KingKenny04

Blue Mission Brief Situation 48 hours ago, the Democratic Republic of Red declared their intention to invade the Republic of Green. The DRR's 58th Army based at Vladikavkaz near the border is currently mobilizing to transport and deploy their forces along the border in preparation for an invasion of the RoG. Units are currently in transit to and marshaling at the Beslan train station in preparation for transport to assembly areas along the border. The International Blue Coalition have declared their intention to halt this invasion and protect the sovereignty of the RoG. Mission IBC aircraft based at Senaki-Kolkhi Airbase will strike the DRR 58th Army Headquarters located at Vladikavkaz Army Base. Primary targets include: 58th Army Headquarters Buildings (x2) 19th Motor Rifle Division Headquarters (x1) Base Ammunition Storage (x2) Base Fuel Storage (x4) Secondary targets include: Other base buildings Vehicles in and around Vladikavkaz Army Base Vehicles marshaling near the Beslan Train Station Threats Two (2) SA-10 batteries of the DRR PVO's 1536th Missile Defense Regiment have been deployed to the area. One battery (the "Northern Battery") is located at Mozdok Airbase. The "Southern Battery" is deployed approximately 3 miles NNW of Vladikavkaz Army Base and is responsible for area defense around Vladikavkaz and Beslan. A P-19 Search Radar located approximately 9 miles northwest of Vladikavkaz Army Base is providing early warning coverage for the area. Satellite intelligence from approximately 20 hours ago identified one SA-8 platoon of 4 launch vehicles, one SA-13 platoon of 4 launch vehicles, and 2 ZSU-23 Shilka AAA vehicles staging for transit to the Beslan train station. SIGINT and ELINT from this morning suggests that these assets are now deployed in the immediate area of the Beslan train station, however their exact locations and dispositions are unknown. Expect them to be active and defending the Beslan train station. The base itself is expected to be defended by SA-7 MANPADs and ZU-23 AAA emplacements. Fighters from Mozdok and Sochi-Adler are expected to attempt to intercept and destroy your package. Targets and Satellite Imagery Primary Targets Secondary Targets SAM Targets SAM Coverage Vladikavkaz Army Base Base Mainside Base Northwest Base Northeast Base Southwest Ammo Dump Sierra Hotel Target List.zip Sierra_Hotel_PrePlan.miz

Operation Sierra Hotel The last two flights of the F-4 weapons school were called GAT 5 and 6. Graduates consistently recall those missions as the most challenging they ever flew outside actual combat. -C.R. Anderegg, Sierra Hotel: Flying Air Force Fighters in the Decade after Vietnam Please see the third post for the current status of this mission. What is this? Operation Sierra Hotel is a multiplayer team vs. team competition for DCS World that seeks to explore authentic mission design and encourage the use of real world planning, tactics, and doctrines in the competitive multiplayer environment. Competition Format The mission is inspired by the infamous GAT 5 and 6 missions of the USAF Fighter Weapons School, together known as the “World’s Most Demanding Peacetime Mission”. A team of eight human-piloted aircraft on the blue team must fight their way into a target area, strike several ground targets while defending their strike package from air and SAM threats, then make it home alive. Blue's score is based on ground targets struck and enemy aircraft destroyed. Opposing them are six human-piloted red aircraft, with one respawn apiece, and a Skynet-operated IADS network covering the target area. Red must do everything possible to reduce Blue's score by destroying Blue aircraft and preventing Blue from hitting their ground targets. Red does not accumulate score, their only job is to reduce Blue's score. In a single "round" of the tournament, the mission will be run twice. One team will occupy Blue and the other will occupy Red. After the first mission is complete, the teams will swap sides and run the mission again. After both missions have been run, the team with the higher Blue score will be declared the winner. Scoring Points will be awarded to Blue as follows: Primary Ground Target - 3 points Secondary Static Target - 2 points Ground Vehicle - 1 point Enemy human-controlled aircraft - 1 point Note: SAM Radars and Launchers do not count for score. Destroying them yields no points. This includes MANPADs. Blue will have points subtracted from their score for the following: Losing an aircraft to enemy fire - 2 points CFIT or "manuevering kill" - 2 points In the event of a tie, the following tiebreakers will be used (in order): 1. Number of Primary ground targets destroyed 2. Total number of ground targets destroyed (excluding SAM launchers and radars) 3. Total enemy human-piloted aircraft destroyed 4. Total number of surviving blue aircraft Note: Destroying the AI AWACS or AWACS Escorts will not count for score, however it is not against the rules, either. Primary Target Condition: Blue must make a legitimate attempt to destroy at least one of the primary ground targets. A "legitimate attempt" means specifically targeting one of those structures with a weapon capable of causing significant damage to it. A quick strafing run with guns does not count. Lobbing a dumb bomb randomly into the target area does not count. Hitting the edge of a building with a few stray munitions at the outside edge of the area of a cluster munition does not count. Failure to satisfy this condition will result in Blue's positive score being reduced to zero for the entire mission. This means that the maximum score Blue can accumulate is zero. Negative score is possible as Red can still subtract score by destroying Blue aircraft. Aircraft and Weapons Restrictions There are no restrictions on aircraft types or numbers that may be flown by either Red or Blue, up to the maximum of 8 for Blue and 6 for Red. Teams may fly different compositions for Blue and Red. The following weapons are banned: -AIM-9X -AGM-154 JSOW -AGM-158 JASSM -AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER Teams must declare aircraft types they intend to fly no later than 120 hours (5 days) prior to the start date/time of the competition. Only types must be declared, numbers of aircraft and weapons carried may remain secret. Additionally, Red must declare which aircraft types will fly out of which of the two bases available for spawning. The purpose of aircraft declarations is to simulate intelligence gathered prior to the mission and facilitate mission planning for both sides. You may have separate declarations for both your Red and Blue compositions; you do not need to fly the same aircraft on both Red and Blue! Declarations should be private messaged to KingKenny04 before the deadline. Declarations for each team's Red and Blue sides will be posted to the third post in this thread no later than an hour after the deadline. JESTER is banned, human RIOs only! Airfields, Spawns, Respawns, and RTBs There are no limits or restrictions on when aircraft must spawn and take off. Blue may spawn up to 8 aircraft. Blue has no respawns. Blue may not rearm or refuel. Red may spawn up to 6 aircraft at any time. Red has six (6) respawns. An aircraft may respawn once one of the six currently spawned aircraft has been destroyed or has executed a successful RTB. Respawn aircraft must be of a declared type for the airfield that the aircraft is respawning at. Red may land at a designated airfield and rearm/refuel without expending a respawn, as long as the aircraft itself then takes off again without despawning. A "successful" or "proper" RTB is defined as follows: The aircraft makes a controlled landing at a designated airfield, taxis off the runway onto a taxiway, comes to a complete stop, then despawns by reslotting. Despawning in the air without catastrophic/uncontrollable damage is considered an improper RTB. Primary airfields will provide rearming and refueling (Red only) and are available for proper RTB. Divert airfields will be available for proper RTB only. Blue Senaki-Kolkhi (Primary) Kutaisi (Divert) Vaziani (Divert) Red Mozdok (Primary) Sochi-Adler (Primary) Beslan (Divert) Nalchik (Divert) Penalties The following penalties apply to Blue and will subtract from Blue's score: Spawning more than 8 aircraft: 2 points per aircraft over the limit Spawning an undeclared aircraft type/not spawning a declared aircraft type: 2 points per offending aircraft Using JESTER: 1 point per offending aircraft Improper RTB: 1 point per offending aircraft The following penalties apply to Red and will add to Blue's score: Spawning more than 6 aircraft at any one time: 2 points per aircraft over the limit Spawning an undeclared aircraft type/not spawning a declared aircraft type: 2 points per offending aircraft Using JESTER: 1 point per offending aircraft Improper RTB: 1 point per offending aircraft Mission Planning and Communications A modified .miz based on this mission is provided in the second post of this thread (WIP). Teams may use this .miz to pre-plan radio frequencies, aircraft waypoints, and weapons loadouts. The modified .miz files may then be returned to the competition organizer so that your individual waypoints, frequencies, and loadouts can be incorporated into the main mission file and be ready in the aircraft when you spawn in. Teams may elect to use either SimpleRadio or Teamspeak, both of which will be provided by competition organizers. Teams must use either of the two provided methods of communication to prevent stream cheating. Q&A Why is it 8v6? Why not 8v8? As originally described in Sierra Hotel, Red actually outnumbered the students by quite a lot during GAT 5 and 6. In the original Fighter Weapons School, Red would restrict themselves to Soviet tactics and formations, and would engage from realistic dispositions i.e. CAP, alert fighters, airspace restrictions, etc. In this competition Red will have no such restrictions. They are free to launch whenever they want and fly wherever and however they want. Because of this, having 8+ Red aircraft configured purely for air-to-air against a maximum of 8 blue aircraft that are mixed between Escort, SEAD, and Strike configurations would present a nearly impossible obstacle for Blue to overcome. Remember: Red does not win by beating Blue, they are merely trying to reduce Blue's score. Teams win by having a higher Blue score, thus the "balance" in this competition comes from the fact that both teams will have the same opportunity to fly both Red and Blue sides. What's up with the "Primary Target Condition"? Why is this a requirement for Blue to score? The purpose of this mission setup is to encourage real world mission planning, doctrine, and tactics. In the real world, pilots do not get to choose their own missions on-the-fly. We want to prevent a situation where Blue ignores the target area completely and simply launches 8 F-15s to go airquake. By presenting the "Primary Target Condition", we provide a clear, measurable condition for what is considered a "legitimate" strike attempt. Why don't SAMs count for score? Like the primary target condition, we want Blue focused on the "strike" aspect of the package. In real missions, SEAD is a vital part of protecting a strike package. However, destroying SAMs is not necessarily a requirement for SEAD. SEAD needs only to protect the rest of the package from the SAM threat in order to succeed. We want to give Blue more options for dealing with SAMs than just simply destroying them. If SAMs awarded points, Blue would have far more incentive to destroy them rather than trying to "manage" them like a real strike package would.

After watching 14th VFS' stream and talking with some of the guys in the last comp, I think the question of whether you have AWACS or not comes down to how realistic you want your mission to be. If you want to see realistic tactics and tacform, I would argue AWACS and GCI are a necessity. The fact is that in a real scenario, BLUFOR will almost always have AWACS with datalink, and REDFOR will almost always have GCI with datalink. Datalink isn't a god's eye view minimap, and if you're using it as such you have a poor idea of what SA is and how to use and maintain it in your gameplan. That said, most NATO aircraft had AMRAAMs before they had MIDS terminals, so having AWACS/GCI without datalink isn't totally outside the realm of plausibility. Intentionally flying AWACS at low altitudes where their coverage is obscured by mountains is absolute arcadey gamey BS and at that point you may as well ditch them entirely. I would argue that not having AWACS forces players to fly unrealistic tacform and tactics. Without the support of a second section or the SA provided by AWACS/GCI, you're either preventing a section from ever skating (as they'll lose SA) and thus forcing them artificially to always banzai, or you're forcing the element to split into two singletons in order to maintain SA. In the former case, you're preventing the section from implementing a realistic BVR timeline and instead treating BVR as an extra annoying obstacle before getting to the merge. In the latter case, you're splitting up the section and defeating the purpose of flying a two-ship. In both cases, my opinion is that the fight becomes just another dogfight deathmatch arena with different starting conditions. If you don't care about realistic tactics and doctrines, you can do whatever you want in the name of balance. But if you want to see realistic section tacform and BVR timelines, you need to consider these things.

Are laser pods allowed in this competition? My boyfriend and I are thinking about signing up.

I hate to nitpick but is there any chance Hasakah, Qamishli, Deir ez Zor, and the rest of Eastern Syria would be added in the future? When it was announced that Incirlik would be included I was excited to do some Operation Inherent Resolve ops, but it seems like the current map area cuts out 70% of OIR's operating area. It seems like right now the map limits us to 1982 Syria vs Israel ops and SyAAF barrel bombing.

With the recent release of the DCS: Supercarrier module and the announcement of the Syria map, a world of new possible scenarios has opened for the DCS community. In investigating possible scenarios, especially those involving US naval aviation, it is clear that there is a need for new and updated AI units for realistic mission making and player immersion. Though new AI units are likely not a high priority for ED (and for very good reasons), I believe that, when ED does begin development of new AI units, the SH-3H Sea King deserves special attention and prioritization. The Syria map brings a huge number of possibilities in terms of missions and campaigns. Although most people are probably considering the Syrian Civil War as a source for missions and campaigns, I believe the Lebanese Civil war should also be considered. Spanning 1978 through 1990, the timeline of the Lebanese Civil war not only presents a variety of fictional-yet-plausible scenarios, it also covers a large amount of aircraft and ships that are either currently available in DCS or will soon be available. Between 1982 and 1990, all but one Forrestal class carrier that deployed to the Mediterranean carried F-14As, A-7Es, A-6Es/KA-6Ds, S-3As/Bs, E-2Cs, EA-6Bs, and SH-3Hs [1]. The single exception was the 1990 deployment of Saratoga, which carried F-14Bs and F/A-18Cs instead of F-14As and A-7Es, but which still carried an SH-3H squadron aboard [2]. In addition to US Naval aircraft, the Lebanese civil war also provides opportunities for the MiG-21Bis and MiG-23ML, both of which began service with the Syrian air force in the early to mid 80s [3][4]. This time period and map combination also provides opportunities for both the Mirage IIICJ and F-16C under the Israeli Air Force [5]. Lastly, the SA 342 also gets love in this period, having served with both Syrian and Lebanese forces in these conflicts. We can next examine the Persian Gulf map. One major area that is rich in mission content is the Tanker War which lasted from roughly 1984-1988. During this time period, several carriers that exist or will soon exist in DCS made deployments to the Indian Ocean or directly to the Persian Gulf. These include Carl Vinson (1986, 1988 ), Independence (1984), Ranger (1987, 1989), and Forrestal (1988 ). In every case, these carriers deployed with F-14As, A-7Es, A-6Es/KA-6Ds, EA-6Bs, E-2Cs, and, of course, SH-3Hs [1]. This time period also takes advantage of the F-5E, Mirage F1 (assuming it's not vaporware by this point), and the AI F-4E, CH-47, C-130, and Huey, all in Iranian service. Of these aircraft, the F-14B, F/A-18C, and F-5E are currently available, and the F-4E is available as an AI aircraft. Heatblur is currently working on the F-14A, an AI A-6E and KA-6D, and the Forrestal carrier. FlyingIron Simulations is currently developing the A-7E. RAZBAM is working on some variant of Mirage III, and AvioDev is possibly still working on several variants of the Mirage F1. ED have already committed to updating the S-3B AI model, and the E-2D can serve as a perfectly fine stand-in for the E-2C (though they are not identical). The only missing pieces are the Prowler and the SH-3H. Given that we will almost certainly never see an EA-6B in DCS, AI or not, it makes sense to add the SH-3H for both CSAR, ship-to-shore, and ground support operations. The Sea King is the one common thread to both maps that is conspicuous by its absence. It is also worth considering the upcoming Falklands Islands map under development by RAZBAM. Variants of the SH-3 served UK forces from 1969 all the way up to 2011. Large numbers of differing variants were deployed with the British Task Force to retake the Falklands. This is one map where some kind of Sea King variant is almost a necessity for realistic missions. I believe the SH-3H is a key ingredient for realistic mission making for a huge number of missions that mission-makers will want to explore going forward. I hope that ED will consider adding this near the top of the list of AI aircraft to be added to DCS. References: 1. http://gonavy.jp/CVf.html 2. http://gonavy.jp/CV-CV60f.html 3. Gordon, Yefim. Mikoyan MiG-21. 4. Gordon, Yefim and Kieth Dexter. MiG-23/27: Soviet Swing-Wing Fighter Aircraft. 5. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article7.html

Sorry to bump an older thread but I didn't feel this warranted a whole new thread. Given the releases of the F/A-18C, F-14A/B, and the future release of the A-7E, there are certain timelines that suit these aircraft. In order to experience realistic carrier operations in DCS with these aircraft, I believe that priority for adding or updating AI aircraft in DCS should be given to the following Type/Model/Series (in no particular order): HH-60H Seahawk "Rescuehawk" This is the primary CSAR and transport helicopter for American carriers from the early 90s through the mid-2000s. HS squadrons deploying aboard carriers in this timeframe typically had both HH-60Hs for CSAR and transport and SH-60Fs for ASW. Since the HH-60H is based on the SH-60F airframe and engine, AI versions for both could easily be made, however the HH-60H is the airframe more likely to be encountered by DCS players during missions, either flying alongside the ship during flight quarters or participating in MEDEVAC or transport missions between ship and shore. SH-3H Sea King This variant was the primary helicopter deployed aboard carrier groups from the early 80s through the early 90s. SH-3H squadrons were deployed aboard both Forrestal and Nimitz class carriers as late as the mid-90s. Given that most timelines for the current and upcoming naval aircraft fit in the late 80s through mid 90s, this is a must have, especially for anyone interested in Persian Gulf carrier ops. These would additionally fit well with RAZBAM's upcoming Falklands content. E-2C Hawkeye Although this may seem unnecessary given that we already have the D variant, its important to note that the E-2D did not first enter service until 2010. Even today, the bulk of the Navy's AWACS fleet is still made up of C variant Hawkeyes. The E-2C has been in service since 1973. For the vast majority of timelines involving the aircraft in or coming to DCS, the E-2C is the aircraft that fits. This is not merely a reskin, as the C model has a different radar and engines from the D model. S-3B Viking This one is all but confirmed to be in the works. Although carrier air wings deployed with the A variant for most of the timeline, to my knowledge the only difference between the A and the B variant is a different radar and the ability to fire harpoons. Assuming ED is okay with including A model skins on the updated S-3B, there is no reason to have both variants as they are identical visually and in terms of flight performance. I know some people will call for the EA-6B. I would argue that this should be a low priority for ED. Most of the capabilities of the Prowler are classified, and those that are known are not currently simulated in DCS. It is not just another platform for launching HARMs. The manner in which is jams or spoofs ground radar is not known. ED would not only have to re-examine how their various ground radar simulations worked, their jamming methods would be complete guesswork. Most of the other purported capabilities of the Prowler cannot be simulated in DCS, although they might be possible in the future, depending on how sophisticated the ground AI in the upcoming dynamic campaign is. For example, how would DCS simulate a Prowler eavesdropping on enemy communications? Or jamming cell towers? Or clogging up enemy radio transmissions with Death Metal or the audio from gay adult films? None of this is possible in DCS at the moment.

I'm so sorry, I completely forgot about this thread. I've re-uploaded the spreadsheet, it should work now.

Is there any chance or desire to make this an officially licensed 3rd party project in the future, to get access to that SDK?

Oh sorry, I'll reupload as soon as I get to a computer.

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum. I could not find a specific forum that worked since this is partially intended as a resource for mission and campaign builders, partially an open research document for the community, and partially a wishlist for future liveries and AI aircraft included in the base game. I've read a few complaints here and elsewhere from people about the lack of liveries and aircraft for a single complete carrier air wing as it was configured for any one point in time. Partially to satisfy my own curiosity, I decided to do some research and compile a list of Carrier Air Wings that deployed aboard carriers that will be featured in DCS, in areas that are covered by DCS maps, and were deployed during historical "bookmarks" that mission makers may use to create real-world or "what if?" scenarios. These lists include complete carrier air wings for carriers that are coming to DCS and were deployed during crisis points in history. They are not necessarily limited to carriers that conducted actual combat operations or participated in the crises mentioned, however they include carriers that may have been sent to participate in the crises mentioned. This is for the many mission makers that use these crises as the basis for alternate history or "what if?" scenarios. I have organized them by map and further by event. Aircraft models are further denoted by their status in DCS. I have not included air wings deployed aboard carriers in or near these crises points that are not yet confirmed for DCS (i.e. Kitty Hawk class carriers). I have further only included carrier air wings where we already have the majority of aircraft models either released, in development, or as AI aircraft. I have attached a current copy of this spreadsheet to the bottom of this post. STATUS KEY: CAUCUSES PERSIAN GULF SYRIA This list is by no means complete. Please feel free to discuss and correct these post. Also please post suggestions for other "historical bookmarks" that could be used for mission making where additional carrier air wings and carrier deployments could be added. CarrierDeploymentsMatrix.zip

I think the primary reason people are upset is the perceived lack of communication from ED. There's a lack of openness when changes are made and things that were previously promised suddenly aren't talked about anymore. We all understand that things change during development, we just want clarity. When ED doesn't give us that openness, it feels like we're being misled or lied to. I'm sure that is not ED's intention, but that's the perception. If 6 months/1 year/ however long ago when the decision was made, ED had come out an said "Hey, we're still working on the ATFLIR. In the meantime, we have a LITENING pod that's based on a Spanish model. You can use it for Spanish Hornets, and its reasonably close to what the Marines use so you can use it for Marine ops, too. Sorry, for legal/lack of information/whatever reasons, we can't get you a full US Litening pod, but hopefully the Spanish one is close enough!" I can almost promise you that the vast majority of people would not have an issue with it. EDIT: Also can we not get so caught up in this BS about modeling one specific plane and limiting weapons to that one airframe? I understand why ED have to pick a specific airframe for the avionics, flight software, and engines, but why limit systems to that one airframe? If a USMC, USN, Canadian, and Spanish hornet are functionally exactly the same, why limit the aircraft to just the ATFLIR and get rid of the LITENING pod, just because the ATFLIR is only used by the Navy? ED is obviously not going to make a separate module for each individual nation's airframe (that would be a stupid waste of time and resources), so why not give me the option of using this Lot 20 C model Hornet to simulate USN Earnest Will '88 ops (NiteHawk), USMC 2007 ops (LITENING), or RCAF 2003 ops (SNIPER AT)? Why must I be limited to one specific possibility just because USN Hornets didn't fly with a LITENING pod or fly past 2005 with a NiteHawk pod? EDIT 2: And "Because we don't have documentation for it", "because we aren't legally allowed to", "because it's not cost-effective for us to spend resources on that" are all perfectly reasonable answers to that. Just tell us that at the time the determination is made.

Just like how nobody in the Air Force calls the F-16 the "Fighting Falcon" (everyone calls it "Viper"). CH-46E: "Phrog" AH-1 and UH-1: "Skids" CH-53E: "Shitter" MV-22B: "Down for an Avi Gripe, awaiting manufacturer response"

Hi all. I was wondering if ED had mentioned anywhere if they were planning to update the 3D model and capabilities of the Shitter or to add any other AI USMC rotary wing assets, like the Phrog or the Osprey? Some friends of mine are currently working on a series of campaign missions for us to fly, and right now we're discovering that it isn't really possible to run CSAR or TRAP missions the way a MEU in real life would. In addition to still being an old LOMAC 3D model, the AI Shitter that's in game right now only seems to have a combat radius of about 45 NM (regardless of what waypoints or triggers it has in mission, it always diverts to the nearest airfield at about that range). According to publicly available information, the Shitter should have a combat radius of about 180 NM. We're unable to substitute another aircraft for TRAP or CSAR missions, as neither the Phrog nor the Osprey exist in-game at the moment. I've been searching the forums trying to see if ED have mentioned updating the Shitter or adding a Phrog or Osprey to the game in the future, but I'm coming up empty. I do recall RAZBAM's post from 2017 teasing a full fidelity Shitter module ( https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/photos/a.316309961788982/1374080826011885/?type=1&theater ), but that appears to be the one and only time it's ever been mentioned. Just to be clear, I'm not asking or demanding that these aircraft be made right away, I'm just wondering if they've been mentioned previously as I can't find anything. I understand completely why these would be a low priority for ED given ED's workload.

Hello, I'm having an issue playing the FC3 aircraft after upgrading my computer's motherboard and CPU. I very stupidly forgot to deactivate the FC3 key before the upgrade. I'm having the following issues: When starting DCS, I get an error message stating that the system's hardware has significantly changed and FC3 needs to be reactivated. This happens every time I start DCS, regardless of what else I do in or out of game. If I click "retry", the window tells me that FC3 has successfully been activated. After clicking "OK" however, the window hangs and does not close. The system recognizes it as "Not Responding", and the only way to close the activation window is to kill it in the task manager. DCS starts up just fine with the frozen activation window in the background. I can join servers or start single player missions just fine, however I am not allowed to use any of the FC3 aircraft. If I click "exit" on the activation window, DCS starts up just fine, however it crashes as soon as I try to join a multiplayer server or start a single player mission. If I try going into the module manager, deactivating FC3, then reactivating it, I am still unable to use the FC3 aircraft, and when I close DCS and restart it, I receive the same activation error window as before.

There are people in this thread asking for the Prowler though, and I'm wondering if they think a full fidelity module of that is possible (it's not).

Just to clarify, are people asking for an AI EA-6B or a full fidelity module? A huge amount of what the Prowler does isn't simulated by DCS and would need to be handled by mission triggers rather than direct player input.

I'll test this later myself and see if it's happening to me too.

I'm having a problem where all RIO controls stop working when joining a plane already flying in multiplayer. Controls were working normally on the ground during our startup, however my DCS crashed and I had to rejoin after my pilot was already airborne. After rejoining and waiting for textures to load back in, I noticed that none of my control inputs were responding. I pulled up the control options menu and confirmed that the controls were still mapped and responding in the menu (i.e. they highlight in the menu when you operate them), however they would not respond in the cockpit. I attempted to remap the controls with no success. I also attempted to use the default keyboard commands which also did not respond. Lastly, I attempted quitting out of DCS, restarting my computer, rejoining the server, and slotting back in with my friend, and the controls would still not respond.

DCS Multiplayer has come a long way since the game first released many years ago. Servers like Blue Flag and Dynamic DCS have revolutionized the way we play online together, and the developing dedicated server is creating a whole new world of possibilities of its own. However, dynamic dedicated public servers are not without their own problems. Currently, it is not possible to properly plan, brief, and set up a mission prior to flying on a public server. Individual missions are planned ad hoc on the tarmac, and public dynamic servers sometimes become more avenues for airquake than opportunities for planned packages that they could be. I have a suggestion for solving this problem that could also help the future dynamic campaign engine. I'll call it the "Create Package" menu. Upon joining a public server and entering the lobby, there would be a "Create Package" button. A server-side option set by the server owner would determine whether the ability to create a package is open to anyone or would require a server-side password. Upon selecting this option, the player would enter a "Package Setup" screen. This screen would show the map, possibly intelligence information (either provided by the server or generated dynamically by some to-be-implemented dynamic system), and an area for listing flights attached to the package. The player creating the package could further have the option of setting his package to a certain password or leaving it open for anyone to join. Within this window, the package commander could then create individual flights attached to the package. The package commander would start by selecting an aircraft for that flight, which would determine radio, weapon, systems, and navigation options were open to him. After selecting an aircraft, the package commander could then use the map to designate waypoints for that flight, set default radio and datalink frequencies, and set weapons loadouts. When players join the package, join that flight, and spawn in game, the waypoints, radio and datalink frequencies, and weapons and fuel loadouts would automatically be loaded into the aircraft. For players not creating a package, they would see a list of active packages which they could view to see individual flights, numbers of aircraft and type in each flight, and origin bases. A server-side option could determine whether packages would be allowed to reserve player slots directly, or if players would be required to slot in to an aircraft prior to joining a package. Any thoughts about this? I think this would be massively helpful on "dynamic" public servers like Blue Flag or DDCS, and would slot in nicely for the dynamic campaign system whenever that is implemented. What do you all think?

I would expect that anything with Link-16 or Link-4 modeled in-game will either be able to share information or will eventually have information sharing implemented in the future. EDIT: Rather, I should say that I would expect anything with Link-16 or Link-4 will have all the same features as the real world. Link-4A doesn't actually work like Link-16.

So guys I have a theory. The Tomcat has ALREADY been released. We already have it. The reason you can't fly it is it's the Iranian Tomcat and it's grounded for lack of parts.

First off I'd like to say everything looks EXCELLENT so far! Great work HB! JESTER sounds amazing as is! I was wondering if it will be possible to mod JESTERs voice files to replace them with alternate recordings. This is NOTHING against Grayson Frohberg, he's done an outstanding job as JESTER. I'm curious about replacing his voice for purely joke/comedic reasons. For example, replacing his voice files with an anime girl or Goofy or Macho Man Randy Savage or something similarly ridiculous. Keep up the excellent work! Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'd like to add to this discussion. I'm part of a discord with about 30 people. All of us are flight sim enthusiasts, and all of us would love to play DCS, except that we feel like we can't most of the time. Because of the aforementioned bugs and stability issues, we mostly don't even touch DCS except for once in a blue moon. We would LOVE to play more DCS, but the current stability issues, bugs, and lack of dynamic content keep us from playing. If the attitude of ED is that because people don't play multiplayer it isn't worth working on, then you have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think there are a great many people (such as those in my discord group) who would love to play more multiplayer and buy more modules, except that we are waiting for the current problems to be fixed and for content to be added (DDCS and BlueFlag help a lot with this). As for a lack of posts, not everyone has the time or patience to post on the forums daily. I myself didn't see the need to post given that these issues had already been discussed. I would hope that forum posts are not the only metric ED uses to measure player usage, as I'm sure there are a great many players or potential players who do not engage with the forums.

Anybody have a source for that LSO overlay you guys use for the PLAT CAM? I feel like that'll be a valuable commodity in the coming days.