Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Callsign112

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
  • Location
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I realize that. The example I gave was in support of my opinion that most here are more likely to show interest in ground crews for air fields before they would support crews for ground vehicles. So my comment is not directed at you alone, but includes in a general sense the community. It was in that context that I was simply pointing out that because we are largely a flight sim community doesn't mean the ground war side of DCS wouldn't/couldn't grow. I was using the word "you" figuratively, I should have wrote "a person wouldn't go...". My apologies.
  2. I understand and agree with you point regarding the circular argument that developed, but if your presumptions are correct, then it couldn't spell good news for ED and their DCS product. I would think if DCS had realistic playable tanks, smart AI soldiers, and offered all of its modules for free that they would easily exceed the user base of any comparative products. I share your optimism and look forward to future improvements, but I think it is fair to say that what sells jets are all the x features added.
  3. But I think it is still fair to say that something like Combined Arms has received a lot less attention then the maps/jets/planes/choppers. That is what makes the OP's announcement so exciting for me. It has opened the possibility that the ground war side of things will see more development.
  4. I'm not here to prove I'm right and your wrong, but the point that seems to have tripped you up was really meant for the person who stated an interest in ground crews for airfields over ground vehicles. I was just pointing out that his stated interest is likely to be the popular vote here being that DCS is primarily a flight sim. I never mentioned anything about choice and which game/sim sells more. I was just pointing out that most of the people that come here are into flying stuff, so the ground crew for airfields is probably a shoe-in.
  5. No the analogy was quite accurate. You can't tell by going into a burger joint who in the crowd likes pizza. Some of the patrons no doubt will like pizza, but they are sitting there because of the burger they are about to eat. DCS is primarily a flight sim. There is no doubt that some here are into/will support ground vehicles, but the vast majority here come to fly. Offer ground vehicles/infantry with the same level of detail and ED will not only convince some of the regulars here to support it, but they will attract a new type of customer that is likely to swing the other way in terms of sup
  6. And that is likely to be the popular vote here as a flight sim, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for a DCS ground war side of things. You wouldn't go to a hamburger joint and claim its proof that no one wants to eat pizza. I discovered IL2 because of its Tank Crew module, and since then have purchased 4 of the flight modules. The detail that ED puts into its jet/plane modules is simply amazing. I am still focused on collecting war birds until I get a more capable system, but of the 3 I have collected so far, I can honestly say I am equally amazed by each of them. If ED p
  7. @StevanJ, I have read the thread. In the quotes you provide above, you left out where the OP talked about developing ground forces well enough so that it could possibly generate its own player base. I understand that wouldn't be the first step. The OP also talked about AI logic. My understanding is that a more usable infantry with much improved AI logic would be part of the early steps, and that this will lead to more detailed vehicles with improved physics models. One only has to look at the WWII assets pack and Combined Arms modules to realize how much work needs to be done on the ground war
  8. What I understood was that an Arma3/PostScriptum type of infantry is beyond their remit at this point in time.
  9. I can't help wonder if some of us haven't misinterpreted the OP's original announcement, and I don't just mean that we are getting OFF-TOPIC here. It seems to me that part of the reason for this might be that DCS is largely a flight simulator, and when the WWII assets pack was first released, it was meant to help augment the scenery for the pilots, and give them something more interesting to shoot at. Hence its title as an "assets pack". The understanding I get when I read the introduction to this thread is that the concept being proposed here is less of an assets pack, and more o
  10. And I would agree with that because I am one of those who enjoys the game with a low end system. RX580 in fact. But I think the point is more regardless of what you spent to enjoy the game, you still paid for it. I don't see why anyone would expect software Developers to work for free. I understand the problems that are created for the online gaming community when not everyone has a particular module like the WWII assets pack, or the Channel Island map, but the solution to that problem comes full circle back to the discussion of whether someone believes they should pay for a module
  11. I'm am not sure what point the linked video is supposed to make? Even if the OP of the comment you were linking your video to would have used a 100 euro HOTAS, and a 400 euro GPU, the point being made would still be valid, you have to pay for it. An analogy would be like buying the RX580 and expecting to get the RAM for free. One question about the video, do you know if the performance of the GPU is affected when the app is run in full screen mode?
  12. Well said. I think it comes down to whether or not you are here to support the reason your here. Anyone frequenting Starbucks could easily spend $180.00US/ month there just to have someone pour their coffee, but $70, or $35 on sale for the WWII assets and CA is too much? Lets see, 20 large what ever your drinking plus a microwave warmed muffin = 5minutes preparation time = 100 minutes, or 1.7 man hours vs 100's of man hours in research/design/development of any given map/plane/vehicle. And anyone with the same outlook that bought the F14/F18/F16 and expected
  • Create New...