Hello, we are putting together a business plan to present to banks for a business loan. We need to do some market research. So I invite you guys to consider completing this survey.

http://tinyurl.com/jetthundersurvey

cheers.

done

I am in finance in RL, let me know if I can be of assistance as you get your B-plan together.

Ripcord

done
Currently 25-34 is missing in age options...

I'm having trouble selecting more than one type of option in 14.

I'm very interested more than one of the scenarios, but won't let me select more than one level of interest for any of the scenarios.

Done. Good luck.

Michael.

done

Done.

When it comes to the features section - I left a number of areas blank (such as dynamic campaign) and assigned "least interested" to what I really didn't want (and "most interested" to the features I care most about).

In terms of eras I picked modern. This is primarily due to the lack of strike aircraft in the listings for the earlier periods. I would be very interested in flying the Tornado IDS or the Puccarra - but I already have the Third Wire series, Lomac and soon SoW:Korea for dogfights in these areas. What we need are coin and strike simulators.

It might also be good to assign a chance to report buying sims over a longer than three month period (there are only two new sims released in the past six-months after all).

If I could have, I would have ranked more scenarios with the same high interest. Too bad. I even had to let some of them pass because of how the survey selection works. I think sim lovers would have selected and ranked them all, if allowed.
Flyby out

Done, good luck.

Also done,best of luck with it.

cant rank the senarios

+1 on question 14 being broken.

the issue here is that if you fix it, that question will still be worthless b/c you'll have to throw out the original data


Just curious, what other market research efforts are you going through, and who told you an online survey would help (not saying it won't, just curious to see if you have any marketing guys on your staff)

Done, good luck

Done.

Suggestion: item 7 list is a bit undated, actual simulators is:

IL-2 Sturmovik 1946
Wings of Prey
Rise of Flight
Falcon 4.0
Lock On/FC2
Black Shark
Strike Fighters series

Sokol1

done. good luck! can't wait to get my hands on Jet Thunder

done, good luck!!

Yes, 25-34 is missing in age options and I'm 33, what should I reply for that question? (I guess I'll choose the 35-44 option)

Done.

I was serving on HMS Bristol during the conflict. My brother was serving on HMS Hermes.

Good luck Dante and team.

Done, good luck and I'm patiently awaiting gold status.

Done.

Good luck Dante.

-Skater

Done...Hope to see this soon .

Done

Done..

Done

done

Done. I hope some serious money comes your way.

Done, and done!

Buccaneer, glad to know there are some vets here who actually saw the conflict. I'm sure many hear would love to hear something of both your experiences at sea!

Done

First and second jet generations will probably be covered by Maddox games.
Fourth and fifth gen are too boring (too high missile PK)
Third gen jets are the sweetspot IMHO

Done and good luck.

Done...good luck

Done
Good luck guys

Done

Done and god luck

Done, And good luck. I hope this means that we will see a demo or a game very soon.

It's a interesting period and brings up the point that in the survey it places the Sea Harrier as 4th Gen fighter which isn't correct.

Done

Thanks for all the feedback! I've emailed scary_pidgeon (who was responsible for the survey) with the following fixes: Ages 25-34 are missing. List of flight sims is composed only of 2003-2004 titles. Placed Sea Harrier as a 4th generation fighter, while it really is a 3rd generation fighter.

Done.

amazing - even a survey can have bugs.

a few days ago I fixed the bizarre missing age range, 25-34.

There was a question of why is the sea harrier a 4th generation fighter?

why indeed? I was not quite certain where to place the sea harrier. Or what a generation of fighters actually is. In the sea harriers case, it entered service in the same era as the Tornado. Which made me wonder if in engineering terms it was advanced - obviously lacking in some weapons systems and many capabilities of the tornado. I wasn't quite sure on that since the sea harriers replaced the 3rd generation phantoms.

Small through deck cruisers might have been a sideways or backward step, but then planners probably thought it was the way to go for whatever reasons.

shall i move sea harrier into 3rd generation?

oh and of course, i'm pleased with the responses. theres some interesting info there, even if the survey was buggy.

for example, most of you definitely prefer digital distribution.

Feature wise, i was surprised by how important clickable cockpits are.

what you people at seem to want most though are, realistic avionics, realistic flight models and graphics that look the part.

you were collectively rather disinterested in alternate history scenarios and yet keen on dynamic campaign feature.

all very interesting. the preference for a naval task force scenario is encouraging - i wonder what a wider sample of the combat flight sim community will think of that - our little group here might be slightly biased!

There has not been an in-depth study sim for the Harrier yet, and there should be one. Nor has there been any kind of proper naval avaition sim released since Janes F/A-18. And there should be another one. Jet Thunder in its proposed form has a market, one that can be measured. The possibilites for follow-on releases, however, are tremendous. Given any kind of success with that first release, this has the potentional, really, to be the naval avaiation equivalent to the DCS fighter series.

Ripcord

^I agree with that post. We all want to see a naval aviation sim especially something based on the Falkland's war an untouched subject in simming. It was one of the larger military conflicts of the last 25 years (pre 2000) and an intriguing conflict at that. It's just a bonus that the Harrier is covered!

There is ony one simulator without clickable cockpits I play from time to time. It's Rise of Flight, but it's not that important in WWI aircrafts. For example I almost haven't played Il2 because of simplified engine management and no clickable cockpits.



You should see aircraft wishlist for DCS on Eagle Dynamics forums, most people wish for F/A-18 and carrier ops.

As this topic comes up more than occasionally, I will point out (as I usually do) that people don't just want clickable cockpits just for the sake of their being some buttons to push. That's why you won't find many people clamoring for the addition of clickable cockpits in Rise of Flight or IL-2; there isn't much point to having them.

When a modern (or in the case of Jet Thunder, "somewhat modern") combat jet sim has clickable cockpits, that automatically indicates something else: the avionics systems modeling is appropriately advanced to warrant clickable cockpits. Take a look at the original iterations of Lock On - good flight dynamics, wonderful graphics, and no clickable cockpits. What do we wind up with as an end result? An F-15 with simplified avionics modeling.

As Eagle Dynamics improved their product beyond Lock On, and announced the DCS series, we got Black Shark. Black Shark has a fully clickable cockpit, and it needs to. While it's certainly possible to map all of the cockpit buttons to keystroke combinations, it becomes an exercise in finding which obscure combination has not yet been assigned, and key command assignments rapidly begin to lose any sense of intuition. Thus, for a sim with advanced modeling of advanced avionics , a clickable cockpit becomes a functional necessity. For a sim with advanced modeling of basic avionics (see Lock On: Flaming Cliffs' Su-25T) or a sim with basic modeling of advanced avionics (see any number of "sim lite" titles), this functional necessity does not exist.

While I realize this doesn’t apply to JT, even an ultra-modern sim-lite needs at least clickable MFDs, IMO. If EF2000 didn't have clickable MFDs it would get kinda cumbersome...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/TEMP/EF2K_TIALDWN.wmv
http://198.65.10.229/DID/TEMP/EF2K_SEAM.wmv
http://198.65.10.229/DID/TEMP/EF2K_RFM.wmv

Unfortunately the follow-up TAW doesn't have all MFD functions mapped to keys, forcing you to occasionally pull up an MFD screen. I'd rather have the option. With EF2000 it's nice to have clickable MFDs when I'm traveling with a laptop and limited button Wingman stick vs. my X52.

Although Hornet Korea (i.e. PSF) did pretty well IMO with mid-core avionics and no click-pit by using multiple cycling for radar sub-modes...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/TEMP/PSF_Key_Reference.pdf

But I still wish HK had a clickable pit.

Oops, meant to show this air-refueling instead (even if botched at first) as it makes more use of clicks in a lighter title...

http://198.65.10.229/DID/TEMP/EF2K_RF2.wmv

Definitely easier than mapping those MFD functions to a HOTAS while making it easy to play with a simpler joystick.

After flying A2A's Thunderbolt and B-17 in FSX I've realised how simplified aircrafts in Il-2 are. In high-fidelity simulation of WW2 aircraft clickable cockpit is a must.



I agree

done

I personally am not a fan of exclusive digital download, although I much prefer that than selling out to a corrupt publisher. Ideally, a game is available with both a hard retail version (the traditional box in stores) and a digital download with no lifetime activation limit. To prevent widespread copying with the latter, there can be a monthly activation limit. For an example, the game Mount & Blade has no lifetime activation limit, but you can only activate the game twice every six months. If you happen to need to do so more than that, you can contact the developer and explain the situation to them. At least, that's how I recall it working. It's not 100% ideal, but it works fairly well (unlike Mass Effect's five lifetime activations, meaning that if you reinstall Windows five times, you can't play the game anymore without first successfully haggling with E.A. on an expensive telephone number).

What I most dislike is any distribution method or D.R.M. which prevents a paying customer from being able to use the game or simulator at any point in the future, or which takes liberties with the security of the computer. I must refuse to support any developer who, at any point in time, utilizes such a scheme. It is very unethical and unfair to the paying customer; in fact, it punishes the customers for supporting the company, and gives everyone incentive to pirate the game instead. If I buy a game, it's mine for good. And no one dicks with my computer's security if I can help it.

So, as mentioned in the other thread, I very much hope to be able to support Thunder Works and fly Jet Thunder, but if Thunder Works finds itself forced to use one of the immoral D.R.M. methods such as those I've mentioned, I shall inescapably find myself forced to withhold support and go without flying yet another of the precious few high-fidelity aerial combat simulators.

I occasionally play my old games through (i.e. original Call of Duty). Last week while unpacking I came across my $10.00 jewlcase of the original Half Life. It's been a while since I played it so I thought I'd play it through again.

I forgot it was my one and only Steam game. I created a Steam account a long time ago for this one game (BTW, I usually keep my games on a separate partition which doesn’t have Internet access, so I was already irritated by the process). I got as far as getting my account info emailed to an old email address but for whatever reason I couldn't continue as it disagreed with my answer to a secret question (mom's maiden name). So I created a new Steam account with my current email, typed in the game's registration code, and it told me that code was already registered to another email address.

Ef it, I threw the damn thing in the trash!

I'll never willingly support online DRM again unless I absolutely have to (i.e. future OS which requires it)! Give me a dongle or a printed manual or whatever to deter piracy, and charge me more if need be (I don't mind paying more for a good flight sim), but don't require my ability to play with some online access / activation BS, please.

I know, I know, I need to get with the times...like accepting the History Channel's new popular reality-TV format and accept that texting will soon make voice communications obsolete (of course it's much more convenient to type than to speak, right? just learn 2 type like U R illiterate its easy any 1 can do it )

I'm getting old.

[nods at MarkG's post]

This survey has been tremendously useful. thanks a lot guys. Its already helped us prioritise certain features like clickable cockpits and all that which goes with it.

Best wishes guys.

I guess my opinion on clickable cockpits doesn't matter, since I'm hugely in the minority, but I myself loathe clickable cockpits. In order to click something, I have to let go of my joystick. I cannot position my mouse in a place where I can use it with my left hand. And even if I could, I can't effectively use a mouse left-handed, in spite of several months of having to do so after hand surgury. I'm boggled at how other people do it. I'd much rather have confusing and hard-to-remember key combinations. I hope we have a choice in the simulator.

there will definitely be a choice.