Callsign112

Well if you just want to be able to see the terrain from a vehicles perspective, you don't have to take control of it, all you have to do is select the unit you would like to view the terrain from by clicking on its icon on the F10 map, and then hit F7. So in answer to your original post, if you just want to view the battle field before taking control of the unit, you can do that using F7. But if you want to operating the vehicle in any way, you have to take control to do that, which I don't think should be a problem because if you want to use the vehicle as a JTAC for example, I imagine you would need to get the vehicle in position first. And there is also an autopilot feature that allows you to divert your focus to other tasks while the vehicle moves.

Actually I pretty much quit all together and bought a Nespresso machine. It lives sooo much closer to the computer where I keep Chuck's guides! ... Yeah its hard to imagine it would work any other way. My understanding was that the FC3 product offered an easier gateway to learning DCS. There is an awful lot of enjoyment to be taken from something like DCS for sure if your into this type of game, but it does take a certain level of commitment IMO. Even as simplified modules, the FC3 planes are going to take more than a passing interest and some light reading to become proficient even in SP from what I can see. There is nearly 600 pages of documentation between the FC3, F-15C, and A10A ED supplied flight manuals. While there is bound to be some duplication of information, there is still a lot there so its good to know that its all worthwhile for anyone interested in the MP scene.

Yeah I just took the A10 for a quick free flight. Like I said, I'm already enjoying it. Absolutely love the look and feel of it so far. Tanks ED! The F-15, well lets just say I'll get back to you if I ever get a proper set up. But yeah I agree, its cool just because its an F-15. And yup I did it! The MiG-21 is my first FF jet module, and OMG she's a real beaut. I love the lived-in look and feel of the cockpit. The one thing DCS has really opened my eyes to is how intricately the people in this field simulate mechanical systems. If I take any of the FF models I have (WWII/modern) I can just tell its got to be a labor of love. So now I downloaded Chuck's guide and... yeah its going to take awhile ... But ditto on what you said. For $7, they are almost giving it away. I mean if you like computer games with a military theme, and you enjoy watching it from the cockpit of a plane, can you suggest a better way to spend $7? Because Starbucks ain't it! But a question I have in support of the OP's request is how do FC3 planes fit in the MP world? I mean I've never been on a DCS MP server, but my understanding is that you can hop in an F-15 and duke it out with whoever else is on the server. But if some of the systems are simplified, don't work, or have limited performance, how does that support MP game play? Again, I have never done MP so just typing thoughts, but seems to me that there could be an inclusion issue here. Couldn't there? If the FC3 F-15C meets a Heatblur F-14, all things being equal between the two Vpilots, is the F-15 at any disadvantage because it is a FC3 plane? I guess I was just assuming that anyone using the FC3 planes to get into the DCS MP world are able to use their radar/weapons in a competitive way against what ever else is on the server, but I just read someones comments in another thread where the OP is suggesting that the F-15C has trouble identifying certain targets at distances where it should be able to.

No I don't have FC3, and haven't bought the Su-27 yet. Is it just a FC3 thing, or is it also included when you buy the Su-27 standalone?

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think you are probably providing some of the historical context to how FC3 came about. The fact that ED made the FC3 series part of DCS World implies to me at least that as a product, it serves a purpose. We would have to hear from ED itself to better understand exactly what the purpose is, but I think it would be a fair guess to say a revenue stream is likely one of them. But it seems you might have misunderstood my main point. The FC3 A10 and F-15 have nothing to do with what Russian law allows. My point was simply that we aren't likely going to see FF FC3 planes because it would create competition within ED's own product line. In other words, what ever ED's reasons were for making the FC3 series part of DCS are history now. But its not likely that ED is going to provide the current A10A owners with the same level of model you get if you purchase the A10CII. My guess is that we got the A10CII and will eventually see an F-15E because the A10A and F-15C already exist as FC3 planes. But I completely agree with you. Its too bad the A10A wasn't a FF model in DCS. But like the OP, I hope that ED continues to find ways to inject new life into the FC3 product line. The biggest reason to me is the plane set appears to still hold a lot of interest for a lot of people. And as we can all see, DCS is continually being upgraded. I think its only fair that the FC3 product line be included in that.

No I think I am going to go with just the A10 and F15 to start. I already have the Su-33 when I bought the SC, so I will be halfway there after adding the two American jets. But yeah for me even without having a proper setup to fly, I will still get a lot of enjoyment out of the A10. Its that ground war thing if ya know what I mean

All of the FC3 planes have a PFM except for the Su-25. In case you haven't seen it, go to their web page and search DCS product terms to see a list of the planes and the FM each has. But yeah, looking forward to trying out the BRRRRRRTT on some Russian steel later tonight

I couldn't agree more, the A10A should have been a FF model in DCS. But there is a context behind the reason the FC3 plane set is what it is, and I doubt it has anything to do with a "this plane would sell more than that plane" type argument. If FC3 didn't exist as a product, and FF models of the F-86F and F-15C were released at the same time, could you guess which one would sell more? Probably not, and I think its likely that both would fair well. I think the answer to your question why the FC3 plane set doesn't get the FF treatment is because it would create competing products which is bad business. ED could have made any one of the FC3 planes a FF model and it probably would have done just as well as all the other FF models, but it created FC3 to target a specific need and the simplified planes from the Lock On series seem to fit the purpose. But I agree completely, as a digital combat simulator it makes sense that the FC3 planes would at least have animated switches for the systems that are included just for the immersion element alone.

Gonna fix that problem today I was planning on starting with the cold war stuff first, but the A10A is a must have for me even if it didn't get the full ED treatment. So I decided to start with FC3 and check that BRRRRRRTTT out first. The bigger issue for me though is I still don't have a HOTAS/Pedals setup yet, so there is no big rush. To the OP's request though, I doubt we will ever see the FC3 planes updated to full fidelity, and if we do, it wont be called FC3 anymore. But like the OP, I think the FC3 plane set is still an important and worthwhile product line for ED, and it still deserves attention. I would certainly argue with the OP that as DCS World continues to grow and expand on its many boundaries, it would make sense that the FC3 product line also see improvements that go beyond just technical support/bug fixes. Not sure what those improvements should be, because there will always have to be a differentiation between FF models and low fidelity models, but I am sure there are ways the DEV's could consider to make it interesting.

@DishDoggie, if it is a reproducible bug then consider logging back into DCS so you can save a track, or you risk having the issue you want to raise be ignored. The issue your having might have something to do with your particular setup, and the only way to isolate that possibility is with a track.

Many thanks for all your hard work. Super amazing reference for DCS World.

FC3 planes are supposed to be FF in terms of their flight model, but my understanding is that they are made to be simplified on purpose. They are a lot less expensive, and suppose to be easier to learn. I am looking forward to start exploring with the A10A and F15 as a start, but someone else commented in another thread that they would like to see more cockpit animations to coincide with keyboard interactions. I don't think this would be too big of an ask, and I can see how it would really help augment immersion for the FC3 modules.

FF!! Meaning accurate physics models for drive systems, gun/armor performance, historically correct and fully functioning gun sights/weapon systems, highly detailed exterior models, view ports ect ect... They could certainly go through all the pain of modeling the full interior, but I don't think it is necessary. As I said above, the resources that would be needed to create the eye candy on the inside of the tank would be better spent on things like ground effects IMO. But maybe like @Wychmaster described above, a better analogy to the aircraft side would be FC3 where the focus is on the professional flight model and not the cockpit.

+1

Yeah my bad for not being clear. I was trying to point out that after nearly 5 years we still don't have a WWII battleship. I agree with your suggestion and recognize that it would be the first if added. I'm finding it hard to believe there are still none.

A little late, but this post caught my eye again. I agree, I really think ED should add FF ground vehicle modules. For me the big ticket is an accurate gun/armor/detailed damage model. Then accurate view ports into the game world from all of the modeled positions. As already mentioned, the player is going to spend most of his/her time between the gun sight and the cupola. But the drivers/bow gunners view is just as important if you want to accurately capture the feeling of being in an armored compartment of a tank. The resource overhead used to create eye candy of a tanks interior would be better spent on improved ground effects like explosions/sounds iMO. Then a good physics model for driving the vehicles, including appropriate engine sounds/track tension in relation to things like gear, speed, and torque. Of course the exterior detail of the model is very important as well. But I think FF ground vehicles in DCS would be a big hit.

So true! Did some CA large scale armored battles last night, and the effect looks really weak when watching the battle filed from above. First of all, the effect only occurs after an armored unit takes a hit, so nothing dynamic in terms of logic is going on. And then it only lasts for what looks like not even a couple seconds. It was hard for me to tell even if the Ai units are able to see through it because the smoke disappears so fast.

+1 for any and all of the much needed WWII naval units. Unless I am wrong, the Assets pack released with the Normandy map in 2017. Its 2022 and I'm trying to get my head around the "first old battleship" part.

I couldn't agree more, having a believable ground war element is extremely important in simulating the aviation element that goes along with it, especially when it concerns rotary winged aircraft. My comment was more to poke fun at the level of hysteria the Apache has generated. I mean nothing in DCS so far has made me shop for flight controls like the Apache has. I might actually have to buy a stick'n pedals. That thing looks absolutely amazing. I can't get over the level of detail ED has put into that module. My hope is that they capitalize on the interest being generated and bring the much needed improvements to the ground war element in a timely manner. But to the topic, yes it appears to me the reload command works with all weapons/guns, at least the ones I tried it with. But I think what was happening, at least in my case, is I wasn't seeing the expected outcome. I was expecting the ready rack to be reloaded when using the command in a MBT. But what actually happens is it is simply reloading the cannon. And the more I think of it, the more it makes sense. The problem is all the little inconsistencies. I'm not even sure I would call these bugs. The issues look more to me like simply unfinished implementations of the model. Like most things in CA, they were modeled and left in a usable state waiting to be polished. What we have modeled now in terms of ammo handling is multiple ammo types, a command to select them, a command to reload them, and a command to replenish the entire ammo supply of the vehicle if you are near an ammo supply on the map. What we need to make the fight more real is a command to replenish the ready rack using the ammo supply you have on hand, along with fixes for the issues already pointed to. I think having a CA channel on ED discord is an excellent idea. It would help a lot if CA would see more frequent updates/fixes, and I think your right, its turn may be arriving soon.

+1. I would add to that the sound of rounds that hit the ground close to your vehicle. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it is definitely not an explosion sound.

Regarding your system, I have a very bare bones system (RX580 8GB) with 16GB RAM and it works perfectly fine in Single Player. You will probably want to add the extra RAM to start though even for Single Player. If your interest is really the F16, then I would encourage you to just get it and start learning. There is a lot there as I am sure you will discover. But as Rudel suggested, it might be very helpful to use the free aircraft in DCS to learn some of the basics and get you system set up. Welcome and enjoy.

Okay, you were referring to a different vehicle. I was pointing out though for vehicles like the Abrams, the reload command has some inaccuracies. In all fairness, it does work correctly when you use it to change ammo types ("E" + "CTRL + R"), which I think is what it is meant for. You wouldn't normally use it by itself to reload the cannon with the same shell, but I thought it was interesting to note what/how the current mode actually does/works. I think people, myself included, have been hitting the reload command thinking nothing is happening. You can kind of get a sense of this by reading the title of this thread. I now realize the reason I don't see anything happen is because unless I hit the "E" key first, all I am doing is reloading the same shell. But the part about changing ammo types without hitting reload should really be looked at as an improvement. Because it should be up to the player if he/she wants to change ammo for the next shot, or the one they are about to take. The way it is modeled now, when you hit the "E" key, it automatically changes the current shell type without having to use the reload command. And I think being able to replenish the ready rack/MG belt as requested in this thread would be a more accurate simulation with obvious benefits to game play. But NineLine seems to have gotten the main point regarding the need to have the command added. We might have to wait for the excitement of the Apaches to die down a little (+/- 24 months) to hear more.

I'm not sure I follow what your opening comment is referring to, the Abrams tank in the example I used is manually loaded. I don't think adding a command to replenish the ready rack would be any more labor intensive then modeling it in another way. If they are going to actually address the very popular and frequent community request to be able to replenish the ready rack, it would be to every ones benefit including ED's if they model it as a separate command. But it is funny, I don't know why I was always associating the reload command with replenishing the ready rack. Maybe its because the cannon is loaded automatically after each shot, and that made me think the reload command was for something else like replenishing the ready rack. The uh-huh moment hit me after ready 9's posts over a few times. I suddenly realized that what is modeled is the ability to change ammo types (which is really really cool, and supper useful), not replenish the ready rack. I think it is really important to conserve your ammo, and being able to reload the cannon to a different type is a useful/needed feature. In terms of the various things I pointed out regarding reloading, it really shouldn't be that big of a job to correct. Essentially, they just have to update the correct ammo counter.

Looking forward to it. I would really like to see this discussion be more complete in terms of issues so that we can get a request in. I think there were also a number of issues with the Stryker vehicles, but the reload/replenish issue I think is more global. And hey, I get the distraction. That is an amazing looking whirlybird module.