0:02 What happens with Vulcan? Why the F-35? And most important, are there any safeguards in place to ensure that third party modules remain available and supported in DCS? >> Here's I think this is one of the big misperceptions out there. So, let me clear this up. >> All of these questions and more are answered tonight on our hip talk show by Wags himself. It's a show you don't want to miss. So grab your popcorn, apple juice, and enjoy our first talk with Ed themselves right here at How I Play. Hello, virtual pilots. I'm Andre Celestei and welcome to a very special edition of our hip talk show. This series is about conversations that
0:47 matter, speaking directly with the people shaping our go-to combat flight simulators and the future of virtual combat aviation. Since starting this format, we had a chance to talk with many creators and developers across the community. Tonight, however, marks an important milestone. For the first time, we're sitting down with the people behind ECS itself. So, buckle up because today we're setting a new record. I'm very pleased to welcome Matt Wagner from Eagle Dynamics or Wags here to answer some questions. It's a real pleasure to have you with us as this conversation has been a long time coming and it feels like a natural step for both our viewers and the channel. We share the same passion for combat flight simulation and now we finally get to talk about what matters
1:33 the most, where DCS is today and where it's headed in the future. To start off for newer viewers and DCS enthusiasts, could you briefly introduce your role at Eagle Dynamics and outline your main responsibilities? I am the infamous uh Matt Wagner, otherwise known as Wags, and I am the senior producer at Eagle Dynamics, where I help manage our different teams, be it engineering, art, and design to help create DCS World. Most of us know you already and I'm happy to finally get the opportunity to place some of our viewers questions and mine on the spotlight and hopefully get to answer many of the most burning subjects out there. And of
2:19 course, one of the most wanted and asked about subjects in DCS is the dynamic campaign as it is one of the most requested features in DCS. How is development progressing and what exactly were we seeing in the 2026 and beyond video? Is that a new F10 view? And is the interfaceformational, directive, or something in between? So, what you saw in the 2026 video is a fairly early version of the client side UI. So, and this will probably change down the road. Right now in our uh internal debug version, you essentially use the mission editor to create a dynamic campaign. And
3:05 like I said earlier, uh initially we will provide pre-made dynamic campaigns uh certainly for the caucuses map in single player and then later on we'll make those tools available to all users so they can create their own dynamic campaigns. So anyhow, so once you're in the mission editor in this uh pre-release version, you can essentially bring up the dynamic campaign creation tool and then within that it basically uses a version of the F10 map to create the campaigns and then from that tool then you can launch the campaign. And what you saw in that video is the early version of the UI which you guys probably noticed is heavily based on the uh style and functionality of the
3:52 launcher we uh launched earlier. And uh so what you were seeing there again is kind of an earlier version of the flow of looking at the air tasking order. It'll see, you know, which uh flights have been generated based on the conditions of the campaign and then it lists uh each of those fragmentation orders out there and then be, you know, based on the aircraft you own within DCS and you can essentially uh select one of those fragmentation orders and jump into the cockpit and fly that mission as a small part of a much uh broader uh campaign effort. So right now most of the work is revolving a lot around stability. Uh the second course is the
4:38 UI. There's still a lot more work to do. Uh you guys saw you know kind of uh a bit of where we are right now but still a lot more to do particularly say on the strategic front the logistics and things like that. And a big one which you know I said a lot lately is AI. And you know I I think most DCS customers realize that the AI it's one of the most difficult and one of the bigger areas we still want to improve in DCS and there's two general big areas. One is what we call the RTS level or the strategic AI which basically uh allows the dynamic campaign to understand you know where do you want to move these ground formations you know what different production
5:24 facilities take priority uh what order of missions do you want to run the atto for example do you want to do a C2 take down and then seed then you want to move on to OCA and then an interdiction all that's based within the RTS level AI. And then of course there's the tactical level AI about, you know, if a formation is down to one aircraft, that one aircraft is smart enough to not die on that hill and, you know, get out of town at that point or, you know, how it puts together strike packages. So it makes sense that you have the sweep, the seed, and strikes behind it. And it can uh respond to pop-up threats in a realistic manner. And of course, you know, there's a lot of AI elements on the tactical level that will also uh benefit DCS in
6:14 general outside of just the dynamic campaign. So, I think it's those three big areas where most of the work is going on right now with dynamic campaign. Uh stability, UI, and AI. >> Wow. Well, when I saw the menu being presented in those dynamic campaign shots, I just wanted to click everything and explore what's hidden behind each tab, finding out more of the functionality. So, you definitely inspire some deep questions on how will everything function. Will the dynamic campaign eventually support all maps and how do you plan to introduce it initially? I think maybe we caused a little bit of confusion in the video was we made a point of showing dynamic campaign working on multiple maps, not just the caucus' map. The plan
7:00 is still that we'll release initially with a caucus' map in single player and then later we'll add different map support as well. So that really hasn't changed. We what we really wanted to get across was that dynamic campaign is not going to be limited for all time just to say the caucuses map in single player. What we wanted to do is demonstrate that uh the core tools are going to allow us to do this in all maps. It just these other maps may not be available at launch. And that could change uh because you know one of the things that happens when you have uh delays like we've had we've been able to push some other things up because they've had more time to develop. So it is possible that we'll be able to support more maps at launch but right now to be safe and we'd rather
7:47 uh underpromise and overd deliver is to just guarantee a caucus map at launch. But again that could change. Well, it makes sense to have a smaller test pad with the entire user base where first impressions and overall functionality can be monitored way more easier than having to deal with multiple maps. So, starting small does have its benefits >> and particularly with an initial release um both internally and then once we release it externally uh debugging is going to be a you know a very big task of ours. It's already started. Um, so the more we can kind of narrow all the different permutations down to test, in this case a map, the easier it's going to be for us to identify the issues, address it, and
8:34 roll that out into fixes. Whereas if we're trying to do too much at once, say over different maps, it's going to complicate things more and take longer to, you know, get where we want to be >> uh for an initial release. Basically, the dynamic campaign will eventually support all maps. You want to integrate what maps we have in DCS to work with a dynamic campaign. Now, uh >> and it's not just maps, but also errors as well because you know right now we've been focusing on the modern era even in the internal test, but there's no reason the system won't work for World War II to Korea and then someday Vietnam. So, one of the big things about this dynamic campaign system is it for to be very extensible to go across different eras,
9:21 different maps, uh different orders of battles and so on. >> How a dynamic campaign will function in multiplayer and what level of control will servers admins have during a ongoing campaign? Well, primarily it's about giving the servers the creation tool to create the dynamic campaigns because once the dynamic campaign is created, whether it's single player or multiplayer, it actually operates in a very, very similar manner in that the RTS level AI, you know, like I said before, it's going to generate the fragmentation orders and then you'll have that list of all the different flights and whether it's single player or multiplayer, you're essentially just selecting the flight. It really doesn't matter whether it's single player or multiplayer at that point. And then once the mission is running for the servers,
10:07 it's more about giving them the tools to create the scenarios kicks off the dynamic campaign. >> Bang. You started it. >> It's going to run the dynamic campaign. >> It's going to run it. The one element which is you know we're still defining is that in addition to again say jumping into the cockpit you also have more strategic control the dynamic campaign saying okay you know these are the different POIs that are my objective and I want to task ground forces to capture these. So, one option we're looking at is allowing say a multiplayer server to better direct, you know, what are going to be the overall uh objectives of either side of, you know, are you trying to capture territory? Are you trying to bring down these uh POIs? So, you know,
10:54 potentially we could allow the servers to to better find what the actual goals of the dynamic campaign are. That's certainly going to be there for the single player. The bigger question is within multiplayer, who actually makes the decisions? And it probably makes the most sense for that to be the servers at this point. >> Out of respect, I'm not going to go there and ask you when we can see this first implementation of the dynamic campaign going live in DCS, but since we already know you started building it quite some time ago, I hope we will get to see it sooner rather than later. But I for one do understand that quality comes with a lot of time effort. >> As you know, as much as our customers are looking forward to getting the dynamic campaign out, I can guarantee that uh we want it to be out 100 times
11:42 more. You know, everybody recognizes that there's improvements that can be made to the gameplay of DCS naturally, and we see dynamic campaign as a big part of that. There's certainly other areas where we we're looking into uh right now as well which I really can't talk about. Uh improving that gameplay across different elements anywhere from dynamic campaigns to AI to ATC and so on are all very important to us right now. Unfortunately, just a lot of these efforts take a long time sometimes. Vulcan has been confirmed as a major step forward for DCS. When players eventually get their hands on it, what
12:27 tangible improvements should they expect in terms of performance, stability, and scalability? >> So, initially, which we said before, I wouldn't expect massive improvements initially. You know, the big things that Vulcan is going to bring us more in the near term is one to operate the program on more than just uh Windows. Uh the other big one of course which goes into performance, it'll allow us to do things like rate tracing, frame generation for DLSS for later versions, FSR 3 and 4. So basically using those type of tools to allow us to improve the performance there. Those are going to be the big ones initially and then down the road in
13:14 uh conjunction with multi-threading particularly more on not so much the graphics side but more on the simulation side will also allow us to get some good performance improvements but it's not a case of expecting to see different graphics or all new lighting or things like that. Um it's not a direct result of that. Now having performance increases which should come across because of it will allow us to do some new things like some improved lighting spherical earth and things like that but that's more of a secondary result of having uh Vulcan not a direct result of Vulcan if that makes sense. >> Will Vulcan be introduced as an optional renderer alongside DirectX or is it
13:59 planned as a full transition? >> It will have to be a full implementation. uh we can't go back and forth >> uh between uh DirectX and Vulcan. It'll have to be one or the other and we see the future for DCS being under the Vulcan API Vulcan. >> Will the switch to Vulcan affect modules and how are third party expected to adapt to this change? So, a big part of rolling Vulcan out will be updating existing modules, but we also are looking into methods that even if a third party module can or will not update it of ways that we can still address that. I really can't go any more detail at this point, but um you know, obviously I think 99% of our third party partners will be able to update to
14:46 Vulcan, but for those that can't or won't, we're looking at some solutions. Well, music to my ears and to our viewers, and personally, I wasn't expecting anything different, but I'm glad to hear where the plans are. Will Vulcan require a reinstall of the entire game, or will it function as an update? It'll be an update, just a very big update as you might imagine. Yeah. But also when we roll Vulcan out, it'll be one of the bigger updates for DCS in quite a long time. So I would also expect um some new features as part of that at the same time. >> Okay. So it'll roll out with multiple surprises. Let's put it that way. I'm not going to ask too much. >> We'll call them surprises for now. I think I think a lot of the uh surprises won't be surprises, you know, based on I
15:32 think a lot of folks know what we're working on. But it makes sense for us to kind of roll them all at the same time uh rather than peace meal. Are there any plans to expand the mission editor with more native functionality such as localized ambient sounds, altitude based triggers, more granular AI ground behavior, and better control over taxi parking and rearm logic in order to reduce the need for external scripting. >> Yeah. So, I I think if most folks take a look at the change logs, they'll see we actually do this on a pretty regular basis. I think the larger issue is that most every mission builder or campaign
16:17 builder has different wants and needs of things they want to see in the mission editor. So, you know, things like the taxi logic and things like that, you know, actually very recently have been worked on and, you know, going through them as best we can, as fast as we can. Uh, it's also important to remember, too, that a lot of the folks that be worked on the mission editor are also very much involved in dynamic campaign. So, it's a and this is probably going to be something you're going to hear me uh say a lot. It's about allocation resources of what's going to make the most sense. And often it's the case of having to rob Peter to pay Paul. And right now, dynamic campaign is a very important feature for us. And unfortunately, there may be other elements of DCS that might get pushed back a bit in order to allow us to focus
17:03 on the dynamic campaign. You know, we have, of course, our wish list on the forum is when, you know, folks have a mission editor feature or a bug they want to see resolved, you know, make sure it's in there >> and we read most everything and it's probably in our bug tracking software, uh, which also is for new features and it's just a matter of having those resources available and how it ranks in a priority list. And speaking of that, I did see multiple times now on the newsletter or on the patch notes more precisely when there's a bug that was found by the community on the bug report, you actually link it there and that that's really cool. I try myself especially in in the comments sometimes when we get you know certain users have some issues and we do understand there
17:48 will be issues. It's a huge huge platform. It's not just a simplified uh game that you just go in and play. I strongly advise everybody to just go and we usually link it there so they know where to go and do bug reporting because I know you know not everybody knows about the bug report. They think that if they go on a on a comment u okay I'm just going to say that I have some issues here but issues are from uh left and right it can be client side it can be also something that you already know about. So like this is how we find out what's wrong and how we get the data out there so you can actually uh be able to solve it if it's something new. And just a couple points when reporting bugs, you know, the two biggest uh pieces of
18:33 advice I would give to is one, read the sticky note about how to make a report because if for example, if a report is made about function X not working correctly, there's no uh track file much less a video for us to replicate it. It doesn't really help us a whole lot. So as much as possible if you can if customers can follow those reporting guidelines it helps us help you guys fix those bugs. And the second is you know a professional neutral bug report gets a lot better results than one that's antagonistic and costic. The last thing I would definitely mention about submitting reports is particularly if it's with like say an avionic system or a weapon system that it not be based on
19:21 opinion that it be based on verifiable open-source information that is directly linked to. That's also very important. Yeah. because we're really not in a big favor of making big changes to the program just based on an opinion. We're very much evidence-based and once we can actually have sufficient evidence presented to us, we'll take it, you know, a lot more seriously and really dig into it. uh you know good examples with the uh the SPO 15 on the MIG 29 >> that um we had a lot of really interesting feedback and uh based on some of the feedback and some of the references that were provided it allowed us to uh revisit it and take a look at
20:10 some options we recently added say for uh launch warnings based on a particular type of uh radar PRF which wasn't there before. So, we're reading these reports, but again, it's really important to also, you know, have some evidence, verifiable evidence that's not restricted uh to base it on. So, switching to weather and atmosphere, can we expect further evolution of the weather system such as, you know, real world weather integration, a more granular control over weather and time of day in multiplayer environments? That one is one that I'm really curious about, >> right? Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, obviously we had a big push on uh
20:57 updated weather, particularly clouds and obviously the the new fog system earlier. Uh but right now, again, going back to allocation resources, uh those folks are currently on Vulcan. So, once we get Vulcan rolled out, we're happy with it, then we can start putting people back onto the weather system. And some of the highlights of that of course are going to be, you know, still more improved clouds like towering cumulus clouds, uh, which is something we're still missing. Uh, better turbulence effects is a big one. Uh, really no plans to have realworld matching weather uh, between the real world and the game. It's just not something we see as providing a whole lot of uh, gameplay and benefit to something like DCS. I can
21:44 understand it for something like Microsoft lights I'm going to explain it makes perfect sense but for DCS it's just um probably better to allocate resources uh elsewhere >> it's just about you know when we have servers and things like missions that run in the servers and we want to have a more dynamic weather uh pattern that happens and actually you get more control over it I think that's something that yeah yeah is >> that will also certainly improve because even way back when we have you know dynamic weather which is based on pressure cells. So that will continue to evolve with the new weather system as well. So rather than having a single weather condition over the entire map uh based on the uh pressure systems within the map, you'll have variable weather depending on where you fly, whether it's
22:30 cloud cover, wind, gust. Uh gust is another big one we need to improve as well. Of course. >> Yeah, I know. It's it's something that will make uh even that dynamic campaign even more dynamic because of the weather changes that happen left and right. We already can play with the fog, which I really like the way you introduce the fog because you can actually set a certain time of day that happens and then it you can dissipate it maybe something like that to see for the weather. That will be awesome as well. I'm just putting it out there for sure. you guys know better what you're going to do with it. But it's something that is uh has changed also our experience on our server in development right now. So it's really nice to have uh tools like this. The new infantry AI animations are a
23:18 noticeable step forward. How will these units be used going forward? And are there any plans to modernize other units including man pads and air defense assets? >> Right. So right now we're starting with uh infantry units uh basically assault rifles uh for uh US, Russian and insurgents. One of the big things that's taken quite a a while time is creating all the huge amount of different uh animations of say putting infantry into different helicopters into different APCs IFBs how do they jump over a fence and other obstacles. So that's a big reason why this has taken so long is just all the different uh animation permutations and
24:03 just making it look really good and natural. Uh once that core is done, then we'll certainly work on to other ones like man pads. We've already started working on a uh a javelin and RPG units and things like that. So, and of course then there's World War II uh infantry as well. I forgot to mention. So, it will continue to grow. It's just right now we're starting with those rifle units. And again, once that is um at a level we're happy with and the customers are happy with, then we'll start using that same technology to add other leg units uh into DCS because we have seen the new skeletal systems you implemented for these units. As we saw in the Beyond video, you included boarding and dismounting from
24:48 helicopters and the C130, even throwing grenades. That that was awesome. But since you shared with us that work in progress weapon sites, one could wonder if you plan on giving more control over these infantry units similar to an FPS like Arma or other titles out there. >> Yeah. So, initially, of course, they're going to be AI only units. Uh eventually, we really wanted to expand the ground aspect to DCS, whether it's infantry, whether it's inside of a Bradley or an Abrams, what have you. There's other factors that first need to be greatly improved. The biggest one of course is the terrain. Uh just the level of detail of the terrain, the buildings,
25:34 uh the explosions, the vegetation uh would still need to be substantially better for us to release a deius level ground simulation with a straight face. Uh it needs to be improved. The other of course big one is the AI of the ground units which you know a big part of that is actually being addressed on the tactical level AI for the dynamic campaign. And then the third big element is the damage modeling. You know obviously right now for the ground vehicles uh you have you know side top front back armor values and things like that but you can't say track a vehicle or just take out sensors and see that. >> Yeah. which is also a big factor why I think there's some misperceptions about the damage modeling or I should say more
26:20 about uh how much damage weapons can do to a ground vehicle because it's really not very well represented in the physical model. All you can really see this through is a life bar in the F10 map of the damage level of that ground vehicle. So there's a lot to do on the damage modeling of the ground vehicles which would be a critical aspect again for us to do a DCS level ground simulation. It's just not there yet. >> What can you tell us about the new navigation mesh technology and how will it improve the AI path finding and unit behavior moving forward? So this again another common thing this is also a direct outgrowth of what we're doing for dynamic campaign right now >> because uh right now it's just you know
27:05 particularly in urban environment it's just just way too easy for AI units to kind of get hung up or do stupid things. So, one of the things we've done is created a whole new nav mesh to give the AI much better, more realistic, and much more efficient routing options around the map, particularly around the urban areas. And bridges is another sore point for AI routing. So again, most of this dynamic mesh is focused for dynamic campaign particularly and again this was also um have benefits to DCS in general but allow the AI units to get around the map in a much more realistic manner. We know you are working on AI in most updates we cover in our videos but there
27:51 was a showcase posted about AI synchronization information flight where things look really smooth. How is progress on that and what can we expect from AI development as we move closer to DCS 2.9? >> So what you saw earlier was early work on what we call the GFM, their general flight model. Uh sadly we had a really talented engineer responsible for that who uh unfortunately uh since left the company. So uh at this point we're trying to find a good replacement for him to kind of take over that mantle and push that effort forward. >> Okay. So basically this is this is valuable information for me also for our community because we have seen it and we
28:38 know it's it's possible. It's just a matter of time once again to be able to actually get it implemented. >> And it's finding the right engineer too. It's not uh as easy as uh some folks might think of just putting a help wanted ad out there and we have multiple applicants for it. You know, finding someone uh with those AI skills who understands the product that can work well within our team >> uh is not an easy task. So, and it's not just, you know, for GFM, there's a lot of different elements with DCS that it's a very particular type of engineer or artist that we need that sometimes can be very difficult to find.
29:25 How is the super carrier development progressing and what new control features are planned? Will players be able to switch carrier state between launch and recovery? and how will the new briefing room fit into all of this? >> So, the big elements we're working on right now. So, uh first the 1MC messages are actually more or less working in the game right now. We're just kind of debugging a bit of the multiplayer. So, hopefully in the next month's update, we'll finally uh hear Wombat uh doing the launch and recovery uh PA announcements on the deck. Uh at the same time, of course, as you mentioned, we're working on the briefing room. Uh this has taken a while. It absolutely has, but mainly because this is an all new technology and gameplay element we've never done in DCS before, which
30:12 the nice thing is it'll have a lot of possibilities for uh other implementations in the game. For example, maybe at an air base you have a briefing room um you know in Iraq, something like that. We've also had to do a fair amount of work on creating you know all the different art for it. see all the different types of pilots, you know, having all the logic for the greeny board and how that's going to work in multiplayer, how the lect turn and the briefings is going to work, having the data pad and allowing the player to set the route um their payloads and so on. So, it's been a lot of work, but mainly because it's again developing a new technology really haven't done before. Uh other big elements uh one is we're still uh
30:57 adjusting the eye flaws. So that way you have you know better uh instruction for a good solid three wire every time. Right now it's still a bit off. Uh the other course is the landing uh barrier which we still plan. Uh that is actually contingent on the new rope physics we're working on. So, uh, both the the barrier, uh, the AL50 tow decoy, a refilling probe, all that is contingent on the new rope physics that we're working on right now. Uh, in terms of basically we referring to as cyclic ops, uh, it's not it's not really possible right now because there's really no way to move the statics around in a realistic way. The best you can really
31:43 do right now was called an open deck where you have aircraft parked such that they're not going to interfere on a catapult. Uh having true no kidding cyclic ops just uh it's probably really not in the cards right now. Are there any plans to bring super carrier level features to other ships such as the Tarowa Forestal or even some World War II future carriers. So I think for obvious reasons I I don't see that happen for the Tarowa. Uh for the Foresttol it's possible we'd have to work with Hepler to make that happen. And as you might imagine both companies are extremely busy right now. Uh Hepler has a very very full plate. Uh for World War II, yeah, I think that could, you know, quite possibly happen down the
32:28 road. You know, obviously first we want to get the PTO assets pack out there and all the carriers and working, but I think if you know, a lot will depend on how sales goes of the PTO. That is certainly an area that we could look into to make a essentially super carrier functionality for the World War II carriers as well. But that's, you know, very much still the TPD. The other two things with super carrier we're still working on. One of course is the dynamic deck crew. >> Yeah. So, we want to, you know, have them have a little more um preservation of life, so to speak, that they will automatically move out of the way if they're about to get run over by a taxi and aircraft. Just a much more realistic deck. Uh so, that's a big one. And of course, another big one is the ability
33:13 to go into uh the hanger decks below. It's a it's a lower priority, you know, because you again despite what some folks might think, you'd never start in the cockpit inside the uh the hangar deck and then jump on the uh elevator and go up. Uh you always get in the cockpit up on the roof. Uh but it's still something we want uh to do at some point. Absolutely. >> You previously mentioned a UI revamp including social features like friends list and squadron organizations. Can you expand on where that effort stands as of today? So, as you might imagine, uh it's going to be based on a very similar UI to done for the launcher and also what you saw in the 2026 dynamic campaign. But speaking of dynamic campaign, uh those UI development resources are
33:59 currently focused on dynamic campaign UI. Once we get that done, then we'll probably start looking at implementing some of those things you mentioned. But first, we have to have those resources freed up, but they're still planned as big updates for TCS. eventually a whole uh UI uh refactoring. >> You confirm work on a new ATC and communication system. What improvements can players expect in terms of usability, realism, and immersion? >> The overall goal of course is to make it the most realistic, easy to use com system as possible. So naturally what we have right now is a nested menu system which is incredibly dated and u kind of
34:45 a pain to use uh in my opinion. One of the things we've been working on for a while now is an all new UI system based on what you've seen uh Petravich and George. Um but more recently we're evaluating essentially skipping that and going directly to a voice recognition system. Whereas I you know to me uh the best UI is no UI and if we can put together a voice recognition system with a backup if you really wanted to a UI uh to us that's probably the ultimate solution. Uh and that's one of the big things we're looking at right now is you know could we potentially do a voice recognition system uh embedded in DCS that doesn't have the requirement or any
35:33 kind of uh cloud connection or anything like that. Everything can be done locally. So that's kind of where we are right now. But it's also important to remember that it's going to be it is a big effort because it's not just ATC. We can't do ATC in isolation. It would have to be done with all the different uh radio participants whether it's ATC Awax flight members other flights JTAC tankers so on all that has to be done back to the ATC one of the big things we have been working on actually I've been working on is working with some rather well-knownmemes on putting together the comm flow a very detailed and incredibly accurate com flow for US military air force coms that Whether it's through a UI system or voice recognition system,
36:21 it would be at least in my opinion the most realistic uh Air Force comm's ever done for Flight Sim. Um on the consumer side, this sounds really good and definitely will enhance our experience, but please keep in mind that not everyone would like to talk and use their voice in order to navigate the menus. There will be customers that maybe have a speech impediment. Maybe they have a very strong accent or they just don't want to use voice recognition. So, it would have to be something in parallel. Um, we can't go I think 100% voice recognition. There would have to be a backup. >> Folks that either don't want to or can't. >> Speaking of this new communication system may cause some headaches. How will these changes coexist with existing
37:06 campaigns, missions, and heavily scripted multiplayer servers? >> Yeah, so certainly any new uh com system would have to be backwards compatible with older mission sync campaigns and a lot of those as I'm sure you're aware uh rely on the F10 other command system. So what we do is we essentially fold that F10 map um other system directly into the new uh UI for the new comp system. So it won't be rocket science. It's certainly something we can do. >> Super. Yeah. Our guy Tobias is like, "What happens to my menu?" It was like it's >> should be fine. >> It's in Ed's hands now. We are uh we are to tormenting him since you you placed those uh newsletters down there and
37:53 we're like, "Okay, it's the end of your ATC." But um yeah, it makes sense. It makes sense that it's not and uh functionality will continue. We only evolve. We don't go backwards. So, it makes sense. >> Well, that's the thing too is I understand that when we add new stuff, it may break some things, but we have to balance that with mo moving the product forward and you know, addressing all the things that a lot of the customers want. So, yeah, there's never perfect solution. we can make make everything 100% compatible as we make changes in the game whether it's a campaign or a mod or what have you u as much as possible try to minimize it but at the same time the product has to move forward
38:39 with so many systems evolving what steps is Eagle Dynamics taking to ensure mod support and community created content continues to thrive >> so it it's a difficult one too which you kind of just talked about that you know we have to keep the product moving forward and as much as we like to support MA as much as we can we can't unfortunately hold the product back from where it needs to be in order to maintain that compatibility. Uh the best we can do is that when we have a a mod that really makes sense, is really high quality uh particularly for like a mod aircraft that that developer reach out to us and we can discuss actually making an official product that allows us to much better support it and maintain that support uh within DCS mods outside of an
39:28 official one. It's just it's a very uh difficult aspects for us to support while still maintaining DCS and moving that forward. And um I I'm sure some of the moderators are not going to like hearing this, but in the end, a lot of that's just going to have to rely on the modder's shoulder that as DCS involves, they're going to have to of uh update their mods for that. We really can't do a whole lot of backwards compatibility for unofficial mods that we have zero control over. >> And then we have seen in the past uh that you actually took modders even in assets current hill. >> Well, the C130 is a great example too. that started as a free mod and now look what we have.
40:14 >> Development of the world map has been passed. Can you explain why and what challenges need to be resolved before it moves forward again? >> Uh well back to the refrain again just those resources had to be put put elsewhere. Uh in this case I believe it's Vulcan again we'll come back to it. It's still something very much uh planned and we think uh one of the key new elements of DCS in the future along with dynamic campaign. It's just uh right now dynamic campaign vulcan are higher priority for us >> which makes sense. But uh in your vision in Eagle Dynamics's vision, how would a world map function in DCS? Would it use lower details regions that transition into higher details maps? And is there
41:01 potential for even the stitching of the existing maps to together? This is something that I keep on seeing on the comments from our viewers. So that's why I placed it in here. >> So stitching of existing maps. Uh that's a big negative. Uh in terms of spherical earth map, basically will cover probably around 85 to 90% of the entire earth at a lower level detail. And then what you could do is you could essentially then purchase a highly detailed regional map kind of like what we have right now that then plugs into that. So, for example, if we look at an example of the maps we have right now, say you could have the Cold War Germany map and the Nevada map and that would allow you to take off from Nevada and then fly, you know,
41:50 across the United States, the Atlantic Ocean into Germany as a single mission. Now obviously uh the space between a Nevada map and a Germany map is going to be at a much lower detail. But this also then gives third or map third parties an avenue to create maps to support spherical earth as well which of course they already have a big heads up uh head start on with all the different assets and the knowhow. Unfortunately, the old maps are built on a much old an older TDK and a very different technology. So, we just we can't port existing maps, at least right now, into a spherical Earth. Maybe in the future, but for now, they would have to be probably unique maps again. So just to make sure I got it
42:37 correctly, especially even later on as we report on this is basically uh new maps will need to be created at a certain level of detail to be able to be implemented inside of world map or not. Uh cuz you said that they >> Yeah, pretty much. The I think the bigger question is whether or not the existing maps could be modified to work within spherical earth >> or they'd have to be 100% created from scratch. And I don't believe we actually have a clear answer on that right now because again, you just >> there's too many unknowns at this point. >> So the vision the vision is there. That's the vision. That's the plan. And then you'll go on and see how things will happen once you get to implement this and test these things. I think it's also about testing once Vulcan is in and
43:24 while it's all >> be huge. >> Yeah. Okay. A lot of testing. >> So it makes sense, you know, like I I know what to talk about. I know what how how to go through the because it is definitely when we first heard about the world map, it was okay. Uh DC is getting a map makes sense, but at the same time, how >> right? So yeah, the how is quite big here. >> I would just I would just think of the spherical core earth map as the canvas. >> Yeah. >> And then you can paint in high detail areas based on individual map purchases. >> Sounds cool. I just hope I don't get more gray hair uh by the time you manage to. It's you know it can happen. >> Okay. >> I hear you. I see. I know.
44:11 In the 2026 and beyond video, we noticed what looked like environmental destruction, possibly a falling tree. Is the rain destruction or defoliation something you're actively exploring right now? >> Yeah. So, the that video segment is 100% correct. We are modeling trees that can actually knock down, not just sway and then go right back up. Um, so it's important, uh, you know, for, you know, canopy destruction and just a more interactive world. Right now, we're really not working on like terrain deformation. Uh, in terms of vegetation deformation, if that's a term, uh, yeah, that's certainly something we're working on.
44:56 >> Okay. So basically from a technology standpoint, how far are we from being able to support a Vietnam era environment properly in DCS? >> Uh it'll come uh just, you know, I think the big thing is in addition to the technology of having multiple water planes and things like that, a lot of it's actually honestly going to come down to performance. at for us to do a Vietnam map, right? It'll have to have a three level uh was a three tier uh canopy. >> Yeah. >> And anyone familiar with the Mariana's map, the particularly the modern day one, uh which also has a lot of tree in a lot of objects. You know, one of the common complaints we have is performance.
45:42 Uh in all likelihood, the Vietnam would be um even a a much much bigger performance hog than even the Mariana's map. So one of the big things for us to first need to resolve to do a Vietnam map would be not just the technology but of course the performance and a big part of the performance of course again it's going to be you know what we're doing with multi-threading eventually what's going to come through Vulcan so eventually we'll get there but right now like these two particular uh technologies would still need to resolve before we could do it and do it right because yeah we could probably do a um a Vietnam map tomorrow. Uh like the Patty system would probably not look very good and the performance would be
46:30 pretty bad. So, let's get those resolved and then we can work on that. Uh in the meantime, we are going to finish up the Iraq map and the Afghanistan map, which is our number one priority. And we also have a, you know, at least three other maps that we're uh looking at that we are quite excited about that we think customers will be very happy uh about as well once we're ready to announce those. >> Yeah, I'm not going to push you on that one. Though we are seeing bits and pieces put there by you and also the third parties which is really fun. We like we like this game and we're going to play this game in that way. So, we're going to uh go and cover uh in like what if and we will see when the surprise is there. We don't want to ruin the
47:16 surprise. That's something that I don't want to do either myself when I do content. But at the same time, I respect the PR side because then it has to be it's still a product. People don't understand. It's still a product and you can't just go and uh break all the surprises. It's like exactly like a family work. You don't want to you want your your children to be happy when you prepare a present for them. uh with a surprise. So I do understand that. >> Okay. Um >> well, we're also trying to learn some of our lessons from the past where we probably announced projects a bit too early. >> Too early. Yeah. Yeah. >> And then for one reason or another, they got pushed back and there's a lot of um resentment for those delays or talking about them too early. So um more these days we're trying to, you know, hold
48:02 back a bit about when we actually announce a product. >> Be more realistic. be more realistic and giving a bit of time. Yeah, I can respect that. I can definitely respect that. And we definitely have seen and uh sometimes I was wondering if certain projects were announced for I know for a locked in situation especially when it comes to third parties to say hey we are doing this one even though it will take a huge amount of time. Uh this is something that the community need need to know as well. uh certain projects that have been put in the past uh and correct me if I'm wrong uh they need to lock in in a in a public way. So uh you know maybe future third parties that are not even yet signing with you they're not working on something to come to present to you knowing that hey uh that
48:49 one is already locked in like uh it kind of gives a road map for future content when it comes to third parties but also I think uh Eagle Dynamics if not a fair assessment. Yeah. >> Okay. Cool. Coming back to maps. Very important one. Is there any current effort in trying to reduce the space required for installed maps? >> So, if we were to do it, we're going to So, what are you willing to sacrifice is the question. Do you want smaller maps? Do you want maps with less detail? Do you want maps with less texture resolution? What are you willing to give up to make the maps install size smaller? >> Smaller. Yeah. >> Cuz that's what it would involve. Yeah, in the end is a is a tech limitation of what we can deliver
49:34 currently with the map making. Yeah, >> there's only so much you can compress. You know, the big thing we are actively working on is rather than limit players to installing maps on their install drive for DCS is allowing them to install maps on separate drives, which is something we actually do in our internal version right now. So um so in many ways we think that's probably the um the solution rather than what we see as making a worse map by making the file sizes smaller. It's just giving customers more freedom about where to save those files. >> That will be a life changer. Uh I
50:20 already use my um save games folder on a different drive sometimes depending on the system that I use. I have it with a link source connection and uh it works totally fine. I don't have any issues whatsoever. And I can imagine libraries being something really really useful when it comes to maps in in particular maps cuz modules themselves are are not as huge as maps. It makes sense. So definitely that wouldn't be an an issue. Yeah. Great. Okay. Good that we at least we touched on this and we can put out the information. >> We heard in the past that you would consider upgrading the free caucuses map. Is there any current talks about it and what can you tell us? >> We've actually updated the caucuses map
51:06 I think literally three times now. Uh mostly texture updates. >> Textures. >> Uh we also recognize that you know because it's free. Caucuses map is probably the most popular map still in DCS to this day. it and not just because it's free, but it's also I think a very uh interesting map in terms of variation in the topography, the airfield spread. Um it's just a I think a a map that lends itself well to DCS. So, it's something we certainly want and plan to revisit. how we do that is still not something we're ready to quite talk about yet. And also the timing because again the timing wise again we we really need to finish
51:53 up existing maps before we start talking about new maps. Uh and again there's other maps as well too that we really want to um either revisit or do as well. Uh Caucuses is certainly one of the maps that we intend to revisit again. Exactly how that's going to manifest itself. We'll talk about that at a later point. >> And the priority focus for what I understand also from the newsletter and also from our talk here today is Iraq and Afghanistan map. This is what E is doing right now. >> Yeah. So we have uh two map teams. Uh one of which is focused on Iraq and of course the other is focused on Afghanistan. So for Afghanistan, they're still updating a few of the areas like around Kandahar and some other areas of the map. But the bulk of the work right
52:39 now is uh completing the final region, the north region, which you know, as you saw in the newsletter, will also contain a portion of Turk Manistan that will have Mary one or Mary south and Mary north as well. And um once that's done, uh then we can put the Afghan map to bed. uh you know with updates of course and bug fixes uh naturally but it'll allow us then to move that map team onto the next map project uh for Iraq map there's still some areas in the northern Iraq we want to flesh out and improve but the bulk of the work now is on southern Iraq region which of course is you know Kuwait Bahrain gutter and portions of Saudi Arabia and you
53:26 know of course the goal on that is to allow players to ate uh ODS and Iraqi freedom scenarios which um it's it's a bit tough right now to make interesting gameplay outside of coin ops in the current Iraq map but this is you know with the addition of the southern part it'll really open it up and then after that you know of course we're looking at um expanding off to the east to include portions of Iran which will allow modeling of the Iran Iraq war as well >> from my view here there's a lot of content being posted on Afghanistan by talented creators using official modules, but also like the little bird. You know, I won't push it, but a blackhawk module would uh come in handy on that map. >> We're getting we're getting close to the
54:11 day. Hopefully, we can do a Blackhawk. Obviously, right now, a lot of our focus is still on the Apache. Yeah. Speaking of which, I can't pass along that just this week, we we actually for the first time had the uh the brand new rotor model uh integrated into the Apache, and it flies. so much better now. Uh we think a lot of customers particularly uh actual no kid and Apache pilots are going to be pretty happy with it. >> So soon TM 2 weeks we going to uh get to take the Apache for a spin and have a good time. still still a little a few bugs we want to clean up on the rotor model and then naturally has to go through internal external testing and so no time frame but I can pass along that the new rotor model which we've been waiting for for you know a couple years now is finally actually in our uh
54:59 internal testing and the initial results are very good >> there's a lot of discussions around the term full fidelity how does eagle dynamics define it and what makes modules like the F-18C and the F-16C full fidelity. >> So, so in DCS, um, honestly the easiest way to look at it is just two words, a clickable cockpit. For Eagle Dynamics products, uh, anything with a clickable cockpit is considered full fidelity. Anything without it, like the flame is not. That's the most basic way to look at it. uh a more detailed way to look at it is you know both full fidelity and non fullfidelity generally share um an
55:44 equivalent level of flight model. It's more about with the full fidelity of all the different um systems modeling whether it's the avionics instrumentation whether it's the sensors the weapon systems the radio systems the environmental systems the electrical system hydraulic system how all those interact that's what you have full fidelity whereas in non fullfidelity i.e like flaming cliffs is a much more simplified uh simulation of those aircraft >> and with aircraft like Rafal Euro Fighter F35 entering DCS some players worry >> full fidelity >> yeah yeah they're all fidelity >> and they you know the players are worrying about the PVP balance now I know myself the answer to this question
56:31 but would I would like to hear how you approach this concern of the player base when it comes to PvP >> well in balance we don't do balance. We simulate as realistically as and feasibly as we can and then it's up essentially to the campaign missure designer, the mission designer or the server creator to take those assets and create scenarios that fit the balance that they wish. But it's not our goal to artificially balance out things. And we very much create a sandbox. We're not trying to create a single experience with aircraft that all balance each other like other games might. Again, that's not the goal of what DCS is. Uh I
57:18 understand that some people want a much more directed focused uh simulation say on a particular uh time period for instance, but again that's not what DCS is about. and being what we are as a sandbox simulation has served us quite well over the years and at this point we don't see what the point of trying to fix what ain't broke. Now one thing you know we are looking into provide more realistic and if you want to use the word more balanced particular for single player is adding more uh AI units that provide more of a threat to some of the more capable
58:04 aircraft being added to DCS whether it's the F-35 the Typhoon the Rafael uh because you know right now outside of say like you know the SA10 or the SA SA A15 there's not you know something that you know has a very lethal threat to those type of aircraft. So we are looking at more modern Russian air defense systems and aircraft. Uh same with Chinese. Uh but again that's more of a single player aspect of the game we want to expand upon rather than multiplayer PVP. Yeah, PvE in multiplayer uh is having a comeback these days, at least from what I've seen and we are trying to do that as well with our server. It takes a long time to actually get it out, but at the same time, I see a lot of players very
58:51 excited about it. I'm happy. I'm really happy for for this type of experiences to be able to be achieved in DCS overall as a communitydriven project because in the end, that's what it is, you know, like we use what you give us. We try to do it in a way that we go on and have fun. In the end, is the sandbox experience that you want to achieve with groups like ours. >> Okay. Um, a very interesting question. We've seen it before. Given the classified nature of modern sensors and avionics, how are radar and sensor system realistically modeled in DCS without doing some uh, you know, guesswork here and there? if you know where to look and you have the patience for it, there's actually a surprising amount of information out there uh you know whether you know ideally of course
59:38 you know flight manuals um at a releaseable level is the ideal choice but you know for example which I know often comes up is the F35 and how can you do that if you don't have a flight manual um well you know first to dispel silly rumors out there we're not just you know basing it on air shows that's just absurd uh it's more about uh looking at documentation that is available whether it's directly from the aircraft manufacturer more often actually from the subsystem manufacturers uh technical papers uh from organizations or universities like Georgia Tech is often a uh a great place to find uh such documentation so there's a lot of really good and interesting
1:00:24 information out there um which you can then reference to defense shows of what they uh show in terms of what maybe say the some of the different pilot vehicle or the PBI interface looks like. So, it's kind of a combination of all of those. Again, it's air show. It's I don't know where people come up with some of this stuff. And surprisingly um like with the F-35 based on that kind of information, there's a mountain more information on an aircraft like that than surprisingly compared to say uh uh a more modern Russian or even more so Chinese aircraft. Uh and in some ways honestly even the
1:01:11 other aircraft like a Hornet. So my impression is I think there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction assumptions about availability of information without actually doing the due diligence to discover what's actually available out there. And again, if you know where to look, uh there's a surprising amount of information. And you know, naturally, there's always going to be dead zones of uh data that's not available. But even then in those limited areas, you can often look at equivalent systems from equivalent manufacturers that you often use a similar PVI kind of theme so to speak that you can then uh
1:02:00 base that system on. So even then you could probably get pretty close. So it won't be exact but again you know like we said many times uh with DCS aircraft we are never looking to have 100% simulation you know we're generally looking what maybe 80 85%. So we understand a lot of customers do want to have that 100%. But for multiple reasons whether it's the ROI or diminishing returns classification uh that's never going to happen. Uh and um eventually when we get to that 80 85% uh you know I think for 99% of the customers that's great but of course there's always going to be you know a percentage of customers that you know until is that 100% they're they're never
1:02:47 going to be happy but as we learned a long time ago as I'm sure you know you can never make everybody 100% happy. Uh the best we can do is focus our resources to make the most people happy as possible. You mentioned that development on the F-35 and F-15C has been laidback for a while. Can you explain why? Um, two big areas. One of course which I think we we mentioned directly in the newsletters and resources just those resources right now are focused on other tasks. So, you know, one of the things we got hit for, I think, over the past year is spending too much time developing new aircraft and not enough time on core and supporting existing aircraft. So, we
1:03:33 spent we're spending more time listening to our customers and doing exactly that. The consequence of course is new new stuff is going to get delayed. Uh you can't have it both ways. Uh so it's it's a bit interesting that unfortunately now it's gone the other way that we have some uh customers complaining well you're not you know doing enough on new aircraft. So yeah it's a it's a classic case of sometimes you can't win. Um but okay all that being said so with the 35 yeah resources is a big one. Uh we're al, you know, because of the nature of the 35, in particular, uh the art of being able to do scans and things like that, uh we're potentially working with another party and we're still working
1:04:20 some of the details out with that. Uh which we believe will result in a much better product as well and a more accurate product. >> Wow. uh for the eagle, you know, again, I think we mentioned this uh the design work which is uh which is one of my babies is already done >> actually done for a while. Uh the delay on that has actually been the art side that we want to do uh a really accurate and beautiful cockpit and external model which will uh involve scanning. We very recently finally got permission uh to get into an F-15C uh here in the US to actually do that scanning. So once we have that scanning done, then we can actually start building the cockpit and
1:05:05 the uh uh external model, then start plugging in the different avionic systems and building that aircraft out. >> Superb. Well, looking forward to fly. Uh it's going to be something interesting, especially now. I think they're just coming here in Finland, but I'm not going to go in that side, too. Yeah, I heard about it. So, I just saw the first one, you know, getting unveiled. It was really cool. Yeah. >> Some players ask why more red for aircraft aren't being developed if modern blueour aircraft are possible. >> Yeah, it's the data particularly for the more modern aircraft, say like a like a MiG 31 or an SU35 uh or late model MIG 29. there's just not nearly enough data uh for older uh eastern aircraft. Um it's then more
1:05:52 of a question of interest in sales that you know if we do an aircraft we want to have high confidence we're not going to lose money on it and you know we've been doing this for gez over 25 years or so. we know what sells and what does not sell. And doing a say third generation or a second generation eastern aircraft is going to be a tougher cell. And what we found in the past is that these are generally best left to third parties that often most often do a very good job with them anyways. And it frees us up to do uh other aircraft that were more suited to do. Regarding the F-15C full fidelity announcement, this was from back from last year. We looked at all the questions that were answered over
1:06:38 there. And you we learned that the entire external model and cockpit will be rebuilt of course to meet the new graphical standards. Uh you also mentioned that the flight model will be based on the flaming cliffs version and later to be improved. Is that correct? Can you elaborate on that or how what does that mean? >> So we're going to base it on what we have right now in Flaming Cliffs 4 which is already we consider you know quite accurate. Well, what we'll do is um we'll bring on actually already have one lined up uh Eagle Pilot SMMES and based on their feedback, we'll tune and tweak and change as needed to make it even more accurate. But, you know, it'll the basis will be from the Flaming Cliffs uh Eagle.
1:07:24 >> Well, it makes sense to start it there and improve on a Flaming Cliff 2024 flight model. Okay. >> And and that will also be the last of the Flaming Cliffs as well. So from after flaming clips 4 everything now will be full fidelity. >> Okay. So basically you answer one of my questions. Will there be any more flaming cliffs uh modules? So that's it. That's the the package that we have there. That's the uh step that we have for new players will always be there. Yes. So we will always Yeah. Yeah. We're not removing it by any means. Yeah. It's a it's a good kind of entry level uh
…
