Ageing legacy 3d models - Will they all be overhauled?

With ED currently having four top notch looking maps (including the overhauled Caucasus) and an ever growing number of playable aircraft modules with gorgeous 3d models, why is it that there are still dozens upon dozens of incredibly dated 3d models residing within the DCS World ecosystem?

The sheer number of early 2000's LOMAC 3D models is a significant weakness for ED to bring new customers/players into the DCS World. Below is just a quick list of not obscure vehicles/equipment that look like something from my son playing Minecraft. I really hope ED will work to clean up the large remaining number of 10-15 year old 3Dmodels as a priority even more so now that there are further new maps on the horizon. Perhaps ED could give some sort of idea on what the plan is for cleaning up this ugly blight on the DCS World?

Extremely dated 3D models (not exhaustive):

B-52H

C-17A

F-14A (Understand Heatblur working on this as part of F-14 module)

F-4E (Understand being worked on as a module)

Mig-23

Mig-25RBT

Mig-25PD

S-3B

Su-17M4

Su-30

Tu-142M

Tu-95

CH-53E

SH-60B

Various Gaz and Ural trucks

Albatros (Grisha)

Neustrashimy

Grisha-5

Tango

SA-6

Roland Radar (separate vehicle)

Various GAZ trucks

Ural truck

Numerous civilian trucks, cars and buses

Some of that elements, has on plans to rework by ED (Check my signature on "vacant" models).

Sh60b is the first that comes into my mind as ugliest 1990 looking model, followed by the ch53. I just can t decently use them in a mission. But yes, sure they mist be so much more.

Back in those times it was the latest, remember. I pointed out the ground model stuff many times, not just the fidelity but the amount of them and the types of new ones, for long time, to balance that out I have see some moral responsibility so I hit the brakes with the comments becuase I respect DCS enough I can't just diss on the old models like that. Be easy guys ;)

Some of that elements, has on plans to rework by ED (Check my signature on "vacant" models).

Thanks Silver_Dragon. :thumbup: I was not even aware of that in your sig. Already subscribed to your You Tube channel which is helpful for keeping abreast of developments and news. Keep up the good work. :)

Many of the models mentioned in my brief list I consider to be essential for mission building. As mentioned by someone else here already for example the SH-60B is an absolute shocker and just kills the immersion when viewing it in-game. Same goes for others such as the C-17A, Tu-95/152 series and other classic cold war aircraft seriously from the DCS World. Does ED actually plan on fixing all these old models?

Back in those times it was the latest, remember. I pointed out the ground model stuff many times, not just the fidelity but the amount of them and the types of new ones, for long time, to balance that out I have see some moral responsibility so I hit the brakes with the comments becuase I respect DCS enough I can't just diss on the old models like that. Be easy guys ;)

Its almost 2020.

We aren't talking about a 1990 game.

Its almost 2020.

We aren't talking about a 1990 game.

Correct. And when you are trying to convince other people to join the DCS World one of the first things people look at are the 3d models and graphics. First impressions count and when a potential new player sees a confusing mix of stunning 3d models and shockingly dated 90's monstrosities that elicit Minecraft jokes. At that stage you are already well and truly on the defensive trying to promote the game to potential new players.

Su-34 was only recently replaced.

Tu-95. Let us hope this Cold War staple gets revived someday. I desperately want to use them but soooooo ugly if you get close

…..Tu-95. Let us hope this Cold War staple gets revived someday. I desperately want to use them but soooooo ugly if you get close

A necessity in any intercept mission in the Cold War era, but especially in a Tomcat.

The sheer number of early 2000's LOMAC 3D models is a significant weakness for ED to bring new customers/players into the DCS World. Below is just a quick list of not obscure vehicles/equipment that look like something from my son playing Minecraft. I really hope ED will work to clean up the large remaining number of 10-15 year old 3Dmodels as a priority even more so now that there are further new maps on the horizon. Perhaps ED could give some sort of idea on what the plan is for cleaning up this ugly blight on the DCS World?

Do you want to get all these models for free under DCS? High-quality 3D model with animation, damage and .Lod's IMHO costs about 700-1500 $. I suggest thinking about creating a new monetization model that would allow those wishing to buy high-quality 3D models

It is necessary to saturate DCS World with new 3D-models. Providing 3D-models for free greatly limits this possibility. Conventionally, we get 1 model in 2-3 months, and the wish list-hundreds of 3D-models. А possible solution is a paid add-on. Players who buy them will receive high-quality 3D models, and all the others will be simplified (for example, LOMAC+ level). This will allow all players to use the new objects in DCS Wold.

As they say: "Any whim for your money!"

God, you people have some terrible ideas sometimes... when did you all develop such a love for cancerous microtransactions? I'm more open to ED's monetisation than most (personally, I say subscription + module purchases) but ''ugly ass game if you don't pay'' is just an awful idea across the board.

Subscribing to DCS is one possible solution. Especially if you use Google Stadia - cloud gaming service technology. The only problem is that I can't see the detail and thousands of polygons of 3D models through HUD.

God, you people have some terrible ideas sometimes... when did you all develop such a love for cancerous microtransactions? I'm more open to ED's monetisation than most (personally, I say subscription + module purchases) but ''ugly ass game if you don't pay'' is just an awful idea across the board.

On the contrary, I would say subscription is the worst option as you pay for something regardless whether you use it or not and there are no guarantees that you will actually get more content that way.

If necessary, I'd rather pay for large base game upgrades as they become available (kind of like Steel Beasts charges) or for various asset packs (like for DCS WWII), but I will not pay a monthly subscription fee to be able to play the game.

There's a reason why all the MMO games abandoned this model (people weren't willing to pay for it anymore).

It is necessary to saturate DCS World with new 3D-models. Providing 3D-models for free greatly limits this possibility. Conventionally, we get 1 model in 2-3 months, and the wish list-hundreds of 3D-models. А possible solution is a paid add-on. Players who buy them will receive high-quality 3D models, and all the others will be simplified (for example, LOMAC+ level). This will allow all players to use the new objects in DCS Wold.

As they say: "Any whim for your money!"

A new model as 2-3 monts and some 5-20 updated meanwhile.

Would prefer smart scaling over improved 3D models tbh .

I'll take what I get though .

On the contrary, I would say subscription is the worst option as you pay for something regardless whether you use it or not and there are no guarantees that you will actually get more content that way.

 

If necessary, I'd rather pay for large base game upgrades as they become available (kind of like Steel Beasts charges) or for various asset packs (like for DCS WWII), but I will not pay a monthly subscription fee to be able to play the game.

 

There's a reason why all the MMO games abandoned this model (people weren't willing to pay for it anymore).

There are a few sub based yet. Anyway, I have never considered subs objectionable. On the contrary it gives the developers steady income and eliminates their incentive for bs ''golden ammo'' and ''premium this/that''.

''Free to play'' appeals to the lazy ''something for nothing'' mentality and directly exploits completionism and poor impulse control. They all switched to it because it's a veritable gold mine in comparison to restricting people to ''only'' a few dollars a month. The money people spend on bullshit ''free to play'' games would pay a subscription for a year, but subs are evil. Yeah.

The issue with ED is steady income. There are only two avenues to fixing that. Churning out loads of content in variable state of readiness with minimal option to ''slow down'', or securing steady subcriptions.

People here spend a grand on their PC and hundreds on peripherals, and $60-80 per plane, but that $10-20 a month ($120-240 a year) THAT'S WHAT BREAKS THE BANK. Subs are unpopular because people are stupid and shortsighted, not because they're all that expensive.

People pay subs for TV, for Netflix, for HBO, for Amazon, an ungodly long list of things, in some cases hundreds of dollars a month and nobody bats an eye.

There are a few sub based yet. Anyway, I have never considered subs objectionable. On the contrary it gives the developers steady income and eliminates their incentive for bs ''golden ammo'' and ''premium this/that''.

 

''Free to play'' appeals to the lazy ''something for nothing'' mentality and directly exploits completionism and poor impulse control. They all switched to it because it's a veritable gold mine in comparison to restricting people to ''only'' a few dollars a month. The money people spend on bullshit ''free to play'' games would pay a subscription for a year, but subs are evil. Yeah.

 

The issue with ED is steady income. There are only two avenues to fixing that. Churning out loads of content in variable state of readiness with minimal option to ''slow down'', or securing steady subcriptions.

 

People here spend a grand on their PC and hundreds on peripherals, and $60-80 per plane, but that $10-20 a month ($120-240 a year) THAT'S WHAT BREAKS THE BANK. Subs are unpopular because people are stupid and shortsighted, not because they're all that expensive.

 

People pay subs for TV, for Netflix, for HBO, for Amazon, an ungodly long list of things, in some cases hundreds of dollars a month and nobody bats an eye.

From where does majority of player base comes from?

USA,Canada,and western Europe?If that is the case go for subs.

It took me 5 years to save up for good PC,and decent HOTAS.Anything over 10 bucks per month is not affordable,for me.

So that would mean no more modules..ever.What about us.. eastern Europeans,Russians,Chinese,guys from Middle East,Africa..etc.

Are we a minority here?

It is simple calculus.Problem is that not many people are in to sims right now.I think that subs would be a risky move.

But,what do i know.It is not like i don't have a horse in this race.I could be biased.

I think what a subscription based model would most surely do is kill any new blood. There are a lot of new people online who started with the free SU-25 and ended up buying the Hornet cause it's soooo cool. Those people would have never played to begin with under a subscription model so.... there's that.

ED settled on their business model of free World and couple of free aircraft while charging x dollars for each module. I'm on the whole happy with that.

Getting back to the topic my gripe with the existing dated 3d models is all to do with immersion. It is great flying some stunningly crafted model but if the environment in which you fly is sterile and littered with shockingly dated 90's/early 2000's models then it just kills the whole experience. Once you have learned and mastered the module then the world around you becomes more important and if that world is spoilt by amateur 3d models then it leaves for a lacking experience. I am encouraged though by ED stating that over half their staff are focussing on core game world functions as summarized by Silver Dragon from the recent Mudspike interview:

Core product improvements:

- New terrain engine

- Dynamic campaign

- New graphics engine

- Improved night lighting

- FLIR rendering tech

- Ground radar tech

- Air-to-Surface radar rendering tech

- Improved weather (clouds, thermals, humidity, etc.)

- New and improved effects

- Integrated VOIP

- Aircraft AI improvement

- Updated replay system

- Improved unit visibility

- Improved sound engine

- Improved network code

- And other more confidential aspects…

50% of company resources are invested on the core product