Product Type Survey (forum vote)

[dotChuckles]

I think this really needs a "Both" option.

 

There is room in the market to support casual and hardcore alike. I think we may be guilty of a little elitism when it comes to flight simming.

 

"This isn't arcady trash like H.A.W.X"

 

It been thrown around here a few times, but what people forget is a game like HAWX is a gateway drug ;-). If it gets some gamer into aviation they are going to want more. It serves it's purpose, and that is to feed gamers into casual flight sims like FC, which lets be fair, in some respect isn't that casual.

 

Without, FC you wouldn't have DCS and without those arcade shooters like HAWX and Strike Commander (for those of a certain age) you wouldn't have FC.

 

So lets not be too myopic. Arcade shooters may not be your thing, FC shallow learning curve may also not be your thing. But if you want to feed people into this hobby and allow it to continue and grow to the point where it is economically viable to produce high fidelity home simulation in excess of DCS standards, then we have to have them.

 

It's wonderful that we have the skill and time to dedicate to a DCS title... but not everyone does. Some people need a little hand holding in order to graduate to the "big boys" stuff. Lets not shut people out of the hobby because our egos can't take ED producing lower fidelity products. Don't like them? Simple. Don't use them.

 

This is what brought me into flight simming... (ignore the awful music lol)

 

 

Now if that can start me on a 27 year flight sim career... imagine what FC style products can do.

 

So make both! It's all good in the end.

[evilnate]

As long as ED makes the decisions that continue to make their profits grow, I am happy.

 

After they improve the core module enough to allow reduced development cycle times for all content (modules, terrain) and implement a quality "dynamic" campaign, they should be in a good position to rake it in.

[moonbeast]

I agree with dotChuckles and his post.

 

What brought me into flights sims was ACE (Air Combat Emulator) during the 80s when I was a kid and what a fine "sim" that was too.

[Wolf Rider]

Their money talks.

 

That is does... However, it can lead to a skewed demograph unless they (the silent ones) are reached out to for comment (such as the use of the social media recently) and make comment.

If the current point being made by some "FC is an entry level event leading to taking up the hi fidelity option" (which in itself is a fair point) This should, I assume, show up in sales figures.

 

A lot of people bought CFS3 and CoD, yet neither can be claimed as successful or silence of comment as a statement on usage.

[GGTharos]

It does show up in sales figures. For some it's an entry point, for others (the majority) it's what they wanted.

[Wolf Rider]

It does show up in sales figures. For some it's an entry point, for others (the majority) it's what they wanted.

 

cool... no need for polling then, is there? :smilewink:

[Suchacz]

What brought me into flights sims was ACE (Air Combat Emulator) during the 80s when I was a kid and what a fine "sim" that was too.

Exactly, me too :thumbup: ...and Tomahawk

Their money talks.

Yes, the one and only relevant indicator for making decisions abut the future direction of developing modules.

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.

Agree. Active members of this forum are only the top of the iceberg above the ocean of all sim-pilots :smilewink:

[GGTharos]

Polling has its uses too.

 

cool... no need for polling then, is there? :smilewink:

[Wolf Rider]

lol, back to square one :thumbup:

[ec-swr]

High-Fidelity modules of course

[jmod]

Although it's quit clear what the community wants, ED claims the record shows mid-quality Lock On Series is a success!

If this is true, there are lots of other things which can affect the results.

1) Lock On contains some fighters, so, for example, you have to buy Lock On to have Su-27!

2) There is no DCS: Fighter, so, people buy Lock On to have at least some sort of fighters!

3) The community buys Lock On to support ED for DCS: Fighters

 

And a lot more!

So, please don't judge base on some raw results!

 

Anyway, thankfully 3rd parties (especially Belsimtek) got what is desired!

Edited May 28, 2013 by jmod

[skouras]

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

:thumbup:

[moonbeast]

Exactly, me too :thumbup: ...and Tomahawk

 

Yes, the one and only relevant indicator for making decisions abut the future direction of developing modules.

 

Agree. Active members of this forum are only the top of the iceberg above the ocean of all sim-pilots :smilewink:

 

 

Ah yes I forgot about Tomahawk with its wireframe graphics.

 

If I rememebr rightly you could only access the sim by using some kind of plastic device which you placed onto the screen. This then showed you the code to gain access into the sim!!

[Frostie]

What do you want ED to give you: a slice of cake, yummm.. or a whole cake.. ermm, I think i'll take the big one please, thankyou.

[SkateZilla]

did I hear something about Cake?, I'm Hungry, I'll take a slice of Cake.

[Jona33]

Although it's quit clear what the community wants, ED claims the record shows mid-quality Lock On Series is a success!

If this is true, there are lots of other things which can affect the results.

1) Lock On contains some fighters, so, for example, you have to buy Lock On to have Su-27!

2) There is no DCS: Fighter, so, people buy Lock On to have at least some sort of fighters!

3) The community buys Lock On to support ED for DCS: Fighters

 

No, it's quite clear that out of 316 people High Fidelity is "better". If that is the number of games ED sold I would be worried.

 

So, please don't judge base on some raw results!

 

Uuuh, not quite sure how to respond to that one there. What else are they going to base it on, and how is this poll anything but "raw results"?

[Suchacz]

did I hear something about Cake?, I'm Hungry, I'll take a slice of Cake.

The cake is a lie :megalol:

 

I didn't heard that for a looooong time...

[Haukka81]

MY important things for good flightsim:

 

1. Flight model (we fly FLIGHTsim, yes ? )

 

2.Immersion (radio talk, living world, good briefings , menus etc.. )

 

3.Good campaing/career system (dcs needs this badly)

 

4.Realistic weapon systems

 

5.Good multiplayer system

 

6.Button, clic,clic cockpit (less important, without good reason to learn its just nice as exel.. )

 

 

Those are my toughts.. :)

 

 

-haukka81

[GodsPrototype]

I bought FC3 simply because it contained the only fighters in DCS. It's not really my style, but I enjoy flying it once in a while, simply because i've got the need for speed. I wish ED could just get us some more high fidelity, because I won't buy any more Flaming Cliffs or mid fidelity aircraft. I want the real deal! Please ED! Give is high fidelity!

[VapoR]

MY important things for good flightsim:

 

1. Flight model (we fly FLIGHTsim, yes ? )

 

2.Immersion (radio talk, living world, good briefings , menus etc.. )

 

3.Good campaing/career system (dcs needs this badly)

 

4.Realistic weapon systems

 

5.Good multiplayer system

 

6.Button, clic,clic cockpit (less important, without good reason to learn its just nice as exel.. )

 

 

Those are my toughts.. :)

 

 

-haukka81

 

 

Perfect post!

 

+1 to this!

 

Sadly 2, 3, and 5 are ED's weak areas. But they ROCK at 1, 4, and 6!

[xXNightEagleXx]

MY important things for good flightsim:

 

1. Flight model (we fly FLIGHTsim, yes ? )

 

2.Immersion (radio talk, living world, good briefings , menus etc.. )

 

3.Good campaing/career system (dcs needs this badly)

 

4.Realistic weapon systems

 

5.Good multiplayer system

 

6.Button, clic,clic cockpit (less important, without good reason to learn its just nice as exel.. )

 

 

Those are my toughts.. :)

 

 

-haukka81

 

+1

 

and i add

 

7. More realistic missions. I hate the first a10c campaign mission. Do you really think that with enemies close to the airbase they would leave aircraft in the base...no way this isn't a capture the flag where if you conquer the base you can use all vehicles of that base. I hate situation where you take off, fly a 20mn and attack....so boring.......(yeah for me the more arcade the more boring). Worst is the trigger system, very boring and unrealistic, it should be a plus not the fundamentals. For last but not least, I will repeat till the end a good base is falcon 4 which has its defects, but an improved version would be the best, obviously it would mean a better map in terms of dimension and land area (you can pretend to generate real nav plan if the map is small and most of it is water).

[primus_TR]

In my opinion, high fidelity systems simulation is the main, perhaps the sole, selling point for ED products. If ED are intent in going with making lo-fi sims as their core line, they better begin worrying about improving gameplay value of their products.

[Napa]

Numbers on the poll show it all. A whooping 96% for High fidelity sims. But numbers on the income sheet could be showing a different result???

[Dejjvid]

The Facebook comments are 99% hi fi. Either ED is lacking two way communication with lo fi customers, or the statistics guy/woman perhaps need to re evaluate WHY FC3 sell more copies.

 

I know I'm not alone when I wrote earlier that I bought FC3 only to support ED financially.

I still only play and enjoy A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D and the Huey. IMHO, I payed 50$ for a nice icon in the module manager, and I'm fine with that. As long as ED don't take my 50$ as a vote for lo fi sims.

 

But I've learned by my mistake. I will never spend another dollar on ED's lo fi products.

[OttoPus]

Let's state another underestimated concept: people who wants to "play" with modern combat jets, need also eye-candy.

 

I think this is the success key of titles like HAWX or AceCombat, and they are very good at-it.

 

We should not pursue that road, IMHO.