Exorcet

Syria map issue is known and is a problem with that map, you'd want to bring it up in the correct forum (which already has a thread).

Oh yes and this is not limited to C-RAM:

Testing the new AI B-1 in 2.9 OB, it seems to have trouble flying near the ground. If it deviates from the intended height too much, it will nosedive and then be unable to recover. I don't know yet if this is B-1 specific, but it's a problem for the B-1 since it's a low altitude plane. Track attached B1crash.trk

Basically a subset of this.

Yes. Even just looking at things practically, having an "any" option for the missile in zone trigger would be helpful at times. Fallibility is definitely something the AI needs more of though. Without that, even reasonable limitations like FoV, or realistic sensors can break down. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen AI turn 180 degrees and instantly fire a missile on a target that a human would need to visually search for, or at least hesitate to shoot on because of the possibility of friendly fire.

100% necessary. Ideally we should also have easy ways of accessing what a specific unit or group has detected. Options for sorting by detected type (plane, missile, etc) would also be nice.

Strongly disagree here, and in fact I've requested the opposite: Perhaps the answer is a rework of the task system, although backwards compatibility may limit options there.

The AI cannot spot me from behind and below unless I STT lock it. I made the mission above to test AI spotting ability, and they are not all seeing. They do have sensors and spot enemies using them, but those sensors are very simple. Of course, my situation is best case and can be hard to replicate in a real fight against the AI. This is because of the factors I mentioned (reaction time, etc) and other things like blind spots having no effect once an AI spots you. In the second image since my radar is on, it is fair that the AI knows I am there, but it shouldn't know where I am - yet it has my position exactly.

My testing disagrees: However that is not to say that improvements can't be made. The AI seems to have 0 reaction time and scans its entire field of view instantly. Those are things that need to change. Very often I've seen the AI turn 180 and instantly launch a missile, when at least some of the time it should have to search for a visual on the target. EDIT A little more testing, something odd is that the AI doesn't react via RWR unless it is STT locked. Flying behind the MiG with radar on did not lead to any reaction. Also, when STT locked, the MiG apparently found me on radar and IRST somehow despite being out of the FoV of both. See track (Persian Gulf) AwareMiG.trk

To set a plane to be player controlled it need to have the skill setting "Player" or "Client". Player for single player or when there is only one plane to fly, Client for multiplayer or if you want multiple choices for planes in single player.

The idea is that we have some kind of stand in using existing (as much as possible) code. In that case, the lack of details doesn't really matter. Realism is obviously important in DCS, but there is no denying that realism can be applies at various levels. Just for example, AI aircraft are going to be simpler than player planes. This is a necessity, and if done correctly it's not really obvious. Exactly. I don't see why this should have to be a mod. It certainly can be (and has been done as a mod), however as an in game option, it makes it easiest for users and provides the most flexibility. It also allows the option to be curated (ie disabled when necessary). I feel like this is a pretty basic feature for a simulator, especially one that already provides options for special cases (previously mentioned unlimited health, fuel, ammo, etc).

There is no sacrifice to be made here, just as there isn't with invulnerability, unlimited ammo, all the units in the CJTF countries, respawns, etc. As long as the game doesn't preclude you from using a realistic option, realism is preserved.

This would be changing established controls. Currently the F2 is aircraft external, with the proposed changes I'd need to remember to press F1 before F2 or to hunt down a plane on the F10 map before pressing F2 to make sure I'd enable aircraft view. The current controls are separated by unit type (F2, F7, F9, F12) which is perfectly reasonable for me. In particular F2 being directly tied to aircraft is useful as it provides a quick glance at wingmen. Perhaps an alternative that won't incontinence those using the existing controls would be to add a button to the F10 map "view this unit". Not only does this not force a controls change, but since it would be GUI based it would solve the issue of VR users needing to look for a key, as the button would be visible on the F10 map for them.

As the current functionality is fine with me, I'd find a change to be disruptive. If this is made optional however, fine.

You're acting like that completely solves the problem, but it doesn't. You can get as big a drive as you want, but there will always be a way to fill it up. Sure, you can buy more space when this happens, but if you had the option to uninstall 20 GB of unused files, and that was the space you needed, and could save yourself the money and effort of acquiring the new drive, why wouldn't you do that? I think you missed the point of my post. With a livery manager we can have 200 GB of skins because no one would be forced to download them all. Obviously if you fill your drive with skins, that is your own fault. Stepping outside of DCS though, I feel like you still have a bit of a narrow view on this. Some people might build PC's just for DCS, some might not. Either way there is plenty of software and files out there to fill any amount of space. More options for managing disc space can only be a good thing. Even in the realm of 1 TB SSD's, you supposed to leave about 10% space free to optimize performance. That's 100 GB. If you have 5 primary programs/installations/whatever that allow fine control of their space use and you can only get 20 GB out of each, that's the difference between full slow SSD and a nearly full but still fast SSD. It's easy to create the limited number of hypothetical situations where 20 GB doesn't matter, but it's just as easy to come up with situations where it matters a lot. A more relevant analogy I'd think is someone asking for middle ground between 1440p and 720p (possibly while everyone else fails to consider the value in that and says to get a used 3070 or something because those cards have been around a while and should be cheap).

It's all about what one intends to do. Some people want nothing but a 100% accurate recreation of history, some people mod in Ace Combat skins, and then there are people in the middle. All of this needs to be taken into account by module makers, which is another reason for having a livery manager. If we could choose then at least the space that liveries take up becomes a non factor for developers. Let each module come with 200 GB of liveries. I'll download them all until I don't have the space. That can't be done now because not everyone is going to have 500 GB (substitute with whatever number if you don't consider 500 realistic) just for liveries and expecting people to buy space just for that is unreasonable.

I'll just say that a clearly defined option for this really should satisfy 100% of people. I can see why people would be opposed to just letting any plane load anything in the regular menu: It makes it hard to determine what is historic in single player It prevents control of the features in MP (well not really since we added loadout restrictions, but then you'd have to figure out what is historic or not, etc) With a clearly labeled checkbox, everyone who wants a historic single player has it enforced. And I'd also say the checkbox should be disabled by default (ie all limits are in place without work on the part of users). This also means that MP servers are historic with weapons by default. Then anyone wanting to expand from there has the option to do so on their own in single player where no one else is effected or on their own MP server where joining is a consensual decision. I don't see the problem here, but if someone does have an issue maybe they can enlighten me. People can vote however, but if a no vote just comes down not wanting other people to have something (and I'm not making statements on how the vote options were interpreted here, if), I think that devalues that vote a bit.

Yet I do, so it seems you're completely wrong on your thoughts about how disc size/availability and concern to this topic relate. But that should be pretty easy to see if one actually tries to read the information presented. At this point, it's just part of these forums.

Since you seem to have trouble reading between the lines, let me try a different way: See, you have the same problem. You can’t discern the relative importance between 10TB and 10GB or $1 vs $1,000 (since I get to decide what is important and what has value, and no one can disagree with me ever). This seems like a personal problem and not something ED should consider in their decision making. This “problem” exists only in your imagination, (because it's not my problem so it's not real). So Sharpe, now that we've established that the problem is in your imagination, because I'm always right, are you going to drop the argument? Example over. And just for the record I have 3 TB on my PC and another 4 TB external.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, obviously it's important to have a thread dedicated to it. This doesn't really change anything. A user could have a 10 TB disc. Once all 10 TB are filled, there is no more space. If removing 10 GB or liveries allows for a 10 GB install of a wanted program, the ability to remove the liveries was useful. This is disc size independent. It may be easy and affordable. Or it may not be. Again it's all individually dependent. I'd also say a livery manager would benefit the game regardless, so even if hard drives were free, there would still be a reason to create one. And still, there is value in a livery manager. I'd like to have one for the benefit of myself, other players, and DCS as a whole. The irony. The mountain of pure unfiltered irony.

Not much point to bringing this up then? The sim being imperfect doesn't warrant giving up on lack of improvements. Just because DCS is big that doesn't make small space savings irrelevant. Not everything is 500 GB. If reducing DCS install size from 500 to 480 allows you to install a 20GB thing, then removing 20 GB was beneficial. This remains true no matter how big DCS gets. When that happens is an individual's choice to make. It seems like you won't benefit much from the ability to free up 10-20 GB or whatever. You're not everyone though.

I am a player. Not having the option to manage these individually per server or mission is the pain. So I disagree completely, as does a large group of people in this thread.

Don't link them to purchase. Just give them to everyone. With a livery manager we could then simply choose to use the low or high res skins. This removes the problem of "cheating" as low res skins would work fine at a distance and keep the colors/visibility of a certain scheme. Cheating in quotes because it's possible with the current system anyway, so it's not really an issue with livery select options.

A checkbox to remove weapon restrictions and such would be very welcome. As a sim with limited resources behind it (all software has limited resources), shortcuts like this to allow us to use stand ins for planes we may not get or for plausible hypothetical/experimental versions of aircraft would be a great addition. It needs to be clearly labeled though so players can choose when they want to limit things to historically accurate scenarios only. Make it a mission checkbox like historical units. The teen series aren't limited at all. Historically, they've fought the red forces we have in game. They're not really lacking for anything when it comes to reasonable adversaries, they just require some more attention to setting up the combat situation.

Just wanted to give some feedback as I am not a fan of needing a phone to do a simple task. If there is a chance for an alternative method for controlling the use of free trials I highly support ED in developing that alternative. Tying everything to a phone is a hassle and a security risk.