Concerned Customer

[Wolfie]

Natsims - Harrier works for me. It shows that it is LESS than DCS standards.

[LawnDart]

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.

 

I understand DCS is simply the battlefield grounds or world used for all these add-ons, so on one token it makes sense to keep the DCS name(s) uniform for all releases, ED and 3rd party. At the same time we've grown accustomed to DCS being synonymous with nothing but ED's finest. If there was a clearer level of fidelity system (or levels) published I wouldn't have a problem with any release using the 'DCS: [a/c name]' title, but without clear expectations of what we're spending our hard earned money on as consumers and not knowing the developer(s) (no track record to go on, or established precedent... yet), I'd rather see your example; 'NateSims: Harrier for DCS' on the cover art.

[Nate--IRL--]

I understand DCS is simply the battlefield grounds or world used for all these add-ons, so on one token it makes sense to keep the DCS name(s) uniform for all releases, ED and 3rd party. At the same time we've grown accustomed to DCS being synonymous with nothing but ED's finest. If there was a clearer level of fidelity system (or levels) published I wouldn't have a problem with any release using the 'DCS: [a/c name]' title, but without clear expectations of what we're spending our hard earned money on as consumers and not knowing the developer(s) (no track record to go on, or established precedent... yet), I'd rather see your example; 'NateSims: Harrier for DCS' on the cover art.

 

Ok cool - so you have no problem with say the "IRIS:- F-14 Tomcat" not being at DCS level?

 

Nate

[Wolfie]

I don't have a huge problem with it, as long as we see the MAJOR aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-18, Mig-29, Su-27, etc.) at least done to DCS quality levels at a later date. The F-14 is kind of dated, and has been retired (at least to my knowledge). Though I probably would like to see a DCS: Tomcat one day.

[Nate--IRL--]

I don't have a huge problem with it, as long as we see the MAJOR aircraft (F-15, F-16, F-18, Mig-29, Su-27, etc.) at least done to DCS quality levels at a later date. The F-14 is kind of dated, and has been retired (at least to my knowledge). Though I probably would like to see a DCS: Tomcat one day.

 

And if I were to do an FC3 Level "NateSims - F-16"? I know you are not the target audience, but would you object to such a product?

 

Nate

[LawnDart]

Ok cool - so you have no problem with say the "IRIS:- F-14 Tomcat" not being at DCS level?

 

None at all. They could even call it 'DCS: F-14 by IRIS" as long as it is made clear what level of fidelity the consumer is buying IN BOLD letters on the front page.

 

'DCS: F-14 by IRIS' vs. 'IRIS: F-14 for DCS' is semantics to me. In either case I'd like to know what level a/c I'm purchasing. Expectations are everything! If I think I'm buying a FC level Tomcat I'm ok with that...

 

I do think, however, that the DCS abbreviation by no fault of its own carries more expectations because every title so far has been some of the best sims ever made... and now we have DCS World, which sort of changes that thought process.

 

Bottom line: If I'm buying what I think is "DCS level" as we've come to call it, I'd be disappointed if it didn't meet those standards. If I'm buying what we refer to here as "FC level" to run in DCS World I'm perfectly fine with making that purchase, too, if it's my cup of tea.

[SilentEagle]

And if I were to do an FC3 Level "NateSims - F-16"? I know you are not the target audience, but would you object to such a product?

 

Nate

 

As long as it wouldn't prevent another development team from attempting the same aircraft and producing a higher quality product at the same time or in the future. Capitalism should be allowed to work in the sim world, too.

[Moa]

niche = $ NO SALE $ :music_whistling:

 

.. The FS "niche" cannot survive. ...

 

I don't believe such comments are accurate.

 

Consider all the Open Source projects that succeed even without funds (a large proportion all of the Internet/Web/email/Google infrastructure is run on Open Source, but this is invisible to most users).

 

Then consider how much has been done by unpaid modders in FC1 and FC2.

 

Flight simulation is indeed a niche compared to the blockbuster first-person-shooter titles. That means that giants like EA or Microsoft cannot support their heavy infrastructure (big offices and layers and layers of management) with flight sim products.

 

However the smaller and nimbler Eagle Dynamics seems to be thriving with flight simulation and they probably are sufficiently profitable to keep going (even if not in the same scale as EA or Microsoft).

 

So please don't mistake the flight simulation niche as unprofitable or at risk of evaporating.

 

For small capital outlays there can be modest profits in developing extensions to flight simulators (read the introduction to the VRS SuperBug where they provide a perspective on this).

 

For those that develop good add-ons to DCS they will probably get sufficient returns to make it worthwhile (and the funny thing is, they will be more profitable than giants like Sony who make billions in losses, although revenues are obviously smaller - but that makes even this niche a better use of capital than the capital in Sony's consumer electronics!).

 

Finally, I think it is a statement to the incredible success and innovation of the DCS products that the community here is worried that the high standard will be maintained. As much as it must be a pain for the moderators to read, you guys should take it as a pat on the back for both the product and the community you have built and maintain.

[Wolfie]

And if I were to do an FC3 Level "NateSims - F-16"? I know you are not the target audience, but would you object to such a product?

 

Nate

 

I don't really object to any lower level aircraft, because I know you want to populate your world, and make money, and thats good for everyone. I just want, as I said above, for there to eventually be one at the level of BS2 and Warthog. I think the majority of us could live with that, and it would be a good compromise that would see a vast influx of new players. Which again, is good for everyone.

 

Yeah, I would LOVE to see a DCS: Viper :P

[Nate--IRL--]

None at all. They could even call it 'DCS: F-14 by IRIS" as long as it is made clear what level of fidelity the consumer is buying IN BOLD letters on the front page.

 

'DCS: F-14 by IRIS' vs. 'IRIS: F-14 for DCS' is semantics to me. In either case I'd like to know what level a/c I'm purchasing. Expectations are everything! If I think I'm buying a FC level Tomcat I'm ok with that...

 

I do think, however, that the DCS abbreviation by no fault of its own carries more expectations because every title so far has been some of the best sims ever made... and now we have DCS World, which sort of changes that thought process.

 

Bottom line: If I'm buying what I think is "DCS level" as we've come to call it, I'd be disappointed if it didn't meet those standards. If I'm buying what we refer to here as "FC level" to run in DCS World I'm perfectly fine with making that purchase, too if it's my cup of tea.

 

It is not Semantics, it is essential, legal even - 'DCS: F-14 Tomcat' by IRIS vs. 'IRIS: F-14 Tomcat" for DCS World are completely different things. It does not get DCS in the Main title unless ED approves it. Regardless of what it is called now - it won't be sold with ED Trademark without ED say so.

 

As long as it wouldn't prevent another development team from attempting the same aircraft and producing a higher quality product at the same time or in the future. Capitalism should be allowed to work in the sim world, too.

 

Capitalism would mean anybody could produce the F-16, I agree, there should be competition.

 

I don't really object to any lower level aircraft, because I know you want to populate your world, and make money, and thats good for everyone. I just want, as I said above, for there to eventually be one at the level of BS2 and Warthog. I think the majority of us could live with that, and it would be a good compromise that would see a vast influx of new players. Which again, is good for everyone.

 

Yeah, I would LOVE to see a DCS: Viper :P

 

As much as I'd love that myself - I don't believe it is going to happen without lower level aircraft funding upper level projects. IMO there will always be a large ratio of Normal aircraft to ultra fidelity aircraft.

 

Nate

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

[Wolfie]

...as long as it is made clear what level of fidelity the consumer is buying IN BOLD letters on the front page.

 

THIS!

[Wolfie]

Bottom line: If I'm buying what I think is "DCS level" as we've come to call it, I'd be disappointed if it didn't meet those standards. If I'm buying what we refer to here as "FC level" to run in DCS World I'm perfectly fine with making that purchase, too, if it's my cup of tea.

 

Exactly.

[LawnDart]

It is not Semantics, it is essential, legal even - 'DCS: F-14 Tomcat' by IRIS vs. 'IRIS: F-14 Tomcat" for DCS World are completely different things. It does not get DCS in the Main title unless ED approves it. Regardless of what it is called now - it won't be sold with ED Trademark without ED say so.

 

That's what I'm talking about!

 

So, how come these (relatively unknown) 3rd party devs are allowed to post images using DCS logos and title their WIP projects as DCS or add 'DCS Series' as a watermark on their render shots? That's sending expectations sky-rocketing and in some cases skepticism, too.

 

If it truly is a legal issue, having an unapproved product (that's in development) using DCS in the main title seems almost more misleading. (Just playing devil's advocate here).

Edited June 18, 2012 by LawnDart

[Wolfie]

Yeah, they should leave out the DCS until its approved by such.

[LawnDart]

Yeah, they should leave out the DCS until its approved by such.

 

I tend to agree with this (but it's obviously ED's call to do whatever they want with their trademark).

[cichlidfan]

That's what I'm talking about!

 

So, how come these (relatively unknown) 3rd party devs are allowed to post images using DCS logos and title their WIP projects as DCS or add 'DCS Series' as a watermark on their render shots? That's sending expectations sky-rocketing and in some cases skepticism, too.

 

If it truly is a legal issue, having an unapproved product (that's in development) using DCS in the main title seems almost more misleading. (Just playing devil's advocate here).

 

Though, I am in the 'as long as it is clearly labeled' camp. I can see where concerns can arise with regard to what is implied by images such as the one on CoreTex's FB page.

[Nate--IRL--]

That's what I'm talking about!

 

So, how come these (relatively unknown) 3rd party devs are allowed to post images using DCS logos and title their WIP projects as DCS or add 'DCS Series' as a watermark on their render shots? That's sending expectations sky-rocketing and in some cases skepticism, too.

 

If it truly is a legal issue, having an unapproved product (that's in development) using DCS in the main title seems almost more misleading. (Just playing devil's advocate here).

 

Understood - this is the agreement they've entered into with ED - this is the scope of their intended project.

 

It is up to that developer to live up to that agreement. If they do not - they can't use the DCS title. Simple.

 

Now you may debate what that agreement is, but it is not in EDs interest to dilute the DCS title, at all.

 

Nate

[LawnDart]

Though, I am in the 'as long as it is clearly labeled' camp. I can see where concerns can arise with regard to what is implied by images such as the one on CoreTex's FB page.

 

Absolutely agree! (And by no means am I against CoreTex's project(s) in saying that).

[cichlidfan]

Understood - this is the agreement they've entered into with ED - this is the scope of their intended project.

 

It is up to that developer to live up to that agreement. If they do not - they can't use the DCS title. Simple.

Nate

 

Of course, it is relatively easy to 'talk-the-talk' as it were, but time will tell if they can 'walk-the-walk'.

[LawnDart]

Understood - this is the agreement they've entered into with ED - this is the scope of their intended project.

 

It is up to that developer to live up to that agreement. If they do not - they can't use the DCS title. Simple.

 

Now you may debate what that agreement is, but it is not in EDs interest to dilute the DCS title, at all.

 

...but for a 3-year development cycle they potentially could be diluting the title only for it to fall short in the end. :doh:

 

Just saying...

[Nate--IRL--]

...but for a 3-year development cycle they potentially could be diluting the title only for it to fall short in the end. :doh:

 

Just saying...

 

If they fall short in the end they can't use the DCS label to sell their product. Simple as that. Indeed as said above they have to "Walk the walk" before using the DCS label.

 

Nate

[cichlidfan]

...but for a 3-year development cycle they potentially could be diluting the title only for it to fall short in the end. :doh:

 

Just saying...

 

I am inclined to agree but as Nate has correctly stated, it is not in EDs interest have the 'name' tarnished. There is the point of view that if a product is never released under the DCS label that no real harm is done.

[LawnDart]

Clear as mud. :)

 

ED should be proud to have the kind of passionate enthusiasts they have buying their sims. I can only speak for myself, but I'm feeling just as excited reading about all these new projects as I'm growing more skeptical. Much of that comes from the DCS title being thrown around by so many new developers to this sim, and it's pretty clear what most of this community wants; heck, one only has to look at the IRIS poll. This is why doubt creeps in when we find out that a developer whose never worked in FC/DCS until now is making a DCS level aircraft under contract from ED.

 

The initial cadre of 3rd party devs will undoubtedly be scrutinized pretty hard, even by the end users of their add-ons (assuming they earn ED's approval first of course).

[Nate--IRL--]

Clear as mud. :)

 

ED should be proud to have the kind of passionate enthusiasts they have buying their sims. I can only speak for myself, but I'm feeling just as excited reading about all these new projects as I'm growing more skeptical. Much of that comes from the DCS title being thrown around by so many new developers to this sim, and it's pretty clear what most of this community wants; heck, one only has to look at the IRIS poll. This is why doubt creeps in when we find out that a developer whose never worked in FC/DCS until now is making a DCS level aircraft under contract from ED.

 

The initial cadre of 3rd party devs will undoubtedly be scrutinized pretty hard, even by the end users of their add-ons (assuming they earn ED's approval).

 

I can understand that but I'll counter and say I'd never heard of VRS before their F-18 - and now look at what they are doing with TACPak - there is talent out there.

 

But remember ED has the final say on what gets stamped with DCS. If it isn't good enough it won't get it when it goes on sale.

 

Nate

[RoaringBones]

VRS should do a TacPak for DCS :P..I think instead of having FC3 at all Just keep everything DCS that way it won't be so confusing for some :P...