DCS: F-5E!

[shagrat]

Interresting to see what people think things are "worth". But what is worth? On the consumer side: Worth (in terms of price tag) means a value someone is willing to pay. On the seller side: It's the value someone is willing to receive in exchange of something.

 

For sure developers won't get below their break-even for an expected quantity of sold products. Profit is already within the price. And you can tell be the growing number of developers as well as DLC's that even USD 50 or 60 are enought to be happy. Profit doesnt come with low selling numbers but with quantity and the economies of scale are peerless with software.

 

I wonder if there are any public numbers in terms of customer base and how often a module is sold in the average.

Unlike others it seems some people know something about the efforts and preliminary investments that usually go into such a project.

I guess for most 3rd Parties the revenue, can hardly pay for the expenses and life, let alone compensate the years they invested all or most of their spare time into research, talks to lawyers, negitiations with IP-holders.

Studying horribly expensive aircraft manuals, performance charts etc. late into the night, often before they even have a contract, leave alone the prospective chance to earn some money with it.

 

Others would easily earn much more money concentrating on building propper professional flight simulators for the military or flight schools...

 

Not that I'm unhappy with the current pricing. It fits the market and is obviously viable enough.

 

Just when I compare the price to the "work"/manhours and investments, I see it differently than most.

 

Ok, if a company pushed out their 3rd or 4th module, so they can reuse a lit of code already produced, reduce production efforts, have contracts already signed etc. this may turn out a real financially viable business, but I doubt the first two DCS module sales of a company will make them millionaires. ;)

[WinterH]

For something such as a DCS product, which almost as complex as the real thing, a full manual is a must, one without that is an incomplete product. Full manual is just integral to something such as a DCS module, and lack of it is inexplicable.

 

Thankfuly, every developer now seem to have taken note of that.

 

Discussion of whether one is "forced to" pay for manual or not, seem to me similar to discussing "gender of angels".

 

 

Edit : besides, love the way this thread is devolving, as every expected module thread without news for long... How about we actually try to stick to F-5? :)

[Schmidtfire]

This is quite a silly discussion, as we have no say about what will be included or not. Some modules will always be "more complete" than others. Gentlemen, should we do mods a favor and get back on topic? I start: Anyone know if the Aim-9P will be stock rear-aspect missiles or a more advanced all-aspect variant and what is the most common missiles to use during aggressor training?

 

[some1]

In principle why not not be forced to pay for the manual if you don't want it, after all it was the same for paper copies.

 

Why not expand on this concept a little?

Some people don't want all the repaints, so they should be paid extra too.

Some people will only fly MP so let's make the campaign paid extra. (This already happens in DCS, for different reasons).

Some people are so smart that they don't need training missions, so let's make tutorials paid extra.

Some people will fly only A2A missions, so let's make A2G munitions paid extra.

 

We could go on, these restrictions are even easier to implement than paid manuals....

[KEULE]

Unlike others it seems some people know something about the efforts and preliminary investments that usually go into such a project.

I guess for most 3rd Parties the revenue, can hardly pay for the expenses and life, let alone compensate the years they invested all or most of their spare time into research, talks to lawyers, negitiations with IP-holders.

Studying horribly expensive aircraft manuals, performance charts etc. late into the night, often before they even have a contract, leave alone the prospective chance to earn some money with it.

 

Others would easily earn much more money concentrating on building propper professional flight simulators for the military or flight schools...

 

Not that I'm unhappy with the current pricing. It fits the market and is obviously viable enough.

 

Just when I compare the price to the "work"/manhours and investments, I see it differently than most.

 

Ok, if a company pushed out their 3rd or 4th module, so they can reuse a lit of code already produced, reduce production efforts, have contracts already signed etc. this may turn out a real financially viable business, but I doubt the first two DCS module sales of a company will make them millionaires. ;)

 

Name one company that made profit their first years. Not Microsoft, not Amazon and all the others. Tesla is expected to make its first profit 2020. Not to know if you are earning money tommorrow is day business for self-employed people.

 

In terms of work life balance...thats a topic of its own. Just think of tax consultants working for one of the big four. But hey, if you love what you are doing and/or you made your decision: dont complain.

[pepin1234]

Full manual is just integral to something such as a DCS module, and lack of it is inexplicable.

:)

 

exactly you right. But will be better if we buy it apart. Time/work/personal matter right?

[shagrat]

Name one company that made profit their first years. Not Microsoft, not Amazon and all the others. Tesla is expected to make its first profit 2020. Not to know if you are earning money tommorrow is day business for self-employed people.

 

In terms of work life balance...thats a topic of its own. Just think of tax consultants working for one of the big four. But hey, if you love what you are doing and/or you made your decision: dont complain.

That was not about complaining. It was about value or "worth"...

 

I've not seen any 3rd party or ED complaining, just I realize how much work and invest is involved, that these companies are willing to invest. They are as passionate as us about their supposed hobby and risk a lot.

I really wish these guys to earn some decent money with their modules so they can grow and hire more teams to push development further.

 

The better for the developers the more fun for us. ;)

[KEULE]

That was not about complaining. It was about value or "worth"...

 

I've not seen any 3rd party or ED complaining, just I realize how much work and invest is involved, that these companies are willing to invest. They are as passionate as us about their supposed hobby and risk a lot.

I really wish these guys to earn some decent money with their modules so they can grow and hire more teams to push development further.

 

The better for the developers the more fun for us. ;)

 

Totally agree! Im sure DCS is a worthwhile investment - for both sides. :pilotfly:

[shagrat]

And most of the guys are just flight sim addicted lunatics, not much different from ourselves...

 

Thus I'm sure the F-5E will be a blast on release, and sure they are not delaying the release in any way.

[TomCatMucDe]

Why not expand on this concept a little?

 

Some people don't want all the repaints, so they should be paid extra too.

 

Some people will only fly MP so let's make the campaign paid extra. (This already happens in DCS, for different reasons).

 

Some people are so smart that they don't need training missions, so let's make tutorials paid extra.

 

Some people will fly only A2A missions, so let's make A2G munitions paid extra.

 

 

 

We could go on, these restrictions are even easier to implement than paid manuals....

 

 

 

In general pushing logic to the limit becomes illogical. Besides, I can push the limited of including manuals to the limit and would include nonsense things, for example 10 campaigns...

 

The day people will not want campaigns anymore and it becomes it trends expect to see only DLCs. It's not the case today, but it could be the case for manuals. Devs out significant efforts in somethings that PROBABLY few read them.

 

To me it wouldn't make any difference since I will always get the manual and will always love reading them

[Drag0nWIng]

so on MP deathmatch, what can we do with that 4 bomb rack? : /

[QuiGon]

so on MP deathmatch, what can we do with that 4 bomb rack? : /

 

Ask the Mirage pilots ;)

[TomCatMucDe]

so on MP deathmatch, what can we do with that 4 bomb rack? : /

 

 

 

Yeah! Sure! On which server will you be ? I'll be waiting for you in my AA MIG :D

[Raven68]

That was not about complaining. It was about value or "worth"...

 

I've not seen any 3rd party or ED complaining, just I realize how much work and invest is involved, that these companies are willing to invest. They are as passionate as us about their supposed hobby and risk a lot.

I really wish these guys to earn some decent money with their modules so they can grow and hire more teams to push development further.

 

The better for the developers the more fun for us. ;)

 

I do have my limits on how much I am willing to spend per module, but I do share the same thoughts Shagrat.

[KEULE]

so on MP deathmatch, what can we do with that 4 bomb rack? : /

 

Isnt it more the question what will you do on MP without radar guided missiles? The almighty F15 and Su27 are always there. :P

[Raven68]

Isnt it more the question what will you do on MP without radar guided missiles? The almighty F15 and Su27 are always there. :P

 

Hmmmmm I might turn and run. :D

[KEULE]

Ask the Mirage pilots ;)

 

They get 8 if they want to...

[shagrat]

Isnt it more the question what will you do on MP without radar guided missiles? The almighty F15 and Su27 are always there. :P

The more timeline matching planes are available the more balanced servers will pop up, I guess.

 

MiG-21, F-5E, maybe Mirage 2000C, plus MiG-29A(!) with correct weapons, and some matching AI bombers.

 

And in the future an F-14 against MiG-28... ;)

[Schmidtfire]

Shagrat, I hope for more 1980's MP servers. With ER, ET, AMRAAM and R-77 restrictions. That would also include F-15C and maybe Su-27 in the mix aswell.

[Drag0nWIng]

So so, on their plant,

tiger will be a bomb fighter with 2 missile rail and 560 rounds bullet (for AA game)?

but our mig boyz would have 8 ir seeker if they want... 4 times, bro, 4 times.

LOL

[didilman]

YES F-5E is a pure target for MP.

Shoot fast and run fast or die fast. :)

[mattebubben]

So so, on their plant,

tiger will be a bomb fighter with 2 missile rail and 560 rounds bullet (for AA game)?

but our mig boyz would have 8 ir seeker if they want... 4 times, bro, 4 times.

LOL

 

 

The Mig-21 will not have 8 missiles...

 

Its a known bug and will be fixed.

 

It will only be able to carry 6 missiles at most.

 

And the F-5E has many advantages that negate the Advantage the mig-21 has in number of Missiles.

 

For example the F-5E has MUCH better situational Awareness.

 

The F-5E we are getting will have an advanced RWR (where you can tell direction and Radar type aswell as signal strenght etc)

 

and it also has a better radar that can actually slew around (where as the Mig-21s is fixed) giving you a much wider scan area.

 

So the F-5E is very likely to see the Mig-21 before the mig-21 Sees the F-5E.

 

And what use are those Extra missiles when the enemy is already on your tail?...

 

And the F-5E will also have an advantage in a Gunfight as the Gunsight will most likely be more accurate then the Mig-21 is (in a maneuvering fight)

 

So a decent F-5E pilot should have no real reason to worry that a Mig-21 has more missiles then he does.

 

Especially not if the F-5E gets a Aim-9P all aspect variant (Aim-9P4 or P5).

 

Since going by the Logic More missiles = better aircraft then a Mig-21 with 6 R-60s should be superior to a Mirage 2000 with 2x Magics?...

(for example)

But if you test it you will find that is not the case.

Edited May 18, 2016 by mattebubben

[ST0RM]

Isnt it more the question what will you do on MP without radar guided missiles? The almighty F15 and Su27 are always there. :P

 

This is where ROEs are placed to even things out. The F-5E/MiG-21 would be using GCI to get into place and take advantage of their small size and overcome the lack of BVR capability. The Eagles might be restricted to VIS ID.

 

Your imagination is going to come into play here. Server rules/eras will need to be better matched to prevent a late Su-27/33 with a full load of R-27ERs going against a F-5E with AIM-9Ps. Not unheard of, but you wont get much traffic.

 

-Jeff

[Schmidtfire]

Mattebubben, it's rather fun to see how you write about the F-5E's advantages over the Mig-21 every few pages :P Seems like a lot of people don't understand the importance of a modern RWR for SA. The only way I can see that the MiG-21bis evenly matched is with awacs support and all-aspect R-60M (hopefully fixed soon).

[Vitormouraa]

And tell me about the range and over all performance of the F-5E, if you guys can. :) I'm sure the 21 is faster, isn't it?