Semi fidelity FC style aircraft idea

[Kestrel_505]

So here is an idea my buddies and I were talking about. What about semi fidelity modules. A hybrid between FC style aircraft and full fledge modules. An example would be an E/F Super Hornet, maintaining full function and clickability of the 3 MFDs and UFC, full HOTAS functionality, but ditch the rest of the cockpit clickability that is not vital to using the aircraft for gameplay sake. (perhaps keeping things like FLIR pod and laser switch functional). This may significantly reduce dev time resulting in us having more modules while maintaining the realism of using such aircraft. Just an idea for fun. Perhaps this may be the game plan for Modern Air Combat already which would be amazing.

[Evoman]

I think that concept would be more feasible and a better fit within the Modern Air Combat ecosystem. ED wants to keep DCS pure full fidelity hence the reason why they are moving away from FC style aircraft.

Although one good thing that can come from this, is that there would be more aircraft that would be partially done if ED or one of the third parties are able to obtain a license to upgrade one of the aircraft to full fidelity in the future.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I think that was the idea with Deka's J-11A MFI-55 update

 

It would be welcome I'd say

[bies]

An example would be an E/F Super Hornet, maintaining full function and clickability of the 3 MFDs and UFC, full HOTAS functionality, but ditch the rest of the cockpit clickability that is not vital to using the aircraft for gameplay sake.

 

The problem is what you propose to implement takes close to 80-90% of the developed time of the full fidelity module anyway. Time saving from ommiting some secondary cockpit functionality would be absolutely minimal (if any at all with parallel work of different teams). They would, at best, save very small amount of time and lose "full fidelity" sign, adding "second grade module" stigma, smaller price, adding second 'lower' standard etc. A lot of cons with close to no pros.

 

They would need to make 90% of the work anyway, 3D model, cockpit model and graphics, professional flight model, DDI pages and weapon / avionics logic, bug fixing etc.

 

It would be like

"let's make a full fidelity module but finish at 90% gaining ~ two months and let's sell it for the considerably less price"

"So maybe finish it in about another two months having full fidelity module?"

"Nah, leave it as it is, just because"

 

 

Note F/A-18 with flight model, graphics, A-A weapon, unguided A-G munitions, navigation took relatively small amount of time, a year or so. Adding functional DDI with different pages and guided A-G munitions take another 2-3 years.

 

What you propose is - simplifying - considerable loss of quality for very small, if any, gain in time and resources. It's not worth.

[SharpeXB]

This idea would mean extra effort to develop and update two separate versions of a module. “Full Fidelity” and “Semi Fidelity” so it’s not really feasible. There are already simplifications in DCS like Auto Start and Easy Comms that effectively reduce the needs to learn a lot of the systems.

[Viper1970]

I think it's really a good idea and something I was hoping that Modern Air Combat could be. But how the things look like at the moment MAC will be nothing else as a castrated version of the high fidelity modules and that's what I really don't like it to be.

 

With MAC we could have the chance to see some interesting modules too, which otherwise would never find their way to DCS. Take something like an MI-28, or a KA-52 or even an Apache Longbow as example. The first two we will never see as high fidelitity modules cause of the confidentiality of newer russian aircraft systems and even the Longbow will maybe fail for that reason. It's rumored that if an Apache comes to DCS it will only be an A-model. Come on, we had a relatively realistic simulation of an Apache Longbow over 20 years ago with Janes Longbow 2 and it was for sure realistic for those times and it's possibilities. And this even the Longbow was brand new at those times and most of it's systems where super secret.

 

So how does this super, hyper realism bring anything in case of interesting modules to us? Maybe some guys prefer the 150% realism and they are also mostly the loudest if this discussion starts, but there is also a really great crowd of people who would be fine with 85-90% realism but instead more interesting modules. If it was possible more than twenty years ago, it should be no problem today to make a modern aircraft behave realistic even though not all the information is available. But this isn't enough for those hyper realism guys. It must have the level of a military trainer or it isn't good enough. It's a hobby and nothing else in the end, so if it feels like the real thing, flies like it and the systems are plausible, even if they don't exactly match the real thing, what else do we need? But I know this will never happen in DCS World, but I really had the hope to see some semi realistic interesting stuff in MAC, before I heard what it really should be, a stripped-down version of DCS only.

 

I would always prefer to be able to fly a Longbow Apache at 80% of realism over an A-model at 100% of realism. Just my opinion to this subject.

[Gruman]

As for the basic idea, no thank you. I prefer them to focus on full fidelity modules.

 

Upgrading the FC airframes to a Semi-Fidelity planes to bring them a bit closer to the rest without spending a lot of ressources would otherwise be a interesting. (of course based on the fact that those Airframes never get a Full Fidelity Version).

-> Clickable cockpits in the F15c, SU25 etc without spending tons and tons of work for detailed sub systems.

[Mars Exulte]

@Viper1970

I see. So you're one of those guys that comes to a game built around a certain core principal, and then complain about the entire core principal and how it should totally be different. If you don't want that ''hyper realism'', you should probably avoid altogether a game focused on hyper realism. It's about as intelligent as going to the forums for a FPS and complaining it's not a RTS instead @@ If you want ''huge variety of 3d models using recycled mechanics'' War Thunder is down the hall.

[Viper1970]

As for the basic idea, no thank you. I prefer them to focus on full fidelity modules.

 

Upgrading the FC airframes to a Semi-Fidelity planes to bring them a bit closer to the rest without spending a lot of ressources would otherwise be a interesting. (of course based on the fact that those Airframes never get a Full Fidelity Version).

-> Clickable cockpits in the F15c, SU25 etc without spending tons and tons of work for detailed sub systems.

 

And what does only full fidelity modules bring, if you will never be able to fly something else as aircraft with really all secret information available, which mostly limits the choice to older stuff or not very intersting aircraft. We will see what happens if the Typhoon comes out and what those 150% realism guys will think of it. I expect nothing good here. And this will also be the reason many companies, which could for sure make a real good semi realistic aircraft or even a bit more, will stay away, cause of those totally exaggerated expectations nobody really needs. We aren't pilots in training lessons here. Don't get me wrong, I also don't want to have Ace Combat or War Thunder realism in DCS but you could also overact with the grade of realism a hobby-military-flight-simulation should have.

[Viper1970]

@Viper1970

I see. So you're one of those guys that comes to a game built around a certain core principal, and then complain about the entire core principal and how it should totally be different. If you don't want that ''hyper realism'', you should probably avoid altogether a game focused on hyper realism. It's about as intelligent as going to the forums for a FPS and complaining it's not a RTS instead @@ If you want ''huge variety of 3d models using recycled mechanics'' War Thunder is down the hall.

 

Ah, another wannabe pilot here. Did you ever do something related to a pilot training? Do you really think you could fly those birds if you are able to do so in DCS? There is a bit more that makes the real thing as to know how to flip some switches or use some systems in the right order with the NATOPS at your knees!

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all

 

While DCS at its core is high fidelity we do have flaming cliffs 3, and options to simplify avionics and flight model.

 

We do not currently have any plans to add more low fidelity aircraft to DCS, but we are working on MAC ( Modern Air Combat ) which will be more appealing for quick action and fun.

 

thank you

[Lurker]

Hi all

 

While DCS at its core is high fidelity we do have flaming cliffs 3, and options to simplify avionics and flight model.

 

We do not currently have any plans to add more low fidelity aircraft to DCS, but we are working on MAC ( Modern Air Combat ) which will be more appealing for quick action and fun.

 

thank you

 

Hi Bignewy, is there any more news on MAC? Feels like we have not heard anything about it's development for a long time now.

[Gruman]

And what does only full fidelity modules bring, if you will never be able to fly something else as aircraft with really all secret information available, which mostly limits the choice to older stuff or not very intersting aircraft. We will see what happens if the Typhoon comes out and what those 150% realism guys will think of it. I expect nothing good here. And this will also be the reason many companies, which could for sure make a real good semi realistic aircraft or even a bit more, will stay away, cause of those totally exaggerated expectations nobody really needs. We aren't pilots in training lessons here. Don't get me wrong, I also don't want to have Ace Combat or War Thunder realism in DCS but you could also overact with the grade of realism a hobby-military-flight-simulation should have.

 

The OP has suggested a semi fidelity module, which I disagreed. OP suggested to keep the system focused on MFD and HOTAS. For me this sounds like FC with some additional clickable buttons. This is not 80%... Not even 50%.

And I doubt thats what you want, right?

 

Next is the problem with licencing. While I believe many would be happy if they have a modern airframe with a coverage of 80% of the systems, the licence holder (Boeing, Lockheed, etc) still need to agree and approve the module. This is a policy of ED for themselfs and their 3rd Party developer.Every module has some parts missing, simply because its not important or classification.

 

 

[Viper1970]

Hi all

 

While DCS at its core is high fidelity we do have flaming cliffs 3, and options to simplify avionics and flight model.

 

We do not currently have any plans to add more low fidelity aircraft to DCS, but we are working on MAC ( Modern Air Combat ) which will be more appealing for quick action and fun.

 

thank you

 

I also don't want quick action and fun, I really like realism but I think it should be a good mix of what is possible and what is interesting. I was really excited to see modules like the F-14B, the F-16C, the F/A-18C and the AV-8B had come true in DCS after all those years. What I mean is that it don't have to be the last unimportant or secret system which is modelled like the real thing if it otherwise makes it impossible to do the whole aircraft or we have to wait endless times before a module got finished. A good "that's the thing it could function in real life" is also ok in my opinion. That's far away from the level of action flight sims, of course it's also not military flight trainer level.

 

I really had the hope MAC could be this mix of realism and interesting modules. I'm in this hobby since the beginning and always was hoping for more realism, but I think we have now reached the point where realism goes to far at the cost of aircraft which could be done and also the time one aircraft needs to be fully functional.

 

Just my opinion here and I also know of other people which have the same opinion. Maybe MAC could fill the gap here, but only if it won't be another low realism action flight sim, but a moderate DCS with aircraft not possible to do as fully high fidelity.

[Max1mus]

Hi all

 

While DCS at its core is high fidelity we do have flaming cliffs 3, and options to simplify avionics and flight model.

 

We do not currently have any plans to add more low fidelity aircraft to DCS, but we are working on MAC ( Modern Air Combat ) which will be more appealing for quick action and fun.

 

thank you

 

People here are asking for modules that you cannot make in full fidelity, to be made in low fidelity. I highly doubt anyone here enjoys simplified avionics, but we will accept it if that is the only way to get absolutely necessairy modules that DCS is absolutely lacking at the moment.

[Gruman]

...absolutely necessairy modules that DCS is absolutely lacking at the moment.

Any examples? Sure, there are some modules which would be interesting. But absolutely necessairy is quiet a statement. ;)

[BIGNEWY]

 

People here are asking for modules that you cannot make in full fidelity, to be made in low fidelity. I highly doubt anyone here enjoys simplified avionics, but we will accept it if that is the only way to get absolutely necessairy modules that DCS is absolutely lacking at the moment.

 

And I answered, we have no plans currently to make anymore low fidelity aircraft.

 

thanks

[Viper1970]

Any examples? Sure, there are some modules which would be interesting. But absolutely necessairy is quiet a statement. ;)

 

 

Maybe a Longbow Apache ;) For sure I hope we get one as full fidelity, but it was quiet often stated that it is more probably that we will have an A-model, which Im not very interested in for example.

 

Or something like a Havoc, or an Alligator, or other modern russian aircraft of any kind which are classified.

[Viper1970]

Ok my last post has overlapped with the answer bignewy made. This is a clear statement, so there is nothing more to add.

[bies]

As for the basic idea, no thank you. I prefer them to focus on full fidelity modules.

 

Upgrading the FC airframes to a Semi-Fidelity planes to bring them a bit closer to the rest without spending a lot of ressources would otherwise be a interesting. (of course based on the fact that those Airframes never get a Full Fidelity Version).

-> Clickable cockpits in the F15c, SU25 etc without spending tons and tons of work for detailed sub systems.

 

FC3 are cold war single role planes.

When it comes to i.e. F-15C there was only very rudimentary A-G capabilities with unguided bombs, no guided A-G munitions, no pods, only a few simple DDI pages. 3D model is done, profesional flight model is done, basic cockpit graphic and geometry is done. It would take little time to make F-15C, MiG-29 9.12 or Su-27S to full fidelity standard.

 

But ED have chosen to model very time consuming multirole planes assuming this are more popular/demanded - but there are only 3 truly multirole jets in the world (excluding classified impossible to model in DCS): F/A-18, F-16C, F-4 Phantom. First two are already in DCS Phantom is beng work on internally.

Then - maybe single role uncompromised hot rods from FC3 like F-15C, MiG-29 and Su-27 will have a chance. Who knows.

[Mars Exulte]

 

Ah, another wannabe pilot here. Did you ever do something related to a pilot training? Do you really think you could fly those birds if you are able to do so in DCS? There is a bit more that makes the real thing as to know how to flip some switches or use some systems in the right order with the NATOPS at your knees!

 

Whether or not I'm a pilot is not relevant as to the principal nature of this product. The whole theme of DCS is ''hyper realism'' (as much as practical anyway), and that's a fact. If that doesn't appeal to you, then the obvious solution is a game with a different focus.

 

As for flying airplanes... I dunno if you're one of those pilot's with a god complex, or a ''wannabe'' yourself that worships them, but flying is quite literally... NOT THAT COMPLICATED. Anybody can learn how to do. The base act of flying an aircraft is indeed knowing what buttons to push combined with a rudimentary understanding of flight principles. Based on some of my observations of real pilots, I'd say a dismayingly large portion of them (including commercial pilots) are like that.

 

Almost all of the ''complexity'' of aircraft comes from either the legalese government regulations (comm procedure, inspections, air zones etc) for civil flight, and for combat aircraft military oriented avionics (radar, weapons systems etc) and tactics. Flying an aircraft in and of itself is NOT that complicated and anyone can learn to do it.

 

As for sims being useful for basic training and experience... yes, they are. That's why militaries and commercial airlines around the world use them. And no they're not ''special'' or somehow vastly more complex than the one's we're using, in fact most of them very much focus much more on the ''procedural'' aspect because a hyper accurate flight model is unnecessary.

[Max1mus]

 

FC3 are cold war single role planes.

 

Upgraded versions of MiG-29 and Su-27 are excellent multirole fighters, with excellent anti ship and SEAD capabilities aswell as TV and laser guided weapons.

 

Unfortunately ED does not want to fill this niche with their simulator despite having the option to do so with low fidelity. To ever fly those planes, we will have to wait for a competitor in the market...

[bies]

Upgraded versions of MiG-29 and Su-27 are excellent multirole fighters, with excellent anti ship and SEAD capabilities aswell as TV and laser guided weapons.

 

I spoke about Cold War variants which are in FC3, i didn't mention modern variants which are classified.

 

Unfortunately ED does not want to fill this niche with their simulator despite having the option to do so with low fidelity. To ever fly those planes, we will have to wait for a competitor in the market...

 

There is Ace Combat 7 and War Thunder - they owned this part of the marked completely.

And ED is making Modern Air Combat also.

 

Or F-22 Total Air War - as realistic as can go with classified plane - namely mix of guestimations, pure fiction, totally guessed or made up aerodynamics and performance, classified systems working totally different than in real plane and strictly clasified systems ommited completely...

[Kestrel_505]

Hi all

 

While DCS at its core is high fidelity we do have flaming cliffs 3, and options to simplify avionics and flight model.

 

We do not currently have any plans to add more low fidelity aircraft to DCS, but we are working on MAC ( Modern Air Combat ) which will be more appealing for quick action and fun.

 

thank you

 

Thanks for the response. Again, this was meant to be a fun idea/discussion as a result of my buddies and I just BSing in discord call. Were all looking forward to MAC and what it could bring in terms of flyable aircraft and overall fun. Not that DCS isnt fun lol.

[Harlikwin]

 

The problem is what you propose to implement takes close to 80-90% of the developed time of the full fidelity module anyway. Time saving from ommiting some secondary cockpit functionality would be absolutely minimal (if any at all with parallel work of different teams). They would, at best, save very small amount of time and lose "full fidelity" sign, adding "second grade module" stigma, smaller price, adding second 'lower' standard etc. A lot of cons with close to no pros.

 

They would need to make 90% of the work anyway, 3D model, cockpit model and graphics, professional flight model, DDI pages and weapon / avionics logic, bug fixing etc.

 

It would be like

"let's make a full fidelity module but finish at 90% gaining ~ two months and let's sell it for the considerably less price"

"So maybe finish it in about another two months having full fidelity module?"

"Nah, leave it as it is, just because"

 

 

Note F/A-18 with flight model, graphics, A-A weapon, unguided A-G munitions, navigation took relatively small amount of time, a year or so. Adding functional DDI with different pages and guided A-G munitions take another 2-3 years.

 

What you propose is - simplifying - considerable loss of quality for very small, if any, gain in time and resources. It's not worth.

 

Yup totally agree.

 

I mean the only place it might make sense is with the politically prohibited modules, where you only model certain elements. Basically an FC3 J15 or Su35 etc. Personally I'd perfer they were FF, but...