Callsign112

That seems to be what everybody that flies it is saying. And with the recent news of its expansion, its an absolute must have addition if you want to support diverse mission scenarios. In my view, having the tech packs/maps with just 1 or 2 flyable modules is more important than having all the flyable modules without any of the tech pack/maps. The tech packs/maps add realism/options/capabilities to the World you are learning to fly your favorite module in.

Syria... Obviously that's next.

I guess its all in the way you look at things. I mean I really love the DCS war bird scene. Are they prefect... no. Are there issues that need to be addressed... definitely. But after buying anyone of the highly detailed and beautifully modeled WWII planes I have, the last thing I want is to fly it around in a less than interesting world. I have just about all of the props, and one of the major factors driving my enthusiasm in DCS is the WWII Assets pack with CA functionality. When I get tired of chasing it in a plane, being able to jump in a Tiger/Sherman to clear the way is a real plus... So tanks for dat ED! And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ED, can you PLEASE add a ground/support crew assets pack for the WWII maps so we can share in some of the same magic you created for jets with the Super Carrier?

Cargo editor +1...

@Tank50us, you raise a lot of good points. I'm in the add/fix/improve group.

The Assets pack doesn't divide the community any more than say the F18, or any of the other available modules in DCS. Anyone wanting to fly the F18 in either SP or MP will have to eventually come to the realization that they just have to buy it. You don't get access to the F18 just because you bought a WWII module, and I don't think it's any fairer to expect access to the Super Carrier either. The only thing that is dividing the community is the community itself. I can't demand that you buy any given module, any more than you can demand the same from me. If I can't fly with you on a MP server because I don't own the plane/map/assets pack required for that particular server, the only one that can fix that issue is me. Claiming that ED has singled me out to lock me from the MP server doesn't even make sense as an argument. I appreciate that you have all the modules, and I get what you are trying to say, but what would "price accordingly" achieve? It seems to me that the popular argument is some people can't afford to pay for the assets pack, and therefore they are being locked out of servers. The question I have is how are those same people going to afford the now more expensive module that comes bundled with the assets pack? And when we consider the price of even all of the currently available modules on sale, it would still be a fraction of what most have paid for the setup to run DCS World. Currently I have all but one of the props, all but one of the maps, and all the tech packs. Total investment in modules is less than $350.00. This is but a fraction of what I paid for the low-end-keyboard/mouse driven bare bones system I use to fly/drive/shoot/hunt/explode/explore with in DCS World.

I never actually used the free trial, but that is good to know. If you have a look in the user files though, you will see that the TF-51D is included in a lot of the content. I think that's a good thing. The P-51D was the first plane I bought, and I still fly the trainer regularly. But then I also really enjoy flying the Yak and CEII.

I think trial is the key word there, as in, it isn't always available. The TF-51D is a permanent feature included with every single download of DCS World, so a new player downloading it today shouldn't have to wait for the next free trial to start. And I agree, there is a lot of user made content, but my point was that having the ability to add an animated figure in the rear seat like you can for other planes would be an improvement over the current state of things for mission builders. I haven't been here as long as you, but it does look like the TF version in DCS is just a P-51 that had its gun sight and center tank ripped out. It would have been nice had they modeled an actual trainer with rear controls. I still enjoy taking the TF-51D out for endurance runs, but again external tanks is just another feature missing on the DCS version.

@Exorcet, you raise a really good point. Tasking is way too rigid in the ME. Maybe they could make available tasks for any given plane somehow linked to its load out. If a unit is carrying weapons that would allow it to play a multi-role, the user should be able to reassign as the mission progresses. Not sure if this would work in your mission, but as a simple work around could you have two groups of Apaches. One group set for ground attack, and the other for CAS?

Yeah it was very clear what you meant. I followed your use of the word "donate" to emphasize that the MOD community here is actually capable of producing a level of quality I believe most would consider purchasing.

No need to donate it. That kind of talent never grows on trees. What they could do though is create a more feature rich version as an official part of DCS World. With the way things like damage models work, my feeling is it would be a very easy thing to work out. The MOD community in DCS is amazing, I just wish they would see the value in being rewarded for all their hard work. But this conversation makes me think of the assets pack issue in new ways. Imagine if I tried making the argument that the MOD community is responsible for dividing the community. Doesn't make sense right? If you want to enjoy/make use of any unofficial MOD's available, all you have to do is add them to your DCS install. In the exact same way, if you want to enjoy a MP server that makes use of the assets pack, all you have to do is add it to you DCS install. I think that makes more sense. +1 Bro

I really appreciate your contributions to the forum, and consider most of your comments as really sound advise. Not a MOD user, so I didn't realize how easy it can be to disable them. Thanks for pointing that out. But it still doesn't change the fact that the first thing anyone is told on experiencing trouble is to delete/disable/move mod folders around and repair. I'm a stable version user, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate/like what the mod community is doing. I would so love to see the WWII navy stuff make it into the official version. I would definitely pay for it. But I really do get your point in terms of the things I am limiting myself access to. Love all the template stuff you put up @Rudel_chw.

Considering that the Mustang trainer is likely one of the first things anyone downloading DCS World for the first time experiences, it would be nice to see a more feature complete version. It would be great to be able to actually use the TF-51D as a real trainer with controls modeled in the rear seat, but it should at least come with the ability to add an animated figure in the rear seat. This shouldn't be too much of an ask since the animated pilot is already done for the Mustang. The feature request would help with building/expanding the mission scenario types for the TF-51D. This in turn would help build interest for people new to DCS and learning how to fly in the Mustang trainer.

I have a really low-end system, so I may not be able to appreciate what someone with a better system sees in terms of detail, and I hope my comments can add something here. Something I haven't read about on the forums yet was how people are finding spotting on the Marianas map. I find myself flying more and more there with WWII birds because of this very reason. Maybe its just me, but I am finding it easier to keep track of the Ai plane I'm trying to shoot down over water than I do over land formations on the Channel/Normandy maps. But I would also like to hear your input on what distances we should expect to see different levels of detail? To better explain what I mean, I can see a vehicle traveling towards me on a flat stretch of highway from quite a far distance, but I can't tell what type of vehicle it is until it gets fairly close, and depending on the closing speed even that can be difficult. And if I want to read the plate number of the guy in front of me, I have to pretty much be tailgating him. So at what distance should we be able to start separating wings from fuselage, number of engines, canopy detail, plane markings ect...?

Thanks for your input. I don't use mods though, but maybe I should give it more consideration. I think in the near term, I should move this to a wish list thread, because the feature request could really help anyone interested in adding mission content to build scenarios that new players might find fun. It would be nice to see people with a talent for making missions do more with the two free aircraft as a way to attract new players. Given that the Mustang trainer has no weapons, being able to fill its seats would help mission builders create recon/fly-important-people-around type missions for new players that haven't bought any modules yet. People are always clamoring for more free assets to be added to the base game, but I think ED could also do a better job of utilizing the assets that are already there. The Mustang trainer has no rear-seat controls, or animated crew. I get the fact that ED used this bird (likely modeled after one of the fighter collection's real planes) as a starting point, but maybe its time to revisit the project with an update. It is after all one of the most beautiful and iconic WWII legends ever created.

I am afraid that might be a little bit like wishing we don't get anymore assets period. Personally, I agree with the OP that DCS World could benefit from introducing land and sea modules, but I would also like to see a very long list of assets with improved Ai logic/LOD/DM. The only way I see that happening is with a business model that would support it. Hopefully gone are the days of low res effects, and we can all look forward to a more immersive experience with an improved level of simulator detail in all its aspects. + 1. ED absolutely should add to/improve the WWII ship collection whether in the form of assets, or modules. I agree with @Northstar98 that the WWII assets pack should remain focused on WWII content. I would add to that though that ED should be careful what they add to the base game. They obviously need to make the "free verse" interesting enough so that it continues to draw more people in, but not to the point where it stifles the continued development of more/improved assets which we so desperately need. I absolutely love seeing what the MOD community is able to do, and what they have done, but I really wish ED would figure out a way to get these guys/gals onboard so that official versions of their creations get added to the SIM. I don't run mod's simply because I want to avoid all the potential back-and-forth that gets created when you do. I mean what is the first thing anyone advises when you have a problem,... get rid of all your mods and do a slow repair!

+1 x2

I have been able to get groups of ground units to cross rivers using Off-road way points, but it may be location/vehicle type dependent as it doesn't always work. But I think this is a good example of where the community could experiment to see what does/doesn't work. As your suggesting, the OP could start by placing just two On-road way points. The first at the initial take-off point, and the second at the final destination (way point 41 in picture). The OP could then add an additional On-road way point where the set path deviates from his/her desired route. For example, if at way point 8 in the picture, the set path continues straight instead of making a right turn, the OP could place another On-road way point just after the road turns (approximately where way point 9 is in the picture) to force the set path in that direction. Continue adding additional way points along the route only at junctions where it is necessary to force the set path in the desired direction. It is worth pointing out for anyone new to DCS that both On-road and Off-road way points make grouped units follow each other in a single line at a set distance between each unit. The difference between the two types of way points is that when using On-road, the path between two points will follow the curvature of a drive-able road that connects them, while the set path for Off-road way points will be connected by a straight line (shortest distance between 2 points). The net effect of this is that you can have a group of vehicles cross the entire Normandy/Channel map using just 2 On-road way points (start-finish). But if you want to do the same thing using Off-road way points, you will have to troubleshoot and add way points to re-route the group around any obstacles it may encounter. A path can also contain a mix of way point types. I often use a combination of On-road/Off-road (various formations)/Custom way points to build the desired Ai movement behavior. Anyone that hasn't played around with this yet will be pleasantly surprised with the results.

I use only stable version, but don't believe there is any difference between OB and Stable for the Normandy map at the moment. It would be helpful to others I am sure if you would compare the frame rates your system gets between the two, and report it here.

+1 for smoke launchers. I might be wrong, but I thought Ai do lose LOS? It seems to me at least that when I have Fog-Of-War turned on, LOS goes in and out as Ai/myself change position. I can't remember getting fired on after I dropped out of the Ai's LOS, but that might just be luck. But you know, I have and still do play a lot of AFV combat even though I have been flying more and more lately. But it wouldn't take much IMO to make ground units in DCS a serious contender for everything else that is out there.

You received some very good advice here, but I think what @One Eyed Ross said will go a long way in getting you pointed in the right direction. Obviously the free trials are very useful in helping find the module/s that best match your tastes. And if you want to really make the most out of them, Do a little reading on the modules you intend to trial before hand. You can download all of the user manuals to gain a little insight on what your getting into with each module before starting the free trial. But as already mentioned, don't overlook the learning opportunity to be had with the free Su25T and TF-51D. There is a lot there, and both are very enjoyable to learn and fly. The only thing I would add in terms of advice is that being a sandbox where you can create your own scenarios, plan on getting to know the mission editor as it will add significantly to your enjoyment, and I can't recommend enough all the tech packs/maps. You could buy a single heli/plane/jet, take several weeks to learn all there is to know about the module, then spend the next several months enjoying it as you sharpen your skills. The tech packs/maps help extend the life of the modules you buy by adding to the number of scenarios you can use them in. For a small one-time fee, especially when on sale, all of the tech packs and maps really add to the options you have in terms of what you can do with the modules you buy. The PG map is a good first choice because it is very different from the other free maps and is a decent size. You could use it to create anything from WWII N. Africa campaigns to modern day desert storm/naval ops. Good luck with your decision and enjoy.

That's cool, I wasn't sure you could include more than one map in a campaign. But if ED decided to extend the Channel map towards Germany, both maps would remain relevant, and more importantly, could support campaign progression. +1 on the Sicily/Africa map though

I can't say I have contributed much to the MP scene, but appreciate the suggestions of those that have.

I think getting Combined Arms up to speed in the MP arena is very important, and ED should do what it can to get this rolling forward.

Yeah I have already looked at this exact thing. It only affects the unit you take direct control of unless you take direct control of the lead unit, then the way point gets cancelled for the entire group. So lets say you have a group of 10 vehicles following a set of way points and you take control of any unit except the lead, all of the vehicles except the one you are in obviously continue to follow the way points. If you then leave the vehicle you took control of, it will drive to regroup with its lead again and follow what ever way points are remaining. But if you take control of the lead vehicle, the whole group will be stopped at the point you took direct control. You would have to reassign way points while the mission is running if you want that group to move again. So the message is, keep this in mind if and when you might want to take direct control of a unit. Don't take control of the lead unit if you want the rest of the group to continue following preassigned way points. And if there is no space between units because you are using custom way points, you can always opt to take the very last unit, that way all other units will keep moving without interruption. I was interested in knowing more about how he wanted to use the requested feature, because unless he severely decreased the distance between units in a group with custom way points, all other formations use a very generous amount of distance between units. There should be plenty of time to maneuver using either W, A, S, D, or autopilot once you take control. I think if you compare our interpretations of what he wants, we are both saying the same thing... I think! He wants the unit to continue on its preassigned way point until he decides to change it with his own W, A, S, D/autopilot input. The only other reason you would want to take control would be to use the turret/gun.