Grievo

Because, many people don't spend their time in external views, gawping at the assets. The asset is being used, even with a blob or placeholder model. When I'm flying a ww2 mission say, I'm not put out at all by a placeholder flak gun shooting at me. I don't see the unit as such, just the effect, I'm still 'Using' the asset I haven't paid for. As I've said. I see your point. I just don't agree with it. For me, I wish there were more asset packs to buy and have more people being paid to build and place new assets into the game. I couldn't really care an inch if that means somebody can't join a multiplayer server and have a 1930's Japanese AA gun firing at his F-16 over the Caucasus. Let him weep.

+1

I have. You believe that having an asset pack as a separate "module" splits the community, and that this is a problem. I disagree. Comments such as this, dripping with condescension and arrogance, are probably why the only people who agree with you now, are the ones who agreed with you before they read any of your comments. I'm not interested in changing your mind. I don't know you, your esteem and opinion have less value to me than an asset pack. ED seems to agree with what I'm saying. Rail against asset packs all you like. Best of luck.

Then perhaps the issue isn’t the clarity of the point, just that we don’t agree with the point you're making.

Quoted you guys out of courtesy, I'm not trying to say you're necessarily making any of the arguments I rail against below. I mean, kinda. Yes if someone hasn't bought an asset pack they can't play a particular mission, just as if they hadn't bought the F-18 they're excluded. or if someone has built the same mission with the Supercarrier module they're excluded. Should the SC, and the hundreds of thousands of man hours that's gone into it's development be free, or "included" I just don't think it's really that reasonable to say that it would be. I get what you're saying, but at the end of the day, the people making this game want to have cool gaming computers, a nice house, a car that runs (or bus/train fare), food on the table etc, just like you or me. I struggle to feel much sympathy towards someone not being able to play a particular mission which includes things they haven't bought, when my sympathy leans so heavily towards the programmers and other ED (and 3rd party) staff getting paid for their work. Just as I'm sure no ones heart is bleeding for me because I haven't shelled out for the Yak-52 to experience the joy of.... Yak life? or whatever joy it brings. Is the asset pack model the one I'd use? Probably not. I'd charge for the base game, and add a few dollars to the ticket price of each module, or onto the price of maps. But it's the method in place, I think after all the noise and bleating ED has heard on the subject, they've made the conscious decision to stick to this method, probably based on more than just stubbornness, and with access to more sales data than the average meathead (myself very much included) on these forums. The asset pack is not particularly expensive in the scheme of things in relation to hardware (controllers, PC's etc) required for a decent flight simulation experience, or daily life, and the games development has to be funded somehow. It's still inherently simple. If you feel being able to play missions made with a ww2 asset in them, cough up the $15 (3-5 coffees in most countries, of course, this will split the hot beverage community), if not, play with the many basic assets included in the FREE base game, and accept your experience will be limited.

@BIGNEWY @NineLine can you please confirm or deny gents?

I tend to agree, but I also don't think the asset packs are that onerous to purchase either. I'd love an early cold war one. I think many of the ww2 US assets in particular would work for 50's cold war assets with some reskinning or minor tweaks to models. The Soviet stuff is the big ask I suppose, as not much of it from that era is in game currently. I'd happily pay for it though, and the same goes for mid or late cold war asset packs.

What a great opening theme MASH had. Helicopters and nurses. phwoar! I think something like the H-13 would be great. It is Iconic, largely thanks to MASH, and simple from a systems/armament point of view. I'd love flyinside to do a DCS version of their Bell-47 for DCS. It may be too iconic though, in that there may be some real sales to be had by someone if they released it as a module. Someone did say that they're too hard to fly for new players, but I don't think that's true. There's a learning curve sure, as there is for any DCS module, but there's plenty of room between complete noob and highly proficient helicopter pilot that is enjoyable, and learning the new skill is half the fun.

The TH-67 and OH-58D are quite different aircraft, the superficial likeness is a bit deceiving. Also, being a third party module might make that difficult anyway. Pilots who learned to fly the Huey for vietnam trained in H-13s and H-23s, which were used in Korea and early Vietnam as scouts. How about things like offering the A-10C (NOT A-10C II) as a free aircraft? Still decent fidelity, but also room to upgrade, Or the FC aircraft, which would also lessen the learning curve? You could do the same with the Huey and/or the Hip when/if they're updated. I'd love a Korean War asset pack. I think much of it can be piggybacked on the WW2 assets, particularly soviet stuff if it was introduced, and re-skinning of existing US/UK troops and equipment.

Static object? Should be a playable module.

Don’t know how fun it would be in a Stuka getting smashed by late-war single engine fighters.

+1

I like this idea. Take off behind the lines where there is civil traffic and normal life going on, arrive over the battlefield and it's deserted. Great for helicopters, harriers, A-10's etc that are spending their time in the weeds.

It would be nice to have an AI crewman giving you some idea of where you're hovering, or obstacles going into confined areas etc. Like an expanded version of what you already get for sling loading stuff.

Yes, especially useful on the Marianas map, with a "Pearl of Guam" Style scenario of a cruise missile and bomber attack.

Bump. This is a massive immersion killer for Helicopter operations. If I want troop transports to land and drop troops, not only do they land incredibly slowly, but they turn all the bloody lights on to do it! I'd be happy with a "Force lights off" option in the waypoint options, or even just default the lights to off for any non-airfield approaches.

+1

I can also highly recommend SCRAM! By Harry Benson. He flew the Wessex in the Falklands, but the book is a collection of stories from various crews throughout the conflict. Well worth a read.

A quick scroll through the last couple of pages of the SoW thread on here might provide a clue. I can't imagine it's much fun pouring hours of your life into a server only to be harangued by entitled idiots online for your trouble. Obviously there was some issues with DCS that were irritating the creators, but I'm sure there would have been more interest in continuing if the ubiquitous internet toxicity was not so prevalent.

I agree we need to build out the '44 era much more in DCS, however I think we should focus on 43-44 rather than 44-45. The Normandy and Channel Maps can cover (to some extent) any period from May 1940 until late 44 when The allies really started to push deeper into Europe and off our current maps. But most of the aircraft modules we already have are suited to the 43-44 timeframe, particularly the 190A-8, Spitfire IX, Mosquito and P-47. But most importantly, this was the period closest to the stuff we already have, where the sides were most closely matched in the air. I think ED should focus more on AI aircraft and assets in the short term. While I would love many aircraft to be flyable, to really flesh out the current ww2 world in DCS, we need more allied medium bombers (current map sizes make escorting heavies a bit redundant), RAF night bombers, ground attack aircraft such as the Typhoon and Beaufighter (also a night fighter), German fighters such as period relevant 109's and night fighters (Ju-88's and 110's in particular) and German ground units and allied Naval units to attack or defend. Once these AI assets are in the game, then push on with making full modules later. I really do believe that by fleshing out the 43-44 timeframe, you will create an environment where more missions, campaigns and servers are being made and pulling people into the sim, which will in turn generate the revenue to push forward development of other modules. I think the same approach should be taken with the upcoming Marianas ww2 map. We have the 47 and will have the Corsair. I think the Marianas can be fleshed out quite well with relatively few Japanese AI assets, mainly Artillery, AT guns, bunkers, infantry with various weapons, Betty's and Zero's to start, and build up the less prevalent aircraft later. Once those items have been put into the sim, and we can actually make some decent Marianas campaign scenarios for single and multi-player, start building the other flyable modules.

+1

100% Chuck. DeBellevue was the first WSO to become an ace, and the highest scoring US Aviator of the Vietnam War. Robin or Olds for the Pilot. And suitable Navy equivalents when that module is released.

Only speculating, but I think it may be a perceived lack of interest compared to other fronts, and the fact that IL-2 has soaked up a lot of the eastern front market. I'd like to see some more Eastern front stuff in DCS. I think with careful selection of AI aircraft and modules, it could be done quite well. The German stuff works on any ETO front, and the USSR used a lot of US/British equipment, used in the ETO as well as the Pacific, so picking AI assets and modules with the most crossover with the other maps we have, should probably be a the main decider of which Eastern front map to do. To keep that efficiency of effort.

I think a medium bomber would be a better introduction. I would love a B-25, and I would love to see a Fort or a Liberator eventually, but I think it couldn't be best used until the maps were larger. I know they flew many missions in the area of an expanded Normandy map, but the real famous, bloody missions were out to Berlin, Schweinfurt, Bremen etc. I also think the RAF bombers would be more suitable in the sim, particularly in MP. They tended to be single pilot, smaller crews, and there would be less requirement for enormous formations, and a player could merely form part of the bomber stream. They also have technology (HS2 etc) that can be modelled, that sims like il-2 can't replicate. We already have the FBVI mossie, we could have the pathfinder version and AI or full module Lancs, stirlings, or halifaxes, or even the humble wellington. There's definitely room for heavies in the sim. I would love the maps to be larger, but if the Normandy map is expanding to cover London and Paris, I wonder if the Channel Map will extend North? That could be interesting If it was a shorter (N/S), longer (E/W) map that covered out to Bremen or Hanover... we can dream! If the C-47 is going to be a flyable though... you know we need Arnhem!

While I personally would love to see a Solomon Islands or Papua New Guinea/New Britain second world war map, I think it would be worth considering Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They are both late war, so a similar asset pack could be used to the Marianas, and they are both fairly small land masses surrounded by ocean, and were relatively undeveloped at the time, meaning less ground mapping and town modelling would be required. These could be churned out relatively quickly, and would be great fodder for modules such as the F4U corsair and If Nick gets his wish, the Hellcat. It would allow ED to really focus on filling out a 44/45 era-asset pack, many units of which could be reskinned to work in the ETO/MTO in later maps, which can in turn be fleshed out to cover 43 and 42. Be interested in your thoughts... as long as they agree with me of course!!