upyr1

The D, F and G were used over Vietnam.

That's one step that won't need to be done, but there is still the issue of what all the switches and dials do as well as how the radar bombing system worked it will be awesome if you get the paper work

Janes wasn't as detailed as DCS. So far I think we could have a Thud in MAC but it's getting the details for DCS. A developer might be able to recreate the flight model with a wind tunnel- I believe that was done with the Jug but it is the avionics interface and finding out what every switch does that would be the problem

You are dealing with different types of forests. Vietnam would be a triple canopy jungle. So the issue is density and size The Kola Peninsula would be similar to the Caucuses or the south Atlantic with tundra. So the issue would mainly be size. Either way we'll have to determine how vulkan and multithreading improves things and hope ED solves the problem of indestructible trees. It would be damn frustrating to drop an entire server load of Phantoms, Huns and Sandies carpet bombing a vc base camp that would have been toast in real lif3 1968 but not today because the Trees are are pure Ho Chi Minhium

A 1960's map is a must have, looking at the Marianas any Vietnam map is going to be a CPU killer due to the trees. I would like to see a modern era Vietnam map, simply on the grounds I think it would be a theater that is relevent for the Chinese Asset pack and the J-11 and possibly the JF-17. ( I can't remember if the PLAF uses the JF). I'd also like to see a 1950s for the F4U and any possible period French aircraft.

Ideally we'll get a multi Era Vietnam map. China vs Vietnam 1980 and 2024 would be as interesting as Tet 1968.

I stated the point would be simple marketing. MAC is bening built with the assumption that there is a large segment of the market that want's something in between War Thunder and DCS in terms of realism/complexity. By making them two seperate products that share a lot of code, ED can tailor advertising to the correct demographics. The only real question in all of this, is how much code do they share?

The two games will use a lot of the same code, so at least some of the patch work is going to overlap.

The only other solution I can think of would be better mod support , which is something I want to begin with.

The whole reason I keep asking for the ability to exist on the same servers, is that I see MAC as the solution to the lack of modern RedFor. The radar will be simplified so there is a chance that the MiG-29M or Su-35 or even J-15 might be able to exist as a MAC module, even though there is no way in hell they will exist as a DCS module.

An alpha strike is typically about half a carrier's aircraft load.

The point to marketing is to expand your customer base.

The only reason I could see in separating them is simply marketing. DCS will be home to full fidelity modules while MAC will be home to simplified modules. As long as there is enough overlap that we can share missions and even connect to the same server I really don't see a problem. Some people will be drawn to DCS some will go for MAC and others will go for either depending on if an AC is available. For example I don't expect to see the Su-25T in DCS in the future, unless we could get an FF

I just couldn't see the flaming cliffs AC being deleted from DCS with out a FF replacement. I wouldn't be shocked of FC owners get a discount for MAC. I believe this is the reason that ED is planning on trying to do a FF MiG-29A (and possibly G).

The ole sunk cost fallacy. The reason to continue or not continue should be expected risks and benefits. This is why I hope we can have MAC and DCS on the same server. We should get FF replacements, however until that happens we should be able to use MAC as a stand in, and as I keep stating if it is possible to do (insert new redfor AC) as a MAC module then we should

It would be nice to have this when we install a new module

I'm not surprised by that, as it might be possible to get a FF Rafale, but there is no way in hell we're getting a FF MiG-29M/K or Su-35 unless some drastic changes happen politically. However, people like myself are hoping that a FC/MAC module might be possible. This is the reason that, I want to see the option for mixed MAC and DCS servers.

Step one no more stalinium trees

It's not for you then. You are a good example of why I say the splitting the community argument isn't a good one against MAC. While there will be some overlap there will also be a lot who will go for one but not the other.

I honestly don't expect MAC to split the community much beyond it already is. I'd love it if someone from ED would chime in, but I believe ED honestly thinks MAC will expand there user base, as there are a lot of people who will fly FC modules but not FF ones. If ED designs MAC so you can import DCS missions and campaigns and even do mixed DCS / MAC servers things might be even better.

If the data isn't available to do a MAC module, then the whole discussion is moot and the real issue is what community mod do you wan't to download as they can get by with building a franken plane and saying it is due to lack of data. I voted other becuse my answer is any that can be done as FC an FC module but not as a FF module

Where I'm at right now I'd just like to see some of the modules in the works come out, and to see Eagle focus on improving DCS core.

If MAC is modular like DCS, then the odds of me buying anything would come down to whether it is possible to have said module in DCS

Frankly I really don't care if we are getting the wrong variant for the Korean war. I'd rather have the right variant and the right livery but I'd settle for the wrong variant and right livery. that would be awesome. I'd also love to have Neil Armstrong's A-1.

Korean war livery for the A-1