Tank50us

I mean.... technically you can do that with the Mi8 since it can, no kidding, drop bombs on things, so you can just role-play them as depth charges. That being said however, I'd rather have the Seahawk as it's a bit more multi-purpose than most other naval helicopters, and I think more people would enjoy it overall.

Anyone else thinking about flying through a sand-storm to dodge missiles while chanting "Fear is the Mind Killer"? Or is it just me?

The issue with any F-4 being added is that there were so many variants of the blasted thing that the moment one does get added people will instantly demand one of the more obscure variants or one of the national variants gets added as well, and then moan when it doesn't behave like they expect it do. Honestly, I say this: If you want an F-4, just take the F-4E and be happy. You can have it be carrier capable (not entirely realistic, since the Es were USAF only, but what the hey), and have an option to use the British Engine, but at this point.... there are so many variants of the F-4, that in order to make everyone happy, you're going to have to break reality. in order to please all the Phantom Phanatics

OK, first off, where a plane can go for only a few hours between top-ups, even a Destroyer can go for a good couple weeks between refueling pull-overs with a UREP ship (assuming the Captain is conservative with their fuel ofc). On top of that, Underway Replenishment (UREP) is something that is done FAR outside the range of possible attack as most UREP ships are either completely defenseless or only have point-defenses, which is only going to be enough to protect them from some Juliet Alpha that manages to stumble on them, not a directed attack against them. So while having UREP ships in DCS would be nice set dressing (especially in ports), it doesn't make sense to have the UREP functionality as most missions don't last long enough for a UREP ship to even be necessary. As for the rest, people have been calling for more naval assets to be added to DCS, and more CA functionality with them. Heck, even I've called for a new system that governs the ships and land vehicles so that we can correctly arm the unit rather than rely on a bunch of presets.

The reason why is because the M and X are built specifically to ignore targets on the ground that aren't above a certain temps, as that could be scattered reflections from a low-flying aircraft. This enables the missile to have the 'look-down, shoot-down' capability against aircraft practically on the deck. All that being said... the AIM9 is worthless as an AGM anyway, given that there are mortar shells with more explosive filler than that thing.

Honestly, I'd like it if ED allowed us to take a pilot model and move it between aircraft. Sure, that means that you'd have someone wearing a JHMCS or IHADS helmet on when they're flying something like a Saber, but it would allow for some more player personalization, and it would be something that everyone could see.

ED is already working on re-making the AI assets, it's just going to take some time given everything else they're working on

Or you just feel like going to plad

If you could pick one mission from the core Ace Combat games (4, 5, Zero, 6, and 7), which mission would you attempt to recreate using only the assets currently available in DCS (Ones that are on the way are also permitted). For me, it's the attack on Comberth Harbor, AKA, "Invincible Fleet". It's a target rich environment that in a DCS Multiplayer mission that is just the right mix of controlled chaos and absolute fun. And with the sheer number of available targets, there's just no way to kill them all single-handed, or even in a single sortie. So what do you guys think? Which AC mission would you attempt to recreate in DCS if given the chance?

So we'll see it in what? 5? 10? 100 years?

I've toggled it on and off, and still nothing appears (also, I see what you did there XD) Is it possible that it's because the mission itself originally started 'production' before the patch?

On the surface that sounds great, but remember that each of those aircraft then have to be rendered. So while it looks great when you have a decent enough computer for it, if you're running a potato powered PC.... ya might have to plant some more potatoes....

I've done that, and it still doesn't appear.

I've placed down some items with the draw tool, but nothing actually appears on the F10 map as it's supposed to. Is there something I'm missing? How do I get the things I draw using the tool in ME to appear in the actual mission?

Yeah, that's the thing many don't understand. Realism just sucks. During the Gulf War you had pilots who spent almost an entire day in the cockpits and had to be helped out by ground crew because they were so tired. Some would even be ordered to immediately take days of R&R, with some refusing and getting back in the pit the next morning. Let's also not forget that if your plane had a particularly hard landing on a carrier, your CO might confine you to quarters just to keep you away from the plane while you're spine has a chance to decompress and heal up (and to give the maintenance crews time to work on the aircraft. Real war sucks. And hopefully, it's something that only a handful of us will ever truly experience.

I'm assuming this would be an ME option? If so, I'd agree, it would be a really interesting way to show the progress of a campaign as the carrier gets more and more worn down before eventually needing to return for a refit.

Agreed, especially for bomb/missile in moving zone. Heck, it'd be nice if you could lump the weapons in by type rather than which specific bomb or missile. Then you can have a case where someone launches a harpoon from inside his own ships SAM net, and the while NORMALLY the ships will ignore it (it's outbound after all), with the whole 'missile in zone' thing, if the Harpoon is one of the possible triggers, now you risk crashing the server when all of a sudden all of the ships in that battle group start launching missiles at anything that floats that's within range and not squawking a friendly ident (oops). Having it set to "Coalition Missile In Zone -> Category -> (All or specific weapon)" would be a much better trigger system. That way, when you're a Blue Hornet firing a Blue Anti-ship missile inside the ADZ of the blue Battle Group, your ships just go "carry on little Hornet", instead of:

And then add even more time to that as bugs get found and shot down....

Did no one read HBs take on this? They plan to add Forrestals sisters and they *will* have SCM features

Honestly, I'd be more happy with Enterprise, that girl deserves a spot in DCS

Which, based on what we've seen so far it appears to be that this will come about early-mid next year at the current rate. Modeling the new AI planes to the same level as the module planes isn't an easy task as there are a lot of details that have to be added that just didn't exist in the previous renditions. Add to that the propensity for ED to add different versions at the same time (at least for the Ground Units), and I think what we'll see is the new models getting more variations to give those of us making missions a bit more to work with.

I don't exactly know where people are having issues, and from I'm hearing in my group, people can't even do anything more than look at a slide show on the map. My theory is that it has something to do with the sheer number of objects in some places that are incredibly detailed, but largely un-necessary. I've seen a bunch of rubbish and assorted items around Anderson AFB that, while they add to the realism, just tank even my frame-rates (and my computer is quite capable). Does anyone have an actual working solution people can use to get the frame-rats to acceptable levels? Or should these people just avoid the map like the plague? (I say that, because they're getting quite fed up with it when there just isn't a reason for it to be this bad)

So, I just had a thought, and one of the things that I think would be nice would be a way to create fortifications within the Mission Editor as an entirely separate entity. The way it would work is like this: You first place an HQ structure, this will serve as the focal point of the fortification, and by default, is set to neutral. Once the HQ is placed, you can place servicing structures, IE, fuel and ammunition depots, repair shops, helipads, etc, to your hearts content. From there, you can now 'draw' certain infrastructure, such as the walls (which prevent ground units from going in directly), runways and taxiways (which can either be dirt, dirt prepared (the marsden mats), or prepared), even trenches. Finally you can add certain 'static defenses', this includes things like artillery pieces, MG nests and bunkers, AT defenses, the works. Keep in mind I came up with this idea a few minutes before I started writing, so I haven't had time to work out all of the details, but who would support the creation of a fortification 'tool' in the Mission Editor? It could certainly make helicopter operations and COIN missions quite interesting

Last week, during a mission, I don't know if it was a key bind that I pressed or what, but for some reason any time someone fired their gun, or launched a missile (including me) the camera would automatically lock itself to a projectile, and follow it. Does anyone know what causes this? And how the heck do I turn it off?

Shame it can't do that with the more modern planes. That being said, it would be nice if we could get a early-mid Cold War version of the map with some longer runways. If nothing else it offers a great Red Vs Blue style server setup.