Callsign112

Enjoyed your story with the I-16 mostly because I can relate to the circumstances. I too bought this plane several months ago, and other than doing a few laps around an airfield on the Caucasus map, I haven't even opened the user manual yet. Reading your story gives me the encouragement to get back to it though.

We already have an achievement system in the Stand-alone game. It might not be as regimented as a game where you unlock features through achievements, but there is still an achievement system.

Well that is a good point. I think ED could do away with these type of threads and the negativity they bring by getting more on top of the long standing issues whether it be a particular module, or part of the games core. I think the sentiments of @FlankerKiller are unfortunately becoming too common amongst community members. My hope is not for a subscription service, its that ED finds the breathing room to get this issue worked out @FlankerKiller: "We will see but so far every single thing with the core game is half baked and broken in some way. I really sincerely hope they get it together in some way."

The point worth reiterating is that this discussion became anchored to the concept that you could make something like DCS a subscription service for $50/year. What exactly is it that is supposed to be sped up?

Thanks!

You might have misunderstood my post. I don't support a subscription fee for DCS. I was pointing out that the issues someone was using as an argument to go to a subscription fee are already being worked on without it.

Yeah I guess I am jumping the gun a little there, but I was just pointing out the obvious. It could definitely be that the plan is to have them quietly working away, and we will hear more when they are ready instead of giving more ammunition to whip up emotions on the forum. I thought their stated plan was really reasonable and something the entire community would have supported.

Yeah there would definitely be room for both in DCS.

You are probably already aware of this, but I just checked in-game to verify when you have Combined Arms installed, playing as Game Master, you can jump back and forth between all Ai aircraft in the mission regardless of way point assignments. I used 4 different aircraft type to test it, and was able to jump back and forth between them as many times as I liked. After leaving one to enter another, the plane I just left keeps flying around. I know you were asking to have Client aircraft that don't get used to still be sitting parked in case you want to change planes. I really like your suggestion and would use it a lot in SP, but this is the only partial workaround I found. The problem with this is that I can't set an Ai aircraft to stay parked in the ME. The only option is to take off, fly over a point, or land. If they would add the ability to have Ai aircraft parked hot, you could then just jump in and go. Setting the Ai to land might work, but I think once they land, you can no longer enter them from the Game Master slot. I will have to go back and verify this because I forgot to check just now, but iirc I have already tried this and it didn't work.

Currently we have no way of towing field guns, and we are very limited in what we can do in terms of fortifications. There are a couple wood structures and other tank obstacles included with the base game, but we could really use more options for above ground fortifications like sandbags and such.

You would think that makes sense, but look back at the discussion that ensued following the announcement from Battlefield Productions. Flame war, locked thread, and potential third party goes MIA.

Since its a wish list, why not make it for both. ED has spent a fair bit of energy in promoting both Army and Navy OP's so there's that.

Great suggestion. I don't think it would cost anything other than the time needed for someone to create the sub forums.

^^^ This +1 There is a lot to be said about the ability to be concise and to the point. Thank you!

I see a huge potential. And part of that potential would be to advance/implement better cargo/troop load/unload.

Cheers and hope you recover from your shoulder injury. +1 for this request. A major improvement to ground vehicles once they fix the cloud/smoke issue for Ai would be to improve on the ability to use smoke launchers on the vehicles that have them.

Is this something that could be requested by the servers community? It makes sense that if the feature already exists in-game, and servers have access to it if and when desired, could the people using the server request that the feature be unlocked on the server?

Maybe some thought needs to go into making this happen.

+1, this is a good idea that would help the motivation to play.

+1. Its no surprise the number of threads that connect to the common theme of improved Ai logic.

+1. Improving the ground war is obviously a hot topic that needs to be addressed.

Aren't these things being worked on under ED current business model?

I agree completely with your preference concerning mods. I really like everything the mod community does. I would actually pay for almost all of it, but not being a computer wizard that enjoys system maintenance, using unsupported content is just too much work for me. I know because I tried. But while I perfectly get and understand the request you are making, and would even go as far to say it is a vary reasonable request, the problem as you describe it has more to do with a server then it does ED. I think this problem should be addressed at a server level. And just a question because I don't play MP, is there a reason servers don't allow the use of the CJTF faction?

My apologies if I left the wrong impression, because I agree and think we are on the same page/team. Your points are well taken, and yes ED could rush out and represent troops in buildings like they could rush out and make a simplistic Dynamic Campaign using the currently available game mechanics. But the impression I get after reading the OP's request, and the one I was working from is that he was requesting a more advanced infantry. For example, using the currently available infantry to occupy rooftops would look like cardboard cutouts silhouetted against the sky for the player to take potshots at without having them react, take cover, return appropriate fire. My main point being for troops in buildings to add anything over what is currently available would mean they would have to advance the current infantry model, which they are apparently working on to some extent. Regardless of whether the infantry unit is in a building or not, the ability to prone, crouch, peak from a window or from behind a piece of cover, and return appropriate fire would be needed. I completely agree with your point about doing it in steps, and think this is what is likely going to happen. The impression I took form the mini road map announcement they made several months ago was that they were working on improving obstacle avoidance. This would initially be used to improve the quality of deck crew on the SC as they direct aircraft on-deck before it is rolled out to infantry in general. Obstacle avoidance is sort of akin to improving the Ai units situational awareness. A next step could be to add animations for going prone, crouching, retreating when appropriate. But given the level of complexity/detail that ED and third parties put into flyable modules, and given that this level seems to also be increasing as the fight gets closer and closer to the ground magnifies the need to improve the ground war side of this.

I apologize for initially commenting without realizing the existence of a mod. I thought the workaround you were referring to could be handled by the CJTF feature built into the game. But I am curious, if you want to use a skin assigned to the opposing MP team, why don't you just join that team to use the skin. Again there might be something here that I don't realize, but I think in terms of a game mechanic I think what is currently implemented in game makes sense. In the broader scheme of things, ED has to consider the concept of opposing teams/factions, and I can't see how having opposing units represented by the same country would be helpful in a combat simulator. While it may be true that 5000 people downloaded a mod to do this, it says nothing about the number of people that haven't downloaded it. If the CJTF actually allows you to achieve what you want, but the server being used doesn't use that faction, then what your suggesting would be analogous to asking ED to break its code to accommodate a MP server. With the number of servers out there, requests like this would quickly become unmanageable.