Exorcet

I've always liked the aircraft, would love to have it as a module. Would also be interesting to land something so large on a carrier. The most common model doesn't have to be one chosen for DCS though, if we're choosing to model a specific aircraft a rare one is just as good as a mass produced version.

Useful not only for the ME, but the mission planner. The hide function sort of works, but it's not the most efficient for quickly toggling things.

This hasn't stopped multiple versions of other aircraft from existing in DCS before, and unlike those other planes the F-15 has the advantage of being half finished. The flight model is basically done. The animations for switches was at least started. Developing a F-15C may be one of the most cost effective ways to get a FF module because of its unique situation and that could possibly be passed on owners of the FC3 version. It's also capable of A2G and is a less complex aircraft in that role when compared to the E, which is a selling point for some. Not to mention it's pretty much cut and paste for existing FC3 content, meaning it could have more gameplay content than the E despite coming later. Obviously this is just arm chair market research, but that's really all we're going to get in this thread anyway. It's just as easy to make a case for the plane as it is against. For that matter the Su-25 isn't a hopeless proposition either, far from it. FF is a selling point of DCS. It's the draw of the sim, not a side note.

Multirole does sell, but it air to air probably isn't far behind if at all. Growling Sidewider's channel is pretty big and I'm pretty sure all the content there is air to air. Not to mention, all the dogfight servers online.

Ah yeah that's the E's domain for sure, nothing else will fill the role in DCS at the moment.

To be fair, the C can be quite a bomb truck itself.

This would indeed be useful, and I've seen the Tornado implementation. However the AI has some shortcoming when it comes to formation and navigation, and these predicted turns might not be worth much if the AI can't actually stick to them. The issue is highlighted in this thread:

I realize this is an old post, but it's still relevant today. I like the idea of fully detailed reloading and such, but as you mentioned, the level of detail might not be desirable everywhere. Something that might be as useful as a detailed reload system is a simplified one that just assumes reloaders are nearby even if not placed in the ME. This can reduce unit counts in large missions and help performance as well as simplify a mission maker's job. I've also come to be a bit bothered by the small radius of ammo vehicle just because they don't move on their own. The radius should perhaps be adjustable, or the trucks should be smart enough to drive to nearby vehicles in need of ammunition that are currently out of the reload radius.

Obviously you can't get everyone, but it's pretty clear that the C has a lot of demand behind it. Personally I'm the opposite. I'd buy a C instantly, provided it was a quality module of course. The E is great, but I don't really feel a need to get it right now. I don't own it yet, but I might some time down the line when it's discounted, or when SAM and ground AI is improved. You need more than documentation, you need the skill to build a module.

Another great suggestion, ties in with improved AI commands: The mission editor and mission setup also needs to be considered, because how AWACS interacts with other flights will depend on what they are and what they're doing. This is one such example as the warnings could be tied not only to range, but to a specific region of the map or a target that is need of defending or the expected threats. 150 nmi calls would actually be important if intercepting supersonic bombers with stand off weapons for instance. AWACS just needs multiple channels in general, and AI should probably switch channels as needed, for example with ATC, AWACS, communicating within flight, etc.

Thanks @Flappie, I guess I'll need a more creative way of getting the other AI to ignore them on the ground.

What is it that you're trying to do? From reading it sounds like you either want a mission to be randomly selected within a stage, or you want them to go in order through a stage, but neither of those should be an issue. Can you clarify?

DCS's price model is fine as it is, we don't need to start down the path of overpriced and ridiculous microDLC.

If anything a livery manager would make gaining advantages through skins harder as it could include features to keep the playing field level as well as give people less reason to mess with files. If we had low res liveries that were linked to their high res versions then players would be free to delete the high res ones for space without drastically changing how other aircraft are rendered on their screen. The cheating argument is just another reason for the manager.

In my mind there isn't much that isn't worth it. That doesn't mean that the plane has be done right now, and have all other projects dropped, but I consider the issue of timing and release order to be separate. The C5 can already kill up to about 80 nm in DCS. I wouldn't say no to more missiles, but the C7 isn't the highest on my priority list since it would totally outperform everything else. Even if I prefer the F-16 over any version of the Hornet, I think a Super Hornet would be more interesting than a single missile. It would fit into a lot of the scenarios I make in the ME where currently anything US Navy related only has the C Hornet.

The RCS is probably the biggest factor for AA, and it would effect AG too. Even if everything else was the same, I see it as a reason to take the E over the C. I also much, much prefer the E over the F.

Exactly. If we want to build up eras and not just modules, why not bundle the required assets with the modules? Not only does this solve the financial issue, but the fractured player base issue. DCS is supposed to be a common core to support player interactions, but in MP and SP (sharing missions, etc). Asset Packs go against that directly. I also feel like having assets arrive with modules benefits everyone. If every fighter came with an appropriate AI AWACS, you wouldn't have to wait for who knows how many years for that AI to be added to DCS otherwise. Likewise for naval planes and carriers, attack helicopters and ground units, etc.

Yes, I've had them both installed as standard for a long time now.

For the purposes of DCS, it would be good enough if say a jammer aircraft flying with a strike package just applied the default reduction in detection range against SAM's. It's consistent with current ECM behavior and would serve a purpose. At this point I think I'd even be OK with lower poly models or even "invisible" aircraft if we could fill out the plane list. Something like JSTARS would be nice for a number of missions and if you're never next to it, it doesn't matter what the 3D model looks like. Somewhat off topic but a 3D model-less generic aircraft that can fly at any speed could be useful in the ME for creating things such as false radar returns or for getting AI units to engage at things. I know for ground AAA we have the fire at point added a while ago, but this has limitations. Namely AI will always shoot the same spot and it can be cumbersome to setup with many units. An alternative could be to just add a "UFO" over the AAA that they can shoot at but can't shoot down to create the random fire effect.

There still isn't a truly comparable plane, and won't be until the EF-2000, however far away that is.

This may not be enough to prevent collisions. The collision check may succeed if a plane is approaching the spot, but not there yet. Effectively this can create planes spawning out of nowhere into open spaces that a returning player is trying to go to and that can lead to collisions This is possible in DCS as it is now as far as I know, but it's less likely since DCS as is won't iterate through all parking spots. It might be worth it to tie this system in with a revised ATC that can separate an airbase into launch and recovery zones so that planes will only spawn in designated launch areas and returning planes won't be directed to these areas. An alternative to the space checking that I'd suggest is to leave spawns as they are now, but simply add a new option for type, called custom, or player defined, or something like that. Aircraft would still be tied to specific locations, but the type of aircraft would up to the player using a list defined by the mission maker. The complication here is that different planes have different spot requirements, but by defining the list in the ME, the ME can take the largest plane in the list and use its placement limits to limit the valid parking spots. Some kind of multi unit slot would be very nice to have though.

While testing a mission (F-16 Hormuz) I attempted to get my wingmen to engage a target, but they completely refused. I thought the AI was bugged, but it turned out that the targets were set to invisible. This was intentional to make ground attack planes ignore them and also to prevent wingmen from targeting the planes when they are on the ground. The planes are set invisible at mission start. Then when they are given the start command, they also get a command to set invisibility off. This apparently didn't work for some reason. The invisible units are the MiG-29's in the track. They appear at around 10:15-10:20 I think, so accelerate time until then. Also note that the track breaks at some point. It seems to work mostly OK up to the point where the MiG's are encountered. You can see my ordering my wingmen over and over and getting "unable", but after that it breaks and one of the MiG's shoots me down. Interestingly despite my wingmen ignoring the enemies, ground attack AI did not ignore them on the ground when they were supposed to be invisible. Summary: AI set to invisible at mission start with trigger to turn off invisibility when starting up Invisibility seems to never be cancelled, so wingmen and other AI will not engage Invisibility may not be working on the ground attack AI for some reason InsubordinateWing.trk

Well a few things. First while the livery is outside, you can absolutely still see it, depending on the plane at least. You should absolutely be able to see your wingmen as well. This already means they can be useful for identification, which is true in real life. That's why roundels exist. This also implies a lot when it comes to historical accuracy. If two enemies have similar liveries that make them difficult to tell apart then you might want that in DCS to recreate the ambiguity faced by real pilots. Then of course there is no denying that while DCS is built around combat, it's not limited to that. People make vidoes, take screenshots, or simply look at things in the game that are visually interesting. I deliberately choose liveries in single player even if no one is going to see them. Someone somewhere probably does choose a livery to show off, but I feel like that's less common in DCS than in other games ruined by microtransactions that you mentioned. In any case, we do agree on the conclusion, some kind of livery management system seems like it would only be a good thing. More options to save space and the possibility for more liveries to be added to DCS. Everyone wins.

I know this post is very old, but I'm replying anyway. A Predator would be just as interesting as anything else. You'd be as capable as coordinating with other players online in a complex battle, especially if CA is involved. And don't forget that DCS isn't limited to one aircraft. Variety is a good thing. Even if this wouldn't be someone's preferred module, it could be still be worth it as an occasional use aircraft. I prefer fixed wing to rotors, but I still have a collection of the latter that I can use whenever I feel like doing CAS lower and slower.

It doesn't. Space doesn't stop mattering just because it's a certain size. If your disc is full and you need 2 GB, then the ability to remove 2 GB is useful. If you need 4 GB, it's still useful because it means it saved you from seeking 2 GB elsewhere to remove. You're really overlooking some basic situations here. Uninstall options exist for a reason, and it's partially because managing space is a lot more sensible than buying new drives all the time. A bit of a weird statement. Whatever the universe is, it only makes sense to ask for something beneficial instead of sitting around lamenting that you don't have it.