Keks

No. Have a multiplayer pve scenario with a carrier based strike group and lets say some f16s. The F16s would now have to also buy the carrier DLC, without even being able to land on it or use it in any way.

Mostly because we are not the devs, so we are not the ones in charge of finding a software solution. All we can do is point it out. Also there is no if since with the current implementation it WILL divide.

Yes, thats why you allready pay more for a single module than for an entire AAA game. I dont see your point. Why do you think it would be bad polishing the core game in order to create an incentive for ppl to buy more of said modules?

Nice bait, since pointing out alternatives would get me banned. Also I dont see why this justifies anti consumer implementation of dlc, and yes I will vote with my wallet. And like Tomsk said this will be hurtfull for the mp part of the playerbase for exactly that reason. The entry cost would be so high that ED would have to make its money by milking a shrinking playerbase for as long as possible. Lets say you want to play dcs in a nice squadron. Your entry cost for naval ops are allready at plane + map. This is higher than other current "AAA" games, no matter what genre. The entry cost will raise due to another map, so it will be map + map + plane. Adding the cost of a carrier to that and you will repell any person interested instantly. Due to that reason, like I said, most mp communities have no choice but to reject the dlc in order to be able to maintain a healthy playerbase. Also please answer my questions aswell, I get the feeling you are not interested in any constructive discussion and are just here to poke some ppl.

Because I bought the hornet with the impression that buying the hornet would give me the full hornet experience. Like I said whats next? 40$ DLC Air to air refueling? 20$ JTAC with propper comms? Like where do you draw the line? I consider something like communication a core gameplay feature for a simulation, nothing less.

Yes and due to the implementation of "everyone has to buy it", it wont happen, as not everyone will get it. Like I said, if you get out of the ED forums and check the multiplayer communities signs are its not going to happen since using it would divide the playerbase in an unfortunate way for said communities Also with a dlc like that, whats next? A nice looking tanker with propper comms for 40 bucks?

What makes you think that there would be more active servers using this dlc than there are using the ww2 asset pack?

Thats wishfull thinking at best. Looking at the reactions outside of this forum it looks like none of the bigger servers will implement the carrier, due to most of the mp community being understandably unwilling to pay for core features. If you have a small community of 100 dudes, and 30% would buy the carrier, you would lose 70% of your group so yea your server wont have it :doh:

What he is saying is in order to get a naval experience he would basicly have to buy a plane and an asset aswell, so he compares it to the ww2 experience. Imho this is a fair comparision due to the overmonetization of dcs ww2.

So, what would be the incentive for that guy to buy the more expensive modules? Like the natural thing would be something like "hey hornets are cool - lets get a hornet" Instead you get "Hey hornets are cool, but to get the hornet experience buying the hornet is not enough, I would have also buy the carrier" I would argue that this kind of monetization actively drives away people

I am not paying for core features. Whats next? Buy this airport? Even more so since the current state of the game is abysmal. Look at the Ka-50 for example, it does not work propperly with the current engine, but no one cares. At the same time money for a carrier?` I would be less anoyed if the game and its modules would be currently working.

I would argue that having to pay for something that can be considered CORE FEATURES will just drive players away and will be hurtfull for not only the community but for ED in the long term. Every paywall, be it maps, carriers or ww2 assets splits the community. Hell even EA stopped putting maps behind paywalls, due to the community split. The bottom line of this will be that from every group playing together people will be driven away by suddently having to pay x amount in order to be able to play with their friends. As of now groups are allready struggeling to make missions for everyone due to the paywall split when it comes to maps. I expect core elements of a game to be free and I am willing to pay the premium when it comes to the planes. Just take DCS WW2 for example. The incentive to get into DCS to play WW2 is very low. Not only have I pay for the plane, but I have also pay for the map, and for the assets. The plane alone costs as much as a competing product that offers multiple planes, maps and a finished core game. Come on, this is getting out of hand. I will not spend money for core elements, I expect core elements.

There is no reason to change anything G tolerance related. None. Since the seat is one of a metric shitton of factors and most of them are based on the actual pilot this whole thread is laughable at best. Next step would be more in shape DLC pilots with a higher g tolerance, :lol:

The module is not even out and people demanding buffs allready. Nice.

Why do you think a U and a 8 are too complicated to be flown by a human :megalol::helpsmilie:

How is it supposed to work?

For this kind of gameplay I would suggest ace combat, not dcs. Or provide something that adds any value to your claims. Right now we are on the 12yo feverdream level of credibility. If you want stuff like that I highly suggest to look at missiles able to pull enough g in order to make attempts like this possible. I also suggest you look into how targeting actually works. Just because there is some sort of radiation being picked up does not auto translate into being able to pinpoint a moving target in 3D space. Also the burden of proof is on you# since you came up with this sh!t.

Tried again, here are the logs/the crashfile. thanks. Logs.zip

I can see all the servers on the menu page. My firewall settings did not change and allowed me to play dcs in multiplayer prior to the implementation of the F-14 and Mig-19. Basicly as soon as those planes hit the open beta I could not play any more. I can connect to all the servers and dcs finishes loading all the things until the "please wait" section (I just assume its "please wait, since I am using a german client). Once it hits that spot there is a very high chance of everything open besides dcs crashing (yt vids will stop playing, chrome failes to load webpages, discord becomes unresponsive etc etc) Then I have to options I can either wait a couple of minutes and the game crashes to desktop or I can click on the screen where dcs is located and windows gives me the not responding popup and then dcs crashes to desktop. Thats why I initially suspected a pagefile issue but that turned out to be not the case.

Thanks for your input. I have done this already, I have enough space on the c: drive ssd, it did not change anything.

Title says it all. Tried all the usual stuff, forgive me for not going in to too much detail due to the fact that this problem exits for me since 3 previous versions and I just have given up on dcs. Its the steam version and yes I have done the repair via steam and yes I have reinstalled it at least 3 times by now. The only thing I have not done yet (and wont do) is a complete fresh install of windows. But since only 1 program doesnt work as intended I dont see the need.

Can confirm this bug, here is my track