sirrah

Exactly! Hence, my attempt of "campaigning" in that thread for some example screenshots.. Until now, all in vein.. If these screenshots where added, to indicate the 'synthetic look', the poll outcome would have been different.

Ah yes, it's random indeed The only way to currently make sure everyone sees the same, is to destroy everything within that zone (set the value to 100%) and place zones over each object you want to see as destroyed. Cumbersome exercise... Your wish makes sense

Perhaps by reducing (or completely stop) the amount of sales. I mean, people can tryout allmost everything for free 28 days a year Heck, if you plan well, you can pretty much fly FF modules the entire year, for free I know, ED knows best how to run their business and I'm certainly all for paying for work. I however strongly agree with @Razorback that asset packs, in order to be able to see better quality models (or maybe even see models at all) are not a good way forward. I think I'd rather even see that "out of the question" monthly subscription (I know that's not going to happen). But maybe, although it's part of the newsletter, this discussion is not for this thread.

Dear everything that's holy! This is going to be a huge game changer for SP

Forgive my ignorance, but are you saying that this function does not work for MP? I'm pretty sure I've seen destroyed shelters on the 4YA Sinai server recently (just after mission restart), but maybe those are "baked in" into that map.

Yes, that would indeed be cool. But my wish goes a bit further than that. I'd also very much like to see being able to (re)position those Howitzer by slingloading them. So, insert them in the battlefield and they automatically start attacking enemy units within their range and LOS. (kinda like what CTLD does now with mortar teams, but then better... Because in CTLD those teams pretty much never work) You are right, there's lots of potentially great scenarios. My "fear" is just that it will lean highly on properly made user created content (missions). Nothing wrong with that. There are some true mission design artists out there. But, I just think, with so many modules out now, there's a high chance that the "supply" of good user created missions will not be enough to keep us SP rotor-heads occupied for a long time. As for MP: If you don't have the time to commit yourself to a proper team/squadron, you are dependent on the populated open servers (e.g. 4YA or any of the PVP servers). And although they try their best, there's really just no use for cargo transporters like the Huey, Hip (and soon'ish Chinook and Hercules) on those servers. If ED would manage to implement some sort of "use" for cargo transporters in their core game, that would make it lean less on user created content and give us a reason to select that UH-1H or CH-47F slot in a MP mission. I know I'm being quite vague and I'm not sure exactly how it can be done. Maybe the only answer is; wait for the Dynamic Campaign. I guess (although it's nice to try and avoid having cargo crates tip over), as a big fan of helo ops, I hope to see more useful transport functionality, than just realistic cargo physics inside cargo holds. But, as @TheGhostOfDefi already said, let's wait and see

hehe noice Check out who has the biggest smile too (and no, the dude on the left is actually crying)

Not in VR. Also, I'm thinking more about very simple commands, or maybe even one "move to/attack" command. I guess what I'm trying to say (in my best English ), is that I hope ED finds a way to make transporting cargo more useful, without the need for extensive mission design editing. Slingloading (and/or transporting heavy loads) on its own is fun and rewarding, but once one masters it, there isn't much use for it.

Yes, I've read that as well. It's not saying anything though, about the player being able to give those slingloaded vehicles and/or dropped infantry squads certain orders. Slingloading stuff around, has already been a thing in DCS for a long time now. But until now, it is very dependent on the mission designer to add all kind off triggered actions to those slingloads. Otherwise slingloading is completely useless. Especially with eye on the larger MP scenarios out there (like 4YA), I wish ED would make slingloading (and in general transporting units/goods) more useful and interactive and implement that into DCS' core. Increase the usefulness of helo's/aircraft like the Huey Hip (and at some point Chinook/Hercules), and make their functionality less mission designer dependent. Pretty much what CTLD does, but maybe with a bit more interactive options, like being able to give dropped off units some basic (attack) commands. I hope ED is already planning to add some of the abovementioned functionality in their cargo system overhaul and that they don't limit the improvements to moving static cargo around.

I really hope ED will include cargo drop options that give the Chinook some sort of offensive functionality (sort of like what we have with CTLD now, but integrated in DCS core) For instance: The ability to load/unload a complete artillery teams, which can be strategically placed on the battlefield. Or (undoubtedly difficult to implement, but one can dream): The ability to slingload a few light vehicles and some infantry teams to the front, keep those units on hold while the player is slingloading more units/teams and then, allow the player the ability to give those units some simple (attack) tasks via the F10 map.

For that, you can just use the ctrl-F11 view and then use RSHIFT-* (numpad *) to very quickly "fly" around. Or zoom in on the F10 map and hit ctrl-F11 to view that specific area. Time acceleration hits performance quite heavily (especially on older systems)

As an option, sure, why not. But please, at least make it look like this:

And yet, it is actually smaller

Off topic, but can you please share a link to this news? (Don't get me wrong, I wish you were right.. maybe something for the upcoming "2024 and beyond" video teaser)

Since when do aircraft "drive thru active battlefield"? (read the OP again )

Seems you have an old fashioned idea of VR in its current state. But to stay on topic: ED (and their third parties) are capable of recreating the most extended and comprehensive (publically available) aircraft simulation ever. I'm sure they know how to calculate and implement the correct distance over time values, and general dimensions of objects. So, all these threads about perception of speed (there are lots; just use the forum search) are related only to... well.. personal perception. The sim has it right, it's our hardware (proper fov, as mentioned before) that is preventing us from really experiencing the sense of speed. There's nothing "wrong" with DCS on this part. off topic: Personally, I don't understand why the VR market isn't focusing more on fov (apart from maybe Pimax). To me, that part of VR is by far screaming the most for improvement.

Not sure (at some point you just know things I guess). They might be found under UI layer controls. There's also a key command for "back to normal speed"

You can use time acceleration ctrl-z (and alt-z to decelerate) Track replays can be dodgy though. Not sure, but I can imagine that time acceleration makes it even more sensitive to errors.

Although I'm not saying the jtac part of DCS is perfect (you guys mentioned some fair points), but imho, it's pretty much the best and most extended part of DCS' current ATC system (apart from the SC comms of course). I'd much rather see ED improve other ATC parts first. Starting with proper airfield communications (ground, tower, departure). I know, all in good time, and just my 2 cents

Hmm nice, I suppose I should start and give ATT hold a try (I never bothered until now and just manually kept it stable)

You want a full fidelity Tow Tractor? That is original, hats off! Haven't seen that wish before

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3312246/ Nice pics @Jonay . Funny, how some of the best experiences in DCS, are sometimes not even directly combat related.

I said it a couple of times (in this thread and in a DM to @Raz_Specter) There's just too little information added in this poll, to base a deliberate decision on. One or two example comparison screenshots, indicating the pro's and con's for both choices, would help.