Concerned Customer

[eurofor]

I share the worry of degradation of the brand of DCS. It should be in a class of its own. There are already plenty of low fidelity flight simulators/games. The argument that you only buy what you want is missing the point. We all want DCS to be around for a long time and for that it's important to keep its niche. To stick with the niche or not is probably one the most important business decisions ED has to do. But since us consumers cannot know what ED is planning with all these new 3rd party developers, we will just have to wait and see.

[EtherealN]

100% realistic, oke maybe not.

But seriously a F22 as DCS standard?

 

If I remember the IRIS announcement right, they aren't planning to make it to DCS standard and thus not planning to name it DCS.

 

I'm sure you can find the details in the relevant thread in the IRIS section.

[BHawthorne]

If you want the real thing go buy one of the aircrafts. For instance the A-10C, they are decommissioned as we speak.

 

That's a neat trick considering the 4x4" demil process. It's difficult to fly beer cans. :megalol:

 

I'm uniquely aware of what can and can't be bought. I own an F-84F cockpit and have a friend with an F-15A and B-52D cockpit. If you buy something it would have needed to of been chopped up into sections decades ago before policy changed. Owning stuff like that is super rare and even then we're only talking about cockpits, not full airframes. You're more likely to own a unicorn than get ahold of an A-10 fuselage section.:smilewink:

Edited June 17, 2012 by BHawthorne

[EtherealN]

We all want DCS to be around for a long time and for that it's important to keep its niche.

 

What confuses me is when people "worry" about these things, but where was the uproar when FC2 was made to be online-compatible with DCS Black Shark? Where is the worry about FC3 integrating into DCS World and thus being made compatible? What about the Su-25T in DCS World?

 

If it wasn't a problem before, why is it a problem now? Especially considering that these planes will actually have more detail and fidelity than the FC planes.

 

I really think you people are worrying about a non-issue.

 

Oh, and what is important for DCS to be around for a long time is that it sells enough to fund development. In fact, there's been several mentions both here in this forum and in various magazine interviews that clearly state that this "niche" you mention (I would assume extremely detailed flight simulators?) is actually not what DCS is intended to be. For example, it doesn't have to only be aircraft.

 

I'm seeing amazing things coming, and I'm not worried about an aircraft or two that might not be what I personally want any more than I was worried about the A-10A in FC2... This can all co-exist quite happily, that's already proven, imo.

[eurofor]

What confuses me is when people "worry" about these things, but where was the uproar when FC2 was made to be online-compatible with DCS Black Shark? Where is the worry about FC3 integrating into DCS World and thus being made compatible? What about the Su-25T in DCS World?

 

If it wasn't a problem before, why is it a problem now? Especially considering that these planes will actually have more detail and fidelity than the FC planes.

 

I really think you people are worrying about a non-issue.

 

Oh, and what is important for DCS to be around for a long time is that it sells enough to fund development. In fact, there's been several mentions both here in this forum and in various magazine interviews that clearly state that this "niche" you mention (I would assume extremely detailed flight simulators?) is actually not what DCS is intended to be. For example, it doesn't have to only be aircraft.

 

I'm seeing amazing things coming, and I'm not worried about an aircraft or two that might not be what I personally want any more than I was worried about the A-10A in FC2... This can all co-exist quite happily, that's already proven, imo.

 

Only speaking for myself I have never been positive to the integration of FC with DCS. But I haven't seen as much worrying about that on the forums so you're probably right about the amount of opposition. It is a bit different though. FC is a different brand, despite integration.

 

Personally I want DCS to be what someone described as the bastion of quality flight simulation. That's what it has been this far. ED certainly has a plan even though we don't know exactly what it is. Indeed maybe it's not something to worry about. We'll see.

[EtherealN]

It is a bit different though. FC is a different brand, despite integration.

 

That's where you're commiting a bit of a mistake.

 

Let's look at IRIS for example: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1472303&postcount=1

 

Note the product names, as currently advertised? Then below:

"I will say that the F-15E is being developed with the intention of being submitted to ED as a DCS branded product (ie. DCS: F-15E Strike Eagle) and of course will be one of the longest to develop."

 

Look at that carefully. ;)

[eurofor]

That's where you're commiting a bit of a mistake.

 

Let's look at IRIS for example: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1472303&postcount=1

 

Note the product names, as currently advertised? Then below:

"I will say that the F-15E is being developed with the intention of being submitted to ED as a DCS branded product (ie. DCS: F-15E Strike Eagle) and of course will be one of the longest to develop."

 

Look at that carefully. ;)

 

Of course that would pretty much solve the problem. :D

[LawnDart]

That's where you're commiting a bit of a mistake.

 

Let's look at IRIS for example: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1472303&postcount=1

 

Note the product names, as currently advertised? Then below:

"I will say that the F-15E is being developed with the intention of being submitted to ED as a DCS branded product (ie. DCS: F-15E Strike Eagle) and of course will be one of the longest to develop."

 

Look at that carefully. ;)

 

I largely agree with your previous post that a lot of opportunity lies ahead, and what you're saying here (quote)... but what about the other 3rd party announcements aside from IRIS' F-15E, many of which have already posted screenshots with 'DCS Series' or called their products 'DCS: [a/c name]'. Where is the line drawn between such a product being a DCS branded product and using the term "DCS: [a/c name]" and/or posting WIP renders with 'DCS Series' stamped on the image? I think this is what's causing frustration for us... Not the fact that there may be add-ons with lower fidelity than A-10C... And some on par with FC's aircraft and what not. Seems there's a fair bit of "self-branding" at the moment, and if indeed ED are the ones who in the end will decide whether a product is granted to use DCS in its title this practice is somewhat misleading until such a grant is given.

Edited June 17, 2012 by LawnDart

[EtherealN]

I do not know what exactly is required to use what exact brand. I would imagine that this is stipulated in the license agreements.

 

This comes to mind though: "but we do expect certain "DCS Standards" to be maintained such as detailed and accurate models and cockpits, mouse clickable cockpit controls, and 6 DOF view control". ( http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1 )

 

Also, if you want to have an idea, check out this: http://simhq.com/_air14/air_528a.html

 

I feel it is fairly obvious that ED is not just giving away the DCS name.

[LawnDart]

I am happy that there is an approval process! We wouldn't want the FSX 3rd party jungle to grow its weeds across the fence into DCS World. ;)

[Ali Fish]

I am happy that there is an approval process! We wouldn't want the FSX 3rd party jungle to grow its weeds across the fence into DCS World. ;)

 

i`d like to share a concern. is there scope for more than 1 group doing the same jet as another ? or a window of concern regards superceeding a previous older addon ? could there be any rivalry in the realism catagories ?

[Ells228]

All I can say is that there is a screening or approval process, certainly from my point of view and VEAO using the DCS name anyway.

 

I also think developers need to state very clearly what level the aircraft is at, either lower fidelity or DCS fidelity.

 

However, please remember we are all working with ED to develop and see how things works out. There is way to much speculation going on here for what the community knows and doesn't know and time will tell.

 

I'm with you all in that I also want to purchase the highest fidelity products if that's what I'm being sold.

 

To me a DCS branded product will also have all of the things you would expect form a DCS product, including typical DCS full manual, etc.

[cichlidfan]

To me a DCS branded product will also have all of the things you would expect form a DCS product, including typical DCS full manual, etc.

 

I hope everyone is on that same page regarding manuals. Looking at the products that do exist from the current group of 3rd party devs causes me some concern in that regard.

[Snoopy]

Time will tell. I have faith that ED won't let just anything have a DCS branding. I also have faith that ED support a crap 3rd party release. Maybe I'll be proved wrong but time will tell.

 

Why not be excited for what may come! Will the initial wave of 3rd party releases be up to what many consider DCS standards? Maybe not, they are all still learning the DCS World way of coding and creating their products try to remember that! But, I have faith that if the time is taken, products aren't rushed to be released that we'll be happy with what comes in the future, for the most part :D.

[Wolfie]

What confuses me is when people "worry" about these things, but where was the uproar when FC2 was made to be online-compatible with DCS Black Shark? Where is the worry about FC3 integrating into DCS World and thus being made compatible? What about the Su-25T in DCS World?

 

If it wasn't a problem before, why is it a problem now? Especially considering that these planes will actually have more detail and fidelity than the FC planes.

 

I really think you people are worrying about a non-issue.

 

Oh, and what is important for DCS to be around for a long time is that it sells enough to fund development. In fact, there's been several mentions both here in this forum and in various magazine interviews that clearly state that this "niche" you mention (I would assume extremely detailed flight simulators?) is actually not what DCS is intended to be. For example, it doesn't have to only be aircraft.

 

I'm seeing amazing things coming, and I'm not worried about an aircraft or two that might not be what I personally want any more than I was worried about the A-10A in FC2... This can all co-exist quite happily, that's already proven, imo.

 

All of them being as good as BS2 and A-10 would be nice, but in the end, I doubt it. I don't see some of these companies being as good as DCS. However, I think anything marked with the "DCS" brand should be held to the same extreme standards as DCS: Warthog and DCS: BS2. Let the lesser fidelity ones be marked as something else, so we know what is what. Of course I hope in the end, everything WILL be as good as the current DCS titles and they should be! We want REALISM! Push it DCS! We'll buy the hardware to deal with it!

 

And I totally agree - DCS:World is NOT just about aircraft. Its meant to be a WORLD. Waiting for armor and infantry!

[Wolfie]

I share the worry of degradation of the brand of DCS. It should be in a class of its own. There are already plenty of low fidelity flight simulators/games. The argument that you only buy what you want is missing the point. We all want DCS to be around for a long time and for that it's important to keep its niche. To stick with the niche or not is probably one the most important business decisions ED has to do. But since us consumers cannot know what ED is planning with all these new 3rd party developers, we will just have to wait and see.

 

niche = $ NO SALE $ :music_whistling:

 

I would LOVE to see realism on the DCS scale with EVERY plane and vehicle. But its probably not going to happen. Just look at the former MSFS groups and take a wild guess. It think what we are seeing here is a quick populating of the DCS: World with planes / heli's that are a good bit better than FC but may not be as good as DCS.

Most people are not going to be happy with just one plane and one helicopter. They want a more realistic ARMA / FPS with vehicles - planes. This has been coming for a long time. The FS "niche" cannot survive. Neither can FPS with no vehicles or planes. Crysis 2 for instance fell flat because they took out vehicles / planes and had tiny maps. People expected a lot more. If you really want to succeed, you've got to make a better ARMA. DCS is at the right time and has the right world to do this. If they do it right and realistic, they're going to make a killing and we are going to see the merge of FPS and FS. It's going to be awesome!

 

So patience. I'm sure, probably just like the Su-25T in FC, we'll eventually see them redone to DCS quality in the future, possibly by DCS themselves. Especially the F-15, F-16, Mig-29, etc. For now, we'll just have to live with some third party addons ( some of which may be pretty fun! ) in order to gain customers and players. At least we finally might start getting people to play with! :doh:

 

DCS has really been good to us. We would still be stuck with a 15? year old engine if it wasn't for them. Let them make their world and their money.

[Nate--IRL--]

<Throws the cat amongst the pigeons>

 

What does everybody think of FC3? Would it hurt to have, say, an FC3 level harrier?

 

Nate

[Wolfie]

"I will say that the F-15E is being developed with the intention of being submitted to ED as a DCS branded product (ie. DCS: F-15E Strike Eagle) and of course will be one of the longest to develop."

 

EXCELLENT! :thumbup:

[G-Lock91]

<Throws the cat amongst the pigeons>

 

What does everybody think of FC3? Would it hurt to have, say, an FC3 level harrier?

 

Nate

 

I don't. What's the problem?

[LawnDart]

What does everybody think of FC3? Would it hurt to have, say, an FC3 level harrier?

 

Looking forward to FC3, a lot! I feel I know what to expect though.

 

As for a FC3 level Harrier, I'd enjoy it either way, but if it was touted as 'DCS: AV-8B', by name association I'd be expecting more than, say... anything with FC3 level fidelity.

Edited June 18, 2012 by LawnDart

[Nate--IRL--]

I don't. What's the problem?

 

Absolutely no problem - just soliciting opinions.

 

Nate

[Wolfie]

<Throws the cat amongst the pigeons>

 

What does everybody think of FC3? Would it hurt to have, say, an FC3 level harrier?

 

Nate

 

I wouldn't mind it too much, if it had a clickable cockpit, and ( since its a major modern jet ) would made to DCS realism in the future. As I said above, I think what we are seeing is a quick populating of the DCS World, and company survival wise, I think thats understandable. I would love to see EVERYTHING at DCS levels, but I know short term, thats probably not realistic. Its going to take time and I HATE to admit it.

[Nate--IRL--]

Looking forward to FC3, a lot! I feel I know what to expect though.

 

As for a FC3 level Harrier, I'd enjoy it either way, but if it was touted as 'DCS: AV-8B', by name association I'd be expecting more than, say... a Harrier in FC3!

 

And if it was say "NateSims:-Harrier" would you expect many to object if it was an FC3 level Aircraft? And I don't mean to question you directly, I direct this to everybody.

 

Nate

[Wolfie]

And if it was say "NateSims:-Harrier" would you expect many to object if it was an FC3 level Aircraft? And I don't mean to question you directly, I direct this to everybody.

 

Nate

 

I think the majority of us would be unhappy if the "DCS" tag were put on something that had less fidelity than Warthog and BS2. It should be named something else to reflect its lesser quality. Say, FC3: Harrier.

 

Though, hopefully, it will have clickable cockpit and 6DOF.

[Nate--IRL--]

I think the majority of us would be unhappy if the "DCS" tag were put on something that had less fidelity than Warthog and BS2. It should be named something else to reflect its lesser quality. Say, FC3: Harrier.

 

Though, hopefully, it will have clickable cockpit and 6DOF.

 

Bingo

 

I couldn't call it FC3:- Harrier for obvious reasons - I could call it "Natesims - Harrier". DCS is never mentioned except that it is compatible with DCS World..

 

Would that be acceptable to most? Why would anybody object to that?

 

EDIT:-NO I'm not developing a Harrier - this is a hypothetical question.

 

Nate

Edited June 18, 2012 by Nate--IRL--