Is MAC still alive?

[Why485]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

There's really no need to speculate. They will share 100 percent of the code. MAC modules will be modules like any other. The only difference will probably be how to launch the core game and what servers to connect.
Videos from ED employees shows MAC modules side by side DCS modules in the game main window, quickstart etc.
Only time will tell, but they will probably be able to connect and played together if ED wanted to.

Do you have any sources for this?

[upyr1]

16 minutes ago, Why485 said:

Do you have any sources for this?

There are screen shots of Wag's desktop with MAC and the F-4 Phantom II icons 

[Why485]

5 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

There are screen shots of Wag's desktop with MAC and the F-4 Phantom II icons 

Was this before or after it was announced that MAC was going to be a standalone game?

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Why485 said:

Was this before or after it was announced that MAC was going to be a standalone game?

I think it was after, either way I never heard anything to indicate it wasn't using DCS code

[draconus]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I know that is the case, and I don't expect that to change. Which leaves us with these questions

• How relaxed will MAC be?  
• can we they share missions?
• Do we want them to have the ability to connect to the same servers?
• Does ED want them to connect?

I expect everything to be like flaming cliffs. As for the second, I would love if they are able to share missions. As that will mean that mission and campaign builders will only need to write one.  As for the third and 4th questions I expect question 3 will help determine the answer to question 4. My view on connectivity is simple, it all comes down to how well ED improves the AI and what modules both have. The way things stand unless we can replace the Flanker, Fulcrum and Frogfoot with FF modules we will either need FC or MAC/DCS connectivity. As Russian and Chinese laws are a big issue on what RedFor planes we get, I don't know if we'll ever get the FF versions of these planes, if that's the case then we're left with FC or MAC connectivity.  As I have said before, given those two choices I would rather see MAC/DCS connectivity and that desire goes up if MAC gets a bunch of modules that could never appear in DCS.  

You seem to totally ignore every information devs already gave us. Yes, it may change but there is no reason to hope for that. Let's sum up:

1. MAC is going to be separated from DCS. It's logical to share as much code as possible but no connectivity was ever implied.

2. There were no signs of introducing any aircraft that wouldn't be possible to be made for DCS.

3. FC3 stays as is in DCS. Not related to MAC apart from the simplified systems form.

[Extranajero]

18 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

This game is in fact too difficult for most people

And only the elite can cope with it right ?, the best of the best ?
The biggest difference between DCS and other mainstream combat flight sims is the way you have to know which buttons to push and pull levers to pull ( and how to do it in the right order ) if you want to start a jet up.
NASA, in the early days of the space program, managed to teach chimps how to do something similar, using electrics shocks and banana pellets.
 

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Extranajero said:

And only the elite can cope with it right ?, the best of the best ?
The biggest difference between DCS and other mainstream combat flight sims is the way you have to know which buttons to push and pull levers to pull ( and how to do it in the right order ) if you want to start a jet up.
NASA, in the early days of the space program, managed to teach chimps how to do something similar, using electrics shocks and banana pellets.
 

You know the harder DCS is, the more smug one can feel about being decent at it. 

[MAXsenna]

Do you have any sources for this?

Yes. Watching YT videos from ED employees. You can clearly see MAC versions listed along side DCS versions of F-5, F-86 and MiG-15. Doesn't need too much imagination then.
Of course this is the most cost effecting way of doing it.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Lyrode]

2023/7/6 AM12点35分，Enigma89说：

Even though mid-fidelity may not be your cup of tea, I would argue that it does add value even to the full fidelity-only people, because it gives them content to fight against.

By today's standard, yes fc3 is low or mid fidelity. But by 2000's standard, Lockon is full-fidelity product. ED has been developing ones of the best simulations throughout years, and the only reason FC3 is now not considered high fidelity is that BS set a new standard. FC3 is never intended to be mid-fidelity, and its predecessor in the standard alone era was indeed full-fidelity.

For some players, I and some of my friends included, the reason they are still flying FC3: the most classic airframes are trapped in FC3. Should there be FF F-15C, Su-27 and Mig-29, I would never touch FC3 again. And I doubt that some people out there flying FC3 may do the same. Those people flying flankers in the servers in essence fly it because it's FC3, or because it's Flanker they are flying?

[Lyrode]

2023/7/8 PM4点30分，cfrag说：

For example, if what you say is true, on a server that offers A-10A and A-10C as models, players that use the "C" should far outstrip those that fly the "A" [likewise: sales of the FC3 single-aircraft A-10A should be non-existent vs full fidelity A-10CII]. I'd be very interested in any data regarding that (as a mission designer, it would be great to know what players are likely to fly to better balance a scenario)

The popularity of user file will answer. 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/

A-10A= 69 files

A-10C= 615 files

A-10C II= 217 files

So, what he said is basically true. It can be applied to other modules.

F-15C over so many years gets 500+ user files, and the F-15E already gets close to 200 in weeks. The hype and the enthusiasm for FF way exceeds that of the FC3 counterparts.

Conclusion: People like Full fidelity way more than FC3 that they make more things on their own, be it campaigns, liveries, anything.

So as a mission desigher, you should know full fidelity modules will have a way larger audience. Regarding the A-10, make missions for the A-10C2 to maximize the payback of your effort.

[hotrod525]

Well i'm late in the debate, but i do believe that "Full Fidelity" is a trap like he said.

 

Of course, i want the closest thing to fly, but let's take AH64 as example, we wont have FIM92 missile because "its not the variant we are doing" while we can get frenkenstein KA50 "3". I mean, either its "FF" or its not, not just whenever dev see fit.

Openess in DCS could bring alot... Like let's say : "we cant make a 1:1 SU27 due to lack of document" -> alrigth fine, can we guesstimate is close enought to be enjoyable ? Of course.

[Lyrode]

2分钟前，hotrod525说：

get frenkenstein KA50 "3".

Only way to do a FF Modern Redfor: prototype or frenkenstein.

The first ASM model (at that time, now obsolete) is Su-25t. The first full fidelity is Ka-50. Both are prototypes with few in service.

And the J8pp we are getting is also a prototype with only two converted and no service.

14分钟前，hotrod525说：

can we guesstimate is close enought to be enjoyable ?

Regarding the su-27, yes I agree, even a revamp will be welcomed. But Enigma's point "FF is a trap" is about less system modeling--whether devs have documents or not, they in his opinion should do it on a inferior standard compared to FF. He actually criticized the blackshark3, not for being a frenkenstein but for having too much "unnecessary" details.

[EA-18G_BlockII]

I imagine MAC would be something like a deeper version of Over G Fighters in Xbox360.... That would be awesome

 

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Extranajero said:

And only the elite can cope with it right ?, the best of the best ?
The biggest difference between DCS and other mainstream combat flight sims is the way you have to know which buttons to push and pull levers to pull ( and how to do it in the right order ) if you want to start a jet up.
NASA, in the early days of the space program, managed to teach chimps how to do something similar, using electrics shocks and banana pellets.
 

There’s more to full fidelity than starting up the aircraft. 

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Lyrode said:

The popularity of user file will answer. 

Not really, at least that's not how I  would look at it. While surely a valuable first indicator, this only shows us which aircraft type is popular with mission creators, it does not tell us how popular it is with users who download them. Also, we only see those missions that focus on a particular aircraft, so multi-aircraft missions aren't covered (I still wish that we could publish missions from Mission Editor to ED's User Files. Just imagine how much more meta data like aircraft that players can control, map, etc. could be gathered reliably and automatically if that process was automated, instead of having to rely on the poor UX we have right now for mission upload). More than half of all the missions that I have uploaded to ED's User Files are multi-aircraft, so they carry the designation 'Other'. Of course, almost all of them also have an A-10A in them (because I like it a lot), while only a few have the "C".

Let's see how this MAC thing shakes out, I'll definitely play it.

 

 

[Lyrode]

10分钟前，cfrag说：

popular with mission creators

A-10C device profile (key binds and hotas settings) has way more downloads than those of A-10A. A-10A hotas setting only has less than 5000 downloads all files combined, while A-10C has multiple files with more than 10,000 downloads each. Who download those files actually files fly them, right?

Besides, mission creators are players themselves, and is part of the player base. I highly doubt there will be a situation where a module with less audience has significantly more content creators. Unpopular modules like I-16 and CE2 have few user files, they are unpopular with mission creators as well as the general players.

You see you like A-10A a lot and give it more love, but the user file quantity of the A-10C is more than 10 times more, so very unlikely, if not impossible, A-10A is more popular.

27分钟前，cfrag说：

Let's see how this MAC thing shakes out, I'll definitely play it.

I'll definitely buy the MAC if F-15C gets some love in that game. ED is not likely to update FC3 and no one is doing a FF F-15C, so this is my only hope for a better Eagle.

[Extranajero]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

There’s more to full fidelity than starting up the aircraft. 

You are just saying you deserve more banana pellets aren't you ?

[Ironhand]

16 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I know that is the case, and I don't expect that to change. Which leaves us with these questions

• How relaxed will MAC be?  
• can we they share missions?
• Do we want them to have the ability to connect to the same servers?
• Does ED want them to connect?

...

 

From Matt's 2018 PC Pilot interview:

1)

Quote

PC Pilot: In terms of flight fidelity and systems modelling, how do the aircraft in MAC differ from your other standalone study simulations?

Matt Wagner: All the MAC aircraft will have the option for either VERY realistic Professional Flight Models (PFM) or a more relaxed and forgiving flight model. This is also true for the Flight Control Systems (FCS) of these aircraft. You can choose either realistic flight controls or a more forgiving one that auto-trims the aircraft and keeps the player from stalling and getting into trouble....

PC Pilot: Will users be able to choose the level of complexity of each aircraft?

Matt Wagner: Players can select between the level of realism and complexity of the flight models and flight control systems. This includes the option of professional level flight models or more relaxed ones, as well as options such as auto-trim, spin prevention and gunnery lead-assist. Operations of the aircraft cockpit, sensor and weapons systems will be consistent though and very similar to the Flaming Cliffs series in DCS World.

 

2) Most likely not.

Quote

PC Pilot: Would you describe MAC as a single- or multi-player flight simulation?

Matt Wagner: Both. A ton of single player content and 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.

 

4. Seems not.

Quote

PC Pilot: Will MAC be a standalone product or will potential users need DCS World?

Matt Wagner: MAC will indeed be a standalone product but you can still purchase other maps to integrate into it. Both DCS World and MAC will use the common Simulation Operating System but they are designed to be rather different products that are built for different types of players....

PC Pilot: Do you have any future plans for MAC after its initial release?

Matt Wagner: As with DCS World, we plan to offer additional MAC modules that can be purchased and integrated into MAC. Most of this will be focused on converting existing DCS World aircraft for MAC. In addition to DCS World and MAC, we have plans for other independent products within the Simulation Operating System, but we’ll talk about those later.

 

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, draconus said:

You seem to totally ignore every information devs already gave us. Yes, it may change but there is no reason to hope for that. Let's sum up:

1. MAC is going to be separated from DCS. It's logical to share as much code as possible but no connectivity was ever implied.

2. There were no signs of introducing any aircraft that wouldn't be possible to be made for DCS.

3. FC3 stays as is in DCS. Not related to MAC apart from the simplified systems form.

1. I know it is a separate from DCS and will share as much code as possible 

2. That is why I am asking, what is going on there as that may have changed or might.

3. I don't expect Eagle to continue to support FC indefinitely and I don't know if a FF flanker is possible. I would love to see the FC planes replaced with FF modules  

[F-2]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

1. I know it is a separate from DCS and will share as much code as possible 

2. That is why I am asking, what is going on there as that may have changed or might.

3. I don't expect Eagle to continue to support FC indefinitely and I don't know if a FF flanker is possible. I would love to see the FC planes replaced with FF modules  

An early Su-27? Probably, with available info and information from SME, papers, info behind the scenes. Maybe not ED because Russia but if someone set out to do it maybe. Later ones? Maybe some of the economy Su-30mkk versions. I’ve seen people have or get their hands on stuff. I’d give it a few years but I’m sure eventually.

[Lyrode]

4小时前，F-2说：

Su-30mkk

This is the Chinese version, and is still in active service, so a big NO. Deka already failed.

 

4小时前，F-2说：

a few years

I do hope so, but I'll give it a few decades. Even the Fulcrum is not happening quick.

[draconus]

On 7/8/2023 at 10:30 AM, cfrag said:

Is that an assertion of yours, or do we have any source to back this up?

You all can help me to back it up but looks obvious so far. Please vote:

Edited July 11, 2023 by draconus

[Pikey]

The legacy of fc3 will live beyond mac i feel. Theres folks in this thread defending their favourite jets and their favourite adversaries. I cant believe ed would remove them either when  their presence on servers is effectively optional. As long as their are multiple opinions fc3 is staying alongside.

But i dont share the views on restricting fidelity in some sort of attempt to crank more volume of modules out the door. Other games do that, ed is not copying them. Eagles business has long been stated to aim for the most realism possible. Yeah...it takes lifetimes. Sure, we all get frustrated. Yes the redfor limitation is sad. Thats why i personally have a bit more hope for the older and simpler stuff, but never to the exclusion of any part of dcs. I remember the vitriol in the forums when the P51 was announced, back when my kids were still in primary school. Folks bring back the same argument about the Corsair and forget that a thousand miles is started with a single step.

MAC wont divide anything. It will just give some folks a better home or a nicer launch pad into the big modules. We need more people to stick around and buy those modules, to buy more developers, to speed up dev time, so we can live long enough to see whatever module is our own favourite. Thats the only way we win.

I hope eagle shares more news for you soon.

[upyr1]

16 hours ago, Pikey said:

The legacy of fc3 will live beyond mac i feel. Theres folks in this thread defending their favourite jets and their favourite adversaries. I cant believe ed would remove them either when  their presence on servers is effectively optional. As long as their are multiple opinions fc3 is staying alongside.

 

There is no way that we will loose the planes, the question is whether or not FF Flankers and Fulcrums are possible. We might be able to get a FF Frogfoot

16 hours ago, Pikey said:

But i dont share the views on restricting fidelity in some sort of attempt to crank more volume of modules out the door. Other games do that, ed is not copying them. Eagles business has long been stated to aim for the most realism possible. Yeah...it takes lifetimes. Sure, we all get frustrated. Yes the redfor limitation is sad. Thats why i personally have a bit more hope for the older and simpler stuff, but never to the exclusion of any part of dcs. I remember the vitriol in the forums when the P51 was announced, back when my kids were still in primary school. Folks bring back the same argument about the Corsair and forget that a thousand miles is started with a single step.

 

DCS wouldn't be DCS with reduced fidelity. That was the entire point of MAC. The question that everything hinged on IMHO was if we would ever see aircraft in MAC that we won't see in DCS. If ED's plan is to replace all the Flaming Cliffs modules planes with FF modules and MAC will simply be DCS light then I would be fine with them not connecting. It's only the scenario where we could have a reasonable MAC Su-27SM or even a SU-33 where connectivity becomes a desire, if that is not possible then the modern RedFor has to be solved via mods  I don't do multiplayer and I would rather see ED spend time on assets but I know people want multi-player modern scenarios 

[Furiz]

9 hours ago, upyr1 said:

There is no way that we will loose the planes, the question is whether or not FF Flankers and Fulcrums are possible. We might be able to get a FF Frogfoot

Rules of getting FF Frogfoot are the same as FF Fulcrum or Flanker, all russian production so... don't see how froggy is possible and fulcrum is not.