StevanJ

This has been solved now, I spoke to the Dev. Much thanks..

I agree, its the example of buying the Supercarrier, then being able to fly with those that have it, without having to go out and buy it to enjoy it. There should be no exclusions for anyone when trying to enjoy the game.

Suggesting someone isnt a fan of the game because they cant afford it is actually really offensive, but i understand the point youre trying to make. We do our best to enjoy WW2, but MP just isnt there. The popular servers all require 'the asset pack'. Thats why we all work together in our squad to create the missions and campaigns that we feel benefit everyone, not just those who have paid for the asset pack. When we build our campaign and missions, the getting new people involved is what is always about. Keeping them involved is down to ED/DCS. And besides.. They each spent $80 on the Hornet plus the Maps, and they each contributed their part to the missions and campaigns I make with them (go to user files and check the top 3 rated files). Its not about the assets. Its about the cost of the assets to enter online play. If thats going to happen with the introduction of new £70 'Tank Modules', but you wont be able to play the game online without the new £30 'modern asset pack', then youll have to start asking if it actually makes economic sense for anyone. We all agree that DCS is far better than Il2 (bugs and all), but when it comes to actually getting together and playing online (which is massively shared target market) DCS lacks, and its due to the fact no-one can enter a popular server and experience the real game with with other people in the Warbirds. When you account for the number of people who want to play online (go see how many servers are on Il2 multiplayer right now-), unless we see changes that limit people, and keep them out of servers due to any asset packs, we can be assured that DCS Warbirds and any furture modules will never really see any changes in numbers as we move to the future, and thats only going to hurt the game. While im okay to pay for DLC and the luxuries of 'add-ons' not everyone else is. And unfortunately people who discriminate against those with poverty, simply dont understand why the popularity stays with Il2. Not everyone has the money to buy every single module. So when it comes to money, we have to go with the game thats 1- most popular and 2- best value. While DCS by far has the market for modern jets, it just doesnt when you look at Warbirds. And that outlook can be shared on with the prospect of a FPS style module in the future. And ill always say that ED/DCS can charge us as much as they want for Modules, but dont charge us for new assets. Having a 16 year old explaining that they want 'the £70 tank module' for christmas is fine, having them explain that they'll also need the '£30 modern asset pack' to play it, is not.

Hi @3WA, Yeah- Its like I said, ive paid for the Asset Pack, the problem is- No one else is. Out of ten of my friends 3 people have it. And thats whats taking me and the other 2 people to Il2 to play online with the other friends.. DCS is the far better game, and yet no one plays it for Warbirds. If you look at the numbers on Steam for Il2 over the last 24 hours its nearly 600 players thats purely WW2 aircraft. Look at the same numbers on Steam for DCS, 1200- Thats a mix of all the aircraft in DCS. And we can tell from the servers- that the DCS Warbird market is way too small for the whole of DCS. Even the posts in the forums show the numbers- You can add every post in the WW2 section and it doesnt even cover the number of posts in the FA18 alone. If DCS is going to break the WW2 market, were going to need something more than a £30 paywall entry for the assets when playing online. And that will apply to modern jets moving forward. It might seem great paying £70 for a tank, but if the numbers for the 'new asset pack' are the same as they are for Warbirds, then youll be playing alone on a server, because no one else wanted to pay £70 for a tank, plus the £30 for the 'Modern asset pack'.. This is marketing 101. The Ground isnt going to pay for new modules.. Turnover is, and unless we look to bring in the players and push to raise that turnover, we're going to struggle moving forward and into to the future for that area of DCS let alone WW2 planes. This is the market. This is actually also verified by the numbers in the servers online when you go to the Warbirds multiplayer section.. Now like i said, Im 100% happy to pay for modules, Id even pay a little more for them if it meant, that my gameplay became more realstic with the addition of new assets, I get a pay-rise every year from inflation, so why shouldnt ED? Id love to jump in a server and fly around with real people in tanks, but im not going to do it, if i then have to pay another £30 for a modern asset pack.. £100 for 'Tank action' is a bit unrealistic when for £60 my friends can get il2 tank clash with 6 tanks in it.. Charge me for a map update like the A10C2 fine, but charging new players for a module, then charging them for an assett pack which means they wont get to play on a server without it, means were just giving people a reason not to get involved in the game. The exact same thing has just happened for EA, they dropped Anthem- Just like that, because they just couldnt bring in new players. Despite their market being pretty huge. At the start they had a million, Now they have (had) nearly 3 times the amount of players as DCS and the games actually pretty good! But me and the bulk of players stopped playing because of paywalls. The asset pack is the only one thing standing in the way of DCS Warbirds, and if you bring the focus onto selling maps and modules not assets, DCS has a much bigger chance at moving into the WW2 sim territory. Which benefits everyone when you look to move into the future. I have no problem in paying for modules, like i said- Ill put my money into any module that goes up for sale that i like the look of. I love the opportunity to fly anything and welcome positive change. Even loved the Yak-52 and made a free campaign for it in the hope others would buy it too. I put serious effort into mission building and actively try to bring in new players as much as i can, and that means i hear alot of the reasons to why people wont and dont come to DCS, and the biggest reason for the Warbirds IS the Assets pack 9 out of 10 times, limiting people from playing because they have to pay extra for 'assets', is not going to be a viable solution long term, and unless we bring in the numbers towards the maps and modules and especially WW2, like we did with the modern aircraft, how long do you think it will carry on until the money paid for those modules runs out? Unless we can significantly raise the number of players on Warbirds, theres going to be a point, where 'from a business perspective' things will get looked at and its decided wether or not its worth it. And wether or not its worth support. The modern warplanes, FA18, F16 will always have a place while the younger player base have the dream of flying something they once saw at an airshow. But how many younger people do you think want to fly a Warbird for £132? When was the last time you saw a streamer fly a warbird? Look at the views it gets. Its time to be realistic and figure how we can pull them and the market away from Il2. And thats why- like i said, when i build Campaigns (which are always free), i make sure everyone can play them not just the people who own the Asset Pack- why single anyone out? Its nothing personal, but i want more modules, and unless we help bring in more turnover for ED, were not going to get the modules we want on the times theyre scheduled for- I can live with that, im patient, but im not sure others can? While i would love a FPS on DCS, Its just not going to happen while there are so many other pretty fantastic games out, We need an incredible amount more of players, and we just dont have that yet. Squad alone brings in 9000 players a day, while im sure we'd love a piece of that number, We still dont have the game setup for flying properly yet, let alone FP shooting. There are less than 30 people right now online in Warbirds. How are we gonna get more than that into DCS: FPS? Im all for change, and new mods, but lets get the players in first and work from there.. Players>Turnover>Changes To what im saying, Ill happily pay £70 for a full fidelity tank.. I would not if it meant i had to pay £30 for another 'modern asset pack' which meant i could only play in servers with that module. If i cant play with friends on a regular server, id not buy it, thats all..

To be honest, I dont care about them at all.. I could happily not take them. But having them as a requirement to enter WW2 servers is stopping others who want to play DCS- from playing the game. Thats just how it is. Its the same as paying for Syria then being asked to pay for the Israeli, Turkish, Iraqi and Syrian liveries. I paid for the Assets, but i still make my Campaigns with out them, so that others can enjoy and try out the game.

I mentioned this in another thread, but its seems more suitable here. Charge as much as you want for Maps and Modules- Thats fair. With trials, and free to fly we cant argue with the price of a module once we've had a go. I'd happily pay £70 for a M1 Abrams or a Shilka, as long as it had full warfare capabilities (including the capabilities to hide from a MAV) and camouflage, but charging for Assets is stopping alot of people from coming to DCS. Give everyone the Assets for free so we can build missions for the new maps for others to fly in. If the mission builders, have the assets to create content, then the people will buy the Maps. The amount of times, ive watched a WW2 action film, and thought 'Yeah- that would be cool to fly in that and do that' -Memphis Belle for example. Only to realise that it would cost me and my friends nearly £120 in Asset packs for us all to re-enact that film. So we just end up in an FA-18 shooting tanks in Caucasus. Or on Il-2 Another game- Hunter COTW -Avalanche gave everyone the chance to play any map so long as only the Host had paid for it. After having the opportunity to play on different maps, I went out and bought the DLC i liked myself. I love that game. Give the Asset Artists, a cut of each of the Maps. And please stop charging for assets. Its the only reason im forced to dogfight in Il2, and not DCS. Id like to bring friends to play on the Channel in a server on the TF-51 or a Warbird, but we cant do that, as it would cost each of them £30 to join the server and just fly around unarmed. He isnt exactly made of money, and got the Spitfire for his birthday. So we go on the Aerbatics server, and we fly formation. Usually we're bored pretty quick, before were back in the FA-18. Having the 'Asset Pack Paywall' prevents others from playing the game. The Channel £40 Fw 190D £50 The WW2 assets pack £30 A paid Campaign (if there is one) £12 £132 to Dogfight and drop a few bombs on occasion. In a sale they're obviously better value, but then so is the FA-18. Versus an FA-18 on Caucasus £80 Versus Il2 £40 for 6 fighters and 2 bombers Versus the SU-25. The Channel is normally £50, if there was a way of expanding it slightly to include more of the North Sea and a little of Netherlands, and London, and then there was a way of changing the buildings to a more Modern aesthetic (doesnt have to be sky scrapers think early 90's) we could use that Map for the Harrier, Mirage and the F-16 (Netherlands) as an alternative training map you could charge us £20 for the upgrade- Like you did with the A10CII. The A-Pack paywall is killing the social side of WW2 multiplayer. And while it might bring in a few quid, its ultimately meant that the £30 paywall to Warbirds, has Prevented 3 other players from buying the Channel and Warbirds recently. Look at the servers and numbers for modern aircraft, then look at the number for WW2 with the Asset Pack requirement. I know its half price in the Sale, but even thats alot of money for them and their families during a horrendous year in recession/lock-down.

Roll back driver to Older driver. Try again. Let support know too.

I thought you have to bomb drop first (be it not ideal), have you dumped the centre pylon and tried?

Query- Am i missing something or is there no Campaigns for the Dora? Are there any user built campaigns that are recommended? Keep coming back to this plane in bulk, but cant seem to find anything to keep me in it.

Barebones VR Here i3 9100 RX 580 8GB MSI B365M 8GB 2666 RAM (single stick) Ran well in the headset (Quest 1), although you cant tell here..

I had the same issue, in the end it was a driver and had to roll back all the way to Nvidia 457.51. The latest drivers just dont like the Channel Map.

Its Good. Very near Great! But for me, theres something missing on it.. The bigger picture. Its a close quarters map. Historically.. There were a few things happening early into the war.. Dunkirk, the Battle of Dieppe, onto the Battle of Boulogne later on. There will more than likely be a few campaigns, but youll need to buy them, then the map, then the assets pack which isnt very good value (until 1, we see MUCH more assets- Id want to see at least 10 times the currently listed assets and 2, its on sale), to enjoy the paid campaigns. The Channel right now is a little empty it feels like a pizza without cheese.. My opinion. Its a little too small, but i understand why. No autopilot, and only 400 MPH, means you can cover the whole map one way in 40 minutes, and more and id be bored. We just dont have enough assets yet- including free (to get others into Warbirds), and neither in the paid asset pack. No one can build content that more than a dogfight, or a bomb drop. We cant put many Planes in the air, before the Frames tank. Which means we have to fly unrealistic 'small bomber- one escort' formations if we want to keep frames high in VR- but thats ok because the gameplay is decent.. Re-enacting Memphis Belle though is a definite no-no.. We dont have the servers or the value in the content to pull the younger players away from Il2 so online play in the Channel is a struggle if youre looking for a server that 'free to play'. Its also REALLY buggy when you try and build your own missions. The planes fly into fences on takeoff, and it crashes for me on any new (4.60 onwards) Nvidia driver. Wether its the plane modules, the map itself, or the driver of some kind no one knows. Ive not had an easy time building a campaign, partly because of the AI is either Super Dumb, or Super smart and uber accurate. A few explosions, and the framerate comes down significantly. We've another free WW2 map coming soon- Why wouldnt we wait for that first? I fly with a friend, and i somehow managed to get him to buy Warbird in the sale, he loves it. But not enough to buy a Map to play it on, Or the Asset Pack, to enjoy missions with. Because as he said.. After youve dropped bombs on a bridge, or had a dogfight, and landed at an airfield youre done. You buy the Channel, and thats it. Its the same, but in a 'paid' small Map of flat France, in Caucasus you get the Valleys and Mountains to fly through. His argument was 'Play on Caucasus if you squint you cant tell the difference after an hour', and I think he has a point to some level.. You can put together a few missions from the free assets you do get. But after that theres nothing left- So you go to multiplayer, and no ones on the Channel map without the Asset pack, So you end up in an FA18 over Caucasus, cos you want to have fun in that moment, and you dont 'feel like paying the £30 entrance fee to Warbirds'.. You buy an F-18 for the same price, You learn every step of that plane, A/A, A/G even A/Sea it takes weeks, sometimes months! The FA18 is wholly unbelievable value when you look at all you need is the module, and Caucasus to get going, you can literally spend Weeks in that plane learning every step of the systems and capabilites it has. Then spend £40 on another map, and youve another game, with all the assets of that Map too. When you buy a Warbird, you learn to dogfight, learn to dive bomb, learn to land. For a new player- Its just not enough for the overall cost of the gameplay. The Channel alone, isnt worth it right now. Which is a shame, because since the Damage update, the WW2 game, has become so much better and more immersive. The whole Warbird aspect to DCS in my opinion is FAR better and enjoyful on DCS than Il2, but they have the player base, and the value to keep their players. And its where i have to go, if i want to dogfight online, which sucks. I think if we saw permanent reductions on the WW2 content, and significantly more free assets to build more competitive gameplay, We'd probably be onto a winner. And the Il2 fanbase would shift towards DCS. The Channel £40 Fw 190D £50 The WW2 assets pack £30 A paid Campaign (if there is one) £12 £132 to Dogfight and drop a few bombs on occasion. In a sale they're obviously better value, but then so is the FA-18. Versus an FA-18 on Caucasus £80 Versus Il2 £40 for 6 fighters and 2 bombers Versus the SU-25. But.. Its a great map to play on, especially when youre flying low 'taking it in'. You might feel after a few hours like its a little too small for longevity as there's currently near zero content for it- You dont really notice the 'beauty' after the first hour, as your 'just getting on' with flying your missions which if you put ALOT of time into, can be fun in the moment and quite satisfying. Its ALOT better than Normandy- which looks abysmal, and isnt getting any acknowledgement of problems being updated. I bought it during a sale, with my 'miles' points. And Im happy with it.. I think once the Mosquito comes out, this will be THE map to fly on, as we REALLY need a good bomber to fly.. But if the Mosquito does comes out, Ill still have trouble with the value for WW2 Assets until they've either matched the number of current 'present' assets or they've become competitive on the way they price the content around it.. I wouldnt let my kid spend £15 on Apex DLC.. If id paid for it, id have been disheartened but its the cost of a couple of pizzas, so id just have eaten beans on toast on takeaway day. While I prefer and the experience of WW2 flying in DCS versus Il2, Unless DCS give mission builders the chance to create missions and content, and pull the player base from Il2 with a more competitive pricing structure for content, the Channel and other WW2 maps wont mean anything to anyone other than the generations that grew up watching them fly at airshows.. DCS should take the hit with the Asset Pack, and give the Dev's/Artists £5 everytime they sell a WW2 Map and include the Asset packs in the Map, that way Missions can be built, content can be created, and no longer will there be an excuse not to buy a WW2 map.

Im sure.. Its the last tab after youve selected train, then you 'build' a train fromt the buttons.. And it will start from where you put it, like a car on a road. If you want it to stop, you need a 'Hold' trigger on a waypoint..

SWITCH/ONCE: Unit AGL lower than 2 + Unit Speed lower than 2 + Unit inside zone> Flag on 1 ONCE: Time since Flag 5> Activate Group Make zone barricade out of Cargo F-shape barrier in the perimeter of the zone.. Or use Red Flags. If you want to simulate the weight of the cargo Once: Time more than 1> Set Internal Cargo on Unit (add mass) Add the 'set internal cargo' on unit trigger to the activate group trigger, and reset cargo mass to 0.

It would be great- to be able to save the trigger list, so i can keep them and export them to another map. This would allow me to duplicate a campaign ive made, to the 'free' caucasus map and allow others to play the campaign without having to start from scratch and build a new campaign.. The only alternative i can think of is to be able to change map 'mid' mission editor but i doubt thats practical. Much thanks

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-gunners-aboard-B-17-bombers-in-WWII-manage-to-shoot-down-enemy-fighters Warthunder and Il2 had the same problem at the start before bombers gunners were 'buffed' by complaints in the Forums. I think the only time we'll ever know is if we get a chance to use the gunners positions and 'try to shootdown planes' ourselves. Then we can get the best analytics towards real figures. Right now, there doesnt seem to be any research towards accuracy. Although I 100% agree that the gunners seem way too high in accuracy. During a mission I had 1 'Rookie' A-20 utterly destroy my squad of 'Ace' 109's (3 of them strafing at 400 knots). And ill i did, was drift low and behind it, and take out the engines with a few rounds each engine.

@BIGNEWY or @NineLine Hi there, id like to please Request the TF-51 is added to the 'Units' category on the User Files page.. Many Thanks..

Perfect, Thanks Rudel- where do i ask?

Id like to add a mission to the User Files, for the TF-51D. However there is no TF-51D on the Units category. Will this change or is this going to stay as it is? Thanks.

Anyone had any issues with this Map crashing? I can go weeks without an issue, but today i cant get anymore than 10 minutes before the map (and game) crashes.. I have no issues in any other map. Tested Syria for near enough 6 hours, and put 3 hours into Persian Gulf, but then couldnt get 10 minutes out of the Channel. Including Log. Any advice welcomed. dcs.log-20210221-010401.zip

Hi guys, Does anyone know if the Mig-21 will be flyable with the Touch Controls soon? Id love to fly it, but i play from a laptop in hotels around the country, a HOTAS isnt practical for me. Much thanks.

Can confirm- Engine randomly stops in game, It also effects the AI..

Perfect, many thanks..

Also, activate 'switch waypoint' on ships too please.