upyr1

One of my questions with the world map, is whether the plan is to do historical eras?

I'd love to see a serise of maps that when bought together fit together.

I can't say I am shocked by the results, though if this poll is accurate despite the sample size, is the lack of interest in ground and naval modules is this becuse DCS simply attracts flight simmers who may or may not be interested in tanks or ships or do we have a good number of nav and tank simmers who think DCS isn't a good platform for ground or naval combat. I think that if the Eagle Dynamics and Battleship New Jersey youtube channels uploaded a video featuring Wags and Ryan Szimanski announcing DCS : Iowa-class battleships these numbers might be different. I could be wrong on that. As for eras, I know I am more interested in the Cold War than modern and it all comes back to what information we have available.

That's my biggest issue with the map itself. I would love to see it get expanded

With the theareters we have so far the mirage f-1 and MiG-21 will be hanger mates while the F-4, F-5 and F-14A will be the OP For. That will change when we get a post WWII European map.

The Jeff is the only FF redfor plane that isn't at least a generation behind the the F-teens meanwhile the F-4 is a contemporary to the MiG-21 and takes a lot less effort to get a more balanced fight. The problem wouldn't be as bad with an A model F-teen or even a storm bird. In short I think pvp is more interesting with fighters of the same generation.

There is a reason that I was more excited about the F-4E than the F-15E. Unless you use mods or flaming cliffs the late-model F-teens are limited to PvP against each other in Red Flag scenarios or PvE. Meanwhile, the Phantom will complete 3 echo systems: the Persian Gulf, Sanai, and Syria as the F-4 is the ideal op for for the Mig-21.

Ok hopefully that will be soon.

So does Korea.

Unless we have the data for the interface it might work for ai.

If you don't want a module a module don't buy it.

I expect you have signed an NDA preventing you from commenting on who the developer is, or if in fact they are doing the Thud for DCS.

If we could get a Weasle I don't care which one it is.

I'd love to get rid of the simplified flight model

Right now the only fire command that seems to work is fire at point. The first change is to fix the attack group and add forward observers. Whenever we select the attack group command if their is a friendly unit within visual range capable of acting as a forward observer the artillery should fire until the target is destroyed or the battery is out of ammo. If there is no forward observer we should get a warning like no forward observer or line of site. The second change would be an "on call" flag. This would add a unit to a fire support pool. Whenever a unit capable of acting as a forward observer is in line of sight of the enemy DCS will automatically start assigning fire missions to units in the fire support pool.

We are more likely to see the lancer than the Bison, however I feel the same way about either version that I do about the Phantom 2K variant (wether it is ICE, Terminator or any modern update). I would rather have new player drivable/flyable or sailable vehicles, maps, or assets than a variant module, If we do get a variant module I would rather the historically significant variants so in the case of the Fishbed, a Vietnam war vintage variant would be preferred over the Sniper or Bison, but once the NVAF Fishbed is taken or some developer really wanted to do the Sniper I'd have no objection I'd probably buy it. However, I would like to see some sort of bundle pack and variant pricing is the modules are done by the same developer and if they aren't done by the same developer then I would like to see something in place to enable developers to license code to make the bundle pack possible. There are some vehicles that have a long service life and I think multiple variants would do quite well though there is also the law of diminishing returns

My views on variant modules are simple, while I would prefer to see the developers work on new vehicle (aircraft, tanks, ships anything really) modules, maps and assets I really don't have problems with variant modules but as I have stated before I would love to see ED set up something were a developer interested in a variant module could license existing code from other developers and offered a bundle package where you get a discount based on the amount of shared code. The MiG-21 though is definitely a good multi-module candidate

I would be fine with removing extra liveries as long as a decent generic skin takes the place of a missing livery

So far they have done the other Republic aircraft. If we get the Thud we'll just have the F-84 and F-84F

It's all part of the same process. The changes they will need to make to dcs core is simply laying the foundation. If ED was going to do a proper destroyer they would need to rebuild dcs as necesary.

The development of a naval module would be the perfect time to work on the sonar module and anything else.

I'd love to see some ship modules

I didn't say he said it was either, only that he said the Pacific Asset pack was going to be free, and I said that we might get the B-29 in it but I don't know for sure.

Please re-read my quote again, and explain to me where I said that Magnitude was making the B-29 I clearly lead off by saying I don't know what assets we are getting but the B-29 might be possible as they were used in the Pacific. Unless you know what assets are coming in what asset pack I'm standing by my statement that I don't know and there a few ways we might get the B-29

You might be wrong on this, becuse I don't know what assets are coming to DCS in the Pacific Asset pack but the B-29 would be a candidate