Jump to content

Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World


Recommended Posts

F-111 would be great to be honest, it's not a FBW JDAM truck.

 

And it took part in real serious wars where enemy was also able to inflict loses, like Vietnam or Gulf War.

 

Or Apache, both passes all the checks, but Apache is more brain melting and more eagerly awaited. And they already have Apache coded for their military branch.

 

Apache looks like more obvious seller. I mean F-111 is also great but Apache.. It would be enough to see the poster in their shop "DCS Apache" and man is sold, everyone would like to have Apache. F-111 is a bit more refined choice.

 

BTW. Imagine seating in VR inside modern graphics Apache, with IHADSS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not going to make everyone happy, that is impossible, if multicrew or the apache is not for you no problem.    For those who are excited its going to be great, the messages I have been getti

Yet there are still some good news for us Soviet/Russian planes lovers on Russian section of ED Discord. Seems like early MiG-29 really is going to be done. Now that's the eagerly awaited module for m

I’ve copied my post from the newsletter thread, as I think the same perception exists here that there aren’t many helo drivers around here:   I know many wanted the F4, Tornado, or a mo

Don't quote me on this, but I think the AH-64A has been as good as confirmed for some time now.

 

I think it has been heavily teased, and at some point ED said they were going to work on it once Hind was released (Q1 2021 as I understand from Mr. Pearson's last interview). But yes, Apache is out due to being already teased, it wouldn't be a surprise.

  • Like 1

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it is the Apache. It's really missing in DCS! And I really hope it is at least an early D-model. Only thing that still is missing then, is the Mudhen. Sadly this bird is on hold now and who knows if it will return to live again the next 5 years or more. If those 2 modules become truth (and the Kiowa), we nearly have a full package of "modern" blue military aircraft.

 

What's still missing is the red side. Sadly we will probably never see a MI-28 or a KA-52 and even so no more modern russian jets. Because of this, I think it could be an outstanding advantage to make the cockpits of the FC3 modules also clickable (only the systems which are modelled for sure), so that they could really be used with VR. I also did not understand why the announced "Modern Air Combat" will not support clickable pits, so you really could use those birds in VR too.

 

MAC could not only be a chance to get some more people to the simulation hobby, but also a chance to built some modules which aren't possible in terms of secret systems. I think it shouldn't be only a croped version of the high end modules. It could be a chance to achieve some birds we otherwise would never see in DCS, cause of multiple restrictions. They should be as accurate as possible be modelled, for sure, but only with the "this is the way it could function in real life" option.

 

"Only 150%-Realism" Hardcore People who don't like this simply shouldn't buy it and for MP it could be regulated on the servers. Just my opinion.

Cockpit PC System: Ryzen 9 3900XT / RTX 3090 / 64GB RAM / HP Reverb G2 / Triple View / TIR5 / W10 64Bit

HOTAS: 4x TM Warthog Throttle /4x TM F-16/A-10 Grip /2x TM F/A-18 Grip / Virpil VFX Grip / TM Cougar / TM TPR Rudder / 2x Cougar MFD Set

DIY-Projects: AH-64D & OH-58D Controls / F-15E Grip / F-14, F-15, F/A-18 Warthog Throttle Conversion / Cougar Real F-16 Style AB/Idle + AV-8B Nozzle Control

DCS-Modules: F-5E / F-14A/B / F-16C / F/A-18C / A-10C / A-10C II / AV-8B / MIG-21bis / UH-1H / KA-50 / MI-8MT / FC3 / Combined Arms / Christen Eagle II / Supercarrier / Nevada / Persian Gulf / Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's going to be another boring Jdam/amraam truck.

 

If we could just get even half-realistically working ground units (AI, unit 3D modeling, individual unit training doctrine, with support equipment and elements) and terrain engine would start to support them (possibility for dig-in for vehicles, possibility to infantry dig and hide), and communication network (when a units detect an aircrafts, they will report it to others depending their standing commands about radio operation) etc.

 

Then all these JDAM/AMRAAM "trucks" would stop being so boring as they wouldn't be so effective at all as they are now.

It would really start to change the Air-Ground war balance in DCS and radically require improvements for the tasks handling.

 

But right now when everyone is like from the future (F/A-18C flying in 18th century) what comes to ground units spotting and capabilities, it just isn't so fair.

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MAC could not only be a chance to get some more people to the simulation hobby, but also a chance to built some modules which aren't possible in terms of secret systems. I think it shouldn't be only a croped version of the high end modules. It could be a chance to achieve some birds we otherwise would never see in DCS, cause of multiple restrictions. They should be as accurate as possible be modelled, for sure, but only with the "this is the way it could function in real life" option.

 

"Only 150%-Realism" Hardcore People who don't like this simply shouldn't buy it and for MP it could be regulated on the servers. Just my opinion.

 

In my opinion ED dropped the ball by not allowing MAC to be integrated to DCS, but making it completely stand-alone product.

It 100% could be stand-alone product without DCS as requirement, but not able to add it to the DCS World as a FC3 module package (AFAIK) is a huge miss.

It as well makes huge problem for the development perspective if you can't share the code between DCS World and MAC. As now they would need to maintain two engines, two maps, two aircrafts. And if they would keep them tightly in sync (sharing all code, resources etc) then it doesn't make sense to disallow MAC to be a "FC4" for DCS World users.

There must be some kind "bridge" from MAC users to transfer later to DCS World.

 

And related to this topic and MAC, I believe that DCS World needs more "non-clickable" aircrafts. It is part of its heritage that we have aircrafts like Su-25A and Su-25T. Does it make DCS World worse, bad or something negative? NO! The cockpits do not need to be clickable, all the systems functions doesn't need to be modeled etc. What is only required is that core principles are same, like if aircraft has the radar, then it will work with same limitations as scan zone, scan speed, emission power etc. So under the hood those systems should be same way modeled that it is not "instant eye to spot every aircraft with just timer to simulate a scan speed" like now in the FC3.

 

But if we keep option for these "FC3 level" aircrafts to exist, we could have far more modules caming rapidly to DCS World from third parties. We could even right now already have a F-111 in the game as a F-15C level version. Who wouldn't mind flying such while waiting that "DCS: F-111" would appear later on?

We need to maintain the high quality of top modules like F/A-18C or KA-50 by separating them from these "cheaper modules". That is the nice point of "DCS: XXX" designation. But I believe the DCS World community would benefit more from the wider variation of the modules to fly, and even a unofficial third party developers has shown what they can do when they are great developing mods.

 

Look at the Su-24.

 

 

That is the opposite version of F-111. And who F-111 fan wouldn't be accepting that kind level to fly in F-111?

How about many other interesting aircrafts, like F-104 or other Century series fighters?

 

 

If it takes 3-5 years to develop a new high fidelity module, before even Early Access phase, it is about 5-7 years to get it "completed".

If we get a new module once in 3-4 years, then it will take long time to get more modules to have people invested more to the DCS World. And meanwhile some studios could be filling the caps or waiting lines by making first the "MAC: Su-24M" kind modules to DCS World, while it takes extra years to develop it to "DCS: Su-24M".

 

 

  • Like 2

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apache looks like more obvious seller. I mean F-111 is also great but Apache.. It would be enough to see the poster in their shop "DCS Apache" and man is sold, everyone would like to have Apache. F-111 is a bit more refined choice.

 

And this is the reason why I doubt we'll get the F-111 from ED. All of their latest modules (at least the complex ones, that got more than a single trailer worth of promotion) were obvious sellers. The F-16 and F-18 are the first things that come to mind when thinking of modern multirole fighters, the Hind and Apache are the best known helicopter gunships, the hinted MiG-29 is going to sell like hot cakes as well. The F-111? Definitely much more niche. ED have said that when choosing the next module they focus on profitability first so unless they have some big government contract, I don't think we'll be seeing many niche aircraft from them. I think it's a shame, but such is the nature of business.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion ED dropped the ball by not allowing MAC to be integrated to DCS, but making it completely stand-alone product.

It 100% could be stand-alone product without DCS as requirement, but not able to add it to the DCS World as a FC3 module package (AFAIK) is a huge miss.

It as well makes huge problem for the development perspective if you can't share the code between DCS World and MAC. As now they would need to maintain two engines, two maps, two aircrafts. And if they would keep them tightly in sync (sharing all code, resources etc) then it doesn't make sense to disallow MAC to be a "FC4" for DCS World users.

There must be some kind "bridge" from MAC users to transfer later to DCS World.

 

And related to this topic and MAC, I believe that DCS World needs more "non-clickable" aircrafts. It is part of its heritage that we have aircrafts like Su-25A and Su-25T. Does it make DCS World worse, bad or something negative? NO! The cockpits do not need to be clickable, all the systems functions doesn't need to be modeled etc. What is only required is that core principles are same, like if aircraft has the radar, then it will work with same limitations as scan zone, scan speed, emission power etc. So under the hood those systems should be same way modeled that it is not "instant eye to spot every aircraft with just timer to simulate a scan speed" like now in the FC3.

 

But if we keep option for these "FC3 level" aircrafts to exist, we could have far more modules caming rapidly to DCS World from third parties. We could even right now already have a F-111 in the game as a F-15C level version. Who wouldn't mind flying such while waiting that "DCS: F-111" would appear later on?

We need to maintain the high quality of top modules like F/A-18C or KA-50 by separating them from these "cheaper modules". That is the nice point of "DCS: XXX" designation. But I believe the DCS World community would benefit more from the wider variation of the modules to fly, and even a unofficial third party developers has shown what they can do when they are great developing mods.

 

Look at the Su-24.

 

 

That is the opposite version of F-111. And who F-111 fan wouldn't be accepting that kind level to fly in F-111?

How about many other interesting aircrafts, like F-104 or other Century series fighters?

 

 

If it takes 3-5 years to develop a new high fidelity module, before even Early Access phase, it is about 5-7 years to get it "completed".

If we get a new module once in 3-4 years, then it will take long time to get more modules to have people invested more to the DCS World. And meanwhile some studios could be filling the caps or waiting lines by making first the "MAC: Su-24M" kind modules to DCS World, while it takes extra years to develop it to "DCS: Su-24M".

 

 

We are in the same boat. Sometimes its a little difficult for me to descripe exactly what I mean. Its been awhile since my daily attendence in english speaking forums (LEO is my best friend :D)

 

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.

  • Like 1

Cockpit PC System: Ryzen 9 3900XT / RTX 3090 / 64GB RAM / HP Reverb G2 / Triple View / TIR5 / W10 64Bit

HOTAS: 4x TM Warthog Throttle /4x TM F-16/A-10 Grip /2x TM F/A-18 Grip / Virpil VFX Grip / TM Cougar / TM TPR Rudder / 2x Cougar MFD Set

DIY-Projects: AH-64D & OH-58D Controls / F-15E Grip / F-14, F-15, F/A-18 Warthog Throttle Conversion / Cougar Real F-16 Style AB/Idle + AV-8B Nozzle Control

DCS-Modules: F-5E / F-14A/B / F-16C / F/A-18C / A-10C / A-10C II / AV-8B / MIG-21bis / UH-1H / KA-50 / MI-8MT / FC3 / Combined Arms / Christen Eagle II / Supercarrier / Nevada / Persian Gulf / Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites
For a different take on the requirements - what aircraft is currently missing that ED's military contractees would really like to see? Two birds with one stone and all that.

 

Super Hornet? I don't know if it counts as "not new new". I think it's a boring choice but JDAM trucks sell and there could possibly be a military contract for it? Plus it would go well with the supercarrier and all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's the boring choice, could be the F-15C, and ED's comments about it being a facemelter etc... is just hyperbole/marketing.

They explicitly stated that F-15C doesn't have enough air to ground capability, and they won't make it any time soon. So, it's not it.

 

Super Hornet is too new to fit, and we already have one Hornet. ED had never done a major variant of a jet that they already have.

 

ED have said that when choosing the next module they focus on profitability first so unless they have some big government contract, I don't think we'll be seeing many niche aircraft from them. I think it's a shame, but such is the nature of business.

Most DCS player base is mowing mud in SP. Perhaps they crunched the numbers, and they found F-111F would be a good match. Or, maybe one of the devs is a fan of the aircraft. Either way, it's the only possibility. Check a few pages back to see the argumentation.

 

The obvious sellers, like the Apache, have all the same problem - they're not surprising. ED clearly stated the aircraft they're going to announce was not even teased before. So it's not Apache, or anything that's been talked about before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Super Hornet? For what reason? Another Hornet, only a bit modernized. Makes no sense to me. Really boring!

 

F-111 would be nice, also an Intruder, but I think there is more need for a modern attack helo, cause there is nothing at the moment.

Cockpit PC System: Ryzen 9 3900XT / RTX 3090 / 64GB RAM / HP Reverb G2 / Triple View / TIR5 / W10 64Bit

HOTAS: 4x TM Warthog Throttle /4x TM F-16/A-10 Grip /2x TM F/A-18 Grip / Virpil VFX Grip / TM Cougar / TM TPR Rudder / 2x Cougar MFD Set

DIY-Projects: AH-64D & OH-58D Controls / F-15E Grip / F-14, F-15, F/A-18 Warthog Throttle Conversion / Cougar Real F-16 Style AB/Idle + AV-8B Nozzle Control

DCS-Modules: F-5E / F-14A/B / F-16C / F/A-18C / A-10C / A-10C II / AV-8B / MIG-21bis / UH-1H / KA-50 / MI-8MT / FC3 / Combined Arms / Christen Eagle II / Supercarrier / Nevada / Persian Gulf / Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Super Hornet reached IOC in 2001 unless Wikipedia is lying to me. That's 20 years ago, our current Hornet and Viper variants are about as old. The F-111F was being produced in the first half of the 70s. That's half a century ago. I think the Superbug fits "not the latest thing but not old either" better.

 

Is it another boring JDAM truck? Absolutely, but I don't see people getting tired of them.

 

One thing that doesn't fit is the challenging to fly bit. Unless you consider all carrier aircraft hard to fly.

 

I hope I'm wrong about this, I think it would be a waste of time, but I can't discount the possibility.

 

The F-111F on the other hand doesn't seem to fit ED's profit first approach. It's not sexy. It's not very multirole. It's not ideal for single player. I'm not saying it's 100% not happening but I don't understand the confidence that it's the only possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another idea: F-117.

 

Not old, not new? Check.

Complex? Check.

Challenging to fly? Check.

Brain melter? Check.

Recognizable, guaranteed seller? Oh yeah...

 

Likely? Probably not. But it would tick all the boxes :).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complex? Check.

Not check, I'm afraid. It's actually a rather simple aircraft, with no radar, no MFDs and fairly straightforward avionics. Also, it's been said that it was actually very stable and easy to fly, thanks to its computer-assisted flight controls. It looks like it should be a "wobblin' goblin", but it wasn't. It was complex to build (and develop), but not to fly.

 

Also, with only two LGBs, the Stinkbug would be extremely limited in utility. Not a guaranteed seller by any measure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cockpit PC System: Ryzen 9 3900XT / RTX 3090 / 64GB RAM / HP Reverb G2 / Triple View / TIR5 / W10 64Bit

HOTAS: 4x TM Warthog Throttle /4x TM F-16/A-10 Grip /2x TM F/A-18 Grip / Virpil VFX Grip / TM Cougar / TM TPR Rudder / 2x Cougar MFD Set

DIY-Projects: AH-64D & OH-58D Controls / F-15E Grip / F-14, F-15, F/A-18 Warthog Throttle Conversion / Cougar Real F-16 Style AB/Idle + AV-8B Nozzle Control

DCS-Modules: F-5E / F-14A/B / F-16C / F/A-18C / A-10C / A-10C II / AV-8B / MIG-21bis / UH-1H / KA-50 / MI-8MT / FC3 / Combined Arms / Christen Eagle II / Supercarrier / Nevada / Persian Gulf / Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Super Hornet? I don't know if it counts as "not new new". I think it's a boring choice but JDAM trucks sell and there could possibly be a military contract for it? Plus it would go well with the supercarrier and all.

 

 

Below is an interview with ED in which they stated they have no interest in doing the F-15C, Super Hornet, Tornado and others at this time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

V-22A Osprey :lol:

Cockpit PC System: Ryzen 9 3900XT / RTX 3090 / 64GB RAM / HP Reverb G2 / Triple View / TIR5 / W10 64Bit

HOTAS: 4x TM Warthog Throttle /4x TM F-16/A-10 Grip /2x TM F/A-18 Grip / Virpil VFX Grip / TM Cougar / TM TPR Rudder / 2x Cougar MFD Set

DIY-Projects: AH-64D & OH-58D Controls / F-15E Grip / F-14, F-15, F/A-18 Warthog Throttle Conversion / Cougar Real F-16 Style AB/Idle + AV-8B Nozzle Control

DCS-Modules: F-5E / F-14A/B / F-16C / F/A-18C / A-10C / A-10C II / AV-8B / MIG-21bis / UH-1H / KA-50 / MI-8MT / FC3 / Combined Arms / Christen Eagle II / Supercarrier / Nevada / Persian Gulf / Syria

Link to post
Share on other sites
F-117 had two different avionics standards, original and upgraded.

 

 

 

To be honest i prefer original variant without MFDs:

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tF-117 original cocpit.jpg Views:\t1 Size:\t362.6 KB ID:\t7128563","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"7128563","data-size":"full","title":"F-117 original cocpit.jpg"}[/ATTACH]

 

AFAIK, this cockpit is from the prototype only. The production model had MFDs, initially green and white displays then replaced with LCDs.

B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC, Ryzen 3600, 32Gb DDR4 3600MHz, GTX1070Ti, CH Stuff, Oculus CV1

 

Wishlist:

AH-64

F-15E

F-117A

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...