Tank50us

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?

Funny enough, we have Mosquitos with handbags... Though our Mosquitos are made of wood and have a bit more..... bite... (like if you get the reference)

Correct. If ED fixed it in the next patch for example, and RB immediately came back to a "Completely Different Code" to what they left, they could, in theory, turn around and sue ED for it. Personally, I think a temporary agreement could be done to where RB at least keeps their modules working even if they're not doing any further development until a more permanent solution can be worked out. That said, I think ED should adopt a policy of "Once the module is in players hands, we get a copy of the source code with every update in the even something happens and the 3PD can't continue". As for what that would mean, well, if Daves Sim Service can't maintain their Buccaneer because their lead coder and designer were incapacitated in a car accient, ED still has the source code and can continue the development, or at least keep it maintained until DSS can find replacements (which can take time). Obviously a fictional scenario, but a good example of how it could work.

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?