Tom P

@BIGNEWY @NineLineAny chances this could be a easy addition to the mission editor?

I don't want to that guy but Razbam isn't supporting their products at this time.

Hey look it's the same usual crowd.

Unfortunately it's the same couple dozen people on this forum and we don't see the whole user experience since probably a majority of users don't know this forum is a thing. I think the issue is the team doesn't want to acknowledge the issues because there's to much on their plate already and instead of being open they rather be all smoke and shadows or hope the next shiny EA toy will distract us. Yes multiplayer is and has been popular. Need to remember not everyone has the same play style as you. Having a redfor with the same aircraft and that has the same capabilities as you is lame or trying to restrict them because they don't fit in the red role sucks. "Oh you're F-16CM that's not meant to be a red aircraft only has AIM-120s as a BVR missile? ok here's only AIM-9Ms." You cant disable datalink or remove the HMDs because eagle dynamics doesn't have the option to do that. So for example you can be on a cold war server in a F/A-18 or F-16 and rock a JHMCs with datalink all day long because there's no way to stop it. While the true Red aircraft are already at a disadvantage from the start. PVP used to be really good a few years ago but like Blackhawk said, anytime a red missile became better, somehow the 120 is superior next patch. The SD-10 was great, now it's almost R-77 hot garbage. PVE BVR combat is a joke because the blue side is so OP compared to the red flaming cliff aircraft. "Oh no a Su-27 shot at me with an Fox 1... let me notch the radar quick and do a barrel roll" Or how it really happens. "Hmm got a RWR contact from a Su-27. Fox 3..... splash."

Fully tracking this is going to be unpopular and probably not happen as a majority of players fly at 30,000ft looking at their MFD with a feed from their targeting pod. BUT! for those low and slower aircraft that actually see more then 3 pixels of a ground vehicle. I think it would be appropriate if we can have modified vehicles with mine rollers, bird cages, and Duke system antennas. Since these were widely used in Afghanistan and Iraq, this would give campaign and mission makers more tools to play with. And for those that have been over there it might just sell it even more seeing a vehicle with a duke antenna wobbling around. Possibly a better "combat" skin with sand caked vehicles as well. Just another wish to the wish list.

Probably not as popular but some non combat vehicles would add to the realism and emersion to the digital battlefield. These are modern US vehicles since that's what I know. Maybe someone else can chime in as well for other countries. As a mission maker I would 100% use these. Medical: M997 Field Litter Ambulance (FLA) medical hmmwv M133 Medical evacuation vehicle (MEV) medical Stryker Bonus (not a ground unit but on the topic of medical) UH-60L or UH-60M Medevac AI. Possible reskin of the current in game 60A. Or just reskin the 60A since it's dated. Support: M88A2 "Wrecker" Armored Recovery Vehicle. Essential in armor units, Abrams, Brads for example. M984A4 "Wrecker" Recovery Truck. LMTV version, used practically in all units with vehicles, HMMWV, Strykers for example. Other: M1117 Armored Security vehicle. Mainly used by military police, common at check points. M149A2 AKA the water buffalo. Heck yes.

Airbus A-400M: Drogue Basket tanker so hornet friendly.

Simple Request. The ability to restrict liveries. Why? Many reasons, the ability to PID by tail flash, single player missions/campaigns that are focused on a certain unit. Multiplayer missions, squadron missions, etc. We can restrict weapons

Damage models: Most of them are FUBAR. I don't know if it's to be player friendly that way players can get away with more to benefit game play. I have personally put hellfires, GBU's into a hind and it shrugged it off. Tricker has tons of videos of him hitting helicopters with multiple 25mm from a Bradley. wow what a great segue. Weapon Damage: A burst of 25mm from the above example would wreck any aircraft, especially a helicopter. I proved that anything below a 30mm rarely damages anything past 4,500ft in my SA-6 thread. How I conducted my test: Using the previous known range of 4,500ft that was the constant. I started each test with a Bradley to engage with its 25mm(since it doesn't have AP/HE in DCS which should be fixed since the LAV does...) This is a good control to start with. - a common issue, the AI shooter would think a helicopter was destroyed and would stop engaging. This is after many rounds hitting target. - I would place the helicopter on the ground as a cold start(meaning they have to start up to get airborne) right above the 4,500ft mark so around 4,520ft. And run the editor. If the helicopter survived the 25mm event, I brought it within 4,500ft. - IF the 25mm was able to destroy the helicopter that was the end of the test, move on to the next helicopter. If not, I replaced the bradley with a common 30mm unit like a BMP-2, BTR-82A, and a BMPT for faster 30mm engagements. Same method, above 4,500ft, within 4,500ft. - IF the helicopter survived the 30mm test. I moved on to a 120mm test from an Abrams or Challenger II. That's where I stopped, no offense but the Russian 125mm tanks in the game are B.S so I didn't use them (prior master gunner, fight me). Test 1: CH-47F Survived all 25mm, 30mm and 120mm engagements, took off and flew away, even with damaged rotors. Truly amazing. Test 2: AH-64D Destroyed within a few bursts of 25mm from above 4,500ft. Test stopped. Test 3: Ka-50 III 25mm destroyed it right before take off above 4,500ft. Skipped straight to 120mm, it took 22 hits to destroy it, last hit was while it was airborne. Test 4: Mi-8 25mm above 4,500ft stopped engaging because it thought the AI was dead. Was able to destroy it within 4,500ft. 30mm above 4,500ft took it out within a few burst. Test stopped. Test 5: Mi-24P Survived all 25mm & 30mm engagements. 120mm needed 7 hits to destroy it. Test 5: OH-58D Survived all 25mm & 30mm engagements. Survived the 120mm above 4,500ft engagement and took off. 120mm within 4,500ft it almost took off but after numerous .50cal and 120mm hits it was finally destroyed. Test 6: SA342 25mm destroyed it above 4,500ft within a few bursts. Test stopped. Test 7: UH-1 25mm destroyed it above 4,500ft within a few bursts. Test stopped. CH-47 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 30mm above 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 30mm within 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 120mm above 4,500ft.trk AH-64 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Ka-50 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Ka-50 vs 120mm above 4,500ft(22 hits to kill).trk Mi-8 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-8 vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-8 vs 30mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 30mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 120mm above 4,500ft(7hits to kill).trk OH-58 vs 120mm above 4,500ft.trk OH-58 vs 120mm within 4,500ft.trk SA342 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk UH-1h vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk

I would like to see this as well, probably wont happen due to people not doing many night flights "BuT mUH JhMcS". I also had my nods set up higher then the center of my eyes that way I still had plenty of aided vision looking forward and still be able to look down and see things clearly.

Completely skipped over the Hidden on MFD option. This is great, i'll forward that over to some campaign makers as well. Jazz Hands

The Request: An option to not have units auto populate on the COORD page. Possible Solutions: Use the hidden from planner option, or disabling their EPLRS(Set the unit's position datalink on/off.) The issue: When making a mission or flying a mission/campaigns/multiplayer. The units throughout the map they automatically populate on the ctrlm coord page. And it can fill up all 9 pages quickly. The second issue, if you need to make a route or add units that use control measures (FARP with ammo/fuel, bridge, friendly grids, etc) You're going to have to delete the already populated ctrlm points 1 by 1. The only way I have found to make the units not populate on the CM/CTRLM is with the "Hidden on map" option. But this also hides the unit on the F10 map so if you're using that as a blue force tracker for example now you can't see the units. I tried disabling their EPLRS, hidden from planner but nothing happens with that.

All you have to do is go on the F10 map, select the "Mark Label" circle icon from the top of the screen, click somewhere on the F10 map and it makes the mark

Good talk.

Ok in that case we need to do the same for aircraft on multiplayer servers. Aircraft got destroyed before you had a chance to slot in? Tough luck.

This is a valid request that makes sense and has been requested before. But because it makes sense, that can't happen. This is sarcasm by the way.

Because they rather add some function to a hornet or viper MFD that most won't know is there. The ground combat will always be on the back burner even though air units are the ones supporting the ground.

Bumping again, still would like to have this option so multiple vehicles aren't just sitting in the open waiting to get picked off.

As a prior Master Gunner looking at these ranges and using some common sense you can tell these are pretty fubar. I'm not going to give away information, but I would love to know where this "correct as is" information came from. The M60A3 outranging everything by over 1nm..(Greatest MBT of all time confirmed?) Hate to be the bearer of bad news but those NATO MBTs 120mm are smacking those big scary T series all day long while the challenger 2 continues to touch them at 2.8+nm. Someone must have forgot that the Challenger has the world record of a 2.75nm tank kill on a T-55 sooo there's that. I placed each unit in the same exact spot, used the ruler to measure from the center of the vehicle to it's engagement range. It's pretty lame when making missions and the units can't engage because they're ranges are wrong.

Will you be adding a waypoint property that enables direct fire engagements vs indirect fire? If so that would be great and if it can be added to the rest of the ground units.

Gotcha. No worries just figured I'd point it out as most of the armor unit ranges are all wrong anyways haha.

This little guy is outperforming almost 90% of the ground units in range. It's 76mm is ranging out to 2.68nm. While the Abrams and other 120mm MBTs are only hitting 1.87nm. A DCS comparison would be the Tk M4 Sherman 75mm which goes to 1.60nm

This is public information. Point target is 1,500 meters / 4,921 feet. Area Target is 1,800 meters / 5,905 feet. So why is the engagement ring maxed at 1,190 meters / 3,904 feet? That's 610 meters / 2,001 feet less then it's Area target range. You're downgrading the .50 by over a 1/4 mile(1,320 feet) of engagement range. I have engaged truck targets well past 1,800 meters accurately for Stryker gunnery. Side Note, this is the same story for the Bradley and Abrams. You're under performing their engagement ranges by a lot. I know it's not as cool as giving the viper or hornet some feature that 90% of the users wont use but the ground fight is and will always be a bigger role in combat. Aircraft are just supporting them.

I posted this in the bug section on the discord with video as well. The SA-6 armor has been questionable for a long time against anything below a 30mm round. Some examples: - 20mm: F-16, F/A-18 - 25mm: Bradley, LAV I got sick of this and finally did some testing to prove it. I had 2 bradleys set up as the control. The SA-6 Search Radar or Launcher within 4,500feet you can destroy. Past 4,500ft they are pretty much invincible and have a weird hitbox so it looks like a "force field" Ran this same test with a 30mm from the BMPT and was able to destroy the above mentioned SA-6 units within the first burst. I then set up 4 bradleys firing at a single SA-6 unit above 4,500ft and they did not damage the SA-6 unit from the front, side, or rear. So in conclusion a unit engaging an SA-6 with something smaller then 30mm needs to be within 4,500ft to destroy it. Bradleys, LAVs, Any aircraft with a 20mm cannon doing a strafe. P.S .50cal can penetrate the SA-6. So a 25mm APFSDS would go through it like hot butter. Also 4,500ft is 1,372 meters which is nothing for anything above a .50. Also SA-6 doesn't really have an armor rating, I played with one while I was in Poland. Super thin "armor" K I gave you the proof. Now fix it. SA-6 armor more than 4,500ft.trk SA-6 armor within 4,500ft.trk SA-6 Launcher side armor.trk SA-6 SF Rear armor.trk SA-6 armor vs 30mm.trk

Or even just ground unit sectors in general. Can we either assign sectors of fire per waypoint or request the devs to rework the logic? Attached are some examples of what I'm talking about. I know, ground combat is lame and a low priority compared to adding some feature to a hornet. But this does need to be addressed as ground units die often because they're looking in the wrong spots. The orange triangle should be the units sectors of fire. The blue line are where the barrel is pointed. These AI skill is set to excellent by the way. The image with the Brads. The far left one is looking far right even though there is an enemy to it's left about to engage them. The image with the Abrams. The lead vehicle should be looking forward of the element, the second would be looking left or right of forward movement. Both forward moving vehicles are looking behind them while there is an enemy to the front. The rear vehicle should be pulling rear security but is actually looking at their forward movement. Thanks