upyr1

There are plans to include warships, I don't know what all is planned but here is what has been spotted so far. An Essex class carrier, I believe the Enterprise and a Japanese light cruiser, and carrier I don't know the class. I would love to see the Overlord invasion and Marianas fleets and my two Ahistorical requests the Alaska-class battlecruisers as well as the Kriegsmarine surface ships (Bismark and Scharnhurst class battleships, Deutschland class battlecruisers,

Big time agree on this.

The Super Hornet would be awesome!!!! The American Murder Hornet is cool

AA fire needs to be improved, we also need dual-purpose guns as well

Even if they are just AI they would be awesome to have.

Yes it would, my uncle used to play poker with a guy who flew the P-38 out of England until he got shot down. https://www.audible.com/podcast/FPP108-P-38-Lightning/B08ZYDRM4P

I've asked for this as well, I know some people try to shoot it down becuse few commands are universal, but the point of the request is to set up the most common commands. Some planes have two throttles, some have one, modern aircraft have radars and the like the warbirds don't. The real question IMHO is is how many modules would need to share a given command before it shows up on the common profiles?

This would be awesome if/when we get ground modules. My main question now is what sort of resources would it take?

This might be accurate for a tank. I have heard of a pilot during linebacker dropping an entire Phantom load of mk82s and seeing a tank drive away because he didn't score a direct hit.

We definitely need improved explosions

Someone could mod Jester via the API to do it. We will not provide Jester flying (or Iceman) at initial launch. Cheers I didn't think the ability to hand the controls to Jester would be possible at launch, though would there be any plans?

You might say it feels like a cheat, but it is realistic, in the real world Air Force Phantom pilots would let the WSO take the stick during in-flight refueling all the time becuse it was easier to do from the back seat.

ED has said no to easy mode AAR. However, there is no reason not to think about ways to improve AAR. RIght now I really wish we could get feedback from Mover or any other real aviator concerning AAR in DCS vs real life. It seems to me that the flying boom is harder than the probe and drouge method in DCS, is this the case in real life or is it just something weird about DCS? Some ideas posted so far Maybe something like this could work to improve the flying boom, the box should be smaller I'll only change my mind if I hear from SMEs saying DCS flying boom refueling is spot on. Next we have this No doubt we need better training missions over all. I've suggested having a training campaign. My own suggestion on the section was to enable Jester to take over and refuel the F-4E- that would only work in modules that use Jester and have controls in the back like the F-4E

If my vr and dcs worked in Linux I would get rid of windows

This is great news,

I didn't think you meant spawning as a downed pilot, however, I would expect most people who would want to remain in character as a downed pilot would also be the same ones who want to play as infantry. I also think that we should have better CSAR and downed pilot mechanics for the AI The idea for the downed pilot unit was so that folks do a rescue mission in SP as practice. I'll be blunt if I am shot down I would rather fly the Jolly Green giant or Sandy conducting the rescue operation however if you want to wait around to get picked up that's all on you. Either I think we can both agree better SAR would be welcomed in DCS.

You might be right that noone would want to play as a downed pilot, however adding CSAR to s would be an excellent argument for adding the mechanics to the AI. i figure you could have a pilot/airmen equipped with the proper signaling equipment in the units list. I don't know how many people want the feature to play a a downed pilot but I expect it overlaps with the same people who want to play as infantry. Either way can we at least get the AI mechanics

As someone who has suggested adding profiles called "common plane controls" and "Common helicopter controls" I think the answer would be to add a "last modified tag" When you finish setting up the "common control" profiles it will ask if you want to push the changes to your installed modules. Then when you install a new module it will read the common controls profile to set up the common controls

True, and no matter what ED wants to do map wise, they need to focus on fleshing out the asset set. Looking at the modules we either have curntly or what is planned I think ED would be best off focusing on assets for 1969-73 followed by 1951. I selelected 1969-74 since that is the era most of our cold war modules are clustered The A-1 entered service in 1945 and was retired in 1973. The F-100 entered service in 1954 and was retired by the ANG in 1979 I believe the Phantoms we have entered service is a 1974 upgrade of variant that entered service in 1970. I'm not sure about the exact blocks but the A-7E and A-6E entered service in 1970 and 1972 The Mirage f1 entered service in 1973, Then with 1951 the goal would be to start with WWII left overs

The Korean war ened in 1953, so I don't see why the lack of Korean era assets would be that big of a problem for the 1960s map. For the 1960s map I would focus on fleshing out Vietnam era asset so 1965-75 given what we have currently in DCS and lined up module-wise this would be slightly harder than the 1980s assets. As for the early cold war map (1940s/50s) the first place to start IMHO would be the late World War II Soviet assets then on to post war equipment for both sides.

This is exactly why I want diffent variants of the Map, it was expected to be the primary front during World War III during the cold war and we have a nice line up of cold war planes. First we have the F-86E and MiG-15 Bis which etners service around 1950/1 ish Then the MiG-19P and F-100 which we have in the works would place us circa 1960 The F-4 and MIG-21 we have are 1970s versions so they would be great for the 1980s map and the same holds true with the Mirage F1 and F-104 I'm not saying it would be easy to do the Fulda Gap right I'm just saying every cold war module would work with the Fulda Gap.

I say if we're going to get the Fulda Gap, don't limit it to a late cold war 1980s version. I say let's get 2 or 3 version. The late version you requested would be awesome no argument there. It would be great for the F-4, MiG-21 and MiG-23 the MiG-29 might be great but we'll need early model F-teens to be 100% realistic I would also include an early 1940s/50s version for the F-86 and MiG-15 and WWII leftovers like the La-7 and F-51. Then depenpending on how different it would from the late version a 1960 version for the MiG-19 and F-100.

Unless someone says they are working on it officially I say if you have the skills to mod then let's work on it I can test

Right now Random failure are random. I know that Ward Carol mentioned briefly how common some system failures were. You can also trigger them as well. Even if failure are exceedingly rare you can also the system could portable and put on a road for short runway use. There is a lot of potential cool ideas.

Battle damage is not the only reason a system will fail. I have seen photos of sadly shot up Phantoms.