Cessna 172

[Tippis]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But the point still remains that nobody else has ventured into that market based upon what Magnitude did. 

Your point contradicts reality and also relies on a causal relationship that you have no way of proving anyway.

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Ok, you’re defining “success” as something other than commercial or as a loss leader.

Again, how do you know it's making a loss?

If anything is going to be the least expensive to develop, its a GA aircraft.

[Hammer1-1]

...why is this conversation still going? If some 3rd party dev wants to venture into the civilian world here in DCS, people would buy it. From what Ive seen and experienced, MSFS physics aint all that great. Just because some people here dont like civilian aircraft is a moot point.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Hammer1-1

[Northstar98]

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Success breeds imitation. Failure is an orphan. 
Have you seen anyone else make a GA module for DCS?

no. What does that tell you?

So I take it by the exact same metric all of the below are failures:

• A-10C (only >2010s USAF aircraft)
• AJS 37 (only Swedish aircraft)
• AV-8B N/A (only V/STOL aircraft)
• Ka-50 (only coaxial helicopter)
• Mosquito (only twin-engined WWII aircraft)

Have I got that right?

Edited April 10, 2022 by Northstar98

[MAXsenna]

Ok, you’re defining “success” as something other than commercial or as a loss leader. But the point still remains that nobody else has ventured into that market based upon what Magnitude did. 

Well, Magnitude did it for a reason, like I wrote above, and others have written before me. But you predictively completely ignored that.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Hammer1-1]

9 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Well, Magnitude did it for a reason, like I wrote above, and others have written before me. But you predictively completely ignored that.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Thats because he has an agenda. Those with an agenda dont listen to facts or reason, only just what keeps his agenda relevant. He dont like civvies; fortunately his world view doesnt warp reality. Let it go.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The good old Cessna is not a non-combat aircraft.  Yeah, that's not a whole lot of rockets, but there, it can shoot. It's an Irish FR172, if case anyone's wondering.

I would still prefer a Birddog, but then, the main difference between an early 172 and a 170 is the undercarriage, and given how simple an aircraft this is, both could easily be included in a module.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

What a joke that would be for DCS

Observation aircraft are a thing, I think an AI version at the minimum would be good. We could also have mission to intercept a civilian aircraft to prevent a terrorist kamikaze 

1 hour ago, Beirut said:

Does it have wings? Is it well modelled? Is it fun to fly? 

 

Sold! 

 

 

Some of us would like to see some assets that sail and lack wings but still...that's what it takes to sell an aircraft 

[MAXsenna]

Thats because he has an agenda. Those with an agenda dont listen to facts or reason, only just what keeps his agenda relevant. He dont like civvies; fortunately his world view doesnt warp reality. Let it go.

Oh, no worries buddy!
He has admitted before, that the only reason he opposes every wish, is because he is bored.
I'm just here for the ratio, taking break.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS is a great sim no doubt, in the realm of combat simulation. Overall though it’s losing its luster and showing it’s age in competition with “Other Big Civy Sim” which has it beat in every other criteria. So it’s doubtful any 3rd party would make civil aircraft for DCS when they could sell 20x as much on the “Other Big Civy Sim” marketplace.

If it were up to you, Eagle wouldn't do anything to fix that.  You complain about any idea that could improve DCS. I bring up the idea, why don't we have a benchmark utility that will configure graphics automatically. You claim that becuse you had never seen anyone do something like that, it must be impossible. I suggest something to make mission planning easier you go on about how it shouldn't be implemented. You often bring up points that show you don't grasp how programing works. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

And you know this, how?

Page 58

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes...

It's been a setting in the weather options for as long as I can remember...

You're kinda showing yourself up here...

Not “Wake Turbulence”. Atmospheric turbulence like hitting an air pocket and having your small plane drop a thousand feet. I don’t think that effect is in DCS. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Where they also have more fierce competition...

Actually it doesn’t. “Big Sim” is the largest chunk by far. 

[upyr1]

27 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Oh, no worries buddy!
He has admitted before, that the only reason he opposes every wish, is because he is bored.
I'm just here for the ratio, taking break.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I've decided to block him. If he posted something positive once and a while and tried to engage in discussion but I find myself feeding the troll

Edited April 10, 2022 by upyr1

[SharpeXB]

58 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

He dont like civvies; fortunately his world view doesnt warp reality. Let it go.

Actually I do like civies, I have tons of content for “Big M Sim”. I think it’s better done there than in DCS.

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Page 58

You mean the graph that says 20–30%, depending on what you count as “play”, putting DCS at a player engagement that is 40% of what the biggest sim on the market achieves? That graph? The one that doesn't say what you wish it did?

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Not “Wake Turbulence”.

He's not talking about wake turbulence. Notice the mention of the weather settings — the place where wake turbulence isn't set? Again, your wholesale unfamiliarity with DCS and absolute ignorance of its feature set is not doing you any favours when you're trying to make a point of what this game does and does not have.

You keep faceplanting in this hilarious way over and over again, where you make a categorical claim about DCS based on nothing but what “you think”, but what you think — in particular — never aligns with reality or with how DCS operates. They're all just inventions pulled from your lower back with no relation to any known reality because you are too clueless about the sim(s) you claim to play to ever be able to say something accurate or factual about them.

Turbulence exists in this game, in multiple forms. Suck it up. You're wrong about this, just like about everything else.

 

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Actually I do like civies, I have tons of content for “Big M Sim”. I think it’s better done there than in DCS

Seeing as how you don't know that it is done at all in DCS suggests that your opinion on the matter is not just worthless, but actively wrong. It takes a lot for an opinion to be wrong, but you manage that feat none the less.

[Hammer1-1]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

 I think it’s better done there than in DCS.

No, it doesnt, and no, it isnt.

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

No, it doesnt, and no, it isnt.

That’s your opinion but I think the market disagrees with you. Look at the sheer size and breadth of content in the marketplace for that other game and the short time it took to get there. Then see how long it takes for a Dev to make a single simple aircraft for DCS. ED simply can’t compete in that realm. They do the combat sim part of this really well and should just stick to that. 

[Tippis]

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Actually it doesn’t. “Big Sim” is the largest chunk by far. 

…and the competition between the myriad of third parties trying to get the slice of that chunk is much fiercer. You know, like he said? Or did you do your usual thing where you failed at reading and instead just assumed something that you responded to instead, thus making your response wholly unrelated to the thing you were supposedly responding to? Maybe read it again and note that he's not comparing DCS vs the other sim — he's comparing the market space within each sim.

What numbers do you have to support your assertion that there is less competition?

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

That’s your opinion but I think the market disagrees with you

Do you have anything to support your thinking?

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Look at the sheer size and breadth of content in the marketplace for that other game and the short time it took to get there

In other words, there are a ton of vendors trying to squeeze an earning out of that marketplace, whereas for DCS there are a lot fewer. Meaning, there is less competition here than it is over there. Just like he said. So you're contradicting your own claim here. Third parties would indeed face more competition on this much more crowded market than they would if they developed (or just co-released) the same thing in DCS. In particular since you've demonstrated that there is a significant overlap between the two customer bases, suggesting that a military aircraft — even an unarmed one — would appeal to a sizeable crowd in the DCS community.

Again, reading the original claim helps if you're going to try to refute it and not do what you accidentally just did and further reinforce and support that initial claim.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Tippis

[Northstar98]

56 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Page 58

Not “Wake Turbulence”.

I'm not talking about wake turbulence Sharpe, that's relatively recent, I even gave you a clue by saying "weather options", in the mission editor.

56 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Atmospheric turbulence like hitting an air pocket and having your small plane drop a thousand feet.

What turbulence are you flying into?

50 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Actually it doesn’t. “Big Sim” is the largest chunk by far. 

You might want to re-read what I wrote...

Edited April 10, 2022 by Northstar98
I actually said weather options but whatever

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

What turbulence are you flying into?

You can hit choppy air in MSFS and it’s pretty amazing. It takes you by surprise a bit because nothing like that happens in the combat games. Sure there’s “turbulence” in these combat games but not like that. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You can hit choppy air in MSFS and it’s pretty amazing.

Good news. You can do that in DCS too. You just have to set it up right, but of course, that requires being familiar with a bit more than your single aircraft and the process of jumping onto your regular, bog-standard, conventional MP server where it's the clear skies, no wind preset 24/7.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Sure there’s “turbulence” in these combat games

…and it's pretty much like that. So why were you saying before that it didn't exist?

[Rick50]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Success breeds imitation. Failure is an orphan. 

 

Failure is a lesson.

 

There is a LOT to be learned from failure. Not everyone learns from it, because sometimes people want to bury their heads in the sand, but some of worst failures directly caused spectacular successes soon after, as a result of lessons learned.

Apollo 1 saw all three astronauts burned and died in seconds... and hadn't even gone anywhere. But the aftermath investigation, recommendation changes, DIRECTLY lead to the success of the moon landings and the safe return of all the men who risked going there. Many who were on the investigation team believed that the fact they could look inside the burnt capsule and see the problems, meant there was lessons to learn, that had it happened instead in space, they'd have no idea of all the problems, and going to the moon would have been a MASSIVELY HIGHER risk than it already was. A few believed that they'd have NEVER gotten to the Moon at all, had the Apollo 1 failure not happened. 

 

RIP: Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger B. Chaffee. S! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

 

Operation Eagle Claw, was a rescue plan to get American hostages being held in Tehran in 1980. Newly formed OD Delta, having been formed from Green Berets that were hand selected and then sent to the UK for some training with the SAS, made a hugely ambitious plan that required not one, but TWO covert FARPs inside Iran itself.  Indeed at one point they had to detain a bus so the operation wouldn't be blown wide open (they released the bus once that danger was gone). But the helo  pilots were not used to the kind of operations (extreme awake hours, extreme conditions) for special ops, they were heavylift helo drivers suddenly thrust into specops. They weren't used to night vision goggles in desert ops. They weren't used to giant sandstorms. The helos were not able to handle turbine damage due to the sandstorm. One by one helos went down until they didn't have enough for mission success. And as they were withdrawing, one helo hovering to take fuel struck a C-130, and the flames killed many. By any measure, a failure.

The investigations and lessons learned though, were quite dramatic. FARP operations were improved. Helos had modifications for turbine intakes to keep dust out. And the biggest change? The formation of a dedicated special operations helicopter squadron, first known as Task Force 160, renamed SOAR 160 today. Flies almost always at night,  so NVG's and night fliying was no problem. Operates on a special forces operational tempo, so the crews are used to being able to do complex mission profiles. Equipment and helos selected and modified to meet the high demands of the taskings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

Edited April 10, 2022 by Rick50

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

You can hit choppy air in MSFS and it’s pretty amazing. It takes you by surprise a bit because nothing like that happens in the combat games. Sure there’s “turbulence” in these combat games but not like that. 

 

Then that's a critique of either DCS as a software or of DCS mission makers.

[Beirut]

4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

 

Some of us would like to see some assets that sail and lack wings but still...that's what it takes to sell an aircraft 

 

I hear ya, and I'm there. The more toys the better.

[fapador]

Not a Cessna 172 but a T-41D 

[SharpeXB]

51 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Then that's a critique of either DCS as a software or of DCS mission makers.

Perhaps “turbulence” is not the right term. “Air Mass Simulation” is what the other sim does. Updrafts, downdrafts, wind shear, interaction with terrain, cloud formations with actual weather etc. I don’t believe DCS does any of that.