StevanJ
-
Posts
865 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by StevanJ
-
-
Since the changelog has anyone noticed extremely long loading times for this module?
Over 4 minutes for each instant action free flight on Caucasus.
-
9 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
How did 2.7 break the game?
Various new bugs came, loss of function in some parts of the game meant I could no longer enjoy it on my travels..
Go through my post history and have a mooch for more details..
-
1
-
-
On 9/20/2021 at 6:52 PM, 71st_AH Rob said:
Because they won't. There is no argument or logic that will convince them to purchase an assets pack, which in turn prevents them from purchasing modules and maps. Certainly I feel that the cost of the WWII Assets Pack, about half an hour of mission building time based on what my employer pays me to do the same, is not a lot when compared to the hours I spend each week mission building but its a matter of principle for some.
Really well said..
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, AlpineGTA said:
Well, I'm new to multiplayer, so I don't think I'm qualified to criticise too much. But if I could say one thing, every time the server starts, it always seems to start with the same ships in the same places and they always look like they're sat static in the channel. It would be nice if the ships spawned in more random places and weren't static, so you had to search for them each time. And you didn't tend to fly the same routes every time, because it's easy to use the known ship positions as markers, or because you fly a certain route all the time to avoid the ships AA fire. But I'm no expert mission designer so I don't know if it's even possible to do that. Maybe that would require the mission to be re-written each time before each server restart? Which obviously just wouldn't be practical.
It would be nice too to hear more people communicating on comms and organising coordinated missions together, but that's more a player base issue than a server issue.
But regardless, there's still plenty of scope to fly different sorties and as I say, I'm really enjoying it, getting my multiplayer feather in my cap.
Yeah, Dynamics are gonna give you 2FPS, Im sure there will be future optimisations and perhaps a different more random start if the server kicks off, but i dont think it will happen for a while.
Comms, I agree.. -
Are you serious?
Youre gonna start a riot in here with talk like that..
-
Just now, Callsign112 said:
Well to start, you should make the survey more clear. You told me I am off topic for mentioning the assets pack. So I guess one of the first issues is to qualify what you mean by DLC. Do you mean all modules, or just certain modules? The next issue that pops out at me is your very first question.
You should also make it more clear what supporting a monthly subscription means. "Yes I want to support DCS", or "Yes, I would prefer to pay a monthly subscription to have unlimited access to all DCS World modules". Do you see the difference?
The Question is 'So, alot of people want to support DLC, Would you be interested in Donating a small fee every month for Bonus Content? ie Special Skins, One off Asset Models for the Mission Editor, Special Forum Flair, Custom Missions, and maybe some miles points too?'
Either say 1) yes you want to pay towards the stuff on offer, 2) No you want to pay for just modules, or Say 3) youre on the Fence, and explain what youd want for the subscription cost.
Im not telling people they can have all the modules, thats down to the individual to click 3) and explain that they would like that option..1 minute ago, Tippis said:No. You can't on the one hand suggest that we can draw any generalised conclusions from your poll and then, when that approach doesn't work out for you, turn around and say that, oh no, it was deliberately bad, and especially not then try to turn around again and save the first claim when the second approach also doesn't work that well.
You get to choose: either it was deliberately made bad, in which case we can conclude nothing from it, or it was an attempt to do something serious and should be treated as such, in which case we still can't draw any conclusion from it — or at least not the one you want — because of the huge flaws and the spectacularly large margin of error that your preferred conclusion would entail. One of the two.
Clustered randomized selection; off-forum; sample size of, oh, 500+; with discrete, mutually exclusive, non-opinionated and judgmental, and preferably dichotomised options; probably 4–5 groups of 10+ branching questions each, dealing with outcomes of different scenarios (if yes -> how much; if not -> at what loss). You know, proper poll stuff.
Ive not suggested anything was bad.
Your opinion is welcome.
Thank you.
Yeah thats alot of work, im only looking for the discussion, youre welcome to go that route if it interests you that much though..-
1
-
-
Just now, Tippis said:
Then don't presume to draw any conclusions from it. You can't have it both ways.
Everyone can have it both ways..
Were in a forum, which actually means 'a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.'
It doesnt matter who's right or wrong, its just a bit of fun.
Its only a discussion and youre welcome to explain how you'd have conducted the poll, and with what options.
Its genuinely welcomed.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, AlpineGTA said:
Yes, hopefully people will stick around and it'll stay busy and continue to develop. It got me to try online for the first time, so it's worked in that sense.
So what didnt you like about it? -
6 minutes ago, Furiz said:
No thanks, pools here are there to entertain the masses.
Well yeah, Pools are pretty entertaining, especially on a sunny day..
Thanks for that.. -
4 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:
The guy that doesn't even fly the Hind
He won the interwebs :slowclap: bro. That NVG is in the game was clear five pages ago already... but hey, grats man! You made it!
Luckily ED finally made it so we can forbid it on servers, so have fun elsewhere but for sure not on mine. We also have payload restrictions now and i hope for more ways to restrict gamer features via ME. You can play your crazy kids games on your servers. We can do our serious stuff on ours.
Yeah, Thanks dude. Its appreciated. Its good to know youve got a little empathy in you.
If you ever need a server donation just send me a PM.-
2
-
-
On 9/20/2021 at 3:06 AM, Shibbyland said:
I came to DCS from one of ED's competitors who focus on WW2 flight sims. All I can say is, DCS stands head and shoulders above them (at least for me). Unfortunately, despite really wanting to make DCS my sole sim given it has both WW2 and modern combat, I just can't get into the WW2 stuff.
I own Normandy, the assets and a number of warbirds all of which I like. But it just doesn't mesh together very well. It seems with each aircraft released, the content on a whole is watered down rather than enhanced. For example, the Mosquito looks fantastic as does the P-47 but it seems in future to get the benefit of those aircraft you'll need the channel map. The Normandy map still hasn't really come into its own and a lot of us will already own that. So the price starts to sky rocket not just in terms of buying modules, assets, maps and campaigns but the hardware to store it on. The files are massive so to constantly be uninstalling and reinstalling because you can no longer fit maps takes so long.
I just wondered what everybody else's thoughts on this were. I didn't buy the P-47 despite really liking it and I probably won't buy the Mosquito because the WW2 content is just not consolidated into a workable package at a reasonable price. Just my thoughts on it, obviously others will feel differently.
The gameplay has quite alot of issues. And the warbirds are never free of bugs.
But if you can look past that, then yeah. We have a pretty decent Flight Sim. I say Flight Sim, because the Combat isnt there yet.
Which i guess is what you mean.
Were missing ALOT of content for the Warbirds, The Asset Pack, is a tenth of the Assets we actually need, and from the sounds of things, were a long way off getting what we need.
If you dont mind utilising the old LOMAC/modern assets, then you can create a sort of fun gameplay that works.
Its not ideal, and its gets a bit uninteresting. Once youve mastered bombing, and dogfighting- its time to enter the Mission Editor.
If you can get into the game, then the warbird modules, are always looking for good content creators, and building missions is a skill for a good story teller.
Id hold off on the Channel map for now, weve WW2 Marianas coming, and unless the Channel is expanded, then its not worth the cost, vs Normandy.
The Channel is the better looking map, but i took off in the Mosquito yesterday for the first time, and it wasnt long, before id reached the end of the otherside of the map.
It was then i kinda wished we'd get an expansion.
-
3
-
-
41 minutes ago, AlpineGTA said:
I was having a lot of fun online on this server again last night. It seems to be regularly populated with a good number of players. I'm still new to online though and I'm still trying to master taking off well in the different warbirds. I like to switch sides and aircraft to keep things balanced and try different sorties, so I sometimes slip up remembering the different takeoff procedures, ending in a fiery death on the airfield. One Mosquito takeoff attempt ended with me crashing into some chap minding his own business idling at the other end of the airfield in a P47, so apologies if that was you!
However, I did manage one successful Mossie takeoff fully laden with bombs, spent ages flying all the way across the channel skimming the waves, undetected, got to the German airfield at Dunkirk without being hit by flak, had the perfect opportunity to drop my bombs on the airfield, but nothing released, I forgot to open the bomb bay doors! I was then promptly shot down by flak and enemy fighters trying to re-attack.
I had better success in a Fw190-A though. Flying across the channel at high altitude to avoid the flak I managed to dive bomb Hawkinge and drop a bomb on the parking area. I then flew to Marston and shot up a few parked aircraft before flak and enemy fighters got me!
It might not be one of the more historically accurate or serious servers but it's great fun, worth checking out if you're curious about online and want to try it out without any pressure.
So, its okay, but the largest problem so far ive noted is that nearly everyone that I fly with on SRS are utilising the two week trials, and a mojority of the people that i speak to, tell me theyre going back to the modern servers when the trials are over.
Ill wait a month, and see if the server can do what Tactical Pascale, and Grim Reapers could do.
But i think its a really hard sell, even for GS. -
That would mean creating an entirely new map for the North of the map (Battle of Caucasus), Id much rather we got something else..
But lets see if anyone else is interested..-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Skarp said:
No I literally tried this and roads simply are missing connections. This is a problem in multiplayer matches as well because the calculations involved can hang a server.
Pathfinding is more than broken in Multiplayer..
Youve no chance there, i didnt know it was that bad in singleplayer too?
Is there no sign of a fix yet? -
17 hours ago, jubuttib said:
Just out of interest I went through your posts, and probably missed something (in which case I'd be very grateful if you could point the posts out for me!), but I only saw evidence for a one-off test of NVGs in a Russian exercise, and some Hungarian footage, done relatively recently. Was there any additional evidence?
Personally I'd put the limit of inclusion a bit higher than "it was tested a couple of times on this variant".
That said I do understand where you're coming from. On the controversial BS3 issue I'm of the opinion that "it's kinda OK". The specific reasons why I think that:
1. Like the A-10C II/2.0 update, it's not expected to be replacing the existing BS2 Ka-50, but adding another version. This makes it supremely easy to not include on a server, should you wish to not have it, much easier than going through adding a heli and configuring its settings to reflect the specific variant you're after. Under this clause, I'd be kinda fine with it if they ever released a Mi-24P Hind 2.0, which added all kinds of rare and experimental stuff, like a generic consumer GPS unit for navigation. The base Mi-24P I'd like to stay true to the common version of the variant, with not many exotic tweaks or late in life experimental additions.
2. Specifically to the BS3, they wanted to make it properly, but were basically prohibited from doing that by the government. Lots of work that had already done would be wasted, which is never fun, and even the fantasy addons they are planning feature realistic capabilities of the helicopter variant they wanted to make, even if they're not realistic implementations. The version they wanted to make was to have Iglas, MWS, RWR and potentially IR jamming of some kind (don't quote me on the last one), they're adding Iglas and MWS which are realistic capabilities, but doing them in a not fully realistic way due to being prohibited from doing it properly. Under this clause, if for example NVGs on the Mi-24P was a commonly utilized thing, but the government prohibited them from doing a specific simulation of the real life NVG goggles, I'd be more likely to accept it if they did a more generic NVG implementation.
This is all different from e.g. the HARMgate for the F-16C, where the issue was that the US specifically chose to take out the necessary wiring for HARMs on two of the pylons, but it was a configuration that was extensively tested, validated, included in manuals, and used by other customer countries. Just not the US.
In a similar vein to that, the GPU-5 pod (basically a 4-barrel GAU-8 in pod form) was only ever used in action by the US for one day during the 1st Gulf War (so before our Block 50), after which it was heaved out of the system, but apparently Thai F-5Es use them. So, not a fitting addition to the F-16C we have, but an addition for the F-5E, assuming that in real life it didn't require much in the way of rewiring (the system purportedly fits into standard mounts and the F-16Cs during GW didn't even have it hooked up to the sights, so seems pretty easy to plonk on there and have it work)? Yes please.
I'd love to see many other alternative weapons used by the air forces of countries other than the US and Russia, if they are fitted on the same variant of the plane without also needing massive changes to the systems onboard. I like the idea of simulating foreign customer models overall. But often those use significantly different systems overall, making them different variants themselves, so it wouldn't really be appropriate to do that.
You could probably approximate this in DCS by assigning AI wingmen using the AI only Mi-24? Looking at it in-game it doesn't specify the model, but the things at the ends of the wings look very much like what's seen on the Macedonian Mi-24V and the Polish Mi-24W (which supposedly is just their designation for the V), so is probably at least a close approximation? Fly the P yourself (you'd be the leader anyway, so that fits), and have the AI back you up.
Would of course be fantastic to get the V variant too, even if it has a wimpy gun.
We got the NVG for the win.. None of this really matters anymore..-
2
-
-
On 9/20/2021 at 10:02 AM, Callsign112 said:
... which will be fixed.
Yup, the updates due christmas 2020..
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Tippis said:
That does not follow.
People can already give money to ED if they want to. So there's very little opportunity to change that hypothetical loss even if it existed, and you don't know if it does.
You also haven't accounted for the cost and loss of income such a move would entail.
We really can't, because the poll too poorly constructed, uses too small a sample, and relies entirely on self-selection even among that sample, for it to say anything definitively.
You end up with a sample market size with something along the lines of a 300% margin of error.
The Poll is vague on purpose to push discussion.. If you genuinely think you could do a better poll i would honestly welcome it.
Im very open to your 'options on a new poll', perhaps you could put one together?
14 hours ago, Callsign112 said:Part of why it is too poorly constructed is that it is actually misleading. Some people might have read "YES I WANT TO SUPPORT DCS!" and just selected it.
And the survey itself is also misleading because it is set up so that it could actually be understood in two different ways.
Some users might understand that in addition to buying modules, they would be donating a small amount of money to support DCS World in return for extra content/privilege.
Others might understand that by donating a small fee each month, everyone would receive use of asset packs/maps and such for free.
In the case of the first group, the 8% might be happy to donate what ever they deem fair, but in the case of the second group, the 8% might dwindle down to zero % when they find out the size of the donation that would have to be made each month in order to make the concept work.
I think at one point, Stevan actually references EA as the game studio that sparked the concept for him. EA and its business model do not = ED and its business model. But the concept loses absolutely all its juice when you actually give it a hypothetical.
I am pretty sure any subscription based system would be a lot more than anyone would be willing to pay, but say ED could somehow get it down to $1.50/month. Why would anyone want to pay even that per month for something they could just buy outright for $15.00? And what about the people that already bought the assets pack?
The concept has little to no merit.
I am more than happy to buy the assets pack and be done with it. At the end of the day, the assets pack is such a small fraction of the commitment I have to make to really enjoy DCS World.
The asset pack has 0 to do with this poll, please keep on topic.
9 hours ago, Furiz said:I think you are trying to give credit to your idea too hard, some ideas are good some are not. ED is not losing any money if you look at your pool.
You are looking at this from a very wrong perspective, you didn't take into account how much ED would lose if they turn to subscription model, so you have 8% that would pay that sub but those 8% are still buying modules, they didn't give up on this simulator, so ED is not losing any money.
On the other hand, you have 92% that would not pay that subscription so that means ED would lose 92% of its payer base.
You cant make a business model without research, and I know you didn't do any research on this, cause if you did you wouldn't post here, you would know that's not how it is done,
if you want to propose a business model you need to do your research, work out a model and go to the management and say hey guys I'm (insert name), I work at (company) and I have a business model that I think you should consider, if you are interested we can schedule a presentation.
That's how this is done, so stop prolonging this bad idea pls and move on.
Its not my idea.
I was curious and my opening statemement is 'This is Hypothetical. And just for fun.'...
5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:While you can't say 92% would straight up leave (though I would) if DCS went subscription, you're basically spot on.
It seems pretty clear looking at the poll, and the polls of previous threads suggesting the same thing, that subscriptions are incredibly unpopular among the overwhelming majority of people voting.
It seems likely that DCS going subscription would turn people away, and that people would quit, and it's likely that this would negate any advantage offered by a subscription and may in fact be an overall detriment.
The OP nor any supporters of the idea haven't provided any analysis on the current model vs a proposed subscription, nor has a pricing model been proposed. In this hot mess of a thread, I did do some crude analysis (see here) on a proposed model which had 3 tiers:
- Free, but limited access with maybe free trials (what we have now, minus the limited access)
- $10-15 per month, full-ish access (but you still have to pay extra for EA modules) - about as much as ED makes from selling content, assuming everybody buys all newly released content full price (they don't but I'm going by best case scenarios for both models), though the current system has none of the limitations.
- $20-30 per month, unlimited access as well as what I describe as P2W content and access to exclusive merch - twice as expensive over the current system, with IMO, no advantages over it (who here wants exclusive P2W content?).
In any case, ED most likely would've done the research and they certainly know their numbers, their answer to every subscription proposed here? No.
This was good insight, thanks for bringing this into the discussion.
-
Just now, Mogster said:
They’re not wiping though are they?
Such amazing physics..
I love those games.. -
Just now, sirrah said:
Am I supposed to sent out a friend request before I can sent someone a private message on Discord?
I hardly ever used Discord.
Oh my... I feel so old right now
You can send them a message, theyre both cool.
Otherwise you can join the 4ya Discord, https://discord.gg/d5aTn6F-
1
-
-
Wipers you say?
-
Its alot easier to air to air refuel without NVG's..
-
1
-
-
On 9/19/2021 at 3:51 PM, sirrah said:
Lately I often use the 4YA servers to practice my Hind skills. I really enjoy training on those servers
I do however regularly come across unnecessary bugs in the mission. Does anyone know if there's a way to report these?
For instance:
- CLTD mortar teams appear to never do anything (even with obvious clear LOS and well within range)
- Today I wasn't able to refuel on Beirut FARP (the helo base closest to Beirut)
Speak to Woj' or Sandwich on Discord..
Wojtek#9532 or Sandwich#9016
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Tank50us said:
It's simple assuming you know that the loadout will work first time every time, and you're good at planned strikes. I still argue it'd be much better for us all if ED just gave us a "Save Loadout" button on the rearming page to begin with. That being said, the rearming page could use a bit of an overhaul to begin with. For example, I'd very much like to know what my weight and balance is when I'm loading a plane up, so I can properly set my trim before take-off.
I 100% agree.
@Mike_Romeo is definitely trolling us..
If i spend 5 minutes getting a proper and specific loadout for an online sortie (because my man is in his FA18 at 40,000 ft and is telling me what i should bring for his laser pointer), and then i get shot down en-route, i dont want to have to go through the whole arms page again, i want it to know what ive originally asked for.
An example is when we pick our arms, take off, deliver payload successfully and come back, the armament page remembers what weve taken and asks us if we want the same thing, but if were shot down, we have to reselect the whole lot again from scratch.
I hate that.
UNLESS we preload what we want to take, but then if im working in the team, and I want to take one harm, and 2 154's, and then a 2000lb LGB to throw from miles out, with two 120c's its a bit of a long winded experience to select those.
I just want what we already have, to work better in the game.
Instant Action UI
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
Suggestion to make it easier to scroll through the modules..
Clicking a tab brings up the relevant modules.