Abburo

I don't think he has done this already. Also I think it is not really the best moment in time to do that as some of his assets will be replaced by the official DCS

Quite unlikely! What other mods besides CH ones do you have installed?

DCS Encyclopedia requires a different entry that the units you can see in ME. What I am trying to say is that is not relevant to look in Encyclopedia to find what is new/changed etc ... in general i mean, not only for mods.

@currenthill I am extremely grateful for your work and even more for your determination to make them available for everyone within the core DCS environment. I would have few queries though and unless you are under NDA I think would be helpful for some of us at least to know ahead what to expect: Will the core assets preserve the "CH" prefix? Will de DCSType name suffer some changes? - these are useful to know for missions creators which are relying on these attributes ED stated will bring many of your assets in the core engine. That is clear not all will be there, which is fair enough. Will you continue to maintain remaining assets as an community mod and remove only those which will be part of DCS Core. Will you be able to do this gradually, as you are going to progress with the "official" ones? Your infantry guys are fantastic. Are they in the scope ? There are several fantastic assets with special animations like towed guns, trailers etc. Can those be officialized and why not getting some native integration for more seamless animations for un-towing etc? Thank you in advance CH ! LoD's, Flir, seasonal templates were confirmed ... tremendous works only for these ...

I feel your pain and fully aware about drawbacks indeed. On the other hand we, as community, are asking for more realism, for more assets, for enhanced graphics, more maps, global map, etc... but all these come with some costs. In CH Assets Pack case is not a direct cost implied at all, and we all are owe him and ED a lot. But will be an indirect cost to keep our computers up to the current technology requirement. Even if these assets will be optimized, the overall consumed space will still be substantial... and in these days not having 70 GB but let's say 35 GB required is actually an insignificant gain for us. Also as for other assets packs I'm quite sure CH ones will end up being on their own free module! When such efforts are done just from passion, are we still in position to push back for such reasons?

You are free to not use them !

No matter what you are going to cook, we are sure it would be kind of huge step forward of overall CA for DCS

Second part is 100% not true. More than that he never got in public debates about this, leaving the door open for further discussion! How much of his work can actually go in official DCS is another topic.

There will be plenty of work to be put into adapting these formally in DCS. LoD's especially, then integrating ballistics into updated ED solution... etc etc.... I'd happily buy a bigger storage just for this

Don't worry! His name was mentioned on some DCS updates... i hope we will be hearing sooner or later something that we were just dreaming until recently

Multiple aspects about this. The current missiles ballistic is more like an workaround put in place by CH to be able to overcome DCS limitations.... so ... you need to take it as it is and consider you are not using Iskanders but lower class missiles. On the other note, C-RAMs are very capable point defenses, not saying they are capable to take out Iskanders, but i think could have a fair good rate of success... With these observations, readjusting a bit the combat scenarios might help your immersion!

Wishful thinking, but 100% unrealistic ! Say, that tester finds out some issues with a mod... the mod dev is on the sunny beach... or just busy with some booze... what should be done :D. Don't get me wrong, i like the mods... but we need to set the correct expectations.

I would not hold my breath for updates any time soon... However, I don't think CH units are problematic, but is more like other mods might create some problems when working together. Avoid mixing them and you should be fine.

This behavior was observed previously on other assets packs and the reasons are the core changes done by ED. It requires assets maintenance by devs..

There is a conflict somewhere somehow. Start by cleaning up the SavedGames/DCS/Mods folder. Make sure you have the latest version of CH mods downloaded, eventually make sure if there is any patch for that mod and install it... Test it. Once confirmed ok, try add other mods you might use and test it one by one!

But CH's assets are already compatible with Mantis from Moose. If you are referring to Skynet/Mist script... i am not using that since I've discovered its counterpart Mantis flightcontrol-master.github.io/MOOSE_DOCS_DEVELOP/Documentation/Functional.Mantis.html

I am not aware about any granularity for ammo replenishing for ground units... only for airborne units. For ground units rearming, DCS have this limitations where it is requiring an ammo truck within a certain range to replenish about any unit (ground wise) with about any type of ammunition in an unlimited fashion . CH's units are just subscribing to this given framework ! Or did I miss anything ?

How is this related to CH mods? Anyway, you may want start looking on scripting part maybe... and I may suggest you checking the MOOSE framework.

There is an abnormal silence lately in here... but this, together with CH name in DCS update logs for the China's assets pack who knows... we can only hope for the best !

SU-30SM is quite well known for generating issues. Is still an early version and prone to this. I would not mix SU30SM with any other mods to be honest!

Don't know about Moza, but i own a Brunner. This one is natively supporting both DirectX and its own software. I have to say that I preferred to stay with their software which is by far more precise than the DirectX. On helis, while trimming with DirectX it is not remaining in exact position as is supposed to and i need to actively correct it, quite similar with the OP statement... i don't know the reason and I did not went on a deep diving for tuning. While using the native software from Brunner, the trimming part is extremely precise as this particular function is set directly in their software. There are some up's and down's using the native software as well, for example the variety of effects is slightly poorer then DirectX. FFB is still at its beginning and probably DCS needs to consider to create its own API for this and not using the limited native DirectX. Also is already known that not all DCS module are properly supporting FFB, especially looking on jets.

I pretended myself being always updated... stupid me.. i was missing the 1.1.6 patch ! Sorry bothering you with stupid questions CH !

@currenthill just out of curiosity ... the Abrams picture on USA assets depicts an X variant ... while in game is the SEPv3. Being obvious that the Abrams X model is something already on your plate... will that be released some day ?

This video deserves to be on your Assets site frontpage !!! Big thumbs up to Dopaminus, and even bigger thumbs up to CH ! Thanks guys!

@currenthill I was looking how the HX81 trailer is configured and while I am not familiar at all with this type of modding, I think achieving these kinds of variations for a unit is more like a configuration matter, more than 3d modeling . Please excuse my ignorance if that is not true. This being said, I am thinking about the opportunity to build up just few more variations where some specific trucks can be loaded with ISO containers which are already present in the game as described below: HX81 Tractor -> ISO Container 1x40ft or 2x20ft - long trailer already present HX77 truck -> ISO container 1x20ft or 2x10ft HEMTT M983 TRACTOR -> 2x20ft or 1x40ft - (long trailer required) HEMTT M977 TRUCK -> 1x20ft or 2x10ft 10ft and 20ft container can be found on Cargo section (those for helis transportation) under Statics section. The 40ft ISO container is represented only as static object. While these containers are indeed used in real life and they are more specific to NATO, an later option for red side would be also great to integrate. Will this be something you may want to look into ?