LowRider88

You may be right but I can't confirm as I don't yet have that module. You can add custom music and other sound files too?

It would be good if it was possibly everywhere

It may be hard but was fully accomplished to a reasonable level in the 90s with Janes Combat Sims

In the sim IL-2 1946, it was possible to change the radio frequency in the cockpit to the enemy's frequency and to hear the enemy communicating about spotting you or their maneuvers. It was also possible in that game to put sound files in a file directory and then associate that directory to a radio frequency, so that during the game, you could switch to that frequency to hear music, new reports, etc. Is this doable in DCS now? If not, can this be added?

Almost all fight sims I have played always default the player to be the flight leader if there are multiple planes in the wing. However, there was a way in the old Janes US Navy Fighters game to trick the mission into letting the user play as the wingman, and required me to open the mission file and move my plane into a different slot. It was quite rewarding to hear the AI give me orders as a result. Yet, the developers of that game anticipated I would do that. When the wing lead was destroyed, one of the other AI wingmen said "You're the wingleader now!", with actual audio voice speaking that. Pretty cool. Can this be added to DCS?

It would be great if there was a key mapping which allowed the player to raise or lower the sun glasses, or helmet visor. If the visor is in use, the view should be shaded slightly, and as a result slightly reduce the overall view. If the visor is raised, then it should be possible to be blinded by white light from the sun or other high light sources, but raising it should make spotting easier.

I prefer to fly with the artificial pilot body in the cockpit view, since to me this seems more realistic. However the body is static and often gets in the way. E.g. Bf-109's pilot right leg covers right horizontal panel. E.g. F-5E's pilots left elbow covers the trim damper switches. It would be great if there were some simple animations to say, lift the forearm up, or move the leg inward, which would be controlled some button, and held in place until that button was released.

Just to add, in the old sim Janes US Navy Fighters, when labels were turned on, the label would include the name of the maneuver the AI opponent was using. I don't use labels. However, this was a great learning tool at the time, and it would be great if DCS could match it, for other players who may just be getting into the genre.

The current AI repertoire of air combat maneuvers seems to be a bit limited. From my game playing, I notice the following from the AI opponents: - merge - break turns - dives - chandelles - horizontal scissors - what can be described as an extended horizontal scissors with longer flares for energy management - high yo yos, mainly used before overshooting or at the end of the flared out scissors described above - vertical loops, which seem to be infinite if the player is at the rear but not close enough for an overshoot, and only varies into a new direction either at the top or the bottom of the loop Missing seem to be other maneuvers (please correct me if I am wrong): - low yo yos - roll aways - barrel rolls (both offensive and defensive) - rolling scissors - vertical scissors - vertical rolling scissors - immelmans - spiral dives - oblique loops (out of plane) - horizontal turning fight (AI always goes for either the flared scissors or the vertical loop) - split-S (no horizontal turn fight) It would be great if these could be added as well to make the AI dogfights more rewarding and dynamic It would also be great if there were module specific special maneuvers the AI would use: - Su-27 -> cobra - Av-8B -> Herbst, J-Turn, low speed hover to force overshoots, thrust vectoring turns (to be honest I don't have the module yet, but assume the AI does not take advantage of these capabilities, please correct me if I am wrong) - P-51 -> I watched the Dogfights series and one episode discussed a pilot who jerked back the stick to cause an abrupt pitch up stall using the high AOA stall of the laminar flow wing, to literally drop out of view of the chasing Nazi plane. Since the stall recovery was good on the plane, he as able to immediately get on the Nazi's tail. - MiG-15, also in the Dogfights series, a mig was described as pitching down in a bank turn, with opposite rudder to also fall out and disappear out of view of a pursuing F-86. It would also be great if AI could do nape of the earth flying for stealth. I understand that this may be a technical challenge since it is not easy with AI scripts to prevent a plane from crashing into the ground or mountains. Would perhaps marking lower altitude corridors in all maps based on their depths and distance to mountains make it easier? I'm sure ED and the DCS community is aware of all ACM and BFM, but I attach links here for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_combat_manoeuvring#Tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Tactics/Air-To-Air/

Some planes like the F-4 had remarkable capabilities like long range, long range radar, carrying capacity, multiple crew members, etc. While other lower cost planes like the F-5, A-4, early MiGs, etc had less technology, and so in some ways were less capable However these lower cost options were more simplistic, and cheaper to maintain, with much lower servicing times. It would be great if in DCS planes with lower servicing times had shorter wait times for rearming, refueling, etc. that represent the character of those planes. E.g. if an F-5 takes less fuel and is easier to maintain because it sits lower to the ground, and closer to the ground crew, than its times should be less than say an F-14. E.g. a plane may have a lower repair time, but a longer refuel time, compared to another plane. I understand this is the simulated entertainment world, and no DCS user has the spare time to wait a day for an F8 command, but adding delays in minutes to reflect differences in hours, would still allow users to appreciate certain modules which are easier to maintain even if they have less technical capabilities. It just adds another flavor to the sim.

There is already a post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278764 in which a user states they may not purchase additional DCS modules because the level of fidelity in the game requires too much time to master the module. Maybe a partial solution to this problem is to reduce the ramp up time, by making certain ramp up activities easier. For me the part of getting a new module I dread the most is mapping the keys. Currently to map keys, I have to mouse over a button, and read the tool tip. Then I have to open the Adjust Controls Menu, and search for that tool tip name, or scroll through a very long list, or find or guess the right category that that control is located in. Then, since I like to map keys on the keyboard based on the location of the key on the keyboard and how it best simulates the location in the cockpit panel, I have to remember where that switch was in the cockpit (because now with the menu open the cockpit is covered up from view). It would be great if we can while in the cockpit, mouse over the switch or button, hit a key combination and the change key dialog box appears, and like the re-arm, refuel dialog box, it can be dragged around so as to not obstruct the cockpit view. I still think the existing Adjust Control menu is good and can be used as an official method, but the method I am suggesting I imagine would reduce key mapping time, maybe by half.

To accompany this suggestion, it would also be great if enemy AI could also be dynamic enough that depending on some probability calculated by distance, and amount of radio communication, the AI could be warned of the player's wing's presence. This may affect wwii AI or AI with no radar or radars pointing in the wrong direction or obstructed.

It would be great if it were possible for players to communicate with AI wingmen using radio silence signalling. For example, the player can give a "Radio Silence" command to his wing. Then the AI wing would follow the directions of the player only through physical signals, when the AI are in visual range. From the P-40 pilot's flight manual, some examples of communicating with radio silence are: - Assembly -> Rocking of wings - Open up or loosen formation -> Fishtail (use the rudder only) - Echelon left -> dipping the left wing - Echelon right -> dipping the right wing - Attention! Expect a rapid maneuver -> rapid fluttering of the ailerons - Landing -> pumping of the elevators - Switch to full tank of gas -> rotating the wrist as though turning a selector valve. I also recall a video of a CR-32 pilot pointing down, to indicate a strafing run. It may be difficult to take into account the multitudes of practices used by various countries, eras, etc. So maybe there could be a list of AI actions, and a list of signals, and in the mission setup there would be a way to link one to the other.

Hi NightHawk, Great response, thanks for all these objective details. I am by no means accusing you of lying. But without firm numbers from verifiable sources, the presented material can come off as subjective. I don't want to assume I am some expert of the scientific method, but direct verifiable supporting details would put everyone on the same page sooner and maybe reduce the life of this thread. That is why I prefer Fri13's, and David's video. Awesome :thumbup: Thanks for sharing these details. I will have some good reading material this weekend. Its this knowledge sharing that makes me regret not joining this forum sooner. Okay, these are good details. However, I suppose the only way to simulate looking at something with one eye in DCS is to put that object in the periphery of our view in the cockpit. This is a good point. I posted another thread asking about high G, pre black out tunnel vision, which I was not able to experience in the F-5, but someone on the forum posted a DCS game play video with an F-16 which did show the tunneling. Maybe for peripheral vision, the outer edges of our view can be blurred in a similar way to blackouts, so it simulates seeing with one eye when an object is in the periphery of our view. Although, I image that would be yet another hotly debated thread. Well it seems like we are at an impasse. But that is why I am suggesting that there can different levels of visibility ranges, for those who think it is too hard to see like yourself, and those like me who think it is too easy to spot.

Yes you are correct. However, from the F-5 wiki article: "The design effort was led by Northrop vice president of engineering and aircraft designer Edgar Schmued,[8] who previously at North American Aviation had been the chief designer of the successful North American P-51 Mustang and F-86 Sabre fighters." You can see some similarities between the F-100 and the F-5, like the attempt to make the side profile of the fuselage shaped like the cross section of a wing (lifting body), the low mounted wings coupled with the all moving tail, for more unstable but maneuverable flight, the leading edge slats, etc.

Ah, that's a good point. I don't have the F-14 yet. But if it is an improvement I hope they can and it trickles down to the AI wingmen and AWACS/GCI too. So far I can't complain too much about the AWACS/GCI.

I tried that before. Got the AI pilot to stall and all they wound up doing was falling to the earth in a perpetual bounce. The main point of this request is that they bug out after painted with radar for a few seconds, not keep fighting until they bounce or run out of fuel. Although if this same mechanism could be used to relive the opening skirmish of Top Gun, or the numerous possible eletronic engagements between deadlocked countries, it would be nice to have an option to make them bug out after a set number of electronic kills instead of just the first. E.g. you have to paint them 3 times before they give up and go home. Or have to paint then for say 15 seconds, which could be all at the same time or through multiple attempts.

There was a flyable J-10 mod before but it seems it doesn’t work any more. +1 for Flyable J-10 and Tu-16.

It would be great if there was a way bring back old mod planes like A-37 and J-10. Yep, I know there is some problem with 3D versions, and models are required to update themselves. Just saying.

Haha, true. Janes Combat Sims was the DCS of the 90s, no full fidelity and all planes had the same hud, but they had more details in other ways.

If monitor scaling is your concern, then that is why I suggest realistic visibility at distance can be an option disabled by default, with default being what is there today. But as David points point spotting at distance is difficult and like as you phrase it, like flying blind. It may be something new to try to adjust and master, like the pilot in the video. No point in bragging to wife and friends that we master DCS and am able to feel confident in jumping into the real thing, when in reality, we would get smoked because we favoured ease of play.

Thanks very much David for sharing these details :thumbup:

Thanks for finding this post Draconus. I am curious what advanced search options you used as I tried pulling words from that post which are important to me and replicating your search but got no results: nm mig 21 "f-14" distance spot km visual To the guy telling me to forget the diagram because it was shared before, That earlier post was also posted by Fri13. So yes it was mentioned before, but seemed it was not leveraged, at least to me as I don't see the results in my tests. So what if it was shared before? He was making a different point about C-130s with it. So he posted here for a different purpose. We just wasted a few posts and got Draconus involved in a search to prove you really don't need to sweep data under the rug.

I would suggest you try the search function. Even here within the limits of this thread only. Try reading the posts of others before responding. The 4 nm of the F-5E correlates to the light fighter article I referenced for the F-5E as planform area size. Head on, as was already said should be 2 nm, from the light figher article. Yet I see it from 15 nm. You failed to correlate or listen to all the details. I won't bother. Spare time is precious, so why spend it getting dragged into a multi year, circular, useless debate with you. I would rather spend that time learning from DCS.

Thanks nighthawk for your non emotional, mature response. This only seems partially empirical, with alot of the details extrapolated from rumour or assumptions. This anecdote has data, but the references are still based on what you share, and cannot be verified by others here. Military experts are mentioned, but through other sources, so this sounds like rumor. In the end, by sharing this, this requires us to take your word for it, it does not seem like a strong position. Yes, words like ballpark and predicted, I might also question even if it was from an officially documented military source. I found and posted in this thread the PDF which Fri13 got the diagram from, and don't see any reference to a single eye being used as part of that diagram. Where do you get this assertion from? Thanks for the resource, I will check it out this weekend. Then we have the same concerns, but seem to disagree on the distances. I unfortunately can't seem to correlate your anecdotal example with the source I feel is official. I will read the linked doc you provided, if it helps.