Tank50us

*looks up from the radar screen as four Aim54s go off* "I'm sorry, what?"

Some units already do this, but to do it properly would have to be modeled into each unit specifically. For example, if an M4 Sherman is moving at full speed, it cannot fire accurately on the move, so it would have to either slow to shoot accurately, or, stop and fire.

Yeah, if you can see the guy with the AK before he can raise his rifle and shoot, and shoot him, you won't need the protection, or, you can get into cover and avoid taking the hit in the first place.

Heck, it'd be nice to have every version of USS Kidd, from the Fletcher Class Destroyer now on display as a museum ship to the Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer that's out now patrolling the waves. As for the Battleships themselves, I personally like the idea of not just the actual fits we got irl, but in a delve into the "Almost happened so why not?", having the hybrid carrier Iowa concept as an option. I'm sure the Harrier pilots would enjoy it (since that's what the idea was built around.

Yeah, last time I checked, if you're waiting for a missile warning to start turning, you're already dead. It doesn't matter what that missile is, the time between the warning and you becoming a pretty meteor shower is measured in seconds, and let's not forget that there are several missiles that don't give a warning at all. The key to dodging missiles in DCS is the same as dodging torpedoes in World of Warships, you have to be proactive, not reactive. Your radar has quite the angle to it, so you can make aggressive notches towards the target while still keeping him lit up. Jester makes it easy in the Tomcat, and the Eagle has no issues in this regard (being FC3), some aircraft require you to fiddle with the radar controls, but other than that, you should be able to maintain TWS or STT while remaining aggressive towards your target. The only time it's appropriate to wait for a MLW (Missile Launch Warning) is if you're being attacked by a radar guided SAM since that means their track radar has a solution, and a missile may soon be on the way and now is the time to start working to evade it. But when it comes to counter Tomcat and the Phoenix, it's simple: keep changing your speed and heading while keeping the Tomcat in your radar scope, and if he's not doing the same, your missile will hit him, and knock him out, and the missile will go semi-stupid as it's no longer receiving updates before going pitbull.

I get the feeling that the issue may not be something that's reproducible on mostly stable internet connections, it may be something that only occurs when someone is comparatively unstable internet like those that live in areas where fiber-optic cables just aren't around or available. There's a host of possibilities here. Yeah, ED seems to have an issue where one one person of high standing says one thing, but then someone else of equally high standing says something completely different. The ones I think people should listen to the most are Nineline, Wags, and Nick (the freaking CEO!). They're the ones pushing hard for multiplayer, and have even championed it on a few occasions (Wags did so in the 10 things trailer). But, for the kind of Multiplayer balancing many people want to have, ED would have to have a bunch of dedicated servers hosting 'quick drop' games where people pick a plane, and hop in War Thunder style. But odds are we'll never see something like that until maybe MAC comes around.

even if they were just eye candy

I grew up in the Sega G. Era, and I distinctly remember the very rockish midis that came with certain games.... but the Strike games had a pretty dang good soundtrack for the time, and given that the first game (Desert Strike), and last two games (Soviet and Nuclear Strike) featured the Apache, I think it would only be fitting if we got the music to fit as well (even if it's a remaster with proper instruments). Sure, the example below is from Jungle Strike, but the theme is largely the same between 4/5 games (Urban Strike had a different tune that... while decent, didn't sound the same) Come on ED... go with this music!

And as someone stated before, if they were to add any AAM to the Longbow, odds are it's going to get mounted on the outer two stations, meaning you'll have to decide between busting tanks, using rockets, or shooting other helos and fast movers. As much as it sucks.... Apaches and Kiowas are supposed to team up, and in DCS, they will be.... there's also the Mistrel Monsters to tag along remember if you want anti-helo support.

About the only way I can see this working is if the map has a built in trigger zone that activates the water as a plane gets close to it under a certain altitude, but it would be quite cool to see nonetheless.

I go and kill Submarine fo.... wait.... wrong nation

One possible work around is to attach a moving trigger zone to the aircraft in question, and if a known adversary gets inside the zone, it switches to the specific 'react to enemy' state. So if I, in say, a Hornet, got close to a specific aircraft, and got inside that zone, it would just run away as fast as possible, or if the unit is actually attacked it'll do that, there's at least a couple triggers that could work for what you want... and to that end... I might try a few in my groups upcoming campaign.

ED is already talking about doing this, they even had a poll about it a few months back.

I mean, we have photos of it being towed around with tarps on it to hide the shape, so it's not that dead end of a design.

I'm building a persistent online mission for my group and I'm wanting to have instances where, at random times while the server is running, various aircraft will spawn from different airfields, patrol their respective zones, and RTB when they hit Bingo fuel or run out of weapons, and it be constant, with no spaces being taken up at the airfields or carriers. Is there any way to do this? If so, let me know, I could use the help to make the map feel a bit more 'alive' on the next iteration.

Hmm... Something like this would be quite interesting actually. Several of my squadron mates have the SCM, but only have the Su33 that comes with it. And since it isn't a CATOBAR plane, it can't be placed on a Nimitz class ship despite the capability of being serviced on it (don't ask me how the carrier has a supply of Russian weapons.... but they do.... somehow....). It would be nice if the Carrier had the mission editor had a 'take off from carrier deck' option for carrier planes, or aircraft that at least have tail hooks properly modeled.

I don't, but I know someone's who's ol'man worked on Tomcats at NAS Pax River, Mayport, Jacksonville. And was also aboard USS J. F. K., and USS George Washington, so he may have seen and worked on the full range of Kitties as a Tomcat Tweaker.

Yeah, and with my group flying Bs in the 'near future' (2030s), it would be nice if things in certain aircraft felt like they were 'hobbled' together with parts of new, and parts of old. But that's just me. Don't ask how my group got the Tomcats.... that's a... uhm... secret

Ah ok. Well, at the moment we certainly knew a few of the functions it has: the two radar mods I imagine some sort of mapping function asteroids the LANTIRN gear probably something with the RWR the tape recorder... I wonder if even with the few functions we know it does have, if it could be modeled and place-holders put in for the other functions until that information becomes available. I'm sure if it's a good faith attempt, people will forgive Heatblur until more information becomes available to make it possible 1/1. But I'm certainly not going to hold it against them if they have to shrug and take an educated guess.... who knows, they may get it right without meaning to. I mean, it's not like that hasn't happened in the past in other media.

No, I'm legit asking the question as it's a common thing to wonder exactly what sorts of information is permissible, and what isn't. I'm not trying to do what the Challenger dude did (because I don't know myself), but I wonder what sorts of information groups like Heatblur need to make the modules to the level they do. Also... what is the PTID? I don't think that's something I've ever heard of.

Ya know, I have to wonder, what sorts of information do you guys need to make these things work? I bring that up because it's a common theme with many a module, and I am wondering how that information could be realistically presented to you to get it represented in game. Like, if you need specific documentation, given that the Tomcat is out of service, the information should be in the US Navy Archives, alternatively, would talking to someone with experience on the subject work? I'm only asking this, because I would personally love to see the upgrades in question, and for the same reasons previously stated: It would give more SA when working with the other modern jets, and better compatibility. Although, which form would the HUD take? Would it look like the existing HUD? Or, would it look more like the Ds HUD?

On a related note, one thing that could be done in the real aircraft was that the Backseater could 'interrogate' the target in question. This would be a good thing to bug Jester about, especially if you're in a situation where you simply can not see the target, and there's a chance it might be a civilian airliner (per ROE). I know he somethings does this automatically, and sometimes the AWG-9 does it for him, but there are times where the blasted thing locks up a friendly unit.... while you're egressing out, and it can be a tad annoying when all of a sudden you've got the T in front of your HUD when you're looking for the carrier.

I like this, and may download it when I get a chance. @Naquaii This HUD kinda makes it look like it's fresh from the factory, have you guys thought about doing something like that when you start doing some cockpit options for the Cats?

I think what doesn't make sense is that making it a separate game risks splitting the player base. Keeping all under 'one roof' to me makes more sense as hopping over to a more 'realistic' game mode could be as simple as a few clicks within the game itself. And that's what I mean. Flight performance data is mostly public information (since some of it crops up in accident reports), but modeling the avionics and such, that's where things get tricky for a FFM. Sure, you can apply some hand waving to it if you simply don't know what does what, like what Grinelli did with the Raptor, but there are currently certain aspects of modern aircraft that are highly classified, and ED (and the 3rd Partys) simply won't have access to.

On my way home from work yesterday, I got to thinking about the interview that Nick had with Growling Sidewinder, and came to a couple small conclusions. 1. That MAC would have to be some sort of DCS module as it would make zero sense for ED to just release a second game (creating a new game mode that comes with the module is reasonable however) 2. With MAC being described as being a step up from FC3, but not as difficult as a full fidelity module, this could open the door for a number of aircraft we haven't seen yet in DCS, and likely never would as full fidelity modules (due to a lack of information, or clearance needed to make the module). So, with those things in mind, I got to thinking about what could come to MAC, if it is like I think it will be (namely, a step-up from the FC3 module), and that speculation led me to thinking what aircraft we'd get, and for that, I have a list of viable candidates (and reasons why): F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: Being the most capable aircraft in current US Navy Service, it makes perfect sense to add as a MAC plane due to much of the 'under the hood' work being done for the Legacy Hornet being viable for a Super-bug, but with the added bonus of not needing to worry about making everything work like the real thing and 'gamifying' it enough to make it easy to get into, but complex enough to make it worth standing on its own. Mig35 Fulcrum F or Mig29K: Staying with a carrier based aircraft for the RedFor side would be the Mig35 (specifically the naval version being developed), or just the Mig29K. Capable of operating from a Ski-Jump style carrier, it would make a good second option for those looking to fly from the Kuznetsov Carriers currently in game. Panavia Tornado: Although we know that ED could not get access to all the required data needed to make a full fidelity Tornado, that doesn't stop ED from making a semi-fidelity Torado for MAC. If they borrowed and modified some of the systems from the Falcon or Hornet they could make something work that would be passable and still give players demanding the Tornado a Tornado to play with even if it's not a full-fidelity aircraft. The exact model however, is likely to be left up to the players when fitting the aircraft out for a mission. An updated F-15: While we already have the F-15C, I can see ED making a brand new version of the aircraft for MAC that gives us some more capability in the Air Dominance Fighter, namely the ability to fit with Conformal Fuel Tanks, and an updated cockpit that allows some clicking to take place. Overall, I can see the Eagle getting a major facelift with MAC. Su30 and Su35: The most advanced Flankers currently on the export market. While I am not sure what these aircraft would bring to the table compared to the existing Su27, I do see them, like the F-15, having semi-clickable cockpits and a host of other systems being modeled in ways that hopefully don't result in a visit by the KGB (I know they're not called that any more, but still). Mi17 'Hip': An updated, and IMHO, a much better looking version of the Hip currently in DCS, giving RedFor players another transport option while the BluFor get... the UH60 Black Hawk: Any of the variants I think would be nice to have, and given that ED would probably struggle to get their hands on the viable data for the more modern version of the Black Hawk, this may be a viable option to avoid having to model a whole host of systems that the US Military has locked away in a vault while still giving us a very versatile transport helicopter. Additional AI Aircraft and assets: This would probably go without saying, but I do imagine that not only would many of the existing AI planes get major facelifts, but I can see a number of new ones making their way into the game. Examples include: The 747 and 737 series of civil aircraft, but coming with the VIP and military liveries C-5B Galaxy and An124 'Condor', because why not have two of the biggest military transport aircraft in the world. C-2 Greyhound, with all the Supercarrier stuff, I'm legitimately surprised this isn't already in the game outside of the MAM. KC-10 Extender: If they can work out the bits about giving us a tanker that boom and drogue refuel in the same platform, I think this would easily make it into MAC. Various smaller AEW Aircraft: While the E-2 is certainly viable for those doing COIN campaigns, in the real world only a few countries actually use it, and as such, buy modified business jets that serve in the AEW role. These aircraft being present would, IMHO, greatly add to the experience in DCS. With the new Marianas map now available in DCS, I can honestly see ED putting the work in to finally get those old ship models replaced with better looking ones, as well as adding new ships that are surprisingly absent. This also extends to anti-ship options, with mobile Anti-ship batteries being added for us to look for or protect depending on what side you're on in a mission. And finally, new SAM and AA threats. Although these are currently filtering their way into the game now, I do see this trend continuing as more SAM systems and AA systems are modeled and added. This includes the latest S300 systems, the Patriot PAC3 system, and a host of other systems both stationary and mobile. Basically, I have some high hopes for MAC, and I really hope that ED is able to tackle these things and bring them in. After all, with out having to go full fidelity in certain regards, they don't have to worry about the same things a FF module does (like pesky laws), and just giving us the feeling of flying the aircraft will be sufficient. As for why this isn't in 'Wishlist', it's simple... it isn't really a Wishlist item as it's more me thinking in text about what we might get with Modern Air Combat. But, I do want to see your thoughts guys. Let me know what you think MAC might be, and maybe what you would want to see happen with it.