StevanJ

Key factor being 'Messy Political'.. Does ED want to engage in Politics? I dont think they will..

Yeah it does- Its got pretty good looking ambulances too. But personal experience tells me if a new update comes out which affects the mod- people will come to me to fix it and i dont want the maintainance, its the reason i stay clear of scripts too. @sirrah point is spot on. I know the guys are busy, and expecting new assets is a bit unachievable, but even just a couple new police/ambulance liveries would dynamically change the scenarios to new missions, and finally allow me to upload a decent 'Las Vegas Heist' mission ive been working on, that just doesnt work without a police car. Easiest solution is to add the liveries to the land rover. This is all the civilian assets we have (some military too mixed in) Rather than ask for more, cant we just have more colours/liveries added to these? If we could get multiple colours for that silver car, it would mean i can add much more depth to helicopter missions that revolve around the civilian side. At the moment ive a half made 'news crew' mission, and theres only so many times, you can 'film a silver car chase', then 'film a silver car crash', followed by 4 more missions revolving around a silver car etc. Im not complaining with what we have, i just think that these changes would require the least amount of effort, and get the most out the game. The red truck too. Even if all we get is a black livery for the Land Rover, adds a huge dynamic to helicopter missions. Who wouldnt want a special forces missions?

Rather than ask for new civilian ground assets, could we have different colours/liveries added to the current ones ie the big red truck, the silver car and perhaps add an ambulance/police livery to the land rover? Just by changing the colour on the truck or giving us different colours for the silver car adds a huge amount of civilian depth to helicopter missions. Adding an ambulance/police (or even an all black -swat/special forces etc) livery to the land rover opens up a world of alternative possibilities when approaching helicopter missions. Ie 'heist/swat/police/news/air ambulance' missions could be created with these few small changes to liveries on current assets. I've created these scenarios using the fire engine and the current land rover as an ambulance but without a police car they aren't that believable. Thanks

I feel you. Still, I think we might get the player who wants the kills without the work. If I were flying an apache, my only worry would be the new player I let in the seat who just spewed the ammo without thought for the resupply. And i can't buy/pre order the hind as I don't know if it will be released with touch controls compatibility (I'm in a niche I know), But id definitely would if I could pay half towards the module if it meant I could 'gunner' and 'try the module' from that person. Side gunners you may have a point as I don't really see many enemies that can be destroyed by them in MP. I also doubt it's achieveable right now. Still, you raise some good points. And a guy can only dream..

Thanks, this input was spot on.

Well, I would. I cant fly the Apache if its released without 'Touch Control compatibility' as im on a laptop and dont have a HOTAS, But id definitely jump at a chance to do my best in the module with either an xbox controller or Keyboard in mouse. Same goes for the Tomcat. Although i think id have a bad time keeping the seat, if my pilot thought i was lousy.

If you prefer dogfighting, would you pick the Dora?

Okay, well Normandy is a different map with different textures. Try choosing lowest possible settings and then running it again. Then try highest possible settings and running it again. If there's a very big difference in performance we know which route to go down. If there isn't a difference in performance and the issue is still there we know it's the other route to go down. Help us, help you.

That explains alot.. A really good insight. Thank you. How would you find a resolve to a 'specific unit kills specific unit?'

Ka50 is easier and more deadly. Mi8 is much harder and more useful. With a Ka50 you can dismantle an enemy base from the comfort of your seat miles away. After the Ka50's dismantled the base, an Mi8 can rebuild it. You cant do it the other way around (I mean its possible- but youll have a tough time). I have both, I love both.

Long time BIG Dora fan, I have NO issues with the Dora, she's my favourite Warbird. Im curious to the Anton though, I can do much in the Dora, and never felt im limited by its munitons or guns.. Is the Anton a huge variation from the Dora? Will i fly it, and will it feel like a new module? Or more of an upgrade? Does it run a totally different mission? The AI, seem to make it look like a completely different unit when comparisons are made in missions. Those who have both, could you share your views please?

Bit of a silly question, have you tried lowering all your settings? I mean.. Do these conditions exist when the settings are at their lowest? And worse when theyre at their highest?

Is there a way in which to highlight one specific unit destroying another specific unit without a script? My work around is equiping a unit with a different missile and having a 'missile in zone and unit destroyed', But that trigger is sometimes is missed in game. And doesnt seem a reliable one. Cheers.

Heatblur did tell me they are looking at it. "I feel the need..."

I like the idea, because it puts people in the seats that arent getting used in MP.

Im still looking at the reply i sent you, you ignored it. I came back here to reply to Ray and Redcoat- Not you. As i was talking to you in DM (still waiting for the reply too). I even validate a post youve made that i forgot to respond to. We've addressed this, the ground war has 0 to do with Op's post. Its a conversation that needs to be started in Combined Arms. We've addressed this also, the supercarrier is not a required asset and does nothing to equate to Op's post. Its off topic, and has no bearing on Op's post. We've address this in that thread, this is also not relevant to Op's topic. Its also a conversation that needs to be started in Combined Arms. Yes, But if you buy just the asset pack YOU STILL - CAN NOT drive the assets. Which is not relevant to Op's post. Which is a discussion that needs to be started in Combined Arms. Yes! YOU ARE RIGHT! THIS IS MY ARGUMENT -Hence why Op pointed this out, and I argued for him. No one should have to purchase anything to access servers. Im allowed to have an opinion on a part of the game i think needs improving. Im also allowed to support OTHERS, if they share an view i believe is valid. You arent doing your homework- Go through the discussions started and the posts made, you find lots of comments/discussions like this. Youll find a URL in my profile where ive dedicated much of my time to highlighting AWESOME videos made BY OTHERS in the game (among others), Youll find cinematic videos ive made where ive also done my best to create 'Hype for DCS WW2', And youll find Missions and Campaigns which are rated highest in the community. And despite that, You argue with ME- Not redcoat, and Not OP, because i fight for the discussion in hand- Despite numerous times youve pushed the discussion off topic. What have you done for DCS, and your fight for the 'ground war'? Because ive politely asked you to start a discussion, and suggested ill come join you and validate your points. Done everything i can to approach a discussion with you, and yet youre still here, arguing with me? Now, were going around in circles. The conversation is seriously not worth carrying on in this thread. Come back to the DM's or start a conversation about the 'Ground War' and send me the link.

Looks to me like you need to lower the settings (including the preload radius) then press alt and tab to get back in the game. If the issue persists compile a list of your spec's and your settings in game.

I dont know why youve brought the conversation here when we were talking in DM's? Why carry on here, when the conversation was better had in the personal messages? 1. Seriously- Right now i feel like your pointing at a blackboard and telling me its yellow. You telling me 'to go back and read your posts'- No, I dont understand, plus were passed that. Lets move on. 2. Paying more more Maps across the game means devs get MORE money. This means you Win. It also means, im not pushed into a corner with regards to which Map im pushed towards paying for 'because of a bundle' or bias to access towards popular servers. I personally would choose the Channel (Its phenemonal and my most favourite map by a mile!), but If i buy the Channel, I cant enjoy a part of the game, that i crave- Multiplayer because there are no players. If i buy the map i dont want because it comes with a bundle, I can play online but then my squad have to get onboard with it to. Which means all of them buying the map that we dont want in the first instance- just to enjoy a part of the game we all enjoy in other modules. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Now, if you can convince a very well known subreddit- that too enjoys this game, that they should come and play multiplayer and also buy the Asset Pack- That will solve everyones issues in regards to the online play. 3. I cant say this enough to you, All im doing is pushing the reasons to why a majority of the people i play with wont buy the asset pack. Im not here to solve that problem but ill try and help from the feedback i get, if i can. We've gone back and forward many numerous times, and yet it seems you feel im personally responsible for every link ive pushed forward from other people. My argument from day one: I love DCS, I want to play DCS, I want to support the Warbird part of the game, I do by purchasing warbirds, maps and packs. I build campaigns, I make videos, but no matter how many times i try and 'convince new players' to get on board. They dont. Because of the points ive highlighted. I approach forums, explain the reasons to why others arent or im not 100% happy with this part of the game, people talk to me like im offending their mother because im not 100% happy (95% deffo) despite my investment of time and money. I understand why. But that still doesnt solve the part of the game myself and the others i pointed to crave, thats suffering from low numbers. Thats been and gone. Weve discussed it over and over. Ive not even started the conversation about it, im supporting Op. and it doesnt mean i wont support another who has the same worries that i do next week. The team have told me theyve a plan. Good enough for me.. I Cant wait. And if that plan works ill be happy, it it doesnt, i wont and i dont think the players that share these worries will be either.. Ive two options with regard the problems were experiencing. I ignore it. I share my worries when a relevant post comes up. My friends see value in DCS, they love DCS. They all own nearly all the modern modules and some even own a few Warbirds, But like your analogies, The products just dont add up. With direct comparison in with the modern modules, and maps are accessible to anyone in the modern game, the Warbirds arent. There's nothing new, Ive given you all my insight, and done my utmost to portray why they feel they can 'expand into that aspect of the game'. You can keep questioning here so we can keep on boring people, or you can come back to the DM's and let everyone do their own thing. But if another person comes along with a point thats valid, wether it be this one, or another ill keep on sticking by them, because were all on the same team. The best thing i can advise you, is to start another topic on the things you love (or hate). Despite my attempts to support Op, you seem to be hung on me personally. Try this from a different perspective. Ive noticed you havent started a new topic of discussion with regards the subject youve brought up numerous times in many differing threads? Am i to suggest the reason you havent done that is that youve chosen not to support your own subject of the DCS 'Ground War'? Because no matter how many times you shoe horn that into other discussions, if wont pick up traction until you start a discussion in the correct topic. Im just curious to understand why we are still going around in circles, when you could be gathering support for the module you seek? Lets end this now, Ill say youre right, and we can all move on.

Im sure Op just feels a bit like this..

I have the pack, I explained that during the conversation in Battlefield Productions. 1 Im so confused- Do you agree with or disagree with Op? This post now makes me think that you disagree with Op? Is that right? Because thats why i was initially suggested you did- before i pointed 'Op opens with a comment about the division in multiplayer, another person comments that 'that there is no division' to which i point out that 'the division is real' with links to sources from other forums.' 2 I AGREE, with the problem being that no one else does- Which effect MY ability to play with my friends when in relation to other modules. If people arent buying a product which results in a low number in the servers. I think thats a problem. Thats my opinion. Others might not see it as a problem, but like you. I do. But these analogies are redundant, when you say "You have to pay to ride the pony", and then after you pay, I say "saddles extra.." 3 This is also redundant, because then- when Im given a 'free asset pack' my friends STILL cant play. Youve solved nothing which has brought us full circle to Op's original Post. Youve solved nothing. Yeah, youve either not been reading the post's where i break down all the numbers online, Or youre choosing to once again ignore it. Im not going to spoonfeed you Ray. Do the work yourself, Ill help- but if you make a request in a new post if youd like? If you cant find the numbers, and youd like to know the single player numbers, please start a new topic. Ill do my research and come deliver the findings to you. The analytics wont be too hard to find. I was warned about my use of mentioning another game, Id like to feel i learned my lesson anyone can make this mistake. If you feel it was wrong, I can go back and change the wording if youd like? It was only a mistake and mistakes happen. For example: Like you right here, where you personally break the rules yourself. Moving forward im actively trying to respect the rules more, but im still going to support those who create new posts, if i feel there views are acknowlegable. Its not a big deal, i understand why you feel the need to highlight another persons mistake. Very big of you. Dont worry though, Ive not reported you. As were all discussing the same game, and we all want the same thing in the end.

The argument is still fruitless. You come to my cinema with the wife- pay for the film, get yourself some candy and popping corn and I stop you 'because youre wife didnt buy popcorn' and the screen is 'popcorn required'.. Hows your experience in my cinema? While some people will just pay for popcorn, others might not want to- when watching the same film. Popcorn shouldnt be a required module to watch a film. I support DCS too. While you believe one thing might bring players, I believe another thing will bring players. We both want the overall product to sell thats what were both fighting towards here. Callsign, why not look at this from your own perspective? Create some content, a few missions, or even a campaign- a cinematic maybe? You sound pretty passionate about the subject, id like to see it from your perspective, What about reviewing the asset pack and creating some content to push good PR towards the asset pack and about 'how and why' the asset pack might be good value? Id enjoy a positive review, or even a test of sorts 'to show that those who have it' can get more from the game? I agree they made the SuperCarrier a none required asset too.

The Dora is my favourite Warbird. As a person who doesnt own the Anton, but has other Warbirds. Id still rather be in the Dora, than the Mustang, 109 or the Spit. Maybe im missing out? I adore the cockpit.

A really great view and perspective..

Hi, Then forgive me. I thought that when you said: You meant that Op's Statement was mis-representative to why people play multiplayer Warbirds in DCS. Not only were you suggesting he was wrong for his view, but you were highlighting that the asset pack is poorly supported and poorly marketed. Which is why i placed the links where i did, to validate Op's statement, and agree that he has a point. I was midly trying to highlight you were right, I AGREE that the problem IS the sale of the Asset Pack, and the lack of support. I apologise - I still dont understand that if i was wrong what you actually meant. The conversation was then diverted by you firstly saying this: Where i assumed you were insinuating that the Asset Pack should be called 'WW2 Ground War module' (Or WW2 Combined Arms?) And this: Im sorry that my links towards supporting Op. created your discussion towards a ground war. Then you finish by again commenting: I genuinely tried to keep the discussion towards Op, and his view. My apologies but im still confused by your views in relation to Op's post. My argument has never been that the 'developers are locking players out of the server', The asset pack is. I agree that the lockout IS in the hands of each player, But if Each of the player choose to NOT buy the asset pack, how does that help the players that do? The free map IS NOT from the same group responsible for the WW2 Asset pack. From my understanding, ED will create the map, and the third party will still create the Asset Pack. Apologies if im wrong, im on a phone and cant find a reference. I understand that brings the costs down significantly and i support this strategy. In the same way i orginally supported the Asset Pack strategy many moons ago. If the server opens up with the asset pack requirement and NO ONE ELSE buys the asset pack, then the issue of the asset pack is still a problem. If however, magically 100's of players flood to these servers, then i think everyone will be happy. And if everyones happy, so will i be. Might i just add that Im behind the new map so long as the servers that are popular dont have a requirement 'for the asset pack'. Otherwise were just adding another map, with the same problem. The map will just turn into a modern jets playground which will be awesome for modern jets so winner winner! No matter which way i try enter this discussion here, im aware im always trying to 'ice skate uphill'. But if someone else starts a discussion with a similar view, i think its fair we hear him out. I have genuinely no idea what this means in regards to Op's original post. Is this a reference to Combined Arms? A polite request can we leave this here, or can we carry on in PM's? Were just arguing over opinion now, nothing solvent is in our discussions anymore, weve both said what we need to say and we'll just carry on bickering as we arent willing to compromise on each others views, wether or not were both right or both wrong. You love DCS, I too love DCS. You want a 'Ground War', I want more players'. These views can co exist in every aspect of this game. No amount of further discussion in this post is going to get us what we want. But a discussion over in Combined Arms might.. I would advise that you start a post with and towards this 'ground war' you and I desire, not only will i come team up WITH you and help discuss possibilities towards the part of the game you desire, but it will be a great reference point to have a start in towards a 'road map' on what might me possible as it moves in to the future. Us talking about our much wanted 'Combined Arms 2' in these posts does nothing for the greater good of the game, and it works against the possibilty of us actually getting this 'Ground Wars'. as people get sick of hearing it over and over again.. So, as you seem to have great ideas towards the subject, why not start a discussion in the relevant place, and then you and i can start working together? How does that sound?

I love this analogy. I suppose if you take it and use it with the opening discussion from @Japo32 Its a little curious, but how do you calculate personal value with regards to an actual personal experience? If an F14 Tomcat never flies RIO, would that value that component in the module at 0 too? If a hind player wanted to be 'the pilot' and never wanted to be 'the gunner' would it be fair to charge him 100% using the same perspective? If i eat from a restaraunt and the standards arent what im happy with, we can complain and usually parts of the meal are removed from the bill. I dont think id be able to address the points in an early access module. I know the modules are the modules, Im speaking hypothetically.. Personally, Id happily pay full price for the Tomcat as a pilot (ive not yet bought it), But id really be interested to see an 'option to be in the RIO seat' even at a cost, and that came off the cost of the F-14 (Pilot seat). Ive never really thought about 'being a gunner' in the same way ive never dreamt of being a RIO when watching Top Gun, but as im limited in the way i control a module (i use Touch Controls, not a HOTAS)- Id love to know that i could still contribute to the game, and dev's and 'be a gunner, Rio, Weapons Operator etc' if I paid a little bit to towards the module, and also had that discounted off the overall cost, as the module became developed. I just think it might be so overly complex to approach though. Which might be a shame, as its not that much of a bad idea, it just needs a little tinkering.. Free? Maybe not, But a contribution towards the cost of the module - And it sounds like a great idea for the multicrew pilots. And i personally LOVE nothing better, than getting a kill over the ever rare two people in a Tomcat while im in my FA18. Nothing seems more satisfying. Knowing that theres always someone out there that might want to jump in the 'back seat' (or front in the Hind). Might be a good thing. And if i could pay 'a little towards being a gunner first', It would mean by the time i ended up in the Pilots seat, i could 'explain to the new player' how to operate the systems that ive put my time into..