Callsign112

What would be really nice to see is if some of the more than capable modders would formalize their efforts as a third party licensed for that purpose. Take naval mods as an example, if some of the more well known collaborations on WWII ships were presented to ED in a formal way, it would sell really well IMO. They could keep the modded versions as free to down load, but provide more complete official versions with accurate armament/damage models ect... as a pay to use. I for one would love to use some of those mods, but don't bother because of all the work involved in maintaining my install after each new patch.

+1 for Battle of Britain. Considering online gaming does really, really well when the level of action is heightened/maintained, a massive dog fight scenario would be well suited for a MP server. But where DCS gets it mostly wrong IMO is restricting assets according to the date/period of a map. I think they would be much better served to use maps in a more general sense, and add assets in adversarial pairs (one red/one blue). Because even if the intention is to be able to create historically accurate battles in terms of time/place/assets, there is so much missing that the user is still very limited in what can be created. You still have to improvise a lot anyway.

The argument that an increased product inventory brings new/more customers is real. I came to explore the Combined Arms module, and since that time have purchased all but one of the props with no regrets getting either of the CEII/Yak 52. Now I plan to start adding jets/helicopters to that list, but absolutely love the work that has been put into DCS WWII planes. So if planes like the CEII were the stepping stones needed to help develop/improve WWII capabilities in DCS World, then adding them to the DCS list of available planes is a win/win because even if you aren't particularly interested in fighter aircraft, there is a good chance you will eventually want to at least explore them. It all starts with a love for flying.

The T-34 could be used on the current Caucasus map to simulate the Eastern front, and even Germany as the conflict moved back toward Germany. But there is even a sliver of the Caucasus map that could be used to simulate actual ground force movement there. What would also help in addition to a long list of ground assets would be a map that could better represent the Eastern front.

Wider tracks was the other innovation ported to the new German tanks. I think it is all about the map. ED confines assets to the maps they belong to. The current WWII maps are Normandy/Channel. But I agree, a T34/KV variety added to the WWII assets pack would make a lot of sense.

+1

My bad. I thought you were thinking I was confusing the Corsair and the Crusader. I had to read your post twice to get its meaning... I think! Your a jet guy getting back into props with the Corsair, and I am more into War Birds and want to support third parties like Magnitude 3LLC for the great work they are obviously doing.

I think they are planning to release the Corsair first. You can read more about it here: and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_F4U_Corsair

I haven't started purchasing jets yet, but with the amount of enjoyment I am getting from using the CE II, the MiG 21 will be my first jet purchase. Thoroughly impressed with the attention to detail and quality of the CE II, and very much looking forward to the Corsair.

A simple mission to help new pilots practice following an enemy fighter. The mission is made using the free Caucasus map and TF_51D Mustang, so anyone that downloads DCS World can use the mission to practice controlling speed, altitude, and distance to target as they follow the lead aircraft. The challenge will be not to overshoot the German fighter. Try following as close as you can without overshooting your Ai lead. The player can choose to follow an FW-190A in either a figure8, Oval, or Diamond pattern. Each Anton will fly the formation 3x before landing. Preset radio frequencies for the nearby airfields have also been added to allow communication with the tower and ground crew. Familiarize yourself with which airfield is assigned to which channel in the Mustang. Of course you can also edit the mission to change the planes used as you desire. TF-51D Chase.miz

+1 for an updated Abrams along with any, or all other vehicles. I would also like to see more attention given to the modeling of drive/power-trains. At the moment, acceleration is almost instantaneous as you shift gears, and there seems to be little effect of ground resistance on speed/horsepower-torque/gear selected. And CA has a very logical model of gas/brake pedals/gear shift, and with the "Automatic Transmission" setting deselected, you have a very good level of control while driving. But if you come to a complete stop from a top gear, you have to press the "Z" key several times to get back to first gear to start out again. The Tiger for example has 7 forward and 2 reverse gears IRL iirc. It makes sense while moving, each press of the "Z" key downshifts one gear, but it would be nice when in a top gear while stationary, pressing the "Z" key once would go straight to Neutral. That way the vehicle would be in neutral, and the driver could decide if he/she wants to press the "Z" key again to go to reverse, or press the "X" key to go forward.

@Zimmerdylan, I wasn't able to put something together before the other thread was locked, but have attached a mission file here. The mission uses 115 units. 101 vehicles, 10 aircraft, and 4 helicopters. The mission required nothing more than a little bit of imagination in terms of where to place the different units and what I wanted to happen in general. Nothing more than a few way points added on top of that really. In terms of the setup, it took about 30 minutes. And I can now use the mission file as a sort of template, changing the various elements to create an entirely new scenario. The mission includes 1 game master (red or blue doesn't matter because a GM can control all units on both sides anyway), and 1 tactical commander with 2 JTAC on both teams. You can also control ground units from aircraft if you like. If you are alone, you can control all units on the map as the GM, or choose one of the other roles to increase the challenge. If the intention is to have real players going against each other, you will probably want to exclude the GM slot before starting. The mission as it is currently, was made to favor the blue team to increase the challenge for real players taking up positions on the red team. So real players red, Ai blue. You can change that balance by simply changing the type and number of various units on the map. For example, if you want to add more strength to the red team, you can either change a few of the weaker units to T-90's, add more red aircraft/helicopters/vehicles, or decrease the number of blue units. The point is, you use your imagination to create the scenario, and then you use CA to take control of the units you placed on the map. Use the GM slot to watch the Ai a couple of times first as the mission gets played out. From the F10 map, simply click on the unit you want to view and select F2 it it is a plane/helicopter, or F7 if it is a ground vehicle. After seeing how the blue team wins a couple of times, take control of the red team to try and break through to win. I didn't set any mission goals, so it is just a matter of occupying the airfield. @Kang, I get your point about CA not seeing as many updates as other parts of DCS and agree, but I see things like triggers and script files as a separate issue really, because their use is not related to the CA module itself. The mission I attached uses no triggers, or modified LUA files. CA is really about taking command of the battle, triggers and script files are used more to enhance a mission with desired events/actions. But I agree, CA could use more updates. Zimmerdylan.miz

It's not that I disagree with your post, I'm just not sure what you mean when you say CA has grown very little. When you say DCS has grown since, how so? I think the JTAC feature was a much bigger part of CA then pilot control of ground units, but both are equally important in terms of the offered functionality that can be used to enhance game play. But for me, CA is more about getting ground and air units (combined arms) to work together more seamlessly in a mission. With the CA module, you can design missions/campaigns that include pilot only roles, ground unit only roles, or mixed roles. And you can have as many of each role participating in a single mission as you like.

I can't speak about being here long enough to have pre order it, but I would argue that CA does pretty much everything the label says it can under the current version. But isn't the fuss about looking forward instead of back when it was released?

Good to know stuff... thanks.

Good to know, thanks.

??? It still depends on your input. If for example you stop moving, it wont predict that you are somewhere else on the map. You still have to provide input to allow predictive positioning to work. Disconnect your controller/mouse/keyboard and tell me where you think it will predict your player is on the map? The point was that a soldier could be stationary for any amount of time, while a jet in flight can't. But lets say each real player whether in a jet/tank/foot soldier is approximately the same in terms of performance demands, the expectation that there would be 1000 real players interacting on the same map is not part of our reality today. I personally think the better way to go is to have a very functional Ai infantry that can defend/attack real player positions. You should be able to have 25 to 30 real players on each team (mixed air/ground) with 2 to 4 squads of 12 Ai soldiers on the map at any one time. This would allow a good mix of human players while scaling the level/intensity of fighting using Ai soldiers.

So which part doesn't make sense, the fact that you could have 60 players in a match, or the expectation that there should be 1000?

That may be, but I would still expect movement regardless of its direction to be the issue. A soldier could stand still for any amount of time, a jet can't. The online game isn't predicting where you might be. You as a player provide an input where you want to go, and the online game does the work. And according to the link you provided, the animations are already loaded with the end user and only have to be told to play. But anyway I don't really see what this discussion adds, and your point isn't well made based on the concept of having 1000 human players interacting on the same map. How does this point even relate to the discussion? Regardless of the game/system/internet connection, I would think you aren't going to see 1000 real players on the same map anywhere for a long time to come unless you mean they would be broken up into groups of 30 to 80 players per match/session.

I'm trying to figure out the connection to between the two images you posted? But you might consider adding a track if you want them to look into the issue you are having. I know they are pretty adamant about adding track files, and I think I understand why.

I would have thought a jet screaming around the battle field at 1.2 mach would have a lot more data being constantly updated then a soldier sitting in a trench, but maybe I am wrong. A 128 player battle though is a lot, even by today's standards. Most online games are 80 or less. I know of a recent game that offers 128, but the majority are still well below that. But the relevant point for me is whatever limitations the internet poses, they are something all game developers will have to contend with. It is up to the individual developer to implement the strategies it needs to deliver the product it wants to the number of people it needs to reach.

Yeah and may the DEVS could model directed energy weapons too! That also happened in Cuba right Mike?

Read the entire thread... wow! Thanks for making such a beautifully modeled plane. Looking forward to getting the MIG next!

Yeah to be honest, the main gun seems to work. As you say, you fire and your ammo count goes down by one each time until all ammo is used. There is also a secondary ammo storage, and after you deplete the primary storage we see as an increase in time to get ammo from secondary. Others have brought this up before regarding the access of secondary ammo and replenishing the primary storage, but I don't know how the system actually works IRL, so someone with a back ground would have to chime in. If for example you used half of your primary ammo and then hit reload, it should make the primary ammo store full again. But like I say, I'm not sure about this. But have a look at the MG use. I think what the OP was getting at is, as you use the loaded belt, which has 100 rounds, if you hit reload before it is empty you get the animation but nothing happens. So if I used 50 rounds from a belt and I have 3 belts (300 rounds) in storage, hitting reload should load a full belt into the MG and the count should now be 250 in storage. But I'm sure the OP will respond if this explanation doesn't cover the issue properly.

Confirm, LtCtrl +R doesn't seem to do anything except play the reload sequence. Track attached. Abrams MG2.trk