Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3?

[Katmandu]

First things first, this topic is only for those who enjoy FC3, not for the "elitists" who call FC3 "arcade", "pointless now that there are clickable modules" and other such lark. If you like the philosophy behind FC3 (sort of IL2 for modern air combat), which of the current and upcoming modules would you like to see get an FC3 version?

 

For example, do you want to fly Ka-50, but do not want to spend the time necessary to learn its systems? Or, have you learnt the Ka-50 2years ago, but forgotten everything and and can't make yourself start all over again? Vote here to have Ka-50 have a Su-25T like implementation and make it into "like riding a bicycle" forget-proof version. Same hardcore physics and weapons, just simplified procedures (FC3 level).

 

 

N.B. I do hugely enjoy both the fully clickable modules and the FC3 craft. One thing I personally would like changed in DCS is the replacement of the "game" parts of a fully clickable module (like "Ka-50 game" or "A-10C game" with FC3 counterparts). For one, it would make easier to come back to a DCS module after being away from it for a while, when relearning its systems may not be as appealing as the first time round. But there are lots of reasons for FC3's existence of course, summed up by one RL Airbus pilot as "FC3/IL2 is for times when I'd like to fly and not work):)

 

The economics are important of course, but I'd be happy to buy my "full fat" modules with an included FC3 version, or a standalone FC3 plane.

 

 

EDIT: An example algorithm on how to condense a full sim module to FC3 (pseudocode for FC3ing the full sim Ka-50): https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3448774&postcount=40 and (EDIT_3) similar thing for a more complex multi function jet like F/A-18C or F-16C https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3454878&postcount=77

 

EDIT2: Some common concerns and possible answers:

Concern 1:

You can't develop a full module then just remove parts and call it FC3.

 

Imagine a "simplified version" of the F-14 radar. It would have to be reinvented.

Answer:

Not at all, the sensors, propulsion,suspension physics, flight model, damage model, weapons... all the systems would stay exactly the same as they were in the full sim. 100% the same! The thing that is changing is the control of the sensors, engines and other systems - like in my pseudocode example with the Ka-50.

 

Concern 2:

What you want is a full module with some kind of simple, optional control scheme that would allow you to use the full capabilities of the module, but with easier controls. And then... sell that as a separate module? This makes no sense for ED to produce or try to sell, and makes your "implementation" even more far-fetched.

 

Answer:

The thing is, this hybrid module would behave in an identical fashion to an FC3 one, even though it is completely different underneath. Thus, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck - it is a duck. But inside it is not a duck, it is a complex beautiful swan :) But it's a duck :)

 

So if it looks, has controls and has difficulty like FC3 you can sell it like FC3 (or bundle as DCS-lite, FC3 - whatever- with full sim module).

 

Concern 3:

Instead of making simplified versions of modules already made for a higher standard, it would be much better to have other interesting planes as new FC3 level modules.

Answer:

In an ideal world - yes. But in a real world AFM, 3D+texturing, systems development at FC3 level are very significant. Adapting a hardcore module to FC3 is much faster/cheaper than developing from scratch, there is no doubt about that.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Katmandu

[probad]

trying to purge disagreements by creating a new thread and artificially generating support by only encouraging positive responses is not a convincing argument.

[Katmandu]

Probad, lets be progood :) The F14 thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3444857#post3444857 was aimed at F-14 devs/crowd only, this is a general FC3 discussion.

[Rudel_chw]

Seems the alternative "None" is missing from the Poll, it would give a less biased result.

[toutenglisse]

As long as "cheat buttons" for startup procedure and fast forward (for shortening procedure in SP^^) exist, I'd say none.

I would find more attractive to have FC3 modules coming full fidelity (but still with the cheat buttons !!)

[Gladman]

None would be my vote. There are enough FC3 level aircraft for people to get into DCS and move on to more advanced modules. If a person wants more FC3 level aircraft, I suggest war thunder.

[PeaceSells]

None.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love FC3 and I fly it a lot. But the high fidelity aircraft is the step forward, not the other way around. AFAIK, ED's evolution went from Flaming Cliffs to the high fidelity modules. Not to mention it wouldn't make sense to make the same aircraft twice, one high-fidelity and one FC3.

 

Also, you should really include the "none" option in your pool. The result you will get will mean nothing without the "none" option.

[Katmandu]

None would be my vote. There are enough FC3 level aircraft for people to get into DCS and move on to more advanced modules. If a person wants more FC3 level aircraft, I suggest war thunder.

"None" is the answer for the "elitists" whom I've discussed in the OP. If you feel that FC3 is "War Thunder" and that FC3 is surplus to requirements - that is fine, but the premise of the FC3 forum's very existence is that there are other people who value it for what it is. I mean, seriously? Since when did WT have AFM, radar pulse repetition freq/doppler effects and the like? Not to mention huge maps and single player/coop campaigns.

 

We have thousands of views in the mods section in threads that discuss making models of e.g.F/A-18, Su-30, Pakfa, Tornado, F-16 - all with existing FMs from the current FC3 craft, most even keep the default F15/Su27 cockpit...

 

Plus, with only 10 slots max for the votes I ran out of slots before I could mention A-10C, Mig-15, Sabre, Gazelle, etc.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love FC3 and I fly it a lot. But the high fidelity aircraft is the step forward, not the other way around. AFAIK, ED's evolution went from Flaming Cliffs to the high fidelity modules.

This poll is not about making any steps - forward or backward. Clickable modules will continue to exist, as will the FC3 ones. Ka-50 was a definite step forward in simulation, and the evolution is undeniable. But I am not proposing to replace the current Ka-50 fully clickable version with an FC3 one.

 

What I am proposing is to replace the "Ka-50 game" arcade part (with 360deg all seeing "radar" and simplified flight physics) of the Ka-50 module with an FC3 one. Same with A-10C, same with the upcoming F/A-18. And same with the other full sim modules that do not have "game" modes right now.

 

Not to mention it wouldn't make sense to make the same aircraft twice, one high-fidelity and one FC3

You do not need to make it twice, FC3 mode keeps the AFM and radar/shkval/Lightning pod implementation, it keeps all the physics and simplifies only some of the avionics. Edited April 7, 2018 by Katmandu

[Katmandu]

The kind of people this poll is aimed at:

 

It takes actual military pilots years to achieve a practical level of skill...knowing this I can't imagine getting the entire inventory of DCS in the hopes of learning them all...which is one of the reasons I'd like to see an FC3 version of all aircraft, so they can be experienced without re-learning entire cockpit switch settings:

or

 

Hey everyone,

 

So i'm considering getting DCS Blackshark, and the thing is, I am not necessarily interested in the full sim study level just yet, since I don't have the time to devote to one single aircraft. I like flying a bunch of them, so FC3 level sim is plenty for me. I was just wanting to confirm that DCS Blackshark can be set to be at approximately FC3 level of sim/simplicity. I know the DCS sims have the whole "game" and "sim" controls, I was just wondering about approximately what level of sim the two settings are.

 

Sim is obviously full sim study with all the buttons and detailed startup procedures and avionics and everything.

 

Is "game" at approximately FC3 level?

 

Thanks

etc :)

Edited April 7, 2018 by Katmandu

[Rudel_chw]

"None" is the answer for the "elitists" whom I've discussed in the OP.

 

Elitist is a rather derogatory term ... My view is that there seem to be two types of DCS' users, those that view it as a simulation , that allows them to sit on a virtual aircraft and learn all of its systems and weapons use; and those that view it as a game about airplanes and dont mind to learn a plane using procedures that are much simplified versions of the real thing.

 

As I belong to the simulation type, I'd rather see ED and its 3rd parties work on study modules, rather than see them invest effort on new FC3 ones. That said, I do enjoy some of the FC3 modules, like the Su-33, so I wouldnt mind if ED upgrades the MiG-29 with a better flight model :)

 

Best regards

[Ramsay]

None.

 

Removing duplicates ? - of existing or announced wip modules from the OP's list, leaves the F-16C but I'd like to see a full F-16 module and there's little point in doing the work twice.

 

If the OP had asked to pick 'one' (and only one) FC3 aircraft to see as a full module - that'd have been an interesting question.

 

... and, no I don't consider myself elitist, I often advise players starting with DCS for the first time to fly the Su-25T, as it strikes a balance between realism and complexity, is free and has a MP role.

[Katmandu]

As I belong to the simulation type, I'd rather see ED and its 3rd parties work on study modules, rather than see them invest effort on new FC3 ones.

The hope is that adding FC3 mode is cheap and will attract aditional fans into DCS as well as convert some of those who sit on the fence with regards to particular modules. So "invested effort" should be nearly the same as for making the module in the first place, but additional revenue for the creators and expanding fan base should make it simbiotic for everybody (including the people who do not care for FC3).

 

Removing duplicates ? - of existing or announced wip modules from the OP's list, leaves the F-16C but I'd like to see a full F-16 module and there's little point in doing the work twice.

.

The whloe point of the thread was to use "duplicates" of the existing and announced modules :)Not pie in the sky "which plane would you like in FC3?" kinda poll. FC3 planes take a massive amount of effort to make - AFM, 3d model, cockpit, systems, weapons- and the suggestion here is to re-use the already created fully clickable modules.

 

Just like ED did themselves with "game" modes in the fully clickable Ka-50 and A-10C, but with FC3 replacing "game".

Edited April 7, 2018 by Katmandu

[feefifofum]

Two thumbs down from me.

It's wasted effort and attracts the wrong type of audience. Those who want simple aircraft have many other options both inside of DCS world and out.

Too much time is spent indulging people with a lack of patience these days.

[erniedaoage]

None. Sorry but the biggest problem would be that it would somehow unbalance the Multiplayer part. There are a lot of players out there who would use any advantage they can get and if you have other modules with simplified avionics, people who actually learned the plane are in a disadvantage. I just pick the mig21 for instance because i fly it alot and on multiplayer there were a couple of stress-related situations where i couldn't fire my missile because i just forgot to open the cover switch for the weapon release button. ;)

 

And for singleplayer you have the cheat buttons for startup and active pause for everything else. If you are not interested in learning a plane than you really should look for a game where everything is simplified.

[Buzzles]

Definitely missing the "none" option in the poll.

[Bogey Jammer]

I voted the thread's rate instead of voting the poll :lol:

[Katmandu]

If you are not interested in learning a plane than you really should look for a game where everything is simplified.

Like the Flaming Cliffs 3 :doh: :megalol:

[feefifofum]

Exactly. We already have fighter and attack aircraft that are competent in every combat role. They are a fantastic introduction to the sim world.

Developers don't need to invest energy and resources into simplifying DCS-level modules. I suspect this is a lot more complex than you seem to think it is and sets a tone that is not the direction ED is trying to move in.

[Gladman]

Like the Flaming Cliffs 3 :doh: :megalol:

 

Or War Thunder.

 

 

Here's a link for you: https://warthunder.com/ca/registration?r=SEM_AW9635039820_KW000652244&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIp62Ro_yo2gIVCzxpCh2JwwB1EAAYASAAEgIeSfD_BwE

[Katmandu]

Exactly. We already have fighter and attack aircraft that are competent in every combat role. They are a fantastic introduction to the sim world.

Developers don't need to invest energy and resources into simplifying DCS-level modules. I suspect this is a lot more complex than you seem to think it is and sets a tone that is not the direction ED is trying to move in.

You suspect, but you assert and impose your personal viewpoint on the whole community. FC3 is part of DCS, no less than any other module, it has its philosophy, its community, history and future (that MiG-29 AFM:pilotfly:). No need to patronise FC3 fans by telling them "you've got enough already to progress to the right thing".

 

Progression to full modules is not a given. I've played FC3, I also enjoyed A-10C, Falcon BMS and Ka-50... and still like flying in FC3:) I do not want to learn the systems in M-2000 or the Viggen, but I'd like to fly them nonetheless. I intend to own all 10 of the modules listed in my poll and I know that there is no chance that I'd be able to remember the procedures for all of them. Yet I would like to keep them flyable - just the way I can hop into Su-25 and F-15 at this moment (A-10A not so much as it lacks the targeting pod). So FC3 and "full sim" are not at odds.

 

Plus, developing FC3 modules from full sim ones would bring additional revenue into the sim, not the other way round. It's cheap compared to developing an FC3 or a full module from scratch and it would bring extra customers and revenue.

[PeaceSells]

^^ which part of the it's not the current philosophy of DCS to develop low fidelity modules anymore is so hard to understand? Different games have different target audiences and realism games are extremely rare, not the other way around. If their philosophy is to dedicate all their resources into developing high fidelity, please don't try to change that. Not to mention the harm this does to fair multiplayer. No, just no.

[feefifofum]

I am echoing statements from ED, not imposing my personal viewpoint on the community. ED have explicity stated there are no plans for additional FC3-style airframes.

 

As a designer of FC3 content, both official and unofficial, I am by no means patronizing its fans...I'm one of them. But I also respect that this is not the direction that ED and other developers are choosing to go, and I personally feel it is the right move. I feel more hobbled by an FC3 jet's simplicity than empowered. And yeah, I do feel there are enough already, as do ED and most of the other people chiming in in this thread.

 

As an owner or future owner of every module on your list, I can say that it is very possible to memorize basic procedures for all of them and in fact, you'll start to see a lot of similarities between aircraft if you invest a little time. The A/V-8B in particular is one of the most intuitive aircraft I've ever sat my virtual butt in. :) For anything else, a simple checklist or the auto-start will get you where you need to be in a matter of moments if you want to hop into a cold and dark cockpit, and if you really just want to fly, create an airstart, bind pitch/roll/throttle, and off you go.

[unknown]

...I do not want to learn the systems in M-2000 or the Viggen, but I'd like to fly them nonetheless...

Do you own these modules? I'm asking because if you go to the special tabs of the M-2000 and disable the INS alignment + gyro drift the M-2000 isn't that much different from an FC3 module anymore. From starting the engines to takeoff less than 2-3 minutes? Bind your master arm and weapon selection to your hotas and it's like an FC3 airplane...just saying.

And the startup of the Viggen is extremely easy too, you don't have to learn and remember everything system wise to fly and use it too, just print the one sheet of paper that comes with the Viggen - Viggen Weapon Chart - every switch position and if necessary CK37 computer code is there for you, no need to remember everything.

 

This is not to speak from above to you or to insult you. It is just that if you have a look at the DCS modules(especially these two) they are not that hard for most of the systems to learn or remember because they are intuitive/easy or you get little helper like a checklist to remember things. Yes you can dig deeper into these modules and it gets more complex but for your everyday flight it is not needed.

[HWasp]

I see only one real positive cause to develope a new FC-3 level aircraft:

 

An interesting high performance aircraft, that has not enough data available or the necessary licences are not given for the developer to make it a full module.

 

I for one would love to see even simplified russian cold war hardware like the Su-22 or Su-24, and all the Migs up to 31, If and only IF a full module is not possible for some reason.

[WinterH]

Sorry OP, but, I'll have to echo others saying none.