Vertigo72

Perhaps. But given that Im just rephrasing the exact same issues I brought up in the first post, I think it has more to do with the fact people react to a title without properly reading a (admittedly rather long or longwinded) post and assume its just another noob too lazy to learn and wanting to turn DCS in to warhammer. Even my anticipation of that and the bolded text did not prevent that. Something I also completely expected. 12 pages and you might be about the first person to acknowledge there are indeed things missing that could be improved and that it is worth discussing. Does that say more about me or everyone else? Yeah. I guess no one was rubbing me the wrong way. I dont lack thick skin, but its depressing to see the way people here think they have to defend their game. Its also incredibly counter productive. But I dont care if I convince draconus, or what SharpeXB thinks; Ill just hope someone in a position to actually do something about it (and a financial interest in doing so) reads this and finds it useful. If not, tough luck.

And despite there being 100% free perpetual license alternatives to office, I dont see MS sales suffer a whole lot from moving to a subscription model. Having zero marginal costs forces you to rethink your business model. How you optimize sales especially if you have a bunch of indirectly competing products, like various plane or map modules. Your first 'favorite' plane module maybe worth a whole lot to you, probably much more than the current price, but a 37th plane module will be all but worthless to most. Who has time to learn them all ? Having a fixed price per module clearly is not going to give the best results for ED or you. There is simply no way to match customer value and price. Subs also make much more sense if you dont sell a simple "boxed" product, but a platform that is constantly being supported and improved. Who pays for that? You could do versions, but do you really dont want ED (and heatblur and razbaam and all the others) to have to support all their modules and unfinished modules that may take years to complete on various different DCSW versions? With a subscription model you can avoid that. With versioning, like P3D, you get a mess. And it would be a whole lot bigger mess for DCS. Pointless analogy. I dont see rolex having problems finding customers for their products, marginal production cost of a rolex watch is very much non zero and finally and most crucially, their business model depends on being exclusive/expensive/highend; even if they could sell watches for $50 they would destroy their own brand. Nothing of that translates to DCS (except perhaps for the snobbery of some users?). Raising prices does not just lead to increased revenue for ED, it may very well do the opposite. If ED do so frequent 50% sales, I think they know why they do it, they see the numbers. So now you do think these free, low fidelity modules do compete with the "rolex" then? Indeed.

Irrelevant. The F14 almost certainly will not, and the TF51 or Su25 training missions do not explain any of the stuff I have brought up so far, much less the stuff I havent talked about. It doesnt matter how you implement it. Whether its additional training missions or a virtual instructor or otherwise. Most of it could be done on a different trainer aircraft. I dont think the Su25 or TF51 are particularly suitable, something like a T38 or C101 and Yak 52 would make a ton more sense as jet/prop trainers , but if need be, you could use the current included modules and make generic training missions based on those explaining the stuff every DCS pilot should know. Just make sure your newbie knows about them and doesnt skip straight to the "basic" training mission of his preferred and purchased module because he is not interested in learning how to shoot tv guided missiles from a plane with a russian hud. Ah yeah the common theme here, lets not waste developers time on things that could allow ED to sell DCS to a wider audience or increase retention rates. That would be wasteful. They should only be focused on providing eternal free updates to the game core and modules you care about. And for draconus they should make stuff even harder to learn to ensure only the most worthy, dedicated and motivated noobs stick around. That will made DCS better for all of us.

Indeed the training missions dont cover a lot of things, in particular (usually really BASIC) things that arent module specific. Im sure if you have flown any other DCS module for a year, especially from the same era, that following the training modules for the F14 is perfectly adequate to get you started. These missions are however, not adequate or even always appropriate to get a DCS newbie started. And yes, that is what i asked in the first place, its what this whole thread is about. It doesnt matter to me if you solve this problem with an improved "buddy" or if you include a common jet trainer where you learn the basics of the game and comms and nav and some intro in to modern warfare, or if all modules should have missions explaining all those things, but there is, to put it mildly, room for improvement. And its not impossible. I dont even think its particularly hard.

really. which of all the examples I have listed so far would you consider to be about being proficient rather than getting started? Learning that there is a lwin+home shortcut to autostart a dark&cold plane in a mission ? What tacan is? Setting up radios so you can actually contact ATC or awacs? ? learning why that awacs dude keeps scraping his throat in capital letters (BRA) or what half the comms menu actually means? Is that truly advanced stuff or is stuff that is so trivial to you, and to 99% of posters here, you hadnt even considered that an IL2 or xplane pilot may not know it? Did I not explicitly say those training missions are actually completely fine (at least for the F14), that I had no problems following them and learning what they where supposed to teach me? Yeah, I did say that. They are great. Lets not fix what isnt broken.

You dont even recognize the irony! You said I would frighten noobs by pointing out things that IMO should be improved in DCS tutorials and in particular based on my F14 experience, and you do that while saying you spent 8 hours research to prepare flying a piston plane. Well, I dont have the P47 but let me re-assure all the noobs reading this thread (no one does, but hey, lets pretend) that they should not be scared by YOUR post, given that I spent ~0 hours researching the 109, I havent even looked at the manual yet, did zero training missions and I had no problems starting it, taxiing it, taking off, shooting some stuff and making a half decent landing. Im sure I can learn for years, I havent exactly mastered it, but getting started with it was trivial if you are already familiar with DCS (!) and if you have any ww2 sim experience.

Sure, thats possible. But people coming from civilian aviation or civilian sims all have a similar background and similar gaps in their knowledge. That even largely applies to WW1/2 sim pilots. We all know more or less how to fly. But almost none of us will know what bogey dope means, or the difference an SA-9 or SA-15. Also looking at some DCS livestreams, we seem to struggle with the same things, from setting up controls and fighting to keep your head steady trying to click a switch to interpreting the RWR. But one big difference is between modules, and one really big problem is that ED leaves it up to module vendors to make training missions and explain things that every DCS pilot should learn. To give you a very simple, concrete example, I saw a newbie trying out the F18 on youtube, and his navigation training mission explained TACAN rather nicely. If you happen to buy the F14 module first, your navigation lesson doesnt even mention tacan, let alone explain what it is or how to use it, . not even say its basically a VOR. Same thing with auto start. In the F18 cold start training, at least you are told that option exists. In the F14 cold start mission, the first "basic" training mission in the list, literally the first thing they say is you should have read the manual by now, then for the next 15 minutes it teaches you how to test your fire warning lights and hydraulic power. God knows how it is in the Mirage or Mig21 or whatever other module new players buy first. How is solving stuff like that "impossible"? Which is completely fine and part of the attraction. Chess is more complex that you and I realize. But I can teach you the moves in 15 minutes. You dont need to get newbies to the point where they master the game. Just to the point where they can have fun with what they know, and learn by doing. It cant be both true that virtually everything a noob needs to know to get started is already in the tutorials and training missions as most people here claim and providing that information interactively or more logically is a monumental task as you claim. Its really small things that can make a ton of difference. But it would help if people listened or watched noobs instead of shouting "RTFM". Well actually, I take that back, it wouldnt help, it would help if ED did.

Replace FS with IL2 or Rise of Flight or P3D or xplane or Condor or even Kerbal Space Program if you want, and just about nothing about my point changes. Its not because each of those sims caters to another sub segment of the sim market (for now) that they dont compete for simpilots' time and money. Im willing to bet the overwhelming majority of people here own more than 1 sim and I dont know about you, but I dont have infinite money or time, and I can only fly one sim at the time.

Whats impractical about having an option to hover your mouse over a control or panel and get some useful help? Whats impractical about a 3 line script during a cold start that detects you are stuck and offers help? about training missions that help you set up your controls, and non module specific help with setting up and using head tracking / mouse / VR controls, the various menu systems, comms systems,. and do that before you teach them how to test emergency hydraulic pressure. What impractical about just about anything I have suggested ? As for the point; I was actually hoping to have a discussion about concrete things that can be done. IMO the best way is by looking at noobs trying to play the game. I gave you my account, because unlike most here, I can still remember where I struggled. But all Im getting is that absolutely nothing should be done because the only problem is customers with attitude problems, or nothing can be done because reasons.

Read my post again. This isnt about their flying skills, its everything else. I assume you have at least some friends or family who you wouldnt deem too stupid to follow a tutorial that doesnt even require touching the stick? There is a problem, or at the VERY least "room for improvement" even for people who dont suck and who have 1000s of hours of RL and simulator stick time. For people who have flown actual F18s. Like former jet fighter pilots ? Like 10 year xplane veterans who still cant complete startup tutorials without getting two dozen hints and tips per hour from their twitch followers ? Are they all completely inept? More blame the customer. But lets roll with it, lets say its true. Lets call them quitters, people who want to have fun playing a game in their free time, who actually want their hand held during their initial learning and not have to treat it like work and read through 500 page manuals and googling before having fun. If that turns out to be 50% of the market, or even just 10%, why would you not want to cater a little more for them? Its not 10 or 50% more work to improve the tutorials and provide some better in game help. And I guarantee you the actual percentage of people being put off by the "RTFM" learning curve is a lot higher than 10%. Or 50%. FSX sold over 20 million copies, overwhelmingly to non pilots, by helping them to learn to fly rather than throwing a book at them. By making something that would otherwise be inaccessible to "inept" quitter customers, accessible and fun. Your mom would have been able to follow the FSX tutorials and eventually learn to fly. I bet FS2020 is going to do the same. At the same time, DCS barely manages to teach qualified jet pilots how to fly and fight jets in DCS.

It maybe cheap for if you play it on average 4 hours a week for 5 years. A 70 euro module is then < 0.1 per hour. Still not KSP levels of cheap fun, but certainly not an expensive hobby. But its quite expensive for someone just getting in to it, who may give up after a few hours of training, or finds out he doesnt like the game or doesnt like a particular module. And for anyone comparing it to FS2020 which gives them a dozen high fidelity planes and the entire world map, including their home town and local airport in glorious detail vs 1 or 3 planes and a tiny little map of a region they never even heard of and cant pronounce. Thats why a sub model can be perfectly complementary to a purchase model. The buy model should be attractive to anyone who gets hooked, especially hooked on a few specific modules. Probably most people posting here. The sub model can be be attractive to anyone dipping their feet in and exploring the game and its modules. Or anyone not ready to commit to playing this for years and years, or not able or willing to cough up the lump sum. Or who wants to explore various maps and try different modules without spending half their monthly salary. Lets say ED charge 2 euro per month for 1 module. Would that be cheap for you? No, it wouldnt. Not for your favorite modules. It would end up costing you at least twice as much over 5 years, with the prospect of the price going up in the future. But it would be cheap to anyone getting in to it, and it would be for you if have never flown a helo and want to see if its something you could get in to. ED could also have an option of say 10 euro per month for all maps and modules. Or at least their own content. Even if you already own your favorite 4 planes, and arent interested enough in anything else to buy it, you might be tempted just to have access to the rest. Try a few other maps or that SC module or give that ww2 stuff a try. If you raise the price even further without providing a sub alternative, you will dramatically reduce the already tiny inflow of new players. And you will make the existing problem worse, that ED financially depends solely on selling new (probably unfinished, EA) modules to old customers. Old customers who increasingly will already have the modules they really wanted anyway. Its easy to convince your customers to buy a new module when they only have 2. It becomes quite a bit harder once they already own dozens, including all the planes they actually care about. Its a dead end. BTW, if you wonder why they keep having those 50% sales.. its usually a pretty good sign that they arent selling enough. Increasing the price isnt exactly going to solve that problem.

12 year veteran of the series says he has no problems following the beginner tutorials. :doh: If you actually want to prove the point, please live stream your girlfriend / brother / sister / mother / neighbor learning the A10 or F14 using the built-in tutorials. You can help or do the stick for them if they dont have enough stick experience, but donate $1 to charity every time you need to answer a question. Could go viral.

Not sure what "has bad" means, but I dont see much difference on steam between EDs own and third party campaigns in either popularity or rating. But if you think its a huge money maker, go for it. You can hire some voice actors on fiverr. Probably even template artists. You make something for the community and get rich doing it. Or not, find out.

I can repeat myself, or I can point you to my OP. There are plenty of concrete suggestions there for things that really are not difficult to implement, and would have made a TON of difference for me, or anyone with a background similar to mine (not new to flying, new to DCS and new to modern military aviation) But frankly, the biggest help would be if people stopped saying: 1) its a niche product (and try their hardest to make it even more niche than it should be). 2) customers have an attitude problem 3) RTFM

..you say that with a straight face after writing you, already an experienced DCS pilot, just spent 8 hours on manuals and youtube researching how to fly a WW2 plane. :music_whistling:

Campaigns and missions is something anyone can do. You can too. You can give them away or sell them alongside the 100s of campaigns or 1000s of SP missions that are already out there. Why would you want ED to spend their time doing stuff 'anyone' can do? As for why not more people or businesses are doing it; DCS campaigns on steam tend to have less than a dozen reviews (and often not very good ones at that). I doubt this is a big money maker for ED or the creators.

Of course DCS offers that. In spades! Where it lacks is helping people get started, or put them in a position where they know enough so that they can learn by doing. And you can say 100x the info is out there, spread across various manuals and forums and youtube videos, so its up to them to go find it, but that is how you lose customers, by expecting them to do research before they have even begun having fun and climbing that learning curve. By blaming them for having the the wrong attitude.

Yeah, blame the customer! Always a genius business strategy. They have the wrong attitude. Maybe ED should pick its customers more carefully? Maybe an entry exam before you are allowed to pay and play? I mean, you cant just let any real life F18 pilot play your game, some are clearly unworthy.

Thats not the point. If you can be competitive in any sim or game in 20 minutes, or even 20 days, how could it possibly be an interesting game? Ive been flying a soaring simulator on and off for about 15 years and I have a similar amount of RL soaring experience, and Im still only barely competitive, and by that I mean I may typically be top 10 in a 50 player race. I will almost never win. Newbies have zero chance of winning, or even be remotely competitive without 100s if not 1000s of hours of practice and experience, even studying at least some theory. But they can still have fun every step of the way, just learning how to fly, then staying up, catching ridge lift or wave, trying to complete a task, or at least getting as far as they can and learning as they go. That is what matters and what keeps new players hooked: achievable challenges, learning by doing and having fun as you ride that learning curve. Then it doesnt matter how high that curve goes, or how long it takes to master. If anything, the more there is to learn the better.

Have you still not figured out Im not asking this for *me* ? Ive mastered the F14 quite some time ago, or at least I understand how everything works. Im not asking for help, Im telling you why you see so few newbies on this forum, and suggesting some things can be done about it before ED have to close shop. Because only then will you care, but then it will be too late.

You mean, like the first option in the poll on top of this thread? Im not against it, but first of all, it would need to actually offer something. Just drawing a line in the sand and calling the current software DCS 3.0 and putting a price tag on it will not be received well. Especially not if that means EOL-ing 2.5 before all those F16/SC/whatever module owners still havent received what they paid for. You will also still want a free trial version at the very least. You want people to download it and try it and Im not sure the typical 2 week free trial, which may well mean 2 free saturday afternoons, is enough for something like DCS. FWIW Ive downloaded and installed it at least 4x over the past 5 years before I decided I wanted to buy it. I would even consider making a free "demilitarized" version, with a range of included modules. Some jets, some warbirds, some choppers. Pretty much no one here would be satisfied with that, 99.9% of us will pay for a weaponized version, but it could attract people who would otherwise buy civilian or ww2 sims or who have already bought it but want to test fly jets or warbirds or choppers and they may well one day want to pay to have that trigger do something. It would also give DCS simmers a sort of "try before you buy" opportunity, let them see if they actually like some types of modules.

The point is not to turn DCS mainstream. You are not going to attract people who are not interested in realistic flight sims. My point is that are many little things we can do to prevent so many people giving up or not even trying despite being interested in flight sims, many of whom even learned to operate complex avionics in civilian sims, or mastered more complex flight models in WW1/2 sims, who still give up on DCS because they do not enjoy reading thick books before having any fun at all. You seem to be undermining your own argument here. You are not "hardcore", yet you seem to enjoy casually flying planes in DCS. Good for you. But most sim pilots have enough stick time that taking off and landing DCS planes is really not much of a challenge. Thats not the part they will enjoy most, or that they need help with. Thats one of the few things they can learn by doing, if it needs learning at all. Imagine I would be interested in sim racing. Im pretty sure it would take me forever to master, but I wouldnt expect it to take me more than 20 minutes before Im actually set up and driving and racing on some track. Ill be having fun. Ill be crashing and dead last in any race, for sure, but Ill probably have some newbie aids like auto shifting or steering aids and the game will probably provide enough in game help or training that I can have a challenge and fun and learn by doing, without people telling me I need to read 500 page manuals first. I may need some reading, but only to get better, not to get started. I also probably dont have to fork over 60 euro per car without even having a clue yet if I prefer dirt racing or rally cross or nascar or F1. And if I already decided my goal is ultimately F1, I probably dont need to buy a Hyundai first to learn the basics, and then buy a porsche 911 and then something faster. Its probably wise to learn in that order, but I wouldnt have to buy all those cars or end up as a complete noob in a F1 car that I cant master. Am I wrong?

I dont! Nor do I expect him to figure out all weapon and radar systems in planes he has never flown IRL. The point is how he wants to learn those. Same as me, and frankly, most people. He can fly, that is apparent in quite a few things he does. But his flying of the tomcat is horrible and makes even me look good, so Im happy with that. Thats of course, entirely not the point.

How do you reckon? Did he read the DCS manual for it? Not that I can tell. But unlike the other modules he tried, he has actually flown the T38 extensively, so he knows the plane and its systems, he doesnt need a manual. Or training missions. Or a "buddy". Or twitch. He is actually giving a tutorial in that video.

Oh please. They already have all the DRM stuff in there, they can and do enable modules for users like when they do free trials. Adding a subscription model to the current "buy module" model couldnt possibly be more than 1 day of work. Paypal and other payment providers handle all that stuff for you, steam does it too, just use their API. All ED need to do is enable or disable a module or the game depending on whether you paid your sub or not. There are many good reasons to consider subs; barrier to entry for new players. You may not think modules are too expensive, and if you end up playing the game for 10 years, they obviously arent. But it certainly looks very expensive to someone coming from IL2 or even xplane and P3D. Especially to someone who doesnt yet know which module or kind of module he will actually like most. And you want new players and more players, because the more customers ED has, the more they can afford to develop the stuff you want. The second reason is related to that: aligning developer interests with ours. If ED only makes money selling new modules to (old) customers, they need to keep pumping out new modules to pay their bills, and thats exactly what they will do. At the same time, they have no direct financial incentive to improve the base game. The result is rather easy to see. We get unfinished module after unfinished module, stuff no one even ever asked for, and very little seems to be done to address age old user demands concerning the base game (clouds, dynamic campaigns, VR performance etc). Thats completely logical when new modules pay their bills, and the other stuff is just a cost to them they can scarcely afford. A subscription model could decouple their revenue from constantly creating new content, and give them more financial incentive to do what users want most, which may not be yet another new plane or map, but improving the content we already have.