StevanJ

Some Valid points.. The number of times ive jumped into a server, and seen 11 seperate Tomcats and No human RIO in any of them.. I get it, Who wants to be Goose, when you can be Maverick? Pilots are always asking 'anyone wanna be my RIO', but no who has a Tomcat actually does want to be a RIO from what ive seen.. Maybe raise this in the F-14 thread and see what those pilots say? It wont effect single player, it might make F14 multiplayer better?- But initially id be worried that 'having the RIO place filled' might take up a valuable player spot for another Pilot in an FA18, or somewhat. If im in a small player server, and 10 Tomcats 'get a free RIO', We now have 10 less players killing the SAM's. It might work- it might push the balance? What do i know?

Shhh.. I've mastered the ability of standing so incredibly still, that I become invisible to the eye. Watch. Camo Helps too..

Once again we're starting to revolve around insults because of grammar, when all the context is being pulled away from the whole post. Where did i say that 'every single player plays free flight'? I said that the player that wants to 'take in the scenery' wont have to worry about this thread. Youre making stuff up. Right after THAT phrase, i go on to explain that if you want to buy a campaign, you are again forced to buy the asset pack. Yet you deleted that part of the comment. If you read the posts, youll see that i went online and pulled in the numbers for you. Just take note that English is not my first language, I apologise for my mistakes in grammar, i do try my best and im sorry if you feel that isnt good enough. If you'd like the number, go start a post in the relevant thread, and ill come join you and support you. My argument is not towards a single player who wants to 'take in the scenery' during a freeflight. Its for the single player that might want to buy the campaigns or the player who want to dogfight online, who also have to buy the Asset Pack for them. 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. An argument ensues. If all you have for the discussion is an attempt to pick on grammar, then maybe this thread isnt for you- My posts arent the worsed posts for grammar, and so stop singling mine out. Look at @Callsign112 post. While his message was missed by me, all you have to do is actually view post comments. Whats the first comment say? Bare in mind he runs the SoW server.. Go into there discord, and read their home page. Then tell me that 'they are wrong'. Now i went into this server last night, For an hour me and a mate couldnt find anyone else. It was us alone for that hour. Like here, i went into the discord and gave them feedback. What a great bunch of guys. Not a single person in that discord turned around and pointed out 'my grammatical errors'. They like all the others understood and shared the want- to make Warbirds, a more active market. They welcomed and re-iterated my feedback. Actively being a good sport about it. Youre welcome to be angy at me, because i support them. I genuinely dont know how you guys can look at the points raised by op, the CoW post and the numerous links ive put forward, and then just say- It doesnt exist. But dont get angry at me, because im choosing to point out what others are thinking. If anyone would like to keep on arguing my points, just send me a message, or start a thread and send me the link. Yes, i agree. Thanks.

Thats the spirit..

Its still a great module though- huh?

Yeah, i think this is a bug that also effects the radio menu too, although thats never bothered me. Im hoping weve an update on the next patch.

I trust you guys to do right by us. Wether or not I like the situation.. My views dont represent all the players. Im sure whatever you guys do, its always for the greater good of the game. The bigger question is when are you making a 'none asset pack MP mission' for all the Channel servers?

Thanks for the highlight- Ive amended the wording. Apologies. It would be great if we could hear about the 'long game' and the strategy for bringing in new players to the Warbirds. Please bare in mind, that im only trying to help others, and the game (including trying to help the devs sell more), im human- and if i make a mistake ill rectify it with an apology too. My understanding is if we were to be charged more for a map, is there no way in which ED could give a 'cut' of the larger payment to the designers? I understand why youre getting angry, I get it. Id like to see more players in the servers. All i can do is give you guys an insight into 'whats in the game from the players that dont go there'. And give you the reasons why they wont. Hopefully, with this insight this information will only result in higher sales on your end. Its not meant to highlight 'wrong doings'. Ive argued with new players for them and against them, and while im on your side and will continue to put money into the game, theres only so much I can do from where i am. Im not trying to start an argument, im just trying to relay why other arent coming into the game in the hope that this might improve. If there arguement was down to a bug' or something that wasnt right' then it would be higlighted in the same way. Please try not to hold me personally accountable, thats why ive placed the links, to highlight the wider thought. Surely overcoming these points will result in a larger player base. No offence is intended. Yeah, i know. Still- How would you approach the new people that arent on board with Warbirds because of how they view the asset pack? Do you think there might be a possibility we might see some WW2 servers from ED for a boost to player numbers? Servers that were open to everyone on both Normandy, and the Channel? Servers that wouldnt need the asset pack? If after a year theres no sign of new players, then at least if we still didnt see new players -we'd know? That would be alot cheaper than the alternatives.

Yeah, I know, but this argument has come up numerous times, and despite every effort to 'bypass' the limitation- new players are stuck. There is no way around the limitation of; The asset pack, The lack of players, The growth of new players. Bare in mind, this argument is for the player like me, that 'PVP's'. Im 100% behind the growth of new players, and modules. The argument doesnt effect the single players 'who want the free flight (fly around take in the scenery) experience, UNLESS they want to buy campaigns - in which theyre again forced to buy the Asset pack. So, Ive just checked the list of every single Warbird server. If i buy the Normandy map- I HAVE to buy the asset pack to play online, as there isnt a single server right now that will let you in without the Asset Pack. Which is why im asking, Why even sell them seperately? Merge the pack with the map, and charge us more. Everyone wins. Charge us more for the maps, and include the assets- That way designers get paid, players fly raids.. Right now, Im forced to buy the Channel IF i want to dogfight online.. If i buy the Channel, there are 2 servers (out of a total of 31) where i can dogfight against another person if i dont have the Asset Pack. But there are 0 players on those servers. Right now, there are 0 players on all of the Channel servers online (And this is THE best WW2 map by a mile). So i pay $90 for a P47 and the Channel, just to dogfight, but i cant play online because there is no one online.. Or I pay $45 plus $30 for Normandy (Im aware they are cheaper together) and $50 for the P47, and i can do anything within the game on Normandy. I cannot play online with others IF i dont buy the asset pack. As a new player Im limited in choice and all i want to do is dogfight and 'get into the game'. The limitation is down to one thing; 'the number of Warbird players', when you ask in the places where 'these players do go' 'Why arent you playing on DCS? Its 10X better than this!', the response is always the same- 'I agree, But 'the Asset Pack'. Which is what im highlighting. This isnt one person here and there, is a majority. Most of the players i fly with HAVE a warbird, and LOVE dogfighting, but they wont pay for the Asset Pack because why should they pay for a few extra units that they'll never see in the online game because they just want to dogfight. Thats the limitation that keeps others 'from getting into the game'. Your choices are limited (which is my whole argument for Warbirds). Youre forcing a new player to either buy the newer and better Channel, just to dogfight against me. With the hope ill be online as no one else is in the servers. Or he's forced to buy 'an asset pack' and Normandy, just to enjoy dogfighting in a popular server. And that limitation doesnt exist in any other part of this game. Do you think he's gonna then go and invest another $60 for Normandy and the assets after he's paid $40 for the 'ability to dogfight with no one online in the channel' + $50 for the P47? Or should he should just buy Normandy with the Asset pack for $60. Because even if he buys just Normandy- He STILL cant dogfight online. There just isnt an choice that exists where a new player, can pick up Normandy for $45, then go and dogfight online 'to experience the game'. A new player HAS to buy an asset pack if he chooses to experience 'a dogfight with other humans' in this game. There are 31 servers for all the Warbirds Maps and only 3 people in total playing right now (last night there were 37 at peak) in ALL of the Warbird maps, the 3 players are on Normandy (SoW). There are no players on the Channel. There are more than 200+ players now in DCS modern fighter servers (which is UP 15-ish percent from yesterday). The question is why i need the asset pack when all i want to do is dogfight against others? The choice, is taken away and becomes mandatory IF i choose to buy a warbird for dogfighting other people. Instead they choose to go other places, and end up staying there. If i had an extra $30 to spend, id much rather put that to a new map or even a new module, than be forced into buying an asset pack. Its unreasonable to ask new players to buy the Asset Pack, so they just dont.. No matter how many people i can get into the modern side of this game, even if i try and push them into Warbirds during a sale, they never buy the asset pack. As one said (And ive used this before on here) 'dont invite me to play Monopoly, then get suprised that im angry youve asked me to pay for the monopoly money.'

No- As ive Already stated 'the free assets allow you to build a pretty decent campaign'. This has been backed up on the userfiles page, the highest rated WW2 campaign on userfiles- is 'No Asset pack needed'.. That first statement is the fight here 'accomodate everyone', we dont want more assets, they wont help anyone in a dogfight- and we dont want things for free. We want the ability to play in any server without having to pay 'before we've bought the first module'. Yes, You are wrong, If i have an FA-18 my friend in the TF-51/F16/Huey/Yak52/SU25 can come fly with me no problem on any server EXCEPT a WW2 server. If my friend decides he likes and prefers the Warbirds and wants to invest in that part of the game so he can dogfight online on a WW2 server, his expenditure is $30 before he's chosen his Warbird and Map. If he wants to fly an FA-18, his expenditure is only the FA-18. If we want to play on the Persian Gulf online, yes he'll need the map, but if he choses Warbirds, he'll still need to spend $30 before buying the map to do the same thing. Any time any new players- come to the forums, as ive linked above- the subject and the Warbirds take a beating by those that have it, and it puts the new players off from coming into DCS and committing to the game. It sucks for me, as i WANT new players to fly with. Sadly, others are right- its a valid reason, and thats why it needs highlighting. Now- Im not complaining about the COST of the Asset Pack, Im complaining about the COST its having on the 'Warbirds game'. Im not making this a personal thing about me and my friends, im highlighting the only reason to why none of the other communties play on Warbirds. Im doing this because i want more players on Warbirds. And from active discussions that are only getting more common, on SRS during flying of modern jets, Reddit, Muspike, the largest reason to why others wont play IS the one i keep highlighting. So my efforts are in the hope, once this gets addressed- the players that are using this an a reason to stay on 'other games', will start to come over to DCS and make the game 'what it is for the modern side'.. So my buddies want to dogfight in storm of war, why should they pay for an 'asset pack' they'll never use, when all they are doing is dogfighting? Its going to cost them $15 BEFORE theyve bought a map or warbird to play on that server. Thats not reasonable. While i understand 'people need to get paid' with regards to the designers, The WW2 assets pack COULD be converted to the first supercarrier module for WW2 naval operations, all they'd need to do, is add a carrier. Then people who play on Warbirds, like myself can enjoy the luxury of such assets. And the immersion of the high fidelity game with others. But- It would still need to be changed in the same way the supercarrier isnt a 'required asset' to enter any server. The next argument would then be 'why isnt there a non paid carrier for the hellcat- Like the stennis is for the FA18?', but by that point hopefully we'd have the players to carry the warbird game. And someone else can argue that. Im 100% behind paying for new modules, but the target is always going to be new players and overall sales figures. Get the players in the servers, charge them for luxuries, but dont charge them for luxuries before theyre even in the game..

100% behind you, Yak is frickin awesome. Im with you, and always behind full VRTController support.

Un-noticed info..

Ive been looking for this info everywhere.. Great stuff guys..

You need to speak to support or report it as a bug.

Heres some screenshots ive taken from the game without mods, and filters. The only think i do, is add the black bars to hide the info bar.. There are a few on Caucasus to show you what you can do with the F2 button. All you need to know, is that you can 'change the lens' and get some really great shots when you apply the different views to different times of the day'. This was the screenshot from my profile.. Im pretty sure i took it on medium detail too. Is there a 'look' youre trying to achieve?

Ive been having a nightmare on the recent Drivers, the only fix i can find, to run the game stable, is to roll back to before 4.60- The best driver ive found for me was 457.51. Then when the new driver comes, it starts stuttering again. Then i have to clean install the old driver again. However, while i use the old driver- I cant use the F10 menu, or else i get kicked off the game. Its either that, or i play with the latest drivers, and suffer black screens every 15 minutes on the new maps, and constant stuttering. Hope it helps.

Sadly it has none by default. Its a big loss for the UK crew. Id love some added by default, to make some UK mission on the Channel Map.

Dont forget an F-8 Crusader to go with that map, please.

Is part 2 still due today?

Sounds great, just need some RAF liveries for the Harrier, Or even RAF fighters?

Big ask, but this would be a welcomed item.

Genuine apologies, I am Sorry- I didnt realise, Being honest I hadnt read the rules, and I didnt think this was an issue after coming from the Battlefield Production thread and the comparisons made there. Ive read the rules and Ill refrain from further comparison. Just to clarify, I do believe DCS is the best game out there and only gripe is that, i want more players in the Warbirds Servers. I appreciate the heads up. Hmm, well yeah, But the video is 11 years old.. Believe me, no one wants more people to get into this game than me.

We keep revisiting this, and id love to take the things you say as 'great insight', but Instead of making an assumption- Just go over to the relevant forums, and ask everyone 'why they dont play DCS ww2?'.. Ill wait here.. This kind of discussion is always going to be a welcome one, in that the hope things improve for this area in particular. We need this to be noticed. Secondly- This is not just something ive 'made up', 16 days ago- It's not the wording, the price, or the assets. Its the limitation. Players should not be locked out of online play if the server chooses to use asset packs. Take 5 minutes and go and look at the figures for online play- In fact ill do it now; DCS 'Modern servers'. (170 before+ before i stopped counting) DCS Warbirds 'online players' 3 players total. (2 SoW, 1 Gunzoo) Il2 stalingrad (50+) Cliffs of Dover (2!) One more player than CoD! Thats it.. The players are there- in games other than the ones mentioned too, granted they arent a big figure, and right now isnt a peak time. But people are still there! When peak times pick up, ive seen upto 150+ players on Stalingrad- while theres only been 25-27 players on Storm of War. And one or two on the aerobatics server.. We should have a third of all our players on Warbirds online. Thats what the stats are saying. All you have to do is ask people in the other games (Il2 Stalingrad), Do you have DCS? And people will tell you 'Yeah- but i cant play online'. This is all despite the fact that yes, you are right in that the pack is incredibly poor value, and its being amplified everytime anyone asks in the subs and forums and the people that do have it, explain why they arent happy with it.. Its too unreasonable to expect todays gamer to pay for an early release asset pack for $30. After he's shelled out $50 for a WW2 module, and $45 for a map. When all you can do in the module is learn to bomb, and dogfight. Meanwhile the same gamer has paid for the Hornet with months of gameplay. EA understood this (despite them being one of the worsed developers), and released 'EA Play' £90 a year, and you can play any game made or released by EA, instead of buying a different game every time.. $80 buys you the phenomenal FA-18, months of gaming and learning right there, and you can jump into any server online and play alongside people with the SuperCarrier, F16, Combined Arms, Huey, nothing stops that gamer from accessing any part of the game. He can even play against a P-47 in the same server- if he chooses as such. But, if he buys the P-47, and the Channel, he cant access the same game! He cant go to where everyone goes to play the game together- without forking over another $30 for the asset pack. After a he's had a quick gander on the videos, he finally goes over to the subs and forums, before asking poeple (is it worth it)- Before a community mod/manager explains his thoughts on the asset pack, to which i stand by 100%. So he does one of two things, he logs off and goes over to Il2, or he just plays on the modern server. Occasionally you get a player thats tempted to buy the Asset Pack, but then he goes over to the reviews and videos. Which arent really very compelling, they kind of show why you shouldnt buy the asset pack. But some people still buy them anyway in the hope 'that we support the ground war side of DCS'. Which is VERY misleading and quite frankly just plain wrong! Lets have a look at the cost of this WW2 Ground war. If a player buys the 'Asset Pack' in support of the 'Ground War' how much would it cost him to 'drive a tank online'? Well; $45 for a map $30 for the Asset Pack $40 for Combined Arms $115 'to support the ground war side of DCS', and he's not even bought a Warbird. So now he goes to the server he just- 'paid himself onto', he's now the only tank in a battlefield with 2 other fighters.. Vs $40 (Combined Arms) online in any modern server. I dont think ive ever found a single player that can suggest that is a good way to support the 'ground war side of DCS'. You find MY view misleading? When there isnt a single link to a post where everyone recommends the asset pack. Youre asking people to spend $30 on a target pack that only allows you to join a multiplayer game, when they could just buy an SU27 and an F15 instead. The asset pack is a poor investment. That has been released way too early. If were paying for assets for a theatre of war it should have MORE assets than the base game to represent value, let alone good value. Im 100% sure the Asset Pack as a module is no longer even needed right now, as the free assets allow you to build a pretty decent campaign (and we still have the 'original Lock on' Assets in the game, which look like theyre from WW2)- Let alone worth paying for. WW2 Combined arms? Yes- 100% Definitely welcomed! But if there are no players to play against online- Whats the point of that either? Had the asset pack doubled the number of AI assets in the total game, and been released without bugs then id have welcomed it at the same cost of Combined Arms under CA- WW2. I would have paid for it too. But instead, its been released underwhelmingly, with poor value, too early, with 4% of the assets the game should have when compared to the modern assets, and to poor and bad reviews. And to suggest that IM being misleading despite this, is in very poor taste- 'Its an asset and should be included in the map', IS the argument thats supported by the players, the mods over at reddit, a majority of mudspike, and myself -As ive experienced the Asset Pack, seen the trajectory its taken (in terms of actual development), and felt a little bit disappointed in the development of the overall Warbird game. While not limiting gameplay, the numbers in Warbirds online might have seen expansion, instead its gone the other way. If the game 'needed' more assets, ED should have paid to have them developed or took time to develop them, themselves. They should have been included with the Maps, and ED should have sold Combined Arms WW2, but unfortunetly Combined Arms is in its worsed state of development, since it came out, and asking people to 'buy Combined Arms WW2', would have been laughed at, when combined arms is in its current state, so they had to change the sale point' and it still hasnt worked. Id have loved it to. But its just not realistic, and the numbers are proof of that. I kinda feel like they sold the asset pack to a third party to save themselves a load of bother making new ones. I would love for you to have real proof of your points. Ive tried to find them myself in a hope that i can look at this unbiasedly, but no proof exists to why anyone should buy the Asset Pack, unless they really really love single player Warbirds and want the whole experience, and those people i can count on one hand.. And im afraid a handful of players arent going to save the 'ground war side of DCS'. We need more.

Type it into google.. THen follow the film to the plane chase..

Ah, ok. That doesnt sound too bad, The other chap on here has settings that are proven to be worse. Jabber actually explains here, why lowering the pixel density is lowering image quality in game.