What do you want to see most in DCS World?

[FlankerKiller]

35 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED has in progress a RTS / Dynamic Campaign from some years ago.

Yeah, let's just hope we see it before we all die of old age. 

[Japo32]

Save state in any moment for single player missions or campaigns.

[Cupra]

Tankers flown by Human... with human Boom operator. AI tankers are just stupid

[Hinkey]

5 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Fulda Gap. Oh god yes!! Especially with the F-4, and Hind. Su-17/22. Maybe Mig-27, Mig-23MLA, a Mig-25.

Don't forget to make the A-10A full fidelity.

[FlankerKiller]

1 hour ago, Hinkey said:

Don't forget to make the A-10A full fidelity.

Pleas. But I think there is some issues with Ubisoft and rights to the FC3 planes that prevent them from doing it. But damn I want to roll in on a column of T-62s with a full load of Mk-20s. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by FlankerKiller

[Hammer1-1]

11 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Pleas. But I think there is some issues with Ubisoft and rights to the FC3 planes that prevent them from doing it. But damn I want to roll in on a column of T-62s with a full load of Mk-20s. 

 

I dont think so, believe that deal was for LOMAC and FC series tech. I dont believe there is a problem they cant do full fidelity specific type FC models, as they are based on specific blocks. I think its entirely possible they can make an A-10A+; look at their Mig-29 9-12 module coming out soon. A lot of the stuff in FC is classified stuff for the most part, but an Su-27 shouldnt be too hard since there are some in civilian hands nowadays. Also believe an F-15A could very well be an acceptable module.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Hammer1-1

[av8orDave]

Performance optimization, particularly for VR. I don't care if it is Vulcan, or multi-threading, or whatever, but performance in DCS is absolutely abysmal, to the point that I believe this is a "blocker" to getting to what is my second biggest desire, which is a dynamic campaign. I don't think the engine will run any kind of serious dynamic campaign without some serious optimization for most systems. 

[MadMonkey572]

Group 3-5 UAVs. They don't have to be, or need to be, full fidelity modules, just accurate models and realistic use. Basic EO/IR payloads, ability to program and change waypoints/orbits on the fly, target enemies, provide BDAs, artillery spotting, etc.

It would be nice to be able to do all of that while flying another aircraft rather than having it as a dedicated slot.

[FlankerKiller]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:28 AM, Hammer1-1 said:

I dont think so, believe that deal was for LOMAC and FC series tech. I dont believe there is a problem they cant do full fidelity specific type FC models, as they are based on specific blocks. I think its entirely possible they can make an A-10A+; look at their Mig-29 9-12 module coming out soon. A lot of the stuff in FC is classified stuff for the most part, but an Su-27 shouldnt be too hard since there are some in civilian hands nowadays. Also believe an F-15A could very well be an acceptable module.

 

I couldn't agree more on the F-15A. And with all the cold war birds coming it would fit right in. Especially if we get that Mig-29A. I really do believe that if there were enough birds to support it, the late cold war would be insanely popular online. Fox 1 fights are fun, and <profanity> can get close quick. Plus the pure Kinematics. That and jets were more specialized, for the most part. That and there were more of them. And way way more is declassified. And we could actually model a Soviet Air Force. And it wasn't all West vs East ether. American jets fought French Jets Iraq. I believe Soviet jets fought Soviet jets in Africa. British Jets fought us Jets over Argentina. That and there was the whole proxy wars thing. Like we literally could have got a new map for every single proxy war from 1975 through 1991. God DCS Proxy Wars could have been amazing. I digress. I hope ED knows what they're doing because it seems like there was alot of missed opportunity. Also I hope you're right about the A-10A. I just don't see why they wouldn't have done it if they could have done it. 

Eagle Dynamics I would pay for a downgrade A-10A even faster then I would pay for an upgrade A-10C II.  

[Hammer1-1]

2 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

 I hope you're right about the A-10A. I just don't see why they wouldn't have done it if they could have done it. 

 

I think its closer to a why bother position. Yes, it would have to be something other than the one represented in FC3, as that is the license issue. But can you really define what exact model the A was in LOMAC/FC3? That also goes for the F-15C in FC - the block represented there is a 90s/early 2000s aircraft. The newer C models have a full glass cockpit now but a tad bit more classified. TBH Im not sure what exactly they cant do with the FC aircraft, but Im thinking they wanted to get away from Ubisoft by releasing the models separately of FC3. Dont quote me on that, Im not that well caught up.

[C3PO]

I’d like to see official PvP scenarios as part of an ED competition system, akin to what you see in top flight racing simulators. That would gain publicity and further traction for the product - and be immense fun for participants. Could ED leverage any sponsorship support elsewhere to support these? 20 player groups of different flights prosecuting an attack v 20 players defending against such an attack. Would be great.

[Silver_Dragon]

3 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Eagle Dynamics I would pay for a downgrade A-10A even faster then I would pay for an upgrade A-10C II.  

ED planned a A-10A after Ka-50 on 2008, but that plans never reach to a module. Other was a AH-64A, Su-27S, Mig-29 and F-15C, on the same.
 

32 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

I think its closer to a why bother position. Yes, it would have to be something other than the one represented in FC3, as that is the license issue. But can you really define what exact model the A was in LOMAC/FC3? That also goes for the F-15C in FC - the block represented there is a 90s/early 2000s aircraft. The newer C models have a full glass cockpit now but a tad bit more classified. TBH Im not sure what exactly they cant do with the FC aircraft, but Im thinking they wanted to get away from Ubisoft by releasing the models separately of FC3. Dont quote me on that, Im not that well caught up.

F-15C coming from the times of LOMAC, ED never build a A version.

[FlankerKiller]

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED planned a A-10A after Ka-50 on 2008, but that plans never reach to a module. Other was a AH-64A, Su-27S, Mig-29 and F-15C, on the same.
 

F-15C coming from the times of LOMAC, ED never build a A version.

Ka-50, A-10A, Ah-64A, and Su-24T. The poject was called Tank Killers. It would have been awesome. 

Hammer1-1 mentioned that he believes an F-15A would be well received. I agree, and the A model wouldn't have any licensing issues with Ubisoft.  I really think the future of DCS is in the Cold War. It's untapped potential for sure. Wether that is through third parties, or ED directly I don't know. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by FlankerKiller

[Hinkey]

Make DCS more attractive/accessible to 3rd party developers

Preamble: I’m not a businessman. If I were in charge of ED they would be bankrupt. I’m not a programmer. If I tried to write a “hello world” that program would crash the global internet. In no way do I grasp the real world difficulty of moving an asset from one platform to another. So…

It would be nice if DCS could be made more attractive to third party developers. There is a great deal of exciting military aircraft development being done that is not making its way in to the premier military flight sim: DCS. Tons of high quality military aircraft are being produced for an environment where you can’t even shoot!

Granted what is considered high quality over at brand X would need continued development to add weapons systems, add a damage model etc. But, it seems like so much of the work is already done; in terms of research, 3d models, textures, sounds and systems. There must be a business case for the incremental income of publishing for DCS.

An incredibly non-comprehensive list of fun toys I want to have:
- Aeroplane Heaven - Grumman F3-F
- AzurPoly - Fouga CM.170 Magister
- Big Radials - P40B Tomahawk
- Carenado - Cessna 337 Skymaster (Military variant O-2)
- FlyingIron Simulations - P-38 Lightning 
- Just Flight - Hawk T1
- Sim Skunk Works - TF-104 Starfighter

Whatever the road blocks are that prevent these developers from publishing for DCS, they seem worth addressing.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Hinkey
Removed "Joke" ​ - Indiafoxtecho - MB-339 ;) from list

[Svsmokey]

1 hour ago, Hinkey said:

Make DCS more attractive/accessible to 3rd party developers

Preamble: I’m not a businessman. If I were in charge of ED they would be bankrupt. I’m not a programmer. If I tried to write a “hello world” that program would crash the global internet. In no way do I grasp the real world difficulty of moving an asset from one platform to another. So…

It would be nice if DCS could be made more attractive to third party developers. There is a great deal of exciting military aircraft development being done that is not making its way in to the premier military flight sim: DCS. Tons of high quality military aircraft are being produced for an environment where you can’t even shoot!

Granted what is considered high quality over at brand X would need continued development to add weapons systems, add a damage model etc. But, it seems like so much of the work is already done; in terms of research, 3d models, textures, sounds and systems. There must be a business case for the incremental income of publishing for DCS.

An incredibly non-comprehensive list of fun toys I want to have:
- Aeroplane Heaven - Grumman F3-F
- AzurPoly - Fouga CM.170 Magister
- Big Radials - P40B Tomahawk
- Carenado - Cessna 337 Skymaster (Military variant O-2)
- FlyingIron Simulations - P-38 Lightning 
- Indiafoxtecho - MB-339
- Just Flight - Hawk T1
- Sim Skunk Works - TF-104 Starfighter

Whatever the road blocks are that prevent these developers from publishing for DCS, they seem worth addressing.

MB339 is coming-prolly this year....

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253651-development-report/?do=findComment&comment=4489521

[Hinkey]

3 hours ago, Svsmokey said:

MB339 is coming-prolly this year...

Yep, my mistake. I put a "winky face" behind it to convey "joke" but I'm very bad at internet. I just edited it out for clarity. Actually, Indiafoxtecho could probably easily answer all my questions on the complexity of multi-platform releases. Maybe they have and I haven't seen it.

Edited February 3, 2022 by Hinkey
ambiguity

[_Hoss]

I'd like to see the modules that I purchase actually work the way they were intended, that systems modeled actually do what they are supposed to. And a bit more aggressive and wider sampling from Beta testers for each module, not only the new one but older ones that get broke every update we get. I know everyone is all jazzed to go play with the bright shiny new toy, and I can't blame them really. But ED/DCS/3rd Party developers need to have more testing to see what it was that gets broke, in Alpha/Beta and Release Candidates.  I don't expect to hear from my mechanic, we installed your transmission, but did not get the chance to see if it affected anything else............. so on the way out you find out your brakes don't work, or they throw you through the windshield when you push the pedal. 

JM2¢W

Hoss

[Silver_Dragon]

Ka-50, A-10A, Ah-64A, and Su-24T. The poject was called Tank Killers. It would have been awesome. 
Hammer1-1 mentioned that he believes an F-15A would be well received. I agree, and the A model wouldn't have any licensing issues with Ubisoft.  I really think the future of DCS is in the Cold War. It's untapped potential for sure. Wether that is through third parties, or ED directly I don't know. 

Ubisoft has none to do, and no retain any licenses. Remenber ED repurchase your licenced after Lomac when uby say he don't continue any other product after Lomac. In fact, FC was a private adventure by ED, with help to get out of Uby hands.

F-15A or other modules has none problem to make by ED or other 3rd party, that can contact with the license owns, and that not Uby.

Remember ED has working on a new Lomac (Modern Air Combat) outside DCS.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

Make DCS more attractive/accessible to 3rd party developers
Preamble: I’m not a businessman. If I were in charge of ED they would be bankrupt. I’m not a programmer. If I tried to write a “hello world” that program would crash the global internet. In no way do I grasp the real world difficulty of moving an asset from one platform to another. So…
It would be nice if DCS could be made more attractive to third party developers. There is a great deal of exciting military aircraft development being done that is not making its way in to the premier military flight sim: DCS. Tons of high quality military aircraft are being produced for an environment where you can’t even shoot!
Granted what is considered high quality over at brand X would need continued development to add weapons systems, add a damage model etc. But, it seems like so much of the work is already done; in terms of research, 3d models, textures, sounds and systems. There must be a business case for the incremental income of publishing for DCS.
An incredibly non-comprehensive list of fun toys I want to have:
- Aeroplane Heaven - Grumman F3-F
- AzurPoly - Fouga CM.170 Magister
- Big Radials - P40B Tomahawk
- Carenado - Cessna 337 Skymaster (Military variant O-2)
- FlyingIron Simulations - P-38 Lightning 
- Indiafoxtecho - MB-339
- Just Flight - Hawk T1
- Sim Skunk Works - TF-104 Starfighter
Whatever the road blocks are that prevent these developers from publishing for DCS, they seem worth addressing.

DCS has more attractive to 3rd Parties, not only The MMB-339, coming others as flyingIrons and the A-7 Corsair II. More products has incoming by actual 3rd Parties, and more teams has making paperwork to get 3rd party status.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk