Thanks!

According to the update video, it states DCS F/A-18 so I have to assume at this stage that it's a legacy hortnet with DCS quality.

Will there be any ai controlled USN aircraft to keep the Hornet company?
What about a US CVN to fly from?

@Tarnsman: There are AI Classic Hornets/ S-3 Vikings/ E-2 Hawkeyes etc. There is another mod team creating the F-18E Super Bug.

Pretty sure the DCS F/A-18C is going to be DCS quality! From one of the screenshots they are also adding in Aim-9X capability!

Perhaps only slightly in line with the opening post, but why is the ED addition to the DCS series always focused on slightly older or less delicate aircraft?

F-18C, no F-18E/F..
A-10C, no F-15E..
Ka-50, no Ka-52B, AH-64E, AH-1Z..
UH-1, no UH-60L/M, CH-47, or even V-22..

I once read something about top notch/more recent aircraft having classified systems, but how classified is classified when the AH-64D block 2 manual is on sites like Scribd...

Don't get me wrong, A-10C is a great sim I think, we haven't had so much realism concerning avionics/systems in any other sim. And after they set the standard so high, I think 3rd party projects created by dedicated enthusiast can be great in terms of graphics but can only reach an FC3 level when it comes to realism and immerision and never a Ka-50/A-10C level. But it's just.. why?

I might be seeing ghosts here but somehow it's like they don't want to tap in anything contemporary, like they don't want to make it too realistic, but keep it a game instead. We all know that Afghanistan/Iraq are wars with entire different difficulties and missions than the traditional US vs. USSR tank busting role for which current hardware was initially designed. Yet, as modern as the DCS series might be, we're still bombing airfields the size of our own and launching Mavericks at SA-13s in a green Western-like environment. Why aren't we strafing a compound with the risk of hitting civilians or our own ground troops, why aren't we putting a JDAM on a Taliban entrenchment in the Korengal Valley that's ambushing a convoy, why aren't we loitering at 5000' overseeing the drop off of 10 marines by a CH-47 near a known IED production site?

There's tons of war stories based on 2003~2013 in the sand, both unofficial and official in the form of books (e.g. Ed Macy). If those were used as inspiration you could at least create a sequence of 4 or 5 missions. Or maybe even a campaign, roughly based on one's tour. Wouldn't that be awesome? Imagine we could be that virtual pilot you see in Restrepo, in Ross Kemp, over at Wikileaks' clips, etc. I think US aircraft killing Soviet/Korean tanks is getting old after Digital Integration's series, after Falcon 4, after EEAH/EECH, after Novalogic's arcade sims, after Jane's...

Again, I did not intend to offend anyone (ED) and I still think KA-50/A-10C is great, it's just how I feel about it and I'm wondering whether I'm the only one.

Wow. I missed that! That was my biggest complaint for a long time about Lock On. Nice!

Yup agreed, where's the F-35 in the roadmap?
Part of the traditional appeal of flight sims is that you can 'fly' current technology in a comtemporary theatre; look at what DiD acheived with Tornado and the EF2000 titles.

Personally I'd love to be able to fly/fight over Afghanistan in A-10's/AH64's/F-35's but I guess it's too hot a political potato for games companies.

This is completely up to the mission designer, I already played a lot of afghanistan style missions in DCS.
Including KI helicopters dropping infantry, civilians, and observing suspect buildings with spawning enemies.

Where did you get such missions? Home made? If so, willing to share?

Still, the aim of ED in A-10C clearely was not to simulate the current war in Iraq and Afhganistan and so it depends on mission designers to get as close as possible to it.


What do you mean by that? The fact 'they' do not want games to portray ongoing issues including all nasties and details that come with it?

Yes I made them by myself. But they need a Game Master slot who will start the different scripts.
We usually play these Missions with 3 or more Warthogs (KA50 Slots are available too). The Game Master also has to act as a JTAC.

I will try to write a short manual for the gamemaster and upload the mission soon.

If you can find the time to do so, that would be nice.

Honestly, I think it's more a gameplay issue than a political one. The types of missions you describe would see hours of flying with only the prospect of dropping one, maybe two bombs. Conventional scenarios allow players to ferry a full payload to the battle area, fire them all, then return to reload and go back out again. As well, the Afghanistan/Iraq themed missions you describe wouldn't provide many threats to the player, also detracting from gameplay.

I’m not a spokesman for ED but….

Some of the reason is because of government contracts, the A-10C for example. They developed the Desk Top Simulator for A-10A pilots to use to transition to the A-10C. This lead ED to get permission to release a retail version but the retail version is much more in-depth. Because of the government contract they had access to technical data for suite 3 jets. Real world our A-10s are up to suite 7 plus and avionics wise is leaps and bounds ahead of suite 3. By the way, suite 3 was the original C model.

As to future products, I’ve always heard that ED would only make DCS level products that they have access to all the data they require. Just because a -1 is available on the web doesn’t mean that provides all the required information. A-10C’s for example, the -1 is good for basic aircraft information but it is useless for weapons, all that has been moved to the -34 and/or classified Tech Orders that even if ED has access to the latest they wouldn’t be allowed to incorporate into a commercial product.

As to the F-35, I guess it’s a matter of taste. First off, the systems would never be true anytime in the next 10 to 20 years. But, with limited knowledge they could “replicate” the systems. I’m picky, working in USAF aircraft maintenance for going on 19 years, working directly on A-10s (both A and current C models) as well as F-15s (A thru E models) I want the most realistic representation of the aircraft in question. I have access to current tech data for A-10s and F-15s so I know the limitations the sim has to work with.

I think eventually 3rd party aircraft will reach the A-10C level of detail but I highly doubt their first few releases will simply because of the learning curve. I have no doubt the IRIS F-22 will look beautiful but in no way believe the flight characteristics or avionics will be even close to realistic, simply because that data isn’t available and what is isn’t the “whole” story. Even the F-15E that both IRIS and RAZBAM are working, there are many things known publicly about the 15E but there are just as many, more I think, that aren’t and no way will be simulated perfectly, to include the flight characteristics.

So to achieve A-10C level of detail, it basically comes down to ED requiring intel DOD is not willing to publish and if it's leaked anyway, they're not allowed to incorporate it in their commercial products?

What ED chooses to do with publically available, even if not legally, documentation isn't up to me. I simply posted my opinion on why ED isn't choosing to release say DCS F-35 and why it's more likely to release a DCS F/A-18C early block model over the Super Hornet.

Also, like I said...18 plus years of USAF aviation maintenance experiance I'm picky, anything labled "DCS" IMO should match the quality of A-10C. That's just me, there are many people who enjoy FC3, I'm not one of them. The F-15C has a beautiful cockpit but without DCS level of detail I won't fly it. Same with the updates to the A-10A and the two russian aircraft that are getting updated pits (can't remember which two).

Hmm.. the decisions...

A-10C, Module developed from A-10C Simulator done for ANG. (Supposedly, i have no proof of that, other than comments from people.)
(most of the data is still Classified, some of the Pit systems have been ommitted from DCS: A-10C/DCSW.)

- From a Business standpoint, why not negotiate with ANG to remove/encrypt/lock Classified data and commercialize it, Money/Sales for ED, Recruiting Tool for ANG/USAF. (Seriously, how many people feel like they can walk into a ANG Base and Fly an A-10 now because of DCS :p, Myself included).

P-51D, Module developed from Private Module for TFC's P-51D. (Again, no proof, other than Rumors.)
same as teh A-10C, commercialize and make some money off the work.

SU-27SM, Module planned (Betcha ED is making a Simulator for Russia, let the rumors fly).
Same as the A-10C, remove/lock/encrypt classified Data. Commercialize.

F/A-18C, Depending on the Block Version, there's plenty, if not a complete set of data.
F/A-18Cs were Exported So there's more data than F-18E/Fs (which are also exported, but still classified.)

Last time i looked, I can easily acquire an F/A-18C Pilot's Manual, Maintenance Manual, and Weapons Manual. (LEGALLY);
Which pretty much covers everything. plus there is a plethora of Wind Tunnel data for the Legacy Hornet Airframe from Dryden/NASA available.
^Just dont expect the most recent block of F/A-18Cs

That's great. Have you tried getting the operating/maintenance manuals for any aircraft that you listed, which is needed to model it to DCS quality? I'll leave you with those thoughts.




What an incredibly silly assumption. There is a huge amount of room for modeling something between FC3 and A-10C.



Why aren't you making missions like this? Sounds like great ideas

No, the DTS is quite different. The DCS A-10C had to be re-done from scratch, with a bunch of knowledge from the DTS. There are no classified data in the DCS product ... nor for that matter, in the DTS one.



... and the vast majority of people don't even know what, how, and why



What rumors? ED said so.



Whatever the case/deal might be, there won't be any classified data, just like the ANG A-10C.



Bingo ... though I wouldn't make assumptions about how recent it can or can't be.

Their ability to get more contracts probably depends on them demonstrating that they can stick to classification requirements, and this means not implementing things without permission on some level.

Here's what I don't get: why are things classified from the public that our enemies already know?

Venezuela has F-16s, but some of the F-16's flight characteristics are classified? As if there's any country out there that wants to know that doesn't? F-15s used to be the province of just 4 countries: US, Japan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Now they're everywhere, are we to believe all of them have leak-proof security? Yet some of its flight modeling is still classified?

Radars, TEWS, IFF, ECM, top-line weapons--I can see why those have abilities that are still kept quiet. But roll rates? Sustained turn rate? Seriously? I'm sure Russia, China, and Iran all have that info, and passed it on to N Korea, so what's the difference?



The Jedi Master