upyr1

I know what the quick mission builder is I just think a random mission would be better than what we have Speaking of the random mission builder

What is the difference between instant action and the mission menu? I've always thought the fast mission builder should be labeled instant action t

There are a lot of questions, the top two are feasibility and interest. However, even if there is enough interest to merit an F-4G module there is the question if it is feasible. I want an AI G at the minimum, and I would like to hear what Heatblur says about the G.

I'm just going by Wikipedia they might be wrong, I have seen photos of a STARM on an Israeli Phantom Anyway It still doesn't change my point that if there is an E that could use the STARM it would be nice to have that block

That's why I think the F-4G might be too classified As ED isn't going to let us have a mod with an AI EWO then that would leave us with the G as an AI only bird and that would still require improvements to the EW model

That was the main thing I was thinking with the request for a G. There is an indicator we might be getting the Thud

As I stated earlier the G is really a different beast under the hood, that still leaves the question about what is know about the Israeli and Iranian STARM shooting Es? If they are basically the same as our Phantom except the STARM and in the Israeli case refueling probe then they might be a nice add on for the module. However if they are too different then they might be part of a future Phoreign Phantom

One of the many areas where DCS could be improved is the "create a fast mission menu" I would love to see the following added, at least to the advanced menu and to the dynamic campaign when we get it coalition builder- the default unit list would be based on this scenario/ mission - an over all scenario for the mission. I'm not sure how many pre-canned options there could be but it would help build the unit list as well as mission roles single / multiplayer options- the mission might be straight single player, coop, PVP mostly HI date - right now we just have the time but I would love to see the day, month and year added. I know right now we have season and I am assuming the plane selected and historical mode check box will determine the equipment used by both sides. a more detailed unit filter and selection menu- we should have a menu where we can apply the one of the following labels to unit categories, subcategories, and types. Pooled/potential- the default setting for anything that isn't excluded or mandated excluded- a given asset can't be used. If I select historical mode, than anything that DCS claims isn't period will be excluded automatically and there should also be a manual option to exclude an asset I don't want to show up for any reason Mandated- This would require that a mission uses a given asset. It would override historical mode so If I want a final countdown mission then I might move a modern carrier battlegroup and planes to mandated. new mission based on existing mission- The idea is simple, use AI to make a static campaign. The quick mission editor will use the mission goals and asset set for one mission to build a follow on mission that would take place immediately after the first.

I don't think your idea really would conflict with anything that has been proposed even if it did the issue wouldn't be the conflict but the point to your thread. For example if you are like certain people and say no to almost any wish list item, including something that would benefit their play style often making claims Eagle needs to focus their attention elsewhere and never saying where....that's a problem

The time spent setting up the common controls could be spent flying the module or setting up the module specific controls.

That much I knew about both the Israeli and Iranian Phantoms. So this brings us back to the question what other differences did they have? I know the Israelis also added a refueling probe and they added the Popeye missiles. So hypothetically if the Iranian Phantom is one of ours with the added STARM capability, then I think it would be reasonable to ask for that as an additional variant and the less they have in common then the more reasonable it would be to ask about a PHoriegn E Phantom module Though the Navy and Royal Phantoms are higher on my list

If/when we ever get some Battleships, this would be awesome we could assign the 5-inch guns to one target and the 16-inch guns to another. I would also add cluster and armor-piercing shells and guided shells to the guided weapons list no problems adding more details I would like the option to configure the shell load

Actually, it might not be as fictional as you think If you take a look at this map showing the nations that used the STARM There are 3 countries in blue. The US was the only nation to use the F-4G however all the nations used the F-4E. So did they fire STARMs from the E? If so what variants and how much do they differ from ours?

I think that is what ED has in mind I hope Razbam takes on the F-15C.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The common commands profile or anything else isn't going to solve everything but it will reduce some steps.

The problem is that if dcs sees an x or y axis it is automatically assigned pitch and roll. The common commands profile would allow you to tell DCS that device 0 is your stick or cyclic device 1 is your throttle or collective and device 2 is your rudder and assign them correctly. A module doesn't need to have all the controls listed in the common command profile in fact I mention controls that are only applicable to a particular group of modules such as nose wheel steering. The common commands profile won't replace the individual module profile so you will still have the option to change them as needed. Right now dcs tries to assign your rudders to your throttle axis as well as your throttle so the ability to tell DCS that your rudder is your rudder is one less thing that needs to be done. Again no one wants a single profile for everything. You aren't the first person to run this strawman through. I am asking for a common commands profile which will auto-populate as many commands are applicable for a given module and then the user would be able to adjust as needed on the module's profile. So if you don't want your rudder pedals to be pitch ,roll and throttle which is the current default you could assign them to rudder and toe brakes. If a given module doesn't have toe brakes then they are set as blank for that module. No one wants to redo the whole system just refine it. You need to stop with the strawman arguments Toto is getting really upset and the tinman hates picking up the scarecrow

This would be great for a dynamic campaign.

Everything I listed is either universal or applies to such a large number of modules that odds of applying are high. The throttle and rudder pedals are always messed up. When you install a new module. As are triggers. But the aren't always assigned correctly for controllers. There is no reason for a common controls profile to mess up existing profiles. If you understood programming which you clearly don't you would realize you can easily prevent possible conflicts. For example programming dcs use the common profile when installing a new module or controller or when the player clicks a reset button on a module.

This is the reason I have always advocated for a profiles called "common controls" though some cases like the Warthog and the A-10 the mapping should be obvious The common controls are enough to get flying throttle(s)- left and right, for two engine planes I guess single engine could default to either one Pitch, yaw, roll, are the same for planes collective and cyclic- common for helicopters Trim- common enough toe brakes- common for all Western planes brake handle- common for Eastern Nose Wheel steering- common for the West Target designator x and y axess - common for anything with a radar trigger- another common command weapon release- common you don't have to map everything for every module automatically you just have to have enough mapped that you can at least do a free flight in instant combat

We need a better launcher. This would tie in with my desire for a mod manager

This would take a database so all that would be needed is the ability to load your settings to a database. The issue would be infrastructure.

Good news I hope we see it soon I fly vr which has its own issues but scale isn't one

The infantry need a lot of improvement. We need more weapons as well as skins. I would love to see 107 og fatigues.

I have asked for ED to implement a couple profiles for common controls before. So anything that simplifies setting up a module will be welcome.

https://youtu.be/GKmYxVdckCs?si=JPlw-vgNsWGVLivS