TheGuardian

I'm not gonna lie here, but I totally read that with a Scottish accent in my head and it made it way funnier then it should have been. Sorry.:megalol: Anyways, OP, there are plenty of updates that we get. I don't see how them shoveling more down our throats is helpful. Like they always say, when they have news they will share it.

Umm....I'm not sure comparing the A-4 or MBB to F-18/F-16 is applicable considering the vast difference in systems. Saying feature complete is a little misleading. So I would suggest you use your own advice and measure your words more carefully.

Got to agree with Nikola here, it would be your choice. As long as the integrity checks stays in place those bad mods will never see the light of day in MP.

I almost can't type this cause I'm laughing to hard, hopefully my vision clears from the tears, but probably not. I feel like Jester in an A-4 "This Kids Good!" Man, leave my vision alone. I do not oppose good/great mods at all, I have many of them I use in DCS and other "titles". But those have been created with tools we currently have. I'm not saying Lil' Johnny does have a great mod idea and that we should not let him/her try. I just don't want to risk opening up a can of worms that ED loses control of, cause I think most of us can agree that would/could be very bad as a whole. Oh no, I got that link. Made me giggle like a school girl. It didn't go over your head as much as you didn't look over to the right side and see the scarecrow, that poor bugger. I find distinction between users that complain about everything (basically hates everything) and those that report bugs, or start questioning when we are going to get features we were, and I very loosely say this, promised by ED. I will make sure my secretary sends out the notices 2 months in advance next time with a read receipt in the email. I got you bud! Interwebs are a scary place. You could have told me the bank would call the cops if I tried that. You know how hard it is convince them to let me use my collect call on their computer to respond on this forum? All in all man, I think we might have more in agreement then we think here. I think we are just messing up the details. Or it could be just me again, but at this point it is so much fun.:joystick:

1. Not a pilot, luckily I don't need to be to enjoy DCS. Which mind you is exactly what I do, I enjoy it. 2. Saw above, didn't see anything that relates to the Standard. Moving on. 3. My gaming history goes back almost 30 years, as a player of course. I don't have to dig into games nor do i want to. I have learned to enjoy what was given and use mods for those aspects I wish to change. Which oddly enough is exactly what I do in DCS, works pretty good. I know, shocker sense DCS as a whole is a disaster. 4. Funny. Glad I got more meat on my bones then that poor bugger. 5. Well, since your other two comparisons were from steamcharts, it made logical sense that you pulled YOUR DCS stats from there as well. My bad, my mistake, please forgive me. 6. There are tens of thousands of posts from people that do enjoy this SIM. Clearly you missed the election my man, so sorry. All seriousness dude, I can read. Makes it fairly easy to judge things. the "rest of us" is said in jest. sorry it was taken too literal Look, you may have stated facts, but I feel (sorry there I go again) that you are not seeing the larger issue. Sure, those other games (that shall not be named to follow rule 1.15) have seen awesome life extension based on a fan base that loves them and continues to create more content for them. Those are great things to have. DCS as a whole is different though. The modules are what makes DCS what it is and 3rd Party Devs (basically modders, I think I will regret saying that) are apart of that system. I would hope you could see that. I like things just the way they are because it creates a level playing field as far as muliplayer goes. Offline - man do whatever you want. I don't know, maybe I am just stupid and don't understand this whole thing. Maybe I am just flying around making a fool of myself, but you can be damned sure I am going to have fun doing so. Now to contact Ghostrider and request a flyby, maybe he has an Admirals daughter (over 18 of course).:pilotfly:

@RaTzo What amazes me is when people start mistaking DCS as a game, when it is in fact a SIM. yes the differences are small, but the difference in STANDARD is huge. These modules are of high quality, the systems are super complex, even if you choose to ignore them. You can dig into almost any game and find problems if that is all you're looking for. Funny that the complete mess that is the A-10C, F-18 or F-16 even gets off the ground, or moves. I mean there must be a small community of tiny wizards just barely able to catch their breathe, just to get the engine started. There are currently slightly more than 500 DCS users ON STEAM. Wasted data collection as it doesn't show the complete user base. Therefore it is not applicable to this conversation. I think you might want to sell your HOTAS system and move over to these other titles you care so much about, because you clearly are not enjoying DCS like the rest of us.

Understood, enjoy your flights man, sorry we could see each others points on this.

My feelings follow along the lines =4c=Nikola posted right after you. I don't know why it's so hard to understand why the answer is already there. Has any other module, or even free content, gone back and changed a previous made mission/training/campaign? Not counting patch upgrades, I can't think of a single one, please tell me if I'm wrong. That being said, why do people think it will suddenly happen now? Why would ED do that? You would have to know which people purchased the SC vs those that didn't (not that hard honestly). Then you would have to update two different sets of Open Betas, one with the SC and one without so you know mess up the content of those that didn't or did purchase the SC. It adds a tonne of crap to the system that simply doesn't need to be there. Again as Nikola said, you want it in a mission, learn how to do that yourself. A. Again, has this ever happened before? They did recreate the A-10A Campaign for the A-10C, but it was still added as NEW content, not a change to the FC3 A-10A campaign. B. It Has Never Happened Before. Why do it just for this module? It makes no sense. It is a matter of common sense. There is nothing wrong with asking the question, I can repeat that a hundred times over. But that doesn't shield it from flak. C. Clearly we do not see each other point here, so I'm scrapping this waste of time. D. Ha, again you missed the point of what I was trying to say. YOU want to fly these older missions with the new SC, YOU update them. But that may be too hard.

A. You completely glossed over the fact that the Stennis is FREE, and the SC is not. The standard, the default, the everyone has this fact of the matter is the Stennis must remain the core module for carrier operations (at this point anyway, hopefully later down the road that changes). I'm sure NEW missions/training will be used/created for the SC. You want to use it in an older mission/campaign, YOU need to load it up in the mission editor and make the change. If a campaign designer wants to keep his/her campaign up to date, they need to update it. This does not fall on ED to do in any shape form or fashion. B. The Stennis we have in game IS NOT an exact equivalent to the SC (using your words). Sure it's reasonable for to ask, but common sense should tell you the answer. It's right in your face. Again your point here is kinda busted as they are not the same units. C. Since you're sure "a lot of people" won't want to deal with the mission editor, I'm sure "a lot of mission/campaign designers" will want to update their content with at least the option of SC vs non-SC versions. Again, this isn't an ED issue. So they have no answer to give one way or the other. D. I'm not trying to jump all over anyone, I'm just trying to get people to actually think about what they are asking. This entire thread (hell even this post) is ME ME ME. "I don't want to do the leg work." "ED should have this done for me." I I I ME ME ME. These two ships are not the same, they are not identical, they are different. Like I said in my previous post, I'm sure (I'm not ED, just stating my thoughts) ED will have new missions/training content to go along with the SC just like they have done for every other one of their modules. Their is no reason to think SC owners will not have content to use starting DAY 1!

I don't think any clarification is needed at all. The Stennis is a FREE carrier, it is THE stock carrier for DCS. Everyone has the Stennis, even if you don't own the F-18 or Tomcat. Why would they change ALL campaigns, ALL training missions, and ALL user missions to switch the carriers? Not everyone is going to buy the SC, so the default needs to remain the Stennis. If the plane gets updated with new weapons, you still have to go in and swap that stuff out MANUALLY. Sure they may add more missions and training that uses the SC but shouldn't remove-replace the existing ones. Can you imagine the ball busting that non-SC owners would have if all the missions got changed to SC? The pitchforks would be the size of the Empire State Building. They have never given us the option with other modules to easily swap them in and out (thinking C-101 versions here, not F-18 to F-14) so why would they now. I kinda agree with zhukov here that the answer is right in you face and the question shouldn't need to be asked. For those talking about the SC Stennis, they already said that would be much later in EA, but it still wouldn't be a replacement or even two Stennis carriers. You would have the stock Stennis, and a SC Stennis. Not that hard

I vote for Laobi to do a Newsletter for us one week. NL/BN let's make this happen guys!!!! LOL :pilotfly:

but hey, who needs a tailhook

Well since DCS does try to be as realistic as possible, maybe once they get the hook working they can insure that the landing gear functions like normal as well. Landing on a carrier is extremely demanding on the landing gear, hence why the Navy gear is so much more robust. With the vertical velocity we see in the Hornet and Tomcat during landing, the 16 gear should buckle under the force.;)

I already purchased this, so it is kinda a mute point for me, but I don't really understand ED's thought process here. I (just me) wouldn't think about asking for anything for free. This stuff costs money to create. I think we all get that. What is interesting is that this breaks tradition with other modules. You don't have to own it to place it. I don't really understand that one. Looking thru the thread I see only people that want to place the thing in a mission, not actually use it. Now, if the SC interacts with the map in different ways, I could maybe see their reasoning but they haven't said that. All in all I think this needs to be laid under the "wait and see" items. It sucks that people would miss out on this discount, which would mean if you haven't purchased yet you're probably not going too. ED needs to give a little more reasoning and thought process behind this choice, help us understand what they are thinking and why. Nothing crazy just a little bit more details.

Good bit of news in there. Waiting to see what makes it into the 2.5.6 launch. Channel maps looks amazing, as does the Jug of course. Going to be a great year in DCS.

I'm sure someone can mod that out. Not that it matters all that much to me. LITENING and ATFLIR don't look that much different to me (outside looks, not functionality)

I'm going to take just your PROs and explain why I'm a NOT GONNA HAPPEN. • A constant, reliable income for ED, which will allow them to spend more time developing the core game rather than new modules. This is arguably the biggest benefit. I could spend pages talking about how this could help ED, but I think it's pretty obvious. You are making the ASSUMPTION that ED has the staffing levels on hand to magically do this when a subscription is started. We have already been told by NL and BN plus countless others that they have teams that work on different things. It's not the entire ED team working on the Viper and nothing else. So BOOM, busted that one. • This reliable income would allow for a true live service, with constant servers run by the company. This would not stop communities from also running their own servers – perhaps the best of these could be supported by free hosting by ED. Hell, we could even have forum software developed after 2012. I fail to understand how this point is helpful in any way. We already see bi-weekly if not weekly updates to the core of DCS, plus whatever 3rd Party has tested and ready to go for that patch. On that last part, yes let's charge a subscription fee and then give away free space on those servers to Blue Flag, 104th, or F99th (just examples, as those are heavily played servers). Why do that when they run their servers quite well and your ping rate would be insane if everyone had to go through Russia to play online. This argument just doesn't hold water. Now dynamic online campaigns are a different beast. • ED becomes more accountable to the players. With a monthly subscription model, if the game is not in a good shape, players will cancel their subscriptions. Yes because Blizzard (WoW) and Bethesda (Fallout 76, ESO) have followed this path and it has all been hunky dory. NOT. I think the current model makes ED more accountable than a sub would. True they get there money upfront, but if that model doesn't have steady upgrades and improvements, good luck selling your next one. Remember F-18 owners going nuts about the 16 release when so much wasn't fixed or done on the 18. • ED is less likely to go out of business if the current pay-for-module method doesn't prove to be sustainable (personally, I don't think it is) Simple hyperbole on this bullet. because you have ZERO data to back up this claim, their is no reason to discuss it further. • The ability to focus on new features other than modules, such as a much-improved VR experience, a new graphics engine, better AI, etc. All of those myriad tasks that we want to see completed could start getting done, but which currently come second to modules. Again they have stated that other teams are working on these features. A lot of the modules are 3rd Party, meaning ED just has to give it a good test, make sure it doesn't break the game, and allow it to patch into Open Beta. 3rd Party takes care of their own modules, not ED. • The ability to start coming up with really outside-of-the-box ideas, such as an online dynamic campaign that can host squadrons, incorporate logistics and player hierarchies, mirroring the way Eve Online works with its corporations. Nothing really to argue here as those would be great improvements and great features. Only thing I will add is most of the milsim squadrons already do this kind of stuff (logistics, player hierarchies) and Co-Op between groups is pretty easy. I don't think ED should have to get involved in any of that stuff (minus Dynamic campaign of course) • Again borrowing from Eve Online, ED could host real world events each year, such as an annual DCS-con, where module makers, developers, modders, skinners and players could all get together to talk, drink and shoot each other down from the sky in a blaze of glory... sorry, I'm getting a little carried away by the possibilities that an annual subscription fee could bring. This is another that I don't really buy. We have multiple outlets for this kind of interaction. Grim Reapers meeting up at RIAT 2019, for example. Remember this is a worldwide community and a rather niche one at that. Look at the end of the day, their are always arguments for or against different things. One thing I think you might want to stop doing is trying to relate DCS to other games. WoW, Fallout, ESO, or EVE Online all have dynamic structure and economies within them, which is something DCS doesn't do or even need. DCS is horrifyingly simple, purchase an aircraft, now spend months or years fully learning how to employ it on the battlefield. It's one of the reasons they don't want you talking about other games or other game companies (I'm waiting for BN or NL to bust me for mentioning the ones I did). I'm a gamer, I play a lot of different games on console and PC, and DCS is like none of them, it is it's own wonderful, nightmare fuel that I keep coming back to because I enjoy the challenge. I don't see how a subscription improves DCS, for those of us that enjoy the study sim. So again, NO SUBSCRIPTION.

What is a cold War playground exactly? Langley, Moscow, DC? If we get Syria from 3rd Party, that opens up the play style (more desert not in the US), same with Afghanistan. I wouldn't want any map that I could utilize all the assets I have purchased. Bring on the Channel map, mixed with the free Marianas Islands, more area to play in. And as a hornet owner, I'm still pre-ordering the Nimitz, so no sweet off my back there.

Holy crap, that is a lot of great information and plenty to look forward to in 2020. Gonna be a great year of flying. Congrats ED and all 3rd Party. Your work is greatly appreciated.

And this is why we can't have nice things. We are simply talking and/or reading about how two systems can complement each other. Why does every topic created in the forums have to boil back to delays, broken promises, can't get what I want when I want it? Why can't people just talk about what they would like to see in DCS or ask how to learn something new without these kinda of overtly negative/adds zero to the discussion comments? I think they two planes will complement each other quite nicely, at least if you have good mission design and competent pilots. Either way it's good fun all around.

Oh come on, you telling me you wouldn't try to put it down on the deck? I mean for us in DCS that's the only reason to have it. I wonder if anyone has tried to take her off the Kuznetzov yet? YouTube should have that answer.

Nope, I have already paid for most of the modules, I'm not interesting in paying them monthly without them giving some hardcore promises. Plus I'm happy with the current plan

I'm pumped for the updates all around, Hornet AND Viper. Should be a fun and interesting couple of months.

Awesome thank you. Hopefully I can get this fixed for Apache ASAP

I'm the one that updated the skin for Apache600, anyway you can post a screenshot of the issue? When I load them up I see no ghosting on the skins.