Kappa-06MHR

I often made my farp whis tires & tent. So no problems for me. Personnaly, i arrange the tires in a square (closed) I would also have preferred 4 FARPs rather than 3, in order to fit a full squadron. The design I don't like is the 3 Bay Cloverleaf, because I prefer that all the FARPs are aligned parallel to each other, facing the wind

I fly with KA-50 and I made my own script that transform KMGU cluster weapon to Napalm ^^ No mods, just script :

Does the FARP automatically orient itself into the wind? It's missing a windsock

Thanks for your answer !

I'm very interesting because I had try and it seem it does't work. I want to make buddylasing with SU-25/T. I agree that budylasing with A-10C isn't "realistic". But we are also a multiplayer game, and it will be appreciated if the player can choose between extreme realism and synergy with other members of their squadron to make coordination and cooperation more interesting.

@Flappie : Is this multiplayer bug has been reported ? This multiplayer bug appeared during a summer update and has been confirmed by several KA-50 squadrons. It can easily be seen during the 06 MHR streams where the KA-50s always appear with their landing gear extended (even though it's actually retracted). I think there's a multiplayer synchronization bug that's preventing allies from reporting when their landing gear is retracted. Ex : Dimitriov's stream, 06MHR, Timecode : 36:41 :

What I say is that Currenthill ACTUAL infantry do the work that actually miss in DCS. Getting in or out vehicule, we already have (virtually, we don't see animation). Of course, it will be cool to have "animations", but it's not so important. The most important is that infantry is able to survive in the battleshield. For example, placing troops that can do embush, or stoping column with ATGM, antimaterial sniper... What we need is not beautiful animations but functionnal infantry that can be used realistically in warfare. Infantry that can enter or exiting building is my dream for a decade. I dream about infantry that can work as in RTS "Wargrame Red Dragon" (for ex), transforming random building in armed house. It will be gamechanger for urban operation. But is it what ED has planed with new infantry ? I never read any news or communications about thoses types of features. We don't even know what will be so special with the future infantry which justified so many years of waiting. What we saw in trailer are only updated 3D models of the current infantry. We don't know if they can enter building. I know that Ugra Media, ORBX or OnReTech are making map and not assets, but I think it would make sense from a marketing perspective to anticipate the presence of military units seemingly belonging to the countries featured in upcoming maps. Map development takes time, probably more than making some 3D modeling, so this could be planned for. It's sad to see a map like Kola Map only having assets to populate only the Russian side of the border (and even then, you can't even properly populate Poliarny or Severomorsk due to a lack of naval assets), but on the Finnish or Swedish side, practically no units! Currenthill helped fill this gap, but mods are banned in most squadrons, so you can't even properly exploit a conflict between the countries involved in the maps. The Sinai map has been out for several years, where are the Egyptians or Israeli assets? Where are the Iranian assets for the Persian Gulf map? Are we forced to populate all our maps with US versus Russian units? Of course, units are being added gradually, but at a pace that's far too slow. When I talk about changing the funding model, it's simply because I'd like to find a way to develop the DCS core at the same rate as the modules or maps, because let's face it, the progress of recent years hasn't been groundbreaking, and we can't thank Currenthill enough for raising the game's profile with the content he adds! Funding core development solely through modules seems to result in underinvestment. The core would evolve more if it had its own dedicated funding source. Some people would be willing to "pay" to see the core evolve faster. This is an observation I often make when discussing things with my friends. Rather than paying for yet another module that we might only play for a few hours before giving up, we'd like to be able to invest in evolving the game without having to change our favorite module. We love this game and we want to contribute to the core evolution.

I apologize for my impatience, it's just that this is a crucial feature, announced 5 years ago and teasing in some trailers, we're starting to lose hope... Will we get ATGMs, snipers, units as diverse as those of Currenthill? Or only AK / M16 soldiers ? What is the development status? Can we expect to have something by 2026? I think this highlights one of the biggest flaws in ED's business model. Modules are released very regularly, but the core evolves far too slowly. Personally, I don't particularly want to constantly change modules, but I would be willing to "pay" to see the core's development significantly accelerate, because it's the core's features that bring game-changing elements to our everyday gameplay... For example, every time a map is released, there should at least be countries assets to populate it. Kola map? -> The Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian armies should be included. Germany map? -> All the Cold War units of the German and French armies should be delivered. There's too often a discrepancy between the maps produced and the assets delivered, which is precisely why mods like Currenthill's or Dimitriov's Frenchpack are so successful in the community: they fill a content gap. In DCS, there are only two armies that are properly equipped: the US and Russian armies (and even then, for it to be truly accurate, infantry units would be needed). Deploying versatile infantry is part of a helicopter's core function, this is not a secondary function! As is the ability to perform CSAR missions, on land, on sea... Their development should therefore be a priority, and if time is lacking, then we should turn to third-party developers like Currenthill to integrate this. Five years is the development time for a small game, not for a few 3D assets. Maybe ED must rethink it's business model to help financing the core independently of the modules

I also think that it's a good thing to have models with balaclava masks Realistic face is extremely hard to make. We're naturally programmed to recognize faces, so we immediately spot an unrealistic one. It's common to see DCS screenshots that look photorealistic, but usually, if you glimpse a face, it's often a detail that immediately gives away the realism. With models whose faces are hidden, the photorealism is enhanced, and it makes modding easier, so it suits me perfectly. I don't understand how ED can release module like Chinook and don't add reworked infantry model...

I'm not sure if this model is still relevant. It was a 2021 presentation. It might not still be current, or we would have probably already seen it in the game...

That's the problem: the community has been waiting forever for an infantry overhaul. An overhaul that ED teased as early as 2021 in some newsletters... It's almost 2026, and five years later (!!!), still not a single word about new infantry. To add to the players' frustration, ED has teased on several occasions what looks like a revamped, high-definition infantry system, such as during the teaser for the Afghanisthan map : We are waiting for too long... Your infantry is fully functional and perfectly meets the community's expectations. It's a perfect! There is AT, ATGM, Sniper, transportable mortars, manpads, heavy machine guns.... This is all the community await for years in DCS! We're not even sure that in its remake, ED will incorporate such a variety of infantry! It doesn't surprise me that the most frequent request regarding the integration of your mods into the core is about infantry integration. It's such a crucial point for all helicopter pilots; it's a total game changer. In my squadron, we have chinook, Huey and Mi-8 that dream about this type of infantry in the core (no mods autorized in a lot of squadrons...)

up

Any news about a fix ?

And for the ship, I want a remake Rezki (Krivak II). This ship is weakly protected (2 SA-8, 0 CIWIS), that make it a cool legitim target for KH-25ML (with Kamov). Same range between OSA and KH-25ML, so it's an interesting target for budylasing in Kamov, it actually just miss evolued damage model with multi section damage. And the Krivak II often travel with Grisha, so the two of them make an interesting naval group