Jump to content

C-2 Greyhound


Recommended Posts

So I came across IndiaFoxTEcho's website and I see that they have a C-2 for another sim. Please bring this to DCS! I know its not as exciting as an F-104 (which to be fair I also want) but I think it would be great to expand a new role into DCS.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/28/2020 at 4:55 AM, Jester986 said:

So I came across IndiaFoxTEcho's website and I see that they have a C-2 for another sim. Please bring this to DCS! I know its not as exciting as an F-104 (which to be fair I also want) but I think it would be great to expand a new role into DCS.


Have logistics plane, in addition one like the C-2 that can be operated from carriers, it will be something super interesting for DCS worls.
also, the recent Anubis C-130 shown a really high interest from community in this kind of stuff extension for DCS World

FlighRIG => CPU: RyZen 2700x | RAM: 32GB G.Skill 3200Mhz running at 2600Mhz (Damn RyZen!) | GPU: nVIDIA RTX 2080 FE | OS Storage: SSD NVMe Samsung 850 Pro 512GB, DCS Storage: SSD SATAIII Crucial MX300 750GB | Device: VirPil T-50, ThrustMaster TWCS Throttle and Pedals, TrackHat, MFD Cougar.

Our Servers => [iTA] Banshee | PersianConquest PvE | Live Map&Stats & [iTA] Banshee | Krasnodar - PvE

Support us on twitch subscribing with amazon prime account linked, it's free!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a Day 1 purchase for me, and a great compliment to Supercarrier and the naval ops theme DCS has going.

"These are NOT 1 to 1 replicas of the real aircraft, there are countless compromises made on each of them" - Senior ED Member

 

Modules - Damn near all of them

System - i7-8700K, 32Gig DDR4 RAM, GTX-1080Ti, 3 32" monitors at 5760 x 1080, default settings of High (minor tweaks)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ED did say (During some of their interviews)...they had no plans for Cargo, Logistics, AWACS, Aerial Refueler, EW dedicated planes etc...yes and those C-130 gunships too. Also, its not that marketable to many who do prefer fast combat jets, yes light combat trainers too and those combat capable helos.

 

The thing is, marketability is not much when they do take into the consideration of development complications...It would also only be more useful on well co-ordinated Multiplayer and not many users do have good connection, and some do prefer just Single Player missions.

 

Then there is the much better funded MS 2020 who do cater more for the Transport genre...

 

 


Edited by jojyrocks
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to argue in favour of a C-2 or or it's marketability, but: Sometimes marketability isn't the driving force behind a module.

 

C-101, MB-339, Christen Eagle, I-16 are probably more a personal favourite project than a market hit. This could apply to a C-2 or any other similar project.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

I don't mean to argue in favour of a C-2 or or it's marketability, but: Sometimes marketability isn't the driving force behind a module.

 

C-101, MB-339, Christen Eagle, I-16 are probably more a personal favourite project than a market hit. This could apply to a C-2 or any other similar project.

 

 

 

 

There is some of those official interviews from ED on their take on why they would not be going for Cargo/logistics, AWACS kind of aircraft. They already did make a decision on it. I do not know if that would change, though...

 

C-101, MB-339 and the I-16 CAN do combat, at least those on training and light attack genres. These planes are also quite nimble too...

 

Christensen Eagle was pretty much from the devs perspective a simple module for them to create than with the usual combat capable planes of DCS.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

There is some of those official interviews from ED on their take on why they would not be going for Cargo/logistics, AWACS kind of aircraft. They already did make a decision on it

Well, this is a 3rd party dev's part of the forum. ED said they do not plan to do these planes, but that does not stop third party devs to do them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

Well, this is a 3rd party dev's part of the forum. ED said they do not plan to do these planes, but that does not stop third party devs to do them. 

 

 

I suppose one could hope...

 

Personally, I do find the prospect of landing on carrier with this logistics plane, interesting. But aside from that...there is really not much other than flying from point A to B unless you are on a coordinated multiplayer hoping your other team will effectively escort you to point B for a logistic drop off.

 

But...On the grounds of profit and better sales point of view, which of the follow do you think would get more sales on comparison and also in regards with Single player; Like a C-2 Greyhound vs or the F-104 series, and C-2 Greyhound vs or the A-4 Skyhawk series? Which do you think would get MORE SALES and PROFIT in accordance with their development effort? The way I see it, F-104 and the A-4 are both perfect fit for DCS as both are combat capable planes and both fit well with Single players as well as multiplayers.

 

Lets not forget, that each of DCS modules will take around 3-4 years to develop.

 

C-2 Greyhound would only mostly see sales for those who are more into multiplayer coordinated battle setups.

 

I guess we'll see what this 3rd party developer team would do after the MB-339...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

I don't mean to argue in favour of a C-2 or or it's marketability, but: Sometimes marketability isn't the driving force behind a module.

 

 

 

 

Exactly: Sometimes love and passion for a platform/module is all it takes.
Marketability is another word for profit and money, keeping the C-130 on a "hobby" basis, keeps the love and passion from Anubis in it, instead of making it a question about money and profit.
ED should, since they are forced to think as a company, release the SDK, or just part of it, to Anubis.
Imagine what Anubis could make in 12 months with the SDK.

  • Like 1

Inno3d RTX 2070 Twin X2, ASUS STRIX Z270E Gaming, Intel i7 7700K, 32GB Corsair vengeance, Kingston Hyper X FPS Alloy Cherry MX Red, Logitech G102 Prodigy, Track Ir 5, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Saitek Combat Rudder pedals, Beyer Dynamic DT770, Acer CB280HK 4K monitor, Win 10 Pro 64bit

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/20/2020 at 10:20 AM, jojyrocks said:

 

 

I suppose one could hope...

 

Personally, I do find the prospect of landing on carrier with this logistics plane, interesting. But aside from that...there is really not much other than flying from point A to B unless you are on a coordinated multiplayer hoping your other team will effectively escort you to point B for a logistic drop off.

 

But...On the grounds of profit and better sales point of view, which of the follow do you think would get more sales on comparison and also in regards with Single player; Like a C-2 Greyhound vs or the F-104 series, and C-2 Greyhound vs or the A-4 Skyhawk series? Which do you think would get MORE SALES and PROFIT in accordance with their development effort? The way I see it, F-104 and the A-4 are both perfect fit for DCS as both are combat capable planes and both fit well with Single players as well as multiplayers.

 

Lets not forget, that each of DCS modules will take around 3-4 years to develop.

 

C-2 Greyhound would only mostly see sales for those who are more into multiplayer coordinated battle setups.

 

I guess we'll see what this 3rd party developer team would do after the MB-339...

I have disagree on your views. There are quite  a few of us that would appreciate a well done transport in DCS yes the other sim blah blah.. it has a very bad flight model and no damage model... so MEH... I rather do transport in DCS with its smaller maps and less Nav aids.. It is still 1000 times more immersive than the prettiest graphics out there... So p;ease stop telling us to go fly transport to another sim. My Squad flies resupply flights both on and Off len, when some one wants to contribute a squad flight but alas no one on line you can fly a transport route a supply, or tactical flight.. -we do this since we flew in  il 2 1946, back in the 90s-. The popularity of the C 130 is not casual and not a novelty. Just because you dont see it, it doesn't mean its not worth it..  And its perfect for Off liners. Feel like a quick but challenging flight!?  Try to land on the carrier  at dusk or  navigate to find it in overcast weather.. the possibilities are soo numerous

 


Edited by Baco
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything with a tailhook will get my money! The mere act of launching from a carrier in really crappy weather, and then executing an instrument approach back to that carrier is all I need to feel like I got my mony's worth out of a module, provided it is done with the kind of fidelity that the Hornet, Tomcat and SU-33 are. Whatever takes place in between time is just icing on the cake for me!! 👍

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2020 at 5:20 AM, Baco said:

I have disagree on your views. There are quite  a few of us that would appreciate a well done transport in DCS yes the other sim blah blah.. it has a very bad flight model and no damage model... so MEH... I rather do transport in DCS with its smaller maps and less Nav aids.. It is still 1000 times more immersive than the prettiest graphics out there... So p;ease stop telling us to go fly transport to another sim. My Squad flies resupply flights both on and Off len, when some one wants to contribute a squad flight but alas no one on line you can fly a transport route a supply, or tactical flight.. -we do this since we flew in  il 2 1946, back in the 90s-. The popularity of the C 130 is not casual and not a novelty. Just because you dont see it, it doesn't mean its not worth it..  And its perfect for Off liners. Feel like a quick but challenging flight!?  Try to land on the carrier  at dusk or  navigate to find it in overcast weather.. the possibilities are soo numerous

 

 

 

 

It seems you are taking it rather too personally. Then you went ahead added....there are quite FEW OF US...and then you say, MY SQUAD, pretty much shows MULTIPLAYER oriented flyer. So for you, I get it, you like it and some other FEW also like it too, mostly multiplayer users. But again, I reiterate I am not against this, maybe you missed that part.

 

Rest depends on the profit in accordance with the development of this plane and the buyers pool, and which all kind of buyers would want to fly it in SINGLE PLAYER vs MULTI player co-ordinated flying with Squad, team or some clan. So those also do come into play especially for a new developer such as this, now trying their hand MB-339. I myself just do not see it as VERY INTERESTING in Single player, flying point A to Point B just watching the scenery, dropping cargo and carrier landing etc vs Flying planes like MB-339 (light combat ability), F-104, F-8 Crusader and A-4 Skyhawk to name a few that can both fit will with BOTH Single player and the Multi player crowd.

 

Making a DCS module is a costly task in itself and some modules do take around 4-5 years to complete. Even if they do decide on this. I was wondering about the cost of modules like these. Would it maybe cost the same as roughly to those like F-16 and F-14 modules? Or...would it cost even more...Would the costs be worth? For dedicated Multiplayer crowd, yes it is worth after all, its all about teamwork over there. But in Single Player it does not seem all that interesting flying point A to Point B.

 

Maybe this third party developer needs to make a Poll and announce plus highlight it well and make a Poll list like. C-2 Greyhound among modules of F-104G or C, A-4E or F Skyhawk and AMX International.

 

Rest of the decision is up for these third party developer to decide on. I reiterate again, I am not against this. Just neutral. The carrier landing does mildly interest me. ED did an interview mentioning their stance on this. You can go watch that as well to see what their stance is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don´t see why the mention of any transport, seems to be a "peril" or threat, to DCS, when it compliments it perfectly.

And Just like you say, each module takes a few years to make, but ultimately its a decision to be made by the 3rd Party involved. Some operate on pure profit incentive, others, well, other reasons, I am sure the Eagle has not been a financial success of any kind...

 

But Cool! we  can only state our opinion, since in the end its up to the guys who can bring modules into DCS.

 

Lets how the future brings lots of diverse cool new toys 😉

Cheers

 


Edited by Baco
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

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...