Callsign112

Couldn't agree more. Better Ai infantry that could actually attack/defend real player positions (air/ground/sea) would bring the next level of immersion. Because the main interest for most here is the flying part, the ground/navy part is easily overlooked. But truth be told, the ground/navy part is normally what drives armed conflict. The new WWII server with its focus on a strategy based dynamic ground war is a really good example of how a more realistic ground war helps build a much better flying experience for V. fighter pilots. Imagine if we had the much improved Ai infantry plus more types that could attack/defend the real players in tanks and planes as they coordinate a strategy to push their front line forward, or encircle the enemy forces. ED, your on the right track with DCS World, but please hire more people!

So you don't get a wall paper with the FC3 module? You get a wall paper even for the tech packs, well at least for CA/SC. I'll have to check if it is the same for the WWII assets pack next time I start DCS.

I think the "WWII" that goes before all of these planes is justification enough... And considering that as a module, it was already being planned. Too bad there has been no update on it.

Just curious to know if any consideration has been given to work with ED in a more formal capacity? It seems to me that the modding community is largely an untapped source of talent, and joining forces with ED could be a real fruitful proposition.

I would absolutely love to have a DCS level Stuka. But in terms of relevance, I think that is up to the mission creator. I completely get all the interest in focusing on specific time periods, but how relevant is the I-16 to 1944 Normandy, and yet I think it is a great addition that adds a lot to DCS World.

+1 for more work on navy stuff in general.

Bump bump.

It would certainly help with making it appear more realistic.

Can you access wallpapers of the individual jets from within the FC3 module? I was thinking of making FC3 one of my next purchases as an introduction to DCS jets, and thought it would also be a good way to show support for DCS in general.

I really appreciated the help you gave me, and would like to encourage you to complete your tutorial. I am sure a lot of people will find it very useful. Thanks in advance and hope to see it out soon.

If you think about it, some of the things you mentioned like issues with magnetic compass and radar across multiple planes/jets actually makes sense. Considering the technical item in question is being used for the same purpose in multiple aircraft, if there is an implementation issue with the technology in DCS, it would be reasonable to expect the same issues to crop up wherever the technology is used. And the fact that rudder trim works in other DCS planes suggests to me that ED really does treat each module as a separate entity. To me the most likely explanation for it not working in the Yak-52 is that it just simply hasn't been fully implemented yet.

The way I see it, the Stuka would be the one doing the smashing... to ground targets.

Had a look through Polychop-Simulations forum and found this post: Anything you could share would really be appreciated Bryan.

Any chance of an update in terms of what happened to this project? Considering the date, I have to assume that it was cancelled for some reason. I am fairly new to DCS and would absolutely love to see the Stuka make it here. It would be nice to know what happened and if there is any chance of a revival?

@Ramsay, I have no idea how I missed him saying 130 at full throttle, so thanks for pointing that out. And yes, I really enjoyed watching all his YouTube Yak-52 stuff, and appreciate his willingness to share what he has. And it seems to have been adjusted based on comments in the OP's linked video. The discussion was before my time here, but full throttle with flaps deployed in level flight is between 155 to 160 for me. I'm can't say I know why you feel the Yak-52 is using a FM ported from another plane, but we can at least say that ED has done some fine tuning and that with the recent announcement of more tuning on its way, the Yak has not been abandoned.

I really enjoy using CA in Single Player mode, but I certainly understand the pain you guys are feeling in MP. I wonder why there is such a difference between SP and MP game play? The most obvious thing would be something to do with memory/system resources, and hopefully what ever the issue is, it will get resolved with the upcoming core engine updates.

Yeah ED never released anything from the Eastern front with only the one Third party contribution as a flyable module. Although they were used in really small numbers, it would be nice to see a few Pz III variants included in the WWII Assets pack along with more Pz IV variants. But adding the Eastern front would certainly help a lot.

You raise a very good point. Because the majority of people that make it to DCS do so out of an interest in flying, the community is largely focused on the aviation side of DCS. It seems that most aren't interested in hearing about improvements to DCS unless the improvement is something directly related to a plane/jet/helicopter. This makes me wonder how many realize improving all aspects of DCS World (Ai army/navy units/logic) will help create a better more realistic flying experience.

I always wondered why DCS WWII was limited to just Normandy. But now with a Pacific theater opening up including a WWII version of the Mariana Islands, maybe they would consider a WWII version of the Caucasus map that included Stalingrad. And Russian WWII assets would be a good investment because they could also be used with a map of Germany if it would ever get added.

I don't mind the icons scrolling at the bottom. Lets me enjoy the desktop image more.

We at least a way for infantry to deal with armor in the modern era, while this capability is absent from the WWII scene. But more infantry types with more capabilities are needed for all time periods. Just think when the F4 arrives how much better a Vietnam scenario would be with improved infantry.

I never used the word "subjective", but since you brought it up, I think ED's response to this is spot on because the Yak pilot presents nothing objective in any of the 3 videos. So I think the comment regarding measurement, or the lack of, is valid. I am certainly not questioning the pilots real-life experience in the Yak, but I think he could have offered so much more given his resources. What would be more valuable IMO would be to show the community what happens in real life when the flaps are applied. Then it would be easy for anyone interested to try and replicate it at home in DCS. I did it just now myself using a power setting to maintain level flight at 180, and applying the flaps causes the speed to drop to about 140. So the question is what happens in real life? And what is totally unrealistic to a pilot, might not even be noticeable to a you and I.

Yes multi-crew, but I think the Mosquito beat it to the multi-engine milestone. But I was just wondering if ED would consider grooming some of the talent that obviously already exists in the mod community. Its obvious that ED has a lot on its plate, and I wonder if this wouldn't be a viable way to increase productivity/output. Have the various mod teams do most of the leg work, with input/oversight from ED to ensure each project be it air/navy/army modules maintains the desired standard.

I wonder if there would be any interest for ED itself to consider the possibility of lending support for projects like this. It would be really great to see stuff like this make it into DCS World.