Good points and I don't find anything I can disagree with. If you are happy with DCS as it is now, Great!, keep flying. If you are waiting for what it "could" be I think you will find yourself very frustrated. I believe ED tends to shoot themselves in the foot by portraying DCS as something that it is not and generating a lot of hype about things that will likely never happen - or will happen over a decade or more timespan. If they didn't keep trying to create unrealistic expectations, I think the player base would be less ... salty? Who am I kidding? DCS is famous for its salty player base. They sustain themselves on the salty tears of broken dreams and false expectations. DCS simulates military aircraft reasonably well for a consumer grade simulation. DCS does not simulate the environment that those aircraft would operate in very well at all. If you find a path through that dichotomy - as I have thanks to some great friends that enjoy flying as a team - then the joys are endless. Now how ED remains profitable, with an ever growing backlog of technical debt it incurs every time they release a new "early access" module, is the real million dollar question. Thanks for the rational business perspective. We need more rationality in our lives these days.
The answer to how is DCS profitable is, in short, it’s not. Nick Grey has pulled almost 10 million dollars THIS YEAR out of eagle dynamics for his own airplanes, in the form of an interest free loan. I highly recommend looking at UK and other countries company databases for ED and The Fighter Collection.
@@jclebedev That doesn't surprise me. People say there isn't going to be a eventual sale to MS? A quote from Bob Dillion: "Money doesn't talk, it screams".
@@jclebedev The loan from ED to TFC is the tax efficient means to extract profits from ED for the Greys to put back into TFC. If ED were losing money, there would be no money to lend to TFC from ED. DCS for the consumer is now the smaller part of ED’s business. Originally, it was TFC that funded ED and TFC’s accounts are not the complete picture regarding TFC’s aircraft given the balance sheet has tangible assets of just over £1 million. 😉
For warbirds, IL2 is a major competitor and in my opinion a better product. On the whole I am a big fan of DCS but you have a valid point regarding the jet age.
As a programmer by trade I believe biggest problem with DCS and ED is their business model of only generating revenue with new modules. That will inevitably lead to modules NOT being maintained and kept up to date graphically and functionally because there will not be incentive beyound initial sales hype to do so. I know this sounds unpopular on the surface but I would wish ED would adopt a model of iterative approach like MSFS like "DCS 2020 edition" and "DCS 2024 edition" where you will have to pay some minor "upgrade" costs to move your module between editions, but with improvements in function/graphics between those editions getting funded. But the benefit for community guys like myself will be that inside the release ED will keep backwards compatibiity, because as ex-"DCS server admin" ED is incompenent and cannot keep any complicated mission scripting working for us beyound a few months until some of their internal logic breaks in an update. Try loading a year old mission in DCS and you have 50-50 chance it will not work properly, the same for MP servers and such. Right now DCS world is a mess of always half-broken community content and mp servers that admins are spending ungodly hours fixing the mission scriptings post every second DCS update, yet the game is still having such major core gaps like ATC being nonexistent or on level that 90s sims did it better, AI in dogfights still consistently hits a hill when it decides to rate fight you in hilly terrain (always and constant!). The glorious release of multi-threated DCS is still keeping AI and simulation logic in single core which still makes the scenarios possible in ballpark of 30-40 AI units max and the whole rest of the world is sterile nothingness. Spent now 20+ years with DCS (started with LockOn) and I on this point hate this always half-done, always patch breaking some of our community mission content/servers environment that DCS has become.
Totally correct. The financial model is broken. Whether it's a monthly sub or an upgrade every few years, there has to be a way to generate revenue to support bug fixing in general and updates to the game core in particular. Dcs is cheap cheap cheap compared to the hardware required to run it. Players demanding free upgrades like VR, Vulcan, multi core optimisation for nothing are hurting their own hobby.
Agreed, slipping optimization is by far the most important issue with DCS. As patches keep rolling out, the game gets more and more difficult to run and I don't have the means to keep chasing it. I'd just prefer being able to work with particular versions/releases/snapshots of the game, especially since I'm into it for singleplayer. Eagle Dynamics could setup releases like Microsoft Flight Simulator as a future option and that would be a great idea, but I'd also like to be able to view a back catalog of previous versions that you can install for singleplayer use only. Basically, if they decided to totally change course for the time being and focus primarily on optimization, I'd be there to support that 100%.
Fully agree. I'm afraid the current model will run into a downward spiral. I would personally even support a subscription model for a smoother experience in exchange. If I would be ED, I would announce far in advance that 3.0 will be based on subscriptions, with this and that new very cool features. You can bring your existing modules, but be aware, support for 2.x will run out by YYYY.
So refreshing to hear someone else say that they rarely play multiplayer. I’m in the same boat. Been simming for 25 odd years and flying IRL for over 20 years. I simply enjoy the task of learning a module and completing an objective without the online noise if that makes sense.
I am in my 50s and have literally been gaming since the old Telstar Pong/Hockey game in the 70's. I played the original SubLogic Flight Simulator on a Tandy 1200 before Microsoft bought the rights. I have been on DCS for two years and still have not played multiplayer. My multiplayer experience in gaming has been largely negative over the years ... mainly because so many people are a-holes. I'll probably give it a shot at some point, but for the most part have enjoyed single-player.
I'm in the same boat I think DCS needs to have multiplayer but have ways to hook up with other pilots and not have to join a squadron and and make it a bit more casual
@@thomasyantorno1734besides MP teams that don’t require a membership there are options on discord, called ‘find a wingman’ or are you thinking of a 3rd option?
"the online noise" xD MP is without a doubt peak DCS. Are there bad communities/servers? Sure... but your comment sounds like there are bigger issues at play. ... like when people say "I'm happy alone because people are just a**holes", then all the normal people look at each other and raise their eyebrows.
For me, it is not that ALL people are A**holes but enough of them are - that I prefer not to suffer them for the benefit that MP provides to me - which is, honestly, small. But that is very much a product of my generation and my experience in gaming. It's hard to appreciate how the late 90's and the advent of the Internet changed the gaming experience, I think.
Hey Iain, I am not sure if you are aware, I work with Eagle Dynamics. I'd like to say that I have enjoyed your channel for some time and have used your videos both for helping users and even seeing where you might have struggled. I appreciate your opinions on all this and home to see you continue making such great content well into the future. I will say that we certainly do appreciate and look for customer opinions about DCS and its future, and I will for sure make sure management sees this video. If you have anymore questions for me or any concerns you want to fire my way I would be happy to hear them all. Thanks!
Anyway we can get Linux support soon? Im not a fan of windows 11"features" the only thing that keeps me locked into windows is DCS. Unfortunately I can never get it working correctly on steam proton. Although I imagine it might be a monumental task.
This guy makes some great points, "all busines" have to adapt from time to time and doing thing like a lease, season, or MRR based, is may bring more cash - revenue generation to develope more and aid 3rd party financial needs. Another thing is in ED's 3rdpart agreement I'd for new 3rd parties to sell Thore module up to 2-3 yrs in order to make new release revenue. But there an option of ED to "buy" these 3rd party products to maintain them in the future. There enough sales data in the ED store or Steam to decide on a fair and reasonible price. Simple things like this could help ED and DCS in future?
I have bought absolutely every module in the sim. Why? Because i feel that 50..60 bucks is more than fair for a DCS level jet. DCS is my private museum and i can take them out for a flight whenever i want. I love it, and thats all that matters to me.
I gave you a like and a subscribe solely on the fact that you created a video on one of the most hot button issues in DCS and told people not argue. Rock on!
I got several bans from developers that decide what ppl can say in Steam especially just for speaking, one the first one and mainly only one was from Hinterland Games a. Canadian company behind the creation of the Long Dark, terrible protectionism silencing anyone who they do not like to the point it feels like a terror organization... And despite this they got along and succesful, showing that players should surely calm down and developers must have their courage to set tone and design as they want or make their strong decisions regarding the game, and also sign that i. The end videogame design is not that ethical and sustainable affair as many like to think. It damages people, destroys their time in the making process for sure. I have several proofs and documents that guarantee this.
@Sidekick65 God, don't I know it. I make videos mostly on tiktok but whenever I make a UA-cam video the hardest part is finding good footage to put in the background.
This is it. I rarely comment on UA-cam but you deserve a comment of admiration. your life experience is patented and assertiveness helps a lot with the target audience you target. well done. Personally, I consider all the money I invested to enjoy dcs to be well spent. and understanding the business issue, I will continue to be a customer
I've been in the ED ecosystem of sims for near 20 years now. It's not broken and it's not dead. It just needs competition to force ED to make decisions around efficiency. DCS for me is awesome. It has flaws but it always will.
How can you possibly justify spending another penny in this game given the RAZBAM situation? Why would anyone trust a platform that will simply abandonware hundreds of dollars of DLC?
It's interesting to see I'm not the only that muses about ED's business model. There are a couple things that I would change if I were a majority shareholder in the company and wanted to get the most out of my investment. 1. Develop a parallel product that uses the DCS codebase but doesn't have the restriction of sticking to real world documentation. With this product they could increase the target market to a much broader audience than just hard core realism aficionados without having to start from scratch. Using the same codebase, any updates to one product would affect both and save on developer resources. Setting the bar lower on realism also opens the game to other iconic aircraft like the F-35 and Su-57 which ED could not otherwise get detailed real world documentation for. This parallel product may be what the "Modern Air Combat" project is about but I haven't heard much about it in years. 2. Change the community engagement model to what Microsoft and Asobo use. I don't even play MSFS but I can see how much better their community engagement is. They've studied their demographics and now target the largest groups for specific features. I see ED trying to please everyone instead of focusing efforts on the parts of the community with the biggest returns (hint: its not the loudest people on social media). MS/Asobo also know how to do press events and Q&A sessions to build hype. ED really should learn from them and do the same. I do think they can do it and they are mostly on the right track. But if it were my money invested in the company I would do some course corrections to get a better return.
This is what Frontier developers have done. ELITE DANGEROUS is kept alove with a couple terribly implemented MTX (, toxicity always) but especially thanks to them making successful games as Jurassik Park managemebt game and others which can sustain the flag original product (by Braben and Star citizen now leadnof CIG, Roberts) Also 4. Take all the monetization (Ian wont like it),, for you on videos made with the game. Do not leave that to authors of the videos. Like this you diffuse a support and UA-cam even if not much has to pay and supports ED and third parties.
Bravo man. Like a whiff of fresh air. I too primarily play single player. Every now and then I may do multiplay especially with friends but most of the time I'm on singleplayer. Making my own custom missions, usually those of the "it would be cool if this" and "what if" category missions. But yeah I just make due with what is available (both paid modules and free community modules) and just generate my own type of fun. Loved your insight on the whole situation. Have a sub btw.
I think some relatively low hanging fruit would be the recently announced updated mission generator. I used to fiddle with population templates of AWACS, JTACs, with triggers I could drop the Fast Generator missions into but it was always more trouble than it was worth. An updated mission generator would be a nice stopgap while we wait for the dynamic campaign, and would solve some of the issues of new maps having no content. Even if it generated a campaign with a few randomly generated missions strung together semi-cohesively would give us tons of permutations of things to do while we wait for the DCSDC.
I dont fly in DCS at all, looking at getting into it when I get my setup sorted. That being said, you kept me listening throughout the entire video. Such an intelligent conversation and it was all easy enough to understand. Thank you Lain. You have earned yourself another sub.
That is not a CONversation but a good monologue which 99%, on youtube has no education to do but dove on since years for monetization. So I rather call his a Conversion of people to quality.. Yeah quality of philosophy ppl so much lack nowadays
It’s all about having fun, some sceneries are spectacular and we are able, still, to evaporate in the environment. I am a retired helicopter pilot and even thou my bum does my feel the aircraft, I do enjoy being in the sky, or coming in ILS in a shitty weather. I remember “Lockon” before the first patch… do we see the leap, the progression? and we, nowadays, flying the game with the same engine, and guess what, I love it! So Iain, I understand you from a business point of view and I agree with you, it can be frustrating, but I look at where we come from, years ago, and I can only say that ED has done a fantastic job. There is a comment bellow about some pilot expecting to fly a new aircraft module and complaining about the fact that they can’t actually fly it blaming ED for it; to those I would say: you are lucky it is a simulator as if it was in real time you would not survive you take off.
I'm 55 and have been playing DCS for over 5 years. I have to say the Apache in VR is some of the most enjoyable experiences I've had gaming. Ive been at it since Atari 2600. I think the key for Eagle is to produce "campaigns" in single player. A real modern day campaign using high quality cut scenes and audio. 10-13 missions to complete the campaign. Yes I know they have a few, but it seems like missions stacked together to make a campaign. Modern gamers want IMMERSION. This includes high quality audio and cutscenes. I only play single player btw. Still love DCS, it will always have a place in my heart. I started flying real heli's because of DCS.
I am an old guy and enjoy warbirds (WW2& early Jets) ..... nothing else compares to DCS so far. Looking forward to the F4u, F6F, 1944 Marianas and PTO in my lifetime Amen brother!
@@Uselessnoobcow this fly on rails nonsense only comes from people who have never flown a plane before. Not every plane work purely on blade element theory, many planes in dcs are as squirly as a drone or an rc. I fly planes on sims and irl, and actually il 2 is a very competent sim, ED is a better procedure simulator not a better flight sim.
Very good video and excellent points. Your explanation is spot on, and most people who express their opinions don't really know what they're talking about. Thank you for the video. I was hesitant to watch it because I thought it would again be from someone who has no idea how business or programming works, but I'm glad I did.
Hello Iain, thx for your opinion and analysis. For me DCS needs a competitor. A good one. This way, players will react, this way ED mus react. This wil have a huge impact on how the ED's business and way of bugs management are managed nowadays :)
Outstanding review and spot on from someone of close to the same age! Been in the military aviation industry since I was a 16 and flown every flight sim since inception. DCS keeps the spirit and memories of military aviation alive for me personally and constantly reminds me of great times past. Never gets old for this guy! Life long customer and my biggest hobby. Only suggestion that might help with that revenue Nineline is maybe more asset packs for different time periods. Flying a ton with Eighball and Tobi Vietnam asset pack for free but would gladly pay good money for regional asset packs. I feel like this would be a good option to be less concerned with early access while providing more meat for the maps and missions and generating revenue quicker. The Middle East needs some love with insurgents and allied units.
As someone who has been into online flight sims since 1994, DCS has taken flight sims to a new level. One thing I might add is the community of like flyers and the camaraderie DCS provides. Think of how it saves marriages, because the spouse always knows where to find the other…lol. We aren’t sitting in a bar drinking and getting in trouble with some creature that is a no no. Nope, we are researchers of how to make an engineering decision of what works better. We also have become pretty good at building and using the core OS software to the best possible experience. This is always evolving and one has to be willing to never ever give up…someone always has a better process to eureka of graphics and smooth game play. YMMV!
Expanding the player base is one crucial way to gain income. There are several problems. -It is not for everyone. It takes a certain kind of mindset. -it gets expensive quickly. Both in modules and hardware. -its visibility is quite low imo. It took me a while before I knew it existed. There are creative ways to address these issues. Expanding the customer base will help give revenue to finish EA, which in turn will help in user retention. Also important to note that new EA modules are needed not only for income but for player retention who can get bored.
They need to reduce the modules and focus on details and quality of the experience. They need another game that 1 or more arcade and a blockbuster game to support this Dcs project and maybe move to a new dcs.. 2. To start over.
I have always kept DCS as an option for my simmingly play. So far I have only used MSFS and XP-12 so I am contemplating trying other sims too. this video helps me have a some idea of what strength/weakness are in DCS - and I will surely give it a go. thanks for the video.
Nice one. A very grown-up take on the game and very well narrated and put. It IS what it IS and the common mistake people tend to make is seeing it as some sort of 'collaborative' or 'co-operative' venture, which it ISN'T. Folk get their heads around that concept then they would certainly be a little less preoccupied with trying to be involved with it's trajectory and just get on with enjoying what it is... Food for thought, cheers Sidey!!
Thanks - very well put. I think it's a general problem with the "attention economy" everyone thinks their opinion is worth something - even if there is nothing of value behind it or in it. If you don't ask yourself why someone would WANT your opinion then why provide it?
Hi, very good for making this video! You're basically the kind of person that I wish to talk with, basically seeing myself in your words! If I may be useful, as an aerospace engineer, specialized in aerodynamics and flight dynamics, I can tell you plenty of things which tell what is right and wrong about the flight simulation and performances of aircraft, including helicopters as well. I won't get into the big list that I've made for myself with the pros and cons regarding DCS's aircraft flight models simulation, but I'm really looking forward to join someone for a through talk about it. Whenever I've tried pointing out real problems regarding the unrealistic performances of helicopters, aircraft and missiles in DCS it didn't take long to become mocked by some random DCS fanboy lovers who didn't care of my subjects anyway, so maybe making a full long video on UA-cam myself taking every care of every aspect regarding those issue or joining up with someone for this particular reason, ONLY with the hope that ED's developers would start to understand that not everyone's stupid, and as such, put a little pressure on them to try to correct things and make them right, for the name of DCS, might be what has to be done!
@ExploringSitkaAlaskausin-wj4wu Well said. I also got that too, but hey, when they brag that it's "so realistic" when it comes to flight models, just for me to see some low level knwoledge when it comes to how they have modeled even simple aerodynamics effects, simply made me very disappointed. For example, the ailerons, like any other aerodynamic surface, it has to stall at some AOA. That never happens on most ED made aircraft. It only happens on Belsimtek and Heatblur, because these guys are the only ones to correctly assess the aerodynamics simulation of their planes. All other third parties, includind ED, are not even able to simulate that basic and simple aspect.
@PappaBear_yt I tried making a video in which I will showcase all of the baisc or not even high level knowledge of aerodynamics problems some 3 years ago, but as newer content appeared, I had to halt and study the new material flaws which didn't end yet😅. When I'll find the better time to dedicate myself only to this and put it on YT for everyone to see it and distinguish between what's good (usually little to show) and what's bad, that should come like a hoof in ED's forehead, because those are not hard things to do right, yet they don't seem to care of them, but pretend that DCS is an authentic simulation, cause they only tried to mock me on the forums when I started pointing out serious simulation problems, hopefully then they'll change their attitude and try to do things correctly. For instance, HEATBLUR, BELSIMTEK and DEKA IRONWORKS are those who truly looked carefully into the aerodynamics of their aircraft. On the other hand, those like LEATHERNECK, (Mig-21 & Christen Eagle) are a shame in DCS for aerodynamics simulations alone, both of their aircraft simulating aerodynamics from a very different world, not Earth.
A lot of very reasonable points. I'll add in two cents of my own, which I hope to be somewhat useful. After trying out ADAMS (Eurofighter flight simulator) at Zeltweg, I've come to a realization that essentially (although semantically much different) DCS is a military flight simulator made for public. I'm aware that sounds like a very "Captain Sherlock" statement, but it is made in almost the exact same way as a true professional flight simulator is. It is not made in the same way "ordinary" games (including some flight sims) are made. This is where expectations have to be set. One shouldn't expect DCS to follow same conventions as "most games" do. Also to take into account that the military version of DCS exists. Ultimately meaning that the simulation of aircraft itself will take priority. Everything that revolves around modules and such will be of Eagle Dynamics' (and third parties too) primary interest. While other elements, such as further features like Dynamic Campaign (which is a much more complicated topic than some of DCS playerbase is portraying it), are/will be neat, it's something that's more of a "side" thing than the main attraction. The focus on modules as a renevue is also a sign that this is where Eagle Dynamics thinks the moneymaker for DCS is. If you accept that fact, then I think there's plenty of enjoyment to be had in it. I love aviation and I love learning in detail about how aircraft operate and such. DCS allows me of such opportunity and I appreciate that. And by all means, they're not entirely wrong. It is a situational thing though. Something like F-4E or F-16C will be very profitable (relative to the flight simulator genre), where as something extremely niche (lets say for hypothetical example if someone were to made a Cessna Combat Caravan module) is not gonna be wort investing in. Of course, the Early Access model, along with Eagle Dynamics working on possibly too many projects at once, complicates things a lot. While I understand why its there (just look at how much it took Kiowa to be released), I think how projects are managed should be a bit more cautious on Eagle Dynamics' side. I will admit that some modules do actually get steady progress (Apache and F-16 for example), but it is also clear that some modules are not getting much work done, even if in some cases it is necessary. Ideally, it would be best for Eagle Dynamics to prioritize working on the core game (which to be fair, last few changelogs show they are quite dedicated on bugfixing and also improving the game itself. Multithreading has been one of the best things to happen to DCS lately) while module making would take slight pause (but not fully cease, it brings money after all), but considering their current renevue model, the reality is more complicated. I personally do not know a clear cut solution to this, if I'm honest. This is something that Eagle Dynamics itself has to figure out.
Thanks. I appreciate it. I'd say the comments on this video provide some excellent examples of folks who purport to know something about business but who have never had to run one. LOL
Very thoughtful analysis. As a retired investment management professional, I think you make very salient points. My impression as a recent adopter of the software is that there is a large enough and active enough user base that I think going forward will offer opportunities for ED to change the revenue model in order maintain and grow the product. They will not make every current user happy but they don't have to as you pointed out. They just need the majority to stick around. Additionally, there are a significant number of adjunct vendors of peripherals like H.O.T.A.S., control panels, eye tracking, etc. that offer opportunities for partnerships or even mergers/joint ventures. As others have suggested, moving more to a MSFS model might be effective. I do hope they are around for the long term as I've found the game to be a challenging and interesting way to spend at least part of my retirement (at least when the weather gets cold and snowy here in the Northeast).
Ohhhh! Nice point about "merchandising" agreements and partnerships. Yes, indeed, that is an angle to thing about in terms of generating recurring revenue. Putting together a decent rig is a big barrier for many new (and even existing) users. Leveraging DCS's central position in the flight sim hardware ecosystem sounds like an idea that should be explored. Thanks so much for addign this comment!
Has DCS ever not been broken? Off the top of my head I can't think of any time period where there wasn't a gamut of significant bugs or stability/performance issues.
There was a big problem with multiplayer stability and multithreaded version of DCS had major stuttering which made it unable to play for quite a long period of 2024.
We (at least I) appreciate your upfront honesty regarding your biases, too many people these days think they are totally unbiased, when in reality - just by living - you generate biases. conscious and unconscious biases. it takes introspection to know what your biases are. I like DCS, its a program that scratches an itch that not many 'games' do these days. MS is sitting on a gold mine if they could do a MS combat flight sim like back in the late 90s / early 00s. there is a market for combat flight sims, but not a whole lot of choice. My hope is Microprose can come out swinging something soon to disrupt the current market. Thanks for this video. Love ya Iain :)
The fact that ED keeps pushing out half assed modules that will stay for years and years in "early access" and doesn't even try to fix the core problems and limitations of the game tells me everything. I can only hope Falcon 5 will be better. In the meantime I switched to BMS to scratch my combat sim itch and MSFS for normal flight simming.
That is their ONLY income... just saying. They worked their a** off to finish the multicore support (much easier to make a new game with mt support from the ground than re-write one while keeping all dependencies and compatibility) and I say this as a game developer. Believe me it was a huge task and they did it really well, just check vr back then and now to see the benefits. And in the meantime their only income is only the modules they are selling for the game. They could do subscription based model which would be much worse/expensive. So if you enjoy DCS, keep buying modules and wait patiently. ED isn't MS who has infinite money and manpower if they want/need. If you can't see this, DCS is not the sim for you. I will happily carry on to support them to have the best mil sim available what I dreamt of for decades... (playing flight sims since the early C64/Amiga times..)
@@MaverickM1 "keep buying modules" Nope I haven't bought a module since the f14 nor will I ever buy one again untill they fix the AI and give us a real dynamic campaign. Your cuckoldry worldview is not for me.
I hope that if/or when falcon 5 is realized razbam would partner to remake thier modules. The f15e in particular. If a competitor existed would no donlubt just sweep up all the disgruntled dcs community and be the final nail in the coffin of ed.
The disgruntled numbers are not as significant as you think a few big mouths yelling on youtube leaving won't even put a dent in the player base . But at least wel get some peace and quiet from all the crying babies.
Well said. I still think DCS will enter a death cycle where ED falls under the weight of early access backlog. As you mention, they need constant release of modules for cash flow and almost all of them are early access with future development demands. These demands are compounding and the community is becoming more uncertain about the future of DCS and less trusting of ongoing development. I also think they will reach a point of saturation of map releases (are people really going to buy Sinai, then Iraq, then Afghanistan when Syria is still the dominant map)?
Sinai is actually awesome, on par with Syria, perhaps only let down is just like in real life, the landscape is... more on the flat end. It should however be merged with Syria as soon as possible. Perhaps in a way that if you own Syria only, Sinai is low fidelity, if you own Sinai, Syria would be low fidelity only.
And it's not only the EA backlog. Another issue ED is going to have is the diminishing interest for the upcoming modules. As for the planes they've already done the most interesting ones they can. Doubt that any of the upcoming modules generate as much interest as the Viper and Hornet. Mig-29 might reach these levels a little bit but it's gonna be the last one. There's also similar problem brewing with the maps. Too many sandmaps already and the lack of some sort of dynamic mission generator means that you get the same sandbox just in a different environment. What is the point in getting more maps then?
I wouldn't mind if they just updated their core and already released modules, and let 3rd parties and content makers do the rest. If they actually supported the community, they could get away with this kind of thing a la Arma.
Couldn't really agree on any points you made, except that DCS is running on an old engine. Subscription based services normally support the cost of ongoing hosting services, which ED does not do whatsoever. If ED offered a global map world server or cloud storage for maps in general then maybe a subscription could be justified. Other major flight sims also don't use a subscription model, albeit have a larger target audience. In fact I don't think money is the primary factor at all for the state of DCS. Having third parties develop modules is also not an extra "cost", it's far cheaper than hiring several full time employees. The extra DCS content generated by third parties is only a positive thing. Another thing I do agree on is the fragmented audience, but again, this may also not be an issue from a monetary perspective. The profit generated from selling a WW2 module may very well cover the cost of development. What can be considered is if ED should narrow the focus of DCS to free up development time for other things.
Thank you for distilling the current state of DCS. I found it useful and to be reminded of the underlying economic reality propelling DCS behaviour is refreshingly clear. I guess the caveat I would inject to your analysis is that I do not think customers really like the thought, from a human perspective, that they do not matter in any sense beyond what they can give economically to DCS, even if that is the underlying economic reality. It is one thing to think like that as a company, quite another to be seen to do so by your customer base. It is a short sighted company that would not listen in some capacity to its customer base, and indeed, change tack if necessary, as their profitability remains rooted in giving customers what they want and in capacity at least, responding to their desires. So brutal economic facts drive behaviour, but economic behaviour, as it was so often pointed out to me, is less about rationality and equally or more about emotion and feeling. So there has to be a human leavening to your brutal economic picture. But you do of course, get to the essential, and as you say, it profits us as DCS customers to remember that when next we get wrapped around axel too much.
I don't disagree, and I will admit that some of what I said was hyperbole for effect. But it does come down to the definition of "customer". Is someone who plats DCS but does not buy new modules (and advertises that fact on the forums) a customer? They generate no sales revenue - all they generate is expense - nit large but at least a little if only in bandwidth every time an update is downloaded. So, is being a DCS player necessarily the same as being a customer? And Should ED worry about non-customers concerns. I guess that's really my point. Unless you are prepared to say, constructively, what it would take for you support ED financially should you really expect them to listen to your opinions? My point is really about how to be effective in having your concerns heard and addressed. There are a lot of commentators who seem to believe that the strength if their opinions is more important than the quality of their argument. They seem convinced that some one a ED will listen simply because they chose to speak. I think they are wrong and will be disappointed.
@@Sidekick65 Yea, I see your point. It’s a good one. I had not really made that distinction before. So I think you’re saying the challenge for DCS is to work out what type of customer is speaking and kicking up a fuss. Well, I guess all are potential customers, even those who buy one module and sit on it while DCS goes ahead with all sorts of other stuff. Surely DCS must adopt that view? If those ‘sunk’ customers like it, and feel well disposed to DCS, they might buy more. I know I have bought modules just to support DCS, and to support high end simulation more generally. Even though I was pretty sure I would never get around to using it in any substantial way. (I do not do that anymore, by the way, in way of a protest toward DCS’s constant release of modules when other stuff is not yet complete.) That is not ‘economically rational’ I know, but there it is. So I don’t think DCS can usefully draw a line practically between different types of customers? They’d have to assume all are potentially future customers who will put more money into the sim in future. By the way, do you think DCS people who can actually influence business policy will read your post? I hope so!
@Anzac-pi7eq yup, yup, yup - you have a good point. Sounds like what we should say us that we are a MARKET not a customer base. Subtle difference in business terms, but a difference nonetheless. Ya know, that's a great perspective. One I hadn't thought of before. Going to have to noodle on that now for a bit. Thanks! And no, I have no expectation that what I say will have the slightest impact on ED management. I have tried to provide these opinions directly before and been thoroughly and comprehensively ignored. Hah! I made the video in the hopes that it might help at least some players understand the reasons (as I see them) that ED does what it does. You don't have to agree with to understand what motivates their behaviour. Thanks again for this. Great insight.
I've been enjoying Eagle Dynamics Sims and DCS since their inception. They have come a long way and I am sure they will continue to adjust as they need to in order to stay afloat. Honestly, I am not surprised that they haven't added a subscription model yet in addition to the modules. I for one would happily pay monthly to help them stay alive into the future.
I ❤ this episode!, and the video in the background narration was perfect, couldn’t agree more with the sentiments, if any game winds you up that much that you start resenting it, remove it and play something else.
Fantastic perspective from someone who is clearly a great teacher. Everyone should watch it especially before commenting. This is a great reality check for not only DCS consumers but really any consumer. Bottomline, no pun intended, is if you have no net profits you will cease to exist. Ive started wondering if people still understood that since my economy classes 15 years ago. The problem is that the demographics of new customers clearly do not and unfortunately those same users are the most vocal groups on forums. It does seem that a subscription model maybe the only way out which would for sure anger any users older than 30 and likely create barriers to entry for new younger customers. Definitely an interesting business case. Thank you! Personally I do love DCS. Made my 5 year old happy to get as close to being a fighter pilot as can be and probably spent over $7k on it over the years. I do want it to succeed.
I can tell you that some variation of this conversation is the one that I have with every Founder when I first meet them (I mostly work with startup companies in the Space sector). Moving from wanting to make something great to making something that people will buy for more than it costs to produce is a tough transition.
Hi Iain. An excellent and thoughtful video. I very much appreciate your calm and objective views on the DCS situation - it is a relief from all the outrage and sensationalism of many other commentators and one of the main things that attracts me to your channel. As someone in the same age bracket as yourself, and now retired after over 30 years as a commercial pilot, I have been dipping my toe in the world of DCS with the help of your videos (thanks for all the great content!) With the impending release of MSFS 2024 I was wondering which product might best serve my (very casual!) interest in simming. After many years of flying the real things I have absolutely no interest in simulating commercial aviation and so DCS with its military aircraft would seem most apt. As such I have been testing the waters at minimal cost with the A-4E-C and the A-10A. Like you, I am more interested in the solo and technical aspects of the simulation rather than the A2A and multiplayer ones. I have, however, found one major limitation that may push me towards MSFS in the end - terrain. Being very US-centric (I suspect where the most players are and so where the most money is) I find that DCS seems to completely miss the area that I would like to "fly" in - Western Europe, and more precisely in the cold war era. Yes, it appears to have a very good WWII era Europe but I like the 70's and 80's of my youth and with military aircraft now reasonably represented in MSFS it may be a better fit, even "flying" military aircraft into airports I have known well for many years. The issues surrounding DCS and the valid points that you raise also make me wary of committing serious money to this franchise.
Would the campaigns not count as the recurring income? I know a lot of people who claim to play singleplayer also buy the campaigns, and the campaigns have really low cost to produce.
Since a young age I've been captivated by aircraft, and in later years, of YT videos of DCS in action. It became a bucket-list item, if you will. About a year and a half ago I spent a horrendous amount of money upgrading my computer to play Cyberpunk 2077 in high path traced fidelity, along with the aim of being able to run DCS in VR. I had done my homework, had selected the VR headset and HOTAS/pedal setup I wanted. However, I made the mistake of asking for advice on the DCS subreddit. I asked for feedback on my choice of gear, any caveats regarding my CPU/GPU and in particular about multiplayer and how latency-sensitive it was (I live in the southern hemisphere and pings to Europe are 160ms+ on a good day). The responses I received left a very bad taste: "Google is your friend", "The system requirements are on the Steam store page." or my favourite "I didn't know girls liked to play flight sims". The actual questions I asked never received any treatment, and I felt like I had stumbled into a teenager-filled CS:GO server. Needless to say, the hefty outlay on equipment and the inevitable big ticket DCS modules never materialized and I continue to live vicariously through youtubers like GS, _et al_ - it's not unlike having a nasty teacher in school putting you off a certain subject matter for life. While this has nothing to do with the way ED conducts its business or the state of the product, I am one less sensitive snowflake contributing to - what I am told is - a shrinking player base. And that is purely down to my initial impressions of dealing with members of the community.
So sorry to hear about your experience but not at all surprised. If it is still something you are thinking of pursuing - I can offer that if you drop by my Discord or DM me on Discord, I will try to provide the best advice I can. Frankly, it's what I do on a daily basis - and I even have clients south of the Equator ;-)
From my experience, if you don't play with all settings on "Ultra" DCS can run very well even on some older machines. I don't know about VR, though. For me, the biggest turn-down are often update patches with BIG downloads - you can basically only pray that everything will work as intended, because if it doesn't it's almost impossible to fix without another "patch". Hence, I'm stuck on v2.8.5 and playing in single player exclusively. You can download the core game ( so called free) in which you get 2 planes to see if your computer can handle it, than proceed to commit and buy some high-fidelity modules. Oh, and you will need MANY large SSDs for the game and modules! Good luck! 🙋🏼♂️
I, like Iain am an old timer who flies mostly offline. I also fly from the editor. To me, just like Flight Simulator, it's a sandbox. It's up to you what you do. Sure sharing pre-canned content is great, but I fear a lot of people come with the expectation of a "Game". Then get upset when they find there isn't one. It's a "Digital combat simulation" environment, a sandbox. It provides the means, you provide the fantasy or research and create the content within the sandbox. The risk to "our way of play", in my opinion is mostly from the "Competitive PVP online multiplayer" crew. These young'ens tend to always favour online play. Trouble is competitive, online PVP is not what DCS is setup for. It full of exploits, cheats and local config / graphics settings which give players advantage. In a purely "fantastical", "shared role play" situation when people do stupid things to just gain an advantage which are out of character, out of context or just don't fit in, they just get kicked. However in the PVP multi-server turn up and fly style "gaming" scenarios, they want precise, heavily controlled, moderated, uncheatable, level playing field. They have already wasted more millions in DCS development than I care for. How many times will they redo the target spotting to make the game playable for the majority only to have the multiplayer PVPer's whine like children when it negates all the spotting cheats and config.
@1over137 I agree with a lot of this. The cool thing these days is to make fun of people who call DCS a sim, not a game, but it clearly is a sim. It's a sandbox simulator like you said, not very well set up to be a game (yet) due to exploits and lack of ways to play and win. It is what you make of it. There is no real single player content. BMS is more of a game than DCS is in its current state.
You did touch a valid point, their economic model incentivizes rushing Early access rather than actually finishing products, maintaining and working on the core while (seemingly unsustainably) piling expenses. I have and will always say DCS should have a subscription (for example giving access to all the maps while active which would address the fragmentation issue to some extent). V2 versions of modules (like on the A10 and Ka50) are as close as it gets but not there.
I am very upset with the RAZBAM issue. I waited for 10 years for this module to come out and now it has left in an unfinished state. When it’s brought up to ED you can hear crickets in the background. Maybe I overlooked it, but it is no longer on sale at ED’s site. When a new patch comes out it seems to only be for their newer products and not the F-15E. It has been 7 months and no update on it.
I've been flying in DCS for the better part of 4-5 years by my time of writing, and I'd say overall you're spot on. What I've been thinking of for the last 2 or so years (Even given the fact that I own 80%+ of the modules available for DCS) I Think there is and should be some sort of Subscription Service for DCS to give them more incentive to complete and maintain the modules already released. I honestly don't know exactly what they could do to make it work. BUT I do think it is worth it. even if everyone gains Miles every month they are subscribed to DCS.
My love for virtual flying started shortly after windows 95 came to the market. When i started playing Fighter Ace on the old MSN Gaming zone i really got into flying. That was an online subscription game and really fun. I stayed with Fighter Ace pretty much till the end. I also enjoyed playing Microproses' European Air War. We all modded that game with different textures. Then came the various Microsoft Combat Flight sim games and the Jane's games over the years. The game i miss the most is the old Fighter Ace. I was JG26_Sidi. I remember Slug on the russina side. The Mighty Quinn from GB and he has clips here on youtube. Chasing stars was fun if you know what that was...... I play DCS in single player mode flying my rear end accross the channel with track IR. My first plane was the P-51. This was the first game where i stuck with full physics. It was hard to learn. The engine management, fuel management. Everything. It was hard but fun. I also have the P-47, bf-109, Fw 190, Spit and the mosquito. The only plane i only really managed to get to grips with and fly on a regular basis is the p-51. Ive not learned any other ones. DCS can be a pain to deal with sometimes. You would think that your settings were remembered from the last game. They dont sometimes or files get corrupted and stuff stops workin ingame even though you are ingame......duh. Setting up A game of DCS can be a pain sometimes. Plug in all the crap and cables. Starting it up...then cos i only have a medium grade computer there are some waits involved. And this is with a 3rd gen ryzen 5 5500, 16 gb dd4@ 3200, 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus and a RTX 3060 12 GB. I cannot afford the latest and greatest hardware. I am stuck with AM 4 till AM 6 unless crap breaks. I just spent a lot of money on cheaper AM4 parts like a new CPU and the graphics card. I had a first gen ryzen 5 1500 and a 1060 6 gb. Loading times on that is in the minutes. Playable but does not look nice.
The most cogent explanation you can get of ED's business situation. I have worried about its stability everytime I see a sale posted. I do hope ED has everything in hand. Having spent a lot of money on Modules and Scenery I am concerned about ED's long term stability. But don't think I lose sleep from ruminating over this. I use ED much the same way as Iain and its fun. And frustrating. Fingers crossed
Good video. Fore me it's pretty simple. I'm only investing time in the AJS 37 Viggen. Single player and in VR. DCS is the only option for me and it's great!
Great video but I have a question for you, Ian. - Do you feel it would be better for DCS to focus on long term growth and stability vs short term profits from their co stand hunt for new module and map releases? I’ve always argued that DCS would make MORE money if they just stopped releasing modules for a few months and focused solely on fixing bugs and glitches. This would translate to a more stable and enjoyable game that will spawn new interest among beginners and first time simmers providing a stable platform vs a buggy program that keeps getting fixed and broken over and over again creating frustration and killing motivation.
I think I don't know enough to answer that question. When I teach I say that there are 5 Forces that need to be reconciled. In order of urgency they are: Cash, Profit, Assets, Growth, People. You can't have them all at the same time. They are always in tension. Only ED management can decide how to resolve that tension in a way that satisfies their objectives and their shareholders.
They needa start charging something for the base game, that being said, a seperate team would need to be established to work on a LOT in the base game such as maybe a career mode or dynamic campaign (or both), AI, all core stuff etc. Maybe livery editor in game or even with multiplayer have more structure, rather than to, enter cords, pickle, rtb. A seperate team to pump out solid campaigns regularly (i hate subscription, but even sub for this service could work), rather than relying on the same 4 guys to design, create and troubleshoot, for the same few nato planes. Then every update their pulling hair out tryna fix all the bugs . They need more devs but that requires more money, so something has to give.
I worry that it is currently a Ponzi scheme, where they frontload their income by releasing early access modules, but that doesn't generate enough income to finish and maintain the modules, or build out the core game. So then their only option is to release more early access modules, without finishing or properly maintaining the older ones, or adding important features like a campaign. And once they gain this reputation, fewer and fewer players may buy the early access modules, which just worsens the problem, because now they have to release even more early access modules to gain income, which will just worsen their reputation, which can lead to a death spiral. Furthermore, because the modules are so high fidelity and thus hard to learn, more and more people may decide that they have more than enough planes already.
As a professional fulminator, I find that DCS provides the best fulmination on the market. I have enjoyed countless hours of high quality fulmination and recommend DCS to anyone looking to progress from an amateur to professional fulminator. I also appreciate the irony that I am fulminating in this post.
Very interesting video but a point is missing in your analysis of the ED business if I may, the profits managed by sales of professionals licenses to different armies that use dcs as a multi platform simulation device
Great video, nice to have a level-headed voice with experience in business weigh in on this. Refreshing given how out of control and toxic Reddit and Discord are these days. One thing I've been curious about though: how realistic is it for ED, with an established and enthusiastic customer base, to get acquired by a studio with more resources and capital to get the ecosystem to a more sustainable place? It seems like that could alleviate a lot of these problems
I don't the industry or EDs financial situation well enough to know. Of course, there are many problems that can be solved with an infusion of capital.
In my opinion, what we desperately need is a single player, dynamic campaign. However, the player needs the ability to fine tune the campaign parameters based on the type of airframes & missions the player enjoys flying. ED have already added multithreading and they appear to be releasing other amazing optimisations such as Vulkan (they've confirmed this will be coming). ED are about to release an update that finally allows mission makers the ability to make multi unit selections. They simply need to continue to improve the engine, AI and continue to add other quality of life improvements such as opening & closing the F10 map can be bound to the same button. However, it's the lack of a dynamic campaign that's really holding DCS back.
Iain, thanks for your video. Like many, I have been following ED and its great DCS for quite a few years - always right on the edge to pull the trigger or... well... just not. My goal was always a study level module, single player - basically learn the aircraft from the bottom up with a focus on flying/ operations - rather than combat. Having gotten out of MSFS many years ago to focus on my RW flying career - I feel out of touch with current computer and hardware requirements and my pool of computer geeks is... lets say limited. Hundreds of videos (by dozens of influencers) later - I know that I want the sim, have accepted the corresponding pricetag for modules/ add-ons and niceties and still - buying a 3000€ computer, hotas, pedals and VR equipment, just to find out that DCS will eventually overtask it - does not appeal to me - at all. I think a whole bunch of people are sitting on the sidelines looking for final answers on exactly which equipment to buy in order to make DCS a fluid high definition reality. There will always be new "customers" looking through the window. The question is when, how and where ED decides to pick them up.
I agree with the analysis. The topic of users' unfulfilled expectations for money already paid and the eternal wait for the product to be finished is raised quite often, including on the forum. Thus, it cannot be said that ED was not aware of these sentiments. Moreover, several years ago, some users had already proposed possible options for the development of the DCS project for discussion. Which were left without attention, even if ED had seen them, judging by the current state of affairs. The most viable option in the current situation, in my opinion, would be the one that has already proven its effectiveness - the way Linux appeared and is developing. If ED abandoned further production of maps, 3D models and concentrated on work only around the simulator core (engine, network code, server-client, development of FM laws, blowing and calculation of virtual models for aerodynamics, development of weapons (in one standard for the entire universe of the DCS), physics of object interactions, lighting, optics, AI and weather) and tools for third-party developers? And all the work on creating 3D models of modules and ground/water equipment, their sound and visual design, creating maps and filling them with objects, developing campaigns and scenarios to third-party developers? If the community insists on the development of a specific aircraft, then they have the right to discuss this with any of the already known developers or do it themselves, using the SDK, which is provided by ED and here you can use donations or payment for early access for those who want to finance the development of the desired module, but are not able to do it themselves. After the module has been developed, it is provided to ED for parameter qualification and aerodynamic testing, and if everything is OK, the module is added to the list of those available for purchase and use in the DCS universe. The developer receives the money from the sale of the module, and a small part goes to ED. Of course, ED can continue to release its modules, but for some reason it seems to me that with such a business model they will not have much time for this, since supporting and updating the core and integrating modules from third-party developers under a single standard will require a lot of resources with a relatively small team.
15:35 if my opinion is worth only what I will spend on DCS in the future then it is worth however many modules I will buy. As things stand as ED demonstrate they cannot maintain a productive and fair relationship with its third party developers that number is zero. If that changes as the third parties are paid for their work as agreed that number is much much higher
Great video and opinion! Im probably in the small percentage of aircraft enthusiasts that buy or will buy basically anything that ED puts out in the era i enjoy and most of the maps too. I think ED should not spread themselves too thin but finish modules before taking on new projects, or have a limit on taking on new projects. I mostly play multiplayer in a casual group made up of real pilots and sim enthusiasts so my mileage varies but my enjoyment is great and thsts why ED keeps my interest. Games like war thunder lost my interest years ago because it was basically call of duty in the skies and flying with the right group of players or the right server is important in continuing ones enjoyment of the game.
All great points. I was just talking to a friend earlier today that I wish the FC3 (and now FC4) models should *all* be made full fidelity, but it will never happen. It took this long to get the MiG-29 updated to FF. Another point is the F-5E. It's a wonderful module, but it's very outdated. I wish we had the option of a more modernized version or variant, such as one capable of launching AGM-65s, or something like an F-20. This is a great explanation of the issues that the community has with ED and DCS, rather than the issues that ED and DCS have with their community.
That's just it, the F-20 never went into production making it a non-candidate for being FF. Also the F-5E ~is the most modern version of the aircraft, and first flew in 1974, so of course it's outdated. You really need to do a little research before you comment, and before you come at me with the F-5F it is literally just a two seat F-5E.
F-5E fits very well with other cold war planes. If you want the most modern ones, you can get the F-18. But there is nothing wrong with the F-5, other than poor radar modelling.
@@ImpendingJoker I think you will find that there are several 'mods' for the F-5E, from both Northrop (F-5N/Tiger IV, F-5AT) and various other (usually Israeli) updates. At a fundamental level, this means rewiring the jet with a MilStd 1553B/1760A databus so that new weapons can be added. Stripping and replacing the cockpit with something like that of the F-20 (dual MFD + HUD) and sometimes adding one of the available, miniaturized, PD radars (APG-69, Grifo-M, EL/M 2035) that have been developed since the archaic APQ-159 was first offered. A lot also have a datalink which allows effective passive intercept and in some cases missile updating for a genuine BVR capability. Nearly all F-5Es have regionally unique radios to handle remote base operations in areas with limited ADGE. Sometimes, modernized RWR and EW (expendables buckets, BOL rails and MAWS) plus the odd weapons system upgrade to enable the jet to carry various local (Piranha) and foreign (Derby/Python) upgrade missiles. Of all of these, the radar is the biggest deal because it means structural work to cut back a bulkhead and provide space for a new radome with enough internal space to run a mechanical gimbal pedestal planar array. Usually, this involves losing a gun to add volume for radar LRUs and cooling. All of which then means reballasting the jet and adding better generators to the weak-kneed J85 which is a bit of an exercise, due to the tight packaging of that engine. The original J85-GE-21 proved very unreliable in service. Even in the beginning, some Tigers were better than others. The Swiss F-5Es were produced to a higher standard by their local Flug- und Fahrzeugwerke Altenrhein AG (FFA) state factory at Emmen with something like 90 jets being built overall. Under the 'Peace Alps' FMS deal, they had inherent mods to allow them to operate better at altitude and to shift to air to ground roles (Maverick, ALQ-171 jammer) as Hunter replacements, when the F/A-18 came online. Switzerland was the largest foreign built sale deal until the F-16 DOTC setup with NATO and later even this was exceeded by the ROCAF decision to build nearly 400 F-5E using their own AIDC. The Saudi F-5Es were similarly the best that money could buy with Maverick and even LGB capabilities, via a hand held designator in the rear seat. Iranian F-5Es were vanilla until they started modifying them to run Chinese copies of French R550 Magic 1, among other, indigenous, systems. To defeat sanctions and loss of spares. Of course, the F-5E has a CG/CL problem which made it less 'pointy' and well balanced in its high alpha directional stability than it's F-5A predecessor, in certain speed/pitch rate ranges the Tiger bleeds energy all over the place and tends to wallow badly. Not something you exactly want to be worrying about when, empty, you are sub 1:1 T/Wr. This was tackled, aggressively, by Northrop and largely alleviated with the later Type VI (Tigershark) LEX mod, active combat flaps and the C-style, duck bill, radome. Which gave improved aerodynamic performance but compromised the APQ-159 radar. A lot of countries went with it 'for style' and a lot didn't, for costs/pragmatism. An interceptor without a radar is not very useful. USAF/USN Tigers have had a mix of these mods as adversary aircraft but probably the most important changeup for them was the AIM-9L which, 'with a fuzz buster from Radio Shack', taped to the coaming, allowed the Tigers to embarrass the snot out of the F-15 Rodans who, during AIMVAL/ACEVAL, liked to come in high, fast and hot to maximize their F-Pole and didn't live long doing SARH sprints while taking the FQ face shots from heaters which were unavailable to the majority of foreign users, stuck with AIM-9P. This required a cooling bottle modification in the launch rail and some new sight driver changes for the LCOSS. LINKS- F-5AT www.tacticalairsupport.com/airplanes/northrop-f-5/ Tiger IV (Membership may be required to see the pictures here) www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-f-5e-tiger-iv.43442/ Joe Baugher's F-5E Base Page www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_25.html
@@xyz-hj6ul You're talking about after market mods, not original aircraft. If you're going there then you should also include Iran's double tail F-5 mod which I notice you didn't, but my point still stands. The aircraft is out of date by today's standards.
Excellent opinion on DCS. My main problem is the most important key binding to use when flying f14, f16 and f18. Question. Where can I find and get the most important slim down setup for these 3 planes. I have no experience in fighter DCS PLANES and the keys binding I do use doesn’t seem to logically fit for the mission. I am too a solo pilot only.
If you want uncompromised realism to the limits of current technology, the only real alternative to DCS is always going to be Falcon BMS. It's a free mod, and the developers are not profit-motivated.
I loved DCS in 2d, then I tried it in VR and couldn't go back to 2d. Which then resulted in tons of expense and frustration in getting it to both run smooth and look ok in VR. By the time a guy invests in all that, you're almost halfway to the costs of learning to fly planes in real life.
Great breakdown. What's your take on Razbam? I've been waiting to start playing DCA, because all I really wanted was a Mig-23. Looks like maybe never now.
I don't know enough about the truth of Razbam. The two sides positions are fairly obvious, but not the Devil that is in the Details. Its clear that both sides expected more than they got out of the deal, and that it becam imperative at some point to get more. Other than that, I only know that I don't know.
I do agree with what you say, I think you're a young whippersnaper, Lol! At 73, I have a different perspective on things as I did when I was younger. Personally, I too don't fly on servers, I think my younger years spent with Sony and Microsoft online have really soured me on spending time with other real people. That said, I think it's nice you have choices and I honestly don't have much criticism of ED. I think one of their issues has been, they sat on their butts for a couple of years not improving their software and then, realizing they actually have something that is special and other competitors were taking notice, they decided to carry on and get with the program so to speak. That left them being in catch up mode with a small passionate group trying to handle an explosive growth with inadequate software. I have so much stuff to play with, I have the patience to enjoy and get better with what I have while waiting for more goodies. I also understand we will never have "perfect" software and I do appreciate how hard the people at Eagle Dynamics are working. I am looking forward to the future that I see as bright. Like everyone else, I get frustrated with the speed of development, but I do understand (I dabbled in 3D content creation and programing myself) it takes patience and drive to carry on to get these things out along with the constant improvements in technology as a moving target making things even more difficult to plan ahead for. Not sure why suddenly there are a slew of videos questioning DCS when there isn't any real substitute for the real deal. There will always be problems to deal with, no matter how big you are (MSFS), so take a chill pill and stop dwelling in a fantasy where there are never any glitches with software. As pointed out, there is a wide diversity among DCS players, mainly because the sand box has so much to offer, and as a result there are so many expectations and hope. There will never be a time that someone, some group that won't complain, it's just human nature.
ED has a captive audience. You can quite literally go no where else for content of this caliber, such as it is. I wish there was more competition in this space.
Outside of this being about DCS... This is an excellent video on the things people like us think about when we develop or run corporations. This video applies to ALL businesses.
You are correct. Unfortunately, give that this video is currently being viewed at a rate well over 10x the normal, and so I have to conclude the Click-Bait is a thing. Too Bad, but there it is. I apologize, but I guess I'm not really sorry ;-)
The game comes with two low fidelity models. The Su-25T and an unarmed F-51. Anything else costs from about $20 to $75 - but there are frequent sales. There are also a few high fidelity community mods - like the A-4 which are also free.
Good points. Very valid and 'down-to-business'. I have a rather similar playing profile to yours and some business education background. So it has resonated quite a bit :)
The main bad thing about DCS is well, ED. They repeatedly deny bugs exist, try to pretend they're features or it's right as is, when it clearly isn't right, and only seem interested in cosmetic changes, rather than fixing very long standing problems.
So is it possible without bugs to fully enjoy with third party Srs team speak online? On a f18 and the carrier and also enjoy in single player mission sometime? Is it worthy to learn the entire manual and fly first with tucano than t45 like a sort of self do career path, is it worth to spend all the time this will need? Will there be player to enjoy and learn how to speak properly in weekly or monthly mission/s, with a little briefing? PvE and maybe sometime even pvevp... I also am ibterested in flanker use with Red kod fully clickable mod but some told me it is disabled in online servers or some of them. This video is great as it's rare to find online ppl that are educated... And talk to explain stuff.
All flight sims follow this model. Every professional software I use has changed to subscription. The game industry is still behind in this trend as development speeds out pace single purchase models.
Is DCS broken? No. Is it a little bent? Sure. Who isn't. Be that as it may, ED, to me, seems to treat their customers with good faith and conscience, as much as they can (they DO have a business to run), and, as you said, a jillion different customers, who all expect a jillion different things,, and wanting it RIGHT NOW. Is it bent? Yup. Do I know that? Yup. Can it be frustrating? Yup. But as long as they keep treating their customers with good faith and good conscience, I'll remain a continual happy customer
Howdy mate! What could a new player expect from multiplayer type servers? You mentioned that your pretty turned off, do you think thats an indication of a larger issue or more of a personal preference?
My experience was quite good. MP gameplay is definitely more focused on dogfights, furballs, and slinging amraams, but it works for that well. Just be prepared to get owned for a while - but I find that there is a wide range of skill on populated servers, so anyone should be able to do something. Do you have any specific questions?
I have been playing SP for a long time, but was curious about MP. Joining as a single player on a MP server didn’t add value for me. Joining an online group made the difference.
Thanks for your video. I've been on DCS for many years and still enjoy it. Just wished they could sort the issue with some 3rd party developpers. Really, I feel like we are just here to pay money. And that annoyed me since I've been supporting DCS for years.
I have noticed in my hours in dcs as im playing on pvp servers my dumbass will get hit by missiles but the missiles wont hit me they explode behind me and i can get away and i wonder how much that happens with the missiles i shoot they need to fix a few things for sure
The biggest "problem" with DCS is that there is no competition for it.. Arguably IL-2 is competition for the WW2 side of it, but without clicky pits and a much more SP friendly environment (career modes?) it's a much different type of game/sim. The things DCS does, it usually does very well and believable (quote unquote realistic), but the cumbersome ME and the constant "re-developing" of avionics paired with bugs got at me.. I didn't "fly" for a few years, but am fully back now - on one hand i just felt the itch, on the other hand a hometown friend of mine decided to get started and helping him learn the "world" of fighter aviation (Hornets all the way) gives me a lot of enjoyment, too.
Well said, what an intelligent conversation. I was really enjoying this until I saw that SKYRAIDER! What the, where the, how the heck do I get that?! It has always been a favorite plane, would you mind sharing?
There is, in my opinion, only one way to fix DCS and I hate it. Implement a subscription model for early access modules (a couple euros a month) that will be active until the module fully releases. This way, people who really want to fly a module before it releases, get to, and those who have less money to spare will have wait until it exits early access. This could free up resources for the dynamic campaign, which is long overdue and more
This is similar to a loss in confidence in the stock market. Im losing confidence in ED and DCS, therefore i will sit on my hands regarding more module purchases. Vicious cycle...
Good points and I don't find anything I can disagree with. If you are happy with DCS as it is now, Great!, keep flying. If you are waiting for what it "could" be I think you will find yourself very frustrated. I believe ED tends to shoot themselves in the foot by portraying DCS as something that it is not and generating a lot of hype about things that will likely never happen - or will happen over a decade or more timespan. If they didn't keep trying to create unrealistic expectations, I think the player base would be less ... salty?
Who am I kidding? DCS is famous for its salty player base. They sustain themselves on the salty tears of broken dreams and false expectations.
DCS simulates military aircraft reasonably well for a consumer grade simulation. DCS does not simulate the environment that those aircraft would operate in very well at all. If you find a path through that dichotomy - as I have thanks to some great friends that enjoy flying as a team - then the joys are endless.
Now how ED remains profitable, with an ever growing backlog of technical debt it incurs every time they release a new "early access" module, is the real million dollar question.
Thanks for the rational business perspective. We need more rationality in our lives these days.
love it
The answer to how is DCS profitable is, in short, it’s not. Nick Grey has pulled almost 10 million dollars THIS YEAR out of eagle dynamics for his own airplanes, in the form of an interest free loan. I highly recommend looking at UK and other countries company databases for ED and The Fighter Collection.
@@jclebedev That doesn't surprise me. People say there isn't going to be a eventual sale to MS? A quote from Bob Dillion: "Money doesn't talk, it screams".
@@jclebedev wow, thats impressive.. im gonna search now and ofcourse, post on dcs exposed hehe
@@jclebedev The loan from ED to TFC is the tax efficient means to extract profits from ED for the Greys to put back into TFC. If ED were losing money, there would be no money to lend to TFC from ED. DCS for the consumer is now the smaller part of ED’s business. Originally, it was TFC that funded ED and TFC’s accounts are not the complete picture regarding TFC’s aircraft given the balance sheet has tangible assets of just over £1 million. 😉
The biggest issue is that they don't have any competition to help keep them in check. This is a great insight into ED.
They do.They and the simps that Defend ED refuse to acknowlage them as such.
For warbirds, IL2 is a major competitor and in my opinion a better product. On the whole I am a big fan of DCS but you have a valid point regarding the jet age.
Time is already a huge competitor.
As a programmer by trade I believe biggest problem with DCS and ED is their business model of only generating revenue with new modules. That will inevitably lead to modules NOT being maintained and kept up to date graphically and functionally because there will not be incentive beyound initial sales hype to do so. I know this sounds unpopular on the surface but I would wish ED would adopt a model of iterative approach like MSFS like "DCS 2020 edition" and "DCS 2024 edition" where you will have to pay some minor "upgrade" costs to move your module between editions, but with improvements in function/graphics between those editions getting funded. But the benefit for community guys like myself will be that inside the release ED will keep backwards compatibiity, because as ex-"DCS server admin" ED is incompenent and cannot keep any complicated mission scripting working for us beyound a few months until some of their internal logic breaks in an update. Try loading a year old mission in DCS and you have 50-50 chance it will not work properly, the same for MP servers and such.
Right now DCS world is a mess of always half-broken community content and mp servers that admins are spending ungodly hours fixing the mission scriptings post every second DCS update, yet the game is still having such major core gaps like ATC being nonexistent or on level that 90s sims did it better, AI in dogfights still consistently hits a hill when it decides to rate fight you in hilly terrain (always and constant!). The glorious release of multi-threated DCS is still keeping AI and simulation logic in single core which still makes the scenarios possible in ballpark of 30-40 AI units max and the whole rest of the world is sterile nothingness.
Spent now 20+ years with DCS (started with LockOn) and I on this point hate this always half-done, always patch breaking some of our community mission content/servers environment that DCS has become.
Totally correct. The financial model is broken. Whether it's a monthly sub or an upgrade every few years, there has to be a way to generate revenue to support bug fixing in general and updates to the game core in particular. Dcs is cheap cheap cheap compared to the hardware required to run it. Players demanding free upgrades like VR, Vulcan, multi core optimisation for nothing are hurting their own hobby.
Well said.
They already did an upgrade package for the Black Shark. In my opinion worth it. But you don't see this often at the moment...
Agreed, slipping optimization is by far the most important issue with DCS. As patches keep rolling out, the game gets more and more difficult to run and I don't have the means to keep chasing it. I'd just prefer being able to work with particular versions/releases/snapshots of the game, especially since I'm into it for singleplayer. Eagle Dynamics could setup releases like Microsoft Flight Simulator as a future option and that would be a great idea, but I'd also like to be able to view a back catalog of previous versions that you can install for singleplayer use only. Basically, if they decided to totally change course for the time being and focus primarily on optimization, I'd be there to support that 100%.
Fully agree. I'm afraid the current model will run into a downward spiral. I would personally even support a subscription model for a smoother experience in exchange.
If I would be ED, I would announce far in advance that 3.0 will be based on subscriptions, with this and that new very cool features. You can bring your existing modules, but be aware, support for 2.x will run out by YYYY.
So refreshing to hear someone else say that they rarely play multiplayer. I’m in the same boat. Been simming for 25 odd years and flying IRL for over 20 years. I simply enjoy the task of learning a module and completing an objective without the online noise if that makes sense.
I am in my 50s and have literally been gaming since the old Telstar Pong/Hockey game in the 70's. I played the original SubLogic Flight Simulator on a Tandy 1200 before Microsoft bought the rights. I have been on DCS for two years and still have not played multiplayer. My multiplayer experience in gaming has been largely negative over the years ... mainly because so many people are a-holes. I'll probably give it a shot at some point, but for the most part have enjoyed single-player.
I'm in the same boat I think DCS needs to have multiplayer but have ways to hook up with other pilots and not have to join a squadron and and make it a bit more casual
@@thomasyantorno1734besides MP teams that don’t require a membership there are options on discord, called ‘find a wingman’ or are you thinking of a 3rd option?
"the online noise" xD
MP is without a doubt peak DCS.
Are there bad communities/servers? Sure... but your comment sounds like there are bigger issues at play.
... like when people say "I'm happy alone because people are just a**holes", then all the normal people look at each other and raise their eyebrows.
For me, it is not that ALL people are A**holes but enough of them are - that I prefer not to suffer them for the benefit that MP provides to me - which is, honestly, small. But that is very much a product of my generation and my experience in gaming. It's hard to appreciate how the late 90's and the advent of the Internet changed the gaming experience, I think.
Hey Iain, I am not sure if you are aware, I work with Eagle Dynamics. I'd like to say that I have enjoyed your channel for some time and have used your videos both for helping users and even seeing where you might have struggled. I appreciate your opinions on all this and home to see you continue making such great content well into the future. I will say that we certainly do appreciate and look for customer opinions about DCS and its future, and I will for sure make sure management sees this video. If you have anymore questions for me or any concerns you want to fire my way I would be happy to hear them all. Thanks!
Anyway we can get Linux support soon? Im not a fan of windows 11"features" the only thing that keeps me locked into windows is DCS. Unfortunately I can never get it working correctly on steam proton. Although I imagine it might be a monumental task.
Pay Razbam and get the best module in DCS back up and running.
@@ZeSpektrumThat’s the point!!!
@@ZeSpektrum or ask Razbam to respect their contract ?
This guy makes some great points, "all busines" have to adapt from time to time and doing thing like a lease, season, or MRR based, is may bring more cash - revenue generation to develope more and aid 3rd party financial needs.
Another thing is in ED's 3rdpart agreement I'd for new 3rd parties to sell Thore module up to 2-3 yrs in order to make new release revenue. But there an option of ED to "buy" these 3rd party products to maintain them in the future. There enough sales data in the ED store or Steam to decide on a fair and reasonible price.
Simple things like this could help ED and DCS in future?
I have bought absolutely every module in the sim. Why? Because i feel that 50..60 bucks is more than fair for a DCS level jet.
DCS is my private museum and i can take them out for a flight whenever i want. I love it, and thats all that matters to me.
Great perspective. Similar to mine, I have to say.
Agree .. I'm almost in the same position, save for the last few Modules which I've skipped because of the Razbam situation.
@rudelchw nice to see you again. Thanks for contributing.
Too Right - Had to do redownload recently on a new build and it was 950gb without MODS - LoL - Worth every penny
Open your ears. The modules may not work forever. YOU ARE affected
I gave you a like and a subscribe solely on the fact that you created a video on one of the most hot button issues in DCS and told people not argue. Rock on!
Thanks... and see how well that worked out ;-)
I got several bans from developers that decide what ppl can say in Steam especially just for speaking, one the first one and mainly only one was from Hinterland Games a. Canadian company behind the creation of the Long Dark, terrible protectionism silencing anyone who they do not like to the point it feels like a terror organization... And despite this they got along and succesful, showing that players should surely calm down and developers must have their courage to set tone and design as they want or make their strong decisions regarding the game, and also sign that i. The end videogame design is not that ethical and sustainable affair as many like to think. It damages people, destroys their time in the making process for sure.
I have several proofs and documents that guarantee this.
You are so well spoken, it is a pleasure to listen. Very informal and good visuals.
Thanks for the comment on the visuals. For me opinions are easy good video footage is not! That's where the effort went in putting this together.
@Sidekick65 God, don't I know it. I make videos mostly on tiktok but whenever I make a UA-cam video the hardest part is finding good footage to put in the background.
This is it. I rarely comment on UA-cam but you deserve a comment of admiration. your life experience is patented and assertiveness helps a lot with the target audience you target. well done.
Personally, I consider all the money I invested to enjoy dcs to be well spent. and understanding the business issue, I will continue to be a customer
'Nuff Said. Thank You.
I've been in the ED ecosystem of sims for near 20 years now. It's not broken and it's not dead. It just needs competition to force ED to make decisions around efficiency. DCS for me is awesome. It has flaws but it always will.
Every sim has it´s flaws ;)
How can you possibly justify spending another penny in this game given the RAZBAM situation? Why would anyone trust a platform that will simply abandonware hundreds of dollars of DLC?
Thank you for the vids, and thanks for not venting your spleen like many content creators these days.
My pleasure. Thanks for preferring analysis to on-line splenectomy. ;-)
It's interesting to see I'm not the only that muses about ED's business model. There are a couple things that I would change if I were a majority shareholder in the company and wanted to get the most out of my investment.
1. Develop a parallel product that uses the DCS codebase but doesn't have the restriction of sticking to real world documentation. With this product they could increase the target market to a much broader audience than just hard core realism aficionados without having to start from scratch. Using the same codebase, any updates to one product would affect both and save on developer resources. Setting the bar lower on realism also opens the game to other iconic aircraft like the F-35 and Su-57 which ED could not otherwise get detailed real world documentation for. This parallel product may be what the "Modern Air Combat" project is about but I haven't heard much about it in years.
2. Change the community engagement model to what Microsoft and Asobo use. I don't even play MSFS but I can see how much better their community engagement is. They've studied their demographics and now target the largest groups for specific features. I see ED trying to please everyone instead of focusing efforts on the parts of the community with the biggest returns (hint: its not the loudest people on social media). MS/Asobo also know how to do press events and Q&A sessions to build hype. ED really should learn from them and do the same.
I do think they can do it and they are mostly on the right track. But if it were my money invested in the company I would do some course corrections to get a better return.
This is what Frontier developers have done. ELITE DANGEROUS is kept alove with a couple terribly implemented MTX (, toxicity always) but especially thanks to them making successful games as Jurassik Park managemebt game and others which can sustain the flag original product (by Braben and Star citizen now leadnof CIG, Roberts)
Also 4. Take all the monetization (Ian wont like it),, for you on videos made with the game. Do not leave that to authors of the videos. Like this you diffuse a support and UA-cam even if not much has to pay and supports ED and third parties.
Bravo man. Like a whiff of fresh air. I too primarily play single player. Every now and then I may do multiplay especially with friends but most of the time I'm on singleplayer. Making my own custom missions, usually those of the "it would be cool if this" and "what if" category missions. But yeah I just make due with what is available (both paid modules and free community modules) and just generate my own type of fun. Loved your insight on the whole situation. Have a sub btw.
I think some relatively low hanging fruit would be the recently announced updated mission generator. I used to fiddle with population templates of AWACS, JTACs, with triggers I could drop the Fast Generator missions into but it was always more trouble than it was worth. An updated mission generator would be a nice stopgap while we wait for the dynamic campaign, and would solve some of the issues of new maps having no content. Even if it generated a campaign with a few randomly generated missions strung together semi-cohesively would give us tons of permutations of things to do while we wait for the DCSDC.
Appreciated the level headed analysis in this video. Well done
Thanks!
I dont fly in DCS at all, looking at getting into it when I get my setup sorted. That being said, you kept me listening throughout the entire video. Such an intelligent conversation and it was all easy enough to understand. Thank you Lain. You have earned yourself another sub.
Great to hear! Thanks so much for letting me know.
That is not a CONversation but a good monologue which 99%, on youtube has no education to do but dove on since years for monetization.
So I rather call his a Conversion of people to quality.. Yeah quality of philosophy ppl so much lack nowadays
Very good analysis, from a point of view that had not even occurred to me.
Great work, thank you.
Pleased to hear it! Thanks.
It’s all about having fun, some sceneries are spectacular and we are able, still, to evaporate in the environment. I am a retired helicopter pilot and even thou my bum does my feel the aircraft, I do enjoy being in the sky, or coming in ILS in a shitty weather. I remember “Lockon” before the first patch… do we see the leap, the progression? and we, nowadays, flying the game with the same engine, and guess what, I love it!
So Iain, I understand you from a business point of view and I agree with you, it can be frustrating, but I look at where we come from, years ago, and I can only say that ED has done a fantastic job.
There is a comment bellow about some pilot expecting to fly a new aircraft module and complaining about the fact that they can’t actually fly it blaming ED for it; to those I would say: you are lucky it is a simulator as if it was in real time you would not survive you take off.
Great perspective thanks!
I'm 55 and have been playing DCS for over 5 years. I have to say the Apache in VR is some of the most enjoyable experiences I've had gaming. Ive been at it since Atari 2600. I think the key for Eagle is to produce "campaigns" in single player. A real modern day campaign using high quality cut scenes and audio. 10-13 missions to complete the campaign. Yes I know they have a few, but it seems like missions stacked together to make a campaign. Modern gamers want IMMERSION. This includes high quality audio and cutscenes. I only play single player btw. Still love DCS, it will always have a place in my heart. I started flying real heli's because of DCS.
Apache and Kiowa fan here, I enjoy flying most of the Helicopters in DCS (except maybe the gazelle which consistently tries to kill me)
@@richardhockey8442 Lol. Yea they have killed me a few times.
To make cut scenes it could cost a lot a lot of time, possibly, unless is just environmental stuff we also see in game.
I am an old guy and enjoy warbirds (WW2& early Jets) ..... nothing else compares to DCS so far. Looking forward to the F4u, F6F, 1944 Marianas and PTO in my lifetime Amen brother!
il2 is much better as a game then dcs for this. Only if u want digital museum dcs might have the edge, but as a game, no chance.
Depends if you want to fly arcade or not. IL2 feels on rails in comparison, DCS is still light years ahead in terms of simulation
@@Uselessnoobcow roger that!!
@@Daisudori Il2 does have content no doubt but flying DCS is flying with FIDELITY!
@@Uselessnoobcow this fly on rails nonsense only comes from people who have never flown a plane before. Not every plane work purely on blade element theory, many planes in dcs are as squirly as a drone or an rc.
I fly planes on sims and irl, and actually il 2 is a very competent sim, ED is a better procedure simulator not a better flight sim.
Very good video and excellent points. Your explanation is spot on, and most people who express their opinions don't really know what they're talking about. Thank you for the video. I was hesitant to watch it because I thought it would again be from someone who has no idea how business or programming works, but I'm glad I did.
I'm glad you hit play.
Hello Iain, thx for your opinion and analysis. For me DCS needs a competitor. A good one. This way, players will react, this way ED mus react. This wil have a huge impact on how the ED's business and way of bugs management are managed nowadays :)
Merci Lionel.
Im so happy i found your channel Iain
So am I ;-)
that's a very nice and yet fitting way to describe things, thank you
Outstanding review and spot on from someone of close to the same age! Been in the military aviation industry since I was a 16 and flown every flight sim since inception. DCS keeps the spirit and memories of military aviation alive for me personally and constantly reminds me of great times past. Never gets old for this guy! Life long customer and my biggest hobby.
Only suggestion that might help with that revenue Nineline is maybe more asset packs for different time periods. Flying a ton with Eighball and Tobi Vietnam asset pack for free but would gladly pay good money for regional asset packs. I feel like this would be a good option to be less concerned with early access while providing more meat for the maps and missions and generating revenue quicker. The Middle East needs some love with insurgents and allied units.
Very interesting suggestions. Thanks for contributing constructively!
As someone who has been into online flight sims since 1994, DCS has taken flight sims to a new level. One thing I might add is the community of like flyers and the camaraderie DCS provides. Think of how it saves marriages, because the spouse always knows where to find the other…lol. We aren’t sitting in a bar drinking and getting in trouble with some creature that is a no no. Nope, we are researchers of how to make an engineering decision of what works better. We also have become pretty good at building and using the core OS software to the best possible experience. This is always evolving and one has to be willing to never ever give up…someone always has a better process to eureka of graphics and smooth game play. YMMV!
Oh yeah.. DCS is the best. That's all.
Expanding the player base is one crucial way to gain income. There are several problems.
-It is not for everyone. It takes a certain kind of mindset.
-it gets expensive quickly. Both in modules and hardware.
-its visibility is quite low imo. It took me a while before I knew it existed.
There are creative ways to address these issues. Expanding the customer base will help give revenue to finish EA, which in turn will help in user retention.
Also important to note that new EA modules are needed not only for income but for player retention who can get bored.
They need to reduce the modules and focus on details and quality of the experience. They need another game that 1 or more arcade and a blockbuster game to support this Dcs project and maybe move to a new dcs.. 2. To start over.
I really appreciate hearing this perspective!
Thanks for letting me know
It always frightens me how much I tend to agree with your take on things... Well done!
I have always kept DCS as an option for my simmingly play. So far I have only used MSFS and XP-12 so I am contemplating trying other sims too.
this video helps me have a some idea of what strength/weakness are in DCS - and I will surely give it a go. thanks for the video.
A measured, logical explanation as ever, well done that man.
Thanks!
Nice one. A very grown-up take on the game and very well narrated and put.
It IS what it IS and the common mistake people tend to make is seeing it as some sort of 'collaborative' or 'co-operative' venture, which it ISN'T. Folk get their heads around that concept then they would certainly be a little less preoccupied with trying to be involved with it's trajectory and just get on with enjoying what it is...
Food for thought, cheers Sidey!!
Thanks - very well put. I think it's a general problem with the "attention economy" everyone thinks their opinion is worth something - even if there is nothing of value behind it or in it. If you don't ask yourself why someone would WANT your opinion then why provide it?
@@Sidekick65 That is BRILLIANT, I might use that!!
Hi, very good for making this video! You're basically the kind of person that I wish to talk with, basically seeing myself in your words! If I may be useful, as an aerospace engineer, specialized in aerodynamics and flight dynamics, I can tell you plenty of things which tell what is right and wrong about the flight simulation and performances of aircraft, including helicopters as well. I won't get into the big list that I've made for myself with the pros and cons regarding DCS's aircraft flight models simulation, but I'm really looking forward to join someone for a through talk about it. Whenever I've tried pointing out real problems regarding the unrealistic performances of helicopters, aircraft and missiles in DCS it didn't take long to become mocked by some random DCS fanboy lovers who didn't care of my subjects anyway, so maybe making a full long video on UA-cam myself taking every care of every aspect regarding those issue or joining up with someone for this particular reason, ONLY with the hope that ED's developers would start to understand that not everyone's stupid, and as such, put a little pressure on them to try to correct things and make them right, for the name of DCS, might be what has to be done!
I'm always around on Discord. Feel free to look me up
The bottom line is DC is a game. A game to produce income for the top management.
@ExploringSitkaAlaskausin-wj4wu
Well said. I also got that too, but hey, when they brag that it's "so realistic" when it comes to flight models, just for me to see some low level knwoledge when it comes to how they have modeled even simple aerodynamics effects, simply made me very disappointed. For example, the ailerons, like any other aerodynamic surface, it has to stall at some AOA. That never happens on most ED made aircraft. It only happens on Belsimtek and Heatblur, because these guys are the only ones to correctly assess the aerodynamics simulation of their planes. All other third parties, includind ED, are not even able to simulate that basic and simple aspect.
I would LOVE you to make this video! I feel like we need more facts and less opinions when it comes to the "simulation" part of DCS.
@PappaBear_yt
I tried making a video in which I will showcase all of the baisc or not even high level knowledge of aerodynamics problems some 3 years ago, but as newer content appeared, I had to halt and study the new material flaws which didn't end yet😅. When I'll find the better time to dedicate myself only to this and put it on YT for everyone to see it and distinguish between what's good (usually little to show) and what's bad, that should come like a hoof in ED's forehead, because those are not hard things to do right, yet they don't seem to care of them, but pretend that DCS is an authentic simulation, cause they only tried to mock me on the forums when I started pointing out serious simulation problems, hopefully then they'll change their attitude and try to do things correctly. For instance, HEATBLUR, BELSIMTEK and DEKA IRONWORKS are those who truly looked carefully into the aerodynamics of their aircraft. On the other hand, those like LEATHERNECK, (Mig-21 & Christen Eagle) are a shame in DCS for aerodynamics simulations alone, both of their aircraft simulating aerodynamics from a very different world, not Earth.
A lot of very reasonable points. I'll add in two cents of my own, which I hope to be somewhat useful.
After trying out ADAMS (Eurofighter flight simulator) at Zeltweg, I've come to a realization that essentially (although semantically much different) DCS is a military flight simulator made for public. I'm aware that sounds like a very "Captain Sherlock" statement, but it is made in almost the exact same way as a true professional flight simulator is. It is not made in the same way "ordinary" games (including some flight sims) are made. This is where expectations have to be set. One shouldn't expect DCS to follow same conventions as "most games" do. Also to take into account that the military version of DCS exists.
Ultimately meaning that the simulation of aircraft itself will take priority. Everything that revolves around modules and such will be of Eagle Dynamics' (and third parties too) primary interest. While other elements, such as further features like Dynamic Campaign (which is a much more complicated topic than some of DCS playerbase is portraying it), are/will be neat, it's something that's more of a "side" thing than the main attraction. The focus on modules as a renevue is also a sign that this is where Eagle Dynamics thinks the moneymaker for DCS is. If you accept that fact, then I think there's plenty of enjoyment to be had in it. I love aviation and I love learning in detail about how aircraft operate and such. DCS allows me of such opportunity and I appreciate that.
And by all means, they're not entirely wrong. It is a situational thing though. Something like F-4E or F-16C will be very profitable (relative to the flight simulator genre), where as something extremely niche (lets say for hypothetical example if someone were to made a Cessna Combat Caravan module) is not gonna be wort investing in.
Of course, the Early Access model, along with Eagle Dynamics working on possibly too many projects at once, complicates things a lot. While I understand why its there (just look at how much it took Kiowa to be released), I think how projects are managed should be a bit more cautious on Eagle Dynamics' side. I will admit that some modules do actually get steady progress (Apache and F-16 for example), but it is also clear that some modules are not getting much work done, even if in some cases it is necessary. Ideally, it would be best for Eagle Dynamics to prioritize working on the core game (which to be fair, last few changelogs show they are quite dedicated on bugfixing and also improving the game itself. Multithreading has been one of the best things to happen to DCS lately) while module making would take slight pause (but not fully cease, it brings money after all), but considering their current renevue model, the reality is more complicated. I personally do not know a clear cut solution to this, if I'm honest. This is something that Eagle Dynamics itself has to figure out.
Excellent perspective. I had not thought of it that way. Thanks.
earned yourself a sub its refreshing to get some wisdom that comes from real world business experience
Thanks. I appreciate it. I'd say the comments on this video provide some excellent examples of folks who purport to know something about business but who have never had to run one. LOL
Very thoughtful analysis. As a retired investment management professional, I think you make very salient points. My impression as a recent adopter of the software is that there is a large enough and active enough user base that I think going forward will offer opportunities for ED to change the revenue model in order maintain and grow the product. They will not make every current user happy but they don't have to as you pointed out. They just need the majority to stick around. Additionally, there are a significant number of adjunct vendors of peripherals like H.O.T.A.S., control panels, eye tracking, etc. that offer opportunities for partnerships or even mergers/joint ventures. As others have suggested, moving more to a MSFS model might be effective. I do hope they are around for the long term as I've found the game to be a challenging and interesting way to spend at least part of my retirement (at least when the weather gets cold and snowy here in the Northeast).
Ohhhh! Nice point about "merchandising" agreements and partnerships. Yes, indeed, that is an angle to thing about in terms of generating recurring revenue. Putting together a decent rig is a big barrier for many new (and even existing) users. Leveraging DCS's central position in the flight sim hardware ecosystem sounds like an idea that should be explored. Thanks so much for addign this comment!
Good honest opinion. 👍
Has DCS ever not been broken? Off the top of my head I can't think of any time period where there wasn't a gamut of significant bugs or stability/performance issues.
There was a big problem with multiplayer stability and multithreaded version of DCS had major stuttering which made it unable to play for quite a long period of 2024.
I call it "perpetual beta". 😓
We (at least I) appreciate your upfront honesty regarding your biases, too many people these days think they are totally unbiased, when in reality - just by living - you generate biases. conscious and unconscious biases. it takes introspection to know what your biases are. I like DCS, its a program that scratches an itch that not many 'games' do these days. MS is sitting on a gold mine if they could do a MS combat flight sim like back in the late 90s / early 00s. there is a market for combat flight sims, but not a whole lot of choice. My hope is Microprose can come out swinging something soon to disrupt the current market.
Thanks for this video.
Love ya Iain :)
Thanks so much for the feedback. I appreciate it.
The fact that ED keeps pushing out half assed modules that will stay for years and years in "early access" and doesn't even try to fix the core problems and limitations of the game tells me everything. I can only hope Falcon 5 will be better. In the meantime I switched to BMS to scratch my combat sim itch and MSFS for normal flight simming.
That is their ONLY income... just saying. They worked their a** off to finish the multicore support (much easier to make a new game with mt support from the ground than re-write one while keeping all dependencies and compatibility) and I say this as a game developer. Believe me it was a huge task and they did it really well, just check vr back then and now to see the benefits. And in the meantime their only income is only the modules they are selling for the game. They could do subscription based model which would be much worse/expensive. So if you enjoy DCS, keep buying modules and wait patiently. ED isn't MS who has infinite money and manpower if they want/need. If you can't see this, DCS is not the sim for you. I will happily carry on to support them to have the best mil sim available what I dreamt of for decades... (playing flight sims since the early C64/Amiga times..)
Well said. Thanks for sharing that insight
@@MaverickM1 "keep buying modules" Nope I haven't bought a module since the f14 nor will I ever buy one again untill they fix the AI and give us a real dynamic campaign. Your cuckoldry worldview is not for me.
I hope that if/or when falcon 5 is realized razbam would partner to remake thier modules. The f15e in particular.
If a competitor existed would no donlubt just sweep up all the disgruntled dcs community and be the final nail in the coffin of ed.
The disgruntled numbers are not as significant as you think a few big mouths yelling on youtube leaving won't even put a dent in the player base . But at least wel get some peace and quiet from all the crying babies.
Well said. I still think DCS will enter a death cycle where ED falls under the weight of early access backlog. As you mention, they need constant release of modules for cash flow and almost all of them are early access with future development demands. These demands are compounding and the community is becoming more uncertain about the future of DCS and less trusting of ongoing development. I also think they will reach a point of saturation of map releases (are people really going to buy Sinai, then Iraq, then Afghanistan when Syria is still the dominant map)?
Sinai is actually awesome, on par with Syria, perhaps only let down is just like in real life, the landscape is... more on the flat end. It should however be merged with Syria as soon as possible. Perhaps in a way that if you own Syria only, Sinai is low fidelity, if you own Sinai, Syria would be low fidelity only.
Will enter? It's been there since the F-16 was released for early access. Look at every completely barebones native early access release since then.
And it's not only the EA backlog. Another issue ED is going to have is the diminishing interest for the upcoming modules. As for the planes they've already done the most interesting ones they can. Doubt that any of the upcoming modules generate as much interest as the Viper and Hornet. Mig-29 might reach these levels a little bit but it's gonna be the last one.
There's also similar problem brewing with the maps. Too many sandmaps already and the lack of some sort of dynamic mission generator means that you get the same sandbox just in a different environment. What is the point in getting more maps then?
I wouldn't mind if they just updated their core and already released modules, and let 3rd parties and content makers do the rest. If they actually supported the community, they could get away with this kind of thing a la Arma.
Couldn't really agree on any points you made, except that DCS is running on an old engine. Subscription based services normally support the cost of ongoing hosting services, which ED does not do whatsoever. If ED offered a global map world server or cloud storage for maps in general then maybe a subscription could be justified. Other major flight sims also don't use a subscription model, albeit have a larger target audience. In fact I don't think money is the primary factor at all for the state of DCS. Having third parties develop modules is also not an extra "cost", it's far cheaper than hiring several full time employees. The extra DCS content generated by third parties is only a positive thing.
Another thing I do agree on is the fragmented audience, but again, this may also not be an issue from a monetary perspective. The profit generated from selling a WW2 module may very well cover the cost of development. What can be considered is if ED should narrow the focus of DCS to free up development time for other things.
Thank you for distilling the current state of DCS. I found it useful and to be reminded of the underlying economic reality propelling DCS behaviour is refreshingly clear. I guess the caveat I would inject to your analysis is that I do not think customers really like the thought, from a human perspective, that they do not matter in any sense beyond what they can give economically to DCS, even if that is the underlying economic reality. It is one thing to think like that as a company, quite another to be seen to do so by your customer base. It is a short sighted company that would not listen in some capacity to its customer base, and indeed, change tack if necessary, as their profitability remains rooted in giving customers what they want and in capacity at least, responding to their desires. So brutal economic facts drive behaviour, but economic behaviour, as it was so often pointed out to me, is less about rationality and equally or more about emotion and feeling. So there has to be a human leavening to your brutal economic picture. But you do of course, get to the essential, and as you say, it profits us as DCS customers to remember that when next we get wrapped around axel too much.
I don't disagree, and I will admit that some of what I said was hyperbole for effect. But it does come down to the definition of "customer". Is someone who plats DCS but does not buy new modules (and advertises that fact on the forums) a customer? They generate no sales revenue - all they generate is expense - nit large but at least a little if only in bandwidth every time an update is downloaded.
So, is being a DCS player necessarily the same as being a customer? And Should ED worry about non-customers concerns. I guess that's really my point. Unless you are prepared to say, constructively, what it would take for you support ED financially should you really expect them to listen to your opinions?
My point is really about how to be effective in having your concerns heard and addressed. There are a lot of commentators who seem to believe that the strength if their opinions is more important than the quality of their argument.
They seem convinced that some one a ED will listen simply because they chose to speak. I think they are wrong and will be disappointed.
@@Sidekick65 Yea, I see your point. It’s a good one. I had not really made that distinction before. So I think you’re saying the challenge for DCS is to work out what type of customer is speaking and kicking up a fuss. Well, I guess all are potential customers, even those who buy one module and sit on it while DCS goes ahead with all sorts of other stuff. Surely DCS must adopt that view? If those ‘sunk’ customers like it, and feel well disposed to DCS, they might buy more. I know I have bought modules just to support DCS, and to support high end simulation more generally. Even though I was pretty sure I would never get around to using it in any substantial way. (I do not do that anymore, by the way, in way of a protest toward DCS’s constant release of modules when other stuff is not yet complete.) That is not ‘economically rational’ I know, but there it is. So I don’t think DCS can usefully draw a line practically between different types of customers? They’d have to assume all are potentially future customers who will put more money into the sim in future. By the way, do you think DCS people who can actually influence business policy will read your post? I hope so!
@Anzac-pi7eq yup, yup, yup - you have a good point. Sounds like what we should say us that we are a MARKET not a customer base. Subtle difference in business terms, but a difference nonetheless. Ya know, that's a great perspective. One I hadn't thought of before. Going to have to noodle on that now for a bit. Thanks!
And no, I have no expectation that what I say will have the slightest impact on ED management. I have tried to provide these opinions directly before and been thoroughly and comprehensively ignored. Hah!
I made the video in the hopes that it might help at least some players understand the reasons (as I see them) that ED does what it does. You don't have to agree with to understand what motivates their behaviour.
Thanks again for this. Great insight.
I've been enjoying Eagle Dynamics Sims and DCS since their inception. They have come a long way and I am sure they will continue to adjust as they need to in order to stay afloat. Honestly, I am not surprised that they haven't added a subscription model yet in addition to the modules. I for one would happily pay monthly to help them stay alive into the future.
I ❤ this episode!, and the video in the background narration was perfect, couldn’t agree more with the sentiments, if any game winds you up that much that you start resenting it, remove it and play something else.
Fantastic perspective from someone who is clearly a great teacher. Everyone should watch it especially before commenting. This is a great reality check for not only DCS consumers but really any consumer. Bottomline, no pun intended, is if you have no net profits you will cease to exist. Ive started wondering if people still understood that since my economy classes 15 years ago. The problem is that the demographics of new customers clearly do not and unfortunately those same users are the most vocal groups on forums. It does seem that a subscription model maybe the only way out which would for sure anger any users older than 30 and likely create barriers to entry for new younger customers. Definitely an interesting business case. Thank you! Personally I do love DCS. Made my 5 year old happy to get as close to being a fighter pilot as can be and probably spent over $7k on it over the years. I do want it to succeed.
I can tell you that some variation of this conversation is the one that I have with every Founder when I first meet them (I mostly work with startup companies in the Space sector). Moving from wanting to make something great to making something that people will buy for more than it costs to produce is a tough transition.
Hi Iain. An excellent and thoughtful video. I very much appreciate your calm and objective views on the DCS situation - it is a relief from all the outrage and sensationalism of many other commentators and one of the main things that attracts me to your channel. As someone in the same age bracket as yourself, and now retired after over 30 years as a commercial pilot, I have been dipping my toe in the world of DCS with the help of your videos (thanks for all the great content!) With the impending release of MSFS 2024 I was wondering which product might best serve my (very casual!) interest in simming. After many years of flying the real things I have absolutely no interest in simulating commercial aviation and so DCS with its military aircraft would seem most apt. As such I have been testing the waters at minimal cost with the A-4E-C and the A-10A. Like you, I am more interested in the solo and technical aspects of the simulation rather than the A2A and multiplayer ones. I have, however, found one major limitation that may push me towards MSFS in the end - terrain. Being very US-centric (I suspect where the most players are and so where the most money is) I find that DCS seems to completely miss the area that I would like to "fly" in - Western Europe, and more precisely in the cold war era. Yes, it appears to have a very good WWII era Europe but I like the 70's and 80's of my youth and with military aircraft now reasonably represented in MSFS it may be a better fit, even "flying" military aircraft into airports I have known well for many years. The issues surrounding DCS and the valid points that you raise also make me wary of committing serious money to this franchise.
Feel free to drop by my Discord channel - or just DM me on Discord. These are topics that are very much top-of-mind for me and for many others.
Would the campaigns not count as the recurring income? I know a lot of people who claim to play singleplayer also buy the campaigns, and the campaigns have really low cost to produce.
Since a young age I've been captivated by aircraft, and in later years, of YT videos of DCS in action. It became a bucket-list item, if you will. About a year and a half ago I spent a horrendous amount of money upgrading my computer to play Cyberpunk 2077 in high path traced fidelity, along with the aim of being able to run DCS in VR. I had done my homework, had selected the VR headset and HOTAS/pedal setup I wanted. However, I made the mistake of asking for advice on the DCS subreddit. I asked for feedback on my choice of gear, any caveats regarding my CPU/GPU and in particular about multiplayer and how latency-sensitive it was (I live in the southern hemisphere and pings to Europe are 160ms+ on a good day).
The responses I received left a very bad taste: "Google is your friend", "The system requirements are on the Steam store page." or my favourite "I didn't know girls liked to play flight sims". The actual questions I asked never received any treatment, and I felt like I had stumbled into a teenager-filled CS:GO server.
Needless to say, the hefty outlay on equipment and the inevitable big ticket DCS modules never materialized and I continue to live vicariously through youtubers like GS, _et al_ - it's not unlike having a nasty teacher in school putting you off a certain subject matter for life. While this has nothing to do with the way ED conducts its business or the state of the product, I am one less sensitive snowflake contributing to - what I am told is - a shrinking player base. And that is purely down to my initial impressions of dealing with members of the community.
So sorry to hear about your experience but not at all surprised. If it is still something you are thinking of pursuing - I can offer that if you drop by my Discord or DM me on Discord, I will try to provide the best advice I can. Frankly, it's what I do on a daily basis - and I even have clients south of the Equator ;-)
From my experience, if you don't play with all settings on "Ultra" DCS can run very well even on some older machines. I don't know about VR, though.
For me, the biggest turn-down are often update patches with BIG downloads - you can basically only pray that everything will work as intended, because if it doesn't it's almost impossible to fix without another "patch".
Hence, I'm stuck on v2.8.5 and playing in single player exclusively.
You can download the core game ( so called free) in which you get 2 planes to see if your computer can handle it, than proceed to commit and buy some high-fidelity modules.
Oh, and you will need MANY large SSDs for the game and modules!
Good luck! 🙋🏼♂️
I, like Iain am an old timer who flies mostly offline. I also fly from the editor. To me, just like Flight Simulator, it's a sandbox. It's up to you what you do. Sure sharing pre-canned content is great, but I fear a lot of people come with the expectation of a "Game". Then get upset when they find there isn't one. It's a "Digital combat simulation" environment, a sandbox. It provides the means, you provide the fantasy or research and create the content within the sandbox.
The risk to "our way of play", in my opinion is mostly from the "Competitive PVP online multiplayer" crew. These young'ens tend to always favour online play. Trouble is competitive, online PVP is not what DCS is setup for. It full of exploits, cheats and local config / graphics settings which give players advantage. In a purely "fantastical", "shared role play" situation when people do stupid things to just gain an advantage which are out of character, out of context or just don't fit in, they just get kicked. However in the PVP multi-server turn up and fly style "gaming" scenarios, they want precise, heavily controlled, moderated, uncheatable, level playing field. They have already wasted more millions in DCS development than I care for. How many times will they redo the target spotting to make the game playable for the majority only to have the multiplayer PVPer's whine like children when it negates all the spotting cheats and config.
@1over137 I agree with a lot of this. The cool thing these days is to make fun of people who call DCS a sim, not a game, but it clearly is a sim. It's a sandbox simulator like you said, not very well set up to be a game (yet) due to exploits and lack of ways to play and win. It is what you make of it. There is no real single player content. BMS is more of a game than DCS is in its current state.
@@CallsignJoNay The best games played are entirely made up.
You did touch a valid point, their economic model incentivizes rushing Early access rather than actually finishing products, maintaining and working on the core while (seemingly unsustainably) piling expenses.
I have and will always say DCS should have a subscription (for example giving access to all the maps while active which would address the fragmentation issue to some extent).
V2 versions of modules (like on the A10 and Ka50) are as close as it gets but not there.
Another great video man, thanks!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I am very upset with the RAZBAM issue. I waited for 10 years for this module to come out and now it has left in an unfinished state. When it’s brought up to ED you can hear crickets in the background.
Maybe I overlooked it, but it is no longer on sale at ED’s site. When a new patch comes out it seems to only be for their newer products and not the F-15E. It has been 7 months and no update on it.
Great video. Intelligent and adult. No bucks, no Buck Rogers as they say.
Great talk... and where did you get that A-1 Sky Raider?
See my recent video on the VWV mod
I've been flying in DCS for the better part of 4-5 years by my time of writing, and I'd say overall you're spot on. What I've been thinking of for the last 2 or so years (Even given the fact that I own 80%+ of the modules available for DCS) I Think there is and should be some sort of Subscription Service for DCS to give them more incentive to complete and maintain the modules already released. I honestly don't know exactly what they could do to make it work. BUT I do think it is worth it. even if everyone gains Miles every month they are subscribed to DCS.
My love for virtual flying started shortly after windows 95 came to the market. When i started playing Fighter Ace on the old MSN Gaming zone i really got into flying. That was an online subscription game and really fun. I stayed with Fighter Ace pretty much till the end. I also enjoyed playing Microproses' European Air War. We all modded that game with different textures. Then came the various Microsoft Combat Flight sim games and the Jane's games over the years. The game i miss the most is the old Fighter Ace. I was JG26_Sidi. I remember Slug on the russina side. The Mighty Quinn from GB and he has clips here on youtube. Chasing stars was fun if you know what that was......
I play DCS in single player mode flying my rear end accross the channel with track IR. My first plane was the P-51. This was the first game where i stuck with full physics. It was hard to learn. The engine management, fuel management. Everything. It was hard but fun. I also have the P-47, bf-109, Fw 190, Spit and the mosquito. The only plane i only really managed to get to grips with and fly on a regular basis is the p-51. Ive not learned any other ones.
DCS can be a pain to deal with sometimes. You would think that your settings were remembered from the last game. They dont sometimes or files get corrupted and stuff stops workin ingame even though you are ingame......duh.
Setting up A game of DCS can be a pain sometimes. Plug in all the crap and cables. Starting it up...then cos i only have a medium grade computer there are some waits involved. And this is with a 3rd gen ryzen 5 5500, 16 gb dd4@ 3200, 1 TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus and a RTX 3060 12 GB. I cannot afford the latest and greatest hardware. I am stuck with AM 4 till AM 6 unless crap breaks. I just spent a lot of money on cheaper AM4 parts like a new CPU and the graphics card. I had a first gen ryzen 5 1500 and a 1060 6 gb. Loading times on that is in the minutes. Playable but does not look nice.
The most cogent explanation you can get of ED's business situation. I have worried about its stability everytime I see a sale posted. I do hope ED has everything in hand. Having spent a lot of money on Modules and Scenery I am concerned about ED's long term stability. But don't think I lose sleep from ruminating over this. I use ED much the same way as Iain and its fun. And frustrating. Fingers crossed
Excellent evaluation. Cannot disagree with anything you said [gasp!].
Keep thinking - Im sure you will com up with something. This IS social media after all ;-)
Good video. Fore me it's pretty simple. I'm only investing time in the AJS 37 Viggen. Single player and in VR. DCS is the only option for me and it's great!
Great video but I have a question for you, Ian. - Do you feel it would be better for DCS to focus on long term growth and stability vs short term profits from their co stand hunt for new module and map releases?
I’ve always argued that DCS would make MORE money if they just stopped releasing modules for a few months and focused solely on fixing bugs and glitches. This would translate to a more stable and enjoyable game that will spawn new interest among beginners and first time simmers providing a stable platform vs a buggy program that keeps getting fixed and broken over and over again creating frustration and killing motivation.
I think I don't know enough to answer that question. When I teach I say that there are 5 Forces that need to be reconciled. In order of urgency they are: Cash, Profit, Assets, Growth, People. You can't have them all at the same time. They are always in tension. Only ED management can decide how to resolve that tension in a way that satisfies their objectives and their shareholders.
They needa start charging something for the base game, that being said, a seperate team would need to be established to work on a LOT in the base game such as maybe a career mode or dynamic campaign (or both), AI, all core stuff etc. Maybe livery editor in game or even with multiplayer have more structure, rather than to, enter cords, pickle, rtb. A seperate team to pump out solid campaigns regularly (i hate subscription, but even sub for this service could work), rather than relying on the same 4 guys to design, create and troubleshoot, for the same few nato planes. Then every update their pulling hair out tryna fix all the bugs . They need more devs but that requires more money, so something has to give.
I worry that it is currently a Ponzi scheme, where they frontload their income by releasing early access modules, but that doesn't generate enough income to finish and maintain the modules, or build out the core game. So then their only option is to release more early access modules, without finishing or properly maintaining the older ones, or adding important features like a campaign.
And once they gain this reputation, fewer and fewer players may buy the early access modules, which just worsens the problem, because now they have to release even more early access modules to gain income, which will just worsen their reputation, which can lead to a death spiral.
Furthermore, because the modules are so high fidelity and thus hard to learn, more and more people may decide that they have more than enough planes already.
☝🏼 This.
As a professional fulminator, I find that DCS provides the best fulmination on the market. I have enjoyed countless hours of high quality fulmination and recommend DCS to anyone looking to progress from an amateur to professional fulminator. I also appreciate the irony that I am fulminating in this post.
Very interesting video but a point is missing in your analysis of the ED business if I may, the profits managed by sales of professionals licenses to different armies that use dcs as a multi platform simulation device
Great video, nice to have a level-headed voice with experience in business weigh in on this. Refreshing given how out of control and toxic Reddit and Discord are these days. One thing I've been curious about though: how realistic is it for ED, with an established and enthusiastic customer base, to get acquired by a studio with more resources and capital to get the ecosystem to a more sustainable place? It seems like that could alleviate a lot of these problems
I don't the industry or EDs financial situation well enough to know. Of course, there are many problems that can be solved with an infusion of capital.
In my opinion, what we desperately need is a single player, dynamic campaign. However, the player needs the ability to fine tune the campaign parameters based on the type of airframes & missions the player enjoys flying. ED have already added multithreading and they appear to be releasing other amazing optimisations such as Vulkan (they've confirmed this will be coming). ED are about to release an update that finally allows mission makers the ability to make multi unit selections. They simply need to continue to improve the engine, AI and continue to add other quality of life improvements such as opening & closing the F10 map can be bound to the same button. However, it's the lack of a dynamic campaign that's really holding DCS back.
Iain, thanks for your video. Like many, I have been following ED and its great DCS for quite a few years - always right on the edge to pull the trigger or... well... just not. My goal was always a study level module, single player - basically learn the aircraft from the bottom up with a focus on flying/ operations - rather than combat.
Having gotten out of MSFS many years ago to focus on my RW flying career - I feel out of touch with current computer and hardware requirements and my pool of computer geeks is... lets say limited.
Hundreds of videos (by dozens of influencers) later - I know that I want the sim, have accepted the corresponding pricetag for modules/ add-ons and niceties and still - buying a 3000€ computer, hotas, pedals and VR equipment, just to find out that DCS will eventually overtask it - does not appeal to me - at all.
I think a whole bunch of people are sitting on the sidelines looking for final answers on exactly which equipment to buy in order to make DCS a fluid high definition reality.
There will always be new "customers" looking through the window. The question is when, how and where ED decides to pick them up.
Marvelous comment. Thanks so much for contributing a much needed perspective to the discussion.
I agree with the analysis.
The topic of users' unfulfilled expectations for money already paid and the eternal wait for the product to be finished is raised quite often, including on the forum. Thus, it cannot be said that ED was not aware of these sentiments. Moreover, several years ago, some users had already proposed possible options for the development of the DCS project for discussion. Which were left without attention, even if ED had seen them, judging by the current state of affairs.
The most viable option in the current situation, in my opinion, would be the one that has already proven its effectiveness - the way Linux appeared and is developing.
If ED abandoned further production of maps, 3D models and concentrated on work only around the simulator core (engine, network code, server-client, development of FM laws, blowing and calculation of virtual models for aerodynamics, development of weapons (in one standard for the entire universe of the DCS), physics of object interactions, lighting, optics, AI and weather) and tools for third-party developers?
And all the work on creating 3D models of modules and ground/water equipment, their sound and visual design, creating maps and filling them with objects, developing campaigns and scenarios to third-party developers?
If the community insists on the development of a specific aircraft, then they have the right to discuss this with any of the already known developers or do it themselves, using the SDK, which is provided by ED and here you can use donations or payment for early access for those who want to finance the development of the desired module, but are not able to do it themselves. After the module has been developed, it is provided to ED for parameter qualification and aerodynamic testing, and if everything is OK, the module is added to the list of those available for purchase and use in the DCS universe. The developer receives the money from the sale of the module, and a small part goes to ED. Of course, ED can continue to release its modules, but for some reason it seems to me that with such a business model they will not have much time for this, since supporting and updating the core and integrating modules from third-party developers under a single standard will require a lot of resources with a relatively small team.
15:35 if my opinion is worth only what I will spend on DCS in the future then it is worth however many modules I will buy. As things stand as ED demonstrate they cannot maintain a productive and fair relationship with its third party developers that number is zero.
If that changes as the third parties are paid for their work as agreed that number is much much higher
Great video and opinion! Im probably in the small percentage of aircraft enthusiasts that buy or will buy basically anything that ED puts out in the era i enjoy and most of the maps too. I think ED should not spread themselves too thin but finish modules before taking on new projects, or have a limit on taking on new projects. I mostly play multiplayer in a casual group made up of real pilots and sim enthusiasts so my mileage varies but my enjoyment is great and thsts why ED keeps my interest.
Games like war thunder lost my interest years ago because it was basically call of duty in the skies and flying with the right group of players or the right server is important in continuing ones enjoyment of the game.
All great points. I was just talking to a friend earlier today that I wish the FC3 (and now FC4) models should *all* be made full fidelity, but it will never happen. It took this long to get the MiG-29 updated to FF.
Another point is the F-5E. It's a wonderful module, but it's very outdated. I wish we had the option of a more modernized version or variant, such as one capable of launching AGM-65s, or something like an F-20.
This is a great explanation of the issues that the community has with ED and DCS, rather than the issues that ED and DCS have with their community.
That's just it, the F-20 never went into production making it a non-candidate for being FF. Also the F-5E ~is the most modern version of the aircraft, and first flew in 1974, so of course it's outdated. You really need to do a little research before you comment, and before you come at me with the F-5F it is literally just a two seat F-5E.
F-5E fits very well with other cold war planes. If you want the most modern ones, you can get the F-18. But there is nothing wrong with the F-5, other than poor radar modelling.
@@ImpendingJoker
I think you will find that there are several 'mods' for the F-5E, from both Northrop (F-5N/Tiger IV, F-5AT) and various other (usually Israeli) updates.
At a fundamental level, this means rewiring the jet with a MilStd 1553B/1760A databus so that new weapons can be added. Stripping and replacing the cockpit with something like that of the F-20 (dual MFD + HUD) and sometimes adding one of the available, miniaturized, PD radars (APG-69, Grifo-M, EL/M 2035) that have been developed since the archaic APQ-159 was first offered. A lot also have a datalink which allows effective passive intercept and in some cases missile updating for a genuine BVR capability.
Nearly all F-5Es have regionally unique radios to handle remote base operations in areas with limited ADGE. Sometimes, modernized RWR and EW (expendables buckets, BOL rails and MAWS) plus the odd weapons system upgrade to enable the jet to carry various local (Piranha) and foreign (Derby/Python) upgrade missiles.
Of all of these, the radar is the biggest deal because it means structural work to cut back a bulkhead and provide space for a new radome with enough internal space to run a mechanical gimbal pedestal planar array. Usually, this involves losing a gun to add volume for radar LRUs and cooling. All of which then means reballasting the jet and adding better generators to the weak-kneed J85 which is a bit of an exercise, due to the tight packaging of that engine. The original J85-GE-21 proved very unreliable in service.
Even in the beginning, some Tigers were better than others. The Swiss F-5Es were produced to a higher standard by their local Flug- und Fahrzeugwerke Altenrhein AG (FFA) state factory at Emmen with something like 90 jets being built overall. Under the 'Peace Alps' FMS deal, they had inherent mods to allow them to operate better at altitude and to shift to air to ground roles (Maverick, ALQ-171 jammer) as Hunter replacements, when the F/A-18 came online. Switzerland was the largest foreign built sale deal until the F-16 DOTC setup with NATO and later even this was exceeded by the ROCAF decision to build nearly 400 F-5E using their own AIDC.
The Saudi F-5Es were similarly the best that money could buy with Maverick and even LGB capabilities, via a hand held designator in the rear seat. Iranian F-5Es were vanilla until they started modifying them to run Chinese copies of French R550 Magic 1, among other, indigenous, systems. To defeat sanctions and loss of spares.
Of course, the F-5E has a CG/CL problem which made it less 'pointy' and well balanced in its high alpha directional stability than it's F-5A predecessor, in certain speed/pitch rate ranges the Tiger bleeds energy all over the place and tends to wallow badly. Not something you exactly want to be worrying about when, empty, you are sub 1:1 T/Wr.
This was tackled, aggressively, by Northrop and largely alleviated with the later Type VI (Tigershark) LEX mod, active combat flaps and the C-style, duck bill, radome. Which gave improved aerodynamic performance but compromised the APQ-159 radar. A lot of countries went with it 'for style' and a lot didn't, for costs/pragmatism. An interceptor without a radar is not very useful.
USAF/USN Tigers have had a mix of these mods as adversary aircraft but probably the most important changeup for them was the AIM-9L which, 'with a fuzz buster from Radio Shack', taped to the coaming, allowed the Tigers to embarrass the snot out of the F-15 Rodans who, during AIMVAL/ACEVAL, liked to come in high, fast and hot to maximize their F-Pole and didn't live long doing SARH sprints while taking the FQ face shots from heaters which were unavailable to the majority of foreign users, stuck with AIM-9P. This required a cooling bottle modification in the launch rail and some new sight driver changes for the LCOSS.
LINKS-
F-5AT
www.tacticalairsupport.com/airplanes/northrop-f-5/
Tiger IV (Membership may be required to see the pictures here)
www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/northrop-f-5e-tiger-iv.43442/
Joe Baugher's F-5E Base Page
www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_25.html
@@xyz-hj6ul You're talking about after market mods, not original aircraft. If you're going there then you should also include Iran's double tail F-5 mod which I notice you didn't, but my point still stands. The aircraft is out of date by today's standards.
Always wondered about the business model. I hope it continues to work out for them. If only for the UA-cam content.
Excellent opinion on DCS. My main problem is the most important key binding to use when flying f14, f16 and f18. Question. Where can I find and get the most important slim down setup for these 3 planes. I have no experience in fighter DCS PLANES and the keys binding I do use doesn’t seem to logically fit for the mission. I am too a solo pilot only.
Chucks Guides are always a good place to start.
If you want uncompromised realism to the limits of current technology, the only real alternative to DCS is always going to be Falcon BMS. It's a free mod, and the developers are not profit-motivated.
I loved DCS in 2d, then I tried it in VR and couldn't go back to 2d. Which then resulted in tons of expense and frustration in getting it to both run smooth and look ok in VR. By the time a guy invests in all that, you're almost halfway to the costs of learning to fly planes in real life.
Great breakdown.
What's your take on Razbam?
I've been waiting to start playing DCA, because all I really wanted was a Mig-23.
Looks like maybe never now.
I don't know enough about the truth of Razbam. The two sides positions are fairly obvious, but not the Devil that is in the Details. Its clear that both sides expected more than they got out of the deal, and that it becam imperative at some point to get more. Other than that, I only know that I don't know.
@@Sidekick65 I'm not sure what the accusation is when ED says Razbam used their IP.
Your voice reminds me a bit of the presenter of the Motor Week show (that's a complement).
I do agree with what you say, I think you're a young whippersnaper, Lol! At 73, I have a different perspective on things as I did when I was younger. Personally, I too don't fly on servers, I think my younger years spent with Sony and Microsoft online have really soured me on spending time with other real people. That said, I think it's nice you have choices and I honestly don't have much criticism of ED. I think one of their issues has been, they sat on their butts for a couple of years not improving their software and then, realizing they actually have something that is special and other competitors were taking notice, they decided to carry on and get with the program so to speak. That left them being in catch up mode with a small passionate group trying to handle an explosive growth with inadequate software.
I have so much stuff to play with, I have the patience to enjoy and get better with what I have while waiting for more goodies. I also understand we will never have "perfect" software and I do appreciate how hard the people at Eagle Dynamics are working. I am looking forward to the future that I see as bright. Like everyone else, I get frustrated with the speed of development, but I do understand (I dabbled in 3D content creation and programing myself) it takes patience and drive to carry on to get these things out along with the constant improvements in technology as a moving target making things even more difficult to plan ahead for.
Not sure why suddenly there are a slew of videos questioning DCS when there isn't any real substitute for the real deal. There will always be problems to deal with, no matter how big you are (MSFS), so take a chill pill and stop dwelling in a fantasy where there are never any glitches with software. As pointed out, there is a wide diversity among DCS players, mainly because the sand box has so much to offer, and as a result there are so many expectations and hope. There will never be a time that someone, some group that won't complain, it's just human nature.
Thanks. Great insights... Grandad ;-)
ED has a captive audience. You can quite literally go no where else for content of this caliber, such as it is. I wish there was more competition in this space.
@@triangleenjoyer There will be more competition coming soon.
@@rwhunt99 here's to hoping you are correct.
Outside of this being about DCS... This is an excellent video on the things people like us think about when we develop or run corporations. This video applies to ALL businesses.
I agree with many of your points, but the title is a bit click bait worthy. Is it a bad business model, yep I think so. Is it broken? No.
You are correct. Unfortunately, give that this video is currently being viewed at a rate well over 10x the normal, and so I have to conclude the Click-Bait is a thing. Too Bad, but there it is. I apologize, but I guess I'm not really sorry ;-)
The title is literally a question... and the video answers the question from his viewpoint. It's basically the most to the point title you could make.
How does one acquire a plane in dcs? If I get the game can I just play advanced jeys straight away or how does it work?
The game comes with two low fidelity models. The Su-25T and an unarmed F-51. Anything else costs from about $20 to $75 - but there are frequent sales. There are also a few high fidelity community mods - like the A-4 which are also free.
im new to dcs and cant map controls to my hotas, its greyed out, anyonenknow hoe to fix it?
You just forgot in your logical ED sells its licences to pro and army. I just saw an RFP from army , related to DCM for an amount of 200k€...
Good points. Very valid and 'down-to-business'. I have a rather similar playing profile to yours and some business education background. So it has resonated quite a bit :)
My man gets a subscribe for saying the quiet part out loud
Thank you Iain.
The main bad thing about DCS is well, ED. They repeatedly deny bugs exist, try to pretend they're features or it's right as is, when it clearly isn't right, and only seem interested in cosmetic changes, rather than fixing very long standing problems.
So is it possible without bugs to fully enjoy with third party Srs team speak online? On a f18 and the carrier and also enjoy in single player mission sometime?
Is it worthy to learn the entire manual and fly first with tucano than t45 like a sort of self do career path, is it worth to spend all the time this will need?
Will there be player to enjoy and learn how to speak properly in weekly or monthly mission/s, with a little briefing? PvE and maybe sometime even pvevp...
I also am ibterested in flanker use with Red kod fully clickable mod but some told me it is disabled in online servers or some of them.
This video is great as it's rare to find online ppl that are educated... And talk to explain stuff.
If you dont want to play with DCS anymore just DONT and leave us alone thank you
If you want to be left alone....why the hell are you commenting on a video titled "Is DCS Broken?"?
That's Right !
I cant see the controls in the list of the f16 controls. anyone else? Any solution?
All flight sims follow this model. Every professional software I use has changed to subscription. The game industry is still behind in this trend as development speeds out pace single purchase models.
Is DCS broken? No. Is it a little bent? Sure. Who isn't. Be that as it may, ED, to me, seems to treat their customers with good faith and conscience, as much as they can (they DO have a business to run), and, as you said, a jillion different customers, who all expect a jillion different things,, and wanting it RIGHT NOW. Is it bent? Yup. Do I know that? Yup. Can it be frustrating? Yup. But as long as they keep treating their customers with good faith and good conscience, I'll remain a continual happy customer
Howdy mate! What could a new player expect from multiplayer type servers? You mentioned that your pretty turned off, do you think thats an indication of a larger issue or more of a personal preference?
Totally personal preference. It's not what I "grew up with" and so not why I ever started playing DCS. Those that like it seem to like it a lot.
My experience was quite good. MP gameplay is definitely more focused on dogfights, furballs, and slinging amraams, but it works for that well. Just be prepared to get owned for a while - but I find that there is a wide range of skill on populated servers, so anyone should be able to do something. Do you have any specific questions?
I have been playing SP for a long time, but was curious about MP. Joining as a single player on a MP server didn’t add value for me. Joining an online group made the difference.
Thanks for your video. I've been on DCS for many years and still enjoy it. Just wished they could sort the issue with some 3rd party developpers. Really, I feel like we are just here to pay money. And that annoyed me since I've been supporting DCS for years.
I have noticed in my hours in dcs as im playing on pvp servers my dumbass will get hit by missiles but the missiles wont hit me they explode behind me and i can get away and i wonder how much that happens with the missiles i shoot they need to fix a few things for sure
The biggest "problem" with DCS is that there is no competition for it.. Arguably IL-2 is competition for the WW2 side of it, but without clicky pits and a much more SP friendly environment (career modes?) it's a much different type of game/sim. The things DCS does, it usually does very well and believable (quote unquote realistic), but the cumbersome ME and the constant "re-developing" of avionics paired with bugs got at me..
I didn't "fly" for a few years, but am fully back now - on one hand i just felt the itch, on the other hand a hometown friend of mine decided to get started and helping him learn the "world" of fighter aviation (Hornets all the way) gives me a lot of enjoyment, too.
Well said, what an intelligent conversation. I was really enjoying this until I saw that SKYRAIDER! What the, where the, how the heck do I get that?! It has always been a favorite plane, would you mind sharing?
See my recent video on the Bon Homme Richard. ua-cam.com/video/6SQsg3xx6JA/v-deo.html
@Sidekick65 thank you, will do, you are the man.
There is, in my opinion, only one way to fix DCS and I hate it. Implement a subscription model for early access modules (a couple euros a month) that will be active until the module fully releases. This way, people who really want to fly a module before it releases, get to, and those who have less money to spare will have wait until it exits early access. This could free up resources for the dynamic campaign, which is long overdue and more
This is similar to a loss in confidence in the stock market. Im losing confidence in ED and DCS, therefore i will sit on my hands regarding more module purchases. Vicious cycle...