Exorcet

It's not ideal but it is what we have now. Though the set cargo command is better than all of the other options as it doesn't interfere with hardpoints of limit/exaggerate fuel. My suggestion was also aimed more at ED to give us some way to tone down the AI until GFM arrives.

GFM is a significant undertaking and we need to wait for it. However if something is a long ways off, a temporary solution might be worth investing in. The current AI flight model reacts to weight, so adding additional weight and perhaps some drag universally or on a case by case basic would be a good idea. We have some methods of doing this already in the sim. Adding extra fuel and weapons or with the cargo command: https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_setUnitInternalCargo Having the option somewhere to apply cargo by default to any unit of a given type sounds like a good stop gap until GFM is more mature.

This may have helped after I realized what 3 was doing, but I would have still been limited in the first place because I wasn't able to properly organize my wingmen in the initial engagement. The enemies were visible from well beyond missile range (around 80 miles) on DL but I couldn't give specific orders until around 40 miles because of the need to lock on. Cover me also has the problem of the AI choosing targets itself, so it comes with some risk. While there may have been some better ways to handle the situation the best solution to this problem is allowing the player to give specific orders that aren't tied sensor lock on (and of course also give us second element commands). With that I could have organized my plan well before shooting started. That would prevent a lot of bad situations like the one I encountered from happening.

This is related to this: In short some way to tell wingmen to attack a specific aircraft/target without the player having a lock is needed. While flying a recent mission, the need for this request specifically asserted itself. I was flying with 3 wingmen. I ordered 3 and 4 to hang back while I went to intercept four opposing fighters with 2. We killed three of the four, but one survived. My plan was to attack with 2 and then extend to let 3/4 clean up. This will almost never goes smoothly since the AI always prefers to fight to the death, but I accepted that. I was extending away when I ordered 3/4 to attack while also mashing rejoin on 2's menu since I had to press it about twenty times to get a response. 3 began to attack. 4 did nothing because we don't have second element commands. However instead of going after the single fighter twenty miles ahead, 3 engaged full burner and went after a plane one hundred miles away. I didn't notice at first since both enemies were in the same general direction and I was mashing rejoin over and over. It was only when I noticed 3 going past the only obvious threat that I realized what was happening. I ordered 2 to engage but by now he was finally rejoining and got shot down. I couldn't order 4 because no second element or 4 commands, and 3 would not respond to engage bandits because already engaging. I had to swing around and lock the enemy plane heading for me and then order 3 to engage. I could not point out the specific target to attack without locking on to it, which should not be necessary. "Engage my Enemy" could have been used, but if multiple planes were coming at me, who knows where my wingman would have went, and even then it would have been preferable to simply point 3 at the correct target from the start. There is also the issue that before this entire engagement began I wouldn't have been able to sort enemies to engage because while I could see them on datalink, I couldn't lock them to tell my wingmen what to do.

You're assuming that DCS is the only program using space. It may not be. And just as a counter example my DCS space is over 800 GB since I've found it comfortable to have two installations when enough space remains. I've also tried to install DCS on a secondary computer like a laptop for a variety of reasons, though I had to give this up due to space. Yes the user needs to manage space to meet their requirements. That should be extended to liveries for a variety of reasons. It is a common sentiment to avoid HDD for DCS. It's advice repeated all the time. It seems that you've found that it doesn't hold completely true, but many users will probably be steered toward SSD. The F-14 livery folder exceeds your estimate alone at 13 GB. It is of course the outlier but I think you're underestimating the cost of liveries which can potentially reach into the 20-50 GB range or beyond. 10-20 GB can easily matter when you combine that space with potential space savings from other files. This should be obvious. Some users are going to have other things on their drives besides DCS. Removing 10 GB of liveries, 10 GB of X-Plane global map, and another 10 GB from a few other programs each can easily net you 50 or more GB. More options only makes things easier for the user and prevents the removal of potentially more important files like entire maps. Using @Rudel_chw's own example above, if we had the option to remove liveries, that could have been done in place of removing 1 or more maps. PG is 30 GB. The F-14 alone consumes half of that space in liveries. Apache comes in at 5. Mirage F1 at 3.5. My own drive contains 50GB of liveries and I am behind on updates and so missing some aircraft and perhaps some recent liveries. Not to mention that a manager allows more liveries to be added since it takes away space concerns. I forgot to address this. MP segregation can be solved as well. If a manager could replace hi res liveries with low res or generic ones, then it becomes possible allow people with different livery folders to coexist. It's also not like the mismatch isn't handled in DCS as is. It just shows a missing livery texture.

If liveries are the majority of an aircraft folder, a manager would allow exactly that, at least compared to now.

I didn't mean to imply that the command was not needed. I support the idea, and there are similar cases for other mission editor functionality like winchester as a trigger condition, etc. I pasted the code above in part thinking about people viewing the topic in future searches. Even if ED decided to add this, it may take some time before we see it in the ME.

I can't agree with that. You're only looking at one specific use case. 5GB can be helpful. Making room for a large update is not the only case where livery removal is beneficial. When I go through disc management on my PC, it's not just one large file deletion that ends up giving back my space in most cases. It's the clearing of many smaller files from various sources. More control over DCS's footprint will likely benefit a large number of users.

I agree that this is useful, though at least it's easy to script: trigger.action.setUserFlag(1, true) If ED doesn't want to add a dedicated option, maybe there can be some simple scripts included for the DO SCRIPT command.

These sound unreasonable. If it were possible to plan out exactly when something is releasable, we wouldn't have delays in the first place. Buyers should set their own expectations and standards when considering what module to buy or follow the development of. I'd much rather have announcements made early as it just gives me more information and more choices.

Fair, though in DCS the usual case is that someone is in the cockpit. The ground crew would also be a bit more proactive in reality, including being able to mention to the pilot if there is a problem (like forgetting the chocks) where as we need to fumble through the communications menu and depending on the mission might not even have a way to check the exterior state of the aircraft.

Comparing DCS modules to other games, $80 is underpriced. Sales also happen so often that I wonder if many people even pay that much.

Ports in general need some attention, this isn't new or Kola specific:

Not to drag this off topic but the slider isn't very good, even on land. Common issues are that the traffic is everywhere and does not respond to the environment around it. A city block can be demolished and drivers will happily continue their commutes. If tweaks or additions are going to be made to traffic it might be worth looking into an overhaul of the system. At the very least some way to control traffic behavior on different parts of the map. If I'm understanding the idea correctly the standard routes between ports sounds like a nice addition. Instead of just a slider there could be routes between destinations that traffic can follow, and these can be enable or disabled. As far as the rest of the wish, yes ships need more depth. I've recently had to spawn a bunch of unarmed boats around a cruiser in a mission to make it run out of missiles so it wouldn't attack other ships miles away that it wasn't supposed to.

Figuring out how to get additional variants into DCS would be a nice improvement. I imagine the most sensible way is through module upgrades that expand the range of modules. However it happens, if it happens, I'm all in.

Roll and yaw are coupled, so if you trim for roll you need to trim for yaw to keep the plane from sideslipping.

The rotary is for rudder trim. The stick controls pitch and roll. The F-18 being FBW means you don't need to touch trim as much as in a non FBW aircraft. Trimming is very important for flight because the aerodynamic balance of a plane changes constantly, but planes like the F-18 handle most of it for you. Most of the time you only really need to worry about roll trim to deal with asymmetry. You can try flying the standard TF-51 or Su-25T to see what happens when trim isn't automated if you'd like.

Yes unfortunately. I do feel like most modules are underpriced considering what they are. I have no insight on the subject but I do wonder what would happen if ED increased the price for niche modules. They could also simultaneously increase sale discounts to retain the interest of bargain hunters. Though if I recall the Yak at least came from a contract outside of DCS itself, so figuring out where the balance lies on priorities might be complicated. Something like CA seems like it would be a good module to tie into this, among other things.

Seconding this, if ED does add smarter slotting options (like choose a plane, etc) this should be part of that menu/revamp.

This sort of exists already. BS2/3, A-10 2, etc. We're on the 4th release of FC. ED will never run out of modules to sell. The current business model has no obstacles that I see on the horizon, though I personally would like module sales to be tied more closely to DCS core features. If they need more money, which there is no indication of, they can just keep updating modules.

This is a long standing issue impacting all maps and aircraft.

Be aware that Push and Set are different. Set wipes all other tasks the AI has while Push prioritizes a task without wiping everything. In order to push an action it needs to be added to the triggered actions, not waypoints, for a group. Was this done?

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I looked at mission 1 and it worked for me, though I noticed there is an attack WP for the player flight and the AI will fly over this if told to engage mission. You might want to put a switch waypoint command before it so the AI doesn't overfly air defenses unnecessarily.

Caucuses looks great to me, I don't understand the complaints against it. It's also the only map with seasons. I don't use it much anymore because of the close proximity of all the airfields and the lack of any airbases in Turkey, but as is it seems fine.