M1Combat

Thx I'll try that one

brightness knobs don't seem to have any effect in VR...

The gazelle may not be a great benchmark for comparison of stability issues.

"Perhaps someone (maybe @TheSniperFan or @Lurker ) who knows something about the coding DCS" LOL

The idea is to pop the radar up above cover and acquire targets without exposing the helo.

I would be more interested in any single seater combat helo than the Apache... but I'm SUPER interested in the Apache anyway...

Dang there's some good ones in here. I do prefer to start at dawn though... BUT... this bird has NVG chops so... Maybe dusk is the new way

I have a shooting gallery I've used for years with the KA50 where I have about 40 fuel trucks in about a 2sq mile area surrounded by maybe 6-8 AAA... I'll see how much better the Apache is at the stick and jab CQ "float like a butterfly" approach :)... I suspect with the MUCH larger range of motion of the main gun it will be "quite fun"

Map some controls... Do a barrel roll.

This is why I like the shark so much :)

You "can"... but the person firing the missile needs to fire it into the laser beam at a pretty low angle so needs to launch from pretty close to the lasing heli. Because of that it's usefulness is pretty limited. Basically only useful if you have a few left AND you've had your own laser burn/blown out.

I seem to recall some new info this year... New model was in a vid and I think maybe some updates in a newsletter or something...

HAH... LOL. This doesn't address the problem sir. It doesn't even touch on it. It only addresses the individual. It's cool though. I don't actually care if you see this my way. I hope that ED does... so the community doesn't get split six ways from Sunday... but you... I don't care. Feel free to keep your head under that rock. It's all good. I tried. So your assertion is that trolling doesn't exist either. Rock Head

Then present an argument that makes sense.

"You pay for your stuff. It's what grownups do." And sometimes (clearly not always) grownups think about their arguments and change their minds when they're wrong. But not always. "You guys are going page after page saying that paying for it isn't a problem... then pay for it and there is no problem." We've clearly stated and explained that "paying for it" is not the problem. I'm sorry you're not capable of seeing this. Well... You are actually. I know you are. You wouldn't be anywhere near combat flight sims if you weren't capable of seeing this problem. You are trolling and/or being willfully ignorant. Hint... They are basically the same thing.

It's very interesting that the only argument you can come up with is "I have $15". Great. I have a custom Porsche. It's not the point friend. The assets pack is on an island splitting the community. The $15 isn't worth it (again I only paid $5...). Add a dollar to every other piece of content I've ever bought and you have MORE money AND there's no split. Look... The WW2 community is already a niche within a niche that HAS competition... It doesn't need to be kicked in the damn teeth friend... Maybe that's what puts the maps in a different category for me... they're expensive enough that they make a real difference and justify their community splitting effect with revenue generated for ED. I don't know. I also don't care. They're in a different category for me.

Yeah you're right the argument is pretty much the same but IMO there's a breakpoint where the type of product sets it in a category logically. Much like with airframes where if you buy the tomcat you can't also play the hornet. The maps fit that for me. The assets pack doesn't do that... because when you buy Syria/Iran/Nevada/Normandy/channel etc... you can do whatever you want with it because the assets you'll use on that map are part of the base game. The WW2 assets don't follow the same logic even when applied to maps. You're 100% right though... The split is similar. I don't have a great answer for you aside from that everyone accepts that about maps. It's just the way it is with maps. It makes sense there. I mean by the other logic you're saying that the assets that come with the game should only EVER be assets that would have or could have been used in a mid-80's-ish conflict in the Caucasus region and all other assets should be separated into asset packs that you need to purchase along with the map to have anything other than Caucasus region conflicts. It makes no sense and there are significant community repercussions. If you add a dollar or two to all map sales and make the assets part of the base game... You don't create problems. Also... the logic applied to maps doesn't need to be related to asset packs so that's a non-sequitur anyway. Maps only split the community based on the map. Once you own the map you can do whatever you wish with it. you can put a SC in the Channel and try to sink it with a Mustang if you like. You can do that with ANYTHING... Except the WW2 assets... No. We're making an argument about the fact that it needs to be bought. Not the price. It's not about value. It's about what happens within the community when someone doesn't have a particular piece of content. If it's a map... I'm ok with it. If it's an assets pack I'm not. It's a double split in the case of the assets. Maybe I'm ok with one split but not two...

"It seems to me that this argument basically boils down to the people in the "won't pay for the assets pack out of principle" group prefer that we don't have any variety in DCS regarding maps/assets. They would apparently prefer that we all have just the one map with limited assets. That way we can all fly on the same map and use the same assets." Not even close. We would prefer to pay slightly more for EVERYTHING... so that anything that's created that could be created in such a way that it splits the community WON'T HAVE TO BE created that way. It can be created and added to the base package so it doesn't split the community because we all paid an extra .50c for every single thing we've bought.

Wow. I mean I can't explain it better than Tippis. To note though... We have tried to make the point that it has nothing to do with the price many times. It's very telling that this is your only argument that's even remotely valid... and while making that point... you're actually making the point that it does indeed actually split the community. The only difference between your POV and ours is that you think the problem is that people don't want to buy it. That's not the problem. If you don't own the F/18... you CAN still join a server that ONLY has F18's. You just can't fly the F18. You could look at someone else flying it. You could be a GCI. You can take screen shots. You can watch them kill stuff... You can even start your two week evaluation of the F18 if you wanted to play it in that server for two weeks. With the SC you can actually not even give two craps about it AT ALL and still play in "any" server you want. It doesn't limit you at all unless some mission creator fails to also place a regular carrier... but then you can land at an airstrip anyway. Or just bail/go back to spectator after your mission. It only limits you interacting with the SC itself. Nothing else. With the WW2 assets pack if "any" piece of the asset pack is included in the mission... find a new mission because you're SOL. You can't join. Not even to watch. It's 1000% NOT the same as "any" other content aside from a map. The drawbacks of that situation have been made abundantly clear... you're just refusing to see it. Keep in mind... I own the assets pack. In my case that doesn't make me climb up to the top of some $5 pedestal and refuse to see what the effects of that module are. They still exist. Whether you choose to see them or not. Saying that people should just shell out $15 for some almost completely useless piece of content is clearly a point of view that hasn't had much thought applied to it when put in context of the entire combat sim subject. We need all the people we can get doing all the things. A $5 asset pack is NOT the hill to kill combat flight sims on. Trust me. I've been arorund for a long time. you know why that other viper game lasted so long??? Because it effing HAD to. Because it wasn't financially feasible to make a competitor. Because there weren't enough PEOPLE PLAYING COMBAT FLIGHT SIMS to make it worth while to make another. That problem STILL EXISTS. ED gets around it by selling individual modules. The fact that ED had said AT THE TIME that if they didn't charge for the assets pack there would be no assets pack... was because they hadn't lived the experience yet. We tried to explain it to them. They didn't get it until the SC. They still appear to be on the fence... because they're considering allowing the IADS pack (as I understand). If they don't include the IADS pack for free or more like the SC/aircraft work... then it will never be used in MP, and people making campaigns and even single missions will have to either choose which audience to create content for... or create content for BOTH audiences... time is money. They either charge an extra couple dollars for their content (in the case of campaigns), they eat the cost themselves because it took more work to create the campaign with and without IADS, or they just create it once, charge the regular price and people without IADS don't get to use it. OR... they create it WITHOUT IADS. Which one will they go for you think??? Do you think this is "splitting" the SP community? It is.

My arguement against asset packs has nothing to do with purchasing burden. It has to do with people who won't/can't purchase them. It splits the community in both the MP and SP areas.

In an effort to keep us on topic in this thread, and because the issue has been well explained by someone else I'll just say this... I own darn near every piece of content including the WWII asset pack, combined arms... pretty much all of it. All the maps too. I think the Yak, MI8, Gazelle and maybe the Hawk are the only things I don't have. Feel free to hop down from that high horse you don't actually have and look at the subject a little closer. Content like the WW2 assets pack splits the community. You can't argue the point.... it's simply a fact. I didn't say a word about WHO splits the community. YOU assumed I "blame" ED for it. I don't aside from that they allowed it to happen. It was simply a bad choice. "MP servers are privately run. ED doesn't have anything to do with how they are managed." Yes they do friend :). They make the switches :). I'll stand by my assertion.

Is too. Maybe go get a better computer or something... Yeah.. super gross... Oh wait my bad you're RIGHT... It looks basically EXACTLY like this random 2002 simulator... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ <-- Just linked because we can't post other sims here....

They squint...

Eff the asset packs. Not a fan. I should clarify... Sorry. I'm a huge fan of asset packs :). I know... odd clarification... BUT... They need to be done in such a way that they don't split the community. My suggestion would be to have all 3rd party devs agree to develop a small subset of assets in order to sell their product in the DCS ecology. So say HB does an F14... ED should have them agree to create some number of kinda related assets. Ground assets, other air assets etc. That said... HB has already done what appears to be a good job with this. That may or may not be contract related I have no idea. Same should go for maps. Someone wants to make a map... ED should choose what other ground and air assets would reasonably go with that... and write it into the contract. Price accordingly. I would have happily paid an extra $10 for the normandy map if it meant that everyone would have the WW2 assets pack. The channel map should have a group of assets developed for that part of the war.

Looking Dated??? WUT??? LOL I think what you're seeing is a lack of "special effects". Well.. those are "special" because they don't actually exist and are created for visual "effect". The graphics in DCS as far as being photo-realistic are pretty well top notch friend. Maybe the ground isn't when you're close to it but get to a few throusand feet and it looks great. Just like that other sim you're probably talking about... Get close to the ground in that one and it's looks "ok" but is clearly "not quite right".