Tank50us

As many of you know, it's entirely possible to have asymmetric loads on most of the aircraft in DCS. However, one thing that would be quite nice to have is a table in the reload screen, or just some sort of indicator, that shows what our actual balance is. IE, how much more weight is on one side of the aircraft vs the other. If done correctly, this could make it far easier to properly set our trim prior to take-off, and maintain balance throughout the flight. And to add to that, it would also be interesting if as part of this we could choose how much fuel goes into each tank as a way to further improve our balance. For example, if in the hornet, if we are, for example, in an F-18 and for some reason have 700lbs more on one side than the other, and it's beyond the safe limits for the trim (hypothetically), then we could take however much fuel on the opposite side as needed to bring the aircraft back into proper balance. What do you guys think?

I mean, we have an experimental version of the Su25 (the T), of which only 14 were built, so if ED, or a third party decided to model the Mi28 on one of the earlier versions before it was accepted for full service (the thing first flew in 1982!) I wouldn't be all that upset, if nothing else, if gives us some ground work for the production version when more data becomes available. Some food for thought.

That or it could be an export variant. I mean, we got Hind after all.

Here's the reason we likely won't see the AIM120D any time soon, outside of the available data: None of the available fighters in DCS are rated to carry the thing. In the US Military, the F-22, F-35, F/A18E/F, and later models of the F-15E are rated to use the D, all of the others are stuck with the C for varying reasons, but the chief reason is a lack of radar range to be able to see the target within AIM120D weapons parameters. Of the few have that have versions capable, only the F-15C is a viable choice as it's FC3 and can just have another missile option added with comparatively little effort. But, given the fact that ED won't be messing with the FC3 aircraft, don't hold your breath. The best option for us getting an AIM120D, would be if someone was able to get enough data to make a proper Super Hornet. But until then, yeah, the EF2000 is gonna have a field day on post 2003 Servers

One thing I had been thinking about is what if we, the players, had the option of customizing our pilots to reflect the kind of service these planes have seen? Nothing too wild and whacky mind you, but the ability to decide which flight suit, mask, and helmet our pilot is wearing. It would be purely cosmetic, but it would give our planes just a little bit to mess with.

Do you know how to get the lua file to accept the modified liveries? I'm running into that issue atm.

Except.... neither of those theme tunes have anything to do with helicopters. Granted, the theme tune they chose for the Hind had about just as little to do with Helos, but still....

Given that some Block 50s in the export market that are equipped with the AGM-84 Harpoon, is there any chance the F-16 could be equipped with this in the future?

Could you please explain why this is the case?

So, why does it need JSGME? If I can have both my normal C, and the D, wouldn't that mean that I can just drop it in the DCS Mods folder that's in my Saved Games (Steam user)?

I'm wanting to make some changes to the various Chinese ship liveries, but I'm having a hard time actually finding where they're actually stored. Anyone know where they're supposed to be?

Not really. I mean, we know that the interior and exterior model are ready to go, and they're making sure that the flight model is perfect, which is why they can't show us anything new since... well... what can they really show at that point? The reason I make this theory though is, again, because having both helicopters become available around the same time would make the most sense as the two complement each other in the real world. And it would be a very hard sell for them by offering it up before the Apache is ready to become available. Obviously a simultaneous release isn't a good idea, since the Apache will steal the show, but, releasing it at, or around the same time as the AH64 becomes available for pre-order should allow it to sell very well. I'd be willing to bet that when the Apache trailer finally drops, we'll see the Kiowa in all its glory as well with ED going "Preorder the Apache, and, go buy Kiowa!"... the sales will be off the charts if they can pull that off.

While true, it also comes with the quality of training, which not all air forces can grant their pilots. For example, sure, the KPAAF has Mig29s, but I highly doubt their pilots really know how to use the platform very well. That's what I'm getting at, the pilot skill when creating new aircraft in the ME would determine how well they can use the frame, including its abilities such as engaging in TWS mode. This could also affect other points of combat, such as when they shoot a missile at all, or how accurate their bombs are. I'm not saying that the AI shouldn't be able to use TWS, I'm just saying that AI skill should determine how well they use it, as well as other weapons and techniques to better simulate how this random countries pilot is trained.

I think one of the best ways to improve CA, particularly with the infantry, is to make it when you put down a unit, it's actually putting down a squad sized element that is based around the squad leader. Each member of the unit is effectively 'tethered' to the SL, and will move where they do. To avoid issues, each member of the unit also has its own ability to path-find, but, as the squad leader is where the icon would be, you wouldn't have any direct control over the individual units within the squad. The advantage to this is that you can more accurately represent infantry units both in terms of looks and function. For example, if you have a US rifle squad, you'll have about 6 guys with M16s, 2 with LMGs, and the Squad leader with an M4. If you give them an order to attack something that's on the edge of their range, they'll start shooting at it, but will automatically close in to get a more optimal range, all the while moving and shooting as they approach (laying down covering fire basically). An Anti-Air team on the other hand would consist of the SL, two rifleman, and two MANPADS, an Anti-Tank team would be the same size, but with ATGM Launchers instead of MANPADS, and so on. Done right, this could also have a level of customization added. You could plunk down the SL, and in the correct tab for the unit (maybe the loadout tab?) you can select how many troops are in his squad, what each member has for a weapon, and other options. Just my two cents.

There's really only what? maybe 6? 7? planes in all of DCS right now even capable of using TWS? I think it should be tied to their AI skill though for the ones that can. Lower skilled won't use it, while higher skilled ones will multi-shoot.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Polychop is waiting for ED to make the Apache available for pre-order before they release the Kiowa. My reasoning is that Kiowa without the Apache is like an Apache pilot without a gunner, it just doesn't work very well.

Yes and no. What he's talking about is UI functions, which are far easier to create than other things often seen in the WIshlist. Such things could be created within a matter of weeks if ED devoted the resources to it. Funnily enough, this is another item that DCS could learn from ArmAIII with its map tools, since the ArmA map tools can basically do everything you just mentioned. It would also be helpful when creating a mission you can place some bits down so that you can accurately 'hide' the enemy on the F10 map, showing only your side, while having some markers that indicate the rough area that the enemy is likely to be. For example, the mission maker has created a Scud Hunting mission, but the exact location of the Scuds is currently unknown. 'Intel' suggests that the Scuds could be in one of five locations (indicated by question marks the designer has put down). The pilots would then have to search those areas, and having them on the F10 map can be a bit easier since your location is still shown on the map.

yeah, on average, one in four Longbows will carry the radar, and data-link with the others for targeting data.

A formation like that in the 80s, you know someone is about to have a REALLY bad day...

This I can agree with. Certain functions could be made clickable, such as (as you said) the gear and flap controls, and maybe some of the more "No duh" switches like the Master Arm, Battery, power switches, etc. But, ED has said they have no intention of doing anything to FC3, so, it's a moot point atm.

You likely won't ever see it. For starters, all of the Russian Aircraft won't be done as ED can't get the proper permissions to make full fidelity versions of them. The A-10A in FF already exists in the A-10C and A-10CII The F-15C will be getting a FF in the form of the F-15E, which can double as the F-15D This has been talked about dozens of times throughout the forum. Since you're new here, I'll give ya a pass.

oh?

and in a comparatively short development time given that if they start with the G, it can 'borrow' many of the Hueys bits since the real thing did (hence one of the reasons the Army adopted it), and most of the available weapons are already in game, so the longest part of the development would be the 3D assets and flight model changes from the UH-1H. Oh, and it can even use the simplified gunner of the UH-1H since in the AH-1G, that's all the gunner really controlled was the chin mounted gun.

The same applies to all aircraft really, having multiple versions would allow for more accurate representations of certain time periods. But even with small changes, you can have drastically different outcomes when it comes to the flight model.

This has been brought up about a half dozen times this year alone. I agree with it, but remember it's not something that will be easy to do.