Devil 505

Lurker, had to log in after seeing yesterday’s ED teaser video and HB’s official announcement of the Intruder being their next project. Just wanted to say hahaha I told ya so!

HELL YEAH!!!!!! "Devil 505, wave off wave off! He's too low!" There is a part in the video link above of inside the A-6 on the dash. I knew HB was bringing this bad boy to DCS! Most wanted module!!!!

BIGNEWY, Just confirming, ED planned a full C-47 module at some point? Not trying to start a hype train as I am pretty sure the Apache already owns that territory, but this would be awesome news for some of us. Just curious.

If any of you have more money than you know what to do with, here is a link to an Apache Cockpit setup. Not 100% sure they sell to Civilians but badass none the less. They also have fixed wing. I have personally flown their F-35 controls in a Prepar3D sim. The sim was a joke but the flight controls were legit. I have seen them for sale on Ebay before so this should not be restricted to Government only, but the cost will probably be that of a car. The link for all aircraft controls is below the Apache Demo video. And also for anyone who has not seen Polychop's Facebook lately, I provided their link to a company making OH-58 controls. A lot more reasonable price. They also have UH-1 controls as well. All sold to civilians. https://www.bugeyetech.com/ah-64 https://www.bugeyetech.com/products https://komodosimulations.co.uk/ https://komodosimulations.co.uk/collections/cyclic/products/oh-58d https://komodosimulations.co.uk/collections/collective/products/oh-58d-1

Nealius, Going to your profile and looking at your prior posts, it appears you are a very disgruntled customer. The big question, if you have so many issues with DCS modules and ED's roadmaps, why do you waste so much time trashing them on the forum and playing the sim still? Move on to something that better suits you. I will say this, if you can name a combat flight sim better than DCS or that has better AI and comes to the level of realism they do, I am all ears. If you cannot, you are just wasting your time trashing them all the time. I will not entertain your comments any further. I think constructive feedback is good for ED, but trashing them and their approach gets you know where.

I could not agree more Abburo! You do not walk into a store because you have purchased something from them in the past and say, I expect the rest for free. The time, research, and authorization work required from these aircraft manufactures, future armored manufacturers, and hell even small arms companies like SIG, HK, Colt ect.... cost A LOT of time and money. Nobody ever questions why console or even PC first person shooters have weapon models that look like MP-5's, M-4's, SR-25's ect.... but are given silly ass names, paint jobs, or retarded accessories that are not authentic. The reason is simple, they will not brand a firearm in game because of the work it takes dealing with manufacturers. DCS/ED strive to hit that mark. If it is a Lockheed Martin F-16, then they go to LM to get rights to use the name and reproduce an accurate representation of their product. I expect the same level of authenticity out of any ground unit or small arms and would gladly pay to see it. ED's foundation is built upon authenticity and painstaking detail for its customers and the customer has proven we are willing to pay for that level of detail in a product. It would be no different for ground or naval assets. It is simple, you buy what you like and if you do not like it, do not buy it. The game works in multiplayer/single player with or without it, so why complain. Those of you complaining about performance hits with new maps and assets, well are you driving your new car with a 15 year old engine in it. The way she goes, its time for an upgrade. If you expect the technology to get better, the technology expects you to pay for it. I think ED has done a fantastic job drawing out the amount of time you can get out of one PC before needing an upgrade. I have been a customers since day 1 of Flanker, Lock On, and Black Shark. I think I have purchased 3 PC's from the time I started playing with them to stay up to speed. This one (4th) I just bought will last at least another 4 years or so. In that time I believe it is the equivalent of going through 3 or 4 new game systems. So they are really on par for what they are asking performance wise. And before some one says something stupid like a computer costs more, yes I know. But if you add the cost of games up now days plus the systems and accessories, I do not need to go further by saying you would spend more over a 3 or 4 year period than buying a PC and a few modules from DCS during the same time frame. And for god sakes, before you people complain and say something is not being worked or ignored, keep up with the weekly and quarterly emails/posts on the forum that ED puts out. 95% of the assumptions on here have been addressed and are currently being worked on or are on the radar, not abandoned. If that bruises your backside, thats the way she goes. Keep up the good work ED. The vast majority of us are fired up about 2021's road map and what you and the third party boys are doing for us. ...............................................................................................still waiting for HB to say something about the Intruder...................................................................................................

I fail to see how not incorporating better AI taxiing and parking is a 10 year downward spiral of DCS. Over the past 10 years ED has done nothing but improve. There are things that need to be added of course, but to insinuate a continuous fall of the game because a function you desire has not been added is a large stretch. In fact, AI is being worked and has received some updates. But I would venture to say the air combat boys would be pissed if ED focused on AI taxing before AI combat. As a former business owner/operator, you will never be able to please everyone. I have said it a thousand times, I firmly believe ED and the 3rd party Devs have our best interest in mind. Just because my needs are not met or prioritized in the order THEIR company has planned out, does not mean they do not care nor are ignoring it. Keep the faith Nealius, someday in the near future you can sit in the cockpit and watch AI taxi appropriately to your hearts content. But I for one am really looking forward to the new weather system and dynamic campaign first.

My question is, what would make you think Eagle Dynamics would remotely let DCS turn into COD or Battlefield? I hear this over and over again by people who cannot substantiate those claims. Just because someone mentions ground crew, armored units, or infantry does not = the above two "Games." ED is aiming for the most realistic representation of our armed forces in a simulator, including ground and sea assets. This includes operations on deck and below deck of the carrier. Being former Navy myself and still working for the DOD, I find it insulting you would even think the above two games could be classified as a realistic sim or representation of our armed forces. They are at best a half ass recruiting tool for kids who know nothing about the military, firearms, or what actually happens in combat. I have and continue to work with former Airforce, Navy, Marine and even Army pilots who say DCS in VR is as close as they will ever be to sitting back in the cockpit again. This includes RIO's from F-14's. If ground units and "Little people", an insult to those who have served and are currently serving, offend you in DCS, then punch out and take your shit comments with you. Those little people play a big role in real life and could have the same impact with gameplay in the near future. No one said you had to buy it or take on the role of any ground asset if it were to come out. And dont even come back with some half ass remark about taking away time from more important modules. Not going to happen. You being born in 76, I would expect a little more educated response. Roping horses and shooting guns in Nevada has not really helped out though I see. And for the record, "Combined Arms" is a module within DCS for those of us who respect the little people running around on the ground and fighting for this country.

This is what I want added. It was supposed to come after the Huey and then disappeared. I am all for AH-1H but I think for time period sake, this would be awesome to still get.

Just for the record, ED did not say they were dropping the F-4. They said it would be coming. They said in an interview with the Grim Reapers they feel this module needs to be done by ED at the level the F-18 and F-16 are getting. They went onto say how iconic the aircraft is and that they would be bringing it to DCS, just no time frame. It is still in the cards, but it makes sense now that they have announced the Apache Longbow why this was put on the backburner. I would not be surprised one bit if at the end of the year or sometime next year this is the next big module ED announces. Just wild speculation, but I do know as of last interview, it was confirmed that one variant of the Phantom will be their baby. They did confirm ED was NOT doing the Tornado. They said they really look forward to a third party picking the project up someday.

So I wont ask about the A-6...................BUT can we expect to see an informal road map for 2021? Or maybe a time frame on upcoming updates? For the record, I completely satisfied with what I have now, just looking forward to what's to come since ED released their road map.

I find it disturbing that so many people tell you to go play COD for a first person simulator. Can one of you clowns against FPS in DCS give me one good reason why I should remotely believe COD or Battlefield is realistic in anyway and two explain why the hell I would want to play those kids game over DCS. It is very simple, if you do not want to be part of a ground unit, do not buy it. If done to level of realism and detail put into the aircraft, the crowds who play COD would not enjoy the tactics and training required to master a DCS level FPS. There would be a learning curve using the equipment, working in coordination with air assets, being on target at a certain time to execute an objective, planning and prep work for the mission ect. A lot more should should be included in an FPS module for DCS. Pre operation planning should be a must. Coordinating your objectives and how you will take them. What assets do you think you may need. What intel was provided on where the operation is taking place. So much potential for ground units and armor modules.

If you guys ever consider doing Naval units, I have one of only 3 escort destroyers left in the world on my door step. I would love to assist in making a Destroyer module with Photogrammetry. You can tour the entire thing. Pretty awesome. We also have the USS Cavalla, SS-244, a Gato-class sub which is AWESOME to tour. They did a phenomenal job on the inside. This is another Naval unit I would be interested in helping with. And the best for last....my grandfather served on her, the Battleship Texas. She is in dry dock right now for repairs but will return when done. I have toured her more times than I can count and would love to see a high fidelity Dreadnaught come to DCS. You can see the two short video below how well maintained they are.

It is really irritating to see the consistent comparison to COD or Battlefield. No one here including myself are asking for this type of "gameplay" with combined arms. As a matter of fact, I/we are asking for something completely different that would probably not be suitable for players who enjoy that type of entertainment. What I have suggested is a realistic combat "simulator" for ground forces to include accurate ballistics, detailed and accurate gear and equipment per time period, the use of real world tactics to include operations with armor and air assets, realistic damage models to armored units and wounds to soldiers, and level of detail that no other sim has ever been able to produce. Comments like the ones above are not relevant because this is not what DCS players are asking for in an FPS and not what I would expect any developer working for them to produce. There is a place for a ground combat sim in DCS and what is ground combat without the troops? If you are remotely suggesting that COD, Battlefield, or any other such joke is remotely close to combat, I take that as an insult. Every combat vet I know would like to see an accurate representation of their job in the military just like our fly boys. The same goes for our armored guys. They to deserve the high fidelity realism our pilots are getting. DCS is a combat simulator at its core, that is why the military has approached them about armored units and naval units already. RioJano, I forgot to mention WW2 online and I have played it. Dated and nothing near the quality DCS could put out. It was good for its time, but imagine something similar in scope but on a DCS level with the aircraft we have now and the WW2 maps we have/coming. I cannot stress enough that the ground war aspect to DCS is a large untapped gold mine.

Any chance we might get a 2021 road map or revel of what is next in the pipeline this month? I think we are all waiting to have strokes the day you announce the A-6 Intruder as the next module.

Ernie, While I do not necessarily disagree with DCS world's current state being poor for FPS combat or operations, I do believe the technology and capabilities of a third party dev or ED are available now to accomplish this sooner than later. Just because we have not scene it done on a level of scale DCS has, does not mean it can not be done. This is why I suggested ground units that were more geared towards frontline combat and not urban guerilla warfare right off the bat. JTAC and infantry would be a good start. Then when the buildings and towns are slowly starting to get a face lift, start working your special operations units into the scene who will be clearing houses and doing more guerilla work. Again, I would like to point out the single shard/server technology already in use by several other games. They are able to accomplish thousands of players on a single server in one small area at a time, such as a city. This technology is not widely in use yet but it is growing. I still have faith if ED or a third party dev wanted to accomplish this with DCS, it can be done and not 10 to 15 years out, but probably more like 2 to 4. We can only hope. Like I said in my last post, I hope ED or a third party dev takes the challenge. We have already scene great strides with DCS world that people said would not happen for 10 years such as the new weather coming this year, Jester AI was a crazy addition, and now multi engine/multi player positions in a single aircraft. I would put money on it the next WW2 multiengine we see will be a B-25 or maybe A/B-26. It also opens the door for the P-38. Looking forward to the bright future of my favorite hobby.

Sparx, I totally appreciate the feedback on my post brother. I would have agreed with you on technology a year or so ago, but if you take into account the leaps and bounds we have come in such a short period of time, I think ED and third party Devs could shock us with their capabilities. I will provide a few short examples, the first being the new cloud tech coming to DCS. Good lord was I not expecting the breathtaking videos/pics they released and continue to release. I also noticed Vulkan is scheduled to make its debut this year, which for me is massive, as I only play in VR. I am hoping the performance will increase as good as they promise. It looks like performance is a major focus this year. It also looks like they are starting to focus on more multiplayer craft, bringing more people to one server. In fact, every module scheduled for release this year is a two seater from ED. If no one has seen it, check the latest new article released today (or yesterday) by ED. First photo of the Apache in there. Great detail on 2021 road map. The big technology jump I want to recognize is the server constraints you refer to. If you look at Microsoft FS 2020, they have managed to pull off whole world technology streamed via a server to your computer. Now I am not suggesting ED is in a position yet to accomplish something of this magnitude, but when it comes to server performance and capabilities, the tech is already there. Look at Dual Universe "I am also a space nerd." The French have astoundingly pulled off thousands of players running on one shard/server at once so it feel like one massive universe. This is first person combat and space flight all on one server. I firmly believe the technology already exists to make my suggestions a reality, it is a matter of integrating it into the existing DCS engine. This is where I would defer to the devs to comment. I agree 100% with what you said on the other games. I have played them all, but the arcade style and watered down level of detail when it comes to gear, weapons, and units kills it for me. Not to mention most of these FPS games is kids just running around throwing grenades, jumping, and respawning to do it all over again. I enjoyed playing them for a while but it becomes a bore and repeat of the same gameplay. Not to mentions there is no real feeling of accomplishment at all. I have played DCS since the first sim was released and have NEVER lost interest. It is constant learning, training, and remembering how to operate the aircraft and incorporate the right tactics for the right mission. This is what I want on the ground as well. I hope for the both of us this comes sooner than later. I really appreciate the feedback and keep it rolling. Hopefully we give the devs things to consider and challenges to be accepted. See you in the skies my friend.

I think bigger picture with the upcoming dynamic campaign, it would open up loads of content for pilots, infantry/SOCOM units, and armor units. For example, if the campaign could generate missions based upon the level of enemy presence in a village, it could generate a mission for a SOCOM unit to capture a high level target or create a mission for infantry and armor units to take the village/town. The success of this mission would weigh on the campaign outcome. You successfully capture the high level target on a covert night op, he provides intel that creates a mission for pilots to go destroy a weapons cash that may or may not have heavy resistance. With that night op, you incorporate air assets for insertion/extraction and CAS if needed. The infantry boys and armor retake the village/town, the battlefield presses forward and tactical advantage is made holding that ground for future operations, maybe opening up other missions in that region. If lost, enemy pushes closer to a FOB or air base putting them within range of mortar strikes or other attacks. Another example would be SAR units. This would be a GREAT asset brought to the game. Any AI or Player controlled aircraft shot down that successfully ejected could generate a downed pilot recovery mission in the area they ejected. This in turn would require units like USAF Pararescue, SEAL, or SF units to go in and bring the pilot back. Recon operation would be another. Sending in JTAC units to call in air strikes for the fighters would be outstanding. I honestly think if any ground unit is modeled first, this should be it. There is direct comms between players on the ground and in the air requiring both to work together. From a sales point of view, there could be JTAC/TACP module packs. Each branch has their own derivative of this operator with different kit requirements, uniforms ect.... Overall, I believe the possibilities for this content are close to endless. I might give some examples later of armor modules. I already have a close friend (older than me) that is former Army/armor guy and always said he would love to assist with an armor module for DCS. He was beyond excited when he saw the Apache coming.

I am sure Wags or BigNewy can point you in the right direction. They are very open to new third party devs applying. I even remember an interview with the Grim Reapers on YouTube with ED stating they are always looking for third party talent. I think you guys will have a solid chance. Good luck and I look forward to what you might bring to DCS. Fired up gents!

I am absolutely suggesting player controlled infantry. I think it is safe to say most vets I personally know have a very deep connection to the units they served with, the gear they used, and the operations they conducted. There is not a sim out there that has successfully recreated a high fidelity sim for infantry, special operations units, or armor units. The closest modern day shooter that has done a pretty damn good job is "Squad." However flying helos is arcade at best, the maps are a decent size but not realistic for air units, and the armor units look great but have an arcade feeling as well. Call of duty, ARMA, Battlefield and other similar "games. not sims", are all run and gun kid shooters. I know there will be disagreements with ARMA fans, but the closest they pulled it off was with ARMA 2 and the more realistic battlefield setting in the middle east. The introduction of future air assets and fake guns killed the immersion for me in ARMA 3, I know there are mods. I am not knocking these games by any means, but when you compare DCS to these titles, there is no comparison. A huge player base, including the ones on this forum, all scream for the most realistic representation of an aircraft that ED or third parties can possibly produce. Your ground pounders and armor boys are waiting for their day as well. The DCS environment can and I believe will provide this in the future. Of course its current state needs a lot of work, but the fact we have a group of dudes wanting to take on that challenge to me is inspiring and yet another dream come true for the digital battlefield they are creating. I do not believe if first person combat was introduced it would become any of the titles listed above. Like with air combat, strategy, tactics, coordination with air assets, and mission planning would be vital. It would play right into the dynamic campaign being created by ED. This would create loads of content for single and multiplayer. I think with the introduction of the dynamic campaign we will start to see online players grow and this would only encourage more customers to migrate to DCS. Being former military, a cop, and now DOD, I want to see high fidelity small arms done the right way. I want a true scale, realistic infantry/SOCOM sim where weapons are high fidelity and represent their real world counterparts, along with all associated gear and uniforms for their prospective time periods. If its an EOTECH and has issues with battery power, let make it happen. If it is a early Afghanistan M4 with and Aimpoint Comp M2 and 40 mike mike, do it. If it is an old school first Iraqi war carry handle M16 rock that shit. The amount of real world content that could be brought to DCS for ground units is beyond a large scale. The variants of uniforms, firearms, armored units, and support units used just from the 80's through current day would be crazy to recreate. Not even mentioning Vietnam and older assets. I have said it over and over, this is an untapped gold mine that if done correctly, will bring combat vets and new guys alike running. I am tired of playing games with MP5's referred to as MX7s or M4's called silly shit like scorpions. Battlefield productions needs to start bringing true combat proven names to DCS such as Colt, SIG, FN, HK, Eotech, Aimpoint, Knight Armament just to name a few. And for the love of god, name the suppressors correctly and model them correctly. I hate three or four different suppressors in games where the length is the only difference. Photogramatry of all small assets would be a must. Look at what RazBam is doing with their harrier pilot. THIS is what we need on the ground. I could go on and on with this topic, but DCS is waiting for high fidelity boots and tracks on the ground and it would be a hell of a good time coordinating with our fly boys and rotor jocks. Keep pressing the topic Battlefield Productions, we are waiting and ready to support your endeavors.

I fully support and agree with everything Battlefield Productions has suggested bringing to DCS. Being former military and current DOD contractor, I get really tired of people referring to ARMA as realistic or the go to sim for ground forces and accurate armor modules. I will not get on the ARMA hate train but there is NOT a sim out there right now that remotely comes close to the capabilities of creating a full blown armor module/ground sim like DCS world could, and do it with the honor and accuracy it deserves. I think this is an outstanding idea and I have been a massive proponent for it for many years. The closest we have scene is Steel Beasts when it comes to a high fidelity armor module. The argument that the community would not enjoy an armor module could easily be debated. Look at the Anubis C-130 mod, loads of people trashed flying a cargo plane and now 95% of the people flying it have pitched a tent down stairs and are asking for it to become a full blown third party mod with ED support. They have 5 positions to rotate from and created jobs for each position. Guys/Girls are having a blast working together flying it in all fashions. I believe the same to be true with Armor modules. If done correctly, tactics and team work become the key to it survivability on the battlefield, just like in real life. Close air support from air units, team work within the module, proper planning on approach to target areas, or kick ass AI in single player like Jester with the F-14. I think armor modules would be welcomed by many. I would support them in a heart beat. The amount to choose from and time periods would keep you guys in business for years. Infantry and better ground units are a must. We need the ground to feel just as alive as the asset in the air. Super Carrier is another great example. The feedback has been outstanding on the carrier deck crews. Cant fly without them now. Proper infantry tactics and animations is a must. Ton of guys on here that can assist with that I am sure. It would also be great to see the introduction of different branches on the ground. Marines, Army, Air Force. You could even go as far as SOCOM and creating SF/SEAL/MARSOC ect.... for special operations. Given the fact we have Syria and eventually the Afghanistan map coming, these would create immersive missions for air units. Inerst/Extract, close air support with the Apache/Kiowa, improved night ops, maritime operations ect... Ground units really needs its own thread for suggestions. The untapped possibilities here is almost endless and much needed. I think you guys are on the right track and I would love to throw some ideas around with you if interested. DCS was created as digital combat simulator with ground and sea units in mind from its inception. I think a lot of fly boys on here forget that. There is a large following that would highly support your endeavors on all you have suggested. Please keep pressing on with this and do not give up. I have introduced DCS to more retired military pilots than I can count now I work with. They all say it reminds them so much of the time they spent in service and have wound up buying the sim because it takes them back to their prime. I believe the same to be true with your combat vets on the ground. You have a ton of dudes ready to see a proper military ground sim and I firmly believe DCS is that sim.

"some times they say you have to kick the son of a bitch, state of the art"

So I decided to take a trip around the pattern tonight and do a night landing with the Alpha dog. NOW. I decided to do this in VR, after a glass or two of margaritas. BAD ASS by the way. I have to tip my hat to Heat Blur as this is the first time I have EVER actually encountered a random failure of any sort in DCS. And let me tell you, it was a BLAST! I was on 3/4 of a mile and had already called the ball. 5 or 10 seconds before touch down I was drifting down "probably the alcohol, or for sure the alcohol. Margaritas and trim do not go well together" and then it happened, total HUD failure. The HUD flickered a couple times and then I lost it all. Because I was so close to the deck and had the lights in sight I could eyeball it and still make the trap. But let me tell you, the intensity and shock factor of "what the shit just happened" right before touch down threw off the metal state. ESPECIALLY in VR. If anyone has flown the F-14 at night and brought her in on deck using the ILS, the red lights and jittery HUD make for an intense/fun landing. I thought this might have been a bug, but to my surprise and happily, after the flight it said in the comments "total HUD failure." I would really like to see more random failures we have to address unexpectedly. The realism was astonishing and really threw me for a loop seconds before touch down. Great job HB! Of all times I was not recording! I cant wait to see what the A-6 has in store for us. HINT HINT when will we know!!!!!!!!!!!!! For the love of god we need Virgil AI next with Willem Dafoe giving the lines.

I think we all have a lot of "wants" but what I was getting at is it appears ED is working in that direction. One could also argue, what does a longer wake add to the core functionality of the super carrier besides another aesthetic. Most would not debate IFLOLS needs some work for sure, but the trailer clearly shows the carrier is not being ignored. ED has a clear track record of providing what the customer wants so I do not see these being ignored. You could take 10 DCS pilots and ask them what they want on the super carrier and you would get 10 different answers, all explaining why theirs is the most important. I think the primary focus to take away from that trailer is work is being done and it looks good. I think its safe to say, at some point most if not all of what we want will work its way into the Super Carrier, you just have to exercise patience and enjoy what we have now. If you can direct me to another sim that even comes close to beating what we have now with the Super Carrier, I am all ears. Last I checked, nothing comes within 3/4 of a mile. So call your ball and quit complaining.

In the new 2021 beyond trailer there were a few shots of the carrier interior. Looks pretty amazing. I am sure there will be an update soon enough. Looks like they have been really hard at work on a lot of stuff after seeing that trailer. I have nothing to complain about. Looks like amazing stuff is coming, we just need patience, as much as we want it now.