Four Additional Flaming Cliffs Aircraft

[Fri13]

I guess it never occurred to ED that people buy FC not because of the lower fidelity but to be able to fly the aircraft and their favourite aircraft that aren't available as full fidelity.

The majority of people that buy this product will be ones that are forced to just to keep up to date.

 

If there would be possibility to buy a:

 

Su-25T Clickable

Su-27S Clickable

 

I would fly those, but I can see well how many would still get the FC3 package.

[counter25]

Let us all calm down a bit.

 

Getting new players into DCS should for all of us multiplayer players be a high priority. After all it is other players who make the game alive. Although I will not buy FC4 I do not care if my opponent flies a full fidelity sim or something simplified as long as it feels realistic to me.

 

The advantage of "dumbing down" existing modules is that the development time most likely will be drastically reduced, which frees resources for full fidelity modules (and hopefully a better net-code and some performance optimizations :smilewink:)

 

In fact I think that one big problem of FC3 right now is that the best aircraft for A2A combat are FC3 level. That excludes people like me, who only fly full fidelity modules, from having a competitive aircraft (although the M2K is already quite nice :thumbup:). This problem is finally addressed with the release of the F/A-18C.

 

The only thing I hope is that the multiplayer freeze and performance issues are fixed in due time since it got quite unenjoyable for me.

[XeNoise]

No, honestly I dont think being silent about it would help, you guys would have hyped yourselves into a coma, consider this the ripping of the band-aid off. This is what the comment about FC4 meant. Its meant as a increase of entry level aircraft, and I welcome the thought that it might bring new blood in.

 

Sure all of us here want something new and shiny every time ED suggests anything, but its a business, they need to do what they feel is best for their business, some will say to make money for their limos and private jets, but its for the health of the sim, that means ED needs to be a profitable company, they have to have new money coming in, as well as maintain their current fan base.

 

This means its not always about what we want, but what DCS World needs. ED is working on so much, that focusing on one thing that you disagree with is just wasted energy, they are looking at things like dedicated servers, dynamic systems for single and multiplayer, they are looking at a host of different aircraft, many new maps, some you guys dont know about... many modules in development, not from just ED/BST but a number of 3rd Parties. There is so much going on, but if you want to get mad that 4 low fidelity modules are being added to FC, then I guess you gotta be you.

 

I really cant say any more than I have guys, this is where we are at. Its not changing, you have to understand what FC4 is for, it will all make sense then. If not, be mad, I cant stop that. You can continue to discuss losing something you never had, but understand this is what Flaming Cliffs is for. FC4 isnt for most of us, the Hornet, the Hind, the Viper, the Tomcat, the F-4E, etc, etc... that is for most of us.

Once again, Nine, there was nothing wrong with your communication, it was actually helpful and i thank you for letting us know. FC4 is not meant for us and that's totally fine, it servers it's own purpose and the health of the sim is a priority for all of us. There is no issue at all with this and i don't think that anyone will blame ED for developing it. The only issue was with the first announcement which could have been more explicit about the fact that it won't contain new aircraft, obviously people will think of new planes and the possibility of FC versions of existing and fully modeled modules didn't even came to our mind. Therefore i think that blaming the community for building hype is wrong and unprofessional, it's important to analyze what went wrong and in best case do it better next time. Nobody will hold a grudge here.

[twistking]

hi,

 

it's probably been mentioned before, but i think it is extremely important to clearly distinguish the fc variant from the full fidelity module. this could be done by making the fc version a different lot number f.e., even if the differences that would arise from a different lot don't get simulated.

 

otherwise people might buy the fc version and expecting a full fidelity version (two of my friends nearly bought an fc module, because for them DCS was all about hardcore fidelity and they did not know, that those smiple modules did even exist. luckily the low price made them suspicious)

 

also it will confuse people who seek help, because every online guide, or every helpful thread would need to clarify which version is it about and i could imagine that some newcomers with the fc version might not even be aware of the full fidelity version. this could get super confusing.

 

so i would highly advice to find a good naming convention for the new modules. i think a disclaimer on the shop page will not be enough, since many new customers won't even be aware of the concept of fc.

 

another minor aspect is to be aware of the DCS brand, as of now i think it stands for the hardcore, full fidelity experience and i think it is important to not water that down.

i think of this more of a marketing problem than anything else though: i do think it's a valid strategy to try to grow dcs by opening it to more audiences, as long as this does not change the general perception of the product and brand.

[Stratos]

NineLine, one question, when you guys say "will be FC3 level version of existing modules", does that include 3rd party developers or only ED and Belsimtek? And already released or "already anounced is possible too? Thinking in F-4E and Hind here)

Thanks.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Stratos

[al531246]

NineLine, one question, when you guys say "will be FC3 level version of existing modules", does that include 3rd party developers or only ED and Belsimtek? And already released or "already anounced is possible too? Thinking in F-4E and Hind here)

Thanks.

 

I dont know for sure. I would expect ED/BST though.

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3498583&postcount=202

[Temp89]

Where is my communication the issue, the part where I told you info to curb your expectations? Decide what you guys want, communication or silence.

 

Here's the interview you posted 1 month ago:

 

Q. Will we see survey modules again like FC3 for the casual simmer and especially 'The Century Series' Surely classic air frames are a market seller ;-) – Mizzy

 

A. FC4 with four more aircraft

Flying Legends pack with 8 -12 aircraft …. ?

Century fighters are a big deal and a period I absolutely love, but not priority no.1 at the moment.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3465510&postcount=1

 

When you announce 4 aircraft are being added to FC3, of course people are going to speculate what they are. People did speculate. For a whole month. If you had communicated the FC4 expansion properly, instead of this fragmented Chinese whispers nonsense, then expectations would have been managed. These are basic PR skills.

 

And that false dichotomy of "communication or silence" is laughably transparent.

[titanium]

I have no idea why they decided to conjure up the FC4 name to begin with. If they wanted to do this, why not just say:

"hey guys, in order to attract new players to DCS world we are going to release "Lite" versions of existing DCS planes with simplified systems". Done. That's it. No one would have had their hopes up. No disappointments.

[GhostB]

I have no idea why they decided to conjure up the FC4 name to begin with. If they wanted to do this, why not just say:

"hey guys, in order to attract new players to DCS world we are going to release "Lite" versions of existing DCS planes with simplified systems". Done. That's it. No one would have had their hopes up. No disappointments.

 

The problem was, they hadn't decided WHAT they were going to do, only that they were going to do something, and they'd already decided what to call that something. I don't understand why it was decided it was a good idea put it out there, before even the rough idea was hammered out.

 

Pulled the trigger too soon, and now its all the customers fault for filling the vacuum with their own ideas which turns out, didn't agree with EDs own vision... problem is, ED didn't even know what its vision was, but according to Nineline, its own fault for not predicting that.

 

Please Nineline, I don't even disagree with the business reasoning. But please stop blaming everyone, half of your responses have "Its your fault, not ours we hadn't made up our minds". I'm all for transparency, but this is akin to announcing something as sure thing, and then not even getting close to releasing it for a few years... We're still good for the 30th, right?

[Carlos Danger]

Obviously, the best way to attract "new blood" is to remove the hardware barrier required for entry.

 

I would like to see the ability to fly all FC4 aircraft with only a mouse and keyboard, preferably from the third person perspective. FC4 planes should feel as though they are on rails to make the experience most comfortable for entry level pilots.

 

And while ED is focused on relaxing the level of realism in DCS World, it would make sense to allow all fighter aircraft to regenerate missiles in flight. There should also be an emphasis on cinematic cut-scenes that feature an alternate reality storyline.

 

These features would be appealing to the most prized demographic and flood DCS with new customers!

[Coxy_99]

Hmmm FC4

 

Well aslong as it contains different aircraft, And NOT making already clicky clicky pits FC3 style, I dont mind

 

P.S, Before FC4 I think Normandy map should be finished first :thumbup:

 

And the spitfire out of beta

 

Mig-29 gets its flight model

 

Dedicated servers

 

New damage model

 

Finish the assets pack.

 

I cant see how you can be talking about FC4 yet.

[pyromaniac4002]

No problem whatsoever with taking existing modules and turning them in to FC-level aircraft so long as they aren't going to inherently perform "better" than the full realism counterpart. Money makes the DCS: World go 'round and this is a good quick & easy way to capitalize on existing time and money investments ED & its partners have already made. More money in the DCS: Coffers --> more resources for DCS: World --> more and better development of the product.

 

 

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Everyone lives to fly another day. Compared to some of the other things people have gotten out the pitchforks for, this is even more harmless being that there is comparatively very little new work involved in bringing this to market. It's very hard to see where anyone is getting hurt here.

[Coxy_99]

No problem whatsoever with taking existing modules and turning them in to FC-level aircraft

 

I do ive paid for them already not doing it TWICE.

[Peter5on]

Just give us FC4 jets that can't be modeled in full fidelity like:

 

-Mig-29K for carrier

-Su-35 thrust vectoring

 

-Mig-25/31

-Su-24

 

 

Problem solved

[Carlos Danger]

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Everyone lives to fly another day. Compared to some of the other things people have gotten out the pitchforks for, this is even more harmless being that there is comparatively very little new work involved in bringing this to market. It's very hard to see where anyone is getting hurt here.

 

Ignoring bugs, leaving multiplayer in a state of disrepair, and not honoring the promised features of existing modules is not "harmless".

 

We all want to see DCS grow, but terrible decisions affect everyone who has invested significant resources in this game already. If ED continues to overlook glaring problems with existing modules in favor of new revenue-generating modules, it will develop a bad reputation and experience negative growth.

[Texac]

Just give us FC4 jets that can't be modeled in full fidelity like:

 

-Mig-29K for carrier

-Su-35 thrust vectoring

 

-Mig-25/31

-Su-24

 

 

Problem solved

 

Problem won't be solved because whether for FC or not, the requirements for data and information are the same.

 

FC level aircraft still require PFM, and working systems as these are ED's standards for modules.

 

You will never get any of these aircraft in DCS World anytime soon, especially the russian airframes.

[jackmckay]

DCS lacks in good code structure as basis for upgrades of any kind. Any new update that aims fixing stuff brakes lot of another things. There must be a good code map under all levels. Memory allocation is obvious problem. Tectonic changes in frontend should be exception rather than rule. MP code is non synced across all clients and its quite limited. Hardware resources are extremely high and very expensive. Priority should be code optimization, fc4 should come later.

[pyromaniac4002]

I do ive paid for them already not doing it TWICE.

 

 

You're saying you paid for DCS: M2000C and MiG-21Bis, or what's your point? You got the modules you paid for same as anyone else. I paid for M2000C and MiG-21Bis. But we didn't buy our copies of those modules and the right to dictate how the materials involved in those modules might be used to create other products in the future.

 

 

Whatever you bought previously, if you don't want a simplified avionics model Mirage no one is forcing you to pay for it now. Who are you to say someone else couldn't appreciate it?

 

 

Ignoring bugs, leaving multiplayer in a state of disrepair, and not honoring the promised features of existing modules is not "harmless"

 

 

Completely besides the point. None of this is to say ED and its partners are absolved for neglecting to support their products with the fixes that are necessary and proper. They have an established track record and it's been clearly demonstrated that no matter what they're doing with new developments we can expect roughly the same level of support or incremental improvement at best. I'm just as upset with bugs or poor performance as anybody but I've seen enough to know it frankly doesn't matter what new material they're working on, and I don't see any reasonable likelihood that it's going to change any time soon. FC4, like any new addition to the DCS lineup, is something that has to be judged on its own merit. To say they shouldn't do anything until they fix all the broken stuff is a total non-starter.

[alfredo_laredo]

We are not complaining about something we never had... we are complaining about something we never wanted.

 

DCS has the most loyal and passionate followers but you are missunderstanding why.

 

The reason dcs is what it is and we are like we are its because its a study sim, not a flightsim like many other flightsims out there.

Being a study sim means I have spend more hours learning and studying every module I own, not flying, studying the systems and complexities of it and i love it.

I love to get in that A10c know what makes what if i press it.

 

So when i enter in a full fidelity module into a mp public server i ussually know i May get shoot down by someone who knows 10 key combinations for their f15c to fire a 120c.

do get angry? Hell yeah

Was it my own fault because expectations/tactics? Hell yeah

 

But when i happen to shoot down a few of those “paper planes” and come back home i love it!, and i wanna share that love with people who may want to get into flightsims.

 

The easiest way for me to get new people after they learn the su25t and they like it its to recommend fc3 they could have more fun.

 

But the ultimate goal its for them to buy a full fidelity and enjoy the sim for what it was really design for.. a study sim.

 

My only problem with fc4 its you are shaking the whole community that has put hundreds if not thousands of hours studying a module so you can make a “paper plane” and someone else being able to fly it. With ctrl+e

It maybe wrong, it maybe pride, but it id what it its.

 

Its not our fault; once we put a thousand hours into soemthing to get a sense of ownership and pride of it that we dont want some outsider to do it.

 

Im all for fc4 with new russian planes or anything that adds something new to dcs, not something that we already have.

[Coxy_99]

You're saying you paid for DCS: M2000C and MiG-21Bis, or what's your point? You got the modules you paid for same as anyone else. I paid for M2000C and MiG-21Bis. But we didn't buy our copies of those modules and the right to dictate how the materials involved in those modules might be used to create other products in the future.

 

 

Whatever you bought previously, if you don't want a simplified avionics model Mirage no one is forcing you to pay for it now. Who are you to say someone else couldn't appreciate it?

 

What im saying is i already have an M-2000C a mig-21 heck i own every module

 

FC4 Contains

 

M-2000C

Mig-21

 

And for example 3 new modules in FC4 for example, Yes im paying twice< But then why should i? And if it is the case thats poor a poor business model :thumbup:

 

I also believe ED should come out address the the community in an offical statement instead of the speculations.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Coxy_99

[pyromaniac4002]

What im saying is i already have an M-2000C a mig-21 heck i own every module

 

FC4 Contains

 

M-2000C

Mig-21

 

And for example 3 new modules in FC4 for example, Yes im paying twice< But then why should i? And if it is the case thats poor a poor business model :thumbup:

 

 

Yeah, I'm in exactly the same position. If they're totally limiting it to only being things that were already in DCS and things I already paid to get in full modules, they might need to offer a very compelling price point for me to consider buying it. I definitely don't object to paying something for it because there is some degree of new development work still. But I don't object to the idea outright, like they're not allowed to re-use things that were made for other modules I already own.. That's just being thrifty and no matter how much the nutjobs like us who already sunk several hundred dollars in to the products might kick and scream about it, it's very sound thinking when you're concerned with how to help keep the lights on at ED & Co.

[Coxy_99]

Im not having a dig please by all means a debate but i feel ED are responible. Now if it did include the m2000 and mig21 and 2 new modules or models and those like me and you have m2000 and mig21 id settle for half price on fc4 but that be to much work for ED to take on, like i said ED should let us all know what there plans exactly are.

[Stratos]

Don't expect a M2000 or a MiG-21...

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3498583&postcount=202

 

ED/BST severely limits the FC4 to:

 

Sabre

MiG-15

F-5E

A-10C

 

Wait, those are 4 already!! :D :D

[Coxy_99]

Does not matter what module why should we pay twice?

[mvsgas]

For the last two days so many people a freaking out and in the end, they are freaking about only about their own conjectures. We don't know what aircraft, how much they will charge, how long it will be, etc.

 

People here and the old website where talking about the F/A-18 back as far a 2007, we are just now getting the F/A-18. I think we got time ( probably years ) before we have any complete information of FC4 and what will it have and not have. That is going to be long time if we (the community) is going to freak out about any little information they get.