My most expensive module by far... feeling bad..

I think that requesting a reasonable amount of money for the updated version for the owners of the original module is both fair and rational. It would be questionable if money were requested for the graphic overhaul only which is not the case and so ED have my support for this decision.

I know it is not the same case, and maybe not the best example, but I see it kind of in the similar way as if I owned the original Doom game from 1994 and someone would make the remake of it level by level, episode by episode in the new Doom 2016 engine and adding something like flamethrower (that was promised for Doom 2 but did not make it to the release), I would also pay this person or company some reasonable price for it. No problem.

We are not getting new DCS game every 5 years (and it would not be sustainable to pay for all the modules full price every 5 years for most of us I believe), ED is working on old modules also, while keeping the game graphicaly beautiful and I think what they are doing now with BS3 is smart, fair, good business and I fully support it.

If the money is right, and I believe it will be, you have it from me on day 1 presale.

Thanks, ED.

What is the deal with the cockpit upgrade? Is this thing ever going to come out? Last i heard it was late last year and now we are into late this year and still crickets what’s going on?!

Sometime in 2020 according to chiz in russian forum

I am afraid we are approaching a state where the resources are too thin and basically any development is approaching a halt. MAC is on hold, A-10C cockpit upgrade with a very slow progress, KA-50 moved to sometime in 2020 (not really much confidence in it), P-47 more than five years in development, Mi-24 more than 5 years, ATC has been talked about for some 5+ years, Hornet some 10 years, older stuff deprecating and not being updated that much. Probably only F-16 is showing some progress. Hope I am mistaken ... but my feeling is not that good about the current progress of things, but I can understand it as it is very complex and with growing list it becomes impossible to maintain everything.

A-10C cockpit upgrade with a very slow progress

According to Chizh it is supposed to launch this year, unlike BS3 which has been moved to 2020.

Order 30182, $49,99

Order 54765, $19,99

Order 200382, $11,99

 

I hated having to install the stand alone blackshark to upgrade to V2, so bought a standalone V2. I know that recently the licenses were combined. I tried gifting one of my licenses but ED said “no”...

 

So $82 already spend on the Blackshark and now having to pay for another upgrade?

 

This feels excessive. Especially when you compare it to for example the Hornet. The latter giving you much more value for money systems wise and such.

Done it!

Been there!

got the T-shirt!

you got the free graphic update dude!

What else you want..... blood.

Christ! bitchin or what!

Roll on the pay to use upgrade, bitches gonna learn em some pain!

F%*^in A!

if the upgrade is balanced right and the lady walks out of the hangar hot to trot and able to defend her honour in the modern battlefield... then this will be the greatest attack chopper in DCS and she will be Quen for many years to come.

I may think the apache AH-64A will only beat it by a pair of eyeballs.... but not through pulling a corner.

Such a weapon is worth every penny, the proof of our desire is in the very post the original poster submitted. it shows dedication and expenditure for a weapon that delivers the ultimate machine that our minds eye desires..... every aching inch of pulling the weapon into the low level merge.

lets see what Ed deliveres

3 months after release I found a boxed copy of BS in a supermarket: 10€

In 2016 I bought the full BS2 version during a Steam sale: 25€

I always felt bad because I made such a good deal, but now I know there are people making up for it. Thanks for supporting further development with money more than I do!

I am afraid we are approaching a state where the resources are too thin and basically any development is approaching a halt. MAC is on hold, A-10C cockpit upgrade with a very slow progress, KA-50 moved to sometime in 2020 (not really much confidence in it), P-47 more than five years in development, Mi-24 more than 5 years, ATC has been talked about for some 5+ years, Hornet some 10 years, older stuff deprecating and not being updated that much. Probably only F-16 is showing some progress. Hope I am mistaken ... but my feeling is not that good about the current progress of things, but I can understand it as it is very complex and with growing list it becomes impossible to maintain everything.

The aircraft have ALWAYS taken years. That is nothing surprising, you really think they can whip something this complex out in a few months? There's not anything here that was completed in less than four years or so, and some of them took longer.

''No development'' ''no progress''

What rock have you been under the last few years?

The aircraft have ALWAYS taken years. That is nothing surprising, you really think they can whip something this complex out in a few months? There's not anything here that was completed in less than four years or so, and some of them took longer.

 

''No development'' ''no progress''

What rock have you been under the last few years?

I am an aerospace engineer and develop flight control systems, everything that is put into practice is simulated at first, I work with dynamic aircraft models which will eat your PC alive, so please DO NOT tell me how long something can or cannot take...

What seems to be forgotten is that the platform on which all the DCS World software was built is the revenue from Black Shark and the A-10C.

Sure, it wasn't cheap, and yes, to bring it up to date you will need to spend more. But remember how long ago it arrived on the scene, and what a step forward it was. Then, take a look in the attic at all the old software that you now never touch - often because it is no longer able to run on modern machines.

Then think again about how much the Black Shark series cost. To my thinking, it is one of the few items from that era still being supported. There is a limit as to how far your buck will go, and as such, it is either invest or die. At least the Black Shark is still getting investment.

Not so expensive when you think of it in those terms?

MCAS?

yep, we rolled it out in just three months and it has been a huge success with only two crashes (*writing from jail*).

But seriously no, the tragedy is that MCAS itself worked just as designed without a flaw (according to available data), the problem is much more complex from control (cybernetics), diagnosis, HMI (human machine interface) and air-frame integration points of view.

I think I have a pretty good idea how complex technical systems are and how difficult is it to develop them, what I previously wrote was just my concern that in case of ED with modules and features growth, it is a problem of resource allocation and the major delays are caused by it. I have just a feeling that the company is trying to bite more than it can chew (whole WW2 thing, MAC agenda, core DCS, modern aircraft, new engine, old stuff deprecation, etc).

I have to backtrack on my initial statement with regards to this being my most expensive module.

Over the last couple of months, I have read and thought about things a bit more. I have no idea about how well ED is doing moneywise, is the company surviving from module to module while having to maintain all these other modules up to spec? And introducing more and more realism features into the core simulator, or is the current situation stable and will we all be enjoying an amazing flight simulator over the coming years. I have no idea.

Whatever the case may be, creating DCS takes money. Maintaining 8 or 9-year-old modules takes money. And yes sometimes you end up paying in installments like with BS, BS2 and now another upgrade. Other times you luck out like with the early access A-10C which gave me Nevada for free.

I do apologize for starting this thread and will keep on supporting ED like I have been doing since Su-27 DOS in 1995.

If there is 1 Module that is worth every penny paid, it's the Ka-50 imho.

Flying that P-47D-23 in my sig costs around 750ml or better said 10€ per 10min flight, due to 20% Nitromethan and 20% Synthetic Oil for that Roots-Supercharged 1.20 Cubic Inch 4-Stroke OS Engine. THAT is expensive per minute of fun, tho I wouldn't wanna miss the thrill and sound.

Same goes for the Ka-50, I wouldnt wanna miss that thrill & kick, it is just that much cheaper and if I crash, well, hit the ESCAPE button and start over. Not so with R/C planes, Motorcycles or Sports Cars.

I will happily pay for the BS3 upgrade.

But seriously no, the tragedy is that MCAS itself worked just as designed without a flaw (according to available data), the problem is much more complex from control (cybernetics), diagnosis, HMI (human machine interface) and air-frame integration points of view.

“the tragedy is that MCAS itself worked just as designed”

I think you’re being overly generous to the Boeing engineers.

They knew that under certain circumstances, the system could produce unexpected and potentially fatal behaviour that normal responses would not counter, and rather than fix that at a software level they tried to rely on training pilots to recognise the unexpected behaviour and counter the actions of the MCAS.

A Boeing internal report from before the crashes leaked to The Guardian said the MCAS system would probably contribute to the loss of at least 1 aircraft before they could rectify the system.

But they rolled it out regardless.

The put cashflow and expediency ahead of passenger safety - no two ways around it..

If you disagree with Wiki’s summary, you should correct it:

The activation logic of MCAS has been shown to be vulnerable to erroneous angle of attack data, as analyses have shown following the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashes. Flaws found in the MCAS implementation, in crew training, and in operational procedures resulted in a worldwide grounding of the airliner, pending accident investigations, certification inquiry, and necessary changes to the MCAS software, cockpit instruments, and crew manuals and training.

A Boeing internal report from before the crashes leaked to The Guardian said the MCAS system would probably contribute to the loss of at least 1 aircraft before they could rectify the system.

Monsters.

I hope Boeing is sued into Oblivion.

“the tragedy is that MCAS itself worked just as designed”

 

I think you’re being overly generous to the Boeing engineers.

They knew that under certain circumstances, the system could produce unexpected and potentially fatal behaviour that normal responses would not counter, and rather than fix that at a software level they tried to rely on training pilots to recognise the unexpected behaviour and counter the actions of the MCAS.

 

A Boeing internal report from before the crashes leaked to The Guardian said the MCAS system would probably contribute to the loss of at least 1 aircraft before they could rectify the system.

 

But they rolled it out regardless.

 

The put cashflow and expediency ahead of passenger safety - no two ways around it..

 

If you disagree with Wiki’s summary, you should correct it:

Not wanting to go too far OT, but I agree Weta43, I was just trying to say it was not some implementation or coding error in MCAS but rather a fatal design flaw, which is always hard to correct. It is difficult to understand and swallow that Boeing knew about the expected loss of 1 aircraft and still pushed it out in a way it was. In my engineering experience it is also quite absurd, because in any design it is always the priorities - safety first, second, third and then long nothing and safety again long nothing and only then maybe some performance/costs. Even when re-designing an old system, the first question is, will it be considerably more safe? I thought that this principle today really applies to everyone dealing with civil aviation.

Also waiting patiently for the updated Ka-50 as it was my original module many years ago and I've always loved it.

I have paid for the module once, and I will happily do so again when it comes to upgraded systems and avionics.

There's so much going on under the hood of a system than it cannot be done trivially, and that means putting people and money on that project.

Hell, If the F14 was announced as a D version I would put my money where my mouth is and pay for it.

The only thing I regret over the years is not being able to gift a module for a buddy or a competition/ christmas draw.

I bought Blackshark standalone, followed by the upgrade to 2, followed by the full version on sale. Regardless, I would prefer to pay for a quality upgrade from version 2 to 3, as I am sure allot of effort has gone into the new module. I have no idea why some posters are complaining; when they get the visual upgrade for free, the option to pay for new systems is just that, an option, as in, we all believed we were getting a cockpit upgrade let alone an exterior and systems upgrade. Its amazing news and its disappointing that users think they are entitled to new systems when in fact they are not.

You are 100% Right! I never expected BS2 to get new texture/model and features. I'm relative new to DCS (from beginning of 2018 ) and BS2 was first module, I'm in DCS World because it (found some post on quora). I can only imagine how others player feel happy to get updated after all years (form 2011), because I own it only 2 years and as I mention never expected to get so massive update.

I don't understand why anybody complain about it... I'm sorry that you guys @Wags/@NineLine needed to explain it so exactly (money-wise and work-wise etc.) at the and we see only tip of iceberg, I expected since 2011 DCS changed a lot internally so free update of BS2 model/texture will cause massive internal BS3 changes anyway... somebody has to do it... it so obvious...

Anyway @Wags/@NineLine love ya', keep up, never give up... I will buy BS3 at day zero!

I'm sorry you feel that way. To update the Ka-50 (one of our earliest DCS modules) takes a lot of time, money, and opportunity lost from other projects. We do realize though that the Ka-50 needs a lot of love to bring up up to par with our more recent modules. As with any module though, we need to find a means for it to pay for itself, so we simply cannot give away the entire update for free. We have staff to pay and lights to keep on.

 

As a compromise, we are giving away the all new and greatly improved external model and cockpit for free to all Ka-50 users. However, if you want to have the additional functions, I'm sorry, but we need some compensation for the work.

 

I hope you understand.

 

Thanks

I just bought the KA-50 so you can flip another nickle into the electricity metre Wags :smilewink: That's yet another aircraft I've bought that'll be instantly mothballed because the Hornet so damn awesome! But hey, when the Syrian map is released... :D

Does anyone know if the dual-rack Iglas will be mounted as a 3rd pylon (Below countermeasures) like it's stated on some information I've read or will they be forced to put instead of Vikhrs?

If they're replacing Vikhers then it's kinda pointless: /

Example of possible Ka-50 loadouts

Depends how 'fantasy' they want to make it...

IRL it never had Igla and it never had a third pylon

afaik it wont have 3rd pylon and it is not pointless, 4-ship KA-50 3 with Vikhrs one with Igla for protection of other helos, would work well. Together with the new MWS survivability increased significantly.

They've already said in the Russian forums it will have 3 pylons.

But that won't sell me. I want FLIR and Night Attack capability.

Ka-50sh or Ka-50N