New better free Plane(s)

[DD_Fenrir]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Why is that? Again there’s a free trial. A free mod plane isn’t necessary as an introduction to DCS

Horses for courses; for some time to dive into DCS is limited and a two week window barely scratches the surface.

Something like the A-4 allows a longer period of acclimation to the DCS meta, plus whether full fidelity is right for you. In addition I would argue you have more time to realise the reward of getting to know a module, something that if you have a lot of other demands on your time, is difficult to accomplish in a 2 week period.

[DD_Friar]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Why is that? Again there’s a free trial. A free mod plane isn’t necessary as an introduction to DCS

I can play with it for more than 2 weeks?

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, DD_Friar said:

I can play with it for more than 2 weeks?

I can’t see how two weeks isn’t enough time to decide on something. Or to get an impression of what DCS is like. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Mr_sukebe]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I can’t see how two weeks isn’t enough time to decide on something. 

Agreed

[Dragon1-1]

Well, with the A-4, you can play with it as long as you want. That's nice, and if you're short on dough, it provides a full fidelity module to fly in a sim. The Su-25T, while well armed, flies like a pig.

FYI, trainers don't sell that well. So, a free pre-glass cockpit T-38A, with a basic weapon load, would likely not make it as a paid module, but as "gateway" free module it certainly would be fun. It would not be that much more difficult than a WWII aircraft, and the avionics are basically the same as in the F-5.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Evoman]

11 hours ago, Migratingcoconut said:

Well that sounds very compelling, I'd love check that one out if you can post a link.

The T-38 makes a lot of sense not just because it has been the USAF trainer for ages now, but because it presents the right difficulties that are relevant in terms of flight characteristics. I definitely think if you can master it, you can probably learn to fly most jets just fine. I did demo the f-5 once and took away from it that it had a decently long spool up, pretty high takeoff and landing speed, no fly-by-wire, and is capable of going supersonic. It'll teach ya the basics you need to know and punish mistakes enough but not so much it's a flawed design. Didn't they make an AT version of it with some armaments?

Here is that link were you can find that topic at 1:27:55min.

Yes there was a lightly armed variant of the Tallon called the AT-38B which were fitted with a gunsight and could carry a gun pod, rockets, or bombs on a centerline pylon. Perhaps that would be an ideal fit for DCS to get some targer practice. By the way I have seen a few former fighter jet pilots that train people in DCS using the F-5 because of its simplicity and similarity to the T-38.

 

 

[Evoman]

17 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, with the A-4, you can play with it as long as you want. That's nice, and if you're short on dough, it provides a full fidelity module to fly in a sim. The Su-25T, while well armed, flies like a pig.

FYI, trainers don't sell that well. So, a free pre-glass cockpit T-38A, with a basic weapon load, would likely not make it as a paid module, but as "gateway" free module it certainly would be fun. It would not be that much more difficult than a WWII aircraft, and the avionics are basically the same as in the F-5.

 

"trainers don't sell that well. So, a free pre-glass cockpit T-38A, with a basic weapon load, would likely not make it as a paid module, but as "gateway" free module it certainly would be fun."

That is the perfect description of what an ideal free module should be for.  

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

So, a free pre-glass cockpit T-38A, with a basic weapon load

The T-38A does not carry weapons. That variant is the AT-38B. 

[Dragon1-1]

Ok, my mistake, but it was a T-38A with a single pylon and a gunsight, presumably some switchology in cockpit for the bombs, too. Either way, it shouldn't be very hard to make, and the loadout is small enough (not to mention no radar and the gunsight is very basic) that players will have incentive to buy actual modules.

1 hour ago, Evoman said:

That is the perfect description of what an ideal free module should be for.  

Indeed, but now that I think of it, though, a T-45A could be a better choice. Same weapons loadout, but has a HUD, and is carrier capable. My one concern would be that the AT-38B would frustrate beginners with how difficult bombing is in those old aircraft. There's one more thing that's absolutely critical for a free aircraft: don't frustrate beginners. That's one problem with being too basic. If it's too hard, people will give up. I never liked the Su-25T, the A model flies great, but the T is an absolute pig, and its main weapon system is a little annoying to use, being a helicopter missile hanging off a fixed wing aircraft. I can imagine people trying that and deciding "nah, Ace Combat is more fun, real jets aren't so good". I don't think many of them would realize how badly it compares to literally everything else.

I think making a single free FF aircraft, like the T-45A, would be a good investment, in that it would help bring more people into DCS. Paired with good training missions, maybe even a semi-realistic training campaign (with a full real experience saved for a paid Speed and Angels prequel ), it'd give people a smooth entry into the sim and prepare them for getting into the paid content.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Evoman]

6 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Ok, my mistake, but it was a T-38A with a single pylon and a gunsight, presumably some switchology in cockpit for the bombs, too. Either way, it shouldn't be very hard to make, and the loadout is small enough (not to mention no radar and the gunsight is very basic) that players will have incentive to buy actual modules.

Indeed, but now that I think of it, though, a T-45A could be a better choice. Same weapons loadout, but has a HUD, and is carrier capable. My one concern would be that the AT-38B would frustrate beginners with how difficult bombing is in those old aircraft. There's one more thing that's absolutely critical for a free aircraft: don't frustrate beginners. That's one problem with being too basic. If it's too hard, people will give up. I never liked the Su-25T, the A model flies great, but the T is an absolute pig, and its main weapon system is a little annoying to use, being a helicopter missile hanging off a fixed wing aircraft. I can imagine people trying that and deciding "nah, Ace Combat is more fun, real jets aren't so good". I don't think many of them would realize how badly it compares to literally everything else.

I think making a single free FF aircraft, like the T-45A, would be a good investment, in that it would help bring more people into DCS. Paired with good training missions, maybe even a semi-realistic training campaign (with a full real experience saved for a paid Speed and Angels prequel ), it'd give people a smooth entry into the sim and prepare them for getting into the paid content.

 

I was actually going to mention the T-45 Goshawk earlier but didn't as to keep with existing modules. But I have often thought of the T-45 as the ideal free aircraft that should be included with DCS because it would be perfect for new pilots to learn all aspects of military aviation from flight, weapons training and carrier operations. New pilots that can master all of that in a T-45 would transition far easier to the more complex paid modules.  It would defiantly we a worth while investment to develop the T-45 for use as their free gateway trainer.

[freehand]

2 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Horses for courses; for some time to dive into DCS is limited and a two week window barely scratches the surface.

Something like the A-4 allows a longer period of acclimation to the DCS meta, plus whether full fidelity is right for you. In addition I would argue you have more time to realise the reward of getting to know a module, something that if you have a lot of other demands on your time, is difficult to accomplish in a 2 week period.

Then anyone interested in a module next time they have a holiday from work fill your boots no excuse not having time, ridiculous.

Edited March 5, 2023 by freehand

[Migratingcoconut]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I realize you’re new to DCS. Welcome!

But what you should realize about this game is that it’s a complicated niche sim. ED is a great company that makes a very unique product and they are quite beleaguered in delivering it. It’s quite apparent that the cash flow from the small base of players means it takes years for even seemingly simple things to be accomplished. Nothing is simple or easy here and the aircraft modules specifically take years to complete. There’s no such thing here as “simpler airplane such as the F-117A or T-38”
If you ask me, the path for delivering something like a demo T-38 into the game would be to first sell it as a paid module, work it through Early Access and then when sales eventually cool off and it’s completed it would move into the slot of being the free demo. That process would probably take the better part of a decade. So perhaps it’s better to just pick a module which is past its prime as a paid product, perhaps the L-39 Albatros and use that. 

 

I was playing LOMAC before DCS, and have been playing DCS for years now.

I know it's a niche sim.

I am not aware of the degree to which they are beleaguered enough to be 100% about either our opinions, and I am not going to be unless someone who represents them weighs in. In which case I'll be happy enough to have my bubble burst if it grants certainty.

I do get what you mean about there not being a 'simpler airplane' in terms of full-fidelity module. I agree it is a pretty massive endeavor no matter the plane or its capabilities. My feeling is, there is not a good enough reason yet presented to be certain that they could not find ways to make one work if they decide that it would pay to invest in making such a thing. I am not saying, given what they know about their own situation (which is obviously way more than us), that they will decide to do that. I'm just saying I think it is worthy of consideration if not for now, for the future.

As for whether or not it would make them money, who really knows? Seems like there is a pretty diverse set of opinions about this so far.

Maybe this is a matter of optimism vs pessimism, in which case I'll agree to disagree.

10 hours ago, cfrag said:

I think you may want to re-visit the definition of "dichotomy", real or false. There was no "either or"; I made a comparison, and I believe it is apt: if you can make a business decision that can affect a good portion of your financial assets in an hour, I think you can make a business decision about something much less momentous in the span of 2 weeks. The comparison isn't perfect, agreed - the decision to buy a car is much more impactful to your life. The purchase of an entertainment title that doesn't wipe out your bank account is relatively inconsequential compared to that.

Also, we should keep in mind that most entertainment purchases are impulse, spur-of-the-moment decisions; if you really can't tell whether you want to purchase a module after two entire weeks, the odds are >99% that you won't, at least not for now. People don't get two weeks from ED so they can make a "good decision" or to account for some inherent complexity -- we get some time to become excited and trigger our purchase impulse outright; and we don't get more time simply because the likelihood of a sale doesn't increase meaningfully after two weeks ("diminishing returns"). Personally, I contend that two hours are enough (this is an entertainment spur-of-the-moment sale after all), so IMHO two weeks are very, very generous. 

 

 

A comparison indeed, my bad.

Also I think that is a good point about the trials. I don't really use them so honestly feel free to take what I've said about the two-week period with a grain of salt.

[DD_Fenrir]

16 minutes ago, freehand said:

Then anyone interested in a module next time they have a holiday from work fill your boots no excuse not having time, ridiculous.

 

Well I as a husband, father and holding down a 40+ hour a week career, don't have that luxury. Whatever planet you live on must be nice, but when you have responsibilties, that changes the meta considerably.

Having them denounced as ridiculous doesn't make me wanna respect or like you very much either.

Edited March 5, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Migratingcoconut]

9 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:

Higly doubt that. Once they figured out how complex and useless it is, they will get frustraded and left dcs.

A different interpretation: They will not be satisfied, certainly. Those who would be frustrated by the complexity are those who DCS is pretty much designed to filter out regardless (or send toward FC3).

I think we can agree that extremely few users would be content to only fly the thing and that is kind of the point of why I chose it.

They will be unsatisfied, and those who should be turned away will be. While those who conceivably could be turned on to the idea of buying something are more likely to do so from the experience in the nighthawk.

[Evoman]

12 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Well I as a husband, father and holding down a 40+ hour a week career, don't have that luxury. Whatever planet you live on must be nice, but when you have responsibilties, that changes the meta considerably.

Having them denounced as ridiculous doesn't make me wanna respect or like you very much either.

 

This is exactly why the free trail period does not work for most folks with a busy life. Even for myself as an experienced simmer I remember only having like 3 days out of 2 weeks to try out some aircraft I have been thinking of getting. That may have worked for me just to test drive the aircraft but for some one new with out much experience those 3 days might not be  enough time to figure everything out and get flying in at least one aircraft.

[SharpeXB]

28 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

I am not aware of the degree to which they are beleaguered enough to be 100% about either our opinions, and I am not going to be unless someone who represents them weighs in. In which case I'll be happy enough to have my bubble burst if it grants certainty.

Simply look at the time it takes them to deliver content and you have the answer. It should be apparent that making a full fidelity module and giving it away for free is infeasible. 

23 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Well I as a husband, father and holding down a 40+ hour a week career, don't have that luxury. Whatever planet you live on must be nice, but when you have responsibilties, that changes the meta considerably.

Having them denounced as ridiculous doesn't make me wanna respect or like you very much either.

 

It’s funny when people say this as if they’re the only one with a life and a job etc. as if it entitles you to free stuff

The purpose of the free trial is as a demo, not as a free game. Two weeks is plenty enough time for that. And plenty enough time to substitute for and free demo aircraft in the game. 

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, Evoman said:

This is exactly why the free trail period does not work for most folks with a busy life. Even for myself as an experienced simmer I remember only having like 3 days out of 2 weeks to try out some aircraft I have been thinking of getting. That may have worked for me just to test drive the aircraft but for some one new with out much experience those 3 days might not be  enough time to figure everything out and get flying in at least one aircraft.

Again this is just odd. Like you can’t decide on a video game plane over 3 days yet people buy cars costing 1,000x as much based upon a few minutes test drive 

[cfrag]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

FYI, trainers don't sell that well.

There’s a reason for that: they are boring for newcomers. New people want to blow stuff up. I own all of the available trainers, and love them. And every time that I show someone DCS and give them the choice between a Trainer or something else, they choose else. The Su-25T may fly like a pig, but it sure can deliver truckloads of ordnance. A trainer - even Hi-Fi - would not impress newcomers, they’d leave with the impression that DCS is boring. That’s the exact opposite of what ED want to achieve, so I don’t think that would be a good idea.. 

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, cfrag said:

There’s a reason for that: they are boring for newcomers. New people want to blow stuff up. I own all of the available trainers, and love them. And every time that I show someone DCS and give them the choice between a Trainer or something else, they choose else. The Su-25T may fly like a pig, but it sure can deliver truckloads of ordnance. A trainer - even Hi-Fi - would not impress newcomers, they’d leave with the impression that DCS is boring. That’s the exact opposite of what ED want to achieve, so I don’t think that would be a good idea.. 

exactly. Players don’t buy games to train at “boring” stuff like real pilots do. Maybe they grow to appreciate that later but the initial appeal of a combat game is to make stuff go boom. 

[Cab]

It really comes down to whether or not the juice is worth the squeeze.

Does anyone here know, or have an educated guess, how much it would cost to create such a module?

[cfrag]

27 minutes ago, Evoman said:

Even for myself as an experienced simmer I remember only having like 3 days out of 2 weeks to try out some aircraft I have been thinking of getting.

Outside of DCS, how do you decide if you want to purchase an 50$ entertainment title? I’m having difficulties understanding people citing the necessity for studying 3 days the in- and outside of another module, but would buy other titles at similar prices sight unseen. Not to mention the fact that if you have difficulties getting in 3 days out of two weeks, the best decision would be not to buy; you simply don’t have the time to enjoy it, it would be a bad investment.

it would be nice to have more trial time, yes. But claiming that it would be an important necessity to make a good decision is simply outlandish. If you can’t find it in yourself whether you really want to purchase that module inside of 2 weeks, the answer is “no”. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by cfrag

[draconus]

F-117 module wish comes back from time to time, it'd be great imho as FF DLC, but giving away years of work of the entire jet team sounds like a great idea to kill ED.

Current free modules didn't cost much to give away because they were already mostly created, sold and weren't new modules.

I think it's crazy how much free content we have in DCS but you only realize it after a few years playing. Add the free trials and it's a free game all year round.

Now I'm against this wish apparently and it was hard to resist answering but @SharpeXB and others, keep in mind the more posts you make in the thread the more you help support it according to NL's post. Beware!

[Evoman]

 

9 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Outside of DCS, how do you decide if you want to purchase an 50$ entertainment title? I’m having difficulties understanding people citing the necessity for studying 3 days the in- and outside of another module, but would buy other titles at similar prices sight unseen. Not to mention the fact that if you have difficulties getting in 3 days out of two weeks, the best decision would be not to buy; you simply don’t have the time to enjoy it, it would be a bad investment.

it would be nice to have more trial time, yes. But claiming that it would be an important necessity to make a good decision is simply outlandish. If you can’t find it in yourself whether you really want to purchase that module inside of 2 weeks, the answer is “no”. 

 

Most times I personally have more than 3 days of free time available. But on that particular point in time I just happen to have too much going on at the wrong time. I am sure you have had many occasions like that in your like.

[cfrag]

2 minutes ago, Evoman said:

I am sure you have had many occasions like that in your lik

We all do. And we don’t schedule entertainment trails during that time if we think it would require more time to make the decision. 

[Dragon1-1]

37 minutes ago, cfrag said:

There’s a reason for that: they are boring for newcomers.

They're hardly boring if they have enough capabilities to do stuff. Su-25T will still be there, for when you want to play with ordnance, but the thing about a trainer is that you can do stuff that more complete aircraft can, just less well. The ones we have in DCS are various kinds of quirky, but a T-45A has more or less everything but the MFDs. You can try out various mission profiles, practice dogfighting (with a gunpod) and fly it around. 

Remember, we're talking free planes. They should not be competitive with paid modules. People don't buy trainers because all the other aircraft are better, there's no use for them in MP, and none of the good campaigns are for them, not because they're boring, because when it comes to mission capabilities, they're no less interesting (although definitely less famous) than full modules. They can do more or less everything their bigger brothers can. Ordnance load is limited, but so is that of the F-5 and other early aircraft. This, in itself, won't hurt.

38 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Again this is just odd. Like you can’t decide on a video game plane over 3 days yet people buy cars costing 1,000x as much based upon a few minutes test drive 

The car analogy is very flawed, because a car is much less complex than an aircraft. You learn to drive a car once, and then you can drive anything from a truck to an electric city car. Beyond the extras, they're mostly all the same, and you usually don't do anything fancy with it, just drive around. You probably won't be able to tell the difference between two modern cars of the same general type. This is not the case with DCS modules. Plus, you only buy a car once in several years, while DCS wouldn't have much of a business case if everyone only ever bought a single module per year. Finally, many people get their cars from leasing, so the whole lump sum doesn't come out of their pocket, although getting out of a leasing contract if you change your mind isn't exactly easy.

Also note, in the EU, almost every single physical item on the market essentially gives you two weeks of trial period, during which you're legally entitled to refund it, no questions asked. Yes, you have to put the money up, but you get it all back if the item is not damaged. Not sure if it applies to cars specifically, there are some exception and obviously things like food aren't covered (before you start nitpicking), but for things you're expected to use for a while, this is true. There are additional caveats when it comes to software, but complex stuff that costs real money usually gives you a month of trial time to figure it out.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Dragon1-1