When DCS mentioned very popular, there is only one very popular U.S. fighter. The Fighting Falcon. Personally, i cannot wait. The Black Shark just didnt do it for me. The a10 is amazing, but not my cup of tea. But an F-15, F-16 or F-18 would be awesome. Of those, the F-16 is my clear choice. Bring it on!

I really have no interest in them doing an F-16. Falcon 4.0 BMS 4.32 is far better than _anything_ ED could make. They have no chance competing with it. There's no way in heck they could make a comparable product.

Why?

1. Air-to-Ground radar--they've constantly shown they aren't willing to do this so it will be a first. This I think they can accomplish for sure.

2. Dynamic campaign. This is where they would fail. There is no way they could make a campaign like Falcon has.

So, what's the point? Why bother? BMS 4.32 has all the depth a typical DCS title would have along with a dynamic campaign.

It more than likely will be an AH-64 sim (a series... they don't want to do the radar again) or what I'd LOVE to see them do is an F-18 sim (with air-to-ground radar).

Whilst i don't share the same views as mister blastman on a whole, i think you will find there are plenty of fixed wings that would fit the mould aside from the f-16.

You have the f-18 for one, and that will be able to bring in carrier ops. No ground radar and earlier versions i am pretty sure would be declassified enough. They are very abundant in service.

Agreed with the dissapointment that DCS won't do a dynamic campaign anytime soon, i don't share your concerns, mr blastman, that dcs would not be able to model an aircraft as in depth as BMS.

Yes, there has been an issue with ground radar, and that would be nice. But DCS does have better scenery than BMS though trees are not collidable which is a joke from my perspective.

Ahhhh who knows. They have to finish the warthog and patch the KA and hopefully integrate the two.

However, we are a long ways away from the originally proposed 9 months per flyable they wanted to achieve.

Falconite vs. Flankerite?? BRING IT ON!!!

Oh, I miss those days...

(The F-16 is not quite that popular... the F/A-18 wins most polls).

... in your imagination



All in good time.



... because what? People who didn't create falcon don't have the expertise to implement an old, flawed AI system for DC and then make it work better over a span of 12 years? ED is already working in the direction of enhancing replayability - they're not stupid nor asleep at the wheel. I do realize that people who want things right now can't see nor acknowledge that, and fawn over F4's DC as some incredible magical genie. The truth is that even the guy who made it happen (in its original, much more flawed form than what you have right now!) said he'd not have done it had he known what it took.



Who told you 'they don't want to do the radar'? As i said - all in good time. If/When a module calls for A2G radar, it'll happen. I'm not sure why you somehow think that ED should drop everything and make a DC or A2G radar happen right now instead of looking after what's good for them, especially in sight of F4 so far apparently poisoning every company that has touched it. Don't blame others for not wanting to repeat mistakes that have happened in the past.

I will be simming A-10 till I am old and grey but I would love to see a F-14D Bombcat. That ship has some real one of a kind systems

My bet's the F-15C. They've already did it LOMAC and it fits all the clues they gave (Fixed-wing American Fighter).

However, I'm still holding out hope on the E Strike Eagle. I mean, next to the A-10C, it does have the most detailed model in the game.

It might be old, it might be flawed, but I'm still flying it 13 years after I got my binder. It just doesn't get old and thanks to the hard work of modders, it keeps getting better. Yeah, Gilman said he wouldn't have done the DC if had known what it took--but they did it. They spawned something wonderful and it can't be undone now that it is out. The DC is what keeps us all coming back to Falcon as it is always different.

I don't get the "ED is not able/willing to do an air-to-ground radar" thing. I think a more correct statement would be "ED has not done an air-to-ground radar yet." I don't see any indication that they can't do it, nor have they ever said they can't/won't.

It's like saying "ED has constantly shown they aren't willing to do a helmet-mounted HUD" or that they are incapable of implementing terrain following radar.

They simply haven't modeled an aircraft that has either of those systems. So I really don't understand it when people say that the next fighter can't be x or y simply because they haven't modeled some feature yet... They hadn't modeled a targeting pod like the Lightening II before the A-10. Yet they still did that aircraft.

--NoJoe

Eagle Dynamics registered the web domain http://www.f-18c.com around the time that they made the "popular U.S. fighter" announcement.

http://whois.domaintools.com/f-18c.com

http://pastebin.com/h3SKEsxC



Also, carrier ops are already implemented in previous titles. They just need to model a U.S. carrier.

Somehow I don't think they registered the domain just to throw us off track.

The next DCS title will be the F/A-18C Hornet, the most popular U.S. fighter in many polls, and used by a number of different countries around the world.

Case closed.

Cheers!

Rick...