Tank50us

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?

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...