Flaming Cliffs 3

[combatace]

I'll pay nothing for only graphics update but I can pay 100 if atleast flyable planes get AFM.

Edited May 26, 2011 by combatace

[EtherealN]

Taking the extremely simplified example as above one can understand why DCS users will be a wee bit irritated at a LockOn users who rely on the inherent 'simpleness' of the LockOn Flight Model/Weapons model etc etc to obtain an advantage, be it in time, effort or otherwise, in a mission - Therein lies the problem, albeit one easily solved by server-specific missions.

 

I see your point, but there is an argument to be made in the other direction: the "simple" FC planes pay a very heavy price for their simpleness: no datalinking (well okey, the russian fastmovers do get an AWACS picture onto their MMS), no sensor automation. But I suppose that that might just be me and my Eagle-centric frustration with how castrated that bird is compared to what we would have in a DCS:F-15C Eagle. :P

 

But yeah, in the end, those balance concerns are - as you say - extremely easy to solve. Indeed they would probably solve themselves through mission design and server selections that may or may not have Aircraft X available same way as how we don't see servers with only Frogs on the Red side and only Eagles on the Blue... :)

[asparagin]

All crosshairs on Mower please.

 

What's up with all this aggressiveness, each is entitled to an opinion, and it's also not like it came as a surprise..

[Boberro]

Can't wait for multi Air-Ground missions together with A-10C.... Imagine this... grandpa Su-25, newer Su-25T flying together with A-10A and A-10C supported by Ka-50.... This all in better graphics. Ow yeah!

[STP Dragon]

Can't wait for multi Air-Ground missions together with A-10C.... Imagine this... grandpa Su-25, newer Su-25T flying together with A-10A and A-10C supported by Ka-50.... This all in better graphics. Ow yeah!

 

... and F-15, Mig-29, Su-33, Su-27 are protecting the A-G forces from enemy fighters.

[Frostie]

What's up with all this aggressiveness, each is entitled to an opinion, and it's also not like it came as a surprise..

Because this is DCS/Lockon community not the ProFalcon leet pilot community, the old elitist stance that some of those yahoos use to express is derogatory and unfriendly, unfortunately it is now infecting and trying to divide our community. Peace.

 

FC2 with the hog all boils down to how much of an impact on timescale it makes, there is no other issue worthy of worry just pure snobbery.

[*Rage*]

Hey its just a little banter:)

 

But thats not to say I wont have a little private giggle if and when I shoot down Mower with all his "hardcoreness"

 

Reading the russian forums with google translate is painful...can we have an official anouncement please?!

Edited May 26, 2011 by ///Rage

[*Rage*]

Quite right, along with EtherealN. People have no clue what hardcore is. It has nothing to do with the presence of buttons and switches that do "stuff" in the cockpit. It has MORE to do with how the virtual pilot(s) conduct their flight.

 

Gentlemen, the name of the "game" is Air Combat. Anything that furthers the goal of simulating Air Combat - within the sim, and how we fly and fight with our simulated aircraft, with our simulated wingmen, determines whether the goal of simulating a fighter pilot's day is realized.

 

I already have pushed enough buttons and flicked enough switches IRL. What I want to do is get in the jet, and get in the air with my flight and use Real World tactics to accomplish the mission. I don't have to start the engines in a realistic manner while worrying about no/false/hung/hot starts, check my flight controls with the crew chief, taxi by the IFF testing gear, go to the arm/dearm pit, have my pins removed, and then takeoff, point my radar elsewhere while worrying about interfering with my wingmen's radar checks....

 

What I'd like is a nice simulation of MODERN AIR COMBAT PERIOD. I don't care about ON, NORMAL, NORMAL, good blinker, because I'm not wearing a helmet (unlike some of you guys :megalol:) with your O2 masks on tight....:doh:

 

Some of you guys want all of the above... well, that's nice... but it gets real old real quick. (oh, not for me! I love all the minutae, some might say. Well good on you.)

 

FC3 interacting with the DCS world can be as real as it gets, so long as improvements are made that help FC2 model Real World capabilities and limitations of weapons, radars, ECM, ECCM (if able), and tactics.

 

It's up to the mission designers, squadrons, etc. to come up with realistic scenarios that model what so-called "Hardcore" simmers want out of a MODERN AIR COMBAT simulation.

 

Great post.

[104th_Crunch]

What's up with all this aggressiveness, each is entitled to an opinion, and it's also not like it came as a surprise..

 

 

I think it comes from people coming off as elitists thinking that because you fly FC2, you don't know what combat simulation is, and you just like arcade gaming or something. Some good arguments against that here, especially Rhen, and in fact many people that fly DCS also fly FC2.

 

I hope FC3 comes quick and it does not delay DCS:Fighter. ED are still working on the Ka-50 compatibility patch and Nevada map. Lots going on and I am afraid of delays that will mean it will be years before DCS Fighter arrives. Of course, if the workload is small for FC3 and it comes quick, bring it on! I will pay for it as a patch for compatibility with DCS and nothing else. It will give a nice graphics upgrade and more map area. ED are not obligated to give this compatibility patch. They are obligated to fix bugs free perhaps. I will pay them for their hours and hours of work to help ensure they continue giving us flight sims while few others do.

[Cibit]

Hope its not out soon. Just bought fc2 yesterday

[159th_Viper]

Hope its not out soon. Just bought fc2 yesterday

 

It has not even been announced so there's no worry there :)

[GGTharos]

LockOn does not adequately model Real World capabilities and limitations of weapons, radars, ECM, ECCM. Imperative to be added to that list is probably the most important aspect - the Flight Model. DCS at present does as far as circumstances permit and continues to improve upon said modelling with every reiteration.

 

Actually DCS isn't currently doing any better under the hood. There are some improvements that would be VERY welcome, of course - the CMDS, for example, more realistic jammer function ... but what's more important is that they both need better seeker and countermeasure and jammer simulation. Between FC2 and DCS, there's really no difference in those.

All in good time, naturally.

 

There's really nothing that would prevent updating the under-the-hood functioning of an FC2 aircraft's jammer, for example, to match that of a DCS one. Okay, you couldn't have as much control over it, but that it's a big deal.

 

If missiles get AFM in DCS, and better seekers, again, there's really nothing stopping you from sticking that weapon onboard an FC2 plane.

 

My point here is that while DCS is awesome for simulating the aircraft, there's always, always work to be done on things that are not the cockpit or the AFM. One day this will be addressed and maybe we'll get a nice, complex ECM/ECCM simulation as well, where we'll end up with 100 page per day threads arguing who has the better ECCM :D

 

The argument of Hard-Core vs Non-Hardcore therefore does not stem from the fact that there are more buttons to press et al, but rather the fact that with DCS it takes 100% of effort/2 minutes to attend to a specific goal, whereas in LockOn it takes 50%/1 minute to attend to the very same goal.

 

Taking the extremely simplified example as above one can understand why DCS users will be a wee bit irritated at a LockOn users who rely on the inherent 'simpleness' of the LockOn Flight Model/Weapons model etc etc to obtain an advantage, be it in time, effort or otherwise, in a mission - Therein lies the problem, albeit one easily solved by server-specific missions.

They'll be just annoyed when they realize that DCS: Fighter will steamroll them just as easily if not more so as the 'old, easy planes of FC2'.

 

To the target, there will be no difference. To the attacking pilot, there will be no difference, either. His radar's on, master arm's on, all he has to do is designate, pickle ;)

 

'But but but! He has to set up! There are radar modes!'

 

... yeah, whatever. Designate, pickle ;)

 

Further to this is that WHEN AND IF ED decide to abscond with the stealth features they added to the Ka-50 because 'them poor players don't even have an RWR for PvP', the whining will increase 100000000-fold when they realize they CANNOT hide from a modern PD radar without stopping the rotors.

 

This entire notion of 'x needs more effort than y' is entirely misguided. It is misguided precicely because the weapons, and weapon modeling are all the same.

 

Now, one thing I do think might merit some complaint is the FM. AFM causes you to fly drastically different than SFM, and it would do so for the fighters as well. Dodging missiles physically would become more difficult. Then again, if you feel you were able to dodge missiles better in the SFM Hog vs. the AFM one ... :D

[159th_Viper]

All in good time, naturally....

 

Exactly: Would accordingly be DCS: XXXX as opposed to LockOn 3.

 

 

There's really nothing that would prevent updating the under-the-hood functioning of an FC2 aircraft's jammer, for example, to match that of a DCS one. Okay, you couldn't have as much control over it, but that it's a big deal.

 

If missiles get AFM in DCS, and better seekers, again, there's really nothing stopping you from sticking that weapon onboard an FC2 plane.

 

Integration might not be that simple what with the current changes to the engines. We can however hope that it is indeed so.

 

 

 

My point here is that while DCS is awesome for simulating the aircraft, there's always, always work to be done on things that are not the cockpit or the AFM. One day this will be addressed and maybe we'll get a nice, complex ECM/ECCM simulation as well, where we'll end up with 100 page per day threads arguing who has the better ECCM :D

 

In an Utopian society, yeah. One is however hamstrung by marketing forces where Money Talks and ....... .......... you know the rest. There is clearly no vindication for attending to an attempt to bring Product A up to the standard of Product B for little or no return when you were going to develop Product B independently in any event.

 

 

 

'But but but! He has to set up! There are radar modes!'

 

... yeah, whatever. Designate, pickle ;)

 

 

Advantage - You more than most should know that seconds count :P In any event, any speculation at this stage is largely moot as we are considering Fighter vs Bomber/Helo scenarios as opposed to LockOn Fighter vs DCS Fighter scenarios, unless I misunderstood.

 

 

 

Now, one thing I do think might merit some complaint is the FM. AFM causes you to fly drastically different than SFM, and it would do so for the fighters as well. Dodging missiles physically would become more difficult.

 

Quite so - and a disadvantage that would not be addressed and probably THE most important one insofar as Gameplay is concerned, especially if one has to envision the integration of a DCS Fighter with the LockOn world.

 

It goes without saying that the AFM will not be contemplated for integration into FC3 - As said before, why the DCS series then?

 

Do not misunderstand me - I am 100% in favour of a LockOn 3 patch/add-on and will support it irrespective as I can honestly see no cons to the proposal that cannot be negated by Server-specific missions etc etc. I am however wary of persons expecting a major overhaul of FC2 flyables - Cannot see that happening anytime soon, if ever.

[asparagin]

I hope FC3 comes quick and it does not delay DCS:Fighter.

 

Me too, this is actually my only concern, although they said it's being worked on parallel - it is still some extra work. (..if this all this will get official of course).

 

Since there will be also DCS-only servers, elitists ;) should also have no reason to complain.

[Sanch0]

If it will bring new aircraft and some improvements then I will be able to pay for it. But if it will be just a compatibility patch then... I'll be disappointed and it doesn't deserve to be called FC3.

[Steel Jaw]

Here's what I mean by "hardcore":

 

Simulating pilot workload. So max avionics/weaponeering functionality. I want my helmet fire.

 

It is not about elitism, I dont think myself any better or worse than other simmers who would choose FC2 over A10C as their mount.

 

I don't recall ever calling anyone derogatory names here as others have alluded to me.

[GGTharos]

Answering just the first part; at least in air to air, you get the hard core with teamwork and mutual support. As long as you have a minimal (as in FC2, but I'd rather it have a couple basic things bolted on) radar, and the missiles work effectively and simulate -some- part of reality, you'll have your helmet fire. I promise. :P

 

Here's what I mean by "hardcore":

 

Simulating pilot workload. So max avionics/weaponeering functionality. I want my helmet fire.

 

It is not about elitism, I dont think myself any better or worse than other simmers who would choose FC2 over A10C as their mount.

 

I don't recall ever calling anyone derogatory names here as others have alluded to me.

[hog_driver111th]

Can I ask something to make sure I understand correctly... if FC3 should come out? Obviously the server host would have to have all 3 sims (FC3, BS, A-10C) in order to allow pilots from all 3 to be able to fly plus have the aircraft set for Client. Question is, will there be servers, or can we keep it limited to a DCS server by only adding in the client aircraft for BS and A-10C (and DCS:Fighter 2 seater... wishful thinking, hehe)?

[Sov13t]

Answering just the first part; at least in air to air, you get the hard core with teamwork and mutual support. As long as you have a minimal (as in FC2, but I'd rather it have a couple basic things bolted on) radar, and the missiles work effectively and simulate -some- part of reality, you'll have your helmet fire. I promise. :P

 

super_advanced_warhead = warhead(missile)*1000; :P

[Sov13t]

Can I ask something to make sure I understand correctly... if FC3 should come out? Obviously the server host would have to have all 3 sims (FC3, BS, A-10C) in order to allow pilots from all 3 to be able to fly plus have the aircraft set for Client. Question is, will there be servers, or can we keep it limited to a DCS server by only adding in the client aircraft for BS and A-10C (and DCS:Fighter 2 seater... wishful thinking, hehe)?

 

No only one sim has to be installed on the server. Similar to what it is now with DCS KA-50 and FC2. Either of them can host missions for each other.

 

It will be mission controlled. Whichever craft you have set as client in the mission... are what is going to be available to the client joining your server.

[hog_driver111th]

I don't have FC2, but you're saying that someone that only has BS can set aircraft as client even though they don't have FC2? I'm guessing it will be that way for the BS/A-10C patch as well (plus the addition of the A-10C in BS).

[GGTharos]

That's not a helmet fire, that's an everything fire :P

 

super_advanced_warhead = warhead(missile)*1000; :P

[Sov13t]

I don't have FC2, but you're saying that someone that only has BS can set aircraft as client even though they don't have FC2? I'm guessing it will be that way for the BS/A-10C patch as well (plus the addition of the A-10C in BS).

 

Yessir

[Nate--IRL--]

I don't have FC2, but you're saying that someone that only has BS can set aircraft as client even though they don't have FC2? I'm guessing it will be that way for the BS/A-10C patch as well (plus the addition of the A-10C in BS).

 

Correct.

 

Nate

[Case]

ED: please stop wasting time recessitating yesterday's news and get Nevada out and then the next HARDCORE module.

 

I don't get statements like this. If you want ED to bring out more stuff then the one thing you'd want them to do is keep their clientele happy. If that means that they spend a little man power to port all the FC2 flyables to the DCS:Hog world and call if FC3 then that is great, even more so if it means more revenue. It creates a bond between those people that fly DCS:BS, DCS:Hog and FC2/3 and keeps the community alive as events like Red Flag or Crimean Incident can now be enjoyed by many more people.

 

And concerning your HARDCORE statement, I echo Cali's, Etherealn's and Rhen's posts. I do not know if you did, but if you haven't participated in a Red Flag, BSS, OPFOR or Crimean Incident event then you have no clue how hardcore FC2 can become.