Callsign112

I am sure there are those here that have the experience your looking for to lend a hand, but unfortunately it isn't me otherwise I would have no hesitations. Everything you mentioned though sounds like it would really help, but I wonder if the distance between vehicles isn't linked to way points and pathing? Would changing that introduce other issues with collisions/pathing? Regardless of the reason behind any given problem, DCS World needs more capable ground units to make Combined Arms missions more believable/workable. I am sure efforts like yours are greatly appreciated by the community as a whole.

Oh okay thanks. I didn't know that, because it's not something I've seen before with the current DCS infantry models.

Yeah I think your right, but I was pointing to the pose.

+1. And I think the fact that WWII needs more growth in the assets department is one of the biggest reasons I support it as a paid DLC.

No there was no sarcasm meant as the improvements seen in 2.8 are nothing to sneeze at. It was just another way of saying there have been no new updates... its a work in progress! The new infantry poses shown in @Mike_Romeo's post linked above do look promising though.

In order to answer your question, you would first have to provide me with the source your using to support the basis of your question in the first place. I have no idea how many people actually bought the WWII AP, or even what percentage of DCS users that would comprise. But I have to assume you do. My guess is that ED sold a lot of WWII planes over the years, and that a lot of those customers also bought the WWII AP. This is what leads me to believe there must be other reasons why MP game play in simulation based platforms is not as big as some of the available arcade shooters out there. But if you bought the WWII AP because you wanted to make more immersive missions that could be hosted on a MP server,... then isn't this the reason why you would bother, as in the answer to your question?

Well in addition to all the improvements in DCS v2.8, we got this...

There are a lot of good resources on YouTube if you have the time to search, but the video I am linking here is a good start.

Seriously 9Line, thank you for chiming in here.

One way this could work is if you own the previous maps (Normandy1/Channel), then those areas would show up in Normandy 2 as high res areas. Ugra should also take the necessary steps to enable and help content creators port their old missions to the new map so the end-user doesn't need multiple versions of the same map installed.

This is turning into a real fuster cluck! I also understood from the initial announcement that Ugra was going to expand/update their Normandy map. The fact that old missions were supposed to be compatible is what led me to believe we would still only have 1 Normandy map after the upgrade. But the recent news actually legitimizes arguments from posters like @GUFA, and raises serious questions as to why ED and its third parties would even venture down this road. Kick starter 2.0! In light of the recent news, Ugra should fix their Normandy map, and exclude all areas currently covered by it and the Channel map. If that means drawing an "L" shaped map just to include London, then so be it. We not only have maps tied to specific assets because of a time period, but now we are supposed to buy multiple versions of the same map for specific campaigns? Seriously guys, go back to the drawing-board on this one!

I am quite happy with my I-16. I am not one of those that advocates for linking maps/time periods to modules. It is nice to see when we get modules that fit a map/time period, but it is not a requirement for me because it puts too much restriction on mission building. That being said, it would be nice if another 3rd party would run with the Stuka IMO.

What is most disappointing for me is that the Stuka was already a proposed project with what appears to be a fair amount of the artwork done,... and then nothing. And before someone points to a missing map as the issue, how many I-16's flew over Normandy? As it is now, the Normandy/Channel maps have to fill in for the entire WWII scenario which is at least doable until more maps get added. But what is not doable is pretending an A8 looks like a Stuka dive-bomber.

Not that it has anything to do with this thread, or that Ugra have anything to do with either the Georgian map or PG map, but if ED decided to expand that PG map to include Iraq for example, I think most here would be doing back flips all the way to the download button. I know I would be. Ugra... Please do the expanded Normandy map justice, and please make the Atlantic Wall more WWII Assets Pack friendly. Currently, I can't get infantry units to correctly path through the area, and there are a lot of floating objects.

Is that Toploader? Not sure this will be any help, but when you say MP I understand you mean joining a public MP server. You might get better help by directing your questions specifically to the server admins. I know there are a lot of issues/differences between SP and MP use of Combined Arms, but it would likely have something to do with server-side setting if it is possible at all. This is what the product description says: "DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy. Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang." My interpretation of the product description is that there is a server-side setting which allows you to designate targets for player-controlled aircraft while you occupy a JTAC slot, assuming the public server is running Combined Arms. But if you host a mission for lets say 10 of your friends, I believe it is possible to allow the people joining you to switch from aircraft to ground vehicles.

Well I don't mean to get in your way while your working out all the fine print stuff on how to map the world, but have you ever heard of uninstall/delete/overwrite? In whatever way Ugra decides to handle it, I think it's worth pointing out that the announced plan is to simply expand their current Normandy map a little. Not sure I would interpret that as an attempt to bridge continents, but please.... carry on, I'm listening!

At least one place where you might be wrong IMO is with the quote above. While admittedly I am not 100% sure how Ugra's Normandy expansion is going to work, my understanding is it will not be an additional Normandy map. In other words if you already own Normandy, you will still only have one Normandy map after you purchase the expansion. The increased disk space for the expansion will equal the amount required to accommodate the added area/detail. You will not need additional disk space for two separate maps. The Normandy expansion is IMO very much needed and welcomed! This does not mean that we don't need other maps, it simply means that Ugra is giving this community a major update to one of its products. And based on the increased area and detail, the pricing structure that has been announced is extremely fair and should be well received by the DCS WWII community.

Regardless of whether you are using a translation tool or not, you posts are always well read SD. Always enjoy reading your posts. Couldn't agree more, it would be nice to see some of the improvements you mentioned make it into DCS World.

+1 as I am sure a lot of others do as well.

+1. Most of the sounds are pretty good, but as you requested small arms could be updated. Another needed sound improvement would be for shells that land near your position. It's... well I'm not even sure how to describe it, but it should be updated/improved.

Great videos SD, thanks for sharing. The biggest point from the videos that should be/could be added to DCS World is weapons orientation while moving in formation. This is already present in other titles. Currently in DCS, all weapons are orientated with the turret centered. The Dev's should add the correct weapon orientation for each formation as an Ai improvement.

+1 drac! With a little know how, the end-user can make Ai units do quite a bit in DCS World, but I would still like to see the Ai logic for both air and ground units improved. For example, we can actually already do most of what @Silver_Dragon would like to see almost with triggers alone. "Ground Artificial intelligence reactions that have never been programmed in the core to working as the reality. We have none as a AI commander with take decisions. An armor platoon is not going to act as a unit, covering sectors of fire meanwhile protect a flank of a company on movement, reacting jointly against threats, or taking a hull down position, calling artillery to supress them, making ambusers, or doing a mechanized assault, deploying troops to attack a position while IFVs protect them, or turn from attack to defense if encounter superior enemy units firepower." We can use triggers to have one group of units advance and protect the flank of another group of units if/when it comes under fire. Or we could add voice acting to the mission to make it sound like a unit is calling in artillery on a position when it comes under fire. Or we could have a group of infantry attack a position with supporting armored vehicles. But some of this logic could also be built-in to make it easier/more intuitive for the end-use. If we want the ground war to look and feel more realistic though, what we really need is more capable infantry units, and more types of them. More capable infantry moving with armored units would really light this thing up! Thanks @BIGNEWY, I have never used this before so just to be clear. When you select the box for disperse, the units will do this for the specified number of seconds, and then continue following their way points?