Fri13

I did use those back in the time of Lock-On, totally worth the time to place a 9 different view points to NUMPAD, but it was then hassle to edit files to save the positions etc. But it was best option to get quickly seeing around. So if any other module is challenge because "I can't see what is written there" then viewpoints is the way to go. They can be for glancing something and then return to main view.

It is cheap solution, but it works great in games that are designed exactly around that, like the VR VTOL. If that game would be available to Quest 2 as standalone, it would be amazing thing. Just take the Quest 2 with you and you have couple hours flight time on any chair that has arms rests. For DCS it is just no go and step away from immersive situation.

Ah, now I understand that. Thanks for clarification. Sure, the problem is that the Quest 2 cameras field of view is not so great to sides and to backward. The Touch Controllers has own gyroscope sensors that are used for limited time period movement registration when the IR leds are not visible. This example allows to take hand behind your head to pull a sword or behind back to do something. But it is just few seconds that period the controllers are allowed to be out of field of view before they are "ignored" and jumps back to field of view when you look at them. This is one of those problems with the "Inside-Out" tracking systems while the old "Outside-In" allowed to track each device separately, and well if you got them be inside 2-3 sensors field of view. With the RIft S what I have used the Touch Controllers, I don't have a such problem but it is because Rift S has a side cameras for covering those areas. Still placing hand behind back/head cause blind spot and problems in time similar manner.

It does the trim on release in a real thing. When you have AP channels enabled and you press TRIM button down, all the AP channels authority is disabled, magnetic force is released from the cyclic and only cyclic dampening is enabled. On the moment you release the TRIM button, AP channels registers the current aircraft attitude (pitch, roll, speed, altitude etc) and they get 20% authority to inputs to maintain those parameters that were registered, and the magnetic force is activated so it centers cyclic in the new position. The problem is that with a centering joystick, there is constant force to pull the joystick to center. So it gets tiring. The solution for that is that on the moment TRIM button is released, the Joystick inputs are not registered until joystick is re-centered (released to get back to center by spring force). Only after that does joystick input be registered again, and now your joystick movements from its centered position will move the helicopter virtual cyclic in its trimmed position. If the TRIM function would happen when Joystick TRIM button is pressed, you couldn't move joystick anywhere as each time you move joystick would be applied and only press would program the AP for the moment. Now if you would release joystick to center, you would be fighting against the programmed trimmed position.

No need to buy the F/A-18C grip to it to have a proper bindings, you just leave the few features unused, but if you just fly the F/A-18C Hornet and you want exactly that experience for the money, there is no better way to go. Now I didn't understand that part. What you mean with "OT" and do you mean with "aircraft return to initial position" that tracking is lost and the view recenters to default forward position? As that is a problem when you have a low-light room where is not enough details (contrast) to lock on. The Quest 2 (as Rift S etc) builds a 3D map of the room where it is. And it has few specific key points in its memory that where they are suppose to be and if it loses track on those, then it resets. The hand controlles are great when you are on the go (just take a laptop + Quest 2 + hand controllers) and you want to demo something or just fly a short moments with simple aircraft like a Yak-52. But lack of the real stick and throttle functions fill limit seriously the flight capabilities and the realism part. If we just could rebind the Touch Controllers functions, we could have at least something else there. Like example: Trigger = Shoot/Launch, use the touch sensitivity as "First trigger" and pull as "Second trigger". Grip = Touch = multiplier 1, Pull = Grab Mini-stick = Trim, + Multiplier 1 = Mini-stick for sensors or 4-way hat etc. A = Touch Multiplier 2, press Button 1 B = Touch multiplier 3, press Button 2 Touch area = Switch/Multiplier (for the grip example etc) Now there would be possibility get around some of the aircraft functions with just two controllers. When starting from zero, it is best to just get a good display and then any cheap joystick that has one hat and at least 3 buttons for trigger/thumb use. And then just use the keyboard. The VR is not worth it if not ready to really go for fully in.

And how is that "better" or "realistic" or anyways "different" from this: So how it is more natural to have a keyboard under your left hand? How it is not "ho is THAT realistic"? How is it not about flying "the same for every aircraft despite it being not like the aircraft at all"? What you only did was to exchange a more realistic device to a unrealistic device, where you need to use a both hands to do things in Hornet, you use now just one hand - on a keyboard... From this: To this (but for F/A-18C): How does it feel "more natural"?

The VR controllers are never as real as HOTAS is. 1) You do not have the functions the real HOTAS has, that you can bind to Joystick and Throttle. 2) You never have the physical feedback of the stick and throttle with VR controllers. You need to float your hands in the air, not rested on the stick and throttle. 3) You are required to use keyboard, voice command software for the real HOTAS functions and that is unrealistic, you are literally using same wrong controllers for every aircraft there is. What you benefit from, is physical controllers for stick and throttle/collective. You want to have enough buttons, hats and axis in both of them so you can bind only the real functions to them (nothing else). And then in VR, you really benefit from a proper hand tracking (still lacking in DCS, but there are great things out there to come near it) so you need to move hand next to the cockpit buttons, switches etc to operate them (you don't use HOTAS for landing gear, for UFC, for MFCD's etc). The CtrlPoint that is sold here is great replacement for mouse, but AFAIK it doesn't have a depth axis, so you don't need to put your hand close to the controls, but you do so naturally, but still you have a cross on screen. Until example Eagle Dynamics implements the Oculus Quest hand detection API (they already have touch controllers) then somekind extra controller is required. With real HOTAS you don't need to be creative to make realistic bindings, depending your choice of joystick and throttle naturally. So if you have a 2 button joystick, you can't do as much as with joystick full of those. Here is my examples: Because you have N+1 amount of buttons, hats and switches, it doesn't mean you need to put everything there. To go for a realistic behavior, you don't need to own all the grips there are for various bases either. Sure that is the closest you can get, but it is not required. All that you are required is to jump in the cockpit, look at the real stick and throttle, then open options and open the corresponding category and bind the functions that really are only in them and closest possible manner. Like example the F/A-18C Hornet and AV-8B N/A Harrier sticks are same, but in the Harrier the SCS and Trim has swapped their places. The trim is more important (under thumb) than the Sensor Select Switch (right side of the stick). While in the Hornet the Sensor Control Switch is more important than Trim hat. You simply copy the real functions and layout to your joystick and throttle and you leave everything else out of them. So no gear levers, no OSB, no LTD/R, no Brakes, no Bypass etc to them. If throttle and stick doesn't have them, then they don't go to HOTAS. Everything else in the cockpit, you do by your hands. You move your hands around. And you will learn example in Hornet that you can't reach a LTD/R switch with your left hand on right side panel, but you need to use right hand to operate it. What comes to use just the touch controllers or other VR controllers to use the virtual stick and throttle in the cockpit, it works for emergency situation like you just need to test something for a minute or two. but to fly for hours with those, it doesn't work at all so well as with physical stick between your legs (or side of your leg as with F-16) and throttle at the side to rest your hands on them and having all the proper functions under your fingertips. As those sticks are far more realistic than having this in your hands to fly the aircraft: You just eventually have one and only one controller and functionality in your posession, instead different functions and different layouts. Instead example VKB has gone for a modularity in their sticks, just waiting to see that they do higher level modularity to their top sticks. As example in it you can swap two hats between 8-way hat + push or 2-axis + push mini-stick. Someone likely comes around and allows to be even more modular and switch every single of those six positions (3x2 rows) to be either button, hat or mini-stick. On that moment one could make the wanted layout, but not be so easily swapping them between flight as changing whole grip. Edit: of course F-16 and such benefits from the sidemounted stick with short throw, why you can have a quick clam system that allows you to move stick from between legs to side in 15 seconds and shorten it in few seconds by removing possible extension. So you don't need to own multiple bases and grips to do that.

You didn't understand. All aircraft are in service X years without any changes. Example, our Hornet has been in the service from at least 2005 to 2021 "as is". No updates, no changes, nothing. Did I make that clear? The F/A-18C Lot 20 Hornet that is in DCS World is not only existed in 2005. It has not only existed 2005-2006 or 2004-2006. It is in operational service even today, in the condition it was 2005 that DCS World selected it to be modeled. It has received various new weapons to carry for "as-is condition" from 2005. It is important that module developer will include this information in the store page that from what date to what it has been in service in such variant/modification. It will help everyone to find more information when officially it is known the years etc. It doesn't help so much that such information is "hidden" in the manual history part. "The F404-GE402 turbofan engine was incorporated in 1992, adding 10% more static thrust. In 1993, Hornets began equipping the AN/AAS-38A laser target designator/ranger (LTD/R), giving it the ability to target its own laser-guided munitions. A year later the avionics received another bump, swapping the venerable AN/APG-65 for the powerful and precise AN/APG-73 attack radar. Production of the F/A-18C and D Hornets ended in August 2000. The last C model was assembled in Finland for the Finnish Air Force. Hornets continued to serve the US for the next two decades. The C model’s last cruise was aboard the USS Carl Vinson, which ended in April of 2018, whereupon the Navy announced that the C models would be retired from combat duty in February 2019. The aircraft was honored with a retirement ceremony, but a few Cmodel Hornets continued to fly in training duty as aggressor aircraft, or in the service of the Blue Angels. The final flight of an F/A-18C for the US Navy was on October 2, 2019. In all, nearly one thousand C and D model Hornets were produced, and C models served in the armed forces of eight countries. Though the United States has retired the C-model Hornets, the model still serves in the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Finnish Air Force, the Kuwait Air Force, and the Swiss Air Force." Did Eagle Dynamics started to model the Hornet when? 2005? So have they been developing Hornet now 16 years? Or did they access to it closer to this date like 5-6 years ago, so around 2014-2015? The last flight in 2nd Oct. 2019 is fairly long time with additional new weapons that were not in use at 2000 or 2005. But hey, if history doesn't matter just ignore it.

Maybe he meant terrain module? Or maybe even a "the new terrain engine"? As ED is working for a new terrain engine (TE) that is used for the new free map... I wouldn't go for the "whole earth terrain module" yet, even when it is a ultimate dream for Eagle Dynamics.

I am yet to even test the Harrier flight modeling against any specs, but that sounds very worrisome. As so far the Harrier is so full of wrongly working systems or missing systems that I didn't want to even add to that bag the flight modeling part. But what continually reminds me is its capability to accelerate to high speeds so easily without noticing it while being engine RPM at 60-80% and loaded with something like 2x mavericks, 2x GRA-20 and gun. The feeling is like a driving a tesla, you just suddenly notice that you are going 130 on a normal road with 80 limit as you do not feel and hear the speed like with example 20 year old car you do. Regardless the Harrier has very powerful engine, has done those record climbs etc. Some pilots say it doesn't accelerate like at all, and some say that you can effectively brake with it as it is so draggy (especially with engine nozzles control) but as well some do say that it is easy to win a dog fight against F/A-18C pilots who has combat experience against Harrier, and yet that they can turn tighter and faster than Hornet can because wiffing, how they can maintain challenge in combat for other pilots. But there is something one can't put a finger on it. And I wish that wouldn't be anything serious but what You have stated there is definitely requiring more checking.

Everyone will will lose their sharp eye sight at some point, some might not much, but for some it might impact a lot. This is one thing that I do agree in these displays simulation that they should be designed with to option: Realistic and Gameplay. Where one can have all the glare, all the smudges, low contrast and everything as realistic manner wanted with the tiniest fonts and blurriest graphics. But we as well need the option (for what ever reason) to make them more readable, clear and even with export option to be on single display as overlay with push of a button (press a button and all displays are enlarged to half of the display in corresponding positions, release a button and they are removed). Is it cheating? Yes. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Is it wrong? No, if it makes 1) playable and 2) in multiplayer everyone is given the right to do so. Already alone the zooming and the trackIR are cheating and unrealistic. One turns head in 340 degree angle without any G forces, any physics etc. One zooms in with 10x binoculars, inside a cockpit or outside etc. But hey, if everyone is given the same unrealistic capabilities etc, so be it. But here again we should have mechanics in the game that allows to restrict or disable those for multiplayer competitive and realism reasons. It goes both ways. So when I said it is a cheat, it is a such. There is no way around it as it is not realistic thing. But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. One can cheat themselves, or they can cheat others, or everyone can cheat everyone else with same manner, it doesn't matter as long no one thinks it is "realistic" (cheat themselves). Sure, just like everyone can not have a fully loaded HOTAS, or motion platform, pedals, a VR, a 1500 € GPU etc etc. It is a game and it is meant to be enjoyed. Let me tell you short personal story. Personally I have gone from one corner to another corner without visiting the third corner. (Desktop to VR, without building a full home simpit for single individual aircraft). And there was a time (long time ago) when I binded everything to everything there was in a HOTAS. It was important to get a HOTAS with "more buttons merrier" thing. It was to get a largest display front of you (65") in all details etc. Back in the time only the KA-50 was out and later A-10C was released and I was made all bindings for the KA-50 with as much proper layout as much (left / right side of cockpit etc) and so on. But, with the VR I found one thing, I don't need anything of that anymore. The 3D modelers and texture artists are my tools to enjoy the realistic cockpit. It was a eye opening experience to realize that all I need are actual flight controls, a joystick and the throttle. At the time the DCS virtual "gloves" didn't exist, and then later on for long time they didn't do anything than just move around cockpit with VR controllers, but it was a sign that something amazing will be coming. First it as a mouse cursor moving with the HMD and clicking around with two buttons in HOTAS as left/right click. And then after Oculus touch controllers has been enabled I have been using just those. No more mouse, no more keyboard, no more nothing else than HOTAS and touch controllers. It goes even so far that I don't anymore like the 3D pilot model in the cockpit, because my hands are the virtual gloves in the cockpit. So when I see the gloves floating and body is stuck to HOTAS, it is immersion breaking thing. I am happy that many loves those 3D pilots in cockpits and so on, but I can't use them anymore. Eventually I ended up to portable, minimalistic "virtual simpit". I have a flight chair, built-in PC in to it. I have centered and extended joystick (VKB MCG PRO) properly in the seat and two throttles (for helicopter and for fighter layout, so vertical linear pull/push and horizontal). I don't anymore see validation for any "button boxes" or trackIR, external displays, mouse, keyboard.... Just give me a AC power plug and it is all in one chair that takes 85 x 50 cm floor space. The chair is based to F/A-18C and Su-27S seat angles so slight mixture. It allows perfect head turns as chair height from the floor is 84 cm and seated height is 28 cm from the floor. Weight is about 20-22 kg (have not weighted but based just to 25kg hand weights I have), so I can transport it to anywhere just back of my car. (now my idea is to make one more for Co-Op flying). Next task is to build a motion movement platform, but I need to integrate it to that, and I am against it as it adds considerable weight to it. So now transportation becomes a problem. But based to many sources and tests, +/- 3-5 degree tilting is more than enough to generate very believable experiences (better than larger motions). Why I am considering a the much hyper JetSeat (butt shaker) instead, but I have not had any experience with such so have not bitten the bullet. What really has changed in the years is that I started to value more about the real history of the aircraft than what popular culture makes out of them. I got more interested about engineering of the aircraft than flying them. The technology, the design choices and all engineering decisions why something is inside cockpit as it is in them. Like it is interesting how huge difference there is between a F/A-18C three displays positions and sizes, compared to F-16C tiny displays at so below inside a cockpit. The history how F-16C engineers purposely made the aircraft difficult to be modified and upgraded, and regardless of that it turned to be likely most modified and upgraded fighter in US inventory, with all the challenges that it was made so difficult. It is fun to go through the checklists, it is fun to learn the design philosophy in the different aircraft that "why the **** they put that button there?", so DCS World really delivers to me a "Study Simulator" for the cockpits, functions and all it. Would everyone else enjoy from it same way? No. Should everyone else need to enjoy it same way? No. Maybe one day more people would start to respect more about the realism by the limitation. "I can't read that" or "I can't see there" are realistic experiences. There is already a big difference requiring to grab a joystick with left hand so you can operate something on the right side of the cockpit in mid-flight, compared that one just press a combo button on throttle to do so (example Hornet LTD/R switch) without any real life challenge that real pilots has. But everyone is some point coming to age when their necks don't turn so easily (with the Rift S I can look 360 without problems, on a chair that doesn't rotate, where I don't need to grab anything etc) and their visions are not so great (might need to have correcting glasses anyways), can have hand shakes, or just pain by doing something. And that should never be the reason stop enjoying something that can be done safely, seated at home. For many it will be hard time to retire, then your driving license might be taken away, your children's start to fear that somethin happens to you and deny your movements etc. It is not fun.... It is a life, but it is not fun.

The + variant is basically just a radar page to MFCD, copied from the hornet, a original already modeled radar variant throttle that Razbam mistakenly made first and was required to change to N/A throttle not long time ago (adds one button and radar vertical slew axis), and then remodeling of Harrier nose cone, removing the DMT sensor. What comes to flight modeling, it is weight adjustments more than aerodynamics. It is not for nothing that N/A and + share same flight manual that list just the few differences otherwise. So hard part would be done if ED would give the radar SDK as Razbam just needs to copy the Hornet AG and AA radar modes. Easiest way to get a another $80 module out.... There are claims that Harrier gets completed this year, sooner than autumn. Meaning we likely only see the couple small things added, like one of them is now hyped thermal cueing system on their Facebook page. And then they call it done.

And decade later same hornets are still flying with APKWS II DCS has. The Lot 20 didn't start and end to 2005. But it doesn't matter as ED is considering their modules stuck to one day in the history, and not agree that variants fly years without any changes to them.... All the modules in DCS should come out with information officially that what date did the first variant roll out of the factory, and what date was the last Day when the variant was in service or existed as such. Example, Mi-24P is still same for decades. Limiting it to very specific date would be wrong, just to make a point that it shouldn't receive any changes either side of that date.

If it takes zero skill, then what can anyone learn from it? Isn't such aircraft that requires zero skill be useless for learning flying? The F-35 does fly by itself. It will even land by itself on the carrier, vertically! So is there zero reasons to perform training for it? Yes it is easy to fly etc. Same is with Yak-52 or Christen Eagle II (more for a advanced training but...) etc. Yet they are there for various reasons. Almost all airplanes are easy to take-off and land and especially to fly. But when you require pilot to navigate, communicate, fly in pattern/commands etc, then it becomes challenging. Basically no matter what they fly, it is those skills that matter. Like the above video, for an aircraft that "requires zero skills", the pilot managed to trash the plane very easily in simple landing. In a good weather almost anyone can land on first try on a carrier with the Hornet. It is so easy to fly. But when you need to fly by the numbers, it becomes far more challenging. When you are in pitch black night in a mist without good visuals, that is when it really becomes challenging. Add some turbulence, radio communications etc and it is a nightmare. Do it 100 times so you 100 times never die, never crash, never eject etc. And it is totally different ball game.

It is question about user own personal opinions what is wanted to be purchased and installed. If person want to buy everything and install everything, then they certainly can go and invest 40-50 € for a new SSD or M.2 (read/write speed 500-1000 MB/s for that price range) where can be extra maps or modules installed. It is same thing where someone might not be able buy all modules and all maps, some might not be able buy a 400 € joystick with a 450 € throttle and 300 € pedals + everything else. For that a cheap SSD is very simple solution, less than half of the top modules prices and far more benefits then from that. Easy and first solution for everyone who has less space is to make decisions without greediness to have it all installed at once. Just uninstall one map Nevada 35 GB Persian Gulf 34 GB Syria 48 GB Normandy 16 GB Caucasus 17 GB The modules are usually between 3.5 GB (F-14) and 280 MB (Christen Eagle II) where average is about 1.7 GB per module. I find those fairly acceptable levels, considering that one AAA title can take a 80-150 GB these days and offers a lot less fun time than DCS World does.

Yes, the Super Carrier doesn't exist, it is a rumor. And you can't provide any evidence that it is under development. Yes your game can be played if you want. Personal attack again. Yes, Combined Arms, Wish for future Tank Simulators, advanced damage modelings etc etc. And for your information, everyone can read the Original Post as many times they want, they don't need you to try to tell them what there is written. Again personal attack as you can't understand what the OP has written regardless multiple requotes to you, that you call "spam". Nice that you understand that now as well... Even when you exaggerate with 100 years.... Personal attack.

You try to make it personal, stop it. You made a claim that you have read every single post since the start, after you have made a claim that you did not read what I wrote, and calling me a spammer. You specifically admitted that you lied. I am not angry, I am sad that you can not do more than personal attacks when you can not discuss the topic that OP is all about = RTS game mechanics, Tank simulator, advanced damage modeling and system modelings, vehicle crews, high resolution terrains, historically accurate various different vehicles from various countries and eras etc etc. You are not following. You are just doing personal attacks. It literally is the context, strictly in the context that what Battlefield Production wants to offer! Stop making it out of context. Yes you have. Person A says: "We want to make a tank simulator to DCS World" Person B says: "I don't think DCS World can be made so great tank simulator as it lacks X, Y and Z" You come and say: "NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT TALK SIMULATOR! GO AWAY! STOP SPAMMING YOU!" I don't even quote you anymore the Original Post because you will just continue claiming that topic is not about adding new ground units with advanced damage modeling, requirements for high resolution terrain engine, new AI and support high fidelity vehicle interior simulations with all the buttons and switches modeled properly like they are in the aircraft modules. How you can sell assets packs when you do not have assets packs? How you are going to make assets packs with the OP definitions, requirements and dreams when the DCS World doesn't currently support those elements? How are you going to discuss about assets packs when they are currently impossible to be done? How are you going to discuss about possible assets packs when you have defined them to be impossible be used any other way than WW2 that was mistake from ED part? The discussion is about the future, the next years to come. Not two weeks, so stop moving goalposts. The OP is asking that what is wanted to be offered in the future that is there interest for it. They are not asking about status of 10 years back, or status of today, but about the future. Yes, you are going circles. And they are coming, as has been explained in the various interviews by ED. Touching from the parts like the OP is about like Tank simulator with full 3D stations etc. And you are still ignoring the OP post, that to provide later the wanted features, DCS World needs to change. It is already known that ED made mistake with the WW2 pack in the start, they fixed it already with the Super Carrier. It is already dealt with. I have already years ago written about ideas about third party studios offering only different ground units packages from various eras like 70's, 80's and 90's from different countries (like Germany, UK, USA, France, Russia). Already discussed all these things years ago when Combined Arms was released. The OP literally talks about wishes to bring later on the Tank Simulators to the DCS World in those assets by using Combined Arms capabilities. It is literally in the topic! Again you are not reading what I have written. You are the mad one if there is someone mad. And I have already explained that the problem is not there anymore you keep repeating in circles. You are attacking. And if you want to hear others peoples opinion, then read. You have them already. As the Combined Arms is under heavy development. Do you understand that? The DCS World as it is currently is going to be history. The Assets Packs are literally part of the Combined Arms like the OP has discussed about it. The Combined Arms is not just about tank simulator or a SAM simulator, it is primarily about RTS game. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/campaigns/ca_frontlines_georgia/ The DCS World ground assets are directly to the Combined Arms purposes, that players who own it can command them on the map as well. Not just mission editor for scripting a targets for the pilots to destroy. Yes, we all others have read it.... Yes, that has already been discussed everywhere else that WW2 Assets Pack should never repeat itself, and as I have explained already that ED itself learned from it... So it is not a "important to highlight" when it is already history. So you want the assets packs to be limited for only those who purchase the license, and for others the units in the assets packs are suppose to be 1) transparent, 2) non-existing 3) disallow to join the server? Do you understand the mistake that even if ED would change the WW2 assets pack to be like in the Super Carrier (visible for all, not usable in single player or editor without the license, not possible to use the units in Combined Arms etc...) that it is just a good thing for everyone, and no one is taking anything away from you? It would be your benefit if you would understand the OP post in the first place.... Tell original poster to change his original post not to talk about features, plans, wishes, and strictly go to just "do you want to buy retextured new units from existing ones, and be locked out from it if you don't own the license like the WW2 Assets Pack and not like Super Carrier". About what? That you do not understand that what his Orignal Post says? Wrong. The WWW forum idea is that everyone can talk at once because it is written communication where quotation lines are critical that everyone can see who is replying to whom. This is not a chat or a VoIP where everyone can just say something between others or talk over others so no one else is hearing what is said like it would be a one way radio communication. Have you followed the Super Carrier development at all? Their discussions, their changes to licensing as reported by the closed beta team members etc? Go ahead.... It is right there wide open in various threads where ED clarify lots of questions and worries that WW2 assets pack wouldn't repeat itself... One of the worries was that if you do not own Super Carrier, can you join to server that has it or are you blocked to do it like with WW2 Assets Pack.

It is there as you don't always otherwise know when weapon is released in real life, unlike in simulator where we can have sounds we shouldn't hear like switches or afterburner and such. In Harrier it adds a lot as confirmation like Shagrat says, so hopefully gets in hornet when it is completed soon.

And yet you ignore it all. I explained it to you, and then you do personal attack by starting to call others spammers.... That is not explaining, that is personal attack. You do not read, you claim otherwise than the OP post is about etc. Argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad populum. If you go to street racing event, do you think you are going to find people there who are interested about flight simulators? Already answered, countered and done. Move along.... Already answered, countered and done. Move along... Already answered, countered and explained. Move along... When discussion is about the topic, it can not be off-topic. You are going circles.... Okay, so you just admitted that you are a liar. "I read the first half of this spam, and ignored the last half as it has no relevance to BP's original post." And then you say: "Ive read every post since the opening one made by OP." Well done.... Again, if you would have read what is written and remember what you have read, you would know what is been discussed and what the topic is all about: Let me raise some points: "but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system." "The DCS can't really handle a infantry simulation and even a individual vehicles like MBT modeling is more out of the scale. Commanding platoon or a company instead would work very well." "Edit: Years back, like maybe a 5-6 there was hype from the ED about new 3D animations for M1A1 where it was shown accelerating, braking, turning etc. And ED posted to their employee search to have specialists for more information about M1A1 interiors and functions etc. Likely they got attention from the US Army to produce a simulator for them. " "That is a reason why DCS World can not be considered to become a tank simulator as it lacks such terrain capabilities that ground units requires. It is as well the reason why the Air-Ground symmetry lacks severely the required elements as the ground combat itself is so weak. " "That doesn't happen in the DCS. There is simply massive clash and RNG takes its place that what units destroy each other and whole combat scenario is over in 1-2 minutes, before any virtual pilot managed to get on site to deliver any support." "ARMA is a infantry game, the vehicles in it are secondary. The DCS World is a vehicle simulator, primarily for the pilots and secondary for a ground vehicle commanders. The level how ARMA works can not work in the DCS really. And why so? It is the realtime limitation." If you can not understand the topic the OP made: BP like to suggest to offer Tank Simulator level later on for DCS World -> What requirements aTank Simulator has for DCS World -> Why DCS World doesn't currently support tank simulator.... Then you do not understand the OP post. So let me explain this one more time. What you are talking is old information. It is false argument that it is how every possible future ground unit assets pack that OP is suggesting would be based to. If you would have read, you would know that Eagle Dynamics admitted and learned from the mistake of the WW2 Assets Pack and they changed it in Super Carrier. They learned, they fixed.... Why you stick to old false information argument? That is just false argument! The Battlefield Productions has made query about new Assets Packs that literally are connected directly to Combined Arms (hence discussion that what Combined Arms is NOW, and what it is IN THE FUTURE) and they are planning to release Vehicle Simulators later on, as literally explained by them in the OP, and what they need to have from the DCS World. So asking that are people interested if such features would become possible in the DCS World.... Hence the discussion that what DCS World is currently and what it needs to be in the future before those things can be. Ignoring everything in the discussion over and over doesn't take you further than just out of the topic. Almost everyone else seems to be in the topic and discussing that future possibilities that what DCS World could provide in the future with required changes and new features and such assets packs to it but you....

Is it possible that "land API module" is partially put now to upcoming the second free map? Based its terrain details and many other things because small land mass, and how it could be used in the future for other maps as well? Like how long did it take to redo the Caucasus map for new technologies or how much NTTR was postponed because requirement to develop EDGE? There was the fancy video about M1 Abrams new animations for acceleration, track physics and all that. But since deleted (or well concealed by saturation). Yes, IMHO 10 year period is expected because already existing code base and products. If the DCS World would start from the scratch, then it would be far more easier and faster to do but we could easily scratch the existing modules then...

DCS World requires a lot of changes and new features before the OP can be done. So question is, IF DCS World gets in future what kind a features and capabilities, would they make possible to implement the OP suggested features (like a highly detailed MBT interiors and operations at level like a F/A-18C is modeled by Eagle Dynamics, aka "Tank Simulator") and are there then interest for people to invest money for them. We partially can leave 80% of the OP post out and we would come to discussion only about reskinning the current infantry and ground vehicles, maybe add few new models with new weapons. So example instead a AKM soldier we would have a Kar98k Soldier. Instead M4 soldier we would have a M1 Thompson soldier. Instead M1A1 Abrams, we would have a M60 Patton, M551 Sheridan and later M1 Abrams and M1IP Abrams. Nothing would really change by any means that what now is offered, except that you couldn't enter the vehicles or command them unless you own the assets pack with the combined arms module. But, as OP states, they have far far more wishes for DCS World. And it widens the context far further from than that. Requiring elements of RTS game, Vehicle Crew simulator, Communication/Intelligence systems, IADS simulator as suggested by another company etc: And all this requires very heavy changes to DCS World structure how these are sold, accessed and used by the players of the DCS World. What kind functions and capabilities all these requires. These third party companies needs to work with the Eagle Dynamics, and very closely. To come together the capabilities and functions required to make these things to work. And all people don't seem to understand the complexity and wide features the topic includes, as right now those can not be added, and DCS World needs to start supporting them before they can even be considered to be added. This is already a DCS World: But if nothing changes in DCS World, then it is almost moot point to add anything as the DCS World at this moment doesn't have the AI to operate properly, nor Combined Arms support a proper features, and the terrain engine etc are lacking everything for ground units. So what are expectations? How would anyone do that kind basic thing without very severe scripting? DCS World is not capable for that kind thing. So what use do we have for any of those additional units if they do not operate properly independently by the doctrine under control of AI? Some people should go look how Steel Beasts are used by the professionals (from the cadets to ex military personnel with experience to operate correctly as trained). Check out their communications and their tactics... And compare it to DCS World. IF someone wants sales for their work to add those, it needs to be a lot more than just few fancy units to sit in the "X-airfield" as target for GBU-12.....

I am in the context the Battlefield Production is suggesting to bring to the DCS World. If you do not read what the OP is about, know what the DCS World future is about, then no wonder you see everything else as off-topic. So stop attacking persons and focus to the topic. You just made my point. 1) You do not understand the OP. 2) You do not read. 3) You just do personal attacks when everyone else is in the OP topic, that you do not understand. And now you pull an fancy argument to be against the whole assets packs.... Such asset packs are underwork as there is no third party offering those. Just like the Super Carrier, it requires Eagle Dynamics to actually first develop the structure for it all. The WW2 Assets Pack is currently unique to help to finance the WW2 side of the game. In the future the DCS World needs to have the features that even the OP is talking about (and you are denying it, as you don't read or understand it) so that it can support new kind assets packs. And those assets packs would be required to be like in many other games like ARMA 3 DLC's. Where everyone downloads them, they will see them, but they can not have access to them. Meaning, everyone see ground units, they work and behave like anything. But only those who have Combined Arms can command ground units in RTS mode (commander positions requires Combined Arms), enter to vehicles (again requires Combined Arms) to operate them as a SAM operator, as a crew commander, and of course to get access to their specialities. Finally without the Assets Pack one can not build a mission, save a mission etc without ownin the assets pack. So second party can not provide a mission file where units are placed on the terrain and then player would get access to them in editor or in game or single player. All that would be denied without license. Like in the other games (like Battlefield) you can pick up a DLC weapon from a dead body, but you can not spawn with one. Like in ARMA, you can pick up a weapon but not spawn with it. You can enter to the vehicle as a passenger, but not drive it or shoot from it etc without owning the DLC. In the DCS World it would mean that everyone could download the assets packs, so they can see them on maps, they can fight against them or support them etc. They just don't have access to use them. This is all already in the DCS World. You can own license only to F/A-18C Hornet only, yet you can place all the modules on the map you do not own and make AI fly them. You can invite your friend to server and he can fly the modules he has the license, even when you do not have license to them. That is as well how the super carrier works, they didn't split the online community to "owners" and "not-owners". This is not the problem. This is not in the discussion of this. Super Carrier is more complex stuff than round units, because carrier is a vehicle that is used for landing, rearming and take-off. The same is not with the ground vehicles interaction with the air units. They will shoot at you, and react to you. One could make argument that what would a supply units do on the ground for people who do not own them? Like tanker and ammunition truck? Well, there is a solution for that as well. Your argument that "You can't see the units if you don't own the assets pack" or "You can't join to server if you don't own the assets pack" are off-topic and invalid to begin with.

If I remember correctly, Matt Wagner talks about the strategy layer in the Dynamic Campaign with Combined Arms in that interview 3 years ago. What exactly there will be is questionable, but years back Eagle Dynamics hired a senior RTS game developer to exactly bring the RTS aspects to the DCS World. And that is what dynamic campaign is about, strategies (plans ahead of whole campaign) and tactics to fulfill those (individual units inside a groups, smaller groups individual combat movements and engagements). And if Eagle Dynamics would to remove the RTS element from the game... There wouldn't be a dynamic campaign and there wouldn't be a Combined Arms where players can command troops. The RTS is already in the game, in extremely simple manner, just like the AI is extremely simple. At least because the LUA scripting the game supports, lots of things can be done in complex manner but it isn't really a "AI" as in sense of units. Yes, they have. But what they would be offering in those Assets Packs is the question is there people interested for them. Well, let's quote Battlefield Productions own first post: "These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system." I am sorry, but that can't be any more clearer way to say that Battlefield Productions is searching is it possibility by DCS engine and Eagle Dynamics future plans to make a "full fidelity" vehicle that is at the same level like F/A-18C or F-14B are, but just for the round. So when the possible third party provider is researching a interest for such functions, there is no need to start new threads to talk about other games as those are the direct comparisons that what could be expected from the future in DCS World if those ideas could be developed. That is the discussion here, WHAT FOR and HOW IT WORKS are the questions that many gets to be able answer "Would I buy those things". Like if NOTHING would change from the current DCS World when it comes to: - ground units 3D animation (walking, crawling, prone, sprinting, mounting/unmounting, entering/exiting, single fire/burst/full auto, moral/alarm status etc) - ground units AI logic and independent operation and co-operation with other units (communications, intelligence and information sharing, working together) - Combined Arms owners capability control and play various new units - Different unit capabilities (IR search lights, thermal sights/scopes, messengers or radios or hand signals etc) Maybe you should check out that what the DCS World is currently offering, what is possible could offer, and how it should be developed further to start supporting a more completed ground/surface warfare, so that new ground units are possible to be added to it. If we receive a new units without any new features and improvements to the status quo, then it is waste of time really. As literally the new assets packs would be just a reskinned existing infantry and vehicles and with same flawed "AI". Example we have in the fighters a proper radar and IR seekers scan zones. Eagle Dynamics made this first to the F/A-18C Hornet, that made the radar far more realistic than what so far there were as all FC3 aircraft radars were "all seeing eyes" that sees everything but there has been just added small delay that when a target inside the full FOV is suppose to be seen. In Hornet it really became a radar beam that is scanned: Here is Razbam version in M2000C module using a IR seeker Magic II missile and the radar: (sorry to use Facebook, but Razbam does not communicate with the DCS users in this forum and they lock everything to their Facebook account only) https://www.facebook.com/RazbamSims/videos/1056379681407524/ Before that the Heatblur developed Viggen was with it, by using Heatblur own Air-to-Ground radar technology (couple years earlier than Eagle Dynamics made own that is included in SDK for others: What does this have to do with the ground units you might ask, a lot. As the technology evolves, we want more advanced and more realistic simulations. And one side of the air combat is the ground combat. Hence this Battlefield Productions query for interest for such units. And one of the major missing feature in the current form is the lack of proper ground units simulation. Everyone learn in couple months that in DCS that some ground units are "snipers". Like T-55 gunner shooting with 12.7 mm roof gun is very accurate. The LAV-25 gunner is real sniper, placing few accurate shots from couple kilometer range on almost anything that is flying. There is simply unrealistic capabilities when the ground unit can see and engage any unit that it just has 1) Range 2) LOS. Before the new DCS mat technology (as the interview in the above with Wags) there was no collision with trees. You could fly through them, you could shoot through them, and the AI totally shot at you through them without you never knowing where the shot came. The DCS 1.5 changed all that in Caucasus (tech came in 2.0 Alpha but NTTR doesn't really have trees same manner). And that really demands that ground units would receive a realistic Field Of View restrictions, scanning and spotting capabilities, just like a radars does have. And before you go to argue about CPU requirements etc making it impossible, there is already a solution for all that. It is called simulation. When the player is not nearby, there is no requirement to go full physics simulation. Just like in any other flight simulator decades ago, combat somewhere far away is just rolling a dice. A simple card game where players pull the card out of their combat deck and then compare it to each others and rolls a dice. This has been done so on in Falcon game series as almost in any RTS game out there. It is called cheating, but it is a requirement to keep things simple. And DCS World huge advantage is that it is real time based, not accelerated time or turn based. Meaning that resources required to run tens of thousands units is negligent at the current era for a single core CPU. Because in the modern combat era there likely is never a time where more than hundred units would be engaging each others at the same moment, and mostly it is couple/few units engaging each other so it is not 100 units seeing 100 and all trying to shoot each other, but it is 2 vs 3 or 1 vs 5 case scenarios where the engagement happens every 15-30 seconds or so. Everyone in DCS probably know that placing a 50 units in tight group formation and then dropping 4x Mk-20 rockeyes on them will make any PC to drop frames seriously. Problems are 1) that it is totally unrealistic scenario and 2) the LUA scripting for such damage modeling/calculations is very inefficient when everything is tried to be run same time. Meaning that on the moment the bomb is triggered to explode, LOS is calculated, all units inside it will be marked for "damage" and all units starts to move, movement logic, collision logic and all are triggered on the exact same time because one event. That is just unrealistic and impossible. The same thing is in the fighters, on the moment the fighter receives an damage that will make it unflyable, the AI has already decided to eject the pilots. Like there is no delay, no question that do they survive or not. While the pilots are forced to be ready eject in emergency situations like landing on carrier, the reality is that they are not ejecting on the exact moment the missile explodes by them being able make battle damage analysis that flight is over. So what we need in DCS is that each ground unit will have properly set Field Of View zones for each crew member. Inside that zone is the crew member Line Of Sight with a scanning pattern. These are not required to be run all the time on all units. It can be cheated. Only the units that "Cheat AI" will mark to be "capable to engage" will trigger units AI's to perform the scanning, roll a dice that does the individual crew member spot the enemy vehicle or not, and only then to engage the units. So example in the below the BMP-3 commander has vision blocks around (red zone) and is currently searching target toward camera (green square) by scanning the horizon. The driver has same thing but limited to forward. The gunner has narrow field of view using gun sight, and scanning by limits of the turret azimuth/elevation but in expected/reported/lastseen/spotted target area. Meanwhile no one is looking at the sky. The vehicle crew would be completely incapable to spot a fighter diving toward them to drop a bomb. If someone doesn't alert them and they concentrate for searching a sky etc. They can't see, and what they can't see they can't engage. Each ground unit would be required to have these things properly set. The damage modeling that is coming to ground units already includes the crew members positions for their damage. So killing a commander would slow down things, make radio communications impossible with outside and the visibility from its station are removed. This would mean that T-55 is not a dangerous threat to air units unless a commander open up the hatch and pop-up to use the DShKM/NSVT and then be very vulnerable for fragmentation and other attacks. Driver can't see well outside if buttoned down, but if opens hatch and puts head out they can move fast and effectively etc. LAV-25 wouldn't be anymore a sniper, its limited stabilization and targeting system doesn't make it great against fast movers even at low level unless flying toward and it has been spotted first. Now, you wouldn't put a armored platoon to move on area that is unknown from threats as they don't have visibility outside to fight hidden enemy. Infantry becomes more important and effective, where we could simply model things similar manner where crawling soldier is not spotted by vehicle crews. Infantry might not be able shoot from that stance, but they could take a knee and then become partially visible and possible to be engaged. But this way you could have a ATGM team or RPG pair crawling to position engage a armored unit. And now becomes all these fancy new different eras ground armies units make more sense when their capabilities changes a lot. Like how cool it would be that in the 80's pilots could use NVG to see where IR search lights scans the landscape in combat? A FLIR would provide passive capability engage ground targets without revealing position to enemy. Units without either one are just inaccurate or even unable to fight if they can't see. Combat would slow down and night attacks becomes horrified for ground units when a special units like AH-64 crew can use NVG and FLIR to engage them freely, forcing ground units to search concealment and cover deep in the forests etc. All that requires the DCS core functions to be changed more advanced and capable. As without new features the new ground units doesn't make much sense over current ones. But once there starts to be more specialized, more advanced or limited units from different countries and different eras, the ground combat becomes more interesting. And that affects directly what the pilots can do in the air. A Viggen or Harrier performing a low altitude strike mission couple hours from the recon that one pilot made and recorded the enemy troops positions, it becomes more possible as there might not be anyone spotting them in time until the strike is already done. From 14:45 to 16:45 Like how much would it add to the DCS World when we would even get the recon capabilities to ground units and air units? A recon team making the spotting and reporting back over radio later on. Pilot going to do the mission with recon pod. 15 minutes from the successful landing back to base and units appear on the strategic map as generic area, and the taken photos are the "accurate" information only. So pilot can't see on F10 map exact units types, position or anything like that. It is visual spotting and so on all about. In the dynamic campaign the pilot can first to play RTS commander, then perform the recon flight, and then the strike mission itself. In multiplayer players could be performing the recon flights to areas that are suspected have enemy forces etc.

That is the problem with the mechanical detents, that you need to adjust them for the game in DCS. In the BMS you can in input configuration select the position here afterburner should start and the game adjust the cockpit throttle positions based to that. Many has wanted that to DCS World as well. But this is as well reason why VKB went to the electronic detents, that you can configure them with the software to be at different positions and load those positions with push of a button. This way you can have different AB detents for different planes without adjusting physically anything.

It doesn't swivel upwards when you have it properly tightened. It isn't then even too tight, but in longer sessions anything will leave some kind marks (even if your face would be on pillow) from even slightest pressure, but the tightness in those is suppose to be set even and good. No need to overtighten anything. That you actually need to do, and that is the reason why Microsoft went to do the flip-up mechanism to their line to make it possible. If you don't have that, then you are suppose to remove the backside first and then the front. Of course no one is denying to pull it as wanted but you will get lenses to your hair and grease them up that way more easily, than when pulling out forward. This is how the MS idea works across multiple brands. So you can just flip it up to see outside and then flip back down. But problem is that the structure is not so strong to hold it down on your face when you look around as all the weight is below the forehead support. I don't think that people with glasses can do that at all, as their glasses gets caught by the HMD and you can scratch the lenses and damage glasses. That was again the reason why Microsoft went to flip-up design to allow even glass wearers to do so. Oculus and Valve went different direction to allow pass-through so you can see outside in black and white with the front cameras if you need to see outside. They are related. As you need to set the HMD securely on your face, with proper tightness and backstrap position. That is there to deny you just pulling it upward away. As it is designed to be done so across the other HMD than those flip-up designs. They are the ones that you first flip-up and then you take the support band out. That is the problem in Quest that has been criticized, that you need adjust each time after takin it off. Just trust, they are meant to be removed by first pulling the strap back of the head and then pulling HMD away forward. And then mount in reverse, first place the HMD on your face and then place strap back of your head and tighten. The G2 has the similar strap as the Rift CV1 had. The strap in CV1 was excellent, Oculus designed the front section with sprins. So you could just pull the strap away from rear and then raise it above head. You never needed to touch the velcro parts. It just worked. It securely caught back of your skull and felt very comfortable. It just sounds that you want to peek around with the HMD, so you keep the straps loosen so you can grab the HMD on your face and pull it easily up from your face. So you have too loose strap and hence when you look down you will have the HMD slip by the gravity off from your face. If you have problems with the face marks, you should check aftermarket ones that allows you to have softer, larger surface area without sharper edges but more cushioned ones. But again, if you compare the HP G2 HMD to Rift CV1, they very similar. But Oculus did take a note from the CV1 and redesigned their Rift S strap with much larger forehead support, and it works because they do not have that flip-up mechanism weakening it like Microsoft did design.