Future of DCS complex modules, thoughts and opinions

[Dragon1-1]

10 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Except, ED business model relies on selling new modules - they don't make any money by fixing them, so no, it isn't as simple as that.

I think wildly popular aircraft would get more attention, and therefore fixes. ED can still milk those old modules for money, as long as they're up to standard.

As for the less popular aircraft, here's the thing: flight sims have been around for a while. Besides HAWX and Ace Combat, which both employ a "kitchen sink" approach, even the otherwise gamey sims generally focus on a single airframe type. This is typically one of the instantly recognizable aircraft that have a large following in popculture. Looking at the old sims is a good way to get an idea which aircraft are the most popular. ED has, historically, been risk-averse as far as airframe choice go. Everything they made is a "star of the show" aircraft, save for Yak-52 (basically an unloved orphan by this point), the F-5E (which played second fiddle in a certain very influential movie) and the L-39, which, while not particularly famous, is an extremely popular trainer.

The F-4, if done to Heatblur standard (particularly when it comes to the backseater), will likely be a big hit. An FF F-15C is easy money, too, particularly since with one MFD it's somewhat less complex than the Viper. MiG-29A and Su-27S both have some very dedicated fans. Super Hornet, if they could license it, would earn big just like the regular one. UH-60 is such an ubiquitous helo that's often requested by the helo community, and even has it own movie (plus, if nothing else, the Taliban will want some way to learn to fly those Blackhawks the US left them ). Su-25 is less popular, but it's also a smaller investment, due to sharing systems and weapons with the Hind. Beyond that, ED would have to build up recognition from scratch. Other things that they could make had been scooped up by 3rd parties.

[WobblyFlops]

58 minutes ago, DaWu said:

I fly sims for 30years and most of these planes are unknown to me. And I bet it’s the same for most. You heavily over expactate interest in such airframes

There are a couple of more obscure aircraft on the list like the Buccaneer and the Super Etendard (although these would be much more suitable for DCS than many modules that either released already or being in development) but the vast majority of that list is full of incredibly iconic aircraft. Not trying to be offensive here but maybe it's more of a you thing rather than being indicative of the mass appeal of these aircraft. Seriously, Thud? F-104? Tornado? F-111? These are very highly requested jets with a non-insignificant international appeal. 

 

59 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

The C Eagle has just about everything to offer than the Tomcat does minus a second seat and carrier operations

Sure, but does that justify the amount of cost if there's already another Eagle that can kind of perform in a comparable manner in air to air while being an air to ground powerhouse? Especially if there are many other aircraft that don't have any kind of representation in the game.

 

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I think wildly popular aircraft would get more attention, and therefore fixes. ED can still milk those old modules for money, as long as they're up to standard.

Well, it's been said that they rely on new modules (and EA) in order to survive, and it's probably easier to market new releases, than an old one.

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

As for the less popular aircraft, here's the thing: flight sims have been around for a while. Besides HAWX and Ace Combat, which both employ a "kitchen sink" approach, even the otherwise gamey sims generally focus on a single airframe type. This is typically one of the instantly recognizable aircraft that have a large following in popculture. Looking at the old sims is a good way to get an idea which aircraft are the most popular. ED has, historically, been risk-averse as far as airframe choice go. Everything they made is a "star of the show" aircraft, save for Yak-52 (basically an unloved orphan by this point), the F-5E (which played second fiddle in a certain very influential movie) and the L-39, which, while not particularly famous, is an extremely popular trainer.

Agreed.

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The F-4, if done to Heatblur standard (particularly when it comes to the backseater), will likely be a big hit.

Agreed, and another benefit of it is that there's potential to sell multiple versions (even if its just an air force and navalised version).

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

An FF F-15C is easy money, too, particularly since with one MFD it's somewhat less complex than the Viper. MiG-29A and Su-27S both have some very dedicated fans.

It all depends on what version they do, though typically, as a rule of thumb, the more modern you go, the more complex they are and the harder it is to find documentation and make a high fidelity simulation, all contributing to difficulty to develop compared to more historical versions (though obviously with notable exceptions).

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Super Hornet, if they could license it, would earn big just like the regular one.

I imagine it would, and I'd be in favour of one (even if it was from a similar timeframe, just to have colour displays), the problem though is that in such a case, it would probably make the existing module obsolete, then again the existing module has probably made most of the money it's going to make.

Of course, assumptions (and I'd argue poorly justified ones) are doing heavy lifting here.

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

UH-60 is such an ubiquitous helo that's often requested by the helo community, and even has it own movie (plus, if nothing else, the Taliban will want some way to learn to fly those Blackhawks the US left them ).

Yep, and I just imagine just about any version would be a large hit with the helicopter community, plus the Hind has an appropriate transport/utility helicopter to go with it, the same is not said for the Apache so far.

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Su-25 is less popular, but it's also a smaller investment, due to sharing systems and weapons with the Hind. Beyond that, ED would have to build up recognition from scratch. Other things that they could make had been scooped up by 3rd parties.

Agreed.

[MAXsenna]

29 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 (plus, if nothing else, the Taliban will want some way to learn to fly those Blackhawks the US left them ). 

Thank you for giving them an excuse to let us never get it!  

[Exorcet]

26 minutes ago, WobblyFlops said:

Sure, but does that justify the amount of cost if there's already another Eagle that can kind of perform in a comparable manner in air to air while being an air to ground powerhouse? Especially if there are many other aircraft that don't have any kind of representation in the game.

 

The F-15 is potentially in a weird place where cost is concerned because it's halfway in DCS already as a FC3 module. This would include not only the coding but the research that went into it as well (supposedly all the controls are ready for a clickable cockpit if I remember correctly).

Even if this wasn't the case, the Strike Eagle isn't really all that comparable. The weight and non removable CFT's will make it worse in turn performance and supersonic acceleration. C vs E is going to be something like F-16 vs F-18. You can't confuse the two. Speaking of the Viper, the blk 50 being a bit on the heavy side is enough to get people asking for lighter variants.

Ultimately though cost is a matter of how much return you get. If people consider the C different from the E, then they can certainly coexist. Factually, there are differences between the two. I can't account for the total DCS user base, but on the forums at least there does appear to be differentiation between the two as well. This comes from those looking into specific time frames and from those who want specific aircraft.

[Dragon1-1]

15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I imagine it would, and I'd be in favour of one (even if it was from a similar timeframe, just to have colour displays), the problem though is that in such a case, it would probably make the existing module obsolete, then again the existing module has probably made most of the money it's going to make.

Oddly enough, the Superbug wouldn't necessarily obsolete the current Hornet. There are some weapon choices that only the old Bug has, and I believe it can actually carry more Slammers, not to mention it's a lot lighter. For pure air to air, it might actually be superior, especially to early Superbugs that have largely the same avionics (Block II, with its AESA radar, is unlikely, to say the least). USMC kept flying the C model for quite a while, and IMO they'd complement each other rather the E making the C obsolete. 

[Germane]

 

vor einer Stunde schrieb Furiz:

Your logic is not sound:P

 

If they were so popular ED would not forget about them.

Well, I think the reason is that EDs interest is always changing to their new projects. Look at the supercarrier. I would say the carrier is not so unpopular but totaly forgotten by ED. Sadly...

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Germane said:

 

Well, I think the reason is that EDs interest is always changing to their new projects. Look at the supercarrier. I would say the carrier is not so unpopular but totaly forgotten by ED. Sadly...

you are wrong. 

We are working on new features that will take time, we have said it many times already.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, DaWu said:

I fly sims for 30years and most of these planes are unknown to me. And I bet it’s the same for most. You heavily over expactate interest in such airframes

There are also a lot of people who know what the aircraft are, and I honestly believe the more fleshed out the earlier eras become the more interest will pick up. 

[Furiz]

4 minutes ago, Germane said:

 

Well, I think the reason is that EDs interest is always changing to their new projects. Look at the supercarrier. I would say the carrier is not so unpopular but totaly forgotten by ED. Sadly...

I think they didn't forget it but SC is not the same as flyable aircraft, and SC is really for another topic, some bought it cause they had to, cause of the crew and being left behind if they don't buy it, and wont ever use those extra features.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Furiz

[upyr1]

On 1/24/2022 at 7:20 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

The Su-25A is another good option, after they finish up the Hind. It's basically a fixed wing Hind-P, with the same gun, same gunsight, similar armament (it trades SACLOS for basic laser guidance) and similar avionics. It wouldn't be nearly as much of a hit as the F-15C would, but it'd likely build up a fanbase, and it'd be easier to develop, as its avionics are on the same level of complexity as the Hind's.

A FF Su-25 would be a quick buy for me

[BIGNEWY]

Some of you forget we have been in this niche business for over 25 years, while others have disappeared. We appreciate your insights and advice but I think we can confidently say we know how to stay in business and work toward future goals, lots of patience is required. 

thanks  

[upyr1]

On 1/23/2022 at 11:20 PM, Exorcet said:

WWII is still missing some iconic planes like the P-38 and pretty much all of the Soviet side

My list for the Red AF in WWII would be the YAK-9, IL-2/10, a Kursk map, an early war map for the I-16 and something in centeral Europe that could double as an early cold war map. 

Also we need a Zero and Japanese air to challenge the F4U. 

On 1/24/2022 at 7:20 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

at one point it was suggested Su-27S wasn't out of reach (in which case they should absolutely do it as a tribute to Flanker, if nothing else).

An early model flanker would be an insta buy for me

[Beirut]

6 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

My list for the Red AF in WWII would be the YAK-9, IL-2/10, a Kursk map,

 

 

 

That would be wonderful. I would love to see a full fidelity IL-2. 

 

As to complex models; once you get through the big sellers and into the planes that fewer people have an interest in, but those who do have the interest are fanatics - like myself and the F-104 and F-111 -  can you still spend the time to make a top shelf module and a charge top shelf price? I really don't know.

 

At least DCS doesn't rehash the same plane over and over and over like in the other sim. I was up to nine variants of the Me-109. I think the tenth version was going to be the 109G6 with extra tire pressure and different colour fabric on the seat cushion.  Yeah... uh, no.

[Havremonster]

There are also 195 countrys in the world so there are still a lot of maps to build

[Germane]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb BIGNEWY:

you are wrong. 

We are working on new features that will take time, we have said it many times already.

Yes I know but its like headbreaker said in the SC thread:

Am 24.1.2022 um 05:32 schrieb headbreaker_ger:

Well, without being impolite,..... at some point "deeds instead of words" would be more than appropriate.

Nobody can argue about the patience of the SC-Buyers have shown but the visible progress is nearly non-existent.

So it's no wonder people feel that way, and with the many other disappointments we have to swallow right now and the way the critic is handed I can only say, support and trust only goes so far. I mean, ED in returns expected us to hold our part of the deal and pay our order.

I'm being honest, I cannot recommend the SC and much other Modules to any squadron-mate or friend right now.

Also, a little shout-out to the moose guys, without them the SC would be more than useless in long missions, thank you guys.

Yes you said many times that you are working on it buuut thats it. Sometimes is "we are working on it" not enough.
The key is communication. The people would be much more relaxed if they were more involved.
Look at the feedback of the Apache delay. It was very positively received. No one has complained about it. Why? Because you explained it exactly.
This kind of communication is unfortunately often missing and that is what upsets people. Not any delays! We have much more understanding for this than you think, if you explain it.
We love you and DCS but please talk more to us.

But yes, thats a little bit ot. Sorry for that.

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Germane said:

Yes I know but its like headbreaker said in the SC thread:

Yes you said many times that you are working on it buuut thats it. Sometimes is "we are working on it" not enough.
The key is communication. The people would be much more relaxed if they were more involved.
Look at the feedback of the Apache delay. It was very positively received. No one has complained about it. Why? Because you explained it exactly.
This kind of communication is unfortunately often missing and that is what upsets people. Not any delays! We have much more understanding for this than you think, if you explain it.
We love you and DCS but please talk more to us.

But yes, thats a little bit ot. Sorry for that.

We talk to early we get slammed for teasing, we wait until we are ready to release to show you more we get slammed for not showing enough. This is how it is, we understand, its passion, but there are always two sides to what people want. We have found waiting until we have something solid to show and closer to a public release is the best option. 

thanks for sticking with us. 

[Dragon1-1]

I think the current big job is AI crewmembers guiding the planes around the deck. It's one of those things that take a crapton of time and resources, but don't produce pretty screenshots until the feature is practically done. Any mid-development updates on things like that would be very technical, and probably wouldn't make sense to anyone not intimately familiar with how this part of DCS is coded. Hence why this kind of reports end up on the project lead's desk and not on the forum. 

23 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Some of you forget we have been in this niche business for over 25 years, while others have disappeared. We appreciate your insights and advice but I think we can confidently say we know how to stay in business and work toward future goals, lots of patience is required. 

thanks  

Which is why I keep suggesting you'll keep doing what you're already doing. Which is just fine, those aircraft are popular for a reason. As fun as the other, more obscure designs might be, the real money is in the airframes that they make movies and write songs about. 

TBH, this thread wasn't intended to be advice, just a WAG on what's next. 

[BIGNEWY]

6 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

TBH, this thread wasn't intended to be advice, just a WAG on what's next. 

its all good, so dont worry.

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

The F-15 is potentially in a weird place where cost is concerned because it's halfway in DCS already as a FC3 module. This would include not only the coding but the research that went into it as well (supposedly all the controls are ready for a clickable cockpit if I remember correctly).

Even if this wasn't the case, the Strike Eagle isn't really all that comparable. The weight and non removable CFT's will make it worse in turn performance and supersonic acceleration. C vs E is going to be something like F-16 vs F-18. You can't confuse the two. Speaking of the Viper, the blk 50 being a bit on the heavy side is enough to get people asking for lighter variants.

Ultimately though cost is a matter of how much return you get. If people consider the C different from the E, then they can certainly coexist. Factually, there are differences between the two. I can't account for the total DCS user base, but on the forums at least there does appear to be differentiation between the two as well. This comes from those looking into specific time frames and from those who want specific aircraft.

I'm wondering how much overlap there would be between the Charlie and Mud Hen.  If Razbam can reuse any code then the cost would come down some 

[WobblyFlops]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

This would include not only the coding but the research that went into it as well (supposedly all the controls are ready for a clickable cockpit if I remember correctly).

The behaviour and performance of the radar and avionics are drastically simplified. At the very least, the cockpit model would have to be done from scratch. The systems are so simplified that it would be virtually nothing that would carry over aside from the flight model and some limited symbology if they want to aim at anywhere near the expected level of fidelity.

 

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

Even if this wasn't the case, the Strike Eagle isn't really all that comparable. The weight and non removable CFT's will make it worse in turn performance and supersonic acceleration. C vs E is going to be something like F-16 vs F-18.

It's very comparable. WSOs (Notso especially) clearly explained that on the Razbam Discord that in an air to air configuration it's basically equivalent to a C model in BVR. BFM is going to be different (it'd still far from being defenseless though) but in air to air even with CFTs being factored in, a well modelled Strike Eagle is going to be fast enough to take first shots against anyone aside from maybe the Tomcat (but it will have drastically superior radar to the Tomcat so the advantage is obviously still there at the end of the day). It will have the ability to dictate the terms of engagement and it will have the advantage over every other jet. This is what I meant when I said it will practically simulate the C model close enough. The point of the Eagle is that it has better kinematics and sensors than anyone else in the 4th gen arena. The Strike Eagle will have somewhat worse acceleration but it will still be good enough so that it will be the most capable BVR aircraft regardless and the kinematics are still good enough to preserve the Eagle's traditional advantage. This isn't me saying this, it's Strike Eagle SMEs.

 

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

Speaking of the Viper, the blk 50 being a bit on the heavy side is enough to get people asking for lighter variants.

That's simply because a lot of people frankly don't know what they are talking about. Mover and other real life pilots explained that the heavier weight is offset by the better engine performance and the higher wing loading may have some effect but ultimately it's negligable. 

[upyr1]

35 minutes ago, Beirut said:

 

That would be wonderful. I would love to see a full fidelity IL-2. 

 

As to complex models; once you get through the big sellers and into the planes that fewer people have an interest in, but those who do have the interest are fanatics - like myself and the F-104 and F-111 -  can you still spend the time to make a top shelf module and a charge top shelf price? I really don't know.

 

At least DCS doesn't rehash the same plane over and over and over like in the other sim. I was up to nine variants of the Me-109. I think the tenth version was going to be the 109G6 with extra tire pressure and different colour fabric on the seat cushion.  Yeah... uh, no.

I might like the idea of aircraft variants but that's going too far if you ask me. As I said before if multiple versions of an aircraft exist in a sim they need to construct a career highlight reel not a daily play by play. There is the law of diminishing returns 

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Oddly enough, the Superbug wouldn't necessarily obsolete the current Hornet. There are some weapon choices that only the old Bug has, and I believe it can actually carry more Slammers, not to mention it's a lot lighter. For pure air to air, it might actually be superior, especially to early Superbugs that have largely the same avionics (Block II, with its AESA radar, is unlikely, to say the least). USMC kept flying the C model for quite a while, and IMO they'd complement each other rather the E making the C obsolete. 

Fair enough.

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

The behaviour and performance of the radar and avionics are drastically simplified. At the very least, the cockpit model would have to be done from scratch. The systems are so simplified that it would be virtually nothing that would carry over aside from the flight model and some limited symbology if they want to aim at anywhere near the expected level of fidelity.

The flight model is pretty significant though. It's about half of the module. Yes the FC3 systems are going to have to be thrown out and replaced, and the 3D model might need updating, but the F-15C is significantly less work that a module with no existing basis in DCS. A while half a module is still a lot to do, it does appear that ED original considered leaving the path open for a full fidelity Eagle. I can't be certain, but it might mean they've already researched systems beyond what is implemented in FC3.

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

 

It's very comparable. WSOs (Notso especially) clearly explained that on the Razbam Discord that in an air to air configuration it's basically equivalent to a C model in BVR. BFM is going to be different (it'd still far from being defenseless though) but in air to air even with CFTs being factored in, a well modelled Strike Eagle is going to be fast enough to take first shots against anyone aside from maybe the Tomcat (but it will have drastically superior radar to the Tomcat so the advantage is obviously still there at the end of the day). It will have the ability to dictate the terms of engagement and it will have the advantage over every other jet. This is what I meant when I said it will practically simulate the C model close enough. The point of the Eagle is that it has better kinematics and sensors than anyone else in the 4th gen arena. The Strike Eagle will have somewhat worse acceleration but it will still be good enough so that it will be the most capable BVR aircraft regardless and the kinematics are still good enough to preserve the Eagle's traditional advantage. This isn't me saying this, it's Strike Eagle SMEs.

There are still hard limitations on what the Strike Eagle can do though, especially with CFT's If you want it from SME's there is material available:

A Mach 1.6 limit is pretty significant for an otherwise Mach 2+ fighter. And yes speed and acceleration is a big part of the Eagle, but so is the agility. It replaced the F-4 and in doing so aimed to create a fighter that wasn't at a disadvantage in a dogfight versus contemporaries. The Strike Eagle gets stronger engines than the C ever did, but that doesn't negate all the disadvantages. The F-15C is the full package when it comes to air to air. While in real life all that matters is capability, there is more than that to consider in selling modules. The C's dogfighting and turning capability might not be in demand for modern airforces but it does make the C more exciting to fly virtually for some.

1 hour ago, WobblyFlops said:

 

That's simply because a lot of people frankly don't know what they are talking about. Mover and other real life pilots explained that the heavier weight is offset by the better engine performance and the higher wing loading may have some effect but ultimately it's negligable. 

Even so if an earlier lighter model feels different, that can be good enough. Again in the sim world, fun to fly matters as much as capability. Then of course you have those that want other models just for the historical significance, which applies to the F-15 as well.

 

  

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I'm wondering how much overlap there would be between the Charlie and Mud Hen.  If Razbam can reuse any code then the cost would come down some 

It would depend on how things are coded for one. My best guess is that it would still be less work for ED to make a C than Razbam, but having a working E model would surely put Razbam at 2nd place as most likely C developer at worst.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Exorcet

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 1/24/2022 at 2:20 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

however the pool of well known aircraft is shrinking fast

Fixed wing sure, but the rotary wing part of the equation has a lot of room for growth left. 2021 was supposed to be "the year of the helicopter", remember?
ED is gaining expertise at the moment when it comes to helo flight dynamics, and it would be a shame to not capitalise on that with further modules.

Also, we all know there's a lot more work to be done when it comes to assets, slingload physics, troop transport, proper MEDEVAC, ... I'd love to see a dedicated helicopter asset pack at some point