03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[blksolo]

I think most people are upset because of the fact that we have been dreaming of another DCS quality modern jet since A-10C came out. We got the 30 minute YouTube video about the future of DCS World and the 3rd Party anouncement.

They built all this hype about getting DCS level fighters such as the F-15/F-18 etc,and now its well....you'll get mid range stuff and we'll DCSify it way down the road. We were lead to believe that all this awesome stuff was right around the bend when in reality it is years away. I will buy the F-15 module under protest tho lol BTW whats with releasing all these prehistoric aircraft lately?

[miguelaco]

I purchased Blackshark full of doubts (I've never been an helicopter guy) but enjoyed it a lot. I bought the Warthog with great enthusiasm and even the Mustang although only because of curiosity. In all of these products I have had enough disappointments because of the bugs and unfinished or incomplete features.

 

I understand that ED needs to raise cash from time to time to keep funding the projects and until now I have been willing to buy the products regardless of my interest in them, always with the hope that one product that really excites me sees the light in a relatively short period of time. Checking the roadmap that has been presented to us I have to say I am seriously thinking not buying those. There is no sense in contributing to developments that I have confidence that won't meet my expectations. I think there are many interesting things that could be addressed instead of doing a once again improved Su-27 and F-15C. I'd happily purchase those if they were planned as full DCS level simulations, but I'm not going to pay for an improved flight model and some touches here and there. This of course is just a personal view based on my preferences, so I'm not going to criticize ED's policy, which may be perfectly valid from an economic standpoint.

[Yellonet]

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!

It would probably not be a bad idea for ED to create a kickstarter campaign for the F/A-18C, my guess is that they would get a fairly large sum of money...

[ishtmail]

It would probably not be a bad idea for ED to create a kickstarter campaign for the F/A-18C, my guess is that they would get a fairly large sum of money...

I'd pledge for sure.

 

Take a look at Chris Robert's project, Star Citizen: he's raised almost 10 million dollars already, based solely on a PROMISE that he'll make the game, which will come out in 2014 probably (with beta testing this winter).

 

Goshdarnit, if a space shooter can raise 10 million, a DCS jet can raise 500.000.

[Yskonyn]

I would pledge as well.

For every study sim module they will make, that is. :)

 

Oh and make a stretch goal a hardcopy manual please. :D

[dikkeduif]

I'd pledge for sure.

 

Take a look at Chris Robert's project, Star Citizen: he's raised almost 10 million dollars already, based solely on a PROMISE that he'll make the game, which will come out in 2014 probably (with beta testing this winter).

 

Goshdarnit, if a space shooter can raise 10 million, a DCS jet can raise 500.000.

 

Just a spaceshooter you say? There is a difference between Chris Roberts, famous for the wing commander series, a series most of us grew up with and DCS. If I ask people if they know what DCS is, they know it vaguely or not at all...

 

If anyone could just make 10 million dollars with kickstarter, it would be very crowded over there by now.

 

Don't think DCS can do the same to be honest. See the mig 21bis project. Beczl reached his goal, but it was not that he surpassed the goal by much. It's still a niche market.

[EtherealN]

The Huey is awesome, and i admire all 3rd party devs.

What most people have been waiting for is a DCS:Fast mover.

Not an FC3 fast mover, we already have that..

 

This might be an opportunity for you to show how this affects your fastmover. ;)

 

I am seeing a lot of statements that can only be derived from not actually reading the update.

[Yskonyn]

 

I am seeing a lot of statements that can only be derived from not actually reading the update.

 

Well, to be totally honest, the initial debate began before Wags edited the post. :) At first it actually said DCS F-15 and DCS SU-27 instead of 'modules for DCS World'.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Yskonyn

[EtherealN]

I know, but reading the original carries the same point i am looking for. ;)

[Yskonyn]

Which point might that be, then?

[Noj]

at can only be derived from not actually reading the update.

 

Which is why I have been sniggering my way through it :)

 

In fact, a similar issue seems to start an awful lot of 'debates' or arguments on these (and other) forums on all kinds of statements or posts by ED/DCS or their reps.

 

Quite amusing to an observer.

[q800]

At the end of this discussion from my side i suggest all of you give up this altruistic "i buy to support devs, so i can hope that ill get good stuff later" aproach (not only in games, DCS or whatever). It really doesn't work that way in business, marketing or whatever these days. And spoils the market.

Try to become conscious customers rather than that. couse that what you are, the customers. Not a friends, not a worshipers, not a family, not a support group, not a brothers in arms, not a do-gooders and such thing. Just the customers with money and expectations. And learn about economic laws.

 

Personaly, i think this really sucks what's happening right now. 10 years.

Only module i'm waiting for is Beczl's MiG-21 and maybe Buckeye, if it truly will be hi-fi. EOT

Edited May 8, 2013 by q800

[Yskonyn]

Let's all play 'who's the mysterious enlightened one', yay! :D

Seriously, it would help to just post the point that's been missed over and over in your opinion, instead of remaining silent and pretend its only for the highly intelligent among us. :D I can be an observer too.

(disclaimer: this is meant as a light hearted joke, not a sneer)

[EtherealN]

Sorry, im observing this from an airport so long posts are not possible.

 

THe notion that these delay "full-fidelity" sims require that one forget to read what the update states about the plans.

[Yskonyn]

Ah right. Well that's a standing claim, so I am not sure why people would think otherwise.

 

If I look around me, however I think the dissapointment comes from a few keypoints:

 

(these points are not in chronological order)

 

a) ED confirmed Nevada / EDGE.

b) ED confirmed a DCS: Fast Mover

c) ED claimed the DCS brand would only feature high fidelity sims.

 

--ED sets itself apart as THE dev studio picking up on high fidelity combat sims, after not having one for years and years--

 

d) ED confirmed the fast mover to be the Hornet

e) Nevada got pushed back. Even an apology about it was posted revealing that work had been pretty non existant for a while. Big dissapointment.

f) P-51D got released, where people questioned the fact wether this, in fact, had not taken up resources away from their main focus. What is the status of Nevada, for example? And wasn't the result really due to their aparent shift in focus, for real? Speculation rose.

Did ED spread their resources too thin? Focus seemed to have shifted away from the projects announced before with the announcement of a new Flying Legends brand to include different era aircraft.

g) An announcement about DCS F-15 was made in the newsletter. Excitement!

g2) A marketing video and interview were released, hinting at products to come. Excitement!

h) Wags initial post stated DCS F-15 and DCS SU-27! But.... were not going to be full fidelity sims afterall. And the DCS brand doesn't neccessarily stands for high fidelity only afterall.

i) Debate ensues, post gets edited.

 

I don't find it very odd that people area bit dissapointed after all the above.

Sure, we have to keep it in perspective, true. But people should be allowed to express their feelings no less.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Yskonyn

[Keyser]

I think ED is handling this correctly. The end-goal is a DCS level F-15 and SU-27, but they will bring it up to FC3+AFM levels first, release it and then continue working on them to develop the DCS versions on that basis. Basically they get to monetarize their work more immediately and also likely more in total.

As Wags stated, taking this course of development takes almost no time away as compared to the DCS:A-10C way of development, so we should be getting the high-fidelity versions at about the same time we would have gotten them anyways, except there will be a "smaller" release in the meantime as well. Sounds like win-win, or at least win-meh (if non-DCS level is entirely uninteresting to you, as it is uninteresting to me).

 

In that sense, I think this plan sets ED up for a much more robust financial outlook and I think we will all benefit from that in one way or another.

The only thing that went suboptimally was first talking about DCS:F-15C and DCS:SU-27 only to quietly walk that back via edit when the new information was released. That's a problem in communication more than anything though, and I cut Wags and ED all the slack in the world on that because in return, we get weekly updates and I'm immensely happy about and thankful for that. If not having every sentence of public announcements triple and quadruple checked by the higher-ups, thereby delaying the flow of information by weeks, means occasionally having someone jump the gun or type something not 100% correctly - I'll take that deal.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Keyser
Missing word

[upupandaway]

[...]

 

Personaly, i think this really sucks what's happening right now. 10 years.

Only module i'm waiting for is Beczl's MiG-21 and maybe Buckeye, if it truly will be hi-fi. EOT

 

10 years of ever better sims?! How about that?

[Yskonyn]

The only thing that went suboptimally was first talking about DCS:F-15C and DCS:SU-27 only to quietly walk that back via edit when the new information was released. That's a problem in communication more than anything though, and I cut Wags and ED all the slack in the world on that because in return, we get weekly updates and I'm immensely happy about and thankful for that. If not having every sentence of public announcements triple and quadruple checked by the higher-ups, thereby delaying the flow of information by weeks, means occasionally having someone jump the gun or type something not 100% correctly - I'll take that deal.

 

Well worded and exactly how I look at it now and have done initially. Despite the dissapointment I felt earlier.

IF, however, the focus of DCS stays 'study sim'.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Yskonyn

[q800]

10 years of ever better sims?! How about that?

 

10 years of selling the same products over and over again. 10 years of flying above the same terrain. With exceptions of BS (which i payed for twice) and a-10c.

[upupandaway]

Ah right. Well that's a standing claim, so I am not sure why people would think otherwise.

 

If I look around me, however I think the dissapointment comes from a few keypoints:

 

(these points are not in chronological order)

 

a) ED confirmed Nevada / EDGE.

b) ED confirmed a DCS: Fast Mover

c) ED claimed the DCS brand would only feature high fidelity sims.

 

--ED sets itself apart as THE dev studio picking up on high fidelity combat sims, after not having one for years and years--

 

d) ED confirmed the fast mover to be the Hornet

e) Nevada got pushed back. Even an apology about it was posted revealing that work had been pretty non existant for a while. Big dissapointment.

f) P-51D got released, where people questioned the fact wether this, in fact, had not taken up resources away from their main focus. What is the status of Nevada, for example? And wasn't the result really due to their aparent shift in focus, for real? Speculation rose.

Did ED spread their resources too thin? Focus seemed to have shifted away from the projects announced before with the announcement of a new Flying Legends brand to include different era aircraft.

g) An announcement about DCS F-15 was made in the newsletter. Excitement!

g2) A marketing video and interview were released, hinting at products to come. Excitement!

h) Wags initial post stated DCS F-15 and DCS SU-27! But.... were not going to be full fidelity sims afterall. And the DCS brand doesn't neccessarily stands for high fidelity only afterall.

i) Debate ensues, post gets edited.

 

I don't find it very odd that people area bit dissapointed after all the above.

Sure, we have to keep it in perspective, true. But people should be allowed to express their feelings no less.

 

The ponts you list are generally valid, but the specualtion about the interior workings at ED during the development of the various modules / the shift of focus is nothing more than speculation and direclty contradicts official statements to the contrary.

"No hi-fi sims for years and years" - where were you between 2009 and now? Their more recent focus has also been the expansion of the platform DCS:World, sure, but how is that even remotely true?

[upupandaway]

Well worded and exactly how I look at it now and have done initially. Despite the dissapointment I felt earlier.

IF, however, the focus of DCS stays 'study sim'.

 

I also agree with that and Keyser... and I have no doubts the focus is on those very sims - they even said that in the announcement.

If it helps one can see it as an upgradeable line of products, different levels for a plane maybe. That level of features is just ready and marketable before it gets finished into a full DCS-module - at least the way I picture it. I´m betting the avionics are also part of a much larger complex that still has to be implemented into DCS like radars, guidance issues, ECM, TGP imagery etc. -> "All at the level of the A-10C". Missile AFM is just half the deal...

Edited May 8, 2013 by upupandaway

[statrekmike]

The ponts you list are generally valid, but the specualtion about the interior workings at ED during the development of the various modules / the shift of focus is nothing more than speculation and direclty contradicts official statements to the contrary.

"No hi-fi sims for years and years" - where were you between 2009 and now? Their more recent focus has also been the expansion of the platform DCS:World, sure, but how is that even remotely true?

 

When he talks about years without a good study sim, he is talking about before ED came on the scene, I mean, he is right, we have not seen a really solid study sim since about 1999 with the release of Jane's F/A-18, between that and ED's first DCS offering (Black Shark 1) was mostly just IL-2 and Lock-on.

 

Also, I think you are taking his post to personally, you are making it sound like he is insulting ED when he is not, he is simply trying to convey how some of us feel (including myself) in a way that is not at all offensive or rude.

 

I don't think anyone here is just bellyaching because we feel that ED owes us something, we just feel let down due to a lack of actual communication (yes, before you say it, I am aware that we are _now_ getting better weekly communication but it was mostly guesswork before and we still don't really have a clear idea of what to expect, this is made worse when incorrect information (like the DCS being put in front of the F-15C and the Su-27 in the May 3rd post) is relayed.

 

We are all going to have our opinions of this, it seems we have broken into two camps for no real reason, nobody is saying that ED sucks or is lying or whatever, we just feel let down and some of us are also concerned at the current way things are going, at this stage there is no telling just how far along they are in some of the projects they keep talking about and it would be nice to know even a little bit at this point.

[Dejjvid]

Hey if money is the issue ED can already take my money for the F/A-18C.

I'd pay 70-90$ without hesitation for DCS:F/A-18C if that ensured they will release an early beta in December 2013.

But I won't spend another cent on lo-fi modules.

[71st_Mastiff]

Hey if money is the issue ED can already take my money for the F/A-18C.

I'd pay 70-90$ without hesitation for DCS:F/A-18C if that ensured they will release an early beta in December 2013.

But I won't spend another cent on lo-fi modules.

 

you know, just like Rise Of Flights prepurchase model should be an example of what ED should do to infuse some money into some of these projects..

[upupandaway]

When he talks about years without a good study sim, he is talking about before ED came on the scene, I mean, he is right, we have not seen a really solid study sim since about 1999 with the release of Jane's F/A-18, between that and ED's first DCS offering (Black Shark 1) was mostly just IL-2 and Lock-on.

 

Also, I think you are taking his post to personally, you are making it sound like he is insulting ED when he is not, he is simply trying to convey how some of us feel (including myself) in a way that is not at all offensive or rude.

 

I don't think anyone here is just bellyaching because we feel that ED owes us something, we just feel let down due to a lack of actual communication (yes, before you say it, I am aware that we are _now_ getting better weekly communication but it was mostly guesswork before and we still don't really have a clear idea of what to expect, this is made worse when incorrect information (like the DCS being put in front of the F-15C and the Su-27 in the May 3rd post) is relayed.

 

We are all going to have our opinions of this, it seems we have broken into two camps for no real reason, nobody is saying that ED sucks or is lying or whatever, we just feel let down and some of us are also concerned at the current way things are going, at this stage there is no telling just how far along they are in some of the projects they keep talking about and it would be nice to know even a little bit at this point.

 

Ok, if it´s between 1999 and 2009 that we´re talking about, I may in fact have misread something, but I´m not taking this personally. Just want to voice my opinion which of course has a personal motivation. Never did I think he was trying to insult ED and I also agree on the communication issue - it is in my posts.

It does not refer to the posts in question, but I generally want to say that in the more recent past I have often been confronted with cstrange ideas that people have had looking at a business from the outside and how they motivate such an opinion. I feel kinda compelled to do what you call "side with ED" because of that, although I´m not free of some other general criticism.

Edited May 8, 2013 by upupandaway