Callsign112

+1, and they could throw in a Vietnam map while their are at it.

Agreed, but I watched the video and can't say he gives many clues in terms of what he was referring to. At one point it sounded like he was referring to what others had said about the drag, but I was expecting to hear him talk more specifically about why he felt it was too high, but he didn't. Regarding the Yak's FM, I wouldn't know how to go about modeling, or even tuning the FM of a plane, but I do have a limited experience using CFD software to model very complex fluid flows and I doubt very much that is how it works. I highly doubt anything was ported from another plane. Certainly the DCS Yak is different from any of the other props in DCS including the CEII as they all are. Again, I am wondering if some of what is being translated here are the difference between a computer model and the way a human pilot feels feedback in real life.

No I found the old thread after the fact, but plan on repeating. Having said that, switching to an external tank after the fuselage tank was empty worked fine using the same MAP as before the change. The problem begins when I went to switch to the other external to help balance weight. The engine would cut out forcing me to switch back. I was able to completely use up all the fuel in the one external, and all 3 internal tanks. But as a modeled plane in DCS, having the external tanks modeled so that they work correctly are just as important as the ram air issues IMO. I don't see this observation any more or less important than the observations made about belt composition for example.

My initial comments were in reference to your groups view point that because you can see and shoot at the SC and other free assets, you should be able to do the same with assets from the pack. There are vast differences between the SC and the assets pack. Being able to see the SC is like being able to see other planes that you don't own fly around. The value in the SC or other flyable modules is not in being able to see/shoot them. This should be so blatantly obvious to everyone that it shouldn't need to be discussed further. But apparently not for your group. The value of the assets on the other hand comes from being able to see them. There wouldn't be much point for movie theaters if everyone was able to see the films for free. This should also be blatantly obvious. But again, apparently not for your grouup. I don't mind paying for the assets pack because I use it, and I want to see it developed further. There are after all a lot of assets still missing that would be really nice to have. And I don't see that happening, especially not in a timely manner, without support. I also purchased all the war birds not because I have gotten around to learning/flying them all, but because I want to see more WWII planes developed. I would not mind paying extra for a map/module because it included assets. And I think allowing non-owners to join a server where they are restricted from using the assets would be an effective way to solve the problem being created when a group of people want to join a server that requires the assets pack. In other words, I think it could work, but I am not here to tell ED what its business model should be. They produce the products, and I decide if I want to purchase them. I also think that even if ED did implement something like this, it would likely cause other problems. So I get why ED might not even bother. If RAZBAM includes assets with a map it releases in 2023, excellent, but the WWII Assets pack and Normandy map were released before, so it is a poor example to support the demand that the assets pack be free, or that some workaround be implemented so that non-owners can join but no use. Which is sort of what your doing with your SC example. The SC and Assets pack are two very different products, leaving your use of it in this discussion pointless. And fake means fake. Not being able to play a computer game because you aren't equipped to play is not an excuse to demand that you be equipped for free. By your groups own admission, the response to servers that require the Assets pack was to go join one that doesn't require it... Problem solved, making this entire discussion fake because it is based on a fabricated problem. If you own the Assets pack, then you have no problem joining what ever server you want. If you don't, and you refuse to purchase, then you are free to join/start your own server that doesn't use it. I think that is what members of your group did, and yet they are still here explaining how the Assets pack is somehow a problem for them. The only problem being pointed to by your group is that it can't use a product it doesn't want, or see a value in. Again, if they see no value in it, or potentially don't care for it, no one is forcing them to shell out money for it. You are trying to create what I would call a fake scenario, because the simple answer is, DON'T BUY IT, go start a server that doesn't require the Assets pack, and you should have pretty much solved your problem along with anyone else that refuses to purchase. The Assets pack isn't preventing anyone from accessing MP game play. Have you ever heard the rule, no shirt, no shoes, no service? There is a similar concept being applied when a server has restrictions. And like your misuse of the SC example, it might help your outlook some by realizing that assets and maps have more in common in the way they deliver value than assets and flyable modules/SC does. The fact that a company might include assets with a map sometime in the future doesn't change that.

Yeah this argument is almost laughable. Personally, I am here because I want to be. When I am ready for HB's F14, I think I would much prefer just buying it instead of claiming HB somehow owes me the thing for free. PM me regarding the assets giveaway.

Yes you can shoot at/interact with free assets. Were you expecting something different? The key word though is FREE. ED has gifted a selection of assets, two free maps, two free planes, and a very decent free trial period of any and all available modules. There is enough there that anyone interested can get started in DCS and learn more about what it has to offer. But why are you confusing the free assets with the assets pack? The fact that ED decided to give us a selection of free assets does not mean they have to gift the entire assets pack away. And I don't disagree with the concept that non-owners could join, but just not interact with paid assets, but why should ED have to jump through those hoops? It would a lot easier for anyone wanting to join a MP server to just get the maps/assets required. But what I find funny is the fake argument that the assets pack is dividing the community. What about the player? Shouldn't the player be responsible for the games he/she plays. Why don't I have the same problem as your friends? I can join a MP server if I want to. Why is that? I can also play paid Campaigns without any issues. Why is that? And if you know, don't you think you should let your friends in on the little secret?

Let me know if your serious about the assets pack gift. Should be pretty simple to do.

Dude, forget these guys. I'm in for one Assets pack during the next sale. How do we pick the two luck people?

CA and the WWII assets pack is how I was introduced to DCS. I didn't actually have plans to get into the flying side mostly because I don't have the system to really support it, but having enjoyed flight SIMs since before color monitors were a thing, I gave in mostly because there is only so much drooling one can do on the dashboard of a TF-51D. But I still consider CA hands down the best value for the money I spent in DCS. I know that probably wouldn't hold true if I was in MP, but I have gotten more use out of Single Player CA than any other module I own. Just the number of drive-able vehicles, including the ones that come with the WWII assets pack, is amazing not to mention all of the other modeled equipment you get. But having said that, I probably have a higher interest in the ground war than what is obviously the average player here. But yeah I completely agree, the CA/WWII assets pack has really added multiple dimensions to my DCS experience. So +1 @Beirut @Tippis, I don't know what else to say. Like I said, I won't follow you on this further. Lets leave it for another thread. I'm sure we wont have to wait too long. I asked why you expend so much energy and time on something you clearly don't see a value in, now I have to really wonder. I wish I could help you out somehow. I realize that I am in the more comfortable position here being completely happy with my Assets pack purchase, but outside of understanding that you have the completely opposite feeling, I don't see what your point is, or where your taking this. I think I got it, people you know refuse to purchase the Assets pack, but the problem has nothing to do with purchasing it, and no-one has the Assets pack, but we should understand that as an imaginary step in a pattern. If you ask me, I think the whole got a little cra-cra about 10 pages ago. So yeah.... hows that server thing bin workin out for ya

+1. They keep suggesting/stating that improvements to the ground war are coming. Hopefully with the growing interesting in helicopters they have a serious reason to do it.

I won't follow you on this any further, because I think we have both made our points/positions clear. But I will point out before closing the thread with you is that I wasn't talking about you polling a forum to try and form a guess on how much of a problem it might be. What I was talking about is your claim that "no-one has the asset pack". That is a bold statement, and one that would require more than just your own personal feelings to back up. Just a simple click on a few of the "campaign" vendors linked on this forum alone can easily demonstrate that your comments are inaccurate. It is fairly easy to see that the Assets pack is in fact owned by a considerable number of people that have downloaded DCS. Even by your own admission, you yourself own it, so your comment that no-one has the asset pack is a little bizarre to say the least. And I was not using myself as the sample to make a point, I simply can't speak for anyone else here, but the point made is valid, your conclusion completely misses the mark as it relates to me as a new player. There is nothing subjective about that. I can't tell you how other people are using the Assets pack, but what I can tell you is that your claims are not even close to being accurate based on my own experience. But anyway, I will continue using the Assets pack, while you continue to entertain the patrons of your server with Assets Pack free missions.

The only problem I see is that the difference wont quite cover that Starbucks coffee on your way into work one morning

Hey thanks very much for this. My flight doesn't fit into your chart exactly, but I should probably expect to be somewhere between 92 to 90 GPH. I was 5k feet at 2600/46. The problem was not the trip planning though, it was that one of the external tanks didn't seem to work. Using your chart to estimate the GPH with a fuel capacity based on only one external tank, the range/flight time works out to be pretty close actually. With only one external tank working, that means I was able to make use of 344 Gal. Taking 92 from the chart, that should give me about 3.7 hours of air time, and I was actually closer to 3.2 when I ran out of fuel. With an average speed close to 310 mph for 3.2 hours should give me about 1580+ km, which is real close to the actual distance covered. The point being that using your chart, I am able to confirm I was able to use the fuel from only 1 tank. The question is why? Is it something I am doing, or a left over bug from 2014?

Well I went back to read the other thread to see if I could find the text that raised the question for me and I think this was part of it: "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." TBH, its hard to follow what it is your actually trying to say, except that you seem to think the assets pack has caused a near collapse of the DCS Eco-system. Of course I am not claiming to know anymore than you in terms of what the actual situation is, but something tells me you might be surprised to discover actual sales numbers of the Assets pack. What I can tell you with absolute certainty though is that your entire post has gotten it completely wrong in terms of how it relates to me as a new player. "1) asset pack never used -> 2)no reason to ever build missions using the asset pack -> 3:) no content means no reason to buy the pack ->4) no-one has the asset pack, be they new or old -> 5) the asset pack can't be used because the most important asset is the players -> 5) asset pack is never used… repeat" 1.) Everyone that joins the various servers that require the Assets pack, and anyone that has purchased one of Reflected's WWII campaigns has used the Assets pack 2) Extensive reasons are provided in the countless MP and SP missions/campaigns/servers that use it. 3)The Assets pack is loaded with content, and more is apparently on the way. It has certainly gotten better even in the short period of time I have been here. 4) This is stretching the limits of your own subjective feelings, and I'm affraid you would need more than a forum post to back it up. 5) The Assets pack is very well used. I myself use it every single time I turn DCS on.

Edit ( @Beirut, had to edit this because I didn't quote you, and then found the long post between us when I finally did.) Considering the price point of the Assets pack especially on sale, I can't honestly say it was something I had to seriously think about For me the much bigger issue was deciding whether or not I should get involved in DCS World to begin with. But just in the short time I have been here, ED has made some really nice additions to the assets pack that I never even expected, so I couldn't be happier with the goodwill ED has shown. And I haven't tried the MP thing yet, but in addition to all the use I get out of it with my own SP missions, I can also enjoy the MP server thing without any hassle if and when I want. And then there are the campaigns that I am able to open with it. I haven't bought many, and haven't even completed the few I did buy, but very happy, and seriously impressed with the couple I picked up from Reflected. Really like the skins you get with his campaigns too. Just another perk the Assets pack helped me unlock I guess.

Yeah but I bought the SC so I'm ready when it finally does happen.

He does mention in the video linked by the OP that his comments are based on his initial observations, so more or less his feelings of the DCS model compared to his own experience. Could some of the discrepancy he sees be related to differences in the way the stick/control surfaces feel in a real plane compared to the feedback you get in a computer simulation?

No one I am sure wants a divided community. But just to demonstrate how wrong your assertion that the Assets pack shouldn't even be made is, go back to a time when DCS World consisted of a single map and 1 helicopter. That was before my time here, but I can't imagine anyone would have said back then, thanks but no thanks, we're good with just the one map and helicopter. Everything added to DCS World since that time is an advancement IMO. And you said in the other thread that you stopped using the Assets pack on your server to calm the complaints, but that there were negative aspects for doing so. I wanted to ask, but never got the chance, what are the negatives if your so set against it even being a thing? Seems to me both you and the players that frequent your server should be happy now. I'm just trying to understand why you expend so much time and energy talking about something you see no value in.

Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't it already suggested that 2022 will see the Vulkan/multi-thread stuff completed? Hopefully if it is, we will start to see more progress on a lot of the other issues soon.

Great suggestion!

Good stuff! I think the OP should really appreciate this.

+1

I just checked the distance of my planned route in the mission editor, which was about 1640 km. This should be well bellow the P-51s range with external tanks, but I ran out of fuel before reaching my destination.

Did it last night.... seems to be still the case! You only have booster pumps for the 3 internal tanks. Fighter sweep was selected to bring up external tanks as the load out, then Fuel was set to 100%. This put me to 105% As long as the fuel shut-off valve is on, the correct booster pump is activated with the fuel selector valve for the internal tanks. One external tank worked, switching to the other would kill the engine.

It might, but if the computer was donated I'm assuming its no longer at the office. Unless of course they donated the office as well.