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More urgently, many outdated models in DCS still need to be updated — for example, the C-17 and MH-60.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 October 28 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More urgently, many outdated models in DCS still need to be updated — for example, the C-17 and MH-60.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 October 28 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 October 29 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.

[Ramius007]

On 10/29/2025 at 2:52 AM, Goetsch said:

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.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem is DCS AI, compered to some, even very old sims, if You want a immersive fox-3 fight, you can only get one vs human in DCS, and paid maps and future asset packs are murdering PvP, as they split already small portion of crowd even more, and this preety much drive a lot of people from DCS for long time, or for good. Sure, in perfect World, if AI in DCS wouldnt die to every fox-3 fired from 80% range, paid asset packs/map would be better, becouse you have immersive content coming with core, it's just not the case with DCS in current state. I m not even driving deeper into other AI bugs, we can write book here. Another factor is, that DCS content, that is not commuity made OR paid is small, so servers are rather natural way to play, and not all DCS players spent thousends of $ for hardwere, to justify spending 50$ for asset pack or map, especially if we compere cost of DCS modules with other games, even AAA, IMO current model of having to buy map to play MP, is harming DCS in long run, and is narrowing potential player base, paid asset packs would be no diffrent. Best what ED can do is propably making optional install for asset packs, maybe mods, so if some server require those, you can immediately install, Im afraid, we still didnt get this, becouse ED may be thinking about monetizing asset packs in the future.

[Goetsch]

@MAXsenna @Ramius007 Sorry, I’ve been a bit busy lately and didn’t check your replies in time…

 

You’re absolutely right, as you mentioned, ED’s model is quite different from others. Providing low-resolution maps could indeed be a good approach, but it might also cause some dissatisfaction among users who have already purchased certain maps.

Personally, I think keeping things as they are now forms a delicate balance that allows slow but steady development…

So I don’t really expect ED to offer anything for free in such a niche market (at least under the current circumstances), but I still hope ED can be more open to incorporating the resources available within the community.

[draconus]

13 minutes ago, Goetsch said:

So I don’t really expect ED to offer anything for free in such a niche market (at least under the current circumstances), but I still hope ED can be more open to incorporating the resources available within the community.

You can't ignore ED's own additions in the recent years and huge asset packs from Massun92 and CurrentHill. This is all in the core - free for all. ED is very open - there are however requirements regarding quality and original model owner rights among others.

[Ramius007]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

You can't ignore ED's own additions in the recent years and huge asset packs from Massun92 and CurrentHill. This is all in the core - free for all. ED is very open - there are however requirements regarding quality and original model owner rights among others.

What were those  "ED's own additions in the recent years"? We have massive hole in redfor SAM's that take time to fill, and even bigger hole past 2005, it's hard to play WWIII scenario in XXIc, when best red SAMs are from mid 80's, and best redfor a2a missile is R-27ER, not counting Jeff here, as it's just not used by China or Russia, and have no performance to compete with F-teens. This leads to rather trivial a2a pve with 120C, and PvP create even more issues, you have to either hack lua to make red FC3 modules somehow competetive by adding pl-12 or add blue jets to red, but I would focus on pve for now, and nacessity to use mods, if you want to have engaging modern a2a or SEAD

[draconus]

3 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

best redfor a2a missile is R-27ER

And R-33 and R-77... that's what they had until late 2000s. Sorry if not engaging enough for you, that's reality.

[Silver_Dragon]

PL-12 and another PRC stuff, was build by Deka and integrated by ED... Meanwhile, Wags on the last interview, has claimed they has working on add many Russian SAM and Stuff. And expected add PRC stuff on a future. Has many blue stuff missing, include some modern and Cold War SAMs and AAA. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Silver_Dragon

[Silver_Dragon]

On 10/28/2025 at 5:02 PM, 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.

Most navies have ship classes, and concentrating them on a single map as if it were exclusive is an aberration, especially when, for example, if you include Norwegian units on the Kola map and ORBX provides the Baltic and the Denmark Strait maps, you'd be repeating support content you don't need. It's better to have them separated (as they are now in separate folders). Furthermore, it limits situations where you could realistically find Norwegian units in places as far away as Normandy (even without the modern map), or, for example, the current Cold War Germany map.

[Ramius007]

34 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

PL-12 and another PRC stuff, was build by Deka and integrated by ED... Meanwhile, Wags on the last interview, has claimed they has working on add many Russian SAM and Stuff. And expected add PRC stuff on a future. Has many blue stuff missing, include some modern and Cold War SAMs and AAA. 

With blue SAMs we are in decent spot, NASAMS get popular only in 2nd decade, it's very modern, maybe we miss THAD, SAMP get added recently, Israeli systems should be map specific IMO. I m as bit supprised, and dissapointed that Currenthill decided to focus on modern warships, Udaloy and Sovremenny are both more capable in a lot of ways, but more important, they cover wider timeframe. In a2a, we dont really have blue platforms that can carry better weapons than some 120C variant, but on the other side, even just upgrading Mig-31 from oldest possible version to something like early 90's B variant with R-33S would spice things a bit, even in small numbers, old R-33 is R-27ER level at best, by date it's end boss for F-4  but not blk 50 Viper or Lot 20 Hornet or even Tomcat

Edited 15 hours ago by Ramius007

[Silver_Dragon]

Some very necesary SAMs Missing

• Cold War/Post Cold War:
  • Blue
    • Nike Ajax (Denmark/Germany/Greece/Italy/Netherlans/Turkey/Usa/etc)
    • Nike Hercules (Deployed on Denmark/Germany/Greece/Italy/Netherlans/Turkey/Usa)
    • Nike Zeus
    • Bloodhound (Deployed on Uk/Sweden/Germany
    • Thunderbird
    • Raven
    • CAMM Land Ceptor
    • All UK Manpads (Blowpipe/Javelin/Starbust/Starstreak)
    • Crotale/Crotale NG
    • Mica VL
    • Mistral
    • SAMP/T
    • Aspide Skyguard I/II/Spada/Spada 2000
    • IRIS-T SLS/SMS
    • RBS-23
    • RBS-70/NG

[currenthill]

3 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

I m as bit supprised, and dissapointed that Currenthill decided to focus on modern warships, Udaloy and Sovremenny are both more capable in a lot of ways, but more important, they cover wider timeframe.

That's kind of a stretch. I've made two ships for DCS core, the Project 22160 Vasily Bykov Class Patrol ship (modern) and the Project 1124M Grisha Class Corvette (not so modern). That's pretty much 50/50 so far.

[Silver_Dragon]

8 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

 and dissapointed that Currenthill decided to focus on modern warships, Udaloy and Sovremenny are both more capable in a lot of ways, but more important, they cover wider timeframe.

The Udaloy was one of the main anti-submarine escorts during the 1980s, along with the Sovremeny, which was somewhat anti-aircraft and anti-ship (with Moskit missiles).

I see two problems. The Udaloy is left incomplete because there's no anti-submarine warfare in DCS World, and it didn't have anti-ship missiles. And the Sovremeny was never implemented by ED.

I recommend that Currenthill first update all the old ships as CGN Kirov , CG Slava, FFG Neustrashimy, FFG Krivak II and missing CH Moskva, CG Kynda, CG Kara, LST Aligator, LST Polnochny A/B/C and some Air-cushioned landing craft (from LOMAC times) to a current state, and then start adding more and more ships that don't exist (there are hardly any NATO naval vessels).

[Ramius007]

I agree about upgrading old models first, certainly just 1 blue and red mid cold war era with area air defence would be nice for a start, my pick is Kashin for Russia, and Adams for USA, both of them primary wepons are already in game, so less stress for devs. From gameplay perspective hovercrafts would be cool to have. Personally I would love to see CH Iranian pack included in some future update, PG map still look good, and is a bit forgotten, and manpads speedboats are adding new threat type.