thoughts on assets

[Northstar98]

14 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Don't go getting all crazy now.... 

 

I'd just want to simulate shooting down an A/C, vs then automatically deciding to start WW3 by trying to sink the carrier it came from. 

 

Well I mentioned that, because naval units right now are wasteful with their munitions (such as a Tarantul III firing all of its AShMs against the La Combattante IIa, when the latter can't shoot them down, and will be killed by one) and they don't obey the release quantity or max attack quantities either.

 

 

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Absolutely this.

 

We aren't just missing the assets themselves, it's everything else for them. The RADAR modelling, the damage modelling, the physics modelling, the AI, aircraft operations (apart from the Supercarrier), EW and ASW.

 

Even basic stuff like getting the ammunition right or even just getting the ship variant consistent.

 

The whole naval environment could do with a major rework. There's also stuff like keeping new models to consistent quality (for instance the masts on the Pr. 636 Improved Kilo look quite a bit better than the Type VIIC U-Flak).  

That's the reason I keep asking for DCS fleet ops. I understand they have their priorities and a ship module would be a great way to cover the costs of overhauling the Naval assets. Then we have the topic of ground AI air assets and should there be more asset packs? I think if we have any future asset packs they need to be bundled with the maps. For example let's say we get a Kursk or Stalingrad map, I would make two packages. One for folks with the WW II asset pack and one for those without. The one without the pack would include all the proper axis assets from the WW II asset pack plus all  Redfor assets which would be added to the WWII asset pack. 

[Callsign112]

17 hours ago, upyr1 said:

That's the reason I keep asking for DCS fleet ops. I understand they have their priorities and a ship module would be a great way to cover the costs of overhauling the Naval assets. Then we have the topic of ground AI air assets and should there be more asset packs? I think if we have any future asset packs they need to be bundled with the maps. For example let's say we get a Kursk or Stalingrad map, I would make two packages. One for folks with the WW II asset pack and one for those without. The one without the pack would include all the proper axis assets from the WW II asset pack plus all  Redfor assets which would be added to the WWII asset pack. 

What is to stop someone from making the argument that DCS is now dividing the community into the have and have not because the server he/she likes uses a map they don't have?

 

IMO, the issue for DCS World users shouldn't be the business model ED decides to use, it should be based on your own interests. If you are interested in WWII for example, I get how you might only want to buy the American war birds because you don't like the German machines, or the other way around, but to say that you are being excluded from servers because you don't own the Assets pack is a "going no where" type argument.

 

The obvious solution to that problem IMO is buy the things you need to enjoy the time period you are interested in. If assets are bundled with a map then great, but if they aren't, then aren't the assets/maps just as important as buying a flight stick if it means being able to fly?

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

What is to stop someone from making the argument that DCS is now dividing the community into the have and have not because the server he/she likes uses a map they don't have?

 

IMO, the issue for DCS World users shouldn't be the business model ED decides to use, it should be based on your own interests. If you are interested in WWII for example, I get how you might only want to buy the American war birds because you don't like the German machines, or the other way around, but to say that you are being excluded from servers because you don't own the Assets pack is a "going no where" type argument.

 

The obvious solution to that problem IMO is buy the things you need to enjoy the time period you are interested in. If assets are bundled with a map then great, but if they aren't, then aren't the assets/maps just as important as buying a flight stick if it means being able to fly?

I expect that people who are interested in Warbirds will buy an asset pack and map along with their favorite plane(s). So it is really a matter of convenience.   I think when it comes to asset packs, there really needs to be more talk about a Korean war asset pack. As we have the simple problem that there is really no RedFOR for that part of the Cold War outside of the MIG-15. Then we also have the I-16 out on its own as well.  I could go for a Russian front asset pack and a Korean war asset pack. 

Following your line of thought, IMHO it would make a lot of sense to add a seperate Russian front asset pack as well as a Korean war asset pack. On the Russian front Asset pack reuse appropriate assets and offer a discount based on the mount of overlap. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by upyr1

[Harlikwin]

It would probably screw up the MP community of had a million asset packs required to join a server. 

[Callsign112]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

It would probably screw up the MP community of had a million asset packs required to join a server. 

I agree. I think it is pretty clear from all the related discussions on this forum that the community overwhelmingly recognizes we need assets, and in fact more of them. The problem is, while most recognize we need them, not everyone is willing to support their development.

 

Personally I don't care whether assets get bundled with maps like @upyr1 has suggested, build it into Combined Arms, or as a standalone product as long as we get them

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I agree. I think it is pretty clear from all the related discussions on this forum that the community overwhelmingly recognizes we need assets, and in fact more of them. The problem is, while most recognize we need them, not everyone is willing to support their development.

 

Personally I don't care whether assets get bundled with maps like @upyr1 has suggested, build it into Combined Arms, or as a standalone product as long as we get them

 

TBH I think including a unit pack as part of map makes a ton of sense, just combine the two and charge for it once, no one wants to play on "the channel" in 2020 (though I know ppl will)...

[Northstar98]

16 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

It would probably screw up the MP community of had a million asset packs required to join a server. 

 

The only thing I'll say, is paid for asset pack seem to be a more effective way of getting assets.

 

Right now ED are updating some assets, but their priorities kinda seem out of whack. They also seem to prioritise adding completely new assets, rather than replacing old.

 

Off the top of my head, this is what we've had updated, at least recently:

• 2 buses (all Soviet)
• 9S91 and 2P25 which are works of art.
• BM-21-1
• Leopard 2A6M which is also a work of art.
• M60A3 (though this looks like an upgrade that brought it up to the level of BS2, it certainly isn't to the same quality of other new assets).

And the completely new stuff is as follows:

• AA.7/20
• ATZ-10-4320
• BTR-82A
• Chieftain Mk.7/L (it's not a Mk.3 at least)
• 'Handy Wind'
• La Combattante IIa
• Leopard 2A4
• Leopard 2A4TR
• Leopard 2A5
• Pr. 636 Improved Kilo (again, a model that has been in the files since IIRC, 2017)
• PT-76B (though this is a model that has been in the files for years, but never implemented)
• 'Seawise Giant'
• T-72B3

While I'm grateful for the new stuff, personally I'm more in favour of replacing legacy units like-for-like, and personally this is what I'd do to the priority:

1. Aircraft
2. Air defences (or units that belong with air defence units)
3. Weapons
4. Tanks
5. APCs/IFVs
6. Ships
7. Personnel
8. Logistics/support vehicles + airfield service vehicles
9. Civilian vehicles

 

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

The only thing I'll say, is paid for asset pack seem to be a more effective way of getting assets.

 

Right now ED are updating some assets, but their priorities kinda seem out of whack. They also seem to prioritise adding completely new assets, rather than replacing old.

 

I sadly have to agree with you on this, as I can't tell what Eagle wants to do asset wise. Not only do we have the problem that old assets don't get upgraded- which I understand but also there are some time periods which get ignored. 

I completely understand  people who say 

On 6/5/2021 at 10:33 AM, Harlikwin said:

It would probably screw up the MP community of had a million asset packs required to join a server. 

 

This is why we need the DCS community working on assets and donating them to Eagle. For example the VPN mods, while they don't pass Eagle's play ability standards, if they donated the models to Eagle we would have two century fighters and I'm not sure what else for the AI. I believe the French asset pack is being given to Eagle. There is also the Navy module team- again there a few things they need to improve mainly the battleship guns but the models are good.

 

On 6/5/2021 at 5:12 PM, Harlikwin said:

 

TBH I think including a unit pack as part of map makes a ton of sense, just combine the two and charge for it once, no one wants to play on "the channel" in 2020 (though I know ppl will)...

I can see some issues with bundling unit assets with maps, but I think it would handle units associated with time periods and regions. 

[upyr1]

This is a good argument for more asset packs, I would love to see a Korean war asset pack. 

 

On 6/5/2021 at 9:00 AM, Callsign112 said:

If you are interested in WWII for example, I get how you might only want to buy the American war birds because you don't like the German machines, or the other way around, but to say that you are being excluded from servers because you don't own the Assets pack is a "going no where" type argument.

 

The obvious solution to that problem IMO is buy the things you need to enjoy the time period you are interested in. If assets are bundled with a map then great, but if they aren't, then aren't the assets/maps just as important as buying a flight stick if it means being able to fly?

Edited June 13, 2021 by upyr1

[upyr1]

On 6/5/2021 at 1:05 PM, Callsign112 said:

I agree. I think it is pretty clear from all the related discussions on this forum that the community overwhelmingly recognizes we need assets, and in fact more of them. The problem is, while most recognize we need them, not everyone is willing to support their development.

 

Personally I don't care whether assets get bundled with maps like @upyr1 has suggested, build it into Combined Arms, or as a standalone product as long as we get them

I think an all the above approach works best. I was suggesting that Fleet ops and combined Arms II should be used to pay for overhauling the damage module though paying to overhaul asset models and new assets would be fine as well, as long as the changes are made to DCS core. Bundling things with maps would be great. I also believe that the people in the community who are working on mods should be willing to donate their work to Eagle so they can get in DCS core at least as AI assets. I know they can do whatever they want, they are doing great work so I am asking them.