Tank50us

So, while obviously being able to control the ground units as things stand has.... limitations, I do believe it has potential. There are two main areas I think this could be improved: - Interface One thing I think could help is a different interface, where the person in CA has more information available to them. This interface would have four 'windows', which the player can move as shift around (anyone who's played Janes Fleet Command will see where this is going) When the "General" clicks on a tank for example, he/she will be able to see the tank in action, it's position on the map, as well as what its status. How much ammo it's got, how it's functioning, etc. The same would go for ships, and aircraft, including player-controlled aircraft. The interface would also have more tools available to help the "General" issue orders, and guide friendlies to where they're needed. An example of how it could look is provided by Janes Fleet Command, as mentioned earlier: - Damage Sections While certainly the hardest thing to add to DCS of the two, it would fix so many of the issues we have, especially when it comes to sinking warships, or killing tanks. In the real world, just because a bomb or missile hits a tank, doesn't mean it's actually killed. In the real world, the bomb could fail to detonate, and the plows through the engine deck wrecking the engine, leaving the tank immobilized. Sometimes an ATGM will hit the coms antenna, or in the case of most modern tanks, hit the ready ammo and the explosion is vented out of the blow-out panels... the tank is mission-killed, but not actually dead. The crew in that case would still be alive, and thus, able to fight on.... assuming they can hear anything. These sections can apply to ships as well, id certain parts of the ship are destroyed, it's out of the fight, but not actually sunk. If others are blown apart, it's going down. These are things that are already in place for the planes, having them for the ships and tanks wouldn't be a bad thing. Some other areas where I think CA could help: - Controlling AI aircraft/helicopters Now, I'm not saying we'd be able to have full fidelity cockpits, but someone in CA would basically get a simplified HUD (like you see in TacView), enabling the player to take over certain AI fighters during a mission (similar to what a Zues can do in ArmA), giving players in MP Campaigns a bit of a surprise when suddenly one of the Mig23s they're fighting isn't behaving like a normal AI Mig23.... (Keep in mind, such a position would only have the most basic of controls and functions, they would not be a replacement for existing modules) - Spawn Units from a template Assuming the mission designer has put them in, someone with CA playing on that side can spawn units, or groups of units as needed. Allowing them to only place down units to throw the other players for a loop. For example BlueFor has the objective of escorting a convoy down a highway. The "Red General" can then spawn in some insurgents along the convoy route, and give the escorts a proper ambush... no fancy coding required. This feature could also be given a limit in the mission editor, that way things don't go too nuts. What do you guys think? Could these basic things be a viable fix or update to CA? Or am I off my rocker?

And that was two years ago. Things change. Around the same time they were saying that the C-130 would never be flyable, they weren't working on the AH-64 and had no plans to do so... the list of things they "aren't working on" or "won't work on", and then they announced that it is being worked on, is quite numerous.

Let's also not forget that in the real world, you're sitting in these cockpits, you have full depth perception, and you can feel what's going on with the aircraft even if it has advanced FBW. The problem that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that we aren't these professional pilots, where "Some get it, and some don't" is usually a career killer for those that "Don't get it". We also don't have the literal months of classroom and simulator training required to actually do this in the real world, and as stated before, not everyone really has the time to dedicate to learning just that one thing. Let's face it, more people want to learn how to put warheads on foreheads, or land on a carrier, then learn AAR. This is especially true for those just getting in. The sheer number of people who've joined my unit wanting to learn how to land on a carrier or deploy a AGM-65, or learn helicopters is staggering. Yet, our live-fire server has tankers, and few ever utilize them. I do hope that you'll at least consider the option that I put forth. I'm not asking for a full assist, where the moment you call the tanker to the moment you leave the computer takes control. I'm asking for something that will keep the plane hooked up once you've made contact until you either move the stick or the tanker calls "Transfer complete". Something I feel would be useful for far more people, than just those who struggle to stay connected.

One other thing I thought of after the fact, is how this feature could help those who already can refuel consistently... How many of you have pets? Or how many of you get packages delivered at random times during the day? Sure. In single player, it's easy, pause the game, go deal with the hairball, while grabbing the amazon package, and come back. But when you're online? On a server that only ever does Long-run missions and cold-starts? Yeah, when you're 4hrs into a 6hr mission, and Amazon decides that the best time to knock on your door just as you connect to the basket... having that feature could salvage that entire mission for you. Sure, it's a niche situation, but at the very least you can still deal with real life occurrences with such a feature enabled. At the same time, it would still allow those who are having issues to at least keep pace with those who do it blindfolded. Also, the "Just practice" argument does have one area where it doesn't hold water. How many people work unpredictable schedules, but still play DCS? It's one thing if you work a straight shift, with a straight forward work week. But not everyone actually has that luxury. To speak from personal experience, I can tell ya that my job can throw a wrench in any plan I make with little effort. From dealing with last second security issues that add another few hours to my pay, to responding to major natural disasters... There are things that are very unpredictable about my job. Heck, right now, I can't play DCS because I've been deployed away from home. Guess who isn't going to be doing much practicing. As for anyone calling those who are well versed "Elitists" because they say the subject is easy... I think it's more that they're looking at the subject through rose tinted glasses (we all do it), They may simply not remember how difficult it was for them to finally pull off, and so they consider it a fairly easy thing to do. That being said, I don't demonize those people for it. But I will have some words for those who wish to make everyone share in their struggle, because they were able to do it that way, so everyone else should. I guess because landing on a carrier deck with a guy waving a set of paddles was so good in the 40s/50s, that we should ditch things like ACLS and the Meatball right? Things that make it easier for the current generation and future generations aren't bad things. They're just a better way of doing something incredibly complex.

OK, before anyone starts grabbing their pitchforks and torches, just... hear me out. Unlike other things that I, and others have suggested, the idea is to have a keybind that 'locks' us into the refueling area once we've hooked up. Not something that guides us in, not something that automatically gets us hooked up, just something to keep us in place until we've either maxed out out tanks, or, move the stick/throttle to disconnect (Similar to disengaging alt hold or ATC). Now, I know many people may not like the idea, and that's fine. This would be an option that's 'off' by default, and can be turned on by those needing just a little bit of help staying hooked up to the tanker... provided we're within the parameters first (hooked up, throttle/stick in the correct position). Now, would it engage automatically once we hook up? No. It would have to be activated once the plane connects to the tanker. Who would it help most? Well, obviously new players. But it would also help those who are using the 'simpler' control setups (IE, the cheap sticks and throttles). Not saying that people with those sticks are unable to do it (I know a guy that does it with a PS4 controller), but it would still be a helpful tool for those struggling with those tasks. What do you guys think? Think it would help? Or do you think I'm nuts?

I'd take them all, and even some aircraft that were functional prototypes/pre-production (Su47, F-20, etc), or some that never made it off of the drawing board, but at least had a mock-up made (ST21, A-6F, etc).

The real world F/A-18 is an incredibly stable platform in flight. The reason the F-16 is so 'twitchy' is because it was the first FBW aircraft put into production, and it actually requires very little stick movement to get the plane to do what you want it to. The F-18 is, at its core, a carrier aircraft, and that requires that it is very stable, and that any commands that it's given are deliberate. You bump the stick in a hornet, and odds are it's not going to do anything. You bump the stick in a Viper, and you flip. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

Yeah, that's how I feel about many things in DCS. If an aircraft has been tested with a certain weapons load, then that weapons load should be available, but disabled by default and capable of being enabled in the Mission Editor. For example, the F-16C Block 50 has been tested with the AGM-84 Harpoon, and a couple buyers did get that equipment. But ED says no, because the version they made is a USAFNG bird, and doesn't have it.

Now, with everything above being said, it should be noted that none of this matters if someone is just developing an AI Asset. The reason I say this is because when it's just an AI aircraft, there's no need to worry about systems, and other classified data. The trick at this point is modeling the thing to look as good as the current AI assets being developed, and while that is certainly a challenge, it's not something that's insurmountable.

Now, before people grab their pitchforks, let me explain my meaning. Yes, DCS is a study level sim. Yes, the aircraft are real birds. Yes, I'm going to buy many of these planes eventually anyway. My point is that I think that companies should aim for the idea of making the general feel of a plane, rather than the exact model of one. For example, many of us know that the AH-64D can mount Stingers on the wing-tips, but ED has stated that they do not intend to add that feature, because the specific model of AH-64D doesn't use them, and the same with the F-16. Foreign buyers have bought equipment to mount weapons like Harpoon and Sparrow, but the version of the Viper we have won't ever get it, because that specific block doesn't use it. My proposal is basically to do more of what Heatblur is doing with the EF-2000, get the general feel of the aircraft, and leave out the specific blocks (sort of). How would this work? Well, let's use the often requested F/A-18F as the prime example (no, I'm not requesting it here, I'm just using it as a primary example). The F/A-18F comes in several blocks, and externally, most of them look very similar (easily close enough that the average person can't tell the difference), and thus, certain blocks could be simulated by changing out certain systems in the mission editor. Sure, you have your defaults and presets, but with the right changes, you can have an almost completely customized Super Hornet that might not be in service in the real world, or you might be able to simulate a specific buyers Super Bugs with the right equipment added or removed. You could even swap the gun for jamming equipment and turn it into a F/A-18G. Obviously this will affect the flight model of the aircraft, but these things can be accounted for during the production, and refined as time goes on. Done right, this could make it easier to have different cockpits out the gate. For example the F-15C could be easily 'converted' into an F-15J by swapping out the American pit for a Japanese one (both in terms of language, and the JASDF specific modifications), and maybe even allow for certain player cockpit mods (like sticking your fatal family photo somewhere on the dash). What do you guys think? Would you buy a module if it was open to some customization options? Or would you prefer that only very specific versions of the aircraft get added. I would prefer the former myself, but that's just me.

Keep in mind that at the same time this version was in service, they did develop the 20mm cannon, and some units were sent to Vietnam for testing. Obviously these tests worked out, since, well, it would remain the Cobras gun from then on, and was even suggested as a viable gun for the RAH-66 when the custom super stealthy 20mm being developed for it was running a bit behind. Another thing to keep in mind is that many of these companies also consider their image, and whether allowing a 3rd party to develop the thing in the first place is a financially viable idea. For example, many of these modules, such as the Hornet and Viper, can be sold to real world Hornet and Viper owning air forces to use as part of the hardware and software in their simulators. Ergo, Boeing and General Dynamics look at that as another avenue for income, with minimal work on their part. In short, not only do the governments who use these things have to grant permission, but the companies who actually own the intellectual rights to the aircraft themselves have to be on board with it. If neither of those stars align, then we don't get the toy.

In this case it does, because they're the ones who made the original map, and if they say they aren't going to expand it, then that's their call.

ED has already said that they have no plans for this multiple times.

How well your landing gear holds up after the fact will vary however....

Oh this would help immensely, especially once all the ground units have been updated. An M1 Abrams for example could go: [+] M1 Abrams M1 Abrams M1IP M1A1 M1A2 M1A2SEP (this would have additional options for the ERA plating, and various bits of TUSK gear) This would greatly reduce the time it takes to sort through the various things, and give us a "At a glance" way of looking for what we need. That said, one thing that would be nice is if we could get into the loadouts of tanks, troops, and ships. Rather than the current state of the ground and sea units.

If you ever saw a USAF bird with that equipment on it, that was likely a test bird, or, pre-transit bird. IE: An aircraft that was being flown in US Colors for testing purposes (and thus the chute is better rigged to stay attached to the plane in an emergency), or to make sure that that customer who's about to receive it isn't getting a lemon. USAF bases are generally long enough to allow B-52s and B-1s to land with room to spare, and can act as emergency runways for larger wide-body jets if needed. There is legitimately no reason for the USAF, now or in the future, to equip an F-16 for landing on such a runway. And if you've ever watched an F-16 land properly, you'd see why it's not needed even on some of the shortest runways in the US. Also, if a USAF bird were to find itself needing to land on a runway that's too short for it to stop... the F-16 has a hook that can stop it. They're also useful in the event that the Vipers breaks fail. Example seen here (F-16D)

Unfortunately, there's no new news other than the addition of several new ships along side the South Atlantic map.

While I do agree, the reality is that after the '91 Gulf War all of the BUFFs lost the Tail Gun since it didn't do much good anyway. It would however be nice to have various options for tail guns and nose and engine configurations to represent the B52 throughout its service life.

Something like this would be useful for Live-Fire servers where people can spawn the suckers to have people engage and shoot-down under more controlled conditions. My unit has a live-fire server with this exact purpose in mind. Having something to represent a cruise missile or anti-ship missile would be nice training for people looking to practice intercepting the things.

Funny enough, the Community A-4 proved that this could be done with an aircraft by adding a 'buddy tank' to the aircraft. Obviously for something as tiny as an A-4 it's completely impractical, but it should be possible, at least in theory, to have an aircraft take on the role of a tanker, even when it's not one normally (like the S-3). From what I understand, the new S-3 is likely going to be the test bed for that, but we'll see when it's finally pushed out. As for the rest, it should be a fairly simple thing to handle for DCS. When you call the tanker, the type of aircraft you're flying should automatically be transmitted to the tanker when you're approaching it. So for example, the call should go something like this (this assumes either a KC-135MPRS or KC-10): "Texaco 1-1, this is Victory 1-1, you've got two thirsty Tomcats (two Tomcats in the flight, both under 25% fuel). Over" "Victory 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Copy, two Tomcats. Current heading is 230, Speed is 270, Altitude 23,000. Call when you have Tanker in sight. Over." When you get close to the tanker. "Texaco 1-1, this is Victory 1-1, Tanker in sight." "Victory 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Confirm visual. Extending Drogue. Confirm ready pre-contact." When you're in position, ready to make contact "Victory 1-1, ready pre-contact." "Confirm. Clear Contact" "Contact." "Confirm. You're taking fuel." Now if you're a Boom refueling aircraft coming into this, you'd have: "Texaco 1-1, this is Viper 1-1. Flight of four Vipers inbound. Over." "Viper 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Copy, four Vipers. Current Heading is 050, Speed is 270, Altitude 23,000. Call when you have Tanker in sight. Over." "Texaco 1-1, this is Viper 1-1, Tanker in sight." "Viper 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1. Confirm Visual. Take up port holding area until Tomcats are clear." When the Tomcats clear out "Viper 1-1, this is Texaco 1-1, Tomcats clear, lowering boom. Proceed to pre-contact." Yeah I went a little overboard here... but I do see that as a viable overhaul, especially if we get some visual aids like the Meatball that pops up when making carrier landings.

I mentioned that in my bit, making the option available to mission editors. Most servers will likely keep it off for the reason you stated, but other MDs might come up with a scenario where the added capability was somehow needed, and deployed aircraft are given the equipment necessary.

Hornet as well. And teeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeechnically the F-14.... since the a Tomcat was used to test the AMRAAM. As for how to implement it... I'd just make it an option in the ME. The equipment was made, but never installed on operational Tomcats since it was decided that A: the Phoenix was still viable at the time, and B: the Hornet was better suited anyway. As for why it should be an option... well... it's simple: While historically there was never a situation where the upgrades were needed, that's not to say that things could go differently for various reasons than they did historically. The scenarios are numerous, and I'm sure some mission creators could come up with some viable scenarios.

Isn't there also a process that can achieve the same results, but by using a bunch of photos of the aircraft from various angles? I heard that Cuban Ace used something similar to help him with the Su57

Potentially yeah, but how you create the scenario is up to you, but it's certainly not impossible to figure something like that out.

Channel/Normandy technically fit that time frame if you want to do some alternate history and have the Cold War go hot in the 50's