sandy maps have one big advantage, there are usually no trees 
the jungle and costal mesh on a pacific islands can be a performance killer… if Marianas are of some indication
2 Likes
Perhaps a shift of focus to WW2 Pacific or, what I’m really hoping for, is a final cleanup and improvement of the core game and other modules that have been bugged for years?
2 Likes
I wish that every time a YouTube creator puts a mic in front of an ED representative, they would begin the interview with, “About that broken replay system.”
6 Likes
I’m sure its already been mentioned upthread…but surely a Mirage III one of the most widely exported Aircraft and used in conflicts all around the world…
Not vastly different but a Kfir (particularly a C7) would be nice too!
Also thinking Su22 and the Mig 17 was far more widely used than the Mig 19
3 Likes
While I would like to have the Pacific theatre I would prefer they finish the ETO first. More maps and assets, expand the plane set etc.
In particular I would like to see earlier 109 versions (a G6 or G10 would be nice), Fw 190F8 and G8 that were promised, razorback P-47, a P-51D version that actually flew over Normandy in the summer of '44 (afaik P-51s with tail radar weren’t really used in the ETO), a flyable Ju-88, an AI C-47 or even a flyable C-47, Hawker Typhoon and Hurricane, Bf110, more AI bombers (B-25, Lancasters, B-24) come to mind.
In terms of terrains I already mentioned a western Germany map which would fit in well with the current plane set. Another one I’d like to see would be northern Germany and Scandinavia…
2 Likes
Fortunately, there is already a third party MiG-17 in development.
1 Like
English Electric Lightning
SAAB J29 Tunnan
SAAB JA 37D of the viggen
Blackburn Buccaneer
4 Likes
And we need the '17 to show the Imperialist that turn and burn is better than BVR. 
2 Likes
Speaking for myself, I would never accept that. I’d quit the hobby immediately if that were to be the case.
A subscription model will not guarantee better support for the core game. Such a model could work if there was a huge pool of potential customers, but for a niche market like flight sims… it’d be a death sentence for any developer who tries this approach.
9 Likes
Agreed on the subscription model. Not a fan. As it is I’m not a fan of our current system where modules need to be validated upon every start, or validated at regular intervals. It’s effectively a rental system, with potential for the product (and our money) to disappear if the servers go down indefinitely.
3 Likes
How about the X-Plane model, where an upcoming ’DCS World 3’ has nice core upgrades but would require us to buy upgraded modules (Black Shark 4?). If you didn’t like it you could stay on DCS World 2, but the new modules and improvements would target v3. Yes it would fracture multiplayer and No, ED wouldn’t lose any sleep over that 
It’s either that or DCS World 3 should not be free?
2 Likes
That has put a frown on my face a few times also.
As far as subscriptions go:
Perhaps it’s my generation but the subscription thing makes me recoil. If I thought it would make DCS significantly better I might be all in - I get more entertainment out of my virtual Hornet/Viper/Hog/etc than I ever did from the TV - but, given the limited market (as I see it), I highly doubt it.
Shoot, I feel like I’m subscribing to my PC Flight Sim Hardware: stuff ~$50 US a month in a coffee can and every 3-ish years I get a system that can run it with [most of] the bells & whistles turned on. Okay, bad example…
That sounds reasonable. I’d pay for DCS v3 - assuming of course it fixed a few major things; made some juicy additions - see the last 30+ posts above
DCS 3 paid upgrade with backwards compatibility for DCS 2 modules wouldn’t be a bad deal.
1 Like
The bottom line is that developers need funds.
There are different ways of procuring them.
We users can’t expect infinite support for the modules we purchase.
DCS is constantly evolving which requires a lot of support from module makers who need to keep up in order to maintain compatibility. They won’t do this for free.
So, what to do…?
Well, re-releasing modules like the A-10C 2 is one way of doing it. If you want to use the A-10 with newer versions of DCS, you need to pay for it. If not you’re restricted to the last version where this module is supported.
So, as it stands, we’re looking at having to re-buy our modules at certain intervals, to keep funding development and compatibility. But we’ll still see less popular modules being left behind because there’s not enough profit in updating them.
This is nothing new in the gaming industry. It’s either that, subscription, ads or in-game micro transactions.
Or, as @fearlessfrog suggests, a cut over for a new DCS version. A variant of this is what I suggested earlier, with different eras, which would essentially be just different versions. Having backwards compatibility with earlier modules would defeat the purpose of this as the point is leaving old software behind and move on.
In the end, we users will have to pay the developers or they will stop developing. It’s as simple as that.
6 Likes
AMEN TO THAT!!! NO SUBSCRIPTION. This is why i refuse to play War Thunder. Its a ripoff.
1 Like
You’re naughty. 
1 Like
Yup
1 Like
I second that. So how do we keep on paying? When A-10C II came out I was happy to pay. But dare I say ED is too slow? We need more content
1 Like