Sub DLC for country specific Jets

[Zpigman]

I was looking at the Heatblur f-4 forum and found an idea I really like in terms of potential function. In talking about the ability for the Phantom to carry aim-120s there was discussion over what was more important to 3rd party developers, and what they need to focus on more. It was during this that the f-16 Sufa mod was brought up an an idea took root.

What if there is an ability to have 3rd party developers create add on dlc that can be bought independently of a full module (price to be determined by how much needs changed/added). An example perfect for this would be the MiG-21 bis already in game where people have been wanting a Lancer versions for years. What this would do is add a data pack containing the additional or rewritten code allowing for a separate purchase of an upgraded Lancer if you already have the bis. 

I am not sure how the coding would have to be done for this level of modularity, but it lets companies create highly requested sub variants without having to massively change the entire module that the aircraft are based on. One of these packs (again for the Lancer as example) might have different weapon data allowing it to use more modern missiles, a new 3d cockpit to match what is modern, and finally some new skins specific to the new version. The idea is to make it have a cost to the end user so that they can get specific to what they want and the developers can do the main important aircraft that bring them the big money. 

Please let me know your thoughts on this idea below. 

[Rudel_chw]

5 minutes ago, Zpigman said:

price to be determined by how much needs changed/added

Actually, that only determines the raw development cost … to be able to determine the price, the developer would have to estimate how many licenses would be sold … only then you can begin to have an idea of what the price would be (as it still a profit has to be added to the raw cost). I’m not sure how many users would want a Lancer enough to purchase it, for example I own the current MiG-21 bis, but I have no interest on a Lancer.

[Zpigman]

1 minute ago, Rudel_chw said:

Actually, that only determines the raw development cost … to be able to determine the price, the developer would have to estimate how many licenses would be sold … only then you can begin to have an idea of what the price would be (as it still a profit has to be added to the raw cost). I’m not sure how many users would want a Lancer enough to purchase it, for example I own the current MiG-21 bis, but I have no interest on a Lancer.

The lancer was just used as an example of what could be done. The f-4f and other 120 slinging sub variants would also be examples. The idea is the framework itself where a separate sub data pack could be sold that allows for the main development staff to focus on the main branch aircraft then the smaller aircraft they can have smaller teams work on if needed or sub out work to other people. Think a-10c and a-10c tank killer. 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Zpigman said:

The lancer was just used as an example of what could be done. The f-4f and other 120 slinging sub variants would also be examples. The idea is the framework itself where a separate sub data pack could be sold that allows for the main development staff to focus on the main branch aircraft then the smaller aircraft they can have smaller teams work on if needed or sub out work to other people. Think a-10c and a-10c tank killer. 

I have been suggesting what I called variant pricing. The basic problem with variants of existing modules is the risk you will get diminishing returns. So the idea was to encourage developers to develop and price variants based on how much the code overlaps. 

[Zpigman]

13 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I have been suggesting what I called variant pricing. The basic problem with variants of existing modules is the risk you will get diminishing returns. So the idea was to encourage developers to develop and price variants based on how much the code overlaps. 

Correct, it also depends on how much code can be re-used from other projects. An example was if ed made the f-4f they can reuse the code for the f-18 radar that the latter model F received. It is a game of balances, but it may open the way to streamline module coding so that if you don't want x version you can just have the versions you want, hopefully taking up less disk space. I can definitely understand the risk of diminishing returns, so you would have to be careful of what versions you want to do. 

[bies]

Some 3rd parties are doing just that, depending of how profitable such variant would be.

I.e. Heatblur is making Iranian F-14A GR-95. Note it still takes huge amount of time despite of very minor changes it requires.

Making completely new avionics and weapon systems for modern-ish AMRAAM carrying F-4 would take many additional years of work.

Edited June 22, 2022 by bies

[upyr1]

59 minutes ago, bies said:

Some 3rd parties are doing just that, depending of how profitable such variant would be.

I.e. Heatblur is making Iranian F-14A GR-95. Note it still takes huge amount of time despite of very minor changes it requires.

Making completely new avionics and weapon systems for modern-ish AMRAAM carrying F-4 would take many additional years of work.

 

Heatblur made the F-14A GR-95 free as part of their F-14 module as well as at least two Phantoms, the Eurofighter Typhon.  

[Zpigman]

22 hours ago, upyr1 said:

Heatblur made the F-14A GR-95 free as part of their F-14 module as well as at least two Phantoms, the Eurofighter Typhon.  

Correct, the variant pricing you and I are talking about is basically there to offset the costs of additional development. Granted my example wasn't the best. I posted this to at least get some thoughts on it out there. I would totally buy both the old and modernized versions of aircrft for use.

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Zpigman said:

I would totally buy both the old and modernized versions of aircrft for use.

 

You would, but I wonder how many DCS users actually would do the same .. I enjoy variants when they are for free, like the C-101EB and CC .. but I'd rather spend my money on completely new aircrafts instead of spending it on a variant of an aircraft I already have.

[Zpigman]

2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

You would, but I wonder how many DCS users actually would do the same .. I enjoy variants when they are for free, like the C-101EB and CC .. but I'd rather spend my money on completely new aircrafts instead of spending it on a variant of an aircraft I already have.

It depends on what you do with it. I tend to be the person using outdated aircraft and having fun running around trying to kill modern aircraft. Even in the group of people I play with they all perfer newer aircraft, that I can't gamble on a notch and recommit to beat. Having the ability to cary a modern missile is nice so I can at least close a gap. The feel of the old jets flight characteristics is what I like. I don't know what other people think about these now. This was just to get people thinking of it and am glad that people are even responding to the topic.

 

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

You would, but I wonder how many DCS users actually would do the same .. I enjoy variants when they are for free, like the C-101EB and CC .. but I'd rather spend my money on completely new aircrafts instead of spending it on a variant of an aircraft I already have.

The odds of me buying multiple modules of the same aircraft depend on the aircraft, price and what is included. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by upyr1

[Zpigman]

12 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The odds of me buying multiple modules of the same aircraft depend on the aircraft, price and what is included. 

 

Exactly, I think that it is not a bad idea and certainly better than not getting anything from a buyer's perspective. I know a lot of people want certain versions of planes that their homes use, and this may be a way to get the ones they want. Nothing would be set in stone, but it could very well be cheap vs expensive for if they have to mess with the flight model at all for a version or if it is a new cockpit with slightly different controls. 

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Zpigman said:

Exactly, I think that it is not a bad idea and certainly better than not getting anything from a buyer's perspective. I know a lot of people want certain versions of planes that their homes use, and this may be a way to get the ones they want. Nothing would be set in stone, but it could very well be cheap vs expensive for if they have to mess with the flight model at all for a version or if it is a new cockpit with slightly different controls. 

I awlays figured the developers should focus on new modules but there is reason to go back and do variants of existing modules. The question for the developers is finding the right balance. For example I expect to see 2 more Harriers as the Sea Harrier and AV-8A are quite differnt from the B we have. 

I expect to see at least two F-4 modules, I'm not sure if the C and D are close enough to include with the B and J I know the British Phantoms will require a new engine.

I'd love to see a Vietnam era variant of the MiG-21 and an F-5A. I can also see arguments for doing A and early Cs for the F/A-18 and F-16. 

 

[Rudel_chw]

For me, I have little interest on variants of aircrafts I already have ... I'd rather save for purchasing the Eurofighter for example, than spend a bit less dollars on an early Viper or Hornet.

But hey, what do I know .. maybe there is a huge community interest on these variants .. however, up to now, nor ED nor any third party have created a paid variant yet  ... the only variants I've seen are the free ones: L39C/ZA, the C-101EB/CC, and the F-14A/B

[upyr1]

10 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

For me, I have little interest on variants of aircrafts I already have ... I'd rather save for purchasing the Eurofighter for example, than spend a bit less dollars on an early Viper or Hornet.

But hey, what do I know .. maybe there is a huge community interest on these variants .. however, up to now, nor ED nor any third party have created a paid variant yet  ... the only variants I've seen are the free ones: L39C/ZA, the C-101EB/CC, and the F-14A/B

There is a reason I have said Janes prints the community's wishlist. 

[Rudel_chw]

38 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

There is a reason I have said Janes prints the community's wishlist. 

 

Sorry, I don't get your hyperbole .. I need to improve my english a bit more

[upyr1]

3 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Sorry, I don't get your hyperbole .. I need to improve my english a bit more

The community's collective wishlist 

Edited June 24, 2022 by upyr1

[Silver_Dragon]

4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I awlays figured the developers should focus on new modules but there is reason to go back and do variants of existing modules. The question for the developers is finding the right balance. For example I expect to see 2 more Harriers as the Sea Harrier and AV-8A are quite differnt from the B we have. 

I expect to see at least two F-4 modules, I'm not sure if the C and D are close enough to include with the B and J I know the British Phantoms will require a new engine.

I'd love to see a Vietnam era variant of the MiG-21 and an F-5A. I can also see arguments for doing A and early Cs for the F/A-18 and F-16. 

 

RAZBAM has confirm about build Sea Harrier HS1 and a GR3 as incoming modules, no DLCs.

ED has talked from some years ago, DCS World has never a "balanced". The 3rd parties has free to build own products and a module has buildind by the resources, info, personal and licenses availables.

[upyr1]

8 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

RAZBAM has confirm about build Sea Harrier HS1 and a GR3 as incoming modules, no DLCs.

ED has talked from some years ago, DCS World has never a "balanced". The 3rd parties has free to build own products and a module has buildind by the resources, info, personal and licenses availables.

I know DCS focuses on realism, however what balance is possible in the DCS paradigm is a side effect of having contemporary aircraft.  I know we'll never get the latest RedFor aircraft, except as mods and AI assets, however I'd like to see Eagle and the developers do more to add cold war assets to DCS. This thread really isn't about balance it is about who would buy multiple versions of the different aircraft. As I have said on that, that is a matter of price and cost. An F-4 Phanatic who has spook as his avatar might ready to buy multiple F-4 modules.  

[Silver_Dragon]

6 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I know DCS focuses on realism, however what balance is possible in the DCS paradigm is a side effect of having contemporary aircraft.  I know we'll never get the latest RedFor aircraft, except as mods and AI assets, however I'd like to see Eagle and the developers do more to add cold war assets to DCS. This thread really isn't about balance it is about who would buy multiple versions of the different aircraft. As I have said on that, that is a matter of price and cost. An F-4 Phanatic who has spook as his avatar might ready to buy multiple F-4 modules.  

The F-4 has talked from years ago... HB has talked as a F-4B/J has plausible, but no a "promise". About a UK version, can enter in conflict with license agretments and available info (remember RAZBAM FRS.2 "problems"). Same situation with other modules.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The F-4 has talked from years ago... HB has talked as a F-4B/J has plausible, but no a "promise". About a UK version, can enter in conflict with license agretments and available info (remember RAZBAM FRS.2 "problems"). Same situation with other modules.

 

True the issue is the expense of developing them vs perceived interest and expected ROI. 

[SkateZilla]

I doubt you see sub DLC for aircraft like the F-4E, F-16, F-18 etc.

The reason being, is those aircraft have Export options, Different Avionics, and sometimes different engines, the general shape may look the same but often they are completely different requiring not only the 3D Shapes to be re-done, but the Systems and Flight Model as well.

For example: the F-4E, AH-64 and F-16 were widely exported and produced not only in the USA by in factories in other countries.
The Changes done to the Actual Airframe are extensive, the avionics swap outs as well.

Same is said for the F/-18A/B/C/D and F/A-18E/F/G, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Australia etc all have different avionics and extra options. (whether it's lights, solid wings, CFTs etc).

The Export Lots have features not in use by the primary operator (USN/USAF). The Primary Operator is where most of these modules will continue to focus on.

If ED was to do every Export Lot for Every Country, it would basically be a giant feature creep, as the list of changes from Operator to Operator is extensive. The Development Time/Cost to Return Ratio would not be feasible, as stated, most of these export versions have different avionics, engines and airframe shapes, each Country specific lot is essentially a new aircraft.

Edited June 25, 2022 by SkateZilla

[Silver_Dragon]

I doubt you see sub DLC for aircraft like the F-4E, F-16, F-18 etc.

The reason being, is those aircraft have Export options, Different Avionics, and sometimes different engines, the general shape may look the same but often they are completely different requiring not only the 3D Shapes to be re-done, but the Systems and Flight Model as well.

For example: the F-4E, AH-64 and F-16 were widely exported and produced not only in the USA by in factories in other countries.
The Changes done to the Actual Airframe are extensive, the avionics swap outs as well.

Same is said for the F/-18A/B/C/D and F/A-18E/F/G, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Australia etc all have different avionics and extra options. (whether it's lights, solid wings, CFTs etc).

The Export Lots have features not in use by the primary operator (USN/USAF). The Primary Operator is where most of these modules will continue to focus on.

If ED was to do every Export Lot for Every Country, it would basically be a giant feature creep, as the list of changes from Operator to Operator is extensive. The Development Time/Cost to Return Ratio would not be feasible, as stated, most of these export versions have different avionics, engines and airframe shapes, each Country specific lot is essentially a new aircraft.

Other example has the spanish F/A-18A/+/M with extensive modifications, someone "claim" as a new aircrafts.


Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

I doubt you see sub DLC for aircraft like the F-4E, F-16, F-18 etc.

The reason being, is those aircraft have Export options, Different Avionics, and sometimes different engines, the general shape may look the same but often they are completely different requiring not only the 3D Shapes to be re-done, but the Systems and Flight Model as well.

For example: the F-4E, AH-64 and F-16 were widely exported and produced not only in the USA by in factories in other countries.
The Changes done to the Actual Airframe are extensive, the avionics swap outs as well.

Same is said for the F/-18A/B/C/D and F/A-18E/F/G, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Australia etc all have different avionics and extra options. (whether it's lights, solid wings, CFTs etc).

The Export Lots have features not in use by the primary operator (USN/USAF). The Primary Operator is where most of these modules will continue to focus on.

If ED was to do every Export Lot for Every Country, it would basically be a giant feature creep, as the list of changes from Operator to Operator is extensive. The Development Time/Cost to Return Ratio would not be feasible, as stated, most of these export versions have different avionics, engines and airframe shapes, each Country specific lot is essentially a new aircraft.

 

There is no way to cover everything, which is why we shouldn't expect it.

[SkateZilla]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

There is no way to cover everything, which is why we shouldn't expect it.

That's what everyone wants though, no one wants just one export, everyone wants one of the many. If you fulfill one, someone is going to want another.