I think they are very productive, I absolutely get you aren’t being insulting, but I think the actual work of making these modules for DCS is incredibly intricate and time consuming making them look like slow coaches. Even heatblur, look how long the forrestal took to materialise.
It’s changed so much over the years. When I occasionally fire up fleet defender on my laptop and think about what used to be cutting edge study sims compared to these days its like comparing rocks to magic.
I think that’s why the developer pool is so thin. Risk vs reward vs time.
EW stuff
I’m not interested in a ‘fake’ F-22 or -35 or any 5th gen’er that is a too much of a big guess on systems. I know, I know, it’s all fake in the end but, ya know what I mean…
ED’s stance on, to paraphrase comments I’ve seen, “we won’t do it if it’s not accurate/complete” seems strange (witness the AI, but of course a different context I suppose).
Doesn’t make sense for super-double secret EW systems - just use known physics and roll your own EW world. Give me an ALQ-1234-Lima (yes I made that up) and the spec’s on it and I’ll understand. Might not be 100% accurate but as a player I’ll adjust, and in the meantime I have a system that is logical and complete. Some Players will always complain. No news there.
Heavier than air craft-wise, yeah, ya’ll have covered them. But why I ask (to nobody in particular) don’t we have the maps that to me seem obvious.
But I’ll name them anyway, a short list:
This was one of the biggest strengths of Strike Fighters- being able to select eras.
Also, I’ll keep repeating it, I really, REALLY want DCS: Cold War What If Navy. Especially now that we have the Forrestal (and at least a straight deck Essex in the works). And ALL the following planes:
F7U
F8F
F9F
F9F-6
F11F
F2H
F3H
F4D
F5D (I know it never entered production, but a guy can wish…)
AD Skyraider
A3D Whale
A-5 Vigilante
Like some of the others, I’m rather ambivalent about the Phantom, but I recognize the rather huge-ish role it filled for a very long time.
2021 was the most boring year in aviation. 2022 will be worse. 2032 will be worse still. But 2020 was better. 2000 was better still. And 1980 was freaking awesome! So from my world-view the future for DCS couldn’t be brighter so long as the focus is NOT on the future.
I’m not a modder (lua code counts but not what I mean here) but I hear a lot of gripes about how the juicy stuff is kept locked away. I can’t really vouch for what these bits are in the context of building an aircraft or map from scratch - or better yet AI assets (and updating them!) but, well my point is:
Allowing more mod-ability should give this thing even more legs well into the future. Problem of course is they have no competition. So, forget everything I just said…
Good points. The community is a demanding bunch, though I’m actually happy with the eye-candy right now (blasphemy!) so I’d like more time spent on…wait for it…AI and performance stuff. But that doesn’t make them any money I’ve heard.
So, we might be reaching a point in a distant but foreseeable future where every relevant 4th gen jet will be in DCS up to our current standard. A less informed observer would think that would be the end of the module economics (since the top sellers are probably the western 4th gen jets) and they would need to find another way to monetize.
Also, there is a pretty big caveat to the current model, because although I can be wrong, they seem to do a big programming push until they release a model in EA, but after that, they slow progress down considerably, because releasing a new and shiny module sells a lot more than patching something that is 3 years old+ and taking out of EA…
Me, looking how they re-released the A10 and the Blackshark, to be more in tune with the modern DCS features, actually can see this being a good thing. While they will never run out of aircraft to make, they will have to comeback and constantly add value to their top sellers with either remakes or add-on stuff like the supercarrier.
So, I actually can’t wait for this “endgame” if it means more features added to either through CORE updates or through add-ons, instead of ED and third parties pumping up new aircraft every 4 months only to have a huge fleet kept almost perpetually in EA.
How do they make money again? The A10C II added some features like the HMCS and APKWS - are there similar things to add to the Hornet 2 or Viper 2? For me the A10C was like $10, so slim pickings…
I stopped at 1980 only because my post would have become even more tedious had I continued to go backwards. The true ultimate for me would be early Vietnam.
DCS:BoB would be a dream but it needs a completely different plane set than what we have now.
Overall both WWII maps are way too small and maybe even a poor choice for the timeframe DCS Warbirds are set in. A WWII map of the Ruhr Area and spanning from northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands to the eastern Ruhr valley would be far more interesting. Hell, include the Channel and southern England - that would allow for some incredible historical multiplayer missions. I’d be willing to pay good money for that.
The Luftwaffe barely got off the ground during daytime in '44 Normandy. The Channel map is great for co-op and Singleplayer scenarios, especially in the Mossie but IIRC it only includes one airfield that was used by the Luftwaffe in '44.
B-52
A-6
A-7
F-105, F-104
Canberra
Any 50’s Cold War jet…e.g. Venom, Vampire, Hunter
Any of the V bombers.
Bucaneer
Jaguar
Phantom in all its guises
Tornado
I could go on, but that’s a hefty wish list of noisy jets. A lot would compliment the existing planet.
Well, they added some more stuff to the A-10 and charged for it, but also made it hard for every A-10 owner not to buy it. let’s say it was less than an eight of the development cost of the A-10 for an eight of the price? Not to mention maybe getting some new sales for the A-10 now that there is some freshness to it… But what about he Supercarrier, they added as a feature to the Hornet (sure, and the Tomcat) way before it was out of EA. It’s expensive, but from a user’s perspective, it’s insane not to have it, right? I can see that happening more and more in the future.
They sure put in a lot of production hours, but they don’t release many products.
A lot of the work goes into maintaining the products and keeping them up to date with DCS. This is what I mean one could solve by locking certain content to versions of DCS. They will have to release and sell version 2, 3, etc. of the existing modules in order to continue the funding, or simply abandon them at a certain DCS version.
What about a subscription model? I’d be cool with it. If their ultimate goal is to ditch maps entirely—and that does seem to be the plan—then a subscription makes more sense. It also provides ED and 3rd party devs a steady, reliable income.
I want Middle East, like Iraq vs Iran, because we have so many pieces already, we are almost there
we have already few maps in that region
F14A (Iran version promised)
F5E
MiG21bis
Mirage F1 (in development by Aerges)
MiG23 (in development by Razbam)
what we missing
F4 (can be developed by ED)
Su20
MiG25 ! (can be developed by ED as one member of the team is former MiG25 driver - hope he is still part of the team)
and maybe AH1 (can be developed by ED)
quite few opportunities for ED to develop new stuff
I like the warbirds a lot, especially the European theater. A full map of the low lands and (West) Germany would be great. spectacular missions aplenty.
And the pacific is great. Lots of H2O, so easy to make big maps, isn’t it?
I don’t like sand. it sticks everywhere, messes up your sandwiches and beer and grinds through your teeth and gears. Meh.
F4 would be great. I miss the sound of this machine. RRRRRROOOAAAAFGRRRRRR. love it.
any big WW2 bombers are welcome. Lancaster, B17, B19, B29, Beaufort. I really, REALLY would like to see a PBY Catalina. Last year we sold our very last originally Dutch Catalina, for a mere 300k. Such a waste. would love to fly one, albeit digital.
