Four Additional Flaming Cliffs Aircraft

I understand your point but I would want to clarify that there is as much workload in FC air to air aircraft as in full fidelity, the biggest difference is in setting up the systems, when that is done you should not have to press more buttons then on a FC aircraft. that have been a know fact since Ka-50, At the same time a full fidelity aircraft should have more potential when mastered. As you know FC aircraft are PFM. And I would dear to say that Su-27s have one of the better ones :)

i could agree with you on that (i tend to play cooperative multiplayer "pve" only though, therefor i do not care too much abou the competitive scene anyway.), but my comment wasn't in oppsition to your post to begin with.

I was merely thinking of the confusion of people buying the wrong module and the potential confusion when people seek help without realizing that the guides and forum posts, relate to another simulation/module of the same name.

Additionaly i was wondering if the dcs brand could suffer, if it looses that strict association with hardcore/full fidelity.

These are mainly marketing concerns though...

Agree completely, there should be a good explanation what the product deliver, But I would not market it as easier way in to DCS, rather be honest about the situation, and explain why there is FC aircraft's and what the biggest difference is.

Was hoping for a newer, wider array of A/C.

However it might be a way to convince friends who don't want to learn the systems join and still fly the same plane as you.

NineLine,

Centralized DCS servers are a cool idea and more than likely will foster some player-base growth for ED, and its contractors, to generate more revenue. I am sure there are many metrics on how ED servers will help. Unfortunately, the reason many of us are attracted to DCS, despite the context of the game and truly SCHWEET aircraft—meaning clickable cockpit immersion--, is because of a diversity of the gameplay is absolutely unique and unlike Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, WarThunder, or IL2…

Limiting a more liberalized development of the Multiplayer Game for FREE (something Drexx, and many other server developers like Drexx [104th comes off the top of my head…], are willing to do) seems like a short term solution to harvest low lying fruit... 3rd party, customer developers are simply seeking greater API support, to work on their own for ED. This will free ED from some of the development commonly resourced to the monetary limitations that ALL developers are RESTRICTED by. IF ED were to employ this avenue for EXTREMELY MINIMAL corporate investment per possible returns on investment, it would be an empowerment of the customer that is truly revolutionary, and visionary in the military flight sim community.

Empowering the customer in this way is similar to McDonald’s asking their customers to throw away their own trash other than leaving it for the company to employ someone to clean up that mess. [i could go on a HUGE diatribe here, however that will dilute the point I'm trying to convey.]

Furthermore, restricting active customer Multiplayer Development may open ED up to liability on losing market share from competitors who have more resources [and many do] OR have a differing—more reliable/playable/entertaining—system with less customer investment. The customers who test and develop systems on their own to solve a(n) issue(s) ED has been unable to solve before sending a product to the customer are more invested in the ED product, itself, than merely monetary investment. That creates an invested loyalty; knowing that they, the customer, helped make something better.

Loyalty is something money cannot buy…

I don't know of a more cost effective way of developing revenue generation other than a basic, general, word-of-mouth type advertising. Drexx is simply asking for the tools to complete the job that he knows, and MANY other current customers know, can be developed/employed to further the engineering of a truly revolutionary military flight sim community.

What ED has developed is absolutely beautiful—in concept—and is currently playable to certain extents. I have spent many hours, maybe even years, playing DCS.

Please, NineLine, if you have an ability to contact someone within ED let them know of my praises and lamentations… Unshackle the user developer API restrictions and allow us, the customers, to empower ED through the marketplace of ideas and capability. There will be some trash servers out there when more freedoms are granted, however the majority of players will not fly there because they will find out they are trash.

With warmest regards,

BlueFalconMed

P.S. Also, if ED could open up more cores of the processor, from my understanding is currently limited to only one core, that would be GREATLY appreciated too.

We are actively working on a many number of exciting things, including a better Multiplayer experience. I wish I could say more, but stay tuned for sure.

NineLine,

You're highlighting what I said out of context. Centralized Servers, if not paralleled by customer development and company backed API support, will be a detriment to ED and DCS as a whole.

I am sorry I did not delineate a more concise target towards the four additional FC aircraft in my original statement. However, this is on topic.

It's really about the tools, sir.

The four additional FC aircraft are to also be employed inside the multiplayer developer's servers; some of whom are NEED greater API support to attempt to balance the improprieties of the FC aircraft compared to the High Fidelity aircraft in the economics of server gameplay. With the current state of API support from ED, some server administrators are weary of introducing more Low Fidelity aircraft into their community without the ability to amend certain Low Fidelity interactions. This "amending" could also be extended to High Fidelity aircraft if the economics do not work efficiently for that server given the expanse of space or other values tailored to that specific server.

Experience in the past has shown some aircraft when introduced, or after patches, are overpowered or too nerfed...

Clickable aircraft add to the diverse gameplay inside DCS. DCS creates this kind of diversity through the utilization of 3rd party contractors and the tools ED allows them to use. Server developers--similar to 3rd party contractors--are nothing other than 3rd party volunteers.

API support can extend to more aspects of the game and, as I said before, I should have made a more concise statement.

This is exactly what the Flaming Cliffs series is being geared for. Entry level.

Not being english native speaker, I would like to understand what does it mean "geared for". Is this for past, current or future ED's definition? The reason I ask is that FC in circles of DCS users I interact with, FC was never perceived as an entry step, but just as a legacy which would slowly be upgraded to FF modules and 2nd, the only way to fly these planes. If there was a FF, none would buy FC version.

By saying that, I see the current FC userbase as not some monolitic "entry level fan base" but a very foggy cloud without clear definition as FC planes have no alternative to help making it less foggy. This thread confirms that nicely.

With the launch of the Persian Gulf terrain it would be nice if we got a E.E./BAC F53 or F55 Lightning as they were used by the Saudis and also in Kuwait

So, judging from the hints we will get four out of the following: A-10C, F-5E, Yak-52, L-39, Mig-15, F-86F

Which means no Russian 4th generation or older attack aircraft either for a while (e.g. Mig-27, Su-17)...?

I can't help but think of FC4 as the perfect opportunity for tandem seat versions of existing fighters.

I mean many folks have wanted the Su-30, Mig-29K, Mig-29UB, or even an F-15D or F/A-18D. Also the Mirage 2000D which not only assists in co-op online, but also there as the laser guidance for all the single seat Mirage 2000C's bombs like it should.

I see FC4 as the perfect opportunity for this. Also since Nineline wants to make FC4 watered down versions of existing airframes, and the community wants planes you can't normally get.

PROBLEM SOLVED! This kills two birds with one stone. Community gets planes they normally couldn't get full fidelity modules of like the Su-30 or Mig-29UB, and ED/Nineline gets to make them out of existing airframes! :D

The other would be creation of unique planes that are too "delicate" to be made into full sim and then we could see something like F-35, F-22, Pak-Fa, EF2000/Rafale. Possibly Mig-25/31 but it would be a boring module as gameplay would be all beyond visual range and eject if somebody got close.

I like that one - FC4 being focused on high-tech candy in which lot of guesstimations need to be done. We are not going to have them modelled in full fidelity anyway, and it will become a blockbuster, I'm sure!

Regards!

Yep, I also think it would be very popular. But, it would also mean that people like Yo-yo who make AFM/PFM would be tied up for years while designing physics in the theme of these craft, which would impact the schedule for F-16, F-4,Mi-24 and so on. Just look how long the Mig-29 AFM is taking - it is not easy even when you have a lot of necessary info.

So I fully understand ED's decision - no more FC exclusive planes.

Still hope that there will be exceptions to this rule and we do see F-22 et al at some point.

technically, multiplayer already won the straw poll,

499 votes + 344 votes = 843 votes for multiplayer, verse 708 for single player, and acrobatics is multiplayer and also non multiplayer so that doesn't count, but I would learn on acrobatics being multiplayer because you cant to acrobatic formations by yourself.

 

so ya I don't have to waste my time screwing with a stupid strawpoll (Ill be working on making DDCS better like I should be)

I agree with Drexx, the DCS MultiPlayer (dedicated server) experience needs some attention.

Also IMO that poll should really have another option:

"5) Regretfully left DCS to go play a different game with better MP system until someday maybe come back when it is improved"

I love DCS in SP and even in a small non-dedicated server with a couple friends. I admit I also get excited about shiny new modules coming down the pipeline, but I feel that MP experience is the cement that will hold the DCS house together in the long run.