Things I wish I could give ED money for.....

[CallsignPunch]

If one lesson should stand out when the AH-64D releases, it will be to "give the people what they want."  I have written some wishlists before but apparently the squeaky wheel gets the grease and I think many of you will agree on my list here.  These are the things I wish I could buy from ED....

 

PS: I want these in full DCS quality not community mods...I know some already exist in the community.

 

Modules

AH-6: I've heard people say that being a 160th bird it'll never happen because of a lack of information.  I call bull.  The AH-6 is an MD-500D with an engine upgrade, a FLIR camera, mini guns and rockets.  All the secret stuff is used for things that are mostly not simulated in DCS.....I would imagine. A legit AH-6 is very doable and though its very basic I'd bet it'd be one of the top sellers.

 

MH-60:  Seriously.....how the heck is this not a thing?  We get an old school Huey but not the most used military helicopter in the world?  Again, the information to build it is out there.  UH-60A's have been for sale to the civilian sector for some time now.  Also word is the Tali-cong is selling data on all the equipment they captured.  I wonder if this would be an all time time seller?  Everybody but the Marines use them.....and they're too busy eating crayons and working on the Disney Princess coloring book to care.  This needs to be made pronto!!!

 

S-3B: ED has put a lot into Naval Ops and supposedly ASW will come in the future.  The S-3B would be a great aircraft that would offer players a lot of variety.  A/A Tank, Anti-Surface Warfare, Anti-Sub Warfare, Recon.....tons of cool stuff can be done with the S-3B.  How cool would 4 person fixed wing multi-crew be?

 

B-1B: A great aircraft and pretty sweet bomber.  Several other posts on this so I'll just say +1.

 

* I would add the C-130 but I'm pretty sure that's the cargo plane being worked on.  It makes most sense because the versatility but hopefully it includes the AC-130.

 

Maps

Vietnam or Korea: These would obviously be very popular.  I think of the 2, Vietnam would be my vote but there is certainly a lot of present day campaign scenario possibility on the DMZ.  With the UH-1, F-4 coming, and some of the other modules kinda surprised we don't have one of these.

 

Afghanistan: Supposedly was in the works but then disappeared.  Especially after recent events I think everyone is ready to fight on this map.

 

Central Africa: Somewhere like Congo or Sudan....It would be something totally different than ED terrains so far but a very unstable area with lots of potential for scenarios.

 

Scandinavia: The fjords and mountains would be challenging and awesome, make the map go to the Russian boarder for even more possibilities.  I think this would be my favorite terrain.....curious though if technology could handle the needed graphics.

 

Panama- We have some history here, just ask my 82nd brothers.  It would be an interesting map with land in the middle and ocean on both sides.  It would be even sweeter with mechanics to have a working canal ships could pass through.

 

Asset Packs

I know there are some cheap @sses out there that hate asset packs and think they should be free.  Those people are dumb and should offer their work for free.  Many if not most of us have no issue paying for high quality AI packs. So here's my personal list of packs I think would be cool/sell well in the community.

 

Special Operations Asset Pack:  This could include operators like CAG, Rangers, SF, MARSOC, or even SEALs I guess (not sure how they'll hold a weapon with hair gel in one hand and a book deal in the other lol).  Other things like Spec Ops modified Hmvees, other vehicles, and other countries as well (SAS, SBS, GSG-9, Foreign Legion, etc.).  With the pack could come some advanced commands like mount and dismount, clear build, and such.  I think it would be a cool addition and I'd buy it for sure!

 

Civilians:  We have a few ships and cars but this could be done up quite a bit with people, different vehicles, commercial airliners (yes I know about the community mod), and more ships like a cruise ship and container ship.  Also with this we need a neutral faction not just red and blue.....what if we want the UN in our mission to be as useless as real life?  We need a white team that would engage or be engaged by red or blue.

 

NATO Asset Pack:  Though the US loves a good fight and we bring the most toys....Every once in awhile I saw other NATO country vehicles....mostly just chilling on the FOBs but still it'd be nice to have equipment for other blue countries.

 

So these are my personal wants....just wanted to share, hoping someone from ED read this far....Hey guys, keep up the good work.....and announce an MH-60 already geezz its crazy Virpil even has y'all covered with the collective!  

 

 

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, JFO82 said:

If one lesson should stand out when the AH-64D releases, it will be to "give the people what they want." [...] the squeaky wheel gets the grease

 

I believe you are confusing cause and effect. ED always wants to give people what they want; they are a business and they strive to produce what sells best. It's not that people clamor for something and suddenly ED produce that item so people stop shouting. One of the prime reason you'll find many people here are disappointed is the fact that ED does exactly that: listen too closely to "the rubes"; that ED for many here seems to mainly produce the "crowd pleasers" (Hornet, Viper, Apache, Hog) instead of some more arcane (but beloved by the more "involved flight enthusiasts") planes. The thing is: we who populate this board are a very atypical slice of ED's entire customer base, with a strong preselection bias towards enthusiasts. What people demand here is by no means what the DCS population in general would want. Those likely would demand that ED produce the Phantom, EF, Strike Eagle, Raptor etc next - the "Iconic Planes". ED have their market research, and while I'm sure our input here is welcome, and perhaps even an important trend gauge, I don't think any major product decision was based solely on Forum feedback. We can give them Ideas, and perhaps help ED to guestimate fan-base adoption of a future product. Success of a new product, however, is determined by the less enthusiastic and fickle-in-their-taste masses. Those ED has to cater for first. If history is any judge, they have done quite well in the past.

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by cfrag

[sirrah]

1 hour ago, JFO82 said:

Asset Packs

I know there are some cheap @sses out there that hate asset packs and think they should be free.  Those people are dumb and should offer their work for free.  Many if not most of us have no issue paying for high quality AI packs. So here's my personal list of packs I think would be cool/sell well in the community.

 

Can't recall ever seeing people complain that they don't want to pay for asset packs, because they are "cheap @sses"

 

I did however see people being concerned on DLC asset packs killing the already scattered MP community. And quite frankly I share that concern. Can you take that away with a good argument/solution? (honest question, no offense meant)

 

About your note on the C-130; I kindly advise you to temper your expectations there. Especially the AC variant. Quite a few barriers to overcome before a 2+ engine and 2+ crew module will happen.

 

Although my wishes for future DCS differ a bit from yours, good luck with your wishes

 

and fwiw, I do agree with you on the _H-60 being long overdue (any variant would be ok really for me )

[LooseSeal]

2 hours ago, JFO82 said:

 

B-1B: A great aircraft and pretty sweet bomber.  Several other posts on this so I'll just say +1.

 

* I would add the C-130 but I'm pretty sure that's the cargo plane being worked on.  It makes most sense because the versatility but hopefully it includes the AC-130.

 

 

I'd be interested to know where this cargo plane info is coming from. Everything I've heard from ED pointed in the direction of no plans whatsoever for transport aircraft, or indeed any large planes. In my opinion, DCS isn't the right place for large, strategic aircraft like the Lancer.

 

The Black Hawk, though, definitely should be a thing. Especially with some lovely fast-rope capability/animations.

[5ephir0th]

People want everything, ED just can´t satisfy everyone around here.

While i think it´s a matter of time that some version of UH-60 or C-130 to appear i don´t think an S-3 or AH-6 (i would love this) has the enough interest to be a profitable investment, at the end of the day ED is a business.

 

And please, no more assets packs the way we have right now, make it like SuperCarrier, you still can join a mission with it but not make use of it or make it part of DCS core (free)

Edited September 17, 2021 by 5ephir0th

[HC_Official]

36 minutes ago, sirrah said:

 

Can't recall ever seeing people complain that they don't want to pay for asset packs, because they are "cheap @sses"

 

I did however see people being concerned on DLC asset packs killing the already scattered MP community. And quite frankly I share that concern. Can you take that away with a good argument/solution? (honest question, no offense meant)

 

^ This is the reason people are not liking ass et  packs, breaking up the online community ............ other software has asset packs that work for free online but if you want to use them in Single player you have to pay for them, a much better method

[Gierasimov]

Scandinavia map and all mentioned assets packs. Yes. MH-60  with fully animated and intelligent Spec Ops team ops including aerial insertions and fast rope, etc. - would be nice. Rest of it... nah..

 

As for "give people what they want" - I want FULCRUM

Edited September 17, 2021 by Gierasimov

[CallsignPunch]

9 hours ago, sirrah said:

 

Can't recall ever seeing people complain that they don't want to pay for asset packs, because they are "cheap @sses"

 

I did however see people being concerned on DLC asset packs killing the already scattered MP community. And quite frankly I share that concern. Can you take that away with a good argument/solution? (honest question, no offense meant)

 

You know that's actually a really good point I hadn't ever thought of.....my statement on the cheap people was from some posts I'd seen awhile back from people saying the SC and WWII assets should have been included.  My thoughts on paying for asset packs and such is that 1.) money motivates.....things tend to happen better and quicker when there is a financial benefit.  2.) A good cash flow will help them keep developing both base improvements and future modules.

 

9 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

 

I'd be interested to know where this cargo plane info is coming from. Everything I've heard from ED pointed in the direction of no plans whatsoever for transport aircraft, or indeed any large planes. In my opinion, DCS isn't the right place for large, strategic aircraft like the Lancer.

 

The Black Hawk, though, definitely should be a thing. Especially with some lovely fast-rope capability/animations.

I believe it was mentioned in a recent interview......the interview was in Russian (which I don't speak) but supposedly they said it in the interview....then there is the weird situation with the C-130 mod makers, supposedly they went silent, stopped public development, and are now listed as a DCS 3rd party developer.   It's a pretty good mod already in my opinion so I'd say it makes sense to me.

 

 

 

 

You guys all make good points.....I will say I am 100% content with ED and their products.  I cringe at times when I see people bashing ED for everything.  I think they have done great and I have been a fan since first flying the A-10C back in 2011 or 2012....I appreciate their hard work.  My post here in the wishlist is exactly that....voicing my wishlist.  Cheers!

[Tippis]

59 minutes ago, JFO82 said:

My thoughts on paying for asset packs and such is that 1.) money motivates.....things tend to happen better and quicker when there is a financial benefit.  2.) A good cash flow will help them keep developing both base improvements and future modules.

The problem is that 1) the money doesn't have to come from the asset packs — indeed, doing it that way arguably reduces the money going towards creating assets, and 2) two of the main things that drive cash flow is word-of-mouth recommendations and content. By making asset packs separate modules that fracture the part of the community that is the most into communicating and giving recommendation, the word-of-mouth will always be “nah, don't bother”, which in turn reduces the size of the customer base for people who make content, which reduces the amount of content being made with those assets, which reinforces the “nah, don't bother” word-of-mouth.

 

ED came to understand this dynamic when they reversed their decision to make the Supercarrier client-limited in MP and figured out a different way of letting paying clients use and enjoy the module to separate them from the non-paying ones. The problem is that this doesn't work for assets because… well… they're assets. There is no “use” for them (outside of maybe some CA integration). The best alternative that I've seen being offered is to simply amortise the cost of developing assets over the actual player-used modules: if you make an aircraft from the '80s or '90s, part of the sales price of that module becomes an “asset tax” that goes towards further populating the world surrounding that aircraft with time-appropriate assets.

[Silver_Dragon]

10 hours ago, LooseSeal said:

 

I'd be interested to know where this cargo plane info is coming from. Everything I've heard from ED pointed in the direction of no plans whatsoever for transport aircraft, or indeed any large planes. In my opinion, DCS isn't the right place for large, strategic aircraft like the Lancer.

 

The Black Hawk, though, definitely should be a thing. Especially with some lovely fast-rope capability/animations.

 

The cargo aircraft has confirmed by ED team by a recent interview by a russian Youtube channel. More info can found here:

 

[LooseSeal]

14 hours ago, JFO82 said:

I believe it was mentioned in a recent interview......the interview was in Russian (which I don't speak) but supposedly they said it in the interview....then there is the weird situation with the C-130 mod makers, supposedly they went silent, stopped public development, and are now listed as a DCS 3rd party developer.   It's a pretty good mod already in my opinion so I'd say it makes sense to me.

 

 

12 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

The cargo aircraft has confirmed by ED team by a recent interview by a russian Youtube channel. More info can found here:

 

 

Huh! I had not seen that at all. Thanks for linking it! The Herc would be pretty cool for doing paratrooper drops and such. But... probably not something I'd personally go for.

 

I'd be very pleased to shoot one down though. With a Hellfire from my Apache 

[Tank50us]

On the A/O/MH6, it's more than just an "MD500 with a FLIR pod", it's something that is used by special forces, and therefor, still has a lot in use that's highly classified. So, with that said, let's assume they do add it.... which version do you go with? There are several that are currently in service right now with the US Military, and several that have been used historically. The best solution for that is to just introduce the MD500, throw in a couple sub-variants, and call it there. Doing that at least gives us the chance to recreate the battle between Stoller and Stinger from Fire Birds.

 

On the subject of asset packs, there's a reason why people don't do them 'for free'... it's because it takes several days of 9-5 work to make the basic 3D mesh for a single unit (we'll say a Centurion as an example), and that's at bare minimum. Now, a lot of people have  ahard time justifying doing any of that for free, but at the same time, a lot of DCS players get wary over the very idea of paying for an AI Asset Pack that even accidentally including one unit from will result in everyone being required to have that pack on their machines before they can play the mission.

 

Finally, remember many of the things you asked for have information about them that's still highly classified, and will likely remain so for years to come. And for aircraft and assets that aren't placed behind very big steel doors, it can take up to a year or more for a dedicated team to release the asset in a playable state (Longbow will likely release late this year, after being announced late last year), so even if someone announced "Hey, I'm making X for DCS as a paid module", they will be working on it for the next year or more until it's ready.

[upyr1]

My additions 

On 9/17/2021 at 1:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Modules

F-105, the dream thud module would be a threefer pack with the D,F and G. I'm assuming the 105 and Hun would be the only flyable Wild Weasels we'd get. 

F-100- the Thud might not be possible thanks to a stupid CEO and a shredder. They should have donated everything to the Smithsonian. but the F-100 should be there is even one flying

A-1 - Korea and Vietnam

A-26 World War II, Korea and Vietnam

Mirage III and V

f-104

Buccaneer

F2H or F9F- just some Korean war USN carrier jet

any UK Korean war carrier jet

Seafire

IL-2 and IL-10

Yak-9 or any other Soviet WW II fighter especially one that saw service into the Korean era

Zero 

On 9/17/2021 at 1:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Maps

I would add-

Stalingrad - ideally this would be built on an expanded Caucuses map

Kursk- We'd then have two of the largest battles. Also a large tank battle on the steppes would be awesome

Any late war eastern front map that was a potiental cold war flashpoint- where I don't care. though the Black Sea might be nice. 

the Fulda gap- this was the main focus of cold war planning

The Solomon islands- we have the F4U coming out so what would be more natural than flaming Zekes over the slot?

The Philippines- if the map is done right this is a good one for WWII and the modern era.

 

On 9/17/2021 at 1:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Asset Packs

I know there are some cheap @sses out there that hate asset packs and think they should be free.  Those people are dumb and should offer their work for free.  Many if not most of us have no issue paying for high quality AI packs. So here's my personal list of packs I think would be cool/sell well in the community.

They claim they will divide the community-I do see the validity to the argument which is why I believe they need to focus on eras.  I figure an asset cache or more bundles would help solve the problem though the better answer IMHO would be to factor in the cost of developing the assets into the price of modules and maps. For exasmple if I buy a warbird or a WWII map a couple bucks of that should be earmarked for WWII assets. 

Either way my list of asset packs

Korean era/1950s- I would select assets that saw service in Korea but weren't WWII left overs, phased out by the early 1960s or had undergone a major refit. So the SBC-27 carriers, both forms of the F-84, Vampire, hunter  

Vietnam era/1960s- This would cover 1965 to 1975 mainly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tank50us]

5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The Solomon islands- we have the F4U coming out so what would be more natural than flaming Zekes over the slot?

The Philippines- if the map is done right this is a good one for WWII and the modern era.

 

As odd as this sounds, I'd say the best option for those is to add them to the existing Marianas map, and then just rename it to "Pacific Theater". But that's just my wild and whacky thinking, so what do I know

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

 

As odd as this sounds, I'd say the best option for those is to add them to the existing Marianas map, and then just rename it to "Pacific Theater". But that's just my wild and whacky thinking, so what do I know

The distance is about 2,000 miles (about 3,000 KM). I believe most of that is ocean, so it should be easy to connect the two. Though there are a lot more islands in the Solomons so I think it would be easier to make that pay and guam free and possibly stich them together on the server if anyone thinks that would be a reasonable area 

A couple more ideas.

 

Combined Arms II- bassically a total overhaul of Combined arms. I would love to see improvements made to both the tank simulator side as well as the RTS side.

Fleet OPs- obviously a DCS naval sim. 

[DaWu]

On 9/17/2021 at 10:10 AM, cfrag said:

 

I believe you are confusing cause and effect. ED always wants to give people what they want; they are a business and they strive to produce what sells best. It's not that people clamor for something and suddenly ED produce that item so people stop shouting. One of the prime reason you'll find many people here are disappointed is the fact that ED does exactly that: listen too closely to "the rubes"; that ED for many here seems to mainly produce the "crowd pleasers" (Hornet, Viper, Apache, Hog) instead of some more arcane (but beloved by the more "involved flight enthusiasts") planes. The thing is: we who populate this board are a very atypical slice of ED's entire customer base, with a strong preselection bias towards enthusiasts. What people demand here is by no means what the DCS population in general would want. Those likely would demand that ED produce the Phantom, EF, Strike Eagle, Raptor etc next - the "Iconic Planes". ED have their market research, and while I'm sure our input here is welcome, and perhaps even an important trend gauge, I don't think any major product decision was based solely on Forum feedback. We can give them Ideas, and perhaps help ED to guestimate fan-base adoption of a future product. Success of a new product, however, is determined by the less enthusiastic and fickle-in-their-taste masses. Those ED has to cater for first. If history is any judge, they have done quite well in the past.

 

 

This is a typical Mimimi they don’t make the Module I want. They make the Apache and not the Phantom cos it will outsell it by the factor 10+. It’s a business and old Jets with analog instruments, no mfds etc are just niche and nothing else 

[upyr1]

25 minutes ago, DaWu said:

This is a typical Mimimi they don’t make the Module I want. They make the Apache and not the Phantom cos it will outsell it by the factor 10+. It’s a business and old Jets with analog instruments, no mfds etc are just niche and nothing else 

Unless you want the FH Phantom there is a Phantom II on the way 

[Tank50us]

42 minutes ago, DaWu said:

This is a typical Mimimi they don’t make the Module I want. They make the Apache and not the Phantom cos it will outsell it by the factor 10+. It’s a business and old Jets with analog instruments, no mfds etc are just niche and nothing else 

 

To a degree yes. Remember that ED doesn't just work on a single module at a time like some of the 3rd Party Devs, they have several going all at once, and each module has a team that makes it, and then one team that maintains it all post launch. Also remember that they're making modules not just based on what sells and what doesn't, but also based on what information they have available to them, and the amount of R&D required to lay the groundwork for the module to begin with. Some may accuse me of just being a suck-up when I bring this up, but it is something many fail to consider when starting a module. Including locating and studying technical manuals, talking to the people who fixed and flew the aircraft, talking to the people who designed it... I imagine this takes months, if not years to do before you can even create the first part of the 3D assets, and that's before getting into the coding of it all.

[DaWu]

8 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

To a degree yes. Remember that ED doesn't just work on a single module at a time like some of the 3rd Party Devs, they have several going all at once, and each module has a team that makes it, and then one team that maintains it all post launch. Also remember that they're making modules not just based on what sells and what doesn't, but also based on what information they have available to them, and the amount of R&D required to lay the groundwork for the module to begin with. Some may accuse me of just being a suck-up when I bring this up, but it is something many fail to consider when starting a module. Including locating and studying technical manuals, talking to the people who fixed and flew the aircraft, talking to the people who designed it... I imagine this takes months, if not years to do before you can even create the first part of the 3D assets, and that's before getting into the coding of it all.

100% this. Amusingly ED is running out of Blockbuster Modules to create very soon and to keep the pipeline active they will be forced to dig into the museum AC area. With the expectation of the sales number being only a fraction of i.e. f18 numbers then I wonder how in the longterm ED will finance DCS

[Tank50us]

58 minutes ago, DaWu said:

100% this. Amusingly ED is running out of Blockbuster Modules to create very soon and to keep the pipeline active they will be forced to dig into the museum AC area. With the expectation of the sales number being only a fraction of i.e. f18 numbers then I wonder how in the longterm ED will finance DCS

 

Honestly I think the best long term move is to be a bit more open to 3rd party devs, this way we can get more aircraft, even ones that never made it off the drawing board, or out of testing. Such a strategy could also get around the Russian Laws against portrayals of their equipment. And with multiple variations of specific air frames available to model, I don't think it'll be an issue when it comes to module selection.

[Silver_Dragon]

14 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

Honestly I think the best long term move is to be a bit more open to 3rd party devs, this way we can get more aircraft, even ones that never made it off the drawing board, or out of testing. Such a strategy could also get around the Russian Laws against portrayals of their equipment. And with multiple variations of specific air frames available to model, I don't think it'll be an issue when it comes to module selection.

 

ED has a realistic sumulator, no a WT or similar. Please, no.

[Furiz]

32 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

Honestly I think the best long term move is to be a bit more open to 3rd party devs, this way we can get more aircraft, even ones that never made it off the drawing board, or out of testing. Such a strategy could also get around the Russian Laws against portrayals of their equipment. And with multiple variations of specific air frames available to model, I don't think it'll be an issue when it comes to module selection.

 

Definitely woudn't give my money for that,

 

but you guys have turned this thread into your own wish lists, the OP called it "Things I wish I could give ED money for....."

On 9/17/2021 at 8:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Those people are dumb and should offer their work for free

and then he calls people dumb,

and

On 9/17/2021 at 8:24 AM, JFO82 said:

I know there are some cheap @sses out there that hate asset packs and think they should be free.

 

I mean, what the...

 

and he starts all this with:

On 9/17/2021 at 8:24 AM, JFO82 said:

If one lesson should stand out when the AH-64D releases, it will be to "give the people what they want."

 

so, the conclusion is that he thinks ED should give these dumb cheap asses that hate asset packs what they want

[StevanJ]

2 minutes ago, Furiz said:

 

Definitely woudn't give my money for that,

 

but you guys have turned this thread into your own wish lists, the OP called it "Things I wish I could give ED money for....."

and then he calls people dumb,

and

 

I mean, what the...

 

and he starts all this with:

 

so, the conclusion is that he thinks ED should give these dumb cheap asses that hate asset packs what they want

I think the bigger issue is turnover.
We obviously need a constant turnover.

Lets go hypothetical for a minute.

What happens when we sell an specific unit to 'everyone in the market'..
And no more money comes in for that unit ie the FA18c (either because its not a popular unit anymore 10 years later- or because a better unit has been released maybe a super hornet)..
Who's job is it to support that unit for the rest of the games life?

Its not selling, so should we take money from the new FA18 Super Hornet release EA? That would mean the profit from the Super Hornet is diluted?
That money is earmarked for the Super Hornet, but the customers who bought the FA18c and brought in profit for the base game 10 years ago, now want a bug fixed.
Weve used all the FA18c money for devlopment of the FA18c and over the 10 years its been out the profits have been eaten into by continued support and fixes..

Now, we can do many different things as a business, lower the price of the old units, increase the price of the newer units? But eventually- along the line, units will stop selling.

And this is when the game takes a hit..

Its all good and well for people who bought the FA18c in EA to be unhappy and want a bug fix, but in order for the business to survive and for development of the next module- We cant afford to revisit that module right now until sales of the newer unit increase and we make more more profits or the old unit sells more and we can spend more on development.

 

Look around the modules/forums, are you seeing a pattern with other modules?

What happens to the modules that have poor feedback? Do we carry on selling them (snowballing the 'bad feedback', or do they dump them?
Because by looking over in the Steam shop, we can see the feedback of the modules that are up here and listed 'for the cheap @sses', as not that good.
Which in turn as its pointed up here by @Tippis, are being advertised as 'poor modules' in word of mouth.

This hugely effects the whole business as ED are reliant on turnover of units/modules..
And the minute they dont hit a profit over development costs, the module then hits a wall. Where the bugs never get fixed.

Until either ED figure out a way of increasing their turnover systematically, were never going to see any changes to the way in which the business is run as a whole.
And that will mean, customers (cheap @sses) paying for EA packs that never get finished just so that ED can get a quick buck..

And if were being asked to pay to increase the gameplay mechanics on a promise that 'it will be great and will have this amount of stuff within 2 years, i think its worth putting into place, a system that also rewards the customer for their investment - when bad workmanship or unfinished modules dont hit their targets..

 

[Northstar98]

For modules, sure, though I've no idea what's doable or not, though I'm tempted away from special operations stuff (we barely have the regular stuff as is).

I'd take any S-70 variant, the naval environment as a whole isn't ready for a Seahawk, but a Blackhawk or Pavehawk could work well, there is missing functionality though (such as the winch/rescue-hoist) and (C)SAR operations in general.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

S-3B: ED has put a lot into Naval Ops and supposedly ASW will come in the future.

Have they?

The naval environment is the least fleshed out environment in DCS (hell the skeleton is barely there, let alone the flesh) by far and I could write a trilogy on everything wrong with it:

• The AI (no defensive manoeuvring, plenty of missing controls and fidelity).
• The damage modelling (very lacklustre with a health bar system, the only subsystem level damage modelling is certain weapons and sensors, on some ships).
• Lacklustre sensor and FC modelling. RADARs are simplified to hell and back (a universal problem with AI RADARs), some are even left completely absent (like all of the air-surveillance RADARs on the Supercarrier - namely the AN/SPS-48E NTU and the AN/SPS-49(V)5 NTU) and some are just copied and pasted from ground based systems (the 3R95 [Crossswords] + MR-360 "Podkat" is just taken from the  from the or from completely different RADARs (the AN/SPY-1 for instance is defined as the AN/MPQ-53 from the Patriot). Fire Control systems are often absent too or hugely simplified.
• No countermeasures at all (including chaff, flare, ECM, ActiveRF decoys (like Nulka)).
• No ESM systems at all.
• Some weapons are firing the wrong stuff (the Phalanx is still firing the wrong ammunition, and the La Combatante IIa is firing the completely wrong missile), and the Mk41 VLS equipped ships are missing plenty of missiles.
• Amphibious stuff is non-functional (beyond workarounds using triggers).
• Naval units have crude physics modelling, there isn't a buoyancy model, ships don't actually interact with the waves (like they do in say Cold Waters or the Silent Hunter series) - motion is completely random with a magnitude dependent on wind speed (this isn't so much a problem on large vessels, but the issue is glaringly obvious on small ships and amphibious vehicles) and ships always sink in the same exact pre-scripted way when their health goes to 0.
• The graphics on the majority of naval assets is in need of a rework, but even some of the newest assets aren't exempt.

All of the above apply to ASW (which the S-3 was initially geared towards) on top of:

• No ASW sensors and no SONAR modelling at all.
• No ASW weapons.
• Some maps don't have proper bathymetry (even if low-res and semi-accurate), namely the Caucasus and the Marianas.

One thing I would definitely pay for is an improvement to the above, but as much as I'd like to see it, I don't think it's going to happen for a long-time, given all the other issues. Sea Power is probably going to be your best bet.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

The S-3B would be a great aircraft that would offer players a lot of variety.  A/A Tank, Anti-Surface Warfare, Anti-Sub Warfare, Recon.....tons of cool stuff can be done with the S-3B.  How cool would 4 person fixed wing multi-crew be?

The A-6E would be a much better fit personally for DCS, and the S-3Bs ASW systems are definitely going to be classified, ASW in general is going to be classified though we could make approximations, but we're nowhere near that. Though it would be good to get an updated S-3B as an AI aircraft and then bring it up to mid-2000s spec.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

I would add the C-130 but I'm pretty sure that's the cargo plane being worked on.  It makes most sense because the versatility but hopefully it includes the AC-130.

I would love a C-130H, though my favourite variant is going to be RAF C-130K C.1P and C.3 from the early 80s.

But it might end up being the C-47, there was certainly a model teased a while back.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Maps

Vietnam or Korea: These would obviously be very popular.

They'd both be pretty difficult to make though, especially Vietnam.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Afghanistan: Supposedly was in the works but then disappeared.  Especially after recent events I think everyone is ready to fight on this map.

Still plenty of assets and modules missing though.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Central Africa: Somewhere like Congo or Sudan....It would be something totally different than ED terrains so far but a very unstable area with lots of potential for scenarios.

Meh, personally not interested.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Scandinavia: The fjords and mountains would be challenging and awesome, make the map go to the Russian boarder for even more possibilities.  I think this would be my favorite terrain.....curious though if technology could handle the needed graphics.

I would love a mid-to-late Cold War NATO northern flank map (north norwegian coast + Kola Peninsula, stretching from at least Bodø to Severomorsk, and including much of the Barents sea.

Though again, plenty of assets missing, I would've thought Severomorsk would've been quite a sensitive area to model though. There's also things like transitioning to a spherical coordinates system and maps that fit on the surface of a sphere instead of the flat Earth model we have now.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Panama- We have some history here, just ask my 82nd brothers.  It would be an interesting map with land in the middle and ocean on both sides.  It would be even sweeter with mechanics to have a working canal ships could pass through.

Personally not that interested, could be interesting for sure, I just worry about the presence of land bases for BLUFOR and REDFOR, but personally would prefer an early 60s Cuba map, stretching as far north to the nearest US AFB that actually based aircraft that could be potential modules at the time.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Asset Packs

I know there are some cheap @sses out there that hate asset packs and think they should be free.  Those people are dumb and should offer their work for free.

I don't think it's the fact that assets are paid that's the issue, it's more the side-effect, breaking apart the multiplayer community.

Though paid-for asset packs seem to be the quickest way to get high quality assets, so long as they're priced appropriately.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Special Operations Asset Pack:  This could include operators like CAG, Rangers, SF, MARSOC, or even SEALs I guess (not sure how they'll hold a weapon with hair gel in one hand and a book deal in the other lol).  Other things like Spec Ops modified Hmvees, other vehicles, and other countries as well (SAS, SBS, GSG-9, Foreign Legion, etc.).  With the pack could come some advanced commands like mount and dismount, clear build, and such.  I think it would be a cool addition and I'd buy it for sure!

Personally I would prefer expansions of what's currently in DCS, but it's hard to decide what should constitute something that you'd expect would be a free core improvement and what should be a paid for addition (things like air defences for instance).

If we're going to have paid for assets, it needs to not split MP up (so maybe, non-owners can see the unit, but not be able to spawn it in their own missions or have any control over it).

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

Civilians:  We have a few ships and cars but this could be done up quite a bit with people, different vehicles, commercial airliners (yes I know about the community mod), and more ships like a cruise ship and container ship.  Also with this we need a neutral faction not just red and blue.....what if we want the UN in our mission to be as useless as real life?  We need a white team that would engage or be engaged by red or blue.

Personally, the whole way the current coalition system works needs a rethink, and personally, there's none better than the system C:MO uses, thank-you for reminding me that I need to make a thread about it (though there are some threads already).

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

NATO Asset Pack:  Though the US loves a good fight and we bring the most toys....Every once in awhile I saw other NATO country vehicles....mostly just chilling on the FOBs but still it'd be nice to have equipment for other blue countries.

This I could get behind, but we really need a coherent package.

One thing I didn't get was that when NASAMS II was added, it was in its Norwegian configuration (Mercedes G-Class based), but we don't have a map that goes anywhere near Norway, nor do we have any other Norwegian assets apart from the Leopard 2A4.

On 9/17/2021 at 7:24 AM, JFO82 said:

So these are my personal wants....just wanted to share, hoping someone from ED read this far....Hey guys, keep up the good work.....and announce an MH-60 already geezz its crazy Virpil even has y'all covered with the collective!

Isn't their collective Ka-50 derived?

Edited April 14, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

I think the bigger issue is turnover.
We obviously need a constant turnover....
 

 

Its easy to get lost in these threads.