shagrat

That is why I pointed out the fact, we already do pay for the assets... With each and every purchase we make. Including the new WWII Assets that we pay through our purchases. So what is the difference, other than a price tag on the Asset Pack versus the way we pay for most of the assets anyway? I don't get the difference.

You really think a price increase of say $1 per Module and Map would make people not buy a module? As I said multiple times, we already(!) pay for the in-game assets with every module, map, or campaign purchase. Only we don't know if we pay $1, $5 or $14 from a $80 Study level A-10C II, F-16C, F/A-18C or the AH-64D, we just assume it's for the "module", but we pay for the aircraft simulated, code maintenance/bug fixing, development of things like new weather effects (clouds), better IR system representation, enhancing bomb fuzing and... wait for it: assets that come with DCS. So the only difference between normal payment of modules we buy and having bought the WWII Asset Pack is, I know exactly what I paid for the Asset Pack on release. Interestingly, I didn't pay for the additional new WWII Assets, or, well, I did through the Modules I bought in the last years, and so did anybody else who bought a module, map or campaign, he just doesn't see the money allocated to asset development, be it modern or WWII.

Unless you gift an Asset Pack to each and everyone who plays DCS or will play DCS in the future, the problem remains: how can I ensure, when designing a mission, that all people potentially joining that mission have said Asset Pack? Wait, I can't... So my current solution is to check in the mission editor before saving any mission I plan to use in Multiplayer for any occurance of "required" modules/Asset Packs and eliminate these objects from my mission, or replace them with objects that I paid for with buying modules, so I can be sure they are available to everyone. As I rarely create missions for myself I find myself often, wondering what I could create with barbed wire fences, barricades, haystacks, towed Howitzers etc., but why bother, if in the end I can't be sure everyone can simply join the mission and enjoy it. Would we pay for the assets like with all the other assets, it would not be an issue and ED still gets paid... Honestly, even more and long term, than the occasional sales or people funding gifts. Even better they could likely invest more money into developing more assets with the additional money and that would in turn benefit the creation of paid content aka campaigns or interesting missions for Multiplayer servers that attract new people through the free to play program...

Let's say heated discussion. I just can't wrap my head around, why You are aware you already pay for all(!) the content in DCS World with the module price? So the price tag is "high", because you don't have to buy the "next content extension" to play, like other titles usually do. You get a lot more from an AH-64D Apache, than just a premium DCS study level Apache Simulation. That's why I would prefer to pay a moderate bit more for each module, if that money would flow into the development of additional assets that work on every map for everyone and give mission designers more options and assets to enrich DCS for everyone.

Simple math, a couple dozen WWII Asset Packs on a Sale for $14 versus $5 from every module, $3 from every map, 1$ from every campaign sold in the future, what makes more money? And while you may find not everyone buys the WWII Asset Pack, as it isn't much used outside the couple WWII servers, as you can't be sure everyone has it, everyone joining a server or playing a campaign has at least paid for a module. I simply think the included price model is beneficial for ED and the community at the same time.

Wouldn't it be better to hand out modules? I mean, do you think someone will join a server to play "Asset Pack"? If the assets were all(!) paid through module, campaign and map purchases, we won't have this whole discussion. I may repeat myself: we already(!) pay for the majority of assets in DCS World without a separate price tag, because the price is included into the module, map and campaign purchases and nobody ever complained about that.

I don't, because I paid it long, long, ago. That's why the discussion does usually revolve around the Multiplayer issue, dependencies and not what it costs, or that it is too expensive. It is the fact, that if we see more of these "Asset Packs" as separate paid DLC, that block players from joining servers or play missions it quickly gets messy. As every other asset, than the WWII stuff is paid for with every module purchase we do, what is the difference, between say, a haystack and a cargo container or an S-60 Flak and a towed Howitzer? Why can't we just pay for these assets with the module price, as well? Again, I happily pay $5 more for every module, if it ensures more assets coming to DCS, like decent skins for the soldiers, insurgents, civilian models of people, trucks, cars, planes (even the generic airliner model on the airports as an AI plane instead of C-17/An-26/C-130/KC-135 "stand in" for civilian air traffic would be a great addition). These assets, make it possible for mission designers to create content, without the need to care about which pack, what community mod (Civil Aircraft Mod, Ground Crew Mods, etc.) everyone has or does not have installed. If you now imagine a newcomer, that is not yet sure, if he wants to invest a couple dozen bucks into a map, asset packs and installing a handful of mods to be able to join their friends preferred server to have a try at the "free to play" DCS Worlds, it may be a bit "discouraging". If you include the payment for the assets into the module price in general, and not for some it's included, for others it's a separate DLC, I don't see the problem. People who paid for the Asset Pack in the past won't mind and everyone who paid for the existing assets in DCS through the modules, will not stop buying modules. So what exactly is the benefit of having parts of the DCS World assets excluded and paid separately? I may be missing something, but I can't see what it would be.

Yep, but you paid also for the 200+ and future assets in DCS World, just with a different payment model (included in every module, map or campaign purchase). I don't have any issue with the price! On the contrary. Make every module price $5 more and invest that into more assets for all maps and modules and I am a happy man. I just don't see the difference/logic in "hiding" the price tag of things like the SA-5, Landrovers, new T-72B, BTR-82A, Cobra APC, VAB Mephisto, etc the new Ships, slingloadable cargos, the numerous updates on Buses, BM-21 Grad, Fuchs APC, stuff like Windsock, tires, flags... All paid for simply (and happily) through buying all the modules, campaigns, etc. Btw. I own every module, the WWII Asset Pack and most of the Campaigns. I don't have an issue paying for it, but it bugs me that I can't use the assets I pay for in any of our Multiplayer missions, because there is a chance, someone will join and does not have the necessary pack installed... If they would simply include the Asset Pack(s) into DCS World core and let us pay through the modules, like we already do, with ALL the other assets, nobody would even argue about the "price" or "dividing the community".

The price is an interesting argument. What is your guess, you pay for the "free" assets coming to the game, or put differently, how much of the price you currently pay for a new jet or helicopter is for the core game and the included assets? You don't think, the developers do this in their free time and as a hobby without getting paid, do you? So the point still stands: why is it necessary to pay some assets through the modules and some through a separate Asset Pack, if in the end we pay for the Assets anyway?

Well, actually they should be part of the core. Like for example the Landrovers and SCUD that you can place not only on the Persian Gulf, or need to own the Persian Gulf map to play a mission on the Syria map, because someone put a Landrover in? Or what about the new technicals (insurgent Pickup-Truck with Dshk/.50 Cal). Part of the "next" map, or only available if you buy the Apache? You see the problem? Simply add 20-50 cents to each module price (sale or no sale) or make it $1 if necessary and include the game assets into the core game, so you can simply put a WWII M1 Garand US soldier into a Marianas Vietnam scenario, or a couple WWII howitzers on a Syria map BASF modern Syria civil war scenario without checking first which Asset Pack this belongs to.

The thing is, if you go the road "I only want to pay for what I want to buy"... Shouldn't that consequently mean: "Modern Naval Asset Pack", the new "SAM Asset Pack" instead of getting more models as part of the DCS World core? What about the "Insurgent Asset Pack"?. Or the AI models for airplanes? Why are the majority of new or updated assets included in the normal map, module and campaign purchases and others not? Currently I don't have a choice to pay a "reduced" price for a module or map, if I don't need/want an SA-5, for example. Don't get me wrong. I am absolutely fine to pay for the SA-5 with my AH-64D Apache pre-purchase, or when I bought the Syria map, or the F-14B. The thing is, why not consequently use the concept for all assets, that are part of the core game? I never heard people complain about the "free" (not really) updates and new assets coming to DCS World, without paying a separate "Asset Pack" they simple think of these as "free" because they don't see the budget transferred from their new fighter jets to the development of a "Handy Wind" Cargo ship with a helipad that benefits the helicopters they don't fly? It is basically just using the current financial model for all DCS World assets (apart from the Combined Arms experience) and include it, so the mission designers and campaign developers don't need to think twice about including the new howitzers from the WWII Asset Pack into a 80ies or Desert Storm like mission/campaign to represent a fixed artillery position. Or the M1 Garand Soldier as stand-in for a Vietnam era US grunt, for a 60ies / 70ies Huey campaign? Edit: ...and talking about a price tag of 14$ on sale, that would mean a price increase of 20 cents or the like for every module sale...? likely bringing in more(!) than the Asset Pack purchases, in the long term, and make available some more money to add assets to the DCS World core. Just saying...

No, I want to increase the module price and that pays for the assets, like it does already with all the other assets in DCS Works, from the updated and new Soviet era Tanks, BM-21 Grad, the new Insurgents, new firetruck, support vehicles, three new Russian soldiers, Landrover, updated AI plane models, TACAN mobile emitter, new ships from Arleigh Burke, to Handy Wind and the Supertanker, Windsocks, slingloadable objects and the technicals we saw in the AH-64D teasers... You already pay for all that, with every purchase you make. There is no "Naval Asset Pack" or "Persian Gulf Asset Pack". And that is a very good decision on EDs side.

The point isn't remotely the price tag. It's only about the fact, potential players don't have it and can't join a mission or server. For SP and campaigns it's maybe a simple "you need to buy another DLC for this to work" discouragement, but for Multiplayer it is a severe blocker in my opinion. If ED would find a way to include the cost into anything, but a separate product, that would help a lot. Think of it that way: what if you would need every module used in a mission, to play it, because the AI/uncontrolled Version is not part of the core game? Play an F-18C or F-14 mission with F-5E as Iraqi enemy plane? Need to buy the DCS: F-5E Tiger It's not exactly the same, but the basic principles are. So why can't we cross-finance all the DCS World assets through the modules, maps and campaigns, instead of creating another divider? And I absolutely agree the asset pack is very much worth the money, but I would rather not pay it separately, but included into the module purchases.

The problem mentioned above is, it is likely that you need to create your own missions with assets from the packs included. For mission designers an asset pack simply means to reduce the potential audience to the subset of users owning the asset pack. If you are a campaign developer this may directly reflect in sales. For me when creating multiplayer missions for our small group, it is a difficult decision and usually I decide against anything, not in the core game, to prevent creating blocking points to join. That said, I am aware how much work and ressources go into the asset creation and update for the DCS core and WWII models. I would rather prefer a way to reflect this in the module prices, instead of a separate DLC. What I would love to see, is for the community Mods to have a way to tell DCS an AI replacement model to show, if the mod is not installed...

Er kennt uns halt zu gut!

Stimmt Background scheint generisch. Hmm, auf den ersten Blick ist da auch nix von den neuen Cockpit Sichtgrenzen für die KI drin... Scheint nur ein Teil des Prozesses zu sein. Die Faktoren für bereits gesichtete Wingmen/Einheiten sind mittlerweile auch deaktiviert... Hast vermutlich recht. Also im Prinzip ist es dann gegen KI wirklich wurscht, ob du ne Pink-Rosa F-4 mit "Hello Kitty"-Decals fliegst.

Schau dir das Detection script doch an? Wobei ich nicht meine Hand dafür ins Feuer legen möchte, dass das mit den neuen KI updates die mit dem WWII Schadensmodell kamen für A/A genutzt wird. Da waren ja so Sachen wie Cockpitsichtbereich neu. Aber die Ground KI wird noch das simplere Script nutzen denke ich.

Irgendwo in den Scripts gab es eins das die Detection bestimmt. Die Livery direkt nicht, der Kontrast zum Hintergrund, also wenn du mal beobachtest, wie sich der kleine Pixelbrei je nach Fluglage in "hell" oder "dunkel" verändert, je nachdem ob die Maschine dunkle Waldtarn oder Hellgrau/Hellblau ist. Dunkel vor Dunklem Wald oder Dunkel vor hellem Himmel. Ebenso hat es einen Einfluss ob du mit Sonne hinter dir, oder von ihr beleuchtet anfliegst. Deine relative Bewegung quer zum Ziel gross oder klein ist, etc.

Das ist kein Wert im Model, sondern generelle Kalkulation gegen einen Faktor des Hintergrundes. Macht weniger aus als seitliche Bewegung, Dunst, Sonne, Umgebungslicht, aber es fließt mit ein, da gab es zumindest damals einen Faktor in der Detection. Ist ziemlich her, aber ich denke nicht, dass sie das geändert haben... Das größte Problem ist nach wie vor, dass Spotten letztlich als Zeitfaktor funktioniert, sobald es grundsätzlich eine Sichtlinie/ maximale Entfernung unterschritten ist. Das kann einige Zeit dauern, aber am Ende, wird dich die KI entdecken.

The important point is, unlike the TM MFDs whose development costs have long been covered by "the other F-16 Sim" and benefit from industry level mass production and cross-financing from other products, this is a small company with a very narrow customer base. The real question is, do you want to hassle with a mix of Cougar MFDs, augmented by another self-made button box ( which including USB board, switches, encoders, cabling etc. usually costs upwards of 100 USD in materials, plus building it), buy another button box or StreamDeck and fiddle between three devices, or replace the cougar MFDs with a ready to use AH-64D MFD frame, with real life button layout and encoders for the dials? If the goal is, to have a cheap solution... Well, your keyboard has enough buttons and modifier options. Only thing missing is ergonomics, especially in a stressful attack run.

Well, first an installer/Compiled Version would be a bold move to enable non-developers to try it out. I am not sure, how many DCS players have a version of visual studio installed, or are well versed in building their own software from provided sources, maybe 1 out of 100 ?

Sounds like the soldier is set to invulnerable. If they run into tail rotors etc. they usually die. At least a while ago, they did. Hmm, may be the WWII infantry model is different?

As long as we get at least one unarmed(!) in the same color as the one with a Dshka or similar, I am a happy man! I want so badly to introduce ROE issues to my missions since the DCS: A-10C Beta... It's what makes COIN operations challenging. The requirement to not just shoot everything, but to make sure, to shoot the right thing. If everything cries "Kill me, I am the enemy" by the visual model, already, and the closest "challenge" is to distinguish, between an Ural Truck with barrels and crates and an Ural Truck with Zu-23-2, it gets old quickly. Bluefor has currently the ONLY two vehicles coming as armed vs. unarmed: the Humvee armed vs. the unarmed... but that's difficult to use for enemy forces. Looking at Eightball's liveries for the Insurgent AK-47 and the Georgian Soldier M4, I really wonder why ED isn't adding his liveries to the models, or invest a few hours to slap different camo patterns, color shifts to the original textures. With the Apache and Syria there will likely be a lot of missions that could benefit from more diverse insurgent forces, real ROE challenges and last, but not least, a mission editor option to restrict BMP/T-72 from using the Warsaw pact ATGM, to better reflect the late SAAF, ISIL and JAN/Al-Kaida forces that fought in the Syrian Civil war theatre. Not everyone outside the Soviet union and Warsaw pact had plenty of Russian ATGMs lying around...

That's just the .50 Cal/Dshka version, the real killer would be the same(!) 4x4 without weapons(!) so we could add "neutral" unarmed ones that according to ROEs should not be engaged. Ultimately requiring pilots to not simply kill "everything that moves" without proper identification of valid targets. I've seen it all the time "cluster bombs" on villages, rockets on a bunch of vehicles, because there is no incentive to adhere to Rules Of Engagement. Neutral faction and cows is the closest we can do today. But we really need proper non-combatants. Even a simple Insurgent AK-47 without (!) the AK-47 would be a tremendous asset, as an unarmed/civilian and require proper visual identification of weapons.

Just because you can download it on the internet, doesn't mean you have clearance to use for a commercial product... Just saying.