would you have any interest in a Naval module DCS Fleet ops

[Callsign112]

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

As long as you don't need Fleet Ops to play on multiplayer game with someone using Fleet OP, then that won't be a problem. The only time I have seen people complain about something dividing the community has been the WW II asset pack.  As for making it part of Combined Arms, there are two reasons I can see that might not be a good idea. First, is that the split might result in better optimization for the respective environments, and second it might result in more assets.  It is clear people don't want asset packs but you might be able to use fleet ops to pay for Naval asset improvements 

Yeah good point, but doesn't it come down to essentially the same thing? At some point, the MP servers will cause division again because of the folks that refused to buy something they feel should be free whether the asset is inside CA, an assets pack, or a Fleet OPs.

 

In any case, I think the point for ED is that what ever the package an asset arrives in, it has to be seen as valuable/essential to DCS World. I don't understand why so many here don't see the tech packs as an essential part of the DCS World. The first 4 modules I bought were Normandy/WWII Assets, CA, and the P-51. I spent thousands on computers, mostly to game, the $15 Assets pack is like skipping a trip to Starbucks. Had an orange juice that morning

 

TBH, I have to chuckle every time I hear someone say they are being locked out of the MP servers because they don't have the WWII Assets pack. It's kinda like showing up at a night club with a dress code in your sandals. Do you really expect to get in? If the price of entry to the MP server is a $15 Assets pack, and the MP server is important to me, why should I care if use it to make missions when the real reason I bought it was to be on the MP servers.

 

 

[Callsign112]

3 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

You have brought up a valid issue with DCS, the current engine doesn't do land or sea units very well. In my view, this is actually a good argument for DCS :Fleet OPS, if they take their time. The last thing I would want to see is something like Combined Arms, which is the worst module in DCS. However we do need the Land and Sea elements overhauled, if done properly Fleet Ops and Combined Arms II would do just that. I would hope that if Eagle were to seriously consider doing Fleet ops, they have the team working on it sit down and overhaul everything about the ships from stem to stern and build the engines you are talking about

I completely agree with pretty much everything you are suggesting. As important as the planes/jets are, and they are, there is a lot more going on that should also get recognition. The only thing I disagree with you on is your view on CA, unless what you mean to say is CA is the worst module in DCS considering the state it is in. Because nothing in DCS brings out the digital combat simulator as much as CA does IMO. If I am in a plane without CA, I am in a flight SIM. If I have CA loaded, I am in a combined arms SIM.

All that to say, CA could use more frequent updates. It is a little unfair to say CA is the worst module in DCS when it sees a fraction of the updates any one of the jets does for example.

[upyr1]

9 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Yeah good point, but doesn't it come down to essentially the same thing? At some point, the MP servers will cause division again because of the folks that refused to buy something they feel should be free whether the asset is inside CA, an assets pack, or a Fleet OPs.

No, as I am not suggesting that the asset literally gets bundled with CA or Fleet ops, instead I am suggesting that some percent of Fleet OPs price should go to working on Naval assets. 

 

9 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

In any case, I think the point for ED is that what ever the package an asset arrives in, it has to be seen as valuable/essential to DCS World. I don't understand why so many here don't see the tech packs as an essential part of the DCS World. The first 4 modules I bought were Normandy/WWII Assets, CA, and the P-51. I spent thousands on computers, mostly to game, the $15 Assets pack is like skipping a trip to Starbucks. Had an orange juice that morning

 

TBH, I have to chuckle every time I hear someone say they are being locked out of the MP servers because they don't have the WWII Assets pack. It's kinda like showing up at a night club with a dress code in your sandals. Do you really expect to get in? If the price of entry to the MP server is a $15 Assets pack, and the MP server is important to me, why should I care if use it to make missions when the real reason I bought it was to be on the MP servers.

 

 

I have a mixed view on asset packs. One side I think they are a good way to pay for a more niche area of DCS on the other side I also see the value in putting everything in DCS core. The disdain for asset packs I believe resulted in the lack of assets for the early and mid cold war. 

[upyr1]

33 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

I completely agree with pretty much everything you are suggesting. As important as the planes/jets are, and they are, there is a lot more going on that should also get recognition. The only thing I disagree with you on is your view on CA, unless what you mean to say is CA is the worst module in DCS considering the state it is in. Because nothing in DCS brings out the digital combat simulator as much as CA does IMO. If I am in a plane without CA, I am in a flight SIM. If I have CA loaded, I am in a combined arms SIM.

All that to say, CA could use more frequent updates. It is a little unfair to say CA is the worst module in DCS when it sees a fraction of the updates any one of the jets does for example.

The lack of updates, is exactly why it is the worst module in DCS. For example it is unplayable in VR. If CA weren't the Skeleton in the pool meme it wouldn't be the worst module in DCS. 

[Callsign112]

10 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

No, as I am not suggesting that the asset literally gets bundled with CA or Fleet ops, instead I am suggesting that some percent of Fleet OPs price should go to working on Naval assets. 

 

I have a mixed view on asset packs. One side I think they are a good way to pay for a more niche area of DCS on the other side I also see the value in putting everything in DCS core. The disdain for asset packs I believe resulted in the lack of assets for the early and mid cold war. 

Sure, I got it, but as you can see just form this "what ya guys tink" thread, a number of members said no to the idea. So instead of selling an Assets pack, or a CA module, you are calling it a Fleet OPs module. It's all good as long as the community sees it as a "must buy" item for DCS World. They could also just bury the cost of the assets pack into the maps, which seems like a great idea on paper, but would it work in the wild?

 

But regarding the WWII Assets pack, if you add CA to that, you no longer have just an asset, you have another vehicle module. If ED would flesh out the WWII/modern tanks that you are able to man, I don't see it as just an assets pack anymore. And if they intend to stay true to the mission of "digital combat simulator", then they almost have to do something like that. So it historically starts out as an assets pack, but turns into a fully fledged AFV SIM, why would you argue with that? Same thing with the boats.

7 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The lack of updates, is exactly why it is the worst module in DCS. For example it is unplayable in VR. If CA weren't the Skeleton in the pool meme it wouldn't be the worst module in DCS. 

Now that was funny!

[Callsign112]

Now that I'm done laughing, yeah so we can turn this into a novel, but without the updates to any of the modules, well I think we all know where that leads.

 

That is why I did my little "compile" the updates for each WWII module thingy. I was actually surprised to see that CA was updated as much as it was. There wasn't much in the way of major updates, but a decent amount of updates all the same considering everything else ED had going in that same time period.

 

I mean we saw some pretty major work roll out, with the new DM and prop tech specifically for the war birds. So its not as bad as some would like you to think.

 

Take infantry for example. I know they are pretty weak in the current form, but after working with it for a bit, I believe that bringing them up to a respectable standard is not out of reach. It wouldn't take but a few key updates and we would have an AI infantry asset that would be unheard of in competing products. I feel the same way about CA. I know there is a lot of work that still has to be done, but a few major updates to the most requested features could be game changers.

 

If anything though, I am expecting you to happy with what should be coming just around the corner (next couple of months) considering the Marianas release. My feeling is we will see a much needed update to the naval stuff.

[upyr1]

28 minutes ago, Callsign112 said:

Sure, I got it, but as you can see just form this "what ya guys tink" thread, a number of members said no to the idea. So instead of selling an Assets pack, or a CA module, you are calling it a Fleet OPs module. It's all good as long as the community sees it as a "must buy" item for DCS World. They could also just bury the cost of the assets pack into the maps, which seems like a great idea on paper, but would it work in the wild?

As long as the community, complains and moans about asset packs then burring the cost of asset packs in modules and maps that make use of them would be the way to go. The key is putting things in DCS core. Alternatives to asset packs is another discussion, but with Fleet ops the key is that any assets added or updated need to be in DCS core that you don't need fleet ops to do an online game with someone who has it.  

[Callsign112]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

As long as the community, complains and moans about asset packs then burring the cost of asset packs in modules and maps that make use of them would be the way to go. The key is putting things in DCS core. Alternatives to asset packs is another discussion, but with Fleet ops the key is that any assets added or updated need to be in DCS core that you don't need fleet ops to do an online game with someone who has it.  

Yeah I can't disagree, but keep in mind that if the Fleet OPs isn't well supported, your back to square one and no further ahead. So to me its kinda like repackaging the same lollypop to see what sells.

 

But the bottom line is if the WWII Assets pack, Combined Arms module, Fleet OP's, or what ever else might fall from the sky is seen as having value and a must buy, problem solved.

 

The obvious question is how do you get to that "must buy" mark?

 

For me that is the only reason I can come up with to keep adding to the current WWII Assets/CA modules.

 

Even for the guys that just want to fly, if all their buddies are driving around in tanks with hand held anti-tank rounds and helos whizzing over head, most would follow I think. I don't think people oppose CA because the don't want it, I think most just don't see the value in its current state. Change that and we're in business.   

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Callsign112 said:

Yeah I can't disagree, but keep in mind that if the Fleet OPs isn't well supported, your back to square one and no further ahead. So to me its kinda like repackaging the same lollypop to see what sells.

 

But the bottom line is if the WWII Assets pack, Combined Arms module, Fleet OP's, or what ever else might fall from the sky is seen as having value and a must buy, problem solved.

 

The obvious question is how do you get to that "must buy" mark?

 

For me that is the only reason I can come up with to keep adding to the current WWII Assets/CA modules.

 

Even for the guys that just want to fly, if all their buddies are driving around in tanks with hand held anti-tank rounds and helos whizzing over head, most would follow I think. I don't think people oppose CA because the don't want it, I think most just don't see the value in its current state. Change that and we're in business.   

They just need to get started, on the improved assets at least, and fixing the VR bug on CA. 

[upyr1]

I just saw a video for a game about Destroyers which shows what I think a Fleet Ops module should look like. They had stations for a CIC , Radar, Sonar, gun director , look outs, and the bridge 

[Lace]

I feel that accurately modelling the systems and crew stations of multiple vessels is unachievable, at least to the standard which would be expected from an ED module.  Modern warships are incredibly complex pieces of equipment, which would make even the highest fidelity aircraft module look as simple as a Cessna 152.  There is a reason for such specialisation of crew members.  Not to mention the classified nature of much of the equipment on board.  To accurately model these, never mind learn the required systems to the level required for effective combat employment would be a huge undertaking (or would require a huge MP crew - equally unlikely IMHO).

Instead I propose a different approach.  A 'Captain' sim.  Rather than seat-swapping between stations, information is fed to the vessel's Master, who in turn issues orders.  You can set ROE, EMCON, engagement ranges, etc but do not need to micromanage each system operator.  That way, one can concentrate on the business of naval combat, without the minutiae.  We  can still have a realistic 3D wheelhouse, with the relevant repeaters as IRL, but just as IRL the Captain is unlikely to actually be hands-on any controls, the module would be more of a vessel management sim.  As you receive damage, then damage control orders should be issued, and as systems are degraded, so is the information being fed back. You as captain could order an ASW or ASuW patrol be despatched, and give a patrol area to cover, and the vessel will prepare and launch the relevant assets.  Or you could plan and execute a land strike using stand off cruise missiles.

Think C:MO, but with a 1st person interface.  Or a realistic interpretation of Carrier Command 2.

[Eugel]

Ultimately, yes, I would want to see that.
It is the "Digital Combat Simulator" not just the "Digital Flight Simulator", so it would be great to include all aspects.
It would certainly not have the same level of detail as the aircraft modules, but imagine a modeled bridge where you could switch between stations, or even walk around.

But in the current state, I wouldn´t want ED to open up another construction site.
Could be a great multi-crew experience though.

Has anyone here ever played the "starship bridge simulator" ? Something like that in the DCS environment would be cool.

[upyr1]

17 hours ago, Lace said:

I feel that accurately modelling the systems and crew stations of multiple vessels is unachievable, at least to the standard which would be expected from an ED module.  Modern warships are incredibly complex pieces of equipment, which would make even the highest fidelity aircraft module look as simple as a Cessna 152.  There is a reason for such specialisation of crew members.  Not to mention the classified nature of much of the equipment on board.  To accurately model these, never mind learn the required systems to the level required for effective combat employment would be a huge undertaking (or would require a huge MP crew - equally unlikely IMHO).

That might be the case with modern ships, though something might be workable with older ships. 

 

18 hours ago, Lace said:

Instead I propose a different approach.  A 'Captain' sim.  Rather than seat-swapping between stations, information is fed to the vessel's Master, who in turn issues orders.  You can set ROE, EMCON, engagement ranges, etc but do not need to micromanage each system operator.  That way, one can concentrate on the business of naval combat, without the minutiae.  We  can still have a realistic 3D wheelhouse, with the relevant repeaters as IRL, but just as IRL the Captain is unlikely to actually be hands-on any controls, the module would be more of a vessel management sim.  As you receive damage, then damage control orders should be issued, and as systems are degraded, so is the information being fed back. You as captain could order an ASW or ASuW patrol be despatched, and give a patrol area to cover, and the vessel will prepare and launch the relevant assets.  Or you could plan and execute a land strike using stand off cruise missiles.

Though I expect this is probably what we'll end up with if we got ship modules.

 

17 hours ago, Eugel said:

Has anyone here ever played the "starship bridge simulator" ? Something like that in the DCS environment would be cool.

this might be good for multiplayer The real question though is no matter what approach Eagle uses would we be getting one Naval module or several modules? Either way I figure the first ships that Eagle should consider doing are the Iowa-class battleships. At least one saw service evert decade during the second half of the 20th century except the 1970s.