How to get your favorite plane into DCS

Over the past week, we've seen a lot of backlash and controversy over certain modules and the manner in which they are marketed. People are going back and forth in various discussions and communities, wondering why certain aircraft are being made and others ignored, or whether certain modules "belong" in DCS. I've seen the word "entitlement" thrown around a lot.

What we all need to remember is that these modules are a business, and we are customers. A developer may start out making a module they genuinely care about, but the key to staying in business is matching market demand and ensuring a positive return-on-investment. Making modules to the quality that DCS expects is an expensive endeavor. This means that developers need to be very careful about choosing which modules to create.

What the DCS community needs to understand is that "market demand" does not mean "demanding" certain modules be made on a forum. It can only be quantified by sales figures or market research. The number of people who post regularly on these forums and other communities is far, far less than the total number of DCS users or potential customers. As such polls, begging, and pleading on forums can never be considered a gauge for market demand. Sales figures are the only accurate rubric for determining what the community is willing to pay money for. Every module sale is a message sent to that developer that that type of module is in demand. If you hate trainers but buy them anyways to "support the devs", the only thing the developers see is that sales were made. Given that trainers don't cost nearly as much to develop, this only encourages developers to make more trainers. Posting on a forum that you plan to buy a module despite not actually being interested in it, and that you expect that developer to make something else in the future, doesn't accomplish anything. The developer is only able to look at sales, and sales alone, as an accurate figure for market demand.

How does this connect to getting your favorite module into DCS? If you want developers to stop making trainers, you need to stop buying trainers. If you want developers to make combat aircraft, you need to buy combat aircraft. If you like a module, buy that module. Don't buy a module you don't care about because you think you're "supporting the devs." Don't buy a module in the hopes that it will make a developer like you more and make your plane. Don't buy a plane because you think you need to "complete" DCS. Sales of modules that the community do not actually care for only produce an inaccurate picture of community demand, and thus results in more of the same.

This is not a call for a boycott, or a call to put any developer out of business. Developers are only able to produce products that they think will sell. As customers, we need to do our part to give the developers accurate information on what we demand. This means buying modules we actually want, and avoiding those that we don't. If you like trainers and want more, buy trainers. If you like civilian aircraft and want more, buy civilian aircraft. If you want your favorite aircraft in DCS, you need to let the free market work as intended, and stop buying planes you don't actually care about.

Very good post, I could not agree more. I won't be buying some modules, and I will be buying others.

And I would pay for any Russian/Soviet full fidelity module (hint hint)

I don't understand the fuzz around this. 3rd parties are best at what they're confident doing, and they will do planes best which they love doing! Saying that DCS Digital Combat Simulator can't shift far more than that is bad. There is a reason we have trainers, yak-52(even it's contract, but we will still get it) and now eagle. I think everyone is just mad that someone didn't make plane they want. But if they didn't, hey have a reason why. I can't stand this bullying of third party devs, on forums or even community known as /r/hoggit. Mods say don't be a dick, but yet everyone is a dick to M3. Plane diversity is a good thing. ED gets a royalty percent and all it does it finances the DCS for all of us. more modules.

[…]

On point. I share the same ideas and I wish the community could behave accordingly to their very own aspiration of what DCS should be, a Digital Combat Simulation.

From my point of view, trainers have a place within DCS as they are part of the learning process in every air forces. However, and despite Wags own words, I don't see the point to include civilian aircrafts as dedicated modules. Even if the platform is well known for its high fidelity flight models, the sim itself lacks too many crucial features to simulate civ' activities (yes, I'm looking at you ATC and weather).

Make the right choice, vote with your wallet.

This post is about stop complaining on the forum, instead show developers what you do prefer with your wallet.

In my opinion, there is need for module like c-130 or An-12 militry trasport aircraft(yoke controlled), which would give satisfaction to those who want to control bigger plane in dcs but also those who look for something closer to civilian plane.

But, how does this get me DCS: Prop Cycle?

The issue, at least originally (back in the DCS:BS only days), was "Why should DCS bother with a game mode, because it's not real, dude!" This whining is nothing new. It's the same old song, just with the gripe now being ___(insert today's favorite squeak toy)____.

In the end, purists will always have puritan views. Those who are not, won't. ED, as a business, is (very smartly) agnostic in its approach to allow for both, leaving it up to the server admins to decide who/what/when/where...as it should be. That goes for aircraft type too, obviously.

The genuine problem is when there is encroachment happening. Since the IC is currently being reworked, that'll tackle that issue soon enough. The rest is just background noise.

All is well.

How to get your fav aircraft made, without brow beating others?

Try this easy, one-step process:

Drop everything and learn how to program!

:smartass:

I’d suggest trying to make a bouncing ball first, because you don’t have to worry about clickable controls or pesky RWR systems.

Flares would be awesome though...

:balloon: