twistking

Jato and Mavericks are a much harder sell though (imho) than Quadwinders, INS, radar scope visuals and AAR. JATO is very "cool" obviously, but will ultimately be a gimmick that's rarely used or useful. Mavs would be a serious firepower upgrade, but would also require a new display unit in the cockpit. INS for comparison would be equally expensive to implement (new cockpit panel), but would enhance the aircraft in every role it can fulfill.

I don't think anything is inherited except the parameters of the formation bombing. I'm not entirely sure though. Another tip for formations is to be aware of aircraft performance. Make sure that the formation leader cruises with engine power comfortably below 100%, so other aircraft can catch up easily. It also helps to spawn formations a little bit higher than their first waypoint: The descend (if not too steep!!!) can help stragglers to catch up.

Hello, this has already been requested and discussed to death in various threads. This post only exists as a wishlist item for you to upvote in the hope to sway ED's decision makers to make the remaster the upgrade we deserve. Here we go then: Please consider upgrading the radar to make it more realistic If a logic rewrite is not economically feasible, consider a simple, purely graphical overhaul An art pass alone could already improve the aesthetics and visual realism without an expensive logic rewrite Thanks!

Hello, this has already been requested and discussed to death in various threads. This post only exists as a wishlist item for you to upvote in the hope to sway ED's decision makers to make the remaster the upgrade we deserve. Here we go then: Please consider adding AAR capability (Probe-and-drogue) F-5E should have been factory prepared to be easily modified with a refueling probe Requires minimal changes to cockpit and fuel system logic Thanks!

Hello, this has already been requested and discussed to death in various threads. This post only exists as a wishlist item for you to upvote in the hope to sway ED's decision makers to make the remaster the upgrade we deserve. Here we go then: Please consider adding the possibility to carry additional Aim-9 on the outboard wing stations F-5E should have been wired to do so, even if it was not commonly used operationally Mission editors could always use the loadout restriction feature to enforce limited loadouts Thanks!

Hello, this has already been requested and discussed to death in various threads. This post only exists as a wishlist item for you to upvote in the hope to sway ED's decision makers to make the remaster the upgrade we deserve. Here we go then: Please consider adding INS (Inertial navigation system) as found f.e. in Swiss F-5Es The INS should be optional (ME toggle) so that earlier versions could still be approximated Thanks!

Didn't Denmark and Austria also operate it? A Norwegian livery would also be cool, even if Norway is not a direct neighbor (still kinda close)...

We desperately need an option or variation of the CAP task, to limit units to engage only when enemy units are within a set range relative to the CAP flights current position. Contrary to popular belief this does not exist in DCS currently. The option available only limits engagement to a distance around the flight route, which is a feature that is utterly pointless, since "engage in zone" does more or less the same.

Can confirm.

Not a big fan of user placed runways as rigid objects. They will never meet ED's goals for visual fidelity. Having better tools to create roadbases would be appreciated though. It's technically possible now, but should be improved. For starters we would need the ability to block road traffic from highway sections. Functional ATC and mobile ILS and illumination systems would also be appreciated.

I propose some small improvements to ME that are easy to implement and would add a lot of value for users. General QOL Option to leave values in waypoint options blank to be populated with value from earlier waypoints. This would allow altitude/speed of a whole route to be changed with a few clicks, instead of needing to edit every waypoint Better randomization options All editor fields that accept numbers should accept basic syntax for random min-max between two numbers, so that airspeed, altitude, timed conditions, etc. could easily be randomized by typing in a range instead of single value All editor fields that accept numbers should also accept variables / flags as well as simple equations (f.e.: varA*varB-varC) Random placement circle option for every asset and waypoint (would choose position randomly on mission start within defined radius) Multiple possible routes per group within the UI, without scripting (f.e. option to create "dummy-objects" and make a route for them and allow proper units to switch to those routes by advanced "switch waypoint logic" with probability option to have multiple possible paths Nested mission files / smart dependencies Ability to open a mission file in another mission as "smart dependency" without hard merging. This would allows mission designers to make variations of missions based on template missions that could be edited later and thereby update all missions that use said template. A template could f.e. hold most AI and static objects, where the "active" files could hold setups for different player aircraft, friendly AI, additional AI for balancing or simply different weather and time of day... If users want to edit assets from the template file, the editor would load that file as active template

I think that proximity or time fused 57mm was never issued in significant quantities, so it wouldn't necessarily be very realistic. That said, i would still appreciate it as an option: There is documentation of quite a few different (experimental?) shells for the soviet 57mm, so it would still be plausible and would add a lot more gameplay variety with very little coding and no additional art required. This is an approach ED should take more often when it comes to anti-air: Adding different shells or missiles to AAA/SAM systems to increase variety with little art and coding requirements... example

Exactly this. Static bodies -even if not ideal- would be so much better than having nothing at all. ED needs to get their priorities straight.

For me lack of radar improvements are the biggest disappointment with the F5 remaster. Even if ED won't do a complete rewrite, they should at least update the visuals to better match the reference...

Right click -> Open Image in New Tab

The freedom fighter will feel right at home over 80s Germany. We should have official liveries for all central European Nations that flew the F-5.

Looks very good! Will the resulting mission file be free of dependencies, or will there always be a dependency to your mod/plugin?

I see. 3d mounting the 430 would also be cool indeed. Haven't even thought about it.

What benefits would the digital radios bring to DCS apart from the obviously more realistic representation of that version of the aircraft? I'm not arguing against it, just wondering why people get excited about the prospect. From all the features discussed here (Quad-winders, AAR, Mavs, INS) this seems to be the least interesting from a gameplay point of view...

It's unreal seeing these large aircraft at Tempelhof. I often use the old runways for bicycle sprints. They are rather short. And -as you already mentioned- no run-off area.

With DCS lighting tech getting more sophisticated each year, this longstanding issue is getting ridiculous. I made my first post about it 10 years ago. Since then there have been dozens of posts, a lot of them in the bug section, because people rightfully felt that the current implementation is just "broken"... Since it's still not fixed i'll treat it as a "missing feature" and -again- do a wishlist post instead... Proper visibility for nav lights and beacons is way more important than sophisticatedly computed penumbrae while basic sprite lights don't even come with a performance hit: Flight sims in the 2000s could already render nav lights and beacons to realistic distances. It's just sprites! Tactical night flying is borderline impossible without modern jets' HMCS and buddy tracks. Aircaft beacon lights and landing lights should be visible at 25 - 50km Nav lights (green/red) should be visible (and distinguishable) several kilometers at least. Brightness settings should be respected, so that dimmed lights are less visible (obviously). Tanker aircraft should be lit realistically during AAR Weather and atmospheric properties would ideally be taken into account, however since opting to use external lights generally comes with the explicit intention to actually be seen, this is not even that important and could be crudely approximated There should be AI logic and ME options to control lights on AI units. Light status should be taken into account for AI spotting capabilities All this does not require new lighting tech or complex retooling. The engine can already render sprites at sufficient distances and do so without a hit on performance. With the upcoming PTO and CW Germany those improvements are needed even more. How would you even do a rejoin at night without all the modern gizmos if your external lights cannot be seen after a few hundred feet? If you like the proposed improvements, please rate this thread 5 stars: Thanks!

Makes sense. They needed the power for the death strip and "Erichs Lampenladen"... Jokes aside, that DOES mean the situation must have been similar in the 80, with East Berlin being lit mostly by orange sodium-vapor-lamps. I hope Ugra can replicate this! Thanks! I've read through the wiki article, but i'm still unsure about combat capable aircraft. I assume the corridors would have been open for them, although it's a strange idea to have combat capable aircraft flying over "enemy" territory without causing major diplomatic headaches... *edit* Did more reading: Corridors were only open to non-combat aircraft.

Yes, that would be a decent way to do it. So decent in fact, that i assume it's what ED is already considering. Arent't the Heatblur Rio UI and ED helicopter gunner UI done similarly? I would just love to also have the option of using voice recognition naturally and immersively with the ED VoIP Mic keybinds. That would be a very cool use case for all the new AI tech... *edit* sniped by @MAXsenna on voice being the most immersive way to do it...

Do you know how overflight rights were handled? Was there a corridor that was generally open for NATO aviation, or were permissions needed per flight? Berlin in "ongoing conflict" would have been a heap of rubble after a few hours, so i don't think that Ugra are aiming for that. I also doubt that the death strip would have gone dark in times of heightened tension. Speaking of lights: In the 2000s you could still clearly spot the borders of old west Berlin from the air, because of difference in street lighting. I wonder what the situation would have been in the 80s. If street light apartheid was a thing back then, then Ugra should also try to replicate that. *edit* I assume that both West and East used gas lamps, but Western ones were just cooler/brighter (?).

I would like to see the option for DCS terrain tech to allow mission designers to modify the ground texture and grass properties. This would enable them to paint in tire marks or "used" zones around SAM sites or logistic assets placed in ME. One big visual problem - mostly on "green" maps - is the lack of possibility for the terrain to react to placed assets. When placed on grassland, these assets look out of place. At the same time, the lack of tire marks makes logistic-heavy sites (Long range SAMs f.e.) more difficult to spot from the air than they would be in reality. I propose a system where the DCS terrain engine could take info from the ME to create areas that override the default ground properties. With this mission editors could "paint" in small dirt roads, foot paths and areas "beaten up" by heavy vehicles. It would be desirable to have this system working during mission runtime also, so that moving units could create these areas dynamically, but i think a "static" system that is fed from ME input solely is "good enough" for most situations. Technically it should be less difficult than it may perhaps seem. Texture blending/masking is surely already possible in DCS. This feature would dramatically improve the visual footprint of editor-placed ground assets and create a much more realistic visual representation of military installations of any kind... If you like the proposed improvements, please rate this thread 5 stars: Thanks!