Product Type Survey (forum vote)

[Wolf Rider]

no doubt that "eye candy" is very important... its only part of the story though

[Suchacz]

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

Not only them, me too! :thumbup:

[Noj]

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.

 

 

There is a world of difference between the FC titles and the likes of Hawx et al.

 

I don't get people's polarised attitudes. Maybe I should say "selfish" attitudes?

 

If there is a large market for FC type products, where is the problem with DCS making and selling them - especially if it's going to pay for the development of your very niche "High fidelity" aircraft.

 

This "it takes effort away from the HiFi stuff" is a non argument.

 

How much do you think the price for "HiFi" modules is going to go up, if the FC style products are ditched? Saying "I will pay more" is also a blinkered approach.

 

You will - and maybe a few hundred others will. But then DCS will be either bust or have a vastly reduced output because they can't afford the staff to knock out new projects at a faster rate.

 

I really don't get the selfish attitudes of "ditch that and build what I want!".

[OttoPus]

I didn't explain my self very well: FC, although simplified and easier to manage, is NOT a game.

 

Is an "half-simulation", and will never hit the market of those who wants a HAWX or Ace combat style titles (where eye candy and fast-pace FPS style gameplay are the only important matters... with a little bit of story-telling).

 

I'm not telling that an hard-core simulation doesn't need eye-candy, in fact I think that good graphics, sounds, and realistic procedures, are the pivot for a truly immersive simulation experience.

 

My point is: the people here bought FC3 because of his easier nature, or just because it has Su-27, MIG-29 and F-15 and is not Ace Combat?

 

I'll try to guess: the latter.

 

My 2 cents.

[Mistermann]

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

 

That was my rationale as well. I want to see the study sims continue and felt like my "support" in purchasing FC3 would subsidize those initiatives (albeit only very slightly). I like having some fast movers to breakup my focus on the KA50 too. :smilewink:

 

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.

 

$50 icon in Module Manager :lol:

 

Completely agree. My dollars should not be considered a vote for lo-fi - rather the complete opposite.

 

I'd postulate that a vast majority, probably an overwhelming majority of us on these boards are the hardcore group. A vote on these forums is likely heavily skewed towards the hi-fi sim. I am surprised that FB has similar results given my perception of that audience. Still ... for me, the promise of DCS brings deep study sim airframes to a world open and inclusive to those that prefer a more lo-fi airframe as well. We are already a pretty niche market as it is.

 

I still believe that a win for FC3 translates to a win for hi-fi in the long run. Should announced DCS titles go away in favor of lo-fi (med-fi), then I will begin to reconsider that position.

 

mm

[Mainstay]

So both facebook and this poll will end up with a crushing blow to FC mode type of sim.

 

I already asked on facebook why there is such a huge difference in the results to what Wags said. I think i figured it out. By the time Lock on, FC and FC2 were present we were lacking a study sim like DCS A10C. Yes there was FSX, Falcon and IL2 but limited to what you could fly.

 

I think this results in the great succes of Lockon and FC because that was the reason for me to buy all of those products. I mean there was no other product to my knowledge on the market where you could fly the Su27,Mig29 and other russian jets (No dont say Novalogic Mig29).

 

But now that all of us simdogs has smelled studysim blood (A10C, KA50 and Huey) i have the feeling people dont settle for less.

 

I bought FC3 myself to support the people of ED and at first i was like a well its not that bad but in the end i barely touch any of the FC3 planes and i always end up flying one of the studysim models.

 

Anyways im proud of all what ED made so far and i enjoyed all your products but for me the FC kinda sim doesnt do it for me anymore.

[Wolf Rider]

 

But now that all of us simdogs has smelled studysim blood (A10C, KA50 and Huey) i have the feeling people dont settle for less.

 

 

yep... we've been spoiled for all other sims :smilewink: the other is well said; bought for support and fast flyers

[npole]

...so, next time: do not buy any not-DCS level product/plugin, but instead (if you want to finance ED), buy another copy of your A10/BS and give it to a friend.

[mmaruda]

I was thinking about this for some time now. Last week I had crisis in flying since getting into the A-10C after a break seemed like a second job for me. Sure I like study-sims and a month ago I would say, only DCS quality. Right now I came to this thread again and went for FC3 level.

 

There are a couple of reasons why.

Let me start with the general thing:

 

If we only receive DCS quality planes, DCS World will take a loooooong time to grow. There will be few planes, many of them will not be the icons of military aviation (T-2 Buckeye... yeah well... at least they are making a Harrier) due to stuff being classified and so on. I already own all the DCS products that have been released so far, and I do not have enough time to fully enjoy all of them. Real pilots spend most of their career in one or two jets, it takes 5 years to fully train a Viper pilot. I have been thinking quite a lot about it, and I came to the conclusion I will most probably buy only the DCS planes I really like and would like to know more about, but at the same time, I would like to have fun with some other planes and not necessarily devote months on learning them.

 

Lest face it, it's not just about realism. It's about knowing the plane. Is the Su-25T not realistic? All it does not have is a click-able pit and realistic radios. Once you get down to it, most of the click stuff is done on the ramp. And clicking those things with a mouse also has a not so realistic aspect - when a real pilot flips a switch all he has to do is reach out a wiggle his finger, what we need to do is change the view, find the mouse cursor, aim for the switch a not mistake the mouse buttons. Hitting a key on the keyboard IMHO reflects the actual workload more accurately (obviously you need not know where the real switch is). My point is, what people yell about the most here: click-able pits, 6dof, all buttons usable (even if the don't do anything) are not what is most important in a flight sim.

 

The most important feature is always the flight model. Next comes the weapons operation and tactics. The rest is just an opportunity to know how the machine operates and maybe get a a false impression that you could fly the real thing. The fact that I can turn on the wiper in the Shark is cool, but there are times, when I fly in bad weather and would really prefer if instead of that switch being click-able, there was actual rain on the glass and the wiper would not be useless.

 

And then there is the stuff that DCS World lacks in general, and all the immersion is killed instantly:

- rain, snow, dust setting on the aircraft, covering the glass etc.

- ATC that is something more than a prop (you can crap all over the procedures and they won't say a word)

- more realistic looking airfields

- collide-able trees

- ground crews - the unsung heroes of any air battle

- a dynamic campaign and radio chatter

- cool, '90s-style animations during briefings

 

I could go on...

 

What I am trying to say is, I would like to fly many aircraft in DCS, but not necessarily learn all of them in detail. I would gladly pay for a Tomcat, but the DCS Hornet is probably the module I am least excited about - I'm just not a fan of it. An FC3 fidelity-level module (with AFM) would suit me better in this case. Also DCS quality only means we will never get to fly planes like the F-22 or F-117.

 

I think ED should balance things out. We need both DCS and FC3 quality stuff (AFM is a must on the other hand, no compromises on my part here) and we also need the whole core engine to evolve and realeasing a product every once every couple of years will not finance that too fast.

[Frostie]

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.

 

 

Our there is a massive brain fart going on in this thread. :)

I play Arma 2, not seriously but casually, I have never felt the urge to visit a facebook page or forum dedicated to it and I probably never will, even if i did i'm pretty sure entering a poll would be the last thing on my mind, yet I'll still purchase Arma software. The casual purchaser is a huge market for ED.

 

I'm pretty sure that the majority of voters if not all are DCS diehards, and those that aren't and have never experienced anything more than Hawx well FC3 would be their version of hi fidelity.

The question posed can easily be read by the unexperienced simmer as what kind of sim do you want, a good sim or a better one. Nothing conclusive regarding EDs sales can be made from these polls.

[mmaruda]

How about this - each new DCS module is fully realistic with bells and whistles, but instead of 'game mode', you have the option to play at FC3 fidelity level?

[Weta43]

Our there is a massive brain fart going on in this thread. :)

I play Arma 2, not seriously but casually, I have never felt the urge to visit a facebook page or forum dedicated to it and I probably never will, even if i did i'm pretty sure entering a poll would be the last thing on my mind, yet I'll still purchase Arma software. The casual purchaser is a huge market for ED.

 

I'm pretty sure that the majority of voters if not all are DCS diehards, and those that aren't and have never experienced anything more than Hawx well FC3 would be their version of hi fidelity.

The question posed can easily be read by the unexperienced simmer as what kind of sim do you want, a good sim or a better one. Nothing conclusive regarding EDs sales can be made from these polls.

 

I agree - other than to download patches, you could count on one hand the number of sims/games that's website I've even been a semi-regular visitor to, though I have drawers full of game disks.

The only 'gaming' facebook site I've ever visited was E.D.'s, and I think the people visiting there, and posting in the poll here are largely a self selecting group of fans of what E.D.'s already doing.

 

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...

[npole]

Is the Su-25T not realistic? All it does not have is a click-able pit and realistic radios.

 

And you consider this an unimportant part of a simulator? It is a SIMULATOR, simulating the cockpit is the 50% of the realism, having a convincing flight model is the other 50%.

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? ... I would never pay for something like this, i'll go play super-Mario-FLY (copyrighted) instead.

 

The A10C on the other side is 100 times more complex to manage, and not having a clickable cockpit would means to play a damn TEXT EDITOR with all the key-combos you need to use. Again, i'm here for a simulator not for a calculator.

 

The other problems we have (in example the extremely simple scenarios..) is a general problem, that is separate by the aircrafts, we're discussing about the aircrafts here and in a simulator there shouldn't be anything else than convincing models, there's already a semi-arcade game, it's called Flaming Cliffs.

[hypersonik]

lol not surprised at result - ITS THE FORUMS the hardcore "labels off and no map " tread this lands ! :bounce:

[159th_Viper]

there is a massive brain fart going on in this thread. :)

 

Aye, especially so considering that there are only 460 votes to date on the Facebook page. I'm no statistician but I'm sure you need a helluva lot more than that.

[Haukka81]

And you consider this an unimportant part of a simulator? It is a SIMULATOR, simulating the cockpit is the 50% of the realism, having a convincing flight model is the other 50%.

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? ... I would never pay for something like this, i'll go play super-Mario-FLY (copyrighted) instead.

 

The A10C on the other side is 100 times more complex to manage, and not having a clickable cockpit would means to play a damn TEXT EDITOR with all the key-combos you need to use. Again, i'm here for a simulator not for a calculator.

 

The other problems we have (in example the extremely simple scenarios..) is a general problem, that is separate by the aircrafts, we're discussing about the aircrafts here and in a simulator there shouldn't be anything else than convincing models, there's already a semi-arcade game, it's called Flaming Cliffs.

 

 

It's not so important than you think young man.. This is flight simulator, not cockpit trainer. :smilewink:

 

And even now my HUEY, KA-50 , A-10C and other modules just get dust because gameplay side is crap, YES CRAP!!! Briefing window is postcard size.. no immersion anywhere, atc is joke. Rain is just cosmetic , no need to CLICK swithc and turn on wipers using MOUSE (how many aircrafts has mouse ? Tell me ? )

 

You can be sure that majority , maybe 70% people will go autostart after while..

 

And multiplayer won't help, because even then all abowe is ruining the immersion... I don't fly even mp anymore. Until DCS gets bit "chorme" it will collet dust.

 

Sure i fly it sometimes , but thats is just because FLIGHT MODEL feels so great. :joystick:

 

 

 

-haukka81

[Dejjvid]

Our there is a massive brain fart going on in this thread. :)

I play Arma 2, not seriously but casually, I have never felt the urge to visit a facebook page or forum dedicated to it and I probably never will, even if i did i'm pretty sure entering a poll would be the last thing on my mind, yet I'll still purchase Arma software. The casual purchaser is a huge market for ED.

 

I'm pretty sure that the majority of voters if not all are DCS diehards, and those that aren't and have never experienced anything more than Hawx well FC3 would be their version of hi fidelity.

The question posed can easily be read by the unexperienced simmer as what kind of sim do you want, a good sim or a better one. Nothing conclusive regarding EDs sales can be made from these polls.

 

 

And that's why i wrote

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.

 

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.

[159th_Viper]

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.

 

It's not that simple, is it? If one were to abide by your reasoning, ED only have 470-odd customers. Surely that cannot be right?

[npole]

It's not so important

 

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...

[Keyser]

My vote was for DCS level. I do not think I will ever use my time to get into anything that is not an extremely close approximation to the real deal. I do enjoy the complexity itself, sure, but I also feel like understanding the plane is rewarding. If what I'm learning isn't real, it's only half the fun.

 

I don't at all begrudge others their lower-fidelity sims, though. Let them spend their money on it, give ED the funds to make stuff for me, everybody wins, everybody's happy. I'd just like to add a few thoughts about everybody saying how useless the poll is and how everybody should already know what "the fans" want from what ED has been telling us.

 

1. There is no "Both" option in the poll because it's useless to ED. The information they want is about what to focus on. Telling them "Focus on both" doesn't help them. If you like both, then you would buy either version they make anyway, so you are not the intended target of the poll.

 

2. FC having higher sales is not the be-all-end-all.

2a. FC is a brand that has been established for much longer (the original FC being from 2006 or thereabouts, LOMAC even from 2003). Its higher sales might not reflect on what consumers want, but on what they know.

2b. People new to flight simulations are not likely to jump into the deep end of the pool right away. Their first (and possibly only, if they decide it's not for them) purchase will likely be an FC-type sim as opposed to a DCS-type sim. I have no numbers on this, so correct me if you do, but I would guess that the drop-out rate for simulations of gamers that are new to them would be one of the higher ones in the game genre spectrum. That means you may have a lot of "dead" purchases that it may not be wise to take at face value.

2c. Getting coverage in today's heterogeneous gaming world is more likely for more inclusive titles which can certainly generate sales for them. "A sale is a sale" you may say, but I would contest that for future planning (which seems to be the intention of this poll), the preferences of the people who are most likely to buy your next module should be given somewhat more weight. If that is you and you like FC more, great! That's what this poll is for.

2d. On the whole, I would claim that military flight simulation enthusiasts favour jets. It's what they have always known from almost all the successful sims in the '90 and it's what has culturally always taken center stage. The desire to fly a fast mover may, for lack of alternatives, lead to a purchase even if the desired level of fidelity is not there and may therefore give a wrong impression of what will actually make them happy as customers (which I assume ED wants). The people who will only accept both a fast mover and high-fidelity, however, don't enter into this calculation at all, because they have bought neither FC nor DCS. Comparing the sales numbers of the two may therefore give a warped reflection of the actual market out there.

2e. Based on the depth of both DCS and FC, I see it as more likely that FC is the "secondary" sim for the majority of people who own both. That is to say, I would say it is more likely to have someone mainly play DCS and FC on occasion than that someone would play FC regularly and DCS on occasion. People are more likely to spend money on things they use more often[citation needed], so looking forward it may also be necessary to take this into account.

2f. The lower the amount of work, research and skill that goes into a product, the higher the risk of significant competition. ED has the modern military aviation ultra-high-fidelity market rather cornered and it's a hard market to enter. The lower-fidelity market? Not so much, on both counts. It is more likely that a serious competitor to FC will show up that a competitor to DCS. This should also influence future expectations.

 

These aren't by any means well-researched marketing facts. They are my thoughts on the matter. I made a lot of assumptions here, and we all know what they say about assumptions, but I don't think they are very far out there. Once again, I know there's a market for FC-type simulations and I am completely in favour of ED's chosen path in developing those games for the reason I stated at the beginning, but I think the frequently made statement that "FC has had better sales so far and therefore, financially speaking, ED should focus on that level of sim in the future" should be viewed with a little more skepticism.

[Dejjvid]

It's not that simple, is it? If one were to abide by your reasoning, ED only have 470-odd customers. Surely that cannot be right?

 

Oh please Viper........ :doh:

[159th_Viper]

Oh please Viper........ :doh:

 

Yeah, and?

 

Tell you what, 470 opinions count for very little in the greater scheme of things.

[cichlidfan]

It is a poll which, by definition, is a waste of time without a broader audience.

[Pigmachine]

All in or nothing!

 

I payed for FC3 just as a support buy, same with combined arms... Maybe that was a bad choice, since I don't use them at all!? And it might send out false signals that softcore stuff also are appreciated?

 

CA at least you can direct troops and stuff on the map, so not a complete waste, until you sit 'behind the wheel' of a tank yourself.

 

In the early days of flightsimming we didn't have access to the 99% real systems, due to current computer power and availability to all systems.

 

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

Iron eagle.. firing a mav with weight on wheels + infinite ammo (+bad music)

[metheluckydonut]

I think a big reason for the sales of FC3 is the fact that they are the only fast-mover currently available in dcs and the "appeal" that you get 7 (or 6?) aircraft for the same price you could get one dcs level aircraft for.