What do you want the most in DCS?

[rogantano]

Hey folks!

This question is purely out of curiosity. Me and a buddy were chatting about what we want from DCS the most. Personally, I am super excited for the Typhoon module! And I would like to see a dynamic campaign!

 

What you you people like to see? i suppose you could call this a wishlist!

 

Have a excellent evening!

[Teknetinium]

MIG-29A/MIG-23/Su-27SM/MIG-31, just a wet dream. 

[okopanja]

MIG-29A/MIG-23/Su-27SM/MIG-31,Mig-25

[waterman]

" German Railgun Krupp K5 Leopold "

" British Trains - Steam Locomotives - Wagons and Coaches "

" Trains that actually run on top of the rails in Normandy 2 "

Very Funny how everyone has not noticed the Normandy 2 Trains are sunk into the ground.

I had to go solo and fix it i built my own rolling stock.

Best thing i ever did.

 

[Doc3908]

And why is this posted in the La-7 thread??? 

[Tom Kazansky]

I wonder if this is again one of those 1st and only posts of a new account to keep us busy.

[Dangerzone]

Enhanced AI - especially with ground units.

With helicopters playing a greater role (and more to come), the standard AI is too predictable and boring.

I created a 'work around' script so that groups won't just 'move a little' and then sit there to be plucked off, but will either charge the position of the attacker, or otherwise try to outflank. It has created more of a challenge and improved experience for some, but as soon as people realise the logic, it's easy to overcome or exploit still and is basic in nature. 

Having had a few players in 'Tac Command' slots on the other side on a server with combined arms has given me an experience of just how good DCS could be. Sneak attacks, retreat and reengaging at optimal times, sneaking ground forces around buildings, etc. 

I don't expect AI to be upgraded. This is a flight simulator sandbox after all, and an Dynamic Campaign Engine is needed before any of this. But if you asked what I wish for. That would be it.

[FrostLaufeyson]

55分钟前，Dangerzone说：

Enhanced AI - especially with ground units.

With helicopters playing a greater role (and more to come), the standard AI is too predictable and boring.

I created a 'work around' script so that groups won't just 'move a little' and then sit there to be plucked off, but will either charge the position of the attacker, or otherwise try to outflank. It has created more of a challenge and improved experience for some, but as soon as people realise the logic, it's easy to overcome or exploit still and is basic in nature. 

Having had a few players in 'Tac Command' slots on the other side on a server with combined arms has given me an experience of just how good DCS could be. Sneak attacks, retreat and reengaging at optimal times, sneaking ground forces around buildings, etc. 

I don't expect AI to be upgraded. This is a flight simulator sandbox after all, and an Dynamic Campaign Engine is needed before any of this. But if you asked what I wish for. That would be it.

Agree, I hope the "dynamic campaign" could solve all those problems, it's too boaring for helis now

[Dangerzone]

13 minutes ago, FrostLaufeyson said:

Agree, I hope the "dynamic campaign" could solve all those problems, it's too boaring for helis now

I doubt it. DCE will give a dynamic map in the sense that what you do from mission to mission will impact the way the war is going (whether the front line is advancing, or retreating, how many supplies you have to work with, etc), but I strongly doubt it will effect how individual groups behave during engagements. The two seem to be very different beasts.

Don't get me wrong. DCE will be a very much appreciated change to DCS, and will create variety of it's own, and more 'purpose' to what players do besides just go bomb stuff. There will be consequences to bad actions, and rewards for good actions, and I'm very much looking forward to that. 

But I've seen the difference having a few Tac Commanders in Combined Arms on the opposite side can make vs the normal AI which really isn't much more than cannon fodder. Targets that can be told to move, or have some ability to shoot back if you're within their range, but little else. (I'm talking ground units here - air units are a different story). 

Maybe with the advance of AI who knows, there could be some ability in their down the track to have AI do what human players do with CA but I think we'd be at least a decade off that being implemented too. 

[zildac]

A save option, so when I get toasted 90 minutes into a campaign mission I don't have to start over again. Or more likely wait for my next 120 minutes spare. Yes I have a job, family and all of those other things.

[FlankerKiller]

Overall better Ai. We need an Ai battlefield commander that can do things like set artillery targets, set and alter routes for vehicles, move supplies to where they need to be. Basically do want we would do as a battlefield commander. We also need better SAM behavior. Ai helicopters need improvement. Ai air to ground needs improvement, and as always air to air could use some more tuning. 
 

along with that a dynamic campaign. I hate static campaigns and am tired of building missions. I want to jump in plan a mission, and ether succeed, fail, or virtually die. 

Edited October 10, 2023 by FlankerKiller

[clanitho]

AI wingmen attacking static objects.

[Gunfreak]

Revamp of ground/ship accuracy.

Realistic ship damage modeling.

A full rich ww2 environment, with lots of AI aircraft type. 

Correct full fidelity late 43/mid 44 aircraft (109Gs, P51B/C, Razorback P47)

[upyr1]

In general more historic assets. I would love to see a bunch of WWII and Korean era Red assets that could be used with i-16 and MiG-15 as both are in an asset desert. I also want more naval assets. We have two Normand maps but we don't have the overlord invasion fleet. Then the Marinas need both the WWII fleets as well as more modern ones.

We have a decent 1970/early 80s carrier airwing planned but a 1990s carrier battle group. So more and better naval assets 

Also better infantry.

Then I also want airborne drops and the mechanics for an amphibious assault 

 

[Pikey]

Mig-29A or a later red peer fighter. This is for everyone that likes a duel.
All The Good Things that were started, to be finished. This is for common sense. Things like Clouds, weather, modules.
For myself; in the order, of an FRS.1 circa 1982, an FRS.2 with Blue Vixen circa 1993, and failing that, a Harrier II + with aim-120 and harpoon or penguin (use the Spanish one if there's issues)
A Sheffield class type42 AI.

[cdrkrotchetyusn]

It's only been 6 1/2 years...

SH60F / HH60H Navy Seahawks, PLEEEEEEASE!

R,

CDR Krotchety USN (Ret)

Edited October 10, 2023 by cdrkrotchetyusn

[Blackhawk NC]

I think the best thing DCS could do for the community is develop a REDFOR aircraft that is in the same category as the F-18 or F-16. I know, I know....."we cant do that because we don't have the technical information". We don't have the technical information on the advanced AIM-9X or the advanced AIM-120 either but we somehow manage to model them. We dont have the specifications on the TOR or the NASAM but we model them in DCS. We are constantly making improvements to radars and missiles on the BLUFOR aircraft. Does that mean we got better info? Then how did we model these thing when they first came out. Did we guess at the performance based on available data? Why cant we guess at the performance of an R-77-1 or a PL-15? We can't guess at the performance of the REDFOR aircraft and missiles because it would make BLUFOR's life harder and BLUFOR aircraft are the ones being developed for future sale. There are no real REDFOR aircraft being developed. The F-4 may see REDFOR usage... maybe, but nothing made in this century! I know that I am not the only one. I like DCS a lot but it is becoming a PVE game! Sorry about the rant!

[Yeti42]

I want all the modules that I've bought to be out of early access and beta...

[Raisuli]

Apparently I'm a little behind the curve; I can't fly more than one aircraft at a time and I don't fly any of them to their limits, so I'm a lot less concerned about models and a lot more concerned about the world around them.

• Weather, because every time I start a mission the same cloud is in the same place every time.
• More targets, regardless of fidelity, because the idea is to blow them up.  At that point I don't really care if the wire harnesses are laced or zip tied
• Less detail in modules, because see above.  I have quite a few hours in the Ka-50 III, and none hours staring at the playboy centerfold behind the access panel.  When I see developers proudly showing off cartoon Amphenol connectors on cartoon avionics behind cartoon access panels I start to wonder what cool things that might actually be visible could have been done with that time
• Better maps, because I do see the terrain I fly over and I'm bloody sick of desert
• Dynamic missions, because that's what I do when I'm not just flying 1v0 or landing practice or improving consistency to burn off a bit of stress

If they made modules out of some of that; real time weather, for example, I'd be happy to pay for it.  Object bundles with ground equipment and personnel.  Dynamic missions.  Those are a lot of work and I don't feel entitled to my lunch for free.

 

[YSIAD_RIP]

Everything that 2.9 and 3.0 will have to offer! If you don't ask you don't get.

Higher visual quality and better performing Anti-Aliasing:

• The distracting amount of shimmering on distant structures is heartbreaking. 
• MSAA X4 is too much of a performance hit on all but the most high-end GPUs. 
• Currently, I am using ReShade with SMAA.fx and Temporal_AA.fx to help with performance and minimize the distracting shimmering. 

[FlankerKiller]

1 hour ago, Blackhawk NC said:

I know that I am not the only one. I like DCS a lot but it is becoming a PVE game! Sorry about the rant!

Your not. We all want them and they would sell like hotcakes. Old players like me started with LOMAC or Flanker. Lol that SU-33 from Flanker 2.0 would rock your world in Full Fidelity. I personally would buy any fourth gen Red fighter day on. Something a can’t say anymore about blue fourth gens. But it’s probably not going to happen. As for PVE the late Cold War should help there. We have the Mig-21bis and Mi-24P already. The Mig-23MLA is being worked on and an SU-17 is strongly hinted at. That’s a good 1980 Red air in itself. Yeah you’ll have to fly the F-4 and A model Cat to really be in a beer peer fight. But at least it’s there.  Redfor jets would help sell bluefor jets. Where they can have pairs they have. It just isn’t possible in this world we live in to do them. 

[Thorimus]

Any improvements to gameplay are welcome. Save/load and some form of render distance with a low/high simulation fidelity so that we can make our own "dynamic" campaigns. And this

[bjdy]

World map and F-111.

[notproplayer3]

I may be asking too much but undo/redo button and drag select in the mission editor.

[dawgie79]

A more lively world. Besides the cars and trains, I’d like to see some sailing ships and air traffic (busy civilian airports). 

Nothing fancy, just a few simple and different models that move around.