Migratingcoconut
-
Posts
42 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Migratingcoconut
-
-
Quote
Dare I say....even release tools for modders to improve scenery! MSFS is fully moddable and open, SDK released and still there are tons of 3rd party companies developing constantly and making money! Imagine the added value and playability of making it open! Bring us the world as soon as possible! I have seen other sims in the making (eg NOS....however I'm afraid will not be commercially available, but you never know) and they will be modeling the whole world (NOS with Unreal Engine 5!) I would be more than eager to jump to any new combat sim that will simulate the whole world for ops, even if sacrificing whatever I have paid so far in DCS.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.-
2
-
-
If I could only pick two of absolutely any, id pick the Cessna Super Tweet & Sea Stallion. Went with Thunderchief and Sea Stallion.
-
14 hours ago, draconus said:
Are you suggesting I'm some kind of jaded gatekeeper? Look again at my content - I'm mostly here to help other users, share knowledge, solve problems, report bugs and discuss - that doesn't stop me from expressing my opinions, like the one that ED doesn't need more homegrown market and business experts.
Don't you feel like a guest who comes and say: "Oh, what a mess you got here, no wonder no one wants to visit you. Maybe start with some free candies."
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.
-
On 3/8/2023 at 2:13 AM, draconus said:
@Migratingcoconut What did you really expect from this thread?
There is ED - over 30 years of experience on PC gaming market, they lived through the local wars and COVID lockdown - and they continue to grow worldwide, invite more and more 3rd parties to cooperate in creating more and more content, being best of the best in their niche.
I find it rather insulting that random internet users frequently come and think ED does not know how to reach new players and try to teach them how to do the marketing or even how to do their business.
How's your poll doing btw?
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.
-
1
-
-
That works too.
-
On 3/6/2023 at 7:51 PM, Beirut said:
I saw above. And I do blame them for being ignorant.
It's a video game, not surgery. There is a point in all this where it must be accepted that if the person can't muster the intellectual fortitude to figure out how to access a - vi-de-o - game, then that person need mommy to unleash the teat, feed and burp them, and tuck them in for the night.
This whole thing has become a sad joke in defense of useless people. It's really quite silly.
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.
-
7 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:
The people who paid for their FC3 module will enjoy this, see all the newbies get it free while they had to purchase it like every regular consumer … is getting free stuff so important?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.-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Top Jockey said:
2. About the 2nd question, I believe it can simultaneously happen more than just 1 of your options, so I didn't vote.
Sorry, I meant to do that. I'll fix it right away.
-
13 hours ago, schmiefel said:
Maybe I am just from another generation or a different (old) kind of gamer, but what about this shown right besides the long product description, where the first entry leads you directly to the DCS homepage? If I am interested in such a 'game' and the free to play part is not giving enough information I would have a look in other information sources presented by the publisher / developer ... but maybe I have a too old shool thinking nowadays...?
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.
11 hours ago, Beirut said:Although I'm exceedingly good looking
I'm not the sharpest cookie in the tool shed. If I could figure it out, anyone could. It's not rocket surgery.
If a company says "Hey, wanna try 45 planes and helicopters and a bunch of great maps all for free?", and Joe Flightsimhead can't rub enough neurons together to hash it out, then Joe should go back to bed.
See above.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:
Because here we are on page 5 and yet all the reasons why this isn’t a good suggestion were already pointed out on page 1. Especially the fact that all the modules are available as free trials pretty much eliminates the point of this topic.
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.
6 minutes ago, Evoman said:That is why a AT-38B trainer variant would be the ideal free aircraft. It would be a good option because it would be based on an existing module that could be developed with a lot less work. The engines and some other systems might not be the same but it could still be tweaked to represent the Tallon as much as possible.
Plus it would only increase sales of the F-5 as there would be more people trained to fly it right away. They would just need to learn to operate the radar and new weapons systems.
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.
-
59 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:
I don't think I am entitled to a free H-Fi module
"What I am suggesting is that, given my experience, maybe DCS is missing a trick"
"I am certainly not demanding a freeware hi-fi module"
Said what I mean more succinctly than I, thanks!
55 minutes ago, Beirut said:I like free stuff as much as the next guy but given the reality of the situation, a free FF plane simply isn't required. As it is you get two maps and two planes for free. That's a good start. After that, you have about 45 planes and choppers available for free for two-weeks each. If each is used to the fullest, that's close to two-years of free flying. And once you're a quarter the way through that, some of the modules will become available again for another two-weeks each for free.
I think there's a point where one should take a step back and ask if they are perhaps asking for too much.
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.-
1
-
-
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?
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, bies said:
This is basically a debt, you don't earn in hope you will earn more later on.
As much as i would love to see an F-117 in DCS it was highly specialised aircraft - relatively poor choice to attract casual beginner who would want to rather try many things and make many mistakes. The only attractive feature for the average Joe would be unusual apperance and Gulf War legend. In case of F-117 you are eiter skilled/knowledgable to perform the mission or you are useless, it would be appreciated by more experiences customers though. I think FlyingIron simulations is the closest to model F-117 as they invested money to obtain the data and started to model it for XPlane.
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.16 minutes ago, Evoman said:In conclusion I think we can all agree that the current free aircraft are not the most ideal in attracting new players and prepare them well to move up to an advanced paid module. We can also agree that developing an all new module just to use a free aircraft is not really that realistic.
So that leaves using current aircraft that would be flashy enough to attract new players, be easy enough to learn to operate, be fun to fly and do a good job at training people to advance to the next advanced aircraft. Which narrows it down to the F-5 II and the A-10A. If the A-10A gets chosen it would be the ideal time to upgrade it to have a clickable cockpit.
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.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Cab said:
It really comes down to whether or not the juice is worth the squeeze.
Does anyone here know, or have an educated guess, how much it would cost to create such a module?
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.7 hours ago, draconus said:F-117 module wish comes back from time to time, it'd be great imho as FF DLC, but giving away years of work of the entire jet team sounds like a great idea to kill ED.
Current free modules didn't cost much to give away because they were already mostly created, sold and weren't new modules.
I think it's crazy how much free content we have in DCS but you only realize it after a few years playing. Add the free trials and it's a free game all year round.
Now I'm against this wish apparently and it was hard to resist answering but @SharpeXB and others, keep in mind the more posts you make in the thread the more you help support it according to NL's post. Beware!
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.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:
Higly doubt that. Once they figured out how complex and useless it is, they will get frustraded and left dcs.
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. -
3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:
I realize you’re new to DCS. Welcome!
But what you should realize about this game is that it’s a complicated niche sim. ED is a great company that makes a very unique product and they are quite beleaguered in delivering it. It’s quite apparent that the cash flow from the small base of players means it takes years for even seemingly simple things to be accomplished. Nothing is simple or easy here and the aircraft modules specifically take years to complete. There’s no such thing here as “simpler airplane such as the F-117A or T-38”
If you ask me, the path for delivering something like a demo T-38 into the game would be to first sell it as a paid module, work it through Early Access and then when sales eventually cool off and it’s completed it would move into the slot of being the free demo. That process would probably take the better part of a decade. So perhaps it’s better to just pick a module which is past its prime as a paid product, perhaps the L-39 Albatros and use that.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.
10 hours ago, cfrag said:I think you may want to re-visit the definition of "dichotomy", real or false. There was no "either or"; I made a comparison, and I believe it is apt: if you can make a business decision that can affect a good portion of your financial assets in an hour, I think you can make a business decision about something much less momentous in the span of 2 weeks. The comparison isn't perfect, agreed - the decision to buy a car is much more impactful to your life. The purchase of an entertainment title that doesn't wipe out your bank account is relatively inconsequential compared to that.
Also, we should keep in mind that most entertainment purchases are impulse, spur-of-the-moment decisions; if you really can't tell whether you want to purchase a module after two entire weeks, the odds are >99% that you won't, at least not for now. People don't get two weeks from ED so they can make a "good decision" or to account for some inherent complexity -- we get some time to become excited and trigger our purchase impulse outright; and we don't get more time simply because the likelihood of a sale doesn't increase meaningfully after two weeks ("diminishing returns"). Personally, I contend that two hours are enough (this is an entertainment spur-of-the-moment sale after all), so IMHO two weeks are very, very generous.
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. -
1 hour ago, Atazar SPN said:
If +-100 new customers access a fourth generation full loyalty module for free, you are losing sales of other modules and with it you are losing funding. A company cannot develop without financing. That would lead to cutbacks in the team I guess. I don't have to be absolutely right, but this is my opinion. I personally am not interested in ED stopping paying its employees and developing due to insolvency. There is already enough free material to get started.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Evoman said:
A while ago I saw an interview with ED when this question came up relating to the free aircraft. The ED staff agreed that the current free aircraft are not well suited for DCS now. They did conclude that they are in the process of selecting better aircraft that are better suited to train new pilots just like they would be a progression in the military.
In my opinion they need to include aircraft that are not only easy to learn but that will better prepare new pilots to move up to purchasing a new module. One such aircraft that ED already has is the F-5 Tiger. Its not too different than the T38 Talon that the Air Force has used for decades to train pilots. As for a helicopter trainer they could feature something like a TH-57 Sea Ranger variant out of the work that has already been done on the OH-58 Kiowa. I am sure Polychop would be happy to cooperate if it means selling more Kiowas as a result.
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?
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, freehand said:
So maybe 5 man-years then ? I think most would like time spent on other parts of DCS.
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.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, freehand said:
Have you taken the time to find how much work has gone into the hornet for example, go read the first few lines and come back and see how silly your above statement sounds.
It may not break them, but sure is not good or the company.
I literally said in the OP something like the hornet would be too much.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, bies said:
All considerations, pros and cons, aside - ED, using some 2-3 years to license, research, obtain data, code, consult, debug full fidelity FREE module - might end up bankrupt and DCS project ended.
I doubt ED has some huge financial margin to be allowed to work without payment - workhours needed to make full fidelity module/research/license etc. is comparable to making whole other genre full PC game for free. DCS full fidelity module is not WT-like copy-paste, change few parameters in Excel, new 3d model and low quality cockpit. Complexity is enormous.
Regardless of whether it would be profitable in a long term or not, even if ED would like to make something like that for free. It may financially kill them and whole DCS project. And this would be a damn shame, a truly dark day. And then what?
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.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, MadKreator said:
A tough part with dcs is it takes a special breed of people, for lack of better term. When I first started, as I said I skipped the free modules, bought a-10 and f-18.. dove into the f-18.. I wanted the clickable cockpits and all but was actually a bit turned off by the complexity of it all.. I was hoping for more of a casual experience.. great there’s game mode.. which I honestly found a little too arcade-ish.. wasn’t sure what I was really looking for. Being off put, I kind of just set it aside, for several months with dcs still reeling in the back of my mind. I started to watch tutorials on the f-18, the more I watched, the more I craved the experience. So I went back at it. I had no idea it would take me months to become mostly proficient in just the one aircraft. After a lot of frustration and cussing at my button fumbling in the beginning, I finally locked my first target with the tpod, got a maverick off and got my first kill. Oh man that felt so good! I was in for the long haul from then on! Newcomers to dcs, especially people browsing steam just looking for something new to try, probably (mostly) won’t be the ones who stay long enough to really get the experience. I don’t know that any aircraft in dcs, as a free module, could help in that aspect. A FF would most likely test their patience too much. Even fc3 although simplified a bit still have more complexities than most general gamers have the attention span for. If ED pulls off MAC to satisfy those “casuals”(not the best term probably),. That will probably be a better into into the dcs world than any free aircraft could provide…
Free mods are a good ones for newcomers too, but newcomers wont have the understanding of installing to saved games and fiddling around with things like that, let alone where to find them and how to use them either.
What I’m really impressed with is we’re in pg 2 of this thread and there’s no real arguments going on LOL Feels like a real discussion of a valid topic
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.-
2
-
System failures for "client" aircraft in multiplayer.
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted · Edited by Migratingcoconut
Wish I could + infinity.
I mean I really feel like we've already been paying to experience this. The modules have all the detail baked into them & most importantly a price tag to reflect this only for the core game to not allow us to explore it in a realistic manner. Generally in the commercial flight-simming industry it is true that 'study-sim' & having system failures simulated necessarily go hand-in-hand. I am aware we get a 'random system failure' option but it's basically pointless. In multiplayer it just randomly fails one system on a given plane and its the same system on the same plane every time the mission is loaded. That blows. Mind you this is when aircraft are set to 'client'. I pretty much only fly that way so I just turn it all off. I and many players would find it rewarding if during thorough ground procedures we were actually checking to make sure things were working for a reason. You know, the same reason those procedures even exist and got modeled & sold to us right?
I seriously have to ask, how hard is it to implement the following?:
===
Within triggers rightmost menu: 'ACTIONS'
-SET FAILURE: (this is already there)
--Dropdown menu named 'UNIT': Select which of the air units that have been placed you want. (This is not there.)
--Dropdown menu named 'FAILURE': (this is already there)
--Probability (%) <> 100 (this is already there)
--Within (mm) <> 1 (this is already there)
===
Just off the top of my head this would allow for something like the following to be done: You set a moving trigger zone around a carrier & fly an F-14B on approach to land. A trigger is set in the mission that within 5 seconds of any and all F-14Bs entering that proximity to the moving carrier & with your MSL altitude lower than 450' you will get a right compressor stall that complicates your landing, but there's like a 30% chance of it anytime those conditions are met. Just adds a level of immersion, as though these jets have been used plenty.
It would also allow for any amount of AI planes to have their systems triggered to fail too.
It would put the power in the mission editors hands to determine when which failures can happen.
As for the 'random system failures' checkbox, it would make sense if it were to be randomized & generated on a per load/instance basis instead of per mission-file basis like I was saying. Honestly one could (should?) make a bug-report of this as: 'feature that's not working properly' or better yet 'is improperly neglected/missing from the game'. Like I said, we've been sold this immersion. If FS 2004 pay-ware addons could offer it, why cant DCS in 2025????????????????? No exaggeration, look up PMDG 737 for FS2004.