Silver_Dragon

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.

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.

Sorry to resurrect that post, but many of talked by Wags, never was implement.... Not bad If ED team will put some light on for a some plan to new features to CA or a future spiritual sucesor on a "future plan" to DCS.

The F4U corsair has a M3 3rd Party module, no a ED module, you can find your section here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/781-f4u-1d/

All bombs has implement by the ED side, surely need implement someone on the CBU-52 (no fuze implement yet). The CBU-87 fuze need configure on the mision editor or the loadout editor to set fuze parameters. About bombing table, will require HB implement them.

IJN/IJA aircrafts coming when ED add yous pacific assets pack. By now, none (ED or M3) has confirmed "PTO" soldiers. The WW2 soldiers show on F4U video has only the old Us WW2 ETO US soldiers.

WTF? The page not only show a pic of a Alpha Jet, show a Jaguar

I think the problem is that being parked on deck isn't the same as having aircraft ready for takeoff on deck. ED itself hasn't implemented the movement of aircraft on deck. There's only a strategy "game" that simulates such movement, and moving aircraft on deck, whether for takeoff or landing, is very slow.

I've restructured the entire roadmap; no information has been lost. It now reads as follows: - The first post covers the first decade of (2011-2020) DCS World. - The second covers the entire period from 2021 to 2024 (and cover the second decade of DCS World. - The third is the current year on course(actualy 2025). - The fourth maintain the list the upcoming DCS World modules - The fifth, which was previously a backup post, is now a links post with some DCS Info. The third post is only temporary; each time we change years, it will be moved to the previous post, leaving the current year in place, until the decade is over. If anyone sees any issues with the Roadmap, please send me a PM so I can correct them, including official information from the ED team or third parties about functionality, modules, etc., if anyone notices it, including social media.

Other game discusion / comparatives has out of the scope, remember DCS Forum rules 1.15 About modules: Another F4U version, need talk with M3. But I think after the F4U, they move to make the Mig-21Bis 2.0 and the F-8 Crusader F6F has actualy on develop by ED. We know that ED has plans for the Battle of Britain A6M5 Zeor after the F6F launch, as discussed by Nick Grey (BoB comming later). More PTO modules has incoming (A6M5 Zero) unkonow. Others aircrafts as a P-38 has talked by Nick, but I think has no on your plans. About pilotable WW2 torpedo bombers, missing funtionality on the core. on fact, the actual torpedo funtionality and ships Damage models has very low to simulate underwaters explosions / damage. Propper WW2 Dive Bomber funtionality has "missing" yet. A B-25 bomber version need ED implement a multicrew WW2 bomber funtionality. On side, ED has already done some work on the Mosquito FB Mk.VI module; the problem is that there's no multi-crew version of a B Mk.IV with its cockpit and bombing controls. That's the main handicap we face. A B-25 Mitchell requires not only a cockpit, but also the entire fuel management system for a light bomber, gun positions, bombing position, and many systems that are currently not implemented. I could almost say that it would be more efficient for ED to build a Mosquito B or an A-20 Havok first. About a IJN aircraft, some members of M3 (Hiromachi), has claimed a A6M will be feasible but M3 has none confirm a module. Other IJA/IJN aircraft has totaly unkonow. A P-40 was "claimed" by a disapear 3rd party but never release them. On fact, has none a UK 3rd party on DCS, the same situation with a US 3rd party. The problem with WW2 is the same as always. It's not that ED has a small WW2 team, but rather that the number of 3rd parties in DCS World dedicated to WW2 modules is paltry (Octopus-G/M3), and so far Ugra Media hasn't said anything about a new WW2 map (if I had to bet, they'd focus on the Eastern Front). We should have many more 3rd parties dedicated to creating WW2 aircraft and maps. In fact, we have two major shortcomings: Not having a 3rd party that only make WW2 maps (the Solomon Islands Pacific scenario would be very necessary, but also North Africa / Italy / Germany). France will be by Ugra if Normandy continue expand to the East and ED expand the channel map to add north bombers bases and holand / Belgium coast. Several new 3rd parties that focus on German / British / Italian / US WW2 aircraft. The USSR WW2 side is covered by Octopus-G. Two or three existing 3rd parties would be advisable, or alternatively, creating divisions for WW2 modules and/or maps. Lack of all funtinality of the Seaplane / Floatplanes on DCS, required to build propper Catalinas (ED has planned them on WW2 PTO assets pack).

Actualy ED has not claimed nothing about WW2 carrier funtionality.

M3 lacks access to the required "core" functionality to implement Paddles. This requires ED to implement it in the WW2 carrier "core" first before any third party can use it.

The problem remains that, to date, no ships medium-caliber guns have been used in DCS World for AAA. On the contrary, they were all rated as "ASUW.". If you tried to add it, it would do very strange things. In fact, all modern ships with medium- or large-caliber guns (72-155) have AAA capability, but it has never been added. I haven't tried five-inch guns, but unless they've added anti-aircraft capability, I doubt it.

Fixed

Enigma Inverview of F-100 and Beyond (a century series module?).