Silver_Dragon

And a German NATO airbase. Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

Remember Tornado IDS has on develop by AviaStorm 3rd party and "Germany" map was show on CH-47F videos.... Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

One day more.... Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

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.