Tank50us

and how many Trainers have we gotten since? I could be mistaken, but the Hawk was probably the first... now we have the L39, C101, and the MB339... plus one of the Mirage F1 variants is a two-seat trainer.

knowing Rons ego... don't hold your breath. As I've said on that thread... this could've been settled months ago with the signing of one contract... and it apparently hasn't happened yet.

It would be. But let's not forget that outside of getting the Source Code for the existing modules, or getting RB back to work... there's only two options for ED: Replace them entirely or abandon them... and considering people LIKE those aircraft, it leaves them with just one: Replace them. Also, I think people need to understand that 95% of us will NEVER set foot in these pits outside of airshows or museums. So I think it's safe to say that "Good enough" should be the end goal of any module. Exact 1-1 is fine... but it's ultimately better to get something into our hands soon, and refine as time goes on. Think of it like Elite Dangerous vs Star Citizen. Elite was a functional title after about a year and a half of development, and was released to the public about a year later.... but Star Citizen? Still waiting. In DCS terms... there's the F-15E. RB sat on that thing for about a decade before they released it. And in that time, multiple third party developers cropped up, made something, and released it. Were those modules perfect on day one? No. But they were refined little by little until they got where they are now. Hence my statement about an F-15E replacement could be released to us inside 6 months, as ED has everything they need already to pull it off. It's just a matter of refining it until it's perfect after the fact. Which I personally would be fine with, especially if they come out and say "Hey, if you didn't request a refund for the RB F-15E, you get this for free or at a significant discount".

Well.. If RB isn't coming back to keep their modules working... I'm sure there's a few people who'd be happy to accept a new job...

Honestly, with exception to the Mig19, ED has most of the documentation to make a decent 'replacement pack' for those that didn't get refunds, but these aircraft would, by necessity, have to be different versions of what RB made, JUST IN CASE someone in RBs legal department rolls up a newspaper. F-15E can be replaced, like for like, with a different version of the E... I wouldn't go with the EX, as it's too new and there isn't enough documents available yet... but a 1989 or 1990 E model? That'd work. The Mirage 2000C can be replaced by a more recent M2k, maybe the Mirage 2005? Harrier can be replaced by the last USMC version... which has the Hornets radar... which is already in game The Mig19... that's a tough one since getting Russian Documents is notoriously difficult. But there is a team working on the Mig17 right now. The real catch is how much development time would be needed to get each one working. A replacement Strike Eagle could probably be in our hands inside of 6 months with BASIC functionality (A/A weapons, Dumb and Laser-guided Bombs, working flight and damage models), but that's only because they have most of the work done for them with the F-15C (same engines, radar, etc). But a new Harrier or Mirage? We'd need a couple years. Minimum. This all being said... I just hope they can figure something out with RB, either to get them working again, or get the source codes. But until then... pray.

So bub... with the likelihood of the Super Herc coming out late this year, or early next... how's that crow taste?

First, something like this would be an option, just like the IFLOLS for the SCM. If you don't want it, take a ten-twenty second jaunt through the settings, and turn it off. Some people have a hard time seeing the lights at all. Sure, you can probably see them just fine in VR, or with a high enough resolution screen and GPU... but not everyone has that... actually... for that matter... I'd be willing to bet money that at least 40% or more of the community is running the game with a computer that can run it at OK settings, and using lower-end controls. If my estimate is correct, then this option would likely help a fairly significant portion of the community, which in turn leads to better investment into DCS, which means more money spent on modules, etc. A small bit of development time to make AAR a little easier... and ED will reap the rewards. I can only see this as an absolute win.

yeah, it's a shame how so many people demand the ability to see the welds and bolts on an M1 Abrams or T-72 when the majority of us will be squinting at it through an MFD wired to a T-Pod... or pulling out of a dive a couple thousand feet above it as a 2,000lb gift pile-drives into the ground next to it. I can understand it for the helo pilots, after all... they get MUCH closer to the unit in question... but I'd still argue that ground units need to be optimized for performance not visual fidelity. After all, if you're an Apache pilot recreating the 1991 Gulf War, the dozens of T-72s, T-55s, and BMPs that you and your 15 wingmen are engaging... the mission NEEDS to run smoothly... even as turrets head to the moon.

honestly, the way the sim is, we really can't see it like 99% of the time. On the RWR it still shows up as "E2", and the only time we actually get a good look at one is if it's on the deck or we're flying in close formation. That being said, having more AWACS aircraft wouldn't be a bad thing, like the E-1 Tracer, KA-31, or that modified Sea King with a radar.

We can always RP them as these guys in that instance....

I mean... they could be weather radars too.

Bonus points if we can have it 'play' certain radars so that it appears on RWR as the desired emitter.

Now, we all have stories we wanna tell. Most of us will tell it through the events of a campaign. But if you want to shoot something for YouTube, you're usually stuck with one of two options: 1. carefully path the AI and HOPE they do what you intend or 2. Bring in a bunch of 'actors' to fly the jets, and hope that when it's time to shoot, the weapons do what you want them to do. Now, we've all seen some INCREDIBLE work by some talented individuals who can put together teams of people to get JUST the right shot. But what if we had access to some tools that made everyone's lives easier in this regard? What if you had the ability to have a path that an aircraft will follow, releasing a weapon at the exact point you want it to, and that weapon doing exactly what you want it to do? And this is just one example. I'm sure people here could come up with a number of shots they could pull off if the tools were present. What do you guys think? I imagine that ED has the tools already for their trailers... but can ya'll imagine what we could pull off if we had them?

I have to ask... does my idea have merit for HOW to do Infantry squads?

A fellow Ground Pounder? Here? Holy carp! Anyway, it's one of those things that will take quite a long time given everything else that's on the plate. That said, one aspect I would like to see changed is the way infantry squads are actually handled, compared to how they are now. Right now, they're basically treated as human-shaped ground vehicles, when they should have a similar system to the trains. You plop a squad down, and then build it up from the squad leader or use presets.

Honestly, some presets for that part of the ME would be nice. For example, if we're playing a mission that's supposed to be set in the early days of the Hornets life. While obviously the Lot20 we have wouldn't work for an early 80s mission as the systems are way to advanced... So, when setting up the hornet in the ME, we should be able to go through the weapons page like normal and set up some presets for different eras like we can set up presets for weapon loads. The one drawback to this however, is that certain aircraft, like the F-16, don't have all the weapons that they should have. In order to have this work for the Viper, we'd need those weapons.

Many have. Largely because real conflicts aren't exactly as cut and dry when it comes to how coalitions operate. Case in point, WW2. While Japan, Italy, and Germany were all part of the axis powers, they didn't always share what they were doing with one another, especially Germany and Italy. While situations where the two came to blows are rare, it was still a possibility. The way I see it, the 'relationship' between group A and B should be one of five states: Allied: Will not shoot at you period. Friendly: Will work with, but limited (think USA during the first two years of WW2) Neutral: Won't do anything, but will still defend itself if necessary. Strained: Relations aren't good, may shoot at you. Hostile: Will shoot on sight. The only other state would be 'not involved', meaning that their units won't even be available to place on the map (Ex: Japanese units in France 1944). But an example of how this would look: You have a mission set on the upcoming Germany map. You have the NATO members all set to "allied" as well as the Warsaw Pact nations, and their coalition color set to Blue and Red respectively. But you also have some smaller insurgent groups. who are openly hostile to one another, but set to 'friendly' towards the Warsaw Pact. And then for S&G, you have Switzerland in the lower west corner of the map set to Neutral for everyone. China and Japan would likely be set to "Not Involved", and their kit wouldn't be available to the reds or blues.

I'd be all for this being a thing. Honestly, it'd be nice if a player could jump into that seat and both work the boom/drogue, and communicate with us. Trying to figure out where you have to be in order for the dang tanker to give "Clear contact" is certainly a hair puller for newer players until they finally get it right. But yeah, I do agree with the OP, a 'helper' pop-up would be nice for this, just like the IFLOLS. It'd also be nice to have something for the probe and drogue guys as well. I will argue however that by default, they should be turned off. But those that need them can turn them on. I did however find it funny how someone arguing against it thought it would break 'game balance' in MP... which made no sense to me, especially since there's no way to tell if a player is using those aids #1, and #2 it has no effect on combat. If it did, Jesters call-outs about enemy aircraft in a dogfight would be considered game breaking.

if the tracks of a BT were blown off, they could run on the road wheels just fine. They could even, with some work, drive on nothing but the road wheels. TheChieftain did a couple vids on the BT7

You mean fire when it can't turn the turret? If that's the case, I would like to introduce you to someone: Otherwise, the only way a tank wouldn't be able to fire it's main gun if the 'turret is destroyed' would be if the turret either didn't exist any more, or the crew required a mop bucket to remove. In either case, the tank is considered 'destroyed'. Also, since you brought up a tank being able to move with damaged tracks.... This guy was able to do exactly that. So there were a few designs actually capable of stuff like that. There aren't any around today that I'm aware of, but the idea was still there.

Only if you're aware of the distances really, and also only if you can figure out how far 200m is. Most people, if told where to rearm and refuel, will just go to that location anyway. One thing that could also be done to reinforce the idea is have some "communication" with the pilot so that when they enter a specific zone on the base, they get told where to go, and once they get there, get further instructions. It could probably be done just fine with the existing script system... but it would be quite difficult.

I mean, if a unit doesn't reach their objective, it doesn't really matter if it's because the unit was destroyed, or if two of the five tanks in the platoon had their tracks blown off. Since in the real world campaigns would last only a few days, it's entirely possible for a tank that suddenly needs a new engine to miss the entire thing (at least before the implementation of quick-replacement equipment). So if an objective isn't reached within a specific time-frame, then the objective is still technically a failure. Now, the core part of this is actually fairly easy to implement, and doesn't require as much work as one might think. As you only need certain 'zones' within the unit that have different effects. Namely: Tanks and Tracked AFVs: Tracks: When destroyed, the vehicle stops, but the weapons still function normally. Engine: When destroyed, the vehicle stops, but certain electronics are hindered. Reducing radar capability, turret traverse (since the crew would be manually turning it), rate of fire or the ability to fire (as many weapons require electronic firing devices). Weapons: When destroyed the vehicle can't shoot with that weapon. Ammo: When destroyed the vehicles turret goes to the moon. Fuel: When hit, the tank brews up, and burns until dead. Wheeled vehicles share most of the above, but if they use a 'corner' set of wheels, they become immobilized. Warships: Radar: When destroyed, the ship cannot use many of its long-range weapons, or in some cases, their CIWS. Flight Deck: For carriers this means no launching or recovering of aircraft. Sections: Warships would have to be broken into various sections to better simulate damage to the hull, both above and below the water line. Damage below the WL could result in serious flooding, while damage above could result in fires starting. Either one would likely have 'ticks' where every few seconds some RNG is rolled to see if the crew gets the issue under control or not. If they're unable, eventually, the crew will abandon ship (which itself could be indicated by having some life rafts appear around the ship) Bridge/CIC: If these get taken out, much of the ships abilities become diminished, or the ship stops responding to commands from the 'commander' Personally, this is how I see it could be done. But we'll see.

There's also a C2 version of the Stryker as well, don't forget that. And there's the MEDEVAC variant as well. Sure, they may not have much combat utility, but they would still be something you'd see in a modern scenario, especially for the guys in AH64s and CH47s.

interesting. I'll have to try that out to see if it works.

Well, until ED gets around to it, you can simulate it yourself using the objects. Obviously the airfields and carrier will R&R you no matter where you are, BUT... you can place them down anyway and tell people in the mission that's where you go to refuel and rearm. That said, using the above method, you can properly simulate it with aircraft like the Viggin, and you can set it up on the 'non-functioning' airfields as well. For example the Kobuleti X, the major runway on the center of Cyprus, the small run way near the harbor on Guam, and many more.