Eagle Dynamics confirmed F-16C

[ramazoti]

 
yeah they did confirmed it in the Deskription of the last Matt wagner vedio..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2nV2OHovT8

 
 

[Wolverine]

good news

[hy-fye1]

Wow, the graphic looks amazing

[MrWell]

I don't want to be pessimist but 5 to 10 years to see it? How much is the F18 taking?

[Marvin]

Is this a joke?  I saw no F16 in that video?

[Lightning101]

Is this a joke?  I saw no F16 in that video?

In the vid description Marvin. 

[Marvin]

Ah ok I see it now.  Although I purchased all their mods as I will always support any software in this hobby it entertains me for about an hour tops.  So I suspect the F16 mod when it is released in 5 years will do the same.

[Willy]

Marvin,

I'm curious as to why those DCS sims fail to hold your interest. 

I just looked at the Startup/TakeOff video of the F/A-18C and it looked pretty nice.  I don't have any DCS stuff as I just don't have the time to dive into yet another sim.  However, flying an F/A-18 and doing Carrier Traps under various conditions is something that appeals to me.  I got to fly an F/A-18 Super Hornet sim at I/ITSEC in Orlando many years ago and was able to get 'er on the deck and catch a wire all except one pass.  Lot's of fun.

[JCook]

I don't know if or when DCS would start an F16 project, but I don't think a 5-10 year delivery time frame is realistic. The F/A-18C has taken a long time because they had to create / simulate the sophisticated AA / AG radar algorithms, new weapons systems (AIM-120, etc) and carrier operations as well as expanding on air-to-air physics. In short there was a large suite of code that was missing from the DCS World platform that they needed to invent.

Much of this newly developed technology will transfer over to new combat aircraft - like an F16C. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of work to do in creating an F16 - but much of what has already been learned in developing the F18 will be applicable.

I think a 2 year delivery time frame is more likely.

[Red Dog]

2 years is not even the time required for BMS to publish one major update (4.32 to 4.33 and 4.33 to 4.34)
So I doubt it (and their radar AA stuff for the F/A-18 is not even done yet, they are very early alpha on "some" simple modes)

Beside, have a peek in DCS, try the A-10 for instance, And you'll see what Jody refers to
And I flew flanker in MP way before I flew Falcon in SP.
As the next guy I'll try the F/A-18 when it's out. And I'll probably like carrier ops
but I already know that it will last 6 months max, then I'll be back to BMS, as it happened for the A-10, Mig21 and F-5.
Not quite a decent timeframe to invest in a pit

Up to now DCS is all about money, there is no desire to go deep in things. That's too costly
They scratch surface and then concentrate on the next module to get funds in.
Nothing wrong for a commercial company
I doubt it would change in the future with F/A-18 and this hypothetical F-16
I don't mind being proved wrong though
Future will tell

[JCook]

Like i said in my post. I don't know if they've actually started on an F16. But i stand by my theory that once they have done the work to add the air-to-air, radar and other physics to DCS World, those technologies will be exploited for additional aircraft - i mean that is just smart coding.

Comparing a BMS vs DCS development time frame isn't very meaningful. Two very different development environments.

I've flown the DCS A10C since 2010 and it is an amazing simulation. As far as DCS being all about money? Well they are a software company so i dont see your point at all. They are in business to make money. The $60+ I might spend on the early release F18 is nothing compared to even the least expensive component in my simpit. If one day i can fly my simpit as an f16 in DCS World that is a huge win.

I'm not familiar with BMS team and the behind the scenes work but i'd bet DCS has far more resources available for research, 3d modelling, coding and testing. Taking nothing away from the incredible BMS team who have done an amazing job squeezing every last bit of performance out of a now ancient original platform - but the BMS community has been told many times about certain platform limitations that may never be overcome. Maybe the BMS programmers may yet find a way, maybe not.

Bottom line is i will continue to fly and enjoy both simulators and i look forward to a DCS F16.

[Rufus]

There are enough similarities between the F/A-18C and the F-16 that it's not a surprise to me that they might be developing the two in parallel. I know I certainly intend that my own F-16 pit be "multi-lingual" - i.e.; that I can drive it using BMS, FAF, or DCS with a simple change of profile - if DCS should bring forth a Viper that satisfies my interest for complexity and features.

If they get paid for the effort, I don't care one way or the other - if the quality what I want are there, I'll pay for it.  FAF, BMS, and DCS all have their advantages and disadvantages...I'm perfectly with fine just having/maintaining choice!

[sagrzmnky]

I would love to fly a Viper through terrain like that. I love BMS and right now it is the only one in my sim. However if the terrain looked like this on my three 55" screens, I would never get out of it.....

[Noluck18]

I'm with you on the terrain. Then blown away by the F/A-18 cockpit graphics at the ramp start. That lighting, shadows, dirty MFD's, beat up cockpit looked damn real. I'm getting it just for that, to fly an F/A=18 sim. My last designed and delivered simulator (8 each) for the US Navy was an F/A-E type. Was so slammed with the delivery schedule I did not even have much chance to fly the sim's, now I 'can'.

Man, this stuff has come a LONG way since I was in it. I am so screwed, I had better get pit building... go ahead and take all my money. 

 

Chip
---

[Marvin]

Willy,

That’s a good question and not sure if I can answer that.

I suspect a lot has to do with my loyalty to the Falcon franchise I mean like many I have been flying it since 1987 and part of development since 1997.

But really it’s the game play.  And that’s what I mean I just don’t feel like I am flying a realistic simulator.  It feels like Janes stuff entertaining games.  It really bothers me that the flight models (IMO) suck.  They seem to just be variations of one model.  I mostly fly it when I want to “fuck around” and I just can’t seem to take it serious.  Now in DCS’s defence I haven’t flown it online and I feel that would make a difference but on the same note I have not flown BMS online since about 2007 and really enjoy the solo play.

I think when you guys see 4.34 you will really see the realism that has been added and it is something I find DCS will never offer.

To date the most enjoyable DCS mod I have flown is the Harrier and evn that gave me about 8 hours until I stopped flying it.  I was excited as hell for th and F5 and I think I invested about 2 hours before I got bored.  Lol

Jody

Marvin,

I'm curious as to why those DCS sims fail to hold your interest. 

I just looked at the Startup/TakeOff video of the F/A-18C and it looked pretty nice.  I don't have any DCS stuff as I just don't have the time to dive into yet another sim.  However, flying an F/A-18 and doing Carrier Traps under various conditions is something that appeals to me.  I got to fly an F/A-18 Super Hornet sim at I/ITSEC in Orlando many years ago and was able to get 'er on the deck and catch a wire all except one pass.  Lot's of fun.

[Red Dog]

- I'm sure we'll all try it, no doubt about that

- I'm sure they'll use what they develop for the F/A-18 (and even part of the A-10C which has a lot of similarities with the F-16) for the future addons like the F-16. It's not even smart coding, it's the only logical way.
That said, F/A-18 and F-16 radar are quite different!

- I have no issue with their money addicted posture, as I said in my first post (which was apparently missed) it's a commercial company and that's what commercial companies do. I fully appreciate that but I am mature enough to also realise the limitation of such a system.

- As Jody I bought all the modules that were appealing to me and used them for a bit in MP with a few buddies but I always returned to something more dense, providing me a more real environment for MP combat

- I adapted my pit for an easy switch from the F-16 to the A-10C. Lots of similarities, stick, MFDs, ICP/UFC, weapon systems
I can tell you that this is not easy. BMS and DCS have completely opposite views of outputting data. It is possible but a simple click reconfiguration is a bit presomptuous. I have the tee shirt already

- If you like rampstarting multiple times and flying around. DCS is super great. If you want a dense combat environment, DCS lacks very much. it's empty, repetitive and boring quickly.
This analogy resumes pretty well the same difference in pit builders. These building a piece of furniture and those building a tool to achieve better immersion in flight simulation actually using the pit as a mean to enjoy combat flight sim in multiplayer.
Both optics are valid and both have their software solution. So I'm all for it

Comparing a BMS vs DCS development time frame isn't very meaningful. Two very different development environments.

which is the very first argument of the comparison

I'm not familiar with BMS team and the behind the scenes work but i'd bet DCS has far more resources available for research, 3d modelling, coding and testing.

I disagree.
A passionate coder working for free goes deeper into things because time (and therefore money) is not an issue.
The paid software developer may not be passionate by what he codes, he's under time and result pressure and often that leads to not so deep research.
Si in my humble opinion, the paid coder will always provide less deep research and work than the free coders, just because of time, pressure and motivation.
And that IMHO is exactly the difference between BMS and DCS

Now having said that - I love and respect both ventures and their users. I do believe that one is not mutually exclusive from the other. BMS has merit but so has DCS for being the only real company with the guts to develop such products commercially, and my philosophy is to support them just for that.

There is no benefit to bash one or the other. Both ventures could learn from each other. Unfortunately they fight each other through their fanboys official team Very often with poor insights.

So i'm sure there is enough to enjoy both. And if it takes 2 or 5 years it doesn't change one bit

[Cupra]

As much as I would like a DCS F-16 it would be the same as every time.. nice view and after a few hours.. nothing

I will stay at BMS, even if it gets sometime payware. The only thing I would prefer at BMS would be a actual network code that works with IPv6.. Flying online makes really fun, but within the last few years the IPv4 adresses get less and less. All that port forwarding stuff does not work very well at IPv6 But all the rest, BMS rules. If it makes problems during flying it is 99% my fault

But let´s see.

[KK]

I think when you guys see 4.34 you will really see the realism that has been added and it is something I find DCS will never offer.

Current version is 4.33.5 if I haven't overlooked a version or two.

So is 4.34 wishful thinking or is there already something cooking?

[Marvin]

I think when you guys see 4.34 you will really see the realism that has been added and it is something I find DCS will never offer.

Current version is 4.33.5 if I haven't overlooked a version or two.

So is 4.34 wishful thinking or is there already something cooking?

Far from wishful thinking.  We are in feature freeze right now.  It has been mentioned several times on this forum and others so it’s no secret but we can’t discuss the features coming. 

[Nigel]

You will be happy

[Rufus]

...I just wish the folks at BMS would get and keep direct link downloads working...or stop teasing them...

[KK]

Far from wishful thinking.  We are in feature freeze right now.  It has been mentioned several times on this forum and others so it’s no secret but we can’t discuss the features coming. 

You will be happy

OK, standing by to what you guys are breeding out.
Would be nice to see some of the nasty bugs disappeared.

Who is the guy to talk to for reporting bugs and cool features that could be implemented?