Interview with Matt "Wags" Wagner

[draconus]

So it's clear they need full publicly available legal docs to make a FF module and even 3rd party cannot bypass these requirements.

[BIGNEWY]

threads merged. 

[Mistermann]

This was a great interview by Mover, Gonky and Wombat.  Wags was an awesome guest.  As others pointed out the 2hrs flew by and I barely noticed it.  I'm sure someone is working on a TLDL synopsis and probably posted it somewhere, although I have yet to see it.

One element in the early interview that caught my attention starts at 28:02 of the video where Wags discusses what they are going to focus on along with WWII content.  I pulled the translated text from YT, cleaned it up a bit and posted it below

Quote

... we're going to be doing some stuff in the Pacific for World War II,  but a really big area is also going to be ground... you know, like a "DCS level" ground.  Whether or not it'll actually be part of DCS,  I don't know yet.  But that is certainly a big area that ... it's not a question of "if" but "when" we'll start really to flesh that out.  Because I mean, really no kidding combined arms you know detail simulations anywhere from you know Abrams to Apache to uh an A-10 all out there in the same Battlefield that'd be pretty cool.

I hope the fleshing out part confirms the technology can handle the vision of a shared battlefield with DCS-level fidelity.  I personally found this part of the interview very promising.

One wish - I wish they had asked about Vulkan and the graphics upgrade ED's been experimenting with in their skunkworks facility.  I understand why it didn't come up, though.

[F-2]

7 hours ago, 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.

I got a tremendous amount on the Mig-29 systems. I don’t think docs are an issue, probably just legal fears from ED. But I actually hope a third party picks it up. I have great docs on the Radar and it would be awesome if one of the devs with the great radar models picked it up.

[NineLine]

2 hours ago, F-2 said:

I got a tremendous amount on the Mig-29 systems. I don’t think docs are an issue, probably just legal fears from ED. But I actually hope a third party picks it up. I have great docs on the Radar and it would be awesome if one of the devs with the great radar models picked it up.

There are many factors when talking Redfor aircraft, we will do our best to make it happen but we have to consider all things here. 

[F-2]

12 minutes ago, NineLine said:

There are many factors when talking Redfor aircraft, we will do our best to make it happen but we have to consider all things here. 

Of course, I completely understand. But if you or anyone else ever want to make one I can point you in the right direction for documentation. 

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Of course, I completely understand. But if you or anyone else ever want to make one I can point you in the right direction for documentation. 

I appreciate it, we have a top notch research group so I don't doubt we have most of everything, that said if we need something we are happy to reach out as well. 

[Ironhand]

A bit late to the party. Interesting video. In case it helps people to find stuff, here is a timeline (more or less) to the DCS content:

5:20 Discussion of AI in general and plans for DCS AI in particular.

15:00 It’s a game. Don’t want total fidelity. Bad guys can use it, too.

27:00 At this point can only look back in time for additional aircraft to model. So ground forces will be the new arena.

29:00 Ukrainian map too sensitive tight now as is Taiwan.

29:30 Dynamic campaign still in the works.

30:00 Chinook is next in the pipeline and coming soon.

34:00 For any aircraft, etc, must be able to demonstrate that the data for it came from legal publicly available documents.

36:00 How we decide what module to do next.

41:00 How do issues (“bugs”) get fixed?

43:00 The need to be very careful with documentation and what elements are included.

48:00 Viper radar lock loss bug. Also talk about real world failures and whether to include them in sim.

50:00 Hornet flight dynamics being reworked.

51:00 Full briefing room coming for the carrier.

52:00 Super Hornet not likely and reason why.

53:30 DCS sufficiently modeled that can be used to teach. DCS compared to real world military simulators.

57:00 Did Top Gun 2 help with sales?

58:00 Possibility of destructible trees.

59:00 Additional carrier crew coming soon.

1:00:00 Looking for air boss voice actor.

1:01:30 Wags’ game preferences.

1:02:40 Korea and Vietnam maps. Not now but will come.

1:05:00 Full DCS C-130 will eventually be made.

1:06:00 An entire logistics system is in the works and it’s application to the dynamic campaign.

1:07:00 Difference between DCS and real world experience in the cockpit.

1:12:00 Kola Peninsula map. Whole world map.

1:15:00 Eurofighter. Kiowa.

1:20:30 S-3 possible but far down the list.

1:43:30 Any chance of a Gripen or Rafale? The docs are the issue.

1:44:30 Possibility of FF Su-27, MiG-29, plus more on type and sources of information they can use.

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by Ironhand

[Temetre]

Am 9.8.2023 um 22:52 schrieb TheFreshPrince:

That's true. But many people would still love something close to a full fidelity model, that would do the current level of DCS justice and not feel like a 10 year old game. I know it's a long discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

I dont think many people would be against a Flaming Cliff 4  

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

I dont think many people would be against a Flaming Cliff 4  

It'd definitely be neat to have an ability to fly some aircraft types that lack sufficient documentation. I'd be fine if they were 'nerfed' to be worse than full fidelity modules (in order to counter any claims that the simplified avionics make them easier to use in combat)... sadly (for those of us who like survey sims or certain aircraft), it doesn't appear that they are interested in this

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

It'd definitely be neat to have an ability to fly some aircraft types that lack sufficient documentation. I'd be fine if they were 'nerfed' to be worse than full fidelity modules (in order to counter any claims that the simplified avionics make them easier to use in combat)... sadly (for those of us who like survey sims or certain aircraft), it doesn't appear that they are interested in this

They are making exactly what you want - here's recent discussion on MAC:

[Temetre]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb draconus:

They are making exactly what you want - here's recent discussion on MAC:

Aye, I knew ED said its still in works, but not sure hwo active in development.

Do we know if its gonna be part of DCS like FC3, or a seperate game? Some comments sounded like the latter, which would be a big shame imo.

[Silver_Dragon]

Just now, Temetre said:

Aye, I knew ED said its still in works, but not sure hwo active in development.

Do we know if its gonna be part of DCS like FC3, or a seperate game? Some comments sounded like the latter, which would be a big shame imo.

Standalone.

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Silver_Dragon:

Standalone.

Yeah, thats a shame. FC3 is great because it fills out holes in the roster and scenarios. The higher level of detail of FC3 even benefits AI planes generally.

[Avimimus]

8 hours ago, draconus said:

They are making exactly what you want - here's recent discussion on MAC:

 

I suspect this won't be remotely what I want, at least based on what has been shared so far.

- I'd like a sim with more aircraft (so far it appears to be limited to already released aircraft)

- Realistic flight models (so far they've indicated they want an accessible game, and it isn't clear that they won't simplify flight models or weaken opposing AI to make it more arcade like)

- An ability to use the aircraft in DCS environments/missions alongside other modules I've purchased (it looks like this won't be the case), and ongoing development to continue to use the most recent DCS engine/simulation/assets (unclear).

- Simplified avionics that can be used with the keyboard, rather than clickable cockpits (it looks like they might deliver this). However, I'd want the avionics to have performance that is similar to the real-world (when Black Shark was first released the 'simplified avionics' mode allowed instant acquisition and switching between targets).

So I suspect that MAC will have maybe 1/5th of the features I'm looking for in an 'FC4' replacement.

[C3PO]

Superb interview: Wags is the epitome of calm, clear and sensible!

[antiload]

A great interview, they all seem like cool guys.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I suspect this won't be remotely what I want, at least based on what has been shared so far.

Sorry then, looks like there's no FC4 planned anymore in DCS, but for sure more aircraft are coming.

[Avimimus]

13 minutes ago, draconus said:

Sorry then, looks like there's no FC4 planned anymore in DCS, but for sure more aircraft are coming.

We can hope

At least there is a lot of interesting DCS aircraft coming out (although I find it hard to learn more than a couple of modules).

One thing I wish these reviewers would ask:

Are there any plans to update the fragmentation modelling of unguided rockets?

Given that so many 4th generation types can't be modelled, those of us flying older types that rely on unguided weapons often find ourselves quite disadvantaged. There are a lot of types which rely on rockets as their primary weapons (e.g. Mi-8, Mi-24, Su-25, AJS-37, F-1, A-1H)... It is hard to look at all of the detail going into complex avionics and radar simulation for some of the more advanced modules (F/A-18C, F-16, F-15E, F-14 etc.), and then watch interviews which are focussed on them, and not feel like us 3rd generation types are being overlooked/neglected.

I've watched a half dozen interviews over the last two years and no one has asked about rocket warheads - in spite of it being a known issue and in spite of it being so important for some types of aircraft (especially some types of helicopters).

Edited August 11, 2023 by Avimimus

[MAXsenna]

I dont think many people would be against a Flaming Cliff 4  

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

[schmiefel]

On 8/10/2023 at 12:06 PM, draconus said:

So it's clear they need full publicly available legal docs to make a FF module and even 3rd party cannot bypass these requirements.

 

On 8/10/2023 at 6:06 PM, F-2 said:

I got a tremendous amount on the Mig-29 systems. I don’t think docs are an issue, probably just legal fears from ED. But I actually hope a third party picks it up. I have great docs on the Radar and it would be awesome if one of the devs with the great radar models picked it up.

I think it's not so much 'about' documents, but more about the fact that MiG-29, SU-27 and some more Redforce Fighters are currently deep involved in a full hot war right besides the borders of Europe. And especially lot of MiG-29 built to NATO standards were already delivered to the forces defending their own country against a very aggressive opponent. I am quite sure that especially this opponent won't be very pleased if those planes still highly involved on both sides of the battlefield would get a rather cheap but potentially very accurate training device. The FC aircraft are far from that level the high fidelity modules already have. And if you heard Wags talking about the intense exchange with Razbam to secure not to compromise any sensitive data and functionality, one can imagine how close to reality DCS could deliver if it's not getting nerved in those sensitive parts.

[macedk]

Wags said GAME....

It is up there with Eisenhower  McAuliffe saying NUTS.

Making 3, hardcore unbeatable top ex military pilots go "uhh", that says it all

Wags forgetting joke was priceless  

Edited August 12, 2023 by macedk
Factual fubar corrected

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

To be honest I don't think many people want FC4 instead of FF.

That depends on your target audience, doesn’t it? If you’re asking the hard core DCS crowd, that statement is obviously correct. If not, then the answer is far less obvious.

But, since FC4 is not happening, all of this is moot.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Ironhand

[MAXsenna]

That depends on your target audience, doesn’t it? If you’re asking the hard core DCS crowd, that statement is obviously correct. If not, then the answer is far less obvious.
But, since FC4 is not happening, all of this is moot.

True that. I do welcome MAC, as I hope it will draw more users to the whole franchise, and MAC can be used as a springboard to FF.
IIRC if you do own the FF module, it's available for you in MAC too, which will make FF users also able to jump into MAC whenever they please.

EDIT: I don't consider myself hardcore at all. I just like gadgets, like switches and buttons, multiple physical screens, throttles, grips, collectives, pedals etc.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Ironhand]

12 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

IIRC if you do own the FF module, it's available for you in MAC too

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.

Edited August 11, 2023 by Ironhand