Silver_Dragon

And some IJN/IJA WW2 PTO units coming on the WW2 PTO assets pack Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Nuevo@ MAESTRO0 Actualización del desarrollo de Normandy 2.0.

Thats working https://store.heatblur.com/

ED discord: https://discord.com/channels/542985647502393346/1402701497678168084/1425577697119174697

Normandy 2.0 great updates incoming.

Heatblur inverview.

Does anyone get upset when a third party posts a story from August 22nd?

I explained myself poorly, that's why I put it in quotes... the animations and everything else are done, but not all WW2 tractors have the towing functionality implemented. In fact, no object can be towed, because it seems like something is missing. No object with the towable ability appears in DC's World. Unfortunately, the connection points are missing. I put tow examples about WW2, the M2A1 105mm artillery and the M1 37mm AAA. All have "conection points" to attach them to a tractor. But, the only funtional tractors on DCS has.... some red tractors with a "attach/detach" funtionality, but missing all trailers. I think either that has been put on hold, or there is a property or functionality that has not been assigned to those towable elements.

Let's face it, we have to be realistic: the technology doesn't allow for more. We can't keep expanding an already considerable area just because it means more and more. Sooner or later, we have to stop. We can't think of a map from England to Russia, because it's impossible. This will be two or three maps at the very least; remember, it's quite possible that ORBX will make the Baltic for us. I think those sizes will only be possible when "Whole Earth" arrives and maps start being added one after the other.

Lack of game desight about? Actual DCS World has very improved compared with LOMAC/FC, and ED has working about milestones from some years ago. And about the "Game Part", DCS has more centred on realism, compared with other titles more centred on "fantasy". Also, it seems like the great work of the community and 3rd parties is being forgotten... on purpose by that person. And please, let's stop naming influencers, who are just another more. They only want to stir up controversy to get views, when their content is designed to stir up controversy, not to help.

All WW2 artillery and AAA has implemented the Tow mode, but the towing ability has actualy none implemented on WW2. Has some WW2 tower tractors on axis and allied, but dont have the tow abilitiy. Has actualy as some buided modern tow tractors, but missing fuel modern trailers.

Ugra Media Normandy 2.0 Update.

M3 Release some of your AI units some weeks ago. We waiting about the ED PTO WW2 assets pack.

Let's just look at "others" CIV/MIL simulators: - In civilian flight simulators, certain companies like Boeing are very protective of their products. - In a certain truck simulator... they used fictional truck models until they reached agreements with certain manufacturers (and now that they're moving into bus simulators, they'll probably do the same). - In military simulators, it's the same thing; certain companies demand royalties, just for using certain weapons brands. Imagine what could happen if a company comes along and issues a "cease and desist" order... only to make a 3D model.

It seems that some people don't understand how the world works today... When ED made the Ka-50 in 2008, Kamov herself collaborated in its development... but of course, later Moscow put in place a draconian "official secrets law," to such a level that when the Russian government classifies some people as "foreign agents" and can put you in a court for it simply for posting information about the manufacturer on a website, you could end up in jail, especially with Russia having been in an open war for the past 3 years. Imagine what could happen (taking into account that since 2022, a good part of the ED team has left Russia, going to other countries, "just in case"). And let's keep in mind that ED is covering its back a lot, lest it end up like a developer, some years ago, who ended up on trial and in jail in the US, simply for trying to sell a manual for an American aircraft outside the US (Bay ITAR law). Remember that the information on the MiG-29A IS NOT RUSSIAN, it's from another country... and as I repeated before, if even a module of an Ka-50/Mi-8/Mi-24, etc., is banned in Russia by military contractors, imagine what could happen... Coming here to make comparisons as "open sources" between the West and the East simply doesn't understand the scale of the problem...

I awaiting the official news about them.... (yes, has many rumors about them and Dasault)....

It was a translator's error; I didn't say that there wasn't any balance, but rather that it's impossible. Both ED and third-party developers will always prioritize what brings them the most profit and where they have access to the best information (Bluefor), not a module that could land them in jail... That's the serious problem with the "red" (Russian and Chinese) modules. So, if anyone wants to make an Su-30MKI/MKK, Su-24, Su-35, etc., I recommend you create a third-party project and deal with the corresponding legal issues... and remember, it's not the first time someone has tried to do something "big" with the red forces, and they ended up abandoning the project due to "problems," like the Tu-22M3 project near 10 years ago... Besides, ED will require "authorization" to publish it, because they don't want to get into trouble. Regarding the MiG-21Bis 2.0, it's impossible for M3 to have access to the data of a Bison or a LancerR, due to security and data restrictions from the countries that operated them (M3 has very clear about them). Furthermore, we're talking about the first third-party module created for DCS World, back in 2015... and many people want an update and improvement for it (especially now that ED has finally created an RSBN system). As for the Su-17 from Octopus-G, that third-party developer posted screenshots, but it's normal for it to be a long-term project, not something that will be ready tomorrow. Regarding a MiG-23, the same applies as above: if someone wants it in DCS World, they know what to do—create a third-party project and try to get it done. ED has already made it clear that they will update the AI models from LOMAC/FC over time, but their modelers are focused on other projects. When they have time, they will announce it.

Let me just say this: I understand that some people haven't bothered to even look at the old development reports for the dynamic campaign, where ED clearly stated that it would address real-time military operations, including logistics and other aspects. And in their "old" job postings, they were looking for engineers (not programmers) to create a realistic dynamic campaign system... Let's remember that ED has talked about military formations, tactics, strategy, production, and supply. And at one point (I think it was Wags), they mentioned that they were basing their work on the tactics and strategies of real military organizations (I don't know to what extent they actually implemented this). We should also remember that they had military contracts since the time of the Ka-50, and "perhaps" they could have reached that level of expertise. Now, and this is something I'm very clear about: a CA 2.0 has absolutely nothing to do with tactics, just as creating a land or naval environment would have absolutely nothing to do with it. The "scale" some people want is orders of magnitude beyond what BMS achieved... because simulating the scale of a full-scale war would dwarf anything that can be simulated on a PC. You just have to read a little about tactics, strategy, and logistics to realize the sheer "magnitude" of what is being requested... And that's why I'm so critical of the "competition." Back then, the land and naval environment in BMS was a complete joke (I criticized it very harshly). I didn't spend years reading TRADOC publications, old FM manuals for the opposing forces, and modern naval tactics (from both sides) just to laugh at how much of what they tried to simulate were just simple abstractions. And let's not even talk about simulating a naval environment... there are some wargames that simulate many aspects of that, but no simulator has ever managed to achieve it (although some wargames have come close to that level of complexity).

ohhhh my god... you missing about flysism... il-2 Forgotten Battles Mig Alley Other Dynamics campaigns... Warno Call of Arms: Gates of Hell Pyre Graviteam Tactics games

No, that no have nothing to DCS. I dont need see a video talking about the "competence". ED mas making own DC, no a clon about BMS or other system with your own teams, resources.

Wags talking on January 2025 ATC on your Q&A about the new ATC on develop (21:20) and a Player ATC (22:06). An yes, will require a develop update.