Then why did ED toss in a game avionics and flight mode for every title they've made?

If what you say is true, then ED shouldn't have even bothered. Right?

Point is, they already have a game mode, I'd just like to see them tweak it a little.

Then why did ED toss in a game avionics and flight mode for every title they've made?

If what you say is true, then ED shouldn't have even bothered. Right?

Point is, they already have a game mode, I'd just like to see them tweak it a little.

I paid for FC, I paid for FC2, I paid for BS, I paid for DCS A10C, I paid for BS2 - surely I've already paid for the new engine twice, the aircraft within FC, KA-50, A10 Warthog and next I have to pay for ED integrate yet another package which combines all the bits and pieces I've already paid for?

What's the 'new engine'?

Is it the one we have already paid for twice in DCS A10c and BS2?

I wasn't replying to your post but I agree entirely about everything you have said.

I wasn't even taking into account the new Nevada terrain engine which surely just adds more complexity (and expense) when existing modules will yet again presumably need to be made compatible on an individual basis.

My original concerns even with BS2 is that I've effectively paid for the new engine when I bought A10c, I already bought the KA50 platform yet I've had to pay for the engine and the KA50 again with BS2 along with the additional features.

If, as Greyghost says we are [only] paying for new functionality, then I would gauge the new functionality to be approximately 3% of the overall package yet the cost is approximately 25-30% of the full game.

Actually, Nevada and the new terrain renderer in particular are probably the most sensible of all the new ED projects. I would guess that the opportunity is being taken to already develop the new engine with modularity in mind, so that further compatibility issues are avoided once all products have been updated to that standard. It also addresses all of the few remaining weaknesses in ED's terrain graphics (billboard trees, very coarse terrain mesh, lack of terrain shadows) and will be appreciated no matter what future flyable aircraft are released. Unlike Flying Legends, there is no danger whatsoever of it becoming a dead-end, orphaned product.

I'm not saying I hate the game,I'm just stating my opinion on what I think make it even more fun for me and would also bring more people to the game.I like some realism myself and thats why I enjoy flying to a target area and using the advanced weapons systems in the open world enviroments.Games like hawk and ace combat tend to get old for me but have never played strike fighters but plan to.I don't anything as far as programing is concerned but I think if they were to do the things I've stated that ed's popularity could increase greatly and that would be a plus for all gamers cause we all know what makes the world go around.

What's the 'new engine'?

Is it the one we have already paid for twice in DCS A10c and BS2?

This is not a valid concern. Yes, it is an updated engine, and yes you bought it a few times. But Gears of War was built on the same engine (UE3, with improvements/different builds) three times, and sold for full price. My point is that this is nothing new.

...

As for the realism, it is perfect in FC2, and I hope it stays around the same level. DCS seems too advanced for me to get into, and I find the level of realism great in FC2. I would gladly pay more for new flyable aircraft, like a Mirage 2000 and F-16, assuming they are $10 and under each.

...

It would make the Strike Fighters series obsolete.

Hmmmm... not quite. For some, maybe yes. But not for all.

The biggest thing keeping me from switching from SF2 to FC2 is the lack of random missions or dynamic campaigns. The first flight sim I had was Graphic Sim's Hornet 2.0. That thing had 28 missions. That was it. And I couldn't have been happier with it. Korea added 28 more. Wow. 56 missions?!?! How could that ever get boring? And I knew every mission by heart...

Fast forward to now, and the bottom line is that WoX/SF2, IL-2, and F4AF have simply set the bar higher in terms of reply-ability. All three of those have dynamic campaigns in some sense. I have FC2 and got to be pretty good with the A-10 in the training missions. I went to start the campaign and got shot down on the first mission by an SA-11. Wait... now what? I just go back and fly the exact same mission and know that the first thing I need to do is hit that SA-11? I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I didn't think it would be an issue until I tried it. I would read through SimHQ forums and think "what's with all these snobs that demand dynamic campaigns?" But then I realized I was starting to climb into the same boat. The bar has been/is being raised.

So for me, the lack of random missions and dynamic campaigns is the one thing that keeps me from spending all my time in FC2.

Plus there is a group of people (what % of simmers, I don't know) that are all about 50s/60s/70s stuff. So, of course, to completely make SF2 obsolete, FC2 would have to greatly expand it's aircraft selection and time frame. In that regard it will never top SF2.

Slightly more on topic, I own FC2, but don't have either DCS title. So if I do want to upgrade it's just the one purchase for me. But I do understand why users would be annoyed that they need to pay for separate patches for each of the 3 titles if they want to keep them up to date. As someone totally unqualified to have an opinion on the matter, it seems like a user should have to pay for the upgrade once, and then it could apply to any module they have. Especially if we're talking about the DCS titles. My impression from the start is that they would be modular and could be simply added on top of each other.

Now, whether that pricing/business model would work for ED is something I can't intelligently comment on.

It would make the Strike Fighters series obsolete.