DCS World 2.0 Wishlist

[Rogue Trooper]

I was going to post this in the "questions for the stream" thread but i figured maybe it doesn't quite fit there... not sure. I guess here is the best location , if i'm wrong maybe a mod can move it.

 

If i understand correctly trees, while now collidable are just a "pole" (collision model wise), does that mean they'll still be pretty ineffective in blocking AI visibility & fire?

 

From what i can tell the "godmode" AI vision isnt going away any time soon , and that would be fine if the trees would block the fire (if they block the fire it doesn't matter that the AI can see you .. you only need either A : fire blocked or B : Better AI that doesn't actually know your location , having both is overkill.) But if the trees are just "poles" from the AI's POV there will be very little difference in how engagements from forests will go compaed to DCS 1 , other then the occasional lucky (or unlucky) missile that hits a tree.

 

I get that in real life missiles and bullets would (probably) just go trough the trees' foliage , but in real life people can't see trough it. In the sim we need a compromise for the sake of realism.

 

I hope this makes some sense.

 

edit : i'm talking mostly about stuff like manpads and triple A , not radar guided sam sites that shoot their missiles straight upwards

 

+1.

 

I think the line of sight is the critical thing here and I do hope the AI do not have super sight in DCS II.

For me I think the "pole" was the best way of doing it as it would have driven me crazy if I touched a leaf and lost a blade.

For sure Nevada does not offer dense tree cover for us chopper pilots to hide behind but hopefully we will be getting an European map sooner or later.

[SDsc0rch]

i know we're ramping up for EDGE and DCSW2 but my question(s) concern deeper issues with DCS

 

first of all, missiles ---- the performance of the missiles in-game does not match what the DLZ displays in the cockpit (ie.. a tail-chase target well inside RTR on the F-15 VSD will often escape - you have to be *very* close for missiles to hit - especially at low alt) this renders the cockpit symbology useless - we cannot trust the instruments provided, we have to formulate "rules of thumb" on our own based on experience and word of mouth

 

there exists plenty of evidence that DCS is getting missiles "wrong" ------ there have been many statements indicating the drag on the DCS missiles is too high leading to shorter ranges (especially at lower alt in dense atmosphere) - performance in-game does not match the symbology in the cockpit (this seems to indicate that at some point ED had to be of the mindset that missiles could achieve those ranges and developed algorithms to support that belief) - subject matter experts (pilots) themselves indicate missile performance in DCS should be better - open-source resources (wikipedia, FAS, foreign nations websites, etc) are universally in agreement that even the UNCLASS figures for ranges of the missiles should be greater than DCS missiles, publicly-available UNCLASS USN air intercept training material (p-825) indicates initial A120 launch range should be 20nm and A7 at 10-12nm (see pg207, bottom - see also illustration, pg214), US govt source documentation of previous generation missiles (vietnam-era A7) that have since been unclassified indicate even those missiles have longer ranges than DCS missiles, and every sim/game that has come before has missiles with longer ranges......

 

etc etc

 

this is not a massive worldwide conspiracy to convince ED/russians/etc that our engagement ranges are greater, but in reality they're actually a lot less ---- the truth is, the ranges are quite probably GREATER than what has been publicly disclosed

 

so, my question after all of that.. when will the subject of missile ranges be addressed?

 

 

 

 

other questions i have for ED

 

i already took up a lot of space so very quickly...

 

 

missile guidance - this also an issue that needs attention - i understand all missiles use proportional navigation, modern missiles are more complicated than that

 

radar performance should differ between aircraft - currently, i believe all intercept radars perform the same ---- there should be differences in detection range, lock range, look-down performance, notch sensitivity... etc

 

i understand RCS is also the same across all platforms - it would be nice to have a non-spherical, platform specific RCS model in DCS

 

 

 

 

i'm curious when (if?) will these topics be visited

 

this is a simulation of "digital air combat"

 

that's what i come here for

 

 

 

 

i am interested to hear ED's official opinion on these topics

 

 

 

[[ NOTE ------ this was originally posted to the wags' twitch/livestream questions-we-want-answered thread - and was then deleted from there and dumped over here where nobody will read it - "thanks" : / ]]

Edited July 8, 2015 by SDsc0rch

[Tucano_uy]

i know we're ramping up for EDGE and DCSW2 but my question(s) concern deeper issues with DCS

 

.

.

.

 

i am interested to hear ED's official opinion on these topics

 

All that, plus ordenance damage correction, fragmentation EMULATION, ECM EMULATION,

[rcjonessnp175]

Yup I agree granted Nevada is a pretty map and all I'm more interested in proper simulation of terminal effects in combat with all ordinance.

[Snoopy]

I'd be happy if BMPs weren't more accurate than a Shilka!

[Griffon26]

For DCS2 I wish a simulation of an injured Pilot.

 

For example If you got hit by AAA Fire and a bullet hit your Left Leg its not, or atleast not at all, possible to use it for the rudder/brake because of the "Pain" and "Weakness".

 

If you Get hit critically, the screen becomes black the more time is fading away... :wassat:

 

Or you get some sounds like in Arma II where your Soldier was moaning after an hit to make the Pain "noticeable"

 

Ok guys is that too much? Should that be part of an Combat simulation? Or are there some ethical deficits in your opinion? Maybe Im just sick ;P

 

Regards

Griffon26

[SkateZilla]

AAA wouldnt penatrate the pilots TUB in an A10, lol, so there would be no leg hits.

[shagrat]

I'd be happy if BMPs weren't more accurate than a Shilka!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[King_Hrothgar]

AAA wouldnt penatrate the pilots TUB in an A10, lol, so there would be no leg hits.

 

He made no mention of the A-10, he could just as easily be talking about a UH-1H. In any case, I agree that DCS needs an update to the damage modeling, including pilot injuries. I also agree that DCS should give the various air to air missiles another look and do something about the omniscient AI. The latter bit isn't critical to the NTTR map or SoH, but at some point a new non-desert map will be added and it will come up. I don't think any of these features are necessary for an initial release of DCS2, but they should be fairly high priorities going forwards.

[Nirvi]

For DCS2 I wish a simulation of an injured Pilot.

 

For example If you got hit by AAA Fire and a bullet hit your Left Leg its not, or atleast not at all, possible to use it for the rudder/brake because of the "Pain" and "Weakness".

 

If you Get hit critically, the screen becomes black the more time is fading away... :wassat:

 

Or you get some sounds like in Arma II where your Soldier was moaning after an hit to make the Pain "noticeable"

 

Ok guys is that too much? Should that be part of an Combat simulation? Or are there some ethical deficits in your opinion? Maybe Im just sick ;P

 

Regards

Griffon26

 

+1 for wounded pilots. Red Baron 3D already had this, and multiple oder combat fligh simulations.

 

But even more important, a new visual damage model, with different visuals for small arms/cannon/missile damage.

[OnlyforDCS]

...and a partridge in a pear tree :)

 

Just kidding.

 

Seriously, my only wish at the moment is for them to get DCS World 2.0 out of the door with a nice stable alpha build, everything else is gravy.

 

With that said, I want full volumetric and realistic clouds at some point. We spend 99% of our time in the sky, I want that sky to be as realistic as possible. More than any other eyecandy, this would contribute to the feeling of realism of the simulation that is DCS.

[Rogue Trooper]

For DCS2 I wish a simulation of an injured Pilot.

 

For example If you got hit by AAA Fire and a bullet hit your Left Leg its not, or atleast not at all, possible to use it for the rudder/brake because of the "Pain" and "Weakness".

 

If you Get hit critically, the screen becomes black the more time is fading away... :wassat:

 

Or you get some sounds like in Arma II where your Soldier was moaning after an hit to make the Pain "noticeable"

 

Ok guys is that too much? Should that be part of an Combat simulation? Or are there some ethical deficits in your opinion? Maybe Im just sick ;P

 

Regards

Griffon26

 

+1

[leafer]

How would that benefit a flight simulation where you can't call medic. If you're hit that bad where you can no longer fly properly or become completly immobile, would you want to watch your life ebb away on a monitor?

 

If you mean plink, plink, plink and suddenly you explode red mist, sure.

 

The moaning. Well, I've seen those combat videos and I don't think you'll enjoy it that much. Surprisingly, most people are very quiet when they know death is coming.

 

I also listened to a lot of blackboxes and more often than not, the pilots displayed amazing calmness and professionalism even when they knew that was it.

 

There was one that stuck with me where a pilot said "I love you, mom." just before recording ended.

 

And all of the above would probably bump age requirement up for DCS 2.0.

[Oydoron]

If DCSW 2.0 could integrate directly with the Microsoft Speech API for communication with ATC and wingmen, that would be awesome!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Speech_API

[shagrat]

If DCSW 2.0 could integrate directly with the Microsoft Speech API for communication with ATC and wingmen, that would be awesome!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Speech_API

Bad idea! Speech engine is dependent on location settings. E.g. German windows, German speech engine on Windows 7 Home. The English multi user interface (MUI) is not legally available for Windows Home and that would mean only people that have an English version of windows home could use ATC?

 

Edit: and I don't think an Windows Ultimate upgrade is a solution for the majority of customers, either.

 

Most home/game/media PCs came with Windows Home Premium.

Edited July 7, 2015 by shagrat

[Tucano_uy]

Posted some time ago, not on the wishlist though:

 

About ATC, please:

 

- Use same unit system as selected in "options" AND state the units in the ATC messages. Or default it to knots, hPa or inHg, celsius. And use the same standard in the ME.

 

- Use QNH instead of QFE for altimeter setting.

 

- Have an always active a comm menu line to request weather data to any ATC. METAR + active RWY would be ideal, but at least surface wind, QNH and active runway.

 

- Have the wind readings as FROM and not TO. And use the same standard in the ME.

 

- Maybe, prioritizing departures may help for mission dynamics, but IRL arrivals will normally have priority.

[JST]

Dynamic exhaust and dirt build-up.

[Oydoron]

Bad idea! Speech engine is dependent on location settings. E.g. German windows, German speech engine on Windows 7 Home. The English multi user interface (MUI) is not legally available for Windows Home and that would mean only people that have an English version of windows home could use ATC?

 

Edit: and I don't think an Windows Ultimate upgrade is a solution for the majority of customers, either.

 

Most home/game/media PCs came with Windows Home Premium.

 

It's included in all editions of Windows 8.0, 8.1 and 10. In all likelyhood the majority of DCS players are currently running Windows 7 Home, so they would be forced into whatever localization they had Windows set to. If DCS had comms recognition for that language, they would be good to go, otherwise they'd need to do a free upgrade to Windows 10 to get support.

[tintifaxl]

Posted some time ago, not on the wishlist though:

 

About ATC, please:

 

- Use same unit system as selected in "options" AND state the units in the ATC messages. Or default it to knots, hPa or inHg, celsius. And use the same standard in the ME.

 

- Use QNH instead of QFE for altimeter setting.

 

- Have an always active a comm menu line to request weather data to any ATC. METAR + active RWY would be ideal, but at least surface wind, QNH and active runway.

 

- Have the wind readings as FROM and not TO. And use the same standard in the ME.

 

- Maybe, prioritizing departures may help for mission dynamics, but IRL arrivals will normally have priority.

 

+1 to all suggestions.

[shagrat]

It's included in all editions of Windows 8.0, 8.1 and 10. In all likelyhood the majority of DCS players are currently running Windows 7 Home, so they would be forced into whatever localization they had Windows set to. If DCS had comms recognition for that language, they would be good to go, otherwise they'd need to do a free upgrade to Windows 10 to get support.

That would mean the mandatory requirement for supported OS is Windows 8 or higher! I don't think a lot of simmers, with complex hardware setups, external monitors, older Force Feedback Sticks, USB monitors, iControl for iPad, Helios, and what not, would like to go through that "upgrade experiment", unless absolutely necessary.

 

The problem with speech engine defaulting to your windows regional settings would mean the ATC would NOT use English, but German, French or dutch or what ever local language is set to talk to you???

Now, apart from ED needed to translate all ATC comms into a lot of languages, the international standard for ATC comms is ENGLISH...

I personally, would be pretty annoyed, to have the ATC talking to me in German, leave alone the confusion when in multiplayer each players ATC communicates in the localized language!?? :dunno:

Edited July 8, 2015 by shagrat

[Snoopy]

ATIS

[Oydoron]

That would mean the mandatory requirement for supported OS is Windows 8 or higher! I don't think a lot of simmers, with complex hardware setups, external monitors, older Force Feedback Sticks, USB monitors, iControl for iPad, Helios, and what not, would like to go through that "upgrade experiment", unless absolutely necessary.

 

It wouldn't be a DCSW 2.0 requirement, it would just be if you want to communicate with ATC via voice instead of the function key menus.

 

The problem with speech engine defaulting to your windows regional settings would mean the ATC would NOT use English, but German, French or dutch or what ever local language is set to talk to you???

Now, apart from ED needed to translate all ATC comms into a lot of languages, the international standard for ATC comms is ENGLISH...

I personally, would be pretty annoyed, to have the ATC talking to me in German, leave alone the confusion when in multiplayer each players ATC communicates in the localized language!?? :dunno:

 

As a native English speaker, it's not really an area I'm familiar with. For me at least, some languages I don't mind learning a few words in as they have a lot of similarities and a latin script. Others I'd rather see localized (Chinese cockpit? No thank you)

[DSPALLASVI]

With trees becoming collide-able:

Are shot-down pilots, which have parachuted into a forest, or wooded area, able to "walk" to an open area to be retrieved by the SAR helicopters?

[Joni]

AS my wing is using a lot of human controllers and JTACs hereare my questions:

 

- Will 2.0 have any information regarding wind and QNH on locations throughout the world and the airports? Presently, when using dynamic weather, it is neigh impossible to give correct wind and QNH indications to departing and arriving flights.

 

- Will human controllers have the possibility to "control" certain airport aspects like runway lighting in a foggy enviroment and such?

 

OMG I need so desperate that DCS provides QNH information!!! The IFFCC of the A10 will never compute things right unless you input QNH since the ALT SCE is not functional.

 

:(:(:(:(

[DUSTY]

ATIS

 

+1

 

Posted some time ago, not on the wishlist though:

 

About ATC, please:

 

- Use same unit system as selected in "options" AND state the units in the ATC messages. Or default it to knots, hPa or inHg, celsius. And use the same standard in the ME.

 

- Use QNH instead of QFE for altimeter setting.

 

- Have an always active a comm menu line to request weather data to any ATC. METAR + active RWY would be ideal, but at least surface wind, QNH and active runway.

 

- Have the wind readings as FROM and not TO. And use the same standard in the ME.

 

- Maybe, prioritizing departures may help for mission dynamics, but IRL arrivals will normally have priority.

 

+1

 

These additions would absolutely raise the quality of this sim.