Is MAC still alive?

[Why485]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

I do not think the time savings of FC-style aircraft is as much as people think it is. 

Is there any insight you can give into this?

[NineLine]

Just now, Why485 said:

Is there any insight you can give into this?

Well look at the AI models we are doing and how long they take when its mostly just art. The models themselves take an incredible amount of time. Then add in modeling of the cockpit even if nothing is clickable is still an extreme amount of work. The FMs for FC3 are also PFM in most cases and require a large amount of work and info to make correctly. All this would need to be done at a level that is expected of ED now. Now not modelling systems to the degree of a FF module would save some time, but I am not sure its as much as some might think in the grande scheme of things. Hope that makes sense. 

[GGTharos]

7 minutes ago, Baco said:

Hi Enigma, the question Is not addressed to me , but let me state my oppinion: The problem there is that the person flying a n FC3 plane is "playing" by other set of rules, easy procedures, "magic" radars, etc...

This is bunk.  While it will be great to bring the FC3 sensors up to part with FF modules, FF modules have been doing perfectly well against FC3 aircraft in pretty much every way.  And that is because nothing in those FC3 modules is magical in any way.   In a number of ways those FC3 modules perform worse than they would if they had an FF counterpart, and an easiest way to show that is the bricks on the eagle radar that won't move when you make a turn.  It's a really basic thing which makes life harder despite the whole 'FC3 players have it so easy' propaganda.  How about TWS?  Yep, it tracks like SWT which is wrong, but the moment you even think 'notch' it goes 'I give up'.

So  yep, FC3 sensors are modeled on a simpler level, but the basics of their operation and capability remain on a reasonably similar level.  The weapons?  They're the same so that capability is identical, so you can fly respectable BVR tactics against them, and with high quality flight models you can prosecute a dogfight just as well as you should expect.

So I would like to understand why you have that opinion despite the facts, or are these facts just being interpreted in a different way?

[SharpeXB]

9 minutes ago, Baco said:

The problem there is that the person flying a n FC3 plane is "playing" by other set of rules, easy procedures, "magic" radars, etc...

Looking at sever stats (Blue Flag) the FC3 planes are not on top, the F-15C ranks lower than the M-2000C despite its Fox3 capability (and it’s real world ranking). So it doesn’t look like FC3 has any advantage here. Actually it’s the reverse. Of course pilot skill of course has something to do with this. 

[Gunfreak]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Looking at sever stats (Blue Flag) the FC3 planes are not on top, the F-15C ranks lower than the M-2000C despite its Fox3 capability (and it’s real world ranking). So it doesn’t look like FC3 has any advantage here. Actually it’s the reverse. Of course pilot skill of course has something to do with this. 

Would be interesting to do  deep dive.

Are more noobies flying FC3, dragging the stats down, are the FC3 planes "back up planes" for those that mostly fly full fidelity, so even the none noobs won't be as good. 

The F15C Mirage 2000 is interesting indeed. I would expect the MiG29s and Su27 do do worse with their Fox 1s only. But F15C with Fox3s doing worse than Fox 1 full fidelity is interesting. Or it might be that the F15 is just a really bad plane and long live the superior French technology. 

[Nodak]

I'd really love to see WWII in MAC format, be the best for fastest expansion, so long as the weather and maps are to the current levels of art work.  Jets, meh, already pretty good sandbox, no interest in doubling down.

[SkateZilla]

FC Planes? I Love FC3 Planes:

 

That being said, FC3 Planes still have PFMs and weapons.

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Would be interesting to do  deep dive.

Are more noobies flying FC3, dragging the stats down, are the FC3 planes "back up planes" for those that mostly fly full fidelity, so even the none noobs won't be as good. 

The F15C Mirage 2000 is interesting indeed. I would expect the MiG29s and Su27 do do worse with their Fox 1s only. But F15C with Fox3s doing worse than Fox 1 full fidelity is interesting. Or it might be that the F15 is just a really bad plane and long live the superior French technology. 

Well clearly player skill is a factor. And new players would tend towards FC3. Surprising the Hornet is on top by a wide margin, I would have suspected the F-16. The M-2000 is very good when flown right. The rank is Hornet, F-16, Su-27, F-14, M-2000 and then F-15C. But it’s a wide range and the F-18 has 90k kills vs 41k for the Su-27. It’s funny that the #1 fighter IRL is last in the DCS results. 

[Baco]

11 minutes ago, Nodak said:

I'd really love to see WWII in MAC format, be the best for fastest expansion, so long as the weather and maps are to the current levels of art work.  Jets, meh, already pretty good sandbox, no interest in doubling down.

but you allready have "the other sim" for that.. what differentiates DCS is the better specific FM for each plane, engine management complexity and clickable cockpit.  a MAC WWII would have nothing over more in depth developed titles...

 

[Gunfreak]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well clearly player skill is a factor. And new players would tend towards FC3. Surprising the Hornet is on top by a wide margin, I would have suspected the F-16. The M-2000 is very good when flown right. The rank is Hornet, F-16, Su-27, F-14, M-2000 and then F-15C. But it’s a wide range and the F-18 has 90k kills vs 41k for the Su-27. It’s funny that the #1 fighter IRL is last in the DCS results. 

Is the hours tracked? Kill per hours flown? F18 has been the nr 1 full fidelity modual for many years. Might just be it has far more hours in use then some other planes?

3 minutes ago, Baco said:

but you allready have "the other sim" for that.. what differentiates DCS is the better specific FM for each plane, engine management complexity and clickable cockpit.  a MAC WWII would have nothing over more in depth developed titles...

 

Better graphics, better sounds,  larger formations, drop tanks, 4 engine planes. While I don't personally want MAC ww2. That other ww2 sim seems to have come to its development end. So there could definitely be a new ww2 MAC style competitor to that other one as it is lacking lots off stuff. I just don't see the point for ED to do it.

[Ironhand]

3 hours ago, Enigma89 said:

…Do you find value from other people flying FC3 planes that you run across in multiplayer? I would imagine that it is nice to run into OPFOR/REDFOR opponents that are flying iconic Russian jets like the Su-27…

The limiting factor for RedFor aircraft is political/governmental rather than ED’s decision to only produce FF modules. I fly FC3 because I fly the Su-27 and MiG-29. If they were FF modules, that’s what I’d be flying instead.

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Is the hours tracked? Kill per hours flown? F18 has been the nr 1 full fidelity modual for many years. Might just be it has far more hours in use then some other planes?

No idea. That’s just the global stats. Looking at PG Modern the top three are the Hornet, F-16 and F-15C. But the Hornet leads the F-15 by 490 vs 139. So again not a clear advantage for FC3. I suck at MP and yet I don’t recall being ever shot down by an F-15C. They seem rather weak. Flying the Hornet I think the most dangerous adversary is the F-16

Edited July 5, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Mikkall]

On 7/4/2023 at 1:32 PM, 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.

 

Brother, as long as online SIMULATIONS are MMOL... the "Gamer" being the vast majority will do whatever it takes to dumb it down to a quick pew-pew-kabang-die-rinse-repeat, every  single  time.

It just is.  Remember when Quake Arena reared its ugly head and completely ruined a completely awesome story-line based video game?  I do.  They hit on the instant gratification of "easy & fast mode" and it's been a downhill battle ever since.

That being said... ED has to think about the future.  And finally, when you step back and look, Enigma's pretty fair in his assessment & possible conclusions.  However, I believe it would be nigh on impossible for ED's "suits" to maintain focus over the long term should they take on a IL-2 type approach.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Mikkall

[Ironhand]

26 minutes ago, Mikkall said:

…MMOL…

For the uninitiated among us, what does this mean?

[SkateZilla]

Millimoles per liter.

Basically saying Online Simulation is a Fraction of a fraction of a fraction of online games.,

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Ironhand said:

The limiting factor for RedFor aircraft is political/governmental rather than ED’s decision to only produce FF modules. I fly FC3 because I fly the Su-27 and MiG-29. If they were FF modules, that’s what I’d be flying instead.

We need remember ED has plans to someday, build a Hardcore Mig-29A.... someday and surely, others will coming. And yes, the big problem has political / governamental, as some "hot" maps. Someday I think.

[Ironhand]

28 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Millimoles per liter.

Basically saying Online Simulation is a Fraction of a fraction of a fraction of online games.,

Ahhh…I found that definition, when I looked it up, but didn’t make the connection. Thanks.
 

7 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

We need remember ED has plans to someday, build a Hardcore Mig-29A.... someday and surely, others will coming. And yes, the big problem has political / governamental, as some "hot" maps. Someday I think.

The operative word is “someday” which means, most probably, not in my lifetime…unfortunately.

[VirusAM]

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.

I think that the actual distinction between fc3 and Full fidelity only by mentioning clickable vs non clickable is misleading.
I remember beautiful survey sims with clickable cockpits, but simpler system modelling.
My mind goes to Jane's f18 and the DID series (which was clickable only in some views but I think I gave the idea).
I would surely enjoy a mid range level of fidelity, or a modular level of fidelity.

[Enigma89]

4 minutes ago, VirusAM said:

 

I think that the actual distinction between fc3 and Full fidelity only by mentioning clickable vs non clickable is misleading.
I remember beautiful survey sims with clickable cockpits, but simpler system modelling.
My mind goes to Jane's f18 and the DID series (which was clickable only in some views but I think I gave the idea).
I would surely enjoy a mid range level of fidelity, or a modular level of fidelity.

This is why I mentioned specifically about the depths of system that need to be modeled and not just clicky clicky

[Silver_Dragon]

26 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

The operative word is “someday” which means, most probably, not in my lifetime…unfortunately.

"Someday" has actually some relative... and "no in my lifetime" is actually unrealistic and untrue by some suprises about "that never comming to DCS" on the last years... many has change from 2012 with only the Ka-50-2/A-10C/CA/P-51D modules, and now ED modules reach near +50 modules and maps by ED and 3rd parties. I bid, many more modules has on progress actually (include Redforce start to fill holes) and can reach on the next second DCS anyversary (2032) and many new 3rd parties can join to the road, include ED MAC aircrafts. That has only, a matter of time and the space has the limit.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[gnomechild]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

The models themselves take an incredible amount of time.

Speaking of this.. can we get some "better than nothing" models instead of the hyper detailed ones? I appreciate that what the team is doing with the B-52 and B-1 for example is very cool and very in depth. But we also have stuff like the Tu-95 in game looking like an asset from 2002. It could go from "what the **** is that" to a decent model that isn't anything to write home about in a much shorter time. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that. Anyway, kinda off topic but maybe something to bring up?

[Gunfreak]

Just now, gnomechild said:

Speaking of this.. can we get some "better than nothing" models instead of the hyper detailed ones? I appreciate that what the team is doing with the B-52 and B-1 for example is very cool and very in depth. But we also have stuff like the Tu-95 in game looking like an asset from 2002. It could go from "what the **** is that" to a decent model that isn't anything to write home about in a much shorter time. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that. Anyway, kinda off topic but maybe something to bring up?

Look at what modders can do(granted mostly ground assets)

But they can churn out great looking,  armor vehicles,  SAMs systems and even infantry in relatively short time. 

[Silver_Dragon]

20 minutes ago, gnomechild said:

Speaking of this.. can we get some "better than nothing" models instead of the hyper detailed ones? I appreciate that what the team is doing with the B-52 and B-1 for example is very cool and very in depth. But we also have stuff like the Tu-95 in game looking like an asset from 2002. It could go from "what the **** is that" to a decent model that isn't anything to write home about in a much shorter time. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that. Anyway, kinda off topic but maybe something to bring up?

Someone need remembers the ED Plans about them:

Quote

 

AI Units

New and Updated assets

Because DCS World is built on a project spanning almost two decades, some units now show their age and will be updated throughout the year. It is also important that we add new units to better fill the battlefields. Here are some of the items that we intend to create or update in 2021:

Large Aircraft: B-52H, Tu-95MS, Tu-142, B-1B, IL-38, and Tu-160

Carrier Aircraft: S-3B and SH-60B

Ground Units: M1A2, AMX-56 Leclerc, Wespe Sd.Kfz.124, KS-19 100mm ADA, Son-4 “Flap Wheel” radar, C1 Ariete, Pantsir SA-22 “Greyhound”, and S-300/SA-10 “Grumble”.

 

19 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Look at what modders can do(granted mostly ground assets)

But they can churn out great looking,  armor vehicles,  SAMs systems and even infantry in relatively short time. 

The problem about "fast / short time" has the lack of quality or not reach the ED quality standard. We need more 3rd parties with build owns official assets packs to fill holes on equipment.

[gnomechild]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Someone need remembers the ED Plans about them:

>that we intend to create or update in 2021

What was your point again?

[Silver_Dragon]

9 minutes ago, gnomechild said:

>that we intend to create or update in 2021

What was your point again?

Yes, build on 2021... and continue on progress with the B-52 / B-1B and S-3B show on ED last videos, but has remark by Nineline, that aircrafts AI units take the same time with a module 3D model, only see what time take to Deka / RAZBAM unit to make owns Assets packs Land / Sea units.

And that has no the only 3D models on progress / update on the last years, ED always working on retrofit the old 3D models to actual standars.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Silver_Dragon