Is MAC still alive?

[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.

[hotrod525]

On 7/9/2023 at 10:14 AM, Lyrode said:

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.

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.

 

I'm more into the let's carry AIM2000 on F18, AGM88C to F15E, FIM92 to AH64D, 'Close enought' RedFor aircraft, expand the scope of DCS out of it's puritism that is counter-productive.

Let's take the stinger for the 64, I know "US Army AH64D Blk 2 didnot carry / have the wiring..." Yeah, so what ? DCS is a game, it dosent require the US Army to rewire it's entire fleet for ED to give it to us. It would allow people to play different nation (Japan / India / whoever carry the FIM on 64), it would bring more fun, more opportunity and those who can't live with it can simply deny the weapon in mission editor.

This apply for many aircraft  / weapon, key word here is : DCS = Game, Game = Having Fun, Fun Game = Sales, Sales = ED Grow, ED Grow = DCS Grow.

"This software is for entertainment purpose only"

Edited July 15, 2023 by hotrod525

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, Furiz said:

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.

I know it requires clearance from the VVS. The Frogfoot is a lot less sophisticated. So it might be easier to obtain. Then the Fulcrum I think would be the next more likely to get added i know it is planned and the Flanker I am the most skeptical about. I hope that if and when devopment starts on the MiG-29 that Eagle is able to get information on some non-Russian updated variant. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by upyr1

[Dr_Pavelheer]

Instead of Frogfoot I would personally prefer Fitter, Su-17M4 came out around the same time Su-25 did (for instance uses the same laser rangefinder and gunsight), is faster, carries wider selection of ordnance including TV guided Maverickski, there are no derivatives currently in service in Russia and it was in service in a couple of NATO countries like Czech Republik, Slovakia, Germany and Poland so access and SMEs shouldn't be an issue

Edited July 15, 2023 by Dr_Pavelheer

[draconus]

6 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

This apply for many aircraft  / weapon, key word here is : DCS = Game, Game = Having Fun, Fun Game = Sales, Sales = ED Grow, ED Grow = DCS Grow.

Thing is there already are games with relaxed fidelity and realism. DCS is special, its realism and fidelity is the fun here and it's the reason most of us are here, not playing other "fun games".

What you ask for is already possible with mods in DCS btw.

[hotrod525]

17 minutes ago, draconus said:

Thing is there already are games with relaxed fidelity and realism. DCS is special, its realism and fidelity is the fun here and it's the reason most of us are here, not playing other "fun games".

What you ask for is already possible with mods in DCS btw.

A bigger Playerbase = Money = Grow = Finaly having features promessed years ago but unable to be delievered due to lack of ressource.

May be you enjoy the fact that airplane modeling involve super-deep-system modelin but it simply change nothing to gameplay like a weapon would or XYZ feature present on the said airframe in another country. I'm not enjoying F18 cause it simulate each engine, nor i'm enjoying A10C due to its simulated fuel system. The whole point here is not about doing super-uber-cheezy stuff, is just being less retrictive and more enjoyable to more casual player. You may enjoy you're super realistic flight with your squadron simulating every single procedure etc, but it wont change the fact that youll see tons of people taking off from taxiway in MP. Having known weapon / some relaxed standart that you can enforce in ME anyway in order to attract new player is not asking for WT crap, is giving ED more ressource so in the end giving us a better DCS core. 

 

[upyr1]

19 hours ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Instead of Frogfoot I would personally prefer Fitter, Su-17M4 came out around the same time Su-25 did (for instance uses the same laser rangefinder and gunsight), is faster, carries wider selection of ordnance including TV guided Maverickski, there are no derivatives currently in service in Russia and it was in service in a couple of NATO countries like Czech Republik, Slovakia, Germany and Poland so access and SMEs shouldn't be an issue

 

While it would be nice to have the Su-17M and I think Octopus-G has it in development The issue here is what is happening with the places from Flaming cliffs. It looks like we will have both hopefully soon 

Edited July 16, 2023 by upyr1

[upyr1]

18 hours ago, draconus said:

Thing is there already are games with relaxed fidelity and realism. DCS is special, its realism and fidelity is the fun here and it's the reason most of us are here, not playing other "fun games".

What you ask for is already possible with mods in DCS btw.

I know some people don't like mods due to stability and other issues, which comes back to the point of the thread.  Is MAC going to be strictly DCS light or will there be a chance for good enough RedFor?  If the answer is "yes" then I would like them to connect and if the answer is "no" then I would like to see better mod support 

[Lyrode]

2023/7/15 PM10点12分，hotrod525说：

I'm more into the let's carry AIM2000 on F18, AGM88C to F15E, FIM92 to AH64D, 'Close enought' RedFor aircraft, expand the scope of DCS out of it's puritism that is counter-productive.

Whereas some players want more, some mignt want to stick to the real assets. You do realize that there are people out there hating our BS3 or upcoming J8pp, as is shown on the youtube and potentially in this thread right? And would a player say "Oh F-15e can't do sead won't buy", dramatically decreasing the fanbase? Or, adding FIM92 makes AH-64 sell better because it brings more fun? I doubt it.

Besides, extended sets need a boundary to stop. Yes give AH64D aa missiles, then aim-54 for F-15? R27er for IRIAF F-14... Tactical nuke for everyone for obvious reasons. People will probably hate it. When devs do recreation, the boundary of real life--solid reference is blurred, and to what extent it's acceptable, no one can tell, and no one can be satisfied at last. Those aviation lovers who pay $80 may not want unrealistic things. DCS is a game, but the devs develop things according to real life as reference. Otherwise, I don't see a problem in developing an E-3 with 50 Aim-120 loaded or a Ka-52 with aa radar and six R77, or even worse inventing a whole new airframe on their own. Why bother messing up with real prototypes when you are already crossing the line... 

MAC if finally released can be a way better choice for causual players. Supposingly, a larger playerbase. Simplified system and standard avionics can be much easier to mod, like modding FC3 I guess. If the community wants build what they like, MAC can be potentially much easier than DCS.

[hotrod525]

3 hours ago, Lyrode said:

Whereas some players want more, some mignt want to stick to the real assets. You do realize that there are people out there hating our BS3 or upcoming J8pp, as is shown on the youtube and potentially in this thread right? And would a player say "Oh F-15e can't do sead won't buy", dramatically decreasing the fanbase? Or, adding FIM92 makes AH-64 sell better because it brings more fun? I doubt it.

Besides, extended sets need a boundary to stop. Yes give AH64D aa missiles, then aim-54 for F-15? R27er for IRIAF F-14... Tactical nuke for everyone for obvious reasons. People will probably hate it. When devs do recreation, the boundary of real life--solid reference is blurred, and to what extent it's acceptable, no one can tell, and no one can be satisfied at last. Those aviation lovers who pay $80 may not want unrealistic things. DCS is a game, but the devs develop things according to real life as reference. Otherwise, I don't see a problem in developing an E-3 with 50 Aim-120 loaded or a Ka-52 with aa radar and six R77, or even worse inventing a whole new airframe on their own. Why bother messing up with real prototypes when you are already crossing the line... 

MAC if finally released can be a way better choice for causual players. Supposingly, a larger playerbase. Simplified system and standard avionics can be much easier to mod, like modding FC3 I guess. If the community wants build what they like, MAC can be potentially much easier than DCS.

Yes, cause obviously i'm talking about far stretch thing that would never happen, just like  Mi29 carrying HARM or SU24M carrying StormShadow.
Of course i got the point of the purist, but i still stand on my ground. Allowing plane to carry a wider array of possible weapon is more fun. Simple as that.

No dynamic campaign, no dynamic weather, missing core features etc. Like i said, i enjoy the realism, i'm just not an absolutist. As much details as they want can be put into sub-system, i do still believe that people enjoy DCS for a wide array of reason and "simulated fuel system / hydraulics" aint one of it.  I mean when is the last time you engage the RCVRY Switch in the FA18 ?  When is the last time you fly your A10C by the backup knob on the left console ? You see when i'm going with this. As Wags say : they have a finite amount of people and ressource. So they must choose, or in other words, sacrifice and delay thing in favor of the other.  Just look at how many third-party stuff we use, LotATC, SRS, etc.

 

Person A : Are you gonna buy A10C ?

Person B : I dont know man...

Person A : Well, know that fuel and hydrolics are fully simulated, but not the TAD nor the radio, you'll enjoy it so much when you blast AFV looking at those very gages.

Person B : Oh woaw, i'm throwing my money at it right now.

 

Anyway, opinions are worth one an other. Have a good one mate.

 

[draconus]

12 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

So they must choose, or in other words, sacrifice and delay thing in favor of the other.

Of course they have to because there's so many things to simulate. But they keep on adding to DCS, not the other way. Simplifying is for the MAC. Yeah, some of weird/unrealistic weapon mixes can already be used in DCS by using mods or modded servers - but they will never be part of DCS. Whatever it is simulated and however rarely you use it or even never, like some circuit breaker - does not matter. What matters is that you can use it, test it and that it is simulated - that's what DCS users enjoy. If they wouldn't they'd still pew-pew from F-22 in World of Modern Aircraft. Thing is, when you spend endless time and resources on every tiny psysics matching reality of aircraft/weapon, flight surfaces, forces, wind, turbulence, Earth curvature, gravity, radar equations, INS drifts, IR spectrum and what-not you don't want to suddenly flush it down the toilet with some studid fantasy stuff!

[Lyrode]

14小时前，hotrod525说：

No dynamic campaign, no dynamic weather, missing core features etc.

This is the main problem, addressed by many single players. Not that having or not having some sub systems hurts the game, or some modules losing some interesting add-ons killing the sale, just that the game has poor playability at the moment. 

[Silver_Dragon]

21 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

No dynamic campaign, no dynamic weather, missing core features etc.

You know very clear, ED has working on all them.... from some years ago.

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[hotrod525]

12 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You know very clear, ED has working on all them.... from some years ago.

 

 

Yes i know, it still dosent change the situation we are in. Dont get me wrong, i enjoy this game, i have spended my money on alot of modules, i'm not complaining about the quality of it either.

But if i have to choose between the two, i'll go for the playability. 

 

13 hours ago, Lyrode said:

This is the main problem, addressed by many single players. Not that having or not having some sub systems hurts the game, or some modules losing some interesting add-ons killing the sale, just that the game has poor playability at the moment. 

 

I agree with you, i'm more refereing to the time invested into it and the actual impact it have on the game. When they could have choose to go deeper on more wanted systems. TADs for A10, MSI on FA18, or whatever features peoples want. We rarely see anyone commenting on sub-system working in the background that many dont have any clue about.

 

May be, i say 'may be', DCS niche itself on a very very narrow field, wich make them super unique but come at some expense, wich turn away people who might have buy the product / or more of it.

Edited July 20, 2023 by hotrod525

[Smith]

I just want to drop guided missiles and bombs from a redfor fighter that can do air to air refueling.

Im so sad that ED took away the capabilities of the Flanker that it had with Flanker 2.5

25 years ago it was possible to carry KAB-500Kr, KH-31A or the like on a Su-33 without a mod. I know that these capabilities are not realisitc, but as long as full fidelity 4+ gen redfor planes like Su-27SM3 are not allowed then at least give us the option to fly the planes like that. And everyone who doesn't like these weapons on russian planes can dissable the option.

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Smith

[draconus]

45 minutes ago, Smith said:

I know that these capabilities are not realisitc, but as long as full fidelity 4+ gen redfor planes like Su-27SM3 are not allowed then at least give us the option to fly the planes like that.

You can just load the mod and fly it how you like it:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3325945/

[Smith]

Yes, i love this mod, but the problem is that i can't reload these weapons within a mission. So when i play on a PvE server like 4YA i m still only able to carry the normal loadout. Or in a singleplayer mission when i used all the weapons but didn't destroy the target i m not able to reload and try it again, i need to end the mission and start from the beginning again.

And with the KAB-500Kr, in this mod its just diffrent looking dumb bombs.

If i could get the SU-33/27 with guided weapons i would never fly the F-18/F-16/F-14 again. I just love the russian planes too much, but with only dump weapons they are not fun to fly a complex mission with them.

I don't care about full fidelity or not, as long as it is as realistic as the FC3 planes i m more than happy. And as long as the russian multirole fighters are not allowed to be simulated i just want the Su-25T ground modes added to the existing Su-33/27/MiG-29S. And for servers that want to be realistic they can disable the option for these planes to carry these weapons.

I fly DCS because there is no alternative, i don't fly it because it offers Full Fidelity Modules.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Smith

[draconus]

Face the facts @Smith. There's no possibility to do DCS Su-27/33 modules in the coming years. There's no more FC3 level aircraft coming to DCS either. There's also no chance Su-33/27/MiG-29S get new weapons in DCS. You're doomed to either use the mods or wait and see what MAC brings in, but I doubt you get there what you ask for. Maybe the JF-17 can satisfy you?

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, Smith said:

I just want to drop guided missiles and bombs from a redfor fighter that can do air to air refueling.

Im so sad that ED took away the capabilities of the Flanker that it had with Flanker 2.5

25 years ago it was possible to carry KAB-500Kr, KH-31A or the like on a Su-33 without a mod. I know that these capabilities are not realisitc, but as long as full fidelity 4+ gen redfor planes like Su-27SM3 are not allowed then at least give us the option to fly the planes like that. And everyone who doesn't like these weapons on russian planes can dissable the option.

 

 

Remember the Su-33 funtionality was building as a game, no as a realistic cargo on the Su-33. After, ED get feasible sources with many of that cargo has only fantasy as Kh-41 missile. The same on some warloads on Su-27S and Mig-29S, and no, ED never was plans to add Su-27SM3, Mig-29K or others a DCS World without propper aproval.

[Smith]

I m okay with EDs decision of removing unrealisitc weapon loadouts. I just think that adding them as an option or at least let the modders add them would please a lot of people who like to fly russian planes.

I just don't understand why ED locked the lua-Files to add these weapons. Before 2021 it was possible to add R-77 and KH-31 via lua-Files.

[BIGNEWY]

15 minutes ago, Smith said:

I just don't understand why ED locked the lua-Files to add these weapons.

To help prevent cheating that was happening. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 7/19/2023 at 8:45 PM, hotrod525 said:

Allowing plane to carry a wider array of possible weapon is more fun. Simple as that.

Perhaps it is, but I for one applaud ED's decision to stick to specific versions operated by 1 specific service, so you don't end up with a Frankenstein module. And I know a lot of other people feel that way as well.
The first image you linked is a Spanish Hornet, not a US Navy one like we have in DCS.
The second image looks like a Japanese AH-64, not a US Army one.
The third image, iirc, is from a test and evaluation squadron ("ET" on the tail), so not an operational one.

[Smith]

3 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Perhaps it is, but I for one applaud ED's decision to stick to specific versions operated by 1 specific service, so you don't end up with a Frankenstein module. And I know a lot of other people feel that way as well.
The first image you linked is a Spanish Hornet, not a US Navy one like we have in DCS.
The second image looks like a Japanese AH-64, not a US Army one.
The third image, iirc, is from a test and evaluation squadron ("ET" on the tail), so not an operational one.

Is there a poll somewhere in the forum to see how many people want absolute realistic loadouts and how many would like to have some more weapons on the russian planes? I m curious if i am in the minority or are there more people like me who would like to fly with smarter weapons on the russian planes.

[upyr1]

On 8/11/2023 at 2:43 AM, Smith said:

I just want to drop guided missiles and bombs from a redfor fighter that can do air to air refueling.

Im so sad that ED took away the capabilities of the Flanker that it had with Flanker 2.5

25 years ago it was possible to carry KAB-500Kr, KH-31A or the like on a Su-33 without a mod. I know that these capabilities are not realisitc, but as long as full fidelity 4+ gen redfor planes like Su-27SM3 are not allowed then at least give us the option to fly the planes like that. And everyone who doesn't like these weapons on russian planes can dissable the option.

 

 

This is why I figure the answer for the modern redFor problem is better mod support here is my wishlist 

1. Place the super flanker and fulcrums in DCS as online assets
2. Set it up so that you can use something in DCS core to stand in for a community module
3. Either have DCS and MAC online compatibility or keep Flaming cliffs

Now the problem is solved as long as ED has enough data for an AI asset

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, Smith said:

absolute realistic loadouts

There's a loadout limiter in the ME for exactly that reason.

 

1 hour ago, Smith said:

smarter weapons on the russian planes

The Su-27 we have in FC3 is - as far as I remember - the first initial batch of serial production. It didn't use "smarter" weapons IRL than the one we have access to. The smart weapons we had in the Flanker reasons where put in there for "game" reasons, not because they were ever used operationally on those airframes - because they were not.
What's next? JDAMs on F-5s? AMRAAMs on Spitfires?