Forest Fires, Working "Bambi-buckets" and a CL 415 Super scooper !

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, ebabil said:

being against these kind of stuff is like being against smart phones. "dude, this is called "phone" why would we take photos with it or listening music?"

 

This

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

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

This

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

Bad news: your personal preferences don't matter. What sells, sells, whether you like it or not.

Pursuing what sells in spite of your having no interest in it is not feature creep — it's just expansion.

 

Oh, and as always, you should probably read the thing you try to use as an argument before you present it, since it once again demonstrates the exact opposite of what you were trying to say: what we're talking about here is separation, modularity, and options — the very things listed as the means to combat feature creep. Oops.

[SharpeXB]

Just now, Hammer1-1 said:

And just because theres a BIGGER demand for combat doesnt mean theres 0 demand for it. The poll just shows that 1/3 of the people here would buy one.

Twist the results however you like but the basic interpretation of that poll means the majority of players, in an already small niche game, are not interested in civilian aircraft. 
 

I doubt you’ll ever see third parties making Cessnas for DCS when it’s such a small market. It’s much more profitable for them to make aircraft for the civ flight sims which are larger and have a genuine demand for that product. 

[reece146]

I think most would be surprised how much of the SP player base uses DCS as just a flight simulator or a learning simulator versus actual combat.

 

For me it's > 90% FS and < 10% combat. Warbirds and the F86/Mig15 combo mostly for combat in spite of pretty much having all the modules of all eras.

 

When I sit down at DCS it tends to be to blow off steam or to "rest my brain" from other projects/work. Just flying around and/or messing around in the mission editor is enough for that. There's a certain amount of "Walter Mitty"-ness and "simulating" lost opportunities from decades ago as well.

 

Combat with modernish jets is complicated. I typically don't mess with that level of DCS unless I've been away from work for a week or more - a pattern I've realized after writing this message.

 

But that's just me. With that as context, I figure helicopter missions with sling loads, fire fighting, whatever would something I'd be more likely to do than combat.

 

The whole "take ED away from work that needs doing" argument is specious at best. If ED sees a need to address a new niche they will reorganize and/or staff up as appropriate. In the last ~1.5 years I've been playing with DCS, ED has made huge QC improvements, changes, additions, etc. They are on the right path and if adding new types of missions is something they want to pursue I'm sure they'll do it well.

 

CL-415, or other similar aircraft, would be a day one purchase for me.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by reece146

[Tippis]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Twist the results however you like but the basic interpretation of that poll means the majority of players, in an already small niche game, are not interested in civilian aircraft.

No, the basic interpretation of that poll means that among an unrepresentative and statistically insignificant sample, some people aren't interested but a significant chunk are.

 

But it absolutely does not tell us anything about what the majority of players want, and it wouldn't matter even if it did since it would then also tell us that there is a large market for this kind of module. Again, what matter is how many are interested in something, not how many aren't. It's the number of people who are interested that determine whether it's worth-while to pursue the matter, and no amount of people not being interested will change that.

 

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s much more profitable for them to make aircraft for the civ flight sims which are larger and have a genuine demand for that product. 

Or, you know, both. It's been done before.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Tippis

[ebabil]

@sharpeXB You are fighting like a champ to resist a basic bambibucket thing. I don't foresee that it is gonna happen any time soon. So you can sleep well tonight.

 

[reece146]

Also, poll on the ED web site will catch votes from what percentage of the ED user base? Not much I'd expect. Most players don't bother with forums.

 

I'd suggest that most people that actively use the forums enough to see/vote on the poll is already a niche of a niche so there's that.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, ebabil said:

@sharpeXB You are fighting like a champ to resist a basic bambibucket thing. I don't foresee that it is gonna happen any time soon. So you can sleep well tonight.

This thread deviated from that topic several pages ago. The OP asked for a mod, obviously that doesn’t require developer resources so who cares?

2 minutes ago, reece146 said:

Also, poll on the ED web site will catch votes from what percentage of the ED user base? Not much I'd expect. Most players don't bother with forums.

 

I'd suggest that most people that actively use the forums enough to see/vote on the poll is already a niche of a niche so there's that.

You could say that about any poll but hey somebody asked for it. There’s no other way to gauge opinions that we have access to so it is what it is. 

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The OP asked for a mod, obviously that doesn’t require developer resources so who cares?

You do. A whole lot. For no clear reason other than your constant obsession to derail any topic about an idea you don't like.

Also, ED seems to care, per BIGNEWY's answer earlier. So there's that.

[Northstar98]

I'm just going to throw these in here, just in case we're worried about the acronym...

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, reece146 said:

Just flying around and/or messing around in the mission editor is enough for that. There's a certain amount of "Walter Mitty"-ness and "simulating" lost opportunities from decades ago as well.

There’s definitely an appeal to non combat flight simulation, those games have a huge following. I like them as well.
But the bar to compete in that market has just been raised substantially, to the point where only the world’s largest software company can be in it. ED can’t match those resources.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s definitely an appeal to non combat flight simulation, those games have a huge following. I like them as well.
But the bar to compete in that market has just been raised substantially, to the point where only the world’s largest software company can be in it. ED can’t match those resources.

 

And why does that mean they should be prevented from trying?

Edited April 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But the bar to compete in that market has just been raised substantially, to the point where only the world’s largest software company can be in it. ED can’t match those resources.

Sure they can, in exactly the same way as MS does, and they have a pretty sizeable number of advantages that can be leveraged over a GA sim…

[reece146]

13 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s definitely an appeal to non combat flight simulation, those games have a huge following. I like them as well.
But the bar to compete in that market has just been raised substantially, to the point where only the world’s largest software company can be in it. ED can’t match those resources.

 

I have the civilian sim and the other WW1/WW2 sim and I never play them. Seat of the pants feel (if there is such a thing in a desktop simulator) in DCS is much better.

 

I kept going back to the civilian sim because of the eye candy - last about an hour and then fire up DCS and be up into the wee hours making up lost time "wasted" on the other sim.

 

Now, 2.7 with the new clouds and mostly completed lighting system, eye candy in DCS is more than adequate. The only thing remaining for ED to solve is bigger maps.

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Twist the results however you like but the basic interpretation of that poll means the majority of players, in an already small niche game, are not interested in civilian aircraft. 
 

I doubt you’ll ever see third parties making Cessnas for DCS when it’s such a small market. It’s much more profitable for them to make aircraft for the civ flight sims which are larger and have a genuine demand for that product. 

You can believe whatever you want dude. Its just asinine to think that everyone agrees with your opinion when clearly you are wrong. Dont turn this into what its not and accept the fact that theres going to be people out there who want civilian planes in DCS. The Edge 540 is a popular civilian mod. I can guarantee you Id rather be flying it in DCS than MSFS2020. I can say this because the flight physics just suck in 2020.

[SharpeXB]

53 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

And why doesn't that mean they should be prevented from trying?

Because they’re probably smart enough to know not to. Do you see any Cessnas in DCS?

[Hammer1-1]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Because they’re probably smart enough to know not to. Do you see any Cessnas in DCS?

Honestly, I doubt they want to work with ED; I dont think they have a problem with not getting any aircraft in DCS because of lack of customers. We've lost more than a few potential devs because of a dislike for ED management ways.

[SharpeXB]

36 minutes ago, reece146 said:

Seat of the pants feel (if there is such a thing in a desktop simulator) in DCS is much better.

Assuming that the DCS Cessna would be so much better is not a certain thing. Just look at the poor quality of the CEII which apparently for years had this terrible flight model, bugs and audio and is still in Early Access after over three years. The Cessna module would only be good if the developer could afford to make it good. Given the limited market in DCS they probably couldn’t afford to and it would languish in development limbo just like the CEII

4 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Honestly, I doubt they want to work with ED; I dont think they have a problem with not getting any aircraft in DCS because of lack of customers. We've lost more than a few potential devs because of a dislike for ED management ways.

Realize that a DCS Cessna would need a highly accurate damage model if it was up to the standards of the typical DCS plane. That’s a huge cost to develop and isn’t needed for civ sim games. DCS would be an expensive standard to meet with lesser demand for the product. It’s easy to see why there aren’t civilian planes made for this game. 

[Hammer1-1]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Assuming that the DCS Cessna would be so much better is not a certain thing. Just look at the poor quality of the CEII which apparently for years had this terrible flight model, bugs and audio and is still in Early Access after over three years. The Cessna module would only be good if the developer could afford to make it good. Given the limited market in DCS they probably couldn’t afford to and it would languish in development limbo just like the CEII

What about the Yak? I16? You can believe whatever you wish; if a developer came in and announced a Cessna Skyhawk, people would buy it. Maybe not in numbers the Hornet and Viper sell at, but it would still sell. I really wish a company like A2A would come in and make some modules, but again nothing to do with the customer base. Heres the funny thing that punches a hole in your opinion; the vast majority of us flight simmers HAVE all of these flight simulators. Guess what they would be doing?? Comparing.

[Exorcet]

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Assuming that the DCS Cessna would be so much better is not a certain thing. Just look at the poor quality of the CEII which apparently for years had this terrible flight model, bugs and audio and is still in Early Access after over three years.

That's already competitive with MSFS. Even "poor" DCS modules far exceed the quality of the low end MSFS add ons. DCS simply has tighter standards. And of course a Cessna in DCS offers something that MSFS can't, which is a Cessna in DCS. That alone is a reason to go for the DCS version of an aircraft.

 

Quote

Realize that a DCS Cessna would need a highly accurate damage model if it was up to the standards of the typical DCS plane. That’s a huge cost to develop and isn’t needed for civ sim games. DCS would be an expensive standard to meet with lesser demand for the product. It’s easy to see why there aren’t civilian planes made for this game. 

The Yak doesn't have one and it's not a big deal. A Cessna with no damage model would be fine. Even the F-16 managed to launch without a damage model.

[Tippis]

9 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because they’re probably smart enough to know not to. Do you see any Cessnas in DCS?

That's begging the question.

How about answering it instead?

 

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Just look at the poor quality of the CEII

You keep bringing this one up, but you're also referencing a very old thread to support your claim where they're actually saying the exact opposite. Do you have any actual experience or insight into the state of the module or are you just misquoting wildly in the hope that no-one will check?

 

5 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Realize that a DCS Cessna would need a highly accurate damage model if it was up to the standards of the typical DCS plane. That’s a huge cost to develop and isn’t needed for civ sim games

It really wouldn't -- indeed, very few planes in DCS does, even among the more famous ones. So the standards are not nearly as high as you seem to think, nor is it really anything that would impart a "huge cost". If you think it does, please cite sources. And this time, make sure they actually agree with what you say rather than, as is far more common, the exact opposite.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

 if a developer came in and announced a Cessna Skyhawk, people would buy it.

According to that poll most players wouldn’t buy it. 

[Hammer1-1]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

According to that poll most players wouldn’t buy it. 

Poll shows most people live in China.

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

I really wish a company like A2A would come in and make some modules, but again nothing to do with the customer base.

A developer’s decision to make a module for DCS has everything to do with the customer base. If A2A made a P-38 instead if a Cessna for DCS it would be much more profitable. 

9 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

And of course a Cessna in DCS offers something that MSFS can't, which is a Cessna in DCS. That alone is a reason to go for the DCS version of an aircraft.

Not for the developer. They’d probably sell 1000x the copies in a civy sim compared to DCS 

MSFS was something like the 4th top selling PC game in its launch week, selling more than Minecraft. Don’t even try to compete with that. 

[Tippis]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

According to that poll most players wouldn’t buy it. 

So what?

If we're going with that kind of reading, the poll shows that it would be a stunning success.