Some more modern "Flaming Cliffs" modules

[Ironhand]

34 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The only real question in all of this, is how much code do they share?

Most of it, I imagine. The environment is the same—atmosphere, clouds, terrain, sea, AI. The aircraft will be different at first but, once they start converting DCS aircraft to MAC, much of that will be shared as well. DCS and MAC are modules that plug into their Simulation Operating System, as will future products.

[MAXsenna]

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I stated the point would be simple marketing. MAC is bening built with the assumption that there is a large segment of the market that want's something in between War Thunder and DCS in terms of realism/complexity. By making them two seperate products that share a lot of code, ED can tailor advertising to the correct demographics. The only real question in all of this, is how much code do they share?

I agree with @Ironhand I would assume "everything".

Like I wrote, there have been YT videos from ED staff that have equal modules side by side where one is named MAC. The F-5, Sabre and MiG-15 IIRC. 

[Flogger23m]

19 hours ago, draconus said:

Other (reply in comment section):

None - no more FC3 modules for DCS, please. It's not true that their development is easier (it's like 90% of the FF module) or it's more probable to make them (same restrictions for docs, license and SME apply here).

If you look at the development of most modules, they take years to finish after release. And most of the work is avionics and systems, not artwork or flight model. Even most of the bug fixes are avionics related, not artwork or flight model.

 

15 hours ago, sirrah said:

I didn't follow this entire discussion, so forgive me if I'm derailing any ongoing discussions, but with MAC, perhaps ED wants to try and create a more or less balanced MP platform?

There's multiple prove in this very sub-forum, that some people still think that MP balancing is something that should be provided by ED (instead of the mission creator). I can imagine that, if done a certain way, MAC could fulfill the wishes of this part of the community.

For the rest of us, who just like to learn how to operate full fidelity aircraft/helo's, want to fly with and against each other and don't care too much about winning, you have DCS. For those that want a more competitive (arcade) experience, there's going to be MAC.

 

I think they're chasing after the wrong things. Even if they are targetting PvP, the same improvements can be beneficial to DCS as well. With the proposed MAC concept as an example, an F-15C vs an L-39 is not exactly "balanced".

 

The lower fidelity modules would be great for things like this, MIG-29s with AGM-88s:

 

 

Or Su-27 if you prefer:

 

Edited September 16, 2022 by Flogger23m

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

If you look at the development of most modules, they take years to finish after release. And most of the work is avionics and systems, not artwork or flight model. Even most of the bug fixes are avionics related, not artwork or flight model.

FC3 birds still have weapons, avionics and systems behind it to model, just simplified in some parts and lacking in others: instruments and gauges, radar, WCS/FCS, EOS, tpods, RWR, ECM/CMs, FCS/autopilot, engines, fuel system, hydraulic, electrical, gear, nav... Also need damage model (both internal and external), liveries, missions/campaigns, trainings/tutorials, manual... Sum it up - it's almost the same amount of time and resources. The only faster and easier process would be convertion from FF that already exists.

btw: Here you have HARM for MiG-29: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3325726/

No need for another game just for such things.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

11 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

 

I think they're chasing after the wrong things. Even if they are targetting PvP, the same improvements can be beneficial to DCS as well. With the proposed MAC concept as an example, an F-15C vs an L-39 is not exactly "balanced".

Indeed, that isn't a balanced fight. So, why did the mission maker match up an Eagle with an Albatros? That's on them, specifically.

Now, take a look at the MAC line-up:
F-15C Eagle
Su-27 Flanker B
Su-33 Flanker D
J-11A Flanker B+
MiG-29 Fulcrum A
MiG-29S Fulcrum C
A-10A Warthog
Su-25A Frogfoot
Su-25T Frogfoot
F-86F Sabre
MiG-15bis Fagot
F-5E Tiger II
MiG-21bis Fishbed
L-39ZA

All aircraft already modeled in DCS world, but simplified. There's a reason why that is: By ED's own statement, a FC3-level module takes almost as much time as a full fidelity one. Heatblur's Cobra corroborated this when the topic of an FC3 level JA-37D came up. They still have to do flight model, accurately. They still have to construct the external model and still have to make the cockpit. They still have to do a lion's share of the work and then they expect a fraction of the return because it'll be in a bundle of others like it? There's why you don't see more.

I'm afraid the days of FC3 level modules may be over. Combined that with current global tensions, there's no way in hell we're seeing a Su-35 or later Fulcrum in the immediate future, even as an FC3-level add on.

Edited September 16, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Ironhand]

15 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

…With the proposed MAC concept as an example, an F-15C vs an L-39 is not exactly "balanced"….

Neither is an F-15C vs an A-10A or Su-25. So I’m not quite sure what your point was.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Ironhand

[Evoman]

10 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Indeed, that isn't a balanced fight. So, why did the mission maker match up an Eagle with an Albatros? That's on them, specifically.

Now, take a look at the MAC line-up:
F-15C Eagle
Su-27 Flanker B
Su-33 Flanker D
J-11A Flanker B+
MiG-29 Fulcrum A
MiG-29S Fulcrum C
A-10A Warthog
Su-25A Frogfoot
Su-25T Frogfoot
F-86F Sabre
MiG-15bis Fagot
F-5E Tiger II
MiG-21bis Fishbed
L-39ZA

All aircraft already modeled in DCS world, but simplified. There's a reason why that is: By ED's own statement, a FC3-level module takes almost as much time as a full fidelity one. Heatblur's Cobra corroborated this when the topic of an FC3 level JA-37D came up. They still have to do flight model, accurately. They still have to construct the external model and still have to make the cockpit. They still have to do a lion's share of the work and then they expect a fraction of the return because it'll be in a bundle of others like it? There's why you don't see more.

I'm afraid the days of FC3 level modules may be over. Combined that with current global tensions, there's no way in hell we're seeing a Su-35 or later Fulcrum in the immediate future, even as an FC3-level add on.

 

Those are some very good observations I have not thought of before. It makes total sense why ED chose the aircraft it had already modeled. Which gives a good indication that future add on aircraft for MAC would derive from existing FF modules.

[snowman[FR]]

SU 34

[Flogger23m]

On 9/16/2022 at 7:32 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Indeed, that isn't a balanced fight. So, why did the mission maker match up an Eagle with an Albatros? That's on them, specifically.

Some people were commenting about how lower level fidelity planes need to be balanced, so that argument doesn't really hold water.

 

On 9/16/2022 at 7:32 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

All aircraft already modeled in DCS world, but simplified. There's a reason why that is: By ED's own statement, a FC3-level module takes almost as much time as a full fidelity one. Heatblur's Cobra corroborated this when the topic of an FC3 level JA-37D came up. They still have to do flight model, accurately. They still have to construct the external model and still have to make the cockpit.

Yet it is the avionics that always take the longest. DCS F-16 isn't getting much if any artwork updates, but is still adding features to its avionics years later. This was also true with the F-18. The planes always seem to release with finished artwork and flight models that might need minor tweaks. But almost always take years to finish the avionics and systems. Despite what they say, the actual results tell us the opposite.

 

On 9/16/2022 at 7:32 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

They still have to do a lion's share of the work and then they expect a fraction of the return because it'll be in a bundle of others like it? There's why you don't see more.

That makes zero logical sense. No one is forcing them to bundle their modules with anything. Is DCS F-16 tied to a bundle with the AH-64, L-39 or F-86? It isn't.

You can also buy the FC3 planes separately on the ED shop and Steam, and have been able to for years at this point. So there is clearly no technical reason why planes can't be released individually. ED even releases terrains and NPC 3D models as separate packages.

 

On 9/16/2022 at 7:32 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I'm afraid the days of FC3 level modules may be over. Combined that with current global tensions, there's no way in hell we're seeing a Su-35 or later Fulcrum in the immediate future, even as an FC3-level add on.

Possibly. Even without modern Russian planes there are still many other planes out there.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 9/23/2022 at 1:44 PM, Flogger23m said:

Some people were commenting about how lower level fidelity planes need to be balanced, so that argument doesn't really hold water.

 

Yet it is the avionics that always take the longest. DCS F-16 isn't getting much if any artwork updates, but is still adding features to its avionics years later. This was also true with the F-18. The planes always seem to release with finished artwork and flight models that might need minor tweaks. But almost always take years to finish the avionics and systems. Despite what they say, the actual results tell us the opposite.

 

That makes zero logical sense. No one is forcing them to bundle their modules with anything. Is DCS F-16 tied to a bundle with the AH-64, L-39 or F-86? It isn't.

You can also buy the FC3 planes separately on the ED shop and Steam, and have been able to for years at this point. So there is clearly no technical reason why planes can't be released individually. ED even releases terrains and NPC 3D models as separate packages.

 

Possibly. Even without modern Russian planes there are still many other planes out there.

1. It doesn't matter what "people" are commenting on, balance doesn't enter into DCS development if the end goal is to create realistic war fighting. Which is DCS's stated aim. That is up to the mission maker to determine if balance is important and, if so, how to make it. It'd be nice to see some updates done to the capabilities FC3 aircraft, but beyond the models and flight models, I doubt we will. These were made to model a specific time period of those aircraft. Further documentation may not be forthcoming on any expanded capabilities. 

2. And guess what you still have to do in an FC3 level aircraft? You still need to model the avionics and radar to a high level of fidelity for DCS. That's the standard they have set forward. Just because it's more abstracted doesn't make a difference. The radar and avionics (given that avionics is quite a broad term when in regards to 4th gen fighters) still need to be modeled. Also, this is from ED's own statements. It doesn't matter what anyone else says. 

3. So, you're going to put up a non-full fidelity module alongside full fidelity ones? Good luck, have fun.

4. There are, and again, developers have stated FC3 level modules don't require that much less work to do. 

These are not points I'm making from my own opinion, these are the facts of development that have been posted on these forums for a long time now. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Flogger23m]

On 9/25/2022 at 10:44 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

1. It doesn't matter what "people" are commenting on, balance doesn't enter into DCS development if the end goal is to create realistic war fighting.

Which is ironic, seeing that the people in this thread that are against lower fidelity planes claim they can't be made for balance reasons.

 

On 9/25/2022 at 10:44 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

2. And guess what you still have to do in an FC3 level aircraft? You still need to model the avionics and radar to a high level of fidelity for DCS. That's the standard they have set forward. Just because it's more abstracted doesn't make a difference. The radar and avionics (given that avionics is quite a broad term when in regards to 4th gen fighters) still need to be modeled.

The level of detail for radars, radar modes, switches, etc. are a lot more simplified for the F-15C compared to the F-18 or F-16. I'm not buying that the FC3 planes are as high fidelity as the high fidelity planes.

 

On 9/25/2022 at 10:44 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

3. So, you're going to put up a non-full fidelity module alongside full fidelity ones? Good luck, have fun.

We've been able to do it in DCS for around a decade+ at this point. Not sure why it is a problem going forward.

 

On 9/25/2022 at 10:44 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

4. There are, and again, developers have stated FC3 level modules don't require that much less work to do. 

These are not points I'm making from my own opinion, these are the facts of development that have been posted on these forums for a long time now. 

 

 

Anyone with common sense would realize that isn't true. You can check the newsletter and patch change logs to confirm. What people tell you and what occurs doesn't always line up. The amount of flight model and artwork tweaking compared to avionics changes, bug fixes and implementation isn't even close. With few exceptions most of the modules have released with completed artwork and flight models, with only minor tweaks.

The avionics and other systems are typically not even close to finished when most modules release, and take around 2 years to finish typically. If those aspects were as easy to develop they wouldn't lag so far behind in development. Planes like the F-18 and F-16 took years to implement all of their weapons, and years to various avionic functions. But the rest was essentially unchanged.

[Tom Kazansky]

Would you be interested in purchasing more simplified "Flaming Cliffs" style modern fighters?  

Where is the "no" button?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 9/30/2022 at 11:49 PM, Flogger23m said:

 

Anyone with common sense would realize that isn't true. You can check the newsletter and patch change logs to confirm. What people tell you and what occurs doesn't always line up. The amount of flight model and artwork tweaking compared to avionics changes, bug fixes and implementation isn't even close. With few exceptions most of the modules have released with completed artwork and flight models, with only minor tweaks.

The avionics and other systems are typically not even close to finished when most modules release, and take around 2 years to finish typically. If those aspects were as easy to develop they wouldn't lag so far behind in development. Planes like the F-18 and F-16 took years to implement all of their weapons, and years to various avionic functions. But the rest was essentially unchanged.

And, yet, the developers indicate otherwise. Who will I go with? 

You? Or the people working on the software itself.

It's best to accept and move on, tbh. At best, we get MAC. 

 

Edited October 4, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Flogger23m]

On 10/3/2022 at 8:56 PM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

And, yet, the developers indicate otherwise. Who will I go with?

You? Or the people working on the software itself.

 

I think the results speak for themselves. Would you believe the Earth is flat if someone told you? Because DCS F-16 is still not finished with avionics, but the 3D model and animations have been done for a long time now.

Yes this reply is 8 months late, which proves my point. We all know the avionics is the hardest part and takes the longest. There is also significantly more documentation and manual writing required. Every module is released with finished artwork, minus some skins, and flight models that are essentially done with minor tweaking. But it takes years for all avionic features to get implemented in Early Access.

You can believe words, or believe results.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Flogger23m