Is MAC still alive?

[upyr1]

I just saw the following video by Engima he's basically asking for MAC. We've not heard anything about MAC so I am under the impression that ED may have quietly killed it. The video I believe sums up why I hope MAC is still being worked on. I have said it before I would love to see the following things for MAC.

• limited clickability- I think this would help improve VR to have at least flaps and gear handles to be clickable 
• modularity - similar to DCS. 
• MAC exclusive modules  - if we lack the documents or a developer feels they lack the resources we'll still get the vehicle. I think this could result in some people buying MAC modules and DCS
• Combined Arms style ground and naval modules- this would open up at aspect to the ecco system
• Use the same assets and maps- the main reasons would be the next two wishes but it could lead to faster development
• AC/ DCS online games - This could be an option for someone setting up a server. 
•   An easy way to convert missions and campaigns between the two. Ideally, I'd just want a bit of code that automatically converts the two so that the campaign developers and sell the same product for both products

 

 

[NineLine]

Yes, MAC is still alive. We hope to have news soon.

[Furiz]

This guy made a airquake PvP server with 60 tik tok users battling to infinity and now thinks everyone thinks like he does, he is a good video maker that's for sure.

But he is forgetting not everyone wants a balanced PvP game, there are other games that go for that. I think that many many people fly in DCS cause of high fidelity of those FF planes and we love it.

I really enjoy just taking off with full preparation from Nellis and going for a course around Nevada fly to tanker and drop few bombs and return to base, with as much procedure following as I can and know how to do. I don't need adversary balanced for this. And If I encounter adversaries I don't expect them to be on pair with my jet, they have their advantage and I have mine and I try to use my advantage as best as I can. In real world there is never a fair fight and that's what DCS simulates.

I love to loiter in the air coordinate with and wait for SEAD/DEAD flight to do its job so I can run in drop 2 JDAMS on some bunker that is my target. sometimes it will take an hour, in the meantime I'll watch the air battle on my HSD or SA page and cheer when red contact fades from being shot down by our escort. Or I'll do the SEAD/DEAD job while other flights prepare to run in.

I love modern jets cause of lots of systems I can fiddle with inside them, and I'm happy with every new update to them. We all know documentation is hard to come by, and that module development takes a lot of time and we are fine with it. That's what I love about DCS, and that is why I'm here and I'm sure many others are too.

Edited July 4, 2023 by Furiz

[SharpeXB]

Full Fidelity isn’t holding back DCS. Full Fidelity is DCS. MAC is going to be a separate game from what I understand so it has little to do with DCS except as a starter sim.

[upyr1]

18 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Yes, MAC is still alive. We hope to have news soon.

I'm glad to hear that. I think there could be a lot of potential. I am on the fence about buying it, a lot depends on what gets checked off from my wishlist. 

[Northstar98]

@Furiz @SharpeXB I couldn't agree more.

[upyr1]

59 minutes ago, Furiz said:

This guy made a airquake PvP server with 60 tik tok users battling to infinity and now thinks everyone thinks like he does, he is a good video maker that's for sure.

But he is forgetting not everyone wants a balanced PvP game, there are other games that go for that. I think that many many people fly in DCS cause of high fidelity of those FF planes and we love it.

 

That's why brought up MAC when I posted the video. The lower fidelity modules shouldn't have the DCS name, however, as I have stated before if a cross-platform server is possible  that would be awesome especially if MAC can fill some of the gaps DCS is missing. I don't know how long the list of vehicles that could never be DCS but could be MAC actually is but I do think they could result in MAC sales.  

[upyr1]

53 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Full Fidelity isn’t holding back DCS. Full Fidelity is DCS. MAC is going to be a separate game from what I understand so it has little to do with DCS except as a starter sim.

That's exactly why I used the video as an excuse to talk about MAC. I don't want more FC-style modules for DCS, people will know what to expect but as I keep saying I would love to give people running DCS servers the option to allow MAC players to join. There are two basic reasons.

•  That means they will have to share assets. 
• some people might be interested in mixed servers 
• We might be able to fill some gaps if a DCS module isn't possible but an MAC module is. I'm not sure how big that list would be 

 

 

[Cab]

3 hours ago, Furiz said:

This guy made a airquake PvP server with 60 tik tok users battling to infinity and now thinks everyone thinks like he does, he is a good video maker that's for sure.

But he is forgetting not everyone wants a balanced PvP game, there are other games that go for that. I think that many many people fly in DCS cause of high fidelity of those FF planes and we love it.

I really enjoy just taking off with full preparation from Nellis and going for a course around Nevada fly to tanker and drop few bombs and return to base, with as much procedure following as I can and know how to do. I don't need adversary balanced for this. And If I encounter adversaries I don't expect them to be on pair with my jet, they have their advantage and I have mine and I try to use my advantage as best as I can. In real world there is never a fair fight and that's what DCS simulates.

I love to loiter in the air coordinate with and wait for SEAD/DEAD flight to do its job so I can run in drop 2 JDAMS on some bunker that is my target. sometimes it will take an hour, in the meantime I'll watch the air battle on my HSD or SA page and cheer when red contact fades from being shot down by our escort. Or I'll do the SEAD/DEAD job while other flights prepare to run in.

I love modern jets cause of lots of systems I can fiddle with inside them, and I'm happy with every new update to them. We all know documentation is hard to come by, and that module development takes a lot of time and we are fine with it. That's what I love about DCS, and that is why I'm here and I'm sure many others are too.

 

1. What he made was one of the most popular servers in DCS.

2. Options satisfying both preferences already coexist in DCS and it seems to work just fine. 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I keep saying I would love to give people running DCS servers the option to allow MAC players to join.

Since they will be two different games that doesn’t seem likely. 

[Enigma89]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Full Fidelity is DCS. 

By DCS you mean the game that has in it FC3 right? 

FC3 is an important part of DCS. I would really urge people to sit back and think about a populated, non-WWII, server that doesn't have FC3 on it - I can't think of one. It's a core part of the game that covers an important area. More non-full fidelity aircraft that can help cover some gaps that can't be covered because of full fidelity requirements, could help do the game well.

I would really like to see a MAC update for a future newsletter, could be neat.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Enigma89

[Sarowa]

6 hours ago, Furiz said:

This guy made a airquake PvP server with 60 tik tok users battling to infinity and now thinks everyone thinks like he does, he is a good video maker that's for sure.

But he is forgetting not everyone wants a balanced PvP game, there are other games that go for that. I think that many many people fly in DCS cause of high fidelity of those FF planes and we love it.

I really enjoy just taking off with full preparation from Nellis and going for a course around Nevada fly to tanker and drop few bombs and return to base, with as much procedure following as I can and know how to do. I don't need adversary balanced for this. And If I encounter adversaries I don't expect them to be on pair with my jet, they have their advantage and I have mine and I try to use my advantage as best as I can. In real world there is never a fair fight and that's what DCS simulates.

I love to loiter in the air coordinate with and wait for SEAD/DEAD flight to do its job so I can run in drop 2 JDAMS on some bunker that is my target. sometimes it will take an hour, in the meantime I'll watch the air battle on my HSD or SA page and cheer when red contact fades from being shot down by our escort. Or I'll do the SEAD/DEAD job while other flights prepare to run in.

I love modern jets cause of lots of systems I can fiddle with inside them, and I'm happy with every new update to them. We all know documentation is hard to come by, and that module development takes a lot of time and we are fine with it. That's what I love about DCS, and that is why I'm here and I'm sure many others are too.

 

A lot of what you describe as gameplay you enjoy is what happens on the server you seem to despise. Pairing up with some friends doing SEAD/DEAD and then going in yourself, under escort cover, to take out the main target is a thing that happens regularly on ECW.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Sarowa

[Exorcet]

24 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

By DCS you mean the game that has in it FC3 right? 

FC3 is an important part of DCS. I would really urge people to sit back and think about a populated, non-WWII, server that doesn't have FC3 on it - I can't think of one.

This is true, but FC3 exists and doesn't really take any dev resources, at least in comparison to new modules. Another question is if we want to invest dev resources into new FC3 planes and if we get anything worthwhile from it.

 

In my opinion, FF is far far more valuable and the modules are separate from the rest of DCS. FF most likely isn't the source of DCS's problems. It is in fact, the best hope for DCS improving because FF is what attracts buyers to DCS. Some of the problems that you mentioned aren't exclusive to FF either. Things like extremely detailed interiors applies to FF modules. Both the F-15E and the now old F-15C have a radar dish modeled under the nose. You asked us to imagine modern FC aircraft, but would they even cost the same as the originals? Likely not, they would probably be more expensive. Certainly graphics wise they would, graphics is not a function of aircraft fidelity. Just look at the recent AI models in DCS that have been added or are projected to come soon. MAC itself should have been a "quick and easy" job compared to FF DCS, but it has dragged on for a number of years, and all of it is apparently taking bits from already finished aircraft.

Quote

More non-full fidelity aircraft that can help cover some gaps that can't be covered because of full fidelity requirements, could help do the game well.

Despite what I said and not wanting DCS to go down a FC module path I do agree with this, but any planes that receive a FC level modules in place of FF would be a tragic loss. The gap argument also isn't the most solid. DCS has a good number of aircraft currently. There are more to add, but that will likely always be the case, even if DCS were exclusively FC level modules. FF hasn't prevented DCS from providing variety, nor do I think it's the cause of what is lacking from the DCS experience. The course we're on now is a good one as far as aircraft are concerned.

[SharpeXB]

47 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

By DCS you mean the game that has in it FC3 right? 

FC3 is an important part of DCS. I would really urge people to sit back and think about a populated, non-WWII, server that doesn't have FC3 on it - I can't think of one. It's a core part of the game that covers an important area. More non-full fidelity aircraft that can help cover some gaps that can't be covered because of full fidelity requirements, could help do the game well.

I would really like to see a MAC update for a future newsletter, could be neat.

Well yes it’s rather a dilemma because although the FC3 modules fill an important gap in DCS. And they were needed 10 years ago when the whole roster here consisted of the Black Shark, A-10C and the P-51D. I know there are no plans to add more of those to this game though. Perhaps when there are enough FF modules to fill that role there won’t be a need for these anymore and everything at that level will be in MAC. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Furiz]

4 hours ago, Sarowa said:

A lot of what you describe as gameplay you enjoy is what happens on the server you seem to despise. Pairing up with some friends doing SEAD/DEAD and then going in yourself, under escort cover, to take out the main target is a thing that happens regularly on ECW.

 

I don't do that in one mission tho, I was thinking of separate missions.

 

7 hours ago, Cab said:

1. What he made was one of the most popular servers in DCS.

Yeah and there was one more Enigma server which I don't see anymore, it wasn't rly full as first one and then there is thousands of DCS players which chose not to populate those servers, you forgot about that. If everyone wanted to play there the other server would be full.

Then look at SPQR server with Enigma formula, its empty...

7 hours ago, Cab said:

2. Options satisfying both preferences already coexist in DCS and it seems to work just fine. 

That is not true, lots of servers are trying to enforce some rules, like don't take off taxiways etc that FC3 (and I don't care population) players tend to do a lot and they annoy others with their behavior. Many avoid playing on free maps cause of more people that don't care on those than on paid maps etc...

[Ashayar]

34 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I don't do that in one mission tho, I was thinking of separate missions.

 

Yeah and there was one more Enigma server which I don't see anymore, it wasn't rly full as first one and then there is thousands of DCS players which chose not to populate those servers, you forgot about that. If everyone wanted to play there the other server would be full.

Then look at SPQR server with Enigma formula, its empty...

That is not true, lots of servers are trying to enforce some rules, like don't take off taxiways etc that FC3 (and I don't care population) players tend to do a lot and they annoy others with their behavior. Many avoid playing on free maps cause of more people that don't care on those than on paid maps etc...

Well, it is not because you fly FC3 planes that you take off from taxi way... I had some opposite experience, so please avoid making generalizations based on a bad experience .

If I couldn't fly the planes in the FC3 pack, I won't play DCS moderns servers at all, because MFD, even if there are some interestings things to do, it is not my priority. That's a matter of tastes, as the planes I love. And no, I don't take off from taxi

 

By the way, any news from MAC will be appreciated when it arrives.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Ashayar

[Hoirtel]

The general assumption that we would all want more low fidelity aircraft on over less high fidelity is just his opinion presented as fact. I couldn't disagree more with this. He makes a great CW server but the consistent videos about DCS "gaps" and "playability" is rediculous. It's clear he doesn't have any clue about friendly co-op play or even.... Single player... These are popular, probably more popular. In fact it seems that flying airliners and GA aircraft is even more popular. Each to thier own, stop trying to split the community up. 

[Cab]

4 hours ago, Furiz said:

I don't do that in one mission tho, I was thinking of separate missions.

 

Yeah and there was one more Enigma server which I don't see anymore, it wasn't rly full as first one and then there is thousands of DCS players which chose not to populate those servers, you forgot about that. If everyone wanted to play there the other server would be full.

Then look at SPQR server with Enigma formula, its empty...

That is not true, lots of servers are trying to enforce some rules, like don't take off taxiways etc that FC3 (and I don't care population) players tend to do a lot and they annoy others with their behavior. Many avoid playing on free maps cause of more people that don't care on those than on paid maps etc...

As to your first point, so what? ECW must have struck just the right cord because it came out of no where and became hugely successful.

Your second point borders on a sort of mis-placed elitism. Do you really believe only FC3 players takeoff from runways? If so, then you been paying attention.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Cab said:

Your second point borders on a sort of mis-placed elitism. Do you really believe only FC3 players takeoff from runways?

Missions with hot started aircraft encourage this ADHD behavior. That being said FC3 planes with their easy startup no doubt encourage this as well. 

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

 

Enigma, thanks for your server and ignore the toxic extremists.  Every community has them.

Why people would slam a guy who spent considerable time, money and effort to build a server that a large portion of the community enjoy is beyond me.

If that configuration is not their cup of tea, they can go fly on a different one.  You're probably blessed not to have certain people in your server anyway.  You don't seem to have any problem keeping it populated without them and who needs to deal with that level toxicity.

<S>

 

[Furiz]

3 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

toxic extremists

lmao   as soon as someone wants to say something he is toxic extremist, what does that make you then? I mean you are calling people names...

3 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

Why people would slam a guy who spent considerable time, money and effort to build a server that a large portion of the community enjoy is beyond me.

Cause people think, we all have the same rights to express our opinions,

for example you are exercising your freedom of speech and with it you are risking being offensive now why shouldn't I be able to do that?

Enigma makes video promoting his cause and rightfully so, why shouldn't others have the right to be able to defend their cause?

And its only you that is attacking people here with calling them toxic and extremists, you are not the master of this universe sorry, please re evaluate your words first before calling someone else toxic and extremist.

I hope you can understand what I'm talking about.

 

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

 

7 minutes ago, Furiz said:

lmao   as soon as someone wants to say something he is toxic extremist, what does that make you then? I mean you are calling people names...

This is what I refer to as toxicity:

19 hours ago, Furiz said:

This guy made a airquake PvP server with 60 tik tok users battling to infinity and now thinks everyone thinks like he does

Luckily this Forum has a ignore tool to flush those that need it.

Buh-bye.

 

[Furiz]

2 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

This is what I refer to as toxicity:

Sorry if you cant handle the truth, it is sometimes harsh, but that's not toxic, I think you are more toxic than anyone else here.

[BIGNEWY]

please knock it off, people dont have to agree here, but they do need to treat each other with respect. 

 

[dankmaster]

Enigma, thank you for your contributions to the DCS community, your Youtube channel and MP servers; however, I disagree with the "Full Fidelity Is a Trap & It's Holding Back DCS" claim.

To answer your question in the video, there exists no number of low fidelity planes that I would trade for a single high fidelity plane like the Hornet: quality over quantity all the way.