upyr1

I think the best approach would be to give landing craft and amphibious vehicles a launch waypoint that would act like the takeoff waypoint except connect you to a landing ship. Then as stated earlier, tie in the supply menu.

True there has to be some logic. I'm thinking with amphibious ships, the best approach to use would be a supply menu like we currently have on airbases and carriers. The ship type would limit what could be carried. For example on a ship with a flight deck and no well deck (LPH or CV) or way to launch Higgins boats, you would be limited to helicopters and tilt rottors transporting infantry and maybe light vehicles (Jeeps/hummers). Ships with divates would have their own rules on what they can launch and a ship with well decks woull have their rules. That's just part of good design This needs to be fixed and I have always supported using the payload menu for cargo and troop loading, as I think it would be an easier way to preload things as it would be easier to see the weight and size. True but and something are long over due I'll start are bump that This is one the reasons I'm not happy with Razbam though if they return to DCS their MiG-23 is an insta buy.

Proper animations are low on my list, though I'm not saying no.

I've got a track here may be I'm eating the wrong mushrooms again but it looks like ESSEX scored anti-air kills with her 5-inch guns this needs to be added to every ship though

About 8 decades' worth of Naval doctrine, ships, and boats need to be added to DCS, and the first place to start is the mission editor with waypoint commands and assets. I just wrote spawn point to mean starting point. The animation would be nice, however my main concern is to get the leathernecks to the beach. I'd love to use the suply menu. While on the subject of moving troops the "load on start" needs to be improved. My addition to that list Would be the Naval order of battle for Operation Overlord and the Mariana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Marianas_naval_order_of_battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings I get it will take a while to get everything but I'm buying the Pascific theater asset pack as soon as it comes out. For the cold war we'd need the following at a minimum 1980s Iowa-class battleship refit (if we can get New Jersey's 1968 configuration I'm not going to object.) Until things get clears up with Razbam, I'd like the Wasp and Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ships. I considered the Tarawa to have been the sweet spot for the planned and current Naval modules (except the F4U) they were in service from 1976 to 2015. LCAC and the Red For Lebeds Then Ivan Rogov I think artillery is it's own thread.

When building missions with the Higgins boats it would be nice to have some some way to toggle good landing beaches

During desert storm they both used the missile

I'd love to see the AAA act like that by default

I'd also have downed pilots climb aboard helicopters and for missioin builders a CSAR escort for attack planes

Based on my observations playing around with the corsair and my Blacksheep Heritage Alpha strike The F4U will operate just fine from ESSEX, KUZNETSOV and TARAWA. It's a hit and a miss from modern carriers when you do get them to work they will take off from the catapult instead of making deck runs. The Corsair could use a bridle The catapult on ESSEX doesn't appear to be functional so the corsair can only make a deck run. The coding could test for the following CATOBAR (Shuttle/Briddle), jet deflector (Y/N), /* you can take off using a catapult and land using an arrestor hook. The original ESSEX configuration had a coupleof catapults but no jet deflector, which were added with the SCB-27 refits done after WWII right now ESSEX's catapults are not operational I'd like to see that change */ ski jump STOBAR - /* Your ability to operate from a Kuznetsov-class carrier or a similar vessel that is not (yet ) in DCS core */ STOBAR (distance) /* You can take off from a carrier with a deck run, but use an arrestor hook to land. In short, the current Essex configuration. The Corsair and Skyhawk would both fall into this category and as they could both use the bridle I'd also like to see rules concerning deck runs on newer carriers */ short takeoff (distance) / short landing (distance) /* short field operations is the last thing that should be checked, and they should be tested separately. since some place could do one but not the other */ lastly Vertical Takeoff / Vertical Landing /* */

Thanks for the link. This is exactly why it should be an option. It was done historically it might not have been common, but it would be fun

Whenever comments like this come up, I will suggest a compromise in the words of the great 20th century Indian writer Farrokh Bulsara "I want it all"

And I'm happy about that. Ya ochen rad ob etom.

There wee a few times in wich USAAf and RAF planes took off from carriers, the most famous was of course the Doolittle raid it would be nice to be able to take off from the Essex or carrier from any plane that would either have a short enough take off run even though it might not be able to land

It will be awsome to see. At least as far as the US is concerned, we might not have the right version (Corsair II) but we have the A-10 and every other Sandy in the works.

I've suggested this as a way to get the YAK and Christian Eagle into the dynamic campaign fun. One option would be actrobatic mission and airshow performances. This could be done with any module you might have an option for gates and you could have a campaign that cycles through the maps you have and call in an air show season.

The Yak-3 would be awesome. I'd love to see more Red WWII assets and modules. As I have stated before we have the I-16 and MiG-15 it would be nice to fill in the empty in between

nice information. I don't know if there is enough information to get a module up to DCS' standards but I'd like to see at least a community module

To get things back on topic, do you think it would be possible for ED to produce a reasonable Wild Weasel, provided they fixed the EW modeling and the proper manuals? I figure if the Thud is being done as a mod, it would only make sense to do a Wild Weasel if the following are true. We have enough data to do a proper Wild Weasel at some point in the future if ED ever improves the EW? Given the state of the EW modeling and what can be done with scripts, there is a way to make SEAD different in a D and Wild Weasel. If the first is false, then I say leave the Wild Weasel as AI only. If the first is true and there is a way to accurately simulate what the pilot saw with in the limits of DCS then it might work

I was about to suggest something like this. You could select the side and then leave it empty, or select an air defense battery from your current list of available units. Then the AI would populate the site using a battery template. I figure if the scripting got implemented that could be one of the options An improved Caucus map would be the best place to work on the scripting idea

It looks like we might agree. My stance is simple, if there is enough information to do a Wild Weasel to the standard of Fat Amy, then I would like one in DCS. I recognize the shortcomings of DCS EW, however if the Thud starts as a mod, then I see no reason not to model the parts of a Wild Weasel a modder could actually touch but I'd expect ED to make the necessary changes for an official module.

this is the reason that I say for the sake of the wishlist we should at least pretend that ED will take care of everything needed industrial core and ask focus on whether or not we want something. Fillowed by if there is enough information It might be an unrealistic expectation but let's ride the trolley Cool

As stated earlier my expectations for a mod and module are different. I'd be fine with a modder who uses the field of dreams approach, since it is a passion project. As for an official module, I want the improved EW and the G until the improve EW comes about the bare minimum I want is an AI Wild Weasel. It's important to remember this is the wish list/ research phase. So it is more important to ask if you want a flyable Wild Weasel than it is to add the words "With the current state of EW in DCS." to that question. The words "(if there is/and) improved EW are much more productive.

that's 25 years more recent than the former EWO I know

My position is simple, first the available documents are way more important than the current state of DCS. ED can improve EW or develop the SONAR engine, but we can't improve the available documents. Next, my expectations for official modules and community modules are different and neither set of expectations says the current state of DCS is a valid reason not to do something. I expect official developers to work with ED to implement the changes and I expect modders to do the best they can and improve things over time.