Exorcet

This may not be desirable. Modules may be uninstalled for more than one reason, and some people might install and uninstall as needed. Seeing the full server list can also give you an idea of how popular a module is which can aid in buying it. Being able to store settings sound good but default I'm less sure about unless maybe it is very clearly highlighted. Being able to see all slots is useful. You can tell where most players are operating and what they're flying. Example you only own A-10 and want to know if CAP is around. If all the fighters are hidden, now it's harder. A lot of these would be fine as options, but as changes to default behavior they could cause problems.

I think the SAM issue is one of the larger ones in DCS currently. From what I gather, ED seems to think AG is preferred to pure AA. Maybe that's true for most players, but I find it hard to get into AG with SAM's as they are. They barely do anything to warrant the I in AI since they just sit emitting until something gets close enough to be fired upon. When the Hornet came out I thought SEAD would be the most fun AG mission to fly, but it turns out it takes a lot of setup to make SAM's exciting. While SAM systems could be improved massively in a lot of areas, I think as a first improvement they need is having some kind of life to them even more than they need detailed systems or radars. At a minimum they need to try to hide emissions and work together with other radars around the map. That alone would make them many many times more engaging and threatening than they are now without putting a burden on mission editors to spend forever setting up triggers or IADS scripts. Then of course, like all AI, they also need some human fallibility. Without that we run the risk of going too far the other way and creating nigh unbeatable super weapons. Ideally some delay time in communication between units/groups, uncertainty on the part of the AI on what they're shooting at, especially if friends and foes are in the same area, and some kind of aversion to being shot at by the enemy.

I thought the AMRAAM issue had been fixed but I encountered it recently too. Haven't had an issue with HARMS though.

Look at the last video, wake effect over a minute between landings. I've also noticed flying into turbulence when taking off behind other planes that have departed far ahead of me. DCS wake turbulence doesn't dissipate all that quickly. EDIT It also looks like helicopters are affected. I hadn't really ever tested them myself, but I stumbled upon a video:

That's just wake turbulence, it already exists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INq75CS7mJs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXYdzIuZgck

As great as the save feature is, having to start over in SP because your plane was destroyed should be a rarity. DCS has for years had a very neat feature to fix that very issue, and it also has helped with AI wingmen something being less than competent. That feature is plane jumping. As amazing as it is, almost no one seems to know about. I can only find one video on YT that even covers it: And a tiny handful of forum/reddit mentions: Basically, if you have a flight of four you have 4 lives. Even more if you count planes outside of your flight. You can take control of them too. Of course the mission designer needs to account for this, but I feel like that should be satisfied just by sound mission design. I do hope that this feature is not forgotten after saves are implemented as it does things that saves cannot do, like giving a SP player the power of 4 player controlled planes without needing to be in a MP session. Somewhere along the line the feature was degraded because jumping out of a plane wipes its route. I'm not sure if this is intentional or a bug, but it needs to be reversed.

The F-14 was a naval fighter for the US, but not Iran. The 29's came too late to participate in the Iran Iraq war, but they were very close to being direct rivals. FC3 F-15 with simplifications basically lets it stand in for any version as long as weapon restrictions are in place. It would probably be difficult to tell the difference between a FC Eagle and FF Eagle from the cockpit of another plane. As for the F1 I believe one managed to shoot down a F-14. It's definitely capable of being a threat even if the MiG should have an advantage. Air combat isn't always neatly sorted. Older jets fly along side newer ones, so it's not really a problem when a version is a few years older or newer, they are still very much in range of each other.

F-14, FC3 F-15, M2000. The F-4 will be an 80's version I think and while it is older, that's fine, planes don't always fit into nearly organized match ups in real life. The MiG-29 will be appropriate to fight even the F-16/18 despite being less advanced.

Please make it optional, as this would make it very inconvenient to people that make use of the lack of memory that the current feature has. For example if F5 remembered the last thing looked at, you could use it once and then some time later only for it to randomly look at something that has long since moved away and then need to fiddle with it just to look at a wingman or something. Also a solution to your problem, depending on which F button is used, use the F10 map to select the object to look at.

Suggested from discussion in another thread: A request to change the SATNAV option to enable more options and make it more intuitive. Specifically to allow it to work independent of coalitions and for more than two coalitions for future expansion of the sim. Quick example:

The current option seems to be built around Blue with the assumption that Blue will always have optimum GPS while any other coalition may or may not. If the option was separate from Blue and could be applied independently to any coalition, that would add the following new possibilities: -Blue with degraded GPS -Non Blue with optimum GPS while Blue has degraded GPS -Better support for more coalition if added in the future I think it would also be a little more intuitive form of the GUI. Here is a rough edit of your image showing what it might look like:

Would it be possible to move this option, and any related options to a coalition configuration menu? That might make it more obvious, and also allow customization of sides instead of relying on a preset notion of which coalition represents what.

I believe default tasks like SEAD override others. Don't use them unless absolutely necessary. Try Search Then Engage or similar instead and see if this works better. You might also want to create an end condition for the STE task so that it doesn't top the AI queue list indefinitely. I can't look at your mission right now, so apologies if what I said does not apply.

What is the problem? FC3 is not study level. It's not being ignored or abandoned either, it is serving its purpose as a mid fidelity sim. If FC modules bother you, then exclude them from your missions. Personally I find player preferences a bigger obstacle to realism than module limitations. If a mission is setup to be an air to air scoreboard, it doesn't feel very realistic. No, SP requires as good a radar model as possible. When the F-16/18 had the horrible look down issue it impacted SP as much as MP, if not more, since the AI weren't impacted.

That's a huge limitation yes, and something that needs to be included in the event that we do get smart SAM's.

Doesn't this option exist? "Head Movement by G Forces in Cockpit"

A first person perspective with someone else at the controls can be experienced with any module through tracks. While you can't freely control the view in a prerecorded video, you can watch one while flying your own aircraft. No doubt that sharing a plane can be interesting and helpful to learning, but you don't strictly need two seats for that. However a two seat aircraft certainly is a convenient way to work with a mentor or trainee, and you can't quite get the exact same experience through other methods. So fair point here. If something is distracting you can just ignore it. A DCS module can take a long time to learn, but I don't really find them overwhelming if a paced approach to learning is taken. You don't have to learn everything at once, not even in real life. If people are getting confused then I feel like the problem is more likely a lack of direction in training. I can't speak for everyone though so if people do find a simpler cockpit helpful then that would be a trainer benefit. As far as learning a standard first, one could go that route, though there isn't really a need if for example you'll only ever fly the F-18. It also needs to be considered that trainers aren't uniform themselves. East and west is an obvious divide. There isn't a universal trainer and at some point if you do fly multiple planes you'll encounter something different. This may require some "unlearning" but DCS is a lot more accessible than a real plane. You can jump in and practice free of consequences any time. The IFR hoods in the trainers are a neat feature, but we can change the weather at will in DCS. The hood does save you a loading screen though, so there is at least some advantage to it. I've heard people say something similar regarding mentality, but I haven't found that to be an issue personally. Sometimes I fly the combat aircraft purely for training purposes and do "the boring stuff" for quite a while. It's actually a nice change of pace from a real mission. This point does touch on something else with respect to learning DCS and that's holding interest. If people genuinely find the full combat planes more interesting, I think that's a huge factor in sticking with the plane during the learning process. I often tell people to just fly what they love, I think that's one of the most important factors when it comes to module mastery. I also recommend the trainers, they are fantastic to fly. While I may not use them specifically for training myself, I can appreciate the desire of others to use them in that capacity. They absolutely feel different without high powered engines or FBW controls. Aiming for those coordinated turns can take some work like you said, but feel good to pull off. I've never shared a cockpit in DCS, but you've highlighted some of the benefits and I can see the appeal.

I owe most but not all modules. Proficiency is far from consistent across them all. My opinion of DCS is that, as the sim is now, the best experience comes from air to air combat with more modern planes. Due to that I spend more time with those airframes. My proficiency is high with 4th gen aircraft though due to the nature of early access, bugs, and sometimes a tight schedule I haven't learned everything yet. I don't focus on one module at a time, but that doesn't prevent me from learning multiple aircraft. Trainers don't really serve the purpose they do in real life in DCS. There aren't any benefits to training on them in the sim, they might even make learnnig your preferred module more difficult since there will be differences you need to adjust to when switching airframes. Trainers in DCS are just for fun or immersion, and there is nothing wrong with that, I've never regretted buying them.

Saw this a long time ago, thought it was fixed. Also with Hornets.

It's easier to just have two installs. I've never had to rollback because I have two copies of DCS, and I'll keep it that way as long as it's possible to do so. Isn't this separate from mandatory updates anyway? If the updates are forced, you're not getting a rollback. I've used Windows enough to know that forced updates do no good.

I really don't understand when people look down on the Hornet's radar. It's definitely better than the F-16's. If you mean the radar display and symbology, then fine, I think the F-16 is superior there as well. The actual radar though? I wish the F-16 had the 18's radar so much. The extra range and azimuth would mesh so well with the F-16's performance for BVR.

Mandatory updates would be absolutely terrible.

Could try using a script that detects when the player fires. Alternatively, use invisible instead of immortal and make the AI fire at points near enemies so they don't kill each other. There is no real direct way to do this, but a few indirect ways.

The load was not adjusted, it was the bingo amount. Full fuel for both at the start, bingo set proportional to weight. I could have just flown to 0 fuel which would be functionally the same thing, but I wanted useable range numbers. I enjoy the F-16 (and I like the Hornet even if I don't always get along with the controls) a lot but that doesn't really matter here, it's an objective test. I've tested both cruise and combat and I've seen the F-16 come out ahead when lightly loaded (ie AA config or small AG loadout). The F-16 uses less fuel innately and has less draggy stations. It does have a fuel fraction disadvantage, so on internal fuel only while carrying a big bomb load it can fall behind, but the drop tanks proportionately give it more fuel and don't add as much drag. I think one way to put it is that the F-16 is naturally a little more efficient, which makes some sense as it's single engine and not weighed down with naval equipment, but the F-18 is better at carrying payloads. Though if you have numbers to provide, I'd be interested in comparing. I haven't really seen many people do tests like mine.

Ah if that is the case I misunderstood.