Leaderboard

Please do not drink before posting on the forum thanks.

Dude, give it a rest. You’ve made your opinion quite clear. Repeating the same thing over and over when you get push back and then expecting people to have an epiphany and suddenly choose to agree is not particularly sensible. You have your opinion. No one else here is obliged to agree with it or you and expecting ED to suddenly change their business model because one random dude on the internet says they should is delusional. Your point is made, move on.

. . . drive existing DCS customers insane. The joy I take, the pleasure I get, the satisfaction I receive, in knowing with absolute certainly that DCS will never ever ever! involve grinding makes every moment a heavenly delight of bliss and serenity. Y'all have a wonderful day.

Making suggestions based on assumptions and speculation, i.e. without knowing the real facts, is nonsense and does no one any good. And no, I would not be ready to accept a subscription model.

Seriously not interested. If ED provided servers with campaigns, complete modules with new modules in the pipeline with reasonable ETA's perhaps. Don't get me wrong I really enjoy DCS but if not for modders, campaign designers and groups that provide their content and servers at no cost to ED what would we really have anyway? A subscription would likely drive more people away than the income would cover. Just my opinion.

Same here.

The moment subscription comes, im off.

Military Asset Pack USA 1.1.2 released! Changelog Version 1.1.2 Changed Constellation NSM to add terminal maneuver Changed HIMARS PrSM AShM to radar seeker and more realistic moving target accuracy Fixed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer blue tint glass textures Fixed HEMTT M983 missing desert livery Fixed HIMARS GLSDB missing desert livery Fixed HIMARS PrSM AShM missing desert livery Fixed THAAD AN/TPY-2 missing sound Fixed THAAD AN/TPY-2 missing wheel rotation New update distribution model The Military Asset Pack is available in two versions: The standard full download (for users who haven't downloaded the 1.1.0 version yet and of course want the fixed version). The incremental download which updates 1.1.0 to 1.1.2 and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your 1.1.0 installation. It also includes the changes in 1.1.1.

Deal breaker. We literally wait major portions of a decade for our modules to become complete (and even then, only to have them suddenly broken again at any time) and now you expect us to PAY to wait? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because you make weird assumptions about ED's alleged business model, I shall pay a subscription? No, thanks.

@P1l0t Can you please take your world's best ideas somewhere else, like a wishlist, where it actually belongs? https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/

Talk about flogging a dead horse...

Most excited about Kola map for ages now. This will surely be a breath of fresh air into DCS atmosphere if done right! I'm definitely putting more hours of flight time now that map is coming very soon. Unlockables through grind are paid by the customers on its entry fee. The ability to skip the grind is the micro transaction in place. Anyone can place unlockables mechanism on themselves by making their own spreadsheet of achievements X xp levels to not access certain functionalities until they progress a certain amount. I've done it myself since Hornet release and learning it. Dumb bombs first -> then PGMs as an example. AIM-7s before AIM-120s. But the same place where lacks this kind of discipline on someone is the same place where the predatory methods of microtansaction over skipping grind profits. Anything that's forcefully blocked by XP points in DCS I'm avoiding 100%. Unlockables don't mix well with Flight Simulators as their value is on its depth and tool-like characteristics. The most fun I have with all the many modules I purchased comes from after learning its systems and deploy them in the most effective way I can manage and not the aspect of 'I can't do that yet'. Unlockables almost sank IL-2 BoX. The forums were flooded every time a new batch of players came in at a sale, it did NOT attracted new people. Without unlocking anything I always leave a sortie in DCS with satisfaction. The satisfaction is the immersion itself, not a shinny thing behind some blockage.

Here we go again! That ship has sailed a long time ago. There will be no subscription model.

First attempt at a gif, let me know how it is your ends

I would go from buying most of the modules to not playing anymore if they went to a subscription based plan. Did you put any thought into how much that would need to cost to effectively pay the third party developers monthly to have access to their modules as well. I pay for what interests me not all the other stuff that would have to be covered in that monthly cost. Smooth Brain Solutions

Not just no, but <profanity> the hell no to a subscription model.

You're right about bad manners and too blunt response, but let's be honest - OPs theory is full of so many holes that he somewhat deserves the flak he receives. If some aspects of his opinin are just flawed, nobody's going to pat him on his back and give him "participation award" but shoot with reality check instead. Moreover the subscription concept was already discussed ad nauseam in so many threads (which even included ED responses as well).... If OP decided it would be faster to redact and type his wall of text instead of just using search function then I can see how some might perceived him as not exactly the sharpest knive in the drawer.

. . . share my personal feelings of joy, pleasure, and bliss that DCS will never ever ever! involve grinding. I have considered it and it fills me with inner peace. Y'all have a wonderful day. .

Are you using AI to write your pitch? Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

The fact that somebody may have a different opinion than you, does not justify insults! Bad manners!

Strange, I've had AI aircraft engage them many times during testing. It's a shame we can't add snake maneuvers. I've made the NSM with smaller RCS to emulate its stealth capabilities, but it's not enough against the modern ships with high end AESA radars. I might add a final maneuver as it would be more realistic. Maybe, I didn't think it was important as the launcher is mobile only. You are completely correct, most of my assets emulate the latest and greatest in military hardware. It would be rather strange if they didn't outclass the older stuff in DCS core. Make sure to set their skill level to low, and don't believe a single flight would take out a modern SAM system. You need good tactics, decoys and numbers. Well, a lot of DCS users run single player missions only. Besides that, it's not much we can do about it. It's either this or we don't have the assets at all. I sure do have a lot of fun running different scenarios with a lot of my assets involved.

Given just how common it is for people to buy DCS stuff they never get around to using, asking them to only pay for the stuff they actually do use instead looks like a highly effective way to lose money...

It's that time of the month

A subscription model would mean someone else can get my ED account and I go back to BMS which I haven’t touched in ten years BECAUSE of DCS.

Maybe its a discord thing, I upload the photos to discord then insert the link to the photos so I can upload 4K screenshots and stuff larger than 55kb, Ill try again

What makes you think ED will magically start deliver product if you throw money at them *yearly*, rather than *yearly* buying EA module which they are not able to finish for let's say 4 years already (Supercarrier)?

Im afraid you dont get it: it already is. Intrinsically. What better reward than that?

So I've already spent money buying many modules and now I'd have to keep paying to use them? Sure..

Ditto here.

Then when you retire you can't afford the subscription... along with all the other subscriptions such as Adobe and all the other games and applications that you're advocating to switch to a subscription model for. You'll have nothing left to live for. If ED have financial problems, they need to sort it out through marketing and getting a constant stream of fresh blood into the game.

Never type again.

lmao

Account is two days old. I believe we have met this dude before... Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

Just because information can be found in a google search doesn't mean it isn't restricted. Laws like these tend to be both proactive and reactive. And, since ED does have ties to Russia and possibly employees still located there, guess who is going to get blamed for it should they publish software with that information? This isn't something that can be argued, this is the reality of defense. ED wants cooperation from partners in defense to make high fidelity offerings. In very few situations can they afford to go it alone. The fact they found sources for the MiG-29A is the exception and not the rule. When RB made the M2000, they did so without input from Dassault and the Armee de L'Air. It was a mixed bag, but once they got some? It turned into a pretty good module to get. That support is really necessary. So, best case scenario? They go forward without the information operators and manufacturers can provide. Worst case? Prison. I get that a lot of gamers don't seem to care about the latter, but I'm betting the programmers do. The conflict is real simple: ED requires a level of fidelity to something published. That fidelity is not possible with outproper documentation. Obtaining that documentation through means that don't upset manufacturer or defense ministries and departments is how that is done. Doing so without their approval can ruin one's professional reputation or even result in legal ramifications. You probably don't know this, which is no big deal as people do tend to forget or really ever look into developers past "Do they make good stuff" and that's fair, but ED holds government contracts. The A-10 we have is derived from software they developed for the US Air National Guard, for example. They cannot just scrape google for references on modern airframes or even recently retired ones in the case of RedFor. Gamers can insist away to just use google results, but when you have a reputation to maintain in defense circles, you do it or you're out of work. Even the MiG-23 proved tricky to get. So, if you want to blame anyone for the dearth of RedFor, blame the Russian MoD. Before 2008, they weren't so strict and they allowed ED ample access to documentation to make the Ka-50. Since then, they've been a lot more rigid. Also, charging for skins? Why would I even consider that when I know people who will make them for me for free? Most DCS collectives have a skin maker or two. Also, those skins don't appear unless all clients connected have them. $3 to $5? That's highway robbery for something that I'd probably only see. There is very much such a thing as overmonetization in a game, and it comes REAL fast. In fact, I recall War Thunder frequently having to change, albeit reluctantly, for that reason. Why would ED even establish the infrastructure for something that would absolutely ostracize their existing player base? So far, your ideas, while maybe new, would only serve to divide the player base between FC players and the FF players. It's a moot point since, despite these ideas being new, they're inapplicable to DCS' own business model. VR is new, but what does its integration offer me when I'm playing one of the recent Dooms or any other boomshoot? Some things just aren't compatible. But, since we're talking free to play, you should know of the concept of whales. All of the free players are basically playing off the tab of the players willing to part with money for bonuses, premium things, etc. The dude who 'grinds' (grinding isn't fun, it's busy work, but I digress) the MiG-29M who then his friends get interested in it and buy in? Cool, $75 there. They aren't the whales. It's the guys who are going to pay $60 to $80 for the full fidelity experience. They've always been the focus of DCS World. That is the draw of DCS and to deny that is just wrong. ED even says it themselves; FC is a means to provide a less intimidating experience for potential new players. But, why should the development of other features, bug fixing, and even corrections of their weapons, flight dynamics, etc. have to be impacted by this attempt to 'bring in new players?' And what are they offering? An unnecessary grind? I put a lot less time into getting to where I am as a pilot than some F2P grinds and I even get paid. Also, what do you gain? Why should FC players have to earn weapons? The fact of the matter is that building the software to just divide the FC and FF player bases is a bridge to no where. We aren't playing on ED servers, we're playing on private servers. That kind of divide is to be determined by the mission editors and server hosts. So, by saddling FC players with a grind to unlock weapons while being unable to enforce a game wide divide and ranking system to ensure some semblance of fairplay, a concept that a lot of these newcomers are looking for? They're going to have a bad time. A dude who just came over from War Thunder or other game like that is going to scramble in a MiG-29M could still need to unlock weapons. And, since he doesn't know the community, doesn't know the servers, doesn't know what the icons mean at the browser window and is used to matchmaking because it's all he knows? He's boned. What if he joins a server where I am? Flying an F-14. With a human RIO. I got AIM-54s. What does he have? R-60s? R-27Rs? He's boned. He's just dead. He'll catch a Phoenix. I'm not even close to being top tier in the F-14, either. I know fellows who are way better. The fundamental issue of trying to bring that kind of experience to DCS is based upon the idea that DCS World, itself, possesses any concept of balance. It doesn't. Because, actual conflict lacks balance. That's what DCS is trying to do; present an accurate portrayal of warfare. FC is for new players, it's that simple. It is meant to provide a more streamlined experience for newcomers to experience DCS World. It's why the Su-25T is free. By adding exp, grinding, paid cosmetics, you would essentially be lying to the player base. You'd be providing a product that is not an accurate representation of DCS. The reality is that ED wants you to get FC, like it, and then jump into an FF. You can look at FC as almost a loss leader to get people in the door. This would all be done at the cost of dev time, money, and resources, thus leaving the existing players unhappy, too. It is a situation that leaves no one pleased with DCS World. It becomes a question of who ED wants to alienate? Their existing customers by dumping resources into a tremendous folly since this'd require a lot of resources that'd slow down DCS' development in other aspects or potential newcomers who will feel like they were just straight up victims of bait and switch. Sometimes, the best thing is to be content with your current fanbase and the type of player who wants this experience offered. So many mainstream franchises are dormant or just get batted about between publishers because of unrealistic sales and engagement expectations. DCS will not be mainstream, it will not have hundreds of thousands of players, and that is perfectly fine.

Mosquito, main gear shock absorber diagram. 11 rubbers absorb the landing shock. There is max 8'' travel, all of which are available for absorbing landing shock. There should be approx 2'' telescopic tube showing, when static. There are no hydraulics, pneumatics or coil springs involved and no maintenance is required. Only when the closed static tube length is less than 1.75'' at full load, do the rubbers need replacing. The lower part of the strut at X--X should be below the wheel rim, when static. Like this. And this. Our Mossie in 2021. Correct attitude and tube extension. After update. Max weight for landing and correct 8'' extended. After landing this tube should have retracted by 6'' but it's still fully extended. It's sitting at 12.4 deg which is correct for a fully extended gear. Instead of the 8'' shock absorbtion usable on landing, you get about 1'', (nicely shown in SMH video), so most of that load is taken by retraction tubes, which then collapse. Additionally, instead of the 11 deg attitude it should have, it is now 12.4 deg, which makes a higher drag on a 3 pointer, a sudden drop onto the mains, a bounce, then a hard hit on the 2nd landing, slamming the poor little tail wheel into the deck. Correct attitude. Incidentally, this aircraft was lost when filming a TV guided glide bomb, dropped from a B-17 on Le Havre. The bomb exploded on contact with the ground and brought the Mossie down. The pilot, below, survived, but the cameraman didn't make it. Correct extension. With Leather gaiter. Incorrect extension. Full 8'' still showing. This is the exact same image of the 2021 replay track shown earlier, but the update has now been applied to it.. No matter how hard you hit the pavement the strut won't compress more than 2''. The strong spring acts like a Pogo stick to bounce you back into the air. There is good tyre deformation, but this probably adds to the overall bad situation. It should stay where it's put and gradually sink as the speed drops off and the weight comes on, until most of the tube is inside the strut. As it is, adding 5000lb to each strut has no effect and it acts as if the rubbers are solid. Interlude... I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy.. ..

wiki: Luftwaffe: 60 CH-47F Block II Standard Range mit Luftbetankungsfähigkeit (Bestellung im Jahr 2023 beschlossen, Lieferung ab 2027) warum nicht hier: https://www.bmvg.de/de/aktuelles/bundeswehr-setzt-kuenftig-auf-ch-47f-chinook-helikopter-5439658

New video, front turret:

This have been debated many times, and the answer was always no. No-one here knows what the DCS total sales numbers, retention figures, session play time, etc are so it is useless debating. Best people to decide is ED. All I know is that it will cause an absolute <profanity>-storm if they decide to go the subscription route.

Utilize that most buttons has two functions, on and off. Add button press - here JOY_BTN21 - to F10, and button release - here JOY_BTN21_OFF - to F1 So map opens when button is held, and goes to cockpit view on release

I shot a short video do a quick troop extract in the Huey to a FOB in the Jungle, then landed on one of Eightball's ships. You guys cannot finish this quick enough! So fired up to sit in the Cayuse in VR. I created a few 60's music channels to run on the radios in DCS. That is what I tuned into with the Huey. Keep up the great work gents!

While the whole post might seem outside the topic, it is to give insight on what the nuclear subpen at Guba Ara (Kola Peninsula) would look like, with infrastructure, designer mentality, facility, logistics and sustainability. Ultimately, Guva Ara was mostly built (the main pens), with smaller details remaining unfinished. While there are no more pictures of what it looked like (they were very scarce to begin with), I therefore decided to show the three main nuclear submarine underground bases that USSR had. That, because there is much information on the two other ones (one being a museum nowadays). By seeing how the others are built, it will give you a understanding of what lies more or less in Kola peninsula. It will give an even better insight into what it would have been, if it was used for the designed purpose. Enjoy: The shelter at Guba Ara, was built '71-'73 (supposedly mostly complete), but strategical plans changed, and was actually never used for its purpose (underground nuclear shelter for submarines, as well as rearming- and repair- point. There were a few pictures from it before, but almost all are deleted. The one I posed earlier, is from Petro Pavlovsk, essentially - eastern fleet. Here's about the best you can find nowadays: Northern Fleet They had, as mentioned above, the underground base at Ara Guba. It was mostly finished, but never used (strategy). Murmansk being one of the most sensitive regions, even before the war, has little information available publicly. This has become even worse (many websites deleted) since the start of the war in Ukraine. Her is a plan of the base, outlining three submarine pens: The information is otherwise very scarce, and none of the formerly few available photos are available anymore. For metrics, the three pens are 30mx30m (crossection) and have the length of 400m each. This was definitely the biggest base of them all. Here is some information about it: https://armystandard.ru/news/2022621937-dfq3B.html/amp/ http://wikimapia.org/12099450/ru/Недостроенная-подземная-база-укрытие-и-завод-по-ремонту-подводных-лодок-«Губа-Ара»#google_vignette https://www.ara-guba.ru/2012/12/08/prokhodka/ Black Sea Fleet This is the underground nuclear submarine base in Balaklava. It was, and is huge as well. Again, due to change in strategy, it has become a museum for visitors to see. As such, information is plentiful on the topic. The main and only pen, is 505m long. Dimensions are 6.5m - 8m x 6.5m - 8m. This pen was mostly was small to medium submarines, where 9 could be held altogether (8 inside the canal and 1 in the sheltered pier by the entrence). Here is a multitude of information and photos: Part: https://russos.livejournal.com/210363.html Part II: https://russos.livejournal.com/211135.html https://www.vladmuz.ru/travel_photos/balaklava/k-825/ The Pacific Fleet This is the nuclear subpen at Petro Pavlovsk, and served as a base for the Russian Pacific Fleet. There is now plenty of material available on the this base, as it is abandoned. There are two parallel tunnels in this base. Both, connected by passages. The bigger tunnel (#1 on the schematic) is the one filled with water. It measurs 450m length according to the information in the facility. GPS measurement, places it at 650m length, however. The width is 19m and height 10m - 12m. The second tunnel (#2 on the schematic), is really a huge hall that measures 225m length, supported by width of 8m and height 10m - 12m. As can be seen from the second picture, there are three entrances from the west to the main tunnel (#1), each approximately 200m long. There is also the main entrance from the bay, south. In total, there's 8 entrances/exits. Here you'll find plenty of information and sources: http://kfss.ru/content/ukrytie-podvodnyh-lodok-pavlovskoe https://dzen.ru/a/XfZQ2JyURgCtlDWp https://4-e.livejournal.com/229433.html As a additional interesting source, I am adding a website, which contains photos and notes on much of the former military infrastructure of the Pacific (USSR), that stands now abandoned. Have a look: http://kfss.ru/index.php/objekts/82-kp I noticed it very quickly, enjoy the corrected one. Sadly, you won't find much on Guba Ara anymore. Information-wise, we are back in Cold War. (Not that you would ever find much on Murmansk. There is a closed FB-group for former employees at Guba Ara. That's about it ).

OMG! Someone FINALLY did an M-60 correctly! I hope ED takes your model and places it in the Huey to replace what we currently have. Hope you guys might have been able to get some authentic sounds as well. Everything you guys are doing warrants third party status, at minimum for asset packs. I feel you guys should get picked up as a third party for the Vietnam stuff. Fantastic job! Absolutely cant wait for this in 2 weeks. LOL

I remember when another flight sim decided to use grinding and unlocks instead of continuing the tried and tested formula of it's predecessor... it went downhill rapidly and would have turned into a complete fiasco with fans hating it, if it hadn't been turned around by a new management... don't try and reinvent the wheel when the wheel is turning as it should.

Military Asset Pack USA 1.1.1 released! Changelog Version 1.1.1 Fixed Arleigh Burke Flight III Destroyer missing glass textures New update distribution model I'm trying something new with this update. It's available in two versions: The standard full download (for users who haven't downloaded the 1.1.0 version yet and of course want the fixed version). The incremental download which updates 1.1.0 to 1.1.1 and contains only the changed files. You apply it by overwriting your 1.1.0 installation. My plan is to release fixes (the last digit in the version number) this way going forward. To avoid unnecessary download, but still being able to fix annoying issues.

I'd say it's pretty clear that if you own FC3 then the upgrade is $9.99 and that's the only discounted option available.

Sorry mate, but if need such kind of mechanics to keep your intertest up in this game then why you don't simply go playing games where they are already implemented? War Thunder, World of Warplanes, Ace Combat... the choice is your.