Tank50us

I said these were concerns, and it is admittedly speculation at this point (we know that some Air Forces use DCS for training pilots after all), but beyond that there's nothing fully concrete. The second part, I'm not sure if it is or not. I know that "Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction", "Homefront", "Ghost Recon 2" and "Die Another Day" were outlawed in the ROK (even if only temporarily), and I think "The Interview" was as well (could be mistaken), and the reason for it was because they each dealt with the subject of the ROK and DPRK being in a hot war again. I think the few films that depict such a possibility that aren't frowned upon are those films and games actually made by ROK based studios, and have special permission to be made.

I'd like a Korean map, but at the same time, given the powers in play, I can see why teams want to avoid it. For starters, China likely still has a hand in training KPAF pilots, and them getting a hand on the map could help them potentially train those pilots in a very realistic scenario (remember, cities change, mountains don't), and since many of the airfields that were built in the late 50s and early 60s are all still there and fully operational, they could learn how to penetrate the US/ROK radar net and hit those airfields without much warning. So some liberties may have to be taken to avoid this. Second, the scope of the map itself would mean involving parts of China and Japan for proper simulation. Even in a Korean War setting, Sabers flew mostly from Japan until the lines stabilized, at which point some units were moved closer to the front. The advantage to this however is that if gives multiple, and very clear Red vs Blue scenarios if you take things into fiction land. The final thing to consider, and this is mostly conjecture, is that including such a map would instantly make such a map impossible to sell in the ROK, they have a bit of a stick up their backsides about such things for some reason (They outright banned a couple films and games because of that very scenario) But still, the options are there, and I'd like to see what a talented team could cook up.

Although doing this leads to someone inevitably screaming "YOU'RE OTHER LEFT!" as the new pilot frantically looks around the cockpit for the one switch his instructor is telling him to find.

The best thing for ED to do is to create a "Mod Nexus" where mod makers can upload the mod, and the game auto-check what's installed with what's on the nexus, and if there's a change, then it just auto-updates. This would also make installing a bit easier, as all one would have to do is go into the 'store' ingame, look at the mods, read any reviews, and download. When they download it, the mod will just go directly where it's supposed to go, no futzing around trying to get it to work, the game does it for you. Well, that's what I think would be ideal.

I think it's an idea, and it is a decent one. Personally, I don't really have many gripes about the main menu, but I would like to see the empty space be a bit more lively, like maybe some footage taken from the various trailers playing in the background or something like that. Another thing I think is needed is a built-in wizard for the controls. This would make it much simpler for people have multiple air frames and are wanting to map them. This way, you can map the binds and any that apply to multiple aircraft are applied. If it's something that only applies to one aircraft (for example the F-14s master arm setup) then you can go in and do what you need to do on it.

People have been calling for this for a while actually, particularly using the actual training versions of the specific aircraft (like the D model hornet or Falcon). The F-15E will probably end up being a decent 'instructor' aircraft since the GIB has mirror controls and can fly the plane if necessary

Even for those that just want to create a fictional ship. It'd be nice to have a way to make a livery for my own unit for example.

Given what nukes do to servers, trust me, you don't want them.

Well, obviously if you're trying to model the cockpit and functionality in the aircraft, yeah, but some items are just self-explanatory by just looking at the label. A switch that reads 'battery', and only has two positions, it shouldn't take much rocket science to figure out the purpose of that switch. The kicker is going to be the MFDs and what they're capable of displaying. Although if photos exist of the different display items, someone could probably make a high fidelity module, even if it's not 100% accurate to the real thing, it's still close enough that people might be willing to overlook it and buy it, especially if the company doing it is honest and outright says "This is our best guess of how this aircraft and its systems operate". As for the EFM, well, lots and lots of trial and error are to be expected to make it

The problem with ASBMs is that shooting them down before they hit the target ship requires hitting it in the ascent stage. If I understand correctly, the Chinese know that relying on a single missile to hit a single ship with one of these things is pointless, and instead, have it where they'll release MIRVs to try and 'shotgun' it if you will. These MIRVs don't have a warhead on them, and are basically just slugs coming down at extreme speeds. The real sucky thing about them, is that they don't even need to hit the ship, or sink it to be effective. A single shot from one will force the carrier to have to shift position, and the hard turns to avoid being hit will keep it from being able to operate. And if it were to get hit, it's out of action for months with the amount of repairs that would be needed. As for DCS... there is very, very little actually known about them. We know that some designs have MIRVs and operate like I mentioned, others have complex guidance systems, but there is very little known beyond that.

Not only that it would require the buildings all be remodeled to have full interiors and furnishings, and then the existing maps would have to be updated to include those structures. This plus the programming isn't technically impossible, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut it would be a lengthy project to say the least. Again, technically doable, but it would be very time consuming to do for DCS by itself in the current state. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done btw, after all troops ducking in and out of buildings is a thing helicopters have to worry about in the real world, but I am saying it's something that would take a very long time to do, and those that want it two weeks from now will be lucky if they see it in two years.

I gotta second that state about GPUs, a friend of mine is really wanting to get into DCS, but keeps selecting builds that require GPUs when an APU can suffice (assuming you play on lower settings ofc). The prices will come down on GPUs once the madness for crypto ends (although that might require an alien race with an EMP), but until it does, an APU will just have to suffice. On topic, yeah, having the lights be dynamic would be nice, but I can understand why they operate the way they do. Might come with reworked ATC though, who knows.

My two cents on the whole Blue Force vs Red Force in the modern day argument is quite simple: We need more jets that are from the Russians and Chinese, but even the newest of the new aircraft have aren't 1-1 comparable to their western counterparts. This is due in large part because they are iterations on existing designs. They're certainly designs that work obviously, but an American or European pilot in an F-16 is a much clearer picture of what's around them then a guy in a Mig35. But that's just scratching the surface. The Russians and Chinese are very tight-lipped on just what kinds of capabilities these aircraft actually have, and as a result, much of their capabilities can only be guessed at. Add the fact that so many people who play DCS won't buy a new module unless you can reset the AM/FM Radio fuse or push every button and flick every switch in the pit, and you've got yourself a fairly easy business decision for any team to make. That's not to say that it can't be done though. It very much can be done, but we the community have to understand the limitations a prospective team might be working with, and as such, accept that certain things might not be modeled due to legal reasons, or, accept some guess work on the part of the design team. For example, I'd love to blow apart some J-10s in DCS... but outside of what it looks like, I know next to nothing about it that the PLAAF hasn't released to the public (which has to be taken with a rail-car of salt), but does that mean I would chastise a group that manages to make one that has a degree of fidelity? No. I'd welcome the jet with open arms.... and then attempt to feed it six Phoenix missiles from 100nm away

There's two issues to unpack here. 1. is that while plenty of information does exist for the F-14D, it's still not certain if it can be featured in DCS at all, as some of the stuff that HB needs is still classified. Now, granted, much of it should be accessible, but even if it is, it's eyes-only, which means copies can't leave the USN Archives. 2. Legal issues. Heatblur may have gotten a license from Northrop Grumman to make the versions we have, and as such, are only legally allowed to make those aircraft. Creating a version that falls outside those limits would mean they'd lose the license, and ED would have to take the aircraft down from the store (and depending on how hard the lawyers push, refund us and take the module away). Alternatively, if NG told HB "No, you cannot model the D", then that means that under penalty of a severe lawsuit, Heatblur cannot make an F-14D.

No, I mean here on the forum, the land-based LCAC links to the HMS Duncan

While I agree with the Varyag being added, I believe that the J15 should be the version with the launch bar rather than the copy/paste Su33. The reason for this, is that it would give Su33 owners a way to operate from the SCM if they have it. Currently the Su33 can only land on the Super Carrier, but not take-off from it (IE, spawn on it).

Ya know, I just had the thought of instead of us controlling the troops, as well, troops, what about giving us a squad level control where we're giving orders to a squad or fire-team in the same vein of "Full Spectrum Warrior". (an interesting title for those have haven't checked it out) If the infantry were given their own ability to move, shoot, take cover, etc, and all we had to do was tell them what we needed them to do (for example secure a building), then we could give them that command, and swap over to the next squad and give them an order. This could also give us the ability to see what they see, and better direct our fire support.

Hey @Admiral189 the land-based LCAC links to the Duncan, just a short bug report for ya.

They look that bad because it's perfectly acceptable to look at through a FLIR pod from 30,000ft, towit, I don't see an issue with that personally. That being said, with the ever increasing focus on helicopter combat, the infantry are getting re-worked and if you saw last weeks newsletter, they did show off some of the new models that are going to be coming soon. As for their behavior, that's because they're right now they're basically very small jeeps in terms of programming. This is something that ED does need to solve, but I think with the new troop models, they'll likely get that treatment soon.

This was brought up here:

Those carriers can still operate the Harrier and Hornet/Tomcat respectively, the Catapult runs are just long enough on the CDG that it could get either of those aircraft in the air, while the QE class can easily handle the Harriers, especially given they have the Skijump which would allow a heavier take-off load.

Kind of. It depends on what stations are being controlled by humans and what stations are controlled by the AI, and if there's the option for players to take over any of those stations. For example, let's assume you're making a carpet bomb run on a target area (we'll say a line of tanks on one side of a river), the pilots job would be to get the thing lined up with the IP, and once lined up, fly straight and level while the WSO prep the bombs and open the bomb-bay doors, and then release. And during all of this, the DSO has to keep the plane safe from enemy action. Could it be done with one person and an AI? Yeah, especially if the one person jumps from one station to the next to perform the necessary operations. But I think we can all agree that it would be more 'satisfying' for a multi-crew option. Bonus points for those people who have kids and want to build SimPits (Let's face it, building a simpit with kids can teach them pretty valuable life skills). Not trying to go into the "Them darn kids" territory here btw, but I think it's safe to say that those people who play DCS who have a sizable family could have plenty of fun with their children if they built a B52 or BOne SimPit.... who knows, maybe those kids will grow up to join that part of the triad when they're older.

I personally say yes, because bombers bring a bunch to the table, and we have seen that people are interested in flying large combat aircraft in DCS (Hercs with bomb loads in case anyone tries to argue). Now, how could such a module be done? That's the tricky part. The B52 has a crew of six, and only four of the stations have any public information available (pilot, co-pilot, Navigator, and Weapon Systems Officer), so getting a full crew in DCS would be a challenge, but not impossible. One could make it where the other functions are handled by AI crew-members similar to Jester in the F-14, but that would require a lot of programming, and again, with limited knowledge on how those other seats work, you're not going to be able to do much. This isn't to say that it shouldn't be done by the way, I for one would like to see a proper Stratofortress in DCS, as well as the Bone and the Spirit. One of the things I want to do is create a team that tackles these very challenges, modeling the less understood aircraft into full fidelity modules. And part of the reason I'd aim to do the BUFF is because it does have a market. There are those players that don't like the frantic, high-speed action of the Fighter Lifestyle, and prefer the slower action that a transport or bomb truck offers... so why not give them what they want? Odds are they'd load up a catapult full of cash and launch it at whoever decides to do it!

For starters, as has been said several times, that's not the only mission profile the B52 flew. B52s that pummeled North Vietnam took off from bases in Cambodia if I understand correctly. They typically took off after Lunch, and were back by Lunch.

And the funny thing is a few weeks after that interview, Anubis released the C-130, and servers exploded with the thing. I'd say that the constant take off, fly, blow shit up, RTB, repeat isn't necessarily for everyone, and doing Helicopter Logistics isn't much better either right now. The C-130J offered something that many people wanted, but just wasn't there, and it certainly became a case of "Oh it will never catch on".... to the point I think like a third of my unit is people who just want to fly the C-130.