Jump to content

Yet again... a Dynamic Campaign


falcon_120
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is not just another cry asking for a dynamic campaign engine. Since Wags in one of the latest interviews at the end of 2017 confirmed that ED had plans in this direction. This is more begging that once and for all DCS embrace the DC as a top priority. You can charge it as a new module and even one of the most expensive ones, but please start putting this in the first place on the to do list after the hornet.

 

I love new planes but i cannot really enjoy them the way i wished. I need something dynamic, encrypted missions are too boring for me. I would love so much to start hearing developments updates on this front...

 

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153020 have a go at this.

 

Do not expect Falcon 4.0 levels of dynamic war in DCS, it is not suited for it. The way DCS is built precludes having that many active units. Having a densely populated mission already brings the beefiest of computers to their knees, sniveling for mercy!

 

Making it work like F4, with a bubble of decreasing unit abstraction around the player position would take a ginormous effort that would entail a complete rewrite of DCS. And that just is not feasible.

 

What is realistic to expect is ED coding in more hooks and triggers to allow mission states to carry over to a metagame, which would allow for example a bombed bridge to stay bombed for a mission or two and so on. This could in theory make for some pretty engaging gameplay with the user planning and executing missions generated by the game in order to bring about strategic goals. That in itself would be pretty frakking awesome imo.

I5 9600KF, 32GB, 1070, CV1, PointCTRL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is another cry, but so what, the more, the louder, the better!!

 

Never flown Falcon 4 so I dont know what the levels of Dynamics are but all I can say is I do not feel part of anything in DCS (Single Player only, I dont want to play MP).

 

It needs to have AI pilots who gain experience and who can help support newer pilots when you are building your squadron strength, the ability to switch to which ever aircraft mission you want (providing you have the module) and it needs an inventory of pilots, aircraft and ground forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153020 have a go at this.

 

Do not expect Falcon 4.0 levels of dynamic war in DCS, it is not suited for it. The way DCS is built precludes having that many active units. Having a densely populated mission already brings the beefiest of computers to their knees, sniveling for mercy!

 

Making it work like F4, with a bubble of decreasing unit abstraction around the player position would take a ginormous effort that would entail a complete rewrite of DCS. And that just is not feasible.

 

What is realistic to expect is ED coding in more hooks and triggers to allow mission states to carry over to a metagame, which would allow for example a bombed bridge to stay bombed for a mission or two and so on. This could in theory make for some pretty engaging gameplay with the user planning and executing missions generated by the game in order to bring about strategic goals. That in itself would be pretty frakking awesome imo.

Yes i was aware of this, and though it is great, it shows that the potential is there for an in-house effort. If MBOT has achieved this from the current engine, you just can imagine the possibilities.

 

I dont expect a total war with 10.000 units on the ground and 500 planes likes in falcon, but something downscaled from that and dynamic is certainly possible. If they do this they will write the code from scratch but what is the problem? They can charge for that, the same way they do when they develop something as complex as the hornet.

 

At the end is the only big thing missing in DCS (also they are planning to add vulkan support which will increase performance, that will help with more units per mission)

 

 

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gimme HALF of what D.I.D. did in the 90's and I am happy !

 

It's all about Dynamic and I don't get why this has been excluded ever since, it's the bones & flesh of any Military FlightSim imho

Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 3x 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gimme HALF of what D.I.D. did in the 90's and I am happy !

 

It's all about Dynamic and I don't get why this has been excluded ever since, it's the bones & flesh of any Military FlightSim imho

 

I cannot agree more, Tornado had me hooked for years because of that fantastic dynamic campaign. My only reservation is my real life may suffer and family may not be pleased if we get such a compelling reson to just do one more mission tonight, then just one more and all of a sudden it's midnight and i have to work tomorrow.....


Edited by Rangi
Spellink

PC:

 

6600K @ 4.5 GHz, 12GB RAM, GTX 970, 32" 2K monitor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a dynamic campaign "engine" or "tools" (whatever name you prefer) behind a paywall, let alone a high paywall, has some issues regarding community, multiplayer servers and new players.

 

To actually use said system would require it to be owned by all who use it in a server. Because most people in the DCS community would arguably want more dynamic gameplay over anything else I see the most interesting servers using this system. What this entails is another module in the way of properly enjoying your modules

 

This is no problem for us already fully invested, but from the perspective of a new consumer this is horrible practice. I know of a few guys in our group that came to see if DCS would interest them. If the abovementioned was true then that would practically force them to buy the "dynamic gameplay module" to fly the missions that would ultimately be the ultimate catch...

 

So such a business model would basically gate away the most important content behind a paywall , splitting most of the community from the beginners somewhat.

 

 

I don't think it is the same thing as flyable modules, since none of those are required to play so long as a mission has the Su-25T in it.

 

Problem of course is that the system has to be sustainable through developement which either means it is made "on the side", or actually focused on and paid directly as a module...

 

 

I am unsure which is the correct way to approach this, but I would be hesitant just saying everyone would be willing to pay for content that is in many ways the missing core of a campaign system. Then again ED has given us an enourmous amount of content for free already.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's where the big divide between singleplayers and multiplayers rears its ugly head again: To code for one player's dynamic missions is one thing. To do it for sixteen all at once all over the map, all over the world... that's different.

 

Also, for singleplayers, its no big deal to plunk down a couple bills to get the goods. We are used to it and its fair. For multiplayers on the other hand the problem of getting everybody to buy it is a real one. splitting the community indeed.

 

I think the solution lies in lowered expectations. Let's not look for anything even remotely like Falcon 4.0. Let's not expect them to code their way to alpha centauri in three months with three men.

 

A slightly improved version of what MBOT built, in-game with in-game interface. Some game-like elements can be built upon that. But that will also take time. The best we can hope for that ED can do is build the tools to allow us to build dynamic campaigns ourselves. They do the coding, we build a game from it.

I5 9600KF, 32GB, 1070, CV1, PointCTRL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no paywall.

 

The Dynamic feature has to be the heart of DCS, always ON, always challenging you.

 

Given the AI has options ( ressources to use ) it should always act and move and decide.

 

Enuff of that scripted stuff, it's 2018 and not 1994.

Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 3x 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

before we even get a dynamic campaign we need dedicated server

  • CPU : Intel i7 8700k@5.0ghz cooled by Noctua NH-D15 / Motherboard:Asorck Z370 Taichi / RAM: 32GB GSkill TridentZ @3600mhz / SSD: 500GB Nvme Samsung 970 evo+1 TB Sabrent Nvme M2 / GPU:Asus Strix OC 2080TI / Monitor: LG 34KG950F Ultrawide / Trackir 5 proclip/ VIRPIL CM2 BASE + CM2 GRIP + F148 GRIP + 200M EXTENSION /VKB T-Rudder MKIV rudder /Case: Fractal Design R6 Define black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

before we even get a dynamic campaign we need dedicated server

 

Those 2 would perfectly launch together :)

Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 3x 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont expect a total war with 10.000 units on the ground and 500 planes likes in falcon, but something downscaled from that and dynamic is certainly possible. If they do this they will write the code from scratch but what is the problem?

 

+1

 

 

In someway Combined Arms can even extend the meaning of the Dynamic Campaing in a more complex strategic game.

i.e. Falcon miss the Jtac feature and you cant have full control of ground units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a dynamic campaign "engine" or "tools" (whatever name you prefer) behind a paywall, let alone a high paywall, has some issues regarding community, multiplayer servers and new players.

 

To actually use said system would require it to be owned by all who use it in a server. Because most people in the DCS community would arguably want more dynamic gameplay over anything else I see the most interesting servers using this system. What this entails is another module in the way of properly enjoying your modules

 

This is no problem for us already fully invested, but from the perspective of a new consumer this is horrible practice. I know of a few guys in our group that came to see if DCS would interest them. If the abovementioned was true then that would practically force them to buy the "dynamic gameplay module" to fly the missions that would ultimately be the ultimate catch...

 

So such a business model would basically gate away the most important content behind a paywall , splitting most of the community from the beginners somewhat.

 

 

I don't think it is the same thing as flyable modules, since none of those are required to play so long as a mission has the Su-25T in it.

 

Problem of course is that the system has to be sustainable through developement which either means it is made "on the side", or actually focused on and paid directly as a module...

 

 

I am unsure which is the correct way to approach this, but I would be hesitant just saying everyone would be willing to pay for content that is in many ways the missing core of a campaign system. Then again ED has given us an enourmous amount of content for free already.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

 

I totally see your point, making something as a DC as a pay module is a entry barrier for new users. Would i love to see this as a free adition? yes. Is it feasible? i'm not so sure.

 

Thinking about it calmly, a newcomer already have a wonderful aircraft; the SU25T and a wonderful map and game engine to fly in. I mean, that is much more than any other game out there (Except Falcon BMS, but that is a different story).

 

The reason I say this could be a payware, it is because i dont see any other way to avoid this taking 15 more years to be developed. Even more, they are already charging for campaigns that although some of them are indeed really great, for me they are a 1/2 times thing. If they finally make a DC and they ask for it something similar to another module. i would definitely buy it.

 

In the long run, if you are a flight simmer that wants to enjoy DCS at its best, you will probably buy such a thing eventually, if you are just getting yourself into sims, you don't really need a DC and you already have enough content to enjoy yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally see your point, making something as a DC as a pay module is a entry barrier for new users. Would i love to see this as a free adition? yes. Is it feasible? i'm not so sure.

 

Thinking about it calmly, a newcomer already have a wonderful aircraft; the SU25T and a wonderful map and game engine to fly in. I mean, that is much more than any other game out there (Except Falcon BMS, but that is a different story).

 

The reason I say this could be a payware, it is because i dont see any other way to avoid this taking 15 more years to be developed. Even more, they are already charging for campaigns that although some of them are indeed really great, for me they are a 1/2 times thing. If they finally make a DC and they ask for it something similar to another module. i would definitely buy it.

 

In the long run, if you are a flight simmer that wants to enjoy DCS at its best, you will probably buy such a thing eventually, if you are just getting yourself into sims, you don't really need a DC and you already have enough content to enjoy yourself.

 

I am certain everyone would eventually buy such a module. I mean that would really be worth the money given it worked up to it's potential.

 

Though I spoke about the division of the community, namely for beginners, there is in fact the counterpoint that new players coming to see if DCS is what they are looking for probably can't appreciate dynamic content due to their skill level.

 

This is of course based on the assumption that said new consumers would be new to combat flights sims in general.

 

 

 

Reflecting DCS to the apparent difficulty to create any sort of dynamic system to flight sims I am curious to see what ED will come up with. My educated guess is that it will not be anything particular that we think of. If they can find a cost effective solution for dynamic gameplay content then I don't see a problem of just adding such a system to the base game with no additional charges.

 

For multiplayer such content would be "easy". Recreate the AAA/SAM AI to provide for a challenge. Add the ability to chain missions in multiplayer with branching outcomes (akin to the singleplayer campaign score system). Make aircraft persistent on the map (e.g. if you land somewhere else than you started from, said aircraft's spawn would move with the aircraft) to allow for long term projection of force. And finally allow for players to see and alter their flight plan in-game (the effect would, naturally, transfer to the aircraft only on shutdown on an airfield). After all of the above players have enough tools to self-generate dynamic content in a meaningful manner.

 

For singleplayer such a system would require way more work to provide for a "mission commander" AI for both coalitions to create dynamic points of interest, objectives and targets of opportunity... and then there would have to be something along the lines of dynamic logistics behind it all for campaigns and what have you...

 

 

And in the end - my description is just a way to implement such a system... there must be countless others all with their advantages and disadvantages.

 

I guess the greatest hurdle would be the AI to drive it all... and missions don't run particularly well with a multitude of AI's, be they on an operational level or a single unit.

 

 

 

A difficult equation.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's where the big divide between singleplayers and multiplayers rears its ugly head again: To code for one player's dynamic missions is one thing. To do it for sixteen all at once all over the map, all over the world... that's different.

 

Actually it is not at all different.

 

The thing that is different is what you render and how accurately you want to simulate things.

 

Example, if an artillery battery gets a command to fire requested solution to a given coordinates, where is a given group of enemies. No one cares if there is no one watching that. You do the roll of dice that accuracy of given coordinates is X percentage of the given. Firing a specific time the shells with Y percentage of error in trajectory to given area. You check has there been any impacts in X range of the targets for given "flashlight" area and if there has been, roll a dice for damage between 30-80% for given units to be affected.

 

If there is no one observing that, you don't need to render units 3D models, no effects, no nothing else than just know that such thing has happened. Record the source and result. So if someone wants to run a record then it can be rolled back.

 

And such engagements doesn't happen dozens at the same second nor even same minute.

 

When a ground troops are moving, you don't need to simulate the tracks suspension and wheels rotation and all that. You do everything to ultra simple. A group of X moves specific route in Y position in given time.

 

The old games cheated and hard. The ground vehicles moved in couple speed only. They didn't have any alteration for speed, didn't slow down in uphills, didn't accelerate in downhills, didn't need to avoid a telephone pole middle of the road.

 

It doesn't take a magic coder to write even code to map a virtual unit movement speed related to height and velocity for given point, as long you have the way to get the information from game engine.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it is not at all different.

 

The thing that is different is what you render and how accurately you want to simulate things.

 

Example, if an artillery battery gets a command to fire requested solution to a given coordinates, where is a given group of enemies. No one cares if there is no one watching that. You do the roll of dice that accuracy of given coordinates is X percentage of the given. Firing a specific time the shells with Y percentage of error in trajectory to given area. You check has there been any impacts in X range of the targets for given "flashlight" area and if there has been, roll a dice for damage between 30-80% for given units to be affected.

 

If there is no one observing that, you don't need to render units 3D models, no effects, no nothing else than just know that such thing has happened. Record the source and result. So if someone wants to run a record then it can be rolled back.

 

And such engagements doesn't happen dozens at the same second nor even same minute.

 

When a ground troops are moving, you don't need to simulate the tracks suspension and wheels rotation and all that. You do everything to ultra simple. A group of X moves specific route in Y position in given time.

 

The old games cheated and hard. The ground vehicles moved in couple speed only. They didn't have any alteration for speed, didn't slow down in uphills, didn't accelerate in downhills, didn't need to avoid a telephone pole middle of the road.

 

It doesn't take a magic coder to write even code to map a virtual unit movement speed related to height and velocity for given point, as long you have the way to get the information from game engine.

 

 

That is right, obviusly not all simplifcations are good, but you will probably need simplifications based on percentage, at least during all the time the player is not playing (Battle commander view or whatever you want to call it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am advocate of paying for modules because the entry level is free and the development is never ending.

 

If ED don't sell modules then ED doesn't exist.

 

That said, it could be added to Combined Arms which seems to me as bit of a under developed product, that said, I bought it so long ago just to be a SAM operator I have never explored its capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to a lot of opinions here, I expect at least a Falcon 4 level dynamic campaign engine. If ED is going to do this, then do it right. Half-measures will just leave a large percentage of the community still yearing for something that another developer may deliver at some point. Do a DC, do it right, and watch DCS retain its followers for the next decade. Half-ass it, and no one is happy. Oh, and sorry MP'ers, but paying for a new DC engine (done right) is more than fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even 3 pages in and theres already people saying 'we want it all, but make it free'.... yeah, good luck with that.

 

Yep, That other sim spent something like 11M + on getting there and it didn't workout well for them, it's not very cost effective.

 

Quote

RPS: MBot’s dynamic campaigns for DCS World seem popular. Have they influenced ED’s thinking at all?

 

"Matt: While we certainly applaud his efforts, we have much bigger plans for DCS World on this front. We are pursuing much more ambitious plans that incorporate community, cause-and-effect continuity, strategic and tactical goals, player performance tracking and rewards, and accounting for time periods.

A bit too early to go into more detail, but this is very much a high priority for us moving forward post-2.5." Full article found here

End quote.

 

That sounds very interesting! very intrigued by the idea.

 

I was thinking it would be some kind of standalone app that would play a battle by it self and then generate a small/medium (Depending on PC specs set) mission for you to play in DCS. The app would then update after your mission. The app would see the mission being played out and depending on the app settings, it would spawn in units (Fighter sweeps etc for both sides) as needed to make things harder.

 

This would keep the in sim real time units to a minimum for performance gains and keep the mission fresh and dynamic.

 

Anyway, interested to see the full idea that they have on this going forward.

 

Good read below to see just how hard it can be to build one for a sim.

 

Interview with Kevin Klemmick – Lead Software Engineer for Falcon

 

Why do you think today’s sim developers are so scared of what you guys were able to create more than a decade ago?

 

Quote

"Well, it’s just really hard to do. Looking back on it, I think the only reason we took on what we did is because we were too inexperienced to know better. Knowing what I do now, even given my experience on Falcon, the cost to develop such an engine would be substantial. Since flight sims don’t bring in that kind of revenue companies look at it from a cost to benefit standpoint and Dynamic Campaigns score pretty low in that regard. There is also the argument that scripted missions are more interesting which has some merit. I think if I were to do it over I would do a mix of scripted/generated missions, so that the player still feels like they’re involved in the world, but there is also some variety thrown in to keep things interesting."

 

.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even 3 pages in and theres already people saying 'we want it all, but make it free'.... yeah, good luck with that.

 

They can make it as a module and charge for it. There will definitely be people to buy it!

 

BUT.

 

Is DCS suppose to be like a Microsoft Flight Simulator where you couldn't really even get started without paying? You needed to go around and test and search what to buy because most were crap! That is the difference that DCS is higher quality than others on market, even if it is lacking features like dynamic campaign, or dynamic mission creator etc.

 

 

A feature like a dynamic campaign is difficult to say should it be payware or core technology in the DCS.

 

DCS comes with a two free aircrafts. Su-25T and TF-51. What you would do with TF-51 in dynamic campaign? Nothing. That is a WW2 trainer, not a combat aircraft! Why it is free? It is to experience the clickable cockpit and WW2 aircraft flying. Nothing else!

 

What would it mean for Su-25T? That is one of the best capable (if not the best) combat aircrafts in DCS. It is already there for free. It is there to attract customers in. So they get to do and try all kind things and then when they start to want more for simulation (learning cockpit procedures and operation) then they go and buy some other modules.

 

A dynamic campaign shouldn't be a single player feature. It should be Co-Op feature too. So you can get a friend to fly with you in Su-25T. Keep going on some campaign.

 

We can already do that all for free, but the difference is that SOMEONE needs to be designing the war, split it to missions, script hell out of it... and then expect to have fun when other knows all about it, after spending hundreds of hours doing the campaign and have time to fly with friends?

 

Or you just do like now, other goes for the "quick mission" and saves it, and starts the server with it and then try to get a friend to connect and fly those missions that are like whole war in 5 min period and then boring time as there is nothing to do anymore!

A few beginners want to try DCS, downloads that 40+ GB and then launch it, only to be faced for "quick mission" kind thing. They will quickly go back to War Thunder where they have random things to do!

 

The money that ED and other studios does is from selling modules. And to sell modules, you offer freebie to fly. To do things. Easily and quickly!

 

A dynamic campaign is such that there are totally people who would go just for that, and if they don't want to pay, they fly just with Su-25T... Until they notice that they are incapable to perform many of the sorties there would be available because they get shot down by fighters, because they can't see anything at night, because they want their favorite Top Gun experience on carrier missions!

 

So they go and they buy those modules, after they have experience that war is far more than just one aircraft to destroy all!

 

A dynamic campaign should be the core technology in the DCS. Just like we have now the map, quick mission generator with a few modification possibilities like armament, location, time of day etc. If you want more, you are welcome to start using Mission Editor. If you want nicer experience, buy Combined Arms to friend so he can command ground units when you fly!

 

The dynamic campaign would be there available only for Su-25T. You only could go through the roster and pick the Su-25T sorties. Go to do free flight with Su-25T etc. It really wouldn't change what you can do now with Su-25T for free, by downloading others custom missions and fly them with friend etc.

 

But it would be heck of a reason to go and invest money to other modules!

 

If we remove the Su-25T from being free, what would happen? Nothing? Increase sales? Drop sales? How you would sell a DCS to someone who has never heard about it but is fan for flight simulators, with DCS without Su-25T to fly but dynamic campaign in it? It wouldn't be "Free" anymore at that moment, as people would take the TF-51 as a cheap trick to just call it "Free" or because you can go and download it without paying!

 

There are three kind gamers. Those who are not interested so they don't buy. Those who are interested, buy but then move along with other games with other content soon enough. Those who are interested, buy, play and invest more to the game.

 

So which one you would want to target the DCS? Those who don't want to fly, they don't even download DCS. They don't buy anything.

THose who download, test and are doing decision to continue or not, is the main group.

Those who download, fly, buy, they buy anyways!

 

What you want is to get more users and get them to buy other modules. You need to attract them in by teasing them, showing what things they could do with other modules, without requiring them to learn mission editing etc!

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not just another cry asking for a dynamic campaign engine. Since Wags in one of the latest interviews at the end of 2017 confirmed that ED had plans in this direction. This is more begging that once and for all DCS embrace the DC as a top priority. You can charge it as a new module and even one of the most expensive ones, but please start putting this in the first place on the to do list after the hornet.

 

I love new planes but i cannot really enjoy them the way i wished. I need something dynamic, encrypted missions are too boring for me. I would love so much to start hearing developments updates on this front...

 

Regards,

 

I see your plea and I raise you this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3302040&postcount=1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron

Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron

TS: 195.201.110.22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...