Military vs Civil Simulation

[Exorcet]

Cost value proposition. Civilian aircraft are simpler, and easier to model. More information about them is available so fewer hurdles to their creation. And, has been pointed out, there is a much larger market for civilian flight sims, than military ones (god only knows why). So if a company looking to make a module looks at it, he sees this:

 

I can spend years of effort, researching difficult to obtain information, modeling incredibly complex systems, and selling them to a smaller audience by making a military module, or i can spend a quarter of that time making simpler modules and selling them to a larger audience by doing a civilian one.

 

It's a no brainer.

One would wonder why anyone would come to DCS in the first place instead of going to FSX, etc. Large markets can create small market vacuums. If everyone leaves military sims to make civil ones, a huge military vacuum forms which allows a dev to make huge profit. It's not so simple as just going for the large market. If that was the case flight sims wouldn't exist at all. They are a niche, civil included.

[Bullfrog_]

This is a combat related sim... Adding general aviation to this sim would ruin it! Last thing we need is a bunch of turds running around in their FSX quality Cessna 1/72's etc

 

 

How would it ruin it?

 

It's not like it would force you to fly it or even fly with them. Furthermore, civilian aircraft often over laps with with operations you're doing in military aircraft. They both fly in the same air. If you take off from Nevada, military aircraft aren't going to be the only ones flying there.

 

 

Plus this stuff happens as well

 

 

Is that a civilian plane in combat with a T-27? :lol:

 

I'm not super interested in flying civilian planes, but I am interested in flying with them

Edited December 31, 2015 by Bullfrog_

[Tirak]

One would wonder why anyone would come to DCS in the first place instead of going to FSX, etc. Large markets can create small market vacuums. If everyone leaves military sims to make civil ones, a huge military vacuum forms which allows a dev to make huge profit. It's not so simple as just going for the large market. If that was the case flight sims wouldn't exist at all. They are a niche, civil included.

 

DCS is virgin ground for new companies, FSX has already achieved market saturation.

 

The only way to get profits from a relatively small demand selling something that costs you greatly to make, is to charge exorbitant amounts of money for the product. High demand low supply is a poor position for a consumer to be in, and prices part of the community out of their hobby, which lowers player base, which means less of a varied combat environment as fewer and fewer pilots can fight because they can't afford the game.

[Exorcet]

DCS is virgin ground for new companies, FSX has already achieved market saturation.

I see a civil vs mil DCS marketing achieving something similar. If everyone does civil modules, it just because easier to justify military modules. Civil modules won't take away military ones.

 

The only way to get profits from a relatively small demand selling something that costs you greatly to make, is to charge exorbitant amounts of money for the product. High demand low supply is a poor position for a consumer to be in, and prices part of the community out of their hobby, which lowers player base, which means less of a varied combat environment as fewer and fewer pilots can fight because they can't afford the game.

I see the demand staying the same as it is now though, as will the development costs, so the price shouldn't go up. It may go down if the total market grows with civil modules.

[Tirak]

I see a civil vs mil DCS marketing achieving something similar. If everyone does civil modules, it just because easier to justify military modules. Civil modules won't take away military ones.

 

I disagree, why make military modules if you can cut your overhead to a fraction of what it is now? The only reason military modules are currently the norm is because that's all that's accepted by DCS at the moment, open the floodgates to civil aircraft, there is no reason to continue making military ones. You gain market share and cut overhead.

 

I see the demand staying the same as it is now though, as will the development costs, so the price shouldn't go up. It may go down if the total market grows with civil modules.

Demand will stay the same, but supply will fall as companies turn away from less profitable military modules, or increase costs because they compare their profits to those of companies doing only civilian modules.

[Exorcet]

I disagree, why make military modules if you can cut your overhead to a fraction of what it is now? The only reason military modules are currently the norm is because that's all that's accepted by DCS at the moment, open the floodgates to civil aircraft, there is no reason to continue making military ones. You gain market share and cut overhead.

For similar reasons you don't go to FSX. In addition to that, factor in developer interest and resources.

 

The very worst case I can see is that everyone instantly abandons military modules and goes civil. At which point the untapped demand for military modules automatically makes them worthwhile. If we didn't have devs interested in making military modules, it might be a bit of a worry, but that's not the case.

 

 

Demand will stay the same, but supply will fall as companies turn away from less profitable military modules, or increase costs because they compare their profits to those of companies doing only civilian modules.

I don't see why they just make both. Also, if civil modules are so simple, why not sell them for less? A single company may not do that, but competition would drive prices in that direction. As it stands the PGDM 777 is $90, more than any DCS module by far. They don't offer a Cessna.

 

In fact, complex planes seem to be pretty popular in FSX addon lists:

 

http://fsxgetstarted.com/aircraft/

 

You even have military aircraft in a non military sim.

[Schnittertm]

I disagree, why make military modules if you can cut your overhead to a fraction of what it is now? The only reason military modules are currently the norm is because that's all that's accepted by DCS at the moment, open the floodgates to civil aircraft, there is no reason to continue making military ones. You gain market share and cut overhead.

 

 

Demand will stay the same, but supply will fall as companies turn away from less profitable military modules, or increase costs because they compare their profits to those of companies doing only civilian modules.

 

Depending on the plane and on the sophistication of the plane the costs might actually not be that much lower or lower at all for certain planes to model, just think of the PMDG aircraft that are modeled to exacting standards or the up and coming A-320X by Flightsim Labs currently entering the beta stage, which will also, as it looks, be a simulation of the Airbus A-320 that is as complex if not more so than most planes in DCS, at least from a modeling perspective and what the developer wants to achieve. There might not be as much of a market for the highly modeled and overly complex airliner planes either.

[Tirak]

For similar reasons you don't go to FSX. In addition to that, factor in developer interest and resources.

 

The very worst case I can see is that everyone instantly abandons military modules and goes civil. At which point the untapped demand for military modules automatically makes them worthwhile. If we didn't have devs interested in making military modules, it might be a bit of a worry, but that's not the case.

 

No, the worst case isn't everyone drops and moves on, that would be rediculous, it will be gradule. Companies will take on civilian projects to help their bottom line, they'll couch it as, 'we're doing this so we can make the military side profitable'. But more and more resources will go towards that side as it makes them more money. It'll be easily justified as they're a company and they need to make money, but military projects will start getting pushed back. The need to keep the civilian side up to date will drag out fixes for the military side, resources needed for producing new military aircraft will go to supporting and creating the more profitible wider spread modules. The military modules will jsut keep getting pushed back further and further, always still "Being worked on" but never coming out, not even hitting the beta releases we're getting depressingly used to seeing.

 

 

I don't see why they just make both. Also, if civil modules are so simple, why not sell them for less? A single company may not do that, but competition would drive prices in that direction. As it stands the PGDM 777 is $90, more than any DCS module by far. They don't offer a Cessna.

 

In fact, complex planes seem to be pretty popular in FSX addon lists:

 

http://fsxgetstarted.com/aircraft/

 

You even have military aircraft in a non military sim.

 

A 747, while a complex beast on its own, is nothing compared to the highly stressed and refined complexity of a Tomcat or F-15E. It doesn't have a fire control radar, electronic countermeasures, weapon guidance systems, afterburners, radar warning receivers, ect. ect. ect. And, they're an open book, no hunting through obscure data files to source out information about how it works, it's all right there, easily availible to replicate.

 

Civilian passenger aircraft simply aren't in the same league.

[Exorcet]

No, the worst case isn't everyone drops and moves on, that would be rediculous, it will be gradule. Companies will take on civilian projects to help their bottom line, they'll couch it as, 'we're doing this so we can make the military side profitable'. But more and more resources will go towards that side as it makes them more money. It'll be easily justified as they're a company and they need to make money, but military projects will start getting pushed back. The need to keep the civilian side up to date will drag out fixes for the military side, resources needed for producing new military aircraft will go to supporting and creating the more profitible wider spread modules. The military modules will jsut keep getting pushed back further and further, always still "Being worked on" but never coming out, not even hitting the beta releases we're getting depressingly used to seeing.

 

It just does not make sense to me how combat sims can exist at all if civilian modules are completely superior. DCS could not have even started. In my opinion, either military sims aren't that much harder to make a profit with, or the combat devs just aren't interested in civil modules. In either case, mil modules will survive.

 

 

 

 

A 747, while a complex beast on its own, is nothing compared to the highly stressed and refined complexity of a Tomcat or F-15E.

Even then, the F-14 and F-15 are planned DCS modules. They could have been WWII aircraft. What made the devs choose to go down the difficult unprofitable route?

[garengarch]

Why do you figure that if the devs weren't making civvy planes they would make military ones?

 

I don't think that 's true.

That is, if they weren't making Cessnas for DCs they wouldn't be making anything, so how does it harm the military sim side?

 

Anyway, not meaning to be argumentative, have a Happy Ne'er everybody.

Edited December 31, 2015 by garengarch

[Tirak]

It just does not make sense to me how combat sims can exist at all if civilian modules are completely superior. DCS could not have even started. In my opinion, either military sims aren't that much harder to make a profit with, or the combat devs just aren't interested in civil modules. In either case, mil modules will survive.

 

Remember DCS's roots, it came from LOMAC, which is rather arcadey, and a contract with the USANG, high fidelity simulation was spawned from the government contract, not market pressure, and it was an aside that the A-10C was then given to the gaming market, it wasn't the gaming market that spawned it and gave it to the ANG as a bonus.

 

Even then, the F-14 and F-15 are planned DCS modules. They could have been WWII aircraft. What made the devs choose to go down the difficult unprofitable route?

 

The WWII market is overly saturated, between IL-2 and more arcadey games like War Thunder, the WWII aircraft market is well served, WWII games are on the decline because people have been bombarded with WWII themes over and over, making them less palatable for the consumer, limiting market share.

[Czar66]

Long time MS Flight Simulator enthusiast here ( since 98 ).

 

The thing is.... DCS lacks the whole globe "thingy" to explore/use, that's one of the main appeal on FSX or similar to newcomers.

 

 

We have navigating + combat in a single flight with an amazing set of aircraft already and growing in a exciting direction. Making a branch of products for only navigating and sightseeing without a complete continent available or a continent to make travel unique and demanding is pointless. 'MS Flight' comes to mind.

 

I can see some fast trips with a single prop engine in a map as caucasus but the meat on those flight sims is the world scope, especially for freighter jets or commercial airliners.

 

Finally, for commercial jets, you'll be head to head with competent companies that already delivers 100% fully functional aircraft and a community already engaged with tons of paid addons in their games. If ever that goes according to plan, a big chunk of our DCS pilots would like 1 military ac over 5 civil only ac anyway.

 

Maybe similar cents were tossed before, but there's mine.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Czar66

[ec-swr]

DIGITAL CIVIL SIMULATOR Yes!!! :thumbup:

[statrekmike]

In my entirely subjective opinion, I think DCS should stick with military aircraft, it makes sense to do so for a variety of reasons.

 

1.) The maps are a issue, FSX, X-Plane, and P3D all work well because they have the entire globe to work with. You can fly your long distance birds from one continent to another as they were designed to do and more importantly, the runways and airports all function relatively like they should. The scale of titles like FSX has costs, while the maps may be global in scale, they do lack the potential detail we see with the Nevada map, even after-market environment graphics for FSX tend to be resource hungry.

 

2.) Assuming they were to start releasing civilian aircraft right now, what exactly would they do in the DCS environment? How long can you fly around Nevada or the Black sea map in your 172 before it all seems kinda pointless? How many heavily abbreviated flights can you take in a 747 before you just go back to FSX where those planes are in their element?

 

3.) Why bother with civilian aircraft directly when you can simply fit that style of play into the military context? Would it not make more sense to give those civil aviation folks a AWACS to fly, a KC-135, or a AC-130? Heck, you could even put them in recon aircraft and the like. It would just make more sense to go that route than to just awkwardly throw a bunch of civil aircraft in a environment built around military action.

 

4.) I think this one is probably the most obvious and important. We already have FSX. We already have P3D, and X-Plane, what can DCS do for civil aviation that those products are not already purpose built for? Why not let DCS be the sole product that really goes after the hardcore combat aircraft niche instead of forcing another identity on to it that others already do better? What do we stand to gain?

 

Seriously, think it about it. If you want to fly a 172 or a Airbus, you already have THREE options to choose from, why make DCS something it is not just so you can have a fourth?

[FanBoy2006.01]

Just my two cents. Years ago a Microsoft flightsim enthusiast told me how much mil sims suck and how great Microsoft Flight Sim is.

 

Well i could fly the aircraft and land that he gave me to fly. But when I gave him DID F22 to fly he could do jack squat. And I am not talking about the avionics.

 

I like civil sims. But mil sims give you a reason to fly from point A to point B. It is not just like driving a buss.

[Sporg]

As a reply to the comments "We have FSX, IL-2 etc. etc., so why do we need civilian aircraft in DCS?" I have one important reply:

The flight model.

 

In my opinion, none of the other simulators/games I have tried have a flight model that is even close to providing the fidelity in all corners of the flight envelope (and in ground handling) that DCS AFM/EFM models do.

 

The reason I would love civilian aircraft in DCS is that here I would be able to get a better idea how these aircraft really feels to fly, also when pushing them.

 

To me it is a good thing that there is variation: military, semi-military, special purpose, civilian.

As long as there is costumers for it, go for it.

Might attract more developers too.

 

Only important condition for me would be: It needs to be up to DCS AFM/EFM standard to provide something new, otherwise they might as well stay where they are.

[Exorcet]

In my entirely subjective opinion, I think DCS should stick with military aircraft, it makes sense to do so for a variety of reasons.

 

1.) The maps are a issue, FSX, X-Plane, and P3D all work well because they have the entire globe to work with. You can fly your long distance birds from one continent to another as they were designed to do and more importantly, the runways and airports all function relatively like they should. The scale of titles like FSX has costs, while the maps may be global in scale, they do lack the potential detail we see with the Nevada map, even after-market environment graphics for FSX tend to be resource hungry.

I don't see a map issue so much, as the maps are already small for what we have. Still, if a map globe was so vitally important, why not make one as an add on? Choose NTTR/BS for combat and the globe for everything else.

 

2.) Assuming they were to start releasing civilian aircraft right now, what exactly would they do in the DCS environment? How long can you fly around Nevada or the Black sea map in your 172 before it all seems kinda pointless? How many heavily abbreviated flights can you take in a 747 before you just go back to FSX where those planes are in their element?

I might occasionally go back to FSX if DCS did not have a globe, but I'd prefer DCS because it would be an all in one package with better physics. Having a globe is not the sole factor for longevity, if you'd get bored flying around the current maps in a civil plane, I guess it's not something for you. I've taken tour flights around both maps with existing modules already and I'd like to do the same with different aircraft. I'm still not tired of it.

 

3.) Why bother with civilian aircraft directly when you can simply fit that style of play into the military context? Would it not make more sense to give those civil aviation folks a AWACS to fly, a KC-135, or a AC-130? Heck, you could even put them in recon aircraft and the like. It would just make more sense to go that route than to just awkwardly throw a bunch of civil aircraft in a environment built around military action.

I'm all for AWACS and transports too. Leaving DCS open to civil aircraft doesn't prevent them from coming along.

 

4.) I think this one is probably the most obvious and important. We already have FSX. We already have P3D, and X-Plane, what can DCS do for civil aviation that those products are not already purpose built for? Why not let DCS be the sole product that really goes after the hardcore combat aircraft niche instead of forcing another identity on to it that others already do better? What do we stand to gain?

DCS is better. Add civil aircraft and it will cover both ends of the spectrum while having better flight models and great system fidelity. I haven't tried P3D, but FSX and X-Plane definitely don't overshadow DCS.

[Fuzzy_bear]

oh... can you just imagine the ranting and forum posts when the first youngster thinks it would be so cool to shoot down an airliner just for laughs...

 

hardly think civil is the way to go when pretty much everything in the DCS world is designed to kill something else...

 

However... military variants of civil aircraft that have been appropriated accordingly for military purposes such as transport, scouting, AFAC etc.

That would seem feasible albeit intangible even if just made as Ai aircraft.

[garengarch]

oh... can you just imagine the ranting and forum posts when the first youngster thinks it would be so cool to shoot down an airliner just for laughs...

 

hardly think civil is the way to go when pretty much everything in the DCS world is designed to kill something else...

 

However... military variants of civil aircraft that have been appropriated accordingly for military purposes such as transport, scouting, AFAC etc.

That would seem feasible albeit intangible even if just made as Ai aircraft.

 

Again, only relevant to multiplayer.

[Tirak]

Again, only relevant to multiplayer.

 

Um, multiplayer should be an important concern, we're not playing Strike Fighters 2 after all :noexpression:

[Exorcet]

oh... can you just imagine the ranting and forum posts when the first youngster thinks it would be so cool to shoot down an airliner just for laughs...

No different from team killing, which rarely happens anyway. Note that the situation you bring up is only possible if civil and mil aviation is mixed by the mission designer. Also note that there are aerobatics servers that prohibit combat. We don't get forum wars just because someone joins such a server and crashes into people, etc.

 

hardly think civil is the way to go when pretty much everything in the DCS world is designed to kill something else...

Why does that matter though? By the way the P-51 has a "civilian" option. I'm not talking about the TF-51, you can remove the weapons from the actual P-51 module. The UH-1 and Mi-8 are not only usable as non military, they have user support in that area in the form of missions and liveries.

[SparxOne]

I've not taken the time to actually read through every single page but from the few I've read, I did find some interesting stuff, my first would be that I clearly wouldn't mind seeing civilian modules come up and actually get mixed in scenarios with military ones, imagine how fun things could actually be and imagine the types of scenarios we could have (VIP escort in a hostile zone, interception of illegal flight, Air Force one attacked hahaha, who knows, your imagination is the only limit), interesting from my opinion.

 

Than something I clearly wouldn't want is to see the development of the military branch reduced or slowed because of the civilian one, I would clearly hope to see a totally separate team of devs for both branches.

[Darkwolf]

Whoaw this is drifting far :P OP has asked for personnal opinion on wheter you'd like to see civ planes or not, i don't recall seeing any query for a speculative analysis of the flight sim industry :P

[statrekmike]

I don't see a map issue so much, as the maps are already small for what we have. Still, if a map globe was so vitally important, why not make one as an add on? Choose NTTR/BS for combat and the globe for everything else.

 

Adding a globe module seems like a good solution but you end up with a couple of problems. The first is that we don't really know if the DCS terrain engine can handle that scale on a level that would satisfy VFR flying. Those who fly 747's at 40,000 feet may not mind rather basic textures or terrain modeling but we really don't know how well the DCS engine can handle a entire globe.

 

The second issue is that you will have to find a way to support 3rd party improvements on a existing map since we all know that the civilian players will want to encourage the FSX terrain payware modders to make content for the DCS globe map. This would be a logistical nightmare with DCS in its current configuration.

 

 

I might occasionally go back to FSX if DCS did not have a globe, but I'd prefer DCS because it would be an all in one package with better physics. Having a globe is not the sole factor for longevity, if you'd get bored flying around the current maps in a civil plane, I guess it's not something for you. I've taken tour flights around both maps with existing modules already and I'd like to do the same with different aircraft. I'm still not tired of it.

 

I don't have a issue with flying without shooting, it is not that I find civilian flying boring, it is that I don't really see how you can make DCS a "all in one" solution that will satisfy both the civil and military flyers equally. Everything about DCS (as it stands now and in the known future) is geared for combat flying in some form or another. If DCS were to push to become the "all in one" solution, I fear it would get bogged down with expectations from those who have been so used to the 3rd party content (of wildly varying quality) that they are used to on FSX or X-plane.

 

I'm all for AWACS and transports too. Leaving DCS open to civil aircraft doesn't prevent them from coming along.

 

I think this is where you could get a good compromise. C-130's, E-3's, KC-135's, and even militarized Piper Cubs and the like are the perfect compromise. You could still do civil style flights but also open up options that actually contribute to DCS's core intention as a product.

 

 

DCS is better. Add civil aircraft and it will cover both ends of the spectrum while having better flight models and great system fidelity. I haven't tried P3D, but FSX and X-Plane definitely don't overshadow DCS.

 

DCS does have great flight dynamics, great weapons and systems modeling, and even great terrain modeling due to the smaller scale. What it does not have is any real provisions for FSX style gameplay and in order to get that stuff working, you are looking at a far more involved process than what we find with FSX and the like. The problem here is that every new airplane, every patch, every terrain choice, and any other addition you can think of has to go through ED directly. This would clash badly with the expectations of those coming from FSX since those third parties did not need to deal with such a thing, they could just release their content directly to the consumer without any sort of quality standards, without waiting for Microsoft to integrate needed features or systems, and without having to wait on Microsoft's patch schedule.

 

With DCS, everything has to go through ED and while this is fine with military level stuff, it will really cause friction with the massive civil aviation crowd who are used to having a HUGE selection of addons that release direct.

 

The other issue is cultural. FSX and the like have been around a long time and have their own cult followings. Those folks are very, very used to how things work for FSX and may find that the differences with DCS hard to live with (slower content releases, less third party freedom). You may also see some friction in the community. You would have some players on the civilian side demanding more attention without realizing that they are not the dominant playerbase for DCS. This could cause friction on the forums that simply does not need to be there.

 

At the end of the day, I don't have a huge issue with civil aircraft in DCs, I just can't really find a good reason as to why it would be a good idea to push in that direction. DCS is a combat sim and the ONLY one that really does what it does. Why should it assume the responsibility of being a "all in one" solution when that invariably would lead to compromises on one level or another. DCS is just not a open enough platform to get the kind of content you might expect for something like FSX and the like and to be honest, that is what makes DCS kinda special, there are harsh standards that civil cims have yet to assume and probably could not without significant pushback from 3rd party developers who are used to a more lax system.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Having general aviation and airline traffic would add a lot towards atmosphere and narrative, the latter being something that flight sims are sorely lacking in, but civil aircraft would probably not sell all that well. Why bother developing Airbuses and Boeings when the consumer base wants MiGs and Bugs?