Pacific Asset Pack update shows off latest work

,
2–3 minutes

Lots of work is ongoing for DCS World these days and one of the areas that Eagle Dynamics has slowly been taking the covers off of is the asset pack currently being developed for Pacific WWII. The assets are highly detailed ships, tanks, vehicles and aircraft that took part in the later part of the war centered currently around the Marianas islands battles. Separate of the pack is the DCS: F6F Hellcat which is also underway. Last Friday’s development update gave us new screenshots and details on the status. Let’s have a look!

Pacific assets take shape

Eagle Dynamics reports that progress is being made on the WWII PTO Asset Pack and that many ships, aircraft and ground units have progressed from list to static model to fully functional DCS asset. Eagle Dynamics says that this is a distinct milestone as they transition from being modeled and textured into assets that are now being tested, tuned and integrated into the sim’s systems.

A big part of that integration work is AI behavior, and dive bombers are a good example of why this takes real engineering time. A Val or a Helldiver doesn’t fight like a fighter or fly like a level bomber; it needs to identify a target, roll into a proper diving attack, release at the right altitude, and pull out. The entire attack profile is different from anything else in the AI’s existing playbook. Getting that dive-bombing behavior tuned correctly for each of the Pacific dive bombers is part of what’s happening under the hood right now.

Eagle Dynamics reports that these assets are being developed with proper Combined Arms functionality as well so that players commanding round units will have full control over ground units rather than limited AI-only interaction. Good!

I thought it’d be good to go back to the announced list as a reminded for everyone. The WWII PTO asset pack intends to include the following previously published list:

United States Aircraft

  • F6F “Hellcat”
  • SB2C “Helldiver”
  • TBF “Avenger”
  • SBD-5 “Dauntless” 
  • PBY “Catalina”
  • P-38L “Lightning”

United States Ships

  • Enterprise aircraft carrier 
  • Casablanca-class light aircraft carrier 
  • Independence-class light aircraft carrier 
  • New Orleans-class heavy cruiser
  • Baltimore-class heavy cruiser 
  • Cleveland-class light cruiser
  • Fletcher-class destroyer 
  • Liberty-class transport 
  • Cimmaron-class oiler

United States Ground Forces

  • M4A2 Sherman
  • M3A1 “Stuart” light tank 
  • LVT-4 tracked landing vehicle 
  • LVT(A)-4 tracked landing vehicle 
  • DUKW-353 amphibious truck 
  • US Marine Corp infantryman
  • US Navy Carrier personnel 
  • US Navy seaman

Imperial Japanese Aircraft

  • A6M5 “Zero”
  • D4Y “Judy” 
  • D3A “Val” 
  • B6N “Jill” 

Imperial Japan Ships

  • Shokaku aircraft carrier 
  • Chitose light aircraft carrier 
  • Kongo battleship 
  • Mogami heavy cruiser 
  • Agano-class light cruiser 
  • Yugumo-class destroyer 
  • Kagero-class destroyer 
  • Kashino-class transport 

Imperial Japanese Ground Forces

  • Type 94 Tankette 
  • Type 95 Ha-Go tank 
  • Kurogane Type 95 car 
  • Type 97 Te-Ke tank 
  • Type 97 Chi-Ha tank 
  • Type 97 ShinHoTo tank 
  • Type 2 Ka-M amphibious tank 
  • Type 1 47mm anti-tank gun 
  • Type 98 20mm anti-aircraft gun 
  • Type 91 10cm towed artillery 
  • Type 92 70mm towed artillery 
  • Type 10 120mm anti-aircraft gun 
  • Imperial Japanese Army Infantryman 
  • Japan Navy seaman

9 responses to “Pacific Asset Pack update shows off latest work”

  1. Urgent Siesta Avatar
    Urgent Siesta

    A. This looks great!

    B. I wonder why no US Battleship but 3 US Cruisers, and an IJN battleship…?

    Notable omissions are an IJN sub and a US PT boat – we have Kriegsmarine examples in the ETO pack. Not a tragedy, just an observation…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Urgent Siesta Avatar
      Urgent Siesta

      the lack of a sub sticks out in my mind since I keep seeing the Type VII in the PTO promos…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    2. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
      ShamrockOneFive

      I’m not sure what was driving the selection list exactly but I’m thinking they are focused on late WWII options and providing the most interesting targets possible. Missing a sub and a PT boat do seem like serious omissions. Maybe an expanded list will come in… 5-10 years 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Urgent Siesta Avatar
        Urgent Siesta

        yep! 😂

        it just seems like having one battleship and one cruiser would’ve sufficed vs 3 cruisers. Like you said: I’m sure there’s a reason, but… 🤙

        I can somewhat see not having the PT boat as that wasn’t a thing in the Marianas, but still we only have the one PTO map with which to play.

        the only thing that really tickles my OCD is the U-Boat in the PTO promos. Like, just leave it out, or only show the periscope 😉

        Anyhow, all good – it just needs to get here so the campaign makers can get to work! 😎🤙

        Liked by 2 people

  2. PaperPilot Avatar
    PaperPilot

    I know I am a bit off topic, but I am one of many who feel that the number of BlueFor aircraft for DCS World severely outnumbers the diversity of RedFor aircraft. I know the team would face legal and classification barriers to making something like a full fidelity Su-35S or a J-10C, And I suggest a way to solve it – make non-clickable RedFor aircraft with realistic flight models.

    Now I know this goes against their game’s design philosophy as of now, and they would be running the risks of cannibilising the sales of their full fidelity jets; but I think they need to do something soon before they are outcompeted by other combat flight simulators – most notably War Thunder and more directly, the impending Falcon 5.0.

    What do you make of this?

    Like

    Reply
    1. ShamrockOneFive Avatar
      ShamrockOneFive

      I don’t see it the same way. There’s two pieces that need to be thought about in this. I could do a whole editorial but its a bit off topic here and so I’ll be doing just short points.

      The first part is competition. Right now, DCS still doesn’t have any significant competition which is a problem but a separate point. Their goal is, like most companies, to make money and so they are currently making their money with popular western fighter jets primarily. The F/A-18 and the F-16C and so forth. They report that, while the MiG-29 sold well, its not in the same category as those more popular models. So while they are listening to us who want to see more, they have to counter balance that versus more popular selling options. Unless sales change or a competitor actually arrives on the market, they won’t be steering in other directions. We’ll see what Falcon 5.0 actually is but right now its speculation and hype alone.

      Second, we’ve also heard that the low fidelity options are actually not all that popular. I wish they were. If they were, then I think we’d see more efforts there but that’s not what most DCS World customers are chasing. So it doesn’t seem likely at this point that we’re getting more modern offerings as low fidelity flyables.

      I do think that we’ll see more of them show up as AI models. The introduction of the F-35, Typhoon and Rafale pushes us closer to modern day.

      And now back to the PTO WWII assets!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. PaperPilot Avatar
        PaperPilot

        Thank you for answering. I think it is strange that low fidelity aircraft are not all that popular in the first place. I guess that s the thing about DCS World. people come for the life-like experience.

        I’ll master it one day.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Urgent Siesta Avatar
      Urgent Siesta

      well, that’s quite the non sequitur! 😉

      If a balanced, coherent plane set using non-clickable cockpits with period appropriate maps made the difference, IL2 would’ve killed DCS warbirds long ago. Yet we see that DCS still has a growing stable of hi fi warbirds. They are obviously competitive!

      In re your direct assertion, the non-clickable RedFor jets have been done and done and done as both paid modules and free mods.

      Interestingly, most of the free RedFor mods seem to wither on the vine and disappear so quickly that it raises conspiracy theories(!).

      here’s the thing to think about:

      The various FC Flankers are all extremely capable, and stack up quite well to the F-15C in game.

      in fact, they’re each and severally more capable than the Eagle: they all have datalink, an HMD, HOBS missiles, an IRST, and they can all do multi-role. The F-15 is A2A only.
      heck, the Su-33 adds in A2A refuel, and carrier ops!

      the Su-25T is a Goliath vs the A-10A’s David. It’s a multi-A2G monster that can do things even the A-10C can’t dream! (And it’s a FREE module!!)

      onto all of that off, all the FC modules are truly OP vs the Full Fidelity’s. It’s simply an unavoidable side effect of the simplified systems.
      e.g., compare the two Fulcrums. The FC version is downright easy to fight and win with (and even has TWS and Fox 3’s(!)), whereas the FF 29 is rather painful, clunky, and inefficient – just as IRL.

      yet in all this, the vast majority of attention & desire of the user base clearly goes towards Western, AND Full Fidelity aircraft.

      Like, just compare the ghosting of the Ka-50 from the scene ever since the AH-64 came out. I’m sure Ka-50 sales have dropped off a cliff…

      I’m willing to bet that the BlackShark only continues to get press because it’s MUCH easier to operate than the Apache. All of which makes me sad because I do REALLY enjoy the ‘shark.

      but… 🤷‍♂️

      In re competition, there just isn’t any – other than Falcon BMS. Which has been around longer than DCS itself. And yet DCS F-16 still dominates mind share against an objectively more realistic F-16 simulator.

      War Thunder is great at what it does. Which isn’t at all the same thing that DCS does. Two entirely different products that are only superficially the same.

      And in re Falcon 5, MP have already stated that it’s not going to be a full Fidelity simulator like Falcon BMS or DCS.
      and truth be told, their other recent products seem to bear that out. Time will tell, but I honestly believe Falcon 5 is set to compete against the other sim-lite titles like VTOL-VR, Nuclear Option, et al., rather than DCS.

      No, if you look at competitors, it’s actually MSFS that poses the biggest threat. And this is evidenced by the simple fact that ED have spent vastly more time on visuals and module systems than anything else in the game.

      And the mil jets in MSFS are rapidly approaching peer level to DCS modules. They’re even taking baby steps towards live ordnance!

      Both sims are sandboxes – you make your own reality, and that seems to be a formula that works pretty well. Further to this point, a huge chunk of ED’s business has been revealed to be Professional contracts for various IRL mil and govs.
      those folks don’t care about “balance”, they care about cockpits and tactics.

      ED’s real biggest problem isn’t a lack of balanced plane sets or anything like that. The core issue is that they don’t sell the simulator itself.

      Until they fix that (like all other flight sim devs, including Lockheed Martin & Metrea), they’re stuck in a doom loop of tech debt that no RedFor fleet can possibly fix.

      🤙

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. PaperPilot Avatar
        PaperPilot

        Thank you also for replying. I am supried that MSFS is rapidly approching DCS in terms of realism (well, minus the damage model), and I hope DCS World finds a way to counter this competition one day soon.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

Trending