Pacific Operations Assets Pack | Mission Save Development Progress | New Free Trials

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, ex81 said:

Even a monthly fee would be all right.

 

Sorry, I'm all in for supporting the developers, but the subscription marketing model is awful .. the moment your income situation changes (retiring, losing our job for a while, a serious disease) you lose access to your software, media entertainment, cloud storage, etc, etc ... I much rather purchase rather than subscribing.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

7 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Sorry, I'm all in for supporting the developers, but the subscription marketing model is awful .. the moment your income situation changes (retiring, losing our job for a while, a serious disease) you lose access to your software, media entertainment, cloud storage, etc, etc ... I much rather purchase rather than subscribing.

Yeah, and besides: That ship has sailed. If there was to be a subscription, it needed to have happened in 2012-2013. Not 2025.

Edited August 11 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[YoYo]

9 hours ago, ex81 said:

Even a monthly fee would be all right.

This isn't a solution. If you want to support, buy the module you don't have and that's it. A subscription model won't work here, and thankfully, ED is far from it. It would also have to cover all upcoming models for a fraction of the price, which wouldn't be entirely viable with the system we have now: basically, a third-party devs for two or three years for free, and then potentially a large profit upon release.

[draconus]

13 hours ago, virgo47 said:

Just a question about the asset packs - is it just models or also AI?

These are AI units with all DCS AI core rules.

[Yurgon]

14 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

Sorry, I'm all in for supporting the developers, but the subscription marketing model is awful

There are 2 perspectives here. One is: How will it work for me? In that regard, you're right, a subscription model might work badly for me in the future. Of course it also means I might get access to the entire product catalog at once for a comparatively tiny amount of money, and cost would only accumulate over time, so it might even be cheaper for me in the long run, if I was otherwise purchasing new modules every couple of months anyway.

The other perspective is: How does it work for ED? The way I see it, ED is forced to sell modules. Old modules don't sell well, so they need to kick out new modules and keep the crowd pleased. Modules are insanely complex, development times are long, and while necessary work is underway for new modules, old modules get moved back on the list of priorities. Take your pick, I'm sure you'll find more than enough examples right away. And the core? Well, we don't pay for the DCS core, we pay for shiny modules, and modules in turn pay for the core. I'd say this model doesn't look sustainable to me. Issues keep piling up, features like ATC revamp aren't even mentioned nowadays, we're stuck with a dozen weather presets, vertical clouds aren't a thing yet, the air pressure remains the same across an entire map, AI path finding can drive players and servers insane... You catch my drift.

A subscription model could work as an incentive to focus on the core of DCS rather than on new modules. And at that, it could pay for asset development like the PTO Assets pack that spawned this particular discussion - of course that's a ton of work, of course devs and artists need to be paid. Fragmenting the player base with payware asset packs is a legitimate concern, and a subscription model might work better than the current one. But I'll be the first to admit: I'm happy it's not my choice to make and my burden to carry if it goes wrong. And ED have kept the lights on in very demanding times, so they must be doing something right.

[julpeuz]

@Graphics what happened to the Iowa battleship stated on the 7th of February Newsletter ? Has it been removed from your plans ?

[BIGNEWY]

25 minutes ago, julpeuz said:

@Graphics what happened to the Iowa battleship stated on the 7th of February Newsletter ? Has it been removed from your plans ?

Hi, 

we still have plans, however some assets are taking longer than others, so its something for the future, once we have more news we will let you all know. 

thank you 

[draconus]

21 hours ago, Yurgon said:

A subscription model could work as an incentive to focus on the core of DCS rather than on new modules.

They already have half the crew dedicated to the core so I don't see how a pay model would change things.

21 hours ago, Yurgon said:

And ED have kept the lights on in very demanding times, so they must be doing something right.

Yes, they do and know better what works.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 8/10/2025 at 1:12 PM, KomandorAdam said:

I hope the ships will have more advanced damage models than before?

ED hasn't given any news about the new AI damage model coming, much less a ship damage model that requires massive core changes, such as flooding, fire, or structural damage.

[Silver_Dragon]

23 hours ago, Yurgon said:

A subscription model could work as an incentive to focus on the core of DCS rather than on new modules. And at that, it could pay for asset development like the PTO Assets pack that spawned this particular discussion - of course that's a ton of work, of course devs and artists need to be paid. Fragmenting the player base with payware asset packs is a legitimate concern, and a subscription model might work better than the current one. But I'll be the first to admit: I'm happy it's not my choice to make and my burden to carry if it goes wrong. And ED have kept the lights on in very demanding times, so they must be doing something right.

It's been said repeatedly that a subscription system (and benefits) doesn't work in DCS World... for many subscribers, priorities aren't going to change, and their main business model is selling modules, not charity. Huge amounts of money are already being spent (which a subscription system doesn't compensate for unless you're an MMO), and this would force you to sell "expansions" at AAA prices to cover costs...

Also, I love that assumption, "just sign up for a subscription and the problems will be fixed."...let's not dream of castles in the air.

Turning the wheels isn't going to change things that have been happening for 30 years, much less "forcing" directions in the management of product lines because you want to step on the gas... Building functionality into the core isn't just about having a monkey hack code. Either you have competent staff (which is very expensive), or nothing gets done here. Let's also remember that much of the "competition" hasn't even come close to what we have today in the combat department.

If someone wants to put money into making a module, they can:
- Form a third party and do it themselves.
- Try another KS... we know how the previous one ended.

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please don't derail the thread with subscription chatter, we have said many times in the past its not something that will work for DCS, and we have no plans for it. 

Topic here is Pacific Operations Assets Pack | Mission Save Development Progress | New Free Trials

thank you 

[KomandorAdam]

15 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 such as flooding, fire, or structural damage.

It's 2025, it's high time for ED to focus on damage models!

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, KomandorAdam said:

It's 2025, it's high time for ED to focus on damage models!

The last news talking about ED has centred on damage model of WW2 aircrafts.

[KomandorAdam]

It's great that planes have upgrades, but ships need them too. You can take ship by ship and upgrade them. You don't have to upgrade them all at once. And newly introduced ships can have a better damage model! There's no need to push new ships with an outdated damage model!

[Silver_Dragon]

This is the same story as with ground vehicles, if ED doesn't do the groundwork on the core, there's no point in talking about a new damage system... We'll know if ED is working on damage model advancements from the Friday newletter reports, so let's assume that all modern vehicles, ships, and aircraft will continue to ship with the old damage model, unless otherwise stated.

[BIGNEWY]

2 hours ago, KomandorAdam said:

It's 2025, it's high time for ED to focus on damage models!

Ships and other unit damage model improvements are planned for the future, it wont happen soon as we already have a lot of work to do. 

We have adjusted some warheads recently and that will help, and we are also working on better fragmentation that will also enhance the current implementation. 

thank you 

[KomandorAdam]

23 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Ships and other unit damage model improvements are planned for the future, it wont happen soon as we already have a lot of work to do. 

We have adjusted some warheads recently and that will help, and we are also working on better fragmentation that will also enhance the current implementation. 

thank you 

I'll hold you to your word!

[Ornithopter]

Question.  Can the DCS engine already handle Torpedoes, or is that something awaiting implementation?

[Silver_Dragon]

11 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

Question.  Can the DCS engine already handle Torpedoes, or is that something awaiting implementation?

DCS has torpedoes implemented on WW2 aircrafts and some WW2 and modern subs, the main problems.... has a very simplified funtionality..... The main problem? The Torpedo doesn't work like a torpedo; it looks more like a very stupid, very slow missile underwater. The torpedo doesn't seem to have a realistic gyroscope function implemented to steer toward the target, nor can it be fired in salvos or select the depth or speed. There are no underwater explosion physics, nor pressure or magnetic fuses... we could even say that the contact fuse is poorly simulated. They have no guidance, so there is no passive or active functionality in modern torpedoes (there is no sonar engine in DCSW), and there are no countermeasures. And of course, there are no bubble trails or electric or other propulsion torpedoes (we could almost say it's not simulated).

Edited August 12 by Silver_Dragon

[Ornithopter]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

DCS has torpedoes implemented on WW2 aircrafts and some WW2 and modern subs, the main problems.... has a very simplified funtionality..... The main problem? The Torpedo doesn't work like a torpedo; it looks more like a very stupid, very slow missile underwater. The torpedo doesn't seem to have a realistic gyroscope function implemented to steer toward the target, nor can it be fired in salvos or select the depth or speed. There are no underwater explosion physics, nor pressure or magnetic fuses... we could even say that the contact fuse is poorly simulated. They have no guidance, so there is no passive or active functionality in modern torpedoes (there is no sonar engine in DCSW), and there are no countermeasures. And of course, there are no bubble trails or electric or other propulsion torpedoes (we could almost say it's not simulated).

In other words, it's pretty important stuff to work out and get right in a world of Jills, Avengers, and Catalinas.

[Silver_Dragon]

19 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

In other words, it's pretty important stuff to work out and get right in a world of Jills, Avengers, and Catalinas.

Aerial torpedoes has implemented and working on Ju-88T AI unit from some years ago, the problem has talked, the associated funtionality, but a very missing weapon on DCS has none Depth charge / antisubmarine weapons.

ED has planned by the PTO Assets pack some capable torpedo carriers:

• TBF “Avenger” (Mk-13 torpedoes and DC missing).
• PBY “Catalina” (Mk-13 and Mk-24 Fido torpedoes, retroboms and DC missing).
• B6N “Jill”  (Type 91 torpedoe missing).

Edited August 12 by Silver_Dragon

[SloppyDog]

On 8/8/2025 at 4:09 PM, SloppyDog said:

Sorry to interrupt the PTO assets announcement party, but I have a question regarding the save mission scripting function.

With the use of the "world.getPersistenceData(name)" function will it be possible to extract the state of the player aircraft from a saved mission file?

From what i understood from the function description it will be possible to fly to a border of a map, save the mission, load a new mission in a nem map, recover the state of the aircraft and continue mission. If that's the case, it would be possible to make missions between adjoining maps. For mission creation, it would add a new layer of challenge and immersion.

What are the parameters extracted from the persistance json? Fuel, armament, damage state?

 

@NineLine could you please take a look at this? Thank you.

[NineLine]

On 8/12/2025 at 10:53 AM, SloppyDog said:

@NineLine could you please take a look at this? Thank you.

I'll see if I can find some answers.