Tank50us

does anyone even know how to *start* the F-4 up?

This has been something that's been requested a lot actually. No word on when ED will get around to it yet.

That is something that's supposed to be coming, but no ETA

For something like this, you'd need a complete rework of the DCS Ground AI Logic. Some games did this with infantry, for example if you placed infantry units in C&C3 near something they could take cover behind (like a car), they'd automatically move to that at the end of their movement. Something like that could be written into future DCS Infantry, but for vehicles, it'd be a bit harder to accomplish. All that said, it would be nice to have units behave like actual humans trying to survive an airstrike, rather than be easy marks for us in the air. Another thing that I'd like to add... is tank crews. Something seen during ODS (and there's plenty of footage of it), is crews realizing how screwed they were, and abandoning the tank and running for cover. Something like that would be kinda neat to see in DCS, where when a tank is critically damaged (starts burning), you see the crew abandon the tank and run for cover (similar to a pilot punching out of a critically damaged plane), or, if the tanks 'skill' is low enough, they may bail at the mere sight of an enemy aircraft in the area.

One thing that I'd been thinking about recently, is about aircraft and projects that are currently in development. So, what I'd like to see, if it's even possible, are aircraft and helicopters, ground vehicles, and ships that are either just prototypes, or are just (to our knowledge) still on the drawing board. If done, I see this being akin to an FC-3 style module, but with fully functional cockpits. These aircraft (pics below), would be based on what is currently in development, and using known principles of aerospace engineering, materials science, engine performance, and known trends in cockpit design. While not true representations of what might come down the pipe, such a module would be kinda fun to see in DCS, especially for those wanting to play with scenarios set no more than a couple decades in the future. As stated, this would also include the proposed tank, ship, and helo designs that are coming down the pipe. As for the "What-if" part of the statement, this would be for units that were proposed, but failed. The question would be "What if the project was continued and re-branded?" Pics: Now, before people start posting pictures of Colonial Vipers and X-Wings... keep in mind that this post isn't about those. This is about what we know, or what we can reasonably assume are coming down the pipe in terms of design. What do you guys think? Would anything like this fit in a future DCS Module?

This would be something useful, I would however add stipulations. For example, it can only be seen by members of that side (So blues can't see the status of reds, and vice versa), spectators, or game masters. All others are unable to see what's going on.

One option to make it legit right there. If they can make their own FM, DM, and sub-systems, maybe they can work with ED to make it an expansion to the existing module

So, while at work today, I was thinking about a way for Amphibious Assaults to be built into DCS. What I came up with, is mostly based on some bits I've seen in Discord Discussions, and here in the forums, with a bit of my own thoughts. So... here it goes: In the Mission Editor, an Assault Ship can be given a Waypoint Action or Delayed Action of "Deploy Amphibious Assault" Each Amphibious Assault Ship has a supply, similar to the carriers and bases, but in this they have an extra tab: "Marine Units". In this you can select how many units are available to deploy, including tanks, troops, and landing craft. Helicopters can also be used, but are still in the Aviation tab. Once you've selected this, you'll get a window where you can select what unit is deployed, and by what method the units are deployed (basically either landing craft or helicopter). Keep in mind, these units would have to be available at the time, so if the selected unit to deploy isn't available, or the method of transport isn't available, that'll be the end of it. For example, let's say you want to deploy a platoon of M1 Abrams tanks from a Tarawa. You would choose the Abrams in the "Unit" drop-down, and for the transport you'd select either the LCU or LCAC. Given that the most either unit can carry is two M1s (and even that's a stretch), you will have to adjust the number of transports until the number goes from red to white (red meaning not enough transports to deploy the group). If you were wanting to deploy a single squad of troops (USMC squad is 12 I believe), a single Huey, Seahawk, Stallion, or Chinook would suffice. More troops would require additional transports, and the total number of troops to be deployed will be divided amongst the available transports. For example if a 20-man team were to be deployed, and four Huey's were selected to deploy them, then each Huey would carry five men. When you have chosen the unit you wish to deploy, and the method by which it's deployed, a zone will appear where the landing craft or helicopter will go in order to deploy the units. This zone *must* be placed on an accessible beach or area that the unit in question can actually get to. For example, while a Huey won't care about a sheer cliff, an LCAC might have some issues. Once you've selected where the LZ is, you can then select where the units move to once they're deployed. For example, if you're deploying some troops via AI Huey's, once the Huey's drop their troops off, the troops will move from the LZ where they appeared, in the specified direction, for the specified distance from the LZ. Alternatively, once they appear, someone with CA can give them further instructions. Now, how about amphibious units like the AAV, LAV-25, or PT76? Well, if the unit you select is amphibious, "Self" would appear in the drop-down for the transport (these units can, irl, still be deployed by other transports such as LCAC). These units can also be selected as a mode of transport if the unit in question can fit inside them. In these instances when Amphibious Vehicles are deployed, when they get within a couple hundred meters of their LZ, they'll fire smoke rounds at the LZ, and also deploy into a Line-Abreast formation automatically. If they're carrying troops, they'll stop, let the troops out, and stay with them as they advance off the beach. Finally, in the waypoint action in question, once one set of troops is sent out, the next will be cycled. However, if there are no available transports (say you only brought four LCACs, and three of your eight AAG deployments require all four), the next will cycle, and the cycle will continue until the transport in question is available again (which will happen once the unit returns to the assault ship, embarks, and 'refuels'). What do you guys think? Do you think this would create a more realistic looking Amphibious Assault? Do you have ideas on how to improve this? Comment below.

So... if this only requires that I own the Hornet, and no longer replaces the Hornet, does that mean I can put it in the mods folder? Or does it still require me to over-write the existing Hornet files?

Let's face it, right after we all found out it was coming, how many had the thoughts of delivering Vehicles, Troops, Artillery, and most importantly, SWCC Boats into combat areas? Yes, I know this is a highly specialized version of the CH-47 (For those wondering it's the MH-47, the SOAR version) in that scene, but it would still be quite interesting to deliver Riverine Craft to hot spots, a job Chinooks have been doing since Vietnam. Aside from that, there's the aforementioned field artillery and light vehicles that the CH47 can carry... around 13 tons worth I might add plus crew and ammo. I've also heard that Chinooks can carry the fuel and ammo needed to set up a quick FARP (something I imagine Hips being able to do as well). These kinds of missions I think would pretty awesome to see now that we're getting some more Heavy Lift birds, and soon.

And before someone chimes in with a wiki article or Global Security link, here's a thing to remember... we may know what weapons the BONE can carry, but what we don't know is how the Lancers crew interacts with those weapons, and how those weapons are properly employed.

Yes, but remember, these are exceptions that prove the rule. How often do you hear of the ones who are crippled for life? How often do you hear of the ones who spend months or years in rehabilitation learning to walk again? The point I'm making is that while I wouldn't mind having some more realism in DCS, there is a line where, for me, it's no longer any fun. And frankly, being stuck in the pit for hours on end waiting for the ground crew to rearm my jet is just not fun to me. What I'd rather ED do when it comes to anything regarding the ground crew, is show that they are doing what I asked them to do. I'd like visual indications of them rearming (a truck with ammo or some of the loaders going back and forth), refueling (a hose hooked up to a fuel truck), repairing (some crew doing their best pitstop impressions), and ground air/power (a power/huffer cart next to the plane like GD did with his Raptor mod). Things like that would add more to the immersion, and don't really take away from the experience. On the carrier what I'd like to see is the deck crew directing you to a certain part of the deck where all of the above can occur. On the subject of repairing, I'd like to see where if you request repair while stuck in the dirt, a recovery crane comes out and moves you to someplace on the ramp so you can move again.

Yeah... sitting in the pit for three hours waiting for my hornet to be rearmed after already flying for an hour? I'll pass thank you very much. Yes, I know it's a Simulator, but there have to be some concessions made in order for there to be fun. I've had a similar conversation about the ground aspect of another game... what happens when you get shot, but not killed? Answer: You go down, some medic runs up, uses a med-pack and you're back up in seconds. With a certain mod installed, they have to do a bit more work, but they have you back up in a couple minutes. In real life? You're evac'd to a field hospital where they do an emergency surgery to keep you alive, and then send you to a proper hospital back home. After they've put you back together (and oh btw, this assumes all of your limbs are still attached), you go into rehab for the next six to eighteen months. At which point, you go through some retraining, and arrive to a new unit since your spot was filled a couple days after you were flown out. I get people want more realism in DCS or other sims, and that's perfectly fine... but there comes a point where it's too much for the majority of people who might try the game out.

Funny, you're usually against any kind of gamey features, and yet this is one of those more sim features I wish we had. As for preventing friendly fire... well.. it's simple. You do that by using your IFF equipment, talking to your side, and just paying attention at the merge (if the AWACS calls you as merged, than that guy that just passed you isn't a friendly). Also, if you're dealing with WW2/ECW, then just look at the other guy when you pass by him. There's a reason those roundels back then were huge... if the other guy isn't wearing a roundel you recognize as friendly, then he probably isn't. And if you accidentally shoot down a teammate, well... look at the onion... and figure out how many layers were missed to get to that point. Were you/they in the right airspace? Did they use the prescribed livery (as in, did they choose a livery that didn't fit the faction because the one they chose was cooler)? Were they on coms? How did they act at the merge? All valid questions

I'm in support of the idea of hiding the opposing Team list. IRL, you may know that your opponent has X-Type of aircraft, but you won't know: 1: How many they have (just an estimate by the Intel Guys, and since when are they ever 100% spot on?) 2: Where those planes are based. Especially in ht Pre-Satellite days When you had to rely on things like information from other pilots (EX: "I saw BF-109s over there... I think...") and dedicated recon runs to gain that intel. 3: Who's flying them. Unless you saw specific "Ace Markings" on specific aircraft (like some of the brightly colored BF109s in WW2), you'd have no idea who's flying any of the aircraft at that base. And even today you won't know unless someone snuck in and stole a manifest (be it by foot or interwebs). I'd also like to see this, and to add to that, when a Mission Designer goes to equip an airfield, they should just add a list of potential aircraft, and when the player goes to spawn in, they can choose from: Hangar/Cold: Aircraft is cold and dark, no INS allignment, and no weapons Ramp: Aircraft is plugged in too a power and air cart with the INS pre-aligned and a weapons load pre-selected Hot: Aircraft is ready to fly now, just get in and go. Bonus points if you see some graphics showing the action going on.

in these instances, the mod must be installed on the server, and those who want to see the mod must also have it installed. However, if you're using a mod that introduces new weapons and such, then, sadly, it must be required.

honestly, if a 3PD came up with a WW1 aircraft as a first module for DCS, they'd be in pretty good shape as it would not only allow them a comparatively easy module to make, but also good experience in focusing purely on what's critical for the plane to function since there isn't much to any of the WW1 aircraft. The most complex part would be the engines and the instruments. As for maps... if it were up to me, I'd make one that's appropriate for WW1/2, but also appropriate for the modern day. A "War torn Europe" map would be quite the battlefield to fly over, whether in a Sopwith Camel going 150kts, a P-51D going 350kts, or an F-16 going 650kts.

me neither.

Fixed wing pilots too. I've seen 2000lb bombs land on trees while the dude hanging out beneath it is just fine. IRL, the guy, the tree, and all the trees within a hundred feet should just be gone.

So, those that are into WW2 have all probably noticed this... but... where's the T-34s? Seriously, when it comes to the Second World War, it's easily one of, if not the most iconic tank of the European theaters. Sure, in the real world it wasn't that great a tank (I've got access to a list of all the issues T-34s had until post war if you want to argue!), but it's still odd that we have units that were used by the Soviets in the Allied arsenal via Lend-Lease, and we've got the German tanks that were used on that front, and depending on who you talk to, our most basic map was a battleground... but none of the Soviet units from that era are available in DCS. If possible, I'd like to see the following added, with * meaning that it's an Early Cold War unit that can be part of the base game... Anyway... here we go: T-34-76 T-34-85 T-34-85M* KV-1 KV-2 IS-1 IS-2 IS-2M* IS-3* Su-85 Su-122 Su-152 T-44* IL-2 IL-2M* Tu-4* There's probably more that could be listed, but these are the ones that come to mind. And for those wondering what the functional differences are between a T-34-85 and an M, it's actually pretty simple: Ms were all either conversions, or new builds to a specific standard, and are thus the 'best' versions of those units, and typically sent out to equip Soviet Satellite States and Allies in the post war. For example, when the UN and ROK forces faced off against the DPRK and PRC from 1951-1953, they fought T-34-85Ms and IL-2Ms. And across the East/West German Border there were IS-2Ms, T-34-85Ms, and IS-3s staring back at the NATO M4 Shermans, M26 Pershings, and M46 Pattons of the time period. Such additions would be perfect for Early Cold War and WW2 scenarios. Does anyone agree?

Technically, it's not just AI helos... player helos are just as tanky against anything but a direct sniper shot to the pilots face. The key thing to remember with all of the DCS Helicopters is that it's not just about what hits them, it's about where they're hit. Sure, you can pump as much ammo into an MI-8 as you want... but if all of those shots are into the troop compartment and nothing vital gets hit, it's not going to go down. But a single hit to the tail boom, and bobs your uncle, it's not going to remain in the air for very long. Same holds true if your shots land on the engines or cockpit. Now, I will admit that the damage modeling could use some work (I've seen telephone-pole sized SM-2s hit helicopters in the face to no effect FFS), but right now, with all of the other things ED needs to fix, this is something a bit lower on the plate compared to getting the new API up and running.

it also means that certain countries will ban it completely from their territory.

I actually talked to a Hornet Driver, and that rating came from them (And he flew the G)

ya know... I have to ask: If/When we get the Super Hornet... what will people think if it doesn't live up to the hype? I mean, the Tomcat had the hype from Topgun, and I'll bet the first time a lot of people tried the Maverick Trick they found the wings don't like that very much. The Super Hornet might have some things about it that doesn't quite match up to its hype... so I hope some of the fanboys are prepared for that. Also... I have to ask... what would the Super Hornet offer that the existing Hornet doesn't already offer? "The Super Hornet has more internal fuel!" Yes, but its engines drink fuel at a higher rate, and the weight means that it has roughly the same range as a legacy just with larger tanks. "The Super Hornet has more hardpoints!" Two. That are each rated for 500lb weapons. "The engines are more powerful!" Yes, but you're heavier, and as a result, your TWR is lower. The only way I can currently see it selling... is if they sell it as a two-seater.

Bit of a Bug report.... but for some reason the ejector racks don't appear in my client. Is there a fix for this?