Tank50us

Alright, here's the deal with game development that you don't seem to understand very well. The people making the art assets, are NOT the same people working on the multicore support. The artists have to be kept busy to justify their paychecks, if that means they have to model a finely detailed watch to keep their jobs, then so be it. The programmers have a lot of spaghetti code to work through in order to make multicore support work on day one. Remember, we're talking about a game that's over a decade old, with dozens of 1st and 3rd party assets added since the game was launched. That's a lot of gears to adjust to make sure they all work as advertised. After all, ED had no idea that DCS would take-off the way it has when they first released it. They put it together, 'shipped' it, and then started getting bug-eyed when it grew in popularity so flippin' quickly. As for the issue of progress.... there's only so much they can show. You can show a 3D model WIP, you can show a texture WIP, you can show the item moving around in the engine, but the systems and flight model are another ballgame entirely. And it's the same with bug squashing. While I joke that I sick my Bearded Dragon on bugs, in reality, I'm sure the programmers at ED wish it was as simple as letting a lizard loose in the computer to find and take care of the bugs. I'll bet there's been plenty of "Well, back to the drawing board" moments at ED, when they thought they had something perfect.... only for it to fail at the last moment. Give the guys some slack, they know what they're doing, they just don't have the super gargantuan budgets of the major AAA companies.

The only 'towing' I'd like to see is something to pull my aircraft out of the grass and onto the ramp.

And also, which side launched the flippin' thing. That way you don't have Blue AShMs setting off triggers meant for Red AShMs

Heck, it would be nice if it could just be condensed into the various types of weapons instead of each individual weapon in the game.... because boy oh boy does that get tedious....

In the ME, when a fighter is placed down, make sure its role is set to "Intercept" Then, in advanced waypoint options, select "Attack Unit/Group", and in the window that pops up, make sure the target group/unit is set to what you're flying, and you should see something that asks what weapons to use, which is by default set to auto. Merely change it to what you want, and the aircraft will now try to use what you tell it to against you.

Yeah, it's called 'hot refueling', as I'm sure you already know. It's something that's possible even in the civilian world, but rarely ever practiced in anything other than a tail-mounted plane since engines and ground crew simply don't mix.... although the engine will certainly try if someone stands too close.... In military aircraft there are procedures for it, and they are practiced now and then at land bases since combat will make it where the plane has to be back in the air again in a hurry (as seen in the '91 Gulf War where A-10s would land and rearm/refuel hot). That being said, again, irl, it's a very, VERY dangerous thing to do, and has procedures that must be followed to the letter to be done safely. Funnily enough, the danger is so real, my unit actually places these decals: on our liveries (the one above is just for the Viper, we have the other fixed wing aircraft fitted as well with their own.... even the A-10.... because OSHA....)

Something like this would be a great addition for CSAR missions, especially if the pilot can 'board' the helicopter, and be flown out. GR for example did an operation where the only way for a player to respawn, was if a helicopter 'picked up' the pilot, and returned him to base. They could only role play this however, but something like that, where servers require that downed pilots be rescued or captured to 'score', would not be a bad thing. But then again, I'm all for the idea of objective based multiplayer

I was using those numbers as examples to make my point. ED isn't some random indiedev, they've been around a while, and have the legal and financial clout to make those negotiations I mentioned. A single person, or small group, simply won't have that.

This..... I have to agree with. If there's anything that will create a loyal base, it's an honest dev team. Now, granted, ED's been pretty honest with us so far, but I'd like to see that continue. Maybe ED could do 3 minor news letters per month, which just tell us how modules are coming along and what to expect in the near future, and one big newsletter that gives us a greater scope to what's going on behind the scenes. This way, we have an idea of what's being worked on, show some model WIP images here and there, things of that nature. It would probably be a good way to gauge interest in certain things, letting the devs know if what they're working on, is something we the players are actually interested in, and thus, where to focus resources. After all, if they reveal a 3d model of.... I dunno... a T-14 Armata or A7V, and the player base is 'meh', but are practically foaming at the mouth at the sight of an M551 Sheridan in Jungle kit, then ED would know "Yup, they want the 60s". I'd certainly be down for one big newsletter per month.

Yeah it would work best as a static object that we can place in the ME, or an unarmed unit that doesn't really do anything but still adds to the immersion.

Alright, here's a question for ya: Are there any plans to expand the tools and kit available to insurgents (as in, like boats, technicals, etc)? And, are there any plans to add additional infantry types (such as AT troops), and add additional versions of some existing units (ex the T55 and its many variants through the decades)? I ask these, because with the heavy focus on helos, I do think it would be nice to see some of these things addressed (with screenshots if possible) as we'll be flying much closer to some of these things very soon.

This has been requested a number of times, I even made mention of the ABL version of the M1 here:

Uhm... dude.... it's been in the game for a couple patches now XD The "Restrict Weapons" tickbox is there to allow the Mission Creator to make certain weapons either available for use, or not available for use. An example of this in action would be if someone was making a multiplayer mission where the Mig21 is available. The creator can go in, and with three clicks, remove the nukes (one to click to bring up the screen, and two more to remove the nukes). Another example comes from a mission I made for public use. As it's designed more for early Cold War, I had to use some stand-ins for the Vietnam era jets. In order to accomplish this, I restricted the weapons they were allowed to use. For the F-14 for example, I removed the Phoenix, AIM7M and MH, and AIM9M, as well as any GPS Guided weapons, and the LANTIRN pod. I did the same with the Hornet, Viper, Mirage, Viggin, and Hog for Blue Force, and the Mig21 (the nukes), and Mig29 for Red Force (turning the latter into a Mig27 weapon wise). Couple this with taking away data link, AWACS, and disallowing the F10 map to show red units, I forced players into that pre-Vietnam mindset of seeing something on radar, but unsure if it's an enemy or not, requiring visual ID. That being said, the ability to save a loadout from the loadout screen would be nice, especially in scenarios like the one mentioned above.

Not related to the game, but I do remember a story in the Philly News about a flight of Super Es had to make an emergency landing in Atlantic City, which at the time I kinda thought was funny..... and in some ways it still is.... because I wonder if any of those jets left a little.... heavier... than normal For those that don't know, Atlantic City New Jersey is an Eastern US version Las Vegas Story: https://www.aviationpros.com/home/news/10434868/french-aircraft-stay-overnight-at-atlantic-city-airport But yeah, you will never hear me say 'no' to more Carrier birds, even the French ones.

That's why I suggested the M1 variations the way I did, was because of all these variations of the Leopard 2 we got. I wonder if they'll do the same for the Leopard 1....

On the subject of ED making more money, one of the things that other devs learned the hard way about going without is that while you make more money per purchase, the difference is moot when it comes to the exposure your game gets. Remember that there are two major flight games available on Steam besides DCS, War Thunder and Ace Combat. Both have quite large player bases, and these players do get DCS in their recommended folders all the time. This means that Steam is basically doing some of the legwork for ED to get more people playing. If ED were to leave Steam, they'd have to do a lot more advertising in order to gain the playerbase they enjoy now, and even a 30sec ad can cost thousands to make, and lord knows how much to distribute, so the money they 'lose' to Steam is money they would've effectively lost anyway trying to advertise the game. And that's assuming they didn't decide to go into merchandising... "DCS THE FLAME THROWER! The kids'll love this!" Back in serious land for a bit, again, Steam may take a cut, but ED is a big enough dev that they can negotiate to get a better deal. So while Steam will take, say.... 15% from some random indie developer, ED may only lose 5%, or whatever they negotiated with Valve. But none of us were present at that meeting, so we'll likely never know.

This is doubly true when the only 'delay' is as a result of lag or understanding, rather than bouncing back and forth through telegram or Discord. Either way, when the SEagle comes in (finally), it'll change everything, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if ED introduces the F-16D and FA18D soon after for the reasons mentioned above.

Having done some competitive MP in a certain boat game and tank game, I can tell ya from bitter experience that it would ultimately boil down to both teams effectively 'shadow boxing' as they'd both be using the same planes and lineups, and ofc, that's not what DCS is really about. The reason I used the example that I did was ultimately to illustrate that, as a team who decided to play all Fulcrums goes up against one that's all Falcons will more than likely lose to the Falcons. Turning the game into Air Quake or ACOD isn't really a direction the devs seem to want to go down. But then again, I'm more for objective based MP, where players strive to complete objectives to gain the necessary advantages, and that doesn't necessarily require much balancing as both teams will (hopefully) know what they need to do if they want to come away with the win.

The odd thing is: this actually can apply to the hornet as well. Someone trained in the weapons employment on the Strike Eagle, could, in theory, employ the same weapons on the Hornet in nearly the same way. They are built by the same company irl after all, so it wouldn't surprise me if the same processes are there in both birds. That being said, having someone in the back seat who can employ all the AGW while someone in the front who barely understands the plane just trying to keep the aircraft stable is something missing from DCS.

Well, that would depend on how fast the crews can get out there and work on it, and if any of their equipment survived in the real world. That being said, it would be nice if that equipment could be modeled in game, so that we can see the runway being 'repaired', and even have a chance to interrupt it and force the repairs to take longer (with a follow-up strike hitting that equipment for example). Also, it would be nice if the runway repair time was dynamic. As you can imagine, a single 250lb bomb crater isn't going to take long to patch or properly repair. However if someone were to introduce that runway to a Grand Slam or a JP233 (pictured below)... it might take a hot minute to fix that damage (and in the latter case, remove the flippin' mines)

No, I'm not talking about the Queen Anns Revenge or the Black Pearl, I'm talking about the more modern incarnation of the 'Pirate Ship', which are mostly just common fishing boats and small merchant ships armed for commerce raiding. If added, such vessels could make for interesting scenarios where we have to land 'inspection teams' onto larger ships to check the ship over, or to protect merchant traffic from raids by small craft. I know we have the armed speedboat currently in DCS, but some more additions would be nice to have for this purpose.

Adding to this, it would be nice to see a 'relations' option be in as well, in order to mimic the complexities of modern coalitions. For example being able to set team Blue as being aggressive to team Red, but 'tolerable' to team Green, and 'peaceful' to team Yellow, but Team Yellow is aggressive to team Green, and just tolerates Red and so on. This could make things interesting when you're talking about, for example, a Civil War scenario where the players are part of a PMC, and having to deal not only with the main two factions (red and blue), but outside forces as well trying to push their influence.

OK, I'm gonna poke the biggest hole in this argument for balance, with a simple question: Who would win the following engagement? 4 F-16C B52 Fighting Falcons? Or 4 Mig29S Fulcrums? The matchup: Both flights start at FL15, 100nmi apart, and hot. Both have all of their weapon stations filled for a fight, and all have a single center-line tank. In this fight, regardless of weather conditions, the F-16s have it hands down. Why? Well, let me go down the list: The F-16 has two more weapon stations, and these can be fitted with AMRAAMs for a total of 6 + 2 AIM9s, compare that to the Fulcrums four Fox3s and and 2 Archers The F-16s can talk to one another via datalink, the Mig29Ss cannot. The F-16s RWR is more advanced, and can better warn the pilot of a missile incoming. The F-16 has an automatic countermeasure dispense system, the Mig doesn't. This means the pilot can focus on maneuvering the aircraft and getting a weapons solution while the computer tries to keep him/her alive The F-16s attack radar display can show you what your allies are targeting (I don't know if it's modeled yet for the Viper, but it is for the Hornet), so you don't 'double up' on the same target. You factor those things, and the F-16 starts with all of the cards. Sure, the Mig29 has that fancy electro optical system, but the R27s aren't that great a missile if the other guy knows they're coming. So yeah, if you enjoy smacking down one faction or another, by all means, push for 'balanced' teams in DCS, but it won't be fun when it's you getting swatted from the sky by a Phoenix you didn't even know was launched before it turned its own radar on five seconds before impact...

On the surface, this seems fair, but at the same time one has to remember that this would take quite a bit of time to create, and then someone would have to be making sure things get updated on the regular. Overall, it's not a bad idea, just... not to be expected to be fully realistic.

While the current M1 Abrams isn't that bad looking (I'd compare it to a decent RTS model), seeing what was done with the Leopard 2 makes me think of what we could get with the Armored Fist of the US. So, here's some things I'd like to see when the M1 gets its remodel: M1 Abrams: Where else to start but where the Abrams did. While the armor and gun were both decent for the time period, they still left something to be desired. As it's the first in the franchise I'd expect to see a bunch of different European camo patterns, the 105mm rifled cannon, maybe some spare track links and gas/water cans in the turret bustle, but otherwise, pretty basic kit. M1A1 Abrams: The first of the M1s to be equipped (as standard) with the Rheinmetal 120mm Smoothbore cannon, and the first tanks to smash the Iraqi lines in Desert Storm. Visually, it would likely be similar to the original M1, and you'd have to squint a bit to see the difference in gun. But (as pictured below), it would have the extra turret rack space, and ED could even throw in the APU as an option that would be fitted to USMC M1A1s in Iraq. This is also the version in service with some of our allies. M1A2 Abrams: The one most of us grew up rolling off our tongues. Not much improvement in firepower, but with the aid of the Commanders Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV), its overall situational awareness and survivability rose dramatically. Most US Army and US ANG units that deployed to the Gulf in 2003 used this variant, and as such, I think it would be the version packed to the gills with ruck sacks, MRE boxes, ammo boxes, and just about anything the crew could stuff into the turret racks. M1A2 SEPv2: One of the more recent versions of the M1, and could complete with the TUSK upgrades as standard kit (in game). The tank could also fire the LASAT ATGM against helicopters and other tanks if required. Key upgrades over the previous A2s include the ERA plating, Remote Weapon Station with either a M2 .50cal or Mk19 40mm AGL (selectable in ME), and a host of other kit as well. Other bits: With exception to the SEPV2 (which gets it standard anyway), each of the tanks could be optionally equipped with applique armor kits, meant to resemble battlefield modifications made by the crews and mechanics. Also each tank can have optional camouflaged attached to the tank, useful for those wanting to add a bit of immersion to the hunt for enemy tanks (since commanders in the field would authorize covering the tanks in foliage to match the surroundings and break up the tanks image). A nice option that could be available for Combined Arms owners would be the option to 'name' their tanks, either by typing out a name, or by choosing from a list of known Abrams tank names. Heck, for S&G, you could even allow for a duct-taped saber on the barrel (anyone who gets that reference, you know who I'm talking about!) Another piece of kit that could be added would be the ability to fit a dozer blade or mine plow to the tank (again, set in the ME). For the 'unarmed' section, ED could add the bridge layer, CEV, and ABV models to the game as well, giving those in the upcoming Apache module something to watch over as they 'go to work' in a mission What do you guys think? How would you like to see the M1 get its overdue makeover?