Why do you fly FC3?

[YSIAD_RIP]

I started "DCS" with LOMAC and Flaming Cliffs 1 & 2 in the early 2000s. Still getting a kick out of how different and sometimes similar DCS full fidelity vs FC3 planes feel. I would pay $10 for an updated/refreshed FC3 with the graphics and instruments.   Updating FC3 is not a priority of ED and I am happy to see ED focus on Core Game Fixes and Vulcan API, DLSS, and FSR.  That said if there was a developer that wanted to make some FC3-style planes it would be fun to see what they came up with. 

Cheers

[Skyhammer]

I like the Flanker and its the only possiblity to fly it in DCS via FC3

 

[Proper Charlie]

Frogfoot has;
a) Very Big Rockets
b) Laser-Guided Very Big Rockets
c) Even Bigger Rockets

[Coxy_99]

Atleast ED are working on the 29A. I would ditch fc3 for a su27 tho, Even if it was the version we have in fc3

[Terzi]

Just to comment for choice "Otherwise": I don't fly FC3 aircraft.

[Shimmergloom667]

I don't. I have bought this, but the LoFi turns me off so much that I never touched it again.

[Northstar98]

The main reason is to fly aircraft that aren't available otherwise. But apart from that, I rarely fly them - I don't see much enjoyment outside of instant action style missions compared to a full-fidelity aircraft.

[TheFreshPrince]

They are fun in PVP and the MIG-29 is a real challenge to fly. It would be great, if they were FF, but it's also fun without them. There's the "FC3 clickable" mod, which makes it somewhat clickable. If ED would show some love to the FC3 aircraft and update the textures/2D models and animations and fix the bugs, FC3 would be really awesome. Even without FF.

[EcosseFlyer]

I find I`m now flying more and more in VR so the FC3 modules are great for me as they dont require fiddling with the mouse in VR which i find a real pain and takes me out of the immersion or trying to squint into MFDs. Using my Warthog HOTAS and two button boxes on my rig means i dont ever have to reach for the mouse at all now.

The A10-A is still one of my favourite modules, considering i also own the A10-C.

Edited July 22, 2023 by EcosseFlyer

[PhenexM86]

I began with FC3 back in 2016 then moved on the hornet when it released then F-14, F-5E and mained the F-16 when it released too in late 2019. I was interested in the deeper learning curve from FF but one day back in 2021 I randomly flew the eagle back and was amazed by how she was sensitive and powerful (as I said I was maining an electric FCS jet so it made a big difference in terms of flight feelings). I noticed the combat perfs of the eagle (That were not that great back in the days of F-14/16/18 release because the radar was underperforming and I was looking for that clicky thing) and as an A/A player I felt in love for them and now I'm maining it as a Japanese eagle from the 204th TFS since two year now (I fly her almost every day and barely fly again FF except the F-5 wich gaves me the same vibes and flight feelings than the eagle).

Even though the Strike Eagle is out, I'd remain 100% on the FC3 eagle till there is an FF of her because the flying philosophy of the F-15C is, in my opinion, despite having a SA page, she has a powerful radar, the TEWS (RWR and the ECM), and having to look often outside, some gauges that remind me old cars/trains and the flight controls alowing me to make the aircraft do what I'm asking to her (unless she's badly stalling/spining lmao but the engines can keep up!). While the strike eagle is in my opinion feeling like I'm in a hornet with a radar as powerful as the APG-63(V)1 onboard of the eagle (I know the APG-70 shares the same perfs) and with a similar thrust to weight ratio. It's asking me more to look inside the cockpit and not "enjoy the ride" and looking outside wich is crucial to me. Archaic cockpit with not that much tech and glass in it makes me feels ironicaly more "free", that's maybe why my favorite FF right now is the F-5E (she'll obviously be dethroned by an FF light grey eagle).

the fact that I can't interact with the cockpit is not a big deal since I binded a lot of things on my peripherics #homecockpitwannabe (even the pressure altimeter up and down binding), the only issue it does is that I can't setup TacAN or new waypoint in her during flight wich means I feel more like I'm nerfed, and of course the ramp start, wich is the most interesting to me in an FF jet while HOTAS is ruling. otherwise I enjoy her more than any 4th Gen FF plane in game.

Still that's a shame I have to play with a soundmod (Core by Echo-19) a customized cockpit (C@sper HD) to enjoy her more, vanilla she's awful to hear or watch while inside (worst at night with the 2008 backlighting). I even modified the Light.lua to correct the lights blinking patern to match with realilty (and the Strike Eagle...)

I hope the cohabitation with the Strike Eagle as the only FF won't last long because the contrast between these two aircrafts is noticeable and it's sad that the "low poly one" is the big brother, IRL and IG...

In summary, the C is good when you're looking for performances and flight feelings while the strike eagle feels more like the Hornet with the pros of the charlie eagle, minus naval capabilities and different flight perfs

[Blackhawk NC]

Only true REDFOR aircraft are in FC. Not probable that we will get a FF REDFOR module

[draconus]

15 hours ago, 4eyes said:

it would be nice to have a FC-3 Carrier Aircraft

You have Su-33 right there.

[Ashayar]

I fly a lot with the FC3 planes because there is no other options to use a MiG-29, a SU-27, a SU-25 or a SU-33. I love almost every FC3 planes.

[Dr4gis]

No FF F15C.

[VZ_342]

For me, the "flying" is the best part of DCS. I like FF, but I also like FC3, because the ability to roll, turn, dive and otherwise "aviate" can be done with all of them.

[SKYPORK]

Like others have said, where else can one fly a Mig-29, or Su-27 series? Also the bonus of naval ops with the Su-33.  One of my high-time planes is the Su-25T. It's got weapon types no other module has. The Su-25A would get much more stick time if ED could ever fix that screwed up cockpit texture/modelling.....

With these Soviet/Russian aircraft, the repaint opportunities alone are worth the price. (Even though I often make up my own countries, and "what-if" schemes for all the modules I own)

And there are nights I just don't wanna deal with 34 radar modes, or 57 switch flips just to turn on the left nav light

[Johnny Dioxin]

Because its fun.

[HC_Official]

been flying these things since LOMAC days , why would I stop the fun now

[Snappy]

On 7/23/2023 at 5:00 AM, Blackhawk NC said:

Only true REDFOR aircraft are in FC. Not probable that we will get a FF REDFOR module

? Mig-21, Mig-19 are FF true REDFOR.

[Pavlin_33]

On 8/25/2023 at 12:08 PM, Gahab141 said:

Ff is fun until you have to start your engines for the 10th time a day. Thanks ED for the autostart

I never understood what was the point of auto-start. It basically makes a fully clickable aircaraft into a FC3 one.

[Rudel_chw]

13 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

I never understood what was the point of auto-start. It basically makes a fully clickable aircaraft into a FC3 one.

that’s a gross over-simplification… full fidelity is much more than just a clickable cockpit, it has systems close to the real thing and each aircraft has its own controls, while on FC3 all aircrafts share the same controls.

[Johnny Dioxin]

At least when people use autostart they are actually using the starting procedure, even if automated. It can be a good instructoral tool, or for checking if your manual start-up is not quite working, to see if you are forgetting something.

Unfortunately there are many who just keep maligning FC well as any so-called  "cheats" in the DCS modules. They'd do better to just worry about how they want to fly and not about something that has zero effect on their own game. It's just vanity at the end of the day. Personally, I couldn't care less how or what anyone else wants to fly.

Some call it "arcade" which makes me doubt if they even know what arcade is, and are so quick to forget that without FC, DCS World may not exist, having been propped up by it's sales for years to start with, quite apart from the history behind the sim since LOMAC.

[Pavlin_33]

On 8/28/2023 at 1:04 AM, Rudel_chw said:

that’s a gross over-simplification… full fidelity is much more than just a clickable cockpit, it has systems close to the real thing and each aircraft has its own controls, while on FC3 all aircrafts share the same controls.

Well yes and no. I mean, starting engines in FC3 is a key combo which subtitutes RL procedure to get the engines running. So if you do the same using autostart, what is the difference? Also what's the diff. between FF and FC3 in: radar, ECM, flares, damage model, flight envelope?

FC3 also models systems, it just that most of the systems are accessible only through common key strokes. 

[Rudel_chw]

30 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Well yes and no. I mean, starting engines in FC3 is a key combo which subtitutes RL procedure to get the engines running. So if you do the same using autostart, what is the difference?

 

The difference is that the FF actually has an electric system modeled, a fuel system, an hydraulic system, an engine starter, etc, etc ... all of which can be damaged on battle, unlike the FC3 aircrafts.

 

30 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

FC3 also models systems, it just that most of the systems are accessible only through common key strokes. 

 

yes? ... like the radio that you don't even need to tune?  the weapons that you don't need to arm or config? the inexistent navigation systems (INS, Tacan, ILS, etc) ?

 

You can pretend that an FC3 module is just as realistic as a FF one, but you are just kidding yourself.

[okopanja]

29 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

The difference is that the FF actually has an electric system modeled, a fuel system, an hydraulic system, an engine starter, etc, etc ... all of which can be damaged on battle, unlike the FC3 aircrafts

Not entirely true. I think you are giving too much credit to FF. The major difference is availability of distinct devices and their relations. However this is often not modeled consistantly or even introduces non-existing devices that do not exist on real aircraft. Furthermore sensor devices appear to be often modeled outside of operating principles of real devices, perhaps the best example are radars, which are essentially checking the line of sight between objects and are calculating radar equation. In other words radar is emulated. Simulation of radar would include implementing each radar component along its inputs, operation and output. E.g. this would allow for realistic implementation of ECM effects.

FLIR/night vision are if I am correct in most cases renders of camera views to which the varioty of filters are applied.

Edited August 29, 2023 by okopanja