Next aircraft a very popular fixed wing u.s. fighter = F-16

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...

BZZZZT! Thanks to stolen code it keeps getting better. 'Modders' have nothing to do with that fact (not to dish on the amazing amount of work that certain programmers have done though). Had the code not been leaked, it would have gone nowhere.



Yeah, they did it, and no one else ever did. Do you think that is because they're unable? I suggest looking at my above statement to get a hint.

You may want to re-evaluate saying things like 'such and such will never be able to ... '

Gents, let's stay on topic please. Mr_Blastman & GrayGhost, take it to PMs.

The f-15C is just 1 trick pony shoot him 15 miles away at 30K altitude. I hope they offer a different ship then the eagle. The 14D or 16A or just keep tweaking the A-10 I dont really seek another ship

Plenty of tricks for an A2A fighter.

This is the best news all day. I _really_ want a new F-18C sim so if it is so, then badass! Don't get my first post wrong, I like ED and love their sims, I just much would have rather seen them do something other than the F-16 and this news is awesome if it is true.

I'm more than sure they can pull off a nice F-18 sim that'll be loads of fun to fly.

Much prefer the E/F over the legacy Hornet, if I'm honest. It's comforting to know that I had the payload, range, and the latest and greatest in naval aviation to get the job done in Jane's F/A-18.

I just hope whichever fighter they choose, that they hit the bullseye this time.

But "popular" can have different meanings... F/A-18 is in use by the USA, Spain, Switzerland, Malaysia, Finland and Canada. F-16 by Bahrain, Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, ,the Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of China (Taiwan), Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United States, Venezuela (thank you Wikipedia for the list!).

I thought they did a wonderful job on the A-10.

I am holding out hope for a F-15C and E combo!! 2 planes for one! But the F-18 will give us something we have not had in a while Carrier ops!

To the OP the 15 is very popular world wide. Many contries use them and know of them. The 16 was just marketed more since it was cheaper. I am praying they dont do a 16 for two reasons. One evryone will compare it to Falcon and it will never be as good because no dynamic campagin etc...Two the Hog has spoiled me I want more weapons stations!! Also I hate only having one engine..

Just to throw my two cents worth in, I'd love to see the F-18 as the next sim. I love A-10C, and still fly Falcon too. Adding an F-18 to the mix gives a nice combination of A-A and A-G, and even some SEAD if they really reach for the brass ring! Add to that carrier ops and it brings in a very nice compliment to the A-10.

I am curious if they are going to continue their relationship with T-Master like they did during the A-10 development and we may possibly see an F-18 stick hit the market as a replacement for the A-10 stick on the Warthog controller??? We need some volunteer to go 'Mission Impossible' for us and sneak into the TM labs to see if they can find evidence of a Hornet stick! (insert theme music here)

Dud

Its no doubt BMS is good, actually is freakin good but the more you get interested in avionics, the more you realize the fact is that there is still a lot of unimplemented and limitations.
If DCS F-16 is gonna be DCS A-10C fidelity, it is obvious we'll see some new feature that we dont see in falcon variants.

At this point, I'll take anything from ED.

As a consumer, I only wish other companies in other industries were as worthy of their customers' trust...had such a sophisticated understanding of customer relations, QA and responsiveness in customer relations.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a single post that Matt doesn't read on these boards...for example.

I immediately have a sense that this product is a labor of love, first, before it is anything else... I'll accept and look forward to--whatever else these guys love.

Even if it's a paperplane sim.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/games/play/280912/

This.

I love BMS, I fly it every night with my bro. Love the F-16 and can't wait for ED to release their fast mover but having played A-10 and seeing the level of detail put in the avionics you really see the limitations in BMS.

they did - pity that the bulk of people fly for exactly 1 hour

With all due respect, how can you state that so confidently? Each modern US fighter has its community of fans and although I would not argue with you that the F-16 is THE most popular of them all, that's just not what Matt said. I see no contradiction whatsoever in calling the F-15, F-14 or F/A-18 "popular" or even "very popular".



That's more like it - the Falcon is your *personal* preference (to which you are of course entitled), but what you stated above simply does not follow.



On the other hand they made a foray - widely acknowledged as very successful - into helo simulation which they had not even contemplated much before Black Shark, this was a much greater leap from their past experience than A/G radar. So while the latter does represent uncharted territory for them and would therefore be a hurdle in some ways, it isn't a particularly big one, relatively speaking.

As you say, they could certainly accomplish this, so why bring it up as a justification that ED could not make a comparable F-16 sim?



Agree, although "fail" is a somewhat melodramatic way of putting it if you consider that they would probably not attempt a DC in the first place. I also don't subscribe to the view that it is a must-have feature because DCS has nothing else to offer over BMS: what about the systems/damage model, training missions, mission editor, ground vehicle AI, graphics...



It almost certainly won't be, for two very good reasons:

1. Matt specifically mentioned that it would be a fixed-wing aircraft.

2. If you believe A/G radar stretches ED's capabilities in any substantial way, a twin-seat aircraft must surely be a bridge too far (although they can't be ruled out completely, the same argument also makes the F-15E or F-14 very unlikely IMHO).

Personally, I think there are only three candidates, realistically: the F-15C, F/A-18C and F-16C. Maybe the F/A-18E too, but somehow I doubt it (this is just gut instinct though, feel free to disagree - I won't be able to argue ). Any of those would be fine by me, however my favourite is without doubt the C-model Hornet which fortunately is the most likely option too, given what Sauron has pointed out. Compared to the alternatives, this would entail modelling carrier ops, but I wouldn't consider that a big problem as many of the necessary fundamentals are already in place. For example, deck landings are already possible, a perfectly adequate arrestor wire model is implemented in LOMAC/FC, naval warfare (though somewhat basic currently) is there and DCS has introduced wave action for pitching/rolling decks. Pretty much only proper communications procedures left to take care of to get a very serviceable representation of carrier ops.

BMS has me toying with F4 again after a few years "on the shelf". I was so blown away by it that I really thought I'd be shelving DCS until the update. But a few days ago I was about an hour into a campaign flight. The instant I switched from the sniper pod to the maverick camera the game CTD'd--progress lost. BMS is amazing. DCS is more amazing. I do miss the campaign. I think it gets dissed by the realists unfairly. The "study sim" moniker doesn't make a game immune from accusations that reality was sacrificed for playability in some aspects of the sim.

Back on track...F/A-18(something) all the way.

Fair enough, I agree with all of this. Lest somebody misunderstand my previous post: I would also love to see a dynamic campaign in DCS, I just don't think it's essential and have no illusions as to how soon it's going to happen.

I just want a plane that hasn't been done elsewhere recently. That means pretty much "anything but the F-16 and what's in LOMAC" since I can fly those planes in those sims, so I don't need two sims on my HD with the same plane.
Sure, DCS would do it higher fidelity, but I'd rather have say a lower fidelity F-15C in FC2 and a high fi Hornet than TWO sims with the F-15C, one hi fi and one not.

Unlike some people on the net who obsess about a particular plane, I have no favorite. The plane I want to fly the most is always the one it's been longest since I flew. Last Hornet sim I had was...Hornet, by SpecHolo, came out 1993 I think? I had a Super Hornet sim in the late 90s, iF/A-18E (never got Jane's), and nothing at all since 2000.

So any Hornet would be welcome, a Beagle would be nice, basically ANY Western or Eastern jet that's not an F-16, F-15C, A-10A, Su-27/33 or Su-25/T.



The Jedi Master

Like I said above, the F-16 is the (Western) fighter that is in use with the most different countries. In that regard it is unarguably the most 'popular'. That every aircraft has its fanclub, sure. I'd love to see DCS: Tornado. But it's the Falcon that has the most widespread use of them.

Of course if there would be a DCS:MiG-29 (10 operating countries) or DCS:MiG-21 (over 60 operating countries) I'd be a happy guy as well

Even if we go by the number of real world users, robmypro's logic doesn't stand to reason though. At the risk of sounding like a lawyer, the statement we're all discussing read "a very popular", not "the most popular". Of course the former includes the latter, so the F-16 remains a possibility, but it's not the foregone conclusion which he makes it out to be. Basically, I'm just disputing his claim that the F-16 is the only US fixed wing aircraft that fits the attribute of "very popular". Whether one assumes that Matt was referring to the number of user countries or the size of its enthusiast following makes little difference in this respect.

Yeah I wish they would have made some mission that took 2 to 4 hours. Give you that realistic feel. But I believe it comes down to avg user attention span.

Not starting the flame war here,

But two points (if they are worth anything)

1) IIRC it was stated a long while back that the lock on / early dcs engine was unable to correctly model ground radar and was one of the reasons ED planned on a total rebuild of the DCS engine. Now if i have my memory correct (and that could not be the case at my age ) who is to say that flaw has been fixed in the DCS engine upgrades or maybe still exists ? Who knows. But As far i can recall there was an initial problem somewhere somehow..... But maybe that was in a galaxy far far away ?

The dynamic campaign saga.
2) As to a Dynamic campaign. Its not that ED can't make one. Its because they won't. Its a simple case of money and resources. As Greyghost posted (and taken slightly out of context) it was a massive undertaking. The reason it was deamed unsucessful was because falcon was not a runaway commercial hit. Therefore the sales revenue of the product (FALCON) that includes that FANTASTIC dynamic campaign did not sell enough copies to justify the time spent on it. Falcon did not sell enough copies to keep micropose in business.

The dynamic campaign was not a failure becuase it sucks monkey crack. Far to the contrary, it is a very immersive and impressive portion of Falcon.

So to surmise.

Does the dynamic campaign offer greater replayability and longevity of a title - yes
Does the dynamic campaign improve the entire product - yes
Will a dynamic campaign offer the same pluses above to DCS - yes.

Is it commercially viable for ED to make a dynamic campaign.... Unfortunately they have said no

We have a very long time in between flyable releases and that unfortunately is a testament that DCS is not making enough money to include such a feature, no matter how much some want it (like me)


P.s I still think its gonna be an F-18. :licks lips: mmmmmm f-18

More specifically they said no to: 'Drop everything and make a DC now!' They didn't say it is out of the question.
They're doing fine for money - notice how many other companies have taken it upon themselves to create a similar DC? It isn't like everyone's out of money, it's more like - money flows in a certain way

I don't think that specific question was ever asked of ED. A tid bit of sensationalism there.



I didn't say they weren't doing fine for money. Please re-read my post. ED initially said they wanted to release a flyable every 9 months. That is not happening. ED also said they do not have the resources for a DC. ED also said they wanted to build a new engine from scratch - but that is now being replaced to upgrades of the current engine. (these are just a few points - not criticisms towards ED)

So quite simply, if ED were rolling in cash, they could hire the man power to do both. But as i said before, ED are not making the cash required to increase their manpower to make such a thing or they do not have the disposable income for whatever reasson to dedicate to such projects.

There are not many DC's as there are not many products out there that would benefit from it.

But the latest dynamic campaign that works relatively well that i know of is Arma and to this day is a very played addition to the game and has worked in Arma's favour to no end.



And yes, i still beleive it will be an F-18

DCS AV-8B please.

Considering people have been asking for one since Flanker came out in 1995, I don't think the "make it NOW!" argument holds. Many of us have patiently waited through 3 presidential administrations for any movement at all in that area. One was once mooted for LOMAC, before its release as a post-launch addon. When Flaming Cliffs was announced, many thought "ah, now?" only to find out it was a new plane variant with better modeling and some other stuff but no DC. When DCS was announced, it was hoped it would be part of that series.

At this point, I've given up. If after 15 years, several iterations of their engine, and multiple releases (it's at 7 I think?) they still say "we're not doing one right now", I think you'd have to be a ridiculously eternal optimist or just blind to assume one is coming. It just makes me laugh when I see people start threads and try to argue how ED should do one, because I think the record speaks for itself...their interests in what their sims will offer lies elsewhere than a DC.
Whether they CAN do it is 100% irrelevant, just as asking whether they could make a great competitor to HAWX for the Xbox/PS3 is. The technical requirements don't matter if there's no interest in committing the needed resources. After all, if one guy basically did F4's in a few years, think what one guy could've done for ED in 10! They chose not to do that, and to even try to imply that one day they might reverse that choice is futile. They don't WANT to because their business case obviously points to it losing money for them, so why WOULD they?

I suppose there's the slight chance they HAVE worked on one internally over the years, devoting varying levels of resources to it, and it's continually fallen short of their expectations so they just say (publically) "no, we're not doing that right now", but that matters little. Not since the year before LOMAC's release in 2003 have they ever made any indication they were seriously considering it, and even then IIRC it was a "after the game ships we'll start it" type of promise, and I don't even remember it being as strong as a promise.

Let's be happy with what DCS gives us and sing the old Steven Stills song to ourselves: "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with"



The Jedi Master

I'll still buy at DCS: F-16 sim but there are a bunch of other platforms out there that I would prefer. IMHO, the F-16 has already been done quite a bit in previous flight sims.

Some people have said so directly (very few), but in most cases it was definitely implied IMHO



To elaborate a little, I believe the way it works for games/sims (and probably music and video/movies) is that the developer (or publisher, or whoever) needs to front the cost of development; and this cost doesn't get recovered until long after release, which is different from say, developing for the govt or another customer (not just sims/games, but any software or other product) where they pay you for the contract up-front or at least regularly throughout the contract.

So the cycle becomes spend-recover, and the more work you put into a product, the longer it takes to develop and the more it costs.



I disagree - a lot of games could benefit from a DC, a lot of flight sims, a lot of other types of games. DC is a huge resource hog - it is simple on the surface (it's basically a bunch of AI, and for that reason it's also a bit predictable, but eh ), but the major problem is that depending on how good you want it to be, you have to make certain that all the other pieces of the sim fit well into it. In other words, in-game AI must be capable of adequately executing fuctions that the DC assigns to them for example. The DC itself must be able to compose a reasonable strike package based on target - for example, would SEAD be needed? What about a stand-off jammer? Fighter cover?. And that is after it selects a target, hopefuly based on some reasonable prediction of cost/benefit.
It then has to guess what YOU will do and try to defend accordingly

It's a difficult programming problem, but there have certainly been simplified solutions. Some are good at hiding what they really are, and look DC'ish. Some can be lackluster. You don't want to invest in a lackluster effort, and I think that this is ED's position.

And yes, I like ARMA's DC as well.



My response is a neutral 'maybe'

People also said that record spoke for itself and that ED couldn't/wouldn't ever make a high fidelity study sim.

Fair point, it is safe to say that it was not just resource considerations that "forced" ED to refrain from releasing a DC, it was also a deliberate choice of placing their emphasis on other aspects of flight simulation - which is their prerogative of course.



I am slightly more optimistic, actually. If there is one thing which ED's track record demonstrates, it is that - eventually - they get round to implementing almost every popular and sensible community suggestion. With Flanker 1.x, the chief criticism was that the graphics were not textured - with Flanker 2.x we got some of the best texturing of any contemporary flight sim. Now, people were clamouring for a Western flyable aircraft and a new theatre however - LOMAC gave us all that, though not quite to everyone's satisfaction, I suppose. Having seen what Il2 could offer in this regard, many were disappointed by the damage model and ground handling, so ED released FC which fixed these shortcomings rather impressively. Next up on the list of complaints were high-fidelity avionics, mission editor triggers and a clickable cockpit - guess what Black Shark brought to the table? That was a helo though, many non-rotor heads wanted another fixed-wing aircraft, more radio chatter and a non-Black Sea map: enter the Warthog (and Nevada at some point). Immediately one of the most popular requests was that the next aircraft be a fast-mover and it is now all but confirmed that this is exactly what we will be getting.

External factors have meant that these issues were not always addressed as quickly and methodically as desired and frequently led to choices for the flyable aircraft which were not to everyone's liking, but at some point ED invariably got there. Slowly but surely they've ticked off all those boxes - who's to say the dynamic campaign issue will be different?

Just out of curiosity - where did this come from? It is a bit of a long-standing myth - basically implementing ground radar is just a matter of time and effort, there's really no problem with the code

It just so happens that there's no playable aircraft modeled that uses it.

It is one of those self perpetuating myths. It is not correct at all.

Nate

thx Panther for waisting 4 seconds of my life scrolling down

Making pitching decks for boat in the last patch may be a good indication of what may be next....
IF it was to be a F-18, I'm pretty sure though that we wont have the E model because of the classifications

18C is still classified. AS a matter of fact any modern fighter has classifications that have to be worked around. Radar for one is classified and some weapons are still classified. So really I dont think it would matter for the 18E.

Thanks for all the replies, guys. Regardless of which fighter DCS builds next, i know i am buying it. Some of your posts have sort of changed my mind about the F-16 too. I have never experienced carrier ops, so the F-18 would represent a new journey for me. That would be very cool. Back to my original post, when i read "very popular" i interpreted that to mean based on sims already done. If someone asks you to name a very popular fighter sim, i am betting 99% of us would say the F-16, or Falcon. So it comes down to interpretation of very popular, and in what context. In any case, F-15, F-16, or F-18. I am buying any or all of them. I really won't be disappointed.

We shall find out soon enough.

Are you telling me they have ? !!!!!!!!!!!!! :shock:



Well i used the inferences IIRC (If I remember correctly) and other inferences, and i can hold my hand up saying that i may have my wires crossed. It has been years since those discussions, so as i said before, I am going by memory here and time, beer, children and careers can change those somewhat.

I'm actually in the camp that believes the semi-dynamic campaigns a la F/A-18 are the way to go. The advantage of canned missions is that you ensure there's no breaks in causality (an SA-10 planted 10 miles away from an airbase, making it impossible to take off) and you can sort of tell a better narrative with it. Sure F/A-18's story wasn't exactly Proust or Fitzgerald, but it did do the "Rogue Russians with Rockets" story seven years before Call of Duty did.

so does the "C" model hornet have A/G radar? Can it carry Harms and HTS? Is it a similar avionics suite to the BMS falcon? Would be a blast to do the carrier ops... BMS has that at a rather crude state right now... but hopefully BMS improves upon that area...I'm all for the F-18C, but would prefer the AV8B ( someone eventually has to do it!!!!)

+1

Here's how I would have said it, though:
Regardless of which [fill in the blank here] DCS builds next, I know I am buying it.

Absolutely!



Yes.

Harpoons too, which incidentally is why I'll never understand what the attraction of a theatre like Afghanistan is for some people - it'll just turn an incredibly versatile aircraft into a sleeker, supersonic incarnation of the A-10 that we already have. Iraq isn't much better either (especially if you were to set the conflict in 2003), their navy was so impotent that "naval warfare" was essentially limited to cruise missile launches and shore bombardment. While they at least had a fairly decent air force in 1991, that didn't put up much of a fight in the event either, making the carriers little more than additional airbases which so happened to be floating.

If we do get a Hornet, I sure hope we also see a theatre that really gives us the full spectrum of missions against credible air and sea opposition. Even though that will mean another fictional conflict (if the Black Sea map is retired at all), what would be the point of simulating only 10% of the aircraft's potential?

Sorry about ranting off on a tangent, but I just don't get the fixation some people appear to have with real-world, desert theatres They don't even look particularly lush and varied!



Not required, as it carries a quasi-internal emitter location system which was installed in the underwing pylons, IIRC.

veilen Danke Trident! Ooh I can't wait now!!!

What year was Crimson Tide? I think that film beat them to it.



The Jedi Master

From the Black Shark 2 change notes:



Isn't anyone else taking this as a hint for the next plane?

You should take it as a hint that they are developing the environment and nothing more

Developing it towards what? Naval warfare probably?

Er ... what I said ... developing the environment and nothing more (as in, you don't really stand a chance of guessing the next module from all the features they add in)

The only hint I took away was now your KA50 T/O and Landings at sea will vary accroding to wind speed and wind direction.

I don't understand, honestly. I'm 40 something and still the single most fulfilling offline experience in gaming is the F4 campaign. It is by far, still today, the pinnacle of what I wish other sims had. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I saw an IL2, DCS sim or any other sim with a DC close to what F4 had, I'd be addicted all over again. BOB was closest I can think of.

+1 for needing a dynamic campaign.

Some sims of the past that have had a dynamic campaign or semi-dynamic or just dynamic elements:

1. EF2000
2. Red Baron 3D
3. Bob 2
4. Falcon 4.0
5. Mig Alley
6. Enemy Engaged
7. Strike Fighters
8. IL-2
9. Rise of Flight

You can't argue that there is some fan favorites on that list and a big reason is the immersion factor.

You know what's missing from the DCS forums here? AAR reports from missions flown. The reason is because everyone is flying the same darn missions. How many ways can you tell the same story? If you look through the pages on the forums almost all have to do with questions about procedures and such. Part of the reason the almighty Falcon 4.0 DC was such a hassle was the limited CPU power that could be dedicated to it and created major headaches and is where a lot of the pain stemmed from. That shouldn't be a problem now. With technology where it is now the power should be in place to make the best DC ever, but Dev's don't make complete packages anymore. It probably would give the sim too much longevity, and that keeps people from shelling out money for new content every year.

(just my 2 cents that i'm sure will get picked apart)

Don't forget that IL2 had that brilliant SCORCHED EARTH Dynamic campaign.

Not dynamic in the sense that all flights are AI created, Dynamic in the sense you had 1 or more people on both sides setting all the flights. Think of it as battlefield commanders creatting and unfolding the war.

It was brilliant. Had all the benefits of asset tracking, attrition, resupply, downtime for repairs and refueling.. etc.

I think something like that would be the way to go for ED. No building a full AI dynamic campaign but having battlefield commander positions that can build and task flights (hopefully in real time) with all the befenits of asset tracking.

And IIRC (that means IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY greyghost ) ED were considering something along these lines some time back.

But back on topic....

Here is a question. If the next flyable is a strike fighter. Lets say an F-18..... how many would stop flying the hog ? Or do you think the hog will still have a dedicated place still in DCS? (of course it will depend on the missions created - but i am talking generally here)

man, I would love to see that in DCS.. without exaggerating, I wont hesitate to pay more than 25dollars just for that.

But how much would you have to pay in patching fees to bring all your flyables in line with it ?


Yes, i am on one and venting profusely

They aren't done considering it

I'll try to put it as simply as I can (only to avoid reiterating a lot of stuff that has been said before):

It isn't that ED doesn't want to do a DC. It's more along the lines of this: It is a huge undertaking, and ED isn't willing to just drop everything and work on just a DC. So you can see piecemeal developments to increase playability. It isn't happening fast, but check it out: They're implemented a random mission generator, randomization capabilities within missions, etc.

In general, Falcon's DC has undergone a very long time of development, and allegedly was part of what sunk the original developer. LP doesn't seem to have made out like a bandit when they made F4AF either. The updates you get to falcon are done by volunteers - it isn't free, they pay for it with their own time, but you don't pay. It is also not really legal (At least AFAIK) since it's all based on code leaked a long time ago.

ED is a business, and they don't want to go under - so development of any kind of DC will happen on their schedule. Are they interested in the longevity of their game? Sure - but not at the cost of going under.

While i think a DC would be great, i wouldn't trade a new F-16 or F/A - 18 for it. And for ED to commit the resources to that we would surely not see other aircraft sooner. BS and the A-10 provide for some interesting scenarios, but throw in an F/A-18 and possibly a Mig / Su and it is a whole new ballgame. I have said this before, but instead of focusing on a DC i would prefer ED work on making their battlefiel open and licensable so other developers can add content too. Expand the battlefield and allow for more variety. They took a big step with BS and A-10, but they need to open it up. Way too much duplication of effort between developers.

People may be surprised to hear this - but I prefer the standard campaign. Dynamic campaigns maybe are a little more immersive - but they're not designed to be fun! Individual missions are built to be entertaining and challenging, and dynamic campaigns can be quite repetitive after a while...

Just my thoughts!

Without some form of randomization, scripted campaigns are just as repetitive if you play them more than once. While a DC may seem repetitive if there isn't enough diversity programmed into it (ie you take off from base A and fight over enemy base B for several consecutive missions taking out air/ground targets until a threshold is crossed and you either win or lose the battle for that area), a well done one will be almost as good as a scripted campaign but will always play out very differently depending on whether you focus on air or ground targets or whatever.

I think the point should be it's easy to make a POOR DC that is quite boring compared to a well-done scripted campaign, but it's hard and costs to make a GOOD one, which is what people want. However, I don't buy into the "if you look at what the DC is really doing, it's faking blah blah blah" because it's irrelevant! If you have to look CLOSELY to see that, it means it's not obvious to a casual observer. Even a casual observer will notice that when they play a scripted campaign the 2nd or 3rd time the 1st mission is always the same, and later missions may be as well even if it's branching if for example they always achieve the primary and fail the secondary objectives with minimal friendly losses due to how they play that mission.



The Jedi Master

I agree with mig eater. I prefer the standard campaign. I just want to be some lone moop just doing his job and hoping to survive. I dont know the big picture, I dont want to know the big picture. I will do my sim job and hope it makes a sim difference

I like a dc, but I can easily do without it as long as there is a random mission generator, Im happy.

Rob

Bullsh*t :-)

Kind regards
Mizzy

mmm.. it should be more simple, sell 25$ package of "DCS : Dynamic Warfare" which would be a license to join the Dynamic Warfare mission, and release a free patch for flyables to apply capability of interacting with the DCS:DW module.

I personally dont mind if the patch its going be payware but such a complicated design could bring a confusion to people.(BS1 BS2 BS2-DW A-10C A-10C-DW F-16/18 F-16/18-DW)

Its my job to kill the Artillery and forward edge supply, how much of a DC does a A-10 really need. Canned missions will work well with this airplane

Maybe the picture of a Hornet (its not a Super, by the way) at the top of the DCS web page is a clue. In that case, I am looking forward to their Predator module, the Abrams module, the Rooivalk(?) module and finally the Aegis missile cruiser module.

After watching a bunch of episodes of "Carrier" on Amazon's instastreamthingieplaydeal I absolutely want the F-18 to be the next DCS aircraft.

Man, I just want the speculation to end and for them to just tell us. D:

Absolutely, carrier ops adds a whole new dimension to a flyable- landing is like a secondary mission at the end of each mission.

Amazon has an instastreamthingieplaydeal now? When did they start offering one of those?

Cheers!

Rick...

Pretty recently I think. There's a bunch of TV shows and movies you can "rent" or buy now online, but if you're an Amazon Prime member many of them are free to stream as well. They have Human Centipede available. I'm not sure if that's even worth watching free.

My two cents would favor F-15E Strike Eagle. I still have fond memories of Jane's F-15E, even though it was buggy as hell.

I'm still holding out hope ED will do AH-64A, and maybe a new map for a change...(say, Gulf War 1991)

It sure would open up endless possibilities for maps - like the Whole World!

You guys are all so way off . . . the next DCS sim will be . . .


A-10C II!

LMAO! Yeah that pred module would be awesome almost R/L too!

if it F-16 they would have to compete with BMS
if it F-18 they would have to compete with VRS and Seven-G

F-15E however would have no competition...

If you can't dogfight and blow stuff up with it, it's not competition.



The Jedi Master

You will eventually be able to do actual combat in VRS, but I do agree that they still have a lot of catching up to do in that regard because of the M$FS heritage. How good will the radar model be initially? I'm not talking about the switchology in the cockpit, but the modelling of the underlying system iself, and not just the player's own radar either - these considerations apply equally to the AI units (air, sea, land). Is ECM and clutter interference handled correctly, can terrain masking and doppler notch be exploited, are the range, resolution and scan pattern characteristics implemented accurately (for various radars and individual radar modes)? Similar questions can be raised about the damage model (cascading damage and interdependencies in engines, hydraulics, electrics), missile model (rocket motor burn profiles, agility, drag/range, seeker limitations, guidance method, fusing) and AI. These are aspects that have been polished and evolved continuously for quite literally a decade in DCS and BMS - it is utopian to expect VRS to completely match that right off the bat. They are starting essentially from scratch and have to integrate with code which was never designed to handle this kind of thing and Seven-G is pretty much in the same boat (no legacy code to work around, but only because there was NO pre-existing code at all - take your pick ).

As for BMS, by all accounts it seems to be a fantastic effort, but does anybody seriously think ED has to fear their competition any more than they have to fear DCS?

Racing
Aerobatics
Formation Flying
A lot of "points" from the real Hawgsmoke are based on procedural items, not just bombs on target.

dont know if it'll be next plane, but here is today Wags quote...:

Speaks to how bad we Americans are at Geography that this bit of fridge logic just now hit me, but how in the hell did the Nimitz and the Kuznetsov get into the Black Sea in the first place? Carrier ops in the Black Sea seem to sort of stretch suspension of disbelief for me (Granted, if it was high tide that may change things, but then how did the Kuznetsov get past the GIUK gap and thousands of miles of the Atlantic and Mediterranean in one piece?)

If there's going to be an F/A-18 sim, would love to see a return to Kola, but seeing as how Nevada has only just now come out, that's not looking likely.

The same way Kuznetsov herself and her now-Chinese sister Varyag got out in real life - via the Dardanelles and Bosphorus. Both were built in the Black Sea port of Nikolayev, as were their two larger, nuclear-powered successors of the Ulyanovsk class which were later scrapped incomplete. Merchant tankers of similar size navigate this route regularly, so nothing about the bathymetry would prevent it.



Yes, the obstacles to carrier ops in the Black Sea are political and military in nature. You could make a case for Kuznetsov having never left in an alternate history scenario and Turkey waiving the rules for the US carrier.



Personally, I'd prefer the Kurile Islands, but failing that the North Cape would definitely be the next best thing, yes.

Agiel7, a few points:

1) The Kuz was built in a Black Sea shipyard.
2) The Kuz was specifically classified as an "Aircraft Carrying Cruiser" specifically to avoid being barred by treaties from passing the bosphorus.
3) The Kuz has conducted exercises with the Black Sea Fleet.

The only thing barring carriers from operating in the Black Sea is their ability to pass the bosphorus, which is only limited by two factors: their ability to classify themselves as a "cruiser", or if that fails, their ability to talk nicely with Turkey. The russians use the former, and for the americans they could just say "yo dawg" to their NATO allies in Turkey. :P

There is nothing about the ships themselves barring them.

EDIT: Sniped.

That's not the competition I'm referring to. I mean ED has no competition in the field of jet simulators aside from the BMS F-16 mod, and that's pretty meager commercially, despite how good it is. Any plane released for FSX or the like, where you fly a plane but there's no combat environment, is not competition for the DCS series unless you buy DCS just to do free flight and fly unarmed.



The Jedi Master

If you want to check the facts regarding Bosphorus passage the treaty in force that limits ships is the 1936 Montreaux Convention.

cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Turkish_Straits

Wow, so I clicked the first page of this thread, and then the 10th, skipping everything in between.

To say it got a little off topic is an understatement, lol. (I don't really care, I just think it's funny to see the contrast)

FWIW, I agree that the F16 isn't the only popular US fixed wing plane. I'd give the Hornet and Eagle equal chance, as "very popular" is pretty nebulous. I will say, it would be a crying shame if it's not the Mud Hen; the AI model is drop-dead gorgeous!

Whatever they give us, I'll hand over my cash, as I trust they'll do right by us. An afterburner would be nice though....