Lace

The way I look at it there are two ways to develop the CA element to DCS: Focus on the battlefield commander role. Have units contactable by radio, control movement, arcs of fire, ROE, resupply etc. played from more of a 2D map type interface. This would expand the possibilities of the dynamic campaign engine, and stay true to the DCS rather than DFS moniker. We could massively expand the number of ground and sea units without having to worry about modelling driving stations or gunner positions. Treat non-flying units as modules in their own right. Fully modelled and controllable accurate representations of specific units, in the same way they treat aircraft. Obviously the main problem here is the glacially slow development time of even AI units, never mind FF modules. Especially since DCS covers such a wide time period. (for reference, the C:MO database covers 3750 sea units and 2500 ground units within the 1950-2020+ time period, DCS would also have to add WWII to that!). To cover such a breadth of units to the level we have come to expect from ED would take an inordinate amount of time. Even 1% of that figure is over 60 modules. Without focussing on a narrow specific conflict or time period I just don't see that as achievable. Given those two approaches, I think only number one is a viable option. It allows strategic and tactical control of the battlefield, and is achievable before the year 2100.

Is this the plan? - I was about to start a topic on my disappointment in the sight implementation in VR, as I hoped that simply by looking down the sight lens one would see through the periscope as IRL, rather than the immersion-breaking pop up window. If this is WIP then that's fine, I can wait. I think it would be great to position my virtual head on the sight and adjust fire accordingly.

Not much broader appeal with that one, but it could be the start of an interesting concept - the Mini Map. Mini Maps could be much smaller (obviously) maps of specific areas, designed primarily for helicopter and CA operations. How about Mogadishu, Konna (Mali), Bo Town (Sierra Leone), Grenada?

Well, after 3 years I think the old girl has had her day. The trusty Aorus x7v7 with it's 1070M just hasn't got what it takes anymore. The latest upgrades to DCS mean it's a struggle even on the lightest of missions, so I'm looking for a replacement. I'm not interested in the laptop/desktop debate, I am away from home a lot, so it has to be at least semi-portable. The compromise in performance is acceptable, given that I will have much more opportunity to use it. I am looking mainly at the Alienware x17 Gaming Laptop | Dell UK. With a laptop version 3080 it won't be the last word in performance, but should still be a significant improvement on my current set up (GPU +82% according to UserBenchmark: Nvidia GTX 1070 (Mobile) vs RTX 3080 (Laptop). ) Only strict criteria are - a Display Port/Mini DP for the Rift S, and a 4k display (for C:MO). Any other options worthy of considerations? Any new models on the horizon I should maybe hold out for? TIA.

Thanks for the timeline. It looks like there are some exciting additions in the pipeline. It will be interesting to see how the ECM pods and decoys function within the DCS World environment. A wider expansion of the EW aspects of the game would be a welcome improvement. Also the A/G radar and HMCS symbology will be a game changer for the Viper's effectiveness.

Since there is not a day which goes by without some forumite lamenting the lack of 'modern' REDFOR aircraft and the resulting MP imbalance, perhaps one solution would be to add earlier versions of the BLUEFOR aircraft we have? 'A' model Viper, Hornet and (FF, not FC3) A-10 would be a great fit for the current REDFOR lineup. Flight models already exist and would just need tweaking, and there are fewer complex systems to create, so one would hope development time would be significantly shorter. They could also serve as a less intimidating option for new users, still realistic, but less complex in a similar way to the F-5. I know there is probably little financial incentive for ED, given most users will want the latest-and-greatest versions, but this is the wishlist thread, so I'm sticking with it.

Where to start...? BALTAP and GIUK would be great, as would the Fulda Gap, but really most of the BLUEFOR aircraft are too modern, we should really have the 'A' model Viper, Hornet and A-10 for those 80's scenarios (and F-111!). 60s/70s Vietnam with the right asset packs and modules (F-4, F-105, A-6, AH-1). Probably far too big though, especially if you were to include bases in Thailand. Libya could be a good option, but visually quite similar to the Syria/SoH map. The Korean peninsula makes a lot of sense, especially if offered in different eras (50s, 00s), like the Marianas map. The Aegean sea would be the right sort of size, plenty of water and a contemporary Greco-Turkish conflict would be well catered for with the current DCS units. A bit more left-field and I would go Angola/Namibia, Cuba/Florida, or Panama Canal. However, the best fitting option for our current modules and rough 90s-00s timeframe would be the Taiwan straights, or the Balkans/Yugoslavia.

I use an Xbox controller with my laptop when away from home. I think it actually works brilliantly, especially with VR where many controls can be manipulated by looking at them and clicking. With the use of modifiers most functions can be accommodated and the only thing I feel I lose vs a proper HOTAS is the fine movements (throttle mainly) necessary for AAR. I find the controller also works really well for helicopters. Here is my map FWIW: The blue are controls which I try to keep common with all aircraft, the white are aircraft specific. i.e. which ever aircraft I am flying I know that X is going to launch countermeasures and B is wheel brakes, which makes it easier to remember.

Very true, but in that case the limitation is the runway itself, rather than the aircraft.

Ever seen the state of your windscreen after a drive on a summer day? These aircraft operate at very low level. Lenses stay covered and bug free when not in use. Same reason TGPs are stowed on the ground, damage and bug splats can really degrade performance.

Given the amount of civilian and military transport heavies available for other sims, it is a shame that these cannot be ported into DCS somehow (IANAP). This could save a lot of development time and reduce costs. There are already decent modules in existence which would fit into the DCS world. C-130, C-17, etc for transport, PC-12, King Air, Gulfstream for ISR missions, etc. Offensive mission capable units like the AC-130 or B-52, and ISR platforms would have more systems to model, but for the pure transport modules anything from the civilian flight sim world would fit right in, assuming it was technically possible from a programming perspective.

It would be nice if the F10 map location was subject to downrange and cross range ambiguity, dependant on the type of emitters and detection equipment. Only when visually spotted (TGP, ground RADAR or Mk1 Eyeball) does the location become fixed. This is well simulated on a well known global professional-standard wargaming platform (the one where you take Command of Modern Operation scenarios). After detection each unit (once no longer being observed) remains at its last reported location with an elapsed time since last detection counting up. Obviously, a moving object is unlikely to be in that location for much longer, but until detected again the mark on the map will not update.

Close, but no cigar. The up-going wing has a down-moving aileron, which raises the AoA of that section of the wing, creating more lift which in turn creates more drag, The down-going wing has an up-moving aileron which lowers the AoA of that section of the wing which creates less lift and hence less drag. It is the different levels of drag yawing the nose towards the outside of the turn, nothing to do with wings going faster or slower. This is countered in most 'modern' (like, since the 1930s) aircraft with differential ailerons, where the up-moving aileron moves more than the down-moving one, thus creating more drag on the down-moving wing, and partially eliminating adverse yaw conditions during most flight regimes. It is also why you don't use the ailerons at or very near stall conditions (i.e. high AoA), but maintain directional control with the rudder, as an aileron induced increased AoA can stall the outward section of the up-going wing, which then very rapidly becomes the down-going wing!

No different to inadvertent finger movements IRL. Try adjusting radios/UFC etc in even light turbulence. You need to make slow deliberate movements.

Concur. Now seem much less effective.

Transponders do not give location data. They can report altitude and an ident code. You still require SSR to locate aircraft.

Like anything, it depends, but to reiterate what has been said above, the Viper is one of the more economical modules when operated correctly. Be disciplined with afterburner use, and don't engage if you don't have enough fuel to win the fight. Boyd expected the USAF to use the limited fuel capacity of the F16 (LWF) as a reason to bin the program and expand F15 procurement, but while it is true the F16 carried less fuel, its overall fuel fraction (i.e. fuel as a proportion of total weight) was actually higher than that of the F15. Boyd kept this card close to his chest, and when as expected the Air Force criticized the F16 for having much less fuel than the F15 the erroneous thinking was pointed out.

Does the F-14 have linked seats - i.e. could the AI RIO eject both crew after being hit, even though this never occurred in the original flight and no human instigated the ejection?

Even sailing boats carry reflectors to make them more visible to the RADAR of other vessels. Unintended stealth can have unpleasant consequences.

A full fidelity X-Wing or Y-Wing would be fun, though limited unless we introduce extraplanetary flight. Given the need to stick close to the ground and operate in a semi-real near future world how about the dropship from Aliens? In a similar vein how about Terminator's HK? Or going more leftfield, a War of the Worlds campaign with AI tripods? Given their known CBNR weaknesses ED will have to expand the weapons options a bit otherwise it will be a fairly one-sided fight. As you say though, just a bit of fun, not serious requests.

Yes, the instant action missions are rather too 'instant' in most cases. It takes away a big tactical element of pre-merge positioning, plus as you say the proper aircraft configuration.

Really? Why have they not made a bigger fanfare about this fix? Great news, I'll check it out later.

X-plane 11 has an iPad app which offers similar functionality. Essentially an instructor can generate system and control failures, birdstrikes, change wx conditions, change cg etc. Very useful and would be great to have something similar for DCS.

I don't play online MP due to time constraints - most of the servers I would in theory be interested in joining require commitment to be online at regular and frequent times. The sort of servers I can just jump in and out of are exactly the sort I would wish to avoid. All of this 'base capturing' etc is hilarious, like you could just land on an enemy airbase at claim it - what about the ground forces occupying it? are they suddenly going to switch allegiance just because an enemy fighter parks up on the apron? For a simulator community who argues the minutiae of realism I can't see how anyone can seriously entertain such a concept. For me the ideal server would have zero chat, realistic mission-based objectives, and no respawn. Fly as briefed, against an organised enemy (AI or human) and IADS.

Both of these would be useful. The "Say again" the most realistic, but I also think that any important info, such as 9-lines, approach instructions, clearances, etc. should automatically be copied to a kneeboard page, as they would in real life. Until there is a functional VR pen and paper I think this is a good compromise.