SparxOne

Major reason why i didn't even bother getting myself into this thread, i could tell from the very early moment i read the title and first lines how this would evolve. The illusion in which most people are makes me laugh, it's as if those same people have just arrived on the forum yesterday and literrally never read or heard about DCS and the whole subject of classified data/planes/docs to allow any sort of new planes/heli what so ever in the game. Always hoping and wishing for something not in line with the reality of what ED can bring to us. Don't take it the wrong way, but i see you've been registered on the forum since 2009, kinda funny to see you'd "guess" a Super Hornet, F-15C or an F-16D or higher block. A veteran like you of the forum should know very well that those guesses are clearly not realistic at all and just wild wishes. I could go into details of why so, but i guess you can figure it out quite easily This definition of illusion matches very well most replies i've seen posted in this thread : Illusion, appreciation in line with what someone wants to believe, but wrong in relation to reality. Plus, i'd like to add, we should let ED do their thing, how should we know they are even going to tease any new plane or heli with their End of Year video ? Yeah ok it kind of became a trend the last 2 years i think, but I never looked at it as a set in stone trend that would automatically happen every year. If they do tease a new module, than good, i'll be as happy as everyone, if they don't, none of us should be disapointed, they've already spoiled us quite a bit this year, not counting all that's to come that is already known.

Very cool checklist ! I actually did a few checklists for myself too, for the start up procedure and weapon systems etc, helps out quite a bit when missing a detail for something But yours is much cleaner and well put out ! If i may ask and that isn't too much of a hasle to do, would it be possible to make a short video from start of checklist to the end ? That would help understand and locate certain switches, as well as fully understand the reasoning behind certains steps. I know for my checklist i sometimes have to rewatch Wags' start up video to remember what certains acronyms refer to and or where certain switches are... (I guess actually flying the plane regularly and going through these checklists each time too helps making it somewhat muscle memory, but until then, a nice sheet of paper is always your best friend And by the way, if that is something you're interested in doing and you fancy too, how would you like doing the same type of checkist for weapon usage, TPOD usage etc ? It can get confusing sometimes remembering all the steps/switches location for using each and every system. If you're interested in seeing the checklists i've done for myself, i'll attach a few exemples here (Keep in mind they are very rough and were made on notepad++ while following steps given by videos, not counting they were made with no intent to be used by somebody else, therefore a bit of "Hold my hand" type of procedure haha) F-16 AGM-65 Checklist F-16 Startup Checklist F-16 Targeting Pod Checklist

I can't wait to have the Sniper Pod and see the differences between the 2, and mostly what added features/options you get with the Sniper Pod.

Awesome stuff ! Very milsim like The VDL is indeed something really great, i was told about it from a military friend who saw it IRL, i was not even aware that was a thing before he told me about it, makes CAS even more interesting for both parties. While in the subject, i'd like to say that looking at your video, it screams to me how awesome and fun the whole "working together" is when combining both players flying planes or helis and ones using Combined Arms to guide or request help from the air guys. As much as your video is focused on the VDL and JTAC maneuvers, it's undenyable the amount of possibilites there could be if more MP missions/servers had Combined Arms put forward for players to use in combination with the rest flying overhead. It is work like the one you're showing here that truly shows how much potential there is in using Combined Arms. Anyway, great to see what you guys managed coming up with ! Thanks for sharing

Toyota Corolla year 1995

Yes i just read that over there indeed, apparently some Toyota has been modeled already From Chizh himself on the Russian forum :

Never saw it, looked for it, had to post it here, indeed a great video ! Although old, still a must watch in the DCS sphere Damn we've come a long way ! Hopefully one day CA gets the major overhaul it deserves !

This cannot be said enough ! All i can hope for is that ED has plans for it (And at best, is already working on it in the background).

Ohh ok, thanks for the update, wasn't quite sure

A scenario i'd definitely enjoy playing ! Nothing wrong with it. I guess we all have different tastes, one can enjoy it while another one will find it boring, nonetheless nothing bad about different types of "missions". If you were an Apache pilot, i don't think you'd be allowed to tell your government "Hey, looking for dug up insurgents running in sandals is boring as F, i'm not going for the mission. Find me a war where i can shoot tanks." This idea sounds very cool indeed, goes back to the dynamic campaign coming sometime, anything dynamic with vehicules actually moving around and trying to complete objectives while you're part of the war doing your bit of it and not just flying to objective to find sitting targets ready to be blown. I'm up for any type of mission, whether it be engaging random troops and few vehicles, or going out taking on armored columns pushing the frontline, anything well designed by the mission maker will be fun !

Hahaha indeed, damn i'm feeling stupid now Sorry for the mistake, let's say i was just tired

To be honest with you, whether or not Mover and Gonky got into this, i feel like most of the time, this "arm wrestling for correctness" whether one or the other plane flies correctly between the 16 and the 18 is mostly about people not accepting that their favorite planes gets beaten by the other, therefore simply a matter of ego that people blame on the FM of either plane. Of coarse people would throw rocks at me for saying this, but it's simply the feeling i get over time reading these never ending discussions.

I don't understand Danish, but that was great to watch indeed ! Thanks for sharing It's only a matter of time before my country also switches to the 35 from the 16, BAF

Hey brother How about this paint ?

Indeed, but like @Silver_Dragonsaid, their profile shows they havn't appeared on the forum since April too, which kinda answers the question, they probably didn't find a deal with ED. Very unfortunate if you ask me, as they were the only ones with a clear will to focus on the ground side of DCS while having interesting ambitions. It would have been awesome to see them update/work on combined arms, as that probably would have made it much faster to bring freshness to it as ED clearly isn't putting any focus on that side of DCS. I guess it's back to square one, hoping ED does it themselves sometime in the following years.

And imagine the part where they'd need to implement all this logic to the AI

Opinions ? Say no more, you've said it already my man. Main point would be the AI to be massively updated/improved, and in all senses, not just the AI aircrafts doing their things, i mean literally the AI from ground units to air units and everything that would make the missions/wars feel much more interesting and challenging tactically. 2nd point if i may The addition of the dynamic campaign, yes yes, we all know it's in the works, but i hope and dream that the AI will somehow be updated/improved by the time this DC comes out to the wide public ! Otherwise i'm scared of how things will happen in said DC Let me ramble a little more here because it's always good to let your heart talk hehe I would love to see DCS evolve in a way that ground warfare becomes a common thing as you're flying, seeing battle groups on the ground moving towards objectives, engaging other battle groups or defensive groups protecting an objective, literally anything that would make the ground way more alive than the ever so static one we've been too used to see throughout 95% of servers, missions etc. Literally whenever i take off, the only thing that needs attention from my part is of coarse ennemy planes that roam their navigations charts or are tasked to engage you (But are usually no more than a Turkey shoot). But the moment you wanna do some A2G, it's really just a matter of finding those static units shown on the map, at your steerpoints or whatever and doing passes on them with whatever weapon you have, it gets really boring after a while, to the point that i tend to stop flying because i'm not finding it fun/immersive/challenging anymore. I want something dynamic from ground to air ! Yes the dynamic campaign should answer that, i just hope it will meet the expectations and solve the massive replayability problem i've had over the years. Would the AI solve or at least help in all i've said ? Hopeflly yes as it would allow AI units to be way more unpredictable, way more tactically smart and just way more interesting all around.

This x100 ! The AI options in this poll were the first 2 i clicked. If i were to be given 2 options and only one be chosen. 1 : Complete AI overhaul 2 : Complete performance overhaul/upgrade I'd go for 1 without a second thought. The performance is clearly manageable for the vast majority of players from what Bignewy said after they implemented the new clouds, he said 85% of people didn't notice any significant performance downgrade. Yes this was more aimed around the new clouds, but nonetheless, unless you are playing in VR which is very demanding, it's easy to stay above 40-50 FPS. On the other hand, the AI just clearly isn't ready to accomodate the future dynamic campaign, and keep in mind that this dynamic campaign is normally scheduled for this year in external Beta. Even if it wasn't for the dynamic campaign, literally anyone could tell us a time where the AI simply sucked in an SP mission, MP server etc, so even if people arn't looking forward to that DC, well they'd still be very happy to see the AI do much better in everything else they do. I'm eagerly waiting for the DC and hoping it will rise DCS to another level of fun and immersion, bringing much more replayability most of all ! But how would that DC be fully enjoyable if the AI doesn't feel any good ?

Clearly a period i would not fancy at all unfortunately. If i could hope for a certain period, it'd probably be one made around the 90's, somewhat close enough to use our current 16 on it. 2000's period could potentially be fun too but i have no idea if that would simply be possible without loads of work on multiple levels. That doesn't really answer my question. Deka making exclusively Chinese assets is one thing, but a third party dev focusing on creating multiple asset packs if that was the intent and or creating a somewhat international asset pack is another, especially if that third party is like i said full time working ONLY on the ground side of DCS. Seems like no one knows if they are still around and/or validated by ED. This is the thread they created (The third party talking about focusing on assets and enhancement of Combined Arms) if you wern't aware of it already : Battlefield Productions

Talking about assets packs and maps. Maps are slowly being made, whether by ED themselves or third parties, i don't feel like it is an area clearly needing priority works, Syria is an awesome map, whether being the third with a majority of sand, i still feel it was a great choice to bring it and even more with the addition of Cyprus ! The map matches very well with most aircraft that we have and not counting the ones in the works. Mariana as much as not the most interesting one still is counted as a map on which certain scenarios could be made but limited in my opinion. Falklands is in the works and could potentially come out late this year or i'd guess sometime next year ? If there was one map i'd wish to get, it would be the whole of North + South Korea. I know that area is already used in another F-16 sim, but i'd love to see it detailed as good as Syria is for exemple and of coarse on DCS (Not counting how much i'd love to use our future dynamic campaign on it). A lot of our current assets (Planes and vehicles) would actually blend in pretty good on a Korean map. Anyhow, Ugra media seems to be focused on maps, and now that Syria is/should be finished, i would hope that they are already working on another new one to be just as good as Syria ?!? Point here is that, we already have "plenty" of great maps to use for different conflicts so no need to have priority on this matter. The assets, this is where i need to know, we heard a third party wanted to get into the business with ED and create only asset packs and maybe in the future go into making somewhat full fidelity vehicles !?! Where have these guys disappeared ? Havn't had news from them for long enough that i can't remember when was the last time they were talked about on the forum. I was really happy to know some third party devs were ready to join us and somewhat "take care" of the ground side of DCS, yet here we are, feeling like this great idea has not been validated. Same with the third party that talked about making an IADS module, awesome idea that again the majority of the community was happy to adopt, yet once again, i have not seen any news from them for very long and feel like it simply did not validate somewhere. ED is doing some minor work on ground stuff, mostly updating textures as it is, but i was really counting on that third party team who came in proposing to build asset packs and clearly speed up the process on everything ground related. I'm just hoping we'll see DCS evolve more into something with massive replayability and depth as a simulator. I do love the study level sim they've made, but i've seen myself loose interest coming on regurlarly because of too many details missing around the focus of study level planes we fly.

To me that is something everyone should keep in mind for a few years at least. I've seen it too many times the people wanting infantry in DCS. Infantry as much as it sounds cool to have them playable will certainly not be as fun and well established in a world and maps like the ones we have here in DCS. ED i'm almost certain has no ressources, money and time to invest in creating a properly fleshed out infantry gameplay in the world we currently have (They arn't even doing it for the already existing CA, as in develop it further, make it even better). I feel like it's just unrealistic to think ED will bring us some infantry gameplay anytime before a good 10 years time, and even with that, i'd be willing to bet it would still be short (Take into account a FF aircraft takes them as we've seen with the F-18/16/A-10, several years to complete, add to that all the other work they have on the side, Dynamic campaign engine, Vulcan, new Weather, AI, etc etc), infantry and anything ground related clearly isn't their focus, and that's nothing new to anyone who's been playing DCS for years. Yes the dream of some is there, and i can understand it, wouldn't it be insane to have infantry, vehicle, sea and air warfare all simulated in one world all together fighting in conjuction ? Of coarse it would. But back to reality, the priority in my opinion would be first of all to spend a bit of time and ressources upgrading what we currently have, CA as a whole. So many interesting remarks have been made, interesting ideas that sound feasible in terms of addition to CA, let them start there already before dreaming of infantry. I'd be so happy as a start to see them further develop the ground warfare and allow interesting usage of the ground vehicles in conjuction with all the boys flying above, just those 2 playing along side would already be such a fun element to DCS world ! I need to come back to something i said somewhere in this thread already, seeing how the tank gameplay from IL2 looks and feels like on their side, why not let ED start towards something similar ? No need for them to go fully indepth with tanks inside modeling, 100% proper physics etc, but something less arcady from what we have with the added improvement of some RTS element to all of the ground warfare would already be awesome. Literally just doing something to CA to give players an incentive of playing it when let's say they get shot down after a 30 minutes flight, or heck, just an incentive for anyone actually just enjoying ground warfare for a change of flying. I'd be very much willing once in a while after a session of flying to grab a vehicle of choice and go about joining the fight on the ground with other players, or even AI's if they were actually made to attack objectives and just have a purpose different from the always static ones we see throughout the majority of servers. And saying "once in a while" is putting it soft as i'm sure i'd be spending quite some time doing all that if it were made interesting enough, fun, immersive to a minimum and just easily accessible in terms of gameplay.

I have to say here that this is indeed one aspect i hope to never loose if CA came to be upgraded/developped further, that is to not loose the ability to manually control units and literally go about driving them, manually shooting and just being in full control of it. The RTS side should be further developped of coarse as it would be impossible for anyone trying to do a full scale assault to do it manually with each and every unit. But i stay on my initial point, manually controlling a unit remains a must and allows a clear added benefit to the whole CA. Nothing like manually controlling an SA-15 or Tanguska and ambushing incoming aircrafts, or even manually driving a tank to attack an airbase, the possibilities are endless.

Just finished reading through the entire thread (Started yesterday night but went to bed halfway through, i therefore don't remember each and every detail everyone said, mind me ) Anyway, CA has been since the day i bought it a very special module, i feel like it is very much a hidden jewel that has such a potential to unleash if it was further developped. If i may use a metaphore here, CA is like an unpolished diamond waiting for it to get polished and have its value increased with it. Ever since my purchase of CA and knowing a Dynamic campaign would someday be available, i've always wondered if/how ED has planned to integrate CA in relation with the Dynamic campaign. From what i understand, the Dynamic campaign will be mostly based around AI's trying to complete objectives and the players participating in that effort. This points out to me that any AI unit on the map either static/defensive or on the move towards an objective could/should be controllable by anyone owning CA right ? Therefore allowing the player to not only participate in the effort from the air, but also if he wishes, from the ground while controlling as first person a tank, artillery, APC, you name it, or controlling groups of units more so into a Command and Conquer style RTS way. That type of possibility is something that does not require any additional work appart from the creation of said dynamic campaign, CA as it is right now would already allow anyone at any moment to choose a commander role and select any available unit on the map and do what he wishes with that unit, whether it would be to completely de route it from its original path/objective or simply manually controlling it all the way to the objective with the rest of the AI handled force (or alone, players choice anyway), it simply could be done, and that to me would allow so much more to the whole experience of a dynamic campaign thanks to CA. Another aspect that comes to my mind is how will the Dynamic campaign handle assets and their availability ? It was said the dynamic campaign will have economical aspects (Production, Logistics, Use and transfer of ressources). Does that mean any side (Nation) during the dynamic campaign will have a certain amount of each asset/weapon/whatever ? And unless said asset/weapon/whatever is somehow replenished, you will only have the ones remaining alive/available in warehouses ? An exemple to make sure this is clear : You start the dynamic campaign and your only airfield available has 4 16s, 4 18s and 2 A10s (Not gonna take into account ammo and ground assets in this exemple even though it would work the same). As the war goes on, you loose 2 * 16s, 1 * 18. (You are now left with 2 * 16s, 3 * 18s and 2 * A10s) Until your nation is able to somehow replenish those 2 16s and only 18, you will have to fight for the remainder of the campaign with the remaining 2 16s, 3 18s and 2 A10s. This is where i wanted to end up, considering any major war is usually mostly fought with ground units and usually has more ground assets in action than actual air assets, if you were to loose all flyable aircraft/owned modules in a particular dynamic campaign, but your nation still had plenty of ground assets and you owned CA, would you be able to continue the campaign just using CA ? Until any of your owned module planes are available again ? Wouldn't this add a whole lot more importance to CA ? Or at least give it much more interest/insentive to use it efficiently ? Very much agree with this aspect, one that i've seen represented in IL2 already, i was quite surprised at how well the whole tank crew player side of the game looked fun and engaging in a game that's purely focused on WWII aerial warfare ! Might not be perfect of coarse, but clearly good enough to make it very fun and immersive for players willing to use it rather than flying. Hopefully it ain't a problem posting videos representing well what i'm talking about : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTrku4zDIQw&t=9s&ab_channel=Wolfpack345 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G390RVcQIEY&ab_channel=b0wie1 Look at the detailed interior of those Tigers ? Although not clickable, still very immersive IMO. Again, fully agree with this. Although missing the infantry actually being useful and attacking/defending, once again i wanna point you to the 2 videos i posted above, imagine adding said infantry with the tank gameplay seen in those videos ? How awesome would it be ? Now how awesome would all that be in DCS:CA ? I wish........

I'm a little confused, which poll is all this coming from ? The poll that was made earlier this year ? Or one recent that i missed ? Thanks