No Flaming Cliffs servers?

[MrGreezy]

Nothing against the FC planeset, it's just the majority of those planes tend to either outclass the fully developed modules (f15 vs mig21 for example) or beat them in reaction speed due to their simplified systems. Are there any servers there that only support modern with PFMs and clickable cockpits? Feels like there are enough now in a multitude of roles.

[fitness88]

Nothing against the FC planeset, it's just the majority of those planes tend to either outclass the fully developed modules (f15 vs mig21 for example) or beat them in reaction speed due to their simplified systems. Are there any servers there that only support modern with PFMs and clickable cockpits? Feels like there are enough now in a multitude of roles.

 

I would think that a server can be set to allow whatever aircraft the host sees fit to allow.

[Sweep]

 

 

Blame 104 Mav for making that.

 

 

:D

[MrGreezy]

I know, Sweep, I'm saying they're bloody hard.

[OperatorJack]

 

Blame 104 Mav for making that.

 

 

:D

 

Dude he's saying it's TOO easy

[Frostie]

Nubs in FC3 aircraft with simplified reaction times, let me have it real so I can press fifteen buttons to lock a guy up and seven to fire the missile and then they have to solve a sudoku every time they want to deploy chaff and flares, surely this is how they design real fighters. :bounce:

[Fab]

Nubs in FC3 aircraft with simplified reaction times, let me have it real so I can press fifteen buttons to lock a guy up and seven to fire the missile and then they have to solve a sudoku every time they want to deploy chaff and flares, surely this is how they design real fighters. :bounce:

 

More or less yes :smilewink:

[Frostie]

More or less yes :smilewink:

 

Just flying MIG-21 should tell you this isn't the case. One button to lock, one to launch.

 

More modern aircraft have the advantages of one switch close combat modes with auto acquisition and HOTAS designed purely for all combat to be performed with a simple press of a button or two without letting go of the controls. To say that combat in modern aircraft requires complex switchology is from someone who doesn't understand modern combat.

[Vedexent]

Anytime you want to roll out a DCS level module for the Su-25, I'll happily put away FC3.

 

Which leads me to wonder if there are any SEAD aircraft outside of the 25T?

[codefox]

Just flying MIG-21 should tell you this isn't the case. One button to lock, one to launch.

 

More modern aircraft have the advantages of one switch close combat modes with auto acquisition and HOTAS designed purely for all combat to be performed with a simple press of a button or two without letting go of the controls. To say that combat in modern aircraft requires complex switchology is from someone who doesn't understand modern combat.

 

IIRC a pilot once stated that the FC3 planes give the player a workload close to that of a real fighter pilot.

He also gave a nice comparison:

Try a racing game - with a clickable gearstick. You'll have a hard time using that gearstick but you wouldn't do so IRL right? Now when you got a keybind for using the gearstick which is mapped to your steering wheel you'll be able to efficiently use it. Same goes for planes in DCS - searching a button and clicking it correctly (into the right position etc) gives a much higher workload than the same task would in real life.

[BFBunny]

I don't know. A rubbish pilot is a rubbish pilot no matter the plane and to be fair the su 23 and f-15 are great for escorting a10s and su25ts into battle.

 

The f15 and su 27 both have pfms.

 

It's not that they're simpler to use. The planes have better bvr interception than the mig 21bis so clickable or not they're better planes.

 

People would fly the f15 or the su 27 even if they were clickable. It's not all 'find the guy on radar, lock and then have a beer while your missile bounds into the other plane'.

 

But then it's somewhat awkward. There is no clickable su25 so do we all have to fly the hog (good as it is) and then how do you do a scenario with escorts. An old mig 21 escorting plane with modern electronics.

 

In the ww2 planes there is no ww2 bomber for them to escort or players to fly as so dynamic missions are limited.

 

As for russia vs us.

 

US have an old huey, a modern a10c and an old saber. I guess europe, france brings the m2000.

 

You could drop the m2000 and the a10 in a mission for the saber, huey and mustang.

 

Russia can just about field a flying invasion force with their black shark, solid transport in the hip and the mig 21 fighter. The mig 15 is just missile bait.

 

There is no real other configuration. Germany bring their old ww2 planes over to join up with the mig 15 and the hip - slightly odd history even for now.

 

Russia on the clickable is a bit shafted since the a10 has aa missiles while the shark, as their only clickable ground pounder does not plus it's a helicopter. It's slow as anything.

 

If I'm being a nerd about this idea then the only logical solution is that russia would need bring a large land invasion force with loads of aa cover to knock out the a10s.

 

As for ww2 planes. Where are the russian ww2 fighters in the pipe. I really want to fly something like a lagg

[Vedexent]

Searching a button and clicking it correctly (into the right position etc) gives a much higher workload than the same task would in real life.

 

This.

 

IRL, I know right where a switch is in a C-172, I can reach for it with muscle memory, no looking required.

 

In a DCS-level aircraft I try and move a mouse cursor over the control, while trying to keep my head super still as my TrackIR is moving my field of view around (with motion scaling) so the "target" my mouse is try to hit keeps moving around.

 

While I really really really love DCS level modules for their Advanced Systems Modelling and Professional/External flight models, all of the functions that I'm likely to need during take-off, landing, or combat, are mapped to HOTAS switches. Startup, Shutdown, configuring for combat, and setting up nav systems - these I'm comfortable with hunting down virtual switches (and even then, I'm likely to have a locked "snap view" for the control panels to keep the switch still while I'm reaching for it).

 

But ... since I have most of the "common" functions mapped to HOTAS switches, which - like the C-172 - I can find by muscle memory, the different between a "clickable" and "non-clickable" cockpit becomes a lot less noticeable.

 

The big difference for me in FC3 aircraft vs. DCS level aircraft lies in the details of aircraft modelling and simulation.

[King_Hrothgar]

Agreed with the above. The main difference to me between the study sim and FC3 level modules is mostly what is done on the ground. The only substantial difference in combat is engine restarts after a flame out. This is the only place where the workload in an FC3 aircraft is lower (since you don't even have to hit a hotkey). I do prefer the ASM modules, but the problem with FC3 vs not FC3 has nothing to do with workload, it's the fact that the FC3 aircraft are massively superior to the non-FC3 ones at this time. Of course a 1972 MiG-21Bis isn't competitive with a late 1990's to early 2000's F-15C! It also won't be competitive with the F-18C when released nor is it competitive with the 1987 Mirage 2000C (now that it has mostly working radar).

 

Incidentally, the instant AIM-120's and R-27ET's are removed from a server, the Mirage 2000C is on a level playing field with the Su-27, MiG-29 and F-15C. It is the better missiles that give those planes the advantage in a typical anything goes TDM server, not the planes or their workloads.