Jump to content

Is this plane the ugly stepchild of DCS?


Rebel28

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

What are ED's obligations to legacy modules and what is in their best interest on the matter?

I'm going to start from the base that there shouldn't be an expectation to upkeep a 10 year old module. But is that in ED's interest? They decided (wisely) to implement a system of Maps/Modules at a time when their competitors would release 1 aircraft + 1 map, patch bugs for a year (no upgrades and @*@%block modders as hard as possible), then move on to the next project.

ED's business model gives them the incentive to keep modules up to date and add features as technology becomes available. In the medium term they get more and more products to sell to every new user they acquire. This has brought them to where they are today: a wide range of aircraft, 3rd party developers, and maps. What DCS is today is probably ED's vision of it 12 years ago.

But now they've hit a wall in the long term strategy. Modules are getting old and there are getting to be a lot of them. So they need to find a way to deal with this. They seem to have tried 2 tracks:

1) The A-10A is a legacy aircraft from Flaming Cliffs 3 and was given the new professional flight model but still has low button mashing potential. They sell it for a fraction of the cost of a made-for-DCS module. I think everyone can agree expectations here are low and it is meant to be a low cost springboard into DCS. Then there is the A-10C, everything we would expect from a modern flight simulator (as of 2012). Then they released the A-10C II, discounted for a time for A-10C owners. This $$$ is how they could fund an upgrade to the A-10CII. A-10A owners still get a low cost module to get into DCS, A-10C owners got many of the under-the-hood upgrades from the A-10C II, and everyone that loves the Warthog gets the newest, fanciest, modernist module for DCS in the A-10C II.

2) the other path they took is the one with the Mustang. It was developed by "The Fighter Collection" but something happened and The Fighter Collection is no longer involved with the P-51, leaving it to ED to deal with. They have slowly been adding features and correcting bugs. Then, about 2 years ago, ED upgraded the cockpit and sound completely. This is when the module went up in price and is why people are saying the days of $15 Mustang sales are over.

The A-10 path imo is ideal. But it only works because the A-10 is so popular. But keep in mind ED has to compete with themselves against all the A-10 modules they already sold people (and still sell).

Some people bought the P-51D LONG ago for $15. These people would have very low expectations for future updates because the module came out in 2012 and has been in the bargain bin multiple times since then. Then ED decides to upgrade the Mustang to be more modern and they upgraded the price accordingly. New customers have more recently paid twice as much for the P-51D and they expect it to be upkept as though it was new when they updated it. That's what ED gets for updating the price as well lol.

What if ED released, like the A-10CII, the P-51B/C models? The people that bought the P-51D 10 years ago from a bargain bin would be all to happy to purchase a new module. But what about the people that paid full price just a few years ago for the P-51D module? I imagine they will be pissed.

So yes, the P-51D is the ugly stepchild of ED. And the Warthog is the heir to the throne.

Just out of curiosity, would you guys buy a P-51B/C module (and when did you buy the -D module?)

I would DEFINATLY buy a P-51B/C or even an A model (that would be awesome). The P-51D was the second module I ever bought. And yes, I only paid $15 for it.

I'm not sure I follow your two track theory.

IMO, what we are all witness to in terms of the progression of DCS World is simply the evolution of technologies used in the gaming industry.

If you go back to 2012, you will see a lot of similarities between the games from that time. Move forward to 2022 and the same can be said with the main distinction being a game that started in 2012 and is still going in 2022, and a new game just arriving in 2022.

I think there is a lot that could be said about migrating large game platforms like DCS World to update them, but I would not be pissed in the least if they released a B/C model of the Mustang, would most likely buy it, but would definitely keep flying the D for obvious reasons, and I originally bought the Mustang in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

2) the other path they took is the one with the Mustang. It was developed by "The Fighter Collection" but something happened and The Fighter Collection is no longer involved with the P-51, leaving it to ED to deal with. They have slowly been adding features and correcting bugs. Then, about 2 years ago, ED upgraded the cockpit and sound completely. This is when the module went up in price and is why people are saying the days of $15 Mustang sales are over.

The A-10 path imo is ideal. But it only works because the A-10 is so popular. But keep in mind ED has to compete with themselves against all the A-10 modules they already sold people (and still sell).

Nice recap of yours which I mostly agree with, and I would definitely either buy a P-51B either. Let me just tell something here.

No, it wasn't "developed by" TFC, The Fiighter Collection (which I guess you know) is a private warbirds collection owned by guess who that was/is also founder/owner of Eagle Dynamics, so they have been taking from there all kind of data, information, details, actual piloting experience-betatest from warbird pilots, etc, since day one for warbirds in DCS. Therefore I don't know what you mean to be "abandoned" in any way by TFC or anything. They have just being collaborators to the module, not developers since they don't do software of any kind, only own and keep a warbirds collection while restoring to airworthy condition and selling other warbirds. Anyhow, every wwii module to the day boasts the TFC logo, so I really don't know what you mean at all about being sort of dropped out by them 😅 .

DCS_World_Mosquito_FB_VI.jpg

 

Hence, to the question OP asked, and your reply, no, it isn't any ugly stepchild of anyone. On the contrary, from some interviews where they explained how WWII stuff started in DCS and why and how P-51 was developed as a proof of concept and demonstrator module for realistic prop flight models, just that at first, apparently it's one of Nick Grey's most cherished modules, a personal favourite of him from his words, and I highly doubt they drop it at any time while DCS exists. Your explanation of why newcomers might feel like they bought an old module makes sense (I wouldn't know, I pre-purchased it in 2012), but if something they might make an A-10C II move with it (as with many other modules from the time and slightly afterwards) in order to increase it's "face value" (literally here, most needed things are cosmetic BTW), but it's not going to be abandoned in any way as is just obvious.


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar
  • Like 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone need remember the P-51D was build by the ED team with Yo-Yo as developer, previously to 2012 and the release of DCS World, with the Fw-190D-9 as follow, and previously of the WW2 KS by Luthiem. That modules has part of ED.


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/10/2022 at 7:03 PM, 352nd_Hoss said:

There is no money in it, and after this long I don't think any of them really care anymore. It would be nice if they worked as advertised, but we do not have the fan base the Modern Air Combat folks do. This is what happens when they know they have you over the proverbial barrel, and your voice doesn't carry over the din of the AH-64 group right now. It's kind of like COVID.... the flu does not exist anymore.............  it was cured by apathy and neglect.

JMTCW

Cheers you seat of the pants warbird fans...

Hoss

A few years ago, there was a newsletter that said that the P51 was the best-selling module and therefore other projects could be financed with it.   And even today, the sales figures of the P51 should be well within the range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what always makes me chuckle in a lot of the various post/threads here.

Everyone has an opinion of what sells and by what volume, when in reality none of the people making those comments have any amount of real data to support such statements.

All that happened back in 2012 was a bunch of people bought a computer simulation of a Mustang for $15, or whatever it was.

Allowing those same users to keep the Mustang up to date poses very little problem for ED. The bigger issue isn't what you sold yesterday, but what you sell today.

The value past customers provide is in the community they create. Regardless of whether you bought something in 2012, or not. If you buy something in 2022, you are either a repeat customer or a new customer. In either scenario, the customer is going to expect value for his/her purchase. Hence, trying to sell the 2012 level of computer game quality in 2022 would likely fail.

When ED recently updated the Mustang, their incentive for doing so was much more likely driven by the sales expectations of tomorrow, not by what was sold in 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "gut" says that we will see improvements on long awaited bugs, fixes, and features once they work around a lot of the old code and technical debt still stuck in the 2.x code base...

v2.9 (3.x?)... With the refactoring that must be going on for multi-thread and Vulkan I'd expect that after a big release (hopefully not too bumpy) some of these old problems will get the attention they need.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ED would go that same way as they did with K-50, so they would make P-51D v2.0, let say 30$ upgrade for the owners of P-51, so the old P-51 would remain in game with target to be discontinued at some point.

I think that those first warbirds are too old to keep upgrading them as they are now


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, grafspee said:

If ED would go that same way as they did with K-50, so they would make P-51D v2.0, let say 30$ upgrade for the owners of P-51, so the old P-51 would remain in game with target to be discontinued at some point.

I think that those first warbirds are too old to keep upgrading them as they are now

 

Yes. I think that’s the only way forward, possibly with a further variant such as a B/C.
 

People will moan but it’s not reasonable to expect updates for ever after an initial purchase.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, reece146 said:

My "gut" says that we will see improvements on long awaited bugs, fixes, and features once they work around a lot of the old code and technical debt still stuck in the 2.x code base...

v2.9 (3.x?)... With the refactoring that must be going on for multi-thread and Vulkan I'd expect that after a big release (hopefully not too bumpy) some of these old problems will get the attention they need.

 

 

I really hope your right. Not only because of the improvements that it will bring, but the calming effect it would have on the community. There seems to be an endless supply of toxic threads that can very often be linked back to longstanding unresolved issues.

7 hours ago, grafspee said:

If ED would go that same way as they did with K-50, so they would make P-51D v2.0, let say 30$ upgrade for the owners of P-51, so the old P-51 would remain in game with target to be discontinued at some point.

I think that those first warbirds are too old to keep upgrading them as they are now

 

This would be perfectly acceptable for most I am sure as it has been in the past. If I understand correctly, the K-50 was not the only module to see this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mogster said:

People will moan but it’s not reasonable to expect updates for ever after an initial purchase.

Especially when some games charge 60$ for blue skin.

  • Like 1

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mogster said:

Yes. I think that’s the only way forward, possibly with a further variant such as a B/C.
 

People will moan but it’s not reasonable to expect updates for ever after an initial purchase.

Going by other modules and threads on the forum, I think most seem to support this concept. Especially for anyone that becomes attached to the module in question. I would certainly buy an updated P-51 if ED decided to add it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, grafspee said:

If ED would go that same way as they did with K-50, so they would make P-51D v2.0, let say 30$ upgrade for the owners of P-51, so the old P-51 would remain in game with target to be discontinued at some point.

The Blackshark Ka-50 is another legacy module with what appears to be yet another versioning/marketing scheme. The original Blackshark isn't compatible with DCS. Blackshark 2 came out right around the time the A-10C and DCS were released. Now ED is working on the Blackshark 3, which is reported to be upgradable to Blackshark 2 users at a discount.

Blacksharks 1, 2 and 3 are just improved iterations of the same model of Ka-50.

The A-10A was from the previous game Flaming Cliffs and predated DCS but was legacy'd in, unlike the Blackshark, even though DCS literally launched as an A-10C simulator. I assume this is because the A-10A was a different model and it makes sense to have A-10As and A-10Cs in the same simulator. But it doesn't make sense to have Blackshark 1 Ka-50 and the Blackshark 2 Ka-50 because they're just improved code/graphics of the same aircraft. However, ED says the Blackshark 2 will remain compatible with DCS even as they release the Blackshark 3. Probably because the Blackshark 3 was meant to be more like the A-10CII upgrade with extra systems, but The Russian Federation recently changed her laws such that adding more systems to the Blackshark 3 isn't possible.

So the Blackshark actually DOES follow the same versioning/marketing scheme as the Warthog. The A-10A and Blackshark 1 both predate DCS. The A-10A is a different aircraft than the A-10C but Blackshark 1 is the same aircraft as the Blackshark 2, so the A-10A gets legacy'd into DCS but the Blackshark 1 didn't. ED developed the A-10CII because it has more systems than the A-10C. Similarly, ED probably started Blackshark 3 because it was going to have more systems than Blackshark 2 but they had to change their plans after the law changed. Now the Blackshark 3 is going to be mostly an aesthetic upgrade.

I do NOT think the Blackshark 3 versioning/marketing model is ideal, and I don't think ED intend for it to be merely aesthetic. It is NOT a good path forward for ED and it is not a good path for their consumers.

I think a versioning/marketing scheme based on different models of the same aircraft is far superior and I hope that is the model they continue to pursue, as best as possible, as the law allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Theodore42 Idea is that ED's dev will not work for free to keep upgrading 10 years old DCS P-51 endlessly, in light of recent events i assume that free updated to all old warbirds will not come any time soon. Ofc it would be ideal for customers to have P-51 upgraded for free.

  • Like 1

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would certainly support an updated version of the P-51 with a purchase, but I don't think the argument for updating the Mustang is exactly the same as the argument that could be raised with something like an A10A to A10C upgrade. The 10A/C are two very different planes. 

If the module is really popular IMO, and draws in a lot of new customers, then it might be possible to update the module just to stay ahead of the curve in regards to competing platforms.  

If the module adds significantly to growing the community and the brand loyalty that is attached to that, then keeping all the owners of the module updated can't really be seen as being done for free because those same loyal customers will likely go on to purchase the Jug, the German crates, and what ever else is on offer, while at the same time an updated Mustang keeps the sex-appeal going to draw in new customers.

I really arrived here with the hope that CA/WWII assets was going to give me what I was looking for in a ground war scenario, but had I been looking just at DCS WWII for the flight SIM side, it would have been a no-show without the Mustang regardless of the release date of each plane.

But your point is well taken, and there is more to consider then just an updated plane as DCS World expands to warrant the release of a P-51 v2.0!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm cool with a paid upgrade of the warbirds. Much like having a "free" cloud service available indefinitely is not viable over the long term, perhaps similarly a DCS module that has been dragged through the last 10 years is not viable.

That said - I do want some additional value. Someone above suggested additional variants. I like that idea. For example I would love a flyable P-51B in the Shangri-La livery. Perhaps some Korean War spec Mustangs as playmates for the Sabre and Mig-15. And some stuff in the middle where it is low hanging fruit. The A-36?  Probably not exactly low hanging fruit for that one.

Likewise Bf-109E, Spit Mk 1/V/XIV, FW-190F8, etc., etc.

But I'm a bit of a module whore so take it for what it's worth.

All this said, do we know that the annual sales (units sold) of the Mustang in 2021 was not the same as in 2012? No, of course we don't. There's always new people coming into the sim. Maybe it's a non-issue and getting resources focused is more the issue with this specific module (see my post above).

At any rate, given that a module on sale costs about the same as a round of drinks after work on Friday I'm not too sussed about flipping ED some coin to get sh!te done if that is what it takes - provided there is value - whatever that looks like.

$0.02


Edited by reece146
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, reece146 said:

I'm cool with a paid upgrade of the warbirds. Much like having a "free" cloud service available indefinitely is not viable over the long term, perhaps similarly a DCS module that has been dragged through the last 10 years is not viable.

That said - I do want some additional value. Someone above suggested additional variants. I like that idea. For example I would love a flyable P-51B in the Shangri-La livery. Perhaps some Korean War spec Mustangs as playmates for the Sabre and Mig-15. And some stuff in the middle where it is low hanging fruit. The A-36?  Probably not exactly low hanging fruit for that one.

Likewise Bf-109E, Spit Mk 1/V/XIV, FW-190F8, etc., etc.

But I'm a bit of a module whore so take it for what it's worth.

All this said, do we know that the annual sales (units sold) of the Mustang in 2021 was not the same as in 2012? No, of course we don't. There's always new people coming into the sim. Maybe it's a non-issue and getting resources focused is more the issue with this specific module (see my post above).

At any rate, given that a module on sale costs about the same as a round of drinks after work on Friday I'm not too sussed about flipping ED some coin to get sh!te done if that is what it takes - provided there is value - whatever that looks like.

$0.02

 

awesome post! Yeah when you look at something like the A10A to A10C... The jump is easy to make because they are two very different planes technologically speaking. And even the A10C to A10CII had a strong argument because if I understand correctly, there were things missing that added significant value on top of the major texture buff.

But in the case of the Mustang, maybe they could pull it off by adding more detail to the model itself, or using next level modeling techniques that would allow increased detail while offering better performance. But even if it was just a major texture buff that previous owners were offered for some upgrade fee, I would gladly buy the new paint for my little Ferrari. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The textures and some minor 3D update is what we already got in 2019 BTW, and a bit of that either with the previous cockpit and P-51D-25 upgrade, can't remember what date. A new iteration of the P-51 would need some new things besides new up to date 3D model, textures (again) and everything but I wouldn't know what could ED give us besides including a B version, K version, or the like to make the investment appealing either for people who bought it more or less recently so they would be pissed to pay again, as for people using the module since 2012 or the like but having had those updates for free. I believe it's probably trickier for the company than just the bar chat we're having here throwing ideas with no consecuences.


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar
typo
  • Like 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Ala13_ManOWar, you are probably right but once ED decides to update a model, it shouldn't cost them anything to allow a previous owner to download the updated file should it?

I think the point is ED decides if and when a model gets updated, or whether its even feasible and what they have to charge for it.

My guess is that the Mustang sees a pretty steady flow of new owners each month as do other modules/maps in DCS WWII, and I think keeping the WWII stable of planes in tiptop shape holds a lot of value for ED. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If no one is up for paid upgrade then i can only wish that we would not have to wait 5 years or so, to get free p 51 overhaul.

 

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grafspee said:

If no one is up for paid upgrade then i can only wish that we would not have to wait 5 years or so, to get free p 51 overhaul.

 

I would definitely support a paid update as opposed to waiting an extended period, as lone as it was reasonable. But it would be nice to see any bugged features get resolved in the short term especially for something like the Mustang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bug fixes should be provided as per industry standard. What that looks like at ED I'm not certain, but anything beyond 2-3-4...8 sprint cycles after a bug has been identified and accepted by ED needs to have some words around it why it can't be fixed in a reasonable time frame. My fear is that if a long running bug is not specifically called out as "waiting for new technology X to be implemented" then it will just languish on the back log indefinitely to become a regression on the next major release.

There is a difference between a feature, a skin/model update, and the ability to use WEP as a realistic experience. The WEP example is a bug and should be fixed in the short term.

Things take time, that's understood. I'm involved in a very large scale software development project with general public customer facing mobile and embedded device apps. I get that time lines can look ugly. But a little bit of comms would go to reducing the "tone" this thread has in its title - perhaps - yes you can't please everyone but most people in this thread seem reasonable, practical so...

Does ED have a program to hire "summer students" and put them on to these things? We have had good luck with that at my work place. Sick the students on the low hanging stuff that our full time devs just can't smear themselves thin enough to get to.


Edited by reece146
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor einer Stunde schrieb reece146:

Does ED have a program to hire "summer students" and put them on to these things? We have had good luck with that at my work place. Sick the students on the low hanging stuff that our full time devs just can't smear themselves thin enough to get to.

"You get what you pay for"

Good luck with that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, reece146 said:

There is a difference between a feature, a skin/model update, and the ability to use WEP as a realistic experience. The WEP example is a bug and should be fixed in the short term.

True in general and I mostly agree with you. But here that sentence in particular shows the matter, not that easy to fix when you're working a whole new engine model for warbirds. Should they stop everything and work around a bug which probably won't be a bug after the new engine model happens, or just use that time and effort to get the engine model finished and running ASAP despite it been a huge endeavour? Hard to say for me, I guess for ED too.

That's the issue many people apparently don't understand about the "living platform" in constant change we have here which obviously affects so many things already done and working when they were first released. Because we aren't talking about long standing bugs since "ever" in the module's life and never solved, we are talking about bugs appearing after game core, features updates, or whatever it is because whenever you touch a thing in the house of cards, and it's a bigger and bigger house of cards since 2011, many things are affected, but we also want the updates in the house of cards so they can't stop the constant changes, upgrades, updates, new features, new everything.

I guess when the whole core and game engine would be "finished" with regards to features and so that kind of bugs just wouldn't happen any more, but while the game is changing in a sort of daily basis they are going to happen every patch. And even when the game core is up to ED's goals, we will be wanting a new thing for sure, so probably it'll never stop. It's a precarious balance we ask ED to have, new things, new modules, new core features, but please don't mess with what we already have, and that while we play… OpenBeta… :music_whistling: I mean, knowing all of that which I'm not privileged to know or something, it's just public info out here and out there, I don't feel like asking ED much more than we have and they do, and I know they do their best because we wouldn't be here talking about things didn't even exist a few years ago, but some people just keep demanding more and more, but please no bugs or anything. IMO it's just not fair to them, and I'm pretty much aware of the money we put on the modules and everything, don't think I'm not.

  • Like 2

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps bug fixes and updates to mustangs in general could be financed by a new B/C module?

A new Mustang B/C module would be worth the purchase for existing owners and new ones alike, while the work done on it or covered by the team's scope could cross over and cover much of the existing D module, making the old module attractive to new users and bringing it up to standard for the current owners.


Edited by kablamoman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...