Modern Air Combat speculation

[Tank50us]

On my way home from work yesterday, I got to thinking about the interview that Nick had with Growling Sidewinder, and came to a couple small conclusions.

1. That MAC would have to be some sort of DCS module as it would make zero sense for ED to just release a second game (creating a new game mode that comes with the module is reasonable however)

2. With MAC being described as being a step up from FC3, but not as difficult as a full fidelity module, this could open the door for a number of aircraft we haven't seen yet in DCS, and likely never would as full fidelity modules (due to a lack of information, or clearance needed to make the module).

 

So, with those things in mind, I got to thinking about what could come to MAC, if it is like I think it will be (namely, a step-up from the FC3 module), and that speculation led me to thinking what aircraft we'd get, and for that, I have a list of viable candidates (and reasons why):

1. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: Being the most capable aircraft in current US Navy Service, it makes perfect sense to add as a MAC plane due to much of the 'under the hood' work being done for the Legacy Hornet being viable for a Super-bug, but with the added bonus of not needing to worry about making everything work like the real thing and 'gamifying' it enough to make it easy to get into, but complex enough to make it worth standing on its own.
2. Mig35 Fulcrum F or Mig29K: Staying with a carrier based aircraft for the RedFor side would be the Mig35 (specifically the naval version being developed), or just the Mig29K. Capable of operating from a Ski-Jump style carrier, it would make a good second option for those looking to fly from the Kuznetsov Carriers currently in game.
3. Panavia Tornado: Although we know that ED could not get access to all the required data needed to make a full fidelity Tornado, that doesn't stop ED from making a semi-fidelity Torado for MAC. If they borrowed and modified some of the systems from the Falcon or Hornet they could make something work that would be passable and still give players demanding the Tornado a Tornado to play with even if it's not a full-fidelity aircraft. The exact model however, is likely to be left up to the players when fitting the aircraft out for a mission.
4. An updated F-15: While we already have the F-15C, I can see ED making a brand new version of the aircraft for MAC that gives us some more capability in the Air Dominance Fighter, namely the ability to fit with Conformal Fuel Tanks, and an updated cockpit that allows some clicking to take place. Overall, I can see the Eagle getting a major facelift with MAC.
5. Su30 and Su35: The most advanced Flankers currently on the export market. While I am not sure what these aircraft would bring to the table compared to the existing Su27, I do see them, like the F-15, having semi-clickable cockpits and a host of other systems being modeled in ways that hopefully don't result in a visit by the KGB (I know they're not called that any more, but still).
6. Mi17 'Hip': An updated, and IMHO, a much better looking version of the Hip currently in DCS, giving RedFor players another transport option while the BluFor get...
7. the UH60 Black Hawk: Any of the variants I think would be nice to have, and given that ED would probably struggle to get their hands on the viable data for the more modern version of the Black Hawk, this may be a viable option to avoid having to model a whole host of systems that the US Military has locked away in a vault while still giving us a very versatile transport helicopter.
8. Additional AI Aircraft and assets: This would probably go without saying, but I do imagine that not only would many of the existing AI planes get major facelifts, but I can see a number of new ones making their way into the game. Examples include:
   1. The 747 and 737 series of civil aircraft, but coming with the VIP and military liveries
   2. C-5B Galaxy and An124 'Condor', because why not have two of the biggest military transport aircraft in the world.
   3. C-2 Greyhound, with all the Supercarrier stuff, I'm legitimately surprised this isn't already in the game outside of the MAM.
   4. KC-10 Extender: If they can work out the bits about giving us a tanker that boom and drogue refuel in the same platform, I think this would easily make it into MAC.
   5. Various smaller AEW Aircraft: While the E-2 is certainly viable for those doing COIN campaigns, in the real world only a few countries actually use it, and as such, buy modified business jets that serve in the AEW role. These aircraft being present would, IMHO, greatly add to the experience in DCS.
   6. With the new Marianas map now available in DCS, I can honestly see ED putting the work in to finally get those old ship models replaced with better looking ones, as well as adding new ships that are surprisingly absent. This also extends to anti-ship options, with mobile Anti-ship batteries being added for us to look for or protect depending on what side you're on in a mission.
   7. And finally, new SAM and AA threats. Although these are currently filtering their way into the game now, I do see this trend continuing as more SAM systems and AA systems are modeled and added. This includes the latest S300 systems, the Patriot PAC3 system, and a host of other systems both stationary and mobile.

 

Basically, I have some high hopes for MAC, and I really hope that ED is able to tackle these things and bring them in. After all, with out having to go full fidelity in certain regards, they don't have to worry about the same things a FF module does (like pesky laws), and just giving us the feeling of flying the aircraft will be sufficient.

 

As for why this isn't in 'Wishlist', it's simple... it isn't really a Wishlist item as it's more me thinking in text about what we might get with Modern Air Combat. But, I do want to see your thoughts guys. Let me know what you think MAC might be, and maybe what you would want to see happen with it.

[Mars Exulte]

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

1. That MAC would have to be some sort of DCS module as it would make zero sense for ED to just release a second game

  Last I heard DCS World is intended to be the core for full fidelity modules, and MAC is intended to be an entirely separate product with lower fidelity modules so the two do not mix. What ''doesn't make sense'' about that? One is for the hardcore community, and one is aimed at something more like the Il-2/ War Thunder crowd.

 

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

2. With MAC being described as being a step up from FC3, but not as difficult as a full fidelity module

  This is likely, I'd say, as FC3 has its core from 15 years ago or so, things have changed a lot since then, including DCS.

 

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

this could open the door for a number of aircraft we haven't seen yet in DCS, and likely never would as full fidelity modules (due to a lack of information, or clearance needed to make the module).

  Low-fi is not a guaranteed bypass for ''lack of information'' or ''lack of licensing/permission''. In particular, even FC3 aircraft have fully developed professional flight models (just like the full fi planes do) so we're not talking THAT much compromise. They're still going to need/want reems and reems of data. It's just the intricacies of the MFDs, radio, and complex avionics may be glossed over or bypassed.

[Tank50us]

15 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

Last I heard DCS World is intended to be the core for full fidelity modules, and MAC is intended to be an entirely separate product with lower fidelity modules so the two do not mix. What ''doesn't make sense'' about that? One is for the hardcore community, and one is aimed at something more like the Il-2/ War Thunder crowd.

 

I think what doesn't make sense is that making it a separate game risks splitting the player base. Keeping all under 'one roof' to me makes more sense as hopping over to a more 'realistic' game mode could be as simple as a few clicks within the game itself.

 

15 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Low-fi is not a guaranteed bypass for ''lack of information'' or ''lack of licensing/permission''. In particular, even FC3 aircraft have fully developed professional flight models (just like the full fi planes do) so we're not talking THAT much compromise. They're still going to need/want reems and reems of data. It's just the intricacies of the MFDs, radio, and complex avionics may be glossed over or bypassed.

 

And that's what I mean. Flight performance data is mostly public information (since some of it crops up in accident reports), but modeling the avionics and such, that's where things get tricky for a FFM. Sure, you can apply some hand waving to it if you simply don't know what does what, like what Grinelli did with the Raptor, but there are currently certain aspects of modern aircraft that are highly classified, and ED (and the 3rd Partys) simply won't have access to.

[Snappy]

7 hours ago, Tank50us said:

 

I think what doesn't make sense is that making it a separate game risks splitting the player base. Keeping all under 'one roof' to me makes more sense as hopping over to a more 'realistic' game mode could be as simple as a few clicks within the game itself.

 

 

And that's what I mean. Flight performance data is mostly public information (since some of it crops up in accident reports), but modeling the avionics and such, that's where things get tricky for a FFM. Sure, you can apply some hand waving to it if you simply don't know what does what, like what Grinelli did with the Raptor, but there are currently certain aspects of modern aircraft that are highly classified, and ED (and the 3rd Partys) simply won't have access to.

I think they don't see it as splitting the player base. Probably more as a stepping stone for completely  new aviation-interested players which offers a possibilty without being faced by a relatively vertical cliff learning curve, at least it could be perceived as that .

 

As for the second part, no unfortunately, depending on what era aircraft we are talking about , the performance data (besides some general data points)  is as much under wraps as the avionics or stealth properties.

 

You need a lot more than some basic numbers for a reasonable flight model, and as far as I understood ED, they still want to offer professional flight models, even for MAC, at least as an option.

Regards,

Snappy

Edited July 13, 2021 by Snappy

[Silver_Dragon]

The last info available about MAC

Quote

 

M.A.C

Modern Air Combat (MAC)

Despite the lack of updates on this project, it is still very much alive and we are making continued progress. Much of the work remains on the new gameplay modes, updating the 3D models and cockpits for the MAC aircraft, creating a new input manager “wizard”, and continued work on a new Graphical User Interface. We are shooting for 3rd quarter 2021 release, but latest Q4 2021.

 

 

I dont expected ED build expecific new aircrafts to MAC, Only "simplified" versions of actual and future modules. About AI, surelly has the same on DCS World core and future releases.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Mars Exulte]

12 hours ago, Tank50us said:

I think what doesn't make sense is that making it a separate game risks splitting the player base.

  Splitting the low-fi stuff off from the main game IS the whole point. DCS would be a study sim with relatively small population, and MAC would end up being a much larger, more casual oriented community. They're only part of the same game NOW because it was an easy way to flesh out the number of aircract back when FC3 accounted for 90% of them. Nowadays the library is extensive enough there's no need to mix the low and hi fi modules like that.

 

12 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Keeping all under 'one roof' to me makes more sense as hopping over to a more 'realistic' game mode could be as simple as a few clicks within the game itself.

  It's not that simple now. It's a $60-80 purchase, not ''game modes'' ala War Thunder's drop down menu. That's the whole point once again, they weren't ever really INTENDED to be one game as it is, FC3 is the leftover bits of DCS predecessor. MAC is reusing assets from hi-fi modules (thereby saving a lot of time and development expense) to make a more publicly appealing ''flight sim'' more akin to the older games of our youth (with enhanced graphics and expanded features, obviously). MAC effectively allows them to double dip into two different communities of gamers, while spending comparatively little on the dev cycle.

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Splitting the low-fi stuff off from the main game IS the whole point. DCS would be a study sim with relatively small population, and MAC would end up being a much larger, more casual oriented community. They're only part of the same game NOW because it was an easy way to flesh out the number of aircract back when FC3 accounted for 90% of them. Nowadays the library is extensive enough there's no need to mix the low and hi fi modules like that.

 

Still doesn't make any sense.

 

There is nothing wrong to have a "FC3" modules mixed with the "High Fidelity". It would actually be exactly better that it is so. 

 

There would be far more studios ready and capable to produce a "FC3" modules than for far more demanding "High Fidelity" modules. The DCS World would get far more population to offer a wide range of aircraft for AI and as well for generic purposes. The studio could as well start with a "FC3" version, gain some sales to fund the development and then develop a High Fidelity version from it, eventually offering both versions. 

 

We could very well have a three levels (let's call them Tier 1 to Tier 3) that are for AI, for FC3 and High Fidelity. The SP mission creators would enjoy from possibility to purchase a packages of example 10 planes for AI purposes from USAF in 1960-1970 and then another pack from USSR or England etc. More content for cheap and low prices.

 

The whole point of the DCS World is Digital Combat Simulator, that includes ground, sea and air units. The whole package. It is now well known for the high fidelity fighters, but it should start to support all others as well. And it takes time and before that it needs a lot of assets and other levels. 

[Mr_sukebe]

My speculation is that it’ll facilitate running on the newest consoles.  Big market out there.

Before then, it’s a question fo redying the platform.