Flaming Cliffs 3

[borchi_2b]

@Rhen + Swift:

 

totally agree with what i have read there :-)

you both made my day, do to the fact that somebody here finally has hit the nail on top of the head and stated something that would be a good answer to so many threats i have read here

 

thx

[Laud]

What some don't get is, that it's not about hardcore or not hardcore or wrong or right. It's all a matter of personal preference. So both positions are kinda valid, as long as they reflect someones individual view to the things discussed here, and not trying to put his opinion onto others.

[EtherealN]

I don't think other people think they know better than ED, they just hope that what the loud minority says is a factor in that data. After all, if people stopped saying "I think X,Y,Z..." then they would have even less than the (probably negligible) impact they currently have on ED's decisions.

 

I don't know exactly how ED does it's market prognoses, but I doubt that a forum on the internet that represents only a small minority of customers is a big factor - remember, it's sort of "minority of a minority" going on and it's dangerous to draw too far conclusions about it.

 

That said, of course, there's nothing wrong in letting ED know what you want. My pet peeve is just when people state as fact things that would require information that I suspect only the directors, Jim, Matt and perhaps one or two more have. Not exactly a criminal offense since it's not a stupid idea to expect synergies between something like DCS:A-10C and an FC3 - I'd suspect they'll boost sales through that too! - but the big question is if the boost is enough to cover the development work. And there I just don't have a clue, unfortunately.

 

And after all, if profit was ED's only objective, they would probably be in a different market.

 

That's a bit like saying power companies would stop producing and delivering power if they were interested in making money, since the profit margins in power distribution are tiny (at least here - 5-6% and that's just crap - while margins in some other markets are considerably higher. Companies will be active where they have competence to be active. As far as software goes, ED's competence is high-fidelity simulations for military and consumer markets - I don't think it would necessarily end well if they decided to suddenly chase the dragon in the FPS market. (And of course, the more lucrative a market, the more competition in it, thus the larger the risk of just being drowned.)

 

That said, I didn't say it was their "only" objective, I just wanted to point out that ED is a business, and they want to make money. If they don't make money, investors would probably pull the plug. So in the case of the staff - and I can thell you, ED staff really has their hearts in this - they have to work with the profit motive as well since securing profit for the company means they'll get to keep making simulators. :)

[EtherealN]

Engines up and go, radar lock and shoot...vs. a pilot that needs to prepare sensors and kick a ton of switches to shoot (next dcs module)???

With A2G aircrafts that's maybe acceptable.

 

It's not quite that simple though: the DCS aircraft would have a TONNE of advantages through having more detailed avionics and weapons. And you don't "kick a ton of switches to shoot", you configure your plane for your mission, and then use your HOTAS. That's what a HOTAS is about, after all. ;)

 

In a dogfight between FC3:F-15C Eagle and DCS:F-15C Eagle, and assuming both pilots are of equal skill and competence, the DCS one would have a considerable advantage. Perhaps not aerodynamically (since FC's "tables" are actually fairly accurate), but he'd have a lot more options at his disposal, he'd have greater SA-building capabilities, and so on and so forth.

[GGTharos]

It's acceptable with any aircraft.

 

If you have to 'kick a ton of switches' for A2A to happen, you've done something wrong - most likely failed to set up your aircraft for combat from the start.

 

If you have already done this, then A2A combat is no different in a DCS bird than it is in an FC2 bird from the pilot's perspective.

 

What IS different is that your defensive systems likely operate much better, and are probably automated ... unlike your FC2 systems. You're also likely to have more, and better radar automation as well.

 

I'd play FC again then and like the idea to upgrade the FC environment to the DCS one.

But multiplayer compatibility not so much.

Engines up and go, radar lock and shoot...vs. a pilot that needs to prepare sensors and kick a ton of switches to shoot (next dcs module)???

With A2G aircrafts that's maybe acceptable.

[RIPTIDE]

My bet is, that DCS:Fighter will be easier to succeed in than FC Fighter against a same opponent, all other things equal.

 

Similar I suppose how a FC A-10A pilot vs a Tung/Strela/Tor involves a few Hail Marys more than the A-10C pilot. :)

[159th_Viper]

....most likely failed to set up your aircraft for combat from the start.....

 

The Devil's in the Details :P

 

When the DCS pilot has finally configured his aircraft for combat he can be guaranteed that he's about a minute or so from a good vulching, alternatively the 8 SPAM-RAM greeting as he clears the numbers courtesy of the FC3 pilot and his two-second-start-and-takeoff drill......:D

[Eddie]

When the DCS pilot has finally configured his aircraft for combat he can be guaranteed that he's about a minute or so from a good vulching, alternatively the 8 SPAM-RAM greeting as he clears the numbers courtesy of the FC3 pilot and his two-second-start-and-takeoff drill......:D

 

Not if the relevant parties are a reasonable and realistic distance apart to start with and an even half realistic IADS network is set up. Something that was sadly lacking during my very short dabble into FC2.

 

If the missions are designed for airquake, airquake is what you'll get. It doesn't matter how many switches you have, if the mission is unrealistic people will fly in an unrealistic way. This is something that is very apparent if you take a look at many of the public DCS servers.

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

+1. On the other hand, just FYI Viper ... some of us can scramble even the 'poor' A-10C in much less time than it takes the INU to line up -and- still be quite combat-effective ;)

[Eddie]

... some of us can scramble even the 'poor' A-10C in much less time than it takes the INU to line up -and- still be quite combat-effective ;)

 

Only if it's WWIII, I have a checklist to follow damn it! :book:

[rattler]

This is an Eagle forum so why do people speak of being a minority. This is the largest community for the ED products so why do we keep getting this stupid minority drivel. Every time FC3 is mentioned it certainly gets down played. If ED does not pay any attention to it's own forum, then why should we even comment. The reason we comment and give opinions is because this is as close to a Direct link to ED/TFC as we are going to get short of a direct e-mail, then you are just one voice. At least here we have a much larger voice.

[GGTharos]

You keep using 'we'. Who do you represent again?

 

And who told you that ED doesn't pay attention? Are you making things up again? ED has a proven track record of including plenty community requests in their product, developing towards others, and not including some - for a variety of practical reasons.

[Frostie]

If the missions are designed for airquake, airquake is what you'll get. It doesn't matter how many switches you have, if the mission is unrealistic people will fly in an unrealistic way. This is something that is very apparent if you take a look at many of the public DCS servers.

Though I do agree with you, there is only so much the average man can do in his day and a lot of people just want to feel the buzz of being in a furball or engage against multiple bandits with their buddies, like you say this can happen in DCS just the same as FC.

 

To create a mission, in regards to fast jets, that has 400km+ round trip requires plenty of participants to make it worthwhile, unfortunately there are not too many takers for this type of mission especially when FC is limited in other aspects of simulation to occupy the pilot. Hopefully this will change with DCS.

 

 

ED has a proven track record of including plenty community requests in their product, developing towards others, and not including some - for a variety of practical reasons.

 

What about boobs, can we include boobs? :cheer3nc:

[RIPTIDE]

When the DCS pilot has finally configured his aircraft for combat he can be guaranteed that he's about a minute or so from a good vulching, alternatively the 8 SPAM-RAM greeting as he clears the numbers courtesy of the FC3 pilot and his two-second-start-and-takeoff drill......:D

^lol you mean if he's teamkilled? Because unless you make yourself a retarded mission where the opponent takes off at the same runway with no sams... ;)

 

If that is not the case and it takes the DCS pilot that long, well there's always other hobbies. Like sewing.

[RIPTIDE]

What about boobs, can we include boobs? :cheer3nc:

Maybe "Pugachev" can make us a Pilot mod like he did for combatace's Su-33... except one with boobs. :D

[EtherealN]

This is an Eagle forum so why do people speak of being a minority.

 

Simple:

Amount of copies sold over amount of users on this forum.

I hope you don't think a majority of the people using the product are actually hanging out on the forum. ;)

 

THAT is my point.

 

This is the largest community for the ED products so why do we keep getting this stupid minority drivel.

 

It's not "stupid minority drivel", it's an expectation. If forum users is anything but a minority - and a very small minority at that - then the sales figures would be so low ED would be out of business. Even including inactive accounts there's just 34k accounts on this forum. We can know that this is a minority simply through doing 34k times 60, and then we'll realize that that's not even close to covering large projects like this. How much of a minority? I don't know, but if we then reduce it to active users...

 

And this isn't just academical - this is something ED would have to take into account. We here are a self-selected cohort of (generally) sim fanatics and ED fans. Most of sales don't happen to people like us. ED likes to cater to us, of course, because we are the fans, but they must make sure they also consider the vast majority of customers who never post on this forum.

 

Every time FC3 is mentioned it certainly gets down played. If ED does not pay any attention to it's own forum, then why should we even comment.

 

Re-read the post you are reacting to. You are jumping off a cliff to chase a pringle.

"That said, of course, there's nothing wrong in letting ED know what you want. My pet peeve is just when people state as fact things that would require information that I suspect only the directors, Jim, Matt and perhaps one or two more have."

 

Chill out.

 

The reason we comment and give opinions is because this is as close to a Direct link to ED/TFC as we are going to get short of a direct e-mail, then you are just one voice. At least here we have a much larger voice.

 

Of course. But state opinions, not attempts at facts. There is a huge difference between:

"Hey ED, this here is what I'd love to see."

and

"Hey ED, this here is what you should do because then sales figures X and Y will improve and you'll make more money."

 

The former is a respectfully stated opinion that does get read and does get considered, and is highly values customer feedback.

The latter is worthless, since it assumes knowledge that the poster does not possess (unless their name is Igor Tischin, Matt Wagner, Jim McOnnochie, or Nick Grey). Of course, you can make educated guesses (and I do so with frequency myself), but then it should be clearly understood that that is what they are.

 

That's all I'm talking about. I actually doubt FC3 itself would change sales of DCS A-10C dramatically. Might change it some, but I suspect most who purchase FC3 and haven't already purchase the A-10C refrained from the A-10C purchase because what they want is fast-movers. Having an FC3 might not affect that much. (But on the other hand, there might be additional sales through people getting "exposed" to the A-10C through online play.) Basically, there's too many variables in here to do anything but guess, unless we work in the TFC/ED marketing or direction. ;)

Edited September 7, 2011 by EtherealN

[HiJack]

On topic: FC3 ED! Yes you can :D

[Cali]

Though I do agree with you, there is only so much the average man can do in his day and a lot of people just want to feel the buzz of being in a furball or engage against multiple bandits with their buddies, like you say this can happen in DCS just the same as FC.

 

To create a mission, in regards to fast jets, that has 400km+ round trip requires plenty of participants to make it worthwhile, unfortunately there are not too many takers for this type of mission especially when FC is limited in other aspects of simulation to occupy the pilot. Hopefully this will change with DCS.

 

 

This is the main reason why missions are how they are. People complain about long flight times and the servers that have a more realistic flight time would be empty. The SAM system is there and you can make a system to where it is more real. People don't have lots of time to fly, normally. Sometimes I only have about an hour to fly, I'm I suppose to waste that hour flying to the hot zone? Good post Frostie :thumbup:

 

I see DCS being the same as FC2, the only difference is going to be buttons, flight model and other things like that, the fighting is going to be the same. Some servers are going to be more airquake then others and we'll see which ones have the most people.

[GGTharos]

While I'm certainly a fan of boobs ... no. :P

 

What about boobs, can we include boobs? :cheer3nc:

[Airbuster]

Dear ED team (and mainly management), since you are updating DCS: Black Shark why don't you update and "Flaming Cliffs 2", too? I don't think that will be very difficult for you since the two products are already compatible. I as any other DCS:BS user paid a fair price for this product (FC2) and would like to see it updated regularly.

[Laud]

I gotta say the prices for EDs products have always been more than fair, even without any compatibility. ;)

And whichever else software (license) you buy: Where the hell do you get a lifelong update guarantee???

[GGTharos]

You don't. People seem to have this notion that their games/whatever should be updated for free. Not so. Not even patches can be made for a long period of time without something giving.

 

And in the real world , where you're not just paying $40 or $60 for a piece of entertainment software, millions are spent for support and maintainance of software for x amount of years. While you're entitled to patching of critical bugs under the 'fit for purpose' doctrine, you're not entitled to anything else.

[RIPTIDE]

You don't. People seem to have this notion that their games/whatever should be updated for free. Not so. Not even patches can be made for a long period of time without something giving.

 

And in the real world , where you're not just paying $40 or $60 for a piece of entertainment software, millions are spent for support and maintainance of software for x amount of years. While you're entitled to patching of critical bugs under the 'fit for purpose' doctrine, you're not entitled to anything else.

 

 

:D

[rattler]

You keep using 'we'. Who do you represent again?

 

And who told you that ED doesn't pay attention? Are you making things up again? ED has a proven track record of including plenty community requests in their product, developing towards others, and not including some - for a variety of practical reasons.

 

I guess you don't see the people that see things a little different.

 

By the way I am an ED fan but I wish that some positive changes can be made and there for voice them here. Sorry if this upsets you but as I said I support ED/TFC just would like some changes like others are asking for so don't think I don't appreciate ED I most certainly do, I just voice concerns and suggestions so please don't take them so personal. It is a conversation or outlet for concerns and certainly not a disrespect for ED/TFC.

[EtherealN]

I guess you don't see the people that see things a little different.

 

It's not about seeing things one way or another, it's about financial reality.