Sunbather

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)

As I understand it, it was the 4th map to release for DCS and it released half a decade before the recent wave of new maps. So this survey might result in fallacy. Personally, I won't pay for a map that hasn't been updated for years (and looks the part) only so that I can pay for training campaigns for modules that only have half a tutorial. In my humble opinion, any old or new NTTR map should be included for free in the base game since it is literally a real-life training map.

Maybe it's just me but those two statements are not really compatible.

Has anyone played the F-16C versions of this campaign lately and can share their experience regarding triggers and frequencies and such?

Hence: Fair enough. Although I wouldn't call it "much" later.

I also think that we need much more Cold War assets (EWRs, infantry). Especially since the base is already there: we have all that Russian Cold War equipment that was widely used by so many countries during the 70s and 80s but it just isn't good enough yet. In a similar vein, we need slight variations of the terrains. Sinai is obviously the perfect map for the Yom Kippur War but there are solar panels and wind mills on the map which kinda destroys the immersion. It's weird that the official course is so adamant on the 2000s timeline. The ED aircraft (e.g. the F-16C Block 50) are much more at home in the late 80s and early 90s. Why not focus on that timeframe?

Here's hoping that Radeon really fulfills its promises this time and sorts out their eternal driver problems (which are even worse for wargames). Only fierce competition can force Nvidia to become more consumer friendly again. I love the Nvidia GPUs because they have the better features (DLSS, Frame Generation), lower power consumption and much better drivers. They just work. But they've become so greedy that - if it goes on this way - I will change to team Red eventually. Just like Doner Kebab shops in Germany, Nvidia really used the pandemic to enforce significant price increases. Also: the RTX 5070 still has only 12GB of Vram? What a joke!

And one less barrier for me to buy the Mig21!

That sounds convincing but is only partially true. There is a myriad of examples of Early Access games over on Steam that announced a price increase/end of Early Access beforehand so people who follow the product (but haven't bought it yet) have a last chance of buying the Early Access version. And those developers don't have an incentive either. Except - wait for it - keeping the customer base satisfied and prevent backlash due to a sudden price increase which some customers might find unreasonable. It also boosts sales since the 1.0 release might be a huge disappointment so it might be better to reel in the customers beforehand and gain some traction on the product before the 1.0 release. This is just an observation how Early Access works outside of the DCS microcosm. @all: Thank you for giving me, a mere aspirants, some insight into how things like Early Access are handled!

Wait... Half Life 3 confirmed? Star Citizen releases this February into 1.0? You got any source for that?

Has anyone played the F-16C versions of this campaign lately and can share their experience regarding triggers and frequencies and such?

That sounds plausible. Thank you, Rudel! I'm going to buy the Kola map soon then, I have a hunch it is about to release into 1.0.

That doesn't answer my question, does it?

Currently, there are a lot of modules/terrains that will increase in price once they release in 1.0, e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan and Kola. I am wondering if we get a notice a few weeks before the 1.0 of a product releases, in the likes of "Last possibility to grab the XXX terrain at the discounted EA price". Or do they simply surprise release and the price goes up instantly?

Would be nice if issues like these were resolved (and resolved much quicker). I am very interested in buying the Harrier, even now at a non-discounted price but reading about bugs like these (first reported half a year ago) discourages me greatly. A statement regarding the future maintenance (not: development) of the module would already go a long way.

Fair enough. You should visit a botanical garden here in Germany. It will blow your mind!

Some people over on Reddit are saying that it is the Vietnamese embassy on the right. I say it could be everything. Also there seems to be an antenna on that roof which the embassy didn't have, I think. Then again, there are some distinct palm leaves over the eagle which would fit neither Germany nor Central Korea.

This is a must. Best case scenario, they give us two templates for the map. One with airbases and POIs for the 2000s and one for the 1980s. Just like we need an 80s version of Iraq for the Iran-Iraq war. With that being said, I was surprised how good and unique the Afghanistan map actually feels. I am running the trial currently and I think the overwhelming negative reaction is a bit exaggerated. I still won't buy it just yet. It's a region where a lot happened (and much more could have happened in the Cold War if one uses some imagination) and having the focus only on the GWOT just doesn't cut it anymore. I don't even own Russian A/Cs (yet) but having map versions that allow for Cold War scenarios is just a must by now. I haven't counted them but it feels like that there are more Cold War planes (and I am counting the F-16 in for both CW and modern era) than modern aircraft. So any new terrain needs to accomodate this new reality. Likewise, when we get a Southeast Asian map, Cambodia needs to be in there as well so we are able to simulate the Cambodian-VietnameseWar as well AND also a modern conflict with parts of China being in there, too. Yes, that's a lot to ask. But then again, those maps costs 50€ and will be costing 70€ on full release, and there have been so many map releases lately that the actual package that we get must be a bit bigger than just the terrain for one specific timeframe which would make half the aircraft useless and/or kill immersion for any scenario outside that timeframe. And I am also implying new AI assets here... We have Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially the latter is very much focused on COIN operations. And yet we have like two or three Insurgent models. In a similar vein, AI for ground units MUST improve heavily. Iraq, Afghanistan and future Vietnam all have a very strong focus on Air-to-Ground. And with the ground AI being what it is, it is just not worth it for me right now to purchase Afghanistan, even though the 'feeling' of the map draws me towards a purchase. To summarize: all those new maps being churned out are fine and dandy, but the core game needs to improve heavily in certain aspects so that those maps can actualize their full potential. EDIT: Also, why are there no civilians in the game? Especially for Afghanistan this would be very important to actually make the usual A/G strike and CAS and DEAD missions much more tense in that you would have to double and triple check your target. EDIT2: diego999 obviously said it much better than I. With only using a fragment of my word count...

It's also over on Elon Musk's private playground. Chitter or something like that.

At what time do they usually release news / videos / newsletters?

If you've missed it: No info on what map it will use though.