Exorcet

If they're going to do that I'd prefer a tickbox. It gives more user control and then you don't run into an unexpected limitation when you try to do something that people haven't thought of before (say Finland loans a plane to another nation in your mission, so you'd want Finnish Hornets with a non Finnish livery).

A sensitivity option should exist regardless of whether there is a bug or not. It would be a nice feature to have.

The design of the mission and the intent of the creator should absolutely be taken into consideration. I didn't want control to be taken from the mission creator, but instead was advocating for rolling part of this request into another popular request, which is the revamping of aircraft selection in MP. If the mission maker so chooses, the slot should be configurable by the player selecting that slot. Of course if the mission is designed to require a cold start, then that should be possible as well.

It's all related. Sustained turns are just PS=0. PS +/- are the cases where you're storing or trading energy, but they're related to PS=0. Sustained turns aren't everything, but they should be correct.

They could probably copy and paste the vehicle smoke effect. It would look good coming from a SAM launch.

I can try to look later, but I think the fuse issue will only show when the missile can't physically hit the target, otherwise yes it will explode on contact. Does this impact flare resistance? I thought this was for the initial lock on only and once locked all that matters is AB on vs off.

It looks like some of the confusion arises from the speculation that missile fuses base distance on the pilot and not aircraft, but a quick search left this unconfirmed. Anyway I agree with @Dragon1-1's point that the seeker tracking the aircraft as a point probably isn't a big deal, although it would be nice to have. I think more important would be refining the heat coefficients to make them more than just two values, and then possibly have them vary with aspect like RCS now does.

From what I know, targeting is centered on the pilot for weapons in general, not just missiles. Weapons/sensors just see a point on the target to go after. IR missiles also see the heat level of the target which is set as a coefficient for mil power and AB power. I'm not aware of any plans to change this specifically, though ED has mentioned a desire to improve AI targeting, which might cover missile seekers.

Any unit with a radar should be able to do this. Communication is a huge part of military flying and sometimes units have to improvise. A F-15 flying around with a bunch of F-5's could direct the F-5's with radio while scanning with radar.

Players would need some control over them.Some aircraft have rough field and STOL capability and would be able to operate from less than ideal runways. It would become a negative if trucks drove out on to the runway unannounced and disrupted these aircraft. Their presence would also need to be communicated to any aircraft that might use the runway, so this would need to be integrated into ATC at least.

From the info we have on module development, it might be more realistic to get the above as full fidelity rather than FC, at least for the blue side. There doesn't appear to be a clear cost savings from FC modules in terms of development work, or at least it's not a 50% savings. It may only be 10-25%. Based on that, FC might make more sense for more modern vehicles, or for red side aircraft, but this is speculation on my part.

Nothing is happening the FF planes. FC2024 has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Early development probably looks the same for FC and FF. They need to do research, collect sources, etc. FC is simplified, but it's still a simulation that requires information on the real aircraft, especially as the FC standard has increased over the years. The original FC planes with copy and pasted systems that were extremely generic were easier to make than what FC has become now. I'd assume ED wouldn't want to backtrack, so FC module development will probably still be involved. The simplification of the controls also isn't free, they need to be developed separately from the FF controls and that's means less sharing of code between FC and FF. My guess is that the biggest difference would be a shorter EA phase for FC planes.

The planner could use some enhancements. The entire briefing process could actually. The displayed threat list is annoying since it shows everything, including units hidden on the planner. The lack of waypoint and radio/TACAN information is painful. One note on anything related to route planning and ATC management and coordination, the ME doesn't know how to properly account for uncontrolled or late activation units. It just assumes that these will start at mission start time. Ideally this should change to make working and planning with these units easier. Proposals around this have been made before:

For clarity, Group Close is the formation spacing, and not the aircraft arrangement. You can set the wingmen to be Group Close while in Line a Breast, though it might need to be done in the mission planner as I think the F10 radio only has options for Combat Spread and Close. Yet another issue with that menu.

I don't mind keeping the old models, especially if removing them can cause problems. In the cases where they have unique capability, they absolutely should not be removed (M2005, F-16) I wonder how hard it would be to code an option to use the old model once a unit is updated. It could be useful on some machines and in cases where you won't really see the unit in the mission.

You can see the fuel state via triggers/script. Of course this has the limitation of needing to be added by the user into missions that do not feature it, so it does not remove the need for updated wingman communication, but it can help ease the issue in the mean time. And the formation you use. AI will waste far less fuel if using group close formation. Something about their flight physics also changes when they are in formation. I've had wingmen fly with me in mil power, but then when I tell them to break formation and follow waypoints they engage AB despite flying at the exact same height and speed.

This is difficult to pose as a yes/no question. The thing with product development is that it depends on a lot of factors. It's not realistic to ask ED to drop everything and work purely on bug fixes. Asking for a greater focus on them is something that might make sense however. I'm not sure if it's that straight forward. People already hesitate to buy modules because of bugs. Fixing the core doesn't bring in revenue directly because it doesn't have a sales price, but it does influence DCS sales. Not to mention stuff like smart AI is easily marketable, not only by ED directly but also through DCS content generated by users.

160 is way too far. Max range is closer to 50. Does the F-16 have ECM? Is the S-300 being masked be terrain? How much time elapses before the F-16 comes into firing range? Some AI units have a setup time.

I wanted to add a task to my own flight in the mission planner after launching the mission from the editor. I selected the waypoint, added an Orbit task, then added STEiZ. As usual it was placed in some random spot on the map. When trying to move it, the WP that is active in the selection gui moves to the mouse instead. This makes it impossible to correctly position an zone type task. The relocated waypoint also remains in the moved position if you back out of the planner into the editor, which I'd think shouldn't happen.

Any update?

What is the request here specifically? If you're trying to build a wall, adding units into a group will still mean that you have spend time moving the units around. I'd argue it would take even longer than using copy and paste unless there is some functionality added to link the statics in a group together, which I wouldn't say no to, but it's a little more complicated to add.

I realize that the liveries aren't downloaded. I was mentioning the low res MP skins in response to concerns posted by others about the implementation of a livery manager system.

I'm a bit hesitant to reduce the default DCS livery list to one per plane, but reduced livery sizes I have less concerns about. Low res liveries could also help with perceived MP issues, either by offering low file size liveries that are easy to install, or by mapping liveries to a default low res livery that looks vaguely similar. By doing that you get around the need to download a livery to join a server while also solving the issue of two players seeing different things.

That's not a problem. A manager allows both to be satisfied. I want the manager in order to have more liveries, but the ability to save space is a bonus. It will take work to do, but that's the nature of improvements. It's worth doing. It doesn't have to mean ED drops everything else though.