Leaderboard

Progress Update: Liveries and Exterior Texturing In this update, we’re excited to showcase the latest progress in our texturing work on the T-38A Talon. One of the most distinctive features of this aircraft is the variety in liveries used by its many operators. From the wide range of U.S. Air Force liveries to the vibrant red and white schemes of the Turkish Air Force, each operator has brought its own unique touch to the "dress" of the Talon. At Veco Simulations, we’re committed to meticulously recreating these differences, capturing the essence of each version and the character it brings to the aircraft. Our texturing process involves a layered approach that allows us to build a high level of authenticity into every livery. Structural details like bolts, rivets, and other surface elements are standardized on a dedicated layer, ensuring accuracy and consistency across all liveries. The livery itself sits on a layer sandwiched between these structural details and a weathering layer, allowing for flexibility in creating and modifying liveries without losing detail. The weathering layer, positioned at the very top, is designed to adapt to the full spectrum of liveries, from bright white to deep black. This adaptability is crucial because weathering behaves differently on light versus dark surfaces. For lighter liveries, like those used by the Turkish Air Force and some U.S. Air Force schemes, we’ll incorporate subtle dirt, grime, and wear to give a realistic, lived-in look without overwhelming the brightness of the paint. For darker liveries, we’ll emphasize elements like edge wear and faded patches that stand out against the deeper tones. This approach allows us to capture the unique aging and operational wear seen on Talons across the globe, regardless of the specific color scheme. By establishing this flexible, layered foundation, we aim to make livery creation accessible for the community as well. We believe that customizing the Talon’s iconic look is an integral part of the experience, and we can’t wait to see how the community brings their creativity to this platform. Finally, we’d like to give a huge thank you to our talented livery artist team for their outstanding work and dedication. Their attention to detail and passion for bringing the T-38A’s liveries to life are key to achieving the authenticity we strive for.

The bug is 11 years old at least and affects not just Warbirds but all old planes up to and including 1959 F-5 (reportedly, myself confirmed the bug in F-86. Attention NineLine. Besides the Artificial Horizons (AH) not self-correcting to the gravity vector it also doesn't tumble on roll exceeding 110 degree or pitch exceeding 60. It spins around smoothly 360 degrees and it shouldn't. Compare the AH in a real Spitfire below. Recently discovered this video showing this very clearly again and again and again... Watch the "roll angle" indicator (DCS manual name) along the AH lower instrument periferi. Every time it exceeds ~110 degrees the AH tumbles. This Spitfire just keeps rolling and looping never giving the AH the time it needs (10 minutes?) to self correct. While being and staying "wrong" after the first roll, one can still observe how it tumbles any time the indication reaches 110 degrees to the left or right. The indicator looks like it "bounces back" while the horizontal line rapidly moves up or down. This happens a ~dozen times. Real Spitfire video notes: 0 - 28 seconds. Intro, Chris Hadfield sings (ugh) rolls twice and the AH tumbles because it encounters the mechanical stops at 110 degree roll. 6:35 - 6:50. Engine start. AH at rest is about 45 degree roll misaligned but spins up and self corrects in 15 seconds (much like the P-51 AH here, 12 seconds). 7:41-7:46. Taxiing, Left turn. AH misaligns slightly, 1-2 degrees. This AH error is caused by the centripetal effect on the inertia of the pendulous vanes and the slightly bottom heavy instrument housing (see educational video, timestamp 9:10 - 11:22). 8:25 - 8:35. Taxiing, Left turn. Same thing, more pronounced. 10:28. First roll. Hard to see but at 10:31 when it reaches ~110 degrees it tumbles because of the mechanical stop. When we see it again at 10:34 it's wrong but stable until ... 10:36 when AH again reaches 110 degrees and it tumbles again. Hadley keeps rolling and looping, one can see how the tumble coincide with 110 degree indication again and again. Some of the tumbles caused by 60 degree pitch as well I'm sure. Ed/add: A nice touch would be the AH randomly misaligned on spawn and then rapidly self correct on engine startup (like above and just about every Warbird video engine startup I ever seen...) ~ Adding boilerplate" for Artificial Horizon (AH) bug threads. Old "classic" AH needs minimum two functions to work correctly. DCS AH lacks the second. Hence DCS AH doesn't work at all on any old plane up to and including the F-5. 1. A spinning gyro that provides "rigidity in space". 2. Pendulous vanes that constantly corrects the gyro towards the gravity vector. There's also a third attribute which DCS does not model at all. AH tumbling whenever roll exceeds 110 degrees or pitch exceeds 60 degrees. This because of built-in mechanical stops that protects the mechanism. Source educational video timestamp 02:52. A simple test if any AH works correctly: - Airstart - Bank steeply - Cage, uncage, roll level. - Fly some minutes straight and level. If AH doesn't self correct it doesn't work correctly. If uncageable, like the Spitfire, just do above after noticing misalignment, the AH **always** self-corrects it's part of its basic function. End "boilerplate".

i believe that indeed, your change logs are a testament to your and your colleagues continued hard work on DCS. Few here (at least not I) doubt that you are diligently at work, furthering DCS, shaping the future - and I thank you for that: not just in words, but by purchasing modules, and investing >100 USD a month to host two DCS dedicated servers, and creating missions that I share with others. What can give people pause is not so much the amount of effort that ED invests into bettering DCS, but the focus. It's sometimes difficult to put reason to rhyme when we read that people are working on removable pilot patches and another new map when many of the aircraft I own (yes, I own all of them) are still in EA six years after I purchase them. It's ED's focus of work that becomes an irritant. Shining a light on why (ED is a business) helps to understand; my personal view is that some of your customer's irritation stems from the fact that we don't see what your (ED's) focus is and why. Much of the official communication IMHO doesn't help, and often (for me) exacerbates the issue. There's (for me) too much non-committal, if self-gratulatory talk about features like save-game and dynamic campaigns that, when looked at rationally, would already have arrived a long time ago if it was a focus of ED's aspirations. IMHO, the people at ED are working hard, and like so many people here I show my appreciation by staying a loyal customer. Criticism comes with the territory, and please do not confuse my being critical of your efforts with thinking that you are lazy. I appreciate what you are doing - even if I wish that your efforts were directed more into the direction of fulfilling promises made: I regard each and every EA module that I own as a promise that you made to me to complete, and I intend to hold you to it because I think that you are good for it. Currently, I prefer that you keep your many promises made rather than selling us new, unfulfilled ones. After all, even the greatest of all people can only do so much, and I have many, many products of yours that require ED's fine people's attention. So, thank you for your hard work, and please remember the promises you made.

IMHO that was the only important and strategically relevant point in the entire interview. ED is a business, and their goal is to make money. Since they stick to an one-off (single charge per model versus other income streams) they must sell modules. Which modules sell well? New ones. So ED regularly pumps out new new modules to generate revenue. In the past years, they have more and more shifted to selling their modules at the earliest possible time, well before the product is finished, as "Early Access". Since sales are highest when a module is 'fresh', their sales revenue slumps shortly (some 6 months) after release. Investment into that EA module is withdrawn and invested into the next candidate for high return on investment. Hence the many half-finished modules in ED's catalogue that IMHO slowly start to tarnish their reputation as a quality outfit. If you own a map or module or tech that is still "EA" then there's a high likelihood that it won't improve much 6 months after initial release. Everything else we heard in that 'interview' was irrelevant to me. ED need to make money to pay their investors. Everything else is window dressing. There is no business-related "commitment to product quality" (see half-finished modules still languishing in EA after 6 years), but there is a commitment to profit for their investors, there is commitment to return on investment. That's how businesses are run. ED don't overestimate their development backlog. It's irrelevant for developing the next module, and that is their focus. Look at Afghanistan's schedule slipping while Iraq is being pushed to sales. Don't ask, so ED don't have to be economical with the truth. We all know what is happening, and it is expected as much as predictable. A "fixed price per module" revenue stream tells you all that you need to know. To me, the rest of the interview may well have been titled "please tell me some comforting lies". Yes there are tons of interesting things that could happen. But they won't unless there is a cold, hard business case to support it. And finishing modules, completing maps, improving technology or developing infrastructure (ATC, dynamic campaigns, better ground AI, you name it) simply don't have the numbers. So don't ask Nick to lie to you. We all are old enough to read a business case. So let us be clear-eyed about this: Unless ED change their business model, there's no need for another interview. "Hard questions?" There currently are none. We already know all the answers. We may not like them - but we know all that there is to know.

Currently focus has shifted from Enterprise to other parts of the mod that in need of updates, as well as some new additions. We have a 1960ies version of Enterprise model pending though. We already have low poly version of one, but if possible we will rig the better detailed version. This 1960ies Enterprise will be part of the main Vietnam War Vessels mod. On your suggestion to remove some modernization features on the modern Enterprise to make it better compatible with 80ies version, perfectly possible, but it will take time, months rather than weeks. Background is that any removal has to be redone if we update the modern Enterprise base model, so it's best to get it in a final mode as good as possible. Cheers, TeTeT

That doesn't mean "the P-51 has no torque", which is the stupid thing you said. The P-51 do have torque and it's obviously there every take off, landing and just taxiing on the ground. If you have any real data supporting what you say about that torque roll in that particular situation beyond hearsay, go make a proper bug report or thread with all that data. We will all appreciate the enhancement in the flight model. Otherwise "change it because I say so" is still no proof nor help for anything.

We have no problem with criticism, you don't have to look far to find negative feedback on any of our platforms, Nineline and I spend a lot of time passing everyone's concerns on to management, some people are more vocal than others and will repeat a narrative over and over however, I just hope they also remember to have fun and enjoy what we already have. We wont be able to address every issues in a timely manner, we have to work within our resources, and fix priorities may not match everyone's expectations, but we are working very hard, our change logs show our progress. thanks

Gyro AH not self - correcting in any phase of flight has been a DCS problem for many years and affects all warbirds. Brit ones are just affected the most since they lack cage/uncage AH feature that US and German ones have. We've been recently told it might be reviewed in the future. More info here:

And some updates to the Maddox, provided by James J Jackson. Enjoy the fireworks:

The fact that DC has been talked up for over a decade now and hasn't seen the light of day pretty much puts that hypothesis to rest. Sad truth: there's next to no money in DC. Put another way: if there was an indication that DC would *significantly* increase module sales (sheer player numbers don't count. Player retention doesn't either. ED needs daily module sales), we'd have it by now. DC is viewed by ED as an edge case for a small, albeit vocal, slice of the pie. There may be the occasional investment into DC, and it is definitely going to be talked about -- in glowing terms. Talk's cheap. Delivery is hard. Businesswise, DC won't swim: Take a napkin, jot down an earnest guess how many additional modules ED would sell if DC became part of the DCS package. That's the marginal business value, before subtracting dev cost. Compare that to the number of sales the next hot module will bring (say, a Tornado or Typhoon or other iconic craft), and assume that both share the same dev cost. Nope, dynamic campaigns don't have a chance in hell to get financed. That sad, perhaps ironic, thing is that ED know their Achilles heel, and they said as much in a 2023 interview: DCS suffers from a lack of gaming content, a lack of player engagement. Missions are sterile, there's really nothing for pilots to do beyond training and getting better. A Dynamic Campaign could be giving players something to do, give them purpose. The immense success of quasi-dynamic missions like "Foothold" and "Pretense", where players have some agency and purpose in the overall engagement spotlights the tremendous potential. Yet, although a seismic shift already, that alone won't move the needle far enough -- ED would need to better engage the community, actively support mission creators, server hosts, provide much, much better creation tools, infrastructure, and push the 'story/purpose' mode of DCS. Given ED's IMHO exceedingly low-skilled communication credentials, though, it for me indeed makes more sense to bet on stamping out new, half-baked modules, tech and maps for as long as possible.

Evening folks. Today I received the new chip from Amd and I see people want info on it. I’m no benchmarking expert and only just learned about some benchmarking software so take this with a grain of salt. AMD 9800x3d h115 aio coolet Asus b650 ROG 64gb DDR5 6000 CL30 AMD7900XTX 5120x1440 + 3x winwing mfds reference cpu: 5800x3d. Caucasus flight where I was a little cpu bottlenecked. FPS avg 77->132 Frametimes 13->7.5ms 1% 26->15ms 0.1% 31.7->20.1ms Then upped MSAA from 2x to 4x (frequent gpu capped) FPS AVG 115 1% 63 0.1 47 MS AVG 8.7 1% 15.9 0.1% 21. Until someone comes along with pretty graphs, i can say that i am astounded at these results and can’t believe it’s just the cpu that raised my fps by that much.

Thanks, I'll take a look. I wish. It's up to ED to make missile schemes that allows for these maneuvers. It's going very well. I'm still working on new assets. I'll post a status update soon.

Thank you Slippa for cheering up my day, we are blessed with this community.

Welcome to DCS SSN , and welcome to the vintage prop preservation society. We live in hope, we have to as we don’t really get the care and attention afforded to more modern aircraft. The Spit’s really well done but does have a few things that need sorting out. You’ve pointed out the artificial horizon and 303’s covered this above really well but we just never know when or if we’ll get things like this worked on. A lot of things aren’t even acknowledged for a long time and on the odd occasion that something does get done, we never know if they’ll improve things or make them a lot worse. We’re told the ‘WWII team is very small’. This could mean there are only 25 people from a workforce of 150 on the team but it more than likely means there’s one fella named Mr.Team who is very short and can only code one finger at a time. ED seem to have more balls to juggle than they can manage. Every new module adds more to an ever-growing queue of things vying for attention or fixes. There’s more enthusiasm for fast jets or helis, more sales, so more virtual pilots’ voices to answer to. The ‘small team’ has to choose which to work on next. It’s frustrating having paid for something that doesn’t work as it should. It’s more than frustrating having to argue the case for a repair, sometimes backed up with plenty of evidence and still get nothing done about it. Too many things are left broken for years. Years. That’s just wrong. Every now and then we do get a surprise. A while back somebody noticed that the boost gauge was marked incorrectly. Unless I’m mistaken it was fixed pretty quickly no trouble at all so things can get done. Another surprise was a whole rework of the cockpit interior. Some good things, some not so good. We’ll see how this one goes I s’pose. Enjoy flying it in the meantime.

They were not scripted, Nick was talking very frankly in the interviews. It seems no matter what we do some people will always find a negative to focus on. Its best to push on a do the best we can. thank you

I am giving you the modification to make so that the infantry is transportable again. before in LUA: GT.Transportable = { size = 100 } now you need: GT.Transportable = { size = 100, valid = true } example file edit attached. USInfantry_M82.lua

Thanks. So a six year old bug that affects multiple planes doesn't get fixed? Depressing.

@draconus yes, these objects are just big, we need another parameter for effects or support for small destructions. We hope all this will be. @Red_Dragon That's right. We try to get the maximum quality, without forgetting about your FPS. And imagine what happens when we want to add something new )

Third parties are responsible for the testing of their products, we don't expect ED to test things for us. With the amount of modules, terrains and campaigns in DCS now, it's not practical to expect ED to be able to test every single combination themselves in my opinion. And I completely agree that Ugra can and should keep updating their product, I think the updates to the Syria map have been incredible. We just hope that in future they don't change existing features, but only add new ones, taking into account the impact on products already on sale. H4 airbase has literally moved a few feet on the last update, stuff like that creates huge problems for all mission builders out there.

The PL-12AE air-to-air missile is a medium- and long-range radar air-to-air missile, which has the characteristics of long range, high guidance accuracy and strong anti-jamming ability. It can undertake combat missions of over-the-horizon air combat and is used to attack air targets such as fighters, bombers, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles. The carrier aircraft platforms are Thunder, Raptor, large UAVs, etc.; The launch mode is guide rail, ejection; maximum usable overload 38; Attack range≥ 120km; The guidance mode is strapdown inertial navigation/Beidou satellite combination + two-way data link correction + active radar terminal guidance; The length of the missile is 3939mm, the diameter of the missile is 203mm, and the mass ≤ is 214kg. The PL-15E air-to-air missile is a new model of medium and long-range AAM. It can adapt to the requirements of being carried and used internally or externally by the aircraft and has the characteristics of beyond-visual-range launch, multi-target attack, fire-and-forget, and all-weather use. It has the ability to attack targets such as manned and unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles. Its carrier aircraft platforms include the Xiaolong(JF-17), the Raptor(J-10), and the Gyrfalcon(J-31/35), etc.; the launch methods are external rail and external/internal ejection; the maximum available overload is 40; the attack range is ≥145km; the guidance method is IOG/Beidou satellite combination + two-way data link correction + active radar terminal guidance; the missile length is 3996mm, the missile diameter is 203mm, and the mass is ≤210kg. Information from AVIC. Some added notes, Over PL-12, PL-12A has more range and a new seeker with digital processor and SINS with possible active/passive dual mode added later for better ECCM and kill probability. PL-15E uses an AESA seeker.

It's time for more J-10CE, Zhuhai has given us some incredible up-close imagery of J-10CE.

Great morning Scouting with Kandy. Our mission is close to release in its current state.

Please see updated link to VIVID NORMANDY I have added all new airfields since Normandy map was updated, since DCS 2.9.9.2474 Simply unzip and copy and past the files into C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\terrains\Normandy https://www.mediafire.com/file/2k68xgmoxa715ds/vfstextures.zip/file

Tanker time.

A short Scim update today - I promise to make them slightly more frequent from now on - I will target once a month, but that will vary depending on other commitments. It's been a very busy 10 months since I sat down to write the last update. I now have a full-time job that will let me use my degree, which is obviously taking up more of my time than a part-time gig in a well known German-owned budget supermarket. The good news is that means I have more funds that I can funnel into the Scimitar to get reference material. Just this week (and the reason I have an update at all), I have managed to find some excellent 3D reference that will help kickstart development again. Progress will not be swift, but I am more motivated now the nights are longer and the evenings darker. I hope to be able to provide a better update with some juicy pictures before Christmas.

first 2 missions can't even be played. Didn't bother to try the rest if this is how it starts. 1st mission: couldn't complete because Weasel 11 and 12 land at a different airfield. 2nd mission: can't even get off the ground because nobody starts taxiing after getting clearance for taxi. This is extremely disappointing, I had played other campaigns before for different modules and got fed up with missions being unplayable after every update and then having to wait weeks for it to be fixed, only to be broken again after a week with a new update. I figured I'd try it again with this campaign and it's just more of the same. It's impossible to feel any form of immersion having to skip every mission trying to find one that is not bugged.

the modeling of these AI aircraft are low-quality, maybe it is time to considering some update. It doesn't have to be like F-16 or F-14, but should be somewhere near Su-34 or Su-24, it is 2024 after all, most of them are retired long time ago, even the early version of Su-30, so I assume there won't be a secrecy issue? Anyway it would be nice to have them update.

Hi @materiagris, thanks for telling me, I'll have a look when I have time next.. o7

The two main things ED needs to fix are 1. Core game stuff thats variously either broken, sucky or missing entirely. And thats a long list. 2. Have a consistent set of standards for modules, be that their own stuff thats fallen behind (i.e. F5, F86, huey etc) and update them. But most importantly have a set standard for sensor modeling and it needs to be a high standard. Currently the Razbam M2k and F15 and the Heatblur F4 are the gold standard for radar modeling in DCS, the F16 and 18 are nowhere near it, and the less said about modules like the F5 and mig21 the better but they are in Dire need of updates to bring their radars to the same standard on modeling as the rest of DCS. Honorable poor mention to the F1 radar as well, but at least its being worked on.

Hi, Super Mod! I can't live without it. There is a small problem though. German speech wont work for AWACS call outs. I made a Freya Radar site an AWACS, my pilot asks in german but the answer is in english. The voice files are all there, it is just not using them anymore. Thank you for your work, maybe there is a way to fix this. Super Mod! Unverzichtbar. Es gibt aber leider ein kleines Problem. Die deutsche Sprachausgabe funktioniert nicht mit den AWACS Callouts. Ich habe ein Freya-Radar zur AWCAS gemacht, mein Pilot spricht Deutsch, aber die Antwort kommt auf Englisch. Ich kann sehen, dass Sprachdateien auf Deutsch für den AWCAS vorhanden sind, sie werden nur nicht mehr verwendet. Auf jeden Fall vielen Dank für deine Arbeit, vielleicht kann man das ja irgendwie reparieren. Kind regards,/Mit freundlichen Grüßen Booka42

Torque in this kind of aircraft is mostly yaw effect than roll. This is trim curves for take-off power for P-51 that show very low aileron deflection to trim the plane even near stall. In DCS we can see exactly the same.

If you arm/select both pylons at the same time, the gun takes priority. What I usually do is arm both 1 (rockets) and 2 (cannon) and toggle 2 (cannon) ON and OFF to switch between them.

Komisch. Ich meine, kann ja sein, ich hatte auch schon Hardware, die nicht gemacht hat, was sie sollte. Ich hab mich dann freundlich mit dem Hersteller auseinander gesetzt. Und man hat eigentlich immer eine Lösung gefunden. Andererseits habe ich mit der Moza-Base (zumindest bisher) zu genau der Präzision zurückgefunden, die mir bisher nur mein guter alter MSFFB2 geboten hat. Ich habe gestern noch zu meiner besseren Hälfte gesagt, dass ich meine alte Tante Huey im hover endlich wieder präzise im Griff habe. Dein Problem klingt irgendwie nach einer falschen Kalibrierung. Was hat Moza denn dazu gesagt? Wie ist Deine Erfahrung mit dem Support?

Vielleicht möchtest Du dein Bashing etwas weiter ausführen? Ich meine, ok, ich bin bisher nur kurz probegeflogen und muss mich noch etwas mit der Software und den Settings auseinandersetzen. Aber ich habe bisher weder von der Funktionalität noch von der Haptik oder der Verarbeitung etwas gefunden, das ein solch harsches Urteil rechtfertigt. Ganz im Gegenteil. Zumal es bis vor kurzem noch gar keine FFB-Base mit der Leistung zu dem Preis gab.

^inspired by this^

@currenthillHow is work on the Russian asset going?

That sounds about right. On the other hand, I have the Fishbed and enjoy it very much on the cold war servers. RECOMMENDED

Yes, in five years time. Still, if ever happens, I'll get it.

Of course this is the case. ED is not a philanthropic organisation it is a business run for profit. ALL businesses can expect criticism. If you put yourself out there in the public domain then the public will criticise, that is a given. I agree wholeheartedly with everything @cfrag has said and I imagine both you and @NineLine also agree with much of it, of course neither of you are at liberty to say so as you are employed by ED. It is a mistake for the DCS customer base to think this is some kind of happy, extended family, it is a business. MS released a flagship product 4 years ago, there was a lot of very vocal criticism about the absence of an intuitive replay system, it has taken them nearly 5 years to address that problem...

Beside the JDAM absolute mode not being simulated at this time. The tape number ED is simulating within DCS has no other means then the steerpoint to pass coordinates to the JDAM as a preplanned mode. Basically the engineers decided to stick with the logic of the early models while upgrading. In combination with lack of blast/shrapnel damage. Preplanned JDAM are useless in DCS F-16. You can trick you're way around by forcing JDAM relative mode by using the TGP and updating the target coordinates. The DCS F-16 is therefore useless in cloudy conditions. Especially compared to other aircraft the viper feels handicapped. In general I am happy with the realistic behaviour of TGP and INS. But the way they implemented the absolute mode but not the relative mode for just the F-16 I think they screwed up. Either implement it together for every aircraft or not.

First of all, your logic game is weak. Making a statement about a group doesn't necessarily imply a statement about a different or opposite group. Apart from that you conveniently left out the relativisations I made, like "most" and "unlikely". The judgement that most unbiased people most likely won't buy more than one expensive FFB-Joystick simply stems from the reasonable assumption that in general most people probably won't buy two different ones (at the same time.) The term "unbiased" was simply put in to emphasise that I don't care about the chills that got free review samples and want to boost their click rates on youtube. Seriously, how is that hard to understand?

Just for the record here: nowhere in my post am I "blaming" Ugra

Wow, just wow. I wish I had a real one and a pilots license. I would make a video flying this bird myself and recite this poem: by John Gillespie Magee “Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds, - and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there, I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air... Up, up the long, delirious burning blue I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or ever eagle flew - And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.”

Hello DCS Community, As we strive for greater immersion and realism in DCS World, I wanted to share ideas on how ground forces and asymmetric warfare elements could be improved to enhance tactical complexity and realism in missions, especially in modern, urban, and Middle Eastern settings. Below are some concepts that could bring a new level of depth to combined arms operations. --- 1. Enhanced AI Logic and Tactical Awareness for Ground Units Ground forces could benefit from AI that assesses surroundings dynamically, making tactical decisions on the fly. Instead of staying static, units would move to cover, set up defensive positions, and prepare for engagement based on the enemy’s location and strength. 2. Intelligence Gathering and Recon Capabilities Ground forces could take on recon and surveillance roles, actively scanning for threats, reporting enemy movements, and relaying intelligence to command. This would create real-time battlefield awareness and give air assets meaningful coordination objectives. 3. Waypoint and Objective Setting Players could set specific waypoints and objectives for ground forces, such as clearing buildings, securing areas, or advancing to strategic points. This would allow for more precise ground control and open up combined arms coordination. 4. Dynamic Engagement Tactics Ground units could use adaptive tactics like flanking, setting ambushes, or falling back when overwhelmed. This would make engagements more fluid and realistic and require air assets to coordinate effectively. 5. Patrol and Security Duties Ground units could take on autonomous patrols, securing perimeters or acting as sentries, giving them more roles in support and reconnaissance missions and providing more opportunities for players to coordinate with them. 6. Infiltration and Exfiltration Skills Units could adopt stealth tactics to infiltrate or move tactically through high-threat zones, using cover and concealment to avoid detection until engagement is necessary. This would add a layer of realism to recon and direct-action missions. 7. Improved Pathfinding and Terrain Awareness Ground forces would navigate urban, rural, and forested areas more intelligently, using terrain for cover instead of taking exposed direct routes. This would enhance their effectiveness in complex terrain. 8. Command and Control Options for Players Enhanced command options like “hold,” “advance,” “take cover,” or “secure area” would allow players to coordinate with ground forces, creating a more seamless command-and-control experience. 9. Specialized Ground Unit Roles Introduce units with specific capabilities, such as: Forward Observers: Relay precise enemy positions for air support. Combat Engineers: Detect and clear mines or IEDs. JTAC Units: Designate targets for CAS. Sniper Teams: Take up concealed positions to eliminate key threats. 10. Asymmetric Warfare: IEDs, Car Bombs, and Insurgent Tactics Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs): Include IEDs as hidden hazards in urban and rural settings. These would require recon, route planning, and sometimes even ground dismounts to detect and neutralize. Vehicle-Borne IEDs (VBIEDs): Implement car bombs and insurgent vehicles with explosive payloads that could target both air and ground forces, making it necessary to exercise caution in populated areas. Insurgent Tactics and Ambushes: Enemy forces could use guerrilla tactics, blending with civilians, setting up ambushes, and utilizing hit-and-run methods. They could also react based on player actions, actively setting up new defenses or reinforcements as the battle progresses. 11. Civilian Dynamics and Collateral Consequences Civilian populations could react to player actions, and collateral damage could impact mission success, reputation, and interactions with locals. Civilians might rally to support insurgents if mistreated, creating complex ROE scenarios. 12. Autonomous Tactical Reactions Ground forces should automatically react to situations, such as explosions or sudden enemy encounters, by repositioning, calling for air support, or requesting reinforcements if equipped with communications. 13. Optional Ground Missions and Side Objectives AI-controlled ground units could carry out secondary tasks, like securing supply routes or assisting civilians, adding a sense of a larger, integrated battlefield. Players would feel they’re part of a more complex and multi-layered operation. 14. Casualty Evacuation (CASEVAC) and Medical Support When ground units take casualties, they could call for MEDEVAC support, creating new objectives for players to extract the wounded, adding depth to transport and logistics missions. 15. Expanded Mission Debriefing A detailed debrief could provide feedback on ground unit actions, intel gathered, collateral impacts, and areas successfully secured. This would help players refine their coordination with ground units and adapt their strategies for future missions. --- Closing Thoughts Implementing these features would transform ground forces into essential assets on the battlefield, actively contributing to intelligence gathering, securing objectives, and supporting aerial operations. Adding asymmetrical threats like IEDs, VBIEDs, and insurgent tactics would make modern combat scenarios far more complex and immersive. These changes could bring DCS closer to a fully integrated simulation of modern warfare and enhance the combined arms experience significantly. Looking forward to your feedback!

I think that this is really a feature request that should be split up into a different topic.

A refresh of the Fishbed is next on their list after the Corsair

hey guys The project isn't stop at all. I'm the OV10 modder, that true my hard drive fail with the last 3d model but i have backup the first release and after. I need to redone some work, that i doesn't have the time for the moment (approximately 1 year). I still check if the mod is operable in cause ! Hope you the best and enjoy the mod

Thanks all, while I do not think it is game-breaking on the P-51D as you can reset when you need to, I have requested a review of all our Artificial Horizons and see if we can improve the modelling.