Jump to content

Tank50us

Members
  • Posts

    985
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tank50us

  1. Funny enough, the Community A-4 proved that this could be done with an aircraft by adding a 'buddy tank' to the aircraft. Obviously for something as tiny as an A-4 it's completely impractical, but it should be possible, at least in theory, to have an aircraft take on the role of a tanker, even when it's not one normally (like the S-3). From what I understand, the new S-3 is likely going to be the test bed for that, but we'll see when it's finally pushed out. As for the rest, it should be a fairly simple thing to handle for DCS. When you call the tanker, the type of aircraft you're flying should automatically be transmitted to the tanker when you're approaching it. So for example, the call should go something like this (this assumes either a KC-135MPRS or KC-10): "Texaco 1-1, this is Victory 1-1, you've got two thirsty Tomcats (two Tomcats in the flight, both under 25% fuel). Over" "Victory 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Copy, two Tomcats. Current heading is 230, Speed is 270, Altitude 23,000. Call when you have Tanker in sight. Over." When you get close to the tanker. "Texaco 1-1, this is Victory 1-1, Tanker in sight." "Victory 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Confirm visual. Extending Drogue. Confirm ready pre-contact." When you're in position, ready to make contact "Victory 1-1, ready pre-contact." "Confirm. Clear Contact" "Contact." "Confirm. You're taking fuel." Now if you're a Boom refueling aircraft coming into this, you'd have: "Texaco 1-1, this is Viper 1-1. Flight of four Vipers inbound. Over." "Viper 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Copy, four Vipers. Current Heading is 050, Speed is 270, Altitude 23,000. Call when you have Tanker in sight. Over." "Texaco 1-1, this is Viper 1-1, Tanker in sight." "Viper 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Confirm Visual. Take up port holding area until Tomcats are clear." When the Tomcats clear out "Viper 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1, Tomcats clear, lowering boom. Proceed to pre-contact." Yeah I went a little overboard here... but I do see that as a viable overhaul, especially if we get some visual aids like the Meatball that pops up when making carrier landings.
  2. I mentioned that in my bit, making the option available to mission editors. Most servers will likely keep it off for the reason you stated, but other MDs might come up with a scenario where the added capability was somehow needed, and deployed aircraft are given the equipment necessary.
  3. Hornet as well. And teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeechnically the F-14.... since the a Tomcat was used to test the AMRAAM. As for how to implement it... I'd just make it an option in the ME. The equipment was made, but never installed on operational Tomcats since it was decided that A: the Phoenix was still viable at the time, and B: the Hornet was better suited anyway. As for why it should be an option... well... it's simple: While historically there was never a situation where the upgrades were needed, that's not to say that things could go differently for various reasons than they did historically. The scenarios are numerous, and I'm sure some mission creators could come up with some viable scenarios.
  4. Isn't there also a process that can achieve the same results, but by using a bunch of photos of the aircraft from various angles? I heard that Cuban Ace used something similar to help him with the Su57
  5. Potentially yeah, but how you create the scenario is up to you, but it's certainly not impossible to figure something like that out.
  6. Channel/Normandy technically fit that time frame if you want to do some alternate history and have the Cold War go hot in the 50's
  7. The F-86 didn't leave service until 1994, so there's still scenarios where it could be present in a conflict, even if it's on the receiving end of a curb-stomp. And other than the USAF (the first user), and Bolivia (the last), the F-86 was used by.... well.... A lot of countries.... and oh look.... all of the maps in DCS are on this map!
  8. Are you talking about the lines that appear next to the contact in the F-16 and F-18 when you have a radar lock and guns selected, then, yeah, we have that already. Not every plane in the world has that kind of capability.
  9. That's for the animated deck crew, I was talking about the statics that you can place down and use on Non SCM carriers to add some more flavor to the deck
  10. Now, before people start reaching for their pitchforks, hear me out... The idea here, is to make the deck crew feel a bit more 'alive'. Basically, as we all know, humans are... well.... human. We don't do things exactly the same way with every action we take. For example, how often do you do something as mundane as opening your fridge the exact same way? Now you can see my point right? So, what are some examples for DCS? Well, one example would be the way the crew handles a launch. Such as the following: The 'Shooter' doing a 'gun firing' motion with his hand when he gives the launch signal. Some of the crew giving each other high-fives when the plane launches (you won't see it, but who ever is behind you will) The greenie that hooks you up trying (and sometimes failing) to 'combat roll' to pick up the hold-back bar. (this would be rare though) The whole crew reacting to the ship when it makes a sharp turn (such as bracing themselves, or leaning against the ship as it turns like it was nothing) Another rare one would be a white-shirt holding a hot-dog spike (complete with hotdog) to your engines when you go to full power (Meant as a Hot Shots! reference) For landing, you could have the crew on the waist getting hammy as well, such as: Celebrating a good landing (think the one yellow in the Top Gun intro) If you're all over the place, the crew on the waist cats scramble for cover (like... ya know... they would do in such a situation) What do you guys think? Could you think of some amusing animations that could be added to the deck crew? Also, while I'm at it... could we have an option to have some static 'kneeling' deck crew? It's kinda immersion breaking when they're just standing there with your wing about to plow through them.
  11. Alright, so, for a 3rd party deciding to do this, time wouldn't be that much of a factor, and money could be raised through crowd funding (If ED allows that).... That being said, what would be the latest Block/Lot that could be done with minimal issues? If it were up to me, I'd be shooting for the 2003-2005 era (same as the RB F-15E). Could a mid-2000s Super Hornet be accessed for laser scanning? And, realistically speaking, is laser scanning absolutely necessary for the making of a module?
  12. So... what ultimately stops any third-party devs from making a Super Hornet?
  13. So, while putting a mission together, and setting up the set dressing for our carrier, I noticed that some of the Static Deck Crew from the SCM might fit into more scenarios, if they were made into actual AI units. Take for example one of the LSOs (LSO 6 I think), is just a guy in flight gear. Personally, I think it'd be nice if this static was given a rig and set of animations, made into an unarmed unit, and then we can have situations where we actually have a downed pilot to search for and rescue. Noting that, I also thought that some of the statics would also make good unarmed AI units. Some of the tractors for example, you could see them being driven around bases. Some of the other deck crew could also be made into AI units with a little reskinning, such as the White Shirts. Give them a red cross on the shirt, and suddenly you have SAR guys that could be running through an earthquake zone. At the same time, there's some statics I'd like to see added properly. One such example would be some munitions karts. Why these? Again, it adds some set dressing to see some weapons that have been per-positioned to be loaded onto an aircraft. And before anyone gripes about it not being realistic... just remember that if any ordinance were to explode on a carrier, having it blow up on the flight deck at the very least means you still have a carrier. Any of it going off in the magazines would mean the carrier ceases to exist. Although with that said, there don't have to be very many such karts made, one for Sidewinders/R60s, one for Sparrows/AMRAAMs/R27s, and maybe one for some Mk82s or GBU38s. What do you guys think?
  14. I don't know of any off hand, but, my group does use the PPS for some 'Game Master' Slots, that way people don't jump into slots they aren't supposed to, and have access to things they aren't supposed to.
  15. Imagine for a second that you're doing a campaign set in the early to mid Cold War, a time when intel on anything was sketchy at best. The F-10 map is set up to only show your allies, and not your enemies. You decide you want to be Blue Force, and you put in the Blue Force Password. Now you only see the Blue Force jets available, and you spawn. You don't know what the enemy has, and so you take off on a patrol. A random player forms up on you in another Blue Jet, and you head out. Suddenly, this feels pretty realistic, you're now looking for possible enemies, never knowing what you're going to encounter. Suddenly, someone logs into LOTATC, and into the SRS server, dials in your radio frequency, and starts talking to you. Now you really are feeling the immersion. You have a wingman, you have a real patrol, and now you also have GCI talking to you.... but then the subject of the conversation changes. Bogies approaching the border. Your GCI can't tell you what they are, all he sees are blips on a radar screen. He knows they're probably hostiles, since they're coming from the other side of the border.... the red side of the border. Now you get the full experience. You have no way to know what you're about to merge with, your wingman opens up the distance between you both, and you are now in a combat spread. As you close the distance, your AI RIO (we'll assume this is post Phantom launch) manages to get a radar lock on the unknowns, but your ROE says you can't shoot until they're identified.... Just imagine yourself in that scenario. Imagine how tense it'll feel... Yes, it's nice to know what you're up against... but sometimes... not knowing makes the whole experience just that much more thrilling.
  16. Not to get into discussion, could you give us some translations on the details for these in the future? Not exact translations, but certainly more data points to give us more info.
  17. A lot of people want the Super Bug, trust me. It would be very nice to have a USN 4.5gen aircraft, but there's the rub: How do you sell it? Answer is very, very simple. You won't be able to easily. Why? Well, let's go through the list: In terms of weapons, the only thing it can carry that the legacy can't, is the AIM120D. It might be able to carry some other toys as well, but I'm not entirely sure off hand. While the Super Hornet has longer legs, and better engines, it's thrust/weight ratio is actually worse than the Legacy (0.93 vs 0.96) You get two extra stores... that are rated for missiles, or small (and I mean less than 500lbs) bombs only. Systems wise, you're looking at a Hornet 2.0. Basically, for ED to really sell this thing to current Hornet drivers, they'd have to do it the same way they did the A-10CII. As an expansion to the existing F/A18C Module, rather than a full stand alone product. For best results, I'd argue that they'd be better off with the F version, as it offers multi-crew to the mix, and gives more reason for people to want the upgrade. So, the upgrade package would offer: Multi-crew airframe two extra hardpoints for weapons improved engines increased range without bags increased MTO A better ACLS And other small features But to pull this off, ED would need to make: A new model A new flight and damage model A new engine performance model (because of the new engines) Add a new radar to the mix An AI for the back seat to handle the Fs functions in the back That's almost a full module just in those items alone, and I don't think it'd be fair of us to ask they do the work required to make a full module, and only charge the upgrade cost. Yes, they can save work because the two share many systems... but there's still quite a bit of work to complete before they could even release it. So... short of the long, do I want the Super Bug? Yes. Do I think it's practical for ED to make it right now? Not really. Do I think it'll come to DCS? Eventually. To be fair, there are a lot of people starting threads or reopening existing ones begging for a Super Hornet, and while I myself want one, I know it's not likely in the cards given that there's actually more important things being worked on right now (like Vulkan)
  18. That or fixing the long standing issues currently present in DCS, that haven't gone away.
  19. It'd be a huge gamble for sure. If Top Gun Maverick is a huge success, they'd have to find a way to capitalize on it quickly. Keep in mind that it takes up to two years to make a module from scratch, so any module made and sold within six months of Top Guns release would have to have been something in the works for at least a year before being announced. And most of the third parties aren't up to it right now, so they'd have to bring in a new one. There's other challenges as well. For starters, how do you sell the Super Hornet? It might seem like a silly question, but in the context of DCS, it's actually a serious one. How exactly do you sell it? Anyone that isn't coming out of the theater going "I have to have it" is going to look at the Super Hornet, and then the Legacy Hornet they already have and go "Why should I buy that?" What does the Super Hornet offer, in terms of capability, that the legacy hornet doesn't? Now, sure, the Super hornet does offer a number of capabilities that the legacy doesn't. Having two extra stores, larger internal fuel tanks, a reduced RCS, and more. But in DCS, these may not be enough to get people throwing their credit cards at their monitors, and this will effectively mean that in order to sell a Super Hornet, you can't just go with any version of the aircraft, you have to select the F. Why? Because while the legacy hornet offers only a single seat, the Super Hornet can offer Multi-crew, which is known to be quite popular. Now, who makes this thing? The obvious first choice would be Eagle Dynamics themselves, since they already made the F/A-18C Lot20, which shares many systems with the Block 1 Super Hornet, making an expansion on this would be a good marketing move. Make the models, and flight model, port the systems, add the multi-crew functions, kick out the door, watch the money rain, right? If only it were that easy. A third party module would be possible, but there's no way to know how long it'll take from the moment they announce it, although the strategy of keeping it quiet until ready for release is one that would shock the DCS Community, and many would buy it right then and there. The catch here is that any team working on it would have to make all of these systems from scratch, something ED's been refining for what? About five years now with the legacy hornet? Talk about reinventing the wheel. Anyway, I do see the potential for Top Gun 2 to increase the demand for the Super Hornet, but I have to urge extreme caution that if a module were to be made, it would take at least a year or more to come out. So those who want the Super Hornet, need to really want it by that point, and not just be on the hype train from Top Gun.
  20. It'd especially be nice for those DCS Groups that are a bit more mercenary than an actual military unit. Having the latest generation fighters being real possible threats would be nice.
  21. The issue is that you'd need to actually model every aspect of the structure to get a proper damage model. That means getting schematics, and that's not always going to be easy, especially for industrial facilities that deal with petrochemicals and military hardware... it might get ya a visit from nice men in suits who just want to have a nice chat. That said, it would be nice if there was a way to do this in-engine when a building is damaged or destroyed. Just look at some of the cities in WW2 before the war, and immediately after hostilities ceased. This would however require a whole new way of rendering structures on a map. But this remains to be seen...
  22. I mean, we have the SA-2 in DCS... I don't see a reason to not have it's US/NATO Counterpart
  23. Because they'd be the one maintaining the Nexus. And as a result, it'd be their responsibility to keep it safe and secure. Not exactly a bad thing to ask of them. They do this already for the 3rd Party teams. The Hawk is a prime example of this playing out. Players report issues, the team does nothing to address them, they go to ED, ED tries to get the team to fix it, the team doesn't, etc. At the end of the day, it's a few emails or DMs. That's the sort of thing that the Community team does already.
  24. Exactly. Mod maker makes an update, they 'log in' to the nexus, update the mod files. Done. On our end, we fire up the game, get a notification of a mod update, accept and download. Game installs, prompts a restart. Done. No more having to check if everyone has the right version. No more worrying about the security of the mod. Nothing. The only thing ED does as far as the mod is concerned, is run regular checks on the nexus to make sure none of them have any malicious code installed. Which can be done as part of the Nexus's own anti-virus software or something. It can even be made automatic when someone uploads a mod, it's checked for malicious code and software, and if clear, it goes up. Now, if a bunch of people report to ED that the mod is having issues, then ED can take more direct action. From notifying the mod maker that something is broken to permanently disabling it from the nexus if problems persist. If a mod even reaches a certain level of acceptance, they may even ask the mod makers for permission to add the item to the base game (either as an AI Asset in the case of land/sea units, or offer 3rd party status in the case of aircraft). There are ways to do things that are better than what we've got to date.
  25. Hell most of the base-game planes could stand-in for many of the planes people want if they don't want to download the mods. This would also apply to many of the weapons, giving us at least *some* ability to see what's about to kill us and maybe avoid it.
×
×
  • Create New...