Callsign112

I think the video was meant more for humor than a demonstration of skill. My comment was referring to the general discussion of the thread in terms of pitting the Mustang against other planes. While someone stated they don't feel the Mustang is able to go against the 109, my own view is that the DCS version can if you play it right. I agree with @Silent Film, you have to leverage you strengths against your opponents weaknesses which does require skill IMO. I am not trying to imply that I have those skills, or that you have them. The question was, what techniques should we use in the Mustang vs the Axis fighters? One of the problems we are all strapped with is that AI are capable of pushing the planes to performance levels most players can't. But as we can see in numerous other threads, and hundreds if not thousands of YouTube videos, the Mustang can go against the 109 and win.

That would do it, thank you!

I included the blast damage for completeness in reference to the OP, but at the beginning of the video I link above, I strafe the infantry and have no problems destroying them on the Normandy map with the Thunderbolts guns.

After installing the Yak-52, there are no liveries. How do I access the stock white/red skin for the Yak?

I am not seeing this on the Normandy map running the current stable build. Infantry up to at least 90 feet from a 250 lbs bomb blast were destroyed. I am seeing a lot of weird path finding issues that were not present before DCS 2.7, but I will leave that issue for another thread.

I thought you, or someone else having the same issue might be interested in solving it without having to disable the module. The question I asked was if you knew whether using templates could be an alternate solution? It seems to me that they could also be used for this purpose. Forgive me for making a suggestion, and I am glad your issue is solved!

@Flappie, I thought this issue was addressed in an earlier update. Do you know if this was previously reported and still waiting to be addressed, or is it an issue that has reappeared?

Sorry I wasn't trying to be off topic as much as I was trying to be lighthearted, but I am really glad you found a solution to your problem. And you probably helped a lot of mission builders save a lot of time as well. I have never used them yet myself, but I was wondering if the template feature couldn't also be used to help mission builders with the problem of having to separate free vs paid assets? I thought there were more free assets, but if DD_Fenrir's list is correct, templates might be another useful way for mission builders to handle the issue.

Or alternatively, you could have your friends just enable the module.... Just funnin wit ya StevanJ, I know you run with a pretty tough crowd. Glad to see you found a solution.

I was part of the original posts likes. This was an excellent suggestion @Aarnoman

Just picked this up and really enjoying it. What a gorgeous model!

+1 for an ability to add more fortifications in the Mission Editor. Being able to add things like trenches to a map is obviously out of reach at the moment, but being able to place above-ground fortifications like sandbags as a static object should be more than workable. This would obviously also need an AI infantry element animated enough to use them. Great suggestion though.

Yeah +1. Keep the videos coming. I think feedback like yours helps to keep ED informed on the end users perspective. I really enjoy Combined Arms, and I especially enjoy your insights on its use.

+1

I think the point is more you have to develop your skills in the air frame you use. It is definitely possible to be successful in either of those two planes when challenging the other. Notice though how only on blade was bent? That's called Eagle Dynamics!

I get why the WWII Assets pack is bundled with the Normandy map. That is how I bought it. But since such a large part of Combined Arms is about driving ground vehicles, and since the WWII Assets pack includes a large number of CA drive-able vehicles, wouldn't it make sense to also include a WWII Assets/Combined Arms bundle as an alternate option? People new to the platform might want to try driving WWII ground vehicles before buying the Normandy/Channel map. I absolutely love the Normandy map and think it offers great value, but thought other options might be worth considering.

+1

Almost a year later and I'm still holding... are we going to feel the love?

+1

Bumping this because it would be really nice to see.

I think realism is why we all came.... and this is just an example of why we stay!

O ye of little faith!

As always @Silver_Dragon, thanks for the update. I second @DD_Fenrir thanks to the team. Personally I think the WWII assets pack adds great value to DCS World, and it is comforting to hear that it will keep expanding. Any idea if we will ever see these type of assets manned? It would be nice if things like mortar and AT guns were manned with animated soldiers.

+1

I agree, it would be nice to be able to see that type of tool/information available to the end user, but what it also highlights for me is just how much ED puts into its products. While there is always room for improvement, that level of damage model is pretty impressive IMO. Lets hope it makes it to jets/tanks/ships soon. Its always easy to criticize the driver when your not racing, and to your point about benefiting a lot of the discussion, I see that type of discussion a lot here. Not to say that a lot of the criticism isn't warranted, but there are moments when you have to wonder. In a recent thread elsewhere, ED was criticized for improving the AIM 120 because it was felt there are other more important issues that it could be spending its time on. I guess what it comes down to is we will all prioritize the list of things to do differently, but at the end of the day, a decision has to be made on what is to be done. Regarding the detail of the damage model, I have no idea the amount of work that had to go into making that happen, but when I compare it to everything else out there, the only conclusion I can draw is... A LOT! I think someone else said it best when they said something like "DCS is about the minutia in detail" when referring to the importance of what it is attempting to model.