Interview with Matt "Wags" Wagner

[Temetre]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb MAXsenna:

Of course, if FF is not possible, I would assume many could get on board with FC4 or MAC as the new name

Yup, thats the kinda stuff im talking about.^^

vor einer Stunde schrieb Ironhand:

Not unless there’s been a change in plans, they won’t. When MAC is released, it will come with the aircraft it comes with. The plan going forward is to eventually reduce certain FF aircraft to MAC level and make them available for MAC as an additional income stream.

But, I suppose, anything can happens. Plans can change.

Thats what im afraid off. When Im already playing DCS, I have little motivation to play MAC as a seperate game. Id much rather have it as a better version of FC3 planes or aircraft we wont get in FF, all integrated in DCS.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Temetre

[Raisuli]

3 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I can agree with that, but there's a huge difference between "being against" contra "actively want".
To be honest I don't think many people want FC4 instead of FF. Of course, if FF is not possible, I would assume many could get on board with FC4 or MAC as the new name. We all heard Matt shaking his head regarding the title "Flaming Cliffs".

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

You could hear that?  I know his hair is amazing, but I only saw it    Still made me laugh.

3 hours ago, macedk said:

Wags said GAME....

It is up there with Eisenhower saying NUTS.
 

You might be thinking about McAuliffe at Bastogne.

I can't believe he called me pretending to be a military pilot in the comfort of my home office without the endless layers of military stupidity and limitless BOHICA moments a game.  Heresy.  For that he has to add detailed modeling of the engineering spaces on the super carrier so I can go laugh at the watch. 

And eat a sandwich in the control room.

[MAXsenna]

4 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

You could hear that?  I know his hair is amazing, but I only saw it    Still made me laugh.

Having pushed past 50, it's harder to hear what people say, and subtitles is from time to time a must. 

But take an old Casio wrist watch, set the alarm and put it in a box under a lot of clothes in the basement, under even more boxes, and I'll definitely hear the alarm. Don't ask me how.  

[Slippa]

23 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Don't ask me how.  

Tinnitus?

[Ironhand]

56 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Thats what im afraid off. When Im already playing DCS, I have little motivation to play MAC as a seperate game…

Well…for better or worse that’ll be the quandary. Eagle wants to have DCS and MAC as two distinct simming experiences. If you want FF, you’ll be in DCS. If your primary ride is one of the FC3 RedFor aircraft, you’ll be in DCS and nothing has changed…for as long as FC3 exists in DCS.

If you want more relaxed gameplay, you’ll be in MAC. Once FC3 is thrown out of DCS, those cockpits will likely only be available in MAC for the foreseeable future. For me, personally, that’s when I’ll migrate to MAC as long as the MAC experience is at least as good as my current experience in DCS. If the experience is less, then after 25 years of an unconflicted time with Eagle, I’ll have some difficult choices to make.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Ironhand

[Silver_Dragon]

2 minutes ago, Ironhand said:

Well…for better or worse that’ll be the quandary. Eagle wants to have DCS and MAC as two distinct simming experiences. If you want FF, you’ll be in DCS. If your primary ride is one of the FC3 RedFor aircraft, you’ll be in DCS and nothing has changed…for as long as FC3 exists in DCS.

If you want more relaxed gameplay, you’ll be in MAC. Once FC3 is thrown out of DCS, those cockpits will likely only be available in MAC for the foreseeable future. For me, personally, that’s when I’ll migrate to MAC as long as the MAC experience is at least as good as my current experience in DCS. If the experience is less, then after 25 years with Eagle, I’ll have some difficult choices to make.

 

ED dont have plans to thrown out FC-3.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Ironhand]

2 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED dont have plans to thrown out FC-3.

 

 From your lips to god’s ear…

Oh, FC3 will disappear someday. Maybe not soon but someday.

[MAXsenna]

2 hours ago, Slippa said:

Tinnitus?

Thankfully no. I just have sensitivity for electronic beeps I guess.

[Ironhand]

11 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

Thankfully no. I just have sensitivity for electronic beeps I guess.

Ahh… hyperacusis.

 

[Larzei]

I hope they can focus on different types of military aviation apart from fighters a little bit more in the future. Like the C130 will be a great module because it is something different from all other modules. With the Spit, A-4E, F-5, F-18 and F-16 as my study level modules I have covered a lot of the development of (western) fighters in different eras and I don't really feel the need for more fighter modules. Now I would like to fly a different type of aircraft like the C130 and do other types of missions. Tactical air transport for instance. What if we could get a P3 Orion in the future to do ASW and ASuW missions? Even though performance on sonar systems is highly classified they could make their own data on this and it would not matter. How about flying an air to air refueling aircraft of some sort? I think with the high fidelity modules coming out now players will also be saturated and not just jump onto new modules unless it's something different. That is probably why many want the modern redfor airplanes in FF, it's different from all the western airplanes and they want to explore new things. 

[draconus]

35 minutes ago, Larzei said:

I think with the high fidelity modules coming out now players will also be saturated and not just jump onto new modules unless it's something different.

There ain't not enough fighters in DCS till they make ff F-15C

[Avimimus]

15 hours ago, Temetre said:

Thats what im afraid off. When Im already playing DCS, I have little motivation to play MAC as a seperate game. Id much rather have it as a better version of FC3 planes or aircraft we wont get in FF, all integrated in DCS.

Exactly. It might be nice to pay for simplified avionics for some aircraft I'm not sufficiently interested in to want to memorise the start-up procedures but if I can only use them in an arcade environment... what is the point? I'll just buy the full fidelity module or focus on the handful of aircraft I'm most motivated to fly.

Whereas, if there was a Su-24 or Saab Gripen or Mi-28 ...and if it was kept up-to-date with DCS and could use other DCS content in its missions - well, I'd be exceptionally excited!

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

…but if I can only use them in an arcade environment…

Out of curiosity, what does an arcade environment look like?

[macedk]

19 hours ago, Raisuli said:

You might be thinking about McAuliffe at Bastogne.

 

Argh yes and corrected. Only seen Band of Brothers 10 times.

[SkateZilla]

On 8/9/2023 at 8:15 PM, tacts.zeagle said:

For heaven's sake there is a Mig29 they could use to make a module. This one

Here's Who Bought Paul Allen's Pristine MiG-29 Fulcrum Fighter (thedrive.com)

 

Publicly Available, however it's been de-militarized, there is no radar, or weapons systems in that unit.

[upyr1]

On 8/9/2023 at 2:40 PM, TheFreshPrince said:

It's a great interview, I didn't know Wags was such a likable guy.

What I don't get is the SU27/Mig-29 explanation, because it's already on DCS and that has to be based on some available data. Simply adding a functional cockpit shouldn't be the problem?

It's not the availale data that is the problem it is the missing data. 

[upyr1]

On 8/10/2023 at 2:47 AM, Snappy said:

And how exactly would that help them in not getting in trouble with Russia for reproducing their military hardware in great detail and system fidelity?

Just because that specific aircraft is on American soil?

I donˋt think the problem is actual access to aircraft data or systems, the problem is having access and being able to use the data while still clearing Russian laws. 
For a company which probably still has significant assets and workforce in Russia this might be a different matter than for a purely US or EU or independent country based-company ..

 

It would all depend on the actual text of the law. Does it prevent Eagle from doing any version of the Fulcrum or just those variants that are currently in active service? It is important to remember that NATO nations have been operating the MiG-29 since the reunification of Germany.

On 8/10/2023 at 3:30 AM, Eugel said:

They talked about it in the video, those privately owned jets of course don´t have any of the weapon systems, but also stuff like radar, radio equipment and possibly other systems are removed. So they probably would get the flight model mostly right, but they wouldn´t have enough to simulate the rest to make it a viable full fidelity module.

True, but I would expect them to use NATO Fulcrums for refences 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

It would all depend on the actual text of the law. Does it prevent Eagle from doing any version of the Fulcrum or just those variants that are currently in active service? It is important to remember that NATO nations have been operating the MiG-29 since the reunification of Germany.

The ED plans has a Mig-29A... no other more advanced, and yes, russian Law and the actual situation has very sensible (ED dont like some of your team get to jail.), has the same situation with J-11/-17 on China, and others.

[upyr1]

On 8/10/2023 at 5:05 AM, BIGNEWY said:

The Mig-29 is something we would like to do for sure, but we have to comply with rules and laws in many countries regarding information about aircraft and their avionics. To create the high fidelity aircraft you would expect from us we need to use public unclassified information only. Regarding the teams, no matter where they are in the world their safety comes first. 

thank you 

 

 

I completely understand that. Between the Flanker and Fulcrum I would expect the Fulcum would be way likely, this is also why I want there to be good mod support   

On 8/11/2023 at 12:14 PM, MAXsenna said:

I can agree with that, but there's a huge difference between "being against" contra "actively want".
To be honest I don't think many people want FC4 instead of FF. Of course, if FF is not possible, I would assume many could get on board with FC4 or MAC as the new name. We all heard Matt shaking his head regarding the title "Flaming Cliffs".

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

I can understand the logic in killing flaming cliffs, but I can also understand the logic in keeping it. This is the reason I was hoping that MAC would be able to do online with DCS then we could at least have the Flanker and Fulcrum online. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by upyr1

[upyr1]

9 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The ED plans has a Mig-29A... no other more advanced, and yes, russian Law and the actual situation has very sensible (ED dont like some of your team get to jail.), has the same situation with J-11/-17 on China, and others.

I figured that would be the lastest Russian version, though I'm wondering what about NATO MiGs? 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 minute ago, upyr1 said:

I figured that would be the lastest Russian version, though I'm wondering what about NATO MiGs? 

If it were that easy, don't you think he would have taken it out years ago, a Mig-29S or other?, whether it was a German or another country's version, it's the same problem ..... Russia could immediately place ED as an "enemy agent" and take action. As Wags says, without "approval" from the top, there is nothing to do.

[upyr1]

5 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

If it were that easy, don't you think he would have taken it out years ago, a Mig-29S or other?, whether it was a German or another country's version, it's the same problem ..... Russia could immediately place ED as an "enemy agent" and take action. As Wags says, without "approval" from the top, there is nothing to do.

I know ED has to get approval and in the case of the NATO MiGs ED will have to deal with their bureaucracy. From my understanding the NATO MiGs were all Fulcrum As with new Avionics. In the case of the G they were basically As with Western nav systems and I don't know anything about the other Fulcrums 

[Steel Jaw]

8 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Out of curiosity, what does an arcade environment look like?

I refer you to FC3.

[Snappy]

22 minutes ago, Steel Jaw said:

I refer you to FC3.

Check your definition of arcade. The FC3 aircraft almost all have PFM by now,so their flight models are on the highest level of accuracy, not sure what you consider arcade about them. Yes systems are simplified, no clickable cockpit. Doesn't make them arcade. Survey-sim maybe, yes.

Asteroids is arcade. So is Pac-man.

Edited August 12, 2023 by Snappy

[Silver_Dragon]

58 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I know ED has to get approval and in the case of the NATO MiGs ED will have to deal with their bureaucracy. From my understanding the NATO MiGs were all Fulcrum As with new Avionics. In the case of the G they were basically As with Western nav systems and I don't know anything about the other Fulcrums 

We are talking about a Russian-made version, even if it has all its avionics converted to Western, even if it is a Mig-29G. Without Russian approval, there is nothing to do. We are going back and forth on a question that has already been answered. Belsimtek could have done it 10 years ago and couldn't do it, and ED can't do it now.