Jump to content

Should the WWII asset pack contain newer versions of WW II ships as well as the WWII fitting?


upyr1

Recommended Posts

The US Navy operated World War II era ships until the 1990s, some ships such as the USS Oklahoma changed or the Essex Class carriers changed enough that they are almost different ships in these cases it would make sense to put the newer fittings in DCS core.  Then there are other ships where the changes aren't so obvious, unless you look carefully, in these cases I if the newer variants are ever modeled it might make sense to have them in the WWII asset pack as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

in these cases it would make sense to put the newer fittings in DCS core. 


I hope ED can prioritize assets that were actually used during WW2, I’d like to see the pack expanded a bit with more common assets, like infantry of other nationalities like russian and british infantry and trucks, AI aircrafts like Ju-52, Pe-2, bf-110 and a ww2 version of the caucasus map, like it’s being done with Marianas.

  • Like 4

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:


I hope ED can prioritize assets that were actually used during WW2, I’d like to see the pack expanded a bit with more common assets, like infantry of other nationalities like russian and british infantry and trucks, AI aircrafts like Ju-52, Pe-2, bf-110 and a ww2 version of the caucasus map, like it’s being done with Marianas.

They need to do everything you brought up, we still have the issue in question. Which is what to do with postwar variants of World War II equipment that mostly could use the same models.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

I think that all assets should be added to the base game to avoid the problems brought forward above.

 

Then we would keep having a limited amount of assets ... I prefer to help pay for the development cost of more assets, having everything for free isnt always for the best.

  • Like 7

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The US Navy operated World War II era ships until the 1990s, some ships such as the USS Oklahoma changed or the Essex Class carriers changed enough that they are almost different ships in these cases it would make sense to put the newer fittings in DCS core.  Then there are other ships where the changes aren't so obvious, unless you look carefully, in these cases I if the newer variants are ever modeled it might make sense to have them in the WWII asset pack as well. 

The USNavy has none era level WW2 on 1990.

- Essex Carrier change to Essex (SCB-27C) on 52 and Midway to Midway (SCB-110) on 56, the only none modified was training carriers and LPHs, none capable to fast jets.
- The Iowa Battleships was 4 configurations (WW2, Korea, Vietnam and late Cold War) with weapons and system updates.
- Boston CA was converted on CAG on 52, same situation on others Des Moines, Oregon City or Baltimore CAs or others CLs, extensive converted to missile cruisers or better systems.
- The same situations with some DDs as Gearing and Fletcher, turned to FRAM I and II series on 50-60.

ED has none plans to Phase out to the WW2 assets team or make them all free (the team get some pay by your work).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, the WWII asset pack should stick to stuff appropriate to WWII, and it's already difficult enough getting any kind of naval asset as it is, without expanding the scope of the WWII assets pack.

12 hours ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

I hope that they don't add any more assets to the WWII Assets pack and don't make any more paid Assets Packs for anything.  I think that all assets should be added to the base game to avoid the problems brought forward above.

Entirely a MP implementation problem.

If it was handled such that non-owners couldn't spawn them in for their own SP/MP missions, but they were visible to clients who are non-owners in MP (even if it was just a lower level of detail model), it wouldn't be a problem.

Ultimately the WWII asset pack, has provided us with the greatest number of new units, done to similar levels of detail, in a shorter time than otherwise. 

  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Essex Carrier change to Essex (SCB-27C) on 52 and Midway to Midway (SCB-110) on 56, the only none modified was training carriers and LPHs, none capable to fast jets.
- The Iowa Battleships was 4 configurations (WW2, Korea, Vietnam and late Cold War) with weapons and system updates.
- Boston CA was converted on CAG on 52, same situation on others Des Moines, Oregon City or Baltimore CAs or others CLs, extensive converted to missile cruisers or better systems.
- The same situations with some DDs as Gearing and Fletcher, turned to FRAM I and II series on 50-60.

The Essex carriers that got the SCB-27 refits looked quite different than they did in World War II. However my main focus on ships that remained mostly similar, as it would be idiotic IMHO to have a free 1960s Sumner Class destroyer in DCS core and a 1940s variant in the WWII asset pack. If there were some cold war asset packs, then that wouldn't be a problem. Though we would have none owners complaining so we either need to handle the MP problem though as I keep stating sea and land modules would help. 


Edited by upyr1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, the WWII asset pack should stick to stuff appropriate to WWII, and it's already difficult enough getting any kind of naval asset as it is, without expanding the scope of the WWII assets pack.

Entirely a MP implementation problem.

If it was handled such that non-owners couldn't spawn them in for their own SP/MP missions, but they were visible to clients who are non-owners in MP (even if it was just a lower level of detail model), it wouldn't be a problem.

Ultimately the WWII asset pack, has provided us with the greatest number of new units, done to similar levels of detail, in a shorter time than otherwise. 

If they can figure out this problem, then I would love to see more asset packs. Though I think DCS needs land and naval modules 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

I hope that they don't add any more assets to the WWII Assets pack and don't make any more paid Assets Packs for anything.  I think that all assets should be added to the base game to avoid the problems brought forward above.

I am afraid that might be a little bit like wishing we don't get anymore assets period. Personally, I agree with the OP that DCS World could benefit from introducing land and sea modules, but I would also like to see a very long list of assets with improved Ai logic/LOD/DM. The only way I see that happening is with a business model that would support it. Hopefully gone are the days of low res effects, and we can all look forward to a more immersive experience with an improved level of simulator detail in all its aspects.

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

If they can figure out this problem, then I would love to see more asset packs. Though I think DCS needs land and naval modules 

+ 1. ED absolutely should add to/improve the WWII ship collection whether in the form of assets, or modules. I agree with @Northstar98 that the WWII assets pack should remain focused on WWII content. I would add to that though that ED should be careful what they add to the base game. They obviously need to make the "free verse" interesting enough so that it continues to draw more people in, but not to the point where it stifles the continued development of more/improved assets which we so desperately need.

I absolutely love seeing what the MOD community is able to do, and what they have done, but I really wish ED would figure out a way to get these guys/gals onboard so that official versions of their creations get added to the SIM. I don't run mod's simply because I want to avoid all the potential back-and-forth that gets created when you do. I mean what is the first thing anyone advises when you have a problem,... get rid of all your mods and do a slow repair!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

what is the first thing anyone advises when you have a problem,... get rid of all your mods and do a slow repair!

 

What a bad advise ... I prefer to just disable any User Mods so I can make sure that any issue I'm having is not caused by them (which is the usual case, most issues are caused by DCS bugs or user mishaps). Once the issue is cleared, I re-enable the Mods.

 

You are missing on so much:

 

itKx862.jpg

 

Y1Z02rD.jpg

 

 


Edited by Rudel_chw
  • Like 2

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

I absolutely love seeing what the MOD community is able to do, and what they have done, but I really wish ED would figure out a way to get these guys/gals onboard so that official versions of their creations get added to the SIM. I don't run mod's simply because I want to avoid all the potential back-and-forth that gets created when you do. I mean what is the first thing anyone advises when you have a problem,... get rid of all your mods and do a slow repair!

I wish the mod community would donate their work to Eagle, or that I had the modeling skills. That is up to them and they aren't doing it. SO that means we have to wait on Eagle. Few are willing to to that. 

 


Edited by upyr1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really appreciate your contributions to the forum, and consider most of your comments as really sound advise. Not a MOD user, so I didn't realize how easy it can be to disable them. Thanks for pointing that out. But it still doesn't change the fact that the first thing anyone is told on experiencing trouble is to delete/disable/move mod folders around and repair.

I'm a stable version user, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate/like what the mod community is doing. I would so love to see the WWII navy stuff make it into the official version. I would definitely pay for it. But I really do get your point in terms of the things I am limiting myself access to. Love all the template stuff you put up @Rudel_chw.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

I agree with @Northstar98 that the WWII assets pack should remain focused on WWII content. I would add to that though that ED should be careful what they add to the base game. They obviously need to make the "free verse" interesting enough so that it continues to draw more people in, but not to the point where it stifles the continued development of more/improved assets which we so desperately need.

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

but I would also like to see a very long list of assets with improved Ai logic/LOD/DM. The only way I see that happening is with a business model that would support it. Hopefully gone are the days of low res effects, and we can all look forward to a more immersive experience with an improved level of simulator detail in all its aspects.

These are the reasons I keep hounding Eagle about playable sea and land modules. A lot of people would be complaining if Eagle released a Vietnam era asset pack, but few would be complaining about a well-done module called "The Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club :US Navy 1965 to 1975" , "Fast Carrier Task Force" or a family of "combined Arms 2" modules 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I wish the mod community would donate their work to Eagle, or that I had the modeling skills. That is up to them and they aren't doing it. SO that means we have to wait on Eagle. Few are willing to to that. 

 

 

No need to donate it. That kind of talent never grows on trees. What they could do though is create a more feature rich version as an official part of DCS World. With the way things like damage models work, my feeling is it would be a very easy thing to work out.

The MOD community in DCS is amazing, I just wish they would see the value in being rewarded for all their hard work. But this conversation makes me think of the assets pack issue in new ways. Imagine if I tried making the argument that the MOD community is responsible for dividing the community. Doesn't make sense right? If you want to enjoy/make use of any unofficial MOD's available, all you have to do is add them to your DCS install. In the exact same way, if you want to enjoy a MP server that makes use of the assets pack, all you have to do is add it to you DCS install. I think that makes more sense. 

9 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

These are the reasons I keep hounding Eagle about playable sea and land modules. A lot of people would be complaining if Eagle released a Vietnam era asset pack, but few would be complaining about a well-done module called "The Gulf of Tonkin Yacht Club :US Navy 1965 to 1975" , "Fast Carrier Task Force" or a family of "combined Arms 2" modules 

+1 Bro:thumbup:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I really appreciate your contributions to the forum, and consider most of your comments as really sound advise. Not a MOD user, so I didn't realize how easy it can be to disable them. Thanks for pointing that out. But it still doesn't change the fact that the first thing anyone is told on experiencing trouble is to delete/disable/move mod folders around and repair.

I'm a stable version user, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate/like what the mod community is doing. I would so love to see the WWII navy stuff make it into the official version. I would definitely pay for it. But I really do get your point in terms of the things I am limiting myself access to. Love all the template stuff you put up @Rudel_chw.

I use a lot of mods to fill in the missing assets. though if given the choice I'd rather have an official AI asset, as mods sometimes break during updates

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

No need to donate it. That kind of talent never grows on trees. What they could do though is create a more feature rich version as an official part of DCS World. With the way things like damage models work, my feeling is it would be a very easy thing to work out.

I'm not saying they should donate becuse they aren't worth the money, I'm saying that simply because some mod builders don't want to turn professional.  Which is a shame as it is quality work. If @Hawkeye60@ak47freak , @Admiral189  and whoever else put together an official naval asset pack, I would buy it. 

 


Edited by upyr1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

If anyone would like to add their stuff to DCS in an official capacity, they are more than welcome to reach out to me with the work they have done and I can see about facilitating that. I cant promise or say what they would be paid if ED was interested, that is above my payscale, but I would be happy to try and get them hooked up with the right people. Use the models that ED is creating now as the bar though. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 4

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2022 at 10:46 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

Then we would keep having a limited amount of assets ... I prefer to help pay for the development cost of more assets, having everything for free isnt always for the best.

Thats because you don't play MP, and are happy to buy whatever ED put out. Other's do, and aren't respectively. It splits the MP community unnecessarily. There was zero need for the assets pack in the first place, if ED wanted to have monetized their efforts, they could have bundled the assets with the Normandy map and increased the price if they really needed to grab every last buck.

 

As for asking the mod community to donate models to a commercial enterprise...that's just laughable. In the same vein then Nineline, why don't you release the map SDK so that the community can make the so desperately needed and wanted maps?? No?

I'm with Rob on the one hand, I hope that the assets pack never gets another asset because it should never have been a thing. On the other hand, it wasn't value for money when I bought it, its certainly not going to be value for money if it never actually gets finished.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
19 minutes ago, SoW Reddog said:

Thats because you don't play MP, and are happy to buy whatever ED put out. Other's do, and aren't respectively. It splits the MP community unnecessarily. There was zero need for the assets pack in the first place, if ED wanted to have monetized their efforts, they could have bundled the assets with the Normandy map and increased the price if they really needed to grab every last buck.

 

As for asking the mod community to donate models to a commercial enterprise...that's just laughable. In the same vein then Nineline, why don't you release the map SDK so that the community can make the so desperately needed and wanted maps?? No?

I'm with Rob on the one hand, I hope that the assets pack never gets another asset because it should never have been a thing. On the other hand, it wasn't value for money when I bought it, its certainly not going to be value for money if it never actually gets finished.

Interesting comments for sure. Lets touch on some of it.

So I 100% agree, if a user creates a model suitable for addition to DCS, then 100% they should get paid, but that is their choice, I have dabbled in 3D Studio and can safely say its a very skillful art form to create anything half decent in there. 

In another breath, you think ED should give away all its work, be it asset pack models, or our map tools, as if we are this large huge corporate mega software giant. 

Also everyone has a solution to the Asset Pack, but none of these solutions take in to account ED's bottomline, so you want Ugra to take less for their hard work by combining ED's asset pack with their map? I don't think that is fair to them, while I am all for bundles, that isn't what you are talking about.

"Grab ever last buck" 
We have so many sales where the Asset pack is 14.99, for all it has and all that will continue to be added to it, I don't think this is grabbing ever last buck, I know its easy to paint a company as a greedy money grabbing entity, but I am sorry, at the end of the day we, that is ED has to manage the ROI on all work they do, people say, oh give away the Asset Pack, your sales will increase... except for all the refund or return on players investment they gave us for the Asset Pack originally. Price out how much it costs to do one high quality model for use with a commercial product and you will see it simply is not that easy, and we, again ED are most likely giving away a lot more than you already think.

There is no answer or response to this, this is the way it is right now, so please stay on topic, and dont try and steer the conversation to whatever topic you want to be mad about today.

Please re-read the original post if you need to.

Thanks.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoW Reddog said:

There was zero need for the assets pack in the first place, if ED wanted to have monetized their efforts, they could have bundled the assets with the Normandy map  ...

 

They did .. I purchased my WW2 assets in a bundle with the Normandy Map, back on March 2017, for US$ 48 for both items ... for me it was money well spent as I've flown at Normandy for 6 years and played all the DLC Campaigns that have been made for that Map.

 

2 hours ago, SoW Reddog said:

As for asking the mod community to donate models to a commercial enterprise...that's just laughable.

 

Yes, almost as laughable as wanting to have every AI asset for free.

 

  • Like 3

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoW Reddog said:

Thats because you don't play MP, and are happy to buy whatever ED put out. Other's do, and aren't respectively. It splits the MP community unnecessarily. There was zero need for the assets pack in the first place, if ED wanted to have monetized their efforts, they could have bundled the assets with the Normandy map and increased the price if they really needed to grab every last buck.

Normandy has build by Ugra-Media 3rd Party. The WW2 Assets pack has build by the old KickStarted AI WW2 dev team with part was integrated into the ED as a new team. Them like see your work renewed as a 3rd party, the same situation with a team build a module.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2022 at 3:13 PM, NineLine said:

If anyone would like to add their stuff to DCS in an official capacity, they are more than welcome to reach out to me with the work they have done and I can see about facilitating that. I cant promise or say what they would be paid if ED was interested, that is above my payscale, but I would be happy to try and get them hooked up with the right people. Use the models that ED is creating now as the bar though. 

If a modder reaches out to ya'll and gets their mod accepted as an AI asset, and they don't get paid, what sort of support would they get and what would be expected. I know some mod builders are reluctant to submit things as they would prefer to do things at their own pace. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...