CsfDeathDemon
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CsfDeathDemon
-
-
We are currently experiencing server performance issues. I run a small community server it is just a group of 10 of us or so, we are using a Dell R710. The computer is a little older but it still has good performance specs and sits well above the minimum specs for running a dedicated server.
While the CPU of the server is perfectly capable of running the dedicated server, as single core of that CPU is not capable of doing so. We have 6 cores available on our server DCS takes one core and uses 100% of it. This isn't an issue on most missions. It is only a problem when we are trying to run Dzsekeb's Pretense missions (they are fantastic by the way). The pretense mission is a dynamic campaign using scripting. There is a high number of ground units pathing between different zones and we believe it is the high number of vehicles pathing that causes the issues.
As you guys move closer to creating the DCS dynamic campaign I worry that this will get worse for more servers as there will be many more assets running, more logic needed and more complex code running on the servers. After reading your thread on Mulithreading it was suggested that if there are dedicated server issues to post them. I will be attaching our logs, machine specs and images of the CPU usage.
I'm sure making DCS dedicated MT would be a daunting task but it floors me that even on a server computer that's worth about $1000 can't run a semi complex dynamic mission.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Hello all just adding to the bug report. I am on a Valve index. From left to right you can see me attempting to align with the circles concentric followed by just aiming at the boresight. In the second image of both you can see that the aim is off to the left. In this example I have the IHADDS rendering in both eyes but I had the same results with only the right eye.
-
Dear ED,
I would pay money for this, give these guys official.
Great job on this mod guys.
-
8
-
-
On 10/15/2021 at 4:34 AM, cfrag said:
While I'm not wild about the idea of RIO-only licenses for practical and financial viability reasons, what you say above is looking at a somewhat incomplete picture. While it's true that there aren't savings to be made to material nor labor for reducing cost, there's also no additional expense when selling additional units, so there's an argument to be made for additional sell-through offsetting lost revenue (assuming no cannibalization of sales). I need also point out that ED does regularly offer discounts (I bought almost a third of my modules with one discount or the other - most recently the Apache at 30%!), so it's definitely not out of the question for ED to sell products at discounted price (the calculation of course being that the lower income is offset by higher sales volume). Product pricing is elastic, and production cost alone does not work with immaterial products such as software, art or services (the classic example for the latter being a cup of coffee: the cost to produce a cup of coffee is some 24 cents. How then can it be explained that the exact same mixture of coffee and hot water can be profitably sold at prices ranging from less than 1 Dollar to more than 7 at some coffee shops? Because the product includes intangibles like experience and service)
That being said, any modification to an existing product, or creating a derivative product always introduces additional up-front cost, and I am entirely unconvinced that a niche product like RIO-only license could ever recapture the investment or additional support requirements. I would prefer if ED went the other way: offer the ability to fly RIO in the Tomcat for free. It's not as if a Cat RIO can fly the plane, and I don't believe anyone would ever be persuaded to buy half the module just to assume the role of RIO. It would, however, be a terrific way to show people what immensely great a time can be had in DCS outside of the Su25 or dinky TF-51. But RIO-only licenses - half the cost for a tenth of the fun? That's a business case that's not going to end well.
That's a great idea too. Free is better than less. The main issue being that there needs to be a better way to pull people in. Especially people who are sim light and would really enjoy dcs but just need a good way to get their feet wet.
-
2
-
-
On 10/9/2021 at 7:18 AM, Ash Lynx said:
Im just gonna post this about my experience with the Tomcat, I mainly fly the hornet and play with guys in my squadron I also own the Tomcat. I have spent more time as the RIO than as the Pilot for the Tomcat. I fly around a bit in the Hornet more people join in on the fun and someone needs a RIO I switch over and backseat for them. From reading the main angle people are looking at is the use case scenario of having a crew license of having a friend who wants to start out and just wants to RIO, which is a very possible scenario the person who told me to get the Tomcat had experience in doing that with a friend of his. To me having a crew license is about saving money and added convenience. I fly around in my hornet Spamramming as usual on growling, my friends jump on I backseat and that's it. Crew licenses really get their charm from MP and its definitely a really nice thing to have. I sorta understand why people are listing reasons of why it wont happen and what's the point, but this forum thread has a name "wishlist" its a wish and nice thing to have as an addition and the op is providing a possible implementation that ED could carry out. Saying things like "it wont happen cos multiplayer is small" or "it would not be profitable" the only people who can say if it can or can not happen is ED. But also understand all of this from an angle of an interesting debate minus the odd replies. Crew licenses would save my wallet pretty much it.
Thanks for the comment! Sorry for my late reply to it work has been busy. It is nice to have people who actually RIO weighing in on this as this idea directly affects you. Especially as we look forward to the apache(GIB).
-
46 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
You can fly it as the RIO with Iceman AI. But the appeal of a flight sim aircraft to someone who doesn’t want to fly seems pretty limited. Also any way you look at it, it’s an expensive module which has to sell at a certain price point in order to be profitable. You still need to own the entire module in order to fly as the RIO therefore it’s going to cost what it costs. Making a less functional separate RIO-only version would cost even more money to develop and likely not sell very well. So this whole idea doesn’t seem feasible.
The appeal seems limited to you. I know several people who would pay right now to ride in an aircraft. We don't know the cost so constantly saying it costs too much is just you assuming that it would cost too much. Iceman doesn't work in MP so he is not helpful to a RIO. Many many aircraft are about to come out that are multicrew and they are going to be empty. This is a great way to introduce new players get them in where they can learn the game get the sim bug and join.
-
On 9/23/2021 at 9:56 PM, SharpeXB said:
That’s still a rather good entertainment bargain when you consider how many hours you get out of it. Or can potentially. Most games sell for that much and the average player uses them for about 12-20 hours. Heck the $20 I spent on the A-10C 11 years ago is the best gaming bargain ever.
If you are flying them yes, but if you purchased the mod and cant fly because there is no pilot on you might regret spending that money.
-
On 9/22/2021 at 2:43 PM, SharpeXB said:
Well the easy solution is to just wait for a sale then.
I believe the last sale was $65 which I was fine paying as the pilot but the guy who was going to just RIO thought it was a little steep considering he would only play it when I was flying the 14
-
On 9/21/2021 at 9:58 AM, Mars Exulte said:
The issue with all this back and forth. The Il-2 tank/gunner example doesn't work here. Your random buddies can't jump into the backseat without multiple hours of reading and/or training and/or a more experienced player's handholding.
The same entry barriers that niche DCS in the first place are allll still present even for backseating, with the added ''less glamorous'' nature of the roles, lack of useful AI suitable for backseating, etc. This is not some magic untapped reservoir of people or funds that will flood DCS.
If you don't believe me, just buy the respective module and give it your ''previously non-DCS interested friend'' and see how many of them bother learning ANYTHING, much less the backseat. Based on my REPEATED ATTEMPTS (I have spent several hundred dollars on probably a dozen people with ZERO longterm interest) to do exactly that, and the overwhelmingly negative results, I am pretty damn confident saying very few people are that interested in DCS' complexity and it doesn't matter AT ALL how it's priced, packaged, presented, optimised, marketed etc.
This just isn't a thing that's going to substantially change anything, and in the current ecosystem of the game it's damn close to unusuable in any practical sense anyway.
Personal experiences are important and it totally sucks that your friends have not jumped in with you. I have had the opposite experience. I recently rented the F-14 and my friend and the reason I created this post was my RIO. At first he didn't know much of anything so we would let jester power up the back then he would jump in. Luckily I am a bad pilot so after several deaths he was able to learn the cold start, but we were having fun doing it. Made it a much less frustrating experience when your laughing and dying because your missiles won't come off the rack.
I have friends that are interested that I am also trying to get in when a sale is on and maybe I will share your experience then.
On 9/21/2021 at 10:16 AM, Gierasimov said:Problem with this is that multicrew aircraft are fully developed to cater for single player use - i.e. come with both cockpits. Solution would be to create a license that allows only a second cockpit use - like you get the fully priced full module and you can stick additional license for second cockpit only at a reduced price. This however leads to the creation of 1:1 cockpit / license mapping, which would require you to buy two licenses if you wanted to play in single player only.
HB once did a 2-license pack via their website that included a bit of a discount.
Yes and we have looked at that thanks for the link!
Problem still remains as fun as my friend had sitting in the RIO seat, $80 USD is a lot of money to spend when you only plan to RIO and have no interest in flying the aircraft.
-
2 hours ago, Tippis said:
That's kind of the point, though. You can't actually use those numbers to tell you anything because that's total playtime across everyone. For a free game, this includes the N% that got it and never played it; the M% players who got it, started it once, and ran for the woods at the first sight of the TF-51 cockpit to save their sanity. Average and median values are already just bare minimum to tell you anything about… well… anything, and it's very little that can be deduced. For a free game, the problem of stickiness and retention completely blows away any ability to even that kind of deduction without knowing far more parameters.
Unfortunately we can have the specifics on numbers. However that is ED's job to figure out if it's feasible. My hope with this post was more to gage interest and hope ED have a look at this.
-
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
That’s not hard to believe. Think about what the term “average” actually means. I’m an avid player but I still only do long sessions on a weekend and a lot of my instant action or training etc would be short. Most gamers in general spend 20-30 min a session.
There used to be detailed stats available from Steam and it’s funny or amazing to see how little playtime games get. Sim or not. We like to think of sim gamers spending hundreds of hours on games but that’s just a tiny fraction. DCS is odd to look at since it’s a free game. The median total playtime is 33 minutes. So 50% of DCS owners have only played the game for less than 33 minutes ever. Those stats are kinda typical for all games. The majority buy a game, play it for a dozen hours and then move on. These numbers are kinda ridiculous and you couldn’t make decisions based on em. I’m sure ED knows how to analyze the telemetry they get though.That's also interesting. Personally I don't like to pay dcs unless I have at least an hour usually two. It is rare for me to pay less than 1 hour in a session, unless something breaks.
-
3 hours ago, cfrag said:
I don't think session time is a matter of experience. Some pilots I unjustly called 'Hard Core' before. Other monikers may be better fitting - these pilots enjoy playing a more realistic mission profile: briefing, cold-start, package assembly, coordinated flights and time on target etc. It's not seldom for these pilots to be shot down after more than an hour's flight without ever coming in sight of their destination or deliver a single ordnance on target. These pilots enjoy the entire experience itself; it's a different play style that says nothing about experience, ability nor anything else. And there are (from the stats probably a majority since the session time average is so low) pilots who emphasize and enjoy a vertical aspect (usually combat) of the game more than other parts. They often hot-start or air-start their models, and are in the thick of fight within minutes, and apparently leave equally fast. Again, no better or worse players, just a different taste in play styles. And there are of course players in-between those two ends of the spectrum (still, I wonder how many: 25 minute average (not median, average ) session time is awfully short).
IMHO (and I'm greatly simplifying and unjustly generalizing here, people!) if you get a "full experience" pilot, you can potentially have a much more complete learning experience as RIO, because these players tend to have read all the manuals (really. Not just the ones supplied by ED), have the patience of gods, know about all their airframe's systems, and willingly impart their knowledge to you. They also tend to be sticklers for protocol (pretty much a prerequisite for this kind of flying, as following protocol is what enables most of it), and this can cause friction if you yourself are of the "vertical aspect" persuasion. The more action-oriented "vertical" players on the other hand tend to be more forgiving of horse play, are more likely to allow a Rando into their RIO slot, and on average have less detailed knowledge about their avionics except those that they require for their vertical slot. Training sessions will obviously also be shorter.
Now, many public servers run a mix of mission profiles like the excellent "Through the Inferno" that cater more to the vertical players, and the "full experience" pilots tend to participate in arranged flights (often with pre-mission briefs via teleconferencing) on private dedicated servers, or pre-announced long-missions. Again, there is no good nor bad, just different play styles. Personally, I was thankful and intensely happy to find the "Rescue" servers, as they allow me to fly short helo rescue missions when I only have an hour or so to fly. Longer missions (120-180 minutes) I usually only fly in a closed group of friends on a private server; I've never flown a mission that was designed to last longer than three hours. As you can see, everyone is different
I would say we go for that middle we cold start on a through the inferno, which is a great way to train. I also love the rescue missions, ready for that blackhawk mod lol.
-
4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
Well consider this. As far as I know (I don’t own the F-14) there’s no SP way to play as the RIO, is there? So since 90% of players are SP-only that means hardly anyone gets the chance to try this role. I wonder if upcoming modules like the Apache will give you an AI pilot so you can fly as the gunner. I would think it will have to.
Joe Player in any game will not be “hardcore” and the 25 minute session seems typical for any game. That’s a reason MP is so less popular in flight sims, simply because you need to be connected for such a long session. Sure it would be possible I suppose to make quick action dogfight servers in DCS but I don’t see those.
I believe there is an iceman ai that will fly in SP. I don't really know anything about that AI, or how it works. My two weeks of renting the 14, my buddy Rio'd for me the entire time... I don't even know how jester works.
We only use quick action because we have guys who only have 30 min to play after putting the kids down and we don't want to exclude them. I think with the rts updates we will see more quick action servers, because they can be made better.
4 hours ago, Tippis said:This is true enough, but I wonder how much of a limitation that would be for the intended audience. Or perhaps rather, what would the audience actually be to begin with?
The whole idea sounds a whole lot more like something you'd see promoted (or even gifted) within existing communities. Of course, that goes right back to the question of price point — if it's a low threshold, they'd be sprinkled over any newbie even daring to mention the number 14, even partially, and irrespective of context. If it's a higher one, it would still probably rank pretty highly on all kinds of “get these modules first” lists.
Of course there is. It's like in every other multi-crewed module.
It was actually hilarious to listen to that segment of the video, when they made the comparison with how you could flip between stations in other games and then said “that's not the DCS way”. So presumably, they are saying that half the modules — in particular the more thoroughly simulated ones — should be removed from the DCS store page since that's exactly how they do it.
If there was a $20 rio package I would have already gifted a couple of them, to try and get my buddies interested. I can't gift them a plane because they don't want to fly and don't want to learn right now. They do want to pew pew though
.
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, cfrag said:
I believe there was a very important additional point that ED Simon (thanks @SharpeXB for the link) made that perhaps gives some insight info the make up of "Joe Multiplayer": their session averages 25 minutes. Meaning: Joe is most likely not a Hard Core player (those routinely require 15 minutes for briefing and start-up alone, then wait patiently for their flight's slot time, finding themselves behind a tanker at minute 65 before they start their ingress), but rather casual. I'm not entirely sure what that means for viability of RIO-only licenses, but finding a casual pilot with whom you can effectively train the rather difficult RIO task will not be easy, if not depressing. So you must pre-arrange a flight for any effective training. Anyone who is flying in a virtual squadron knows how much fun that can be. Now imagine you must go through that process every single time you want to fly (shudder).
Please don't misunderstand me - I'm definitely not opposed to the idea. I'd love to see a more flexible approach to models and other aspects of the game (the new trials are a great step; multi-crew slots are a logical next step; making them free on some planes could be something to discuss). In this particular instance (selling a very limited experience) I simply see great challenges for making this a successful product. Stranger things have happened (don't ask), but the current picture seems rather stacked against a good experience for RIO-only licenses.
That's actually some really interesting information, as I have never played in a hard-core server.
My friends and I host a private server with through the inferno maps loaded. You are usually over target within 5-10 min of takeoff. Then again do new pilots who are learning their aircraft join on those missions or do only experienced pilots come in?
-
8 hours ago, ustio said:
Oh absolutely. Me and some friends manage to fully crew a tank on a public server. And only 1 of us have the tank crew module.
The same goes for Ju-88 only some of us have the required module to fly the Ju-88, but we manage to fully crewed the gun position. We did ended up dying together, but it was a blast and we had some laugh
Awesome! Thanks for the personal anecdote to substantiate the post. I think fully crewed aircraft adds a level of immersion and fun to missions. Also I think it would bring more people into the game.
-
2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
It’s the first item in this interview with Simon from ED. Also discussed are the crewed modules and the observation that hardly anyone uses the back seat So a multiplayer-only crew-only module in DCS seems like a tough sell
That is a great point and thank you for the reference material. Do you think people don't use the crew seats because they are like you and I where we would rather be flying and since we own the module why not fly? Or, because a lack of interest in the second seat. I feel like because we are so specific with our market the backseaters might not have a license to sit there which makes a confirmation bias. What are your thoughts?
24 minutes ago, cfrag said:That's fair
- I have no knowledge of ED's inner workings. I was simply extrapolating from similar activities of mine with other companies I work for. To me it's always amazing to see how much additional effort needs to be exerted before and after the software itself is done. Points being: it's never free, and 15k is really next to nothing for such activities.
I think that is a pretty good stab at it. I have no idea either how it would shake out and the costs. I personally know 3 people that would buy Rio seats for at least 1 aircraft. That purchase in turn would encourage me to buy a full license for 2 more aircraft so I can fly them. Remember it's not just the sales of the rio seat that are factored but how many full licenses are sold because you can now 2 seat a plane you didn't want to buy because ai.
-
5 hours ago, ustio said:
Thats how IL2 does it. as long as you have one if their battlepack you can be a tank gunner if you don't have the Tamk Crew Module. and you can be a gunner in of the WW1 plane if you dont have flying circus module.
I do believe being able to join non flying seat with reduce or even no charge would be benificial
ps. I know that stating other games is against the rules. but with the recent interview where ED said they like BMS dynamic campaign, we could probably give the rule a bit more lenient
Kinda a strange rule. However, without mentioning the name again, did you find that system made the game more accessible to more players? Did it make the game better?
5 hours ago, Furiz said:ED said that in an interview not on the forums. The rule you are talking about is a forum rule.
And so what that other game has that? does DCS has to have it?
Looking at other games is important. No need to reinvent the wheel, no need to suffer the same mistakes or miss out on successes because you only focus on what you're doing.
Really appreciate everyone commenting and having this discussion. I'm out of town and trying to post from my phone which is hit or miss.
-
7 hours ago, cfrag said:
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that. Assume there is someone who says "I'd love to experience the outdoors and fishing of Far Cry 5, but don't want to shoot" - they'll still have to get the full license just to be able to do that. It's not the community that is stifling that someone's call of nature until they develop a taste for shooting. FC is a shooter. People come to shoot. DCS is a flight sim. People come to fly. Both games also offer other experiences, but they tend to be side shows. Sure, there will be people who are fascinated by those experiences, but neither the community not the vendors are behaving unkind when they tell someone that they have to pay the full admission even if they are only interested in the side show. People are always welcome. And they all have to pay the entrance fee.
I agree with that point but we are looking at different pricing models. The only way to buy far cry is to pay for the game. DCS is more modular where you can pick your poison so to speak. People can already play DCS in just ground vehicles, without ever touching an aircraft. The guy who wants to RIO will probably end up just driving tanks most of the time when the RTS elements are implemented because he doesn't care to fly.
-
30 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:
What I meant was a multiplayer-only module would essentially require the owner to run the OB about 3/4 of the time since that’s where all the players are. If for whatever reason they didn’t want to run OB they’d be practically unable to use it.
Oh Ok I see what you mean. That could be a blocker for some. I only play on one server so I just always keep current with that, plus I find the Beta is usually pretty stable anyhow so we just run that.
-
On 9/11/2021 at 3:02 PM, SharpeXB said:
The problem with a multiplayer-only module for DCS, which is what this would be, is that MP is effectively restricted to Open Beta about 3/4 of the time. All the popular servers will only run the latest version, which is most often the OB. So unless someone is willing to be a Beta Tester and have dual installs of the game they wouldn't be able to use this WSO/RIO module most of the time.
Sharpe not sure I understand this. Are you saying that a RIO only seat would not be able to work on the beta build?
9 hours ago, cfrag said:While this may be an interesting discussion I wonder if it's not simpler if ED simply started selling a two-license pack for the price of 1.5 licenses.
That could also work especially if you could gift the discounted license, but it does have some serious limitations. Heatblur does this but the discount is about 10 bucks so not much of a discount.
5 hours ago, Furiz said:Those that don't have interest in flying are not gonna be buying anything related to DCS, people that come here are usually interested in flying.
I know from my own experience, that I wouldn't be buying anything or even googleing about flight sims if I didn't want to fly. And there is no trial 2 weeks period or a back seat of a plane that can tell me if I want to fly or not. I know that before even coming to DCS.
And I know for a fact that people will not buy stuff for 30 or 40 bucks just to sit in the back seat and find targets for the pilot to shoot at.
Partially agree partially disagree with this point. People with zero interest in aviation will not buy anything close to DCS. Some people enjoy all the aviation aspects that DCS has to offer but do not want to fly. Some people don't want to invest in a HOTAS but would enjoy gunning. We could as a community just say "hey if you don't want to fly a plane you're not welcome in our game." but that feels kinda shitty. We could get more people interested by experiencing the game fully and they might decide later that they want to try flying. Also there has already been one person in this forum that said they would pay 30 to sit exclusively in the back seat. 3 other friends of mine said they would happily pay 20 to sit in the side doors of the huey and gun targets from the side doors(now they can do that when it goes on sale which is their plan, but they have no intention of ever flying the thing)
4 hours ago, Tippis said:Quite. Chances are that a huge portion of the benefits with this kind of feature could be handled via the trial program. If it's that good to be in the back, it will show within that period and then be worth-while to pay the price of admission for. Alternatively, if there is a genuine argument to be made for the backseat not being worth it, it almost sounds like it would be better to just allow for a trial extension — you can't fly it, but you can pick backseat slots (assuming the server is set to allow trial accounts).
It comes down to a pretty standard cost-benefit analysis in that case: how much is lost in sales from backseat-only people staying free vs. how much is gained from a potential increased interest in flying the module now that there are plenty of jester replacements?
Exactly what I was saying at the end of the first post. It is really hard for us as a community to know how many people use the back seat, how many only play free modules ect. Only ED has those metrics... at least I hope they do. I think the trial program is great and for me as someone who likes to fly and owns several modules it gives me time to try an aircraft before I buy it. I am exactly the type of person DCS is built and marketed for. Problem is we are a small group of players within a small group of players. This opens up the game a little more to people who might be hesitant to fly, brings in more players which is better and maybe those people decide to come fly which would be awesome. Only ED could say if the work to make this is worth the costs.
-
1 hour ago, Evoman said:
I was just talking to a co worker the other day that is a big gamer about the new Apache. He thought it was very cool but that he would only be interested in being the gunner because he admitted that he lacks the talent to be a good pilot in other war games even though he kills it as a foot soldier. Even in the older Battlefield games I would always run into other players playing online that just wanted to be the gunner in the Apache and in other similar aircraft. Mostly because they sucked at flying.
So I don't see how someone that would just buy a crew seat feel limited without an AI if they can just go online and wait in the lobbies for an available crew seat.
I for one would probably fly my Tomcat more often on line with a real person in the RIO seat than with the AI if they were readily available.
Right? I thought I couldn't be the only one that had friends who wanted to jump in a 2 seat but find the full cost of the air craft prohibitive when they are not going to fly the aircraft because they don't like flying.
-
17 minutes ago, Furiz said:
Not sure if they can sell something like that, legally I mean.
But anyway, personally I like to fly the plane, that is why I'm here, I believe that there are people that like to sit in the back but those are really in small numbers to make such an option profitable for the devs.
In the end you have the 15 day free trial for any plane, so anyone can try and see what they like.
As long as the description lays out exactly what you are getting they can sell whatever they want. 15 days free trial is fantastic and I really appreciate that ED has added that in. As I said right now I would buy the F-14 and my buddy would by a discounted RIO seat that would be $100. I don't have any player stats or anyway to say how much they would make Vs the investment of making this work. Only ED would have any clue. However, here we can see what the community thinks. Obviously like you I would rather fly and most people who are already playing would already fly that is why we play. The idea is to bring more players into the community and hopefully grow the game without losing the integrity of the sim.
-
Furiz,
Quote- I don't think it would pay off to developers to create such an option, cause they would have to develop an AI pilot for the backseater, since they can't sell them something they cant use on their own. I mean what if they can't find the pilot for their plane? yes your friend has you, but they would make that available for everyone, so that other guy that buys that option might not have someone like you, so they would want an AI which needs to be developed = spent money on.
So when you add all that up, they would be selling full fidelity module + new AI pilot for half price, doesn't sound profitable.
I was thinking about your point. They simply put a message on it saying that you will need a human pilot in order to fly it. No AI needed the idea would be that it is encouraging you to upgrade to the full model to fly it yourself. If you want to ensure you can always play then you buy a full aircraft otherwise you buy a crew seat and realize that you might not get to play sometimes. That player can also always jump i
n one of the free aircraft. What do you think?
-
Hey Everyone,
I would like to start a discussion that has been happening within my own gaming community. I figured I would appeal to a larger audience and perhaps get ED's attention on this. I have several friends who are interested in this game but don't want to fly/don't want to invest in a HOTAS right now. They would gladly pay to play the game as a RIO/WISO or crew member, but balk at the price of aircraft that they won't be able to fly.
Here is my idea:
Each multi-crew aircraft has a reduced fee "crew seat" option that you can purchase. Let's just say at half cost of the full craft. This allows people who would normally not play and not pay anything a chance to come into the game, play with friends and start some fun multiplayer experiences. That player could later go back and pay the difference to upgrade their "crew seat" to a full seat if they choose.
Right now with the F-14 on sale my friend and I have been flying together a lot. He has no interest in flying the F-14, but really enjoys being a RIO. I really don't care for the jester AI and don't want to fly with it. My RIO would gladly play 30-40 USD to sit in a back seat and if he had the plane I would gladly pay 60 to fly around with him. I have many other friends in my group that would like to just be door gunners and jump in for a mission or two.
I know I am pretty new to the game I have only been playing for a year, so perhaps my idea has been discussed or is not possible with the current way the game is designed. I would like DCS to grow and continue to be a success. Please discuss with me what you think and up vote the topic if you agree.
Thanks for your time
-
7
-
Dynamic Spawn Guide
in General Tutorials
Posted
Zyll I don't think it matters where you place the template I just dropped one randomly on the map for the F-14 and used it as a template for all the F-14s on the map.
I am also wishing for a generic template that I could assign at least waypoints to if nothing else. This way we can have all the points of interest the same for all aircraft at all locations. My server is currently running Cfrags awesome expansion map and we would like to add waypoints to all the player aircraft on the map. Dzsekeb's Mass Waypoint Editor was fantastic for this but now the dynamically spawned aircraft will not have waypoints(or we will just place the aircraft because it is less work than doing the templates). Current implementation kinda defeats how awesome the dynamic spawns could be.