Exorcet

I'm interested in seeing these test actually. US carriers are anything but unsinkable. CIWS is usually overwhelmed if missiles get past AEGIS. On land, Russian tanks usually outrange NATO ones with missiles. I haven't tested the F1 specifically very much as an AI unit, but the MiG-21 is inferior in BVR, the MiG-23 is a rival but needs updated missile modeling, they are quite old in DCS, and the MiG-29 should be superior. I think there might have been an issue with AI settings here. In any case, DCS is balanced. You need to craft a situation where both sides are equal instead of hoping that each side is equally good. There are also tools to push things in certain directions like AI skill level, AI invulnerability, and AI invisibility.

Unfortunately I'm not sure why there are indents on the missile. If it is an AIM-120 all I can say is that it's an A or B model, which are externally identical as far as I know, but you knew that already.

That looks like CGI. Is it a cutaway type of image? Also note that it's not just the AIM-120 that looks like that. The AAM-4 is very similar.

This is very much needed. Similarly, it would be nice to have a lower capability EWR like task for all units, such that any unit can try to assist the player in finding a target.

To be fair, the request isn't for an exact number. Asking for visual feedback in place of missing force feedback sounds reasonable to me. We do have some in the form of buffet and screen effects, but the form can vary from plane to plane and the latter doesn't take effect until you hit higher g loads. Perhaps some of the existing visual effects can be tweaked to provide better feedback, or at least be more consistent between modules.

The pods are effective against just about everything. AMRAAM won't loft if it's jammed, which is huge Pk reduction.

My hardware is dated at this point (see sig) and I'm pretty much running DCS on High or Max. I'd expect anything newer than my setup can just crank everything to the max and then possibly tweak the files to go even higher. I'm pretty content even with large missions and I don't plan to upgrade for a few years still.

Are the radio item add triggers not an option? You can add custom commands to F10 radio, they are basically exactly what you want except they don't have a keyboard shortcut.

Add the aircraft to your maps. Save the mission. Load that saved mission when making new missions instead of using a blank map.

I won't argue against your plea to fix bugs, but until then I hope you find the following advice useful: Don't forget about autostart and time acceleration. Those should help cut out time, especially when mission testing. If you really want to burn through procedures you can use the plane jump function to instantly take a plane from cold to taxi ready (jump out of plane, the AI takes over, jump back in and it's started) or set your plane to a hot start or air start in the ME. The ME has a load mission trigger. You can use this to break missions into parts. For example, Mission 1 can become: Mission 1 - Takeoff Mission 1 - Ingress Mission 1 - Combat Mission 1 - Landing Effectively you can create a checkpoint system and skip sections of the mission when testing, or if you need to restart because of a bug. Also consider either upfront or incremental mission building. By upfront I mean dedicate some amount of time to making missions and only making missions, then when you feel like you have enough go back and play them. This is still going to delay your play time, but I feel like if it's structured this way it's less frustrating. Incremental mission design is all about doing everything in tiny pieces. With the DCS ME it only takes a few minutes to make a functioning mission if it's kept small. Instead of making totally new missions, you can go back and add more detail to existing missions. Hopefully this leads to less testing and more combat in the end.

The DCS free trial, ie all of the helicopters. Take the time to learn the basics, which is helped with variety. When you feel confident then narrow down and pick your favorite. You don't have to risk buying something you won't enjoy or find too difficult to use. Though if you're going to pick one to learn, the Ka-50 is pretty comfy. It's single seat, it's coaxial, and it's heavy on flight assists. You can learn how to fly a helicopter by focusing on the basics without worried about being punished for messing up (as much).

The F-16 is by far the easier for me. Hornet is nearly the hardest.

Autostart isn't a simplification, and at this point the best RWR and radars are all found in FF planes.

The Hornet is slow, don't try to outspeed your opponent unless you're very lightly loaded (ie nothing under the wings). What the Hornet does have is good avionics and radar. You've got 10 more degrees azimuth per side more than most fighters, so the F-18 is really good at beaming. Speed and altitude are better for missiles as always. In the Hornet, try to focus more on altitude than speed The wings are good at low indicated speeds, you climb better when not trying to go supersonic, and you can accelerate fast with the help of gravity (this is also aided by your wide radar azimuth).

FC3 is my stand in for a FF DCS F-15C. Its secondary purpose is a stand in for DCS Su-27 and MiG-29.

1000%. Good controllers reduce the difficulty, which should be fairly obvious. Inconsistent inputs, weird deadzones, etc, create a nightmare and terrible learning environment. Practice is required yeah. It's easy to forget all the cues and tricks you use, especially if you don't have time to do it often in the first place.

You can watch a track (replay) and take over at any point in the track. You have to wait for it to find the spot you want to resume from though, and sometimes tracks don't record properly. Another feature you can use is plane jumping. With this, you can take over a friendly AI flyable plane whenever you want. Look at the plane in F2 view and press R Atl + J.

The latter is much preferred. There are still reasons to look for wingmen mid fight, plus this change can be disruptive for those used to the system as is. A new command is the best way.

This is something I'm curious about since I don't do graphics rendering, but I do work with CAD. Sometimes we have to make our models look nice, but obviously this can't take years. I was surprised to learn how fast you can generate nice looking models in CAD programs after hearing how hard modeling can be in games and animation. Starting totally from scratch can take time, but scaling a model's detail for different levels of hardware in almost inconsequential. With a good CAD model I can give you a lightweight and superdetailed version of the same model back to back in minutes. I wonder why 3D artists don't do something similar (or do they?) I myself also question why MAC is going to be separate from DCS, though I guess when the final product is defined it might make more sense. If MAC is only to going include "downgraded" DCS aircraft, then it sort of makes sense I guess, but at the same time it might divide the player base. While I would prefer all resources go to FF modules, if we're going to have lower fidelity ones anyway then I don't have a problem with them interacting with DCS since they already do (FC3) and they're better than AI (human controlled CA vehicles have huge value despite their simplicity). The exception would be if MAC is vastly simpler in modeling than FC.

Well a bug is be definition not working properly. I don't think the number increments are a bug. As such they are an intended feature that some users may have acclimated to. In such a case, I think an option to choose the behavior makes more sense than just changing the behavior. Well as a long time DCS user I've seen plenty of well intentioned changes cause problems. I don't see the addition of a simple option contributing much to bloat unless it's added in an extremely inefficient way. If you really want a use case, then I suspect it the entire reason the number increment exists. If you copy and paste an aircraft, while it may be a copy digitally, it's probably not meant to be a literal copy in reality. Planes all have different numbers for a reason, that being to tell them apart. From that perspective, copy keeping the number doesn't make sense. Changing this creates the same problem that you want to avoid when copy and pasting into the same mission, a lot of manual work.

My current PC was built by iBuyPower and has served me well. There are other PC builders if you want to shop around. You can look up videos on YouTube of people running DCS with various hardware and decide what level of performance you want. My PC is running rather old i5-9600K and RTX2080Ti, but I still get good performance. Any modern performance oriented i5 level CPU or high-mid level 3000 to 4000 series GPU or their AMD equivalents should handle DCS fine on a monitor. If you're looking for a fully built cockpit including PC, I can't offer much help. I've looked at some but haven't shopped them seriously.

This is true, but FC3 exists and doesn't really take any dev resources, at least in comparison to new modules. Another question is if we want to invest dev resources into new FC3 planes and if we get anything worthwhile from it. In my opinion, FF is far far more valuable and the modules are separate from the rest of DCS. FF most likely isn't the source of DCS's problems. It is in fact, the best hope for DCS improving because FF is what attracts buyers to DCS. Some of the problems that you mentioned aren't exclusive to FF either. Things like extremely detailed interiors applies to FF modules. Both the F-15E and the now old F-15C have a radar dish modeled under the nose. You asked us to imagine modern FC aircraft, but would they even cost the same as the originals? Likely not, they would probably be more expensive. Certainly graphics wise they would, graphics is not a function of aircraft fidelity. Just look at the recent AI models in DCS that have been added or are projected to come soon. MAC itself should have been a "quick and easy" job compared to FF DCS, but it has dragged on for a number of years, and all of it is apparently taking bits from already finished aircraft. Despite what I said and not wanting DCS to go down a FC module path I do agree with this, but any planes that receive a FC level modules in place of FF would be a tragic loss. The gap argument also isn't the most solid. DCS has a good number of aircraft currently. There are more to add, but that will likely always be the case, even if DCS were exclusively FC level modules. FF hasn't prevented DCS from providing variety, nor do I think it's the cause of what is lacking from the DCS experience. The course we're on now is a good one as far as aircraft are concerned.

The first few that I could think of: Instructions to find the manuals Some of the best help is in the manuals, while video tutorials are popular these days they can be slow and clumsy to use. Text help is generally faster. Aircraft jumping Poorly documented Useful for missing testing or flying campaigns after being shot down Aircraft runway operations For those inclined to use the ME. These are obscure in ME and have a huge impact on missions (ie active runway, taxi paths, etc), new players could save a lot of time knowing how to get planes in the air quickly (or even instantly by placing them in the air vs starting from the ground). Group Copy and Paste Excellent for setting up large missions, not just for multiplying groups, but for creating fast templates, example create a CAP flight with preset options and waypoints, then when adding other aircraft instead of adding a new group, copy the CAP flight and make needed changes. This saves time in the form of skipping waypoint creation, copying visibility settings like hidden on MFD, start conditions like Late Activation, liveries, etc This also serves as a work around for DCS ME naming issues (ie to change names of units to match a group, place a group to copy, then name the group, then copy the group, the change the name of the original group, lastly paste the group. New pasted group has all unit names matching the group name) Autostart Time acceleration and Active Pause Radio channels (if using realistic radio) Create Fast Mission and the ability to edit these in the ME Explanation of the DCS User Files and how to download missions Link to DCS forums

Whenever you change how something works, you risk disrupting someone's work flow. This isn't about specific cases, but general good practices when making changes or improvements.

I understand your request, but changing things and removing the old system is rarely the right direction to take. You're just breaking the system for someone else. Add a checkbox in the ME to SELECT which option to use on paste. That way, no one is left inconvenienced.