What about a kickstarter for a sim that hits every detail we sim fans want?If DCS were to start a kickstarter asking for funds so they could increase their team in order to branch out to other aspects of the simulation,would there be enough fans to back it.Star citizen got massively funded but its a space sim where there is a huge fanbase,high fidelity study sim though?

I was (strickly talking about combat flight sim), and the situation can't be compared to other "sim" games. I stopped following (even if I pledged a good amount of money)... but Star Citizen should be closed to 90 Millions sells actually? Right? and still long before real game release.... it's another world combat flight sim can't even dream about.

As I said, it's structural.... whatever the dev do, they will allways convey the impression they have no interest in implementing/fixing what is the hardcore crowd main interest (the majority of them). this crowd is so diverse and unforgiving you can only please a little part of it at a given time, and only for those who have not decided before they have been cheated by the dev's lack of interest.

nobody ever asked anybody to shut up about anything.
But each time you tell someone "maybe the situation isn't as disastrous and totally doomed as you depict it, maybe, if you check well, some of your expectations are fulfilled, and maybe you can talk about the problems you see without making it a drama".... then it's understood as "so you ask me to shutup?".


Sound's easy and simple when you tell it like that.... but do you really think it is?
First, like battle plans, no dev plans ever goes perfectly well, and when you have players reporting problems (some of them totally real, other less), you have to distract resources to care about. And additional unplanned details may at some point become mandatory. Secondly, it's sometimes impossible to keep a promise, as understood by the hardcore crows on the forum. And third (and that's even more important), whatever you tell and explains on the sites and forum, the readers will only understand what they want to.
You want one example? For BoS, the unlock feature was fully announced and explained in the dev diaries around one year before implemented in game. I was one of the first to argue against it, to open poll about it, and nobody reacted... because nobody just believed it would be like it was announced... and then, when released in game, as I foretasted, hardcore players finally realized the reality of the unlocks and begun to flame on all the forums about how bad it was and how cheated they were.... except, they were never cheated about. The feature was of course a bad move, and after a long time, and lots of arguing they finally tuned it down, but the move was honestly announced and done.
The problem is all about communication, but it's not a problem that can be solved when on one end you have "hardcore players" that dream games (with a different dream for each player), and the other end a dev (which is also mostly a band of "hardcore players") who are also dreaming their game....
As I have seen, almost every BoS advertised features have been implemented in game, maybe not allways in the way hardcore players have dreamed it, but in a way that can be related to the way it was advertised. Maybe the dev have not a great communication skill... maybe it's even quite poor... but even if they were great communicators, they would have to real way to make them understood. Nobody can argue against dreams.


IMO yes. A corpse on a drip, with a semblance of vital functions... but still a corpse.
I doubt I will ever see a convincing WWII theater in DCS World. It will still get my money and I will still hope to be wrong (as I do and hope for any combat flight sim made by any dev), but I deeply doubt.

It would be interesting to list all these details... in detail... so everybody can see how unreachable the graal is...

If DCS were to start another kickstarter I would run a mile and I would advise everybody else to run from it too. The honesty and secrecy of the WW2 kickstarter takeover has left a very bitter taste in quite a few folk.

Two points.

@ Jedi- quite a while back, back when Yankee Air Pirate was still on these forums, one of the last posts by that guy who was in charge- don't recall his name now- had a great post about what was "necessary" in a flight sim. He posted pictures of himself flying F-4s in Vietnam and a picture of a T-38 and he described how in real-world flying you didn't notice the number of rivets, or how you only noticed the detail of the terrain after the fact, looking at a picture. I always took his point to be that if/when you're busy with the mission a lot of the details that we find "essential" to flight sims now are really peripheral to what one experiences in the real world. I really enjoyed his post because it boiled down flight simming to its essence; what is truly important to make a good simulation, and what is nice to have.

I have often speculated on how to kickstart a campaign for the aircraft or simulation that "I" want that, I think, would scratch a lot of itches here. If I was to pick a plane, I'd kickstart an F-4 Phantom for DCS. Or, and AH-64. Simple. Because these are guaranteed to make money. Period. I almost don't care what they cost to develop, within reason, the masses will buy them.

Or, for a sim, I'd aim for SF2, with a clickable cockpit, slightly more fidelity in the ground radar modeling, robust multiplayer (think Phantoms escorting A-6's over Vietnam, opposed by player-controlled MiGs), and a slightly more robust single player campaign engine. No new game engine, no new planes, just beef what is there. I'll bet 200k could do it; 2-3 full-time programmers for one year could do it if TK bought off on it.

I wish I knew enough to kickstart these, because I don't see how they could fail.

I wouldn't have the player controlled migs. I would base a Vietnam air war SIM around co-op missions. Alpha strikes, wild weasel, combat air support with FACs, naval operations, counter insurgency on the "trail". The environment, map, ground units would take as much priority as flight models. There would be no player v player, maybe in an expansion. The defences in the north, if done realistically, would provide a tough enough challenge without the migs
I was really looking forward to this http://web.archive.org/web/20110112202922/http://yankee-station.net/
Unfortunately it didn't make it.

My idea is that you make the theater, the ground war and air defenses are already placed. The OPFOR can be either AI or, optionally, player controlled. Frankly I don't know how this works in Falcon (BMS). If I have to pick one or the other then I prefer either player/US vs. AI or vice versa. But ideally I'd like to see the option for a sandbox that allows players to figure out BLUEFOR vs. OPFOR.

Think ACES HIGH 2, but with jets.

Put the capability in there and the community will figure the rest out. RoF has this, but I think it could be so much more with something more accessible like SF2.

This and this and this!
IL*2 2015.

Well said Trooper.BoS has ensured that what was once my most favourite genre of game,flight sims,no longer occupies a single m/b of space on any of my hard disks.I simply gave up.Lost all interest

Integrity and discipline (or the lack thereof) apply to any developer. I point to other type of developer examples for the business practice lessons to be seen in those cases. Air combat sim developers are not immune to those foibles.

I agree that air combat sims are a niche that has more stringent demands in at least some regards. Any developer with functioning neurons should realize that before entering that arena. It makes it all that more vital for them to lay out what will be in the product before they take anyone's money. If they are smart enough to look ahead with an eye toward mitigating future discontent, they will also be clear and up front about what will not be in the product when it is eventually released. That won't preclude some people from engaging in wishful thinking, but it gives the devs something to point back at and show: This is what was promised.



It appears that editing has lost the meaning of what I wrote before. Here's the relevant section from earlier (some emphasis added):


1. I agreed that we see cases of customers getting upset over features they wanted, that the devs didn't promise/sell.

2. I then went on to talk about when devs do not appear interested in putting in things that they did promise/sell, and how that would constitute grounds for legitimate complaint.

3. I then stated that when the situation in item 2 arises, the customers have no expectation of getting the situation corrected if they just remain silent.

Certainly, some of the hard core simmers fail to convey themselves well when they get disappointed over things that fall within item 1 above. I'd say it is a gross exaggeration to include all hard core simmers in that group. There are plenty of people around with level heads and the ability to keep their emotional responses in check. Such people are less motivated to post, so we naturally don't see them chime in as much.

As for what you wrote about "shut up" / "shutup"... I never thought you were telling me to shut up.
But to claim that, "nobody ever asked anybody to shut up about anything." is flat out ludicrous. Those all encompassing, absolute terms like "nobody", "anybody" and "anything" do not hold up to examination. There are a number of examples in this subforum in the not so distant past, for starters.



Easy? No. I did not say that it was. Simple... yes it actually is. It's not easy because the devs/publishers have to resist the temptations of seeking easy money by disingenously acting as if they can please everyone, even on mutually exclusive items. But sticking to a properly laid out plan / list of promised features is, if one has integrity and discipline.



I know coding software can feel like a battle, however it is not like a battle plan (where it doesn't survive first contact with the enemy). Code is not intelligent, and it is not maneuvering to outfox the programmer/developer.
If developers don't know how to get features coded, they shouldn't be promising those features and accepting money for the program from customers, yet. Don't accept payment for something that you do not yet know how to deliver.



Which is why it is important to keep pointing people back toward the list of promised features when they are wrong about what was promised. Will some still misunderstand? Quite possibly, since it's a big world and some people will not be reasoned with. People who cling to that in the face of countervailing evidence will be discounted by the larger audience. So the devs/community managers do their due diligence, and move on.



That is an interesting example. So in that case, the customers would not have a leg to stand on regarding 'being cheated' as you say... but the arguments about it being a bad feature would still be fair game. Fortunately, ripping out code for unlocks should be pretty easy, code-wise. It could play hell with a developer's business plan, of course. As such, that is the sort of thing that devs/marketing should be banging the drum on loudly and often, right from the start.



Not solved perfectly, but it can be largely solved (as far as what was promised when money was paid). It requires the initial communication, followed up by repetition. It certainly harder for a small dev team, but it is still possible. Between web sites, forums, Reddit, facebook, twitter, Youtube videos, podcasts, email and whatever other social media you can think of... there are plenty of avenues to get the word out, and many of them are persistent.



Don't sell dreams, and then you don't have to argue about them. Delineate a product with a set feature list, and then deliver what was sold.
Communications is a vital part of doing business with customers over the internet. It should be factored into any business plan that involves selling to other people. There is no excuse for not doing it well. If it isn't part of the staff's skill set, then the staff needs another person added who can do it well.



Well, I hope you guys get your DCS:WWII. It looks like E.D. and the 3rd parties have a lot of things coming down the large bore IV tubing, although it's mostly more modern, however glacially slow it may come.

What i meant is look at the 90's and especially late 90's.


Janes f18
Gunship!
F/18 Super Hornet
f-22 lightning 3
F-16 agressor
falcon 4
Janes f15
Janes WW2 fighters
mig-29 fulcrum
f-22 raptor
a-10 cuba
Hind
Janes Longbow
Comanche 2
Ka50 Hokum
Su-27 flanker


And that is only from my memory, compared to that, what do we have now?

I don't see flight-sims as dead at-all but directions taken by developers aren't helping!

I know this is a BoS forum but every flight-sim developer was going to have a challenge after IL2:1946 came out (from successive IL2 iterations).

The above title is a huge lead-weight around any new development due to it's ease of use FMB, the variety of maps and aircraft and now all the modded features. It is just a beast.

DCS and BoS most likely have the best marketing strategy. A solid base (yes once bugs are fixed and features too...) and then add small paid for updates (or modules). That way it's not a massive financial hit if something isn't popular but should be a good stepping stone for future development.

Financially the market that will bring in large sums of money is the one that creates a P-47 and P-51 with a fully crew-able B-17 or B-24, vs a Bf-109 and 190 with maybe a Ju-88 or He-111. If a SIM became available that allowed the detail of DCS, the graphics of CloD/BoS (and Wings of Prey weather!) but updated to DX11 or 12 and ran through Hyperlobby with CO-OP available, the money generated would be enough to go back through the war and develop to earlier timelines.

It's a fallacy to say people love early war aircraft. Yes, some do, but for a financially successful Flight Sim (not just a flight sim) you have to be popular and not elitist. The above aircraft would generate the cash many want to see but then the early war lovers would complain about it always being the best aircraft that are modelled.

Sadly our hobby is developed by enthusiasts but run by accountants. Once accountants knew that the aircraft above would see a huge input of revenue, I'm sure they would be chasing the developers to get on with it.

Flight Sims aren't dead.......they're just looking for love in the wrong place

Cheers, MP

In light of what happened with the DCS:WWII Kickstarter... I can almost guarantee that:

1. E.D. would want nothing to do with such a proposal.

2. The number of customers willing to participate in that would be abysmally low.

The thing to keep in mind about Eagle Dynamics is that the DCS product line is one side of their business, with government/military contracts being the other side. The DCS line is at least partially a spin off of their contract work, and their priorities reflect the contract influence to some degree. For instance, they most likely don't have a dynamic campaign in DCS because that isn't what their military contracts call for.

I personally believe the market is thinning out some with CFS in our particular niche. If you ask a teenager today about Stalingrad, Normandy, BOB, Eastern Front.....most of today's kids wouldn't have the foggiest notion of what you were talking about....Here in the USA we've gotten into all the political correct historical emphasis.

The void of time between these battles continues to spread and with it, the interest in what happened in these conflicts. For many of us, with fathers and relatives that fought, and lived through the reality of the war, there was that special spark to reach out and try and make some type of connection. I personally believe that desire is dying out.

Shoot em up...online arenas like WT are fun and fast and they satisfy the needs of most gamers in this area. In addition, twenty years has brought about a whole new dynamic of time management within families and online gaming. Online excitement within the console realm is also a factor which has pulled away a customer base from the CPU, CFS gamer. There's just so much more to choose from...online which makes a community connection with friends and gaming interaction that our CFS online arenas can't compete with.

A squadron based online CFS takes a tremendous amount of time and patience to create and maintain...and today...well many guys just don't have that much time to devote. Poor offline SP creations like BOS only add to the frustration which we see here posted almost everyday.

I'll take what I can get because of these trends, and I will continue to support games like BOS precisely because of these trends. Besides...this game is getting better all the time for me. I have no regrets except for all the #%&*$# along the way. But I've learned a lot, as well.

Sure they aren't... but in fact they don't really have any way for a rational business practice.


Any developer with functioning neurons would never ever enter that arena. To enter that arena and think the business will one day be close to profitable... or even just "sustainable", they must have failed all reality checks. Devs entering that arena are themselves passionate hardcore players with a dream. So yes they present a feature list (in an honest way).... but it's absolutely not enough to match the dev's dreams and each player's dream.


Peoples who don't post don't take part in the communication tries between the devs and the hardcore players....nobody knows what they think, or even if they see themselves as "hardcore players" (which I doubt... "hardcore" has no sense outside attaching a label to a communication behavior). So they are not parameters of the (impossible) "dev/hardcore player" communication equation.
So yes, I do include most communicating hard core simmers in that group.... and it explains that every (or almost) complains/critic/etc turns into flame wars on forums.

Ok... some do, and it's stupid.


So BoS devs never tried to (and never communicated they would) please everyone, and sticked to a properly laid out plan/ list of promised features.... did it help the communication between them and the hardcore players?.... No.


It is not the code, but the feature list that don't survive the first contact with the hardcore players... again, from a feature list, the hardcore player build a dreamed game, and it's only when he begin to play it that he realize that, even if the game has all promised features, it has nothing to do with the dream built on it.
The dev deliver their own dream (again with the advertized features), and of course accept payment for it (or their own dream will stop very quickly...).


You take it as if the relation between the hardcore player and a sim game was anything like rational... but it isn't! The hardcore player wants to live through the game an alternate reality, what he calls "immersion", and all the combat flight sims he player before concurred to build an ideal dreammed "fully immersive" game, that will never exist. When a dev brings a list of features that seems compatable with a part of his dreamed "fully immersive" game, he fills the gaps and expect the game to fullfill all of his expectations, not only the advertized and promised feature list. So he will allways be disappointed.
Some may live with this disappointment, see a half-full glass and think "ok, it's not what I dreamed, but at least I can have some pleasure/excitment in this game... and others will quickly see an empty-full glass, get bitter, and blame the first ones (that see an half-full glass) for their "incredible low level of expectations".

And for combat flight sims, there's no "larger audience". The learning curve, allways higher with the level of simulation, makes them reserved to the "hardcore player" niche market.

Then don't sell combat flight sims.... since that's what the hardcore players expect, the ultimate "immersion" dream.

Look at mission maker section of BoS Russian forum, the number missions created is much less
that in the western forum.

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/forum/54-polzovatelskie-missii/

Anyway the il-2 Commander, to add some "RPG" in the Unlock "campaign" has good interest.

No, the flame wars are caused at least in equal measure by those people, you included Rama, that feel it necessary to disagree whenever someone makes a complaint about the game.

People that choose to answer on behalf of the developers, with no inside knowledge and nothing but undying passion for the game or developer they have chosen to put on a pedestal, often tend to fan the flames far more than those making the complaint in the first place.

I'd say those are all good assessments. Along with the increased choices for gaming, social media appears to be a bigger time sink than it used to be, too.

BoS is great and it's shortfalls are easy to overlook.....








If you lower your standards enough.

If "in fact they don't really have any way for a rational business practice", then they shouldn't be taking money from anyone. Rama, that's a ridiculous assertion to make. It's entirely possible to define a product with a limited scope, and then deliver it. That is a rational business practice. That limited scope product doesn't have to fulfill the dreams of everyone that comes along. It should fulfill the scope of what was defined and sold. Everything beyond that is gravy.



It doesn't have to fulfill anyone's dreams (not even the dev's...). What it rightfully has to do is fulfill the scope of what was defined and sold. That is how business and contract law works.



If you want to define "hard core players" as players who are perpetually dissatisfied and who have a compulsion to let everyone else know about it... then I guess your position makes sense (to you, any ways).

I'd say that is far off the mark of what most people would think of as "hard core players". I think most people would define "hard core players" in terms of how seriously they take their simulations, their knowledge (or thirst for knowledge) of the simulated era/vehicles/history/combat tactics & strategy, and possibly even their choices of equipment (ie. HOTAS/joystick/yokes/pedals/panels).

From the group of people I have described, some of them read related forums. A subset of those who read, actually write posts. Of those who post, some of them are highly disappointed about something (or some things), and are verbose about it. Some post an opinion in the thread, and pretty much leave it be until another thread comes along that merits their contribution of an opinion. Some folks make a point of posting both good and bad points they see about whatever is being discussed.




Based on what I've seen, there are hard core (as in: serious enthusiasts) players across a spectrum of acceptance levels about what was delivered. If all you see is negativity/dissatisfaction, you aren't paying close enough attention.



The feature list is determined by the developers/publishers. The customers don't have a gun to the heads of the devs forcing them to add features. The only solid leverage customers have is their money, and it is up to the devs/publishers to determine which segment(s) of the market they can actually serve, and then to follow through upon that. If they get foolishly greedy and try to convince other segments that they will be served, too... then they have dug their own hole with such misleading marketing. When that happens, the less solid leverage of word-of-mouth (ie. social media, voice comms) comes into play. Bad word-of-mouth can affect further sales, but the devs and marketing people can largely thank themselves for that problem.



What constitutes immersive varies from one enthusiast to another. All a developer/publisher can do is define the scope of their offering, market it as necessary to propagate as fully as feasible, an understanding of what that scope actually is, then create it and deliver it. If they truly do that, they can look themselves in the mirror and know they have conducted themselves ethically. They can point to what they said they would do, and show that they did it.

What they can not do is satisfy everyone's self-conjured dreams. If they allow an attempt to do that to derail their project, they have themselves to blame. If they let weeping and gnashing of teeth from people who are dissatisfied over things that were not promised, drive them out of the business, they were not well suited to doing business in the first place.

It's not that hard to differentiate between constructive criticism and baseless hysterics. Good business people encourage the former, listen to it, and look to see how they can improve their product or process. But they also have to have a thick skin about the baseless stuff.



There is a larger audience. There are the rest of the serious enthusiasts. There are also the folks who may not be as serious about it, but who read, and possibly post in social media, etc.



Sell them a product that meets the well defined scope of what was marketed to them when their money was accepted.