Exorcet

I understand the want for an undo button, but it's pretty low on my personal list of importance. A pop up sounds like a hindrance that would just slow down unit deletion and is not something I'd want to deal with. You can save your mission if you want to go back and can even save multiple versions as a stand until an undo is added. You can select units and triggers from the lists on the left side of the screen. No worry about clicking the wrong item that way.

I'm not so interested in a preset animation, but being able to walk around the plane before start up would be useful, especially if external views are disabled in a server (check if F-5 airbrakes are fully stowed, etc).

The only option may be to give them a waypoint or triggered action with the divebomb checkbox enabled in the mission editor or mission planner. Then instead of tell them to attack ships tell them to Engage Mission or use a custom F10 command so that they carry out their assigned tasks.

I'm well aware, the issue is that the Viggen gear seems to break even with 1 g of force on it, which shouldn't happen regardless of where it is:

That would definitely be a problem, though the ME has seen added option for ECM use and missile intercept range without causing problems. Only ED can say for sure what will work or what won't, but it seems like adding options would be in the realm of possibility. However this is done though, it will be a great addition.

I'm not sure what you mean. No one is asking for magic. The bug is that the gear breaks by being in contact with the carrier. That's clearly wrong. I've visited carrier museums and the Air Force planes on display don't fall apart out of fear of a slightly rocking deck. No one is asking for modifications to make the Viggen carrier rated, just to fix an unrealistic issue.

Yes, that's the point. They underwent testing. Why can't we have a fiction Viggen carrier test program? Could at least make an interesting mission out of it. It would lack some of the real details of course, but sometimes you make due with what you have.

Sure the Viggen isn't a carrier plane. But neither is the U-2 or C-130 and they've both done carrier operations. This might not be a huge priority, but it's a valid bug and should be fixed.

Indeed it may not be extremely popular, but not everything has to be. Integration with CA would be a good idea. If there is concern over being limited to a downed pilot, then don't enforce being limited to just the pilot. Perhaps the player could jump between pilot and friendly infantry, or one of the crew of the rescue chopper. CA already allows jumping around between various units. I also wouldn't label DCS ground forces as a subpar experience. The ground units themselves are simple, but the air units aren't. DCS is superior in modeling that aspect compared to most other games, so what is subpar depends on which components you're interest in. That will in part depend on the cost. Something that is zero cost pays itself back even if there is zero return. I don't know where this project would stand in terms of development cost, but if it can worked on over time in small steps that could make it easier for the developers to deal with. That said, looking at this as an addition to CA and CSAR I do see some definite value in it even for the players that wouldn't want to sit around with their downed pilot for the entire duration. You could build situations around the feature to cut out whatever perceived boredom is present, and by allowing players to choose how much they interact with the feature you prevent it from being overbearing.

We could have a few more options. Orbits always turn left, which can be limiting. Why not a turn right option? Flights always stick together during the orbit when in a CAP situation they could split in to two flights so that there is always a radar looking at the expected threat direction. Radius options are welcome as well, I wonder if instead of having a separate combat orbit option, we could add a turn radius input to the current orbit task?

As long as it's not enforced, it should be fine. If there are options then missions/servers can be set to fit the players within. It could even be set on a per person basis. Player A would be set to autorespawn on eject while Player B would take control of the downed pilot.

Besides the limited and slightly clunky mobility of the pilot in DCS, the waiting is fine. Not everyone minds something taking a while.

A trick that works for FF planes is to R Atl + J out and then back in. Instant start up, no wait for align or anything. It might work for FC too, not sure. Only works in single player.

What about using get velocity? You should be able to multiply the values for it by (desired time - current time) and then add to the position components. I haven't tried to do something like what you're attempting, but that seems like it should work.

I don't know the exact context for your server, but if it's possible to pass information around outside of the mission, only the relevant players could be told how to input choices correctly. An example would be entering a password after the choice is made. The password could be a flag value randomly set on mission start. This might work for a private mission. For a public mission, it might be a hassle. Entering it is also a bit of an issue as if it's done by flags it would either need to be entered one digit at a time through the F10 menu or it would need to be a simple password to fit into the F10 list. It's not a great solution admittedly, but if there is no other approach, maybe it could be worth experimenting with.

This is easily doable in ME as is, but the interface makes it more work than it has to be. There are many similar cases where a feature to directly control variability in some aspect of a mission would be nice to have. Along with group size, things like weapons carried, positions, and routes would be great parameters to make uncertain to the players participating in a mission. One good way to enable this might be the inclusion of variables in the ME. We can use variables indirectly with scripts, but having them built into the ME itself would make things much easier for mission builders.

It's a good idea, but also has some problems. Namely weather is part of mission planning. Completely random weather can be horrible, making missions unplayable. You're not doing ground attack in a P-51 with overcast and fog or in the middle of the night. Multiple weather possibilities for a mission is a great request, but I don't think random is the way to do it. I'm not opposed to a truely random option, but I think it's secondary to things like: -List of preset weather choices -Random evolution of weather from a given starting point The difference between random and the other two is that they can weed out extremes that would just result in the mission being cancelled in real life.

The menu needs a total overhaul. Weapons and fuel status is needed. We need second element commands for all planes. And I'm strongly in favor of a revised menu that makes giving effective commands easier:

Those things can be used, but they have their own problems. This has been requested before. One of the options is a maintenance setting for aircraft. So we could choose say 100% (factor fresh) or 0% (plane is on its last legs). The former would give max performance, the latter would see reduced engine thrust and increased drag, reduced g limit, reduced radar range (maybe avionics, engine, etc could have their own settings). I think it's a good option, I just don't know how hard it would be to add to DCS while being realistic. Though to be honest when concerning the AI, a simple model would probably work.

Placeable light objects are something I've found myself wanting as well. The best that can be done currently is to place the one or two vehicles with illuminating headlights as lights, or to use illumination flares. Both have issues though. For helipads though, there should be lights built in with the option to turn them on or off, it would save on the object count in missions and mean we only need to place the helipad and not many lights (though if the helipad lights were toggable, they could be toggled off and lights could be placed if the mission maker so wanted).

Data has been sent.

Comparing AB to Mil in acceleration it looks like it's probably thrust. AB accel is much closer to the real jet, especially when supersonic. Subsonic accel was slightly underperforming, but that was probably because of imperfect flying when the jet is close to stall at the low starting speed.

For a while now I've felt like the mil power performance of the F-16 was a little low, though I chalked it up to the DCS version being Blk 50 as the GE engines favor AB over dry thrust. However I did finally get around to do some testing and it looks like there is a lack of thrust/overprediction in fuel flow even taking into account the F110's. I have tracks attached, though due to forum rules I am not posting the source info. I can send it via message. Summary of the issue: Testing at DI 102 at 34015 lbs weight to compare to data at DI 100 at 34000 lbs weight DCS shows increased Delta between speeds when accelerating under full mil power. This not only impacts acceleration, but climb and cruise, so the F-16 has a harder time getting to optimum altitude and uses too much fuel when cruising. DCS fuel burn at 510 knots is approximately 4200 PPH while the actual value should be just under 3900 PPH. Ideally some more testing is needed to see if this is more of an engine issue or drag issue, and it should be tested at more speeds, altitudes, and weights, but the condition that I did test is an important one as it's relevant to the F-16 in a CAP role. F-16CFuelFlow_35000FT_102DI.trk F-16CMilAccel_30000FT_102DI.trk

You can use "time since flag" to get what you want. So for example 1, Target A is hit > flag A on, then flag A = true > explode Target A, time since A = 10 > smoke on B, time since A = 15 smoke on C.

Have you tried AI Task Set to see if it is more reliable? Does the AI have any other tasks? Task set will wipe out the AI's route, but it should also eliminate any other tasks that may be causing a conflict. You can pass a new route to the AI via script if necessary as well.