Silver_Dragon

Wags has put info about Iraq on the Sniper pod videos, show Mosul zone...

thank @PorcoRosso86

Good as a multiera light bomber (WW2/Korea/Vietnam/CION) My data: A-26B-1 Invader Attack Man Rtng: 2.0/1.0 Damage Value: 31 Size: Medium Bombsight: Ballistic Throttle Setting/Speed in knots Altitude Rng Cruise Full Power Low: 180 280 Med: 220 313 Ceiling: 6735 m Engine Type: RP Cruise Range: 1232 nm Int Fuel: 2387 kg Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1816 kg Off Guns: 6 M2 .50 cal. (1.8) Def Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. in remotely-controlled dorsal & ventral turrets (0.3) 8 500 lb or 4 1000 lb bombs Remarks: In Svc: Sep 44 Dorsal turret can be locked facing forward, total offensive gun attack 2.2. A-26B-50 Invader Attack Man Rtng: 2.0/1.0 Damage Value: 31 Size: Medium Bombsight: Ballistic Throttle Setting/Speed in knots Altitude Rng Cruise Full Power Low: 180 318 Med: 220 328 Ceiling: 6735 m Engine Type: RP Cruise Range: 1232 nm Int Fuel: 2387 kg Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1816 kg Off Guns: 8 M2 .50 cal. (2.4) Def Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. in remotely-controlled dorsal & ventral turrets (0.3) 8 500 lb or 4 1000 lb bombs 14 5 in HVAR Remarks: In Svc: Jan 45 Provision for 6 additional M2 .50 cal. fixed in wings (add 1.8 to off Gun Atk, total of 4.2). Dorsal turret can be locked facing forward, total offensive Gun Attack 3.0 or 4.8 with wing guns. Pacific units carried 125 USG aux fuel (adds 323 kg fuel and 167 nm) vice ventral turret. A-26C-50 Invader Attack Man Rtng: 2.0/1.0 Damage Value: 31 Size: Medium Bombsight: Ballistic Throttle Setting/Speed in knots Altitude Rng Cruise Full Power Low: 180 318 Med: 220 328 Ceiling: 6735 m Engine Type: RP Cruise Range: 1232 nm Int Fuel: ? Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 1816 kg Off Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. (0.6) Def Guns: 2 M2 .50 cal. in remotely-controlled dorsal & ventral turrets (0.3) 8 500 lb or 4 1000 lb bombs Remarks: In Svc: Jan 45 A-26B with bombardier position in nose replacing 2 .50 cal. Provision for 6 additional M2 .50 cal. fixed in wings (add 1.8 to off Gun Atk, total offensive Gun Attack 2.6). Dorsal turret can be locked facing forward, total offensive Gun Atk 2.6, or 3.2 with wing guns. B-26K Counter Invader Attack Man Rtng: 1.5/1.0 Damage Value: 31 Size/Signature: Medium/Med Bombsight: Manual Throttle Setting/Speed in knots Altitude Cruise Full Mil Reheat Low: 140 255 -- Med: 148 269 -- High: 156 283 -- Ceiling: 8717 m Engine Type: RP(S) Cruise Range: 1100 nmi Int Fuel: e3210 kg Additional Fuel Fuel Wt. Range Add. 230 USG drop tank 630 kg 255 nmi 675 USG bay tank 1845 kg 745 nmi Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 5448 kg Off Guns: 8 M3 .50 cal in nose (3.6) 2 LAU-3/3A rocket pods, 4 CBU-14 cluster bombs Remarks: In Svc: 1964 - 73 Can carry 3623 kg internally, 1816 kg externally. Wing tip tanks are permanently mounted, included in the internal fuel value. 1966: Redesignated A-26A. Nov 69: Last combat mission during Vietnam War.

We all know that after the Marianas, the Kiro Butai was no longer a threat, not only because of the loss of experienced pilots, but also because of the extremely high attrition and Allied superiority. The Marianas disaster confirms this, especially when alerts were being issued at 50 miles, more than enough to trigger massive counterattacks... It's nice to think about 1-on-1 carrier battles, but if navies are going to be recreated, they would have to be done to the fullest extent.

Official changelog is here:

From On Develop

Meanwhile the Morroco/South Sahara zone will be arid.... Canary Island and Spanish peninsula has a complete diferent terrain.

Wags talked about improvements on Dynamic Campaign

Update roadmap with 2.9.19 patch

Bo-105 PAH has on progress by Miltech-5 but that has not near ready to a launch. i think mid or late 2026.

Yes First time and surely more will coming.

It will be interesting to see if it will be a realistic launch, with the vehicles on their platforms until they reach land.

Has none "military" seachlights units or equipment after the WW2, many of that units was disbanded after WW2 with the radar. Actualy has only "comercial" Stoplights, reconverted to drone hunting...

What does that mean? Can't another 3D modeler come along and make an A5M Zero? (remember a official ED Zero module has incoming) Or is it exclusive to M3? ED has officially confirmed it for 2024 (Wags/Nineline) and already said at the time that it would be part of the PTO. The fact that M3 hasn't added them to the M3 PTO assts pack it after three years isn't ED's problem. On 2025 February... ED show your zero to the PTO assets pack

The 2024/2025 and Beyond video, made by ED, the AI zero and others PTO units as the USS Enterprise and CA Mogami was confimed made by ED from january 2024, no M3. The F4U release video was made by ED, no M3 and use the same AI PTO units as the "zero" IA.

Aerial torpedoes has implemented and working on Ju-88T AI unit from some years ago, the problem has talked, the associated funtionality, but a very missing weapon on DCS has none Depth charge / antisubmarine weapons. ED has planned by the PTO Assets pack some capable torpedo carriers: TBF “Avenger” (Mk-13 torpedoes and DC missing). PBY “Catalina” (Mk-13 and Mk-24 Fido torpedoes, retroboms and DC missing). B6N “Jill” (Type 91 torpedoe missing).

DCS has torpedoes implemented on WW2 aircrafts and some WW2 and modern subs, the main problems.... has a very simplified funtionality..... The main problem? The Torpedo doesn't work like a torpedo; it looks more like a very stupid, very slow missile underwater. The torpedo doesn't seem to have a realistic gyroscope function implemented to steer toward the target, nor can it be fired in salvos or select the depth or speed. There are no underwater explosion physics, nor pressure or magnetic fuses... we could even say that the contact fuse is poorly simulated. They have no guidance, so there is no passive or active functionality in modern torpedoes (there is no sonar engine in DCSW), and there are no countermeasures. And of course, there are no bubble trails or electric or other propulsion torpedoes (we could almost say it's not simulated).

RS Mig-17F January 20 was the last develop update on your FB https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100066692146603 The last Mi-17F Youtube video was on May 2025 About the Mig-21Bis 2.0 continue on Summer 2024, talked they continue working on them. https://magnitude-3.com/2024/07/13/2024-summer-update/?fbclid=IwY2xjawMITJBleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETA0VnA3NHpnWkRrdmc1aGJ3AR7cW39p1uqu7F7f8dj2KaPhIEI6Avt9BdJv_D5A3gjeZcfwchTj2-p4LbHaPg_aem_e0MEyK5qlgWeRqx51opHkA No i dont expected a Mig-23 yet by ED by the "dispute" has none resolved yet. Meanwhile has many FC-3 Red aircrafts (Mig-29S/Su-25/-27/-33) will turn on FF modules on DCS

ED has only given a side note, just as ED has done with other modules in the past. Until there's a big "official" announcement, everything will continue as usual. Has M3 officially said anything about this? Has it confirmed any official modules?

This is the same story as with ground vehicles, if ED doesn't do the groundwork on the core, there's no point in talking about a new damage system... We'll know if ED is working on damage model advancements from the Friday newletter reports, so let's assume that all modern vehicles, ships, and aircraft will continue to ship with the old damage model, unless otherwise stated.

The last news talking about ED has centred on damage model of WW2 aircrafts.

ED has only talked about the WW2 version, nothing else at this time.

It's been said repeatedly that a subscription system (and benefits) doesn't work in DCS World... for many subscribers, priorities aren't going to change, and their main business model is selling modules, not charity. Huge amounts of money are already being spent (which a subscription system doesn't compensate for unless you're an MMO), and this would force you to sell "expansions" at AAA prices to cover costs... Also, I love that assumption, "just sign up for a subscription and the problems will be fixed."...let's not dream of castles in the air. Turning the wheels isn't going to change things that have been happening for 30 years, much less "forcing" directions in the management of product lines because you want to step on the gas... Building functionality into the core isn't just about having a monkey hack code. Either you have competent staff (which is very expensive), or nothing gets done here. Let's also remember that much of the "competition" hasn't even come close to what we have today in the combat department. If someone wants to put money into making a module, they can: - Form a third party and do it themselves. - Try another KS... we know how the previous one ended.