Callsign112

+1. Any chance you might consider applying for a job at ED. We could really use someone on the inside!

+1 @upyr1. The problem seems to be the ground war is waiting behind the people waiting behind the people waiting behind the people waiting for fixes to planes. The ray of hope is that with the rising popularity of helicopters in DCS, deficiencies in ground units/Ai logic is becoming more and more noticeable.

Well said, thanks. When you buy a plane/jet/helicopter, the reason you buy it and the value you take from it is not in watching someone else fly around in it, it is doing the flying part yourself. This naturally means that you can shoot at other players in other planes. The same can be said for the SC. You can gawk at F18s launching off its deck as you whiz by in your CEII, but that is not the value of having the SC, and certainly not why you would buy it. You will buy the SC and PG map to increase the mission scenarios you can fly, and to immerse yourself into the world of a Navy fighter pilot. On top of that, I am willing to bet that SC sales are strongly linked to the popularity of modules like the F18, F14, PG map. So in addition to being a module in its own right with its own set of features that are definitely worth getting if you want that type of experience, it has a very well established customer base to draw from. The functionality you get from the WWII assets pack are the interactions it allows you to make with the world you place them in. The ability to lob bombs, rockets, bullets at them is the entire reason why you would buy the Assets pack. Sure ED could make it so that non-owners could fly on the same server and not receive any benefit from the assets themselves, but why should they bother wasting the time to do it? Put your thinking caps on people, its not that hard to figure out if you really want to join that server.

I am fairly new here, but after following a number of relevant threads, it is easy to understand all the frustration that has built up from long periods of waiting for things to be fixed. The benefit for me I suppose is that reading all these threads has caused me to step back and ask why would anyone, let alone a company, want to create such frustration? All of this has made me wonder if part of the problem ED initially faced was not having a large enough inventory of flyable modules that would allow them to sustain operations while they go back and address bug fixes and other issues? And adding to that problem as things progressed is the obvious elephant in the room, a growing expectation on the SIM to generate a more immersive environment (i.e. VR). I know this take on things can't explain everything, but my hope is that the current inventory of flyable modules/tech packs/maps is sufficient, and after the incoming major core updates (Vulkan/multi-thread) are in place to better support things like VR, we will start to see more updates/bug fixes to previously released modules/maps/tech packs. Fingers crossed

I agree with @Mike_Romeo, the Su-25T is a lot of fun, especially as a free introduction to DCS World. And my feeling is it does a great job guiding anyone that develops a taste for that type of flying to get the A-10C when they want to go the full Monty. And for first time users, 2 weeks is barely enough to get through the manual, tune your system, and practice startup/taxi procedures. That is why I think the TF-51D still holds value as an introduction to DCS. Especially if the new user is planning on buying the armed version for online game play. He/she is going to need a lot more than two weeks to really understand how to fly and manage the Mustang in DCS. But regarding the A-10A, what do you guys recommend. Is it worth getting the FC3 module, or just the plane I'm interested in. The point of getting it would be for the Hog and the Eagle, so I could save $20 by getting just those two.

Thanks guys, its at least good to know its on the table.

It would definitely be useful to see them add more to this element of the SIM.

+1 and I am with you 100%. But considering it took almost 10 years to get an unmanned anti-tank gun, my guess is this wish might be only a decade or two ahead of its time. The ground war side of DCS could really use a revisit. The recent addition of ATG's helped a little, but infantry units have no way of dealing with armor. Its impossible to build mission scenarios that include infantry against armor, or a well placed MG nest holding a choke point. So as an extension to your call for more infantry, which we could definitely use, could ED please revisit the WWII ground war side of DCS with some additions/updates. Thanks.

Well he did include FC3 planes, and wasn't it @Tippis that pointed out some had their computers donated?

Did a long range flight on the Marianas map last night. 100% fuel with external tanks. Was only able to get one external tank to work, so I thought I maybe found a new bug... until I found this The mustang might be turning 10, but so are all its bugs. It would be nice to see all of these issues fixed.

Yeah I do enjoy reading all of the suggestions you make. I think most of what we discuss back and forth would prove to be real fertile ground for ED, so much so that it would likely keep several additional teams busy full time. All good points, but for me the main point is what we have today. And what we have today requires that we have the Assets pack for certain servers/campaigns. If they ever decide to change that, and I think there were some really good suggestions coming from your groups corner, then I will be happy just the same as long as we continue seeing improvements in assets and Ai logic. What ever system ED decides on, I think the only way we can hope to see continued development is if there is continued support. But again if anyone wants to improve the capabilities of their DCS install today, I am really recommending all of the tech packs and maps your budget allows. The flyable modules are obviously the main attraction, but the tech packs/maps really add to what you can do with the flyable modules. But I also realize that is not a solution, or even possible for everyone.

You could probably add "continue increasing the value of the WWII Assets pack" as a way to make it that must have tech pack for your DCS install.

You are doing exactly what you are accusing @Beirut of. You ignored the meaning of my text, and simply replaced it with a non-answer. I won't carry this on much further because I don't think your discussion point has remained logical. You were asked how you know this is even a problem. Your response was that you run a server and you hear the complaints. So if we took the hypothetical that every one showing up at your server owned the Assets pack, by your own admission, you wouldn't be hearing about the complaints. Yes its true that the restriction that is caused when a player WHO HASN'T PURCHASED THE ASSETS PACK shows up at any given server requiring it would still exist, but the reason it exists is because the player didn't PURCHASE! This is the root cause of the problem that is commonly described as a split community. But none of this matters because in everything you posted to this thread so far, not a single comment has considered the company that has taken on the responsibility of bringing the Assets pack to market. Unfortunately, someone at ED doesn't click his/her fingers and an assets pack appears ready for sale. And unfortunately, the company responsible for the Assets pack doesn't appear to agree with the business model you would like to see it pursue. I have no idea what ED's bottom line looks like, what business model they use to remain in business, or what their future plans are, but something tells me that you guys are oversimplifying things, and that you are confusing the reasoning behind a decision ED made for one product with the reasoning it uses to decide on another product. These issue might look like the same thing to you and I, but there is very likely a gravity to the situation that is not being considered in this discussion.

I would like to just say again that I think the OP raised a really good point. I like the idea of a Cold War Assets pack, and would definitely pay for it, but if there is any overlap with WWII assets, the asset itself should be part of the WWII pack. The Cold War pack could have updated skins for the assets, and any additional vehicles/equipment that were specifically from that time period. But getting back to your point, I think both you and @Tippis are missing a major point in that you are both using an oversimplification of the way things work "for literally everything else in DCS". There are vast differences between flyable modules, a tech pack like the SC, and the WWII Assets pack. And none of these differences touch on other important factors that would have to be included in this type of discussion like for example the company, its development team, and how its business model works. I will let you think about that first because any realizations you make might change your point of view.

I think you are confusing the actual problem with the net effect of the problem. The actual problem is that a group of people haven't purchased the Assets pack for whatever reason... hence the split community. The net effect of the problem as you are experiencing it is that people are complaining they are being locked out. The only commonsense solutions to this, at least for the people frequenting your server, would be to either purchase the assets pack, or convince you to stop using it on your server. I think that is what @Beirut has been trying to tell you for nearly 5 pages now. The net effect does not nullify the root source of the problem. @Beirut is spot on in pointing out the root cause of the problem. You are spot on for pointing out the net effect as you experience it, but claiming that the need to pay for the Assets pack is in no way shape or form related to the problem is wrong, because it is inexplicably attached as the source.

I would like to discuss this further with you. Start another thread about asset development using your description of how the SC works for both paying and Non-paying customers. I think there might be something missing from yours and @Tippis arguments that could be worth discussing.

@Tippis, but I would be happy to answer this from my point of view if you, @Northstar98 and whoever else like, but maybe it would be better in another thread. Out of respect for the OP, I think we are straying a little off topic. I see this as actually a really important topic though because I think it feeds into the even bigger and more important topic of asset development.

Sorry for not being more direct here, but to answer your question I guess it could go either way really. Basically IMO, if the equipment/vehicle was made and used during WWII, then it should be a WWII asset. You can always use the asset in what ever scenario you like, but in terms of purchasing the asset to be included with your DCS install, it makes more sense to me if it would be kept as part of the WWII Assets pack. But I don't think this should stop the developer from providing an update 50's skin for the old equipment/vehicle. In terms of the vehicle/equipment model, it would already be done, but a 50's asset pack could simply include a skin for what ever country was using the asset at that time.

I think you missed my point, all a player has to do is choose to buy the assets pack, and he/she will circumvent the code that is keep you from joining the server. No need to use a hack. As a principle of business, you are normally restricted from using things you haven't purchased. If you wold like to see more assets added in less time, pretty much the only way this could even have a chance of happening is if you support the assets pack with a purchase. Which leads me to ask if you don't mind, do you actually own the assets pack?

To the black bold text above, it actually takes very little player choice to make a world of difference as it relates to this conversation. Al any player has to do is decide he/she is going to buy the assets pack. To the purple bold text above, I completely agree. This is exactly why any player would decide to buy the assets pack. It holds a lot of value even if all that is being considered is the front row seat it gets you on your MP server/campaign of choice. To the red bold text above I completely disagree. Not because I want to add more comedy to this discussion, but because there is a fundamental principle of business that is being trespassed here, and I find it hard to believe you don't see it as well. Sticking with the movie example above, what should we tell the guy in the ticket booth, your going to just eat popcorn and you promise not to peak?

I didn't say your disappointing me, I said I think your slipping a little. I have to admit though, this entire conversation has turned a little bit humorous to say the least. As long as it stays civil, I think we will be okay on this one. Its weak because the assets aren't what's dividing the community, it is the people that are choosing to be divided. I don't see any point in continuing the discussion on whether or not your argument has anything to do with buying the assets pack when the very point of your argument stems from the fact that a group of people didn't buy it. We're just going to have to let the logic catch up to you on this point. Take a step back for a moment @Northstar98, because the points you make are usually really well thought out. The movie in the example given is more analogous to a map/asset. Its value is appreciated more visually. The plane module you fly is more like the popcorn. Its value is more of a teeth/hands-on proposition. But IMO, the assets pack holds a lot of value. And I for one hope its value continues to expand. Whether you are a SP only, MP, or both, the assets pack is well worth it. As a single player guy, I can tell you my missions are a lot more interesting because I have it. But even if all it does is give you access to MP servers, how do you argue against a one-time admission fee of $15? And its not just access to MP servers, it also gives you access to any campaigns that require it as well. So anyone new following this thread, don't fall for the fake argument that your are being locked out of MP servers. Pick the asset pack up when its on sale for $15. For starters, you wont have to bother with the whole "I forgot my shoes so they won't let me in the restaurant' fiasco. And then as you expand your horizons in DCS and get interested in some of the really good campaign content available, your all ready good to go. No fuss, no muss. And then probably much later on, when you decide to tackle the beast within that is the mission editor, you will be very happy you bought the Assets pack, and will likely be scratching your head wondering what all this was about.

Your point is well made. I don't think there is any value in repeating it over and over again along side you. What you seem to be missing is that if paying for it isn't the problem, then the follow-through logic would be that everyone would own it.... hence no problem. That is clearly not the case. You keep repeating that buying the assets pack is not the problem, but you seem to be missing the fact that your argument is built around a group of people that haven't purchased it.

@Northstar98, normally I am pretty impressed with your contributions on this forum, but I have to say I think you slipping a little here pal. The entire argument about the assets pack splitting the community is IMO extremely weak, and the argument being presented here in its support seems to have run out of both logic and steam. It seems to be digressing into what a group of people think a companies stance should be concerning its business model more than anything else. You on the other hand make a very good point, although I think you are missing a very important piece of the puzzle. That being the reason why you can fly on the same server with aircraft you don't own, but you cant do that with maps/assets. The reason is VALUE. If you stop for a moment to consider the value of the things your comparing, I think things will clear up a bunch for you. The value of a plane/jet/helicopter module isn't in seeing one fly by, its in being in it as it flies by something. The value of a map is obviously the world it creates for you to fly around in and experience. And the value of an asset is to be able to interact/see it as you fly around in the world the map created. Its a little like going to the movies. The value of popcorn gets extracted as you munch. But if you were able to see the movie without paying to watch it, you would basically be building a business model that would put movie theaters permanently out of operation. So there would be very little value for a company like ED to produce assets that everyone could see/interact with, but don't have to pay for. TBH, ED could really solve this if they wanted to spend the time doing it. I don't recommend they do considering everything else that needs to be done. But what they could do is as you suggest, allow everyone to join the server, but only asset owners could interact with and see the asset detail. Non-owners would see a block that they could shoot at, but would have no damage model/interaction what so ever. Then and only then would the crowd blaming the assets pack for the very thing they are responsible for would see the value in buying the pack for $15. All owners would get the satisfaction of seeing their target being destroyed as their rounds zero in. That would be fair. Every on could be on the same server, the only difference is you get what you pay for. At the end of the day, no one I am sure wants to see the community divided. Its is up to each individual to decide what they want to purchase and use.

But didn't your crowd just build an argument around... "it has nothing to do with the price"? And its not that I am disagreeing with the point you just made. To be honest, I could care less if the assets were included with any/all of the WWII maps, and in doing so, they had to increase the cost of the map or another part of the SIM. What I care about is that we actually see more improved assets, which we so desperately need. But what would your suggestion achieve? At this point, I would say all your really arguing about is the business model being used. In other words, all it would do is change the above text to read: "sorry guys can't get in on the fun, ED has locked me out with their $15 assets pack. I would have bought it though had they just added the $15 to the Normandy map... ouch! The funny thing is, we both own the Assets pack, but we are here helping create a divide within the community discussing how the assets pack is creating a divide in the community. TBH, I bought the assets pack because I see the value in it without even considering the benefit it would bring if I ever want to join a MP server. I have no control over what modules someone else purchases, all I can say is if joining MP servers are important to you and you need the assets pack to do it, well then its not that complicated to figure out. The upside of helping more people figure it out means that we are all more likely to see more/better assets quicker.

So if its not about the price, then there is absolutely no reason for anyone interested in joining a MP server not to join. Take a moment to think about what you are saying. So you spent hundreds if not thousands on a computer rig, HOTAS, VR,... blah, blah, blah. Then you paid full swat for the Mossie because you just couldn't wait, but then again wait.... you can't join the MP server of your choice because your trying to take some sort of rebel stand against paying $15 for an assets pack? Really? Maybe you should be trying to convince everyone just how important that MP experience is to you, because I'm not buying it! If after spending literally thousands of dollars just to be able to fly with my friends on a MP server I turned around and said... sorry guys can't get in on the fun, ED has locked me out with their $15 assets pack... ouch! And just as your quote above suggests, you can take any available module in DCS, including the F18 as the perfect example. You are right in that not having a particular plane/jet/helicopter will not prevent you from flying a mission like the assets pack will, unless the mission you want to fly requires the flyable module your missing. I think the point @Beirut was trying to make is that every module can be seen as a splitting factor if you don't have it. If all your friends want to fly F18's off the SC, and all you have are prop planes, then your the odd man out and you have a problem. 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. And that of course would be much better then supporting the DCS eco-system to generate more interesting map environments with more interesting assets. Because lets face it, that is why we want the development team responsible for bringing DCS World to life to make the most realistic models of the planes/jets/helicopters we all want to fly.... So that we can fly them in the most uninteresting environment possible... on a MP server! Yeah right.