Flaming Cliffs 3

[HungaroJET]

Already done ;)

 

^Another Daydreamer :lol: FC wont never/ever "done or gone"

Edited June 21, 2011 by HungaroJET

[blkspade]

Whether or not FC3 is to be created is a moot point right now. While ED is not obligated to add things we'd like to see to FC2, as a paying customer of any product I would like to see it doing the its supposed to properly free of cost. There are still bugs in the current product that have been neglected for sometime now. Like the sim freezing if you try to change waypoints after allowing them to auto-rollover. The "mountain bug". Corrupting track recordings. Disappearing models at certain ranges and zoom levels. To name a few.

 

Offering an AFM on the FC2 aircraft could be offered if the Devs cared to do it, with minimal effort. The existance of AFM of the SU25 is proof-of-concept, that the 'bits' are basically there. Having knowledge of say how X-Plane handles FMs, could tell you something.

 

For the arguments of differences in fidelity of DCS and FC and 'hardcoreness', its half-assed when reducing the human element of PVP and DAC. Which is why its important that when DCS: F--- is released it will essentially be incomplete without an opposing counterpart.

[159th_Viper]

....Offering an AFM on the FC2 aircraft could be offered if the Devs cared to do it, with minimal effort. The existance of AFM of the SU25 is proof-of-concept, that the 'bits' are basically there. Having knowledge of say how X-Plane handles FMs, could tell you something....

 

You have no idea.......

 

Honestly, I really do not want to appear argumentative, but to come and sprout nonsensical rubbish like the above quote is going to do you no justice. Have you even attempted a wee bit of research for 'facts' to substantiate that 'lil gem?

 

Please tell me you're not serious.

[aaron886]

You have no idea.......

 

Seriously. I hate to "+1," but... +1. :music_whistling:

[shu77]

First post Fail?

[Krippz]

Please tell me you're not serious.

 

Unfortunately I think that he was serious :doh:

[Cali]

Actually... I like to think of it another way: ED will give us what is most financially reliable. And for that the old catchphrase stands: Customer is always right. Whatever will pay the bills, and then some, is what will be delivered. By extension that means whatever will satisfy us, the customer in great numbers will be delivered. I've always said, and ANY savvy business person will agree, that patches to combine FC2/3 with first the chopper and in the future the A-10C, is good business. Its a force multiplier in terms of revenue. I know a whole bunch of people who would never had touched the chopper as a standalone, but bought it after it was patched with FC2.0. I bought it the day after it was patched because i got pissed off of these chopper heads having way too much fun without me. :D And it all worked out because of the vibrant multiplayer scene. The multilayer 'scene' is the best indirect advertising available to ED that money just couldn't buy.

Mark my words, A-10C will see yet another sales boost when its patched with FC2.0/3.0.

 

I agree with you on this, but it's still up to them and what they want to do. Sometimes people do things that we may think is just plain crazy, they might not even fully know why they did it. I have said it before, patching FC to whatever DCS aircraft comes out would be the smart thing to do,

1. it will keep current people flying

2. it will bring in new people

3. I think it's just good business

 

However, we don't know how much time that will take to patch them, although they could get the increase in money. That will delay next DCS aircraft, which I know some wouldn't mind, while others will. I wonder how much did they make from the FC2 patch?

[Krippz]

I wonder how much did they make from the FC2 patch?

 

Good question; but knowing that Ubi-Soft makes money off of every unit sold makes me cringe :mad:.

[rattler]

Good question; but knowing that Ubi-Soft makes money off of every unit sold makes me cringe :mad:.

 

Now ,now,let's not forget they started the ball rolling, it just had too many curves.:D

[eleazar]

IMO it should not be called FC3. It should be called DCS: basic(or something like that). So that this "basic" version will be the platform for all DCS series. no more lock on, no more FC, they are the past, and DCS is the future. so all the lock on and FC players will join up to the new DCS community so that no confusion regarding about version and other unwanted conflicts. ( just like how Cliffs of dover will take over il2 1946 in the next few years with patches and expansions. ) And last, sell it cheap (half the price of DCS A-10/Ka-50) and most importantly, make it STAND ALONE and ONLY work with DCS series. so that we all move forward together and no one is left behind. just like from flanker 2.5 to lock on/ LOFC1,2.

just my 2 cent

[eldiablo155]

Eleazar , you're not wrong at all , I think this is a good idea, although if FC and DCS ppl knows what is what , and for the noobies , forum like this one can clear their mind on purpose... but call it DCS:FC3 (or whatever FC will be ) Basic or something like that I think is really the best option

+1

:smilewink:

[FLANKERATOR]

IMO it should not be called FC3. It should be called DCS: basic(or something like that). So that this "basic" version will be the platform for all DCS series. no more lock on, no more FC, they are the past, and DCS is the future. so all the lock on and FC players will join up to the new DCS community so that no confusion regarding about version and other unwanted conflicts. ( just like how Cliffs of dover will take over il2 1946 in the next few years with patches and expansions. ) And last, sell it cheap (half the price of DCS A-10/Ka-50) and most importantly, make it STAND ALONE and ONLY work with DCS series. so that we all move forward together and no one is left behind. just like from flanker 2.5 to lock on/ LOFC1,2.

just my 2 cent

 

If legally possible for ED (am wondering if copyright involves source code as well or only the product's brand), I call this "GENIUS" :)

[Laud]

"DCS:Switchless"

 

:megalol:

 

:music_whistling:

[Krippz]

Why do they need to market DCS:Basic? Wouldn't that undermine the game mode in DCS A-10 and DCS BlackShark?

[GGTharos]

Exactly.

 

Besides which, it isn't legally feasible.

[Dudikoff]

Besides which, it isn't legally feasible.

 

Just for the argument's sake, how much of the FC2 is from the original Lock On series anyway? The player aircraft FM, some 3d models plus player cockpits?

[Krippz]

Just for the argument's sake, how much of the FC2 is from the original Lock On series anyway? The player aircraft FM, some 3d models plus player cockpits?

 

Ubisoft owns the rights to LOMAC. So as GG has indicated the legal issues run in with the concept and presentation of the product. So Ubisoft gets a slice of the LOMAC, Flaming Cliffs "X" pie.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Krippz

[GGTharos]

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's the types of aircraft and a few other things that make LO. The underlying code has little to do with it - it's the concept/package.

 

Just for the argument's sake, how much of the FC2 is from the original Lock On series anyway? The player aircraft FM, some 3d models plus player cockpits?

[wasserfall]

"DCS:Switchless"

 

:megalol:

 

:music_whistling:

 

Laud: you can always switch to switchless, and switch to the switchess with FC"3"/DCSA10:)

 

Cheers,

 

wasserfall

[HiJack]

IMO it should not be called FC3. It should be called DCS: basic(or something like that). So that this "basic" version will be the platform for all DCS series. no more lock on, no more FC, they are the past, and DCS is the future. so all the lock on and FC players will join up to the new DCS community so that no confusion regarding about version and other unwanted conflicts. ( just like how Cliffs of dover will take over il2 1946 in the next few years with patches and expansions. ) And last, sell it cheap (half the price of DCS A-10/Ka-50) and most importantly, make it STAND ALONE and ONLY work with DCS series. so that we all move forward together and no one is left behind. just like from flanker 2.5 to lock on/ LOFC1,2.

just my 2 cent

:thumbup: Yes, basicly the same I said in post 258 :D

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1212185&postcount=258

 

(HJ)

[104th_Crunch]

Why do they need to market DCS:Basic? Wouldn't that undermine the game mode in DCS A-10 and DCS BlackShark?

 

Personally I agree. Make 2 DCS fighters with game mode and relaxed avionics, then there is no need for FC3 survey sim.

[blkspade]

You have no idea.......

 

Honestly, I really do not want to appear argumentative, but to come and sprout nonsensical rubbish like the above quote is going to do you no justice. Have you even attempted a wee bit of research for 'facts' to substantiate that 'lil gem?

 

Please tell me you're not serious.

 

 

This is not my main arguing point, nor of much personal concern to me. Just pointing out logically what could be done in theory. What about that statement is non-sensical to you? I have no knowledge on how ED themselves handle flight modeling, but I'm guessing its a parametric as opposed to a geometric approach. In which the required amount of work/data gathering would be more. I am merely suggesting flight modelling characteristics that were given to SU25/T could be applied to to the other aircraft in the same sim. My other two paragraphs are what I am more concerned about in general.

 

First post Fail?

 

With all that was stated in my first post, I think it is far from 'fail'. Seeing as it seems there is only disagreement with one section of it.

[GGTharos]

Yes, at a rate of one aircraft per year. That's the part you were missing. Current AFM models take a long time to develop.

 

I am merely suggesting flight modelling characteristics that were given to SU25/T could be applied to to the other aircraft in the same sim.

[Boberro]

Aftera reading yours debate I am hunger and hunger for FC3 :D

Question is - how long must I wait for great dish.

[Pyroflash]

it just whets your appetite doesn't it?