Tank50us

One thing I just thought of that, an FC3 style aircraft could be a "Minimal Shippable Product" for any team working on a modern aircraft. A simpler aircraft that has some of the avionics taken out so that it's in our hands sooner. As development continues, a 'later' model of the aircraft can get be tossed in to entice people to buy the 'upgrade'. Similar with the A-10A and A-10C and CII. Obviously, this won't work with multi-crew aircraft, but if a team wanted to add an aircraft like... for example... the F-2A "Viper Zero", the initial release, could be of FC3 level fidelity, but the multi-crew F-2B could be added later, and made available. null Just some food for thought

I wasn't talking about an FPS, I'm just saying that as the fidelity for DCS has increased to the point where we can see what the infantry are doing through our T-Pods, the expectations have changed.

This. The challenge is ultimately that ED is having to build all of the animations from scratch. While many are generic (moving around, ground handling signals, etc), there are some that are specific to certain equipment or actions (like reloading an M16 vs reloading an AK, working a bolt-action rifle, reloading certain launchers, etc), and on top of that once the animations are made, they still have to be 'married' to a proper models, which still need to be made. And when you consider that DCS covers a combat arena that literally spans the globe, and a time span of about 90 years (the I-16, which is the oldest aircraft in DCS, first flew in 1933, while aircraft like the F-15E are still in use today), you can probably imagine how much work has to go into the proper modeling of infantry. Now, before the implementation of helicopters back before the KA50, basic infantry was viable. But now we have helicopters in DCS that have targeting cameras that can tell if you've shaved this morning, the 'basic' infantry idea no longer holds up. A certain Arcade Flight game franchise ran into a similar problem, and had to adjust before it's last two major entries.

Personally, what's needed is a way to "Draw" walls in the mission editor. Placing them individually is fine if you're placing them around a command center or something, but the moment you try to place one around an airbase it gets to "KMN" levels of insanity. That all being said, your plan works too.

I would say that depends on the type of attack involved. A strafing run by a P-47 would have at least some warning to it, as you'd hear the Jug from quite a ways out before it even turns in for the attack run. Compared to an attack by a low-altitude flying F-16, which you may not even know was there until they flew past you at near super-sonic speeds releasing its Snake Eyes. It would also depend on just how much communication the attacked unit has with GHQ. So, basically, I do agree that there should be some delay in the reaction of the unit, but also whether or not they disperse before you make the attack.

Since we're getting more and more Mid-Cold War era aircraft in the coming years, it'd be nice if we had the appropriate USN Helos of the era as well, even as AI Assets. Namely, the SH-2 Sea Sprite, and SH-3 Sea King. Both helicopters were used heavily in ASW, Plane Guard, HUREP, personnel transport, SAR, and other duties. Both were also used by several NATO allies, with one even being flown by the British Royal Family in the Falklands. I know the SH3 is buried deep in the game files, but that one is obviously in need of some serious work.

Yup. The venerable C-130. Though I think it'd be nice if we had their civil variants as well, or at least some built-in liveries for them.

The specific thing I'm aiming for here is the ability to allow units to respawn. The respawning options I'd like to see is as follows: "Respawn at start location": Basically, the unit respawns at the location it's set up at in the Mission Editor. An example would be a group of tanks spawning at a base. "Respawn at Base/FARP/Ship": Limited to aircraft and helicopters, but this would allow a unit that initially starts in the air, to respawn at a base, carrier, or FARP if applicable. For example, a flight of F-15s can spawn at an airbase, but can't spawn at a FARP or on a carrier. "Respawn in Zone": Akin to above, this is more for those instances where after a unit is destroyed, it respawns somewhere in a designated zone. "Respawn on activation": Basically, the ability for players to manually spawn a unit. An example of this is if a multiplayer mission is set up so that there are selectable missions, for example a Bomber Escort mission, where after the mission is complete, all of the units involved that weren't killed are deactivated, and all of which are 'put back in the box', ready to spawn back in once a player chooses the option again. What do you guys think? Would you like to see some of the MOOSE scripting being available as part of the base Mission Editor?

Me pointing out the interior aspects was more to do with the fact that so much information on the Fletcher-class is available, we even know the fully deck layout. Obviously this would be great for a full simulation of the ship, but it would also be useful to know if you want to show the ship sinking properly depending on where it actually got hit. The same does apply even to modern ships as knowing what goes where means that you can have a more accurate damage model as well. An example would be if a Harpoon did a pop-up attack on a (for example) Udaloy-class, and hit directly amidships. Knowing where the engine room is, and knowing how far the Harpoon can 'punch through' can determine if that ship is going to shrug off the hit, or be disabled and dead in the water from a lack of power. The way ships weapons and ships are now is very simplistic, and ships can remain largely combat effective until that last HP is gone. As for the bits on classification, I did acknowledge we know what systems are on various ships. That much is even advertised by the various Navies. What's classified is the more intricate details of those systems. Max range and any maneuvering can be surmised, but, like you said earlier, how many missiles a single Aegis system can direct, that information is classified. How much power the Arliegh Burkes engines can put out when at emergency power, that's classified. What OS the CIC runs... also classified but at least it's not Windows

I was talking about the systems between a modern vessel, and one from, for example WW2. Case in point, if you want to know what kinds of systems a Fletcher-class destroyer had, the research cost is merely a plane ticket and an admissions ticket to USS Kidd, since she's a museum ship and (until recently, thanks to needing some work done) open to the general public. What the ships could do, how they performed, and even their exact interior layout is all public information. Compare that to one of the newer Arliegh Burkes (the upcoming Flight IIIs specifically), or the Zumwalt-class. Being brand new ships, their actual capabilities are either speculative (IE, we know they have X because it's either advertised or visible, but the exact nature of them is unknown), or just straight up classified. Even their interior layout is likely to be classified. And with the weapons capability, it's typically something that's advertised by the Navy, but the exact number of weapons, and amount of ammo for them is going to be both kept close to the chest, or will vary depending on mission requirements. Now, is there enough information to make the ship, and give it some capability in DCS? Oh yeah. But to get the ship to be properly simulated, the more modern ships just won't have enough information for that, thus, the best option for ED and other Devs is just to go with the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than try to model each one out. For example if they decided to make a Fletcher-Class Destroyer, a class that had about 175 ships built, the best option here would be a representation of the class as they appeared in WW2, and the best candidate for that would be USS Kidd as she's still in her WW2 configuration (albeit with one torpedo launcher missing as she was built for heavier AA work), and then pick one of the few that received the "FRAM" upgrades for an early-mid Cold War configuration.

Yeah I think in this sense the devs were trying to go for the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than the an accurate representation of them (which for modern ships is hard to do because they're classified). That all being said, it shouldn't be that difficult to keep this as part of the game, and give the Mission Editors the ability to set the ships up in ways that make sense for the scenario. Each ship would still have a default loadout, this would be perfectly fine, but if someone wanted to, for example, simulate an earlier 'model' of the Perry, a couple sliders and a drop-down or two showing different weapon options and configurations should be relatively easy to do, especially since we now have that for the fuses on bombs (with some of the options changing the way the thing looks as well).

Given the nature of the CCP/PLAAF, wouldn't the H-6 we have just be a Chinese manufactured later-model Tu16? (By that, I mean the fact that they tend to take whatever the Russians/Soviets make, then switch the Russian lettering for Modern Chinese... and maybe make a few tiny tweeks to say it's totally not a copy)

I'd like this. However, given how many kills a single pilot can accumulate in DCS, I think it'd have to be an available 'decal' with a preset number of kill tallies.

I mean, if ED can set it up where the airfields have a more realistic 'zones' for the AI to figure out where it is, that would go a long way. Alternatively, they could allow us to do it using the trigger zones and using the script to designate what they are so the AI can navigate them. There's certainly a few of options ED could undertake.

Agreed. Col. Robin Olds flew the P-38J in Europe... even got an accidental kill while he was in a glide and barely beat the P-38s Compressibility issue. For those that aren't familiar with the term, it basically means that as you get closer and closer to the speed of sound, the air around your leading edges 'compresses', and creates a pocket of what is effective 'dead' air behind it. This in turn means that if your plane isn't built for it, the control surfaces will attempt to 'bite' air that isn't actually there, and you get no response. Olds only survived because he got into the denser air at low altitude where the control surfaces finally had something they could bite into and control the aircraft. Right after he avoided the hard interaction with the ground, a BF109 bounced onto his tail, and only careful flying allowed him to turn the tables and score a kill. Though I think after this, his P-38 was written off as the G-load ripped bits off the plane, and bent the frame.

Yeah I can see this. Like, you place a 'marker' down on your map, and it presents a coordinate that you can program into the NavComputer for the more modern jets, or have an option where you can see a representation of your position on the map for something like a warbird (which may not be that accurate, but it'd be enough to find your way to an airfield). One thing that would also be nice is if when you're in the rearming page you get a pop-up that allows you to pre-program the GPS guided bombs, since that was usually done by the ground crews anyway. This would be accomplished by having a tick mark (like we have for the fuse) on the bomb option, and then you get a map that pops up that you can manipulate, and chose the target point for the bomb. You could also get a mark on the map that shows where you programed your other bombs so you don't accidentally program 3 of 4 bombs to hit the same target.

Actually, you have several Viper and Hornet users that could make use of such a system as per their defense strategy. Sweden, Finland, Norway all share the same basic plan for a Soviet/Russian invasion in that the fighter squadrons scatter. In those scenarios you'd need either an aircraft with a hook in order to land on those short A runways, or an aircraft that can throw the thrust into reverse (like the Viggin). So part of the turn-around for the aircraft in those scenarios is to have the ground crew reset the hook while the pilot goes and takes five minutes to get a snack.

Yeah, they have more important things on their plate at the moment. But it's possible for a 3rd party to develop it, and would probably be a good way for a 3rd party group to get their foot in the door with ED.

The new damage models are being tested out on the Warbirds. Warbirds like the P51 are a bit more simplistic since they don't have to worry about all the fancy electronics and such like a Viper or Hornet would. You'll see the results of this in the upcoming F-4E, as it'll be the first jet with this new damage model added. The reason it's taking so long isn't that it's a low-priority subject, it's that trying to realistically simulate what happens to an aircraft when it gets hit takes a lot of coding (and DCS is filled with Spaghetti code, part of what Vulkan is meant to fix), a lot of studying (there's probably TB worth of data on this stuff, from journals to wind tunnel tests to break-bird tests), and finally a lot of simple trial and error (you don't want a .303 rifle round having the same effect as an 8.8cm, right?). So, yeah. It just takes a bit of time to work on. And keep in mind, modern aircraft are made from a wide variety of materials. Steel, Aluminum, Titanium, Carbon Fiber, Rubber, etc. Part of the reason to trial it on Warbirds is that while many of the aforementioned materials were used, they were used in ways that makes damage a bit more predictable. Translating that to a modern jet takes time. As I said, you'll likely see the first iterations of this in the F-4. They've mentioned already that lights (as an example) don't just have a simple "on or off", they will flicker, flutter, and dim realistically in the Phantom. This tech and coding will eventually find its way into the existing modules, with older aircraft (like the F-86) being more prone to failures (like you gun sight taking a nap) than newer planes. With the sheer number of modules this will effect, it's gonna take some time, and I'm fairly certain ED and the third party's are going to prioritize their most popular modules over their less popular ones when it comes time for a proper rollout.

I think what he's aiming for is something like this part of ACAH (not trying to talk about the game, just using this sequence as an example of such an animation in play):

I mean, most of the animations could be ported to infantry units just fine, especially the climbing-ladders animation and salutes. If ED adopts a "common rig" for all human animations, then it would make it possible for such animations to be used by armored troops like those at a FARP reloading helicopters.

Great for Navy jets, not so much for the Viper, MudHen, or (upcoming) Phantom... since they don't have them in game.

I mean, in a scramble situation, it's even less. I don't know about other countries, but the USAF that dude is off the ladder, and has yeeted it in ten seconds. Meanwhile the pilot is clipping the straps in place. A minute would be them being casual about it, so the real time it takes is probably less than 30sec. Heck, it could just be the few seconds of the pilot getting in and putting the straps on (which itself is like... a few seconds?), and while you're doing your BIT test in the Viper the ladder is moved away followed by the CC going "You're clear for startup". The straps bit could also be hidden from view if the pilots body is hidden, but you'd still see the ground crew pull the ladder, and probably the pins/covers before clearing the aircraft.

The walk-around would be an external view of the aircraft, similar to the view VR users have of the Su33. The pilot/GIB would be just walking among the ground crew.

It takes what? Maybe a minute from the moment the pilot is in the pit until the Crew Chief is clear of the aircraft? It'll probably take that long for everything to properly load around you anyway. But, as you know from other posts for eye candy, I am always in favor of it being optional. Very much this. And in the animation you may not necessarily see them attaching the weapons to the aircraft (that is a process that takes about 10-20min IRL), but you'll see the weapons on their karts or ejector racks when attached to the aircraft. This wouldn't go full immersion, but it would give the player something more visual when selecting their weapons load. If done right, the player could even interact with some of the weapons, namely setting fuses, laser codes (especially since that last bit is done on the ground anyway), and GPS coordinates (maybe with a clickable map to represent the programming even?)