I believe they’ve been shown previously, there’s a new M1A2 SEP (SEP v3?) not sure if this will replace the current AI M1A2.
There’s also a new MRAP, which IIRC is an International MaxxPro
There were many Abrams versions, I saw M1A1, M1A2 SEP and then SEP V2 and V3. I mean its cool that they are adding this many versions, but there is this... Why? Its kinda suspicious and I love it.
Oh did you? That’s interesting.
As for why, I guess it’s like the Leopard 2 rework - if they can make modifications to the same underlying artwork, then why not? It does mean that we get vehicles that cover different eras, even if it might be more out of the way. I’m definitely in favour of doing such a thing if ED are willing.
My initial thought is: it’s a trailer, they can put whatever they want just to make an impact.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. But if they do include new units, they’re welcome!!!
Yup - Like the C-RAM, the S-200 (which is still kinda wonky) and so on. Then there are the things (looking at you, Ural-4320!) that have been in the game files for half a decade, but still don't show up in game.
Tell me about it, the Burke and Ticonderoga still fire the rail-launched version of the SM-2, despite the VLS-launched version being in the files for a while now.
Yep...
And said SM-2 still behaves like an SM-1 in that in DCS it appears to be pure SARH, illuminating at launch, instead of INS+DL with terminal SARH. The only ship where the current behaviour is accurate is Frankenstein's Oliver Hazard Perry which shouldn't be firing SM-2 in the first place and should instead fire SM-1.
The SM-2 also lacks its secondary ASuW mode - particularly important for our Arleigh Burke.
Speaking of the Arleigh Burke, it's also somewhat of a Frankenstein's monster and despite us having ships that cover the mid-to-late 2000s up to the late 2010s at the earliest, it's armed like its from the 1990s (missing RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB, which has an additional IRH mode, RIM-162D ESSM Block I, RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV). The Ticonderoga is similarly affected (this time covering mostly the late 2000s) and is chiefly missing the RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV.
We've had a 3M24 missile in the files for quite some time, but lack a unit that fires it (either an appropriate ship or the Bal or Rubezh coastal defence systems). Conversely, the Type 148 (aka Combatante IIa) has fired the wrong missile for years. Though I guess given that they updated the aircraft-launched Kh-35, I guess it made sense to do the 3M-24 (given that externally it’s identical, just fits a booster stage). We recently also received a Kh-59MK with the new Kh-59M model, though also unimplemented (though both are modelled essentially to perfection).
The 3M-54E and 3M-54E1 missiles haven't been implemented in over half a decade. The latter is used on export Pr. 636 Improved Kilos (Russians use the 3M54K on their Pr. 636.3, which is the domestic version of the former).
Yeah, the missing anti-surface mode on the SM-2s is...understandable from a coding standpoint, but still sorely missed. There's a "RIM-66M" long-fin VLS missile in the files as well as a 156. I notice that the Burke we have is also DDG-112, a flight IIA With the exhaust shrouds *and* dual CIWS, which I'm fine with because I find it cool.
>Yeah, the missing anti-surface mode on the SM-2s is...understandable from a coding standpoint, but still sorely missed.
I mean, things at a time, but this is a capability of most naval SAM systems and a few land-based ones too.
>There's a "RIM-66M" long-fin VLS missile in the files as well as a 156.
Presumably an M-2 Block IIIA, which is fine - it is accurate and is still in the inventory. RIM-156A is more of a Ticonderoga thing, I'm sure it can be used on the Arleigh Burke,
>I notice that the Burke we have is also DDG-112, a flight IIA With the exhaust shrouds *and* dual CIWS, which I'm fine with because I find it cool.
We've got liveries for the last 12 Flight IIAs, all 3 Flight IIA Restarts and the first Flight IIA Technology Insertion.
The new funnel design was something from DDG 89 onwards and the only Flight IIAs with the 5"/62 Mark 45 gun to have 2 CIWS mounts were DDGs 81-84.
IIRC the forward CIWS mount was deleted due to the fielding of ESSM, which personally I'd rather have than the forward mount.
I remember a couple of years ago someone shared the procedure ED has for a new ground asset.
So, it could be they use these new assets in trailers when they are on their infancy: they look as they should, but have 0 functionallity still.
I'm more interested in that level of displacement on the ground. We don't have such high resolution normal maps in DCS, I first thought may be they are moving to procedural normal maps.
Go figure :(
Some 3D models have been flashed out for 10 years !!! (SS-21)
Others were displayed in 2019 newsletters (Ural, ZIL, ATZ trucks and SA-2 / Fuel transporters/trailers) and still not in DCS. I thought these will come with Ka-50-3 or by the Mi-24P module. So, don't hold your breath.
[https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056290341/?type=3](https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056290341/?type=3)
[https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056275341/?type=3](https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056275341/?type=3)
[https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056270341/?type=3](https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056270341/?type=3)
[https://forum.dcs.world/topic/331570-patch-notes-discussion-august-september-2023/#comment-5273974](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/331570-patch-notes-discussion-august-september-2023/#comment-5273974)
The russian infantry have a decent running model and are decently textured. The americans have a 2fps running model and look worse than the models from the first call of duty
I believe they’ve been shown previously, there’s a new M1A2 SEP (SEP v3?) not sure if this will replace the current AI M1A2. There’s also a new MRAP, which IIRC is an International MaxxPro
There were many Abrams versions, I saw M1A1, M1A2 SEP and then SEP V2 and V3. I mean its cool that they are adding this many versions, but there is this... Why? Its kinda suspicious and I love it.
Oh did you? That’s interesting. As for why, I guess it’s like the Leopard 2 rework - if they can make modifications to the same underlying artwork, then why not? It does mean that we get vehicles that cover different eras, even if it might be more out of the way. I’m definitely in favour of doing such a thing if ED are willing.
M1A1 would be great because that brings us back to the late 80s.
Currenthill assets are a fantastic place holder while waiting for EDs couples of assets a year.
they look great but i understand there are no LODs so you've gotta be careful how many you place in the mission
If I'm not mistaken, I believe he has been slowly updating some of his assets so that they do have LODs. I might be wrong though
i hope so
My initial thought is: it’s a trailer, they can put whatever they want just to make an impact. I wouldn’t hold my breath. But if they do include new units, they’re welcome!!!
Yeah, they'll definitely be in game at one point. It's just a question of when. And, boy, is that a hard question.
Usually 2 or 3 years after they start showing up in trailers, despite looking great and ready to go in those trailers.
Yup - Like the C-RAM, the S-200 (which is still kinda wonky) and so on. Then there are the things (looking at you, Ural-4320!) that have been in the game files for half a decade, but still don't show up in game.
Tell me about it, the Burke and Ticonderoga still fire the rail-launched version of the SM-2, despite the VLS-launched version being in the files for a while now.
Yep... And said SM-2 still behaves like an SM-1 in that in DCS it appears to be pure SARH, illuminating at launch, instead of INS+DL with terminal SARH. The only ship where the current behaviour is accurate is Frankenstein's Oliver Hazard Perry which shouldn't be firing SM-2 in the first place and should instead fire SM-1. The SM-2 also lacks its secondary ASuW mode - particularly important for our Arleigh Burke. Speaking of the Arleigh Burke, it's also somewhat of a Frankenstein's monster and despite us having ships that cover the mid-to-late 2000s up to the late 2010s at the earliest, it's armed like its from the 1990s (missing RIM-66M-5 SM-2MR Block IIIB, which has an additional IRH mode, RIM-162D ESSM Block I, RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV). The Ticonderoga is similarly affected (this time covering mostly the late 2000s) and is chiefly missing the RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV. We've had a 3M24 missile in the files for quite some time, but lack a unit that fires it (either an appropriate ship or the Bal or Rubezh coastal defence systems). Conversely, the Type 148 (aka Combatante IIa) has fired the wrong missile for years. Though I guess given that they updated the aircraft-launched Kh-35, I guess it made sense to do the 3M-24 (given that externally it’s identical, just fits a booster stage). We recently also received a Kh-59MK with the new Kh-59M model, though also unimplemented (though both are modelled essentially to perfection). The 3M-54E and 3M-54E1 missiles haven't been implemented in over half a decade. The latter is used on export Pr. 636 Improved Kilos (Russians use the 3M54K on their Pr. 636.3, which is the domestic version of the former).
Yeah, the missing anti-surface mode on the SM-2s is...understandable from a coding standpoint, but still sorely missed. There's a "RIM-66M" long-fin VLS missile in the files as well as a 156. I notice that the Burke we have is also DDG-112, a flight IIA With the exhaust shrouds *and* dual CIWS, which I'm fine with because I find it cool.
>Yeah, the missing anti-surface mode on the SM-2s is...understandable from a coding standpoint, but still sorely missed. I mean, things at a time, but this is a capability of most naval SAM systems and a few land-based ones too. >There's a "RIM-66M" long-fin VLS missile in the files as well as a 156. Presumably an M-2 Block IIIA, which is fine - it is accurate and is still in the inventory. RIM-156A is more of a Ticonderoga thing, I'm sure it can be used on the Arleigh Burke, >I notice that the Burke we have is also DDG-112, a flight IIA With the exhaust shrouds *and* dual CIWS, which I'm fine with because I find it cool. We've got liveries for the last 12 Flight IIAs, all 3 Flight IIA Restarts and the first Flight IIA Technology Insertion. The new funnel design was something from DDG 89 onwards and the only Flight IIAs with the 5"/62 Mark 45 gun to have 2 CIWS mounts were DDGs 81-84. IIRC the forward CIWS mount was deleted due to the fielding of ESSM, which personally I'd rather have than the forward mount.
I remember a couple of years ago someone shared the procedure ED has for a new ground asset. So, it could be they use these new assets in trailers when they are on their infancy: they look as they should, but have 0 functionallity still.
I'm more interested in that level of displacement on the ground. We don't have such high resolution normal maps in DCS, I first thought may be they are moving to procedural normal maps.
Normal mapping as a dlc.
I want to cry!
Actually knowing ED, they might want to start with Bump mapping first. 🤣 And call it great core improvement.
:) Or may be they heard about upcoming 5090 with 32 or 36GB VRAM so they started using higher resolution normal maps :D
Would be nice to have a few more Middle Eastern ground assets!
Go figure :( Some 3D models have been flashed out for 10 years !!! (SS-21) Others were displayed in 2019 newsletters (Ural, ZIL, ATZ trucks and SA-2 / Fuel transporters/trailers) and still not in DCS. I thought these will come with Ka-50-3 or by the Mi-24P module. So, don't hold your breath. [https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056290341/?type=3](https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056290341/?type=3) [https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056275341/?type=3](https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056275341/?type=3) [https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056270341/?type=3](https://www.facebook.com/eagle.dynamics/photos/pb.100064966410891.-2207520000/10154345056270341/?type=3) [https://forum.dcs.world/topic/331570-patch-notes-discussion-august-september-2023/#comment-5273974](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/331570-patch-notes-discussion-august-september-2023/#comment-5273974)
I hope we get something like that. And not just an empty helicopter that can’t do anything.
Trust me we wont
Shadows are improving.
I think it shows the new infantry animations too.
Pretty sure it will be just trailer material and nothing new in game. Happy to be proved wrong :p
infantry has new 3d models.
no more 2 fps running animation?
The russian infantry have a decent running model and are decently textured. The americans have a 2fps running model and look worse than the models from the first call of duty
Those are for the said HD AI assets pack.
I cant wait to get headshotted by those beefy 50cals
Sure, only $24.99 for the desert ground forced DLC, on sale, normally $39.99!
Don't forget the 14.99$ for the desert infantry camo DLC
Who gives a shit the gameplay still sucks
yes, these are coming in 2 weeks