Tank50us

So, I was trying to host a small mission, but the people trying to connect... well... couldn't. One showed me that on the server list, my 'server' showed up, but the map wasn't. Neither of us could figure out why. The mission was loading fine on my end, but on they couldn't even connect because it wouldn't show what the map was (Marianas btw). Has anyone seen this happen before? And if so, is there a way to fix it?

Here's a two-for. The T-37 Tweet, a two-seat trainer used by the USAF and various other customers. Most have retired their Tweets for other trainers, but Ecuador and Pakistan still use them. The A-37 Dragonfly, or "Super Tweet" as some called it, was built off of the T-37s frame, but was beefed up to carry an jaw dropping weapons load (for an aircraft of that size ofc). Both would be welcome additions to DCS in my opinion. The T-37 would make a good free trainer, and the A-37 a good paid module. How would this work? Well, the 3D changes would be pretty limited, and as a result, ED or a third party could make very few changes in order to give us both frames. Now, why a free trainer? Well, as things stand right now, we really don't have one outside of mods, and I think part of why some people get hung up on the game and abandon it before getting very far is that they simply don't have a way to really get a feel for it. Moreover, the majority of available modules are Blue-Force aircraft, which the Tweet can help train people for. A good way this could work is that you have someone who's experienced in DCS take someone in a Tweet and fly them around, let them get a sense for what DCS is like while letting them go through the bindings. Then, once that new person is ready, the instructor can hand off the controls, and let the new player try it out. Once that player learns that there's a module that offers them the ability to go Micheal Bay, they may grab it up quickly, and now, with one flight you turned someone who was skeptical into a customer. That's the theory anyway. I know there's the trial program, and it likely works fine, but... two weeks isn't really a lot of time to get into something when you're busy with your regular job. But a free trainer that is linked to a paid module (so much so that the bindings wouldn't even need to change) could garner more sales, especially once they've come to grips with actually flying an aircraft.

As a mission designer, one thing I've always wished existed in the game was some means of removing man made objects from the map. Either to go in and meticulously make something different, or as a means to improve performance by removing anything the players won't be seeing anyway in a particular mission. Let's use Persian Gulf as an example, and we'll assume the mission being made is a short-range hop up in the northern parts of the map, with no chance of a player going south. In a Sandbox mode, all the buildings and such would be removed from the map, and the designer can place in the ones he/she want (that's limited to what's available for the map). Roads, airbase, buildings, all up to the designer where they go. Does this mean we can get some truly ridiculous things? Oh yeah. But it could result in some more streamlined missions, or a truly custom mission with assets that fit the theme of what the player is attempting to make. I also see such a thing being useful for when ED makes the 'world' map, as it would allow us to fill in objects where needed.

That's why I created the example I did with an F-111. Basically, it would be a good enough module on initial release that most people would be happy with it, especially if there's a detailed plan made public, and also stuck to. I know that some are looking at this and thinking that what would release is a few polygons and a UFO flight model, and that's not in anyway what I'm thinking. Basically, release in a state that minimizes the time frame to release, and focuses the team to get something in the hands of players that is a viable aircraft for regular mission work. The quirks that appear under certain, very specific conditions, or certain rare failures can come later, as can the more advanced weapons. But I think most players will be happy if the plane can be started, shut down, fly, and do what's asked of it on day one, even if what they're getting is essentially the earliest model of the aircraft in question.

This isn't so much a specific wishlist item, but more a general thing sim wide. Basically, I believe that maybe ED, and the third parties, should adopt the "Minimum Viable Product" approach to future modules. For those that don't know what that term means, it means that the minimum things necessary to make the product viable for sale so that it's in our hands that much sooner. An example of this in action could be the F-111 Aardvark. The initial release could have the following: Basic Cockpit Functionality (lights, switches, working HUD) Start-up procedure A functioning flight and damage model A passable 3D Model Gun, Fox2, and 'Dumb' bombs Subsequent updates would add: a more detailed model as needed an AI B/N Additional weapons Targeting pods additional variations and more Why go through it like this? Well, the sooner a module is in the hands the player, the sooner bugs get spotted and squashed. Also, it means that future players will see new aircraft/helicopters coming to the game much more regularly, which translates to more sales. After all, if it's in the game, people can't claim it to be vaporware, and even if they don't like the state it's in, they at least know it's here, and improvements are being made, so it's that much more likely to see someone buy it, even if they don't buy it day one. The other advantage is that this focuses the development on very specific things at very specific stages, and better allows more focused testing. For example, if the only bomb available day one is a Mk82, and the only missile available is the AIM9M, and the bug needing a good squashing is located somewhere in the weapons, odds are pretty good it's in one of those two areas. Now, I know not everyone likes this business model, some believe it to be a case of "selling a broken product." But, I don't see it that way. I see it as the very thing that could avoid much of the drama we've seen recently. So long as the player base is willing to understand what they're buying and the dev team is able to handle the bugs, I really don't see an issue here.

The main issue that ED or a third party would face is access to accurate data on the capabilities. An example of this in action is how the Russians touted that their S400 systems could see stealth aircraft and intercept them. In reality, the ones used by Iran were all bypassed and the things they were protecting hit by IDF F-35Is with impunity. They've also had trouble detecting UAF fighters and helicopters flying at low altitude during that fiasco. So, this could mean that the capabilities of that system may have been greatly exadurated. And it that's the case with that system, what else has been given the UCS treatment? The reason the Mig29A is being modeled is because ED technically has access to a number of them from East Germany, and documents from both the US Navy and the Luftwaffe. And since the only functional difference between the A and G is the language and units in the cockpit, it's easier to make a module. If the invasion didn't happen, Ukraine may have been able to offer up their Su27s to other countries when they inevitably went to buy something new, and ED or a TP would've had access to get more data without having to go through the Russian Federation. Right now the best hope for the aircraft would be an 'educated guess' module that can be adjusted as new information gets released, but considering how loud the bolt counters here can get, I wouldn't count on it.

Bonus points if the same tech could be used to create 'cities'. It would certainly be useful when they eventually make the world map since they won't have to worry 100% about the cities. We can add whatever cities we want.

Now, before I begin, I want to stress that this is more due the introduction of lower-fidelity areas in major maps than anything else. Anyway... moving along... So, for starters, the way I see it being done is similar to the current FARPs, but with a slight twist. For one, the first thing that gets put down is a "control tower", which you'd have several variations. From your typical airport control tower to a makeshift model made out of wood and sandbags. Once that's placed, the player selects the number of runways, the length, and the 'material' (for example, two runways, two mile length, tarmac. or one runway, half mile length, lattice.) Once the runways are placed down, the player can adjust their position and direction. Once the tower and runways are down, the player can go in and add the taxiways, ramp spaces, hangars, and storage. Obviously, ED could also add some 'presets' that give players something quick to throw down, but if this were done, I think it could give mission designers quite a bit of leeway, especially for WW2 where new airbases where quickly thrown together to keep pace with the advances of ground forces. This was mainly done by the Allies (especially in the Pacific), but it is something that has historical precedent.

I could as well. But here's the thing, I'm sure the head of Heatblur would very much like to NOT have the FBI or CIA raid his home because they made an "Educated Guess" on how the A-6E functionally deploys nuclear weapons and got it too close to reality. Tom Clancy and the guys behind Red Dawn had this happen to them. TC because his depiction of how US and USSR Subs worked was a bit too close to reality, and RD because the mock-ups used in the film looked a little too good to the point the CIA sent people to ask where they got them. It reminds me of that line in Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction; "Have you ever had to deal with weapons inspectors? They can be particularly anal." "Great, I love dealing with professional pains in the a--" (The VG example is to illustrate how 'fun' dealing with three letter agencies can be ED)

And the level of classification these things are at. Does no one pay attention to this fact? It's the same reason we're not likely to see the F-117 or F-22 as official flyable modules. These things are too classified to get the right kind of data needed to properly model their use. Also, that FPS hit.... it tends to kill entire servers.

I gave two really good ones earlier. 1. The sheer level of destruction these things are capable of IRL causes the game engine to flip out to the point it crashes servers. 2. The fact that all of the equipment required to deploy nukes in the jets we have is classified to such an extent that very few people in the US Military are even allowed to know the full scope. As I said in my post on the subject, one of my instructors at Fire School had M16s shoved in his face for getting too close to a pair of B-61s in a truck that was on fire. Even though they were there to put that fire out, the SOs there weren't taking chances. That's how seriously the USAF takes nuclear weapons, and the equipment used to deploy them. We will likely never see them in DCS due to that level of classification.

while true, it's also the reason why weapons like the Hellfire and Javelin were developed. Sure, it requires more work to pop one tank at a time (or more in the case of the more recent Radar Hellfires), but you won't require heavy doses of iodine to conduct the post-battle cleanup.

I mean, if UFO scenarios were ever made for the game, nukes would be useful against them... provided they're actually vulnerable to such weapons.

The way you get around this is with scripting. Since the bombers are AI only, this is easy: Place down two circular trigger zones. One is very small at the aim point, potentially with a 'dummy target' in place. The other is the rough blast radius. Insert a bomber that will be carrying the weapon in question, and have one of its waypoint actions being an attack function with the target area being within the smaller trigger zone. In the triggers, set it up so that when the weapon enters the small zone, you have an explosion that destroys everything within the larger zone. That's how you handle nukes in a scenario within the current system. However, when this happens, you'll find your system will have a hard time with all of the objects in the blast radius being 'destroyed' at the same time. Here's some screenshots of how to do it: I'd show the result... but the game and my computer didn't like it much... but here's the B-1 dropping the JSOW...

While I wouldn't mind seeing an improvement to the explosion effects, up to and including the mushroom cloud caused by sufficiently large explosions, I think the idea of adding nuclear weapons to DCS is a horrible idea. My reasoning: Nukes are strategic weapons, and are well beyond the scope of about 99.9% of the missions we fly. Most of the aircraft we have, while technically nuclear capable, are modeled without the ability to deploy the weapons. This isn't just code btw, this includes the physical equipment mounted in the cockpit to actually deploy nuclear weapons. As things currently stand, only the Mig21 has this. Nukes can have the unfortunate effect of completely wrecking both PC and server due to the sheer number of objects being 'deleted' at once. The DCS engine simply can't handle it, and it will crash the game. The same happens when a sufficiently large formation of bombers dumb their loads at once. The aforementioned equipment and deployment is highly classified, and unlikely to be released to the public. To give an idea how classified, one of my Fire School instructors responded to a vehicle fire once and on arrival had M16s shoved in his face because the vehicle that was on fire was a truck carrying B61 Tactical Nukes. Yes, the USAF takes these things that seriously. Now, if you wish to have nuclear weapons being part of a mission, you can do what I do: Simulate the carrying of the weapon with an AI Bomber, and use the built-in trigger system to simulate the deployment. Generally, if you're in a spot where the deployment of nuclear weapons is a real thing, you better hope you're people are on the ball.

I mean, they were used quite a bit by the Arab states in the early Arab Israeli wars. And according to this map: most of the regions the sim currently covers had them at some point of another.

truth be told, having more features to help those who have significant disabilities wouldn't be a bad thing at all for the sim. By default, such features would be turned off, but they could be turned on if someone actually needs them. On the one hand, this could turn the sim into more of an arcade game for some, but I think in the long run, it would be beneficial for the community to be as open as possible. That all being said... I think the best option for this would be to have some things built into the sim itself that allows those who have disabilities to have an effect in places where these features are forced 'off'. For example, jumping into the seat of a KC-135 as planes are coming up to refuel. One thing I've experienced is that having someone in the seat talking you into position is quite helpful. Another possibility is sitting in the seat of an AWACS monitoring the battle space and guiding planes towards intercepts. All things that could easily be part of the base game itself, and not as an add-on or mod.

The fact that Patch Notes indicate bug fixes, and hotfixes get released from time to time indicates to me that issues do come up. Sometimes such bugs cause major delays in releases, sometimes they cause entire modules to become unusable until a fix is released. I'm not saying it happens all the time obviously, I'm just saying that the argument of "We can't have mods because mods come with bugs" is silly since, as I said, the modules we're paying for have bugs.

An addendum to this... we can not only see what mods are required, but get the ability to download them if the server set the mod list to public.

One thing I'd like to see in DCS related to WW2 is the stuff that the Soviets used. Seriously, for one of the most produced AFVs in the world (the Universal Carrier is #1, T-34 is #2, but the exact numbers of the M113 aren't known, so it could be tied), it's odd that the T-34 is completely absent from the game.

Nah, I doubt he ever will change his mind on anything that makes the game easier for the average person. This, this right there. I want to see more people coming into the game, and jumping into pits. The sheer number of people who are on FB who talk about being new to the game and struggling with certain aspects is staggering. And considering MS is currently going through fire extinguishers at a rate that can make one buy stock in Amerex... I can see people looking at alternatives, and seeing DCS as a viable one especially with the free to try model and the mods that are available. And once they try some of the good mods, they may be willing to buy modules, and I can only see that as an absolute win.

I've been in groups that did exactly as I described, and treated those who asked for links as if they were stupid. Needless to say, I didn't hang around long. That all being said... I'd rather things be as simple as possible outside of the pit so we can focus all our efforts on actually flying and enjoying the sim. Not making it as hard as humanly possible just to get into it, which ultimately turns people off.

No it really doesn't. We're not talking about them being downloaded with the base game, we're talking about giving the launcher the ability to load/unload a mod without having to dig through the mod folder and move files around. Another functionality would be if someone joined a group that required certain mods, all that group would have to do is send the person joining a ModList.ini file that they can then plug into the launcher, and it goes and grabs those mods and then installs them where they're supposed to go. Or would you rather that group tell the person "Go find these ten mods", and the person in question spend the next few hours (because not all of them are in the User Files, like the A-4 and the Goshawk) trying to find them, grab the right versions, and then try to figure out which folder they're supposed to go into?

I think it should be noted that most of these mods are basically made by a single dude, or a very, VERY small team, most of them with a lack of access to the real aircraft to crawl around and get detailed pictures. But I think you'd agree that a way to quickly disable the mod or re-enable it (and more easily update it) would be a significant upgrade compared to what we have now.

With airfields, the places you can drop statics is easy: Just don't place them over any numbers, and you're good to go. If these spawn points were visible on the carrier, it would be a very welcome change.