StevanJ

Can we have some kind of feedback in regards to VR touch control- and flying with them in the game, im aware the FA18, F16, among others are enabled, but I fly with 9 other people that use them, instead of a HOTAS (as we play on laptops when working away). And we dont really know what the plans are for them towards the future, epecially 3rd party modules. Theres also no validation for us, when buying new ED modules wether or not, they have the VR touch controls enabled, and that prevents us from buying them until 'Free to play' events are on and we can see for ourselves. Their seems to be a big demand, and yet we've not really got any direction towards them with DCS.

You can add scenery destruction in the mission editor, just assign it to a mission start trigger, and away you go..

Typing Target Management Switch - Up (Lock) into the 'search engine' within the controller options.. I think its 'Right Control and Up' key.. Or just play the training mission in the game.. It takes less than 5 minutes.. Everyone here is a bit pedantic when it comes to giving you the easy answer..

Are there any plans to increase the number of cities airports? We only get the Airports and major cities west of Tabqa Dam (with the exception of Al Raqqah).. I know Cyprus is in E/Dev..

Did you try rolling back your driver to nvidia 457.51?

Ive a 2080ti, with an i9 and not even i can get steady frames on the Channel (Im talking even 2D not just VR). Im not complaining- I just think that your expectations are way too high for the hardware you have.. Alot of people in hoggit seem to hike up all the resource heavy settings and then get upset because they cant achieve 90FPS. Its just not realistic yet. No one is delivering any game in VR on high settings, with huge textures.. Even on my laptop, ive an i7 with a 2070, and i have to play the game on low, with that hardware. Heres my settings.. by comparison. Turn off global illumination, Turn off SSAA, MSAA down or off.. Res of cockpit- is a resource killer and i turn off every frame and even lower the res, as i can read the cockpit in my quest. Textures on high is a definite no, unless you lock your VR headset to 30 FPS, in Oculus Tray Tool or similar. Basically i click VR then increase Aniso- Filtering and add MSAA followed by pushing the max the visib range, for me, running it on Extreme only changes FPS by a couple, texture increases changes my FPS by 10-15. I think your settings are unrealistic for your hardware. Im sorry if this is bad news, but i hope it helps you in the right direction to enjoy the game..

I didnt get a track- Sorry.. Just a query, Is the map still in Beta? Only Ive noticed quite a few faults, including fighters using only one runway on a multi runway airfield in dire wind (ie abbeville). And more specifically the Dora seems to have engine cut out issues (ive posted the video in the Dora bug section) including the AI. The taxiways and the release of aircraft onto the runways seems a little broken- On Abbeville, if i stack up 20 '190s or 109's ready on the ramp, only batches of 3 are released sometimes, which means by the time the last 3 takes off, either the Doras engines have seized on the runway, or the first batch of 3 fighters are returning to base, before the last are even on the taxiway. These specific faults were: The 190 Dora on Saint Omer', Any other fighters (including the 190 Anton) take off at the end of the runway, and well in time, but the Dora flies straight past the runway and into the bushes (the second clip). If i fly the Dora, i can clear the end of the Runway, but the AI dont even try. The A20 on Hawkinge, Perhaps that may be a little small for the bomber, I just clicked 'takeoff from ramp' and it moved the bombers from the place i put them first to Hawkinge airfield, and i built the missions around that. I have read that the Hawkinge Airstrip was extended for bombers in the event of an emergency. If you remove the fence, the A20's actually take off in the same point, Its as if the fence is a figuratively a foot too tall. Are there any loading specifications that give an insite into which airfield can accomodate which airplane? Or is it a case of just 'try it and see'?

Its easier without in the hornet due to the light on the probe.

We can go back and forward like this forever, the analogy wont work, because some will come to fly modern helicopters, some for Warbrids, some for Cold war, some wont have maps etc, the list goes on, there are too many differing variables, and in the way your analogy looks at 'food flavours' in a 'burger joint'. Choice becomes more abundant with each module thats released, and only ED will have the real world figures to tell us 'who prefers burgers to pizza' and with those numbers, they can pick and choose where to put the 'most profitable' development, and where to 'outsource' the stuff that would sit on the fence.. I cant imagine ED looking at figures and outsourcing stuff thats not profitable, its easier to sell the work at a price. The common subject we have is flight, or in your analogy 'food'. Just like if you were hungry, youd go to Just eat for 'food'. Youre suggesting, that choice of restaraunt wouldnt be available, and its incorrect. Luckily, thanks to the modules we have, we have an incredible amount of choice. We're not limited to a single module, or even a single game, the choice is wide and far. Once you arrive at 'Just eat/ DCS' you pick what it is you want to 'eat/do'.. But essentially, we all want to fly/eat. Any module that increases that immersion towards flight is definitely wanted. The problem were having is deciding where that line ends. Some dont want the asset packs, some do, some just want a certain asset pack. And so the discussion goes on. Your analogy assumes, we're ordering from one restaraunt when in fact, the number of players on this platform have already made and established the game by purchasing the modules and creting a 'market' for supply and demand, they know what they like and now a market exists for a certain 'genre' of aircraft (cold war, WW2, Modern, choppers etc). You cant eliminate the choice of 'restaraunts' on offer, because DCS has such a diverse and different amount of modules. And such an example would never exist anymore. Use the same analogy in Il2 'I bought Il2 and no one seems to like the FA18', well thats not possible, because youve taken away the choice and reason to why youd be in that game in the first place. Youd never be in a burger place complaining that they dont sell pizza. In the same way, youd never buy the Huey, and complain you cant use the Hornet. It cant work, because its biased towards Il2, in the same way youre biased towards 'being in the burger joint'. Anyway- we are now going wildly off topic. Lets just say, youre right and leave it there. And hope we get some feedback soon, so we can start figuring out where to spend our money. And how else we can can enjoy the game.

Here you go.. I count 1312, So were at about 2%. Hope this helps.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fighter_aircraft Also, id really like to purchase different variants, like the two seat EA18G, and the Super Hornet. And id also like Russia's number one WW2 ground attack aircraft the Ilyushin Il-2 (ironically). Just to name a few. But im spitballing. Arma on DCS would never happen. Tank modules might.

I Agree, however Il2 just delivers in such a different way despite being very low fidelity in comparison. That analogy is wrong int that it assumes you have no cholice but to walk into 'a hamburger joint', use that same analogy in a different context. Say- A high street.. You walk down the high street and see 10 vendors selling pizza, and a single vendor selling burgers.. Id say that would give you a clear and open vision of what food was popular (or rather -what sells). Then take a look at the servers and players we have, and ask ourselves why Il2 does so well with their game numbers both in single player on steam, and online despite us having the far superior game I agree that the modules are phenomenal in detail and like yourself, i have nearly all of them. My only reasons to not owning a module, only revolve around limitations to myself in the game and others 'not buying certain modules', so id welcome anyone who can make a module that comes with 'no limitations', not just cost, but accessibility in gameplay too.

Roll back your driver to 457.51..

Yes, exactly the same kind of lists we have in mind.... ***Then a few pages later later in the week, they come back again and end with the assets packs.. on a multitude of Differing posts. In the first instance we would like to work on the Airfield Pack if we can make that possible.. We've not ruled out Naval Assets.. Everything we have said so far is our intent, and wishes and vision.. Seriously @Callsign112, @3WA, Youll probably do yourself some good, from actually re-reading page 1 not just spamming the same paragraph thats been posted just 3 posts ahead of you.. Youve just stamped the same paragraph as 'sergkar' a few hours earlier. Its a single paragraph in a single post which lightly contributes towards a more detailed combined arms, but the message in that post, and a vast number of other posts from OP, are pointing in a single direction. Numerous times BP come back and reaffirm where theyll point their creative direction, Asset Packs. It is quite obvious what BP want to work on- Asset Packs. But youre more than welcome to keep spamming parts of Op's posts, if you also feel like you would prefer the asset packs first and foremost. Just tell us thats what you want, instead of spamming their words and not being specific to what you want. This is why you and i are unclear on what theyre delivering. Ive spoke my mind, and id hope youd be clear on what you want, so that we can give BP some clear direction. Do you want the tank module or the asset pack? Otherwise if you keep spamming that paragraph, others will join and not read Op's first Post and start another discussion that rolls off the original topic- Asset Packs.. Do you want the asset packs first (airfield, cold war, post cold war, Naval) before they move onto to a more detailed combined arms? Would you like me, prefer they started on a tank module? Would you rather they didnt do that? If you could answer that, we might be able to focus and move on; this way everyones clear moving forward, and i can support you in the way you want.. While i understand your passion towards this game, i think its probably best we keep focus on Op and thats the message thats posted numerous times through the thread by BP. I dont mind if you want the asset pack, I dont mind if you want the tank module. I dont mind if your opinion is opposite to mine, but lets stay focused and tell BP specifically what youd like? At least then we can stop arguing with each other and move on for the greater good of the thread. Otherwise others will join in- in the hope of 'arma for DCS'. And then we'll have another 10 pages of others arguing over ground units, when the thread doesnt seem to be targeting this first of all, even though I wish they would..

I see where youre coming from, But thats just pulling context away from the actual topic in hand. And thats why some people are speaking up and diluting the focus away from op's post- with regards to them selling asset packs. Because when i read that full post, i read the statement, as 'If we sell enough asset packs we'll look on towards.. 'Ground vehicles etc'" I think thats where some people are taking words out of context, like this. Im speaking up, because i dont want to have asset packs as a 'First Instance' (To quote the very post you quoted), and youre speaking up because you want the 'simulated ground vehicles' (Which will follow in the promise they sell, the asset packs). And that 'eventual promise' of a simulated ground vehicle is that- which is fuelling the hype train in this thread meaning some people arent actually reading Op's full posts, just taking words from it, and slapping them on here with 'Yeah i want Arma in DCS'. If theres a way, in which i can buy more assets, and others can play with me while they dont, then yeah, ill change my mind, and say im for more asset packs. I think spending money on luxuries is obviously welcome, just as long as it doesnt stop others from playing on a server with me, like the WW2 A-Pack. Im both clarifying that i 100% would buy a 'simulated ground vehicle' module, and 100% WOULD NOT if it meant i had to buy the asset packs that Battlefield Productions- (who are, in 'first instance' trying to sell-) to enjoy them. If they dont sell enough asset packs, are you going to be disappointed if no 'simulated ground vehicles' are released because of poor 'Asset Pack' sales? Or would you much rather they focused on the Ground Vehicles first? Because thats what id rather they did, and thats what im trying to hint towards.. If you really would rather they focused on 'Asset packs' then say it. If you would much rather they focused on a 'Ground Unit Module', say that. Everyones entitled to want another asset pack, but focusing on this 'simulated ground vehicle' that hasnt even been clarified as a module yet, when BP have numerous times stated are aiming towards selling assets first, is pulling focus away from the actual topic started on page one. I might be wrong, but i feel that if they focused on the 'Simulated Ground vehicles' before the asset pack, the response from the forums would be more a welcomed one and sales would probably be much stronger even at a higher premium? Id pay £70 for an M1A1 Abrams Module, Id not pay £15 (during a sale) for another asset pack. It might be a little more work than making a few '3d models for the asset packs' but im sure the financial rewards will much more lucrative for their team as a whole. Then- if those people who bought the tanks wanted to buy a 'detailed farp' asset pack they are welcome to ask for it. But right now, ive no interest in an 'airfield asset pack', 'post and cold war' asset pack, as i can build everything i want in the game we have, and id much rather creative resources were spent on 'future modules' or 'game improvements' what ever they might be.. (See my campaign trailer for 'Go with the flow' which actually shows airbase growth through each mission, it was made by people without asset packs) And to answer OP, do i want more asset packs with the hope that if we sell more and the numbers are good (because as they state paying themselves is of importance), we might get tanks? No, focus on tanks, drop the assets as a 'first instance'.. Im happy with the current assets we have. But if you HAVE to build asset packs, make them like the supercarrier, so i can play with other people that have them as a luxury, so if i do actually buy them, i can invite the people i play with to the server, not like the WW2 asset pack which bans players who dont have them from the server. Im not arguing with anyone over what they would like, i agree that everyone is going to have differing opinions to this subject, just as if it were a post- asking us what our next new module should be. I just think if more people answered the original posts by Op, we'd have a better clarity towards BP, and they'd maybe think about making Combined Arms 2, or a 'tank module' before they start to think about developing and selling another asset pack. But right now, all ive seen for pages and pages is 'we're happy to pay for an Arma style DCS mod' not 'Id buy another asset pack', which is really confusing given the threads topic. Were going round and round in circles.

Youll probably do yourself some good, from re-reading page 1. Op (BP) starts by asking us if we want Post- Cold war, Cold War, And airfield asset packs, then when the overall response isnt good, there is a move from others to talk about Combined arms. Since that first opening post, there isnt really anything specific mentioned, there are a few posts where they are asked to do ground vehicles, but also a few posts where BP re-affirm that they want to make more asset packs. They havent yet posted a response to actually making 'ground units'. And from there last post, theyve said even making 'infantry' is beyone their remit.

I can confirm this, The VR place holder has gone, Any attempt to grab the stick in VR moves the Stick to the rear. A10, and A10-2 Now no longer flyable in VR with touch controls..

100% Agree, the argument is i can play this game on my surface pro. I can load it up, and run it at 1080p, and use an xbox controller to plop around in a yak (which is THE best module right now despite it not being finished) and have a laugh.. Or i can play this game on my desktop with a full HOTAS and run FA-18 missions online.. Thats the freedom of choice. And im saying that im 100% behind paying for more modules, so that i can still carry on playing with others who might own all modules, or just some of them. Im agreeing that if Battlefield Productions do their modules like the supercarrier (ie - Not everyone has to own it but others can play on the same servers with those that dont own it) ill more than likely buy their modules. As there is nothing better than jumping on a GS server and running sorties my others. Im also saying that if Battlefield Productions do their modules like the WW2 Asset Pack (ie - You can own a tank, but not play these online on servers without paying extra for a seperate 'asset pack') ill more than likely stick with EA's new Battlefield 6, Squad, Arma 3 or any other game that will more than likely do it better, than the new modules do on this engine.. There is nothing worse than not being able to play a game with your friends. And single player only has so much life. Try it, Go pull out Monopoly, call up your friends, and tell your friends they can come round, but cant play without buying their own monopoly pieces. When they say no, try playing monopoly on your own.. And thats what im talking about. Just imagine you werent able to fly a fast jet like the F-16 until you bought and learnt to fly a trainer like the Yak. Would that be okay? Any assets that are needed for a module, should come priced in with the module they are needed for, this should include maps, all at a cost to us. Not- to the cost of the gameplay. Thats the problem i have with the way some modules are structured, and im just telling BP, so they can avoid the mistakes that have been made in my opinion and with that knowledge, hopefully they can access more of my money. Id even donate to a kickstarter should that come up with the promise of open servers.. If their modules allow anyone to play online, ill probably end up spending nearly another £1000 (like ive done with DCS) on ground units, Id love nothing more than a tank module or A/A module, but if i have to buy a 'pack' which means im going to end up on a server of 15, then thats not going to be much fun.. ED and any 3rd party dev's are entitled to offer me any modules, and ill go and do what i can to buy all of them out of choice. All i can do, is tell BP how to get me to spend the most of my money.

The point of the video was to suggest that not everyone goes out and spends their money on expensive hardware to enjoy this game. Some people can do with a basic setup and enjoy the basics, in order to enjoy the gameplay. Some people might buy 'the tank module' but might not want to buy 'every other' ground unit module on offer from BP just to enjoy using the module in the the game. If youd like any questions answered regarding the video, start a post and invite me to come discuss it, dont take the topic of discussion away from Battlefield Productions.

100% behind an all accessible 64 player server that any person can play on with each of the modules they've paid for.

For the people that think everyone spends "400€ for a hotas or 1000€ for a graphic card . And don't see where the problem is. " Not everyone can afford a Hotas or a £1000 GPU.

Yeah, i made it- thought it was easier than to wait for one to come to us.. Lets hope you like it.

@rforce What? you mean 'Schnellkampfgeschwader 10?' I made it following the post.. If you want any more Campaigns just give me a shout.

Ive read every one of BP's posts, including their view of assets, I understand what im saying. Its very clear you dont understand my issue, Or what im trying to say.. You havent even properly read my last post. I dont think my opinion needs re-visiting. "People like me"..? Look- Id really appreciate it if you can keep this towards topic, without trying to diversify the post and segregate me into a corner, I came to share an opinion- Its done. Just add a 'like, laugh or whatever and move on without trying to make this offensive towards whatever it is you dont like about my opinion.. 'Hardcore players'? Im not sure why you feel that the squad i fly with isnt Hardcore, when a majority of the Campaigns, and Missions theyve built are currently rated number 1 on user files, by the current player base. Every single one of the people i fly with go out of there way to contribute as much as they can to make this game a fulfilling experience and getting others into the servers, even offering a 'Module Giveaway' at christmas. I think youre obviously looking for an argument, and id appreciate it, if you could leave it here.

I apologise if that how it comes across. I was contributing an opinion to the original post, that im 100% behind new growth via new modules, but i was only explaining the reason to why i probably wouldnt buy a future module. Might i also add that ive spent nearly £1000 on Modules, and ill continue to purchase new modules until i reach £2000. Ill do my best to continue to support DCS in anyway i can, and keep the community together while i try my best to push numbers into the game. My squad also do there utmost to grow player numbers, by creating new campaigns and missions for the game in there free time.. Not a single one of them expect anything for free. And all we can do is try to explain why we wont play certain modules and why in the hope it benefits the game, and the player numbers. I didnt think i was trying to split the community. Just voicing an opinion. However- Ill back out, as i think my opinion is being mis-read and misconstrued and i dont want anyone to be offended..

For the last 5 years the 'freemium' business model has driven software, 'leisure' activities and other hobbies. You want to try golf? go pitch and put- Pay £6.50 to rent a club, a golf ball, and play it. Want to do more? Buy your own clubs and join a Golf Club. You want to to get into RC Cars/Airplanes? You buy the cheapest you can fly it/drive it in the park, and then join an RC club- the more you get into it. You want to get into a modern flight sim? Buy the DCS FA18 and fly with other people (including people who have other modules- AND the supercarrier) on Caucasus . Theres a reason why joining a club for your hobby is free, Ive been a member of a shooting club for 2 years, and ive never had to pay anything. We buy the targets from the club, and buy the pellets too, to which they make their money- Its like paintball. Thats the business model, that you and i agree works for everyone, and is fair to get involved in. Should i want to get into DCS Warbirds, Or DCS Combined Arms 2, Ill pay for it, ill take ac chance like every other module Ive paid for. But not being able to play Warbirds or the Combined Arms 2 module because i havent been able to get into a server due to an asset pack- or my friend hasnt been able to purchase an asset pack because he cant afford it, should not rule me out of the gameplay online. Those same players, like myself will just go to other games, when really we should be trying to keep them with DCS, and increase the number of the player base making it more popular. Should i have to pay for a £70 DCS Combined Arms 2, then a £30 DCS Modern Asset pack, like ive done for the Warbirds, then I wont buy it. Because whats the point in playing a game- i cant play with friends. Thats the lesson ive learnt from Warbirds and the DCS WW2 Asset Pack. My squad has grown on Discord from 20 to nearly 200 players on Discord, and while DCS is better, if we want to dogfight, we all just log in to Il2, because anyone can play. Its THE only reason why Il2 has over 50 servers online now (go check) FILLED with WW2 players, and DCS has only 1 server (go check) with around 22 players. If i have to purchase an Asset Pack to enjoy the 'Combined Arms 2' module, then ill pass on the module. While im sure the 'die hard fans will' buy the pack, and make an argument for the pack to stay, they'll be playing with a number similar to those on the warbirds right now. Or theyll just enjoy the single player side of it. Instead Ill just play on Il2 Tank Crew, because thats the most popular. Or Battlefield, or the new upcoming sequel from EA to Battlefield 4. Im sure if Battlefield Productions outlay the cash for this module, and no one plays on it, it wont be around for long. If they can integrate the game to allow anyone to 'jump right in' and experience the battlefield, then itll probably become a serious module for serious people. Without the players, there is no game.