Exorcet

A models would be great, from the original to ADF's to MLU's. In my ideal world DCS modules would include entire aircraft families.

Using this as a g meter of sorts might be a reasonable way to include it even if it's not strictly realistic. In real life, you can feel g build up. I was recently on a flight and you can feel very minute motions of the aircraft unlike in a simulation. Subbing sounds in for the experience of motion can be a workaround. If you want more immersion while keeping with realistic sounds though, perhaps an overhaul of AI comms is due. More varied voices, lines, and more focus on creating and communicating information.

While this does exist for this purpose, it's much easier to have the delay built into the trigger. This is the case with message/sound to coalition/group/whatever. In a complex mission with tons of triggers an integrated delay saves so much time and potentially makes bug checking a thousand times easier. I think it would easily be worth the effort to add delays into triggers even if a method for doing this already exists.

The user files are harder to integrate and less important though. They're optional in the first place, so they don't really have an impact on space. It would be nice to include user skins in the manager, but it's more of reach feature than a primary one. Also by having the manager, we might open up room for module developers to make more skins without worrying about bloating DCS install size (this is part of the inspiration behind the Extra category I mentioned in my example image).

I've never had a problem with this, but some fade in/out for visuals and sounds seems like an easy fix.

Yes, the detection trigger is heavily requested, but some added functionality like time detected and such could make it even more useful. Like you've said there are cases where something may only appear on the radar for a second. Not enough time to really gain any meaningful info. The mission designer might not want this to count as detection. However, there is some functionality to do this as is, such as by timing the detection with a flag counter. But if these things could be built into detection triggers themselves, that would be very useful.

That is the consensus reached yes. I have not seen a single post against images. Incorrect. This will change on a case by case basis. This is unrelated to the livery manager idea and has solutions have been provided already multiple times over. Which doesn't make a livery manager any less useful.

Since you're just repeating yourself, you can probably find an answer by rereading the thread. What point are you even trying to make? Anyway I'm posting because I thought of another option to add, which would be "remove liveries for aircraft not installed", it seems like something most people concerned about space would want based on their comments. Maybe we could list the suggestions in the first post @Hardcard?

And no one is arguing that. What I said is: If you're the only person on the planet that thinks images are needed in a livery manager, that might indicate that images aren't needed in a livery manager for it to be useful to people in general.

Given that we don't know what MAC was even supposed to be exactly, I wouldn't agree here. If anything there is still plenty of room for something like a modern Jane's USNF. I'd even argue that MAC being separate from DCS might be a mistake. MAC, as a DCS module, could possibly facilitate FC3 level aircraft that wouldn't make it into DCS otherwise, maybe including modern Russian assets.

Out of curiosity was damage to leading and trailing edges looked at as well? Or only holes in the center of the wing?

No, the problem is that you don't realize that your opinions are your own and no one else's. You're describing unrelated problems that exist regardless and have already had solution proposed.

You get the missing texture skin, which is orange or something. As far as I know you can force this to show up on planes currently by deleting skins, so having a livery manager doesn't enable this anymore than is already case. It's not hard to solve in any case. The missing skin can be replaced by one that isn't missing. If you really want to be paranoid about it then you could have a bunch of low res skins to cover different camos as replacements. Which disucssion? Certainly not the one in this thread, official livery management is totally feasible. Export liveries, if they are real, would be historical no? In any case though, if desired we could rearrange the categories. Missing liveries can be replaced by the default. Or we could have low res versions of liveries for MP.

This thread arose out of a concern for disc space. If your drive is full, then it's pretty easy to make a decision. You don't use WWII planes? Disable all those liveries. It doesn't matter what any of them look like. You yourself seem to be under the impression that all anyone wants is an all button anyway, which would also make images pretty pointless. If there is a particular livery that you want to add or remove, then you probably know its name. I can recognize a few livery names that I'm familiar with, and I can probably ID whether I'd use quite a few more by name (North Korea for example isn't a country I use a lot because of the current map list so I might remove their liveries if I were trying to make space). You can't seem to find a reason to go through the checklist, but others can. So I don't see the problem here. And before it comes up, I'm not against images either. It's just that they are completely unnecessary to make a livery manager worthwhile or user friendly.

Having commands to set options for multiple planes is fine, but there is an obvious need for them on a per module basis. The categories are meant to serve as examples, not the only possible list of options. They are pretty self explanatory though and could have descriptions added to them. I specifically explained what basic and extra are, they serve to facilitate module developers in creating livery lists for users with different space needs. Modules might classify the first 10 liveries as basic for users with little disc space. Any additional liveries could be considered extra and targeted at players with unlimited space. There is no need for images. Players who don't want liveries for a given plane pick default only. Users who want all the liveries pick all. Anyone looking for something inbetween has options. I'm not sure if every module has liveries for famous pilots, but if so that could be its own category. Yep

No amount of CM's will guarantee spoofing a missile. More should be better, but it also depends on what weapon you're up against. If you dropped them all and still got hit, you might have had AB on, limiting flare effectiveness and also just had a stroke of bad luck.

I went ahead and made an image to represent what the livery manager might look like based on the module manager: The quick options are additive: Default Livery is the first livery on the list when the aircraft is set as a member of its home nation Home Country Liveries are the above along with any other livery from the home nation Historical Liveries are the above along with export liveries or liveries representing similar but not identical foreign planes (F-2 vs F-16) Basic Liveries - I included an option for devs to have a small list of varied livers for those players with limited disc space Extra Liveries - Basically the opposite of Basic, an extended list for those users with no concerns about disc space All Liveries - Check all boxes, download everything. To the right is the full list of liveries for manual selection There is a confirm choices button below to tell DCS to go ahead of add/remove liveries as requested. I just wanted to put something together to start the discussion on what exactly should be included so that we don't end up with a vague request.

You have fast jets trying to cover a slow prop plane. That's why this isn't working. Escort is not a good choice for AWACS cover, what Escort is for is covering packages that are moving along waypoints. If the defended target is stationary or orbiting, you just need to setup a CAP flight next to its orbit. You also had the escort task at WP0. Don't do this, it doesn't give the AI time to set itself up. The E-2 Also is told to fly to its final waypoint at 30,000 ft but orbit at 20,000 ft. Why the big gap in altitude? It only complicates things (and AWACS flying low doesn't make much sense). Again you had escort at WP0. I gave them a waypoint to form up and then pushed the escort task down the line and it seemed to work. EDIT I deactivated the client planes for testing by the way, so don't forget to fix them if you use the mission modification I added FA-18C - Stage 1 Rockets and Guns fix Escort 2.miz

Again, your opinions are not universal. All you've said is that you don't like the idea of managing individual skins. You've also been given multiple solutions to the problem, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. I'll try to explain one last time: Liveries would be divided by plane because that's only sensible. You can't put F-16 liveries on the F-86. This already divides 1000's of liveries into groups of 10's and maybe at worst 100's. With options like "disable all" for each plane, you don't have much clicking to do unless you want a very precise list of liveries, in which case the ability to go through each would be a benefit. Now how things will end up working in the actual game code is another matter, but conceptually there is a very simple and easy to use solution being proposed. There are zero WWII aircraft in the entirety of my F-16 campaign. Additionally, an aircraft with no livery still loads, it just has the default missing texture skin. What are you talking about.

And yet so many people enjoy the F-14A because the engines suck compared to the B. Modeling limitations isn't a bad thing. Also, a simulator, what better way to get acquainted with why something failed, or didn't work by experiencing it yourself. The new canopy by itself is an excuse to create a few test missions on NTTR or something, with some creativity it could prove useful in DCS. I disagree. Simulation can be limited to specific domains. You've actually unintentionally pointed out a "flaw" in DCS simulation. We don't have to deal with reliability, well unless we opt in to random failures. By default every plane and weapon in DCS is 100% reliable, unlike history. If DCS had the Natter the reliability of its components would not be simulated, and it would likely work under idealized conditions, at least considering DCS's scope of simulation today. You say that such a simulation isn't useful or valid, but it is. It can provide an idea of what the Natter could be expected to achieve with more testing or development, without having to invest in said development. Now of course simulating some things may take a few more liberties than others, but at the end of the day a simulator certainly has room for things outside of precise history. How worthwhile the Phantom's windscreen is would depend on its limitations and why it failed. Just because it wasn't a success or substantial improvement doesn't mean it should be rejected immediately in my opinion.

And what's being proposed here is hardly any different. This topic keeps coming up mostly due to file space, and it's frequently mentioned by people who do bring it up that they don't care about liveries for planes they don't have/fly/see. Even without thumbnails or naming conventions someone could make use of the manager by scrolling through all the WWII planes and disabling all liveries because they only fly the F-14. What sense does it make to have all the liveries in a single list when they're plane exclusive? This isn't any where near as complicated as you're trying to make it.

It's not a big deal with proper tools: Download base livery only Download historic liveries only Download assorted liverys up to X GB Download all Someone just needs to sit down for an hour or so and come up with some feasible options. I'm just going to hit download all always until my drive is full, then buy a new drive. What do I care about MP anyway, I play single player pretty much exclusively.

As AI, some of the more modern aircraft may be realistic. I think we could use a few AI additions along with slightly better modeling of aircraft capability to make them feel distinct. As things stand right now, you don't feel much difference when fighting a MiG-29 as opposed to a Su-27 since the AI flies everything the same and likes to cheat with stuff like SA and detection range.

What does simulation mean to you? I work in the simulation industry and quite often I simulate things that have never existed historically. A simulation isn't limited to modeling history or the scarcity of things in the real world. "What if" is perfectly acceptable. And the option to have a one piece screen is hardly what if, since it existed.

A livery manager is what we need. We have a sort of backbone for this in the module manager. Just add a section for liveries. The user could choose by plane what to download. This way module makers could have even more liveries, but those with disc space issues wouldn't need to worry about how to fit them.