Callsign112

An asset that could stand beside the T-72 MBT and also reach all the way back to 1944 is the T34-85(M). This could help both WWII and cold war creators.

An AC 130 Gunship would be awesome.

That sums it quite nicely. Thanks!

This would really bump up the immersion. I agree, the current effects are very decent, and you idea to use low level wind is a great way to enhance it.

And some of the vehicles will have things that are unique as well. Like the Bradely for example requires the loader to clip another belt in before the one being used runs dry. But if they can fix the global issues with using weapons it will be a big improvement.

+1

No I am not making anything complicated. Modeling the Apache helicopter with all its systems was complicated. My hope is that other parts of the SIM follow in that direction, not copy and paste 12 year old pieces of code just because its easy to do. My original comment, and the one you first quoted was directed at the OP's suggestion. His suggestion would be a massive improvement in Ai functionality and would likely require a substantial amount of work well beyond any low hanging fruit. After seeing something like the Apache, and being truly amazed, I think other parts of the SIM should follow suite, not go backwards or stay in the past. But after you copy and paste a static object to represent an armed building, then what? Can you attack it with another Infantry unit, or do you need a tank/plane? What happens currently when you attack a building in DCS with a tank/plane? Should you be able to tell that the soldier inside the building is dead, or does that matter? Having soldiers in buildings would be great if it was done right, but I am certainly not interested in more of what was 12 years ago. We don't even have capable infantry in the SIM yet, let alone capable infantry fighting from buildings.

If low hanging fruit means we don't see improved Ai, then I'm not interested in low hanging fruit. Personally, I am more interested in seeing improvement in Ai, not a copy and past of what is already known to not work well to other parts of the SIM. And having troops in buildings is not as straight forward as it might sound if the intent is to do it right. Damage models for buildings would need to be updated, and the soldiers themselves would need the improved logic your suggestion claims it could avoid anyway if the intent is to have anything other than a soldier showing his face in a window until its knocked out. This would describe perfectly what we have now, and which resulted in the common complaint that Ai are stupid and don't react. And then there are the potential problems if Ai units in buildings receive damage, but are not dead. You can read over in the CA: Front Lines Georgia campaign about Ai that bug out after taking damage causing campaign progression to hang. I am not against the idea of having infantry in buildings, I am just pointing out that I think we need a functional Ai first. At the moment, what we have is pretty simplistic. I would hope the point to all of this would be to improve.

I would definitely buy all armored modules both modern and WWII. And yes, I agree it could only help to add funding to the ground war side of DCS.

How would adding paid vehicle modules be like the assets pack? Wouldn't it be like just another plane module except instead of being in a plane, your in a tank?

yeah I don't know if I would call it a workaround. Its more of a very clever way to give users more control over the factions and their equipment. You can't really ask for something you already have. But what we could use is more skins that would better represent captured equipment, or deception missions. It would be nice if when you select combined joint task force, it would come with additional skins to make it look more like a captured vehicle. Like American markings on a Panther tank for example, or the British troops manning the Bofors would be switch out for German troops when assigned to TR, or a skin that would make the Panther look like an M10.

Part of the problem here is that non of us have any idea really of what happens in terms of the bottom line. Not only does the actual player base for any computer game fluctuate from hour to hour, day by day, but the responses to this post itself would fluctuate depending on the fictitious value being used to discuss it. Using $50 as a subscription fee might work for the purpose of demonstrating a point in a discussion, but in reality it might take something more like $250 to make DCS a viable subscription service. My point is that its pointless guessing the value of a subscription service when we have nothing factual about the finances behind DCS to go by. I think there is only one question this type of thread can address, that being whether the user is willing to rent, or prefers to own his/her use of DCS. Personally, I don't see any value in buying into something like MS's subscription concept for its Office Suite let alone something like DCS. I buy the modules I want, and I spend the amount of time using them that I want. I rent a car while I'm on holidays because I need it to get to the beach. And when I get to the beach, I rent a Jet Ski. I don't know too many people that keep renting the Jet Ski after their vacation ends and they've gone home.

Yeah but he won't have the assets

I am about to buy the campaign, and I am not doubting that people have had Ai pathing issues. I am more curious to know why? I know in one of the previous patches post v2.7, I did see an increase in the number of weird Ai behaviors, but previous to that I was having very little problem with getting Ai to follow way points in SP mode. I was even able to get 3 lanes of Ai traffic on the same road. As I said, there must be something about the campaign itself that is causing it, which is why I was holding off getting it. I decided to just go ahead and give it a try anyway, so I will report back here any news. You don't see many recent YouTube videos about the CA: FLG, but this guy has been playing through the whole campaign and uploading the video as he goes. Anyone interested in getting an idea about what the campaign is all about can google for this guy on YouTube.

This is what always makes me chuckle in a lot of the various post/threads here. Everyone has an opinion of what sells and by what volume, when in reality none of the people making those comments have any amount of real data to support such statements. All that happened back in 2012 was a bunch of people bought a computer simulation of a Mustang for $15, or whatever it was. Allowing those same users to keep the Mustang up to date poses very little problem for ED. The bigger issue isn't what you sold yesterday, but what you sell today. The value past customers provide is in the community they create. Regardless of whether you bought something in 2012, or not. If you buy something in 2022, you are either a repeat customer or a new customer. In either scenario, the customer is going to expect value for his/her purchase. Hence, trying to sell the 2012 level of computer game quality in 2022 would likely fail. When ED recently updated the Mustang, their incentive for doing so was much more likely driven by the sales expectations of tomorrow, not by what was sold in 2012.

Well there is as much of a chance that my guess is right then there is that it is wrong. And ED also repeatedly stated that it is building a Digital combat simulator. Here's what we know, Vietnam is a place, a war happened there that used a lot of aircraft/tanks/ships, we already have/will have a number of assets relevant to that conflict in DCS World, and ED is in the business of simulating this type of scenario,... So it is reasonable to guess that a map of Vietnam is a possibility. I was more just pointing to the number of relevant assets that seem to be building up that's all.

He has a point in terms of the time delay that has occurred, but I think what he was referring to when he said "Dynamic Campaigns are not complicated" was from the end-users perspective. Selecting a couple options/pushing a few buttons to generate a dynamic campaign is not very complicated. What he is missing though are all the things you have detailed.

I'm not sure I follow your two track theory. IMO, what we are all witness to in terms of the progression of DCS World is simply the evolution of technologies used in the gaming industry. If you go back to 2012, you will see a lot of similarities between the games from that time. Move forward to 2022 and the same can be said with the main distinction being a game that started in 2012 and is still going in 2022, and a new game just arriving in 2022. I think there is a lot that could be said about migrating large game platforms like DCS World to update them, but I would not be pissed in the least if they released a B/C model of the Mustang, would most likely buy it, but would definitely keep flying the D for obvious reasons, and I originally bought the Mustang in 2019.

Or you can go to the main web page for DCS and look under Downloads/Documentation.... You will find all the manuals there.

I don't know, and I'm am probably wrong but it just seems like the tank itself is sitting on a significantly angled slop compared to what we see in the gun-sight view. The gun-sight looks to me like the tank is sitting on level ground. Abrams gun depression is -10 degrees, so maybe that's why but it just looks a little funny to me when I watch the video.

Yeah I would say that the map technology being used for DCS World is improving, but historical conflicts are what DCS World is all about really. But you make a good point because we are not only limited by small maps/too few areas, we are also extremely limited by the number of high quality assets available.

The problem with DCS World and its assets are that they are strongly attached to a map. To strongly I might add. The other side to that problem is that the asset list for each map is incomplete. I think they really need to break DCS WWII out of Normandy. Like we have 3 desert maps, but can't make really good use of them because we are either missing a lot of the assets, or desert skins. As I already mentioned elsewhere, the Mariana Island focused Pacific theater is heading in the right direction, but there is so much more. Maybe they should consider a Seelow Heights map at least just to get started.

We could, but what other conflict did the F-4 participate in that was bigger than Vietnam? And the F-4 is not the only Vietnam asset in DCS either. My feeling is they are building towards a Vietnam scenario. In my way of thinking, they need to find a home for these assets, and not having a Vietnam map leaves a pretty big hole in DCS World.

To be honest, I really don't think you can go wrong with any of the DCS WWII modules, but I might be biased because WWII is my major interest here. I'm only missing one of the props now, and honestly can't say there is a module I don't like even though the Mustang is my favorite. The other thing to remember is if the two week trial period wasn't enough time, you can still use the Mustang trainer if you want/need to expand your experience more.

I don't know what to make of people reporting path-finding issues. This is in fact one of the major reasons I held off getting the campaign. If the campaign was being played in MP, I could understand issues with Ai path finding. But I don't see any major problems with Ai path finding while I play in Single Player, so I can't figure out why people are reporting it with this campaign. Clearly it must have something to do with the campaign itself.