Callsign112

My guess is you will probably get both eventually. But to start with just one since you already have the 109, I would have went with the A8 for more ground attack options. Getting the D9 after the Anton lets you experience the historical progression of the 2 planes. Either way, they are both great modules. But I would be interested to know which one you went for, and how you like it?

Love the pics, great map!

+1 to this plus all the posts that followed.

"We are pleased to inform you that work is progressing on a range of infantry animations. In the above animation, you can see a work-in-progress animation of a soldier climbing to a higher surface. The new control system will allow units to behave in a more complex and realistic manner. It also requires the solution of applied problems, such as overcoming obstacles and improved path finding. In some cases, the unit can overcome a situation just by stepping over an obstacle. There are different types of such surfaces that can be up to 1 meter in difference. The second animation option is for higher obstacles of 1.5 to 2 meters. In this case, the unit will have to climb up the obstacle and then jump off the other side. As part of our larger effort to improve older AI units, work is underway on texturing the new AI B-1B model. Most of the rivets, screws, and aircraft skin sheets are already drawn. The aircraft is painted in standard USAF colors. Material surfaces have also been created. Next, the chassis, chassis niches, bomb bay, and cockpit will be painted. We will also apply dirt, dust, traces of aircraft wear and identification marks / technical inscriptions." I am all for ED keeping it competitive to help drive more people in. But I think it would be unfair for the community not to recognize that ED has done, and is doing this continually. And probably to a much higher degree than any other game platform I use and know. The italicized text above is taken from the most recent OFFICIAL NEWS update. Can anyone here attach a number for the amount of man-hours it will take to complete that work? This is just an example, but I think as a community we should all realize that it is being done for free. I think we should also recognize that the level of detail/added improvements are largely being driven by the community itself. As I said, I think it is great that ED and its partners have provided a number of assets/maps for free in order to make DCS World more attractive, but the bottom line is if we want to continue seeing improvements in a timely manner with level of detail in models, maps, and Ai behavior, I think we as a community should appreciate what ED and its partners are able to provide for free, but also respect what it can't. I want the Ai updates and added assets needed to improve my use of DCS, and I accept that will probably mean for the most part that I will have to pay for them.

Regardless of what influenced it, I for one very much appreciate the WWII Assets pack, and get a lot of use out of the Assets Pack/Combined Arms tech packs. I also very much look forward to any improvements in Ai/infantry, as well as any additional assets we get. But to break out of the June 44 mold, it would be nice to not only see more planes, but armored vehicles that were pre-Tiger tank. We don't have a single PzIII variant including the Ausf. N which was widely fielded by D-Day. And there are no light German tanks which formed a large part of the tank forces fielded at least up to 1942. The PzII Ausf. L was one of the most interesting armored recon units of WWII, but not present in DCS WWII. I look forward to building out my library of modules in DCS including the jet age stuff, but I really hope we also see improvements in ground units/infantry.

@DD_Fenrir, I get your point, and I actually fully support it. I think being able to recreate historical events is a very important part of any SIM. But it doesn't have to be the only feature. Many people use DCS world in many different ways. Recreating historical battles is just one of them. For example, you have put a lot of life into a very interesting story, and you gave good reason why assets/planes/maps with a chronological significance should be released. But releasing something like the Stuka, or another plane/vehicle/map would take nothing away from the assets you used to make the mission you just described. ED will have to break out of the D-Day invasion scenario if they want to make DCS WWII more relevant. And adding an asset/module that doesn't fit precisely to June 6 1944 would do nothing to hinder your mission, it just simply gives you more options in terms of the type of mission scenarios you can create. So yeah, at the moment we all have to use another map if we want to simulate a mission scenario around N. Africa/Germany/E. Front, but that doesn't affect the fact that we can use the Normandy map to recreate battles that actually took place there.

I can't get over how the Stuka as both a module and Ai is still not a thing here. But all of the requested/suggested Ai aircraft listed above should be added to the Assets pack. I think what would help bring more people to DCS WWII though is if it would break out of the June 6 to July 9 1944 mold. But going back to your request for Ai bombers, I think it is a great idea and a much needed one at that. But one of the problems this community faces IMO is the "needs to be a expansion of the WW2 Assets pack" doesn't align well with the "make WW2 Assets free" part. I think a better way to draw more people into DCS WWII would be to make it more accessible in terms of the time period covered, keep expanding the paid for Assets pack to continue increasing its value, and then ask the people running the WWII MP servers to increase use of the Assets pack in their missions.

Yeah at the moment there are no collision models for civilian traffic. I think this was simply added to make the map look more lively while viewing the map from the air, but it sort of does accentuate the current state of the ground war side of things.

+1, but I do appreciate all the updates CA has been seeing lately. Just since April: Rotate turret not working in isometric view - fixed. Stryker Family of Armored vehicles have had sights updated M1A2 Abrams added 3x, 6x, 13x, 25x and 50x to FLIR sights. Fixed. Issue with units moving uphill. Fixed. MANPADS turn 180 degrees when taking control. Added the ability to quickly regain track after losing the target track for SAM Osa (SA-8). Added playable Chieftain Mk.3. Fixed engine power for Leopard1 and M60-tank. Fixed maximum speed for LUV Tigr. Fixed being able to activate cruise control at zero speed. Fixed an issue with the player's max speed being limited when dealing damage to enemy AI. Adjusted damage to infantry and added chance of a critical hit on an infantryman. Fixed firing of MLRS with S-8 rocket when assigning a target on the F10 map. Added damage penalties for player controlled vehicles in Combined Arms. Added combat state view Buk SR for ENC. Added the ability to turn ON/OFF the vehicle engine (LCtrl + E). Added a checkbox for automatic start engine under Special Options for Combined Arms Fixed: MG for Leopard 2A4 on isometric view. Fixed: Flag animation for La Combattante 2. Fixed: Client engine sound in multiplayer for ground units. Fixed: ALERT on hit manpads. Fixed: Camera shake after destroying player controlled CA. Fixed: Player can drive units after a critical hit.

This is along the same lines as to what my guess would be. The incoming WWII Pacific Theater stuff represents the biggest addition DCS WWII will have seen in a long time. Makes sense that it deserves a special mention.

Any news...

+1 and yes please!!!

ED is obviously doing its own thing, but in terms of UR5, I think your comparing 2 things that were never meant to be compared. The UR5 demo was meant to simply show off its capacity to generate a destructible photo realistic world on the fly, not how it compares to actual video of a meteorite falling to earth. I think the question you should be asking is whether UR5 can be used to generate smoke, fire, water and, and, and.... The short answer is yes, ...it can.

I think this pretty much covers what needs to be said here.

When will this be made into a real module??

Narrow mindedness would be calling CA a "bad idea"! I liked drac's last comment because I think he was pretty accurate in pointing out the realities of the current situation. But my own preference would be for ED to stay focused on keeping players in vehicles/aircraft, and use a more capable Ai infantry to populate the battle field to the desired density of attacking/defending the real players.

Not disagreeing with what you said, but in terms of the programming and resources needed to include ground units, doubt they would require any more programming/resources needed to make a plane. When you place Ai infantry in a mission, the resources are already used regardless of the number of poses it can animate. The issues with maps as you said are real, but like everything else in the gaming industry it will continue to improve. Regarding @3WA's point I think what he was getting at is that helicopters are growing in popularity, which is bringing the fight closer to the ground for more and more people, which in turn brings us back to the need for more improvements in the ground war. And I agree with @Apocalypse31, I see very little need to model the interior. Accurate view ports with good physics models should be the focus. There is no need to model the cockpit like there is in a plane/jet/helicopter.

Well eventually you might be right, which makes me wonder why you haven't done that already if that is how you feel? The fact that DCS will attract a lot of people only interested in flying is understandable. Although I must say I am a little surprised how many don't seem to realize the benefit they would experience as pilots if all aspects of DCS were improved. But as a community this is just something we all have to navigate. I am certain ED as a company is aware of all the things we would like to see, but it doesn't hurt to keep reminding them what those things are. And I agree with @MiG21bisFishbedL, I think their forte is in developing the systems pilots/soldiers/seamen use. We do desperately need better more capable Ai infantry though.

DCS World is great... no doubt about it. But sometimes I wonder if narrow mindedness isn't part of whats holding it back from becoming something even greater.

Certainly not intentional, and I wouldn't be the only one to have referenced other platforms. But I will edit the post if it bothers you.

But that is the thing SD, CA itself doesn't have to be turned into a vehicle simulator. It certainly could be, but it doesn't have to be. It is sort of what I was trying get at in the post above. At its heart and soul, it allows players to take control and use combined arms forces, which is basically how most battle fields are won. So as a digital combat simulator, it plays a pretty big role in the way I want to enjoy DCS, or at least that is its potential. But it also provides a fairly intricate level of control over the many ground vehicles in game, which I absolutely love and think is a really cool feature. This not only includes driving the various vehicles, or being able to instruct a group of players, but being able to guide other players flying overhead onto targets as a JTAC operator as well. CA has a few clunky aspects to its UI, but while we wait for those to be addressed, it still adds exception value to DCS. I think this is where it gets difficult to separate what is, and what isn't a CA issue when one crops up. CA seems to be sort of a meeting place where the whole DCS experience can come together. Other simulators have added detailed player controlled ground units. Could updated physics models be added to CA, I am quite certain it could be, but it's not a requirement. They could also keep CA the way it is in terms of vehicle control, but add more detailed versions of the vehicles as separate modules. Given the level of quality and detail that ED has come to be known for, it probably makes sense to spread the development cost out more. But your point is well taken, ED would have to make a move in that direction, and then allow the time for it to happen. Because as far as I can tell, DCS World is really mostly focused on only one of the three forces it is meant to represent.

I think what we have is not that bad, but always room for improvement. Also, it would be nice if there was more variety in explosion types. But it is probably safe to say that looking at an explosion effect from the air will be quite different then viewing it from ground level. The linked video above is a perfect example. Compare the explosion at approximately 1: 01 in the time line to the other 3 views of the same bunker busting bomb exploding. All you see at 1:01 is dust, but viewed from different angles shows a huge fireball. To get a better appreciation of the explosion effects in DCS, setup a ME battle where you view a group of ground targets at ground level being hit with various weapons from both ground and air units.

I hear you Rudel, and get your point. I was just stating my own preference and opinion on the issue. I certainly get how 12 years ago static crew and low res maps were acceptable for a combat simulator that was completely focused on flight simulation. But I also get how after 12+ years of innovation and improvement the community in general wants more realism. I even get how you might not take notice of improved dynamic Ai ground units while enjoying your BVR dogfight, but to the guys/gals fighting in rotary winged aircraft/armored vehicles, animated ground crew/improved Ai on your air base where you have them up close is exactly the same thing as the ground units they are trying to engage. I completely get and understand the point you are raising BIGNEWY, and that is why even though I often point to the need for improved Ai/ground/naval units, I would never use it as a reason to stop supporting ED and DCS World. I am more than happy when we receive any and all assets, especially when they incorporate the level of quality and detail associated with the DCS brand. And if that means not including the animated crew with the initial release helps speed up the release, then so be it. But I would be a lot more happier if I knew the animated crew would eventually be added. So in my books at least, ED is the clear winner in the combat simulation space even if the waiting gets painful at times.