WW2 NAVAL ASSETS

[Rene Coulon]

I found this amazing list of beautiful naval assets.

Does anyone know if its still working on 2.9 ?

is there anyone pc savvy enough to rework the list into a safe and organised download ?

we so need these for the Channel and Normandy Maps.

 

Regards

 

WWII Naval Mods April 2021(1).txt

Edited December 15, 2023 by Rene Coulon

[jackd]

I tried a few, seem to work OK, but waypointing some might have some problems ... I think i found each ship needs their own route set.

[upyr1]

While I love the fact the community is willing to step up and produce naval assets like this, I hate the fact the community asset builders aren't letting ED take over the assets. and I doubly hate the fact ED isn't. For the Channel and Normandy maps, I'd like some of the overlord invasion ships at the minimum, though I tossing in BIsmark and some other Kriegsmarine surface ships for some what-if scenarios would be awesome.

I know we are supposed to have an Essex-class carrier for the F4U but I'd love to see enough ships of all types so we can build axis and allies task groups.  

Carrier

fast battleship

old battleship/ dreadnought -Nevada and Texas top my list 

large / battlecruiser - Alaska should be listed as a battlecruiser

Heavy Cruiser 

light cruiser- can we get USS OKC?  

Edited December 28, 2023 by upyr1

[Gunfreak]

8 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

While I love the fact the community is willing to step up and produce naval assets like this, I hate the fact the community asset builders aren't letting ED take over the assets. 

It's ED that don't want them.

As many of the community assets are made wholly or parly with ready made assets. So they don't actually own the rights and so ED can't use then if they can't own the assets completely.

ED also said they aren't interested in fixing community assets if they have to integrate them

It's apparently better for ED to do 100% of the work(which means the assets never happened) then take assets from the community and do 30% of the job to properly integrate it into DCS.

[upyr1]

1 minute ago, Gunfreak said:

It's ED that don't want them.

As many of the community assets are made wholly or parly with ready made assets. So they don't actually own the rights and so ED can't use then if they can't own the assets completely.

ED also said they aren't interested in fixing community assets if they have to integrate them

It's apparently better for ED to do 100% of the work(which means the assets never happened) then take assets from the community and do 30% of the job to properly integrate it into DCS.

According to @NineLine they are interested in taking over community assets so from my understanding the only barrier would be using pre-eisting items that wouldn't allow for it in their licenses. 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

According to @NineLine they are interested in taking over community assets so from my understanding the only barrier would be using pre-eisting items that wouldn't allow for it in their licenses. 

According to Chizh, on russian forums, ED has none interest on get mod content assets and convert them on DCS World, by the problems about copyright, licenses and claims about mod contents. Any like get content into DCS, can turn on 3rd party and build assets packs.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

According to Chizh, on russian forums, ED has none interest on get mod content assets and convert them on DCS World, by the problems about copyright, licenses and claims about mod contents. Any like get content into DCS, can turn on 3rd party and build assets packs.

My understanding was that if the AI asset in question was original content then ED might be interested in adding it

Edited December 28, 2023 by upyr1

[NineLine]

4 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

It's ED that don't want them.

As many of the community assets are made wholly or parly with ready made assets. So they don't actually own the rights and so ED can't use then if they can't own the assets completely.

ED also said they aren't interested in fixing community assets if they have to integrate them

It's apparently better for ED to do 100% of the work(which means the assets never happened) then take assets from the community and do 30% of the job to properly integrate it into DCS.

Sorry, this is quite wrong. We would be happy to have them.

If a user was to create an asset or assets and wants it added to DCS, they are welcome to submit it to us. The person who created it must own it 100% and be allowed to distribute it. Has nothing to do with us owning them, but rather being legally allowed to distribute them in DCS.

Also, you are correct that community assets would need to be 100% correct or working to be submitted, we cannot take on a community asset and then assign manpower to fix or make them correct. I am not sure why this wouldn't make sense. The Team is already quite busy without adding more projects. 

Once again, it's not about us doing 100% of the work. Other 3rd Parties have added assets to DCS. We have also added assets ourselves (which means the 'never happened' comment is just wrong). All assets submitted to ED for addition need to be of the expected quality and legally be allowed to be used. It's great to download a 3D model off the internet and add it to DCS, but it's not that simple to make it officially part of DCS. 

@Gunfreak did you know that almost all the original 3rd Party teams were indeed modders to start with? Fun fact right?

[Gunfreak]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

 

Also, you are correct that community assets would need to be 100% correct or working to be submitted, we cannot take on a community asset and then assign manpower to fix or make them correct. I am not sure why this wouldn't make sense. The Team is already quite busy without adding more projects. 

 

If someone makes something that requires 50% work from ED to integrate. That's 50% less work for ED.

But most likely it would be 90 or 95% finished. So that means for 10% of the work from ED they would get 100% results.

Which would mean much faster addition of new units. Particularly simpler stuff like ground units and ships that have a very simple modeling vs the aircraft.

I understand ED have plans for new animations for infantry and that might be the reason for lack of new infantry units.

All units added to DCS by ED or 3rd parties add to the workload anyway. Every new thing is a new thing that must work in the next patch. So if I could  improve my game by doing 10% of the work instead of 100% of the work. I'd say that is a big win (given we aren't talking the need to pay unreasonable sums for money)

I didn't know that almost all of the original 3rd party developers started as Moddershall. But it doesn't surprise me. As the modder to developers pipeline is is common in the games industry. Particularly in games with a very strong fan base like DCS.

I hope DCS continues to attract very talented people that want to improve the already fantastic game it is. And I think it will. As it seems DCS has a steady growth of new players.