Callsign112

Ditto...

Now I believe we are pretty much on the same page. Where I think we might still differ is on the issue of the Free Planes vs Free Trial Period, or an Easier-to-Learn (FC3) module vs FF modules. There is no one way to learn/teach something, and if the object of the exercise is to expand and be more inclusive as opposed to restricting access to DCS World by limiting its use to only people with a proven aptitude in flying, then you have to consider increasing the number of learning opportunities. I am quite certain that the free planes/simplified FC3 module both still hold value as a tools to help more people discover/learn DCS. The purpose of the FC3 module seems to be focused on making it easier to learn DCS, but also more interesting at the same time by adding new features/improvements to the FC series. "FC3 aircraft provide an easy learning curve for new players and focuses on a broad range of aircraft rather than a detailed single aircraft. FC3 adds a number of new features and improvements to previous versions of the Flaming Cliffs series." My point to all of this was that I think ED missed capitalizing on a golden opportunity here. Attracting more people by making it easier to learn DCS is an excellent strategy, but I think it missed on a very important point. Instead of attaching an image of quality to one of its most important teaching tools, the FC3 module became known as the less capable ugly stepsister. There is a disconnect between the brand/image ED is trying to achieve, and the image it is sending the new users that purchased its FC3 product. The FC3 module shouldn't only be easier to learn, it should also project the same, or similar high quality standard that DCS World has come to be known for if it is to really be successful at converting new users. To make it more feasible, the FC3 plane-set could have been reduced slightly. I think the MiG-29/Su-33 should be FF modules, and the FC3 module focuses on delivering a higher quality of end-user experience with just the F-15C/A10A vs Su-27/Su-25. This would be a win-win-win for FF module inventory/Russian Carrier OP's/new user conversion/retain rate.

Couldn't agree more, while other examples of programmed Ai logic already include the ability to fall back or even retreat without user input, we seem to still be hovering around the "can it follow a way point" step. But again, I really think it is just a matter of time spent on task. I also think that improved ground/navy units are coming. I mean think about it,... seems to me that it would be a little bit of a waste of time to spend what must amount to literally thousands of man-hours on something like the Apache not to have a capable ground force to fight against. I think the video the OP linked to start this thread demonstrates it perfectly.

+1 for all really good suggestions. I have often wondered this myself. I mean you would think that once a general plane type is modeled, making variations of it would be a lot less labor intensive then modeling a completely different plane type from scratch. And yes I agree, having the weapons manned would add a lot the SIM.

We sort of do have this in-game with the ROE logic, its just that it is sooooo limited in what it does. And I have also seen Ai units fire when set to hold fire, so even what is there doesn't seem to work as intended 100% of the time. But other titles/platforms that have a similar ROE logic for Ai units that the user can set are so much more capable. I think all we are dealing with here though is focus. The focus on DCS is largely spent on aircraft and it shows, the recent Apache is a good example. I just hope they are able to add a little more focus to the Army/Navy side of things to get the DCS part working more fluidly.

+1 to the OP's suggestion. Ai units should be able to attack/defend real player positions with more realism. At the moment, we can give simple commands to Ai units using CA, but what is almost completely missing is the Ai ability to react to the battle field on its own.

Yeah they really need to start working more on ground units in general, and nothing is highlighting that better than the rotary-winged aircraft. They did mention about 6 months or so ago that they were working on new Ai behavior that would first be implemented on the SC deck crew before being ported to infantry, so that should help a bit, but yeah CA really does deserve more love.

I think you meant to say preset.... Sorry but its a strange use of the word "persistent". But please carry on.

I agree that it doesn't have to be the exact same version, but you don't even have to go that far because you could just simply model it so that the FC3 version of the exact same plane is less capable! But if you were going to go through all the work, why not just call it an F-15E? But where you and I completely separate in both logic and opinion is captured perfectly in the bold text above. While you claim to be able to tell the future, I am pointing to facts we know today. I'm not making a comparison with WT because I think a comparison like that would be worthwhile, I used WT as an example to emphasize how much steeper the learning curve is in DCS. But again, in case anyone new, or uninitiated yet is following along, DCS is very learnable. And even if ED has decided to burn FC3 in favor of going purely with FF modules, your comments would still be misaligned with my discussion. Numerous people have voiced their wish that ED would make a lot of the planes in the FC3 plane-set FF. And I would agree 100% with them because the FC3 plane-set is both important and interesting IMO. So much so that I think it would be a bizarre move on the part of ED to exclude them from DCS World. But based on the feedback/response ED has given the community and the way the current list of available planes was made, I am doubtful we will see FF version of the 10A and 15C especially when considering there are likely other business strategy issues attached to the topic. But I am having trouble pinning down your view point. Are you for or against making FC3 planes FF? Would you be opposed to see the FC3 plane-set improved, or would you support it?

I would love to see this for both the ME and the F10 interface. It would be really useful to be able to drag and select a couple of units to form a new group.

+1

I completely agree with you, and wish the A10A was a FF module in DCS. I just don't think it will happen with the current product lineup. But IMO I think ED could also improve FC3 so that it is more inline with the DCS brand of quality without threatening or cannibalizing the FF modules.

You would have to elaborate more on what you mean by different version, because I'm not sure I am following you. My view point that we are not likely to see a FF A10A, or F15C is based on what we already have in-game like the A10A vs A10C, Su-25T vs Su-25, or F-15C vs F-15E. In all of these cases, the planes in each pair are different enough that you could almost say they are different planes. And the logic ED seems to be using there makes sense to me. Contrast that comparison with say the two Mustang versions you get with the paid module, which are essentially the same plane. The fact that ED provides you with both when you purchase the Mustang module also make sense to me. They could have made a FF A10A, but they didn't and if you ask me the reason they made an A10C instead seems obvious. But I agree with you, there is more than one way to learn. And its not that DCS is so hard to learn that unless they flatten the learning curve, ED is going to go out of business. Certainly all the things you mentioned are viable ways to learn DCS, but again its not really the point I was driving at. Whether you agree or not, DCS has more of a learning curve to get through than say WarThunder for example. WarThunder on the other hand has tens of thousands of active online players. Now the fact that DCS is more difficult to learn doesn't mean its not learnable, it just means it requires more effort than hitting the power button on your CPU. And I don't know if I would think of it as flattening the learning curve as much as I would think of it as making it easier for more people to access/enjoy/become interested in a MP setting. It is interesting to note that all the things you mentioned are geared more towards SP and the way individual players use DCS to learn. The point I was driving at was more interested in the possibility of seeing an expansion in MP learning. But I think you hit the nail on the head with your description of how people learn DCS because I think it is quite accurate. It is in fact how DCS has been geared to learn, and I don't think its an accident that the user base is largely SP. And I agree, I don't think ED should ditch FC3. I think they should do the exact opposite and improve on it.

As I mentioned above, my discussion point is regarding the actual model, not changes a pilot can make in-game, or the type of weapons he/she has access to. The point was that it should support MP game play. There are obvious differences between the A10A and C, and that's the way it should be. And I agree, it makes sense that a FM from 2013 would be different from newer iterations after it was updated, but again that's not really an answer to the question/issue. I am guessing that in 2013 the A10A was using an AFM, and some time after the A10C/II came about, the A10A had its FM updated to the PFM. So in terms of FM, both versions should be pretty close to each other, and if they aren't, the point is they should be IMO.

TBH, I haven't even gotten to the P-47 yet. Its probably about #3, 4 in the list for me. Took it out a couple times, but that's it. The model is absolutely gorgeous though, and I am looking forward to finding the time to get back in it.

Maybe a better question is, do you think ED would retire/drop support of the FC3 plane set? Personally I think the plane set is too interesting and important to retire/drop, and that's one of the reasons why I think there is an issue here that is worth working through for ED. The learning curve to a SIM like this is real, and it represents a real obstacle for the average computer user. That doesn't mean the average user can't learn DCS, its just that he/she is less likely to make the time commitment required. Its too much like work for someone that just wants to sit down and mindlessly blast holes in things for a couple of hours at the end of their day. Enter FC3, a less expensive, easier to learn entry point with a similar dose of realism! And after trying it, I would say FC3 does not a bad job at delivering! I'm certain ED realizes this is a very powerful combination, but the question I have is whether they are really marketing it to its full potential. I mean I've been here more than 3 years, and other than reading the product description page out of my own interest, I can't say I have seen anything from ED that pointed me in the direction of FC3. Anytime I heard FC3 come up in conversations, the emphasis always seems to end on the understanding that they are simplified versions of ED's FF modules. I think that is completely the wrong focus! The reason most here are willing to work through the learning curve of FF modules is the realism they get from it. That's the prize. If FC3 is supposed to be a shortcut to that prize, shouldn't realism be the focus of the FC3 discussion point for the average user? Especially for the average user just starting out? The pinnacle of the DCS experience is realism, and I think ED should do more to make the tie in between the FC3 plane set and the realism DCS World represents more clear. Shift away from the culture of being just simplified versions, hence my questions about performance issues that might detract from the user experience. In my view, I think the need to maintain a difference between FF and FC3 is obvious, but delivering realism should still be the primary goal of both products. Any performance issues should be addressed, especially if they impose a disadvantage in MP game play. In terms of seeing a FF 15C Eagle, I can't see that happening as long as there is a FC3 module, but I wonder what your poll would have shown had it asked if people would support updated versions of the FC3 plane set? Like higher res cockpits and more realistic radar systems.

Ditto on that. I think you made a really good choice. The one thing I will say about the Anton, it is an easy flyer and seems to absorb the shots better than the 109. My two favorite are still the Mustang/109 though. Welcome and enjoy the Channel map, your going to love the scenery.

I don't agree with the negative training at all. I have a new found appreciation for the FC3 series of planes in terms of what it can help do to bring more people to DCS. And this is coming from someone that is here primarily to see the CA/WWIII ground scene develop. I don't even have a HOTAS, let alone rudder pedals. The recent Apache developments had me sort of thinking more about making the jump to a proper setup, but the A10A/F15C might be all it takes. I don't have the A10C yet, but I have watched a lot of YouTube content on it, and it is obvious that the level of detail modeled is much higher in the 10C than the 10A. So the amount of time it would take to get proficient at using all of the systems on the 10C I expect would be a lot more. But don't forget, they are quite different from each other technologically speaking. So if you are building missions for the A10A, you need to consider the environment it was built for as you build the mission. The capabilities of the 10A and the missions it was intended for coincide with the threats it faced at that time. But the thing I am quickly learning about the FC3 planes though is that most anyone should be able to jump in, and with the right amount of interest learn to fly it reasonably well in a relatively short period of time IMO. I am having no trouble flying the A10A with a keyboard. I can tell you first hand it took me a lot longer to learn any of the FF WWII birds than it has to learn the FC3 A10A. I am not recommending anyone learn to fly DCS with just a keyboard. Of course if you want to get really competitive in either SP, or MP you will absolutely need flight controls. The F15 for example is a different story, and without a joystick it is no fun to try flying. I am pretty sure the issues I'm seeing would be solved by tuning the axis controls from a joystick input. But for anyone new, or isn't quite sure whether the whole flight (learning) SIM concept is for them, I think the FC3 series of planes can answer a lot of questions for you. But there is a caveat to that. I am assuming that things like the PFM/weapons are modeled to the same degree as their FF counterparts. The difference between them should be the cockpit interactions and the technology that was actually available on the jet your flying. There should be very little difference in the actual flying part between the 10A and the 10C for example, and differences in things like weapons should be due to nothing more than the technological state of the weapon your using. I don't have any MP experience to compare to, so I have to go with the assumption that a PFM for one of the FC3 planes means the same thing it does for a FF plane. But I would be interested to hear your views on this if it isn't. But in terms of the HOTAS setup itself, my understanding is that if I go out and pick up the Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, it will map completely with the A10A key-binds.

+1

I am actually glad to see that you're using CA. And I wasn't opposing the request you made, as much as I was trying to help you find a solution close enough to what you would like to do. Based on my experience, the first recommendation I would give anyone is keep using it in different ways, and a solution might just present itself. I can't count the number of useful things I found buried in the CA interface as I used it. I also discovered a lot of things that could be changed/improved/updated, but a lot of neat things I had no idea about. But again, I think you made an interesting observation about CA, and out of interest I would like to work with/help you to find a solution. I completely get what you said, and what you would like to see, but maybe try considering this from a different perspective. For me, targeting a vehicle whether setting up the gun sight to shoot, or binoculars to laze is easier and more accurate while I am stopped. And the thing about marking a target for a plane, I imagine it works best when you are stopped in a concealed position, especially for MP game play. But aside from that, you should review the steps you listed, because I think you can make some improvements there. For example, step 1 and 3 are the same thing. When you click the "direct control" icon on the F10 interface, you are already in control as you enter the vehicle. And you don't have to go back to the map to set a way point when your in control, unless your talking about the other vehicles in the group. In this case, simple take control of the lead vehicle, and the other vehicles will follow you without having to reset any way points. So it is possible to 1) take control of the lead vehicle, 2) set autopilot to go to desired destination followed by pressing "B" to open binocular view to laze. You could also try what I suggested previously, and use just the F7 vehicle view to see if it is closer to what your looking for. Like from the F10 interface, you select the vehicle you want to view from and then hit F7. Now you will be viewing the game world from that vehicle without interrupting its preset way points. When you find it is in the right location, go back to the F10 interface and click on "direct control". Hit "B" once your in and start marking the target. By using the options that are available to you now, I'm certain you can get the flow in game play to feel more natural/comfortable as you use it more. The point you are making is interesting though because I think it is one of the unseen obstacles that users have to overcome while using CA. It does take a little work to get use to the transition from the F10 interface to the game world and back again even though it is one of CA strongest features. So in other words, depending on whether the mission is intended for SP, or MP and how the CA mission is actually set up can also affect the flow of game play. This basically starts in the ME and how the grouped vehicles are set up, and continues on with the number and type of CA slots provided.

I always take it as a good sign that someone is paying attention when being corrected on a public forum. Thanks for pointing that out, but I was agreeing with something someone else said both in this thread and another. So if I misunderstood their request/wish, then my bad but the Su-25T isn't part of the FC3 plane set. Here's your change.

The Eagle Dynamics supplied user manuals are included when ever you purchase and download a module. You can also get the manuals for each plane for free from ED's website. Have a look under Downloads/Documentation.

I have both of the planes and maps your asking about, and can't really recommend one over the other as I enjoy them all. You already got some pretty good advice, but in terms of the map I think there is a very strong argument to start with Normandy. First of all, Normandy is a bigger map with more options especially if your plan is to go Axis. And even if you don't have immediate plans to get into MP, you have more options with Normandy if you ever decide to check it out. In terms of the current sale price there is not difference in going either way, but I think the already announced expansion coming to the Normandy map ups the value IMO. In terms of which plane, I don't think you can go wrong with either one, but only you can decide what fits best. Since you have already tried the 109, I would suggest you do the same with the Anton before buying. If you end up not liking DCS for some reason, it doesn't really matter much which way you go, but chances are you will end up getting the other plane in a future sale anyway. Welcome and good luck with your decision. Hope you enjoy DCS WWII.

I like your suggestion and don't think anyone would oppose improvements, but I am just trying to imagine how it could work from a business point of view. But this is exactly what wish lists are for. Speaking purely from the standpoint of a DCS product and having just gotten the A10, I am quite literally asking myself what took so long. Unless you have a very strong interest in WWII like I do, the FC3 package is a no brain-er IMO especially for anyone just starting out. I mean for $25 you get no less than 6 planes including the ability to do carrier ops, or any single plane of your choice for $7. My only regret is that I didn't pick the A10 up back when I first started with CA. But even though the module has been declared feature complete, there is always the possibility that FC3 planes could see further improvements as DCS World itself continues to develop. I think the plane set in the FC3 module is interesting enough to enough people that there will always be a possibility we see future improvements.