Callsign112

Yes, AT guns finally made it to open beta, but sadly not manned. It would be nice to see all assets like mortar and AT guns manned and animated eventually like flak guns. Maybe since they are working on an update to movement, we will see it later on... I hope. I do a fair bit of practice with the current in-game infantry experimenting with what does and doesn't work in terms of getting them to look more natural while moving in a group. Obviously very limited at the moment having only speed and space between units (with the same weapon) that can only stand.

I believe your wrong about there not being an explosion. It is not easy to capture without going through the trouble of using a video editor. But there are 30 frames/second, and my player keeps skipping over the bright flash seen at 1:05:20. I can see it as it goes by, but can't seem to land on the frame itself. But there is more than one bright flash. The two images below are taken from 1:05:19. I think it is pretty hard to make a judgment about the damage model in DCS based on gun cam footage. In other words, how convinced are you that you can duplicate the exact scenario including the exact number and placement of the rounds hitting the wing. Saying a wing came off in the video doesn't mean much by itself. Do you know if the plane in the video received any damage from other gun bursts, or was this the first time that day this plane was hit? There could be multiple reasons the wing of a plane flying in a world war came off that will not be readily visible in gun cam footage. I'm not saying the damage model in DCS doesn't need fixing. I'm just saying that it is pretty hard to look at that video, or any others as concrete proof that it does.

I am not really sure what the problem is because I noticed that I can drive right through some trees/bushes/buildings, while others I can't. The shame is the Normandy map just got an update for tree visuals not long ago, but nothing in terms of its interaction with ground vehicles. Things like grown blast effects/explosions and trees/buildings falling over/crumbling when hit by a 40 ton armored vehicle need to be reviewed.

I know its just a wish list, and I completely agree that work on the core should be kept a priority, but what do earthquakes, flash floods, landslides, erupting volcanoes, and avalanches have to do with simulating combat? On the other hand, more modules/assets might help!

Yeah I don't think any of the maps have damage models for ground vehicles, but they absolutely should. I am hoping that this is one of the things on the to-do-list. And it makes me wonder how much this issue contributes/plays into the various path-finding issues that exist. Most armored vehicles, both WWII and modern, could knock down even large trees, or smash through wood/brick homes. If this was modeled in DCS World, then you would think that path-finding would be simplified somewhat as they would have to reroute around fewer objects.

... for DCS World?

Agreed, the vehicles are still in a pretty rough/unfinished state in terms of what is modeled. Infantry... well you kinda just have to leave them out of the equation for now. But in terms of game play, whether you are a single player or a large group, CA really does add significantly to the experience. For me, CA has improved my single player game play immensely, but I think it was really designed with larger groups (MP) in mind where its unique features are multiplied by the dynamics of player vs player matches. There are many large groups of people running private servers who design their own missions. Anyone fitting this category that doesn't use CA is missing out on what is probably the single most effective tool for creating the most rewarding and intense missions in DCS World. There are other SIMS/arcade games that try to combine air/land/sea game play, but not at DCS World level. That doesn't mean DCS is perfect, just that its developers seem to have the right outlook on how to do it IMO.

@StevanJ, I understand your frustration, but I think all Eight Ball is saying is that most of the things mentioned so far in this thread are not actually Combined Arms issues. I don't believe he is trying to belittle anyone, or argue someone is wrong. No one is being judged here. I am certainly no authority on Combined Arms, or the Mission Editor, but I am willing to try and help if I can because @Zimmerdylan asked, and I hope he hasn't taken something the wrong way and remains engaged in the thread. What peaked my interest the most is when Zimmerdylan asked if he has to alter LUA files to use Combined Arms. It certainly adds a lot of power to the Mission Editor if you know how to use script files, but you don't even have to know how to use a trigger zone to use Combined Arms, and I think I can show that. But we all have to be on the same page. In other words, we all have to agree/understand what CA is, and what it isn't. Part of the problem to start with is that there appears to be a lot of overlap between the Mission Editor and the CA module, making it hard to see any separation between the two. In the simplest terms, I would say that CA gives you mission editor level control over AI assets while the mission is in progress. Now it does more than just that, but in a nutshell, that's whats going on. The best example with CA installed is you can give way point commands to AI assets during a mission. Without CA, you have to exit the mission to update it with the desired way points in the mission editor, and then run the mission again. That is one of the strengths of CA, it allows you to reshape the battle even as it is being played out. Since CA is about controlling AI assets, the best starting point would be to see how control happens in DCS World. The video I linked below shows the different control methods in DCS as they are being used with CA installed, but essentially without CA you assign way points in the MISSION EDITOR. With CA installed, you can also give way points on the fly, take direct control of a selected unit, or if you are in direct control of the primary unit for a group (designated with a #1 next to its icon), you can give the other AI units in that group movement commands using the "\" key. To give an example, say there are 4 platoons of 4 red tanks each on your side. As the tactical commander of the red team, you could give movement commands to all 16 tanks from the F10 map. You could also take direct control of any tank in your coalition from the F10 map, while assigning way points and targets to all other red tanks on the battle field. And if you are in direct control of a primary unit for a group, you can use the "\" key to control the other tanks in that platoon. You can also change the platoon you control on the fly by simply going to the F10 map and selecting one of the other primary units and pressing the "take control" button (little tank icon at top). Controlling AI units may sound trivial, or even uninteresting, but once you start using it, you quickly see how this aspects of CA is able to virtually eliminate the repetitiveness of scripted game play. Say you design a 4V4 mission where each side has 4 platoons of 4 tanks each and 2 planes/jets/helicopters. So 2 players in tanks, and 2 players in aircraft on each team. Each player assigned to tanks controls 8 AI units including the unit they are driving. It is almost impossible to see the same match play out the same way twice as each player strategically moves their units on the map. My last point is about path-finding and the options available. This is very important because while there are many bugs/inconsistencies, a lot of the perceived issues in this area are user related IMO. This is certainly one area where the Devs need to make major improvements, but a lot of the issues I encountered were solvable through simple trial and error to figure out how to correctly use the path-finding feature. But I concur StevanJ, I was able to do more with path-finding before 2.7 stable released. 3 general categories of path-finding (way point) commands. On Road, Off Road, and Custom (free). With On Road way points, the units are forced to follow in a row. If way point "0" is set to On-Road, all units in the group will be evenly spaced out (apprx. 100 ft) and locked to the row formation on a road. Off-Road way points also force your grouped units to follow in a row while moving cross country, but initial placement of units at way point "0" can be changed by the mission designer. Regardless of unit position at way point "0", units will form up according to the desired formation at mission start and at each subsequent way point. A subcategory to the Off-Road way point command are all the formation commands, which simply force your grouped units to follow in something other than a row while going cross country. The last category is the Custom (free) command. This is useful if you want your group to have a more natural looking formation as it moves, but it can also cause a lot of problems especially if units are not spaced correctly. If you are having problems with path-finding, try experimenting with things like distance between grouped units, command type, and variations to the path itself.

I think this is an excellent suggestion, so thanks for starting the thread. In my experience, unless your a YouTuber running a "How to" channel, your probably less likely to post how you do/use something unless it is in response to someones question. So if your stuck on something, or want help, just throw your question up on the forum and you are likely to get at least one response. But it is worth a try, and maybe others will join in here to share how they use CA. I get what @Zimmerdylan and @StevanJ are trying to say, because there does seem to be a grey area surrounding CA in terms of what it is, or isn't, but I think @Eight Ball pretty much nailed it in his description of what CA does. An easy way to demonstrate for yourself exactly how CA can affect what happens in a mission is to start off with a mission that doesn't use CA. Go into the Mission Editor and place your favorite plane/jet/heli in the map as a player/client. Then find an open piece of terrain where you can place 10 red tanks and 10 blue tanks about 5 miles apart. Save and fly the mission. You are now in your favorite plane/jet/heli, and the 20 red and blue tanks you placed will just be sitting there 5 miles apart not moving because you didn't give them any way point logic, or tasks to do. From your plane, all you can really do to interact with the ground vehicles is attack them while you fly around overhead. Now go back to the mission editor and edit the same mission by adding a CA Game Master slot for either the red or blue team, and an AI plane of your choice. Also check the "PILOT CAN CONTROL" box, then save and fly the mission. Now you will be given an option to either fly the player/client plane, or occupy the Game Master slot. This time, if you select the pilot slot, you will notice you are now able to click on any of your tanks, give them way points, change formation, speed and so on. If you select the Game Master slot, you will not only be able to click on any tanks to control them, but you can also click on the AI plane you added and control it in the same way. Additionally, you can also drive any of the tanks on the map, both red and blue, by selecting a unit and clicking on the little TANK icon (take control) at the top. So what CA does is it allows you to connect and control air, ground, and naval forces as the mission plays out. What happens in the mission is up to you. I don't have the time right now, but I would like to try and address if I can what Zimmerldylan feels is clumsy, counter intuitive, and complicated about CA in a later post.

Personally I think infantry/ground units are in so much need for an update that anything would be welcome, and or seen as an improvement. It will be interesting to see how well the recently announced update for movement/animation pans out. But yeah, we could also really use more assets/drive able CA modules. Even though most are obviously here for the flying, I think there is a lot more pent up demand for the ground war than most here believe. And as helicopters gain in popularity, the need to address current ground war issues is going to become more pronounced.

I agree completely and don't regret purchasing both Normandy/Channel maps, not even for a moment. They are great maps, I would like to see Ugra devote a little more time to improving/fixing Normandy, but I spend a lot of time there mostly because it can be used in an historical context. For Channel map, other than the battle of Britain, buzz bomb raids, and Dunkirk, there could be some really interesting what-if scenarios IF we had more assets to make it believable. But yeah, my feeling is that they should have made the Channel map more relevant since they were already committing the time and resources to make the map anyways. +1! Now that would be really welcomed. The models ED makes are sensational. We all know that they can also come with issues, but all-in, it is hard to compare them with anything else if your into attention to detail and clickable cockpits. ED has some really talented 3rd party partners as well, and Heatblur would definitely be at the top of my list. I must have watched at least a hundred hours of F14 YouTubes already, it still just never gets old. All the third parties seem pretty good actually, but another favorite of mine is AvioDev mostly because of the incredible customer service they offer. If customer service is as important to anyone as it is to me, just have a read through the AvioDev sub-forum to see how good they are at it. I understand their user base are pretty happy with the C-101 as well. But a WWII anything from Heatblur could only mean one thing... a really interesting addition to DCS World.

Yeah I think it was a missed opportunity. They could have really increased the historical value of the Channel map by including more/all of France. But maybe strictly viewing maps as belonging to specific dates like that is part of the SIM culture to help create a certain cachet for the customer. Personally I think it is too limiting and ends up doing more harm than good. I mean you almost have to pick a specific date to create an historical map, but I think it would make more sense to view maps as a general setting, and rely on the assets to portray the desired historical date.

It is hard to argue against that since most of the assets are meant to portray the start of the allied invasion, but you could also argue that the Stuka was instrumental in reaching the need for the allied invasion just as easily as you could argue that it was all over with by the time the K4 arrives. My personal feeling is that maps should be useful enough for the duration of the campaign. It doesn't make much sense IMO to expect a different version Normandy/Channel map for each battle of WWII. Given the right assets, I think the maps we have could work well enough to portray WWII as opposed to a specific battle/s. If we were to get another European map, I would much prefer that it be anything but Normandy/ the Channel. But you make a good point, and I have to admit that they would have to add more than just the Stuka to make it enjoyable, and at the current rate of production, it doesn't make sense.

Yeah my bad, I didn't mean you want work on the Stuka to remain dead, I meant the powers that be. Regardless of why the previous effort stopped, I was referring to the apparent inaction that followed, or should I say follows. BTW, I appreciated the information you gave on the history behind the Stuka story.

Don't know if it is the source of the problem, but the m270 has a very large minimum distance to target before it will fire. I can't remember exactly, but I think it is something like 5 miles minimum distance to target. You should see a min/max circle drawn around the unit to help tell if you are within min/max range.

Only some Axis ships?

I think there is merit to your thought provoking, but sadly not enough time. At least not on ED's current time schedule.

Playing around with WWII Combined Arms to see the effects of the flak 88. The sound/flash when you fire a tank gun in Combined Arms is not too bad, but not so much so for the sound/blast of shells that land near you. At least this is what I thought until I saw the flak 88 in action!

I'm just surprised that it never made it into ED's plans though. But isn't suggesting the project remain dead a little like suggesting ED should step away from WWII. The Stuka is to dive bombing what the Tiger tank is to armored vehicle combat IMO, and I think it has definitely earned a place in any well respected flight SIM. As an addition to DCS, the Stuka would offer more than just its iconic shape, but another very unique style of flying as well. From its fear inspiring siren to its rear facing MG, the Stuka would bring a lot to DCS WWII. If your into serious ground pounding, the Stuka can offer up a whole new meaning to the term,... mud-spike!

We need a dive bomber for the Channel map... specifically something for Dunkirk.

When you select create mission, you will be prompted to select the time period (WWII, modern, custom), as well as the map. Once your newly created mission opens in the ME, place the planes you want and any other assets then save and hit fly. You can try the mission I attached here if you like, I just tried it and it works. You have 3 planes to choose from, 3 parked hot and 3 in the air. Marianas check.miz

@Reflected, just watched your tutorial video on the bonus mission. Really enjoyed it, thanks. BNBOB added!

Sky FARP?... Just kidding. But if we ever get WWII air craft carriers, making a rendezvous with one to refuel could add a nice touch for a mission builder. Would adding another 500 km of water be too much performance wise? You would think not when compared to maps with land detail, but then again with waves and reflections and what not, I'm not sure. I would love to see a map that covers from Paris to Berlin, but we all know that isn't ever going to happen.

Why are you so hostile StevanJ? I am glad that you seem to really like the direction Rudel pointed you in. That is great, but it doesn't close the discussion to other suggestions. You asked a question, but you also expanded on that by adding that your level of frustration was causing you to actually uninstall the module. If anyone else is experiencing the same issue, using templates might help prevent them from having to uninstall/deactivate the module. You might even consider using it yourself, but then again, your free not to. While I intended to simply point out another usable feature of the Mission Editor, you seem intent on causing argumentation. No one is trying to bait you into a fight StevanJ, we're just having a discussion on a public forum.