Some more modern "Flaming Cliffs" modules

[Flogger23m]

I can't be the only person who is interested in buying more "Flaming Cliffs" level of realism planes. I see a lot of interesting modules but will never have the time to learn them all, and I only like modern aircraft so I don't bother with most high fidelity modules on offer.

Because a lot of the systems are simplified, the types of aircraft that can be modeled would likely be greater as well because the amount of necessary documentation would be substantially lower. I'd be interested in purchasing modern planes like:

F/A-18E Super Hornet

F-15EX

Rafale C F3-R

Eurofighter Tranche 3/4

Su-35S

MIG-29K or MIG-29ME

Mirage 2000-5 mk2 / -9

 

Development time would likely be a lot lower, and planes can probably be priced lower at $30-40 or so each.

Having more simplified flyable planes is certainly at the top of what I wish DCS would have.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Flogger23m

[MAXsenna]

ED has stated several times that there will only be full fidelity modules in the future. In any case my vote is none.

MAC/(FC4) will come eventually, and will take care of the need, will probably get that too.  

[Evoman]

You seem to be way out of date with the latest plans. ED has stated that they will be ending FC3 level aircraft and moving to MAC (Modern Air Combat ).  MAC will be separate from DCSWorld and will be aimed at users who want to have quick fun and action. It will include several aircraft in one package. So it looks like your future will be limited to MAC.

 

On another note its kinda of ironic that you like simple aircraft that are fairly easy to learn yet you have no interest in older aircraft that ARE easier to learn to operate.

I recommend to at least being a little more open to slightly older aircraft FF modules. With the new ability test fly all aircraft during sale trail periods you can more easily see for your self if there is one that might be your cup of tea that you have not tasted yet.

One of such aircraft that I have personally found to fit me like a glove is the Viggen. Its has just the right amount of sophistication for my taste yet its still easy to learn and remember how to operate it after being away for awhile.

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Evoman

[Flogger23m]

2 hours ago, Evoman said:

You seem to be way out of date with the latest plans. ED has stated that they will be ending FC3 level aircraft and moving to MAC (Modern Air Combat ).  MAC will be separate from DCSWorld and will be aimed at users who want to have quick fun and action. It will include several aircraft in one package. So it looks like your future will be limited to MAC.

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.

 

2 hours ago, Evoman said:

 

On another note its kinda of ironic that you like simple aircraft that are fairly easy to learn yet you have no interest in older aircraft that ARE easier to learn to operate.

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.

2 hours ago, Evoman said:

One of such aircraft that I have personally found to fit me like a glove is the Viggen. Its has just the right amount of sophistication for my taste yet its still easy to learn and remember how to operate it after being away for awhile.

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.

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Go back to the roots of the series. 

The ''roots'' are ''the best possible at the time''. For its Era, FC3 was 'high fidelity'. MAC will be a completely separate product providing more or less what you want. DCS is about high fidelity aircraft and always has been. You will notice the distinct absence of production of ANY ''low fidelity'' aircraft since DCS came into existence. This IS its ''root''. The only reason FC3 was ever incorporated at all is because there was a distinct lack of variety at the time, a lack since rectified.

[Flogger23m]

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

The ''roots'' are ''the best possible at the time''. For its Era, FC3 was 'high fidelity'.

Hardly, Falcon 4 existed and had more detailed avionics around the same time LOMAC came out.

2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

MAC will be a completely separate product providing more or less what you want.

It depends on how they manage it, but I can't see them supporting two different products that are 90% the same. I think it is doomed for failure due to lack of manpower. Their patch and update cycle is slow as is. Considering all people want is some extra lower fidelity planes, removing any features would essentially kill the "MAC" project on arrival. Think about it. Every weather update means updating two builds. Every addition to the mission editor (I still am waiting for a 3D mode to better place ground installations). I really don't see what it would do that selling another plane module wouldn't do more simply. And less time = less money spent on their part.

They'd also have to port over all of my DCS modules like the F-18C and terrains, otherwise I won't buy it or future DCS modules. I've already paid full price for a lot of the same content 4 times and won't be doing it a 5th.

But that is going a bit off topic, as this is a wish list thread.

[upyr1]

If MAC is modular like DCS, then the odds of me buying anything would come down to whether it is possible to have said module in DCS 

[okopanja]

14 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

If MAC is modular like DCS, then the odds of me buying anything would come down to whether it is possible to have said module in DCS 

The more we expect that certain modules get added,  while constantly trying to confirm their progress, the less I feel I should buy anything new. To be honest, even if they came out with these modules today, I am not sure how would I react.

Sorry it came to that point.

[upyr1]

 

16 minutes ago, okopanja said:

The more we expect that certain modules get added,  while constantly trying to confirm their progress, the less I feel I should buy anything new. To be honest, even if they came out with these modules today, I am not sure how would I react.

Sorry it came to that point.

Where I'm at right now I'd just like to see some of the modules in the works come out, and to see Eagle focus on improving DCS core. 

[MAXsenna]

3 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Hardly, Falcon 4 existed and had more detailed avionics around the same time LOMAC came out.

I'm sure he referred to Eagle Dynamics releases. 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure your request is futile. You've been told that Eagle Dynamics has stated, "now more lo-fi in DCS"!

Look at some YT videos from Wags and others, where you see the desktop. The MAC modules are there. Pretty sure it will be the exact same game, except the hi vs. the lo modules won't be available, depending on the "mode" you start the game in. So not really "double management".

You've got 16 votes so far, not counting my "no/other" vote. I'm not sure how many didn't bother at all. 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. 

Cheers! 

EDIT: 136 views so far.

Edited September 11, 2022 by MAXsenna

[okopanja]

5 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I'm sure he referred to Eagle Dynamics releases. 

Anyway, I'm pretty sure your request is futile. You've been told that Eagle Dynamics has stated, "now more lo-fi in DCS"!

Look at some YT videos from Wags and others, where you see the desktop. The MAC modules are there. Pretty sure it will be the exact same game, except the hi vs. the lo modules won't be available, depending on the "mode" you start the game in. So not really "double management".

You've got 16 votes so far, not counting my "no/other" vote. I'm not sure how many didn't bother at all. 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. 

Cheers! 

EDIT: 136 views so far.

 

My personal opinion is that splitting user base is a bad business decision for ED, as well as sole focus on bluefor aircraft.

I am well aware that they are hoping to attract WT crowd (as Simon even hinted in his last interview), but this will actually segment the ED's own user base. Once segmented, in fact the opposite will occur since WT guys are more nimble and by shear gravity force the MAC will remain the empty shell, while FF will remain with smaller user base. Big fish eats the small fish.

[MAXsenna]

4 minutes ago, okopanja said:

My personal opinion is that splitting user base is a bad business decision for ED, as well as sole focus on bluefor aircraft.

I am well aware that they are hoping to attract WT crowd (as Simon even hinted in his last interview), but this will actually segment the ED's own user base. Once segmented, in fact the opposite will occur since WT guys are more nimble and by shear gravity force the MAC will remain the empty shell, while FF will remain with smaller user base. Big fish eats the small fish.

I don't disagree, fair points for sure! 

Not sure if it will split the community that much though, as I still believe the SP crowd > MP by far. This seems to be diminishing in any case. 

As for WT, does it really offer the same as DCS if we look past the air quake part? I have a feeling that ED wants to drag the users that are more into the milsim aspect, team work and "realism", who find the hi/full-fi intimidating up front from it. I'm VERY clueless when it comes to WT. I install and try it every other year in exactly one hour. Put it to rest, and uninstall after six months.

[bies]

Pecreption it is possible to make FC3 standard of modern stictly classified aircrafts is false. FC3 may have very simplified "generic" avionics, but fligh models, weapons are complex and high fidelity.

Making i.e. F-15EX in FC3 standard would be totally pointless since it would have fictional FM made without access to any data, way less realistic than FC3 standard, and totally fictional and extremally simplified avionics considering FC3 limitations, basically like 1980s F-15C FC3. Just radar range x3, engine power +30%, mass +40% or so. Arbitrarly chosen sensors data without acces to any documentation. A little bit of this and a little more of that.

How player would suppose to interact with fictional F/A-18E avionics (derived from current F?A-18C i suppose) in non-clickable cockpit with dozens of MFD buttons? By binding literally whole keyboard button in combination with Ctrl, Shift and Alt and how to remember this 1000 combinations?

 

It wouldn't be FC3 standard, but Ace Combat 7 standard. Or amateur-made MOD standard. WT and AC7 are already there for such experience, no need doubling them, wasting resources and highly skilled and educated, experienced coders and flight engineers from ED.

[Tank50us]

I'd take them all, and even some aircraft that were functional prototypes/pre-production (Su47, F-20, etc), or some that never made it off of the drawing board, but at least had a mock-up made (ST21, A-6F, etc).

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, bies said:

Pecreption it is possible to make FC3 standard of modern stictly classified aircrafts is false. FC3 may have very simplified "generic" avionics, but fligh models, weapons are complex and high fidelity.

Making i.e. F-15EX in FC3 standard would be totally pointless since it would have fictional FM made without access to any data, way less realistic than FC3 standard, and totally fictional and extremally simplified avionics considering FC3 limitations, basically like 1980s F-15C FC3. Just radar range x3, engine power +30%, mass +40% or so. Arbitrarly chosen sensors data without acces to any documentation. A little bit of this and a little more of that.

If the data isn't available to do a MAC module, then the whole discussion is moot and the real issue is what community mod do you wan't to download as they can get by with building a franken plane and saying it is due to lack of data. 

I voted other becuse my answer is any that can be done as FC an FC module but not as a FF module 

Edited September 11, 2022 by upyr1

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, okopanja said:

My personal opinion is that splitting user base is a bad business decision for ED, as well as sole focus on bluefor aircraft.

I am well aware that they are hoping to attract WT crowd (as Simon even hinted in his last interview), but this will actually segment the ED's own user base. Once segmented, in fact the opposite will occur since WT guys are more nimble and by shear gravity force the MAC will remain the empty shell, while FF will remain with smaller user base. Big fish eats the small fish.

I honestly don't expect MAC to split the community much beyond it already is. I'd love it if someone from ED would chime in, but I believe ED honestly thinks MAC will expand there user base, as there are a lot of people who will fly FC modules but not FF ones. If ED designs MAC so you can import DCS missions and campaigns and even do mixed DCS / MAC servers things might be even better. 

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I honestly don't expect MAC to split the community much beyond it already is. I'd love it if someone from ED would chime in, but I believe ED honestly thinks MAC will expand there user base, as there are a lot of people who will fly FC modules but not FF ones. If ED designs MAC so you can import DCS missions and campaigns and even do mixed DCS / MAC servers things might be even better. 

I will not participate MAC for sure...

[SkateZilla]

Anything SSM will likely be in MAC when it's released,

SSM in DCS World is done, and the Flaming Cliffs name as well as it belongs to (Ubisoft?)

[F-2]

11 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Anything SSM will likely be in MAC when it's released,

SSM in DCS World is done, and the Flaming Cliffs name as well as it belongs to (Ubisoft?)

Isn’t Lomac the name that Ubi owns?

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, okopanja said:

I will not participate MAC for sure...

It's not for you then. You are a good example of why I say the splitting the community argument isn't a good one against MAC. While there will be some overlap there will also be a lot who will go for one but not the other. 

[Flogger23m]

15 hours ago, okopanja said:

My personal opinion is that splitting user base is a bad business decision for ED, as well as sole focus on bluefor aircraft.

I agree. The beauty of the DCS World concept is that you can have a single install and a bunch of planes available to swap between instantly. And gradual updates to the engine and general features will apply to all aircraft. I think the idea of MAC would be similar to making DCS F-16 and DCS F-18 separate installs personally.

 

15 hours ago, okopanja said:

I am well aware that they are hoping to attract WT crowd

I think the big flaw in that is comparing a flight sim to a free to play MMO. People want a flight sim, and many of us just want more modern planes with simplified avionics. War Thunder is probably great for what it is, but isn't in the same genre as DCS/Flaming Cliffs.

 

Quote

Pecreption it is possible to make FC3 standard of modern stictly classified aircrafts is false. FC3 may have very simplified "generic" avionics, but fligh models, weapons are complex and high fidelity.

This will depend on the plane. We're already seeing higher fidelity modules based on planes like:

- F/A-18C

- F-16C

- Eurofighter

 

If they can do a high fidelity F-16C, I am sure they can do a low fidelity version.

 

We've also seen higher fidelity planes like the A-10C use guess work due to classified systems. And missile dynamics are essentially just guess work, with older Soviet missiles often being more accurate than the AIM-9M or AIM-120.

Of course more FC3 level planes would require work, but less so than the higher fidelity planes. If you're against guess work and approximation we would have essentially zero flyable planes for the high fidelity, and we'd loose the A-10C. I am not sure that is a good argument.

 

 

Also interesting to see the MIG-29K/M getting more votes than a Rafale. I suppose people do want more Russian planes as we're getting a lot of American/European as of late.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Flogger23m

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Also interesting to see the MIG-29K/M getting more votes than a Rafale. I suppose people do want more Russian planes as we're getting a lot of American/European as of late.

I'm not surprised by that, as it might be possible to get a FF Rafale, but there is no way in hell we're getting a FF MiG-29M/K or Su-35 unless some drastic changes happen politically. However, people like myself are hoping that a FC/MAC module might be possible. This is the reason that, I want to see the option for mixed MAC and DCS servers.  

[okopanja]

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.

BTW: I did watch this sort of a movie before with some companies and it never turned the way they have expected.

 

[F-2]

They are not and don’t plan to make FC3 aircraft. However I do hope they would permit someone to do a restoration of the Mig-29k from Flanker 2.5 if the needed documentation becomes available.

[upyr1]

8 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.

The ole sunk cost fallacy. The reason to continue or not continue should be expected risks and benefits. 

 

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

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.

This is why I hope we can have MAC and DCS on the same server. We should get FF replacements, however until that happens we should be able to use MAC as a stand in, and as I keep stating if it is possible to do (insert new redfor AC) as a MAC module then we should