Black Shark 2 Released

[bogusheadbox]

You actually highlight a very valid point, it would be much much easier to abandon the inclusion of new features in order for the modular concept to work.

 

I've made this single example elsewhere, but the improvement made to the radios and AI radios in Warthog, needed a lot of work for BS2 (New Voice acting, Radio logic etc). And radios are only one tiny example of the changes that needed work.

 

If you were given the choice would you want the A-10C in the BS1/FC2 simulation with half the features (eg no Jtac/HDR etc) or the Black shark in the Warthog simulation world?

 

I know what I want. Unfortunately it required a lot of work to get what I want.

 

Nate

 

Fair enough comment. So some points.

 

1) Where is the modular aspect of this sim. It seems they are all standalone products which can talk to each other, instead of being bolt ons to a core simulation. Wouldn't it be better to nail a base core engine down first with bells and whistles (like they did say they were going to do a long time ago) then leave standard for a period of time for all flyables to bolt onto then upgrade again the base package with a new host of bits and charge for these periodical upgrades instead of charging us for each flyable upgrade everytime a nedw flyable is released?

2) how frequent are the upgrades to the "base packages" that will require significant upgrades from all previous iterations to which DCS will require remuneration.

3) Realistically, how many flyables does ED envisage the customer to purchase. Now that we will have to pay to update each one.

4) How fractured will the online community be.

 

 

Fair enough i understand you wanting the great additions like JTAC in a10, but where are the fixes to the the problems in BS that have been long mentioned ago? Are they comming in another pay for patch ?

Edited November 4, 2011 by bogusheadbox

[Nate--IRL--]

Fair enough comment. So some points.

 

1) Where is the modular aspect of this sim. It seems they are all standalone products which can talk to each other, instead of being bolt ons to a core simulation.

2) how frequent are the upgrades to the "base packages" that will require significant upgrades from all previous iterations to which DCS will require remuneration.

3) Realistically, how many flyables does ED envisage the customer to purchase. Now that we will have to pay to update each one.

4) How fractured will the online community be.

 

 

Fair enough i understand you wanting the great additions like JTAC in a10, but where are the fixes to the the problems in BS that have been long mentioned ago?

 

I'd love to be able to answer those points but I'm merely a tester - I only get to view the work involved - I have no inside info and have no influence on any decisions.

 

Sorry

 

Nate

[GGTharos]

Put the price point above the average game price, sales instantly halved.

 

So what's the harm in charging less and then charging additional for updates to the older modules? I mean, what's the benefit of charging more up-front rather than doing it like this? I can see some negatives in the form of making it harder to get retailers to stock your product, and putting people off buying it because of a higher purchase price. I can't really see a benefit, especially if people actually are willing to paying more.

 

They're still considering, or IMHO, more like working to make things better - as Matt posted somewhere in this thread I think, they're looking into integrating things at least, and as usual no promises.

 

As for the whole 'they should have developed it as a modular system' thing... given that they were the ones who described the concept as aircraft modules, I'm fairly confident that at some point over the last few years they did give some kind of consideration to the idea of implementing them as pluggable modules into a common engine that was updated as they went... and rejected it for some reason. Reasons that we're not privvy to and would only embarass ourselves if we tried to guess (not that that'll stop me :D).

[EtherealN]

1 and 2 will be hard to answer. But you can infer a bit through the file structures. However, I'll just say that those inferences will make it look simpler than it really is - something Nate's example illustrated pretty nicely. (Think of it like this: even if the thing is modular enough that it's possible to just Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V a bunch of files, which is what the file structure LOOKS like and is what is so treacherous and misleading when looking at it from the outside, if there's been updates to the "core", you'll have a TONNE of stuff that just does not work right. Nate's radio example is excellent in that. I don't know exactly how it's done, I just try to break it when they give it to me, I don't have any more code access than you do, but even in the "ideal" world there is significant problems.)

 

The second... We're then talking about the future. "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE" as MAtt's signature says. But as Matt has also said in this very thread, they're looking at ways to make this work better in the future.

 

Third... Se above. You're not having to pay for updates on every future update. You are asked to pay to upgrade this one. In the future it may or may not be difference, depending on whether the code wizards and designers find a better way to handle things. I don't think the project leads look forward to handling 10 simultaneous upgrade processes. :P

 

Four... Why would it be fractured? It would be fractured in the same way it's fractured in FC2, since some people play on gunzo servers, otherws prefer A2G, some others just want to AirQuake it a bit, and still others prefer to do realistic training in the quiet confines of their private MOA.

Edited November 4, 2011 by EtherealN

[Madman777]

One thing I always see mentioned whenever ED released new information about upcoming products. They always state that things can change. So I don't expect things to always be the way they say it's going to be.

 

It turns out that there was a LOT of work needed to get BS updated. Work = time & time = money. In a SimHQ thread, Wags said the new cockpit took 3 months of work! Work = Time = Money.

 

And again, I want to thank ED for their hard work and efforts to give us an amazing product that will give us thousands of hours of entertainment.

[Dudikoff]

Well, not really cheating, but I'm sure you agree that there's a certain difference in complexity between simulating a WW1 bird and WW1 battlefield, and doing the same for modern aircraft and the modern battlefield.

 

Yeah, I guess there's only so much you can do in a WWI sim before hitting the wall with a list of viable features.

 

I would presume they will move on to the WWII theater (or maybe even Korea) with the same business model since it's not THAT much more complex (no fancy electronics), just lots more work though (much more maps, a much wider range of different aircraft behaviors, ground unit AI, etc.), but then again, it should also prove far more popular. Sorry for OT-ing this.

[xhaos]

You actually highlight a very valid point, it would be much much easier to abandon the inclusion of new features in order for the modular concept to work.

 

I've made this single example elsewhere, but the improvement made to the radios and AI radios in Warthog, needed a lot of work for BS2 (New Voice acting, Radio logic etc). And radios are only one tiny example of the changes that needed work.

 

If you were given the choice would you want the A-10C in the BS1/FC2 simulation with half the features (eg no Jtac/HDR etc) or the Black shark in the Warthog simulation world?

 

I know what I want. Unfortunately it required a lot of work to get what I want.

 

Nate

without knowing the insides of ED including their/your financial status, I personally think that a better way to go would be to release DCS fighter which will include the "final" DCS netcode and then upgrade previous titles to compatibility with or without payment (this is your choice) at the same time. Then you can build on next modules on top of that untill you will reach a point where you will need to move to DCS2 or DCSnext. and then again "sell" upgrades for previous titles to DCS2. I just think that community fragmentation should be avoided at all cost.

[WildBillKelsoe]

guys give the fellas at ED a break! I'm sure photos and videos are on the way. Its just that whoever likes the development could buy. And who doesn't could stick to vanilla shark. We're all happy, and DCS will produce something more fantastic I'm sure in the year to come. I'm not advertising or blowing air up thee arse, but I'm buying BS2 provided I LIKE it. I'm sure it will work fine on my machine with some other software uninstalls, but the feedback on performance, bugs treated, bugs discovered, and detail level would make us all happy, and provide ED with additional integrity and straightfor'ardness... Carry on ED! I'm in! - As soon as I get my iPad2 and start the abris on it!! I'm excited this month like a guy on Viagra!!! It's my birthday and I'm getting lots of caaash!!

 

I'm in dudes! Please tell me how to become an ED tester for the upcoming module.

[bogusheadbox]

Put the price point above the average game price, sales instantly halved.

 

.

 

GG, its not very often i disagree with you but i have to on this occasion.

 

For Black shark we spent (if i can remember that far back) 40 dollars on the sim alone.

 

So lets add in my HOTAS

Lets add in my PEDALS

Lets add in my TRACK IR

Lets add in those that want multi screen displays

Lets ass in the cost of the sytem that some people purchase just to play this game

Etc.....

 

Increasing the core product by 20$ per sale would not affect sales at all if you ask me.

 

On the other hand, asking people to pay for each compatability when we were all expecting not to will

[GGTharos]

Fair enough comment. So some points.

 

1) Where is the modular aspect of this sim. It seems they are all standalone products which can talk to each other, instead of being bolt ons to a core simulation. Wouldn't it be better to nail a base core engine down first with bells and whistles (like they did say they were going to do a long time ago) then leave standard for a period of time for all flyables to bolt onto then upgrade again the base package with a new host of bits and charge for these periodical upgrades instead of charging us for each flyable upgrade everytime a nedw flyable is released?

 

No, you can't just nail a core down - there are a couple of reasons. One is economics: I don't think ED is in a position to sit down and develop a core for 3-6 years, which will be obsolete when it comes out anyway, and then just add aircraft to that.

The second is technical: By constantly developing the core, they can significantly enhance /all/ of their products - but the caveat is that this sort of development will require some form of maintenance fee.

In business-to-business software contracts that fee (And other things) are built into the contract for a fixed period of time. In the gaming industry there is no such contract, and no guarantee of recouping development costs.

 

2) how frequent are the upgrades to the "base packages" that will require significant upgrades from all previous iterations to which DCS will require remuneration.

 

Er - every time a new module comes out.

 

3) Realistically, how many flyables does ED envisage the customer to purchase. Now that we will have to pay to update each one.

 

I don't think ED views this as a viable way to go forward (but this is my own impression, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors - it's just my opinion) but for the moment, it is what they have to do.

 

4) How fractured will the online community be.

 

It won't be. The same lament was put forward when going from LO to FC and when Ka-50 came out. It didn't seem to become a huge issue - some people left, new blood came in.

 

Fair enough i understand you wanting the great additions like JTAC in a10, but where are the fixes to the the problems in BS that have been long mentioned ago? Are they comming in another pay for patch ?

 

You're not entitled to unending support - like it or not, free patching has to stop /somewhere/. That's it - you can argue it as much as you like, that is not going to change. Someone HAS to pay for development (including maintenance), and I believe ED isn't willing to eat all that cost and collapse as a result. It isn't like they don't try to patch their products: You got at least a couple of rounds of patching for each product that you didn't have to pay for.

 

Did it fix everything? No. Could it realistically have fixed everything? Also ... no.

 

But again - it isn't like ED isn't looking for solutions, and it isn't like ED goes looking for eggs in their face either - but they have to face economic reality as well.

[ALDEGA]

So the true question at this time is: Are BS2 and A10 compatible with the upcoming fixed wing US fighter title? My guess is that no they aren't cause radars and fast moving jets and and and will require ED to introduce new communication parameters in the netcode.

New modules will inevitably break compatibility due to changes of existing features and addition of new features. The question is how ED will handle this from both a technical point of view, and a commercial point of view. Example, you purchase the Nevada terrain module. As I understand it, the Nevada terrain will use a newer graphics engine. Will the new terrain engine be part of an update to BS2/WH1? Will the terrain keep working in all newer versions?

 

I'm beating a dead horse here but ...

A possible commercial scheme could include separation of license for DCS engine (graphics, sound, multiplayer, AI ...) and pluggable modules (aircraft, terrain, campaigns ...). To use a module you would need to buy a minimum version of the DCS engine (some modules would need at least DCS 1.1.1, others would need at least DCS 1.3.2, etc.). A big update to a module (e.g. significant expansion of terrain or new features for existing flyable) could be a separate module (and thus require separate license).

DCS engine and modules would be supported up to a point where there are no signficant bugs, then support would be discontinued (apart from keeping modules compatible with the latest DCS engine version) in favor of supporting the newer modules and DCS engine itself. Keeping modules compatible with the latest DCS engine would be funded by DCS engine update licenses.

The purpose of this scheme is to keep modules compatible to a reasonable point and also provide funding for continuous development.

 

Then again if/when (and I hope they will at some point) ED introduces ingame voip radio, again the netcode will need to change and thus all titles will need to be made compatible.

With the realistic comms which which we now have this would certainly be interesting.

 

I should get back to BS2 now :P

Edited November 4, 2011 by ALDEGA
removed spelling mistakes :D

[GGTharos]

Ok, so we'll disagree here and I'll explain why:

 

This may not affect sale to you personally, but it will affect sales to people who are just getting into flight sims, just feel like flying it, but would pick up something else if it was cheaper. This a very real factor of how price points get decided. These decisions are not based on opinion, they are based on market research.

 

And in any case, if to you it would have been fine to pay more up-front, what's the problem with the $20 now?

 

 

GG, its not very often i disagree with you but i have to on this occasion.

 

For Black shark we spent (if i can remember that far back) 40 dollars on the sim alone.

 

So lets add in my HOTAS

Lets add in my PEDALS

Lets add in my TRACK IR

Lets add in those that want multi screen displays

Lets ass in the cost of the sytem that some people purchase just to play this game

Etc.....

 

Increasing the core product by 20$ per sale would not affect sales at all if you ask me.

 

On the other hand, asking people to pay for each compatability when we were all expecting not to will

[Dudikoff]

Increasing the core product by 20$ per sale would not affect sales at all if you ask me. On the other hand, asking people to pay for each compatability when we were all expecting not to will

 

Depends on the targeted audience since BS wasn't just sold online, but in lots of various kinds of shops, etc. (e.g. I bought my boxed copy in some plain supermarket). A lower price might attract people not accustomed to the genre to try out something new and perhaps even the retailers won't sell something which is deemed very sales-unprospective because of it's high asking price.

[Dudikoff]

And in any case, if to you it would have been fine to pay more up-front, what's the problem with the $20 now?

 

Some kind of forming conclusion regarding this would be mostly in lines of the way the whole thing was (wasn't) advertised to the community. Also, it might be that many were not that interested in Ka-50 in the first place due to its complexity and were buying that to support ED and to have a possibility of integrating it with the Warthog (having a possibility to fly both a helicopter and A-10 in the same theater sounds attractive). So now they have to pay extra for something they didn't really want in the first place. Just guessing..

[bogusheadbox]

And in any case, if to you it would have been fine to pay more up-front, what's the problem with the $20 now?

 

Apart from the disagreement. Thank you for your reply but from my background i do not see it as logical (though of course i could be wrong)

 

The problem is as follows (and as someone else kindly mentioned)

 

I would purchase every flyable released to support DCS. I simply won't do that now if i need to keep other flyables current with contiunal payments. Ok, maybe in the long run this won't change the overall expenditure from me (i will purchase no flyables and only upgrade what i want), but that will limit the sudectiveness of the sim especially in the way it was propposed to us all that time ago.

 

Not to mention the way ED went about letting us know of the "pay to integrate scheme"... Well its quite clear that not only is it me that has a bad taste in their mouths.

[MemphisBelle]

What is that actually what you guys wanted to hear? Yes ED made a mistake by decide to go this way? I am sure they know that by them selfs already. But honestly, we´re talking here about the one and only developer in the Aerial Simulation corner who cares about his community and developes a game which we wont have at all if ED would develop a Barbie horse range simulator.

 

So I dont care whether they haven´t announced that, I dont care if they haven´t advertised that at all. I care about the one and only question...can I effort it? if yes, so I buy it. If no so I save money to buy it. If I complain about whether the marketing Strategy was a shoot in the oven, then I certainly do not have enough things to care about.

 

Honestly, while the first few moments when I noticed that this "upgrade" is a payware I was a little confused and somehow a little angry about the decision, yes I was. But I said..OK...20$ is not that much to turn this into a drama.

 

This is not my generell opinion. I only do support my favourite developers as there are even ED and BIS. No one, I repeat, no other developer earns every single cent of my hard elaborated money as those both Dev Teams does. Thats why cause all the other Teams do only care about there money, simply followong the term: eat or die. This is not for ED and BIS

 

perhaps you guys should just enjoy the Game and start creating missions for next week, once the patch is out and the Battlefield will grow up.

 

have fun and thing about whether it really worth to complain about such things.

[GGTharos]

Apart from the disagreement. Thank you for your reply but from my background i do not see it as logical (though of course i could be wrong)

 

Well, on this topic - like I said before - these pricing decisions are not made based on opinion, they are made based on real market research with respect to a target audience.

 

The problem is as follows (and as someone else kindly mentioned)

 

I would purchase every flyable released to support DCS. I simply won't do that now if i need to keep other flyables current with contiunal payments. Ok, maybe in the long run this won't change the overall expenditure from me (i will purchase no flyables and only upgrade what i want), but that will limit the sudectiveness of the sim especially in the way it was propposed to us all that time ago.

 

Not to mention the way ED went about letting us know of the "pay to integrate scheme"... Well its quite clear that not only is it me that has a bad taste in their mouths.

 

I understand that communication was an issue - the practical side of things though is just that. Practical. You can't have something for nothing - the upgrade of BS2 was certainly not free for ED. Look at what other publishers are doing to recoup costs:

 

EA's Origin software spies the daylights out of your PC. They then feed you advertisements aside from selling your data to who-knows-where. That, of course, is probably about the worst example (IMHO). Others give you DLC. 5 maps for $10 or $20 or what have you.

Or a new title which is based on the same engine anyway, but you have to fork out full price for it.

 

One way or the other, you end up paying for development. Yes, you can't have a free upgrade to be compatible with A-10C, and maybe the pricing structure could be better in the future and the direction ED is taking more transparent (ie. paid for core upgrades, but they upgrade all your modules) or something like that - I don't know what the solution is, but I know that the guys at ED are concerned about it.

[MemphisBelle]

update on my Installation issue:

 

it works now. All I got to do was to download the english version, install and run it. After I closed the english BlakShark version the installer started just fine..

 

hey Test team...this is somethings you actually should have known, shouldn´t you?

 

Anyways...IT WORKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Edited November 4, 2011 by MemphisBelle

[159th_Viper]

 

Anyways...IT WORKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

:thumbup:

[bogusheadbox]

they are made based on real market research

 

And thank you for the reply again.

 

That research you have mentioned ED are concerned about. Surely that research would have encoumpased the discussion that this almost 100 page thread entails.

 

Also about research you would have to wonder as i have previously posted about the values ED originially put on development costs versus realistic sales. Those numbers were obviously wrong as ED changed tack several times on what was originally proposed DCS to be.

 

I understand fully development costs and the need to recouperate them in a strategy that promotes overall growth of the company.... but...

 

Overall its a moot point as the original sales price and sales figures and development costs were what they were (and surely must be without retort not what was originally forcasted within the halls of the bean counters and marketing.) Therefore this research you made reference to could be wrong as it clearly was in the past.

 

But it is what it is, and without me saying that i am dissapointed inthe direction this is now heading, how will ED know that a long term supporter feels bent over.

[Krippz]

update on my Installation issue:

 

it works now. All I got to do was to download the english version, install and run it. After I closed the english BlakShark version the installer started just fine..

 

hey Test team...this is somethings you actually should have known, shouldn´t you?

 

Anyways...IT WORKS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

Happy to hear. Installation still doesn't work for me however. Looking forward to a fix today or tomorrow.

[garengarch]

You make it. You set a price for it.

I, of my own free will, decide whether I want it, or I do not.

I think it's overpriced, or I do not.

I buy it , or I do not.

Why all the f**king drama?

[GGTharos]

That research you have mentioned ED are concerned about. Surely that research would have encoumpased the discussion that this almost 100 page thread entails.

 

No, market research encompasses far, far more than a few opinions. It encompasses millions of game purchases among other things. Please keep in mind that research has more to do with historical data than opinions - it's probably different than what you think it is.

 

Also about research you would have to wonder as i have previously posted about the values ED originially put on development costs versus realistic sales. Those numbers were obviously wrong as ED changed tack several times on what was originally proposed DCS to be.

 

That again is a bit of a different subject - release price points have remained stable :)

 

I understand fully development costs and the need to recouperate them in a strategy that promotes overall growth of the company.... but...

 

Overall its a moot point as the original sales price and sales figures and development costs were what they were (and surely must be without retort not what was originally forcasted within the halls of the bean counters and marketing.) Therefore this research you made reference to could be wrong as it clearly was in the past.

 

But it is what it is, and without me saying that i am dissapointed inthe direction this is now heading, how will ED know that a long term supporter feels bent over.

 

I'll just point out that we were talking about market research regarding release price-points. You've expanded the topic into something new instead.

 

Anyway, as for the rest, ED listens, but it isn't always possible for them to do everything that either the customers or they would like to do.

[Krippz]

You make it. You set a price for it.

I, of my own free will, decide whether I want it, or I do not.

I think it's overpriced, or I do not.

I buy it , or I do not.

Why all the f**king drama?

 

 

I kind of agree with you. People are entitled to share their opinion to the community and the devs (respectfully). I think the moderator's on this site get a little to involved shooting down other people's opinions. If someone thinks the game is to expensive, or that they don't agree with the pricing scheme let a community manager or developer explain their rationale.

 

I on the other hand think the upgrade is very nicely priced and will be happier to pay more. Good luck in all your future endeavors ED!!

[MTFDarkEagle]

I kind of agree with you. People are entitled to share their opinion to the community and the devs (respectfully). I think the moderator's on this site get a little to involved shooting down other people's opinions. If someone thinks the game is to expensive, or that they don't agree with the pricing scheme let a community manager or developer explain their rationale.

 

I on the other hand think the upgrade is very nicely priced and will be happier to pay more. Good luck in all your future endeavors ED!!

Off course people are entitled to express their opinion, but some people overopinionate their opinion (you catch my drift? :D) ..