Callsign112

Hard to say what they are thinking, you can imaging how far and wide the suggestions here can get without even reading the forum. But I am pretty sure they keep themselves abreast of whats out there. Like I said, there are a lot of really good suggestions being made on the forum, and I find a lot of what you and Northstar98 post makes sense.

So using the exact scenario described by the OP, but using the Mustang trainer. Thank you.

Yes if you read through the forum, then you can tell there are still some outstanding issues with the Yak 52, but ED has repeatedly stated that they will be addressing outstanding issues/bugs after they get the Mosquito done. You are welcome to make a bug report if the issue has not already been reported, but hopefully you will see progress soon.

StevanJ, I started the topic and asked the question in the main Combined Arms forum for a reason. You mean you are having problems getting the CA features to work in general? The question I asked was regarding a 9 year old campaign running in DCSW 2.7x. If you don't own the campaign, then no one is forcing you to respond.

@dorianR666I don't have the campaign, but are there any clues in the mission notes like what the goals of each mission are to guide the player on what to do and/or expect? I ask because based on your description, it makes me think that some of the missions might be set up to get the player to simply use/experience the different modes in Combined Arms. I am just guessing, but after reading several threads on it I am wondering whether the problem is technical, or are the mission goals just not explained well enough? If you select Game Master, you are supposed to be able to control all the units (both sides) on the map. If you select Ground Force Commander, you are suppose to be able to control all friendly units. If you select JTAC, you can only use a single vehicle to lase targets for real players in planes after pressing the "B" key. If the missions/campaign are set up right, then you are also supposed to be able to control the units on your team from a plane if the "pilot can control vehicle" box in the "Battle Field Commanders" tab is checked. I can do this even from the Mustang trainer on the Caucasus map. I am actually thinking of picking up the campaign even though a lot of people seem to be having issues with it just to see. If I do and I can add anything that might help, I will post it back here for you.

I think this post was well said, as the difference comes down really to what you want to do on the map. If you want strictly aerial combat, then the Channel map is great if your system can handle it. Remember, a slower system will put you at a disadvantage in multi-player game play. If you want aerial combat with more ground war involvement, then the Normandy map is obviously better historically speaking. Although the Channel map would allow you to create some interesting "what if" scenarios.

Thanks for the tip. I found this thread that might help explain it a little more in detail. It's a little old so can't say that it still works.

The problem with your challenge is that it wouldn't be against my opinion, it would be against your misconception of what my opinion is. I get that there is a problem with the fact that not everyone has the assets pack. I fully understand the problem that results from that, and I also understand how important it is to grow the multi-player community. But the people causing the division are not the people that purchased the assets pack, or the people that created it. What I said is why should anyone concern themselves with people that choose to be divided? Someone said on an internet forum somewhere that the assets pack wasn't worth it, which may have been the case back when the comment was made, and the current situation is the result. And yet the same guy went out and spent how much on flight sticks/head trackers/video cards/VR headsets/24core CPU's/umpteen different plane modules? I would be willing to bet that every single person that has voiced their opinion against the paid assets has at one time or another posted something in support of better graphics, AI logic, more planes, more jets, more assets blah, blah, blah. Who exactly do you expect to deliver even one item on that list for free? I don't know what you do for a living, but I am pretty sure if someone suggested you start doing it for free, I could guess what your answer would be. The point is, there are certain people here that go on and on about how they would pay full price for this, and be happy to pay an extra $10 for that if the assets were included. Well I would also bet that those same people wouldn't be happy to actually see the change. And how do you bundle something with something else if the something else has already been bought? So what, you mean all the people that bought the Normandy map, but refused to buy the Assets pack are now going to give ED $15 to have it included with their Normandy map? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? The argument being sold here by a select few is itself meant to create division. I see anyone complaining about having to pay for the very things they support the development of to be selling a disingenuous argument and nothing more. All they are doing is slowing development of the very things they complain are taking too long to get here. If anyone was under the impression that they would buy the most detailed digital simulation of an F/18 Hornet, and that would also include highly detailed maps of every military combat zone it ever flew in, along with any aircraft carriers it might have taken off from, not to mention an accurate representation of every navy/army ship/vehicle/weapon system ever conceived which should include every surface-to-air missile defense system ever made and... oh yeah almost forgot, I want 120 FPS as I'm flying through city skylines even though I only have 2MG of ram in my 1998 apple laptop. I'm with ya brother, and here's a screen shot outside your canopy as you pull up to do a loop. Nice... is there a setting for color?

I was thinking of pretty much the same thing. It would be nice to be able to use triggers as the player progresses through a mission that would play a video/sound/image file to provide useful information for the mission, or even as the player reaches certain milestones.

@upyr1, while there is a constant stream of really good suggestions on how to improve the SIM, you and @Northstar98 are pretty constant reads for me. Thanks for keeping it interesting.

I totally agree, and think that ED could add a lot to the simulator by improving infantry unit functionality. I am not so sure that a full blown FPS would be the way to go, but if we consider that progress in the gaming world is usually realized in stages, then it would be nice to at least see some improvement to the AI infantry as a start. For example, if AI infantry were able to crouch/prone, and conceal/lase was added to either the "ROE", or "STATE" logic of the "COMMAND BAR", the @Sierr4 would be able to do exactly the type of mission he is looking for. He could give an infantry unit way points to reach the target area where the infantry unit would then try to conceal itself as it scouts for targets to mark, and if it is spotted by enemy units, it could either retreat, or return fire. The lasing part wouldn't be that hard to do as it would simply be duplicating the feature that already exists for vehicles units. Its the other Crouch/prone/conceal logic that would need to be worked on. My next big interest in DCS is likely going to be rotary winged aircraft, so it would be really nice to see the ground war fleshed out a bit more. @Japo32, yes you can control vehicles with the WASD keys in Combined Arms. And I like you suggestions about improvements to the SIM where the player would be able to try and get his pilot character back to safety. We should be able control a downed pilot like any other AI infantry unit in Combined Arms. I never tried it, but I wonder if you have Combined Arms, does a pilot that bails out show up as an icon on the F10 map? I don't think that it does, but think this should be a feature of Combined Arms.

Okay thanks. Have you tried the campaign under 2.7?

+1

Has anyone tried the Combined Arms campaign with the latest DCS 2.7? Are there any issues with play ability?

I quite agree with your suggestion in the sense that I would really like to see a much improved AI infantry in the game. As a combat simulator, DCS World would be much more immersive if it had a more capable AI infantry to bring the ground war to life. But to address what you are trying to do, if I understand you correctly, you want an AI infantry unit to act as a JTAC. I am far from being anything close to good with the mission editor, but couldn't you use an area trigger zone to do what you are looking for? You could place an infantry unit in a convenient location so that it looks like it was marking the targets, but I think you will sort of reach what you are trying to achieve. But this is just an example of how the AI infantry could be improved. For starters, you can't give an AI infantry a movement way-point where it uses stealth to conceal its location as best it can while moving. And while I want to see the real player focus remain on the highly detailed vehicles (aircraft/tanks/ships), a more capable AI infantry would add a great deal to the simulation. It would be great if the real player acting as JTAC in a plane/vehicle was able to command a more capable single/group of infantry. Currently playing with combined arms allows you to set way points for AI infantry to follow. And if an AI infantry encounters an enemy unit en route, it can fire/return fire/hold. I think it should be possible to add conceal/laze to the list of things AI infantry could do.

Don't forget Different infantry units and personnel... that can do more than stand and walk/run. And yeah, whats up with the non-existent WWII navy stuff? As a fast track, it would be nice to see ED work some out with one of the mods with WWII ships to have them added to DCS World.

+1... now grenades, that would be special.

Nicely done!

Not trying to be funny, but wouldn't even new users need to install DCS? But anyway, I thought it was strange that the website wasn't updated yet with the newest version. Just a heads up... this is the old 2013 version

I was in another thread where someone was referencing information from the manual on a page my manual didn't have, page 313 to be exact. I promptly went to the download section of ED's website, and proceeded to download. How surprised was I to find out I was downloading the 2013 version again. Is Eagle Dynamics aware that the download section has not been updated with the new DCS world user manual yet? Thanks to @Rudel_chw for the link to the 2020 version. Just so I know I have the latest version, does anyone know if there has been another update since 2.7?

Thanks. Hey if you, or anyone you know that has a knack for creating skins has the interest and the time, the air cooled engine and ribbed two-seat canopy of the Yak would look really good in a rising sun outfit like the one pictured above. Might be cool to get the Yak involved in some recon flights around the Marianas.

Thanks for the encouragement. I am actually really looking forward to getting the Yak. One of the best Yak videos I saw was by EightBall, where he lands and takes off from the side of a mountain. If you haven't seen it, you should really have a look for it, its worth a view.

Awesome!

Can anyone tell me Have any of the issues with the CA campaign been addressed? I would really like to try this campaign if it is playable.

Thanks!