upyr1

The basic problem with modern products is that it can be difficult to find the data on them. Right now we have the F-35A, and Eurofighter Typhoon on the way. However we really don't need to be as accurate with AI. For example the J-15 its way more advanced than the Su-33 we have we don't have enough data for a J-15 module but you may have enough information for a good AI asset. Frankly I don't care when the cold war ended, we need more assets for all eras. The F-4 Phantom needs some 1960s and 70s assets the F-35A needs modern

I'm not saying don't stop development I am just pointing out that I don't know if he's trying to be funny if this is an actual concern (right now) but I empathize with someone dealing with a feature getting reported as a bug. So I want optional random weapons failures.

There is some Merch I just wish we was easier to find.

I don't have to be the one dealing with the bug reports to have empathy for those who do.

I work in customer service. I deal with stupid people all day.

Bug reports. if you're failing to launch a missile is that a bug or a realistic failure? Someone who doesn't rtfm will figure it's a bug.

This would be a good option, but I would have it disabled by default

I posted "I want it all" by Queen as a simple reminder of how the wish list works. Please don't be the guy that Frankie was singing about in the line as funny as it may seem Some people get their kicks Stomping on a dream It's important to remember that in the virtual skies of DCS there are going to be some modules you simply don't want. That doesn't mean other people don't want it. DCS lives or dies based on ED and the other developers abbility to provide as many differnt modules in as many differnt eras as possible. I make jokes that the official DCS wishlist is published by Janes. He's passed away but the A-26 pilot I know was also a P-38 pilot. No matter which version we get I'd love to have Newt's Livery in DCS

Those also on my wwii wish list.

Other sims are irrelevant around here. edit and besides its an F-16 sim and I want the A-26 I already have the F-16 I want to have as many different vehicles from as many different eras as possible, as both playable modules and AI assets. I use the word vehicle because I want to see tanks, ships, anything else you can think of. There are limits to what we can get; however, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ask for things. This is the stinking Wish list. What is important to remember is that just becuse you don't want a module doesn't mean other people don't. So what DCS always needs are more developers, modules, and assets.

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/613-dcs-eurofighter/ The Eurofighter is on the way https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1300-dcs-f-35a/ and so is the F-35. You know what we're really lacking? Korean and Vietnam era planes- and as stated earlier, the A-26 served in both wars. I really dis like the Do X instead of Y threads I say wether or not you want to buy a module, please agree with the Farrokh Bulsara school of module development, "I want it all"

More assets are welcome, as are more modules.

The natural home for the MiG-17 would be Vietnam. They didn't see action in Korea, and the German, Sinai, and Iraqi maps we have are all set in the wrong period. I'm not saying I won't be flying the MiG-17 there (because you use what you got.)

Thanks for the list if variants.

SUggest would have worked better than offer which would have worked better than offend which I think could be an auto correct error like ducking mad

why not both? I really hate these X instead of Y threads when Y has been announced.

I'm not sure which variant(s) but this would be good for WWII to the Vietnam era

Shame. Looking at the naval module line up the 1980's configuration would work quite well.

Why not actually contribute something here?

I'm asking if we can get later configurations as well. The class (especially New Jersey) served off and on until 1992

Yes

This would be awesome especially if we could add voices.

I can see two possible answers. option 1- crank down infantry hit points so that all if not most, hits are insta-kills. Option 2- toss in a damage model and medivac. The ideal human damage model might be the following. First is a floating-point to calculate HP. Next have a variable called wound-size. - Wound size would calculate how many hit points a solider loses every second. A healthy solider will have a wound size of 0 then when ever a solider gets hit wound size would grow based on the severity of the hit. Lastly, and an incapacitation check- This check a randomly generated floating point to see if you get 1 which triggers incapacitation the system might do a role every mili-second, starting at 20% HP loss and increasing until you hit 40% damage, where the role is always 1. The unit would continue to bleed based on the wound size. Lastly especially good for helicopter pilots wounded ground troops will hit trigger a dust-off or some sort of medivac. The compromise would be to incapacitate a unit once it hits X amount of damage and don't mess about with the bleeding. Still give us the medivac mission

This would be cool

I expect ED to shoot some of not all the ideas down. I'm going to go over each one. First paid ATC- ATC should be part of DCS core this is the type of thing that would really cause problems online. Improved terrain- most maps are already paid DLC. Wether or not people are willing to buy upgrades of stuff they already own comes down to cost and what they get. I could see a lot of interest in buying an expanded Pascific map that includes the Marianas (provided it won't melt your CPU) as well as an expanded Caucuses map using a set up like Afganistan where everyone gets access to a low detail map for online games. I could also see the same deal working for the Nevada map- make the expanded version the US South West which ideally would ideally include Fallon, Mirimar, and Holloman. If the developers could coordinate ED a massive Mid east map would be awesome. The idea for the mega mideast map would be ED would work on a very small strip around each map Dynamic campaign- I could see this going either way. I believe ED wants to make this part of DCS core, the main argument against doing it this way is I think it would have been done a lot sooner. As long as you don't need the dynamic campaign to connect to a server with a dynamic campaign running I don't see any issues.