and together with this you have the FACT that the DCS sims gameplay is basically the complete/total opposite to what will be CH gameplay
How do you know? Flexman and his crew may intend something, but you're talking as if you had a crystal ball here ... it's ok though, a lot of us have been there. I'm not sure how you came up with this antithesis in gameplay when you haven't played CH.
If you look into both sims features you have for DCS:
- Static Campaigns (sequence of single missions that you must acomplish in order to play the next mission and end the campaign). This campaign always end in the same way which is after you sucessfully end the campaign's last mission you win the campaign.
- More detail/priority regarding flight, avionics and damage model -> Claimed to be the most realistic/close to reality in these regards ever seen in a sim and even in some cases claimed to be "same as reality".
- Resuming, as opposed to the 90's sims DCS sims gameplay is modeled around the aircraft/platform itself and not so much regarding the "surrounding world".
For CH you will have (at least what is planned):
- Dynamic campaigns where you get diferent missions everytime you play/restart the campaign where you can lose a mission and still play the "next one". Actually the way you play your missions will dictate which missions or kind of missions will "spawn" after and also the campaign's final outcome (success, failure, etc...)
- While realism regarding flight, avionics and damage model is a goal, these realism features are planned to be an aproximation to reality rather than an "exact replica" to reality (as it's planned in DCS). A higher priority is planned to go towards more detailed/immersive gameplay features such as dynamic campaigns with persistent world, pilot career, etc...
- Resuming, just as in the 90's sims CH gameplay seems that will be modeled around the pilot itself and the world around him/her and not so much around the aircraft/platform itself.
Well, I can't see a bigger antithesis in gameplay regarding sims than this!
and finally add the FACT that DCS sims and CH are inded competing sims (no matter what anyone says and also doesn't matter if both devs don't ackowlege this in public) and with this you'll see enough reasons why for Flexman and his staff doing an Apache (or Chinook) module for DCS isn't a that great idea.
Is that Flexman's opinion? I mean, he may think so as well, but that isn't what he said - so I believe
Don't know if this is Flexman's oppinion or not, you'll have to ask him but both sims (DCS and CH) are directed to the same "audience"/customer base therefore like it or not they are competing games (or sims if you prefer).
IMO, I think that Flexman and his staff would be better of and better funded if they used the "Kickstarter" project. Kickstarter seems really a great way to get funds and I really advise Flexnam to at least give a look at it, perhaps this the best way for "indie" developers to get funds currently available.
He's got about as much a guarantee to get funded through KS as he does through making a DCS module. KS worked for some people. It really does not work for everyone.
Nope, with Kickstarter you pleage a value (for a certain amount of time/days) without selling anything (at least immediatly) and if you get the designed pleaged value you get that money (again without selling or finishing your game). The worst case scenario would be not to get the pleaged value and you would get back to where you started -> without getting any money but also without losing money.
Selling CH as a DCS module you would first need to finish the game (invest from your pocket) and worst case scenario is if you don't get enough sales you would end up expending more than you get from sales income and all of this for a "direct competing" sim.