A lot of new pledge options.

Personally I think one of the possible reasons why the kickstarter is not generating as much interest as we thought is:

Not enough aircraft on the first stretch. We only get 2 aircraft for the extra $275,000. Most of the money most likely goes into the campaigns for those planes but to be honest I don't care at all for the campaigns I just want more aircraft.

RRG can make the campaigns later once they are established perhaps, or let the community generate some missions while campaign lovers await? My preference is multiplayer, multiplayer missions are far easier than full singleplayer campaigns to create..

We have a situation where we don't have many aircraft to make multiplayer overly attractive and the main reason is the campaign development ?

So what do the majority prefer ? Multiplayer + more aircraft or is single player more important ? Maybe RRG should setup a vote for a change in stretch goal features ?

As Europe 1944 is very reminiscent of il2 1946 and perhaps that is the audience it is trying to attract. Then I think perhaps it should be more multiplayer orientated as multiplayer is what kept il2 1946 alive and so active.

Just trying to bounce some ideas around, what do people think ?

Luthier is talking about making the B17 flyable as an early goal now, that should garner some interest.

I prefer multiplayer myself, but most people say the numbers are in single player offline.

Luthier is talking about making the B17 flyable as an early goal now, that should garner some interest.

That's encouraging.

most people say the numbers are in single player offline.

That's not.

In my opinion the problem is not that people are not willing to pledge more for the stretch goals, is that right now there arent enough people pledging.It has to do more with advertisement than with anything else.The project as it is laid out already is amazing on its own.Facebook,Twitter,Youtube, blogs,etc. everything should be used to attract as many people as possible.

That leads me to ask this: Has this project been posted on old IL2 forums?

I think that people just want to see something more about the game now, even just some not textured models, stuff like that.

More P51D footage! Its there and ready?

Yes, a dogfight video showing the P51 Vs the 190 must be doable, and the planes are already made.

Its important not just to appeal to the enthusiast, but the 'gamer' as well.

More flyables for more money kicked in is the way to go. Stretch goals are nice but what people respond to is the definite getting of something once they kick in a bigger amount. Right now I could kick in $200 and if the stretch goals aren't met and I already have bought the P51 and FW-190 from ED all I'll get it is some manuals, a mention in the credits and a t-shirt (none of which I'd really want to be honest). That's ok for some people who want to just back the vision but there'll be a lot of people who will weigh up what they're getting for their hard-earned cash - that's the way most people's minds work. That's one reason Star Citizen was successful during KS - when you pledged a higher amount you got something concrete for use in the game.

Lets assume KS project only reaches the online-regulars, not the casual gamer.

This would be the 1000 folks in the golden days of IL2 Hyperlobby. Lets assume these 1000 originate from 24000 players around the world playing 1hour the day. Of these guys around 10% would play the full-real IL2 setting. So we have about 2400 potential backers. Assumed that even 50% of these 2400 are interested in DCS realism - the rest is fine with less depth of detail or frightened by too many switches - you have 1200 left.

So Luthier have to convince these numer to spent over 83 USD each. I think that is a good challange, considering the experience the WWII online-gamers made the last 2 years with ambitious projects.

A flyable B-17 at DCS level is something, IMHO, too far out. Even if you manage to simulate all the functions and positions a B-17 needs (pilot, copilot, engineer, navigator, gunners etc) you still need a map to fly on for over 8 hrs to the target to get shot down. So you need the navigation systems, radios, radar on the other side etc...

I would sugest to keep it simple for starters and forget about the B-17 and focus efforts and capacities. That would be at least a signal to the ones of the potential backers frightened with previous experiences.

A flyable B-17 at DCS level is something, IMHO, too far out. Even if you manage to simulate all the functions and positions a B-17 needs (pilot, copilot, engineer, navigator, gunners etc) you still need a map to fly on for over 8 hrs to the target to get shot down. So you need the navigation systems, radios, radar on the other side etc...

 

I would sugest to keep it simple for starters and forget about the B-17 and focus efforts and capacities. That would be at least a signal to the ones of the potential backers frightened with previous experiences.

I beg to differ. B-17 is just half the cake. The rest it English coast and airfields. Providing this is done in 1:1 scale, and 8h missions are simply not feasible for the sake of flying to target and back (the map quality would suffer greatly, and emphasis end on using time-warp feature). I strongly vote for the B-17.

On the contrary, moving the final stretch goal to the first place should result in more pledges IMHO.

I just want more aircraft.

As these are on DCS level, I'm content with the available planes. It will take some time to master them all. I want campaigns to use them in.

Multiplayermissions will be done by the community, i wonder how many onlineservers have the stockDCS Mp mission running...?

The planesets are what will probably generate money and if you wan't to approach the german community, build the 262 at dcs level. I know a hand full of people who are deliberately waiting for years for this plane to be modelled in a realistic fashion. Have you ever watched a video about the rampstart? We would buy that thing right away as soon as it is announced. I understand though, that a flyable b17 would attrackt probably even more audience but without multicrewing it would miss much of its potential success so waiting for this first to be achieved is recommended.

Im already doing my bit:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1425678/kickstarter-dcs-ww2-europe-1944

I wish for a Dcs me 262 but i don't think the kickstarer meter will go that high.

So for myself the me 262 stretch goal is very atractive.

I am really looking forward to the single player campaign myself, but they really need to be more proactive if they are gonna get there.

I would have made it:

Free - spitfire

$25 - 109

$50 - P47 and previous

$75 - P51 and previous and stretch goal planes

$100 - FW190 and previous

Then again, I'm a consumer not a businessman!

edit: I'm also single-player and would prefer Me262

I wish for a Dcs me 262 but i don't think the kickstarer meter will go that high.

So for myself the me 262 stretch goal is very atractive.

Indeed. In my opinion the Me 262 would be more interesting than the B-17 if changing stretch goals but I'm guessing most people do not agree.

I agree! I am all for the Me-262, an I would put it as a first stretch goal. It is already being done as AI, so it has its model, FM and DM.

B-17 needs multi-crew capability and crew AI to be useful, and while it is an iconic bird, how many people actually fly level-bombing missions often?

A DCS B17 is an enormous project. Just modeling all the crew stations to 2013 level is a huge undertaking.

The gap between $100k and $375k seems insermountable at the moment, maybe more detail in the proposal. A different plane for every $50k?

If they get a decent B-17, I bet we will see a lot of bomber crews pop up in DCS...

Quite true! Especially when they get multi-crew function working. I have buddies who have no desire to invest in the peripherals that this type of gaming really needs for full enjoyment, but these same people would jump at the chance to hop behind a machine gun while I fly.

Right now some of them just don't want to invest in flight sims because they don't see how flying on the sims can be fun. But I'm sure that over time their curiosity will get the better of them if they have a fun experience, and they will want to see what it is like to be the one behind the controls. So definitely looking forward to any multi-crew aircraft coming out, even if the feature isn't in game yet. It is only a matter of time before ED or a developer figures out how to implement it in DCS.

I agree! I am all for the Me-262, an I would put it as a first stretch goal. It is already being done as AI, so it has its model, FM and DM.

B-17 needs multi-crew capability and crew AI to be useful, and while it is an iconic bird, how many people actually fly level-bombing missions often?

hey hey hey,....while i agree on the Me262 beeing an interesting plane, in my view there are far more important planes when its about WWII....

i would prefer an 110 on dcs level anytime.or a fw190 a5, when its about german planes...

The B17 on the other hand, developed on dcs level would be a milestone in flight sim history. probably the most popular bomber of that time period on dcs level with multicrew cockpit...well i would fly level bombing missions all day long then!im sure im not alone with this.

More than being unattractive, I find the stretch goals are too far apart. It takes 375% of the base goal to reach the first one.

At this point, it seems quite unrealistic. It looks like it will reach maybe 200k total, not much more. So what happens with the extra 100k?

The stretch goals are not the issue, the issue is the payback for pledging anything isn't worth while.

You don't pay anything you still get a free game and 3 DCS level planes, and if you do pay something you get two planes you likely will already have by release.

So overall I don't see a point in kickstarting this project, nothing really in return, and already stated that it will still be made without the kickstarter.

So in the end, the kickstarter lacks any logical reason to actually fund beyond just being a nice donation. Because at this point its just a Kickstarter for free to play game, and who would rationally fund that beyond the true believers, Not me.