All too much...

[jester224]

I am sure we have all noticed the proliferation of modules and maps presented to us over the last few months. We have the Kola and Sinai maps, with A4 Skyhawk, Tornado and Hercules to name a some of the aircraft. Yet I feel I have heard nothing about the those aircraft we were expecting, such as the MiG-23 and F-4 Phantom II. Also the extensions to the channel map have not arrived as expected. Now in fairness no one gave specific dates for any of these but I feel a bit jaded about them all. I see them now and go "Yeah, yeah I will see it when I get the request for money to pay for it on release."

How do you guys feel about it all.

P.S. I am very excited about the "Tonka Toy" I hope that is not a pipe dream.

[Wee Neal 0414]

I see it as a slippery slope; especially the way RAFAir are orbated. The hobby is one of limited (reducing?) numbers and the further you dilute those numbers by spreading over a wider aircraft selection the harder it becomes to integrate. We will see a gradual decline and break up in numbers across the hobby and people will stop participating. Eagle Dynamics will lose money and have to shrink and eventually go bust!

I will purchase ED for £2 and only let people fly Helicopters: Nirvana!

Anyway just my initial thoughts.

Neal

[Alan-test]

That is the penalty you pay for more aircraft types.

When I joined RAF Air, during the last century, the only decent ac we had was the A-10. As a result, we regularly launched missions with 9 or more ac all in the same formation against the same or co-located targets. I must confess that I found this more satisfying than 5 or 6 formations (sometimes a formation being a singleton). each attacking a different target separated by many miles.

I understand the wish to fly different aircraft, but i do miss those 'old days'. But then, I've never really got to terms with colour TVs.

[Duke]

Surely you could just convert to newer modules to make it more like the RAF that your called? A10 convert to Tornado when released, F16 convert to Eurofighter, F18 and F14 convert to F4. Then you have RAF (as close as you can anyway) to real world. Or you just encrporate those airframes into existing ones. So CAW would include F18, F14 and F4 for example.

Only problem is that will rub people wrong way who are set in there "this airframe must fly alone" ways

[Plexi]

mmm? ' Only problem is that will rub people wrong way who are set in there "this airframe must fly alone" ways ' Not so sure about that Duke. I for example like and prefer that the Squadron I joined uses the AV8B 'Harrier' and only that. If I wanted to fly the f18 Hornet I would have joined that Squadron. As it stands now if I want to fly the f18 nothing stops me. I can still do so. Or say the f16, f14 whenever I fancy to. I like the fact that my Squadron 1(f) is a Harrier Squadron and only that. This is why I joined this Squadron and no other. Also I am not saying that one can't join other Squadrons and have the benefits of having use of what ever Aircraft said Squadron uses. Having said that when it comes to flying on missions with other Aircraft types it's also great. I wonder if I joined 3(f) Squadron or say 41(F) and flew in my AV8 I think they may well feel the same.

[Duke]

Your missing my point. AV8B and F18 are nothing alike. But say a Eurofighter and F16 are, so a squadron could have both and people can fly either F16 or Eurofighter alongside each other like they're doing with F14 and F18 in CAW. If some third party released an aircraft similar to an AV8B could it not be part of 1f? Or could the Apache squadron not encorperate a Cobra should it be released? That's what I'm saying. You could even go as far as saying keep all existing squadrons, make new ones when planes and heloscome out. But put them together for training and ops. But if you do that people will clash over minor stuff like what's happened before and it would break down.

Personally if I was running a say Tornado squadron. I'd welcome Harriers flying with me on the same mission. Edit or at least training together as both doing ground attack role

[Roon]

I'm starting to think that DCS is running the risk of becoming too watered down. By this I mean that the more aircraft you fly, the less depth you achieve in each - it has become a "sweet shop" of aviation that offers more and more variety all the time.

The more aircraft ED put out (they are a business, they want you to buy everything!) the more fragmented groups like RAFAIR will become, with only small Sqns of three or four guys on each of the fifty aircraft types. I thought about this a few years ago after buying a new jet and then realising that DCS was going to be a money pit if I didn't get a grip! That's when I decided to just go one type (in my case the F18) and suddenly I was settled and happy and haven't bought another aircraft since.

My suggestion is - pick the aircraft you always dreamed of flying or the one that does the things you enjoy the most...and give it a real chance to get under your skin.

This would achieve two things - you'll become a better and more knowledgeable pilot, and secondly it will increase the chances of groups being able to put together Sqns of reasonable size and expertise.

Of course, I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy every aircraft if that's what you want, I'm just asking "what's the point?", what do you want to do with DCS? Magpie to the latest sparkly object for a few hours, or really learn something? DCS cleverly offers both, but one leads to more single-player oriented DCS in the log run - which would be very sad to see. Just my two-penneth.

[Alan-test]

Reluctantly, I have to agree in large part with Roon. It is simply not reasonable for the great majority of 'amateur (sorry, but I certainly never get paid!) pilots to fly more than 3 or 4 sophisticated aircraft to a high level. Like many I have well over a dozen DCS aircraft, and there was a time when I flew most of them - but almost entirely for fun. As I got older, and 'ze leetle grey cells' reduced, it became clear that I was fighting a losing battle - figuratively as well as actually.

When I wrote my 'Deep Valley' mission, I flew all the aircraft types involved, with the exception of the Tomcat, and plotted out their routes, timings, weapons and targets. This was before we circulated a blank version of the outline for different squadrons to fill in their 'parts'. I still have all those aircraft and occasionally I still fly them. But having returned to the F-18 just recently, the simulation's capability has increased at an even faster rate than my capabilities have reduced. I am sure there are some of our number who could fly 3 or 4 types passably well, but not to the full capability of the aircraft.

I am beginning to see why so many of the DCS flying groups seem to concentrate on a single type. Only in that way will most of us reach their full potential.

However, that is not for me. I will continue to try to stay at least competent on the A-10 and fly the others mainly for pleasure and nostalgia rather than for business. The F-16 for its 'fun' value, the F-18 for its comprehensiveness, the Huey in memory of Vietnam, the Spitfire in the memory of WW2, and the Yak-52 for pure aerobatics (even though I still cannot stall-turn it neatly!). Most of my other purchases over the past 10 years or so will almost certainly remain in the hangar.

What am I trying to say? - well I am not sure. I like the feel and ethos of RAF Air UK, and would not consider defecting to a lesser, single-type outfit. I just hope that the days of the 'big circuses' are not yet over, and we shall yet see balbos (I can't find a spelling for that), of RAF Air UK streaking across the skies once more, in multi-ships rather than singletons and pairs.

And, just in case, I am keeping Op Deep Valley up to date!!

I am Flyco!! despite my current Alias, and I will return as he - just a soon as I can find the right bloody password!!

[Duke]

I'm happy flying several jets, I've flown and still fly the Harrier alot and as its now stable so need to do very little to keep current, so I dabbled in flying other things. Not really because I loved each aircraft, but more because its hard to find other people in rafair to fly with unless you have the plane they fly. Surely somethings wrong when someone won't fly an F18 with a F16 or whatever as they're basically doing the same role and fly so similar? Not even on Tuesday missions just in general flights, or even training all together? If I'm evading a sam or doing low level training etc I do 99% the same thing in a F16, F18, AV8B, etc etc

[Plexi]

No I think I got your point Duke. I think what it comes down to, for me anyway, is 1(f) flies the Harrier. I don't think the f35 just because it's familiar to the Harrier in it's VTOL capabilities would fit in along side the Harrier because 1(f) doesn't operate that jet. And, again for me, that's why 1(f) appeals to me. I like the realism that 1(f) gives in that it operates the Aircraft that it used in real life. If it operated an f35 in real life I would welcome it as it's the recreation of the real world Squadron. (yes, I know they no longer exist in real life.) I understand what you are saying though Duke. Fact or Fiction is what it boils down to in some respects I guess. I have no issues with a fictitious squadron and a mish mash of aircraft similar or different all flying together as one squadron but, for me it's got be as realistic, as close to the real thing existing or disbanded as is possible. So in answer to "If some third party released an aircraft similar to an AV8B could it not be part of 1f?" would be no. Creating new Squadrons that operate a particular Aircraft as and when they become available in DCS great I'm all for it. As for putting them together for training do we not already do that anyway. Yes I would welcome training and missions with a Tornado squadron, in fact we have flown with A.I Tornados (not the same or as good as Human I know) Can't see any problems with that at all. But just because the Tornado fulfills a role similar to the Harrier doesn't mean we should have Tornados in 1(f).