Flaming Cliffs 3

[RIPTIDE]

I've been thinking about this "DCS Legend". I've just realised that if they had this all incorporated into FC3.0 or whatever, it might not be a bad idea: At least now if that happened, the MiG-29 gets a worthy opponent.

[FLANKERATOR]

I don't know but the "DSC legend" might be related to TFC as I know they have a wide collection of WW2 planes, maybe ED is making a sim for TFC and planing to release its public version as well...just a wild guess though...anyways am eager to put my hands on FC3..and the MiG-29 :)

[BKLronin]

related to TFC

 

Wags himself mentioned that link in the DCS:legends wishlist thread. SO we can find all candidates on the TFC page.

[Asp]

P-51 and other Warbirds to current DCS standards. Thank you.

I hope you do go down the Warbird road as well as continuing modern combat hardware sims.

[Laud]

Wooha - The next LOCERF will be a huge fun!

 

And these days we have way more hog-pilots since back then.

[BKLronin]

related to TFC

 

Wags himself mentioned that link in the DCS:legends wishlist thread. SO we can find all candidates on the TFC page.

[wasserfall]

This is a great start in the right direction and here is hoping ED will be able to continue in this direction. This is the news we have been asking for all along and glad to see ED come out with this statement. I know sometimes we give ED a hard time in the forum at times but the occasional statement from the Company is always appreciated and lays a nice foundation for us as consumers to look upon and hope they can meet their goals. Maybe every half year a statement such as this would go a long way in settling down threads that appear at times. Thank you very much ED for this informative communication and hope all goals can be meet over time. Cheers.

 

rattler

 

Nicely said!!!

 

+1

[104th_Crunch]

O jeez im a bit worried here.... FC3 compatible with BS2 and A10? So arcade boats against sim boats.. i dont understand :(.

 

Not a worry. You can design a mission any way you want. Also, BS2 and A10C are not really fighter, player vs player aircraft are they? So, it does not matter much.

 

BS has been in FC for a while now and there no problems from the BS being more complex. Now, if you put a Su-27 from FC against a DCS:F-18, then we may have a problem.

[Jona33]

.

BS has been in FC for a while now and there no problems from the BS being more complex. Now, if you put a Su-27 from FC against a DCS:F-18, then we may have a problem.

 

Yep, that Su-27 doesn't stand much of a chance (kind of exaggerating but I'm making a point) against an aircraft that has a far more complex radar that can actually be used. This should mean a big boost in MP though. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY.

[Ells228]

This is a great start in the right direction and here is hoping ED will be able to continue in this direction. This is the news we have been asking for all along and glad to see ED come out with this statement. I know sometimes we give ED a hard time in the forum at times but the occasional statement from the Company is always appreciated and lays a nice foundation for us as consumers to look upon and hope they can meet their goals. Maybe every half year a statement such as this would go a long way in settling down threads that appear at times. Thank you very much ED for this informative communication and hope all goals can be meet over time. Cheers.

 

rattler

 

Well said Pete :)

[Dejjvid]

Yes, but DCS: Fighter is probably released in a year or so.

I hope you can remove FC3 compability when you host.

It ruins the gameplay in BS, it will ruin it even more if you're in a A-10C.

You don't stand a chance vs. the poorly modeled noob planes in FC3. And from my experience, the community who fly FC3 seem to be around the same age as the MW2 community.... But i guess that's what you get when you can dogfight with mouse and keyboard...

 

But i will buy it anyway, but only fly FC3 vs. FC3.

[GGTharos]

A DCS plane can easily out-avionic an FC plane. Easily. The countermeasures, jamming and radar systems can give them an advantage, not to mention other things.

 

If you don't stand a chance against the 'poorly modeled n00b planes' in FC2 when flying your Ka-50, maybe you should consider not flying where they fly since you're - you know - nothing but a big fat target for /any/ fighter out there, be it FC /or/ DCS? I guarantee that a DCS teen series fighter would pop your Ka-50 even more easily, since I'd expect them to properly model the rotor doppler return ... which means they'd see you from 40nm away and you'd get nothing.

Edited November 14, 2011 by GGTharos

[tflash]

Yes, but DCS: Fighter is probably released in a year or so.

I hope you can remove FC3 compability when you host.

It ruins the gameplay in BS, it will ruin it even more if you're in a A-10C.

You don't stand a chance vs. the poorly modeled noob planes in FC3. And from my experience, the community who fly FC3 seem to be around the same age as the MW2 community.... But i guess that's what you get when you can dogfight with mouse and keyboard...

 

But i will buy it anyway, but only fly FC3 vs. FC3.

 

"from my experience, the community who fly FC3 seem to be around the same age as the MW2 community"

 

Where did you get that wisdom, specially since FC3 isn't available yet, so I'm not sure there is a community flying it, let alone that you would have enjoyed any experience with it?

 

To give you a guesstimate about that FC3 community: I personally belong to the FC2 community, and I am aged 51. :D

 

But then again some of my friends do play MW2 also!

[RIPTIDE]

Yes, but DCS: Fighter is probably released in a year or so.

I hope you can remove FC3 compability when you host.

It ruins the gameplay in BS, it will ruin it even more if you're in a A-10C.

You don't stand a chance vs. the poorly modeled noob planes in FC3. And from my experience, the community who fly FC3 seem to be around the same age as the MW2 community.... But i guess that's what you get when you can dogfight with mouse and keyboard...

 

But i will buy it anyway, but only fly FC3 vs. FC3.

Sour grapes much?

[VVanks]

I don't care much about the in cockpit buttons because it's stupid (I have a keyboard that can "simulate" clicking buttons)

 

I really only care about the fly dynamics and whether or not they can put in a better flight simulation.

[aaron886]

Sour grapes much?

 

Actually I totally agree... a feature to enable/disable connections from each specific module would be an excellent solution!

[Nate--IRL--]

Actually I totally agree... a feature to enable/disable connections from each specific module would be an excellent solution!

 

You mean like not including the aircraft in the mission?

 

Nate

[104th_Cobra]

:devil_2:

 

It seems we will get a rat-tat-tat-tat DCS Eggs Beater simulation!

[Laud]

You mean like not including the aircraft in the mission?

 

Nate

 

Simple as that...

[Laud]

I don't care much about the in cockpit buttons because it's stupid (I have a keyboard that can "simulate" clicking buttons)

 

I really only care about the fly dynamics and whether or not they can put in a better flight simulation.

 

It's not about klicking the button - it's about the features they control in DCS that are not available in FC"X". Clicking is kinda "hand-candy". Just to clarify that...

 

:smartass:

[RIPTIDE]

Actually I totally agree... a feature to enable/disable connections from each specific module would be an excellent solution!

Mission designer. :)

[Teknetinium]

Actually I totally agree... a feature to enable/disable connections from each specific module would be an excellent solution!

 

If you making a mission u have a choice of witch aircraft will be flyable, Was same in FC1,FC2 and will be in FC3 :) FC2 community has some meet on their legs since they have been through the hole story of Lock On, FC2 and DCS. Thx for the ride ED.

 

The one who makes the mission can chose to have only Ka-50s if he please.

Like GG is saying it would not effect A-10 and Ka-50 pilots at all since you would get shot down even easier whit all systems working on a fighter. Actually it make the A-10 and Ka-50 environment more dynamic to fly in witch should be welcomed.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Teknetinium

[shagrat]

You mean like not including the aircraft in the mission?

 

Nate

 

...I think Nate stated the obvious here: The mission designer decides what planes he puts as "client". So if I don't want any kiddies going A-10 hunting in their F-16 (blue-on-blue) or SU-27 (what the red forces would do in real life) just don't make them playable, right?

 

I guess more important is the community you know / or the people you play with. At the moment I'm playing a lot with a friend of mine, who learns the A-10C.

I can imagine him or others who don't have the time to dive deep into a DCS module, to enjoy playing a coop mission where they can provide CAP or SEAD (please!!!) to the A-10C or KA-50 players. :thumbup:

 

What do you guys think? Opportunity or drawback?

[Moa]

> So if I don't want any kiddies going A-10 hunting in their F-16 (blue-on-blue) or SU-27 (what the red forces would do in real life) just don't make them playable, right?

 

True. The problem is that the game engine can't handle all the units that would be in theatre at once. So instead of having several squadrons flying about defending the Ka-50s or A-10Cs and dynamically reacting (scrambling) to the situation instead we get a few fighters on each side and a few attack aircraft. What that means is that quite often the strikers are operating without air cover (totally unrealistic, but what can one do?).

 

So, it is a limitation of our host machines and the finite time of missions designers to create triggers for all scenarios and numbers of players makes this very hard to get right.

 

Basically, there are usually not enough (or any) fighters to provide realistic air cover for the attackers - and in a full-blown war enemy fighters would struggle to get close to an attacker without being intercepted first (until air dominance is achieved). This makes flying an attacker quite sucky, so the general result is missions get contrived where the attack aircraft are geographically totally away from the fighters. So people avoid taking attack aircraft once fighters are about (especially once they get shot down a few times by fighters that avoid other fighters and lurk about waiting for strikers to arrive at the front after a slow 30 minute flight) :(

Edited November 14, 2011 by Moa

[GGTharos]

The strikers could also do a little better than just fly fat dumb and happy into enemy fighters while shouting 'there's a mig there, where's my fighter cover!'.

 

Strikers, learn air to air combat. You're in the air. You're a target. Learn how to make yourself less yummy, or better yet, not findable.