Should ED focus on new variants/equipment to already-existing modules, or should they focus on creating new modules?

[OhNoMyHookBroke]

(Poll included)

I think an opportunity ED isn't capitalizing on is adding new variants and equipment to existing modules. 
For instance, modeling different Blocks of aircraft, different cockpit layouts, different variants based off of aircraft already in the game.

You could charge 3-5 dollars for a different cockpit layout or equipment. You can charge something like 25+ bucks for a new variant, but require the aircraft it's based off of to be owned in order to use the upgrade. (or just charge as much as any other module)

I feel like ED is focusing too much on immediately getting the next big module out right after releasing one that needs some serious work. (EA)

Take the CH-47F for example. It needs some serious work done to it, but apparently, they're already making a new helicopter according to Wags' Q&A video. And I know that there are different teams assigned to each module, but when I look at third-party developers that have a team MUCH smaller than ED (ED supposedly has over or around 200 employees), I just wonder, "how is a group that small able to develop and release an objectively more accurate and better module than a company of 200 is?", and I say that will all due respect.

Maybe I'm wrong. But if ED put these teams together, I'm pretty certain that they'd be able to plow through a module and get it to a good state.

We know of all the great things ED is capable of.

So, why not go back and add newer variants, customizability, equipment, MLUs, Blocks, etc. to these modules that are already out and have been out for years? I know it's not exactly as profitable as releasing a new module, but in my opinion, it would win over the community and be an extremely good thing for DCS. Like adding a CSAR/SAR variant along with core CSAR/SAR features.

Here's another example: Bob loves the Huey, but he doesn't really like the UH-1H's analogue cockpit. However, he loves the TH-1H, which is a modernized UH-1H with a glass cockpit flown by the USAF for training. (I'm definitely not bob lol)

This could introduce more people to modules that they previously didn't have much interest for.

Also, I want to clarify that I'm not necessarily asking ED to go and create these insanely different variants that would require numerous changes to almost everything, but still share that 1% to still say it's based off of its predecessor. Some things are obviously a no go.

That's my opinion and take at least. Curious to what you guys think. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:24 AM by OhNoMyHookBroke

[Steel Jaw]

Where's my Hornet DTC...its been 8 years...oh, wait....

[OhNoMyHookBroke]

11 minutes ago, Steel Jaw said:

Where's my Hornet DTC...its been 8 years...oh, wait....

8 years for the features the DTC brings is truly absurd. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:11 AM by OhNoMyHookBroke

[Pizzicato]

Neither. In a perfect world, they should focus on getting the dynamic campaign out the door (ideally in a better-than-barebones state) before returning their focus to new modules.

If I had to answer your question, I'd say new modules. I don't really care about variants unless they're dramatically different, e.g. Eagle versus Strike Eagle or Hornet versus Super Hornet.

[OhNoMyHookBroke]

1 minute ago, Pizzicato said:

Neither. In a perfect world, they should focus on getting the dynamic campaign out the door (ideally in a better-than-barebones state) before returning their focus to new modules.

If I had to answer your question, I'd say new modules. I don't really care about variants unless they're dramatically different, e.g. Eagle versus Strike Eagle or Hornet versus Super Hornet.

I set this aside to just get people's perspectives on this specific topic, but I do agree, core most definitely needs to be worked on the most. 

[flanker1]

MiG-23ML or MLD please, finally. . . a cold war map without is only half. THNX! 

[OhNoMyHookBroke]

5 minutes ago, flanker1 said:

MiG-23ML or MLD please, finally. . . a cold war map without is only half. THNX! 

COO Kate of ED did hint that ED would take over development of the MiG-23. Pretty glad they're going back to Russian aircraft, because they can really make those properly. 

[draconus]

10 hours ago, OhNoMyHookBroke said:

And I know that there are different teams assigned to each module, but when I look at third-party developers that have a team MUCH smaller than ED (ED supposedly has over or around 200 employees), I just wonder, "how is a group that small able to develop and release an objectively more accurate and better module than a company of 200 is?", and I say that will all due respect.

ED teams making modules are probably just as small as some 3rd party teams. They have different teams for jets, props and helicopters, and of course different teams for the terrains. Some people may jump between them too depending on the needs. They also have many people that you'll find in many other medium size companies like managers, sales and marketing, accountancy, support, CMs, testers, web admins, server admins, core team... they all have to keep all the modules working in one game on any terrain, keep the servers on and working, keep selling and marketing DCS. It looks like the top management decided it's best and most profitable to keep on releasing new EA products while maintaining the rest workable and developing the core in the mean time.

[MAXsenna]

COO Kate of ED did hint that ED would take over development of the MiG-23. Pretty glad they're going back to Russian aircraft, because they can really make those properly. 

No, she hinted that the MiG-23 will eventually come to DCS at some point. Nothing more, nothing less.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Silver_Dragon]

9 hours ago, Pizzicato said:

Neither. In a perfect world, they should focus on getting the dynamic campaign out the door (ideally in a better-than-barebones state) before returning their focus to new modules.

ED module creators can do absolutely nothing to create or accelerate the development of the dynamic campaign.

Remember that specialized engineers were hired, and that ED, after several years, has finally shown us a teaser in the 2025 and beyond video. Furthermore, no matter how many programmers you add to a project, it doesn't mean it will be released sooner. It's the first stage of development, especially if they have no experience in the field.

9 hours ago, OhNoMyHookBroke said:

COO Kate of ED did hint that ED would take over development of the MiG-23. Pretty glad they're going back to Russian aircraft, because they can really make those properly. 

Any official source about them or newsletter?

[MAXsenna]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Remember that specialized engineers were hired,

Oooh! That's interesting. First time I've heard about it. Source?

I've always said that they should've snatched the Holy Grail when the OP was up for sale.  

[Silver_Dragon]

14 hours ago, OhNoMyHookBroke said:

8 years for the features the DTC brings is truly absurd. 

We don't know how long work on the DTC (has a core feature) has been going on, how many iterations it's had, or what issues it's encountered. It's safer to take small steps than to end up with a broken and unplayable product due to rushing it, only to have it become internet forum fodder. A functionality that is not exclusive to any module, and is part of the core.

We have a first iteration of the DTC, better than anything. Remember, it's the same thing that's happened with other things in the past, like the Supercarrier; it's nothing new. And as I said before, to work on the core of DCS World, you need highly specialized personnel, because there's a lot to create or implement. It's not just a matter of putting an intern to code and things magically appear.

Remember, in its niche, DCS World has the handicap of trying to recreate a large number of issues on land, sea, and air, and that takes a lot of work, resources, planning, and money.

4 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Oooh! That's interesting. First time I've heard about it. Source?

I've always said that they should've snatched the Holy Grail when the OP was up for sale.  

What Source?, Let's remember that I've maintained a post in which I would post every time the ED team required staff to work in the company, and one of those positions was precisely RTS programmer with knowledge of creating dynamic campaigns... many years ago, now disapeared.

Edited Tuesday at 03:59 PM by Silver_Dragon

[MAXsenna]

8 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

What Source?, Let's remember that I've maintained a post in which I would post every time the ED team required staff to work in the company, and one of those positions was precisely engineers with knowledge of creating dynamic campaigns... many years ago.

Yeah, I remember now. Source approved! I misread, I thought you meant they hired an external team.

Many years ago? I've been active here since 2019, and that's not that many years ago.

[draconus]

15 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Many years ago? I've been active here since 2019, and that's not that many years ago.

[MAXsenna]

Time is relative!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

I voted for new modules however if you can do variants for less than the cost of a new module I would buy one 

[Lace]

Ultimately ED are a business, and they will invest time and resources into whatever they think will sell best.  If their market research says an F-16A or CH-47D is worth making, then I'm sure they will eventually do so, I just think that unfortunately the vast majority of players want the latest and greatest, which leaves the 'lesser' or 'older' variants a mere pipe dream.

There are 150,000 registered users on this forum, and countless more players who never contribute to the online discourse.  We always recognise the same names, thread after thread.  We are a tiny sub-niche within an already very niche product (high-fidelity flight simulation).  

Perhaps a better solution would be to encourage the modding community by offering a non-commercial SDK 'lite' for aircraft modders, and try to encourage them rather than suggest every little issue is down to 'unofficial mods' interfering with the core game.  Maybe it is or maybe it isn't, but there are plenty of other games which encourage small developers rather than make users feel like they are corrupting the game by even considering adding an unofficial mod.

ED are a small company, and we know the time it takes to produce a product of the standard we all want to see.  Most of our wishlist modules will never happen unless developed by third party, official or otherwise.