Callsign112

Really well said, thanks. It's nice to hear from someone with such a positive outlook, especially with your experience. I am relatively new here, and really get all the frustration with all the waiting that goes on. But as much as I couldn't blame anyone for getting frustrated after such long waiting periods, I think some have let the extremely high level of frustration that has built up take over their better judgement. I mean if we take a step back for a moment so that we can think about this with more clarity, what could ED possibly gain by keeping people waiting? Why would they want to do that? If they could just pump out the modules and fix all the bugs, why wouldn't they just do that when doing so would bring more sales? There must be a reason, and my guess is that there is a lot more work going into these modules and DCS World in general then the average gamer gives credit for. This is not the cookie cutter express, where flying one plane is like flying them all. I absolutely love the DCS war birds. Of the six modules I collected so far, nothing can be more obvious to me then how different each one is to fly. The amount of attention to detail given to each of these models is incredible IMO. If ED could have pumped out 10 more models in the same time period, they would have obviously done that for the increased revenue, but clearly they can't, not at least if we want this level of detail. Issues with early access are unfortunate, but I am 100% certain that without it, ED would not be able to develop. Even with EA, I would bet that ED still has to carry a large part of the financial burden needed to complete each project, and they do that without any guarantee of a return on investment. But I think the issue is even bigger than that, and the push to make more modules available is also necessary. I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the reason ED has released a number of new planes before going back to fix older issues, and my guess is that we will see improvements in ED's ability to address bug fixes as the inventory of available modules increases. Like you, I am 100% confident that the Yak-52 will be completed, ED just has more pressing issues it HAS to deal with before it can.

What an amazing resource, thank you so much for supporting this community the way you have.

I get what you mean, but I wonder if you wouldn't be able to make you point clearer by comparing the rate of climb just before landing with the rate of climb your seeing at touchdown? I think the problem has less to do with the suspension of your landing gear, and more to do with the tail dropping. If the idea is to see how well this is modeled in DCS, couldn't you check it by pulling back on the stick just before touchdown to compare it with your rate of climb after the bounce? If you can duplicate your planes weight, speed, angle, and rate of drop, your rate of climb when you pull back on the stick just before touchdown should be close to what you are seeing in the bounce if DCS is modeled right. A wheel landing is like reversing the steps used to take-off, while a 3-point landing skips over one of the steps. I have seen a number of videos that show landings (wheel/3-point) without bouncing, but also wonder if the bounce/skip that you also often see isn't exaggerated a little in DCS. Its not only sloping down, but the field is not level either. So there are little ups and downs (bumps) as the general slope of the grade is dropping.

You are answering to a post I sent someone else, and yet just like last Thursday here we are again! That is called a double standard StevanJ. You want to control the public discussion so that it fits your narrative, and if you can't do that, you PM the person in an attempt to remove the part of the story that doesn't fit your narrative from the public eye. And if that doesn't work, you claim your being followed and that someone else is responsible for the discussion that doesn't fit your narrative because they quoted you. Do you realize you just asked me 4 questions while quoting a post that was directed at someone else? This is a public forum StevanJ, and while we have a difference of opinion regarding assets, I am not doing anything different then you are. I am simply stating my opinion. If you don't want to receive comments that oppose your point of view, then you have the option to stop posting them. Others have told you that everyone knows how you feel, I think flogging a dead horse was the way it was put the last time. But you are just as free to continue posting your comments as everyone else is. Its unfortunate that you feel my offer was meant as an insult, because it really wasn't. I said I would help your group by providing 2 people with access to the assets pack, I didn't say I was going to pay your monthly salary. So here is the logic I used StevanJ; I thought making missions was something you are doing anyway. So I didn't see the time it would take you to make a campaign as anything different from what you are doing now. At the end of your efforts, you might have something with commercial value, so I saw that as potentially being time well spent on your side. I in turn was going to provide 2 people in your group with the assets pack so they could at least try out your new campaign in support of your efforts. I thought that part would help address the issue you keep complaining about here. I mean isn't that the claimed problem? The people in your group can't enjoy all of your hard work because they refuse to purchase the assets pack? But if the value of 2 copies is only worth an hour of your time, and you don't consider that as being generous enough, then you could as an alternative strategy just donate the 2 copies yourself. Heck you could even wait for a sale and donate the assets pack to 4 people in your group. Its up to you, but I just thought that since this is such a big problem for you, instead of having to repeat it every second day on a forum, you would be happy to find even just a partial solution.... Hence my offer. And my offer was not asking you to pick who can and can't fly the campaign you made. I don't think anyone is asking you to do that. Each individual in your group will decide that for themselves. But this might be the biggest part of your problem. Why do you feel responsible for what the rest of your group does? I mean your the one that bought the assets pack, so if you want to make missions for your group, then you have two obvious options. But the reason you might want to consider making a campaign with the intention of commercializing it on ED's website is not to reach out to just the 30 people in your group, it is to reach out to the thousands of DCS World users. And no I would not do two weeks work for £80, and no one is asking you to do that either. After doing all the hard work, I was offering to help you by making your new campaign available to at least 2 people in your group, 4 if we do it during a sale. And as I have already mentioned, regardless of what the people in your group do, you wouldn't be working two weeks for £80, because you would be creating the commercial possibility of selling it to more than just the people in your group. Regarding a comparison between WWII and modern era modules, the question I asked you was have you ever considered the cost difference between a war bird and a modern jet module? You noted that there are more free assets for modern scenarios. I was just pointing out that in general, the modern jet modules cost more, and there is also a lot bigger selection of jets, so more sales. You can't compare requirements for the different campaigns that are available for the purpose we were discussing. If the intention is to make a fair apples for apples comparison, then you should compare the average cost of one war bird with the average cost of one jet. Anything you add to one side, you have to add to the other to make the comparison fair. Your comparison fails by simply including a campaign with different requirements. And more than that, by bringing one developers campaign requirements into the type of discussion we are having, you are entering into territory that could be seen as impinging on someone else's right to decide what requirements they give their own campaigns. You drawing this into the discussion does little more than call into question another developers design in the guise of a comparison. My offer to help your group in the way that I have suggested still stands. You are welcome to PM me if you would like to discuss it further. Other than that StevanJ, I am just posting my opinion on a public forum.

But that is like saying you can only play on-line games that you have in common with your friends. Isn't that common sense? If you have an on-line game that your friend doesn't own, how do you expect to play it with him/her if they have no interest in owning it? The question was, why should you concern yourself with the fact that your friend doesn't own a game you bought? How many people check with all their friends to make sure they all like a game before buying it? If that sounds reasonable to anyone, then the onus is on them to check if all their friends approve. Having failed to do that likely means they will just have to live with the fact that they bought a game their friends don't like. Most people make purchases based on their own interests, not someone else's. And if your friend wants to belong to your group, wouldn't it make more sense to leave it up to him to meet the groups requirements, instead of expecting the group to conform to the single player? If you are the only one in the group that owns the assets pack, then the first question is why did you buy it, and the second question is why complain endlessly about it on a forum? You bought it, if you don't like it then chalk it up to experience and move on because no one is forcing you to use it to make mission you know your friends wont/can't/refuse to play. The whole argument sounds like nothing more than TROLL bait.

You are probably right, I mean what are you supposed to think when someone's point of view is that you don't value something if you purchased it on sale? Where I come from, the value of something increases when on sale. It makes me wonder though if the community sees someone making a purchase during a sale as not supporting/valuing DCS World, how does the same community see a friend who refuses to purchase regardless of a sale? And what should you think if after offering to support someone in recognition of their work, they not only return the favor with insults by suggesting your offered support wasn't good enough, but they accuse you of trolling as well? I mean aside from trying to sincerely help increase the size of someones MP squadron by providing free access to the WWII Assets pack, which is apparently a pretty big issue for some, you would think it would be obvious that any financial gain from a proposition like that would come from sales, not the amount of support given to incentivize the work. But that misunderstanding might also help explain how someone could believe that an open Beta patch update could somehow only affect missions sold on a website. And if that isn't rich enough, apparently it is because I am constantly quoting him that has caused him to continue contributing to this discussion. Apparently he has asked and pleaded, but forgets that he was the one doing the following after my response to sirrah and Aarnoman last Thursday at 11:37. And while I am also being accused for side stepping/not reading questions, the question I asked which was never answered but simply sidestepped with another question was whether consideration was ever given to the price difference between the Mustang and the Hornet. The cost of campaign requirements is a mute point because campaigns can be made with, or without requirements. Everyone has access to the mission editor, and specific assets/maps are not a requirement. But regardless of the campaign and or its requirements, it cannot be used unless you own the plane module needed to complete it.

@StevanJ, its not that I think your argument is poor, its that I think it is misdirected. An issue that repeats in your posts is that you seem to think DCS World is overpriced, and there is really no argument I can offer to counter that view point because it is essentially 100% subjective. Aside from the fact that both you and I have absolutely no insight into how ED works as a company or the amount of work it has to do to realistically simulate something like an F/A-18 Hornet, all that can be said on this point is that my view is completely opposite to yours. I don't think DCS World is overpriced at all, and I believe it offers excellent value as a REAL digital combat learning simulator. A digital combat simulator that strives for realism in everything it does. You wouldn't be the only one disappointed with the amount of time it takes to develop any of the DCS World modules/assets/maps, but I think the fact that it does should give us a clue as to the amount of work required and associated costs vs the available resources. But I think this discussion has run its course, and I don't see how you and I will resolve anything in a circular argument about subjective view points, especially when you seem intent on purposely misinterpreting/misdirect my comments. Case-in-point, you suggested that anyone buying into DCS WWII doesn't get the same value for their money as someone buying into the modern modules in DCS World. Truth be told, If I bought the Hornet, and you bought the Mustang, we could both use the free maps to create missions/game play on. Now if we wanted to add a purpose built map for our planes of choice, I might buy the Persian Gulf, and you might by Normandy map. So far not too bad, although I would have spent a little more than you at this point. Then we both might want to add a tech pack to add even more options/realism to our game play, so I might buy the Super Carrier and you might buy the WWII assets pack. Again, you seem to be coming out a little ahead in terms of money spent. At this point, we might also want to add even more immersion so we both add Combined Arms, which costs the same regardless of the era you are interested in. The point isn't the subjective value you assign to any of the above mentioned modules, the point is that road maps and the reasons/decisions used to form them are complex, and now you are complicating the matter even further by throwing a third party into the mix. I doubt very much that you are privy to the relationship between ED and Deka, let alone where the incentive comes from to make the Chinese assets pack. So while the purpose of my question to you regarding the cost of WWII vs modern era and the availability of related assets was clear, you reference cost of the available campaigns to purposefully misinterpret/misdirect my question. The cost of the Hornet is almost double the cost of the Mustang, and the cost of the Persian Gulf map and related Tech Pack for modern era scenarios also costs more than their WWII counterparts. But as a conclusion to my contribution to this thread, I will leave you with this thought; follow in the footsteps of Reflected Simulations and provide an Eagle Dynamics recognized WWII campaign for sale on its website that requires either the P-51/P-47, the WWII assets pack, and either the Channel or Normandy maps, and I will give two free copies of the WWII assets pack to any two members of your group in support of your efforts. That is a serious offer, and you can PM me if you would like to discuss it further.

"The habits of younger players- who game, have changed, and now the same person that buys the FA18 gets one hell of a decent game for their money. They dont get anything like the same game for MORE of their money, in Warbirds." See how that worked, you posted something and I read it! Here's my response. I get the point your trying to make. One could easily argue whether ED did the right thing by making a number of the WWII assets free, as they run the risk of making the people who bought WWII assets feel left out. But notice that the WWII assets pack is still listed as "EARLY ACCESS", so there is always hope that the early supporters can still expect it to be filled out. But at the same time, I also sense that it was an effort to help grow interest in DCS WWII, which is a good thing IMO. Imagine if there were no free maps and planes, and the only way you could experience DCS World would be to purchase a map and plane of your choice from the get go? I think the barrier to attract new people would be much higher under those circumstances. So what we have at the moment are a couple free maps with two free planes, free trial periods, and to help make game play a little more interesting, a few free assets. But to answer your question more directly, the H-6 is a post WWII asset that is being supplied by a third party. I have absolutely no knowledge of the relationship that exists between ED and DEKA, but I am quite happy to receive anything they are willing to model for the community. Does this mean that I shouldn't buy the WWII assets pack if that is the era I am interested in? No it does not IMO. Have you ever considered the price difference between the P-51 and the F/18? I'm not saying it's an obligation of ED's, but I see having a few extra assets for the modern jet scenarios I might want to make as a good thing. I think this point of view goes against current market trends quite frankly. All you have to do is google what the average gamer spends on gaming in a year to realize the "Can't" in your statement cannot be true. I recognize that some here have gotten stuck in an argument that seems to be based on principle, and regardless of where those principles lay, the petty cost of the Assets pack especially when it is on sale can hardly be seen as a serious factor. I encourage anyone with an interest in WWII mission making to get the assets pack and make the most interesting missions you can with it. It doesn't take long for news of something really interesting to travel. And who knows, someone with your talent Stevan could easily turn the energy you spend arguing against it on the forums into something more positive like this:

Following you around? Unless you look something like the girl in the attached image, I don't think you have much to be worried about. But joking aside, it is a forum, and I am reading it. So when you post something, I think it is fair to say that people reading the forum will see it. I will drop out of your subscription thread if it is causing you that much stress, but to be fair all I wanted to do was point out to you as a respondent that the survey could be taken multiple ways. This is never a good thing in social science research because it makes the data you collected worthless. And I was just surprised to say the least that after being so vocal about paid assets packs you would suggest it as a perk. Like the rest of the survey, I guess I just find that a bit confusing.

No I was just making a general comment in relation to a number of other posts that have mentioned issues with depth and large ships. But thanks for asking.

This seems to be a general problem with all maps in DCS World. Being a digital combat simulator that includes large naval ships, ED should check all ports on all maps for appropriate depth.

@StevanJ, I was just giving you an example of how to make your survey questions clearer. That is why I said... "Do you see the difference?". To be honest, it is not really clear to me what your intentions are, like you mention "one off Asset models for the Mission Editor" as a perk for donating, but I know you are very vocal about people being locked out of your missions because they don't have access to the assets. So does this mean you are changing your view on the paid for Assets pack?

+1 Don't get me started!

I agree completely. It will be interesting to see what ED does with the WWII Pacific stuff for the Marianas. Will they create a whole new pack, include it with the map, or add to the current pack?

I think part of the problem is that there seems to be an almost complete disconnect between our expectations and any realistic notion of how those expectations could be achieved. I also think it is easy to fall into the trap where you buy a plane and then expect everything else to go along with it. I believe ED understood from the beginning that they had to create an in for people to reach for, and that IMO is what the free Caucasus map is about. You can download the free map along with the accompanying two free planes and check out what DCS World is all about. You aren't required to buy anything really to get a pretty good taste of what a real digital combat learning SIM is all about. But to expect that ED and its third parties are supposed to model not just additional maps, but nearly 100 years of military tech innovation as free assets doesn't appear to me to be a realistic expectation. Take the recent update for cluster bombs as an example. You bought the A10 lets say. First look at the plane itself and how much work had to go into the project in order to simulate the real thing. Don't forget, the work didn't stop there. Taking just the recent iteration of the A10, how many updates has it seen, and more importantly, how many hours of work had to be continuously pumped into the project in order to realize all of the fixes/feature enhancements? And in addition, the community has also raised a valid concern regarding cluster bomb functionality. I mean what good is a simulation of an A10 if the bombs you drop don't actually work right? So the team has to go back and pump more hours into the project, which they do! We just received a 7-page document explaining this: Our work has focused on four, key areas: 1) BLU-97/B Performance 2) Weapon settings and impact BLU-97/B distribution 3) BLU-97/B distribution patterns 4) Visual and audio effects The point is not that the customers who bought the A10 don't deserve working cluster bombs as part of the packaged model, because they do, the point is these things are complex and it is likely impossible to foresee all eventualities and the problems/obstacles that can crop up in a project the size of something like simulating a fighter aircraft. Just go read through the recent thread on this and see how happy everyone is that ED has finally gotten around to making it work... and the result, updates for munitions of other jets is being requested along with improved damage models for ground assets. So more hours will need to be pumped in. And I believe it will be, because it appears to me that is what ED is all about. Like most here, I want to see more ships (WWII/modern) with accurately simulated weapons systems, and more accurately simulated tanks (WWII/modern) and other types of ground units, I want to see an infantry that is modeled so that it actually does something, and I want to see all of this yesterday! How can these things be achieved with the request that ED stops sales? And why are we making the request? Because someone refuses to buy the assets pack, and is therefore unable to enjoy the mission I made. I am assuming that @Aarnoman meant ED should include the development cost of assets with the cost of developing modules/maps, because ED couldn't feasibly allocate a portion of the development cost of a module to make assets. If they did that, they wouldn't have the funds needed to finish the module. So what we would be left with is an unfinished module and a few assets. I really don't care if ED jumps the price of all maps/modules $30 buck to make all assets free, or if they decide to keep their product line the way it is. What I care about, and what I came here for is a realistic digital combat simulator, which BTW is a long way from being finished. In conclusion, what I find the most amusing is that we often hear how the assets pack is responsible for dividing the MP community, but we rarely hear anyone say that responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the people who choose to be divided. If you make missions, I would encourage you to buy the assets pack and make the most use of it in your missions. Your focus shouldn't be on the person that wont play your mission, it should be on the person that will!

But here's the thing, why should the people that bought the assets pack concern themselves with the people that haven't? If they don't want to purchase the assets pack, and this in turn prevents them from purchasing modules and maps, then the only question that pops into my mind is, are they sure they want to be here? I think most here have likely spent well over $1000.00 to be able to enjoy DCS. And I seriously question anyone's intentions that tries to build an argument on principle, when the principle being discussed is the bread and butter on someone else's plate. We all download DCS World for free. And after trying it out, we all have to make a decision to purchase the modules we want based on our own interests. If someone joins a group, and that group flies on a MP server, and that MP server requires the assets pack, then there is really only one consideration here. And that is for the person joining the group, he/she has to decide if they want to join that group on the MP server, or not. Its not anymore complex then that. I wouldn't download DCS World and expect to play if all I had was a 15 year old laptop. And I wouldn't expect to be able to follow my group on a MP server when everyone else is in an FA-18, and I'm in a Yak 52. If I want to follow them, I think it is pretty clear that I would at least have to step up to something with jet power, and preferably something like either the F16/F18, or F14. For anyone that buys the assets pack and then complains that the people in their group cant play the missions, then there are two options. You either make missions for the people that have the assets pack and are able to enjoy them, or you cater to the people in the other group. Personally if I was making missions, I would make the missions I want with the assets I want, and I wouldn't worry about who can and can't play them. If your any good at making missions, I doubt $15 bucks is going to stop the guy that just spent $1000 + to be here for real.

@bbrz thanks for explaining. Obviously I misunderstood you. I took the two bold statements together and concluded that you felt the Yak 52 isn't a good plane for aerobatics. The comment your quoting about experimenting with maneuvers at a lower rate of speed was directed at the virtual pilot learning to do aerobatics. Higher speed usually means less reaction time. So if you are in the Yak, you will likely have more reaction time in a plane that is supposed to be pretty easy to recover in according to some of the reviews I watched. But regardless of whether you are learning to do loops in a CEII or the Yak 52, my point was you have to learn how to do it according to how the plane your flying responds in flight. So the fact that the CEII has more power/lb than the Yak 52 isn't really a factor when your in the Yak, because what ever maneuver you are practicing will be dictated by the capabilities of the plane itself. After learning to do loops in the Yak 52 you might get in the CEII and say, "wow that was easy", but it doesn't mean you can't do loops in the Yak. Hope that helps to better explain what I meant. But I am looking forward to adding the Yak 52 to my collection.

Now that there has been a recent update to the Normandy map, does anyone know what Ugra plans on doing next? Are they still working on Normandy, or have they gone back to Syria/started something else? There are still a lot of issues on the Normandy map. Follow the river from Le Harvre for example, and just about every bridge is either borked (vehicles fall through), under water, or both.

From your image, it looks like that is the only road going there. Could you set an on-road way point at the farthest end of the road that terminates in map square "CS", and then use off-road way points to your H4 base from there?

Well to start, you should make the survey more clear. You told me I am off topic for mentioning the assets pack. So I guess one of the first issues is to qualify what you mean by DLC. Do you mean all modules, or just certain modules? The next issue that pops out at me is your very first question. You should also make it more clear what supporting a monthly subscription means. "Yes I want to support DCS", or "Yes, I would prefer to pay a monthly subscription to have unlimited access to all DCS World modules". Do you see the difference?

I know Stevan, can't argue with you there. But lets keep our fingers crossed and hope we see an update soon.

Part of why it is too poorly constructed is that it is actually misleading. Some people might have read "YES I WANT TO SUPPORT DCS!" and just selected it. And the survey itself is also misleading because it is set up so that it could actually be understood in two different ways. Some users might understand that in addition to buying modules, they would be donating a small amount of money to support DCS World in return for extra content/privilege. Others might understand that by donating a small fee each month, everyone would receive use of asset packs/maps and such for free. In the case of the first group, the 8% might be happy to donate what ever they deem fair, but in the case of the second group, the 8% might dwindle down to zero % when they find out the size of the donation that would have to be made each month in order to make the concept work. I think at one point, Stevan actually references EA as the game studio that sparked the concept for him. EA and its business model do not = ED and its business model. But the concept loses absolutely all its juice when you actually give it a hypothetical. I am pretty sure any subscription based system would be a lot more than anyone would be willing to pay, but say ED could somehow get it down to $1.50/month. Why would anyone want to pay even that per month for something they could just buy outright for $15.00? And what about the people that already bought the assets pack? The concept has little to no merit. I am more than happy to buy the assets pack and be done with it. At the end of the day, the assets pack is such a small fraction of the commitment I have to make to really enjoy DCS World.

@bbrz, I am not trying to misinterpret what you wrote. If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize as that was not the intention. I understand your post as meaning: 1. You disagree with the comparison I made in response to another poster about differences between the Mustang trainer and the Yak in terms of the way they take-off and land. 2. You don't see value in the Yak as an aerobatics platform as there are faster more powerful aircraft that can make an easier job of it. 3. You believe doing even basic maneuvers in the Yak will teach wrong techniques. I disagree with all 3 statements. I agree that the Yak has some issues as already discussed, and the FM wont be complete until they are addressed. Hope this helps understand my point of view. Problems aside, I quite like the DCS version of the Yak 52 in terms of the overall model. Like everyone else, I will be greatly disappointed if ED does not live up to its promise to finish the module, but I am impressed with the level and attention to detail given, and think it will make an excellent addition to anyone's DCS collection once it is fully completed.

I am including it because it is an aerobatic Biplane that is faster and has more power/lb than the Yak. So its use is appropriate. And I didn't conveniently omit the fact that it weighs less, it is the reason I used it as an example in answer to your previous comment. You shouldn't expect the Yak to handle like the CEII or any other faster more powerful plane, and that's the point. You learn to fly the Yak to fly the Yak. Does the fact that the Yak is slower mean you can't use it to do aerobatics, or does it just make it harder for YOU? Because a number of pilots are using it for that very purpose, and I will get the module to serve the same purpose. But if your point is simply that it is harder for you to perform aerobatic maneuvers in, or you don't like the flight model in the Yak, then look for another plane to suit your preferences like the CEII. And issues with the Yak 52 have been discussed ad nauseam. We get it, ED still has some work to do with this module. I think your stretching it a little though to suggest that the model isn't even flyable, or that it is so far out that it has no resemblance to realistic aircraft handling.

I agree, map technology in DCS World seems a little behind when compared to other digital worlds. And obviously performance is an even bigger issue. My question to ED and its map makers is aside from other performance enhancing techniques they may be using, how much do they consider over use of static objects? I fly/drive a lot on Normandy for example, and the impression I get is that they could probably decrease the number of trees significantly without affecting the overall appearance of the map both in the air and on the ground. And I know others have also pointed out excessive quantities of static objects on other maps like boxes, cars ect... You don't have to spend too much time flying/driving around Normandy before you find large clumps of trees that look completely out of place. Not sure how big the effect would be, but the impression I have is we would probably see a decent performance boost by cleaning up the maps a bit.