Callsign112

Does anyone know if this project is still being worked on?

Thanks. Thing is I didn't do anything to make the tank blow up. But anyway, I will try to revive my profile with your instructions.

Getting back into DCS, and thought I would start here.

Having been away from DCS for a number of months, I decided to re-familiarize myself with driving ground vehicles in a simple mission. After placing a single group of 4 leopard tanks, I entered the mission as Game Master and started driving one of the tanks. Within a few minutes one of the tanks blew up apparently on its own, and I received an on-screen message stating I committed fratricide and all my experience would be removed. I then tried to check my profile, but it no longer exists. Anyone know what is going on here?

I have kind of stepped back from DCS for the moment so I am not following all the updates, but that is good news SD. Thanks.

I think the fact that the flying part of DCS taking precedence is understandable, but even the most staunches diehard would have to agree that leaving everything else decades behind is a little bit of an immersion breaker. Take the most recent video showing the beautiful work that has gone into making dust fly around as the AH-64 takes off. Everything else that isn't moving looks real enough, but the small group of soldiers walking through the dust storm just takes away from the brilliant work on display IMO. No crouching down, or turning away to protect their eyes from the dust spray. Just keep marching through the dust cloud like cardboard stick men.... Maybe one day

I agree with the OP in that sound is a big part off immersion, but then again, I wouldn't know what a real CEII is supposed to sound like. So I guess there is that. Maybe threads like this will help M3 LLC decide to give the module a once over at some point, but personally I am very happy with my purchase. Aside from possible sound issues, the module is beautifully detailed and a hoot to fly on any map.

Might be just your $0.02, but it makes $millions more in common sense. Couldn't agree more.

Please add more icons to the draw tool.

Awesome work, now if only they could make them curtsy! Eingehend!... (curtsy) ja, das ist gut.

Not sure if you've read this thread, but it might give you some idea. Hasn't seen a lot of updating lately though most likely due to all the other work in progress.

Couldn't agree more SD. I was initially concerned that Normandy 2.0 was going to reinforce the concept of constricting maps to specific campaigns/time periods, but I have to say I'm really impressed with the way ED/Ugra have worked it out in the end, and will be picking it up once it gets released for DCS stable. Members like DD_Fenrir have every right to demand that attention to historical timelines be given if for no other reason than to support realism in MP game play. But restricting the type of planes that will combat each other is better addressed by the MP server itself, and can be adjusted from one day to the next. There is no reason a MP server couldn't use Normandy2's Atlantic Wall in one mission, and Dunkirk as the setting for the next. Using the same map to represent various time periods/battles would make the commercial aspects of map building more feasible, while at the same time increasing value for the customer. I just hope once they finally get the core issues ironed out that we see more updates to the WWII/CA part of DCS.

It would be nice if we could get a period correct bino view as well.

At the moment, we don't have an icon for infantry. Would it be possible to add this?

+1!!! I am hopeful with MT finally in Beta testing that we are not far off from seeing more updates to CA/WWII assets. It would be nice for example to see a WWII Binocular view, as well as a comparable feature for JTAC in WWII. We should be able to call in an artillery strike, or CAS with a forward observer over radio using something similar to the JTAC controls currently available in modern scenarios.

IMO, you are conflating two features that have little to do with each other. Being able to drive a vehicle has little to do with how the Ai works in general. To the bold text above, I don't believe the concept of CA is to man every single unit personally. I think the concept is more to be able to take command over a battlefield scenario. You do this by setting the number and type of CA slots you want the various teams to have access to. The ability to be a battlefield commander has been a feature of Combined Arms at least since I purchased it almost 3 years ago. To your point 1, I agree it is far from perfect, but I have been able to get Ai vehicles to move intelligently, and quite often with very little effort. Where they could really improve on Ai logic is in your point about taking evasive maneuvers. The Ai do react with each other in terms of trading fire, but could be a bit more dynamic in terms of using cover, attack, hold, retreat IMO. To your point 2, I think current control is quite a bit better than miserable, but could use more refinement for sure. Being able to do things like click/drag to make groups on the fly would be a good start. No I wouldn't trade being able to drive/control a unit for a UI that would improve the CA experience, because I don't think they are related in anyway to cause a problem. I think the UI could be improved, but being able to control/drive a vehicle isn't the cause, or the reason the UI needs improving. Having the ability to drive a unit simply adds another layer of capability to the way you command the battlefield. Improving the UI would simply aid the way you do it.

And I don't think anyone here would blame you for not getting your hopes up. But if you consider the improvements in graphic performance with the new Nvidia GPU's alone, modernizing the DCS core should normally be a good thing. For myself, I would like to see them finally finish their planned core updates to DCS so that they can get back to updating/adding other things. I don't know what we should/can expect in terms of an improvement with ED's own engine, but based on the continued gains seen with other similar platforms, there is no reason to believe we shouldn't see the same here. I take the recent YouTube videos showing off the Unreal5 engine in a flight SIM application as an example of where we are likely heading.

+1. This should really help bring the needed horsepower to make DCS the full simulator it is meant to be. A little competition like the video I just watched on the Nor platform based on Unreal5 would help too. With the continued advancements in CPU/GPU designs, the future of the computer simulation space looks bright.

Hey not so fasts.... 2022 isn't over yet.

@BluePhantom, would it be possible to upload an image of the Mission Editor screen as you try to add German infantry so I can see what you see? There must be something missed here because the last time I checked it worked for me.

This thread shouldn't be just a suggestion for ED and its community members to consider, it should be an absolute priority on ED's to-do list! I just picked up the Mi-8/BS combo sale and really happy I did. But not because I have hours of flying experience in both modules. In fact you might say I haven't even finished opening the box. But what becomes instantly clear after installing the module and opening it for the first time is the amount and level of detail that has gone into both of these birds. I know, its DCS and having used other flight models, why would I expect anything else than a beautifully crafted digital model of the real thing. Note to ED, I will be adding the other rotary winged aircraft to my hangar. Having said that, my recent purchase has also further highlighted something I was already well aware of. The disparity in detail/functionality between air/ground/sea units is so stark that you might not realize your actually still using DCS if your not in-flight. Bump-bump!

Amen brother! +1

I agree completely, ED has a lot of work to do to get things working better. And I think ED is constantly producing results in that regard. 2.8 is just a recent example. But the reality is as end-users there is also a need to stay current in terms of computing power needs. The handshake here seems to be we expect ED to keep its software updated with more and more features, and to help out and do our part I feel strongly that we should also have to keep the systems running the software current. I ran DCS World on a bare bones system (RX580 8GB/16GB RAM) for the last 4 years, so I think I have earned the right to say I built up a pretty good experience making missions on the low end of the computing power side of things. I had no problems running DCS World on that system, but it wasn't hard to overload it either. In terms of flying, I just had to learn to accept <60 FPS when attacking ground targets/flying at low altitude. I think it is fair to say that as long as you meet the minimum system requirements for DCS you should have no problems enjoying the software, as long as you understand what can realistically be achieved with the system you use.

If you are experiencing low FPS after designing a mission, one possibility is you might need a stronger computer system. We currently have maps that include all kinds of detail, there should be no reason why some of that detail couldn't be used to include objects that improve ground battles.

Well they have already completed some of the planned work needed for improved Ai logic/movement of infantry, but I don't have the links to any of the announcements at the moment. Maybe @Silver_Dragon or @draconus can help out. And according to Silver_Dragon, it is an example of an old model, but in one of the previous posts above someone linked an image showing infantry using one knee and aiming their weapon at the sky. Clearly infantry in DCS can already do more than just stand/walk/run, and I have to assume infantry can also lower their weapon to aim at other infantry units.