Did MAC become Flaming Cliffs 2024

[upyr1]

Is fc 2024 MAC or is that something else ? 

[ricktoberfest]

17 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Is fc 2024 MAC or is that something else ? 

It seems to be the remnants of MAC.  According to Wag’s discord statement they’ve shelved MAC and taken these 3 aircraft from it into regular DCS. 

[FlankerFan35]

Interesting.....choices.

[Saguanay]

Why three aircraft that are already out?   Maybe a F-5A.  A Su-17/22.  A F-84?   Lots of things other than what is out.

[nessuno0505]

MAC should have been a standalone product. If mac has been aborted and has become fc 2024, those were the airplanes ported and those are the airplanes you can have.

[Ramius007]

whats point in MAC if we have  FF viper, hornet a seagle? F-5 is better FC3 like plane potential than su-22, FC3 su-25a is borderline, rest of FC3 too complicated and deserve FF

Edited April 27, 2024 by Ramius007

[Exorcet]

16 hours ago, Saguanay said:

Why three aircraft that are already out?   Maybe a F-5A.  A Su-17/22.  A F-84?   Lots of things other than what is out.

Making new planes takes more work. Using the existing planes only makes sense. They were already in development for MAC, they didn't want to waste the work, so they converted them into FC2024 modules. F-5A, etc would have meant throwing out and wasting previous work and then starting over and having to wait years(?) for results.

Also with FC being simplified, the F-5E might as well be a F-5A in the same way that while the F-15 is technically a C, the simplified modeling makes it good enough as an A stand in when AMRAAM's are restricted. Not quite as good an example admittedly since avionics are simpler in the FC and the bigger difference will come from the engines and airframe, but it's easier to blur variant lines with FC modules than with FF ones.

[draconus]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:51 PM, Saguanay said:

Why three aircraft that are already out?   Maybe a F-5A.  A Su-17/22.  A F-84?   Lots of things other than what is out.

New aircraft should be made FF.

[HWasp]

21 hours ago, draconus said:

New aircraft should be made FF.

Why?

We could have FC4 versions first, then in some cases FF version could follow, like in the case of the MiG-29.

There would be multiple new FC4 planes, the whole DCS scene could benefit from:

A simplified modern Flanker

A fast red cold war striker (Su-17/MiG-27)

More Korean War era planes.

WW2 gapfillers like an earlier BF-109G

Some of them could be turned into FF later, no rules against that.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 4/26/2024 at 10:51 PM, Saguanay said:

Why three aircraft that are already out?

Because they are the same aircraft that were originally planned for MAC - except for the MiG-21 which was also supposed to be included and had a lot of work done on it already according to Mag3.

[draconus]

38 minutes ago, HWasp said:

Why?

Because that's my and most DCS forum user's preference. It's what DCS has best to offer. It's the essence of DCS.

[HWasp]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Because that's my and most DCS forum user's preference. It's what DCS has best to offer. It's the essence of DCS.

Most popular choice is:

"I like the specific aircraft that is simulated, not available otherwise."

Interpreting that survey like that is incorrect, if we want to know, whether people want new FC4 types, that are not available as FF, then the question should be that, not something different.

I also fly the FC3 MiG-29 or Su-27 because no FF version is available, but that does NOT mean that I don't want a FC4 MiG-27 or Mirage 3 etc. that is not even on the roadmap as FF yet.

For me the flight model is the "essence" of DCS, and FC3 had good standards in that regard. 

Edited April 30, 2024 by HWasp

[diasmon]

On 4/30/2024 at 2:37 PM, draconus said:

Because that's my and most DCS forum user's preference. It's what DCS has best to offer. It's the essence of DCS.

Given that most of us want more iconic jets to fly, then an FC jet is better than none at all. Many airplanes are impossible to make FF because of classified info. But with approximations based on public data, we could have more jets and faster.

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, diasmon said:

Given that most of us want more iconic jets to fly, then an FC jet is better than none at all. Many airplanes are impossible to make FF because of classified info. But with approximations based on public data, we could have more jets and faster.

I'd really like to see a modern FC Flanker version, because I think that due to ED's background with the type, they could build a really decent product.

Otherwise, doing new modern, classified planes could be slippery slope and turn into science fiction quickly. It still needs to remain a simulator, and for that proper data is needed, even if the product is simplified imo. 

I'd prefer the cold war era for new planes.

[diasmon]

5 hours ago, HWasp said:

I'd really like to see a modern FC Flanker version, because I think that due to ED's background with the type, they could build a really decent product.

Otherwise, doing new modern, classified planes could be slippery slope and turn into science fiction quickly. It still needs to remain a simulator, and for that proper data is needed, even if the product is simplified imo. 

I'd prefer the cold war era for new planes.

That is why most of us hoped MAC to be its own thing and to not interfere with FF simulation enjoyers. For those like me, MAC was supposed to scratch that Strike Fighters 2 itch, not to replace/compete with DCS. But since FF-purists killed the motion with their clout and ED shelved it, then I guess we are stuck together.

[HWasp]

On 5/5/2024 at 4:40 PM, diasmon said:

That is why most of us hoped MAC to be its own thing and to not interfere with FF simulation enjoyers. For those like me, MAC was supposed to scratch that Strike Fighters 2 itch, not to replace/compete with DCS. But since FF-purists killed the motion with their clout and ED shelved it, then I guess we are stuck together.

I remember Strike Fighters being a cold war themed game, I have no problems being stuck together with the current cold war FC3 stuff, on the contrary, I fly them regularly.

My point was avoiding "sci-fi" things like the F-22, F-35 etc. and I'd prefer to stay away from post cold war 4th gens, except for a Flanker, the only reason being that the red side post cold war scene is really sparse.

Simplified planes can still have reasonably realistic capabilities, given there are proper sources available.

 

[diasmon]

On 5/16/2024 at 3:28 PM, HWasp said:

I remember Strike Fighters being a cold war themed game, I have no problems being stuck together with the current cold war FC3 stuff, on the contrary, I fly them regularly.

My point was avoiding "sci-fi" things like the F-22, F-35 etc. and I'd prefer to stay away from post cold war 4th gens, except for a Flanker, the only reason being that the red side post cold war scene is really sparse.

Simplified planes can still have reasonably realistic capabilities, given there are proper sources available.

 

Well, ECW server would not allow them anyway, you can fly safely there

I have no problem with other's taste as long as mine is also respected. For me the charm in SF2 was not necessarily the era, (although I like relatively modern jets as opposed to props and early post-ww2 jets) but the simplistic but realistic gameplay. I don't like the arcades like AC and I don't like the grind in WT. Anyway, there are a lot of cold war era jets that could become FC modules if they can't make them FF, and I also assume FC would take less time to develop than FF.

[Flogger23m]

On 5/5/2024 at 7:40 AM, diasmon said:

That is why most of us hoped MAC to be its own thing and to not interfere with FF simulation enjoyers. For those like me, MAC was supposed to scratch that Strike Fighters 2 itch, not to replace/compete with DCS. But since FF-purists killed the motion with their clout and ED shelved it, then I guess we are stuck together.

 

I would prefer if they just made more simplified planes in DCS. They can co-exist, much like we can have WWII planes present on modern day maps, flying around modern day structures with modern day F-16s flying around.

It would be excellent for planes that are too classified to do at the full fidelity. Things like an F/A-18E, Su-27SM2 and whatnot. These are things that will never become a full fidelity module anytime soon, if ever. A 3rd party can even specialize in these modern, realistic flight model but simplified avionics planes. People can still buy their MIG-19s, WWII planes and the very handful of modern planes that come out in full fidelity.

I would of course like to use these modules alongside my F-16C, F/A-18C, J-11, F-15C, etc. so putting them in a new game would be pointless. It would just mean duplicating SSD space to reuse the same content like maps and whatnot.

 

As for multiplayer, from the sound of things DCS is not that big on multiplayer. But you can always make missions without them. As is, you can't make a mission for the F-16C and then have players fly P-51s. They'll get blown out of the sky with AIM-120s and SAMs. Yet, it still works out and people just play them in different missions.

Edited July 12, 2024 by Flogger23m