Kaktus29

Imagine if we had a test where all of us-sim pilots would be tested in A-G role or A-A role, how good do you think or how many in % do you think would pass? I was thinking like, imagine Su-25A scenario, you are in your plane at runway, you get orders to take off, you get coordinates on the way -CAS scenario- you have to get to the hot-spot, identify the target, fire at it, destroy it, come back to re-arm or debrief.. how long this takes, how many targets you destroyed with your ordnance, how many circles around the hot-spot area you had to make before recognizing targets,firing at them etc.. comparing with real pilots, how good or bad/terrible do you think the Sim community is?.. I myself must say i wouldn't pass the test.. i'm fairly good but it depends, now if the weather is bad, enemy is armed with MANPADS even with A-10C it would take me too long for those troops on the ground to get some immediate relief by CAS.. so, how many sim pilots do you think would pass the test and are you one of them?.. if i had to ball-park this, i would say maybe 10-15 % would pass the test.. (me is not the one that could pass as i said already)..

1600 km is nothing too much for the Su-27..don't know why you had to make a deal about it).. Mi-8 on the other hand would have to drop by at a gas station on the way to las vegas yes..

my take for the fantasy Las Vegas war scenario would be a Russian oligarch buy a gambling franchise that after the deal is signed goes bust, he is angry that he was robbed of his investment like this by the americans, since this Russian has a couple of connection in the Russian government a bold punishment plan is enacted where a couple of Su-27 fly from the nearby Canada Air show to Las Vegas to intimidate the previous owners of the bankrupted gambling enterprise back into paying their dues.. US senate and Congress uses this opportunity to lament against Obama cutting the defense budget by 1.2 billion dollars and are claiming US will not be able to defend US airspace because of this alarming deep harmful cuts.. As media goes crazy of Russian Su-27 and Mi-8 terrorizing the lying cheating US enterpreneur who is hiding in Las Vegas Strip joint using all the money he got from the russian bussinessmen for one last lap-dance the world watches in horror to what exactly is happening.. People specualte this could all be very well a deliberate show by Las Vegas as a whole since business has been slow and some mega-block-busting opening "night" show could be in-play and are not taking the whole thing seriously at all while politicians scramble to make sense of this all.. ---------------- this is the only "realistic" scenario i can think of if Nevada is to be a battleground )lol.. and it suits DCS engine where short battles can be enacted with small amount of units..

the choppers i added too late that's why they are on the bottom, no ill will intended.. i posed the question if only 1 thing you can change as in, if this is the last thing DCS would do before retiring what would it be.. to kinda force you to think what is the most annoying this right now in DCS that you can't live with if only 1 thing can be added/repaired/enabled etc.. to me, i couldn't care for new modules if only one thing can be done with DCS, ..its AI and AI only.. immersion is a must, without it i couldn't care if i am flying F-18C or F-22, or SU-35 totally simulated..since there is no immersion.. how close ED is to this i don't know, but if they wait for a bit longer they might get competition, more and more people are getting older and sooner or later i think the sim flying market will become bigger, just to think of China and India and if we put same percentile of people flying sims as in west and nominally the market will increase 600-700%.. enough to really make the bucks..and ED could very well see some western or other company pop up and take the cherry from nowhere.. Right now ED is like a beacon, showing to potential customers what works and what doesn't.. doing the homework for them, to an extent in much bigger headlights that it would be nice to be in, especially if no new depth is added to the simulation its bound to get ugly.. it's like soccer-football.. if you have 4 chances to score easy goal and you miss, its like you are begging to get defeated and to get a goal from the opponent..-and this is what usually happens.. if you don't score you receive..

interesting, .. for now the poll shows people would be fine with a new module more than anything-meaning that most is happy with the rest of the architecture as it is.. me personally a better AI and more in-depth immersion that would follow from that is much bigger, i could have only Su-25 and if depth of the AI is improved i would be more than happy, we can have 10 new modules but if AI is stupid or no new infrastructure of the tactical play is put in its just dry and empty .. i would like to have ground commander scream on radio "We are under attack from air, on this and this location, demanding air cover NOW!" .. when a tank column is under air assault.. so popping up smoke, more terrain cover, and calling for air cover or counter-batter fire on arty positions that are hammering armor columns.. So as you fly as CAP you get from command center a message from the ground commander telling you some shit is going down there and here..and you go to save their asses and make those A-10/Su25 go away.. i guess new graphic engine that would also increase STABILITY and enable much higher unit count in MP would be amazing, so we can avoid AI altogether and just have people do the tactical decision making.. somehow i'm afraid its not coming, .. its just to expensive, otherwise we would already have EDGE by now, i mean years are passing by, and we are basically playing a simulation of bolts and nuts instead of simulation of different doctrines, tactics, SAM deployment, management of battlefield etc.. something that DCS should be more attentive than making F-15 DCS or Su-25 DCS or whatever.. from a military point of view, what is considered more "realistic military simulation?" ..if you have Su-25 simulated with every bolt or you have radio, commanders, delay time, logistics, deploy time simulated overall in the whole ARMY of units..? i would say the latter is much more important to have an engine that simulates warfare, especially air warfare.. we have turned into a obsessive minuscule attention to getting planes simulated to the last bolt and forgetting the big picture.. the end result is flying a fully realistic military jet simulation in an empty sterile environment that does not respond to you unless scripted to the last bolt..

yeah, forgot that one, DEDICATED SERVER .. and i guess MP stability with tons of units goes hand in hand with dedicated server so we can count that as one thing..

As the title says, what do you feel is the MOST needed thing to make DCS excellent.. and you can only choose 1 thing.. so if somebody puts a gun to your head and says : Choose 1 thing that DCS can repair/make/invent and this would be the final last touch and no more development after that, what would it be ? New module, A-G radar, ATC operations, Ground warfare expanded, Naval Ops, Logistics, Tactical play by controlling squadrons of planes with their respective "cooling time" after each flight or series of flights-using manpower hours to fix the planes, prepare them for next mission etc, Dynamic campaign.. etc etc.. Me personally if i had to choose only 1 thing DCS can do and then nothing ever again..it would be AI.. if AI would be able and i'm talking AI Strategy mind, not just one simple AI plane, more of a AI as in C&C building having the info of all vehicles, brigades, divisions, planes, logistics, and then making sensible decisions where to send what and based on battle results changing tactics and avoiding those routes and missions that were punishing and enforcing those that delivered results.. and then have this AI cascade to the each individual plane that works in a group so an assault on a convoy of trucks with 4 planes would be more sensible and smart than it is now when each plane drops 2 bombs on one truck in a 30 trucks convoy instead of maneuvering into place to make a single pass and unleash total inferno and kill 80% of trucks in a single pass and be done with it.. same with attacking Objects and group of objects like Airports, it would be nice to have sub-missions you can give to missions "Attack airports" so you can have: -attack runway -attack supply depots in airport (fuel, lubricants, machine parts, hangar where plane gets fixed etc.. -attack hardened aircraft shelters-destruction of planes (if they are there of course) -attack electronic infrastructure of airport (radar, EWR, air defense, jamming stations, etc And then have real-time info when planning this in ME so you can see how many planes would be needed considering the size of airport/intelligence report of planes on airport/SAMs, etc.. and likelihood of success if you send so and so many planes there.. Also to be able to see on ME radius of plane with current weapon load-out how far they can reach and make template approaches possible without manually inputting way-points (lo-lo-lo, lo-hi-lo, lo-etc etc.. ) and see on the map how this affects radius of operation for the wing.. All this would be needed to AI can also make some sense of what are the tools to play with, and then my dream is make AI that can learn based on past experience))) Of course all this would make sense if you can wage a war and not a simple mission, (difference being a mission lasts 2 hours and war usually at least 2 days with multiple sorties flown just to get info on things such as intelligence reports, enemy positions, enemy size etc)..

@aaron, why offended.. ? when i say nazi germany i mean the approach they used in military doctrine..which was build one super-ubber-mega-blockbusting weapon and dominate barbaric low quality enemies which count in the millions.. this philosophy is proven to be a failed one, since more and more effort you put in this doctrine the more super-ubber weapon you need, .. you come to a point when one plane will cost 5 bn will shoot plasma through its ass and you will have 4 of them.. the whole doctrine is aggression based and its not cost-effective way to protect your homeland.. that is all.. you don't like logic its your problem..

if there is one thing that is sticking high on the radar it has to be the price..with 3.5 billion dollar a piece its no wonder USN is only getting 3 of those .. from a military point of view over-expensive project.. i expect next project will be submarine that fires plasma to the moon and will cost 8 bn USD.. to me this only proves US military is going same route as nazi germany, superior weapon system in order to gain advantage over many many enemies.. it would seem US plans to wage war against the barbarians of the world and needs cutting edge technology to ever hope to win.. bad strategy.. and waste of money.. better route is cost-comparative advantage and defense based systems.. they are just more cost beneficial than offensive systems..

i noticed this long ago when i questioned those "refueling holes" of Mi-28 and Ka-52.. they look like refueling holes or something but they are some sort of laser-reflector detector of missiles and jammmer .. this choppers would be pretty much invulnerable today with old Manpads and even modern ones to an extent.. armored to resist small and light caliber, teched up to resist manpads .. god, would feel like a god in those flying tanks now..

aham, but in real life is it also like that.. like if you eject at 50.000 feet you will free-fall until 15.000 feet? cuz if the parachute opens just like that those high-fliers especially 5th gen planes will be waiting awfully lot before they drop down..also freezing while at it..

I would like to see an ejection speed limit that IF broken you will die if you eject.. like, normal jet fighters don't have any special equipment to help the pilot survive the air stream he hits into after ejection since most the speeds at which ejection happens is in the low sub-sonic regime (300-500 km/h) ..but if you eject at 900 mph or faster and in a normal jet fighter not Mig-31 which i know has some face protection especially because for this reason designed- the end result would be pilot dies.. while talking ejection, is there a limit at which altitude a pilot can eject? like, isn't there a problem for oxygen, or do pilots eject with oxygen tanks as well..and even then temperature problems could occur if one ejects at 15.000 meters ..its awfully cold there and it would take eternity to land with a parachute.. god knows where the air stream might take you.. you eject above Georgia and land in Moldovia )) p.s..: forgot almost to link this.. F-15 accident and ejection at high speeds..

i dropped the nonsense of WP ?really )) WP is a chemical weapon used to kill people, not "illuminate" a target .. US forces used it mainly to kill the opponents in buildings.. first you drop MK84 -opening the building so there is no ROOF, then you drop WP burning people to death.. ergo, using chem weapons to kill people in hideouts and bunkers.. "fun internet statistics" )) really.. i have no time to give you NATO assessments that are readily available on internet to be found and they are official, same goes for German intelligence who reported back in april 2013 most of rebels are foreign mercs financed by outside.. by definition this is not a civil war, its an invasion by foreign nation using mercs to kill off a government in Syria that by NATO REPORT has over 70 % support in Syria.. so much about civilians hating Assad .. To tell you the truth, its quite disgusting you are defending jihadist who murdered over 3000 american civilians on 9-11 and are openly stating after Assad they will go and murder more americans.. so sad ..to be so immature..

@maturin.. you seem very vested in protecting the jihadists) lol.. its absurd since German intelligence, US intel, NATO have all stated and correctly observed there is no FSA anymore.. overwhelming majority up to 90% are foreign mercs and jihadists.. sorry but if you think this is civil war you are on your own in such a "belief".. You mention that T-72 punches holes cuz there is no more chemical weapons to be used) )) lol.. u do realize this war is 2 years and running, and Syria HAS/HAD over 1000 tons of REAL war chemical stockpiles that they didn't use. .but i think you are under impression and belief this isn't so.. its your choice to be politically vested in protecting a side that eats human hearts, me personally i like facts, and facts speak the most.. you failed to see that "rebellion" isn't about democracy but installing a SHARIA law and islamist state where NO RIGHTS for minorities would exist, they openly state Christians and Shiia, and allawites will be exterminated.. i have never witnessed or heard Assad say that to Sunni's.. hell, over 75 % of Syrian army IS SUNNI .. what do you think about that? ..but as i said, it would seem you are vested in protecting the organ eaters..

well, WP is a chemical weapon, its not in the sense of hitting your nerves but it does damage your skin AND can kill you just as easy.. also its indiscriminate in nature as other chem weapons are.. And yes, WP is used to murder your opponent not MARK the target for bombardment as some try to say.. Falluja was filled with rebels, and only way to win in such condition has historically been proven is to use overwhelming force either through bombardment or use of chemical weapons.. since most of the rebels were in basement and tunnels chem weapons were used to cleanse, burn them out.. but of course US can do it and get away with it, Syria has to use T-72 and punch 1000 holes into a building to be "fair" and "correct".. About the comment that 152 caliber should do it instead? yes, but as i mentioned i think there might be supply problems and this is making it difficult to use Arty rounds in this case, maybe they are low on supplies and are used sparingly when only absolutely needed.. We all know how Hillary Clinton got crazy when 2 old Mi-8 were being sent BACK to Syria after a maintenance in Russia back in 2011, i would only imagine its hard for Syria to get the ammo needed to do the job properly.. Modern attack gunships would do miracles in such situations, Mi-28 or Ka-52 would decimate terrorist,especially during the night and during interdiction missions which are the most needed now for border control and new influx of jihadists.. But for this precise reason pressure was made on Russia to not deliver such systems and here we are, watching T-72 hunt and snipe 3 jihadist running around one big building..

actually you have to have quite a lucky RPG shot to make it into a kill.. most of the front of the tank will not be penetrated that easily, unless being fired from basement and hitting the "belly" of the tank at the front.. i do question the tactics though.. most of the area is evacuated so there are either the Army or alkaida jihadist there.. why not use Artillery strikes more often.. or aviation strikes.. unless if supply problems are there i see no reason why not use arty first.. Russians used Tor-1 Buratino fuel-air explosives in liquidating Saudi mercs in Chechnya with tremendous success, US used chemical weapons(white phosphorous) to cleanse Falluja resistance etc.. Syria sadly cannot afford chem weapons for political reasons and Russia hasn't provided them with Buratino flamethrower which would be perfect for such environment.. only safe place for the rats would be in the sewer at that point..

aaa, the sweet old art of AAR .. i've been blowing up tankers since 1997 when Jane's F-15E came out.. 1st try failed, 2 try failed, 3 try i blow up the tanker )) .. what i miss in this situation is a function to make the joystick much less sensitive so a full pitch movement would make it move let's say 1 degree per second and not the normal 20-40 degrees per second.. i don't know if such "function" exists in real fighter jets but it would be nice since small movement of joystic when flying fast usually mean big deviation from the nozzle you try to get to and connect..

maybe the name changed of the air base or something like that.. i know of official '92 visit that flankers did in US and did the mock up battle in the atlantic and then this got refuted by americans while russians proudly talked about it cuz of victories gained in those mock ups..but i think the air base was engels or something.. this fork air base is quite new for me..

rockets, bombs all of that is quite useless.. you pretty much have to pin-point hit a target.. about troops, you should be able to disable them with mk82 or similar heavy ordnance pretty easy and that is if you miss something like 100 feet.. the bomb shock wave is what kills..it messes your internal organs, you start bleeding internally.. you don't need to have your head torn off, a simple mortar round, medium to small size will kill a person standing 10 yards away.. and that is not from a shrapnel..simple shock wave.. so, all soft targets like cars, hummers, trucks, to some extent even apc's..should be severely in danger if you drop 1 mk84 100 feet away.. and a crater would be nice, right now dropping bombs feels quite "empty"..

to think at some point F-35, F-22 will also be there on the chopping block it makes you think.. what's the point.. about the destruction process i think it would be much easier to just use a tank with mine-shredders mounted and going berserk on the A-10..it would cut it up much faster that this robo-dinosaur in the video..

in 1992, Grand Forks AFB..

also an interesting plane would be the Yak-41 , .. it would be much easier to simulate more correctly than the F-35 ..

i would love the Su-34 hunting subs in the Arctic ocean, and going after 4 hours of patrol back into the kitchen that Su-34 has and make my a virtual sandwich and a cup of tea..and then go back to sub hunting.. ))

I was thinking how could we resolve the issue of MP game that is more WAR oriented than battle oriented, .. WAR usually last at least 3-5 days which we cannot simulate in a 2-3 hours MP battle.. So, would you be willing to have a dedicated server that would run 24/7 and store "sessions" (that last up to 4 hours) and after a session is done a person/programmer or whatever who would get paid (yeah, i thought it would be better for the WAR mp to have a pay per use idea to eliminate children that give up the moment they get shot) would get the results of the session stored into the map and carry it to another session which can happen after the 15 minute break or at some other date arranged by the members of the WAR MP campaign. What i would like to see is manpower and efficiency simulated in Airports, so if a strike on the airport is done, and you damage/destroy the fuel trucks stationed there this would mean re-fueling the plane would last 80% longer, or 300% longer to simulate the difficulties in delivering jet fuel from storing area to parking plane area.. and if fuel stores get bombed than this gets even harder since fuel will be supplied by road (trucks) or by air (air supply-thus the need for transport planes) .. If the airport gets bombed, airstrip especially you could use your "manpower" of stationed technicians, workers etc, to patch the strip but that would diminish their ability to service the planes that are already in the airport waiting to be repaired, serviced etc.. So, all in all, a DCS: Airport manager where you have oversight of machinery at disposal (fire-trucks, mechanical tools to do airplane stuff with it, plus actual service technicians -stationed in warehouses and hangars doing the "work"-who can be killed if airstrike bombs the place and they are not evacuated in time.. This all comes along nicely in the WAR MP event, with multiple "4 hours sessions" since if lets say BLUE force uses planes in high frequency (after landing soon they go up etc) this would make the need to service the plane much higher, more expensive and also risk damage to the plane if you exceed the "safe" limit for the plane. Also you get to decide which airports will be your major ones, and which your secondary one, do you want to disperse it all equally but reduce effectiveness in logistics since you have to supply many airports at the same time? or increase effectiveness in the one major airport with all the gear, and planes and efficiency you can hope for but risk a total catastrophe if major airport assault succeeds ? Same logic should go to the Ammo depot area's that you can design where to be at and how big and all the ramifications of such a decision that befall your side would follow. Rules would be after 4 hour session stops all the planes in the air at this time AND in friendly territory get "force landing" at closest airport regardless if its armed,logistically supported or not-meaning if you try to push the limit and fly at the danger closing 4 hour mark you risk starting the next session with a plane at an airport isolated and without fuel etc and the plane being a sitting duck or having to wait to refuel the jet in longer times and so on and so forth. This is where the 2D comes into play.. for the WAR MP to actually make sense we have to avoid the 3D actual combat for all 4 hours since its not needed, we would have a F10 key oversight if you will, where a Leader or couple of "leaders" would decide what to do next: -maybe send Recon to get general overview where the radar emissions are coming from, -maybe send recon armored units to the village where hostilities are expected to measure the response needed to deal with the threat? -especially interesting would be the mind game of when to launch the strike on the enemy or if you are defending when to defend and how (SAM traps+fighter intercept+diversionary strike teams behind enemy lines-if you are defending). All this would be logistic intensive, every operations costs: FUEL, MANPOWER HOURS, TEAR&WEAR of machines(tanks, trucks, planes especially). Using dumb bombs makes the plane re-arm much faster with less overhaul needed when finally plane goes to maintenance while using more expensive stuff-missiles, etc, would require longer maintenance, more manpower costs etc.. what is MANPOWER use in this situation? It would be a currency of sort, like in one medium equipped airport you have 250 people working there (20 engineers, 60 mechanics, 20 truck drivers/fire department, 20 ATC people, 40 maintenance guys for radar stuff on airports, etc etc) .. When you use hi-tech gadgetry you spend manpower to do those stuff, mount them on planes, overhaul planes, repair them, deliver fuel to planes, deal with emergency issues like getting a damaged plane off the runway to hangar, unload CARGO from Air transport planes OR trucks delivering stuff to the airport.. so, imagine a scenario you bomb the runway, now you need to stitch it up fast to be able to use it again, all this costs so and so manpowers, meaning when you manage to do the runway you will have little of manpower to get as many planes ready to fly.. this would simulate the logistical problems in organization after such a successful airstrip attack and using the airport 100% successfully afterwards with all the planes stationed there. All the logistic lines can be traced, bombed by enemy, if you get supply by road then this can be stopped by interdiction missions (targeting trucks on the road), or by sending military ground units in certain large towns, crossroads and this would simulate a CLOSED route, if you close enough routes the airport is cut off, then only air transport is left which can be attacked obviously by fighter planes.. This UI would be used for ground units as well, as you use them, wear-tear simulated, maintenance needed, and increase in percentage of failures occurring if you over-use the manpower and stretch the logistics in order to capture a village to eagerly and too fast without the support line and logistic catching up to you. Overview: 2D world map, where you move stuff on the map (making this airport more important than other one etc( but this changes would happen in "real life" -switches to 3D and be simulated in game time like, you say you want to put 20 planes from this airport to that one-this would take 30 minutes to prepare the planes and 30 minutes to fly there and land" ..would exert so much manpower etc.. same with ammunition depots for planes, tanks etc..).. of course the time would "fly" faster in 2D in preparing stages, when action is bound to happen (enemy contact,either ground or Air or both) 2D stops with fast time and goes to real time where you can take over the tanks or jump into A-10, Su-25, F-15 etc.. but still would have to wait realistic time of plane arming, refueling, ATC etc.. Since this WAR MP is based on "sessions" lasting 4 hours it would mean there would be an usual FLOW of things, like most likely there will not be a major assault in the last 10 minutes of the session as it will not be in the first 10-30 minutes .. the beginning of the session used for preparing strategy, moving stuff and calculating what is more useful and not, later ending stage used to consolidate for next session, and the middle part used for the actual bombing, attacking, defending etc.. ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- what do you think? to tell you the truth, i don't care one way or another as long as we get a MP that is more WAR oriented and less Battle oriented.. a situation where 3-5 days of continued fighting occurs with consequences of each battle, destroyed tank, warehouse, bridge visible in the end..

is it possible to destroy the "warehouses" that are storing ammunition in DCS world? it would bring a new level in multiplayer missions where percentage of success in guarding your warehouses determines how long you can keep spawning and using planes since if no ammo no use to do so.. and some recon missions to determine where the warehouse is.. that would be another sub-mission there.. and a command structure to send this packages on the way in a coherent way (Wild weasel+escort+ground attack-warehouses+CAS+CAP all over the place somehow)lol..