AWACS Calls

[Opalias]

TL:DR Request the addition of the ability to force/set the AWACS/EWR AI to instead of identifying flights by callsigns, call out tail numbers.

 

 

 

I fly on a multiplayer serve with a large group of people, our planes are all separated into single plane groups so the group name identifies a unique aircraft. This one plane per group structure is useful for management as well as Tacview data, since our flight composition is very dynamic, this setup prevents the mission builder from having to resort the group composition at the last minute if extra people arrive late or don't show.

 

 

Since each pilot is assigned a unique modex/tail number by not using the callsigns, of which there is a very limited number, but instead identifying flights by modex, it would cut down greatly on the confusion for the group especially when AWACS calls out a BRAA from a callsign shared by multiple flights.

 

 

Hopefully since the AWACS already reads numbers this wouldn't be too hard to implement.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Opalias

[Yurgon]

Since each pilot is assigned a unique modex/tail number by not using the callsigns, of which there is a very limited number, but instead identifying flights by modex, it would cut down greatly on the confusion for the group especially when AWACS calls out a BRAA from a callsign shared by multiple flights.

 

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the request, but it sounds to me as if that would move away from realism. To the best of my knowledge, military radio comms in the western world do use callsigns to address and to identify flights.

 

Besides, even with the limited number of verbal callsigns like "Ford", "Colt", "Uzi" and so on, there's always a number postfix like "Ford 1-1" or "Ford 5-2" and so on, with the first number representing the number of the flight and the second number representing the number of the aircraft within the flight.

 

To put it diffently, with one-aircraft-groups, you might have individual aircraft addressed as "Ford 1-1", "Ford 2-1", "Ford 3-1" and flights addressed as "Ford 1", "Ford 2", "Ford 3" and so on, which seems quite unambiguous to me. Would it really help your SA to have something like "78-123", "79-456", "78-891" instead?

[Opalias]

We do break into flights for our internal coms, but it’s a 50+ person air wing. The numbers for the flights are also limited, if you have a group of 1 that can be ford 1-1 or ford 2-1 but not for 1-2 because the second number can not be larger than the group size, and the first number can only be 1-9 and all of our squadrons have more than 9 pilots. So it gets messy really fast. I would love to be able to expand the number of callsigns, or be able to assign flight numbers across multiple groups, but the easiest implementation I could think of was the tail number. I don’t consider that a knock to realism, the modex is used for Operations inside the carriers control zone, and since we can’t dynamically assign people to groups it seems a fair compromise.

[Yurgon]

I would love to be able to expand the number of callsigns [...]

 

Yup, more/new callsigns would certainly be very welcome!

[Airogue]

Anyone know if the "adding of call signs" has been tackled yet? I have been searching the forums with no clear answer.

 

I have a list of call signs I've recorded, and have been working on a way to add them to the game. I'm not a coder so I'm learning as I go lol.

 

you can see the list attached. I have more I'd love to add but this was a start.

 

ironically I found that I added moonbeam and jaguar but they are already in game, so I removed them since.

[Avenger31]

Agree!

 

It would be great also if AWACS could give you type of the enemy aircraft when they call them up, like: “Colt 1-1, Overlord, pop-up group Mig-29, two ships BRA 180, 40 miles, angels 20.

[MasterZelgadis]

You are not limited to assign client slots to #1 of a flight. You can have a flight of 4 aircraft in one group, all Ford 1 (Ford 1-1, Ford 1-2, Ford 1-3, Ford 1-4)

 

It would be great also if AWACS could give you type of the enemy aircraft when they call them up, like: “Colt 1-1, Overlord, pop-up group Mig-29, two ships BRA 180, 40 miles, angels 20.

I'm not sure an AWACS can identify the type of an enemy aircraft.

Edited November 29, 2018 by MasterZelgadis

[Avenger31]

You are not limited to assign client slots to #1 of a flight. You can have a flight of 4 aircraft in one group, all Ford 1 (Ford 1-1, Ford 1-2, Ford 1-3, Ford 1-4)

 

 

I'm not sure an AWACS can identify the type of an enemy aircraft.

 

Absolutely agree with you, but we know that many things are not possible in real life but we have them in sim/games, so my suggestion was just to make AWACS calls little more useful in terms of what tactic to use against specific threats.

[Pikey]

Right but this isn't a reason to deliberately add something cutting edge or not publically admitted, despite NCTR and science coming a long way since the 90's setting of DCS. For things you personally want to make things easier, you have your F10 map.

 

 

 

The question is, do you find Fog of War on the F10 map a step too far away from realism? If you don't, then please use that. If you do, then you've drawn yourself a subjective line between how far your realism and immersion will go and it becomes a subjective debate on which no one could possibly find agreement, because everyone has their own limitations.

 

 

Me, no, would not want this, it's not in current basic and publicly available AWACS brevity calls.

 

 

You could argue that AWACS should give BRAA calls out pre commit, and that would have more validity, but B/E is still used outside of the commit. Where do we stop?

 

Absolutely agree with you, but we know that many things are not possible in real life but we have them in sim/games, so my suggestion was just to make AWACS calls little more useful in terms of what tactic to use against specific threats.

[Avenger31]

Right but this isn't a reason to deliberately add something cutting edge or not publically admitted, despite NCTR and science coming a long way since the 90's setting of DCS. For things you personally want to make things easier, you have your F10 map.

 

 

 

The question is, do you find Fog of War on the F10 map a step too far away from realism? If you don't, then please use that. If you do, then you've drawn yourself a subjective line between how far your realism and immersion will go and it becomes a subjective debate on which no one could possibly find agreement, because everyone has their own limitations.

 

 

Me, no, would not want this, it's not in current basic and publicly available AWACS brevity calls.

 

 

You could argue that AWACS should give BRAA calls out pre commit, and that would have more validity, but B/E is still used outside of the commit. Where do we stop?

 

 

I saw much more unreal things that people asking for on this forum than this i mentioned. I am sorry that put you in position to argue about something that i just mention in “wishlist” section. I didnt said MUST HAVE or something like that, just mention as a suggestion. We all have possibility to put AWACS in missions or not, to listen it or not, to use it or f10 map and we all do what we like, so dont feel that my suggestion will drop down immersion or realism, if you have in mind ED made possibility to choose between eyes for JHMCS even they know and they clearly said that in real life there is not such as thing, that it is only visible on right eye. ED like to gove us choices of what we will use so even if they take on consideration my silly suggestion i am sure that they will make it optional.

[MasterZelgadis]

so dont feel that my suggestion will drop down immersion or realism

If it's not switchable, yes it does. Because then I only have the option to use an unrealistic awacs or none at all.