Is it a bird? Is it a super bird?

[Sarraceno]

 

 

 

Bye

Phant

 

Pretty much :D

[pepin1234]

Let’s think the manufacturer of this aircraft pay to take this aircraft to a simulator. We are not playing in that game if this is the case...

[kolga]

Because a test bed for a flight model does not require the detailed 3d model, cockpit and associated avionics. It requires a flying brick which acts like the real thing.

 

Various devs have said many times that the flight model is intertwined with the 3d cockpit and engine systems (3d models being the fastest/easiest?). I admit you know far, far more about software development than me, but what M3 says and what devs have been saying for a long time just seems to match up.

[Tread_Head57]

At M3 dev meeting:

 

1. "We're all set to announce the Christen Eagle in two weeks"

2. "No, no, no! Let's make everyone guess what we're making"

1. "Why"

2. "Because everyone will think it's funny when our new plane turns out to be a civilian bi-plane and not a new fighter"

 

Announcement day:

[cichlidfan]

Various devs have said many times that the flight model is intertwined with the 3d cockpit and engine systems (3d models being the fastest/easiest?). I admit you know far, far more about software development than me, but what M3 says and what devs have been saying for a long time just seems to match up.

 

The output of data to the instruments is important to ensure that they reflect the same data that is affecting the flight model. However, this does not require actual modeling of the instruments but merely a software environment that can capture the data that would be displayed. You don't need to model the gauge to see the data that it would be displaying.

 

Think Helios. It is merely capturing the data. It would work whether the 3d cockpit existed or not.

[Tread_Head57]

:D

M3 to the pit of misery!

[Trueno]

this post is getting better and better :yes::clap_2:

[kolga]

The output of data to the instruments is important to ensure that they reflect the same data that is affecting the flight model. However, this does not require actual modeling of the instruments but merely a software environment that can capture the data that would be displayed. You don't need to model the gauge to see the data that it would be displaying.

 

Think Helios. It is merely capturing the data. It would work whether the 3d cockpit existed or not.

 

I stand (sit?) corrected, but the FM takes the longest so you might as well do a full aircraft IMHO (and M3's as well).

[Raven68]

:D

M3 to the pit of misery!

 

:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol:

[Battis]

SERIOUSLY DISAPOINTED!!! But still, all the complaining is just shouting into the wind. All I can do is NOT buy this thing.

[BritTorrent]

I think it'll be fun. I'm planning on buying it. I enjoy flying flight simulators for the *flight*. The combat is just the icing on the cake.

 

And the simple fact is, no other simulator models flight quite as realistically as DCS, and certainly not with the same graphical quality and performance.

 

I've thought for a long time that there's scope within DCS for civilian modules if they had some form of interesting mechanics (helimed, search and rescue, police helicopter etc). This isn't just a Cessna 172, it's a high performance aerobatics aircraft. So it'll offer an interesting experience to those willing to learn it.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I bet the EAA did this.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

People really need to stop doing this. If you genuinely want an aerobatic plane in DCS then fine, go ahead. But if you're buying a module purely to "support the devs" you're shooting yourself in the foot. This is a business, and development decisions are driven by market demand. Not forum posts. Not wishlists. Not asking "please make this plane" in a developers forum. Not complaining when a module is released that you don't like. Its driven by what will and what will not sell.

 

When you buy a trainer or a civvie plane or something you don't actually want, all you're doing is telling the developer that those planes are in demand, which only encourages them to make more of those planes because they cost very little to make and will sell. You aren't "supporting the developers", you're just ensuring we won't get any interesting planes out of them.

 

If you want combat planes, buy combat planes and avoid this completely. The clearest message to LNS that we want combat modules would be if this biplane doesn't sell at all. If you want to "support" LNS, go buy the MiG-21. A lack of sales of this biplane and a spike in sales of the MiG-21 would be the clearest message that they need to make combat planes.

 

This is the most rational point on these forums. Bying everything is counterproductive. If you buy broken products, developers will create more broken products. If you buy every little side product developers will create more side products.

 

I've been thinking about this whole thing and the direction DCS has taken of late.

 

Firstly - The whole intentional hype train this week did not work at all for this module in the context of Digital Combat Simulator. Sure, the explanation is that this is a step towards more authentic WW2 aircraft - which is OK - but such hype for a non-combat module in a context where surely everyone expects a combat-capable aircraft (even the Yak can be fitted with rockets)... is beyond me.

 

Secondly - If this is indeed the reason for the lack of polish and updates on the MiG-21 I think it is an inexcusable move that sadly tells something about the state of the industry when modules/dlc/expansions are left unattended to push out more products. Money needs to be made in the business - that is just the nature of things - but a product should be made feature complete at the first possible convenience and made sure it is fit for purpose (i.e. not ridden with bugs and with exceptable performance). And people somewhat accept the fact that this is an interleaved process with multiple modules. But even that is within the given context - which is combat.

 

But there is a but.

 

Firstly - Developers may choose to create any kind of module they wish. We as consumers are not entitled to choose what modules are made. We can however affect what gets sold and what doesn't. M3 chose to create this module for two reasons - To build themselves expertise on creating propeller aircraft, and because they do the studying, why not complete the study-module as a product?

 

Secondly - I was pondering - apart from the context of combat - why do we not want non-combat? There are legitimate scenarios where you would be expected to operate at or near airfields with civilian traffic first and foremost. And think about it - what other sim has the handcrafted environments we have and will have in the near future with DCS 2.5? And the flightmodels? I admit, I haven't been touching civ-sims for a while, but all I've read and heard is that DCS boasts the best flight models and systems modeling there is.

 

And there is another thing that M3 mentioned - opening DCS up to other-than-military-players. As long as the focus on the engine-side is primarily on the combat side I see no harm in this. It might open up possibilities we at this point don't know exist, and it allows the players from civ-sims to jump into DCS to try it out and hopefully stay as fully fledged players. There are never too many simmers here, agreed?

 

Thirdly - On the technical standpoint, to have a working simulation for civilian flight, I only really see two issues with DCS. The ATC/radio system is a joke, and for long-haul aircraft the maps are too small. The latter, I assume, will not be rectified, as DCS maps are about combat theaters, not the simulation of a single globe. But the ATC is being worked on by ED - and as we have not heared of it for a long time I assume it has been reworked quite thoroughly.

 

Yes, we also need IFR-plates for flying in IMC, but those would be welcome regardless of aircraft. So all in all - adding civilian assets to DCS does not in my opinion require any changes to the core game that would lessen or drive resources away from the combat aspect of the simulator.

 

 

 

So would I have chosen CE2 as an aircraft if I ever made one? No, not likely. I might have started with a simple GA aircraft, and if I ever made it as a real module I would price it accordingly. An aerobatics aircraft in that sense seems odd. It is not really a good aircraft to simulate civilian traffic (as opposed to having a Dakota (which is also a military aircraft) or a Cessna Caravan-style aircraft that can emulate a hybrid airfield with military and civilian traffic.

 

On the topic of pricing... 30 bucks?! I mean, the dumb one is not the one who asks, but the one who gives... but I can see this module lacking sales with that price point. Fair enough - the license might have cost the so much that they needed to up the price, but I assume this is going to sell well only during sales. I mean, the WW2 asset pack has the same price and that has things controllable in CA, and things that shoot back and populate the WW2-world... Heck, the A-10C at the moment is 40 euros! Just 10 more and you get an infinite amount more of systems and weaponry...

 

 

 

 

TLDR - The hyping did not at all correlate with the module in the context of DCS. The pricing does to me seem excessive. And I don't see any real harm in having civilian assets and modules in DCS, quite the contrary. I hope this drives players to the sim.

 

 

 

At this point in time I'm not interested in the module myself, but I have nothing against it. Just the circumstances.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[Riverseeker]

Nice auto-goal M3

 

ç_ç

[Knock-Knock]

[SeraphimGray]

I'm tired with the promises. You can try to justify about everything. It's time to deliver, starting with completing the MiG-21. I had been supporting DCS with buying most of the modules, on a first day of release. Some I flew just few times but still bought them to support the 3'rd parties ED and DCS as such. Including modules from 3'rd parties that re-focused and released a new module when the first one was still incomplete.

I did really understood the niche business of the flight sim and difficulties that ED and 3'rd parties are facing.

Enough is enough however and this doesn' thave anything to do with the hype train, or the fact that I could just pass and not by the civilian module. This situation showed me there is no vision, why should I invest in something which lacks a long term consistency.

Unless there is a clear indication it's otherwise, from now on I'll approach it as any other title and buy only those modules that I'm actually going to spend time on.

 

You simply need to grow up. Unlike most people here, I did not waste countless hours hyperventilating over new unknown module. :lol:

 

And it took me less than 5 minutes to find they are using this as test-bed, so I could not care less about countless hours people spend hyperventilating over new module.

 

Overall hype that was created actually helped me to learn there will be new WW2 modules in future. Good for 5 minutes of time invested.

 

Since I vote with my money, not crying on forums, it was fun reading this thread. Also, since I own Mig-21 module, I remember them as jokers from training missions too... so for me, someone over there has great sense of humor. :megalol:

 

Everyone now crying over this little bird, will buy anything they roll out afterwards, regardless you feel disappointed. If not, then you're not their customer, so who cares. There were people who got clues right and if there was more people dedicated and with attention span longer than 2 minutes, maybe, just maybe would not be disappointed now.

[BlueMax]

ref mig21... why should someone polish the mig 21 ? read the forums..all are sittung around and waiting for NEW NEW NEW NEW birds for all their monstrosities of simpits in their build on garages...i guiess some even have some stolen sidewinders glued to their armchairs. this joke bird is just showing the so called community, what people are thinking of customers.. and i am pretty shure, there ARE people who will buy this useless biplane.

 

btw never think that i am impressed but this childish " rep " points :-)

Edited December 9, 2017 by BlueMax

[Donut]

You simply need to grow up. Unlike most people here, I did not waste countless hours hyperventilating over new unknown module. :lol:

 

And it took me less than 5 minutes to find they are using this as test-bed, so I could not care less about countless hours people spend hyperventilating over new module.

 

Overall hype that was created actually helped me to learn there will be new WW2 modules in future. Good for 5 minutes of time invested.

 

Since I vote with my money, not crying on forums, it was fun reading this thread. Also, since I own Mig-21 module, I remember them as jokers from training missions too... so for me, someone over there has great sense of humor. :megalol:

 

Everyone now crying over this little bird, will buy anything they roll out afterwards, regardless you feel disappointed. If not, then you're not their customer, so who cares. There were people who got clues right and if there was more people dedicated and with attention span longer than 2 minutes, maybe, just maybe would not be disappointed now.

 

As paying customers, we are allowed to voice opinions on products that we have purchased or may want to purchase. I don't think there is any arguing that the way they teased this over the past week was a little much. Now that we know what is being developed, people rightfully want to know what has happened or will happen with support for the MiG-21 and what future modules will be developed. From Dolphin's statement (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3317982&postcount=1), there is no mention of future WW II modules. We have known about the Corsair for a couple of years now and it is a little discouraging that it seems that little to no progress has been made on it. The Eagle II could be a great addition to DCS and fun to fly but I believe it has unfortunately created more questions than answers for a lot of people looking to see what direction Magnitude 3 is headed in regards to past product support and future development. Let us all hope that we receive the answers to our questions and let us offer our support and best wishes to Magnitude 3 on their current and future plans of sharing the love of aviation.

[BlueMax]

You simply need to grow up. Unlike most people here, I did not waste countless hours hyperventilating over new unknown module. :lol:

 

And it took me less than 5 minutes to find they are using this as test-bed, so I could not care less about countless hours people spend hyperventilating over new module.

 

Overall hype that was created actually helped me to learn there will be new WW2 modules in future. Good for 5 minutes of time invested.

 

Since I vote with my money, not crying on forums, it was fun reading this thread. Also, since I own Mig-21 module, I remember them as jokers from training missions too... so for me, someone over there has great sense of humor. :megalol:

 

Everyone now crying over this little bird, will buy anything they roll out afterwards, regardless you feel disappointed. If not, then you're not their customer, so who cares. There were people who got clues right and if there was more people dedicated and with attention span longer than 2 minutes, maybe, just maybe would not be disappointed now.

 

I guess you forgot to switch on the sarcasm button ? :-) JOKE ? HUMOR ? I guess the prices people pay are everything else but joke or humor...ref the mig 21.. the more i play it the more i find... but obviously thats general policy ? to launch half done models but for full price and then PROMISE that everything will be good in one, two three years or never. I don t want to pay full price for half done stuff ..normally my car comes with seats also, not promised that they will be added later on...but you are right. we elecet the future with our bucks...

Edited December 9, 2017 by BlueMax

[BlueMax]

As paying customers, we are allowed to voice opinions on products that we have purchased or may want to purchase. I don't think there is any arguing that the way they teased this over the past week was a little much. Now that we know what is being developed, people rightfully want to know what has happened or will happen with support for the MiG-21 and what future modules will be developed. From Dolphin's statement (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3317982&postcount=1), there is no mention of future WW II modules. We have known about the Corsair for a couple of years now and it is a little discouraging that it seems that little to no progress has been made on it. The Eagle II could be a great addition to DCS and fun to fly but I believe it has unfortunately created more questions than answers for a lot of people looking to see what direction Magnitude 3 is headed in regards to past product support and future development. Let us all hope that we receive the answers to our questions and let us offer our support and best wishes to Magnitude 3 on their current and future plans of sharing the love of aviation.

 

May be you already discovered, that there are some companies, which tink, the only right a customer has is to PAY and then keep silence ? :-)...

[Koriel]

Poor judgement in building hype for a non standard DCS Module. If it was just an announcement with the reason for it's development explained the community wouldn't have judged this imminent (?) release so hard. But who can blame everyone? From the devs of the MiG-21 everyone had expected something extraordinary, not euhm.. this... We expected a BANG and got a fizzle.

[NeF]

So.. you have an answer to your question, yeah it's a bird, a'ight? A super one? Let the crickets decide. I might myself go KRIII-KRIII, one day.

[Toxic]

fizzle...

[Trueno]

Nice auto-goal M3

 

ç_ç

 

:smilewink: :doh:

[Shadow KT]

I just wanna say, I enjoyed myself looking trough 30 pages of people hyping up, just so I can see what happened after the announcement

 

Cheers