Callsign112

Now that the F-4 has been announced, I can't see how a Vietnam map announcement won't soon follow.

definitely not interested in a subscription.

Very true. I would think adding vehicles packs would be the easy part because I am pretty sure they would be very well supported by the community, but in terms of fixing the CA/Ai logic thing, it's so hard to make heads or tails out of where they're at because things go sooooo sloooooow.

You have probably read this thread already, but in case you haven't, the person starting this thread gave some really good insight into the campaigns flow of game play with workable solutions. I think 9line did a really good job responding to his suggestions, but the issue regarding Ai helicopters that bug out, or make an emergency landing and prevent you from progressing through the campaign were supposed to have been addressed if you read through the whole thread. Maybe you should make a bug report to see what they say. The solutions suggested in the other thread shouldn't be too difficult to implement as a fix for something as major as stopping progression through the campaign. I will be picking up the campaign to give it a go, but also think now is the time more than ever for ED to do what has to be done to get more boots on the ground.

@iFoxRomeo, thanks that will definitely fix the issue. So does that mean if I use both red and blue "Combined Joint Task Force" for a 1 v 1 Combined Arms mission, its possible to give both players the same units with the same skins? I didn't realize that, but am just thinking how I might be able to use this to help simulate captured enemy equipment.

With all the recent patch updates to DCS World, it would be nice to hear from ED if issues with the CA:FLG campaign are getting updates.

@Blackbird7, thanks for the recap. That is basically the type of info I was looking for. Will pick this up during the next sale to give it a go.

Was just looking at the DCS: Super Carrier forum and noticed that it also has a sub forum for "Controllers & Input Bugs", and "Missions & Campaigns". Do you guys think it would be worthwhile requesting those as well while we are at it?

After watching the video again, do you think the view from the Abrams is accurate? When looking at the tank itself, it appears to be at more of a slope compared to the image you get from the gun sight. Maybe that is just some type of optical illusion though.

Have a few fond memories of Cyprus myself traveling through the area. Just short trips though, nothing long term. I am looking forward to getting Syria. Syria itself is a really interesting place, but with all the updates this map has seen it definitely looks worthwhile.

Yeah, I really hope we see systems/DM completed soon. It would make flying the Yak that much more interesting. Island hoping is just an example of a non-military use of the Yak/CEII, but we obviously need all the systems correctly modeled to make it more challenging. The Caucasus has a lot of beautiful scenery for sure, but I like the change of pace that the Mariana Islands can offer. Must be great in a helicopter as well.

@Ramsay, thank you very much! I originally had it all red, but that only allowed me to use a bare metal skin for the Mustang. The same thing happens to the Yak if I make it all blue. First time I have had to deal with the issue of contested airfields, so thanks again for pointing that out. Obviously, the focus of the mission is simply pleasure cruising at tree top, or in a vehicle. Fly the Mustang out to Pagan, refuel and keep going, or explore the area around Pagan in the Yak/CEII. I guess I will have to switch the Mustang back to bare metal since the emphasis was really meant to be on the Yak. Is there anyway to set it up so that I can fly the Mustang out to Pagan, and after landing hop in either the Yak/CEII/ground vehicle for a tour before jumping back in the Mustang? I'm not in game at the moment, but if I change all the player/client aircraft to Ai, could I then use the Game Master slot to fly/drive all the different planes/vehicles. What happens currently when I select either of the planes, the others don't spawn in obviously. Any ground units are still available because "Pilot can drive" is set Combined Arms.

Have you had the chance to enjoy the Mariana Islands in the Yak? Here is a mission for the Yak/CEII/TF-50D. You can fly the Mustang trainer (blue) from Saipan to Pegan, or takeoff from Pagan in the Yak/CEII (red). If you have CA, you can also drive around Pagan Island. I put a red/blue FARP on Pagan, but not sure why I can't get them to work. I made the exact same FARP on Saipan just to test it, and had no problems. If anyone can figure out why the FARP doesn't work on Pagan Island in this mission, I would sure appreciate it. Yak FARP.miz

+1

I have never had a lot of interest, or been a big scripted game play fan, but your campaigns are definitely changing my outlook on that. The attention to detail you put into these campaigns is simply amazing, and enjoyed by many I am sure. Really appreciate all your efforts and looking forward to the Spitfire tutorial, I could really use it!

Can't say I notice any difference, but then again, I'm just enjoying the sunset cruise around the Mariana Islands. I kind of like the Yak in all its natural beauty, but wouldn't see a problem with this as a setting that could be adjusted according to user preference.

TBH guys, these discussions are getting a little flat wouldn't you agree? If the point behind all of these discussion is to get everyone to acknowledge that there is a split in the community, then I think we can all agree that indeed that seems to be the case. But I think to sum it up best, what we are really disagreeing about here is the cause behind the split and not the split itself. Your group sees the Assets pack as the cause, while I see the AP as just a product no different than any other. Using your logic, every DCS module would be causing a split in the community. I don't have the F-18, so I can't do missions from the SC on that friends server! So I've got two options! First option is to hold out in hopes that ED throws me a BINGO! The second option is to hope that the people making the mission will appreciate that I don't have the F-18 so much that they stop serving the mission to protest on ED's forum that the F-18 should be included with DCS as a free download! There is no third option is there? Yeah no! What's causing the split are the people that choose to be divided. If two friends walk into a store and one friend buys something the other friend doesn't see any value in, are they still friends? Or are they now split? Should everyone else in the world that also bought the same item give it up because someones friend doesn't see any value in it, or refuses to pick it up even as a gift? Can this get anymore.... Un je ne sais Quoi? And if that isn't enough, we can always fall in love with the broken record ping pong side of the argument.... price is not a factor, but my friends lack the funds to take part. But price is not a factor! So what have we learned after countless threads? 1. Well, a group of people that own the Assets Pack can't use it because they all have a group of friends that don't own it, which BTW has nothing to do with cost, and they couldn't possibly expect the friends to buy the Assets Pack. 2. This chain of events has somehow resulted in some people having the Assets pack, and some people not having the Assets Pack, hence a split in the community. @Tippis and @Tank50us, you guys are well respected members of this community, and I am certain both of you fully support DCS World based on the quality of your contribution to this forum alone. I also hope that you realize the above is meant as an opportunity for everyone to step back and laugh. I am poking fun at the fact that we are a group of grown men arguing about the value of a $15 add-on to a computer game. I can't see where the problem is here? No one is forcing anyone to use the Assets pack in missions. The value of the Assets Pack is that it helps bring the ambiance of your WWII mission to life. If you don't see any value in that, or don't agree that it does, then make mission for you and your friends without the Assets Pack. But if you can't see any value in it, then what is all the discussion about, and why do you want to use items from the Assets Pack in your missions? My suggestion to anyone making missions would be to make the mission the way you want and don't worry about who can and can't join in. If the mission is worth playing, then any requirements to play it will be well worth getting!

I think the best solution to your question/concern is to update the asset of interest with a period correct skin. These could be sold in the form of an add-on to the Assets pack. A PzIVG is still a WWII tank even though Syria was using them 2 decades after WWII ended IMO. The Mustang saw service in Korea, but no one seems to have a problem with calling it a WWII fighter. And I agree, more Asset packs would probably end up only driving the complainers into a mad frenzy, which is why I think the best solution is to keep all WWII assets in one place to make the pack more appealing to the people that are interested.

Yeah there is obviously no comparison between the Mustang and any of the 3 most recently released planes. Well TBH I can't comment on the Mosquito as its next on the list, but the P-47/Anton are a world apart from the Mustang. That is why I don't think they mean they are giving those planes a texture buff. I think its more likely fixing/correcting visual defects that were pointed out since their release. And the Mosquito is getting an LOD update to address performance issues. But I thought this was a really good update with improvements in several important areas including controls, RRR/FARP's, EWR radar, and bomb fuzzing. This is in addition to the other fixes made to flyable modules, as well as the WWII version of the Mariana Islands map.

I also bought the WWII Assets pack. And why should I, and everyone else that wants to see WWII grow and improve have to wait through longer development cycles because your friends don't want to support it?!

The other thing that to try if you just can't quite get the movement you want is break the formation down into smaller groups. It is a little more work in terms of placing way points, but you get a lot more control over precise movement. This is especially true for ground vehicle formations moving across complex terrain, but I have had good results with navy formations as well.

I agree and think it would be much more doable if they worked on something like being able to use above ground fortifications/existing map objects to go along with the improved Ai mechanic. Having troops in buildings would be great, but then you would have to also revamp the damage model for buildings on top of the work required just to allow Ai to enter them. But to me the pressing issues are more related to a more capable Ai infantry with much improved vehicles that real players use.

I heard DCS Combined Arms is accepting applications for JTAC operators. Nice demo thanks

There is nothing wrong with being a squeaky wheel... that's how things get oiled!

I think we seem to be pretty much on the same page here. The only major difference I have with your point is I don't believe they would be required to start from scratch just to update the Mustang, or any other module for that matter. IMO, the initial development of the module itself was supported by all the people that bought it back then, and any continued development should be supported by the constant stream of new users. I myself bought the Mustang in 2019, so I guess I fall in the constant stream of new users group that is hoping to see further enhancements to the Mustang. But I really agree with your point on supporting the development of DCS WWII in general. I actually didn't get into DCS for the flying, but very soon afterwards realized that if I want to see the ground war side of things grow, I have a much better chance of seeing that by supporting all the other aspects of DCS as well. And then I realized that not only am I supporting something I enjoy, but I am getting some really great modules. So if anyone asks me if I think the WWII assets pack, or any of the WWII maps are worth getting, I will be happy to tell them it beats flying in a whiteout.