New FC "Cold War" Package

[Potter]

First of all, I wanna thank the community for all the help I've received by consulting this forum for the various issues I've encountered over the years in DCS with various settings, bugs etc.. Much appreciated!!

We are now entering a phase where ED has lost a key partner and subsequently 4 very prominent modules, which makes me think (perhaps now more than ever) ED should consider alternatives to the current situation and push for another FC package?
Personally I think a "cold war" package would pretty much solve what I believe are some of  ED's most (at least from my humble point of view) prominent issues at once, but please let me explain how:

1 - ED's AI in dire need of a total overhaul but new GFM not in sight - By bringing in more modules at once we wouldn't have to rely on AI so much, as by introducing more accessible modules at once, would likely see an increased number of users being draw to PVP servers. Please ponder over this for a sec and think how much has FC3/4 helped with this already?

2 - New Redfor FF modules are not being prioritised cause lack of data and consumer's appetite - By creating a new FC package focused on the cold war ED could develop multiple Redfor modules which would most definitely draw in more customers/sales as well as not having to deal with the lack of data of modern Redfor planes present with (think of Mig25-Su17-Mig23 etc)

3  - Lack of cohesion in PVP servers -  PVP servers are forced to have the F16 fighting for Redfor to keep things balanced... Personally I play DCS for immersion, and to see that is plainly put... painful! An F16A released for a new FC package could be finally be used against Redfor in PVP scenarios, as well as bringing a more coherent setting altogether with other Bluefor modules. 

4 - Razbam modules not available / phasing out - Pretty self explanatory, however is worth mentioning that even though I don't blame anyone for what happen (because of lack of clarity on the main issues from both sides), ED who is the platform's owner, surely understands that having users who have already bought these modules will find themself emptyhanded soon. This, as well as potential new customer not having the opportuning to dive in to certain peculiar modules (Harries for example?) doesn't do any justice to a game of the calibre of DCS.
Replacing FF modules with an FC one won't cut it for all, but will certainly be very acceptable for many current and potentially new users. 


I hope my train of thoughts won't be perceived as accusatory or inflammatory, as I only wish the best to the DCS's community, who is perhaps one of the most dedicated I've ever had the pleasure to come across to. I truly believe a new "Cold War" FC package has the potential to become one of the most celebrated (and sold) article ED could come up with.

Cheers

[SemperFi]

RedFor needs the SU 17/MiG 27 and a MiG 23 for a Cold War scenario. FC3/4 would be a quick solution.

I think that's a good suggestion.

[Gunfreak]

3 hours ago, SemperFi said:

RedFor needs the SU 17/MiG 27 and a MiG 23 for a Cold War scenario. FC3/4 would be a quick solution.

I think that's a good suggestion.

Except making a FC3 version of an aircraft from scratch is 80% the work of making a full fidelity model. So there's very little time to gained by that. 

ED spend years upgrading a handful of AI 3d models. Just saying "make an FC model" is no solution at all. 

 

[Potter]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

Except making a FC3 version of an aircraft from scratch is 80% the work of making a full fidelity model. So there's very little time to gained by that. 

ED spend years upgrading a handful of AI 3d models. Just saying "make an FC model" is no solution at all. 

 

 

Sounds a bit far-fetched. How do you determine percentage? May I ask (not in accusatory, but genuinely curious tone) are you part of the developer team?

But let's imagine you were correct with this 20% (which forgive me but I think as for now as a guesstimate) 20% off many yrs of development, would still save us a considerable chunk of time?

In any case, to develop a product who's flight dynamics falls under the AFM (advanced flight module) category instead of a PFM, as well as having standard system modelling instead of advanced, I presume would contributing to reduce production time significantly?

From there they can always be improved/upgraded to a higher fidelity level (like I believe it already happened for most current FC content).

[Kang]

I'd point out that ED has previously stated that they had no interest in further pursuing the Flaming Cliffs project, but then, they have released what is effectively Flaming Cliffs 4 in the meantime, so... why not.

[Potter]

Hi Kang. Yes I think we find ourselves dealing with a different situation.

ED, through they're own admission, have realise that the new AI/GFM has proven to be a bigger challenge than originally thought I believe? Plausibly, the dynamic campaign would trail behind this too, and with 4 whole modules (plus a 5th nearly ready) now gone too, I don't see why a new FC package wouldn't help. 

After all making modules is what ED knows how to do best. Why not focusing on this strength? 

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

 

Sounds a bit far-fetched. How do you determine percentage? May I ask (not in accusatory, but genuinely curious tone) are you part of the developer team?

But let's imagine you were correct with this 20% (which forgive me but I think as for now as a guesstimate) 20% off many yrs of development, would still save us a considerable chunk of time?

In any case, to develop a product who's flight dynamics falls under the AFM (advanced flight module) category instead of a PFM, as well as having standard system modelling instead of advanced, I presume would contributing to reduce production time significantly?

From there they can always be improved/upgraded to a higher fidelity level (like I believe it already happened for most current FC content).

The 80% is a guesstimate. 

Except for cockpit systems. There would be no difference between a FC and FF module.  External and internal graphics, sounds, flight modeling, damge modeling would all be to the standard of a FFA module. Since cold war aircraft have less complex cockpit systems. The difference between FF and FC would be smaller than say a 4 or 4.5 gen aircraft with complex screens systems etc. 

So being able to make 1.2 FC aircraft for every 1 FF aircraft. Isn't much help. 

A cold war AI assets pack might be a more realistic option. 

Being AI, the fight model, cockpit graphics, damge model etc would be much simpler. It would be mostly a 3d model project. Not something ED probably have the resources for. So would be a 3rd party project. 

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, Potter said:

Sounds a bit far-fetched. How do you determine percentage? May I ask (not in accusatory, but genuinely curious tone) are you part of the developer team?

ED's own words on this forum. Probably searchable.

1 hour ago, Potter said:

But let's imagine you were correct with this 20% (which forgive me but I think as for now as a guesstimate) 20% off many yrs of development, would still save us a considerable chunk of time?

One would think so, and like Kang wrote, they said they were not interested in more FC level, while that was when MAC was still in the works. I've come to think their plan is to have both FC and FF versions eventually, while the first ones will probably be FC => FF. And then simplifications of the simplest FF modules.

1 and 2. Congrats on an interesting post as your first one. And I like your proposal of more Redfor and Cold War. I do however disagree with your reasoning, as the SP crowd "dwarfes" the MP crowd, so AI/GFM is very much in need. SP players won't purchase too many FC modules if there's an FF module, and FF modules make the most cash. AI logic in general is in dire need. GFM won't help you with those AK snipers, path finding etc.

3. Again. SP is in the majority. You should look up @Dangerzone's thread about why.

4. No reason to bring this up, and it's really not a reason to pump out FC modules.

15 hours ago, Potter said:

I hope my train of thoughts won't be perceived as accusatory or inflammatory

No worries, and I'm not sure why you would think this. Your opinions and ideas are as welcome as everyone else's. 

Cheers! 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

3 hours ago, Potter said:

have realise that the new AI/GFM has proven to be a bigger challenge than originally thought

Or perhaps ED changed the scope of the project, after potentially realising their initial plans are quite limited?

GFM was said to use the current AI FM but augmented by “short-term” behaviour taken from PFM/EFM, meaning GFM would not change anything for AI planes that don’t have a full-fidelity version. And given the amount of AI planes that indeed don’t have a player-controllable version, a more generalised GFM requires a lot more work than they might initially have planned for.

 

In any case, I for one expect a lot from GFM, as it’s one of the most needed improvements and considering it’s already years past ED’s self imposed deadline.

Edited 4 hours ago by Raven (Elysian Angel)
Auto correct 😖

[upyr1]

We definitely need more RedFor assets, however I have mixed feelings about more FC modules. From a strictly marketing perspective, I figured if the development time for a FC module is significantly less than a FF module, then the best approach would have be bring back the MAC concept and give servers the option of hosting both.

 

[upyr1]

5 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Except making a FC3 version of an aircraft from scratch is 80% the work of making a full fidelity model. So there's very little time to gained by that. 

ED spend years upgrading a handful of AI 3d models. Just saying "make an FC model" is no solution at all. 

 

I think ED said something along these lines. The next question is how much time does it take to make an FF module? Anyway this is the reason that I felt ED made a mistake getting killing the MAC project. Development time for an FC module is slighly lower than a FF module. So let's say ED is working on a Su-24 module for example at the 80% mark they could release the MAC version then after they added the clickable cockpit they could release the FF version. 

[Silver_Dragon]

9 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

I think ED said something along these lines. The next question is how much time does it take to make an FF module? Anyway this is the reason that I felt ED made a mistake getting killing the MAC project. Development time for an FC module is slighly lower than a FF module. So let's say ED is working on a Su-24 module for example at the 80% mark they could release the MAC version then after they added the clickable cockpit they could release the FF version. 

That's a complete oversimplification. By that rule of thumb, all third parties should be making FC modules, and yet none, except for a simple Dekka module, have made a "free" FC module... The rest always make FF modules. Even ED hasn't added exclusive modules, but rather old modules (many from Balsimtek and some third parties under the ED label) to FC (2024). Thinking about making an FF module and switching to FC is also another oversimplification.

By those arguments, we should have 3rd parties dedicated to FC, and there aren't any. And build FF modules will take 2 and more years.

Edited 3 hours ago by Silver_Dragon

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

A cold war AI assets pack might be a more realistic option. 

 

I'd love to see more asset  packs if they mean more assets. I know a lot of people complain they divide the online community which is why I want to add a filter so that someone can filter out servers with asset packs and mods they don't have installed. My next request for asset packs is please give us multi era and bundle packages.

With the cold war due to the amount of time covered I think we could easily get 3 packs. Early (1945 to 1954/5 basically the Korean war), Middle (1955 to 1975 basically the Vietnam Era) and late (1975 to 1990). Anyway assets in the packs should overlap based on service dates and there should be a discount based on overlap in assets as well as an option to buy all the asset packs in 1 big bundle.   

[upyr1]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

That's a complete oversimplification. By that rule of thumb, all third parties should be making FC modules, and yet none, except for a simple Dekka module, have made a "free" FC module... The rest always make FF modules. Even ED hasn't added exclusive modules, but rather old modules (many from Balsimtek and some third parties under the ED label) to FC (2024). Thinking about making an FF module and switching to FC is also another oversimplification.

By those arguments, we should have 3rd parties dedicated to FC, and there aren't any. And build FF modules will take 2 and more years.

No one makes FC level modules because the DCS brand is based on the FF modules. However we get posts like this which is the reason that say that killing MAC may have been a mistake. The basic line of thought was that if FC modules take less time to develop and have more market appeal, then as long as they share enough a development ecosystem then might be quite beneficial to the community to bring back MAC and make that the nothing but FC content and to leave FC as pure FF modules.

Edited 1 hour ago by upyr1