Aircraft unwish list ?

[PiedDroit]

While I do agree that the UH-1H makes the AH-1G largely redundant, the AH-1W is more like an AH-64 than a UH-1.

What? Noooo! The AH-1G has a freaking turret and missiles!

Bonus is since the powerplant and flight dynamics are similar to those of the UH-1H it would be easier to develop :music_whistling:

[King_Hrothgar]

The AH-1Q was the first to have TOWs. The G couldn't carry anything but gunpods and rockets. Many G's were upgraded to the Q standard, but an actual factory G couldn't carry anything guided. So yeah, the AH-1G is rather pointless. It's nothing but a thinner Huey. I'm not against its inclusion, but I'd stick it at the bottom of the priority list, somewhere between the Fa-223 and Fl-282.:D

[PiedDroit]

Oh if it's about the 'G' specifically, then yes, dump it, but the more recent AH-1 are really cool choppers and need to find their way into DCS.

[The_Pharoah]

Unwish List?

 

C101

Mi-8

DCS: Hawk

 

There are soooo many awesome fighter jets/attack helicopters that could/should be developed. Thats my $0.02.

[Folgore1987]

Saying we should not have a Supercobra because of the Huey is like saying we should not have an Mi-24 because of the Mi-8. The Ka-50 does not fill the gap for American attack helicopter because it is not American. Contrary to your statement, I think the Ka-50 should give the supercobra priority over adding a second Russian attack helicopter to DCS.

 

While I do agree that the UH-1H makes the AH-1G largely redundant, the AH-1W is more like an AH-64 than a UH-1.

 

I disagree. The priority should be the AH-64 and Mi-24, they are the most iconic attack helicopters by far.

We already have modules for the Iroquois, Mi-8 and Ka-50, the fact that there are these many and that they are so different from each other, to me diminishes the need to add other helicopters of the same category.

Since we are talking about helicopters and not fighter jets, I don't see the reason to prioritize the AH-1 because of the Ka-50.

 

Not always there will be a russian counterpart for an american aircraft and vice versa, and I don't think there is the need for it, there are restrictions on availability and resources for the development of DCS modules.

To me anything that isn't Apache or Hind, comes #2 in priority as far as helicopters goes and the fact that there is Ka-50, Mi-8 and UH-1 already to me diminishes the need for anything else.

 

But I understand the nationality is a bigger deal for some here than it is for me.

[Folgore1987]

Unwish List?

 

C101

Mi-8

DCS: Hawk

 

There are soooo many awesome fighter jets/attack helicopters that could/should be developed. Thats my $0.02.

 

They were developed because they are easily accessible, thus cheper to be made, they are simple in some ways and their developers will learn a great deal during the process of making those modules, not to mention get some cash to fund other projects.

 

Maybe you should buy one of these. It helps with the probabilities that these other awesome fighter jets/attack helicopters you have in mind to be developed later on.

[The_Pharoah]

They were developed because they are easily accessible, thus cheper to be made, they are simple in some ways and their developers will learn a great deal during the process of making those modules, not to mention get some cash to fund other projects.

 

Maybe you should buy one of these. It helps with the probabilities that these other awesome fighter jets/attack helicopters you have in mind to be developed later on.

 

Mate

 

the question was roughly: "What aircraft could you unwish?". Thats my unwish. The C101 (for example) has taken what, 1-2 years to develop? (I'm guessing). Now that thats released, they have to start from scratch. The C101 is going to be a hangar maiden as its practically useless on the modern battlefield. Hey, thats the choice of the devs....however from my perspective (customer), I would've preferred they work on something else. Hey, if Leatherneck can bang out a Mig21 first go.....(so you can't say its not possible).

[King_Hrothgar]

I disagree. The priority should be the AH-64 and Mi-24, they are the most iconic attack helicopters by far.

We already have modules for the Iroquois, Mi-8 and Ka-50, the fact that there are these many and that they are so different from each other, to me diminishes the need to add other helicopters of the same category.

Since we are talking about helicopters and not fighter jets, I don't see the reason to prioritize the AH-1 because of the Ka-50.

 

Not always there will be a russian counterpart for an american aircraft and vice versa, and I don't think there is the need for it, there are restrictions on availability and resources for the development of DCS modules.

To me anything that isn't Apache or Hind, comes #2 in priority as far as helicopters goes and the fact that there is Ka-50, Mi-8 and UH-1 already to me diminishes the need for anything else.

 

But I understand the nationality is a bigger deal for some here than it is for me.

 

 

The Ka-50 isn't a substitute for anything, it's an oddball. Claiming it's a substitute for an AH-1 is like claiming our Su-27 is a valid substitute for an F-4E. It's an absurd statement. The AH-64 is more iconic, but both are important attack helicopters. I don't have any real preference one way or the other on them and would like to have both added. The only sticking point for me with the AH-1 is I want a version with effective guided missiles. BST's upcoming AH-1W fits that requirement.

 

I do agree that additional transport choppers are not needed at this time. Missions builders are still figuring out what to do with the ones we have and so adding more won't add any new content beyond free flight.

[whitehot]

You. Have. No. Soul. :D

 

 

 

I couldn't disagree more. WWII props are one of the best things that ever happened to DCS. But, once again, it's just my opinion.

 

Now, what I wouldn't want to see in DCS:

Erm... nothing comes to mind, really. I like flying everything. Especially Korea-Era, Vietnam-Era and WWII stuff.

 

I'm with King in this one - Never I would had liked to see WW2 in DCS

[q800]

This VAEO Hispano Buchon. Complete waste of time, work and resources.

 

Hawk

C101

 

With all due respect.

[Alicatt]

There is nothing I would "un-wish" happy to fly anything

One developer is going to make my favourite aircraft - well it is on their roadmap, the EE Lightning

My number two aircraft, well there are none left and not enough data about it to make one to the fidelity of DCS, the Westland Whirlwind

Leatherneck just announced my number 3 in the F14

but there are no aircraft I don't like, some I like better than others but none I would un wish on anyone.

[Ultra]

This VAEO Hispano Buchon. Complete waste of time, work and resources.

 

People get mad about statements like this... but I have to agree.

 

Only 172 were made, it flew in the 50's and 60's, and isn't a good substitute for any version of the Bf 109. So... I guess it's fun to fly for a while but doesn't have a competitive place in any of our future war scenarios. Unless someone does something with colonial Africa. :D

[Exorcet]

The C101 is going to be a hangar maiden as its practically useless on the modern battlefield.

 

That's not true, but even if it couldn't be used to attack, that wouldn't make it a hanger queen at all.

 

I understand that people have preferences, but projecting opinion as fact doesn't really help. You wouldn't use it, but it's far, far, away from being useless.

[Ultra]

I think the C-101 is cool and not useless, but it does have less uses than more competitive aircraft. It is still relevant though.

[sungsam]

It's my wish that development should focus on more complicated 4th generation combat ACs in general.

[King_Hrothgar]

A big part of it is that DCS is an evolution of LOMAC. The entire franchise, starting with the flanker series, has been based on somewhat modern air combat. The last module released dealing with modern air combat was the A-10C (and the BS2 update) in 2011. Eight aircraft have been released since then, none of them are both modern and suited to air combat. Instead we have gotten a random assortment of cargo planes, trainers and relics that were sent to the scrap yards long before most people here were even born. It's exceedingly frustrating watching our modern air combat game get sucked into WW2 and the civilian side when there are already plenty of other current flight sims covering those topics.

[Alper22]

A big part of it is that DCS is an evolution of LOMAC. The entire franchise, starting with the flanker series, has been based on somewhat modern air combat. The last module released dealing with modern air combat was the A-10C (and the BS2 update) in 2011. Eight aircraft have been released since then, none of them are both modern and suited to air combat. Instead we have gotten a random assortment of cargo planes, trainers and relics that were sent to the scrap yards long before most people here were even born. It's exceedingly frustrating watching our modern air combat game get sucked into WW2 and the civilian side when there are already plenty of other current flight sims covering those topics.

 

I wouldnt say so. Due to long making process and license issues really reduces the chance of developing a modern aircraft. Even A-4M Skyhawk had to be abandoned due to license issues. On the other hand, look at Falcon 4.0 (or Falcon series in general) how long does it take to develop a %95 realistic F-16. 15 years? I rather fly some WW2 aircraft meanwhile DCS series develop itself to a point where it will be more possible to develop such modern aircrafts.

 

I hardly unwish anything in DCS. Even a Cessna 172 would take a year to make perfect for a third party developer group. In fact i would love to see some airliner. Sometimes you just want to take your tea and enjoy the scereny up there without worrying about fighters in your 777.:joystick:

[VincentLaw]

cargo planes

I'm not sure what cargo planes you are talking about. The Mi-8 is a helicopter, not an airplane.

[panzerd18]

I really wish developers would concentrate on aircraft that were widely produced or had played a part in a conflict somewhere in time.

 

This enables us to better simulate real world scenarios, instead of having an oddball that doesn't have a place anywhere.

 

Its great to fly something, but its even better to fly a mission that is both realistic and maybe happened once upon a time.

[BFBunny]

What I would not want is dcs to focus on civil aviation unless there was cool infrastructure and mission options to support said planes. The cessan springs to mind. Perhaps because it's something that if you really wanted to it's pretty in the realms of a lot of people to fly. Jumbo jets, etc. Noooo.

 

Only a handful of people are ever going to fly a spitfire for example, but military transporters I would be interested in like the c130 as long as you could do transport and drops with it.

 

But the list of wants is so huge. There are so many planes, so much stuff I think is 'rubbish', but when flown makes me go 'cool'.

 

I did not like sabre and only got it because sale, but again after some time flying it I really like it now.

 

I'd only not want blueprint imaginary planes. Ideally I'd like battle proven planes that are not super-classified.

[sungsam]

Well, I could fly a C-130 but only the version bellow :)

 

Edited March 9, 2015 by sungsam

[Ultra]

Only a handful of people are ever going to fly a spitfire for example

 

That's a reason to simulate it, though. Right? Since most people aren't going to be able to fly it in real life.

 

 

It's exceedingly frustrating watching our modern air combat game get sucked into WW2 and the civilian side when there are already plenty of other current flight sims covering those topics.

 

I think that's part of the reason LOMAC evolved into DCS, because that's what the Devs want to do. In the end they're going to make what they enjoy, as long as they think it will be profitable.

[ANGST]

I think some of the older planes (Saber , Mig-21 , etc...) will be great when we have some theaters that support them .

 

Korea is going to need a bunch of AI planes added :

 

B-29

F-80

F-84

Il-10

 

plus a bunch from DCS WW2

[Exorcet]

A big part of it is that DCS is an evolution of LOMAC.

 

This is a huge factor to the situation we are in yes. However, DCS isn't LOMAC and I don't think it should thought of as an extension of LOMAC (other than borrowing assets).

 

 

 

It's exceedingly frustrating watching our modern air combat game get sucked into WW2 and the civilian side when there are already plenty of other current flight sims covering those topics.

That's not happening. What is happening is DCS is living up to what it is intended to be, which isn't LOMAC.

 

ED has been focused exclusively on modern aircraft barring taking over the WWII project. The F-18 was locked in as the fighter some time ago, but it's staggering complex compared to what came before it. This is why it's taking time. The F-86, P-51, MiG-21, Hawk, etc, have no bearing on the Hornet. The alternative to now is to still be waiting for the F-18, and not having the other modules to fly (the MiG-21 being particularly relevant as it's certainly something a F-18 can encounter). In addition to not having the modules, it might also leave DCS less popular and more likely to fail, giving you no modern aircraft at all.

[Buzzles]

The C101 (for example) has taken what, 1-2 years to develop? (I'm guessing). Now that thats released, they have to start from scratch.

 

That's not true. You can dig up the quotes if you want confirmation, but multiple developers have said the hardest part of DCS implementation is the flight models and aircraft systems.

 

Developers have been using the simplier and trainer aircraft like the Hawk, C-101 et all to build up their tool kits, enabling them to produce things faster and more consistantly.

Even ED do the same thing, if you go read Yo-Yo's posts about the 190-D's engine, he had to add the model of a liquid-liquid cooling system to their existing prop engine codebase just for that plane.

 

Hey, if Leatherneck can bang out a Mig21 first go.....(so you can't say its not possible).

And to prove my point in the first paragraph, here's a quote from LN's Cobra about them having to redo and create a new codebase as the Mig21 was built with a one off codebase rather than being used to build a framework up:

 

Just like our changes in project management and task delegation, we too have been making big changes in the nitty gritty of our development process.

 

The MiG-21 was an isolated product with a very specific codebase. To more efficiently move forward, we have spent a lot of time restructuring our projects and code itself, now adhering to a more general framework.

This will allow us to more quickly prototype new aircraft and to get into the real meat of avionics and FM coding, as well as increase efficiency of started projects and code-porting.

We have also written several internal tools which will help to enhance these benefits.

 

People seem to forget that LN were the first proper third-party dev to actually release a plane, and still at this moment the only third-party developer to release a EFM/ASM plane, and the plane in question has only been out for 6 months now (official posts say 17 Sept 2014 for DCS1.2.10).

 

Then there's the issue of available information on aircraft playing a very big part on what aircraft get chosen to be made...

Edited March 9, 2015 by Buzzles