Exorcet

It would be a revision. Yes, the mission editor used to allow far more zoom out and was vastly better because of it. Then this was changed and I've been asking for it to be undone ever since, over many years. As stated accessing the edges of maps is needlessly painful with the new restrictive zoom option. Going back the original wide zoom out would be a vastly better.

So, getting a HOTAS for DCS is pretty common sense, but even in that case you don't necessarily eliminate the keyboard nor the issues mentioned in this thread. We have a fair number of aircraft at this point and they don't all function this same. My current setup is pretty nice for the teen series, but the Viggen with its extra control stick, has proven a bit problematic. So some adjustability on how the keyboard functions is nice. I am planning to upgrade my HOTAS at some point and hopefully I'll end up with more non key inputs for planes like the Viggen, but it's always nice to have a fallback for whatever reason. In the past I've also done limited DCS on a laptop for testing or whatever. Having nicer keyboard controls for that situation would also come in handy.

I kind of understand the sentiment, but realism is the entertainment. When developers take the realism out and we get something like Ace Combat, the fun leaves with it. DCS is a simulator though and that naturally comes with the ability to turn things on and off unlike reality so the end product can be altered to fit different wants. Personally I want to see everything as an option at least. A simulator doesn't have to enforce realism all the time, and users may seek different scopes of realism like airframe simulation vs life of a pilot simulation, but it should offer maximum realism for those seeking it. I'm here to get as close as possible to flying X, Y and, Z. Annoying drawbacks included. You don't need to have first hand experience. A good deal of the design process for these aircraft avoid reality. Computer models aren't perfect, but they're quite good at this point. We know how most of the physics works and beyond that there is information out there about the end product that skips the how and why and simply tells you what it does. You can reference these things and you'll know if you're on the right track or not.

I agree that these things are important though I wonder if they wouldn't be better as static objects/ground units rather than permanent map features. DCS is a sandbox so the maps can be used for a variety of purposes and so having the option to remove these objects can be a good thing. It would also mean that we could reuse the assets on other maps.

The Eagle is a high altitude fighter, 7 G is more than it can sustain at combat altitude.

Yes, as do other missiles. However AWACS will not inform you about them unfortunately.

I don't think the US military using US jets to stand in for Soviet jets in training exercises was entertainment. Realism isn't binary yes/no. Sure you can argue that the DCS F-35 is going to be missing things, but that doesn't mean it's completely removed from reality. I can't tell you what the DCS F-35 will ultimately be, but if you understand physics and engineering you can do more than make a random guess at how to simulate it.

This has always made the most sense to me. DCS simulates aircraft much more than it simulates theaters or time periods. ED calls it a sandbox. Make the plane as it was, including things that were possible but weren't used. Either way the F-15 is long long overdue.

I think people are making too big a deal over this. The nature of DCS is that any module can be excluded. The F-35 may as well not exist if you don't want it to. It's existence is also independent of the quality of other modules. Just because it exists doesn't mean that standards for DCS as a whole has been lowered. Though the F-35 itself exists in part because the US wanted an export friendly, less secretive airframe than other stealth aircraft. So the fact that it can be simulated isn't that unbelievable.

Customization options like this make a lot of sense. It's arbitrary as it is, so allowing players to make it longer or shorter doesn't impact realism that much. Being able to zero time is also a big help for troubleshooting. Bug is happening during repair? Would be great for making a bug report track if we could skip the countdown, etc.

10/13/2024 - Update1 > Corrected scoring for mission 3B and improved briefing.

In a different timeline where DCS Eagle existed this would have been a F-15 campaign. While we do have the FC F-15, full fidelity is just more fun for me with greater systems management and more options. Little things like TACAN or setting markpoints and new waypoints add a lot. If someone wants to make a F-15 version of the campaign I would be fine with that, though I don't plan to do it myself. Thanks for the kneeboard link, I will have to look into it.

Thanks for the feedback, I'm glad the campaign is being enjoyed. I've run into the fuel issues while testing the campaign, and had to build in some workarounds for AI units in a few cases. While I was working on missions the update to set AI fuel unlimited was released, but it wasn't included because I try to avoid updating DCS when I have a work in progress. With the initial campaign version released I can revisit it and see if I can improve things with the new fuel triggers. You can also use the mission planner to change wingman load out. I kept their loadout consistent with the player because I thought it would look odd if they always had a full set of tanks, but I guess it also looks odd if they eject all the time. On Kneeboards I agree they are helpful but I never got around to experimenting with them. Part of my problem was also that I wanted to do full kneeboard instead of a simple one like radio channels, that's probably more approachable. I'll look into it. I don't have easy comms enforced, it should be left open so that the player can use whatever setting they want, unless it was accidentally turned on for a given mission. I myself have the easy comms universally disabled in the game options so it's always off for me. In mission 1 both tankers are there, one only takes off if combat starts "an additional tanker will scramble to cover the west in the event of combat, Arco 1 TACAN 42Y" I avoided overt mission complete messages because I purposely wanted the same uncertainty a pilot might face in real life with regard to mission success. At the same time I tried to make the hidden success criteria lenient so players aren't banging their heads against the wall repeatedly failing and not knowing why. There are messages alerting you to the status of your objective though, not always, but there is one in mission 1. Was it too ambiguous or did it get missed?

After much time I've finally completed my first campaign. Please leave feedback here. Current status - available on user files https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340795/ PLEASE LEAVE ALL FEEDBACK IN THIS THREAD, USER FILE MESSAGES ARE UNLIKELY TO BE READ An air to air campaign for the F-16CM Blk 50 where the player flies for the USAF, set in the Hormuz Strait region in the year 2010. This campaign features missions with elements of randomization for replayability and mission uncertainty. The experience is intended to resemble that of a pilot in combat in that the missions will go on with or without the player's success, with some exceptions and within the limits of the DCS Campaign system. Missions will feel similar to my previous stand alone missions. The campaign is not strictly historically accurate, but attempts to be within the realm of plausibility, though mission content was given priority over world building. The campaign may be thought of as a mission pack rather than a narrative. Players should be familiar with the F-16 including startup, takeoff, navigation, communications, systems management, fuel management, weapon employment, and landing. Air to air refueling is present but is not strictly necessary, however some missions may push the limits of range without use of tankers. Wingmen are an important component of the campaign. Familiarity with the wingman menu is recommended. Plan your approach based on the mission briefing and use the mission planner to give your wingmen preplanned actions before getting into combat. Understanding the commands to have your flight orbit and engage missions will be helpful in completing objectives. Missions are not instant action style and feature ingress and egress with total mission times up to 2-3 hours, with an average length closer to 1-2 hours. Briefings and the mission planner screen should provide relevant information and should be read before flying, again similar to past individual missions. Hard coding of objectives is avoided as much as possible and triggers are designed to be lenient to avoid situations where the mission breaks due to a particular action. The map mode is set to Fog of War. DCS AWACS performance is limited in some ways so I have set the F10 map to make up for this. Use the F10 map to supplement AWACS calls. As mentioned above the campaign is air to air focused and the player is not tasked with air to ground missions, but the jump feature can be used to jump into ground attack F-16's (and other planes) if desired. Beware that currently your original plane will immediately abandon its mission if you jump into a new plane. This is my first attempt at making a campaign and was also a learning experience as a result. While I have learned a lot, I was not able to apply everything learned to this campaign as I built it. Any feedback is welcome. Campaign requirements: F-16CM Blk 50 aircraft module Persian Gulf map module mods - none Sample mission planner images: Change log 11/2/2024 Scoring overhaul, it should no longer be possible to get stuck on some stages 10/24/2024 Second correction to mission scoring 10/13/2024 Corrected Mission 3B scoring and briefing, no other bugs found but occasional testing will continue Known bugs 10/5/2024 Mission 3B awards 50 points maximum, can only end in a draw > points scheme to be updated, skip button can be used as workaround for now

I second the User Files mentioned already, but a tip for mission making. You don't have to do it all at once and one mission file doesn't have to be one mission. Have you tried creating triggers for missions? With these you can set a mission to go down an unpredictable path, which keeps a mission from getting repetitive. One simple way to do this is to have a list of events and to select them at random with a flag. For example: Event 1 occurs when flag 1 takes the value of 1 Event 2 occurs when flag 1 takes a value of 2 etc You can create a trigger to randomly set a flag value at the start of the mission and the events triggered car vary from spawning enemy bombers, to a call for help from friendly ground troops. This can obviously get complicated, but you can approach this one event at a time. Spend a week setting up event 1. The following week, setup event 2 and add value 2 to the list of possible flag values. The next week add value 3, etc. After some time you will have a complex and unpredictable mission. Another approach that can also be combined with the above is making simple mission templates that you can use as a starting point for other missions. So you might setup a simple mission where you takeoff an attack enemy bombers. Later you can load that mission and save it as a new mission and then add something new to it, like a second wave of bombers, or an emergency call to handle some other task.

Does the new IAG allow importing directly to the ME like the current Fast Generator? I assume this is the case, but it wasn't mentioned specifically in the newsletter.

That's not a safe assumption. An assist's appeal wouldn't be limited to casual players looking for quick action. Additionally you'll have less experienced players with poor fuel management skills that will find a way to run out of fuel even on short missions. Being interested in flight sims doesn't make one good at flight sims, which is why DCS is full of assists already despite being a hardcore simulation. Virtually every hardcore simulator offers assists precisely because the playerbase is rarely totally homogeneous.

Definitely should be a high priority.

I suppose there is no harm in checking, though I also don't think the IAG has anything to do with removing the ME. If anything it will probably plug into the ME like the current Fast generator does, though that's just my guess and if it's not the case that's a suggest I'd make for the IAG.

It's up to the player to do whatever they want. You can fly an entire campaign without even touching refueling, DCS allows this. We're in a sim, not real life. We can pick and choose.

Sorely needed and previously requested:

It's nice to know if a runway or the airspace around it is open. Getting a taxi route to the runway or an open rearming area would also be nice. The AI will take a particular path and if you don't follow it, or create a situation with an AI conflict, you can lock down the airport. If we want mission automation, so less scripted and more reactive missions, it would be help to have ATC managing an airfield, especially if things like transport flights and QRA interceptors are going to have a place. If you're speaking only about player communication, some of the above could be considered external issues, though in general important information should be relayed to anyone at the airport.

I wouldn't say that you're wrong, but when the AI can't even get into or out of the airport the rest of the mission falls apart. ATC dialogue will be great, but a huge part of what I hope to see from an ATC overhaul is some efficiency and reason to AI airport operations.

I wonder if we could have generic AAA emplacement units with the option to them select a weapon to arm it. This could also help reduce workload going forward as we won't need a new unit with every gun added.

I'd welcome what if aircraft in DCS as a simulator is great for exploring experimental ideas, but they need to be clearly separate from the production/historical aircraft. You should be able to make any kind of mission you want of course, but an option that removes experimental planes like the historical mode would be needed. While we could also generate the data needed to simulate these aircraft with tools like CFD, it may be a lot more involved than it is for more common aircraft. It's also more than aerodynamics. Structures, systems, controls, etc, all matter. Researching and testing all of those things would take some effort.