Tank50us

This I can agree with. Although adding these guys would make the full implementation of the VADS take a bit longer. I'd just be happy with the gun and a damage model.

So, we have its mobile version, the M163, and we have its counter in the Red side, the ZU-23, but we don't have the stationary Vulcan. Sure, it's an 80s era design, but it would be nice to have the BluFor stationary AA gun system.

Let's see.... Of the things that are not part of the base game... Land: Additional M1 Abrams variants, including the original, A1, TUSK, and Grizzly M167 Stationary Vulcan Additional Infantry types, including more MG gunners, unguided AT troops (ex, troops armed with SMAW), ATGM troops (TOW, Javelin, Kornet, Milan, etc) T-64 T-62 Modern Towed Artillery A system to build walls, trenches, and other defensive lines in the ME The ability to have infantry "Garison" inside structures (similar to the C&C games where the troops 'disappear' and shots come from certain points on the structure) Centurian T-34-76, -85, IS-1/2, KV-1, KV-2, and other soviet WW2 vehicles for the WW2 AP M551 Sheridan Other Short-Rangle Ballistic Missiles More land-based Anti-ship Missiles Sea A Better classification system for all warships (The Arliegh Burke is not a Cruiser, she's a Guided Missile Destroyer) Fletcher-Class Destroyer (WW2 and FRAM configurations) Kidd-Class Destroyer Baltimore-Class Cruiser Yorktown-Class Carrier Iowa-Class (WW2 and PGW configuration) and North Carolina-Class (WW2 AP) battleships USS Texas (seriously, she took part in the invasion of Normandy!) for the WW2 AP Kittyhawk-Class Carrier USS Enterprise (CV-6 and CVN-65) Modern Landing Craft Riverine craft like the SWCC Either the San Antonio-Class or Whidbey Island-class Amphibious Transport Docks Japanese Warships, both WW2 and Modern Day Additional Soviet/Russian warships including those that weren't completed due to the collapse of the Soviet Union Los Angeles-Class Submarine Ohio-Class Submarine Assorted Civilian Ships including Cargo and passenger ships AI Air KC-10 Extender C-5 Galaxy C-141 Starlifter C-119 Flying Boxcar C-2 Greyhound E-8 Joint STARS E-767 EC-130 Compass Call U-2 Dragon Lady (Early and Current models) B-29 Super Fortress and Tu4 B-25 Mitchel G4M "Betty" SBD Dauntless TBF Avenger TB Devestator He111 Assorted Civilian aircraft and VIP Transports Avro Vulcan Nimrod Vickers Valiant V-22 Osprey B-36 Peacemaker B-47 Stratojet An124 "Condor" An-12 "Cub" Player Air A-26 Invader F-6F Hellcat F-4F Wildcat P-40 Warhawk P-38 Lightning Hawker Hurricane F-105 Thunderchief F-111 Ardvark Su-24 "Fencer" Su-30 "Flanker-H" Su-34 "Fullback" Mig-31 Foxhound Mig-25 "Foxbat" J-15 "Flanker X2" F/A-18E/F Super Hornet F-14D Super Tomcat F-9F Panther Blackburn Buccaneer F-104 Starfighter Maps Korean Peninsula South East Asia Northern Europe Caribbean Central America (from Southern Texas to the Northern most parts of South America) Adriatic Sea Region Helicopters NH-90 (AI) UH-60M Blackhawk Eurocopter Tiger CH-47 (AI) SH-3 (AI) Updated SH-60 Seahawk Mi17 Hip (basically a newer version of the existing Hip) Z-10 RAH-66 Comanche Other Airfield Ground Crews Helicopter Ground/Deck Teams (basically the guys that give you the hand signals to land or lift and so on) What do you guys think of this list?

I thought the F-14D came into service in 1996? Also, as I've said before, the issues stated aren't something I consider to be insurmountable, but the one thing that is going to be tricky is doing any of this, and selling it to the player base without having the rivet counters breaking out the loud speakers. Sure, they could create an IRST that's passable, based on how we know the things work, but certain people will demand the documents on how the Super Tomcats IRST works, and that the version in game works exactly like the one in the real world. I don't know about the rest of the player base, but with exception to the Warbirds, we'll never get a 100% faithful aircraft in DCS. The reasons are as follows: many of the modules are purposely made into hodge-podges in order to represent the aircraft through multiple time periods both in terms of systems and weapons Due to the nature of some aircraft, and the documents that support them, some information simply can't be acquired. For example the documents surrounding the nuclear weapons release equipment in the F-111 or F-105) Gameplay. As much as certain people would love each plane to be 100% accurate, and all of the procedures accurate to real life... you can't get too far into the sim aspect that it becomes a dull game to play. Seriously, as someone who's hooked out ground-air, it takes a bit longer than the 5 seconds it does in DCS to get an air-start cart hooked up, running, and up to the right pressure to start the engines. Granted my experience with the things involve the CRJ family, but still. Also most aircraft aren't rearmed in 30 seconds, some can take up to 30 minutes to fully rearmed. If this was 100% accurate to the real world, things would just be absolutely boring, and many of those who play today probably wouldn't have gotten interested. Ergo, concessions have to be made for gameplay. (like the upcoming F-15Es keybinds for the back seat from the front).

you lookin' for something like this? (game is Janes Fleet Command)

We are getting some Red planes in the future. A FF Mig29 and Mig23MLA are known to be in the pipe, as well as the Mig17.

Yeah, one of my Squadron mates lives in the land of "No unclassed data, no real module" rules. I live on the idea that HBs team are quite intelligent, and can figure these things out without the documentation. The only thing the documentation serves at that point is to prove that yes, the work they did is accurate to the real aircraft. And frankly, given the options, the latter seems like the 80% solution to the issue of getting an F-14D into DCS. For those that don't know what I mean: 80% Solution means that it's good enough for 80+ of the playerbase, with only <20% of the players being able to know the real differences (and most of them couldn't talk about it anyway)

And even if they figured out a way to show it off, there'd still be people griping that it's not being worked on, and that what we're seeing is fake. So there's a long road ahead for ED...

And also a way to choose different styles for the placard. Kinda like how F-15s have a neat one on the nose.

you can already do this actually. You can set the formation that they're in to "Custom", at which point a new drop down will appear that will show the various formations they can be in. These formations are based on the templates. Now, what you can do is set a waypoint that's right next to the one they're sitting at, and on the one that they're sitting on (with speed set to zero), you can have a delayed action trigger that will move them to the waypoint where they are in the formation. This trigger can be set once aircraft have entered a certain area, or whatever you choose. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than nothing... right?

actually, irl, the point of firing at all isn't necessarily to kill the incoming aircraft (although if you do, that's a win also). If he's got a whole bunch of tracers wizzing past his cockpit, odds are he's going to rush the bomb drop and miss, meaning that you win by attrition because at the end of the engagement, you're still alive, and he's going home with no weapons to engage. Now, if this could be properly simulated in DCS (because let's face it, we're not usually afraid of death in a game where we cannot actually die), then I think we'd be in for a more appropriate simulation of AAA

that it does

that's a thing? Update: Just checked.... it is a thing!

In theory it should be a simple little addition, given that many of the aircraft have fuel-dump capability already, and that creates a nice stream behind the aircraft. So in theory, this same thing could be done, even if it's just a simple and short particle effect.

It’s that time of year again, the 145th PMC Groups big Holiday mission is just around the corner. This year, the Elves have been hard at work, and the toy factories throughout the world have been pushing hard to get the orders done in time. Two particular factories have been behind schedule, however, and have been rushing to catch up with deliveries. The 145th PMC Group, along with other Squadrons, have been contracted to assist in protecting the toy factories at Anapa and Krymsk while they work tirelessly to finish the work, and get the toys to the North Pole for distribution. Sitting on the ramp at Anapa are the C-130s waiting to take the toys to the North Pole, while at Krymsk, there are flights of CH47s waiting to be loaded in order to ferry the toys to Anapa where they’ll be loaded onto the C-130s and flown out. Command estimates that 12 flights of C-130s will be needed to get the toys out in time. And all of the C-130s required are at the ramp, fueled, and ready to depart. The weather is pretty bad as snow is well within the forecast, however that’s the least of our worries. The Ogres that tried to disrupt last year's production are amassing for a major attack again, and are determined to destroy the factories at Krymsk, and take over Anapa. The Elves have set up a ground defense force, which are currently moving to dig in at Krymsk and defend it from the predicted attack routes. But with their efforts being split, they know they can’t hold without our help. A tough fight is expected, and the Ogres aren’t going to be playing around this time. Expect heavy ground and air presence throughout the battle space, as well as possible infiltrators between Krymsk and Anapa. This will be a battle on all fronts. We must protect the toy factories at Anapa and Krymsk at all cost, or the Christmases for possibly millions of children worldwide will be ruined! Objectives: Shepherd [130mhz] Combat Air Patrol (CAP) : Protect the airspace from Ogre Air Forces (OAF) Bloodhound [140mhz] Close air support (CAS): Protect Krymsk and the helicopters Werewolf [135mhz] Flexible: Assist Shepherd and Bloodhound as needed As we did last year, the 145th will be allowing anyone to join for the operation. For new people looking for a new squadron to join, this is a perfect opportunity to fly with us and learn what we’re about. Streaming is welcome! The mission will start promptly on Friday, December 23rd at 1800hrs US Central time (0000hrs GMT) and will run until the last of the C-130s have departed the airspace. This mission is designed for drop-in/out play. You will not be required to play the entire mission. If you can only play for part of the mission, that will be fine. Ergo, if you know anyone interested, be sure to bring'em here for a night of Santa Saving fun! Server Information Server name: Operation Santa Savior [145th PMC Public Event] SRS (Simple radio): 71.58.145.9:5002 Our Discord Recruiting information and more about us

exactly. As I said, such a keybind is useful for people who are building simpits, since they're only going to yank on one handle *once* and out they go in the real jet... as it should be here as well.

what could be done instead is have an optional bind that is, by default, blank. And for those building simpits they bind the ejection handle to that.

Actually, if you're doing this for a SimPit and wanting to pull an ejection handle. In the real world, that's a single pull... not three.

To my knowledge, it only applies to units and aircraft... and GPS

As the title suggests, the idea is to have a series of presets for the payload restrictions. After all, if you're simulating different kinds of warfare or different eras, some presets wouldn't be a bad idea. For example, if you're doing a conflict set in the 80s, and you're flying the appropriate aircraft, the weapons that would be available for that nation will be available, while those that were phased out, or didn't exist, will automatically be crossed out. This could still be edited obviously, but given how many planes can be put in a single mission, especially one for multiplayer, I think it could make things a little easier for mission makers.

So, now that 2.8 is here, and we have had our issues with a few bugs and performance hits... I think it's high time I say something... There are some people who really need to stop whining. Now, I know we all paid good money for a product many probably feel isn't up to snuff... I get it. And I'm not going to join that crowd. Why? because unlike many of those that post comments like "Before long you'll need an $8,000 computer to play DCS!" or "This patch broke everything! Roar!" (obvious paraphrasing here), I do actually have an idea of what's going on at ED, without even having to step foot in their and ask the devs. For starters, and this is the artist side of me talking... game, software, and artistic development is not "File -> Make Pretty Thing" and wait for a few weeks for it to compile. I wish it was that easy. But it's not. There's a lot of moving parts in software development, and when a game reaches a certain point, there's only so much that can have resources dedicated to it. As such, I'll try to address as many issues as possible, and hopefully give some valuable insight. A quick bit of background... I am an artist, mostly focusing on fantasy and science fiction. I'm also an amateur writer, and back in 2006-2008, I was in the Command and Conquer modding scene. Sure, it's not game development, but it does give me a bit more knowledge on the subject than the average gamer. Broken Module Release From the F-5 to the AH-64, I'm pretty sure every module here has had its fair share of bugs at the start. Features that were promised, but never delivered, and all sorts of issues. However, there is a reason for this: At some point, that module is going to start costing more money sitting in development than can be justified, and it has to be released. Ever wonder why your favorite AAA titles release with bugs or missing features? This is why. The dev team really wants to squeeze in that one new feature, or polish that other feature, and they keep doing it, laboring for weeks or months trying to get it done to their satisfaction. All the while, holding up the progress of something else or worse, pushing the release date back. This is where the upper management typically steps in and goes "No guys, you don't understand. We have a deadline, we have to get this product out the door, so you either finish this feature by (insert deadline) or it gets scrapped" And given how much those studios pour into their games, scrapping any part of it is not a bullet they want to bite, but they have to bite at some point. The same holds true for DCS. As much as EDs in-house module guys want to include something with a module, or as much they want to ship the EA with X Feature... sooner or later, it must ship, and if it ships without it, then so be it. BUUUUUGS! BUUUUUUGS! (The only good bug is a dead bug!) As anyone who's ever dealt with software engineering will tell you... you can fix one bug, and several more will take their place. How often does this pop up in your social circles? "They broke (insert missile) again!" I hear it so freaking often I'm glad it's not a drinking game... I'd be legally dead by now if it were. I'd argue that the more appropriate term should be "They changed (insert missile) again", rather than broke it. Take the Phoenix for example. An often "broken" missile according to one of my squadron mates, and yet, I'm still achieving expected hit rates (I expect at least 1 in four to fail completely, 2 at the worst), Now, this might just be my own experience, but I wouldn't consider the missile "Broken". Real world missiles don't exactly have perfect stats either, which is why real pilots tend to ripple them off even today. I think most of these complaints come from those who just got used to the new missile meta, and are frowning at the fact that the missiles have been altered for reasons they just don't like. This is human nature sadly, we are very averse to changes in our environment... even our virtual one (think this is bad? brows some 40K social media... bring your volcanologist garb). The other issue I see here, is that you guys aren't reporting the bugs you see properly. Seriously, browse the Facebook page some time. Just count the number of times people screech out in all caps (or use expletives like drunken sailors) when complaining about a bug they experienced. This. Helps. No one. If you have spotted a bug (and I'm not believing that I'm the one saying this) go to the appropriate section in the forums, and report the bug. Trust me. Screaming "MY F-20 BLEW UP WHEN I DROPPED THE TANK! WHY YOU RELEASE THIS BROKEN GARBAGE!" on Facebook or HOGGIT isn't going to get the bug fixed. Coming here and going: "While I was flying level in my F-20, I noticed that the center-line tank was empty. I prepared it for drop according to the manual, and when I dropped the tank, the aircraft exploded. I was on the Stoneburner server, and I did the same thing multiple times and the same thing happened at least four times out of the ten that I tried it. I've attached the tacview files, as well as the track files from both my machine, and the server, as well as my PC build. I hope this all helps" That, followed by a few people all calmly going "Yeah, it happened to me as well!" will put that bug higher on the priority list for fixes, and then a few weeks later, tada, a fix. Now, obviously, this doesn't happen all the time. However, I'm sure we can all agree that it's more likely to happen when proper bug reports come in, vs the scream fests that I've seen on hoggit or Facebook. Now, speaking of priorities: Priority List Like many game devs, ED has a limited amount of staff available, and given that they're smaller than most devs, I have a gut feeling that at least some of the staff there have multiple hats they have to wear. If I'm wrong, then I hope to be corrected, but if I'm right, this just means we have to be that much more patient with these guys. If person A has both 3D art and coding to deal with, remember that he can't do both at the same time. An 8hr day spent modeling a replacement Tu-160 model for example is not 8hrs spent digging for a bug in the code and removing it. And even then, if you're fixing one bug, there's a bunch of others that aren't being fixed simply because the resources can't be split that much. If the time budget allows for 10 bugs to be fixed, and 30 are on the docket... someone has to pick which 10 get fixed, and which 20 have to wait. And the ones they consider more pressing, are not the ones we might consider. How can this be fixed? Well, ED has its people all over the world, so the method by which most dev teams handle it won't work. It's hard to stand over someone tapping your feet at someone when there's a literal ocean separating you two. But I do think that if these guys were having to show progress to us every so often (say, every Monday for the artists, every Thursday for the programmers, or something like that), that might ease some of the tension. Vulcan Now, we all know this is coming. Anyone who's following the Roadmap thread knows this. And it sucks that it's not here yet, and I'm sure many are concerned by this point if it's ever coming. I hold out a bit of faith that it is, and that we're going to see it, if not by the end of this year, than maybe sometime next year. Now, why is it taking so long? That's hard to say. Odds are that due to how old DCS's engine is, it may be possible that the conversion is something that has to be handled slowly. And if the original coders left the company (or worse...) the ones responsible for it now might be stuck reverse-eningeering the original code so they can work Vulcan into it. Either way, I doubt this is a particularly easy task. After all, you can't just flick a switch and release Vulcan. Especially with the 3rd parties being involved as much as they are. Imagine how well that conversation would go... "Hey, next patch we'll be releasing Vulcan next patch, and it'll require you all to modify your modules to fit the new framework" Yeah, I imagine that will go swimmingly. So I imagine that Vulcans approach is akin to walking a tightrope. ED has to make sure that it'll work with all of the existing modules with little or no difficulty on day-one. And that is most certainly not going to be an easy feat. It's also entirely possible, stepping back to the bugs for a second, this might be why some of the bugs that exist haven't been squashed yet: Vulcan is needed to forever kill them. In closing, I just hope you guys are all having a decent time in your virtual fighter planes. ED's come a long way, and they still have a ways to go. So let's show'em our support. Remember... Fly Safe

1. The mod has the MOAB 2. The upcoming module may get it, along with the AC-130, provided that the sales go well with the initial release

it's already in the game as an AI unit... the catch is that the devs don't have access to the actual data for the plane.

Basically, in aircraft that require ground power and air, it would be nice if in the Mission Editor, we had the option of placing down an aircraft with the ground power generator and huffer already hooked up. IRL, this would be done so that an aircrafts INS would already be aligned and many other systems already set to go, just requiring the engines to be cranked, and hoses/cables disconnected. Here's an example with an EE Lightning:

Like I said, these are examples, and in terms of practical game purpose, they serve none other than looks. These are also just examples of what I'm getting at.