NineLine

Since the release of the free DCS: Marianas WWII map and the Magnitude 3 DCS: F4U-1D Corsair, we want to provide an update on the extensive effort being devoted to bringing this scenario to life with the PTO Assets Pack. Learning from some of the European Theatre of War scenarios, the PTO scenario is focused on providing an extensive order of battle for both US and Imperial Japanese forces in the summer of 1944 and to offer an accurate representation of the battle for the Mariana Islands and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. New player aircraft coming for this scenario will include both the F6F-3 Hellcat and the A6M5 Zero. Since our last update on this project, we can now share with you the specific air, land, and sea units being developed for the PTO Assets Pack, which owners of the existing World War II Assets Pack will be able to purchase with a 30% discount: As always, subject to change. United States Aircraft F6F “Hellcat” SB2C “Helldiver” TBF “Avenger” SBD-5 “Dauntless” PBY “Catalina” P-38L “Lightning” United States Ships Enterprise aircraft carrier Casablanca-class light aircraft carrier Independence-class light aircraft carrier New Orleans-class heavy cruiser Baltimore-class heavy cruiser Cleveland-class light cruiser Fletcher-class destroyer Liberty-class transport Cimmaron-class oiler United States Ground Forces M4A2 Sherman M3A1 “Stuart” light tank LVT-4 tracked landing vehicle LVT(A)-4 tracked landing vehicle DUKW-353 amphibious truck US Marine Corp infantryman US Navy Carrier personnel US Navy seaman Imperial Japanese Aircraft A6M5 “Zero” D4Y “Judy” D3A “Val” B6N “Jill” Imperial Japan Ships Shokaku aircraft carrier Chitose light aircraft carrier Kongo battleship Mogami heavy cruiser Agano-class light cruiser Yugumo-class destroyer Kagero-class destroyer Kashino-class transport Imperial Japanese Ground Forces Type 94 Tankette Type 95 Ha-Go tank Kurogane Type 95 car Type 97 Te-Ke tank Type 97 Chi-Ha tank Type 97 ShinHoTo tank Type 2 Ka-M amphibious tank Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun Type 98 20mm anti-aircraft gun Type 91 10cm towed artillery Type 92 70mm towed artillery Type 10 120mm anti-aircraft gun Imperial Japanese Army Infantryman Japan Navy seaman

Dear all, we have cleaned this thread. For now, this thread will remain locked as it has become more work than it needs to be. Currently, we have generally the same 10 or so people debating different things releated or unrelated to this topic. It ends up in angry people, warnings and misunderstandings. When there is something new, it will be added to the 1st post in this thread. If it's something that needs discussion, we will consider opening this thread. Any new threads opened on this topic will be removed. If you have questions about items in the 1st post here, you can send us a DM. Thanks. The ED Team.

The Chinook is an ED produced module. I'm sorry, that is not public info, and this thread is on the RAZBAM issue, please stay on that topic. Thanks.

You guys can also share your evidence in DMs if you are so bound and determined to change someone's mind, but yes, please keep to the first post here.

"evidence"

As I am aware, newer modules and teams have been compliant with all aspects of contracts signed.

Looks normal here, you can include some screenshots and a track and we can take a look. Its not gonna be as sharp as the TGP.

It depends on the timing of the contract signing. And this also doesn't take into account other evolutions of the contracts; all of this is not something we will be discussing here.

Lets not talk about that place, giving him any attention, good or bad, is what he wants, and we are not here for that. Thanks.

Training 6 Reported Training 7 I didnt have much issue with this one. Training 8 Reported, Depression seems broken as you cant set the first number past 1. Training 9 Same as 8, with the Depression not working right it seems these wont work right. Training 13 No issue here taking off, this one might just take some practice. Training 14 Reported

Problem is that unless both side corroborate the info, then we just have a he said she said. I am not sure why this is hard to understand. And if one side doesn't, then you just get people fighting over their favorite side, and you achieve nothing. So waiting on a solution, one way or another, is the one way to go.

Are you seeing the never-ending circle here yet? You claim something not corroborated by both sides, then someone shares their opinion not corroborated by both sides. One person believes their source, another believes theirs... and around we go again. Welcome to this thread.

This is already requested internally, thanks!

It doesn't have to be in court to be a legal matter, therefore making sense not to talk about it in public. It would end up being the same thing. All we can say is we are working on it. As we have said many times already.

You have been told repeatedly why we are not commenting on this. It's a legal matter and will continue to address it through the proper channels. I understand that can lead to all these assumptions you continue to post, but none of that should be taken as fact, but rather your 'feelings' on the subject. Turning this into a public fight, trying to leverage public support as a weapon, is NOT the proper way to handle this, and what you suggest would only do that.