Now that ED apparently is releasing FC3 tier modules again, will we ever see FC3 WW2? I think it is desperately needed.

[Lixma 06]

At this point I'd happily buy a FC Dora with an un-clickable cockpit but a reliable engine.

[Tree_Beard]

10 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Yes, it does, but we cope with it because for those aircraft there's no other alternative .

So by this logic, you think DCS would actually be improved by removing all existing FC3 planes? Quite a take. 

Inb4 "No I want them to be all FF." Yeah so does everyone else, but that isn't gonna happen.

[Qcumber]

How much work would it be to develop an FC 109 G6 based on the K4 design and flight model? Or a P-51 razorback? A serious question. Not meant to antagonise. 

[PawlaczGMD]

Just now, Qcumber said:

How much work would it be to develop an FC 109 G6 based on the K4 design and flight model? Or a P-51 razorback? A serious question. Not meant to antagonise. 

Probably almost as much as developing them FF. The flight model would still have to be to the same standard as FF. FC3 aircraft have flight models on par with FF modules. It would not be acceptable to have a G6 with a K4 flight model, and it would defeat the point. 

They would only save some work on not making clickable cockpits, but a lot of the cockpit could be copied from the existing version, so it's probably not that much work, and would not justify making it simplified. Might just as well make it FF. 

A better idea would be to think about releasing them as a paid variant addon to the existing base model, like if you own the K4, you can add the G6 for $10 or $15. This might make financial sense for ED if significant amount of work can be directly copied from the base model. I'm not sure if it can with their dev process.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

  

14 hours ago, PawlaczGMD said:

I'm all for more warbirds, but if they develop them FC-style, it would be pretty much the same amount of work as full fidelity, so why not just do that? Because of such reasons, I also suspect that developing low fidelity modules at the price point of FC3 is not financially viable for ED.

Yeah, except it wouldn't, I know most people don't pay attention to those details, but since internal systems are modelled and all, damage model affects them and their interconnections, and so you get a varied set of emergencies possible to manage your plane. Without those systems there (like other titles out there with no internal modelling at all) you wouldn't have to manage those things, either the management itself, complex engine management for instance (wait for the La-7 and it's like 6 levers for that if you thought P-47 management is tough ), or any other system, even the simplest ones, which you need to cope with during an emergency with combat damage, or no combat but the system just failed. Without that internal modelling you wouldn't have that, even though many people don't think about it being there until you have to limp back home so they don't know emergency procedures, but it's there and since it's there I want that to be manageable via button clicking, lever handling, and all. Why would I want not to be able to manage my aircraft if the systems are modelled? Since they're there, and DM wouldn't be the same (though less explored than it should) without them, I want to manage those systems. If some people don't want to they can leave those systems alone, but I want to use and manage those systems which happens to affect other systems and the whole aircraft in the end. It's part of the game and without it it wouldn't be the same.

Edited April 30 by Ala13_ManOWar

[MAXsenna]

Im with moto...
you dont buy  a ferari and then have it downgraded to a hondo civic or trabant...

No, you get a Fiero and slap a replica F40 on top of it.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

On 4/27/2024 at 9:15 PM, Gunfreak said:

And explosions look like something from Duke Nukem from 1994.

It was scary as <profanity> in VR though!

 

On 4/28/2024 at 12:11 AM, Gunfreak said:

If ED wanted/thought it was profitable. They could churn out ww2 aircraft relatively quickly. But WW2 isn't profitable enough for ED to do that.

You might be right. It could be a start, especially the missing AI assets. 

 

On 4/29/2024 at 7:51 PM, PawlaczGMD said:

I'm all for more warbirds, but if they develop them FC-style, it would be pretty much the same amount of work as full fidelity, so why not just do that? Because of such reasons, I also suspect that developing low fidelity modules at the price point of FC3 is not financially viable for ED.

Third is probably the reason! 

[Mr_sukebe]

On 4/27/2024 at 11:11 PM, Gunfreak said:

….

If ED wanted/thought it was profitable. They could churn out ww2 aircraft relatively quickly. But WW2 isn't profitable enough for ED to do that.…

I vaguely seem to remember an interview with  Matt W, probably 3-4 years ago, where he stated that the warbirds had proved to be more profitable than the jets, as their systems were considerably simpler.

Which always made me wonder why ED didn’t build a new dev team to churn them out.

Maybe ED were expecting 3rd parties to do it?

Edited May 1 by Mr_sukebe

[Gunfreak]

46 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

I vaguely seem to remember an interview with  Matt W, probably 3-4 years ago, where he stated that the warbirds had proved to be more profitable than the jets, as their systems were considerably simpler.

Which always made me wonder why ED didn’t build a new dev team to churn them out.

Maybe ED were expecting 3rd parties to do it?

 

I've heard/saw the same statement. But doesn't seem to match ED lack of ww2 interest.

And I fear now that there's another game dealing with PTO, the grand PTO plans of DCS will be scaled down. Why try and beat the competition (that has only 1 ball in the air) when you, yourself have many balls in the air. Better to stick to what you have de facto monopoly on, Jets and modern air combat.

[Mr_sukebe]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

I've heard/saw the same statement. But doesn't seem to match ED lack of ww2 interest.

And I fear now that there's another game dealing with PTO, the grand PTO plans of DCS will be scaled down. Why try and beat the competition (that has only 1 ball in the air) when you, yourself have many balls in the air. Better to stick to what you have de facto monopoly on, Jets and modern air combat.

Agreed, whilst I love DCS WW2, if ED can’t scale, I’d rather they focus on Cold War and similar aircraft.

For all that, would be ace to have a 3rd party give us a serious delivery of WW2 goodness using DCS technology and maps.

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

I've heard/saw the same statement. But doesn't seem to match ED lack of ww2 interest.

And I fear now that there's another game dealing with PTO, the grand PTO plans of DCS will be scaled down. Why try and beat the competition (that has only 1 ball in the air) when you, yourself have many balls in the air. Better to stick to what you have de facto monopoly on, Jets and modern air combat.

If we are talking about the new one in dev..

If they are shooting to encroach on ED's High-Fidelity\graphics realm, maybe they see them as a future potential competitor.

Easiest way to stop a competitor is to keep them from getting started.

One way to do that is not let them have a unfulfilled niched just waiting for them to move into and get a foothold.  Get in there first and establish existing competition they have to beat with is harder than green open field dev. Get a head-start on a PTO offering so the market is not just begging for a new player to come in and do it.

Strangle the new-comer while they are still in the crib.