Gierasimov

I know that ED said no more training maps, but with the latest terrain tech it seems to be possible to build large detailed maps, therefore new NTTR expanded to California coast would be my wish for a new map. I like the original NTTR very much, I got that as a perk for Warthog pre-order but now it is so outdated...

Looks like we "discovered" too much and no more leaks on the subject. I was kind of hoping that volume of hidden teasers only increase in Q4 but now I think it will be revealed in 2025 and beyond video ...

Thanks but you confuse the titles. This thread ain't about FF modules, it is about FC level (MAC??) ones. Access to NEEDED information is NOT a problem here. Building MAC on Vulkan from ground up would constitute brand new flight arcade game

I wish there was fully voiced dynamic JTAC FAC(A) that would provide autonomous selection of targets and generate CAS missions. Would also support dynamic campaign, would it not? Current one does not even include full 9-line and comms as per the JTAC training manual.

Very nice! @currenthill don't you want to talk to ED to include your assets in the core game? Another question - would you consider maybe assets related to current affairs - expand Iran pack, maybe add paramilitary units for DSC Insurgents faction ? Keep up the good work!

I expect that all weapons for this module will be reworked to the highest standards that DCS offers.

I can't say that I have but frankly, until recently I was only following the official DCS development and I am quite behind all the news related to community works, what is the project that you are referring to here?

Is there going to be a difference in DCS between Sniper pod and other pods currently available in DCS: F-16C Viper? What is the expected gain from this addition or is it just cosmetic change? Not asking about real life difference but specifically in DCS, @BIGNEWY is there any "white paper"?

I understand you speak out of the perception and not from official EDSA statement here? I get it, talking about MAC and announcing it, then shifting this MAC project due to its increased size and effort needed, claiming no more updates to Flaming Cliffs, going dark on MAC project and then re-releasing Flaming Cliffs with elements that would otherwise be included as MAC... yeah Purpose of MAC was to compete with another game that shall remain unnamed here, but with the "quality" that DCS offers MAC would not and could not compete with that other game, EDSA should just drop this OR create brand new flight arcade game with modern visuals / sfx / top tier entertainment quality. You cannot build a new product on old DX11 based engine. As for the red force planes... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. EDSA has got no resources and / or will to produce these and will not cooperate with community mod creators unless these skilled people prove to be worth signing 3rd party deals.

This is very interesting concept. With the current ME it would be very time consuming to get it right. Imagine though we would get entire library of assets that are used on maps as static objects... That would be fun, like a city building game but for combat

@Burr I look for ways to enjoy DCS more, and this triggered my attention. I downloaded and looked at this, it does look interesting, but now I wonder, what would be the use in DCS? Do I need to plug in some civilian traffic assets now or what?

I tested this today and all seems to be good.

It won't ... it is part of the core experience with such objects. Even if it is on ED 'to-do' list, most likely after (long after) Marianas WWII project. Resources busy with Afghanistan (for years to come) and Iraq (even more years)... and nobody wants to assign somebody to fix those two cranes ...

Yep, external object camera shows the external cockpit which for reason known only to ED is not the one we see in 1st person view. Why? But good question!

Lately more and more DCS little shortcomings manage to get under my flight suit. Landing Hornet and seeing SH-60 from LOMAC; Taking fuel from static, magnet snapping basket; Thick dense black smoke and large fire coming from everything that is destructible (chainlink fence, roadside lamp post, clay Afghan hut...); Every ground target having the same on-destroy visuals; Every explosion the same with large chunks of bricks coming down - even for vehicles); KC-135 Multi-point Refueling System that supports only ONE point (basket); GBAD units (especially AAA) without crew; Civilian airport terminals without civilian air traffic; Nice, large landscapes with a lot of water, but with civilian ships zooming in to the view as you approach them.... Not even bare bones of ATC... factions with no units, the list continues and grows ... I know many of these things are planned, wished for, in progress... I know it is complex, time consuming and needs resources.... I appreciate all that, but I dream, I wish, we had a complete experience for once. That would be the change, eh? Single module that would offer it all, I guess I am talking about DCS core experience that seriously is below the benchmark of its modules. DCS is excellent in simulating cockpits, especially digital ones (modern) with push buttons and pages, but every single aspect of everything outside of cockpit is always lacking something, giving the feeling of unfinished, incomplete experience.

Yes, possibly these are also included in the mentioned "We have higher priority tasks in front of it." (BigNewy, above). With the DCS state right now for sure there is huge task list to complete and only so much resources to do it.

Good to know for the future, maybe one day. Syria terrain, with recent events is still my go to for now.

DCS" F-16C Viper | FLCS Dead Zone and Stick Gradient Option video showcases the Sniper pod - highly anticipated addition to the project: null

Thank you. I think I will still keep my aircraft flying over Syria and its neighbors.

New NAVY helo would be excellent addition to DCS and complement other aircraft for your Forrestal class. Even if only AI.

THAT! It would be something new in this sim!

OK so this still shows the map from the altitude. One of the newsletters from ED said: DCS: Kola map has received a massive revamp to its summer time textures. All ground textures have been replaced with high quality custom textures that combine satellite and real imagery to deliver a much more realistic environment at low altitude. Is this true? Does the map now look better at ground level?

I think this will never happen. ED is not keen on giving away any sort of showcases and roadmaps as this would mean giving us ammunition to shoot our expectations guns. Instead look forward to the news when there are any to share and remember one golden rule that is applicable to the entire DCS World product - everything is subject to change. As for the Afghan terrain itself it was already mentioned that, first, they will complete the terrain and then revisit it's parts to see what can be pushed more towards quality. there will always be low and high(er) quality sections for the terrain.

You may want to test this again, it works in the latest update now.