New better free Plane(s)

[MAXsenna]

I was out of flightsims for about 15 years. Did a Google search for "free flight SIM", came up with DCS, installed, (got the F-16 one too, 'cause too lazy to find CD), and had fun with the Su-25T, but it wasn't FF.
Got the F-5 in a bundle with NTTR, and then the Ka-50, 'cause the AH-64 wasn't available, (loved it though). Had a break until lockdown, and the Viper was up for pre-order, free MB-339 and A-4E-C user modules was available. Now I have Everything, and won't look back. (Except for BMS).
If the free to play were a thing back in 2016, I would probably never even have tried the Su-25T.
Like others have written, the A-4E-C pretty much covers what OP is suggesting, along with other free full blown community modules, but you have KNOW about them. I think it would be in both ED's and us users best interest to promote these free user modules, instead of offering a free FF module.

Cheers, it's Saturday!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I think it would be in both ED's and us users best interest to promote these free user modules

Why would they do that? Since these free modules might actually discourage players from buying their content. In that regard these mods are a detriment to selling the game. 

[TOViper]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Key word; bought. The A-310 there isn’t free.

Yeah, of course that's true. In fact, I would have taken the FS2020 even it was free

I was flying Flaming Cliffs a/c before (and LOMAC before) from time to time, so I knew DCS already.
Luckily, there was the Viggen ... which somehow totally bound me to DCS. And again, if it was free, it would have also bound me to DCS.
So I again make something clear: A good module makes me play the sim (personally I don't care if its free or not, quality is the hook).

Just my two cents on this.

[SharpeXB]

7 minutes ago, TOViper said:

A good module makes me play the sim (personally I don't care if its free or not, quality is the hook).

Well a good module can’t be free due to the cost involved in making it. DCS is not monetized like some other free games which include micro transactions like selling skins or upgrades etc. The business here is selling the aircraft modules. A “good” free module for this purpose is merely something that demonstrates the game is is frankly not as compelling or exciting as the ones you end up buying. 

Edited March 4, 2023 by SharpeXB

[MAXsenna]

Why would they do that? Since these free modules might actually discourage players from buying their content. In that regard these mods are a detriment to selling the game. 

Oh, here you come again. Shute, I'm probably different.
Well re-reading my comment, I can see now that I failed to get the point across.
The A-4E-C and MB-339 free modules were so fantastic and fun that they made me so invested in DCS that I purchased every single DLC.
Capiche?

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Well a good module can’t be free due to the cost involved in making it. DCS is not monetized like some other free games which include micro transactions like selling skins or upgrades etc. The business here is selling the aircraft modules. A “good” free module for this purpose is merely something that demonstrates the game is is frankly not as compelling or exciting as the ones you end up buying. 

Yeah, I get it. The A-4E-C ain't no good at all.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

The A-4E-C and MB-339 free modules were so fantastic and fun that they made me so invested in DCS that I purchased every single DLC.

But the idea of ED promoting a free alternative to their product isn’t really a good business decision. 

[SharpeXB]

26 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Yeah, I get it. The A-4E-C ain't no good at all.

Mods like this do give quite a false impression of the cost and work involved in an actual commercial product. They imply ED could just hand these out for free which of course they can’t do. 

[Migratingcoconut]

11 hours ago, cfrag said:

Spoiler

Apologies, I believe that your heart is in the right place, but I feel that this 'poll' is terminally marred as the answers pretty much boil down to "people will always think that more is better, and more free stuff is better still". Please allow me to critically examine your questions and add my own opinion:

• Did flying the SU-25T or TF-51 factor into your decision to buy any modules at all
  The answer is always "yes" - because they are every person's first contact with DCS. So the Su25T or TF51 will always factor in in some way, this is a "null" question, we know the answer, and it is not interesting. The answer is "yes". And you do not ask the most relevant question: "did you like the experience?". Considering the target audience (this forum of enthusiastic fans), the answer is also not interesting, as it's answer boils down to "It didn't scare me enough to not become a rabid DCS fan".  
   
• Would adding a new full fidelity plane that has combat capability be an overall benefit to DCS
  You unfortunately omit any details as to what you mean by 'benefit' - the user or vendor? My short answer would be: "a potential pitfall for new players, and exciting freebee for long-time users. Unclear how it would affect sales. Contextual meaning of the word 'benefit' is insufficiently defined".
  Full fidelity cockpits (not planes, I argue that the flight models of the included free planes are already high fidelity) are something few new customers appreciate. Heck, even long-time players bind most full fidelity cockpits to their controllers, and outside of startup procedures (which few new customers appreciate), there is very little difference while flying - that's pretty much what HOTAS was invented for. I contend that a Full Fidelity cockpit is an "end-game feature", not a neophyte thing, and I would argue that a complex binding screen (especially one that lacks smart pre-binds) scares off new people more than anything else. So a full fidelity cockpit must be chosen very, very carefully to not scare off new users. Perhaps the F-5E could be good fit in this regard, provided we get good pre-binding. Then again, most people would bind the important switches, and players wouldn't notice the difference. So what is the overall benefit? Long-time players may get an additional free hifi cockpit. Would it attract more users, would it increase sales? Highly debatable.
   
•  Is two weeks separated by half a year enough to get a good idea of the more complex modules before buying
  This is a thoroughly biased question ("is enough" begs the question). Let me put it differently: People are expected to base the purchase of a car (some 10k-20k investment) on a 45 minute test drive. Yet it seems that these same people can't be expected to base a purchase decision for a 50$ entertainment title after driving it for two weeks?
  To me, the entire question again boils down to "do you think that people prefer to have more for free". The answer will not surprise anyone. IMHO, two hours are more than enough, and I applaud ED for their generosity in this regard. I fault them, however, for something that this poll completely fails to ask: "do you think it detrimental to DCS's popularity that free trials aren't available on Steam where 3/4 (if not more) of all DCS customers come from"? Because - although I believe we all understand why this is currently that way - that answer to that is "YES!"

tl;dl: I think this poll asks mainly rhetorical questions. Let me ask and answer the following instead: 

Q: Do you think people know that the free planes in DCS are there to entice a download, and then ED try to sell you stuff? In a related subject, did you know about Gillette's "give away the razor and sell the blades" market ploy?

A: The Su25T and TF51 are supposed to not be great, just passable to mark the difference between free and premium. Everyone who comes to DCS knows that they are getting the razor, and are expected to buy blades. And many already are ogling at some of the blades: The Hog, Bug, Cat, Viper or Apache. And everyone always loves more free stuff.

 

Thanks for the breakdown of these, I think you brought up a lot of salient points. I had similar thoughts when I was trying to figure out what to ask people and had a difficult time deciding how to word things so I just kind of winged it. I was really trying to see what people got out of the free planes; like if they thought they made any impact on their decision to put $ in the sim or not, or if they were just skipped because they already knew what module they wanted to buy. So far I like the discussion this one has generated.

When it comes to the question of the trials, I think you made a false dichotomy with buying cars. They are simpler things to learn and get a grasp of. You drive a car up and down a few roads and you got the idea of it pretty fast, there is not much to get to know. With DCS planes, there's a lot of different functions to learn, kinds of maneuvers, systems to work, cockpit layout, etc. They have a lot more complexity in a way that cars do not tend to in my opinion. I think as well that by asking 'enough', I was of course begging the question...because it's literally the question being asked. If I was begging the question as you say, then the answers would be mostly negative, but it seems people understood what I really meant as asked as I read it.
Also, I did not know steam users lack access to free-trials. This kind of stuff is why I avoid steam whenever I can. So unfair.

In short, the questions were more made to generate discussion rather than be highly decisive, because I really want to hear peoples stories most of all. I think I could have thought them out better though, so I'll get on with mending that. I think ultimately until anyone from ED can weigh in, this matter will largely be subjective and speculative as you say. I'm just hoping it's found to be of value.

I'm probably going to be editing the OP itself too at some point, and rather heavily in light of what you pointed out as well as my own dissatisfaction with how some of my points came across to others thus far.

So, overall thanks again.

[Evoman]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Why would they do that? Since these free modules might actually discourage players from buying their content. In that regard these mods are a detriment to selling the game. 

For the simple reason that new comers might not even be aware of the existence of the free community mods unless a friend that already plays DCS tells them about them.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

With DCS planes, there's a lot of different functions to learn

The purpose of the free trial is not for you to learn the module entirely. Indeed why would someone put in two weeks of study into it only to give it up? More likely someone is just going to purchase it after the trial, that’s the whole point. You’ve got plenty of time for learning if you buy it. 

10 minutes ago, Evoman said:

For the simple reason that new comers might not even be aware of the existence of the free community mods unless a friend that already plays DCS tells them about them.

Again ED’s business is selling their own modules. If anything the community mods cut into that. Not really a help in that regard. 

[Migratingcoconut]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The purpose of the free trial is not for you to learn the module entirely. Indeed why would someone put in two weeks of study into it only to give it up? More likely someone is just going to purchase it after the trial, that’s the whole point. You’ve got plenty of time for learning if you buy it. 

Guess so, most people think it's plenty. Never used it much myself. I got rid of that one on the poll.

[Dragon1-1]

IMO, an armed trainer would be perfect. Something not too complex, so it doesn't take too much dev time, and equipped with a fairly representative, but limited weapon loadout (guns, bombs and rockets). A full fidelity aircraft, one that won't win any MP dogfights unless you're already good, but with a backseat, so that you can have someone else to teach you, if that's your thing. Something like the T-38A, essentially, or a vintage T-45, which has an added bonus of being carrier-capable (of course, you still pay for SC, but you get to try carrier ops). Neither can carry a lot of ordnance, and IRL it's usually practice bomb racks, but you could probably take it on a combat mission in a pinch. Trainers are not big sellers, so not much revenue lost over trying to make either of those as a paid module.

The TF-51D already fulfills that kind of role, sort of, but only for WWII. It can do everything except combat, and it's pretty good at teaching new players how to handle a warbird. It and the P-51D could probably use a refresh to bring them up to modern visual standards, but it's otherwise a pretty great aircraft.

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The purpose of the free trial is not for you to learn the module entirely. Indeed why would someone put in two weeks of study into it only to give it up? 

Because they decided they'd rather not deal with the aircraft's quirks, or with how incomplete it is. Two weeks is enough to either get hooked, or realize it's not for you, while also accounting for people who can't fly every day. The last free trial that was on Steam (it was a special event) gave me a pretty good idea what I want and what I don't want, but I did end up coming back to some of those modules later on.

Given how much they cost, and how complex they are, IMO two weeks are on the short side for a trial, but it's a good idea overall. It also incentivizes 3rd parties to do a good job, otherwise people would download the free trial, see all the issues (two weeks is plenty of time to get tired of bugs) and promptly refuse to buy. Back in the old days, you could buy an aircraft only to realize it's a mess that works nothing like the real thing. RAZBAM was not always as committed to quality as they are now, and the MiG-21 is so old that it really isn't for everyone.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Evoman]

discouragement

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

The purpose of the free trial is not for you to learn the module entirely. Indeed why would someone put in two weeks of study into it only to give it up? More likely someone is just going to purchase it after the trial, that’s the whole point. You’ve got plenty of time for learning if you buy it. 

I feel like the free trial is better suited for experienced simmers  to get a good enough feel for the aircraft to see if its for them or not. But for un-experienced new comers to DCS it might actually be more of a frustration and discouragement if they start off with the flashy and complex aircraft.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Evoman

[MadKreator]

A tough part with dcs is it takes a special breed of people, for lack of better term. When I first started, as I said I skipped the free modules, bought a-10 and f-18.. dove into the f-18.. I wanted the clickable cockpits and all but was actually a bit turned off by the complexity of it all.. I was hoping for more of a casual experience.. great there’s game mode.. which I honestly found a little too arcade-ish.. wasn’t sure what I was really looking for. Being off put, I kind of just set it aside, for several months with dcs still reeling in the back of my mind. I started to watch tutorials on the f-18, the more I watched, the more I craved the experience. So I went back at it. I had no idea it would take me months to become mostly proficient in just the one aircraft. After a lot of frustration and cussing at my button fumbling  in the beginning, I finally locked my first target with the tpod, got a maverick off and got my first kill. Oh man that felt so good! I was in for the long haul from then on!  Newcomers to dcs, especially people browsing steam just looking for something new to try, probably (mostly) won’t be the ones who stay long enough to really get the experience. I don’t know that any aircraft in dcs, as a free module, could help in that aspect. A FF would most likely test their patience  too much. Even fc3 although simplified a bit still have more complexities than most general gamers have the attention span for.  If ED pulls off MAC to satisfy those “casuals”(not the best term probably),. That will probably be a better into into the dcs world than any free aircraft could provide…  Free mods are a good ones  for newcomers too, but newcomers wont have the understanding of installing to saved games and fiddling around with things like that, let alone where to find them and how to use them either.  

What I’m really impressed with is we’re in pg 2 of this thread and there’s no real arguments going on LOL Feels like a real discussion of a valid topic

Edited March 4, 2023 by MadKreator

[Mike_Romeo]

17 hours ago, Migratingcoconut said:

Therefore my current top suggestion for a free plane is this:

The F-117A has already been requested at least twice in this forum, so I won't go on and on about it in detail here.

Why the F-117 ? It offers almost nothing. No guns and it can only carry 2 bombs. It only looks cool but thats it. Sure modern ones offers modern system but I imagine they are still very classified because its still in active service (yes it is https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/retired-f-117-nighthawks-may-fly-for-another-decade).

If I could decide to add a new free aircraft to DCS, it would be the Su-33 that offers carrier ops, air to air refueling, basic air to air and air to ground combat while its also easy to fly and learn (beside the radar) and has great performance. That would be a greater entrance for new player.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Mike_Romeo

[Migratingcoconut]

15 minutes ago, Mike_Romeo said:

Why the F-117 ? It offers almost nothing. No guns and it can only carry 2 bombs. It only looks cool but thats it. Sure modern ones offers modern system but I imagine they are still very classified because its still in active service (yes it is https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/retired-f-117-nighthawks-may-fly-for-another-decade).

If I could decide to add a new free aircraft to DCS, it would be the Su-33 that offers carrier ops, air to air refueling, basic air to air and air to ground combat while its also easy to fly and learn (beside the radar) and has great performance. That would be a greater entrance for new player.

 

The only part of them which is classified as far as I know is just the radar absorbent material (the composition of the material). Not super relevant to developing the plane. Flight characteristics, radar cross section, systems, all that jazz is declassified by the looks of it. They were in the process of being scrapped so, yeah pretty not high priority to keep secret. And one was shot down in enemy territory as well.

As for its role, yes it would be very limited, but that is my point. What it can do it will do authentically as an experience. I know not everyone will be into it, but this is the better trade off in my view, plus it is not like we are getting rid of the two we already have. It would be useful in multiplayer, and pilots would need to choose targets with great care as well as when and how long to have the bomb bays open in SAM territory. I would have a blast in it.

Su-33 probably won't get full-fidelity treatment. I feel like it would have made a better pick over the Su-25T for the reasons you stated though, but again, gotta mention it's FC3 and will probably stay that way.

[Migratingcoconut]

36 minutes ago, MadKreator said:

A tough part with dcs is it takes a special breed of people, for lack of better term. When I first started, as I said I skipped the free modules, bought a-10 and f-18.. dove into the f-18.. I wanted the clickable cockpits and all but was actually a bit turned off by the complexity of it all.. I was hoping for more of a casual experience.. great there’s game mode.. which I honestly found a little too arcade-ish.. wasn’t sure what I was really looking for. Being off put, I kind of just set it aside, for several months with dcs still reeling in the back of my mind. I started to watch tutorials on the f-18, the more I watched, the more I craved the experience. So I went back at it. I had no idea it would take me months to become mostly proficient in just the one aircraft. After a lot of frustration and cussing at my button fumbling  in the beginning, I finally locked my first target with the tpod, got a maverick off and got my first kill. Oh man that felt so good! I was in for the long haul from then on!  Newcomers to dcs, especially people browsing steam just looking for something new to try, probably (mostly) won’t be the ones who stay long enough to really get the experience. I don’t know that any aircraft in dcs, as a free module, could help in that aspect. A FF would most likely test their patience  too much. Even fc3 although simplified a bit still have more complexities than most general gamers have the attention span for.  If ED pulls off MAC to satisfy those “casuals”(not the best term probably),. That will probably be a better into into the dcs world than any free aircraft could provide…  Free mods are a good ones  for newcomers too, but newcomers wont have the understanding of installing to saved games and fiddling around with things like that, let alone where to find them and how to use them either.  

What I’m really impressed with is we’re in pg 2 of this thread and there’s no real arguments going on LOL Feels like a real discussion of a valid topic

 

I figure the cool factor of the F-117A would help as well as the fact that DCS is being advertised as free-to-play implying people seek full-fidelity combat capable stuff in it (for free). I think it would make that shtick stick better, after all they probably don't want to make people feel like they false advertise.

FC3 is a decent simulation compared to others in ways, but not in the way DCS is primarily known for, which is my point.

And yeah, this thread is taking off like a rocket. I did not expect over 400 views and 2 pages in less than 24hrs. It's nuts.

ALSO:

Everyone,

I edited the OP and poll, so be sure to check them out. One question was reset and another removed.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Migratingcoconut

[Migratingcoconut]

11 hours ago, bies said:

All considerations, pros and cons, aside - ED, using some 2-3 years to license, research, obtain data, code, consult, debug full fidelity FREE module - might end up bankrupt and DCS project ended.

I doubt ED has some huge financial margin to be allowed to work without payment - workhours needed to make full fidelity module/research/license etc. is comparable to making whole other genre full PC game for free. DCS full fidelity module is not WT-like copy-paste, change few parameters in Excel, new 3d model and low quality cockpit. Complexity is enormous.

Regardless of whether it would be profitable in a long term or not, even if ED would like to make something like that for free. It may financially kill them and whole DCS project. And this would be a damn shame, a truly dark day. And then what?

 

TF-51D didn't sink them when they were much smaller.

Also, ED spends a lot of time working on free aspects of the game, so no I don't believe for a half-second that one more free full fidelity module will break them as a company. Maybe it is not feasible at this moment because the plate is currently full enough with them developing core mechanics, new paid modules are planned, and the world map is coming. That I can absolutely understand. But do you really think their position is that bad right now?

If so how do they afford to invest in making anything that people don't directly buy? Isn't it the due to the money other modules make/have made. If we are generous: Once an F-117A would role out-and assume it works as intended-the attention brought to the game would get more people buying other modules + gaining publicity and so on which would mean a new free plane can more than pay for itself.

But as I am not in their shoes and don't have a grasp of how they work, I do not really know and just wonder and hope. Someone from ED would need to weigh in.

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

Maybe it is not feasible at this moment because the plate is currently full enough

Their plate will always be full. Any FF module takes years to develop and would have to be a paid product to justify the cost involved. There’s no reason to give it away. 

[SharpeXB]

46 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

DCS is being advertised as free-to-play

Which is sorta not the case. DCS isn’t really an F2P game, even though they say so. It’s a paid game with a free demo. There’s a difference… F2P means it’s literally free to play continually. And games like that are monetized with micro transactions, level-ups and DLC etc. DCS isn’t that. Ok there is one armed free plane that isn’t so great and you have to buy the better ones. You can’t grind your way to an F-16 playing an Su-25T for hundreds of hours. 

[upyr1]

My vote for a free plane is the Hawk trainer. What ever variant the dead module was.  

[freehand]

1 hour ago, Migratingcoconut said:

Also, ED spends a lot of time working on free aspects of the game, so no I don't believe for a half-second that one more free full fidelity module will break them as a company. .

Have you taken the time to find how much work has gone into the hornet for example, go read the first few lines and come back and see how silly your above statement sounds.

It may not break them, but sure is not good or the company.

Edited March 5, 2023 by freehand

[Migratingcoconut]

6 minutes ago, freehand said:

Have you taken the time to find how much work has gone into the hornet for example, go read the first few lines and come back and see how silly your above statement sounds.

It may not break them, but sure is not good or the company.

 

I literally said in the OP something like the hornet would be too much.

[freehand]

2 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

I literally said in the OP something like the hornet would be too much.

So maybe 5 man-years then ? I think most would like time spent on other parts of DCS.

[Migratingcoconut]

5 minutes ago, freehand said:

So maybe 5 man-years then ? I think most would like time spent on other parts of DCS.

Again, addressed at the top of the OP. Though that was an edit I made more than an hour ago so perhaps it missed you.

I agree, it's far below a top priority at best. Just would be pretty decent imo.