03 and 07 May 2013 Updates

[Hellfire257]

Sorry but you have not rights. The world " Simulation ", means take one aircraft and one military hardware into the software, not make something like improvement that does not exist.

 

The FC3 have a great graphic and have 3D cockpits, also have the possibility to play against human ground forces ( combined arms ) where the level of simulation is so high, then you can flight using the A-10C or Ka-50 inside the mission.

 

So tell me where is the same, because the Mig-29 and Su-33 have the Ricardo pit like official addon.

 

You get the Su-27 AFM or F-15 AFM but then you have not Su-25/25T AFM, A-10A AFM and Mig-29S, Su-33, F-15, Su-27 all they SFM. So is your choise.

 

So FC2 and FC3 is not the same product, or you already forget the FC2 editor

 

What? :huh:

 

Sorry, I can't tell what you're trying to say. :(

[EtherealN]

You say lofi doesn't impact hifi development. I don't buy this. There are always people who could quit their lofi tasks and move to hifi related tasks.

 

There is something important though here, see these statements:

 

- "LOFI" development does impact hifi development.

- "LOFI" development does not impact hifi development.

- "LOFI" development does not necessarily impact hifi development.

 

In this specific case:

 

Step 1: We have the new F-15C pit. Keeps simple systems and SFM.

Step 2: Develop AFM. Release an F-15C that keeps simple systems but has SFM.

Step 3: Develop the rest.

 

The logic one needs to use if proposing that the mentioned products will "delay" hifi modules thereof would also require that development of the F-15C pit for FC3 also "delayed" hifi module thereof - but how can that be so when that pit is prepped and ready for said hifi module?

 

If the proposal was to make and release a "mid-level" (non-clickable but AFM) AT-802U, then yes - THEN it would be reasonable to assume this might delay hifi F-15C's. But some serious contortions of logic are required to see an F-15C AFM being developed and then say "but this will delay an A-10C level simulation of the F-15C". That is one heck of a logical somersault. :P

[Loki_]

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...

 

Jerry was a race car driver, he drove so gosh darn fast

He never did win no checkered flags but he never did come in last

[GGTharos]

They have. No mortar and brick retailer or e-retailer will carry the sim if it's more than $49.99.

 

There is no real incentive for ED for making hifi modules because they don't even know why a certain lofi module has been bought. If there is no such information then ED hasn'teven evaluated a 'put more effort into hifi modules and increase their pricing by 25%' scenario.

[SkateZilla]

There is something important though here, see these statements:

 

- "LOFI" development does impact hifi development.

- "LOFI" development does not impact hifi development.

- "LOFI" development does not necessarily impact hifi development.

 

In this specific case:

 

Step 1: We have the new F-15C pit. Keeps simple systems and SFM.

Step 2: Develop AFM. Release an F-15C that keeps simple systems but has SFM.

Step 3: Develop the rest.

 

The logic one needs to use if proposing that the mentioned products will "delay" hifi modules thereof would also require that development of the F-15C pit for FC3 also "delayed" hifi module thereof - but how can that be so when that pit is prepped and ready for said hifi module?

 

If the proposal was to make and release a "mid-level" (non-clickable but AFM) AT-802U, then yes - THEN it would be reasonable to assume this might delay hifi F-15C's. But some serious contortions of logic are required to see an F-15C AFM being developed and then say "but this will delay an A-10C level simulation of the F-15C". That is one heck of a logical somersault. :P

 

:thumbup::thumbup:

 

I dont think people realize.. when building something complex, whether it's DCS Modules, A Likelike LifeSize Replica of Britney Spears w/ LEGOS, or a Actual Military Aircraft.

 

No one ever Sits down and does it all at once, it's done in stages, it's tested in stages, and when that stage passes, development moves on to the next stage.

 

:doh:

[SkateZilla]

They have. No mortar and brick retailer or e-retailer will carry the sim if it's more than $49.99.

 

and most game retailers (not gonna point fingers) want a significant % of the product cosignment/retail.

 

So if ED sells it for $49.99 they'd want roughly $38-$40 of each sale.

 

Which is why that company's PC section went from 3 or 4 walls (1 of those walls being Jane's/Flight Sims) to a 2 row rack by the register that holds roughly 100 Mini PC Boxes, and about 60 of them are WoW Boxes.

 

By selling modules by themselves, ED gets 100% of the sale, no Publisher Cuts, no Retailer Cuts.

[71st_Mastiff]

While this thread has gotten very big, I don't think anyone here who had concerns (including myself) really wanted to give the impression that we want it our way or else, in fact, I think this thread was actually very civil and often times rather diplomatic (aside from a couple of stumbles but only a few).

 

I noticed that after Matt Wagner posted his reply to the controversy, all of those who complained about the "negativity" of this thread immediately used that post as a rallying call to further marginalize the opinions and concerns posted by those who wanted to share their feelings as customers.

 

We don't think we should be shareholders or anything, we just wanted to voice our feelings about the rapidly changing landscape of DCS world and how it relates to our ever present fear that our already small numbers (those who like study sims over survey sims) are simply not ever going to be a loud enough voice to matter.

 

I am going to speak for myself here but I think that many will agree, the DCS series is literally the only place that a combat study sim fan can go to for new content, ED is literally holding the entire future of the modern combat sim genre in it's hands alone and that means that all of our eyes are on them.

 

Before I go on, I am going to get something out of the way, I don't think many on this thread ever thought that ED was just going to stop building study sims, I know I didn't. Nobody here thinks that ED is lying to us and nobody here thinks that ED owes us something outside of what they have already talked about releasing but it seems that some on this thread wanted to make it a "us vs them" fight and that helps nobody.

 

We like the more frequent news updates and we are not being so "negative" that they should reasonably stop, in fact, as I have said before, this thread was actually rather reasonable and never really got to the point where anyone was acting childish or anything, I read every page and just saw two camps kinda debate for awhile in a somewhat subdued way.

 

So, in closing, telling me as a loyal, paying customer that I am somehow overstepping my bounds when I voice a reasonable (and carefully worded) set of concerns (as did several others here) about the future of DCS level study sims is not really productive at all, it is only made worse when some feel the need to "win" the argument and marginalize those who don't agree after the fire dies down.

 

I will continue to support ED, they are the only ones who are actually doing the type of sim I actually like and thus I will support them until they stop doing so, I however don't think I am obligated to blindly support them on every project in hopes that I will eventually get the one that was announced that I am waiting for.

 

IF this is offensive to anyone, I am sorry, I tried to word it carefully as to not sound adversarial, I am simply trying to put some things into perspective here.

 

We could all-ways do it the PC virus scanners way, pay for a one to three year license subscription?

 

I for one think that if they want any kind of pricing on the new AFK's it should be prepurchase at just like the way ROF does it..

 

I really think that 49.99 for a single model is kind of much...Where-as ROF has them at $11.00 or so? and much more advanced and much better scenery and the trees work. lol thought I would sneak the trees thing in there again..

 

oh and as it stand right now Im unable to play FC3 properly, the Dang A10A doesnt work, as far as dropping Salvos...and dont expect to come back and play it until its fixed.. could be months now...

Edited May 9, 2013 by Mastiff

[SkateZilla]

As for LO-FI/HI-FI.

 

I'd Buy the F-15C w/ AFM to support Development of DCS:F-15C or whatever they'd use the revenue for.

 

 

If people wanna guess at how long it would take to code the systems...

 

Here's some unofficial insight.

 

the F-15C Systems are just as advanced as the systems in the A-10C Module, and there's new systems that will take a lot of new coding and testing that code to see how it interacts with existing coding.

 

oh, and there's only about 508 or so Animations for Buttons, switches, and displays..

That's a lot of buttons to code and test.

 

 

 

as for "rapidly changing landscape of DCSW"

 

So you're saying you dont want more people in online servers with more Aircraft?, you dont want more Aircraft being developed w/ AFMs?

 

Trust me, it's a Step forward. More Aircraft with AFMs and available to more users around the world = a better dcs world.

Edited May 9, 2013 by SkateZilla

[SkateZilla]

And the take off/landing pitch handicap that seems to be in place (or I just need to Re-Calibrate).

[ALDEGA]

it is so frustrating right now to get into the "scripted" high aoa, stall, and spin events in the F-15C

It's only been like that for ten years ... ;)

[ishtmail]

They have. No mortar and brick retailer or e-retailer will carry the sim if it's more than $49.99.

 

I've always wondered, so now's as good a time as any to ask: any info on what the ratio is between mortar&brick&e-retailer stores sales versus those done here at http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com?

 

I mean, if most of ED's sales is done at your website, catering the pricing for retailers would be a bit nonsensical.

 

I can understand pushing FC3 and CA sales to physical stores to reach a wider audience, but study sims with its niche market should by logic appeal more to the serious simmer who doesn't buy a game in a store on a whim, but goes online to see what strikes his fancy (especially since simulations like A10C require considerable time investment and have a steep learning curve, not to mention peripherals, ergo not for the casual simmer).

[EtherealN]

Unfortunately I believe the sales figures are secret. :(

 

But one point to consider: even IF the majority of sales are through the website rather than "brick and mortar", keeping said Brick and mortar parameters in mind can still make sense - because if you don't, you can't access new markets.

 

Think of it like this: you open a Hamburger chain back in the 50's over in the US. In the 70's, the majority of your revenue comes from the US. Does that mean it is a bad idea to market in Europe? Of course not - Europe is an additional market you probably want to get into.

 

Now of course, ED isn't McDonalds, but you get the point? Closer to the actual work of ED here is the fact that most people that play computer games don't even know simulators like this exist. I still run into people that thought they ceased to be made after Microprose went under. But if you're a small company, you can't spend swathes of cash on fancy youtube adverts - but you can do your best to make sure the box is right there in front of people that are window-shopping. And that's a LOT of people that are window-shopping, so you don't even need to have a large percentage of them actually buy the box they saw for it to be worth it.

[GGTharos]

I've always wondered, so now's as good a time as any to ask: any info on what the ratio is between mortar&brick&e-retailer stores sales versus those done here at www.digitalcombatsimulator.com?

 

No, and I doubt that this info will ever be made available.

 

I mean, if most of ED's sales is done at your website, catering the pricing for retailers would be a bit nonsensical.

 

That sounds logical, and since they are catering to the retailer pricing, perhaps you can reach the conclusion that e-retailer and mortar and brick sales are significant :)

 

I can understand pushing FC3 and CA sales to physical stores to reach a wider audience, but study sims with its niche market should by logic appeal more to the serious simmer who doesn't buy a game in a store on a whim, but goes online to see what strikes his fancy (especially since simulations like A10C require considerable time investment and have a steep learning curve, not to mention peripherals, ergo not for the casual simmer).

 

This part is not correct. You are treating these groups as being mutually exclusive, and they're not. I'm aware of people who play A-10C more casually, perhaps never even turning off game mode.

[SkateZilla]

i'd be cool if i can login to mcdonalds.com and order a 20 pc nuggets and just download and eat them.

[cichlidfan]

i'd be cool if i can login to mcdonalds.com and order a 20 pc nuggets and just download and eat them.

 

Well, I doubt they would lose anything during the A/D - D/A conversion. :D

[Yskonyn]

i'd be cool if i can login to mcdonalds.com and order a 20 pc nuggets and just download and eat them.

 

Lol! That would be awesome indeed! :D

[sobek]

Well, I doubt they would lose anything during the A/D - D/A conversion. :D

 

Quite the contrary, you'd get the quantisation noise for free.

[Snoopy]

I'm aware of people who play A-10C more casually, perhaps never even turning off game mode.

 

Blasphemy ;) :D

[SkateZilla]

Quite the contrary, you'd get the quantisation noise for free.

 

AKA Sweet and Sour Sauce.

[SkateZilla]

Blasphemy ;) :D

 

My brother plays w/ Xbox Controller on Game mode. "until he gets a HOTAS" is his excuse.

[SkateZilla]

it'd be nice if I could play Tetris on one of the MFDs while flying the long distance at 250 knts. for 3 hours.

[cichlidfan]

it'd be nice if I could play Tetris on one of the MFDs while flying the long distance at 250 knts. for 3 hours.

 

That's an option for a later Suite, along with Minecraft! ;)

[ishtmail]

DCS:Tetris with AFM for falling bricks? I'd buy that.

[statrekmike]

as for "rapidly changing landscape of DCSW"

 

So you're saying you dont want more people in online servers with more Aircraft?, you dont want more Aircraft being developed w/ AFMs?

 

Trust me, it's a Step forward. More Aircraft with AFMs and available to more users around the world = a better dcs world.

 

 

If you look at my posts, I don't see how you got any of that from my statements at all.

 

Seriously, I am not stupid, I understand that a ton of work is involved in making a DCS Aircraft and (as I have said countless blasted times already) I do understand that adding AFM's to the F-15C and the Su-27 will be but the first step in making them full blown proper simulators.

 

At no point did I say that they should not release the AFM versions of those planes, when I said "a rapidly changing landscape" I was referring to the fact that the May 3rd news release gave us one strong impression (he did have "DCS" in front of both aircraft before it was edited) and then the May 7th news release gave us very unexpected news and worded in a way that was sure to cause some questions to be asked.

 

When that news release came out, we saw a few (myself included) express some concern (in more often than not a very polite and diplomatic way) over the implications of said news and what it means in the long run.

 

So, I say again, I don't know where you got this idea that I don't want more planes for DCS World, if you read my posts in this thread you will plainly see that I have no issue with the release of these new modules and I fully understand that they are only the first part of a larger product.

 

If I do have one major concern, I suppose it is just that I don't want to buy the module with just the AFM and then have to pay full price for the module again when it gets it's full DCS treatment.

 

Hopefully that clears things up once and for all, I am tired of being treated like I want to hurt ED just because I was a bit disappointed by the May 7th news.

[SkateZilla]

i used your line as a reference (for people. that dont want another F-15C Module, and wanted/expected a DCS Fidelity one first.) nothing against anything you've said or posted. The questions were aimed at a group, not a individual.

 

that and yeah, i kinda skipped a few pages, apologies.

Edited May 9, 2013 by SkateZilla