Pyker

Thank you! (Not that I feel able to do that scary technical stuff ;-)

If we could install new maps on a different drive than the one of The DCS world directory, that would make our upgrades easier. Just add a drive (that you may have already somewhere) instead of replace with a bigger one. Or is that possible already?

Maybe a feature that would be little work for the developpers and would satisfy everybody would be to allow to refuel 'instantly', that is, you just need to catch the basket or the boom and hop your tanks are full. A big cheat, of course, but it shouldn't be very complicated to implement, right? And then you can fly any mission with anybody with a little practice. (I did not read the whole discussion, maybe that has been proposed before)

You may want to read this, it was not so long ago. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=275326 Happy refuelling!

Because, well, some of us (minority? Majority?) have ran out of things to buy from ED. We wouldn't mind paying for an improved ATC or an improved AI or to get a vulkan optimized program (so that our money would go to ED rather than to Intel or NVidia or AMD) but that's not in the ED catalogue. And, well, I am impatient to get those things... Yes the poll needed the fourth option but it could not be changed after it was started unfortunately. I suppose nobody wants another poll. But Mohab will count the votes for 'no change'.

But franchises such as xplane seem to be able to do that (of course it does not mean it's a better system.), including third party modules. But it is maybe because developing a civilian airplane module for a civilian simulator is less complicated.

My question was directed at everybody, but thanks for your reply! I agree it is a chicken and egg problem or catch22 or maybe there are even better terms for it: I would like ED to bring improvements and fixes to the base DCS world but I understand that it might not be the majority's interest, nor ED's interest, to focus EVEN MORE than they already do on the base DCs world rather than on new modules. I thought that maybe a system like the xplane system (pay for the base module) could be a better alternative...

OK. And would you be ready to pay for DCS world 3.0 ? Never? Or only at certain conditions (features or fixes) ? Edit: assuming that all your modules would still work with dcs 3.0 or that the module upgrades would be cheap.

I"m sorry, "So many people" who what ? My latest post was not about the subscription model rejected in the other poll, it was about the alternative (paid DCS 3.0, to give a bigger incentive to ED to focus more on it). That's fine for me if a majority prefer the existing model. I'm just curious, like Mohab. It's indeed a pity that it was not possible to modify the poll after Mohab started it, to add the "status quo" option, but that's not his fault.

But two people will usually paint the baby's room faster than one, won't they? (Even if it doesn't make the paint dry faster, I know). Anyway. From the many 'keep it as it is' answers, it looks like many, maybe the majority, of DCS users like to buy and fly new planes regularly (but wished that there were less bugs, of course). So was I wrong to believe that there were more of them who (like me) haven't bought many aircraft modules and prefer to stick to the same planes for a very long time, but miss (and would be ready to pay extra for) a better ATC, a better AI, or other things that would make the game more entertaining overall like a dynamic campaign engine (which I personally do not miss), whatever, that is, things that will not come with new airplane modules? (Supercarrier is an interesting case because it actually is a module that brings a bit of ATC.) Because that was the idea behind the first option in the poll.

And if Heatblur could fix the key bindings for the wheel that controls the AOA indexer brightness, that would be cool too (or did they fix it since the last time I tried?) See first post in https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=235229

Good question. If the choice of planes was very limited, then maybe. For instance, if there were only 4 or 5 plane modules available, I would probably buy a F-22 module or a F-35 module or a Rafale or a Typhoon, even though I would know that half of the stuff or more is made up. But if ED made fictional planes now, no I wouldn't buy them because I already have too many planes to choose from. But with maps that's the opposite: there aren't enough of them, for me. If it takes ED less time to make a large beautiful fictional map than a smaller 100% realistic one, then I'd prefer the fictional one. Like this guy said;

Yeah, add an alp-like mountain range and I would buy that. It would be like a huge training range, but more diverse than the NTTR. Not all of us want to re-create glorious historical events. I can always pretend that it's an actual location-how many historical movies are shot at the actual location?

How can you be so sure about that ? Personally, I buy only the modules in which I'm interested. I'll never buy a WWII module for instance. Or a helicopter. So currently ED gives me zero incentive to give them one more cent. But I'd pay some money for improved ATC, improved AI, that kind of stuff that does not come with the plane modules. The only other thing I could be interested in (personally) is: more maps. But they don't do many and I'm not interested in the WWII ones. But indeed maybe I am an exception?

Can you modify the poll to add this as a fourth option ? If not maybe erase this poll and start a new one with 4 options, since it is still early? Anyway, for those who think that leaving things as they are is the best: this is just a poll. I am aware that even if a huge majority of respondents pick one particular option, that does not mean that it is the way to go for ED and that it will work. But if my favourite option has very few votes then it will be a strong sign that it will NOT work. It's just a poll. We're not starting a petition here.

Do they make opinion polls in North Korea ? I voted no in the previous poll because I thought it was not a good solution. But my opinion is that there is indeed a problem and that to keep things as they are today is not the best solution.

Thank you very much for picking up the discussion! I vote for the first option :-) BTW I won't mind if support for 2.5 stops when 3.0 is released. I have the stable 2.5.5, I have some modules that work reasonably well with it and that's good enough for what I paid. I understand that to get 3.0 (upgraded) versions of modules that I already bought, I'll have to pay something. It's just a matter of how much it will cost to upgrade a module (how big the discount is for existing users) and how much added values (features, fixes) the upgrade brings (like for the base DCS world). It is such a pity that with the current model, more satisfaction (for me) with DCS would not come from spending more on software (certainly not on more modules, I already don't have the time to play with some of those that I bought - ironically it's because those modules are so well done) but rather from spending more on hardware, for which ED will not get a cent. Only improving the base DCS (ATC, AI, vulkan, etc.) would give me an incentive to spend some more money on ED software (DCS world base) rather than on hardware. But that's just me. Kazansky: just consider "not changing anything" as a fourth option and feel free to vote for it. It's just a poll.

+1 Thank you so much.

So what about the alternative ? DCS world 'base' module not free anymore, to finance upgrades? Would anybody care enough to start a poll about that?

That is my opinion too. I believe this is more palatable than a subscription. And then ED would have an incentive to improve the base DCS world (vulkan, optimization, and so on). Again, same as xplane or msfs. Vertigo: Sorry I was not trying to prove you wrong. What I meant is: My opinion is that your idea will not solve our problem, and here is the reason why I believe so. Just an opinion.

You're going to buy my bread anyway because I am the only baker in town. I don't need to make better bread. You know what my bread tastes like, you've been eating it for years, you know it is possible to make better bread but you buy from me because nobody else makes bread. If you pay me a salary I won't spend it to make better bread or clean my kitchen. I'll use it on advertisement and new pastry recipes to attract more customers. Because the regular customers like you, they are not going anywhere. And you're going to buy my pastries too because you're tired of bread. Even if my pastries don't taste that good. Doesn't matter if you pay by the piece or monthlly, if you spend the same.

How does a subscription for (i.e. Renting) unfinished or buggy stuff rather than selling unfinished and buggy stuff create an incentive for ED (or any software company) to finish and debug that stuff? They make extra revenue, fine, now why would they waste it in fixing old products that they already sold rather than investing it in making more new modules to make even more revenue?

Same for me. I would be OK with ED saying "DCS 3.0 will have vulkan and improved features and fixes for x y z that will benefit all modules and it will cost x$ with free updates until version 4.0. For the modules that you already bought, you get a discount on the new versions." Pretty standard and straightforward, no? This way, you buy the new DCS or an upgrade of a module that you already own only if it significantly improves something. So ED gets more money but also has an stronger incentive to keep fixing and improving the stuff that we already bought (instead of releasing new modules and never finishing them).

Please don't get mad but to me it sounds more to me like 'you can make it as complicated as you want.' I admit I am not very smart but... I don't understand why anybody would want to get into such an optional scheme. Or how that would create an incentive for ED to fix stuff in the core DCS world app (graphics, AI, etc). But I admit I have problems with the complicated stuff in DCS in general (radar modes etc.) ;)

I agree that it is the problem. "Perverse incentives" some people call that (I heard). But I disagree with a solution forcing me to pay every month even if I have only one hour available to play that particular month. I prefer to buy a new iteration every two years (ok, even every year) IF I decide, based on reviews, that it is a worthy upgrade, and that my PC can still run it. I prefer the possibility to skip the upgrades that I do not need or that I do not WANT (e.g. because an update becomes too much for my PC, which is more or less whart's happening to me now with 2.5.6). Same as for FS or xplane.