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

[Hammer1-1]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

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. 

Dude...have you ever read the reason on WHY VEAO left?? Methinks you havent. Nice sob story Ill give them that, but there was a bit of truth in it.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[MAXsenna]

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

You do know there are already "several" Cessnas in DCS don't you?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Hammer1-1]

16 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

You do know there are already "several" Cessnas in DCS don't you?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Are there, really?

[Northstar98]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Because they’re probably smart enough to know not to.

 

As Tippis said, you haven't answered the question, just danced around it.

 

Quote

Do you see any Cessnas in DCS?

 

What kind of an a point is this?

 

A freaking bad one is all I can think of. I can list hundreds of aircraft that aren't in DCS, I don't know how the hell you can conclude that an aircraft not being in DCS yet means it shouldn't be in DCS ever.

 

But sticking with muh competition, they've got an F-15 that's of worse quality, and more expensive, with it's systems mostly non functional. Now if your argument is anything to go by, there would be no point developing that aircraft for that sim, when DCS already has the dominant form of that aircraft going, with combat functionality, for cheaper. And yet, what happened?

 

Explain that one to me.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

As Tippis said, you haven't answered the question, just danced around it.

What question? This thread went off topic pages ago...

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

What kind of an a point is this?

Simple point. After the CEII have you seen any third parties make civilian modules for DCS? No. Why not? Because IMO the CEII wasn’t successful enough to encourage anyone else to try. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Mr_sukebe]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

What question? This thread went off topic pages ago...

Simple point. After the CEII have you seen any third parties make civilian modules for DCS? No. Why not? Because the CEII wasn’t successful enough to encourage anyone else to try. 

 

Apart from the Yak...

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

Apart from the Yak...

Technically the Yak is a military trainer. And it was for a commercial partner afaik

And it doesn’t seem very successful either since it’s been in EA for 2 1/2 years and it’s just a simple unarmed prop plane with no DM

Edited April 24, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

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

That's unfounded for a number of reasons. Module quality, competition, etc. You simply have no way of knowing that.

 

And the advantage I mentioned applies to the developer as well, because demand is demand. People want civil aircraft in DCS, that's an opportunity for developers to take advantage of.

 

Quote

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.

So what? DCS is already competitive, if it wasn't people wouldn't be requesting a civil aviation side to the sim.

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

What question? This thread went off topic pages ago...

 

Why does having a competing product mean they should be prevented from trying?

 

You're answer was they shouldn't do it, because they shouldn't do it...

 

Quote

Simple point. After the CEII have you seen any third parties make civilian modules for DCS? No. Why not? Because IMO the CEII wasn’t successful enough to encourage anyone else to try. 

 

I also haven't seen xxxx military aircraft either (I could name a tonne of them), should I make the same conclusion?

 

I've got another idea - current 3rd parties have their hands completely full with the current projects. I'd agree that civilian modules should probably take a back seat - it's a matter of priorities, but that doesn't mean they should be excluded, as you seem to think they should.

 

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Technically the Yak is a military trainer.

 

As far as the mighty acronym goes, it's in exactly the same boat - the only thing that makes it specifically a military trainer is the livery, past that it's indistinguishable from a civilian Yak-52.

 

We even have a civil aircraft tickbox now... 

 

But getting back to bambi buckets, we've established that it would give a practical purpose to sling loading (which we have and the competition does not, just we can't really do anything practical with it), there's already people trying to do this on MP servers, military aircraft even equip them bringing aerial firefighting as a real life role for them (and on a hotly requested helicopter no less), what's the problem? 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[MAXsenna]

Are there, really?

Yup! I'm beeing a smart ass though.
One was removed as it used the Mustang's flight model, and that's encrypted now I think.
There is one from the CAM mod, (Civil Aircraft Mod?), and you can make it flyable with copying some files, I think it is using the Su-25T's flight model. Has a cool damage model according to a GR video I saw.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Technically the Yak is a military trainer. And it was for a commercial partner afaik

And it doesn’t seem very successful either since it’s been in EA for 2 1/2 years and it’s just a simple unarmed prop plane with no DM

 

Technically any civilian can own one. Same thing with the L39.

[SharpeXB]

40 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Why does having a competing product mean they should be prevented from trying.

Because in any business you have to assume only a certain share of the market. If a competitor is going to take a giant of the market then you need to figure a way to differentiate yourself from the competition. The chief differentiator for DCS in the flight sim market is combat simulation. 

[Hammer1-1]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because in any business you have to assume only a certain share of the market. If a competitor is going to take a giant of the market then you need to figure a way to differentiate yourself from the competition. The chief differentiator for DCS in the flight sim market is combat simulation. 

So in this regards, then that means companies like IRIS, VRSimulations, MilViz and others who make military simulator aircraft for P3D/FSX/MSFS should just disappear from there and move here? Your logic is flawed.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Because in any business you have to assume only a certain share of the market. If a competitor is going to take a giant of the market then you need to figure a way to differentiate yourself from the competition. The chief differentiator for DCS in the flight sim market is combat simulation. 

…and since there is no-one grabbing this particular market, it's a pretty good opportunity for DCS to do so. Especially since it would fill in a bunch of gaps that need to be filled anyway.

 

Oh, and that's not really how the flight sim market has ever worked.

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Because in any business you have to assume only a certain share of the market. If a competitor is going to take a giant of the market then you need to figure a way to differentiate yourself from the competition. The chief differentiator for DCS in the flight sim market is combat simulation. 

 

Oh, is that how it works? So, you think DCS is somehow overstepping its 'share of the market' yeah, don't think that's quite how it works...

 

I wonder what differentiates the other dominant civilian flight sims from that one, because like I said earlier - they still haven't totally evaporated...

 

Do you think the other, civilian sims should be prevented from having military aircraft, especially 'front line' combat aircraft? I mean, here is much more suitable for them, we're probably the dominant competitor in this regard, but also for all of the same arguments you bring up?

 

I'll bring up that F-15C for that other sim; it is lower quality, more expensive, less accurate and less functional as an F-15 than the one we have - we're just missing the cockpit interaction. Explain that one to me...

 

This is the second time I'm asking you this...

Edited April 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[SharpeXB]

8 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Why should they be prevented from trying?

Who’s they? ED? Nobody is prevented from doing anything. 

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Who’s they? ED? Nobody is prevented from doing anything. 

Still not answering the question… Why is this so hard for you?

[Northstar98]

11 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Who’s they? ED? Nobody is prevented from doing anything. 

 

You seem to be arguing that they should be...

 

And who 'they' is really doesn't matter - ED, official third party, unofficial third party, whoever. 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Hammer1-1]

2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

You seem to be arguing that they should be...

 

 

 

agreed

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

You seem to be arguing that they should be...

 

And who 'they' is really doesn't matter - ED, official third party, unofficial third party, whoever. 

 

I’m saying I don’t believe they would be successful at it. That’s my opinion. 

[Hammer1-1]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m saying I don’t believe they would be successful at it. That’s my opinion. 

Thats not up to you if they will be successful or not. I can almost guarantee that one day someone will; but a LOT of them have been put off by ED because of how strictly they regulate their business model. So yeah you have a point; doesnt mean that someday somehow it wont happen.

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m saying I don’t believe they would be successful at it. That’s my opinion. 

…and yet you quote a poll that suggests it would be. How odd.

[NineLine]

Best way to not support a wishlist item is to not comment on it. Please dont come in here picking fights please.

 

[BIGNEWY]

We keep getting reports about this thread, there seems to be a clash of personalities, many of you have given your opinion, now some of you seem intent on derailing the thread or beating the horse until its dead again. I will start handing out warnings for those people if it continues. 

I would suggest if you have already given feedback here, move on to something else. 

[3WA]

On 4/24/2021 at 12:52 PM, Hammer1-1 said:

the flight physics just suck in 2020.

THIS.