Jump to content

The Burden of Choice


Captain Orso

Recommended Posts

Every body has the ability to choose what they want to do--with regards to which DCS modules they purchase from ED. With that freedom comes also a responsibility.

 

The players will have the choice and responsibility to decide, whether they buy the WWII Assets Pack, or not. THEY HAVE IT, not ED, not mission makers, not MP-Hosters -- the players.

 

All those who couldn't contain their knee-jerk reaction and resist going on rants about ED giving the players a choice, blamed ED of shortsightedness, accused ED for fragmenting the community, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Your accusations target the community equally--actually, even more than ED--with the charge of being so irrational that many would rather quit playing on WWII-MP-Servers that will be utilizing the WWII Assets Pack than make a separate purchase to attain it. The accusers then go on to claim, if the Normandy Map and the WWII Assets Pack were only offered as a bundle for the same price as their single prices combined (no difference in cost), that nobody would have a problem with that... really?

 

I don't think anything but a very small, very marginal part of the DCS WWII-Community can be represented like this. The excitement with the coming release has been high indeed. I would wager to says that the cases of those who buy the Normandy map, but not the Assets Pack, will be countable on one hand, or they will not be interested in joining a WWII-MP-Server using the Asset Pack at all. They maybe interested in an aerobatics server using the Normandy map, but that would have need for the WWII Assets anyway, so there will be no conflict.

 

But you will have a chance to prove me wrong, probably around early May.


Edited by BIGNEWY
TITLE
  • Like 4

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you totally missed the point most of us where trying to make. It's not about the price. They deserve that amount of money for their good work. It's also not about eh WWII Normandy map or assets. It's about the future where we will have 10 maps and 10 asset packs and about new people joining. And after playing DCS World free they have to cash out the jackpot to fly Campaigns, single missions and to play on the most popular servers cause they use some or all extra maps and DLC assets. And the people that are not so fortunate to go out and buy all the MAPS and assets DLC's and they actually have to choose what they want and maybe not want. But with making that choice they also choose at that moment with who they will play and not play. I think a nice direction would be that anybody with a plane should be able to play anything the others are playing as well. Off course this will never be entirely possible. But there is a fear that that something like that might happen. And that fear is not totally unfounded.

We are not being bitchy or ungrateful and we should certainly not be ashamed to ask questions in a polite way. Otherwise just make a forum where you can not respond and just like on Facebook only can give thumbs up.

There always will be irrational questions and demand... Just state facts and or a well founded opinion, and if they not listen just ignore them.

 

I already got the answers so i wont be adding more to this discussion. Now i have to go choose what WWII plane i want to buy cause i will buy Normandy and assets for sure.


Edited by winchesterdelta1
  • Like 1

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every body has the ability to choose what they want to do--with regards to which DCS modules they purchase from ED. With that freedom comes also a responsibility.

 

The players will have the choice and responsibility to decide, whether they buy the WWII Assets Pack, or not. THEY HAVE IT, not ED, not mission makers, not MP-Hosters -- the players.

 

All those who couldn't contain their knee-jerk reaction and resist going on rants about ED giving the players a choice, blamed ED of shortsightedness, accused ED for fragmenting the community, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Your accusations target the community equally--actually, even more than ED--with the charge of being so irrational that many would rather quit playing on WWII-MP-Servers that will be utilizing the WWII Assets Pack than make a separate purchase to attain it. The accusers then go on to claim, if the Normandy Map and the WWII Assets Pack were only offered as a bundle for the same price as their single prices combined (no difference in cost), that nobody would have a problem with that... really?

 

I don't think anything but a very small, very marginal part of the DCS WWII-Community can be represented like this. The excitement with the coming release has been high indeed. I would wager to says that the cases of those who buy the Normandy map, but not the Assets Pack, will be countable on one hand, or they will not be interested in joining a WWII-MP-Server using the Asset Pack at all. They maybe interested in an aerobatics server using the Normandy map, but that would have need for the WWII Assets anyway, so there will be no conflict.

 

But you will have a chance to prove me wrong, probably around early May.

 

Well said, I fly choppers primarily but those WWII units and additions are well worth having. E boats YAAY:thumbup:

i5 8600k@5.2Ghz, Asus Prime A Z370, 32Gb DDR4 3000, GTX1080 SC, Oculus Rift CV1, Modded TM Warthog Modded X52 Collective, Jetseat, W10 Pro 64

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All those who couldn't contain their knee-jerk reaction and resist going on rants about ED giving the players a choice, blamed ED of shortsightedness, accused ED for fragmenting the community, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I appreciate your love of DCS and concern for the happiness and well being of ED, however, I will not be ashamed of myself when most multiplayer servers in the long term future will be running Caucasus and default units. Multiplayer servers and singleplayer campaigns selecting to include diverse sets of compatibility breaking DLCs will simply be less accessible to large portions of the community, especially new players.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you totally missed the point most of us where trying to make. It's not about the price. They deserve that amount of money for their good work. It's also not about eh WWII Normandy map or assets. It's about the future where we will have 10 maps and 10 asset packs and about new people joining. And after playing DCS World free they have to cash out the jackpot to fly Campaigns, single missions and to play on the most popular servers cause they use some or all extra maps and DLC assets. And the people that are not so fortunate to go out and buy all the MAPS and assets DLC's and they actually have to choose what they want and maybe not want. But with making that choice they also choose at that moment with who they will play and not play. I think a nice direction would be that anybody with a plane should be able to play anything the others are playing as well. Off course this will never be entirely possible. But there is a fear that that something like that might happen. And that fear is not totally unfounded.

 

What you are describing has been going on since NTTR became available in Early-Access. If you haven't purchased it, you cannot fly on it - period. And that will continue. If you don't buy the Normandy map, even if you buy all the Warbirds, present and future, you cannot fly over Normandy. If ACG or Burning Skies or Flying Legends runs a mission on one of those maps, and you don't have it, then it's a sad day for you. The exact same thing applies to the WWII-Assets-Pack.

 

Of course it would be terribly convenient, if ED only ever charged for the aircraft they produce, if maps, ships, equipment, etc., were all part of the DCS-World package. But ED decided their efforts in producing new maps and the WWII era equipment, aught to be compensated, and rightly so.

 

Imagine if ED went the path of only monetizing aircraft. The aircraft might cost $80, $90, maybe $100, to make up for the 'free-bee' maps etc. they have to produce on-the-side. A lot of hard work(=money) goes into those. No Keebler Elves to be found in Moscow.

 

The biggest argument being made was, some won't buy the WWII-Assets-Pack, and then can't play on MP-Servers using it. No, then they can't. They also can't, if they don't buy at least one Warbird.

 

I'm sure there are some players out there that real, honestly have to turn over every dollar they spend, three times before they give it out of their hands, and that is truely a tragic situation to be in. I know, because I've been there. And there's no solution ED can offer to rectify that situation, because ED is a company, with employees who must be paid, and which must turn a profit to be able to continue putting out new things to sell. Those are the facts of life.

 

But the greatest majority of players are not in that situation. Even if some might have to trade buying the WWII-Assets-Pack for going to the movies for two hours, with pop-corn and a Coke, once, then they will have to decide, what they want more that month.

 

We are not being bitchy or ungrateful and we should certainly not be ashamed to ask questions in a polite way. Otherwise just make a forum where you can not respond and just like on Facebook only can give thumbs up.

There always will be irrational questions and demand... Just state facts and or a well founded opinion, and if they not listen just ignore them.

 

I was away from the forum for 12 hours, and the Normandy Map discussion thread had exploded, almost litterally. There were many posts from "bitchy" and "ungrateful" people, and those were just the ones which were not deleted.

 

I know this step by ED is new for the community, but, to quote Adm. James Greer, "Mother of God!".

 

We'll have to see how ED goes forward with DLC. Have a little trust in their judgement, and that if one presents a logical, well founded argument, that they will listen.

 

I already got the answers so i wont be adding more to this discussion. Now i have to go choose what WWII plane i want to buy cause i will buy Normandy and assets for sure.

 

thumbs-upwink.gif

  • Like 1

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your love of DCS and concern for the happiness and well being of ED, however, I will not be ashamed of myself when most multiplayer servers in the long term future will be running Caucasus and default units. Multiplayer servers and singleplayer campaigns selecting to include diverse sets of compatibility breaking DLCs will simply be less accessible to large portions of the community, especially new players.

 

Those are pretty distinct conclusions. Do you have any evidence to back them up?

 

There has been one single asset pack announced, and already you've painted Dante's Inferno. Why not have some trust, not just in ED, but in the community.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What did I miss?

 

Something that looked like the Cuban Missile Crisis. You know, Russians shipping their death-bringing Asset Pack toward the borders of the US wink2.gif

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are pretty distinct conclusions. Do you have any evidence to back them up?

 

There has been one single asset pack announced, and already you've painted Dante's Inferno. Why not have some trust, not just in ED, but in the community.

 

Thank you so much for saying exactly what I wanted to say...people need to calm down and have faith in things for once.

  • Like 1

Come join a passionate community of flight simmers everyday, live at

16hnv2f.png

PC Specs

 

Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.4GHz MSI Z170A Gaming M7

Corsair Vengeance LED 2666MHz 32GB DDR4

H115i 280mm Liquid CPU Cooler

EVGA GeForce 980Ti Hybrid (built-in liquid cooling)

EVGA SuperNova 750W 80+Gold

Samsung NVMe 950PRO M.2 SSD 512GBx2

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are pretty distinct conclusions. Do you have any evidence to back them up?

 

There has been one single asset pack announced, and already you've painted Dante's Inferno. Why not have some trust, not just in ED, but in the community.

I can't present good evidence without violating forum rules, particularly 1.15, but I was careful in my statement to avoid using absolutes. Of course there will be multiplayer servers and campaigns using the various maps and asset packs, but as the number of maps and asset packs increases, and especially where multiple are combined, the more potential for incompatibility arises, and the less likely a given player is able to join a given server or play a given campaign. This naturally results in players "floating to the top" where the Caucasus map and vanilla units reside.

 

Also, please take note of Razbam's interest in DLC ships, such as an amphibious assault ship to go with their Harrier. You may also consider ED's future Kuznetsov and Vinson carrier DLCs as asset packs (these were announced in a newsletter) though they may avoid breaking compatibility by the presence of the low detail versions of these vehicles in DCS.

 

As I have stated before, I am not specifically opposed to selling asset packs, but I do see importance in maintaining compatibility as much as possible between players who do not own the same packages. Preserving compatibility is beneficial to both the multiplayer community and campaign creators.


Edited by VincentLaw

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now you better pull you seat belt tight, because LN has already said they're going to to an Iwo Jima map, I read somewhere that somebody want's to do a North Africa (Tobruk?) map, and there have already been clamoring for a Market-Garden/Bulge map and a German heartland map.

 

We will have to see how the community deals with all of the future the choices.

When you hit the wrong button on take-off

hwl7xqL.gif

System Specs.

Spoiler
System board: MSI X670E ACE Memory: 64GB DDR5-6000 G.Skill Ripjaw System disk: Crucial P5 M.2 2TB
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D PSU: Corsair HX1200 PSU Monitor: ASUS MG279Q, 27"
CPU cooling: Noctua NH-D15S Graphics card: MSI RTX 3090Ti SuprimX VR: Oculus Rift CV1
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

At least 2,355 people will have the map and units on release, seems like a decent start for a niche market.

 

 

I can't present good evidence without violating forum rules, particularly 1.15, but I was careful in my statement to avoid using absolutes. Of course there will be multiplayer servers and campaigns using the various maps and asset packs, but as the number of maps and asset packs increases, and especially where multiple are combined, the more potential for incompatibility arises, and the less likely a given player is able to join a given server or play a given campaign. This naturally results in players "floating to the top" where the Caucasus map and vanilla units reside.

 

Also, please take note of Razbam's interest in DLC ships, such as an amphibious assault ship to go with their Harrier. You may also consider ED's future Kuznetsov and Vinson carrier DLCs as asset packs (these were announced in a newsletter) though they may avoid breaking compatibility by the presence of the low detail versions of these vehicles in DCS.

 

As I have stated before, I am not specifically opposed to selling asset packs, but I do see importance in maintaining compatibility as much as possible between players who do not own the same packages. Preserving compatibility is beneficial to both the multiplayer community and campaign creators.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, now you better pull you seat belt tight, because LN has already said they're going to to an Iwo Jima map, I read somewhere that somebody want's to do a North Africa (Tobruk?) map, and there have already been clamoring for a Market-Garden/Bulge map and a German heartland map.

 

We will have to see how the community deals with all of the future the choices.

 

The Tobruk map has into the plans of VEAO (on hold actually). Iwo Jima on plans by LNK (with some AI units), and RAZBAM has some "ships pack" on progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of strong emotions swirling around this release and many different opinions. A detailed announcement like that of the Normandy map and the WWII asset pack is bound to deviate from some expectations.

 

For me, I was pleasantly surprised since the variety of upcoming AI was FAR better than I expected. I figured that my Spitfire would be battling Doras and Kurfurst while teaming up with P-51Ds (and eventually P-47s), but thats about it. Instead I find that there will be excellent and diverse AI options for very complete missions in Normandy 1944.

 

Others found out that things might be more expensive than expected and more complicated for the type of missions they prefer. There is no perfect solution for the future growth of DCS and every step will have pros and cons.

 

The dissenters are a really good resource for poking holes in existing plans and revealing potential problems. This is a valuable perspective and they should speak up. However, some diplomacy goes a long way....but the potential problems should be voiced so that ED can consider the pros and cons of their chosen approach. This helps DCS to draw the middle ground between competing interests and perspectives.

 

My personal belief is that more choices is better for DCS, but those choices should be packaged in a way that allows broad access. I do feel like many forum goers overlooked the fact that the bundled cost of the map and assets was more or less what was expected ($60) and focused too much on the option to separate them - which few are likely to do. But I think that much of it was a reaction to a possible future where everything is itemized. This seems really unlikely to me and I kind of doubt that ED will end the bundle for Normandy/assets anytime in the near future (IMHO).

 

I think that mission designers will need to be more careful in the future, but the opportunity to really expand the AI library of DCS will have real benefits.

 

Overall, I think the heated discussion is what you expect when different people with different interests, priorities, and finances talk about something important to them. No reason for hard feelings or surprises. :)

 

-Nick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of strong emotions swirling around this release and many different opinions. A detailed announcement like that of the Normandy map and the WWII asset pack is bound to deviate from some expectations.

 

For me, I was pleasantly surprised since the variety of upcoming AI was FAR better than I expected. I figured that my Spitfire would be battling Doras and Kurfurst while teaming up with P-51Ds (and eventually P-47s), but thats about it. Instead I find that there will be excellent and diverse AI options for very complete missions in Normandy 1944.

 

Others found out that things might be more expensive than expected and more complicated for the type of missions they prefer. There is no perfect solution for the future growth of DCS and every step will have pros and cons.

 

The dissenters are a really good resource for poking holes in existing plans and revealing potential problems. This is a valuable perspective and they should speak up. However, some diplomacy goes a long way....but the potential problems should be voiced so that ED can consider the pros and cons of their chosen approach. This helps DCS to draw the middle ground between competing interests and perspectives.

 

My personal belief is that more choices is better for DCS, but those choices should be packaged in a way that allows broad access. I do feel like many forum goers overlooked the fact that the bundled cost of the map and assets was more or less what was expected ($60) and focused too much on the option to separate them - which few are likely to do. But I think that much of it was a reaction to a possible future where everything is itemized. This seems really unlikely to me and I kind of doubt that ED will end the bundle for Normandy/assets anytime in the near future (IMHO).

 

I think that mission designers will need to be more careful in the future, but the opportunity to really expand the AI library of DCS will have real benefits.

 

Overall, I think the heated discussion is what you expect when different people with different interests, priorities, and finances talk about something important to them. No reason for hard feelings or surprises. :)

 

-Nick

 

AMEN, I understand the need for moderators since some have a hard time leaving their feeling and emotions at the door when it come to post in a forum. My guess is that 90% of them will never speak like that in person but under an alias in a forum they do, it is sad, and that goes both ways. The way forward always involve and open discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal belief is that more choices is better for DCS, but those choices should be packaged in a way that allows broad access.

 

 

 

I find it odd that some voices who have a history of demanding "choice" are some of those now decrying the decision to offer just that. . .

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Black Lion hit on the crux of the matter there. Think of asset packs as a positive thing in that they will add the incentive to developers to produce a lot more assets.

 

If we want a true sand box, then we need all the vehicles, missiles, ECM, bombs, infantry types, vessels, and AI aircraft to make every scenario possible.

 

Plus everyone seems to have overlooked something that ED have been doing consistently for months - discounted bundles. You can pretty much guarantee that the asset packs will be bundled with the relevant maps, and offered at an attractive price - once they have passed the initial rush to buy them.

 

Sure, having to own a lot more modules may be a pain, but you can target any area of DCS World that suits you, so if you're not interested in WW2, no one is going to make you buy the assets that serve that era.

 

What's the alternative? Put a price on DCS World please, one that reflects the cost of producing all these highly detailed units. Willing to pay up front for a basic program that includes everything? How much are you willing to pay?

 

$500?

 

$1000?

 

Because that seems to me to be the alternative. Pick n Mix, or get the lot. What other approach do you see?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All those who couldn't contain their knee-jerk reaction and resist going on rants about ED giving the players a choice, blamed ED of shortsightedness, accused ED for fragmenting the community, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

 

I think this is a very narrow minded opinion and frankly feel that it is quite unfair and completely misses the motivations of people who feel concerned about the future of DCS World. My emphasis is on concern, people are expressing concern for the community & for Eagle Dynamics, and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I think it is only natural that people feel that way because they are worried about their favorite past-time and hobby. DCS is much more than a game for a lot of people, and its only natural that they are worried about how this decision will affect all of us who enjoy DCS World. You see it's not just about Normandy and the WWII units, its about all the future AI DLC packs that will follow, whether made by ED or third parties, and how that will affect the development of DCS World going forward.

 

I for one will reserve judgement, the decision has already been made and it was EDs decision to make and no one elses. I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think dismissing the concerns of those who do brings anything constructive to these forums or to any discussion about the future of DCS World.


Edited by OnlyforDCS
spelling errors
  • Like 1

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the alternative? Put a price on DCS World please, one that reflects the cost of producing all these highly detailed units. Willing to pay up front for a basic program that includes everything? How much are you willing to pay?

 

$500?

 

$1000?

 

Because that seems to me to be the alternative. Pick n Mix, or get the lot. What other approach do you see?

 

I don't know, perhaps iso having DCS free with the free 2 planes, free Caucasus etc charge 30$ and offset the investment with a 5$ per aircraft. Most understand that we have to pay for quality content. It's not up to me to say but I've seen multiplayer/players/community split for way less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a too quick policy in lowering prices after release would mean people buying at full price being pissed off. I don't really know how that meaning incompatibility issues with new people can be tackled, but I guess and hope ED has any own ideas on the subject.

 

 

S!

 

It shouldn't, when you bought it you want it now and you got it. Next time when you take a flight, look around you, almost no one have paid the same price but you all go the the same place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every body has the ability to choose what they want to do--with regards to which DCS modules they purchase from ED. With that freedom comes also a responsibility.

 

The players will have the choice and responsibility to decide, whether they buy the WWII Assets Pack, or not. THEY HAVE IT, not ED, not mission makers, not MP-Hosters -- the players.

 

All those who couldn't contain their knee-jerk reaction and resist going on rants about ED giving the players a choice, blamed ED of shortsightedness, accused ED for fragmenting the community, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

 

Your accusations target the community equally--actually, even more than ED--with the charge of being so irrational that many would rather quit playing on WWII-MP-Servers that will be utilizing the WWII Assets Pack than make a separate purchase to attain it. The accusers then go on to claim, if the Normandy Map and the WWII Assets Pack were only offered as a bundle for the same price as their single prices combined (no difference in cost), that nobody would have a problem with that... really?

 

I don't think anything but a very small, very marginal part of the DCS WWII-Community can be represented like this. The excitement with the coming release has been high indeed. I would wager to says that the cases of those who buy the Normandy map, but not the Assets Pack, will be countable on one hand, or they will not be interested in joining a WWII-MP-Server using the Asset Pack at all. They maybe interested in an aerobatics server using the Normandy map, but that would have need for the WWII Assets anyway, so there will be no conflict.

 

But you will have a chance to prove me wrong, probably around early May.

 

:thumbup:

 

I for one, very very very excited for this release!!! I have a job, and it allows me to purchase every thing willy nilly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I have been somewhat befuddled at some of the reactions. myself, I don't see any problems. most servers have required modules stated. remember the f-86/mig-15 campaign? people complained, that you had to own both A/C to fly it. ED changed that. Maybe we should all take a breath and count to 10. ED responds to its coustomer base more then most sims. I do see the point of the mission makers. and the merge is coming soon and that will greatly simplify things.

We are Virtual Pilots, a growing International Squad of pilots, we fly Allies in WWII and Red Force in Korea and Modern combat. We are recruiting like minded people of all Nationalities and skill levels.



http://virtual-pilots.com/

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought DCS is a sandbox. Looks like DCS is offering a map that you can fly modern stuff also. This would open more buyers to buy the map. O yea by the way if you want to fly WW2 spend a little more and get the objects. This looks like me keeping to the sandbox rule.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...