NineLine

Testing and perfecting the directors is ongoing, it is no easy task. Most of these, if not all of these functions are new and beyond what most anyone has ever done with a carrier, as such it takes lots of time and testing. The chaos of a flight deck in MP has many great challenges for AI directors. Thanks.

Hey all, just a small update I was told that there is some slight tuning of the Mossie gear coming down the line, so watch for it in an upcoming changelog and we can continue to discuss from there. Thanks all and I do appreciate all the conversation and testing on this, I really do.

We most certainly need better ground vehicle controls with more realism but as I said this wasn't necessarily the initial goal, but should be something to strive for.

We expect them to become more active when the map releases, but they also have their own forums to deal with so how they will balance that all out is up to them. I will note with them the concerns of course.

CA was never intended to be a FPS although it might have rough elements of that in it. As well, I more than anyone would love to see CA get a fresh coat of paint including but not limited to new features and aspects to improve on the ground and command aspects. CA accomplished the needs it was added for at the time, comparing it to games like "Gunner, HEAT, PC" is not valid as CA was never intended to be a pure tank driver game. If you were honest you could say there are some things you can do in CA that you can't in those games. CA was built for needs at the time of DCS, giving players the ability to directly impact the battlefield while players flew missions. CA is currently 39.99 USD, on sale it's generally 19.99 USD. For all it does and adds to missions if used within the constraints of the intent of the product I feel is a pretty decent value. Pulling it because it needs updates seems a bit extreme, but we do know and understand that it needs updates. If we are talking about FPS aspects of DCS beyond what we have now then you are talking about something built upon or beyond what CA is. DCS as a whole will need to be made to complement a FPS environment or people will have to understand that any FPS additions are to add to the all-around impact and feeling of DCS as a Land/Sea/Air game. In the end, DCS was a flight sim first and everything is built upon that, this is why things like the Supercarrier take more time as we need to add and build up the core to handle these new and bigger features.

This is a bit of a loaded statement though I am sure the aircraft will perform the same in general but there are always slight or more than slight differences when the models are done to FF versions, this includes things like auto-pilot modes, etc. And of course, other systems may perform differently as they will be more detailed and in-depth than an FC aircraft is.

I have moved this to the wish list section as it doesn't seem to be any sort of bug report based on what we ask for in bug reporting. Please consider that next time you post. Thanks.

Thanks!

As far as I am aware it was driven in there, but it's not fully supported right now, rather this is the goal.

I think everyone should take a deep breath before replying again. Thanks.

Thanks I will try and take another look. The track will be helpful.

Mossie already has some gear issues reported and being looked at, just as an FYI.

Thanks all, I found them and have reported this.

I just wanted to slow it down a bit and get it back on track, we know what we want to do, but its important to make sure those are aligned with what all you expect which is ultimately more important.

For what it's worth, module releases do not need to wait till patch day. So the schedule could be altered in that sense. And to be clear I am not saying its releasing before, at or after the next patch, just stating that we are not forced to wait for a patch. Thanks.

This is fixed internally, hopefully, you should see it in the next patch release.

I have a question from the devs on this: "Some changes in those patches are NO GO for example : in Ka-50 they just rename already possible export of named viewport "ABRIS" to "KA_50_ABRIS" ( why not use already unique name ? ) for example i can expose functionality to setup viewport directly to indicator though export API , similar functionality ( POPUP ) we already have in internal tools : https://gyazo.com/174b5846188bcb1ae12e460a60812732" Let me know and I will respond back to the dev that questioned this. Thanks.

Can you include a track, when I tested the train would try stopping or be destroyed if attempting to cross a destroyed bridge, its not very sexy looking at the moment but I did not see the train ignoring a destroyed bridge. Thanks.

There is A LOT of stuff online and we have SMEs that know a lot of this stuff as well, but that doesn't always translate to being able to add it faithfully 1 to 1. But I hope you guys know we will do our very best to make an engaging and interesting (and believable) system even if a real CH-47 gup comes along and says "well it's not exactly like that" At the end of the day we don't want to get ourselves or anyone else in legal messes as well we do not want to risk real lives by compromising a system for the same of a sim/game. I cant say what we have or don't have mostly because I do not know right now. I know I helped steer 2 SMEs in the team's direction but as I stated above we want to make sure we don't do anything to jeopardize ourselves or anyone that helps us make the most realistic CH-47 possible. So for example on defensive systems, there might be some give and take. Good to know, this might be simply my misunderstanding of how it works. I think it still stands that the team would like to do it at some point though.

I am not sure I am seeing the issue in the screenshot, can you include a short track when you see it and I will check that out? Thanks.

As tagged, we are investigating, thanks.

Added Block version and CMWS info to the FAQ: What Variant is the DCS: CH-47F? Currently, we are doing the CH-47F Block 1. Will our CH-47F have CMWS (Common Missile Warning System)? This is currently planned, but as with any defensive system for any aircraft, we need to carefully consider this system and implement it in a way that will not dip too close to a controlled and classified system. As such this will come later on in development.

As I understand it we are doing a Block 1 (need to add that to the FAQ) and that refueling is a Block 2 thing (someone can correct me if I am wrong) BUT the team would like to look at this down the road as they agree it would be a very cool feature to have.

Dear all, I have reopened this thread for questions about the CH-47, please try your best to keep it focused on that. Discussions about subscription models, other developers, etc are not going to be answered here. Thanks.

Ok guys, I guess maybe we are not ready for a thread like this, I was hoping to see what you guys were looking for in the CH-47F, get some good questions and generate some more content for the FAQ but now we are just discussing way off topic things. I cleaned the thread a little but feel like I will just lock it for now until we have some more info. Sorry for all of you that were playing nice, I will try and get some of those questions answered and added to the FAQ. Thanks.