you know, I think, selling every product start from a low level sim first might be a good idea to run this combat flight sim business...

for example sell a basic F/A-18C module first, for like $25-30 first, with basic functions like current FC3 jets, then they can sell clickable 6DOF cockpits upgrade for like $15 for early adopters or straight $45 for a more complete products; then make the same upgrade step for the AFM and perhaps another final upgrade for the detailed avionics

the total package could go to $75 or something but we can have a choice between 'paid it by installments' over the years, or buying the final available products at the time for a straight combined sum of money.

that way maybe we can all be happy? it's kinda like ArmA3 on steam, but instead of free upgrade to the final full contents, we will need to pay...

not an ideal way but that can keep all sides happy?!?

It doesn't make sense to who/what? Ubisoft gets a cut from every FC sale in one way or another. Why would ED want to add AFM to that stable for free?



ED know what they're doing. They know that FC is a flight sim, and not an arcade action game like HAWX or Ace Combat, and they know that a lot of people prefer simpler, without losing the flight or combat simulation.



I know plenty of folks who do dedicated and long missions with those 'quick shoot-em-up-arcade airplanes'. I also know plenty of people who play their hifi sims in a very arcade way, and that includes F4 players.



No one said it was, but on the other hand that's an idea that you've made up because you don't actually understand flight sims or flight simmers

Polls say one thing, sales say another.... shrug... just make DCS Level AC with "Game Modes" lol

Maybe FC3 is the best selling because it's the only way for fast mover fans to get their fix in DCS and also fast movers are probably more popular with the casual flight simmer too.

I think ED should concentrate on the DCS grade aircraft personally. Maybe they could add an ADD option to all aircraft.

I couldn't agree more with this.

1. ED progression is mystifying and the mystery has caused customers to have different spending habits (more) than if the plan was transparent.
2. Focus on hardcore simulation to the detriment of a rich world to use it in practically guarantees long term failure.
3. Microprose was the only developer to realize what flight sims really needed in a ground-up way and it nearly killed them.

One thing I think is missing from DCS planes is a mid-level option.
With the A-10C and Ka-50 there is no way to make them FC3-level. You can play full-real, or you can turn it into some arcadey HAWX/AC wannabe. There's not even the illusion of realism then.
But there is no way to make the A-10C work at the same level as the A-10A in FC, and I think that would've been a good idea. FC doesn't need clickable cockpits because there aren't enough commands to need it. G for gear, F for flaps, 2 for AA, 7 for AG, D to cycle weapons, and so on. Only when they get really complex do you need a clickable pit.




The Jedi Master

I usually don't like to quote entire posts like this, but man alive did you completely capture my own thoughts perfectly. Now get out of my head!

Actually, ED is listening to those who make much of the rich environment(including me).
If you are really looking carefully to the changes, they are indeed moving forward to the dynamic thing.

AddNewGroup function for MIST they have implemented in the last big patch is a great concrete example.
It now allows us to create a new group(ofcourse you can give them waypoints, task them whatever mission you want) in the middle of session, not the pre-scripted activate style we had before.
This means it might be already possible to make a mission that AI(Even Client flight is possible, but havent tested) react accordingly to the various situation change, infinitely, if you are good at lua.

Wow, 3 posts since signing in and one is dedicated to dissecting my response!


Sim, game, whatever. So in your case, what is low-, mid-, and high- level sim?


What makes you think I am not a customer? Three copies of A10C, one BS2, one FC2, and one FC3.... but of course I am not deluding myself that I am ED's ONLY customer. This is, of course, my opinion but judging by the posts here and on ED's forums, I am sure I am not the only one with these sentiments.


Of course they can release other products to obtain money. The main point I was making was the clear lack of direction ED is showing with regards to their development and release of products. I mean, release a helo sim, then a CAS platform, then another "updated" helo sim, then a WWII era aircraft, then a ground-based something-or-other.... how does that make sense? It's like ED has a dartboard in their office and they got pictures of various military vehicles/aircraft and they just work on whatever the dart hits next.

While people do enjoy DCS products, these do not necessarily tie very well with each other --- imagine if DCS released products in a more sensible manner? Say, release P-51, soon follwed by another era-specific aircraft, plus maybe some era-specific anti-air vehicles as well... how fun would that be? While people do enjoy the P-51, there currently is nothing for them to do, unless they want to do silly dogfights with A-10s which isn't really what the "sim" is about, is it? When is the "Red" aircraft coming out? No clue.

Bottom line is -- DCS can make good products if they want to. BS2 and A10C is evidence of this. But they must not move 3 steps backward for every step forward they make. I refer to the massive FPS slowdown when using CBUs, but there are other examples as well. We all want DCS to succeed, we all want our gorgeous eye candy, we all want to fly in different theatres at DCS-terrain-quality, but it's difficult to do that until ED shows some sign of direction. And asking people if they want "hardcore or game" shows lack of direction.


If you need to attack any more of my points, I invite you to read the rest of the posts on this thread and maybe peruse a bit on the ED forums.



@ Smokin_Hole, I agree with your points about good game. The BMS "dynamic campaign" has people scratching their heads, even the dev guy said he won't do it again, but that quirky "what the hell is the AI gonna do next?!" makes me go back for more. It is unfortunate that even with the 30mm gun, the beautiful terrain, and the variety of jets, the DCS world fails to "immerse" me the way BMS does.



Ummm, that just sounds wrong. Can't put my finger on it, maybe it's the "DLC concept" that is not sitting well with me.



What doesn't make sense is why release FC3 at all, thereby giving more money to UBI. Nobody came up with the idea of DCSW F-15 and DCSW SU-27 (note - DCSWorld, not DCS) until **AFTER** they released FC3? Yeah, right.


Of course they do. Of course.


Nothing wrong with either way of flying! Sometimes you only have time for a "quickie," sometimes you wanna go full-derp! But that doesn't mean ED knows which direction it's taking.


Just because we have differing opinions, you decide it's time to attack me on a personal level? Hahahaha! Thank you for enlightening me on what I do and don't understand.


@ Skate -- exactly my point. If ED had a clue, they'd make the sim hardcore with options to turn things down, which, as far as I understand, was an option in DCS A10C. Can't really verify now as I've never tried it, always went full realism. But anyway, what's stopping ED from doing the same approach? Imagine a DCS F-15C and DCS SU-27!! My wallet will cry! And with the option to simplify some aspects, even the "simmers lite" will rejoice!

There is very little money to be made in the commercial gaming market for high fidelity simulations. Compared to almost every other sector of the gaming market it is extremely small. Angry Birds will make more money this year with its various franchises then ED probably will in it's entire time of existence. The economic realities of the situation dictate that they HAVE to tap into the larger hobbyist market rather then remaining solely the domain of high fidelity.

-Jenrick

That's a given, but just because Angry Birds makes more money, it doesn't follow that ED will have to release DCS Angry Birds to survive!

Another thing to consider is because this is a small market, they are better off treating their customers right and getting the long-term support rather than screwing them over and dying a humiliating death. The fiasco with BS2, even if we were to say they had every right and reason to upgrade BS1, could've been handled way better. Hopefully, they've learned from it, but if depending on how they pull DCSW F-15 and DCSW SU-27 off, they might well rub a lot of customers the wrong way.

I think the piece-meal approach will alienate more customers then it gains in the long run and that's my complaint at this point. It's why I quit ROF.

I'm not against DLC, but I think DLC should be part of larger, complete releases and fit into the existing structure.

As much as the UH-1H looks the part, I just can't justify buying it with no supporting game around it (i.e. campaign, theater, units).

A-10C and FC3 were full featured products, but it looks like the new direction is "buy random plane" or "buy random terrain" and just do whatever. It doesn't appeal to me or to the masses of gamers out there who buy games for the factor of immersion (yes, story, campaign, the setting of the game, etc. are even important in simulators).

Your post made your position and understanding of the market obvious, so I just stated the obvious.



No, it's more of an option between 'full realism' and 'arcade' (more to the point, it was actually made to work with your xbox controller). The options aren't fine-grained enough.



Nothing, they've always done it. But it isn't 'sim lite' vs 'full real', especially for the A-10C. In some cases, take the P-51, there is something like 'auto-rudder', which helps with one thing without removing realism from the simulation apart from rudder control.

The simple fact is that offering two levels of simulation is like developing two different simulations in many respects, so I'd say your idea is backwards - jumping straight into the full sim development is very expensive. Doing the light version first works better for ED in the long run, and they can think about offering a med/hi-fi switch. Creating a switch adds time to development, so maybe they'll decide to do the next project instead.

Can't we all just be happy that they still make these kind of games.
You can all call it what you want, but they are still games.

and i don't understand the reasoning behind some of the things ED has done.
But i'm really happy they are still out there making excellent games.

+1

The popularity of FC3 has more to do with the wide range of aircraft to fly, more so than the fact that it is lower fidelity. I almost bought it so I could have the capability to do air2air. Just look at the 51 server right now, 20 people on a random tuesday....that's because they cater to air2air.

Trust me, if ED completes DCS F/A-18C, it will break all ED sales records. This AC will feed the air2air and the A2G crowds, it will probally become the most used AC by the community, so why delay it any longer.

F/A-18C = Cash for ED
AH-64A = Cash for ED
Why mess around with anything else but these 2 modules ? I thought the 3rd party devs would help ED focus on important things like these 2 highly sought after projects.

ON another note, low fidelity doesn't necessarily mean easier. I fly the Su-25T because it's only AC in the game that can do SEAD missions, but with no nav, radios for jtacts, or TAD to coordinate with wingmen it's hard to stay alive in a very lethal DCS World.

Just in the interests of balanced reporting, the UH-1 does actually come with a really immersive, well put together campaign.

Yes, my post contained my entire thought process regarding flight sims and simmers. Through the magic of the interwebz, you have gained insight into my brain have come to that conclusion. Bravo!


Yes, it is easier to make something that is "simple." However, they did this when A10C came out, offering both sim and "mid-level." Harder? Yes, maybe. But in that one instant, they catered both to the guys who wanted to do full-switchology startup and to those who wanted to press one key combo to get the engines to life. In that one instant, they've covered two bases. Win for ED, Win for both the hardcore customer and the "mid-level" customer.

But like I said, ED has to decide what it wants to be known for -- study sims, or "mid-level" representations. That's another way of saying they have to choose which market they want to cater to -- the hardcore sim crowd or the "mid-level" gamers. It cannot expect to put out "mid-level" stuff and still satisfy its hardcore market. Whatever the case is, the point still stands --- so far, ED doesn't seem to have a clue WHICH product to put out and HOW to put it out.

If ED releases either of or both of these titles (under DCS title, not DCSW), my wallet would hate me.