FalcoGer

Excuse me, but I vote for realism too. It's far more realistic that airplane from year YYYY where the manual states that it can carry M151 rocket pods would be able to carry M151 rocket pods, just with a different thing in the tubes in a mission where the next plane over on the ramp can do just that. There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing it. And it was designed to do so. The only thing that needs to be done is updating the manual, which by the way, I have read.

Because ED is lazy and thinks the current version is good enough? I don't know, nor can I find out.

That A10C from 2005 would be perfectly capable of mounting and shooting APKWS with no modifications whatsoever. Heck, you could shoot the stuff from the 1980s one as long as you got someone on the ground lasing for you. And there is the problem. All clients would need that modification to play together, where it should be default. It's hard enough as it is to get everyone to have the A4-E mod. How does giving a new weapon system to the aircraft but not another, completely different one, make it a fictional aircraft? The most modern version of the F16 can mount all the weapons the previous versions can. Heck you can mount AGM-45s on the F16 still, no one ever does it. We won't ever get the AGM-45 for the F16, nor is it needed. Does that make it fictional? That's not valid reasoning. Modern F16 will not fly with AIM120D very often. They want to use up the old stuff first. The Ds will go on F22 and F35 first because they want those platforms to have the best possible survivability. What I mean to say is there is no need need to write new software for an aircraft, which will take years. The need is to write an approximation and simplify. It's not like DCS simulates air molecules going over the wing, or simulating radio waves with quantum mechanics to get an accurate representation of radar. Heck it doesn't even simulate the cables in the aircraft. Either something is working or it isn't. The rest is a complex, but not nearly realistic logic circuit that determines what happens when something fails. There is no need to simulate the oxidation of fuel in a rocket motor. You have 2 numbers. Fuel remaining, fuel flow rate and thrust produced and that's all that's needed for a rocket motor. 3 numbers and a more or less simple equation that takes 15 minutes of research and 2 minutes to implement. The hard part is getting the correct figures. Software updates for an airframe are basically free (as in 10 minutes of work) for ED in terms of allowing existing (in DCS) weapons to be usable with platforms that got them later. It's not offensive to me that DCS is a simulation. It's merely a fact that it's much simpler code than actual software for an aircraft. And not everything is simulated. It's mostly an emphasis on flight models, avionics and logic, not actual physics, electronics and systems. There is no electric current running to your MFD to turn on the LEDs, It's just a texture. There is no processor in your FCS system, it's just a black box that just works as long as the logic dictates that it does (ie. no damage, power, hydraulics available). As such it's easier to write code and details on real world systems are not necessary. You need only to know what it does, not how it does it to implement it in the simulation. And it still would be able to fire APKWS just as well as anything else that can mount an M151, even with an old radar. I'm not saying, change the systems around willy nilly. I'm saying allow the weapons to be mounted that CAN be mounted and that we ALREADY HAVE. When new modules are released with new weapons that may be deployed on other, existing modules or maybe even new weapon systems individually, then phase them into existing modules as they can be used in the real world. For example the JSOW was developed for the hornet. The F16 can use them. Allow their use. APKWS was developed for the A10C2, allow their use on the F18, F16, A10C, A10A and UH1, as it is possible to do in real life. I think the harrier had something it could use, was designed and tested with IRL but was never deployed with. I don't have that module and I didn't look into it anymore and I forgot. Kinda bummed me out though. I'm fine with the 16 unable to fire 4 HARMS, so long as that's what the real thing is like. As I said I want things to be as the real world is. And that includes allowing weapons that can be mounted to be mounted. As I said that makes no sense. If someone sticks an APKWS on an A10A IRL tomorrow suddenly that becomes realistic while before it was fiction. The lovely thing about DCS is that you can make your own scenarios. The stock standard campaigns are, as far as I know, all fictional. 90% of the missions in user files are fictional. We can do stupid stuff, like simulating what happens if the Yamato goes up against a Burke. We can do anything we want. And if the aircraft can carry something, then it should be able to in the simulation, even if in the real world it never happened. Also... I don't care about liveries. If someone wants to fly their jet with Rainbow Dash and "EQUESTRIA DEFENSE FORCE" written beneath on the stabs, by all means, be my guest. Personally if it's night I pick something dark. If it's day I pick something blue beneath and browning green topside if I'm over land, and over the sea I pick something blueish all around. I don't understand why people want all the different liveries, I prefer function over graphics, and terrain graphics over textures on my jet, which I don't see that much of anyway. Just takes away precious development time to draw logos on the same old gray that's everywhere that could be spent on something functional. We get an F16, USAF. 1 Livery is enough. Why we need the 120th Seosan livery on it? I have no idea. If people want that, but not get all the KF16 avionics with it, some of which are actually pretty cool? Whatever. Also just because the mission time doesn't affect anything right now, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. And last and again. I'm not asking for every conceivable weapon system to be implemented. I'm asking that if a new system comes to DCS that can be used on other platforms that don't yet have it, it should be added to them as well. Because the WORK IS ALREADY DONE.

I'm a bit confused by ED's loadout choices. Some platforms have had testing done successfully with some weapon systems and are fully capable of using them, some where even designed to use them from the very start but never used them operationally. And for that reason we don't get them in DCS. The reasons cited are such as "It adds too much workload to implement the weapon systems / future weapon systems that are being added in the future to existing platforms..", "Not accurate for platform in era." Such reasoning is nonsense though. The weapons are already implemented. All you have to do is allow their use on the relevant pylons in the config files. In the case for APKWS for example they were developed to be fully backwards compatible with anything that can mount the M151 launchers without ANY other updates. Since the APKWS already exists, no programming, modelling or texturing effort is required other than allowing their mounting, which is a 2 liner as far as I understood from mods that do that very thing. I agree that it adds, possibly unreasonable, workload to implement totally new weapon systems, especially if a weapon already exists that fills the role. But really, how many come out in a year or two? A new upgrade to an existing weapon already takes ages. The AIM-120D is still not the standard missile. Mostly you get bigger boom, longer range or faster flight, maybe a smokeless motor if you are indeed so lucky, software updates for new flight profiles, better sensors. Most of the specifics are of course classified, some of them not relevant to DCS at all. As such approximations can be made or such new weapons or upgrades can be ignored or put in as low priority. The second argument is also nonsense. We fly F18s from 2000s, A10s from 1980s, A10Cs from 2010s and if the mission designer is being ridiculous they can just as well put in the Bismark and a BF-109 in the same scenario. That's of course nonsense. You have a date in your mission. And anything that was put in service before that date and still exists is valid to use. Anything that was added to the capabilities of a platform after it's design should be available to that platform. Some may argue software updates to the aircraft need to be made to launch such weapons. That may be true, but we're not dealing with an aircraft. We're dealing with a simulation. Paste a new text to be displayed on the MFDs and add a ballistics table for CCIP/CCRP (which already exists for that weapon of course) to the aircraft and you're good. If such software updates were available, then even a 1980s aircraft would've gotten them in a mission set in 2020, allowing them to use them. Then there is the other issue. Some platforms were designed, from the very start, to use certain weapon systems. They were flown and tested successfully with those munitions, used them on the training range. But they were never fired or carried in any operation. ED decided not to include that capability because it's not a common loadout. I think that's nonsense. If you were a commander and you would have need of that weapon, you would use it. I believe if it can carry it, it should be able to. Anything with a MK82 capable pylon should also be able to mount a GBU12 just the same, even if it never carried it, or were possibly designed to carry it. After all it's the same bomb, with a guidance kit strapped to it. In other words, what is realistic? Is it 'possible in real life' or is it 'was done in real life'? I believe it should be be the former. Because if it wasn't done till to day someone might do it tomorrow. And suddenly 'not realistic' became 'realistic', which is of course nonsense. As such the only sensible thing to say is realistic is 'possible to do'.

What do you mean customizable? ED (hopefully) will do it realistically. If you want squeakyball sounds with your gun you have to mod it, which shouldn't be too hard of a thing to do.

Wouldn't it typically be the other way around? Some high flying drone lasing a target for the apache and the apache shooting a hellfire over a mountain?

Can we have the 'barber poles' on the speed tape on the PFDs? There should be red tickmarks marking stall and overspeed speeds on the speed tape on the PFD. Those speeds are marked on the hud, but not the MFD.

The weapon mode selector knob has 2 positions for computer assisted bombing. LABS and Computer. What's the difference between the two? The A-4E Community guide doesn't include the computer position. What's the difference between the two? When do you use each one? How do you use each one? Is there a more updated and more in depth manual for the A4? I have HECLAK's guide, last updated 4th June 2019

@paco2002are you serious or is this a joke? Also why is my pilot freezing in the persion gulf in the middle of the day?

When hopping into the cockpit there is a weird clicking noise in the background even though power is off and nothing is running. The same noise still plays when going to external view and zooming all the way out.

I know that. It'd be just nice to have that in kneeboard format. Although wasn't Waypoints only up to 29 and RP 30-36?

Does someone have a kneeboard image file for DST points, including especially the DST ranges for the different points, what they're used for (which weapons and how many points are supported) and what you enter on the f10 map to have the ground crew enter them into the DTC? Maybe fill the extra space with some instructions on other navigation stuff

I think we get the block IV HARM, which doesn't have the gps receiver or home on jam, which block V and VI (88D) have. So no killing of sams who turn off their radar. missile will just go ballistic or lock something else.

What do you mean? Markpoints are awesome! You can mark your targets from range as you fly in or circle your targets and mark them all without flying into the enemy engagement zone. You can then set up your weapons onto those markpoints, for example in the f16 you could set them up with the ded jdam page (if that ever gets implemented) and dump 8 bombs in one pass. You could send the markpoints to your wingmen or other link 16 participants. you could do quick BDA and see what's left without slewing your targeting pod all over, doing the whole searching again. you could quickly get the coordinates and read them to someone else. Markpoints have their fair share of use and the use will get expanded as more functions are implemented.

I think you should clean up the post before copy pasting from another forum or a manual from a different game, which's mention will get you a warning on this forum because reasons Also I'd really love if the PPT would be DTC loaded as steerpoints so you have a quick reference for harm shots and can rapidly select them as SPI. I have no idea if said game models it realistically. I would assume so, but I couldn't find any actual f16 manuals that state those numbers. So yeah, don't go on and talk about TEs and campaigns, campaign engines, actually good awacs or a good radio system in general that comes with the game, or stpt auto modes that were borked in a different game or changes that were made in a different game with steerpoint lines showing on the hsd there, where no such feature was ever implemented in dcs yet - though I'd love to see it. I love the idea of everything is a steerpoint and you can select/edit it as you want.

I understand that there are different versions and excuse me for not finding the USAF manual. I found what I could get my hands on. I also understand the difference between semi and auto. I just wonder how it chooses what program to execute, if any, that is if it makes a program up on the fly. Still CMS left as nothing seems like an obvious bad choice for a free hotas control. I guess I'll just bind it to the slap switch and set program 1 to flares and program 5 to chaff.

They already made the concession by allowing to remove the stick. I don't see any reason why they couldn't remove that doohickey that's blocking the view, too. Also I don't know any cheap solutions. TrackIR 4 is 150 bucks, TrackIR 5 is 300 bucks. Webcam based stuff reportedly sucks. I have 20 buck 3DOF and it works fine for most cases. It's just this little annoyance. Again if you have the money to blow on that stuff, then by all means have that little thing there for you to look around and get the full cockpit experience. I'm saying that for people that do not have that luxury it would be nice to have the option to disable that.

Not everybody has a 6DOF headtracking device. Some people have none at all. I use a 3DOF device that only allows for rotation and has no translation. The issue with that is in the F16 that there is some odd device (Floodlight maybe?) blocking the view onto the top part of the RWR and unlike in the A10 I couldn't find a switch to adjust the seat position down to have a clear look. I would like this obstruction removed or an option to disable it such as with the flight stick or in the special options because it's certainly relevant to know whether it's an SA10 or a Mig31 locking you up and you can't tell which it is as you can barely see the bottom part of the diamond.

I'm a little confused by the countermeasure switch on the F16. In a certain other F16 simulator it is set up such as this: UP: Dispense selected program LEFT: Dispense Program 5 (out of 6) DOWN: Consent SEMI/Turn on ECM RIGHT: Stop Consent/Stop Auto/ECM off SLAP: Dispense Program 6 However in DCS it's somewhat different. (Page 299 in manual) Fwd: Dispenses selected manual program Aft: Gives consent in SEMI and enables AUTO dispense modes Left: No function Right: Disables AUTO dispense mode Slap Switch: No mention in manual (Section I-28) On top of all of this there are 5 programs in the CMDS DED page. Online I could find this information (Page 63), but I don't which one is correct or if there are multiple different software versions or whatever. It seems to however make no sense to me to leave Left with no function. Fwd: Select Manual program 1-4 or if BYP selected MDF programmed program Aft: Semi Consent, Enable Auto Right: Disable Auto, ECM off Left: ECM on Slap: Dispense program 5 (Page 224) I am also confused on how Auto and Semi work. Does it actually check which programs have what type of programming in them or does it use some other, internal programs that are not set via DED, does it use the default program numbers even though you might have changed them. How does it determine which program to use/how to dispense the countermeasures. Personally I prefer to have two controls for chaff and flares separately so I don't waste any time fiddling with the mouse to reach for that little knob down there and select another program or waste expendables and potentially give away my position by dumping both. It would be really nice if we could set up our CMDS programs like in the jf17 in the main menu. And indeed have that for all aircraft that have different programs. At least until we have our DTC. (when?)

Getting BRAA calls every 2 seconds to every bandit in a 50000 NMI radius isn't helping, nor is it realistic. It's just clutter and you will just ignore it instead of constantly listening and trying to determine if it's a threat or no factor. Make it smarter. Here are my proposed changes that can only make things better, even if those changes are not perfect and could still be improved upon. However there is no need to make it perfect right away. Incremental updates can still be applied. Anything (except constant static noise or pop songs on the radio from awacs) is better than now. Even turning it off is better than the nonsense we have now. These changes include the calls we have now, but change when/if they happen: > 80nmi -> STFU (always) Passing 80nmi -> BRAA call (only once, time limit (maybe 60 seconds) to prevent bandits on parallel track to fade in and out of 80nmi generating a million calls) < 80nmi -> pop up call (once) Passing 40nmi = BRAA call (once, limit see above) Passing 20nmi = BRAA call (once, limit see above) Merge = merge call (once) Anything else = only when you ask for it Generally prevent the AWACS from constantly annoying you for no reason. There really is no need to call out that mig29 on the other side of Russia. Additionally to make AWACS more useful, this could be implemented later. These changes include new, useful calls that are currently not in the game. Add type/print information if available. Add guessed type information if available (fighter/transport/helicopter by speed/altitude/RCS or monitored taking off an airfield for which intel indicates a specific type of aircraft being stationed there (ME)). Contact faded/lost = call it (limit by time to prevent bandits popping in and out behind some mountains to be generating a million calls) this is important so you don't shoot a splashed bandit, potentially hitting a friendly instead. Contact regained = call it (limit see above) Call furball when asking for bogey dope when bandit mixed. Call groups and group composition when bandits within 10 NMI from each other. New picture call every X minutes (no less than 5 to avoid clutter) or when significant alterations to the picture occurred (multiple flights popped up/vanished/departed AO, etc) Since AWACS will now not be on the radio 99% of the time, you can remove that ugly 'fix' of them only talking to you and you not hearing AWACS calls to anyone else. To further improve AWACS, these changes could be added later on still. This includes a full on tasking and priority system that would have the AWACS AI assign taskings to flights and update as flights become available or unavailable. AWACS will assign air targets to different flights that have checked in for DCS/sweep People calling for help -> AWCS orders other flights to change course and attack bandits, advising furball if needed AWACS will keep track of assigned air targets and updates the flight if parameters change (destroyed, furball, no longer a factor, new target, etc) AWACS will keep track of ground attack aircraft and will warn them if their ground targets or the route to them have threats and advises fighters to attack to clear the path AWACS will keep enemy aircraft away from friendly helicopters by assigning fighters to deal with them AWACS will generally be helpful and not spam the radio all day long. When asked for this AWACS will provide vectors and frequencies (if applicable) to nearest airfield, nearest threat aircraft (fighter), nearest bandit (any), flight leader, home airfield, carrier Fighters can call AWACS and tell them can not comply, or accept the task. Fighters can check out from AWACS and be taken out of the loop, causing a redistribution of tasks. AI will accept tasks if able (weapons, fuel, aircraft faults) AI will check out if unable to be effective

I find it most annoying that you have infinite radio range and all radio bands active in the non interactive cockpits. It's ridiculous. You get tanker calls, ALL atcs, AWACS and the carrier traffic blasted in your ears all mission long. it's quite frustrating when there is more than you flying. ATC being stupid and needing rework. I remember the first promise of this being done at least 5 years ago, yet not a single thing has been done since. And no, the "3 different eras and russian/everywhere else" is different doesn't fly. ATC is international standardized and even if there are regional differences make one modern western one and just slap it on everything (yes even the russian 1930s ATC), then do the rest incrementally. I mean it's literally just 3 if statements in code to add later... ANYTHING is better than "Enfield 1-1, hold position" for the whole mission because someone decided to AFK slightly out of place. Other sims did it just fine and they didn't even have a budget (yes the free work of *that* (can't name since that's insta delete post... go figure) f-16 sim that's being done by volunteers). Their solution might not be 100% accurate, but it works. unlike the current dcs atcs. which are 0% accurate and don't work. Heck they don't even give you instructions of any kind. All they do is yell at you if you want to do a formation takeoff. They give engine start permission and then all you can do is request startup again because it's broken. Then they yell at you constantly because you taxi without permission (and you can't ask because you can still only ask for startup). It's infuriating and you can't even turn down the radio volume in the 25T for example. And of course the age long problem of no communication on the progress. Or if they even started. (probably didn't, but who knows...) So yes. Give us an option to shut them up and only have them turn on the runway light if we want to land at night. And while you're at it, fix awacs doing callouts for every bandit in the solar system non-stop.

I would add to that the ability to set pins on certain kneeboard pages that you add to the custom kneeboard folder in saved games. I want to add the f/a-18 emergency checklists and it's 200 pages. I'd like to add pins for the different chapters and possibly one for every new alphabet letter. Would be great if you can label them, too. like 1 or 2 letters would be enough even.

I use the cannon at 4km to take out soft targets without issues. you just need a single round of HE to kill an infantry or a no/light armored target like a truck or zu-23 emplacement. rockets on the other hand I can shoot 80 of them downrange at 1km and not kill a single thing. in real life they would leave nothing but shrapnel covered body parts, but in dcs it's like shooting blanks that only kill when you get them in the face.

Sure, rockets are area weapons and are not meant to take out tanks. But when a rocket lands 2ft next to a fuel truck and it still doesn't take it out, then that's just silly. The tires would be popped, the tank perforated and the driver's body would contain 20% shrapnel by weight (read: he's dead). If you hit a tank with an HE rocket head on, you'd certainly not kill it (blow it up and kill the crew), but you'd detrack it, you'd kill the optics, possibly bend the barrel, destroy the antenna, etc. For all intents and purposes it's out of action and needs to be either field repaired or towed away or at the very least have reduced combat effectiveness. The rocket would do something to it. Killing a tank in real life doesn't mean a burning wreck or the turret flying off in a massive explosion. You can shoot a rocket 5ft away from infantry and they'll happily keep on standing. The gun is deadlier than a salvo of 80 rockets in some cases. Might as well save the fuel and take empty pylons, rockets are like shooting cotton balls right now. An m67 hand grenade has supposedly a lethal radius of 15m. That's a tiny thing. Just place 20 infantry evenly spaced on the kobuletti air strip, load 80x s-8 ofp2 (supposedly anti infantry rockets) and just dump them evenly across that line. I get as good as 60% and as bad as 10% kills. The visuals tell me though that there should be nothing but body parts and mists of gore left. And an s-8 is somewhat larger than a hand grenade and yet you supposedly have to shoot someone in the face to kill them with it? It's not like the algorithm is hard. objects = list of objects in <explosion radius> of explosion point for (obj in objects) raycast point of explosion to object // acount for cover if valid dmg = explosion damge / (armor_rating * (distance_to_explosion²)) apply damage(dmg) of course objects could also include subobjects, such as sensors, wings, the canopy, etc. also the damage formula could be altered. i just came up with that nonsense in 3 seconds, but it would still be a better model than the current: if hit in face then dead, otherwise nothing.

Well, given the prior behavior patterns of ED I extrapolate the following, likely course of action from ED regarding the ka-50: - Hype for update and features with some preliminary 3d modeling work (completed) - open visual studio (completed) - realize it's an unsalvageable mess (completed) - No further updates/communication (completed) - End of 2020: Anounce that Ka-50-III has been postponed in favor of Mi-24 and Ah-64 and that development will continue after they have been released/progressed (promised release date: soon(tm), actual release date: late(tm)) (completed) - No updates/communication (still) (completed) - no acknowledgement of pressing issues with the current system (completed) - Slap on the promised new systems without fixing or adding (in particular a new shkval logic) anything else - Break more stuff with every update - Don't acknowledge or fix any bugs, old or new - Get new priority modules - Postpone Ka-50 in favor of new priorities - never talk about it again (completed) Really it's a shame. I do wish they had better communication. I understand that programming is hard work. I do it myself. I understand that working with legacy code is scary, hard and at some point you just want to throw it all away and start over. But just tell us: "Our cobbled together helicopter module from 20 years ago is broken and doesn't include any comments and we can't fix it. After trying to make it work with dcs updates it became spaghetti code and changing anything without breaking everything doesn't work anymore. Sorry. We'll rewrite it using modern design patterns and integrate modules we have developed for other, more recent aircraft for faster development times in the future. We apologize but it's going to take at least 2 years. PS: We're hiring." What's so hard about this? Are they too prideful to make a statement like that? Just admit to your mistakes.