noted Would you want ANY heavy aircraft modules for DCS?

[Tom_]

1 minute ago, SaladinoSaurus said:

Gekoloniseerd moment?  gib B-52 indeed.

[Revi]

I feel like there is a big community in DCS that would love "heavies" in DCS, i do think that it would be a good fit, a B-52 would be a amazing asset to our arsenal. 

 

And i would love to see it!

Lets hope that one day someone would be brave enough to introduce it.

[ebabil]

bigger is better. no matter what kind of a big one; cargo, bomber, awacs, refuel..

[Wing]

On 8/18/2021 at 11:48 AM, Revi said:

I feel like there is a big community in DCS that would love "heavies" in DCS, i do think that it would be a good fit, a B-52 would be a amazing asset to our arsenal. 

 

And i would love to see it!

Lets hope that one day someone would be brave enough to introduce it.

 

I agree - hopefully the recent news of updated Bomber AI asset modelling will spur some more interest with this.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Wing

[Baaz]

I'm waiting for the day they announce a C-17.

[MadMonkey572]

An official C-130 would be an excellent break from fighting to do cargo runs or drop paratroopers onto enemy bases. A dynamic campaign with actual logistics requirements that need to be fulfilled by cargo birds would be a lot of fun IMHO, I could go for a C-17 for that.

[rkk01]

Now, suggest a WW2 “heavy” and we’re talking…

Four engined tail dragger, 5-6 tons of bombs (or 10 tons even), not sure if she’ll climb away from the strip

We’d need some “big bomb” damage modelling, but hey, that works for me

[Hinkey]

Does the B-25 qualify? I'm definitely up for a "strafer" variant of the Mitchell.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Hinkey

[Wing]

Bump for awareness.

[FlankerKiller]

Thanks for bumping. We are getting a 130 so that will be awesome. 

[obrien979]

From my foxhole point of view, I believe that the introduction of heavy transport planes (C-130, C-17, C-5, CH-47, UH-60, etc..) would deter DCS from its original concept of being a DIGITIAL COMBAT SIMULATOR. While these airframes would be fun to fly, especially in the highly detailed terrain areas that have developed, I feel as if they would take away from the realism of COMBAT flying and engagements. DCS lures you in based on the ability to operate a multitude of aircraft from around the world in a combat situation and learn, through trial and error (mostly error for me  ), how to conduct missions.  These heavy aircraft would provide zero combat experience to the game, but rather just another platform to fly around.  

Now if DCS, and its third-party developers, would start developing heavy bombers or Global Hawk / Reaper, this would provide an additional level of real-world combat realism.  Pilots would then be able to act as Aerial Recon (CAS or ISR) with the Global Hawk or Reaper calling in targets to be engaged by the Apache or fighter jets. The heavy bombers could follow F/A-18's or F-16's into the battlefield as they conduct SEAD missions ahead of a major strike on the enemy compound.   These types of platforms would provide better additional realism to the game than additional platforms just flying around in. 

If you are looking for an environment where you just wanna fly a Heavy Transport airframe from Point A to Point B and "simulate" delivering cargo or troops, then use MSFS or X-Plane.

Thank You

On 2/1/2022 at 8:33 PM, MadMonkey572 said:

An official C-130 would be an excellent break from fighting to do cargo runs or drop paratroopers onto enemy bases. A dynamic campaign with actual logistics requirements that need to be fulfilled by cargo birds would be a lot of fun IMHO, I could go for a C-17 for that.

Maybe even an AC-130 Gunship as well?!

[Bremspropeller]

56 minutes ago, obrien979 said:

If you are looking for an environment where you just wanna fly a Heavy Transport airframe from Point A to Point B and "simulate" delivering cargo or troops, then use MSFS or X-Plane.

I do have a C-160 for MSFS and it's fun, but it doesn't come close to flying a C-160 tanker in a COOP with a couple of fighter-buddies on my wing, flying an attack mission into some far off airfield in a country you'd have trouble finding on a map (Armée de l'Air in Chad). Or dropping paras into a hot LZ far behind enemy lines (SAAF in Angola).

Flying logistical support to some FARP/ airstrip somewhere in the bush, unloading choppers which then could be used to scout the area or FAC-A fighters. Evacuating folks from some place for some reason, under fire. Finding people in a boat in distress out on the sea, dropping emergency supplies.

Then there's ELINT sub-versions of transports.

 

There's a royal duckton of fun activities to be experienced in transport-category aircraft in DCS.

[cfrag]

6 hours ago, obrien979 said:

If you are looking for an environment where you just wanna fly a Heavy Transport airframe from Point A to Point B and "simulate" delivering cargo or troops, then use MSFS or X-Plane.

What if you want to fly a heavy, and have your friends escort you? Then drop cargo into a hot LZ end try to get away evading incoming fire? Do the products from MS or Laminar provide that? 

People fly DCS for various reasons. I think it would be best if we try not to tell them how to have fun. Flying a military transport plane can be fun, especially in missions like Foothold where it can really make a difference to supply an airbase via a successful transport mission. I'm seeing very, very interesting mission mixes ahead when we get access to Hercs, and I think it is to the betterment of the entire game.

[Tengah]

AC-47 Spooky... Pls.

[Northstar98]

On 7/29/2023 at 9:09 AM, obrien979 said:

From my foxhole point of view, I believe that the introduction of heavy transport planes (C-130, C-17, C-5, CH-47, UH-60, etc..) would deter DCS from its original concept of being a DIGITIAL COMBAT SIMULATOR.

How?

All of those are military aircraft with absolutely a role to play in combat. How are aircraft involved in combat operations in anyway deterring DCS from being a combat simulator?

On 7/29/2023 at 9:09 AM, obrien979 said:

While these airframes would be fun to fly, especially in the highly detailed terrain areas that have developed, I feel as if they would take away from the realism of COMBAT flying and engagements.

They would do the exact opposite - again, these are military aircraft. They have a real role to play in real operations, how could they do anything else but add to the realism?

I mean, the UH-60 is on your list, for which the REDFOR counterpart already exists - the Mi-8MTV-2, I don't see how that has taken away anything from the combat simulation - it's done exactly the opposite; before the Hind, it was the only option that REDFOR had of inserting troops by helicopter, a role it plays in real life. BLUFOR at the moment only really has the Huey, but a UH-60L/M would better complement the Apache, just as the Mi-8MTV-2 complements the Mi-24P.

The C-130, C-17 and CH-47 are already present as AI units in DCS (alongside the An-26, An-30, Il-76MD and Yak-40), do you feel as if they're taking away from the realism now? If you don't, how would a player aircraft (which we're getting anyway for the C-130 and CH-47) be any different?

It's fine to prefer that another aircraft that isn't "heavy" be developed, but I'm finding this point about realism to be baseless - there's absolutely nothing realistic in having combat flying and engagements without logistics, especially aircraft responsible for things like troop insertion (which constitutes the majority of your list).

On 7/29/2023 at 9:09 AM, obrien979 said:

DCS lures you in based on the ability to operate a multitude of aircraft from around the world in a combat situation and learn, through trial and error (mostly error for me  ), how to conduct missions.

The lure of DCS is something entirely subjective - there's no right way to play the game, even if you just want to use it as you would MSFS but for military aircraft (in fact that's one of the things its best at). And all of the aircraft listed (especially the C-130, CH-47 and UH-60) have a combat role to play.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Northstar98

[draconus]

23 hours ago, obrien979 said:

These heavy aircraft would provide zero combat experience to the game, but rather just another platform to fly around.

I get that it's not your kind of fun but transport/logistics is very important part of the military operations thus have a rightful place in DCS.

Even if civilian aircraft enters DCS (as Christen Eagle II did already) it doesn't take away anything from you or DCS

[Steel Jaw]

There's only 2 kinds of aircraft: fighters and targets. 

[Nocke217]

1 hour ago, Steel Jaw said:

There's only 2 kinds of aircraft: fighters and targets. 

In other words: the nuisance and the interesting aspect of flight simming.

[Steel Jaw]

15 hours ago, Nocke217 said:

In other words: the nuisance and the interesting aspect of flight simming.

Ah, no because for that I fly P3D and MS2020, in fact my flight simming involves products like the PMDG line going back to FS9.  DCS is not the venue for civi flight simming.

[Nocke217]

Each to their own ... I want bombers and twin engine ground attackers, and stuff to blow up for them. Unfortunately the blowing up aspect is missing in those sims.

[Bananabrai]

B-1B, P-3C, ... so many nice big planes that offer interesting game play...

Even a C-130H would be awesome.

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, Bananabrai said:

Even a C-130H would be awesome.

But we're getting J.

[Bananabrai]

3 minutes ago, draconus said:

But we're getting J.

That's the issue.

[draconus]

On 8/3/2023 at 1:50 PM, Bananabrai said:

That's the issue.

What's so bad with J and what's so great with H?

Edited August 8, 2023 by draconus

[Dr_Pavelheer]

@draconus Some people take issue with glass cockpits