Tank50us

did you not read my latest post?

Just to clarify something guys, the reason that the UH60, Tiger, Kiowa, and a couple others aren't on this list is because either A: they're being developed right now (or are on the road to full development), or B: there's not even remotely enough information to even attempt the project. The projects chosen are ones that I feel I, and even a small team, could get the license to, or at the very least, could get enough information on to take a shot at. As things currently stand, Bell and Boeing are more likely to issue a license for a DCS product, and Eurocopter America may issue the license for the Lakota (and it's non-military variations). But the reason these choppers were chosen is because they're probably the best candidates for a 3rd party to handle. And since I used to live near where the CH47 was produced, and knew people involved with the Comanche, I figure they may be worth the shot.... also the Comanche kinda has a cool theme thanks to EA Games.... Now, what would you get if any of these were made by me and a team? AH-1: You'd get the G, F, and W versions, which covers most of the AH-1s service life RAH-66: You'd get a "Serviceable" Comanche, as in, a version that went through a slight revision to be more accommodating for actual service needs, and a few other minor cosmetic changes to the visual design. Examples include: removal of the T-Tail, and the repositioning of the Stablator to a position more suitable for ground crews additional protection for the engines from shrapnel (the engine bulges would be slightly bigger than they are on the prototypes) optional FCR (the same radar as on the Longbow, as this is what the project was tested on) 20mm cannon, Laser and Radar Hellfires, Stingers, and even Sidearm/Sidewinder capacity CH-47: You'd get a single version, likely the up-engined version currently in use, but also some new cargos (and units to go with it), as well as a new 'fire base' system. The CH47 would also get up to three weapon stations which can mount either an M134, M240, M2HB, or MK19 MD500: You'd get a bunch of military and civil variations. The civil version would come with a bunch of liveries for VIP, Police, Fire Fighting, and others, while the military variations would come with a host of weapons currently deployed on the family. Including the following: M134 Miniguns Hydra 70 Rocket pods BGM-71 TOW AGM-114 Hellfire 50BMG gun pods AT-3 Sagger (no, really, North Korea managed to jury rig this thing onto MD500s) UH-72: Like the MD500, you'd get some military and civil variations. The Military versions would come with optional weapons hard points, and even an optional sensor mast similar to the Kiowa (which the program was originally intended to replace). Ultimately, if this happens, whichever helicopter comes down the pipe, I think you lot will enjoy it. But these are also the helos I'm excited to make, but if I had to pick one... I'd be most excited for the Comanche... because only thing that kept it from going into service was the Soviet Unions wallet suffering its critical existence failure.

A third party could theoretically do whatever they want, assuming they can make the model as accurately as possible to what it could've been had the politics of the time not interfered with it.

Actually the Su25T we have in DCS is an experimental aircraft, and only 8 or so were built before the project was canned. The KA-50-2 we're getting is also a fictional variant of the KA-50, so having the Comanche, a helicopter that not only existed, but who's tech went into the Longbow, wouldn't be that much of a stretch. After all, the only thing that's truly classified is the stuff to do with the stealth. Everything else is public knowledge by this point. However if it were up to me, it'd likely see some variation of the design to account for lessons learned after entering production, but that remains to be seen.

So, one of my squadron mates and I have been talking about throwing together a module for a few weeks now, and since the AH-64 is just around the corner yey! I figured I'd do a totally scientific method of deciding what best to go with: A poll. You can choose from the following: AH1 Cobra family RAH-66 Comanche (for those that don't know, many of the Comanches systems were carried over into the Longbow, so only its stealth is truly classified at this point) MD500 Family (which includes the AH-6 Little Bird) CH-47 Chinook or the UH-72 Lakota The reason for these selections is that many of them (with exception to exactly one), are used all over the globe by various military, and in some cases civil forces. They're so common, that there really isn't many places these helicopters haven't turned up in some capacity. Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to find a conflict zone in the last 50-60 years that a couple of the examples here haven't turned up in in some capacity. Our goal, if this works out, would be to deliver a helicopter that people want to fly, and even make whatever choice that is enjoyable for the player base. All of the examples would be capable of taking a range of weapons from miniguns, to grenade launchers, to rockets, to Hellfires. You won't be flying without the ability to defend yourself. The ones capable of troop and cargo transport would likely come with some crates to haul around as part of the armament screen, and all of them will be capable of operating from ships. So help us out, help this fledgling team decide which of these machines will get the full representation in DCS. And if you want to help with actually making it... PM me.

Commander Davonger from the 145th here, and I have an interesting announcement for all you rotor heads. The Saturday after the AH64 drops, the 145th will be hosting a large-scale AH64 class where people who are interested will get to learn how to start, fly, and fight the AH64. For those that aren't interested in the AH64, there will be other frames and aircraft around, but our one rule is going to be that there will be *NO* PvP Live Fire permitted. If you'd like to join our Discord, where more information will be posted, just click the following link: https://discord.gg/fcr753wQRQ Hope to see many of you there!

well, unfortunately, if the community wants a Cobra fast, they'll have to take the G first, although it will come with the 20mm cannon as an option for the chin gun as well as the 40mm grenade launcher and minigun if it were up to me. Plus they'd still get the gun pods and assorted rocket options as well.

Arcadish, yes, but remember that it's just as arcady for how fast our jets are rearmed. IRL, the rearming process would take about 30min to an hour, and most aircraft would have to be fully shut down to rearm anyway (since engines and ground crew don't mix). But, some concessions have to be made for fun, so I am ok with this. However it'd be nice to have better visual representations of these things happening than what we currently have (plane being lifted into the air magically for repair, ordinance magically appearing on pylons for rearming, and fuel magically going into your aircraft for refueling).

This post is gonna be a mix of wishlist, and idea dump, but it is something that I think warrants proper discussion. So, with the Apache around the corner, I think it's safe to say that there are some in the community that would love to see the other American Attack Helicopter, the AH-1 Cobra. And that of course brings up the big question: Which Cobra? I say this, because the Cobra, a 1960s design, has seen service with multiple nations, and has been used for decades by the US Military. The sheer number of variants make proper implementation difficult, but not impossible. Personally, if it were up to me, and I was leading a team to make the Cobra a DCS Module, and I had obtained the licenses from Bell, this is the implementation path that I would take: The first helicopter out the door would be the AH-1G, the first production version of the Cobra. This version would have a bare bones basic AI gunner, but since the only weapons available are the miniguns, 40mm grenade launcher, or 20mm rotary cannon (some were sent to Vietnam for field testing and evaluation, but were standard on all variants post G), it wouldn't need a hugely complex AI to work the gun. You'd also have gun and rocket pods that can be mounted to the wings, but otherwise it's actual capabilities aren't far off from the Huey (which mimics real life since the Cobra was based on the Huey to save time and money during development). The reason this would be out the door first is because the idea is to get the Cobra in the hands of players as soon as possible, so that bugs can be found and squashed with the damage model and flight model as soon as possible. After all, many of the Cobras share a similar physical profile, with most of the major differences being engine upgrades over the Cobras service life, as well as cockpit upgrades. The second out the door would be the AH-1Q, the production model that would be equipped with the 20mm cannon as standard, and the sights needed to use the TOW missile system. Along with this, you'd get some of the notable export models, like the ones used by the JSDF. And of course, you'd also get a proper AI buddy to operate the weapon systems or fly the helicopter. Finally, we get to the twin-engined versions, namely the AH-1J, which is the first production twin-engined Cobra, and would, again, be brought in mostly for the ability to find and squash damage model and flight model bugs, but also to give players a twin-engined Cobra ASAP. Following this, the AH-1W would be introduced, bringing with it the ability to use Hellfires, and finally, if the company allows. the AH-1Z would be brought in as the final version to be added. Again, this is if it were up to me. But as you can see, it'd be a fully comprehensive suite of Cobras covering decades of the AH-1s time in service. What do you guys think? Would you get a Cobra module if it started off at the most bare-bones version? Or would you rather not touch the module unless a specific version is introduced? Comment below.

Although a third party team could probably pull it off, especially if someone on that team knew someone who worked on the Comanche program

I believe the radar is for ranging, so, if they turned their radar off they'd have no clue how far the missile actually has to fly, or if it's even in range. Also, good luck aiming at a fast moving jet without the radar at all. Sure, you *could* hit it, but odds are you'll miss and tick them off.

Something like this would be quite neat to have, especially if you're dealing with air-starts where you don't have the option to choose a livery. If you could set it up from the options menu where you could select from a range of liveries per aircraft.

So, given the rumors floating around that we might see a Full-Fidelity Transport in the future, I had to ask... which of the many heavy-lifting, multi-mission capable (sort of in some cases) helicopters would you like to see get added as flyable modules in DCS? My personal view is the CH-47 Chinook would make a great choice. It's fast, has a very good load capacity, and is a quite capable mission platform that's seen service for over 50yrs now. What do you guys think?

To explain what @Northstar98is trying to convey, here's a realistic example: One of the campaigns I want to design for my group is a COIN campaign (actually, it's anti-narco, but who cares). Some of the items the Narcos have are in the WW2 asset pack, such as the quad-50, C-47, the Liberty Ships (being used as a local cargo ships), and some other assets to best show that they're not a national force. Now, since I intend this campaign to be done on Marianas, and I intend to include the Blackhawk mod (since it allows for people who have no modules and are new to helos to join the campaign for free), there should be no issues right? Well, telling someone they'd need to go out and buy the WW2AP ultimately hurts peoples ability to enjoy the missions, and it hurts my ability to make the mission since I'd have to remove the paywalled units in order to allow those without the pack to play. That's the issue here. As stated before, the people griping are those that have it, and can't share it because other people need it in order for them to participate. And since my group will not under any circumstances force people to buy things they may not want, it conflicts with what I want my group to be. As has been said. It's not about the cost. It's about the fact that adding so much as one rifleman with an M1 on the map instantly prevents people without the pack from joining.

I'd say include it in the cost of maps, or make the purchase scheme similar to Super Carrier: You don't own it? You can still shoot it, they can still shoot you, but you can't interact with them beyond that. You won't be prevented from joining a server/mission that has a USS George Washington, but you are prevented from joining a server because someone put down an infantryman with an M1 Garand.

OK, if you have no desire to land on a carrier, be directed by its crew, don't own a Tomcat or Hornet, and want to fling an Anti-ship missile at the Carrier.... guess what, you still can if you own a Viggin, Thunder, or just know how to use the Su25Ts AShM, you still can. You don't need Super Carrier to attack the Super Carriers or Burks, so why should someone be required to buy any future DLCs if you have no intention of doing anything but shooting at them and destroying them? By your logic, someone should just go out and buy every flyable aircraft available in order to go up against them in MP. Want to dogfight a Harrier in your Mirage? Better own the Harrier. Want to go up against F-5s in your Tomcat? better own the F-5. The list goes on. The same holds true with the other DLCs, if someone only wants to attack them, they shouldn't be forced to buy the target. Especially when it's something that can still be used in any theater of conflict in a realistic scenario (like the C-47/DC-3, which can still be found all over the world, both in military and civil service, and the Jeep, which had so many built that they can be found in any conflict zone in the world.)

Alternatively, make it so that those with the pack can take some level of control over units within the pack. Be it just being able to drive a Sherman around, or fly a Ju-87 in an FC-3 configuration, making the interaction and control of the units the main feature of the pack should be the thing that makes people pay the cost of entry. If people aren't interested in controlling the units, and just want to introduce them to a 500lb GP Bomb.... then they shouldn't be forced to buy the pack.

I know it's something brought up a lot around here, but I do have some ideas for how to make a Combined Arms 2.0. The available ground units are separate spawns instead of taking control of existing units (IE, someone gets in an M1, and that unit, plus the rest of the tank platoon spawns with them). Instead of doing a full fidelity tank sim, the player assumes the TC position of the lead tank of their platoon, and gives orders to both their crew, and the rest of the platoon. Additional players can either take up the TC positions in other tanks, or take up slots inside tanks already occupied. Infantry are 'carried' by all IFVs and APCs automatically. Just like with rearming an aircraft, when you're near a specific building (we'll just say a FOB from here on), these vehicles can take up more troops as needed. Infantry can be given commands either by the IFV/APC Platoon leader, or, by the sides tactical commanders. Orders to both your vehicle, your platoon, and supporting infantry are all given via a 'jester' style menu. Movement and Call For Fire commands are handled via a new map available to the TCs. While the actual style will vary from one vehicle to the next (EX an M1A2 SEPv3 is would have a tablet, while an M60A3 would have a more traditional looking map). This would allow for better integration of the air and ground action. Players in the air can see marks made by the guys on the ground (either via F10 or other gamified actions), and hit them accordingly. As well as being able to mark targets for aircraft, players on the ground can also laze things they can see from their position, and forward the laser code to the aircraft. Players with CA2 can take control of support assets as well, assisting other players in single missions, online campaigns, or taking whatever action deemed necessary. Examples include: Operating the boom of a KC-135 or KC-10 (if that were to be added). Commanding a SAM site Managing a FOB, FARP, or airbase to get resources from A to B Commanding transport helicopters and engineering equipment to establish new FOBs (you can even work with people flying helos to move equipment, such as artillery, into position) Directing the movement of traffic in and out of airfields (similar to the LSO and future airboss on the SCM) For naval assets, players can take command of a group of ships at a time (although unlike the land units, these ships have to be physically present). As the Flotilla leader, you can command the whole group, from formation, to speed, to heading, to ROE, but you have to take 'command' of individual ships to get them to do specific actions. When you're in command of an individual ship you can: govern it's flight operations (if it has aviation facilities) command its damage control operate the weapon systems (you get a 'gun cam' view for the guns, and a radar for the missiles) and other things I can't think of atm. In conclusion, I do hope that Combined Arms does get its well deserved overhaul. It's a good concept, but the execution is lacking for sure, and I think with a dedicated team to making land combat viable, we could see a resurgence. But what do you guts think? Should it be overhauled? or should CA be scrapped entirely?

you can technically do this already, just go into the game folder, locate the liveries for each aircraft, and physically remove them yourself. It's not recommended, but it is an option.

No, they answered it. Remember that those wands are used at night, and the kicker there is you'd have to not only have the models and animations, you'd also have to have a transition from a 'day' crew to a 'night crew', and what happens if the transition needs to happen while flight ops are going on? Like BN said, it's not just the base animations and the models, it's the code that goes into it, and there's a lot of code to go with it. Trust me, as someone who likes Carrier ops, there's a lot of things I want to see too: a remade SH60 for SAR and Plane Guard A barricade that will catch my tailhookless plane if I lost it in combat or because I ripped it off trying to land (or got to barricade state) The ability for the crew interaction and landing to be made part of the stock game Additional Carrier options including the earlier Nimitz class in their 80s era configurations, the Enterprise in various configurations, and even the Ford Class Additional warships for both Red and Blue The same animations being available on RedFor carriers Additional CATOBAR aircraft, both AI and player controled and much, much, MUCH more. And yet, despite this massive list of things I want... I know good and dang well it's going to take months, if not years at best to get them all in. And I'm perfectly fine with this. Besides, with Apache right around the corner, there's a number of land-based items we've been calling for for years that we're finally getting too. I foresee many big QOL items being brought into DCS this year.

I'd argue that this would be the best option. For example, if the mission designer places a mod in the mission, or an asset that not everyone else has, for *those* people, the item is instead replaced with something of a similar class, and appropriate side. Examples include: Someone adds the C-5A from the MAM, the aircraft is then replaced with a C-17, both because the two aircraft have similar performance characteristics, and are both Blue Force. Someone adds the An124 as a stand-alone mod, the aircraft is replaced by the IL76 for the reasons mentioned above. You have an M4 Firefly added to a mission. Those without the WW2AP see the bare bones M4 Sherman Someone mods in a UREP ship for Blue For Navy, the Tanker Enyo(?) gets thrown in it's place for those without the mod The Higgins Boat from the WW2AP is added to a mission. Those without the pack just see the Armed Speed Boat Someone with the High Digit SAMs throws in an SA20 site, those without the mod just see an SA10 with a missile that's somehow capable of higher speeds. You use the new Blackhawk mod, the base-game UH60A takes its place for those without the mod installed Someone mods in a Yorktown Class and some Hellcats, those without the mod see a Tarawa and a P-47 respectively Someone adds the A-4 into a mission, those without it see an F-86 Someone loads a Bramos onto an Su30 and launches it at a target, those without that mod see the base-game Su30 or Su34, and the missile is replaced either with a Harpoonski, or a Sunburn. The towed guns in the WW2AP could all be replaced with the mortar unit. and much more. Now, my personal thing is that ED should make this an option for when people join in public servers. Mods or Asset Packs should be either Required, or recommended. If the host sets it to 'required', then the joining player who may be missing one or more mods/AP items gets a prompt, telling them what they're missing, and where they can get it (or in the case of mods, an option to download then and there), but they won't be able to join without it. If the host chooses 'recommended', then the player joining is still prompted, but if they choose not to download the items, they still connect, and the substitutes are placed (with appropriate generic Blue and Red Force liveries, and maybe with text telling you what it's representing) on their end and on the F10 map, the subbed units are marked with their actual type (IE, what the mod calls it), just with a set of (text) to denote to those players that what they're seeing is a mod or AP items sub. Done right, this can ultimately make it where the mod community isn't belittled, and those who don't want to go through the 'hassle' of downloading and installing mods aren't necessarily forced to, or are able to more easily download and install since it's now just one press of a key.

Hey, if we got this as a Static Object, I'd be all for it:

I'd hope they do it as both a physical system installed at the airfields, and as a portable system, with portable ILS and Optical systems that can be used to establish road bases. Heck, while we're at it, how about some inflatable hangars that can be used as spawn-points?

As well as the ability we have to arm our aircraft, it would be nice if we could actually have more control over the bombs in a bay, and the rockets loaded into a pod (for aircraft that have that ability of course). This could be handled by way of a slider, similar to what we have for the gun ammo, chaff, flares, and fuel. The way I see it, when you load the pod, the slider with all the different rocket types that are compatible with that pod show up, and we move the slider to decide how many of each type get loaded in. The same can be done for aircraft that use bomb-bays to determine how many bombs are actually loaded, or, if the aircraft dropped a mix (for example loading a couple incendiary bombs in with HE bombs in the upcoming B-29, or a mix of bombs loaded onto the B-1Bs revolving launcher), then how many of a particular type are loaded in. If done right, this would mean more control for us Mission Designers, and maybe set the future for large aircraft flyable modules. Please note: This only applies to aircraft and helicopters with this capability, both current, and planned. Not all aircraft are even configured for the ability, and as such, those without it, shouldn't get it.

Well.... for the two that were killed in that scene..... I'd imagine it be about that of an F-16