upyr1 Posted January 7, 2023 Share Posted January 7, 2023 I've posted this multiple times, but we really need some WWII and Korean era RedFor assets. Eagle is reluctant to add them but since you have the I-16 and are working on the LA-7 any chance of adding them? Ideally I'd like something along the lines of the Chinese asset pack but if that can't be done and you need to do it as paid content then all I have to say is shut up take my money 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ala13_ManOWar Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 It's not I don't agree more redfor assets would be nice to have, but I'm not sure a small third party with one single member (I think a couple, maybe three people more recently or the like) is the one to ask for ground assets. Too much they do and achieve for such a small team, to be honest. "I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 (edited) Normaly, assets pack teams has outside of module builders, example, RAZBAM and Dekka (and future M3). The problem has get dedicate personal with like reach the ED Quality standars, and maintain them. Edited January 8, 2023 by Silver_Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted January 8, 2023 Author Share Posted January 8, 2023 4 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said: It's not I don't agree more redfor assets would be nice to have, but I'm not sure a small third party with one single member (I think a couple, maybe three people more recently or the like) is the one to ask for ground assets. Too much they do and achieve for such a small team, to be honest. Someone needs to do it. Eagle appears reluctant to add East Front assets to the wwii asset pack and Korean War assets to DCS core. As OctopusG has the I-16 and the La-7 in the Pipe hiring people for the asset pack might be a good investment I know I would buy it. The question is who else would be interested? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ala13_ManOWar Posted January 8, 2023 Share Posted January 8, 2023 I don't see them "reluctant", more like there's no (WWII) Eastern Front at all despite de modern day Caucasus map and it makes not much sense right now. La-7 is nice, I personally don't think it's a bad addition despite so many people looking for "complete theatres" and planesets and all, but we have to agree it's a single unit not the whole thing after all. Will be very welcome and sure used in servers, but it's just one single unit while that small team of OctupusG is full with La-7 and Su-17/22 now. But if some day we got any proper theatre for La-7 or any module already known to be coming I'm sure they will come with proper ground assets at some point, and they've already told (for the first time I believe) with the new map technology we have now, and they keep developing, a Vietnam or Korea map is expected in the future, which wasn't the case previously. Those if they come will do with proper ground assets, they wouldn't make sense otherwise, not to mention with the new campaign generator also mentioned it would be just perfect to use them wherever needed in those maps or any other of course. But in due time, right now it would be a waste of time and effort while they're focused in so many other things (read carefully last newsletter for further details) and honestly I'd rather prefer they keep working and releasing what they have between their hands right now better than disperse among so many things. "I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted January 9, 2023 Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 10 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said: I don't see them "reluctant", more like there's no (WWII) Eastern Front at all despite de modern day Caucasus map and it makes not much sense right now. La-7 is nice, I personally don't think it's a bad addition despite so many people looking for "complete theatres" and planesets and all, but we have to agree it's a single unit not the whole thing The second the I-16 , F-86 and MiG-15 were released the need for proper assets wad created. Right now these planes exist in a vacuum without enough period assets for a proper mission. 10 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said: with the new map technology we have now, and they keep developing, a Vietnam or Korea map is expected in the future, which wasn't the case previously. Those if they come will do with proper ground assets, they wouldn't make sense otherwise Assets are more important than a map. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ala13_ManOWar Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 9 hours ago, upyr1 said: The second the I-16 , F-86 and MiG-15 were released the need for proper assets wad created. Right now these planes exist in a vacuum without enough period assets for a proper mission. Assets are more important than a map. 1st question, yes, quite true though 10+ years late for Belsimtek's Sabre/MiG-15 to ask for. They talked back then about a Korean map indeed (a map means assets included FYI), apparently for the recent words we've read in Newsletter the map technology weren't suitable for such a complex map (same goes for Vietnam apparently). On the other hand, the decision of I-16 was only up to OctopusG which was one single guy at the time, too much he achieved by himself mate, what else could you ask him for? There you're mixing up two different things, third parties aren't equal to ED, ED isn't a third party, you use ED's platform with third party modules, it's not that easy to ask ED to flesh out every module/map/whatever a third party makes for free, nor you can ask third parties to flesh out ED's platform for free. I don't know about the inners of the thing but I'm sure it's a delicate balance and only recently Heatblur and M3, a bit Razbam (yet we don't know the details of the agreements/contracts) have made assets and extras for ED's platform and we enjoy them for free, but the work it took wasn't free, I'm positive about that. So let's bear in mind the whole picture and not just the tiny part we want to focus on. 2nd question, yes… and no… here it's you complaining and asking for assets for those modules. "You believe assets are more important than maps", read carefully, you. Have you ever wondered, if it were the other way around (assets and no map), how many people would complain they don't have where to use those assets?? And have you ever wondered how the map for those assets would take a lot more work to come to DCS than the assets themselves? If you wonder I'll tell you, many, many, many more people than you individually will tell what they want those assets for without a place to use them. Every single person have its own opinion about the subject and here it's only you sharing yours. Don't assume everyone has your same view, they don't, the problem with this kind of things is ED nor any third party can make happy everybody and everybody is a different and distinct voice and opinion. It's not I don't think we need assets, we do need them of course, but I believe it makes sense they come together with a place to use them so a map (which is a huge amount of work) should be there first, then assets for a certain era which is a niche inside the niche. Remember maps may have a date, or not, but still you can use them the time you want, while dedicated assets don't necessarily fit everywhere. And that's my opinion obviously, not yours nor anyone else, but the same as what you say is your opinion and nothing more. I'm just trying to be realistic here about what we can and we can't expect from ED and third parties which work together but aren't a single thing. 1 "I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war." -- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Dragon Posted January 9, 2023 Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) 22 hours ago, upyr1 said: Someone needs to do it. Eagle appears reluctant to add East Front assets to the wwii asset pack and Korean War assets to DCS core. As OctopusG has the I-16 and the La-7 in the Pipe hiring people for the asset pack might be a good investment I know I would buy it. The question is who else would be interested? ED has very clear about them. When he build a WW2 east module and a map, they get to build propper assets. Meanwhile has other plans as talk on the "2023 and Beyond", continue build assets to WTO and now the PTO. None 3rd parties has actually none plans to ETO. The other option, form a assets 3rd party and build ETO assets to DCS. Edited January 9, 2023 by Silver_Dragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upyr1 Posted January 9, 2023 Author Share Posted January 9, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said: 1st question, yes, quite true though 10+ years late for Belsimtek's Sabre/MiG-15 to ask for. They talked back then about a Korean map indeed (a map means assets included FYI), apparently for the recent words we've read in Newsletter the map technology weren't suitable for such a complex map (same goes for Vietnam apparently). On the other hand, the decision of I-16 was only up to OctopusG which was one single guy at the time, too much he achieved by himself mate, what else could you ask him for? I can do what I did, make a reqest in the forums. It is up to Octopus to decide "that is a good idea I'll work on a Red Army asset pack to go along with the I-16 and the LA-7" or "no that's going to be way too much work and I'm not in a situation to hire a team" 2 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said: There you're mixing up two different things, third parties aren't equal to ED, ED isn't a third party, you use ED's platform with third party modules, it's not that easy to ask ED to flesh out every module/map/whatever a third party makes for free, I'm not confused about anything. Octopus has one East front module in DCS and one in the works, and I am willing to pay for a Red Army asset pack. I have also asked for these assets in the main wishlist and get told there are no plans. So why not ask a third party developer who appears to be intersted in the era I believe it would help sales pf the 2 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said: 2nd question, yes… and no… here it's you complaining and asking for assets for those modules. "You believe assets are more important than maps", read carefully, you. Have you ever wondered, if it were the other way around (assets and no map), how many people would complain they don't have where to use those assets?? the I-16 and La-7. If you actually read the full post at the top you would see that I said that if Octopus feels the need to charge I am willing to pay. 2 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said: (rant snipped) Remember maps may have a date, or not, but still you can use them the time you want, while dedicated assets don't necessarily fit everywhere This sentence right here is the reason that assets matter more than maps. Military equipment has set years of service. DCS covers a period from 1935 (introduction of the I-16) to today. If you have want to build a historic scenario for a module, if you have the right assets you can turn on historic mode and build something reasonable with the wrong map. On the flip side if you have the right map but don't have the right assets then you can't really make a mission for the I-16 with contemporary land, naval and air forces as they aren't there. Edited January 9, 2023 by upyr1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts