twistking

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!!!

maybe those encyclopedia entries could be made as a community wiki project. ED would then only need to moderate and push updates...

It would be very useful if the encyclopedia would also contain basic/typical mission parameters: Cruise speed at different altitudes, typical altitudes for different missions etc. The tanker f.e. should include typical AAR parameters for all AAR-capable jets...

First of all, i agree that this curse of broken nav lights at distance need to go away. I'm not sure if the solution would be to use the spotting dots though. Currently (at least in 2.8) nav lights vanish way before the spotting dots should kick in. On the other hand, rendering lighting sprites at distance is not a complex problems: Much older games do it convincingly since ages... I think ED just never bothered. Hopefully they do now... And yes, distinguishable red/green would be much appreciated... at least up to a certain distance...

Is the MR switching itself notable? I mean, do you notice everytime it occurs, or is ist that you eventually see those artifacts and therefore realize it must be on?

custom nose-art for the warbirds would be similarly cool.

are you running mods?