A question about a possible Korean War asset pack

[Grievo]

The TH-67 and OH-58D are quite different aircraft, the superficial likeness is a bit deceiving. Also, being a third party module might make that difficult anyway. Pilots who learned to fly the Huey for vietnam trained in H-13s and H-23s, which were used in Korea and early Vietnam as scouts. 

How about things like offering the A-10C (NOT A-10C II) as a free aircraft? Still decent fidelity, but also room to upgrade, Or the FC aircraft, which would also lessen the learning curve? You could do the same with the Huey and/or the Hip when/if they're updated.

I'd love a Korean War asset pack. I think much of it can be piggybacked on the WW2 assets, particularly soviet stuff if it was introduced, and re-skinning of existing US/UK troops and equipment.

[M1Combat]

15 hours ago, rayrayblues said:

ED is not splitting the community!    This is a tired argument. Allow me to clarify.

MP servers are privately run. ED doesn't have anything to do with how they are managed.

A private server can require any modules or assets they want. It's their business, not ED's. 

It's not ED's fault that you can't join a particular server just because you won't or can't spend the money to buy the WWll package.

ED makes their money and pays their bills by selling products. The WWll asset pack is one of the many products that they sell.

@BIGNEWY, @NineLine and others have made it abundantly clear that no one is forcing you to buy or not buy any their products.

You get two free planes and two free maps to start and anything else you may want costs money, so stop blaming ED for your problem.

And now, back to the topic:

 

In an effort to keep us on topic in this thread, and because the issue has been well explained by someone else I'll just say this...

 

I own darn near every piece of content including the WWII asset pack, combined arms...  pretty much all of it.  All the maps too.  I think the Yak, MI8, Gazelle and maybe the Hawk are the only things I don't have.

Feel free to hop down from that high horse you don't actually have and look at the subject a little closer.  Content like the WW2 assets pack splits the community.  You can't argue the point....  it's simply a fact.  I didn't say a word about WHO splits the community.  YOU assumed I "blame" ED for it.  I don't aside from that they allowed it to happen.  It was simply a bad choice.

"MP servers are privately run. ED doesn't have anything to do with how they are managed."

Yes they do friend :).  They make the switches :).

 

I'll stand by my assertion.

[Evoman]

8 hours ago, Grievo said:

The TH-67 and OH-58D are quite different aircraft, the superficial likeness is a bit deceiving. Also, being a third party module might make that difficult anyway. Pilots who learned to fly the Huey for vietnam trained in H-13s and H-23s, which were used in Korea and early Vietnam as scouts. 

How about things like offering the A-10C (NOT A-10C II) as a free aircraft? Still decent fidelity, but also room to upgrade, Or the FC aircraft, which would also lessen the learning curve? You could do the same with the Huey and/or the Hip when/if they're updated.

I'd love a Korean War asset pack. I think much of it can be piggybacked on the WW2 assets, particularly soviet stuff if it was introduced, and re-skinning of existing US/UK troops and equipment.

That is why I thought the H-13 Sioux would be a great candidate. It would not only be a historic aircraft used in both Korea and early Vietnam but it would be a prefect helicopter trainer as well. The only other helicopter ED could currently re use in a simplified variant for training purposes to include in the free DCS download would be the Huey. However that would still not be an ideal helicopter trainer. But I guess that would be good enough if other better options can't be done economically. 

DCS already has a few good fix wing options that could be included with DCS download. The regular A-10C would defiantly be a great option as far as attracting new people to the sim and for its easily to fly nature. However its systems complexity might frustrate a lot of new people. Which is why I think the A-10A might be a better fit with an updated clickable cockpit. Plus it would be an easier thing for ED to do since it would not affect A-10C sales.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Evoman

[Grievo]

4 minutes ago, Evoman said:

That is why I thought the H-13 Sioux would be a great candidate. It would not only be a historic aircraft used in both Korea and early Vietnam but it would be a prefect helicopter trainer as well. The only other helicopter ED could currently re use in a simplified variant for training purposes to include in the free DCS download would be the Huey. However that would still not be an ideal helicopter trainer. But I guess that would be good enough other better options can't be done economically. 

DCS already has a few good fix wing options that could be included with DCS download. The regular A-10C would defiantly be a great option as far as attracting new people to the sim and for its easily to fly nature. However its systems complexity might frustrate a lot of new people. Which is why I think the A-10A might be a better fit with an updated clickable cockpit. Plus it would be an easier thing for ED to do without since it would not affect A-10C sales.

 

What a great opening theme MASH had. Helicopters and nurses. phwoar! 

I think something like the H-13 would be great. It is Iconic, largely thanks to MASH, and simple from a systems/armament point of view. I'd love flyinside to do a DCS version of their Bell-47 for DCS. It may be too iconic though, in that there may be some real sales to be had by someone if they released it as a module. Someone did say that they're too hard to fly for new players, but I don't think that's true. There's a learning curve sure, as there is for any DCS module, but there's plenty of room between complete noob and highly proficient helicopter pilot that is enjoyable, and learning the new skill is half the fun.

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, M1Combat said:

In an effort to keep us on topic in this thread, and because the issue has been well explained by someone else I'll just say this...

 

I own darn near every piece of content including the WWII asset pack, combined arms...  pretty much all of it.  All the maps too.  I think the Yak, MI8, Gazelle and maybe the Hawk are the only things I don't have.

Feel free to hop down from that high horse you don't actually have and look at the subject a little closer.  Content like the WW2 assets pack splits the community.  You can't argue the point....  it's simply a fact.  I didn't say a word about WHO splits the community.  YOU assumed I "blame" ED for it.  I don't aside from that they allowed it to happen.  It was simply a bad choice.

"MP servers are privately run. ED doesn't have anything to do with how they are managed."

Yes they do friend :).  They make the switches :).

 

I'll stand by my assertion.

I consider the WWII asset to be a must own if you have a warbird. I got it with the Normandy map

 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/bundles/normandy_and_wwii_assets_pack_bundle/

One of the few things I don't like about DCS is the fact assets from packs and mods can't be assigned a stand in when a player is missing them. This is one of the reasons I would like to see more land and sea modules. Now back to the question at hand would you rather see a Korean war asset pack or a 1950s asset pack provided that Eagle did something to solve the multi player issue

[Grievo]

10 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I consider the WWII asset to be a must own if you have a warbird. I got it with the Normandy map

 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/bundles/normandy_and_wwii_assets_pack_bundle/

One of the few things I don't like about DCS is the fact assets from packs and mods can't be assigned a stand in when a player is missing them. This is one of the reasons I would like to see more land and sea modules. Now back to the question at hand would you rather see a Korean war asset pack or a 1950s asset pack provided that Eagle did something to solve the multi player issue

I tend to agree, but I also don't think the asset packs are that onerous to purchase either.

I'd love an early cold war one. I think many of the ww2 US assets in particular would work for 50's cold war assets with some reskinning or minor tweaks to models. The Soviet stuff is the big ask I suppose, as not much of it from that era is in game currently. I'd happily pay for it though, and the same goes for mid or late cold war asset packs.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Grievo said:

I tend to agree, but I also don't think the asset packs are that onerous to purchase either.

I'd love an early cold war one. I think many of the ww2 US assets in particular would work for 50's cold war assets with some reskinning or minor tweaks to models. The Soviet stuff is the big ask I suppose, as not much of it from that era is in game currently. I'd happily pay for it though, and the same goes for mid or late cold war asset packs.

The lack of WWII SOviet equipment is the biggest problem with early the early cold war. I would rather have playable modules but assetpacks would be fine I just want the assets

[M1Combat]

My arguement against asset packs has nothing to do with purchasing burden.  It has to do with people who won't/can't purchase them.  It splits the community in both the MP and SP areas.

 

[Rudel_chw]

54 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

It splits the community in both the MP and SP areas.

Sorry, but I fail to understand how an asset pack can be a splitter for single player … I do understand the issue for MP, but fortunately I leaved the MP arena a few years ago so that is now a non-issue for me.

[upyr1]

53 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

My arguement against asset packs has nothing to do with purchasing burden.  It has to do with people who won't/can't purchase them.  It splits the community in both the MP and SP areas.

 

Even though I am asking for a Korean war asset pack I'll also state that I would rather see Eagle dump the WWII asset pack andwent with families of land and naval modules. 

[Tippis]

7 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

Sorry, but I fail to understand how an asset pack can be a splitter for single player … I do understand the issue for MP, but fortunately I leaved the MP arena a few years ago so that is now a non-issue for me.

It's a bit of a stretch, but it could hypothetically sort of happen if there's a tipping point where no content is made without the asset pack, so you'd have a split of sorts between people who like the era or region or whatever, and those who don't, where the former now have to pay a “sorry but your interest costs extra” tax to get any content at all.

But given how it makes more sense for content creators to aim for a broader audience, it's not just unlikely but also requires a pretty specific interpretation of both “splitting” and “the community”.

[Rudel_chw]

3 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I would rather see Eagle dump the WWII asset pack andwent with families of land and naval modules.

I use my ww2 assets mostly as opposition and targets for my own ww2 missions, have no interest on purchasing playable modules for land or naval combat, as I use DCS mainly as a flight simulator. So, as a current owner of the ww2 pack, I wouldn’t like if ED were to just dump it … I’d rather like it to be expanded, to include soviet and japanese ww2 assets, and I have no problem with paying for such an expansion (a reasonable cost, of course).

[Rudel_chw]

7 minutes ago, Tippis said:

But given how it makes more sense for content creators to aim for a broader audience, it's not just unlikely

Actually, most SP ww2 campaigns, use the ww2 assets pack:

 

P-47 wolfpack

Fw190A horrido

Bf109 jagdflieger

P-51 bastards of bodney

P-51 charnwood

Spitfire big show

Spitfire Epsom

 

Even the korean campaign F-86 hunters over the yalu

 

 

[upyr1]

44 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

I use my ww2 assets mostly as opposition and targets for my own ww2 missions, have no interest on purchasing playable modules for land or naval combat, as I use DCS mainly as a flight simulator. So, as a current owner of the ww2 pack, I wouldn’t like if ED were to just dump it … I’d rather like it to be expanded, to include soviet and japanese ww2 assets, and I have no problem with paying for such an expansion (a reasonable cost, of course).

The main reason I keep suggesting that Eagle should go with playable land and naval modules is that it would cover the cost of making the AI assets free in DCS core. As I expect a few of the people screaming about paying $15 for an asset pack would shell out $50 for a playable module.

Edited February 21, 2022 by upyr1

[Beirut]

On 2/18/2022 at 1:34 PM, M1Combat said:

 

BUT...  They need to be done in such a way that they don't split the community.  

 

 

I don't mean to be a horrible person, but I never understood the idea of splitting the community. Unless all people own all modules, the community is inherently split. Always was, always will be.

[Callsign112]

On 2/18/2022 at 1:34 PM, M1Combat said:

...Price accordingly.  I would have happily paid an extra $10 for the normandy map if it meant that everyone would have the WW2 assets pack....

 

The Assets pack doesn't divide the community any more than say the F18, or any of the other available modules in DCS. Anyone wanting to fly the F18 in either SP or MP will have to eventually come to the realization that they just have to buy it. You don't get access to the F18 just because you bought a WWII module, and I don't think it's any fairer to expect access to the Super Carrier either. The only thing that is dividing the community is the community itself. I can't demand that you buy any given module, any more than you can demand the same from me. If I can't fly with you on a MP server because I don't own the plane/map/assets pack required for that particular server, the only one that can fix that issue is me. Claiming that ED has singled me out to lock me from the MP server doesn't even make sense as an argument.

I appreciate that you have all the modules, and I get what you are trying to say, but what would "price accordingly" achieve? It seems to me that the popular argument is some people can't afford to pay for the assets pack, and therefore they are being locked out of servers. The question I have is how are those same people going to afford the now more expensive module that comes bundled with the assets pack? And when we consider the price of even all of the currently available modules on sale, it would still be a fraction of what most have paid for the setup to run DCS World. Currently I have all but one of the props, all but one of the maps, and all the tech packs. Total investment in modules is less than $350.00. This is but a fraction of what I paid for the low-end-keyboard/mouse driven bare bones system I use to fly/drive/shoot/hunt/explode/explore with in DCS World.

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

 . . . all but one of the maps, . . . 

 

Scandalous!

 

Which map don't you have?

[Callsign112]

Syria... Obviously that's next.

[Beirut]

6 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Syria... Obviously that's next.

 

it's an exceedingly well put together map. 

[Callsign112]

That seems to be what everybody that flies it is saying. And with the recent news of its expansion, its an absolute must have addition if you want to support diverse mission scenarios.

In my view, having the tech packs/maps with just 1 or 2 flyable modules is more important than having all the flyable modules without any of the tech pack/maps. The tech packs/maps add realism/options/capabilities to the World you are learning to fly your favorite module in.

 

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, Beirut said:

I don't mean to be a horrible person, but I never understood the idea of splitting the community. Unless all people own all modules, the community is inherently split. Always was, always will be.

No. Unlike, say, the F-18, the WWII asset pack splits the community because if it is included even slightly and at all, it immediately makes it impossible for anyone that doesn't have that pack to play the mission. This is not the case with any other module. A mission that has an F-18 in it does not require you to own the F-18 module, so no split occurs. The split is not between “flying X” and “not flying X” — it's between “playing” and “not being allowed to play at all”.

You can join any number of multiplayer servers and they will all have all kinds of modules active — as long as none of those are the WWII asset pack, anyone can join in. They may not be able to fly every plane featured, but they can join nonetheless. Hell, even if you own none of the planes, you can still be on the server, play the game, and participate in the mission in an ABM (or similar) role. It never splits the community, and this is how it should be.

There are exactly two exceptions to this rule: terrains and the asset pack. ED thought about adding SC to the list but it was thoroughly explained to them why this was a very very bad idea — why splitting the community down this line would largely kill the module — so they chose not to go down that route. And let's not kid ourselves: it is only ED that creates those splits because it is only ED that decides whether something must or must not be required for all participants by mere inclusion.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Tippis

[2alpha-down0]

37 minutes ago, Tippis said:

No. Unlike, say, the F-18, the WWII asset pack splits the community because if it is included even slightly and at all, it immediately makes it impossible for anyone that doesn't have that pack to play the mission. This is not the case with any other module. A mission that has an F-18 in it does not require you to own the F-18 module, so no split occurs. The split is not between “flying X” and “not flying X” — it's between “playing” and “not being allowed to play at all”.

You can join any number of multiplayer servers and they will all have all kinds of modules active — as long as none of those are the WWII asset pack, anyone can join in. They may not be able to fly every plane featured, but they can join nonetheless. Hell, even if you own none of the planes, you can still be on the server, play the game, and participate in the mission in an ABM (or similar) role. It never splits the community, and this is how it should be.

There are exactly two exceptions to this rule: terrains and the asset pack. ED thought about adding SC to the list but it was thoroughly explained to them why this was a very very bad idea — why splitting the community down this line would largely kill the module — so they chose not to go down that route. And let's not kid ourselves: it is only ED that creates those splits because it is only ED that decides whether something must or must not be required for all participants by mere inclusion.

 

 

Agreed.  If I make a mission for a flight of Sabres, and two of the pilots can't fly it because I put a Kdo.40 in a Flak 18 battery somewhere (so that it will actually function), that is "splitting the community".

[Grievo]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

No. Unlike, say, the F-18, the WWII asset pack splits the community because if it is included even slightly and at all, it immediately makes it impossible for anyone that doesn't have that pack to play the mission. This is not the case with any other module. A mission that has an F-18 in it does not require you to own the F-18 module, so no split occurs. The split is not between “flying X” and “not flying X” — it's between “playing” and “not being allowed to play at all”...

 

 

13 minutes ago, 2alpha-down0 said:

 

Agreed.  If I make a mission for a flight of Sabres, and two of the pilots can't fly it because I put a Kdo.40 in a Flak 18 battery somewhere (so that it will actually function), that is "splitting the community"....

Quoted you guys out of courtesy, I'm not trying to say you're necessarily making any of the arguments I rail against below.

I mean, kinda. Yes if someone hasn't bought an asset pack they can't play a particular mission, just as if they hadn't bought the F-18 they're excluded. or if someone has built the same mission with the Supercarrier module they're excluded. Should the SC, and the hundreds of thousands of man hours that's gone into it's development be free, or "included" I just don't think it's really that reasonable to say that it would be. I get what you're saying, but at the end of the day, the people making this game want to have cool gaming computers, a nice house, a car that runs (or bus/train fare), food on the table etc, just like you or me. I struggle to feel much sympathy towards someone not being able to play a particular mission which includes things they haven't bought, when my sympathy leans so heavily towards the programmers and other ED (and 3rd party) staff getting paid for their work. Just as I'm sure no ones heart is bleeding for me because I haven't shelled out for the Yak-52 to experience the joy of.... Yak life? or whatever joy it brings.

Is the asset pack model the one I'd use? Probably not. I'd charge for the base game, and add a few dollars to the ticket price of each module, or onto the price of maps. But it's the method in place, I think after all the noise and bleating ED has heard on the subject, they've made the conscious decision to stick to this method, probably based on more than just stubbornness, and with access to more sales data than the average meathead (myself very much included) on these forums. The asset pack is not particularly expensive in the scheme of things in relation to hardware (controllers, PC's etc) required for a decent flight simulation experience, or daily life, and the games development has to be funded somehow. It's still inherently simple. If you feel being able to play missions made with a ww2 asset in them, cough up the $15 (3-5 coffees in most countries, of course, this will split the hot beverage community), if not, play with the many basic assets included in the FREE base game, and accept your experience will be limited.

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, Tippis said:

No. Unlike, say, the F-18, the WWII asset pack splits the community because if it is included even slightly and at all, it immediately makes it impossible for anyone that doesn't have that pack to play the mission. This is not the case with any other module. A mission that has an F-18 in it does not require you to own the F-18 module, so no split occurs. The split is not between “flying X” and “not flying X” — it's between “playing” and “not being allowed to play at all”.

You can join any number of multiplayer servers and they will all have all kinds of modules active — as long as none of those are the WWII asset pack, anyone can join in. They may not be able to fly every plane featured, but they can join nonetheless. Hell, even if you own none of the planes, you can still be on the server, play the game, and participate in the mission in an ABM (or similar) role. It never splits the community, and this is how it should be.

There are exactly two exceptions to this rule: terrains and the asset pack. ED thought about adding SC to the list but it was thoroughly explained to them why this was a very very bad idea — why splitting the community down this line would largely kill the module — so they chose not to go down that route. And let's not kid ourselves: it is only ED that creates those splits because it is only ED that decides whether something must or must not be required for all participants by mere inclusion.

 

 

While you are factually correct, I'm going to remain a horrible person and say that it's not a big deal. The Assets Pack, on sale, is about $15 I think. Now I work as hard for my money as anyone here, but $15 in the DCS world - modules + PC + HOTAS - is akin to the cup of coffee you order after a steak dinner in a good restaurant. And at the risk of sounding like an elitist scullywag, if you don't have $15 to put into DCS to fly the way you want to fly, it might not be the right sim for you.  

 

If the price of not having "the community split" is $15, it's a non-problem.

 

As far as what "only ED" does, ED does a lot of things that only ED does. How many of those should we do away with?

 

[FlankerKiller]

On 2/18/2022 at 1:34 PM, M1Combat said:

Eff the asset packs.

Not a fan.

 

I should clarify...  Sorry.  I'm a huge fan of asset packs :).  I know...  odd clarification...

 

BUT...  They need to be done in such a way that they don't split the community.  My suggestion would be to have all 3rd party devs agree to develop a small subset of assets in order to sell their product in the DCS ecology.  So say HB does an F14...  ED should have them agree to create some number of kinda related assets.  Ground assets, other air assets etc.  That said... HB has already done what appears to be a good job with this.  That may or may not be contract related I have no idea.  Same should go for maps.  Someone wants to make a map...  ED should choose what other ground and air assets would reasonably go with that...  and write it into the contract.  Price accordingly.  I would have happily paid an extra $10 for the normandy map if it meant that everyone would have the WW2 assets pack.  The channel map should have a group of assets developed for that part of the war.

 

Really? Heatblurs who you hold up as an example. Deka built a whole ass asset pack to go with the JF-17. Heatblur took two years to get a single ship.