Kang

Why leave it there? In theory it might make sense to give any unit the option to report contacts, if so set up through its advanced actions. Certainly, a ship has other abilities and units capable of that (ships, EWR and search radar units as well as plotting units) should be able to give proper GCI directions whereas other units would realistically be limited to reporting a sighting and their own position at best. But even the latter could be very useful for WW2 scenarios, for example.

I fully agree with several of your points. Sure, individually one can just not buy the product and move on, but the fact remains that, perhaps, ED would in fact like to know why one doesn't.

Seems like a problem for F-16 plebs who can't turn around... No, seriously, having a ground crew option for either a push back or turn around would be very useful in a lot of situations and, I'd assume, not all that hard to do.

Just shamelessly plugging this old idea for the nth time: Seeing how the animations are all included and done, could someone at ED maybe invest a slow morning into implementing pilots as infantry AI units for airfield decorations and SAR mission purposes?

Lets not play that game yet again... Here is a translated better answer: «ED never implemented the RPG projectile, as it is hardly ever visible on screen and it just didn't seem worth the effort. With more low flying helicopter focus this might be a good idea sometime, though.» To be honest, I think ED has a point. Even in this screenshot, presumably taken from a replay, it's blurry as all heck.

From what I understand the AWACS/GCI system is up for a rework anyway, and is 'being worked on' for quite a while. While I certainly agree that the aspect at times might be very important indeed, my general experience with the current AI AWACS in DCS is that I just don't even care for it, as there is a high chance it keeps on reading lists of aircraft groups somewhere in Australia still while the only actual threat in the theater has taken off, popped up, closed, merged and shot at me without ever getting mentioned.

While one might surmise so now, it does in no way imply such. I believe most people who bought the module did so under the assumption that it would indeed be completed, especially considering there is so little in it to complete anyway.

The general consensus about me seems to be that it has been too long.

The issue about performance is sadly also a testament to how especially some recent modules have terrible LODs.

Since tanks that scatter when their column gets attacked can drive into houses and actually remain combat effective from inside, this isn't such a surprise.

I think what the OP meant in regards to ground forces and radio messages is that it would be good if ground units could be set up to report units they can see via radio, even when they are not a dedicated JTAC unit. I like that idea, because as flawed as the current AWACS/GCI system in DCS is, it would be quite sufficient for this sort of thing. Set up a radio frequency for a vehicle and it'll just list bearing and distance either from itself or from a bullseye for all units the group can see. In regards to the cows: yes, they got a lot of a laugh, but actually, they are fun. I'd like to have a few more of those myself. Also lets face it: since when is 'community sees it as a waste of resources' an argument for ED?!

Well, in the alternate universe in which WW2 never happened the F4U happens nonetheless and ends up the decisive plane in defending against the interdimensional alien invasion. So there is that at least.

I love seeing more and more progress on this. Especially pleased to hear that programming is making progress as well.

And here's the thing that really baffles me, and it's not the first time: We know the boarding ladder animation is actually in the game. Quite a few interior compartments are actually part of the model - some of them become visible due to specific damage scenarios. Sometimes it seems to me that ED has done all the heavy lifting for this kind of request already (and in some cases literally years and years ago) and then flatly refuses to do the one afternoon quick job of adding the keybind. It's in a similar vein of my personal long-standing peeve of having done full animations for pilots, yet refusing to let us put them in scenarios for some bizarre reason. Boggles my mind...

Interesting question, really. I like Syria a lot, but when push comes to shove, I really spend most of my time on the Caucasus map anyway. Frankly, that's the reason I'm not jumping excitedly at Kola so far.

Yes... a core feature that they said would be needed for a working SH-3 module. The whole lack of any ASW mechanics on the whole never stops ED from dedicating most of the 'naval focus' towards submarines for some reason either...

Simpsons did it...

I would definitely also enjoy a Sea King as a proper module, but if I remember correctly ED dismissed the idea mostly because it would require water landing dynamics that DCS doesn't have. Would sure appreciate an AI unit of both of these anyway.

Love Sally B. Also, nice to see the Blenheim flying. Last time I managed to visit they were very busy restoring it and nowhere near done.

I would like to suggest the Antonov An-12 to be added as an AI unit at some point before 2040. It is a turboprop cargo plane that has been around since the late 50s and continues to be in active military service today, as well as with a number of civilian operators. It used to be one of the mainstays of the Soviet air forces and thus would be useful in a lot of Cold War scenarios as well as a bit of flavour for those beyond.

I'd say the new addition of a keybind to have all the service hatches open on the Apache is a good sign for this sort of thing. It is a similar situation, really, in that these are all animations that have been done and implemented and ED seems to figure out that, yes, maybe they should just be used.

Somewhat relatedly, I would appreciate if clouds had an effect on IR seekers. Or on AI spotting, for that matter...

Frankly I doubt there is a market for selling both of those separately.

All in favour of setting this stuff right 'sometime', but for the time being I feel the very system that works for ground units could be ported to the ships. After all, the sim does have to track what weapons any vessel has anyway? Just giving mission designers a little checkbox that enables/disables certain weapon systems (if ammo count isn't a thing for some reason) would help a lot and can't possibly be all that difficult, unless you want to tell me that the weapon employment of ships in DCS works fundamentally different from that in ground vehicles. Also, seriously: torpedo, shmorpedo. It would be nice to have those, but for what is primarily a flight simulator their relevance is small enough that holding up QOL updates on the way ships work in DCS for the sake of implementing them properly is just plan weird. Yes, ship missiles change by the years. But lets get real here: they don't really in DCS. Again, that would be nice in the future, but lets get a few small things down now?

Frankly, the CAA training mission contains several errors I am sure, which are not terrible but a thing still: There might be a reason to go to heaters before lock on, but for the second enemy plane I cycled through the entire process, selected AIM-7s immediately and it worked just the same. I might have misheard that, but I also believe the instructor said the sight should be set into A/G mode.