An objective view of the future

The forums seems to have plenty of subjective threads stating "I think ED should develop airplane X because it is my favourite aircraft and it looks awesome" but if everyone took a more objective approach to this what would be the general consensus as to which single aircraft, if developed next, would have the most profound and positive effect on the 1944 scenario?

I understand that there some greater priorities for ED to sort out such as DM and visibility to name a few but putting all those aside and focusing on just aircraft, I think it would be good to have an objective debate as to which aircraft should come after the Me 262.

To kick this off, I will start:

I for one think that with 4 fighters, potentially increasing to 8, that the fighter scene is pretty well covered and although the allies will have more airframes to choose from, the Me262 will be a force multiplier and help close this gap. Therefore I think the greatest potential increase in gameplay comes from introducing a bomber capability. Given that in mid 1944, the allies were conducting more raids then the axis powers, I think the scenario better supports the introduction of an allied bomber before an axis one.

So which bomber? I for one would love to see a multicrew B-17, and if I was voting with my heart then this is what I would vote for however I am not. Looking at this objectively, I think the map is too small for heavy bombers, DCS cannot support large enough servers to man large multicrew bombers and developing such an aircraft would take a long time and would be incredibly challenging and with no precedent. Therefore I think it is logical to focus on a light to medium bomber that will fit better with a smaller map, can only accommodate 3-5 crew and would also act as developmental stepping-stone to larger bombers with which ED can learn lessons. I think it makes sense to select a bomber with multiple capabilities (such as level bombing, anti-submarine warfare and anti-shipping etc) to maximise gameplay and so immediately this points to aircraft like the DH Mosquito, Blenheim, B-25, A-26, B-26 etc. Another aspect to consider is multi-nationality. It would be good if the chosen airframe was operated by both the US and UK in the war and other nations would be a bonus. This now reduces my list to the B-25 and B-26, but out of these two, the B-25 stands out as the most versatile with its impressive operational history both as a bomber and maritime attack aircraft.

Therefore, in my opinion, the B-25 would be the best aircraft to be developed next by ED as it will provide a good multicrew experience as a stepping stone to the strategic bombers, will fit well with the current map size, fit into a number of scenarios given it was operated by both the USAAF and RAF and finally it will offer a wide range of capabilities and gameplay options. This conclusion is despite, likely many other here, my personal desire to see a B-17 developed.

So I would be interested to hear other people's view on what they think, when looking at it subjectively, what which aircraft has the greatest potential as the next WW2 module (after th Me 262) and please no "I think the next aircraft should be X because it looks cool and is favourite WW2 aircraft"!

Jacks

+1

An objective view points to more than just one aircraft type as being needed for DCS WWII to flourish and expand to more than just fighter vs fighter slugfests. You are correct in pointing out that the maps will not be large enough for heavy bombers. That means medium bombers, light bombers and attack aircraft. My personal preference would be for multiple versions of the B-26 Marauder (mainly because it has never been done in a WWII combat sim) but For the current map and time period we have to work with I would say the A-20 Havoc/Boston would be a better choice for the allied side than a B-25 Mitchell. The US didn't fly the B-25 on combat missions from England. They, as did the British, did fly the Havoc over Normandy in June 1944 though.

The Axis side definitely needs an aircraft with better ground attack abilities. A Ju-88 would be the first choice for a medium bomber/dive bomber. Good all around multirole capability could be had with the Bf-110, Me-210/410, and the Fw-190F/G series. Dedicated ground attack aircraft like the Hs-129B would fit the role as well but were mostly used on the eastern front.

So, between an A-20 and a Ju-88 I think the Ju-88 should probably be next in the line up. Of course I am totally expecting something like a CW-21 Demon to be next though.

IMHO, I'd like to see a Bf-110 or a Me-410. They could serve a dual purpose, as either fighter bombers to fulfil the GA role or as bomber interceptors, shooting down B-17's etc.

Of course, that's my opinion of what's best, not my thoughts about what I really want. What I'd really like to see is a Spit I and a 109 emil. Perhaps a Hurricane as well. BoB is my favorite time period, but since the other planes are all late war planes, fleshing that out more probably makes more sense.

IMHO I believe the de Havilland Mosquito would be a superb multirole addition as it operated in many roles during the Second World War, being tasked to perform medium bomber, reconnaissance, tactical strike, anti-submarine warfare and shipping attack and night fighter duties, both defensive and offensive, until the end of the war.

The option of side by side multicrew adding a further dimension to MP. Not only that, such a versatile aircraft would add a plethora of options from a mission building and flying perspective.

:thumbup:

For US side, I'd vote for Havoc as well - neither US nor British were using Mitchells over western Europe at that time, so B-25 would be making even less sense than Kurfurst and Dora.

A-20, on the other hand, why not, it was common sight over Normandy, only two crew stations to model (If we went for the G version), less systems to develop and implement than in Marauder.

I agree,the A-20 Havoc would be my choice too,as I have pointed out in a previous thread,it is the ideal bomber for a DCS module.

As you have said Art,it was a very common sight over Normandy,so it makes sense to have this.

I take the point about the B-25s not being contemporary to Normandy. Although I am British do would to see a mosquito, I think the A-20 Havoc/Boston would be a better choice as it has 3 crew positions instead of 2 which would make it unique across DCS and may encourage others to play the 1944 scenario. Shame there isn't a similar bomber with more positions such as co-pilot. Another benefit of the A-20 is that it will be the first aircraft with a turret!

I would vote on more and swifter work on the sim engine to develop the fantastic simulation of WW2 aircraft into a WW2 air combat sim. That would help DCS WW2 the most. IMHO of course.

...neither US nor British were using Mitchells over western Europe at that time, so B-25 would be making even less sense than Kurfurst and Dora.

Hmmm...

You might want to chat with the veterans of 98, 180, 226, 305, 320 and 329 Squadrons, RAF. They seem to be under the misapprehension that they flew Mitchells over Western Europe....

;) :music_whistling:

Any Twin would be welcome, whatever the country

[i apologise in advance for death by words]

For me I'd rather DCS itself be updated and new features implemented as well as old stuff fixed and updated before I see just new aircraft after new aircraft. There are literally so many things in need of fixing and updating that just adding new aircraft means that other stuff gets left in the dark and seemingly forgotten about.

Plus I think engine improvements and the like that upgrade and improve DCS itself will lay the foundations for a better sim and for more aircraft types whatever they might be. As well as supporting new features to expand the envelope ten-fold. Let's also not forget that you've got to have the foundations before you build a house.

Firstly, there are improvements that I think apply to near enough all of us:

• A 3D editor, you'd no idea what kind of missions I'd make with a 3D editor, I have tonnes of ideas but because it would take the rest of my life to make them I simply cannot be bothered with the endless cycle. Even the current 2D editor with another zoom level and the ability for me to see accurate silhouettes of the object I'm placing would be good enough.
   
  
• Improvements to the weather system. Such as being able to define the weather in certain areas (maybe using the grid we have, as well as a 'apply to all' feature, a proper forecasting system (like set an initial weather system, then define a timeline from which changes occur), maybe even importing of real-world weather conditions. Determine cloud layers and types, contrail altitude, sea-states, other conditions such as thermals and air currents (this is for turbulence). Heck whilst I'm on it, though this is really super unnecessary is the ability to customise and configure water to how the player wishes. Something like FSWC for FSX
   
  
• A proper immersive FLIR system, one that works on temperature determine the image, not the crude and primitive system we have now. I think this would solve the issues with thermal imaging we're currently having at the moment and so is I believe a much needed improvement.
  

Then there things that without why DCS WW2 Assets pack and even Normandy bother me a bit. Normandy because as a theatre it's very limited, it has the smallest usable area and is only suited for amphibious landings (which we can't even do), fighter vs fighter stuff and CAS.

Then there's the asset pack, which is just adding more. When at the moment we still have a whole host of things that aren't exactly what you call immersive in that department, even at the level we have now/are expected to have. I'd even prefer to pay for an upgrade pack for improvements to current vehicles, then have an asset pack that adds more vehicles. The reason why the asset pack bothered me is because it creates a large divide between the current AI vehicles and the WW2 vehicles, which still suffer the same basic issues that the current vehicles do. Now the work that's gone into the asset pack looks great, especially for the amount of content that's in it. But from a simulation perspective, it still doesn't really improve anything apart from just adding more.

But what improvements are needed I hear you cry?

• Proper steering, i.e neutral steering (where applicable).
   
  
• Proper suspension, not this random floating chassis thing they currently do.
   
  
• Properly animated tracks (this goes for all tracked vehicles except from maybe the Merkava IV and the asset pack tanks).
   
  
• Proper damage modelling, (component/subsystem damage) even if crude and basic.
   
  
• Natural looking optics, they have the correct symbology but to me it's still not quite right. But this could come with general graphics improvements.
   
  
• Gun stabilisers (where applicable)
   
  
• Control over certain animations, such as opening/closing of covers, opening/closing of hatches, deployment and storage of RADARs etc.
   
  
• Control over loadout/ammunition types carried.
   
  
• Control over lighting eg headlights, beacons, searchlights or otherwise.
   
  
• Smoke dischargers that the player has control over.
   
  
• Effects improvements
   
  
• Updated graphics, they're getting there though.
   
  
• Improved launch realism for things like the SA-10 and the SA-15
  

The asset pack again just adds more vehicles and units with improved graphics (but not significantly improved over say, the Merkava IV. They are still not exempt from the points in the above list.

Then there's maps, if were going to get anywhere maps are going to need to start at the level of the upgraded Caucuses map, and maybe even larger than that. For me Normandy is currently the worst map as a theatre because while it has historic credit is the smallest map and has the smallest usable area for players. It is only really suited for basic CAS and fighter vs fighter. On the other end of the spectrum Caucuses is currently the best map IMHO simply because it has the largest amount of usable area, the largest potential and is suited to the most amount of things. You have the potential to do everything with Caucuses except from maybe long-distance stuff. So I can't wait for the updated version of the map. I mean yeah, I'd love to have it expanded into Crimea, and maybe even the Turkish straits (Bosphorus, Darnadelles and the Sea of Marmara) because that will further improve potential but fat chance that will happen.

DCS is after all a sandbox, so theatres with the most amount of potential and are the largest are going to be the ones where you can get the most use out of.

Moving on there's arguably the biggest hole for DCS as a full air, land and sea combat sandbox combat simulator (which is what it's advertised as) For me this is the maritime environment as currently:

• No underwater in any sense. Meaning functional submarines, torpedoes, mines, depth charges, SLCMs, anti-submarine rockets and anti-submarine missiles are all impossible. Which is really weird because we have an excellent looking Kilo class, with SLCMs to go with. But none of them can be used. This also of course means that underwater sensors such as SONAR (either active/passive/dipping or otherwise)/MAD detectors etc.
   
  
• Nearly all ships have outdated graphics. Even the newer American vessels the Ticonderoga class and Oliver Hazzard Perry class are not without issues. (Mainly the damage modelling, certain animations and especially the Phalanx CIWS).
   
  
• We have no control over ships whatsoever. I'm not interested in like 'manual' 1st person control, but we don't even have CA control.
   
  
• Very limited in the sense of things we can actually do with ships, apart from being an armed, mobile, floating FARP
   
  
• AI ship tactics are literally nowhere.
   
  
• We can't data-link with ships, can't use them as GCIs etc and so functionality is limited.
   
  
• Animations for but not with things like hangar doors etc.
   
  
• No control over loadout especially, for the Ticonderoga class which has a multi-mission Mk.41 VLS We also don't have control over designation. (In the ME ships are listed as their actual ship name, not their ship class and we don't have a way of changing the markings for different ships, which even SF2 has a basic facility for.
   
  
• Missing a lot of weapons, again ASW rockets and torpedoes. But also for the Mk.41 equipped Ticonderoga class we are missing (and correct me if I'm wrong) RIM-66M-5 (basically an improved RIM-66 that we have already), RIM-156, RIM-162, RIM-174 and RUM-139 (I realise that I've missed the RIM-161 but we don't really have the threat, nor the environment for it).
   
  
• Missing needed weather system improvements (discussed above).
   
  
• This is a minor one but we have no variants/refits etc of ships, we get one version and one version alone. (Again free mods for SF2 did this).
   
  

Naval combat for me is what interests me the most. Nothing appeals to me more than operations at sea, and if these could be made as realistic as feasibly possible, I mean having a modelled hangar, functioning lifts and doors as well as all the lighting etc Then be able to fly a mission, return to a carrier and do everything in reverse then that would be a giant leap forward to me. The thing is, FSX/P3D get a freeware Nimitz class that is modelled beautifully, it has a modelled hangar, it has a functioning aircraft lift, it has a bustling deck with animated crew members and even a push-back tug (which again something much needed in DCS as a flight simulator). The only thing it doesn't do is proper control and of course fight. So if FSX (an inferior flight simulator) gets a more realistic and hugely immersive carrier for free, why does DCS have to come in second place when surely it deserves to have the most naval operations out there? Especially as it's the best when it comes to having realism, immersion, good graphics and tonnes of potential all rolled into one. We are getting new carriers, what features they'll have and what things are going to be implemented into the DCS maritime environment (if any) is uncertain.

I could literally go on forever and ever and for the sake of everyone reading this and the moderators I'll cut it off here. But in short were missing the crucial foundation work to really build DCS to be as good as it could possibly be. I know a lot of these things are super low priority. And I don't want the F/A-18C or most importantly DCS 2.5 to be delayed by 1 single solitary second. I also realise that what I've listed above is a massive, staggering undertaking for ED and 3rd parties, especially if doing it for free (which I understand the carriers won't be, for hopefully very good reason), and could take a literal decade to implement.

This is my view on things, I'd rather have the foundation work in full (or at least planned) before just adding new things, which again only increase the support workload. Hopefully there weren't any casualties whilst reading this behemoth.

Cheers,

Ollie