Tank50us

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?)

One thing that would be kinda interesting, at least to me, is when the Airfields are reworked and the ground crew added, if we could see the pilot doing a walk-around of the aircraft while we're selecting the weapons or in the 'briefing' screen. An interesting thing to add to that is that once we're "ready to fly", we get an animation of our pilot climbing into the pit, the ground crew pulling the ladder, and the crew chief giving you a thumbs-up to indicate the crew is clear and you're ok to start the plane (maybe even giving you the gesture to start the engine(s)?), and then moving away. What do you guys think? Personally, I think the latter half would be good for immersion, especially those in VR (if they can 'strap in'), and externally, players can toggle it on or off if they can't handle the extra animations going on around them.

Tactics also play a part. After all, destroying the SAM/AAA site is one thing... but finding it is another. And the best way to find them, is to get them to shoot at something. Today that part of the mission can be accomplished with drones (because who cares if a Drone doesn't come home, they don't have mothers), but within the realms of DCS, someone's drawin' the short straw and making the Radar light up.

Not just the J-8. The Su25T and KA-50-III are hodge-podge aircraft kinda based on multiple aircraft within the family. The real Su25T for example was an experimental model, and looked more like the Su25A we have in game. The model we have in DCS is more or less based on the Su39 (AKA Su25TM). This all being said, I'd like to see aircraft get multiple variations for each module, even those that never entered service, or even got off the drawing board. The XL could have the cockpit avionics of the more modern F-16s, but a wide HUD like the F-15E (which it was originally conceived to compete against). I'm personally all for the idea of alternate history, and letting the mission makers choose what goes into a mission. More options the better IMHO.

I didn't say the only way to play would be jumping between the pilot and Bombardier. The other positions would be multi-crew open, but just like with the Tomcat or the upcoming F-4, plans have to be made for the fact that not everyone will want to be in those seats. I mean heck, it'd be nice to get 210 people together to do a fully simulated B-17 Mission... plus the escorts and interceptors... but I think DCS server software caps out at 64 people XD

With the release of "Masters of the Air", I got to thinking of what it would be like to be at the controls of the Mighty Flying Fortress. Obviously, in DCS, this would be an immense undertaking. But if it were up to me to make it, I'd go with the following: Version I'd start with an Early B-17G, since those are the ones (along with the late Gs) still around. Eventually other models would be introduced, even going to the earliest model of the aircraft. Control The player would be in control of the Left Seat (Pilot in command), and would be able to switch to the Bombardier seat. The reason for this is because when on the final attack heading, control of the aircraft is handed over to the Bombardier. Gunners As you know, the B-17 has about 8 gunners, and while it would be nice to have each station controlled by a player, the reality is that just won't happen with the DCS player base. On top of that, a typical mission for the B-17s involved a minimum of 21 Forts, with a full crew that'd be over the 210 players just in Forts. To fix this, the gunners would be handled by an AI "Gun Director" that the PIC will have a commo control over. You can tell them to when to fire, and whether or not to focus their fire, and maybe even prioritize certain targets over others. Another thing that would be present, would be an optional "Gunner Status" indicator that uses a series of heartbeat monitors to show their stress level, or if they're even alive. The more stress the gunners are under, the worse their accuracy, and the more ammo they waste. The future If done, the same tech that goes into the B-17 that can be pushed into other WW2 era bombers. Namely the B-24 and B-29. What do you guys think?

Another thing that would be nice is if we could set up the presets in a separate window by radio type, and have it apply to all aircraft/units that use that radio.

Given that the Penguin is also a Helicopter launched weapon, maybe it could be be used from Helicopters that could reasonable launch it (not just those currently certified to launch it). Sure, it's unrealistic, but is it really a stretch to consider the possibility of an AH64 user retrofitting their Apaches to use an AShM they may have in abundance? Alternatively, we can also have its surface launched model as a Short-range Blue-Force counter to the Silkworm (A land-launched Harpoon would be the Long-ranged counter)

So, as many of you know when it comes to the Cold War and even the current day, there were a lot of things that were tested, but either never got accepted for service or never left the drawing board. These wouldn't be for players to use, but it would be kinda interesting to see them as AI units. Such examples are: Arsenal Ship: a potential US Navy counter to something like the Kirov-class Large Missile Cruiser ADATS: In limited use by Canada, but was proposed for use in the US MBT-70: A joint venture between the US and Germany. A few examples were built, but the project was canned and both countries looked into something better (M1 Abrams and Leopard 2 respectively) YB49: A flying wing bomber that saw an initial production run, but was canned and scrapped after a very high profile crash. Object 279: An early cold war era Soviet tank designed to take a nuke in the face and keep going. Well, more or less designed to operate in a post-nuclear wasteland, but still.... XB-70 Valkyrie: A Supersonic jet bomber that although designed to deliver nuclear weapons could still deliver conventional bombs. Two were built, but the program was canned due to the advancement of Soviet SAMs USS United States: A conceptual Aircraft Carrier that was laid down but canceled to give funding for the B-36 "Peacemaker". And many more. Again, these wouldn't be player controlled (well, outside of the current Combined Arms), but they would add a bit to the Cold War setting, and play well into some alternate history scenarios.