WHY 59.99$?

[Python]

Ultimately,this is the price the dev has set. It's very simple, if you don't think it is worth it to you, don't buy it. Personally I have little interest in this aircraft, I doubt I would ever choose to fly it over the Hawk. But I'm sure plenty of people will get lots of pleasure from the hard work that went into developing this. If you think it is too much for you, just wait for one of the regular sales...

[sobek]

Ultimately,this is the price the dev has set. It's very simple, if you don't think it is worth it to you, don't buy it.

 

This.

[Farlander]

I understand that from a devlopers poit of view it's two completely different aircraft. but for most people I've talked to the two planes are basically the same to them, and there are two main problems.

 

1. The aircraft is a trainer/light attack capabilities for the CC, and isn't really that good as a combat airplane as many others are. and we already have the hawk and a l-39 with multi-crew coming up.

2. The price is higher than the hawk (that also has light attack capabilities), and most likely more expensive than ED's upcoming L-39.

 

Edit: this is not to complain about the price... the current deal we have is fantastic... im just stating that while it's two completely different planes to model, most of us others will still say that it's one version that is un-armed, and one that is armed. it's not like one of the models is a F-86 and the other one is a MiG-15..... they're still the same aircraft.... C-101

Edited January 26, 2015 by Farlander

[Flagrum]

I understand that from a devlopers poit of view it's two completely different aircraft. but for most people I've talked to the two planes are basically the same to them, and there are two main problems.

 

1. The aircraft is a trainer/light attack capabilities for the CC, and isn't really that good as a combat airplane as many others are. and we already have the hawk and a l-39 with multi-crew coming up.

2. The price is higher than the hawk (that also has light attack capabilities), and most likely more expensive than ED's upcoming L-39.

 

Edit: this is not to complain about the price... the current deal we have is fantastic... im just stating that while it's two completely different planes to model, most of us others will still say that it's one version that is un-armed, and one that is armed. it's not like one of the models is a F-86 and the other one is a MiG-15..... they're still the same aircraft.... C-101

Afaik different engines = different flight characteristics (FM), different/additional avionics - has anyone even looked at the cockpit screenshots on their FB page?

 

Yeah, not two completely different aircraft, but certainly far from being "CC = EB + a few weapon pylons". :o)

[Farlander]

Afaik different engines = different flight characteristics (FM), different/additional avionics - has anyone even looked at the cockpit screenshots on their FB page?

 

Yeah, not two completely different aircraft, but certainly far from being "CC = EB + a few weapon pylons". :o)

 

i'm sorry if it sounded like i think it's a copy/paste job.... what i tried to say is that for the average consumer that is going to buy it, it looks like it's the same aircraft just withe some minor differences here and there....

i know developing this stuff takes time and effort...

[SkateZilla]

You are saying the full retail price reflects the additional work to get the CC version. It's more the other way around. Without the CC version you have nothing. All module developers have to do the workload AvioDev is doing to get a jet in the air and to fight. When you say "additional work " I don't get it because for me it doesn't feel like there is already 100% work done and now you are working on the additional 20%. It's more like CC is 80% done and AvioDev is selling it as a EB trainer.

 

In the current DCS environment there is nothing to do with a trainer what one can't do with non-armed jets as well. In other word: Where is the benfit of having a trainer?

 

There were also quite a lot of negative posts about the HAWK and the SFM it comes with. Even VEAO said that only very very few customers decided to buy the SFM version. So why did AvioDev take the decision to develop a SFM? Why not saving these efforts and developing the EFM/AFM right away? I know AvioDev is promising the EFM/AFM to come in Spring - still almost 6 months to go. But with all the broken promises from ED and third party developers as well (postponement of AvioJet release showed it yet another time!) I am of utmost caution what and when things will come.

 

SFM is still used by the AI, so it would still have to be developed.

[shagrat]

Why so serious with this (for me) aggressive tone? You are missing my point and please accept my apologies for not making it clearer to you. As I said many posts ago, I don't have a problem paying $50 for one module. That's fine for me. I question the EB version at all and the agrument that these are two complete different jets!

Serious, maybe sarcastic, yes. Aggressive, definitely not...

A jet trainer (especially when multiplayer cockpit support is coming) is used to train people flying jets IRL. So the use would be flight training, learning basic maneuvering in a less complex easier to handle plane.

As with FSX or X-Plane the question: "Why an Airbus? We have a Boeing 727, already!" or "why an F-18 in a civil flight SIM" is simple to answer... because there are people who will buy and enjoy it.

 

Actually nobody HAS to buy these modules. People WANT to buy them.

Some to just fly them. Some to use them as trainers for SIM flying in a virtual squadron. Some simply to support more third party products in the future.

All perfectly valid reasons.

 

What puzzles me is that some people actually think the Aviodev bundle is expensive, when even compared to typical DCS prices it is not... leave alone the usual price and quality of FSX add ons in comparison.

 

So if you don't have a use for a trainer, don't like flying a new interesting plane, or don't want to support the company to develop more/other aircraft, nobody forces anybody to buy it.

But please do not pull the "too expensive" card, just because you don't want(!) to buy it... ;)

[Python]

SFM is still used by the AI, so it would still have to be developed.

 

A bit OT, but on this point, is that planned to change any time soon?

[Flagrum]

A bit OT, but on this point, is that planned to change any time soon?

I doubt it. The AI has to know how the aircraft behaves in specific situations and the SFM, with it rather limited capabilities, is probably ideal for that. There are only a few hand full of variables/parameters that go into the SFM during the flight.

 

A more complex FM is much, much more dynamic and the biggest drawback of computer programs, like the AI, is the inability to react flexible to dynamic changes. The AI would probably have to be improved very, very much to be able to deal with an AFM remotely appropriate. Not impossible per se, but certainly a huge undertaking to implement it.