Katmandu

Ты был бы против превращения ГС3 Су-27/Су-25/Миг-29/Ф-15С в полностью проработанные кликабельные модули? Или тоже "какой смысл упарываться"?

I've highlighted the key part of the argument. "Half" is taken out of the blue, I personally think this module reuse reduces development time by 99%. Physics, FCS, 3D, sounds,AI, DM, sensors, weapons - everything is already done.

I know what you mean :) It is now apparent that they are not developing new FC aircraft. Big difference between developing aerodynamics and FCS for FC3 F-15C and borrowing aerodynamics and FCS from already made F/A-18C to FC4 F/A-18...

Expectations curbed :) Will corroboration between with the other devs be on the cards? Mig-21, Harrier etc F/A-18 is not released yet of course, I hope it will make it into FC4... But, genuinely happy with the decision. People who "do not get it" need to realise that full resources will still be spent on full modules and FC4 will only bring more revenue for the same development direction.

ДКС и ДКС-лайт, никакой мешанины. И кривая сложности доступная, и ресурсы идут на полноценные модули.

I'd wager F4, Mig 23, F/A18, F16 - if no corroboration between ED/BST and other devs.

Thanks for the update! Although I was secretly hoping for unique "delicate" planes (like Su-34, F-22 and so on) and inclusion of an FC option with all full sim modules, I am still happy with the decision. I've argued my point ad nauseam in another thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205882, so will not repeat here, but yes, I will definitely be a customer :)

Движок Баттлы конечно красиво рисует пустыню, но опять же - с гораздо меньшей дальностью. Плюс я не уверен что там вся пустыня так прорисована когда по скрипту миссии надо лететь в одном каньоне.

Посмотрел видео. THe Crew2 @6:34 и Star Citizen в конце ролика единственные кто хоть отдаленно похож на ДКС. The Crew выглядит чуть лучше чем Вегас или Дубаи в ДКС, но какова там дальность отрисовки? Нужно же понимать что условные 2миллиарда полигонов которые тянет условный пк дадут разную детализацию при максимальном приближении в сцене которая укладывается в 200метров (коридорный шутер), 20км (The Crew) и 200км (ДКС).

FC code would be high level macros-like for the most part (see my pseudocode example with the Ka50 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3448774&postcount=40 and F-16 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3454878&postcount=77), so low level bugs should not affect it much. E.g. if high level FCfication code has a function that automatically slaves all sensors to the currently moved reticle, this code should be robust and independent from subsequent changes in internal workings of the sensors. Essentially it would be using the mapped out keyboard controls for slaving sensors and this control setting is not going anywhere - bugs and improvements or not.

So... If one was after an FC level Harrier and had a choice between full Harrier's sim conversion (Harrier cockpit, sensors, tailor made AFM with VTOL) and a Su-25 with an external Harrier 3d model - nobody would choose the latter, right? :D

I'm not sure I follow... I never used them, but aren't they basically an external 3d model of a Harrier for example with Su-25 cockpit, sensors and AFM?

Deliberate miss on my part, the poll was all about REusing full sim modules for FC optional control scheme. So my list was made from the already available and officially announced full sim modules. Was not meant to be one of those pie-in-the-sky "which craft would like in FC/DCS?" threads. Full sim Apache (Eurofighter, F-22, etc etc etc etc) with an FC optional scheme would be mega of course and I've think the Apache is among the reserved modules for ED :thumbup: But nothing official yet... No such issue for this thread, Apache would need to be fully modelled/clickable to be FCfied. Exclusive FC4 craft talk is in the other thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207312 :)

No need to vote for "none" as "none" is what you already have, you can go ahead and enjoy it this very evening :) You will also be able to continue to enjoy "none" even if FC difficulty option becomes a thing - so again, no need for the active voting position imo. Plus, Thus, the question was not "yes or no?", but "which aircraft?". Funnily enough A-10A was/is my least favourite craft in FC as it is too lacking compared to the A-10C and too slow compared to Su-25. At the time when I was playing the A-10C, the ground units AI was such that e.g. BMP2's were scoring guaranteed hits from 1.3 Miles making TGPless strikes a bit of a chore. FC3 A-10C would have gotten a lot more play time as there was a time when I completely forgot its full real procedures and did not have time to relearn (I still haven't).

Ace Combat 7 :D Kакой фпс в Хормузе в VR? Самолет охрененный, но с ним я подожду до релиза, а вот карту уже можно :)

The question is how good does it have to be. Is this good for F-35 (looks pretty good)? http://highorder.berkeley.edu/proceedings/aiaa-appliedaero-2007/paper0035.pdf How about this? https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2015-0551 F-22 has even more info out there, e.g. and unlike with the F-35, F-22's airfoil is known... Plus ED's own experience in filling gaps and new R&D tech like the simulated wind tunnel. The question is about filling the 4 FC4 plane slots, not deleting FC3 planes :) I'd agree for 29K to replace the G and S btw. The 95% figure came out of the blue in this thread, you certainly did not build your argument up towards it. And my point is that if DCS final product (model of a plane, radar or missile) is “good enough” then it did not matter if input parameters were “near perfect” or “good enough”. Would a F-35 AFM based on fluid dynamics modelling, EOTS based on Lightning pod and a "general" AESA radar model really offend FC4 target market sensibilities? My argument is: probably not! Plus, DCS constantly shows that its models can be (and are) continuously enriched. And how is this reflected in DCS modelling? Do we have a "95%" accurate R-77? Although, at the end of the day, missile talk may not be relevant as e.g. F-22 could use the 120C we have already (with all of its assumptions). Write in multiplayer missions thread, if there are problems with unrealistic-boring-unbalanced-etc plane sets, argue your point to them. All better than a blanket ban affecting the vast majority who never go to those servers. Some more :thumbup:

A-10C is not part of Flaming Cliffs. Su-25 is a better counterexample, yep. But in Mig-29 case the M or K would become the fourth(?) "Nissan Skyline" in FC - Mig-29 A, G, S, and now K... Imho this kind of project would be perfect for somebody like Deka. Just like in J-11 case, they would reuse Mig-29S PFM and change its cockpit, sensors and weapons. I love Mig-29's as much as anybody (my avatar, cough-cough ;)), but would not want to "lose" one of the 4 slots to another 29...

But Mig-31 would be boring (all beyond visual range and eject if somebody got through), Mig-29K looks identical to the Mig-29A/G/S we have right now. Appealing to us on this forum, but would people on Steam be impressed? Gran Turismo is famous for its Nissan Skylines in 180 different variations that look identical unless under a microscope, but there are hundreds of other cars there too. DCS needs to make every plane count :)

@Alfa But we also do not know which assumptions were made by ED in current FC3 models. Is there public technical data- not high level descriptions- on fancy airfoil and FCS for F-15for instance? Although I do agree that there do seem to be more variables that need educated guesses in case of F-35 for example, performance charts being one of them. Valid point, I also thought about it when I suggested replacing Pak-Fa/Su-57 with Su-34 in my list :) Yes, its a two seater, but your planes above are identical looking to Su-27/J-11/Su-33 that we already have in FC3. Su-34 on the other hand also shares some of Su-33 aerodynamics, but also looks sufficiently "different". Important if selling to people outside of this forum:D Plus its display cluster seems good for single pilot use, one would not need to switch to copilot seat to view targeting pod feed for example. For the targeting pod this "not much" could be sufficient actually:), but AESA radars are a different cattle of fish - their simulation would necessarily be more generalised. But again, compared to current FC3 radar simulation (lacking ray tracing modelling etc), this extra step of educated guesswork may not be as bad as it may seem. I.e. we would not be replacing a comprehensive model of SUV-VEP with a generalised AESA. Our current radars in FC3 are generalised radar models themselves- in a sense. That one is not used by the Russian VVS, allegedly they did not buy any of "izdelie 190/RVV-AE". They use izdeliye-170, but I've not seen much info on it. AIM-120C is similarly stingy with info. Hell, forgetting about the F-35 for the moment, F-22 Raptor could use the DCS aim120C as is. Just call it F-22 1990s-early2000s version :)

I agree for the most part, but the partial clickability has a powerful argument - VR. At the moment using clickable planes is easier in VR compared to FC3 ones. That can't be right, and with VR userbase bound to expand drastically over the next few years, it may make sense to address partial clickability early in FC4 development.

Which is my whole point - it's all down to server rules :)

Good job you didn't buy that Mustang P-51, it must really suck. All those switches to flick and still have no chance against "Shift+Home and away" FC3 Mig-29 :) PS I did buy the P-51 and have no regrets. Come on, man! :)

Touche! :) Yeah, flight performance charts would probably have to be generated in some similar fashion to this : https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129077-A-quot-Rough-quot-F-35-Kinematics-Analysis There are some high level descriptions like this 1.5hour lecture by the designer of F-35 https://youtu.be/u-cfy-k_8ew (not far off the similarly high level publicly available descriptions of F-15C FCS e.g. http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm. Although I still do not know if ED-BST had access to something better than this. Maybe I'll ask in the Russian forums as its a genuinely interesting question) The only technical doc that I have seen people refer to was some "F-35 240-4.2 configuration report" https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?140845-Proof-F-35A-can-out-accelerate-Su-27-35-in-subsonic-region There is some info, e.g. this article suggests that F-35's EOTS is basically a Lightning pod that is compromised by constrained space and stealth requirements. https://www.thedailybeast.com/newest-us-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets Isn't that some 1980 (1981?) version of the thing? :)

Yep, that question - unlike the fear of overpowered FC4 planes - is a good one. Open source info can provide with geometry for simulated wind tunnels (that ED is now using), but not(?) code for the fly-by-wire systems. So the leading question is: did ED have access to F-15C, Su-27 and Su-33 fly-by-wire algorithms for their PFM models? Missiles too - how much bigger are the gaps in knowledge on the newest gen missiles vs current gaps on the still classified AIM120, R77 etc? So the size of the leap - or even if it is a leap - would depend on answers to questions like these.

What do you think will be different by the time we get to FC5? Neither of these craft will ever be fully modelled so the "problem" of them being overpowered compared to the rest of the planes will persist in FC5, FC6 or FC10. Imho this is only a problem as much as FC3 F-15C/J-11/Mig-29S are a problem to a fully clickable Mig-21, Mig-15, F-5, Viggen and soon to be out F-4... Different generations and all that. Server rules will save us, just like they do now. In single player the issue is nonexistent and even in multiplayer very limited slots for gen4.5/5 planes (reflecting their scarcity) could lead to interesting team play. Or just keep them to separate servers etc.