Tank50us

Would it be possible to change it to a "modifier" that can also be used for other areas. Basically, pressing a key multiple times has another affect, for example disengaging autopilot or auto-throttle. Or changing the modifier ourselves for the ejection handle so that we can turn it into a single button-press (could be useful for people making simpits)

What if there was a switch in the R/R panel where a person can choose what goes first? By default it would be refuel first. But the player can switch to rearm first. Or it could have other options as well. Refuel only, Rearm Only... or even nothing at all (use if you're changing the livery)

This is especially the case for missions where you're doing COIN ops. After all, the baddies like to hide amongst the civilians, so a good operation would be have a 'spotter' aircraft (Gazelle, Huey, Kiowa when it arrives, CA units, Bronco, etc) actually look for the bad guys in direct the airstrike in a way that avoids collateral damage. How well the group does can then be measured by how many civilians are still alive and unharmed. Also, if I'm not mistaken... isn't this what the APKWS rockets were built for?

This is already something that's planned for the Forrestal. No ETA on it yet, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Heatblur drops it around the same time as the Phantom. It's also possible that they're waiting for ED to finish all of the SCM features before putting them on the Forrestal class. Which makes sense... why add it now, and then have to do a ton of work to do it again.

People will buy it anyway, and people will complain about it.

Though, to be fair to the community, that assessment applies all over the place, no matter what aircraft is added. I've heard people gripe about a 3rd Party adding the C-130, and I've seen the gripes about the Cristian Eagle because it's not a combat aircraft. Personally, whether it's ED or a third party, if the Super Hornet were to be added, there's no point in worrying about the gripes... just do the Dev version of "Damn the Torpedoes, full speed ahead"

Question... What could be going on with the MERs? For some reason they don't appear on my install... I've completely reinstalled DCS and the Mod and still get this issue... The Triple Ejector Racks work fine though

So, one thing I see a lot of images of with the A4 is the 6-bomb Ejector Rack on the center-line. This rack appears on literally every other aircraft except the A4 for some reason. Has anyone else encountered this bug? And if so, how do I fix it. I should note, that the bombs attached to the rack appear normally. But the rack itself doesn't.

One possible option is to have them as part of the map (like the traffic), and when something happens (like an explosion or a tank driving up), they are animated to duck into the nearest building, and after a bit of time, they come back out.

I'm not sure if they have it or not, but one of the key things in play is that none of them are USAF/USN. As for one purpose of having a trainer aircraft is that the instructor can actually perform tasks currently impossible unless you're in the same pit. For example, demonstrating a proper final approach. My current project will be built around the idea that if someone is new to DCS, and flight sims in general, will start in a trainer to learn the basics before they go to their frame.

This is already coming. I think Wags mentioned it in the 2.9 release video

The main question I pose is: Which tanks to start with for such an undertaking? The M1 is still in service, despite being so iconic, and the same can be said for the Challengers, Leopard 2, and T-90, and all of them are still highly classified. My suggestion would be the M60A3, T-55, and Centurian The reason? All three use armor that can be accurately measured. Each were produced in the thousands, so examples can be found just about anywhere. All three have a host of modifications that can be added very easily (such as Reactive Armor) The only thing to remember is that to create an accurate tank environment, you'd also have to create an AI that can handle the duties of the crew, with the default position being the Tank Commander. Loader, Gunner, and Driver would all have to be AI operated unless someone sits in those seats.

Alright, so, I know a while back I made a poor attempt at getting a hype train started... but now I'm finally in a position to open things up for the masses. Since losing my old unit, I've been slowly working on a new DCS project, one that I call "The War in the North". It's a fictional setting, similar to how Project Aces handled the setting for the Ace Combat series, but it will still use the available maps and aircraft, just with obviously fictional countries and units. After a setback with my Discord (my account got hacked, and all the work went with it), I've finally gotten around to picking up those pieces and building the Discord for the setting. It's still a work in progress, but three of the major groups are fully set up and ready to go (just needing logos and patches, which are coming). Unlike my previous unit, which was a mixed group of planes, this thing will operate in a manor more akin to real world squadrons. Squadron and wing leaders will be given the lore of each unit, and from there will be free to operate the unit as they see fit (Who doesn't like a little bit of role-play eh?). Currently, only the Blue-Force side is available, eventually the red force will come online, but for now I just want to focus on the Blue side. The units available to join, and their aircraft, are as follows: FAS-18: the only mixed group, but they're goal is to provide DACT and combat training for new pilots (this is also where new members will go for evaluation once we've grown sufficiently) 1st Air Combat Groupe - RJS-25 (Viggin and Hornet) - JS-38 (Gripen, pending evaluation, or Hornets) - JS-15 (Viggin) Carrier Strike Group 5 (Three units are active now, but four more are coming) - VF82 "Buccaneers" (Tomcats) - VFA11 "Sea Snakes" (Hornets) - VFA114 "Kraken Hunters" (Hornets) 12th Expeditionary Fighter Wing - 145th Fighter Squadron "Wilddogs" (Eagles and Mudhens) - 316th Fighter Squadron "Ghost Vipers" (Vipers) - 241st Fighter Squadron "Mad Weasels" (Vipers) - 451st Attack Squadron "Flying Razerbacks" 4077th Air Mobile Brigade - 8073th Attack Helicopter Regiment: "Outlaws" (Longbows) - 7623th Helicopter Recon Regiment: "Peeping Toms" (Gazelles) - 6045th Transport Regiment: "Mustangs" (Blackhawks) Other units will come online soon, but if anyone would like to join, start filling the ranks, and start working with one another, then feel free to join our discord. One thing I want to stress is that there is still a lot I'm working on. Anyone who wishes to help, will be welcome to do so. In the meantime, here's the link: https://discord.gg/cqyKQvUVRn And enjoy some artwork and screen caps I've taken.

And have a plan to kill every one you meet! ~ The Sniper *Cue TF2 theme*

This. Also keep in mind that we don't know how many people ED have working on these projects, vs projects that ultimately make them money (the modules). I don't have an issue with ED focusing on making sure the game is financially stable. Now, that said, I think ED should make some a better mod support system, so that we players can better contribute to DCS, like how the Skyhawk guys did.

nearly 650mb for a couple bug fixes.... I wonder what snuck in under Gary Burghoff... (like if you get it)

If you download the mission they're using, and look at the mission lua, you'll find that the lines in "Required Modules" is deleted, many servers do this. I've been on a couple of them, and even ran a unit that did that with its server. The point the OP is trying to make is the same thing I tried to make a while back... make it better for these mods to be included. For example, if you have a mod that adds the M1A2SEPv3, while you're setting the mod up you can have the base-game M1A2 take its place in the event someone connects who doesn't have the mod. Or if the mission has the Project Flanker Su30, the replacement model could be the base-game Su30, or the Su34. The same could be done for weapons, warships, infantry, you name it. Right now, as the OP pointed out earlier, ED does not seem to have any real interest in expanding Naval Operations, or Ground Operations, which means that the Modders have to step-up and add the items that DCS is missing. I think the few items the OP brought up would be a good way for DCS to have the mods included, and if the files were uploaded to something that ED controls, all of the security concerns that some people have also go out the window.

"If you fly directly over that core I promise you by tomorrow morning you'll be begging for that bullet!"

I think the OP is asking for the updated version of the Avenger, or the version that packs the Javelin as well as the Stinger

So, as some of you may be aware, the 145th PMC Group is no more. I was forced to leave, and the unit was re-branded. Since then, I've been working on something... interesting. Something... big. No, it's not a module (I wish I had the time and talent), nor is it a mod... though it will use them. It's not small, and it does involve some alternate universe shenanigans to work... but I think it's something the community will like. What is it? Well, I'm going to just build some suspense. But as it's built... keep tuned here for updates. Both for the world building... and for the eventual launch of the Discord. Until then, just keep tuned. See you all on the battlefield.

can you make sure that gets updated on the main patch notes as well? (not just here in this thread)

I think this is missing some context... some more clarification here is needed.

The *only* way to handle nukes currently is through scripting. You have a cruise missile launched at a certain point, and when it enters that zone, everything within a larger zone gets destroyed. It's really good for defensive missions where you simulate the kind of attack both sides of the Cold War feared most. Now, with that said, it would be nice if we could have the actual particle effect, and be allowed to scale it appropriately. But I get the feeling ED probably doesn't want that either.

I did some digging, since this gave me a bit of pause for thought... ED doesn't have to do the actual T-38, they could do the F-5F, a two-seat, combat capable variant of the F-5. If they went with that aircraft, people could still have a dedicated trainer, but also an aircraft that can still blow s--t up. It may not have the same performance as the current F-5, but it'd be enough that people can easily transition into other BluFor aircraft, but also *talk* with other BluFor aircraft since it has the radios, TACAN, IFF, and RWR that allows them to fight along side other US/NATO planes. So, I could see a two-seat, combat capable F-5 being viable, and at the same time for those that have the current F-5 who would all likely go "Wait a second!", I'd say we could get other variants that are used around the world as an add-on to the current F-5 (think like Mirage F-1), and the two-seater is the only free one, but has the worst 'dogfighting' performance, but is still capable of performing in missions. The money ED makes from the ad-on could be a way to fund the development of the two-seater. Just a thought to add to the discussion. TBT, I'd personally like to see ED put out a western aircraft that's compariable to the Su25T and free, and the list of planes that fit that role is kinda small.

Actually, the "mushroom cloud" can be produced by any sufficiently large bang, heck, you see them all the time at airshows when they let loose with the pyrotechnics. For example: (Airshow booms) (MOAB test) I can certainly understand the aversion towards nukes however, I'm just showing that some of these bangs can be caused by non nuclear ordinance, and in the case of the latter, that's about the limit I'd go for with large explosions. Although one effect of such a bang I'd like to see one day in the future would be the EM effects on the aircraft that are susceptible to them when one goes off, or someone sets off an EM weapon (which do kinda exist, and are used to test equipment against EM pulses)