Competitive Full Fi, Multi role, SU or MIG for Multiplayer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jwbflyer]

11 minutes ago, bies said:

 

(1) According to ED "competitive PvP" is only a tiny fraction of the DCS consumers, less than 10%. So it will not make any noticable difference when it comes to sales.

 

(2) Tell all other teams making A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair II, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Mi-24 Hind, F-8J Crusader, MiG-17, Fiat G.91, Bölkow-105, Su-17M, EE lighting etc. - to scrap their work because their modules would lose against F/A-18C if teleported 20-30 years in time to year 2005.

 

(3) F-16 and F/A-18 will stop being "competitive PvP" the moment Eurofighter coming out. EF supercruising at 50,000ft, with phenomenal acceleration will butcher F/A-18 and F-16 with ease having big kinematic advantage, even when restricted to AMRAAM. With 2017 classified Meteor missile it won't be any fight at all against F-16/18 just deleting some F blips on radar. So ED should abandon them when EF will come out? It's ridiculous...

 

1) IDK, so I will take your word for it. If that’s the case, I hold my opinions on what I think about DCS/ED’s direction. But this is my wishlist item and I’ll hold to that. It’s up to ED to determine the choices. 

 

2) If what you say is true, and that’s how much their market share is competitive PvP vs non, then their decisions on what to make are obvious and would be crazy to scrap projects. 
 

 

3) EF.
Let’s revisit this one when the EF rolls out….my prediction is ED will give it strengths and weaknesses for competitiveness to the previously mentioned western jets. Kinda like how the 15C doesn’t have datalink when we all know that’s a head scratcher. 

 

thanks for your post.

[bies]

On 7/2/2021 at 10:41 PM, jwbflyer said:

Let’s revisit this one when the EF rolls out….my prediction is ED will give it strengths and weaknesses for competitiveness to the previously mentioned western jets. Kinda like how the 15C doesn’t have datalink when we all know that’s a head scratcher. 

 

Both TrueGrit (EF creator) and ED stated very clearly in many interviews they will absolutely not artificially balance Eurofighter or any other aircraft in DCS for competitiveness.

 

Our FC3 F-15C doesn't have datalink because it is F-15C MSIP II (digital weapon control MFD, TWS, NCTR radar IFF) introduced in 1985, took part in Desert Storm and later it has been integrated with AMRAAM in early 1990s. It's counterpart of FC3 Su-27S introduced in 1985, MiG-29A from 1983, A-10A in late 1980s/Desert Storm standard and Su-25A from 1981.

 

(F-15C has been modernized later on in 2000s receiving Link16 datalink, JHMCS, new computer, AESA radar etc. but this was different variant with different capabilities which doesn't exist in DCS.)

Edited July 4, 2021 by bies

[jwbflyer]

22 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Both TrueGrit (EF creator) and ED stated very clearly in many interviews they will absolutely not artificially balance Eurofighter or any other aircraft in DCS for competitiveness.

 

Our FC3 F-15C doesn't have datalink because it is F-15C MSIP II (digital weapon control MFD, TWS, NCTR radar IFF) introduced in 1985, took part in Desert Storm and has been integrated with AMRAAM in early 1990s. Counterpart of FC3 Su-27S introduced in 1985, MiG-29A from 1983, A-10A in late 1980s/Desert Storm standard and Su-25A from 1981.

 

(F-15C has been modernized later on in 2000s receiving Link16, JHMCS, new computer, AESA radar etc. but this was different variant which doesn't exist in DCS.)

 

I would say that’s going to be a different thread, and I disagree with you, respectfully. Hit me up PM for further on this topic if you want.

Edited July 2, 2021 by jwbflyer

[Oceandar]

I tend to agree with some of these wishes. What is the most important aspect of the sim? Flight model ? Then make it as realistic as it can then other aspect of the jet ED could make a guess based on available doc. No armchair pilots would know. Then as time passes ED can fix it as unclassified accurate data become available.
DCS is still a game anyway.

My 2 cents.

[DaWu]

Nobody could tell what is realistic and what is fantasy in terms of red ac. I would love to have a modern mig or su even if it’s not accurate in every detail. The A variant they are making without mfds is something they can put Into a museum but not on my disk...

[upyr1]

[Furiz]

6 hours ago, DaWu said:

Nobody could tell what is realistic and what is fantasy in terms of red ac. I would love to have a modern mig or su even if it’s not accurate in every detail. The A variant they are making without mfds is something they can put Into a museum but not on my disk...

 

True, well that MiG will please cold war fans, people that don't like cold war simply wont buy that one. I like to fly Gen4 planes, I do like that they are finally making a russian plane but I wont buy that MiG.

We do need diversity in DCS so adding Russian, China and EU made planes is a must imo, cold war is getting few new assets but modern era doesn't have much planes and they are all US with one Pakistani.

[kseremak]

4 hours ago, Furiz said:

We do need diversity in DCS so adding Russian, China and EU made planes is a must imo, cold war is getting few new assets but modern era doesn't have much planes and they are all US with one Pakistani.

 

About diversity; i've read an interview with Russian Su-27 and Su-35 pilot, here on DCS forum in Russian section, and he stated due to technology and computers advances, smart long range weapon (and post cold war budget cuts) the diversity dissapeared since fighter like Su-35 or Eurofighter can do everything; air combat, interception, CAS, ground strike, SEAD, recon, long range strike with cruise missiles and so on. And do it even better than previous, diverse, specialised aircrafts palette.

 

He said even modern ground attack plane Su-34 has been bought by Russian Air Force to save Sukhoi company from bancruptcy and Su-35 can do everything Su-34 can and more, being able to defend itself.

 

During '80s Soviet union used very diverse aircraft fleet; 

Su-15TM, Tu-128, MiG-31 and MiG-25PD as interceptors,

MiG-21/23/29 as tactical fighters,

Su-17 and MIG-27 as ground attackers,

Su-25 as CAS,

Su-27 as long range escort and air combat,

Su-24 for SEAD,

Yak-28 and MiG-25 for reconissance,

Su-24 for low level strike, and many others.

 

US during '80s

F-14 and F-18 as navy fighters,

A-7 as navy CAS,

A-6 as Navy bombers,

F-111 as low level strike,

F-4, F-16 and F-15 as fighters,

F-117 and F-15E as strike aircrafts and more.

Today - F-35 and F-22 do everything (with outdated F-15, F-16, A-10 designed 50 years ago as support)

 

Now Russian Su-35, French Rafale or British Eurofighter can do basically everything so diversity dissapeared naturally due to technological progress. A month ago USAF general said USAF will use only 4 basic types of combat aircrafts in near future. USAF with 5500 aircrafts.

Eurofighter and F-35 are practically the only combat airplanes used by whole RAF, no diversity.

For France Rafale is doing everything (with some help from outdated Mirages 2000 being phased out gradually.), zero diversity. During '80s they used Mirage III interceptor, SEPECAT Jaguar low level strike aircraft, Mirage 5 CAS, Mirage F.1 fighter, Mirage IV bomber, F-8 Crusader navy fighter, Super Etendard navy attack aircraft, Mirage 2000 fighter interceptor, all having their roles.

 

The more you go back the bigger diversity with a pick around '80s before dissolution of the Soviet Union, modern day one type is doing everything.

Edited July 6, 2021 by kseremak

[Harker]

 
About diversity; i've read an interview with Russian Su-27 and Su-35 pilot, here on DCS forum in Russian section, and he stated due to technology and computers advances, smart long range weapon (and post cold war budget cuts) the diversity dissapeared since fighter like Su-35 or Eurofighter can do everything; air combat, interception, CAS, ground strike, SEAD, recon, long range strike with cruise missiles and so on. And do it even better than previous, diverse, specialised aircrafts palette.
 
He said even modern ground attack plane Su-34 has been bought by Russian Air Force to save Sukhoi company from bancruptcy and Su-35 can do everything Su-34 can and more, being able to defend itself.
 
During '80s Soviet union used very diverse aircraft fleet; 
Su-15TM, Tu-128, MiG-31 and MiG-25PD as interceptors,
MiG-21/23/29 as tactical fighters,
Su-17 and MIG-27 as ground attackers,
Su-25 as CAS,
Su-27 as long range escort and air combat,
Su-24 for SEAD,
Yak-28 and MiG-25 for reconissance,
Su-24 for low level strike, and many others.
 
US during '80s
F-14 and F-18 as navy fighters,
A-7 as navy CAS,
A-6 as Navy bombers,
F-111 as low level strike,
F-4, F-16 and F-15 as fighters,
F-117 and F-15E as strike aircrafts and more.
Today - F-35 and F-22 do everything (with outdated F-15, F-16, A-10 designed 50 years ago as support)
 
Now Russian Su-35, French Rafale or British Eurofighter can do basically everything so diversity dissapeared naturally due to technological progress. A month ago USAF general said USAF will use only 4 basic types of combat aircrafts in near future. USAF with 5500 aircrafts.
Eurofighter and F-35 are practically the only combat airplanes used by whole RAF, no diversity.
For France Rafale is doing everything (with some help from outdated Mirages 2000 being phased out gradually.), zero diversity. During '80s they used Mirage III interceptor, SEPECAT Jaguar low level strike aircraft, Mirage 5 CAS, Mirage F.1 fighter, Mirage IV bomber, F-8 Crusader navy fighter, Super Etendard navy attack aircraft, Mirage 2000 fighter interceptor, all having their roles.
 
The more you go back the bigger diversity with a pick around '80s before dissolution of the Soviet Union, modern day one type is doing everything.

I personally have no problem with DCS eventually focusing more on a few modern aircraft and putting a lot of emphasis on avionics development. They could come at a higher price, to offset the higher development effort and time required and could be upgraded with newer capabilities when/if info becomes available for newer versions.

I should note that I'm talking from the perspective of someone who likes getting deep into one or two aircraft and taking the time required to learn them fully, I'm not interested in having 50 aircraft that I don't have time to master. Different types of players might feel differently, however.

[WinterH]

21 minutes ago, Harker said:

I'm not interested in having 50 aircraft that I don't have time to master.

This is the exact thing that keeps me interested in DCS though.

 

Not trying to be a contrarian, just to voice that there are many different ways in which people enjoy DCS. They are often mutually exclusive, but that's ok.

 

However, devs focusing on modern aircraft would be the end of purchases for me personally. It won't be for majority, of course, but I'm pretty sure it will still be a good bit of lost sales.

[bies]

1 hour ago, kseremak said:

 

About diversity; i've read an interview with Russian Su-27 and Su-35 pilot, here on DCS forum in Russian section, and he stated due to technology and computers advances, smart long range weapon (and post cold war budget cuts) the diversity dissapeared since fighter like Su-35 or Eurofighter can do everything; air combat, interception, CAS, ground strike, SEAD, recon, long range strike with cruise missiles and so on. And do it even better than previous, diverse, specialised aircrafts palette.

 

He said even modern ground attack plane Su-34 has been bought by Russian Air Force to save Sukhoi company from bancruptcy and Su-35 can do everything Su-34 can and more, being able to defend itself.

 

During '80s Soviet union used very diverse aircraft fleet; 

Su-15TM, Tu-128, MiG-31 and MiG-25PD as interceptors,

MiG-21/23/29 as tactical fighters,

Su-17 and MIG-27 as ground attackers,

Su-25 as CAS,

Su-27 as long range escort and air combat,

Su-24 for SEAD,

Yak-28 and MiG-25 for reconissance,

Su-24 for low level strike, and many others.

 

US during '80s

F-14 and F-18 as navy fighters,

A-7 as navy CAS,

A-6 as Navy bombers,

F-111 as low level strike,

F-4, F-16 and F-15 as fighters,

F-117 and F-15E as strike aircrafts and more.

Today - F-35 and F-22 do everything (with outdated F-15, F-16, A-10 designed 50 years ago as support)

 

Now Russian Su-35, French Rafale or British Eurofighter can do basically everything so diversity dissapeared naturally due to technological progress. A month ago USAF general said USAF will use only 4 basic types of combat aircrafts in near future. USAF with 5500 aircrafts.

Eurofighter and F-35 are practically the only combat airplanes used by whole RAF, no diversity.

For France Rafale is doing everything (with some help from outdated Mirages 2000 being phased out gradually.), zero diversity. During '80s they used Mirage III interceptor, SEPECAT Jaguar low level strike aircraft, Mirage 5 CAS, Mirage F.1 fighter, Mirage IV bomber, F-8 Crusader navy fighter, Super Etendard navy attack aircraft, Mirage 2000 fighter interceptor, all having their roles.

 

The more you go back the bigger diversity with a pick around '80s before dissolution of the Soviet Union, modern day one type is doing everything.

 

 

This, and making some truly "modern" aircraft for the DCS with any level of realism is impossible for obvious reasons, ED stated that many times.

 

If someone want to accept module having nothing in common with the real aircraft except for the 3D model there are always fan MODs.

 

 

 

PS: MAC may be a "relief valve" for guys preferring less realistic approach. It may be even easier to modify for some of the wildest B-21, NGAD, Tempest etc.

[Cmptohocah]

How is modeling an MiG-31 (or any other Russian/Soviet mil. aeroplane for that matter), for example, with publicly available data, images and videos, not good enough and considered "fantasy" when this is exactly what all Flaming Cliffs aircraft are? I don't get it.

So MiG-29A/S and Su-27S are not modeled by the manuals 'cause it's classified and a big legal 'no-no' and yet no other Russian/Soviet airplane can be modeled 'cause ED makes only planes that have their documentation de-classified. This makes no sense.

[Harker]

This is the exact thing that keeps me interested in DCS though.
 
Not trying to be a contrarian, just to voice that there are many different ways in which people enjoy DCS. They are often mutually exclusive, but that's ok.
 
However, devs focusing on modern aircraft would be the end of purchases for me personally. It won't be for majority, of course, but I'm pretty sure it will still be a good bit of lost sales.

I understand, like I said, there are different ways of enjoying DCS. I find enjoyment in dealing with complex systems and reading about and understanding the technology behind them and thus I prefer a modern, complex, very well simulated module, than multiple simpler, older aircraft.

But again, that's just. I think that a lot of people feel the way you do. Similarly but opposite to you, if DCS completely turns to Cold War stuff and starts pumping them out one after the other, then I'll probably not buy many more modules, save for the occasional one, as I'm not excited about aircraft from that era (consider that my last aircraft purchase was the JF-17 and I'm considering the AH-64D, after it reaches a good point in avionics development).

How is modeling an MiG-31 (or any other Russian/Soviet mil. aeroplane for that matter), for example, with publicly available data, images and videos, not good enough and considered "fantasy" when this is exactly what all Flaming Cliffs aircraft are? I don't get it.
So MiG-29A/S and Su-27S are not modeled by the manuals 'cause it's classified and a big legal 'no-no' and yet no other Russian/Soviet airplane can be modeled 'cause ED makes only planes that have their documentation de-classified. This makes no sense.

I think it's more of an issue of getting the licensing and permissions from the manufacturer. It could be that it's OK to model these older versions very simply, as FC3, but not OK to either model more newer versions as FC3 or model older versions with more detail.

It's not only about available sources, it's also about intellectual property rights and the legal aspect of including something in your game.

[bies]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

How is modeling an MiG-31 (or any other Russian/Soviet mil. aeroplane for that matter), for example, with publicly available data, images and videos, not good enough and considered "fantasy" when this is exactly what all Flaming Cliffs aircraft are? I don't get it.

So MiG-29A/S and Su-27S are not modeled by the manuals 'cause it's classified and a big legal 'no-no' and yet no other Russian/Soviet airplane can be modeled 'cause ED makes only planes that have their documentation de-classified. This makes no sense.

 

It's not like that.

 

First current FC3 aircrafts are not totally unrealistic made up fiction, they have lot in similarities with the real aircrafts, including some documentation, but they are significantly simplified and simply way older than any DCS module.

 

Second MiG-31 is an AI aircraft and to model AI aircraft you don't need really any documentation, the systems are even way, way more simplified than FC3 and FM is not meant to be even close - look at AI MiG-15 defeating energetically MiG-29 in a dogfight with ease.

 

Third Russian equipment is strictly classified but Soviet aircrafts from 1980s like Mi-24P, MiG-29A, Su-27S, Su-25A, Su-17M, Su-24M, MiG-23MLA and similar are probably possible to be modeled faithfully with documentation and it looks like ED and 3rd parties are going this way already with Mi-24P released, MiG-23MLA being developed and MiG-29A and Su-17M already planned.

 

(Even 1980s MiG-31 and Su-27 may be on the harder end being PVO fighters which were always absurdly classified)

Edited July 6, 2021 by bies

[Cmptohocah]

1 hour ago, Harker said:

I think it's more of an issue of getting the licensing and permissions from the manufacturer. It could be that it's OK to model these older versions very simply, as FC3, but not OK to either model more newer versions as FC3 or model older versions with more detail.

It's not only about available sources, it's also about intellectual property rights and the legal aspect of including something in your game.

Yes I was thinking of same level modeling as FC3.

At what point in time does it become "not OK" to model aircraft due to rights issues? I mean what is the cutoff point, or which year if you will?
Also what is the "more detail" line that should not be crossed, so the rights get violated?  Honestly, this seems like a very flimsy argument, as I can't imagine something legally being more or less allowed - it's usually allowed or not (I'm not a legal expert in any way). 
How does J-11A fit into all of this?

Edited July 6, 2021 by Cmptohocah
I need to learn how to type properly.

[Exorcet]

3 hours ago, kseremak said:

 

About diversity; i've read an interview with Russian Su-27 and Su-35 pilot, here on DCS forum in Russian section, and he stated due to technology and computers advances, smart long range weapon (and post cold war budget cuts) the diversity dissapeared since fighter like Su-35 or Eurofighter can do everything; air combat, interception, CAS, ground strike, SEAD, recon, long range strike with cruise missiles and so on. And do it even better than previous, diverse, specialised aircrafts palette.

 

He said even modern ground attack plane Su-34 has been bought by Russian Air Force to save Sukhoi company from bancruptcy and Su-35 can do everything Su-34 can and more, being able to defend itself.

 

You're discussing something slightly different. While each air force has less plane types, there are still a bunch when you look at air forces in total. And they're not all interchangeable. The F-35 is very different from the EF-2000 for one, and while they both might be able to cover the same mission they could end up going about it in very different ways.

 

There is also the matter of training. I imagine that Su-34 crews train more for ultra long range strike missions since it makes more sense for their airframe to take on that task than the Su-35. And while smart weapons can help make a plane more versatile, remember that they aren't free. Even today we have reasons to use dumber weapons.

3 hours ago, kseremak said:

 

 

Today - F-35 and F-22 do everything (with outdated F-15, F-16, A-10 designed 50 years ago as support)

 

Well actually the USAF is getting the F-15EX for a reason. Part of it is cost, but it's also because there are situations where a 5th gen aircraft is overkill. Advanced 4th gen is outdated in a head to head fight, but has some uses in specialty roles.

[GGTharos]

21 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

At what point in time does it become "not OK" to model aircraft due to rights issues? I mean what is the cutoff point, or which year if you will?
Also what is the "more detail" line that should not be crossed, so the rights get violated?  Honestly, this seems like a very flimsy argument, as I can't imagine something legally being more or less allowed - it's usually allowed or not (I'm not a legal expert in any way). 
How does J-11A fit into all of this?

 

ED said they won't make any more FC3 style modules (I guess MAC is the exception to the rule, but it's going in the opposite direction - FF -> FC3) ... so not really a flimsy argument for ED.  The J-11A is a modification of the Su-27 made by Deka with ED's permission.

 

So ... if you're a 3rd party you can do whatever you choose, ED as stated won't be doing any more FC3 things.

[Cmptohocah]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

So ... if you're a 3rd party you can do whatever you choose, ED as stated won't be doing any more FC3 things.

 Ah, I see. So the real obstacle is lack of interest in FC3. Ok, good to know.  Thanks.

[Furiz]

3 hours ago, Harker said:

I personally have no problem with DCS eventually focusing more on a few modern aircraft and putting a lot of emphasis on avionics development. They could come at a higher price, to offset the higher development effort and time required and could be upgraded with newer capabilities when/if info becomes available for newer versions.

I should note that I'm talking from the perspective of someone who likes getting deep into one or two aircraft and taking the time required to learn them fully, I'm not interested in having 50 aircraft that I don't have time to master. Different types of players might feel differently, however.

 

Exactly this, I bought only 2 modern jets (Viper and Hornet) and I have tons of fun learning their systems and learning tactics to employ weapons, I don't like the idea of having 10 or 20 jets, nor i find those cold war jets with simple systems fun, and yea wouldn't even have time for all that. So I like to spend my time fully understanding those jets that I have and I love the fact they are so complex.

Only jet I'm would buy next would be Dassault Rafale, if it ever hits ED shelves.

[bies]

On the other hand cold war aircrafts had very unitary avionics so if i lear i.e. MiG-21 i can jump right into new MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-15, Su-27, Su-25, Su-17 etc. and after just some short training I'm combat ready.

 

This was the philosophy at that times since Soviet air force was ~10 times bigger than today's Russian Air Force so pilots had to be very fast and easy to retrain to another type.

 

I'm case of more modern aircrafts i need long and throughout training and constant practice to stay "combat ready". 

 

I.e. i can barely stay trained and efficient remember all the systems in A-10C, F/A-18 and F-16 (and they are not even finished avionics and systems wise) and learning new 2000s sophisticated module because it is beyond statistical human capability. And there is also a life outside the computer.

Even real pilot learn only one type, learn it for months if not years, practice daily and doesn't have any other job except for this one.

 

So there are two options: forgetting and abandoning some modules only to be able and have a time to learn some new one  or  not to buy the new one knowing it's beyond my perception. Except for buying everything to support the company.

 

That's why "modern" modules complication restrict potential sales.

[Furiz]

4 hours ago, bies said:

That's why "modern" modules complication restrict potential sales.

 

Dunno but I rly don't see much people flying in F-5 or M2000C for example. I mostly see Viper and Hornets, then Tomcats and Hogs, very low cold war planes being flown. and very low amount of cold war MP servers for that matter, that's a direct indicator of what sells the most. There is people that are gonna buy all of modern jets and that don't care about learning one or two in depth.

 

If cold war was so popular there would be lots of cold war MP servers. I'd say modern jets sell much more than cold war. But ED probably has more accurate numbers then our guesses.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Furiz

[kseremak]

5 hours ago, bies said:

So there are two options: forgetting and abandoning some modules only to be able and have a time to learn some new one  or  not to buy the new one knowing it's beyond my perception. Except for buying everything to support the company.

 

That's why "modern" modules complication restrict potential sales.

 

I remember today's Hoggit post, when guy said he's not going to buy JF-17 because he's already barely able how to use two other modules:

(110) Djeff! : hoggit (reddit.com)

 

For people unable to open the link

Quote

"Jeff is the jet I keep wanting to buy, but don’t because I know I’ll never learn to fly it properly. The Viggen and Tomcat take up too much of my limited brain capacity for such things (and I still frequently screw up in the Tomcat.)"

 

So maybe modeling very complex aircrafts will really hamper the size of customer base in longer term.

For example i could learn hypotetical full fidelity A-10A in a few hours so i can buy even 10 similar modules still being proficient using simple systems and manual weapon. Or F-5E, MiG-21bis, ff MiG-29A and so on.

But digital A-10C? Many days  (more realistically weeks) of scrupulous learning and at least 3-4 flights a week to maintain habits, subconsious memory for HOTAS and systems, procedures to fire simple unguided rocket.

 

If today real life rigorously selected full time miltary pilot is expected to be proficient using only one aircraft, why the idea average amateur part time gamer can be proficient in more than 1 or maybe 2? It may be a long term problem when trying to sell more complex aircrafts, each very hard to learn. Realistic complex simulators of old, like F4.0, iF/A-18E had only one to learn but ED financial model depends on making and selling another one, then another one, then another one... Who will be able to use at least 30% of them (and buy next) in a next few years?

Edited July 6, 2021 by kseremak

[Cmptohocah]

1 hour ago, Furiz said:

 

Dunno but I rly don't see much people flying in F-5 or M2000C for example...

 

There are quite a few people flying the Mirage on that 80's server in MP (I don't want to advertise it).

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, kseremak said:

 

I remember today's Hoggit post, when guy said he's not going to buy JF-17 because he's already barely able how to use two other modules:

(110) Djeff! : hoggit (reddit.com)

 

For people unable to open the link

 

So maybe modeling very complex aircrafts will really hamper the size of customer base in longer term.

For example i could learn hypotetical full fidelity A-10A in a few hours so i can buy even 10 similar modules still being proficient using simple systems and manual weapon.

But digital A-10C? Many days  (more realistically weeks) of scrupulous learning and at least 3-4 flights a week to maintain habits, subconsious memory for HOTAS and systems, procedures to fire simple unguided rocket.

 

If today real life rigorously selected full time miltary pilot is expected to be proficient using only one aircraft, why the idea average amateur part time gamer can be proficient in more than 1 or maybe 2? It may be a long term problem when trying to sell more complex aircrafts, each very hard to learn. Realistic complex simulators of old, like F4.0, iF/A-18E had only one to learn but ED financial model depends on making and selling another one, then another one, then another one... Who will be able to use at least 30% of them (and buy next) in a next few years?

 

 

There is also many people that will buy modern planes cause they like those 2 or 3 screens and Data Link etc, more than lots gauges in the cockpit, and they don't have to learn those modern jets in depth and spend months learning, they can spend few hours and learn the basics, just like your full fidelity A-10A module, they learn the basic stuff and off they go, it is not like you are bound to learn everything,

after that they buy new modern plane etc etc... and the sales are not stopped cause everyone is busy learning modern jets.

 

I think 3 of us mentioned we like to learn the modern planes in depth, that doesn't mean everyone is doing that. Just look at the number of modern MP servers, and the sales on modern planes,

if you believe this, people are not sticking to modern jets only, they do buy Cold War planes too. I personally have no interest in cold war planes but others do.

 

So you guys trying to emphasize here that sales are going to drop cause all these modern plane fans will only buy one module is complete nonsense.

 

 

44 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

There are quite a few people flying the Mirage on that 80's server in MP (I don't want to advertise it).

 

Exactly, that one 80's server;D ok I'll be fair, I know of 2 that are not empty

Edited July 6, 2021 by Furiz

[bies]

Yes but I wasn't talking about preferences, obviously there are people who buy Warbirds, there are others who buy Cold Wars aircrafts, there are guys who buy 2000s modules.

 

I was talking about limitations of human brain to remember and be efficient using more than 2-3 extremely complicated modules with 2000s timeframe.

 

Talking with many guys I woul argue only a small fraction of DCS community having A-10C, F/A-18C, F-16C can remember all the systems and procedures in all three of them. With Hornet and especially Viper not even finished with many more systems incoming.

And there are also VTOL AV-8B and totally different avionics JF-17.

 

So who will be able to use even more complicated Apache without sacrificing previous ones? Then sophisticated two seater multirole F-15E. Then totally different EF2000 on the horizon etc.

 

I can jump to any Warbird or Cold Wars aircraft and be ready for action right now. But 2000s modules i'm already forced to choose half of them at most. (except for buying everything for the sake of supporting companies but I can't expect everyone to be so generous)

 

BTW. It's interesting discussion but I feel we drifted too far from the topic. This deserves another one.