Callsign112

Just read this, and I would definitely buy a B52 module. But in terms of using a survey to answer a point of interest, the questions are usually meant to better understand the targeted demographic, not the person doing the survey. The question related to map size for example might help better understand how DCS World maps affect module sales, and is not necessarily the opinion of the person making the survey.

In a SIM that reaches for a level of detail that even includes things like the smoke effect for engine fire extinguishers on the Mosquito, having static crew not only runs counter to the quality and level of detail DCS World is attempting to achieve, but it also looks terrible and would cheapen the SIM considerably. Even the other well known WWII flight SIM, which is known for its extensive use of static ground units and a much lower quality overall is developing animated infantry. Imagine if the deck crew on the Super Carrier were static! Take that level of detail away from the Super Carrier, and you would take away one of the biggest reason for buying it. With an increasing popularity in rotary winged aircraft that bring the fight closer to the ground, the need for more detailed/modeled ground units is increasing, not decreasing.

I know it has been pointed out a number of times already, but I am highlighting it here again to emphasize the fact that it is easy to get confused with exactly what is and what isn't a CA issue. "Again, this was never the scope of the original CA, but it is and I would like to see it expand even more, saying there is very little to show in 11 years is misinformation in that it wasnt intended to do anymore than the original feature set which was complete at the time of release." I personally really like the CA module, and appreciate the massive potential it holds. I can also appreciate that it continues to be updated. My biggest complaint would be the amount of time it takes, but that is an issue affecting more than just the CA module.

There are others here that don't think so, probably since most of its operational life started after June of 44. But I agree, the Me 262 would be a big hit for DCS WWII and a big boon for DCS World.

I think if you go back and read his posts together you should notice he is essentially saying the same thing. I think everyone agrees we are really limited in what we can recreate if the desire is to be historically accurate. But I don't think the Me 262 would be any more out of place than the I-16 for example.

I don't know about being very expensive for what it is, the problem is that it sees very little in the way of updates/fixes.

In true ED style, I think the answer to your question is.... very little, next to nothing! I would take any and all of the possibilities you listed, the only difference being things got hot in the last two.

Very interesting read, and I have to say I agree completely with the OP. The Cold War era would hold more interest for me in terms of learning jet aircraft if and when I start. And while this thread is centered mostly on the flight aspects of DCS, it would be fair to say that a more lively ground war is missing from all time periods being represented. More Ai assets, especially more capable Ai assets are needed. Maybe a little of both, but something tells me you should maybe brush up on your chopstix eating skills.

I might be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere awhile back that there were assets planned for the WWII Pacific map in addition to what M3LLC was doing. "Some outstanding bugs and improvements for our naval units are also being addressed. We have improved wakes and smoke effects as well as ballast options that in turn change the water line, ship speeds and inertias. Work on collision modeling is also in progress, as well as basic roll characteristics in windy conditions." But in terms of updates for Naval units, the quote from the top of the newsletter you linked says the same thing in a slightly different way. It is interesting to note that there are at least 6 planned improvements to Naval units in those few sentences. Wakes, smoke effects, ballast options, collision model, roll, other enhancements.

The maps and tech packs are what brings the SIM together for me. Have both and wouldn't have it any other way. My recommendation would be to buy the Mosquito and Channel map as a bundle if it is offered during the next sale. Like I have more modules then I can actually find time to learn and fly, so I can now afford to wait for new modules to mature a little before picking them up. The Mosquito being the only WWII item I don't have yet puts it next on the list.

Not sure what your lost about? Are you referring to my comment, or something else? What I think at this point is that DCS WWII will eventually get a great addition in terms of a PTO, and the Corsair will be a big part of that. Totally agree, one has to assume work on the map, module, and assets must be progressing.... but I think its the "when" that is throwing a spanner in the works. Impressed with the level of detail on the model shown though.

Like the contrast the color transition creates. Could that be a hint at something?

You will find the sub forum for the TF-51D inside the DCS World 2.7 forum.

You can never have too many skins for a DCS plane, but I do appreciate the work you guys have to put into making them. Do you have a link to the existing skin? Thanks.

+1... The ground just isn't able to keep up with the cadence of the air war.

That's a classic I can't say I've had the pleasure knowing. For armored vehicles though, if anyone at ED is wondering what their next move should be.... have a look at Gunner Heat PC. For infantry the benchmark would have to be something like MOWAS2/CTA-GOH Ostront. Yeah Yeah +1

Believe me SD, I agree with you completely, and understood your point. That is why I referenced the other game, to give an example of player controllable ground vehicles. We already have plenty of ground units in DCS that we can control through the use of CA. I think it is one of the most impressing list of controllable ground assets on the market today. All they really need to start doing is updating/improving things like power train/suspension, gun/armor, and view ports for the various stations on each vehicle. A lot of this is already modeled in DCS, even if it is just a placeholder at the moment. I have said it before, and I will repeat it here, CA is an incredibly powerful piece of software in the way that it lets the user take control of the game world.

OOOOOOOps! Yeah I get how that comes across, sorry. I think your ambitions are great, but bringing playable infantry to a game that has no framework inplace for it would be like making a new game IMO. I really didn't mean to offend you, but there is an awful lot of trolling in on-line forums. I was actually very impressed with your initial discussion, and wish you success.

I don't see the need either, and doubt that would be a requirement as suggested above. I think we are likely going to continue seeing improvements/updates/fixes to DCS world and all its modules, but whether we see individual modules of ground units is to be seen. I think they could certainly do it successfully, and considering this is how it is done for aircraft, there is no reason to think they won't do it for ground/sea as well. But we will have to wait and see. They could certainly just keep fleshing out CA by adding/improving all the various physics models for ground/sea assets and basically arrive at the same endpoint. In terms of Navy assets, it would be nice to have various stations modeled on ships, but I am also happy with the way we currently view ships in the game world. What I think needs to be addressed more as priority issues would be things like Damage Models, weapons systems, movement control, and of course the number and type of units available. But yeah, all good points so... +1

@Strikesabre98Awesome work! Hey just a thought, with the right Japanese skin, you could increase the usefulness of the Yak 52 when the WWII Marianas is released. If I had any talent at making skins, I would have done this myself, but since I don't I all I can do is ask.

Yeah this shouldn't be too big of an ask considering the JTAC feature that is already in-game. It would be nice to see them make CA more WWII friendly as well. Using binoculars in WWII should be more representative of the time period, and the JTAC feature should be more in line with a forward observer type role, at least for WWII.

Couldn't agree more with land/sea based modules and the need for dedicated teams that can get more accomplished then fixes/updates. Shouldn't require making a whole new game from scratch though. Think of another WWII flight game that only had planes little more than 2 years ago. Today they have player controlled tanks. But in the case of DCS, there is actually 2 ways they could go with this. They could just keep adding more functionality to CA with each update, or make individual modules as add-ons. Personally, one of the main attractions to CA for me is the number of vehicles it includes, so I wouldn't mind seeing the improvements added to CA, but I would also very much support the addition of individual modules.

Yeah I hear you, but I think there must be a sort of lost-in-translation thing going on here. I think it is obvious that the OP is either trolling, or has very unrealistic expectations. If you go back and read the posts, it should be clear that the OP isn't talking about a mod, he seems to be talking more about the desire to create a whole new game/SIM.

+1, but what I find even worse for mission building is the shooting through forests/hedgerow thing. Its one thing when you have LOS, but trying to get the Ai to play nice when they don't have LOS is another. Makes it really hard to coordinate realistic engagements. If you have the WWII Assets pack, making realistic armor battles on Normandy can be challenging,... but fun!

Well sometimes the roads less traveled are the most scenic.... I thought bringing playable infantry to DCS was a really nice touch though.... Good luck!