Callsign112

That was well placed... My expectation though is that the Corsair/Carrier/Assets release is going to be planned with the Mariana Is. map.

+1 That and the Tiger 131 display at the Tank Museum.

+1. I would really like to see a box-select tool added to Combined Arms. At the moment, it's a little cumbersome to manage large numbers of units not to mention limiting in terms of ordering groups around the battlefield. Using groups/templates in the ME is really great. But being able to group/ungroup in Combined Arms would be a real plus+.

Its funny when this thread was first started, there were no maps in DCS for WWII yet as I think it predates even the Normandy map. The very first response to this was why not a Pacific theater map. Today we have Normandy, the Channel, and a Pacific theater is almost here. What we need now are the modules/assets to fill the maps with. There are so many planes/ships/vehicles missing from the lineup. The Fighter Collection I think?

+1 Great news indeed. Thanks ED!

If you mean as a free mod, unfortunately I don't use mods although some here have made a very convincing argument for why I should give it another try. But I would definitely buy any assets pack that can add to my capabilities in DCS World (WWII/Modern) in a meaningful way. Something like a pack focusing on just walls might be a little too narrowly focused, so you might want to consider adding other simple structures that could bring a FOB to life. And this might be completely stepping away from your intended projects concept, but anyone that could bring working portable lights to DCS would have something with real value. Regardless of what would be included in your pack though, it would have to be usable for both modern and WWII scenarios before I would consider it.

+1 To all these requests.

I'm not sure any gun cam footage on YouTube, or elsewhere puts anyone in a position to argue what is and isn't modeled in DCS, which is the point I was making in the comment above. I don't think anyone would argue that the 6x .50 CAL's on the Mustang weren't capable of destroying planes, trains, and automobiles. I think the point the other poster was making, and I have to say I agree, is that watching hand picked gun cam footage that show wings snapping off might give the wrong impression.

I'm not landing, just refueling

Has everyone seen the most recent update?

As difficult as it would be for a paying customer to accept, I think the obvious answer to the question you raise is that they should finish the core upgrade first, and avoid as much as possible any work that would simply have to be redone after the upgrade. In the long run, I think this serves everyone's interests best. This is a very good suggestion.

Its understandable why something like modeling the effects of ammunition are complex issues, especially where it concerns the effects it has on an airplane. On the one hand there is the obvious physical damage caused by the bullet itself, and then there is the damage caused by natural stress elements as the structurally weakened airplane flies through the air. In DCS, both types of damage are modeled/represented to a decent degree IMO. I followed along in one of the recent hot threads on the subject, and thought ED's position was well defended. But that doesn't mean the damage model related to this is as accurate and as complete to real life as it could be. I think it should probably be more appropriately viewed as a work in progress that could see future updates? I think the important point here is what we have at the moment isn't prefect, but it is close enough so that you can actually snap a wing off after it has been weakened by bullet damage/over-speed. An area where the model could maybe use a small tweak at some point is in the variation of the affect you see across the different planes. But your point is well made, using gun cam reels meant to demonstrate this type of thing doesn't offer a very strong argument against what is, or isn't modeled in DCS. And I haven't tried to test anything since the recent update to the Mustang's controls, but in terms of engine cooling, I know it did work but it also seemed to be a little too fragile even when using just continuous max power settings. I could see it working before the last update because after pushing it to almost boiling point, it could easily be brought back under control, but I was also able to cook the engine without ever exceeding continuous max power for both the takeoff run and in flight. If the Mustang's cooling system was really that fragile during wartime, it would have warranted a design change because it means Allied pilots would have been placed at a major disadvantage. I can give several examples of design modifications for tanks that were made within weeks after being fielded for this exact reason, but there were no design changes made to any of the Mustang's intake scoops. So I think there is something there that could/should be reviewed.

+1, they need to find the time to get ground units working better for both Ai infantry/vehicles, and player controlled vehicles.

Really interesting test. I don't see any part of your tank visible though in either set of photos. And I don't see any smoke plumes in the second set of pictures either. So unless you can edit the photos with a different color circle to highlight where you can see the Abrams through the trees, I really can't tell where you are. I think your initial point is still pretty accurate. The Ai ability to spot through trees/bushes/smoke is still way to high. We shouldn't forget that in addition to the tree cover, you are also separated by nearly 800m distance. But great test and thanks for your efforts.

I would definitely support a paid update as opposed to waiting an extended period, as lone as it was reasonable. But it would be nice to see any bugged features get resolved in the short term especially for something like the Mustang.

Things like this need to be fixed.

Sorry for being so late to this party, but could you please explain in a little more detail what you did to complete the mission? I am interested to know if what ever you did could maybe help solve why Mission 11 has a similar problem. Were you able to complete mission 11?

@Flappie, thanks for putting in the request. I came across this discussion which I think is pretty much making the same request. Just thought it would help the Dev's zero in on the issue more.

@Livers, I think your feedback is really quite good actually. Sometimes feedback needs to be critical. Clearly there is something amiss in the ME for a couple of the missions at least. It could be something as simple as a capture zone not being set up right, or too large maybe. But this is why I think by working together, we should be able to resolve these issues. I also understand we will need ED's help and input here, and without it there is little point to any of this. I am definitely getting this campaign if for no other reason but to add my feedback. So be watching for it if your still interested.

+1. The ground side of DCS needs more sustained love. Please increase time on task.

+1

Although you got some really harsh comments, I think most here mean well its just you hit a nerve I think. I would like to be more encouraging, because I think the bold text above is largely fixable. For starters, flying anything in DCS using a keyboard is neither easy or recommended. So the first thing you need to do is get help tuning your system. It looks like you got some help on this front, but its up to you to decide if you need more. The second most important thing is to realize that what your experiencing is normal and to be expected. I think the best way for you to look at this is by comparing it to what you know about playing a guitar. Think back how hard it was when you first started and compare that to today where it disappears in your hands. Most of the things causing you difficulty today will slowly start to disappear as you practice and learn. If you don't believe me, just google YouTube and watch experienced V-pilots dog fighting. Their actions have become so fluid they no longer have to concentrate on the cockpit, it just becomes second nature. If you can get yourself through that curve still interested, I can guarantee you the fun part will come.

@Ala13_ManOWar, you are probably right but once ED decides to update a model, it shouldn't cost them anything to allow a previous owner to download the updated file should it? I think the point is ED decides if and when a model gets updated, or whether its even feasible and what they have to charge for it. My guess is that the Mustang sees a pretty steady flow of new owners each month as do other modules/maps in DCS WWII, and I think keeping the WWII stable of planes in tiptop shape holds a lot of value for ED.

Actually I think this is a really good idea, except I am not so sure I agree the B-17 wouldn't be profitable. I think it would be profitable, and not only that, modules like that would also help build the MP community. It could work exactly like the Apache except you just have more stations. If your the only human player, you have Ai at all the stations your not. If your hosting a group of human players, you only have Ai where/when needed. Aside from it being a very desirable WWII plane, one of the biggest reasons I will buy the Mosquito is because of its dual engines. This is a first for DCS, but I really hope it wont be the last. There is a very long list of big air frames that should make it into DCS, the B-17 is just one of them IMO.

If that is your complaint, then you are absolutely right. Have you raised this as an issue/bug in the feedback thread? I see the last entry there is in 2019. I know this campaign is probably pretty low priority at the moment, but I really think the issues here should be pretty easy fixes. Being its only paid campaign, ED should really do what it can to resolve little issues like this because although they may be small, their effect in terms of the image they leave for CA can be much bigger. So far from what I can gather, the two main outstanding issues here are that enemy units which have been damaged but manage to get away before being destroyed cause campaign progression to hang, and mission 11 has no ending even after all objectives have been achieved. I think you should detail this in the feedback forum to 9line.