LooseSeal

I believe the OP is referring to the Single Missions that come packaged with modules, not to the training missions. So I have no idea why the training missions were highlighted in Wags' FAQ above.

We're not really at the point yet where we know specifics like that. In fact, I don't think ED has ever released a list of missions prior to a module's release. I guess you'll find out with the rest of us when you start it up for the first time. No doubt there will be an Iron Flag-type campaign for it at some point, there has been for essentially every other modern Western module!

Agh. There is just so much I disagree with in your post... so much self-entitlement! ED is a developer, not an entertainment company here to give you a daily "surprise", like a child sitting in front of a jack-in-the-box waiting for a module to pop out. They've said repeatedly that they will give information when they think it is ready or necessary - not simply to entertain us. Besides, whether or not we know something is happening does NOT affect the speed at which it happens. It will come when it comes. They gave us the roadmap at the start of last year - did knowing all that stuff make it go any faster? No. As for the Apache, one of the mods commented only the other day that the release date is still scheduled for the end of the month. If that changes? So be it. Why do we need more photos?? I'm fairly sure all the photos we have cover just about every nut and bolt of the thing. This is my opinion and feeling about your post. I agree with the OP - wait patiently. In the meantime, you know, do other stuff with your life I guess?

It would be nice, though, to be able to order them to attack spontaneous, specific targets while in mission. I'd certainly hope this function is available for the dynamic campaign... or it'll be a complete mess trying to conduct SEAD/DEAD missions.

Yeah... there seems to be no argument to make here. It's not a naval variant. I mean, at that rate, we might as well stick whatever is necessary onto the Spitfire to make it carrier-capable and call it a Seafire. Either an accurate land-based Phantom. Or both variants separately. But no Frankenstein's Phantoms please.

We'll know by whether Wags releases any new videos in the next week or two. Whatever happens - it's coming. And that's more than enough for me. Casmo's video today is proof to me that ED is doing their absolute best to learn from previous experience and make this an excellent module.

That is certainly an accurate definition of the window wiper phenomenon. But it does seem a little 'wishy washy', pardon the pun, to simply say the wipers are 'working' without clarifying whether they do indeed wipe the droplets away - or like all the other modules, just go back and forth but not actually wipe anything.

I think this thread is more about what is actually coming this year, or potentially coming. I'm afraid to tell you that none of that will be happening. Edit: Well, maybe airport animations or something like it?

For me it's, firstly, upgrades to the core game - AI, performance, expansion of assets, ATC, etc. Then the dynamic campaign, but I think it will need the core upgrades first to be a success. As for modules... the Apache. 100%. The only module that even comes close to convincing me to properly get into multiplayer/coop. Curious to find out the answer to the big Afghanistan/C-130 debate too!

I'm really sorry but... I also use a 1080 and I can categorically tell you it is not a beast. Not by a longshot. I also struggle with Syria... Because of the 1080. Personally, as a fellow 1080-owner, I do not expect any developer to cater to my needs. It's my own issue that I have an outdated card.

Indeed. Including multiple people who clearly don't understand the words "No Discussion" in Silver Dragon's roadmap thread. Absolute mayhem.

It's definitely a fantastic video. Although... I'd sort of like a written summary of where they're at with certain developments, the same as they did last year. Leaves less room for ambiguity, speculation and false hopes! But I shall take what I can get

Literally nothing. Surprised it hasn't been moved yet.

In 2022. So... about 2 weeks?

I absolutely cannot wait to see what he and Baltic Dragon (that was him on the podcast, right?) come up with for a campaign. That should be brilliant.

I've got to disagree with that. I find placing infantry in the ME to be such a chore that I hate doing it. Place one guy down, then everyone appears in a big long line behind. Then I have to zoom out and find the last guys in the line and start dragging them all individually to where I want... There just has to be a better, more efficient way of doing it. I like the idea of customisable presets. Although I like the idea of pre-built presets for many things in DCS... SAM sites, FARPs, full-deck carriers, roadbases, outposts, et, etc. For me, presets = Although at this point, any improvement to ground units will be more than welcome.

In reality that would be true. As it stands in DCS, the AI doesn't understand that it should just stop emitting and instead tries to shoot down every HARM that comes its way. This is basically how I deal with S-300 sites in Liberation. 4 x flights of 4 Hornets with HARMS so they waste all their missiles, followed by a single Viper flight with CBU-105s from altitude. Done.

We can already do racetrack orbits through the Advanced Waypoint section. Although if you mean the ability to actually plot the exact route of the orbit, then yeah that would be a nice addition. Maybe a preset orbit could appear with a click-and-drag box that we could use to shape the size and direction of the orbit? Something like that.

Be a very good boy and Santa might just bring you one. Side note: Santa's Sleigh module for DCS! There must be unclassified documentation on the reindeer flight model out there somewhere... Damn it... I'm getting carried away again.

I think we will have to agree to disagree that DCS is a land/sea simulator. I respect your opinion of course, but as things stand, I don't believe that it is. In the future? Maybe. I never disagreed that damage models were in progress - that's why I said it was more important to me. Anyway, to be honest, I have a hunch the OP started this topic as a joke and we've all got a bit carried away.

In fairness, the 'sun/moon' has a direct impact on what this is - a flight sim which occurs in the skies. And the sun and moon have pretty large impacts on the sky, I would say. So those were important developments. This isn't a ship simulator (at least not yet, and I dare say not for another decade). I fail to see what modelling water currents will bring to DCS. A decent damage model for ships would suffice at this point. Yes, I know it's just a wishlist... but if we're going that direction then we might as well start asking for dynamic, shifting sands in the desert, affected by real-time physics for each sand grain, so we never see the same dune twice!

If ED ever put time or resources into something like this before sorting out basically every other aspect of the sim... I'd be genuinely furious. Just saying.

So, APKWS - the MPP variant, despite saying 'penetrator', isn't really designed for MBTs. It's more for IFVs and the softer armoured targets. I mean, you might kill a T-72 if you hit it from the top, or maybe a few hits from the rear. But from the front? You're not getting through there, I'm afraid. As for Mk-82s... it's just pointless trying to engage a T-72 with them. You will need an absolute direct hit on it. In reality, you'd imagine the concussive blast would do bad things to the crew, but that kind of damage isn't modelled in DCS currently - maybe next year? So... for MBTs, stick to AGM-65s and GBUs if they're available on your multiplayer. Otherwise, leave them for someone else and go kill some BMPs. Edit: Oh, and the Mk20s are indeed useless. I can't remember what the reasoning is or if they've just been borked for ages, but I imagine if you do a search on here for 'Rockeye' you'll get a lot of threads complaining about the same thing.

DCS AI, I'm afraid. See all, know all. A mountain will hide you. But anything smaller, you're taking a risk. And definitely not a tree. We just have to hope this is all going to be part of ED's big AI rework which should, hopefully, get it to act in more human ways with human limitations.

I would agree with Furiz for the most part - hate is a very strong word for a product that people put a lot of effort into developing, and it would feel disrespectful to use it. I completely understand what you're asking, but 'hate' is a slightly too loaded word for me. Maybe 'dislike' or 'annoy'. People use the word hate way too often and too easily these days, as far as I'm concerned, in all areas of life!