Tippis

LMAO no. There are zero of those, and that's not nearly enough. We've been through this already — before you make these kinds of statements, you really need to learn how DCS options work and why (and also why it is absolutely impossible to have “too many” or “enough” of them). Again I have to ask why you are so dead set against allowing DCS to improve and become more accessible, customisable, and appealing. Why must it languish in an ever more backwards and obsolete design sense — are you actively trying to make it become outdated and dead, and if so why?!

Quite. I've had to set that up as a task scheduled script to prune the worst excesses when track (or Tacview) recording is active on my server — the gigs accumulate at an astonishing speed otherwise, and being able to restrict and easily adjust in-game how many are kept would be immensely helpful.

So it's entirely in line with what DCS is advertised and intended to be. Just because other games have a feature doesn't mean DCS must at every cost avoid having it, no mater how much you personally hate such improvements.

Same for me as as for Zyll — it went away silently at some point, and I can't even tell when.

disable_write_track = true is a lifesaver. Or at least a disk saver.

It was also the best map in the entire game.

Because if you don't have the password, they're just useless spam in a slot list that already shows more than is strictly necessary or useful. In addition, the more you can hide information from other players — especially other coalitions — the better.

Fundamentally, the problem lies in the JTAC — it's because the AI JTAC (wholly unrealistically) can't adjust its code that they have had to invent all these older (equally unrealistic) work-arounds, and over time, some developers have chosen to go for a more sensible route and others have instead opted for JTAC compatibility. The whole thing needs a game-wide wipe and rewrite, tbh. From JTAC on up, including all laser-guided weapons on all platforms, preferably tying it into a unified and universal (real-time) ground arming and -setup system. Layering on even more half-baked half-measure emergency patch solutions is rapidly becoming more and more untenable.

I'm mostly in agreement with Perpetual above on this. The functionality is pretty much already there, and also already in a more flexible way. The problem is that it gets a right mess if you try to use it extensively because of how limited and constricted the UI is, with no real ability to group or filter or show dependencies between triggers, and with list windows that in 2022 still assume you're playing at 720p. Also, the whole presumption that you're dealing with numbered flags — they're actually also more flexible than that, but there's little indication for it and trying to make them descriptive once again quickly busts out of the tiny tiny UI boxes at your disposal. So while I fully understand and sympathise with the OP's felt need to include it in the trigger itself, I think the solution is better addressed at the root: in an outdated UI that makes it a right pain in the behind at every step of the way to make use of functionality and flexibility that is already fully available.

And from this blurry view of one page you are able to divine the full content of his entire kneeboard. From this you then conclude that checklist are not used, and that DCS must not be improved through their presence. Impressive. Most impressive. Or just utter nonsense.

Yes you do. You're just not informed enough to understand it. Not that this laughably pathetic attempt at a strawman is in any way, shape, or form relevant to the topic at hand anyway (but then, that's the inherent nature of strawmen and why you must so desperately cling to them as your only hope of even remotely being able to make it seem like you have anything cogent or worth-while to say). Prove it. (Or… you know, just admit that you can't because, well, you can't — you just made that up.) Irrelevant. So what's even your point here? What on earth are you even blathering about as far as the topic here? You have read the OP and understood the topic of the thread, right? Or are you just doing your usual off-topic spam trolling in the vain hope that DCS never evolves? No, really. What on earth was the point of your post?

So there.

Read the rest of his post, remember what razo+r said, and now consider the implications for what you're asking here.

…and in the same vein, the ability to override the airfield ATC logic and dictate an active runway irrespective of the nonsensical choice the ATC would pick on its own. It's probably all tied into the same underlying logic anyway. +1

Sure. You already fully endorsed the OP, after all, before you then tried to argue that it shouldn't happen anyway because… no real reason. Just more trolling, I suppose. Most actually do. You just don't have enough of a valid sample, by your own admission. The ones who don't will have or they already have it in different forms (including in-game).

No. You just said something silly based on uninformed assumptions with absolutely nothing to back it up, and now you're trying to save it so you can continue your pointless trolling of yet another wishlist thread so make sure that DCS does not ever get any better. That is not what you actually said, and you're going to have come up with a better reference if you want to support your statement. More to the point, what you need to memorise in training to pass a test is of absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. It's just a worthless red herring you're throwing in there because you don't want to see a very natural, sensible, and realistic part of flying be added to the game for some wholly incomprehensible reason. …and yet, you commonly appeal to absolute realism to try to argue that other improvements to the game are not made. You need to make up your mind. You haven't offered a single valid, coherent, truthful, or even remotely intelligent argument or statement in favour of your desire that the game should not be improved the way the OP suggests. Try making one and maybe you won't end up ruining your own position over and over again by showing how untenable it is.

Yes you do. That's why they exist.

Lmao no. That's just some weird prejudice you have against developers. Devs can do things very quickly — quicker than most — because they have the tools and the assets and the know-how to do so. No matter how busy they are, quick things are still quick. You're confusing prioritisation with difficulty and effort. If you've been around any kind of software long enough, you realise that if need be, something can be added and rolled out in a matter of hours or even minutes. This is just you making bad-faith non-arguments from a position of complete ignorance. You should probably play the game before making these kinds of statements. Jeez. Again, you're making up absolute nonsense from a position of ignorance. …from a position of complete ignorance… They all do. Getting them in-game is absolutely trivial and can be done in minutes with the right tools. Now, in spite of your strong preference for using ignorance as a basis for your 100% being-wrong-rate, would you like to venture a guess as to who might have the right tools at hand…? No. That's the very reasons why the checklists exist: because you cannot trust memory. You're operating on a logic that (just barely) held true before casual flight was a thing, over a hundred years ago. We have moved on and learned a lot since then so the situation is the exact opposite of the one you're assuming. They have checklists and they use them. Their training requires them to use them. They may eventually memorise parts but memory is useless and untrustworthy and gets people killed, so you use the checklist.

Setting up a mission the way you want it to be played is not a cheat. Don't be daft. What dilemma? The solution to a missing feature that would improve realism, gameplay, and general user friendliness is to add that feature. This would be a good thing. The alternative is to leave the game unrealistic, unfriendly to the user, and to have annoying gameplay limitations. This is a choice between a universally good option and a universally bad option — that is not a dilemma.

Because it's there. And because maps are something you find in an aircraft, so it's pretty darn unrealistic if you couldn't use it. In what way is it a cheat to get the coordinates off of a map? You do realise that coordinates exist in real life, right, and that maps have them and show them? Applying the c-word in relation to something that is realistic, that is intentional, and that has numerous controls and options attached to it to determine the level of information you can gain is spectacularly silly.

The same as with any other aircraft in the game.

…make use of the ridiculously powerful hardware and memory capabilities of a modern computers to simulate the most basic functionality that has existed in aircraft since before they even successfully got off the ground the first time, and add the universal ability for pilots to jot down notes and annotations on whatever surface is available. You know. As if it was a flight simulator or something. That would be infinitely better than some boneheaded inapplicable non-universal external non-solution that shouldn't even be needed, just to solve a problem that should never have existed to begin with.

Excellent. No argument against then. Your approval of the idea has been noted. Clicking “export as PNG” does not take a long time, even for a developer with access to the source assets and an auto-build tool.

Also, more as a question to @NineLine, before we go off and try to think up other ways of structuring things, I'm guessing that part of this hierarchy is just inherent in how the forum software works? As in, you still want 3rd-party sections because you can set up moderator groups to give those devs a small section of their own to control without that spilling over into other parts and without having to create complex “a bit from column A, a bit from column B” control definitions? Same with the various bug forums that can then be handed out as limited-access control sections to various internal teams. Because if that's part of the logic, that puts some limitations on what other groupings are even sensible and manageable to suggest.

Agreed. This is indeed a “cleaner” look, but that cleanliness is somewhat achieved by sweeping things under the rug that really ought to be exposed. This setup just begs for more threads being created in the first available first- or second-level forum rather than where it actually belongs, because there's little to no indication that those more appropriate locations even exist.