not from what you've shown, but I have a 8070, i5, 48gb or RAM and I can run dcs on my light, on the worst settings... on 20 fps, is that my hardware thats lacking or is it something in my settings? (I am NOT good with vr nor computer settings)
@@timogrimminck7076 It’s most likely your hardware, your best bet is to reduce the headset resolution, otherwise you’re effectively trying to render the game in the equivalent of more than 16k resolution. I’ve reduced the headset res by 25% here, but the recording is just of my screen which is 2k
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. FFS. Let me be crystal clear: to charge for the A-10C II and the BS3 updates, they added things like JHMCS and APKWS and extra pylons for iglas. For the F-5E, they are not adding ANYTHING (and they easily could - these were standard export options from Northrop for the F-5E of our vintage! And they had the opportunity with the remodel!) So purely from a customer perspective, we are getting less! It's not about the money!
If you want mavs, 4 winders and refuelling capability in a cold war jet you should consider getting the f-4. DCS players want every plane to be a Swiss army knife with pgms
@@Magpie...in this case it’s less so what they want, and more so what it is - those things represent what the vast majority of F-5E’s in the world have. That’s all people are asking for haha. Imagine if Heatblur only made an F-4A - people would be fuckin’ pissed!
@@utleyI didn't have to pay for the graphics updates too the FC3 planes? Why is this a special case? Do you work for ED? Your defence of them is cult like
@jaromirandel543 didn't update from FC2, I bought FC3 direct. You misunderstood what I was saying. I wouldn't get FC4 due the same things included either, let alone a graphical update on a plane that I already paid for that should just be getting an update
I would have been trivially easy for the devs to add a 4 missile option while they're at it, which is something the community has wanted for a long time. I think a lot of the anger comes from ED not listening or caring about players. Not sure how much of that anger adding 2 more missiles would alleviate, but it probably would have helped.
Yes, it would be trivial to do it, they don't because sidewinders were not integrated to other pylons on the version we have in DCS, neither were Mavericks.
@@Tetemovies4 yep but then alse they have to remove the rwr because that was also not integrated on that one, or they have to keep the rwr and add the ins and the digital radios as then it would be a version that exists again, so it is anyways already a frankenstein f-5 that never really existed that we have (at least not in significant production numbers)
@@Tetemovies4 I understand taht's the reason given but it doesn't feel like a genuine reason since it's already already a version that didn't really exist. If that's the primary concern I don't think anyone would have an issue to just change the version. Hell there's even precedent with the warthog update. Give us a new version with actual useful weapons please.
Laugh if you want but I would pay for some updated/new FC4 campaigns. New su-33 carrier campaign, MiG-29, and Su-27 campaigns with all the new maps available. With new AI voiceovers. These could be really nice for a lot of newbies out there.
If we have to pay 10$ for it, at the very least there should be some new systems and weapons added, maybe even a second different variant of the plane like with the Mirage F1. This is entirely possible to do for the F-5E as export versions had numerous additions and upgrades. Hell I’d pay 15 or even 20$ if a whole new F-5E variant with multiple new features was added. A purely visual upgrade should be free or cost 5$ or less. You hardly ever look closely at the external plane model in DCS during gameplay, anyway.
This reminds me of back when I was playing Battlefield 3. DLC maps could only be played by people who bought the full DLC, 10-15€ back then I think. This caused massive player fragmentation, most players being on the vanilla maps and the DLC maps were very populated only a few months after released of each DLC. I know ED strictly doesn't want a subscription model for the modules, but I think the OPTION for both the existing and a subscription model for just the Terrains would be used by quite a lot of players that play DCS only from time to time.
Hello pilot. Wat a surprise for me when I see myself fighting again you in this video. I lost my wingman on the first encounter, and them you and me keep it fighting until the bingo fuel show up in my panel.. I was damage already from you guns, and my loved F1 was loosing hydraulics pressure. On top of that, that fast Phantom catch me. good fight. Thanks!.
That’s a shitty deal: -No new missiles -no new pylons -no new systems -the exterior that you never look at will change but not enough for you to see the difference. That’ll be 10$. Worst deal I’ve ever seen and lately they don’t deserve our "passion and support"
How much are skins in other games? There is "buy livery" button in MSFS 2024. This is at least complete rework. Plus nobody is forcing you to buy it - you can use the original product you bought.
I think a staged approach to plane development would solve two huge problems. Problem one is that there is a ton of development that has to go into a module before the developer gets any kind of paycheck. Problem two is that DCS has such a monstrous learning curve for new players. I think a system like this would help with both: 1) Basic Module- complete flight characteristics but low fidelity cockpit, basic modeling, basic weapons and avionics set. Kind of like the old FC jets. Maybe 1/3 the price of the final module. Warthunder level of commitment for a new player to learn, low price barrier to entry, and easy to develop. 2) High Fidelity Cockpit- Perhaps 1/6 the price of the final module. Everything clickable etc. 3) High Res modeling, skin etc. Another 1/6 the final price. Make everything look amazing. 4) Extended Weapon set and avionics. Last 1/3 of the final price. Everything the plane really had in it. Ideally you wouldn't make 2-4 dependent on each other at all. It takes money to keep a company running. Anything that can't keep up with that is just abandonware waiting to happen. I'm fine with subscriptions (but that is different from what I'm outlining above)
I don't mind paying for upgrades, it's a thankless task having to update each platform with the constant evolution of DCS. It would be good if the devs asked what upgrades people wanted, it might make the community a bit more receptive. For example, giving the F-5 air-to-air refueling (Which a version did have in an upgrade in 1972 I think?) Having a subscription based model works if there is a cast iron contract for developers to have a fair share. How would third-party developers feel if ED gave them crumbs each month and said it was fair. I honestly think DCS has evolved too far with third parties to make a subscription model work without having some way of monitoring what airframes were used each month, and this is then divvied up from the subscription money?
It's$60 to buy. That ordinarily includes updates over the life of the module you bought. Asking for extra money for a mostly visual update is a piss take. It's not about the$10 it's the principal. They didn't charge for the FC3 visual updates, why this? What next, costs for the gun sparks on the F18 they introduced? Vortices on the viggen? They were just updated because they needed updating and people have already paid for the module.
10 bucks is a beer in my country. Never seen so many people crying about this. Don't like it, stay away from it. You can still use the F-5 without paying anything extra. It's an option, not a necessity. People buy skins in fortnite for way more money. Also can people please stop mentioning subscription models? ED has stated it won't happen, and I've spent way too much money on modules to be locked behind a monthly subscription.
It's the principal. Heat blur updated the viggen with vortex visuals etc, that's an old module, did they charge for that? FC3 for visual updates, did that a attract a charge? I recall not so long ago, the hornet got gun spark visual effects etc. It's not a lot of money, it's what it represents, a piss take to charge for what should be expected once you've posted full price for a module. You add substantial new features, avionics, weapons systems like the A10, then fair enough, but for poxy visual updates.....nah, that's taking us for a ride. And yes, we can choose not to pay, I won't be. It's what this represents that is pissing people off.
@andycarmo5203 I understand your view point but looking at other games I think it's nothing to shout about. How many games are there that charge you £5 or more just for a new skin on your gun. Clothing or Spacecraft this is all done to keep the developers going after the bulk of cash from buying the actual game is used up. ED do need some form of cash to keep them going. Subscriptions are not an option for ED but I think using the same model as Elite Dangerous might be an option giving us payable custom skins with our names on the side of the cockpit might be an option?
@@nemisis_wolf yeah fair enough but ED have already set their own precedent with the way they have treated previous updates to modules. This is out of kilter, to charge for a visual update when they haven't done so for ANY previous modules is just off. The others have had updates because we've already paid for it, with all the expected, AND accepted updates that go with that purchase over the modules lifespan. Significant updates, well yeah, that I think all would accept may require a bit of payment but not just for accepted updates. DCS is not other platforms with other methods of updates, to ask we accept other platforms versions is just not the way DCS does things. If ED suddenly announce this is the way things will be for everything, then I think the player base is going to revolt and shrink.
@@andycarmo5203yup it's a tough thing to get a good decision on what is the best way forward. But ED cannot just keep brining out new modules to fund them and then have an endless list of aircraft that are never going to be out of early access because they don't have the time to work on all of them and keep working on the core game engine also. But it's up to ED to listen to the community and choose something that's best for most but there never going to keep everyone happy no matter what they do.
I'd pay a tenner for the MiG21 to get an upgrade and I don't even own the damn thing 😂 and now that you mention it, I think I'd pay a fiver a month if it unlocked all the maps as that would really pump some life into some multiplayer servers. Might also give ED the frequent cash flow it needs to fund some more dev time on the core game.
14:06 The F-5 has seat adjustment, but only with the pilot model off. Turning it on resets you to the default position and the binds no longer do anything. How much you wanna bet this will get fixed but only with the new pilot model?
I wish with this upgrade pack they had a new version included, an earlier F-5E (sans suffix), which is appropiate for South Vietnam, Iran, Chile and Brazil (before they got E-3s), this variant doesnt have RWR and has manual combat flaps and an earlier radar, it's technically a downgrade in capability and that might go against most people in the community, but it's a more interesting plane from a historical stand point. The version we currently have is late 70s Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Taiwan, South Korea, which they didnt see combat and/or we dont have proper maps for.
The problem with the subscription model is I feel dev’s get lazy (cough iracing). With iracing you have to pay to have the privilege to play the game plus you have to buy the cars and the tracks (maps in our case). I’d rather pay for upgrades, as the dev’s have to earn our money, with things the community finds value in buying rather then wasting it on junk nobody wants.
Good video. It’s almost impossible to keep track of a bogey when he overshoots and you have to switch shoulders so to speak. That said ten quid is like a lunch at work. Let’s not overstate the value.
I think you can address the peaking in the microphone using a Limiter filter in OBS. I set mine to -10db, and gameplay/voip/other sound sources to -12db. I do other things as well, but the most immediate solution is Limiter for the peaking.
I agree the F5 issue isn't actually a big deal tbh, but I don't think getting into the weeds about "cost of this upgrade vs x or y other hypothetical purchase" is worth thinking about because this isn't an isolated problem. The reaction to this more a barometer of how a number of problems (and perceived problems) with DCS have accumulated to frustrate players who feel like they've sunk too much money in to back out, and don't see many other options to boot. This F5 drama might be slightly silly when viewed individually, but I think it's in ED's interest to take note of people's criticisms
I agree, I think ED’s lack of transparency and seemingly disconnected priorities with the direction the community want them to move in is the biggest issue here. I don’t think anyone expects concrete release dates, but explaining the cause for delays and a roadmap of intended features would go a long way to improving the situation. I have no idea why they have to be so secretive about everything, when all it does is build hype they continually fail to deliver on, which just shakes community confidence. Their PR management is truly abysmal.
I’m also a big fan of the F-5 but the stuff we get for the F-5 is not really up tp snuff when it comes to upgrades. It really ahould have gotten 4 sidewinders in the package
I hope this upgrade in price also comes with upgrade in capabilities, since a little bit later the E3 variant had Maverick support wired in the pylons.
When Black Shark and A-10C got their paid upgrades, there were new functional features. In this case, all of the functional features of the F-5 update (bugfixes etc, even the wing flex animations) are free. From the newsletter, it almost sounds like the $10 is solely for the new textures - an upgrade I will be declining for now because I only have so much VRAM to go around and I play with reduced texture quality anyway. That being said, because they have assured that the legacy version of the F-5 will continue to be "supported for the foreseeable future", I really don't have any great complaint about this. It's additional revenue which, being completely optional, should not divide the playerbase in any meaningful way. If paid upgrades are how we get old content to be maintained, well at least the old content is getting maintained.
if I bought the f-5 8 years ago I wouldn't have much of an issue getting the upgrade, but I got into DCS and bought the f-5 last year and I honestly just feel like so much of the stuff DCS does is just a rip off.
If they would have delivered all the long overdue bug fixes, not some "coming soon" and then offered the visuals for sale, it would have likely been better received. Folks are getting weary of the pay before you get program with X module having a set of stated features, which is later reduced to Y module and then released from EA with Y never materializing. They never seem to finish anything. The A-10C II took two years to get a radio included in an upgrade. No to a subscription model, yes to a periodic core update cost, with money for immediately delivered improvements not "coming soon", "WIP" or EA.
I think a better way might be to ask the community which modules they would like to see updated and would they be willing to spend $10 to get it. One issue is how much is done to warrant a paid update? Maybe it's discussed in the Forums, but it should be brought up in the monthly newsletter.Another issue is - ED has so much work on it's plate to the core DCS that it frustrates users who feel ED is spending more time on what a lot of customers might feel as eye candy when there are real problems they need to deal with. I get it, the business model ED is using depends on module income - period. They offer the "Game" free, and they need to pay those programmers to continue upgrading their code. To do that they must continue bringing in modules and sales to provide revenue to continue. I do feel ED has made good progress but it's frustratingly slow arriving, I was hoping by the end of the year and V3.0 would bring a full Vulcan API (working), I also feel they need to try techniques to "modularize" certain aspects of an aircraft system they can simply plug into a base framework to speed up development. I think Heat Blur is working in that direction.
Exactly, and this is for a niche product that most people can't even figure out how to use, let alone have any interest in. This is not Call Of Duty with it's millions of players that get regularly milked with overpriced skins, every project that ED takes on ends up getting paid for by a much smaller pool of customers, so of course your money will not go as far per programmer-hour.
"Devs have to make money somehow" Buddy, the game has almost ~$3k in DLC. Every dude flying a hornet ($80) in Syria ($60) from a carrier ($40) has already kicked in $120-180 (depending on sales) to Eagle Dynamics. I have no idea why people act like ED is running a charity but it's *confusing*.
I honestly believe the only way forward from a business perspective for the future is some sort of subscription ! This would insure the future of updates and the future of the company ! I know this is unpopular topic but I would prefer this rather than DCS dissapearing ! For those of us that are old enough we saw the rise and fall of flight sims in the past !
i personally don't mind the upgrade. i have paid like 30 or so euros for the F-5. i have gotten plenty of hours of enjoyment from it. since it is quite an old module now., even if you did get it beck in the day so many years have passed that i feel 10 bucks ain't so bad. it is completely optional. the old F-5 will still be supported. i would not worry about the subscription model. they have stated many times that it wont work for DCS. i guess that renewing old planes and helicopters are enough. i do hope we get the huey, sabre and mig-15 upgrades next.
04:48 I would rather see a booster business model vs a subscription model. For thoughs who really like ED and DCS but would like to help them with extra funding vs thoughs who do not.. ED could offer a model where you can choose to buy a booster. They could offer a Booster in several levels and pricing.. say.. Bronze, silver, gold and diamond. you could buy them monthly or quarterly or annually. What would you get for buying a booster? points towards buying a new modules.. advanced downloads of new modules. automatic upgrades, points towards merch.. Recognition.. it goes on.. This way, people who don't want to pay more don't have too, while people who are passionate supporters can pay as much as they want.
On the subscription model stuff. I would be absolutely fine with a monthly subscription for any module tbh as long as the option to buy ”lifetime” use of one is an option with the current pricing. This would in my opinion get more people to try DCS the way it’s meant as even two weeks is not enough to truly make a decision on if you want the said module in some cases
$10 for updated textures and mesh is a bargain. A monthly subscription though - I'd decline. All those saying "it's not an update!" - that's pretty disrespectful to the work of the 3D and texture modellers.
I'm ok with this upgrade, I will be getting it. I think it's a fair price, and not locking bugfixes behind the paywall is also good. But, would it kill them to add 2 more aim-9 pylons? It's realistic, would take like an hour of work, and would put the F-5 in a better place in terms of cold war gameplay. Especially now that it competes with the F-4 on the blue side, 2 missiles vs 8 missiles.
Newsflash. ED is a monopolist. They will do whatever the hell they want. The idea that one should avoid paying for an upgrade because that might "incetivize" ..., well... For the avoid/don't avoid to have a real effect on similar future decisions the whole deal would have to be either a huge success or a huge failure. Another take. Let's consider "the bad happens" and ED gets an incentive to do it again with another product. Try looking it from the opposite way. Do you think it's senior developers who actually do programming who decide when a module is to be updated and how much resources are assigned? No. It's the bean counters at ED who make the decisions. To summarize: ED being a monopolist who decided to dive into a resource sink hole that glass cockpit aircraft are are the two factors which burried the hopes for reasonably fast updates to all the modules. Including the glass perpetrators.
I’m fine with it. If the alternatives are (and to make business sense it needs to be one of these, unless there’s a huge untapped market nobody knows about) 1. Refresh at fairly low cost for modules that have been feature complete for a few years. This would be better if they value-added something like maybe an extra variant or even just a new weapon type. Something that makes people (and me) feel they are getting something new. Nothing early access tho! We’ve already paid for the dev in early access to finished release status and there needs to be a reasonable period between final release and refresh. 2. Another fucking subscription. Just no. I’m currently deliberately moving away from products that require a subscription like Creative Cloud, Office 365 and Pro Tools. I might go a month or three without using a product and I hate the near constant hand in my pocket effect. So, if this is the way they choose to go to enable the company to be financially stable, I’m provisionally for it. Depending on how it’s done. I’d also be ok with a ‘rent to buy’ scheme for new players, or new modules if that helps cash flow but I’ve grown to loathe software as a service paid for by open ended subs. I think the time to use a subscription based payment scheme is over for any non-essential or recreational software product. I don’t think I’m the only one to feel this way.
They could also have just jacked up the cost of the existing F-5E for new customers to match inflation (well, really, it's to not get left too far behind by U.S. inflation) without any upgrades, but they wanted a refresh that can match the graphical quality of the existing (more recent) aircraft to make it worth the price increase. And they are giving loyal customers a very cheap upgrade to the newer version. While I can see how that could be considered a worrying precedent, as it is I don't see a downside as a fan of the DCS F-5E.
I love DCS as I own almost all of the modules and all of the maps. But I whole heartly believe they are going about this the wrong way. If we are going for a remaster it should not be a paid upgrade. If we are getting a different variant of the F5 then absolutely OK but even then ED should be going about this like Aerges. One module, with a couple variants. They're in the works for the F1M as well. This is a tricky slope because these modules should stay updated at all times. Like you said what time frame allows them to do a paid upgrade? Let's just stop development on all modules, then start releasing paid upgrades. In the end its again the consumer that is getting the short end of the stick. It slowly starting to become a paid subscription. If they went about it like IRacing does then they HAVE a whole lot of WORK to be done to be even considered worthy paid subscription. They are not at that level just yet.
It's not really a controversy people just make it out to be because they don't want to pay for a company's work/or they think it should be free because they already own it. That's just not the case. They didn't have to upgrade it and could have left it as such with the old, dated pilot model and 3D model, but why? I'm hoping they do this with the F-15C as well because it's outdated as well. With the new scan 3-D tech everything should be brought up to date and optional. If it's not your cup of tea you don't have to drink it, it's that simple.
I bought the A-10C update, and I bought the full Black Shark after they updated it. No issues at all with that. F-5 cosmetic update? No thanks. Give me 4 sidewinders and I might bite. I still would rather they focus more on the core game, AI, dynamic campaign etc. Also there are still bugs in older modules dating back 4 years or more now. The weird geometry glitch in the L-39 is one I unfortunately discovered for myself yesterday. (it was reported in 2020 and never fixed) That makes the thought of paying $10 for a cosmetic upgrade even worse. ED is going to be out of business before these kind of things get sorted out. Finances must not be looking good if they are even considering it. I think a subscription model would finally kill DCS completely for me. I tend to play in spurts. I might play it for 20 hours after a big update, and then not touch it again for a few months. I don't want to pay monthly for something I might not be using every single month, and it's annoying having to constantly subscribe and unsubscribe just because you don't have the time or motivation to play that month. Also what happens if it switches to a subscription model? Are you suddenly going to lose the ability to use everything you paid hundreds (or more) dollars for over the last 10-15 years if you don't subscribe? Would there still be an option to buy modules and terrain without also paying a subscription? Will you have to subscribe to play multiplayer? Despite my heavy criticisms, I've actually been having a lot of fun with DCS lately, mostly with Retribution. I want the game to keep improving and for ED to succeed, but goddamn they constantly know how to irritate and frustrate their customer base.
@@mattboggs6304 Their lack of transparency is their biggest issue I think, I really don’t think we’ll ever see the dynamic campaign; I don’t understand why they can’t be frank and tell us what hurdles they’re facing and what they’re working on to overcome them. Because with no updates at all, we’re left thinking they’re doing nothing, or they’re keeping it a secret because we’ll be impressed by the reveal. But then the reveal never comes and there’s still no news, all this approach does is shake confidence and lead to wild speculation, like that they’re running out of money etc. Their PR team is fucking abysmally bad at engaging with the consumer base.
I personally feel each module or item should have it defined in its's original store page as part of the legal junk. I get we pay for stuff but also the other person dedication and hours. We all want a fair wage at the end of the day. Now days many are coming to subscription based instead of buying it and having some type of access forever.
I see it from both sides, however, it's 10 rips! And it's an improvement. For those like me who have had it for years and enjoyed it, why not pay for it to be upgraded. Why shouldn't they charge for their work... would you work for free?
I don't think the $10 fee is actually that bad just for upgraded visuals if they were Adding more functionality and improvements across the board and made it a big upgrade then I'd still pay for it Ultimately as you say this is a voluntary upgrade you don't have to buy it if you think it's not worth it!. We use the F-5E in the DCS Flight school I am a member off so we all have it and we all love the F-5E for what it teaches you with regards to flying skills that the F-18 and such just can't do. I hate the idea of a subscription model, especially as I Own all of the maps. Maybe they can offer both? You can pay a fixed fee for permanent access or subscription for those that just want to try a module or a map on the odd occasion. Your Mic was fine by me not much difference to normal TBH!
(edit:not needed) Are you fed up with the ADI drift (the artificial horizon going out of whack and becoming unreliable)? Good. The only thing barring the issue to be squashed is a track recording of the occurence of the issue. The track has to be recorded with all mods disabled, current build of DCS, as short as possible. I wasn't able to reproduce this issue but some people swear the bug is still active.
Didn't th3 F-5E get a bit of a upgrade when it was added to the Flaming Cliffs package ? Will the F-5 in Flaming cliffs also be getting these cosmetic changes as well? Will that be free or a extra £10 for that as well?
I was thinking about this earlier too, I wonder why they released FC2024 ahead of this update rather than at the same time or afterwards. I’m guessing the FC F5 will retain its current standard, so that the new version is more notably visually superior to the low fid version.
the problem with sub model is the lack of trust i would say. would i pay $5, $10, $15 monthly to get atc, ai, dynamic campaign, and all the other core game improvements? yes. but how do i know my money isn't going to be nicks monthly allowance on warbirds fuel though regarding the $10 F-5 upgrade. i don't have it so i guess I'm a bit biased but i think its kinda shitty considering there's 0 new features. A10CII or BS3 were pretty huge upgrades... this is just a texture pack. also lmao at the 7000 man-hours of work
I see the trust issue 100%, but you can just stop paying if you don’t feel it provides enough to be worth it, and in a way that would make it so much easier and more efficient to vote with our wallets. They do some we don’t like? They can literally see the damage to their income overnight. The 7k man hours thing was a gigantic miss, I can’t believe they thought telling us that was a good idea lol.
also one thing i forgot to mention. depending on the price of the subscription you could argue that it creates even higher entry barrier to DCS. if you follow some discord servers or subreddits you can see that for some people the module prices are off-putting, now imagine adding a subscription on top of that. i’m not against subscription model but with the community feedback on their latest announcements like Iraq or the F-5 it seems like the community isn’t that happy lol. could be the small visible minority of the community but who knows, i guess we will see
@@shadowfax9861 Yeah, just feels like more of a faff in VR for some reason. I’ve been trying it out with a bit of an offset to centre the recording too.
ED obviously has a j3w under their employment these days. Always trying to extract the last shekel out of the consumer. Still no regional pricing, decades later! "Assets packs", cutting up maps, and now paying for updates?! These should be standard to all modules to keep them current and new and old players interested in them. - Get this through your thick skulls ED, No new features, no new sales! How about you at least put some Mavs of that Tiger before you come hat in hand...? I've had it since day one, yet haven't taken it for a burn in years. And now you want us to pay for some updated cockpit textures when Devrim has done dozens for free out of the goodness of his own heart? Where tf do you lot even get off?! As far as I'm concerned, the new Flaming Cliffs aircraft should have all been free if you already owned FC3 and the full-fidelity aircraft that were added. Why should we now be put at a disadvantage online, when we've already paid full price? In fact, what are the chances that anyone would even buy them twice? I'll tell you. Basically, non-existent. So what's the point of keeping them behind a paywall for those people? Literally, nothing! Yet they do it anyway when all it gets them is a bad reputation. Geniuses! They can't even be bothered to update the Audio. It's still from LockOn for Christ's sake! tf ED?! Is 22 years not long enough for you...? I would have done it myself using AI, but of course, you had to lock everything away from us. Because heaven forbid, the community actually helps improve things you refuse to... We can't even have a deck crew on the Forrestal because ED wouldn't allow Heatblur to do it because they didn't want to lose any sales revenue on the Super Carrier module. Which I would have purchased regardless, but all that decision says to me is, F*ck you consumer! Give us your money! We don't care! If they did, they could have made the deck crew on the Forrestal an unlock for those who purchased the Super Carrier, but they didn't for no other reason than they just don't give a shit. And it shows... I'm honestly done paying for any ED product at this point. Whoever is making these decisions lately needs to be sacked before they cause any more damage to ED's reputation. All it's doing is further fragmenting the community into those who have and those who don't. And until they have a serious think about how they treat their player base (ie: the people who got them to the point where they are today), they are dead to me! And this is coming from someone who has bought literally everything ED has put out, up until the Apache... At this point, I just feel like a Jaguar owner. You know, if the old man was still around, there's no way this sort of thing would be allowed to fly... But unfortunately for us, Nick needs his own private air force of war birds, which he expects the rest of us to pay for. Unless it's Heatblur, Aerges, or Ugra Media, who have proven that they do actually care about their consumers, I'm not even giving ED a second look out of pure spite toward this type of predatory behavior. And if you want it to stop, I suggest you do the same. If they insist on being this greedy, give them nothing! If you cave, they will only find new ways to keep taking the piss. And at this rate, they'll probably be coming with subscriptions next... For the current price of the average DCS module, I can literally buy a dozen full-color touchscreen smartwatches that do practically everything. And for that sort of money, the least I expect is a visual update every decade or so. But ED would rather create undue animosity amongst the community, purely so they can turn a quick buck, rather than keeping them happy and willing to support them on future indevours. Suicidal tactics if you have the faintest clue about marketing. What are they gonna do next to spite their face? Put pride flags on the f*cking website...? So sick of this corporate BS! Get your act together ED. You are slowly creating the circumstances for your own demise. If a dev like Heatblur came out with a standalone tomorrow, I guarantee you, I'm not the only one willing to cut my losses and migrate... And that attitude comes purely out of your recent "sales tactics". If you're getting diehard DCS players like me apoplectic, you better know, you're headed down the wrong bloody road!
With the steam Autumn sale I am thinking about getting the 5 flaming cliffs just to get used to the sim. Is it easy to learn…the lof fidelity one I mean.
I am very much not happy with this, the graphical upgrade should have been free and we should have had the 10 dollar DLC been for upgrades like wing tanks, extra AIM9 pylons and a refueling probe, the community lets stuff like this slide way to much, they keep acting like DCS is just a underdog DEV and not the literally only real option for FF modern flight sims with a almost absolute control on the market and new dev teams who want to get into the flight sim scene. Like how they released the CH47 in the same FUCKING state the F16 dropped in and yet they said they were "never going to do that again". Just irritates me so much...
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Wing tip tanks, in place of the outer AIM9s the F5 could carry small fuel tanks and slot those AIM9s under the 2 outer pylons, it allowed you to keep the under wing or under center free of extra fuel for more ordinance. Just pull up "F5 wing tip tanks" on google images easier to see there. Good video btw love watching your content.
Why should they upgrade it for free? It was worth what people paid for it whenever they bought it. Why should they work on it for nothing? Just don't get that argument at all. It's optional to upgrade?
Probably will get it. What I dont get though is why someone gets angry about an optional update. Its not that the "old" F5 would stop to function or anything. In general this ED hate stuff I feel like comes from a very vocal minority of people. I just play my planes on the maps I like. Yeah stuff could be improved here and there but thats true for any game, is it.
Both those things got a handful of new features and weapons, the F-5 is just getting a few avionic tweaks and a visual overhaul, including wing vapour and a new AB effect. Personally I’m happy with that for £10, but I can see how others might see how you’re getting less for your money compared to previous overhauls.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy The A-10C II upgrade cost considerably more than 10 bucks. Like yourself, I do not have an issue with the cost of the "upgrade" to the F-5, its a great aircraft, I enjoy seeing the aircraft models when formation flying, etc.
In trackIR you used to place your lift vector and commit to the turn. Now you’re corkscrewing as you try to look out the side of the cockpit. Do you sit on an office chair in VR, I wonder if subconsciously you’re trying not to tip it over
It is an office chair but there’s no concern about it tipping - lift vector placement in relation to the angles I’m used to is definitely my issue at the moment though. You’d think it’d be easier to gauge when the tracking is 1:1 but my muscle memory is all out of whack because I’m so used to it not being 1:1, I think it’ll come with more practice, maybe I should hammer some 1 vs 1s until it clicks
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I used to jump into the dogfight servers for a couple hours whenever I'd make changes to my TrackIR settings and it seemed to be the fastest way to get my muscle memory re-calibrated. Particularly the open furball part, not the 1v1s, cuz there's so much more looking around and the extra challenge expedites the process IMO. Might have to fly a modern jet to stand a chance in the chaos, but the muscle memory will still stick after going back to the Tiger!
Nope, they are taking the piss now. It will most likely go ahead and the usual suspects will throw money at them and nothing will change until there is an alternative.
the problem is: even if ED gives you a full list of what you buy into you are not protected against them dropping some features and then these being implemented later at a higher price. If the deal is clear from the start: this is the price and this is what you get its fine to make upgradepackages later. You might get upgradepackages in the future with minimal changes that are not worth it, but since you have to have the latest ... I think that this practice is shady. There is less and less transparency and thats where all these problems stem from.
I wonder if modules and maps count as DLC on Steam store. Asking this because Valve recently made some very pro consumer decision. What Valve did was something slong the line of; Developers have to specify what the DLC will give us, players, how much it costs and aprox. date of release. The release has to be somewhat specific, ie; Q2 2024 or March 2024. Even the full date. It HAS to be completed when released and also it HAS to be released within 3 months of the date developers said it would be released. This makes me wonder if ED will have to specify what the module will have at the release, and if it doesnt, well Valve WILL refund us the money.
If it turns out to be like the black shark 3 "upgrade", im passing this one, bought the BS3 believing it was a real upgrade just to find out there was only one new weapon and some reskin of the aircraft, kinda disappointed right now with DCS.
Nah, you still get tone if the switch is in the wrong spot, everything was set correctly. Seen a few people report similar on the Heatblur server discord.
Idk it says they're updating "new external model and cockpit, new graphic effects, a new pilot, missions, and other improvements." Personally id pay that just for the missions n have for alot of other modules. I wouldn't mind a sub if it meant more content like an actual dynamic campaign. I tend to play offline more than online since there are alot of elitists.
I can’t say I’ve encountered any elitists online, and I came here from WarThunder so I’d be a prime target for them lol. Guess it depends on the servers you play on, I haven’t really touched on any of the PvE ones, but the PvP ones are generally pretty chill. Actually quite rare to encounter anyone using comms these days, you should give it another chance.
I think there are a few things which have caused this 'controversy' with the F5 upgrade. DCS has it's share of bugs and they are frustrating, but I think a lot of folks have an unreasonable expectation that there should be zero bugs. So they say they don't want to give ED more money until every single bug is fixed, or the Razbam situation is sorted, or the Dynamic Campaign is released. (I actually think this is mostly people just venting frustation online and would actually still spend the money) I also think the games industry is so highly competitve that people's understanding of value is a bit broken. They see these massive free to play games which you can lose hundreds of hours in, or steam sales where you can pick up old Game of Year titles for like £5 and think all games should be that price. So they see $10 for 'just' a graphics upgrade for the F5 as expensive. But if you fly the F5 in DCS, then $10 is nothing for the enjoyment you'd get out of a nice overhaul of the module. If you compare $10 of value to other types of entertainment like going for a meal, going to the pub, going to the cinema, then it's cracking value for the hours you'll get in DCS. And I also think it shouldn't be seen as just an overhaul for the F5, it's also helping pay for Core tech upgrades which are released for "free" but need to be paid by something. And finally I'd say that most posts in gaming forums are negative as when people have any kind of grievance they will post about it and try and drum up support. Those folks who are happy are no doubt just playing the game and enjoying themselves and not engaging with the negativity! In case it's not obvious, I'm ok paying $10 for an update the F5 and I'm happy to help support a game I'm enjoying playing.
I can argue that you are better off by not updating the F5, Shark or any other aircraft because it hurts the performance, and performance is key in VR. If you update there will be no way back for you and this $10 can cost you hundreds on GPU upgrade... Ask yourself do you really care that much about the visuals in your cockpit? Like, are you seriously bothered by FC3 cockpit visual quality? I stop noticing this in a minute, while you will notice the tanked performance for sure...
@@Bullet4MyEnemy in BS3 they've upgraded geometry and lighting, so it's not only textures and makes a huge difference. Same was with A10C, performance tanked. As for the textures, if you have less than 16GB VRAM then the high textures nowadays are a luxury - game runs out of VRAM pretty quickly...
@@Bullet4MyEnemy FYI today Ismael Jorda posted the comparison, and it's around 25-30% difference on a 4090, as I expected. So your argument about "only textures" is definitely not valid. I'll never understand sacrificing so much performance for some scratches in the cockpit, it's like a difference of $1000 between 4080S and 4090, completely absurd and not worth it for VR.
I can see ED going to a subscription model. Constant cash flow vs big peaks and valleys of cash depending on new modules/maps. Offer different levels that give you access to more aircraft and maps.
The thing is, DCS is a simple bi-product of the MCS and it's not a flagship product of ED/Fighter Collection. As you state, the upgrade is voluntary, you don't need to purchase it for 10 bucks. So what's the big gripe ! Plus you can get the F-5 in the sale and then $10 to upgrade it making the total purchase cost of $40. I can't remember what I paid for it first time round, $50 or something, so expecting ED to upgrade an old module for free is just nonsense. My advice, buy the module now for $40 if you don't have the module, pay $10 for the upgrade or keep the old one and remember the value for money you already have had and stop griping all the time.
There’s actually a 50% off sale on right now, so if you’re going to get it anyway, get it now and then upgrade and still be better off than standard price.
I'm glad the subscription model is starting to get some talk. Not long ago, explaining to players how the monetization model shaped development priorities felt like talking to a brick wall.
idk why people are acting like they have to buy it. Dont want it then use the jet that is out there now. Also people wanting unrealistic weapons packages is funny to me. If they put 120s on a f5E (only the S and modern E models have) first it would be laughable, then people would also complain its not real for the time period of E model. Seems like over the past year you cant please DCS users., they complain about everything.
What do you all make of the of the Pimax from what I’ve shown?
(Check the timestamps for an *FOV showcase* towards the end of the video)
not from what you've shown, but I have a 8070, i5, 48gb or RAM and I can run dcs on my light, on the worst settings... on 20 fps, is that my hardware thats lacking or is it something in my settings? (I am NOT good with vr nor computer settings)
@
An 8070?
3070 btw*
@@timogrimminck7076
It’s most likely your hardware, your best bet is to reduce the headset resolution, otherwise you’re effectively trying to render the game in the equivalent of more than 16k resolution.
I’ve reduced the headset res by 25% here, but the recording is just of my screen which is 2k
@@timogrimminck7076 i can personally run 45fps on a 3060 ti with a quest 3 and resolution to the max. I think you have some other issues with your pc
IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. FFS.
Let me be crystal clear: to charge for the A-10C II and the BS3 updates, they added things like JHMCS and APKWS and extra pylons for iglas.
For the F-5E, they are not adding ANYTHING (and they easily could - these were standard export options from Northrop for the F-5E of our vintage! And they had the opportunity with the remodel!)
So purely from a customer perspective, we are getting less! It's not about the money!
☝️💯
If you want mavs, 4 winders and refuelling capability in a cold war jet you should consider getting the f-4.
DCS players want every plane to be a Swiss army knife with pgms
@@Magpie...in this case it’s less so what they want, and more so what it is - those things represent what the vast majority of F-5E’s in the world have. That’s all people are asking for haha. Imagine if Heatblur only made an F-4A - people would be fuckin’ pissed!
@@Magpie... Maggie get back to the rosscord and outta muh yt comments
I have a simple solution for you
10$ upgrades should actually be upgrades
a brand new revamped model that technically died 8 years ago isnt an upgrade?
Im sorry but how is it not? New flight model, new weapons, new pilot model and new textures…
@@utleyI didn't have to pay for the graphics updates too the FC3 planes? Why is this a special case?
Do you work for ED? Your defence of them is cult like
@@andycarmo5203 Actually you did. If you had FC2 and then bought FC3, you have payed for graphics and FM update.
@jaromirandel543 didn't update from FC2, I bought FC3 direct.
You misunderstood what I was saying. I wouldn't get FC4 due the same things included either, let alone a graphical update on a plane that I already paid for that should just be getting an update
I would have been trivially easy for the devs to add a 4 missile option while they're at it, which is something the community has wanted for a long time. I think a lot of the anger comes from ED not listening or caring about players.
Not sure how much of that anger adding 2 more missiles would alleviate, but it probably would have helped.
People also floated the idea of mavs being added. Supposedly they got put on the f5
Yes, it would be trivial to do it, they don't because sidewinders were not integrated to other pylons on the version we have in DCS, neither were Mavericks.
@@Tetemovies4 yep but then alse they have to remove the rwr because that was also not integrated on that one, or they have to keep the rwr and add the ins and the digital radios as then it would be a version that exists again, so it is anyways already a frankenstein f-5 that never really existed that we have (at least not in significant production numbers)
@@Tetemovies4 I understand taht's the reason given but it doesn't feel like a genuine reason since it's already already a version that didn't really exist. If that's the primary concern I don't think anyone would have an issue to just change the version.
Hell there's even precedent with the warthog update. Give us a new version with actual useful weapons please.
Laugh if you want but I would pay for some updated/new FC4 campaigns. New su-33 carrier campaign, MiG-29, and Su-27 campaigns with all the new maps available. With new AI voiceovers. These could be really nice for a lot of newbies out there.
If we have to pay 10$ for it, at the very least there should be some new systems and weapons added, maybe even a second different variant of the plane like with the Mirage F1. This is entirely possible to do for the F-5E as export versions had numerous additions and upgrades. Hell I’d pay 15 or even 20$ if a whole new F-5E variant with multiple new features was added.
A purely visual upgrade should be free or cost 5$ or less. You hardly ever look closely at the external plane model in DCS during gameplay, anyway.
This reminds me of back when I was playing Battlefield 3. DLC maps could only be played by people who bought the full DLC, 10-15€ back then I think. This caused massive player fragmentation, most players being on the vanilla maps and the DLC maps were very populated only a few months after released of each DLC. I know ED strictly doesn't want a subscription model for the modules, but I think the OPTION for both the existing and a subscription model for just the Terrains would be used by quite a lot of players that play DCS only from time to time.
Battlefield experience is what led me to use terrains as an example 👍🏼
Miss those games
Hello pilot. Wat a surprise for me when I see myself fighting again you in this video. I lost my wingman on the first encounter, and them you and me keep it fighting until the bingo fuel show up in my panel.. I was damage already from you guns, and my loved F1 was loosing hydraulics pressure. On top of that, that fast Phantom catch me. good fight. Thanks!.
That’s a shitty deal:
-No new missiles
-no new pylons
-no new systems
-the exterior that you never look at will change but not enough for you to see the difference.
That’ll be 10$.
Worst deal I’ve ever seen and lately they don’t deserve our "passion and support"
...no, they stated there will be some new missiles and weapons to put on the aircraft plus some avionics upgrades. its not all purely cosmetic.
@@utley Source?
@@ExactPlanet0going by the newsletter and the thread over at ED.
How much are skins in other games?
There is "buy livery" button in MSFS 2024.
This is at least complete rework.
Plus nobody is forcing you to buy it - you can use the original product you bought.
Forgot about the interior, which is the biggest part of this "remaster"?
I think a staged approach to plane development would solve two huge problems. Problem one is that there is a ton of development that has to go into a module before the developer gets any kind of paycheck. Problem two is that DCS has such a monstrous learning curve for new players. I think a system like this would help with both:
1) Basic Module- complete flight characteristics but low fidelity cockpit, basic modeling, basic weapons and avionics set. Kind of like the old FC jets. Maybe 1/3 the price of the final module. Warthunder level of commitment for a new player to learn, low price barrier to entry, and easy to develop.
2) High Fidelity Cockpit- Perhaps 1/6 the price of the final module. Everything clickable etc.
3) High Res modeling, skin etc. Another 1/6 the final price. Make everything look amazing.
4) Extended Weapon set and avionics. Last 1/3 of the final price. Everything the plane really had in it.
Ideally you wouldn't make 2-4 dependent on each other at all.
It takes money to keep a company running. Anything that can't keep up with that is just abandonware waiting to happen. I'm fine with subscriptions (but that is different from what I'm outlining above)
I don't mind paying for upgrades, it's a thankless task having to update each platform with the constant evolution of DCS. It would be good if the devs asked what upgrades people wanted, it might make the community a bit more receptive. For example, giving the F-5 air-to-air refueling (Which a version did have in an upgrade in 1972 I think?) Having a subscription based model works if there is a cast iron contract for developers to have a fair share. How would third-party developers feel if ED gave them crumbs each month and said it was fair. I honestly think DCS has evolved too far with third parties to make a subscription model work without having some way of monitoring what airframes were used each month, and this is then divvied up from the subscription money?
It's$60 to buy. That ordinarily includes updates over the life of the module you bought. Asking for extra money for a mostly visual update is a piss take. It's not about the$10 it's the principal.
They didn't charge for the FC3 visual updates, why this?
What next, costs for the gun sparks on the F18 they introduced?
Vortices on the viggen?
They were just updated because they needed updating and people have already paid for the module.
Until Razbam mess is resolved and my Harrier and Mig 19 are safe, no money from me for anything.
A F-5 AAR version would be nice.
It's a cosmetic DLC. Seems a bit like a Ubisoft move and look how well that's going.
STOP paying for stupid shit and they will stop stupid shit
It's optional. Some of us still Fly the F-5. I like the update. 10 dollars is much less than the effort they put into remaking it with the new tech.
10 bucks is a beer in my country. Never seen so many people crying about this.
Don't like it, stay away from it. You can still use the F-5 without paying anything extra.
It's an option, not a necessity. People buy skins in fortnite for way more money.
Also can people please stop mentioning subscription models? ED has stated it won't happen, and I've spent way too much money on modules to be locked behind a monthly subscription.
100% Agree with everything you say here!
It's the principal. Heat blur updated the viggen with vortex visuals etc, that's an old module, did they charge for that?
FC3 for visual updates, did that a attract a charge?
I recall not so long ago, the hornet got gun spark visual effects etc.
It's not a lot of money, it's what it represents, a piss take to charge for what should be expected once you've posted full price for a module.
You add substantial new features, avionics, weapons systems like the A10, then fair enough, but for poxy visual updates.....nah, that's taking us for a ride.
And yes, we can choose not to pay, I won't be. It's what this represents that is pissing people off.
@andycarmo5203 I understand your view point but looking at other games I think it's nothing to shout about. How many games are there that charge you £5 or more just for a new skin on your gun. Clothing or Spacecraft this is all done to keep the developers going after the bulk of cash from buying the actual game is used up. ED do need some form of cash to keep them going. Subscriptions are not an option for ED but I think using the same model as Elite Dangerous might be an option giving us payable custom skins with our names on the side of the cockpit might be an option?
@@nemisis_wolf yeah fair enough but ED have already set their own precedent with the way they have treated previous updates to modules.
This is out of kilter, to charge for a visual update when they haven't done so for ANY previous modules is just off.
The others have had updates because we've already paid for it, with all the expected, AND accepted updates that go with that purchase over the modules lifespan.
Significant updates, well yeah, that I think all would accept may require a bit of payment but not just for accepted updates.
DCS is not other platforms with other methods of updates, to ask we accept other platforms versions is just not the way DCS does things.
If ED suddenly announce this is the way things will be for everything, then I think the player base is going to revolt and shrink.
@@andycarmo5203yup it's a tough thing to get a good decision on what is the best way forward. But ED cannot just keep brining out new modules to fund them and then have an endless list of aircraft that are never going to be out of early access because they don't have the time to work on all of them and keep working on the core game engine also. But it's up to ED to listen to the community and choose something that's best for most but there never going to keep everyone happy no matter what they do.
I'd pay a tenner for the MiG21 to get an upgrade and I don't even own the damn thing 😂 and now that you mention it, I think I'd pay a fiver a month if it unlocked all the maps as that would really pump some life into some multiplayer servers. Might also give ED the frequent cash flow it needs to fund some more dev time on the core game.
Please no subscription based shite
14:06 The F-5 has seat adjustment, but only with the pilot model off. Turning it on resets you to the default position and the binds no longer do anything. How much you wanna bet this will get fixed but only with the new pilot model?
I wish with this upgrade pack they had a new version included, an earlier F-5E (sans suffix), which is appropiate for South Vietnam, Iran, Chile and Brazil (before they got E-3s), this variant doesnt have RWR and has manual combat flaps and an earlier radar, it's technically a downgrade in capability and that might go against most people in the community, but it's a more interesting plane from a historical stand point.
The version we currently have is late 70s Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Taiwan, South Korea, which they didnt see combat and/or we dont have proper maps for.
Did you think the mic quality was up to snuff today? I’m actually using the Pimax’s built in microphone for this one.
Definitely not but it is serviceable. Didn’t expect the mic quality to be this bad on that headset
I had to actually mess around with the EQ to even get it sounding this good, easily the worst thing about the set
mic quality is aight.
I thought you were bringing back the old "voiceover that sounds like pilot comms" bit again lol
@
I did consider applying that effect to hide the clarity, but I figured it was a good excuse to just showcase the mic aspect of the headset.
I love that I'm watching your video and moving my head to see better. Great flying.
The problem with the subscription model is I feel dev’s get lazy (cough iracing). With iracing you have to pay to have the privilege to play the game plus you have to buy the cars and the tracks (maps in our case). I’d rather pay for upgrades, as the dev’s have to earn our money, with things the community finds value in buying rather then wasting it on junk nobody wants.
Good video. It’s almost impossible to keep track of a bogey when he overshoots and you have to switch shoulders so to speak. That said ten quid is like a lunch at work. Let’s not overstate the value.
I think you can address the peaking in the microphone using a Limiter filter in OBS. I set mine to -10db, and gameplay/voip/other sound sources to -12db. I do other things as well, but the most immediate solution is Limiter for the peaking.
@@Tuuvas
I’ve been playing around with the boost in Shadowplay but it’s an annoying thing to gauge the effect of on the fly.
I think paying to be part of a dynamic campaign as a subscription is worth it. I don't want a subscription for offline features.
I agree the F5 issue isn't actually a big deal tbh, but I don't think getting into the weeds about "cost of this upgrade vs x or y other hypothetical purchase" is worth thinking about because this isn't an isolated problem.
The reaction to this more a barometer of how a number of problems (and perceived problems) with DCS have accumulated to frustrate players who feel like they've sunk too much money in to back out, and don't see many other options to boot. This F5 drama might be slightly silly when viewed individually, but I think it's in ED's interest to take note of people's criticisms
I agree, I think ED’s lack of transparency and seemingly disconnected priorities with the direction the community want them to move in is the biggest issue here.
I don’t think anyone expects concrete release dates, but explaining the cause for delays and a roadmap of intended features would go a long way to improving the situation.
I have no idea why they have to be so secretive about everything, when all it does is build hype they continually fail to deliver on, which just shakes community confidence.
Their PR management is truly abysmal.
I’m also a big fan of the F-5 but the stuff we get for the F-5 is not really up tp snuff when it comes to upgrades. It really ahould have gotten 4 sidewinders in the package
I want them to do it with all the old modules and I don't mind paying 10 quid to have an old module look good again
$10
@@vimfuego8827 Really?
@@Ecthaelyon Yep £7/8
I don't really understand the point - what % of the time do you spend looking at the exterior of the aircraft?
@@Henners1991 So all ED have to do is model a cockpit ?
I hope this upgrade in price also comes with upgrade in capabilities, since a little bit later the E3 variant had Maverick support wired in the pylons.
When Black Shark and A-10C got their paid upgrades, there were new functional features. In this case, all of the functional features of the F-5 update (bugfixes etc, even the wing flex animations) are free. From the newsletter, it almost sounds like the $10 is solely for the new textures - an upgrade I will be declining for now because I only have so much VRAM to go around and I play with reduced texture quality anyway.
That being said, because they have assured that the legacy version of the F-5 will continue to be "supported for the foreseeable future", I really don't have any great complaint about this. It's additional revenue which, being completely optional, should not divide the playerbase in any meaningful way. If paid upgrades are how we get old content to be maintained, well at least the old content is getting maintained.
if I bought the f-5 8 years ago I wouldn't have much of an issue getting the upgrade, but I got into DCS and bought the f-5 last year and I honestly just feel like so much of the stuff DCS does is just a rip off.
A tenner for a voluntary upgrade? Yeah sounds fair to me, and a good way to keep financing the company
If they would have delivered all the long overdue bug fixes, not some "coming soon" and then offered the visuals for sale, it would have likely been better received. Folks are getting weary of the pay before you get program with X module having a set of stated features, which is later reduced to Y module and then released from EA with Y never materializing. They never seem to finish anything. The A-10C II took two years to get a radio included in an upgrade. No to a subscription model, yes to a periodic core update cost, with money for immediately delivered improvements not "coming soon", "WIP" or EA.
I think a better way might be to ask the community which modules they would like to see updated and would they be willing to spend $10 to get it. One issue is how much is done to warrant a paid update? Maybe it's discussed in the Forums, but it should be brought up in the monthly newsletter.Another issue is - ED has so much work on it's plate to the core DCS that it frustrates users who feel ED is spending more time on what a lot of customers might feel as eye candy when there are real problems they need to deal with.
I get it, the business model ED is using depends on module income - period. They offer the "Game" free, and they need to pay those programmers to continue upgrading their code. To do that they must continue bringing in modules and sales to provide revenue to continue.
I do feel ED has made good progress but it's frustratingly slow arriving, I was hoping by the end of the year and V3.0 would bring a full Vulcan API (working), I also feel they need to try techniques to "modularize" certain aspects of an aircraft system they can simply plug into a base framework to speed up development. I think Heat Blur is working in that direction.
Devs have to make money somehow. Still chump change compared to the cost of the tech to run it.
Exactly, and this is for a niche product that most people can't even figure out how to use, let alone have any interest in. This is not Call Of Duty with it's millions of players that get regularly milked with overpriced skins, every project that ED takes on ends up getting paid for by a much smaller pool of customers, so of course your money will not go as far per programmer-hour.
"Devs have to make money somehow" Buddy, the game has almost ~$3k in DLC.
Every dude flying a hornet ($80) in Syria ($60) from a carrier ($40) has already kicked in $120-180 (depending on sales) to Eagle Dynamics. I have no idea why people act like ED is running a charity but it's *confusing*.
@@Nate-ip4qodoesnt matter learn business
I honestly believe the only way forward from a business perspective for the future is some sort of subscription ! This would insure the future of updates and the future of the company ! I know this is unpopular topic but I would prefer this rather than DCS dissapearing ! For those of us that are old enough we saw the rise and fall of flight sims in the past !
Thought I was the only one raging after not being able to get the goddamn tone...
I'd like a map subscription honestly. And yeah, these are all small amounts when compared to hardware costs hahaha.
i personally don't mind the upgrade. i have paid like 30 or so euros for the F-5. i have gotten plenty of hours of enjoyment from it. since it is quite an old module now., even if you did get it beck in the day so many years have passed that i feel 10 bucks ain't so bad. it is completely optional. the old F-5 will still be supported.
i would not worry about the subscription model. they have stated many times that it wont work for DCS. i guess that renewing old planes and helicopters are enough. i do hope we get the huey, sabre and mig-15 upgrades next.
04:48 I would rather see a booster business model vs a subscription model. For thoughs who really like ED and DCS but would like to help them with extra funding vs thoughs who do not.. ED could offer a model where you can choose to buy a booster. They could offer a Booster in several levels and pricing.. say.. Bronze, silver, gold and diamond. you could buy them monthly or quarterly or annually. What would you get for buying a booster? points towards buying a new modules.. advanced downloads of new modules. automatic upgrades, points towards merch.. Recognition.. it goes on.. This way, people who don't want to pay more don't have too, while people who are passionate supporters can pay as much as they want.
On the subscription model stuff. I would be absolutely fine with a monthly subscription for any module tbh as long as the option to buy ”lifetime” use of one is an option with the current pricing. This would in my opinion get more people to try DCS the way it’s meant as even two weeks is not enough to truly make a decision on if you want the said module in some cases
$10 for updated textures and mesh is a bargain.
A monthly subscription though - I'd decline.
All those saying "it's not an update!" - that's pretty disrespectful to the work of the 3D and texture modellers.
I'm ok with this upgrade, I will be getting it. I think it's a fair price, and not locking bugfixes behind the paywall is also good. But, would it kill them to add 2 more aim-9 pylons? It's realistic, would take like an hour of work, and would put the F-5 in a better place in terms of cold war gameplay. Especially now that it competes with the F-4 on the blue side, 2 missiles vs 8 missiles.
Cmon we’re talking 10 bucks. Yes, please, charge for upgrades to keep em up to snuff👍
I got mine for $3.50 as I used my airmiles
Newsflash. ED is a monopolist. They will do whatever the hell they want. The idea that one should avoid paying for an upgrade because that might "incetivize" ..., well... For the avoid/don't avoid to have a real effect on similar future decisions the whole deal would have to be either a huge success or a huge failure. Another take. Let's consider "the bad happens" and ED gets an incentive to do it again with another product. Try looking it from the opposite way. Do you think it's senior developers who actually do programming who decide when a module is to be updated and how much resources are assigned? No. It's the bean counters at ED who make the decisions. To summarize: ED being a monopolist who decided to dive into a resource sink hole that glass cockpit aircraft are are the two factors which burried the hopes for reasonably fast updates to all the modules. Including the glass perpetrators.
I’m fine with it.
If the alternatives are (and to make business sense it needs to be one of these, unless there’s a huge untapped market nobody knows about)
1. Refresh at fairly low cost for modules that have been feature complete for a few years. This would be better if they value-added something like maybe an extra variant or even just a new weapon type. Something that makes people (and me) feel they are getting something new. Nothing early access tho! We’ve already paid for the dev in early access to finished release status and there needs to be a reasonable period between final release and refresh.
2. Another fucking subscription. Just no. I’m currently deliberately moving away from products that require a subscription like Creative Cloud, Office 365 and Pro Tools. I might go a month or three without using a product and I hate the near constant hand in my pocket effect.
So, if this is the way they choose to go to enable the company to be financially stable, I’m provisionally for it. Depending on how it’s done.
I’d also be ok with a ‘rent to buy’ scheme for new players, or new modules if that helps cash flow but I’ve grown to loathe software as a service paid for by open ended subs. I think the time to use a subscription based payment scheme is over for any non-essential or recreational software product.
I don’t think I’m the only one to feel this way.
They could also have just jacked up the cost of the existing F-5E for new customers to match inflation (well, really, it's to not get left too far behind by U.S. inflation) without any upgrades, but they wanted a refresh that can match the graphical quality of the existing (more recent) aircraft to make it worth the price increase. And they are giving loyal customers a very cheap upgrade to the newer version. While I can see how that could be considered a worrying precedent, as it is I don't see a downside as a fan of the DCS F-5E.
I love DCS as I own almost all of the modules and all of the maps. But I whole heartly believe they are going about this the wrong way. If we are going for a remaster it should not be a paid upgrade. If we are getting a different variant of the F5 then absolutely OK but even then ED should be going about this like Aerges. One module, with a couple variants. They're in the works for the F1M as well.
This is a tricky slope because these modules should stay updated at all times. Like you said what time frame allows them to do a paid upgrade? Let's just stop development on all modules, then start releasing paid upgrades. In the end its again the consumer that is getting the short end of the stick. It slowly starting to become a paid subscription. If they went about it like IRacing does then they HAVE a whole lot of WORK to be done to be even considered worthy paid subscription. They are not at that level just yet.
It's not really a controversy people just make it out to be because they don't want to pay for a company's work/or they think it should be free because they already own it. That's just not the case. They didn't have to upgrade it and could have left it as such with the old, dated pilot model and 3D model, but why? I'm hoping they do this with the F-15C as well because it's outdated as well.
With the new scan 3-D tech everything should be brought up to date and optional. If it's not your cup of tea you don't have to drink it, it's that simple.
I bought the A-10C update, and I bought the full Black Shark after they updated it. No issues at all with that. F-5 cosmetic update? No thanks. Give me 4 sidewinders and I might bite. I still would rather they focus more on the core game, AI, dynamic campaign etc. Also there are still bugs in older modules dating back 4 years or more now. The weird geometry glitch in the L-39 is one I unfortunately discovered for myself yesterday. (it was reported in 2020 and never fixed) That makes the thought of paying $10 for a cosmetic upgrade even worse. ED is going to be out of business before these kind of things get sorted out. Finances must not be looking good if they are even considering it.
I think a subscription model would finally kill DCS completely for me. I tend to play in spurts. I might play it for 20 hours after a big update, and then not touch it again for a few months. I don't want to pay monthly for something I might not be using every single month, and it's annoying having to constantly subscribe and unsubscribe just because you don't have the time or motivation to play that month. Also what happens if it switches to a subscription model? Are you suddenly going to lose the ability to use everything you paid hundreds (or more) dollars for over the last 10-15 years if you don't subscribe? Would there still be an option to buy modules and terrain without also paying a subscription? Will you have to subscribe to play multiplayer?
Despite my heavy criticisms, I've actually been having a lot of fun with DCS lately, mostly with Retribution. I want the game to keep improving and for ED to succeed, but goddamn they constantly know how to irritate and frustrate their customer base.
@@mattboggs6304
Their lack of transparency is their biggest issue I think, I really don’t think we’ll ever see the dynamic campaign; I don’t understand why they can’t be frank and tell us what hurdles they’re facing and what they’re working on to overcome them.
Because with no updates at all, we’re left thinking they’re doing nothing, or they’re keeping it a secret because we’ll be impressed by the reveal.
But then the reveal never comes and there’s still no news, all this approach does is shake confidence and lead to wild speculation, like that they’re running out of money etc.
Their PR team is fucking abysmally bad at engaging with the consumer base.
I personally feel each module or item should have it defined in its's original store page as part of the legal junk. I get we pay for stuff but also the other person dedication and hours. We all want a fair wage at the end of the day. Now days many are coming to subscription based instead of buying it and having some type of access forever.
Which airbase is this that you fly in/out of? Nice location. I don't recognise it.
@@peterbrockwell2009
Bandar Abbas I think, Persian Gulf
I see it from both sides, however, it's 10 rips! And it's an improvement. For those like me who have had it for years and enjoyed it, why not pay for it to be upgraded. Why shouldn't they charge for their work... would you work for free?
I'd pay $10 for the old AIM-54s they nerfed.
I don't think the $10 fee is actually that bad just for upgraded visuals if they were Adding more functionality and improvements across the board and made it a big upgrade then I'd still pay for it Ultimately as you say this is a voluntary upgrade you don't have to buy it if you think it's not worth it!. We use the F-5E in the DCS Flight school I am a member off so we all have it and we all love the F-5E for what it teaches you with regards to flying skills that the F-18 and such just can't do.
I hate the idea of a subscription model, especially as I Own all of the maps. Maybe they can offer both? You can pay a fixed fee for permanent access or subscription for those that just want to try a module or a map on the odd occasion.
Your Mic was fine by me not much difference to normal TBH!
(edit:not needed) Are you fed up with the ADI drift (the artificial horizon going out of whack and becoming unreliable)? Good. The only thing barring the issue to be squashed is a track recording of the occurence of the issue. The track has to be recorded with all mods disabled, current build of DCS, as short as possible. I wasn't able to reproduce this issue but some people swear the bug is still active.
Bug recognized and replicated.
dang, that HEI ammo seems even weaker than normal
Yeah, it was unfortunate I didn't get more for those hits when he crossed my nose
It was said ED was going to take over the F5 and in a future update the original will no longer work. Unsure how true it is. From another RUclipsr.
about the bike analogy, the same old bike wouldnt cost the same after years of age, kinda same with the f5
But it doesn't cost the same, they're charging 25% of the RRP, and most people will have bought it on sale anyway - plus it's optional.
Didn't th3 F-5E get a bit of a upgrade when it was added to the Flaming Cliffs package ? Will the F-5 in Flaming cliffs also be getting these cosmetic changes as well? Will that be free or a extra £10 for that as well?
I was thinking about this earlier too, I wonder why they released FC2024 ahead of this update rather than at the same time or afterwards.
I’m guessing the FC F5 will retain its current standard, so that the new version is more notably visually superior to the low fid version.
the problem with sub model is the lack of trust i would say. would i pay $5, $10, $15 monthly to get atc, ai, dynamic campaign, and all the other core game improvements? yes. but how do i know my money isn't going to be nicks monthly allowance on warbirds fuel though
regarding the $10 F-5 upgrade. i don't have it so i guess I'm a bit biased but i think its kinda shitty considering there's 0 new features. A10CII or BS3 were pretty huge upgrades... this is just a texture pack. also lmao at the 7000 man-hours of work
I see the trust issue 100%, but you can just stop paying if you don’t feel it provides enough to be worth it, and in a way that would make it so much easier and more efficient to vote with our wallets.
They do some we don’t like?
They can literally see the damage to their income overnight.
The 7k man hours thing was a gigantic miss, I can’t believe they thought telling us that was a good idea lol.
also one thing i forgot to mention. depending on the price of the subscription you could argue that it creates even higher entry barrier to DCS. if you follow some discord servers or subreddits you can see that for some people the module prices are off-putting, now imagine adding a subscription on top of that.
i’m not against subscription model but with the community feedback on their latest announcements like Iraq or the F-5 it seems like the community isn’t that happy lol. could be the small visible minority of the community but who knows, i guess we will see
To sit lower in cockpit just sit tall then re-centre view, if that makes sense. Same with trackir really.
@@shadowfax9861
Yeah, just feels like more of a faff in VR for some reason.
I’ve been trying it out with a bit of an offset to centre the recording too.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Does the F-5s seat height switch just not work?
@
It does, but I was more questioning why the centre spot is higher in VR than when not in VR than asking for a solution.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy o, weird. lmao
ED obviously has a j3w under their employment these days. Always trying to extract the last shekel out of the consumer.
Still no regional pricing, decades later! "Assets packs", cutting up maps, and now paying for updates?! These should be standard to all modules to keep them current and new and old players interested in them. - Get this through your thick skulls ED, No new features, no new sales! How about you at least put some Mavs of that Tiger before you come hat in hand...? I've had it since day one, yet haven't taken it for a burn in years. And now you want us to pay for some updated cockpit textures when Devrim has done dozens for free out of the goodness of his own heart? Where tf do you lot even get off?!
As far as I'm concerned, the new Flaming Cliffs aircraft should have all been free if you already owned FC3 and the full-fidelity aircraft that were added. Why should we now be put at a disadvantage online, when we've already paid full price? In fact, what are the chances that anyone would even buy them twice? I'll tell you. Basically, non-existent. So what's the point of keeping them behind a paywall for those people? Literally, nothing! Yet they do it anyway when all it gets them is a bad reputation. Geniuses!
They can't even be bothered to update the Audio. It's still from LockOn for Christ's sake! tf ED?! Is 22 years not long enough for you...? I would have done it myself using AI, but of course, you had to lock everything away from us. Because heaven forbid, the community actually helps improve things you refuse to...
We can't even have a deck crew on the Forrestal because ED wouldn't allow Heatblur to do it because they didn't want to lose any sales revenue on the Super Carrier module. Which I would have purchased regardless, but all that decision says to me is, F*ck you consumer! Give us your money! We don't care! If they did, they could have made the deck crew on the Forrestal an unlock for those who purchased the Super Carrier, but they didn't for no other reason than they just don't give a shit. And it shows...
I'm honestly done paying for any ED product at this point. Whoever is making these decisions lately needs to be sacked before they cause any more damage to ED's reputation. All it's doing is further fragmenting the community into those who have and those who don't. And until they have a serious think about how they treat their player base (ie: the people who got them to the point where they are today), they are dead to me! And this is coming from someone who has bought literally everything ED has put out, up until the Apache... At this point, I just feel like a Jaguar owner.
You know, if the old man was still around, there's no way this sort of thing would be allowed to fly... But unfortunately for us, Nick needs his own private air force of war birds, which he expects the rest of us to pay for.
Unless it's Heatblur, Aerges, or Ugra Media, who have proven that they do actually care about their consumers, I'm not even giving ED a second look out of pure spite toward this type of predatory behavior. And if you want it to stop, I suggest you do the same. If they insist on being this greedy, give them nothing! If you cave, they will only find new ways to keep taking the piss. And at this rate, they'll probably be coming with subscriptions next...
For the current price of the average DCS module, I can literally buy a dozen full-color touchscreen smartwatches that do practically everything. And for that sort of money, the least I expect is a visual update every decade or so. But ED would rather create undue animosity amongst the community, purely so they can turn a quick buck, rather than keeping them happy and willing to support them on future indevours. Suicidal tactics if you have the faintest clue about marketing. What are they gonna do next to spite their face? Put pride flags on the f*cking website...?
So sick of this corporate BS! Get your act together ED. You are slowly creating the circumstances for your own demise. If a dev like Heatblur came out with a standalone tomorrow, I guarantee you, I'm not the only one willing to cut my losses and migrate... And that attitude comes purely out of your recent "sales tactics". If you're getting diehard DCS players like me apoplectic, you better know, you're headed down the wrong bloody road!
With the steam Autumn sale I am thinking about getting the 5 flaming cliffs just to get used to the sim.
Is it easy to learn…the lof fidelity one I mean.
Oh yeah, you can be up and about in the low fids in literally about 5 minutes
@ i trialed the a10 and my brain broke. I just could not 🤣
@@Bullet4MyEnemy So I finally got on the Heatblur server and got my ass handed to me so many times it's not even funny.
I'll buy this upgrade without giving it a second thought if they'd just fix the wings breaking off so easily. Otherwise, I'm out.
I am very much not happy with this, the graphical upgrade should have been free and we should have had the 10 dollar DLC been for upgrades like wing tanks, extra AIM9 pylons and a refueling probe, the community lets stuff like this slide way to much, they keep acting like DCS is just a underdog DEV and not the literally only real option for FF modern flight sims with a almost absolute control on the market and new dev teams who want to get into the flight sim scene. Like how they released the CH47 in the same FUCKING state the F16 dropped in and yet they said they were "never going to do that again". Just irritates me so much...
The F-5 can carry wing tanks already, unless I’m missing something
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Wing tip tanks, in place of the outer AIM9s the F5 could carry small fuel tanks and slot those AIM9s under the 2 outer pylons, it allowed you to keep the under wing or under center free of extra fuel for more ordinance. Just pull up "F5 wing tip tanks" on google images easier to see there. Good video btw love watching your content.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I believe he’s referring to the wing tip tanks that could be installed instead of missile rails.
@@scarface9478
I didn’t even know they were a thing, wouldn’t have much use in a combat sim though
Why should they upgrade it for free? It was worth what people paid for it whenever they bought it. Why should they work on it for nothing? Just don't get that argument at all. It's optional to upgrade?
Probably will get it. What I dont get though is why someone gets angry about an optional update. Its not that the "old" F5 would stop to function or anything.
In general this ED hate stuff I feel like comes from a very vocal minority of people. I just play my planes on the maps I like. Yeah stuff could be improved here and there but thats true for any game, is it.
They did upgrades with the A10 and the Ka 50 and nobody complained back then ,... I dont get it
Both those things got a handful of new features and weapons, the F-5 is just getting a few avionic tweaks and a visual overhaul, including wing vapour and a new AB effect.
Personally I’m happy with that for £10, but I can see how others might see how you’re getting less for your money compared to previous overhauls.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy The A-10C II upgrade cost considerably more than 10 bucks. Like yourself, I do not have an issue with the cost of the "upgrade" to the F-5, its a great aircraft, I enjoy seeing the aircraft models when formation flying, etc.
@
It was initially offered for $9.99, though it is $19.99 now
In trackIR you used to place your lift vector and commit to the turn. Now you’re corkscrewing as you try to look out the side of the cockpit. Do you sit on an office chair in VR, I wonder if subconsciously you’re trying not to tip it over
It is an office chair but there’s no concern about it tipping - lift vector placement in relation to the angles I’m used to is definitely my issue at the moment though.
You’d think it’d be easier to gauge when the tracking is 1:1 but my muscle memory is all out of whack because I’m so used to it not being 1:1, I think it’ll come with more practice, maybe I should hammer some 1 vs 1s until it clicks
@@Bullet4MyEnemy I used to jump into the dogfight servers for a couple hours whenever I'd make changes to my TrackIR settings and it seemed to be the fastest way to get my muscle memory re-calibrated. Particularly the open furball part, not the 1v1s, cuz there's so much more looking around and the extra challenge expedites the process IMO. Might have to fly a modern jet to stand a chance in the chaos, but the muscle memory will still stick after going back to the Tiger!
Nope, they are taking the piss now. It will most likely go ahead and the usual suspects will throw money at them and nothing will change until there is an alternative.
the problem is: even if ED gives you a full list of what you buy into you are not protected against them dropping some features and then these being implemented later at a higher price.
If the deal is clear from the start: this is the price and this is what you get its fine to make upgradepackages later.
You might get upgradepackages in the future with minimal changes that are not worth it, but since you have to have the latest ... I think that this practice is shady. There is less and less transparency and thats where all these problems stem from.
I wonder if modules and maps count as DLC on Steam store. Asking this because Valve recently made some very pro consumer decision.
What Valve did was something slong the line of; Developers have to specify what the DLC will give us, players, how much it costs and aprox. date of release. The release has to be somewhat specific, ie; Q2 2024 or March 2024. Even the full date. It HAS to be completed when released and also it HAS to be released within 3 months of the date developers said it would be released.
This makes me wonder if ED will have to specify what the module will have at the release, and if it doesnt, well Valve WILL refund us the money.
I got remaster for free. Used miles points for that.
Rage over less money than a McDonald's meal when it's a remastered cosmetic upgrade for finally finally FINALLY an 8 year old module
It’s $10 ffs. Everyone wants everything for free.
If it turns out to be like the black shark 3 "upgrade", im passing this one, bought the BS3 believing it was a real upgrade just to find out there was only one new weapon and some reskin of the aircraft, kinda disappointed right now with DCS.
6:40 You probably left the jettison flipper in a position you shouldn't.
Nah, you still get tone if the switch is in the wrong spot, everything was set correctly.
Seen a few people report similar on the Heatblur server discord.
@Bullet4MyEnemy I've seen it only obce and only with front sphere od Mi-24, those darned things.
Seems pretty simple for me. If you don't want it, don't buy it. The plane works fine without it.
Ain’t no free lunch
Idk it says they're updating "new external model and cockpit, new graphic effects, a new pilot, missions, and other improvements." Personally id pay that just for the missions n have for alot of other modules. I wouldn't mind a sub if it meant more content like an actual dynamic campaign. I tend to play offline more than online since there are alot of elitists.
I can’t say I’ve encountered any elitists online, and I came here from WarThunder so I’d be a prime target for them lol.
Guess it depends on the servers you play on, I haven’t really touched on any of the PvE ones, but the PvP ones are generally pretty chill.
Actually quite rare to encounter anyone using comms these days, you should give it another chance.
I think there are a few things which have caused this 'controversy' with the F5 upgrade. DCS has it's share of bugs and they are frustrating, but I think a lot of folks have an unreasonable expectation that there should be zero bugs. So they say they don't want to give ED more money until every single bug is fixed, or the Razbam situation is sorted, or the Dynamic Campaign is released. (I actually think this is mostly people just venting frustation online and would actually still spend the money)
I also think the games industry is so highly competitve that people's understanding of value is a bit broken. They see these massive free to play games which you can lose hundreds of hours in, or steam sales where you can pick up old Game of Year titles for like £5 and think all games should be that price. So they see $10 for 'just' a graphics upgrade for the F5 as expensive. But if you fly the F5 in DCS, then $10 is nothing for the enjoyment you'd get out of a nice overhaul of the module. If you compare $10 of value to other types of entertainment like going for a meal, going to the pub, going to the cinema, then it's cracking value for the hours you'll get in DCS. And I also think it shouldn't be seen as just an overhaul for the F5, it's also helping pay for Core tech upgrades which are released for "free" but need to be paid by something.
And finally I'd say that most posts in gaming forums are negative as when people have any kind of grievance they will post about it and try and drum up support. Those folks who are happy are no doubt just playing the game and enjoying themselves and not engaging with the negativity!
In case it's not obvious, I'm ok paying $10 for an update the F5 and I'm happy to help support a game I'm enjoying playing.
For the default seat height and position, rctrl+rshift+numpad 2 8 4 6 * /
To save position xyz ralt-Numpad0
I pay $10 a week for my ‘Back, Crack’ ‘Sac’ Wax, so this represents comparatively good value
I can argue that you are better off by not updating the F5, Shark or any other aircraft because it hurts the performance, and performance is key in VR. If you update there will be no way back for you and this $10 can cost you hundreds on GPU upgrade... Ask yourself do you really care that much about the visuals in your cockpit? Like, are you seriously bothered by FC3 cockpit visual quality? I stop noticing this in a minute, while you will notice the tanked performance for sure...
It won’t make any difference, or shouldn’t; once you’ve loaded the higher grade textures there’s nothing more to it.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy in BS3 they've upgraded geometry and lighting, so it's not only textures and makes a huge difference. Same was with A10C, performance tanked. As for the textures, if you have less than 16GB VRAM then the high textures nowadays are a luxury - game runs out of VRAM pretty quickly...
@@Bullet4MyEnemy FYI today Ismael Jorda posted the comparison, and it's around 25-30% difference on a 4090, as I expected. So your argument about "only textures" is definitely not valid. I'll never understand sacrificing so much performance for some scratches in the cockpit, it's like a difference of $1000 between 4080S and 4090, completely absurd and not worth it for VR.
I can see ED going to a subscription model. Constant cash flow vs big peaks and valleys of cash depending on new modules/maps. Offer different levels that give you access to more aircraft and maps.
The thing is, DCS is a simple bi-product of the MCS and it's not a flagship product of ED/Fighter Collection. As you state, the upgrade is voluntary, you don't need to purchase it for 10 bucks. So what's the big gripe ! Plus you can get the F-5 in the sale and then $10 to upgrade it making the total purchase cost of $40. I can't remember what I paid for it first time round, $50 or something, so expecting ED to upgrade an old module for free is just nonsense. My advice, buy the module now for $40 if you don't have the module, pay $10 for the upgrade or keep the old one and remember the value for money you already have had and stop griping all the time.
There’s actually a 50% off sale on right now, so if you’re going to get it anyway, get it now and then upgrade and still be better off than standard price.
@@Bullet4MyEnemy Precisely, that is my point ! So it's not a big issue is it ! Greetings.
I'm glad the subscription model is starting to get some talk.
Not long ago, explaining to players how the monetization model shaped development priorities felt like talking to a brick wall.
Happy to pay for a new paint job. I just hope it's a good paintjob.
idk why people are acting like they have to buy it. Dont want it then use the jet that is out there now. Also people wanting unrealistic weapons packages is funny to me. If they put 120s on a f5E (only the S and modern E models have) first it would be laughable, then people would also complain its not real for the time period of E model. Seems like over the past year you cant please DCS users., they complain about everything.
2nd!