Exorcet

Wingmen used to have more realistic start up times. I'd like to go back for immersion purposes, however it doesn't increase fuel use. AI planes use 0 fuel when stationary on the ground, even with engines running. I haven't tested this in quite a few DCS versions so you can double check with a fuel trigger if there is any doubt.

The modeling of flaws is important and desirable. The US 4th gen RWR's need a bit more fallibility themselves. Though Soviet aircraft also lack the ground support that they were designed to work with, and it sounds like the SPO issue is not a design issue but a maint one. If so it should fall under random failures and not normal use.

Light visibility is indeed very important and the abrupt lack of rendering that can happen at certain distances is problematic for a number of reasons. I absolutely support more realistic lighting.

Or multiple installs, which I don't think is that unreasonable in the case of DCS. This would also double (or more) the savings of being able to remove unwanted data.

Subscriptions are price gouging at best and scams at worst. They offer no benefit to DCS but come with plenty of downsides.

We really do need a livery manager. Not only for all the benefits of being able to remove unwanted liveries for space, but also to allow module developers to make tons of liveries without worrying about clogging user drives. It's a win win.

Not quite the same, but the An-2 would fit anywhere. I've noticed its absence in a few missions I've made. Civil aviation in general would be great to see in DCS. While the are alternatives to that, having everything in one sim is very nice, and DCS just so happens to be the most comfortable sim for me in terms of user friendliness at this moment in time.

I wouldn't say no to modern units, but we're missing huge amounts of Cold War assets - and those assets are still relevant today. Old stuff can get reused years or decades later. New stuff can't be used before it was made (well they can in DCS, but it's not relevant to any kind of even semi historical scenario). Even when it comes to the 4th gen fighters I tend to set missions as early as possible. Certainly not in the 2020's. 80's, 90's, and 2000's units are what I feel the lack of.

Yes that's correct. But the request is still valid. I'd like to see the ability to change a template's country and to copy and paste between countries. If you try it currently the units are changed to the first in the list of their category from what I remember.

You don't need to see it. The nice thing about boom refueling is that you only need to get into place and then the boom operator does the rest of the work. Granted DCS's boom operator can be a bit eccentric, but you can get it to work most of the time. Start with the approach to the tanker. Don't come in too fast, you want to nicely settle into a speed close to the tanker's starting from a couple of miles out. When you get closer try to match the tanker's speed before connecting. This will let you reference your engine fuel flow and use it as a guide for your throttle. I find this easier than trying to set a specific speed. You can also get your fuel amount to show up on the DED by pressing LIST > 2. With that you won't need to move your head around as much and can keep an eye on the tanker.

This would make an excellent addition. IFF should be included as well I'd think. Perhaps having the AI hesitate to shoot without visual ID, instead of now where they will release weapons on the instant they are in envelope even in a mess furball in clouds.

For me this is one of the biggest points here, even more than the modules themselves. Post Hawk ED was supposed to have taken steps to prevent the situation from repeating, but obviously this didn't happen with RAZBAM. Why not? And does this problem extend to other modules?

I mean pay fairly for work done. Some unrelated party making new modules would have nothing to do with the previous modules. It would only make sense to pay for work done. No one buying the modules caused the problems, that's true. That doesn't mean we're entitled to free things.

Replacement as in someone else develops the same planes and the people who own the originals get to swap them out, sounds unlikely. Replacement as in someone else at some point makes the same planes and sells them as new modules, sure. I have no qualms buying them, if well made and supported, again as they would be their own individual modules with all the work that entails, but I wouldn't expect that for quite some time.

My answer is the same for pretty much all modules, the mission editor. The ME isn't that difficult to use in my opinion but it does take some time to learn. ME missions also don't have to be predictable even if you're the one who made them. There are many ways to add elements of surprise or random events into missions. There are also a few automated mission creation tools outside of DCS if you really don't want to use the ME. Briefing Room being one example. I have never used these tools though so I'm not familiar with them.