Lyrode

This is the main problem, addressed by many single players. Not that having or not having some sub systems hurts the game, or some modules losing some interesting add-ons killing the sale, just that the game has poor playability at the moment.

Whereas some players want more, some mignt want to stick to the real assets. You do realize that there are people out there hating our BS3 or upcoming J8pp, as is shown on the youtube and potentially in this thread right? And would a player say "Oh F-15e can't do sead won't buy", dramatically decreasing the fanbase? Or, adding FIM92 makes AH-64 sell better because it brings more fun? I doubt it. Besides, extended sets need a boundary to stop. Yes give AH64D aa missiles, then aim-54 for F-15? R27er for IRIAF F-14... Tactical nuke for everyone for obvious reasons. People will probably hate it. When devs do recreation, the boundary of real life--solid reference is blurred, and to what extent it's acceptable, no one can tell, and no one can be satisfied at last. Those aviation lovers who pay $80 may not want unrealistic things. DCS is a game, but the devs develop things according to real life as reference. Otherwise, I don't see a problem in developing an E-3 with 50 Aim-120 loaded or a Ka-52 with aa radar and six R77, or even worse inventing a whole new airframe on their own. Why bother messing up with real prototypes when you are already crossing the line... MAC if finally released can be a way better choice for causual players. Supposingly, a larger playerbase. Simplified system and standard avionics can be much easier to mod, like modding FC3 I guess. If the community wants build what they like, MAC can be potentially much easier than DCS.

Afaik it's not yet publicly acknowledged whether ED has get permissioned or not, or is this project even possible. Very little information is out there about the current state of the fulcrum. Down below is the pilot model for russian pilot lines. This is probably the only development progress revealed to the public that can be related to the fulcrum, although not about the fulcrum. And it was intended for the Hind initially. The pic was released in November 2021 to illustrate the Hind's pilot model.

Once in the dev shots they did show 4 9a4172 each pylon. I thought it would come then, but not yet.

The only reasons I still have FC3 installed: No FF F-15C; No FF Mig-29; No FF Su-27. I do hope ED has more information to share regarding the Fulcrum, is it even going to happen.

This is the Chinese version, and is still in active service, so a big NO. Deka already failed. I do hope so, but I'll give it a few decades. Even the Fulcrum is not happening quick.

A-10C device profile (key binds and hotas settings) has way more downloads than those of A-10A. A-10A hotas setting only has less than 5000 downloads all files combined, while A-10C has multiple files with more than 10,000 downloads each. Who download those files actually files fly them, right? Besides, mission creators are players themselves, and is part of the player base. I highly doubt there will be a situation where a module with less audience has significantly more content creators. Unpopular modules like I-16 and CE2 have few user files, they are unpopular with mission creators as well as the general players. You see you like A-10A a lot and give it more love, but the user file quantity of the A-10C is more than 10 times more, so very unlikely, if not impossible, A-10A is more popular. I'll definitely buy the MAC if F-15C gets some love in that game. ED is not likely to update FC3 and no one is doing a FF F-15C, so this is my only hope for a better Eagle.

The only two possible way to balance modern Redfor and Bluefor: 1. Jeff vs the world 2. USN vs USAF Can't deny Redfor are just inferior in most mission settings, and the lack of Redfor full fidelity makes most servers serve the bluefor players.

Only way to do a FF Modern Redfor: prototype or frenkenstein. The first ASM model (at that time, now obsolete) is Su-25t. The first full fidelity is Ka-50. Both are prototypes with few in service. And the J8pp we are getting is also a prototype with only two converted and no service. Regarding the su-27, yes I agree, even a revamp will be welcomed. But Enigma's point "FF is a trap" is about less system modeling--whether devs have documents or not, they in his opinion should do it on a inferior standard compared to FF. He actually criticized the blackshark3, not for being a frenkenstein but for having too much "unnecessary" details.

The popularity of user file will answer. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/ A-10A= 69 files A-10C= 615 files A-10C II= 217 files So, what he said is basically true. It can be applied to other modules. F-15C over so many years gets 500+ user files, and the F-15E already gets close to 200 in weeks. The hype and the enthusiasm for FF way exceeds that of the FC3 counterparts. Conclusion: People like Full fidelity way more than FC3 that they make more things on their own, be it campaigns, liveries, anything. So as a mission desigher, you should know full fidelity modules will have a way larger audience. Regarding the A-10, make missions for the A-10C2 to maximize the payback of your effort.

By today's standard, yes fc3 is low or mid fidelity. But by 2000's standard, Lockon is full-fidelity product. ED has been developing ones of the best simulations throughout years, and the only reason FC3 is now not considered high fidelity is that BS set a new standard. FC3 is never intended to be mid-fidelity, and its predecessor in the standard alone era was indeed full-fidelity. For some players, I and some of my friends included, the reason they are still flying FC3: the most classic airframes are trapped in FC3. Should there be FF F-15C, Su-27 and Mig-29, I would never touch FC3 again. And I doubt that some people out there flying FC3 may do the same. Those people flying flankers in the servers in essence fly it because it's FC3, or because it's Flanker they are flying?

A F-15A would be superb.

This is one of the "vintage" settings in DCS World. The setting works for old products from ED mainly, and affects Ka-50 II, Ka-50 III and FC3. However, this setting is currently placed in the general category rather than special categories and causes confusion. The .LUA file this setting refers to only differ EN and RU, as several FC3 planes and Ka-50 uses Russian. Apart from that, German from Mig-29g and some Chinese are affected. However, currently this setting doesn't do much to the third party modules, and newer official module like Mi-24p is not affected by this setting too. Ka-50 III is affected due to the old code it uses. So since this setting no longer serves new modules, isn't supported by the third parties as often, and only affects old products converted from the standalone age, and that people sometimes just want to affect one rather than everything, it is a better idea to place it in the "SPECIAL" rather than "GAMEPLAY". Oh one more wish. Further seperate voice like warnings, atc, flight and ground crew from the hud, in Ka-50's case the ABRIS. Just a wish, since reading Russian ABRIS is painful experience for those who don't understand, while the Russian warning voice sounds better than English.

More AI units to fill the Pacific theatre, the Europe 1944 theatre and cold war theatres. Large planes and heli's, C-130 is a good start, and more planes carrying out logistics roles would be nice. ED develop GCI system and allow those intercepters to be developed, like Mig-25, su-15 or F-106. Plane families, like the F-1 which contains different variants. Would be nice to have a cold war F-16. All FC3 planes get developed into full fidility. Those planes are ones of the most classic but quite suffered in the current state. At last... more redfor cold war and modern stuff (pls ED release some information about mig-29, is it still possible). Not particularly possible though, I doubt whether there would be anything more modern than K-50iii and su-25t, which was made possible as prototypes.

Yes, killing so many F-15e flying slow at high altitude these days quite often, I do agree. An F-15C will be more competitive in these aspects. But DCS players don't necessarily play by roles assigned in reality. Already there are people complaining that F-15e cannot do anti-radiation, which never is Strike eagle's task.

You see they are from ED, not two seperate teams, so at last they get all the money. If F-15C and F-15E come from two different teams, it's an different story. The business isn't just about what you can offer, but also what your competitors can offer. Take Pepsi and Coke for an example. Besides, F-16 and F-18 are essentially different planes but C and E are sub-variants. Different but not so different in the laymen's eyes, and not every DCS consumer is a professional so expert to read the performance charts, after all it's a game for civillian use mainly. Yes many would buy a F-15C regardless, but many would just pick one more versitile and offers more content too. Anyway let's keep talking to make this thread grow, in case Eagle catches more attention and someone make it real. I'd be way more happier to be proved wrong tbh.

We and many other enthusiastics would buy regardless of the price, but if F-15C costs the same as the Strike eagle, which has more roles to offer and can do multicrew, I doubt those people interested in the F-15 but not confined to a specific model like us, or in a larger sense general players who already owned F-15E or looking for new interesting jets would choose the C instead of the E. Any company interested to develop a C needs to consider the risk--competition. Nothing wrong with a C costing $80, but would this enjoy a large audience regardless of the obviously more versitile E, which is also $80? People have witnissed cases where a project with a good reputation ends up a commercial failure.

Family of planes is a new thing in recent 5 or 6 years. P-51, P-47 and Spitfire family are nearly identical, and 190's are so different that share little things in common. Mirage F1 is a pack of planes but 80 dollars for the variety, and heatblur's F-14's are very similar while F-4 family will be sold seperately. Yet we never had a family with part of it done by one team and the second part done by another team (I mean full fidility). F-15 is the new case where Razbam developed the E, and ED's resopnse to the community is "Now that Razbam has an E we wouldn't plan a C". And Razbam stated "No doc and no plan". The only case would be another team, willing to do the C and team-up with Razbam to bring it, reducing the cost down and be cheap so it wouldn't be a $79.99 like the E. I would like to see that, so do the Eagle ehthusiasts. But would any company do that, at the risk people picking between C and E? It's not like Heatblur selling their F-4 family seperately since they get all the money without competition. No one had done any market research, in case of two sub-virations form two developers overlapping each other. Again ED did some research of their users, saying"People like multi-role better" ((I personally doubt it, since good multi-role in DCS are the best AA platform at the same time, and the F-15c quality is too below standard to let people love its current state and fly it)) , and so many Youtubers recommand people to buy multi-role modern jets with MPCD's to make the best use of their money. In the future top recommendations will be: F-18, F-16, JF-17, F-15E. A shame that it's not likely to arrive anytime soon. It's been more than half a decade people talked about C, and yet another decade without C. Back in 2018 I was really thrilled by ED's MAC project, thinking it would bring a second spring to outdated planes, especially the F-15C. And that went nowhere Yes, finished but not updated often, as other DCS modules are e.g. F-5e, Mig-15, 190D9. They should really do it, like updating warbirds, making new damage models, visuals and sounds. Many third parties bring updates or system maintenance often but ED may have too many loads on them as the primary developer so no spare time or resource for FC3, which is legacy with old codes that need even more effort to make it work.

Getting a full fidility F-15c in a decade seems too optismistic, if not impossible. And the E is already here so... Not sure whether it would be the case of 190A8 and D9, but not likely imo. Honestly I would be happy enough ED gives it some overhaul or revamp, since it still fights well without some critical avonics or proper FM but the visual really troubles me ... something obvious everybody would see at the first glance even without actually learning to fly or fight. Especially the hard-to-read HUD and that 2000-era graphic throttle. Unfortunately even a revamp or overhaul is not likely to happen. It has been years since ED did that to Mig-29, which was done to make it independently sell-able or Deka polished their J-11A, intended for cap mainly. FC3 are not revisited as often and becomes forsaken and outdated, that I wouldn't recommend to my friends even if they are new to the game, especially after trial became a thing. Whereas F-15c is not likely to be the thing however the community loves it, I hope ED could finish the teased Mig-29 if not canceled due to the war. That if achieved will be a huge step.

Used to be perfect but now won't pass IC check. For BS2 it works with IC check, for BS3, no. Unfortunately.