Is MAC still alive?

[gnomechild]

Yeah I get that. I was just suggesting maybe a slightly more expedited approach with less than perfect models would be nice. We've been flying with the polygon bomber for a long time now. Anyway definitely way off topic now so I'll drop it

[SkateZilla]

IMHO, If you not gonna raise the bar on the model remasters, then there's no point in doing them...

The New B-52, B-1B and S-3 Models are going to be amazing milestones, leading the way for more AI Assets hopefully.

Honestly anyone who thinks even a 200K Poly model is built and animated in less than a few years, not to even mention damage modelling, hasn't done 3D Rendering long enough.

[upyr1]

22 hours ago, Enigma89 said:

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.

This is why I think at least one of the following things need to happen

• Enable MAC to connect to DCS servers this way we can have HI flankers and fulcrums 
• FF Flankers and Fulcrums

 

[Ironhand]

56 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

…”not in my lifetime" is actually unrealistic and untrue…

 

For some of us, age and health inform the length of time we have available for waiting.

[SkateZilla]

4 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

This is why I think at least one of the following things need to happen

• Enable MAC to connect to DCS servers this way we can have HI flankers and fulcrums 
• FF Flankers and Fulcrums

 

What would be the point of separating them if they are going to connect to the same servers, if that were the case it would simply be a new module.

[upyr1]

7 hours 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.

Its fine that you only want to fly FF modules, however the next question is whether how do you feel about the people flying FC Sus and Migs as your OpFor?  

[Exorcet]

20 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Honestly anyone who thinks even a 200K Poly model is built and animated in less than a few years, not to even mention damage modelling, hasn't done 3D Rendering long enough.

This is something I'm curious about since I don't do graphics rendering, but I do work with CAD. Sometimes we have to make our models look nice, but obviously this can't take years. I was surprised to learn how fast you can generate nice looking models in CAD programs after hearing how hard modeling can be in games and animation. Starting totally from scratch can take time, but scaling a model's detail for different levels of hardware in almost inconsequential. With a good CAD model I can give you a lightweight and superdetailed version of the same model back to back in minutes. I wonder why 3D artists don't do something similar (or do they?)

13 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

What would be the point of separating them if they are going to connect to the same servers, if that were the case it would simply be a new module.

I myself also question why MAC is going to be separate from DCS, though I guess when the final product is defined it might make more sense. If MAC is only to going include "downgraded" DCS aircraft, then it sort of makes sense I guess, but at the same time it might divide the player base. While I would prefer all resources go to FF modules, if we're going to have lower fidelity ones anyway then I don't have a problem with them interacting with DCS since they already do (FC3) and they're better than AI (human controlled CA vehicles have huge value despite their simplicity). The exception would be if MAC is vastly simpler in modeling than FC.

[NineLine]

36 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

This is something I'm curious about since I don't do graphics rendering, but I do work with CAD. Sometimes we have to make our models look nice, but obviously this can't take years. I was surprised to learn how fast you can generate nice looking models in CAD programs after hearing how hard modeling can be in games and animation. Starting totally from scratch can take time, but scaling a model's detail for different levels of hardware in almost inconsequential. With a good CAD model I can give you a lightweight and superdetailed version of the same model back to back in minutes. I wonder why 3D artists don't do something similar (or do they?)

I myself also question why MAC is going to be separate from DCS, though I guess when the final product is defined it might make more sense. If MAC is only to going include "downgraded" DCS aircraft, then it sort of makes sense I guess, but at the same time it might divide the player base. While I would prefer all resources go to FF modules, if we're going to have lower fidelity ones anyway then I don't have a problem with them interacting with DCS since they already do (FC3) and they're better than AI (human controlled CA vehicles have huge value despite their simplicity). The exception would be if MAC is vastly simpler in modeling than FC.

I understand the confusion and that more info will clear it up, I hope we can share more soon. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

how do you feel about the people flying FC Sus and Migs as your OpFor?  

It doesn’t matter, there really isn’t an advantage flying the easier planes. An F-18 or F-16 is “easy” too if you know how to use it and they’ve got more capabilities. 

[Silver_Dragon]

43 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

This is something I'm curious about since I don't do graphics rendering, but I do work with CAD. Sometimes we have to make our models look nice, but obviously this can't take years. I was surprised to learn how fast you can generate nice looking models in CAD programs after hearing how hard modeling can be in games and animation. Starting totally from scratch can take time, but scaling a model's detail for different levels of hardware in almost inconsequential. With a good CAD model I can give you a lightweight and superdetailed version of the same model back to back in minutes. I wonder why 3D artists don't do something similar (or do they?)

I think you have answered the question yourself. You work in CAD... but the problem here, is that all models have to be done with 3D Studio Max. Yes, you could use an API to export that model from CAD to 3DS Max, but we still have a problem and it is the same functionality that DCS World has, that if you export them directly to DCS World by your API, they would not work.

The placement of the 3D models in the viewpoints, making every animation work in DCS World, the different connectors, the levels of detail for the LODs, texturize models, the new damage model, and on top of that, making an aircraft is not the same as making infantry (which we don't know at the moment how it is built), and coding all LUAs. Other point has internal cockpits need build outside the model, to make all animations and asociated funtionality by LUAs.

It's the same situation as when someone buys a 3D model from TurboSquid... and tries to export it to DCS World, it's not functional at all. You need redone all (animations, texture, damage modeling, etc).

[SkateZilla]

2 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I myself also question why MAC is going to be separate from DCS, though I guess when the final product is defined it might make more sense. If MAC is only to going include "downgraded" DCS aircraft, then it sort of makes sense I guess, but at the same time it might divide the player base. While I would prefer all resources go to FF modules, if we're going to have lower fidelity ones anyway then I don't have a problem with them interacting with DCS since they already do (FC3) and they're better than AI (human controlled CA vehicles have huge value despite their simplicity). The exception would be if MAC is vastly simpler in modeling than FC.

For the record, my question regarding separation was Rhetorical.

As for Rendering, 1 Model can easily take years w/ complex animations, damage models, texture research, PBR Layer Generation, etc etc etc.

Outside of that, for DCS at least, it's not even about the new EDMs, you can clearly see they are in the sim in the 2023 Beyond and any ED Content published thus after,

The models even if done, it's still not ready to fly, the AI Flight Models, AI Systems etc. likely aren't done.
In Closing, The B-1B, B-52H, S-3 are more than "Model Swaps", And I'd rather wait for them to be properly done, vs ED Dropping the new Models in now, and continue to use any old and broken AI Scripts for said aircraft.

Edited July 6, 2023 by SkateZilla

[upyr1]

7 hours 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.

 

 

Some people don't like the early access we have now, so I can see people really screaming about that. However, I can also see the logic to it, which is why I was hoping MAC would be DCS light, it would give lower fidelity modules a place and move them out of DCS. if there is an option to enable MAC and DCS users to connect to the same server you could have some massive missions. I would love to have all the flaming cliffs planes and the Su-25T replaced with full fidelity modules but I understand that's not going to happen but the Flanker and fulcrum are both important for the online environment. 

 

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

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.

I know, and my question is what planes and modules might be possible with MAC but not DCS? 

[upyr1]

4 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I myself also question why MAC is going to be separate from DCS, though I guess when the final product is defined it might make more sense. If MAC is only to going include "downgraded" DCS aircraft, then it sort of makes sense I guess, but at the same time it might divide the player base. While I would prefer all resources go to FF modules, if we're going to have lower fidelity ones anyway then I don't have a problem with them interacting with DCS since they already do (FC3) and they're better than AI (human controlled CA vehicles have huge value despite their simplicity). The exception would be if MAC is vastly simpler in modeling than FC.

from my understanding, as far as fidelity is concerned MAC is basically flaming cliffs 4. My next question is what will they use map wise? I keep saying it MAC makes the most sense if the plan is for  MAC not only to be DCS light with FC-style modules but for there to be online interaction with DCS so we can have assets that might never be FF.

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by upyr1

[upyr1]

11 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.
 

These are issues with DCS combined with the missing assets. This one of the reasons I see MAC as a mixed bag, at the start it drags away resources, then once complete it will either be a continued resource drain or it could result in a lot of growth for ED which leads to these issues being dealt with. It all comes down to how much they share in terms of assets. I expect more people will buy MAC than DCS modules however there could be a lot of overlap. 

[Why485]

8 hours ago, NineLine said:

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. 

That was very forthcoming, thank you very much for the straight answer!

Edited July 6, 2023 by Why485

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, NineLine said:

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. 

 

With the amount of time it takes to do a WWII plane is a good indicator of the truth in this. I figure the way to simplify a WWII plane would be to remove engine management perhaps simplified navigation 

[Mikkall]

7 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

Millimoles per liter.

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

You guys have never heard of Massively Multiplayer Online?  Ok, maybe I should have left an M out (MOL)... but it's a catch-all, regardless.

[upyr1]

11 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

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.

I'd like to see their posts. The assumption people are making is that you start with an MAC module it could then be upgraded to DCS

8 hours 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. 

I'm not sure where you are getting your stats from but I wonder what the stats would be like if we could filter for pilot skill. 

[Furiz]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

I expect more people will buy MAC than DCS modules however there could be a lot of overlap.

That might happen since those modules would be much easier to learn than FF modules, and not everyone wants FF modules or is not into that kind of fidelity but they want some military plane action. Later on they may get interested in FF modules, I think that was EDs idea regarding MAC, something that would bring more people to DCS.

[Gunfreak]

9 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Someone need remembers the ED Plans about them:

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.

If you had seen  the stuff modders make you wouldn't say that.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Gunfreak

[EA-18G_BlockII]

Do you think MAC will open the possibility of 4.5+gen aircrafts? would be kinda counterintuitive to buy the game just to play the low fi version of already existed DCS jets

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

If you had seen  the stuff modders make you wouldn't say that.

 

I see all modders stuff (very good someones as Military Assets for DCS by Currenthill / Admiral189´s corner ships, and others), and none of them has plans to "jump" to get a 3rd party license to access to the SDK to put them as official assets packs on DCS. Remember I was on the past working on some 3rd parties intent building some 3D stuff of myserlf.

6 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I know, and my question is what planes and modules might be possible with MAC but not DCS? 

That has a question with ED and 3rd parties only can answer. Who knows, maybe in the future, we will see 3rd parties dedicated only to MAC.

[Extranajero]

11 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

Honestly anyone who thinks even a 200K Poly model is built and animated in less than a few years, not to even mention damage modelling, hasn't done 3D Rendering long enough.

I reverse engineered a complete Porsche 908 classic race car ( less the engine ) into a 3D CAD model in a year of spare time. OK, it didn't need animation or textures because it was an engineering model, but every part needed to fit and work in real terms. And that year included learning 3D cad software from scratch.
If I can do that, someone who already has the skills and who is working an 8 hour day as a job shouldn't have too many problems doing it in less time.

I don't want full fidelity models if they have tens of thousands of useless polys eating my computer resources. I do want a nice cockpit and a reasonable quality external model. What the engine details look like just wastes developers time and much more importantly my frames. I don't fly using external view with all the maintenance panels open and I doubt anyone else does either.

[LucShep]

31 minutes ago, Extranajero said:

I don't want full fidelity models if they have tens of thousands of useless polys eating my computer resources. I do want a nice cockpit and a reasonable quality external model.

Ditto.
 

31 minutes ago, Extranajero said:

What the engine details look like just wastes developers time and much more importantly my frames. I don't fly using external view with all the maintenance panels open and I doubt anyone else does either.

This, a million times.
We all love detail but, there comes a point that it's unnecessary, it becomes superfluous. * looks at the silly panels details on F15E and BS3... "why??" *

Edited July 6, 2023 by LucShep