Complete current map.

I heard about upcoming new map. But can we have the current completed first? There are a lot of potentials in the current Black Sea map. Think about it, there are a lot of historical interests and good scenery in Ukraine and Turkey. So even for people who doesn't play DCS for combat, there are a lot of place to visit and fly around. And for people who fly for combat, we can use it to simulate the Ukraine crisis and the conflict between Russia and Turkey.

Thanks for any consideration.

I'd like to see an expanded black sea map, but since its a freebee I'm not sure it will happen. You should also know that the new Syria map that's coming isn't being developed by ED, its being developed by a 3rd party.

I'd like to see an expanded black sea map, but since its a freebee I'm not sure it will happen. You should also know that the new Syria map that's coming isn't being developed by ED, its being developed by a 3rd party.

That's why I posted this thread. If ED is willing to make new freebie map, why not complete this map first?

The new map will be 98% water for carrier ops. You can't compare that to Caucasus.

ED is not interested in updating Caucasus any time soon, even though it looks pretty bad in some areas:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264304

Making a map takes (a lot) of work. People want to get paid for their work. Free maps don't make money to pay workers with. The current map is still partially based on the on the old LOMAC map because that's a way to save money.

Making Caucasus a paid map would just kick off a massive shitstorm.

Crimea isn't "unfinished", it was cut many years ago in favor of moving to the east, which offered much more interesting terrain for the then new Ka-50 module.

I played LOMAC / DCS for many years and I fully support this decision.

People "just flying around" are not the focus of DCS and if they just want to do sightseeing there will be an alternative very soon. No point in adding details that 90% of players will never even notice.

Caucasus is made using old technology and won't be updated as it would break old missions.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4288498&postcount=316

True but getting and expanded free map gets them more players, I think when people see module prices they just look some other way, they think they have to own every module, then the game becomes 1000$ game.

So if you put a price on everything in this game, what is going to attract people to play it?

Imagine if there was no free maps and no discounts, so if you are starting in DCS you have to buy a map to play on and a plane fly, so basically PG map costs 50$ + one plane, lets say you want a viper that is 80$, your total is 130$

AAA games cost around 50$

hope you get my point,

so with free maps, the maps are not actually free if they attract more players, cause when they sell something else the maps start to pay off too.

Well, maybe it's possible to make a priced add-on to the current Caucasus map including Crimea and Novorossia? The basic map would still be free, but those desiring the expansion would pay for it. But I understand that it's going to run into some technical problems, maybe it's not even possible to allow such a distinction between free and paid-for parts of map technically, but if there is a way to do this, it's worth considering?

"I think when people see module prices they just look some other way"

What other way? 20 year old sims that have been modded to death? There is currently nothing like DCS on the market so you either buy in or you play arcade flight games. You only have a choice if you want to fly warbirds, but not for jets/helicopters.

Free stuff brings in 'Steam kiddies'. Enthusiasts (like myself) are willing to pay because we getting our money's worth out of it.

"Caucasus is made using old technology and won't be updated as it would break old missions."

2.5 broke several Ka-50 campaign missions and probably others. If ED is so concerned about compatibility, why do we still rely on an unofficial patch? And if you made a mission 3 years ago there is a good chance it won't work as intended anymore because of changes in the scripting system.

True but getting and expanded free map gets them more players, I think when people see module prices they just look some other way, they think they have to own every module, then the game becomes 1000$ game.

So if you put a price on everything in this game, what is going to attract people to play it?

 

 

Imagine if there was no free maps and no discounts, so if you are starting in DCS you have to buy a map to play on and a plane fly, so basically PG map costs 50$ + one plane, lets say you want a viper that is 80$, your total is 130$

AAA games cost around 50$

 

 

hope you get my point,

 

 

 

so with free maps, the maps are not actually free if they attract more players, cause when they sell something else the maps start to pay off too.

The same things that attract to people to every other sim. I really don't understand the incessant whining about cost around here. Literally all of these things have the same payment scheme. DCS, Il-2, X11, MSFS, even f'ing War Thunder. They charge for individual planes, in some cases terrain, in some cases for damn clouds. All these mystical ''players attracted to free stuff'' sounds more like individual cheap skates wanting handouts.

get the Syrian Map coming, that's will be the only place I will fly

X-plane and FSX/p3d don't charge per plane. They charge for the primary software, and here's the key, Provide APK so 3rd parties can independently produce Content that they MAY or MAY NOT charge for completely independent of Microsoft/Lockheed or Laminar Research. So the business model is completely diffrent.

I would love an expanded base map, but I don't think the "free" model necessarily attracts more players. I pay for DCS modules and don't mind it at all. I think it's a great product.

IMO if you want to expand the player base and have a greater product you take note from the above post and provide the documentation of any API's or SDK's (even if you don't feel they are finished or for proper consumption) and allow developers like myself to have at it.

I think you'd be surprised at how many developers with a long standing love for this product would pour their heart into terrains, aircraft, tools and all sorts of mods pay and free just because they love the product. It's these items IMO that would draw many more thousands of players to the product.

And if it's free content that you are convinced brings people to the platform, then I'm guessing there would be tons more free content available when the community has more access to developing it.

I also find that bringing people in the community like this engages them more and they become more invested in the product as they help steer (albeit not the main portion of the product) certain aspects of the product like community terrains or aircraft. This keeps more casual players invested longer and people with other interests also. Once bigger third parties start coming to the table it becomes a snowball effect with them not only creating more interest, but advertising and pushing your main product for you.

It's win win all around IMO. I've always felt that DCS's biggest problem is how close to the chest they hold all of their cards. Even Microsoft over the last 5 years has realized and admitted that their ignorance in the popularity of open source software was a mistake. Look at VS Code, becomming the most popular code editor in no time.

I'd love to be involved in a community terrain project, or aircraft mod and would pour hundreds of free hours into it. I already spend more than 80% of my time in DCS programming or other tasks that do not include actually flying. The only reason I don't start larger programming hobby projects for DCS is the fear of getting stuck at one point or another because of the lack of documentation or tools available to complete something.

anyways, don't want to make this seem like a rant, I love the product and don't mind paying for it, but am concerned about the future success of it. I don't propose DCS being open source if that's what you took from this but rather it be available enough for 3'rd party developers outside the closed groups who already exist to hop on and contribute.

I bet they'd even help create the documentation of the API if given some rudimentary nudges in the right direction. In fact I'd help with that.

just my 2 cents.

Is open source secure, is open source safe, just remember its not for everyone and the risk exposure this can bring.

Also once you start open source you also create an environment that people can exploit game mechanics. Not Good.

Is open source secure, is open source safe, just remember its not for everyone and the risk exposure this can bring.

 

Also once you start open source you also create an environment that people can exploit game mechanics. Not Good.

I don't think you read my post. I would not propose that DCS become open source software. They are a for profit business. There is nothing wrong with that.

PS what we should be asking is not complete the map with more pretty places but complete the pathfinding on them so units actually move in a cohesive manner and without going stupid to put it mildly.

We should be asking for PG map to be finished so that units do not get stuck on bridges or telegraph poles or even small bushes.

We should be asking for units that have a hard outer shell that cannot drive inside each other.

Lighting effects on the payware maps such as Nevada and Normandy.

As a base unit we get alot for free re DCS.

But what we shouldn't be asking is more free pretty places on the free map when we have issues with payware maps outstanding.

Is open source secure, is open source safe, just remember its not for everyone and the risk exposure this can bring.

If the software is open source, than the code can be independently examined. Personally, I’d probably feel at least equally safe if it were. I’d just be very careful about what code I used and where it came from. I’m not necessarily recommending DCS turn into an open source project, but I agree wholeheartedly that having developer tools open to the community would likely dramatically increase the interest and appeal of DCS. We have all these interesting add ones to DCS, but as someone who is 95+% of the time on multiplayer servers I don’t see as much of the creativity that I know is out there.

I tried the A4 community mod again recently and was just blown away by how awesome it is. This is a great example of what nosaMtrevoC is saying. While some of the mods aren’t there yet, I think there should be a procedure for it to become a more primary part of the game.

To be crystal clear, I did not propose the software be open source once. In fact I would disagree with that proposition.

In my original reply I stated:

"I don't propose DCS being open source if that's what you took from this but rather it be available enough for 3'rd party developers outside the closed groups who already exist to hop on and contribute."

X-plane and FSX/p3d don't charge per plane. They charge for the primary software, and here's the key, Provide APK so 3rd parties can independently produce Content that they MAY or MAY NOT charge for completely independent of Microsoft/Lockheed or Laminar Research. So the business model is completely diffrent.

It's exactly the same model, just FSX/P3D have a paid base, as opposed to our free one and they provide more aircraft included, as opposed to our 2.

Addons (exclusively produced by 3rd parties, though I don't think there's any 'official' third parties) are paid (or in some cases free, dependent on the addon) and you can purchase individual aircraft, packs of aircraft containing variants, scenery (from individual airports, cities, minor & major regions, right up to whole countries, continents and even the whole planet). There's also paid addon weather, paid addon ATC, even paid addon cameras and probably more.

Apart from giving away the SDK, the business models are very similar, and a far stretch from completely different.

It's exactly the same model, just FSX/P3D have a paid base, as opposed to our free one and they provide more aircraft included, as opposed to our 2.

 

Addons (exclusively produced by 3rd parties, though I don't think there's any 'official' third parties) are paid (or in some cases free, dependent on the addon) and you can purchase individual aircraft, packs of aircraft containing variants, scenery (from individual airports, cities, minor & major regions, right up to whole countries, continents and even the whole planet). There's also paid addon weather, paid addon ATC, even paid addon cameras and probably more.

 

Apart from giving away the SDK, the business models are very similar, and a far stretch from completely different.

You're both right IMO, the model is almost identical to the consumer, the difference being that ED is very much one of those 3'rd party developers also. Microsoft is just the paid base for the most part with a dozen aircraft and then third parties exist because their SDK is available.

FSX for instance is just as expensive as DCS when you dive in because you really have to buy a lot of mods to enjoy it as a hobby.

It's really just optics IMO. People view ED as not providing the number of planes for instance that FSX does, and then capitalizing on the modules.

I don't view it that way at all. I view ED the same as I view 3'rd parties. Each module is in depth and a 3'rd party addon regardless of whether or not ED made it.

I don't take issue with their model at all personally. I just wish they made their SDK TDK available, or as a start documented their API for us so that we can develop addons etc..

In my case I don't even want to make aircraft, I prefer to make either a terrain or tools for management (like tacview for instance).