Devil 505

Hopefully that will change in the near future. Seems like they have had their hands busy with the Apache and Hind this year along with other updates. That being said, I would like to think when Combined Arms starts to see improvements and the dynamic campaign is closer, they would need guys like yourself to weigh in on the subject matter. For the sake of the rest of us out here without the experience you have, do not give up on them. Maybe shoot them a follow up email asking when they might need your assistance or if there is any plans to make changes in the near future. The best thing about these forums is finding people like you with the hands on experience that can make DCS World the best damn combat sim out there, getting as close to the real thing as possible. Being a vet/cop/govt contractor, it is awesome to meet like minded professionals on here that want to make DCS the most it can be. Keep the pressure on them brother, I want to see full fidelity armor modules some day and I think its coming.

Glad to see you found your way to the thread brother. I would highly encourage you and anyone you know who can bring experience or knowledge to Combined arms and/or its armored units to start posting on this thread. They need subject matter experts like yourself and I know ED monitors this forum really well. This might be your chance to provide some much needed significant data to the devs on Combined Arms. Really looking forward to what you have to talk about. Those videos you made are an outstanding start. Looking forward to getting a convo going on the subject matter.

112, Appreciate the positive feedback. Always good to hear. I know ED monitors these threads a lot so I doubt it is falling on deaf ears. Like you said, hope we see some improvement sooner than later. I started another forum on this page specifically addressing CA and its current state. The dude in the video is a former vet who plays a lot of Steel Beasts and Combined Arms. His video is really worth a watch. Talks about his experience and what Combined Arms is lacking with Strykers. Good stuff!

I am really hoping for a modern day version of this in DCS world some day at the ED level. It would be beyond fun for multiplayer and take full advantage of the maps we have now.

112, Love the demo you put together. Very good example of Combined Arms in it current state. I could not agree with you more. The idea DCS is not in a state for ground warfare is an obsolete statement at this point. It does not take but a minute or two to YouTube players taking advantage of Combined Arms and having a good time. Does it need some improvements, absolutely, however I do feel the maps are at a state where they could utilize an armor module. We have people in its current state enjoying the very generic units you can play with now. As I have always stated in the past, this is a no brainer. Its not a matter of if, just a matter of when will DCS do it. As with everything in DCS world, I hope it is sooner than later, but I will take whatever comes first.

ED, I highly recommend reaching out to this guy possibly via his YouTube channel. He sounds like a wealth of knowledge on the Stryker's we have in DCS and could provide some outstanding details to make them more realistic. After watching his video, it inspired me to start this thread in hopes you could possibly look into the things he is pointing out. I am sure he would be honored to mkae DCS a better sim as he is clearly a vet who has a lot of time and love with the Stryker family.

I do not necessarily disagree with you on this, however, it is such an open ended question, I was wanting to see who was specifically interested in Tanks/Armor. Had I left it the way you suggested, it would have turned into one of those polls that went off on a tangent of 1000 different things people want, then an argument kicks off and ED has to close the thread. More or less, the reactions I have seen so far are exactly how I feel. Seems logical this will be a progressive step in the future. The only thing a slightly disagree with that I see often in these threads is how the armor and air units will not really work together. This is really a subjective view point. If played in conjunction with the upcoming dynamic campaign generator, both ground and air units will rely on each other to turn the tide of war for each side. To suggest players will not take full advantage of communicating with aircraft/helos would really limit the players ability to successfully complete a mission. But that is the glory of how you play DCS. If you have solo tank/aircraft crews on one side, red or blue, that do not communicate or work with each other, it is going to be very difficult to push the line forward. What is air superiority without taking and holding ground from below. However if the opposing ground force is using air support, air units are calling ground targets to the ground forces, and working together to secure an area, players will see the benefits of utilizing both together. I am not saying there will not be times where air support is not needed and you cannot go in solo or with several friends, but I really think player ground modules will flesh out the already growing digital battlefield DCS has. Now if you started a separate poll and people where like, I want Naval units first or operational SAM/AAA sites we could man, or anything else, I am still on board. I think one thing that is important about these polls, even if redundant, is that ED consistently sees the customers desire to watch their product grow and keeps them informed we will always want more. For a business, you could ask for nothing more than to see the desire of your customers ready to throw money at you because of how much they love your products. It only fosters the desire of ED to venture down new paths. Look at he Cargo aircraft. ED never had any plans to pursue it and then Anubis dropped his C-130 mod. The crowd goes wild and now ED revaluated their stance and are developing a cargo aircraft. I am not suggesting it is the Anubis C-130 (REALLY HOPE SO because there was an image showing the cockpit with ground radar) but we the customer help drive the company to make new products. I highly encourage these polls to continue regardless of the topic. We have new people coming to DCS all the time and it helps to gain their support as the business continues to grow. Appreciate the response. I would be interested if you started a separate poll. I would gladly vote. Below are a couple great videos I found of what DCS could possibly be with ground units, but obviously at the ED fidelity level.

I know the topic has been brought up in the past, but I thought I would reignite it again with DCS WW2 ramping up. ED has said in recent past that their military customers had come to them asking if it was possible to create a high fidelity armor module like their aircraft. To the best of my recollection, they said it was being taken under advisement and they would like to work on one. YEARS ago they were talking about an M1A but it went cold and dark, never to be spoken about again. I think the best intro into tanks would be WW2 with so many variations being available for the time periods we have for our current maps. The video below shows just how fun it could be in DCS. I know this is IL2's rendition of tank battles, but for the accuracy and realism I am looking for, no one can do it better than ED in my own opinion. With the announcement of a cargo plane coming, Wags video this week on the free draw tool in the mission editor, and the Dynamic Campaign getting closer to release it only seems logical we will want armor modules. Also the announcement today of the human motion model with intelligent behavior is another massive red flag of what is coming down the road. What are your opinions/thoughts? The poll above is to get an idea of who would be interested in taking the fight to the ground. This is Digital Combat Simulator after all.

Cant wait for the day of a destroyer or PT module

I would absolutely love to see this mission created by one of our Devs or 3rd party mission creators.

Just wanted to make sure you actually read my follow on post stating exactly this. It would appear you did not continue to read after the fact.

Right on Rick! I remember a while back there being definite talk from ED that other Naval assets where going to be made and all were going to be improved quite a bit. I thought I heard rumors that even a Naval module was not out of the cards at some point. Nothing else said on that. With military customers coming to them and asking them to make armor modules, I would suspect we will see ED branch out to ground and naval units more in the future. It only makes sense. Always excited for the future of this simulator. Not a single one comes close, past, present, or future in my opinion.

Thank you both for the help. I have got the search lights working great now. The only thing I hope to see in future updates is better lighting effect in the cockpit when lit up by the search lights. After being painted by 3 or 4 of them in the Mosquito, I cannot see anything on my console. The entire screen is almost white, and considering I only play in VR, it really kills the immersion. Theoretically I should be able to use my instruments even if the canopy is lit up and I cannot see anything outside, but when the console and all instruments are completely white, you cannot tell up from down ect..... I should be able to see my console without it being whited out. Any threads on this or are the devs aware? I will post a video on here later with what I am experiencing.

I have followed the two video below but they are either out of date or something has been removed form the editor. I can no longer find "Unit AD Searchlight on", "Third Reich" does not show in the editor list anymore as a country, and when loaded from a template, it is white, not red or blue power. Flak Search Light 32 is not in the unit search anymore, I saw SL******32 but I cannot get it to activate with a trigger when being used as a red country. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Trying to add spotlights to a mission on the channel map. I have posted the two videos below to show how they were setting up triggers but cannot find any updated info on how to use them in the editor. I know the videos below are a little older.

I would concur with this. Eventually it would be great once the Navy assets are turned out a little more and Naval combat becomes more of a thing. I would say this is going to be a must that is on ED's horizon as the Pacific was a host to almost all major Sea Battles during the war.

Nope, I am not a pussy. I enjoy what I have and wait for updates because me getting on here and getting frustrated with the Devs moves progress no faster than it is right now. If they were running silent and not saying anything, I would simply ask for a status update. The problem is, when the Devs give people an answer, it never satisfies everyone's frustration which leads to a slew of more comments and opinions that rarely have any thought put into them. I am not suggesting constructive criticism is not needed for the devs, or the customer should not speak up about issues with a module. What is not needed is smart ass remarks back to the devs when they actually take the time to get on this forum and converse with their customers. You dont call someone a sh_t bag and then ask them to fix something for you.

Not a massive one for the list, but I would love to see better wind effect, especially for the WW2 birds. It would be nice to get that feeling of a bumpy ride in VR at different altitudes. Having to compensate for turbulence over the channel when bringing the Mossie back on one engine would be a unique challenge.

I am sure everyone is just as interested in this one as I am. Happen to take a quick look on their facebook and noticed some new images they posted last month. Thought I would give everyone a heads up, the A-7 is still underway and looing good. https://www.facebook.com/flyingironsimulations/

Jesus Christ there a bunch of school girls on this thread complaining. So far we have had the new cloud system pushed out this year, the Hind, the Mossie, a slew of updates to the F-18 and F-16, along with the progress and updates on the Apache. To insinuate these gents are not getting updates out to your speed or time frame is an insult to the hard work they do on a daily basis for us. Everyone wants everything now, get that, but its not like they have not been transparent with the community. Photos and info have been provided in videos and updates. The one thing a handful of you on here need to practice is patience. This boils down to things are not going your way so lets get on the forum and kick the hornets nest. Go enjoy what is already out and the rest will be here soon. It not like the SC is not functional and fun to use in its current state.

I think both sets of data are accurate. I think what needs to be added is 2/3 of all U-boats sunk by the US were do to Consolidated PBY's and PB4Y's. I still think this would be a great aircraft to being to the pacific campaign, especially when the Naval side of the WW2 assets start to get brought into play more. Either way, the WW2 pacific time period is shaping up to have a bright future ahead. Appreciate the stats above gents.

I could be wrong on that one. Going based off some data I found online and we all know how accurate that can be at times. Please roast me if I am wrong.

A quick run across the channel followed up by a heavy hit by AAA. Very intense and a lot of fun getting her back across the channel and landed on pretty much one engine. Damage model is rockin!

Not knocking anyone's opinion here but I actually grew up around several of these old beasts and it no more complicated starting up the B-17 than a B-25. I will not argue the time it takes to probably create one at the level ED puts out, but with the company getting A LOT better at WW2 modules and learning how to do multi engine now with the Mossie, I would not count the old girl out. She still has a lot to bring to the table even with the current European maps we have. I remember the old schools days of Flying Fortress on the PC. Part of the fun was starting up, takeoff, circling the field, then heading across the channel to hit a factory and wondering if the clouds were going to interfere. Then fighting off 109's and hoping the P-51's had enough fuel to stick around and support. Right now we fly cover missions for the AI B-17's to drop bombs on targets so I fail to see the point of the maps are not big enough. With the technology ED has now days, this is a no brainer. No to mention they recently stated they originally had no desire to do a cargo module and that has now changed. My best guess is the Anubis C-130 module will soon be reveled as the cargo module coming to DCS. Its popularity went through the roof when he released it. That is a 4 engine module with more complexities than the B-17. If minds have changed on a cargo module, it would not surprise me one bit to see them change on heavy bombers. Bottom line, the Big Girl has her place in our virtual skies and deserves to be made a module. Now the old argument of taking time away from other modules needs to stop. ED and other 3rd party DEVs have already stated AND proven that they can work multiple modules simultaneously. This year we got the Hind, Mossie, cloud system, and before the years out the Apache. I would say they are doing pretty damn good job. Not to mention all the additions to the F-18 and F-16. With growth comes more employees and opportunity. The third party Devs alone are starting to flourish in this community and grow. I say the time has come and will soon be needed for heavy bombers. I am ok with B-25's, P-61's, B-26's ect....... coming first, but lets not drop the heavies off the table. A lot of us want them and this is only going to flesh out the WW2 scene and make more dreams come true.

Why this has not been mentioned is almost blasphemy. The PBY was the back bone for submarine warfare during WW2 and was responsible for 2/3 of all axis submarine kills during the war. The capabilities of this aircraft far exceed what we expect in DCS. Everything from Torpedo and bomb runs on ships to recon, and then search and rescue. Both day and night capable, this aircraft was a beast and huge success to both the European and Pacific campaign. I could not think of a more fitting aircraft to bring to the Pacific that was so iconic. I would even go as far as saying this one deserves to be made by ED. One thing I would love to see is search and rescue missions implemented into the Dynamic Campaign when it is released. The ability to rescue downed pilots in the sea and return them to the ship or a base would improve stats when showing what aircraft/pilots are available for future missions. SAR missions would create sub missions such as air cover for the rescue aircraft. I would love to hear thoughts/opinions on this. I highly recommend watching the short documentary below. I had no idea the PBY was virtually silent when going into a dive to attack subs. Apparently Nazi and Japanese submarines were terrified of them.

Why this has not been mentioned is almost blasphemy. The PBY was the back bone for submarine warfare during WW2 and was responsible for 2/3 of all axis submarine kills during the war. The capabilities of this aircraft far exceed what we expect in DCS. Everything from Torpedo and bomb runs on ships to recon, and then search and rescue. Both day and night capable, this aircraft was a beast and huge success to both the European and Pacific campaign. I could not think of a more fitting aircraft to bring to the Pacific that was so iconic. I would even go as far as saying this one deserves to be made by ED. One thing I would love to see is search and rescue missions implemented into the Dynamic Campaign when it is released. The ability to rescue downed pilots in the sea and return them to the ship or a base would improve stats when showing what aircraft/pilots are available for future missions. SAR missions would create sub missions such as air cover for the rescue aircraft. I would love to hear thoughts/opinions on this. I highly recommend watching the short documentary below. I had no idea the PBY was virtually silent when going into a dive to attack subs. Apparently Nazi and Japanese submarines were terrified of them.