Flying Penguin

Yes, but a straight reading of Wags'post suggests that whilst ownership has changed, funding remains broadly the same. There's no harm in asking how we feel about it, it's expensive for sure, but financial sympathy for ED seems misplaced given public statements made.

Because SithSpawn doesn't know the full story either? I never know how many levels of NDA are involved in these things. But unless someone with actual knowledge publicly contradicts Wags' statement that the funding situation has significantly changed, 'poor ED' is based on sympathy and presumption rather than fact.

To quote Wags' statement on the 8th : The vast majority of funds needed to finance this project have and will continue to come from Eagle Dynamics (not Kickstarter). So if ED mostly funded it to date, what's changed other than the head honcho? Probably won't get an answer but I would like to know how much extra cash ED have to find, at least in light of the above statement, especially if we are to believe the line that it's putting ED on the breadline...

On a related note, has anyone come up with a good way of making a removable clip for the DelanClip version? I've got one as my TrackClip Pro falls out of the swivel mount if I even look at it funny, but I've not yet figured out how to attach it to my favorite headphones without cable ties, which are slightly more permanent than I really want.

And no re-fills if they spill it over the runway on their first take off ;)

Well given you are going to have to pretty much gut the base game to "1940ify" it, rather than just plonking 1944 assets in, have selectable assets, so filtering by date range gives you assets and editor tools appropriate for the era etc. It's always easier to dream than do, but if DCSW is to be truly era agnostic, it's going to be needed at some point.

Only if they plan to do the DC-3 first, stepping stone to the B-17 anyone? ;) That would give Hornet fans kittens.....

Well if they make something to that level of fidelity... Say an ME410 ;)

No, I get your post. If a developer doesn't yet feel they can take on a fully featured jet like the Typhoon or a grey F-Jet without going the way of Kinney, then it would be foolish to try. Yes they'll probably be more financially successful when they get to a more complex and sexy jet, but to get there they need to build the groundwork with the less sexy jets, whether they be trainers or old school (pre AI radar) jets And there were enough people complaining that the F-86 was out of place to suggest it's not just trainers that will get a harder ride.

The trainers mean different things to different people, T-2, T-38 Talon or T-45 Goshawk means a lot more to the Americans than to anyone else, but Hawk? Hell yeah, as I Brit I want to re-enact my Red Arrows fantasies! Most likely there will be as many training aircraft as there are 3rd parties, RAZBAM don't get any learning experience out of the VEAO Hawk development, as VEAO don't get any learning from the T-2 development. Everyone has to start somewhere, and their national trainers seem a pretty good place to start.

If the demo route is taken, then it would probably need to be locked down to just the demo, to stop it being moddable, but that's a technical question we'll not get to a solid answer by ourselves. I have no strong attachment to the F2P model, but what winds me up is F2P games that are so heavily borked as to be just add on pushers, with no "play" involved (and I believe I'm far from alone).

But that's a reasonable argument in favour of a feature limited demo and against F2P, rather than whether TF or P51 should be included if ED pursue the F2P route. There are plenty of WW2 games, DCS being the only one that goes to this level of fidelity, so we agree on the selling point, the risk is that it will fail to stand out because people won't look past the lack of guns and therefore the ability to give it a proper whirl is hampered because we are too mean to give them guns. As I see it, there are two reasonable options: Release a feature limited demo giving a full fat aircraft and a few training and SP missions,. Multiplayer, Mission Editor and non-demo missions are restricted. Offer a cheaper (say ~$15) demo unlock to allow the full features for that aircraft (i.e. it becomes a conventional one module install), or the whole thing unlocks when you buy another module Remain F2P, give the P-51 (for reasons stated earlier), let people properly explore and rely on this being a sufficient demonstration of quality to encourage them to buy more modules A demo without guns makes a poor demo, a F2P combat game without actual combat is just going to piss people off for not actually being F2P.

For the same reason people buy modules after having the SU25T in DCSW. More aircraft variety, to fly the one they always wanted, as a new challenge etc... It hasn't killed DCSW and it won't kill DCSWWII. As long as the additional content is sufficiently compelling it will sell. Pay $30 to add guns to your mustang isn't very compelling. How many people really fly one aircraft all day, every day? I'm not saying DCSWW2 HAS to be F2P, but if ED believe that F2P is the answer, then it should be genuinely F2P not 'free to play as long as you don't want to do anything interesting'.

That's avoiding the issue. There are a number of different levels of customer, those that would buy in anyway, no matter what, because they are sure DCSWWII will be awesome, for which backers is a reasonable proxy, then a number of groupings of increasing size right the way down to 'just not interested'. There will be some who will buy it when it's done, sight unseen unseen, but there's an undoubtedly larger audience who will want to try it out first. It's for them that the F2P model is designed, and for whom there needs to be a compelling offering. Being able to shoot things is more compelling than not being able to, all else being equal. The number of people that will buy on strength of the FM alone is pretty small, as that population have probably already got DCSW, or will do now the TF51 is in the base game. That leaves the rest of the people needing to be engaged by doing something that excites them. Just as an example, my experience with RoF, which uses a similar F2P model, was that it became immediately clear that it was a high quality product, in fact I'd go so far as to say it oozes production values, but despite playing with the FM and enjoying barnstorming through the pretty (but DCS-sterile) scenery, I wasn't convinced to actually buy until my first flight on flight dogfight. Shooting off the wings of a Sopwith triplane and watching them flit by my head whilst the rest of the gaggle swarmed a stones throw away, I was hooked. I've been buying sims for a long time, since before the original Flanker, but I still needed that full trial to buy outside my comfort zone (Western WW2), especially at DCS like prices. Had I just floated around admiring the scenery I'd have just put it in the same bracket I have X-Plane, I.e. nice but not worth sacrificing time I could use for more enjoyable sims. The end point of my ramblings is relatively simple, if DCSWW2 is going to remain available as a separate, F2P, thing (even if it can be integrated into DCSW), a F2P version which is DCSWWII (but not really, because we are too cheap to give you a gun or an actual WW2 aircraft...) Is a nonsense and makes a poor introductory proposition for anyone that isn't already sold on the idea anyway. As per my first post, the P51 is the natural choice, it's sold the most already and probably has the least sales to loose. It is also such a crowd pleaser that it would do well on Steam.

So if they do take the TF-51, you're going to get a WWII combat sim with 1960's planes that can't shoot anything... Great advertising ;) Seriously though, you're not after the committed prop head with the free aircraft, you/re after the casual simmer who may or may not be sold on the idea of DCSWWII. There were ~2500 backers of the kickstarter, assuming the represent a good portion of the section of the audience that are salivating over DCSWWII, the rest are going to be a harder sell. Just for context, assuming each backer bought P-51 at an average of $30 (accounting for sales), you are talking $75k, which wouldn't even cover the FM development cost. You are gunning for MUCH bigger numbers if this project is in any way going to break even. If that means throwing in a free aircraft to entice the more casual end of the audience in, then that's what needs to happen. Engaging the audience with sample of *actual combat* is much more likely to get people involved with the product than flying round in a nerfed aircraft from the wrong period. It's just the flying equivalent of "sex sells". I can't see how giving a lame duck of an aircraft away so a few backers don't get hurt because someone is "getting something I paid good money for" makes any sense at all... Sorry, I think it's a self defeating idea. As for the server cleanliness argument, how many griefers do we really get with the SU25T? Not many as far as I've seen, and most of them wouldn't even get the Stang off the ground, given the right enforced difficulty setting.... And even if they did they'd probably kill the engine in no time, therefore becoming self limiting ;)

+1 (unless you WEREN'T being sarcastic....) Giving people an unarmed trainer in order to entice them into a WWII COMBAT simulator is getting the whole thing arse backwards. Anyone keen enough to be impressed soley by the quality of the flight dynamics and system modelling is likely to be already invested in it, or will buy in anyway when there is a WWII environment. To capture the imagination of someone who is not already sat there with TrackIR at the ready, salivating at the thought of DCS WWII, you need to let them enact at least some small part of their pew pew fantasies (which, let's be honest, we all have to some degree). Flying round being shot at by the AI and not being able to respond is just going to piss people off. Although the P-51 (full fat) is arguably the natural candidate, most existing fans have bought it (less lost sales), and the P-51 is the very definition of crowd pleaser for the more casual simmer.

Not necessarily. In anything other than a one sided or low intensity conflict, you may not have the time to wait for your on-call F-whatever to fight their way through to arrive to deal with a previously unknown or underestimated enemy position. An unmanned mini-mech armed along the lines of a conventional IFV, organic to the unit, might be able to give you more controlled firepower as and when needed, without the need to engage the services of a JTAC equivalent, sit around and wait for priority, and then wait some more whilst support is talked onto the target etc.... If it can be produced in sufficient numbers to be attached to (say) every squad in a mech infantry battalion, you are able to replicate the hitting power that would be provided in today's forces by (say) Bradley's and Strykers (with the latter I'm thinking of the M1128 and M1134 variants especially), but in a platform which can take on terrain that those platforms couldn't cope with. You loose the transport capability, but in the areas the mini-mechs could possibly shine, infantry would be dismounted anyway. Technological limits aside (because, let's be honest, we're dreaming here), I think something like this is the most credible way mechs *could* appear on the battlefield:

Whilst not a massive part of my thinking, the printed manuals/tactics guides I'd been keen to have, if costs aren't prohibitive. The manuals have to be written anyway so printing is the only additional cost, though I can see why the tactics guide would be problematic. The t-shirts and posters, nah.....

Yep, exactly. I didn't get burned by the CLoD debacle, but with ED putting their good name on the line as well, Lutheir's questionable reputation didn't bother me as much as it would have otherwise. At least we know we WILL get the planes we hoped for, to ED standards, even though it may be at ED speed ;) Incidentally, I picked up CLoD earlier this week for a tenner and, once patched up with the Team Fusion mod, I'm quite enjoying it. Between this, the DCS modules I've not yet mastered, and the DCS modules releasing in the very near future, I'm not going to run out of fresh flightsimmy goodness :)

Awesome, in that it's probably the best thing to happen to this project in a while, at lease if you define best as "best chance of delivering what was promised".

One useful (albeit perhaps a little old school) document is this: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf It represents mid 80's thinking on Soviet doctrine, including (most usefully for our purposes) TO&E and the breakdown of the various stages of a standard Soviet style attack. Applicable for pretty much any WARPAC army in the late cold war era, and as dumgrunt hinted, a lot of the tactics in 2008 weren't a million miles away from what was taught in the Soviet army. There have been a couple of fascinating reviews post Georgia, and they are worth looking at: http://www.cast.ru/eng/?id=386 http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA500627 Perhaps a little operational for our purposes, but good for scenario design ideas. The first, "The Tanks of August", is written from a Russian perspective and surprisingly candid. Jamie

Well that's a relief..... Shouldn't have come to this, but at least ED has stepped up to the plate and that's good news.

Rock Paper Shotgun for me. One of the few non sim specific sites that does decent sim coverage (The Flare Path segment).

What do you call a Mancunian in a tie? The defendant.... Check, please!

Well he's a Mancunian, that level of written English probably makes him a local child prodigy :music_whistling: