Tom P

Not exactly sure where this goes. Is there any more recent news or progress that can be shared with the community about the infantry update? It's been awhile. When can we expect it? What is going to be the new features with them minus a new 3d model and pathfinding logic? Will the embarking and dismounting be a lot better? More movement formation options? More squad/platoon weapons: rifleman, grenadier, machine guns, Designated marksman? Possible mortar teams? Possible dedicated JTAC(combined arms selling point) I saw this in the currenthill channel so maybe thats the weapon/unit area I was a ground dude in the military for awhile and would love to see them get more love and have better mission scenarios to run while providing overwatch for them.

My group only used it twice..

I always enjoy the random car going mach Jesus throughout the towns. But I agree having some decent modeled non combatant civilians would be nice, especially for us who are low and slow. Compared to the dude trying to plink from 30k. Would change the dynamic for mission builders having a target area mixed with civilians and baddies. Instead of players just nuking an area. But also including a simple path finding algorithm so you wouldn't need to set their routes. Which would help mission performance. Or just have map makers already populate them in the urban areas. I Wouldn't mind some civilian general aviation stuff as that's inhouse and not a mod. I run a random air traffic script to simulate air traffic outside of combat zones to help bring some "life" to the missions.

It has been known for awhile that the ground crew doesn't see statics. Your $50 super carrier wants an empty deck. Might work great in single player with the deck set up for a cat 1 launch.

June bump

That's cool and all man but I also have data from surveys that expand past the same couple dozen people that lurk this forum. Just because it worked for YOU doesn't mean it's it's good for others. I'm not going to sit here and bicker back and forth. What I said was a collective input from over 100 users from surveys I conducted.

I did a poll on my youtube awhile back for this same topic. The biggest things the users voted for is the upfront cost and how complicated DCS is. To make DCS more BEGINNER friendly it would mainly have to do with the upfront cost of getting into DCS. You got the big name DCS youtubers saying you need a $4k PC to have a good starting point which is already a turn off. About $500 up front for a module/map(don't forget steam users don't have the trial program), Campaigns, hotas, pedals, headtracking. A DEDICATED HARDDRIVE.... to have a good starting point for the full experience. Yeah an Xbox controller gets the job done after you figure out how to map it and use the modifiers. But yeah the cost especially with right now in the current economy makes it even more niche. Speaking of Maps.. Caucasus needs a remake, its the most important map in DCS especially when it comes to beginners. It's their first map/world they go into and it's showing its age. I don't think it takes long even for a beginner to realize a 20 year old game is still using 20 year old assets. It's 2025, buyers expect better looking models especially for the price of getting into DCS. DCS has a very limited single player experience and a pretty toxic multiplayer community. A beginner requires a lot of learning, which is fine but there is no way to fast forward through that. Single player doesn't hold most peoples hands enough and the organizations in multiplayer (discord communities, virtual squadrons) are often outright hostile towards new players. Which I get, it gets annoying answering "How do I start my F-15C" for the 10th time in a day. Some communities are better than others but most beginners wont want to take that chance or even know that it's out there. Like BN said there's a giant learning curve. It takes a few days to get good at DCS, not 4 hours over a few day period. A legit 48-74 hours to get proficient at DCS. With that said maybe add more starting aircraft so user aren't dropping a ton of cash up front. I don't know how many people touch the T-51, I never touched it, its not appealing. You want a beginner to learn in a tail dragger... yeah ok. Not sure how often the L-39, C-101, or Yak-52 are being bought but those would be a pretty good starting list of aircraft to pair with the Su-25 or even a flaming cliffs F-15C. So they can get a decent BVR experience that goes past 15 miles. Most of the training for the modules are pretty dated, boring, and not engaging. "ok now look at this yellow box, it's highlighting a switch, flip it" and I know a lot of beginners are looking to get into the air right away and don't bother touching the chucks guides/manuals or watch youtube guides. They want people to hold their hand and coach them through the motions. And for those on single player, how many of them know about the user file section? They're most likely buying campaigns and learning off of those, which is already spending more money. Hurry up and wait! Hurry up and buy your new favorite shiny toy. Now wait for the next 5 years while it sits in Early Access. Oh hey this current patch just broke your favorite aircraft? Well that sucks, wait till the next patch. How many beginners buy a EA module but leave DCS before seeing the module complete because their sick of the wait? There's no roadmaps to somewhat gauge a timeline on completion or when some new feature is coming out. Bonus sidebar. I also think DCS needs a better job at promoting their product to reach to a larger population. I barely see any advertisement or sponsors for it. It's pretty funny when a DCS youtuber makes a DCS video and is sponsored by another competitor. I personally got into DCS after watching Ralfidude videos for years on youtube. Not once have I seen a DCS sponsored video to this day.

Pretty positive they said the 60M is to restricted for DCS

@BIGNEWY @NineLine do you know if this will be addressed soon or?

Currently even if you have the date before JHMCS or HMD's were a thing ED modules still lets you equip them. Fix it. It's really awesome when you have a cold war or even a Pre JHMCS/HMD era that users can just say "LOL I don't care."

June Bump

Mission 7 as of DCS 2.9.16.10973 When taking off and rejoining your lead, the UH-60s fly right through the path so depending where you are they might be pretty close to you, for my case they were about 20 feet above me crossing over. Currently with the FLIR the 60s are not lit up like the 64 is so depending on your IR contrast/brightness a player might not notice them right away. Also noticed the flight lead dive towards the ground to gain airspeed at the start When the 60's and 64s are at the IP(WP2) waiting on the SF guys, recommend different altitudes between the flights, 60s at 150ft the 64s 250ft for example. Currently it appears there's no altitude deconfliction between the flight orbits and again you can almost run into each other since they eventually cross paths. But overall pretty good mission

It would be nice to be able to have the option for which seat can be set as the default for when you load in. For example Aircraft 1 is the backseat. Aircraft 2 is the front seat.

June bump.. aka the 7 month bump.. Is there a way I can help the team do this, I'm sure I can figure it out within a couple months And for the Eagle Dynamic modules we do lower the internal fuel to simulate empty tanks but still. Maybe we'll get it within the next 7 months?

Another Tanker request. Other than adding more tankers to the museum it would be really helpful if we got call outs especially for the KC-135 boom. Especially at night with the night PDL light bug that seems not be a priority. Real boom operators give the pilots call outs. "Up 2, Up 1, Back 1, Forward 2." etc etc. And for night time operations with the elevation PDL light being almost impossible to see along with the tanker(lack of flood lights like the real KC-135) the tanker is almost impossible to see depending on graphic settings. There is obviously some sort of tracking script/AI that allows the boom to move and track an aircraft, can't imagine it would be to difficult to add a callout function in relation to the current method.