Tank50us

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?

Some damn good stuff, that's for sure....

OK, test #3, I noticed that if I'm 'sitting in' the pit when the trigger activates, the plane spawns.... wtf?

OK, so, my first test shows that when they 'start from ramp', it works, but when it 'starts from ground', it doesn't. and here's how I set up the triggers for the test

I'll run a test and get some screenshots

So, I'm trying to do what I call a 'Liberation' Mission where one side is trying to take over air bases and such, but I'm running into an issue: What I want to do is make it where when Saipan Airport is captured by the Allies (Blue Force), they get their land-based fighters available for use. I've set the script where if the area is cleared of Axis (Red Force) troops, and only Allied troops are in it, the groups in question activate, and are available for use. However, in a test, all it does is go "Your flight is delayed, please wait". Does anyone know how best to fix this so that I can make this work right?

The H was first produced in '66, and deliveries began in '67. So it is very much a Vietnam era helo

So, the UH1H is a pretty capable platform, but I feel it's lacking much of what the real thing could carry and use. While I'm well aware that the Huey we have is a Vietnam era chopper, there were still plenty of weapons that could be mounted to the helicopter that we just don't have. Examples include: M2/M3 .50cal MG 40mm Grenade Launcher This huge rocket rack Assorted Gun Pods A 20mm cannon (yes, it was experimental, but still...) There's probably more wild and whacky things that were done with the UH1s in Vietnam, but these are the ones that I think could give the old Huey just that little bit more punch in combat. Also, all of the pictures of 'Huey Hogs' that I've seen have the Co-pilot operated guns attached to a mount that the rocket pods were attached to, and not up front like we have in game. While this configuration was used by the Australians apparently, I can't help but think that maybe we could have the option of having the guns in the US Army location as well. Will it result in some crazy mofo trying to fit the Huey with 4 CP controlled guns? Probably. Will it work? Probably not. Will it be hilarious to watch the Huey broadside a helicopter like an old warship with miniguns? Absolutely. Also, while we're at it, allow the door gunners to 'reload' their MGs when using something other than the minigun. I get that the Miniguns are fed using a large ammo box, but as you can see in some of the pictures here, ammo cans were also used since the MGs in question were still able to be used by ground forces (much like the ones used on ground vehicles) in a pinch. Who here would also like to see the Huey get a bit more punch?

I just did some digging, and found that the Mark 45, 5in gun aboard the Arliegh Burkes and Ticos was capable of engaging air targets. While obviously tracking something as fast moving as a jet would be a tad difficult, it was more designed to track slower moving aircraft, such as some of the slower jets (Ex. L-39 and C-101), and all of the prop-driven planes and helicopters should be viable targets for the Mark 45. That said, it would be nice if ED could add an option to disable certain weapons from use. For example to simulate a ships weapon being knocked out, or completely empty from heavy use. Or even just to take it away as the ship in question is 'playing' something much older (I'm making a mission now more appropriate for older style aircraft, but seeing as I lack the right ships, I'm having to use what we have)

I second this. While we're getting the A-6 and A-7, having to protect some Thuds while they make their runs would be nice. That said, having looked at the designed role of the Thud, part of me can't help but think that they were used.... wrong.... in the Vietnam war. A high speed, low-altitude aircraft like the F-105 would've been better served against time sensitive targets where it could actually use that speed.... not hauling more bombs than three B-17s to bomb a target that could be serviced by something a bit bigger and more appropriate for the task (and actually had a means to protecting itself from the rear at the time)

This is makes sense. Jester can handle all the radar stuff, and if the two are working on a module together, then we'll get it before the year is out. ED has a good staff of 3D artists, which can keep HB from 'over doing it' in certain areas. Don't get me wrong, HB is a great dev, and I love the Tomcat, but... all... of.... those... livery files....

Not many Su25Ts (as seen in DCS) or Su33s were built either, yet, we have them in the game. You can even run into situations where more of both are in the air than actually existed in the real world. The totals were 11 and 35 respectively. Compare that to 37 new Ds were built from scratch, along with 14 converted from As (a total of 51).

Over the last two years of playing DCS, I've come to some realizations.... one of the key ones is the bonds we all form with this team, its fans, and the people that ultimately form the squadrons. The last mission I ran, Operation Santa Savior, the sheer number of people who turned up to play what is arguably one of the least serious missions I've made, showed just how much this community will rise, not just to a challenge, but to a good cause. I don't know how many donated, if any. And to be honest, I don't really want to know. Why? Because anyone who did became a Secret Santa somewhere for a child in need, and that's enough for me. But more over, the people that form my group, they're probably some of the most awesome people I've met. They're a great bunch, fun to fly with, and offering great conversation. They're there when times are great, and when times are tough. And that I think is something every group should strive for: For their members to feel like they're a part of something, and to be as open as possible within the parameters of the group. This thread isn't all about that though, what it is about, is answering this question: "What makes DCS so special to you?" For me, well... I answered it already. But I wanna hear... well... read... your answers. So let's see it. What gets you logging into DCS each time?

For those that missed the mission and stream, here's the video. sadly, the server crashed three hours in.... but otherwise the mission went well.

Has anyone here considered the possibility of augmented reality for their sim-pits? Obviously militaries do this already with systems like IHADS, JHMCS, and other HMDs, but if one could set it up where the system only tracks where the head is looking in relation to the cockpit, and your own HMD is feeding you the required data, I'd see that as a more viable option for a proper sim pit.

wait... does this mean that steam users will be out of sync with the rest of of the game even if they're signed up for the open beta releases? Or just that those on steam who haven't opted into the open beta are going to have to wait?

The issue with the F-14B+ and F-14D isn't that the equipment is that classified, as it really isn't. The issue is that much of the documentation is either locked deep in the USN and Grumman Archives, or has been destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Iranians. I imagine that HB could probably make an 80-90% solution to the problem though. IE, It's not 100% accurate to the real thing, but it's close enough to feel right. For starters, remember that much of the tech is late 80s to early 90s, so if it looks appropriate for the time period, I'm sure most will accept it. The issue here is that while most of us would probably be happy with the 'close enough' solution, you have those few who want the 100% sim, and unfortunately, they have the megaphones. It's the same problem facing those that want to add prototype designs or even designs that were well manufactured but have limited public information available: they simply can't be made to 100% accuracy, so the mere suggestion of them gets shot down by the sim purists.

I mean, pilots have managed to pull off such landings in the real world, so I don't see how that's a bad thing.

I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of any realistic scenario that could take place there. Operation Just Cause is about the only thing that did happen there, and ofc the ongoing war on drugs... but that's about it.

That's normal. Because that's how the pilot would salute the 'shooter' at night since it's kinda hard to see the cockpit in certain low-light conditions.

unless something did break, and they're trying to decide if it can be fixed or pushed back to a later time. Ten bucks says it's probably something to do with the new VOIP thing

here's hoping that it doesn't mess up the big holiday mission tomorrow....

through the WW2 Asset Pack?