Tank50us

This would actually be a good reason for the launcher handling the mods rather than third party programs (like we have now). If you're having issues with one or more mods, the launcher should be able to able/disable the mods as needed by the user. One thing I'll say about mods and issues that I think many people forget, is that problems can arise even with the modules that we pay for. Some of them can be completely game-breaking, and some we've seen rendered an entire module completely unusable. And this is for the stuff we pay for. And how often has a patch been released (not just for DCS, but other titles as well), that unknowingly introduced a bug that killed the whole game and required a hotfix? Really the only difference here is the desire to fix the problem. Obviously, someone working on a mod could get bombarded with crash reports, and choose to not fix any of the issues... but we've seen this happen with a paid module as well. The method I suggest (enable/disable mods from the launcher), would allow a player to check which mods need to be removed without themselves having to move folders around. If it's all done from the launcher, they can just close the game, go into the launcher, check/uncheck a box, reload the game. A process that takes seconds to a couple minutes (depending on how long it takes for the game to fire up and close out) at most to complete. Compare that to closing the game all the way down, going to the mod folder, moving the relevant folder (or deleting it), and then relaunching. A process that will vary much more greatly due to the computers own limitations.

I would STRONGLY disagree. If someone is trying to simulate an actual mid-Cold War scenario, using only base-game assets, they wouldn't be able to do it accurately. Sure, a portion of the units are present, namely the T-55, BMP-1, M113, and M60.... but what about the M110? The various naval assets both sides had at the time? Sure, we have one (Forrestal), but what about the rest of the USN, NATO, or USSR of the 60s? ED isn't working on any of those assets at the moment, but right now... the mod makers are. The same applies for much of the current generation equipment. Much of it is still MIA from official support. But the mod makers are bringing it in. And from the WW2 side... we have the allies and the 1/3 of the Axis powers. Sure, the Japanese Empire is coming, but what about the Italians? Or even the Soviets? Not a single Soviet asset from WW2 is even part of the WW2AP. Not even the T-34 or IS. Mods have a place. You just don't want them because you think it'll be bad for the end user experience. Towit, if the game had a more mod-friendly installer like every other simulator on the market does, we'd all be better off.

Such programs are also a pain in the tailpipe to use. A certain Ground Combat Sim's launcher by comparison is stupidly simple to use. Take a .ini file with the mod list, drop it in (or load it manually), and it grabs all the mods and installs them. No setup necessary beyond installing the game as it's part of the launcher. And considering how often the A-4 appears in official trailers, trying to imply that ED doesn't officially support mods is a bit rich. And since I talked about making it so that the player can log out, hit a check box, and log back in to see if the issues are fixed... that's basic troubleshooting 101. ED wouldn't get a bug report if a player did that, the mod dev would. "Hey, your mod breaks the game, what's going on?" And ED could even add that as a step before someone submits a bug report "Hey, if you have mods, be sure to check and see if they're breaking the game first. If they are, contact their dev team and tell them. If not, then please submit a crash report" This would be a simple QOL change that would make managing the game and mods so much easier... why be so resistant to anything that changes the game for the better?

The problem with your theory is that the game loads before the mods do. Ergo, if we have a mod manager integrated into the launcher, and each mod had a check box where a person could choose to load it or not, that would allow people to troubleshoot whether or not a mod is what's causing their problems. Such a manager would also make the installation of the mod easier since it can handle the installation of the mod, and make sure it's installed correctly, which is usually a major reason why the mod doesn't work or causes issues for the game. Other titles have such a feature for mods, I don't see why DCS shouldn't have one as well.

It would be nice to have though, especially for training purposes. However, I'd argue that it's a fairly low priority situation. But would be a bad thing to have.

I think what the OP is wanting is the ability to set an AI aircraft to 'kill you' and then reset in the same way real world aggressor pilots do. IE, they get into a firing position, and then over the radio go "You're dead", and then reset. In the same vein, they'll acknowledge you got into a kill position against them, go 'copy kill', and reset. Basically a way to set up realistic aggressor behavior without having to dive deep into the scripting for it.

Modeling for a computer game isn't hard in of itself. HOWEVER, it's not just the model work that needs to be done, but also the texture work, rigging, and much much more. And then, once the model is made, it has to be ported into the game engine, and assuming everything works as it's supposed to, it could be done within about three months. And this by the way, is for something like a tank or warship. Aircraft can't be treated the same way since the game has changed and the expectations are different. Now you also need a proper damage model that's almost on par with the modules, a flight model that is on par, and updates to the weapon options. THAT can add another three to six months if everything works as it's supposed to depending on the aircraft. Bombers for example can take longer than a transport. And keep in mind, while someone is working on these, they're not working on something else that might be more important.

Train AI to beat us players... There are 6 movies and a TV series that explains exactly why this is a bad idea....

Just to give people an idea of how difficult this would be.... Wargaming.net had a hard time getting the Royal Navy to fork over the detailed plans for the Royal Navy Battleships going as far back as HMS Dreadnought in order to put them into WoWs, and that's for ships that haven't even been around in over a century. Just imagine the PITA it would be to get the deets on a fighter that's only just left service in the last couple decades

There's two main issues in play here. 1. Most players don't play with the pilot body turned on so that they can see the controls and switches they need to. 2. The required amount of work to make a single character model is already tough enough when you consider the level of detail players demand (to the point where you can count the stitches on the uniform), rigging of the model, and the animations. And this would have to be done for every possible variation demanded. One other factor in play is the fact that you barely see the aircraft you're shooting at, and you're not flying close enough in formation with another plane to see their pilots that well. This all being said, would I like to see it? Sure. But compared to the laundry list of other things that the game needs.... this is pretty low on the priority list.

I mean, enough of it is available to make the module, and much can be inferred from the Legacy hornet. However, that's not good enough for much of the player base who will refuse a module if the pixelated rivets aren't in the exact right place.

Most likely the Bar at the top and bottom, which if you're running on a large monitor, is quite small. Odds are the OP is wondering if there's a way to resize it. The only other possibility is to have the GIs equipped with this BAR:

If the Gnat were to be added.... they'd have to do the "The Navy" livery from Hot Shots! Maybe even the Garfield as well....

The primary issue with the variant idea is that there are usually significant changes made from one model to the next, and each change can drastically affect the flight model, cockpit operation, or both. Using the Hind D vs P, just the change in nose gun alone would still require a change to the flight model, as well as a change to the forward part of the pit. While the changes aren't super big, they still require a bit of development time to accomplish. Especially when you consider the work needed to go into the Hinds CPG.

This would be the best solution, since the first burst will typically be to get the range, and the next will be to get the proper lead. Unless the shooter has an area pre-sighted, or has proper range-finding equipment, his/her shots won't be that accurate until after a few bursts. Obviously, this would be for someone on a pintel mounted machine gun or autocannon. Warship mounts would have gun directors that are feeding the information to the people on the guns, so they would be more likely get a first-burst-hit.

It's a thread that I've enjoyed checking up on... what happened to it?

ED Won't even add civil aircraft for this very purpose. They simply won't add civilians to that extent, as much as most of us want it, and how it would make for a good set of missions to ID and track a certain individual... they just won't do it. On top of that, there's the issue that you'd have to have hundreds, if not thousands of people in an area to make it close to realistic. Just ask any vet that's been over there. Markets (where these guys tend to get spotted) are just teeming with people. And DCS starts having dry heaves when you have a realistic WW2 Bomber formation just flying. Imagine what it's going to do with thousands of people in a crowded market. Peoples PCs would likely turn their rooms to ovens trying to render them all. That all being said... I don't mind more civilian assets in DCS. I will however caution you that when it comes to certain sensitive issues.... ED isn't gonna touch them with a Hornet Launched SM3. For best results, if you want VBIEDs or IEVs in your mission, I suggest getting crafty with the scripting.

As stated in the title, this is just a small bug, and I haven't tested it too much. However, it seems that aircraft that are spawning are doing so with the landing gear partially in the ground. One possible fix could be to raise the 'spawn point' a little higher so that the aircraft is technically above the ground (and then comes down). Now, it could be possible that it's just because I hadn't 'unpaused' the 'server', but again, I haven't done to much testing with it to see how big an issue it is. Further testing will be conducted.

The point isn't about that, it's just the military operations that try to deal with it. On top of that, insurgencies tend to use such shipments as a way to pay for their campaigns. You can't buy boom sticks with IOUs after all.

We already have some insurgent units in the game. Technicals, Insurgent troops, and an entire 'faction' are already part of the base game. What I would like to see are an increase in the variety of Insurgent forces. Not faction specific mind you, IE, no ISIS, Al'Quieda, Hamas, etc. But with units with optional different 'liveries', and available kit. For example, if you were doing an alternate 1985 scenario where the Soviets invaded Western Europe and pushed all the way past Paris, the 'Insurgent forces' there would be equipped with FALs (I know the French never adopted the FAL, the rifle they did adopt looks close to it) and M16s, as well as captured AK47/74. You would also see a larger number of more 'European style' trucks and cars being used as technicals. Though rare, there are aircraft that can be used by insurgent forces. Normally if any aircraft are employed, it's a helicopter or a... erm... 'borrowed'... Cesna or something. Usually you see the latter being used by cartels to move 'product' from A to B, but some have cropped up in armed confrontations (with the results of what happens when one meets an F-16 being quite obvious) Now... for missions. What kinds of missions and scenarios could these crop up in? Well, Alternate history is one, where insurgent forces are an issue for one side or another. In dedicated COIN missions, where players are either mercenaries that were called in, or part of a proper military going after insurgent forces Finally, Anti-drug operations where players are tasked with locating, and either diverting a plane loaded with 'product', or shooting it down. Issues that we face: A lack of 'coalitions'. As things stand, you either have Blue, Red, or Neutral. In the real world, you'd have multiple insurgent forces with their own goals being at odds with one another. We'd need more coalitions, and the ability to set the relationship between them to fix this. Insurgent forces don't do well standing out in the open. They'd need ways to 'duck into' buildings and cover to avoid being seen, allowing them to better ambush players who aren't paying attention (this is possible with careful scripting, but sometimes scripts fall over). The lack of a true 'ground game' in DCS. While most agree that DCS is mostly about Air combat, we can't ignore the conflict on the ground for much longer. Sometimes, being able to tell who an insurgent faction is can come down to what form of headgear they wear, and in the real world, this is usually done by people on the ground who can tell the difference and mark them as targets. Combined Arms would need a massive overhaul to make this work. Hope this helps :3

Technically, we already have a crash log built in. One thing I would suggest is a slight change to the log where the issues are front and center, with some details about where in the log the issue is. Basically, we just need a way to see the issues, where they are, and what caused them. This way, we can go through and figure out the fixes.

In the real world, ATCs will send one out before letting one land, and they'll keep that up until all of either in the 'block' are either down or away. If they need to, ATC will instruct departing aircraft to use Runway X while Arriving aircraft use Runway Y to avoid confusion over coms (and collisions). You see an example of the latter case in Carrier Ops. If planes are coming in while planes need to depart, Cats 3 and 4 will be closed off, while Cats 1 and 2 are used since the landing area goes over 3 and 4. I feel much of this will get fixed when ED gets to fixing the ATC, but this is unfortunately a fairly low priority for them. As a scripting work-around, you could have 'arriving' aircraft fly to a 'holding point' where they'll orbit and wait until the departing aircraft either reach a certain way point or have cleared a certain altitude threshold. At least for the AI jets.

Yeah, or carry the reloads to a reload point

yeah, even in MP, if you have two players going to the same KC-130/135, the first player to contact the tanker must take the Port basket, while the next must take the starboard. It would be nice if either: A. the Tanker told you which basket to take or B. You could take either basket once they come out, and just talk with your fellow players about which basket you'll take. That all being said, I think IRL, the order when multiple baskets are involved, is that the first one refueling takes the port, and the next one takes Starboard. Subsequent planes just take whichever basket opens up first, and the order is always who's lowest on fuel goes to the front of the line.

Now, before anyone posts, no, I'm not asking for more nuclear weapons. Now, onto the actual post: Throughout the Cold War, and even into the modern day, Short-Range Ballistic Missile Carriers have been quite prolific. While most of these were meant to carry Nuclear Warheads, units did have the option for conventional and 'gas' warheads. The latter of which obviously doesn't work in DCS, but the conventional warheads are still viable. Examples include: MGM-52 "Lance" The 9K52 'Luna' (NATO: FROG-7) The ATACM The Pluton And many, many more. The reason I'd like to see these systems is because of the missions that are built around them. Usually to hunt them down and destroy them before they launch, but also to protect them, and (when the C-130 and Chinook drop) to supply their positions with more ordinance. On top of the missiles, and their mobile launchers, it would be nice to have the 'static' launchers as well, especially for the WW2 side and the V-2 and the Early Cold War when the TEL Vehicles hadn't been developed yet. What do you guys think? Would you want to see some more TELs and SRBMs in DCS?