Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World

[Eldur]

They put out an add to hire one or two new coders and no one has heard anything from Leonardo since the Mirage radar changed so people think he left but I personally think he’s just working quietly on ADA stuff

 

So that would, if it even was the case, be just one guy less. Seeing the team expand however is good news to me.

 

Or maybe its the other way around. AFAIK ED is partly foreign owned, so maybe thats the problem - i.e. if they fall under the law about having to register as "foreign agents", obtaining contracts with Russian athorities/state owned enterprises could perhaps be problematic.

 

Valid point there. Most recently I just took the whole think like the Chuck Owl & F-14 thing - he can't bring on that guide since Iran still operates those and it might get him into troubles and kicked out of business to say the lease. ED certainly wants to play extra-safe, especially after that story with one of their coders being held captive in the States a while ago because he wanted to get some manuals out of there for private interest. Would be kinda similar aspect here since with the TFC a British company would get the data of things and EDSA being the "messenger" who would get into trouble. Better safe than sorry is the rule here. If a 3rd party can do works on such aircraft, like RAZBAM does with the 23MLD with data from Cuba (IIRC), that data transfer out of Russia doesn't happen. How far that would apply to a 3rd party within Russia, I don't know. But anyway - it would be brain melting to see this very subject "to change".

 

Not sure if those games actually secure licenses....

 

I remember another Russian studio not aquiring proper licenses from Northtrop Grumman which led to literally everything except for the things that were already in there being taboo for future addition. And guess what, a PTO scenario without Avengers and lots of other assets including important ships does lack. A lot. In other words: This does get noticed. I can't imagine any kind of warfare sim / game without licensing getting anywhere near to the point it's being sold nowadays. Legal depts are Argus-eyed these days very much.

 

-------- Edit: -------------------------------------------------

 

And now it's time for a MEME BREAK!

 

Just imagine ED pulling off a Magnitude and the "eagerly awaited aircraft" to be announced would be a Pitts. Now that would be really brain melting!

 

 

[...] or a Pitts

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Eldur

[StressLess]

About licensing. RAZBAM didn't obtain license for their M2000C, that's why it isn't called "Mirage" as it should be. ...

 

It's referred to as the "Mirage 2000C" on both the RAZBAM website and in the RAZBAM DCS module manual. Where did you get the idea they didn't call it the "Mirage 2000C"?

 

https://razbamsimulations.com/index.php/dcs/mirage-2000c

 

Licensing aircraft is a very complex topic that's affected by so many factors and can vary depending on the level of the simulation being created (say an arcade level vs. a FC3 level vs. a professional study level simulation), the country in which the licensing is to take place, or how old the aircraft being simulated is, among other factors (such as patent, trademarks, copyrights, classification level, etc.)!

 

There is no one size fits all, but if not addressed by the developer it can cause anything from the company being shut down, to settlements being paid in court, to being jailed in some cases. Licensing has it perks as well, it can provide access to important performance data not available in the public domain and such, it can make or break a product's feature set.

 

So these developers have it get it right or face losing everything and more. And these various factors can make some aircraft easy to license or develop on, while making other aircraft simply unavailable for simulation...

Edited July 16, 2020 by StressLess
And just where, EXACTLY, is Ponyville? Will we ever get a terrain module for it?

[Ikaros]

Considering this got moved to the wish list thread and patches will be once a month, I assume we won't be getting a reveal or new aircraft anytime soon. Bummer.

[Nipil]

It's referred to as the "Mirage 2000C" on both the RAZBAM website and in the RAZBAM DCS module manual. Where did you get the idea they didn't call it the "Mirage 2000C"?

 

It still is named M2000C on Steam. I was wrong stating that it's still not licensed NOW, but it initially wasn't. Or at least, that's what they often say on the forums. If I'm wrong please forgive me, I just read this story about Mirage several times here and on Hoggit.

[unknown]

It still is named M2000C on Steam. I was wrong stating that it's still not licensed NOW, but it initially wasn't. Or at least, that's what they often say on the forums. If I'm wrong please forgive me, I just read this story about Mirage several times here and on Hoggit.

 

If my memory serves me well it was also called Mirage 2000C in the ED shop, but was renamed DCS M2000C. Asked why the rebranding in the shop there was a response like "We know it's a Mirage, Dassault knows it's a Mirage...." but it was not allowed to be selled under the name Mirage.

If this has changed after Razbam worked with AdA :dunno:

[Buzzles]

If my memory serves me well it was also called Mirage 2000C in the ED shop, but was renamed DCS M2000C. Asked why the rebranding in the shop there was a response like "We know it's a Mirage, Dassault knows it's a Mirage...." but it was not allowed to be selled under the name Mirage.

If this has changed after Razbam worked with AdA :dunno:

I recall the same, so I'd say your memory is correct, both on the rename and the response from Razbam about it.

[killkenny1]

Here's something Chizh said a few days ago. That might mean something... Or not:)

 

"When it comes to Su-27S noone said that "it won't happen"

[Kang]

A while ago, I believe the "Eagerly awaited aircraft" has already been confirmed not to be a helo. So the Apache would be a bonus.

No no no, it was stated that it was being handled by the fixed-wing team, that means something entirely different.

[nima2014]

What about a redfor aircraft? I mean, a lot of people requesting an eastern competitor to all our western aircraft. What about a Mig29 as high fidelity? I mean the PFM is already there, don't know if this is accurate enough for a high fidelity model but I read lots of hoping for a western aircraft instead of thinking that it might go in the other direction, towards red force. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward for a Tornado too but a Mig29, Su27 or Su30 could also be nice. Any quotes or statements that it won't be a redforce fighter?

 

 

 

cheers

[AeriaGloria]

:wallbash:

[OPEC]

I personally would love to know ED's definition on "later this year". Jesus, I'm hanging in mid air twice. I do not not when they announce something i dont know. I hate this.

[TotenDead]

What about a redfor aircraft? I mean, a lot of people requesting an eastern competitor to all our western aircraft. What about a Mig29 as high fidelity? ... Mig29, Su27 or Su30 could also be nice.

 

Unfortunately, none of these 80s fighters are really competitive to 2000s nato jets

[nima2014]

Unfortunately, none of these 80s fighters are really competitive to 2000s nato jets

 

 

Well, I would guess that the MiG-29OWT „Fulcrum-E“ could work out as a fair opponent against the F18 and F16, don't you?!

[AeriaGloria]

Well, I would guess that the MiG-29OWT „Fulcrum-E“ could work out as a fair opponent against the F18 and F16, don't you?!

 

A MiG-29K is a nearly perfect opponent or even MiG-29SMT/UPG could be fair opponent for teen series. Not a prototype where only one was made that is likely not even combat capable. Anything more of a prototype then Ka-50 is pushing it, and even that is a special case where it was used in combat experimentally. An OVT would be an aerobatic novelty, nothing more

 

MiG-29M/MiG-35, has been advertised with thrust vectoring engines, but who knows how much capacity there is to actually build and supply those engines currently, as they have never been ordered delivered or installed in operational examples, and AFAIK the only prototype fitted with thrust vectoring was the OVT

Edited July 16, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[Gierasimov]

:wallbash:

 

LOL!

[Gierasimov]

I personally would love to know ED's definition on "later this year". Jesus, I'm hanging in mid air twice. I do not not when they announce something i dont know. I hate this.

 

Well, given the fact we are in the second half of July, it is now sooner rather than later.

[Gierasimov]

Only that...

 

Here's something Chizh said a few days ago. That might mean something... Or not:)

 

 

 

"When it comes to Su-27S noone said that "it won't happen"

 

Only that you took it out of its context. A former fighter pilot is trying to prove his point.

He says that in order to see one would need a working cockpit and then says that phrase.

 

Chizh is just denying that they said "no need to wait" but this does not imply anything else.

 

Although there were multiple "Su-27 confirmed" replies to this comment, I do not find it a valid reason to believe it.

 

However, as per ED policy, everything is subject to change, therefore I will reserve just a little bit of my heart for that HUGE - BRAIN - MELTING - EAGERLY AWAITED - Su-27 reveal moment.

[Fri13]

Only that you took it out of its context. A former fighter pilot is trying to prove his point.

He says that in order to see one would need a working cockpit and then says that phrase.

 

Chizh is just denying that they said "no need to wait" but this does not imply anything else.

 

Although there were multiple "Su-27 confirmed" replies to this comment, I do not find it a valid reason to believe it.

 

However, as per ED policy, everything is subject to change, therefore I will reserve just a little bit of my heart for that HUGE - BRAIN - MELTING - EAGERLY AWAITED - Su-27 reveal moment.

 

I don't see it as denying or confirmation. Only as some statement about something.

 

ED just keeps the door open for the unknown future, and if something changes from status quo, they will inform us. Until then there is no confirmation or denying, just a possibility.

[rrohde]

Isn't our Su-27 the "S" variant already? We need something a little more modern IMHO, such as the "SM" or "SM3" variant, or even better, the baseline Su-35 (or one of its its derivatives).

[Worrazen]

If it is an Su-27 (or Su-33, etc) then I don't think they'll let you or anyone know that something changed, I don't think the community could handle the wait until it's done.

 

The eastern side aircraft such as Mig29 or Su-27 (can't remember, but I can try to find some old videos) is the first actual military fighter jet I've ever seen in my life for real, coincidentially the F-16 was a very close second, so I'm in this horse race as well :D

 

 

 

I personally would love to know ED's definition on "later this year". Jesus, I'm hanging in mid air twice. I do not not when they announce something i dont know. I hate this.

 

It most likely always means after H1 as per business-talk standard, so H2, but still not definitive in terms of Q3 or Q4.

 

Isn't our Su-27 the "S" variant already? We need something a little more modern IMHO, such as the "SM" or "SM3" variant, or even better, the baseline Su-35 (or one of its its derivatives).

 

I do see the value in older models, if not anything else at least for historical preservation (but if it were really only that then it wouldn't be worth it if self funded and not much sales, I hope my theory holds water about some old pilots around here wanting to recreate their experience they had back with the older models, I'm sure there are those out there, the downside is they're older generation and perhaps not computer-wizz guys and may not know about DCS yet ...) - I'm already campaigning for the new A-10C Warthog 2 to come with two variations/suite eventually :)

 

Might increase the price becuase preferrably you'd get it all-in-one, not a separate module, otherwise the older version would probably indeed undersell and would look as if it's not worth it. I think more people would try it if they just have it part of the package already rather than a separate purchase even if it's cheaper. It hasn't been done before so why not give a try with a good candidate like A-10C for which probably there's access to a good range of documentation to make it feasible, and so this idea can be tested in practice and if it doesn't pan out I guess it won't be a priority on other modules but at least A-10 would continue to have that specialty :)

 

I've explained this in detail already in the appropriate thread, how most optimally for gameplay it would be to have a suite/variation of A-10C that is modern enough without the Pave Penny Pod and an older suite/variation with it, this can be a good gameplay differentiation, so it can be a cue that enemies will look for visually on the battlefiled, not saying enemies should get this and that it should be done on purpose just for this coincidential "feature", but there's other reasons why a wider gap between variations is preferred to make the effect I'm talking about, to little difference is hard to justify developing for and selling it IMO that's just a no brainer.

 

Ah sorry again for mixing other stuff into this thread.

Edited July 16, 2020 by Worrazen

[Harlikwin]

Unfortunately, none of these 80s fighters are really competitive to 2000s nato jets

 

Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

It would have also achieved Nick Grey's whole "goal" of "dogfighting" without having to push the various absurdisms that they have foisted on us over the years to Nerf Fox3 BVR stuff.

 

I mean 70s/80's was all about you get 1 crappy BVR shot on the way in and then to the merge with fox2's.

 

Plus the aircraft were much more closely matched during the cold war as well.

[chromium]

No no no, it was stated that it was being handled by the fixed-wing team, that means something entirely different.

 

Where di you see that? It could be a very good hint.

[Baco]

Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

It would have also achieved Nick Grey's whole "goal" of "dogfighting" without having to push the various absurdisms that they have foisted on us over the years to Nerf Fox3 BVR stuff.

 

I mean 70s/80's was all about you get 1 crappy BVR shot on the way in and then to the merge with fox2's.

 

Plus the aircraft were much more closely matched during the cold war as well.

 

Agree 100%.

 

we need more 70s and 80s, not more XXI century planes...

hell, 60´s would be amazing also ;)

[WinterH]

Yeah, honestly I think ED should have focused on the 80s/early 90's for their planeset instead of the early 2000's.

 

It would have also achieved Nick Grey's whole "goal" of "dogfighting" without having to push the various absurdisms that they have foisted on us over the years to Nerf Fox3 BVR stuff.

 

I mean 70s/80's was all about you get 1 crappy BVR shot on the way in and then to the merge with fox2's.

 

Plus the aircraft were much more closely matched during the cold war as well.

 

Yeah agree about 5 million percent.

 

But let's be honest, more modern, more low hanging fruit from a marketing perspective. If a 2000s + aircraft is, let's throw about 15-20 percent more effort than an 80s-90s one, but a whole lot more people will jump on them because modern, including those who weren't in DCS before, I suppose it is understandable to go for them instead.

 

But honestly, I'd much prefer if there would be much, much more 60s to 90s modules coming up instead.

[Kang]

The ship of having something like a 'planeset' that is in any shape way or form consistent to form a scenario that could be played from various sides, has sailed a long, long, long time ago, got lost in the Bermuda Triangle, mysteriously re-appeared in port, had the fate of its crew investigated, the insurance sum paid, has been scrapped for metal, the metal re-used for cooking utensils and several of these lost when friends helped moving house since.