Would you be willing to buy multiple F-4 modules?

[Fri13]

There are two sides, the developers and the customers.

 

Customers typically want lower prices, higher quality, and more.

Developers typically want higher prices, less work, and more time.

 

Considering that we could balance things, so that we could pay more money for the hobby, for the work the developers produce, it requires that developers would provide more content and higher quality.  Personally I do not like the idea that Aerges is doing five F1 modules for one price. I would really see them to be such priced that it is profitable for them to make a higher quality, and invest their time so we can pay some more to get little more.

 

The community is as well split to multiple parts, lets say for argument sake A, B, C and D.

A quick glance across the forums we can see that there is whining, wishing, dreaming etc all over the places. It is a picture of a very demanding customer base. But more careful look reveals that it is that A whines about one thing, but is happy for many other things. The B dreams about things, but are happy for many other things etc.

Then eventually there comes a person who just makes a wild claim that "do this or that, it is always wrong, just stop whining" as it would be always the same people who whine about everything everywhere and are never happy for anything.  Simply said, they are totally wrong.

 

What is the best way to get a happy customer? You target 80% of them and you provide to them all they want. Just forget the 20% as you are never going to make them happy. There is as well another way, take the 20% and make them super happy, and ignore the 80% of the customers, and that is easiest way.

Google targets to 80% of the people and ignore 20%. Apple focus to 20% of the people and ignores 80% of them. Both are very famous and successful companies in different ways.

 

And so far DCS World is very much about 20% tactic, you pick a one aircraft that very many wants, and then you choose a variant that will narrow the customer base smaller. And you just make as good you can with that one. Of course it will drawn out people from other groups A, B, C, D etc that comes "I wish we could see variant Y" or "Variant Z would be nice" etc.

 

So would it be so bad thing to try to go after 80% of users like Aerges is now trying? 5 variants.... Something for everyone. So how about making so that people pay base development + their wanted variant one as extra for the extra time and work it did require?

 

Every group would pay for module Z full price as it is the base.

Every variant would be targeted to different audiences, and each will pay something extra over base to get it. Everyone always have the base, and then their chosen extra variant if so wanted. The main heavy work, research, access, time etc done for the base module will cost most. And almost every group could be happy when they get to choose closest to their demands. And there would always be those collectors who want them all.

 

Personally it is nice to get multiple variants like L-39C and ZA, but their difference is so tiny that it is almost like belonging it, but I would have very happily paid 4.99/9.99 extra for that ZA variant.

I totally would dislike the idea about "pay 2.99 for a new livery" or "pay 3.99 for a English cockpit" that is more about what is destroying the gaming industry. As there should be value in what you get. But hey, Epic received 2019 in revenue from their Fortine virtual clothing and such 1.8 billion dollars. The joke is that the virtual T-shirt costs more than a real T-shirt! And yet people go and pay for it!

Just think a while about it, 1.8 billion dollars revenue. But they do have 250 million players.

 

Personally I think that ED so often made sales are hurting the DCS World. The -50%, -33% and -25% discounts are coming so often that people recommends others to wait just couple months and no one needs to pay for full price. The discount as well hurts the value of the product when it is so often discounted as no one wants to be "fool" to pay full price.

Yet I think developers should deserve their income, but make for it.

 

So even the idea that base module would never be discounted, but the different variants could be put in sale here and then, like every one once a year. If you have 5 variants, it is still 4 discounts per year. Or keep the base module discounted here and there and each variant with normal prices. More options for developers, and hopefully more effort to produce more content when they can get good income and money so they can fund couple other projects for next 4-5 years.

 

Eventually DCS World will run out of the most wanted classic aircraft. Then what? Try to produce at the same quality the "neverheard" ones and that majority is not interested? It will not work. So the only real solution would be to start produce a extra variants with a lower price, requiring to own the original module. Like in next 5 years, how many would be willing to pay 24.99 for a F/A-18D? 49.99 for a F/A-18E Super Hornet?  19.99 for a F/A-18A?

 

 

Get to fly with a friend and performing simultaneous air-to-ground and air-to-air missions?

I would guess that the time and effort to produce the D would be highly profitable with the 24.99 price tag (it would be for new players 79.99 + 24.99).

 

If someone would question that is the F-4 profitable, I would argue that there is more profit to offer 4-5 different variants than just one. And the profit:work ratio would be very good to make it so.

 

 

[killkenny1]

44 minutes ago, garyscott said:

 

So did i ! And i used certain things that were rather expensive too . . . how similar we must have been!   What did you fly? 

 

AutoCAD and Solidworks  

 

9 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Eventually DCS World will run out of the most wanted classic aircraft.

 

 

Looking at how many years it takes to develop a single module, it will take a while.

Also at some point there will be DCS Wolrd 3, DCS World 4 and etc. I expect them to upgrade older modules a la A-10 for a convenient price.

 

 

[Nodak]

The  Phantom Phamily tree is too big with too many different branches.  Naval branch with rear pits that aren't even equipped with flight controls vs USAF and exports.  Many different marks of J-79's and wing profiles.  Pick a branch such as the B/N or J/S, but it rapidly turns apples and oranges once you leave that particular branch.  It's not a single either/or equation, it's both, you can do multiple select variants, but only within one specific branch at a time.

 

No one has the resources to cover the entire phantom project doing all variants or even tackling multiple branches at the same time, that's never going to happen, talk about death by exhaustion.  I wouldn't believe anyone who claimed they could.  So your going to have to split them up, anything done to a high standard I'll buy.

[Fangs Out]

So a F-4 Navy module and an Air Force F-4 module

[G.J.S]

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

There are two sides, the developers and the customers.

 

Customers typically want lower prices, higher quality, and more.

Developers typically want higher prices, less work, and more time.

 

Considering that we could balance things, so that we could pay more money for the hobby, for the work the developers produce, it requires that developers would provide more content and higher quality.  Personally I do not like the idea that Aerges is doing five F1 modules for one price. I would really see them to be such priced that it is profitable for them to make a higher quality, and invest their time so we can pay some more to get little more.

 

The community is as well split to multiple parts, lets say for argument sake A, B, C and D.

A quick glance across the forums we can see that there is whining, wishing, dreaming etc all over the places. It is a picture of a very demanding customer base. But more careful look reveals that it is that A whines about one thing, but is happy for many other things. The B dreams about things, but are happy for many other things etc.

Then eventually there comes a person who just makes a wild claim that "do this or that, it is always wrong, just stop whining" as it would be always the same people who whine about everything everywhere and are never happy for anything.  Simply said, they are totally wrong.

 

What is the best way to get a happy customer? You target 80% of them and you provide to them all they want. Just forget the 20% as you are never going to make them happy. There is as well another way, take the 20% and make them super happy, and ignore the 80% of the customers, and that is easiest way.

Google targets to 80% of the people and ignore 20%. Apple focus to 20% of the people and ignores 80% of them. Both are very famous and successful companies in different ways.

 

And so far DCS World is very much about 20% tactic, you pick a one aircraft that very many wants, and then you choose a variant that will narrow the customer base smaller. And you just make as good you can with that one. Of course it will drawn out people from other groups A, B, C, D etc that comes "I wish we could see variant Y" or "Variant Z would be nice" etc.

 

So would it be so bad thing to try to go after 80% of users like Aerges is now trying? 5 variants.... Something for everyone. So how about making so that people pay base development + their wanted variant one as extra for the extra time and work it did require?

 

Every group would pay for module Z full price as it is the base.

Every variant would be targeted to different audiences, and each will pay something extra over base to get it. Everyone always have the base, and then their chosen extra variant if so wanted. The main heavy work, research, access, time etc done for the base module will cost most. And almost every group could be happy when they get to choose closest to their demands. And there would always be those collectors who want them all.

 

Personally it is nice to get multiple variants like L-39C and ZA, but their difference is so tiny that it is almost like belonging it, but I would have very happily paid 4.99/9.99 extra for that ZA variant.

I totally would dislike the idea about "pay 2.99 for a new livery" or "pay 3.99 for a English cockpit" that is more about what is destroying the gaming industry. As there should be value in what you get. But hey, Epic received 2019 in revenue from their Fortine virtual clothing and such 1.8 billion dollars. The joke is that the virtual T-shirt costs more than a real T-shirt! And yet people go and pay for it!

Just think a while about it, 1.8 billion dollars revenue. But they do have 250 million players.

 

Personally I think that ED so often made sales are hurting the DCS World. The -50%, -33% and -25% discounts are coming so often that people recommends others to wait just couple months and no one needs to pay for full price. The discount as well hurts the value of the product when it is so often discounted as no one wants to be "fool" to pay full price.

Yet I think developers should deserve their income, but make for it.

 

So even the idea that base module would never be discounted, but the different variants could be put in sale here and then, like every one once a year. If you have 5 variants, it is still 4 discounts per year. Or keep the base module discounted here and there and each variant with normal prices. More options for developers, and hopefully more effort to produce more content when they can get good income and money so they can fund couple other projects for next 4-5 years.

 

Eventually DCS World will run out of the most wanted classic aircraft. Then what? Try to produce at the same quality the "neverheard" ones and that majority is not interested? It will not work. So the only real solution would be to start produce a extra variants with a lower price, requiring to own the original module. Like in next 5 years, how many would be willing to pay 24.99 for a F/A-18D? 49.99 for a F/A-18E Super Hornet?  19.99 for a F/A-18A?

 

 

Get to fly with a friend and performing simultaneous air-to-ground and air-to-air missions?

I would guess that the time and effort to produce the D would be highly profitable with the 24.99 price tag (it would be for new players 79.99 + 24.99).

 

If someone would question that is the F-4 profitable, I would argue that there is more profit to offer 4-5 different variants than just one. And the profit:work ratio would be very good to make it so.

 

 

Excellently put Sir, excellent.

[Evoman]

On 2/27/2021 at 7:27 PM, DaWu said:

I wouldn’t buy a single variant. Not interested in museum tech. Give me a f22

Look at what a former F-15C fighter pilot has to say about flying the F-4 Phantom.

By the time the F-22 is retired and de-classifed for it to be possible to be considered for DCS it would probably be considered museum tech by then.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Evoman

[upyr1]

25 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

There are two sides, the developers and the customers.

 

Customers typically want lower prices, higher quality, and more.

Developers typically want higher prices, less work, and more time.

 

Considering that we could balance things, so that we could pay more money for the hobby, for the work the developers produce, it requires that developers would provide more content and higher quality.  Personally I do not like the idea that Aerges is doing five F1 modules for one price. I would really see them to be such priced that it is profitable for them to make a higher quality, and invest their time so we can pay some more to get little more.

I think it is safe for the developers to assume that most of their sales are going to happen during the sales events. So that might be a good tactic. Having said I have bought some modules full price near the release. The odds increase based on what is included. So if Aerges does to the 5 F1s and especially if they followed up with 5 Phantoms they could expect this from me

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Nodak said:

The  Phantom Phamily tree is too big with too many different branches.  Naval branch with rear pits that aren't even equipped with flight controls vs USAF and exports.  Many different marks of J-79's and wing profiles.  Pick a branch such as the B/N or J/S, but it rapidly turns apples and oranges once you leave that particular branch.  It's not a single either/or equation, it's both, you can do multiple select variants, but only within one specific branch at a time.

 

No one has the resources to cover the entire phantom project doing all variants or even tackling multiple branches at the same time, that's never going to happen, talk about death by exhaustion.  I wouldn't believe anyone who claimed they could.  So your going to have to split them up, anything done to a high standard I'll buy.

 

 

5 hours ago, Bravelink03 said:

So a F-4 Navy module and an Air Force F-4 module

I think four modules would work. 1 for Early Phantoms (B through D) that would be one branch, An other for the E and F and if possible the G. The next would be a late Navy version J, N and S the last would be British Phantoms

 

[Baco]

The problem is that each module is about 2 years work by the end of the 4th module your first module would be 8 years old, and out dated  

 

ED really has t work on getting more 3rd parties on board and getting revenue from them and ED just upkeep the Engine and produce Apis...

[Harker]

I'd definitely be up for paying for different variants of existing aircraft. Not the F-4, as I'm not particularly interested in that one, but I'd pay for the F/A-18D/F, F/A-18E, F-16D, Mirage 2000-5.

I also think that modernization upgrades would be nice and to sell well, such as in the case of the A-10C II. They can keep current modules relevant as DCS moves forward and more public info becomes available. Although they'd have to be cheaper, again, like the A-10C II.

[HILOK]

11 hours ago, Fri13 said:

So the only real solution would be to start produce a extra variants with a lower price, requiring to own the original module. Like in next 5 years, how many would be willing to pay 24.99 for a F/A-18D? [...]

 

oh i like that idea!  and i think it only makes sense once a module is (completely) out of early access 

[Fri13]

13 hours ago, killkenny1 said:

Looking at how many years it takes to develop a single module, it will take a while.

Also at some point there will be DCS Wolrd 3, DCS World 4 and etc. I expect them to upgrade older modules a la A-10 for a convenient price.

 

There really is not so many left really. 

 

F-14 is done.

F-15 is under development

F/A-18 is soon done (or already done basically)

F-16 is under work (and at good speed soon done)

A-10 is done

A-7 under development

F-8 under development

A-6 planned/dreamed

F-86 is done

MiG-15 is done

MiG-21 is "done"

MiG-19 is "done"

Eurofighter Typhoon under development

Apache is soonish to be released

Mi-24 is soon to be released

MiG-23 is under work

 

That basically covers already most wanted aircraft what comes to profits. If the ED talks etc are true. 

The other aircraft that can be done and is left are about more earlier cold war era ones, like F-100 series, F-4, F-111 and then it pretty much stops there.

 

Then we need to go more for a WW2 era that has already the major ones released (Typhoon, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Messerschmitt...). 

So even there starts to be more about scrapyard left to be seeked to find more. 

 

The another WW2 era simulator has easy time as they don't need to provide such details and such simulation level as majority of the DCS third party studios wants to. They can provide instead quickly a new aircraft at fairly rapid succession and deep to multiple different variants quickly. And if we go to other more free games where you can gain the aircraft with game internal points, they can produce huge amount of content by simply having a lot less details than previous one. 

 

So there is two main ways to get more content to DCS World. 

 

1) Lower the quality requirements and provide simpler ones (there are couple studios already in DCS that would be willing to do so....), but ED doesn't want and majority of the ED customers doesn't want more than top notch (why we have so strong fanbase as F-14, C-101 or F/A-18 provides examples for it)

 

2) Start to get more content that requires less work as major work is already done. This means either a new variants with small changes (like AV-8B+ next to AV-8B N/A as it is just a radar scope page from F/A-18C and remodeling the nose by removing the DMT. Razbam is going to charge full price for that change.... even when ED is that does the hard work for A-G radar). Or you start to produce more simpler additional content like ground units and new buildings, ships and such that doesn't require so deem system modeling. This is like what is already searched for. 

 

The best way IMHO is to get more studios to DCS World, maintain the high standard (and require it from the studios, even existing ones) and support them to make multiple variants for their made modules. So I don't personally like the idea that example other studio gets to do a F/A-18D if the ED made C model, as it would require that other studio gets codebase, 3D files and all from ED and it is just legal nightmare. Otherwise we would get variations, differences and just heavy rework that delays the manufacturing. So if studio has license for a F/A-18, they get to do all the variants. 

 

This would put ED to be more careful that how they license the modules to which studios. That what is the developers capabilities, skills etc. Like first show off with a cold war era aircraft that has no such digital systems and likely is easier in that manner, but can be much more difficult by flight modeling as there is no FBW system to assist to make things "easier". 

Once shown the quality, one could be offered with a modules that offers more variants to even work for. Like many would be willing to pay full price for F-14D, if Heatblur would just have all the required documentation and information to build one.

 

We do have a problem in DCS that is offering "top tiers" at first. Like F/A-18C instead F-18A that turned to be referred as F/A-18A in 1980. Then go to offer a B and then C and D.

In these other games you are given low-tier ones, and then expected to "work your way" to "high tier" and eventually "top tier" with points (or money). 

 

We do not have those options.

 

[upyr1]

54 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

There really is not so many left really. 

 

F-14 is done.

F-15 is under development

F/A-18 is soon done (or already done basically)

F-16 is under work (and at good speed soon done)

A-10 is done

A-7 under development

F-8 under development

A-6 planned/dreamed

F-86 is done

MiG-15 is done

MiG-21 is "done"

MiG-19 is "done"

Eurofighter Typhoon under development

Apache is soonish to be released

Mi-24 is soon to be released

MiG-23 is under work

 

 

That basically covers already most wanted aircraft what comes to profits. If the ED talks etc are true. 

The other aircraft that can be done and is left are about more earlier cold war era ones, like F-100 series, F-4, F-111 and then it pretty much stops there.

 Even if things are limited to the most popular aircraft there is still a long list to go. There are a few Mirages missing, I figure for the century series we'll need at least the F-100, F-104, F-111 and if possible the F-105. The RedFor MiG-17 and MiG-27 and full fidelity MiG-29, Su-27 and a Su-25 and an older Su-24. There is also the possibility of combined Arms II and adding Fleet ops.  but I think the most popular planes are getting done and it is now getting more important to add asset packs.

 

54 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

The best way IMHO is to get more studios to DCS World, maintain the high standard (and require it from the studios, even existing ones) and support them to make multiple variants for their made modules. So I don't personally like the idea that example other studio gets to do a F/A-18D if the ED made C model, as it would require that other studio gets codebase, 3D files and all from ED and it is just legal nightmare. Otherwise we would get variations, differences and just heavy rework that delays the manufacturing. So if studio has license for a F/A-18, they get to do all the variants. 

 

This is a no brainer in my view. Though I do believe that Eagle currently has the rights to the code so if a developer leaves the DCS market the plane won't be abandoned. Which would be a good contract condition. We don't want another HAWK where VEAO Simulations left the DCS market.

 

 

54 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

This would put ED to be more careful that how they license the modules to which studios. That what is the developers capabilities, skills etc. Like first show off with a cold war era aircraft that has no such digital systems and likely is easier in that manner, but can be much more difficult by flight modeling as there is no FBW system to assist to make things "easier". 

Once shown the quality, one could be offered with a modules that offers more variants to even work for. Like many would be willing to pay full price for F-14D, if Heatblur would just have all the required documentation and information to build one.

 

We do have a problem in DCS that is offering "top tiers" at first. Like F/A-18C instead F-18A that turned to be referred as F/A-18A in 1980. Then go to offer a B and then C and D.

In these other games you are given low-tier ones, and then expected to "work your way" to "high tier" and eventually "top tier" with points (or money). 

 

We do not have those options.

 

Agreed here. Right now with the F-16 and F-18 there is no place to go except for older versions. I'd assume with more modern aircraft the older versions would be easier to build I could be wrong. Either way Historic mode the older versions desirable though whether one starts with an A model block 1 and goes forward the cost would be a main reason someone will decide to back away. So if Magnitude introduces the MIG-21 Bison and the MiG-21F I would hope ED reorginzes the page so that they all fall under the MiG-21 and we can buy the F, Bis or Bison separately or together just so it doesn't get mega crowded. 

[Fri13]

25 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

 Even if things are limited to the most popular aircraft there is still a long list to go. There are a few Mirages missing, I figure for the century series we'll need at least the F-100, F-104, F-111 and if possible the F-105. The RedFor MiG-17 and MiG-27 and full fidelity MiG-29, Su-27 and a Su-25 and an older Su-24. There is also the possibility of combined Arms II and adding Fleet ops.  but I think the most popular planes are getting done and it is now getting more important to add asset packs.

 

As said about those exra planes, but that is the problem here, we can not see MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-27 or Su-24 here. The REDAIR side is cut out as is because Russian law. 

The MiG-17 is like a MiG-15, so while it is not strictly a MiG-15 variant, it is closer to it than say MiG-19 as own aircraft.

 

Combined Arms I see as ED own part for the DCS World, as it is tightly coupled with the whole game. All the ground units AI logic, the mission designing, the unit behavior is part of the DCS World, the Combined Arms just adds capability command units and drive one at the time. If they would do "Combined Arms II" instead just improve the Combined Arms, it would be big mistake after starting to sell CA at high price again without really offering anything to it.

Same thing is with fleet operations, part of the Combined Arms as it is after all handling the core DCS elements. That is why example Super Carrier is special one as you would get more stations for carrier than just "go ship there" kind thing.

 

Like there is multiple aircraft on RED side, and multiple variants that could be made. But just impossible legally at the moment. 

Why so many major iconic aircraft are in few left. 

 

25 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

This is a no brainer in my view. Though I do believe that Eagle currently has the rights to the code so if a developer leaves the DCS market the plane won't be abandoned. Which would be a good contract condition. We don't want another HAWK where VEAO Simulations left the DCS market.

 

Yes, luckily that was changed by the ED after VEAO did their trick.... 

 

25 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Agreed here. Right now with the F-16 and F-18 there is no place to go except for older versions. I'd assume with more modern aircraft the older versions would be easier to build I could be wrong. Either way Historic mode the older versions desirable though whether one starts with an A model block 1 and goes forward the cost would be a main reason someone will decide to back away. So if Magnitude introduces the MIG-21 Bison and the MiG-21F I would hope ED reorginzes the page so that they all fall under the MiG-21 and we can buy the F, Bis or Bison separately or together just so it doesn't get mega crowded. 

 

I see the first version being something that is the profitable, doesn't need to be timely in proper order. But more about the development requirement. So the base model would be a good starting point for business.

In this sense a early model can be better as it might be simpler and easier to do. And then you get more time to develop the more complex and more modern feature rich variant with the income from the first one. And when you anyways need to own the base model to get access to the "best of the best" variant, why not to buy it at start, support the development and enjoy from the cold war era aircraft and then get later the access to newer? As skipping the purchase wouldn't help to get access to later variants.

 

The market in DCS is now shrinking, many have what they want and other aircraft that can acquire enough income are shrinking in numbers, what just leads to situation that studio can not maintain a couple modules for 10 years and expect to see funding to develop new major aircraft just by that money for 5 year development. Why they would need to make reasons to buy the older work by producing something new from it. 

Like no one can make a P-80 Shooting Star fighter as sexy and profitable as F-14 is. One can't do a F-82 Twin Mustang as profitable as F/A-18C. 

While there is huge amount of all kind aircraft out there, the time and effort to do them must meet the development costs and then some good extra.

 

Like I would love to see de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver as a U-6A Beaver. Unique very short takeoff and landing, first aircraft in DCS to allow operations from a snow or water, a great trainer for very respectful aircraft in civilian industry. I think there could be a good market. Similar is with the famous Antonov An-2, with military service as well. 

These two would open up DCS more for a "civilian market" like the L-39C offers. Transporting cargo, troops, equipment etc just from one airport to another, from airport to FOB or FARP etc. Possibility to do the COIN missions as opposite side etc. With the similar capability land on water or snow etc.

But who would do such aircraft? It would need to be someone who takes the risk in first place for it. They are not attractive or wanted like A-10 and F-16 etc. 

 

We have simply ran out the aircraft options in next 5 years. I do not see it option to start pricing same modules again with some cockpit refreshments like A-10C II for everything. 

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

As said about those exra planes, but that is the problem here, we can not see MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-27 or Su-24 here. The REDAIR side is cut out as is because Russian law. 

 

Right now Eagle is working on a full fidelity MiG-29 so it looks like the law only covers post Soviet versions. The su-27 is the same age as the MiG-29 there is a chance an early Flanker could happen.  There is a MiG-23 in the works the 27 is a ground attack flogger. The original fencer came out in 74 we don't need the latest Russaf versions at most a soviet or an export version. 

 

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

The MiG-17 is like a MiG-15, so while it is not strictly a MiG-15 variant, it is closer to it than say MiG-19 as own aircraft.

So we've been talking about selling multiple versions of the current planes. I would like the mig-17 and perhaps bellsim tech should get first dibs.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

Right now Eagle is working on a full fidelity MiG-29 so it looks like the law only covers post Soviet versions.

 

AFAIK they are only searching is it possible, not 100% confirmed they are doing it. But I have not followed the project as they will announce it later. 

 

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

The su-27 is the same age as the MiG-29 there is a chance an early Flanker could happen.

 

That would be nice thing, but it is more about what is in use than what is age.

 

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

  There is a MiG-23 in the works the 27 is a ground attack flogger.

 

Yes, as stated.

 

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

The original fencer came out in 74 we don't need the latest Russaf versions at most a soviet or an export version. 

 

I would be all in for a Su-24, but I take first the mod if it gets released. 

 

[3WA]

I can see multiple variants of different modules, I'm just not into older planes.  I like my planes / heli's as new as they can get.  90's and up.

Edited March 1, 2021 by 3WA

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Combined Arms I see as ED own part for the DCS World, as it is tightly coupled with the whole game. All the ground units AI logic, the mission designing, the unit behavior is part of the DCS World, the Combined Arms just adds capability command units and drive one at the time. If they would do "Combined Arms II" instead just improve the Combined Arms, it would be big mistake after starting to sell CA at high price again without really offering anything to it.

Same thing is with fleet operations, part of the Combined Arms as it is after all handling the core DCS elements. That is why example Super Carrier is special one as you would get more stations for carrier than just "go ship there" kind thing.

If there were a combined Arm II I would expect it to use the code from the Combined Arms module add vehicles, maybe some features fix the VR compatibility and a lot of other problems and current users would be able to get it at a discount. If we were to get Fleet ops: I would expect more than a click here and go there interface. In both cases I would expect them to pay for new assets and other changes necessary for DCS. 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

AFAIK they are only searching is it possible, not 100% confirmed they are doing it. But I have not followed the project as they will announce it later. 

 

 

That would be nice thing, but it is more about what is in use than what is age.

I thought it had been confirmed and in both cased they have been through upgrades over the years, so an 1980s early models may happen. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

Yes, as stated.

 

 

I would be all in for a Su-24, but I take first the mod if it gets released. 

 

I'd buy it as well. 

[Biggus]

I'll buy them all at full price, including the recon birds.

 

I think picking a couple of core models and building modules around them, with a couple of optional extra upgrade models is probably a good idea.  An early E main module with a late E or an Arnie bird for an additional fee, for example.  A J model, with an S and a J(UK) and possibly even a Super J.  C/D module, with some of the later upgrades that some of the Ds got.  That sort of thing.

[rkk01]

On 3/1/2021 at 11:22 AM, Fri13 said:

 

There really is not so many left really. 

 

F-14 is done.

F-15 is under development

F/A-18 is soon done (or already done basically)

F-16 is under work (and at good speed soon done)

A-10 is done

A-7 under development

F-8 under development

A-6 planned/dreamed

F-86 is done

MiG-15 is done

MiG-21 is "done"

MiG-19 is "done"

Eurofighter Typhoon under development

Apache is soonish to be released

Mi-24 is soon to be released

MiG-23 is under work

 

That basically covers already most wanted aircraft what comes to profits. If the ED talks etc are true. 

The other aircraft that can be done and is left are about more earlier cold war era ones, like F-100 series, F-4, F-111 and then it pretty much stops there.

 

Then we need to go more for a WW2 era that has already the major ones released (Typhoon, Mustang, Thunderbolt, Messerschmitt...). 

So even there starts to be more about scrapyard left to be seeked to find more. 

 

[... snip...]

 

 

Seriously...?!

 

this seems very blinkered / short-sighted / US centric view...!

 

I really don’t think DCS is going to run out of assets to model anytime soon (this wishlist sub is far too popular...)

 

There are plenty of assets still to consider, even if Russian, some European and latest US stuff is still heavily classified...

 

eg Tornado, Jaguar, Rafael, Gripen, Harrier, Draken, Hawk(!), Buccaneer, Hunter

 

Possible older Soviet - MiG 25 being the greatest...?

 

Lots of older US eqpt as well

 

Back on topic...

 

Pricing and content would need to be considered on an individual basis...

 

Not sure I’d buy more than one Phantom as a straight plane collection type offer... although additional modules at say $25 might be tempting

 

Another idea would be to package up with other “enabling” assets.  

 

So, for example if there were two “core” modules, say USAF / USN... I’d be unlikely to buy both...

 

but a UK Phantom add-on with Ark Royal and an AI Buccaneer would be an instant buy - and open up a new UK / FAA product line

 

 

ETA - and that’s only fixed wing... plenty of helos to go at

Edited March 2, 2021 by rkk01

[upyr1]

13 hours ago, 3WA said:

I can see multiple variants of different modules, I'm just not into older planes.  I like my planes / heli's as new as they can get.  90's and up.

 

You might not be interested in Old Smokey, but you have got to admit the F-4 is a good plane for this discussion. There  12 major models countless blocks and upgrades combined with a long list of nations to use them. 

[tosmonaute]

If a F4E and an UK FGR2 to become real yes i would buy both.

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, rkk01 said:

 

Not sure I’d buy more than one Phantom as a straight plane collection type offer... although additional modules at say $25 might be tempting

 

Another idea would be to package up with other “enabling” assets.  

 

So, for example if there were two “core” modules, say USAF / USN... I’d be unlikely to buy both...

 

but a UK Phantom add-on with Ark Royal and an AI Buccaneer would be an instant buy - and open up a new UK / FAA product line

 

 

ETA - and that’s only fixed wing... plenty of helos to go at

 

I have problems with asset packs, but if we must have them they need to be bundled with theaters and aircraft. 

Though ideally x amount of module should go to adding assets to dcs core. I know I was more willing to pay full price for the Jeff because Deka is working on a free Chinese assets pack.