Tank50us

Given that I'm considering making this a full module rather than just a mod now... that actually helps out quite a bit to see what Grumman had in mind. Is there a larger image available?

hence why you can kill a tank with an indirect hit from a Zuni, irl, you'd need a direct hit on a vulnerable part of the tank to actually knock it out, but in DCS, a Zuni will happily kill or damage a T-55 even if the rocket lands a couple meters away

Yes, those little buggers. The things that armies deploy, forget about, and then some cow discovered 50yrs later creating instant steak. Many aircraft in the game are capable of deploying mines in the real world, we have ships and vehicles designed to both deploy them and remove them. So why don't we have them? They're excellent area denial weapons, which in a PvP Multiplayer Campaign could give the two commanders additional options for force deployment. Does one side have a bunch of ships docked up in a harbor that's surrounded by an IADS? Just slip an aircraft in with some glide bombs that have a few naval mines embedded, and deploy them in the harbor entrance to bottle the ships up until they can clear the mines. Need to hold three bridges but only have enough forces to adequately cover two? deploy a bunch of mines to each one, and hold your main force in reserve while some observers look for signs to mine clearing. As for how they could be implemented, at Sea that's not a big issue, just create a series of 'fortifications' that can only be placed on the water, and those are the mines. On land it's bit more difficult. In the ME it could be represented using trigger zones, but beyond that, I'm not 100% sure. What do you guys think? Should mines be a factor? Or should I go swat golf balls towards the minefield? (bonus points to whoever gets that one)

Cue "Flight of the Valkyries".... followed by 1812 Overture when they reach their target

I think that we can agree that when it comes to RedFor, we can certainly have these as full production equipment given the lack of Red RORO capability overall. On the subject of starting units in transports, that could be easily fixed by giving them a "Embarked" function in the same place you see the formations and on/off road bits, with the limiting factor being the number of units the transport group can reasonably fit. So for example if you have two UH1s that can carry six guys each (just a random number), when you place a unit down and set them to 'embarked', you can select them, and start adding to the number until you hit the max, however if you try to turn one of those rifleman into, for example, a HMMWV, then it'll throw an error and tell you that you can't do that (kinda like with the airfields). So in that example, the two Hueys can hold twelve infantryman, and if one of those choppers get shot down, then the infantry group is down to six. When they reach a point where the transport lets them out, they just move to their next point, and follow their pathing from there. Should be fairly simple to code in theory, although in reality we'd be looking at months at best.

I'm not berating people, I'm merely informing them that they don't quite know game development as well as they think they do. It's not a case of File -> Make Asset, like so many seem to think it is. In their latest newsletter they talked about the actual process of making an asset for DCS from concept to introduction (using the recently added BTR-82 as an example). And if you add it all up, you're looking at potentially up to six months or more of actual work for a single vehicle. Now imagine that for something like a FARP, which would realistically have far more than just a single vehicle, as you'd have to have to model every item used in a FARP, from the grating a helicopter or Harrier would sit on when parked, to the ammo boxes, tools, and fuel drums needed to service the aircraft. After that you have to make versions that work with different nations and locations, and you're looking at a lot of work in the end. This is why I stand by my statement that they're likely working on a new one to replace the old crummy looking one, rather than just re-skin the existing one. Yes, it would take less time, but, doing that would ultimately be pointless for ED to do if they're just going to replace it later down the road anyway with a newer, higher LOD version. Also, others have suggested just downloading a replacement livery and using that instead, or using the invisible FARP and placing down a bunch of your own static objects and service vehicles around it. When I do it for mission making, it takes me all of a few minutes to select what I want (the TACAN beacon, a supply truck, fuel truck, fire truck because why not, a couple guard towers, and then some other defenses), and I tend to go a bit nuts placing them where I want them. And again, I do all of this by just using the available assets in game. If you're saying that you shouldn't have to do that, then I'm sorry, but that's on you, not ED. As for why I reply so quickly, it's simple: I check the wish list fairly often (since I toss my own things in there), and then I get a notification that someone replied to something I said in a topic, and like everyone else, I check that topic to see what was said. But to recap, you have three options: 1. wait for ED to remake the FARP into something that fits their current LOD standards 2. download a free livery that someone else has made for it 3. use the inivisble FARP and make your own in the Mission Editor with units and static objects of your choosing. Yes I know this doesn't perfectly illustrate my point (these are the single helipads after all), but, using method #3, I made this field hospital. Sure, it could use some work, mainly for the fact that there's a bit too much green for a desert field hospital, but I'm working within the limitations of the game, and my only real gripe here is that the messaging system was a bit bugged, but that might be more of a Me issue then a ME issue. Also, in this instance, given that it's a field hospital, with a little imagination you can see the green making sense since they'd naturally want to ensure that it was visible from the air so bombs don't fall on it.

With the Marianas map around the corner, I wonder if ED has put any thought into including various Amphibious Assault Craft, including the Roll-On-Roll-Off types seen in late WW2 through to today. It would certainly be nice if we had the ability to see actual assault craft hit the beach and offload the heavy armor to directly assault the hostile positions who didn't heed the eviction notices. Such examples include the ever famous Higgens Boat: the LCT: the LCU: The LCAC: The various Ecranoplans, including the Caspian Sea Monster: and of course, the Zubr class LCAC: It'd be nice to have some actual ships capable of delivering the troops and equipment to shore, either to protect them as they're approaching the beach, or to try and stop them before they can offload their troops. What do you guys think?

because the version we have is a post 1992 version. Don't get me wrong, I'd like there to be a tail gun as well, but I'm fairly certain that ED modeled it on the ones that existed after 1992

Because that's not how game development works. As I've explained before to the other guy, that hour has to come out of something else, and with all the other projects they have going, and all the things they need to fix, which item do you pick gets to have that hour taken away from? That hour could mean the difference between getting something out on time, and something being delayed. In the meantime, build your own FOB using the 'invisible' FARP, and decorate it with all the items you wish to add, and stop acting like a spoiled child because the Dev teams are busy with things they consider far more important.

Geeze. With all the stuff ED is doing, surely you people can wait. Odds are the reason there isn't a 'desert' FOB yet, is because they're going to be replacing it. They're remodeling everything else after all. Give them some freaking time. @NineLine@BIGNEWY could you guys chime in on this one? Throw these guys a bone on whether or not it's something being worked on? Not asking for screenshots, just wondering if you could share something that could calm these people down.

While I certainly would like to see proper infantry simulation in DCS, I would agree that for it to be fun, a mission designer would have to constrict him/her self to keep the action focused into a specific area where the grunts are at play. That said, one area where I'd really like to see the ground component be improved is with downed pilots. I'm sure we can all agree it would be nice to capture or rescue a downed airmen, but that's currently something we can't do in DCS, and would have to switch over to ArmA to simulate. One thing I'd personally like to see ED do is an actual ground combat simulator that a separate game, but able to 'talk' to DCS, basically a 'one server, two games' approach similar to what CCP Games did with EVE Online. Like, if I have a training server up and running, in DCS I can fly over a decently detailed training camp on my way to a bombing range. At the camp, I can see some 'alright' LOD troops running around, climbing, shooting, just training. Their animations are good enough to suggest what they're doing, but not super detailed. Meanwhile, the guys on the ground see a much more detailed training camp, with all the bells and whistles that I can't see from 40,000ft through a Lightning Pod. They're using weapons that aren't seen in DCS but are still decently represented (like you'd see a soldier carrying an M16 in DCS, but in the ground sim, he'd be using an M16A4). Where things are 100% represented however, is with the vehicles. On the ground, we'd get something with much more detail, but in the air, we'd see less of the micro details (like the dings, dents, etc). An example of that would be in the air, we'd see an M1A2SEP2. On the ground, we'd see that MREs that the ground pounders threw in the turret bustle, the extra ammo cans for their .50cal, the pin-up poster taped to the back of the Commanders Hatch, and so on. For them, they wouldn't see the high detailed models of our own aircraft, unless it was one that was parked at an airfield they were actively trying to take over. For them, that Su25T is just, an Su25T, but for us DCS pilots, it's our personal Su25T with a Russian Memphis Belle painted on the side. What do you guys think of that?

I think they're planning to do just that actually given what they released in their recent newsletter

Now, before I begin, I'm going to get some things out of the way. First, I did look for an 'off topic' section, and couldn't find one (if one exists, then moderators please feel free to move this to that area). Second: This is something meant for fun, and not a discussion on whether or not something wild and outlandish should be added (My opinion, if Gonzo and Bandai wish to add something from Yukikaze, that should be their call). Third: A couple important ground rules: First. No transforming. Your craft may be capable of it within the medium it's part of, but for the purposes of this discussion, it must remain in its 'base' mode. Second, it must look as though it could be built with the technology we have available, or will soon have available (Basically, it must be human in design) Finally: Pictures are preferred, but not necessary With all that out of the way, the fictional unit I'd like to see get a full fidelity treatment would be the FFR-31MR "Super Sylph" from the anime series "Yukikaze". I know that the show focuses on the titular planes AI and its 'upgrade' from the second episode onward, but there's something about the Super Sylph that I've always loved. The craft is meant to perform high altitude recon flights, but is still capable of holding its own in a dogfight if it has to, even against the stupidly maneuverable JAM Type 1s and 2s. The Cockpit design is also on point, and I've always appreciated the shows attention to detail in this area. It really does make me think that if someone actually did sit down and make this, even as a mod, I'd hop into it in a heartbeat. With all that out of the way, have fun guys! Let's see the aircraft of fiction you've dreamed of stepping into.

I'm only asking when it will be available for preorder, not full release. Like ED has done with Hind and a few other modules.

This should be the case with every helo or transport. The Super Herc mod does this after all.

Every single time I see a WIP image of the aircraft, I just want to throw money at you guys so I can have mine paid for when it finally drops. So.... when can we pre-order the Strike Eagle? I'd like to know so I can make my poor wallet cry XD

While I certainly would like to see proper infantry simulation in DCS, I would agree that for it to be fun, a mission designer would have to constrict him/her self to keep the action focused into a specific area where the grunts are at play. That said, one area where I'd really like to see the ground component be improved is with downed pilots. I'm sure we can all agree it would be nice to capture or rescue a downed airmen, but that's currently something we can't do in DCS, and would have to switch over to ArmA to simulate. One thing I'd personally like to see ED do is an actual ground combat simulator that a separate game, but able to 'talk' to DCS, basically a 'one server, two games' approach similar to what CCP Games did with EVE Online. Like, if I have a training server up and running, in DCS I can fly over a decently detailed training camp on my way to a bombing range. At the camp, I can see some 'alright' LOD troops running around, climbing, shooting, just training. Their animations are good enough to suggest what they're doing, but not super detailed. Meanwhile, the guys on the ground see a much more detailed training camp, with all the bells and whistles that I can't see from 40,000ft through a Lightning Pod. They're using weapons that aren't seen in DCS but are still decently represented (like you'd see a soldier carrying an M16 in DCS, but in the ground sim, he'd be using an M16A4). Where things are 100% represented however, is with the vehicles. On the ground, we'd get something with much more detail, but in the air, we'd see less of the micro details (like the dings, dents, etc). An example of that would be in the air, we'd see an M1A2SEP2. On the ground, we'd see that MREs that the ground pounders threw in the turret bustle, the extra ammo cans for their .50cal, the pin-up poster taped to the back of the Commanders Hatch, and so on. For them, they wouldn't see the high detailed models of our own aircraft, unless it was one that was parked at an airfield they were actively trying to take over. For them, that Su25T is just, an Su25T, but for us DCS pilots, it's our personal Su25T with a Russian Memphis Belle painted on the side. What do you guys think of that?

RAZBAM stated in a recent interview that even if certain bits of information are public knowledge, if the company that built the aircraft in question says "No" to the question of whether or not they can add that function, then the group cannot add it, simple as that. As for the nukes and modern bombers, ED has come out and said that they will not be adding nukes, but they can still be added since they can still drop a stick of conventional bombs and turn a few miles into the surface of the moon.

Let's also not forget that not everyone who wants to play DCS is really capable of performing the fighter roles, either due to not having the right setups, or have physical limitations that mean they can't do the whole HOTAS thing... but they can still fly a bomb truck, they can still be an AWAC, and they can certainly fly a boom to a thirsty plane. There's also those that just don't like the short bursts of fast and frantic action that's involved with being in the smaller jets, and prefer the more 'relaxed' life of a bomber or transport pilot. And to those people... why shouldn't they be allowed to have what would make them happy? Heck, if my JROTC CO were to catch wind of a B52 being added to DCS, he'd probably download and buy the module in a heartbeat purely because it's what he flew in the 70s. What this guys deal is with bombers I have no idea, they have a place in modern warfare, and it wouldn't surprise me if in a few hundred years we're hearing of B52s making daring raids against Covenant Ships assaulting Reach, and still kicking ass at the rate that the B52 seems to be going. Also, the Herc we have is a mere fraction of the real thing. The C-130J has a lot more systems in it that aren't modeled due to their classified nature, and all of the things that a C-130 can do could only be modeled correctly using the SDK. But again, look at the support that mod has gotten, and imagine if it could have all of its capabilities properly modeled.

try over a thousand when ya look at the Super Hercs own discord. My own unit has seen a few dozen of them join simply because we operate the C-130 in our campaigns. There are people who play DCS who would love to fly a bomber, especially a hot-rod like the B-1B or Tu-160

Funny, people said the same thing about the C-130, and yet people love the Super Herc mod.

With all the helos we're getting (both official and not), I think it would be neat if the addition of helicopter landing instructions and hand signals could be added to the Super Carrier module. If this is something already in development, then forgive me, but I hadn't heard anything on the subject, so I figured I'd raise this one up the flag-pole to see who salutes.

Yup. And we can thank the guys behind the BAE Hawk for the difficulty in becoming an official 3rd Party. After that debacle, ED decided to keep all further development very close to the chest, and only allow certain groups access to the tools. Real shame too, since it heavily restricts what anyone can do. However, i do sense a change in the future, as certain teams are proving that good teams still exist.

Looking really good there. I can't wait to sit at the controls myself.

Hmm... a feature like this would be quite useful for those that have full sim pits, So I can certainly agree with this.