Jump to content

Eagerly awaited aircraft for DCS World


Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure its going to be the Super Hornet

 

This is what I'm now under the impression of it being....

And it makes complete sense too for training; it's modern enough, allows for transitional pilots from the F/A-18C.

 

It just makes sense.

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

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

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

 

Please explain like I am 5 why its such a big difference between WSO to the side and RIO in the back in terms of sync problems.

 

 

Have a look at this photo (linked rather than embedded because it's pretty big): https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/2e...d6b2a40bc9.jpg

 

Take note of the variety of controls available to both the pilot and the WSO. Note the different instruments that both can see at the same time. The problem is that it's not “simply” two cockpits where you can unrealistically reach over with your 2-meter arms and flick switches from the back seat, but a lot of shared and linked controls: what happens on one side must by necessity happen on the other side because they're the exact same control. In particular, this causes issues with such fundamental things as stick, throttle and pedals.

 

No controls in the F-14 are shared. Some are mirrored (being able to critique the RIO's typing skills); some are interconnected (fighting over whose TACAN should be used); some are highly dependent on each other (melting the radar because the clown up front forgot to put the air on). Some things are easy to do — even if completely unrealistic — because it's just a binary state: switch is up or down, and the pilot and the mutant-armed RIO can get into a clicking contest over it, but it's easy to decide the state. But how do you deal with the situation where the pilot throttles back and the WSO throttles up? How do you make it make sense from an input standpoint, from a display standpoint, from a control-of-the-aircraft standpoint etc etc? The aircraft that have tried this before (e.g. the L-39) even have specific “I have control” intermediation controls, and it still didn't work properly. The (in)ability to mediate between pilot and copilot where both can control the flight inputs is what has made Huey co-op a far distant dream for over half a decade(!)

 

Making that work in a way that even remotely makes sense and doesn't lag out or generally break things would be a huge achievement. The F-14 was a watershed moment, and yet it is very simple in comparison. It would open up functionality for a whole bunch of modules that desperately need it, but where the technical challenge was just too great. Just the number of modules alone that would finally be finished if side-by-side co-op could be implemented would qualify as “mind-melting” in this case – never mind getting the actual aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope its not the Rhino! Another Hornet, not too much different from the model we already have. Its a bit boring!

 

I hope its finally an Apache, cause we have enough modern western jets if the work on the F-15E from Razbam continues ( what I really hope), but there is not a single real western attack helicopter at the moment. And it was announced to come for so many years now, but it still isnt in place.

 

If they decided to do another plane, I hope its something more interesting than another F-18. There are so much other interesting birds out there, like a F-111, a F-117, a F-4, an A-6 ...

  • Like 2

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

I hope it's not the Super Hornet. To be very honest, I hope that ED finally came to senses and decided to grab the F-15E out of Razbam's hands and that is the plane they're going to announce. Razbam already proved after more than 10 years of disappointments that they can't deliver it.

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

 

Please explain like I am 5 why its such a big difference between WSO to the side and RIO in the back in terms of sync problems.

 

 

Have a look at this photo (linked rather than embedded because it's pretty big): https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/2e...d6b2a40bc9.jpg

 

Take note of the variety of controls available to both the pilot and the WSO. Note the different instruments that both can see at the same time. The problem is that it's not “simply” two cockpits where you can unrealistically reach over with your 2-meter arms and flick switches from the back seat, but a lot of shared and linked controls: what happens on one side must by necessity happen on the other side because they're the exact same control. In particular, this causes issues with such fundamental things as stick, throttle and pedals.

 

No controls in the F-14 are shared. Some are mirrored (being able to critique the RIO's typing skills); some are interconnected (fighting over whose TACAN should be used); some are highly dependent on each other (melting the radar because the clown up front forgot to put the air on). Some things are easy to do — even if completely unrealistic — because it's just a binary state: switch is up or down, and the pilot and the mutant-armed RIO can get into a clicking contest over it, but it's easy to decide the state. But how do you deal with the situation where the pilot throttles back and the WSO throttles up? How do you make it make sense from an input standpoint, from a display standpoint, from a control-of-the-aircraft standpoint etc etc? The aircraft that have tried this before (e.g. the L-39) even have specific “I have control” intermediation controls, and it still didn't work properly. The (in)ability to mediate between pilot and copilot where both can control the flight inputs is what has made Huey co-op a far distant dream for over half a decade(!)

 

Making that work in a way that even remotely makes sense and doesn't lag out or generally break things would be a huge achievement. The F-14 was a watershed moment, and yet it is very simple in comparison. It would open up functionality for a whole bunch of modules that desperately need it, but where the technical challenge was just too great. Just the number of modules alone that would finally be finished if side-by-side co-op could be implemented would qualify as “mind-melting” in this case – never mind getting the actual aircraft.

Thanks, I thought F111 second seat is similar to A6, but it turns out its more like a Strike Eagle in role.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, the F-117 is certainly very interesting, though for me solely because of its penetration abilities. It is however limited to just 2 bombs

 

As for RCS? Meh, it's just a single value in DCS, it doesn't care about aspect and I don't think it cares about whether or not the landing gear is down or bomb bay doors open.

 

Well, flying a 117 is a bit like playing Thief: The Dark Project instead of Skyrim. Well, most players want to have at least 3 dragon boss fights on their way out of a dungeon while being encumbered 150% buffed up with magic potions carrying a truckload of loot while even one of those tries to attack your Quest NPCs. I hate that (and the fact the game doesn't have a questlog and you literally have to play it with Quest-GPS on) and want to have room for thinking, plan my ingress and egress and do my job effectively and thoughtfully. I don't need a bomb truck to brute force myself though anything that they might throw at me if I can hit the most vital assets right within a heavily defended danger zone. You have to get in unseen, get your job done and get out unseen, that's the thrill. Of course this doesn't appeal to the ordinary MP airquaker. But I'd guess it would be a very welcome addition to SP pilots who just want to do something else you probably just could do otherwise with the Fat Amy or a Raptor, but then again I guess that ones have a slightly bigger RCS nevertheless.

 

As for the modeling of the RCS: Another well known survey sim over 2 decades ago (so not the most realistic out there) already had RCS varying dependant on roll and pitch angles as well as gear, airbrakes and bomb bay state. You could either be almost completely invisible and <5nm or easily be locked up and getting shot at at 30+nm depending on all that. Back in 1996. I'd be surprised if ED wouldn't have at least that somehow modeled in their sim. The single values from a lua file are probably just constants to make the planes differ from each other.

 

Flying without any way to take part in combat directly. Sounds fun

 

Magnitude 3 entered the chat.

 

 

I have officially flown in DCS faster than MiG-25, MiG-31 or SR-71 ever could have achieve, and same time as well higher than any of them been able.

I can say that you will cross the Caucasus in no time from one side to another, as after all flying at speed of over 1.4 km per second, you will get experience that makes anything else feel stupid slow.

 

Oh, yeah. I've seen that movie.

 

 

 

dat-speed-though.thumb.jpg.ddbc0664fe0fe56c119be989d4ab32ab.jpg

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure its going to be the Super Hornet

 

To be fair...

 

Nobody:

Absolutely nobody:

Not a single soul:

 

link to this post please...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/news/o...80#post6027280

 

Because the forum software sucks though, it won't take you to the actual post since it will load up a plethora of images for 'bout haaf an owa. Let me tell you it's the post made on "02-07-2020, 05:37 AM" about the 2020 And Beyond Trailer.

 

But how do you deal with the situation where the pilot throttles back and the WSO throttles up? How do you make it make sense from an input standpoint, from a display standpoint, from a control-of-the-aircraft standpoint etc etc? The aircraft that have tried this before (e.g. the L-39) even have specific “I have control” intermediation controls, and it still didn't work properly. The (in)ability to mediate between pilot and copilot where both can control the flight inputs is what has made Huey co-op a far distant dream for over half a decade(!)

 

There'd be a very easy long term solution actually. It's just that the input manufacturers finally would need to get their ship together and begin building actual input devices that come with FFB (which in itself also needs a massive overhaul since it's technically limited to X and Y axes). If every device had that, it would be piece of cake to transfer the device positions over to each other. The tech has been there for over two decades, but TM, VKB, Virpil and co. simply couldn't care less, which is a bloody shame. I just wonder if I will live to see that happen some time...

  • Like 2

dcs-dashie-ed.jpg.c4fa047dc1c71d5ceb1913aa54b2a11e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope it's not the Super Hornet. To be very honest, I hope that ED finally came to senses and decided to grab the F-15E out of Razbam's hands and that is the plane they're going to announce. Razbam already proved after more than 10 years of disappointments that they can't deliver it.

 

Yes, changing the F-15E to ED would be a real nice decision. I would also love this! I miss it so much!

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

No, it wouldn't be a nice decision, because Razbam had already done a lot of work on it, and it would send a bad message to other 3rd party devs. It's not happening, plain and simple.

 

When you consider what we know it isn't, the F-111 is the last plane standing, with V-22 as a distant second.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There'd be a very easy long term solution actually. It's just that the input manufacturers finally would need to get their ship together and begin building actual input devices that come with FFB (which in itself also needs a massive overhaul since it's technically limited to X and Y axes). If every device had that, it would be piece of cake to transfer the device positions over to each other. The tech has been there for over two decades, but TM, VKB, Virpil and co. simply couldn't care less, which is a bloody shame. I just wonder if I will live to see that happen some time...

To be fair, it's not their fault as the patent set was sat on for years with very expensive licensing (iirc), I very much doubt VKB & Virpil could afford it. Only reason why MS could do it was because they own/co-own some of the patents. They expired earlier this year though, so hopefully TM and Logitech pick up the ball.

 

Still falls down at the first hurdle though, as it requires everyone to have FFB devices. They weren't cheap at the time when they were actually around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Logitech already had that ball, though, it made a very successful FF stick line. In fact, IIRC they most current HOTAS has this on the stick. They (and MS) were the ones who sat on the patents in the first place. Notably, they failed to extend this tech in any way.

 

It would be great if the high-end manufacturers released their own FF base, preferably with powerful, reliable motors (strong enough to simulate a mechanical stop), so that it would be able to serve as both a force-sensing stick and a regular one, and be able to provide force gradients up to realistic levels (which is a lot, in the neighborhood of 12Kg). It'd probably require huge motors and be expensive up the wazoo, but it'd take realism up a notch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it wouldn't be a nice decision, because Razbam had already done a lot of work on it, and it would send a bad message to other 3rd party devs. It's not happening, plain and simple.

 

We don't know what goes on behind the scenes - what if Razbam gave up on it?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, yeah. I've seen that movie.

 

 

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tdat-speed-though.jpg Views:\t0 Size:\t525.5 KB ID:\t7151814","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"7151814","data-size":"full","title":"dat-speed-though.jpg"}[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/legacy-versions/veao-simulations/229857-thank-you-veao-to-experience-amazing-things-with-hawk#post3741906

 

 

 

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
To be fair, it's not their fault as the patent set was sat on for years with very expensive licensing (iirc), I very much doubt VKB & Virpil could afford it. Only reason why MS could do it was because they own/co-own some of the patents. They expired earlier this year though, so hopefully TM and Logitech pick up the ball.

 

As far as I'm aware of, the Immersion patents dropped 2 years ago already. And even with those patents up, Logitech, Saitek and even TM and CH did have FFB sticks, and Logitech even had a HOTAS out for a couple of weeks in 2009, but they literally pulled it because it was crap quality (one word: hysteresis) and wasn't well accepted because of that. And after all, the MS FFB2 did it best - by far. The only alternative out there is the massively overpriced Brunner base (well, they're aiming at professional/business sector) that doesn't even support classic FFB at all and relies on special support which is non-existant for DCS as far as I know.

 

 

Ah, memories. Back in the day when we had fearsome nightmares of that certain team eventually making an EF. I know why I never bought the thing in the first place. But it was always good for a laugh or two awesome.png

 

Achieved mine only though non-IC-compliant editing of the pylons data by simply inverting the rocket launcher drag coefficient. And that was after dropping the tubes...

dcs-dashie-ed.jpg.c4fa047dc1c71d5ceb1913aa54b2a11e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
They didn't, they even posted some updates lately. It was delayed because they wanted to sort the Harrier out first, but it's still coming.

 

Ok so it isn't that then. I was just thinking that considering how long it has been in the works, it would certainly fit the "eagerly awaited" bit if ED had taken it over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They didn't, they even posted some updates lately. It was delayed because they wanted to sort the Harrier out first, but it's still coming.

 

They've been posting updates since 2010 mate.

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...