DCS: F-15C Poll

[draconus]

9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But I am having trouble pinning down your view point. Are you for or against making FC3 planes FF? Would you be opposed to see the FC3 plane-set improved, or would you support it?

I am fully supporting the main idea of this thread - making FF F-15C and btw, also would like to see making all the other FC3 aircraft FF however possible. I am not interested in making more FC3 type aircarft. Any action that make FC3 aircraft closer to FF is welcome.

Edited April 1, 2022 by draconus

[IcedVenom]

I just want Yak-38

[Callsign112]

On 4/1/2022 at 6:41 PM, draconus said:

I am fully supporting the main idea of this thread - making FF F-15C and btw, also would like to see making all the other FC3 aircraft FF however possible. I am not interested in making more FC3 type aircarft. Any action that make FC3 aircraft closer to FF is welcome.

 

Now I believe we are pretty much on the same page. Where I think we might still differ is on the issue of the Free Planes vs Free Trial Period, or an Easier-to-Learn (FC3) module vs FF modules.

There is no one way to learn/teach something, and if the object of the exercise is to expand and be more inclusive as opposed to restricting access to DCS World by limiting its use to only people with a proven aptitude in flying, then you have to consider increasing the number of learning opportunities.  I am quite certain that the free planes/simplified FC3 module both still hold value as a tools to help more people discover/learn DCS.

The purpose of the FC3 module seems to be focused on making it easier to learn DCS, but also more interesting at the same time by adding new features/improvements to the FC series.

"FC3 aircraft provide an easy learning curve for new players and focuses on a broad range of aircraft rather than a detailed single aircraft. FC3 adds a number of new features and improvements to previous versions of the Flaming Cliffs series."

My point to all of this was that I think ED missed capitalizing on a golden opportunity here. Attracting more people by making it easier to learn DCS is an excellent strategy, but I think it missed on a very important point. Instead of attaching an image of quality to one of its most important teaching tools, the FC3 module became known as the less capable ugly stepsister. There is a disconnect between the brand/image ED is trying to achieve, and the image it is sending the new users that purchased its FC3 product.

The FC3 module shouldn't only be easier to learn, it should also project the same, or similar high quality standard that DCS World has come to be known for if it is to really be successful at converting new users. 

To make it more feasible, the FC3 plane-set could have been reduced slightly. I think the MiG-29/Su-33 should be FF modules, and the FC3 module focuses on delivering a higher quality of end-user experience with just the F-15C/A10A vs Su-27/Su-25.

This would be a win-win-win for FF module inventory/Russian Carrier OP's/new user conversion/retain rate.     

[BanagherLinks]

I'd say it'll be more clever by ED (or 3rd party dev team) to give us an export variant such as F-15J (My weab alter is talking), It'll keep the FC3 eagle "Unique" and gives another variant to the other one tho... Even if I think it'll not be bad if a Domestic eagle comes out as FF instead of an export one tho

Edited April 18, 2022 by BanagherLinks

[Superbug Echo]

...Nuff Said!

[bies]

I would love to see full fidelity fighter variant F-15A or C as well. It was "The Fighter" from 1975 up to 2005 when Raptor and Eurofighter entered service replacing it at the top of the food chain. It was the last fighter that fought in real full scale air wars achieving more than 100 air kills. And it could be modeled in a very realsitic way as we know how it's weapons, systems, airframe performed in real life air combat against many different opponents.

Edited April 28, 2022 by bies

[Exorcet]

Definitely the gaping hole in the DCS module line up. If the various CFT's and ASAT missile could be modeled, it would also be one of the most unique aircraft. Not to mention one of the most capable as despite its use as a fighter in the USAF it has a basic but large air to ground attack capability.

[Superbug Echo]

Arguably still a formidable adversary against the Raptor and Euro, at least up close and personal and depending on the driver.  ED argues that the F-15C wouldn't be popular enough to justify the effort because its mission is one dimensional.  If that's their primary argument then why are we flying high fidelity simulations of the A-10 and AV-8...etc.  OR....maybe it wouldn't be popular because of the highly anticipated release of the Strike Eagle?  The reality is they look alike but with completely different missions and arguably even the F-15E is pretty much one dimensional. Not sure the USAF uses or would use the "E" for CAP or Air Superiority missions. I think the Strike Eagle might have 1 actual Air to Air kill.  On the flip side, who the hell knows when Razbam will actually release the Strike Eagle.  

The F-15C is a pure gunfighter with enormous power and potential. When matched against any other fighter the rest of the world has to offer, my money is still on the "C" and that includes the highly touted f-35 mini lightning. It's only been the best of the best forever, so let's not take it serious enough to make it more than FC3. 

[cfrag]

10 hours ago, Superbug Echo said:

 ED argues that the F-15C wouldn't be popular enough to justify the effort because its mission is one dimensional

Probably because they have done the market research. You and I would purchase that module sight unseen.

You and I are not the average DCS customer. 

[Exorcet]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Probably because they have done the market research. You and I would purchase that module sight unseen.

You and I are not the average DCS customer. 

They may have done the research, but it's still not really clear how the Eagle ends up not worth doing. The Eagle is everything the F-4 is minus carrier capable (which the upcoming F-4E is not). You could also compare it to a much more advanced F-5, way more capable in AA but similar AG capability. We're also missing a heavy single seat dedicated fighter. The Eagle would be a decent upgrade over the F-16 and F-18 in air to air. It's also half done, so even if it's a poor seller, it should make a profit. There are plenty of reasons to want the plane.

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

They may have done the research, but it's still not really clear how the Eagle ends up not worth doing

They did not share the results of their study with us. I'm all for a full fidelity Charlie. Or any other (FC or other) plane. It's just that if a company says 'we are not doing this because we looked, and found other things that are more worthy of the investment', I tend to believe them. They are the experts, it's their livelihood on the line, not mine. Why would they lie about something like that? What's there for them to gain?

Edited April 30, 2022 by cfrag

[Exorcet]

19 minutes ago, cfrag said:

They did not share the results of their study with us. I'm all for a full fidelity Charlie. Or any other (FC or other) plane. It's just that if a company says 'we are not doing this because we looked, and found other things that are more worthy of the investment', I tend to believe them. They are the experts, it's their livelihood on the line, not mine. Why would they lie about something like that? What's there for them to gain?

 

They don't have to be lying. They could be mistaken. I'm not even necessarily accusing them of that though. I'm pointing out that the F-15 has many similarities with modules that are apparently worth making, which makes it confusing how it could be rated as unfeasible. That doesn't mean it can't be, it's just hard to see how. I also want to continue to point out that there is a demand for the Eagle of some kind.

[cfrag]

26 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

They don't have to be lying. They could be mistaken.

Agreed. Occam's razor says 'probably no', even if it feels counter-intuitive to us. It's more likely that ED (presumably, I do NOT know) have invested in researching that and have an answer. They have a vested interest in following the most profitable course of action and would therefore by likely to follow wherever that research led them. It's possible that they are mistake and we, with a much smaller knowledge base, are right. It's just not very likely.

Of course there is demand. Yours, mine, many others. There are two big questions though: is that demand sufficient to qualify for funding, and if so, is expected return on investment sufficient to prioritize this model over other projects to maximize new income over value at risk? If the answer to either of that is 'no', the result is the same: NoGo for the C - for now. 

[FlankerKiller]

I don't know. I do know Ubisoft has some kind of clame to the FC birds. There is no way any market research said that the Eagle would less profitable then the Hind. Also air to air is a huge part of online play. And as mentioned it's already half finished. The FM is done, a bunch of the underlying systems are done, the cockpit is mostly done. Hell I bet thet could finish it, sell it at a reduced price, and still turn a profit. And I just don't believe it wouldn't sell. It's too capable for that. Like I said the price alone could sell it. But they will not do it. The why is baffling. I would say we keep wishing on it and maybe they will change there mind. 

[Rick50]

 

6 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

I don't know. I do know Ubisoft has some kind of clame to the FC birds. 

 

I  doubt that.  I would think that the publisher wouldn't have such control long after the deal is done. But I could be wrong. Maybe licensing rights are in the way? Maybe Ubi has the licensing rights and not ED ?  

Even still, I  think there would be an eventual sunset of such agreement, or some way to get such  an agreement for ED now  or soon.

 

6 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

There is no way any market research said that the Eagle would less profitable then the Hind.

 

Not necessarily. Some would ask "why buy a new one? I  already have the Eagle! and it wuz cheap!" Do we  know what the sales were like, comparing the FC A-10A vs  the FF A-10C ?

Many did and do want the Hind. More or less than an Eagle I cannot say. I  do think an Eagle FF module would sell, and I expect at some point it  will come. 

I expect though that ED's choices of module topics is guided by more factors though. I  didn't  expect a Viper right after the Hornet, given their similarities. I  didn't expect the Cobra and Phantom to be shelved... and I didn't  expect ED to make the Apache Longbow D when an A might have been easier  to source systems data. And I certainly didn't expect the resurection of the Phantom at HEatblur, and a few hints that a Cobra may restart development (don't hold me  or anyone else to that... I'm  probably seeing something that isn't there, maybe projecting my own  biases!!) 

I  think there is a greater overarching strategy here... competing systems, filling major gaps in the battlefield, when possible. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

And as mentioned it's already half finished. The FM is done, a bunch of the underlying systems are done, the cockpit is mostly done. 

I disagree.

The FM does not meet FF.

The systems are truly simple compared to an FF module.

And the cockpit isn't even close to done for a FF module today: the polys would need to be increased, the model would likely get a  3d laser scan  or photogrametry, the textures would  need a major update, and every switch, that doesn't work today, needs animating and get hit boxes. If that's  not done, you'll  get a mob of complaints. 

Look at the upgrades to the Hog and  Blackshark... that's  the  level needed to bring an Eagle to FF module status.

But I agree that it would be worth it, for us and ED's sales, and  it IS a little confusing why this hasn't already happened. But I do think ED's made great choices so far,  and an FF Eagle will come to us sometime.  I'm sure of it.

 

[wilbur81]

On 4/28/2022 at 6:08 AM, Exorcet said:

Definitely the gaping hole in the DCS module line up. 

Agreed. And a bloated Mudhen doesn't fill the hole for me. 

[Snappy]

36 minutes ago, Rick50 said:

 

...

I disagree.

The FM does not meet FF.

Yes it does. The F-15 FM is modelled to the same PFM (professional flight model)  standard like the A-10,F-18, F-16  and the rest of EDs FF modules.
And has been for a long while now.  Have a look here if you dont believe me:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/505/

Edited May 1, 2022 by Snappy

[F-2]

The FC3 cockpits have animation so I assume at some point this was planned (FC3 MSIP?) but it never happened. Maybe once the mig-29 ff comes out the other fc3 aircraft will have their day.

[FlankerKiller]

@Rick50Lots of words, not alot of points. The FF A-10C sold so poorly that they decided to do another paid version. I doubt that many wouldn't spend just as much to get the A model. Also the Phantom was certainly not shelved. Look at the timeline. It was announced my Belsimtek back in 2018. Then Belsimtek was reabsorbed into ED. And here in 2022 it's expected this year. That is a normal development time for any complex module. The F-15 is an Icon. It's an undefeated champion of airpower that doesn't just have a reputation from exercises. It actually killed Migs. It was the last air superiority fighter that was actually used as an air superiority fighter. To believe that it won't sell to a bunch of aircombat enthusiasts is just laughable. Also I believe the F-15C we do have was the first jet to get the Professional Flight Model. They didn't call it that with the A-10. It received that upgrade back in 2013. I have no idea why ED won't grab this low hanging fruit. But they won't. I don't thing they're telling us why. But thay have said why the FC3 planes won't be developed in the past. And honestly I'm somewhat fine with that. They have their reasons. Is what it is. But to say people won't buy it, come on man. It is the air superiority fighter. 

[Dragon1-1]

Because it's not a low-hanging fruit. It's making a module from almost scratch. The FM isn't nearly up to modern standards, and neither are the visuals. Systems are absent. This would be a full new module. 

BTW, the F-15C does have an air to ground capability IRL. It can carry and drop dumb bombs (probably LGBs, too, as long as someone else is doing the lasing), in addition to strafing. Not very many, and it's certainly not a Mudhen, but it was tested and certified. USAF doesn't train to use this capability, but the Israelis do. Even the FC3 cockpit has an "air to ground" button.

I think they'll eventually do the Eaglejet, if a 3rd part doesn't grab it first. They're running out of well known aircraft to make.  Let's put it that way: ED usually goes for aircraft that were previously done in a DOS era sim. Discounting things that are already released or announced, AFAIK the only options they've got left are the Flanker, the Eaglejet and an early Super Hornet (which I'd prefer done by HB, because I also want the F variant with Jester in the backseat ). 

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

I have no idea why ED won't grab this low hanging fruit.

Usually, the simplest explanation is the most likely one: it's not a low-hanging fruit, just appears to be from the outside. If a business turns down what appears to be 'free money' they usually have good reasons. ED's single reason to exist is to make money; it's not their business to make us happy. So if it was low-hanging, it'll be picked else ED'd be leaving money on the table. 

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

But they won't. I don't thing they're telling us why

I dimly seem to recall that ED's response was something along the lines that the Charlie Eagle would 'not popular enough to recoup investment', but I can't find the source. If that was the reason, it would kill the project outright.

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

The FF A-10C sold so poorly that they decided to do another paid version

Interesting. Didn't know that. That argument could cut both ways, though: maybe ED have learned their lesson to stay away from FC3 planes. Wasn't the A-10C's development (pre C II) subsidized by some USAF mil flight school project (or rather, a stripped down version of the mil flight school sim)? Also, do you have any sources on the 'sold poorly' bit? I've never seen any numbers. I thought (hoped?) that they deduced that it sold so well that people were even willing to pay for an upgrade. Again, I have no sources for that.

[FlankerKiller]

5 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Usually, the simplest explanation is the most likely one: it's not a low-hanging fruit, just appears to be from the outside. If a business turns down what appears to be 'free money' they usually have good reasons. ED's single reason to exist is to make money; it's not their business to make us happy. So if it was low-hanging, it'll be picked else ED'd be leaving money on the table. 

I've been here a long ass time. I asked about another FC3 plane "way back in the day" the answer was something about Ubisoft owning the rights to the FC3 birds, and that being the reason that they won't be upgraded. There was a time when Belsimtek was talking about upgrading the F-15C. That was apparently why it got its PFM, and differential breaks. But we should all know how that story went. But the consistent party line since 2009 has been that the FC3 birds will remain FC3. I'm trying to poo poo this without poo pooing it.  The F-15C we have would have to be my most desired fighter. I've got more hours in it going all the way back to 2004 then anything else. Every base I was ever stationed at had them. Even today hearing that sound their afterburners make right as one pulls into a max performance climb gets my blood pumping. But as it stands it is not going to happen.  

[FlankerKiller]

"do you have any sources on the 'sold poorly' bit? I've never seen any numbers. I thought (hoped?) that they deduced that it sold so well that people were even willing to pay for an upgrade. Again, I have no sources for that." It's called sarcasm. I'm pretty sure that contract saved DCS, or allowed it. My understanding is the USAF bird was the stripped down version, minus Echo Mavs. I've already said my piece on the sales numbers. I mean i get it almost nobody flies air to air, all the big servers are air to ground only, and nobody wants to be Mavric, or a modern day Edward Von Ric Toven. Air to air is just so boring. Even in real life. Look at how the press just covers those helicopter pilots in Ukraine We know their call signs the number of targets they've hit, and then there are all the theories as to who they are and if they are still alive. Not like that no name jet ace. So I'm certain that a pure air superiority fighter, one that has IRL killed over a hundred bandits to no losses, One that has seen action in every significant air battle since the mid 1970's, one that was so hard to replace that a version of it will replace the vary jet commissioned to replace it, and one that has a significant start on development already, yes I'm 100% certain that there just aren't enough DCS players willing to buy the most iconic modern fighter there is to cover the cost of development. 

[bies]

Nick Grey said in some interview how many copies of A-10C they sell every month, 10 years after the release - it was very considerable amount of copies, i was really surpirsed.

Our best bet at this moment could be RAZBAM to make fighter variant some time after the ground pounder. Their Mirage 2000 has the most advanced digital radar simulation in the sim.

[Rick50]

22 hours ago, Snappy said:

Yes it does. The F-15 FM is modelled to the same PFM (professional flight model)  standard like the A-10,F-18, F-16  and the rest of EDs FF modules.
And has been for a long while now.  Have a look here if you dont believe me:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/505/

 

 

Just because it meets the definition  of PFM back 15 years ago (or whenever that was), doesn't mean that it meets the expectations  of a full fidellity module in 2022 without criticisms from users comparing to the real deal.  Meaning, it's in the right category, but would fail to meet today's  expectations. 

No, I'm  not claiming to be expert on FM's and the Eagle. I'm just offering that I'm doubtful the FC level product dynamics would please today's demanding audience. BUT, this isn't a showstopper, not at all. I'm very confident it's achievable, but I  don't  think simply copy/paste is the solution here, it'd have  to be done from the bottom up for FF. And really that's all I'm suggesting: the efforts from the earlier FC example are largely, IMO kind of  irrelevant to making a full  FF module. Maybe the best is whatever data they collected back then,  might be enough for a module today.

The upside is, 3rd party devs are getting better at creating good complex products. And ED is getting quite fast at creating massively complex modules, which are usable  from day 1 of early access, and  they are getting faster at it all. So despite  all the work needed, maybe an Eagle isn't so far off?

 

As for Ubi being suspected of having  the rights to the Eagle, perhaps  that's true. It might not prevent ED from getting it's own permission to make one, unless Ubi somehow got an indefinite exclusivity agreement....?  I don't know what Ubi is like these days, would  they be up  to selling such rights, or ignore such an offer? Do they even make flight simulators these days that don't involve feathered wings that flap? 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Rick50