New assets and AI units megapack

[impreza]

I´m learning how to make campaigns and I miss many aircrafts, vehicles, ships, helos, buildings, infantry for AI. We know they use real info to make DCS but I think there are enough data to make aproximate figures and performance in a new pack. Its a hard work and I propose a new pack or module. (no more 20€). I think they have to expand combined arms but at least they should add new land units as well. If they make a balance of performance they could make it with missiles performance.  

 

I think we need the 5th gen, new models and "remakes".

- The 5th gen, TU160, Eurofighter, Rafale, F4, F14D, Gripen, recon planes, F111, Mig 23, Mig27, Mig29 versions, Su 22, Su30, Su 35, Su27 versions, etc, Growler, Super Hornet, F16 Blocks, A6, EA6, B2, F117, etc.

-Eurocopter Tiger, Mangusta, BO series, Blackhawk versions, Nh90, Lynx, Mi8 versions, etc.

-Stryker, Marder, vamtac, Centauro, GTK Boxer, Pizarro/Ulan, trucks, T14 Armata, etc.

-Cold War planes and units, SAM S-series(S400), ships, transport and cargo, armored cars, Toyota Hilux with machine gun for insurgency, some drones, etc. 

 

This is my wishlist for Christmas.

 

Ps: Dont destroy our graphic cards, please.

Edited December 8, 2020 by impreza

[Buzzles]

No to new asset packs as separate modules.

Splits up other content even more. Not just an MP issue either by effectively denying people access to servers unless you pay the extra for the packs. It also affects SP too, the example being the WWII campaigns, a lot need the WWII Assets Pack, which is on top of needing the map.

Honestly, there's a lot of models that need a refresh, but I actually disagree with the level of quality ED are showing in the Newsletters. It's too high. The models currently in game that came from Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3 and after are at an acceptable level, and I'd rather see a lot of the *really* old stuff from LOMAC 1 and 2 days get upgraded to that standard first. Be much, much quicker for the artists at ED to get to that level so we'd a higher volume of updates, and honestly would have the bigger effect than having a few super detailed ground units trickle through as they have been.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Buzzles

[Dragon1-1]

I wouldn't mind a "visuals only" upgrade pack for AI units, but the units themselves should be available to everyone. WWII assets pack is fine because not everyone cares about WWII, myself included, and DCS takes up enough space already (being on the SSD is pretty much a requirement for it, so this is not a trivial concern). 

 

I would love to see more units, especially from the Cold War era, but they should be available to everyone.

[Baco]

Yes we need better, and more assets and nothing is free.

 

A yearly asset pack, would be a grate addition to the DCS world...

 

You cant expect to get the game updated for free.. every other genere changes the engine very 2 years and you have to buy the full pack again, and again.. stop limiting DCS If you want 2020 models you have to pay for them. Its what companies do, they sell stuff...

 

[Northstar98]

22 hours ago, Buzzles said:

No to new asset packs as separate modules.

Splits up other content even more. Not just an MP issue either by effectively denying people access to servers unless you pay the extra for the packs. It also affects SP too, the example being the WWII campaigns, a lot need the WWII Assets Pack, which is on top of needing the map.

 

While I agree with the premise you can't escape the fact that the cost to develop these assets isn't 0. Also, when you look at the paid asset pack and see how much stuff is in that pack just goes to show that if you want results fairly quickly, paid packs seem to be the way to go.

 

Yes it sucks, I get that, but it definitely seems that if you want results, paid packs are the best way to go. It also puts a bit more power in your hands as developers are more incentivised to deliver, with free assets not so much.

 

There is a way around the content splitting however - if packs focus on upgrading current units, compatibility is retain between non-owners and owners; people without the pack get units as they appear right now, and people with the update pack get the same units but upgraded to modern standards.

 

Obviously this wouldn't work if a paid-for pack includes extra functionality, and possible improvements aren't exactly few and far between.

 

22 hours ago, Buzzles said:

Honestly, there's a lot of models that need a refresh, but I actually disagree with the level of quality ED are showing in the Newsletters. It's too high. The models currently in game that came from Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3 and after are at an acceptable level, and I'd rather see a lot of the *really* old stuff from LOMAC 1 and 2 days get upgraded to that standard first. Be much, much quicker for the artists at ED to get to that level so we'd a higher volume of updates, and honestly would have the bigger effect than having a few super detailed ground units trickle through as they have been.

 

I agree that there's a lot missing, but in my opinion I think the problem is not that they're too high detail (the WWII asset pack has a similar amount of detail, but being a paid pack, it gets more frequent updates - it's also likely that the revenue also went into developing searchlights, flak, submarines and torpedoes), it's that we seem to get completely new stuff instead of replacing old stuff. Don't get me wrong I'm very pleased we're getting what we're getting, but personally I'd rather the effort go into replacing older units, instead of building completely new ones.

 

For instance the ST-68U/36D6 "Tin Shield", which is an acquisition RADAR for the S-300P, fantastic that we're getting it (finally another RADAR!), but wouldn't it be better to redo the existing S-300P components like the 30N6E "Flap Lid", 64N6E "Big Bird" or 76N6 "Clam Shell" RADARs before adding completely new ones? Same for the T-72B3 obr.2016 and BTR-82A, again fantastic stuff, but wouldn't it be better if the existing T-72B obr.1985 and BTR-80 got the upgrade instead?

 

Other than that I agree that the stuff most in need of upgrading should have priority on updates.

 

For me, I'd first prioritise stuff that is in real need of updating, starting with aircraft (which is a fair number), then air defences, direct combat ground units, ships, other ground vehicles and then static objects.  

 

After that, I'd prioritise getting the remainder up to a common standard, and then I'd add completely new units. If I were to add in a new SAM system for instance, I'd want to make sure it got as many battery components as possible (right now we're missing a fair number of components to current USSR SAMs and a few from BLUFOR SAMs). 

 

[DmitriKozlowsky]

People who write 'real' simulations for military. Simulations which are used to train warriors. Aside from difficulty of flight simulators, the other great difficulty is creating realistic radar simulators. There are so many things which effect radar performance. Below are some , but list is not exhaustive.

1. Consistent 'clean' AC power with low noise.

2. Atmospheric conditions which are layered. Differential humidity and temperature refract EM radiation and add noise. Clouds absorb EM

3. Local EM 'noise' environment.

4. Operator skill at interpreting signal.

5. Enemy ECM against radar

6. Fast and accurate IFF interrogation.

Radar is a form of light, and like light, radar waves behave in similar way according to physics and quantum mechanics. But unlike visible, to human eye, light, radar wavelength can see through material to a certain depth, depending on radar wave amplitude and frequency. That's the basis for Ground Penetrating Radar, and Synthetic Aperture Radar.  

Radar can be used to find a target not by looking for target, but by looking for effects of target passing through a volume of sky. Understanding of turbulence and signal processing is required.

A radar set of sufficient power can be turned into a weapon by concentrating output power of set on small target area. Interaction with small target area can create a 'standing wave' turning radar diffuse microwave energy into concentrated microwave burst. This forms basis for AESA radar doubling as active soft kill ECM set.  Allegedly this is how 5th gen aircraft conduct active ECM in an emergency. By firing a high power burst from AESA radar at incoming missile or guidance platform ,can overwhelm that platform long enough to evade the threat. Expect F-35, F-22, SU-57 to use their onboard AESA sets as active ECM.

Each radar set has signal output akin to a fingerprint or DNA. Each set is unique. Not just by type. Each set has unique signature. This is used by EW warriors to catalog and classify emitters. A platform with multiple radars has a unique signature . Can be used to track and predict location of target, even when it is quiet. But electronic warfare is an artform.

[Dragon1-1]

Although interesting, this is not really relevant to us. EW simulation needs to take into account how it interacts with aircraft, and nothing more. Generally, radar data on modern aircraft is heavily filtered, and even two-seat aircraft have limited ways for the RIO to interact with the radar unless they're specifically meant for SEAD. Unless you're in a Wild Weasel, you're not going to be doing proper ELINT in a fighter jet. As such, full radar simulation is not needed, just enough to give us realistic results on our radar displays.

 

This, incidentally, makes it so that it can be modeled at all to some degree. These systems tend to be heavily classified, but the general effects they have are sufficiently well understood to make some good guesses. BTW, the same information availability issues also mean we're unlikely to get any radar that can double as an antimissile system. Any modern radar makes a decent microwave oven up close (indeed, this is more or less how a microwave oven was invented), but only AESA can focus it to get that effect at range. With radars that we get, you can, at most, cook a tanker boomers' bacon.

[Northstar98]

Personally, I think the only thing that could be done is upgrade RADARs to use raycasting (the Viggen, Tomcat and the MiG-21bis (although WIP) already do so), but this mostly applied to older RADARs that are more susceptible to clutter; compare how clutter looks in the F-5E-3 versus the F-14 (when in pulse-search or using a PD mode with the MLC filter disabled), it looks much better in the Tomcat. 

[Qiou87]

How did this conversation go from "AI assets look mostly terrible, we need a paid refresh" to "yeah radars are complicated but should be modeled accurately"? I don't really get the transition here.

 

If I stay on topic: yes, AI assets need to be updated, but a separate pack as paid DLC is bad for the community, unless assets are available in free "low-polygon" versions and paid "high-polygon". I understand that ED has to get paid for their work, but this goes back to their business model and why this game is a free-to-play in the first place... In the end you simply cannot split the community. What happens if you make this another paid pack? Imagine the SP campaign creators, requiring the plane module, the map, and now the asset pack as well?The Supercarrier is an example of optional upgrade that doesn't split the community, the standard carrier is still there and can be used in parallel.

Personally I care more for the high-poly count of aircrafts, since those are the ones I see from my cockpit. Ground units seen through a TGP are not as critical for me. I also agree that what we are seeing (extremely detailed models) is total overkill and I would prefer more quantity/less detail in general. But maybe they are going so high-poly to be a little future proof and not have to update the assets every 3 years...

[Northstar98]

51 minutes ago, Qiou87 said:

How did this conversation go from "AI assets look mostly terrible, we need a paid refresh" to "yeah radars are complicated but should be modeled accurately"? I don't really get the transition here.

 

If I stay on topic: yes, AI assets need to be updated, but a separate pack as paid DLC is bad for the community, unless assets are available in free "low-polygon" versions and paid "high-polygon". I understand that ED has to get paid for their work, but this goes back to their business model and why this game is a free-to-play in the first place... In the end you simply cannot split the community. What happens if you make this another paid pack? Imagine the SP campaign creators, requiring the plane module, the map, and now the asset pack as well?The Supercarrier is an example of optional upgrade that doesn't split the community, the standard carrier is still there and can be used in parallel.

Personally I care more for the high-poly count of aircrafts, since those are the ones I see from my cockpit. Ground units seen through a TGP are not as critical for me. I also agree that what we are seeing (extremely detailed models) is total overkill and I would prefer more quantity/less detail in general. But maybe they are going so high-poly to be a little future proof and not have to update the assets every 3 years...

 

Seeing as we're talking about updating the current assets (which I take to mean replacing older models with new ones) a paid pack wouldn't end up splitting the community because the assets already exist for both owners and non-owners, just the owners get the high-definition models and non-owners don't.

 

If you look at how many assets are in the asset pack (+ some new tech arguably developed for them; searchlights, torpedoes, offensive manoeuvring for certain vessels, flak etc) it shows that having paid for packs are probably the most sure-fire way to achieve results (without necessarily skimping on detail or graphics). It's also not too dissimilar from what other products do.

 

I agree that they're probably going a little overboard with the graphics for some future-proofing or something similar. I'm going to welcome it as long as everything is to a common standard and so long as the models that really need it get prioritised. Like you said I'd rather the outdated aircraft and weapon models get updated first, then move onto air-defence units (namely the S-300PS/SA-10B "Grumble", 2K12/SA-6 "Kub/Gainful", 1L13 "Nebo/Box Spring", 55G6 "Nebo/Tall Rack", Roland EWR and maybe the P-19 "Flat Face B" RADARs), then ground vehicles and then ships; prioritising models that are most in need of updating.

 

The only thing I will say, is that I wish ED would concentrate on existing units, before adding completely new ones (i.e instead of giving us a T-72B3 obr.2016, update the T-72B obr.1984 though in this case it might be more beneficial to provide a modern unit, though there's still leaps and bounds to go).

[impreza]

I agree with some comments. Assets and AI units should be free for everyone to work in missions and campaigns in all cases. I think ED should add a lot of AI units to improve the experience in campaigns and make better missions in each age. If we make a current mission with Nato we sould be using Growlers, Eurofighters and Rafales without mods. I think AI land units should be added to Combined Arms. If we want a great list maybe we have to pay something for a pack. FC3 3d modelling or a little better is very acceptable because it could be a problem to load and handle units. In the case of naval units is a tiny list. Marianas and Falkland Islands are close to be released but there is almost anything for the sea. 

 

 

[Worrazen]

Ups or downs, funding of any kind produces more content, in theory, and personally I'm interested in more various ground AI, cargo, scenery, building, transport, facilities assets of any kind.

 

Is it the funding though, what about time, there's a catch, surely funding can help, but unless that funding actually funds more developers producing things it can't actually go faster or more in general, something else would have to be delayed or suffer delay to some extent.

 

The reason therefore why I would be interested in a paid module to add the side stuff is precisely so that it funds actual extra workers, so that the rest of the unrelated work on the simulator isn't being delayed, paused, and ofcourse the main reason of actually getting more of these low-priority fruit quite earlier than if you'd let things go naturally.

 

But that "naturally" is a relative as well, who knows where would that low-priority fruit be suddenly looked at and considered for implementation or improvement. So this is more complicated in detail than it seems.

 

There also has to be some kind of long term plan, what would the extra workers for the paid modules be doing later, would they all be fired? Ofcourse I should have mentioned the question about if extra workers would even fit into an office in the first place.

 

The whole free vs non-free or core vs plugin idea is all tied to the logical relationships of a system, how someone subjectively wants to design it, and how someone else perceives it. Anything can be purposely split or purposely designed as a wholesome soluton. Yes the new ATC feels like a core component and that feels like it should be free. Is that feasible in practice, probably not for all the huge core updates. The AI units, it feels like a core component and should be free too, but that may not be feasible because of all the other reasons, including money. Everything could be treated as core DCS and downloaded as one huge 250GB install, that means we get everything for free?

Edited December 10, 2020 by Worrazen

[Rudel_chw]

14 minutes ago, impreza said:

... Assets and AI units should be free for everyone .... I think ED should add a lot of AI units to improve the experience in campaigns and make better missions in each age. 

 

Sincerely, I don't get it ... most users here spend a great deal of money on the hardware to run DCS, but god forbid that ED could ask for 30 bucks to develop more AI units. 

 

 

[Qiou87]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Sincerely, I don't get it ... most users here spend a great deal of money on the hardware to run DCS, but god forbid that ED could ask for 30 bucks to develop more AI units. 

 

 

It is not a matter of paying for DCS. It is a matter of barrier to entry. If you pretend that your game is free-to-play, then anyone can join with others and play with them. Today, someone can still do that in a Su-25T, in a multiplayer mission with people who have 1000$ worth of modules, as long as they fly in Caucasus. But if you make this asset pack a module, then the new player has to buy it, or else no multiplayer mission uses those assets for fear that some players will not be able to join.

 

Herein lies the problem. I play with a group, I also play in SP. Personally, I would pay for the pack, no issue. But I see new guys join our group every 2-3 months, and they start with one FC3 plane, or maybe the whole FC3 pack, which cost very little on sale, then if they enjoy the game and playing with us, they move up to FF modules. They are also pushed by us to buy maps, but at least they can do it gradually and not spend 150$ in the first month. 

 

Also consider that, despite the impression you might be getting in this forum, not everybody is gaming with an i9-10900K, 32GB of RAM and RTX3090. Some have more modest, 2-3 year old gaming PCs, and similarly modest budgets for their games. Same for the flight stick, not everyone has the greatest VKB or Virpil stuff, some enjoy a good T16000M or T.Flight...

 

That's why I proposed that the assets themselves be free in a low-poly, so everyone has the same assets and everyone can play with each other. And for those who value great graphics, you pay the AI pack, which just replaces the old, outdated 3D models by new shiny ones with many polygons. But the asset is the same and there is no need to buy the pack to play the game, the pack is just there as additional value (=it looks much nicer). And it provides a revenue stream for AI assets still, so the ED team can spend some man-hours on them.

Edited December 10, 2020 by Qiou87

[Rudel_chw]

3 hours ago, Qiou87 said:

That's why I proposed that the assets themselves be free in a low-poly, so everyone has the same assets and everyone can play with each other. And for those who value great graphics, you pay the AI pack, which just replaces the old, outdated 3D models by new shiny ones with many polygons. But the asset is the same ...

 

OK, but currently DCS does not really do this .. if I place on a mission a Supercarrier ship, those people that don't own SC will not be able to land or launch from them ... the mission editor has to place on it a low poly Kuznetsov or Stennis, for use by those that don't have the Supercarrier DLC ... the assets are not the same.

[Qiou87]

14 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

OK, but currently DCS does not really do this .. if I place on a mission a Supercarrier ship, those people that don't own SC will not be able to land or launch from them ... the mission editor has to place on it a low poly Kuznetsov or Stennis, for use by those that don't have the Supercarrier DLC ... the assets are not the same.

 Sure, but you can stil join  the mission and the SC is functional, the only limitations if you don’t own it are landing and spawning on it yourself. Compare that to the WWII asset pack, if you don’t own it, you cannot join the mission. That is a huge difference.

[lmp]

And that's why having the content split into many modules is a bad idea. Campaign creators have to choose between including a lot of the cool payware content in their campaigns (and lose customers who won't buy a bunch of expensive modules just to play 10 or 20 missions) or using it sparingly (and lose customers who are tired of the same 10 year old content). Same goes for MP hosts. Adding a low poly variant to the base game for free would solve this. Another alternative (less optimal for the player but still) would be to bundle units with maps where it makes sense. Having an Argentinian Navy unit pack bundled with the Falklands map would make sense. Few people would want to use the units and map separately.