Jump to content

The Legit Discussion for the D Model Tomcat


HairyPOOnuggets
 Share

Recommended Posts

I honestly do not understand, why assholes cannot let a person and a group of like mind individuals, discuss about a plane they would love to see in DCS, be it whether HB has the enough documentations to design the module or not....

 

if the conversation is kept civil and no one is bashing ED/HB over it, why not?

 

the reason why this topic has resurface again and again is because the Super Tomcat and Super Tomcat 21 has a large group and fans, nothing wrong with asking for it on DCS.

 

Doesnt matter if HB or ED dont have enough documents for it, there is a good handful of components and modules that are modeled based on "reasonable" assumption and anadoctal data anyway....

 

stop bbashing on threads like this and take a hike if you dont like it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly do not understand, why assholes cannot let a person and a group of like mind individuals, discuss about a plane they would love to see in DCS, be it whether HB has the enough documentations to design the module or not....

 

if the conversation is kept civil and no one is bashing ED/HB over it, why not?

 

the reason why this topic has resurface again and again is because the Super Tomcat and Super Tomcat 21 has a large group and fans, nothing wrong with asking for it on DCS.

 

Doesnt matter if HB or ED dont have enough documents for it, there is a good handful of components and modules that are modeled based on "reasonable" assumption and anadoctal data anyway....

 

stop bbashing on threads like this and take a hike if you dont like it.

 

Sure, then why not have a F-22 module on the same "assumptions"? See where this is going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sure, then why not have a F-22 module on the same "assumptions"? See where this is going.

 

No, i really don't, end of the day, this is just a game, nothing wrong with people asking for more content, there already is a very popular f-22 mod available...

 

my gripe is not about whether or not a module should be made if there is not enough data,,, my gripe is, stop being a bitch and asking people who ask for the f-14d/f-22/space shuttle to shut up, it's a free forum and there is room for open discussion... Heck maybe even one day someone will do a superrhornet, f-14d, f-22 and space shuttle... but it aint gonna start with people mini-modding forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, i really don't, end of the day, this is just a game, nothing wrong with people asking for more content, there already is a very popular f-22 mod available...

 

my gripe is not about whether or not a module should be made if there is not enough data,,, my gripe is, stop being a bitch and asking people who ask for the f-14d/f-22/space shuttle to shut up, it's a free forum and there is room for open discussion... Heck maybe even one day someone will do a superrhornet, f-14d, f-22 and space shuttle... but it aint gonna start with people mini-modding forums

 

Yes, except Heatblur themselves have answered this several times with a clear NO. Period and end of discussion. If you want a D Tomcat in a game go play Ace-Combat 7 or something. A D model cat or F-22 is not possible to the same level of detail and accuracy as the A and B Tomcat or most other DCS modules we have. The F-22 mod is just a mod and has absolutely nothing to do with a real F-22. You can bring up these discussions as many times as you like but it's not going to change the fact that the answer will be "NO" every single time. Not trying to be disrespectful here but this is just the reality of things, whether you like it or not.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing we can say about this (for the millionth time) is that it won't happen unless more documents that we need are made available (legally! and if they even still exist). None of us are interested in going to jail over a video game and unless some major geopolitical changes occur in the world it's just a fantasy. We won't "guess" to fill in knowledge gaps. And reading the 20th F-14D wish thread on here isn't going to make us suddenly say "Oh yeah, let's make an F-14D, why didn't we think of this earlier?" I think everyone can agree that an F-14D would be awesome, but for now consider it effectively impossible. You're welcome to discuss it, but these threads are not going to change the situation so discussions about it are somewhat pointless unless you hear directly from us that something has changed.

 

To add to that, even a B(U) version or other things like DFCS are either not planned or we don't have documentation for. Currently, the F-14 is the only module in DCS that has the variants to represent the entire service lifetime of the aircraft. We are delivering what we said we would deliver and have to stop at some point. We don't have plans to make these upgrade packages either so wishlist threads for these upgrades have as much use as this thread. Again, if anything changes we will let everyone know. Until then, don't expect that threads likes this to suddenly change our minds.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, @HairyPOOnuggets :D. Quite a username, btw


Edited by fat creason
  • Like 5

Systems Engineer & FM Modeler

Heatblur Simulations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, why didn't you think of doing it before now? (J/K).

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, i really don't, end of the day, this is just a game, nothing wrong with people asking for more content, there already is a very popular f-22 mod available...

 

my gripe is not about whether or not a module should be made if there is not enough data,,, my gripe is, stop being a bitch and asking people who ask for the f-14d/f-22/space shuttle to shut up, it's a free forum and there is room for open discussion... Heck maybe even one day someone will do a superrhornet, f-14d, f-22 and space shuttle... but it aint gonna start with people mini-modding forums

 

Right there in bold: the point is ED's Digital Combat Simulator is not "a game"; it is by many aspects considered a "study sim".

 

... therefore it's understandable that, they pursue to maintain an high standard, details and features wise in the several aircrafts / systems they simulate.

 

Other than that, yes people could sometimes chill out a bit in the forums (even myself), I'll give yout that.

HANGAR

JETS  FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21 bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14 A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS :  Mi-8 MTV2

 

SPECS :  i7 4790k , 16 GB DDR3 , GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6 GB , Samsung 860 QVO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would beg to differ, from the way ED has handled DCS, i will be hardpressed to call it a simulator... it's a well developed game i give you that... also, the community can use more people treating it like a game, to tone down the arm-chair pilots.

 

appreciate that you could agree with me on chilling out on the forums... it ssomething we all sorely need now adays, esp when hiding behind a forum account

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would beg to differ, from the way ED has handled DCS, i will be hardpressed to call it a simulator... it's a well developed game i give you that... also, the community can use more people treating it like a game, to tone down the arm-chair pilots.

 

appreciate that you could agree with me on chilling out on the forums... it ssomething we all sorely need now adays, esp when hiding behind a forum account

 

Speak for yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would beg to differ, from the way ED has handled DCS, i will be hardpressed to call it a simulator... it's a well developed game i give you that... also, the community can use more people treating it like a game, to tone down the arm-chair pilots.

 

appreciate that you could agree with me on chilling out on the forums... it ssomething we all sorely need now adays, esp when hiding behind a forum account

 

I understand something got under your skin, but let's not mix up things - different genre cathegories either.

 

Examples:

Arcade genre : ace combat

Light (or lite?) sim genre : sf2 (north atlantic - for instance, for those who also enjoy the F-14)

Study sim genre : dcs modules

 

Enthusiasts who want to fly, fight and know the "gazilions" of avionics features details; like modes, functions, switches, MFD pages, sensors, etc of an F/A-18C (for instance), clearly are not after a mere "game".

(Just look at the number of pages on the Hornet's manual.)

 

For games, there are also many other available options in the market, like the ones I mentioned.

So it doesn't make any sense to tone down the "high-end" sim options - always existed a considerable costumer base for this niche, it would be a terrible waste of money and work/man hours.

HANGAR

JETS  FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21 bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14 A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS :  Mi-8 MTV2

 

SPECS :  i7 4790k , 16 GB DDR3 , GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6 GB , Samsung 860 QVO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would beg to differ, from the way ED has handled DCS, i will be hardpressed to call it a simulator... it's a well developed game i give you that... also, the community can use more people treating it like a game, to tone down the arm-chair pilots.

 

appreciate that you could agree with me on chilling out on the forums... it ssomething we all sorely need now adays, esp when hiding behind a forum account

 

What game would you call a simulator then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would beg to differ, from the way ED has handled DCS, i will be hardpressed to call it a simulator... it's a well developed game i give you that... also, the community can use more people treating it like a game, to tone down the arm-chair pilots.

 

appreciate that you could agree with me on chilling out on the forums... it ssomething we all sorely need now adays, esp when hiding behind a forum account

 

So, Dachshunds aren't dogs. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What game would you call a simulator then?

 

this one I guess

 

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64D

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i7 9700K / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 2x 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I understand something got under your skin, but let's not mix up things - different genre cathegories either.

 

Examples:

Arcade genre : ace combat

Light (or lite?) sim genre : sf2 (north atlantic - for instance, for those who also enjoy the F-14)

Study sim genre : dcs modules

 

Enthusiasts who want to fly, fight and know the "gazilions" of avionics features details; like modes, functions, switches, MFD pages, sensors, etc of an F/A-18C (for instance), clearly are not after a mere "game".

(Just look at the number of pages on the Hornet's manual.)

 

For games, there are also many other available options in the market, like the ones I mentioned.

So it doesn't make any sense to tone down the "high-end" sim options - always existed a considerable costumer base for this niche, it would be a terrible waste of money and work/man hours.

 

I agree with you, not saying i don't, just to share my otherwise not so popular opinon,

 

1) I spent alot of time on the ace combat series, with bulk of my focus on appreciating the lore and storyline... I however, have never refered to Ace combat and her players as inferior to any other "sim-class" game and their players like some of our commuity people here have.

 

2) DCS in the very end, is still a game, why so? in my opinion, you need a certain reputable level of endorsement from many departments to even qualify it as a actual simulator software. However, in the games's market, it doesnt take much to call a game a "simulator"... for that matter, many flight related games have been classified and regarded as a "simulator"... heck even goat simulator is a "simulator"... to keep things simple, i just treat DCS as a game... also, it pisses alot of arm-chair pilots (like skysurfer) off which really makes my day.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only thing we can say about this (for the millionth time) is that it won't happen unless more documents that we need are made available (legally! and if they even still exist). None of us are interested in going to jail over a video game and unless some major geopolitical changes occur in the world it's just a fantasy. We won't "guess" to fill in knowledge gaps. And reading the 20th F-14D wish thread on here isn't going to make us suddenly say "Oh yeah, let's make an F-14D, why didn't we think of this earlier?" I think everyone can agree that an F-14D would be awesome, but for now consider it effectively impossible. You're welcome to discuss it, but these threads are not going to change the situation so discussions about it are somewhat pointless unless you hear directly from us that something has changed.

 

To add to that, even a B(U) version or other things like DFCS are either not planned or we don't have documentation for. Currently, the F-14 is the only module in DCS that has the variants to represent the entire service lifetime of the aircraft. We are delivering what we said we would deliver and have to stop at some point. We don't have plans to make these upgrade packages either so wishlist threads for these upgrades have as much use as this thread. Again, if anything changes we will let everyone know. Until then, don't expect that threads likes this to suddenly change our minds.

 

Sorry to disappoint you, @HairyPOOnuggets :D. Quite a username, btw

 

I am not saying that HB is lazy, doesn't wanna do this yaddah bblah etc...

 

I am saying I hope one day, all them documents, data and legalities become accessible to you guys such that we can get B(UP) and D in the game legally.

 

and also one day for the community and ED to move on and start allowing devs to get creative and make "fantasy" level planes like the Super Tomcat 21 and so on... F-22/F-35/ F/A-37 Talon.... and let the community decide how they want to "balance" the game ... (i.e servers that have and dont have fantasy planes, etc)...

 

that's my vision and hope for dcs... speaking for myself of course... apparently it is not apparent enough for skysurfer who cannot count the I's, Me, MY, to know that i am

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DCS in the very end, is still a game, why so? in my opinion, you need a certain reputable level of endorsement from many departments to even qualify it as a actual simulator software...

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_flight_simulator

level D prefered Thank you Very much

 

Ok, if a product's "recognition" is of such importance for you, then:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comm...s_used_by_the/

 

...

and also one day for the community and ED to move on and start allowing devs to get creative and make "fantasy" level planes like the Super Tomcat 21 and so on... F-22/F-35/ F/A-37 Talon.... and let the community decide how they want to "balance" the game...

 

So, amongst many aspects, ED also does spend thousands of research hours (with SMEs inclusivelly) on a given aircraft so it can be the most possibly faithfully reproduced... but you want them to now change at will, and come up with arcade genre type of aircraft ??

 

For that, there's ace combat and those types already (which, are very good for their purposed genre).

Why would ED do it, if it's completely opposed of their intended niche's market ?

 

Why would someone who really want's to know and enjoy for instance, all the technicalities of the Hornet's avionics, systems, etc. be interested in a 100 % artificial livery like ace combat style ?

 

(This type of customer typically much more prefers the realistic "as In Real Life" - and that is the opposite of artificial models i.e.: fantasy liveries, fantasy flight models; 50+ air to air missiles, and 80+ air to ground, etc.)

 

The thing is: sometimes when you mix up 2 very different concepts, you end up getting something that is absolutelly none of them.

  • Like 1

HANGAR

JETS  FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21 bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14 A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS :  Mi-8 MTV2

 

SPECS :  i7 4790k , 16 GB DDR3 , GeForce GTX 1660Ti 6 GB , Samsung 860 QVO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Ok, if a product's "recognition" is of such importance for you, then:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comm...s_used_by_the/

 

 

 

So, amongst many aspects, ED also does spend thousands of research hours (with SMEs inclusivelly) on a given aircraft so it can be the most possibly faithfully reproduced... but you want them to come up with an arcade genre type of product ??

 

For that, there's ace combat and those types already (which, are very good for their purposed genre).

Why would ED do it, if it's completely opposed of their intended niche's market ?

 

Why would someone who really want's to know and enjoy for instance, all the technicalities of the Hornet's avionics, systems, etc. be interested in a 100 % artificial livery like ace combat style ?

 

(Because they much prefeer realistic "as In Real Life" - and that is the opposite of artificial models i.e.: fantasy liveries, fantasy flight models; 50+ air to air missiles, and 80+ air to ground, etc.)

 

The thing is: sometimes when you mix up 2 very different concepts, you end up getting something that is absolutelly none of them.

 

This:thumbup: Say it louder please!

 

The day that DCS goes the way of the arcade with fantasy stuff will be a tremendous let down. DCS itself is a fantasy. With that being said, I am not nor never will be a pilot but I've served so my connection to something with even a hint of realism and my everyday life speaks to me. Speaking for myself, the only reason I got into DCS is because of all the "realism" claims. I love studying the module and learning it. Knowing it came from a real life SME and not someone saying "oh this would be cool" is part of the appeal.

 

There's a community for the arcade guys and then there's DCS. No need to mix the 2.

  • Like 1

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this, folks?

 

Heatblur's developing a "full-fidelity," AI-only A-6E Intruder, right?

 

Then why not, some point down the line, a "full-fidelity," AI-only F-14D?

 

This way, the matter of avionics and cockpits will be a non-factor. It'll be full-fidelity in terms of dimensions, weight, aerodynamics, to the extent possible based on available data and the laws of physics. At the very least, you'll be able to fly alongside F-14Ds and, with accurate squadron liveries, create real-life air wings that include F/A-18Cs and the AI A-6Es.

 

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. I definitely agree we're not going to have a flyable F-14D, at least not in the next 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this, folks?

 

Heatblur's developing a "full-fidelity," AI-only A-6E Intruder, right?

 

Then why not, some point down the line, a "full-fidelity," AI-only F-14D?

 

This way, the matter of avionics and cockpits will be a non-factor. It'll be full-fidelity in terms of dimensions, weight, aerodynamics, to the extent possible based on available data and the laws of physics. At the very least, you'll be able to fly alongside F-14Ds and, with accurate squadron liveries, create real-life air wings that include F/A-18Cs and the AI A-6Es.

 

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. I definitely agree we're not going to have a flyable F-14D, at least not in the next 10 years.

 

You do realize that no Air Wing flew with mixed bag tomcat squadrons? F-14D's didn't serve in an Air Wing with -A's or -B's. There were only 4 Fleet F-14D squadrons and one of those reverted back to the F-14B. And what would flying alongside an F-14D really accomplish besides more request for it?

 

As far as accurate liveries, that's not happening any time soon. A -B with -D markings doesn't make it so. And getting accurate air wings together with what we have now is a no-go. I mean, we have an E-2D AI but that platform was not online when the Tomcat was. So there's that! We also need an AI Prowler and SH-3H Sea Kings. The S-3 AI could use an overhaul as well.

 

The AI A-6 serves purpose as a tanker and compliments that era along with the Forrestal class. As far as AI F-14's, I think its pretty much covered.

 

I'm starting wonder what's up with all the chub for the F-14D! Historians may look back on this and think some people had a freaky thing going on with it! I love the Tomcat to but wow!

DO it or Don't, but don't cry about it. Real men don't cry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would beg to differ, from the way ED has handled DCS, i will be hardpressed to call it a simulator... it's a well developed game i give you that... also, the community can use more people treating it like a game, to tone down the arm-chair pilots.

 

appreciate that you could agree with me on chilling out on the forums... it ssomething we all sorely need now adays, esp when hiding behind a forum account

 

While you may be hard pressed to refer to DCS as a simulator, I think the US military may disagree. Sorry, it's not F-14 related, but this discussion seems to have veered away anyways.

Sorry, no cool signature here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...