Concerned Customer

[Grab]

ED & TFC,

 

I am a long time fan and customer of your product. FC1, FC2, DCS:A10C and P51D are among the elite in modern flight simulators. With all of the announcments for third party developers and having knowledge of the process and some projects in progress by various people I am concerned that you are giving licenses to, to put it bluntly, the wrong people and not showing any consistency in regard to quality and potential. From the outside looking in I can't help but feel like maybe favorites are being played behind the scenes in order to get these licenses. I fear that this approach is going to destroy the series that has given the PC flight simulation world two of the best study sims ever made (A10 and P51). Not destroy the quality we expect from the dev team at ED but rather destroy the reputation you have created from years of high quality products. You have created a platform of amazing potential with DCS: World, please don't blow it by allowing sub-par products to be released, you should hold third party developers to a higher standard than your own, and as of right now, I don't think all of them are at that standard.

 

I really hope you can prove me wrong. For the record I have no project, I am not a developer, just a concerned customer.

[astrospud]

I have to voice my agreement with Grab. Iris and to some extent Rambam have experience in producing quality simulations for FS9/FSX but the decision to grant license to a total unknown (CoreTex) seems strange.

 

Is there a vetting process whereby ED/TFC determine who is qualified to develop for the DCS range? Contracts being what they are, are legal obligations to an agreed set of outcomes for both signed parties. Surely the makers of the DCS brand have set high standards for all licensees? A $79 turbosquid model a simulator does not make - well as far as I can see (agreed, I have no development experience whatsoever).

 

Can you give us an idea on how the process works, so that we can rest a little easier?

 

Thanks,

Spud.

[mattag08]

To play devil's advocate here, what happens if CoreTex under-performs? We have a less than desirable F/A-18 for sale. No one is making you buy it and it doesn't change or hurt the work that completely different groups are doing on completely different products.

 

If you don't like a product that a third party makes, don't buy it. Where your money goes will speak for itself.

[Phantom88]

To play devil's advocate here, what happens if CoreTex under-performs? We have a less than desirable F/A-18 for sale. No one is making you buy it and it doesn't change or hurt the work that completely different groups are doing on completely different products.

 

If you don't like a product that a third party makes, don't buy it. Where your money goes will speak for itself.

 

True but it is less likely that another developer will make that same aircraft with the High Fidelity that the aircraft and the community demand and will gladly pay for.

[astrospud]

To play devil's advocate here, what happens if CoreTex under-performs? We have a less than desirable F/A-18 for sale. No one is making you buy it and it doesn't change or hurt the work that completely different groups are doing on completely different products.

 

If you don't like a product that a third party makes, don't buy it. Where your money goes will speak for itself.

 

If it under performs, then I bet my left one that ED doesn't publish.

[Grab]

If it under performs, then I bet my left one that ED doesn't publish.

 

One can only hope, but given the direction and freedom it seems that these developers have, i'm not going to hold my breath.

[LawnDart]

Nuff said here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89427

 

If any 3rd party add-ons turn out subpar I think it will detract from the DCS Series reputation as a whole and although I welcome this new brave world with non-ED devs (as there's certainly a reasonably good chance many good projects will come to fruition from this), I'd still strongly dislike seeing a shoddy add-on with a 'DCS Series' logo stamped on it next to ED's flagship product lineup!

 

My 2 cents.

[badger66]

Like the real aircraft industry , subcontractors are required to undergo an audit , meaning their opperating procedures and the way they accomplish their given task is up to industry standards ...... personal training , end product , supplies used to make the item etc etc ..... hope ED have vetted their 3rd party suppliers properly .

[Vitesse2l]

Haven't ED said that the DCS brand will only be applied to aircraft that meet the spec? To us users that would mean third party addons made to the same quality as ED DCS aircraft.

 

When FC3 is integrated with DCS World those aircraft will not be branded as DCS so it's possible that third party devs may develop to an FC3 level or any point up to DCS fidelity.

 

Or have I got it totally wrong?

 

I would be quite happy to see a pack of 60's / 70's aircraft at FC3-ish level.

[astrospud]

Not quite wrong, just that "DCS: F/A-18E" was announced. Therefore addon with DCS fidelity.

[Vitesse2l]

Hi Astrospud, yes I think all addons announced so far are going for DCS level. Be interesting to see if any fall short and how they get released.

 

I'm waiting for the IL2 style cries of over/under performance! :)

 

It'll be good to see how the DCS spec aircraft perform in game against those modeled to a lower fidelity, which means the FC3 ones first.

[Pikey]

Forgive me if i'm wrong, it did seem as if the OP is thinking that once a license is granted that the end result is no longer under control of ED. If this was the case then I'll agree but I really do not think so.

 

My understanding is that the license is just to cover work done whilst building a mod to replace the existing EULA which if you read says "All third party mods and developments are the intellectual property of Eagle Dynamics", which during development is a financial investment that must be protected by the developer.

 

Thus the license is sought before work is commenced, once the product is done, it is submitted to ED for release checking at which point it can still fail to be released as DCS. Should it be declined, the license then enables the developer to sell their product without the "DCS: " badge as their own mod.

 

I'm not in the slightest bit worried. If ED releases DCS products that are subpar its akin to shooting itself in the foot. Unlikely.

 

If i'm wrong, sorry, but genuinely I'm not worried, I will be always picking and choosing my purchases with intelligent research, nothing can break what I already have.

[BIGNEWY]

I would not worry,

 

DCS has built a huge reputation for high quality high fidelity aircraft, I don't see them destroying that reputation.

 

They know what we like, high quality work, and if any 3rd party does not realise that then they are in for a shock :)

 

stay positive, think good thoughts lol

[Mustur]

... two of the best study sims ever made (A10 and P51)...

 

What, no love for the Black Shark? :huh:

 

In all seriousness I really hope it turns out ok for ED, and us the fans, and these 3rd party developers actually deliver a high quality product worthy of the DCS name. Otherwise... well... let's hope ED's trust isn't misplaced.

[Teapot]

What, no love for the Black Shark? :huh:

 

Are you SERIOUS?!? It's an 'orrible ornicopter! :D

DCS ooozes fast jet, and the A10 was just DCS getting up to speed (which is why it's slow).

 

I subliminally checked in the deepest recesses of my sub-conscious and DCS could also ooozefighters from WWII era. Would I lie to you Mustur? No way! :music_whistling:

Edited June 16, 2012 by Teapot
spelling

[luza]

Agree with all thoughts and points in this thread, although I have faith in ED, like some of you have expressed...

Time will tell :)

[Nikeleye]

Also speaking as a concerned customer, it does appear to be turning into a Rise of Flight business model where once a few of the modules are released in whatever state then if you're trying to play mutliplayer and someone asks "do you want to come for a flight in aircraft A?" it turns into a debate about who owns aircrafts A, B or C and who can play together - as per RoF, not a wise move financially in the long-term.

 

It's also deeply concerning that after many years ED/TFC are still so very poor at community interaction. There's very rarely any official news and unless you're willing to spend an age trawling the forums to find snippets from members of the ED Development team it's very easy to become misinformed. So much talk about the small Nevada map on the new terrain engine (I've been playing on Nevada since A-10 Beta 2, incidentally) and yet it's been 16 months since A-10 was released and we don't even know what the next official DCS aircraft is. Hype-building can only last you so long before people lose confidence, and a statement like "we're not even sure what jet we're making yet" after a year of supposed development is going from the quiet to the ridiculous.

 

In this very niche, very small target audience knowing what's coming is of course very important - many of the demographic would want to start looking at upgrading or buying a new PC, setting up profiles for software like HELIOS, getting a new HOTAS, some even going as far as cockpit building.

 

I sincerely hope that lessons are learnt in the near future.

[jp203000]

yet it's been 16 months since A-10 was released and we don't even know what the next official DCS aircraft is

 

Maybe we have to wait for another 16 months to know the name .

[Lucky]

I wouldn't be surprised if ED does not make a "U.S. Fast mover". With all the 3rd party development going on they'd only be competing with the other aircraft for our money.

[Panzertard]

yet it's been 16 months since A-10 was released and we don't even know what the next official DCS aircraft is

 

Maybe we have to wait for another 16 months to know the name .

Communication, yes, indeed. It's quite easy to sound a bit disgruntled.

Instead you could have rephrased it;

Although we've already gotten a brand new P51D, Combined Arms, a new shared platform and quite alot of 3'rd party developers with new aircrafts - which IMO is not what I was looking for - I would have hoped to get some news about the next 'DCS:Fighter'.

 

But we just have to rely on official news of that of course.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Panzertard

[Teapot]

... I am not a developer, just a concerned customer.

 

Why is it that we worry obsessively about something that hasn't happened yet? The dire scenario's that play out in our minds are nothing ... no substance ... just a whole bunch of negative conjecture with no basis on reality :cry:

 

Don't worry, be happy ...

[PlainSight]

developers will create a rep for themselves. Updates, support, fidelity. ED has it, now we'll see what will others come up with.

[LawnDart]

Not quite wrong, just that "DCS: F/A-18E" was announced. Therefore addon with DCS fidelity.

 

Bingo!

 

So, for a three year development cycle we get fed a "DCS branded" aircraft with screenshots showing the 'DCS Series' logo etc., and then it falls short... (?) Muddy waters...

 

 

Regards,

Hopeful, but skeptical customer

[VBARhino]

What I would really like to see is a rubric or a guide of what exactly it is that ED/TFC looks for when deciding what 3rd party developers get a "license". From an organic perspective, it does not look like everyone is having to play by the same rules.

[louisv]

Its just that I thought that the DCS branding meant AFM...apparently not:(