Should ED Have Say in What is Made?

Zakatak · June 27, 2012

Very simple poll, yes or no answer. Would you like ED to have some control in what is being produced by 3rd Parties? I can see the moral issues with controlling the community, but I can also see the benefits for some of the fanbase as well as the gameplay. Currently, aside from the MiG-21 Bison, we have no Russian aircraft on the horizon. Almost all aircraft are NATO, and 90% of those are American planes. I like the USAF and USN, but all sides of the community need to be represented. We also don't appear to have any WWII planes to match the P-51D, nor do we have a single helicopter on the horizon. I'm not asking for ED to cancel any current projects, but future projects need to balance things out, and all aircraft need a "match" in combat.

Having a game composed almost entirely of 4.5th Gen US aircraft isn't what I think DCS World was going for.

shu77 · June 27, 2012

No.

Look at the MP Environment now, particularly in Flaming Cliffs. Designers usually put both US and Russian A/C on both the Red & blue teams. The simple fact is the majority of the user base speak English & the majority of the market look for aircraft simulated in a language they can understand.

Learning one of these aircraft is hard enough without having to learn Russian also (the main reason I never got anywhere with the Blackshark, but am quite proficient with the Hog)

Why force/restrict developers to develop aircraft that will potentially limit their sales, just for an artificial sense of 'balance.'

I would also suggest the poll needs to include an option: "No ED should not restrict aircraft types past upholding the standard of fidelity able to be researched and implemented"

Edited June 27, 2012 by shu77

PeterP · June 27, 2012

Well,... -I voted for "They should have the ability to cancel projects and restrict what is createable."

No offend - a solid controversial is not a bad thing - But:

I just want to put it straight without using much words:

Exactly this kind of poll is why I opened this one:

Poll: Should only Senior-members be able to create polls?

BTW: you should look up what a "licensing contract" is.

without licence = no payment ... only free-ware with no official support - would you develop something under this circumstances as a third-party developer ?

....just asking .(don't shoot the messenger!;))

Edited June 28, 2012 by PeterP
Typos ;) , a lot of!

shu77 · June 27, 2012

Well,... -I voted for "They should have the ability to cancel projects and restrict what is createable."

no offend - just want to put it straight:
This kind of poll is why I opened this one:
Poll: Should only Senior-members be able to create polls?

I like your poll better :)

Kenan · June 27, 2012

If you're asking if ED should tell 3rd parties what aircraft they may or may not model, then definetelly NO, they shouldn't be able to do that.

Of course, I'm all for quality control / approval process by ED..

macedk · June 27, 2012

If you want to add to an Ed product then Ed has total control. Otherwise it would be open for all things bad. IMO

PlainSight · June 27, 2012

Some community members will just have to be the test bunnies to try and review the planes for us, if there will be no "try before you buy" option.

Tango · June 27, 2012

The option I really wanted was no, ED don't restrict what is available, but they should have an input on quality control, to ensure that when people buy an aircraft for the platform (DCS or not), that they can be sure of certain minimum, yet high standards.

At risk of sounding elitist, the DCS name has meant very high fidelity products (yes, I know not all future products will carry this tag), but it should not be allowed to deteriorate. Developers will have to do better when creating aircraft for this platform. As they say, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out the kitchen". :) There are other platforms if people don't want super-high detail study sims.

Best regards,

Tango.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Tango

rattler · June 27, 2012

If you want to add to an Ed product then Ed has total control. Otherwise it would be open for all things bad. IMO

I really hope you are not serious. Do think ACES or IRIS or A2A or Milviz or anyone who does 3rd party add ons get prior permission on what their Company is going to produce for MSFS.(in the day). Gees where would we be today if that happened. I apologies if I come on to strong here but there is a limit to Control. ED can certainly refuse any offering they get, as it should be. If it is something special and the Company wants to feel out ED in advance well there is nothing wrong with that. ED in a way does have Total Control, in that they can accept or reject any offer for a Modual. Telling a Company that they can't do a specific model as a Module.That type of Total Control,no,no my friend. I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself but if I had a company and someone wanted to enhance my product under 3rd party conditions, well, let's say it would not be a wise move on my part if I reject because, well there is no because if it will enhance the product to my standard.:huh:

rattler

Edited June 27, 2012 by rattler

Weta43 · June 27, 2012

Are you suggesting that E.D. should / will change their policy on the back of the poll, or asking what people think the outcome will be ?

To me - from what's available on the forums - it currently appears that people will be free to make whatever free add-ons they want, but that if you want to charge for the add-on & sell it as an add-on for DCS.world, E.D. have to grant license to do so, which means they control what becomes a 'pay to play' add-on.

Fleshpiston · June 28, 2012

To me - from what's available on the forums - it currently appears that people will be free to make whatever free add-ons they want, but that if you want to charge for the add-on & sell it as an add-on for DCS.world, E.D. have to grant license to do so, which means they control what becomes a 'pay to play' add-on.

That in my opinion is the best way and I think is the way it should be.

Blaze · June 28, 2012

Are you suggesting that E.D. should / will change their policy on the back of the poll, or asking what people think the outcome will be ?

To me - from what's available on the forums - it currently appears that people will be free to make whatever free add-ons they want, but that if you want to charge for the add-on & sell it as an add-on for DCS.world, E.D. have to grant license to do so, which means they control what becomes a 'pay to play' add-on.

Right.

Sceptre · June 28, 2012

I think ED has some form of control over products. You can't just make a plane and stick it in DCS World for $39.99 a pop, or can you?

Pyroflash · June 28, 2012

I think ED has some form of control over products. You can't just make a plane and stick it in DCS World for $39.99 a pop, or can you?

No, even if you create the aircraft, your group/project has to go through talks with ED in order to get it legalized as a commercial addon.

It is plausible (however unlikely) that someone could come along and make a DCS fidelity aircraft and release it for free. At this point they wouldn't have to talk to ED about much because it would be seen the same as any other mod.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Pyroflash

Sceptre · June 28, 2012

Yeah like the beczl MiG-21 for FC2. No need to talk to ED, because it's free.

Grimes · June 28, 2012

It is plausible (however unlikely) that someone could come along and make a DCS fidelity aircraft and release it for free. At this point they wouldn't have to talk to ED about much because it would be seen the same as any other mod.

Way ahead of you. I'm going to monetize it by selling different hats for the pilot.

rattler · June 28, 2012

Are you suggesting that E.D. should / will change their policy on the back of the poll, or asking what people think the outcome will be ?

To me - from what's available on the forums - it currently appears that people will be free to make whatever free add-ons they want, but that if you want to charge for the add-on & sell it as an add-on for DCS.world, E.D. have to grant license to do so, which means they control what becomes a 'pay to play' add-on.

Correct and as it should be.:thumbup:

Sierra99 · June 28, 2012

Very simple poll, yes or no answer.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and bet you've never taken a college level statistics class. If you did you didnt pay attention because as a poll...This is very poorly written. All of the answers available lead to the conclusion that ED/DCS should have no Input regarding what is added to a product THEY are producing... and that's simply not going to happen.

"They should have no say in what is made, whatsoever."

This is a NO answer. NO By selecting this answer you are indicating ED/DCS should have no say or control over content being developed for use in their game. This simply is not going to happen. ED/DCS WILL maintain control of their intellectual property...I’d be willing to be a paycheck on it.

"No, but some "needed" aircraft will receive official ED/DCS support."

This is also a NO answer. By selecting this answer you are indicating NO ED/DCS should not only have no say in whats being developed...If someone thinks a particular aircrat is "Needed" youre going to FORCE ED/DCS to provide support? Really? Who decides what is needed? More importantly who do you believe has the ability to force ED/DCS to support something they don’t want to?

"They should have the ability to cancel projects and restrict what is createable. (Created?)."

Poorly written response, Should is very vauge and you imply that ED/DCS does not already HAVE this ability.

So in reality you’ve created a poll where 2/3 of the answers lead to the conclusion “ED/DCS does not have the right to maintain control of the aircraft/modules being offered for the product they developed and if they dont like it we will force them to do it”

You’d get a D- or an F if you tried to post this in class.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=90049

Is an example of a properly formatted poll.

Class Dismissed

BHawthorne · June 28, 2012

It's ED's platform. They set the ground rules. They have every right to dictate.

PeterP · June 28, 2012

@Sierra99

... this I had in mind when I wrote :

"I just want to put it straight without using much words:"

monotwix · June 28, 2012

Does it look like I’m bothered?

I can only make suggestions when I’m awake.

macedk · June 30, 2012

I really hope you are not serious. Do think ACES or IRIS or A2A or Milviz or anyone who does 3rd party add ons get prior permission on what their Company is going to produce for MSFS.(in the day). Gees where would we be today if that happened. I apologies if I come on to strong here but there is a limit to Control. ED can certainly refuse any offering they get, as it should be. If it is something special and the Company wants to feel out ED in advance well there is nothing wrong with that. ED in a way does have Total Control, in that they can accept or reject any offer for a Modual. Telling a Company that they can't do a specific model as a Module.That type of Total Control,no,no my friend. I certainly can't speak for anyone but myself but if I had a company and someone wanted to enhance my product under 3rd party conditions, well, let's say it would not be a wise move on my part if I reject because, well there is no because if it will enhance the product to my standard.:huh:

rattler

What i mean is that (worst case) is all was open and no ED control then somebody makes a uberplane with 1000 missile and shield ...

Well that would be no fun and i bet you that ED would get the fallout for allowing this to happen. What i mean with ED control is that they should have final say on yay or nay. Otherwise they loose their product and we already see that games including this one(sim sorry) gets bad press due to peoples sys. config's etc. That is another problem IMO people jump the gun and many times it's not the ED software's problem but sys. setup or internet connection.

We don't see people coming back saying"oh by the way I just learned my ISP was doing maintenance on my line last night", sorry for blaming the faults on your software"

I did some posts back in the day on team-speak ...posted what worked and how I had done it. Stopped cause 90% of posts was on what was wrong and nobody actually read the positive and thought "that might solve my problem as well"

Trouble shooting on a pc today is mega complicated and with some stuff you get the run around "it's not me it's the other guy". EX: virus: Reinstall instead of 20 days of posting and reading all sorts of fixes....I bet you 95% of them is short term and you will need a programmer degree to clean you system. So 20 days vs 6 hours ...though...yep and it really #¤¤# but that's life on the pc.

Have full respect on the guy saying enough and moving away.

Well allot of off topic sorry.

Exorcet · June 30, 2012

What i mean is that (worst case) is all was open and no ED control then somebody makes a uberplane with 1000 missile and shield ...

How many servers would it appear in?

I've never seen these in FC online:

Even if someone created something ridiculous, it probably won't have any effect on servers. And offline, I don't care it people play DCS with a magic broomstick, it's their own business when playing alone.

ED has also mentioned that 3rd party devs need to meet minimum standards to sell products for DCS World.

Sierra99 · June 30, 2012

How many servers would it appear in?

I've never seen these in FC online:

Even if someone created something ridiculous, it probably won't have any effect on servers. And offline, I don't care it people play DCS with a magic broomstick, it's their own business when playing alone.

ED has also mentioned that 3rd party devs need to meet minimum standards to sell products for DCS World.

I completely agree. I am inclined to believe the 3rd party developers and ED are all on the same page regarding content, fidelity and compatibility... I also get the feeling the 3rd party developers aren't going to bother telling some sphincter boi to pound sand over a project because in the end, sphincter boi's opinion and more importantly his whining really doesn't amount to a hill of beans. THEY know WAY more about what THEY are doing than any azzhat who reads PC magazine once a month.

Bricks · June 30, 2012

What i mean is that (worst case) is all was open and no ED control then somebody makes a uberplane with 1000 missile and shield ...

I don't know how many missions you've built so far, but the mission-designer decides which planes are in a mission. So, if he chose to make his superplane flyable, it's your decision to accept this or just choose another server.

But it won't be possible to get his plane in a normal planeset unless there is a cheat, which again has nothing to do with custom planes.

Back on topic:

There is no real "opponent" for the A-10C, other than things sitting on the ground. So a real opponent would only make sense after you have a plane that actually engages other planes.

So an US-jet is exactly, what you want: The first plane of a set that can meet another plane in combat. At the same time, it hopefully supports features to integrate in the DCS-Battlefield (Link-Technology and stuff). So it's the best for both worlds. I doubt even ED has plans set in stone for the next plane coming after that.

Sign In

Should ED Have Say in What is Made?