AvioDev C-101 Release Announcement

As a compromise, how about you release SFM first and then replace it with AFM? Just like ED has done with F-15 and Su-27; there are no sfm models of those abymore.

 

This way you could release sooner.

Yes, just release it as a beta with SFM and include AFM as a regular update instead of a paid module. Increase the cost of the release a little if you need the cash, people won't mind. They are getting two aircraft after all, even if they're similar.

We don't comment on other developers.

 

It simply comes down to time and cost. Would you be willing to wait for the C-101 if it meant having AFM at release instead?

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Just to be clear:

I am not against having an AFM later. That's what beta is for: have a FM, test it, adapt it and polish it until beta end/release date where it can finally reach AFM/EFM/PFM/whatever.

I am against having people flying different FMs based on what they paid. One module, one price, same FM for everyone. Period.

If I want to buy a module for 40 $, you can bet I will still want to buy it at 45 $ too even if I need to wait a little for the AFM. I am sure I am not the only one thinking that.

The MiG-21, the Sabre, the Huey, the Mi-8, the P-51, the FW190, the Bf.109, the A-10C and the Ka-50 all had one price for the same package. I would very much like the C-101 to continue on that trend. The SFM vs AFM cost difference confuses the buyer more than anything and it is not IMHO a sound marketing strategy. It is especially true for a trainer like the C-101 and the Hawk, which is not as known as more popular fighter jets like the F-18. I want AvioDev to succeed, and I think I'm not the only guy thinking that selling a "sfm-only" package is futile for the kind of simmers the DCS community is made of.

Many buddies of mine said this about the SFM vs AFM formula when VEAO announced the Hawk on pre-sale: "The trademark of DCS is realistic flight models and systems fidelity. Why on earth would I want to buy SFM instead of AFM for a study sim? That's setting a dangerous precedent..."

You will initially be able to purchase the C-101 as SFM *only*. Once the AFM is ready, you will be able to purchase the update for *both* aircraft for $10.

 

Tango.

Well, the decision has been made and there is nothing i can do about it , but i would like to voice my opinion on this.

The hawk also does it this way , and i really don't like how this seems to be becoming a trend. If people can fly a "DCS" aircraft, and at the same time someone else can fly the SAME DCS aircraft but with a different flight model , things will get weird. I dont know exactly how to say it , but i just think its a very poor idea to sell AFM and SFM separately... i don't want this to become the new norm "choose what flight model you want" ... :(

I can understand releasing SFM first to make money and continue developing the AFM , but then you should just charge full price for the SFM on initial release and update with AFM later on for everyone , so everyone flies the same version.I really hated when DCS hawk said they'd do this but didn't say anything about it becouse 1 : Hawk doesn't interest me , and 2 : i didn't think anyone else would do the same thing.

I am just stating my opinion on the matter,

with respect

mcblemmen

edit : it seems i'm not the only one whot hinks this

Well, the decision has been made and there is nothing i can do about it , but i would like to voice my opinion on this.

 

The hawk also does it this way , and i really don't like how this seems to be becoming a trend. If people can fly a "DCS" aircraft, and at the same time someone else can fly the SAME DCS aircraft but with a different flight model , things will get weird. I dont know exactly how to say it , but i just think its a very poor idea to sell AFM and SFM separately... i don't want this to become the new norm "choose what flight model you want" ... :(

 

I can understand releasing SFM first to make money and continue developing the AFM , but then you should just charge full price for the SFM on initial release and update with AFM later on for everyone , so everyone flies the same version.I really hated when DCS hawk said they'd do this but didn't say anything about it becouse 1 : Hawk doesn't interest me , and 2 : i didn't think anyone else would do the same thing.

 

I am just stating my opinion on the matter,

with respect

 

mcblemmen

 

edit : it seems i'm not the only one whot hinks this

You're not, I feel the same way for the same reasons mostly.

Just to chime in as a somewhat newbie to all this AFM, SFM stuff it put me off buying the Hawk (which I've still not got).

I think SFM should be treated like early access (or Beta) but people shouldn't be penalised for buying your product before it's ready. The AFM shouldn't be paid for once it's ready, after all the players are your guniea pigs for testing as well. It goes both ways.

The way the C101 and Hawk are handling AFM is like a micro-transaction or DLC on an already bought product. As someone previously said having 2 people flying the same aircraft but with different flight models is not only confusing, I suspect some will use to their advantage in dog fights.

Sell AFM as a DLC is a big mistake I think. Several reasons had written here. I add another. It's an advanced trainer. The key in a trainer is the AFM!

…you should just charge full price for the SFM on initial release and update with AFM later on for everyone , so everyone flies the same version.

This is indeed the proper way to do handle this, in my opinion. It is fine to release it first with a SFM to test the avionics and all the other stuff, but having to different flight models in the game would be bad.

VEAO said that not many people bought the SFM only Hawk version, most just bought the EFM version which has the upgrade included, even though it doesn't even have a release date currently.

Nobody wants to stay in the SFM plane.

I agree.

Observationally, I see this SFM initial release as something of a required stage for new startup companies in order to keep the development times shorter and get them off the ground.

Whilst the customers have very sensible opinions on this matter and can vote with their wallets, I do understand this process but I don't believe personally you will see it becoming de-facto.

If i'm wrong, I will be disappointed, but still continue to support these niche market startups because I want what they sell. That means purchasing even sooner in the dev cycle.

There will always be people in this community who support this method and understand it as well as those that don't and are happy to wait. Whichever side of the fence you sit, we will all be flying the product. Wether the devs find it works for them or not, I would be interested to find out, but it does ask questions of which we have no right to the answer outside of their yearly tax returns.

Observationally, I see this SFM initial release as something of a required stage for new startup companies in order to keep the development times shorter and get them off the ground.

The criticism is targetted at the fact that SFM and EFM/AFM are sold separately (EFM as optional ugrade) - which could lead to confusion and/or compatibility problems and is in general more complicated to handle for all involved. A transisition phase SFM->EFM for the full EFM price right from the start (beta- (pre-) purchase discounts aside) would be simpler for all and still would allow for some cash-flow to kick in early.

The criticism is targetted at the fact that SFM and EFM/AFM are sold separately (EFM as optional ugrade) - which could lead to confusion and/or compatibility problems and is in general more complicated to handle for all involved. A transisition phase SFM->EFM for the full EFM price right from the start (beta- (pre-) purchase discounts aside) would be simpler for all and still would allow for some cash-flow to kick in early.

Exactly! Or treat the early adopters (who will have to deal with the majority of bugs) as early access / backers. You charge how much you feel is appropriate but include the upgrade to AFM. I'm certain if you remove the confusion and say the early adopters will pay $40 for the whole thing but the final release version with ASM will be $50 you'll see a lot more people being early adopters to save the money knowing they'll eventually get the ASM.

Also the added bonus of more early adopters is more potential testing.

SFM is a no go for me.

However, some beginner may appreciate it. Keep in mind NOT everyone is ok with EFM or full system modeling. ED forum is not representative of DCS community, since only the hardcore players are around. the other 99% of DCS players just don't even know the difference between AFM/EFM/SomethingFM.

Thanks for the feedback - we are still discussing this. We will try and release a definitive release strategy shortly, so there is no question of what will happen.

Thank you for your support and continued feedback - we greatly appreciate it.

Best regards,

Tango.

SFM is a no go for me.

 

However, some beginner may appreciate it. Keep in mind NOT everyone is ok with EFM or full system modeling. ED forum is not representative of DCS community, since only the hardcore players are around. the other 99% of DCS players just don't even know the difference between AFM/EFM/SomethingFM.

Brilliant! According to your message - anyway they will have bad feedback from DCS forum hardcore pilots (who like EFM)? Casual pilots give them money and say nothing. Devs morale :helpsmilie:

Anyway - delete SFM as module then EFM will done. Update it for free for pilots who buy it before EFM done.

Then raise price on DLC.

If casual pilot need some help - he take from helpers from game options.

I agree, all these SFM & AFM/EFM differentiation are a nonsense. ED is working hard to get every "casual" FC3 aircraft up to AFM/EFM standards, it's not that it's much harder to fly, it's just more authentic. Selling SFM module only really feels like backward pedaling and can only create fractures within an already niche community.

I really hope new modules simply all get sold with a fully functional AFM/EFM eventually even if at first only the SFM is available as a means to get the product in the community's hands sooner.

I'm more prone to getting the hawk, but as some have said the SFM & AFM/EFM. throws a lot of people off in a way. i'm waiting to buy the Hawk and this jet once everything is completely cleared up.

Releasing with AFM would delay the whole project another 6 months. We can't survive as a company doing that, so releasing with SFM is the next best option for us.

We want AFM as much as you do, but unfortunately it takes time. The aircraft development is the easy part - the AFM is a bit harder to get right (you can have a mathematically correct flight model that flies nothing like reality - the tuning takes the time).

We will have more information as soon as it is available.

Best regards,

Tango.

Enhorabuena al equipo de desarrollo.

Es un orgullo poder comprar un producto MADE IN SPAIN.

A seguir con ello señores y muchas gracias por dedicaros a este mundillo.

Could we get a translator over here?

He says thank you to the development team, and it is great to be able to buy a product made in Spain.

¡Muchas gracias, Peter97!

Best regards,

Tango.

Releasing with AFM would delay the whole project another 6 months. We can't survive as a company doing that, so releasing with SFM is the next best option for us.

No no no ... the only criticism here is about the idea to release SFM independently from the AFM version, as separate products with separate prices.

Instead the suggestion is: release with SFM with the promise for a free update that implements the AFM later. One product, now SFM but later AFM, one price (AFM price, ofc). --> less confusion, less organization hassles but still asap cash flow.

No no no ... the only criticism here is about the idea to release SFM independently from the AFM version, as separate products with separate prices.

 

Instead the suggestion is: release with SFM with the promise for a free update that implements the AFM later. One product, now SFM but later AFM, one price (AFM price, ofc). --> less confusion, less organization hassles but still asap cash flow.

Exactly! :thumbup:

No no no ... the only criticism here is about the idea to release SFM independently from the AFM version, as separate products with separate prices.

 

Instead the suggestion is: release with SFM with the promise for a free update that implements the AFM later. One product, now SFM but later AFM, one price (AFM price, ofc). --> less confusion, less organization hassles but still asap cash flow.

that's our thought and suggestion

Yep, exactly!

No no no ... the only criticism here is about the idea to release SFM independently from the AFM version, as separate products with separate prices.

 

Instead the suggestion is: release with SFM with the promise for a free update that implements the AFM later. One product, now SFM but later AFM, one price (AFM price, ofc). --> less confusion, less organization hassles but still asap cash flow.

Yep, I will also chime in that this is a great suggestion.. Really no downsides for anyone this way, and it is also simpler for the customer to understand and for you folks to keep track of... And gets some much needed cash in your hands early..

:thumbup: