Is MAC still alive?

[Silver_Dragon]

17 minutes ago, Extranajero said:

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.

A UH-1H from 2013 was 130000 poligons and cockpit 196000 poligons
A AH-64D from 2022 was 600000 poligons and the cockpit 1200000 poligons or a F-14 from 2021 700000 poligons or CV-79 Heatblur carrier 2500000 poligons

I don't know this mania that games have to look like the technology of 10 years ago, when you have the tools to have the best possible quality.

[Silver_Dragon]

36 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Ditto.
 

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??" *

 

And? the F-15E (560000 poligons) and the Ka-50 (700000 poligons) are not among the most detailed models created for DCS World .... the F-14 already surpasses them.

[Thx1137]

38 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Ditto.
 

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??" *

 

1, A poly not seen is probablyusually not drawn so it doesn't necessarily consume frames.

2. Just because you don't want something doesn't mean many others do. It isn't all about you/us.

Re #2, I also don't care about opening non-useful panels so I actually agree. But, not everyone is like me and I don't think my taste makes everyone elses less important. 

3. If a person making a feature wants to add something because they want to, who are we to tell them not to make what they want. It is *their* product. We just buy into what they create.

[BIGNEWY]

folks please keep the feedback constructive. 

The thread is quickly going off topic so please stick to the thread title for discussion. 

thank you

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Coxy_99 said:

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 . 

 That's why I think there should be an option for cross platform play 

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

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. 

Those stats are from Blue Flag

22 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

 That's why I think there should be an option for cross platform play 

This doesn’t make sense if they’re different games. If that was a goal then these aircraft would just be DLC for DCS. 

[upyr1]

13 hours 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.

The point to separating them would be marketing. DCS would be advertised as the most realistic combat sim while MAC could be advertised as more mainstream. As I keep saying the reason I want to allow them to connect would mainly be modules such as the flanker and fulcrum, which I don't expect will never be FF. So to have them on a server you'll either need to use AI or MAC modules. 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I don't know this mania that games have to look like the technology of 10 years ago, when you have the tools to have the best possible quality.

^ this. Any new modules should exploit what PCs are capable of today. 

8 hours ago, upyr1 said:

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 

WWII planes already have simplified navigation, a compass

[upyr1]

12 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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. 

I think it is way better than having AI only 

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I think it is way better than having AI only 

I don’t know that there any immediate plans to remove the FC3 planes from DCS. They just aren’t adding more of them. 

[Enigma89]

47 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The point to separating them would be marketing. DCS would be advertised as the most realistic combat sim while MAC could be advertised as more mainstream. As I keep saying the reason I want to allow them to connect would mainly be modules such as the flanker and fulcrum, which I don't expect will never be FF. So to have them on a server you'll either need to use AI or MAC modules. 

DCS is a "free-to-play digital battlefield game." according to the DCS page on Steam. One of the two free to play planes is not even full fidelity. This mix of fidelity is already part of the game. I hope ED decides to bake MAC into the current game and not fragment the playerbase between two games. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by Enigma89

[[HOUNDS] CptTrips]

25 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

DCS is a "free-to-play digital battlefield game." according to the DCS page on Steam. One of the two free to play planes is not even full fidelity. This mix of fidelity is already part of the game. I hope ED decides to bake MAC into the current game and not fragment the playerbase between two games. 

 

 

It would seem to me a mistake to put up a firewall instead of using MAC as a feeder-league, on-ramp to the DCS ecosystem.  Even at mid-fidelity, it is already probably higher fidelity than they are used to from other game.  Get double use and value out of the development effort by making it a funnel to bring in new players to DCS proper.

And add a WWIIAC too so we can get a bundle on mid-fidelity WWII planes to fill out the gaps.

$0.02.

 

[SharpeXB]

20 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

I hope ED decides to bake MAC into the current game and not fragment the playerbase between two games. 

Indeed, this seems like an ok idea but I understand this isn’t the plan. So I wonder what the rationale is? Perhaps it’s because MAC will get aircraft that aren’t possible to do to DCS FF standards. Maybe from a sales perspective it’s more feasible. Baking MAC into DCS would essentially mean having duplicate simplified versions of every FF module and perhaps that’s not cost effective unless you package and sell this as a different game.
As far as the player base is concerned it seems like two different games would go after two different markets, players who want FF will play DCS and vice versa. So a split shouldn’t be that much of a concern. 

[buceador]

19 hours ago, Raisuli said:

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.

Although I totally understand your point, you are speaking purely from the perspective of FLYING the aircraft.  Many DCSers, fly "missions" interact on servers but also are heavily into cinematic video and this area REQUIRES the kind of realism to which you refer.  Venom Cinematic, Phenom and all the DCS promotional videos that showcase the sheer realism of DCS thrive on this kind of detail.

[SharpeXB]

19 hours ago, Raisuli said:

so how important is it to model the avionics bays, or the flex in the hydraulic hoses when gear comes up and down

Airplane porn sells

[Raisuli]

7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Airplane porn sells

I stand corrected! 

Says the guy with more than a few beauty shots as background screens.  Of course those are environmental and exterior models, but that's a fuzzy line and I'm not wise enough to draw it.  That will have to be left to the people who do this for a living.

[SkateZilla]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

The point to separating them would be marketing. DCS would be advertised as the most realistic combat sim while MAC could be advertised as more mainstream. As I keep saying the reason I want to allow them to connect would mainly be modules such as the flanker and fulcrum, which I don't expect will never be FF. So to have them on a server you'll either need to use AI or MAC modules. 

That would be an Assumption.

[buceador]

4 hours 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. 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.

Although I totally understand your point, you are speaking purely from the perspective of FLYING the aircraft.  Many DCSers, fly "missions" interact on servers but also are heavily into cinematic video and this area REQUIRES the kind of realism to which you refer.  Venom Cinematic, Phenom and all the DCS promotional videos that showcase the sheer realism of DCS thrive on this kind of detail.

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Enigma89 said:

DCS is a "free-to-play digital battlefield game." according to the DCS page on Steam. One of the two free to play planes is not even full fidelity. This mix of fidelity is already part of the game. I hope ED decides to bake MAC into the current game and not fragment the playerbase between two games. 

 

Some should remember that MAC is made for those players who don't want to spend 20 minutes starting a plane or have to learn complex systems by reading a 500-page manual. In fact, for those who want that entry level, they don't need anything else. ED already explained a lot in a previous post, no need to go over it again.

 

[Extranajero]

2 hours ago, buceador said:

Many DCSers, fly "missions" interact on servers but also are heavily into cinematic video and this area REQUIRES the kind of realism to which you refer.  Venom Cinematic, Phenom and all the DCS promotional videos that showcase the sheer realism of DCS thrive on this kind of detail.

So our video cards all have to explode so a tiny handful of people can make crappy " cinematics " ?

[NineLine]

2 minutes ago, Extranajero said:

So our video cards all have to explode so a tiny handful of people can make crappy " cinematics " ?

The choice is to make models good enough for today or make them good enough for the future. 

[buceador]

1 minute ago, Extranajero said:

So our video cards all have to explode so a tiny handful of people can make crappy " cinematics " ?

I didn't realise that graphics cards were exploding?  I guess this is more about what the DCS users in general  want rather than than what any one individual wants?

Crappy cinematics seems harsh!

[Extranajero]

9 minutes ago, buceador said:

I didn't realise that graphics cards were exploding?

My 3080 tried to jump out of the case and run away to hide when I first ran the AH64. I caught it before it got very far though and refitted it.
It's still nervous even after I told it that I don't like the AH64 and promised never to hurt it like that again.

[MAXsenna]

Airplane porn sells

Well, so? Plain porn does!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[NineLine]

1 hour ago, buceador said:

Crappy cinematics seems harsh!

It is harsh, we should try and be nice to each other no matter what one person does with DCS vs another.