DCS: F-15C Poll

[MstrCmdr]

Cool. So no ASM

[OfficerBull]

I noticed in the instagram for ED that someone asked when we were getting a full fidelity cockpit, and the the ED page replied with soon. So I'm wondering if the admin just thought the guy was asking for 15s in general being that the E is eventually coming out, or if ED is going to use that to update the C model.

 

[MstrCmdr]

32 minutes ago, OfficerBull said:

I noticed in the instagram for ED that someone asked when we were getting a full fidelity cockpit, and the the ED page replied with soon. So I'm wondering if the admin just thought the guy was asking for 15s in general being that the E is eventually coming out, or if ED is going to use that to update the C model.

 

No way, I dont have insta, can you pop a screenshot in here?

[Spurts]

clickpit does not mean ASM, but we can dream.  ASM F-15C would be unreal.

[MstrCmdr]

Ok Im done with all this acronym stuff.  Just wanted to know if it was full fidelity. Thanks for the help

[OfficerBull]

4 hours ago, MstrCmdr said:

No way, I dont have insta, can you pop a screenshot in here?

Soon can mean many things when you don't have a timeline to compare it to. But I would very much like the C model over the E model. Those damn WSO's just aren't my friend. Always complaining about my flying XD

Don't know why it's the size of Texas, but straight from one of the horses many mouths. 

[draconus]

11 hours ago, MstrCmdr said:

The current F-15C is basically LOMAC and not a PFM.  In the AH-64D release manual on Page 15 there is a picture with the F-15C module icon at the bottom of the main menu that says "beta."

F-15C for DCS is not LOMAC. It has all new 6DOF 3D cockpit, 3D model and flight model (it's PFM). Some systems/features were changed/added too but it surely is not full fidelity module and the cockpit is not clickable (it's SSM).

The "beta" info under the F-15C icon is no longer true and is just some leftover - ED were never consistent with what this info under the icons mean. Sometimes it says beta, sometimes it's some old version number... whatever.

Last time we heard F-15C is not in plans of ED or any other 3rd party. OfficerBull's info is new to me but that would be great if true. Officially and announced only the F-15E by RAZBAM is going to hit DCS this (or maybe the next?) year.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

It would be great that RAZBAM would include a hi-fi version of C with E.

In the end, we can always dream/wish.

[draconus]

FYI

 

[BIGNEWY]

F-15E is being done by RAZBAM, we have no plans for any other F-15 variant at the moment. 

thanks

[marcoscosta]

On 3/7/2022 at 12:46 PM, BIGNEWY said:

F-15E is being done by RAZBAM, we have no plans for any other F-15 variant at the moment. 

thanks

If you want to kill me, just stab me to death, I will suffer less. 

Edited March 13, 2022 by marcoscosta

[Flappie]

Truth hurts.

[Wizard_03]

On 3/7/2022 at 8:46 AM, BIGNEWY said:

F-15E is being done by RAZBAM, we have no plans for any other F-15 variant at the moment. 

thanks

Why? I have a huge poll showing people want it, overwhelming majority. Should be easy money for ya'll.

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Wizard_03

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 3/7/2022 at 10:46 AM, BIGNEWY said:

F-15E is being done by RAZBAM, we have no plans for any other F-15 variant at the moment. 

thanks

Would you be open to the idea of using APG-70 data to fix the F-15C's under performing radar

 

There were in fact F-15Cs that used this radar albeit a handful but it would be better than what we have now which matches no IRL eagles at all

[OfficerBull]

5 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Why? I have a huge poll showing people want it, overwhelming majority. Should be easy money for ya'll.

 

 

Takes time, effort, and money. It also doesn't seem the feasible being there is already a company making a full fidelity model. I know they are very different, but it doesn't seem to be a good move. Also, it's a little bit more than making it to where a few switches are changed, they would have to completely remodel the cockpit, and then probably re do the exterior. Would it be nice? absolutely! But it isn't as easy as we could hope. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

19 minutes ago, OfficerBull said:

they would have to completely remodel the cockpit, and then probably re do the exterior

Cockpit model and exterior model need to be redone anyway for MAC, and since the flight model is already done, there must be another reason. One we're not privy to...

[Wizard_03]

2 hours ago, OfficerBull said:

Takes time, effort, and money. It also doesn't seem the feasible being there is already a company making a full fidelity model. I know they are very different, but it doesn't seem to be a good move. Also, it's a little bit more than making it to where a few switches are changed, they would have to completely remodel the cockpit, and then probably re do the exterior. Would it be nice? absolutely! But it isn't as easy as we could hope. 

Yeah again I have a poll that says otherwise, and besides we already have two A-10s, two FW-190s, Two maps that cover the same area, and pretty soon we're gonna get another KA-50, you can't tell me that resources are better allocated to those projects then a FF Eagle despite what RAZBAM is doing I don't see any conflict in sales as the two aircraft are; just that, two different aircraft and we already have variations on similar aircraft in game RN and they didn't/don't bat an eye at it.

The hard part is the FM according to ED themselves and that is already in a release state, along with most of the related systems like hydro, and electrical even the FM with SAS off is complete along with stall and spin modes. Cockpit overhaul could be done with 3d scanning these days and is much much easier from an art perspective then it was when FC3 came out. Most of the switches are even animated in the current in game model. No new weapons need to be added with the exception of JHMCS and 9x (possibly) no complex A2G smart weapons or guided weapons and stores pages/info need be added since it doesn't use them. Based on how quickly they pumped out the viper I don't see the radar or weapon systems or datalink taking too much time since the ASM framework for them is already in place with the viper and hornet which are in fact MORE complex in that regard. Basically You have a half finished module out there that cost 10 bucks but with a little work you charge 4 to 6 times that much and people would buy it according to poll.

 

I don't really see how this doesn't net them a bunch of money and us an Iconic plane that can be, should be in the game in a FF state for a relatively small amount of work compared with bring in a new aircraft from scratch.

1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

One we're not privy to...

Evidently.

Edited March 30, 2022 by Wizard_03

[Callsign112]

10 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Why? I have a huge poll showing people want it, overwhelming majority. Should be easy money for ya'll.

 

 

Maybe a better question is, do you think ED would retire/drop support of the FC3 plane set? Personally I think the plane set is too interesting and important to retire/drop, and that's one of the reasons why I think there is an issue here that is worth working through for ED.

The learning curve to a SIM like this is real, and it represents a real obstacle for the average computer user. That doesn't mean the average user can't learn DCS, its just that he/she is less likely to make the time commitment required. Its too much like work for someone that just wants to sit down and mindlessly blast holes in things for a couple of hours at the end of their day.

Enter FC3, a less expensive, easier to learn entry point with a similar dose of realism! And after trying it, I would say FC3 does not a bad job at delivering!

I'm certain ED realizes this is a very powerful combination, but the question I have is whether they are really marketing it to its full potential. I mean I've been here more than 3 years, and other than reading the product description page out of my own interest, I can't say I have seen anything from ED that pointed me in the direction of FC3.

Anytime I heard FC3 come up in conversations, the emphasis always seems to end on the understanding that they are simplified versions of ED's FF modules.

I think that is completely the wrong focus! The reason most here are willing to work through the learning curve of FF modules is the realism they get from it. That's the prize. If FC3 is supposed to be a shortcut to that prize, shouldn't realism be the focus of the FC3 discussion point for the average user? Especially for the average user just starting out?

The pinnacle of the DCS experience is realism, and I think ED should do more to make the tie in between the FC3 plane set and the realism DCS World represents more clear. Shift away from the culture of being just simplified versions, hence my questions about performance issues that might detract from the user experience. 

In my view, I think the need to maintain a difference between FF and FC3 is obvious, but delivering realism should still be the primary goal of both products. Any performance issues should be addressed, especially if they impose a disadvantage in MP game play.

In terms of seeing a FF 15C Eagle, I can't see that happening as long as there is a FC3 module, but I wonder what your poll would have shown had it asked if people would support updated versions of the FC3 plane set? Like higher res cockpits and more realistic radar systems.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Callsign112

[draconus]

7 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

In terms of seeing a FF 15C Eagle, I can't see that happening as long as there is a FC3 module, but I wonder what your poll would have shown had it asked if people would support updated versions of the FC3 plane set? Like higher res cockpits and more realistic radar systems.

It'd indeed make a precedent having the exact same aircraft in DCS in both FC3 quality and FF but I don't think the potential FF F-15C would be the same version as the current FC3 - so I don't see a problem here.

FC3 came as a huge module gap filling and it did its job pretty well. After years it's no longer applicable to current DCS state.

I don't believe in the need for flattening the learning curve FC3 way. With FF module you're not forced to start cold, go with full procedure, including all the tests all while the 10min INS alignment and data input. You can start hot on runway or even run airborne Instant Action mission and start firing guns and dropping bombs in minutes. If you want to learn more and dedicate yourself more you can go deep down the rabbit hole. FC3 currently only limits you both on functionality and controls. And ED does not seem go this way in DCS anymore.

But DCS cannot just ditch FC3 atm. These are aircraft that many own, fly and there are no FF alternatives, esp. for red side.

Edited March 31, 2022 by draconus

[Exorcet]

12 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

 

In terms of seeing a FF 15C Eagle, I can't see that happening as long as there is a FC3 module, but I wonder what your poll would have shown had it asked if people would support updated versions of the FC3 plane set? Like higher res cockpits and more realistic radar systems.

 

This hasn't stopped the A-10 (FC3 and FF) or the MiG-29 (FC3 and planned FF). There is no reason why both can't exist at the same time, especially when they would likely share code (FM, 3D Model).

Improvements for FC3 would be nice, but anything short of a full DCS module means we're lacking features and it's especially sad for one of the most iconic aircraft of all time. As far as I can see there is no reason not to produce DCS Eagle. Maybe ED looked into it and found some roadblocks like classified info on certain systems, but from the outside the lack of a full F-15C module is extremely bizarre.

[Callsign112]

16 hours ago, draconus said:

It'd indeed make a precedent having the exact same aircraft in DCS in both FC3 quality and FF but I don't think the potential FF F-15C would be the same version as the current FC3 - so I don't see a problem here.

FC3 came as a huge module gap filling and it did its job pretty well. After years it's no longer applicable to current DCS state.

I don't believe in the need for flattening the learning curve FC3 way. With FF module you're not forced to start cold, go with full procedure, including all the tests all while the 10min INS alignment and data input. You can start hot on runway or even run airborne Instant Action mission and start firing guns and dropping bombs in minutes. If you want to learn more and dedicate yourself more you can go deep down the rabbit hole. FC3 currently only limits you both on functionality and controls. And ED does not seem go this way in DCS anymore.

But DCS cannot just ditch FC3 atm. These are aircraft that many own, fly and there are no FF alternatives, esp. for red side.

 

You would have to elaborate more on what you mean by different version, because I'm not sure I am following you.

My view point that we are not likely to see a FF A10A, or F15C is based on what we already have in-game like the A10A vs A10C, Su-25T vs Su-25, or F-15C vs F-15E. In all of these cases, the planes in each pair are different enough that you could almost say they are different planes. And the logic ED seems to be using there makes sense to me.

Contrast that comparison with say the two Mustang versions you get with the paid module, which are essentially the same plane. The fact that ED provides you with both when you purchase the Mustang module also make sense to me.

They could have made a FF A10A, but they didn't and if you ask me the reason they made an A10C instead seems obvious.

 But I agree with you, there is more than one way to learn. And its not that DCS is so hard to learn that unless they flatten the learning curve, ED is going to go out of business. Certainly all the things you mentioned are viable ways to learn DCS, but again its not really the point I was driving at.

Whether you agree or not, DCS has more of a learning curve to get through than say WarThunder for example. WarThunder on the other hand has tens of thousands of active online players. Now the fact that DCS is more difficult to learn doesn't mean its not learnable, it just means it requires more effort than hitting the power button on your CPU. And I don't know if I would think of it as flattening the learning curve as much as I would think of it as making it easier for more people to access/enjoy/become interested in a MP setting.

It is interesting to note that all the things you mentioned are geared more towards SP and the way individual players use DCS to learn. The point I was driving at was more interested in the possibility of seeing an expansion in MP learning.

But I think you hit the nail on the head with your description of how people learn DCS because I think it is quite accurate. It is in fact how DCS has been geared to learn, and I don't think its an accident that the user base is largely SP.

And I agree, I don't think ED should ditch FC3. I think they should do the exact opposite and improve on it.      

Edited April 1, 2022 by Callsign112

[Callsign112]

10 hours ago, Exorcet said:

This hasn't stopped the A-10 (FC3 and FF) or the MiG-29 (FC3 and planned FF). There is no reason why both can't exist at the same time, especially when they would likely share code (FM, 3D Model).

Improvements for FC3 would be nice, but anything short of a full DCS module means we're lacking features and it's especially sad for one of the most iconic aircraft of all time. As far as I can see there is no reason not to produce DCS Eagle. Maybe ED looked into it and found some roadblocks like classified info on certain systems, but from the outside the lack of a full F-15C module is extremely bizarre.

I completely agree with you, and wish the A10A was a FF module in DCS. I just don't think it will happen with the current product lineup. But IMO I think ED could also improve FC3 so that it is more inline with the DCS brand of quality without threatening or cannibalizing the FF modules.   

[draconus]

5 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

You would have to elaborate more on what you mean by different version, because I'm not sure I am following you.

...

They could have made a FF A10A, but they didn't and if you ask me the reason they made an A10C instead seems obvious.

...

Whether you agree or not, DCS has more of a learning curve to get through than say WarThunder for example. WarThunder on the other hand has tens of thousands of active online players. Now the fact that DCS is more difficult to learn doesn't mean its not learnable, it just means it requires more effort than hitting the power button on your CPU. And I don't know if I would think of it as flattening the learning curve as much as I would think of it as making it easier for more people to access/enjoy/become interested in a MP setting.

It is interesting to note that all the things you mentioned are geared more towards SP and the way individual players use DCS to learn. The point I was driving at was more interested in the possibility of seeing an expansion in MP learning.

I meant that the FF F-15C doesn't have to be the same exact version as we currently have - even named F-15C it can be different radar/version, avionics upgrade pack and capabilities that go with it like JHMCS, 9X, DL.

I'm not seeing what is so obvious why ED did not make FF A-10A. Just to not have both FF and FC3 versions playing side by side?

There always were some training servers and players helping out but I'm not into the idea of making MP easily accessible to random pilots without basic knowledge and skills - it's a mess. Even DCS schools/academies have rules and schedules. And DCS does not follow other games and will never have that huge player base* - because it's different kind of game - even if you can do almost same things in both. You'd be talking about MAC if you want to make any comparison with WT.

ED does not go FC3 way anymore - they make it pretty clear by making only FF modules for DCS and creating MAC - a separate game.

*A lot of boys want to shoot guns but desire to become a pilot is rare.

[Callsign112]

5 hours ago, draconus said:

....

 And DCS does not follow other games and will never have that huge player base* - because it's different kind of game - even if you can do almost same things in both.

....

I agree that it doesn't have to be the exact same version, but you don't even have to go that far because you could just simply model it so that the FC3 version of the exact same plane is less capable! But if you were going to go through all the work, why not just call it an F-15E?

But where you and I completely separate in both logic and opinion is captured perfectly in the bold text above. While you claim to be able to tell the future, I am pointing to facts we know today.

I'm not making a comparison with WT because I think a comparison like that would be worthwhile, I used WT as an example to emphasize how much steeper the learning curve is in DCS. But again, in case anyone new, or uninitiated yet is following along, DCS is very learnable.

And even if ED has decided to burn FC3 in favor of going purely with FF modules, your comments would still be misaligned with my discussion.

Numerous people have voiced their wish that ED would make a lot of the planes in the FC3 plane-set FF. And I would agree 100% with them because the FC3 plane-set is both important and interesting IMO. So much so that I think it would be a bizarre move on the part of ED to exclude them from DCS World.

But based on the feedback/response ED has given the community and the way the current list of available planes was made, I am doubtful we will see FF version of the 10A and 15C especially when considering there are likely other business strategy issues attached to the topic. But I am having trouble pinning down your view point. Are you for or against making FC3 planes FF? Would you be opposed to see the FC3 plane-set improved, or would you support it?

[CarbonFox]

On 3/7/2022 at 10:46 AM, BIGNEWY said:

F-15E is being done by RAZBAM, we have no plans for any other F-15 variant at the moment. 

thanks

Will you be making any visual improvements atleast to the F-15C cockpit? The pit details really need a touch up.