Some more modern "Flaming Cliffs" modules

[Evoman]

On 9/10/2022 at 7:42 PM, Flogger23m said:

Last I heard about that was 2-3 years ago. Is there any more info about that? Personally I think it is a bad idea because it segregates the modules, unless they plan to port all of the planes like the F/A-18C, Mirage 2000C and maps I own for DCS to MAC. I also think ED is spread a bit thin when it comes to patching and updates as is. For example, any update to the mission editor will require them to redo the work twice.

If this proposed MAC doesn't include the same (or better) mission editor, the product will be dead on arrival.

 

Not really. A modern plane is easier to operate than an older one. Easier to fly, easier to use the systems, and weapons are easier to employ. The F-18C for example is a good bit more simple to use than the Mirage 2000C. The older the planes, the less accessible they are.

Viggen is a good example. I find it much easier to use the AGM-65 in the F-18, F-16 and A-10A than the Viggen. Same weapon, but the Viggen is much harder.

That is why I would like some fairly realistic, but not full fidelity level, modern fighters. Go back to the roots of the series. For the older stuff at high fidelity there are plenty of modules out there and more coming like the A-7, F-8, etc.

The original plans for MAC was to include a set list of 14 simplified aircraft. However its not clear if MAC will be limited to only these 14 aircraft or if more will be available for purchase later on.

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

Here is the some additional info about MAC:

Each aircraft’s flight model, sounds, external model and cockpit is recreated to an exceptional level of detail and accuracy. Great care has been given to offer scalable gameplay that suits your personal levels and wishes. This includes intuitive and consistent keyboard controls between aircraft, selectable difficulty settings, option for more forgiving flight dynamics, and even the ability to fly these aircraft with just your keyboard.

You can generate an unlimited number of missions using the Fast Mission Creator and Mission Editor. MAC also includes numerous instant action and single missions, as well as campaigns for most of the aircraft and is fully compatible with DCS World online! There are no limits to content.

In addition to the full Caucasus map, MAC also includes a limited part of our Nevada and Persian Gulf maps.

Key Features of MAC:

• 14 exceptional combat aircraft from the United States, Russia, China and Czech Republic.
• Shallow learning curve with consistent key controls between aircraft, and easy to fly with just a keyboard.
• Professional level flight models, but with option for forgiving flight dynamics.
• Play instant action, single missions and campaigns for most aircraft in single player or fly online.
• Supports Virtual Reality like Oculus Rift, HTC Vive and Windows Mixed Reality.
• Includes the Caucasus map and portions of Nevada and the Persian Gulf.
• Purchase MAC aircraft individually or as a pack at a reduced price.
• Flaming Cliffs 3 owners can purchase the MAC pack at a great discount.

 

I agree that the AGM-65 are easier to use on other aircraft than in the Viggen but that is just one of those short comings that every aircraft has. However the Viggen is still fairly easy to operate overall compared to newer aircraft.

 

I also would like to mention that I have seen more requests on here over the past years for FC3 aircrat to be made into FF modeules like the F-15C and the A-10A.  The few FC3  level aircraft that are requested are for aircraft that are not feasible to do as FF like really modern aircraft like the F-22 or rare prototypes like the Tigershark.

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Evoman

[Ironhand]

On 9/11/2022 at 5:07 AM, MAXsenna said:

People want full fi, not the other way around. MAC is supposed to be a stepping stone for new players before they plunge into DCS. 

That said, I really hope all those modules and more come to MAC. Don't quote me, ut I think I saw somewhere, that if you own a DCS module, you don't have to pay for it in MAC. 

If people only wanted “full fidelity”, there would be no reason to create MAC. It’s because there is a void between console and “full fidelity” combat sims that MAC is being created. It’s purpose is not to generate more DCS customers (though that will probably happen to some degree) but rather to provide a venue for the customers who want to enjoy a serious military sim without the time investment DCS modules require.

With MAC, the customer can be up and running with a shorter learning curve and still fly aircraft using the professional flight model and realistic flight controls. Or use a more relaxed flight model, if that’s their desire. Use a joystick and throttle or keyboard and mouse to fly. The goal is to appeal to a much wider customer base than DCS.

I’ve never seen anything suggesting that, if you own a DCS module, it would be free in MAC. But it could be, I suppose. FC3 customers will supposedly be able to buy MAC at a discounted price. And future MAC aircraft module additions will supposedly have been DCS aircraft first. So it seems likely that, if nothing else, they too would be discounted.

 

 

….

[SharkWizard]

During a recent interview with the flight school owner Tim Davies, Simon Pearson, the business developer for DCS, made an interesting comment regarding "low-fidelity" modules. 

 

I for one would be interested in a MiG-29K 9-31 even if it was low or medium fidelity.  

[Flogger23m]

21 hours ago, okopanja said:

The effort on MAC is already spent, so pretty much what we discuss here is kind of pointless They burned already too much effort into it for management to reverse the decision.

Still, I find it surprising they will actually move to that point without first providing FF replacement for most critical FC3 birds. Once you eliminate them, you will find out that this hurts even cold war scenarios.

 

I don't think they'd remove planes from DCS, I just assume any future lower fidelity modules might be fore this supposed "MAC" project. If they plan on outright deleting them, that would be very boneheaded. Unless they plan on doing refunds it would be of questionable legality I'd think. And I don't think it would go over well from a customer standpoint. "We're deleting your software, but you can buy a cut down version of what you owned yesterday" won't fly too well at all.

 

10 hours ago, Evoman said:

The original plans for MAC was to include a set list of 14 simplified aircraft. However its not clear if MAC will be limited to only these 14 aircraft or if more will be available for purchase later on.

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

If they don't plan on adding anymore, it would be a moot point to separate them from DCS World in the first place.

10 hours ago, Evoman said:

Here is the some additional info about MAC:

Each aircraft’s flight model, sounds, external model and cockpit is recreated to an exceptional level of detail and accuracy. Great care has been given to offer scalable gameplay that suits your personal levels and wishes. This includes intuitive and consistent keyboard controls between aircraft, selectable difficulty settings, option for more forgiving flight dynamics, and even the ability to fly these aircraft with just your keyboard.

You can generate an unlimited number of missions using the Fast Mission Creator and Mission Editor. MAC also includes numerous instant action and single missions, as well as campaigns for most of the aircraft and is fully compatible with DCS World online! There are no limits to content.

And this is what I find odd. That is essentially what DCS World does as is. Why even bother separating them?

10 hours ago, Evoman said:

In addition to the full Caucasus map, MAC also includes a limited part of our Nevada and Persian Gulf maps.

Key Features of MAC:

• Includes the Caucasus map and portions of Nevada and the Persian Gulf.
• Flaming Cliffs 3 owners can purchase the MAC pack at a great discount.

 

Which just sounds oddly unappetizing. We're going too loose portions of the maps, and we have to pay for it? Shouldn't they be expanding the maps if we're paying more? Everything else they listed is already a feature of DCS World. Which begs the question: Why bother separating them?

Seems like a massive case of missing the mark. A lot of people would just like more modules with moderate systems fidelity, particularly modern planes. Everything else is fine as is.

Of course there are other shortcomings, like BMP-2s blowing Flankers out of the sky, R-13s being more accurate than AIM-9Ms, helicopters taking two direct hits with R-73s and then proceeding to shoot down fighters with anti tank missiles and AIM-120s having a 12 mile maximum range. Oddly those unrealistic things exist in DCS World. For the realism purists, that is a whole lot of unrealistic things. The only thing ED will accomplish is trying to fix these features in not one, but two games. That are 90% the same, with the only difference being the flyable plane options.

Would just make more sense to make some more modules and continue fixing the core game. Rather than reinvent the wheel and fix these problems in two builds.

 

10 hours ago, Evoman said:

I agree that the AGM-65 are easier to use on other aircraft than in the Viggen but that is just one of those short comings that every aircraft has. However the Viggen is still fairly easy to operate overall compared to newer aircraft.

The shortcomings of older aircraft is that they are simply harder to use. They're harder to fly, systems are harder to use, carry less weapons, etc. You can see the amount of instruments an older plane used to require to operate and then compare that to a more modern plane with a glass cockpit. One is much easier to learn the systems for. There is a reason why cockpit design has evolved.

The Viggen is far less intuitive than the modern planes. It isn't a contest. Going from the F-18 to the Viggen is increasing the difficultly level. Even the Mirage 2000C is much harder to employ the weapons with than the F-18 and F-16.

 

10 hours ago, Evoman said:

I also would like to mention that I have seen more requests on here over the past years for FC3 aircrat to be made into FF modeules like the F-15C and the A-10A.  The few FC3  level aircraft that are requested are for aircraft that are not feasible to do as FF like really modern aircraft like the F-22 or rare prototypes like the Tigershark.

Generally the people who post on the forums tend to be the extremists/purists. This is true with most fan bases. The sales show that Flaming Cliffs was one of the best selling modules. I am sure they sold many more copies of FC3 than the Mirage 2000C. Of course a lot of those buyers may also buy a more detailed F-15 should one come out. But the same can be said for the F-16, F-18, etc. if are more simplified version came out.

 

 

[Ironhand]

8 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

…Which just sounds oddly unappetizing. We're going too loose portions of the maps, and we have to pay for it? Shouldn't they be expanding the maps if we're paying more?…

 

From Matt’s interview in P C Pilot, Issue #119:

Quote

…MAC will indeed be a standalone product but you can still purchase other maps to integrate into it. Both DCS and MAC will be using the Simulation Operating System…

MAC is its own animal. The assumption is that, unless you are an FC3 fan in DCS, you will not be investing in it. It’s being released with more maps than FC was as it is. With the SOS, any map will work with either product and future products as well. That was the plan at the time of the interview, anyway.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ironhand

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

I don't think they'd remove planes from DCS, I just assume any future lower fidelity modules might be fore this supposed "MAC" project. If they plan on outright deleting them, that would be very boneheaded. Unless they plan on doing refunds it would be of questionable legality I'd think. And I don't think it would go over well from a customer standpoint. "We're deleting your software, but you can buy a cut down version of what you owned yesterday" won't fly too well at all.

I just couldn't see the flaming cliffs AC being deleted from DCS with out a FF replacement. I wouldn't be shocked of FC owners get a discount for MAC. I believe this is the reason that ED is planning on trying to do a FF MiG-29A (and possibly G). 

[falcon_120]

As far as i like FF modules, i would indeed buy some lower fidelity FC3 style aircrafts, particularly something diffcult to have FF like a SU30 or a Rafale.

Of course i want them to be high fidelity in terms of capacities; meaining no stupid FM or radar capacities, so a minimum research and SME support is needed.

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

And this is what I find odd. That is essentially what DCS World does as is. Why even bother separating them?

The only reason I could see in separating them is simply marketing. DCS will be home to full fidelity modules while MAC will be home to simplified modules. As long as there is enough overlap that we can share missions and even connect to the same server I really don't see a problem. Some people will be drawn to DCS some will go for MAC and others will go for either depending on if an AC is available. For example I don't expect to see the Su-25T in DCS in the future, unless we could get an FF 

[Ironhand]

4 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The only reason I could see in separating them is simply marketing…

Only marketing? How about an expanded player base? For people not interested in a study sim, MAC will provide the long absent opportunity to enjoy a serious combat aviation sim with numerous aircraft to fly. It should also improve the overall online player base as well, though possibly not the DCS base itself. My impression is that MAC will have its own dedicated servers.

[Mars Exulte]

12 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The only reason I could see in separating them is simply marketing. 

  Everything is marketing, as in different products to different audiences. That's why there's multiple brands of every product imaginable, with different flavors and varieties among them even under the same label. I don't get why this whole concept appears to be a hangup for people. It's no different than Halo and Arma being separated. They're both shooters, designed to appeal to different audiences. One is more casual, one is more of a simulator. They are separate games, though.

DCS is a more hardcore simulator, MAC will be targeting casual audiences, ie MSFS. They are separate games, with separate audiences. And yes, some people ''crossover'' and fly FC3 aircraft some, too. It doesn't matter, the majority populations tend toward separation. Having MAC and DCS neither will hurt the other, because those are generally separate populations anyway. Remember that whole '''DCS is niche'' thing? This is intended to increase the casual population while still keeping them in the ecosystem/brand ie more chance of filtering over into DCS over time.

They don't inherently need to co-exist on the same servers, though, and attempting to integrate them is inevitably going to.be an ass pain, adjusting them to start at similar speeds, adjusting their ''capabilities'' (you can't ''casualise'' 20 different radar modes, you have to cut a lot of them out wholesale). I have seen people go ''Oh it's the same just you can't click the cockpit switches''... No, it's not. It's not that way in FC3 now, it won't be that way in MAC, and it isn't even remotely logical to make it that way for half the planes we have they're too complex with too many systems and you either have to remove stuff or gameify it to make it work. You know what solves this issue? Separating the products! Then you don't have to F with any of this crap and everything operates in the same fashion, on the same footing, and so forth.

[upyr1]

11 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Only marketing? How about an expanded player base? For people not interested in a study sim, MAC will provide the long absent opportunity to enjoy a serious combat aviation sim with numerous aircraft to fly. It should also improve the overall online player base as well, though possibly not the DCS base itself. My impression is that MAC will have its own dedicated servers.

The point to marketing is to expand your customer base. 

[okopanja]

This is all very interesting, especially the news coming from informed users, but it would be nice to get some update from the ED.

It would like the best approach when it comes to decisions about DCS is simply adopt do nothing, wait and see.

[tomcat_driver]

F-117A

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

They don't inherently need to co-exist on the same servers, though, and attempting to integrate them is inevitably going to.be an ass pain, adjusting them to start at similar speeds, adjusting their ''capabilities'' (you can't ''casualise'' 20 different radar modes, you have to cut a lot of them out wholesale). I have seen people go ''Oh it's the same just you can't click the cockpit switches''... No, it's not. It's not that way in FC3 now, it won't be that way in MAC

The whole reason I keep asking for the ability to exist on the same servers, is that I see MAC as the solution to the lack of modern RedFor. The radar will be simplified so there is a chance that the MiG-29M or Su-35 or even J-15 might be able to exist as a MAC module, even though there is no way in hell they will exist as a DCS module. 

[Ironhand]

54 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The whole reason I keep asking for the ability to exist on the same servers, is that I see MAC as the solution to the lack of modern RedFor...

It's a solution but might not be a solution for DCS World. What's described in the interview doesn't sound much like DCS World:

Quote

...a significant growth in multiplayer features are included, such as dedicated servers, online statistics and accomplishment tracking, rewards system based on performance, new online gameplay modes like Capture the Airfield and King of the Hill, and voice over IP chat for MAC; content is king...

It really feels like they plan is to keep the two separate. But that's just my take on it. I'm guessing that MAC will even have its own separate Forum because it is being viewed as its own animal.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Ironhand
grammer

[Zaz0]

Being a hardcore simmer, since they can't do an F-22 module due to real restrictions, I'd like it in a "lighter" version...

[Mars Exulte]

5 hours ago, Zaz0 said:

Being a hardcore simmer, since they can't do an F-22 module due to real restrictions, I'd like it in a "lighter" version...

Or we could just make any of the hundreds of aircraft that ARE feasible to develop fully. There are mods for Star Wars, F-22s and other fanciful topics if people just need to scratch and itch @@

Edited September 14, 2022 by Mars Exulte

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, Ironhand said:

It's a solution but might not be a solution for DCS World. What's described in the interview doesn't sound much like DCS World:

Quote

The only other solution I can think of would be better mod support , which is something I want to begin with. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by upyr1

[okopanja]

15 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The only other solution I can think of would be better mod support , which is something I want to begin with. 

Yes, integrity check for mods, where server admin could decide + automatic download to those who do not have it local cache?

Edited September 14, 2022 by okopanja

[Flogger23m]

On 9/13/2022 at 7:17 AM, upyr1 said:

The only reason I could see in separating them is simply marketing. DCS will be home to full fidelity modules while MAC will be home to simplified modules. As long as there is enough overlap that we can share missions and even connect to the same server I really don't see a problem. Some people will be drawn to DCS some will go for MAC and others will go for either depending on if an AC is available. For example I don't expect to see the Su-25T in DCS in the future, unless we could get an FF 

 

Just makes me question why bother separating them then. Essentially every fix, like helicopters and ground unit accuracy, will need to be applied to two games. Every patch for things like terrian, again, two games. It just seems like more work for the sake of work.

8 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

Or we could just make any of the hundreds of aircraft that ARE feasible to develop fully. There are mods for Star Wars, F-22s and other fanciful topics if people just need to scratch and itch @@

 

But not a lot of people want to fly what can be done in full fidelity. And not a lot of people will buy more than 2-3 modules in full fidelity. People typically only have so much time to learn a few planes, and those tend to be the popular ones like the F-16 or F-18. I'm those those sold far more than something like the MIG-19 or C-101.

The mods are nice for what they are, but are very low in detail. Just look at the cockpits for these modded planes.

14 hours ago, upyr1 said:

The whole reason I keep asking for the ability to exist on the same servers, is that I see MAC as the solution to the lack of modern RedFor. The radar will be simplified so there is a chance that the MiG-29M or Su-35 or even J-15 might be able to exist as a MAC module, even though there is no way in hell they will exist as a DCS module. 

 

We already have the J-11A, which was an excellent edition. I too would like to see a more modern version like the Su-35. Something to complement the F-15C would be great to. I'd like a Super Hornet (more ground attack focused). Of course, a MIG-29K or M would be a good counterpart to a Super Hornet.

[upyr1]

21 minutes ago, Flogger23m said:

Just makes me question why bother separating them then. Essentially every fix, like helicopters and ground unit accuracy, will need to be applied to two games. Every patch for things like terrain, again, two games. It just seems like more work for the sake of work.

The two games will use a lot of the same code, so at least some of the patch work is going to overlap. 

[draconus]

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).

[okopanja]

3 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Just makes me question why bother separating them then. Essentially every fix, like helicopters and ground unit accuracy, will need to be applied to two games. Every patch for things like terrian, again, two games. It just seems like more work for the sake of work.

Interesting points.

3 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

We already have the J-11A, which was an excellent edition. I too would like to see a more modern version like the Su-35. Something to complement the F-15C would be great to. I'd like a Super Hornet (more ground attack focused). Of course, a MIG-29K or M would be a good counterpart to a Super Hornet.

I would say present feedback is very telling on what is the most desired FF or FC3.

[sirrah]

6 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Just makes me question why bother separating them then. Essentially every fix, like helicopters and ground unit accuracy, will need to be applied to two games. Every patch for things like terrian, again, two games. It just seems like more work for the sake of work.

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.

 

[upyr1]

12 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Just makes me question why bother separating them then.

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?