Silver_Dragon

Wags has talked on February Q&A ED has working on other helo plus the CH-47F and AH-64D. And has on the ToDo list build a UH-60L on a future.

Heatblur Discord.

I still think most AI aircraft continue to use SFM, with the corresponding problems it may have, such as cases where the AI inexplicably runs out of fuel when we still have fuel left, as if they were always running the engine at 100% or using afterburner, burning fuel rapidly. We've talked about GFM... but has anyone confirmed that any current DCS World aircraft has it implemented? We haven't heard from anyone about it for years. As for the MiG-15Bis, I'm afraid it's an inherent problem with the old code, because it's very strange that these problems with the AI continue to exist, and that, given everything that's been said, it hasn't been minimally resolved.

I think there was already a post about this somewhere on the forum. Let's take a look.

I'm posting the list of questions about why the system isn't working in another post. It could be discussed and expanded upon, since it's a bug in itself. As for the second point, there's still plenty of room for expansion... although taking the "easy" route would be copying others.

If we were to be realistic, this would be out of scale. https://novielliboats.com/landing-craft-beach-landing-techniques/?srsltid=AfmBOopBTrkXAppoeQ6iMLoAlsQK4nXijwbVj7_gvaNHDznYniBzK5jT The problem is understanding why any DCS World vessel immediately stops when it reaches a certain distance from the coast. Because it doesn't maneuver to avoid a problem (and yes, here we could debate why 3D modelers don't use bathymetry software and add it to DCS World maps when, "theoretically," based on the videos ED has shown us, it can). - What causes landing craft to stop? - What prevents a ship from docking on a beach? Is it a script, and how can it be modified to avoid that wall? - How can ED improve this functionality?

That is already explained in another post.

You have to understand how they work and what procedures are carried out in this regard, putting a waypoint that magically starts vomiting forces out of control is crazy, it's the same as we've seen in some multiplayer servers, which distort the transport of troops in helicopters and suddenly a UH-1 carries you in the sling an M1 Abrams tank or a complete S300 by the magic of gameplay... Something that will surely start happening anyway when they start cheating, deploying the same entities by parachute when the C-130J arrives. There has to be a limit. In that case, we'd have to have the same thing: an LS Samuel Chase, or an LST that has no cargo bay. The problem is that there's no transfer of material to an LCVP, or a Ropucha, or any other vessel (you can't actually configure any vessel's cargo). The only ones are those designated as replenishment points, which are also poorly configured: - The aircraft carriers and the Tarawa should have cargo holds and ammo magazine, not all the logistics. - There are freighters like the Hardy Wind and the MV Tilde (those could be correct), but from there, you have to create everything else, not do meaningless magic. - All landing ships lack a logistics window, like the new CH-47 loading system, where you have a "hold" with so many tons of material, vehicles and troops and from there you can move the different means... it has already been done outside of DCS and it is something "realistic" if we go with the simple version. That list can be expanded as much as you want; remember, I already have a post with literally "everything" missing from DCS World. In fact, I shouldn't be posting the same thing twice, knowing that the work has already been done elsewhere. Yes, that is correct.

That comment is out of place... the WW2 asset pack gives you vehicles, planes, ships, and more, but no one promised it would come with functionality A or B. Coming here now to cry about a landing craft, whether WW2 or Modern, being the fault of a paid support pack is simply making cheap excuses. By that rule of thumb, we can blame RAZBAM for not implementing the same functionality for deploying landing craft on the Tarawa... when we know that the creator of a 3D model has nothing to do with the lack of specific functionality in the core. If ED hasn't implemented something similar, it's because that functionality has taken time, which we know very well, and it's not a priority. But that's not the topic of this post, and coming up with this seems to be coming to ruin the discussion.

The concept of landing is too broad to focus solely on ships; we lack any understanding of naval doctrine. Some references: WW2 (I think this is where we should start, before looking at the modern landings, as there is a severe lack of literature on the subject). Landing Operations on Hostile Waters: https://ia802808.us.archive.org/30/items/landingoperation00unit/landingoperation00unit.pdf Landing Operations Doctrine United States Navy, FTP-167 https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/l/landing-operations-doctrine-usn-ftp-167.html Ship to Shore Movement FTP-211 https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/ship-to-shore-movement0.html Others About Ships: I dont recoment "spawn point", recommend some kind of functionality that allows landing craft to connect to landing transports/ships and for these to transfer the means within them realistically, i.e. through landing ladders/nets in the case of APA/AKA or within floodable dikes, so that the means enter them and can dock, and then deploy to the sea and be able to head to the beaches or ports. Not only should there be functionality to deploy troops, vehicles, and equipment from landing craft to beaches, but the entire animation of moving to the beach, docking, deploying, and returning to sea should be realistic. Regarding the current amphibious boat and ship resources, and what would be needed to "complete" landings. The units we would be missing would be (to develop / expand): About Artillery and artillery spotter, it requires an attached post, different from this one (including everything that has to do with naval fire support). The rest has been answered above.

None map has modeler to get a landing funtionality, on fact, none ship can aproach to a beach or a pier (missing all of them). Not bad if ED implement someonte to make realistic landing capable and ED and 3rd parties modeling properly the beachs to mission capables.

Dollittle raid was launched from USS Hornet by 16 modified B-25 Mitchell, that only take off form them, others as P-40, and P-47 was carried aboar and use as ferry to reach near bases when that aircrafts take off from carriers and landing on land bases. If launch outside a base range, has lost on the sea. By the WW2 carriers missions, that has "transport". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier_operations_during_World_War_II

The only way for the AI to hunt down a downed player could come from the dynamic campaign, but as mentioned, this is something we've never seen in DCS World so far, and we'd be talking about ED putting forces in the rear to patrol areas. If they have to "capture" a downed pilot, they'll have to get within firing range at least, to deploy some sort of infantry squad (something we don't have either). It seems to me like we're touching on issues that go beyond the scope of what DCS World is all about. It's like a CSAR mission should be recreated. * How do the rescue forces detect the pilot? (They should have a radio with a beacon installed.) * Does the pilot's radio have a frequency or frequencies that the enemy can't detect? (We're not just talking about encrypted radios, but also whether the enemy has EW equipment that can track them.) * How can the pilot defend himself from forces hunting him down? (Maybe we're talking about something like an FPS.) * How can the pilot hide from enemy forces in the meantime? * How do you pick up a pilot in a "hot" zone? (ropes, hooks, ladders.) There are many points to discuss.

The FAQ was very clear: Q1 or Q2 was only a "plan" no a promise.

They appears on the "2024 and Beyond" but has missing on the last year videos, I think that model has been remade and has move forward to A-6E module complete a propper external module to use them as a base to the KA-6D.

That pilot model coming from the Lomac / FC times, on fact, ED need use the future "infantry animatios" to bet more plausible use to a pilot to move and "survive" on the DCS W environment. The problem, what funtionality require a pilot to make a CSAR mission.

Sorry by the OT... Remember, the Mig-21 "nukes" was only a 3rd Party extra from old long times ago first module 3rd party module of DCS W (on fact, the "nukes" has only a very big HE bomb). ED has talk very clear they never go to implement NBQ weapons on DCS, and ED has many years ago are all weapons develop on your hands... If ED dont implement them, none go to make them (include 3rd parties modules weapons). All Mig-29A weapons has make by ED, If ED dont aprove and/or confirm them, none of them will coming to DCS W. End of OT.

I dont expect them, they dont appears on "2025 and Beyond" and I think, that has far far away yet.

Answered on the same post.. by Wags: And from russian forum, ED has no plans to add the EA, by never enter into the Ru air force. On fact, never use on the Mig-29A (and ED has no building a Ru 9.12). ED has none confirm officialy none about a Mig-29 9.13 version yet.

The problem is the same as always: who does it? ED apparently has no plans for an A version of the F-15/F-16. Remember the F-15C entered production in 1978; it's plausible see them on the Germany map (on a C of MISP I version).

It's not that money rules, it's that there are licenses and governments involved here. We have a third party, which is Chinese, and it has been very clear that it has to be very careful about what it can and can't do. The same thing happens to ED, which was Russian, and it also has problems with what it can and can't do. It's simply not seeing yourself in a legal situation or worse, simply because of a desire. Su-25 ang -27 has none confirmed yet, but remembe we have incoming a Mig-29, and surely the others FC aircraft will be on a future as a FF modules (no by russia, but by other country).