Tank50us

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.

So, before I start, I need to state that it is 100% Optional. The items in question serve no purpose other than for cosmetic purposes. The bits that I'll provide as examples, are just that: Examples. With all that said, I'll begin. The idea is based on something that RazBam stated about the upcoming F-15E, in that you'll be able to fly either an USAF E, or an IAF I. However, the bits they're adding from the I are purely cosmetic, and serve no other purpose other than to make the F-15E look like an F-15I, both in and out of the pit. Ever since, I'd been kinda mulling over what it would be like if applied to other aircraft. And just like what RB is doing, the idea is to make the planes look different, as well as have certain cosmetic features that make it look a bit different. Examples include: The F-14Ds IRST/ Camera Pod: The test F-35 intake tested on an F-16: Family photo in the cockpit: (From TopGun) and more. If implemented, the way I'd set it up is two fold... 1. On the player side, when you contact the ground crew (like you would for rearming/refueling), you'd get some options specific to your aircraft, you can then add or remove as you see fit, and then go. 2. On the mission design side, if a designer wants to either limit the kinds of cosmetics a player can add or remove, they can do that, or disable the ability to choose entirely. This could also be applied to ground units, wherein each one has a chance to spawn with bits the crew could use or want (giving them a bit of a "lived in" appearance) Another option would be for cockpits to have different levels of dirt and grime (something HB is already doing with the F-14), so you could go with a cockpit that looks almost factory fresh, or one that looks like you're the 5th pilot this aircraft has had in its lifetime. There's probably more examples, but what do you guys think?

And clearly you missed the entire point of my statement... you first have to get hooked up to the tanker, which itself isn't an easy endeavor. And if you're on a competitive PvP server... how does it give *anyone* an advantage, when the tankers are #2 on the airborne targets list (#1 being the other teams AWACS). If the tankers are a non factor (because they keep getting shot down), explain to me how *that* team is going to have an advantage if even some of their players are using that one feature... which is optional to begin with. Also, you keep using the argument that "They'll have unlimited fuel" as if the hose will stay connected to them hundreds of miles from the tanker, which of course, if you read my proposal, the moment you get "Transfer Complete", or move the controls, the function turns off automatically, which means if you're not back at the stick when that last drop enters your tank, you'll be flying off into the ether when the tanker turns. Because autopilot doesn't do any of this. Even in real life flying the boom or basket is an all-manual affair, and even drones can't do it on their own even if they have AAR capability. The point of this is to take advantage of the games own mechanics and let the AI take over while you're hooked up. And in before you bring up my use of real world examples.... remember that these pilots train for weeks or months before they actually hook up to a tanker for the first time. On top of that, they have much better depth perception (only VR players get this in DCS), and they can feel what the plane is actually doing. More over, you also have the tanker talking to the pilots to guide them in (something I think DCS also needs FYI). Hell, I'd even take a visual representation of the line-up lights on the belly of the 135 akin to what we have for the Meatball for the SCM. Anything would be better than the "nothing" we have now.

Actually, if you read my post, you'd note that the only purpose of this assist, is to *keep* you hooked up and taking fuel. Getting hooked up is still all done manually by the player using the feature (if they so choose). So in those unlikely cases where the dog really needs to go out, or Amazon picks an odd time to deliver something, or any number of reasons you may have to suddenly jump up from the game, you have something available to keep you alive and tanking while you take care of the real world things (outside SP ofc, where you can just pause). This also helps those who have actual physical issues staying hooked up. From not having the right hardware, to not having hardware that works 100%, to having actual physical disabilities that might hurt your ability to perform such a task, this would be a valuable tool so those people can still enjoy the game with the rest of us. And given all the other assists that exist already, most of which are client-side anyway, how would this be any different? Finally... and I can't believe this actually has to be said... How exactly does this give an unfair advantage? Last time I checked, whether you can refuel or not becomes irrelevant if you're on a PvP Conflict server, and the other team keeps taking out your sides tankers. At that point, no one's getting gas. And on PvE servers... I still don't see how this would give an unfair advantage... after all.. it's PvE, and having the ability to refuel just means you can fly further with more bang, and having something to help you stay hooked up to the tanker just means more people get to do that... something that I'd think would be quite valuable on maps such as South Atlantic where the players could start on the Falklands Island, and have to travel to the mainland to hit targets and fly back. As for the skill issue... not everyone clings to the assists. At some point, people learn how to start their plane for example, and then they kick that training wheel off. The same holds true for all the other assists. At one point, a player will kick the training wheel, and they're able to do that task without it. What's one more that is completely optional, and likely turned off by default?

I'd completely agree with adding this one. Let's just hope that China doesn't storm off and take Deka with'em...

And it had ejection seats. Still though, why shouldn't we have both? It'd be another refueler option for naval operations (since that was one of its roles)

yeah, and those people can suck an egg, this is actually a good idea, especially for those who haven't gone out and bought any head tracking or VR gear yet.

This would most certainly be an interesting addition to DCS since it was used by both the USAF and the USN (as the A-3D Skywarrior). I'd certainly welcome it. If not as a player-controlled aircraft, then at least as an AI-controlled aircraft.

I mean... we've all seen that XBox commercial where a disabled kid is able to beat a game with a controller built specifically for him. 99% of us will never become fighter pilots, and very few of us who play DCS do it full-time, and those that do are usually doing so for a good reason (like Cap), So the idea of having something in the game that makes it easier to drop in and fly is just as good a move as adding a popular fighter plane. The more people who can fly, the better EDs bottom line is. Does it have to be Ace Combat levels? No. But it can still be the study-level sim that it is, while at the same time acknowledging that there are people who simply do not have the hundreds of hours required to perform the most complex tasks, or, lack the proper hardware, or worse... lack the physical ability to do those tasks. I mean heck, how many dads play this game right now, and want to share the experience with their kids? I know I would if I had a kid.