About competition (a 'dear Leatherneck')

True, LNS have the best texturing, not the best quality nor the most realistic modules.

???

True, LNS have the best texturing, not the best quality nor the most realistic modules.

Just out of curiousity: which actual information do you base this on? I'm not trying to step on your toes here, but I think the fact that LNS have an active duty Mig-21 pilot on the team counts for more than just soneone's opinion on the internet...

Someone else is making it though. Or at least planning to do one.

Please elaborate. Which developer has announced actual plans of making a Mig-23 (except Razbam, who can't)? The fact that RAZ weren't granted a licence does not mean that someone else is making one. There are a multitude of other possible reasons why no licence was granted.

Anecdotal evidence and speculation isn't, belive it or not, proof of anything.

While I agree that BST makes slightly better flight models, LNS has done very well too. I really don't get this whole broken module claim. There has never been a point where the fishbed didn't work fine for me. I'm hoping the reason RAZBAM had their flogger rejected is because LNS is doing one already. If no one is making it, then that is truly disappointing.

As for competition being good, it would not be for DCS at this time. There are too few aircraft and people to buy them at this time for doubling up on aircraft to be good for us or the developers.

Just out of curiousity: which actual information do you base this on? I'm not trying to step on your toes here, but I think the fact that LNS have an active duty Mig-21 pilot on the team counts for more than just soneone's opinion on the internet...

I was of the same exact opinion as yours, until the five septillionth major flight model change (ok might have slightly exaggerated the number :D), and many former MiG-21 mechanics posting first hand info that contradicts how a very good number of systems operate very differently from the real thing. Other things like multiple features getting broken in every odd patch, or R-3S performing better than R-13M and even R-13M1 too have contributed to my change of heart :).

I still regard Leatherneck higher than Razbam though. I mean, at least I can count on them for not adding tie fighter cannons to a Corsair :). And Fishbed is still one of my favorite things to fly when I find the time and drive to fly DCS. But I don't consider LN to be up to same standards as ED or BST anymore, which I was eager to around the times when the MiG was released.

Hope no one will take this as bashing, especially not the LN, but I am fan of calling spades spades :). I will still get Viggen on day 1, but with somewhat tempered expectations.

I was of the same exact opinion as yours, until the five septillionth major flight model change....

I hear you on that. Though the MiG-21 was LNS' first module (and the first module from a 3rd party), so there have been growing pains.

That said, it's still my favorite and it looks amazing (and seems to fly beautifully) in VR (got my CV1 3 days ago).

I think that the Viggen and Tomcat will be a better indicator of their long-term potential (we'll see soon), though I still view the MiG-21 as an excellent product (and my favorite DCS module). I have high hopes for the future, but everyone has ups and downs.

-Nick

Please elaborate. Which developer has announced actual plans of making a Mig-23 (except Razbam, who can't)? The fact that RAZ weren't granted a licence does not mean that someone else is making one. There are a multitude of other possible reasons why no licence was granted.

 

 

Anecdotal evidence and speculation isn't, belive it or not, proof of anything.

I don't know what developer. But this quote from Wags shows that someone is making or at least have plans for it.

Just to be clear, the MiG-19 does not have a DCS license agreement at this time. Hopefully it will in the future if the developer (a sub-team working with RAZBAM) can demonstrate the level of quality needed. It simply does not conflict with already established plans, as the MiG-23 did.

http://forums.mudspike.com/t/razbam-mig-23-canceled/3314/88

Every dev team has some quirky FMs under their belt, and don't see ED as being better than LNS here at all.

Just out of curiousity: which actual information do you base this on? I'm not trying to step on your toes here, but I think the fact that LNS have an active duty Mig-21 pilot on the team counts for more than just soneone's opinion on the internet...

 

 

 

Please elaborate. Which developer has announced actual plans of making a Mig-23 (except Razbam, who can't)? The fact that RAZ weren't granted a licence does not mean that someone else is making one. There are a multitude of other possible reasons why no licence was granted.

A fair question. The Mig21 is an excellent module. But is it the best module? I don't think so. Belsmitek has overtaken the Mig with their F5. And when I say the best I talk mainly about realism of the module. There is no guesswork on the F5, nothing in the particular version is added to the game that is not in the real deal. On the other hand, Mig21 never had Groms. I doubt that the way they are employed is also realistic, but well. Then there is the radar which can see everything in 30km even small contacts. You have the R3R which has been artificially improved for gameplay reasons.

he calibration of the compass that should be done only on the ground and not during the flight, the pneumatic system, I can press the brakes, leave flaps up button on, and the gear lever up and I don't lose pressure. many of the switches don't work, especially on the additional pods...

The FM of the mig is very good, but is not as accurate as the F5's.

There a lot of other details that has been modeled in the F5 and not the Mig

Now I love the Mig 10000s over the F5. I fly it almost daily. But it is not the best module anymore. To me, It is a fact. I have to be fair though, it's their first module while Belsimtek has been around for far longer. I'm sure they will step up their game with the Viggen and F14.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Man, people complaining about the realism of the mig21... you guys really are a spoiled bunch...

http://forums.mudspike.com/t/razbam-mig-23-canceled/3314/88

It looks like he wrote that someone else is working on a Mig-23 but only in the vaguest terms and then again it could also be cancelled in a year i.e. "it was not right to say that".

For now the Mig-23 is dead again, which is really sad. I am only interested in non high tech planes (Russian or 60s) and the 23 is on I am most looking forward to. Not least because I am old enough to remember these flying over me in East Germany, I can even remember the distinct earth camo.

As a developer running a tech startup, and as a hard-core military flight-sim fan, I have to respectfully disagree with Scaflight.

Direct competition(redundant model competition) between third party developers will not and should not come into DCS world.

Why wont it? Because as a niche market(total active user base), having third party developers is already a blessing to ED, the least thing they want to do at the moment is to introduce direct competition and drive down the margins of the third party developers. Also, DCS currently only offers an extremely limited amount of clickable cockpit modules, there are so many other military aircrafts that users would like to purchase I wont even try to enumerate. Tell me, where is the incentive to directly compete when you can simply go for another different model and get higher margins???

Why shouldn't it? Direct competition is in essence zero-sum game, the only thing it does in the short term is driving down profits and deterring other potential would-be third party developers(considering the quality for current modules is already very high). The number one priority for ED, as well as for us players, is to have more high-fidelity modules so we can appeal to a broader user-base and create more revenue for ED/3rd parties so there can be a cycle of positive reinforcement. Imagine if we can have twin engine multi-crew cargo transport planes or gunships or AWACs, surely there will be players in the FSX/P3D world who'd like to give DCS a try.

Just my two cents

=NP=MasterYoda

To phrase it this way, MasterYoda1, I think competition should be a fair option in this niche market, because it drives up the quality. Currently I don't know about -any- incentives or any penalties for an addon maker to not announce the venerable F-16 Fighting Falcon. Everyone immediately recognizes that that'd be a helluwa module, lots of people would want for it. It'd sell a fair bit simply by reputation.

Even if that developer decided only on rudimentary SFM and a non-clickable cockpit a la FC3, they'd have cornered the market on a popular product. They could potentially promise continuous development and a list of features, but in the end come out with nothing but a few bugfixes and gimmicks every other DCS update. People would bite the bullet, acknowledge that the Fulcrum and other FC3 aircraft were enjoyable, and not bother about the fidelity.

At what point is the line drawn to declare "this isn't cutting it"? It's more difficult to arrive at that answer than to simply state that there will be open competition for modules.

I could be wrong if ED somehow require of third-devs to attain a minimum of fidelity, but I have strong doubts. Essentially, non-competition open up a niche market for predatorial vapour-ware projects.

With an assured demand from no competition, the quality of goods tend to diminish.

PS. Merry Christmas. :)

Well, they couldn't just announce the F-16. Not without the license from ED. Just look at the recent MiG-23 announcement from Razbam.

And if someone would get the license for an F-16 module, ED would hold them to that license, and revoke it if the module doesn't live up to their expectations. Again, see the L-39 module that was first produced by a external developer.

Competition always brings out the best in people and products. That's the general idea, anyway. But if two persons or products compete, one will win and the other will lose. That's a 50/50 risk of return on your investment. In a niche market like this, that would break a losing developer. We would soon be back to a monopoly again.

The situation would be totally different if we had multiple companies like ED, who invested in development in high end flightsims like DCS. We don't.

Well, they couldn't just announce the F-16. Not without the license from ED. Just look at the recent MiG-23 announcement from Razbam.

And if someone would get the license for an F-16 module, ED would hold them to that license, and revoke it if the module doesn't live up to their expectations. Again, see the L-39 module that was first produced by a external developer.

 

Competition always brings out the best in people and products. That's the general idea, anyway. But if two persons or products compete, one will win and the other will lose. That's a 50/50 risk of return on your investment. In a niche market like this, that would break a losing developer. We would soon be back to a monopoly again.

 

The situation would be totally different if we had multiple companies like ED, who invested in development in high end flightsims like DCS. We don't.

I'm a bit unsure how your L-39 example has any bearing on the argument that was made. ED gave the L-39 devs an exclusivity deal. The module didn't 'not live up to ED's expectations'. It was just not finished. That's not about the quality of a good, but about a good not being introduced at all. What was ended was the exclusivity deal, not the development or their right to sell the product. Therefore I don't think you have addressed the issue of non-competitive norms incentivising predatory practises and low quality/fidelity modules.

I take it you agree on my other comments then, since you singled out the L-39 comment :)

Let me explain what I meant.

ED had a L-39 in the pipeline. An external developer want to make one and got a license to do so. ED put theirs on hold. They were not granted an exclusive license. Check Wags post that you linked.

After a while, ED chose to finish their L-39 project after all. The external developer cancelled their project.

So, no, the license wasn't revoked as such, but the effect was the same.

The external developer could've finished their project and sold their L-39 module in direct competition with ED, but chose not to. Why? Because of the competition from ED? Because their module wasn't good enough? Needed too much time and effort to finish it? I don't know.

But my guess is they cancelled it because their L-39 module would no longer be the only one on the market...

I.e. they cancelled because of...competition. :)

I take it you agree on my other comments then, since you singled out the L-39 comment :)

 

Let me explain what I meant.

ED had a L-39 in the pipeline. An external developer want to make one and got a license to do so. ED put theirs on hold. They were not granted an exclusive license. Check Wags post that you linked.

After a while, ED chose to finish their L-39 project after all. The external developer cancelled their project.

So, no, the license wasn't revoked as such, but the effect was the same.

The external developer could've finished their project and sold their L-39 module in direct competition with ED, but chose not to. Why? Because of the competition from ED? Because their module wasn't good enough? Needed too much time and effort to finish it? I don't know.

But my guess is they cancelled it because their L-39 module would no longer be the only one on the market...

I.e. they cancelled because of...competition. :)

Correction: When I said 'exclusivity' I referred to ED putting their own development on hold, not that L-39 devs received a license which other developers couldn't also get. Since Wags made clear that such exclusive licenses aren't given to begin with, I didn't see any need to be much more specific.

I don't think your summary in the above post has had any bearing on what I originally claimed, and I think your explanation shows that you are arguing another point entirely. Originally, in response to me, you wrote

"And if someone would get the license for an F-16 module, ED would hold them to that license, and revoke it if the module doesn't live up to their expectations. Again, see the L-39 module that was first produced by a external developer."

- but then I point out that the example can't be used to say there will be a product quality threshold. So you'll have to concede that point or just reword yourself.

Your explanation quoted first in my post is arguing that competition is bad because it can wipe out developers, but that's not what you were responding to. If you want to pick up that thread, then yes - that there will be fewer developers is absolutely a result of competition, but on the entirely uncertain premise that a developer can't change their focus and develop something else. Another version, like Mig-23X instead of a Mig-23Y, or another airplane, like Su-22. The option of merging efforts is sometimes present, so module development is pretty far from the simplistic zero-sum game mentioned earlier.

Overall, I think you are right that it will become more difficult for new developers. But the point I argued was that non-competition brings about poor products, and I'm principally opposed to that.

I'm sorry that my arguments doesn't make sense to you. They do to me :)

Let's have another go, shall we... :)

The L-39 example.

Just read Wags statement. EDs new requirements for 3rd party devs. meant that the L-39 wouldn't have gotten the license if they had applied for it at the time their project was cancelled.

I don't know what you read into that, but I read that it didn't meet EDs requirements... This could of course be due to both quality and speed of development. And it's likely a combination of both since it's usually a matter of time to 'get things right' even if it means starting all over again. So yes, I still think this serves as an example that there's a quality threshold that ED requires 3rd party devs to reach.

Another example of this is the Viggen module. ED recieved a test version weeks ago, tested it and found issues that needed fixing, even before pre-release.

So of course ED maintains the quality control of the modules for DCS. They are getting better at it too.

And the L-39 example also serves as a clear indication what would be the likely outcome of two developers making the same module, in competition.

I totally understand your point about competition and product quality. But not in a one-on-one competition. If the market was larger, or development didn't require such amount of resources, competition would work. But I don't see this happening here.

The only competition we will see is ED selecting who will do what, and that they meet their requirements.

Just to point out, using the L-39 situation as an example to back up your arguments for or against competition is somewhat flawed.

The team behind the failed 3rd Party effort were part of a virtual display team who were developing the L39 because it didn't exist in DCS at the time.

They weren't a true 3rd Party Developer as they were only ever going to develop that one singular aircraft and nothing else.

Well, they got the license for the module, just like any other developer. No developer get a blank license to produce whatever they want. It's on a license per module deal.

So, in that respect they were just like any other external developer.

But, since then, ED has narrowed down their selection of external or 3rd party developers, or whatever you want to call them, by a set of requirements that needs to be met.

I don't believe these requirements are only about timeframes. Do you? ;)

My point remains that the market for DCS module development isn't big enough for proper competition. I don't agree that direct competition automatically will lead to better products.

Todays system, with licensing, ensures the developer are up to the task and will produce a module that meet certain requirements. In a direct competition environment the quality may actually be diminished because developers would be hesitant to allow enough resources due to fear of failure. If they would dare to compete at all...

Now, it would of course be really cool if two developers went head to head and tried to deliver the best F-16 module first. I just don't think they would dare to invest their resources in such a manner.

That's what I think, and I see no indication of evidence to the contrary...

You know, sometimes the best creation simply comes from the fact that the creator is working without pressure, for the sake of creating something which he/she loves and is passionate about. You don't have to put people under pressure in order for them to make something good.

Just let the devs do what they feel motivated in doing, with the ED as the organism which coordinates all that. Don't put the devs in opposition to each other.

As Goblin said, competition is a zero-sum game. We are human; we know that zero-sum game is not the optimal evolution strategy. Through our intellect we can transcend such a concept... provided that greed does not take over our intellect. Which it frequently does, hence such dumb ideas as free market capitalism.