-
Posts
4317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by upyr1
-
As the forum knows, I believe the Iowa-class battleships would be the ideal first ship module. They served off and on from 1943 to 1992. The 1980s ED would have to develop a decent system for both gun and missile-based surface combat. Also, we have 3 maps that are either aviale or confirmed for historical scenarios and some natural opFor choices for what-if scenarios, the Yamato-class battleships and Kirov-class battlecruisers. While we have the entire Iowa-class,we're limited on the information available for the Yamato-class battleships as they are reefs and the Kirovs becuse the Russian military isn't known for making their information available. I would still try to see if a FC-style multi-class would be possible. I figure if not then we could at least get the Yamatos and Kirovs as improved AI assets.
-
Ideally we will get enough for a decent task group.
-
The British JTAC should have been added a while back we've got two iconic British war birds and the Falkland Islands
-
I was an Air Force brat and I also appreciate carrier ops, so both sound nice to me.
-
I hope this gets fixed with the planned infantry update.
-
I've got mixed feelings about variant modules. I'm not going to say no to them, for example, I would love to have love to have a proper period correct Hind for the Afghanistan map. Early model F-teens. I am always thankful when a module contains multiple variants. On the other hand, I also want to see other aircraft and vehicles added to DCS. So you always have to think which would do more for DCS? The F-16A or the F-105D? just like we also have to think would a new module or a new map or even bug fixes work? I'm not saying they shouldn't be done just the DCS Community's theme song was written by Queen, it's called I want it all I've said it before, I would love to see ED and the other developers come up with a variant module pricing model where the price is based on the amount of work necessary to produce the variants.
-
Multithread or Single Thread Option In Launcher
upyr1 replied to JimmyWA's topic in DCS Core Wish List
This would be good as long as ED plans to support ST. I expect ST will go a ways eventually -
With the Afghan map, I'd love to see some 1980s Soviet infantry as well as DHSK machine gun nests
-
first sort out the mess with Razbam In any order for everything else expanded module types. As everyone knows I would like to see some ship modules and the air boss station got me thinking about that again though to be honest so does looking at my model stash Assets All eras- we need more naval assets. I'd make it a point to focus on World War II and the 1970s/80s. I know we have some WWII ships in the works I hope and with the Naval module lineup (F-14, A-6, A-7, F-8, A-1, Harrier, and the Naval Phantom,) we have what I consider a passable 1970s to turn of the millennium carrier airwing. I'd like something passable in the way of a carrier or battleship battlegroup. Cold war- Looking at the maps and modules we have either now or in the works, the time periods I'd focus on would be the early 1950s and the 1970s around the F-4, MiG-21, Viggin, Mirage F1, MIG-19 and when they are out the F-100, A-6, A-7, F-8,F-104, and MiG-17
-
Apperntly we are getting a map of Germany, its cold war but I would love it if we got a WWII early cold war option
-
Why not just one? I figure we need a faction that will cover both the people's republic and what ever was set up in 2001.
-
Since we have an Afghanistan map, we should have Afghanistan as a faction.
- 8 replies
-
- 11
-
-
I was about to ask for Afghanistan as a nation
-
I know they are probably planned, but it would be awesome to have some 1980s Afghan war missions.
-
Dynamic threat/ detection zones in the mission editor
upyr1 replied to upyr1's topic in DCS Core Wish List
There are two ways to handle the probability side of the threat zones, one the rings are simply smaller the other you have you have color coded rings. Either The main idea is that if you are building a flight plan, you'll know how to thread the needle. There should be a dynamic/static check box. -
Dynamic threat/ detection zones in the mission editor
upyr1 replied to upyr1's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Basically. I have always thought the ME needs to provide as much information as possible. I also want to see the old mission classification system get brought back -
Training mode would be awesome,
-
fear and suppression in Las Vegas (supressed flak and EAD)
upyr1 replied to upyr1's topic in DCS Core Wish List
-
Dynamic threat/ detection zones in the mission editor
upyr1 replied to upyr1's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Your rcs and altitude can alter the ranges where you would be in danger. -
Simply releasing the updates, without announcing them would anger the community as well, as there will inevitably be someone firing up DCS to do quick flight who gets upset becuse of a surprise update. so I think you should change the title to "Instead of delaying, just announce the updates when they are ready." I understand the need for an ETA as it enables people to plan their DCS activities,
-
I'm sure I have brought this up I would love to see the size of the detection and threat zone grow and shrink based on the selected aircraft. For example, when you have nothing selected you will see the maximum range then if you select an aircraft the range will shrink based on the RCS, altitude, and the like. Right now the RCS is a fixed figure but if ED can do them more realistically then for this feature to work it would either have to be based optionally on the average RCS or the worst RCS
-
I know this has been brought up in the past, but I would like to know what ED is doing on this front, it would be nice to have the suppression part of SEAD to get modeled. Right now DEAD is our only option. Anyway once the death sticks start flying and stuff starts going boom it would be great to see air defense units start to shut down for some time. The supression flag would need to be calculated periodically and take the following into account unit type- I'd expect the crew of a gun like an 88MM would be more apt to panic than an SA-10. In short the system would need to take into account crew protection, system range, and maybe restart time. Crew training- I could see this working both ways, I could see a disciplined crew being more apt to stay and fight but I could also see a trained crew being more successful at turning their radars on and off. perceived threat types- While there should be clear limits on what a SAM crew would know, they need to have enough of an idea of what could be out there. For example a SAM crew in a historic mission where the Shrike is the most advanced ARM would behave slightly differently than a mission where they might face AGM-88s.
-
Formation Flying and AAR is Impossible!
upyr1 replied to TheSledge's topic in DCS World Tutorial & Help Requests
-
The payload editor really needs a "copy hardpoint" and load symmetrically check box. I'll use the F-4 Phantom II as my example as I have been doing a bit of dive toss as of late Symmetric load- IF you load up a wing hardpoint the corresponding hardpoint on the opposite wings gets loaded too The "copy hardpoint" command could be initiated in one of two ways, copy from and copy to Copy from you would select the targeted waypoint- for example, if I choose the centerline hardpoint, if any of the other stations have a compatible load we'll get the option to copy it. So if I have 6 X MK82s on either of my outboard hardpoints, you can copy it. Then copy to, once you have loaded a hardpoint you then can copy it to one of the other hardpoints that particular load is compatible with. So if you have 6 MK82s on your left outboard pylon you would be able to copy it too the right outboard hard point or the centerline hard point. Then once the hardpoint is loaded up, you would be able to edit the fuse and seeker head in that menu and get the option to copy it to other hardpoints with the same weapon.
-
- 2
-
-
Adding the MiG-15 and F-86 to Flaming Cliffs without the propper assests was an idiotic idea. You can now change my call sign from Typo to Don Quixote