Official Expansions

[dueydrew]

Eagle Dynamics and DCS Fans,

There may be a post out there about this, but I have a suggestion. I have noticed that ED is mainly releasing new modules and maps. Don’t get me wrong all of these releases are excellent in their own way, but personally, I don’t have time to play all of these releases. New modules have a steep learning curve and require a huge investment in time to become proficient. So this means that I probably will not be buying many of these releases any time soon.

I am sure many other DCS fans have a similar situation, so I recommend that ED or 3rd party developers focus on paid for expansions. I realize that ED has costs and must make a profit to continue to grow. 

Expansions would add broad enrichment to the simulation and I feel most DCS fans would purchase them. Some examples are maybe Vietnam War, Cold War gone hot, Korean War, a naval expansion, the arm forces of France, etc. These expansions should have new A.I. units and other features. The Arma series is a good example. I realize Arma is not as high fidelity, but it is similar. I have been playing DCS since 2012 and am a loyal fan. Please consider this recommendation and if anyone has any comment let me know .

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by dueydrew

[razo+r]

Paid expansions just like the WWII assets pack? I don't think that's a good idea if the current way of implementation is being used. 

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, dueydrew said:

... I have noticed that ED is mainly releasing new modules and maps.

 

Actually, if you check the Changelogs, ED is mainly adding features to the DCS core (and fixing bugs) ...  the last Aircraft Module ED released were the Blackshark 3 (which was more like a Module update rather than a new one) four months ago, and before it, the Mosquito and the Apache, a year ago. Its last Map was Marianas, a year ago ... all the other recent releases (Normandy 2, Mirage F1, MB.339, The Channel, South Atlantic) have been the work of third parties.

 

1 hour ago, dueydrew said:

...  personally, I don’t have time to play all of these releases. New modules have a steep learning curve and require a huge investment in time to become proficient.

 

That is your personal view, but only 4-5 aircrafts get released within a typical year, if I only purchase four I still have three months to learn it ... of course that means I only get to fly a single aircraft at a time ... when I started flying DCS typically I changed from one aircraft to another almost on a weekly basis, until I realized that I enjoyed DCS more if I devoted to a single aircraft at a time ... currently I'm on the Mirage F1, but looking to change over to the La-7 as soon as it appears.

 

1 hour ago, dueydrew said:

So this means that I probably will not be buying many of these releases any time soon.

 

I will for sure not purchase every module, but look forward to the La-7, the F-4, the Skyraider and the Eurofighter, with a maybe on the C-130J. On terrains, I'm looking forward to the Kola Map, but its unlikely that I will get the Sinai nor Australia (unless the latter cames with a WW2 variant)

 

1 hour ago, dueydrew said:

... so I recommend that ED or 3rd party developers focus on paid for expansions ... Expansions would add broad enrichment to the simulation and I feel most DCS fans would purchase them. Some examples are maybe Vietnam War, Cold War gone hot, Korean War, a naval expansion, the arm forces of France, etc. These expansions should have new A.I. units and other features. 

 

I don't know on what experience you base that recomendation, but the WW2 Assets Pack and the Supercarrier have been widely criticized within the DCS Community ... I have no problem paying for content, and in fact I own both of those mentioned, but my impressions is that most users expect additional assets to be free, like the Forrestal, the China Assets Pack and the South Atlantic assets.

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Rudel_chw

[dueydrew]

17 minutes ago, razo+r said:

Paid expansions just like the WWII assets pack? I don't think that's a good idea if the current way of implementation is being used. 

Yeah WWII assets pack is what I had in mind but with even more content.

[sirrah]

Packs like this cause issues on the already "struggling" MP side of DCS.

Servers would have to choose; Use asset packs and many won't be able to join. Don't use packs and run a mediocre mission. Either way, it would even further scatter the already thin populated servers.

 

Personally, I much rather pay more for modules (or maybe there should be less/no sales), than seeing more asset packs.

But it is a complicated matter. Higher module prices will scare off newcomers.

Edited May 8, 2023 by sirrah

[MAXsenna]

Packs like this cause issues on the already "struggling" MP side of DCS.
Servers would have to choose; Use asset packs and many won't be able to join. Don't use packs and run a mediocre mission. Either way, it would even further scatter the already thin populated servers.
 
Personally, I much rather pay more for modules (or maybe there should be less/no sales), than seeing more asset packs.
But it is a complicated matter. Higher module prices will scare off newcomers.

I agree, and alas, we can't have the best of both worlds.
I personally would be wiling to pay for more a module (maps in particular) if they came with relevant assets that were released for free in the core to the benefit for all users.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

18 hours ago, dueydrew said:

Yeah WWII assets pack is what I had in mind but with even more content.

A lot of people don't want to buy asset packs. I understand they might be necessary from a financial standpoint if this is the case they should be bundled with maps and modules. I believe there is a lot fewer problems with let's say  Korean War asset pack that comes with a map of Korea as they are intended to work together 

 

Edited May 8, 2023 by upyr1

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I agree, and alas, we can't have the best of both worlds.
I personally would be wiling to pay for more a module (maps in particular) if they came with relevant assets that were released for free in the core to the benefit for all users.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

The old asset tax idea. 

[MAXsenna]

The old asset tax idea. 

Sure, but if we get assets faster?
We can't have everything for free.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Rudel_chw]

39 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

We can't have everything for free.

 

that is precisely what most users want, everything to be free and the development costs covered by someone else.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

Sure, but if we get assets faster?
We can't have everything for free.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Not complaining just saying it's not bad. The asset loop is the reason I keep asking for land and sea modules.

[Silver_Dragon]

4 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Not complaining just saying it's not bad. The asset loop is the reason I keep asking for land and sea modules.

Land and sea modules as outside of the post, that require core / mechanics and improvements features outside of assets pack. On fact, has more feasible the assets on maps / pilotable modules, as Razbam South Atlantic and M3 F4-U1D, 3rd parties with "assets teams" with start to build more and more assets to DCS plus the assets build by ED and the WW2 assets pack.

[upyr1]

12 hours ago, sirrah said:

Packs like this cause issues on the already "struggling" MP side of DCS.

Servers would have to choose; Use asset packs and many won't be able to join. Don't use packs and run a mediocre mission. Either way, it would even further scatter the already thin populated servers.

 

Personally, I much rather pay more for modules (or maybe there should be less/no sales), than seeing more asset packs.

But it is a complicated matter. Higher module prices will scare off newcomers.

 

This is why I keep saying we need Combined Arms II and Fleet Ops. As I believe that is the only way to break the loop. Right now asset development is slow as it is a resource drain. However people are interested in tanks and ships 

[upyr1]

8 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Land and sea modules as outside of the post, that require core / mechanics and improvements 

I know these improvements will be worth it.

[Exorcet]

There isn't really any point to this. DCS already covers a wide of range combat eras, having packs isn't necessarily going to make things faster or better. Then there is also the problem with dividing players. The free core is one of the attractive points of DCS, we shouldn't throw it away.

[MAXsenna]

Not complaining just saying it's not bad. The asset loop is the reason I keep asking for land and sea modules.

Roger! Misunderstood!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[dueydrew]

Thanks everyone for your feedback on this, all of you made some good points. Whatever happens, I am not going anywhere and will continue to support DCS. 

[Dr_Pavelheer]

Anything that further contributes to dividing the MP community is a bad idea, just like other people ITT I'd rather pay more for modules than repeat the WWII asset pack debacle.

As somebody whose favorite way of enjoying DCS is "flying" as a part of virtual "squadron" I know that even getting people to buy Syria and PG is like pulling teeth, any paid asset pack would mean attendance falling through the floor.

In fact I think ED should consider optional per server licenses for maps, appropriately priced of course, especially now that new and exciting maps are coming out

[SharpeXB]

It’s amazing that people complain about buying a $29 pack yet somehow own a PC capable of running this game. 

[Silver_Dragon]

23 hours ago, upyr1 said:

This is why I keep saying we need Combined Arms II and Fleet Ops. As I believe that is the only way to break the loop. Right now asset development is slow as it is a resource drain. However people are interested in tanks and ships 

To them, you required ED recluit specialized sea / land environment technicals to build that features and all core to simulate vehicles and ships. Making realistic land / sea modules has a big problem, on some case, need build two new branch and simulators from scratch.

[MAXsenna]

To them, you required ED recluit specialized sea / land environment technicals to build that features and all core to simulate vehicles and ships. Making realistic land / sea modules has a big problem, on some case, need build two new branch and simulators from scratch.

So? This is still in the wishlist section.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

So? This is still in the wishlist section.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Of Course... but we know that will be a titanic work, as Wags tell we need a Military contractor to build a FPS... I'm the first person with like see a "M1 Tank Platton" funtionality as minimal on DCS to a real "tank module" but I waiting see on the "ED carrer job list" some as a requeriment about a C+ Programmer (vehicle phisics / armour / land weapons) funtionality / enginier on (land / Sea environment). Sorry to have pragmatic.

[MAXsenna]

Of Course... but we know that will be a titanic work, as Wags tell we need a Military contractor to build a FPS... I'm the first person with like see a "M1 Tank Platton" funtionality as minimal on DCS to a real "tank module" but I waiting see on the "ED carrer job list" some as a requeriment about a C+ Programmer (vehicle phisics / armour / land weapons) funtionality / enginier on (land / Sea environment). Sorry to have pragmatic.

No, you're just like Sharpy shooting down wishes.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Northstar98]

Generally I'm in favour of asset packs, even paid for asset packs so I'll give this a +1.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue with asset packs is how multiplayer is handled - if a server is using the WWII asset pack (even if it's just a single unit), anybody who doesn't own the WWII assets pack will be prohibited from joining that server (whether they want to own the asset pack or not).

This is something that's exclusive to the assets pack (well, and the maps - but that's perhaps a more difficult problem to solve), no other module works like this - if I join a server that features a module I don't own, I can still join that server no problem, even if it's entirely populated by modules I don't own.

Personally, I think this has a solution that maintains the asset pack as a paid-for item, maintains the incentive to purchase the asset pack but means non-owners and owners can play together.

For instance:

• You could set it up such that the asset pack is available in multiplayer missions, but cannot be used in your own or single player missions unless purchased (a certain WW2 sim does this with its maps).
• You could have the models replaced with either a lower LOD (which should exist anyway) or with the nearest free equivalent.

22 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s amazing that people complain about buying a $29 pack yet somehow own a PC capable of running this game. 

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
2. You realise some of the complaints come from people who paid for the asset pack and were happy to pay for it?
3. Do you think you should have to own every module on a server in order to join that server, even if they're modules you have no interest in?

[upyr1]

17 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Of Course... but we know that will be a titanic work, as Wags tell we need a Military contractor to build a FPS... I'm the first person with like see a "M1 Tank Platton" funtionality as minimal on DCS to a real "tank module" but I waiting see on the "ED carrer job list" some as a requeriment about a C+ Programmer (vehicle phisics / armour / land weapons) funtionality / enginier on (land / Sea environment). Sorry to have pragmatic.

A lot of the work needs to be done anyway. Improved land and naval assets are welcomed. Even if I can't command the Texas as she shells the shores of Normandy I will be happy flying over her in my Jug.