Product Type Survey (forum vote)

[Wolf Rider]

 

I entered DCS through LOMAC, and the medium fidelity product was a good 'gateway drug' ( I think that's how my girlfriend would see it :) ) that led on to a more serious habit...

 

To expand on the above, but in not addressing the above - A lot of us bought LOMAC, as it was head and shoulders above what was already in existence out there in the market place, and was jets and stuck with the series... though, in this instance, sticking with the series (chances are the modules would have been bought even if A10-C/ KA-50 was FC level and DCS: XXx-X had never come along) can't really be called a "gateway experience". More realistically, it would be MSFS, etc, receiving the gateway label.

 

Having said that, it is reasonable to assume that people will (with DCS: and FC options available) that some will buy FC and then move on to include DCS: in their games livery, much the same as some will come over from other sims, in search of something more. Liking it from there, they could move into the current set up - that of sandbox and modules.

 

It seems that "upstairs" realises it is at a crossroad, ears are being gotten into using assumptions made and the ship is in a bit of direction fog with JM's passing on. In this regard it should be kept in mind that there should be a clear delineation between what is DCS: and what is FC and 3rd party modellers should adhere to that distinction (fudging of the line - not allowed).

 

The last thing anyone wants to see is to have the series dragged down to FSX level, or to a situation of having to buy a gunsight, separate to the aircraft

[Frostie]

The Su25T is an extremely simple model: you turn the engines on with a key combination (that is already laughable) and you're in the sky, how do you feel the realism by pressing SHIFT+HOME, put your trust to max and going in the sky? Are we playing Ace combat?

Shift+Home starts both engines of the Su-25T while in the A-10C you can press RWin+Home to do a complete start up, both quicker starts than normal.

 

In the Su-25T you use a keystroke to turn the power on, then another keystroke to turn the left engine on and then another keystroke to turn the right engine on. This is part of a survey sim the main avionic systems are sorted for you and ready to use. So how is it laughable when after power on, apu start up and fuel switch on you turn both engines over in the A-10C the exact same way, left engine (RAlt+Home), right engine (RCtrl+Home). Simpler to do a complete start up yes, but not laughable.

 

And I can assure you if you put the thrust to the max and then expected to be automatically catapulted into the sky you'd be in for a hell of a surprise, the Su-25T is harder to take off and land than the A-10C imo.

If you really think flying the Toad and operating it is so simple and gamey then you're kidding yourself.

[Pigmachine]

Shift+Home starts both engines of the Su-25T while in the A-10C you can press RWin+Home to do a complete start up, both quicker starts than normal.

 

In the Su-25T you use a keystroke to turn the power on, then another keystroke to turn the left engine on and then another keystroke to turn the right engine on. This is part of a survey sim the main avionic systems are sorted for you and ready to use. So how is it laughable when after power on, apu start up and fuel switch on you turn both engines over in the A-10C the exact same way, left engine (RAlt+Home), right engine (RCtrl+Home). Simpler to do a complete start up yes, but not laughable.

 

And I can assure you if you put the thrust to the max and then expected to be automatically catapulted into the sky you'd be in for a hell of a surprise, the Su-25T is harder to take off and land than the A-10C imo.

If you really think flying the Toad and operating it is so simple and gamey then you're kidding yourself.

 

Agree on the landing.. never crashed a Warthog during landing.. not even when overweight and fully loaded.. but got a few toad crashes on my record!

[pepin1234]

Vikhr Launch procedure with the hardcore Ka-50 and FC3 Su-25T

 

Ka-50

1- Marter arms on

Su-25T

1- Marter arms on= we do with 7 key

 

Ka-50

2- Laser on

Su-25T

2- Laser on=we do with Rshift+O

 

Ka-50

3- automatic turn to target on

Su-25T

3- automatic turn to target on=Alt+6

 

Ka-50

4- ground target moving on

Su-25T

4- not applicable

 

Ka-50

5- external pilons on

Su-25T

5- external pilons on=we do with D key

 

Ka-50

6- helmet mounted Divise on

Su-25T

6- not applicable

 

 

The only difference I see here, we have not clickable Cockpit.

 

Is time for renovation our Su-25T? Yes we all know that

 

When? :D

Edited May 30, 2013 by pepin1234

[Dejjvid]

Rofl, you only forgot the 49 steps to get the Ka-50 started, airborne and weapon systems activated... ;)

[pepin1234]

Rofl, you only forgot the 49 steps to get the Ka-50 started, airborne and weapon systems activated... ;)

 

also possible with Win+home key. Lot of People do not start in Simulation mode, so...

[SFAL]

This is a FLAMING WAR. :)

 

 

I voted for study level becouse i got to know how to fly the shark after a looooong time in game mode.

I fly fc3 now since its action is fast... but.. regardless what you all think there is a 3rd avanue that has just not been touched on. Here is it... wait.... wait....

 

SCENARIO!!! Yes one tiny thing. We ALL can argue what level of fidelity your AC needs to be if the enviroment is emm... shalow.

The C stands for COMBAT... and im thinking of the mission edditors potencial... i personaly suck at triggers but no matter what fidelity the AC is the SP and MP enviroment is sterile!!

 

Just think about it.. after 10-15 trys you know whats where etc...

 

What i like to have from ED are comlex missions with ACTUAL MILITARY ADVISORS to help draw up a mission

I said this before modern SAM systems DONT group in a 400m radius just to name one thing..

 

So while you all bitterly fight over clickable cockpits i peraonaly lime to have a battelfield that is alive!!!

 

Better awacs cntrol... radio chater that gives you the sence of being part of tbe operation... airtrafic...

 

Hell i would PAY ED to make it happen and get is as a module add on or just better the game onit own.

 

And a friken dedicated server to host 50 combatant

Edited May 30, 2013 by SFAL

[Haukka81]

I know that new gamers are all for arcade... and may people doesn't understand that a modern aircraft is a not a couple of wings with a engine, but (more important) a mix of electronic instruments. I also know it "makes" more money nowadays, so I understand your point of view if you want just a button to push to be in the air to "shot things" (if we look at the number of the console ppl.. you have your answer), but again this is a simulator, if it's just a matter of money, they could tell us the truth.. and we'll move away, leaving it to the "hey look mum, i'm flying" type of gamers.

 

...And when my eyes are forced to read something like: "this is not a cockpit trainer" (while the cockpit is the environment that links the pilot to the "machine") my arms falls...

 

 

Hey, maybe it's just my bad english but if you think that i am "new" for sims or like arcade you may be wrong.

 

Here is my simpit: http://aijaa.com/aOlFAX I take my sims full real, but i still know that i play complex (simulation)game. :music_whistling:

 

So i just hope that ed will get more game side to dcs, so i have good REASON to use my every single button :megalol:

 

 

-haukka81

[npole]

Maybe it's just my bad english but if you think that i am "new" for sims

 

It doesn't matter from how long you play videogames.. if you like arcades by 20 years, it's not that buying DCS will make you automagically a "hardcore simmer". When someone says that the cockpit isn't important in a sim, what you would ecpect? ;)

Cheers.

[GGTharos]

What makes you a hardcore simmer?

[shagrat]

High-Fidelity modules would not exist without FC-Fidelity modules. At the end of the day, cater to the most popular, which is FC-Fidelity. Oh yes, hasten to add that popularity cannot be objectively measured by forum feedback. Sales figures would probably be more indicative I would have thought.

Just to mention it. I bought EVERY module until now, to support ED in their labor to provide state of the art high fidelity sims.

Does this mean my and propably others "supportive" buying of FC3 actually will have a negative impact on DCS titles!?:huh:

 

Well, simply to test the potential of high fidelity sims, try selling a DCS title at 100 EUR and see how many hardcore simmers pay that and then do your math.

 

One movie in the cinema 10 EUR minimum equals 2 hours fun.

So 100 EUR spent in cinemas equals 20 hours fun.

 

DCS Huey learning to take off alone equals 30-40 hours fun, so $50 is a hell of a bargain?

 

If revenue is the problem for DCS Modules, try realistic prices? :D

[Pigmachine]

What makes you a hardcore simmer?

 

A good and realistic sim.. and all the time in the world!?

[Wolf Rider]

 

~ try realistic prices? :D

 

 

 

Prices are realistic, considering DCS currently self publish, and with that, no publisher forced regionalisation with prices either.

A high price does not the better sim make... look at il2: CoD; FSX for example.

 

Speaking of publisher... something which may throw sales figures askew is having to have the earlier 'under the publisher's control' sim in order to have the current FC3

Edited May 30, 2013 by Wolf Rider
I need a new A key

[Daze]

If only I had £1 for every time I've answered a poll/question like this one on here...

[shagrat]

A high price does not the better sim make...

Well, the argument was FC3 sales gave the financial ressources to develop DCS class sim modules. In turn we may see more FC3 class stuff to finance DCS, a logical conclusion is: DCS titles are too cheap! They can't source development of more DCS titles, without cross-financing from FC class titles.

From the price aspect there is the question is 5 EUR per hour of entertainment too much? If yes, why do people watch non-interactive movies at the cinemas?

If 5 EUR is a reasonable price for one hour of entertainment, why is it different if it is a sim/game?

I know I'm trolling a little bit, but if you think about it, it's a real interesting question?

 

And Angry birds or other games are for free or at least less than a dollar... so compared to "other games" even $10 is totally overprized if you fall for that argument :D

[Wolf Rider]

Well, the argument was FC3 sales gave the financial ressources to develop DCS class sim modules. In turn we may see more FC3 class stuff to finance DCS, a logical conclusion is: DCS titles are too cheap! They can't source development of more DCS titles, without cross-financing from FC class titles.

From the price aspect there is the question is 5 EUR per hour of entertainment too much? If yes, why do people watch non-interactive movies at the cinemas?

 

A "logical" response to that is; The theatre manager increases the amount of pre feature film screening advertising run to cover the cost of screening A grade movies.

(the moral of the quoted premise is; try not to confuse "logical" with "hypothetical" :smilewink: )

 

Please Shagrat, tell us the tale of how DCS: product came about in the first place

 

 

If 5 EUR is a reasonable price for one hour of entertainment, why is it different if it is a sim/game?

I know I'm trolling a little bit, but if you think about it, it's a real interesting question?

 

And Angry birds or other games are for free or at least less than a dollar... so compared to "other games" even $10 is totally overprized if you fall for that argument :D

 

I don't believe anybody is saying stop FC3 development, in favour of DCS: product development and like wise, there is no real want for DCS: product development to cease... the question of the original FB survey was which they bought and why, so lets not go getting lost in academia inspired fanciful argument, Sales figures alone, as it is turning out from comments made is not an accurate basis to form direction from.

[Frostie]

So according to you, lo-fi customers do not like ED on Facebook. And thus, ED is lacking two communication with that group of customers.

 

That is some strange logic, you seem to want to bracket everyone into two categories, those that hate FC and those that love only FC. What about people that enjoy both flavours but due to the obvious dearth in hi fi simulation want to see more, which I'm sure accounts for a lot of people in the poll.

Also I'm pretty sure that the majority of people if not all on these forums that enjoy FC3 don't want a FC type sim, less realistic and with a shallow learning curve, on the contrary they've wanted a more advanced, realistic and steeper learning curve with FC for the past 9 years.

 

In every game there are the dedicated portion that lurk in forums and follow fansites etc. Those that do so with FC are not going to be your run of the mill quick play gamers they will be dedicated learners and will always enjoy a challenge be it hi fi or current FC fidelity. Like it or not FC does require dedication and time.

 

In the popularity stakes the requirement for quick thrills entertainment prevails over anything that takes up more than 10 mins to learn. FC is the stepping stone to commiting to complex gaming which requires some patience and time. Flight sims are never going to be world class in popularity because of this nature. So naturally the big bucks is made with casual gamers who just look at FC as something they can dedicate a couple of hours to amongst their many other games that they play more often, you can't communicate with those that are not really too interested.

[xXNightEagleXx]

Just to mention it. I bought EVERY module until now, to support ED in their labor to provide state of the art high fidelity sims.

Does this mean my and propably others "supportive" buying of FC3 actually will have a negative impact on DCS titles!?:huh:

 

Well, simply to test the potential of high fidelity sims, try selling a DCS title at 100 EUR and see how many hardcore simmers pay that and then do your math.

 

One movie in the cinema 10 EUR minimum equals 2 hours fun.

So 100 EUR spent in cinemas equals 20 hours fun.

 

DCS Huey learning to take off alone equals 30-40 hours fun, so $50 is a hell of a bargain?

 

If revenue is the problem for DCS Modules, try realistic prices? :D

 

Sorry but at this stage none of the DCS worth more than 40 $. The price is a result of many aspect :

 

- Publisher, without publisher a product must be lesser

- Realism, realistic games are way more expensive for many reason

- Features, obviously a game with less features are way cheaper (eg. it is pretty faster and cheaper to implement scripted missions than a whole dynamic engine)

- Graphics, this topic is so complex because it is not only a matter of the final result but also how you get it (proprietary engine or external engine, both have its own cost and it is not obvious which one is more expensive)

- PERFORMANCE, well it doesn't matter how candy eye the game is or how realistic the game is, as a programmer and as all my old teach said everything can be optimized and the result can be very close to a completely complex path. DCS IS NOT OPTIMIZED PROPERLY! NOT EVEN CLOSE!

- Fun, this topic is really complex when it comes to simulators. Some have fun when playing realistic games others when playing arcade but very active games.

 

I might be forgetting some point but by taking in considerations these I could say that for publisher and realism (for some modules) DCS is doing more than fine, as for the graphics which is very candy eye (maybe too much if not took in consideration COMBINED ARMS).

Things start to get worse when it comes to features and more important PERFORMANCE. Simulation is not only provided by avionics but also from environment (it is not a real war scenario where you take off, fly 30 mn, attack, fly more 30 mn, attack, fly 20 mn and land....c'mon real flight plans take much more, so scripted mission in a small map just sucks for me).

Performance? It isn't necessary too many words, we all have seen that it sucks. I guess that the team lack of an engineering approach, resulting in poor code optimization.

Fun? It is up to each one because each has its own taste.

 

In conclusion, i paid 40 $ for A10C, unfortunately i didn't know that DCS world was free thus to try it first, because for sure i wouldn't have bought this game although there are some amazing things in it. I just hope for big improvements but as a programmer who works for a very big company i had enough experience to realize that if the team lacks of some sort of approach then there isn't much to hope for, they might improve but hardly will be enough, unless the team make a complete U turn and maybe also hire someone with experience in code optimization

Edited June 1, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx

[shagrat]

Please Shagrat, tell us the tale of how DCS: product came about in the first place

That's easy! Eagle Dynamics is producing military grade simulation software in the first place. The DCS A-10C "module" was developed, to train the US Air National Guard Pilots during adaption trainings from the A-10A to the C model. Luckily ED negotiated to publish a non-military high-fidelity version... that is how we got a DCS Level A-10C for $60 rather than a lo fidelity one for $100 what I guess would never have covered the development effort, anyway.

That is why I believe we will change very little by ranting and barking up the tree, for features etc.

I believe ED will continue with DCS as long as they have ressources and contracts permit, but still there might be more going on in the background than simple Simulation Games for the public. And as long as they continue shelving out DCS Class Simulation modules, it's fine with me.

 

Sorry but at this stage none of the DCS worth more than 40 $. The price is a result of many aspect :

Well, as I said, I do a bit of trolling here, but the simple fact remains: $5 for one hour of entertainment! Is it a fair price or not? If you answer "yes", if every module gives you more than 8 hours fun when flying/using it is well worth $40... If your answer is "no" then you probably don't go to the cinemas (It's not worth the money)?:D

 

Another simple fact: Many luxury or high class products are too expensive for most people to be afforded. I would like cheap Ferraries or Rolls Royce either, or cheaper healthy food for everybody... :music_whistling:

Maybe the problem is that you don't have enough money to buy it at that price, which in turn leads you to the conclusion "that-it's-not-worth-$40" for you?

 

For me every module is worth $50-$60, and trust me, if I could speed up development for a Eurofighter Typhoon at DCS level, or a AH-64 Apache, I would pay $100 in the blink of an eye...

 

This forum is pretty full of this very discussion again and again. "It's to expensive! It's not worth the money! It has performance issues and ED needs to include <put whatever whish you have here>!"

 

The weird thing is, people complain about prices and still buy FSX modules for $60 plus with inferior quality without a problem. People complain about performance, but still buy any GTA, Battlefield, CoD Title and update their GPU boards for that, but complain DCS is not getting better performance, yet the CPU heavy Sim does not need upgrade of the GFX Cards.

 

IF you guys think that DCS Series is not worth the money, or lacking whatever, why don't you go and buy any alternative "realistic" Combat simulation you like? Any of the "better" products should do!

Go buy a high fidelity Combat Flight simulation like... eh, wait, ehm, maybe ArmA III with its huuuge Maps for fast combat jets?

Or how about Battlefield XVII with its nice realistic "ShootMe! Here I am" Target markers?

Or World of Tanks with its ultra realistic ground combat representation?

Or you may fly the Apache in Combat Helo... Ok, you may need to wait until it is available somewhere next(?) year?

Or Steel Beasts Pro, utterly realistic with its state of the art graphics?

Or buy FSX with Acceleration pack and a bunch of cheapy $50 Add-Ons that hopefully support weapon modelling and may be even targets?

Or Falcon BMS if you have a legal copy of original 90ies Falcon 4.0? ...from my point of view the only real alternative to DCS at the moment.

 

There are so many "alternatives" available, you don't have to buy a DCS title you deem unworthy of your money.

 

But please, allow us other folks to like DCS and its fidelity, the attractive pricing for a 50 hours plus entertainment package per module and point us to a good alternative if you know one, so we can try it and compare it to DCS. :thumbup:

Edited June 2, 2013 by shagrat

[element1108]

Super High Fidelity Simulation Modern Modules, not WWI, or WWII ones!

 

I don't even like having Game Mode ether.

So, would you please stop supporting Game Mode, it's confusing!

 

1) Super High Fidelity

2) Full Functional Clickable Cockpit (even Mirrors, and IFF)!

3) Cockpit Damage Model

4) Advanced Flight Model

 

What's wrong with scalability? :pilotfly:

[PFunk]

I fly DCS aircraft exclusively in Game Mode and appreciate their supporting people who have families, jobs, and time commitments that don't allow us to invest as much time as people without those burdens.

 

DCS game avionics in A-10C were outstanding and I have hope they will continue to to support people like me.

[71st_Mastiff]

Problem is this survey is not well suited. I like both on the weekend I have time to devote in cockpit study sim on week days I have time for FC3 style of aircraft. :thumbup:

 

I would hope to see DCS F15c AFM but with the easy of FC3? make since?

 

:joystick:

[Evilducky]

I vote for both. I enjoy flying the 25 (over took the 25T cause because of the super cool 3D cockpit. Just to beautiful.) just as much as the A-10. But the aircraft from here on out need to have the 6DOF 3D pits and AFM at the very least to be any fun for me any more. If they have just that with FC3 avionics, ill support that plane if its one that I want to fly. I dont need the super detailed version to have fun. :)

[Cedaway]

All in or nothing!

 

...

Look at the awful movies top gun, the migs are Tigers for gods sake!

...

 

(Fixed. Sorry, 'm out =====>)

[xXNightEagleXx]

That's easy! Eagle Dynamics is producing military grade simulation software in the first place. The DCS A-10C "module" was developed, to train the US Air National Guard Pilots during adaption trainings from the A-10A to the C model. Luckily ED negotiated to publish a non-military high-fidelity version... that is how we got a DCS Level A-10C for $60 rather than a lo fidelity one for $100 what I guess would never have covered the development effort, anyway.

That is why I believe we will change very little by ranting and barking up the tree, for features etc.

I believe ED will continue with DCS as long as they have ressources and contracts permit, but still there might be more going on in the background than simple Simulation Games for the public. And as long as they continue shelving out DCS Class Simulation modules, it's fine with me.

 

Well, as I said, I do a bit of trolling here, but the simple fact remains: $5 for one hour of entertainment! Is it a fair price or not? If you answer "yes", if every module gives you more than 8 hours fun when flying/using it is well worth $40... If your answer is "no" then you probably don't go to the cinemas (It's not worth the money)?:D

 

Another simple fact: Many luxury or high class products are too expensive for most people to be afforded. I would like cheap Ferraries or Rolls Royce either, or cheaper healthy food for everybody... :music_whistling:

Maybe the problem is that you don't have enough money to buy it at that price, which in turn leads you to the conclusion "that-it's-not-worth-$40" for you?

 

For me every module is worth $50-$60, and trust me, if I could speed up development for a Eurofighter Typhoon at DCS level, or a AH-64 Apache, I would pay $100 in the blink of an eye...

 

This forum is pretty full of this very discussion again and again. "It's to expensive! It's not worth the money! It has performance issues and ED needs to include <put whatever whish you have here>!"

 

The weird thing is, people complain about prices and still buy FSX modules for $60 plus with inferior quality without a problem. People complain about performance, but still buy any GTA, Battlefield, CoD Title and update their GPU boards for that, but complain DCS is not getting better performance, yet the CPU heavy Sim does not need upgrade of the GFX Cards.

 

IF you guys think that DCS Series is not worth the money, or lacking whatever, why don't you go and buy any alternative "realistic" Combat simulation you like? Any of the "better" products should do!

Go buy a high fidelity Combat Flight simulation like... eh, wait, ehm, maybe ArmA III with its huuuge Maps for fast combat jets?

Or how about Battlefield XVII with its nice realistic "ShootMe! Here I am" Target markers?

Or World of Tanks with its ultra realistic ground combat representation?

Or you may fly the Apache in Combat Helo... Ok, you may need to wait until it is available somewhere next(?) year?

Or Steel Beasts Pro, utterly realistic with its state of the art graphics?

Or buy FSX with Acceleration pack and a bunch of cheapy $50 Add-Ons that hopefully support weapon modelling and may be even targets?

Or Falcon BMS if you have a legal copy of original 90ies Falcon 4.0? ...from my point of view the only real alternative to DCS at the moment.

 

There are so many "alternatives" available, you don't have to buy a DCS title you deem unworthy of your money.

 

But please, allow us other folks to like DCS and its fidelity, the attractive pricing for a 50 hours plus entertainment package per module and point us to a good alternative if you know one, so we can try it and compare it to DCS. :thumbup:

 

First of all you don't have to be aggressive or sarcastic. My comments were as a gamer but also as a programmer and as a programmer i can clearly say that it does not worth more than that.

Most game are overprices? Surely but it doesn't me that because of that DCS prices are justified.

Second I would pay even 1000 dollar for a valid product if the price are proportional to what it offers (under all point of view).

 

Comparing ARMA and BF is just arrogant because you imply that people are stupid. You place those game in the same category as high fidelity combat flight simulator (if you do that kind of example obviously you do imply it ), i guess that smarter people doesn't. Almost the same for including FSX in your example, whoever who buy it as a combat simulator is just stupid, those addons are just addons and not a whole new product, FSX will still be a civilian simulators.

 

Since you brought FSX as example, well the history has shown that although its price has always been high (except now but only because it went out of official development), it always had good sells (considering that simulators always had a limited amount of customers, the more simulator it is the lower customers it has).

 

Moreover FSX has shown that a non 100% dynamic simulation does not mean bad final product, in fact it is appreciated from professionals. Some prefer X-plane series due to the dynamics simulation but at the same time they still agree that FSX is still a valid simulator. Why have i said that? Because FS series show a very valid engineering approach with code optimization but still realistic behavior. The only defect of a non 100% dynamic code is that it might not allow simulate a non ordinary situation, but at the same time 100% dynamic code might not allow it due to bugs or lack of parameters. Why does it matter? Well in theory the non dynamic provide almost the same result with much less computer power, obviously if the code is poor it will struggle the same way.

 

DCS World shows a huge lack of optimization and the phrase "but it provides a dynamic and realistic behavior compared to eg. Falcon BMS" it is not enough.

 

In conclusion, it is not a matter of a single lack in DCS but putting all together i see no more than 40$ per module. I would and i can pay much more for a valid product but it must be a valid product. Considering its age i would rather pay 200$ for falcon bms than A10C not because falcon bms is better in all points of view (which is not) but because those where it shines are those which provide a good final product even with +10 years of gap. In fact, i play mostly falcon bms although i really wish that someday dcs series improve enough to allow me to put falcon bms behind. I really believe that DCS might archive this target but something must change in many terms.

Edited June 3, 2013 by xXNightEagleXx