noted 50s to 70s - ColdWar - assets pack

[Logan54]

Hello All. I really love Cold War DCS era. Old jets and helicopters. But fly over some modern maps can be frustrating. Too modern Airfields, buildings and stuff. If you want to add some Tu-95 or B-1 to the stand, you will be sad because super low resolution of old models. So I realized that for really cool gameplay the best way is to have special Cold War asset pack. It will be cool for reproduction of historical events in singleplayer, or even some Cold War serverswill use it. There may be some special stuff like Soviet KM-1 ekranoplan, some amphibious hovercrafts, special trucks with big jet drone indide, bombers like first Tu-22, Tu-95(I know about mod), B-70 Valkyrie, SR-71 Blackbird, some cool tanks as IT-1 Dragon or BRDM with 5 guided rockets Malutka. It will really refresh cold war scene and add new tasks and tactics. Also will be cool to control it with Combined Arms

 

[Vampyre]

I agree that more assets would be good to have, asset packs are not the way. The problem with asset packs is that they fracture the multiplayer player base because they require everyone who wants to fly that particular mission to have the pack if even just one unit from the pack is included. This has been discussed ad nauseum in previous threads. I think the better way to get assets into the game would be to include them as free to use assets with modules/maps and sink the costs of developing them in with the price of the module/map itself. Razbam has done this already with the release of the South Atlantic map and the 1982 period assets from the Falkland's war and their Harrier II with the AI KC-130. Those assets have become really useful for my MP missions. Razbam don't get enough credit for this. I think that is the way forward.

Oh, and the Tu-22 Blinder needs to be a full fidelity module.

[Logan54]

1 час назад, Vampyre сказал:

The problem with asset packs is that they fracture the multiplayer player base because they require everyone who wants to fly that particular mission to have the pack if even just one unit from the pack is included.

Absolutely agree with you bro, but how can we get new Cold War free stuff in this way? Who will spend it`s time for free?

Yep Tu-22 is so cool 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Logan54

[Northstar98]

Yeah, I'd certainly go for a Cold War asset pack, especially one that fills out suitable maps (namely the upcoming Kola Peninsula map).

The problem of asset packs dividing the player base in MP is entirely a MP implementation problem and there are plenty of possible solutions to this; some have even taken by ED (even for units with no new functionality) and again with RAZBAM's SA assets.

[twistking]

I'm all for cold war stuff in DCS, but please stop entertaining the idea of paid asset packs. ED actually makes good money. They could easily afford to develop a few high quality AI assets for every new module they develop and sell. In the last 10 years ED has released one (?) AI aircraft (SU-35) and this doesn't even have a damage model yet. Full fidelity modules are surely expensive to develop, but they are priced accordingly. It's very reasonable to demand contemporary AI aircrafts for the modules sold...

I would give ED a pass on the paid WWII asset pack, but only because of the very specific and troubled history of how DCS WWII came to fruition.

For everything else the uncomfortable truth is, that DCS is lacking in many areas, not because the community paid too little, but because new modules sell well despite the shortcomings. The only business metric we know from ED, is that the business has made a profit every year, for over a decade if i remember correctly (from an interview with Nick Grey). That's great... but if they want to continue to sell cold war modules, they should very kindly also provide some AI assets to support them.

[Logan54]

7 минут назад, twistking сказал:

they should very kindly also provide some AI assets to support them.

Agree with you, seems they forgot about CW pilots at all... They should to create adaptation map with cold war stuff. Wooden ATC towers, not super smooth airfield surface, road bases with hangars in ground. Of corse AI. And some rocket silo

[bies]

2 hours ago, twistking said:

In the last 10 years ED has released one (?) AI aircraft (SU-35)

It was Su-34. Su-35 is totally classified and it would be completely unrealistic even as AI aircraft.

According to main topic - yes, absolutely, it would be great to have Cold War era ground assets and AI aircrafts. It doesn't have to be tens of thousands $ extremely high polygon models like full fidelity module, just on par with average DCS AI assets.

Edited June 8, 2023 by bies

[Logan54]

This is Dzheyran and its so cool 

 

[upyr1]

Right now my top request is for some Stalinist era RedForce assets. Right now all we have is the I-16 and MiG-15. So ED should focus the assets that would work with either of these aircraft. 

[Logan54]

Found info about GDR modified BRDM that can use 10 illum rockets. Progect was closed but as 4 me this way is super cool for helicopters that not have IR sensor "Светлячок": 477768 — ЖЖ (livejournal.com)  null

 

[Logan54]

Must have 4 Cold War stuff 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Logan54

[Raviar]

Current Aircraft:
F-86, F-5, Viggen, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, F1, L-39, Mi-8, UH-1, Sa342M

Close Future Releases:
F-4, A-7, F-100

Unknown Future Releases:
G-91R Gina,
IA-58,
CH-47,
MiG-23,
MiG-17,
Mirage III,
F-8,
AH-1,
OH-58,
BO-105,
F-104,
A-6,
Kfir,
J-8F,
Su-22
including the Mi-24. All these aircraft are supposed to be used against assets built during the 70s and earlier. However, what we currently have, apart from:
ZU-23, ZSU-23, SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-9 (the missile is modern),
BRDM, LT PT-76, BTRD, GAZ 66, and a few more vehicles,
are all made after the 1980s! Addressing this is really a priority! It is not fun and not historically accurate to use CBU 24/49/52/58, unguided rockets ... with ColdWar era AC against 80s, 90s and 2000s

Edited November 16, 2023 by Raviar

[upyr1]

A lot of people are going to scream they don't want a paid asset pack, but that doesn't change the fact ED needs to add more assets. I believe more modules are the solution.

Edited November 16, 2023 by upyr1

[Logan54]

I like to play Enigma Cold War Server. Seems we really need some cold war stuff here, but seems it must be free bc a lot of ppl playing ECW and CW asset pack will add limits for all this ppl. Also I think that CW Assets needed for custom missions and really needed with Sinai map. Really good idea that I asked about before) 

 

[ACS_Dev]

Also I don't believe any of the radar-guided systems are fully modeled (and I don't mean self-protection shutoff), guidance modes, cold-launch, stuff like that isn't a thing.

[Raviar]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

A lot of people are going to scream they don't want a paid asset pack, but that doesn't change the fact ED needs to add more assets. I believe more modules are the solution.

 

Like WWII AP! paid or free we need it. we already have lots of modules, compare to:
A-10C(II), F/A-18, F-16, F-15E, F-14, Harrier, M-2000, JF-17, AH-64, BS3(Sorry) and FC3. Perhaps FC3, A-10, and Hornet are the best-selling modules, followed by Viper and Tomcat which might affect the decision but still people might pay for the Cold War AP alone or + Modern Full fedelity Tank, APC ... 
ED might need to consider changing their business plan, such as introducing a subscription for "Whole World Map" access or a subscription for access to all modules and ... in order to cover the dev costs.

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

A lot of people are going to scream they don't want a paid asset pack, but that doesn't change the fact ED needs to add more assets. I believe more modules are the solution.

My standard 2¢ on that matter: asset costs should be amortised over their relevant modules.

If they sell a cold-war plane, some reasonable percentage of the price tag should go towards the development of assets for that period. Same with terrains, although that would arguably be more a matter of making regional assets. Not to mention that some of the assets that go into terrains in particular should just be unlocked as static objects at the same time so they can be used to liven things up and create a bit of region-appropriate variation.

Paid asset packs will never work properly because of the inherent lock-out they create, and because of how this lock-out reduces the value of the package for mission-makers since it can only ever serve to reduce the audience for their missions. And then the vicious circle starts: few missions = less reason to buy the pack = smaller audience = few missions.

There's a reason why they ended up changing their mind on how the Supercarrier and its assets would work for people who didn't own the module.

[Exorcet]

26 minutes ago, Tippis said:

My standard 2¢ on that matter: asset costs should be amortised over their relevant modules.

Exactly. If we want to build up eras and not just modules, why not bundle the required assets with the modules? Not only does this solve the financial issue, but the fractured player base issue.

DCS is supposed to be a common core to support player interactions, but in MP and SP (sharing missions, etc). Asset Packs go against that directly.

I also feel like having assets arrive with modules benefits everyone. If every fighter came with an appropriate AI AWACS, you wouldn't have to wait for who knows how many years for that AI to be added to DCS otherwise. Likewise for naval planes and carriers, attack helicopters and ground units, etc.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Raviar said:

Like WWII AP! paid or free we need it. we already have lots of modules, compare to:
A-10C(II), F/A-18, F-16, F-15E, F-14, Harrier, M-2000, JF-17, AH-64, BS3(Sorry) and FC3. Perhaps FC3, A-10, and Hornet are the best-selling modules, followed by Viper and Tomcat which might affect the decision but still people might pay for the Cold War AP alone or + Modern Full fedelity Tank, APC ... 
ED might need to consider changing their business plan, such as introducing a subscription for "Whole World Map" access or a subscription for access to all modules and ... in order to cover the dev costs.

They have always shot down the idea of subscriptions. So I want land and naval modules. The minimum would be my proposed Combined Arms II and Fleet Ops family of modules. 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

My standard 2¢ on that matter: asset costs should be amortised over their relevant modules.

If they sell a cold-war plane, some reasonable percentage of the price tag should go towards the development of assets for that period. Same with terrains, although that would arguably be more a matter of making regional assets. Not to mention that some of the assets that go into terrains in particular should just be unlocked as static objects at the same time so they can be used to liven things up and create a bit of region-appropriate variation.

Paid asset packs will never work properly because of the inherent lock-out they create, and because of how this lock-out reduces the value of the package for mission-makers since it can only ever serve to reduce the audience for their missions. And then the vicious circle starts: few missions = less reason to buy the pack = smaller audience = few missions.

There's a reason why they ended up changing their mind on how the Supercarrier and its assets would work for people who didn't own the module.

No argument here. I was posting about the lack of ships here and gave a list of possible ships to add.

 

Until ED starts DCS land an Naval modules the best answer is to earmark $x of each module for related assets. When the F-4E comes out I would love it if we saw a Thud and other cold-war assets. 

[Silver_Dragon]

9 hours ago, Raviar said:

Current Aircraft:
F-86, F-5, Viggen, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, F1, L-39, Mi-8, UH-1, Sa342M

Close Future Releases:
F-4, A-7, F-100

Unknown Future Releases:
G-91R Gina,
IA-58,
CH-47,
MiG-23,
MiG-17,
Mirage III,
F-8,
AH-1,
OH-58,
BO-105,
F-104,
A-6,
Kfir,
J-8F,
Su-22
including the Mi-24. All these aircraft are supposed to be used against assets built during the 70s and earlier. However, what we currently have, apart from:
ZU-23, ZSU-23, SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, SA-9 (the missile is modern),
BRDM, LT PT-76, BTRD, GAZ 66, and a few more vehicles,
are all made after the 1980s! Addressing this is really a priority! It is not fun and not historically accurate to use CBU 24/49/52/58, unguided rockets ... with ColdWar era AC against 80s, 90s and 2000s

 

G-91R, CH-47F, Mig-23MLA, Mig-17F, F-8J, A-1H, OH-58D, Bo-105 PAH1A1, F-104G, Kfir, J-8PP, A-6E has modules confirmed...

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

My standard 2¢ on that matter: asset costs should be amortised over their relevant modules.

If they sell a cold-war plane, some reasonable percentage of the price tag should go towards the development of assets for that period. Same with terrains, although that would arguably be more a matter of making regional assets. Not to mention that some of the assets that go into terrains in particular should just be unlocked as static objects at the same time so they can be used to liven things up and create a bit of region-appropriate variation.

Paid asset packs will never work properly because of the inherent lock-out they create, and because of how this lock-out reduces the value of the package for mission-makers since it can only ever serve to reduce the audience for their missions. And then the vicious circle starts: few missions = less reason to buy the pack = smaller audience = few missions.

There's a reason why they ended up changing their mind on how the Supercarrier and its assets would work for people who didn't own the module.

Repeat a "subscription" dont make them alive. ED has very clear, no subscription on DCS World.

[Tippis]

56 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Repeat a "subscription" dont make them alive. ED has very clear, no subscription on DCS World.

Amortising costs is almost the exact opposite of subscriptions, so…

[Raviar]

Thanks for all great feedback and attention, I hope we get these vehicles sometime soon 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Raviar

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, Raviar said:

Thanks for all great feedback and attention, I hope we get these vehicles sometime soon 

 

The cold war is definitely DCS' greatest weakness in terms of period assets. In the Korean war era, we have basically no Red assets besides the MiG-15. Later we are missing blue assets  

[Logan54]