MiG-29A as a Third Free Aircraft for DCS:W

[Witchking]

I love free stuff as much as the next guy or gal but in this case, a giant negative on the FREE vote. I want the MiG-29 to be a masterpiece. Also, if ED ever decides to make the Su-25 a PFM, which they should, I would expect the same quality as all the other PFM flight models. Quality is the key word and it's not spelled FREE.

 

Su-25 and Su-25T already have AFM+ flight models. For the most part, u can't even tell the difference unless u are an expert. And again...don't expect the A-10C level of detail on a $10 aircraft. Just doesn't make sense for ED to do that. If they do make a full fidelity Mig 29..u can expect it to be $59.99.

 

The Su25T is still the only proper SEAD weapons platform in the game. It's a wonderful plane to get into what is possible in DCS World, however I agree with the sentiment that it is not an easy plane to get into for beginners, and that it's not a particularly glamorous plane to fly.

 

I agree with the OP that Eagle Dynamics would attract more players by giving them something a little bit more attractive to fly, but I don't think giving them freebies in the form of new planes is really going to attract any significant numbers. What ED needs to do is revamp their entire game system, which in a way they are already doing with the upcoming 2.0, and release a comprehensive training system for one of their free planes. That IMO would go along a lot farther than another free plane completely out of context. I think new players who already go through the trouble of installing DCS World and one of the free modules, are not turned off by the free planes themselves, but with the lack of context for those very planes in relation to DCS World itself. Does the Su25T Feature fully interactive training missions? I know that it has an old, probably very outdated campaign. Flying one of the first missions over and over again and getting shot down over and over again is not really fun. What about the unarmed P51? What is its purpose in the game? Give it some meaning (I.E. some great tutorial missions), some context and it becomes a fun learning platform.

 

Player retention is more important that the wow factor. The wow factor is already there when I show people who have no idea what DCS is some videos of DCS in action. Put those very same people behind the controls and the wow factor is quickly replaced by the "Erm..." factor. More free planes are not going to help here, better designed tutorials and starting missions are.

 

Su-25T already has brand new training missions and a number of quick start missions.

 

Seriously... the arguments here are so selfish. The idea is not about marketing....people just want stuff for free. Even if it takes tons of resources to build. If you don't get into DCS with all the videos and trial with the free aircraft (TF-51 and Su25T)... you just won't enjoy the other aircraft.

 

Wait for a bit and people will be asking Nevada/ A-10C and F-15 for free. Seriously!! Its $10 for the FC3 models. IF you can't afford that...u probably should be using your time on earning enough money than playing a game/sim.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Witchking

[Flogger23m]

I love free stuff as much as the next guy or gal but in this case, a giant negative on the FREE vote. I want the MiG-29 to be a masterpiece. Also, if ED ever decides to make the Su-25 a PFM, which they should, I would expect the same quality as all the other PFM flight models. Quality is the key word and it's not spelled FREE.

 

Making the A model free won't diminish the quality. The paid variant, the S, will still be of quality. As the two aircraft are 90% the same they're not giving away all the work for free. The S model (the one people would actually purchase) would still be paid.

 

Also the differences between AFM, AFM+ and PFM are minimal. You will never notice the difference unless you flew the real aircraft. They are marketing terms first and foremost despite the minor differences.

 

Seriously... the arguments here are so selfish. The idea is not about marketing....people just want stuff for free.

 

Name a single person in this thread who claims they wanted it free "just because". I bought LOMAC/FC/FC2/FC3. I've paid for the MIG-29 four times now. Have you? Considering I've owned it (MIG-29A/S) for over a decade how I am simply trying to get it for free?

 

Even if it takes tons of resources to build.

 

It does, but there would still be a paid version. There is a reason why people are asking for a free MIG-29A alongside a paid MIG-29S and not a free Mirage-2000C or A-10C. There are differences between the scenarios. Use your head a little.

 

If you don't get into DCS with all the videos and trial with the free aircraft (TF-51 and Su25T)... you just won't enjoy the other aircraft.

 

Again, this has not been my experience. Flight characteristics are the first thing people experience. Stalling out in a TF-51 or Su-25T does not make for a good impression. Especially when someone is using a old crappy joystick or gamepad. Essentially everyone I got to try DCS (that were not flight simmers) quit. Only some came back after they got the Su-27/F-15.

 

Wait for a bit and people will be asking Nevada/ A-10C and F-15 for free. Seriously!! Its $10 for the FC3 models. IF you can't afford that...u probably should be using your time on earning enough money than playing a game/sim.

 

Another cleverly masked "If they're not experienced with flight sims, screw them! We don't need their money anyways!" argument.

[NineLine]

I disagree.

 

You are welcome to, but at the end of the day, even the free stuff costs money to develop. I think 99% of people will get a good idea what DCS is by flying the 2 they offer now, especially if they fly them in MP, they can work their way up with either the F-15 or Su-27 as they are cheap to get into and so on and so forth... I would rather see development time putting into other things than free aircraft.

[Why485]

You are welcome to, but at the end of the day, even the free stuff costs money to develop. I think 99% of people will get a good idea what DCS is by flying the 2 they offer now, especially if they fly them in MP, they can work their way up with either the F-15 or Su-27 as they are cheap to get into and so on and so forth... I would rather see development time putting into other things than free aircraft.

 

If they go with the MiG-29A, there is no extra development time that isn't already scheduled or in progress. The MiG-29 is already going to get a new flight model, and updated exterior model. If this were to happen, that's when it should happen, and is not new work.

[cichlidfan]

If they go with the MiG-29A, there is no extra development time that isn't already scheduled or in progress. The MiG-29 is already going to get a new flight model, and updated exterior model. If this were to happen, that's when it should happen, and is not new work.

 

But it would be giving away something that others have paid for.

[Solty]

But it would be giving away something that others have id for.

 

Lol, I payed for team fortress 2 and when it became free I was happy, cause more o of my friends could play with me. Also mig29 is part of fc3 which is a bundle of planes. We've payed for, not one plane for 50£

That's why a trail version seems reasonable too. You chose a plane and u fly it for a period of time and u can buy it if you like it.

[Flogger23m]

If they go with the MiG-29A, there is no extra development time that isn't already scheduled or in progress. The MiG-29 is already going to get a new flight model, and updated exterior model. If this were to happen, that's when it should happen, and is not new work.

 

And this is the major point to illustrate here. They're not making a new aircraft from scratch. The differences in workload between the A and S aren't very big. And as it is, the MIG-29A (as a standalone) won't sell much at all. Not with Flaming Cliffs and a standalone MIG-29S for sale. Also keep in mind much of the market is already carved out from current FC3 owners who bought the game years ago.

 

Had this been a F-16A vs F-16C in which the cockpit layout, avionics and weapon systems are vastly different making the A free wouldn't make sense. The workload/development time between the two variants is massive. The same can't be said for the MIG-29A/S.

 

Now I do wonder if the MIG-29 will be sold as one combined module (A/G/S), two (A/G and S) or three separate modules.

 

But it would be giving away something that others have paid for.

 

True, I and many others did pay for the MIG-29A multiple times. However, we also paid for the content in DCS World which is now free. Should everyone who owned LOMAC/FC/BS/FC2/A-10C get DCS World for free while the rest have to pay $50? It would be more consistent but is certainly not something I would support.

[cichlidfan]

I never paid for DCS World, I just bought aircraft. Even before DCS World, I just bought aircraft.

[Why485]

But it would be giving away something that others have paid for.

 

And? What's your point?

 

I bought LOMAC way back when, then Flaming Cliffs after that, then Flaming Cliffs 3 (rebuying it, basically) and I have absolutely no problem with what you just said.

 

This isn't about me. This isn't about current users at all. It's about getting more players into DCS, and I believe the more people playing and buying DCS, the better. More players to play with/against in MP, and more paying customers to fund the game as a whole.

[ekg]

If your friends can afford the hardware they can afford FC3. ED gives more than enough content for free as it is. This isn't some instantaneously gratifying arcade game. Flight sims of this level (even FC3) aren't supposed to be easy. If your friends don't have the patience for it too bad.

[TheFurNinja]

If your friends can afford the hardware they can afford FC3. ED gives more than enough content for free as it is. This isn't some instantaneously gratifying arcade game. Flight sims of this level (even FC3) aren't supposed to be easy. If your friends don't have the patience for it too bad.

Some people here get joysticks from the goodwill or use old game controllers to play DCS. Not all buy a fresh JS just off the shelves. Not everyone can pay.

 

And besides, why set up this monetary pay wall? What is the point? Does money define their skills, dedication, and character as a whole? Can't people with money be dumb too? (I know ive made my fair share of mistakes even now). Perhaps when they get money they will come back and pay for the better aircraft. Why not give people an aircraft that allows them multiple roles and a overall wider view of what DCS can be (and again without giving them something top of the line).

 

And as much as I said the MiG-29 is easy to learn, its more about the intuitiveness of Russian Aircraft as a whole.The MiG-29A would be no more challenging to learn than the S. In fact it would be harder (No TWS-2, no ECM, limited to 2xBVR Missiles). This aircraft would actually be quite challenging in the multiplayer arena. You assume that we want instant gratification but in no way shape or form would this aircraft provide that. It would take time to learn how to fight in it and to develop your skills (as the limitations of the airframe are clear).

 

In the end the A model falls up short, but not so short that it cant be used. This makes it a perfect beginners airplane.

Edited November 29, 2015 by TheFurNinja

[Flogger23m]

I never paid for DCS World, I just bought aircraft. Even before DCS World, I just bought aircraft.

 

Well I did, as did many others. The vast majority of the assets in DCS World were paid for by previous owners of FC2/Black Shark/A-10C. Going from A-10C to the initial versions of DCS World was almost unnoticeable. A lot of the content still dates back to LOMAC, which is over a decade old.

 

If your friends can afford the hardware they can afford FC3. ED gives more than enough content for free as it is. This isn't some instantaneously gratifying arcade game. Flight sims of this level (even FC3) aren't supposed to be easy. If your friends don't have the patience for it too bad.

 

Which is exactly why a more forgiving aircraft is an excellent idea. Better first impressions and hopefully a higher rate of return customers for paid content is what we want. It isn't the 90s or early 2000s where people gradually moved from the less realistic titles like Flanker, Jane's USAF / F-15 or even started with games like Ace Combat. The whole market of light simulator (aside from FC3) and arcade flight games is entirely gone. While there are certainly people with zero flight game experience who will jump into A-10C that number is very small. That includes most members in this community who gradually moved from the less realistic simulators of yesteryear to DCS.

 

It essentially comes down to retaining the current customers/player base with little growth VS the possibility of enhancing growth. Bringing in new people to the genre is certainly a good thing. If it brings in even 10% more new users then that money will help fund and expand DCS. Which will hopefully result in growth and more products for us.

 

The MIG-29A isn't the easiest aircraft to fly (that goes to the F-15C) but it certainly is much more forgiving than a Su-25T/TF-51D.

[TheFurNinja]

Well I did, as did many others. The vast majority of the assets in DCS World were paid for by previous owners of FC2/Black Shark/A-10C. Going from A-10C to the initial versions of DCS World was almost unnoticeable. A lot of the content still dates back to LOMAC, which is over a decade old.

 

 

 

Which is exactly why a more forgiving aircraft is an excellent idea. Better first impressions and hopefully a higher rate of return customers for paid content is what we want. It isn't the 90s or early 2000s where people gradually moved from the less realistic titles like Flanker, Jane's USAF / F-15 or even started with games like Ace Combat. The whole market of light simulator (aside from FC3) and arcade flight games is entirely gone. While there are certainly people with zero flight game experience who will jump into A-10C that number is very small. That includes most members in this community who gradually moved from the less realistic simulators of yesteryear to DCS.

 

It essentially comes down to retaining the current customers/player base with little growth VS the possibility of enhancing growth. Bringing in new people to the genre is certainly a good thing. If it brings in even 10% more new users then that money will help fund and expand DCS. Which will hopefully result in growth and more products for us.

 

The MIG-29A isn't the easiest aircraft to fly (that goes to the F-15C) but it certainly is much more forgiving than a Su-25T/TF-51D.

More forgiving, gives great visibility, and all around allows the pilot more room for error (due to fighters having great flight characteristics).

 

Personally I found the Su-25T to feel restrictive and I could barely generate SA out of it because of its cramped canopy. Its not the hardest thing to fly but its heavy and really doesn't wanna turn (though it is pretty stable), this makes it just all around a put off for beginners who want to explore DCS. The TF-51 is nice in the air but you almost need rudder pedals to takeoff and at low speed that crazy late ww2 prop torque really hits.

Edited November 29, 2015 by TheFurNinja

[Flogger23m]

More forgiving, gives great visibility, and all around allows the pilot more room for error (due to fighters having great flight characteristics).

 

Personally I found the Su-25T to feel restrictive and I could barely generate SA out of it because of its cramped canopy. Its not the hardest thing to fly but its heavy and really doesn't wanna turn (though it is pretty stable), this makes it just all around a put off for beginners who want to explore DCS. The TF-51 is nice in the air but you almost need rudder pedals to takeoff and at low speed that crazy late ww2 prop torque really hits.

 

Number one problem I've heard with it. Flight is the most important aspect in a flight game and is the first thing people interact with. Players are less likely to take the time to learn the systems if keeping it in the air is exceptionally difficult. The MIG-29 is still harder than most other games but the energy, acceleration and maneuverability make it much simpler. The P-51 is an entirely different category from the Su-25T itself. Landing the PFM Su-27 feels "Ace Combat easy" after trying the P-51/TF-51.

 

The TF-51D is about as unfriendly as you can get for new players. No HUD, horrible aerodynamics, stall happy, requires a Track IR to effectively use it and more. But I don't think that was the intention for including it. It simply required little effort to make and ED wanted a demo for clickable cockpits in the base game. So it serves its purpose.

[Custard]

But it would be giving away something that others have paid for.

You mean just like the Su-25T?

[ekg]

Here's an arcade style MiG-29 sim that I played as a kid. It only costs $5 and doesn't require any expensive hardware. You don't even need a HOTAS. You can get your friends start with this MiG-29 Fulcrum. Then when they want to go more advanced they can shell out the cash for the hardware ($1000 minimum) and pay the $40 for FC3.

[Flogger23m]

I don't think a nearly two decade old game is the best way to get people into the genre or DCS World in particular. I wouldn't be surprised if it had difficulty running on modern PCs to. By that logic, why not just have them buy LOMAC?

[RoflSeal]

But it would be giving away something that others have paid for.

 

I honestly wouldn't mind loosing the MiG-29A, especially since it is something maneuverable, and is a fighter(unlike the Su-25T) and can blow stuff up (unlike the TF-51D), so it could be a good enticer for new users.

[Witchking]

Name a single person in this thread who claims they wanted it free "just because". I bought LOMAC/FC/FC2/FC3. I've paid for the MIG-29 four times now. Have you? Considering I've owned it (MIG-29A/S) for over a decade how I am simply trying to get it for free?

 

Hmm.. lets see then... I bought flanker 2, Flanker 2.5, Lo: mac prorder before release, FC1 from natural point, FC2 through ED store, FC3 through ED store, all individual FC3 planes on steam store. black shark 1 on Direct2Drive, Black shark 2 on ED store. I bought Mig 21 at full price on ED store and Steam and gave away the ED one. All other modules on steam.

 

 

Software costs money to develop. It doesn't matter if you bought it 5y ago. The updates, revisions, that cockpit costs money and resources to develop. Try thinking about the validity of your argument if your office gives away your work for free and your compensation is directly dependent on the sales of "small prospective variation" of the feature complete free version. DOn't say it is advertising. Flight simming is a niche hobby. For most people each aircraft may be all that they will ever care and that can be a lost sale. Even a FC3 module sold at $3 on sales is still a sale. Again...this argument is going on for $9.99 or lower during sales. Seriously!!

 

It does, but there would still be a paid version. There is a reason why people are asking for a free MIG-29A alongside a paid MIG-29S and not a free Mirage-2000C or A-10C. There are differences between the scenarios. Use your head a little.

 

It's easy for me to stoop down to your level and throw insults as well. But it is seriously not worth my time or effort to bother...not to mention the topic of this argument. so stupid!!. ED know what they are doing... they will decide themselves with their sale projections.

 

It doesn't matter if the Mig29A is different from the S. Yeah, the S can do extra things. I seriously doubt that will encourage the wide gaming crowd to consider it if they get the A version for free. They are virtually identical in terms of 3d model/flight model. For a lay person (whom your arguments "seem" to be favoured towards) who may have a fleeting interest in these flight sims, you really think they will go "I am going to pay to get the same thing but with TWS and the R-77. yay!! I got the same thing...but now I can use these modes." Expand your vision to look at the broad scope of things. You think the success of the MS flight series is due to the hardcore crowd? (longevity maybe...but lot of people who bought MS flight x were just happy to fly around in an aircraft and land it...that's it). I myself even though I am so invested and have followed ED for so long just can't spend the time to do everything. Sometimes I just like to jump into various aircraft, fly for a bit and land. That's it. Believe it or not...a big population of gamers will be like that. If you think that is false ... then you are looking at the wrong population.. those are dedicated simmers who will and can afford to spend "$10" on an updated version.

 

Again... why don't people go to Activision, EA or Ubisoft saying... "hey! I just bought COD/FIFA/Assassin's creed" for the umpteenth time... u should give me a free version with everything...expect the multiplayer / or this couple of guns / or only Jocob . I paid for your earlier games.

 

Again, this has not been my experience. Flight characteristics are the first thing people experience. Stalling out in a TF-51 or Su-25T does not make for a good impression. Especially when someone is using a old crappy joystick or gamepad. Essentially everyone I got to try DCS (that were not flight simmers) quit. Only some came back after they got the Su-27/F-15.

 

Then they spent $10 or $3 when those modules are on sale? THey can't afford to spend that on Mig 29?

Also... BTW... the TF-51 has a PFM+ like the P-51D mustang. If you think u can't get the stall impression of the paid P-51D...that itself shows a psychological phenomenon where people think free products are inferior to paid ones. A discussion all on its own.

 

Another cleverly masked "If they're not experienced with flight sims, screw them! We don't need their money anyways!" argument.

 

not really. It is a statement saying... stop expecting everything for free. Yes!! I read what u keep saying...but no matter what u say...the essence is that you want it to be laid out for free. If a small developer like ED who makes niche products at such a fidelity as we want, we should be prepared to pay for it to support them. I have bought all the planes at full price except the Mig 15 as I have no interest at all. The double purchases were also to just support ED. I understand not everyone can shell out much. But I am a student myself "technically" below the poverty line based on income. If I can afford it.... most people should. Again... it is "$10" or cheaper. Seriously!!

[TomOnSteam]

I would rather that many of the planes be completely free - however like the TF-P-51D - no weapons, campaigns etc Perhaps only even a limited amount of fuel in multiplayer - enough for a take off a 5 minute flight and landing. You want people to be able to taste the real experience without giving away too much to encourage sales.

[Flogger23m]

Hmm.. lets see then... I bought flanker 2, Flanker 2.5, Lo: mac prorder before release, FC1 from natural point, FC2 through ED store, FC3 through ED store, all individual FC3 planes on steam store. black shark 1 on Direct2Drive, Black shark 2 on ED store. I bought Mig 21 at full price on ED store and Steam and gave away the ED one. All other modules on steam.

 

 

You didn't answer the question.

 

Software costs money to develop. It doesn't matter if you bought it 5y ago.

 

No one said it doesn't. It was a counter argument for those saying the MIG-29A is included in a paid product (FC3). So was the Su-25T and most of DCS World. The differences between A-10C and World were miniscule in the past. I didn't hear people protesting DCS World becoming free when they paid for the majority of that content in A-10C. This is an entirely different topic in itself though.

 

The updates, revisions, that cockpit costs money and resources to develop.

 

Which should be recouped and profits made via FC3 or MIG-29S sales. Few people are going to buy a standalone A model. For people like yourself who do want to buy it again there is always the option to rebuy the standalone S or FC3 again.

 

Try thinking about the validity of your argument if your office gives away your work for free and your compensation is directly dependent on the sales of "small prospective variation" of the feature complete free version. DOn't say it is advertising. Flight simming is a niche hobby. For most people each aircraft may be all that they will ever care and that can be a lost sale. Even a FC3 module sold at $3 on sales is still a sale. Again...this argument is going on for $9.99 or lower during sales. Seriously!!

 

The idea is to retain more people, even if only slightly. More than likely they will spring for FC3 (which includes the S anyways) if they maintain the interest in World because it is as of now an excellent value. Even if they never buy FC3 or the MIG-29S and buy another module it is still a slight win. As for the prices we know the days of large sales are gone. And with the probably price hike of FC3 and other modules mentioned in the latest news email I wouldn't be surprised if FC3 was raised to $80+. Maybe the standalone modules will shoot up in price to.

 

Also keep in mind average players may not have the best flight controllers. Fact is the -25T/TF-51 are not the easiest aircraft to fly and this is complicated when you don't have a good HOTAS. An easier to fly aircraft (MIG-29A) will lessen these complications for newcomers. Anything to make the game easier to get into without diluting the experience via less realism is something that should be perused.

 

I do wish I bought an extra F-15C or two back when it was $3 though. Would have made excellent gifts.

 

It's easy for me to stoop down to your level and throw insults as well. But it is seriously not worth my time or effort to bother...

 

I'm not going to go back and re-read the posts for names but I wasn't the one blanket labeling members on this forum as cheapskates and freeloaders. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was other posters. It annoys me as I do give back to the community in little ways such as some skins, including for a module I don't own. I don't expect anything for it and I realize there are plenty of skins out there. I also realize not everyone enjoys or cares for my work. But I do get a little annoyed when I am called a freeloader/cheapskate when I've likely given more to the community and bought variations of the MIG-29 more times than most of those hurling the insults.

 

not to mention the topic of this argument. so stupid!!. ED know what they are doing... they will decide themselves with their sale projections.

 

They do. But this is a discussion forum and we discuss things. No one is demanding or spamming the forum begging for it.

 

It doesn't matter if the Mig29A is different from the S. Yeah, the S can do extra things. I seriously doubt that will encourage the wide gaming crowd to consider it if they get the A version for free. They are virtually identical in terms of 3d model/flight model. For a lay person (whom your arguments "seem" to be favoured towards) who may have a fleeting interest in these flight sims, you really think they will go "I am going to pay to get the same thing but with TWS and the R-77. yay!! I got the same thing...but now I can use these modes." Expand your vision to look at the broad scope of things.

 

I think they will end up buying FC3 which includes the S variant. Or if there is no free MIG-29A this concept will still cross their mind and they'll simply never buy a standalone A.

 

Again... why don't people go to Activision, EA or Ubisoft saying... "hey! I just bought COD/FIFA/Assassin's creed" for the umpteenth time... u should give me a free version with everything...expect the multiplayer / or this couple of guns / or only Jocob . I paid for your earlier games.

 

Again, shades of gray. To use your own examples, we'll take Assassin's Creed Black Flag and its direct sequel Unity. While there are obvious similarities the majority of the content is different, ranging from animations, thousands of lines of dialogue, a different theme (pirate age VS French Revolution) and more. Each title being multi-million dollar projects involving what likely amounts to 1000+ people.

 

Now, lets compare that to the discussion of the MIG-29A:

 

- Significant portion of market hollowed out via FC3.

 

- Differences between the MIG-29A and the paid MIG-29S are small. Development R&D and time minimal to give free variant minimal.

 

- Goal is to retain slightly higher number of players by making the game easier without diluting realism of DCS.

 

I'm no fan of Ubisoft but if you put some time reviewing your examples you'd be able to clearly see massive difference in the analogy. There is a reason why this thread is pertaining to the MIG-29A and not the F-15C. A free F-15C would be entirely unreasonable.

 

Then they spent $10 or $3 when those modules are on sale? THey can't afford to spend that on Mig 29?

 

It is not about being able to afford it or not; rather it is about attracting and retaining players. Flight sims are niche and people are less likely to part ways with their money on unfamiliar things. A free Su-25T or TF-51D is a great notion but it simply isn't the best airframe for the task. They are not great aircraft to ease new players in.

 

The problem I've experienced is that they tend to believe everything is exceptionally hard to fly and quit playing shortly after. Only after being lured into cheap F-15s or Su-27s have revised their opinions. Now most of them have given the Su-25T a second chance and find it easier. Of course, some of them have written off the game completely after trying the Su-25T and did not even feel inclined to purchase a cheap F-15C. Imagine if a more friendly airframe was their first experience. I'd think more would have been retained and kept interest from the start.

 

Also... BTW... the TF-51 has a PFM+ like the P-51D mustang. If you think u can't get the stall impression of the paid P-51D...that itself shows a psychological phenomenon where people think free products are inferior to paid ones. A discussion all on its own.

 

Quoted simply because I have no idea what you're saying. The AFM types are:

 

SFM

AFM

AFM+

PFM

EFM (3rd party)

 

I still firmly believe the TF-51D will give new players are harder time than a MIG-29A. Feel free to disagree with me.

 

not really. It is a statement saying... stop expecting everything for free.

 

Quote who said they wanted everything for free.

 

If a small developer like ED who makes niche products...

 

And the community intends to keep it that way it seems. ;)

 

Regardless of what happens with the MIG-29A I do hope there is a template. I'd like to attempt a few skins for it. :D

[zantron]

i voted yes, or at the very least sell separately cheap like $3.00

 

its basic enough with just enough punch, it would get a lot of people into DCS I think who aren't interested in flying a ground attack plane or who simply cant afford.

 

If your friends can afford the hardware they can afford FC3.

 

my machine was actually a very wonderful gift from my friend at a time when i was low in money and paying off debt. others who are younger than me in college or highschool most likely have machines which are gifts as well, Mig29 only needs like a $30 thrustmaster to fly

Edited November 30, 2015 by zantron

[tovivan]

I voted yes.

 

I bought FC3 at full price myself, even though I am far from those people who can throw money at developers just to support them, but I don't feel it would hurt me any if people would get for free one of those planes that I paid for. I'm not that jealous or stingy.

 

Let's face it, the A is a pretty basic plane, far more basic than the Su-25T we get for free. I would actually argue that the 25T is far a better and more valuable plane than 29A and maybe it should be the other way round... pay for 25T and get 29A for free. :P

 

the 29A doesn't have anything that actually puts it on somewhat equal terms with the 27 like the 29S. It doesn't have the R-77 (which is bugged like other missiles and underperforming - speed loss for example), doesn't have the TWS2, has only basic A-G armament and only 6 hardpoints.

 

Plus, it still has only SFM and will have it for a long time to come yet, considering length of time needed for PFM development and 29 PFM being of very low priority for ED. Look at how long it took for it to get 3d cockpit! I don't expect 29 PFM to come out before 2017, Su-33 MAYBE in 2016.

 

-

 

So, to sum it up.

 

The 29A is an extremely basic fighter with limited AG capability, with the simplest flight model possible.

 

It doesn't bring anything to the table in FC3 when that package has the much-better S version (and to some extent the G). Who even bothers flying the A when they have the chance to fly the G or S? I never see people online in A when the S or G slots are free.

 

I honestly believe giving it for free would help sales of FC3, bring in new players and maybe, MAYBE hold back a little (or lower) the announced price hikes for DCS.

 

So, yes, gratis 29A.

[TheFurNinja]

I redid the first post, any other pro-"free the MiG-29A" like to add any of their points?

 

As well as opponents, any more counter arguments? I really want to hear from both sides here.

Edited December 3, 2015 by TheFurNinja

[Why485]

My biggest argument against the MiG-29A as it is right now, is still that it uses an ancient SFM and I don't want somebody's first impression of DCS to be a SFM. If ED were to make the MiG-29A free, it should happen after the eventual flight model revision.

 

Other than that, I'm fully behind this idea as somebody who has been playing DCS since LOMAC. It would also be good for the MiG-29A to get its own series of brief training missions like the Su-25T's. Those are fantastic because they're all short and to the point. You can complete all of them in an hour or two and know all you need to get started.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Why485