Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World

[Schnelli]

It's very strange, TBH, considering they already made a two-seater L-39 that works perfectly well. Side by side is a challenge (and would fit the "milestone" part), but multicrew in general has been a thing for a while.

 

I think what he meant are two seaters not by the number of seats but by the function. Trainers have pretty much repeater cockpits. The gunner position in the Hind is not requiered to really use the aicraft (afaik). Planes like Tornados, F-111 and Tomcats are different here. They would need somethink like Jester AI. I think that is the point.

[reece146]

The Mossie is going to have a pilot position and a navigator position which are side by side and it's an ED mod so there's that.

[Seaeagle]

 

Couldn´t find the time stamp rigth now, but yeah.

 

Ok

 

About the Apache it might be different. It´s probably more comparable to the Hind than a Tornado or Tomcat.

 

There is a reason why they stuff two crew members into an attack helicopter.....and why the Ka-50 wasn't adopted by the Russian military :) .

 

So no its not different and there is no way you could make a realistic "full fidelity" Apache simulation with only the pilot position modelled.

 

 

[Seaeagle]

 

Meh there is a sea floor, but there's no 'underwater' so to speak for you to take the camera down into. So far the SoH/PG map, Syria and the Channel seem to have accurate depth maps (at least for their included charts, where bathymetric contours seem to align.

 

The Caucasus however is just a solid layer of 100m/328ft until your about 3-10km from the coast (from my limited testing), however it should go down past ~2000m/6000ft if this is any accurate.

 

The Channel is more difficult to test, but it seems about right-ish (it's not like there's massive variations in depth, nor is it particularly deep), I don't think the Lobourg Channel is there though (should go down to ~80m/250ft but only goes to half that in DCS).

 

Thermal layers?

 

There's also no SONAR at all, in any form, or countermeasures or tactics.

 

Bingo.

 

Basically everything naval that isn't pure carrier operations (and communications still has a way to go) is kinda missing, apart from the real basics (i.e firing anti-ship missiles across a bearing, naval gunnery (even if the RoFs are pretty off), and air defence. Credit, where it's due though I don't want to take any dumps here; there is more implemented (especially graphically) than other combat flight simulators and when ED gets it right, they definitely deliver.

 

Sure, but if the declared goal is to make a "Digital Combat Simulator" ;

 

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible.

 

...then comparing the current implementation to what you get with other pure flight simulators is rather cheap.

 

 

 

• Ships blindly follow waypoints, they manoeuvre defensively at all to incoming threats. (To give ED credit, they did implement offensive manoeuvring for the MTB and U boat, which is a fantastic step in the right direction).
  
• Ships have an incredibly limited damage model, there's no real internal damage modelling or subsystem damage (as far as I can tell) and how ships sink is always the same regardless of what hit it and where.
  
• Ships still have a limited implementation in terms of dynamics and don't fully interact with the water; for larger vessels this isn't so bad, but for smaller vessels you can get them to do complete rolls when turning at high speed. Probably low-priority though.
  
• Ships have no countermeasures, be it chaff or ECM, nor are the decoy launchers animated/have any arguments for.
  
• No control over formations besides the initial set-up, unlike ground vehicles and aircraft.
  
• The Ticonderoga-class CG and Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62 DDG don't have all the weapons available to them, the Arleigh-Burke hull numbers are early-to-mid 2000s ships, as such they should have access to the RIM-162 ESSM, RIM-174A Standard ERAM, not to mention, we don't have any control over what loadouts they have.
  
• Some naval guns should have a variety of ammunition types/fuzing available, for instance the AK100 on the Grisha-V, Neustrashimy and Krivak-II should have a contact-fuzed HE round (UOF-58 w. V-249 fuze) and anti-aircraft UZS-58 w. DVM-60M1 remote fuze and UZS-58R w. AR-32 RADAR fuze). The AK-130 also has the same equivalent rounds (F-44, ZS-44 and ZS-44R), as does the AK-176 (UOFB-62 HE and UZSB-62RP).
  
• The Phalanx CIWS is firing the wrong ammunition (w. the wrong dispersion).
  
• No ASW weapons, (though Mk32 torpedo tubes are animated on the Arleigh-Burke) and no ASW sensors at all (let alone tactics).
  
• Some RADARs aren't implemented, such as the independent search modes on the 4R33 "Pop Group' FCR for the SA-N-4 SAM system, the MR360 'Cross Sword' FCR for the SA-N-9 SAM system and the SPG-62 CWI RADARs to provide terminal homing SARH guidance for the SM-2.
  
• Ship naming is still kinda all-over the place, the supercarriers are absolutely fine given they're unique. But for other ships, in English localisation it would be better to name them by classification -> class/sub-class/NATO Reporting name -> Project Number and Name (if applicable). For instance the USS Arleigh-Burke IIa should be renamed 'Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62 (late) DDG' (the USS Arleigh Burke is a Flt. I ship); the FF 1135M Rezky should be renamed Krivak-II class FF (Pr. 1135M "Burevestnik-M" SKR)
  

 

 

Good write up :) . In addition the sim lacks multiple of the most significant modern naval assets of the eighties and nineties - e.g. Pr. 956/Sovremenny class and, for ASW in particulary, the Pr. 1155 "Udaloy class"(prime Russian ASW ship), Pr. 971/Akula class, Pr. 949A/Oscar II class and SSN-688/Los Angeles class etc.

 

Very unlikely given absolutely no ASW weapons or sensors exist and torpedoes are still in their most rudimentary form. Buoys I guess could just be a floating, animated 3D model at this stage, but without any form of SONAR engine and underwater modelling there really isn't much point.

 

Exactly.

 

All I'll say further is that any naval platform, particularly one dedicated for ASW seems incredibly unlikely, even if I would really like the naval environment to be better developed, but it's just not a priority (nor maybe it should be at the moment) ....

 

It hasn't been a priority for decades, but if it shouldn't be one "at the moment" then when exactly should it be?. I mean if the introduction of a dedicated naval fighter(Hornet) and "Super carrier, + new suitable maps isn't enough to make the naval stuff a priority, then when will it ever be......what other "profitable" naval oriented aircraft module could possible drive such a focus and where does that leave the dream "to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible"?

 

Its already *long* overdue.

[Fri13]

The only thing Im not with you is the needlessness of clickable pits in FC3/MAC modules. I think its really necessary that you can also control those birds without the need of a keyboard or totally ecessive programmings on a few HOTAS buttons. Even today and much more in future, were many gamer, not only simmer, have and will have a VR gear.

 

Just a simple overlay to switch things on and off or adjust eg focus etc. will do that.

 

I have now flown years just with HOTAS and hand controllers. I don't have keyboard, mouse or any other peripheral in my VR flight chair. For various reasons.

 

1) it is unrealistic to have anything other than real functions binded to the HOTAS (example landing gear, flaps, master modes, laser switches etc).

 

2) It is not at all as good learning and flying experience if having unrealistic bindings in HOTAS. Required to move hands inside cockpit to flip all actual functions makes all learning more effective and one learns as well bad and good designs of aircraft. Example it is idiotic design in hornet to require one to flip LTD/R switch forward to have laser armed, as it doesn't fire unless you squeeze trigger or launch a weapon, so you need to take your right hand off from stick just to flip one switch that might return back to aft disabling laser even middle of the weapon guidance (has happened multiple times with bombs and missiles) ruining everytheverything.

 

But regardless of that, it is required to acknowledge that not all modules need to be clickable. They can't be. While how annoying it might be to fly Su-25A after clickable module, it is eventually just required to accept that one needs to make compromise somewhere for it.

 

But.... FC3 doesn't really mean you can't have clickable cockpit. Not at all. Even those modules has in their bindings for a mode to "enable clickable cockpit" but nothing happens, as nothing is done to accept it.

 

And these capabilities are used by many mods now, like A-4 or Su-24M. Where you can use your hands/mouse to click functions in cockpit instead using a keyboard or HOTAS.

Point is that one can make FC3 level aircraft by system modeling, and only allow the limited, required functions accessible by cockpit clicking.

 

The FC3 package is old. And ED will not do to them anything that is not totally required maintenance.

Like they added 6 DOF cockpit and refreshed 3D models and textures. But they will not fix problems, add missing features or implement anything extra as in their opinion FC3 "is done".

There shouldn't be any reasons for anyone to make official "low-fidelity" modules.

​​​​

[Fri13]

There is a reason why they stuff two crew members into an attack helicopter.....and why the Ka-50 wasn't adopted by the Russian military :) .

 

It wasn't about pilot workload, just that the foreign weapons sales were such that you couldn't get a helicopter to state trials of you didn't have two pilots seats. When the state requirements were to have two pilots, then you can't offer helicopter to trials with one pilot.

 

The KA-52 was designed originally to be the flight leader, other flight members being KA-50. There the second pilot was the commander to command flight, designate the targets and communicate with the ground troops for the tasking.

 

​​​​​​In the combat trials 2001 in chechen the modified KA-27's were the replacement to KA-52 as it wasn't ready.

 

In the combat trials it was found that pilot workload was less than a fighter pilot workload is, and because excellent automations the pilots didn't have problems to perform flying, navigation, target searching and engagement.

 

Our KA-50 is one of the few from 2001 that went to chechen war. After the combat trials a new state trials started to improve KA-50 based experience and pilots feedback. The cockpit was redesigned, glass cockpit, new FLIR targeting system, improved A-A capabilities and few other things.

 

Why the KA-50 didn't get eventually to large production to replace Mi-24's was that in state trials the Kamov couldn't complete all the tests as planned, like the Mi-28 did. It was management/production problem instead anything in helicopter itself.

 

[Northstar98]

 

Thermal layers?

 

No, I was just comparing the bathymetry for it - just seeing if the sea-floor in DCS was at the depths it's supposed to be at, either looking at the included charts (present in map mode, often you'll see bathymetric contour lines given in fathoms (= 6 feet)), or some more detailed data (many examples can be found just by Googling for them). Given that there's no SONAR modelling at all, there definitely isn't any thermal layers or anything else hydroacoustic.

 

Sure, but if the declared goal is to make a "Digital Combat Simulator"

 

I agree, I'm just saying that currently the naval environment in DCS leaves a fair bit to be desired (providing if it's achievable at all), which is why I extremely doubt the eagerly awaited aircraft will be a dedicated ASW platform (or at least as ASW as one of its main roles).

 

...then comparing the current implementation to what you get with other pure flight simulators is rather cheap.

 

I understand, but I'm simply giving credit where it's due. Yes there are a lot of things missing, but I can't ignore the fact that DCS does do better than some others (though again, mainly graphics here), though it's a mixed bag and the bar isn't exactly high.

 

In addition the sim lacks multiple of the most significant modern naval assets of the eighties and nineties - e.g. Pr. 956/Sovremenny class and, for ASW in particulary, the Pr. 1155 "Udaloy class"(prime Russian ASW ship), Pr. 971/Akula class, Pr. 949A/Oscar II class and SSN-688/Los Angeles class etc.

 

Agreed, though personally I'd rather that our current assets be upgraded before adding new, as well as potentially adding some fitted-for but not with stuff (much like the animated Mk32 torpedo tubes and SPG-62 RADARs on the Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA, they're animated but not implemented yet).

 

That said I'd love a comprehensive set of naval assets from the 60s up to the 90s, REDFOR and BLUFOR.

 

It hasn't been a priority for decades, but if it shouldn't be one "at the moment" then when exactly should it be?. I mean if the introduction of a dedicated naval fighter(Hornet) and "Super carrier, + new suitable maps isn't enough to make the naval stuff a priority, then when will it ever be......what other "profitable" naval oriented aircraft module could possible drive such a focus and where does that leave the dream "to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible"?

 

Its already *long* overdue.

 

Oh I absolutely agree, I just think that things like CA and air defences should be more of a priority at the moment, I think it's better to finish something rather than take a massive leap (which overhauling the naval environment would be, it would probably necessitate a major engine change) and that's said even if my main interest is blue-water naval operations. Think about this for instance: in DCS we now have have 5 long-range early warning RADARs; only 3 of them are only usable as such (1L13, 55G6, FuMG 401, and 2 of those are in dire need of a major graphical overhaul, the other is a WW2 RADAR in the WW2 assets pack); out of the remaining 2, one is the more commonly associated search RADAR for the S-125/SA-3 (P-19) and the other is completely non-functional eye candy, with no control over placement (P-37).

 

We typically only get 1 variant of air defences, and in some cases only have the essential minimum required actually implemented (i.e a fire-control RADAR and launchers; the SA-2 is missing all of its other battery components, with only a couple being teased/are in the modelviewer, same for SA-5).

 

Okay, back on topic.

[Seaeagle]

 

It wasn't about pilot workload, just that the foreign weapons sales were such that you couldn't get a helicopter to state trials of you didn't have two pilots seats. When the state requirements were to have two pilots, then you can't offer helicopter to trials with one pilot.

 

If the state requirements stipulated that there should be two crew members for acceptance trials, then there is probably a reason for it :) .

 

The KA-52 was designed originally to be the flight leader, other flight members being KA-50. There the second pilot was the commander to command flight, designate the targets and communicate with the ground troops for the tasking.

 

​​​​​​In the combat trials 2001 in chechen the modified KA-27's were the replacement to KA-52 as it wasn't ready.

 

I know.

 

In the combat trials it was found that pilot workload was less than a fighter pilot workload is, and because excellent automations the pilots didn't have problems to perform flying, navigation, target searching and engagement.

 

Our KA-50 is one of the few from 2001 that went to chechen war.

 

But then the "Counter insurgency" type of missions the Ka-50 performed in the Chechen war were probably also less demanding on the pilot than it would be on a "full on" battlefield against a pier advesary.

 

After the combat trials a new state trials started to improve KA-50 based experience and pilots feedback. The cockpit was redesigned, glass cockpit, new FLIR targeting system, improved A-A capabilities and few other things.

 

I am familiar with the development history of the Ka-50 - the upgrades you mention only existed on a couple of prototypes, which IIRC were recycled old airframes.

 

Why the KA-50 didn't get eventually to large production to replace Mi-24's was that in state trials the Kamov couldn't complete all the tests as planned, like the Mi-28 did. It was management/production problem instead anything in helicopter itself.

 

Sorry I just don't believe that. IIRC the Ka-50 was actually initially selected for production in the 1990'ies, but later(when the re-armament programme got underway) abandonned in favour of the Mi-28. Surely if the single-seat Ka-50 itself was considered a sound design and there was a desire to adopt it, then it would't be ditched alltogether due simply to an administrative setup of state trials a couple of decades ago. Anway, the fact is that the Mi-28 was selected, put into production and entered service, while the Ka-50 didn't...only the two-seat Ka-52 variant.

 

At any rate, the point I was trying to make was in regards an Apache module - i.e. the notion that it wouldn't necessarily need to include proper "muli-crew" simulation(unlike for a Tornado or F-111). Considering that "Western" forces have always considered a single-seat combat helicopter a dead-end because it would put too much workload on the pilot, an Apache module that would do exactly that would obviously be an unrealistic proposition.

[Seaeagle]

 

No, I was just comparing the bathymetry for it - just seeing if the sea-floor in DCS was at the depths it's supposed to be at, either looking at the included charts (present in map mode, often you'll see bathymetric contour lines given in fathoms (= 6 feet)), or some more detailed data (many examples can be found just by Googling for them). Given that there's no SONAR modelling at all, there definitely isn't any thermal layers or anything else hydroacoustic.

 

Yeah I know - just saying that there is more to "underwater environment" than suitable water depts when it comes to submarine/ASW warfare :)

 

I agree, I'm just saying that currently the naval environment in DCS leaves a fair bit to be desired (providing if it's achievable at all), which is why I extremely doubt the eagerly awaited aircraft will be a dedicated ASW platform (or at least as ASW as one of its main roles).

 

Heh yeah so do I.

 

Agreed, though personally I'd rather that our current assets be upgraded before adding new, as well as potentially adding some fitted-for but not with stuff (much like the animated Mk32 torpedo tubes and SPG-62 RADARs on the Arleigh-Burke Flt. IIA, they're animated but not implemented yet).

 

While that is a sound argument, I don't think one excludes the other.. Apart from many issues being of universial nature, there is also a large degree of shared equipment/systems and armament within the pool of both US and Russian assets...and most of them are already working or should be working for the units already in DCS. But I agree that something like full implementation of submarine warfare(which indeed would require major new developments) should only come after the current surface warfare simulation has been improved - otherwise it would be completely overwhelming.

 

Oh I absolutely agree, I just think that things like CA and air defences should be more of a priority at the moment, I think it's better to finish something rather than take a massive leap (which overhauling the naval environment would be, it would probably necessitate a major engine change) and that's said even if my main interest is blue-water naval operations.

 

In regards to CA, I would say that it would be better to apply missing assets and improve the basic functionality of the ones already there before starting to apply player control for them :) .

 

 

 

[silverdevil]

i have tried to get to the seafloor in DCS many times during failed carrier landings. but alas i normally do not get much deeper than a couple meters at best. :-)

[Fri13]

 

If the state requirements stipulated that there should be two crew members for acceptance trials, then there is probably a reason for it :) .

 

Reason is backup that if one pilot gets injured or killed, other can bring the helicopter home.

The idea is that, it doesn't take in conclusion that one pilot could be protected so well that injurement doesn't happen so easily from light fire and one pilot can perform the combat helicopter tasks effectively (or even more effectively as there is no requirement to communicate between pilots to share tasks).

 

But then the "Counter insurgency" type of missions the Ka-50 performed in the Chechen war were probably also less demanding on the pilot than it would be on a "full on" battlefield against a pier advesary.

 

Not in the state combat trials. The single pilot did perform all the tasks exemplary manner. What really drops everyones effectiveness is when you become a "one man in a war" scenario where you have basically no communications or information to anyone else and you need to blindly go to find where enemy is and what to do. That is the scenarios that are in the DCS often, pilot being almost clueless what is where. And in such cases second pilot doesn't add anything valuable as it is just two pilots clueless what to do.

In DCS competent virtual pilot can well tests KA-50 in more demanding scenarios and find that second pilot is not required. But if you make a scenario where you have zero intelligence to begin with of own troops and enemy troops, you are dead no matter how you would have second pilot there with you in that cockpit.

 

I am familiar with the development history of the Ka-50 - the upgrades you mention only existed on a couple of prototypes, which IIRC were recycled old airframes.

 

They were not prototypes, they were serial production standard. Waiting the funding to come through to start producing more. The KA-50 didn't end to "prototype" level but it was completed, but as the project was cancelled by cutting the funding, nothing came out anymore from it.

There were multiple different individual versions after our #25 version, few serial production standards but each time the funding was the achilles heel.

 

 

Sorry I just don't believe that. IIRC the Ka-50 was actually initially selected for production in the 1990'ies, but later(when the re-armament programme got underway) abandonned in favour of the Mi-28. Surely if the single-seat Ka-50 itself was considered a sound design and there was a desire to adopt it, then it would't be ditched alltogether due simply to an administrative setup of state trials a couple of decades ago. Anway, the fact is that the Mi-28 was selected, put into production and entered service, while the Ka-50 didn't...only the two-seat Ka-52 variant.

 

Search for the state trials of the KA-50 vs Mi-28. There were tens of tests and tasks to be completed, KA-50 couldn't do all of them because tight schedule with various components and other capabilities to be done. It is like with a X-32 vs X-35. Where other couldn't complete all the required phases and was eventually rejected because of that. KA-50 had lots of tests incompleted, IIRC it was about 40 of 80 done while Mi-28 was about 75 of 80 or something. And when you need to get the decision made for what to buy, you don't want to buy something that is "not tested for the task".

 

At any rate, the point I was trying to make was in regards an Apache module - i.e. the notion that it wouldn't necessarily need to include proper "muli-crew" simulation(unlike for a Tornado or F-111). Considering that "Western" forces have always considered a single-seat combat helicopter a dead-end because it would put too much workload on the pilot, an Apache module that would do exactly that would obviously be an unrealistic proposition.

 

West has different problems and designs, why they don't want a single pilot tasking. Even when they are still required to make the helicopter flyable just by a single pilot. And if you have a two pilots, you can then design all by separating the two pilots to perform different tasks. Like KA-50 problem is still same as with KA-50, if a single HEI-T penetrates the unarmored curved side windshield and explodes inside the canopy, both are dead or injured because there is nothing that would separate two pilots. Same thing is with Su-24 or F-111 etc. In a Mi-28 and AH-64 there is separation, armor plates, armor glass set between the pilots so if one dies, other doesn't go with it so easily. But better than getting hit, is not to get hit. As it is anyways a mission kill if you kill a other pilot or even get it injured deadly. AH-64 is not armored at all like KA-50 or Mi-28, neither is KA-52. What comes to combat assessment, if you get the vehicle back it is a win even if the other pilot dies, as that vehicle has made the other pilot survive.

 

When a AH-64 is designed heavily that front cockpit is for the weapons utilization by a another pilot, you can't really transfer them to another pilot in the rear cockpit. This can be as well seen in the KA-52 that is designed more for that both can perform same tasks regardless their seating position, where other can even sleep while in combat, that AH-64 pilot can't do.

That is already a such no-go for the DCS: AH-64 Apache that it will require second human being to be there with you as gunner, or have a AI to fly you around in a "nice tour" around battlefield. It is possible to make so, but even comparing any other game from last three decades shows that AH-64 will be very limited as one man flight. Just like there is now huge difference are you flying F-14 with a human RIO or with Jester.

 

These two-seater aircrafts really limits the module value and purchase reasons, and if the co-pilot is more than needed, then it should come with two licenses where other is for front cockpit only while other is for rear and front cockpit. And this way one can fly it alone in both cockpits, but can gift the front cockpit license to a friend to get a required co-pilot in there as well without requirement to put 120-150 € for it.

[Dragon1-1]

ED is already working on a useful frontseater AI for Mi-24. In the Apache, the frontseater has pretty much the same roles, plus aiming and firing the gun. The rest is just switchology, and I think that the Mi-24 AI will be able to serve as a workable frontseater for singleplayer Apache experience, and maybe for the likes of Tornado and F-111 as well.

 

Even with Jester, the F-14 is perfectly flyable in SP. It reaches its full potential with multicrew, but against other AI, or less skilled players, it's just fine. In particular, the F-111, Tornado, F-15E and all attack helicopters will all be used only against AI. CA is pretty much dead in the water, so humans operating ground units are rather rare.

[stormrider]

ED is already working on a useful frontseater AI for Mi-24. In the Apache, the frontseater has pretty much the same roles, plus aiming and firing the gun. The rest is just switchology, and I think that the Mi-24 AI will be able to serve as a workable frontseater for singleplayer Apache experience, and maybe for the likes of Tornado and F-111 as well.

 

I don't disagree, but if you compare the cockpits from the A and D versions of the Apache, the A, being a lot more analog, is more to a Tomcat interaction between pilot and co-pilot, where some functions can only be done by one or the other; while the D version is more to a F-15E, with shared digital systems accessed by MFDs and/or dedicated instrumentation, meaning that any specialization pilot/co-pilot gunner is more than anything an improved conviviality and redundancy than a necessity: both can do basically everything albeit some things better than the other one.

 

[Dragon1-1]

TBH, I like the AH-64A better, but that's just me having a soft spot for gauges. :) That said, the AI should be able to handle both cockpits, since it doesn't actually operate the switchology, except for some things which can be scripted in a manner similar to autostart (or Jester, which does many things like this). The things that the AI will have to "think" to do are mostly the same regardless of which helo you are in. If it works right in Mi-24, it should work well in it, then it'll work in the Apache.

 

Now, the AI will not be a very smart gunner, and you'll have to do a lot of work yourself, more than you'd do with a human gunner. However, this should be good enough for fighting the AI.

[Fri13]

TBH, I like the AH-64A better, but that's just me having a soft spot for gauges. :) That said, the AI should be able to handle both cockpits, since it doesn't actually operate the switchology, except for some things which can be scripted in a manner similar to autostart (or Jester, which does many things like this). The things that the AI will have to "think" to do are mostly the same regardless of which helo you are in. If it works right in Mi-24, it should work well in it, then it'll work in the Apache.

 

Now, the AI will not be a very smart gunner, and you'll have to do a lot of work yourself, more than you'd do with a human gunner. However, this should be good enough for fighting the AI.

 

The AI co-pilot will be very reducing factor for the tasking. The keyword here is "communication" where you as human pilot can tell the AI that where to look, what to search, what to engage and what weapon to use.

 

No matter what the future module will be, if it has a multiseat feature as requirement (with or without AI) then the AI needs to be possible be guided on target or area of location very easily.

And easiest way for that is to use a similar circle in the view as Su-27S/MiG-29 HMS is, so you get a green circle on view that you point at wanted area or target and then use a voice command (using the upcoming new VoIP system for DCS) or simple hat to issue commands, where the AI would need to be used to give some context by default, like if you are looking at generic direction then it should automatically know to inform co-pilot as "look at 310, 500 meters" or so. If there is a vehicle then say something like "Target at 310, AAA". With the AH-64 or similar where you have multiple weapons, last thing you want is that the AI will start launching a ATGM at the trucks that are at 1 km distance, where 30 mm cannon would be better choice. So you need to be able even select preferred weapon of choice if required quickly.

This same thing goes for all, like F-111 where you would need to be able communicate with AI that tells you final vectors, altitudes and all. While you can be telling those to the AI pilot flying the thing.

 

The AI overall in DCS requires so heavy rewriting and redesigning that it is very complex topic. But easiest way to avoid all such huge work is to focus as much as possible on single pilot aircrafts. There is no other way around it.

If the AI would be required and it is bad, then of course result is that it will be "challenge to fly" when you are trying to get that 5 year old back/front seater do what you would or you expect human would do.

 

But the complex/advanced AI is just one part of the problem, the other is still the human part. As no matter how you get AI to work properly or realistic manner, if the pilot itself is that 12 year old that care less about AI warnings, commands and all, what does it help in operating complex aircrafts?

[Dragon1-1]

Do note, "AI" is two distinct things. What flies AI aircraft is a completely unrelated system from the AI copilot. Huey already has some basic AI copilot functions, and an improved version is already in development for the Hind.

 

There needs to be some kind of interface for comms, Huey handles that with buttons. I would expect the Hind to do so, too.

But the complex/advanced AI is just one part of the problem, the other is still the human part. As no matter how you get AI to work properly or realistic manner, if the pilot itself is that 12 year old that care less about AI warnings, commands and all, what does it help in operating complex aircrafts?

This is of no concern for ED, if you want to fly, you have to be willing to learn. I flew the F-16 in FreeFalcon when I was 15 or so, the only reason I didn't get into it then was that I couldn't understand FF's bizarre "documentation" (which I later found to have been community in-jokes interspaced with some marginally useful advice) and the fact it was seriously buggy.

[bies]

Oh.

BTW: maybe the brain melting, highly complex, groundbreaking, challenging to fly, non-Redfor, never announced before module is V-22 Osprey. With license negotiated with Boeing together with F/A-18C & F-15E.

 

Matt or someone else said they bought licences is a pack - so i think it maybe something from Boeing or Lockheed.

 

Only thing is it's rater new instead of not very modern and not old plus I'm not sure it was eagerly awaited but I didn't read forum's wishlist too often so maybe it was.

 

On the other hand I'm not sure if Osprey is much of a "combat" aircraft, more like lightly armed troop transport.

 

[Fri13]

Do note, "AI" is two distinct things. What flies AI aircraft is a completely unrelated system from the AI copilot. Huey already has some basic AI copilot functions, and an improved version is already in development for the Hind.

 

There needs to be some kind of interface for comms, Huey handles that with buttons. I would expect the Hind to do so, too.

 

This is of no concern for ED, if you want to fly, you have to be willing to learn. I flew the F-16 in FreeFalcon when I was 15 or so, the only reason I didn't get into it then was that I couldn't understand FF's bizarre "documentation" (which I later found to have been community in-jokes interspaced with some marginally useful advice) and the fact it was seriously buggy.

 

You are mistaken again. I talked about how AI is like "12 year old" and not what age the player is.

The relation of player capabilities vs AI capabilities to perform the duties of the co-pilot/pilot when player is alone, instead with a another player. And it is 100% concern of the ED work as their job is to make all AI not just for ground units, but all air units as well UH-1, Mi-8, Mi-24, AH-1, AH-64, L-39 and all other modules they own that can be flown by two players.

 

The more complex aircrafts players want, then often it means you need to have co-piloting included so you can have two (or more!) players operating same aircraft. If someone wants by any reason to fly solo, then it requires AI to be included. Sure it can be idiotic one like UH-1 or Mi-8 where pilot just holds the attitude and heading etc, or it can actually be the I as intelligence that would have a good library of the common maneuvers, tactics and procedures against expected situations, and the AI knows what is expected to be done in those and performs its duties respectfully (it is by many means wrong to call it "AI" as it is one of the most overused words these days but people should know that AI truly means something that really can think by itself, learn and adapt without any preprogramming to do specific things) so that human player doesn't need to "baby" (micromanage) the aircraft while performing other person duties.

 

How can anyone really offer a complex multiplayer module that can't be flown individually as well and be effective with it?

 

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Oh.

BTW: maybe the brain melting, highly complex, groundbreaking, challenging to fly, non-Redfor, never announced before module is V-22 Osprey. With license negotiated with Boeing together with F/A-18C & F-15E.

 

Good call! Now that's something that I never thought about before. It certainly does check all the boxes. :) It's not exactly new (2000s), though a bit newer than the F-111, is certainly an iconic bird, does not require advanced multicrew (just what we have for the Huey) and it's very much interesting. It's not a gunship or anything, but nobody said it would be a combat aircraft.

 

Licenses are often sold as pack deals, so that makes sense, and it's a very good point overall that has not been considered until now. Between that and the "challenging to fly" bit, it's actually a better fit than the F-111. That part was one thing that the Aardvark didn't fit, it's swing wing, so a bit more involved than most planes, but it's still a well-behaved aircraft. The Osprey... not so much. :)

[Viper1970]

I also stated the V-22A a few posts before. It was not only meant as a joke. It surely did fullfil a lot of the mentioned requirements, but its more a transport/troop aircraft about ED said they had no interest in making one. But maybe...

[Dragon1-1]

Maybe they changed their mind. Honestly, the way I see it, it's a tossup between V-22 and F-111. Both would require side by side multicrew, both are mind-melting, but the F-111 isn't really that hard to fly, and the Osprey doesn't have that much combat use.

 

Also, now that I think of it, I don't know if the V-22 would pass the "eagerly awaited" check. It's a really unique bird, but is it really something people want to see in the sim really badly? Then again, the F-111 doesn't have that big of a following, either. However, we did exclude everything that people actually want to see.

[Qiou87]

Also, now that I think of it, I don't know if the V-22 would pass the "eagerly awaited" check. It's a really unique bird, but is it really something people want to see in the sim really badly? Then again, the F-111 doesn't have that big of a following, either. However, we did exclude everything that people actually want to see.

 

Anyone could catch me up on why the F-117 is not a likely candidate? I certainly wasn't there for the whole 75 pages of discussion, but to me, it seems to fit most of the criteria, like the V22 and F-111, but without multicrew and with actual combat use (vs. the V22, which would be useless in DCS right now).

 

Actually it would be awesome if the OP contained the list of possible aircraft, and why they are not considered "the one" based on evidence we have. Would save a lot of repeat I guess.

[bies]

 

Anyone could catch me up on why the F-117 is not a likely candidate? I certainly wasn't there for the whole 75 pages of discussion, but to me, it seems to fit most of the criteria, like the V22 and F-111, but without multicrew and with actual combat use (vs. the V22, which would be useless in DCS right now).

 

Actually it would be awesome if the OP contained the list of possible aircraft, and why they are not considered "the one" based on evidence we have. Would save a lot of repeat I guess.

 

When it comes to F-117:

This new 3rd party developer named "FlyingIron Simulation" which is making A-7E at this moment - is also working on F-117 Nighthawk( for XPlane at first). They did'n confirm it will be also made for DCS but it looks like logical choice for them.

"(...) we have invested heavily in purchasing all of the available documentation that has been declassified for the Nighthawk. This includes Operating Manuals, Utility Manuals, Performance Data & Testing Reports, Engine Data, Pilot Checklists and more. The declassification of the F-117 & its documentation have allowed us to truly dive into the systems and procedures and create a realistic simulation of the aircraft from the ground up."

 

When it comes to Tornado IDS:

New 3rd party developer named "TrueGrit Virtual Technologies" which is making Eurofighter at this moment - they declared they would like to make Tornado after EF.

 

 

So looks like both F-117 and Tornado can be "reserved", but 3rd paries probably don't know what ED plans to do so maybe not. But i would assume this two will be made by this respective 3rd parties, sooner or later.

[Dragon1-1]

ED had already said they won't be doing the Tornado. Nothing about the Stinkbug, but if FlyingIron is working on it, then it's highly unlikely ED would put it in their pipeline, not that it was a terribly likely choice in first place. The biggest problem with the F-117 is it's low payload (just two bombs) and utter dedication to one single mission - high altitude penetration strike. You can't do anything else with it.

Actually it would be awesome if the OP contained the list of possible aircraft, and why they are not considered "the one" based on evidence we have. Would save a lot of repeat I guess.

I haven't see then OP around lately, a new thread could be needed.

 

[Qiou87]

So looks like both F-117 and Tornado can be "reserved", but 3rd paries probably don't know what ED plans to do so maybe not. But i would assume this two will be made by this respective 3rd parties, sooner or later.

 

This system of "reservation" is not ideal if we are honest ; it means some planes coming out in 2030 (considering the extremely long lead times for a single plane module) are already "reserved", and if a new 3rd party comes and wants to start this plane right away, they have to ask for permission. But anyway, I thank you for the informative answer.

 

 

I haven't see then OP around lately, a new thread could be needed.

 

Nothing like a well-organized speculation thread, right? :) At least the F-117 has one mission it can do in DCS (as opposed to V-22), although you forget the second mission it has: "catch me if you can", a fun game for two to 50 players where one guy plays the mouse in a F-117 and all the other players are cats, trying to detect and catch the mouse. SA-3 is banned from this game for obvious reasons.:megalol: