Silver_Dragon

If you have discover bugs about the F4U, post here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1354-bugs-and-problems/

That has similar to a narrow band on a sonnar, you can identified a ship by your sound firm...

Considering that ED is the one creating all of DCS W's weapons and associated functionality, this could be a handicap. Another issue is that even if you have access to the SDK, you can't modify parts of the core because they're closed (most likely to prevent unscrupulous individuals from stealing parts of the simulator code or the work of other third parties, which may have "passed through" or been attempted in the early days).. That's the point: touching things like EW, sonar, vehicle modules, naval or FPS, etc., may be beyond the reach of a third party because they can't be implemented if ED doesn't make the necessary building blocks. An example could be why Heatblur, after so many years, still doesn't have a deck crew or much of the supercarrier functionality on the USS Forrestal IA or at this time, because the M3 USS Exxes doesn't have it for WW2 either (we also don't know if the ED USS Enterprise will have it). The panel of an F-105G very likely has specific functionality. The big question is, do we have those building blocks in the core? We haven't seen an oscilloscope of that magnitude used by any third party yet, and I'm starting to think it would be more plausible for a WW2 module, like an old A-Scope radar like an oboe navigation system. Another point is, we know the AGM-45 has frequency seeker heads implemented, and it seems the EW and SAM radars are also implemented. How does this affect the AGM-78? What are its capabilities? Is it programmable? (Its first version, the AGM-78A-1, carried the same seeker head as an AGM-45.) Perhaps there is some way to "force" a system-specific waveform to be created and used on the F-105G's receiver panel (or any other EW aircraft). Here we can start asking questions. How can we identify a specific radar? How does this panel interact with the AGM-78's panel? How can the weapons system interact? How does the ECM system work? SOLIDKREATE and Blaze1 has answered some of them....

I think there are several issues here. - First, we're dealing with a community MOD, not an ED or third-party AI. Perhaps the question should be directed to the MOD creator. - Second, we're talking about a third-party AI, in this case Heatblur. There shouldn't be any issues with any configuration in that AI, so it should be noted in the appropriate forum section.

Eurofighter appears on 2025 and beyond video, with funtional cockpit. Release date unkonow. A-6 has no appears.

Look, upyr1, I understand your point of view, because I also want a specialized aircraft. In this case, I'd kill for an S-3B ASW and a high-fidelity SH-60 onboard with the ability to search, detect and track submarines with its full array of sensors, weapons and 4 seat cockpit fully implemented. I love the naval environment and the fact that the ED puts personnel, means, and resources into that environment. But I have to be realistic... I know full well that without a sonar engine, without sound propagation, without thermoclines, without meteorology, seabed, currents, temperature, maritime traffic, biologicals, implementing sonobuoys, MADs, sonars (hull, flank, and towed), submarines and their armament that work realistically, and realistic damage to ships, I will never see an S-3 module... Yes, sometimes I seem like a damn ogre and my own biggest critic, but unfortunately I am proceeding with knowledge of the facts, because much of this functionality requires resources, which we do not currently have, and I would love to have 20, 300, or 1 billion to tell ED "find engineers, I'll put up the money for this, whatever the cost"... and not just in the naval environment, but in EW (also very necessary in the naval area), land (land modules and naval infantry), and troop transport.

If you want to make an official module as a third party, you need to contact ED, establish a team, and prove that you can make a module. Building a community module doesn't require ED authorization; it's simply making a MOD. Officially, as far as we know, there is no 3rd party or ED making an F-105 module. A G version of an F-105 or advance EW funtionality is currently unknown.

EW core implement has been a very long claimed feature from years ago. ED on 2020 claimed to a "We are looking for an EW specialist with knowledge of C ++", but nothing more has talked...

We don't have any piston-engine bombers for now. We have a four-engine turboprop cargo plane through ASC, but it's one thing to drop cargo and quite another to manage a WWII four-engine piston-engine bomber with manual systems, and a bomber cockpit systems. If this were so easy, why didn't ED make a Mosquito B.IV with a Mark XIV bomb sight? And no, I haven't had access to the SDK, although I've been in two third-party projects before, and the programmers have told me that it's a completely different world than making MODs, and that there are things ED has to implement in the core, otherwise it causes problems.

Google Translate has improved a lot. Look, Massun92's assistance pack, even though it allows you to drive vehicles, isn't part of CA; it's an external add-on, and it doesn't provide any new functionality. And yes, the problem with CA is that it's "dead"... they've fixed some, but the module hasn't changed. Not only is there no longer a "roadmap," they don't even mention that anything is being planned at all. I also don't see copying and pasting the UH-1 troop transport functionality into vehicles as an improvement; it's something we've had for nearly 10 years..... That's why I'm complaining. We all know that with just the slightest bit of care put into this module, great things could be achieved. Especially when we have the dynamic campaign just around the corner, and combined arms operations are going to have to have a tremendous twist, or the ground environment will be very lackluster. And I understand. I know that touching on land issues will put you in the crosshairs of licenses and lawsuits, but moving forward with implementing certain features would win you a lot of points. Unfortunately, it's the same old story: there's no time, no resources, and no plans. The same thing is happening with WW2. We have Marianas WW2, but there's still no real landing feature (air or naval), and so on and so forth. The problem is that they're always "priorities," and in this case, they always come last.

That's why I say "could." But we're talking about a very complex attack aircraft, both in systems and avionics. The F-100D's systems are really rudimentary compared to an F-105. You said it yourself, a community module, as the A-4. I'm the first to become see new third-parties with an official modules via the SDK and ED support coming to DCS, even though there are bombing mechanics, and system management, which are necessary in the core.

Baltic Dragon news about ASC C-130

- Heatblur and Truegrit are working on the Eurofighter, and remember, the A-6E Intruder is coming next, and "confirmed" plans to build a F-4B/N naval version. Truegrit surely move to other german aircraft next and HB to a UsNavy carrier aircraft. Which I'm ruling out. - M3 has already said the Christen Eagle 2 will be reworked and has already talked about a complete rebuild of the Mig-21Bis 2.0, in addition to the F-8 Crusader under development. Also ruled out. - Aerges has to finish the Mirage F-1M and is developing the F104G. Another rule out, especially when I think they'll continue to focus on Spanish Air Force aircraft. (Rumors about a Mirage IIIE next). - Grinelly "maybe" could do it, but it would be a huge leap compared to an F-100D. I have a feeling we might see an F-101 or F-102 as follow-ups. Maybe. Let's completely forget about a B-52 (or any bomber) if ED doesn't provide the building blocks for a real multi-crew bomber (for that, they have to build one bomber in WW2 first). The entire concept of electronic warfare (EW) has to be built by ED at the core first. It's pointless to try to model an EB-66, F-105G, F-4G, or EA-6B if it doesn't have the necessary electronic jamming and SIGINT functionality at its core.

We have to remember things that happened in the past: - RAZBAM and IRIS competed to make an F-15 - IRIS and HEATBLUR (Leatherneck) competed for an F-14 - ED and two third parties competed for an L-39. This isn't the first or last time we'll see multiple teams making identical modules, so I don't see a problem with ED or another third party making a MiG-23. They can make different versions and you won't have any legal issues.

Let's keep several points in mind: - The infantry animations come from the work done with the supercarrier's deck crew, not CA. - The dynamic campaign is a completely different team outside from CA. None of these points have anything to do with Combined Arms, so I wouldn't recommend getting your hopes up. In fact, from what has been said, there hasn't been any work on CA in years. Neither the English nor the Russian forums respond to any questions about improvements. They're just going to tell us the usual: that it's a closed product and not to expect any updates. There are a lot of bugs to fix, yes, but they're not a priority. In fact, any functionality outside of CA, whether infantry, vehicle movement, etc., will be in the core. Actually, a few days ago, I found Wags' post on the old SimHQ forum, which discussed "plans" for CA, back in 2012... unfortunately, 13 years later, none of the talk has come to fruition, so I'm very pessimistic about it. Let's also remember when Wags asked about information on an M1 tank, which ended up at the bottom of a drawer. There are many things that, unfortunately, we could make a very long list of "promises": - Paratroopers. - Realistic infantry formations. - Infantry support weapons. - Realistic troop transport. - Artillery ammunitions. And although new infantry troops have appeared since the CH-47 videos, my assessment is as follows: - Until ED no confirms it and we don't see a video of said functionality, it's highly recommended not to even think about it. It's that simple. ED needs people dedicated to the ground environment, not an engineer you replace once every five years to implement an incomplete feature. Someone like dedicated engineers who are working on the dynamic campaign or the spherical world, but focused on creating exclusive full-time features for the ground environment, whether it's infantry, vehicles, and weapons (the "famous" artillery munitions that were never seen again, as an example). I know Wags does this with the best of intentions, but we also can't always have the same Q&A videos every year or two, if they're not going to answer simulator questions. The last person who talked about "plans" was Nick Grey at the end of 2023... when he talked about WW2 plans... the rest is utter obscurity, especially now that, starting this year, there isn't even a list of "plans" in January, now vanished. We'll see what the future holds, but as I said, CA is not in my plans for anything else in the future due to ED.