03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[SmokeyTheLung]

Number 1 priority for sales should be F-18C.

 

Number 1 priority for sales should be making the company more profitable... Clearly Wags and company want to build these amazing simulations a la A-10c but they need to do so in a way that keeps them in business (hopefully a way that rewards them for their efforts as well).

 

I think you need to consider the fact that only a handful of products like the one you demand have been completed in the last 20 years...

[GGTharos]

He's actually right. If there's someone on your six and you try to pull a cobra in front of him (used to be possible in some earlier version of the game) you're dead meat. There are cases where the cobra can be useful in combat, but if the guy has a capable wingman, you'll probably die for trying to use it.

 

When you execute the cobra, you cannot dodge guns (your plane is practically immobile in the sky), you cannot dodge missiles (duh) and your flares probably can't get enough distance between you and the plane to decoy the missile successfully.

 

I've seen the cobra used online successfully ... but very rarely. Most often, the one who tries it buys the farm.

 

lol :megalol: man have you ever flew this game?

[Ebs]

Interestingly enough, Wags edited his 3rd May post to read

 

Work will also accelerate on development of the F-15C and Su-27 for DCS World. I hope to talk more about those next week.

 

No mention of DCS:F-15C in there anymore. Let's be honest, the 'DCS' moniker was a bit misleading.

[lefterul]

*Flown, and yes.

 

I'd be smart enough to not rely on missiles and just blast you to oblivion with the cannon.

 

Hmm i hope that soon there will be a keystroke that deactivates the g limiter on the su 27 and i would really like to hear your feedback when someone will do this in front of you...oh and sorry for my english..try to reply to me in greek :megalol:

[Ebs]

Also

F-15C and Su-27 for DCS World

...

F-15C and Su-27 for DCS World

 

It's a double-pack...mark my words.

 

For anyone wondering why they're not hi-fi modules...the 'airquakers' fly the eagle and flanker...and the airquakers pay the bills.

[ericoh]

Wags: "This is not to say that we will not also continue to create very high level of detail simulations. At a later point, we will further develop these aircraft to include mouse clickable cockpit and the same level of detail as the DCS: A-10C Warthog, but that is a massive effort that will take time."

 

 

What part in this didnt you read? Is it realy so hard?

[GGTharos]

There's no button, you just pull harder on the stick ... and you'll be shot down for your attempt. It seems you don't understand simple BFM :)

 

Kai ama den to katalavaineis, giati grafeis teteia pragmata. ;)

 

Hmm i hope that soon there will be a keystroke that deactivates the g limiter on the su 27 and i would really like to hear your feedback when someone will do this in front of you...oh and sorry for my english..try to reply to me in greek :megalol:

[Silver_Dragon]

Hardcore is not bad for business. It's just not enough business.

 

Keep in mind that if you ignore the aircraft itself, some 'hard core' features like say, advanced missile modeling, naval environment modeling etc can be easily reused with medium fidelity aircraft.

 

my fear is that the "good casual business " not give enough money to see these environments (marine and terrestrial) implemented. If I look from the point of view of a producer, it is possible that "capabilities" can be left behind in pursuit of casual game and a greater amount of monetary resources, and never get to see the style simulation fidelity level style of a "dangerous waters" or "steel beast" in DCS: W because "it don´t keeps the business", including many capabilities that would not be "necessary" because only certain harcores we like, but it's just a personal opinion.

[GGTharos]

TO be blunt, any 'airquakers' that take their air to air seriously will kick your tail in whatever fidelity aircraft. Those who do not, will not ... in whatever fidelity aircraft. That is all there is to it.

 

And yeah, casual players pay the bills, but for the most part, they prefer dropping bombs, not planes.

 

For anyone wondering why they're not hi-fi modules...the 'airquakers' fly the eagle and flanker...and the airquakers pay the bills.

[lefterul]

He's actually right. If there's someone on your six and you try to pull a cobra in front of him (used to be possible in some earlier version of the game) you're dead meat. There are cases where the cobra can be useful in combat, but if the guy has a capable wingman, you'll probably die for trying to use it.

 

When you execute the cobra, you cannot dodge guns (your plane is practically immobile in the sky), you cannot dodge missiles (duh) and your flares probably can't get enough distance between you and the plane to decoy the missile successfully.

 

I've seen the cobra used online successfully ... but very rarely. Most often, the one who tries it buys the farm.

Well there are infinite possibilities on what can happen and of course you can die not only if you are executing the cobra maneuver..It is on the pilot's discretion to use it..And my opinion is that if it can do it it maybe come in handy on some situations..

[GGTharos]

Of course they do. Think about this, you can create one A-10C type plane every 3 years ... maybe. Or you could add more, lower fidelity aircraft in between AND develop other parts of the sim with those funds.

As a producer, which one do you want to do to remain profitable?

 

 

my fear is that the "good casual business " not give enough money to see these environments (marine and terrestrial) implemented. If I look from the point of view of a producer, it is possible that "capabilities" can be left behind in pursuit of casual game and a greater amount of monetary resources, and never get to see the style simulation fidelity level style of a "dangerous waters" or "steel beast" in DCS: W because "it don´t keeps the business", including many capabilities that would not be "necessary" because only certain harcores we like, but it's just a personal opinion.

[lefterul]

There's no button, you just pull harder on the stick ... and you'll be shot down for your attempt. It seems you don't understand simple BFM :)

 

Kai ama den to katalavaineis, giati grafeis teteia pragmata. ;)

 

Can you explain to me what the k button did on fc2?Niiice! :megalol:

[gregzagk]

I smell a Hitler rant incoming. This is insane......

 

Number 1 priority for sales should be F-18C. ED need to release a HIGH FIDELITY FIGHTER. Not an FC3 aircraft with AFM... Hell, we even have the Su-25 with AFM (woah, huge sales on that one.....)

 

As far as I understand this is what they already plan to do...

Release of high fidelity aircraft.

F-15 & SU-27 with AFM and Clickable cockpits and F-18C.

 

At a later point, we will further develop these aircraft to include mouse clickable cockpit and the same level of detail as the DCS: A-10C Warthog, but that is a massive effort that will take time.

[eurofor]

ED has got to do what they got to do to stay in business so if lower detail modules are more popular that may have to be a stepping stone. Personally I'm not interested in anything sub-DCS standard and will wait until when and if these modules reach DCS level. My view on the apparent popularity of FC is that it is simply because of the lack of alternatives for some aircraft and mission types but I may not have the complete picture.

[ericoh]

As far as I understand this is what they already plan to do...

Release of high fidelity aircraft.

F-15 & SU-27 with AFM and Clickable cockpits and F-18C.

 

 

At least 1 Person got it lol.

[Ebs]

TO be blunt, any 'airquakers' that take their air to air seriously will kick your tail in whatever fidelity aircraft. Those who do not, will not ... in whatever fidelity aircraft. That is all there is to it.

 

And yeah, casual players pay the bills, but for the most part, they prefer dropping bombs, not planes.

 

also to be blunt. If they take their A2A seriously, they're not 'airquakers' ;)

[104th_Crunch]

This is a repost of what I posted in the 104th forums. Keep in mind, I am a huge ED fan, I appreciate all their work, and this is just my opinion. Regardless of reason, it is disappointing to me.

 

----------------

 

I understand that less work means quicker release and an earlier revenue, but nonetheless, this is so disappointing to me. Not to mention, the plan is to release these before F-18.

 

I always wondered why they can't just release something to A10C detail level, then just provide the game option for those that don't want the steep learning curve. Now I see it is to generate revenue more quickly by turning out a module with less detail and work. I wish this wasn't necessary. I understand economics should be the driving factor. In fact, I almost wish no one would buy lower detailed modules or FC just so that high detailed modules were released only. It is a niche market for sure, and that fact sucks hard. Perhaps a highly detailed DCS module should go for $100+ and if it sold the same quantity, all would be good. I don't know. ED knows best what is best for them.

 

All I want is a modern fighter, preferably multirole, simulation to the level of the great work ED did with A-10C before I die!!!! The wait continues...

[GGTharos]

They're not infinite, you can count them. No, really, this fight is procedural ... and like I said ... the cobra can be used successfully, but the circumstances are narrow. Of course, I'm assuming that it's not some random, poorly-skilled BFM'er on your six that you're talking about, because you wouldn't have allowed him to get on your tail, yes?

 

I any case, in BFM it is generally true that the guy on someone's six has to commit some gross errors to lose the fight, while the guy up-front gets in big trouble with only small errors. If you have a skilled guy behind you, the cobra is a pretty poor option for almost anything.

 

Well there are infinite possibilities on what can happen and of course you can die not only if you are executing the cobra maneuver..It is on the pilot's discretion to use it..And my opinion is that if it can do it it maybe come in handy on some situations..

[Silver_Dragon]

As a producer, which one do you want to do to remain profitable?

 

I'm sorry, I have expressed myself badly, I wanted to say "if I were a producer". Something I'm not

[GGTharos]

Sure they are. It's a fun and easy way to practice simple 1v1's or 1v2's (for those who can) or team tactics. It's still airquake, though some will actually have a stated mission.

 

These things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

also to be blunt. If they take their A2A seriously, they're not 'airquakers' ;)

[ericoh]

This is a repost of what I posted in the 104th forums. Keep in mind, I am a huge ED fan, I appreciate all their work, and this is just my opinion. Regardless of reason, it is disappointing to me.

 

----------------

 

I understand that less work means quicker release and an earlier revenue, but nonetheless, this is so disappointing to me. Not to mention, the plan is to release these before F-18.

 

I always wondered why they can't just release something to A10C detail level, then just provide the game option for those that don't want the steep learning curve. Now I see it is to generate revenue more quickly by turning out a module with less detail and work. I wish this wasn't necessary. I understand economics should be the driving factor. In fact, I almost wish no one would buy lower detailed modules or FC just so that high detailed modules were released only. It is a niche market for sure, and that fact sucks hard. Perhaps a highly detailed DCS module should go for $100+ and if it sold the same quantity, all would be good. I don't know. ED knows best what is best for them.

 

All I want is a modern fighter, preferably multirole, simulation to the level of the great work ED did with A-10C before I die!!!! The wait continues...

 

 

Listen, you will most definetely NOT get a DCS fidelity fastmover if ED goes bankrupt in that process, do you guys seriously think a niche product like A-10C every 3 or 4 years can pay a whole company for good?

 

Jesus, Think!

[NRG-Vampire]

It's a problem with any complex system. What did you know about the TGP in A-10C before presented to you in-sim? And even then, the A-10C's TGP is missing a lot of stuff that we don't know about compared to the real one.

 

So, specifically, aside from sensor sensitivity and reliability, you also need to understand the operating software which drives what is presented to the pilot: How the menus are organized, etc. So while in this case we're talking about radar, it applies to any such system, from sensor operation to other onboard systems (think CDU for example).

 

believe me i knew it, not all infos but i knew, thats why i understand why the hornet will needs 5+++ years with an accurate radar model

this is a fu**ing huge and complex work: yes, with all systems in coordination

what i dont know when ED started to work on DCS: Hornet -and therefore when will finish it :(

 

and dont forget: i love FC3, but im sure we need more accurate/updated extenal models with cockpits such as (sorry but again) new mig-29, f-16, f-14, su-17-24-30-33-34, tornado, phantom, f-111, b1-b, etc. - yes: fast-movers

 

so if FC series are the best sales of ED then they should focusing to add more officially flyable aircrafts under FC3 with more cokpits (better with AFM but SFM is ok)

Edited May 7, 2013 by NRG-Vampire

[GGTharos]

Listen, you will most definetely NOT get a DCS fidelity fastmover if ED goes bankrupt in that process, do you guys seriously think a niche product like A-10C every 3 or 4 years can pay a whole company for good?

 

Jesus, Think!

 

It can, if the community is ready to front anywhere between 1-5 million (my guess, but it's a somewhat educated guess) for development and pretty much buy the module development they want.

 

Will the community muster that? Not really, because frankly I'm interested in funding an F-15C, not an F-18 ... or a flanker ... oh wait, you have a different opinionion??? Too bad!

[Boris]

I love how the people who prefer "lo-fi" aircraft are being called "casual" gamers... :lol:

 

HAWX is for casual gamers! Even the FC3 aircraft are quite complicated in the scheme of things and are far more towards the simulation end of the spectrum than to the casual games end. Far more.

 

In any case, the Su-27 and F-15 will be hi-fi eventually. Which means we just have to be patient, which is nothing new in this community.

[lefterul]

They're not infinite, you can count them. No, really, this fight is procedural ... and like I said ... the cobra can be used successfully, but the circumstances are narrow. Of course, I'm assuming that it's not some random, poorly-skilled BFM'er on your six that you're talking about, because you wouldn't have allowed him to get on your tail, yes?

 

I any case, in BFM it is generally true that the guy on someone's six has to commit some gross errors to lose the fight, while the guy up-front gets in big trouble with only small errors. If you have a skilled guy behind you, the cobra is a pretty poor option for almost anything.

 

Assuming that someone is on your six (it can happen to anybody :P ) You already lost the battle sooo what i am saying the cobra maneuver may prove useful in situations that with another aircraft type you would not have any other choice..