upyr1

The SLEP ended in 1985. So we have a 22-year period where we have a carrier and no escorts. Here are some period-correct cruiser classes and subclasses I'm not dealing with individual fittings There are a few that could be added Lehey (1962-1995) 9 built Belknap (CGN) (1964-1995) 9 built Long Beach (CGN) (1961-1995) 1 built she normally escorted New Jersey in the 80s California (CGN) (1974-1999) 2 built Virginia (CGN)(1976-1998) 4 built- and we get Texas Ticonderoga-class (Mk26) 2 built they were available before 1985 Ticonderoga-class (VLS) Available from 1985 on. The easiest to get into DCS our late refit variants can stand in for now Destroyers- Forrest Sherman-class (1955-1988) 18 built Farragut class (1959 - 1993) 10 built Charles F. Adams-class- (1960 -2003) 23 built Spruance-class destroyer (1975 -2005) 31 built Kidd-class (1981-1999) 4 built Arleigh-Burke Flight 1 1991 onwards Arleigh-Burke Flight II 1998 onwards Arleigh-Burke Flight IIA 2000 onwards (in DCS already) Frigates Garcia-class (1964-1990) 10 built Brooke- class (1962-1989) 6 built Knox-class (1969-1994) 46 built Oliver-hazard Perry-class (1977-2015) 71 built -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think we'll see everything on the list, at least for a while, so we have to decide what we do we want to see added. The first issue is what will take the least amount of work. As we already have the Burke, Tico, and OHPs in DCS those would be the top candidates to look at. I'm not sure how well DCS models navionics however weaponry can be more obvious. So let's take a look at the Burkes for an example. We currently have flight 2a Burkes which carry more missiles than the previous ships in the class. So it might make sense to keep the 2As as their own class/subclass and have the 1 and 2 combined into one (at least at first) and possibly divided later. So if we get the flight 1 and 2 Burkes that takes the Destroyers to 1990 and by adding the MK26 armed Ticos we can get as far back as 1983. As for what other classes, that is another issue. Clearly, a battlegroup for a given period in DCS should look like one did in real life. I'm not sure which criteria should be given more weight, so I think we need a chart where each class is given a score based on the following criteria Number of ships in the class, years in service, variants, doctrine/practice/mission set, and fame. The first three issues should be obvious, everything else being equal ED should focus on the larger classes with the longest service lives with the least amount of change. Now we have to balance out what ship types were actually in a typical battlegroup plus what makes the most sense to have in DCS based on the mission set. The mission sets should be given the following priority multi-mission, AA, and ASW. Even though AWS currently doesn't exist in DCS, ASW ships still make sense for the sake of accuracy.

I think you mean f4h Phantom II. I would love the Super carrier and some cold war destroyers and cruisers and the Iowa-class battleships

Not on the E. The B, J, S, N would work just not the E

It would be easier, first there is the issue of classified vs open source documents. There are clearly some open source documents for the F-15E otherwise we wouldn't be getting it however there are not enough for the Su-27 Flanker. Something the same age as the F-4E is way less likly to have something classified about it, this is the reason that we have a FF MiG-21 Bis but we might never get a FF Flanker or Fulcrum unless something dramatically changes. Then on the flipside if something is too old their might be a chance that the necessary documents weren't saved which people feard would be the case with the Thud, that might be wrong and I hope it is.

If this is how to get a realitic universal seeker then, I'd expect heatblur to do just that. Though I would love to have mutiple seekers, so we can get the frustraing early days of SEAD. I think this would be a good wishlist item

I know how things work now, but I'm not thinking about a simple campaign but a flight school module with an AI instructor

I'd rather hae ED put the red assets in the current WWII asset pack

Historically, while there were some all-female regiments like the Night Witches it was not unheard of for women to be flying in the same regiment with male pilots. Anyway as I keep stating we have the I-16 and the MiG-15 and a lot of blank spaces in between. I would love to have a Stalingrad or a Kursk map and some assets that would work well with both the I-16 and Mig-15

If I were programming the flight school module, there would be difficulty levels and the missions would be AI-generated and the only thing that would cause you to fail a mission would be if you crash.

This is why I think the AI instructor would be a good idea. If possible it would be nice to have an AI instructor grade you instead of just flunk you.

knowing the learning curve of DCS, the AI flight school might be nice to have as part of DCS core. The real issue though, is how hard would it be to adjust it for a combat sim? For example last night I was playing a 1 v1 guns only mission in the F-15C how far off would AI be from analyzing it and stating where I made a mistake? If it can't be part of DCS core, then I would love to have an add on module that can be used with any of the existing modules. As I said earlier the real question though is dealing with the combat aspect. If we could have a virtual weapons instructor that would be awesome

I'd love to see this added to the super carrier first, it would be nice to look out the cockpit and check your status

This has been on my list a long time.

If AI is good enough to act as a trainer, then that would be a good idea for all the trainers we have. I'm not sure if I want the T-38 mainly due to the lack of combat options. I'd rather have the F-5F or an F-5A but if we could get a multipack with the whole family then yes the T-38 should be there.

a couple more films

This idea would only work for AC that are available as mods, becuse no matter what CPU is running the AI, it can only use an available flight model. So you will need to improve the AI flight model. I'm not flat out shooting down the idea, I'm just saying you need better flight models. Once those are in place I think this could be a good idea. It all comes down to whether or not the neural network does a good job of imitating a human pilot. I think this could be a good way to test future AI models

At one point there was talk about an IADS module, which not only would include better AI for the SAMs but also massive improvements to EW. I don't know what happened to it, but ED needs to revamp things. Some other changes I'd like to see. Rename AWACs to EW- and add ground control model the use of datanlinks so systems with datalinks might keep their radars off Jammers and better EW

More WWII redfor would be awesome. We have the I-16 and MiG-15 and a lot of missing assets in between

I'd love to see overhauls on the spawn points, the second photo which looks like an ODS Alpha-strike is how I want my deck to look when I have a large mission

I would check on the mirage f1 thread to see if they are planned

There is no argument that DCS needs a lot of work on the ground and naval environments, however, such improvements need to be done as part of developing these modules.

In the past I have asked ED to change the historic mode from a binary option to a multipronged option. The options would become off medium- which to the best to remove weapons and avionics that aren't available for a given period but allow us to use a module as long as the base type existed strict- this would be what we have now I think this would fit into that request

I've said the same thing in the past. I have said ED needs to think in terms of a module ecosystem. Which would consist of the following items at least two opposing modules (competing predators) AI assets (prey) A map (habitat) The most complete ecosystem so far is are the Nomandy/Channel maps

That is what happens when the words asset pack appears in a thread. The key is to simply ask for the assets and then let ED figure out how to do it. As I stated earlier some of the requests notibally the infantry needs to be done anyhow and since most of the maps leave one with the impression the DCS is the desert combat simulator