Kang

My thinking exactly, regarding the recon mode. As far as the line between the two scenarios goes, I think you are looking at it a bit too much through the prism of real life procedure. Within DCS they'd have pretty much the same effect, I believe. The main reason the are usually distinct is that to effective direct the fire one needs knowledge and experience on either how to aim artillery guns properly or how things look from a CAS run. Since in DCS they only have to relay position and - if we are ambitious - an attack direction, that should be a bit simpler.

Definitely in favour. Not only would this be a major enhancement of the Combined Arms experience, it would also make light observer vehicles much more viable within DCS. Think OH-58, or L-39, for example. A modest rework of JTAC is long overdue anyways, in particular about the way it would be very welcome indeed to have them pick their own targets without the need for scripting in the mission, and adding the functionality for them to communicate with artillery should really be part of that. In a second step it would of course also be nice to be able to direct artillery via radio, especially for aforementioned light aircraft. Perhaps a kneeboard-based map reference grid could be implemented. But that is both far away and mayhaps not what this thread is really about.

The fact that you mentioned this in another thread does not really make it any less disappointing. But lets get a bit back onto topic: I agree that it would be a little nasty to have a 'magic' landing capacity that does whatever, but seeing how this is not an actively controlled module and quite certainly part of the mission design, I would relegate that to the mission designers for a first phase. This leaves two wishes for me: 1.) a system that actually allows for ships/boats landing/beaching/docking in some reasonable albeit simplified way and 2.) adding more assets, both in these vehicles and related beachhead materials. The former is a task that should be worthwhile, despite being on the trickier side of things, and will likely take some time. The latter, while not trivial, should not be a huge problem.

I take some offence to that stance, but I'll agree that the WW2 asset pack certainly contains other things that are decidedly more useful. Personally I would have expected the boats to have the option to reach beaches and drop ramps, though, even if there was no further disembarkation happening after.

Sometimes it's as if that whole 'lets go for the rare late-war 109' was a bit of a bad move in retrospect...

Having proper animations for the different stages of the event would certainly be amazing, but I think that is mostly artwork that can be tackled later on and slowly expanded to ever more types of ships. First of all the basic mechanics need to be established and implemented. The fact that you can pay money for an asset pack that contains non-functioning Higgins boats is a bit deplorable in itself. But then I can already hear the usual thing: we can't have further ships or major functions for ships implemented until the whole damage modeling for ships is redone (ETA 2076)...

Sounds interesting. What actually are the requirements for the Higgins boats in DCS? Is this mostly about having a decently flat beach?

That's fair. It's probably also pretty deep down into the large pile of things suffering that fate.

Seeing how animated models of pilots have existed in DCS for over a decade one would think that adding it as a placeable unit should not be exactly a Herculean task, but then I have lost count of how often I have suggested doing so. Even ED couldn't come up with a convoluted excuse of why that would be impossible, so they have chosen to ignore it. My hopes are dim at this point.

You got to wait until the last day. Gives you a chance to make it through unscathed for a start. Also it provides a proper test of the purity of your intentions.

Probably not, but that's not what I meant. In fact, only making it worse.

As nice as the Yak-3 is, I think it would fall into several pitfalls at once that the 109K already explored.

They are not making that mistake again.

Is that a channel you occasionally watch? Is the content as sloppy as this thumbnail suggests?

I've seen your earlier wishlist signature. I know what you are plotting (pun intended)! You aim to recreate one of the best mission planners in flight sim history, don't you?

I think it would be worth the effort to make a semi-realistic module of select SAM systems on manual use. My previous suggestion always was a combined HAWK or SA-6, though. Guess I like those. Even if there insufficient interest in this, I would strongly suggest to everyone here to take a look at Hpasp's work, which might seem a bit dated now, but is criminally underrated.

I've tried around with this a bit over the past week and here is what I found: I do owe ED and @Gunfreak an apology here, because I was able to replicate what you said in the exact scenario I had in mind. There is the occasional fluke of something odd happening, but nowhere near as regularly as I previously claimed. On multiplayer servers the picture changes a lot Especially larger (or longer) missions that spawn in further aircraft through a script seem to display the problem I had quite often, perhaps related to the way those units sometimes 'remember' their previous lives. It seems I had spent too much time around these missions and thought it was a completely regular thing.

For real? Confuses me a bit. And by that I mean a lot. Because that literally is one of those constant pet peeves of mine! Not running any mods at all either. I shall further investigate how that happens, then.

That is, frankly, not true. If you track a contact in a Tomcat, for example, you can clearly see it merrily flying straight for miles and miles, but as soon as you launch - despite the radar situation not changing one bit at that time - they will suddenly feel an urge to notch you. Now, I admit this might be an F-14 fluke somehow, but I suspect it is just easiest to observe there due to the rather long range of the AIM-54.

I'm beginning to think that starting a thread of a map wish for literally every place that gets named in the news in conjunction with air power might not exactly be a great strategy to get anything done.

Wouldn't that do pretty much do nothing else than show how they get said situational awareness regardless of RWR?

Does it coincide with anything you do? It might be that a control has been set to something you actually use for something else. Perhaps check the controls list, especially 'DSCG contrast dec' and there is also an axis setting for that knob. Called something like '[Simpit] screen contrast'.

For MSFS. Please keep your pantaloons on.

Bit odd, innit. Have you tried if the (in-game) screen adjustements do anything? Like the Brightness and Contrast knobs? If they do I would suspect maybe they are accidentally bound to something and thus running away to max (or min).

I can concur I have seen this in multiplayer on other folks' Ka-50 III models a lot and always forgot to take a screenshot.