Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3?

[Katmandu]

the harm this does to fair multiplayer.

Servers make their own rules on plane sets.

 

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.

No, but I know what you mean. I've said similar stuff myself to a guy who wanted FC3 level Ka-50 :P : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1847963&postcount=12

Years later I see that was a bit wishful thinking on my part (did manage to convince him though).

 

ED have explicity stated there are no plans for additional FC3-style airframes.

Link? Although Wags' famous signature "everything is subject to change" gives us hope anyway :)

 

Also, what about replacing "game" modes? Surely you'd agree that "FC3 mode" for F/A-18 would better than the existing "Ka-50 game" or "A-10C game" (have you tried them?)?

 

 

==============

 

So far the arguments and counters are roughly thus:

1. Harms multiplayer - (no, servers make their own rules. You do not see "A-10C game mode" farming kills- because they are not allowed by servers(?) )

2. Harms development of full sim stuff -( no, it is *cheap'n'simple* high level coding and brings extra revenue and customers)

3. Against philosophy - (no, FC3 was the cornerstone of DCS and continues to be enriched)

4. Full sim is near as easy as FC3 anyways if you use autostart - (that's a no, first hand experience coming back to DCS/BMS after long breaks)

Edited April 8, 2018 by Katmandu

[PeaceSells]

So far the arguments and counters are roughly thus:

1. Harms multiplayer - (no, servers make their own rules. You do not see "A-10C game mode" farming kills- because they are not allowed by servers(?) )

2. Harms development of full sim stuff -( no, it is *cheap'n'simple* high level coding and brings extra revenue and customers)

3. Against philosophy - (no, FC3 was the cornerstone of DCS and continues to be enriched)

4. Full sim is near as easy as FC3 anyways if you use autostart - (that's a no, first hand experience coming back to DCS/BMS after long breaks)

 

1. Almost all servers I know allow FC3 aircraft mixed with high-fidelity aircraft. Servers want as many players as they can get, and FC3 aircraft are popular...

 

2. I wish it was that simple...

 

3. FC3 cornerstone? I might not be a veteran on ED sims, but as far as I know DCS was created for the Ka-50 and the A-10C initially. Then they brought in the FC aircraft from the older games to allow the veteran pilots in and to increase variety. Someone more experienced can correct me if I'm wrong... Anyway, have you seen any other FC3 style module be released since then?

 

4. That's very dependent on the individual aircraft. Some are WAY more complicated than FC3, and others not really. The Huey IMO is simpler to fly than FC3...

Edited April 9, 2018 by PeaceSells

[erniedaoage]

Honestly all your arguments come to the point that you don't wanna invest time into a specific module and still want to fly it without knowing anything about it.

 

Sure its hard to remember all those different systems and characteristics but its the same for real pilots. Those guys don't fly 12 different fighter or attack planes in their career because its ****ing demanding to learn all those systems and get a routine into it to be able to use everything in a real situation. And its quite more difficult for them because if they make a mistake they die. Its much easier to find your limits with a module in a simulation because when you crash, you can start all over again.

 

And even when its not that hard to simplify systems so that it would be a FC3 standard IT TAKES TIME. Even if its just 2 days everybody else thinks those 2 days are better invested in a new module, platform upgrade or a bugfix.

[feefifofum]

1. No disagreement here. I feel more hindered than helped by the SSM in an FC3 aircraft.

 

2. No, it's not simple. Since you don't believe us, here it is straight from the horse's mouth.

 

3. No, it's not. From Wags' philosophy post :

"Given that "DCS: Fighter" is still a ways off, we hope that FC3 will serve as a good bridge while we continue to flesh out the stable of DCS aircraft (both 1st and 3rd party)."

 

4. There is no "argument" and "counter" here. Just opinions. On this subject, however, I would say your opinion is nothing more than speculation since you have said yourself you have never even tried.

[SeraphimGray]

It is kinda unexpected topic, as I first thought it's which FC3 you want to see in full sim.

 

However, I can see good opportunity (probably business one as well), to make learning curve less steep and bottom line attracting more people to DCS.

 

If such concept would ever fly, it would be necessary to have filters on multiplayer servers.

- only full fidelity models

- only FC3 models

- no restrictions

 

In that way, level playing field would be enabled on both ends of spectrum.

Edited April 9, 2018 by SeraphimGray
grammar

[dundun92]

Although I personally would like more FC3 aircrafts, it simply doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Also OP, were you meaning, say, a cheaper standalone FC3 M2000C. Or were you meaning an FC3 level M2000C that comes with the M2000C? Because the second option would make some sense.

[dillio]

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).

 

However, I can see good opportunity (probably business one as well), to make learning curve less steep and bottom line attracting more people to DCS.

 

This is a very popular fallacy that has sunk countless businesses: the assumption that if there's a market for A, and a market for B, that the total market is A+B. In reality, and especially for such a niche product as DCS, the overlap between the two groups is very large and almost everyone will buy only one of the two. Offering a cheap or "lite" version devalues the main product and means that at least some customers who would have bought the expensive version if it was the only thing available, will buy the cheap version instead. The OP is suggesting that there is a large demand for a FC3 style Hornet, for example, and he may well be correct, but many of those sales will come at the expense of the full module, so not a good outcome from a revenue perspective.

 

As for "attracting more people," another common way for a business to fail is to compromise their model in order to chase broader appeal. DCS is a niche product and does indeed serve a comparatively small market segment. The LAST thing they should do is dilute their offering with "lite" versions of the modules. Rather they should be, as they are, focusing on increasing complexity and making the hardcore even harder. Trying hard to attract customers who want something different than what you're actually selling is a Very. Bad. Idea.

 

I have no idea if ED will release the Hornet with a "Game Mode" or whatever, but I honestly can't see why they would. At this point, nearly 10 years in and with all these modules released and in development, I think it's proven that there is ample demand to support the product without such crutches. From a "gameplay" view, I always thought that Ka-50 "Game Mode" was actually intended to be kind of lame, to incent the player to learn and get better so he didn't have to play in "sucky mode" (my term) anymore. If the proposed "FC3 Game Mode" can do anything the full module can do, just with fewer keystrokes, then there's no reason to put in the effort.

 

I have the FC3 module and I like it for what it is: an updated legacy product. It was explicitly intended as a stop-gap until DCS fast jets became available. Now that's finally happening, so there's no need for the limitations that come with the FC3 types.

Edited April 10, 2018 by dillio

[Boris]

Call me an elitist, but I'd rather see the opposite and would love to have all of the FC3 aircraft as fully fledged modules.

[Katmandu]

This is a very popular fallacy that has sunk countless businesses: the assumption that if there's a market for A, and a market for B, that the total market is A+B. In reality, and especially for such a niche product as DCS, the overlap between the two groups is very large and almost everyone will buy only one of the two. Offering a cheap or "lite" version devalues the main product and means that at least some customers who would have bought the expensive version if it was the only thing available, will buy the cheap version instead. The OP is suggesting that there is a large demand for a FC3 style Hornet, for example, and he may well be correct, but many of those sales will come at the expense of the full module, so not a good outcome from a revenue perspective.

.

A fair point! Of course the economic details need to be worked out by people with access to sale numbers of FC3/FC3 standalone planes/Full sim modules. There are always negative strategic effects ,but it is possible to negate them. Plus there are positive strategic effects too (people buying full Hornet module after positive FC3 Hornet experince; initially they may have been put off buy the difficulty/time drain but now understand the basic mechanics and want more). The potential solutions may be along the following lines:

 

my original suggestion was to bundle the FC3 mode with the full sim module, like ED did with the game mode in Ka-50 and A-10C. Without such bundle, the module is only bought by hardcore fans who are confident that they have what it takes to learn the module. With such bundle, the module will be bought by the hardcore + the FC3 crowd who are less confident (not all of FC3 guys as the price of the full module would be too high for them).

 

The projected sales of a separate cheaper FC3 module should also be substantial as flight sim "hardcoreness" is likely normally distributed (bell curve)and there are more customers for every step down in hardcoreness - ending in Ace Combat shifting millions of copies :) FC3 is long way up from AC series of course, but the increase in customer base should still be sizable and profitable for the little amount of extra work that is needed.

 

The devil may well be in detail, but if ED can turn a profit on a standalone FC3 module like SU-33, with all the modelling and physics done from scratch... Heatblur MUST make profit from converting existing module to FC3.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Katmandu

[Katmandu]

Call me an elitist, but I'd rather see the opposite and would love to have all of the FC3 aircraft as fully fledged modules.

I'd like a full sim Mig-29 myself, but the reality isupscaling FC3 to full sim is like upscaling a blurry image to a hi res one (the easiest way is just to get a better camera and take a new hi res pic). Much harder than go from hi res to lower res.

 

 

2. No, it's not simple. Since you don't believe us, here it is straight from the horse's mouth.

 

4. There is no "argument" and "counter" here. Just opinions. On this subject, however, I would say your opinion is nothing more than speculation since you have said yourself you have never even tried.

2. Ok, not simple, but *simple* ;) Simpler (much-much simpler) than creating an FC3 module from scratch.

 

4. I have tried (?). Coming back to FC3 after a long break (a year say) is much easier than coming back to DCS or BMS.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Katmandu

[Wakiki]

Call me an elitist, but I'd rather see the opposite and would love to have all of the FC3 aircraft as fully fledged modules.

 

+1

[Pikey]

I did my best to ignore my instinct and ask for the none option by coming up with at least a good devil's advocate argument. The best I got, would be in order for all the folks that like FC3 style to have more FC3 style to play, like Lockon with themselves, so we didn't have to bridge the full modules with the FC3 modules in the same server environment. And subsequently they could play those simplified modules with others of the same type and the two groups of people could live in separated harmony forever.

[dillio]

With such bundle, the module will be bought by the hardcore + the FC3 crowd who are less confident (not all of FC3 guys as the price of the full module would be too high for them).

 

What you're suggesting here is that at least some people will pay $80 to play an FC3 module? Surely that's preposterous. As far as buying a SSM version and then later upgrading, this idea was tried by DCSW 3rd parties and at this point it can be safely said that it was a total failure. I'm sure we won't be seeing that again.

 

I'd like a full sim Mig-29 myself, but the reality isupscaling FC3 to full sim is like upscaling a blurry image to a hi res one...

...Ok, not simple, but *simple* ;) Simpler (much-much simpler) than creating an FC3 module from scratch.

 

Scaling a blurry image to a hi res one will not get you a nice picture and that's a fact! With respect sir, you've made it abundantly clear that you have no idea how this would work, or have even really thought through what you're asking for. The FC3 legacy planes are vastly simpler simulations than the full DCSW modules. To put it another way, the full modules are NOT just FC3's with ASM features added in. You won't just go back through the code and comment out the section "ASM STUFF TOO HARD FOR NOOBS." and be left with a FC3 module. You are talking about building a different module, a different branch of code to maintain, etc. Could you re-use some code from the full module? Probably but certainly not in the cut-and-paste way you're imagining.

 

BUT I've come to think that "FC3" is actually not what you're after at all. By all means correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you actually want is a full PFM/ASM DCSW module just without having to click everything to make it work. In order to get your FC3 simplicity of interface, would you give up the advanced simulations of powerplant, radar, FCS, hydro systems etc etc? Or do you want all the functionality without the 500 keyboard shortcuts? Earlier there was a link to Cobra's post where he explained some of the problems with this approach, and he didn't even scratch the surface. Trying to strip out the hard stuff and leave a FC3 level sim will just result in a dog's breakfast that satisfies no one.

 

DCSW is certainly not for everyone and that's okay. Yes there's a steep learning curve and to me and many others that is exactly the appeal. But it's still just a damn video game, man. Kids learn this game all the time. Manuals, tutorials, cheat codes, and supportive community make it attainable for anyone with some patience, and if that's not you, there are plenty of games to serve your needs.

[David OC]

One of the main reasons I see for only for fully fledged modules only is all the underlining systems that makeup the module, this will allow for a more detailed and accurate damage system modeling (Coming soon we hope).

 

Things like virtual hydraulic pressures or a virtual bus to each system that can be damaged, this needs to be a level detailed playing field moving forward, not sure how detail FC3 aircraft are? So you cannot tie in these separate systems to a new damage model, ED will be scripting some of the damage to the existing FC3 aircraft new damage model I'm guessing?

 

As for marketing, we have the FC3 aircraft for the getting started.

 

If ED nails the F/A18, Carrier, VR experience. How many will this pull from the top tier guy's that love aircraft like the PMDG and A2A, that's ED's market this also suits there other commercial market.

 

Creating all this high tech coding for us or for the commercial market continues to grow the development in both fields, good for us and them at this level of simulation.

 

Think of all the systems that go into an aircraft like the F/A18, now pull the code for each system apart to a base model (Ground radar, engines etc), these can be all be developed into a new aircraft, of course you need all the documentation for the adaption (F16;)). It's not copy and paste as the CEO would say at my work, very annoying, he just wants it all to just work, doesn't want to know how or why.

 

.

[Katmandu]

You won't just go back through the code and comment out the section "ASM STUFF TOO HARD FOR NOOBS." and be left with a FC3 module. You are talking about building a different module, a different branch of code to maintain, etc. Could you re-use some code from the full module? Probably but certainly not in the cut-and-paste way you're imagining.

Absolutely correct, simple deleting would not turn full sim into FC3! To condense/simplify a full module to an FC3 one you build a high level algo on top of the full sim module (while fully ignoring/deleting some functions, but for the most part higher layer of code is needed).

 

For example, take Su-25 and Ka-50 - same Shkval TV, same Vihr laser guided missiles, both have cannon... How to simplify Ka-50 into FC3? Through this kind of algo:

 

import cold and dark Ka50 as coldKa50

import "everthing up to and including APU is started" state as apu_Ka50

 

display coldKa50 %FC3 player appears in cold and dark pit of ka50

 

if player presses "Shift+L":

display apu_Ka50 %all the avionics and apu are insta started FC3 style

 

if player presses "Ctrl+Home":

continue with autostart win+Home sequence %this way time is saved on clicking initial switches and waiting for alignment, but player gets to see the cool rotor spool up

 

if Ka50= airborne:

master arm switch = on

launch mode = manual

else:

master arm switch = off %fully automates this and FC3 player never gets to even think about it

 

----------------

%maybe borrow some logic from ingame AI

 

if locked target as interpreted by "listening onboard AI" = airborne & hot: %incoming target aircraft

air2air = on

head on aspect = on

 

if locked target as interpreted by "listening onboard AI" = airborne & cold :

air2air = on

head on aspect = off %FC3 player still operates the Shkval by simply slewing the reticle and pressing "lock target" button without having to learn a2a shkval modes

 

Etc etc...

 

For radar equipped planes we just need to aim to automate the systems to the point where the player controls radar antenna, pulse, and TWS/RWS. The rest needs to be automatised. We are not "deleting stuff that is too hard for FC3" but building a layer on top of the current control layer that will have less complexity. Some functionality may be omitted altogether, eg fine tuning radar beam width. FC3 player would only have e.g. 2 options for that.

Things like virtual hydraulic pressures or a virtual bus to each system that can be damaged, this needs to be a level detailed playing field moving forward, not sure how detail FC3 aircraft are? So you cannot tie in these separate systems to a new damage model, ED will be scripting some of the damage to the existing FC3 aircraft new damage model I'm guessing?

.

If FC3 plane is developed not from scratch , but from full sim module then all the physics - flight model and damage model would be 100% shared.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Katmandu

[CoBlue]

NO! no more FC3! This is a SIMULATOR for "As real as it gets".

 

ED says no more FC3 & so does HT (if you read between the lines).

 

It will not be a profitable business. The time & resources will be a waste of money vs. the very small amount of potential customers.

 

If current FC3 F-15, Su-27, SU-25T can't attract new people, no new airplane will either.

 

DCS is moving forwards, not backwards. FC3 modules are a relic from Lock On. The AFM for 15/27 was a learning step for future ED modules.

 

You already have FC3 modules. Use them! Or learn the full-fidelity modules, of which some are as simple as FC3 if you use fast-start. If not, there's plenty of other games for you out there. :P

[Alfa]

IMO if there is a problem with DCS versus FC3, is not with the difficulty level for the "end-user", but rather that the required level of documentation for making aircraft to DCS standard inevitably narrows down the pool of realistic candidates considerably - e.g. the call for "modern multirole red aircraft" often expressed on this forum is something that just isn't possible.

 

Here FC3("DCS lite" or whatever) could be used for introducing new entries, for which there isn't sufficient documentation available for a full DCS module. But since upgrading the existing FC3 aircraft to DCS level is within the realms of possibility, I think the effort/resources would be better spend on this, rather than going in the opposite direction and downgrade DCS entities to FC3 level.

[falken76]

I'd like to see all of them have a FC3 simple version. I enjoy this as a game, I'm not under any illusion that I will ever need to actually fly a plane. I do this for nothing more than entertainment. I don't want to sit in the cockpit and do stuff like flip all the switches, boot up simulated computers in planes that are slower than a 486 dx/66 and wait eon's for something to align itself. I'd much prefer to select my weapons, hit a couple of hotkeys and take off. If it's an absolute insult to those who say "This is NOT a game, it's a simulator", then allow the server to decide weather to allow FC3 style control on planes that have clickable cockpits.

 

Could you imagine the claims?

 

"The only reason you beat me is because you must be using FC3 style gameplay and didn't have to flip any switches."

[falken76]

IMO if there is a problem with DCS versus FC3, is not with the difficulty level for the "end-user", but rather that the required level of documentation for making aircraft to DCS standard inevitably narrows down the pool of realistic candidates considerably - e.g. the call for "modern multirole red aircraft" often expressed on this forum is something that just isn't possible.

 

Here FC3("DCS lite" or whatever) could be used for introducing new entries, for which there isn't sufficient documentation available for a full DCS module. But since upgrading the existing FC3 aircraft to DCS level is within the realms of possibility, I think the effort/resources would be better spend on this, rather than going in the opposite direction and downgrade DCS entities to FC3 level.

 

I can't get friends to even consider this game, and here is why:

 

"Want to play an awesome flight sim where you fly an A10c?"

 

"Sounds cool, is it easy to learn?"

 

"No, the manual alone is 700 pages long"

 

"You just asked me to read a steven king length instruction book, **** that."

 

 

Or

 

"What? 700 pages? I have kids, I can't devote my life to this"

 

FC3 was an easy sale.

 

"I hit CTRL+ Home, ALT + Home to start engines? This is kind of easy so far, I can get the hang of this"

 

Then this happens:

 

"My controls suck, how much was that set you have that looks like it's from an arcade machine?

 

"$200"

 

"Forget it, that's way to damn much money to play a video game"

[falken76]

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.

 

 

Thank god they still allow users like me play this game. I'm glad I have an option for simple aircraft. Short of sprouting a 3rd arm I couldn't control a plane and mess with the controls and I play in VR.

 

Agreed, "None" should be an option otherwise it's not much of a poll.

[falken76]

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.

 

 

But I don't like any of the other sims, I like DCS. So my only option is to take my ball and go home?

[falken76]

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.

 

 

Wouldn't that already exist with anyone who flies current FC3 models like F15, Su33 etc?

 

What if you are interested in this particular game because you like that part of it and not so much the hard core simulation part? Does that mean you need to piss off and go play war thunder instead because this is a simulator not a game. (WTF does that even mean? Not a single person on here is ever going to really fly one of these planes)

[dimitrischal]

I'd like to see all of them have a FC3 simple version. I enjoy this as a game, I'm not under any illusion that I will ever need to actually fly a plane. I do this for nothing more than entertainment. I don't want to sit in the cockpit and do stuff like flip all the switches, boot up simulated computers in planes that are slower than a 486 dx/66 and wait eon's for something to align itself. I'd much prefer to select my weapons, hit a couple of hotkeys and take off. If it's an absolute insult to those who say "This is NOT a game, it's a simulator", then allow the server to decide weather to allow FC3 style control on planes that have clickable cockpits.

 

Could you imagine the claims?

 

"The only reason you beat me is because you must be using FC3 style gameplay and didn't have to flip any switches."

 

There are other offerings out there that are simply better at what you want.

Why are you tormenting yourself with DCS? It’s full of bugs, bad optimization, few planes and worst of all elitists whose idea of entertainment is entirely different than yours.

[FlankerMan]

I love FC3 (in fact, I currently don't even have any clickable modules), and I voted all of them. Plus, they might be cheaper, and then I'd get the F-16C and F/A-18C right away.

[erniedaoage]

Wouldn't that already exist with anyone who flies current FC3 models like F15, Su33 etc?

 

What if you are interested in this particular game because you like that part of it and not so much the hard core simulation part? Does that mean you need to piss off and go play war thunder instead because this is a simulator not a game. (WTF does that even mean? Not a single person on here is ever going to really fly one of these planes)

 

You already have FC3 so no need to piss of, but i think 6 different aircraft with simplified systems are enough to get to grips with the physics.

 

Simulation games which are aiming for a "as close to real life as possible" experience are a niche in every genre! And flight sims are a quite small niche too if you compare it to racing sims. And because of that there is a smaller market for hardware like joysticks and pedals, but if you invest 200 in a good stick you will be happy with it the next 5 years. So its 40 bucks a YEAR come on thats not even 4bucks a month.

If you can't get immersed through a game and you just see it as a casual fps fragging platform than be happy u have a couple of "less buttons to remember" planes, but don't expect everything gets simplified when its constantly evolving, just because you see it as entertainment and not as a hobby like many others. People are building their own cockpit replicas just for 1 module and some of them are real pilots and have flown those planes.

 

Even if i am never able to fly one of those birds i still like the fact that i would be able to get it up and running and maybe in the air.