Lace

Will there be additional airfields in phases 2 & 3?

Screenshots look amazing, and dare I say it, almost ready for release...? So glad they included some Baltic. So glad they made it temporally relevant. Wen Tornado?

Nobody will be forced to use the time acceleration, but it could be a concession to those who want a more 'playable' experience. There is no reason to think that the DCE engine will limit the player to one pilot or particular aircraft either, it is not an RPG, so jumping from aircraft to aircraft should be possible, as long as they are available resources and not currently being re-armed, repaired or under maintenance. Like it or not, the whole point of a dynamic campaign is to introduce an element of asset management (including pilots, aircraft, POL and weapons) to the game. If some players don't want that experience, then they are still free do endless eject/respawns in the MP servers. I just hope there is a little more consideration for a realistic op tempo in the DCE, and this is not sacrificed on the altar of multiplayer fun. Regarding my bold above - Why shouldn't that be the case in the DCE? That is exactly how it should be, it certainly shouldn't just be disregarded. I might be an edge case though, I have many 1000s of hours (all in real-time) in CM:O and am well used to seeing the ready time of my strike package slowly tick down...

It is more than an interesting detail, it is essential to realistic asset management in a campaign. If you can simply throw jet after jet, sortie after sortie at a target then it makes a mockery of any claims of realism. Tactics and self-preservation are no longer a concern when you can just go home and try again in a matter of minutes. Multiplayer brings its own challenges. I'd imagine there will be 'spare' aircraft which can be pre-readied for anyone looking for a quick way to get back into the action (either that or Minecraft bedtimes - i.e. time acceleration once all elements of a mission are back on the ground or destroyed), but AIUI the DCE will be primarily SP focused initially (rightly IMHO).

A big one for me is that it will need realistic rearm, refuel and repair times, including pre and post-flight checks and inspections. Time can be skipped forwards for the player so there will be no waiting around for hours, but it is important that the battle moves on around them. This will make planning and coordination more important to the player, and mean that failing in an objective will have real consequences, as you may not get another chance to hit a target for several hours. As it currently stands in DCS, you can be back in the action in an unrealistically short period of time, which 'might' have happened in a real SHTF cold war escalation in Germany, but is not how sustained air ops are performed in a 'modern' war.

The FAA Instrument Flying Handbook is as good a place as any to start. Military procedures vary, but the basic principles translate well. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/FAA-H-8083-15B.pdf Honestly, if you are learning this for any current or future real-world requirement, I'd look beyond DCS and at one of the civvy sims. Far more suitable training aircraft there.

This is pretty much how I see it. Steam gauges don't feel out of place in a modern setting, but MFDs in an older historical one do.

Wags latest video mentioned that they had enough data to produce a UH-60L right now, but were waiting for the data on the UH-60M. This is post 2006, had more power and a glass-cockpit. and is probably a better fit for the AH-64 and OH-58s we have and will work better in GWOT scenarios. However, I don't know why there seems to be an assumption that customers want the 'latest and greatest' versions of everything, when the older models are often more versatile, have a more storied history, and are generally more fun (or challenging) to fly. Perhaps I'm alone in this, so I thought I'd pop up a poll to see if the forumites agree with ED on this approach.

Is it possible to use soft links (like other sims) or do they need to be hard links?

I'd love an F-117. I'd also love an F-111. Both very different aircraft with very different mission sets. The beauty of DCS is that it allows the player to experience all kinds of flying, in many different types. It's not all about high scores and K:D ratios, otherwise why build trainers, helicopters, aerobatic aircraft, etc? It's about simulating particular experiences. The F-117 would offer a unique experience within DCS. It won't appeal to the AMRAAM-maxers, and in DCS in its current form might be a bit of an oddball, but with the Dynamic Campaign Engine combined with proper target driven outcomes (rather than the non persistent, story-driven campaigns we currently have) it will offer a planning and execution element which is currently missing from DCS. The small payload is largely irrelevant, as most sorties will have a primary and maybe secondary target. Those dozens of MK82s on the F-111 will likely come off in one pass anyway, so the outcome is the same. I.e a single well planned and executed target run. The F-111 could be very important if we lose the F-15E, as currently it is the only all-weather strike aircraft in DCS (at least until the Tornado arrives). Although a generation older, and less versatile than the Mud Hen I think it would be another popular choice with players. If it is either of those I would be very happy indeed. (but do the F-117 first!)

Therein lies the problem of maps based on satellite imagery. It is only a snapshot in time. The installations in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s would have looked very different. I know it is not the case for every map, but contrast the IADS of Iraq during ODS, then later OIF, or Sinai 1960s vs Sinai 2000s.

The problem with embedded sites is that it limits mission creation options. How do you deal with different dates, different operations, different (upgraded) versions of the installations, destruction of sites during earlier stages of a conflict? etc? Maybe a better solution would be to ship the maps with better templates for different time periods, but the community is usually pretty quick to create these even if the map makers don't.

I really want you to be right on this.

Hell yes. A must for central Germany & Iraq.

I've had a bit of time to digest the video now, and my feelings are a little mixed. The DCE is not going to be easy to showcase in a short video, but it looks like there has been a lot of work on the ground unit AI which is very welcome. F-15C is good news, I hope there will be more FC3 aircraft brought into full-fidelity, especially with the central Germany map. A-10A, I'm looking at you! F-35 was completely unexpected, as the difficulties of accurately modelling in service (and very high tech) aircraft are well known. As one poster already mentioned, there are probably as many lines of code in the F-35 as there are in DCS. Many of the sensor capabilities are classified, so best guesses will have to do, which honestly I'm ok with. I don't get the whole imbalance argument though. I know there are plenty of PvP players who keep score and like things 'fair', but in real combat if you find yourself in a fair fight, then someone screwed up the planning. Air combat is not some chivalrous fight like knights of old, it is lurking in the dark waiting to shoot your enemy in the back of the head without them even knowing you were there. Fair should never come into it. I'm a bit disappointed not to have seen more of some of the other 3rd party modules in development, I won't bother listing them as we all know what is coming in the pipeline, but it would have been nice to see some footage of them Central Germany looks great though, and at least it seems like they are making it temporally relevant, which is a nice change.

I could say the same about the whole WWII aspect. Complete waste of time and resources for me personally, I have no interest in FF red air either, oh and the Caucasus is geographically irrelevant to 90% of the modules we have, so why waste time and effort on that? However I appreciate I am not the only ED customer and different people want different things. NTTR is probably my most used map, and as much as I would like a refresh or expansion, ED have stated time and time again that it is 'feature complete' so it seems doubtful.

GR.3 would be a great fit for the Fulda Map. SHAR would be nice too though.

Yes indeed. The whole Iraq map is present, including the top (Kuwaiti) end of the Persian Gulf. The 'North' part of the title refers to the high detail area. Edit - Here is the map: The whole red area is present, the blue area is high detail.

Version 3 with Roland sites and Iraqi Army Corps positions. Desert Storm Template v3.miz

Mission attached with all SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 sites. Updates to follow with Roland sites and other DMPIs. Desert Storm Template v2.miz

105s a bit 'modern' for Desert Storm, CBU-87 with CCIP and no TGP more realistic (the Hornet has Rockeyes as default), but whatever floats your boat. I deliberately kept the cloud base low which doesn't give you much vertical to play with. I just flew it through again tonight and there are a couple of tweaks to make, and that carrier landing is darker than the inside of a black cat, scary stuff. Not bad for a simple little mission though. I managed to incorporate all the new toys - fog, volumetric lighting, Iraq map, and copy & paste in the ME!

The remainder of displaced Iraqi ground forces are moving north from Kuwait towards Basra. They have set ablaze several hundred oil wells during their retreat. Any vehicles along MSR 80 within Kuwait or MSR 8 in Iraq is to be considered hostile and should be neutralized before they can regroup and engage coalition forces advancing from the Southwest. Designer notes: F/A-18As from VFA-15 flew from USS Theodore Roosevelt and engaged targets on the 25-27th February 1991 in what would become known as 'The Highway of Death'. This scenario is inspired by these sorties and is not meant to accurately represent any single mission or attack. Due to the limitations of DCS F/A-18Cs will be a stand in for As and DL & HMCS is disabled. The convoy is very close to WP3 and can easily be seen on A/G RADAR. Even though the southern part of the Iraq map does not feature any buildings it is still useable and has some decent textures. I think for this mission it works as is. Highway of Death.miz

As per the title please.

Overview of Iraqi Army units. https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=17rqXoQtRtrvw8Mdb58tRo_8dFh_geVY&usp=sharing II Corps 51 Mechanized Division (northernmost) Located around 29°54'N, 47°54'E Has a mix of SA-7b Grail MANPADS teams, SA-9b Gaskin SAM units, and ZSU-23-4 Shilka AAA units Forms the northern defensive belt 2 Infantry Division (central) Located around 29°39'N, 48°02'E Equipped with SA-7b Grail MANPADS teams and ZU-23-2 AAA units Covers the central sector 37 Infantry Division (northeastern) Located around 30°04'N, 48°17'E Similar equipment mix to 2nd Infantry Division Defends the northeastern sector Unidentified Infantry Division IV Corps (southwestern) Located around 29°30'N, 47°48'E Similar equipment to other infantry divisions Covers the southwestern approaches II Corps Assets Located around 29°49'N, 47°52'E Has heavier AAA with S-60 57mm guns and SA-9b Gaskin SAMs Appears to be corps-level air defense assets For a polygon enclosing all positions (in DMS format): Northwest: 30°09'45"N, 47°49'30"E Northeast: 30°10'15"N, 48°19'45"E Southeast: 29°24'45"N, 48°04'15"E Southwest: 29°25'15"N, 47°43'45"E III Corps 8 Infantry Division (southernmost) Located around 28°36'N, 48°03'E Equipped with SA-7b Grail MANPADS and M1939 37mm AAA batteries Defends the southern sector 7 Infantry Division (western) Located around 29°00'N, 47°33'E Similar equipment to 8th Infantry Division Covers the western approaches 29 Infantry Division (west-central) Located around 28°42'N, 47°42'E Similar equipment mix to other infantry divisions Defends the west-central sector 5 Mechanized Division (central) Located around 28°52'N, 47°54'E Has SA-9b Gaskin SAMs, ZSU-23-4 Shilka AAA, and SA-7b Grail MANPADS Controls central area 42 Infantry Division (central) Located around 28°43'N, 47°54'E Standard infantry division air defense 19 Infantry Division (eastern) Located around 28°54'N, 48°10'E Standard infantry division air defense 18 Infantry Division Located around 28°40'N, 48°15'E 15 Infantry Division Located around 29°16'N, 47°48'E 14 Infantry Division Located around 28°52'N, 47°38'E 11 Infantry Division Located around 29°07'N, 48°05'E 3 Armored Division Located around 29°07'N, 47°51'E Has SA-9b Gaskin SAMs, ZSU-23-4 Shilka AAA, and SA-7b MANPADS III Corps Assets Located around 29°03'N, 47°44'E Has S-60 57mm guns and SA-9b Gaskin SAMs as corps-level assets For a polygon enclosing all positions (in DMS format): Northwest: 29°19'00"N, 47°31'30"E Northeast: 29°13'15"N, 48°19'45"E Southeast: 28°36'15"N, 48°07'30"E Southwest: 28°36'15"N, 47°31'30"E IV Corps 21 Infantry Division (eastern) Located around 29°12'N, 47°15'E Equipped with SA-7b Grail MANPADS teams Defends eastern sector 36 Infantry Division (central) Located around 29°02'N, 47°24'E Similar equipment to other infantry divisions Controls central area 30 Infantry Division (western) Located around 29°07'N, 46°57'E Equipped with SA-7b Grail MANPADS and M1939 37mm AAA batteries Covers western approaches 20 Infantry Division Located around 29°08'N, 46°45'E Standard infantry division air defense 16 Infantry Division Located around 29°06'N, 47°10'E Standard infantry division air defense 6 Armored Division (northern) Located around 29°19'N, 47°35'E Has SA-9b Gaskin SAMs, ZSU-23-4 Shilka AAA, and SA-7b MANPADS Defends northern sector 1 Mechanized Division (north-central) Located around 29°12'N, 47°42'E Has similar equipment to 6th Armored Division IV Corps Assets Located around 29°15'N, 47°21'E Has S-60 57mm guns and SA-9b Gaskin SAMs as corps-level assets For a polygon enclosing all positions (in DMS format): Northwest: 29°24'15"N, 46°41'15"E Northeast: 29°27'00"N, 47°47'15"E Southeast: 29°02'30"N, 47°24'00"E Southwest: 29°07'45"N, 46°41'15"E IX Corps 45 Infantry Division (eastern) Located around 30°03'N, 45°17'E Equipped with SA-7b Grail MANPADS teams Defends eastern sector 52 Armored Division (central) Located around 29°56'N, 46°57'E Has SA-9b Gaskin SAMs, ZSU-23-4 Shilka AAA, and SA-7b MANPADS Controls central area 17 Armored Division (northern) Located around 29°51'N, 47°12'E Similar equipment to 52nd Armored Division Defends northern approaches 10 Armored Division (northeast) Located around 29°31'N, 47°27'E Similar equipment to other armored divisions Covers northeastern sector 49 Infantry Division (southwest) Located around 30°32'N, 46°53'E Standard infantry division air defense with SA-7b Grail MANPADS For a polygon enclosing all positions (in DMS format): Northwest: 30°38'45"N, 46°48'15"E Northeast: 30°34'30"N, 47°31'30"E Southeast: 29°45'00"N, 47°31'30"E Southwest: 29°59'15"N, 45°10'00"E Republican Guard Tawakalna Division (Republican Guard Mechanized Division) Located around 29°40'N, 47°00'E Has SA-6 Gainful SAM batteries, SA-13 Gopher SAMs, ZSU-23-4 Shilka AAA, and SA-14 Gremlin MANPADS Supports mechanized operations Hammurabi Division (Republican Guard Armored Division) Located around 30°12'N, 47°24'E Similar equipment to Tawakalna Division Heavy armored unit Medina Division (Republican Guard Armored Division) Located around 30°05'N, 47°10'E Similar equipment mix to other armored divisions Main armored force Special Forces Division Located around 30°11'N, 47°42'E Lighter air defense with SA-7b Grail MANPADS Adnan Division (Republican Guard Infantry Division) Located around 30°18'N, 47°42'E Infantry division with MANPADS and ZU-23-2 AAA Al-Faw Division (Republican Guard Infantry Division) Located around 30°24'N, 47°24'E Similar equipment to Adnan Division Nebuchadnezzar Division (Republican Guard Infantry Division) Located around 30°20'N, 47°15'E Similar equipment to other infantry divisions Corps Assets ZSU-57-2 AAA batteries at around 30°32'N, 47°30'E Provides heavy anti-aircraft capability For a polygon enclosing all positions (in DMS format): Northwest: 30°32'15"N, 46°54'00"E Northeast: 30°32'15"N, 47°57'00"E Southeast: 29°36'00"N, 47°57'00"E Southwest: 29°36'00"N, 46°54'00"E

Here is a google maps link to a selection of fixed site DMPIs I collated. Given the limits of google maps layers, I will create another for mobile positions soon. I have only processed the information into a visible format, The data is based on the 'Command: Modern Operations' database. I cannot take any credit for its creation or verify the accuracy of the data. It is meant purely as a starting point for content creators to have something on which to base their missions. I am also in the process of creating a 1991 .miz template with fixed SAM site positions, which should be ready soon* https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1Mpgn-fTBUxToUqsZMYORpQ_cW4L8gQs&usp=sharing Anyway, hope it is of some use. *(two weeks!).