Tank50us

99 bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code... take it down, patch it out, 1,500 bugs in the code....

One thing I'd like to see is at least some animated deck crew that will at minimum do the launch animations (the cat crew doing the thumbs up, and the shooter doing his thing), and them getting out of the way when a plane comes in to land. The interactive stuff I don't mind missing as much.

it's a good one, and I wish it was something that was in DCS. Among other things, it would be nice if the AI could be placed down like human piloted aircraft and 'know' where they are in relation to the runway from their spawn point, and how to get there. But, this is likely in the 'to-do' list for the AI improvements ED is planning on, so, we'll see.

After the Super Bug mod went out, the Devs were alerted that the team has basically ripped off a bunch of the assets in DCS, specifically the cockpit systems and EFM, in order to make their mod work. This resulted in ED locking the Hornet down so that it couldn't be used for such a purpose again. What most teams that make complext cockpit models tend to do is just do all the coding themselves to make things work as advertised, even if it's just some fairly basic functionality. They also tend to use one of the FC3 planes as a base, or use the Su25T, as the FC3 planes still have decent flight models that can be tweaked as needed. Furthermore, where most mods just have you install a directory folder into the mods folder (for example the Super Herc has it's own folder that just gets placed in the mods folder), the Super Bug mod required that you replace the actual hornet in DCS with this mod. Basically all they did was a reskin of the legacy hornet instead of a proper mod that could've had its own EFM and functionalities.

They'd have to rebuild the entire aircraft model from scratch as ED locked down the Hornet after the Super Bug fiasco.

This is already being worked on. ETA is obviously unknown as there's a lot of work to do, but when it's done, it will feel a lot better.

To this I agree. I still say the best option is to have training versions of specific aircraft where possible, and most importantly, some actual flight training aircraft that come with the game (IE, aircraft built to teach people how to fly, for free). They don't have to be anything more complex then a two-seat crop duster for all I care, just so long as a new player can understand the basic fundamentals of getting their plane in the air and flying around before you start teaching them how to use all these complex systems that most aircraft of the last 50+yrs are packed with. I just wish certain people would understand that we're not all Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown after all, most people can't learn how to fly a plane by just flipping through the manual like Johnny 5, many need time to learn, try, and apply, and then move into the aircraft they want to fly for real.

Well.... that might be one of the few cases where art imitates life..... Not trying to disparage ya btw, It's just that when you have a lot of planes needing gas, the pilots are going to go to any available tanker that can deliver.

Several members of my unit are reporting that the map is having serious issues when it comes to performance. They're reporting significant frame-rate drops, and in some cases even getting into slide-show levels of frame-rate. While I haven't had similar issues, namely because my computer is much more powerful, I still think some optimizations should be worth looking into, as the frame-rate drops my guys have experienced simply don't happen on maps like Syria.

Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many that actually are interested in aircraft of that era. And while it's a crying shame, I can certainly understand why. Namely, the player base. We keep demanding all the clicky cockpits and such, and that adds to the work required to get a module out. I'm not saying we shouldn't have such features, but I think people need to understand that these aren't the sort of things that are easy to replicate if you lack a manual to understand what the switches do, and how they function, and what the procedures are. All of these are obviously in the manuals, but if we don't have them, it makes things a bit more difficult to properly model the aircraft. I imagine that someone could model the plane to the level of detail people expect in a few days if they pushed themselves, and could do a decent looking cockpit in about the same about of time. After that, they'd have to design the liveries, and the flight model, but without having to make a full fidelity cockpit, the time it took could be as little as a couple months depending on the team and if everything comes together correctly (which rarely happens anyway). But, without knowing the procedures, without knowing what all the switches do, and how they're supposed to work, and with limited access to the material needed to explain it, it will take longer. On top of that, after the BAE Hawk fiasco, ED is very wary about the SDK. This may change in the future, but don't hold your breath.

I'd be fine with either that, or something further to the South around the Aleutian Islands, especially given that these islands were the site of a couple minor WW2 skirmishes.

Improvise, Adapt, Overcome. Would you agree?

Maybe. Who knows. Either way, I still think it would be and interesting option to have, since the AMRAAM As basically operated like Baby Phoenixes, so tactically you'd use them the same way as you would a Phoenix, you'd just be firing at much shorter ranges than the Phoenix since the As had what? a 40mi max range under perfect conditions? That's uncomfortably close to the AMRAAMski range.

I meant operationally, and I'm talking specifically about the racks seen in the second picture there (which took a while to be modeled in game despite the load already being there). Those racks were never equipped to operational Tomcats, I'm sorry if I caused some confusion given that we all know that BombCats were very much a thing.

Well the F-14 was never equipped to carry the nearly two dozen Mk82s either, only one was ever tested with a set of experimental racks, and that was it. So it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to envision, and would further separate the A/Late and B from the Early A and Iranian Tomcats if those modified racks could be modeled and the functionality added. I'm not asking for the AIM120C5 that we have on the Hornets mind you, I'm just saying it would be interesting if the Tomcat we have in DCS could use the AMRAAM-As due to the fact that the aircraft (an A model no less) was used to test the AMRAAM in the first place. Like I said, the USN had the option, so the kits were likely built and ready to be sent to the fleet, but from what I understand, the idea was shelved. So at least as far as 'fictional' loads go, at least this one has some basis in reality.

exactly. It's just that the Navy never thought they'd need to have the Tomcats have AMRAAM capability when they had the Phoenix. The way I could see it in DCS however is that because the computer wouldn't know it's an AMRAAM without the modifications, it would likely treat it as a Phoenix, and therefor, if you had a 2-2-4 load, the computer would likely think it had 6 Phoenix missiles attached instead of the 4 it actually had.

You can technically reskin the F-16 to have the same paint job as an F2A Viper Zero, and if I understand correctly, the JASDF did talk to Grumman about the Tomcat, but were barred after Iran went sideways.... so ya got options if you're willing to shrug and use liveries.

That is a fairly good question, however given I asked about anti-ship weapons for the F-16, and the puritons came out of the woodworks to protest it, I doubt it would be added. That said, it would be kind of interesting to see the AIM120A added to DCS, since it was actually tested on the F-14 Tomcat, and if Heatblur could integrate it, that would be quite interesting. I'm aware that the USN never gave the Tomcat full AMRAAM capability, but the fact that the Tomcat was used as a testbed should speak volumes for the missile and the aircraft.

such a spawner could also make QRF quiet viable as well, without having to fill a whole munch of slots and use complex scripting, which itself could be saved for actually attacking your specific faction. But these QRF spawners could mean that you can assign certain types of aircraft to QRF, and they scramble under the conditions you set. For example if a patrol gets attacked, the QRF spawns (or is already spawned just needing to power up, taxi, and depart), gets airborne, and heads directly to the patrol. Along with that, you can set that the QRF take off in waves and move to support the other waves as needed. This is especially true for carriers, which typically have aircraft on ready alert any time they're in a combat zone.

And let's not forget that before too long, we'll have evolving weather patterns. Sure, the mission starts off as a bright sunny, but cold day.... but 90min later you're dealing with white-out conditions, snowflakes turned into tiny needles, and all kinds of fun things that will most certainly turn Tomcats into Harriers.

Or if the weather is too bad, the mission is scrubbed entirely. The campaign my group is doing is planning to have a typhoon hit the area as part of the story.... we ain't flying in that! (but we will have to protect the people leaving the area obviously)

See, this is something I have a hard time understanding... why is it that we have people who rant and rage over things that ED has outright stated they are working on? We know they're working to fix the AI, and most of us know that this is the sort of thing that can take a long time even at the best of times. It's not a case of File-> make competent AI, it's thousands of man hours worth of trial and error, with some of those errors forcing ED back to the drawing boards.

Yup. It's fine for something like a shooter, which is what Unreal is best for, but for a hard sim like DCS, it's not that viable.

All of these are on the 2021 Roadmap, with some planned to continue into 2022. - This will be possible with the new Vulcan API, as it will allow even lower end computers to render large scale operations - updated plane models are in the works, they just haven't released any WIP images yet. - The AI is being tweaked, the WW2 aircraft are basically serving as a test bed for the AI improvements (simpler planes and all) - Guides and tutorials are generally updated as needed anyway. - This is the only area that has any real issues. The problem with RedFor aircraft is that there's a lot of secrecy surrounding them. Even for aircraft that have found themselves in NATO hands, there's a lot that we civilians will simply not have access to compared to their western counterparts. Granted, there's a lot we simply won't ever know about these aircraft due to the nature of modern military hardware, but Russian and Chinese built aircraft seem to have it the worst. in short, the improvements are coming, it'll just take some time.

My only question is how would such a thing be incorporated?