Tank50us

Thing is, as things are right now people don't trust mods to even work right when they need to. Largely due to the fact that many of the mod makers can't keep up with the DCS release schedules. One small update could break a mod for someone. The other issues is one of HDD space. Not everyone has a whole lot of money to keep up with the increasing size of DCS, and doesn't want to download something that adds to the size. There's also those purists who just don't want mods at all but are part of groups that use them. Ergo, for whatever reason, the server host can set the server to not require the mod at all, and those that do not have the mod installed will see something meant to represent the plane as chosen by the mod designer, but at the very least will see something that at least looks appropriate, even if it seems odd that the unit being represented looks the way it does and is doing things that are odd (to that player). I'm just trying to think of ways to make DCS better for everyone. Obviously there are cases where nothing can represent the unit in question, but those are rare, and could be handled on a case-by-case basis within the player base.

I think you missed the point of it. Since there's no Rafale in DCS at all (other than as a mod), you'd choose an aircraft to represent it. The exact choice of plane would be up to the mods developer, but the purpose is the same: have something that can represent the plane for those that don't have the mod on servers that don't require it. For some mods that's easy, like the UH-60 mod could be represented by the existing AI UH60, or someone with the C-130J could be represented by the AI C-130, and so on. Ships get tricky, but tbt, I think ships that meat certain criteria should just be part of the game proper (but that's my opinion of it).

So, I got to thinking a little bit ago (hey, my job is boring ok?), and I was thinking about a new way ED could support the mod community. It starts with creating a nexus. This special server contains and categorizes the mods people put on it, and even attaches a serial number to it (and gives it to the mods maker for updates). Downloads can either be done manually through the website (like we do already), or you can go into a 'mod shop' in the game. When a player goes through this, they can then just click download, and the mod will be downloaded and placed in the correct folder. Once this is done, the game will ask if you wish to restart. Done correctly, they could even add a 'cart' feature here so that you can download multiple mods at once, and only do one reboot rather than potentially dozens. When a player downloads the mod, for the sake of argument we'll say the mod is a Rafale, the game, on launching, will check the mod with the server to see if there's been any updates to that mod since you last opened DCS. If there's none, nothing happens, and you play as normal. If there is, it alerts the player "Rafale Mod has been updated, would you like to download this update?" and your options would be yes, no, or view patch notes. If you view the patch notes, the dialog box will remain where it is, so that once you finish with the notes, you'll be ready to download if needed. Once you click yes, it updates the mod, and prompts a restart. The next part of this goes to the mod creator. ED could create a mod maker style program. Not really an SDK, but just a small program that makes things a little easier on those with the mods or those without. Basically, this program handles the uploads and a couple final code items that gets installed with the mod itself. When you are 'preparing' the mod, again we'll use the Rafale, the program will prompt you to choose an alternate. This alternate refers to an existing model in the game itself, and you get to choose the most appropriate model to represent your mod in the event someone doesn't have the mod on a server that doesn't force the mod. This would also apply to any weapons the mod has. I'm fairly certain that in this instance, people would rather see a Mirage 2000 with maybe a couple AMRAAMs and JSOWs playing a Rafale rather than a completely unarmed and funky looking Su27. On the server side, the server host could either require the mod (in which case the previous paragraph has no use), or not to require it. Now, if the miz file on the server has mods under this system, those that have the mods downloaded will see, and be able to pilot/drive the unit in question. Obviously those without the mod, will see the chosen supplement. What do you guys think? I know I'm not the best at conveying some of my ideas, but I think this would be a better system than we have now.

This is actually something that was brought up in a podcast a while back. You just have to remember that not everyone is going to like such a thing since... well... some of those liveries can make you reach for the eye bleach very quickly

They'd certainly fit in with the EF-2000 that's coming

So, in my attempts to refuel, I noticed something: While in the Tomcat, I was just about able to keep pace with the tanker (the MPRS), and got into a position where, had the KC-135 had the attached basket on the boom, I probably would've been able to connect no problem. Now, this is in NO way a plee to make tanking easier by a long shot. But it is a request to have more tanker options in DCS. Examples of what I'd like to see are: KC-135 with the basket (or an option with the original one to have the basket attached): KC-10 (as an official, not a mod): KC-46: The Airbus MRTT: Vickers Valiant: And any others that haven't been discussed (or announced). What do you guys think? Any more flying gas stations you want to see?

Who the heck uses a BUFF to pound that? There's still plenty of rail yards, ports, factories, and airfields that the BUFF can easily lay waste to. And on top of that, the B-52 can carry the Harpoon, so if there's a concentration of ships that need to be turned into artificial reefs, the BUFF can do it just as well as a Hornet or Viggen can. Again, this is going to turn into a case of you going "I don't want bombers", and looking for any straw to support that argument claiming it's what the majority wants. But so far every single argument you've made for why bombers shouldn't be in DCS, has been proven wrong. During Vietnam, B-52s took off from bases in Laos, the equivalent to flying from Anapa to Tiblisi in Caucuses. During the Gulf War they flew from bases in Saudi Arabia hitting targets deep inside Iraq. It's perfectly possible to have bombers forward deployed to trouble spots. It's a massive show-of-force that shows the opponent that we're not playing around, and bad things are going to happen if they don't come to the peace talks now.

SEAD is supposed to be first, last out, so their job isn't over until the strike package is out. If you're talking DEAD, then what the heck are they doing that's taking so flipping long to get the job done?

Tell that to the SEAD flight that made that operation possible. Seriously, at that point, what's the difference between a BUFF being the strike package, and a pair of Hogs? The Escorts, and the SEAD guys have to make sure the strike package gets through, and it's just as much of a challenge. The one big advantage now is that if a bomber has someone flying it, then maybe they'll be listening to the radio and will go "Well, we better hold at our IP, it sounds like they aren't ready for us just yet", and then once things have been cleared, fly the attack profile. With the AI it'll just go "oh look at all the pretty explosions" as SAMs and AAMs are exploding around them because things took longer with the fighter sweep or SEAD strike than expected.

Except they're so small they produce almost no cone at all, so odds are they'd still be hard to see

Most threats to a BUFF simply won't get that close. And if they do they're idiots.

Did you not read any of what I said? I flat out stated that I don't mind units that were only in World War II being part of the pack. It's the stuff that was modified in the post war and used extensively after Sep. 1945 that should not be part of the pack, and should be part of the base game. The example I gave should've made that obvious. A Fletcher-Class destroyer as-built? Part of the pack. A Fletcher with any post-war modifications? Or a post-war built/modified Gearing or Allen M Sumner? Not part of the pack. Not exactly hard to see the logic here.

OK, first, the pack only costs that during sales. Second, this post wasn't about the WW2AP, it was about one aircraft that's in it, the C-47, and how it being in the pack means that if someone wants to use it in a setting and scenario that's appropriate (for example a COIN op), they simply can't use it because doing so will mean that anyone who hasn't bought it simply can't partake. To use my own unit as an example, we're planning a small campaign with all the available helos, and the Harrier. Our goal is to eliminate a drug cartel, and a number of the assets they (the island nation they're inhabiting) will have are all fairly old. Since we're big on trying to make the barrier to entry as low as possible (IE, next-to-none), we plan on including the OH-6 and UH-60 mods, since they're free to use. The problem is that this cartel is supposed to have C-47s, and some quad-50s dotting the area, both of which are part of the WW2AP, and thus, going to make things a bit difficult for those who want to take part, but lack the funds to take part. It's things like this that hurt the community the most. If so much as one item from the pack is in the mission, the whole pack ends up becoming a requirement. This is why I feel that aircraft like the C-47 should be taken out of the pack and made part of the base game. Aircraft that span multiple generations and flew for decades. Now, the equipment that only saw service in WW2? By all means, keep them in the pack, but I feel that any item that saw service beyond WW2 should just be part of the base game. An example would be the Fletcher Class Destroyer. The base version of the class? Make it part of the pack. Subsequent post-war upgrades? Not part of the pack. See? Simple. You. Chill. Don't make me get the ice.

If it were up to me, you'd have the 172 as a flyable unit with options that would allow it to be used as a Forward Observer for Artillery or to direct Airstrikes. It would also come with some larger aircraft that aren't flyable, but can add civil air traffic, patrol planes, and VIP aircraft. Examples would include the 737-NG and Legacy, 747, 767, DC-10, and MD11 in both passenger a cargo configurations, as well as any 'special' configurations that the aircraft have been adapted to. E767, KC10, KC46 are examples. But that's just me.

Hey, while we're at it, we can add the Western Super Sonic Darts.... Daggers... Starfighters....

I was talking about the fighters escorting those transports, not the transports themselves.

I have to agree with the OP. Something like this would make it easier to know if the AI patrols or ferries your setting up will even be able to last the time frame you're setting up the mission for. As an example, if you have a pair of fighters flying escort for a transport as the transport flies to a base 3hrs away, shouldn't you know if the fighters will even be able to go the distance in a single hop? I mean sure, if you know how the fighter consumes its fuel at every stage of flight you could probably calculate this in your head (or with a calculator), but wouldn't it be nice if the game told you "Hey, this plane isn't going to make this distance" and allow you to plan better? Hell, if freaking Google can tell me "Hey, your car won't make this trip in one go", the freaking Mission editor should have a similar function for the planes in DCS, including the ones we fly.

The remodel of the B-52 is going to be a post 9-11 variation of the B-52H. Additional variations would require additional models to make as the whole airframe was heavily upgraded over the years.

could you explain how it's an illegal asset? (legit just curious)

Slingload or not, I'd be all on board for having Towed Artillery pieces (which is what these things are called btw). We have them for the WW2AP, why not have them for the more modern scenarios?

It would be nice if we not only got that, but some more varied explosions of the AFVs in the game. Some examples (some may be from other games due to a lack of real world examples):

It would be an interesting addition to DCS, but if any team makes it, I really hope they include some shout-outs to the film... like the Garfield on the canopy, and groceries in the backseat.

One would think it would be an easy thing to implement since every computer UI has it. I think it's more to the point that it's not something they deem to be very important, and so, they have it as a low priority over things that are much more important.... like squashing bugs. That said... It'd be very nice if someone from ED would take this request seriously, my poor mouse can't take it! Three have already died on me because of all the clicking and dragging! While we're at it, allow us to add waypoints for multiple unit groups at the same time rather than what we currently have.... which... is one at a time...

mostly true. The F-15E will be slower out the starting gate, and have a wider turn, but it's still going to be quite lethal in air to air, as well as air to ground.

Yup. And they have to keep a very tight leash on them as well. Right now the Mig21 is the only aircraft with Nukes, and they'd like to keep it that way. That leash also comes with an expected level of quality, and the ability to keep the module up to date. ED most certainly doesn't want another Hawk incident.