Assets pack please

[AvgeekJoe]

Be nice to have a small assets pack...

 

We need among other things:

 

1. Toyota Hilux trucks that look like ISIS
2. Toyota Hilux trucks with AA guns and AK-47s in the back
3. Trucks w/ .50 cal guns on them
4. Suicide trucks
5. US MRAPs - preferably armed
6. More buildings that look like ISIS bunkers
7. Bayraktar TB2 combat drone of Turkey
8. Orlan-10 Russian drone
9. Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 combat drone 

 

Figure this should add some realism... and most of these assets can be used on other maps too.

[sirrah]

6 hours ago, AvgeekJoe said:

Be nice to have a small assets pack...

 

We need among other things:

 

1. Toyota Hilux trucks that look like ISIS
2. Toyota Hilux trucks with AA guns and AK-47s in the back
3. Trucks w/ .50 cal guns on them
4. Suicide trucks
5. US MRAPs - preferably armed
6. More buildings that look like ISIS bunkers
7. Bayraktar TB2 combat drone of Turkey
8. Orlan-10 Russian drone
9. Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 combat drone 

 

Figure this should add some realism... and most of these assets can be used on other maps too.

 

No more asset packs please (not that I play MP a lot, but asset packs will cripple the already shattered MP community)

 

Also, I think this wish belongs in the general wishlist forum instead of here with Ugra.

 

But yes, the units you proposed would be more than welcome.

Especially the Toyota Hilux (or actually technicals in general) are extremely overdue...

[Rudel_chw]

9 minutes ago, sirrah said:

asset packs will cripple the already shattered MP community

 

What cripples the MP community is the attitude of some of their members .. I played MP for two years and got fed up with all the rude types there, DCS is much more enjoyable on my own.

[sirrah]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

What cripples the MP community is the attitude of some of their members .. I played MP for two years and got fed up with all the rude types there, DCS is much more enjoyable on my own.

Yeah.. well.. that one pretty much speaks for itself now, doesn't it....

 

Though, you must admit that adding asset packs (that some people will buy and some won't), will divide the MP further and will leave us with more "almost empty" servers.

 

We're reaching the point where it's pretty much mandatory to join a dedicated group in order to fly online. Personally I have not enough time to properly commit to such a group.

 

At the moment I only know one server that is usually properly filled and isn't all about airquake and spamraams.

 

Hmm.. I think I went a bit off topic here.. sorry for that

 

 

On topic:

Yes! More ground assets please 

Edited August 29, 2021 by sirrah

[AvgeekJoe]

1) Thanks for the support everyone.

 

2) What's needed for the MP world is the means to download the corresponding free third party gear to support the complex missions.  Also a respectful attitude.

Edited August 29, 2021 by AvgeekJoe

[StevanJ]

12 hours ago, AvgeekJoe said:

Be nice to have a small assets pack...

 

We need among other things:

 

1. Toyota Hilux trucks that look like ISIS
2. Toyota Hilux trucks with AA guns and AK-47s in the back
3. Trucks w/ .50 cal guns on them
4. Suicide trucks
5. US MRAPs - preferably armed
6. More buildings that look like ISIS bunkers
7. Bayraktar TB2 combat drone of Turkey
8. Orlan-10 Russian drone
9. Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 combat drone 

 

Figure this should add some realism... and most of these assets can be used on other maps too.

Not Packs- Just Assets.
More ground units, more infantry types, more planes to shoot at, more structures to bomb, more civil units to add more dexterity and complexity to missions.

This recent episode on the other forum kind of sheds light to a dark corner..

Im sure everyone has an individual opinion to wether or not the 'current pack' is for them, but how long are we going to wait until the gameplay is looked at in the grand scheme of things.

I propose a monthly subscription for 'DCS Superfans'. Superfans donate a little every month on subscription 'to support' DCS (Kind of like donating to Charity).
At the end of each year of donation, they recieve 'one of a kind skins/models/free upgrades/miles (take your pic)', that way the 'superfans' can give DCS the support they want, and the player base can expand into the game self supplying sales of modules, without the need of alienation towards those who wont/cant pay for the individual packs.

The time for arguing about 'the asset pack is over', We need assets, and the game is dying for me because we dont have them.
Heres our structures and infantry..
 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

13 hours ago, AvgeekJoe said:

Be nice to have a small assets pack...

 

We need among other things:

 

1. Toyota Hilux trucks that look like ISIS
2. Toyota Hilux trucks with AA guns and AK-47s in the back
3. Trucks w/ .50 cal guns on them
4. Suicide trucks
5. US MRAPs - preferably armed
6. More buildings that look like ISIS bunkers
7. Bayraktar TB2 combat drone of Turkey
8. Orlan-10 Russian drone
9. Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 combat drone 

 

Figure this should add some realism... and most of these assets can be used on other maps too.

 

ED has talked about they has working on technical vehicles (no data about release).

[StevanJ]

29 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

ED has talked about they has working on technical vehicles (no data about release).

They do an awful lot of talking..
 

[AvgeekJoe]

I have no problem w/ being a Superfan.  

 

I just really think we need more, er, assets in the maps.

[FoxOne007]

On 8/29/2021 at 4:16 PM, sirrah said:

 

No more asset packs please (not that I play MP a lot, but asset packs will cripple the already shattered MP community)

 

Also, I think this wish belongs in the general wishlist forum instead of here with Ugra.

 

But yes, the units you proposed would be more than welcome.

Especially the Toyota Hilux (or actually technicals in general) are extremely overdue...

No one said the asset pack should be a separate purchase though. It could/should just be included with the map (like RB is doing with the Falklands). We desperately need some better middle eastern assets as both Syria and PG feel very empty. 

[StevanJ]

1 hour ago, FoxOne007 said:

No one said the asset pack should be a separate purchase though. It could/should just be included with the map (like RB is doing with the Falklands). We desperately need some better middle eastern assets as both Syria and PG feel very empty. 

Thats the long running argument.

[Callsign112]

On 8/29/2021 at 4:28 PM, StevanJ said:

Not Packs- Just Assets.
More ground units, more infantry types, more planes to shoot at, more structures to bomb, more civil units to add more dexterity and complexity to missions.

This recent episode on the other forum kind of sheds light to a dark corner..

Im sure everyone has an individual opinion to wether or not the 'current pack' is for them, but how long are we going to wait until the gameplay is looked at in the grand scheme of things.

I propose a monthly subscription for 'DCS Superfans'. Superfans donate a little every month on subscription 'to support' DCS (Kind of like donating to Charity).
At the end of each year of donation, they recieve 'one of a kind skins/models/free upgrades/miles (take your pic)', that way the 'superfans' can give DCS the support they want, and the player base can expand into the game self supplying sales of modules, without the need of alienation towards those who wont/cant pay for the individual packs.

The time for arguing about 'the asset pack is over', We need assets, and the game is dying for me because we dont have them.
Heres our structures and infantry..
 

 

The thing I don't get is if I buy a plane, or two, or three, and a map, or two, and a flight stick/head tracker, along with a computer rig to run it all, why would I want to pay a monthly fee for something I can buy for $15.00?

 

And if my mission is any good at all, why wouldn't the people in my group just pick up the assets pack to run the mission knowing how much I labor over making them?

 

But we do need more assets just to make things more interesting.

 

 

[71st_AH Rob]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:17 PM, Callsign112 said:

And if my mission is any good at all, why wouldn't the people in my group just pick up the assets pack to run the mission knowing how much I labor over making them?

Because they won't.  There is no argument or logic that will convince them to purchase an assets pack, which in turn prevents them from purchasing modules and maps.  Certainly I feel that the cost of the WWII Assets Pack, about half an hour of mission building time based on what my employer pays me to do the same, is not a lot when compared to the hours I spend each week mission building but its a matter of principle for some.

[StevanJ]

On 9/20/2021 at 6:52 PM, 71st_AH Rob said:

Because they won't.  There is no argument or logic that will convince them to purchase an assets pack, which in turn prevents them from purchasing modules and maps.  Certainly I feel that the cost of the WWII Assets Pack, about half an hour of mission building time based on what my employer pays me to do the same, is not a lot when compared to the hours I spend each week mission building but its a matter of principle for some.

 

Really well said..

[Northstar98]

On 8/29/2021 at 4:48 PM, sirrah said:

Though, you must admit that adding asset packs (that some people will buy and some won't), will divide the MP further and will leave us with more "almost empty" servers.

 

A solution to this though is to make the assets visible to everyone, but only owners can spawn them, control them and utilise their special functions.

[Callsign112]

On 9/20/2021 at 1:52 PM, 71st_AH Rob said:

Because they won't.  There is no argument or logic that will convince them to purchase an assets pack, which in turn prevents them from purchasing modules and maps.  Certainly I feel that the cost of the WWII Assets Pack, about half an hour of mission building time based on what my employer pays me to do the same, is not a lot when compared to the hours I spend each week mission building but its a matter of principle for some.

But here's the thing, why should the people that bought the assets pack concern themselves with the people that haven't? If they don't want to purchase the assets pack, and this in turn prevents them from purchasing modules and maps, then the only question that pops into my mind is, are they sure they want to be here? I think most here have likely spent well over $1000.00 to be able to enjoy DCS. And I seriously question anyone's intentions that tries to build an argument on principle, when the principle being discussed is the bread and butter on someone else's plate.

 

We all download DCS World for free. And after trying it out, we all have to make a decision to purchase the modules we want based on our own interests. If someone joins a group, and that group flies on a MP server, and that MP server requires the assets pack, then there is really only one consideration here. And that is for the person joining the group, he/she has to decide if they want to join that group on the MP server, or not.

 

Its not anymore complex then that. I wouldn't download DCS World and expect to play if all I had was a 15 year old laptop. And I wouldn't expect to be able to follow my group on a MP server when everyone else is in an FA-18, and I'm in a Yak 52. If I want to follow them, I think it is pretty clear that I would at least have to step up to something with jet power, and preferably something like either the F16/F18, or F14.

 

For anyone that buys the assets pack and then complains that the people in their group cant play the missions, then there are two options. You either make missions for the people that have the assets pack and are able to enjoy them, or you cater to the people in the other group. Personally if I was making missions, I would make the missions I want with the assets I want, and I wouldn't worry about who can and can't play them. If your any good at making missions, I doubt $15 bucks is going to stop the guy that just spent $1000 + to be here for real.

Edited September 22, 2021 by Callsign112

[AvgeekJoe]

Well I am all for shelling out $15-25 to keep it real.  I know there's a competing game of sorts that some on some other website have kept crawling along that has many more assets but nowhere near the graphics and realism.

 

I just also know that the Syria map lacks much in realistic targets.  I'd feel the same way if we put the current available objects over... say Korea where we'd need credible NK missile sites & some South Korean kit.  Or Afghanistan where many of these assets I requested would be quite relevant.

[sirrah]

Personally, I don't think payed DLC asset packs would be good for DCS (as I said before, I have this opinion especially with an eye on MP). Although I know you mean well, I don't think that this will help much:

 

15 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

A solution to this though is to make the assets visible to everyone, but only owners can spawn them, control them and utilise their special functions.

 

Would non asset pack owners still be able to blow stuff up from this asset pack, or would they only be able to see stuff? I think a DLC asset pack and its implementation on MP servers would become quite complicated and not the best way forward.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would buy such an asset pack in an instant myself. I find it worth the $. But I also like to create and share missions. Something which btw is highly underappreciated imo (E.g.: over 100 downloads, yet nobody has the decency to at least reply with a simple "thanks"), although that's another story. Not only do asset packs divide MP, but they also make it more "difficult" for mission builders to share their hard work.

 

For instance, you can already see DLC campaign builders being kinda forced to create two versions of their campaigns. One with and one without the SC module. I know these are all choices, but it doesn't make things easier. If the (DLC) mission creator decides to add the SC (or any asset pack for that matter) he will limit out on his sales, as that would force potential buyers/newcomers to purchase multiple modules/asset packs at once, which some folks simply can't afford.

 

Of course, DCS development and improvement can't be just done for free, but personally, if I were in ED's shoes, I'd start with stopping (or at least reducing) sales.

 

I mean, we can all now trial modules for 14 days, for free!

So, as a newcomer, there's really enough time to find out if DCS is for you.

Now, you also have sales like 4 times a year. With many modules up to 50% off?!

For old, and outdated modules, well ok I could maybe understand this. Like for instance the "old" A-10C..

But for most of the FF modules, I'd gladly pay full price. Yet now I know I don't have to because there's always a sales period around the corner.

[Northstar98]

12 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Would non asset pack owners still be able to blow stuff up from this asset pack, or would they only be able to see stuff?

 

They would act like they would do for an owner, but non-owners can't spawn it, can't control it or utilise any advanced functionality (which doesn't really apply to ground vehicles).

 

12 minutes ago, sirrah said:

I think a DLC asset pack and its implementation on MP servers would become quite complicated and not the best way forward.

 

Isn't this what they did with the SC? So non-owners can still see it and damage it, they just can't access it's more advanced features?

 

I'm fairly sure Arma 3 also does this with 1st party DLCs at least.

 

Though I might be misremembering here, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

12 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Don't get me wrong, I would buy such an asset pack in an instant myself. I find it worth the $. But I also like to create and share missions. Something which btw is highly underappreciated imo (E.g.: over 100 downloads, yet nobody has the decency to at least reply with a simple "thanks"), although that's another story. Not only do asset packs divide MP, but they also make it more "difficult" for mission builders to share their hard work.

 

For instance, you can already see DLC campaign builders being kinda forced to create two versions of their campaigns. One with and one without the SC module. I know these are all choices, but it doesn't make things easier. If the (DLC) mission creator decides to add the SC (or any asset pack for that matter) he will limit out on his sales, as that would force potential buyers/newcomers to purchase multiple modules/asset packs at once, which some folks simply can't afford.

 

Is this really that much of a problem though? Seriously asking.

 

As far as mission editing goes isn't it just a matter of swapping one unit for another? It's not like they have to start from scratch, and I'm fairly sure that changing a unit from one type to another doesn't change any advanced waypoint actions, though it may change the speed.

 

They can then offer both versions of their campaign with or without supercarrier.

 

For the WWII assets it becomes more difficult as you're looking at redoing all the units which may behave differently.

 

12 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Of course, DCS development and improvement can't be just done for free, but personally, if I were in ED's shoes, I'd start with stopping (or at least reducing) sales.

 

I mean, we can all now trial modules for 14 days, for free!

So, as a newcomer, there's really enough time to find out if DCS is for you.

Now, you also have sales like 4 times a year. With many modules up to 50% off?!

For old, and outdated modules, well ok I could maybe understand this. Like for instance the "old" A-10C..

But for most of the FF modules, I'd gladly pay full price. Yet now I know I don't have to because there's always a sales period around the corner.

 

Meh, personally, I see the sales as a sign that ED is probably doing pretty well financially, but alas people still think that we need subscriptions...

 

And if the WWII asset pack is anything to go by, the quickest way to get high quality assets (roughly up to the same standard as each other, though not as good as some of ED's new free editions), is to have them paid, and plenty of new technologies came to the assets pack first too.

[sirrah]

51 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

They would act like they would do for an owner, but non-owners can't spawn it, can't control it or utilise any advanced functionality (which doesn't really apply to ground vehicles).

 

 

Isn't this what they did with the SC? So non-owners can still see it and damage it, they just can't access it's more advanced features?

 

I'm fairly sure Arma 3 also does this with 1st party DLCs at least.

 

Though I might be misremembering here, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Is this really that much of a problem though? Seriously asking.

 

As far as mission editing goes isn't it just a matter of swapping one unit for another? It's not like they have to start from scratch, and I'm fairly sure that changing a unit from one type to another doesn't change any advanced waypoint actions, though it may change the speed.

 

They can then offer both versions of their campaign with or without supercarrier.

 

For the WWII assets it becomes more difficult as you're looking at redoing all the units which may behave differently.

 

 

Meh, personally, I see the sales as a sign that ED is probably doing pretty well financially, but alas people still think that we need subscriptions...

 

And if the WWII asset pack is anything to go by, the quickest way to get high quality assets (roughly up to the same standard as each other, though not as good as some of ED's new free editions), is to have them paid, and plenty of new technologies came to the assets pack first too.

 

All valid points...

 

Well... I'm not sure what the best way forward is.. Already expressed my opinion on paid DLC asset packs. An opinion I'm having difficulties with to let go..

 

Luckily it's not up to us, and whatever way ED goes, I have full confidence it'll turn out ok 

Edited September 23, 2021 by sirrah

[Aarnoman]

2 minutes ago, sirrah said:

 

All valid points...

 

Well... I'm not sure what the best way forward is.. Already expressed my opinion on paid DLC asset packs. An opinion I'm having difficulties with to let go..

 

Luckily it's not up to us, and whatever way ED goes, I have full confidence it'll turn out ok 

 

To reply to your post (and the one above it) yes, asset packs are that much of a problem.

To use the WW2 asset pack as an example, it is a big reason why many (including myself) are not interested in purchasing any warbird module, as a asset pack + seperate map purchase are required. Furthermore, that is also a large component of why the WW2 online community remains small.

In regard to solutions

- probably the most sensible in my eyes is to allocate a certain portion of development costs of modules to the creation of module-appropriate assets, which is something ED is doing in part already.
- Example: Area-appropriate units as part of map sales.

- Example 2: Module-appropriate assets. E.g. for Kiowa -> new FARP objects, new farp, some appropriate new ground units such as new infantry models/new animations (e.g. IED planting). The prior can also be nicely incorporated as part of the module cost of the AH-64, as could appropriate units such as technicals.

This allows

- cost of new AI assets to be covered (ED makes money).

- appropriate AI assets/statics are available for a new module.

- DCS core as a whole has more models.

- Note that all such assets would be part of DCS core, available to everyone unrestricted (essential for use in user missions and multiplayer), but the cost paid towards modules/maps goes into funding these assets.

[Callsign112]

7 hours ago, sirrah said:

Of course, DCS development and improvement can't be just done for free, but personally, if I were in ED's shoes, I'd start with stopping (or at least reducing) sales...

 

6 hours ago, Aarnoman said:

In regard to solutions

- probably the most sensible in my eyes is to allocate a certain portion of development costs of modules to the creation of module-appropriate assets...

I think part of the problem is that there seems to be an almost complete disconnect between our expectations and any realistic notion of how those expectations could be achieved.

 

I also think it is easy to fall into the trap where you buy a plane and then expect everything else to go along with it. I believe ED understood from the beginning that they had to create an in for people to reach for, and that IMO is what the free Caucasus map is about.

 

You can download the free map along with the accompanying two free planes and check out what DCS World is all about. You aren't required to buy anything really to get a pretty good taste of what a real digital combat learning SIM is all about. But to expect that ED and its third parties are supposed to model not just additional maps, but nearly 100 years of military tech innovation as free assets doesn't appear to me to be a realistic expectation.

 

Take the recent update for cluster bombs as an example. You bought the A10 lets say. First look at the plane itself and how much work had to go into the project in order to simulate the real thing. Don't forget, the work didn't stop there. Taking just the recent iteration of the A10, how many updates has it seen, and more importantly, how many hours of work had to be continuously pumped into the project in order to realize all of the fixes/feature enhancements? 

 

And in addition, the community has also raised a valid concern regarding cluster bomb functionality. I mean what good is a simulation of an A10 if the bombs you drop don't actually work right? So the team has to go back and pump more hours into the project, which they do! We just received a 7-page document explaining this:

 

Our work has focused on four, key areas:
1) BLU-97/B Performance
2) Weapon settings and impact BLU-97/B distribution
3) BLU-97/B distribution patterns
4) Visual and audio effects

 

The point is not that the customers who bought the A10 don't deserve working cluster bombs as part of the packaged model, because they do, the point is these things are complex and it is likely impossible to foresee all eventualities and the problems/obstacles that can crop up in a project the size of something like simulating a fighter aircraft. Just go read through the recent thread on this and see how happy everyone is that ED has finally gotten around to making it work... and the result, updates for munitions of other jets is being requested along with improved damage models for ground assets. So more hours will need to be pumped in. And I believe it will be, because it appears to me that is what ED is all about.

 

Like most here, I want to see more ships (WWII/modern) with accurately simulated weapons systems, and more accurately simulated tanks (WWII/modern) and other types of ground units, I want to see an infantry that is modeled so that it actually does something, and I want to see all of this yesterday!

 

How can these things be achieved with the request that ED stops sales? And why are we making the request? Because someone refuses to buy the assets pack, and is therefore unable to enjoy the mission I made.

 

I am assuming that @Aarnoman meant ED should include the development cost of assets with the cost of developing modules/maps, because ED couldn't feasibly allocate a portion of the development cost of a module to make assets. If they did that, they wouldn't have the funds needed to finish the module. So what we would be left with is an unfinished module and a few assets.

 

I really don't care if ED jumps the price of all maps/modules $30 buck to make all assets free, or if they decide to keep their product line the way it is. What I care about, and what I came here for is a realistic digital combat simulator, which BTW is a long way from being finished.

 

In conclusion, what I find the most amusing is that we often hear how the assets pack is responsible for dividing the MP community, but we rarely hear anyone say that responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the people who choose to be divided. If you make missions, I would encourage you to buy the assets pack and make the most use of it in your missions. Your focus shouldn't be on the person that wont play your mission, it should be on the person that will!

 

 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Callsign112

[AvgeekJoe]

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

If you make missions, I would encourage you to buy the assets pack and make the most use of it in your missions. Your focus shouldn't be on the person that wont play your mission, it should be on the person that will!

 

 

 

 

As somebody who will turn in a 10-20 mission pak for the A-10C II before Christmas that will require third-party downloads, thank you!

[Rudel_chw]

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

Your focus shouldn't be on the person that wont play your mission, it should be on the person that will!

I fully agree 

[sirrah]

34 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

I fully agree 

Ok, fair enough..

 

To be honest, I create missions because I just like doing it. But I guess I'm going off topic once again.

 

On the matter of paid asset packs. It also quite depends on the extent of the packs. I guess I'm afraid that we'd be heading in a microtransaction kinda direction...

If they were to add these packs, I'd certainly hope they would make them big. I'd rather see one huge asset pack, for a ff module price (or even double that if necessary), than seeing all kind of small $10 asset packs..