Western biased .

[Ripcord]

So let me get this straight, you get multiple Jet AC, a prop plane, an attack helicopter, multiple ground units, JTAC, all human controllable and still you are not happy?

Personally I am thankful for the great work this company does.

 

Out

 

I think you got it straight. Should be happy, but we'll always want more... human nature, right?

 

Personally I cannot seem to get proficient at all the neat nifty goodies that I already have. About all I can do to call up the JTAC. So I am with you.... I'll be happy as hell for a good long while, getting up a 3-4 new learning curves. Maybe by the time the Huey rolls out I'll be able to land the Ka-50.

[Ripcord]

Let's also remember that we have only DCS aircraft that you can actually purchase now and fly. So far we do have that measure of balance. And after that, the next may well be the Mig-21 .... or maybe the DCS Huey. Beyond that, folks, it is really just a lot of screenshots and discussion threads and anticipation. So who can say right now?

[ishtmail]

People also seem to have a difficult time understanding the entire 'niche market' problem ED is facing here.

 

If developing ONE airplane to DCS fidelity takes 1 year for 5 people, this means you have to provide 60 paychecks in one year. And I've probably underestimated how many people are at ED working on DCS projects.

If an average paycheck costs the company 3000 USD, do the math: 180.000 USD per year. Add to that any licences ED has to pay to aircraft companies, hosting services for high bandwidth servers etc, software and hardware developers need, not to mention office space...

 

If a DCS airplane costs 50 USD, ED needs to sell 5000 copies minimum just to brake even. And since I significantly underestimated the ED team size and development costs, let's say 10.000 copies. Not to even start thinking of turning profit, just sheer breaking even.

 

Are there 10.000 people enthusiastic enough to buy a DCS quality airplane?

 

 

It is perfectly sensible for ED to plan, for instance, a fast mover that their market research said would sell well (or better than a russian counterpart).

 

 

In the meantime, everybody should chill and head to ED's online store and BUY something, to support this great company and their awesome work. The more you buy, the more developers they will be able to hire and the faster the planes will come to light, including more ruskies.

[NineLine]

I think it comes down to the staggering amount of info needed to make a DCS sim and the availability of that info.

[BHawthorne]

We want the highest fidelity possible in a niche market using partially classified source data. That's a tall order to deal with. It's another reason why 3rd party development makes logical sense. In order to make this a viable platform with a lot of content you need manpower. That can be fulfilled with 3rd party activity. If there is sufficient demands, form a 3rd party that makes Soviet hardware for the sim. A sense of east/west balance is no longer something that can be pointed at ED. THe whole community shapes the DCS catalog now.

Edited November 26, 2012 by BHawthorne

[jiri01]

My opinion is that there is nothing which can match the DCS in fidelity and realism. I would like to see in DCS a long range (possibly reconoscence) plane and a larger map. Not realy interested wheather it is a western or an eastern aircraft. As a programmer myself I am aware of the amount of work it takes and if the ED asked for more money for a module they would definitely get it from me. Meanwhile I will enjoy A-10C, Ka-50 and P-51D. Outstanding job ED!

[Cedaway]

Thanks C0ff for the answer.

[LostOblivion]

Not to mention 180,000 USD per year is pretty bad for five software engineers. Actually, that is quite unrealistic.

Edited November 26, 2012 by LostOblivion

[ishtmail]

@LostOblivion: yes, those are pretty low wages for decent programmers, but it does depend on the location: US programmers are by all means payed considerably more than Russian. Over here in Slovenia, 1.500 to 2.000 euros net wage is considered pretty good even for programmers.

 

My estimate was meant to give some sort of a low point, just to make everyone understand just how many copies of DCS games need to be sold, MINIMUM, just to sustain the company (DCS World part of it, anyway) and keep it alive. Profit margins that some people here like to talk about are probably something ED can only dream about.

Sure, they have other projects (for the airforces etc), but it's kind of pointless to finance a commercial product like DCS A10C from the defense projects they do for big customers. Each project should be self sustaining.

 

All this just makes me respect ED even more, as they've provided us with unparalleled simulations in a world where their product has a pretty limited audience. Kudos.

[LostOblivion]

Yes it does indeed matter. I live in Norway, one of the most expensive countries in the world. I work as a software developer at a medium sized consultancy and make, well, a lot more than that! But it does not make any sense unless you put it up against the expenses. An example would be a 0.5 litre of beer at any bar, costing about $16 per unit, so yeah, very expensive!

 

Living expenses in most other countries are much lower, so they naturally have lower salaries, which is fine until you go on vacation...

[EtherealN]

I wouldn't have any ability to say how many people are required towards making a given DCS aircraft, but 5 man-years is definitely a very very low estimate.

 

Take at the back of the manual and check the credits. It's WAY more than 5 people. ;)

[ishtmail]

Again, my estimate was a low one to show a possible minimum, which is already pretty high compared to how many simmers would buy a DCS product - even my low estimate calculated a necessary 10.000 copies sold :)

 

 

As for credits: I'm pretty sure most of those people were involved on a per-project basis, meaning they didn't work a whole year, 40 hours per week, exclusively on one airplane. This means their wages were financed by other stuff they did, as well as this particular project.

 

It would be interesting to see how many man hours went into developing a single airplane (this number could then be divided by 1.900, which is approximately the yearly hour quota of an average employee, thus giving us an estimate of how many full-time employees are needed for a single DCS aircraft to be developed within one year).

[EtherealN]

Yeah, the issue of people being moved between projects as an when required is why I can't begin to give an estimate. (Another is that I'm just testing what comes out of development, not involved with actual development.) But do recall that it's more than a year's time for A-10C development.

 

If I were to guesstimate it would be more like 50 man-years rather than 5 man-years, with staff involved being in Moscow, Minsk, the UK and the United States. Wouldn't be suprised if it was 500 man-years either. But at minimum one order of magnitude above 5.

 

Extra difficult to judge since A-10C was "first of a type", so to speak. This means a lot of underlying tech had to be created from scratch, which could for later aircraft be re-used (at least potentially). If we think about a fast-jet, the engine and aerodynamics technology framework is already there (bit it's still a LOT of work), and some of the stuff for instrumentation would be there as well (but still a LOT of work on implementation). But radar stuff... that's from scratch. So making a DCS-level Su-25SM would require a lot less than making, say, a MiG-29, simply because there's less new technology required to make it happen.

 

So the only thing I can say with any surety is that we're talking at minimum one or two orders of magnitude above your estimate, with two orders of magnitude being the more likely of those but still a minimum.

 

EDIT: Brainfart happened - when going to 2 orders of magnitude I mean double the first. Doing waaay too many things at the same time here. Summation is basically: I don't have a clue except that it's way more than 5 man-years. :P

Edited November 26, 2012 by EtherealN

[Azrayen]

Russia traditionally (from the USSR times) has paranoid secrecy in everything military.

 

BTW it's more or less the same in a lot of countries, including France.

I'm really not sure it's western vs eastern. In my opinon, it's not likely to be a lot easier to make a DCS level Mirage F1 than a DCS level Su-27 (in term of access to documentation, right to reproduce and so on).

In fact, the USA seem to be an exception to me, with an ability to open their docs far more than the vast majority of the other contries (I'm not American, if you were wondering).

[sylkhan]

I wouldn't have any ability to say how many people are required towards making a given DCS aircraft, but 5 man-years is definitely a very very low estimate.

 

Take at the back of the manual and check the credits. It's WAY more than 5 people. ;)

 

Doas that mean that if one person want to devellop a DCS level aircraft, he will need more than 5 years to do it?

:)

 

Dcs mig-21 (for example) :music_whistling:

or beczl is the best programmer of all time, because I don't think, his project start five years ago :)

 

and why Ed, originaly start for 1 DCS aircraft/9 months.

Somethings seems wrong with your statement :)

[LostOblivion]

Note that when ED made the A-10C they not only created the aircraft itself, but also a huge environment around it, in order for it to be a success to the customers. Third parties are only focused on the aircraft, as they cannot even touch anything else. I would think that if you are in a good position to know or learn a lot about a specific aircraft and also not just being a good programmer, but being an excellent developer, like beczl seems to be, I can see one airframe being a reasonable project to finish for one very skilled person.

[EtherealN]

Doas that mean that if one person want to devellop a DCS level aircraft, he will need more than 5 years to do it?

 

If he wants to make something like DCS A-10C, yes.

 

Dcs mig-21 (for example) :music_whistling:

or beczl is the best programmer of all time, because I don't think, his project start five years ago :)

 

Has been in development for a long time, starting as an FC2 mod, with assistance from ED and others.

 

and why Ed, originaly start for 1 DCS aircraft/9 months.

 

Original ambition was for this, yes. So? This was before A-10C. If you want planes somewhere between Su-25T and Ka-50 you can have them at this interval, no problem.

 

Somethings seems wrong with your statement :)

 

Nothing is wrong with my statement.

[jiri01]

The flight manual of A-10C has nearly 700 pages. Just to write the flight manual has to take a considerable time. To create an aircraft on A-10C level has to be resource consuming task. If ED put more resources to development to shorten the release intervals and ask more money for a module I would pay that (I am repeating here myself :)).

[sylkhan]

Note that when ED made the A-10C they not only created the aircraft itself, but also a huge environment around it, in order for it to be a success to the customers. .

It was not the point but..

 

"a huge environment around it"?

can you give me some exemples please :)

[EtherealN]

I'm not sure what is meant with that either, but there is base technology that has to be made before you can even start making the actual aircraft.

[badger66]

Seriously though....what does is matter whether it's a Russian plane or an American one or a whatever else one??? As stated earlier people should be happy there's a developer like ED around. After all, one can only play so much CoD....(Call of Duty not Cliffs of Dover)

 

Fine , be great if CoD just had spitfires wouldnt it !!!

 

Be glad ED is around I certainly am ..... but you make it sound like their doing it for free .

 

Ive spent over a 1000 pounds on ED stuff , and a TM Warthog and tir5 ..... and as I said i prefer to fly blue ..... and others prefer to fly red . So , give them that choice , just because your not interested , others are .

[badger66]

Third party developers certianly change the mix. However, DCS seems to me pretty balanced.

 

Eastern/Soviet:

1. Current Map

2. Black Shark

3. About half of FC3

4. The Su-25 included free with DCS World

 

Western:

1. A-10C

2. P-51D

3. Future "Fixed Wing US Jet"

4. Future Nevada Map

5. About half of FC3

 

All the russian stuff aint DCS . Be nice for red to have one DCS level product to play about with , or not ?

 

Oh yeah , P-51 in a modern war ..... wonderful . Next youll be happy with a hot air balloon .

 

Lots of DCS stuff in the future DCS western list for BLUE .

Edited November 26, 2012 by badger66

[badger66]

So let me get this straight, you get multiple Jet AC, a prop plane, an attack helicopter, multiple ground units, JTAC, all human controllable and still you are not happy?

Personally I am thankful for the great work this company does.

 

Out

 

Get this straight ..... I pay for all this , and I will pay for more . And Im voicing my opinion about the lack of DCS Russian stuff ..... am I wrong ?

 

Dont give me the unhappy camper crap and trying to make me look like a twat . If you cant see my point , theres something wrong .

[PhoenixBvo]

All the russian stuff aint DCS .

 

OK, if you strictly look at modern DCS aircraft we have A-10C for blue and KA-50 for red...

[ishtmail]

It was not the point but..

 

"a huge environment around it"?

can you give me some exemples please :)

 

- graphics engine

- physics engine

- Georgia map

- modeling all the buildings, making textures, placing object within the map

- modeling all the trucks, tanks, AI airplanes, and making all these behave like the vehicles they are (a truck has to drive, an airplane has to fly...)

- support for hardware

- graphic interface for the menus

- mission planner

- network support for online play

 

... the list goes on and on and on. You're forgetting that within a few years, Ka-50, A10C and P51D were released, and along side that ED released a FREE DCS World with a flyable Su25 airplane. And ofcourse Combined Arms.

 

All this is a bit different from modeling ONE airplane as a mod, isn't it?

 

And don't forget that developing a 'simple' airplane like P51D took a bit of time to get it to today's fidelity. Now imagine developing something really complex, like F18 or SU35, to include all the systems, fully clickable cockpit, fully simulated airplane with every system that's on the original airplane...

 

Also don't forget that ED hasn't been sleeping, they've been developing a new graphic engine, EDGE, to complement the Nevada map.

 

 

Get this straight ..... I pay for all this , and I will pay for more . And Im voicing my opinion about the lack of DCS Russian stuff ..... am I wrong ?

 

Dont give me the unhappy camper crap and trying to make me look like a twat . If you cant see my point , theres something wrong .

 

You payed for A10C and possibly for other airplanes. And that's exactly what you received. Does purchasing a DCS airplane make you eligible to complain about the lack of new Russian planes? It does not.

If you think it does, then please, go to your nearest MacDonalds and complain to them that you'd rather eat pizza than burgers. Maybe they will listen to you.

 

 

It has been stated in another thread on this forum that there was a poll for russian aircraft, and a poll for western aircraft. Russians received almost 300 votes total, while the western aircraft received over 2000 votes.

 

Just from these numbers, what would be the most logical course of action for ED? Developing an airplane that would interest 300 people, or developing one that over 2000 people would buy?