Will the CH Infantry pack be added to the core?

[Tom P]

I have been wanting the Javelin to be a in game option for years so figured I would ask here. The additional units would be great as well especially for us low flying pilots

[ASW]

Have you been dreaming of killing Javelinman from an airplane 30mm machine gun for many years?

[Tom P]

13 hours ago, ASW said:

Have you been dreaming of killing Javelinman from an airplane 30mm machine gun for many years?

No, rather have a javelin team knock out ground units from 5k away

[ASW]

2 часа назад, Tom P сказал:

No, rather have a javelin team knock out ground units from 5k away

I understood. You want to be able to transport them as an amphibious force.

[currenthill]

I think ED has mention a couple of times that they are working on their updated infantry. 

[Kappa-06MHR]

On 11/17/2025 at 1:03 PM, currenthill said:

I think ED has mention a couple of times that they are working on their updated infantry. 

That's the problem: the community has been waiting forever for an infantry overhaul.
An overhaul that ED teased as early as 2021 in some newsletters... It's almost 2026, and five years later (!!!), still not a single word about new infantry.

 

 

 

 

To add to the players' frustration, ED has teased on several occasions what looks like a revamped, high-definition infantry system,
such as during the teaser for the Afghanisthan map :

 

We are waiting for too long...
Your infantry is fully functional and perfectly meets the community's expectations. It's a perfect!
There is AT, ATGM, Sniper, transportable mortars, manpads, heavy machine guns....

This is all the community await for years in DCS!

We're not even sure that in its remake, ED will incorporate such a variety of infantry!
It doesn't surprise me that the most frequent request regarding the integration of your mods into the core is about infantry integration.
It's such a crucial point for all helicopter pilots; it's a total game changer.

In my squadron, we have chinook, Huey and Mi-8 that dream about this type of infantry in the core (no mods autorized in a lot of squadrons...)

Edited Friday at 10:33 PM by Kappa-06MHR

[buur]

Missioning infantry makes Helo flying boring. (Or light jets) And yes, we are waiting too long for the new infantry. 

[Tom P]

Lol WTF is that TAPS set up?!?! Who approved of that... 12 mags, 4 grenades(maybe a 5th?), IFAK and a giant GP pouch. That set ups only purpose is to rest your arms on lol. I don't understand the recent hard on for balaclava masks. We don't wear that crap on the ground. Currenthill save us!

[Kappa-06MHR]

16 minutes ago, Tom P said:

Lol WTF is that TAPS set up?!?! Who approved of that... 12 mags, 4 grenades(maybe a 5th?), IFAK and a giant GP pouch. That set ups only purpose is to rest your arms on lol. I don't understand the recent hard on for balaclava masks. We don't wear that crap on the ground. Currenthill save us!

I'm not sure if this model is still relevant.
It was a 2021 presentation.
It might not still be current, or we would have probably already seen it in the game...

[currenthill]

2 hours ago, Tom P said:

Lol WTF is that TAPS set up?!?! Who approved of that... 12 mags, 4 grenades(maybe a 5th?), IFAK and a giant GP pouch. That set ups only purpose is to rest your arms on lol. I don't understand the recent hard on for balaclava masks. We don't wear that crap on the ground. Currenthill save us!

Haha, beware the wide load!

Sorry, but I'm also guilty of using the balaclavas. I do it so I don't have to model different faces, haha.

[Tom P]

"This is a flight simulator, this is a flight simulator." Woooosha. 

Lol

[Kappa-06MHR]

On 11/22/2025 at 4:14 PM, Tom P said:

Lol WTF is that TAPS set up?!?! Who approved of that... 12 mags, 4 grenades(maybe a 5th?), IFAK and a giant GP pouch. That set ups only purpose is to rest your arms on lol. I don't understand the recent hard on for balaclava masks. We don't wear that crap on the ground. Currenthill save us!

I also think that it's a good thing to have models with balaclava masks
Realistic face is extremely hard to make. We're naturally programmed to recognize faces, so we immediately spot an unrealistic one.
It's common to see DCS screenshots that look photorealistic, but usually, if you glimpse a face, it's often a detail that immediately gives away the realism.

With models whose faces are hidden, the photorealism is enhanced, and it makes modding easier, so it suits me perfectly.

I don't understand how ED can release module like Chinook and don't add reworked infantry model...

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

I don't understand how ED can release module like Chinook and don't add reworked infantry model

The infantry work we are doing is a large task and can not be linked to one module, otherwise we would be waiting to long to release modules. We have to sell products to keep development going and to ensure we can continue work on early access modules and things in the core of DCS, like the infantry models. I hope we can share some news with you all soon. 

thank you 

[Kappa-06MHR]

12 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 I hope we can share some news with you all soon. 

I apologize for my impatience, it's just that this is a crucial feature, announced 5 years ago and teasing in some trailers, we're starting to lose hope... Will we get ATGMs, snipers, units as diverse as those of Currenthill? Or only AK / M16 soldiers ? What is the development status? Can we expect to have something by 2026?

 

20 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We have to sell products to keep development going and to ensure we can continue work on early access modules and things in the core of DCS, like the infantry models.

I think this highlights one of the biggest flaws in ED's business model. Modules are released very regularly, but the core evolves far too slowly.
Personally, I don't particularly want to constantly change modules, but I would be willing to "pay" to see the core's development significantly accelerate, because it's the core's features that bring game-changing elements to our everyday gameplay...

For example, every time a map is released, there should at least be countries assets to populate it.
Kola map? -> The Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian armies should be included. Germany map? -> All the Cold War units of the German and French armies should be delivered.
There's too often a discrepancy between the maps produced and the assets delivered, which is precisely why mods like Currenthill's or Dimitriov's Frenchpack are so successful in the community: they fill a content gap. In DCS, there are only two armies that are properly equipped: the US and Russian armies (and even then, for it to be truly accurate, infantry units would be needed).

Deploying versatile infantry is part of a helicopter's core function, this is not a secondary function! As is the ability to perform CSAR missions, on land, on sea... Their development should therefore be a priority, and if time is lacking, then we should turn to third-party developers like Currenthill to integrate this. Five years is the development time for a small game, not for a few 3D assets.

Maybe ED must rethink it's business model to help financing the core independently of the modules

[BIGNEWY]

26 minutes ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

I apologize for my impatience, it's just that this is a crucial feature, announced 5 years ago and teasing in some trailers, we're starting to lose hope... Will we get ATGMs, snipers, units as diverse as those of Currenthill? Or only AK / M16 soldiers ? What is the development status? Can we expect to have something by 2026?

 

I think this highlights one of the biggest flaws in ED's business model. Modules are released very regularly, but the core evolves far too slowly.
Personally, I don't particularly want to constantly change modules, but I would be willing to "pay" to see the core's development significantly accelerate, because it's the core's features that bring game-changing elements to our everyday gameplay...

For example, every time a map is released, there should at least be countries assets to populate it.
Kola map? -> The Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian armies should be included. Germany map? -> All the Cold War units of the German and French armies should be delivered.
There's too often a discrepancy between the maps produced and the assets delivered, which is precisely why mods like Currenthill's or Dimitriov's Frenchpack are so successful in the community: they fill a content gap. In DCS, there are only two armies that are properly equipped: the US and Russian armies (and even then, for it to be truly accurate, infantry units would be needed).

Deploying versatile infantry is part of a helicopter's core function, this is not a secondary function! As is the ability to perform CSAR missions, on land, on sea... Their development should therefore be a priority, and if time is lacking, then we should turn to third-party developers like Currenthill to integrate this. Five years is the development time for a small game, not for a few 3D assets.

Maybe ED must rethink it's business model to help financing the core independently of the modules

We have no plans currently to change the business model, it has ensured our product continued to grow for over 20 years now, while others stopped. Its also a subject that has been discussed many times here on the forum, and will just derail this thread, so lets keep on topic. 

We will share more news about the infantry as soon as we are ready to. 

thank you 

[Czar]

[I deleted my own comment not to derail the thread.]

I'll happy to see more life into units especially ground units any day in DCS. I consider a bit too lean at the moment especially for flying helis.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

I think this highlights one of the biggest flaws in ED's business model. Modules are released very regularly, but the core evolves far too slowly.
Personally, I don't particularly want to constantly change modules, but I would be willing to "pay" to see the core's development significantly accelerate, because it's the core's features that bring game-changing elements to our everyday gameplay...

Let's revisit the tired old argument of paying to upgrade the core... that will never work. To add functionality, you first have to modify the core and create building blocks to see if it's even feasible. And if it is, which means not just spending money, but having skilled engineers to maintain a base, functionality doesn't magically appear. Furthermore, you have to consider whether it's viable and won't break things that were working before.

If you want support weapons, you need infantry first, and it has to be functioning properly. You can't just use a old infantry you've had since the LOMAC era, because that's a waste of time and resources.

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

For example, every time a map is released, there should at least be countries assets to populate it.
Kola map? -> The Swedish, Finnish, and Norwegian armies should be included. Germany map? -> All the Cold War units of the German and French armies should be delivered.
There's too often a discrepancy between the maps produced and the assets delivered, which is precisely why mods like Currenthill's or Dimitriov's Frenchpack are so successful in the community: they fill a content gap. In DCS, there are only two armies that are properly equipped: the US and Russian armies (and even then, for it to be truly accurate, infantry units would be needed).

Let's remember that Germany Cold War (Ugra Media) and Kola (ORBX) are made by third-party developers, who currently don't have dedicated support teams (Ugra Media has told us they will in the future). The only third-party developers with support teams are Magnitude 3, Deka, and Specter Studios, and none of them have created or plan to create infantry.

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

Deploying versatile infantry is part of a helicopter's core function, this is not a secondary function! As is the ability to perform CSAR missions, on land, on sea... Their development should therefore be a priority, and if time is lacking, then we should turn to third-party developers like Currenthill to integrate this. Five years is the development time for a small game, not for a few 3D assets.

As mentioned before, you need to have a functional infantry unit first, and then look at what needs to change for it to function like real infantry. Furthermore, it's not just about "getting on helicopters," it's also about getting in and out of vehicles, or even entering and exiting buildings. Then we'd no longer be talking about an assets team; we'd be talking about needing a team dedicated solely to infantry, because you're not going to leave things half-done.

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

Maybe ED must rethink it's business model to help financing the core independently of the modules

The new infantry units has appears on "2025 and Beyond" video. (1:27/2:13/6:44), and many ones last videos (afghanistan, Cold war germany, etc), No release dates yet.

The ED assets unit team is currently working on such as PTOs or modern units and has planned PTO infantry (no show yet), on modern has show on the previous videos.

Currenthill doesn't have access to the new infantry models that ED is developing because they haven't yet granted access to the API. And no, ED hasn't created "support weapons" yet because, in their view, infantry are still considered "vehicles" in the editor.

The new infantry comes from the work done on the supercarrier deck crew and isn't a copy-paste job; it's adding new functionality from scratch. It also has nothing to do with what was added in CA because it's outdated.

Let's hope ED provides us with a new development report.

Edited Monday at 04:54 PM by Silver_Dragon

[Kappa-06MHR]

3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Currenthill doesn't have access to the new infantry models that ED is developing because they haven't yet granted access to the API. 

What I say is that Currenthill ACTUAL infantry do the work that actually miss in DCS. 
 

Quote

Furthermore, it's not just about "getting on helicopters," it's also about getting in and out of vehicles, or even entering and exiting buildings

Getting in or out vehicule, we already have (virtually, we don't see animation). Of course, it will be cool to have "animations", but it's not so important.
The most important is that infantry is able to survive in the battleshield. For example, placing troops that can do embush, or stoping column with ATGM, antimaterial sniper... What we need is not beautiful animations but functionnal infantry that can be used realistically in warfare.

Infantry that can enter or exiting building is my dream for a decade.  I dream about infantry that can work as in RTS "Wargrame Red Dragon" (for ex), transforming random building in armed house. It will be gamechanger for urban operation. But is it what ED has planed with new infantry ? I never read any news or communications about thoses types of features.
We don't even know what will be so special with the future infantry which justified so many years of waiting. What we saw in trailer are only updated 3D models of the current infantry. We don't know if they can enter building.

 

Quote

Let's remember that Germany Cold War (Ugra Media) and Kola (ORBX) are made by third-party developers, who currently don't have dedicated support teams (Ugra Media has told us they will in the future). The only third-party developers with support teams are Magnitude 3, Deka, and Specter Studios, and none of them have created or plan to create infantry.

I know that Ugra Media, ORBX or OnReTech are making map and not assets, but I think it would make sense from a marketing perspective to anticipate the presence of military units seemingly belonging to the countries featured in upcoming maps. Map development takes time, probably more than making some 3D modeling, so this could be planned for. It's sad to see a map like Kola Map only having assets to populate only the Russian side of the border (and even then, you can't even properly populate Poliarny or Severomorsk due to a lack of naval assets), but on the Finnish or Swedish side, practically no units!

Currenthill helped fill this gap, but mods are banned in most squadrons, so you can't even properly exploit a conflict between the countries involved in the maps. The Sinai map has been out for several years, where are the Egyptians or Israeli assets? Where are the Iranian assets for the Persian Gulf map? Are we forced to populate all our maps with US versus Russian units? Of course, units are being added gradually, but at a pace that's far too slow.

When I talk about changing the funding model, it's simply because I'd like to find a way to develop the DCS core at the same rate as the modules or maps, because let's face it, the progress of recent years hasn't been groundbreaking, and we can't thank Currenthill enough for raising the game's profile with the content he adds!

Funding core development solely through modules seems to result in underinvestment. The core would evolve more if it had its own dedicated funding source. Some people would be willing to "pay" to see the core evolve faster. This is an observation I often make when discussing things with my friends. Rather than paying for yet another module that we might only play for a few hours before giving up, we'd like to be able to invest in evolving the game without having to change our favorite module. We love this game and we want to contribute to the core evolution.

Edited Monday at 07:54 PM by Kappa-06MHR

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

What I say is that Currenthill ACTUAL infantry do the work that actually miss in DCS. 

The Currenthill infantry is a mod, not official ED infantry (if ED approves it, which they haven't done yet, as they haven't approved any infantry for any third-party developers). There's no point in creating it now if you have to rebuild it from scratch tomorrow because ED makes the infantry API available to third-party developers. In the meantime, you're wasting your time. Remember that Currenthill in DCS World is official and requires ED approval.

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

Getting in or out vehicule, we already have (virtually, we don't see animation). Of course, it will be cool to have "animations", but it's not so important.
The most important is that infantry is able to survive in the battleshield. For example, placing troops that can do embush, or stoping column with ATGM, antimaterial sniper... What we need is not beautiful animations but functionnal infantry that can be used realistically in warfare.

Vehicle entry and exit are currently just placebos, and infantry should be physically represented in both vehicles and aircraft/helicopters for damage control purposes (if there's penetration and it hits the troop compartment). And yes, you need entry and exit animations, seated positions, etc., to make it realistic (others have already done this in other simulators), and not just for infantry.

For the infantry to do that, you have to create the entire AI framework so that the infantry behaves like a real one, which means you're going beyond a nice 3D model, and an old model can never do that, either because it lacks animations and all the associated programming.

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

Infantry that can enter or exiting building is my dream for a decade.  I dream about infantry that can work as in RTS "Wargrame Red Dragon" (for ex), transforming random building in armed house. It will be gamechanger for urban operation. But is it what ED has planed with new infantry ? I never read any news or communications about thoses types of features.
We don't even know what will be so special with the future infantry which justified so many years of waiting. What we saw in trailer are only updated 3D models of the current infantry. We don't know if they can enter building.

I'll give a better example, which is Combat Mission, with simulate very well MOUT sceneries. So far, ED hasn't said anything about it, but it should have those animations, because sooner or later (if a ground module appears), you'll need that capability in the infantry, or at least start taking steps in that direction... (it would be a huge undertaking, since it's literally like making a new game).

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

I know that Ugra Media, ORBX or OnReTech are making map and not assets, but I think it would make sense from a marketing perspective to anticipate the presence of military units seemingly belonging to the countries featured in upcoming maps. Map development takes time, probably more than making some 3D modeling, so this could be planned for. It's sad to see a map like Kola Map only having assets to populate only the Russian side of the border (and even then, you can't even properly populate Poliarny or Severomorsk due to a lack of naval assets), but on the Finnish or Swedish side, practically no units!

Understand this: map creators don't create units. The map SDK (TDK) doesn't allow it, and map creators are specialize in working with that tool. To create units, you have to work with the SDK, and for that, you need different people working on creating assets stuff for those maps (something completely different).

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

Currenthill helped fill this gap, but mods are banned in most squadrons, so you can't even properly exploit a conflict between the countries involved in the maps. The Sinai map has been out for several years, where are the Egyptians or Israeli assets? Where are the Iranian assets for the Persian Gulf map? Are we forced to populate all our maps with US versus Russian units? Of course, units are being added gradually, but at a pace that's far too slow.

Currenthill might produce 4-5 units a year (we don't know how long he worked on the first iteration of the pack). Keep in mind that he had to create the Grisha and the Tiger helicopter from scratch, and he's already stated that everything he does for DCS World has to be rebuilt (it's very possible that ED gave him access to the SDK); it's not a simple copy-paste or a way of putting what he does into his mod.

Let's keep in mind that there's another creator who, for the moment, hasn't added any more content to DCS World since its first iteration. And yes, we need more asset creators with turn on more 3rd parties, not just actualy third-party developers forming their own assets teams. The problem is that these assets might have to be paid for because the new creators might want to be compensated for their time and work (Creating AI units is not cheap, and neither are 3D programs), and I say this from experience, because for a while, I made my attempts.

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

When I talk about changing the funding model, it's simply because I'd like to find a way to develop the DCS core at the same rate as the modules or maps, because let's face it, the progress of recent years hasn't been groundbreaking, and we can't thank Currenthill enough for raising the game's profile with the content he adds!

I'm sorry, but we've had some very bad experiences with Kickstarters and similar projects here (RRG Studios WW2, a previous F-35, and others), which ended up bankrupting after making modules... and so on. Now imagine how much it costs to make improvements to the core, which isn't just about needing modelers or coders. You need engineers, and we're talking about a closed system; nobody can quantify how much a feature will cost, much less the initial changes to an engine that nobody has access to... it's unrealistic.

1 hour ago, Kappa-06MHR said:

Funding core development solely through modules seems to result in underinvestment. The core would evolve more if it had its own dedicated funding source. Some people would be willing to "pay" to see the core evolve faster. This is an observation I often make when discussing things with my friends. Rather than paying for yet another module that we might only play for a few hours before giving up, we'd like to be able to invest in evolving the game without having to change our favorite module. We love this game and we want to contribute to the core evolution.

Development doesn't work that way. No matter how many "subscriptions" you offer, you're not going to magically make feature A or B appear. There are too many bottlenecks;  you'll lack engineers, the core won't be ready, and you can't demand "deadlines" because that's unrealistic. This is not the first time this has been discussed, and the same conclusion is always reached.

Development takes time, and this involves a lot of iteration, writing code, trial and error, before achieving something tangible. We wish we had unlimited time, resources, money (Many millions of dollars, because this is very expensive unless you're at the level of a certain space simulator, earning hundreds of millions at year...) and many personal and separate teams...

Edited Monday at 08:51 PM by Silver_Dragon

[BIGNEWY]

We will have to continue to wait for our new infantry to be added, I dont have any date to share currently. As soon as we can share news I will let you all know, I am sure we will have it in a newsletter. 

thank you 

[currenthill]

13 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Understand this: map creators don't create units. The map SDK (TDK) doesn't allow it, and map creators are specialize in working with that tool. To create units, you have to work with the SDK, and for that, you need different people working on creating assets stuff for those maps (something completely different).

Currenthill might produce 4-5 units a year (we don't know how long he worked on the first iteration of the pack). Keep in mind that he had to create the Grisha and the Tiger helicopter from scratch, and he's already stated that everything he does for DCS World has to be rebuilt (it's very possible that ED gave him access to the SDK); it's not a simple copy-paste or a way of putting what he does into his mod.

Let's keep in mind that there's another creator who, for the moment, hasn't added any more content to DCS World since its first iteration. And yes, we need more asset creators with turn on more 3rd parties, not just actualy third-party developers forming their own assets teams. The problem is that these assets might have to be paid for because the new creators might want to be compensated for their time and work (Creating AI units is not cheap, and neither are 3D programs), and I say this from experience, because for a while, I made my attempts.

Hey! Just want to clear a couple of things up. Creating maps and units are different kind of work, but there is nothing stopping a third party from doing both (South Atlantic map + ship assets). You don't need any SDK to produce ground vehicles, ships and other AI assets. 

I can easily produce 4-5 assets a month. The first iteration included over 23 assets and took me less than two months. The reason we don't just take an asset from my mod packs and implement into core is because my mod packs were created without having a fixed set of requirements to meet. Because of this it was quicker for me to redo most of the assets in the first iteration. When I create assets for my mod packs now, I make sure they are very close to the requirements of DCS core assets. And since I source my meshes I need to make sure they come with a suitable license, not all of my mod pack assets have that. It's different to release a non-commercial free of charge mod compared to integrating it into a commercial product.   

[Silver_Dragon]

52 minutes ago, currenthill said:

Hey! Just want to clear a couple of things up. Creating maps and units are different kind of work, but there is nothing stopping a third party from doing both (South Atlantic map + ship assets). You don't need any SDK to produce ground vehicles, ships and other AI assets. 

I can easily produce 4-5 assets a month. The first iteration included over 23 assets and took me less than two months. The reason we don't just take an asset from my mod packs and implement into core is because my mod packs were created without having a fixed set of requirements to meet. Because of this it was quicker for me to redo most of the assets in the first iteration. When I create assets for my mod packs now, I make sure they are very close to the requirements of DCS core assets. And since I source my meshes I need to make sure they come with a suitable license, not all of my mod pack assets have that. It's different to release a non-commercial free of charge mod compared to integrating it into a commercial product.   

Thanks for the comment. @currenthill

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, currenthill said:

I can easily produce 4-5 assets a month. The first iteration included over 23 assets and took me less than two months

Will IRIS-T get a cabin view?

At this moment it appears that Pantsir/Tor M2 do not lock from cabin. 

Also be aware of this: