I think more FC style modules would be cool

[probad]

if the money was there, ED would be going that route. Money talks.

Sure that's one marketing strategy, but then we ought be in the Overw*tch forum. At what point do you sacrifice integrity for the sake of money?

 

There's another valid approach: your biggest audience is the one you create for yourself.

Cater more to the casual crowd and you'll find yourself backsliding into territory already being contested by ever more accessible games.

Cater to the hardcore crowd and you'll own the market segment.

 

The argument here isn't about difficulty, it's about what sort of audience DCS will end up encouraging. FC3 is fundamentally antithetical what makes DCS special. The people who really make DCS worthwhile are all the aviation enthusiasts and subject matter experts who find enough value in the fidelity of DCS to contribute their insights. Yes, you have some guys like GG who hang around because they have an attachment to the airframe regardless if it's FC3 or not, but it doesn't compare to what you see with the F-14 and Viggen.

Edited August 4, 2017 by probad

[Sweep]

Because forum crowds accurately represent the playerbase, present or future.

 

Edit:

 

(...)

 

According to many here, to be a real hardcore virtual pilot, you have to click on things and power them up from a cold start every time.

 

(...)

 

Heavy aircraft would be a great candidate for FC3 level. Easy start up, and filling a huge gap.

 

(...)

 

:thumbup:

Edited August 5, 2017 by Sweep
:)

[AMEDooley]

Well said Probad!

[Hamilton]

Yessir!

 

According to many here, to be a real hardcore virtual pilot, you have to click on things and power them up from a cold start every time.

 

However, I'll bet nearly none of those anti-FC3 crowd use random system failures and every help function turned off. Or use real comm procedures and airfield arrival/departures. How many of you "full-real" crowd would truly walk through a 45 minute pre-flight each time you fly? Work through a continually slipping ETIC. Or move to a spare and start all over?

 

Heavy aircraft would be a great candidate for FC3 level. Easy start up, and filling a huge gap.

 

From experience, I see more people online flying the F-15, Su-27 and Su-25T than the others. This includes the more "hardcore" groups alongside the newbs.

 

Agree!! :thumbup:

[rogonaut]

whats the advantage of fc3 style aircraft? i dont get it. besides the easy startup they have a lot of keys u need to bind too and u also have to learn about system functions as well. why not make the cockpit clickable? its just awesome and why would u not want to be able to click buttons displayed in a cockpit? kills my immersion a bit. i dont think hardcore groups prefer fc3 aircraft its just the aircrafts that they want to fly are flaming cliffs style birds. as soon as the hornet comes out a lot of people will fly it because its a cool plane, and luckily its not fc3 style in my opinion. for me this game is a simulation of real life planes as real as it gets.

 

i want to fly this planes like they are operated in the real world.

 

i totally agree with myself. :D

Edited August 5, 2017 by rogonaut

[Ironhand]

...

 

The argument here isn't about difficulty, it's about what sort of audience DCS will end up encouraging. FC3 is fundamentally antithetical what makes DCS special. The people who really make DCS worthwhile are all the aviation enthusiasts and subject matter experts who find enough value in the fidelity of DCS to contribute their insights. Yes, you have some guys like GG who hang around because they have an attachment to the airframe regardless if it's FC3 or not, but it doesn't compare to what you see with the F-14 and Viggen.

What makes DCS worthwhile is that you get to fly aircraft or control ground units that you enjoy. What makes these forums or the groups we might belong to worthwhile are all the aviation enthusiasts and subject matter experts who find enough value in the fidelity of DCS to contribute their insights.

 

In the final analysis, it's all about money. ED are the ones with the numbers--how many of which aircraft have sold. So they are the ones in a position to determine whether or not they might be able to grow the "hard core" base sufficiently to make it worthwhile to solely build full fidelity aircraft.

[Northstar98]

I could make the same claim with full fidelity modules which are flown 'arcade style' all the time. There's nothing arcade about FC3 - how you fly is what makes it 'arcade' or 'hardcore'.

 

Sorry, no you can't. How you choose to use aircraft is totally irrelevant - what the aircraft facilitate as far as the level of depth however is. I can fly the F-15C as 'hardcore' as I want to - doesn't change the fact the aircraft isn't full fidelity. That's what we are discussing here, not how they are used.

 

If there's nothing arcade about FC3 what exactly does it offer? I also used the words "more" followed by "relaxed" which is what they're officially described as.

 

I'm saying arcade as a relevance to other games involving combat aviation - there's a lot of them War Thunder, SF2, Ace Combat, HAWX etc which are regarded as more arcade style gameplay where aircraft systems (not necessarily FDM) and how you interact with those systems isn't done from inside the cockpit

 

...If you were making arguments about aircraft with unrealistic abilities/FMs/Systems, that would be another story, but that's not what you're doing.

 

I'm confused, I thought the title of this thread was "I think more FC style aircraft would be cool" in other words requesting aircraft of lower depth and fidelity - the big difference is the cockpit systems - they're simplified and aren't modelled in depth - you can only interact via keyboard or other similar commands but you cannot interact with the cockpit like you can with a full fidelity aircraft.

 

Also you're correct, I'm not arguing about aircraft with unrealistic abilities, because where is that coming from again? The FC style aircraft lack cockpit interaction - that is it. They don't have unrealistic abilities at all, apart from maybe starting more quickly and being more cockpit procedure exempt due to the simplification.

 

You're just making some sort of clickpit superiority claim and it isn't even appropriate: What's the difference to you whether an opponent is flying an FC3 aircraft vs. an ASM aircraft? Or your buddy?

 

I'm sorry? Clickpit superiority claim? Care to back that one up? Please read what I've typed before saying such a thing. I've said I would support FC style aircraft either as an interim or an option. How is that not appropriate to the matter in question? I mean you said about aircraft with unrealistic abilities that isn't appropriate nor is it relevant in any way.

 

If you're still confused that means if you want FC style you have it, if you want the full fidelity simulation you've got it. You get the best of both worlds as you please. The people who want FC style are satisfied, the people who want full fidelity are satisfied. If you read my previous replies you'll find this is my answer. Not some clickpit superioty claim. The only thing I've said as far as being unsupportive of more FC style aircraft "clickpit superiority" as you put it is that's what DCS is really for - full fidelity, it's kinda the point of it, it's how it's advertised. But I'm saying that if people so desire they should be able to where possible. I believe this facility already exists (I will confirm once I'm back at my PC).

 

They're already optional. As in you can build missions where no FC3 slots are available.

 

This has no relevance whatsoever to the matter in question and is absolutely nothing like what I'm suggesting. What you're describing isn't making FC aircraft optional in any sense whatsoever, it's just boycotting them. To clarify let's take the A-10C, a full fidelity aircraft. In the settings in DCS under gameplay you have an option to fly it full fidelity (simulation) or like an FC aircraft with no cockpit interaction, more basic systems modelling (game - closer to, not 100% likeness to more arcade style gameplay, take note of the "more" and "likeness" - removing the "clickpit" functionality to aircraft modules makes them closer to a more arcade style of play. Fact. How you play these aircraft is totally irrelevant - it's up to the user, just like I think that the user should be able to control what kind of experience they have by means of settings meaning when new aircraft get developed I believe they should have the facility to be used FC style so everyone is satisfied. Once again I'm sure something like this already exists.

 

To compare I can play Call of Duty as 'hardcore' as I want trying to emulate real life, doesn't change the fact that's it's less complex, has less depth to and is less detailed than say Arma 3 The difference is Arma 3 and DCS are supposed to be complex, it's what their purpose is, it's what they're advertised as being, that's the intent - COD and FC are examples of more casual and relaxed gameplay - that's what they're there for, that's the intent, that's what they're advertised as being (I'm just comparing here - don't bite my head off) what I'm saying is that optional FC style gameplay (more casual and relaxed - not necessarily more unrealistic) could serve as a lower difficulty setting - hence game mode. Just going back I can fly a FC aircraft as realistic as I like - doesn't make it a full fidelity experience. Just like I can fly full fidelity aircraft unrealistically - doesn't make them more arcade style aircraft. The modules remain unchanged regardless, how I choose to use them is completely irrelevant.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Northstar98

[Slazi]

I would like to see third party FC3 level. Leave it to servers to decide if they want them or not.

[PiedDroit]

personally i'd love to see some more flaming cliffs style modules [...]

 

Hi,

I would personally not buy FC3 style aircraft, but I would definitely support something that makes current full-fidelity aircraft feel like FC3-Style aircraft.

 

Something that keeps the depth of system simulation while allowing some ease of use for people who don't want to learn everything for each aircraft, I was thinking about the easy startup (Win+Home), applied to basic operations that are done during flight.

 

Example, in MiG-21Bis, have a "next weapon" shortcut, when you press it to select IR missile, then all the selector will be activated in order, just like if the game does it for you and tells you what it's doing:

"- Selecting pylon 1

- Selecting type IR

- Setting sight mode to missiles"

 

To me that would be the ideal solution, because everyone would be flying with the same systems and cope with the same limitations. In a sense it would be also more realistic, as when in the cockpit the pilot does not need to look at switches, this is something that is not well transposed in a computer sim.

This kind of feature would require more than mere "macros", because it would need the knowlegde of the loadout and the systems state to press the correct sequence of buttons to achieve the desired effect.

[Home Fries]

If it's a choice between a less-than-full-fidelity model and no model, I'll take the less-than-full-fidelity every time.

 

To clarify, less-than-full-fidelity or "FC3" doesn't necessarily mean that the cockpit is not clickable. It's just that all FC3 aircraft are converted from LOMAC/FC1 prior to interactive cockpits. If I could get a good approximation or even simplification of an aircraft in demand, I would say not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

Here's how I look at it: I'd love a full DCS AH-64D, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if I could fly a FC3 level AH-64A (mostly with analog gauges) with simplified avionics, a clickable cockpit, and a good flight model.