Is MAC still alive?

[Silver_Dragon]

56 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

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

S-27S/P never get "guided ordnance".... only rockets and bombs, Su-27SM/SM2/SMK get air to ground missiles and laser / EO guided bombs but dont get a designation pod (Sapsam was canceled) and russian crews never get air to ground training, only indonesian SMK versions... thats was move to SM3, bus was the same situation, no designation pods. All follow develop move to Su-30MK/SM/-35S.  Su-33 has on the same situation, only bombs and rockets, none guided weapons.

About Mig-29, Mig-29A 9.12/9.12A bombs and rockets, only export Syrians SM and Yemen SMT has guided ordnance. Mig-29S 9.13 only bombs and rockets SM (9.13S) version was tested with laser guided and KAB, but was upgraded canceled. Mig-29K 9.31 embarqued and with guided ordnance, was only prototipes and canceled on 92. Mig-29KR 9.41R guided ordenance Mig-29M 9.15 guided ordenance,  Canceled on 91 Mig-29SMT (9.19) guided ordnance but supresed by the Su-30SM, only 9.19R maintain on service and Move to Mig-35S (9.41SR)

Edited August 12, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

57 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

S-27S/P never get "guided ordnance".... only rockets and bombs, Su-27SM/SM2/SMK get air to ground missiles and laser / EO guided bombs but dont get a designation pod (Sapsam was canceled) and russian crews never get air to ground training, only indonesian SMK versions... thats was move to SM3, bus was the same situation, no designation pods. All follow develop move to Su-30MK/SM/-35S.  Su-33 has on the same situation, only bombs and rockets, none guided weapons.

About Mig-29, Mig-29A 9.12/9.12A bombs and rockets, only export Syrians SM and Yemen SMT has guided ordnance. Mig-29S 9.13 only bombs and rockets SM (9.13S) version was tested with laser guided and KAB, but was upgraded canceled. Mig-29K 9.31 embarqued and with guided ordnance, was only prototipes and canceled on 92. Mig-29KR 9.41R guided ordenance Mig-29M 9.15 guided ordenance,  Canceled on 91 Mig-29SMT (9.19) guided ordnance but supresed by the Su-30SM, only 9.19R maintain on service and Move to Mig-35S (9.41SR)

You missed my point. The exact loadout for any specific variant doesn't matter. What is important would be the following.

• What are the most advanced RedFor planes we can have as AI assets?
• Good mod support can make them flyable  

 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

You missed my point. The exact loadout for any specific variant doesn't matter. What is important would be the following.

• What are the most advanced RedFor planes we can have as AI assets?
• Good mod support can make them flyable  

 
 

Actualy Su-30 in DCS.

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk

[draconus]

7 hours ago, upyr1 said:

• What are the most advanced RedFor planes we can have as AI assets?
• Good mod support can make them flyable  

There already are Su-35 and Su-57 mods.

[upyr1]

6 hours ago, draconus said:

There already are Su-35 and Su-57 mods.

I know  I have the 57. I am just asking for at least one of them in DCS core plus the option to allow a developer to assign a vanilla asset as a stand in when people connecting to a server don't have a mod 

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Actualy Su-30 in DCS.

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk
 

I know and there is also a SU-30 mod. Anyway to spell out what I would love to see would be for a mod developer to have the option to add a line of code so that a mod could use a DCS core asset as a stand-in, as well as a mod manager and other mod support wishlist people might have 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I know  I have the 57. I am just asking for at least one of them in DCS core plus the option to allow a developer to assign a vanilla asset as a stand in when people connecting to a server don't have a mod 

This doesn’t make sense. How would one aircraft “stand in” for another? Would the stand in get the Su-57s weapons and flight model?

[draconus]

5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I know  I have the 57. I am just asking for at least one of them in DCS core plus the option to allow a developer to assign a vanilla asset as a stand in when people connecting to a server don't have a mod 

57 won't be added and you know that. This is also not how mods work, not like some missing texture.

[Smith]

21 hours ago, draconus said:

There isn't but you can make one. You're in minority, believe me.

I made a poll. I hope i made it correctly

 

[upyr1]

14 minutes ago, draconus said:

57 won't be added and you know that. This is also not how mods work, not like some missing texture.

I know how mods work, and that is why I am asking for ED to change things as mods are the only way we'll have flyable modern redFor I think this needs to go to a new thread. 

 

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

This doesn’t make sense. How would one aircraft “stand in” for another? Would the stand in get the Su-57s weapons and flight model?

One of the problems with Mods is the fact that everyone who wants to connect to a server needs the mod in question. The entire point to the stand in is that if you connect to a server that uses a mod that you don't have you will see the stand In visually. 

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

One of the problems with Mods is the fact that everyone who wants to connect to a server needs the mod in question. The entire point to the stand in is that if you connect to a server that uses a mod that you don't have you will see the stand In visually. 

Unofficial mods are not a good solution for getting content into DCS. 

[upyr1]

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Unofficial mods are not a good solution for getting content into DCS. 

They might not be the best solution but sometimes they are the only solution.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

They might not be the best solution but sometimes they are the only solution.

Face it, there’s not a solution to this. 

[Smith]

As MAC was put on a shelve now and FC is alive again, i hope we will get more modern FC redfore planes someday

[Gierasimov]

9 hours ago, Smith said:

As MAC was put on a shelve now and FC is alive again, i hope we will get more modern FC redfore planes someday

I understand you speak out of the perception and not from official EDSA statement here?

I get it, talking about MAC and announcing it, then shifting this MAC project due to its increased size and effort needed, claiming no more updates to Flaming Cliffs, going dark on MAC project and then re-releasing Flaming Cliffs with elements that would otherwise be included as MAC... yeah 

Purpose of MAC was to compete with another game that shall remain unnamed here, but with the "quality" that DCS offers MAC would not and could not compete with that other game, EDSA should just drop this OR create brand new flight arcade game with modern visuals / sfx / top tier entertainment quality. You cannot build a new product on old DX11 based engine.

As for the red force planes... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. EDSA has got no resources and / or will to produce these and will not cooperate with community mod creators unless these skilled people prove to be worth signing 3rd party deals. 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

EDSA should just drop this OR create brand new flight arcade game with modern visuals / sfx / top tier entertainment quality.

I don’t think this would ever be cost effective. Even MAC as far as I know was going to share the DCS game engine, models etc. There’s really no need for the mid fidelity aircraft to be a separate game, it’s better for this all to share development resources IMO.

2 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

You cannot build a new product on old DX11 based engine.

DCS is going to Vulkan

2 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

As for the red force planes... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. EDSA has got no resources and / or will to produce these and will not cooperate with community mod creators unless these skilled people prove to be worth signing 3rd party deals. 

The obstacle here is the need for open source information, not lack of skilled people. The restrictions around classified info applies to any official 3rd party creators as well as ED
 

[Gierasimov]

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think this would ever be cost effective. Even MAC as far as I know was going to share the DCS game engine, models etc. There’s really no need for the mid fidelity aircraft to be a separate game, it’s better for this all to share development resources IMO.

DCS is going to Vulkan

The obstacle here is the need for open source information, not lack of skilled people. The restrictions around classified info applies to any official 3rd party creators as well as ED
 

Thanks but you confuse the titles. This thread ain't about FF modules, it is about FC level (MAC??) ones. Access to NEEDED information is NOT a problem here. 

Building MAC on Vulkan from ground up would constitute brand new flight arcade game

[MAXsenna]

Thanks but you confuse the titles. This thread ain't about FF modules, it is about FC level (MAC??) ones. Access to NEEDED information is NOT a problem here. 
Building MAC on Vulkan from ground up would constitute brand new flight arcade game

Hmmm... They could still rebrand it down the line. Use the same engine, and add som sort of user mod support. Dunno.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Gierasimov]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

Hmmm... They could still rebrand it down the line. Use the same engine, and add som sort of user mod support. Dunno.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

Thing is though, MAC as a arcade game on DCS engine will not be able to compete with other ones on the market currently, so why would players choose it over the other ones? What's in it for the player ?

[MAXsenna]

Thing is though, MAC as a arcade game on DCS engine will not be able to compete with other ones on the market currently, so why would players choose it over the other ones? What's in it for the player ?

Well. You got me!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

Building MAC on Vulkan from ground up would constitute brand new flight arcade game

Well there’s no need for this to be a totally new game. It could share the game engine, maps and aircraft models. That seems like the conclusion ED arrived at and it makes sense. 

[draconus]

13 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

This thread ain't about FF modules, it is about FC level (MAC??) ones. Access to NEEDED information is NOT a problem here. 

Yes, it is. PFM needs docs. Weapons need docs. Even standard systems modeling needs docs.

[Gierasimov]

42 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, it is. PFM needs docs. Weapons need docs. Even standard systems modeling needs docs.

No. For the game like MAC or even for the Flaming Cliffs they don't need 'docs' that aren't published. We are all spoiled by the 'realistic simulation' DCS tries hard to achieve, but think about it for a minute. It is just an entertainment product, as such all of it can be made to fit the world of the actual game, based on physics, aerodynamics and generally available data. Why? Look at the Hornet project, Wags said long time ago, Hornet 'numbers' were changed as to not reveal it's performance, as it was still in use ...look at the highly successfull module Ka-50, it is based on the book(!) look at the mods by others such as Su-35, Su-57, F-22... 

These are user mods but are highly popular. People need to be entertained. Most of folks don't want to wait 6+ years bugs development just for the sake of the 'most realistic product for the commercial use'. 

Yes, you and me and thousands of others want that, but tens of thousands of others, just want to put a thing on thing press the space bar and see it go in spectacular flames. We are talking about the GAME here. Even DCS is NOT simulating everything to the highest realism, with a lot of shortcuts, dumb downs or unfinished unpolished experience. After all, DCS is just a PC game in flight simulation genre. 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

No. For the game like MAC or even for the Flaming Cliffs they don't need 'docs' that aren't published. We are all spoiled by the 'realistic simulation' DCS tries hard to achieve, but think about it for a minute. It is just an entertainment product, as such all of it can be made to fit the world of the actual game, based on physics, aerodynamics and generally available data. Why? Look at the Hornet project, Wags said long time ago, Hornet 'numbers' were changed as to not reveal it's performance, as it was still in use ...look at the highly successfull module Ka-50, it is based on the book(!) look at the mods by others such as Su-35, Su-57, F-22... 

These are user mods but are highly popular. People need to be entertained. Most of folks don't want to wait 6+ years bugs development just for the sake of the 'most realistic product for the commercial use'. 

Yes, you and me and thousands of others want that, but tens of thousands of others, just want to put a thing on thing press the space bar and see it go in spectacular flames. We are talking about the GAME here. Even DCS is NOT simulating everything to the highest realism, with a lot of shortcuts, dumb downs or unfinished unpolished experience. After all, DCS is just a PC game in flight simulation genre. 

I specifically replied wrt FC in DCS. Of course mods or possibly some new MAC with relaxed simulation will not need detailed documentation, maybe some licenses will still apply if the real names are to be used.

And we certainly don't like to wait years for FF modules but yet we do and we're mostly glad with what we finally get. You're in the wrong forum asking for a game with fantastic planes.

[Gierasimov]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

I specifically replied wrt FC in DCS. Of course mods or possibly some new MAC with relaxed simulation will not need detailed documentation, maybe some licenses will still apply if the real names are to be used.

And we certainly don't like to wait years for FF modules but yet we do and we're mostly glad with what we finally get. You're in the wrong forum asking for a game with fantastic planes.

Fantastic planes? Did you mean fictional planes? 

I am in the right forum. Flaming Cliffs used 'docs'? I'm m sure you remember when LOMAC converted to Flaming Cliffs...