Please make more assets.

[truebrit]

I like to make missions and have noticed the great lack of all types of assets for nations such as the UK, which of course will also work for many Middle East countries. Is there any plans for more assets?

[cfrag]

Maybe it would help if we enumerated the assets that we would like to see. For my part, let me start with these static assets I'd like to be able to place in ME

 

- civilian and medical helicopter pads (!!)

- airfield stuff: ladders, tire blocks, civilian "follow me" cars (yellow-black), cones (small), barriers, booms (basically an 'official' version of the great Virpil stuff) 

- flat rectangular surfaces made from metal, concrete, earth, sand, grass and gravel that aircraft can drive on

- fences: chainlink factory, residential, military, agricultural

 

 

 

[WinterH]

I'll play the devil's advocate, and say that assest cost a lot to make, and don't directly pay back. So I understand the pace we get them, but we are getting them.

 

For British assets, Razbam is making South Atlantic map, and are modeling a lot of AI assets for both UK and Argentina, ships, some planes, not sure but I think vehicles too.

 

I believe the thing we are most sorely missing is an assortment of technicals: pickups with .50 cals, 23mms, recoilless guns, and rocket launchers strapped on their back. Especially since we now have lots of helicopters and COIN type aircraft. Some older MANPADS from both blue and red sides would be very welcome as well, though, to be fair, Igla-S now only works about as good as a Redeye or Strela-2 should

 

I've read technicals are planned, also ED will take a look at the Igla bug I've mentioned. They're doing as much as possible I'd say, DCS is a huge beast after all.

 

In the meantime, there are some community mods to help. French pack adds lots of French vehicles, as well as some older Soviet era tanks like T-62, T-64, and some low poly technicals with machine guns, and lots of base building static objects like sheds, tents, walls, HESCO blocks etc. Of course, mods will mean if you are making the mission for multiplayer, everyone who wants to join must have them installed, but they help with diversity while ED and 3rd parties add more stuff to the sim.

[shagrat]

36 minutes ago, WinterH said:

I'll play the devil's advocate, and say that assest cost a lot to make, and don't directly pay back. So I understand the pace we get them, but we are getting them.

 

For British assets, Razbam is making South Atlantic map, and are modeling a lot of AI assets for both UK and Argentina, ships, some planes, not sure but I think vehicles too.

 

I believe the thing we are most sorely missing is an assortment of technicals: pickups with .50 cals, 23mms, recoilless guns, and rocket launchers strapped on their back. Especially since we now have lots of helicopters and COIN type aircraft. Some older MANPADS from both blue and red sides would be very welcome as well, though, to be fair, Igla-S now only works about as good as a Redeye or Strela-2 should

 

I've read technicals are planned, also ED will take a look at the Igla bug I've mentioned. They're doing as much as possible I'd say, DCS is a huge beast after all.

 

In the meantime, there are some community mods to help. French pack adds lots of French vehicles, as well as some older Soviet era tanks like T-62, T-64, and some low poly technicals with machine guns, and lots of base building static objects like sheds, tents, walls, HESCO blocks etc. Of course, mods will mean if you are making the mission for multiplayer, everyone who wants to join must have them installed, but they help with diversity while ED and 3rd parties add more stuff to the sim.

The gripe I have with community mods for mission design, is the dependency it creates. Everyone joining a MP Mission needs to download all mods integrated into the mission.

I would really prefer ED releasing a larger set of simple assets for example civil aircraft (737 type already sitting at the airports), skins with different camo patterns/emblems for the existing red and blue soldier models, a bunch of civil cars (the ones emulating civil traffic would work very well), the insurgent model without an AK-47 or RPG or even better a bunch of unarmed civilians to model ROE where it is not "if it moves, shoot it".

And yes technicals is something we desperately need to do COIN, but in addition I beg ED to add an "unarmed 4x4" for the same reason we need an unarmed "insurgent" to model complex ROE.

The benefit for ED? Mission and Campaign designers getting a toolset to create perfect small dissimilar conflict and COIN like campaigns for the new helicopters as well as the existing modules. As the past 3 decades were dominated by these types of conflicts it could attract a lot of people... The usual Red vs. Blue or "Cold War gone hot" scenarios are slowly getting old... At least, for me.

[Northstar98]

I'm not saying no, but personally, I'd rather get all of the assets up to the same standard before just adding completely new.

 

But after that? I'm 100% with you.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm not saying no, but personally, I'd rather get all of the assets up to the same standard before just adding completely new.

 

But after that? I'm 100% with you.

 

I both agree and disagree here, depending on assets to update.

 

I really think bringing up every asset up to the level of latest ones is unnecessary and counter productive, but some of them require it alright. For example, I think old BTR-80 looked quite ok. It wasn't amazing, but it wasn't horrible either, it looked the part. New one looks a lot better yeah, but the effort could arguably be better put into something more sorely missing. Now, I will admit that it is probably because they already had the recently added BTR-82A, and using it as a base a bring up the 'ol BTR to same level wasn't actually as intensive a task, and made sense. But I used it as an example to convey what I've meant.

 

Most of the current BMPs, and most of the MBTs look dated, not jaw droppingly amazing, but quite alright imo. And I think instead of bringing them up to the same level as the latest assets, using that effort to bring really bad looking ones up to par, or better yet, adding some missing stuff would be more helpful.

 

Some like S-300 site objects though, are barely out of 90s, quite important, and would be great to them updated, though I think ED is already working on them as far as I recall. M-60s looked horribly horrible until some months ago, now it's pretty good looking as well. Trucks are getting refreshed too from what I can see.

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

I'll play the devil's advocate, and say that assest cost a lot to make, and don't directly pay back. So I understand the pace we get them, but we are getting them.

 

 

There's no advocating - hellish or other - involved:) - I don't expect these assets to be free. I'm prepared to pay good money for good work. Now, I'm aware that there are many people who think everything is too expensive, and even free is too much. They'll hopefully find the error in their ways before it's too late.

 

I'm hoping for a high-quality asset pack much like Supercarrier is an asset pack to me. One that I'd plunk down real money in a heartbeat. My only requirement: it must be ED supported so it's standard.

[WinterH]

2 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

There's no advocating - hellish or other - involved:) - I don't expect these assets to be free. I'm prepared to pay good money for good work. Now, I'm aware that there are many people who think everything is too expensive, and even free is too much. They'll hopefully find the error in their ways before it's too late.

 

I'm hoping for a high-quality asset pack much like Supercarrier is an asset pack to me. One that I'd plunk down real money in a heartbeat. My only requirement: it must be ED supported so it's standard.

Paid AI assets so far proven to be unpopular from what I can see. I am torn about them myself. However, the thing about them is, they come with the same problems as mods: if you want to use them for a multiplayer mission, only people who have installed them can join.

[cfrag]

Just now, WinterH said:

Paid AI assets so far proven to be unpopular from what I can see. I am torn about them myself. However, the thing about them is, they come with the same problems as mods: if you want to use them for a multiplayer mission, only people who have installed them can join.

 

Apologies for being unclear: I'm talking about 'dumb' assets: static objects. 

 

Yes, in terms of multiplayer they require everyone having to purchase and install them. The same holds true for modules and (most significantly) maps, so personally I don't see it as such a big hurdle, but yes, I do see the possible disadvantages.

[WinterH]

4 minutes ago, cfrag said:

The same holds true for modules

But it doesn't  anyone who doesn't have an official module featured in a mission, but have another one also in that mission, can happily join and enjoy.

Like I've said though, I'm torn myself. When WWII Asset Pack came I was super hostile against the idea. I am still not particularly fond, but DCS installations are already getting crazy huge, and everthing being integrated to every install will get more and more unsustainable, and making these AI units isn't easy or cheap either, so if we want them, and want them now, expecting ED to be compensated for them makes sense.

 

So far Deka Ironworks has added lots of Chinese objects to the sim pro-bono, ED is adding new ones and updating old ones at a steady but not blazing pace, Razbam will add lots for their South Atlantic map, but it isn't clear if they'll go into sim right away or be bundled with map. Heatblur and Leatherneck are also adding a few at some point in future mainly older aircraft carriers, and some aircraft. So things are happening already, but a 3rd part dev specializing on AI asset packs may not be an entirely crazy idea at this point either, it would make it a lot faster for us to get more units in the sim. Especially more niche ones like country and era specific packs.

[Northstar98]

58 minutes ago, WinterH said:

I both agree and disagree here, depending on assets to update.

 

Here's what I would prioritise:

• Aircraft (how many have we got that are still from Flanker 2.5?)
• Weapons
• Air Defences
• Armoured Units
• Artillery
• Surface Combatants and other warships
• Airfield Support Equipment (GPUs, Fuel Trucks etc) 
• Other ground units and ships
• Personnel
• Civilian Units

You don't have to bring them up to the level of say, the current BTR-80/82A (which even animates the prism in the gunner's sight moving up and down), but there needs to be a common standard.

 

Right now we have a mix, and it looks like we've taken assets from 3 different games:

• We have the HL1 looking S-300 system that you mentioned.
• The decent, but maybe not stellar 9K37M1.
• And then we have amazing/basically perfect stuff like our new 2K12 (basically graphical representation of damage is the only thing missing).

 

Quote

Most of the current BMPs, and most of the MBTs look dated, not jaw droppingly amazing, but quite alright imo. And I think instead of bringing them up to the same level as the latest assets, using that effort to bring really bad looking ones up to par, or better yet, adding some missing stuff would be more helpful.

 

Only thing I'll say here, is what about any new damage model that comes to vehicles? ED have hinted at they want to improve (among others) the graphical representation of damage (right now we only have an alive model and a dead model), there's also things like CA, where the disparity in quality is a lot more noticeable, though all of the other shortcomings of CA are still prevalent.

[Silver_Dragon]

The DCS assets has been continious updates from 2012. 
 

The actual list of ED planned assets to 2021 was here:

 

The list was:
 

Quote

 

Large Aircraft: B-52H, Tu-95MS, Tu-142, B-1B, IL-38, and Tu-160

Carrier Aircraft: S-3B and SH-60B

Ground Units: M1A2, AMX-56 Leclerc, Wespe Sd.Kfz.124, KS-19 100mm ADA, Son-4 “Flap Wheel” radar, C1 Ariete, Pantsir SA-22 “Greyhound”, and S-300/SA-10 “Grumble”.

 

 

But that list has been expanded with the new assets added on the last patchs. Remember, into DCS directories has near a great quantity of assets none implemented by require new funtionality, core improvements and/or other assets to work.

 

Damage model on vehicles has planned by ED. Meanwhile build BTR-80/82A standars can take months or some year to build. More UK assets coming with future RAZBAM South Atlantic Map.

yes, have near a 100 3D models with require update to "2021" standards but remember ED has add new and updated stuff on any new 2.X patch, more with any 3rd party. The "LOMAC/FC/Ka-50/A-10C" assets to update, here:

Other problem has the continue "polycount" raising, and the quality standars on the new assets.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[MAXsenna]

I read somewhere that dependencies of modules can be disabled by the mission designer, but there will be placeholders which might lead to confusion. For instance I believe the A-4E-C will be replaced by the Su-27 or something.

But seriously! If you want to play this game, the current asset pack is on sale for less than beer in my country.
I think a lot of grief just comes from people that just don't want to spend MONEY, because they feel entitled to have it bundled in the core. Which is not a sustainable way for ED.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[truebrit]

21 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I read somewhere that dependencies of modules can be disabled by the mission designer, but there will be placeholders which might lead to confusion. For instance I believe the A-4E-C will be replaced by the Su-27 or something.

But seriously! If you want to play this game, the current asset pack is on sale for less than beer in my country.
I think a lot of grief just comes from people that just don't want to spend MONEY, because they feel entitled to have it bundled in the core. Which is not a sustainable way for ED.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

What asset pack are you referring to?

[Rongor]

Port of Sevastopol needs assets urgently...

[Beirut]

As long as the cost is reasonable, I have no problem paying for extra toppings on my DCS pizza.

 

I'd like to think there is a basic truth to, "If I give you more money... you will make me more stuff."

 

And I want more stuff. 

[MAXsenna]

What asset pack are you referring to?

The only paid one.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[WinterH]

Just now, truebrit said:

What asset pack are you referring to?

Right now the only paid AI asset pack is WW II assets. Arguably there's supercarrier, but I'd say it is more than just an AI asset pack, and a sort of separate-ish category of its own.

[truebrit]

With the Eurofighter planned hopefully more assets will come for the Brits? Also with Cyprus added I would like to see 20th century assets(AI planes) to populate RAF Akrotiri. Surely any map should have the assets to populate various theatres of conflict within that area. To me without complete NATO assets for Caucasus, Syria and Gulf maps, the base game/sim is incomplete. JMO

 

Maybe make an asset pack or packs and charge for them, and/or make creators that create DLC supply some assets also.

Edited June 24, 2021 by truebrit

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I read somewhere that dependencies of modules can be disabled by the mission designer, but there will be placeholders which might lead to confusion. For instance I believe the A-4E-C will be replaced by the Su-27 or something.

But seriously! If you want to play this game, the current asset pack is on sale for less than beer in my country.
I think a lot of grief just comes from people that just don't want to spend MONEY, because they feel entitled to have it bundled in the core. Which is not a sustainable way for ED.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

The world War II asset pack  is defiantly worth it. I'd like to see a Korea and Vietnam era asset pack. We have the F-86, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21 Bis and F-5E. 

[Exorcet]

Asset Packs in the style of the WWII one I don't really agree with because of the split in the community they cause. I feel like it's fair for ED to charge for these things, but in a different way.

 

Maybe the cost for the packs could be rolled into maps? And modules could take a slightly wider scope than a specific aircraft and include some supporting assets (ie if ED goes through with the MiG-29, include some ground GCI units with it that anyone can use, but the price for them is rolled into the module).

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

Asset Packs in the style of the WWII one I don't really agree with because of the split in the community they cause. I feel like it's fair for ED to charge for these things, but in a different way.

 

Maybe the cost for the packs could be rolled into maps? And modules could take a slightly wider scope than a specific aircraft and include some supporting assets (ie if ED goes through with the MiG-29, include some ground GCI units with it that anyone can use, but the price for them is rolled into the module).

I'm wondering if Eagle could implement an asset cache for online games? It would be a folder which only DCS could access. When you connect to a server it will then download assets that you don't own and possibly install community mods. 

That aside anyway to cover the development of an asset except for an asset pack is IMHO a good idea. I like tossing them in with maps, and this is one of the reasons I keep asking for Combined Arms II and Fleet Ops. 

[Tank50us]

On 6/25/2021 at 10:47 AM, upyr1 said:

I'm wondering if Eagle could implement an asset cache for online games? It would be a folder which only DCS could access. When you connect to a server it will then download assets that you don't own and possibly install community mods. 

@NineLinementioned that in his interview with the Air Combat SIm Podcast, as it would make the game more 'mod friendly', and give you access to liveries you don't already have. Obviously the livery bit would have to be something optional for people to download, otherwise people might end up downloading d--k plane liveries. But then again, if the server runner is allowing that on their server, I think I know where the problem is....