sobek Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Assuming the truth of FC-3, I wonder if ED would transplant the DCS A-10C FM into the 'A. Most certainly not. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
159th_Viper Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Assuming the truth of FC-3, I wonder if ED would transplant the DCS A-10C FM into the 'A. No and most definitely no. :gun_sniper: Aaargghhhh........ Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career? Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] '....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell.... One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'
marc15yo Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I would pay a lot of cash for flaming cliffs 3 you know with the new engine etc oh and better mod compatibility like tools to make our own content to add our own aircraft (with cockpit). I'd even pay 100 bucks If I had to.
Lixma 06 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Hell's Bells, that was quick! Okay then....why not? The rapidity of your replies suggest there's something obvious i'm missing.
sobek Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) Okay then....why not? The rapidity of your replies suggest there's something obvious i'm missing. Because it's not something you simply bolt on. It requires significant investment of workforce for an end result that would doubtfully justify the expense through increased sales volumes. Think of converting a Lada to use a modern F1 chassis. Aside from being a PITA, you'd end up with a chassis that is completely unusable for the general purpose of the car. Just because the intricacies are not obvious to you doesn't mean they are not ridonculous. ;) Edited June 20, 2011 by sobek Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
rattler Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Just make a NEW FC3. Like someone said, if it cost $100 it would sell. I'm with him. DCS is a great idea but takes way too much time to build new Modules when you stop and think of all the resources used to fix bugs. More Modules of this type, more problems to fix. A new FC3 to todays standards would be welcome at least by me and obviously by some others. Like someone said(no name),the only difference is the amount of buttons to push. Maybe one should read the F4AF and FF5 forums and see how many just start on the runway....:D
FLANKERATOR Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 the only difference is the amount of buttons to push. Maybe one should read the F4AF and FF5 forums and see how many just start on the runway....:D The difference is definitely NOT a matter of more buttons only. It's a new generation of Flight Sims much more advanced than FC. Still I agree with you that despite all the advanced features, the essence of the job stills fundamentally the same. GG described it well: Aviate Communicate Navigate Scan Detect Designate Launch Evade Situational Awareness: https://sa-sim.com/ | The Air Combat Dojo: https://discord.gg/Rz77eFj
Krippz Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Indeed Cali, was referring to the dissimilar aircraft dimension as well when I mentioned "air to air" in FC. This wont be possible in DCS until we get at least 2 fast mover modules. Why do you need two fast mover modules for effective PVP (errrrr air-quake)? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22
Svend_Dellepude Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Keep us informed of your progress, Sven! ;) DCS manuals should be no problem for you! Sure thing man! ;) i've been through the manual a couple of times now but that was easy compared to this thread. The manual seems more consistent in it's subject. I had a really hard time trying to find my focuspoint here, so in the end.. Well.. :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Win10 64, Asus Maximus VIII Formula, i5 6600K, Geforce 980 GTX Ti, 32 GB Ram, Samsung EVO SSD.
Frostie Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Think of converting a Lada to use a modern F1 chassis. Aside from being a PITA, you'd end up with a chassis that is completely unusable for the general purpose of the car. Just because the intricacies are not obvious to you doesn't mean they are not ridonculous. ;) That's one way of looking at it but another which you've missed is fitting a Lada with an F1 engine, balls out fun in my book and definately on the to do list. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
FLANKERATOR Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Why do you need two fast mover modules for effective PVP (errrrr air-quake)? To answer your question I would say many do have their preferred fighter jet, some love the F-15, some other the Sukhois, some the Mig-29, some famous squadrons have even their dedicated aircraft...great immersion and game-play is provided by such rivalries and it's one of the best features FC has. What you call air-quake I call it Fighter Sweep missions, but yeah it depends on how you see things (errrrr on how you are flying). Situational Awareness: https://sa-sim.com/ | The Air Combat Dojo: https://discord.gg/Rz77eFj
rattler Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 The difference is definitely NOT a matter of more buttons only. It's a new generation of Flight Sims much more advanced than FC. Still I agree with you that despite all the advanced features, the essence of the job stills fundamentally the same. GG described it well: Aviate Communicate Navigate Scan Detect Designate Launch Evade Yes indeed. I just wonder if the DCS Modules are a bit of overkill. This is the area I have difficulty. Is it really necessary to have the level of DCS. I personally think we could come somewhat short on that and make a sim. more fun and still maintain a level of decent accuracy. Put some of the bells and whistles in other needed spots. Let's face it. We all get older and some of us have been flying a long time. If we wait for a DCS module for fast movers, we may be out of the game by the time it comes out. I think a New FC3 with less bells and whistles for the aircraft and applied elsewhere would shorten the time and still produce an aircraft with decent accuracy. I don't dispute that DCS is in a class by itself, it surely is but do we really need it to be, that is the question. Some will say yes but maybe you might be surprised on how many may say, not to that high degree. Just my thoughts.:thumbup:
104th_Crunch Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Yes indeed. I just wonder if the DCS Modules are a bit of overkill. This is the area I have difficulty. Is it really necessary to have the level of DCS. I personally think we could come somewhat short on that and make a sim. more fun and still maintain a level of decent accuracy. Put some of the bells and whistles in other needed spots. Let's face it. We all get older and some of us have been flying a long time. If we wait for a DCS module for fast movers, we may be out of the game by the time it comes out. I think a New FC3 with less bells and whistles for the aircraft and applied elsewhere would shorten the time and still produce an aircraft with decent accuracy. I don't dispute that DCS is in a class by itself, it surely is but do we really need it to be, that is the question. Some will say yes but maybe you might be surprised on how many may say, not to that high degree. Just my thoughts.:thumbup: We all have our personal preferences. For sure though there are those that want and enjoy the level of detail in DCS. I agree the wait for DCS fighter is tough :) FC3 could delay it even more. What ever ED decides, I am sure it will be top notch.
Cali Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Why do you need two fast mover modules for effective PVP (errrrr air-quake)? It's not fun fighting the same aircraft, each aircraft has it's strenghts and weaknesses. Learning how to use them and exploit the other is the fun part, that is what makes you good. Not flying, launching active missiles and turning away, hoping the missile hits the guy. Even using Semi-active missile vs a active is a challenge and takes a lot of skill. I hate seeing F-15's on both sides in missions or not seeing the Russian carrier. So is there a change called errrr ground-quake? i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED
sobek Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 That's one way of looking at it but another which you've missed is fitting a Lada with an F1 engine, balls out fun in my book and definately on the to do list. Oh rly? Apart from, again, having the pita of fitting it, it will die on you after one weekend. Lots of fun. :D Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
Krippz Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 It's not fun fighting the same aircraft, each aircraft has it's strenghts and weaknesses. Learning how to use them and exploit the other is the fun part, that is what makes you good. Not flying, launching active missiles and turning away, hoping the missile hits the guy. Even using Semi-active missile vs a active is a challenge and takes a lot of skill. I hate seeing F-15's on both sides in missions or not seeing the Russian carrier. So is there a change called errrr ground-quake? I get what your saying but "fun" is a very subjective word. For years I personally enjoyed BVR and WVR engagements in Falcon; F-16 vs. F-16 and had a blast, but to each his own. Personally I view being able to defeat an enemy that is of equal parity in performance requires more skill. But I hear you, I can see how Blue v Blue can become stale; but I rather DCS: X before FC3. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22
Cali Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Like you said to each his own. We will have whatever ED decides to do either DCS or FC3. Either way it doesn't matter if we like it or not...we'll have to deal with it. i7-4820k @ 3.7, Windows 7 64-bit, 16GB 1866mhz EVGA GTX 970 2GB, 256GB SSD, 500GB WD, TM Warthog, TM Cougar MFD's, Saitek Combat Pedals, TrackIR 5, G15 keyboard, 55" 4K LED
rattler Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Like you said to each his own. We will have whatever ED decides to do either DCS or FC3. Either way it doesn't matter if we like it or not...we'll have to deal with it. This is very TRUE. ED will decide. Let's just hope that a small amount of customer related information from this forum also has some small weight in the final decision. That would be nice.:)
RIPTIDE Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Like you said to each his own. We will have whatever ED decides to do either DCS or FC3. Either way it doesn't matter if we like it or not...we'll have to deal with it. 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. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
FLANKERATOR Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 The multilayer 'scene' is the best indirect advertising available to ED that money just couldn't buy. This is a killer statement, can't agree more :thumbup: Situational Awareness: https://sa-sim.com/ | The Air Combat Dojo: https://discord.gg/Rz77eFj
Pyroflash Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 gotta convince those "Hardcore" DCS players that relaxing in FC2 every now and again can be a good thing. If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
FLANKERATOR Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 gotta convince those "Hardcore" DCS players that relaxing in FC2 every now and again can be a good thing. I can't remember myself flying relaxed in FC2, especially with Eagles in the area :joystick: Situational Awareness: https://sa-sim.com/ | The Air Combat Dojo: https://discord.gg/Rz77eFj
Krippz Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 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. Still a bit of conjecture with respect to what would be the more profitable route for them to take. Not just profitability but how much the whole software development process would cost compared to generated revenue (Implementation, verification, maintenance can be expensive). I guess the bigger question is when do you decide to stop maintaining Flaming Cliffs? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 64th "Scorpions" Aggressor Squadron Discord: 64th Aggressor Squadron TS: 195.201.110.22
wasserfall Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 [quote I guess the bigger question is when do you decide to stop maintaining Flaming Cliffs? Easy answer!! When we have 2 DCs fastmovers!!! Ed made FC2 compatible with DCS Ka50 which is a hardcore sim, but i see no point why DCS A10 should not be made compatible with both!! I have been around for ages starting with the old Flanker series until DCS A10., but i still like to fly FC2 and Ka50. resuming: keep it compatible until we have DCS F16, 18, Flanker or what ever might be. Cheers, Wasserfall Intel Core i5-9600K, Gigabyte Z390 AORUS PRO, 16GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro, Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 WINDFORCE 8G
scorpion80 Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I guess the bigger question is when do you decide to stop maintaining Flaming Cliffs? Already done ;) [sIGPIC]https://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic62322_8.gif[/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts