New better free Plane(s)

[hotrod525]

There is the trial and there is tons of epicly done mods that are on par with paid modules. Anyway, enjoying DCS is "not a free thing" even if the game itself can be download for free. You neet a stick, a throttle, rudders, trackIR, etc...

 

 

[Beirut]

1 hour ago, hotrod525 said:

There is the trial and there is tons of epicly done mods that are on par with paid modules. Anyway, enjoying DCS is "not a free thing" even if the game itself can be download for free.

 

Yeah, but nothing is good enough for some people.

 

1 hour ago, hotrod525 said:

 

 

You neet a stick, a throttle, rudders, trackIR, etc...

 

I'm sure they want all that stuff for free as well. Including someone to come over and plug it all in for them.

[Migratingcoconut]

On 3/8/2023 at 2:13 AM, draconus said:

@Migratingcoconut What did you really expect from this thread?

There is ED - over 30 years of experience on PC gaming market, they lived through the local wars and COVID lockdown - and they continue to grow worldwide, invite more and more 3rd parties to cooperate in creating more and more content, being best of the best in their niche.

I find it rather insulting that random internet users frequently come and think ED does not know how to reach new players and try to teach them how to do the marketing or even how to do their business.

How's your poll doing btw?

 

One thing I will say is my fault: After reading it again I can see how the first post might lack enough grace so as to have gotten me off on the wrong foot with people, though this benefits from some hindsight. If it seems like I was being rather presumptuous from the beginning, likely due to my own bias (optimism and all that), then I am sorry about that. I know I could have done better. It would probably not make a difference to go re-invent the wheel given how many pages in it is.

For what it's worth, I can understand someone getting offended if they believed ED was actually being threatened in some way. It's just...they aren't. Especially by your own reasoning. I agree, they are very competent and have done more than enough in my view. For all I knew they might have already considered this very thing, but I can be wrong about that too. If you disagree with that very last part, then that would seem hypocritical as it would mean you think you know to a certainty at least as well as them yourself. That's far more than I grant myself.

I had expected a similar experience I got at other flight sim forums I used to frequent: Not the intervention of jaded, overly-gatekeepy regulars/people who feel the need to make enemies where there are none to start with. If the poll is doing what polls are supposed to do it means there is that much less reason to be one of those people. On those other sites this would just never happen; and things seemed better without it (they were smaller forums though). All it accomplishes is keeping out good natured people who would otherwise feel welcome. Without that, we wouldn't be this far in and it would likely be buried already with a low vote, which I would also be cool with. Fair is fair. That is how forums worked in my experience, and I enjoyed it so much I decided to give this one a try.

[Beirut]

7 minutes ago, Migratingcoconut said:

 

For what it's worth, I can understand someone getting offended if they believed ED was actually being threatened in some way.

 

What?

 

Nobody felt ED was being threatened. 

 

But several thought that anyone who was all growed up to the extent that they could wash and dress themselves didn't need their hand held and could find, install, and figure out what DCS is with the information already available. And if the can't, there's always checkers. 

[draconus]

5 hours ago, Migratingcoconut said:

All it accomplishes is keeping out good natured people who would otherwise feel welcome.

Are you suggesting I'm some kind of jaded gatekeeper? Look again at my content - I'm mostly here to help other users, share knowledge, solve problems, report bugs and discuss - that doesn't stop me from expressing my opinions, like the one that ED doesn't need more homegrown market and business experts.

Don't you feel like a guest who comes and say: "Oh, what a mess you got here, no wonder no one wants to visit you. Maybe start with some free candies."

[SkateZilla]

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

By requirements particularly that means all the work needs to be original. Everything from artwork to coding etc. I’m sure you know that. Community mods likely borrow content from lots of sources that a commercial product couldn’t use. 

The only preventing issues w/ the A-4E Mod, are
A: It's a community mod, the code and content have been worked on by too many different people to actively list, credit, and get permission to commercialize the product, etc.
let alone make sure they get their % of sales, who is responsible for what part, who is getting paid for what part, who owns what part etc etc.
 

B: The License to produce and sell it was significant 10 years ago, I imagine nothing has changed w/ McD License under Boeing since.


But as far as Module Complete-ness, and Content, it's well above a few of the 3rd Party modules.

Edited March 10, 2023 by SkateZilla

[Beirut]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Are you suggesting I'm some kind of jaded gatekeeper?

 

More of ...

 

 

Just kiddin', we love ya! 

 

 

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Don't you feel like a guest who comes and say: "Oh, what a mess you got here, no wonder no one wants to visit you. Maybe start with some free candies."

 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

But as far as Module Complete-ness...

Afair:

1. carrier compatibility

2. AAR

3. radio

[SkateZilla]

1. We dont have a Briddle Launch system/carrier.
2. requires SDK 
3. requires SDK

[MAXsenna]

1. We dont have a Briddle Launch system/carrier.
2. requires SDK 
3. requires SDK

Not sure what you mean?
2&3 works fine in the A-4E-C, even works with VAICOM.
Or were you referring to another community module?

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

The only preventing issues w/ the A-4E Mod, are
A: It's a community mod, the code and content have been worked on by too many different people to actively list, credit, and get permission to commercialize the product, etc.
let alone make sure they get their % of sales, who is responsible for what part, who is getting paid for what part, who owns what part etc etc.
 

B: The License to produce and sell it was significant 10 years ago, I imagine nothing has changed w/ McD License under Boeing since.


But as far as Module Complete-ness, and Content, it's well above a few of the 3rd Party modules.

 

Right. That’s what I meant by “requirements”, not the quality of the mod. 

[hotrod525]

15 hours ago, Beirut said:

I'm sure they want all that stuff for free as well. Including someone to come over and plug it all in for them.

Yeah well some of them need to learn that "in real life, mom and dad aint paying or plugging your stuff anymore"

 

Anyway. OP talk about "how a free plane would bring more player". Base on my "humble experience", i learn about DCS in 2009, i was already familiar with LOCK ON but what bring me in is the A10C, wich wasnt free. I know many people who got in for a "said paid modules", they never even put a single SU25T in ME, ever.

 

To me, what bring people to DCS is capability;

- ED had a huge push on WW2, to bring a new breed of pilots... I think they are competing against another sim in that matter,

- ED made F16, pretty much for the same reasons,  wich bring no special capability,

- ED made the F18, wich was a ground-breaking endevour for them, coding alot of new stuff into DCS (AG Radar, independant engine sim, etc.) the most eargly awaited module ever.

- ED made the AH64D, wich was along the F18C, the most eargly requested module....

- ED remake core features, being EDGE or Clouds, and all those things in the background that arent eye-candy but play major role in the enjoyment of the sim.

- ED / 3rd party made more "RedFOR" full fidelity modules,

 

List goes on and on. Those things, bring people in. Having a free game with a free plane on a keyboard and mouse, with a learning curse even worst than a russian hardcore survival tactical RPG, wont.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by hotrod525

[Migratingcoconut]

14 hours ago, draconus said:

Are you suggesting I'm some kind of jaded gatekeeper? Look again at my content - I'm mostly here to help other users, share knowledge, solve problems, report bugs and discuss - that doesn't stop me from expressing my opinions, like the one that ED doesn't need more homegrown market and business experts.

Don't you feel like a guest who comes and say: "Oh, what a mess you got here, no wonder no one wants to visit you. Maybe start with some free candies."

I'm saying that's going to be the impression. What you've said here essentially boils down to: 'How dare anyone suggest the current system could possibly potentially be improved?' What did you expect saying you are insulted. I'm fine with you voicing opinions until they assume too much about my intent. To me that revealed something bad about your own.

It just comes down to the difference between saying I made a poor suggestion and saying/implying I have bad intentions. One is judging the idea & the other the one voicing it. I hope asking for the former isn't asking for 'free candy'. If you're saying you didn't mean to do that then it's all good. And I feel no need to verify that otherwise people here tend to be quite civil.

I don't think this place is a mess. Every other experience (of the few total) I've had here has been a-ok. I never thought ED had a bad handle on themselves & I thought I made it clear enough. If not, then I gather that's the issue. If so then I'll take full responsibility and can easily forgive anything you said. Either way it's something I'll work on in the future.

[Beirut]

[Spino]

Here's another possibility, one that if constructed correctly might not require too much investment on ED's part under the circumstances.  Yes, a new free aircraft would be nice, but I think it has already been established that making a full fidelity aircraft and giving it to the player base for free makes absolutely no sense for ED.  And who really wants another free FC3-style aircraft?  Who says there can't be a middle ground between the high-fidelity aircraft with all unclassified systems fully modeled, and the low fidelity aircraft with simplified systems and no clickable cockpit?  What if there was a "medium-fidelity" aircraft offered for free, that could do a bit of air to ground and air to air, and had a partially clickable cockpit (major systems like radar and basic engine/flight controls)?  I personally think the F-16A Block 5 or Block 10 would be the best candidate for this, for several reasons that I'll explain below, but before everyone starts saying that a free F-16 would basically kill all sales of the F-16C Viper module, please hear me out.

1.  The early block F-16As had limited capabilities in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground arenas.  I'm not referring to dogfighting, the F-16 has always been an excellent dogfighting aircraft, but early on it had no beyond visual range capability and usually carried AAMs that weren't top of the line (AIM-9P more specifically). Outside of unguided bombs/rockets its only air to ground capability came in the form of the TV/IR guided variants of the AGM-65 and possibly also AGM-45 Shrikes (not sure if the F-16 ever carried those).  Bottom line is that an early block F-16A had some precision air to ground capability, but not really anything more than what the A-10A currently has in DCS, and even less than the Su-25T (no laser-guided weapons without buddy lasing and maybe not even anti-ship missiles).  It's a little bigger slice of the pie than the F-117 suggested earlier in this thread, but still not full-spectrum like the F-16C and F/A-18.

2. The F-16A's flight model could potentially be adjusted from the existing F-16C FM.  The F-16A was only slightly more nimble than the C from what I understand (due to its lighter weight), though some other characteristics like acceleration would have to be tuned as well to account for the F100 engine (considerably less push than the F-110-129 in the F-16C).

3. The early F-16s had a pretty basic radar, so in theory for a medium-fidelity aircraft with systems complexity somewhere in between FC3 and full fidelity it shouldn't be too difficult or time consuming to model.

It's not anywhere near as simple as copy/paste the F-16C and change a few values to do this, but for a medium level of detail it might not involve too much time/resources.  As far as I know, it would basically boil down to new cockpit/external models (animations, textures, roughmets, etc.), a simplified but probably new-build avionics set, and an adjusted version of the F-16C EFM.  I might be completely wrong on the impact an aircraft like this would have on ED's revenue and/or the effort it would take to develop a "medium-fidelity" module even with the possibility of re-using a thing or two from an existing module.  There might be quite a few people who would settle for a free medium-fidelity F-16A and fly nothing else, especially given the popularity of the F-16C, so this idea may not hold any water, but it's something to think about.

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Spino said:

Who says there can't be a middle ground between the high-fidelity aircraft with all unclassified systems fully modeled, and the low fidelity aircraft with simplified systems and no clickable cockpit?

Such an aircraft wouldn’t represent what DCS is really like. So what’s the point?

Again… you can trial any of the modules for free so there’s no need for additional free aircraft. 

20 minutes ago, Spino said:

There might be quite a few people who would settle for a free medium-fidelity F-16A and fly nothing else

Right, you’re just handing players a free game then. And imagine the effect on multiplayer, flooded with noobs flying simplified F-16s pew pew…

Edited March 16, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Vampyre]

If ED were to create a better representative full fidelity free trial module, I highly doubt they would sink time and money into something totally new or substantially different than an existing DCS module especially with the existence of the two week free trials. If they were to push forward and do it, I imagine it would be something along the lines of a full fidelity F-5F. The base F-5E-3 is supposed to be getting an update with possible new features. A basic F-5F would add to the experience being a combat capable two seat aircraft. The two-seat configuration will allow for an experienced player to bring along a new player and show off DCS and it is not an aircraft most would pick to take to a fight on a regular basis with other paid modules being better in almost every respect. It will show off DCS without impacting sales of most other modules. A completely new or more complex aircraft is highly unlikely.  Like I said though, I doubt they will do it with the two week free trial.