sergkar

The german airforce "got" in 1990 20 29-A and 4 29-UB. They were in the forthcoming years heavily modified/modernized to comply to NATO standards and systems and around 1999 sold to Poland and are - as far as I know - still in use there. So, fair enough, old models. Nevertheless I would think, that many would be happy to have even those in full fidelity. I'm not a developer, so I don't know if that's somewhat possible, but I would think that it might be possible to modify a model once it is build in full fidelity. So theoretical it could be possible to start with one version and then derive from that as information allows. Isn't that so?

That is of course true. All I'm saying is that it's not just about the russian laws and that I somehow doubt, that russian jets are more secret than others. I see for example no barriers for a full fidelity Mig-29. It's not the newest, sure. But that was flewn by nearly all east block states. And for some time they kept some squadrons well beyond the cold war. From former eastern germany some were even transfered to the US - for study purposes. Well, I don't know what is requested, but certainly all FC3-models are doable full fidelity. That is hardly a documentation problem. Yes, they are not very new, but still in actual use. Unless I oversee something here.

That's not entirely correct. Russian jets are also flown by other nations. They try to export the same as any other, maybe even a little more relaxed in regards to whom they sell. Of course documentation on the most modern ones is limited, but that applies for NATO too. So maybe one can set hopes on chinese developers or indian ones?

But those laws can only be applicable to residents of the federation. So a 3rd party could very well do it, provided they had the information. Also Eagle Dynamics is registered in Switzerland.

Or at least one could look away from bashing devs.

Yes, I read about that Abrams project in the CA forum. It's said that there were plans for a full fidelity Abrams model, but the project failed. Seems like that is the only MBT with a slightly better designed damage (or more precise armor) model in CA. Apparently the only leftover from that project. What looks promising: https://gunnerheatpc.com/ But it's just a demo and been in dev since 2017 now ...

That may be a little off topic, but I'm actually looking for a good tank sim. So far the best I found is ArmA 3, but it somehow feels odd. CA feels actually pretty good but lacks too much to be called a sim (with the missing campaigns it can't even really be called a game). What else I could find, but didn't try also seems to be not the right thing. Here on DCS I think it could be some 3 to 6 years until anything better surfaces - if at all - so if anybody has tips. You can just PM to not clutter the thread.

I would rather say, that your context is actually your interpretation. I don't read that condition as clearly stated as you do. I read it more like "the easier part first to get a foot in the door". When this threads circles around certain points of view, then it's because most important parts were already written on the first pages and since then not much changed. A design document is to be written and proposals are to be made. Then there'll be comm with ed and I hope after that we will get an announcement here. I think your point is somewhat clear: you don't want to buy an asset pack and you want its supposed models to be included (in low res) in the core - as was the idea much further up in the thread, somewhat acknowledged by BP. So I suggest we wait for the end of the talks between 3rd party and 1st party, instead of restating what we already wrote.

Well, actually that was part of the OP: "These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system." They also wrote, they don't want discuss pricing atm.

Coming back to the actual topic: what is the current state of the design document and maybe also a possible model submission?

There is also a thread specific for the WWII asset pack: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/259828-why-was-the-assets-pack-not-free/?tab=comments#comment-4564346 Interesting backstory.

Look. I'm not that far from your position. Actually I think that WWII asset pack is not that expensive, but for arguments sake: that whole thread is about that this is simply not true. CA is out now for how long? 8 years? And ground warfare simply lacks almost everything. I have posted above that ED pretty much understands, what is missing and has it in some way on their agenda, but that interview happened now also some years back and CA/ground modelling etc. doesn't seem to enjoy any priority. But maybe 2023 when the choppers are more finalized and those pilots complain.

Did that and replied to it. It's quite further up in the thread. You might have missed those replies. All I'm saying is that it's not as unheard and unthinkable of. As far as I know the chinese asset pack is 3rd party and also somehow integrated into the core.

Actually the modern assets come with the core game, don't they? Or are they part of the CA module?

With binoculars it's free mouse movement.

Well, I read - as I know now - your review, pretty decent one by the way. I stole that idea with the garmin trainer. They also offer quite many of those. Also I've already decided that it's not worth it. I couldn't buy it for other models on steam anyway - and a transfer from ed store to steam is equally impossible.

Not a Viper but "hands on": http://omegataupodcast.net/318-my-flight-with-the-usaf-thunderbirds/

Just to clarify. What you're saying is that the addon for 3rd party modules is also created by those? I read at least from the steam reviews that the addon is also rather unfinished or say not complete implemented. They write about missing parts of maps, no integration of radio and non implemented pages and dysfunctional buttons. I'm not sure how up to date that is because the description says it's still only openbeta, but some say it has been like that since 2017. So it seems rather unlikely that more is going to happen in the next future.

Hello, I understand the module on steam includes Mi8 and Albatros cockpit integration, but the integration for the C 101 seems not to be available there. Is that correct or is it just a wrong description?

That is actually the important point. Asking flight sim enthusiast how they would like better simulated vehicles simply doesn't give the right results. If played in MP someone has to fly the planes and someone has to drive the ground vehicles. Those don't need to be the same gamers. They latter might right now not be interested in DCS and not playing it. That's why it might seem, that there's not much interest.

An arctic map would be really great! And yes, going high arctic wouldn't need too many cities to be modeled.

I would, however, like a clear CA roadmap. It seems WWII is getting far more attention. It might be that it's just because they simply got people who are interested. That's why I would say to anybody who wants to invest resources into CA: Go for it! Somebody has to take the first step. For now the fruits are hanging pretty low. As I mentioned the WWII section. I would be interested in WWI!

That is actually good news! With Hind and Apache coming maybe there'll be a push in priorities. I believe those two will sell like water in a desert.

In an October 2019 Interview Mats said So the question is how much of that was done in 2020 and what is on the roadmap for 2021? I would say, that it's the last point, that seems to be quite in future. Surely also due to a shortage and fluctuation of personal. The rest I see is being worked on and those improvements will in my opinion first be seen in planes and then descent to the ground. So, yeah, I guess it's going to be a while. Also AI would be very important, since strictly speaking you can't operate one tank alone and wouldn't have single tank missions. I would also assume that simple drive arounds are harder to implement, since every single movement depends on terrain information, unlike planes being in air with no "obstacles". Take into consideration that until recently cars would drive straight through trees. But one can hope and dream.

I think modelling any single one already existing ground vehicle in full would be a very good start. They are already in the game and can be used by everyone. Who buys the module could it enjoy in full sim. If you have, say, two from opposing factions one will see wether a ground community gets attracted. I could see that for old DCS versions there exist drive courses for tanks and the like. All these user campaigns are abandoned for a long time. I'd like to see those fixed before opening yet another field. If I remember correctly ED also wants to implement the damage model to ground vehicles.