Proof

@Chizh Hello. Here you mention plans to remake the Caucasus map, are there still plans to do so in the future?

I don't believe it is a skin included with the module. I think it's this one from the user downloads section, so it would be best to direct the report to the maker of the livery. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2140835/

I know this may not be ideal but if you feel the need to alter the Soviet props, perhaps supplementing the I-16s with some lend lease Spitfire Mk.IXs might work; they already have a small selection of their soviet liveries to help avoid friendly fire. And then just remain hopeful that OctopusG bring us a La-7.

Both the request and reply were made on April 29, 2021. The thread is for all wishlist items spanning back 10 years, not just this one request. Unless I'm missing your point, in which case, sorry.

For what it's worth, apparently an overhaul is already planned.

So Chizh did an interview in Russian a year or two ago and was asked about the Yak-130 I don't have the original source but here is that interview translated by someone here on the forums https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a9qc0vlLOD89a3wJ_5WjrtZgF53RHyIrKAGnaNxiLeI Maybe things have changed since then though and I agree it would be a cool addition.

Fantastic additions so far guys and if resources permit I'd love to see a PLA infantryman added eventually too.

Ozone1, these assets look great but I think you would probably have more luck creating a new dedicated thread for them in order to attract potential help. Also you could inquire over at the DCS modding Discord server to see if anyone there is willing to lend a hand; the discord can be found here: https://discord.gg/Jje5WYr

A giant +1 from me for a paid UH-1N upgrade, and also agreed that outside of that there's not a whole lot that would make me pay to upgrade the existing H. Personally I don't think seeing infantry in the back seat should she be a "Huey upgrade", whilst it is something I very much want to see I believe this should be a wider core inclusion that isn't limited to the Huey. Infantry riding in all helicopters, in landing craft, in or on top of armoured vehicles etc is something I've been wanting to see in DCS for a long time. And the below image gives me hope that one day it will be a reality or is at least being explored. However, paying for the ability to see them isn't something I can imagine myself doing.

I'm unsure if you are asking for modules or AI, we know there is a Zero at least planned so for me I'd like to see both the B5N Kate and either the D3A or D4Y (the latter of which I believe saw action in the Marianas). With the Zero as a fighter, these two options would add both a dive bomber and a torpedo bomber into the mix; a trio of roles I would also love to see the represented on both sides, as an example the Avenger and Dauntless for the US. I'm sure there are people out there who will correct me on any historical inaccuracies/discrepancies for the time periods but I think these three roles for both sides would make for a very interesting and dynamic line up with a relatively small number of planes needed. From my understanding information required to make complete Japanese aircraft modules is hard to come by, and so as much as I would love for the two I mentioned to be modules, I would still think they would be great additions even if limited to AI.

I asked if this would be the case in EDs Discord, NL stated that would not be the case, instead we would only have one A-10C version. As an example I compared it to the two versions we have of the P-51, the answer I was given is that we would not have the option of two aircraft listed, but we could still use the old version as we do now. This to me is a little ambiguous; it is not clear to me if we basically use it like the existing A-10C we have now by just opting not to use the new features whilst flying it or if the new features can be somehow limited, for example in the mission editor under the 'additional properties', the way the Mirage 2000 has the option to not mount the DDM Sensors etc. Personally, if the changes are significant enough I think we should have the option to use the older version even after purchasing the upgrade, for both the A-10C and the Ka-50.

Allow initial point objects to be included when saving/loading static template files or create a separate template save function for them, please.

For me; 1.)A selection box allowing us to quickly select multiple objects at once and be able to move/rotate that selection as one. 2.)An Undo and Redo feature, with appropriate hot keys. 3.)(I'm not sure if this one counts as a mission editor request) the ability to assign nations/factions to numbered or named coalitions, to quote a similar suggestion:

I've seen it described as such on the Russian side of the forums. I have no idea how much of what we are getting is fictional or not but here is a small post Chizh made a while back:

AH-1W has always been and will continue to be #1 on my wish list.

Thanks!

Hey Starway, thanks for the mod. I'm having a small issue which is only present with your mod installed, I'm currently using version 2.5.6 The grass/earth mound covering the roof of the 'Bunker 1' static unit/fortification is now grey and looks like concrete instead of grass. The same grey textures are also found on the roof of the 'Command Center' structure but also the satellite dishes on the mast are now grass green. I've reinstalled the mod just to make sure, and disabled all other mods I am using and the issue is still there. If I disable your mod the problem goes, enabling the mod again reintroduces the problem.

I completely appreciate where you're coming from, and no solution will ever combat 100% of trolls, but I feel there becomes a point where trying to shield people can become detrimental. And yes a new player who doesn't know any better could cause issues with the carrier, along with pretty much any other aspect of the game, because they're new and don't know any better. And this is about the big picture, this isn't coming from a place of pettiness where I don't want to pay for a carrier module but would love to squeeze out as much content as I can from it's inclusion anyway. It's about being able to play along side those who do want that carrier experience. If people can play with the new carrier on a server without owning it, most of the servers will use it, providing more places where it can be used, and I would end up buying it. But if realistically most servers aren't going to implement it, and it basically requires all my friends to get it too even those who want to fly MiGs against me, there is no point in me buying it, because they wont.

What's preventing that from happening when joe blow owns the carrier module? That's a problem with the individual, and they would probably be removed from the server for doing so.

What about potentially keeping the collision model, except the wires so you cannot land. If you do land anyway, cool I guess? You can't interact with the carrier, you can't contact the carrier, you can't use the catapults, or anything like that. You can't spawn on the carrier, and you are not considered "landed" even if you do manage to touch down on the carrier. (meaning life loss on servers which implement limited lives, no rearming, no refuelling etc) The odd part I guess would be the deck crew, this would be reaching, but it would be cool if the carrier crew was visible, but I would fully expect it not to be.

The point that is trying to be made is that a lot of people using the hornet will want to use the new carrier, for obvious reasons. The people who want to play against them will also have to buy it in order to do so, even if they have no intention of landing on, taking off from or communicating with it in any way. So there is a choice to be made when creating a multiplayer scenario, you either hope the people who aren't using it own it anyway, or expect the people who want to use it use the old Stennis instead, even after with the release of the new carrier module, to facilitate those who don't own the module.

Saying something will split the community is not stating that an aspect of the game will be dead. It's merely suggesting that the use of that asset, in this case the carrier module, will be considerably less than core assets on multiplayer servers. Carrier ops will still be accessible with the free carriers, carrier ops will of course continue. People are talking about splits in that servers will have to choose whether or not to use these assets because people who want to fly a MiG-29 against hornets are not necessarily going to pay for the boat the hornets use, equally people who prefer aircraft that don't happen to be carrier capable are not necessarily going to buy the carrier module just to fly along side those who did. I don't expect the carrier module to be free, I have no major objections with the module costing money* for those who want "to take carrier life to the next level", it sounds good and I'm sure people will have a great time using it, but given that I see myself primarily flying the F-16 when it arrives I'm not going to buy the carrier module, at least not at full price. However, with this implementation, to simply play along side those who are using it requires payment, which is the issue. And then later down the road will the same apply to the Kuznetsov when it's overhaul arrives? I guess it's yet to be determined but that will also be a repeat of the same issue. *I think that the ATC aspect being considered premium content is a bad choice but w/e

Nineline stated on the Hoggit subreddit that they will not carry over. https://old.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/ayrniz/dcs_f14_tomcat_available_on_13_march_2019_and/ei2rper/?context=10000

This suggestion came up on the Russian side of the forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3717176&postcount=2388 TLDR - the request was denied due to the work it would take in order to introduce the nose gunner, with dev time taken out to make the 3D model, animations, textures, testing etc to make it would not be worth it, with little value gained from doing so.