Callsign112

This could be a good idea, but I'm not sure I understand completely. Can you provide a little description on how you would use the requested feature? Once you take direct control of the unit, you are already actively in control which is why the unit stops. Do you mean you would like to be able to use the turret/gun, but don't cancel the Ai way point until you hit one of the A, S, W, D keys?

+1. If ED extended the current Channel map the other way, it would certainly keep it relevant. Which raises a question I have. I have never made a campaign, but if the user had both the Channel and the Normandy maps, would it be possible that a campaign starts on one map and ends on another? I don't think this has ever been done before, but is it even possible?

Enjoyed the video, thanks. So what's not to like? Do a pre-flight walk-around, then have animated crew handle your plane and guide you to the CAT, then launch, do mission, if you get shot down you can run and hide your pilot then respawn into the rescue mission for recovery, return to base, get waved off if your not in the groove, land and do lunch. Its not about an FPS IMO, its about having capable Ai support/defend/attack real players in vehicles/planes/jets/helicopters. Being able to walk around your aircraft/vehicle like that simply adds another layer of immersion.

@Tank50us, I got your point and respect your opinion even though I completely disagree with some aspects of it. And I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the few assets that were taken out of the WWII AP were to help customers of DCS WWII better enjoy the base game. You can buy a War Bird and use it on the free Caucuses/Marianas maps with a few free assets, or you can use the free TF-51D and do the same. If you want more, you can add additional planes, maps, and assets to your collection. It's up to the individual customer to decide what they want to add if anything. My comments were not so much directed at you personally, but to the general umbrella the concept that everything should improve for free hides under within this community. Case-in-point, I don't know the people that were behind the SoW server, but only came to know Phil because he was responsible for some of the best DCS YouTube content out there. I also have no idea how the people running the SoW server felt personally about the WWII AP, but I believe owning it was a requirement to join the server. All I can gather from the discussion that followed the news that SoW was shutting down was that there were at least two major problems. The first being the thankless job of maintaining the MP environment after each patch release with seemingly little support, or response from ED in terms of timely fixes for a growing list of issues. And the second was the toxic behavior from some individuals that make the job of maintaining a MP server thankless. But read the now locked thread about the shutdown, and you will see that it didn't take too long for someone to label the WWII AP as the reason. And I see threads like this one as simply an extension of the same problem, and this is why: We all want things to improve, get more immersive, be closer to the real deal. The question is, how is the constant cycle of improvement supposed to happen? My presumption based on some of the comments made here are that parts of this community simply expect it after purchasing a module/modules. So here is the reality of where we are. Say you bought the F18 at DCS v2.5, but naturally 2.5 isn't going to cut it, and eventually you will want even more realism, better textures, enhanced sound effects with better explosions, damage models ect... The customer/merchant relationship in this exchange could be handled in a couple of different ways I suppose. One way for certain would be that ED forgets about any and all updates related to DCS itself, and simply finishes/fixes/completes the modules under that version, or it could take the high road and add value for its customers by continually improving the entire Eco-system for anyone that bought into DCS regardless of when, realizing of course that each update is going to require additional unpaid-for-work to maintain that plane/jet/helicopter the customer bought several DCS World versions ago. Just 2 recent examples of the point I am making are FLAK and FLIR. I have no idea what ED's response will be to the request that the free FLAK asset no longer works. It may be that after reworking FLAK, and I'm not sure who paid for the work that had to go into making that happen, they will get back to fixing the free asset when they have the time. The same goes for FLIR. As a Combined Arms supporter, I sincerely hope we see the recently announced updates that are coming make it to CA, but I would also understand with great disappointment if ED said, look we would love to port all of this work to CA but it just isn't supported enough by the community to justify the overhead to do so. Realizing of course that all the work that had to go into fixing FLAK, improving FLIR under the current DCS version will likely have to be redone AGAIN after some future update meant to enhance the user experience gets implemented. And this is why I completely disagree with your opinion that people who haven't paid for a map/asset should be able to use it for free. The suggestion would be a little like expecting free entry to the movies, but your happy to pay for popcorn if you get hungry. I think the best solution I heard to date was that ED allow people that haven't paid for the WWII AP see the vehicles as colored blocks that they can dive down and target with their guns/bombs except have no damage model/kill count. That way anyone interested could join a MP server, get the feeling of being involved in the coordinated attack with their squadron, but if they want more realism (see the actual vehicle explode) and get credit for the kill, all they have to do is add the assets. And this leads to what I see as possibly one of the biggest motivating factors for the argument. I can't say I know why you formed the opinion you have, but a common argument tossed around in these type of threads is that another WWII SIM puts it all together in a package deal. There are two important issues never mentioned though, and that is one, the argument is comparing apples to oranges, and two the other SIM/game is doing the exact same thing ED is doing just in another way. You get two free but very watered down tanks to drive around in, but if you want the happy meal, you have to pay for it. Both products have their place, but in the end they are both still two completely different products with completely different business models. I think we are all fully aware of who's version of the Mustang/Anton we're flying when we open DCS, and I see no point in comparing something that can't be compared as a product, business model, or otherwise. The areas where the other SIM is strong in, DCS is not well represented by design. The areas where DCS is strong in, the other SIM is also not represented by design. So yes I own both products, and yes, I want to see both improve and be successful. But anyone who understands the mission, purpose, and direction of this product would be able to understand why the C-47 is what it is.

Is there any way to have an animated passenger in the back seat of the TF-51D? I am guessing that we can add the pilot like in the fighter, but what about a passenger?

Collision models for debris would be common sense for any simulation IMO. But considering how many "need to have" items there are on ED's to-do list,, who knows how far down and when this will be. If it isn't something already being looked into, my feeling is ED is going to have to find new/more ways to increase work output. All we can really do as community members is support them as best we can in that effort.

I was wondering the exact same thing a couple weeks back. I think they were using the name "Battlefield Productions", and they were testing the water to see if there would be any interest in a ground crew assets pack for airfields as a way to break into DCS World. Being able to add SC type ground crew in the mission editor to handle traffic/logistics on airfields would be a major boost in immersion. Sadly no news. But I don't think they were meant to have anything to do with any fixes needed for CA. So FLIR improvements would still have to come from ED.

As a community, we seem to be drifting in an out from one extreme to the next. If we aren't all up in arms over news that a server shut down, we are demanding that what is probably by now hundreds of millions if not billions of lines of computer code to be fixed simultaneously by yesterday for free. The WWII assets pack is not just an add-on to make your missions look more realistic, it also serves as a Combined Arms extension for anyone interested in getting into the WWII ground war. I think instead of picking the WWII assets pack apart, what they need to do is continue adding to its value. No offense intended to the OP, or anyone else that has contributed to this thread, but anyone interested in adding the C-47 to their missions for immersion should consider picking up the WWII assets pack which is currently on sale for $14.99. In addition to the C-47, the WWII assets pack hosts a long list of other features that continue to be added to. Even WarThunder has a business model, it wouldn't be free otherwise.

+1. Enjoyed the video. As an add-on to what @Furiz pointed out, adding Heatblur's recent announcement to the existing Huey, a Vietnam map would make a lot of sense. But it would make even more sense if we had Ai capable of threatening the real players that occupy those vehicles.

All really good questions, and I think your right, there are probably a lot of people wondering about the same, or many other questions like them. Most of what your talking about though is really getting to know the Mission Editor, especially when it involves getting Ai ground units (vehicles/infantry) to do what you want. You just have to play around with it a bit to see what works best for your situation. Regardless of whether you want to make use of Combined Arms or not, you start by creating a mission in the Mission Editor. You add Combined Arms functionality to the mission by hitting the "Battlefield Commanders" button on the left side of your screen. Looks like 2 flags. Click on that and select the number and type of Combined Arms slots you want to add to your mission (Game Master/Tactical Commander/JTAC/Observer). In other words, you place ground/air units on the map in the Mission Editor. You add whatever logic you want to run during the mission from within the Mission Editor (triggers/way points/script files), but if you want to also control the ground units while the mission plays out you have to first add the Combined Arms slots you want using the button that looks like 2 flags. Combined Arms lets you move your ground forces around while viewing them on a tactical map (F10) like a Tactical Commander would, or you can take direct control and drive around in the game world. So Combined Arms is all about controlling the ground forces you placed in the Mission Editor. You can assign way points to a ground unit in the Mission Editor, and during the mission before the ground unit reaches its final way point, you can take direct control of it and drive off in a completely different direction. The Combined Arms module is an incredibly powerful piece of software in terms of what it adds to the SIM. It completely changes the way you interact with the game world. If you are playing with 3 other people (two blue, 2 red), assign at least 2 blue and 2 red combined arms slots to accommodate everyone. Regarding your second question, this might be a settings issue. 20000 feet is about 6000 meters. I know I have been fooled before myself by setting an altitude in the Mission Editor for a plane to fly, but when I view the Ai plane in the F10 map, it appears to be flying at a different altitude. Just make sure you have the SIM set to show the readout you want. When working with ground units, play around with the different types of formations available (On-road/Off-road/Custom ect...), the distance between grouped units ( with Off-road/Custom way points), and their speed. You can generate some really unique behaviors by simply playing around with these variables. Remember, when using the On-road formation to assign way points, vehicles follow one another at a preset distance, which makes sense because they are on a road. The Off-Road formation is the same as On-road except you can change the distance between units. Formations like E.Rt, E.Lt, wedge ect... are meant for Off-road movement and also have a preset distance between each unit. The Custom formation is the most flexible as it can be used to travel both On-road and Off-road at the distance you choose. When moving ground units over complex terrain, zoom into the map so that you can see fine detail like trees and building and place your way points accordingly. I have really enjoyed trying to figure out the logic the Dev's programmed into the Ai units, and have made a few videos to demonstrate some of what I found. Here are a couple that might help in case you haven't already seen them. In this video, I show faster moving vehicles passing slower moving infantry who are passing a group of parked vehicles. 3 lanes of traffic. In this video, I show a small infantry group providing support for a PzIV using a mix of On-road/Custom/Off-road way points. In this video, I show how distance between each unit using Custom way points affects Ai behavior and the path they follow. This video might help better address your first question. The action you see in the video is the Ai just following the way points I assigned in the Mission Editor. The Ai fire on their own because the ROE was set in the mission editor to fire when an enemy unit is spotted. The mission also includes Combined Arms slots, so while the mission is playing out, I can also either change the way points, speed, or ROE assigned in the mission editor for any unit, designate targets, or take direct control and drive around in the game world myself.

Basra Iraq?

+1

Its either that, or ED just doesn't have enough people to do the work. Even the projects they have committed to seem to struggle in terms of assets/planes/maps. I don't know why they can't hire more people, attract more 3rd parties, or try and get what is obviously a very capable and dedicated modder community to get more involved in an official way. DCS World is quite different from IL2, and I think if your here because your attracted to ED's approach, then it shouldn't matter much what map IL2 has, a DCS World version of it should do well IMO.

Mine would be the entire WWII collection, but the Bradely and Stryker vehicles are a lot of fun as well.

Great post, I really enjoyed reading it. Thanks! Apparently, the history of the KS has a lot to do with the planes we have today. But I wonder if building maps to represent an area in general as opposed to a specific date wouldn't be a better way to go. The date issue could be better handled by the added assets IMO. I don't see the problem of having the Maginot line and the Atlantic wall represented on the same map, because if I want to simulate the Allied invasion, I will be on the appropriate part of the map, likewise if I want to simulate an early war scenario. What is more important IMO are the assets we have to recreate the battles.

Some good points, but regarding the Marianas, it is a free map. Guadalcanal is something I imagine they would want to release as a pay to use. The Marianas is perfect as a free map because it doesn't encroach on areas that would be more appealing to the paying customer. If ED wants to increase the incentive to attract more people by including another free map into the mix, and they want it to be able to add something for all of its product lines including the navy stuff (super carrier/ upcoming Essex), I think the Marianas is a really good choice for a map.

I'm am not actually suggesting that they do, but good thing your not a a 3rd party Dev.

Yeah, WWII navy is almost a complete miss.

Oh yeah I almost forgot, it's not a 2:1 response rate for no vs yes either.

If you read both of my posts together, plus the sentence that follows the one you quoted, you should be able to get pretty close to what my point was. But I don't mind explaining myself in more detail here since I can't really blame you either because I used 60% as a sell rate in error while referring to the pole data. In reality, the data collected here, and the actual number of sales of any module have very little to do with each other. The other side of this is that we don't actually have sales numbers from each module, so we are basically playing a guessing game. But IMO, I would say that the Yak/CEII are probably not far behind a number of modules in terms of sales, and may even sell more than some. Any guess what a module like the I16 sold to date? Or how about the L39/C101? I think all 3 of these modules are successful. The point is the I16 is not likely to be the top seller in WWII props, and I doubt the L39/C101 are holding the lead in sales over modules like the F18/14. But they don't have to in order to be a successful part of DCS World. When the YouTuber Laobi did his Yak giveaway, he got over 600 people responding for a chance to win. That is a serious amount of interest, and internet surveys are known to generate only about a 1.5 to 2% response rate. But the question seems to boil down to the total number of people you think downloaded DCS World that would also potentially be interested in non-military aircraft? I will go back to my original statement, the argument that an increased product inventory brings new/more customers is real.

But if I were a digital combat simulator developer, I would want to get on it tout de suite!

I have a hard time buying into the concept that the politics between East and West are influencing ED's decision on which area of the world to map, especially in a game designed to pit the military forces of East and West against each other. Go into the mission editor and its USA vs Russia all day long. Nor do I believe that ED has its development schedule set to follow the clock over at IL2, or visa versa. While there is no doubt likely going to be some competition between the two as they both share a similar market space, they are both pursuing two very different strategies, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. But I agree with the OP and the point he is raising, although with some slight differences. Regarding the Marianas map, I think the OP hit the nail on the head in pointing out the the map has a much stronger relevance to WWII scenarios, but I also think the map is really a win/win for ED and this community. My guess is the OP is spot on in pointing out that the release of the WWII version is likely waiting for the assets to arrive, but as another free map, and I think that is the important point so I will underline for emphasis "FREE", it is meant to deliver on all fronts to attract more customers. While we are all waiting for the WWII Pacific to arrive, the Marianas map already supports the Super Carrier module and the other naval assets already here, and just as importantly IMO, the non military/trainer aircraft in the SIM. The Marianas map provides a very beautiful tropical setting that almost beckons you to jump in a CEII/Yak 52 and go for a sunset cruise. But the maps full potential IMO will only be realized with the release of its WWII version. Clearly there seems to be a logical misstep in the development of the Normandy/Channel maps, but I think it is mostly related to the historical context in which the Normandy map was made. It would make much more sense if the Channel was part of Normandy from the start, but given the state of technology and the resources available when Normandy was announced, making it bigger might have been out of reach at that time. This is why I don't think maps should be tied to a specific date. If Ugra would have been able to include the Channel/London, it wouldn't matter that Normandy contains the Atlantic wall, or what Cherbourg looks like because nobody would be landing at Utah beach if the users intention was to recreate the battle of Britain or the rescue at Dunkirk. I get why ED decided to make a Channel map, but had it been included with the first WWII map, the logical map to add would have been the rest of France/Germany. But it is what it is. I see the same issues that plague the Normandy/Channel maps cropping up again with the Persian Gulf map, which could have been made much more relevant had it included Kuwait. But the map even as it stands now still represents a very important strategic part of the world, and I think ED was right to add it. Personally I would separate the argument for a Korea map and the Nevada map because I think both are needed. The obvious reasons for Korea don't need to be discussed further, but as an important part of US Air force operations, the Nevada map makes perfect sense in DCS especially with such a large US customer base. I think the argument though was that a Korea map is still missing when it shouldn't be. And yes, A Germany map that could accommodate anything from Seelow Heights/Berlin to the Fulda gap on a single map would make perfect sense, and one I am sure we will likely see in the future, although more than likely as separate maps. And with the rise in popularity of helicopters, maps like Afghanistan are sure to become more important. But it leaves me wondering, where the ell is Vietnam?

No ski Dubai has been there since 2002, the clock tower since 1964. They included Ibn Battuta mall which is really cool, but the mall of the Emirates is much more relevant as a Dubai landmark IMO. The Dubai marina area could maybe use another pass as well, but other than that they did a really decent job of portraying the major cities. All in, I am really happy with it otherwise.

Recently picked up the Persian Gulf map to go with my Super Carrier and other planned purchases like the F18/14. For now though, I have spent a lot of time just exploring the map low and slow in the CEII and Yak52. A really great map with tons of interesting topography/water. And its easy to tell that ED has made a pretty good effort at getting a lot of the detail right. Have also done a little driving around areas like Abu Dhabi and Dubai in a Hummer, and again, pretty decent job. But as far as landmarks go in Dubai at least, I think ED really missed two important ones, the Deira Clock tower, and the mall of the Emirates. I know the PG map is considered feature complete, but common guy's really.... no ski Dubai? I am hoping that this would be seen less as a feature and more of an artistic improvement. If the artists that created the map ever run out of things to do, it would be nice to see one of the most visited malls in Dubai make it on the map.

Based on the point you raised, the way the survey is currently worded then is probably more appropriate because the results will represent both groups of people, the ones that don't think it should be there and wont purchase it, and the ones that don't mind, but wouldn't buy it anyway. But the results are very favorable IMO as far as feasibility goes. Not many modules will attain a 100% sell rate, and 60% is probably not that far from the average.