Tank50us

Now, forgive my ignorance if there's a lua for this, but when I was placing some static crewman on the Stennis/Forrestal, I couldn't help but think "It'd be nice if these guys were at least kneeling so it doesn't look like their heads are gonna get lopped off when I shoot". Is there any way that some kneeling versions could be released in a future update? or is there a way to make these guys kneel without having Andee Frizzell get in their heads to tell them to do so (and bonus points to anyone who understands *that* reference)

Some notes from me... The props should be spinning when the ship is in motion (some have noted this) The doors on the island seem a bit short compared to a person. I'm not sure if this was the case on the real ship or not, but it is something I noticed. I've noticed that the S-3 and E-2 tend to play bumper cars when taxing to the cats. And when placing static objects, there are cases where they'll levitate in places they shouldn't, especially around the Island.

I second this. You'd think it'd be something that's already in the game, but, apparently it's not...

It may be an ED thing, because many aircraft do have them. Check to see if it's present with the Hornet or FIshbed, those are the two I've seen it the most on (at least for the statics)

I am the sort of person that believes fairly strong both in this module, and the early-access model. After all, the benefit of it is that you're earning money while polishing the product, and I think that's both good for the people making the module, and for those that adopt it early. Obviously great care must be taken, many of us know that the F-16 was released in a.... not very well optimized state, and ED caught a lot of flak for it. That all being said, I do feel there is a good way to do this, and the first step in that is for the company making the module to just be honest with the players. People do want the Strike Eagle, and people do want it to be the best module possible. But, let's be honest with ourselves, like many things, it will not be perfect on day one. Bugs that Razbam could never have tested for will crop up, and will need a good squashing, but they will only know about it, if we tell them about the bugs. So with that out of the way, onto the meat: What I would like to see in the MudHen, at minimum, is the following: Working flight model Basic to moderate damage model AAMs and gun working 'dumb' bombs working Laser-Guided Bombs working FLIR pods working Multi-crew operational Internal Systems working as designed (radar, coms, HUD, MFDs, etc) and In-flight Refueling These are what I would consider to be the 'mission critical' items that should be available day one, and as you can see, there aren't very many items on that list, even if you expand it to get down to the nitpicky stuff. Now, some might question why I'd ask Razbam to release it with only so few items, and to them I'd answer: Simple, because everything on that list brings it into the state it was in 1991, and it makes it more likely that if bugs are found, they can be fixed much more easily due to the limited places the bugs can be. On top of that, as more systems get added, the main code stays very robust compared to just dumping it all, and if new bugs crop up, then the people behind the code have an even narrower field to search in. On top of that, it would also allow those of us willing to cover our eyes and stretch out our feet something to work with. After all, we all take a leap of faith when we purchase any module, but I still think that a strong early access build is a good way to go. And again, if Razbam is honest with us, tells us exactly what comes with the EA build, and what comes later down the road, I think people will be ok with it. It's certainly proved that way with Hind, Mosquito, and Apache. Granted, that is with ED, but Heatblur also made it work with the Tomcat and Viggen, so I think it's certainly possible we could get a EA MudHen very, very soon (based on what I'm seeing so far), but it's ultimately up to Razbam to make that call. And inb4 someone gripes about RB not showing off any systems or even talking about it... remember that the F-15E is still in service, they may not be allowed to talk about the systems beyond "This is what it is, this is what it does" So what do you guys think?

Well, the Helm is a no-brainer, then there's the LSO position (on the 80s refits), and then I'd say the fore and aft gunnery positions for the 16s, so that's 4 right there. Maybe a CIC, and a starboard and port director position for the 5in guns.

The best place I think for such vehicles would be to push you back when you're rearmed/refueled so you can taxi out, or, to pull your plane out of the dirt and onto a the apron where you can move again after repairs. That to me would be a real welcome addition.

I dunno, could you imagine the heart attack it would cause in VR when you suddenly have flames in your field of vision. Sure, it's realistic, especially for engine-front designs, but in anything else.... it doesn't? I'd rather in cases like that the pilot just 'die' instead.

Well the firing computers for the Iowas worked throughout their service lives, so, those likely still work.

Not if they're honest in saying "Hey guys, we got the core stuff working for the F-15E, the more advanced stuff is coming, but we need you all to help us make sure the core stuff actually works in the world. Those of you who buy now will also get (insert list of perks), and we promise that this will be one of the best DCS modules out there." or something along those lines. And let's face it.... they've sunk how much into this project by now? I think it's high time they start recouping costs.

Alright, so, let's go through the list: - AAMs should operate normally, especially the sidewinder as it looks for heat sigs. - Iron Bombs are working as designed, now we just need to see if retard bombs work as advertised. - Laser Guided Bombs should work like iron bombs, as the laser can come from either the plane or another source. This leaves GPS guided weapons, AGMs, and any 'new' weapons coming with the module left.... And seeing as we now have renders of the full pit, and some images of the systems functioning... I'd honestly say that it may be ready for an early access release very soon. Once that's out, you guys can focus on other systems like the AGR, AAR, MAR, the various other pods the MudHen uses, any ECM it can be equipped with, and maybe speak with Heatblur about Jester again since his AG capabilities are coming pretty soon. Honestly, if you guys released it now, with the core capabilities (AA, DUmb bomb delivery, etc), it'd sell very well, especially if people understood that that's what they were buying up front. Now... can someone explain why I'm hearing Sammy Hagar all of a sudden?

Some units in the pack have been made freely available, like the various flak batteries, Sherman, Pz4, etc

With all the helicopters we're getting now, it'd be nice if we could place infantry onto the decks of ships and onto the various oil and gas platforms available in game. The reasoning here is that it would be good to create things like boarding actions via helicopter insert, or for cases to stop the ship from leaving an area with WMDs onboard with a bunch of dudes shooting at the helicopter trying to get the ship to stop. This could also allow us to simulate 'armed merchant ships' by placing infantry and certain weapon systems on the deck that we now have to worry about. I'm sure the list of possible scenarios people could dream up for this ability are endless...

Oh I have seen this first hand... like people just riding along in the back of a truck, and suddenly finding the secret eject button as the vehicle in question goes over a bump....

If you think it's boring for you, imagine what it's like for the poor sap holding a dead-mans cord while every pound of fuel is pumped in (fuel is calculated in lbs/kg btw, not gal/lit for aircraft), this is especially true when the weather outright sucks. Having done this in the real world, I can say this with some certainty XD That said, the flow rates are about as fast as they would be in the real world. 20,000lbs of fuel being pumped in typically takes about 5-10min or longer depending on the aircraft (737NGs typically take it in about 7-10, but the A320 family typically take about 20-30min due to their fuel system). But again, this all depends on the plane itself, and when it comes to mid-air refueling, it's even faster.

There are two main issues in play: 1. You have the hard-core bolt counters who will absolutely pitch a fit if the aircraft modeled in game has something it can't use in the real world (though they seem oddly mute on the opposite...) 2. There have been some mods that have resulted in fun little results like aircraft models and code being hard locked due to some mods nearly breaking the sim because that group, and I quote, "Wanted to use that aircrafts cockpit and flight model". The best way for this to happen would be through the new weapon restrictions page in the Mission Editor, and I think the best policy would be as follows: 1. If the aircraft can use the weapon, has been tested with it, and is part of its operational doctrine, it's available then and there for the given country. 2. If the weapon was tested on the platform, but not regularly used, it may not be usable on all stations. 3. If the weapon was tested on the platform, but the modifications were not adopted fleet-wide, then the option is turned off by default, and must be enabled by the mission creator. 4. if the weapon was NOT tested on the platform, but is similar enough to another weapon currently available for the platform (say the IDF Python vs the US AIM9), then the original must be disabled in the ME before the other can enabled. I think if these were guiding principles for the aircraft in DCS, we'd have far fewer arguments in various forums, as I think these offer us the chance to not just simulate the aircraft as they are, but as an outside customer of the aircraft may actually use them. For example, the F-16C Block 50 we have in game is the USAF version, however, some countries who also use Block 50s have the wiring included to operate Harpoon from the inner two hardpoints. This could also allow for cases where certain versions of the Su25 are now being offered with the capability to fire the AGM-65 Maverick, or the ability for the Tomcat to operate AMRAAM or in the case of the A, some of the weapons Iran use like the modified HAWK, and the R27 series of missiles. I'm sure other examples exist of foreign customers of various aircraft opting to use their own home-brew weapons on their planes, or plenty of cases where a country tested certain capabilities but never put them into wider service. But this is what I think the best solution would be: Give the mission designers the options, and if people complain about it, then they can just not play on those servers or missions.

And some of its existing features may become free for all anyway like the WW2AP (namely the crew doing their thing, the ability to spawn, land, and launch, and maybe the LSO position), while all the stuff that's still coming is locked behind the paywall. Honestly, I think that would be the ideal solution. All that being said, and steering this ship back on course, one thing I'd like to know, is will we get a paint kit of sorts so that we can modify the colors of the ship to fit our groups or scenarios? I think that would be a nice addition to the game, give us texture artists something to sink our teeth into for a bit.

I remember a long time ago when I was in middle school seeing a picture of a Comanche doing a ground weapons test of a Hellfire. So I imagine that they did more testing than just flying the thing around for a few hours a day and taking notes. And given that many of the systems would later go into the Longbow anyway, I get the feeling that the real challenge would be getting the skin to work right (which can be worked around since that is about the only thing still highly classified), the sensor suite that didn't get yanked off the shelf for the Longbow (which I imagine would function very similar anyway), and the gun (one of the options was apparently the gun from the Cobra). So I think it could be made with little difficulty, it'd just be a case of figuring out what was ported, what wasn't, and how best to integrate it into DCS

I wasn't really fussing over historical accuracy with this post. My group for example is a PMC, and we'll be using the Forrestal to represent a conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier which is more feasible for us to own. But, for the sake of doing historically accurate scenarios or period accurate secarios, I was wondering what would be required to pull that off.

You mean send to the ground rapidly after introducing it to a Phoenix or AMRAAM?

That doesn't seem to stop many of the other game developers and even the anime studios from depicting the aircraft in question. From what I understand the JSDF loves to show off, and so long as they 'the good guys' (although Gate makes that a bit.... edgy...) they're typically fine with it. On top of that, when making a cockpit, realistically speaking you can surmise what something is meant to do if you can read the labels, which is an obvious challenge for any foreign built (to the player) plane given that it's usually not in the language the player will be familiar with. But, then again, this post is about gauging interest, and if there's enough, who knows, maybe someone will take up the challenge. We do have the Marianas map, which one could argue is 'good enough' in this regard (Japan did control a couple of the Islands even before WW2). A Sea of Japan map would be interesting, it's just a shame that if done you'd be able to put your skillet on top of your PC and cook a steak with it....

So, I've been thinking, and in the topic about asset packs I used a hypothetical JSDF pack as an example, and I got to wondering just what such a pack would look like, and maybe also gauge interest to see if maybe someone would be up for actually making it a reality. It would be a bit ambitious obviously, could introduce some new toys, and maybe even be a working model for the idea I had regarding Asset Packs. So, what would be introduced if done? Well.... here's a list: Fixed Wing F-4EJ Kai F-15J (Flyable, possibly with a new, semi-clicky cockpit) Mitsubishi F-1 (fully flyable) F-2A/B 'Viper Zero' Kawasaki C-1 and C-2 E-767 KC-767 Rotor-wing AH-1J OH-1 SH-60 UH-1J (reskin of the UH-1) CH-47J Ground Forces Type-74 Medium Tank Type-90 MBT Type-10 MBT Type-16 Tank Destroyer Type-96 APC Type-89 IFV Type-87 ARPV Type-12 Surface to Surface Anti-Ship Missile Launcher Type-99 Self-Propelled Gun Type-87 SPAAG Ships Izumo-Class DDH Hyuga-Class DDH Osumi-Class LST LCU-2001 LCU Atago-Class DDG Asagari-Class DDG Abukuma-Class DE Hayabusa-Class PB Towada-Class FRS This list is admittedly not 100%, but rather than just go "Yes" to everything, I figure I'd at least include the highlights. So, with all that said, what do you guys think? If it were made a module that one had to pay for, would you buy it and get access to the F-1, F-15J, and the ability to drive all the Ground Vehicles? Or would you prefer to go "Those look pretty" and not worry about them if they happen to be in a server? Let me know you're thoughts. Who knows, maybe it can come to reality.

I mean... is it though? You have to remember that in the real world you have F-16C Block 50s that are able to launch the Harpoon, while the same block in another air force can't. What the end user ultimately does with their aircraft is up to them, which is why I think that feature in the Mission Editor should be taken full advantage of. If you don't want (aircraft) to have (ability) then that should be up to the mission designer to sculpt the scenario as they see fit. As discussed earlier in the thread, the USN had the choice of either going with LANTIRN or AMRAAM capability on the Tomcat, and since historically the greater need was for mud moving, the LANTIRN was chosen. But what if the situation was different? What if the USN was facing a different threat and needed to improve the Tomcats air to air capabilities? In that scenario, they would've chosen the AMRAAM compatibility. It's no different than Islandia deciding that the F-16s they just bought need to be able to defend against Mainlandions huge navy, so they adapt their F-16s to use their large supply of Harpoons they bought from the US. Is that such a bad thing to allow mission creators more freedom in the crafting of their scenarios? As I said, by default, the capability can be turned off, and if the mission designer wants to turn it on, than that is their call.

The entire reason I raised the question anew is because now DCS has the capability in the ME to restrict weapons availability, ergo, a mission designer can just go "Yeah, sure, SomeDude199 may have it available, but not in my mission!", which I think is a smart move on EDs part. HeatBlur could, in theory, add the capability, and then leave it to mission designers to decide if the capability exists in their missions or not. Meh, my place has some thick walls.... As I said in the original post, I am aware that the aircraft never carried them in combat, and never had the capability to carry them added to the fleet. However, the equipment and software necessary was developed and shelved (more details may be in the USN Archives somewhere if anyone has access). I also doubt that the tests were purely separation tests, the AMRAAM does work in a similar fashion to the Phoenix (flies for a bit guided by the mothership and then switches on its own radar in the terminal phase), and I can imagine that in tests it would've done it's secondary function (switch on a second or two after launch), especially if they were firing at a live target (which the USM would've had plenty of by that point). I'd say this would be a good compromise: Add the capability, and by default have it deactivated in the ME. Then, when someone wants to add the capability, they'll have to go in an manually add the capability to each aircraft via the weapon restrictions page. I'd say that would be a good workaround.

Although fleet Tomcats never fitted them, would it be at all possible for the F-14 to get the AIM-120A added as a weapon choice? I ask because an F-14 was used as a test-launch aircraft for the AMRAAM, and equipment was designed and built for the Navy to fit into the Tomcat (but never fitted). And given that we now have the capability in the mission editor to limit what weapons can and can't be fitted to the plane, I think this would be a very welcome ability to make available. After all, while the Navy never fitted the equipment, the equipment was built and stored 'just in case' the Navy needed it for the F-14.