Battlefield Productions - Third Party Content Provider, A vision for the future

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, StevanJ said:

The point of the video was to suggest that not everyone goes out and spends their money on expensive hardware to enjoy this game.
Some people can do with a basic setup and enjoy the basics, in order to enjoy the gameplay.

Some people might buy 'the tank module' but might not want to buy 'every other' ground unit module on offer from BP just to enjoy using the module in the the game.

If youd like any questions answered regarding the video, start a post and invite me to come discuss it, dont take the topic of discussion away from Battlefield Productions.
 

And I would agree with that because I am one of those who enjoys the game with a low end system. RX580 in fact. But I think the point is more regardless of what you spent to enjoy the game, you still paid for it. I don't see why anyone would expect software Developers to work for free.

 

I understand the problems that are created for the online gaming community when not everyone has a particular module like the WWII assets pack, or the Channel Island map, but the solution to that problem comes full circle back to the discussion of whether someone believes they should pay for a module, or get it for free.

 

[sergkar]

Coming back to the actual topic: what is the current state of the design document and maybe also a possible model submission?

[StevanJ]

57 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

And I would agree with that because I am one of those who enjoys the game with a low end system. RX580 in fact. But I think the point is more regardless of what you spent to enjoy the game, you still paid for it. I don't see why anyone would expect software Developers to work for free.

 

I understand the problems that are created for the online gaming community when not everyone has a particular module like the WWII assets pack, or the Channel Island map, but the solution to that problem comes full circle back to the discussion of whether someone believes they should pay for a module, or get it for free.

 

100% Agree, the argument is i can play this game on my surface pro. I can load it up, and run it at 1080p, and use an xbox controller to plop around in a yak (which is THE best module right now despite it not being finished) and have a laugh..
Or i can play this game on my desktop with a full HOTAS and run FA-18 missions online..
Thats the freedom of choice.

And im saying that im 100% behind paying for more modules, so that i can still carry on playing with others who might own all modules, or just some of them.
Im agreeing that if Battlefield Productions do their modules like the supercarrier (ie - Not everyone has to own it but others can play on the same servers with those that dont own it) ill more than likely buy their modules. As there is nothing better than jumping on a GS server and running sorties my others.

Im also saying that if Battlefield Productions do their modules like the WW2 Asset Pack (ie - You can own a tank, but not play these online on servers without paying extra for a seperate 'asset pack') ill more than likely stick with EA's new Battlefield 6, Squad, Arma 3 or any other game that will more than likely do it better, than the new modules do on this engine..
There is nothing worse than not being able to play a game with your friends. And single player only has so much life.

Try it, Go pull out Monopoly, call up your friends, and tell your friends they can come round, but cant play without buying their own monopoly pieces.
When they say no, try playing monopoly on your own..
And thats what im talking about.

Just imagine you werent able to fly a fast jet like the F-16 until you bought and learnt to fly a trainer like the Yak. Would that be okay?
Any assets that are needed for a module, should come priced in with the module they are needed for, this should include maps, all at a cost to us. Not- to the cost of the gameplay.

Thats the problem i have with the way some modules are structured, and im just telling BP, so they can avoid the mistakes that have been made in my opinion and with that knowledge, hopefully they can access more of my money. Id even donate to a kickstarter should that come up with the promise of open servers..

 

If their modules allow anyone to play online, ill probably end up spending nearly another £1000 (like ive done with DCS) on ground units, Id love nothing more than a tank module or A/A module, but if i have to buy a 'pack' which means im going to end up on a server of 15, then thats not going to be much fun..

ED and any 3rd party dev's are entitled to offer me any modules, and ill go and do what i can to buy all of them out of choice.
All i can do, is tell BP how to get me to spend the most of my money.

[3WA]

We understand what your saying Steve, but think about it.

 

DCS makes mostly modules and maps.  They can probably afford to give away an asset pack or two, and even a map.

 

But BP is a THIRD PARTY.  They are coming into the game to make asset packs!  And, for the near future, that's probably going to be their main product.  So, they don't want to give their stuff away for free.  Is there a way to compromise for people who don't own the assets on MP play?  I don't know.  We're going to have to leave that up to them.

 

If I REALLY want to play on a specific server, I'll probably buy the assets.

[StormBat]

22 hours ago, 3WA said:

Yeah, it's all priorities.  You have to pay for what you want.  It just comes down to how much do you want it?  Of course, if the company wants to sell it, they need to offer it for a price people can be comfortable with.  Supply and demand.  It's all a balancing act.

 

I want an actual, decent HOTAS, but the prices are pretty high.  Been wanting one for years.  Priorities, priorities, priorities.

 

Nothing in Life is for free.

 

I agree sometimes I ate really cheap foods and saved my money for weeks, to get what I wanted, no partying, no outings, no beer, or whatever cost money.  Now I have a decent computer, VR, HOTAS and all for my gaming(mostly Sims)  Like you said it's all how much you want it. Cheers.

[3WA]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

Any assets that are needed for a module, should come priced in with the module they are needed for, this should include maps, all at a cost to us. Not- to the cost of the gameplay.

That's an idea, probably best for the mostly MP players, but probably 90% of people on this sim play single player, against the AI.  So, probably a no-go for most of them.  Most of them will be like me and want separate items.

If BP does do anything to try and solve the problem, I think it will be with some kind of lesser, basic stand-in props for people who don't own the assets, just so they can play in the server.  I think that's what Arma did IIRC.

Edited March 3, 2021 by 3WA

[Callsign112]

I can't help wonder if some of us haven't misinterpreted the OP's original announcement, and I don't just mean that we are getting OFF-TOPIC here. It seems to me that part of the reason for this might be that DCS is largely a flight simulator, and when the WWII assets pack was first released, it was meant to help augment the scenery for the pilots, and give them something more interesting to shoot at. Hence its title as an "assets pack". 

 

The understanding I get when I read the introduction to this thread is that the concept being proposed here is less of an assets pack, and more of dedicated group of ground based modules designed to make the ground war in DCS a more viable part of game play. In whatever form this concept takes, as a digital combat simulator, advancements in this area seem to be long overdue.   

[StevanJ]

10 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I can't help wonder if some of us haven't misinterpreted the OP's original announcement, and I don't just mean that we are getting OFF-TOPIC here. It seems to me that part of the reason for this might be that DCS is largely a flight simulator, and when the WWII assets pack was first released, it was meant to help augment the scenery for the pilots, and give them something more interesting to shoot at. Hence its title as an "assets pack". 

 

The understanding I get when I read the introduction to this thread is that the concept being proposed here is less of an assets pack, and more of dedicated group of ground based modules designed to make the ground war in DCS a more viable part of game play. In whatever form this concept takes, as a digital combat simulator, advancements in this area seem to be long overdue.   

Youll probably do yourself some good, from re-reading page 1.
Op (BP) starts by asking us if we want Post- Cold war, Cold War, And airfield asset packs, then when the overall response isnt good, there is a move from others to talk about Combined arms.
Since that first opening post, there isnt really anything specific mentioned, there are a few posts where they are asked to do ground vehicles, but also a few posts where BP re-affirm that they want to make more asset packs.
They havent yet posted a response to actually making 'ground units'. And from there last post, theyve said even making 'infantry' is beyone their remit.

[sergkar]

 

3 hours ago, StevanJ said:

They havent yet posted a response to actually making 'ground units'. And from there last post, theyve said even making 'infantry' is beyone their remit.

 

Well, actually that was part of the OP:

 

"These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system."

 

They also wrote, they don't want discuss pricing atm.

[StevanJ]

1 minute ago, sergkar said:

 

 

Well, actually that was part of the OP:

 

"These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system."

 

They also wrote, they don't want discuss pricing atm.

I see where youre coming from, But thats just pulling context away from the actual topic in hand.
And thats why some people are speaking up and diluting the focus away from op's post- with regards to them selling asset packs.

Because when i read that full post, i read the statement, as 'If we sell enough asset packs we'll look on towards.. 'Ground vehicles etc'"

I think thats where some people are taking words out of context, like this.

Im speaking up, because i dont want to have asset packs as a 'First Instance' (To quote the very post you quoted), and youre speaking up because you want the 'simulated ground vehicles' (Which will follow in the promise they sell, the asset packs).
And that 'eventual promise' of a simulated ground vehicle is that- which is fuelling the hype train in this thread meaning some people arent actually reading Op's full posts, just taking words from it, and slapping them on here with 'Yeah i want Arma in DCS'.
If theres a way, in which i can buy more assets, and others can play with me while they dont, then yeah, ill change my mind, and say im for more asset packs.
I think spending money on luxuries is obviously welcome, just as long as it doesnt stop others from playing on a server with me, like the WW2 A-Pack.

Im both clarifying that i 100% would buy a 'simulated ground vehicle' module, and 100% WOULD NOT if it meant i had to buy the asset packs that Battlefield Productions- (who are, in 'first instance' trying to sell-) to enjoy them.

If they dont sell enough asset packs, are you going to be disappointed if no 'simulated ground vehicles' are released because of poor 'Asset Pack' sales?
Or would you much rather they focused on the Ground Vehicles first? Because thats what id rather they did, and thats what im trying to hint towards..
If you really would rather they focused on 'Asset packs' then say it.
If you would much rather they focused on a 'Ground Unit Module', say that.
Everyones entitled to want another asset pack, but focusing on this 'simulated ground vehicle' that hasnt even been clarified as a module yet, when BP have numerous times stated are aiming towards selling assets first, is pulling focus away from the actual topic started on page one.

I might be wrong, but i feel that if they focused on the 'Simulated Ground vehicles' before the asset pack, the response from the forums would be more a welcomed one and sales would probably be much stronger even at a higher premium? Id pay £70 for an M1A1 Abrams Module, Id not pay £15 (during a sale) for another asset pack. It might be a little more work than making a few '3d models for the asset packs' but im sure the financial rewards will much more lucrative for their team as a whole.

Then- if those people who bought the tanks wanted to buy a 'detailed farp' asset pack they are welcome to ask for it.

But right now, ive no interest in an 'airfield asset pack', 'post and cold war' asset pack, as i can build everything i want in the game we have, and id much rather creative resources were spent on 'future modules' or 'game improvements' what ever they might be.. (See my campaign trailer for 'Go with the flow' which actually shows airbase growth through each mission, it was made by people without asset packs)

And to answer OP, do i want more asset packs with the hope that if we sell more and the numbers are good (because as they state paying themselves is of importance), we might get tanks?

No, focus on tanks, drop the assets as a 'first instance'.. Im happy with the current assets we have. But if you HAVE to build asset packs, make them like the supercarrier, so i can play with other people that have them as a luxury, so if i do actually buy them, i can invite the people i play with to the server, not like the WW2 asset pack which bans players who dont have them from the server.

Im not arguing with anyone over what they would like, i agree that everyone is going to have differing opinions to this subject, just as if it were a post- asking us what our next new module should be.
I just think if more people answered the original posts by Op, we'd have a better clarity towards BP, and they'd maybe think about making Combined Arms 2, or a 'tank module' before they start to think about developing and selling another asset pack.
But right now, all ive seen for pages and pages is 'we're happy to pay for an Arma style DCS mod' not 'Id buy another asset pack', which is really confusing given the threads topic.
Were going round and round in circles.
 

[sergkar]

I would rather say, that your context is actually your interpretation. I don't read that condition as clearly stated as you do. I read it more like "the easier part first to get a foot in the door".

 

When this threads circles around certain points of view, then it's because most important parts were already written on the first pages and since then not much changed. A design document is to be written and proposals are to be made. Then there'll be comm with ed and I hope after that we will get an announcement here.

 

I think your point is somewhat clear: you don't want to buy an asset pack and you want its supposed models to be included (in low res) in the core - as was the idea much further up in the thread, somewhat acknowledged by BP.

 

So I suggest we wait for the end of the talks between 3rd party and 1st party, instead of restating what we already wrote.

Edited March 3, 2021 by sergkar

[Callsign112]

On 1/4/2021 at 5:55 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

Hi Everyone,

My name is Marcus from Battlefield Productions...

These are some of the things we would like to bring to the DCS environment at first, but in the longer future we would like to entertain the idea of doing some focus simulated ""Ground Vehicles", think along the lines of Combined Arms but with more depth and more realism, so for example a fully featured with multiple positions Tank with a full 3d internal model etc, and clickable interactive features & switches etc, and most importantly a more in depth and more realistic damage model, these would be proper "modules" in much the same way you currently purchase the other modules here within the DCS eco system...

 

11 hours ago, StevanJ said:

Youll probably do yourself some good, from re-reading page 1.
Op (BP) starts by asking us if we want Post- Cold war, Cold War, And airfield asset packs, then when the overall response isnt good, there is a move from others to talk about Combined arms.
Since that first opening post, there isnt really anything specific mentioned, there are a few posts where they are asked to do ground vehicles, but also a few posts where BP re-affirm that they want to make more asset packs.
They havent yet posted a response to actually making 'ground units'. And from there last post, theyve said even making 'infantry' is beyone their remit.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Callsign112

[Callsign112]

11 hours ago, StevanJ said:

...They havent yet posted a response to actually making 'ground units'. And from there last post, theyve said even making 'infantry' is beyone their remit.

What I understood was that an Arma3/PostScriptum type of infantry is beyond their remit at this point in time.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Callsign112

[3WA]

3 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

What I understood was that an Arma3/PostScriptum type of infantry is beyond their remit at this point in time.

 

Yeah, same thing I understood.  Right now, it looks like they want to start with better AI and models for ground troops / vehicles, and then get into Vehicle modules later when they are more comfortable with the DCS ground and code.  Sounds good to me!  VERY WELCOME!!

[Callsign112]

1 minute ago, 3WA said:

Yeah, same thing I understood.  Right now, it looks like they want to start with better AI and models for ground troops / vehicles, and then get into Vehicle modules later when they are more comfortable with the DCS ground and code.  Sounds good to me!  VERY WELCOME!!

Bartender, pour the man a drink

[StevanJ]

On 1/4/2021 at 10:55 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

In the first instance Battlefield Productions are interested in producing the following content, the ideas below are visions only, and the ideas have come around from much reading here on these forums, these ideas are adaptable to some degree depending on how the community receive this, ultimately we only want to make content people actually want !
 

• Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Cold War"
• Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Post Cold War"
• Airfield Assets Pack - Including Animated and Moving Ground Handlers etc - think along the lines of MS2020 or better - we need to firstly understand how flexible this engine is to achieve all that we would like tho, the goal is to bring a living and breathing ground environment on the Airfields

 

On 1/5/2021 at 12:02 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

I am not sure we could provide the balance between air power and ground power and solve all those issues raised above - because that balance of "fairness" doesn't exist in the real world either, if your out cruising around in the battlefield in real life and an A10C turns up, you better hope you are on the same side, or he didn't spot you

 

On 1/5/2021 at 12:02 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

As mentioned in the first post, we are still finding out feet here to understand how to blend our ideas with DCS eco system, and the customer base, so things are most certainly not set in stone, first and foremost we really would like to do the asset packs - the detailed vehicles thing is "thoughts for the future" and nothing more than that, so should only be considered as thinking out loud and throwing it out there for discussion

 

On 1/5/2021 at 1:40 PM, Battlefield Productions said:

On 1/5/2021 at 1:38 PM, Silver_Dragon said:

Has some "branches" into DCS Ground a little empty:

- HQs, Command Posts and vehicles.

- Signal equipment.
- Artillery (towed) and ammunitions
- Logistic assets vehicles, transports, transloaders, crates. Medical personal.

- Enginering (earthwork, minelaying, briding and ferry).
- Base equipment (depots, ligistic, POL, Medical) 

- infantry

- fortifications and others field defenses.

- Airbone and aeromovile equipments tools (no planes or helos).

- Electronic Combat assets.

- WMD (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) assets.

Of course vehicles, trains, UAVs and others assets.

Expand  

Yes, exactly the same kind of lists we have in mind....

***Then a few pages later later in the week, they come back again and end with the assets packs.. on a multitude of Differing posts.


In the first instance we would like to work on the Airfield Pack if we can make that possible..

We've not ruled out Naval Assets..

Everything we have said so far is our intent, and wishes and vision..

Seriously @Callsign112, @3WA, Youll probably do yourself some good, from actually re-reading page 1 not just spamming the same paragraph thats been posted just 3 posts ahead of you..
Youve just stamped the same paragraph as 'sergkar' a few hours earlier.

Its a single paragraph in a single post which lightly contributes towards a more detailed combined arms, but the message in that post, and a vast number of other posts from OP, are pointing in a single direction. Numerous times BP come back and reaffirm where theyll point their creative direction, Asset Packs.

It is quite obvious what BP want to work on- Asset Packs.
But youre more than welcome to keep spamming parts of Op's posts, if you also feel like you would prefer the asset packs first and foremost.
Just tell us thats what you want, instead of spamming their words and not being specific to what you want.
This is why you and i are unclear on what theyre delivering. Ive spoke my mind, and id hope youd be clear on what you want, so that we can give BP some clear direction.

Do you want the tank module or the asset pack?
Otherwise if you keep spamming that paragraph, others will join and not read Op's first Post and start another discussion that rolls off the original topic- Asset Packs..
Do you want the asset packs first (airfield, cold war, post cold war, Naval) before they move onto to a more detailed combined arms?
Would you like me, prefer they started on a tank module? Would you rather they didnt do that?
If you could answer that, we might be able to focus and move on; this way everyones clear moving forward, and i can support you in the way you want..

While i understand your passion towards this game, i think its probably best we keep focus on Op and thats the message thats posted numerous times through the thread by BP.

I dont mind if you want the asset pack, I dont mind if you want the tank module. I dont mind if your opinion is opposite to mine, but lets stay focused and tell BP specifically what youd like?
At least then we can stop arguing with each other and move on for the greater good of the thread.
Otherwise others will join in- in the hope of 'arma for DCS'. And then we'll have another 10 pages of others arguing over ground units, when the thread doesnt seem to be targeting this first of all, even though I wish they would..
 

[3WA]

2 hours ago, 3WA said:

Yeah, same thing I understood.  Right now, it looks like they want to start with better AI and models for ground troops / vehicles, and then get into Vehicle modules later when they are more comfortable with the DCS ground and code.  Sounds good to me!  VERY WELCOME!!

 

[Callsign112]

@StevanJ, I have read the thread. In the quotes you provide above, you left out where the OP talked about developing ground forces well enough so that it could possibly generate its own player base. I understand that wouldn't be the first step. The OP also talked about AI logic. My understanding is that a more usable infantry with much improved AI logic would be part of the early steps, and that this will lead to more detailed vehicles with improved physics models. One only has to look at the WWII assets pack and Combined Arms modules to realize how much work needs to be done on the ground war part of DCS. 

 

What I am interested in is the part where he was talking about developing the ground forces to the point where it would support its own player base. And I am willing to support this effort to help it get there. Do I want another WWII assets pack that takes a decade before it sees any updates? Your right, I don't!

[Gierasimov]

On 3/3/2021 at 12:04 AM, sergkar said:

Coming back to the actual topic: what is the current state of the design document and maybe also a possible model submission?

You know how it is. They will share more news when they are ready...

[dawgie79]

On 1/5/2021 at 11:12 AM, draconus said:

The only thing I'm going to buy is the Airfield Assets Pack - bring on right now. It is really missed just as proper ATC. It works for Supercarrier - it will for airfields too (and SC could use some more of it too). That way players can decide if they want it and buy it but it's still optional and no harm is done to the missions if the user don't own it.

 

Yep, me too. Airfield Assets Pack, which has some animated elements to make the airfields feel more alive, day one buy! 

 

Ground assets, nah, not for me. 

 

[Callsign112]

3 hours ago, dawgie79 said:

Yep, me too. Airfield Assets Pack, which has some animated elements to make the airfields feel more alive, day one buy! 

 

Ground assets, nah, not for me. 

 

And that is likely to be the popular vote here as a flight sim, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a DCS ground war side of things. You wouldn't go to a hamburger joint and claim its proof that no one wants to eat pizza. I discovered IL2 because of its Tank Crew module, and since then have purchased 4 of the flight modules. 

 

The detail that ED puts into its jet/plane modules is simply amazing. I am still focused on collecting war birds until I get a more capable system, but of the 3 I have collected so far, I can honestly say I am equally amazed by each of them. If ED put the same attention to detail in its ground related modules, I can't think of any reason why it would not be successful.  

 

But maps, super carriers, and modern jet fighters are obviously huge projects that eat up the majority of resources, so bringing in a third party to help out is probably a reasonable way to move forward.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Callsign112

[StevanJ]

45 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

And that is likely to be the popular vote here as a flight sim, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a DCS ground war side of things. You wouldn't go to a hamburger joint and claim its proof that no one wants to eat pizza. I discovered IL2 because of its Tank Crew module, and since then have purchased 4 of the flight modules. 

 

I Agree,  however Il2 just delivers in such a different way despite being very low fidelity in comparison.
That analogy is wrong int that it assumes you have no cholice but to walk into 'a hamburger joint', use that same analogy in a different context. Say- A high street..
You walk down the high street and see 10 vendors selling pizza, and a single vendor selling burgers..

Id say that would give you a clear and open vision of what food was popular (or rather -what sells).

Then take a look at the servers and players we have, and ask ourselves why Il2 does so well with their game numbers both in single player on steam, and online despite us having the far superior game

 

50 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

The detail that ED puts into its jet/plane modules is simply amazing. I am still focused on collecting war birds until I get a more capable system, but of the 3 I have collected so far, I can honestly say I am equally amazed by each of them. If ED put the same attention to detail in its ground related modules, I can't think of any reason why it would not be successful.  

 

I agree that the modules are phenomenal in detail and like yourself, i have nearly all of them.
My only reasons to not owning a module, only revolve around limitations to myself in the game and others 'not buying certain modules', so id welcome anyone who can make a module that comes with 'no limitations', not just cost, but accessibility in gameplay too.

[3WA]

And now consider the fact that the other most popular "World", Arma 3, looks like it is done.  People are wishing for an Arma 4, but the engine that ran A3 is being retired, as it never properly worked, and the engine that runs Day Z is being looked at.  But Day Z can't run a big world.  And is very limited.

 

Now is the time for DCS to flesh out it's World.  Otherwise, you might as well just call it DCS: Sky.  There are a lot of gamers out there who want an Arma like World, but want a lot more realistic one, especially when it comes to the flight simulation part.  Add vehicles and infantry to this game, and you have a replacement for Arma.  That will bring in a LOT of players, many of whom will become interested in the flight simulation, especially helicopters and attack jets such as the A-10.  Flight wise, I would say you are nearing the limit of what people want to buy for fighter aircraft.  How many more fighter aircraft are there to model, that people actually want to buy? F-16 / F-18 are done.  I hear the F-15E is being done.  Now, you need to start looking at bombers, attack aircraft, and helicopters.

 

Now is the time to start developing the Ground and vehicle modules.  Stryker, M1 Battle Tank, M2 Bradley, BTR-90, Artillery, etc.

 

Start first with Ground assets that don't just stand there like card board cutouts.  And we need MUCH more variety.    MUCH better AI.

 

Now is the time to start bringing this sim from niche to Popular.

Edited March 4, 2021 by 3WA

[StevanJ]

39 minutes ago, 3WA said:

How many more fighter aircraft are there to model

Here you go..
I count 1312, So were at about 2%.
Hope this helps..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft
 

39 minutes ago, 3WA said:

How many more fighter aircraft are there to model, that people actually want to buy? F-16 / F-18 are done

Also, id really like to purchase different variants, like the two seat EA18G, and the Super Hornet.
And id also like Russia's number one WW2 ground attack aircraft the Ilyushin Il-2 (ironically).
Just to name a few. But im spitballing.
Arma on DCS would never happen. Tank modules might.

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by StevanJ

[3WA]

And as I said, whose' going to buy them at 80$ a pop?  You're nearing the limit.