Flaming Cliffs 3

[rattler]

Of course myself, other staff members, community managers and moderators read forum posts. After over 5000 posts over most of the sub forums and posting at least a couple of times a day, I thought it was obvious that not much is posted without me seeing it.

 

 

Thanks Wags, appreciate your time.:thumbup:

[HiJack]

Of course myself, other staff members, community managers and moderators read forum posts. After over 5000 posts over most of the sub forums and posting at least a couple of times a day, I thought it was obvious that not much is posted without me seeing it.

Great Wags. Now I have spendt some time in Falcon BMS but it is waste. Can you please please ask nicely all other at ED to vote for FC3? :)

 

Thanks in advance

(HJ)

[Ells228]

Right, now that's settled...what's for breakfast??

 

Edit >> can I get DCS on my iPad, I'm getting withdrawal symptoms being on vacation lol

Edited September 9, 2011 by Ells228

[scheffchen]

Right, now that's settled...what's for breakfast??

 

Edit >> can I get DCS on my iPad, I'm getting withdrawal symptoms being on vacation lol

True Ells228,

 

I'm at a nice Location at the North Sea at the moment for vacation... But I check this Forum at least once a day. ;)

 

Cheers

Boris

[Foxdie_]

Its been a while since i was active in the lockon community. So im slowly catching up. I see the appeal of the DCS series, but for me they're just too complicated to be enjoyable. The pick up and playability with FC is what i enjoy most.

 

Personally i think they've really screwed up. If i remember correctly FC2 was always mean't be future compatible with the then unamed DCS network.

 

Im not sure what FC3 can bring to the DCS series. Dumbed down avionics in FC3 will mean the FC players will have an unfair advantage in any engagment between platforms - and im sure the DCS simmers wont want to share a serve with us casual gamers. I also think it removes any chance of seeing the planes in FC "DCS'd" if they already exist in one form already.

 

On the other hand, if they release "DCS" FC3 then you lose all the players who prefer the sit and playability of FC. I certainly wouldn't buy it if the FC planes became as complicated.

 

I think they should release FC3 as a seperate (junior) series (via steam) based on the same engine but not compatible with DCS retaining the semi-real/arcadeness. Adding more planes as expansions. These planes will cost MUCH MUCH less to develop than the highly complex DCS ones, and could still easily be sold to FC fans like me for £10 ($15) ea. The money earn't from these can then be pumped into the development of the DCS series for the niche sim gamers.

 

Each expansion would consist of a new flyable, and single campaign for that plane. And add the plane online FC network.

 

Additional expansions for maps, and non-playable ground units, and campaigns could also be included.

 

Dare i say it, but FC could really compete and bite into the lucartive HAWX / ace combat market by adding that slightly more realistic FC edge (the same market that would run a mile from DCS)

[Avimimus]

It would certainly be cool to have a junior series which could cheaply model some of the newer aircraft (PAK-FA, JSF) for which there is too little data to do a good job.

 

However, I'd be happy with just the Su-25... It would be great to have the old Su-25 models working as a DCS module (even though they would be lower detail)

[GGTharos]

Personally i think they've really screwed up. If i remember correctly FC2 was always mean't be future compatible with the then unamed DCS network.

 

No, it wasn't.

 

Im not sure what FC3 can bring to the DCS series. Dumbed down avionics in FC3 will mean the FC players will have an unfair advantage in any engagment between platforms - and im sure the DCS simmers wont want to share a serve with us casual gamers. I also think it removes any chance of seeing the planes in FC "DCS'd" if they already exist in one form already.

 

Just because you can't see the way, doesn't mean there aren't middle of the road solutions. Frankly, DCS airframes are more likely to have a fairly significant advantage over their FC brethren.

 

On the other hand, if they release "DCS" FC3 then you lose all the players who prefer the sit and playability of FC. I certainly wouldn't buy it if the FC planes became as complicated.

 

Such black and white vision.

 

I think they should release FC3 as a seperate (junior) series (via steam) based on the same engine but not compatible with DCS retaining the semi-real/arcadeness. Adding more planes as expansions. These planes will cost MUCH MUCH less to develop than the highly complex DCS ones, and could still easily be sold to FC fans like me for £10 ($15) ea. The money earn't from these can then be pumped into the development of the DCS series for the niche sim gamers.

 

I sure hope no such thing happens. Silly notion; there's no point in making things deliberately uncompatible. The aircraft, complex as it may be, is just one part of the overall simulation.

 

Dare i say it, but FC could really compete and bite into the lucartive HAWX / ace combat market by adding that slightly more realistic FC edge (the same market that would run a mile from DCS)

 

FC isn't arcade (no matter how many people like to call it that). It isn't balanced and it is entirely capable of complex scenarios. HAWX is quite balanced, based on eyecandy, and mostly bereft of physics. Utterly different market; you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Foxdie_]

No, it wasn't.

 

 

 

Just because you can't see the way, doesn't mean there aren't middle of the road solutions. Frankly, DCS airframes are more likely to have a fairly significant advantage over their FC brethren.

 

 

 

Such black and white vision.

 

 

 

I sure hope no such thing happens. Silly notion; there's no point in making things deliberately uncompatible. The aircraft, complex as it may be, is just one part of the overall simulation.

 

 

 

FC isn't arcade (no matter how many people like to call it that). It isn't balanced and it is entirely capable of complex scenarios. HAWX is quite balanced, based on eyecandy, and mostly bereft of physics. Utterly different market; you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

A great forum welcome; especially from a moderator.

 

http://lockon.co.uk/flaming_cliffs_2/#2832 (bottom paragraph, under heading "network") :doh:

They're doing a pretty good job of releasing non-compatible games already. Doing it on purpose would just be "silly" wouldn't it?

[GGTharos]

I think your impression of what they're doing and what they're not doing - and how they're doing it - is a bit flawed. :)

 

That FC2 and A-10C aren't compatible right now has pretty much everything to do with the advancement of the underlying engine that drives that title. There's no point in making a theoretical FC3 release incompatible with that since it would most likely be based on the same underlying engine as that leverages work already done. So yes - making them incompatible on purpose would be quite silly on the surface at least.

 

They're doing a pretty good job of releasing non-compatible games already. Doing it on purpose would just be "silly" wouldn't it?

Edited September 30, 2011 by GGTharos

[tflash]

A great forum welcome; especially from a moderator.

 

http://lockon.co.uk/flaming_cliffs_2/#2832 (bottom paragraph, under heading "network") :doh:

They're doing a pretty good job of releasing non-compatible games already. Doing it on purpose would just be "silly" wouldn't it?

 

I would call it a great welcome when senior forum members react to one of my first posts?

 

On the issue itself I have the impression there are a lot of misconceptions about DCS:A10C. In many ways it does feel like FC3, in particular when you fly Su-25T and A-10A in FC.

 

It is also absolutely not a difficult game to play, I really do not understand why some seem hesitant to adopt it. It amounts to the same thing as in FC: RTFM.

 

DCS:BS is different imho since it is quite something else to fly a chopper instead of an airplane, and it can be damn hard to fly (still being a wonderfull sim).

 

But DCS:A10C is really within reach of all FC players: it just takes a few more buttons and you are Go!

 

Take for an example the startup: I just printed out a short checklist that some kind forum member compiled, I have it in front of me and I just hit the buttons and it was a done deal. After about 10 times I didn't need the paper anymore.

 

So really what is the point? ED just kept developing state of the art sims, why would we complain about that? (The cockpit shadows eg are an absolute delight that you must experience, period.)

 

I still fly Su-25T, A-10A and A-10C during the same evening, I often make the same mission in both sims.

[Beagle One]

I still fly Su-25T, A-10A and A-10C during the same evening, I often make the same mission in both sims.

What I really dislike with DCS: BS and FC2.0 is that you have to quite it to fly another aircaft in the same engine...especially annoying in MP sessions.

When I heard of the DCS idea a few years ago I was hoping it would be like kind of FSX approach to integrate simply more addons aircraft into one programm...not having every aircraft in its own simulation programm and having them partially interoperable is a big letdown of the DCS idea.

[rattler]

What I really dislike with DCS: BS and FC2.0 is that you have to quite it to fly another aircaft in the same engine...especially annoying in MP sessions.

When I heard of the DCS idea a few years ago I was hoping it would be like kind of FSX approach to integrate simply more addons aircraft into one programm...not having every aircraft in its own simulation programm and having them partially interoperable is a big letdown of the DCS idea.

 

Good Point:music_whistling:.Times and ideas change.Hmm:doh:

[EtherealN]

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." :)

[manfrez01]

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." :)

 

Enlighten me, who is quoted "quotation marks"?:noexpression:

 

"The art of war is based on deception" (sun tsu 544 a.C-496 a. C).

[VincentLaw]

first result on google. I have also heard a saying "if everything goes according to plan, you are walking into a trap." but this is not the exact quote so I can't find where it came from. The second quote would not apply to ED's situation though.

 

One thing I am confused about is how everyone says the complexity of DCS is why they would prefer FC3. I have never tried it, but isn't it possible to game-mode-ify everything down to easy level with DCS? This should eliminate that problem and make it simply an issue of less planes for your dollar. Instead of getting one airplane that can scale from arcade to extreme realism, people want 5 airplanes that are moderately realistic.

[Laud]

The only thing, mission-makers would have to keep in mind, when building a FC X + DCS XY mission, is that the DCS guys would need a certain time to perform certain things (programming CMS/DSMS, Startup, working the CDU, etc.). In return a DCS A-10C would be so much more effective than a FC A-10A.

 

MP-Compatibility could be fun, as long as you have a fairly talented mission-builder.

 

But the guys that said "I don't want to read hundreds of pages thick manuals to get to flight and combat" do have a point. FC offers a fair choice of aircraft which you can get going with way less effort than a DCS aircraft demands. You can't compare the arcade-mode of DCS with FC!

[EtherealN]

Well Laud, thing is though that you don't need to read hundreds of pages to get flying and killing things. You don't have to learn the start sequence since the autostart key combo can do that for you, and the quikstart manual describes systems enough or you to get busy killing things. You wouldn't be using the plane to it's full potential, of course, but the full manual mainly covers things that would be simply N/A in an FC bird.

 

I think a lot of the worry some people might have bout getting stuck on a thick manual is a misunderstanding - I mean, you can get up there and kill stuff without ever reading a line in the manual about the CDU, for example. You don't have to know anyting more than the concepts of SOI and SPI, have your slew control, and know how to select weapons on DSMS and switch between CCIP and CCRP. Inded, I found that part easier to learn in DCS A10C than it was to learn them with the A-hog in FC2. (Mainly because so much of it is clear and visible and can be done with the mouse rather than arcane key combinations.)

[Moa]

But the guys that said "I don't want to read hundreds of pages thick manuals to get to flight and combat" do have a point.

 

Basically these turkeys want systems reduced to a button they can press and a target gets destroyed - and then call themselves virtual pilots. If you reduce their request down that's what it comes to. I'd suggest Wings of Prey or Air Conflicts : Secret Wars are excellent programmes that will suit their tastes.

 

TFC/ED have chosen a different course with DCS. They have decided to model the systems and battlefield within the limits of current computing power, development manpower, and economics of this niche (basically subsidising us hobbyists with base products paid for by military clients). Those within the niche are pretty much satistifed with their choices and development direction (although it may not always sound like it).

 

If ED wanted to make the most popular and possibly most commercially successful simulations then following your suggestion and dumbing things down so that you don't have to do much work to kill lots of stuff would meet the requirements of the people who can't be bothered mastering DCS. However, to me it seems the ED team and associates are driven by something else, the desire to make the best high-fidelity sims they can, even if that reduces the potential market. For that I and many others are truly grateful.

 

So you make a valid point for a company that wants to make the most money (eg EA, Ubisoft - who will shaft customers and their own dev teams alike). While ED seems well aware it needs to be profitable to survive (eg. not go the way of Microprose, Spectrum Holobyte etc) it is a good thing they make the high-fidelity sims they do (plus, as an earlier poster pointed out, they do have a 'game' mode in all DCS products that is actually easier to use than FC2).

[Laud]

What I meant is that the request for a parallel ongoing FC-Series developement, by those who don't want to dive into the whole thing as deep as others and who want the choice between multiple aircraft is plausible.

 

I personally like the "dive-deep into it" thing, but I can accept others, who prefer to keep on the surface. And when it comes to flying on the same server in the same mision: (dis-) advantages between DCS and FC aircraft are kinda balanced if not even with a little + on the DCS side.

[manfrez01]

If someday we see a virtual world with DCS and FC ,

well:music_whistling: if that happened... let the comunity judge that with IC.

I think is possiple hypothetically.

regards.

[rattler]

What I meant is that the request for a parallel ongoing FC-Series developement, by those who don't want to dive into the whole thing as deep as others and who want the choice between multiple aircraft is plausible.

 

I personally like the "dive-deep into it" thing, but I can accept others, who prefer to keep on the surface. And when it comes to flying on the same server in the same mision: (dis-) advantages between DCS and FC aircraft are kinda balanced if not even with a little + on the DCS side.

 

 

Yes, that is the idea. It is a small market,so why make it smaller with just DCS. Keeping two Series sims., means maintaining market share, making DCS only would seem to be making a small market even smaller. Not saying make one or the other, make both. Yes there is a niche for the DCS series and I am glad to see this type of simulation but there is also a niche for something inbetween an FC and DCS which would assure of at least maintaining the current market and who knows, maybe more, but for sure less with just DCS. This is not just my impression, as going DCS only will make ED/TFC market smaller than at present. I know some will say I am off my head to make suggest making 2 slightly different flight sims. It has been said that although you can play DCS with less than realistic features it is not the same as FC . Keep DCS as a highly complex sim. ONLY and have the FC + if you wish to call it, the second sim. offered by ED/TFC. Seems to make sense to me.IMHO.

 

rattler

[EtherealN]

Well rattler, but "making both" on a small team would delay the main focus, which is DCS, and/or cut deep into the military side. You are assuming that the increased market share would end up being an increased profit, but that is not necessarily true. If DCS is what's making a profit and FC isn't, then having a bigger market share through FC is pretty much irrelevant.

 

The kind of numbers required to say anything about what is the good thing to do from a market perspective is numbers none of us here have access to, me included, and even if I had access to them they're probably trade secrets anyhow.

 

That said: IF your assumption is true and the increased market share is both real and would translate into more profits and better margins, then sure, I'm all for it. :)

[Laud]

That said: IF your assumption is true and the increased market share is both real and would translate into more profits and better margins, then sure, I'm all for it. :)

 

Well said!

[RotoFly]

dsc a10c + dsc black shark 2 + LockOn Flaming Cliffs 3 compatibility:pilotfly:

 

there's very :thumbup: ED

Edited November 12, 2011 by S125

[KillarZ]

I think this what you guys were talking about above but I think that DCS is taking long enough to drop new modules as it is but I do like fc and would still love a fc3. I think that the best way to maintain production and satisfy everybody is to make DCS and it should have the standard DCS complex mode, an arcade mode, and a mode in between that ressembles the complexity of Flaming cliffs. This would satisfy everybody I beleive. The only problem I can think of is that servers would be seperated a lot and the host would have to choose what difficulty everyone has to play on to be on his server otherwise it might be slightly unfair. Of course I could be talkin out of my but and may not be understanding the problems to this but if this can be done with little problems than I think it should be.