Tom P

Currently the default option is everything is on the MFD when it should be the other way around. So instead of a option to Hide a unit there should be a option to "Show" on MFD. Unless you suggest that intel is that great so we know exactly where everything is on the battlefield. (this is satire) But anyways, I could be wrong but I think most mission makers would like the objects to be hidden by default and make things a lot easier. Why: So mission makers don't have to go through every unit to hide them from populating on a MFD or COORD page. Instead the key focus targets or main threats are the ones populating on the MFD with using a Show on MFD option. First example: AH-64. The apache automatically adds every single unit (Friendly & enemy) to it's COORD pages and there's only 9 pages and it populates very quick. And if there is a mission maker or campaign maker using units to populate a base those 9 coord pages are now completely filled. And if you're in the cockpit and have to remove those populated units, its a one by one process. Do you see where I'm going with this? So if we're playing a mission or campaign that someone else made and all 9 pages are full from auto populating, but we need to add a waypoint with a control measure, lets say a friendly unit. Now the user needs to go into the coord page, do the process to delete one of those automatically populated points, pause the game, read the message history for the grid again because they're to busy deleting a point that shouldn't be there by default. This example is very real in DCS and would be prevented if the default behavior was set to hidden on MFD. Last example: F-16. The HSD page only shows units that have a radar. If a mission maker is adding radar guided AAA or SAMs they're automatically populating on the HSD. So by default the MFD/HSD is spaghetti soup full of threat rings. If there's a vulcan 100 miles away and nowhere close to the route or objective area, it's populating on the HSD. And if the mission maker doesn't want those units to be seen they have to go through them in the editor and hide every single one.

Yeah it's super annoying

Depends on the set up. I'm using this as I have a desk mount. https://www.monster.tech/en/product/winwing-panel-holder-v2/

I don't have combined arms. I'm just talking from a mission editor perspective.

Not sure if this belongs in the weapons bug category but since it's dealing with a weapon I will post it here. The M2A2 Bradley does not have the option to select HE or AP rounds. The LAV-25 has this option, both vehicles share the same chain gun. Not sure what it's currently shooting as a default.

@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

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.