Cessna 172

[Fri13]

18 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Seeing that the poll is 2:1 against yeah I’d say that’s a safe assumption. It would be 1,000x more profitable to make one for this other big civy flight sim.

 

Your math is off.

1) 2:1 means 200% difference, not 1000x.

2) The C-172 is already in any other civilian flight simulator, why you think you will be 1000x more profitable there than in DCS that has none? 

[Northstar98]

On 3/5/2021 at 4:44 PM, Fri13 said:

 

Actually ED has been developing the new weather system for 5 years at least, well before the MSFS20 was even rumored. It was just logical thing to do in improvements. BUT, instead ED going for a cheap clouds and integrating a real weather system like was the trend back then, they started with a actual weather system development from the moisture development to clouds etc. And it is not wonder that Microsoft has been with similar way as well, because they were after all developing totally new engine from scratch instead just trying to bolt something in to MSFX. 

 

So it isn't about competition, just normal evolution. 

Yeah except we heard very little details about it and seemed to be more of an afterthought, then as soon as MSFS2020 came out the clouds and new lighting system seemed to be getting much more attention, and the lighting system was hastily released with the initial builds of 2.5.6.

I doubt it was purely coincidental.

Quote

I personally didn't really get the trainers back then in the DCS, as you can crash so many times you want to learn one module. But, let's say that the new maps, lighting system and all made flying far more interesting than just a combat, as there is more things to do than just do combat in 12'clock, 0 wind and 0 everything. So it educated me that the trainers are actually very much fun to fly, especially the Yak-52. And I still don't like the WW2 era fighters.... Not for me.

For me I like having trainers as they provide a good stepping stone for new people, I know I'd personally be more comfortable learning a trainer than being thrown into an F/A-18 for instance.

Trainers are also easier to build and complete, of course there's the situation with the Yak-52, and who can forget the Hawk.

Quote

So I would like to see a Cessna 172 in DCS, if not for enjoyment, then at least compare it to others that how it behaves. And maybe that is something people are afraid, that it would not be up to standard in elsewhere and it would then be used as a weapon against other modules by not being "good" when it isn't. 

I mean, I'm not particularly interested in the 172 at all, and I probably wouldn't purchase it, but at the same time I wouldn't say no to it, nor would I advocate against it - it's a matter of priority plain and simple.

Personally I'm more interested in small, narrow body jet airliners and transport aircraft - like the Boeing 727; which also had military service in the USAF as the C-22.

Quote

Those are the things that really needs big improvements, upcoming FLIR overhaul is very much needed. Hopefully it will include the sensor updates as well, the coming damage modeling is huge thing, after all we are the ones who are taking fire and damage and not some civilian airliner. 

 

Electronic Warfare could be improved multifold just with very simple modeling, as it is so terrible, and yet we have no top modules with some kind electronic jammer and counter-jammer systems etc. Heck, even a chaff and flare that any other simulator use is just rolling a dice. Huge changes could be made with very simple and small changes. And they could have been done like 10 years ago already. 

We can only hope - personally with EW, even approximated and guesstimated systems are better than nothing at all.

The basics of DECM are already known. And the rest of it we know the principles.

For effectiveness against certain threats, I reckon going by introduction date would be decent enough.

It would be a lot better than what we have right now - simple noise jamming (an OECM technique).

FLIR and EO improvements (like an actual contrast system) is important if tanks and ships ever get proper countermeasures that block IR/optical lines of sight.

Quote

That is why I almost still laugh when I hear that DCS stands for "Digital Cockpit Simulator" as everything outside the cockpit is... Not really simulated.

Yeah, I'm kinda starting to see that too unfortunately.

Some aspects are better than others, and there will always be limitations. But just an example; going through the database of ships, and looking at the sensors - it's quite an eye-opener.

And DCS doesn't simulate the difference between 2D and 3D RADARs, it doesn't even model RADAR bands either (even simplified).

I could go on about xyz for ages until I die of old age.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Andy1966]

I would think that if someone made a 172 or most any other plane that was up to DCS standards, and protocols, I don't think ED would have a problem with it. It would also be an avenue for someone to do a not so complicated plane to learn the ropes so to say, and move on to more complicated projects. to be honest, I kind of like the idea.

[norbot]

3 minutes ago, Andy1966 said:

I would think that if someone made a 172 or most any other plane that was up to DCS standards, and protocols, I don't think ED would have a problem with it. It would also be an avenue for someone to do a not so complicated plane to learn the ropes so to say, and move on to more complicated projects. to be honest, I kind of like the idea.

Magnitude 3 LLC already did that with the Christen Eagle II.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

2) The C-172 is already in any other civilian flight simulator, why you think you will be 1000x more profitable there than in DCS that has none? 

Because way more people own MSFS than DCS and products like that sell way better there. Only 20% of civ flight sim players do combat missions (according to the Navigraph Survey). It’s a different market. So 80% of people who want a Cessna 172 would buy it for another sim vs DCS
Just look at how fast 3rd parties have been able to create something like a full system regional jet for FS2020, in seven months. Whereas a DCS Cessna would take 18 months and then spend a year in early access. It’s easy to tell how much more money and players there are in civy sims. DCS is tiny by comparison. Besides selling less copies a DCS module requires an elaborate damage model which civ sims don’t need. A dev like Caranado could not easily port planes over to DCS like they can between the civ sims. 
MSFS was the top selling PC game on Steam at launch. I’m not trying to compare games here but you guys just don’t get it. There is no future whatsoever for any company to make a “Cessna 172 flying game” or module that competes with MSFS, that’s a dead end. ED can keep DCS alive only by not trying to imitate another flight sim with resources nobody else can compete with. The fact that DCS is a combat simulator keeps it distinct in this market. Losing that, it would be swallowed up by MS

Edited March 5, 2021 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

Your math is off.

1) 2:1 means 200% difference, not 1000x.

 

The votes are 40 vs 23 right now. So that’s roughly 2:1. Referring to the poll, not hypothetical sales numbers. 

[Fri13]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because way more people own MSFS than DCS and products like that sell way better there.

What harm would the Cessna 172 do in the DCS World? 

Don't you see that Cessna 172 in the DCS World would open possibilities to bring more customers to DCS World that eventually buy some military multirole fighters etc, when they would become interested about them?

 

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Just look at how fast 3rd parties have been able to create something like a full system regional jet for FS2020, in seven months. Whereas a DCS Cessna would take 18 months and then spend a year in early access. It’s easy to tell how much more money and players there are in civy sims. 

 

Are you really claiming now that larger customer base = faster development = higher quality?

 

 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

What harm would the Cessna 172 do in the DCS World? 

If it was profitable it would have been done by now. Civilian aircraft modules in DCS would try and push the sim to a realm it just can’t be in. So the idea makes no sense. 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Are you really claiming now that larger customer base = faster development = higher quality?

Yes. Why would it not be? The results are plain to see. 
 

This subject just diverts off course into comparing games so forget it. 

Edited March 5, 2021 by SharpeXB

[norbot]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If it was profitable it would have been done by now. Civilian aircraft modules in DCS would try and push the sim to a realm it just can’t be in. So the idea makes no sense. 

The Yak-52 and the Christen Eagle II are civilian aircraft modules in DCS.

[Northstar98]

On 3/5/2021 at 8:59 PM, SharpeXB said:

This subject just diverts off course into comparing games so forget it. 

And I wonder who always seems to be the first to bring them up...

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Exorcet]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If it was profitable it would have been done by now. Civilian aircraft modules in DCS would try and push the sim to a realm it just can’t be in. So the idea makes no sense. 

 

 

Not quite. Was the F-18 not profitable in 2012? Obviously not, it was just that no one had gotten around to making a module of it.

 

And I don't know what you mean by pushing the sim into a realm it can't be in. Civil aircraft don't push DCS anywhere, they simply add more planes to the sim.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Exorcet

[Northstar98]

Just now, Exorcet said:

Not quite. Was the F-18 not profitable in 2012? Obviously not, it was just that no one had gotten around to making a module of it.

 

And I don't know what you mean by pushing the sim into a realm it can't be in. Civil aircraft don't push DCS anywhere, they simply add more planes to the sim.

 

Exactly.

[Fri13]

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If it was profitable it would have been done by now. Civilian aircraft modules in DCS would try and push the sim to a realm it just can’t be in. So the idea makes no sense. 

 

That is why we have Yak-52 and we have Christen Eagle II as they are profitable even without weapons.

 

19 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes. Why would it not be? The results are plain to see. 

 

No, you can not speed the development with the money. 

You can not have 100 cook making one dish no matter how you pay for it, it become better dish because of that.

You can not make a better module because you have likely 10x more buyers than the other module. 

 

 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

No, you can not speed the development with the money. 

 Can you speed it up with less money?

 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

That is why we have Yak-52 and we have Christen Eagle II as they are profitable even without weapons.

How can you assume that the Yak-52 and CEII are profitable? They’re still in Early Access! For easy civilian planes with no weapons or complex systems they sure are are taking forever to complete. Maybe that’s because they aren’t appealing in a combat simulation and nobody is buying them. 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

How can you assume that the Yak-52 and CEII are profitable? They’re still in Early Access! For easy civilian planes with no weapons or complex systems they sure are are taking forever to complete. Maybe that’s because they aren’t appealing in a combat simulation and nobody is buying them. 

 

If you read backwards, you will understand....

[SharpeXB]

Just now, Fri13 said:

 

If you read backwards, you will understand....

Read backwards? 

Ok so the Y52 and CEII have been in EA for 2 1/2 years! That’s not an indication of being successful or profitable at all. 

[Northstar98]

On 3/5/2021 at 11:03 PM, SharpeXB said:

Read backwards? 

Ok so the Y52 and CEII have been in EA for 2 1/2 years! That’s not an indication of being successful or profitable at all. 

How long has the Viggen been in EA again? I guess it can't be successful or profitable...

Edited January 16, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Fri13]

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

 Can you speed it up with less money?

 

So now you argue that because one can not develop anything without money, that it is opposite that if you have lots of money you can rapidly produce something and you get best quality out there because you just have customer base so big that in future you willl get lots of sales. 

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Read backwards? 

 

You know, like what has been already said about the Yak-52 and L-39 etc being in the game...

 

11 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Ok so the Y52 and CEII have been in EA for 2 1/2 years! That’s not an indication of being successful or profitable at all. 

 

F/A-18C Hornet has then been a failure? The F-16 is a failure? 

Was this the reason why Razbam wanted to get AV-8B N/A out of Early Access in 2018 so they could get increase in profits and they can then start to produce the quality and speed?

F-14 seems to be in trouble while still being Early Access....

Or JF-17 is still such that it is not profitable...

 

Seriously, the Early Access doesn't indicate anything about not being profitable.

To quote ED you can go check Wags some videos, but point is, without Early Access many modules wouldn't have been possible because they didn't have funding to complete the project from start to end and only then release as completed. Yet, here we are, people pay a lot for unfinished, uncompleted products and it makes profits to run the product to complete state and continue generate money, as at the moment the product comes out of the Early Access doesn't mean that everyone owns it at that moment and it will never generate income.

 

How much a "Early Access" generates income to developers is not a question here. 

The Cessna 172 could be dropped as ready on the moment to market or mostly completed, and it would still sell.

 

If someone wants to fly a Cessna 172 to perform trainings in approaches or just navigating, or just enjoy the DCS World maps quality, you could just fly it in DCS instead go to buy a another simulator, install it and do it there. 

One could do COIN missions or search and rescue missions using it. 

 

DCS would benefit from a various civilian vehicles to add a lot to the military conflicts and military duties, operations etc. 

And there will be a lot of players in DCS World that would like to buy something small simple civilian aircraft like Cessna 172, maybe because they enjoy about flying and not always just about blowing stuff up?

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

How long has the Viggen been in EA again? 

Yeah but that’s a complex combat aircraft. The CEII is a simple module by comparison. The Hornet took longer to finish but it’s the Hornet. I don’t see any of the civilian sim developers having planes that spend 3 years in beta test.

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

So now you argue that because one can not develop anything without money, that it is opposite that if you have lots of money you can rapidly produce something and you get best quality out there because you just have customer base so big that in future you willl get lots of sales. 

Yes that’s a safe assumption. Prove me wrong. 

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

F/A-18C Hornet has then been a failure? The F-16 is a failure? ,

Again, These are obviously much more complex than the CEII so it’s understandable that their development time is longer. But the Hornet is nearly finished. Why does it take almost three years to finish a simple civilian prop plane? Answer: because not enough people bought it to fund its development. And people didn’t buy it because a civy plane like that just doesn’t belong in DCS. That same plane would sell very well in a civy sim. 

[Evoman]

On 3/5/2021 at 4:07 PM, norbot said:

The Yak-52 and the Christen Eagle II are civilian aircraft modules in DCS.

The Yak-52 was done because ED was contracted by someone to make it for them. And as part of the deal ED would get the rights to include it in DCS.

The Christen Eagle II from what I understand was done as a passion project because there were a already a lot of devs and others within DCS that were very familiar with the aircraft.

 

So a Cessna 172 is very possible IF an independent party with the required licenses on hand were to contract ED to do it.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Evoman

[SharpeXB]

From the CEII introduction over three years ago

 

”We imagine future of DCS as a general world simulating platform where almost anything could be simulated”

 

 

I don’t think this “general world simulator” is part of ED’s plans and after 2020 we can all realize what a farfetched infeasible goal that would be. It’s already been done now by another company with vastly more resources. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Fri13]

On 3/6/2021 at 4:27 PM, SharpeXB said:

Yeah but that’s a complex combat aircraft. The CEII is a simple module by comparison. The Hornet took longer to finish but it’s the Hornet. I don’t see any of the civilian sim developers having planes that spend 3 years in beta test.

 

 

On 3/6/2021 at 4:27 PM, SharpeXB said:

Yes that’s a safe assumption. Prove me wrong. 

 

That claim is easy to proof wrong as it is totally illogical.

 

And if you do not remember what Your argument is:

 

"Just look at how fast 3rd parties have been able to create something like a full system regional jet for FS2020, in seven months. Whereas a DCS Cessna would take 18 months and then spend a year in early access. It’s easy to tell how much more money and players there are in civy sims. "

 

The claim you use is about that larger the customer base is for the product, then shorter the development time is, the product quality is higher and so on higher profits as well as you can sell more of it as it is so high quality that there are more people wanted to buy it, because there is already larger customer base to begin with. 

 

Facts are, You do not write a better code if I hire you to program somethin for a $14 an hour or $50 an hour. Your skills do not magically become better because I pay You more.

You do not write the better code because there is a customer base of a 100 000 instead a 1000.

And You would not produce Your work faster if there is 100x more sales. 

 

Yes, the fact is that if I do not hire You to write the code, there will not be a line of code by You.

But how many potential buyers there are has no effect for the speed or quality of the development. 

 

The quality is only about the product quality that is wanted to be produced and that what can be produced.

It is about developer skills, access to information, but most importantly it is question about the development tools. 

 

So if You want to argue about something, then You should have made argument about the quality of the SDK and the platform that DCS World provides for the developers. 

That it would be far more easier to write a code to another simulator as the SDK there are for them is superior to what ED offers for 3rd party, and that the other simulators API/ABI is so much easier to work with that you do not need to add own code to do more complex things as the simulator does it all for them already. 

 

But that still doesn't have anything to do with the customer pool size, amount of possible profit and quality of the code or product.

Cessna 172 is one of the simplest aircraft there is in reality.

ED could have already fixed the Yak-52 missing parts that has been reported, they just sit on them. That is the wonder that why.... They simply seems to have moved the team responsible to maintain it, to do totally different tasks.

Example:

 

 

So should your argument be "No interest for a Civilian aircraft in DCS -> No one is paying for Yak-52 -> No income -> Project gets abandoned"?

As that would again be against the logical assumption that if ED has got a contract to produce a such aircraft to DCS World, that they are as well required to complete it and maintain it....

And if someone doesn't maintain something, then why you would buy a broken product? Like, why would anyone buy a T.1A Hawk to DCS World when they very well know that it is broken and can not be used without installing some old legacy 2.5.3 version of the DCS World?

Would it be wonder by anyone that product does not receive anymore purchases, and why it is required to stop being sold as you do not want to sell a broken product!

 

 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Dude,

Let it  go already. You asked and people answered. If you don’t want to know peoples thoughts and opinions don’t ask them. 
You have published a book and now are just typing to try to win an argument that has no winner. 
YOU WANT A 172. Awesome!!!!

What do you want people to do??