JTAC modernization?

[ShuRugal]

7 hours ago, Thamiel said:

You may choose to believe that

You may choose to present an argument which dispels that belief.  Or at least stop presenting arguments which reinforce it.

You're not going to, because then you'd have nothing left to post but you may.

Quote

Based on the proposition, the headline "JTAC modernization" is a misnomer. It should read "alteration" instead.

Are you an English teacher now?  Is that your objection?  This feature shouldn't be implemented because Your Royal Majesty, the King of the English Language, has decreed that I, your unworthy subject, have chosen the wrong word to present my case?

Quote

The AI-JTAC was never meant to to give the pilot full control about what to lase or attack.

Weird how you keep thinking that this is only about giving pilots the ability to act as battlefield commanders, even though i've already specifically pointed out that there are non-pilot player slots in this game which could make use of the functionality i have described.  It's almost as if you're ignoring the inconvenient parts of my replies so that you may continue to object.

It's also weird how you keep objecting to the idea of players deciding for themselves what to attack.  Have you ever actually played this game?  that's 90% of the combat gameplay, players running around aimlessly looking for things to attack, and then attacking them.  Especially air to ground.

Seriously.  Hop into multiplayer, any server running an A2G focused mission. 90% of the player base is running around like chickens with their heads cut off.  Half of them have so little SA that they repeatedly blow themselves up on the same SAM every sortie. 

Perhaps you would like to propose removing the control stick from the cockpit of every module, since it enables this pilot-directed attack mindset you so abhor?

Quote

It was solely implemented to give those aircraft a possibility to drop their LGBs on target which do not sport a LANTIRN on their own.

oh, and here i was thinking it was implemented in order to give mission designers the ability to add real-world procedures into their missions.

Here I was, thinking that it was also implemented in order to solve the problem I have just described for you of players attacking <profanity> at random whenever they can finally spot it.

It's weird, though.  They implemented all these other features for JTAC, like the ability for it to mark targets with smoke.  And the ability for it to ask you to use weapons which lack PAVE sensors.  You should probably phone up Matt Wagner and let him know about this mistake they made, adding all this functionality to their JTAC which does so much more than they "solely implemented" it to do.

Quote

Personally, I believe its not even possible

Yes, you have quite thoroughly demonstrated the narrow scope and restricted reach of your ability to cogitate.  No need to brag about it.

Quote

to extend its functionality to that of an onboard Petrovich/George WSO without breaking basic simulation rules like that of the LOS.

1:  Where did i ask for the AFAC to sit inside your cockpit for you

2: what the <profanity> are you smoking?  this complaint is very close to making no sense as an actual sentence in English.  It certainly has no relationship to anything I am proposing.  Sticking definite articles ahead of random nouns doesn't suddenly mean anything you are saying is correct.

 

Quote

For instance, Target visibility and target aspect are ramnifications devaluing your proposal because in general the ground unit is less mobile and has a much closer horizon than the aerial asset.

 Since you wanted to start off playing English Teacher, allow me to deduct three marks for your incorrect spelling of "ramifications".  You clearly believe yourself to be better, how about you start proving it?

As far as the actual substance of what you are saying here, please imagine that I am wearing my best "Nicholas Cage talking to an idiot" face as I say the words "Yes, that's the desired functionality."

The DCS JTAC/AFAC will already only direct the player to engage targets it can see.  The mission designer must already take care to place it in range of the units it will be instructing pilots to attack.  None of that would change with my proposed update.

 

Quote

Correct me if I am wrong, but it occurs to me what you really want is a local TGP available without having to mount it on your wing.

Consider yourself corrected.  You are so wrong that it is difficult for me to imagine that you have arrived at this conclusion at all.  I can only barely follow the logic, and I am stil 90% certain you're just a troll.

To address the 10%:  What I want is a tool to give players in a complex mission better situational awareness without having to turn on labels, and without having to build the mission with a red smoke generator on each enemy position, and without having to line all the units up neatly in open fields.

 

Quote

Your case study only proves that in DCS you can mount an oppositional ground force too strong to be overcome by aerial forces alone.

Incorrect.  The mission I have built can be completed a number of ways.  In testing, I have so far cleared by myself in the following aircraft:

• AH-64D - 4 hours to clear
• F-15E - 3 hours to clear
• F/A-18C - 6 hours to clear (bird just doesn't carry enough weapons to clear large missions solo, spent most of that time transiting to the rearm site and back)

Running through it with a wingman, two Apaches had it clear in about an hour and half, which is roughly what I was targeting when I designed the mission.  Two Hornets cleared it in about two hours.

 

Regardless, you are incorrect.  The objective of the air forces in this mission absolutely can be cleared using only player aircraft.

 

I will reiterate, in the hopes that this time I won't be wasting the efforts of my flexor digitorum, that the desired intent is to allow the players to SKIP certain targets which they may not actually need to kill to accomplish the mission.

As I have already noted (and you have already ignored), the primary objective (or rather, one of them) of the mission which inspired me to make my original post in this thread is NOT "go kill all the things", but rather "go kill REDFOR anti tank units to allow the BLUFOR tanks to do their jobs"  It is not necessary for the players to kill all the air defense units... UNLESS they cannot engage the armor those air defenses are protecting without first dealing with the air defenses.

That decision is what I want to leave up to the players on each iteration of the mission.  The need to make that decision during the mission is what drives the need for the AFAC/JTAC to be able to be told "no, move on to the main objective" or "hey wait, actually we need eyes on those SHORAD units". 

The need for that flexibility is a realistic need.  Depending on the aircraft, munitions, and pilots available in theatre, such a mission might require complete suppression of enemy air defenses, or it might require only partial suppression.

 

Personally, all you've managed to convince me of is that you can't come up with any actual objections to my proposal.  With the sole exception of "I just don't like it", all of the objections you have raised so far appear to be, at best, intentional misunderstandings of what I have explained so far.  Several of them are obvious straw-man ('you're asking for JTAC/AFAC to be George!'), slippery slope ('players will just self direct all over the place!'), and false induction ('it will just break the simulation!') fallacies.

I expect this will be the last time i bother replying to you.  You might prove me wrong by coming up with an objection which doesn't rely on intentionally misrepresenting me, which doesn't boil down to "but players might USE that feature!", and which is actually coherent.  But I doubt it.

Edited January 1, 2024 by ShuRugal

[SickSidewinder9]

On 12/30/2023 at 1:55 AM, drspankle said:

Yup - although on my last exercise one of the JTACs was a Major so he may well outrank some aircrew. Even then though, the person who signs for that aircraft has ultimate authority over the weapons it carries.

Dr Spankle

Haha.  Sometimes an O4 has to get out from behind the desk and show how it's done, I guess.

 

Oh wait, that reminds me: don't USMC pilots sometimes serve as JTACs?  Marines gotta Marine.

On 12/30/2023 at 1:55 AM, drspankle said:

 

 

On 12/30/2023 at 1:55 AM, drspankle said:

 

Edited January 1, 2024 by SickSidewinder9
Whoops, it triple posted.

[SharpeXB]

53 minutes ago, ShuRugal said:

What I want is a tool to give players in a complex mission better situational awareness without having to turn on labels, and without having to build the mission with a red smoke generator on each enemy position, and without having to line all the units up neatly in open fields.

So you just want to use the JTAC as a crutch for players? There are plenty of ways to employ aircraft or find targets besides using the JTAC. 
And yes the term “modernization” is a bit misleading. It implies that the DCS JTAC is out of date or somehow inauthentic.

[ShuRugal]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

So you just want to use the JTAC as a crutch for players? There are plenty of ways to employ aircraft or find targets besides using the JTAC. 
And yes the term “modernization” is a bit misleading. It implies that the DCS JTAC is out of date or somehow inauthentic.

oh look, someone else who likes strawman arguments.  <profanity> off.

[Thamiel]

2 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

You may choose to present an argument which dispels that belief.

Of course, but why should I? I couldn't care less about what you believe.

2 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

What I want is a tool to give players in a complex mission better situational awareness without having to turn on labels, and without having to build the mission with a red smoke generator on each enemy position, and without having to line all the units up neatly in open fields.

Oh, you mean apart from the last 2.9 "feature" called spotting dots? Seriously, why are people always on the lookout to cut corners? Especially when they are responsible for those corners in the first place? 36 Iglas, really? You could easily generate the same deterrence with a fraction of those. But then again, I can understand how one would ask for an George/Petrovich observer to help in such an environment. Simple solution: Fly a family model.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, ShuRugal said:

oh look, someone else who likes strawman arguments.  <profanity> off.

I would think that in DCS any improvements in the game features should be to make them more realistic. The ability to request different weapons in the comms flow fits that. But trying to turn the JTAC into something it’s not IRL doesn’t. 

[Tippis]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

But trying to turn the JTAC into something it’s not IRL doesn’t. 

It already is something that it's not IRL. Any change to that will inherently make it more realistic.

[Thamiel]

7 hours ago, Tippis said:

It already is something that it's not IRL. Any change to that will inherently make it more realistic.

Including turning it into a hired help?

[Tippis]

5 hours ago, Thamiel said:

Including turning it into a hired help?

It is already hired help. The problem is that it's a very poorly paid one that delivers a service of matching poor quality. That's all the current implementation is meant for: as a highly simplified way to get the player through the basic outline of a run-in procedure. These simplifications are why tons of modules have been infected buy the ass-backwards way of managing laser-guided weapons, where the planes have to have fantasy systems to compensate for the shortcomings and brittleness and incorrect dictates of the JTAC script.

So yes, if it turned into something actually helpful to the flow of the battle, then that would be a huge improvement. Being a hired help is what it's there for.

Edited January 2, 2024 by Tippis

[Thamiel]

1 minute ago, Tippis said:

It is already hired help.

Hired by the OOC mission builder, not the pilot. A JTAC doesn't even answer to the pilot. If anything, a CAS pilot delivers a service to the JTAC and subsequently its CO.

Of course one can complain about the rudimentary implementation of the current AI-JTAC. As I said before, it was meant to give F-5s, M2000Cs, etc. the means to get their GBUs on a target (not chosen by the pilot). It was not meant to deliver a sitrep or to manage a nicely organized CAS stack. It wasn't even meant to give you a complete 9-line. I get it, one can complain about that. I might add, that the costs and ressources to implement all that functionality would probably outweigh the final results, so instead we are stuck with an economical approximation, but then again, you dont have to go with that.

What you cant do is to build a redforce on the ground, complain about its strength and the impossibility to tackle it to your liking and therefore make demands/propositions to the devs to expand the functionality of an DCS aspect (said AI-JTAC) to make things easier just for you and regardless if that expansion could still be considered as an instance of its former role. To me, that looks like a purely self-serving argument.

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, Thamiel said:

Hired by the OOC mission builder, not the pilot.

Not even. That's the problem: the mission builder has very little control over the JTAC, and giving any control to anyone, including the pilot would be an infinite improvement. They'd need slightly different controls, sure, but still — either would improve things to no end. And that's before we get into the whole “battlefield commander's intent” part, where a completely different player than those two would need to given controls they don't have.

 

3 hours ago, Thamiel said:

As I said before, it was meant to give F-5s, M2000Cs, etc. the means to get their GBUs on a target (not chosen by the pilot).

Not really. It was meant to give the A-10 the means to run through a very rough and inaccurate outline of the procedure to run in on a target. The F-5s, M2k etc all came later and exposed how backwards and wrongheaded JTAC was, since it would dictate to you what laser code you should use. Which, as that whole business was done correctly for those modules, meant that JTAC didn't actually work properly with those planes. It only works (and I'm being very generous here, given how easily it breaks) with the A-10, and some later modules, that all model the whole thing incorrectly.

 

3 hours ago, Thamiel said:

What you cant do is to build a redforce on the ground, complain about its strength and the impossibility to tackle it to your liking and therefore make demands/propositions to the devs to expand the functionality of an DCS aspect (said AI-JTAC) to make things easier just for you and regardless if that expansion could still be considered as an instance of its former role.

Sure you can.

Because in one fell swoop, you expose just about everything that is wrong with the current system and why it needs to be ripped out by the root and replaced with something useful. As it happens, part of that usefulness (especially in light of the slow movement towards more continuous, not-just-a-single-flight — to say nothing of larger-scale campaign — experiences) can only really be served by giving the means to offer the player a level of control that, realistically, perhaps they shouldn't have, but which needs to be there. With CA, players are already more than pilots, and that's all fine and good. They (and also the mission makers creating content for them) just need to have the tools and options available to them to actually make use of what's available. It's just a matter of implementation how that control is afforded, be it via F10-map unit controls or via radio commands or via some other mechanism. But ultimately, it needs to be there.

If the level of control bothers you, then the game already offers the ability to take it away — role restrictions, unit control restrictions, and CA control options in general, can be set with checkboxes. Too-much-control-problem solved. If it doesn't bother you, then having the option is almost by very definition better than not having the option.

Thus: it is already something that it shouldn't be. Any change to it — I'm tempted to even include its complete removal — will make it better.

 

e: In fact, let me break it down to make it less abstract and show why I hold this position.

On the one hand, I can have

• Inaccurately modelled planes, carrying
• Inaccurately modelled weapons
  to accommodate
• Inaccurately modelled JTAC that offers no real interaction and can't be controlled.

On the other hand, I could have

• Accurately modelled planes, carrying
• Accurately modelled weapons
  but to accommodate those, I would need
• Inaccurately modelled JTAC, but it is interactive and can be controlled.

I can see no cogent reason why the former should be preferable over the latter, even if the latter meant I had a bit too much influence over the JTAC rather than the other way around.

Edited January 2, 2024 by Tippis

[Thamiel]

18 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That's the problem: the mission builder has very little control over the JTAC[..]

That is not a problem of the JTAC functionality, but of almost every aspect of the mission editor if you exclude .lua level.

As far as the F-5 and M2k modules are concerned, a GBU is just another iron bomb and dropped as one. That includes the setup of the laser code by the ground crew. Of course, a JTAC on the other hand should be able to setup his designator accordingly (and many other things too). Again, its an economical approximation, it is incomplete, so what?

32 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Because in one fell swoop, you expose just about everything that is wrong with the current system and why it needs to be ripped out by the root and replaced with something useful.

And there is the major reason why this will never happen: its a running system. You dont change it by ripping out even one single root. This is not a well documented software package, it is the result of many devteams contributing and tinkering over many years. Otherwise, ED would not be months and years behind simple bugs like TACAN functionality or similar core issues used by the majority of modules. Why on earth would ED even think about quality if it doesn't pay?

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Thamiel said:

That is not a problem of the JTAC functionality

Sure it is. Just because similar issues exist elsewhere doesn't mean it's not a problem with the incorrect JTAC implementation.

 

1 hour ago, Thamiel said:

Again, its an economical approximation, it is incomplete, so what?

It's not just incomplete. It's inaccurate in a way that infects the accuracy of the things that are supposed to be the one thing the game gets right: the aircraft modules. Arguably, it's not even an approximation because of how wrong it is.

And if you're going to go “so what” about that, then you've just pulled the rug out from under your own objection. Even if it would be “a major shift of the JTAC role, normally a facilitator of air strikes on behalf of his CO” to allow player control over the JTAC (thereby giving it the ability to prioritise targets and execute some kind of intent)… so what?

 

1 hour ago, Thamiel said:

And there is the major reason why this will never happen: its a running system. You dont change it by ripping out even one single root.

You do when it becomes clear that there's nothing there to salvage. I suppose some of the samples could be retained…

[upyr1]

On 1/1/2024 at 3:54 PM, SharpeXB said:

I would think that in DCS any improvements in the game features should be to make them more realistic. The ability to request different weapons in the comms flow fits that. But trying to turn the JTAC into something it’s not IRL doesn’t. 

That is the reason the JTAC needs to change their laser codes. That is what they do in real life 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

That is the reason the JTAC needs to change their laser codes. That is what they do in real life 

Of course that would make sense in DCS obviously. 

[Thamiel]

12 hours ago, Tippis said:

And if you're going to go “so what” about that, then you've just pulled the rug out from under your own objection. Even if it would be “a major shift of the JTAC role, normally a facilitator of air strikes on behalf of his CO” to allow player control over the JTAC (thereby giving it the ability to prioritise targets and execute some kind of intent)… so what?

Incompleteness is no excuse to go for something completely different. If it says JTAC on the box, i would like to have one inside. But this concept goes both ways: it is defined by a certain functionality and certain limits. A convenient pink rabbit hopping out of it would not be a suitable substitution even if he is planning the engagement for you or let you decide in which colour to dress.

 

12 hours ago, Tippis said:

You do when it becomes clear that there's nothing there to salvage.

No, you dont. All ED can do by now is to build on top and to hope, the x+ year old foundations wont crack by the weight of it. That is why most updates eat up more and more system ressources. That is why they are so cautious and take so much time changing things in the core. They build on top. Going into the depths of the code is expensive and risky because it not only affects you but potentially all other devteams and their modules. For instance, one would think that by now well documented interfaces exist to manage and implement all radio based services (Radio, Radar, Tacan, VOR, NDB, LinkXY, JTAC,...) and their invariable restrictions (LOS, range, signal degradation,...) readily available to all third party developers. Still, bugs keep on coming in these areas.

So I agree, there is not much left in the current AI-JTAC functionality to be salvaged, it is incomplete, it shows its age, it is an excuse of a JTAC. But it is running. There is no replacement for it because development would cost and risk more and generate less added value than what little we have now for sure. Otherwise, there would be on to it. Afaik they dont.

Edited January 3, 2024 by Thamiel

[Silver_Dragon]

If I remember correctly, the DCS JTAC appeared with the A-10C, even before any 3rd Party appeared.

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please keep it civil, if you can not please do not post, also keep other sims out of the discussion

thank you 

[Dragon1-1]

What we need is a proper, organic air support control system, with modern voiceovers and the ability to react to the situation. The current JTAC implementation is inadequate, the only weapons that can change their laser code in the air are LMAVs and LJDAMs. It chooses targets somewhat at random, and doesn't really consider the threat environment.

With DC incoming, we can no longer rely on static JTAC being up to the task, because it won't be static. Also, you guys missed one particular point in the discussion: we have a Phantom incoming! It served both as a FAC (fast FACs like Misty, Wolf and Falcon) and, quite famously, under control of many a FAC. So, we need realistic FACs.  

As for the authority, I imagine there could be some discussion on the radio, but at least in Vietnam, FAC had the ultimate authority on authorizing a strike. Yes, the pilot who checks out the airplane has the authority over the bombs, but FAC has the authority over the strike. If the pilot gave him too much static, the FAC could and did send him back to base with bombs still under the wings. They were often junior officers, flying O-1s and O-2s (we need them in DCS, as AI if nothing else), but they had the authority to do that and it didn't look good on any Phantom jock's resume when they did. From what I've heard, JTACs today have the same kind of authority, even if they're enlisted. They can't force a pilot to drop, but the pilot can't drop without their permission, either. That's the idea of positive control, that's central to how those ops are ran.

I'd suggest a simple heuristic as to what gets dropped. Evaluate the warhead's blast radius and weapon guidance method. For example, the FAC has you go in with GBU-12 and you want to go with -10, that's a negat, because the latter has a larger blast radius. As for the seeker, moving targets can get laser or imaging (Mavs, Walleyes), static targets get any type of guidance. So, for a moving target, you could "trade" a GBU-10 for a Walleye, but not for a GBU-31. You'll also get a negat if you ask him to change a guided strike to unguided, but he'll approve the other way around. CBU runs can't be changed, and for rockets, you can only substitute a different type of rocket. This is fairly logical, transparent and should be simple to implement algorithmically.

[Silver_Dragon]

Honestly, there is enough open information available to do a improved JTAC and make them realistic, the problem is the same as always, lack of time, resources and fix the old functionality. I am also a supporter of make them more realism, I am not interested in fantastic and unrealistic implementations. Although implementing the laser code change in the JTAC would be little to speak of as an improvement.

 

Edited January 3, 2024 by Silver_Dragon

[buur]

Maybe start thinking about small improvements which are not so hard to implement.

I'm thinking here about more simple task like the possibility to set IPs to the JTAC and not a "random" IP from the in-transparent programming.

Or that we can define a game plan, if BOC or BOT.

Or that the JTAC is heard from all players in multiplayer.

Or that the IPs are marked on the kneeboard.

That should be not so difficult und show us players that there is the will from ED to improve the JTAC.

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, Thamiel said:

Incompleteness is no excuse to go for something completely different

Again, it's not incomplete. It's outright wrong. That is the only excuse you need to change it to something completely different, i.e. something that is right. You're not getting what's on the box at the moment, and worse than that: because this thing isn't what it says it is, all those other planes also end up not being what it says on the box.

So yes, changing it into something completely different — namely a functional and reasonably accurate JTAC — is the right way to go.

The control issue that annoyed you is merely a player convenience in all of that: the AI will always be stupid. Making it possible for a player (be it in a commander role or directly from the aircraft, and again, there's already a way to lock out and separate those two roles and functions) to dictate what gets hit and what gets deprioritised might not be according to doctrine, but it is in accordance with good gameplay and useful mission design.

2 hours ago, Thamiel said:

No, you dont.

Sure you do. Sometimes the bathwater turns out to be reactor coolant and the baby is already lost.

Junk needs to go. The longer it lingers, the longer it stinks up the place. Again, we have already seen this effect in how the antedeluvian JTAC code has made a bunch of planes — even very recent ones — inaccurate for no good reason. Building on top of this junk pile will only ever create more junk. It has already happened and keeps happening. There is exactly two salvageable components: the lasing functionality (which is already fully detached from the JTAC function so nothing is lost there anyway) and a handful of voice clips.

This would also offer them an opportunity to go through and optimise the whole thing and make it ready for everything else that is to come, such as the aforementioned dynamic campaign. It was built for a single function with no real eye to the future. It was overburdened from the get-go.

 

Oh, and no, it's not really running. There's a reason why there are numerous JTAC scripting packages out there: because you simply cannot rely on the built-in JTAC to work for anything but the most basic single attack with the most compliant player. And that's not what people want from their missions these days. Again, it's a very simplistic script that cannot handle the dynamic situation it's intended to handle, and any deviation from that script on the player's part breaks and locks up the whole thing. You can't LShift+R a dynamic multiplayer mission just because you accidentally missed a step and now the JTAC won't give you the time of day for the rest of time.

At a minimum, allowing the player to break in and reset that script — i.e. telling the JTAC what to do because it's not smart enough to do it on its own — would alleviate a heap of problems. It's still junk that keeps infesting other modules, though, so that's just kicking the can a few inches further down the road.

No-one is saying that this wouldn't be a pretty significant task to undertake. In fact, that's fundamentally the whole problem: this is a function that was made incorrectly from the start and which has caused other modules to be made inaccurately. If a revamp is done at all (and it must be done at some point) it needs to be done from the very core, uprooting every darned silly thing the nonsensical JTAC code has imposed on other modules so that those modules can finally be made to work properly.

It will be scary, yes, but so was multithreading.

39 minutes ago, buur said:

I'm thinking here about more simple task like the possibility to set IPs to the JTAC and not a "random" IP from the in-transparent programming.

…

Or that the IPs are marked on the kneeboard.

This actually already exists. They're not used much because they only really work with the A-10 (again showing how ancient all of this is). Part of that is because only the A-10 has a nav system capable of holding all that extra information, and part of it is because other planes handle IPs differently (eg the VRP and VIP modes in the F-16 or the different types of attack points in the Viggen). There's also the issue that, as other modules have come out and desperately tried to avoid dealing with that old stuff, they have implemented semi-duplicate functions in the form of per-flight mark points or target points or whatever-points to feed into their systems in a sensible way. And of course, none of that interacts in any way with other modules or with the game world, so the IP function has gotten pushed even further into obscurity over time.

The level of pre-programmability varies and that makes it difficult to generalise, but yes, showing some of them on the map would be a good first step. As long as you could dictate which ones should show and/or for which flight.

But that also highlights the problem: it's something that would have to be expanded to every module out there, and that's no longer a simple task. Especially since it would need to optionally override, sit alongside, or just outright replace some of the flight programming that's made in the mission editor. And honestly, if anything, that functionality should probably be tied into a much larger unified DTC functionality, which as luck would have it would also solve the issue of having umpteen different ways of setting laser codes and other weapon ground parameters.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Honestly, there is enough open information available to do a improved JTAC and make them realistic, the problem is the same as always, lack of time, resources and fix the old functionality. I am also a supporter of make them more realism, I am not interested in fantastic and unrealistic implementations. Although implementing the laser code change in the JTAC would be little to speak of as an improvement.

 

 

I'd also love to see ED work on Forward observer functionality as well. Right now DCS artillery is flat-out horrible. 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I'd also love to see ED work on Forward observer functionality as well. Right now DCS artillery is flat-out horrible. 

DCS Artillery, never has been implemented with a FO realistic. The CA funtionality comming about a old ED professional product to UK Army JTAC destock Trainer, aproved to release. Build a realistic FO, require start from scratch, and has many artillery funtionality missing actualy on DCS.

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

DCS Artillery, never has been implemented with a FO realistic. The CA funtionality comming about a old ED professional product to UK Army JTAC destock Trainer, aproved to release. Build a realistic FO, require start from scratch, and has many artillery funtionality missing actualy on DCS.

True we never had it, which is why it needs to be built.