Silver_Dragon

Dont miss the point. Build modules has outside from map and assets with diferent tools and teams. To build a module you require a "module team". assets a "assets teams" using the SDK, build maps require a "map team" usdung the TDK (Terrain develop kit). Diferent tools, resources and personal. The only intent to build a "standalone" product end on disaster on a KS and no 3rd party yet have the resourses to build a "complete packages". Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

As posted previously about "priorities": ED has centred on remade and redone the great quantity of old Lomac/FC assets to reach actual standars, and WW2 assets team has centred on PTO units to the release of F6F module. Map teams and module teams has other projects. 3rd parties has own projects with yours "assets teams" (no Octopus-G). Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

I think 15-16 UTC Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Seamless transition and map interconections has not plausible with actual map technology, that require ED release the whole earth map technology on progress first. Actualy ED or a 3rd Party has working on a Germany modern map, but no more news has been release them. No plans yet to new WW2 west/east front Maps. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

What "unmaintained" modules? Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Wags claim some years ago about M1 tank interiors and data but none was confirmed. The main ploblem Will be the lack of any support to make a FF vehicle on DCS, no tracks, armour, weapons and System implementes on core (thah require a true vehicle team on ED) and Big changes on maps, featured and funtionality on the DCS Core... 3rd parties has none to do here meanwhile ED dont move there. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Octopus-G has none confirmed about a "assets team" and/or a "map team" and no talked about more content to the La-7. Other 3rd parties has none confirmed about east front WW2 content and ED has none plans yet, centred on WW2 PTO (Marianas WW2, PTO assets, F6F module) as M3 3rd Party (F4U module and PTO assets). About opponents... La-7 has a Jun 1944 Air craft, a Fw-190A-8/D-9 Will match. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

The pic coming from a famous "Clickbait/Drama" reddit Page.... None to see here... Moving "Facepalm and Zero cledibility"..... Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Napalm, incendiary effects has planned by ED, waiting news. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Someone remenber a team working on Su-17?

By the CSS Discord FaQ: On fact CSS has no plans yet to a WW2 map

A red flag dont has a problem about assets, on fact, ED has build a training pod (ACMI pod), but lack all the propper funtionality on the ACMI system (no plans yet by ED). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_combat_maneuvering_instrumentation https://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/acmi.html https://www.cubic.com/industries/training/air-combat/acmi https://milavreachout.org/air-combat-maneuvering-instrumentation/ The Mig-15 and Sabre by ED or the I-16 or the future La-7 has only modules, no "planesets". The lack of the propper maps has only matter of time. And about assets has only a resourse, personal and money problem with propper "assets teams". ED will build propper 50s assets but actualy your plans has redone and remade the old Lomac / FC assets to actual standars on "modern assets team". Octopus-G has no a propper "Assets team" and / or "map teams" as many 3rd parties, that has no a problem from the "module team". As put previosly, the only teams with have centred on build propper map assets with your "Assets teams" has ED with the WW2 assets team on PTO WW2 (Marianas / F6F Hellcat), Razbam (SA map), M3 with F4U module and your PTO units, Dekka build some Chinesse assets, Check Six with your australian units to North Australia map / PC-6 and HB, with actualy has "plans" to some Sweden / UsNavy but never has confirm a propper assets team.

Hijack a post and intent a harrasement..... Funny, reporting.... Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Are you serious?

I check them on modelviewer (MT) before posting the post (on fact I always check the EDM models on modelviewer from 2013....). I has reporting a bug propperly, no starting a war.

In itself, all maps are fun and would not be less valuable if they were in Antarctica or Botswana. It seems that many forget that the 3rd party map teams have their plans (in fact, the Australian team made their intentions very clear from the beginning), and these continuous attempts to discredit NTTR or the future map of Northern Australia, as if here, if maps of "past wars" were not made, it would be useless. The same thing happens if Aerges creates a map team and makes the Iberian Peninsula and/or the Canary Islands or if a team appears to make the map of Tibet. Isn't it a current / historical war scenery? Ok. Can it be playable or fun? Of course, just as some have used the Normandy map for a hypothetical WW3. Isn't there a functionality to make simulated combats? It is totally correct and plausible, but it is not something that can be created quickly, it will take a long time to make something simulated, and not only that, that works like reality (you have to look at whether there is data available and open sources).

I'm sorry to say this, but I have a feeling we're not going to see a "Roadmap" again, like these past years for several reasons. - The legal problem with RAZBAM. - The improper use of it by some as a "throwing weapon / Broken promises / where's my...". - Possibly, doing more strict damage control. There are several points from the end of 2024 that got me thinking and they were. - There was no WW2 status report on 2024. - We haven't had interviews with Nick Grey or Wags since 2023. - The ED team has been silent many times. - The lack of the Dynamic Campaign Newsletter. So no, I don't expect a "roadmap" talking about WW2 or new capabilities or maps, we'll possibly see something very brief and some other newsletter about A or B functionality, module or assistance, when they are about to come to release.

That asset was shown on "2024 and Beyond" video, but not talked about your status in any newsletters on 2024. I think the lack of news about F6F and other WW2 stuff in 2024 surely was because modules were not ready for a release (as F4U talked about in the last M3 newsletter). WW2 dont go to move meanwhile ED don't put a "WW2 report status".... in fact, we don't have yet a 2025 roadmap newsletter and I think ED has turned to "dark mode" about news... waiting for the "2025 and beyond" video.

The DRG-86 Train has not show animations, on traffic trains and on editor maked trains (DCS World MT) Add mission and track. Tested on Normandy map. WW2_DR-90_tank_problem.trk 2_9_9_WW2_train_test_2025.miz

What good is it going to do to leak documents, if ED is going to go with a hammer to prevent everything that is not "open source" from being immediately discarded to avoid legal problems (this includes 3rd Parties).

How do you do it? No 3rd party has ever confirmed infantry (not RAZBAM (1980 UK or Argentine army) or M3 (WW2 Marines and IJN/IJA troops) or Dekka (2000 Chinesse troops), which make AI units), not even old infantry units. ED has not released the API for the new infantry, nor has it released the new infantry units. In fact, no one except ED has made infantry units (including the Forrestal deck crew for Heatblur, nor does it have access to the SDK for the Supercarrier deck crew functionality at the moment). No one has made infantry units for the old system either (e.g. ED WW2 or Georgian, Russian, US or Insurgent units). Let alone the paratroopers who were never seen jumping out of the C-47 several years ago in "X and Beyond"... ED continues to maintain radio silence, and has not confirmed anything about Vietnam or Korea currently. Let alone expect US units from the 60s-70s, Vietcong, NVA or North Vietnam. Honestly, until I see several videos on 2025 with updaters of the new infantry working I won't believe it, and even less that they have "disappeared" since the videos of 2023 and 24 and the CH-47. roping.... We don't even have the functionality to load and unload troops realistically, seeing them inside the helicopters, much less animations of entry and exit, without being a simple appear and disappear... That would be the first thing before rope descents. And another point, that it also works with animations in vehicles, when some already start to have interiors. Has South Atlantic a realistic "planeset"? No...

Since 2014, when the NTTR map was released, no map has been accompanied by any AI units pack to "planesets". The units themselves are not on the maps, they are in separate folders because the map SDK (TDK) does not allow building any of this and the "prop" units on the maps are not EDM files. The EDM for the AI units must be made with the normal SDK via modelviewer from 3DS Max as if it were the external model of a module. We are talking about different teams, it happens like RAZBAM with the South Atlantic map, the team that builds the map is different from the one that builds the supports and this is shown in the files and directories of the DCS World modules, totally disconnected from each other. On fact M3 has building your PTO assets without a map team, only a assets team. The WW2 assets pack is made by ED WW2 assets map team (no the modern assets team, and was released later), while Normandy was made by Ugra Media. Making a map of Germany (which looks like it will be modern, not 1980's, very similar to Syria or Sinai), matters little, and yes, DCS World is still a "landscape simulator", since nobody is making closed packs. Another point is that making a single AI unit takes as much time as making external models (example, the updates on the B-1B, B-52, etc. that have taken years), you can't make hundreds of "low" quality units and think that they can be put into DCS World, because ED won't let you add them to the "core" since they don't meet their standards (everything goes through ED's eye before any release). And to make many AI units, you need very large assets teams. That Vietnam, Germany or Korea don't have their "planeset" is not ED's problem, it's a problem that the AI units go one way, and the maps go another. Another point, currently ED has not shown any implemented Napalm effects (in itself, that technology is missing in the core by ED yet, and has to come in certain M77 bombs), as seen in the 2023 and 24 videos, they have not shown anything new about Napalm, just some large High Explosive explosions. The same happens with the incendiary bombs, which also have no effects (and are only HE), or like the "nuclear" bombs on the Mig-21Bis, simply playing with the functionality of the current HE bombs (ED has no plans to simulate or implement nuclear weapons). Other point has been some featured show on previous "X and Beyond" videos, no release yet as paratroopers, or the new infantry funtionality models, and a long etc. When them will be ready, will be release.

Mig-29A module was officially announced on "2024 and Beyond" has no surprise, and December newsletter show progress and "plans" to a Q2 release, the same with Marianas WW2, appears on 2023 and 2024 videos and talked on previous newsletters. WW2 is in progress by ED (WW2 Marianas map, F6F module and some Pacific assets like Enterprise CV, some IJN ships and Zero AI) and M3 (F4 Corsair module, and its Pacific assets like Essex class aircraft carrier and USN, IJN/IJA assets). ED will most likely add the Pacific assets to the WW2 asset pack. WW2 Marinas will be released as a free map (pending confirmation). M3 assets will most likely come with the Corsair (possibly for free). Neither ED nor M3 have said anything about a joint release. ED is working on the Mig-29A, and yes, it’s possible that there will be a sneak pick of a future module, but a Super Hornet, if it’s not a Block 2/3 version (currently restricted), is a waste of time as Skatezilla explained, because only a Block 0/1 can be made, an aircraft that is inferior in capabilities to an F/A-18C Block 20. I’ve already suggested that it could be either another helicopter (I wouldn’t rule out an AH-1/UH-60), or a new mid-Cold War module (blue or red). Fulda Gap / Germany, has been featured in the CH-47 Pre-Order video. No DCS World map has a "full set" of AI units, they have always been separate, so it is not a priority. The same will happen with a Vietnam or Korea map. And without being M3 or RAZBAM, no 3rd party has a team of AI units.

Updated first post with last info.

I need update the first post with the last B-1B info (mid 2024). I put them when go to home today. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk