Haha... true. ED has done a few good things, pity the recent decisions they've made are either wrong or confusing... and this is just talking about modules. The forum whack-a-mole with the ban hammer is a different can of worms entirely!

Sure, they can run their business how they want, but a few people think this isn't.... what's the word... ah... "optimal."
Hopefully, things will turn around for them post 2.5.

You should get your PC checked out though. That magical being that was living in my PC before? Seems like you've got one of those now

I realize it was probably said tongue-in-cheek, but there is a great deal of truth in the statement that you're more likely to be in an Apache cockpit more quickly by joining the Army than waiting on ED.

Sad but true.

How long is a "service" term in the Army? Maybe we can even extend the statement to "join the Army, get into the Apache, do your term, and retire, all before ED makes an AH-64."

I don't believe the Apache (first day purchase for many here) is ever going to happen. I too wonder how ED arrives at some decisions. i.e. Who decided the C-101 was a good idea? I bought it when I used to buy everything they put out. After that, no more. The Spanish version of the 109? Buchon is in my opinion ridiculous. Who wants this? Only the person who owns one. How does it have any relevance?
There are so many first day buys I can think of. Anything from the Century Series for example. Imagine if you will a full fidelity F-8? But here in lies another problem. No opponent to this aircraft exists within DCS.
I now want more out of ED. I think a certain quality must be maintained. i.e. If the VEAO Warhawk ever sees the light of day, I will wait on reviews first. Sure I want that but I judge them only by their past performance (Hawk).
Maps are needed badly. Korea, Vietnam, Middle East... I hope we get Normandy before the year's out. I am also absolutely bonkers to see Straights of Hormuz. Yet I feel like these things take so long I might be into something else by the time they arrive.

Spanish modders, not ED, decided it was a good idea, because they wanted to have it in DCS, and for their countrymen this was a "first day buy", not some F-100/102/104/105 or F-8 they don't give a rat's ass about. It's that simple. In a similar way, a bunch of Swedes hired recently by LN wanted their iconic Viggen in DCS, so they've been making one, whether it makes sense for non-Swedish customers or not. And if both of these planes can bring some buck to ED on that occasion, why would ED not let them do it?

I see that kind of flawed argument of Yours repeated in numerous flight sim and racing sim communities - for some reason some people cannot grasp the fact that modders, either the ones who work for free, or the ones who decide to go payware, start spending their time and money first and foremost just because they want their favourite content X in platform Y, not because someone tells them to make content Z they have zero interest in (wanna go to FSX/P3D addon makers and tell them to stop building combat planes because "how does they have any relevance" in civilian platform? Yep, good luck with that ).

So the question is rather, why doesn't ED make their platform more 3rd party friendly, when they boast about the idea of turning DCS into "sandbox simulator", while clearly not having enough manpower to develop and polish content themselves? That would bring both popular and obscure aircraft to the table. We've discussed it here, though, many times, and nobody but ED knows the answer.

I agree with the rest of Your post, however.

Hmmm... if it is as you say (again, we're just speculating; only ED knows the answer), then yes, it makes sense that Modder A makes Aircraft B because that's what he likes whereas Modder X makes Aircraft Y because that's what's popular in his country.

But surely, some modder must've also wanted to make the Tomcat/Hornet/Apache/etc., you know, the common, iconic aircraft we have in other sims? I speculate that on those "cash cows," ED shot them down because ED wants to do it themselves. It's like "Ok, let's let modders make 3rd party aircraft we otherwise wouldn't do ourselves but we've identified the real potential money-making airframes and we'll reserve that for ourselves."



If my speculation is true, the downside to that is while Aircraft B and Aircraft Y are getting developed NOW, the Tomcat/Hornet/Apache/etc. won't get any love until ED sorts out the current mess they're in.

Okay, okay, I'll take my "conspiracy theory" hat off now...

I've come to the conclusion that DCS is a dead end. I completely agree with Maico about the choice of aircraft, the obscurity of some of the choices is strange to say the least. There was a point where folk would buy whatever was thrown out by ED and it's third parties, I believe those days are gone for most folk. I would be interested to know how many F-5s were sold. For a third party to make any kind of profit they would need to release something along the lines of LN choice, the F-14. A high demand module. Even then we're talking years of development time, will the sales justify the cost of development? Will folk wait the next x amount of years for their next module? I can't see AVIO selling many of their next "release" same for VEAO. Very few folk will purchase another "early access" from either of those two. Then what's left? 2 or 3 third parties producing miss matched aircraft to fly around Nevada.
The idea of DCS is a good one, unfortunately ED lack any form of direction and unfortunately they're in charge.

DCS has found the perfect business model.............for them. Put out third party obscure crap in alpha, sell some modules, throw out some campaigns to pay for and voila! Enough money to keep the doors open for a little while longer. I have a hard time believing that ED is making much money and that's why we haven't seen the Hornet or Apache. Too long of a development phase because they can't hire a bunch of guys on staff because they're playing catch up selling crappy modules. It's a never ending process but at least Matt Wagner won't have to go work at some department store for the time being.

I think I came across this discussion in some other module when I asked "Who the hell would buy this aircraft? Who went out and said 'y'know what this sim needs? A TRAINER aircraft!!'??"

I was promptly told off because apparently, the Gazelle and the Hawk and the Albatross and the Aviojet are all "strong" aircraft in their respective fields. Yeah. Go figure. I'll buy a combat flight simulator to fly trainer aircraft. Sure.



This was me back in the day, and that's why I bought BS2 even though I skipped BS1 due to little interest in that airframe. I like helos, sure. I've had my time in EEAH/EECH and Gunship!, but always in the Apache or Commanche, not the Havok/Hokum, but I bought BS2 to support ED at the time. Luckily, I'm the "fool me once" type of guy and stopped once Combined Arms had me scratching my head.

See, that's what I don't understand. Why put out so many products when these are weak and have no synergy with each other or with the overall vision of the project? When DCS fully realizes its potential and we have Tomcats and Hornets and a modern battlefield with Apaches and Havocs flying about, when we have Mustangs and 109s/190s duking it out over a WWII theatre, how many people do you think will go out and fly the Albatross/Aviojet/Hawk? How many people do you think will go out and fly the Mi-8/Huey/Gazelle unless the mission **SPECIFICALLY** requires it? Or how often do you think these roles (Mi-8/Huey/Gazelle) will be assigned as AI aircraft with relevant scripts and triggers?

Don't get me wrong, there are people who like these things.... I remember a MP flight in DCS A-10C where one player played the role of Tower and we had to follow procedures for startup/taxi/take off, then that guy played the role of FAC (he used to be a FAC or AFAC) and would give us proper 9-lines and clearing us hot. That was so much fun and having him there increased the immersion by magnitudes......... but people like that are few and far between. And even with that, I'm guessing that guy would like to turn-and-burn in the sky every once in a while as well.

So back to my question: Why make so many products that will sell only so much when you can make a better product that will sell like hotcakes? Why make 10 things that will only make you scrape by when you can make 2 things and start your own mint?

Culture differences perhaps? But still, I thought capitalism and profit transcended language and culture barriers.

What advanced systems? Don't we have an A-A radar from the F-15? Don't we have TGP and some A-G stuff from the Hog? So they need to work on A-G radar, but that's essential, not something I would cal "advanced"...


Companies play on "emotions" all the time. Just watch an advert for any softdrink, beer, car, or home sales. Heck, even some medication adverts!
"Does your girlfriend complain about your stamina?"



Because sometimes, you may want to take on that "responsibility and risk" yourself if you think it'll pay off! Especially in ED's case.... if they're good enough to model aircraft for FC3 and also do the Hog and Shark, they have the foundation for things like the Hornet and the Tomcat, both really popular aircraft. Why take 30% royalties off of those products (just throwing a number out) when you can have 100%?



As with everything, if that is indeed the problem, then they should just come out and say it. That way, we, the customers, know exactly who to blame. Is it ED? Is it Grumman? Is it some nameless suit in a dark room somewhere?

As for rights.... well, we know the Tomcat is modelled in MSFS. Does that mean getting it into DCS should not have this "rights" issue as a problem? I guess not as LN is already making the Tomcat, but what about other aircraft?

I probably have a slightly differing opinion on the modules, etc that DCS has chosen to produce. For me, how relevent the platform is in actual use has less importance than what comes with the module. This probably because I spend most (ok all) of my time flying offline. If the module comes with a decent campaign and a decent set of missions then it is already a lot more enjoyable to me. Or even if a decent after market campaign is available.

Along these lines, I had a lot of fun flying the Huey campaign (particularly, I liked how each mission built on the last to teach a little more about to fly it). Same deal with the black shark. Presently I am cutting my teeth with the F-15 and looking forward to giving the Red Flag Campaign a go.

To me, each one of these aircraft offer something else to learn, some other system to become proficient in, some new flight characteristics to tame. The missions/campaigns just make that experience more fun.

I realize I may be in the minority but given the choice between an F/A-18 without any missions/campaign (not suggesting it would come that way) and some slightly more obscure platform with some supporting campaigns/missions then I would prefer the later. Of course an F/A-18 with the missions/campaigns would be a win/win

See, that's all the community wants, really.



Fair point... but would you call RAZBAM/Belsimtek/AvioDev/etc. a newbie module developer? Sure, new for DCS, but haven't they been doing stuff like these for other sims? What about ED themselves, making the Albatross? They're not a "newbie" to their own simulator engine!

Also, while it is true that making a trainer is "less work," again, ED have already developed the F-15, MiG-29, and so on with regards to speed regions.... so again, scratching my head with the Albatross...


You misunderstood me. Companies play on "emotions" of the customer to get them to buy, and they should know how much of an "emotion" they can play with when they make their business decision. Think about it. What do you think sales figures would be if they released DCS: Trainer Jet vs. FC3: Tomcat? Knowing that a lot of people of a certain age group are emotionally attached to the Tomcat should guide them in their decisions, regardless of how many ED staff actually like the Tomcat vs. the Trainer Jet.

But then we see ED's actions in this arena anyway. They've already conducted a poll on what people want, but they show no signs of heeding the results of that poll. So knowing the market vs. actually acting on that information has no connect in the business decision section of ED.



30% of a "meh!" module (0% dev cost) may be better than than 100% of that "meh!" module (100% dev cost) but surely 100% of a "cash cow" module (100% dev cost) will make them more money than 30% of a "cash cow" module (0% dev cost)??

Because if you say ED will make more money outsourcing EVERYTHING, even the "cash cow" modules, well, why has no 3rd party developer picked up on the Hornet yet?



True, but AFAIK, we've not heard of anything like this regarding ED and certain aircraft.

I disagree. In my opinion I think the choice of modules is 100% dictated by the commercial/military arm and ED are simply repackaging/removing anything classified and throwing it out for desktop consumption....but the big problem being that ED in their ineptitude and incompetence completely underestimated everything meaning they're are making a complete pigs ear of it.

They probably make a small profit from the desktop side of things, certainly enough to keep moving very slowly in a forward direction hence why they continue to bludgeon forward at snails pace yet try to get more money by taking on more work and the vicious cycle continues.

On a slight tangent, I'm sure I recall a statement from ED long ago that mentioned the integrated modules and airframes that would be whipped up every 9 months together with associated theatres etc.

Ah, see, I wasn't talking about 3rd Party but more Official ED.


Dammit! Dammit, Troll! You posting via your stupid Apple devices again??!?!?!???


So you're saying ED are making their decisions based on their feelings? I'd say ED is making their decisions via a drunken session of "pin the tail on the donkey" or "spin a bottle" rather than any research **OR** feelings! There! I said it!!


Which brings me back to my point.... a "conspiracy theory" point, but still a point.


Eh? Current ones, yes, but I was talking about "planned" modules.

You really should stop reading and posting from your iDevices.... it seems like it skews both your reading of my posts and your replies to my posts. Either that, or you really like dancing around the same point with me.

So why make 2.5 and EDGE then? How does that figure in their commercial/military plans?


Aha!! But they did not mention WHICH 9 months or even which YEAR those 9 months are supposed to be in, did they?

Yep.... personal preference, availability of information, but most importantly, is what ED cleared them to do. I wonder if the modules these 3rd Party Devs are making are actually their first choice? If not, then how far down the list did they have to go?

Because we already know the answer to the licensing of released modules?



Your moves take a bit of getting used to though, and you step on my toes a little too often. Plus, those heels don't really suit you.

I for one think that the F-18 should have gotten priority after the A-10. This would have cemented ED as the go to sim for me. Instead I played with IL2 1946, Wings over Europe, Rise of flight and BOS because there was so much choice in aircraft. I exclusively play DCS now. I try to be more immersed in the current aircraft I fly. Wait for the next and hope its a good one.

You, me, and a lot of other people as well!


You play DCS exclusively, but ED is not the go-to sim for you?