Kongamato

It´s easy: if you don´t like the poll, don't vote. If you think that, as customer, your opinion is not relevant for ED, don´t opine. But don´t tell the rest of us if we can or can´t start a poll or opine.

Again: this is not a debate about the ED's finances, ED's personal management, what is going to do ED with the feedback, if other customers should or should not buy products in pre-purchase, etc. It´s explained in the first post: Would you prefer ED focus in a new plane after the Viper is released, or would you prefer ED focus on finishing and polishing previous products? That´s all. If some of you want to open a debate about other subjets, it´s OK, you can open a new thread and poll.

My question is: in a few months ED will release the Viper as "Early Access". As a customer, would you prefer then that ED starts then the project of another cool airplane to sell it in "Pre Purchase" as usual, or would you prefer ED puts on hold for a while any project of new airplanes and focus on finishing the Hornet and the Viper, improving older modules and DCS-World (AI, ATC, graphics, wheater, etc.), fixing bugs, etc.? This is not a debate about ED's finances, market strategies, human resources management, model of business, etc. My previous thread degenerated in that kind of debate and was closed by the community manager. Actually it is an empty debate since none of us know nothing about the human resources and the accounting and finances of ED. Comments as "ED can/can´t afford financially to put in hold new planes" or "ED should hire/fire/recolocate personal" "ED should become a suscription service", etc. are absurd here. This poll is just to express your preferences as customer and provide feedback to ED. That way, ED will know if the community valorate more new projects of airplanes or finishing and polishing the projects already started and DCSW, and so they can use the information the way they believe is the best for the customers and the company.

Thanks a lot. It´s very interesting, but I was thinking in tutorials for the simulator: the editor of missions what we can expect from the AI AFAC. I have been doing some test the last weekend with different ROE, reaction to threats, etc. and for me it´s almost imposible to get the AFAC to mark targets with the smoke rockets. :( I would like to know (and I suppose, also other users of the F-86, F-5E, Mig-19 and other 50-80´s planes without laser or IR sensors) if someone is able to create missions in witch the AI AFAC marks the targets with WP, or that´s actually a feature very limited and something that ED should improve.

Again, you are not doing any favor to ED with your posts. First you were implying that we cannot trust in ED's words because "there are no promises", "nothing is writen in stone", "all can be subject to changes...". Now you are jumping into conclusions since nobody is saying ED should put projects in hold, but not to start new ones until the already running are finished, and what is worst, you are saying that ED can't finance if they allocate resources to polishing the engine and modules and they need to develop new planes continuously selling them in beta in order of continuing the business, and that´s exactly the fear of a lot of people into the community because we all know that means that kind of model of business incentivates to never really finish the products but to develop new ones... Man you get yourself into a HUGE garden every time you talk... With "defenders" of ED like you, the company doesn´t need enemies...

We are not "archair experts" saying nothing to ED. We are COSTUMERS that decide if we want to buy ED´s products or not in order of the degree of satisfaction we get from those products. And I find a way higher level of satisfaction in a finished and polished product than in a new ones in beta for years.

We all know, Silver Dragon. Every single simmer in the world knows that the only two things written in stone in this business are "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTO TO CHANGE" and "IT WILL BE DONE IN TWO WEEKS". As sad as it sound. But if the community manager of ED sais in this very thread that they are working in improving the night ilumination, a new FLIR system and better AI, all things that have been asked by the community for a long time, I would like to think that it´s true and all those things are going to be done at one moment or other. But thanks again for reminding us that all that maybe will never happen since "everything is subject to change" and "nothing is written in stone", and I´m sorry if I gave credibility to the words of the community manager. :doh:

Copy that. So, when someone from ED says "We are working in that update/bug fix", it´s not "writen in stone" and we should not believe it because maybe it´s not going to be done. Thanks a lot, Silver Dragon, for your sincerity.

Suscriptions would kill ED. As simple as that. Maybe it would be different if DCS World were a model of business based in suscriptions since day one, but, as someone said, there would be riots if ED changes the model of business now to introduce suscriptions. What makes sense (and is already happening) is to make payware certain important improvements. For example, the GNS 430 is included for free in other simulators as FSX, P3D and Xplane, but is a payware module in DCS. Or the pack of WWII objects and vehicles, that are included by default in sims as IL-2, for examplo. And it´s OK for me. It´s only a few bucks. As long as the price is not abusive, I can pay a few buck for important new features if that helps ED. For example, I would pay for a new weather engine based in real-world real-time data, as the one by default in FSX. Or for an hipotetical totally new version of the Editor more powerful and easy to use. But I would not pay, obviously, for bug-fixing, better AI or visibility or for a new skin for a plane, or a new weapon or sensor. That would be abussive IMO.

Nobody want to start a discussion with the community manager of ED and nobody said DCS is not immersive or stable. Right now, ED's productos are the most expensive software that I have in my PC. Not only that: I have in my bookshelves the CDs of Flanker 2 and Lock On. I wouldn´t spend so much money in ED´s products if DCS were not immersive or stable. And I know there are improvements and bug fixing, I´m suscribed to the newsletters. BUT, there are important bugs that exist in DCS for way more time that the famous "two weeks" that already are a meme for the sim community, and there are important improvements that have been being asked by the community for way more that those two weeks and have been promised by ED since way more time that those two weeks. Better ATC, better AI, better weather, better visibility, specific bugs and improvements for specific planes... My point is: righ now, I don´t care about new planes. It´s not my priority as customer of ED. I want the old ones bug-free (as much bug-free as possible, obviously) and 100% finished, I want DCS World bug free and improved, and then, I will buy new planes.

Yeah. That´s why I titled this thread "My wish list" and not "Mizzy's wish list".

Well, that's my point. You have right now two HUGE new products in the market, the Hornet and the Viper. Now... let´s stop with new planes and let´s go with improvements and fixing bugs for some time.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I´m eager to receive advices because there are a lot of things I don´t know. The last mission I made it was pretty simple: an C-101 AFAC with gun pod and WP rockets and a F-5E (me). The AI C-101 was "excelent" skill and the flight plan was taking off from Batumi and one wp to the "X" near Kobuleti, and then orbiting at 6000 ft over that point, the target area. The target was several BMP-1 advancing south. The ROE was "return fire" and reaction to enemy fire,"evade fire". Maybe I should selec t"cease fire" and "no reaction to enemy fire" to make the AFAC mark the target?

They can´t sell you a module and after some time, say to you "you can´t use this module that you purchased for 60, 70, 80 $ when you want, you have to pay X money every month for that". That would be the end of ED and the rise of Falcon BMS, IL-2 or others. I think a lot of users or DCS's products have the same fear: the fear that this business model has too much in common with a Ponzi scheme (not in the sense of a fraud, of course): the planes are the money maker because... who can resists to a new hot jet as the Hornet or the Viper? :joystick: And they sell most of them during "pre-purchase" phase, so they need more planes to maintain the shop open. That incentivates to develop new planes more than to finish and improve older ones, or to improve DCS world. This is WAY more evident with some third parties (ejem... razbam... ejem... :music_whistling: ) but there are "symptoms" of that "illness" in ED too, IMO. Well, I´m sorry but I´m done with new planes for a while. I´ll buy sceneries, but not going to buy new planes. I´m not going to colaborate with that dynamic of more and more planes in beta state for years, and bugs that will be solved and improvements that will be implemented... in two weeks. :lol:

I know some people is asking to ED for more planes. "Please, ED, the F-111", "Pretty please, the Tornado", "No, ED, the Su-24, Su-17, Mig-17, Yak-3, Mirage, AMX, Eurofighter, Super Sabre, B-1, DC-3..." And I suppose that new planes are the "money maker" of ED, specially during pre-purchase campaing... But I think it´s time to stop for a while and centering the efforts of ED's people in finishing and improving what already is done in DCS. In my case, I don't want or going to buy more planes. I already have at least 4 great planes that I don´t fly simply because I don´t have the time to study the manuals. It was 5, but after the "Hawk affaire"... You know. :( I think I´m not the only one in that situation, with several cool planes in the waiting list :music_whistling: As much I would like a ride in the fabulous Tomcat, the Hornet or the Viper, I´m not going to buy them soon. I know that if I buy them, I´m going to fly them a couple of times "bozo style" without knowing to use 90% of the systems of the planes, and then would relegate them until I have the time to properly learn to fly them... and that could be years. Righ now, my wish list for ED aren´t more planes. It´s a better AI. Better ATC. Better tools to make a flightplan with the editor. An editor easier to use for people like me that know nothing about programming. Better weather engine and themes; real-life weather engine FSX style, would be the best. I want a simulator and planes as free as bugs as posible. And all the planes already done, finished at 100%. I´m going to buy new sceneries though. If you have a plane, you want places to fly it, and it´s boring to fly always the same places. But no more planes at least for a couple or three years, even if they are the hottest, coolest jets, like the Hornet or the Viper.

My main problem is, when I make a mission with the editor 50-60's style (no laser or IR, only willie peter), the AFAC (C-101, L-39...) doesn´t mark the target with smoke rockets most of the times, only provides coordinates that are useless. Maybe the AFAC only marks targets when there is no danger at all (unarmed target and no armed units near the targuet), or I´m doing something wrong... maybe the AI AFAC system is too limited right now in DCS... I don´t know. That´s why I would like tutorials or videotutorials of the making of the mission with the editor and the flying of the mission itself. If someone knows something like that in YT or other site, I would appreciate.

Thanks so much. It´s really interesting. :thumbup:

The AI FAC in DCS gives you 9 lines of information when you ask for a target, including coordinates of the target. It´s pretty cool, but extremelly confusing since the coordinates are something like "EG108448" or similar, references to the F10 map. There exists the posibility of the FAC using "Willie Peter" rockets (white phosphorus) to mark the target if the plane or helicopter can carry them, but I find really difficult to make the AI FAC use those rockets when I configure a mission with the Editor. Normally, it says "No mark", that means that is not going to mark the target, only provides that confusing coordinates that don´t help at all. That´s why I would like a tutorial.

But in 2008 there was a war between Rusia and Georgia, so the map of Caucasus was even a hotter zone when Flaming Cliff 2 was released than Crimea is now. For example, only two years before Flaming Cliff 2 was released, Tu-22's had launched bombs over our well known Vaziani Airbase. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/georgia-2008-bomb.htm

I´m interested in "old school" Korea or Vietnam-era FAC missions with the Sabre or the F-5E as attacker and some slower plane as AFAC (maybe the C-101, the Mustang or even a scout helicopter or ground troups) marking the targets with white smoke or giving coordinates, but it´s difficult to correctly create the mission with the editor, and to correctly fly it following the instructions of the AI FAC. Someone knows a good tutorial about the creation of those kind of missions and the correct way to understanding the instructions or the AFAC and follow them? thanks in advance.

A man can dream :thumbup:

It´s possible. But I´m curious about why Crimea was the main map in Flanker 2 and Lock On Flaming Cliffs and was removed from DCS World. It was too "hot" then, about 8-10 years ago, too? And the russo-georgian war in 2008? Georgia couldn´t be a more conflictive zone when FC2 was released...

Thanks Draconus, I think I´m starting to understand the problem. Probably when I made my night test, I wasn´t contacting with the tower and there wasn´t active runway. I have made new tests contacting with the tower and YES, I see PAPI in both runways and ALSF-1 in RW 21L, BUT, the active runway doesn´t depend on the wing direction. Aparently, depends on the wing intensity. If I configure for example 11 Kn/seg. the active runway is 21R and I don´t see ALSF-1, and If I configure 22 Kn/seg the active runway for landing is 21L and I see ALSF-1. I can´t get the RWY 03 active by changin the direction of the wind, so I don´t know under what atmospheric conditions RWY 03 will be active... Problem is, during daytime, I can´t see PAPI even asking and obtaining from the ATC permission for landing. Shouldn´t the PAPI lights be ON at daytime too in active rwy, even if they are not so visible as at night (about 5 miles at day, 20 at night)?

It seems that at some point those PAPI lights were functional, but maybe now they don´t work for some kind o bug or something. Also the ALSF-1 lights for RW 03R/21L would be a good thing, and I think that those never were added. About the arrestor system, if they have implemented it in carriers, I suppose they could implement it in runways preaty easily.