Tank50us

Yes, the ejection handle. However, the reason ED has this is so that your sortie doesn't get ruined because cat or toddler (let's face it, many in the player base have one or both) don't inadvertently rocket your virtual back-side out of the jet and ruin your mission.

Besides, a lot of people buy the modern day stuff, and then eventually try out the older kit. So the aircraft that is basically a real-world mix of a Full-Fid aircraft and FC Aircraft in DCS... being added to DCS... is going to be a good thing. I say this because the F-35 has very few switches in the pit, has a very easy start-up procedure, and it does so much for the pilot that they don't even have to think much about it. Leaving them to focus almost 100% on the mission itself. So yeah, we can have all the planes in the world in DCS, even those that never made it off the drawing board if you ask me. If it's interesting to me, I'll buy it.

I'd say we have all of them as AI aircraft, But I'd go with the OG British model, and the Armed USAF model as the flyable ones.

I mean, yeah, technically. But what the F1 guys did was have all the variants in game, but only a handful that can be flown. This way you keep the interesting ones flyable, and the 'meh' ones as AI assets.

Or you could go the Mirage F1 route and just have all of them

The Canberra would be a better fit as it has a wider mission profile. It did CAS, it did strategic bombing, low altitude interdiction, research and development (with NASA), and of course, tactical nuclear deployment

there's only one tiny issue.... the USAF didn't give it conventional bombs. It was purely a nuclear bomber. Now, that said... it was capable of delivering conventional ordinance. But the main mission for this thing was introducing cities to the Manhattan Project. I wouldn't mind seeing it in DCS, but I'm not sure how I'd feel about it being in as a flyable aircraft. An AI asset? Sure. But I'm on the fence about flying something with such a limited mission scope.

Basically a Soviet era SPECAT Jaguar? I'd be ok with that.

probably in wishlist... where it opened up an internet backdraft...

Now, before I get started, I just want to clarify one thing: I'm NOT talking about the more bizarre and 'out there' designs, or designs we know are built around "Rule of Cool" (looking at you Star Wars). I am talking about designs where the creators actually sat down, studied how fighters should be, and went to work to make ever aspect of the aircraft at least feel realistic (for the setting). The idea of this thread, is to just discuss the feasibility of the more fictionalized designs being added to the Sim, either as a mod, or even as a paid module (assuming the original creators are on board with it), as well as their respective settings. Why? Well, in all of DCS, most people choose to recreate historical or potential scenarios between real world nations. Now, this in itself isn't a huge issue. But there are a number of players, myself very much included, that prefer fictional locations and factions of real ones, as it keeps the messy real world politics out of the game. Like it or not, the real world has seeped into DCS, and the devs have had to omit entire functions from aircraft, and entire sections of real world locations in order to avoid the implications. So what if we allowed ourselves to embrace a bit of fictionalization? I'm not talking carrying 150 missiles on an F-15C, but I am talking about that F-15C flying high over a region that doesn't actually exist on Earth. I'm also not talking about flying X-Wings over Degoba, but maybe a fictionalized F-15 variant (based on the ACTIVE), flying over a variation of Japan. We have plenty of examples from film, TV, anime, manga, novels, and even other video games of fairly realistic, but clearly fictional aircraft flying around places that don't exist in our world, but are well cartigraphed enough that they could be made to maps for DCS. A good example I point to, is the world of Yukikaze. The setting was originally a series of novels, but was ultimately animated into a five-part miniseries anime that has what can be argued as some of the most realistic depictions of fictional fighters in just about any franchise (well, with some exceptions of course). And that setting alone offers quite a bit of range for DCS players. Long range recon (in Super Sylphids), CAP and Fighter Sweep (Sylphids), interdiction, scramble, you name it. Again, this isn't fully about making anything... but more to discuss if it could be done, either as a mod, or as a proper module, and how this community would react to a study-level simulation of their favorite fictional fighters.

It should be noted, that everything mentioned here is just part 1 of the process. In order for a new asset to be added to the game, let's say a M60A2 "Starship" First, CH would have to get someone to make the 3D and 2D assets needed, or make them himself, as he stated. Next he'd have to go in and code every aspect of the tank itself within the limits of DCS Ground Units. Fortunately, he does have some base-line code that he can use, namely the various late soviet vehicles which can also use ATGMs from the main gun. But these would only serve as a base, he'd still have to make the Shillelagh, as well as the other 152mm rounds the tank could carry (HEAT, HE, Smoke). The .50cal and 7.62mm MGs are technically already in the game, so at least some work can be saved. Now, once the code is finished, he'd then have to test it to hell and back. Every. Single. Aspect of the tank would need to be tested to make sure its inclusion to the game doesn't break it. And after that, ED gets to have a go. Assuming the ED testers can't find any issues, it then gets tossed into a future update. That's it, job's done, brush your hands and call it.... right? Wrong. After release, CH would have to keep an eye on the asset(s) to ensure that none of the upcoming updates accidentally break the unit, and by extension, the game as a whole. Making sure the unit works, and doesn't break the game then becomes a full-time job in of itself, and I can't imagine that being an easy thing to do. So... TLDR: Can CH have assets added? Yes, but it'd be a lot of work to make sure none of them break the game both before and after release.

That's not how this works my dude. For starters, the J-36 is still in its prototype phase, not in mass production like the F-35. The F-35 is also being widely exported, while the J-36 is likely to remain a domestic production aircraft only Due to the number of buyers for the F-35, Lockheed Martin likely has to be very up front with the the data, while CAC (and by extension the CCP) can make whatever claim they want, and it be treated as gospel. Finally, the F-35 isn't some obscure aircraft with a handful of examples in existence. Over a thousand have been produced, and many more are expected over the next few decades. Matter of fact, it's the most produced 5th Generation fighter, with the second place spot going to the J-20 (at 300+). I should also stress that China has a very different attitude towards weapons development than the US does. We tend to test to the breaking point and beyond before we hand it off to some snot-nosed kid to break again. China on the other hand seems to go "Alright, it flies... order 500" while we try to work out every kink and bug that could be in the thing before the production order is made.

So, in my spare time I've decided to make a monumentally sized campaign. I'm calling it "World War II Redux", and is an alternate history scenario where WW2 as we know it never happened, but tech still progressed well into the 80s. Further details can be found in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iFke-lEotorwxsAyxyQdtat4ecM571WzirXjJWv7-6w/edit?usp=sharing Now, assuming you've read the document... I'm not gonna lie, this is gonna require some help. I intend to use Moose scripting for many of the missions, but my skills with it are.... limited to say the least. If anyone would like to help, I'd be immensely grateful. The same applies to the missions themselves. I'm working on Campaigns 1 (The Blitz), and 4 (North Africa), but if anyone would like to tackle the other campaigns, I'm all for it. The goal of this campaign is to make players feel part of an actual world spanning conflict, using the available maps to serve as stand-ins for many of the real world theaters where the battles that took place in the actual war. One thing I'd love to do with this, once all of the missions are made and ready, is put them on a server, and let the missions rotate through it. Especially since none of the missions are little two-hour sessions. They're multi-hour marathons designed around the idea of players playing for as long as they can, then getting relieved by someone else who can take over for them... similar to how a real conflict would go. There's also technical progression as well, mainly so that early missions don't feel like a total cakewalk. The Evacuation of Dunkirk is a prime example of this. When players start, the evacuation ships begin to move, and only after several hours will they arrive, and being taking on evacuating troops and refugees. Once they're full, they'll return to England, and after that, a final set of evacuation helicopters fly out to pick up and stragglers and the final line troops (It's simulating the last hours of the evacuation). Players will have to keep the place secure for as best as they can until then. Obviously, the last parts of the campaign can't really be done until ED releases the new Fuldagap map (or whatever they're gonna call it). However, the majority of the others can be quite easily.

If we got the F-8 Crusader, one of the responses we should get is "Looks like you have some sparrow holes in your wing." If you get it, you get it XD

As an AI asset, or LowFid aircraft, it's certainly doable. But as a FullFid aircraft? It's highly unlikely due to the fact that the Chinese Communist Party, like the Russian Federation, has actual laws that prevent depictions other than what is "Party Approved". As I've said in other places: If someone were to model an Su30 in a way that isn't approved by the Governments of the aforementioned, it could result in Devs getting arrested if they ever go there, or worse. That being said, I'd love to swat J20s from the sky. Let the Kid off the leash against them.

To be fair, this isn't in itself a bad thing. It basically means that players can make DCS the way they want it. If you don't want to do anything with jets, you can just focus on the WW2 planes and maps. I personally like that aspect of DCS.

People act like data is the only thing in play. It's not just the data, it's the permission from the OEM to do the module based on the IP. Boeing for example would likely be fine with the Super Hornet in DCS, and would likely supply the data needed to make a fullfid module. The problem is that the Super Hornet doesn't really offer that much over the existing Hornet. But where Boeing may be alright with the Super Hornet, can you guarantee that Dassault or the French Military will be on board? We already know the Russians and Chinese are against any portrayal of their military hardware that doesn't support the claim it's better than anything from the West. They even have laws that will put people in prison if their kit isn't portrayed in ways they claim. This applies to anything they've built, including the T-34. A tank from WW2!

Alright... I've been seeing A LOT of people whining about the F-35s announcement, and it's made me decide to make this post. Now, disclaimer: I don't work for LM, I'm not in the USAF, and I don't work for ED. I'm a random civilian that plays DCS just like most of the people in this forum. My views on the introduction of the F-35 is that while, yes, she's gonna be hard to properly balance (being a stealth aircraft and all), that is more for us to worry about, and not ED. If you're playing on a Cold War server, or a mid-90s server, you'll never see an F-35 on your RWR. The people working those servers aren't likely to include them, unless they reduce the weapons and make them basically play F-117s. Modern servers are likely to only include a handful, but at the same time, are just as likely to have some on the RedFor side playing Felons or Checkmates. Now, to answer the big question everyone keeps asking: "How does Eagle Dynamics have enough information to model an F-35?" Towit: It's not some rare plane with only a handful that "Don't Exist". There's been over a thousand produced to date. It's a very well known plane right now thanks to various figures chiming their opinions on it. It's a widely exported aircraft as well, with a number of allies already operating them. As stated by ED themselves, the information they need to work on it is out there, even if it's not 100% accurate. Now, for those complaining about point 4, and the level of accuracy that can be achieved... If you hold that opinion, please chill. NONE of the modern aircraft in DCS are 100% accurate to their real-world counterparts. They're certainly close enough that in many cases we could hop into the pilots seat and start the plane up. But the only sims out there that are 100% accurate to the real thing are the ones actually used by real world air forces (because they kinda have to be). "How did ED get the information at all?" Well, I would wager that with the number of customers buying F-35s, it's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin was having issues keeping up with the demands for simulators as well. Seeing as DCS is as realistic as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if LM called Nick up and asked if ED could make a sim, with the added bonus of being allowed to make a module for us to play with in the process. But that's my theory. "Why can't ED add (insert RedFor jet)?" because where in the US, there's no law preventing them from making it. China and Russia are a bit more strict in how their kit is portrayed. For example, in Russia, right now, you can be put in prison if you claim that the T-34 is anything but the best tank of WW2 (news flash, it sucked. Shermans are better in every way. Change my mind). The US has no such law, and so long as the OEM is ok with it, you can feature it however you wish. So yeah. Me? I'm perfectly fine with the F-35A coming into DCS. I would've preferred the C, as I'm a Navy brat and like what the C offers, but I'll take the A. Heck, my reasoning for making this post was purely to shed some positivity here. I've seen an F-35 being put through its paces at a local airshow, and while I am no expert, I can say that it's leaps and bounds beyond what we have otherwise. No other aircraft (with one exception) can purposefully enter a flat spin like the F-35 can and just casually recover like it was nothing. Now... what are my expectations? Well... I don't expect its stealth to be true to the real thing. I expect that if I was in formation with an F-16 and we were approaching an S300 site, obviously the F-16's gonna be seen first, and shot at first. But the S300 likely won't see me until I'm like 15-20nmi away, and likely only because I just chucked a bunch of SDBs at it. I do expect its maneuverability to be in line with the real thing. It won't be as maneuverable as a Raptor or Su35, but it doesn't need to be. Frankly, if a Lightning is having to maneuver that close to an enemy, something's gone horribly wrong. I expect its datalink screen to almost look like the F10 map, because that's basically what it's got. Seriously, the F-35 can take information from ground, sea, and air assets and get a complete picture of the battle space. An F-35 pilot doesn't have to ID where the blues are, they know where they are to a degree that they can avoid Blue on Blue situations to levels even the Hog can't touch. I do expect that the cockpit will be pretty sparse. A big screen, a couple of backup instruments, radio and navigation switches, controls, and start-up switches, and that's it. There's not much to an F-35 cockpit, and the same holds true to the external model. So with that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're able to pre-order it by the end of this year, or early next. The only real challenge I see for ED is replicating the touch-screen functionalities as all the weapons the F-35 can carry are already in game, and the HUD functionality already exists in the JHMCS (just in reverse). Overall, I see good things on the horizon with the F-35. If you agree, let's hear it. If you think I'm a corporate Kiss-A... well, try to prove it. Tank out.

Jester kinda does this already in the F-4E and F-14. He may not tell you exactly what's wrong with the plane, but he'll give you an idea of the issues.

Another option would be the EC-130 Compass Call. Basically an C-130 packed to the brim with jamming gear. However, in the meantime, there's a simple way to simulate the effect of a jammer aircraft in the mission editor. Set up a SAM site (or multiple), and in the trigger actions, set the max range down to about 10-20% of their max. have the aircraft in question fly to an area and orbit just out of max range for the site. in that area, place a trigger zone. in the triggers, set it up so that once the plane enters the zone, the SAMs range is reduced (you can add a message to tell the pilots that the jamming is active). As a bonus, if you're doing objective based PvP, these Jammer aircraft can also serve as targets for your Op4, removing their jamming, and restoring the effectiveness of the SAM site. Hope that helps in the meantime!

Some assets I'd like to see are: More artillery. Both Self-Propelled and Towed. Earlier models of the B52, KC135 and E3, the EC121 Warning Star for the Vietnam USAF, as well as the E-1 Tracer for the Naval side. Some additional warships of the era. Maybe not a conclusive list, but certainly some more options would be nice. More Surface to Surface missile launchers. And inb4 the nuke discussion, their missiles did have more than just nuclear warheads. More Landing Craft and Riverine vessels. Some of the era specific Strategic Bombers like the B-58, B-48, B-29, Tu4, Tu16 (with the tail guns), and Tu28 Blinder. More variations of the M113. Not just to match the time period, but also models that were used by the many customers that bought the frame. and much much more

Fast-roping is actually not used that often in most combat scenarios. Reason being is because you can only drop one guy per line, and you have to sit there until the last guy is off the rope. This in turn leads to the helicopter being a sitting duck for enemy fire. Typically, when a helicopter is doing a 'combat landing', they are on the ground and stationary for less than five seconds. Because when you're in a combat zone, you don't want to stay there long enough for someone to line up a rocket shot. If a Blackhawk for example touches down, the troops getting out are out of the bird and clear in a couple seconds. The crew-chief(s) call out that the troops are off, and the pilot gets back in the air and moving. All within those five seconds. Now, where fast roping is used, is in places where the threat to the helicopter is low, and there's a limited space to actually land the bird. The Battle of Mogadishu actually provides a good example of both methods. The Little Birds had enough space that they could touch down, and the troops on them could just hop off. So they did. The Blackhawk however is a massive helicopter by comparison, and the battle plan called for the Rangers to be deployed close to the target building, but since there wasn't space to land the Blackhawk, they fast-roped the Rangers in. But the entire time they were sitting there, they were vulnerable. When Super 6-8 was inserting the medics, they took several hits, including one RPG to the engine and nearly cost the US Army a second (at the time) Blackhawk in the field. The chopper in question was able to land safely... but it was close to being a write off. Now, as for DCS... I would place this as something to add when/if we get a new ground combat setup, because we'll need entirely new infantry models, animations, and coding to make it work right.

Technically, this isn't true. At the moment, things are on hold pending the conflict resolution with RB. It's just a question of who's going to blink first. That whole fiasco started because RB tried to jip ED out of potentially millions of dollars on a simulator deal, and then take that aircraft and sell it to us. Basically double dipping on one plane. On topic though, I wouldn't mind seeing an updated F-15C added to DCS that gives it a fully functional cockpit. One option I think would work would be to make it one of the customer F-15s, like the JASDF F-15J, which have been getting updated cockpits in recent years.

I mean... throw enough lead in the air....

oh, tracers can be seen during the day, but not as well as they can be at night