Callsign112

I think @greco.bernardi shares the same concern that a lot of other people have. The thing is a lot of people don't realize/understand the size of the task ED is attempting to do with the limited amount of resources available. And while the plane models that ED does are very complex, the work is not just about making plane modules, but has to consider every aspect of the world they fly in. And these things are separate and in addition to all the resources needed to run the virtual world, which also needs updating. The upcoming Mosquito is a perfect example of how much dedication and time ED spends getting each module just right. After months of work, ED delayed its release because something wasn't right with the model. Instead of passing on something that wasn't right to the paying customer, they absorbed the additional development costs to get it right. And to better understand the level of attention to detail that ED puts into each module, being made of wood, ED is now completely revamping the damage model for the Mosquito to accurately portray differences in damage depending on plane construction. The end result is a better SIM.

The DCS Su-25T is one of the diamonds in the rough here, and not just because its free. It is probably one of the best represented DCS jets on YouTube, and is certainly at the top of the "FUN" list. Anyone just starting out will want to spend some time learning to fly this plane. +1 for an updated model, but there is still a lot to enjoy while we wait. There is literally an endless supply of YouTube videos on the Su-25, but I enjoy watching this guys channel.

The sound model for the DCS Yak is really well done.

While there is a lot of things still missing, the list itself is pretty decent. Thanks for the update @Silver_Dragon. We could really use more ships, Anti-tank guns, light/medium tanks, infantry types....

It would be nice if ED added the puff of smoke at startup, especially for the war birds.

Thanks for the clarification @Tippis, but whether you support a subscription model or not, you are still helping grow the game with each purchase you make. My point was not so much to point to the overwhelming NO response to a subscription model, but more toward the OP's opinion that unless you donate monthly you aren't helping. Whats more, knowing the OP's staunch opinion against paid for content, it is hard to believe the same person authored this thread if you take the concept being discussed here to its final outcome.

From your description, it sounds like you are not looking in the same direction your gun is pointed. Not sure how, but is it possible that you are not in the gunners position?

Everyone clicking NO is actively involved in helping grow the game with each purchase they make. Your opinion that unless someone wants to make monthly donations, they aren't supporting ED grow DCS World is just that... an opinion. What I find ironic is that as someone who claims the Asset pack is fragmenting the community because it has a sale price, you are proposing that people donate money to simply get recognition as a "FAN"! How does dividing the community into those willing to pay for recognition, and those that aren't improve anything? I would quite simply just prefer to pay for the modules I want to use. And that would include the WWII assets pack, especially if it helped improve my multi-player gaming experience. I didn't come to DCS to get recognition as a fan, I came to enjoy the experience of using very detailed and highly realistic models in a digital combat simulator.

The D9 is an excellent choice if you are thinking of getting into DCS WWII. But as you can see, your first impressions don't match other more experienced VPilots experiences. I think this is mostly due to just that... experience. Regardless of which war bird you decide on, there will be a learning curve to go through before you are able to fly it proficiently. That is one of the benefits of DCS WWII, each plane is different from the other, and has its own strengths and weaknesses. There are lots of YouTube videos that demonstrate each plane in various rolls. My advice would be to start there to get a feel for how others are using your plane of interest. I highly recommend the WWII assets pack, not just because it allows you to join MP servers that also use it, but because it adds a lot of value to the DCS World experience. I really encourage you to go back and read @BIGNEWY post again. It is clearly a misunderstanding, because he quite literally asked if you have better flight model data to please share it. Good luck on your decision and welcome to DCS WWII. The popularity of a MP server can change from day to day. So whether there is 1, or 1000, it is still a MP server. And a MP server that has seen low activity for the last year could see an increase in activity in the year coming. It is up to the people running MP servers how they use and implement the assets pack. If I could make one suggestion, it would be for the MP servers to increase the use of the WWII assets pack so that it is more noticeable to the players using the server. This in turn should encourage more people to get it, which in turn would encourage more people to join the MP server. Even if you don't make a single mission on your own using the assets pack, you are still using it every time you join a server that uses it. So you are getting value from your purchase, its just that it is up to the server to decide how much value. I don't use MP servers so I can't say that I know that community, but is it possible for users to make suggestions for the types of scenarios they would like to see, or the type of assets they would like to use? This might be another way to increase/improve the use of assets. Like maps, assets are an absolute necessity if the intention is to have a fully functioning, full featured digital combat simulator.

Sorry if I misled you, I was just trying to add humor to the fact that the infantry in the Combat Mission video you linked is pretty close to what I hope ED would bring to DCS. But like you, I would be very satisfied to see it happen.

No, how intricate is the control of planes from combined arms? I didn't know that you can control planes with combined arms, but then again I never tried it. So I guessing it works just like if you are in the mission editor?

+1.... The only question I have is when will ED start taking pre orders for that addition to the WWII assets pack? @Silver_Dragon, that would make a lot of people very happy, including a whole bunch that haven't even heard of/considered DCS World yet.

That is what I thought, thanks. So how intricate is the control? Do you have the same control as in the mission editor?

@darkman222, thanks but my point was more about the planes themselves. Do the planes have to be placed on the map in the mission editor, or can you add AI planes from F10 map to control?

Well I'm not saying your wrong steve, but we already have a rifleman So that's one down, five to go... Just sayin!

Steve, I am starting to understand after several communications with you that you feel the cost of DCS World is too high. I don't agree with that sentiment, but I also respect it. But I also get how you seem to be tired of waiting for products you already paid for to get out of EA. That is something I could get more in line with. I think things like the Yak should not happen, and ED should do what it can to put those types of fires out because all they do is let bad feelings ferment. But your take on assets and what ED's cost structure should be is sort of a mute point IMO because it is not likely to change anything. So I wont bother getting into it again with you except to say that your comparison with the included assets in another WWII flight sim is weak at best. I also have both, and there is no comparison when considering ground assets. One has a set of low res static objects, the other has higher res objects with the option to drive them if the user has combined arms. One of the problems with this comparison IMO is that the two business models are very different in terms of their structure. The one offers more simple models, but an all inclusive approach to each map release that has obvious benefits to the user, while DCS aims to offer more real-to-life models that take more time to develop. This includes the resources needed to develop assets. If we could jump ahead 24 months from now when DCS WWII is more developed in both available planes and assets, I think the initial advantage the other sim has over DCS will decrease, while the benefits of DCS World will become more obvious for the users that want that type of simulation. But going back to your request and the long explanation that followed, I never said you don't have a point, and by all means ask if ED will comp you the 10%. You wont know until you do.

Well the request was to be able to light an area, not cast a shadow. As far as a pilot would be concerned when approaching from above, there shouldn't really be anything on the runway he/she is trying to land on that would cast shadows. But if we have to wait for shadows, then so be it.

One suggestion would be to use the airfields that suit the mission date.

So how do you call up the AI planes when in single player mode? Can you do that from the F10 map, or do you have to add them in the mission editor first? I am assuming that the MP server has included AI aircraft on the map.

I am not sure what you mean by a lighting engine, but night time lighting is used all throughout DCS World. Have a look 1:59 in the timeline of the Damascus night attack video for an example of how a large fire can light up an area.

@razo+r, thanks for the link. I have seen other web pages with references to runway lighting used during WWII as in the use of light bulbs, but from the images I saw it looked like they were mostly used on airfields with hard surface runways. It would be interesting to know how long it took the Air Ministry to implement the Drem system. And what about the grass fields on the Normandy map? I think along with things like wands used by deck crews on a carrier, night lighting for WWII airfields should be added according to their historical use.