Is MAC still alive?

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

 

12 minutes ago, dankmaster said:

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.

 

Does it have to be zero sum?

A model could be released in "Relaxed Fidelity" first with reasonable flight model and the bare essentials of the clickable cockpit.  Later upgraded to "Full Fidelity" once the cigarette lighter and every other cockpit widget is fully implemented.  

As long as they are marked so people know what they are getting and server setting to allow or disallow I don't see a problem.

Good shouldn't be the enemy of perfect.  It could merely be a step toward the destination.

 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

6 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

 

 

Does it have to be zero sum?

A model could be released in "Relaxed Fidelity" first with reasonable flight model and the bare essentials of the clickable cockpit.  Later upgraded to "Full Fidelity" once the cigarette lighter and every other cockpit widget is fully implemented.  

As long as they are marked so people know what they are getting and server setting to allow or disallow I don't see a problem.

Good shouldn't be the enemy of perfect.  It could merely be a step toward the destination.

 

 

ED and 3rd parties has only projects to build Hardcore modules, and actualy, ED has none plan to build "Relaxed Fidelity" on DCS or add more aircrafts to FC-3. MAC will be the "relaxed Fidelity" on the future when released.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

A model could be released in "Relaxed Fidelity" first with reasonable flight model and the bare essentials of the clickable cockpit.  Later upgraded to "Full Fidelity" once the cigarette lighter and every other cockpit widget is fully implemented. 

That’s what we have now, it’s called “Early Access”

[Extranajero]

It always amazes me that people can think that DCS is full fidelity because you have to check that the DMDT is aligned with the STRP and sending valid DXT to the two TDDF's when doing a cold start - but are perfectly happy with infantry that just stand there when you fire a pod full of rockets at them and tanks that can head shoot you at a mile with their Dooshka's
Or how about the AI Mig-29's that can pull 17g's ? are they full fidelity ?

It's almost like they don't care about the "combat" word that lives in the middle of digital combat simulator.
 

[Why485]

I just wanted to know what was going on with Modern Air Combat (MAC).

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

True.

 

So there is no argument.  He is just suggesting a gradation of what we have.  

Even "Full Fidelity" has to make some dividing line on where to stop.  Is the seatbelt buckle adjustable?  Pfffft.  I'm L333t!  I only fly models with adjustable seatbelt buckles!

WWII is especially thinly fleshed out.  I'd like a lot more WWII craft reasonable implemented to flesh out good online play.  I don't need the seatbelt buckle or cigarette lighter implemented yet.  Those can come later and the aircraft upgraded to "Full Fidelity" once they are finished.  

I'd rather have stuff that is good NOW rather than wait a decade for something perfect.  Half of us will be dead by then.

 

[Why485]

7 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

I'd rather have stuff that is good NOW rather than wait a decade for something perfect.  Half of us will be dead by then.

At the rate DCS modules come out, it is a real concern that I might not be around anymore or able by the time the modules I want to fly can be released. These things take 4-8 years each and really it seems like the only way to have modules come out more frequently is to just keep adding more third party developers who each make one plane and then support it for a couple years because it'll never be released finished.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Why485

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

 

1 minute ago, Why485 said:

At the rate DCS modules come out, it is a real concern that I might not be around anymore or able by the time the modules I want to fly can be released. These things take 4-8 years each and really it seems like the only way to have modules come out more frequently is to just keep adding more third party developers who each make one plane.

 

Exactly.

When the Corsair is released, what am I going to use it for?  Do I really need the engine cover to be removable?  The problem is that as you see parts of the community think it has to have every single widget implemented before it sees the light of day.  Companies are probably afraid of releasing and getting roasted if it is less than that.

I used to have a boss who would say, "Don't try and build a 8 lane highway on day one.  Lets get a two lane county road up and working and next year we'll expand it 4 lanes and a couple of years after that, we'll make it 8 lane."

 

 

 

[Enigma89]

45 minutes ago, dankmaster said:

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.

That's fair, I would like to ask one question though. 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. 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.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

36 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

A model could be released in "Relaxed Fidelity" first with reasonable flight model and the bare essentials of the clickable cockpit.  Later upgraded to "Full Fidelity" once the cigarette lighter and every other cockpit widget is fully implemented.

It doesn't work that way. What you are suggesting would basically double the workload for any module developer. "Relaxed fidelity" and "full fidelity" are 2 completely different things that would need re-work from the ground up. There is much more to "full fidelity" than 'clickable cockpit'. It's about systems modelling, engine modelling, ... The fuel system, electric system and hydraulics need to be built as a foundation before you can do anything else such as MFD programming.
If you want more information on this I suggest you look at posts made by 3rd party developers when MAC first came into picture years ago. Magnitude 3 for example tried to explain this, in relation to their MiG-21 which is both a DCS module and a MAC-module.

[Ironhand]

46 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

…A model could be released in "Relaxed Fidelity" first with reasonable flight model and the bare essentials of the clickable cockpit…

ED, I believe, has already stated that, once MAC is released, any new modules added would already exist as  FF modules. There were no plans to start from the “relaxed” fidelity end of things.

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

Fair points to an extent, but something has to be done about the process.

 

Again, what would I do with a corsair?  Fly offline?  Airfield patterns?

 

How many decades before 

Zero, Nate, P38,  N1K2,  SBD are modelled?

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by [16AGR] CptTrips

[NineLine]

54 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

Again, what would I do with a corsair?  Fly offline?  Airfield patterns?

I remember the days when we only had the P-51, we managed. 

Also, the F4U flew over Europe as well in limited capacity. 

While I understand and appreciate the desire to have a fully fleshed out and complete theatre on the day of release, our focus has always been more on the aircraft itself. 

I know the idea of FC-style WWII aircraft was recently brought up, but I am not even sure what that would be. How do you relax the systems in a 40's style aircraft which by today's standards is very limited in systems anyways? 

Back to the topic at hand though. MAC is not dead, we are not planning any more FC aircraft for DCS World. I do not think the time savings of FC-style aircraft is as much as people think it is. 

Thanks all. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, Extranajero said:

It's almost like they don't care about the "combat" word that lives in the middle of digital combat simulator.
 

It's always a matter of time before someone points out the COMBAT in the title. No matter what the topic is.

Personally, I'm eagerly awaiting the day when ED decides to publish DCS for my E6B so I can post about it being DIGITAL combat simulator, not ANALOG.

 

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Also, the F4U flew over Europe as well in limited capacity. 

Last reply.

Yes, yes, yes.  I'm sure you find a rare instance of anything.  But That is not what a customer would be buying a Corsair for.

I love the Corsair.  My favorite plane of all time. Ever.  Since the day I came running home from school announcing to the family I absolutely had the TV reserved that Thurs night a 7pm to watch the pilot episode of Ba Ba Blacksheep!   I'm exactly the person who should bit at that in a sec.

Yet I highly doubt I will.  I can't see paying $60+ for a hangar queen I might take out occationally and do some touch-n-go offline.

There isn't even an AI Zero in the WWII asset pack to shoot at.  Much less a player flyable version to test it against.

Sadly, I'm afraid that will be interpreted as "no one likes WWII" if the modules sales aren't sufficient.  I hate to give that impression, but there is a kind of chicken and the egg dilemma here.  I just bought a couple of hundred bucks worth of the other WWII planes, but you at least have a bare minimum of those ETO to create a satisfying user experience.

PTO?  I'm not seeing it.

 

$0.02.

Edited July 5, 2023 by [16AGR] CptTrips

[Raisuli]

I'm a little late to this fur fest, so please pardon the really dumb question... 

I never click anything in a cockpit (well, almost nothing, but I also have a few hundred switches laying around), whether I'm flying something from FC or something 'full fidelity', so why the heartburn over whether a module is full fidelity or just pretty as long as the flight models aren't completely borked?

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

I'm a little late to this fur fest, so please pardon the really dumb question... 

I never click anything in a cockpit (well, almost nothing, but I also have a few hundred switches laying around), whether I'm flying something from FC or something 'full fidelity', so why the heartburn over whether a module is full fidelity or just pretty as long as the flight models aren't completely borked?

Full Fidelity means more than clickable switches though. it's the system modelling entirely. It is more simplified in FC aircraft. 

Standard Systems Modeling (SSM). A DCS module using SSM is characterized as including just the most essential cockpit systems and using keyboard and joystick commands only to interact with the cockpit. Examples of SSM in DCS include all of the Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft.

Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM). An ASM enabled aircraft goes into great depth to model the intricacies of the various cockpit systems, to include functionality for almost all the buttons, switches, dials, etc. A key element of an ASM cockpit is the ability to interact with it using your mouse. ASM DCS examples include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2.

9 minutes ago, [16AGR] CptTrips said:

Last reply.

Yes, yes, yes.  I'm sure you find a rare instance of anything.  But That is not what a customer would be buying a Corsair for.

I love the Corsair.  My favorite plane of all time. Ever.  Since the day I came running home from school announcing to the family I absolutely had the TV reserved that Thurs night a 7pm to watch the pilot episode of Ba Ba Blacksheep!   I'm exactly the person who should bit at that in a sec.

Yet I highly doubt I will.  I can't see paying $60+ for a hangar queen I might take out occupationally and do some touch-n-go offline.

There isn't even an AI Zero in the WWII asset pack to shoot at.  Much less a player flyable version to test it against.

Sadly, I'm afraid that will be interpreted as "no one likes WWII" if the modules sales aren't sufficient.  I hate to give that impression, but there is a kind of chicken and the egg dilemma here.  I just bought a couple of hundred bucks worth of the other WWII planes, but you at least have a bare minimum of those ETO to create a satisfying user experience.

PTO?  I'm not seeing it.

 

$0.02.

We have not discussed PTO at all as far as what plans might be and what we will see. We will share more info soon. But again, off-topic really. 

[Coxy_99]

I hope they make MAC because not everyone wants to mess about with SWITCHES  And lets be honest most servers allow mods that dont even have proper flight models or even aircraft that carry the right weapons modded with LUA's so the whole argument does not work . 

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

8 minutes ago, NineLine said:

We have not discussed PTO at all as far as what plans might be and what we will see. We will share more info soon. But again, off-topic really. 

Understood.  The only reason I continued is that the original question had already been answered so there was no more information to convey on that topic.

I'm not a psychic.  I can only go off what you've shown so far.  I hope you have some other surprises to go along with the Corsair release.  I'll hold on to my wallet and see what develops.

<S> 

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Enigma89 said:

That's fair, I would like to ask one question though. 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. 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.

That's a great question.   And the answer is, there's not as much live OPFOR without FC3 and that would suck.   While I'm not necessarily that interested in your server (I guess you  might say I like my MFDs?  But mostly I like my F-15C) I can appreciate the work you've done it, and good job.  It looks like it's popular, successful and people have fun times on it and that's what's really important.

I'd call to question the 10km EWR thing but whatever - I think that's about the only thing I'd pick on and I understand that you have your reasons for doing it.

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Coxy_99 said:

And lets be honest most servers allow mods that dont even have proper flight models or even aircraft that carry the right weapons modded with LUA's so the whole argument does not work . 

What argument is that? FC3 aircraft have authentic weapons and FMs. 

[Gunfreak]

2 hours ago, Extranajero said:

It always amazes me that people can think that DCS is full fidelity because you have to check that the DMDT is aligned with the STRP and sending valid DXT to the two TDDF's when doing a cold start - but are perfectly happy with infantry that just stand there when you fire a pod full of rockets at them and tanks that can head shoot you at a mile with their Dooshka's
Or how about the AI Mig-29's that can pull 17g's ? are they full fidelity ?

It's almost like they don't care about the "combat" word that lives in the middle of digital combat simulator.
 

Fixing Those things don't bring in the money. So they don't get fixed(or fixed at an insanely slow pace) but apparently that is the "correct choice" by ED as nobody are gonna stop spending money on DCS over it(including me who keeps harping on exactly these things)

[Raisuli]

23 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Full Fidelity means more than clickable switches though. it's the system modelling entirely. It is more simplified in FC aircraft. 

Standard Systems Modeling (SSM). A DCS module using SSM is characterized as including just the most essential cockpit systems and using keyboard and joystick commands only to interact with the cockpit. Examples of SSM in DCS include all of the Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft.

Advanced Systems Modeling (ASM). An ASM enabled aircraft goes into great depth to model the intricacies of the various cockpit systems, to include functionality for almost all the buttons, switches, dials, etc. A key element of an ASM cockpit is the ability to interact with it using your mouse. ASM DCS examples include the A-10C, Ka-50, P-51D, UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2.

 

Yeah, I have all of those, and I interact with none of them using a mouse 

Which brings up another question I've had for a while, and forgive me if I'm pouring chlorine triflouride on a sensitive subject, but...  I don't fly with the panels open, so how important is it to model the avionics bays, or the flex in the hydraulic hoses when gear comes up and down (I'm not in external view zoomed in on the hydraulics when I lower gear, either).  That kind of detail takes hours, not only for the models and textures, but the code to run them.  The models take polys, and that combined with the code costs some number of cycles, and for what?  So you know when you lower the gear a hose flexed by a few centimeters?

The need for some of that goes right over my head.

Sorry, I'll shut up now.  Just can't get the you-tube videos of the F4U showing off a couple centimeters of motion on a part very few people will actually see.  I'd rather fly the thing.

[Baco]

2 hours ago, Enigma89 said:

That's fair, I would like to ask one question though. 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. 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.

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...

Now the problem in a CW scenario diminishes since there are less radars and RWRs systems and complex missiles. 

If I may, you might be confusing interest for the CW era with interest with better and/or more  "easy gameplay".

I love analog early tech era, mainly 60s to 80s. but I also need and love as real as it gets, not simplified mass of planes with a little variation in some table. for that we do have War Thunder or even IL-2 General survey sims, with lots of content. 

DCS is a Study sim, it might not be coherent it might have huge gaps, but each module is done as best as it can be done in a consumer PC. That is what we buy when we buy a DCS module. For light sims, you have War Thunder, and you will have MAC.

Don´t take away our GRAIL, to transform it into what you want.. specially when you DO have options, and we DON´T have any other "as real as it gets", Full Fidelity Sim on consumer platforms out there.

Microprose did go bankrupt when they developed Falcon 4.0 (full fid. + lots of content + dynamic campaign: 1 plane.

DCS might not be anywhere near perfect but its what we have for now regarding Full Fidelity. THAT is the essence of DCS. it has been since Black Shark.

And you are saying its essence its its main predicament. or problem... Sorry, can´t agree. I Enjoy your servers because it is as real as it gets with what we have. Change that to an all FC3 server and you will lose me at least as a pilot.

I don´t play to kill planes, Y play to feel like a pilot, not to feel like a GAMER playing with planes. 

Yes i use a GAME, but that game is my tool to feel like a pilot for a little while.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Baco

[dankmaster]

1 hour ago, Enigma89 said:

Do you find value from other people flying FC3 planes that you run across in multiplayer?

Absolutely - both FC3 and user mods that provide additional aircraft and options in single & multiplayer are of value for sure.  I'm not opposed to additional aircraft even if they are lower fidelity.  I respect your opinion, but personally I would rather pay for a single high fidelity module vs. many lower fidelity ones.