Tank50us

While we're at it, how about a control setup wizard as well for all the 'common' commands? After all, when someone changes to a new system or new control setup, having *something* to make it easier to set up the dozen or so planes, while also making sure everything else is good to go would be freaking awesome. Heck, if a more arcady sim from that company with a snail as its logo can pull it off, I'm sure ED could add it to DCS

It could certainly be useful for training scenarios, teaching people how not to get hit by enemy weapons and such, without the whole 'going back to base and restarting' thing. This would especially help those who have limited time for training (IE, those that work 12+hr shifts)

I imagine they would. And of course the right kind of SMEs will help as well.

Would you settle for a close approximation?

You might be able to go to the USAF Archives and look up the information needed. The question is how much of it is still classified.

hmm.... is there any way to make a FFM without those documents? I imagine it can be done, it'd just be a lot harder, and you'd need a lot of SMEs to get it right.... and we're rapidly running out of those.

yeah. Having someone actually talk you on until you make contact is so helpful it can't even be described. It's ow I managed to make my first tanker link-up.

Hey at least the idea I presented above has some merit, since it already exists within the game proper anyway.

I mean, accurate ship sinking isn't exactly an easy thing to model in a sim. For one that will require accurate simulation of the water, and accurate simulation of the deck layouts. Most games get around this by having a host of animations that can play under certain conditions, but with DCS having fairly simple damage models for ships and tanks, it really limits what can be done. An easy way to fix that would be to break the ship into about 14 hull sections: Six sections below the water line, six above, and two for the super structure. When any of those parts reach zero HP, the ship is considered either 'Mission Killed' (in which case the ship stays above the water line, and returns to it's 'start' position), or 'sunk' (the ship begins to sink) depending on which sections reach 0 health. As well as the hull sections you'd need assorted modules that can also result in the ship being destroyed or disabled if they reach zero health. Examples would be a ships magazines, which as Hood and Arizona demonstrated can go up quite spectacularly when 2,000lbs of HE goes off in them. You'd also have the bridge, which will result in the ship being forced out of the area or becoming dead in the water. A ships fuel tanks or engines can be damaged or destroyed, resulting in the ship coming to a slow halt and going adrift... or becoming an inferno. And of course you'd have the keel, which if that goes, the ship will sink.... it's just a question of how long will the ship remain looking like a ship before it's ripped in half. At first it seems complex, but it's actually a very simplistic way of doing things, but it looks and feels realistic to the players as they watch the ship go down.

I've seen some footage of our carriers during their sea trials, and you'd be surprised how fast a pair of nuclear reactors can oomph a 90,000t warship from 0 to 35kts. Same applies to the Burkes. Here's a video of one performing evasive maneuvers, and it's quite impressive at how tight that turning radius is, and how quick it can get up to speed.

More ships period have been requested for a while now, ranging from both the small ships like the CSCG ships, all the way to the Iowa-Class. However, in the meantime some modders like @Admiral189 have been modeling these very ships and putting them in the game.

what Sidewinder model is that? It looks like an AIM-9P... which is odd given how new the Strike Eagle is.

My Viper For those that want to see her in action (and me flying it):

There's also the fact that while making a map set in the 50s would be nice, we didn't exactly have satellites taking high resolution pictures back then, and you can't tell much from the few pictures that were taken. On top of that, photos of the various locations are hard to come by as they exist in peoples photo albums and drawers. We just have more information about locations that exist now, then we did just 30yrs ago, let alone 50-70yrs.

Honestly, the most logical group to tackle it, is Heatblur. After all, the RIO in a Phantom isn't that much different from a RIO in a Tomcat, so just about all of Jesters abilities (minus the LANTIRN) abilities) can be ported over to a Phantom.

The core issue with what he's talking about is that it only really works with a persistent MP Mission that's in use when a group isn't running a main mission, or they have a dedicated mission server. On top of that it would require additional resources being created for a very specific task that we realistically will not see that well. After all, players will ETO from the Taxiway and fly somewhere else to rearm/refuel, and the people who rendered the runway unusable will likely be more concerned with getting back to base than seeing the runway getting repaired.

Theoretically, it could fight A/A, however it was at best only meant to hold on long enough for a Phantom or Eagle to turn up. The one kill that the frame has to its credit was classed as a maneuver kill against an Iraqi Mirage F1. This kill is shared with an F-15C who happened to lock it up just a few moments before.

Oh I laugh at all sorts of things, but DCS fails are getting up there.... right along side 3 dudes in a warthog meeting a hostile Scorpion all of a sudden....

DCS The Lunch Box, DCS The Action Figure, DCS the FLAME THROWER!

"Dang it Magnus! Your unregulated warp powers caused yet another disaster!"

Isn't the RBO4 a command-guided missile? Cuz I'm thinking that it might be a case of the aircraft telling the missile to change course... for some warp induced reason....

Hashtag Keyboards Lives Matter Too! XD Being serious for a sec.... good god getting the AI to do something simple is a pain in the ass sometimes.

There's a bit more to it than that. You can't tell from those pictures or videos exactly how the systems are supposed to work, you need documentation that tells you "Button X does Y". Sure, you can poke your head in a cockpit, and identify what does what by the labels, but can you tell how those systems are supposed to work based on that? No. Sure, a battery switch is a no brainer, but what about an INS knob in the Viper? Or any number of switches and knobs that have multiple functions? Without the documentation to tell you what those functions are, you're kinda hosed.

For that I say KIS. None of the ships in DCS have their full Air Defense Systems fully modeled, so I doubt we'd lose much by keep the ship-based Air Defense Systems to a simplified nature. That said, a more complex AI system to govern when a ship actually shoots would be nice.

As much as I'd like that for WW2, I can tell ya now that with the current performance of Marianas, and the complete lack of landmass of the Hawaiian Islands, it wouldn't work out that well.