not planned I want to see more low-fidelity aircraft, and here’s why

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Ironhand said:

Yes, ED has moved on to bigger things. Lowly FC3 is on life support and waiting for the plug to be pulled…unfortunately.

I don’t think the plan is to remove these from DCS anytime soon though. For one, it’s the only way to have certain Red Team aircraft in the sim, those will likely never be possible to do full fidelity. 

[Coxy_99]

37 minutes ago, DinkleDorph said:

Full fidelity is harder to use, yes, and far more tedious. FC3 has far less systems to deal with. Only the necessary ones remain (radar, flaps, gear, weapons, etc.), and none of the lame stuff (stores selection, aligning INS, adjusting ADI, selecting fuel flow sources). I find it very immersion breaking to have to precision click tiny switches in the cockpit all the time while keeping my head absolutely still so my head tracking doesn't move and make me click the wrong thing. I'm not interested in dealing with fuel balancing issues or running through checklists in my head for cold starts. Trying to fire rockets during a mission in the F5-E, but not being able to because the select jettison switch was set to "select position" instead of "off".

I want everything great about DCS minus the distracting 'systems'. I can't go back to full fidelity after trying the FC3 planes. They've been so much fun because I can focus on the parts of military aviation I love.

FF modules are just FC3 with switches. (Waiting for triggered community post)

Joke aside raise from the dead. Should simply make an FF flanker and be done with it.

[SharpeXB]

29 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

FF modules are just FC3 with switches.

No because the FF ones simply do more. They have more functionally in their systems and have more capabilities. Of course this requires a clickable cockpit to control it all. 
A FF F-15C would have to be a much more difficult adversary in the game than the simplified FC3 one, in the RW this thing has a 100:0 kill ratio whereas in the game it’s a chump. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, DinkleDorph said:

I don't have any interest in waiting 10 minutes for INS to align, or precision mouse clicking tiny switches in the cockpit that don't directly relate to flying or combat. I want to practice FLYING, not systems management. How to read my radar screen and do BVR combat. How to nail landings. How to dogfight. How to evade missiles. How to fly formation.

FF modules are all compatible with this. You never have to start them, let alone wait for INS. Most jets are HOTAS based so fiddling with switches shouldn't be common, and if you're not interested in using advanced systems, many can be ignored. DCS offers many ways to play, if you just want to jump into a dogfight, you can with any plane.

[Pavlin_33]

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

No because the FF ones simply do more. They have more functionally in their systems and have more capabilities. Of course this requires a clickable cockpit to control it all. 
A FF F-15C would have to be a much more difficult adversary in the game than the simplified FC3 one, in the RW this thing has a 100:0 kill ratio whereas in the game it’s a chump. 

 

In some aspects FC3 planes have also limited functionality compared to their RL counterparts.

It's already a difficult adversary in capable hands. Try flying online against "EvilKipper" and see how it feels like

[Silver_Dragon]

19 hours ago, bies said:

Remember some that aircrafts has planned / on progress by ED / 3rd Parties as hardcore modules (Mig-29A/ED, A-1H/3rd Party Crosstail Studios), and surely more aircrafts will coming on a future. A Lightning has none a "easy" aircraft and someone as F-15C, Su-25/-27, A-10A, etc, was implemented cockpit switch and animations to a "hardcore" module. 

ED has very clear, no more aircrafts to FC-3 but dont disapear as entry gate to players on DCS, MAC comming in the future.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

In some aspects FC3 planes have also limited functionality compared to their RL counterparts.

Obviously since they have simplified systems. 

[BIGNEWY]

Folks keep the feedback constructive please. 

As we have mentioned before MAC is in progress internally, we will share news when we are ready.

Regarding FC3, we have no plans for any more FC3 aircraft. Any bugs or issues we find in FC3 continue to be worked on and fixed when time allows. Keep an eye on patch notes for work. 

thank you 

[draconus]

20 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Regarding FC3, we have no plans for any more FC3 aircraft. Any bugs or issues we find in FC3 continue to be worked on and fixed when time allows.

Is there a plan to add pilot bodies for FC3 aircraft (those that still haven't one)?

[cfrag]

On 6/28/2023 at 9:05 PM, DinkleDorph said:

Full fidelity is harder to use, yes, and far more tedious. FC3 has far less systems to deal with.

One does not necessarily follow the other. I'm flying almost exclusively VR, and there Full Fidelity Cockpits and FC3 cockpits more or less balance out (at least for non-warbirds): most functions are assigned to buttons on the HOTAS, so it's seldom that I need to click a virtual switch. That is by design, as the original aircraft (A-10, Eagle C, Flanker etc) are designed to be flown mostly without taking your hands off the controls. In this regard, in VR those FF cockpits that have MFDs are slightly more user friendly because I can access myriads of functionality from the OSB arrayed around the screen and do not have to hunt for a switch (in cockpit) or seldom-used button on my HOTAS. Flying the C-Hog, Apache, Viper, Hornet, Mudhen in VR is easier than, for example, Flanker, Tiger, Hip, A-Hog, Frogfoot, or C-Eagle. Those MFD come in really handy. For these reasons, and In-flight, I feel that FC3 and FF aircraft generate similar workloads, and unless you allow for system failures, I'd contest your assertion that FF is harder to use and more tedious than FC3 cockpits.

There is one point in which FF aircraft are much, much better than FC - but it's not a mainstream use case, just something that I like to do: radio navigation. FC3 radios aren't fully modelled, and using ADF or similar to find random locations is a joy that's (AFAIK) almost exclusive to FF cockpits. Other than that I feel that FC3 planes and FF are almost evenly balanced, and all their flight models are excellent.

That, of course ends when it comes to cold-starts. There, clicking buttons becomes a chore to me in VR - which of course prompts me to often engage auto-start or straight use the 'hot' slot. Going through the busy-work of starting my jet and waiting for INS align only is my cup of tea every once in a while (strangely, I do enjoy the C-Hog's and Huey's startup procedures, but positively loathe the Bug's - I hate that bit key). The FC3 planes all have three-button startup procs, which I like, but some players find regrettable. I too prefer to fly over pressing switches in the correct sequence while sitting on the tarmac. But the important thing here is that in FF cockpits you have that option, not so in FC3 - an important distinction.

Oh, and yeah, nice necro

On 6/28/2023 at 8:56 PM, bies said:

I've managed F-5E in one afternoon, together with friends. Dogfighting in MP, attacking ground targets, navigating, manually starting and overall having fun the very next day.

That's indeed possible. The Tiger is a dream - and being able to fly it in a couple of hours can be done, provided that you have flown other aircraft before (after all, most aircraft start up the same: battery bus on, alternator on, warning lights on, fuel pumps on, ground power/apu on, start engine(s) ) - so learning the particulars is easy, fun and fast.

That being said, managing the Tiger well can take much longer and is the fun part. I still completely show off my lack of skill when dropping dumb bombs with it. And interpreting those radar returns still seems voodoo to me.

 Also, for people who are new to DCS and flight simming, cold-starting can be a rude shock, un-fun and positively deter them. That's why I usually have a mission set up for new-comers with a hot plane on the tarmac (they all want to fly the Hornet for reasons that are sadly very predictable), and they quickly have fun with an airborne C Eagle. That's the way to hook newcomers. I think that, indeed, few newcomers have an appreciation for complex cockpits. That comes later. And, after literally thousands of hours in DCS I still love my low-complexity A-Hog (it competes with the Huey for the number one time slot). 

So I think that there are definite advantages to hi-fidelity cockpits once you get to the stages of procedures. FM-wise I feel that FC3 and complex planes are evenly matched. So I don't think that we really need more FC3-like cockpits. I believe we already have them - Just use auto/hot start for the complex ones, and we are on almost even footing (except when it comes to failures and radio procedures). In VR.

Edited June 30, 2023 by cfrag

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

One does not necessarily follow the other. I'm flying almost exclusively VR, and there Full Fidelity Cockpits and FC3 cockpits more or less balance out (at least for non-warbirds): most functions are assigned to buttons on the HOTAS, so it's seldom that I need to click a virtual switch. That is by design, as the original aircraft (A-10, Eagle C, Flanker etc) are designed to be flown mostly without taking your hands off the controls. In this regard, in VR those FF cockpits that have MFDs are slightly more user friendly because I can access myriads of functionality from the OSB arrayed around the screen and do not have to hunt for a switch (in cockpit) or seldom-used button on my HOTAS. Flying the C-Hog, Apache, Viper, Hornet, Mudhen in VR is easier than, for example, Flanker, Tiger, Hip, A-Hog, Frogfoot, or C-Eagle. Those MFD come in really handy. For these reasons, and In-flight, I feel that FC3 and FF aircraft generate similar workloads, and unless you allow for system failures, I'd contest your assertion that FF is harder to use and more tedious than FC3 cockpits.

 

This applies without VR as well. I think people really misunderstand the differences between FC3 and FF. I honestly don't look at FC3 as being causal or beginner friendly in the first place. DCS has tons of options and assists that apply to FF planes. Also like you said, the entire concept of HOTAS kind of makes the whole clickable cockpit thing moot. You don't fly a jet with switches, you fly them with the stick and throttle. Your hands are there 90% of the time whether you fly FC3 or FF. The difference is, FF has switches conveniently labeled and allocated around a spacious cockpit which makes them easy to use. In FC3 you need to remember what obscure feature needs to be called with Ctrl + Shift + Alt modifiers because everything is crammed on the keyboard or HOTAS buttons. I'm not even joking when I say I've had easier times starting FF planes than FC3 ones just because I forgot where what key starts the battery. In the FF plane I can just find the cockpit switch.

Anyway I'm not opposed to more FC3 planes, though they are less appealing to buy than FF. However for anyone thinking FF is too much for them, I suggest reconsidering. Use the options and assists that DCS provides to create an experience that works for you. Don't forget about the free trial either.

[Ironhand]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

…for anyone thinking FF is too much for them, I suggest reconsidering..

I’m convinced and I will! Just waiting for an Su-27 or MiG-29 or some such to be released. Looking forward to it with quiet anticipation.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Ironhand

[Horns]

This is somewhat peripheral, but I suggest OP takes advantage of the Fly for Free offers to install FF modules and see if the 'game mode' options on given modules that interest them.

As far as the core suggestion, I have no objection to DCS including more LF modules, but no appetite for them either. If we were in a crowded market where a dev wanted an 'angle' so that they weren't just targeting the same audience segment as every other dev (something like what Ubisoft did for tactical shooters) I wouldn't see a negative to it. However, as things stand we have a limited number of modules made, and where possible I think it's preferable to see them made to the highest level of detail possible.

The LF modules really aren't just FF modules with simplified interaction and flight characteristics. When ED talk about 'Advanced Systems Modeling', the core attribute that defines FF from LF, they are talking about things as central to the gameplay as available radar modes. Much of the radar operation for LF aircraft like the F-15C is made up or inferred. Sure, the flight model and aerodynamics might be tuned with input from Subject Matter Experts like ex-pilots, but that's really a small part of the cockpit experience that wouldn't provide the same window we might get to the aircraft's limitations or effectiveness.

Personally, I'd be disappointed if a dev went to the trouble of making a new module and limited their scope to "it looked like this, flew like this and fired this", but if they did I wouldn't be hostile to its inclusion in DCS either.

[rob10]

59 minutes ago, Horns said:

This is somewhat peripheral, but I suggest OP takes advantage of the Fly for Free offers to install FF modules and see if the 'game mode' options on given modules that interest them.

"Game mode" is no longer a thing as of earlier this year, so that's not going to work.

[Horns]

24 minutes ago, rob10 said:

"Game mode" is no longer a thing as of earlier this year, so that's not going to work.

Shows how much I've played recently, thanks for the info

[LiveseyMD]

On 6/30/2023 at 7:04 PM, Exorcet said:

In FC3 you need to remember what obscure feature needs to be called with Ctrl + Shift + Alt modifiers because everything is crammed on the keyboard or HOTAS buttons

This was my solution for shortcuts - macro keyboard and custom 3d-printed caps.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6125252