be multiplayer competitive, they're experience projects, and frankly, there has been a great deal of pushback against these light COIN and Trainer birds.

 

RAZBAM has grown up from doing trainers thanks to their Mirage release. They've already developed the tools and have gained experience, there is no need to do it again, and the community, as indicated by this poll, is sick of COIN birds.

 

A Pucara would be a worse sitting duck than an A-10 in Blue Flag, no smart weapons of any kind require it to get in close where ground fire is most dangerous to it.

I don't think I misunderstood anything, I was just talking about the "multiplayer" equation of the post. I just said that when it comes to multiplayer, server managers always find a niche for every aircraft. So, to say that it has no place as an MP a/c is a flawed statement. If we finally get to have a Malvinas/Falklands theatre in the future, the Pucara would be a fine choice to go with, but without forgetting A-4B, Cs and Qs, Harrier Frs1 and Gr3, Super Etendards, Mirages III and V (Nesher Variant).

Gents, people have voted and decided..

For the time being (and it could be a long time) no Pucara from RAZBAM..

BUT..

Stay tuned...we are cooking a surprise for all of you (no, really, i don´t think you´ll see this coming)

Best regards

Prowler

What a Shame...

This is a big YES for me. For the following reasons:

1: Many in the DCS community are caught up in the whole "Top Gun" power fantasy idea of military aviation where it's all F15/16 vs Migs. This is fine, but it creates an aerial COD ideal on the most popular servers. This has very little to do with any recent real world events.

2: Most military aviation globally is concentrated around preserving border intregrity, coastal contraband patrols, protecting no-fly zones and so forth. There are a few escorts of stray aircraft, suspected drug traffickers, surveillance and even fewer escort missions due to suspected issues on passenger jets.

3: Military pilots spend a significant amount of time training in.........trainers. While this is not a trainer as such, guess what? In air forces worldwide, pilots fly what they're told to fly, they may start off by getting a priapism everytime crappy 80s movies with jets play or while looking at a pair of aviator glasses, but, many pilots realise the value of other roles and are quite proud of the part they play.

4: Hot wars tend to be internal insurgencies and mostly slow burning fuses rather than outright wars which often take decades to resolve. From the South American right/left wing militias, narco para-militaries, to US no fly zones/anti-smuggling patrols, EU anti-incursion patrols/narco surveillance. In the Middle East Turkey's war against the PKK and Israel's war against HAMAS. In the Far East you have various air patrols from China/Taiwan/Vietnam/Japan/Philippines engaged in cat and mouse games relating to China's expansionist policy into the southern seas. Shots fired/Missiles launched are the exception in the above cases. Smaller light attack aircraft generally play a much greater observation/interdiction role due to their slower speeds.

5: South America is one of the few places where small scale insurgencies have been active, where the jungle/mountain terrain is more suitible for this type of aircraft. This aircraft has also been used during the Sri Lankan war against the Tamil Tigers. It was also used during the Falklands War, so when that map arrives this plane will have a natural home. All of the above are historical examples of this aircraft in action.

6: It's important that DCS stretches beyond it's Euro-Americo-Russio-centric approach. We are a world wide community and our aircraft should reflect that. If we are to see South American, Asian, Middle Eastern, Western European, South Pacific, etc., maps, then we need to grow beyond our "Top Gun" power fantasies (I honestly though that movie was about a group of guys unsure as to whether their jet jock buddys would approve of them leaping out of the closet) and more importantly if we are to embrace the true meaning of the words "Combat Simulator" then all sorts of roles/aircraft should be necessary, from surveillance aircraft, logistics deliveries, ATC, troop transport, etc.. etc., are equally important in the grand scheme of things.

7: To further my above point, DCS needs to be all things simulator to all people. If your F15 is to have missiles then someone should have to fly the damn things in a transit aircraft, we should have piloted re-fuelling modules, an advanced intelligent ATC AI. We should have civilian aircraft modules, passenger aircraft modules. Is no one else sick of seeing skies full of military aircraft with nothing else going on? Is that how the real world looks to everyone?

Imagine having to obey traffic patterns, sharing airports with civilian aircraft (many airports worldwide are dual use). The satisfaction we gain from learning complex systems should not suddenly halt when it comes to learning real-world aviation procedures/rules. As technology improves we should be improving our sim to match and leaving air-COD as something people do for some light relief rather than what the majority do.

What I'm saying is this aircraft is as important to some people as an F16 is to you or I. To me if it's an F16 or an effing Cessna is of no importance provided it meets the DCS standard. So far, Razbam have proved more than capable of designing great modules and these modules are worth supporting.

I know.....TLDFR

Cheers

That's what I call a good backed up answer and not a plain "yes" or "no".

What does a swedish aircraft has to do with the Persian Gulf, Caucasus or Nevada?

This is why Leatherneck is creating a theater for the Viggen, so the module will have a proper home.

But the options become narrower if a developer does not want to create a new theater for their module (which is a huge amount of extra work). Plus there are a lot of incoming theaters with great associated module options. (IMHO)

-Nick

Looks like another case of shut up and take my money kinda aircraft. I vote Yes

Yes! Because unlike the current light attack aircraft with there very limited use and capabilities, the Pucara was an outstanding Close Air Support attacker dedicated to this role.

People mentioning it is not suitable for the current maps we have - most aircraft are not really suited, so that ain't no reason.

How do you know it was an outstanding gtround attack aircraft? If you need the strength of 2 men to pull it out of a dive, it doesn't suggest for a moment it is suited to it's role to me!

What exactly do you base your opinion on?

No.

Waiting for the F-15E and AV-8B.

In my personal opinion DCS should be crowded with complex, valuable and remarkable aircrafts models. Otherwise i'll buy prepar3d / fsx to fly perfectly reproduced ordinary jets and vrs tacpack to fire some fox with a sketchy flight model.

DCS is something more then a fsim, it's a COMBAT sim, directly descending from the military graded battle simulator by FC. Thus i think modules like this are not really exploiting the DCS potential.

Just my humble opinion.

C.

Gents, people have voted and decided..

For the time being (and it could be a long time) no Pucara from RAZBAM..

BUT..

Stay tuned...we are cooking a surprise for all of you (no, really, i don´t think you´ll see this coming)

Best regards

Prowler

Just seen this and have to say you guys are bringing a lot of updates on different aircraft already so I'm totally excited by your Stay Tuned message Prowler. The M2000C has been a delight to fly, it's a lovely bird. Please tell me you have been able to get the license to do the A-4 skyhawk or the A-6 or even the B-1B :)

Voto SI y gustoso lo compraria por adelantado

Is it confirmed that the Viggen is coming out with a brand new map? Haven't seen it anywhere.

I DID read that the Tomcat was coming with one indeed, but nothing about the AJ-37

Voted YES...But it would be more awesome to put the *Super Etendard* instead.

Super Etendard

Razbam; Give me this babe armed with *Exocet* missile...cover me with 2 good DCS players wings Miragers and all DCS battle ships will disappear :thumbup:

If the Pucara was developed in the greater scheme of providing a full Falklands theatre, then yes.

This given, Harrier FRS1 and GR3, Mirage III, Super Etendard and A-4 Skyhawk should have priority over the Pucara. Now, considering the average development times for a decent DCS module and looking at this long list, one can only come to the conclusion that this is impossible to realize within the next 8-10 years, so all in all: no, the Pucara might not be a good choice for a project.

Nah... I would buy first two A-7, and perhaps an F-15E, modules... :D

Vote SI

It is an excellent aircraft for missions at low altitude and A2G, maneuverable and well armed

Yes, but...

DCS products should, in my opinion, be developed as part of a roadmap containing a clear goal. So the goal could be: Create a Falkland scenario. And then determine the minimal start point. Which could be two attack aircraft from either side of the conflict, the map and a Brit ACcarrier. That would form a nice startpoint and tons of play value. To this point I've only purchased DCS products which have this goal defined (mostly Russian Stuff).