upyr1
-
Posts
4371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by upyr1
-
-
5 hours ago, draconus said:
.
Why?
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
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, celestHawk said:
Fair enough, I didn't read the rules just got free time in a while and decide to trough my two cents around
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 dreamIt'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.
7 hours ago, _Hoss said:A-20G is good for ETO and PTO.
P-38L, same situation...
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
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, _Hoss said:
A-20G is good for ETO and PTO.
P-38L, same situation...
Those also on my wwii wish list.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, celestHawk said:
Why waiting on Korea era when you have BMS and with the last update 4.38 soon the graphics will be even better than DCS maps.
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
9 hours ago, celestHawk said:However do you think that we should get every plane from specific era?
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.
9 hours ago, celestHawk said:Don't think is possible though. In matter of fact I personally heard about 'A' classification of airplanes 30 years ago while started playing such games and it was A-4 and nothing till yesterday about 26 or any in between. Cheers!
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.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, celestHawk said:
Why don't someone make it as a flyable model and then to see how 'good' will be yet another WWII era plane when so many people crave for Grippen and Eurofighter as long as F-35?
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"
-
1
-
-
On 8/12/2025 at 12:59 PM, Schmidtfire said:
I think it's more important to get much more AI aircraft and units into DCS World. We have plenty of flyable aircraft.
But that's perhaps another discussion
More assets are welcome, as are more modules.
-
2
-
-
On 8/10/2025 at 2:30 PM, Mike Force Team said:
@Silver_Dragon You are correct the Mig-29A will be release soon. This full-fidelty module will be a welcome change. Dekka has no release any new information lately J-811 jet. It is not clear how this upcoming module will be received in the DCS community. Hopefully, Dekka will release an update before the end of 2025. Red Star Simulations is working diligently on the Mig-17. The Mig-17 is more likely to be at home on a Vietnam Map, a Korean map, or possibly the Sinai map. I am eagerly waiting for an update on the Mig-21 bis version 2.0 update.
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.)
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:
Good as a multiera light bomber (WW2/Korea/Vietnam/CION)
My data:
A-26B-1 Invader Attack
Man Rtng: 2.0/1.0 Damage Value: 31
Size: Medium Bombsight: Ballistic
Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Rng Cruise Full Power
Low: 180 280
Med: 220 313
Ceiling: 6735 m Engine Type: RP
Cruise Range: 1232 nm Int Fuel: 2387 kg
Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1816 kg
Off Guns: 6 M2 .50 cal. (1.8)
Def Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. in remotely-controlled dorsal & ventral turrets (0.3)- 8 500 lb or 4 1000 lb bombs
Remarks: In Svc: Sep 44
Dorsal turret can be locked facing forward, total offensive gun attack 2.2.A-26B-50 Invader Attack
Man Rtng: 2.0/1.0 Damage Value: 31
Size: Medium Bombsight: Ballistic
Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Rng Cruise Full Power
Low: 180 318
Med: 220 328
Ceiling: 6735 m Engine Type: RP
Cruise Range: 1232 nm Int Fuel: 2387 kg
Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1816 kg
Off Guns: 8 M2 .50 cal. (2.4)
Def Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. in remotely-controlled dorsal & ventral turrets (0.3)- 8 500 lb or 4 1000 lb bombs
- 14 5 in HVAR
Remarks: In Svc: Jan 45
Provision for 6 additional M2 .50 cal. fixed in wings (add 1.8 to off Gun Atk, total of 4.2). Dorsal turret can be locked facing forward, total offensive Gun Attack 3.0 or 4.8 with wing guns. Pacific units carried 125 USG aux fuel (adds 323 kg fuel and 167 nm) vice ventral turret.
A-26C-50 Invader Attack
Man Rtng: 2.0/1.0 Damage Value: 31
Size: Medium Bombsight: Ballistic
Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Rng Cruise Full Power
Low: 180 318
Med: 220 328
Ceiling: 6735 m Engine Type: RP
Cruise Range: 1232 nm Int Fuel: ?
Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1816 kg
Off Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. (0.6)
Def Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. in remotely-controlled dorsal & ventral turrets (0.3)- 8 500 lb or 4 1000 lb bombs
Remarks: In Svc: Jan 45
A-26B with bombardier position in nose replacing 2 .50 cal. Provision for 6 additional M2 .50 cal. fixed in wings (add 1.8 to off Gun Atk, total offensive Gun Attack 2.6). Dorsal turret can be locked facing forward, total offensive Gun Atk 2.6, or 3.2 with wing guns.B-26K Counter Invader Attack
Man Rtng: 1.5/1.0 Damage Value: 31
Size/Signature: Medium/Med Bombsight: Manual
Throttle Setting/Speed in knots
Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat
Low: 140 255 --
Med: 148 269 --
High: 156 283 --
Ceiling: 8717 m Engine Type: RP(S)
Cruise Range: 1100 nmi Int Fuel: e3210 kg
Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add.
230 USG drop tank 630 kg 255 nmi
675 USG bay tank 1845 kg 745 nmi
Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 5448 kg
Off Guns: 8 M3 .50 cal in nose (3.6)- 2 LAU-3/3A rocket pods, 4 CBU-14 cluster bombs
Remarks: In Svc: 1964 - 73
Can carry 3623 kg internally, 1816 kg externally. Wing tip tanks are permanently mounted, included in the internal fuel value.- 1966: Redesignated A-26A.
- Nov 69: Last combat mission during Vietnam War.
Thanks for the list if variants.
-
1 minute ago, Horns said:
I suspect the word 'offend' has mistranslated, can you offer an alternative word (synonym)? Or am I being a dummkopf?
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
-
22 hours ago, Mikey74 said:
I know, this probably wont happen, but my 1st FF was the AV-8B back in 2018/19 i think. With all the pain we all had while EA, knowing Razbam in DCS is dead, i would like to offend ED to make a AV-8B Harrier II PLUS instead of the F-35A. Not that i dont like the F-35A, but i want my 1st Love alive and updated. Please think about it.
why not both? I really hate these X instead of Y threads when Y has been announced.
-
2
-
-
I'm not sure which variant(s) but this would be good for WWII to the Vietnam era
-
1
-
-
On 8/12/2025 at 6:46 AM, Silver_Dragon said:
ED has only talked about the WW2 version, nothing else at this time.
Shame. Looking at the naval module line up the 1980's configuration would work quite well.
-
On 7/18/2025 at 5:05 PM, SharpeXB said:
Why not actually contribute something here?
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Woogey said:
I thought we were already getting the Iowa class per the Previous PTO assets list before this new list came out? I thought ED even posted pics in one of there posts of a WIP Iowa boat. Please ED add the IOWA back into the final list.
-Woog
I'm asking if we can get later configurations as well. The class (especially New Jersey) served off and on until 1992
-
1
-
-
-
This would be awesome especially if we could add voices.
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
I'd love the AC-47 configuration
-
yes there are stars in the southern sky and I want to see them. It would be awesome to have a historically correct night sky
-
2
-
1
-
-
Only if we get more period naval assets they retired from us service in 1993. Not saying no just saying it would be awesome for a cold war environment
-
1
-
-
On 6/3/2025 at 4:23 PM, YoYo said:
But not 2 weeks ;).
Looking at this I'm wondering if this means anything in regards to the Razbam situation
35 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:I don't think so. There are enough differences between a MiG-23 and a MiG-27 for them to be two different modules. Similarly, ED is making a MiG-29A. If it makes an S or SMT in the future, they will be different modules.
I didn't think you could do a multi-pack either way both would be awesome
Randomized weapons failures
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted · Edited by upyr1
I work in customer service. I deal with stupid people all day.