Migratingcoconut

I was going to make a topic on this, but wasn't sure where to put it. I really would like to have the ability to touch up existing airfields like the one I live near to be as true to life in a similar manner as the SDK kit given for MSFS2020. It doesn't hurt sales in any meaningful way and allows users to develop skills in which they might one day put to use as a proper addon developer. It's a great thing to give to the community. I believe as ED mentioned, the world map will be treated as separate from the rest, so such an SDK kit should only be usable on the earth map. It takes a lot of work to make something pay ware worthy and most of us probably just want to make small changes that are passable to ourselves for the most part. It could be used to spice up fictional scenarios for missions we share with each other as well which would be awesome.

Having flown both of the 25s we get in game, I much prefer the speed and maneuverability of the 'flat' model. It loses that same precision strike capability so I guess it's down to your preference. I prefer flying my ordinance on target generally over playing a sim within a sim to get the weapon to do that for me most of the time. Not that that's un-fun in and of itself. I guess for precision ground strike the su-24 could fulfill that? Long as it's not too lacking in documentation like most Russian planes, which is quite unfortunate. Almost makes me wish for a sort of middle-ground between the FC3 level and total FF.

If I could only pick two of absolutely any, id pick the Cessna Super Tweet & Sea Stallion. Went with Thunderchief and Sea Stallion.

I'm saying that's going to be the impression. What you've said here essentially boils down to: 'How dare anyone suggest the current system could possibly potentially be improved?' What did you expect saying you are insulted. I'm fine with you voicing opinions until they assume too much about my intent. To me that revealed something bad about your own. It just comes down to the difference between saying I made a poor suggestion and saying/implying I have bad intentions. One is judging the idea & the other the one voicing it. I hope asking for the former isn't asking for 'free candy'. If you're saying you didn't mean to do that then it's all good. And I feel no need to verify that otherwise people here tend to be quite civil. I don't think this place is a mess. Every other experience (of the few total) I've had here has been a-ok. I never thought ED had a bad handle on themselves & I thought I made it clear enough. If not, then I gather that's the issue. If so then I'll take full responsibility and can easily forgive anything you said. Either way it's something I'll work on in the future.

One thing I will say is my fault: After reading it again I can see how the first post might lack enough grace so as to have gotten me off on the wrong foot with people, though this benefits from some hindsight. If it seems like I was being rather presumptuous from the beginning, likely due to my own bias (optimism and all that), then I am sorry about that. I know I could have done better. It would probably not make a difference to go re-invent the wheel given how many pages in it is. For what it's worth, I can understand someone getting offended if they believed ED was actually being threatened in some way. It's just...they aren't. Especially by your own reasoning. I agree, they are very competent and have done more than enough in my view. For all I knew they might have already considered this very thing, but I can be wrong about that too. If you disagree with that very last part, then that would seem hypocritical as it would mean you think you know to a certainty at least as well as them yourself. That's far more than I grant myself. I had expected a similar experience I got at other flight sim forums I used to frequent: Not the intervention of jaded, overly-gatekeepy regulars/people who feel the need to make enemies where there are none to start with. If the poll is doing what polls are supposed to do it means there is that much less reason to be one of those people. On those other sites this would just never happen; and things seemed better without it (they were smaller forums though). All it accomplishes is keeping out good natured people who would otherwise feel welcome. Without that, we wouldn't be this far in and it would likely be buried already with a low vote, which I would also be cool with. Fair is fair. That is how forums worked in my experience, and I enjoyed it so much I decided to give this one a try.

That works too.

Ah, I thought you said you enjoy this sort of thing as much as anyone. I won't do you the insult of pretending to be surprised it has come to this. But look, I get it. I really do. People know. People say stuff like this all the time and people hear about this all the time. If saying it in this manner was ever going to solve anything or be remotely productive, it already would have. If it is making you sad now, then I guess it really is long since past the time for you to stop ignoring and take your own advice; minus the book, walk, and music though at this point. Maybe just sit in a quiet room and think for a while. I do this plenty, it's helped me mature. I just gotta know: Can you agree that for your own part in this that it has gotten...drastic? Rather...extra? And for the rest of you dog-piling in as well: Is it out of your system yet? I do not appreciate that you had to do it here. I am sure (don't ask me how ) you can find millions of other places online at least to have a merry time voicing this kind of stuff to your heats content. If you aren't done/have nothing else to add, then you are done doing anything here. Move on already. Quit harping and harping and harping and working yourselves up over nothing. It is like watching oxygen deprived people shoving squares into circular holes. I mean ask yourselves, what is condescending on the majority of dcs users/a generation going to or supposed to accomplish? Make you feel better about yourselves? Be honest now. I'll try and re-rail things. The issue is that if it is not dangled in front of the average users face, then most aren't going to notice and that may be a real problem for ED by the looks of it.

They sure would find it unacceptable for good reason. As for the last bit: I would say getting free stuff is important only if it ends up growing the company. If it doesn't or is found to be too risky post calculation, then heck no. As someone said, it is an investment into marketing. The potential for it to result in net profit is something we're incapable of calculating. I agree it would feel rude of me to just ask for something free and 'oh nevermind the consequences'. But that is not what is being proposed as far as I am aware and I don't think I missed anything important to that.

Sorry, I meant to do that. I'll fix it right away.

Yes actually, I think that may have something to do with your perception of this. Been a steam user for over a decade, I have over 70+ steam games and never once clicked anything on those tabs or used them to navigate and all without issue. It is quite easy for most to skip that, I assure you as someone with plenty of younger friends who have used steam a lot. I made sure to tell those who wanted to play DCS not to use the steam version for the reason discussed. If I hadn't, they would have never known. The issue is not lacking two braincells, but lacking the right two. I know it must sound funny. Fact is this is how people work, or don't I suppose. As someone said well: they don't know what they don't know, so something needs to tell them. I found out via the website. What needs to be understood is that most users find out about dcs through friends on steam, and info regarding the trials and benefits of standalone are just left out of the loop. I can't blame them for being ignorant and I think it's really unfortunate. I wish something would something would be done about it through steam, but I have my doubts about that happening unless they decide to offer the trials via steam, but perhaps we will see. See above.

I will fess up: The trend as the discussion has gone on is that I have seen the chances of this being feasible diminish quite a lot. So please, don't think it is falling on deaf ears when it comes to me. Maybe it is not as much to do with me as I don't really have a dog in the 2-week period being enough race. Way I see it, there only needs to be any chance at all that they see value in it, and in my view that justifies telling them to look into it. I agree the viability of this topic has been shown to be scant, but I don't get what saying that is supposed to accomplish. Unless the purpose of this thread is completely eliminated, I've got to ask why you would not be on my side? If I heard what you are saying from ED, then I would just ask the thread be locked right up so we all could move along. I wouldn't feel so bad as I learned a lot more from both sides than I expected to. So it has been great so far getting more than I bargained for. That's right, I forgot. It was made by Belsimtek, so they would need to get permission (and probably pay for said permission). It would more than likely be better to just go out and scan a real one since the F-5 II needs a remaster currently. Noticing how many 3rd party devs are redoing their visual models in the last couple years makes me a bit skeptical the F-5 would really help.

Do tell me how this has gotten silly. Too many paragraphs? I can get that.

Said what I mean more succinctly than I, thanks! Now that I look back on it, making the F-5 II free all the sudden just wouldn't seem right at all, I agree that is asking to much. But it isn't really about how much I like free stuff, though of course I do. It is about how I think it might actually be possible for them to improve on that 'start' even more while also profiting from doing so. If by asking too much you mean putting forward that they should risk it on something that might not pay; that is not what I have pushed for.(after re-reading the OP, I can see how it might be easy to take the opposite away, that was not my intention). The base assumption I have gone off of is that I'm not nor can I be certain of its feasibility. I have never said they should go forward with it if they find it not to be. I'm just trying to put the idea forward so they might consider it & thus do the analysis that we cannot. That way IF it is found to be feasible & beneficial then they may go forward with it. This is why I am pressing on here.

I would buy the F-111 just to fly it, I really love the way it looks, its size, and how it flexes. As someone who loves ground pounding, even better. Also didn't it kill more tanks than the A-10A in desert storm, at least for a time?

Yeah, before I figured that they had already done this with the TF-51D and Su-25T, but that has been revealed as not the case, so... I'm much less confident now that they would even go for this than a little earlier. If anyone from ED shows up to support the idea that it's too much investment up front then I might have 'em lock this thread. It'll be nice to have closure on the subject at least in that case. I agree that picking from current planes is a much better starting point. The F-5 seems like a decent idea, however the A-10A being free FF might tank the sales of the A-10C II I feel like.

According to the youtube interview on page 4, putting everything out for free for a month increased sales at that time by 4 times. I agree that the main question is: How many more paying customers would it bring in and also how quickly? I don't know the costs either. I think it would make a bad paid module for the same reasons why I feel it is likely to make for a good free one. Who would spend $50+ on something so limited? Charging much less might kill it. I bet more time would be spent in it as a two-week trial at that point. But if it were permanent and free, well I wont repeat myself ad nauseam except for the fact I may just be completely wrong of course. But then what is the harm done here? I feel like if ED notices this thread, they are more likely to come in and lay the arguments to rest one way or the other. But do you really think they would bankrupt themselves over this thread? Seriously? I would rather it does get their attention than not at this point, and not because anything's gone awry.

A different interpretation: They will not be satisfied, certainly. Those who would be frustrated by the complexity are those who DCS is pretty much designed to filter out regardless (or send toward FC3). I think we can agree that extremely few users would be content to only fly the thing and that is kind of the point of why I chose it. They will be unsatisfied, and those who should be turned away will be. While those who conceivably could be turned on to the idea of buying something are more likely to do so from the experience in the nighthawk.

I was playing LOMAC before DCS, and have been playing DCS for years now. I know it's a niche sim. I am not aware of the degree to which they are beleaguered enough to be 100% about either our opinions, and I am not going to be unless someone who represents them weighs in. In which case I'll be happy enough to have my bubble burst if it grants certainty. I do get what you mean about there not being a 'simpler airplane' in terms of full-fidelity module. I agree it is a pretty massive endeavor no matter the plane or its capabilities. My feeling is, there is not a good enough reason yet presented to be certain that they could not find ways to make one work if they decide that it would pay to invest in making such a thing. I am not saying, given what they know about their own situation (which is obviously way more than us), that they will decide to do that. I'm just saying I think it is worthy of consideration if not for now, for the future. As for whether or not it would make them money, who really knows? Seems like there is a pretty diverse set of opinions about this so far. Maybe this is a matter of optimism vs pessimism, in which case I'll agree to disagree. A comparison indeed, my bad. Also I think that is a good point about the trials. I don't really use them so honestly feel free to take what I've said about the two-week period with a grain of salt.

Do you mean something substantial like an F/A-18 super hornet? In that case I would absolutely agree it would hurt the company very badly. Would it make a difference what plane they chose? Say, a simpler airplane such as the F-117A or T-38? I'd wager something akin to those is a recipe for profit, and I don't think I have to be absolutely right either. I know there is a real degree of optimism over realism on my part here. After all, I haven't been on a development team for something like this or know what things look like inside of ED. But this probably applies to most if not everyone who has posted here thus far as well. I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to work via direct profit from the module and so there would be a longer period of time between the investment and the payoff. In that case I do understand how that would give ED pause as it's not as simple a matter as the usual module development & release. I will say when I read stuff like: 'they can't devote a team for even a single free module because it will irrevocably harm them, set them back, or ruin them in some way'; this just seems too pessimistic. Even if it doesn't assume the worst plane possible is chosen, it just doesn't make any sense given what little I do happen to know about ED. They would not have a harder time paying their employees should they put them to work on something like this. In this case, the sales aren't obviously going to be provided by this module, nor as immediately. But they already know what this is like given there are two free planes already, and the core game is also free. Clearly free stuff, if executed properly, benefits ED financially, and they can grow and split development teams as the company expands, just as they have been doing. I think we can all agree there. So I agree profit must come from somewhere; and in the case of what I am suggesting, why would it go any differently? My feeling is essentially that the payoff, while stretched over time, will be greater in total than just releasing as one more payed module. The reason is; it will grow the game and give virtually every new user from then on a much better experience than any of us had by neither turning as many away unnecessarily, nor giving away the real selling point of paid modules. I think what really needs to be figured out is what plane would offer the truest 'demo'. If that can be narrowed down, which I don't see why not, then I think there is a real recipe for success here; a win for them, us, and new players.

Well that sounds very compelling, I'd love check that one out if you can post a link. The T-38 makes a lot of sense not just because it has been the USAF trainer for ages now, but because it presents the right difficulties that are relevant in terms of flight characteristics. I definitely think if you can master it, you can probably learn to fly most jets just fine. I did demo the f-5 once and took away from it that it had a decently long spool up, pretty high takeoff and landing speed, no fly-by-wire, and is capable of going supersonic. It'll teach ya the basics you need to know and punish mistakes enough but not so much it's a flawed design. Didn't they make an AT version of it with some armaments?

Again, addressed at the top of the OP. Though that was an edit I made more than an hour ago so perhaps it missed you. I agree, it's far below a top priority at best. Just would be pretty decent imo.

I literally said in the OP something like the hornet would be too much.

TF-51D didn't sink them when they were much smaller. Also, ED spends a lot of time working on free aspects of the game, so no I don't believe for a half-second that one more free full fidelity module will break them as a company. Maybe it is not feasible at this moment because the plate is currently full enough with them developing core mechanics, new paid modules are planned, and the world map is coming. That I can absolutely understand. But do you really think their position is that bad right now? If so how do they afford to invest in making anything that people don't directly buy? Isn't it the due to the money other modules make/have made. If we are generous: Once an F-117A would role out-and assume it works as intended-the attention brought to the game would get more people buying other modules + gaining publicity and so on which would mean a new free plane can more than pay for itself. But as I am not in their shoes and don't have a grasp of how they work, I do not really know and just wonder and hope. Someone from ED would need to weigh in.

I figure the cool factor of the F-117A would help as well as the fact that DCS is being advertised as free-to-play implying people seek full-fidelity combat capable stuff in it (for free). I think it would make that shtick stick better, after all they probably don't want to make people feel like they false advertise. FC3 is a decent simulation compared to others in ways, but not in the way DCS is primarily known for, which is my point. And yeah, this thread is taking off like a rocket. I did not expect over 400 views and 2 pages in less than 24hrs. It's nuts. ALSO: Everyone, I edited the OP and poll, so be sure to check them out. One question was reset and another removed.

The only part of them which is classified as far as I know is just the radar absorbent material (the composition of the material). Not super relevant to developing the plane. Flight characteristics, radar cross section, systems, all that jazz is declassified by the looks of it. They were in the process of being scrapped so, yeah pretty not high priority to keep secret. And one was shot down in enemy territory as well. As for its role, yes it would be very limited, but that is my point. What it can do it will do authentically as an experience. I know not everyone will be into it, but this is the better trade off in my view, plus it is not like we are getting rid of the two we already have. It would be useful in multiplayer, and pilots would need to choose targets with great care as well as when and how long to have the bomb bays open in SAM territory. I would have a blast in it. Su-33 probably won't get full-fidelity treatment. I feel like it would have made a better pick over the Su-25T for the reasons you stated though, but again, gotta mention it's FC3 and will probably stay that way.