Search the Community

Can we please get something new that's not the same thing we have had for years. KC-10(Highly requested many times), KC-46, A330 MRTTs(MPRS style and used by many countries), YY-20. I'm sure others will chime in with other aircraft. Aerial Refueling has been crucial in aviation for decades, lets add some flavor for the community. Instead of the same thing over and over again.

Can we get a rough estimate roadmap? That way we know how long this one will be getting worked on and the estimate completion of the map. Don't need exact dates but a rough estimate would be nice. I would love to recreate a bunch of OIF missions but the current state it's just lacking. I'm sure a bunch of campaign makers out there are just waiting for this to get good once things are closer to being in their final configuration.

Currently the default option is everything is on the MFD when it should be the other way around. So instead of a option to Hide a unit there should be a option to "Show" on MFD. Unless you suggest that intel is that great so we know exactly where everything is on the battlefield. (this is satire) But anyways, I could be wrong but I think most mission makers would like the objects to be hidden by default and make things a lot easier. Why: So mission makers don't have to go through every unit to hide them from populating on a MFD or COORD page. Instead the key focus targets or main threats are the ones populating on the MFD with using a Show on MFD option. First example: AH-64. The apache automatically adds every single unit (Friendly & enemy) to it's COORD pages and there's only 9 pages and it populates very quick. And if there is a mission maker or campaign maker using units to populate a base those 9 coord pages are now completely filled. And if you're in the cockpit and have to remove those populated units, its a one by one process. Do you see where I'm going with this? So if we're playing a mission or campaign that someone else made and all 9 pages are full from auto populating, but we need to add a waypoint with a control measure, lets say a friendly unit. Now the user needs to go into the coord page, do the process to delete one of those automatically populated points, pause the game, read the message history for the grid again because they're to busy deleting a point that shouldn't be there by default. This example is very real in DCS and would be prevented if the default behavior was set to hidden on MFD. Last example: F-16. The HSD page only shows units that have a radar. If a mission maker is adding radar guided AAA or SAMs they're automatically populating on the HSD. So by default the MFD/HSD is spaghetti soup full of threat rings. If there's a vulcan 100 miles away and nowhere close to the route or objective area, it's populating on the HSD. And if the mission maker doesn't want those units to be seen they have to go through them in the editor and hide every single one.

Not sure if this belongs in the weapons bug category but since it's dealing with a weapon I will post it here. The M2A2 Bradley does not have the option to select HE or AP rounds. The LAV-25 has this option, both vehicles share the same chain gun. Not sure what it's currently shooting as a default.

Simple Request. The ability to restrict liveries. Why? Many reasons, the ability to PID by tail flash, single player missions/campaigns that are focused on a certain unit. Multiplayer missions, squadron missions, etc. We can restrict weapons

Fully tracking this is going to be unpopular and probably not happen as a majority of players fly at 30,000ft looking at their MFD with a feed from their targeting pod. BUT! for those low and slower aircraft that actually see more then 3 pixels of a ground vehicle. I think it would be appropriate if we can have modified vehicles with mine rollers, bird cages, and Duke system antennas. Since these were widely used in Afghanistan and Iraq, this would give campaign and mission makers more tools to play with. And for those that have been over there it might just sell it even more seeing a vehicle with a duke antenna wobbling around. Possibly a better "combat" skin with sand caked vehicles as well. Just another wish to the wish list.

Probably not as popular but some non combat vehicles would add to the realism and emersion to the digital battlefield. These are modern US vehicles since that's what I know. Maybe someone else can chime in as well for other countries. As a mission maker I would 100% use these. Medical: M997 Field Litter Ambulance (FLA) medical hmmwv M133 Medical evacuation vehicle (MEV) medical Stryker Bonus (not a ground unit but on the topic of medical) UH-60L or UH-60M Medevac AI. Possible reskin of the current in game 60A. Or just reskin the 60A since it's dated. Support: M88A2 "Wrecker" Armored Recovery Vehicle. Essential in armor units, Abrams, Brads for example. M984A4 "Wrecker" Recovery Truck. LMTV version, used practically in all units with vehicles, HMMWV, Strykers for example. Other: M1117 Armored Security vehicle. Mainly used by military police, common at check points. M149A2 AKA the water buffalo. Heck yes.

Damage models: Most of them are FUBAR. I don't know if it's to be player friendly that way players can get away with more to benefit game play. I have personally put hellfires, GBU's into a hind and it shrugged it off. Tricker has tons of videos of him hitting helicopters with multiple 25mm from a Bradley. wow what a great segue. Weapon Damage: A burst of 25mm from the above example would wreck any aircraft, especially a helicopter. I proved that anything below a 30mm rarely damages anything past 4,500ft in my SA-6 thread. How I conducted my test: Using the previous known range of 4,500ft that was the constant. I started each test with a Bradley to engage with its 25mm(since it doesn't have AP/HE in DCS which should be fixed since the LAV does...) This is a good control to start with. - a common issue, the AI shooter would think a helicopter was destroyed and would stop engaging. This is after many rounds hitting target. - I would place the helicopter on the ground as a cold start(meaning they have to start up to get airborne) right above the 4,500ft mark so around 4,520ft. And run the editor. If the helicopter survived the 25mm event, I brought it within 4,500ft. - IF the 25mm was able to destroy the helicopter that was the end of the test, move on to the next helicopter. If not, I replaced the bradley with a common 30mm unit like a BMP-2, BTR-82A, and a BMPT for faster 30mm engagements. Same method, above 4,500ft, within 4,500ft. - IF the helicopter survived the 30mm test. I moved on to a 120mm test from an Abrams or Challenger II. That's where I stopped, no offense but the Russian 125mm tanks in the game are B.S so I didn't use them (prior master gunner, fight me). Test 1: CH-47F Survived all 25mm, 30mm and 120mm engagements, took off and flew away, even with damaged rotors. Truly amazing. Test 2: AH-64D Destroyed within a few bursts of 25mm from above 4,500ft. Test stopped. Test 3: Ka-50 III 25mm destroyed it right before take off above 4,500ft. Skipped straight to 120mm, it took 22 hits to destroy it, last hit was while it was airborne. Test 4: Mi-8 25mm above 4,500ft stopped engaging because it thought the AI was dead. Was able to destroy it within 4,500ft. 30mm above 4,500ft took it out within a few burst. Test stopped. Test 5: Mi-24P Survived all 25mm & 30mm engagements. 120mm needed 7 hits to destroy it. Test 5: OH-58D Survived all 25mm & 30mm engagements. Survived the 120mm above 4,500ft engagement and took off. 120mm within 4,500ft it almost took off but after numerous .50cal and 120mm hits it was finally destroyed. Test 6: SA342 25mm destroyed it above 4,500ft within a few bursts. Test stopped. Test 7: UH-1 25mm destroyed it above 4,500ft within a few bursts. Test stopped. CH-47 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 30mm above 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 30mm within 4,500ft.trk CH-47 vs 120mm above 4,500ft.trk AH-64 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Ka-50 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Ka-50 vs 120mm above 4,500ft(22 hits to kill).trk Mi-8 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-8 vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-8 vs 30mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 25mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 30mm within 4,500ft.trk Mi-24P vs 120mm above 4,500ft(7hits to kill).trk OH-58 vs 120mm above 4,500ft.trk OH-58 vs 120mm within 4,500ft.trk SA342 vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk UH-1h vs 25mm above 4,500ft.trk

This is public information. Point target is 1,500 meters / 4,921 feet. Area Target is 1,800 meters / 5,905 feet. So why is the engagement ring maxed at 1,190 meters / 3,904 feet? That's 610 meters / 2,001 feet less then it's Area target range. You're downgrading the .50 by over a 1/4 mile(1,320 feet) of engagement range. I have engaged truck targets well past 1,800 meters accurately for Stryker gunnery. Side Note, this is the same story for the Bradley and Abrams. You're under performing their engagement ranges by a lot. I know it's not as cool as giving the viper or hornet some feature that 90% of the users wont use but the ground fight is and will always be a bigger role in combat. Aircraft are just supporting them.

I posted this in the bug section on the discord with video as well. The SA-6 armor has been questionable for a long time against anything below a 30mm round. Some examples: - 20mm: F-16, F/A-18 - 25mm: Bradley, LAV I got sick of this and finally did some testing to prove it. I had 2 bradleys set up as the control. The SA-6 Search Radar or Launcher within 4,500feet you can destroy. Past 4,500ft they are pretty much invincible and have a weird hitbox so it looks like a "force field" Ran this same test with a 30mm from the BMPT and was able to destroy the above mentioned SA-6 units within the first burst. I then set up 4 bradleys firing at a single SA-6 unit above 4,500ft and they did not damage the SA-6 unit from the front, side, or rear. So in conclusion a unit engaging an SA-6 with something smaller then 30mm needs to be within 4,500ft to destroy it. Bradleys, LAVs, Any aircraft with a 20mm cannon doing a strafe. P.S .50cal can penetrate the SA-6. So a 25mm APFSDS would go through it like hot butter. Also 4,500ft is 1,372 meters which is nothing for anything above a .50. Also SA-6 doesn't really have an armor rating, I played with one while I was in Poland. Super thin "armor" K I gave you the proof. Now fix it. SA-6 armor more than 4,500ft.trk SA-6 armor within 4,500ft.trk SA-6 Launcher side armor.trk SA-6 SF Rear armor.trk SA-6 armor vs 30mm.trk

Or even just ground unit sectors in general. Can we either assign sectors of fire per waypoint or request the devs to rework the logic? Attached are some examples of what I'm talking about. I know, ground combat is lame and a low priority compared to adding some feature to a hornet. But this does need to be addressed as ground units die often because they're looking in the wrong spots. The orange triangle should be the units sectors of fire. The blue line are where the barrel is pointed. These AI skill is set to excellent by the way. The image with the Brads. The far left one is looking far right even though there is an enemy to it's left about to engage them. The image with the Abrams. The lead vehicle should be looking forward of the element, the second would be looking left or right of forward movement. Both forward moving vehicles are looking behind them while there is an enemy to the front. The rear vehicle should be pulling rear security but is actually looking at their forward movement. Thanks

Fully tracking there is a randomized weapons failure thread, but this is for weapons hanging on the racks from failing to release. After doing a quick search I don't see any recent or addressed threads. So why bring this up? Currently there's not really any penalty towards this on the majority of aircraft in DCS. We can go mach jesus with GBU 24s or rocket pods without any issues. Or go mach jesus while releasing snakeyes and other high drag bombs and they work just fine. Even though they would be way above their speed release parameters. How does a hung store happen? This can happen for numerous reasons, malfunction in the pylon rack, weapon, or computer error. From reasons such as over speeding the weapons, over G the weapon, incorrect release parameters such as a "short" pickle press. I'm aware the A10C can have hung stores from releasing the pickle to quickly. The M2000 and MiG21 stores can "rip" off from over g. And I think the JF-17 can have a bomb hang. The M2000 simulates drag issues with fuel tanks, I know for a fact rocket pods and other bombs have a mach restriction. I think having these kind of penalties/failures would increase the simulation. "Oh hey Bob, well now you're useless for this mission because you decided to fly like a cowboy and now have to bring your bomb back because it didn't release." Like I said there's no real penalty at this time.

I didn't see this requested and figured it would be highly appreciated from the mission maker community if we have this feature. Some aircraft like the Strike Eagle have additional waypoint options in the editor such as "navigation target fix points" and "waypoint properties". If we could have something similar and add the abbreviations to the waypoints, for example waypoint 5 property is BR for bridge or gap, waypoint 10 is a FM for FARP Ammo, and the final waypoint is LZ for landing zone. A simple solution right now would be to use the default waypoint name as a free text using the abbreviations such as "SP" so on the TSD is displayed the waypoint with the text. This would be great compared to having to do it all inside the cockpit.

Currently even if you have the date before JHMCS or HMD's were a thing ED modules still lets you equip them. Fix it. It's really awesome when you have a cold war or even a Pre JHMCS/HMD era that users can just say "LOL I don't care."

I checked and didn't see this. It would be nice if we could get a option to assign a key bind to review message history instead of pausing to open it. Not 100% necessary but I think it would be nice to have especially for all the single player base and campaigns out there.

It's been well known that in recent times search lights have been used to look for aircraft. Baghdad 2003 for example. I'm fully aware there's the purchasable WWII asset pack with search lights but not everybody has or wants to purchase it. Can we just get the search light as a default ground unit that is reskinned or remodeled to fit/work for modern times?

A lot of Eagle Dynamic videos lately have had a night vision filter from a spectator view. Is that going to be a feature in the near future or is the video maker using a export method? As a "content creator" I would love to have this feature as most of my missions are at night but YouTube makes night videos almost unwatchable. And this could be a good training aid for night operation training missions. Such as a multiplayer group practicing night time aerial refueling and have a couple guys spectate as a boom operator giving talk ons.

Requesting a new forum category just dedicated to module manuals. I know there's the folder route Eagle Dynamics > DCS > Mods > Aircraft > Docs for current manuals. But if we can the updated manuals on here in their own section I think that would be beneficial. Or keep the documentation section current Perfect example: Last night I was flying the AH-64 for the first time since the new update and had no clue what the new George controls were. Used my phone to look for the updated info on Google, youtube and couldn't find anything. If the updated manual was on here I could have just opened that on my phone while still flying. Instead of switching my computer screen back and forth between DCS and the manual.

I'm requesting that we can make the search zone with the current circle option but also with a quad point option. The same as what we can do for trigger zones. Currently the AI option for (start enroute task > Search then engage in zone.) Is only a radius set up by distance in feet. For example if we are making a dedicated red air zone we could adjust the zone with quad point to be more accurate to a known zone vs a giant radius. This would also able to any AI with the search then engage in zone option.

Any chance of having the PDL lights get reworked for night time? Or a radio option to bump up the brightness, these are LEDs after all. Left side (forward and aft)is fine. But the right side (elevation) is really really tricky to see at night. Or even have the aircraft turn the white lights on pointing to the middle of the aircraft. I know there is a mod, but I don't think everyone in my community wants to download a mod for a night time flight. The real deal.

Every other dev has this option available but ED modules don't. Can we please get this easy request knocked out for all ED modules.

Is there a plan for when George displays the target list that the highest threat in the search area is the first option? For example if there is an Manpad in a group of infantry, the manpad should be a priority, not having to go down the list to discover it. Also depending on how the mission is set up he can track enemy static objects while having to spam down the list looking for a threat. So like 40 static objects can be listed before seeing any threat.

I think DCS should add a feature that allows players to see how many hours they've spent in DCS World. This could encourage many users to switch from the Steam Edition to the Standalone version. I know several people who use the Steam Edition solely to track their playtime, so adding this feature to the Standalone version would be a great improvement. Additionally, as far as I know, the Logbook only tracks Singleplayer time, which could also use some reworking. Perhaps a simpler user interface and some other enhancements would make it more useful.

Can we please get a checkbox option to have uncontrolled or static aircraft have their maintenance panels open? To simulate aircraft being worked. People spent a lot of time modeling it but we rarely see the panels open. Have some static ground crew next to the open panels with m92 assets would sell it.

Hello, A huge request for all of us that run motion platforms. After death aircraft will spin and shake violently! We DESPERATLY need an option to disable motion data immediately after death so as to not get flung out of our rigs...!! Several times I’ve had to hit the Emergency stop due to the extreme violent motion. For reference my rig can do 400mm/Sec in 6 DOF and 35 Deg/Sec, so it can get quite scary!! And yes... I have heavy Duty seat belts!! Cheers Team.