New better free Plane(s)

[bies]

21 hours ago, Migratingcoconut said:

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.

This is basically a debt, you don't earn in hope you will earn more later on.

As much as i would love to see an F-117 in DCS it was highly specialised aircraft - relatively poor choice to attract casual beginner who would want to rather try many things and make many mistakes. The only attractive feature for the average Joe would be unusual apperance and Gulf War legend. In case of F-117 you are eiter skilled/knowledgable to perform the mission or you are useless, it would be appreciated by more experiences customers though. I think FlyingIron simulations is the closest to model F-117 as they invested money to obtain the data and started to model it for XPlane.

Edited March 5, 2023 by bies

[cfrag]

6 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

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.

Definitely not. That only applies to online purchases. Otherwise, if you buy something physical, you can demand repairs if it is defective, that’s all.

Quote

Under EU rules, a trader must repair, replace, reduce the price or give you a refund if goods you bought turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised.

If you bought a product or a service online or outside of a shop (by telephone, mail order, from a door-to-door salesperson), you also have the right to cancel and return your order within 14 days, for any reason and without a justification.

 

[Migratingcoconut]

8 hours ago, Cab said:

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?

According to the youtube interview on page 4, putting everything out for free for a month increased sales at that time by 4 times.
I agree that the main question is: How many more paying customers would it bring in and also how quickly?
I don't know the costs either.

7 hours ago, draconus said:

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!

I think it would make a bad paid module for the same reasons why I feel it is likely to make for a good free one. Who would spend $50+ on something so limited? Charging much less might kill it. I bet more time would be spent in it as a two-week trial at that point. But if it were permanent and free, well I wont repeat myself ad nauseam except for the fact I may just be completely wrong of course. But then what is the harm done here? 
I feel like if ED notices this thread, they are more likely to come in and lay the arguments to rest one way or the other. But do you really think they would bankrupt themselves over this thread? Seriously?

I would rather it does get their attention than not at this point, and not because anything's gone awry.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Migratingcoconut

[Evoman]

In conclusion I think we can all agree that the current free aircraft are not the most ideal in attracting new players and prepare them well to move up to an advanced paid module. We can also agree that developing an all new module just to use a free aircraft is not really that realistic.

So that leaves using current aircraft that would be flashy enough to attract new players, be easy enough to learn to operate, be fun to fly and do a good job at training people to advance to the next advanced aircraft.  Which narrows it down to the F-5 II and the A-10A. If the A-10A gets chosen it would be the ideal time to upgrade it to have a clickable cockpit.

 

[Dragon1-1]

Just now, cfrag said:

Definitely not. That only applies to online purchases. Otherwise, if you buy something physical, you can demand repairs if it is defective, that’s all.

When was the last time you bought anything offline?  Besides groceries, which aren't covered anyway. I admit, I forgot about that caveat, but that kind of stuff is only ever bought online these days.

1 minute ago, Evoman said:

So that leaves using current aircraft that would be flashy enough to attract new players, be easy enough to learn to operate, be fun to fly and do a good job at training people to advance to the next advanced aircraft.  Which narrows it down to the F-5 II and the A-10A. If the A-10A gets chosen it would be the ideal time to upgrade it to have a clickable cockpit.

Well, the F-5 would work, except as I said, it's ground attack ability is not so good, mostly due to having a primitive sight without CCIP, making bombing very difficult for someone just starting out. A-10A is almost good, except it can't really do much air combat, and it's not a trainer, so no two seat training flights. I really wanted that specifically, in order to make it easier to people to set up training to get their friends into DCS.

[Migratingcoconut]

26 minutes ago, bies said:

This is basically a debt, you don't earn in hope you will earn more later on.

As much as i would love to see an F-117 in DCS it was highly specialised aircraft - relatively poor choice to attract casual beginner who would want to rather try many things and make many mistakes. The only attractive feature for the average Joe would be unusual apperance and Gulf War legend. In case of F-117 you are eiter skilled/knowledgable to perform the mission or you are useless, it would be appreciated by more experiences customers though. I think FlyingIron simulations is the closest to model F-117 as they invested money to obtain the data and started to model it for XPlane.

 

Yeah,
before I figured that they had already done this with the TF-51D and Su-25T, but that has been revealed as not the case, so...
I'm much less confident now that they would even go for this than a little earlier. If anyone from ED shows up to support the idea that it's too much investment up front then I might have 'em lock this thread. It'll be nice to have closure on the subject at least in that case.

 

16 minutes ago, Evoman said:

In conclusion I think we can all agree that the current free aircraft are not the most ideal in attracting new players and prepare them well to move up to an advanced paid module. We can also agree that developing an all new module just to use a free aircraft is not really that realistic.

So that leaves using current aircraft that would be flashy enough to attract new players, be easy enough to learn to operate, be fun to fly and do a good job at training people to advance to the next advanced aircraft.  Which narrows it down to the F-5 II and the A-10A. If the A-10A gets chosen it would be the ideal time to upgrade it to have a clickable cockpit.

I agree that picking from current planes is a much better starting point. The F-5 seems like a decent idea, however the A-10A being free FF might tank the sales of the A-10C II I feel like.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Migratingcoconut

[shagrat]

Am 4.3.2023 um 11:53 schrieb cfrag:

The answer is always "yes" - because they are every person's first contact with DCS.

Not necessarily, because from what I've seen, a lot of people either started with DCS when there wasn't a "free" plane available with the original DCS: Black Shark, FC2 and A-10C Warthog, or they were hooked by a specific plane modeled like the F-14 Tomcat, the F-16C, the F/A-18C or the AH-64D Longbow and bought the modules right away, or through the free trials...

A "free" complex, full fidelity aircraft, would attract what supposed customer base?

The study sim fans, will go directly for a two week trial and if they enjoy the study level learning curve they stay and thus buy it.

The people not enjoying study sims of the typical DCS fidelity and looking for some quick "Air Combat Action" won't be happy and not stay for long. Maybe consider an FC3 aircraft and occasionally hop on public servers, either using the free trials or buy an FC3 jet on a sale... 

[DD_Fenrir]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

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.  

I am tempted to agree with you on this aspect.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

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

You assume too much. I don't think I am entitled to a free H-Fi module; never have. I have always believed people should be paid for their hard work, if they wish to be.

However, I proffered an opinion based on my experience where the 2-week demo angle has been an issue - not for me, but for fellow squad members.

Many were intrigued by the graphics and gameplay of DCS yet intimidated by the apparent complexity of some of the hi-fi modules. The A-4 has proven to be an excellent balance of hi-fi systems modelling yet accessible enough to not be a turn off, and allowing more flexibilty of use and time accessibilty than the demo version of one of the payware modules allow.

To top it all the A-4 is fun yet challenging and free - for that latter we are extrememely lucky that such a talented group of developers are willing to allow us to utilise their hard work without expecting reimbursement.

What I am suggesting is that, given my experience, maybe DCS is missing a trick - especially given that some of those squad mates who initally would not give DCS a second look are actively considering a payware module, something that 2-3 years ago even I would have said they'd only be seen in DCS when Hell was getting the gritters out...

I am certainly not demanding a freeware hi-fi module; but considering the demographic that DCS appeals to, a good majority of which is customers over 30, to truly get to grips with a hi-fi DCS module takes more than a handful of 2 hour sessions that some peoples real life allows.

 

 

  

Edited March 5, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Beirut]

15 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

I agree that picking from current planes is a much better starting point. The F-5 seems like a decent idea, however the A-10A being free FF might tank the sales of the A-10C II I feel like.

 

 

The A-10A isn't FF. It's like the free SU-25T.

 

I like free stuff as much as the next guy but given the reality of the situation, a free FF plane simply isn't required. As it is you get two maps and two planes for free. That's a good start. After that, you have about 45 planes and choppers available for free for two-weeks each. If each is used to the fullest, that's close to two-years of free flying. And once you're a quarter the way through that, some of the modules will become available again for another two-weeks each for free. 

 

I think there's a point where one should take a step back and ask if they are perhaps asking for too much. 

[Cab]

1 hour ago, Evoman said:

In conclusion I think we can all agree that the current free aircraft are not the most ideal in attracting new players and prepare them well to move up to an advanced paid module. 

Personally, I am not willing to concede this point, but I would agree it's worth discussing.

How about this: Instead of a fixed number of days, a user gets X free hours on a module for a period of X days.

1 hour ago, Migratingcoconut said:

According to the youtube interview on page 4, putting everything out for free for a month increased sales at that time by 4 times.

Yes, it was very effective. I believe that experience is where the two-week free trials came from.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Cab

[Migratingcoconut]

59 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

I don't think I am entitled to a free H-Fi module

"What I am suggesting is that, given my experience, maybe DCS is missing a trick"

"I am certainly not demanding a freeware hi-fi module"

Said what I mean more succinctly than I, thanks!
 

55 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I like free stuff as much as the next guy but given the reality of the situation, a free FF plane simply isn't required. As it is you get two maps and two planes for free. That's a good start. After that, you have about 45 planes and choppers available for free for two-weeks each. If each is used to the fullest, that's close to two-years of free flying. And once you're a quarter the way through that, some of the modules will become available again for another two-weeks each for free. 

I think there's a point where one should take a step back and ask if they are perhaps asking for too much.

Now that I look back on it, making the F-5 II free all the sudden just wouldn't seem right at all, I agree that is asking to much.

But it isn't really about how much I like free stuff, though of course I do. It is about how I think it might actually be possible for them to improve on that 'start' even more while also profiting from doing so.
If by asking too much you mean putting forward that they should risk it on something that might not pay; that is not what I have pushed for.(after re-reading the OP, I can see how it might be easy to take the opposite away, that was not my intention). The base assumption I have gone off of is that I'm not nor can I be certain of its feasibility. I have never said they should go forward with it if they find it not to be. I'm just trying to put the idea forward so they might consider it & thus do the analysis that we cannot. That way IF it is found to be feasible & beneficial then they may go forward with it. This is why I am pressing on here.

Edited March 5, 2023 by Migratingcoconut
I fear I left some things too vague in the OP.

[freehand]

2 hours 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.

 

The Planet I live on is the same as most others you go to work and pay for stuff, before I buy for example a module I do research on the hundreds of videos available and then due to the generosity of ED I can even try the module free for 2 weeks and if I do not like the module I certainly do not throw my toys out the pram because the free time was not sufficient.  

As for you not liking me or respecting me because I thought your claim was ridicules personally, I do not give a ****.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The car analogy is very flawed, because a car is much less complex than an aircraft.

The point of the trail is a demo, it’s not intended for you to learn the entire module before buying it. 
Plus there are enough modules in DCS that a player who wants to game the system can just keep themselves on a free rotation, continually having something to fly, with the same plane coming back every 6 months. So allowing for more than two weeks just opens up the free trial period to be exploited. 

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Many were intrigued by the graphics and gameplay of DCS yet intimidated by the apparent complexity of some of the hi-fi modules.

If somebody can’t decide to buy a module within two weeks then they will probably never buy it. You don’t need a demo module either to understand what DCS is like, there’s plenty of content all over YouTube and such to show you.

Edited March 6, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

23 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If somebody can’t decide to buy a module within two weeks then they will probably never buy it. 

Citation needed, I'm calling BS on your assertion. Two weeks will be enough for some, not necessarily for others, particularly for those who don't fly every day. 

For professional software, you get enough free time to learn it, so that once it's done, you feel like you have to buy it so that you haven't wasted your time. DCS works much the same, the longer you spend learning the module, the more compelling the idea of buying it becomes. So, paradoxically, longer free period (within reason) should result in higher sales, because it gets people more time to get fond of the aircraft.

BTW, if you don't like the free play program, you're free not to participate in it.

[Beirut]

35 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

Said what I mean more succinctly than I, thanks!
 

Now that I look back on it, making the F-5 II free all the sudden just wouldn't seem right at all, I agree that is asking to much.

But it isn't really about how much I like free stuff, though of course I do. It is about how I think it might actually be possible for them to improve on that 'start' even more while also profiting from doing so.
If by asking too much you mean putting forward that they should risk it on something that might not pay; that is not what I have pushed for.(after re-reading the OP, I can see how it might be easy to take the opposite away, that was not my intention). The base assumption I have gone off of is that I'm not nor can I be certain of its feasibility. I have never said they should go forward with it if they find it not to be. I'm just trying to put the idea forward so they might consider it & thus do the analysis that we cannot. That way IF it is found to be feasible & beneficial then they may go forward with it. This is why I am pressing on here.

 

 

I enjoy beating the schmidt out of a dead horse as much as anyone, but this is getting silly. 

 

If two free maps and two free planes and 6 free trial maps and about 45 free trial planes and helicopters, not to mention the supercarrier and assets packs, if all that isn't enough... I suggest a walk outside in the fresh air. Maybe a book. Maybe a drink. Maybe some music.

 

As stated, this is getting truly silly.

[Dragon1-1]

The problem with free planes is that they don't adequately represent what DCS is capable of. The TF-51 is a nice enough airplane, but it's a WWII prop. The Su-25T, meanwhile, serves as a poor introduction to modern jets (due to simplified avionics and poor handling, mostly), something which could be remedied by including a free T-45 or T-38. The former would be a perfect demo, it can do just about anything, but can't compete with paid modules, and it's modern enough to have a HUD. Free trials are nice, but time-limited and not available on Steam. You also need to go out of your way to find out about them (I see them more as a thing for existing players looking for their next module, rather than newcomer thing). If you see a free "DCS World" thing on Steam, download it just to see what it's about, and load up the content that you get, you're not quite getting the introduction that you could be getting. A multicrew trainer would also be handy for introducing friends to the sim.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Dragon1-1

[Beirut]

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem with free planes is that they don't adequately represent what DCS is capable of.

 

Fortunately the two-week free trials of the 45 available planes and choppers do. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

 

 

 Free trials are nice, but time-limited and not available on Steam. 

 

I am on Steam and made a second install from the main site for the free trials. Super easy and super fast. Even I could do it.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Beirut

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem with free planes is that they don't adequately represent what DCS is capable of. The TF-51 is a nice enough airplane, but it's a WWII prop.

 

But it represent the ability of DCS to simulate WW2 aircrafts, not everyone is interested just on modern jets ... there are people who enjoy WW2 aircrafts, cold war aircrafts, and helicopters.

 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The Su-25T, meanwhile, serves as a poor introduction to modern jets (due to simplified avionics and poor handling, mostly)

 

poor handling? .. you mean that it is not a dogfighter?  .. yes, surprise, it is an attack aircraft .. and representative of a fairly modern jet.

 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

, something which could be remedied by including a free T-45 or T-38.

 

Those aircrafts don't currently exist on DCS, are you suggesting that ED should invest development man-hours into developing free full-fidelity aircrafts?

 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

A multicrew trainer would also be handy for introducing friends to the sim.

 

I'd love to see ED expand the TF-51 a bit, to include a backseat .. it would provide that introduction ability with a small development effort.

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Rudel_chw

[SharpeXB]

29 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Citation needed,

The question explains itself. Clearly ED has determined two weeks to be the optimal time. Any longer than this obviously doesn’t produce more sales or indeed you’d see them doing exactly that. They have information to make such decisions after all.

30 minutes ago, Beirut said:

As stated, this is getting truly silly.

Quite…

25 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The problem with free planes is that they don't adequately represent what DCS is capable of.

Every module is available as a free trial. You aren’t limited to those two. 

25 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Free trials are nice, but time-limited and not available on Steam.

So? Go get the DCS standalone version, it’s free! 

[Migratingcoconut]

Do tell me how this has gotten silly. Too many paragraphs? I can get that.

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

Do tell me how this has gotten silly. Too many paragraphs? I can get that.

Because here we are on page 5 and yet all the reasons why this isn’t a good suggestion were already pointed out on page 1. Especially the fact that all the modules are available as free trials pretty much eliminates the point of this topic. 

[Evoman]

3 hours ago, Migratingcoconut said:

 

Now that I look back on it, making the F-5 II free all the sudden just wouldn't seem right at all, I agree that is asking to much.

 

 

That is why a AT-38B trainer variant would be the ideal free aircraft. It would be a good option because it would be based on an existing module that could be developed with a lot less work. The engines and some other systems might not be the same but it could still be tweaked to represent the Tallon as much as possible.

Plus it would only increase sales of the F-5 as there would be more people trained to fly it right away. They would just need to learn to operate the radar and new weapons systems.

 

 

[Migratingcoconut]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Because here we are on page 5 and yet all the reasons why this isn’t a good suggestion were already pointed out on page 1. Especially the fact that all the modules are available as free trials pretty much eliminates the point of this topic. 

I will fess up: The trend as the discussion has gone on is that I have seen the chances of this being feasible diminish quite a lot. So please, don't think it is falling on deaf ears when it comes to me. Maybe it is not as much to do with me as I don't really have a dog in the 2-week period being enough race.
Way I see it, there only needs to be any chance at all that they see value in it, and in my view that justifies telling them to look into it. I agree the viability of this topic has been shown to be scant, but I don't get what saying that is supposed to accomplish. Unless the purpose of this thread is completely eliminated, I've got to ask why you would not be on my side?

If I heard what you are saying from ED, then I would just ask the thread be locked right up so we all could move along.

I wouldn't feel so bad as I learned a lot more from both sides than I expected to. So it has been great so far getting more than I bargained for. 

6 minutes ago, Evoman said:

That is why a AT-38B trainer variant would be the ideal free aircraft. It would be a good option because it would be based on an existing module that could be developed with a lot less work. The engines and some other systems might not be the same but it could still be tweaked to represent the Tallon as much as possible.

Plus it would only increase sales of the F-5 as there would be more people trained to fly it right away. They would just need to learn to operate the radar and new weapons systems.

That's right, I forgot. It was made by Belsimtek, so they would need to get permission (and probably pay for said permission). It would more than likely be better to just go out and scan a real one since the F-5 II needs a remaster currently. Noticing how many 3rd party devs are redoing their visual models in the last couple years makes me a bit skeptical the F-5 would really help.

[ironhard]

F-117A, oh yes!

 

[cfrag]

10 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

When was the last time you bought anything offline?  Besides groceries, which aren't covered anyway. I admit, I forgot about that caveat, but that kind of stuff is only ever bought online these days.

We were specifically talking about cars. I have never purchased a car online, and I know nobody who did (search for, yes. Purchase, no). Even Teslas are sold old-school by visiting a dealer and signing a contract (at least here in Switzerland). So there is no '14 days return policy no-questions-asked' (in lieu of a demo) for such car sales in the EU.

I really don't understand the argument here. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you believe that the purchase decision for a $10k-20k++ item (car) requires less of your attention and personal hands-on experience than a dinky $50 DLC? If so, we have wildly different priorities. 

And cars aren't 'so similar' either. My friend's 1969 Austin Healey with gearshift and modified carburetor is a far cry from a similarly priced Tesla S with auto-steering. Most people wouldn't be able to drive the Healey out of her garage (half of them couldn't get it started, the rest would have major problems with the unsynched gearbox). On the other hand, let's be honest - we are looking at a flight sim DLC: you push the stick, the houses get bigger; you pull it, they get smaller. If you need more than two weeks to decide that you like it enough for purchase, by extrapolation it should take you decades to decide on a car purchase. Not because of the inherent complexity of either, but simply because of the value at risk.

This is how I believe it works for most people when they purchase a $50 entertainment item: If you think that you'll like the experience, you purchase; with the risk of having a full write-off if it turns out that you hate the experience. That's how I purchased the more expensive titles 'company of heroes 3' and 'Hogwarts legacy' - which, sadly, do not let me play for 2 weeks no-strings-attached (Steam does give you an up to two hours return policy). The idea of requiring a 2 week pre-purchase 'familiarization' phase for the titles never crossed my (the purchaser's) mind - much less claiming that 14 days is too short for "considerate purchase decisions". 

This entire discussion feels absurd to me.

Edited March 6, 2023 by cfrag