Tank50us

It should be noted, that everything mentioned here is just part 1 of the process. In order for a new asset to be added to the game, let's say a M60A2 "Starship" First, CH would have to get someone to make the 3D and 2D assets needed, or make them himself, as he stated. Next he'd have to go in and code every aspect of the tank itself within the limits of DCS Ground Units. Fortunately, he does have some base-line code that he can use, namely the various late soviet vehicles which can also use ATGMs from the main gun. But these would only serve as a base, he'd still have to make the Shillelagh, as well as the other 152mm rounds the tank could carry (HEAT, HE, Smoke). The .50cal and 7.62mm MGs are technically already in the game, so at least some work can be saved. Now, once the code is finished, he'd then have to test it to hell and back. Every. Single. Aspect of the tank would need to be tested to make sure its inclusion to the game doesn't break it. And after that, ED gets to have a go. Assuming the ED testers can't find any issues, it then gets tossed into a future update. That's it, job's done, brush your hands and call it.... right? Wrong. After release, CH would have to keep an eye on the asset(s) to ensure that none of the upcoming updates accidentally break the unit, and by extension, the game as a whole. Making sure the unit works, and doesn't break the game then becomes a full-time job in of itself, and I can't imagine that being an easy thing to do. So... TLDR: Can CH have assets added? Yes, but it'd be a lot of work to make sure none of them break the game both before and after release.

That's not how this works my dude. For starters, the J-36 is still in its prototype phase, not in mass production like the F-35. The F-35 is also being widely exported, while the J-36 is likely to remain a domestic production aircraft only Due to the number of buyers for the F-35, Lockheed Martin likely has to be very up front with the the data, while CAC (and by extension the CCP) can make whatever claim they want, and it be treated as gospel. Finally, the F-35 isn't some obscure aircraft with a handful of examples in existence. Over a thousand have been produced, and many more are expected over the next few decades. Matter of fact, it's the most produced 5th Generation fighter, with the second place spot going to the J-20 (at 300+). I should also stress that China has a very different attitude towards weapons development than the US does. We tend to test to the breaking point and beyond before we hand it off to some snot-nosed kid to break again. China on the other hand seems to go "Alright, it flies... order 500" while we try to work out every kink and bug that could be in the thing before the production order is made.

So, in my spare time I've decided to make a monumentally sized campaign. I'm calling it "World War II Redux", and is an alternate history scenario where WW2 as we know it never happened, but tech still progressed well into the 80s. Further details can be found in this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iFke-lEotorwxsAyxyQdtat4ecM571WzirXjJWv7-6w/edit?usp=sharing Now, assuming you've read the document... I'm not gonna lie, this is gonna require some help. I intend to use Moose scripting for many of the missions, but my skills with it are.... limited to say the least. If anyone would like to help, I'd be immensely grateful. The same applies to the missions themselves. I'm working on Campaigns 1 (The Blitz), and 4 (North Africa), but if anyone would like to tackle the other campaigns, I'm all for it. The goal of this campaign is to make players feel part of an actual world spanning conflict, using the available maps to serve as stand-ins for many of the real world theaters where the battles that took place in the actual war. One thing I'd love to do with this, once all of the missions are made and ready, is put them on a server, and let the missions rotate through it. Especially since none of the missions are little two-hour sessions. They're multi-hour marathons designed around the idea of players playing for as long as they can, then getting relieved by someone else who can take over for them... similar to how a real conflict would go. There's also technical progression as well, mainly so that early missions don't feel like a total cakewalk. The Evacuation of Dunkirk is a prime example of this. When players start, the evacuation ships begin to move, and only after several hours will they arrive, and being taking on evacuating troops and refugees. Once they're full, they'll return to England, and after that, a final set of evacuation helicopters fly out to pick up and stragglers and the final line troops (It's simulating the last hours of the evacuation). Players will have to keep the place secure for as best as they can until then. Obviously, the last parts of the campaign can't really be done until ED releases the new Fuldagap map (or whatever they're gonna call it). However, the majority of the others can be quite easily.

If we got the F-8 Crusader, one of the responses we should get is "Looks like you have some sparrow holes in your wing." If you get it, you get it XD

As an AI asset, or LowFid aircraft, it's certainly doable. But as a FullFid aircraft? It's highly unlikely due to the fact that the Chinese Communist Party, like the Russian Federation, has actual laws that prevent depictions other than what is "Party Approved". As I've said in other places: If someone were to model an Su30 in a way that isn't approved by the Governments of the aforementioned, it could result in Devs getting arrested if they ever go there, or worse. That being said, I'd love to swat J20s from the sky. Let the Kid off the leash against them.

To be fair, this isn't in itself a bad thing. It basically means that players can make DCS the way they want it. If you don't want to do anything with jets, you can just focus on the WW2 planes and maps. I personally like that aspect of DCS.

People act like data is the only thing in play. It's not just the data, it's the permission from the OEM to do the module based on the IP. Boeing for example would likely be fine with the Super Hornet in DCS, and would likely supply the data needed to make a fullfid module. The problem is that the Super Hornet doesn't really offer that much over the existing Hornet. But where Boeing may be alright with the Super Hornet, can you guarantee that Dassault or the French Military will be on board? We already know the Russians and Chinese are against any portrayal of their military hardware that doesn't support the claim it's better than anything from the West. They even have laws that will put people in prison if their kit isn't portrayed in ways they claim. This applies to anything they've built, including the T-34. A tank from WW2!

Alright... I've been seeing A LOT of people whining about the F-35s announcement, and it's made me decide to make this post. Now, disclaimer: I don't work for LM, I'm not in the USAF, and I don't work for ED. I'm a random civilian that plays DCS just like most of the people in this forum. My views on the introduction of the F-35 is that while, yes, she's gonna be hard to properly balance (being a stealth aircraft and all), that is more for us to worry about, and not ED. If you're playing on a Cold War server, or a mid-90s server, you'll never see an F-35 on your RWR. The people working those servers aren't likely to include them, unless they reduce the weapons and make them basically play F-117s. Modern servers are likely to only include a handful, but at the same time, are just as likely to have some on the RedFor side playing Felons or Checkmates. Now, to answer the big question everyone keeps asking: "How does Eagle Dynamics have enough information to model an F-35?" Towit: It's not some rare plane with only a handful that "Don't Exist". There's been over a thousand produced to date. It's a very well known plane right now thanks to various figures chiming their opinions on it. It's a widely exported aircraft as well, with a number of allies already operating them. As stated by ED themselves, the information they need to work on it is out there, even if it's not 100% accurate. Now, for those complaining about point 4, and the level of accuracy that can be achieved... If you hold that opinion, please chill. NONE of the modern aircraft in DCS are 100% accurate to their real-world counterparts. They're certainly close enough that in many cases we could hop into the pilots seat and start the plane up. But the only sims out there that are 100% accurate to the real thing are the ones actually used by real world air forces (because they kinda have to be). "How did ED get the information at all?" Well, I would wager that with the number of customers buying F-35s, it's entirely possible that Lockheed Martin was having issues keeping up with the demands for simulators as well. Seeing as DCS is as realistic as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if LM called Nick up and asked if ED could make a sim, with the added bonus of being allowed to make a module for us to play with in the process. But that's my theory. "Why can't ED add (insert RedFor jet)?" because where in the US, there's no law preventing them from making it. China and Russia are a bit more strict in how their kit is portrayed. For example, in Russia, right now, you can be put in prison if you claim that the T-34 is anything but the best tank of WW2 (news flash, it sucked. Shermans are better in every way. Change my mind). The US has no such law, and so long as the OEM is ok with it, you can feature it however you wish. So yeah. Me? I'm perfectly fine with the F-35A coming into DCS. I would've preferred the C, as I'm a Navy brat and like what the C offers, but I'll take the A. Heck, my reasoning for making this post was purely to shed some positivity here. I've seen an F-35 being put through its paces at a local airshow, and while I am no expert, I can say that it's leaps and bounds beyond what we have otherwise. No other aircraft (with one exception) can purposefully enter a flat spin like the F-35 can and just casually recover like it was nothing. Now... what are my expectations? Well... I don't expect its stealth to be true to the real thing. I expect that if I was in formation with an F-16 and we were approaching an S300 site, obviously the F-16's gonna be seen first, and shot at first. But the S300 likely won't see me until I'm like 15-20nmi away, and likely only because I just chucked a bunch of SDBs at it. I do expect its maneuverability to be in line with the real thing. It won't be as maneuverable as a Raptor or Su35, but it doesn't need to be. Frankly, if a Lightning is having to maneuver that close to an enemy, something's gone horribly wrong. I expect its datalink screen to almost look like the F10 map, because that's basically what it's got. Seriously, the F-35 can take information from ground, sea, and air assets and get a complete picture of the battle space. An F-35 pilot doesn't have to ID where the blues are, they know where they are to a degree that they can avoid Blue on Blue situations to levels even the Hog can't touch. I do expect that the cockpit will be pretty sparse. A big screen, a couple of backup instruments, radio and navigation switches, controls, and start-up switches, and that's it. There's not much to an F-35 cockpit, and the same holds true to the external model. So with that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're able to pre-order it by the end of this year, or early next. The only real challenge I see for ED is replicating the touch-screen functionalities as all the weapons the F-35 can carry are already in game, and the HUD functionality already exists in the JHMCS (just in reverse). Overall, I see good things on the horizon with the F-35. If you agree, let's hear it. If you think I'm a corporate Kiss-A... well, try to prove it. Tank out.

Jester kinda does this already in the F-4E and F-14. He may not tell you exactly what's wrong with the plane, but he'll give you an idea of the issues.

Another option would be the EC-130 Compass Call. Basically an C-130 packed to the brim with jamming gear. However, in the meantime, there's a simple way to simulate the effect of a jammer aircraft in the mission editor. Set up a SAM site (or multiple), and in the trigger actions, set the max range down to about 10-20% of their max. have the aircraft in question fly to an area and orbit just out of max range for the site. in that area, place a trigger zone. in the triggers, set it up so that once the plane enters the zone, the SAMs range is reduced (you can add a message to tell the pilots that the jamming is active). As a bonus, if you're doing objective based PvP, these Jammer aircraft can also serve as targets for your Op4, removing their jamming, and restoring the effectiveness of the SAM site. Hope that helps in the meantime!

Some assets I'd like to see are: More artillery. Both Self-Propelled and Towed. Earlier models of the B52, KC135 and E3, the EC121 Warning Star for the Vietnam USAF, as well as the E-1 Tracer for the Naval side. Some additional warships of the era. Maybe not a conclusive list, but certainly some more options would be nice. More Surface to Surface missile launchers. And inb4 the nuke discussion, their missiles did have more than just nuclear warheads. More Landing Craft and Riverine vessels. Some of the era specific Strategic Bombers like the B-58, B-48, B-29, Tu4, Tu16 (with the tail guns), and Tu28 Blinder. More variations of the M113. Not just to match the time period, but also models that were used by the many customers that bought the frame. and much much more

Fast-roping is actually not used that often in most combat scenarios. Reason being is because you can only drop one guy per line, and you have to sit there until the last guy is off the rope. This in turn leads to the helicopter being a sitting duck for enemy fire. Typically, when a helicopter is doing a 'combat landing', they are on the ground and stationary for less than five seconds. Because when you're in a combat zone, you don't want to stay there long enough for someone to line up a rocket shot. If a Blackhawk for example touches down, the troops getting out are out of the bird and clear in a couple seconds. The crew-chief(s) call out that the troops are off, and the pilot gets back in the air and moving. All within those five seconds. Now, where fast roping is used, is in places where the threat to the helicopter is low, and there's a limited space to actually land the bird. The Battle of Mogadishu actually provides a good example of both methods. The Little Birds had enough space that they could touch down, and the troops on them could just hop off. So they did. The Blackhawk however is a massive helicopter by comparison, and the battle plan called for the Rangers to be deployed close to the target building, but since there wasn't space to land the Blackhawk, they fast-roped the Rangers in. But the entire time they were sitting there, they were vulnerable. When Super 6-8 was inserting the medics, they took several hits, including one RPG to the engine and nearly cost the US Army a second (at the time) Blackhawk in the field. The chopper in question was able to land safely... but it was close to being a write off. Now, as for DCS... I would place this as something to add when/if we get a new ground combat setup, because we'll need entirely new infantry models, animations, and coding to make it work right.

Technically, this isn't true. At the moment, things are on hold pending the conflict resolution with RB. It's just a question of who's going to blink first. That whole fiasco started because RB tried to jip ED out of potentially millions of dollars on a simulator deal, and then take that aircraft and sell it to us. Basically double dipping on one plane. On topic though, I wouldn't mind seeing an updated F-15C added to DCS that gives it a fully functional cockpit. One option I think would work would be to make it one of the customer F-15s, like the JASDF F-15J, which have been getting updated cockpits in recent years.

I mean... throw enough lead in the air....

oh, tracers can be seen during the day, but not as well as they can be at night

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.