Jump to content

Non-owners placing in ME


Recommended Posts

Having recently learned that non-owners will be unable to place the carrier in the ME, I am shocked.

 

There presents itself a very obvious issue with this line of thinking. In a group that contains multiple squadrons, fro example 476th vFG or JTF-1, there will undoubtedly be very talented mission creators who don't own the SC module. So how are they expected to create missions without owning the SC?

 

Your first reaction may be to say something along the lines of 'Just send it to someone who has the module to retro-place it' and whilst this may seem like a good and logical solution, it quickly falls apart when you try to do anything advanced in the editor. As any competent mission creator will tell you, scripting is a vital part of a good mission. This scripting is something that will quickly fall apart and struggle when people have to swap units in and out of the mission, experience has shown this.

 

So let us instead find a better solution, a prime solution would be to allow non-owners to place the unit in the editor. NOTE: this does not mean they can use it in single player, as that would equate to people having a free SC, what this instead means is that non-owners will have the simple ability to place an icon on a map.

 

This simple solution would allow complex and entertaining missions to be produced without punishing the people who dedicate so much time to creating them. This solution would also maintain the principles applied by ED that you must purchase the SC to use it in SP missions, because the mission creator would not be able to join a SP mission using it.


Edited by BIGNEWY
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I don't own a copy of the Harrier or Hornet (or whatever), can I create a mission for my squadron mates who do have the aircraft? I have all the modules, so I have never tried. But if that's the case, then shouldn't the Super Carrier be handled the same way?

 

I don't know. Having paid for modules along side non-paid modules poses some interesting coding, eh? I just never thought about it.

The Hornet is best at killing things on the ground. Now, if we could just get a GAU-8 in the nose next to the AN/APG-65, a titanium tub around the pilot, and a couple of J-58 engines in the tail...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, right now in the ME you can place modules you don't own. For example I haven't purchased the viggen however I can place that for my squadmates without a problem. There is no problem because I am not accessing the features that people paid for, all I am doing is place an icon on a map. However it has been said that this won't be the case for the Carrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like my post on Discord earlier got the discussion going.

 

As I said there, I don’t fly naval aircraft so no need to actual spawn or land on the super carrier. BUT I do build multiplayer mission for the 476 vFG and we have an active Hornet squadron that will likely want to use the super carrier. The way it is now I won’t be able to place the super carrier in the mission editor when designing missions. We currently don’t have that limitation with other modules (excluding maps).

 

I think ED is making a big mistake and potentially alienating mission designers that either don’t have the disposable income to purchase a module they wouldn’t actual use (aka mission running) but want to include in mission building/design.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having recently learned that non-owners will be unable to place the carrier in the ME ...

 

 

Where did you got that information? .. I have not seen any official ED source saying that.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have purchased the super carrier module for myself, but I support the notion that it should be able to be mission editor placeable and setup for use in either general multiplayer missions or single players mission for legitimate owners of the module.

 

Currently Mission creators can place aircraft modules that they do not own to create more inclusive missions, same should go for the new carrier module.

 

I do not endorse the super carrier module should be free to play only free to place (in M.E.)

System: I7 7700K - Delidded. TT Cooler. 32GB 3000hz Ram, Gigabyte Aorus Ext 1080TI, SSD's, Corsair Gold 850W PSU, Philips 4K 40inch 60hz monitor, Dell 22inch Touch + Helios, Rift S, VKB MCG PRO, TM TPR pedals, TM Warthog throttle with slew mod and twist repair

Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like my post on Discord earlier got the discussion going.

 

As I said there, I don’t fly naval aircraft so no need to actual spawn or land on the super carrier. BUT I do build multiplayer mission for the 476 vFG and we have an active Hornet squadron that will likely want to use the super carrier. The way it is now I won’t be able to place the super carrier in the mission editor when designing missions. We currently don’t have that limitation with other modules (excluding maps).

 

I think ED is making a big mistake and potentially alienating mission designers that either don’t have the disposable income to purchase a module they wouldn’t actual use (aka mission running) but want to include in mission building/design.

 

I fully support Snoopy on this one, and I am in the same situation for the 132nd Virtual Wing, where we have both a F/A-18C and a F-14B Squadron, where I build many of the wings missions (but do not fly the F/A-18C or the F-14B, and thus personly, I am not in the need for the carrier).

I think ED should facilitate and support creating missions so pilots have a good way to spend their time within DCS , instead of making it harder to create good content for the communities out there.

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes

turned skyward for there you have been, and there you will always long to return"

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

132nd Public documents - Want to apply? - 132nd Youtube channel - 132nd Discord Channel

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a SC buyer, I think it's mental that currently (From what has been said by ED staff) non-owners will not be able to place and manipulate it in the mission editor. Mission makers are a vital part to the community, in fact I'd go out on a whim and say they have kept many people interested in the sim. Mission making isn't for all, so to be potentially limiting what the mission maker can do and who their missions target (user base) is madness. You can place airframes that you don't own, so why not the carrier?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

/Copied from my post on ED discord on this issue:

It makes zero sense for me why it would not be placable by a person editing a mission (if not purchased) as any other asset (i.e. any aircraft module) can be placed regardless of whether the mission creator owns the module or not. Users should absolutely have to own the SC DLC to use it, but the server host account or mission creator should not be required to own it to be able to include it in the mission, or run the dedicated server for it. It makes no sense and would likely see less servers utilise the super carrier, meaning less incentive for people to purchase it since their favourite server/mission may not even support it as a result.







"

This is coming from me after purchasing 3 copies of the SC (one for myself and two for friends). I really want it to be popular and succesful, but the current approach with locking it behind a paywall for mission creators seems like deliberately shooting yourself in the foot.

 

 

To me ED should do what they can to support mission creators and server owners, as they are in large part the communities that bring in and nurture newcomers to DCS, and play an important part in the ecosystem that incentivises new purchases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BIGNEWY mentioned it in Discord.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying.. I'm allergic to Facebook and Discord, so I miss sometimes tidbits like this .. Tough I wonder why ED wouldn't inform this on the Forum :(

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, we are just getting into the protected version testing, we will check it out, and if you can't place as a Mission Creator I will ask. Along those same lines, we need to check out it acts in single player if you are required to have it to launch a mission, etc.

 

We will pass along concerns.

 

All that said, I would think it is safe to assume that it will work similarly to the Asset pack as far as the Mission Editor/Single Player.


Edited by NineLine

spacer.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... the asset pack stuff is super unfortunate. I'm willing to shell out money forall sorts of stuff (And I think I have just about everything ED has made and then a good deal of the 3rd party stuff) but I honestly can't understand how some of the ideas they come up with regarding what is packaged, what isn't and what is and isn't usable in various ways doesn't seem very customer focused.

 

That said...

 

I'm 42 years old and have lived through a couple "combat sim droughts". Eff that :). I'd rather just assume it makes sense to SOMEONE than to have the only combat sim out there go under because I wouldn't fork over a few more dollars...

Win-10 x64

 

Nvidia RTX2080 (HP Reverb)

Asus Prime X570P

AMD 3800x

32GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

 

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals

Using VJoy and UCR to remap Throttle and Clutch into Rudder axis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we try to do our best to balance between free and paid (to try and avoid combat sim droughts), I am not sure it's a good argument to say that someone isn't interested in Navy stuff but wants to build missions for his squadmates, so it should be usable for that, then its I can place it, but can't test it, so now we have to make it work in single-player, etc etc.

 

If you need it to build missions, use it in campaigns, use it in single-player, or in multiplayer, then it's worth the investment.

spacer.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry nineline but I have to disagree. I know a lot of my squad mates don’t fly the Hornet or other naval aircraft and have no interest in buying the SC. But they do want to build missions that include naval flying ops for those in the squadron who do fly it. And I know we aren’t the only vFG that operates in this manner. I get it that MP isn’t the end all and be all, and that your stats show more SP than MP. But don’t forget that MP is a good portion of your user base. This is not an asset pack, this is a module according to your own advertising, just like the Hornet, M2K, or Viper. We can place those in missions with out owning them, this should be no different. I have no interest in the Viper, but I do want to include it for those in my squadron that do. It’s a valid argument, one you don’t like, but it is valid.

 

Just for clarification, I bought the SC.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure it's a good argument to say that someone isn't interested in Navy stuff but wants to build missions for his squadmates, so it should be usable for that, then its I can place it, but can't test it, so now we have to make it work in single-player, etc etc.

 

If you need it to build missions, use it in campaigns, use it in single-player, or in multiplayer, then it's worth the investment.

 

Currently I can place other aircrafts that I do not own or fly, and I do not have a need to test them, I can not see how it would be different with the supercarrier?

 

Is there really a large push from people that makes missions but dont own modules who suggest to get access to them to test while making missions?

 

 

I think the argument is good and valid, and you that you disagree with it. But I have a hard time to see how the issues raised here are a good argument.


Edited by NECK

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes

turned skyward for there you have been, and there you will always long to return"

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

132nd Public documents - Want to apply? - 132nd Youtube channel - 132nd Discord Channel

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a perfect example of where having the DLC being a compromise with certain limitations is causing issues. The super carrier module exists somewhere between the binary implementation of the WW2 Asset Pack and any other module where ownership is optional. Being a new type of DLC brings loads of unanswered questions and just general confusion over it.

 

The WW2 Asset Pack adds to what is effectively a sub-genre within DCS, so the inability to place those objects really only impacts non-owners for those wanting to make WW2 missions. The same can't be said for the carrier DLC. For starters its not just the US carriers, its a Kuznetzov that is still TBD if it is a separate ship, and more importantly to this thread topic the Arleigh Burke. For reference in game we currently have the Oliver Perry class frigate and Ticonderoga class cruiser. For those keeping score at home that means the USN in DCS simply doesn't have access to a destroyer class ship and will need a DLC to use it in a mission. In the context of reality destroyers make up a sizable portion of navies around the globe and the Burke is going to exist in larger quantities than both the ship classes above. Not to mention the Perry class is completely retired from the USN and the Ticos are starting to be retired, with the cruiser designation essentially being eliminated and their role being filled by the Burkes. The Arleigh Burke isn't a brand new ship either, they have been around since the 90s with the version we are getting since the early 2000s.

 

In the context of DCS the Arliegh Burke's dependence on the DLC pack means that a very common ship for the US Navy that 99% of the time will just be another AI ship in the mission won't be available. This is at the crux of my issues with the compromise for this pack. It takes the worst parts of the WW2 Asset Pack and applies it with the hyper focus of thinking it would only impact carrier players while ignoring the general impact to everyone as a whole.

 

Considering its already for sale, I still think the ideal solution is to make degraded but current CV functionality versions of the objects available for free with the DLC providing better art and unlocks the module functionality like how every other normal module works.

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects: Scripting Wiki, Something...

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread), SLMOD, IADScript, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a perfect example of where having the DLC being a compromise with certain limitations is causing issues. The super carrier module exists somewhere between the binary implementation of the WW2 Asset Pack and any other module where ownership is optional. Being a new type of DLC brings loads of unanswered questions and just general confusion over it.

 

The WW2 Asset Pack adds to what is effectively a sub-genre within DCS, so the inability to place those objects really only impacts non-owners for those wanting to make WW2 missions. The same can't be said for the carrier DLC. For starters its not just the US carriers, its a Kuznetzov that is still TBD if it is a separate ship, and more importantly to this thread topic the Arleigh Burke. For reference in game we currently have the Oliver Perry class frigate and Ticonderoga class cruiser. For those keeping score at home that means the USN in DCS simply doesn't have access to a destroyer class ship and will need a DLC to use it in a mission. In the context of reality destroyers make up a sizable portion of navies around the globe and the Burke is going to exist in larger quantities than both the ship classes above. Not to mention the Perry class is completely retired from the USN and the Ticos are starting to be retired, with the cruiser designation essentially being eliminated and their role being filled by the Burkes. The Arleigh Burke isn't a brand new ship either, they have been around since the 90s with the version we are getting since the early 2000s.

 

In the context of DCS the Arliegh Burke's dependence on the DLC pack means that a very common ship for the US Navy that 99% of the time will just be another AI ship in the mission won't be available. This is at the crux of my issues with the compromise for this pack. It takes the worst parts of the WW2 Asset Pack and applies it with the hyper focus of thinking it would only impact carrier players while ignoring the general impact to everyone as a whole.

 

Considering its already for sale, I still think the ideal solution is to make degraded but current CV functionality versions of the objects available for free with the DLC providing better art and unlocks the module functionality like how every other normal module works.

 

The classic hit the nail on the head :thumbup:.

 

Im in the same boat with mission design. I do it a lot for the group I fly with, but I have no interest in the SC module, yet several that I fly with do and have bought it. Now I have to buy it, to add it to the mission.. not happening.

So as it looks now. I can make the mission, then those who own the SC have to place it, and now the mission is off my hands, I cant fix things because there is a module in there I dont own (and its very far from the same as with WWII pack, cause that adds an entirely new era, ment for Normandy map and the new Channel map).

 

So please ED. Reconsider the structure.

- Jack of many DCS modules, master of none.

- Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS.

 

| MSI Z87-G45 Gaming | i5-4670K @ 4.3Ghz | 16Gb DDR3 1600 | Asus GTX 1070 Strix OC | Samsung 850 Evo 250 & 500Gb | 40" Sony FullHD | Oculus Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog Stick (19.5cm extension) & Throttle | MFG Crosswind | Windows 10 |

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are large communities who rely on mission makers to enjoy DCS.

It's clear that we are not the core customer type, but playing together and the creation of a community is also where other single-player pilots can join, find information, it's a big part of keeping the interest alive in this growing simworld.

 

I also understand that there are technical limitations, that takes time - therefore money - to solve.

 

But as a value, playing together DCS, it should be quite strong, and everything that stands in the way of this should be dealt with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you need it to build missions, use it in campaigns, use it in single-player, or in multiplayer, then it's worth the investment.

It really isn't since you're not getting anything out of it.

 

All you're doing here — just with like the initial decision to require the module to join an MP mission where it's present — is giving more people a reason not to get it: because there will be no content for it.

 

DCS is nothing without a good mission. Absolutely nothing. With this strategy, you are guaranteeing that there will be fewer good missions for the carriers, meaning there will be much less reason for players to get it, which drastically reduces the size of the audience for prospective mission makers who might think about including it, which in turn further reduces the value for the mission-makers to get it, which leads to fewer missions still. It's a vicious circle that only ever can have one outcome: less money for ED, and more bad word-of-mouth surrounding the module and its perceived uselessness for all parties.

 

Mission makers don't need to “test” a carrier any more or any differently than they need to test a wing of Bears coming over the horizon, or a FARP, or ever single Ural in a ground column. Once you understand the behaviours, figure out the timing, and learn to read the waypoint settings, it's all mainly just a matter of watching things play out at 10× speed and checking that the right flags get set off at the right time for the right reasons. None of that requires ownership of, or being able to actively play, any of those units.

 

If you want carrier ops to be as niche as WWII, then sure, treat it like the WWII asset pack, but then you should probably reconsider that whole Mariana Islands map as well, since you are quite clearly signalling that it's only meant for niche gameplay that only a small segment of your customer base should bother with.

 

Your game lives and dies by its content creation.

Don't impose artificial limitations on the content creation.


Edited by Tippis
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm totally confused right now.

Will the SC module work like any other aircraft module or like the WW2 asset pack?

 

What happens if I place the Arleigh Burke or the Kuznetsov in the mission?

Will the WW2 guys be able to connect to the server without the super carrier module?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...