Exorcet

This applies without VR as well. I think people really misunderstand the differences between FC3 and FF. I honestly don't look at FC3 as being causal or beginner friendly in the first place. DCS has tons of options and assists that apply to FF planes. Also like you said, the entire concept of HOTAS kind of makes the whole clickable cockpit thing moot. You don't fly a jet with switches, you fly them with the stick and throttle. Your hands are there 90% of the time whether you fly FC3 or FF. The difference is, FF has switches conveniently labeled and allocated around a spacious cockpit which makes them easy to use. In FC3 you need to remember what obscure feature needs to be called with Ctrl + Shift + Alt modifiers because everything is crammed on the keyboard or HOTAS buttons. I'm not even joking when I say I've had easier times starting FF planes than FC3 ones just because I forgot where what key starts the battery. In the FF plane I can just find the cockpit switch. Anyway I'm not opposed to more FC3 planes, though they are less appealing to buy than FF. However for anyone thinking FF is too much for them, I suggest reconsidering. Use the options and assists that DCS provides to create an experience that works for you. Don't forget about the free trial either.

Game mode is gone. However this would be a terrible idea anyway, tying autostart to game mode.

Mod does not imply unrealistic. And replicating the F-20 in DCS sounds like a good way to learn about it, from what you stated I'm a bit lost as to why you'd be against it.

FF modules are all compatible with this. You never have to start them, let alone wait for INS. Most jets are HOTAS based so fiddling with switches shouldn't be common, and if you're not interested in using advanced systems, many can be ignored. DCS offers many ways to play, if you just want to jump into a dogfight, you can with any plane.

I wouldn't call 5-6 years new, and since differing models have been handled many ways I don't see it as an obstacle. True, but there is no reason why we couldn't. There has never been such a statement "Now that Razbam has an E we wouldn't plan a C". And it wouldn't make any sense really. The Hornet and Viper aren't the same plane, but they are quite similar. Yet ED released them back to back. The F-16 in particular was also bound to draw direct comparisons to BMS, a free to play high fidelity simulator that has been established for as long as DCS. Teaming up with Razbam is also not really necessary. The C and the E are totally different, and if we're considering ED they probably have more info on the C than anyone as it is. There also wouldn't be a need to sell the C for cheap, it's as good as any other plane. Sell it for full price. For the same reason ED risked people choosing between the Hornet and Viper or 190 A/D. Selling both makes more money than selling one. Some people are going to purchase both, not just choose between them. The F-15C is multirole. It has AG capability, so that's not going to stop it from selling. It's pretty much an advanced F-5 or F-4 in that regard, two popular modules despite being limited to rather dumb bombs. Not being updated often is kind of the point when it is finished. Besides, being finished has not prevent some very significant updates, like the Eagle's radar. That's far more significant than new models as far as I'm concerned. FC3 isn't abandoned.

The E doesn't matter. Different plane, we have variations of a plane family already, The C is still "half finished", and the demand is high for the C. While we can't know why ED hasn't focused on it, it remains a pretty attractive choice for a module. FC3 is anything but abandoned. It's feature complete. That's why it's not updated often. This is a good thing, the ultimate goal that every module should strive to achieve. If it does become outdated, it will be updated with the rest of DCS World.

I've been wondering about a multistage approach for assets. Like add simplified model first and then update it later. I wouldn't mind having less than perfect models if they acted somewhat realistically. DCS covers quite a few times and locations now. We've got gaping holes in the unit list and no idea when they might be filled.

How I would improve unit handling Add a checkbox called "Copy current unit changes to remainder of group" What it does: Any change made to the current unit in the existing unit selection menu is copied to all units listed afterward. So for example if you want to change 5 tanks into 5 trucks, select the lead tank and turn it into a truck. If the box is checked, all units in the group will be a truck. If you wanted 1 tank and 4 trucks, select the second unit and change that tank into a truck. This would also work with names. So if you copied a group of tanks to make a group of trucks, normally the name is copied to, lets say all the units are called "Tank 1-x". Currently you'd need to change all unit names at once. However if the checkbox is checked and you changed the lead unit to "Truck 1-1" all the following units would become "Truck 1-x".

I think there are some youtube videos on this exact topic

It's extremely useful. Damage, weapons, is wingman even there? Changing something like this should never be done lightly as it can cause as many problems as it solves (and in my case, it doesn't solve anything). If you want a quick target view, make it its own button so it doesn't screw up existing functions.

Not only do we need more options, but I think a better menu. Cluttering the current radio menu will make it even harder to find things and make issuing commands take longer. It's painful trying to micromanage a flight of more than 2. Something that allows us to manipulate more information at once and also gives instant feedback would be helpful. I've proposed such a thing here:

Nevatim 114 startfromramp.trk

Search then Engage in Zone works well except that it uses the entire WP path. If this was fixed, we'd have a pretty smart CAP system. I made this request here: There is also a similar request: I'm not sure what the logic for this is. You'd want to use AB long before this. Anyway it is technically possible, but the AB command is a trigger, Making it an option attached to engage tasks would make it easier to use.

This was a nice feature in FSX, would like to see it in DCS as well.

Did you download it with the module manager? I had it the instant I bought it.

ED have made changes here actually. The lights being on when air starting was something added in later. It's a small thing, but I admit that it does bother me and I'd like to see it reverted to lights off. Most of the time if I'm airstarting it's when I don't have time to do a full mission, or maybe I want to record a video. It's nice not having to worry about forgetting to switch off the lights while in the middle of a merge and ruining a dogfight video because you have nav lights on the middle of a fight.

Yes, this is why I feel like changing the "stop behavior" or adding a separate limit for the STE boundary by waypoint is preferable.

While testing Search Then Enagage for a long standing issue where the AI will chase anything near its flight path (in a separate thread) I noticed that the AI now tries to lead when intercepting enemy fighters. However this lead doesn't take distance into account. This can cause very inefficient intercepts over long distances. We need something like missile guidance for the AI where the pursuit strategy changes with distance. See track STE_issue_2023.trk

OK I see. My interpretation was that @twistking found this to be a drawback, as I do, since it can make the AI engage in unexpected ways or at unexpected times. Using Search then Engage in Zone is an alternative, but it's limited to circles, which creates it own problems.

This is incorrect and is the basis of my thread. EDIT - STE still causes fighters to engage well beyond the stop condition in 2023: STE_retest.miz

The idea is, aircraft generally patrol a specific location, so limiting their hostile behavior to a certain region should make sense most of the time. Distance from enemies also needs to be taken into account, but if that's the only consideration then fighters may end up in endless afterburner chases and run out of fuel. To really, really solve the problem the AI probably needs a smart disengage script. For example a flight of 2 chasing a bandit will disengage one at a time, so that someone is always looking at the bandit, and they will slow down preemptively to create space, rather than keeping full burner all the way to the point where they do decide to turn around. I was just trying to provide a simple method, but there are multiple options here.

Not only will it be more CPU intensive, the AI has to be coded to intelligently fly. You'd increase CPU workload and ED's literal workload by making them code 1:1 AI that flies as the player does. It also wouldn't work because AI just isn't that smart, so it would probably fly poorly. There is zero reason to do what you're asking because 99% convincing AI can be done with less demands on the hardware and the developers. Just let ED finish their AI changes and GFM and we should be good.

The F-16 was built for speed, the Hornet less so. This not only impacts the drag/performance of the clean aircraft but also the aircraft with stores. The USAF uses smaller and less draggy pylons because they wanted more performance out of their plane. The Navy had the Tomcat to handle air to air for a lot of the Hornet's lifetime, so it was fine with the Hornet getting draggy pylons. While the plane is multirole, most of the time it was used as a strike platform. The Swiss actually have different pylons with less drag, and so have better performing Hornets. This is why your made up estimates for the Hornet and F-16 don't work. The drag change isn't the same, not even close. Adding pylons to the Hornet increases drag much, much more. You can still go fast in the Hornet, but you want to avoid fuel tanks and wing pylons. Wing tip AIM-9's and fuselage AIM-120's are very low drag on the F-18 and if you only take those four missiles you can actually compete with the F-16. You will still be slower, but not worlds slower. You mentioned not seeing the same effect on other planes, but I'd suggest rechecking. The F-14 can be slowed down tremendously by AIM-54's. The Mirage 2000 doesn't like to be loaded with fuel tanks. The F-16 suffers massively when loaded with some AG loadouts.

There are AI that can easily copy voices in high quality. If ED doesn't have the resources to voice the callsigns themselves, they should get an AI to do it. Even single person teams have successfully used AI to generate natural sounding voice lines from only a handful of sample inputs.

This is basically a wish for smarter self defense? If so I agree, but it shouldn't be a CAP task. It needs to be universal. I think the idea could be simplified by just making it an input, ie "self defense distance = x nautical miles" and then add the type checkboxs "aircraft, helicopter, SAM, tank, ship, etc". Put whatever x you want, and the AI engages anything hostile from the checkboxes within that distance. To stop the AI from chasing aircraft forever there could be a "maximum distance from waypoint" setting. Similar to self defense distance, but this would determine when the AI stops chasing. Alternatively, we could fix the problem that Search Then Engage currently has, which I brought up a couple of years ago: This would allow more control and give us exactly the option you're asking for, a way to set self defense for aircraft. We'd also need ALL planes to be able to access Search Then Engage: