03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Dejjvid, at this moment it isn't a matter of money that's holding the F/A-18C, it's time. People can only do so much, and I'm sure ED's already optimised the employees/project ratio to make sure money spent and time to develop a module are the smallest possible. As said before, at a particular point the more people you add to a team/task, the worse it gets. I'm pretty sure ED is already big (in terms of funds) and experienced enough to optimise development.

 

If they released an F/A-18C at the end of this year, you'd be more than likely to get an aircraft with an alpha 3D cockpit, beta AFM and simplified avionics and systems because that's still in the works... which is exactly what you'll get for the Su-27 and F-15C, only the systems and cockpit are already tested and in use, and the AFM is likely to be more tuned.

[Levinsky]

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

 

question - show me one other company doing what ED's doing where you can take your "conscientious customer" business?

 

There really is no walmart for flight sims - so yes we have to support ED - I don't really think they are in it for the money. If there was big bucks to be made you'd see more hi-fi flight sims.

[cichlidfan]

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..

 

That, unfortunately, would put ED in a position where they were 'obligated' to produce a specific product. Currently, that is not the case which means ED retains the freedom of

 

'EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE'

Edited May 8, 2013 by cichlidfan
MEANS

[Rotorhead]

Well, those saying "Better something than nothing" are probably right. True DCS Eagle and Flanker are ages away, so ED is throwing us some "lite" version to make our waiting easier (and hopefully updates it to "full DCS" version for a discount price later). So far so good.

 

But, no matter how much I respect Wags and the whole ED team, I think they messed up really badly this time. First of all, I was never fond of this "multiple standard" thing in FC3. I mean, why some aircraft have AFM, some have 6DOF pits, some have new models, some all of it, some nothing? Yes, I understand that developing all FC3 stuff to that level would need many extra time and resources, but as a potential customer, I really don't care.

 

So basically, they took FC3 plane, gave it something that it already should have IMO (the AFM), and trying to sell it as a new module?

 

ED, if you're trying to improve FC3 planes even after release, great, I am thankful for that, but please, don't call it a new module! If you took one product (Flanker / Eagle) from a bigger pack (FC3) and decide to sell it separately, great again, but again - it's not a new module for goodness sake! :wallbash:

 

Another thing is the degradation of DCS brand. It should be reserved for high-fidelity modules only, as previously thought (or at least so it was understood by the public). Or at least call those med-fidelity modules DCS Lite or whatever, and advertise it as such from the start. So next time, your loyal fans don't have to be excited (and later disappointed) for no good reason.

 

Sorry guys, but I'm sure you can definitely do better than that.

[SkateZilla]

the lack of "Shut up and take my money!" images/gifs in this thread saddens me.

[GGTharos]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1749297&postcount=185

 

There is no degradation of the brand. It was never reserved for hi-fi modules only. As Wags posted, it can and will accommodate any fidelity vehicle, not necessarily only aircraft - and many eras.

 

As far as putting 'DCS' in front of a module, that is their prerogative and they may or may not make its use very clear (I suspect they will, since the 'DCS' was removed for now). One way or another, they gave people plenty of information on this up front.

 

Another thing is the degradation of DCS brand. It should be reserved for high-fidelity modules only, as previously thought (or at least so it was understood by the public). Or at least call those med-fidelity modules DCS Lite or whatever, and advertise it as such from the start. So next time, your loyal fans don't have to be excited (and later disappointed) for no good reason.

 

Sorry guys, but I'm sure you can definitely do better than that.

[Rotorhead]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1749297&postcount=185

 

There is no degradation of the brand. It was never reserved for hi-fi modules only. As Wags posted, it can and will accommodate any fidelity vehicle, not necessarily only aircraft - and many eras.

 

I know it was already explained. I was just expressing my personal opinion that this is not right decision IMO. For me, DCS has become a synonym for a highest-fidelity-possible sim and I think I am not the only one on this forum feeling this. Personally, I think that high- and med-/low-fidelity modules should be visibly differentiated somehow.

[EtherealN]

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.

 

Sure, but:

Pricing at 70-90 would most likely make retail impossible. Good busines that is not.

Also, what makes you think a december beta is possible? Nevermind the price, that is irrelevant there.

 

Finally: your post assumed that these reaaes would delay hi-fi releases thereof. I dont understand how you got that idea, especially considering that Matt actually adressed that. In a way, I think you could benefit from studying the MA JA-37 section, because - respectfully - you seem to have unfounded ideas of how this works.

[SkateZilla]

i think he meant strictly as a Fund Contribution/Pre-Order, KickStarter Style.

[Cake]

I think the post below was the best argument so far in this thread. In fact, it is the flight model more than anything else that represents hi fidelity in a fighter simulation, and this is no where more true than when it comes to a manuevering battle. Sure, the buttonology is important, but that is coming. We should all be really excited for this as a giant leap forward. I don't see how this detracts from the big picture or getting other sims out. In fact, I'm sure what is learned on the way to putting the AFMs in F15 and Su27 will end up making DCS F18 even more robust when it is ready for release.

 

 

For the people who complain about ED "changing focus to simplers stuff", or wasting time, or resources, or developing something you don't want, just a friendly reminder:

 

THE AFM IS ONE OF THE MAJOR STEPS OF MODELLING A DCS MODULE. THEY DID NOT GO OUT OF THEIR WAY TO DO IT, THEY HAD IT READY AND DECIDED TO SELL IT SO THAT EVEN THEIR MOST BASIC STANDARD OF SIMULATION IS MORE REALISTIC.

 

This is a step TOWARDS hi-fidelity simulation, we'll get rid of 2D cockpits and SFM. While avionics are still in the oven, at least.

 

Think of it as a waypoint really. You need to go through 1, 2, 3 and 4 to get to 5. Releasing a product along the way does not (I repeat, does not) mean you're not going to 5, it just means you have completed all secondary objectives in the previous waypoints. This will also save them time later because it means the testers' team, the community itself and the developers can fine-tune the flight model and 3D cockpits, and do any bug-solving earlier on so that when all systems are brought up to DCS standards, those concerns are out of the way.

 

Once again, this is a step UP. Now even casual gamers will have to deal with a more complex (and much more punishing) flight model. It'll be much easier to stall, spin, roll too much, wobble all over the place, damage the A/C if you over-G. Missile evading and knife-fighting will change drastically because now whoever's at the stick will have to not only think of how to plant a warhead on someone else's tail and not get one stuck up theirs, but also how to keep the thing flying.

 

This is already big news, it's the first time ever we'll see a fighter with AFM - we don't really know how it'll behave at all, and how handling will change. We've seen how attack aircraft and helicopters fly, but very maneuverable supersonic fighters? It's new.

 

The sooner we have the option of buying these modules for less without the FC3 pack, for fighter pilots, the better. It's frustrating to have bought it already, that's more than obvious, but at least they're solving the issue.

[SkateZilla]

Best Argument is the Removal of Ubi-Strictions from users that want to fly fighters in DCSW.

 

I had the extra $10 to throw away to download LoMAC from the Ubi-Store, But not everyone has the Extra money or access to ubi-store to do that, some people cant even find LoMAC anymore, and not everyone has the option to buy it online and have it shipped to them due to publisher shipping restrictions.

 

So... the Ubi-Soft/LoMAC Requirement for Use of FC3 is blocking Sales of FC3.

 

remove that restriction to have LoMAC, and remove the restriction to have to pay $50 even if you only wanna fly one of the Aircraft = More Sales.

 

Micro-transactions for Single Airframes will prolly generate A LOT more sales than people realize.

 

The people that didn't have LoMAC, and the People that didnt want to Pre-Purchase FC3, and the people that dont want to pay $50 to fly the flanker or F-15C will happily pay a fraction of the $60~ they would be required to pay to fly one of the 2.

($50 for FC3, and minimum $10 for LoMAC Digital Download).

 

 

if/when those modules develop into Full Fledged Study Level modules, ED will have sales from the hardcore guys.

 

 

Increased Sales = Increased Revenue = Increased Project Funding = Increased Payroll = Decreased Development time = Everyone's happy.

Edited May 8, 2013 by SkateZilla

[upupandaway]

I think the post below was the best argument so far in this thread. In fact, it is the flight model more than anything else that represents hi fidelity in a fighter simulation, and this is no where more true than when it comes to a manuevering battle. Sure, the buttonology is important, but that is coming. We should all be really excited for this as a giant leap forward. I don't see how this detracts from the big picture or getting other sims out. In fact, I'm sure what is learned on the way to putting the AFMs in F15 and Su27 will end up making DCS F18 even more robust when it is ready for release.

 

Best Argument is the Removal of Ubi-Strictions from users that want to fly fighters in DCSW.

 

+1

[Yellonet]

So what that's you? Sorry we aren't the Borg collective :music_whistling:

 

I bought it because I liked what ED is doing with DCS and they're a small company, need to keep them alive. I also do at time like to fly the easier sims but after flying their AFM/HF sims its hard to enjoy FC3 planes, but that's just me.

 

I can understand how they would like to dump the lock on requirement but they should have done it from the start. (guess they really wanted to use the name Lock on real bad)

 

If their is a cheap upgrade for FC3 owners I'll probably buy the (again) just to support them, again.

 

Bottom line is, just because you do something doesn't mean we all have to do it that way also.

 

Take care and happy flying:pilotfly::joystick:

I think this is a difficult road to walk.

We as customers that want the "hardcore" modules have two options:

1. Buy the medium fidelity modules to support ED and give them more money to use for the development of the modules we want.
   
2. Don't buy the medium fidelity modules to show the developer that we're waiting for the hardcore stuff.
   

Unfortunately, these options seems to be a text book catch-22.

 

• If you go with option 1 you end up strengthening the notion that most people want the medium fidelity modules, something that may make ED more likely to put more money and development time on those modules.
  
• If you go with option 2 however, ED might not get the money they need for developing the hardcore modules and they will still be forced to put more effort towards medium fidelity modules.
  

Really, we should get a question when we buy a module.

Why are you buying this module?

 

• I want to fly/drive one or more of the aircraft/vehicles in this module.
  
• I want ED to take my money and use it to get the hardcore modules released faster!
  

[Hellfire257]

I think some of you have some serious reading comprehension issues:

 

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.

 

Your "DCS: F-15C Eagle" and "DCS: Su-27S Flanker" are coming, just not yet. Relax people, all in good time :).

[Levinsky]

But, no matter how much I respect Wags and the whole ED team, I think they messed up really badly this time. First of all, I was never fond of this "multiple standard" thing in FC3. I mean, why some aircraft have AFM, some have 6DOF pits, some have new models, some all of it, some nothing? Yes, I understand that developing all FC3 stuff to that level would need many extra time and resources, but as a potential customer, I really don't care.

 

So the fact that FC3 was re-written to be a module of DCS world which then provided us with the ability to create and fly missions with FC3 aircraft along with A-10C, BS, P-51, Combined Arms and now UH-1 Huey was just a pointless endeavor and not worth anything? That was one of the key points of FC3 - not to develop the aircraft to A-10C standard or all aircraft with 6dof cockpits. As Wags says - maybe not everyone wants to sit there and learn every little detail. Maybe they want to just fly and have some fun.

 

So basically, they took FC3 plane, gave it something that it already should have IMO (the AFM), and trying to sell it as a new module?

 

Insert Implied Facepalm here (Google image search it - you'll understand)

 

ED, if you're trying to improve FC3 planes even after release, great, I am thankful for that, but please, don't call it a new module! If you took one product (Flanker / Eagle) from a bigger pack (FC3) and decide to sell it separately, great again, but again - it's not a new module for goodness sake! :wallbash:

 

Nothing to say about this part - Just felt like you needed a hug at this point. :)

 

Another thing is the degradation of DCS brand. It should be reserved for high-fidelity modules only, as previously thought (or at least so it was understood by the public). Or at least call those med-fidelity modules DCS Lite or whatever, and advertise it as such from the start. So next time, your loyal fans don't have to be excited (and later disappointed) for no good reason.

 

Sorry guys, but I'm sure you can definitely do better than that.

 

Things change. As the Rolling Stones say "You can't always get what you want" :)

[Yskonyn]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1749297&postcount=185

 

There is no degradation of the brand. It was never reserved for hi-fi modules only.

 

Well I dare to call this incorrect.

It was, and one of your testers has even confirmed that a few days ago in a different thread that I quoted earlier.

 

The DCS brand was marketed as the high fidelity simulation, at least it was during DCS A-10C development.

 

It was only with the consolidation in DCS World that this has changed and became a broad platform for modules of varying fidelity running in the DCS World environment.

 

So yes, DCS World was never reserved for hi-fi stuff only, but the brand or label 'DCS' in front of a module was.

 

Lots of people here have that impression too,otherwise this debate hadn't started in the first place.

 

Again, it's fine if things change because a view in the company has changed (or needed to change for that matter), but keep calling it what it is.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Yskonyn

[Hellfire257]

A tester's word isn't the be all and end all though. I don't see the problem here. Like I said, your high fidelity models are coming; they didn't deceive you. Granted, it wasn't crystal clear, but I didn't think it was so bad as to make people think this was a bait and switch.

[Yellonet]

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.

I like ED, but at the same time I agree with you.

By purchasing things you don't really want you're quite possibly making it less likely that you will get what you want in the end.

[SkateZilla]

again, i think people overlooked some things,

 

last friday's post by wags simply stated Accelerated Development of F-15C and SU-27C.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105383

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.

 

This Week:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105800

 

In addition to the never-ending quest for DCS perfection (yes, we have dreams too), we are working on releasing the F-15C Eagle and Su-27 Flanker for DCS World later this year. As I have mentioned in the past, DCS is not confined to one time period, one location or one level of detail. While DCS modules have focused on a very high level of detail, we also realize that there are many (often silent) users that wish for a shallower learning curve. In fact, the Lock On / Flaming Cliffs series has been our most successful. As such, the F-15C Eagle and Su-27 Flanker will be catered to them. Both of these aircraft will have the same detailed 3D models, cockpits and sounds of the Flaming Cliffs 3 versions, but we will be adding an Advanced Flight Model (AFM) for each.

 

 

 

Where in his posts these last 2 weeks has he Ever referred to them as "DCS F-15C" and "DCS SU-27C"??

 

 

That should end all arguing and speculation about the branding.

 

all I See is

F-15C and Su-27 for DCS World

[Yskonyn]

 

 

 

 

Where in his posts these last 2 weeks has he Ever referred to them as "DCS F-15C" and "DCS SU-27C"??

 

 

That should end all arguing and speculation about the branding.

 

all I See is

 

Nowhere! :) But obviously you missed the fact that Wags has edited one (or both) of those posts later.

There actually was DCS: F-15C and DCS: SU-27 in there before.

And that's part of what started the debate.

[159th_Viper]

 

Where in his posts these last 2 weeks has he Ever referred to them as "DCS F-15C" and "DCS SU-27C"??

 

 

Matters are getting over-complicated:

 

1: March newsletter - DCS F-15C.

 

2: 3 May Update - F-15C for DCS World.

 

3: Forum Members' Response.....OMGWTF???

 

4: 7 May Update explaining reasoning behind decision.

 

 

Simplez.

[eurofor]

again, i think people overlooked some things,

 

last friday's post by wags simply stated Accelerated Development of F-15C and SU-27C.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105383

 

 

This Week:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=105800

 

 

 

 

 

Where in his posts these last 2 weeks has he Ever referred to them as "DCS F-15C" and "DCS SU-27C"??

 

 

That should end all arguing and speculation about the branding.

 

all I See is F-15C and Su-27 for DCS World

 

Last edited by Wags; 05-07-2013 at 08:06 PM.

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yL0sGQW4Rr8J:forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php%3Fp%3D1743051+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

[WH_Boomer]

I bought it only because i want to support ED. I've tested the Su-27 and F-15 one evening since release, and i don't see any reason at all flying any of the FC3 aircrafts again. And i know a lot of people who only bought FC3 to support ED.

 

So if ED notice a lot of people buy FC3 they have to ask themselves, have we found new players, or is the increase High fidelity players supporting us.

 

I will not buy more low fidelity products, ever.

 

I'm only 37 pages into this thread, but want to quote this, because I know for a fact that there are several people I fly with that feel the same way but don't post here. They simply vote with their wallets. I've bought every product from the original LockOn through the P-51, some of them more than one copy to host a server before DCS: World. CA and P-51 are installed, but I've only ever been in either specifically once or twice. I was a little upset when we had to buy Blackshark a second time to have it compatible with DCS: World. I was a little more upset with buying Flaming Cliffs 3 for the same reason. But I did it to support ED. But enough is enough. I'll wait for true DCS level simulation, thank you very much.

 

Until then the BMS crowd is getting bigger and bigger.

[Yskonyn]

Matters are getting over-complicated:

 

1: March newsletter - DCS F-15C.

 

2: 3 May Update - F-15C for DCS World.

 

3: Forum Members' Response.....OMGWTF???

 

4: 7 May Update explaining reasoning behind decision.

 

 

Simplez.

 

No, little devil, you! :D

In Wags' weekly update post there was mentioning of DCS <aircraft> at first too! Not just in the Newsletter.

 

But of course, I will go in the history books are the lunatic of the ED boards now. :joystick::megalol:

 

EDIT:

 

Last edited by Wags; 05-07-2013 at 08:06 PM.

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yL0sGQW4Rr8J:forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php%3Fp%3D1743051+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

 

See, at last! Proof I am not insane! :D

Edited May 8, 2013 by Yskonyn

[SkateZilla]

Last edited by Wags; 05-07-2013 at 08:06 PM.

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yL0sGQW4Rr8J:forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php%3Fp%3D1743051+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

 

Technicalities, lol,

but thanks for pointing that out.

 

they list them originally as DCS:Fighter.

 

Team member drops the bomb on the Russian Forum

 

Wags explains.

 

51 page public uproar ensues over the Simplification and Fidelity levels of the DCS:Fighters.

 

ED Drops the DCS Label and renames them to "Fighter for DCS World".

 

uproar continues.

Edited May 8, 2013 by SkateZilla