Is MAC still alive?

[upyr1]

5 hours 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. 

 

Same and even if they wanted to split them as long as they can connect I am happy. 

[F-2]

10 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

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.

Those numbers can get bigger too. With landing gear down I think F-14 is a cool million.

[Furiz]

3 hours ago, Extranajero said:

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.

I think you might be having other issues like system ventilation or air flow that need attention cause I ran Apache with 2060 super with no problems like you described.

[upyr1]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

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

I think this might be a good time to go over why I want mac/dcs conectivity. I think the RedFor planes from FC are necessary but I also don't think fc modules are appropriate for DCS. I

  So the way around this would be either to replace the fc planes with ff ones- which I don't think is possible or have mac and dcs connectivity. 

So then the split becomes a branding issue as the MAC and DCS brands would Indicate what you are getting while allowing for conectivity is a concession to reality

[SharpeXB]

15 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I think this might be a good time to go over why I want mac/dcs conectivity. I think the RedFor planes from FC are necessary but I also don't think fc modules are appropriate for DCS. I

  So the way around this would be either to replace the fc planes with ff ones- which I don't think is possible or have mac and dcs connectivity. 

So then the split becomes a branding issue as the MAC and DCS brands would Indicate what you are getting while allowing for conectivity is a concession to reality

If they’re separate games then I would think by definition they wouldn’t have any connectivity. 

Edited July 6, 2023 by SharpeXB

[upyr1]

6 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If they’re separate games then I would think by definition they wouldn’t have any connectivity. 

 

Not necessarily. ED can do whatever they want obviously. As I stated the point for MAC is branding and I could see this being a feature. The only reason that keeping them completely separate IMHO would be if we could get FF versions of all the FC planes 

[NineLine]

You guys are thinking of MAC as an extension of DCS World, when in reality it is not really focused on the same audience as DCS, even if the engine will end up being the same.

It will probably appeal to some of you for varying reasons but as its own entity. 

How plane compatibility (if any) will work I have no idea, that is something we will talk about later, but think of them as separate right now as that is the intent. 

I realize with little to no info it's hard to wrap your heads around, as I said, I hope we will update you all soon on the ultimate plan.

[Why485]

I don't think it makes any sense for MAC to connect to DCS given that it's meant to be a standalone game.

The whole point of such a spinoff game should be to get away from the limitations and baggage of DCS, and to make low level changes which almost assuredly would bring incompatibilities with DCS. There's no guarantee that MAC and DCS would even operate by the same rules or level of realism. E.g. missile flight models could be dramatically different. MAC shouldn't just be "DCS, but FC4". Honestly if that's all MAC ends up becoming, then I think it'd be a disappointing waste of potential. It should go further into building out mechanics and context for players to fly missions around in, especially in multiplayer, with new UI and features to facilitate it given the clean break away from DCS.

That's what I personally want out of something like MAC. We still have no idea what it is and ED's own explanation for what it is has changed radically every time they've mentioned it so who knows.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Why485

[Furiz]

I also think that MAC should be its own game separate from DCS and I don't see how it will connect with DCS given it will probably have different flight models,

if MAC would connect with DCS in multiplayer we would have one set of aircraft (DCS FF) flying by one set of rules and then the other set of aircraft (MAC) flying by another set of rules, its like connecting DCS with MSFS (I don't fly msfs but I guess the flight models are simpler than the ones in DCS, correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see any valid connection there.

And I don't see why flyable redfor planes are necessary to have in DCS other than for PvP for which we need balance and those FC3 planes are not balancing anything either way. Plane simulation should not be about balance in my opinion, it should be about giving us the representation of an aircraft as real as it can be, and if we go by that realism there is really no balance, cause every aircraft has its own performance stats, and real world designers didn't really think of balance when they created those aircraft. So PvP as competition can't really thrive in DCS, we can have PvP but it will make everyone use one aircraft if they want to get that prize since DCS is trying to make realistic representations not balanced arena.

Altho, don't get me wrong, I do like redfor aircraft and I would like to have them in FF. And I like having them in DCS cause from time to time I like to jump into that FC3 cockpit and fly around in those aircraft.

I'd also love to see more AI aircraft in DCS from other countries such as EU (Rafale, Gripen, EF is coming), China (all their variants of flankers J-10, JH-7,) Korea(FA-50) etc etc there are lots of aircraft that we miss in DCS as AI. All we fight in missions / campaigns and in MP are flankers and fulcrums. I know AI modeling is also long process but we can wait;)

Edited July 7, 2023 by Furiz

[draconus]

I don't understand the hype here. Most DCS users are probably not interested in MAC since it's about a new separate game and is advertised as more relaxed fidelity and realism flying game so it is targeted to a more casual audience. Let the MAC separate and don't attempt to make any connection with DCS. Let them have all those simpifications like easy AAR, gen5 aircraft, modern redfor or visibility enhancements that frequently haunt DCS wishlist. The map will probably be smaller and aircraft stripped of some fidelity to make it all perform better and less demanding on the PC hardware while not taking whole disk to install.

For the time being the FC3 will have to stay in DCS as they are still some of the coolest aircraft and most users fly them because of the aircraft they represent, not because they are simpler, while we have no other choice to fly such aircraft anyway.

[Extranajero]

11 hours ago, Furiz said:

I think you might be having other issues like system ventilation or air flow that need attention cause I ran Apache with 2060 super with no problems like you described.

It was a joke
The AH64 is ridiculously heavy on resources, but it didn't actually scare my GPU

[upyr1]

16 hours ago, NineLine said:

You guys are thinking of MAC as an extension of DCS World, when in reality it is not really focused on the same audience as DCS, even if the engine will end up being the same.

It will probably appeal to some of you for varying reasons but as its own entity. 

How plane compatibility (if any) will work I have no idea, that is something we will talk about later, but think of them as separate right now as that is the intent. 

I realize with little to no info it's hard to wrap your heads around, as I said, I hope we will update you all soon on the ultimate plan.

The real issue is what are Eagle's plans for the Flaming Cliffs planes.

[Silver_Dragon]

33 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

The real issue is what are Eagle's plans for the Flaming Cliffs planes.

ED was very clear on the past, FC-3 has Feature complete.

[upyr1]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED was very clear on the past, FC-3 has Feature complete.

You missed my point. I wrote fc planes as it's easier than Flanker, Fulcrum, and Frogfoot. The question is can we get them ff, will ed support FC indefinitely or will their be dcs/mac conectivity 

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, Furiz said:

I also think that MAC should be its own game separate from DCS and I don't see how it will connect with DCS given it will probably have different flight models,

Fc has the same flight model the issue is the simplified electronics. You have to compare them to ai as that is the alternative.

10 hours ago, Furiz said:

And I don't see why flyable redfor planes are necessary to have in DCS other than for PvP for which we need balance

There are people who are interested in pvp and in flying redfor aircraft.

 

10 hours ago, Furiz said:

Plane simulation should not be about balance in my opinion, it should be about giving us the representation of an aircraft as real as it can be

I think it is possible to have both, and this is where Eagle has messed up. They key is to focus on contemporary designs. For example the 4th generation should have been built around the Flanker or Fulcrum someone could do FF.

[cfrag]

On 7/7/2023 at 9:26 AM, draconus said:

Most DCS users are probably not interested in MAC since it's about a new separate game and is advertised as more relaxed fidelity and realism flying game so it is targeted to a more casual audience

You may be projecting your own preferences onto others. The popularity of a certain company's - that also makes an operating system - flight sim that is decidedly more casual seems to indicate that there is a lot of interest. So be careful what you wish for. If it turns out that people want relaxed fidelity and realism and a more casual game play, MAC may become a runaway hit, and DCS the forgotten smaller brother. Such a scenario can be beneficial to both if there is some cross feed development-wise. And it could spell curtains for DCS if analysis showed that the return on investment for a dollar spent on MAC exceeds that from DCS.

Of course, I wish both will be tremendously successful, and that there is lots of crossfeed: let's say ATC, Ground AI  or GUI improves significantly on one side, then iz could hopefully be made available with a minimum of effort for the other. That would be best of both worlds.

And for the record: although I like DCS a lot, I also like to play flight sims with a more relaxed setting. For me it's seldom either-or. The more, the merrier is my approach to flight sims.

On 7/7/2023 at 9:26 AM, draconus said:

For the time being the FC3 will have to stay in DCS as they are still some of the coolest aircraft and most users fly them because of the aircraft they represent, not because they are simpler

Is that an assertion of yours, or do we have any source to back this up? I'd love to read up on any research related to that, so of you have, I'd be eternally grateful if you could share a link. It's important to me because if true, it could simplify my mission design. For example, if what you say is true, on a server that offers A-10A and A-10C as models, players that use the "C" should far outstrip those that fly the "A" [likewise: sales of the FC3 single-aircraft A-10A should be non-existent vs full fidelity A-10CII]. I'd be very interested in any data regarding that (as a mission designer, it would be great to know what players are likely to fly to better balance a scenario)

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by cfrag

[Silver_Dragon]

19 hours ago, upyr1 said:

You missed my point. I wrote fc planes as it's easier than Flanker, Fulcrum, and Frogfoot. The question is can we get them ff, will ed support FC indefinitely or will their be dcs/mac conectivity 

ED has plans for a Mig-29A module, outside of FC-3. ED support about FC has confirmed as entry level of DCS. About MAC/DCS conectivity, is unknown at the moment.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

For example, if what you say is true, on a server that offers A-10A and A-10C as models, players that use the "C" should far outstrip those that fly the "A"...

Not at all. Some users simply prefer the A version of the aircraft - C is not the same. But in DCS I'd expect still more of them interested in FF. I doubt MP is a good measure of aircraft popularity anyway.

I expect MAC to be eventually more popular than DCS, understandably, and for sure some DCS users will switch sides, but it still may produce some interest for DCS FF after some time.

Edited July 8, 2023 by draconus

[cfrag]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

Some users simply prefer the A version of the aircraft - C is not the same.

Agreed. But then I believe that your statement

On 7/7/2023 at 9:26 AM, draconus said:

most users fly them because of the aircraft they represent, not because they are simpler

would not be true, as I read that - in the context of MAC - to mean that if the users had a choice between a full fidelity version of an airframe and the FC3 version, they would all fly the full fidelity version. In other words: "All DCS players would, given the choice, prefer a full fidelity version over a low-fidelity version of that same airframe". If that was true, I think that 99% should prefer the C over the A, because it's essentially the same plane, and has full fidelity modelling.

Now, I think many people (me included) also like to fly the A, and one of the (many) reasons is that because it is somewhat simpler to manage. I may be the odd one out, I currently prefer to fly the A 90% of the time. In the context of this thread it means to me, that there is a case to be made for less-fidelity planes in DCS, and that MAC and inter-product cross-over is something to look forward to. 

[SharpeXB]

My guess is DCS will lose 50-70% of its players to MAC. This game is in fact too difficult for most people and I get the impression many players just force themselves to play DCS cause there isn’t an alternative. Hopefully both games will share enough resources like the 3D models, engine, core features, maps etc. to allow them to each be financially successful. 

[MAXsenna]

My guess is DCS will lose 50-70% of its players to MAC. This game is in fact too difficult for most people and I get the impression many players just force themselves to play DCS cause there isn’t an alternative. Hopefully both games will share enough resources like the 3D models, engine, core features, maps etc. to allow them to each be financially successful. 

You might be correct about parts of the MP crowd, but I don't think so for us single players and MP rotor heads.

I might not remember this correctly, but did I read somewhere, that if you own a DCS module, you'd get it "for free" in MAC?

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

My guess is DCS will lose 50-70% of its players to MAC. This game is in fact too difficult for most people and I get the impression many players just force themselves to play DCS cause there isn’t an alternative. Hopefully both games will share enough resources like the 3D models, engine, core features, maps etc. to allow them to each be financially successful. 

I don't know how many people will leave DCS, I would expect the folks who only have FC will disappear. I hope that both products only differ in cockpit complexity which is my understanding.  As I stated before commonality is one of the reasons I would hope for connectivity, though my desire decreases depending on how many FC planes can be replaced with FF modules. 

[upyr1]

On 7/6/2023 at 11:41 PM, Why485 said:

I don't think it makes any sense for MAC to connect to DCS given that it's meant to be a standalone game.

The whole point of such a spinoff game should be to get away from the limitations and baggage of DCS, and to make low level changes which almost assuredly would bring incompatibilities with DCS. There's no guarantee that MAC and DCS would even operate by the same rules or level of realism. E.g. missile flight models could be dramatically different. MAC shouldn't just be "DCS, but FC4". Honestly if that's all MAC ends up becoming, then I think it'd be a disappointing waste of potential. It should go further into building out mechanics and context for players to fly missions around in, especially in multiplayer, with new UI and features to facilitate it given the clean break away from DCS.

That's what I personally want out of something like MAC. We still have no idea what it is and ED's own explanation for what it is has changed radically every time they've mentioned it so who knows.

 

There might be some valid reasons to do that, however, from a development standpoint the more code they share the better. Some people will like MAC and others DCS however I everyone will agree that we want as many assets and maps as possible.  

[MAXsenna]

There might be some valid reasons to do that, however, from a development standpoint the more code they share the better. Some people will like MAC and others DCS however I everyone will agree that we want as many assets and maps as possible.  

There's really no need to speculate. They will share 100 percent of the code. MAC modules will be modules like any other. The only difference will probably be how to launch the core game and what servers to connect.
Videos from ED employees shows MAC modules side by side DCS modules in the game main window, quickstart etc.
Only time will tell, but they will probably be able to connect and played together if ED wanted to.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

There's really no need to speculate. They will share 100 percent of the code. MAC modules will be modules like any other. The only difference will probably be how to launch the core game and what servers to connect.
Videos from ED employees shows MAC modules side by side DCS modules in the game main window, quickstart etc.
Only time will tell, but they will probably be able to connect and played together if ED wanted to.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I know that is the case, and I don't expect that to change. Which leaves us with these questions

• How relaxed will MAC be?  
• can we they share missions?
• Do we want them to have the ability to connect to the same servers?
• Does ED want them to connect?

I expect everything to be like flaming cliffs. As for the second, I would love if they are able to share missions. As that will mean that mission and campaign builders will only need to write one.  As for the third and 4th questions I expect question 3 will help determine the answer to question 4. My view on connectivity is simple, it all comes down to how well ED improves the AI and what modules both have. The way things stand unless we can replace the Flanker, Fulcrum and Frogfoot with FF modules we will either need FC or MAC/DCS connectivity. As Russian and Chinese laws are a big issue on what RedFor planes we get, I don't know if we'll ever get the FF versions of these planes, if that's the case then we're left with FC or MAC connectivity.  As I have said before, given those two choices I would rather see MAC/DCS connectivity and that desire goes up if MAC gets a bunch of modules that could never appear in DCS.