Flogger23m

I wonder what will be easier to fly in combat, this or the Mirage F1? Waiting on the F-15E to get more polished up as well before buying.

Just tried it, that works. Nice to have a basic option for take off & landing.

Thanks. Is there any modern 3D model for US carriers that work without Supercarrier? I assume all of the newer 3D models are also locked behind the DLC. I know there is an older carrier 3D model for a Nimitz class but I cannot recall which carrier that was. I do understand locking the functionality like below deck hangars and crew-able positions behind paid content, but I'm not quite sure I am willing to spend $25 (sale price) on two 3D models.

Thanks, that is a bit disappointing. Was wondering why I was unable to land despite many attempts. Placed the non-2017 version and landed easily.

Does the new Admiral Kuznetsov 3D model require the DCS Supercarrier DLC to be able to land on it? I'm not interested in any of the personal/crew functionality, just wondering if I can land on it or if I am relegated to the 20 year old 3D model.

Have an HTC Vive. Plugged it into the HDMI slot on my GPU, monitor is running through Display Port. I have DCS set to VR mode, and when launching DCS it displays on the monitor in an odd aspect ratio when in VR mode. I also get audio in the Vive headset. Although I cannot seem to get visuals to show in the headset. What must be done to get DCS World to display video through the headset? I also find it amazing that there seemingly isn't a single tutorial that explains how to get video output display in VR for DCS.

All of my skins would be for the external plane 3D model, although some of them have world pilot helmets textures if I recall. Haven't made anything for the internal cockpit textures.

Looks like a new update is coming out that will improve the textures for the J-11A, Su-27, Su-33, F-15C and A-10A. This is great news. Though I am wondering if I will need to update all of my skins to take advantage of the new textures. If that would be required, would we also need new paint kits?

More full with the realistic yet simplified controls/avionics. There are a few DCS modules I would buy but don't have the time to learn so they're leaving money on the table. Also the roster choice is nice, F-15C, Su-27, MIG-29, etc. If they added more FC3 level planes like an F/A-18E Super Hornet, Mirage 2000-5 or -9, or updated versions like a modernized F-15C with AIM-9X, Su-27SM/SM2 I would be interested in buying them.

Does this now have a unique cockpit?

Hard to tell. I am worried they lock it to an older build. Technically we could still use it... just not with the most updated build of the game. As long as I can continue using it with future updates once DCS MIG-29A is out, that is fine.

Will we still be able to use the current MIG-29A?

Thanks, that is disappointing. Any chance the E-shop price will match what they sell it for on Steam? I prefer to buy on the E-shop anyways but it is over twice the price.

Thanks. I have Black Shark on Steam, Black Shark 2 on Eshop. Does that mean Black Shark 3 needs to be on Eshop? I cannot recall if Black Shark 2 was an "upgrade" or it if counts as a new module. Under Licenses it is: DCS: Black Shark 2 Purchase date: 01/03/2013

I've been using DCS without Steam for a number of years, although in the past I purchased modules from both places. DCS F-18 from Steam, DCS F-16 from ED's website, etc. Currently I believe all of my modules activate fine in the standalone install, as I have all my terrains and plane modules installed through ED's downloader and not Steam. I purchased Black Shark on Steam and later Black Shark 2 on ED's store in 2013. Now if I want to purchase Black Shark 3 on ED's website it is $15, but $7 on Steam (DCS Black Shark 3 Upgrade). I am wondering if I can purchase the Black Shark 3 Upgrade on Steam, and activate it on DCS standalone. Should that be possible, will the KA-50 update or will it be a separate helicopter that can be placed in the mission editor?

I think the results speak for themselves. Would you believe the Earth is flat if someone told you? Because DCS F-16 is still not finished with avionics, but the 3D model and animations have been done for a long time now. Yes this reply is 8 months late, which proves my point. We all know the avionics is the hardest part and takes the longest. There is also significantly more documentation and manual writing required. Every module is released with finished artwork, minus some skins, and flight models that are essentially done with minor tweaking. But it takes years for all avionic features to get implemented in Early Access. You can believe words, or believe results.

Which is ironic, seeing that the people in this thread that are against lower fidelity planes claim they can't be made for balance reasons. The level of detail for radars, radar modes, switches, etc. are a lot more simplified for the F-15C compared to the F-18 or F-16. I'm not buying that the FC3 planes are as high fidelity as the high fidelity planes. We've been able to do it in DCS for around a decade+ at this point. Not sure why it is a problem going forward. Anyone with common sense would realize that isn't true. You can check the newsletter and patch change logs to confirm. What people tell you and what occurs doesn't always line up. The amount of flight model and artwork tweaking compared to avionics changes, bug fixes and implementation isn't even close. With few exceptions most of the modules have released with completed artwork and flight models, with only minor tweaks. The avionics and other systems are typically not even close to finished when most modules release, and take around 2 years to finish typically. If those aspects were as easy to develop they wouldn't lag so far behind in development. Planes like the F-18 and F-16 took years to implement all of their weapons, and years to various avionic functions. But the rest was essentially unchanged.

Some people were commenting about how lower level fidelity planes need to be balanced, so that argument doesn't really hold water. Yet it is the avionics that always take the longest. DCS F-16 isn't getting much if any artwork updates, but is still adding features to its avionics years later. This was also true with the F-18. The planes always seem to release with finished artwork and flight models that might need minor tweaks. But almost always take years to finish the avionics and systems. Despite what they say, the actual results tell us the opposite. That makes zero logical sense. No one is forcing them to bundle their modules with anything. Is DCS F-16 tied to a bundle with the AH-64, L-39 or F-86? It isn't. You can also buy the FC3 planes separately on the ED shop and Steam, and have been able to for years at this point. So there is clearly no technical reason why planes can't be released individually. ED even releases terrains and NPC 3D models as separate packages. Possibly. Even without modern Russian planes there are still many other planes out there.

If you look at the development of most modules, they take years to finish after release. And most of the work is avionics and systems, not artwork or flight model. Even most of the bug fixes are avionics related, not artwork or flight model. I think they're chasing after the wrong things. Even if they are targetting PvP, the same improvements can be beneficial to DCS as well. With the proposed MAC concept as an example, an F-15C vs an L-39 is not exactly "balanced". The lower fidelity modules would be great for things like this, MIG-29s with AGM-88s: Or Su-27 if you prefer:

Just makes me question why bother separating them then. Essentially every fix, like helicopters and ground unit accuracy, will need to be applied to two games. Every patch for things like terrian, again, two games. It just seems like more work for the sake of work. But not a lot of people want to fly what can be done in full fidelity. And not a lot of people will buy more than 2-3 modules in full fidelity. People typically only have so much time to learn a few planes, and those tend to be the popular ones like the F-16 or F-18. I'm those those sold far more than something like the MIG-19 or C-101. The mods are nice for what they are, but are very low in detail. Just look at the cockpits for these modded planes. We already have the J-11A, which was an excellent edition. I too would like to see a more modern version like the Su-35. Something to complement the F-15C would be great to. I'd like a Super Hornet (more ground attack focused). Of course, a MIG-29K or M would be a good counterpart to a Super Hornet.

I don't think they'd remove planes from DCS, I just assume any future lower fidelity modules might be fore this supposed "MAC" project. If they plan on outright deleting them, that would be very boneheaded. Unless they plan on doing refunds it would be of questionable legality I'd think. And I don't think it would go over well from a customer standpoint. "We're deleting your software, but you can buy a cut down version of what you owned yesterday" won't fly too well at all. If they don't plan on adding anymore, it would be a moot point to separate them from DCS World in the first place. And this is what I find odd. That is essentially what DCS World does as is. Why even bother separating them? Which just sounds oddly unappetizing. We're going too loose portions of the maps, and we have to pay for it? Shouldn't they be expanding the maps if we're paying more? Everything else they listed is already a feature of DCS World. Which begs the question: Why bother separating them? Seems like a massive case of missing the mark. A lot of people would just like more modules with moderate systems fidelity, particularly modern planes. Everything else is fine as is. Of course there are other shortcomings, like BMP-2s blowing Flankers out of the sky, R-13s being more accurate than AIM-9Ms, helicopters taking two direct hits with R-73s and then proceeding to shoot down fighters with anti tank missiles and AIM-120s having a 12 mile maximum range. Oddly those unrealistic things exist in DCS World. For the realism purists, that is a whole lot of unrealistic things. The only thing ED will accomplish is trying to fix these features in not one, but two games. That are 90% the same, with the only difference being the flyable plane options. Would just make more sense to make some more modules and continue fixing the core game. Rather than reinvent the wheel and fix these problems in two builds. The shortcomings of older aircraft is that they are simply harder to use. They're harder to fly, systems are harder to use, carry less weapons, etc. You can see the amount of instruments an older plane used to require to operate and then compare that to a more modern plane with a glass cockpit. One is much easier to learn the systems for. There is a reason why cockpit design has evolved. The Viggen is far less intuitive than the modern planes. It isn't a contest. Going from the F-18 to the Viggen is increasing the difficultly level. Even the Mirage 2000C is much harder to employ the weapons with than the F-18 and F-16. Generally the people who post on the forums tend to be the extremists/purists. This is true with most fan bases. The sales show that Flaming Cliffs was one of the best selling modules. I am sure they sold many more copies of FC3 than the Mirage 2000C. Of course a lot of those buyers may also buy a more detailed F-15 should one come out. But the same can be said for the F-16, F-18, etc. if are more simplified version came out.

I agree. The beauty of the DCS World concept is that you can have a single install and a bunch of planes available to swap between instantly. And gradual updates to the engine and general features will apply to all aircraft. I think the idea of MAC would be similar to making DCS F-16 and DCS F-18 separate installs personally. I think the big flaw in that is comparing a flight sim to a free to play MMO. People want a flight sim, and many of us just want more modern planes with simplified avionics. War Thunder is probably great for what it is, but isn't in the same genre as DCS/Flaming Cliffs. This will depend on the plane. We're already seeing higher fidelity modules based on planes like: - F/A-18C - F-16C - Eurofighter If they can do a high fidelity F-16C, I am sure they can do a low fidelity version. We've also seen higher fidelity planes like the A-10C use guess work due to classified systems. And missile dynamics are essentially just guess work, with older Soviet missiles often being more accurate than the AIM-9M or AIM-120. Of course more FC3 level planes would require work, but less so than the higher fidelity planes. If you're against guess work and approximation we would have essentially zero flyable planes for the high fidelity, and we'd loose the A-10C. I am not sure that is a good argument. Also interesting to see the MIG-29K/M getting more votes than a Rafale. I suppose people do want more Russian planes as we're getting a lot of American/European as of late.

Hardly, Falcon 4 existed and had more detailed avionics around the same time LOMAC came out. It depends on how they manage it, but I can't see them supporting two different products that are 90% the same. I think it is doomed for failure due to lack of manpower. Their patch and update cycle is slow as is. Considering all people want is some extra lower fidelity planes, removing any features would essentially kill the "MAC" project on arrival. Think about it. Every weather update means updating two builds. Every addition to the mission editor (I still am waiting for a 3D mode to better place ground installations). I really don't see what it would do that selling another plane module wouldn't do more simply. And less time = less money spent on their part. They'd also have to port over all of my DCS modules like the F-18C and terrains, otherwise I won't buy it or future DCS modules. I've already paid full price for a lot of the same content 4 times and won't be doing it a 5th. But that is going a bit off topic, as this is a wish list thread.

Last I heard about that was 2-3 years ago. Is there any more info about that? Personally I think it is a bad idea because it segregates the modules, unless they plan to port all of the planes like the F/A-18C, Mirage 2000C and maps I own for DCS to MAC. I also think ED is spread a bit thin when it comes to patching and updates as is. For example, any update to the mission editor will require them to redo the work twice. If this proposed MAC doesn't include the same (or better) mission editor, the product will be dead on arrival. Not really. A modern plane is easier to operate than an older one. Easier to fly, easier to use the systems, and weapons are easier to employ. The F-18C for example is a good bit more simple to use than the Mirage 2000C. The older the planes, the less accessible they are. Viggen is a good example. I find it much easier to use the AGM-65 in the F-18, F-16 and A-10A than the Viggen. Same weapon, but the Viggen is much harder. That is why I would like some fairly realistic, but not full fidelity level, modern fighters. Go back to the roots of the series. For the older stuff at high fidelity there are plenty of modules out there and more coming like the A-7, F-8, etc.

I can't be the only person who is interested in buying more "Flaming Cliffs" level of realism planes. I see a lot of interesting modules but will never have the time to learn them all, and I only like modern aircraft so I don't bother with most high fidelity modules on offer. Because a lot of the systems are simplified, the types of aircraft that can be modeled would likely be greater as well because the amount of necessary documentation would be substantially lower. I'd be interested in purchasing modern planes like: F/A-18E Super Hornet F-15EX Rafale C F3-R Eurofighter Tranche 3/4 Su-35S MIG-29K or MIG-29ME Mirage 2000-5 mk2 / -9 Development time would likely be a lot lower, and planes can probably be priced lower at $30-40 or so each. Having more simplified flyable planes is certainly at the top of what I wish DCS would have.