Tippis

The vast majority of it is done through the labelling system, yes, and this has been explicitly stated by ED as being the intended solution unless and until they can be convinced that an actual realistic simulation of spotting and perception is something they'll want to invest time in. You can mod the rest as well, but that will break IC, with all the problems this will cause in multiplayer. It's also worth mentioning that all the tricks you can do to improve on your dots and labels can be overwritten and enforced in multiplayer missions, so the mission-designer decides what you see and with you having no way of affecting that. In fact, they're so enthusiastically enforced that even though it looks like you can make the client choose what they see, that option doesn't actually exist — the server always enforces its options in one way or another.

Do we? They haven't exactly spoken about it extensively. We have a lot of assumptions and “I imagine” and other dreams.txt, but from ED's communication, there's mainly a lot of humming and hawing and hedging and suggesting things that would be neat. Nothing particularly solid. We already have multiplayer campaigns, and there is nothing inherent in that notion that requires any kind of on-going world sim or ability (or need) to drop in. For all of what we actually know, the “dynamic campaign” could effectively just be the current quick mission engine, but expanded and keeping track of some kind of mission end state to be fed into the next round of mission generation. Most would certainly hope for more, but in terms of actual explicit and solid info on what's being planned or made, we can't really assume much more than that.

And that's pretty much the reason why, as neat as this whole idea would be (if scriptable, otherwise what we have already works well enough), runway repairs aren't really needed for campaigns. We don't even know what ED mean by “dynamic campaign” and if it's just an extension of the campaign concept that is already in the game, then the repair functionality is already covered. The next mission will start with fully functional runways by default, because that's how they always are. If anything, a dynamic campaign would require the exact opposite: the ability to programmatically damage runways so they don't get fixed immediately in the next sortie. Of course, you can still do this manually, of sorts, by setting off explosions on each runway, but that's a pretty fugly solution compared to being able to directly set an airport's damage state as part of the core mission setup functionality. In addition, such functionality would also work for what's being suggested here: making it a triggerable or at least transferable state, and would tie neatly into what everyone probably thinks of as a dynamic campaign: the kind of on-going theatre-wide thing that [other sim] has set as the gold standard.

In addition to this brief suggestion, you can also universally change the size of all kinds of dots and labels by changing the font size in the labels setup. Search for the line(s)… font_properties = {"DejaVuLGCSans.ttf", 13, 0, 0, 2} …or something to that effect, and you can simply just increase the size (first number, in pixels), or move or alter the label blur (x,y in the second and third number; blur type as the last one). You can choose between 0 = no blur; 1 = 3×3px blur; 2 = 5×5px blur, but these will only show up if there is also a suitable blur colour and opacity set up, which requires some extra fiddling. In the latest version of the labels file, there will be multiple such font definitions for each label style so you need to pick the one you intend to use (or just alter all of them). So just bump that font size and get some really big blogs going. Oh, and if your line 63 does not correspond to what LeCuvier is saying above, it may be because you already have an altered labels file, or just a different version to the one referenced here. In that case, you want to search for ”local function dot_symbol” and “local function NEUTRAL_DOT” — these are where that dot definition will show up.

Not very. It's mostly a matter of comparing target parameters (size, range, altitude, possibly with some modifications) to sensor parameters (sweep time, coverage angle, minimum target size, minimum radial velocity for notching). Optical isn't all that different — it's just another sensor — but ambient light is supposed to be one of those modifiers. Very little you can do other than staying outside of the coverage zone will matter.

Your best option for a more general solution is, as is almost always the case once you get into more advanced MP, to use SLmod, in the particular case the AutoAdmin system. It can be tweaked pretty extensively to give different penalties at different degrees of harshness depending on who kills what, and also track behaviour over time and across some of the standard punishment-avoidance techniques. In a bit of an ironic twist, though, it doesn't quite allow for the leniency you're suggesting (unless further modded). You'll also end up wanting it for all the other functionality it offers, so it's a good thing to have regardless.

This is a key part of why I am fond of the asset tax idea: any module made contributes a certain % to the development of suitable assets for that module. If the WWII era somehow shows to sell a crapton of modules, then they are also accompanied by a crapton of assets to make their world more varied. If the [whatever] era turns out to not really move any modules, then very little time and money is wasted on assets for that era. There would be a slight downside to whenever a new era is introduced and there's only one or two modules to drive its asset creation, causing a slow and sparse start, but then again, that's just part of the risk you take when opening up a new market: if you want to sell it, you have to sell it, and perhaps over-spend on that first iteration while accepting realistically lower ROI because it lays the groundwork for future expansions of that era.

Since it has nothing to do with price, there is no point in wasting money on some irrelevant side-show that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and which does not solve or even address the problem. I already have far more relevant and vastly more significant outlays that actually make a difference to the players, provide content rather than simple decoration, and improve participation on top of making ED real long-term money. It's very nice of you to give away modules (although it's not really fully supporting ED), but ultimately it's a minuscule measure that does nothing. Rather than raffling them out, I would also suggest you find people who actively and expressly want and need it for whatever reason. Indeed, ED get it. That's why they have never reused the same restrictive design and have instead gone for a solution more in line with what we're suggesting in order to avoid the problem we're describing.

No, we need to be clear: this has nothing to do with the price. It has too do with the restriction on participation. The only one who has expressed an issue with the price is you. Witness for instance your attempt to somehow rewrite the price as being 1/5 of its clearly defined official value.

Maybe so. $70 is still what the functionality is valued at, and you should be careful not to ascribe modules with features they don't actually… well… feature. If you don't value ED's work as highly as they do, then that's fine and all, but it doesn't actually change anything. The only one who believes this is something that happens is you. Hence your fixation with an assumed problem that everyone else has declared a non-issue, and why your repetitive calls to “solve” this non-issue goes unanswered: because it misses the mark. As I explained elsewhere, almost the exact opposite is what ends up happening — it's the ones who spend the $70 who end up not getting the functionality and content they paid for, whereas those who paid nothing get to use DCS the way they want to. As for donations, let me ask you this: how many modules did you provide to other players last year? How much bandwidth? How much hardware? How much tech support? You're obsessing over what amounts to a rounding error on a cup of coffee. If you want to step up and contribute, especially to something actually is a problem rather than a completely imaginary one, you're going to need to aim a lot higher… And I answered you in full and in extensive detail. There really isn't anything left for you to wonder about. It would be nice if you could at least extend the common courtesy of actually addressing the answer I gave you rather than just skipping over it and then acting confused. Then you have “realised” something that has never been said, and “understood” something that isn't the case. These are complete inventions on your part with no basis in anything that I've written. My point cannot be made clearer than it has been. I can only advise you to read what I've actually written and stop filling in the skips and gaps in your reading with assumptions born out of who-knows-what. If any of the steps don't seem to follow from the previous one, or if the conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the previous steps, be specific: ask about the thing that confuses you. Your position is not more comfortable because you're happy with your purchase — it's because you're lacking a broader perspective and insight. That's not actually a very happy position to be in, but it's hard to tell from the inside. Hence why I am giving you such extensive and detailed answers about the bigger picture.

No. It's a step in a pattern that you mistook for categorical claim, like I said. Prove it. Show me the numbers. e: And note that I'm looking for a comparison here — not just the WWII asset pack in isolation since that tells us nothing. That's because you as a new player are not relevant to the well-established general pattern. You are too small a sample size, and your subjective perspective is one where you're not able to see the problem in action. I've done the footwork where I have a decently large sample size, and I have watched the very cycle I'm describing in action. I have also seen the same thing happen and seen the same thing reported in other, much larger communities. I can speak for others; I can tell how large a portion own the asset pack, compared to how many use it, compared to how many recommend it, compared to how many are interested in it to begin with, compared to those of us who are just plain old nutcases who buy anything. As you point out, I own it too… Like you say, you base your assertions on your own (subjective) experience, as one of the haves. I base mine on a broad sampling and polling of haves and have nots, their interactions and discussions and recommendations, as well as on similar reports from other groups. And the sum of it all is what I've described above: restrictions harm everyone by reducing incentives to buy ED's modules; by reducing ED's incentives to create modules; by reducing content-creators' incentive to create content. The immediate conclusion, especially now that we have a counter-example where ED's opinion on the matter was reversed, is that a far better way to deal with asset packs is not not have those restrictions and to incentivise purchases through other means than “then you can't play”. Indeed it is. Since one of the suggestions made in this thread was to solve the asset pack problem by making functionality the thing that creates value and to have that be what's funding the development of both assets and functions, it's worth being mindful of what that functionality is actually valued at: in your example, $70. A pretty decent chunk of change to support ED's efforts, in other words.

…if you add the additional costs for a total of $70. An easy thing to accidentally skip over and forget. Granted, this small mistake doesn't really matter since cost was never a factor to begin with, and since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But it's worth correcting regardless.

You should probably take the time to slowly read the numbered list, step by step, and see how one point leads into the other. At no stage was anything of the kind suggested, which leads me to conclude that you read too fast and just filled in the gaps with guesswork. The progression is quite logical. It is also grounded in historical precedent. The reason why restrictions lead to lost sales and a dearth of content are well-established — it's the same reasons as why SC very specifically does not replicate the way he WWII asset pack works, in spite of that being how ED first wanted to do it. ED can usually be quite intractable when it comes to their business decisions, but the argument as to why splitting the community the same way the WWII asset pack does would be harmful to their bottom line had a very real and immediate effect. This should tell you something. I should probably clarify one thing, though: I am very deliberate in my use of the words “asset” and “content”. They are not the same. Assets are not content; assets are used to create content. Missions are the primary form of content where this happens. An asset in and of itself does nothing. Then I can tell with absolute certainty that you either didn't actually read the cause-and-effect and the circumstances that give rise to situation described, or you weren't around a number of server communities all came to the exact same conclusion at once. You are also confusing general pattern with specific instance or categorical truth. What you label as “subjective feeling” is something I have actually polled to see how much of a problem it was. It turned out to be a strong correlation with a competing product (a topic we should stay away from for numerous reasons), and not a whole lot more. It's also worth pointing out the dangers of using yourself as your sample, especially as it relates to that subjective feeling… As for the “countless” uses of the WWII asset pack, I'm afraid numbers don't agree. The tragedy is that they're far too easy to count, and comparatively very few in number even though it should be helped by the way it directly feeds into the content creation for 8 different modules. Much of it is also just the same thing repeated with different units, and the vast majority it is not even relevant to the topic at hand because it already skips over that most important asset: the other player, thereby if anything reinforcing the point.

…and that demonstrate that my assertion is wrong… how? When it was released, DCS World consisted of a whole lot more, and the value it added was even less back then. The point is, it was not a viable product. There's a strong argument that it still isn't, even with the additions that have been made to it over the last five years. As such, they should have figured out a better way of creating it. And they did — it just took a little while. Now that they have that better way, they could solve a whole bunch of problems that arose from that flawed first attempt. Yes, a wide variety of assets are needed to populate the game world and make it varied and interesting, but that can be made to happen in a number of more or less clever ways. The WWII asset pack is well entrenched in the “less” section of that continuum. I think I answered it somewhere in that whole mess, but I fully understand if it got lost in the general back and forth. Basically, the problem is the chain of consequences that its restrictiveness causes: 0. Ultimately, the best in-game asset in DCS is other players. This is not related to the asset pack, but provides an important foundation for all MP. 1. If a mission uses it, that locks out a whole bunch of people — in particular it locks out that most precious of commodities: the new player who with a bit of indoctrination coaxing and support can be turned into a die-hard DCS-head and stick around for a long time and have a lot of fun with the rest of us. 2. To give these players (and older ones who have less than zero interest in a bunch of WWII stuff for any number of reasons) the kind of free stomping ground needed to grow that potential player into an actual player, there needs to be zero restrictions. Preferably fewer(!)… somehow. Thus, no asset pack assets. 3. But this then becomes a vicious circle and a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy: asset pack never used -> no reason to ever build missions using the asset pack -> no content means no reason to buy the pack -> no-one has the asset pack, be they new or old -> the asset pack can't be used because the most important asset is the players -> asset pack is never used… repeat. 4. That whole loop robs the asset pack of what little value proposition it may have had, and it does so by necessity. 5. With no value to be had, ED miss out on sales. It also gets an ever-increasing reputation of being worthless and pointless, which further robs ED of sales. As that new player in step 1 becomes more established and start spending more money, they retain the lesson that the asset pack holds no value so it remains unbought, and the lesson is passed on to the next new potential prospect that comes along. 6. ED learn the lesson that assets don't pay for themselves and aren't really worth pursuing. Add another flashy teen fighter instead. 7. The same pattern repeats on a larger scale or “one step up” in the hierarchy: DCS itself gets a reputation for being… if not pointless, then at least same:y and stale — one button-festooned MFD-fest teen fighter is much like the other, and it's always the same three tanks and four AA systems. 8. Only by virtue of a bit of coaching and with an absolutely minimal threshold for entry (see step 1) can that first impression be overcome, but to do that… goto 1 and repeat. Asset packs should be some of the most worth-while things DCS has to offer because they, more than anything, can create a variety of content that gives the actual playable modules some value. But developing them costs, and since assets need to be made en masse to bring about that variety, they're going to need to cost a lot. But at the same time, they cannot create any kind of threshold. The most negative thing ever would be if we lost the most valuable asset of them all — that other player. The second most negative thing is if we lose out on content because assets make themselves impossible to use because they have to be weighed against the loss of that most valuable asset. This is where we arrive with the choice of not using restrictive assets. Above that are a couple of hybrid states depending on the exact solution — the ideas and details and trade-offs of each of those is a long discussion of its own. But at the very top, there's the optimal state: there is no restriction to entry, only a cornucopia of choices of what to pursue, with each such choice being fully on display to entice new and old players to splash out even more cash on even more functionality. Here, what you pay for is exactly that: functionality, not set dressing. That functionality covers the cost of creating the set dressing as well, and with more set dressing around, there is more oddball functionality that can be added and sold to keep that self-reinforcing spiral going. …of course, there is also the scorched-earth option: get rid of MP altogether. Then there is no most-valuable other player to lose any more and the asset pack problem largely ceases to exist, at least in its current form. You've misunderstood my purpose then. I see great value in assets, but that value isn't the assets themselves — the value is in the variety of content (that can even be sold, if it's good enough) and functionality (that can also be sold), and also in the opportunities to show off and sell those two to anyone and everyone. I even see some value in the WWII asset pack, but it's just one specific lacklustre instance, and unfortunately, its implementation has reduced the value of specifically this pack even further. I expend my time and energy talking about how we should not repeat the mistake of the WWII asset pack that created that second-from-bottom-tier loop of self-devaluation and self-harm — ultimately, even the WWII asset pack itself could be cured of that mistake and salvaged into something that sells other products and funds even more development.

That just further highlights how it shouldn't have been handled the way it was. Hell, it probably shouldn't have been payware to begin with but rather been made part of something that actually did have a more substantial playable aspect. It was a poorly though-through non-product and it's telling that the asset packs we've had since have either been free or have had that extra interaction as the real value being sold (the non-interactive part of it also being free). But ultimately, this simply means that the WWII asset pack is something that nothing should ever be modelled on, and if anything, it should be given an actual purpose and then converted to the same kind of module as the SC to make it 1) worth-while and 2) not community-splitting. Simple: they shouldn't. Unless and until they can figure out what's actually worth-while in the module, they should not make it. Or they can do what's been done elsewhere and simply amortise that cost over a bunch of other developments that have some inherent value that makes them interesting and worth-while to buy. It is indeed not very difficult to figure out, nor is it difficult to figure out how to make people join the server: never use the restrictive assets, further reducing its overall value. As mentioned elsewhere, this is a solution that hurts everyone in the long run, but it's still vastly better than the only other available alternative.

Depends on how diligently the office IT people have locked your laptop down, doesn't it?

The actual interaction would be sold separately is the point. Those are the things that actually add value and are complicated to create. Getting a tiger-striped boxy thing rather than a flecktarned boxy thing is simply not worth it and leads right back into the community split problem that massively devalues the entire asset pack and gives ED less resources to work with. Now granted, that would be entirely in line with much of your posting history so maybe you truly do wish that outcome.

Definitely yes on both counts. But the more I think about it, and especially given the discussions in the other thread, the more I'm becoming partial to the seed of an idea Northstar offered: more assets, sure, but the actual value proposition might be better served by selling the usage part of the equation. The payware gives you the internal views and more detailed weapon and system sims that hook into CA; ground comms and better AI that can be coordinated with from the air (or from other ground positions, again tying into various CA mechanics); period-accurate spotting and fire direction. All that jazz. That would make the value shoot up massively, and imo far more than having yet another angular boxy thing with treads or wheels to drop bombs onto. It's also two birds in one stone: the splitting problem could be done away with because the art asset is freely accessible by all and sundry, but those who really want to dig in get some very special functionality for their money — things that other players can miss out on with no ill effects, but can see in action and start being envious of…

Eh, no. The same inside+outside experience holds true for the WWII assets as well. It does not replace a freeware model — both exist in parallel. Indeed, one of the key points of its implementation is that it explicitly exists alongside the freeware variant specifically to not split the community. Yes, that is indeed the sensible solution here: cater to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately, this only sensible choice has a lot of undesirable consequences for everyone, and in particular for ED and for those who give ED money. It is doubly unfortunate because this does not need to happen, and the SC model of implementation shows how. But that is not what anyone is suggesting. In fact, that's the whole point of the SC model: you can't use the units in it, but that doesn't restrict you from joining a game where they're present. The usage is (part of) that added value, and while the SC assets aren't all that numerous, that is balanced against a massively expanded number of ways to use and interact with those assets. I guess you could qualify “slam into face-first” and “get shot by” as some very limited form of usage, but that's getting absurdly reductive compared to the actual usage you get out of paying for them. Indeed there is, but that argument rather goes in the opposite direction. Flyable modules and the SC are far more complex and give you far more for your $30 than the asset pack. And yet, you can join any server and see those planes and that SC in action. You don't get to use them, but you get to gawk at them and try to suppress that gnawing feeling of “…that does look pretty cool, maybe I should…”. But then there's the WWII asset pack, where you're just shut out if it's in use, and if you pay the $30 you get about as much out of it as you get for free out of those far more complex modules. And of course, even then, and even when you can now join a minute number of new servers, for the most part it will see no use at all. If there was a Korea pack, it would serve an equally narrow niche — perhaps narrower still if it was decided to not let it overlap with the WWII pack, and definitely narrower still if it used the same restrictive model as the WWII pack. So where would the added value be? Where's the showing off and the incentive to get it, especially if some of the stuff needed for the era is still locked behind yet another restricted asset pack?

Yes it is. It is the very topic of this lengthy discussion, after all. More the point, the concern is that, since there are two teams and since there is a finite amount of resources to spend on them, you want to spend it where it does the most good: where both teams are served by it and, ultimately, where that split into teams cease to exist. This means catering to the lowest common denominator. This means that the assets go unused; the $30 don't give people what they've paid for; the incentive to give ED that money goes away; everyone loses out. The concern is that we end up in this downward spiral for no good reason when we know the restriction that causes all of that does not need to be there. The spit does not need to happen. The value of the pack can be preserved and even incentivised so ED gets more money and everyone wins out. That is also why you should care, even if you don't. I'm really not. No, I'm describing what the problem is and why it is a problem: because of the consequences that affect everyone for no good reason. One of those is not a solution because the split still exists. The other causes the split to go away — or, perhaps more accurately, causes it to not come into effect — because the restriction goes away, and this has a slew of negative consequences as described above. This is also the solution chosen, even if it's a bad one for everyone. There are a number of other even more common-sense solutions to this problem that don't give rise to those consequences; ones that actually have the exact opposite effect. The problem there is that they rely on ED choosing to not apply the restriction rule set that causes the problem to appear. But yes, for me as a server manager and sort-of-partial-community builder, the only option available is to just not use restricted assets in spite of the negative consequences this has for everyone. Until you're ready to give a good-faith answer to the question, I will indeed keep asking it. You know what the question is — so what do you say?

Indeed I have. Now, could you please answer the question: how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server? The same hints as before still apply. Also, while you're thinking about that, could you also give your rationale for why it's in everyone's best interest that ED disincentivises the sales and production of the most critical component that keeps the game alive: varied content that caters to a broad audience?

That's very nice, but it's not really related to the discussion at hand, now is it? Now, could you please answer the question: how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server?

Because I run a server and immediately have to deal with the complaints when people are locked out. I'm on the other side of that curtain and have to deal with the selection and the balance of inclusion vs catering to niche-cubed interests. Also, because I was around for the SC implementation discussion. Really? How? We have already fully established that $30 does not solve the problem. You even proved it yourself when given the offer to provide that supposed solution. Suggesting that it does means that you don't understand what the problem is, which is why I asked you to clarify what you thought we were saying. So, again, how do you easily remedy the indisputable fact that creating a restriction on who can and cannot join a server creates two different teams: those you can and those who can't join the server? Note that nowhere in this question is money in any way, shape or form, a factor and as such it cannot be a solution because it is not related to the problem at hand. I'll even give you a very generous hint here: there is indeed a very trivial solution that problem, and it has been extensively described and elaborated on in the thread. It is not related to price or cost.

They already do. Or, granted, it's perhaps more accurate to say that they end up just not caring all that much. Reality already provides an answer here, and it does not align with your guesses. That is exactly what happens, and then we're right back in that loop where the restriction causes everyone (except those who don't pay) to lose out. In fact, come to think of it, they sort of do too, but very indirectly because DCS gets less funding they they could have gotten without that unnecessary restriction in place. This is also why “if you want something you have to pay for it” cliché is not applicable. They get what they want anyway, without paying, and this creates a perverse incentive for everyone else to also not pay — the non-payers draw everyone else away from the servers who use the restricted content, creating yet another vicious cycle that devalues the paid content and causes ED to make less money. Again, wrong way around. It is pretty much no extra work — they already have to create everything that would be referenced by such a substitution — and it actively encourages the sale of their product to a much large extent since there is now exposure that wouldn't, and indeed couldn't happen before. I kept banging on about that single searchlight for a very good reason: because they look really nice in night missions, but no-one will ever know and be inclined to buy the asset pack to play with it themselves. They won't know because they are not allowed to know — the restriction keeps them from seeing the thing that is most likely to convince them that there is some value to be extracted from that $30 price tag. That is very fair. We could probably bring it to PMs or some such instead.

Not only would it work — it already works like that for assets that you manage to get into an MP mission where there is no restriction on joining based on whether you “own” the asset mod/module or not. That won't solve the actual problem because as has been pointed out, the problem is not related to cost or price. In fact, the problem is quite the opposite: by having these restrictions in place, ED's developers gets less money out of their effort, leading to less assets being made and less content for all. The whole “just pay $15” is the cause of the very issue that non-solution is meant to solve. It creates problems and solves nothing, especially not the issue being discussed here. That's the great irony of that whole off-topic tangent: the people arguing that giving ED $15 is the great panacea are actually arguing in favour of ED making less money from their modules and in favour of DCS not getting more paid-for content. This is why SC was implemented the way it was. And they don't have to. That's just the most extreme version of how to trivially solve the issue — so trivial, in fact, that it already works like that for the most poart. It's not a good solution by any stretch of the imagination, but unlike the whole irrelevant “just pay $15” catch phrase, it actually does solve the issue at hand. If you let it. No, it's less work for the mission creator exactly because they don't have to consider what the end users may or may not own, and can just decorate to their hearts' content. That's kind of the whole point. In actuality, it's the other way around: with the way things work now, they don't bother placating the people who did spend $30 because it's just not worth it. This has the effect of not making it worth spending those $30 for anyone else, and those who already did so end up not really getting their moneys' worth. Ultimately, as this evaluation slowly spreads and becomes the common opinion, ED makes less money and is less inclined to create more assets. The people who lose out are not the ones who don't buy the restricting module — it's the ones who do, and ED.