Product Type Survey (forum vote)

[JG14_Smil]

Thank you Timekilla for this vote. It lets me be heard.

 

I know it is for nothing, though.

[Sarge55]

Thanks for starting the thread, I don't use FB either.

[TimeKilla]

Well, the result of this poll is hardly shocking.

Also, the result is completely irrelevant as it stands to reason that this forum is not even close to representing the overall customer base of ED products.

 

Well take a look at Facebook then.

 

True 159th_Viper, I cant edit it in either mate.

 

Np guys. :thumbup:

[johnnychemo]

I'm going to add my voice to the "both" category!

I like my A-10 and Black Shark, but FC3 is fun too.

[Witchking]

C. (Likes both very detailed and less realistic versions)

 

I agree. A-10C like detail is awesome. But sometimes I do enjoy more Su25, Su25T style AFM with less detailed avionics when I just want to blow stuff up.

[The_Pharoah]

One issue with the options - the first option says 'detailed simulation BUT HAS A STEEP LEARNING CURVE'...making it look like we WANT a steep learning curve. This isn't the case. I'm sure most of us would prefer a shallow learning curve, not because we'd like to spend hours pouring over manuals to get a type rating, but because we need to understand it. If you can combine high fidelity/complex sims with shallower learning curves, you'd be onto a winner.

 

Remember, this is a sim about flying a/c (mostly except for CA) and how to effectively employ combat systems, not a 'how to spend $60 on studying'.

[winz]

Both.

Also the quality of content has a huge effect on how much I enjoy a module. I.e. the DCS A-10C is a marvelously simulated airframa, but the buggy, medicore campaigns kinda prevented me to enjoy it fully.

On the other hand, the Deployment campaign in Black Shark was exceptional and each DCS module should have such high quality campaign.

[Para_Bellum]

I have only very little interest in FC3-level aircraft anymore.

 

I would only buy future FC3-level releases if the aircraft in question would be something I just need to have. Say, like a Tornado. ;)

[Hotarubi]

They already know what the forums want, now they're interested in the other shares of the community - less active, more casual simmers :)

 

You inspired me to support you and ED.

I dunno what's the big deal. Let those people have their way of gameplay.

Those who say things like "It's far faster and easier for them to engage, thus putting us rest to disadvantage" - you should thing how much serious planning and tactics those people use? They usualy end up as "live fast, die young, be a nice hole in the runway".

And then they either quit, or start learning, get interested, buy DCS level modules.

That gives ED more money to develop DCS modules, gives us more people to play with (and kill them occasionaly - in sim)... When DCS fix the network/server problems, when it fully transfers to x64, when all the problems that prevent servers from having 40-ish players are solved - who will play? 100 of us on 30 servers?

[moonbeast]

Just voted on this survey.

 

For me it has to be high fidelity simulations otherwise I'm not interested.

 

I enjoy a flight simulations complexity, flight model, realistic procedures, etc etc.

 

If I wanted low fidelity I would chose Hawk or the Ace Combat series of arcade games (which funnily enough isn't me).

[moonbeast]

My personal opinion is that the golden years of flights sims was during the 90s with the likes of the Janes series and Falcon 4.

 

Thanks to ED and other developers we are now having a re-emergence of those years.

[Moburma]

Unfortunately it's laregely irrelevant what people on here want - the recent kerfuffle with FC3/the non DCS standard F-15 and Su-27 modules show that ED have reason to believe that there's a much bigger market for more arcadey sims than DCS level ones - or at least the sheer effort required for DCS level just isn't cost effective considering the size of the market. That really sucks as let's face it, DCS is now pretty the much the pinnacle of the military flight sim, but it seems people just aren't buying them.

 

I can't help but point the finger somewhat at ED though. The aggressive slashing of the P-51's price in the recent sales (presumably because no one bought it at the original price) seem to vindicate the somewhat prevalent community reaction of "why on earth did they make this?" It's a really cool module, but there's so little to actually do with it in the current sim. I think their aim to work in all eras of air combat is a laudable one, but they need to consolidate what they've got already before spreading themselves thin in this way. And that generally means modern-ish era fighters.

 

EDGE could alleviate this in a big way - I could see a third party producing a WW2 pacific theater map and a proper P-51 campaign and ED just have to sit back and let the money roll in. But at the moment, who wants to fly WW2 planes around a modern day Georgia?

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

Confusing? So having Game Mode is making the sim too complicated for you? :doh:

:lol:

[hollywoodvillain]

Confusing? So having Game Mode is making the sim too complicated for you? :doh:

 

:lol:

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Dangit You beat me to the punch!

[Milorg]

Are the FC3 aircraft really as "arcadey" as claimed? Like the SU-25 with AFM and all? My impression is that you just do the same things with key-combos in FC3 (SU-25 on my part) that you would click switches to do in the proper DCS.

 

I guess systems are modelled more in depth.

 

This is just a shot from the hip, go easy on me if I'm completely off :D

[GGTharos]

They aren't, but I guess some people feel superior by claiming so. Try HAWX/ACE COMBAT and you'll see what an arcade flight game is like. FC is a flight sim, even with the AFM and no clickable cockpits.

 

The way some people use the A-10C is pretty arcady I'd say, but they like to claim 'study simism' because it has a clickable cockpit and AFM ;)

 

Are the FC3 aircraft really as "arcadey" as claimed?

[Rotorhead]

I think this thread is a little bit pointless (no offense). Because it's pretty obvious what people on this forum want, even without a poll.

 

But still, I added my vote too just for the heck of it. :)

[NineLine]

I cant vote for all of the above.

[Feuerfalke]

First I didn't want to vote. I like both.

 

I voted for DCS-Level, though, as I fly them mostly.

 

However, I also see the need for entry-level-planes and I also enjoy flying them as well.

[TimeKilla]

I think this thread is a little bit pointless (no offense). Because it's pretty obvious what people on this forum want, even without a poll.

 

I totally get what you mean and thought the same but take a look at the Facebook poll, It's not just people on this forum that want high fed if it was then Facebook would show something different but it does not.

 

I think DCS should allow users to vote for both then we might see something different.

[Wolf Rider]

I don't. ED obviously has, but I'm 99% sure we'll never know, nor are we entitled to them.

 

Fact is that the FC series has to date been the most successful, as confirmed by Matt himself:

 

 

 

Why bother with a winning formula?

 

 

not nit picking or anything, or to you or anyone else personally... but "silent users" can't be used as for or against, or in support of (or not), one way or the other. "Silent users" are just that - silent.

[Rotorhead]

I totally get what you mean and thought the same but take a look at the Facebook poll, It's not just people on this forum that want high fed if it was then Facebook would show something different but it does not.

 

Sorry, haven't looked there. I'm staying safely away from that contraption some like to call Social Network, and I'm pretty happy that way. So you are saying that peeps on FB are voting for high fidelity too? That would be indeed good for us, but there's still issue with (majority of?) DCS users who are not registered neither on Facebook, nor here.

 

not nit picking or anything, or to you or anyone else personally... but "silent users" can't be used as for or against, or in support of (or not), one way or the other. "Silent users" are just that - silent.

 

Well maybe they are silent, but their money is as same as worth as ours, isn't it? If most of ED's income comes from mid-fidelity modules, it surely means something?

 

If it was just me, ED wouldn't waste any single minute developing mid-fidelity modules, but it's money what matters, not our personal wishes.

[GGTharos]

Their money talks.

 

not nit picking or anything, or to you or anyone else personally... but "silent users" can't be used as for or against, or in support of (or not), one way or the other. "Silent users" are just that - silent.

[SkateZilla]

smh...... Polls way one thing, Sales say another..... smh.... or FC Players just dont visit the forums.... or facebook...

[Miro]

You always can fly in arcade mode DCS type Aircrafts, so DCS planes are better for me. You want study sim - play study, You wand some fun, an blowing stuff - change some options and here You go :thumbup:

 

i forgot... very nice option is A-10 two variants :smilewink: You wanna blow up some stuff take version A, wanna some very realistic actions - take C. Both have nice cockpit, both have AFM, very good solution! For pilots and for servers, if server is realistic missionmaker picking C, if server is for fun missionmaker picking A

Edited May 27, 2013 by Miro