What do you want the most in DCS?

[Miro]

Dynamic campaign engine, and world map.

[TheFreshPrince]

Actually I'd like to "just" have good graphics and performance:

-no shimmering of slim objects (like trees, powerlines, etc.) anymore

-no shimmering of water/shore anymore

-no shimmering of horizon clouds anymore

-no wobbling clouds anymore

-no weird shadows anymore (realistic shadows actually)

-no weird smoke behaviour anymore

-more up to date looking exterieur of all aircraft

-more up to date looking interieur of all aircraft

(realistic reflections and 3d textures for both the above)

-updated Caucasus map with better graphics (mods like Barthek being standard)

-realistic, dynamic weather

And all of this with acceptable FPS on all maps without having to spend thousands of dollars for a supercomputer.

[Nocke217]

I want the B17s to shoot back at attackers.

[motoadve]

Fix the super human pilot model that can do positive Gs , sustained Gs forever and wont get tired (WWII planes)

Then you get weird unrealistic maneuvers that ruins immersion

[Lace]

In a word.  Coherence.

To expand, coherence and a time machine.  I get that DCS has evolved as a sandbox, and that is great.  A sand box offers almost unlimited re-playability, it allows users to be creative, and doesn't tie them to a particular era, or war, or set of SOPs.  But it is also the problem.  With a time machine, lets go back, pick a time period, and a theatre, and fill it with land sea and air units relevant to that conflict.  Rather than the bit of this, and bit of that, and orphaned modules, and temporally irrelevant maps, build DCS: Desert Storm, DCS: Fulda Gap, DCS: Allied Force, and of course DCS: Vietnam.  Not just maps, but complete warscapes, with units and assets and tweaked AI tactics to make them feel individual and complete in their own right.  

But that's not how it works, and DCS as it is, is still way better than 10 year-old me imagined sims could get after seeing MSFS 3.0, and for all of its faults it offers an experience unlike anything else on the market.  So in reality what I really want is the DCE, and a bit better performance.  That'll do.

[drspankle]

Correct thermal signature for enemy vehicles.  As it is, the airport ground support equipment show up as hot, (even though some of it, like the PAR antenna wouldn't) and enemy veheicles and SAMs, parked in amongst it all, who running their power units are considerably harder to see.  Anything nunning a generator or engine shows up really well in IR on the pod.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Lace said:

In a word.  Coherence.

To expand, coherence and a time machine.  I get that DCS has evolved as a sandbox, and that is great.  A sand box offers almost unlimited re-playability, it allows users to be creative, and doesn't tie them to a particular era, or war, or set of SOPs.  But it is also the problem.  With a time machine, lets go back, pick a time period, and a theatre, and fill it with land sea and air units relevant to that conflict.  Rather than the bit of this, and bit of that, and orphaned modules, and temporally irrelevant maps, build DCS: Desert Storm, DCS: Fulda Gap, DCS: Allied Force, and of course DCS: Vietnam.  Not just maps, but complete warscapes, with units and assets and tweaked AI tactics to make them feel individual and complete in their own right.  

But that's not how it works, and DCS as it is, is still way better than 10 year-old me imagined sims could get after seeing MSFS 3.0, and for all of its faults it offers an experience unlike anything else on the market.  So in reality what I really want is the DCE, and a bit better performance.  That'll do.

I've said the same thing in the past. I have said ED needs to think in terms of a module ecosystem. Which would consist of the following items

• at least two opposing modules (competing predators)
• AI assets (prey) 
• A map (habitat)

The most complete ecosystem so far is are the Nomandy/Channel maps 

[dibo]

I would love a bf109 g6 and a map of Germany. I know it won't happen, it's just a dream.

[Thamiel]

Sufficient, thorough and complete testing of updates, fixes and new features before they are released.

[DocSigma]

Dynamic Campaign. I’d say most don’t fly online nor do they build effective missions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SickSidewinder9]

Cutscenes.

Detected-by triggers.

[Beirut]

The ability to choose any Bond girl as your WSO.

 

Smoking and drinking animations in the cockpit.

 

Chat GPT in-game so you can have really heated arguments with the AI aircraft.

[draconus]

On 10/14/2023 at 12:18 PM, TheFreshPrince said:

Actually I'd like to "just" have good graphics and performance:

-no shimmering of slim objects (like trees, powerlines, etc.) anymore

-no shimmering of water/shore anymore

-no shimmering of horizon clouds anymore

-no weird shadows anymore (realistic shadows actually)

Wish granted with 2.9, right? DLAA+SSS

[AG-51_Razor]

For me, I would wish for a more user-friendly Mission Editor. As much as I would love to have more toys to play with such as map of Korea, and a bunch of Korean War era planes to fly, an improved ME is, by far, the most significant thing I can think of to ask for. In particular, the ability to zoom into a 3D environment when placing objects onto the map. That one feature alone would save any serious mission builder HOURS and HOURS of tedium in their quest to churn out worthwhile entertainment for the rest of us!! Improvements to the mission builder's ability to shape the weather environment we fly in, specifically to get away from a totally homogenous condition of wind, clouds, precipitation, etc. I could go on and on but I think that ED has the gist of what I'm getting at.

[TheFreshPrince]

Am 24.10.2023 um 09:26 schrieb draconus:

Wish granted with 2.9, right? DLAA+SSS

Actually yeah lol. The Shimmering is mostly gone and the overall look is better.

Shadows are also better, but still not great in detail. They are mostly too dark and there is no fading and lighter/darker shadows. There either is a shadow or there isn't. That makes the long shadows at sunset are pretty weird. And it makes the cockpit way too dark, even if the sun is right above you. In the Caucasus mountains, there are also some tree shadows floating in the air.

[Northstar98]

If I had to name 1 thing (though really it's multiple, as several things would need to be delivered to support it), is a dynamic, persistent campaign (on par with the one in the other F-16 orientated sim) on a historically relevant theatre, with coherent modules and assets.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, TheFreshPrince said:

And it makes the cockpit way too dark, even if the sun is right above you. In the Caucasus mountains, there are also some tree shadows floating in the air.

First, you have gamma set wrong. Floating shadows come with Flat setting.

[TheFreshPrince]

I turned Gamma down and use reshade that's true. But if I turn it up, the terrain gets way too bright. And since there are no sunglasses in DCS, I'd rather see where I'm going.

I have default setting btw. and still see some floating shadows 

[draconus]

32 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

I have default setting btw. and still see some floating shadows

Report a bug.

https://forum.dcs.world/forum/490-2d-video-bugs/

[Rilence]

What I want most is already being worked on with their dynamic campaign. Besides that, the ability to perform search and rescue, picking up downed pilots and troops, and more tasks with helicopters, especially with the C-130 and Chinook coming. I know there's a mod for CSAR, but I'm talking immersive functionality. What's weird is that I've never been a rotary guy. I've been a fan since the Lock On days, and I've only ever been into fixed-wing until they announced the Chinook. I guess I'm finally getting tired of the sameness of the fixed-wing mission set.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Rilence

[schurem]

I like the thought of coherence. Through sheer mad mass we'll get there anyhow so yeah, let's just keep plugging.

As for core wishes, well... I'd like better, more human-like AI behaviors, especially from ground units. No more sniper BMP-3's. 

2.9 is great when it comes to looks and performance. With a little polish here and there, it's just perfect. And to think the future is bringing even more improvements when Vulcan hits. I love what ED are doing with the VOIP. Never asked for it, love it anyway. Can't wait to see what other monkies uncle Wags has up his sleeves

[Darkstar.exe]

For me I would kill to see the YF-12A, it's probably a little unrealistic seeing that the maps are to small for it but I can always dream.

[_Hoss]

"What do I want to see in DCS"  Having a relevant plane inventory for the map and "ITS" time period. And to stop making modern maps where nothing has happened since the mid-70s. i.e. Sinai...

What drives this is everyone's nearsightedness.... having to have the latest airplane.. the latest controllers... Powerhouse computers to run VR, triple screens..... You would buy a hanger queen under the pretext of supporting a developer for further DLC'Ss. You can tell by reading their Signature at the bottom of the post. And Dubai doesn't look anything like it did when I was last docked at Jebel Ali and traveled into Dubai in Sept.95...  

But at 30,000 ft who gives a rodent's arse what's down at ground level... well, Mudmovers care...... When you go to do a Six-Day War attack in Egypt, 2023 Cairo isn't the same as 1967 Cairo, Egypt. Or Yom Kippur in 1973, this is the last big battle in the Sinai.. most everything else on a large scale, that took place with Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and now Gaza and HAMAS...

DCS makes some great models, but giving us a realistic battle space to exercise those models is its greatest downfall, and why I guard my money jealously when it comes to modules. If it doesn't change (improve) the form, fit, or function of a time period map, I won't buy it. It's a WASTE of funds. For WWII, there is no map for the I-16, or Lavochikin... total waste of money... Marianas Is. is the only map with dual purposes WWII and modern-day maps.. Not a lot has happened in the Pacific since WWII, but I digress again into a soft rant...

I'm cringing thinking if we get a Korean Peninsula map, Seoul will be modern... and say a prayer for N/S Vietnam...

JM2CW

Hoss

Edited November 1, 2023 by _Hoss

[_Hoss]

On 10/24/2023 at 12:26 AM, draconus said:

Wish granted with 2.9, right? DLAA+SSS

Don't you have to have a 4000 series VGA to get DLSS to work?...

3080ti here, and it doesn't make any difference on my system with that VGA and a 1440 monitor at 144hz... and it still has artifacts in shadows from what I saw on Youtube tests.

[TheFreshPrince]

Just a RTX card is fine (2xxx series upwards). DLSS needs MT, Open Beta and some other settings to work (see other threads). But you should see a difference when enabled Shadow problems are still there though, at least with SSS enabled.