Interview with Matt "Wags" Wagner

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, Ironhand said:

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

One where you can get a 20-1 kill ratio

Often unrealistic unit distributions combined with excessively easy targeting/acquisition and extra 'hit-points' for the player. Everything dies but you!

Speaking of it though - maybe I'll reinstall the original Comanche or Werewolf!

[Ironhand]

32 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

One where you can get a 20-1 kill ratio

Often unrealistic unit distributions combined with excessively easy targeting/acquisition and extra 'hit-points' for the player. Everything dies but you!

Speaking of it though - maybe I'll reinstall the original Comanche or Werewolf!

Then you should have little to worry about. Steel Jaw, though, will still consider it arcade:

Quote

PC Pilot: Will users be able to choose the level of complexity of each aircraft?

Matt Wagner: Players can select between the level of realism and complexity of the flight models and flight control systems. This includes the option of professional level flight models or more relaxed ones, as well as options such as auto-trim, spin prevention and gunnery lead-assist. Operations of the aircraft cockpit, sensor and weapons systems will be consistent though and very similar to the Flaming Cliffs series in DCS World.

 

[Avimimus]

Just now, Ironhand said:

Then you should have little to worry about. Steel Jaw, though, will still consider it arcade:

That sounds optimistic! Somehow I missed that interview (probably the lack of a subscription?)

Of course, the game could still weaken the enemies relative to the player and make the scenarios very arcady... but I'm optimistic.

[Ironhand]

6 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

That sounds optimistic! Somehow I missed that interview (probably the lack of a subscription?)

Of course, the game could still weaken the enemies relative to the player and make the scenarios very arcady... but I'm optimistic.

Actually, I got the subscription primarily to read that interview.

My impression of what's being said and/or hinted at by Eagle is that they want to eventually get to a point where they do the underlying work once, and spread it across various products. So the same AI, the same maps, same weather environment, etc.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, Avimimus said:

One where you can get a 20-1 kill ratio

It's entirely realistic. Check the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

Also hint at Eagle's RL score stats.

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Actually, I got the subscription primarily to read that interview.

My impression of what's being said and/or hinted at by Eagle is that they want to eventually get to a point where they do the underlying work once, and spread it across various products. So the same AI, the same maps, same weather environment, etc.

That would make a lot of sense. Honestly, if they could keep the same core (e.g. improvements to various aspects of the engine, mission editor) and FC levels of fidelity this could be pretty good. 

 

4 hours ago, draconus said:

It's entirely realistic. Check the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

Also hint at Eagle's RL score stats.

You'd disagree if you knew what aircraft I was flying (e.g. taking a solo Mig-29 into American troop formations, shooting down five enemy aircraft and destroying twelve tanks in one sortie). You probably wouldn't be so happy about that

Edited August 13, 2023 by Avimimus

[Nodak]

I could see the WWII version of MAC take off like a rocket in popularity, especially a Pacific version with carriers.  With the stunning maps we have as of late and an ability to crank out aircraft at a much faster rate finally arriving.  Campaign being close won't hurt none either.  Loads of fast money to be made by third parties on tons of aircraft.

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

You'd disagree if you knew what aircraft I was flying (e.g. taking a solo Mig-29 into American troop formations, shooting down five enemy aircraft and destroying twelve tanks in one sortie). You probably wouldn't be so happy about that

You're either good pilot or it's mission design error or deliberate assymetry and lack of air defences.

[BIGNEWY]

Please remember the forum rules when posting, they can be found at the top of the forum. 

thank you

[umland]

In my opinion Matt and Nick are doing exact the right way.
I am very pleased to have the Full Fidelity WW2 and modern Jets.
Thanks and keep the good Work up.. I wish there will be more
WW2 Planes and the old existing Planes (d9,K4) get more love.

I only buy Full Fidelity, not interesting in FC4 and MAC. For me FC3 is Arcade.
People who wants a easier handling of Jets should go to other products, there is
enough on the Market.

I understand Matt that isnt easy to do a MIG29a regarding legal reasons. For me, I can wait.
The Ukraine Conflict will End and Eagle Dynamics will get their Information if a other President
is elected and the World will be peaceier than today.

I dont understand this discussion on DCS and FC3. DCS has already an Quick Start option
for each Module to avoid procedural clicking for engine startup. You have only to learn
the Weaponry, Radar Modes, etc..
 

 

[draconus]

5 hours ago, umland said:

I dont understand this discussion on DCS and FC3. DCS has already an Quick Start option
for each Module to avoid procedural clicking for engine startup. You have only to learn
the Weaponry, Radar Modes, etc..

It's not about easier operation anymore. Most FC3 users fly these aircraft because of the aircraft simulated, which are not available otherwise, with low or no possibility to be made full fidelity in the future. That's why some people ask if that is the possible solution for some more modern redfor.

[umland]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

It's not about easier operation anymore. Most FC3 users fly these aircraft because of the aircraft simulated, which are not available otherwise, with low or no possibility to be made full fidelity in the future. That's why some people ask if that is the possible solution for some more modern redfor.

true- maybe its a way to fly russian birds. But I understand why mover, gonky and wombat says "Uhh". Same for me here. Its not a game, its a simulation
 

Edited August 14, 2023 by umland

[Eugel]

12 minutes ago, umland said:

 Its not a game, its a simulation

Some might even call it a "sim game"

[draconus]

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, umland said:

true- maybe its a way to fly russian birds. But I understand why mover, gonky and wombat says "Uhh". Same for me here. Its not a game, its a simulation
 

 

You totally missed the point there. They completely agree with Wags that it is a game. The "Uhh" was because they knew, how some in the community don't get it/ take it too seriously and tease them (rightfully).

Irony is completely lost on some people....

Edit: choice of words

Edited August 14, 2023 by Hiob

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, umland said:

true- maybe its a way to fly russian birds. But I understand why mover, gonky and wombat says "Uhh". Same for me here. Its not a game, its a simulation
 

 

Like I care what they have to say about it.

[umland]

17 minutes ago, Hiob said:

You totally missed the point there. They completely agree with Wags that it is a game. The "Uhh" was because they knew, how some in the community don't get it/ take it too seriously and tease them (rightfully).

Irony is completely lost on some people....

Edit: choice of words

 

Maybe - this could be that I misunderstood this. But as an Expert ,what mover, gonky and wombat are, its a pitty to play only a game...
That is Time Wasting also from my Side... Not sure if it was 100% ironic...
Wags reaction was very carefully.. However...

Edited August 14, 2023 by umland

[Hiob]

9 minutes ago, umland said:

Maybe - this could be that I misunderstood this. But as an Expert ,what mover, gonky and wombat are, its a pitty to play only a game...
That is Time Wasting also from my Side... Not sure if it was 100% ironic...
Wags reaction was very carefully.. However...

 

Why wouldn't they? They are aviation enthusiasts (obviously) and (young) men. Why wouldn't they enjoy the most sophisticated combat flight simulator - even if it is just a game? Probably because it is just a game - and therefore a recreational activity (not to mention the content for their youtube-channels).

And of course Wags is careful and diplomatic about it. Do you expect him to bluntly alienate their customers (or some of them)?

Edited August 14, 2023 by Hiob

[Temetre]

Am 11.8.2023 um 23:52 schrieb Ironhand:

 From your lips to god’s ear…

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

I dont think I would ever again buy an ED product, if they actually just remove bought modules from DCS. Im not that long with this game, but I think that would be unprecedented, too?

edit: The only effective solution for me in that case would be, if ED gives a full fedility Mig-29A as an apology for removal of FC3. That I would accept.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Temetre

[Hiob]

2 minutes ago, Temetre said:

I dont think I would ever again buy an ED product, if they actually just remove bought modules from DCS. Im not that long with this game, but I think that would be unprecedented, too?

"How to NOT worry, about thing that DIDN'T happen."

The new bestseller by C. Sense

[MAXsenna]

I dont think I would ever again buy an ED product, if they actually just remove bought modules from DCS. Im not that long with this game, but I think that would be unprecedented, too?

I think you can feel pretty safe. I'm sure they won't remove anything before there is a replacement, well, in place.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Temetre]

Am 11.8.2023 um 23:46 schrieb Ironhand:

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.

I got a ton of stuff and experience with DCS, theres about zero chance i would switch.

And I doubt the quality of MAC would hold up. Mind, DCS is a really big system, and MAC would likely be a much more downgraded experience. ED would be heavily incentivized to support and improve DCS for the most part, with MAC likely becoming an afterthought. And lets be real, upgrading DCS is already a huge amount of work, with campaign, MT, Vulkan, AI+GFM, and so on being in the work for years. Theres not much other capacity.

Splitting game systems into two seperate products like this never works well. As long as MAC isnt so limited and linear that it doesnt require much support.

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Hiob:

"How to NOT worry, about thing that DIDN'T happen."

The new bestseller by C. Sense

vor 8 Minuten schrieb MAXsenna:

I think you can feel pretty safe. I'm sure they won't remove anything before there is a replacement, well, in place.

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, to me that sounds very unlikely, Im not worrying about that.

Im sure ED understand how much such a step would people annoy. Godwill is thin enough with the state of some modules.  

And I dont know ED really, but im not even sure theyd like the idea of not having late cold war soviet fighters in their game. Especialy the Mig-29 has gotten a bunch of nice upgrades, its probably the nicest of the FC3 cockpits, flight models and AI I think. Its so fun and interesting to fly, despite the limitations. Someone at ED probably likes that thing, even as a simplified module.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Temetre

[Hiob]

I bet you a fortune, that the guys at ED have - generally speaking - the same love for the same iconic aircraft, that we do.

I'm pretty sure the Fulcrum is high on that list.

[Temetre]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb draconus:

It's not about easier operation anymore. Most FC3 users fly these aircraft because of the aircraft simulated, which are not available otherwise, with low or no possibility to be made full fidelity in the future. That's why some people ask if that is the possible solution for some more modern redfor.

Btw, funny tidbit: I find eg the Mig-21 already quite easy to control, its what I can go into when I dont want to deal with the complexities of the insane digital structure of Viper and Hornet, or the finnicky but powerful systems (and GIB) of a Tomcat. Its kinda like FC3 in that regard, but the cockpit+sytems simulation adds to immersion.

I imagine a Mig-29 would be similar, just a bit convoluted to control, but otherwise quite straightfoward without much gimmicks and extras.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Temetre

[MAXsenna]

Btw, funny tidbit: I find eg the Mig-21 already quite easy to control, its what I can go into when I dont want to deal with the complexities of the insane digital structure of Viper and Hornet, or the finnicky but powerful systems (and GIB) of a Tomcat. Its kinda like FC3 in that regard, but the cockpit+sytems simulation adds to immersion.
I imagine a Mig-29 would be similar, just a bit convoluted to control, but otherwise quite straightfoward without much gimmicks and extras.

You're ripe for Cold War jets then, which for even RedFor should be quite doable, and a few is already incoming.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk