YO HIP, thanks for the video. I don't need to search and check for nothing, you make my life so easy in regards of DCS. I don't even exit the game, just place your videos on 1 monitor and continue to fly, that's how you guys improved my flights.
topic for ground vehicles - honestly, I don't think anyone expects a full on GHPC ground vehicle simulator, but something more than what we have currently with certain vehicles no sounds etc. I absolutely love the util truck with the interior view which is awesome. Just a more well rounded ground play style that will bring it all together, such as better textures for soldiers, possibly just point & shoot, move, shooting position. Improved hit boxes and damage models for soldiers and vehicles. Blast Radius. Better explosions, deflections on tank shots, sparks for rounds hitting different materials, popping smoke or smoke rounds. I know its a lot but I am just hoping some of these are on there planned or to do list...
The positive attitude you share is one of the main reasons I am coming back time and time again to watch your videos. Not to forget the good and well presented information you provide. Thank you and keep the news coming 😊 I personally would absolutely appreciate a more-in-depth combined arms module. It is so much fun and really turns the theatre into a battle zone. Also hope that there will be some enhancements in cargo and troop deploying systems. Would love to strengthen the own coalitions frontline with ground assets shipped by the herc. Would be awesome.
Years Ahead in DCS can be a life time away. It is kind of odd to even talk about it when something is that far away. Thanks HIP it is another Great Video, Love your work.
Ok HIP not to suck up to much but I just placed my order for a Pimax and a set of lenses using your codes. Figured if some one was going to get the credit it should be you guys.
I'd be allready happy to not have infantry and vehicles walk through walls and buildings! This would help a lot while making missions including moving ground units inside cities! Very necessary now with all the choppers playable!
it also could very much benefit from a more modern aircraft. you have the jf-17, but the next full fedelety jet aircraft would, right now, be the mig-21. you do have a mig-29A planned, wich is nice for cold war, but very little to fight head to head with the f-16/18, eurofighter and F-35 in the works, as far as i know.
well apart from some shots, nothing new so we cannot cover new shots apart from what their video already did. I want more news on that soon but Heatblur's PR remains silent
Ironically the history of ground units in combat flight sims, especially multiplayer ones, goes all the way back to nearly the start. Air Warrior, in it's original setup on DOS over pre-AOL internet connections (back when it was pay by the HOUR to play online, at 15$ too!) had jeeps, T-34s, Shermans, Wirbles and I think Panzer IVs. That lineage of flight sim went from Air Warrior to Warbirds to Aces High, the last of which is still in existence. If very much on it's last legs. Sadly. DCS Multiplayer could learn a lot from the mid 90s/early 2000s multiplayer combat flight sims, though there's little we could actually do with that info player side unless we got a custom map making tool.
DCS could also learn a lot from some older sims.... DI Tornado with a round-based campaign, excellent mission planner, a lot of game elements working together. Jet pilot was alos a great sim, as was F-29 (stealth-o-meter, maybe not realistic, but FUN!) Don't get me wrong: DCS is fantastic, but I think it could be much more fun.
I can not remember the last time I encountered someone who even knew what Air Warrior was yet alone clearly played it. Such fond memories of my days in AW as 30mm on the Pacific Theatre flying the Nik-2J.
@@MichaelMoellerTRLInc I was a bit young, to be fair. I got it on a fighter combat collection disk set (which, ironically enough, also came with dos flanker.). I was enamoured with warbirds and fighter ace as a 8 to 14 year old, but never could quite talk my parents into paying the, by then, 15$/month to play online. Fast forward to 2006 and I rediscovered the main three at the time. Got a month or so of warbirds, a month or so of fighter ace. Then spent 2006 to about 2013 on and off on Aces High with about half a dozen handles, because perks never meant anything to me. I stand by that the formula of gameplay those games had is what we're actually seeking in DCS multiplayer just no one remembers it. 4ya offers something sort of close to it, though I have to wonder if they even realize they do.
We might not get an ARMA fps type of game but it would be great if we could have an ARMA form of mission editor where we could edit in the game engine. It would make placement of units and props much more accurate. For instance not placing units near buildings only to find then stuck in the corner. Setting out FOB’s and FARP’s by placing barriers and walls closely together without doing it in the current editor, saving, going into game and checking and then exiting to correct it if it’s wrong. I thinks ARMA’s method of scenario making in some ways is far superior to DCS in this matter. Perhaps a mix of both editors to compliment each other is a way to go if not to difficult.
I hope all thw new maps are built to be stitched together as high fidelity areas for a hypothetical world map. Id think thats what theyre planning by focusing so heavily on maps vs core features. But it may just be money, which also worries me
As much as the F-35 felt like a little bit of a slap in the face considering their past statements (and 2026? LMAO), I know Eagle Dynamics will get a huge cash injection from it. As a business, a module like that is a no brainer. DCS player growth is a good thing. More customers/purchases means more money for the stuff that doesn't make money. Take the suspension and tire modeling, for instance. The way aircraft interact with the ground during taxi, takeoff, and landing impacts how an aircraft feels, yet doesn't sound sexy in a newsletter. Combined Arms may be a joke now, but anyone who's messed with it can see the potential. Upgrading Caucasus and the SU-25T needs to be a higher priority though, as new players need to be wowed immediately, not just after they open their wallets. Side note - You're doing a decent job with the algorithm; seems like you're popping up on my feed pretty consistently.
I haven’t checked in on Dcs in a bit and I am wondering what’s happened: Does a pacific ww2 exist yet? Why are they making Vietnam modules with no terrain? What are the modules that are confirmed in the works?
As ED won't do it, could you start up your interviews with 3rd party devs regarding their upcoming modules? I'm most interested in the Tornado and the A-7E Corsair II - thanks, in advance
Totally agree. Korea would be an excelent idea. The warbirds fit in , The upcoming WW2 carrier aircraft....The Cold War planes and the more modern ones too for a more modern conflict. In fact i think everything fits. Makes much more sense to me than Vietnam or a SE Asia map, but then again i'm sure our Friends from The US would disagree!! Anyway....to have a dynamic Campaign in DCS in Korea...
I don’t know if you’ve seen the wags Q&A, but he was saying they have a massive team working on core DCS, so I imagine it’s just one of those things that needs doing to add to the realism. And I don’t thing they’re short on Dev time lol, apprently there are loads of them.
@Addexetti I bet, but there's so much work that should have higher priority for the core than making suspension %3 more realistic. Tangible things, things people would actually notice
I would believe ED pushes quick to do things out first or whatever gets done faster and easier or this was one of the things that one of the sub teams in core team got done, you think it’s „3% more realistic“ but we don’t know what this might be required for as in prerequisite feature. We already had a prototype of this feature with the mosquito like few years ago and now we are getting expansion of it to other planes. It’s not like ED is only working on this and all however many hundreds of employees of ED are focused on making tires realistic. Again sure you can say they have a bad priorities but we simply don’t know what this might be required for, maybe improving Ai‘s landing logic. It is one of the core improvement, people just can’t stop complaining about what is being done.
@@SDR_Alt there's no way you actually believe that. You know what actually would effect future major core features? Ai flight models to name the biggest one. There hasn't been a single change to that since LOMAC and you're telling me modeling the air pressure inside a tire more accurately is a higher priority? No.
The world map is very ambitious, I wonder if they're going to do something similar to microsoft flight sim where its generated from current available data instead of hand crafting it all.
Caucasus map should be updated long time ago, i understand that they want to push people into buying new maps, but Caucasus is their "flag" map and it looks like sh*t...
Are there any news on Vulkan? Despite my beefy system of 7950x3d and RTX 4090, the game only runs okayisch. I get my 90 FPS on the G2, but have must stuff to low, medium visib. range and reduced pixel density to 0.9 (far superior image quality over DLSS and upscaling). I'm not really interesting in replacing this hardware right now (which becomes doable next month, but at a bad value).
We need a SE asia, or Korean War map. ED,:"Okay, here is your Cold War Germany map". We need a ground ATC with ground crew and all. ED: "Here your C130 cargo module" Where is rhe promised AI for rhe Mosquito crew?. ED: "Ah, I heard you want an improvement in multiplayer?. Here you have it" Are you going to solve the issue with Razbam?. ED : "We are always listening to the customer. This the very limited unrealistic F35. Enjoy it"
How close am I to the truth if I assume that the transition to the Vulkan API is related to the problems surrounding Razban, in the sense that the transition to the Vulkan API would require the work of external developers (who could be Razban, but who knows, who else besides Razban they have a dispute with in the background) who are currently unwilling to do the work? Sorry for the Vulkan buzz, for me it is basically a transition to long-term technological foundations, and the FF MIG-29 is the main point of the current developments.
Well it could be that...or it could be Aliens 👽 (You get my point?) Respectfully, I cannot say as this subject awaits further knowledge from both parties, and even so, if we get info, we still have to know what will happen with the modules? Thanks for the comment, its a good point 👉 but have no clue, really
Sad were be no Mig 23 ....and other maduals.... as well i am worry about Mig-19,F-15E ,and of course Mirage what would happen to them sense Razbam stop work whit ED ....
Nah. I don't see a word map or a dynamic campaign. The last question in the Q&A video is the most important question. He said there would be no engine upgrade. So that means a the world map would need to be on your PC. I don't believe an M.2 has been made that will hold a word map. And a dynamic campaign with current engine limitations would need 100s of gigs of ram to run. Just drop 4 105s on a pump server and watch stutter hit everyone on the server.
There are bazillions of trivial fixes for bugs ED introduces with their updates, even on their own modules. There is no prerequisite besides their prioritization. The rest are excuses. Or prioritization. Definitely not prerequisites. 🙂
I love flying my planes in DCS but I think it would greatly benefit ED to implement high fidelity ground soldier playability. Let’s face it, DCS doesn’t exactly have money and they need players. Having ground battles like Arma and or Gunner Heat PC would bring more players. Heck the F-35 is coming so I don’t want to hear that FPS wouldn’t fit the game.
Its an AI only asset, made by Heatblur - was covered in multiple videos from us, and now we got another view, still from afar with no texture work being showcase or any extra information. Its nice to see it but sadly not much to be said
How about quadrupling the team working on the Dynamic Campaign instead. Far more important than anything else they are working on. I'd pay full price for that one...just get it done!
80% of the world? Honestly why not just do the whole thing at that point? Maybe the system they’re using for texture/height maps doesn’t work close to the poles
@ Maybe Antarctica you can leave but a hypothetical WWIII between the US and Russia (a scenario many might want to simulate in DCS) would have a lot of action over the arctic
The F-35 reveal was perplexing to say the least. The only way it makes sense is if it's some down stream benefit from development for air forces that fly the F-35 and use simulation for training that ED provided some services for. Giving CA the same VR experience as the aircraft would be one of the best things ED could do for DCS. I can hardly wait for the endless armor penetration values debates that will follow if we get this. It seems clear that we can't have a world map if we still can't do SE Asia. I guess Speed Tree can only get them so far, maybe they need something like Unreals Nanite to have their game rendering engine handle doing proper triple canopies without requiring an RTX5090 with frame gen 4 to get 28fps...F-15C full fidelity is ok but sorta yawn. Just give us the A-6 and flesh out the cold war period, that should be where their focus should be now.
As a former Abrams driver/loader, i need a full fidelity multi crew Abrams
That's what I'm most looking forward to, I've been getting into CA big time on the Greyflag servers and I'd LOVE that.
Steel Beast
@infantryski11b64 played it, it's pretty good
Like over 10 years ago the ED was collecting data about T-72. There used to be never whispered announcement of development DCS:T-72
ED should buy GHPC and implement that into DCS
YO HIP, thanks for the video. I don't need to search and check for nothing, you make my life so easy in regards of DCS. I don't even exit the game, just place your videos on 1 monitor and continue to fly, that's how you guys improved my flights.
Glad you like it! Thanks
topic for ground vehicles - honestly, I don't think anyone expects a full on GHPC ground vehicle simulator, but something more than what we have currently with certain vehicles no sounds etc. I absolutely love the util truck with the interior view which is awesome. Just a more well rounded ground play style that will bring it all together, such as better textures for soldiers, possibly just point & shoot, move, shooting position. Improved hit boxes and damage models for soldiers and vehicles. Blast Radius. Better explosions, deflections on tank shots, sparks for rounds hitting different materials, popping smoke or smoke rounds. I know its a lot but I am just hoping some of these are on there planned or to do list...
Have a great trip to Egypt. I have ALWAYS wanted to go there! That might be a fun video, too...!
The positive attitude you share is one of the main reasons I am coming back time and time again to watch your videos. Not to forget the good and well presented information you provide.
Thank you and keep the news coming 😊
I personally would absolutely appreciate a more-in-depth combined arms module. It is so much fun and really turns the theatre into a battle zone. Also hope that there will be some enhancements in cargo and troop deploying systems. Would love to strengthen the own coalitions frontline with ground assets shipped by the herc. Would be awesome.
Years Ahead in DCS can be a life time away. It is kind of odd to even talk about it when something is that far away. Thanks HIP it is another Great Video, Love your work.
Let's hope ED listen to the players and release the F-15C with a mid 80s version for the cold war map.
@@AdastraRecordings we already have that in the game
F-15C Multi-Stage Improvement Program (MISP) II as operated by the US Air Force in the early 2000s
@@levibailey6256 not FF we don't.
@@Runandgun13 minus the mid 2000s data link systems would be mid 80s only the stick would be slightly different.
@@AdastraRecordings use the clickable cockpit mod bam there you go
Ok HIP not to suck up to much but I just placed my order for a Pimax and a set of lenses using your codes. Figured if some one was going to get the credit it should be you guys.
I am grateful for your support 🙏 Really! Thank you so much dear Mike. Best regards to you. I am humbled by your kind gesture 😊
I'm excited! What a time to be alive!
Thanks AC, another great update!
Everything is years away! 🙄 Specifically, two weeks! 😃
I'd be allready happy to not have infantry and vehicles walk through walls and buildings! This would help a lot while making missions including moving ground units inside cities! Very necessary now with all the choppers playable!
Good vacation in Egypt ! Good memories for me I lived in Egypt for 3 years ! Enjoy /
Excellent news, looking forward for maps update!
Redfor needs more support
That's like saying H*tler was a bit naughty.
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN RIGHT !
it also could very much benefit from a more modern aircraft. you have the jf-17, but the next full fedelety jet aircraft would, right now, be the mig-21. you do have a mig-29A planned, wich is nice for cold war, but very little to fight head to head with the f-16/18, eurofighter and F-35 in the works, as far as i know.
Unfortunately Putin has restrictions on his stuff although they're not that sensitive in information.
And today on "stuff people have been saying for over 6 years"
i´d love to get some news on the eurofighter, speculation reaches from "some time in the sommer" to "IN TE FUTURE"™
well apart from some shots, nothing new so we cannot cover new shots apart from what their video already did. I want more news on that soon but Heatblur's PR remains silent
Ironically the history of ground units in combat flight sims, especially multiplayer ones, goes all the way back to nearly the start. Air Warrior, in it's original setup on DOS over pre-AOL internet connections (back when it was pay by the HOUR to play online, at 15$ too!) had jeeps, T-34s, Shermans, Wirbles and I think Panzer IVs. That lineage of flight sim went from Air Warrior to Warbirds to Aces High, the last of which is still in existence. If very much on it's last legs. Sadly.
DCS Multiplayer could learn a lot from the mid 90s/early 2000s multiplayer combat flight sims, though there's little we could actually do with that info player side unless we got a custom map making tool.
DCS could also learn a lot from some older sims.... DI Tornado with a round-based campaign, excellent mission planner, a lot of game elements working together.
Jet pilot was alos a great sim, as was F-29 (stealth-o-meter, maybe not realistic, but FUN!)
Don't get me wrong: DCS is fantastic, but I think it could be much more fun.
I can not remember the last time I encountered someone who even knew what Air Warrior was yet alone clearly played it. Such fond memories of my days in AW as 30mm on the Pacific Theatre flying the Nik-2J.
@@MichaelMoellerTRLInc I was a bit young, to be fair. I got it on a fighter combat collection disk set (which, ironically enough, also came with dos flanker.).
I was enamoured with warbirds and fighter ace as a 8 to 14 year old, but never could quite talk my parents into paying the, by then, 15$/month to play online.
Fast forward to 2006 and I rediscovered the main three at the time. Got a month or so of warbirds, a month or so of fighter ace. Then spent 2006 to about 2013 on and off on Aces High with about half a dozen handles, because perks never meant anything to me.
I stand by that the formula of gameplay those games had is what we're actually seeking in DCS multiplayer just no one remembers it. 4ya offers something sort of close to it, though I have to wonder if they even realize they do.
We might not get an ARMA fps type of game but it would be great if we could have an ARMA form of mission editor where we could edit in the game engine. It would make placement of units and props much more accurate. For instance not placing units near buildings only to find then stuck in the corner. Setting out FOB’s and FARP’s by placing barriers and walls closely together without doing it in the current editor, saving, going into game and checking and then exiting to correct it if it’s wrong. I thinks ARMA’s method of scenario making in some ways is far superior to DCS in this matter. Perhaps a mix of both editors to compliment each other is a way to go if not to difficult.
I hope all thw new maps are built to be stitched together as high fidelity areas for a hypothetical world map. Id think thats what theyre planning by focusing so heavily on maps vs core features. But it may just be money, which also worries me
th-cam.com/video/5U944GIp9u8/w-d-xo.html
sounds like they might be completely seperate and years off. lots of map info around 11:00 on.
As much as the F-35 felt like a little bit of a slap in the face considering their past statements (and 2026? LMAO), I know Eagle Dynamics will get a huge cash injection from it. As a business, a module like that is a no brainer. DCS player growth is a good thing. More customers/purchases means more money for the stuff that doesn't make money. Take the suspension and tire modeling, for instance. The way aircraft interact with the ground during taxi, takeoff, and landing impacts how an aircraft feels, yet doesn't sound sexy in a newsletter. Combined Arms may be a joke now, but anyone who's messed with it can see the potential. Upgrading Caucasus and the SU-25T needs to be a higher priority though, as new players need to be wowed immediately, not just after they open their wallets.
Side note - You're doing a decent job with the algorithm; seems like you're popping up on my feed pretty consistently.
"Yeah! Tires with suspension! I talked about this 15 years ago. ) When are they planning to implement it?
I haven’t checked in on Dcs in a bit and I am wondering what’s happened:
Does a pacific ww2 exist yet?
Why are they making Vietnam modules with no terrain?
What are the modules that are confirmed in the works?
As ED won't do it, could you start up your interviews with 3rd party devs regarding their upcoming modules? I'm most interested in the Tornado and the A-7E Corsair II - thanks, in advance
Always trying to do so, but its not as easy as you would think sadly. They are reticent to join sometimes
I'm not interested in a Vietnam map. Though, with the planes available and in the pipeline, it does make sense. Korea would be pretty great.
Totally agree. Korea would be an excelent idea. The warbirds fit in , The upcoming WW2 carrier aircraft....The Cold War planes and the more modern ones too for a more modern conflict. In fact i think everything fits. Makes much more sense to me than Vietnam or a SE Asia map, but then again i'm sure our Friends from The US would disagree!! Anyway....to have a dynamic Campaign in DCS in Korea...
I dont know a single person that was complaining about landing gear suspension physics. ED absolutely sucks at managing dev time/priorities.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the wags Q&A, but he was saying they have a massive team working on core DCS, so I imagine it’s just one of those things that needs doing to add to the realism. And I don’t thing they’re short on Dev time lol, apprently there are loads of them.
@Addexetti I bet, but there's so much work that should have higher priority for the core than making suspension %3 more realistic. Tangible things, things people would actually notice
@@Generic_Name_1-1 **cough** AI flight model **cough**
I would believe ED pushes quick to do things out first or whatever gets done faster and easier or this was one of the things that one of the sub teams in core team got done, you think it’s „3% more realistic“ but we don’t know what this might be required for as in prerequisite feature. We already had a prototype of this feature with the mosquito like few years ago and now we are getting expansion of it to other planes. It’s not like ED is only working on this and all however many hundreds of employees of ED are focused on making tires realistic. Again sure you can say they have a bad priorities but we simply don’t know what this might be required for, maybe improving Ai‘s landing logic. It is one of the core improvement, people just can’t stop complaining about what is being done.
@@SDR_Alt there's no way you actually believe that. You know what actually would effect future major core features? Ai flight models to name the biggest one. There hasn't been a single change to that since LOMAC and you're telling me modeling the air pressure inside a tire more accurately is a higher priority? No.
How about drivable AAA and SAM's in multiplayer? I'd love that in WWII with the Bofors etc.
I do hope that we get Arma style ground combat one day. Means we get the best of both worlds
Well sorry to disappoint you but there is no plan for it, more like some Armored Warfare and that's it. At least not for now
The world map is very ambitious, I wonder if they're going to do something similar to microsoft flight sim where its generated from current available data instead of hand crafting it all.
A6 and A7 would be cool
As a dad the feature I want the most is a SAVE button.
It's coming, but the real question, is it coming soon enough?
JTAC and JFO's need to be easier to set up in the mission editor
Infantry that don’t slide around would be cool. But all I really want is dynamic campaign 😢
Caucasus map should be updated long time ago, i understand that they want to push people into buying new maps, but Caucasus is their "flag" map and it looks like sh*t...
They have to constantly sell new modules/maps to not end up broke and dysfuntional. Their own words btw..
There are options, i downloaded a great Caucuses upgrade mod that makes it look really good.
@@therocinante3443yeah but that doesn't give access to the north or south of the black sea. Only the east side is usable
Are there any news on Vulkan? Despite my beefy system of 7950x3d and RTX 4090, the game only runs okayisch. I get my 90 FPS on the G2, but have must stuff to low, medium visib. range and reduced pixel density to 0.9 (far superior image quality over DLSS and upscaling). I'm not really interesting in replacing this hardware right now (which becomes doable next month, but at a bad value).
They need player soldier slots to ride in aircraft, laser, communicate, fire guns and rockets at tanks
We need a SE asia, or Korean War map. ED,:"Okay, here is your Cold War Germany map".
We need a ground ATC with ground crew and all. ED: "Here your C130 cargo module"
Where is rhe promised AI for rhe Mosquito crew?. ED: "Ah, I heard you want an improvement in multiplayer?. Here you have it"
Are you going to solve the issue with Razbam?. ED : "We are always listening to the customer. This the very limited unrealistic F35. Enjoy it"
Nah. Germany is the right idea. It could be used for cold war or WW2 missions. That's a good choice.
How come some modules are 5+ years old and still unfinished? .... Sssshhhhhh here's some fog. 🤣
Who ever siad F-35 is going to be unrealistic?
How close am I to the truth if I assume that the transition to the Vulkan API is related to the problems surrounding Razban, in the sense that the transition to the Vulkan API would require the work of external developers (who could be Razban, but who knows, who else besides Razban they have a dispute with in the background) who are currently unwilling to do the work?
Sorry for the Vulkan buzz, for me it is basically a transition to long-term technological foundations, and the FF MIG-29 is the main point of the current developments.
Well it could be that...or it could be Aliens 👽 (You get my point?) Respectfully, I cannot say as this subject awaits further knowledge from both parties, and even so, if we get info, we still have to know what will happen with the modules? Thanks for the comment, its a good point 👉 but have no clue, really
@@hipgames Really, I didn't think of that. Aliens. That explains EVERYTHING. 🖖😉
Sad were be no Mig 23 ....and other maduals....
as well i am worry about Mig-19,F-15E ,and of course Mirage what would happen to them sense Razbam stop work whit ED ....
So I guess a world map could lead to a SR-71?
Days without asking “F-14B(U) when?”
0
when they come out and do a statement :)
:(
I’d rather have a Korean Peninsula map than Vietnam unless the map is gigantic enough to cover both.
I really hope we get the Dynamic campaign as DCS is very boring.
Nah. I don't see a word map or a dynamic campaign. The last question in the Q&A video is the most important question. He said there would be no engine upgrade. So that means a the world map would need to be on your PC. I don't believe an M.2 has been made that will hold a word map. And a dynamic campaign with current engine limitations would need 100s of gigs of ram to run. Just drop 4 105s on a pump server and watch stutter hit everyone on the server.
There are bazillions of trivial fixes for bugs ED introduces with their updates, even on their own modules. There is no prerequisite besides their prioritization. The rest are excuses. Or prioritization. Definitely not prerequisites. 🙂
So whats more overpowered than the f35, hip? Still no update lol
I love flying my planes in DCS but I think it would greatly benefit ED to implement high fidelity ground soldier playability. Let’s face it, DCS doesn’t exactly have money and they need players. Having ground battles like Arma and or Gunner Heat PC would bring more players. Heck the F-35 is coming so I don’t want to hear that FPS wouldn’t fit the game.
No one said nothing about the Draken 1:07
Its an AI only asset, made by Heatblur - was covered in multiple videos from us, and now we got another view, still from afar with no texture work being showcase or any extra information. Its nice to see it but sadly not much to be said
it will not be a FF module, only Ai.
An hour of chatter and no news f35
Poor boy
An hour? Uau, how did that happen? I thought our videos were always around the 10 min mark...
1:07 J-35 :)
How about quadrupling the team working on the Dynamic Campaign instead. Far more important than anything else they are working on. I'd pay full price for that one...just get it done!
WAHT IS WITH THE EUROFIGHTER?!😭 You didn't say a word about him
Nothing to say, sadly! I know... you saw the video and that's it. When we get more info, its the first thing we report ;)
I'm somewhat less excited for Cold War Germany, given that the MiG-23 that would've been right at home there. RIP. :(
80% of the world? Honestly why not just do the whole thing at that point? Maybe the system they’re using for texture/height maps doesn’t work close to the poles
Because why would you want the pole regions?
@ Maybe Antarctica you can leave but a hypothetical WWIII between the US and Russia (a scenario many might want to simulate in DCS) would have a lot of action over the arctic
It covers 80% of the Earth's surface: the areas of Earth covered by water + the current high-resolution areas. :)
@@hybrid_grizzly Fair point
I second that
The F-35 reveal was perplexing to say the least. The only way it makes sense is if it's some down stream benefit from development for air forces that fly the F-35 and use simulation for training that ED provided some services for. Giving CA the same VR experience as the aircraft would be one of the best things ED could do for DCS. I can hardly wait for the endless armor penetration values debates that will follow if we get this. It seems clear that we can't have a world map if we still can't do SE Asia. I guess Speed Tree can only get them so far, maybe they need something like Unreals Nanite to have their game rendering engine handle doing proper triple canopies without requiring an RTX5090 with frame gen 4 to get 28fps...F-15C full fidelity is ok but sorta yawn. Just give us the A-6 and flesh out the cold war period, that should be where their focus should be now.
I think we need more Bug fixes...
We will always need more bug fixes
Petrovich
I want Taiwan