Want to IRIS and RAZBAM make different variant of the same plane?

[Echo38]

It does seem rather foolish to choose to compete in such an infinitesimal fraction of an already-tiny niche-within-niche-within-niche market. By just shifting focus ever so slightly (e.g. C instead of E), there would be no competition whatsoever. In short, there's plenty of room, guys. In an empty 10000 sq. ft. room, there's no need for two people to jostle for the same square yard. : /

Edited September 25, 2012 by Echo38

[GGTharos]

It isn't foolish at all. You develop what you have info for, and competition is good.

[159th_Viper]

Personally the problem I have is the reasonable assumption that your predicted sales figures have now effectively being halved, straight off the bat. Boom, gone. I mean let's face it, not everyone is going to be spending twice for the same aircraft, not straight off the bat. You might even have the scenario whereby people will wait for both to hit the shelves and comparing prior to purchase, influencing sales figures even more. As a consequence of both releases, one product might be inadvertently rushed in order to obtain 'First-Release' glory which again would prove fatal in this Community if the highest possible fidelity is not maintained and delivered as per the marketing promises delivered to date.

 

Yes, the above is all speculation and my speculation alone: What however is fact is that both developers are in a worse situation at the outset than they would have been had one been developing another airframe altogether, ie lack of direct (same airframe) competition. Taking into account the year/s it will take to get these airframes right, if nothing else, it's a great shame if one has regard to the current status quo, for both developers and the Community alike. Yes, I have no doubt that all will be fine when all is said and done: However make no mistake - it could have ended up being a lot better than fine for all concerned had a different path been followed.

[SmokeyTheLung]

I agree Viper.

I'll be inclined to buy the one that has the more detailed and believable avionics, unless there is a large time window in-between products. If that's the case I might just have to buy them both

 

...I also have to say, sorry in advance to sound negative, I'll be shocked if either one gets anywhere near a10c level of realism.

[Pyroflash]

Well, one thing is for certain. It being this early on in development, it is better if they make their decision to switch now, than later in the cycle after more resources get spent on it.

 

Also not going to bet on either of them getting anywhere close to A-10C level. Especially if they plan to release in the next year or so.

[EagleEye]

@Nate: Ok, thanks.

 

So, theoretically spoken. It is possible that RAZBAMS F-15E is more detailed then the IRIS one, despite IRIS having the rights to use the DCS title.FUN:D

He he, I can smell the confusion, complains right now. The FAQ list have to be very long...:)

 

Good thought Viper, that could indeed happen...

Edited September 25, 2012 by EagleEye

[Rotorhead]

Honestly, I’m not happy about this situation, not one bit. For me, it’s nothing but waste of precious man-hours. Why to develop the same aircraft twice, when there are so many different planes out there to be modeled (and the community wants them).

Plus, when both studios decide to go for the same fidelity level, and will do their job right, then we’ll get two exactly (well, almost) same products (in terms of visuals, avionics, and flight dynamics), which gives no sense to me.

If there will be differences, however, it means that one, or both, of the developers, did something wrong. And I can already see the forums crowded by people arguing which one of the mud hens is better and closer to reality.

The only acceptable scenario for me is one developer going for A-10C fidelity, and other for FC3 level. There are enough customers for both. But again, two SAME planes? The devs should either consider working together on this one, or pick two different planes. No need for two F-15E’s, three A-10C’s five Ka-50’s and dozen of Mustangs. We need Hind, Apache, MiG-29, Bf-109, Spitfire, Ka-52, Eurofighter, [enter any planes of your preference here]… So many possibilities.

And BTW, voted for Su-27/33. More Russian planes to DCS!:clap:

[Alfa]

I think it is a misconception that developers working on high fidelity projects for a flight sim, would pick a particular aircraft type based merely on commercial considerations.

 

Given the insane amount of work and knowledge required for such a project, you need a great deal of enthusiasm to see it through and to reach the high standard that everyone expects.

 

So IMHO it is both unreasonable and counter productive to try and "dictate" what individual teams should and shouldn't do based on some general diversity considerations.

[The-Sky]

Can someone inform me as to why they picked the same variant of the F-15? Is it because the E version has more available information to the developers than other versions? If this is the case, I could see why they would go with the same version. If they both picked the E because they wanted a multipurpose version (AG/AA)..then I think that is very poor reasoning..

[GGTharos]

They picked it because they have information on it and probably because it is what they want to do ... and that is very good reasoning.

 

If you want to tell them what to make, or want any say whatsoever in their reasoning, raise a couple million bucks and contract them to make yu the DCS aircraft of your choice.

[Rotorhead]

They picked it because they have information on it and probably because it is what they want to do ... and that is very good reasoning.

 

If you want to tell them what to make, or want any say whatsoever in their reasoning, raise a couple million bucks and contract them to make yu the DCS aircraft of your choice.

 

That’s a valid point of course. Nobody can dictate them which aircraft to model. It’s completely up to the developers in which project want them to put their money, and their efforts. That’s what free market is all about, after all.

 

But… putting business on one side, it still goes against my common sense. Two people doing redundant work, while there’s so much other work to be done, it just doesn’t feel right to me. Like reinventing the wheel.

Just to make things clear, I’m not bashing anyone for developing anything for DCS, nor I’m saying “Stop everything you are doing and create DCS:XYZ for me, right now!”. I fully respect their decision, and appreciate their effort. I just think, effort put into two different projects would make me (and some more community members I hope) a lot happier.

[P1KW]

They picked it because they have information on it and probably because it is what they want to do ... and that is very good reasoning.

 

If you want to tell them what to make, or want any say whatsoever in their reasoning, raise a couple million bucks and contract them to make yu the DCS aircraft of your choice.

 

 

I think it is good reasoning listen to prospective customers.

 

Are going to amortize these millions of dollars. :smilewink:

 

Greetings!

[Alfa]

That’s a valid point of course. Nobody can dictate them which aircraft to model. It’s completely up to the developers in which project want them to put their money, and their efforts. That’s what free market is all about, after all.

 

But… putting business on one side, it still goes against my common sense. Two people doing redundant work, while there’s so much other work to be done, it just doesn’t feel right to me. Like reinventing the wheel.

I cannot say what particular teams are like and what they are basing their project decisions on, but I suspect that personal interest has a lot to do with it.

There is a tendency to look at flight sim developers as a group of business people in suits making decisions based on market analysis charts, when in reality most are just flight sim enthusiasts like the rest of us, who take the "plunge" and try to make a business out of their hobby.

If a developer team consists of total F-15E "freaks", that have spent years collecting every tid-bit of info about that particular aircraft type to the point where they believe they are in a position to do a good simulation on it, then its unlikely that they could.. or would just pick another version(not to mention a Mi-24 or a MiG-29) instead just because the community feels that this would make better sense for the sim as such.

 

[YoYo]

Please do Russian plane.

[djembe]

Please do Russian plane.

 

+1

[monotwix]

I believe the developers know what they are doing, in any case it will be a lesson, a tiny lesson is a building block of experience.

[Pyroflash]

I believe the developers know what they are doing, in any case it will be a lesson, a tiny lesson is a building block of experience.

 

No, obviously the community knows more than people who develop software for a living. There really are a lot of geniuses around here.. :doh:

[-Rudel-]

I want a 2 seater / 2 player aircraft. Who ever makes it happen, will get my money.

[HungaroJET]

I want a 2 seater / 2 player aircraft. Who ever makes it happen, will get my money.

 

^ Exactly ! :thumbup: , while im hoping E.D. will bring something "C" as next aircraft F-15C/F-16C/F-18C ;)

Edited September 26, 2012 by HungaroJET

[Ells228]

Well, ultimately ED will make it happen, so give them your money hahaha

[aaron886]

Well, ultimately ED will make it happen, so give them your money hahaha

 

This is very true, and is all too often ignored on these forums. There will be no full 2-seat multiplayer integration without ED.

[HungaroJET]

Well, ultimately ED will make it happen, so give them your money hahaha

 

Of course, and we will give our money to E.D. also, if they bring the next DCS titles: Fulcrum, Flanker, Hind, Havoc

[Ells228]

This is very true, and is all too often ignored on these forums. There will be no full 2-seat multiplayer integration without ED.

 

Yep indeed buddy and a little jiggery pokery from the 3rd party devs ;)

[Pyroflash]

^ Exactly ! :thumbup: , while im hoping E.D. will bring something "C" as next aircraft F-15C/F-16C/F-18C ;)

 

Watch what you say or you are going to end up with a T-38C. Hey, it's a "C", isn't it?

[SUBS17]

Personally the problem I have is the reasonable assumption that your predicted sales figures have now effectively being halved, straight off the bat. Boom, gone. I mean let's face it, not everyone is going to be spending twice for the same aircraft, not straight off the bat. You might even have the scenario whereby people will wait for both to hit the shelves and comparing prior to purchase, influencing sales figures even more. As a consequence of both releases, one product might be inadvertently rushed in order to obtain 'First-Release' glory which again would prove fatal in this Community if the highest possible fidelity is not maintained and delivered as per the marketing promises delivered to date.

 

Yes, the above is all speculation and my speculation alone: What however is fact is that both developers are in a worse situation at the outset than they would have been had one been developing another airframe altogether, ie lack of direct (same airframe) competition. Taking into account the year/s it will take to get these airframes right, if nothing else, it's a great shame if one has regard to the current status quo, for both developers and the Community alike. Yes, I have no doubt that all will be fine when all is said and done: However make no mistake - it could have ended up being a lot better than fine for all concerned had a different path been followed.

 

I agree the amount of work both devs would do on this aircraft is 1000s of hours and even when its released because of its complexity there would be even more work to get it right. I won't argue that the F-15E is a nice aircraft but there are plenty of other aircraft to choose from such as the F-16 (which is very popular and incase they don't know the Falcon4 crowd is quite alot of people), or an SU27 just as popular which means it will sell well.:thumbup: F-15E everyone would buy 1 but no everybody would buy a 2nd copy.