03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[SkateZilla]

if it brings in more flanker pilots for me to shoot down, and more eagle pilots for me to fly formation with... then Im all for it.

[Yellonet]

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.

Both of you should realize that when you buy something the developer does not know that you bought it just to support them in developing something else that you really want, from the developers point of view it will only seem as though what people really want is the medium fidelity modules such as FC3.

[159th_Viper]

 

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

 

:)

 

There was never any doubt that you were correct - nobody can dispute that it was said that they were to be DCS modules: The newsletter is proof enough.

 

That said, I wonder why not one Soul even bothered to question that from the very beginning......I mean, here we waited years and years for Black Shark. We waited years for the A-10C.

 

What, you think that ED can pull TWO DCS branded modules out of their cap all of a sudden? Hey, they're good but they're not that good :)

 

If people took the time to digest the news properly then they might have realized that it might just be a typo, a simple mistake or change-of-plans. As it turns out, it obviously was and that has now been rectified, together with MORE THAN REASONABLE explanation as to why it has to be the way it is..........

 

I would have thought that that was enough.

 

Nooooo..........51 pages and developing a new head of steam :megalol:

[cichlidfan]

Team member drops the bomb on the Russian Forum

 

Wags explains.

 

 

I am sure I have seen this show before. :lol:

[SkateZilla]

 

Nooooo..........51 pages and developing a new head of steam :megalol:

 

Im gonna need a new head of hair after participating in those 51 pages..

 

We can have our own show on G4... call it "Today at ED Boards"

[Yellonet]

<snip> Until then the BMS crowd is getting bigger and bigger.

The flight sim market is very limited of course, but it still seems as though ED is taking a risk not getting a a hardcore fast mover released as soon as possible. As time goes by it gets more likely (at least statistically) that another developer comes around with a product that will attract the Falcon crowd.

I suspect that there could be quite a few pennies to earn for the first one out with something that attracts them... :)

[SkateZilla]

 

Until then the BMS crowd is getting bigger and bigger.

 

 

Because BMS is Free (for the Most part), and it's INSANELY Stable.

[Levinsky]

The flight sim market is very limited of course, but it still seems as though ED is taking a risk not getting a a hardcore fast mover released. As time goes by it gets more likely (at least statistically) that another developer comes around with a product that will attract the Falcon crowd.

I suspect that there could be quite a few pennies to earn for the first one out with something that attracts them... :)

 

Serious??? If there were a "few pennies" to be made out of hard core flight sims you are implying that there is serious demand for this around the world. If that were the case then there would be a glut of hard core flight sims. Instead we have a trail of wreckage that were flight sim developers.

[Rotorhead]

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.

 

It seems to me you just misunderstood my original post, mate. Nowhere I said that FC3 are pointless or not worth anything. Although I am not interested in lower-fidelity modules, I don't doubt that FC3 have their place inside DCS World and their fair share of customers. However, my point was somewhere else:

 

When I buy a game, a sim, anything, I expect all of its contents to be on the same quality level, which is not what is happening in FC3 at this moment. Just look: A-10A has AFM, 6DOF cockpit, and updated 3D model (at least I think so), Su-27 and F-15 both have new 6DOF pits, but no AFM yet, Mig-29 has at least new TWS mode, Su-33 has nothing. See that imbalance?

 

As I stated several times before, I can see the marketing reasons behind this, I am rather annoyed by this "multiple standards inside one product" issue.

 

And this leads me to my original point: It's nice to see ED to develop and update FC3 content even after final release, but when Su-25 and A-10A got AFM, they weren't marketed as new modules. The same for Su-27's new external model and its (and Eagle's) 6DOF pit.

 

Of course all these updates are warmly welcome, and AFM is indeed a major update. But still, I see it just as an update. A significant one, but still an update, not a brand new module.

 

So please, calm down and don't jump to conclusions I've never implied.

 

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

 

No need to google anything, I'm pretty familiar with that one. ;)

[ALDEGA]

I mean, here we waited years and years for Black Shark. We waited years for the A-10C.

 

What, you think that ED can pull TWO DCS branded modules out of their cap all of a sudden?

It's not unreasonable to expect that development of new flyables will be faster since the groundwork has been laid with BS and WH and the fundamentals can be reused. We also have no insight in when development on new modules started. For all we know they've been in the pipeline for a considerable amount of time.

 

Luckily there are some talented third party developers working on high fidelty modules.

[SkateZilla]

Air to Air radar groundwork has not been laid, nor the systems it relies on and that's what both Fighters use.....

[159th_Viper]

It's not unreasonable to expect that development of new flyables will be faster since the groundwork has been laid with BS and WH and the fundamentals can be reused.

 

Not that fast, and most definitely not two simultaneously, especially not to a DCS standard.

[Yskonyn]

:)

 

There was never any doubt that you were correct - nobody can dispute that it was said that they were to be DCS modules: The newsletter is proof enough.

 

That said, I wonder why not one Soul even bothered to question that from the very beginning......I mean, here we waited years and years for Black Shark. We waited years for the A-10C.

 

What, you think that ED can pull TWO DCS branded modules out of their cap all of a sudden? Hey, they're good but they're not that good :)

 

If people took the time to digest the news properly then they might have realized that it might just be a typo, a simple mistake or change-of-plans. As it turns out, it obviously was and that has now been rectified, together with MORE THAN REASONABLE explanation as to why it has to be the way it is..........

 

I would have thought that that was enough.

 

Nooooo..........51 pages and developing a new head of steam :megalol:

 

:D

 

Oh yes, I questioned it. I even doubted it.

But I was merely trying to explain why I thought (and understood to a point) why people were posting being dissapointed.

 

No head of steam here. I still love the pink cloud that is ED and its modules. I just prefer them to be study sim fidelity. :D

[ishtmail]

Is this debate still going on?

 

We've already established that:

 

1. There WILL be F15C and SU27 as DCS titles, some time in the future.

 

2. During the development of those two DCS titles (full hi-fidelity), AFM will be developed, and F15C and SU27 will be offered as lo-fi standalone modules, the same as FC3 versions, but with AFM added.

 

3. The release of standalone lo-fi SU27 and F15C cannot hamper the development of proper DCS hi-fi versions, it can only make that process faster as ED will get some funds already during development.

 

4. This basically means that Su27 and F15C DCS versions will be done WHEN THEY'LL BE DONE, and lo-fi versions cannot delay them.

 

5. In addition, hints have been given that versions with AFM will be made available to existing FC3 customers, possibly for free, even though FC3 has already been released officially and ED has no obligation to upgrade it.

 

6. Along with AFM for SU27 and F15C, a proper DCS FA18 will be developed, but will be released later than AFM SU27/F15C, NOT because of a shift of resources, but because a DCS title takes considerably longer to develop (2 years minimum).

 

All in all, those who feel the need to complain should climb into their respective DCS airplanes and repeatedly crash until they realize they're being silly. And if that doesn't help, I would recommend a set of treatments utilizing your TM Warthog joysticks (multiple cranial application will be needed).

[SkateZilla]

Is this debate still going on?

 

We've already established that:

 

1. There WILL be F15C and SU27 as DCS titles, some time in the future.

 

2. During the development of those two DCS titles (full hi-fidelity), AFM will be developed, and F15C and SU27 will be offered as lo-fi standalone modules, the same as FC3 versions, but with AFM added.

 

3. The release of standalone lo-fi SU27 and F15C cannot hamper the development of proper DCS hi-fi versions, it can only make that process faster as ED will get some funds already during development.

 

4. This basically means that Su27 and F15C DCS versions will be done WHEN THEY'LL BE DONE, and lo-fi versions cannot delay them.

 

5. In addition, hints have been given that versions with AFM will be made available to existing FC3 customers, possibly for free, even though FC3 has already been released officially and ED has no obligation to upgrade it.

 

6. Along with AFM for SU27 and F15C, a proper DCS FA18 will be developed, but will be released later than AFM SU27/F15C, NOT because of a shift of resources, but because a DCS title takes considerably longer to develop (2 years minimum).

 

All in all, those who feel the need to complain should climb into their respective DCS airplanes and repeatedly crash until they realize they're being silly. And if that doesn't help, I would recommend a set of treatments utilizing your TM Warthog joysticks (multiple cranial application will be needed).

 

 

Like i said:

 

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

[cichlidfan]

3. The release of standalone lo-fi SU27 and F15C cannot hamper the development of proper DCS hi-fi versions, it can only make that process faster as ED will get some funds already during development.

 

 

Excuse me but how does increased, or interim, revenue equate to increased speed of production? Are you assuming ED will use those funds to increase staffing or, possibly, that if ED increases salaries that the code will get written faster?

[ishtmail]

Like i said:

 

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

 

Tru dat.

 

Also:

 

High end product = Internet forum support = Regular publishing of news online = Internet bickering for no reason whatsoever

[Levinsky]

It seems to me you just misunderstood my original post, mate. Nowhere I said that FC3 are pointless or not worth anything. Although I am not interested in lower-fidelity modules, I don't doubt that FC3 have their place inside DCS World and their fair share of customers. However, my point was somewhere else:

 

When I buy a game, a sim, anything, I expect all of its contents to be on the same quality level, which is not what is happening in FC3 at this moment. Just look: A-10A has AFM, 6DOF cockpit, and updated 3D model (at least I think so), Su-27 and F-15 both have new 6DOF pits, but no AFM yet, Mig-29 has at least new TWS mode, Su-33 has nothing. See that imbalance?

 

But you knew all that before you bought the game because it was pretty well spelled out which aircraft had 6dof and which didn't etc. So if people aren't happy about that when they see the initial release notes,don't buy it - wait and see how it develops over time if you're so inclined. It's purely up to ED how they decide to release their products and it's purely up to you whether or not you buy them.

 

As I stated several times before, I can see the marketing reasons behind this, I am rather annoyed by this "multiple standards inside one product" issue.

 

And this leads me to my original point: It's nice to see ED to develop and update FC3 content even after final release, but when Su-25 and A-10A got AFM, they weren't marketed as new modules. The same for Su-27's new external model and its (and Eagle's) 6DOF pit.

 

Of course all these updates are warmly welcome, and AFM is indeed a major update. But still, I see it just as an update. A significant one, but still an update, not a brand new module.

 

Did you and everyone else stop to think (and I think someone else mentioned this earlier about 1 million pages back:megalol:) that perhaps ED is trying to divorce themselves of the link to Ubisoft with the lockon series. I don't know - but it could possibly be a strategy to start a clear separation of both product and source code for the SU-27 and F-15 (which have come from the lock on series) so Ubisoft have no claim to these - dare I say it "modules". Perhaps ED is trying to get that set in stone before they spend serious effort transforming those aircraft to A-10C level of fidelity.

 

Perhaps ED can't afford to spend more time on lockon series (including FC3) because it's costing them money in royalties to Ubisoft which actually means they don't have that money to invest into DCS aircraft which in turn would give you what you want.

 

It could be that (I don't know) or it could just be the simple answer - it's what ED want to do and it's their product. The point is that I'm sure they are smart guys that have a strategy around this.

[ishtmail]

Excuse me but how does increased, or interim, revenue equate to increased speed of production? Are you assuming ED will use those funds to increase staffing or, possibly, that if ED increases salaries that the code will get written faster?

 

Well, that's sort of how it works, innit?

 

More funds = More staff = Faster development

 

 

Of course, another possibility is that ED just saw a business opportunity to make money faster and fill their pockets.

 

 

However, my bet would be on the third scenario:

 

ED has low revenues = ED evaluates sales of DCS modules vs FC3 = ED discovers FC3 sells considerably better = ED decides to save the financial troubles by releasing lo-fi modules = ED does that, survives the financial turmoils and continues developing DCS modules, which they couldn't if they went under.

[neroroxxx]

I just hope Nevada comes out soon, at this point I just want to see new stuff from ED to keep me entertained.

[SkateZilla]

Just be glad we dont have DCS: Angry Birds ... You goto to use the Mavericks and you have to Pay 200 eggs to buy the Maverick Screen Addon.

[Levinsky]

Just be glad we dont have DCS: Angry Birds ... You goto to use the Mavericks and you have to Pay 200 eggs to buy the Maverick Screen Addon.

 

lol

[Rotorhead]

But you knew all that before you bought the game because it was pretty well spelled out which aircraft had 6dof and which didn't etc. So if people aren't happy about that when they see the initial release notes,don't buy it - wait and see how it develops over time if you're so inclined. It's purely up to ED how they decide to release their products and it's purely up to you whether or not you buy them.

 

Believe it or not, but that's exactly what I did.

 

 

I don't know - but it could possibly be a strategy to start a clear separation of both product and source code for the SU-27 and F-15 (which have come from the lock on series) so Ubisoft have no claim to these - dare I say it "modules". Perhaps ED is trying to get that set in stone before they spend serious effort transforming those aircraft to A-10C level of fidelity.

 

Yes, that would actually make sense.

[SkateZilla]

i wouldnt mind a DCS: A-10A!

[ishtmail]

neroroxxx:

Let's make a tally for the past year and a half, shall we?

 

- Announcement, development and release of DCS World, a platform for all DCS titles, which included a free SU25T airplane

- Integration of DCS Black Shark and DCS A10C into the DCS World platform

- Announcement, development and release of DCS P51D Mustang

- Announcement, development and release of Combined Arms

- Announcement, development and release of Flaming Cliffs 3, which includes several new external models, several new 6DOF pit models and several new AFM models.

- Release of Belsimtek developed DCS UH1H Huey

- Announcement of DCS FA18, DCS SU27 and DCS F15C, with lofi modules with AFM coming soon

 

All this in one year.

 

 

But of course, kids these days with their 3-second attention span (goldfish syndrome), they want their toys NOW, or they want to break something (or at least bicker online).