twistking

Hello, i've got a switch waypoint task on an aircraft group and under condition for the task i check the "probability" checkbox and set probability to 50%, however when i run the mission the group will always switch waypoint. tested with multiple groups, multiple times: task is always active, despite the probability. is this bugged, or does this work differently than i assume? i was expecting the group to ignore the task half the time...

Not a fan of having assets locked to certain maps/dates. What if i want to have werewolves in las vegas (or something like a french resistance fighter as a VIP in the pacific war)? *edit* ignore

Fair enough...

The S-60 57mm gun and the KS-19 100mm gun still lack their crew after being in the sim for many years now. It looks really stupid seeing these guns traverse and fire without crew and it also makes it difficult to judge if a gun is disabled or not. Both the guns are vital assets for many missions and the missing crew is a very obvious shortcoming of the current implementation.

+1

yes, highly needed. I would like to add some other very basic objects like flagpoles (with a broad selection of different flags to choose of course), hesco bunkers etc.

I feel this should automnatically populate the kneeboard, like @Exorcet said, but instead of the mission designer, the actual players should have control over what info will appear in their kneeboard by editing the kneeboard as part of a feature of the upcoming DTC/mission planner. So the mission planner would automatically offer all the info that might be useful by scraping the mission data and the player could just select sets of elements to include or ignore.

I agree. Even though it was never stated, i assume and hope (!) that the DTC feature is - first of all - a thought-out MP-compatible mission-planer (with DTC features, as well as ground crew / loadout / AC-setup / kneeboard-editor implementation).

bump

good point. i do wonder however if the dynamic campaign tech will introduce a completely new framework for AI, so that there is no incentive for ED to keep improving that archaic system. there are so many low hanging fruits regarding potential AI tasking enhancements, that i want to believe that the dynamic campaign framework will make all current systems obsolete - even for less dynamic, more "scripted" missions.

I think these are very good points. There should be at least three flavors of insurgent type fighters. If we get a more "generic" broadly european archetype and a "generic" asian archetype, we would be set up for many history conflicts without having to modell hundreds of factions. A few different infantry units, maybe gun crews, a few cosmetic objects like flagpoles and we would have much more options than before without too big of an development effort. And yes, having a second "generic" insurgent faction in the ME would be helpful as well. The combined redfor/blufor factions are a workaround, but not a very elegant one.

I fully understand. Having each faction modelled individually would be overkill. It would be nice however, to have "insurgent" infantry (and maybe gun crews) come in two or three semi generic "regional" flavors: For example "European/Eastern European", "Middle East", "Central Asia"... etc. Then add a few cosmetics like flagpoles with different flags (not only for insurgents, but also all available nation states) and i feel it would be perfectly adequate for a world that's mostly only viewed through a targeting pod anyway....

looks good! for a future update i would really like, if you could mark hardened SAM locations in the ME with a small icon, so that it's easier to find when building a mission.

Wasn't the VR mask just masking MSAA area? Or in other words, what would you like the VR mask to actually mask, when not using MSAA? I'm pretty sure that DLSS/DLAA does not support foveated rendering. Not saying that ED should not add features like masked VRS for VR, but -afaik- this would be a completely new feature and not simply a variation of the legacy VR mask.

fair enough

i feel all units should be able of providing early warning. i have already proposed a system where every unit could have an EWR trait in it's options, which would allow it to provide updates on air contacts within it's detection range. there should be an option also that "simulates" how tight the unit is incoperated into the controller network: this would basically be just an delay. that way even infantry could relay info about spotted aircraft, but a delay of several minute could simulate the info slowly moving up through chain-of-command then to the controller where it could get used to vector in interceptors... or get discarded because of being too old by that point. so there would also be the need for a very simple controller AI logic, that could discard "bad" (old) information, prioritize info and/or guess/extrapolate bandit position from multiple sources. not trivial, but also not super complex to implement.

moon cycle visualization is already built into the editor. there is a drop down menu where you select the mission date/time...

oh dang. i checked the wishlist section for potential duplicates, but did not think of the chit-chat-corner. honestly who would;)

I hope ED's engineers can have a look at this. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000095419/processors.html First independent benachmarks indicate up to 20% performance improvments and even higher power/performance metrics. I deliberately did not post it in the wishlist, because i just learned about the technology and can't judge if it would be a good fit for DCS. I just want to make sure that ED and everyone else who might be interested know about this promising feature. Thanks.

well, it was planned to add them later (tm). it wasn't in the patchnotes for 2.9, no. there were some undocumented new models though (the ural trucks f.e.), so i thought they maybe have also added those long missing crews. have they?

quick question for those already on 2.9: did the medium and heavy AAA pieces (S60, KS-19) finally get their crew added?

i really doubt that the lack of civilians is a policy thing. when the DCS cows (tm) were introduced, wags himself said in an interview, that ED want to explore the possibility of having more lively maps with autogen content and he even mentioned civilians. there are many ways to introduce civilians without risking backlash. killing civilians could result in hardcoded penalties, maybe even a "game over". civilians could be immortal or they could be made to automatically flee and despawn instead of having a death animation. airliners are a bit more challenging, because they would need to be destructable i think. hardcoded penalties would still be possible. from a brand perspective the important aspect is, that DCS does not actively support warcrimes and certain acts. if unmodded vanilla would give you a "mission failed" or other penalty for "unwanted" behaviour, i don't think there would be any public outcry. fake footage for fake new can always be done with mods and ED has no possibility to stop that, but they can distance themselfes from such content by having the unmodded game forcing certain acts to be seen only in a specific context. my guess is, that civilian autogen is just a lot of work: it must look realistic, be map/situation-aware, mp-compatible, performance friendly, etc. ...

*bump* With more and more cold war jets being released, we need earlier generations of IR-SAMs! Not a lot development effort needed, as the launcher could use the same model and only the missile itself would need to be redone.

this thread should be bumped every few month. ok, i'll do it: *bump* Now with the new AI aircrafts being released, it's maybe a good time to revisit this low hanging fruit: Lots of return in game value for relatively low development effort!

i did not know that openXR supports hand tracking natively. DCS should absolutely support that then!!!