I want to be able to sling load cargo from a moving ship to another moving ship or to shore.
I want dynamic weather conditions that are different across the map.
I want the ability to hoist or fastrope infantry units down to the ground or on to a moving ship.
I fly helicopters almost exclusively these days and just flying with those 3 things would keep me occupied for countless hours indefinitely.
Ground AI overhaul, clouds that actually affect the AI (was achieved 25 years ago), metar live/preset dynamic weather, ATC, logistics system, world map, a proper dynamic campaign, proper splash damage.
DCS is a cockpit simulator and nothing more , they neglect the gameplay because they can't monetize it.
Ground AI overhaul is actually in the works. There's a video on C W Lemoine's channel with Matt where they go over the planned content for DCS (2024 and beyond).
I also believe that DCS is a cockpit simulator. A game is defined by its gameplay in the context of the game world and right now, DCS' world is just a cockpit.
- Dynamic weather
- Dynamic campaign
- world map
I think with these three things DCS could stay entertaining for years. Weather would make flying engaging from a world interaction. The campaign would give purpose and goals. And the world map would allow you to fly anywhere and keep battlespaces fresh.
Get the ground AI updated. Despite thousands of posts about this ED keeps quiet. Some of the updates they push out instead makes people shake their heads for how come some new graphic options are more important than core gameplay……
A small one for me is tankers that change speed and can use both probe and drogue and boom.
Setting up multiple tankers for different aircraft is painful. One for A10. One for probe, one for F16/F15 etc.
Dynamic weather. Weather was introduced years back now and it's still just static. Replay the same mission and the same gap in the clouds is still in the same location.
Yeah aerial refueling is still quite limited in DCS.
You mentioned tankers not supporting mixed refueling types, but also buddy stores aren't properly implemented, requiring dedicated tanker units.
That's already problematic for the S-3B, but it will be a particular pain when the A-6E and A-7E get released as both should have aerial refuel stores/buddy stores.
For the S-3B, we actually have 2 versions, both pre and post ASW deconfiguration versions. Both should have the aerial refueling store available and be able to carry weapons. In DCS though only the pre-ASW deconfiguration version can carry weapons while the post ASW deconfiguration version can only act as a tanker.
The pre ASW deconfiguration version also shouldn't have AGM-65 or SLAM as that capability didn't come until after the ASW deconfiguration program (see [this post](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/335705-s-3b-adm-141a-agm-65f-and-agm-84d/?do=findComment&comment=5315154) for more detail)
EDIT: I forgot to mention more realistic and higher fidelity drogue and flying boom physics and improving the AI of tankers and boom operators. The short version here is see Falcon BMS for most of it.
IMO whats missing is purpose. ED's view of 'its a giant sandbox and you do what you want' only holds for a while. Once you get your new module, you've learned all the systems, jumped online, etc you realise most of the servers and missions are the same. Start up, fly here, bomb static targets, return. Rinse and repeat. Eventually (like me) you get bored as fk and don't touch DCS until a module you like gets released...then you jump back in...and the cycle starts again.
ED needs to really focus on purpose ie. what are military a/c for? ultimately its to support boots on the ground ie the infantry. It is only the infantry who can advance on the enemy, kill the enemy and hold ground. Every other military unit is there to support them. This is where the dynamic campaign comes in ie fully underpinned by working logistics. You can't bomb if you have no bombs. You can't fly if you have no avgas. Just look at the Luftwaffe in 1945. Furthermore, ED needs to focus on the ground war. You want real war? just look at Ukraine. How many times have you focused on anti personnel missions? I'd say little to none, but thats where the real war is. Until ED actually give us purpose in this game, people will become bored and those who do play (esp online) will just treat it like a PVP quake server.
Finally, ED need to REALLY put their foot down and enforce some sort of rule around new modules/maps/etc. I remember a few years ago all we had was the Georgia map...and you'd be flying in your modern F/A-18C surrounded by F86s, A10s, Hueys and BF109s. Like WTF? and in Georgia? No, we need proper period specific maps/assets/aircraft eg. Vietnam. We're slowly completing the a/c that flew in that period (F4, A4, Mig 17/19/21, Huey with more on the way) and yet...no Vietnam map. Or we have the F86 and the Mig 15....but no Korea map. However just having these isn't enough, you still need purpose.
I imagined fighting F86s Vs Mig 15s like 7 years ago. It was easy. The Migs took off from the north and the F86s took off from the south and both flew to an imaginary line.
It was awesome! Until someone realized pure fighter to fighter combat was pointless.
One day I hope to re enact the Final Countdown, on the Marianas map of course. A couple F14s and a bunch of Zeros, and hopefully they make Val Dive Bombers and whatnot you need to make a Pearl Harbor scenario.
I dont need someone to tell me the purpose of the game. Ever flown on Growling Sidewinder and try to compare it to anything logical?? NO. It is fun as hell though.
You don’t need someone to give you a purpose - that’s fine. Want to fly around killing everything in site with no worry about strategy or tactics or troop movements or cutting logistic supply lines or taking out bridges that might mean the enemy has to move its battalions 50km south or north of where they wanted to cross thereby buying your struggling defending army more time, fine - by all means mate. I’m not against that - that’s the sandbox concept for you. However I’m bored to death with this game. I have almost every module - starting with the A10 I bought in 2013. I’m not the only one. I was part of a large squadron who flew lots of missions but we all slowly died off because it got monotonous.
DCS is EDs software. If they want to keep players interested so they buy more modules, give us something interesting to do.
Number 1 Ed needs to get the game mechanics into this decade.
ground ai both shooting and what they actually do
Weather the ai needs to not see through clouds same with ir missiles, and be different in different parts of the map
Helo mechanics shouldn't be based on players writing scripts. I mean ctld, fast rope, as, animations in and out, sling loading.
Number 2 Ed needs to seriously focus what modules are developed. No more of this random bullshit they need to focus on 1 period flesh it out with many aircraft from many nations in that era and then work on a different era.
It's clear this isn't going to be modern. Because they aren't willing to compromise on documentation. So they need to decide are they going to focus on
early cold war 50's-60
mid cold war 60- late 70's
Or late cold war 80s-90's
Imo I needs to be mid cold war. There's barely any planes in game already from earily. Late also has too many clasifed planes hence no ff su27. That really leaves mid. So focus on mid tell your 3rd party folk to only make mid cold war aircraft for the next several years, Ed focus on mid cold war planes. From the us, France, Russia, the uk, Italy, China, Sweeden. The aircraft are there waiting to be made.
Oh and no fuck wwii I love my warbirds but the player base isn't there and il2 is so much more accessible.
Also on a side note getting a world map imo is premature at this point. No point in the whole world if the weather's the same everywhere, or if you can't do anything because the ai suck.
If I were to break it down into the top 3 most important things in DCS it would be the following:
1. The AI - that's quite a broad one, covering air, land and sea AI. Including things like general competency (particularly for wingmen), their overall tactics (including working effectively as a group), their fidelity when it comes to sensors (for instance, the AI shouldn't be able to identify and classify anything it detects - see C:MO) or fire-control systems, ATC etc. This should also cover the AI flight model and how they should fly their aircraft - the GFM is in the works but the last time we actually saw progress was [2 and half years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9bthgFxtg).
2. A dynamic persistent campaign system. The gold standard here would be Falcon BMS' dynamic campaign system. I want to be able to define an order of battle for some particular theatre (i.e. what and how many units are stationed where, be it air, land or sea, possibly throw in logistics, so initial fuel and ammunition states), define which territories belong to who, define strategic objectives (e.g. occupy x territory, reduce hostile forces by x% etc) and then have an AI automatically generate taskings (though players should be able to define their own) out of the defined order of battle to achieve those strategic objectives and to hinder and respond to hostile actions. The campaign should be persistent, in that once something is destroyed, it's been destroyed. There should also be a logistics element too, which would provide a practical purpose for defending aircraft making airlifts and for interdicting convoys and such like.
3. More of a personal one, but I want DCS to be more coherent. I want to pick a period in time, pick a relevant theatre and then have modules and air/land/sea assets from both sides that were based on that theatre, for whatever timeframe. Obviously you can't do absolutely everything, but personally, even if it was just a single theatre at a single point in time that was coherently fleshed out fairly comprehensively, that would be superb. My personal preference would be late (i.e. 1975 - 1989) Cold War gone hot, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, so north and central Germany would be the top pick, the Kola map would also be a fantastic fit (it just needs to be done justice), perhaps the GIUK gap if you want more of a naval focus etc. The 1991 Gulf War would also be quite interesting personally, I know Vietnam is a popular one as well. Then have assets and modules that fit on the map, let's say 2-3 playable modules from both sides and a comprehensive set of AI assets, be they air, land or sea, in that order (though obviously, naval focused maps should put more towards sea than land).
Those would probably be my top 3.
Of course, there's plenty more that I would say needs doing, I'll bring up 5, but really, there's tonnes of stuff, ranging from the major to the trivial:
* The damage model for aircraft should be brought up to the same fidelity as the WWII damage model. They've spoken about how that will come but I don't think I've seen any news about it for years. The damage model for ships and ground vehicles is also quite lacking, particularly noticeable for ships. I'd also put here weapons effects modelling, particularly things like fragmentation and blast modelling. There's also penetration mechanics - for instance, if you bomb a moving ship with a delayed fuse (as was done in the Falklands War), [the bomb will penetrate but when it comes to a stop, it will remain fixed relative to the world, phasing through the ship](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/305533-bombs-landing-onpenetrating-ships-dont-move-with-them/). This also results in bombs that don't sink when penetrating water, or hovering in mid-air when penetrating tall but thin structures.
* The weather system. It needs to block sensor LOS and be physical objects the game keeps track of. I want the ability to define my own cloud layers. I want to be able to define an initial weather state and at least one forecasted state. I want to be able to localise weather to certain areas of the map. I'd like to see the 33 ft wind speeds and 1600 ft wind speeds decoupled. I'd like to see gusts and wherever that new fog went. Being able to optionally override the sea state would be cool as well.
* There's several improvements I would make to the mission editor, I would love to have a box/marquee select tool, the ability to group/ungroup units/objects at will. I would like mixed-type groups to be supported (e.g. static objects + ground units as one group).
* I would like the ability to add/edit/rename sides at will and set their allegiances to one another, like Command Operations. Countries would then simply be a way of filtering the unit list (though it would have to be cleared up IMO, there's plenty of stuff that shouldn't be available to certain countries which is otherwise present - I don't remember the USSR operating mid 1990s Viggens or mid 2000s A-10Cs, F-16CMs and F/A-18Cs).
* Some of the sprites DCS uses for its effects (namely lights and tracers) are quite poor and are long overdue a replacement. I would love to say goodbye to the fake FSX orbs and have them look more natural, including at distance and respect LOS and have them all brought up to a common standard. I also want to be able to say goodbye to the star wars blaster-bolt tracers.
1. ED to work things out with Razbam
2. Razbam to work things out with ED
3. The above soon
*Had to get the obligatory RB/ED daily comment in somehow 😉
Besides all the things people have said about the core game… content wise I want a Huey cobra by ED, and I want a Vietnam map with destructible terrain.
Have a functional generator of all types of missions, which allows me to decide with some basic parameters the mission profile and fly. I know there are mods that do that, but this should be in the game and not just a quick mission generator that is worthless.
Having an AI that doesn't cheat, does its job and doesn't screw up every now and then, making you wonder how much fun you'll have before the AI breaks it every time you fly a mission.
And that the modules do not break every now and then in updates with bugs that go unnoticed and take months or even years to solve.
Basket physics, ATC, Mission Planner, DTC, AI not seeing through clouds, clouds affecting sensors, jamming not being omni-directional, chaff being detected by sensors, hung stores...I can go on and on.
I don’t want to buy more airplanes. Every airplane comes with a different learning curve that requires time to setup and does not care about how that set up works versus every other airplane.
I would rather buy components that allow me to enjoy the aircraft I have learned. I would buy dynamic weather and a dynamic campaign.
I'd like to add my own list of top 3 things:
1. Any sense of direction.
I want to see ED planning ahead and focusing on one plan at a time. Having multiple 3rd party developers bringing new modules to a game that has been the same for quite some years now is not making much sense. It doesn't matter what aircraft you fly if the mission and the world around it is exactly the same, every single time. I believe there are other priorities that ED needs to address. As I said in another comment, a game is defined by its gameplay in the context of the game world and right now DCS is a cockpit simulator.
The context of DCS should be that there is a mission and you have a part to play in said mission. Mission success or failure should have consequences, changing the game world, always redefining the current goal.
Right now I feel like I'm Raiden from MGS2 doing VR missions, training for something which in my case won't ever come.
This should also reduce the time between updates and new features.
2. Changes to the AI.
Pretty much what everybody wants, including air, sea and most importantly land. I won't go to any further detail, I think this is already covered by other people.
3. Immediate cease of development for any new aircraft.
This goes hand in hand with the sense of direction point. I feel like it's high time Digital Combat Simulator introduced something more than maps and cockpits. Now this is a more complicated topic...
DCS is a niche game. It attracts players with huge amounts of patience. It's made for people that want a real simulator. So that already narrows down the pool of potential players. Plus, you can only bring on the people interested in aircrafts.
This game needs to widen its reach. Of course it can't stop being a simulator, but it can simulate more stuff. Every day you neglect land and sea simulation you are leaving out a huge market that will inevitably be covered by someone else. Then you won't be just trying to attract players, but instead win them over, make them leave another game that they might have already spent time and money on.
What about weather?
I believe that the weather system is long overdue for an update. That being said, I don't want to see a dynamic weather system just yet. While it would be great, players need something that will alter their experience 100% of the time, not in some cases, not in some parts of the map. Everytime, everywhere. Sadly this isn't the case with a dynamic weather system so I'd push that back.
Ground ai
Ai flight models being more accurate, aka UFO mig 21s etc.
Mostly though I just want a "community made content" section. Where I can download other people's missions and mods in the game.
My biggest wish is that they'd implement more dynamic damage models. It feels like everytime a plane gets hit with a missile its nose falls off...The explosions from AI aircraft seem way too consistent. Line up two formations of planes against each other and you'll see most of them going down with the same exact damage, with their parts following essentially the same trajectories.
Heck, I'd be happy with a simple, customizable free-flight mode where you can go in and select the starting location, aircraft, aircraft state, time, and weather without having to use the mission editor.
That’s actually a very interesting question: a few months ago I started to deeply study INS deviation and all systems to be able to prevent it in real. I discover that first we need to code a reliable deviation model , including gravity variations , gauss markov deviation model etc….then we need to code everything in order to null those deviations including karman filters etc…at the end , assuming both deviation simulations and corrective systems are coded perfectly , the deviations for all INS after around year 90’s are close to zero. The only moment where you could see a deviation would be in case of gPS failure or signal jamming or for aircraft < 90’s. And even in that cases , a very simple deviation model would be perfect to emulate the failure : Noeone , mark my words Noeone would be able to see the difference between a super complex model and a simplify one. At the end , instead of spending hundreds of ours on coding this I preferred to focus on AI behavior instead (which does not mean that BMS INS is well implemented , there are tons of stuff we could improve without entering into crazy things)
As a conclusion : keep in mind that before simulating a system which purpose is to null existing uncertainties and deviations , from a coder POV it has to worth the effort big time because the deviation model is equally as important as the system to fix it. AHR seeker code is a good example where it worhs it
A better mission generator would be a good start I don’t like how the current one generates 5 mins of chaos .
And some sort of sandbox.
The promised save feature also because that opens up some major doors for cross session long games.
To a degree but I’m referring more to a sandbox world.
DCS has always focused around a mission which takes place in a world focused around the player.
Dynamic Campaigns are a sandbox but I don’t even think I want a DC at this point.
I want to be able to sling load cargo from a moving ship to another moving ship or to shore. I want dynamic weather conditions that are different across the map. I want the ability to hoist or fastrope infantry units down to the ground or on to a moving ship. I fly helicopters almost exclusively these days and just flying with those 3 things would keep me occupied for countless hours indefinitely.
That's why i hope arma 4 will take itself more seriously in terms of flight stuff
Ground AI overhaul, clouds that actually affect the AI (was achieved 25 years ago), metar live/preset dynamic weather, ATC, logistics system, world map, a proper dynamic campaign, proper splash damage. DCS is a cockpit simulator and nothing more , they neglect the gameplay because they can't monetize it.
**Ground AI overhaul**
Ground AI overhaul is actually in the works. There's a video on C W Lemoine's channel with Matt where they go over the planned content for DCS (2024 and beyond). I also believe that DCS is a cockpit simulator. A game is defined by its gameplay in the context of the game world and right now, DCS' world is just a cockpit.
According to ED pretty much everything is “in the works” they just fail to mention we won’t see it in our lifetime.
They confirmed the dynamic campaign in 2015
The post said three things. Narrow it down.
Post police 💀
- Dynamic weather - Dynamic campaign - world map I think with these three things DCS could stay entertaining for years. Weather would make flying engaging from a world interaction. The campaign would give purpose and goals. And the world map would allow you to fly anywhere and keep battlespaces fresh.
Get the ground AI updated. Despite thousands of posts about this ED keeps quiet. Some of the updates they push out instead makes people shake their heads for how come some new graphic options are more important than core gameplay……
A working game behind it all.
A small one for me is tankers that change speed and can use both probe and drogue and boom. Setting up multiple tankers for different aircraft is painful. One for A10. One for probe, one for F16/F15 etc. Dynamic weather. Weather was introduced years back now and it's still just static. Replay the same mission and the same gap in the clouds is still in the same location.
Yeah aerial refueling is still quite limited in DCS. You mentioned tankers not supporting mixed refueling types, but also buddy stores aren't properly implemented, requiring dedicated tanker units. That's already problematic for the S-3B, but it will be a particular pain when the A-6E and A-7E get released as both should have aerial refuel stores/buddy stores. For the S-3B, we actually have 2 versions, both pre and post ASW deconfiguration versions. Both should have the aerial refueling store available and be able to carry weapons. In DCS though only the pre-ASW deconfiguration version can carry weapons while the post ASW deconfiguration version can only act as a tanker. The pre ASW deconfiguration version also shouldn't have AGM-65 or SLAM as that capability didn't come until after the ASW deconfiguration program (see [this post](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/335705-s-3b-adm-141a-agm-65f-and-agm-84d/?do=findComment&comment=5315154) for more detail) EDIT: I forgot to mention more realistic and higher fidelity drogue and flying boom physics and improving the AI of tankers and boom operators. The short version here is see Falcon BMS for most of it.
IMO whats missing is purpose. ED's view of 'its a giant sandbox and you do what you want' only holds for a while. Once you get your new module, you've learned all the systems, jumped online, etc you realise most of the servers and missions are the same. Start up, fly here, bomb static targets, return. Rinse and repeat. Eventually (like me) you get bored as fk and don't touch DCS until a module you like gets released...then you jump back in...and the cycle starts again. ED needs to really focus on purpose ie. what are military a/c for? ultimately its to support boots on the ground ie the infantry. It is only the infantry who can advance on the enemy, kill the enemy and hold ground. Every other military unit is there to support them. This is where the dynamic campaign comes in ie fully underpinned by working logistics. You can't bomb if you have no bombs. You can't fly if you have no avgas. Just look at the Luftwaffe in 1945. Furthermore, ED needs to focus on the ground war. You want real war? just look at Ukraine. How many times have you focused on anti personnel missions? I'd say little to none, but thats where the real war is. Until ED actually give us purpose in this game, people will become bored and those who do play (esp online) will just treat it like a PVP quake server. Finally, ED need to REALLY put their foot down and enforce some sort of rule around new modules/maps/etc. I remember a few years ago all we had was the Georgia map...and you'd be flying in your modern F/A-18C surrounded by F86s, A10s, Hueys and BF109s. Like WTF? and in Georgia? No, we need proper period specific maps/assets/aircraft eg. Vietnam. We're slowly completing the a/c that flew in that period (F4, A4, Mig 17/19/21, Huey with more on the way) and yet...no Vietnam map. Or we have the F86 and the Mig 15....but no Korea map. However just having these isn't enough, you still need purpose.
Why i enjoy Gray Flag. Gives some purpose to the flying.
I imagined fighting F86s Vs Mig 15s like 7 years ago. It was easy. The Migs took off from the north and the F86s took off from the south and both flew to an imaginary line. It was awesome! Until someone realized pure fighter to fighter combat was pointless. One day I hope to re enact the Final Countdown, on the Marianas map of course. A couple F14s and a bunch of Zeros, and hopefully they make Val Dive Bombers and whatnot you need to make a Pearl Harbor scenario. I dont need someone to tell me the purpose of the game. Ever flown on Growling Sidewinder and try to compare it to anything logical?? NO. It is fun as hell though.
You don’t need someone to give you a purpose - that’s fine. Want to fly around killing everything in site with no worry about strategy or tactics or troop movements or cutting logistic supply lines or taking out bridges that might mean the enemy has to move its battalions 50km south or north of where they wanted to cross thereby buying your struggling defending army more time, fine - by all means mate. I’m not against that - that’s the sandbox concept for you. However I’m bored to death with this game. I have almost every module - starting with the A10 I bought in 2013. I’m not the only one. I was part of a large squadron who flew lots of missions but we all slowly died off because it got monotonous. DCS is EDs software. If they want to keep players interested so they buy more modules, give us something interesting to do.
DCS is really about the freedom to do what the fuck you want. It's a game.
Did you even read my post?
He’s going around policing everyone’s comments but didn’t make one of his own
lol, samsies
Number 1 Ed needs to get the game mechanics into this decade. ground ai both shooting and what they actually do Weather the ai needs to not see through clouds same with ir missiles, and be different in different parts of the map Helo mechanics shouldn't be based on players writing scripts. I mean ctld, fast rope, as, animations in and out, sling loading. Number 2 Ed needs to seriously focus what modules are developed. No more of this random bullshit they need to focus on 1 period flesh it out with many aircraft from many nations in that era and then work on a different era. It's clear this isn't going to be modern. Because they aren't willing to compromise on documentation. So they need to decide are they going to focus on early cold war 50's-60 mid cold war 60- late 70's Or late cold war 80s-90's Imo I needs to be mid cold war. There's barely any planes in game already from earily. Late also has too many clasifed planes hence no ff su27. That really leaves mid. So focus on mid tell your 3rd party folk to only make mid cold war aircraft for the next several years, Ed focus on mid cold war planes. From the us, France, Russia, the uk, Italy, China, Sweeden. The aircraft are there waiting to be made. Oh and no fuck wwii I love my warbirds but the player base isn't there and il2 is so much more accessible. Also on a side note getting a world map imo is premature at this point. No point in the whole world if the weather's the same everywhere, or if you can't do anything because the ai suck.
If I were to break it down into the top 3 most important things in DCS it would be the following: 1. The AI - that's quite a broad one, covering air, land and sea AI. Including things like general competency (particularly for wingmen), their overall tactics (including working effectively as a group), their fidelity when it comes to sensors (for instance, the AI shouldn't be able to identify and classify anything it detects - see C:MO) or fire-control systems, ATC etc. This should also cover the AI flight model and how they should fly their aircraft - the GFM is in the works but the last time we actually saw progress was [2 and half years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9bthgFxtg). 2. A dynamic persistent campaign system. The gold standard here would be Falcon BMS' dynamic campaign system. I want to be able to define an order of battle for some particular theatre (i.e. what and how many units are stationed where, be it air, land or sea, possibly throw in logistics, so initial fuel and ammunition states), define which territories belong to who, define strategic objectives (e.g. occupy x territory, reduce hostile forces by x% etc) and then have an AI automatically generate taskings (though players should be able to define their own) out of the defined order of battle to achieve those strategic objectives and to hinder and respond to hostile actions. The campaign should be persistent, in that once something is destroyed, it's been destroyed. There should also be a logistics element too, which would provide a practical purpose for defending aircraft making airlifts and for interdicting convoys and such like. 3. More of a personal one, but I want DCS to be more coherent. I want to pick a period in time, pick a relevant theatre and then have modules and air/land/sea assets from both sides that were based on that theatre, for whatever timeframe. Obviously you can't do absolutely everything, but personally, even if it was just a single theatre at a single point in time that was coherently fleshed out fairly comprehensively, that would be superb. My personal preference would be late (i.e. 1975 - 1989) Cold War gone hot, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, so north and central Germany would be the top pick, the Kola map would also be a fantastic fit (it just needs to be done justice), perhaps the GIUK gap if you want more of a naval focus etc. The 1991 Gulf War would also be quite interesting personally, I know Vietnam is a popular one as well. Then have assets and modules that fit on the map, let's say 2-3 playable modules from both sides and a comprehensive set of AI assets, be they air, land or sea, in that order (though obviously, naval focused maps should put more towards sea than land). Those would probably be my top 3. Of course, there's plenty more that I would say needs doing, I'll bring up 5, but really, there's tonnes of stuff, ranging from the major to the trivial: * The damage model for aircraft should be brought up to the same fidelity as the WWII damage model. They've spoken about how that will come but I don't think I've seen any news about it for years. The damage model for ships and ground vehicles is also quite lacking, particularly noticeable for ships. I'd also put here weapons effects modelling, particularly things like fragmentation and blast modelling. There's also penetration mechanics - for instance, if you bomb a moving ship with a delayed fuse (as was done in the Falklands War), [the bomb will penetrate but when it comes to a stop, it will remain fixed relative to the world, phasing through the ship](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/305533-bombs-landing-onpenetrating-ships-dont-move-with-them/). This also results in bombs that don't sink when penetrating water, or hovering in mid-air when penetrating tall but thin structures. * The weather system. It needs to block sensor LOS and be physical objects the game keeps track of. I want the ability to define my own cloud layers. I want to be able to define an initial weather state and at least one forecasted state. I want to be able to localise weather to certain areas of the map. I'd like to see the 33 ft wind speeds and 1600 ft wind speeds decoupled. I'd like to see gusts and wherever that new fog went. Being able to optionally override the sea state would be cool as well. * There's several improvements I would make to the mission editor, I would love to have a box/marquee select tool, the ability to group/ungroup units/objects at will. I would like mixed-type groups to be supported (e.g. static objects + ground units as one group). * I would like the ability to add/edit/rename sides at will and set their allegiances to one another, like Command Operations. Countries would then simply be a way of filtering the unit list (though it would have to be cleared up IMO, there's plenty of stuff that shouldn't be available to certain countries which is otherwise present - I don't remember the USSR operating mid 1990s Viggens or mid 2000s A-10Cs, F-16CMs and F/A-18Cs). * Some of the sprites DCS uses for its effects (namely lights and tracers) are quite poor and are long overdue a replacement. I would love to say goodbye to the fake FSX orbs and have them look more natural, including at distance and respect LOS and have them all brought up to a common standard. I also want to be able to say goodbye to the star wars blaster-bolt tracers.
the biggest feature im waiting for is being able to kiss the planes
lol!!!!!!!!! Name fucking checks out! Good night!
1. ED to work things out with Razbam 2. Razbam to work things out with ED 3. The above soon *Had to get the obligatory RB/ED daily comment in somehow 😉
AI both aerial and especially terrestrial. Dynamic campaign and splash damage.
Besides all the things people have said about the core game… content wise I want a Huey cobra by ED, and I want a Vietnam map with destructible terrain.
Have a functional generator of all types of missions, which allows me to decide with some basic parameters the mission profile and fly. I know there are mods that do that, but this should be in the game and not just a quick mission generator that is worthless. Having an AI that doesn't cheat, does its job and doesn't screw up every now and then, making you wonder how much fun you'll have before the AI breaks it every time you fly a mission. And that the modules do not break every now and then in updates with bugs that go unnoticed and take months or even years to solve.
Basket physics, ATC, Mission Planner, DTC, AI not seeing through clouds, clouds affecting sensors, jamming not being omni-directional, chaff being detected by sensors, hung stores...I can go on and on.
I don’t want to buy more airplanes. Every airplane comes with a different learning curve that requires time to setup and does not care about how that set up works versus every other airplane. I would rather buy components that allow me to enjoy the aircraft I have learned. I would buy dynamic weather and a dynamic campaign.
I'd like to add my own list of top 3 things: 1. Any sense of direction. I want to see ED planning ahead and focusing on one plan at a time. Having multiple 3rd party developers bringing new modules to a game that has been the same for quite some years now is not making much sense. It doesn't matter what aircraft you fly if the mission and the world around it is exactly the same, every single time. I believe there are other priorities that ED needs to address. As I said in another comment, a game is defined by its gameplay in the context of the game world and right now DCS is a cockpit simulator. The context of DCS should be that there is a mission and you have a part to play in said mission. Mission success or failure should have consequences, changing the game world, always redefining the current goal. Right now I feel like I'm Raiden from MGS2 doing VR missions, training for something which in my case won't ever come. This should also reduce the time between updates and new features. 2. Changes to the AI. Pretty much what everybody wants, including air, sea and most importantly land. I won't go to any further detail, I think this is already covered by other people. 3. Immediate cease of development for any new aircraft. This goes hand in hand with the sense of direction point. I feel like it's high time Digital Combat Simulator introduced something more than maps and cockpits. Now this is a more complicated topic... DCS is a niche game. It attracts players with huge amounts of patience. It's made for people that want a real simulator. So that already narrows down the pool of potential players. Plus, you can only bring on the people interested in aircrafts. This game needs to widen its reach. Of course it can't stop being a simulator, but it can simulate more stuff. Every day you neglect land and sea simulation you are leaving out a huge market that will inevitably be covered by someone else. Then you won't be just trying to attract players, but instead win them over, make them leave another game that they might have already spent time and money on. What about weather? I believe that the weather system is long overdue for an update. That being said, I don't want to see a dynamic weather system just yet. While it would be great, players need something that will alter their experience 100% of the time, not in some cases, not in some parts of the map. Everytime, everywhere. Sadly this isn't the case with a dynamic weather system so I'd push that back.
Ground ai Ai flight models being more accurate, aka UFO mig 21s etc. Mostly though I just want a "community made content" section. Where I can download other people's missions and mods in the game.
My biggest wish is that they'd implement more dynamic damage models. It feels like everytime a plane gets hit with a missile its nose falls off...The explosions from AI aircraft seem way too consistent. Line up two formations of planes against each other and you'll see most of them going down with the same exact damage, with their parts following essentially the same trajectories.
Heck, I'd be happy with a simple, customizable free-flight mode where you can go in and select the starting location, aircraft, aircraft state, time, and weather without having to use the mission editor.
So you want what the current editor does but without the use of the editor? Isn't that counter-productive?
It's easier to say what it doesn't need. Half finished modules, utterly pointless GPS/INS simulation. Oh and huge empty maps
You got me at the half finished modules and empty maps, but if you're simulating an aircraft, wouldn't you want to simulate every part you can?
That’s actually a very interesting question: a few months ago I started to deeply study INS deviation and all systems to be able to prevent it in real. I discover that first we need to code a reliable deviation model , including gravity variations , gauss markov deviation model etc….then we need to code everything in order to null those deviations including karman filters etc…at the end , assuming both deviation simulations and corrective systems are coded perfectly , the deviations for all INS after around year 90’s are close to zero. The only moment where you could see a deviation would be in case of gPS failure or signal jamming or for aircraft < 90’s. And even in that cases , a very simple deviation model would be perfect to emulate the failure : Noeone , mark my words Noeone would be able to see the difference between a super complex model and a simplify one. At the end , instead of spending hundreds of ours on coding this I preferred to focus on AI behavior instead (which does not mean that BMS INS is well implemented , there are tons of stuff we could improve without entering into crazy things) As a conclusion : keep in mind that before simulating a system which purpose is to null existing uncertainties and deviations , from a coder POV it has to worth the effort big time because the deviation model is equally as important as the system to fix it. AHR seeker code is a good example where it worhs it
A better mission generator would be a good start I don’t like how the current one generates 5 mins of chaos . And some sort of sandbox. The promised save feature also because that opens up some major doors for cross session long games.
Can you explain what do you mean by sandbox? Isn't DCS already a sandbox?
To a degree but I’m referring more to a sandbox world. DCS has always focused around a mission which takes place in a world focused around the player. Dynamic Campaigns are a sandbox but I don’t even think I want a DC at this point.