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

[xvii-Dietrich]

Airfield assets pack?  DEFINITELY!!!

 

Having some ground-handling personnel would really help bring an airfield to life. Even just some guy in a pair of plain overalls would help immensely. Some suggestions:

 

• Some DCS ground units have the ability to have different paintschemes. Doing that to change uniform colours would be great. Khaki, grey, brown, olive, sand, would let crews be tweaked to suit the environment, whether it is a winter Caucasus, jungle Marianas or sunny Syria map.
• Alternatively, it could be used to change skin colour.
• For simple ground crews, avoid markings/headgear/etc. that prevent them from being used by different sides or in different eras.
• Consider also the WW2 aspect. A mechanic in grey overalls would work just as well on a Luftwaffe airfield, as he would on the flight deck of the Tarawa.
• Remember to cater for the rotarywing aircraft too. Don't just make them fixed-wing specific.

 

Anything that supports WW2 and Cold War would be great, as far as I am concerned. Props and helicopters for the win.

[OttoPus]

Ground warfare and general environment improvement and expansion would be awesome.

 

Especially if it's in the form of an official add-on, with constant support, bug-fixing, high quality delivery, constant updates.

 

With the new map tech, the incoming rts/ai improvements, this sim can really turn into a total warfare sim with ground, air and sea operations.

 

Just picture a 200 client server with battlefield commanders, controllers, players playing infantry, helis, air warfare, sea support...

 

I'm in!

[chromium]

+1, in particoular for AI logic and cold-war / post cold-war asset packs.

[Terzi]

I fully support the idea of Airfield Assets Pack.

I have not much interest in "Cold War" or "Post Cold War" Ground Forces Set but I believe that's interesting for many of us here.

 

About drive-able tanks and other things similar to CA; this is a different dimension. People here in this forum today are 99% fliers. I can assure you that they won't be interested in tanks that much. BUT STILL, there are lots of tank gamers outside of this community and they are more than us in numbers. Tanks games are being played more than flight simulators because they can be played in its full potential with just keyboard and mouse. HOTAS, TrackIR, VR sets and pedals are not something that kids can buy. All these equipment aren't used in student dormitories. But kids and students can buy tank sims and just play.

 

In that sense, I believe that a good quality army simulation is the key to expand this community and its target market.

[dfpoor]

1 hour ago, chromium said:

+1, in particoular for AI logic and cold-war / post cold-war asset packs.

Supercarrier was a bit of a disappointment for me.  It looks good, but it wasn't something I had to have.  When I drive past an airbase I don't normally see people on foot or on tow-motors.  Most aircraft work is done in the hangar.  Airfield assets are fine of course, but we can't simulate everything.

US doctrine requires air-superiority followed by ubiquitous amounts of artillery and CAS.  Better ground vehicles can bring the Air-Land battle to life.  If Redfor loses the fighter-sweep then yes, A10s and Apaches will go on a killing-spree.  But then there will be a breakout.  And the ability to deploy SAM and Manpad ambushes at strategic locations will be interesting.  And of course, player-controlled accurate IADS will make life much more difficult for Bluefor.

During MP, life will be difficult for Redfor ground units.  But if unlimited respawns are taken away for air units, ground vehicles will survive a lot longer.

I was surprised to read the AT-11 was designed for Russian tanks to counter Apaches at 5K.  It might be an urban myth.  But better ground vehicles will definitely improve the whole project.

 

[tschangoo]

3 hours ago, Battlefield Productions said:

This is a core reason why we aim to provide a pricing structure which is not greedy - but inclusive, content all would hopefully "want" to purchase, but more importantly can afford to purchase without feeling resentful. We would ultimately like to see this content being viewed as "Must Have" content, maybe one day it could even be bundled with other content like maps or something - we don't know all the details or the answers yet tho.

Please cut the marketing talk. Seriously, inclusive pricing structure? Sounds scary, especially that people are already reacting positively to that.

The things you named are the assets ED has to provide free of charge, so that the whole DCS business model works in the long run. An environment or a structure with single big modules (with great value) to play around with. Otherwise, at some point there will be a total inflation of DLCs.

Plus all the other problems that come with asset packs, like multiplayer problems, server problems (what if one player sees the building/unit and the other does not), splitting the community,etc. We can see the problem already at a smaller scale with the WW2 asset pack, which scares off a lot of new players and is one of the core reasons DCS WW2 hasn't taken off yet (ha, pun!) and remains some kind of expensive tech demo.

If what you are proposing becomes the future of DCS, and it becomes a simulation where paid packs with buildings or non-driveable vehicles and other cosmetics (maybe even airport updates) are a reality, I would seriously stop investing more money in this simulation.

DCS now lives off its future potential and growth, and more barriers would kill at least the latter.

 

But not to be totally negative, why not go the full way and start making period-specific maps?

[zerO_crash]

Although the idea is good, I am afraid that if "packs" with different units are introduced, it will split the community between those that have the packs and those that don´t, and of course those that have a mix of them. This makes sense for aircraft modules, but not so much ground units, which are the basic mission-making material. Another question is whether there is enough information about the different units such as SAMs or AAA-units to really make all of them. 

 

In the end, I would not expect to be making money out of this. For most of the people here, they care about shooting "something". Whether it is an Abrams A1 or A2 is not really that important, even more so when you start talking about buying the A1 when A2 is already in the simulator for free. If you decide to give this a try, make sure to not make a mistake of making too many separate "packs". In the end, it´s much better to have a single, more expensive pack, than 4 different for 5 USD each.

Although the idea is good, I am afraid that if "packs" with different units are introduced, it will split the community between those that have the packs and those that don´t, and of course those that have a mix of them. This makes sense for aircraft modules, but not so much ground units, which are the basic mission-making material. Another question is whether there is enough information about the different units such as SAMs or AAA-units to really make all of them. 

 

In the end, I would not expect to be making money out of this. For most of the people here, they care about shooting "something". Whether it is an Abrams A1 or A2 is not really that important, even more so when you start talking about buying the A1 when A2 is already in the simulator for free. If you decide to give this a try, make sure to not make a mistake of making too many separate "packs". In the end, it´s much better to have a single, more expensive pack, than 4 different for 5 USD each.

[Rudel_chw]

I wish ED would publish what is the actual percentage of users that fly DCS in Multiplayer, because all this talk about "splitting the community" is getting really tiring. For example, at his moment (evening in Europe) there are less than 2000 players connected in MP ... my guess is that Single Player is much larger than MP, probably 10 times larger, because if ED had to rely on the purchases of those few thousand MP users it would had dissapeared from the market long ago.

 

An Aircraft Module is no different from an assets pack .. of course, if I don't own the F-14 then I won't be able to play an F-14 SP mission or take an MP client slot for the F-14, and we don't hear anyone saying that the Tomcat is "splitting the community"  ... to not have a split we would all have to fly just the two free planes in Caucasus.

 

So, I will buy any Module or Asset Pack that strikes my fancy and my wallet allows. I have very clear that not all can be free, and the two aircrafts, the single map and the current free assets are good enough for me ... all the rest I can buy as I see fit, as I do want a healthy marketplace able to support the developers that the DCS plattform has attracted.

[Weasel]

I wish ED would publish what is the actual percentage of users that fly DCS in Multiplayer, because all this talk about "splitting the community" is getting really tiring. For example, at his moment (evening in Europe) there are less than 2000 players connected in MP ... my guess is that Single Player is much larger than MP, probably 10 times larger, because if ED had to rely on the purchases of those few thousand MP users it would had dissapeared from the market long ago.
 
An Aircraft Module is no different from an assets pack .. of course, if I don't own the F-14 then I won't be able to play an F-14 SP mission or take an MP client slot for the F-14, and we don't hear anyone saying that the Tomcat is "splitting the community"  ... to not have a split we would all have to fly just the two free planes in Caucasus.
 
So, I will buy any Module or Asset Pack that strikes my fancy and my wallet allows. I have very clear that not all can be free, and the two aircrafts, the single map and the current free assets are good enough for me ... all the rest I can buy as I see fit, as I do want a healthy marketplace able to support the developers that the DCS plattform has attracted.

This

[QuiGon]

20 hours ago, Battlefield Productions said:

• Red and Blue Forces Ground Forces Set "Cold War"

 Yes please!

 

20 hours ago, Battlefield Productions said:

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.

Oh, hell yes please!!

Edited January 5, 2021 by QuiGon

[twistking]

1 hour ago, tschangoo said:

Please cut the marketing talk. Seriously, inclusive pricing structure? Sounds scary, especially that people are already reacting positively to that.

The things you named are the assets ED has to provide free of charge, so that the whole DCS business model works in the long run. An environment or a structure with single big modules (with great value) to play around with. Otherwise, at some point there will be a total inflation of DLCs.

I absolutely agree with that. People need to consider that every paid for asset/function/feature will get cut from ED's internal to do list.

I was never a defender of the WWII asset pack, but you could very well make a point for it, if you look at the history of the whole WWII project (kickstarter etc.) and the fact that it is relatively clearly divided from the main DCS experience. You could have easily marketed it as it's own game. You cannot make that point about any other post war asset pack dlc. It will be DLC inflation and will probably lead to ED reinvesting even less in giving you the immersive experience you already paid for with the aircraft AND map modules.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, tschangoo said:

Please cut the marketing talk. Seriously, inclusive pricing structure? Sounds scary, especially that people are already reacting positively to that.

The things you named are the assets ED has to provide free of charge, so that the whole DCS business model works in the long run. An environment or a structure with single big modules (with great value) to play around with. Otherwise, at some point there will be a total inflation of DLCs.
........

Plus all the other problems that come with asset packs, like multiplayer problems, server problems (what if one player sees the building/unit and the other does not), splitting the community,etc. We can see the problem already at a smaller scale with the WW2 asset pack, which scares off a lot of new players and is one of the core reasons DCS WW2 hasn't taken off yet (ha, pun!) and remains some kind of expensive tech demo.

......

 

But not to be totally negative, why not go the full way and start making period-specific maps?

 

WW2 work very well on modules, maps and other assets.
- 6 Plane build by ED and 2-3 more on progress and planned.
- 1 Plane build by a 3rd party and 1-2 more on progress and planned.
- 1 Map build by ED and another build by a 3rd party and 1-2 more are coming.

- 1 Assets pack by ED and continue rissing with more units. Others 3rd parties has making more WW2 assets to your on develop modules.

- Testbed to the new Damage model and other techs.

That is not a "tech demo"....
 

Build maps require a specific terrain develop team, outside of the module or / and a assets team.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[MobiSev]

I just hope that, if a deal is reached, it won’t be a requirement to own in order to join multiplayer servers. This would be a deal breaker for me.

 

maybe just don’t give players the ability to use or control the new assets in tac command if they don’t have them, but still let them join a server. The super carrier does this nicely. 

[zerO_crash]

There is a difference between not having a flyable module and still being able to join a server, versus not having an asset pack and not being able to join a server. Also, no one ever said that the majority of DCS community is online, quite contrary, according to what ED have stated. Most of us who are in clans fly singleplayer a lot. However just because it´s a rather small percentage online, doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. If it´s 2ooo people online right now, then creating servers with specific packs (that as opposed to not having modules, will not let you join a server) will bring that number to 20. That´s the issue. And if multiplayer is not important, then I wonder why ED used so much time with improving net-code, made it possible for dedicated servers and all the other multiplayer implementations.

 

If that wasn´t enough, we are now moving into a time where new modules released finally feature multi-responsibility aircraft (F-14, L39, C-101, EB-339, Mi-24, AH-64D, F-4 and all the other upcoming multi-seat modules), thus making it optimal to feature multiple human pilots in one session. Flying in those with an AI is a cripple. This is definitely not something that should be neglected!

Edited January 5, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

If that wasn´t enough, we are now moving into a time where new modules released finally feature multi-responsibility aircraft (F-14, L39, C-101, EB-339, Mi-24, AH-64D, F-4 and all the other upcoming multi-seat modules), thus making it optimal to feature multiple human pilots in one session. Flying in those with an AI is a cripple. This is definitely not something that should be neglected!

UH-1H multiseat testebed has been release on last 2020 beta patch with the new API multicrew, geting full multiseat operations as pilots, copilots and gunners on multiplayer. That API has been use to improve actual and future ED and 3rd parties modules, and enable build more WW2 and modern multi-seat. AI has on progress to improve them by ED team.

[BIGNEWY]

12 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

There is a difference between not having a flyable module and still being able to join a server, versus not having an asset pack and not being able to join a server. Also, no one ever said that the majority of DCS community is online, quite contrary, according to what ED have stated. Most of us who are in clans fly singleplayer a lot. However just because it´s a rather small percentage online, doesn´t mean that it doesn´t exist. If it´s 2ooo people online right now, then creating servers with specific packs (that as opposed to not having modules, will not let you join a server) will bring that number to 20. That´s the issue. And if multiplayer is not important, then I wonder why ED used so much time with improving net-code, made it possible for dedicated servers and all the other multiplayer implementations.

 

If that wasn´t enough, we are now moving into a time where new modules released finally feature multi-responsibility aircraft (F-14, L39, C-101, EB-339, Mi-24, AH-64D, F-4 and all the other upcoming multi-seat modules), thus making it optimal to feature multiple human pilots in one session. Flying in those with an AI is a cripple. This is definitely not something that should be neglected!

 

 

We will share news in the coming weeks about what we will be focusing on for 2021, I appreciate you have your own opinions.

 

Single player does have the largest player base, but it does not mean we neglect Multiplayer, its important for us and constantly being worked on. 

As noted by silver dragon, the work on multicrew is a multiplayer feature we have put a lot of work into.

 

thanks

[zerO_crash]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

UH-1H multiseat testebed has been release on last 2020 beta patch with the new API multicrew, geting full multiseat operations as pilots, copilots and gunners on multiplayer. That API has been use to improve actual and future ED and 3rd parties modules, and enable build more WW2 and modern multi-seat. AI has on progress to improve them by ED team.

 

Absolutely agree on the AI improving, no doubt. But having read the russian side (that´s where I am on most), PilotMI8, Chizh and others have confirmed that even with the AI being improved, we are talking about an AI on a basic level that can spot, shoot, fly the helicopter in a straight line or circle for you, and not much more. Maybe in a couple of years we will get advanced algorithms that will allow us to make the AI do more advanced stuff, however that is still miles from what two human operators could do. And this last part that I mentioned is in "2 weeks TM". Look at F-14, AI does "ok" at A-A and that´s about it. For advanced A-A and A-G, you are alone. And I say that with respect to the devs, cause they achieved an incredible Jester considering the aircraft´s complexity.

[Silver_Dragon]

9 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

 

Absolutely agree on the AI improving, no doubt. But having read the russian side (that´s where I am on most), PilotMI8, Chizh and others have confirmed that even with the AI being improved, we are talking about an AI on a basic level that can spot, shoot, fly the helicopter in a straight line or circle for you, and not much more. Maybe in a couple of years we will get advanced algorithms that will allow us to make the AI do more advanced stuff, however that is still miles from what two human operators could do. And this last part that I mentioned is in "2 weeks TM". Look at F-14, AI does "ok" at A-A and that´s about it. For advanced A-A and A-G, you are alone. And I say that with respect to the devs, cause they achieved an incredible Jester considering the aircraft´s complexity.

Mi-24 Hind coming with your own "jester", on develop confirmed by PilotMi8 (Mi-24) team and Kate Perederko (dotrugirl / ED COO) . ED has working on "jester" AI crew before F-14 "jester" release.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[NineLine]

19 hours ago, Shadow KT said:

ED refuses to even tweak already what is in

That's simply not true... Be excited for new ideas, but lets not trash others to that end. Thanks.

[zerO_crash]

8 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Mi-24 Hind coming with your own "jester", on develop confirmed by PilotMi8 (Mi-24) team and Kate Perederko (dotrugirl / ED COO) . ED has working on "jester" AI crew before F-14 "jester" release.

 

 

I believe that, and the team does great, I am impressed. Nevertheless, have a look here:

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Mars Exulte]

@Battlefield Productions

Yeah, there's nothing you can do to ''balance'' that. I was just pointing out the issue people eager to jump in would encounter. It won't work well in the wider ''strategic'' environment. It would require more or less dedicated servers for that purpose, or SP content. Expanded CA works better for a ''general populace'' situation.

 

The other issue regarding online play, and people trying to fit in with the wider populace is a single tank occupied by 2-3 online humans is an inefficient use of bandwidth. By that I mean they will have verrrry little influence on the battlefield compared to fliers, will be verrrry easily killed off, but hog up a lot of bandwidth relative to their actual usefulness. If you had a dozen people playing tanks, it would be roughly equivalent to having a dozen AFKers for all the good they'll do.

 

In order for the ground to be relevant in a wider scenario of general DCS online play, they would need to be ''very many'' players, and one of the leading causes of lag in online play is servers trying to do too much, with too many people, cause ''obviously the more populated it is the better''. I've played on more than a few servers ruined when idiot admins decided to increase pop cap from 60-100 while utterly lacking the infrastructure to do so in a game never designed to do it.

 

Anyway, not throwing water or trying to dissuade. People will buy it if you build it, including me, just pointing out the wider ''concerns'' of actually trying to fit it into the existing ecosystem.

[Shadow KT]

55 minutes ago, NineLine said:

That's simply not true... Be excited for new ideas, but lets not trash others to that end. Thanks.

 

I am just talking from my own experience and I also wouldn't call it a trashing. That's how it feels.

There are a lot of small stuff that can be tweaked to make it a better experience. 80% of issues with CA can be fixed that way, with value fixes, which don't need new features. I know some stuff gets reported and some even gets fixed quickly, but a lot of these issues either get ignored, left behind or maybe ED has some secret plans about them, so the posts get left unanswered, which again leaves a negative impression. 

I know there are other priorities, but honestly... CA has so much potential and it brings so much dynamic to DCS. We don't need CA 2 as some people have suggested. We need the current CA to get its tweaks and fixes. When that is done, new features could be nice.

Don't take this as trashing, this is just passion speaking.

[zerO_crash]

13 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

@Battlefield Productions

Yeah, there's nothing you can do to ''balance'' that. I was just pointing out the issue people eager to jump in would encounter. It won't work well in the wider ''strategic'' environment. It would require more or less dedicated servers for that purpose, or SP content. Expanded CA works better for a ''general populace'' situation.

 

The other issue regarding online play, and people trying to fit in with the wider populace is a single tank occupied by 2-3 online humans is an inefficient use of bandwidth. By that I mean they will have verrrry little influence on the battlefield compared to fliers, will be verrrry easily killed off, but hog up a lot of bandwidth relative to their actual usefulness. If you had a dozen people playing tanks, it would be roughly equivalent to having a dozen AFKers for all the good they'll do.

 

In order for the ground to be relevant in a wider scenario of general DCS online play, they would need to be ''very many'' players, and one of the leading causes of lag in online play is servers trying to do too much, with too many people, cause ''obviously the more populated it is the better''. I've played on more than a few servers ruined when idiot admins decided to increase pop cap from 60-100 while utterly lacking the infrastructure to do so in a game never designed to do it.

 

Anyway, not throwing water or trying to dissuade. People will buy it if you build it, including me, just pointing out the wider ''concerns'' of actually trying to fit it into the existing ecosystem.

 

You are jumping to conclusions too quick. You know that there are many reasons why a lobby can be ruined, and it often isn´t tied to how many people there are in that session, but rather who joins it. Often lack of planning from the pilots and badly made missions are responsible.

 

This isn´t so much a question of price, because I´m sure that everyone wants to reward a good product with money, but rather execution. That´s what will decide how this affects DCS on a greater scale.

[sergkar]

I would welcome completely clickable tanks for sure, if they came as a module.

 

I would however suggest, that you might firstly produce a campaign for CA. That's really needed and is pretty much ignored by content producers. It would also give you the opportunity to gain some insights into the current state by relatively small invest.

 

 

[Mars Exulte]

4 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

 

You are jumping to conclusions too quick. You know that there are many reasons why a lobby can be ruined, and it often isn´t tied to how many people there are in that session, but rather who joins it. Often lack of planning from the pilots and badly made missions are responsible.

 

 I think I got distracted mid-thought and left my comment a tad vague.

 

To clarify, I was referring to lag induced by overpopulation. That's an unavoidable factor in every game, though the line of what constitutes ''over populated'' can vary depending on the game and how it distributes the workload. More people in and of itself isn't a bad thing, until you cross that line. The crappier/cheaper the server operating the whole thing, the quicker you arrive at that line, also if the game is not optimised for high pop. I was referring to servers I've seen get screwed up chasing pop count at the cost of quality service in gaming in general.

 

 Otherwise, yes, in principle your points are all valid influences on a server, just not what I referring to.