Asset packs and maps

[Ramius007]

I was thinking about linking some elements of packs with specific map, rather than DCS core, like Sweden pack should propably be included with Kola, rather than added to main game, some assets are very region specific, like RBS-70, or models from Iran pack. This would both increase incetive to get a map, but also keep DCS size small for not interested.

[MAXsenna]

It's your wish, but I highly disagree. All free assets need to be included in the Core, or there will be outrage and headache for both users and mission/campaign creators. 

Sweden is now part of NATO BTW...

Cheers! 

[Goetsch]

I often create my own missions and operate multiple servers, and I think there should be more AI assets available — even if they’re paid.

Right now, many scenarios lack appropriate AI assets, and I’m not a fan of installing mods, especially since they can sometimes prevent players without those mods from joining modded multiplayer servers.

More urgently, many outdated models in DCS still need to be updated — for example, the C-17 and MH-60.

ED’s move to bring more community-made modules, such as the CH and M92, into the core game is a huge boost for multiplayer mission creators. I think expanding this approach even further would benefit the whole community.

Edited yesterday at 05:50 AM by Goetsch

[Rene Coulon]

7 minutes ago, Goetsch said:

I often create my own missions and operate multiple servers, and I think there should be more AI assets available — even if they’re paid.

Right now, many scenarios lack appropriate AI assets, and I’m not a fan of installing mods, especially since they can sometimes prevent players without those mods from joining modded multiplayer servers.

More urgently, many outdated models in DCS still need to be updated — for example, the C-17 and MH-60.

ED’s move to bring more community-made modules, such as the CH and M92, into the core game is a huge boost for multiplayer mission creators. I think expanding this approach even further would benefit the whole community.

Agreed, and with the Lancaster project now in AI, and the full fidelity 7 crew one not far away...ED Must look at creating a path for these amazing moddelers to come inside the Core 

[MAXsenna]

2 hours ago, Goetsch said:

ED’s move to bring more community-made modules, such as the CH and M92, into the core game is a huge boost for multiplayer mission creators. I think expanding this approach even further would benefit the whole community.

Exactly this!  

[draconus]

Highly disagree with OP. Assets should not be tied to either aircraft or map modules. Aircraft can fly worldwide and same with vehicles and ships.

13 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

some assets are very region specific, like RBS-70

Even that one is spread around other countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operators_of_the_RBS_70

[Czar]

Imagine: Buy all the maps to be able to join a multiplayer server because that server has a lot of different units placed, or: ''*loading next mission*.......error: sorry you don't own West Cambodia to load the Type 63 the mission maker placed somewhere on a 150,000 sq mile map that somehow only comes with the West Cambodia region that's part of a larger product called Cambodia that you have zero interest in, but there are a number of groups that do so and they are the product's target audience.

6 hours ago, Goetsch said:

I often create my own missions and operate multiple servers, and I think there should be more AI assets available — even if they’re paid.

Paid packs will generate compatibility issues and difficult management of missions over time.

Imagine 60 unit packs some day and a mission uses 14 of them, how it would cost to Join that mission.
This will cut the legs of DCS and paid packs like the WWII were a huge mistake. If you get what you wish on that sentence, people will have a hard time joining your servers, especially the ones that stopped playing for 1 year or 2.

I couldn't possibly make a friend get the WWII pack to place a period and location appropriate flak gun on a mission I made because....obviously, why the hell someone would pay for a pack to join a mission and they'll never see that unit again on their own experience or not the target audience at all.
And honestly, he was right on his assumption. He never needed the WWII pack after.

The right way is to offer a high detail paid pack while placing lower fidelity (but still nice to look at) units on the core sim, like they did/will do with the B-1 and B-5 2...

Paid packs with exclusive units are a mistake, the same mistake that was the Supercarrier ''module'' which is the cause we don't have deck crews on the Forrestal still today!

Some things should have been made into the core sim so other devs and mission makers can benefit, meanwhile a ton of bug reports over the years to ''why my carrier looks like this?'', ''why I can't spawn on that carrier? :('' Rightfully so.

Sorry for the rant, this stuff is the worse of DCS imo. Made me stop flying from 2018 to 2021 because of how community chopping and obstacle for 3rd party it is.
I own, Supercarrier btw... love it, but it should be on core sim. The joy is almost canceled having the Forestal deck absolutely deserted by the ground crew and no 3rd party can take advantage of the SC code. Unit packs the same. Lot's of ''you need this to joing that'' etc, will wreck the sim.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Czar

[Ramius007]

8 hours ago, Goetsch said:

I often create my own missions and operate multiple servers, and I think there should be more AI assets available — even if they’re paid.

Right now, many scenarios lack appropriate AI assets, and I’m not a fan of installing mods, especially since they can sometimes prevent players without those mods from joining modded multiplayer servers.

More urgently, many outdated models in DCS still need to be updated — for example, the C-17 and MH-60.

ED’s move to bring more community-made modules, such as the CH and M92, into the core game is a huge boost for multiplayer mission creators. I think expanding this approach even further would benefit the whole community.

Paid asset packs are much worse than mods, they are so bad, that even ED, with exception of WWII, stay away from them. I use Retribution for SP content, it has support for a lot of mods, I cant imagine playing SP DCS without  them. Even if ED release asset packs, still you can spent money better than for asset pack. In MP, paid asset packs are a no-go IMO, and servers that use mods, choose those that are high quality and not create issues.

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Highly disagree with OP. Assets should not be tied to either aircraft or map modules. Aircraft can fly worldwide and same with vehicles and ships.

Even that one is spread around other countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operators_of_the_RBS_70

SA map and Kola! RBS-70 would be unique in DCS, laser beam riding SAM of older generation, than what we have in game, so not great choice from me!

[MAXsenna]

2 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

Paid asset packs are much worse than mods,

But why do you advocate for them being payed for by purchasing a map? It's even worse.

 

[Ramius007]

31 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

But why do you advocate for them being payed for by purchasing a map? It's even worse.

 

Plenty of country or region specific assets/. mods are avaible, I dont think that Oslo class frigate (if someone make model) make more sense in DCS core, than as part of Kola map, we propably find some assets that make little sense outside PG map, and small reminder, that relatively small CH SWE asset pack take over 10GB on HDD, while I loved, I doubt, they make much sense to make into DCS core, for people who dont have Kola map.

[MAXsenna]

22 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

Plenty of country or region specific assets/. mods are avaible, I dont think that Oslo class frigate (if someone make model) make more sense in DCS core, than as part of Kola map, we propably find some assets that make little sense outside PG map, and small reminder, that relatively small CH SWE asset pack take over 10GB on HDD, while I loved, I doubt, they make much sense to make into DCS core, for people who dont have Kola map.

That's actually interesting. You might not know this, but the Norwegian coastguard was present in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War with KV Andenes, in support of the Danish frigate Olfert Fischer.  

Ships can sail "anywhere" as you know, and being part of NATO and coalition forces might just land you missions like that.

@Czar said it pretty eloquently. Mandatory purchase of all maps to be able to play one mission, will not be very welcome in the community. 

[Goetsch]

Perhaps everyone has overlooked one way a free game can make money...paid DLC.

If you compare DCS with almost any other flight simulator, DCS is definitely the cheaper one overall… The money you spend on one DCS map is only enough to buy a single airport in something like MSFS.

I believe those who are interested will buy it, but I also don’t like the World War II bundle format — it ends up preventing people who don’t have it from joining missions.

 

14 hours ago, Czar said:

the core sim, like they did/will do with the B-1 and B-5 2...

Paid packs with exclusive units are a mistake, the same mistake that was the Supercarrier ''module'' which is the cause we don't have deck crews on the Forrestal still today!

Some things should have been made into the core sim so other devs and mission makers can benefit, meanwhile a ton of bug reports over the years to ''why my carrier looks like this?'', ''why I can't spawn on that carrier? :('' Rightfully so.

This might be good — it’s somewhat similar to the approach used for the F-5E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Goetsch

[MAXsenna]

@Goetsch I absolutely agree with you, while one shouldn't be forced to purchase a map to get some assets. I don't even understand in what way this would work. Even then asset packs are better. As for the MP scene, which seems to be a lot smaller than the SP crowd, assets and maps could be free in low res, and high res up for purchase. Dunno!

I agree overall that DCS is very cheap, (not the cheapest one though, while it depends on your outlook), compared to some of the other "competition", but I still have invested about 2K. Nothing compared to the hardware though.