Mission/Campaign Creators - Please respond to this poll about using 3rd party mods in your content

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, Elphaba said:

This isn't a factor.

It's factor. Otherwise you wouldn't need OvGME to begin with. It's whole purpose for existing is that, for some things, you need to mod the core install. For others, you can use the user profile mod category. And in making this separation between what can go where, you are now asking the user (and mod creator) to keep track of where the mod needs to go and what it alters and, ultimately, risks breaking.

Ideally, you'd only ever need the latter and wouldn't need OvGME or similar tools to begin with. Hell, ideally, you wouldn't even need to create much of a file structure at all, and DCS could just load directly from the mod zip files much like it can from the mission (also zip) files. It can already transparently treat zips as file systems — if it could do it for entire mods, another hassle would go away.

It's not about what the solutions can do. It's about the problem that they're there to solve to begin with — problems that ideally shouldn't even exist.

[cfrag]

10 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

This isn't a factor.

OvGME lets you define whatever you want,

As soon as you use a third party configuration organizer/tool I think that you have crossed into 'specialized, hardcore' player area. It's definitely no more 'Joe Normy' country. Look at it this way: which other apps (outside a Linux/*ix distro) require that you install separate, third-party file organizer just so that you can use it? And what does that say about the app that requires it?

So yes, my observation (based on an admittedly tiny cross-section of personal feedback) is that having to use OVGME or similar is a major disincentive to run a mission. Most people want 'simple' and eschew anything else. YMMV. 

[TEMPEST.114]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

As soon as you use a third party configuration organizer/tool I think that you have crossed into 'specialized, hardcore' player area. It's definitely no more 'Joe Normy' country. Look at it this way: which other apps (outside a Linux/*ix distro) require that you install separate, third-party file organizer just so that you can use it? And what does that say about the app that requires it?

So yes, my observation (based on an admittedly tiny cross-section of personal feedback) is that having to use OVGME or similar is a major disincentive to run a mission. Most people want 'simple' and eschew anything else. YMMV. 

Only in DCS is seems...

[Tippis]

15 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

Only in DCS is seems...

Nah. You see it in every game that suffers from rudimentary mod support.

Specifically, you'll come across the same downwards or upwards pressure no matter where you look:
• So-so mod support -> resistance to use mods (for any number of reasons) -> lower returns on creating mod-heavy content -> less need for mods -> less need to improve mod support -> repeat.

or

• Good mod support -> using mods becomes almost automatic -> no loss of audience for mod-heavy content -> higher demand for new mods -> more need to improve the mod support -> repeat.

DCS is living in a bit of a grey zone between the two, where mods are possible and they're working to get proper good support, but have been through many iterations of exactly how they need to be done, so there's a lot of historical (and current) confusion about what works, when, and how. And as the support is slowly improving, some limitations still linger to muddy the waters and to keep that confusion and its accompanying resistance active, which means that the devs are not just struggling with creating the mod support itself, but with managing the technical transition and the historical image of that support. They say it takes a generation to change the public perception of something. Hopefully, it's going to be a bit faster than that in this case, but we're almost half-way there already…

Edited April 14, 2024 by Tippis

[TEMPEST.114]

1 hour ago, Tippis said:

Nah. You see it in every game that suffers from rudimentary mod support.

Specifically, you'll come across the same downwards or upwards pressure no matter where you look:
• So-so mod support -> resistance to use mods (for any number of reasons) -> lower returns on creating mod-heavy content -> less need for mods -> less need to improve mod support -> repeat.

or

• Good mod support -> using mods becomes almost automatic -> no loss of audience for mod-heavy content -> higher demand for new mods -> more need to improve the mod support -> repeat.

DCS is living in a bit of a grey zone between the two, where mods are possible and they're working to get proper good support, but have been through many iterations of exactly how they need to be done, so there's a lot of historical (and current) confusion about what works, when, and how. And as the support is slowly improving, some limitations still linger to muddy the waters and to keep that confusion and its accompanying resistance active, which means that the devs are not just struggling with creating the mod support itself, but with managing the technical transition and the historical image of that support. They say it takes a generation to change the public perception of something. Hopefully, it's going to be a bit faster than that in this case, but we're almost half-way there already…

 

Not true, at least universally. Games like the Silent Hunter series and Dangerous Waters etc. all use mods that require JSGME or OvGME etc to use and some of the mod installations require manual hacking of files and editing of settings etc. And virtually no-one plays those games without mods. 

I wonder if this is an age thing; kids and people under 25 using DCS who have never edited an .ini file or messed with mods, just expect games to have built-in mod support and managers etc... but those of us who've been around since the Vic20 etc are used to getting our hands dirty - although OvGME and moderated/curated mod packs, like my own, are as close to 'built-in' mod support as you can get. And cause zero problems. 

This reluctance is a terrible waste and a shame. And most certainly NOT universal. Virtually every game in my steam library does not have built-in mod support, but there are modders out there and with the trivially easy OvGME, most of the players, I've talked to online, are playing the modded games. 

DCS really is an outlier. 

Perhaps as @cfrag said, it's because DCS is so buggy and problematic vanilla, but that argument falls apart in the face of the mods I listed that cause zero problems and add a HUGE amount to the variety of missions and interactions possible with the sim. 

Still, I know logic and reason don't convince most people to change their minds - only emotion and only if they are willing (which is rare), so I won't appeal to that, I'll just hope more people respond to the poll and maybe ED will see that we need these type of assets in the core game ASAP.

Edited April 14, 2024 by Elphaba

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Elphaba said:

Not true, at least universally. Games like the Silent Hunter series and Dangerous Waters etc. all use mods that require JSGME or OvGME etc to use and some of the mod installations require manual hacking of files and editing of settings etc. And virtually no-one plays those games without mods. 

…and you have polled this extensively, I take it?
Because otherwise, your anecdotal evidence has no more value than my not having met a single person who plays those games with mods. Neither really proves anything (or even disprove each other).

Also, note that if it weren't true, then those games would have evolved modding support by now rather than still being stuck in the position you describe. Lack of mod support begets lack of mod support, and you're describing games that have no mod support. Which was kind of the point all along.

1 hour ago, Elphaba said:

I wonder if this is an age thing; kids and people under 25 using DCS who have never edited an .ini file or messed with mods, just expect games to have built-in mod support and managers etc... but those of us who've been around since the Vic20 etc are used to getting our hands dirty - although OvGME and moderated/curated mod packs, like my own, are as close to 'built-in' mod support as you can get. And cause zero problems. 

Cripes. No.

Look, you really need to dial your prejudice back. Way back. You tried to dismiss people's actual experiences as bias. You're calling the community “mod resistant” without really wanting to listen to the reasons why this may be the case. Now you're leaning on some… interesting ageism that makes assumptions about people's opinion based on their equally assumed age. Same with your implying that people are illogical and irrational further down the post. This is not doing you any favours.

1 hour ago, Elphaba said:

This reluctance is a terrible waste and a shame. And most certainly NOT universal. Virtually every game in my steam library does not have built-in mod support, but there are modders out there and with the trivially easy OvGME, most of the players, I've talked to online, are playing the modded games. 

That's called a clique, and you're over-generalising from your own position. You like mods. So you find them for your games and you discuss mods with players who also use and like mods.

Just because there are mods does not make them the standard way of playing the games, nor does it mean that these games don't follow the same pattern of higher or lower mod usage. DCS is not an outlier other than actively trying to change to become more mod-friendly. You're just coming into this assuming that its half-decent selection of mods means that it falls into that category already, when the reality of the situation is that it's still struggling to get there. You're judging the game community based on this erroneous assumption of where the game is positioned, rather than looking at what the game actually is, and figuring out why the modding numbers look the way they do from there.

1 hour ago, Elphaba said:

Perhaps as @cfrag said, it's because DCS is so buggy and problematic vanilla, but that argument falls apart in the face of the mods I listed that cause zero problems and add a HUGE amount to the variety of missions and interactions possible with the sim. 

That doesn't actually do anything to his argument. The simple fact of the matter is that step #1 in trying to resolve issues in DCS is to disable mods, and that a lot of that time, this does indeed solve the problem. Go through any of the bug reporting threads on this board, and you'll find “disable mods” as pretty much the go-to answer alongside “post a track” for identifying what's going on. You have found a curated set of mods that work, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that mods introducing more bugs into a game that is already notorious for having all kinds of odd behaviours is a good reason why people stay away from anything but the official ones.

If anything, it just further highlights why more stuff is needed as core content since mods won't solve the problem given the state of the modding support at the moment. Alternatively, it can be used as an argument why improving the modding support is more than worth the effort that would be put into it: because then they could rely on the community rather than having to do all that content work themselves.

1 hour ago, Elphaba said:

Still, I know logic and reason don't convince most people to change their minds

Logic and reasons have been offered as to why modding in DCS may not have the traction you wish it did.
You should probably look at how you've responded to those so far and revisit this statement.

Don't get me wrong. Your ultimate conclusion here is not bad: there are lots of assets that we could use as part of the core game, but your can get that point across without leaning on mod usage as the foundation of your argument. Or, if the goal is to make mod usage more wide-spread to compensate for that lack, address the systemic reasons why we're not there yet rather than throwing random accusations at the players who simply respond to those reasons.

 

I suppose, to be a bit more constructive about it, I'll say that I'm a bit confused about the purpose of the poll. If you could clarify it, that would help. Basically, what are you looking to glean from the numbers?

What kind of content everyone feel they're missing, if any, since that should be focus of ED's development?
What kind of content everyone prefers, since that gives you guidance to what you should focus on in building your own mods?
To show that modding as a phenomenon is underserved and that ED should focus on that as a development priority?
To get to the logic why some content is used or not, since that may show where more supporting features need to exist?
…or some other reason that I've missed?

Edited April 14, 2024 by Tippis

[cfrag]

59 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

Still, I know logic and reason don't convince most people to change their minds

My experience is that if you need logic or reason to convince someone on a convenience issue, you probably have already lost. While you may have all the logic arguments on your side, many people simply don't care if that means even the tiniest amount of effort on their side. For an outside perspective, look at cars. While many car enthusiasts will tell you that (at least until a few years ago), gear shift cars were superior in control to automatic (and they were objectively right), that made little to no impression on those who prefer automatic. That's because automatic drivers look for different things in cars than enthusiast. DCS is the same. Many people who install mods look for something in particular, something that those who do not simply couldn't care less about. 

Edited April 14, 2024 by cfrag

[TEMPEST.114]

6 hours ago, Tippis said:

Logic and reasons have been offered as to why modding in DCS may not have the traction you wish it did.
You should probably look at how you've responded to those so far and revisit this statement.

I'm trying not to bite at the deliberate provocation in your comments so I'll just say this and let's just go our separate ways as you have nothing positive to add to the poll or the topic and I thank you for most of the conversation. 

Just rock on over to 'subsim.com' and look at any thread. Every player uses mods, different mods for different players and play styles. Same goes with Uboat, Wolfpack, any version of ARMA MSFS [flightsim.to] (complete modded aircraft (e.g. gliders) that aren't in the MSFS marketplace but you download from a 3rd party website for free and they are more accurate than the in-game ones - I fly with a huge group of glider pilots using these, twice a week. You know how many crashes/issues are caused by them? I'll give you a hint, it's less that one and more than minus one.) etc etc etc.

It's so frickin' common place there are dedicated websites (nexusmods ring a bell?) for modded content for almost any game. Hell, even Ghost Master from 25 years ago and Vampire the Masquerade STILL have thriving mod scenes that almost every new player (according to their discord servers) are told to install and shown how.

So it's not *my bias* because I have EVIDENCE. TONS of evidence that modding almost any game, is far more common place than you think and the gaming community and players are benefiting from it daily.

The outlier here is DCS.

Now, there is an argument that the first time you have an issue people say 'disable all mods' and most of the time that doesn't fix the issue - sometimes it does, but the times is does is outweighed by the times it doesn't - go look at the modding section on this site to confirm that. But it's a lazy argument and from a tech support point of view it's the same as 'did you turn it off and on again'. It shows that they don't care to know the cause, just smash the low hanging fruit and be done. 

Yes DCS is a moving target and by the stars you know that the release notes don't tell the full story of what's changed and this could have a negative effect, but the beauty of OvGME is one click and all the mods are disabled, you're back to vanilla, you update, you one click enable them and if you have problems, you one click disable them and you're done. People like me who moderate and curate their mod pack do this before telling others its safe. You know how many times in 3 years I've been using any mods and had to tell people to stop using my mod pack? 

 

Zero.

 

So the issues you raise are not based, at least with the mods I've curated, in reality, only imaginary problems. 

And as to why I'm doing this poll, that's patently obvious from the post itself. I won't insult your intelligence by repeating it. 

And I've repeated messaged Nineline, bignewy et al about having civilian airliners, ships, personnel and ground units in the game as part of it's core. That we can't do COIN or rescues with the default assets and Afghan is almost here proves the point. We can't evacuate airports with thousands of civilians fleeing a civil war whilst we hold off the horde because THERE ARE NO ASSETS for this type of mission. 

Mods fix that. And if people want access to my curated mod so we can make those kind of missions, I'll gladly provide it, maybe that will spur ED to do something about it.

But even if they won't or it will take more time than I have left on this planet, in the mean time, it's trivially easy to use them, provide them and have mods for use in campaigns and missions - even PAID ones I'd suggest. 

I've yet to be convinced, and I *AM* willing to have my mind changed, by any counter argument that's been presented, because experience has shown all of those arguments to be lazy, imaginary or false.

6 hours ago, cfrag said:

Many people who install mods look for something in particular, something that those who do not simply couldn't care less about. 

Do you think that's because no one has shown them what kind of missions and events are possible with those mods, so they don't see any value? 

Isn't that a complete lack of imagination?

[Exorcet]

8 hours ago, Elphaba said:

 I'll just hope more people respond to the poll and maybe ED will see that we need these type of assets in the core game ASAP.

Just my perspective on this, I don't think this poll is representative of the desire for additional assets in DCS. I certainly didn't see it that way initially. I also don't consider use of DCS as is to run counter to the idea of wanting more assets. I use DCS without mods but I would like more assets. I just don't like having to tack on extra steps for mod content.

35 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

Do you think that's because no one has shown them what kind of missions and events are possible with those mods, so they don't see any value? 

Isn't that a complete lack of imagination?

It's certainly possible that people are unaware of mods, but I wouldn't say that's a lack of imagination. I use the Hormuz map often and Iranian units are of interest to me in the missions that I tend to create. We're missing a great deal of Iranian ships but that hasn't stopped me from approximating them with other units, especially since CJTF countries were added.

When it comes to what DCS needs, more assets is absolutely on the list but I don't feel like they are the primary limiting factor for missions. In the cases where a specific asset is missing there is usually, not always, but usually a close stand in. More pressing to me are things like AI and the effort involved in dynamic scenario creation. Those things would have the greatest impact on mission variety and the DCS experience in my opinion.

[TEMPEST.114]

21 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

dynamic scenario creation

If you mean the persistent dynamic war that's been teased for years to compete with Falcon 4's war engine... then I'm sure this will be just go here bomb that, go there shoot those, fly there destroy infrastructure etc... another perpetually slow war of attrition... yawn. If you meant something else, then sorry, please explain...

If it's the former, then that's all well and good for those just wanting to see explosions but the lack of other assets mean that so many other types of missions just can't be done. That's where the tiny effort usually only pre/post patch, of clicking a few buttons is involved in getting so many more varied missions that aren't just warheads on foreheads. Not to say those other mission types can't be engaging and challenging but I strongly feel so much more is lost by that being all that is catered for.

I can't fly CAS for a convoy of UN Peacekeepers trying to pick up VIP civilians and get them to the airport for the C17 to carry them out before the insurgents turn up because there are literally ZERO assets for any of that. I can't intercept an airliner heading the wrong way into a red country and try and get them to change course before they get shot down, because there are NO ASSETS for that (unless every airliner is the tiny Yak-40). I can't, as I've mentioned, hold off an invading force to allow civvies to get from their homes to the airport and board one of dozens of airliners waiting to evacuate them before we're overrun... BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ASSETS. I can't do Police fugitive tracking or SAR helo rescue missions to pick up civilians from sinking boats, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ASSETS. I can't try and pull red air from a corridor to sneak a fleet of B2B's or F117A's through to do a stealth targeted attack on a deep asset, because, you know what's coming... there are NO ASSETS for that. 

My Supermod pack fixes all of these type of scenarios and much more, as does my Superscript that I'm working on and have been for a few years, but vanilla DCS just can't do it. 

Until (IF) ED decide to prioritise adding these types of assets, and from the conversations I've had, I fear that's never going to happen unless someone makes the assets for ED (not buys or uses 3rd party mods) and gifts them to ED, then mission creators and campaign creators, like myself, are stuck because without free mods that haven't caused a problem yet, we can't create so many varied, interesting and dynamic scenarios that are just as realistic, if not MORE, than bombing the crap out of a desert country. 

I've thought about learning how to 3d model, just to make the assets to gift them to ED, but I'm not that talented when it comes to art stuff. I can program and code and script, but digital art is not a skill I possess. I've even asked these amazing modders that give so many hours of their lives to us for free to just add a bit more to DCS if they could do it, but alas, most of the models they use they BOUGHT the rights to use and they can't give them to ED. 

I've been trying for about 18 months, talking to ED and talking to modders to try and find a way around this and get these assets in for everyone and I've hit brick wall after brick wall. 

I know there are *some* people around here who actively dislike me despite not knowing me or understanding what I'm trying to do, but in complete honestly I've been trying and trying to make things better for everyone. And getting these type of assets into core DCS is probably the problem I've spent most time on, other than scripting to work around M.E. limitations. 

I just wish in the meantime I was able to convince more creators to use some of these amazing mods to make even more amazing missions.

Edited April 15, 2024 by Elphaba

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, Elphaba said:

Do you think that's because no one has shown them what kind of missions and events are possible with those mods, so they don't see any value? 

Two things can be true at the same time: people could know that using mods would offer them a much better experience, and they still can be unwilling to install them.

And you are preaching the choir, dear Elphaba. All of is here know phenomenal mods that are available and how much better our missions could be if we used them. And we all know the hard truth: using any mod in our mission reduces the number of people who play them. It's heartbreaking, but undeniable fact. We, as mission designers want our missions to be played, so we cater to our audience and do not include them.

Your frustration is palpable, my friend. Your arguments are well received, mostly agreed, and we all dream of the day we could use mods. Today, unfortunately, is not that day. In my experience, trying to force other people to see the light seldom brings the desired results. So my recommendation for you is to perhaps relent a little in this regard, lest it breaks your enjoyment of DCS. Because that is why we are here.

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, Elphaba said:

I'm trying not to bite at the deliberate provocation in your comments so I'll just say this and let's just go our separate ways as you have nothing positive to add to the poll or the topic and I thank you for most of the conversation.

It's no more a deliberate provocation than when you said it. I'm simply asking you to be a bit more careful with the accusations you throw out. They can very easily be reflected right back at you.

Beyond that, I have plenty of positive things to add to the poll, namely the reasons why you're not seeing the results you were hoping for and what could be done to the game to improve those results. You asked, so I spent some effort on providing a good answer. That answer also not being the one you hoped for still doesn't make it negative — just that the issue may actually be different than what you first assumed.

Hence why I'm asking what the intended purpose was: because the dissonance between where you hoped this discussion would go and what answers you're getting may simply come down to a difference between that intent and how the poll and its subsequent follow-up questions are interpreted. Thus, a clearer statement of intent may help in getting more constructive answers. Either way, accusations and recriminations will not helps you.

3 hours ago, Elphaba said:

So it's not *my bias* because I have EVIDENCE. TONS of evidence that modding almost any game, is far more common place than you think and the gaming community and players are benefiting from it daily.

The outlier here is DCS.

And no-one is arguing that games don't have mods. What you're describing is simply sampling bias. If you look at where modders gather, of course you will find lots of people who mod their games. You need to look elsewhere to figure out whether that's representative of the playerbase as a whole or not. DCS is not an outlier. You're just getting a perspective you're not used to because the question you were asking meant you touched on a segment of the game that isn't part of that clique. It's part of a very different one.

The bias I'm talking about is how you try to assign various faults to the players — too young, too irrational, too resistant, too biased ironically enough — rather than accept that the evidence from how things work in DCS is reality, not something people have imagined. And that's the part you need to understand: others have evidence too. Don't dismiss it because it doesn't match yours. The two can actually both be accurate at the same time.

3 hours ago, Elphaba said:

Now, there is an argument that the first time you have an issue people say 'disable all mods' and most of the time that doesn't fix the issue - sometimes it does, but the times is does is outweighed by the times it doesn't - go look at the modding section on this site to confirm that. But it's a lazy argument and from a tech support point of view it's the same as 'did you turn it off and on again'. It shows that they don't care to know the cause, just smash the low hanging fruit and be done. 

The point is, you can bring up your curated zero-fault mod list as much as you like — it doesn't change the fact that mods do indeed cause issues. Eliminating the mod as a cause isn't careless of lazy. It's a necessity. Otherwise the devs would be chasing ghosts that aren't even theirs to deal with. It's not “low-hanging fruit and be done”; it's narrowing down the search. It's only done if it turns out the mod was causing the error.

At any rate, this then ties back to one of the common reasons why mods aren't used: because DCS has enough issues as it is before we throw mods into the mix. Less so for with pure content mods, but they have also on occasion proven to cause problems. But then, there's quite likely a bit of a bias there as well: content mods are a lot more common so even if they have less opportunity to cause issues, they will still generate a large percentage of the instances where a mod is at fault. Dismissing this as a factor as to why some choose not to use mods, and just because your particular mod pack doesn't do that, is to deliberately turn a blind eye to something pretty obvious. That is never helpful.

If you want to talk about outliers, this is probably a better place to look: the fact that until recently, within a decent segment of the game, the “beta” client supposedly meant for bug hunting was the standard way of running the game. Here's that differing clique I mentioned earlier. A similar clique that intersects this one is the MP context, where content creators have to contend with the fact that they're already dealing with a niche audience (I've seen the number 10% being bandied about as how common MP is in DCS). Catering to this small audience quickly becomes a matter of going for the lowest common denominator and staying away from blockers to joining — unfortunately, the way DCS works, mods tend to be that type of blocker and to fall way outside “common denominator” territory. Off the top of my head, I can think of one mod that has managed to overcome that: SRS. And that's because of the obvious combo of how common out-of-game comms are in MP in general (especially since it started in an era where DCS itself didn't offer any) and how comms manipulation is a key part of the sim itself, and it's neat when this ties into the comms app being used.

But that's a sim function mod, not assets, and it ties into an external third-party app, so it's already a fair bit different form what you're asking about. Tacview and LotATC are similar mods-and-also-add-on tools that see a fair bit of use. But I'd almost question to what extent those are even seen as mods at all, and how much they're just looked at as the third-party tool. And to confuse matters even more, it's worth noting that public 24/7 MP is probably the most universally modded part of DCS you'll find, not just because of those three but because of SLmod and how it's used to remote-manage the servers. But again, that's functionality that doesn't affect the clients in any way — not assets that go into the mission creation side of the equation.

3 hours ago, Elphaba said:

So the issues you raise are not based, at least with the mods I've curated, in reality, only imaginary problems. 

The issues I rased are based in reality. Your curated collection not being a guilty party in that doesn't change that fact. The problems are real. People reacting to those real problems is not illogical or irrational. It's not lazy or false. It's simply a perspective and experience that you may not come across as a heavy mod user.

3 hours ago, Elphaba said:

And as to why I'm doing this poll, that's patently obvious from the post itself. I won't insult your intelligence by repeating it. 

Please insult my intelligence. I asked you to clarify because I felt the reason got lost a bit in the shuffle. The OP and the expanding second post simply asks the question of how many use mods to enhance out missions, and if we don't, why that is. There is some mention in the OP of there being obvious gaps in the unit list, but that could be interpreted in a number of ways.

If you want to use the numbers to prove that there is great want for more units to fill those gaps, then that's one argument to be made.
If you want to use the numbers to prove that there is great need for better modding support because that will also fill the gaps, then that's a different argument.

If you feel that the numbers aren't giving you the supporting evidence you hoped for so you could make those arguments, then I feel with you, but that could just be due to how you asked your question or how you intended to construct your argument. I actually feel that you can still make those arguments even if almost half the answers are “I don't use mods” because that also says something about what ED needs to do. What it doesn't tell you is that the reasons why the numbers are like that are somehow spurious or false.

3 hours ago, Elphaba said:

Mods fix that. And if people want access to my curated mod so we can make those kind of missions, I'll gladly provide it, maybe that will spur ED to do something about it.

I take it from this that it's not so much a matter of directing your own efforts to what is most popular, but rather to give direction to ED. This is good.

 

Also…

39 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Two things can be true at the same time: people could know that using mods would offer them a much better experience, and they still can be unwilling to install them.

And you are preaching the choir, dear Elphaba. All of is here know phenomenal mods that are available and how much better our missions could be if we used them. And we all know the hard truth: using any mod in our mission reduces the number of people who play them. It's heartbreaking, but undeniable fact. We, as mission designers want our missions to be played, so we cater to our audience and do not include them.

Your frustration is palpable, my friend. Your arguments are well received, mostly agreed, and we all dream of the day we could use mods. Today, unfortunately, is not that day. In my experience, trying to force other people to see the light seldom brings the desired results. So my recommendation for you is to perhaps relent a little in this regard, lest it breaks your enjoyment of DCS. Because that is why we are here.

…very much this. I understand your frustration but you shouldn't interpret any of this as an argument against what you want. Only as a set of explanations for why you are getting those frustrating results. There are very real and very rational reasons for them. But take heart, your basic underlying argument can still be made — its logic just needs a bit of tweaking, or the results need to be cast in a slightly different light.

Take the explanations on board and this will actually help your ultimate argument for what ED needs to do to get deal with the lack of assets. Trying to cast blame on the end users will not.

Edited April 15, 2024 by Tippis

[DD_Friar]

On 4/5/2024 at 9:48 PM, cfrag said:

A Mod requires that the receiving audience also have that mod installed. I write missions for everyone, and thus avoid mods.

I echo this comment for our squad. We build missions that make it easy for people who are perhaps new to DCS to come in and play with us.

We are not totally mod free, we require that players have the A4-e, the Blackhawk and the Bronco, that's all as these are included in a number of our squad missions. We run others that require no mods at all as well.

[buceador]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:47 PM, Elphaba said:

It's just a real shame I seem to be alone in this.

I totally agree, vanilla DCS is lacking many 'assets'...

[TEMPEST.114]

22 minutes ago, DD_Friar said:

I echo this comment for our squad. We build missions that make it easy for people who are perhaps new to DCS to come in and play with us.

We are not totally mod free, we require that players have the A4-e, the Blackhawk and the Bronco, that's all as these are included in a number of our squad missions. We run others that require no mods at all as well.

You echo it and then in the next sentence say how you require mods for your players... /facepalm. 

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, Elphaba said:

You echo it and then in the next sentence say how you require mods for your players... /facepalm. 

There is actually no conflict between the two if you read the sentence after that.

And note that there is a difference between those mod and what they enable (and disable) compared to general asset mods.

[Exorcet]

8 hours ago, Elphaba said:

If you mean the persistent dynamic war that's been teased for years to compete with Falcon 4's war engine... then I'm sure this will be just go here bomb that, go there shoot those, fly there destroy infrastructure etc... another perpetually slow war of attrition... yawn. If you meant something else, then sorry, please explain...

 

Those things are related but that isn't exactly what I was talking about. Even once we have a DC I'd still like to make missions. What I want is some help in making them less scripted or on rails because I want more reasons to be on guard when flying in or out, or performing whatever the objective is. Though even the DC itself should be a great addition because it should at least elevate go here bomb that, go there shoot those to being less repetitive (ie not flying the same exact mission over and over). I don't like it when I can memorize the solution to a problem, at least a problem that I've willingly put myself against, because that makes it boring after not too long.

Also the DC doesn't have to be limited to the most straightforward missions, though we'll have to wait and see what comes out of it. If coupled with AI improvements including things like better communication between players and AI then I can see a lot more mission types coming into play.

8 hours ago, Elphaba said:

I can't fly CAS for a convoy of UN Peacekeepers trying to pick up VIP civilians and get them to the airport for the C17 to carry them out before the insurgents turn up because there are literally ZERO assets for any of that. I can't intercept an airliner heading the wrong way into a red country and try and get them to change course before they get shot down, because there are NO ASSETS for that (unless every airliner is the tiny Yak-40). I can't, as I've mentioned, hold off an invading force to allow civvies to get from their homes to the airport and board one of dozens of airliners waiting to evacuate them before we're overrun... BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ASSETS. I can't do Police fugitive tracking or SAR helo rescue missions to pick up civilians from sinking boats, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ASSETS. I can't try and pull red air from a corridor to sneak a fleet of B2B's or F117A's through to do a stealth targeted attack on a deep asset, because, you know what's coming... there are NO ASSETS for that.

I also want more assets in DCS and I agree with a lot of what you say here, we just have different levels of priorities. I've had mission with civilian aircraft in them already. Yes the Yak is overepresented in those missions compared to reality, but as far being able to create that kind of mission, it is doable even if it's not ideal. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely want 777's and A320's in DCS. I'd even pay for flyable versions, but in my experience while more assets are needed they aren't the primary shortfall of DCS. Even in this case AI and other improvements would also be warranted just as much as new assets. I've requested in the past for features like being able to communicate with AI pilots visually or to have fogging of AI aircraft windows specifically for airliner intercepts. Those things could greatly enhance missions that don't revolve around combat even if the plane selection for them is limited.

8 hours ago, Elphaba said:

I've thought about learning how to 3d model, just to make the assets to gift them to ED, but I'm not that talented when it comes to art stuff. I can program and code and script, but digital art is not a skill I possess. I've even asked these amazing modders that give so many hours of their lives to us for free to just add a bit more to DCS if they could do it, but alas, most of the models they use they BOUGHT the rights to use and they can't give them to ED. 

I've been trying for about 18 months, talking to ED and talking to modders to try and find a way around this and get these assets in for everyone and I've hit brick wall after brick wall. 

I know there are *some* people around here who actively dislike me despite not knowing me or understanding what I'm trying to do, but in complete honestly I've been trying and trying to make things better for everyone. And getting these type of assets into core DCS is probably the problem I've spent most time on, other than scripting to work around M.E. limitations. 

I just wish in the meantime I was able to convince more creators to use some of these amazing mods to make even more amazing missions.

 

Funny enough I've also considered modeling to create assets for DCS. It turns out that graphic design and 3D modeling is a lot rougher for me than numbers based CAD so it's been a slow learning and it has also been competing with other projects for my time. Still maybe in the future I could try to provide some new building objects to ED as I'd certainly like more of them and I'd expect they'd be easier to do than vehicles.

I fully support the effort to increase the number of assets in DCS though I think part of the reason why this thread went the way it did was that people have different priorities and goals for their user experience.

[CL30]

On 4/5/2024 at 3:48 PM, cfrag said:

A Mod requires that the receiving audience also have that mod installed. I write missions for everyone, and thus avoid mods.

Same here, and my poll vote.