Does ED ever consider incorporating user made mods into the core game?

Does this ever happen? For example, the following mod that creates ATGM infantry would be an amazing addition to Combined Arms, and it would make infantry actually useful against armor:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=166007&highlight=atgm+infantry

+1, having the modding community pitch in and make the small additions to the game would be awesome, ofc as long as there is quality control

+100 There are several mods that are outstanding and Should be eincorporated as "standard", specialy regarding Vehicles, and Static Objects.

Without a doubt this would be smart, massive free patch to the game where you didn't even do the work XD But this is ED so I give this a .1% chance of happening. Would love to be wrong but... this is ED.

+1

+1, having the modding community pitch in and make the small additions to the game would be awesome, ofc as long as there is quality control

Yeah, and I'm sure the creators would love to have their mods put into the game for everyone to enjoy!

ofc as long as there is quality control

This is the problem I think.

"Everybody" with some knowledge about 3D modelling or coding can make a mod. That doesn't mean it is an accurate approximation to the real thing to DCS standards, or not causing conflicts within the game.

But checking the above is a lot of work, and some of that work has to be repeated for each major update.

And, although it may make DCS "better", ED's business model is selling modules.

These mods are free, so ED would be doing all the quality control work for zero income.

On the other hand a "better" DCS could sell more modules, but it's questionable and apparently ED thinks it's not worth it otherwise they would have done it already.

Also, compare how much time several 3rd party modules spend between "submitted to ED" and "early access". This can be several months at least. For a single module!

What I would support is cherry picking. There are e.g. some AI planes available as mod, which are very welcome for some historical missions. E.g. the B-29. I think ED should include a B-29 somehow, and if they can save time and money by taking an available mod and upgrading that to their standards, then I think it's a great idea.

This is the problem I think.

 

 

"Everybody" with some knowledge about 3D modelling or coding can make a mod. That doesn't mean it is an accurate approximation to the real thing to DCS standards, or not causing conflicts within the game.

 

 

But checking the above is a lot of work, and some of that work has to be repeated for each major update.

 

 

And, although it may make DCS "better", ED's business model is selling modules.

These mods are free, so ED would be doing all the quality control work for zero income.

 

 

On the other hand a "better" DCS could sell more modules, but it's questionable and apparently ED thinks it's not worth it otherwise they would have done it already.

 

 

Also, compare how much time several 3rd party modules spend between "submitted to ED" and "early access". This can be several months at least. For a single module!

...

I was thinking more along the lines of ground assets and small additions instead of mods like the A-4, etc. Full modules should prob be left to ED and Official 3rd Parties. Small additions or assets are different imo.

What I would support is cherry picking. There are e.g. some AI planes available as mod, which are very welcome for some historical missions. E.g. the B-29. I think ED should include a B-29 somehow, and if they can save time and money by taking an available mod and upgrading that to their standards, then I think it's a great idea.

Yeah, I'm sure there could be a process that's created to seriously look at some, better established, mods over others.

And, although it may make DCS "better", ED's business model is selling modules.

These mods are free, so ED would be doing all the quality control work for zero income.

On the other hand a "better" DCS could sell more modules, but it's questionable and apparently ED thinks it's not worth it otherwise they would have done it already.

I do not see this as too much of an issue. Otherwise they would not allow free assets made by third parties to be added. Take, for example, the ATGM infantry mod I mentioned in the opening post. I do not see that as any different than the Chinese Asset Pack made by Deka Ironwork. Both are free, and both aren't "major" additions like a full blown module is. We even see ED adding free ground assets of their own:

Some recent examples:

New Airdrome Equipment

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3970541&postcount=204

T-72B3

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4029204&postcount=214

The difference is they have to pay their employees for the time they worked on said asset. These small, player created additions would make paid modules, like Combined Arms, more attractive to players, would only be a fraction of the cost, and would allow ED to focus more of their time on other things.

Hi,

 

all content used in DCSWorld requires an agreement with Eagle Dynamics. Generally it is 3rd party teams who do this who already have contracts with Eagle Dynamics.

 

If you have a mod and want it to be considered you would need to contact the team and discuss it, and a support ticket would be the best option.

Awesome! Thanks for the reply! But has ED ever considered reaching out to the creators? That was the main point of the question.

I have a vague recollection that before Deka become a 3rd party and first introduced their Chinese asset pack, they were infact a mod team making J10 and JF17 mods.

If so, then I suppose the answer to OP's question is a soft yes.

I think it's a matter of manpower and efficiency. It's much more efficient for content creators to submit their projects to ED than it is for ED to go out hunting for content creators.

It makes sense. If you have something you feel would add to DCS, submit a ticket with your proposal and then ED will have someone from the appropriate team reach out to you.

Awesome! Thanks for the reply! But has ED ever considered reaching out to the creators? That was the main point of the question.

All those USN and USMC patches you see if you select a USA pilot were done by me and incorporated by ED a few years ago. So the answer is yes.

All those USN and USMC patches you see if you select a USA pilot were done by me and incorporated by ED a few years ago. So the answer is yes.

oh ok, awesome! good work!

In THEORY, ED could allow content contributions and then decide on a case-by-case basis whether something is a trivial addition or requires QA. If it requires QA, they would have to charge for the additional content, which would either require the original creator to license it for free / transfer it to ED, or it would require something super complicated like a third party creator agreement and then pay the original content producer? No way that is going to scale for this small an eco system. This isn't the Apple App Store.

So I think the only way stuff could make it in would be if the new content somehow contributes to something they can charge for, like the Normandy asset pack for example. Pretty unlikely that would happen, unless there is like an open source product for DCS? Everyone contributes their stuff to an "improved ground forces" asset pack, but then somehow ED is able to herd those cats and make a tested release out of it, without having any of the devs in house to make fixes? No way.

That said, I think selectively open sourcing portions of the product would be awesome. Imagine if the AI for the new dynamic battlefield was open source and the community could submit pull requests for better behaviors for specific units? This sort of thing requires a ton of research and experimentation and not a lot of lines of code, so I think the community could really help out there. This is already a paid activity at ED, so maybe having a bunch of contributions would actually help the devs out. Of course, this also won't happen unless they happen to hire some dev folks who are into working in this open source way. Otherwise, it will create chaos and resentment. Oh well, I can dream :)

PS: That said, I think there are some community-developed things that are worth so much that they should totally be integrated even at cost to ED. Specifically, the VR shader optimizations should be integrated at ED's expense as an optional graphics setting. This way, integrity check would not be violated and we could buy a year or two for everyone struggling with VR performance, while we wait for the re-engineered graphics engine.