Jump to content

sergkar

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sergkar

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would rather say, that your context is actually your interpretation. I don't read that condition as clearly stated as you do. I read it more like "the easier part first to get a foot in the door". When this threads circles around certain points of view, then it's because most important parts were already written on the first pages and since then not much changed. A design document is to be written and proposals are to be made. Then there'll be comm with ed and I hope after that we will get an announcement here. I think your point is somewhat clear: you don't want to b
  2. Well, actually that was part of the OP: "These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way
  3. Coming back to the actual topic: what is the current state of the design document and maybe also a possible model submission?
  4. There is also a thread specific for the WWII asset pack: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/259828-why-was-the-assets-pack-not-free/?tab=comments#comment-4564346 Interesting backstory.
  5. Look. I'm not that far from your position. Actually I think that WWII asset pack is not that expensive, but for arguments sake: that whole thread is about that this is simply not true. CA is out now for how long? 8 years? And ground warfare simply lacks almost everything. I have posted above that ED pretty much understands, what is missing and has it in some way on their agenda, but that interview happened now also some years back and CA/ground modelling etc. doesn't seem to enjoy any priority. But maybe 2023 when the choppers are more finalized and those pilots complain.
  6. Did that and replied to it. It's quite further up in the thread. You might have missed those replies. All I'm saying is that it's not as unheard and unthinkable of. As far as I know the chinese asset pack is 3rd party and also somehow integrated into the core.
  7. Actually the modern assets come with the core game, don't they? Or are they part of the CA module?
  8. With binoculars it's free mouse movement.
  9. Well, I read - as I know now - your review, pretty decent one by the way. I stole that idea with the garmin trainer. They also offer quite many of those. Also I've already decided that it's not worth it. I couldn't buy it for other models on steam anyway - and a transfer from ed store to steam is equally impossible.
  10. Not a Viper but "hands on": http://omegataupodcast.net/318-my-flight-with-the-usaf-thunderbirds/
  11. Just to clarify. What you're saying is that the addon for 3rd party modules is also created by those? I read at least from the steam reviews that the addon is also rather unfinished or say not complete implemented. They write about missing parts of maps, no integration of radio and non implemented pages and dysfunctional buttons. I'm not sure how up to date that is because the description says it's still only openbeta, but some say it has been like that since 2017. So it seems rather unlikely that more is going to happen in the next future.
  12. Hello, I understand the module on steam includes Mi8 and Albatros cockpit integration, but the integration for the C 101 seems not to be available there. Is that correct or is it just a wrong description?
  13. That is actually the important point. Asking flight sim enthusiast how they would like better simulated vehicles simply doesn't give the right results. If played in MP someone has to fly the planes and someone has to drive the ground vehicles. Those don't need to be the same gamers. They latter might right now not be interested in DCS and not playing it. That's why it might seem, that there's not much interest.
  14. sergkar

    Arctic Map

    An arctic map would be really great! And yes, going high arctic wouldn't need too many cities to be modeled.
  15. I would, however, like a clear CA roadmap. It seems WWII is getting far more attention. It might be that it's just because they simply got people who are interested. That's why I would say to anybody who wants to invest resources into CA: Go for it! Somebody has to take the first step. For now the fruits are hanging pretty low. As I mentioned the WWII section. I would be interested in WWI!
×
×
  • Create New...