Sunbather

Any news about this campaign, @SorelRo?

THIS! There is no unwritten morale rule for wargames/combat simulations to not have civilians in them. Consider e.g. Arma 3, Combat Mission (abstracted), Armored Brigade 2, Command: Modern Operations. In fact, a strong argument can be made that a wargame/combat simulation that pretends that civilians don't exist is even more insulting and harmful than actually having them in the game (and hence allowing people to commit 'war crimes' for 'fun'). Right now, a huge aspect is missing from DCS which makes CAS but also Deep Strike missions very unrealistic. There is literally zero backlash for you bombing the wrong building or annihilating the wrong pickup truck with your 30mm GAU-8. So we not only need (more and) region-appropriate civilian assets, we also need the logic behind it to make missions actually meaningful. @shagratobviously said it much better than I did but I wanted to butt in because it is wild to me that this aspect is not modelled at all in DCS. A proper implementation doesn't have to be ridiculously complex (again, look at Command: Modern Operations or Combat Mission) but it would increase the tension and complexity and variety of missions in a way that a whole new dimension would be added to the game (rather literally).

Yeah, I don't understand it either. As a consumer/customer, one of the most important aspects for me to buy a new map is whether or not there is community content available for it. I can't look for content for the Iraq map. And using the general search function leads to chaos.

But wasn't it already 145 GB before they added winter textures? I also would like to see a reduction of file size across the board. It's okay for DCS to be a big game but if they want to sell more and more maps to us, it can't be that each new map needs 150 GB when fully released (e.g. Iraq which already now is 110 GB if I remember correctly).

I am thinking about buying the F-15E. The Razbam vs ED situation does NOT play into my decision, I have already discussed this with myself so please don't make any arguments here based on 'the situation'. So basically, I am asking myself: Why would I need the F-15E when I already own the F-16 and F/A-18C? Or should I rather go for another fighter jet that differs more from those two than the F-15E? Yes, the F-15E excels in strike missions which are among my favourite missions by the way. But the Viper and the Hornet can do the same, right? Here are some things that I found out myself: + the F-15E has much more fuel, hence can travel a much longer distance before the need of AAR + the F-15E can carry much more ordinance than the other jets + the F-15E has an extraordinary A2G-radar + the F-15E can release multiple JDAMS at the same time on different targets +´the F-15E has a sexy and useful NAVFLIR And here some disadvantages that put the F-15E behind the other two jets in my opinion (again, please no disussion about the situation, I know that some of the missing features might still come or will never come, let's talk about the current state of the F-15E) - no helmet-mounted cueing system --> no TOO capability or at least it is much harder to mark the TOO - no Link-16 --> worse situational awareness - very little variation in armaments, basically the same the F-16C has minus the HARMS (which is a big deal for me. I usually want at least one new 'weapon' when I buy a new DLC) What do I make of this? Did I forget something? How do you feel about the base question? Do the F-16 and F/A-18 make the F-15E superfluous in your virtual hangar? Maybe one last bit of information from me: currently I am mostly playing singleplayer DCS Retribution and I would like to change things up a bit, in that I can fly a different aircraft in each new mission. I am also playing a lot of Israeli scenarios and as I understand it, the F-15E even has a IAF model. Hence, the F-15E seems like an ideal aircraft.

Do note that there is a 5700X3D! Maybe not in all countries though. I also wanna congratuate you for staying strong and not letting all those fancy hardware PR campaigns trick you into buying something you don't really need. Keeping a system for 7 years is quite an accomplishment!

That seems to be a very unwise standpoint, seeing that one of the biggest sellpoints for a map is that it has custom content and official campaigns. Is there any official reasoning why they don't hardcode the frequencies?

Again, I want to present the already circulating idea of having high fidelity asset packs. Make the AI models available for *everyone* but with low textures; high resolution textures are payware. I am almost certain that a lot of people would buy the HD AI packs, if priced correctly. Of course, there is also an argument to be made that free asset packs boost sales of terrains and FF modules. I don't really see myself buying more Cold War planes as long as we don't have the units to go along with it (planes, ground vehicles, map assets). In a similar vein, I might be getting into helicopters (rudder pedals are on their way) but I am curious how the CAS experience will actually feel like regarding the fact that we have woefully little variation when it comes to infantry models.

Yes, Nvidia GPUs get pricier and pricier. Still, a 5070 or even 5060 is a viable option (if you are still on 1080p and don't need lots of Vram) because DLSS and maybe one day even Frame Generation will go a long way to make your GPU somewhat future proof. Depending on what mainboard you got, you could also hunt down a used 5800X3D. The 3D cache works wonders in games like this. I also recommend Memory Cleaner, a neat little tool. Works well with DCS for me.

If they announce something like this, it would be much easier for me to finally pull the trigger on the F-15E. (And it would need to work for Steam users as well...)

Yeah, I really don't understand why they don't make their own F-15E and be done with the Razbam Situation. They could even give it to previous owners for free. To win back some confidence and trust and unimportant stuff like that.

I was humbly and calmly awaiting the huge Afghanistan update. My wallet was (and still is) ready. But yes, I also expected a much bigger newsletter.

Read the FAQ in the respective F-35 sub-forum.

I am still wondering what those palm trees were all about. I didn't really see any Vietnam or Marianias Pacific WW2 action.

It really does seem that way. The first 2 minutes were basically only showing ground-to-ground action.

Noticed that as well. This is absolutely great!

So horribly funny. Especially after Silver_Dragon already posted the Youtube countdown timer. But I guess you can't be bothered to actually scroll up three or four posts... Timezones... They are a thing in the real world.

Probably processing now. And working on the video until shortly before release isn't unheard of either. And some other stuff accompanies the video (a newsletter, a post on Steam), so that takes time as well for last-minute corrections. But yeah, in a perfect world the video is already uploaded and processed, the accompanying texts are already written, and everything releases in sync at a specific time. But do we live in a perfect world?

Copy that! Thanks again!

Absolutely great! I've been meaning to start the campaign but wanted to wait for this to get fixed. Thanks for not having us wait for the official patch!

If you find the time and the will to update your missions, I hereby happily volunteer as a playtester!

I don't even want to argue about the merit of a NTTR map or if it should be free or not, I actually don't care. (Well, no. I do care. Because I do think that training with your 70$ aircraft module shouldn't be blocked behind a double paywall: terrain and campaign.) And still: if I - at one point - really want the map, I am going to buy it just like everybody else. But to make things a bit more rational about the finding of surveys in these dark and trying times, I still want to add some points: - third most owned map doesn't mean most used map (as someone else pointed out here) which would be the actual question of importance - there were barely or even no other new maps, so people bought it because it finally was a new map to buy! I would have bought it, too. Probably. - simple chronological reasons: something that released earlier is naturally owned by more owners than something that released only half a year ago and which is still in Early Access. In 1947, militaries all around the world owned more propeller driven aircraft than jet aircraft. Would you draw the conclusion that propeller aircraft were the future? (Very bad and pretty wonky example but it's been a long day at work : / ) - first DLCs always get bought more often than later DLCs for the same game. However, this might not applicable here because DCS is a simulator which is alive for many years now and gets a constant influx of new players.

Another big problem is that missions makers often try to make their missions with as few mod dependencies as possible. If assets were included in the vanilla base game, using them would be much more accessible. E.g. imagine a mission or even campaign maker invests dozens or even hundreds of hours to make a campaign and then the asset mod isn't work on anymore. The whole mission could be broken! This! It's not that they are not doing this already. And yes, I would pay for HD asset packs, too!

Oh my, that makes the above mentioned 'survey' even less convincing. Of course, everybody and their grandma own the map if it is was the first new map after Caucasus.

Gotta love those BTR-80s driving around during the Yom Kippur War! (different map, I know)