Will you buy FC3

[GGTharos]

FC3 really has to be more than just FC2 brought into latest DCS world

 

You know, it's funny that people keep saying this. FC2 was not just FC1 brought into the DCS world. I keenly recall working pretty hard with Yoda and Yo-Yo to get whatever we could out of missiles and flight models, and Yoda and Saint did a lot of work on the LUA interface as well.

 

the FM have to be brought to Su-25T level

 

Forget it. It takes a man-year to do such a thing.

 

missiles the most.

 

What do you want from missiles? I ask because everyone wants something different, and most people don't really know what it is they want. A lot of stuff that affects missiles is actually aircraft avionics as well.

 

There's plenty of room for improvement, but what gets done first and when isn't up to us.

 

this together with graphics engine brought to current DCS world will be more than worth paying for full game cost... to me at least

 

There's a lot more you can get out of the DCS world than just graphics etc. The ME improves with every iteration, for example. There are some other significant things which 'just being in the DCS world' brings to the table as well.

When the FC1 addon was created, and then the FC2 one, a lot of adjustments were made to the existing stable of aircraft. Just because you can't see them easily doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't time consuming.

 

I get that the perspective of a player is different, and that's fine; if you decide not to buy FC3 that's all good and dandy. Some people might only buy one DCS module and nothing else, too ... they might switch to another sim. People's tastes and perspectives change, and that's all there is to it.

 

As for the notion that FC3 won't be worth the money, just as a statement of its own ... hogwash. A lot of work has gone into making this happen with each iteration so far, so at the very least on the principle of time=money, it will be worth the money.

[Kuky]

If it takes a year to do aircraft with AFM ala Su-25T then so be it... at least it will be worth it... as for what I want out of missiles... simple... I want them to work as they shoud so that when I shoot that SARH missile and keep lock all the time and aspect to the target is good it doesn't just loose lock shortly after it left the rail... and more importantly when it does track all the way to target and I see an explosion it actually takes the target out... it doesn't have to blow it up straight away but it should damage it enough so it can't fight any more at least and more often damage it enough so it goes down in flames.

 

I've lost all interest in FC because after having taste of AFM and propper avionics and weapons management in DCS I can't call it a sim any more... and we all know fast jet won't be out for good few years at least (my money is on that) so unless FC3 gets these improvements for me it wont be worth it even if its for free because if how you fly and fight does not change it'll be like FC2 with better graphics.

 

ME doesn't do much if when you fly in the mission you came accorss deficiencies of FM and avionics and weapons... also when you fly MP and fly against real people that's better than any mission script as it's as fluid and diverse as can get... no AI and scripting can ever match this.

 

Anyway, this is how I feel, I said before I will most likely get FC3 but my hopes that FC3 will be much improved over FC2 are not high as I don't expect ED will to take time to make a modern combat sim like FC3 to higher standard with all flyables with AFM and closer to reality weapons systems

[EtherealN]

If it takes a year to do aircraft with AFM ala Su-25T then so be it... at least it will be worth it...

 

1 year times how many aircraft equals how many years they are delaying DCS: Next? ;)

 

There are many things that can be improved without switching flight model. But to be honest I find it a bit weird to ask "will you buy" until the feature list is known. That's like asking "will you buy the next iPhone"? Would be silly to say "yes" since nothing is known about it, and equally silly to say "no".

 

If the question was "which features do you want in FC3" then it would make a bit more sense - that's a question that we can work with. :)

 

And of course, we also need to consider what our wishlist items mean. For example, AFM for all aircraft would most likely mean we can kiss a low price goodbye. Would you pay 20-30 dollars for something that has SFM but with improvements - or 100-150 dollars for a stable of AFM aircraft? (Dollar figures taken out of my rear end just for point-making purposes.) That's not an easy question. Me personally, I'd love AFM enough to actually pay the higher price - even if as high as 150. But how many others would?

[sobek]

But how many others would?

 

Not only that, it would also completely exclude the game from being sold in conventional retail.

Edited April 25, 2012 by sobek

[Kuky]

There are so many poles, might as well make a new one.... how many would pay high price to have AFM for all flyables? :)

 

You get what you pay for. I'd rather have good stuff bit more expensive than cheap(er) not so good. We pay thousands of (insert your currency) for PC's and flight gear... to have good sim we can play for years is worth also. AFM with better weapons systems and possibly 3D pits (they don't have to be fully clickable - basic stuff would do) would set clear benchmark for FC3 that would be really close to DCS standard and would fill the need of so many to have fast modern jets with close to DCS standard.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Kuky

[EtherealN]

Sure, but remember the time it takes to make each model?

 

What you are basically asking for ends up being to replace DCS development entirely with spending the next couple years doing nothing but working on a low-fi survey sim that'll cost a LOT but won't have DCS quality avionics...

 

Basically, your idea replaces DCS. I'm not okey with that, personally. :P

[GGTharos]

If it takes a year to do aircraft with AFM ala Su-25T then so be it... at least it will be worth it...

 

No, it won't be. Do you really want to wait 4 years for the next FC release (with work being done on FC only no less)? I don't think ED does, and I wouldn't blame them.

Sorry, I don't think you really thought this one through. AFM is the domain of DCS modules.

 

as for what I want out of missiles... simple...

 

But it isn't.

 

I want them to work as they shoud so that when I shoot that SARH missile and keep lock all the time and aspect to the target is good it doesn't just loose lock shortly after it left the rail... and more importantly when it does track all the way to target and I see an explosion it actually takes the target out... it doesn't have to blow it up straight away but it should damage it enough so it can't fight any more at least and more often damage it enough so it goes down in flames.

 

There is always room for improvement with missiles (And other things). Having said that, I'll also point out to you the following:

 

Moa posted a statistical analysis of missile useage over thousands of shots and shoot-downs. The statistics agreed reasonably with the ones for the real world in terms of hit/miss ratios. These numbers are blind to causes, ie. while in RL a missile may fail you because the battery failed, or the TWT fried, or a fin broke off, in the game they are a bit more susceptible to countermeasures and things like lag.

The reasons for them missing don't matter as much as long as they force similar tactics to be used as in RL and the numbers more or less match up. The former is okay-ish, the latter works out as well, so you don't have much to complain about here IMHO (but again, that's not to say that more could be done with missiles - just not along the lines that you're thinking probably).

Regarding missiles not killing aircraft: That's fine as well. There's no guarantee that a near hit will kill your target, even in RL.

 

I've lost all interest in FC because after having taste of AFM and propper avionics and weapons management in DCS I can't call it a sim any more... and we all know fast jet won't be out for good few years at least (my money is on that) so unless FC3 gets these improvements for me it wont be worth it even if its for free because if how you fly and fight does not change it'll be like FC2 with better graphics.

 

That's fine, it's all up to your tastes. I'm not arguing you should buy it if it doesn't float your boat, I just think some of the things you're saying are misconceptions.

 

ME doesn't do much if when you fly in the mission you came accorss deficiencies of FM and avionics and weapons... also when you fly MP and fly against real people that's better than any mission script as it's as fluid and diverse as can get... no AI and scripting can ever match this.

 

That's certainly untrue. The ME is what puts you into interesting situations, and the new ME allows you to do more. It might not float your boat, but there's a significant demand for COOP.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'FM deficiencies' ... what's the FM problem you're running into when in a BVR fight? How about BFM? The answer is, besides very slow maneuvering characteristics in BFM, none. You just don't get AFM wiggle and jiggle and stall characteristics. Yes, AFM would introduce some more stuff, but the general flying would be very similar.

 

 

Anyway, this is how I feel, I said before I will most likely get FC3 but my hopes that FC3 will be much improved over FC2 are not high as I don't expect ED will to take time to make a modern combat sim like FC3 to higher standard with all flyables with AFM and closer to reality weapons systems

 

I wouldn't expect AFM in FC aircraft. AFM is the domain of DCS. As for weapon systems, we'll see. Don't expect more realistic = more kills, better tracking missiles or BMS missiles.

[HiJack]

There's no guarantee that a near hit will kill your target, even in RL.

I think that is great! Then RIP can evade my friendly fire launches :P

[RIPTIDE]

I think that is great! Then RIP can evade my friendly fire launches :P

I miss making you dance in yer Ghey Ten Ghey (A-10A). :megalol:

[Sanch0]

Nope, nor any other till ED makes up it's mind which way to go. Early or Modern. From everthing we hear they do not have many resources so it will take a long time to see results of these Projects and for myself only by the way, waiting is a waste of my time. Don't have much left to wait years to see something. If this should change then I may be back again.:dunno:

I feel the same. In the upcoming months (years?) ED is going to release sveral titles but the most awaited product is still hidden. Refurbished FC isn't interesting for me (maybe I'm wrong). P-51D ->

[Grimes]

 

FC3 really has to be more than just FC2 brought into latest DCS world, even if there are just few more additions and fixes to graphics etc...

 

 

You know, it's funny that people keep saying this. FC2 was not just FC1 brought into the DCS world. I keenly recall working pretty hard with Yoda and Yo-Yo to get whatever we could out of missiles and flight models, and Yoda and Saint did a lot of work on the LUA interface as well.

 

 

I think it keeps getting brought up is due to how we quantify new features that are part of basically the same sim environment. If you look outside of the FC aircraft, its not that easy to see what changed in the sim from BS1 to FC2. Addressing the lua interface is great and all, but the very few in the community would make use of the changes. The tweaks to the FM and missiles on the other hand was noticeable and appreciated, and one could hope additional tweaks are planned for FC3. But really I think people want to see some additions thats more than just a fresh coat of paint or something that wasn't in the last DCS release. Since most of the FC aircraft are all the same flight model with different numbers plugged in... why can't more flyable aircraft be included? Even if you make a simple cockpit for the things, you'd be surprised at how people might gravitate to flying a wide range of different aircraft. To me having something new to fly would be a MAJOR selling point.

 

 

What do you want from missiles? I ask because everyone wants something different, and most people don't really know what it is they want. A lot of stuff that affects missiles is actually aircraft avionics as well

 

Can't comment on missile performance since I haven't played FC2 in a while, but there were a few key things that I think could be addressed.

 

1. I understand the change in jammer functionality to counter act "blinking", however the warmup time as I understand it is abit on the unrealistic side of things. Perhaps the act of blinking could just cause the jammer to fail and be ineffective? Perhaps the jammer must stay on for x time before it can be safely deactivated and if its turned off before then it gets an effectiveness penalty, eventually disabling it completely.

 

2. The missile spamming could potentially be passive aggressively addressed by the use of the "warehouse" system that has been hinted to be included in FC3. However "death spamming" would likely still exist, perhaps a solution could be implementing a weapons system failure preventing a player from launching weapons after a certain damage level. Note the player could 'jettison' but not 'fire'.

 

3. I am really curious how the changes in radios in DCS will impact FC3. As it stands on "easy radios" you are tuned to every channel, thus any mission featuring AI would be INCREDIBLY annoying. Which is an issue because AI are more viable now by the virtue that you can hear them and some of the changes made with A-10C. Not to mention how FC3 would interface with TARS.

 

That's certainly untrue. The ME is what puts you into interesting situations, and the new ME allows you to do more. It might not float your boat, but there's a significant demand for COOP.

 

That depends on how we use it. For whatever reason alot of the MP missions made for FC2 were not that different from FC1. A few missions did do some interesting things, but experimenting greatly from the status quo of FC1 never really caught on that much. I do agree the greatest potential with the editor is that of co-ops, however the air combat AI has plenty of room for improvement to make that enjoyable for those who prefer PvP.

[EtherealN]

Since most of the FC aircraft are all the same flight model with different numbers plugged in...

 

"Different numbers plugged in" is not a small thing.

 

That depends on how we use it. For whatever reason alot of the MP missions made for FC2 were not that different from FC1.

 

I cried blood at a lot of the missions made for MP by FC2 server operators. There was a lot of them that was just plain stupid. But this is linked to the "Airquake" problem. No amount of ME changes will make an airquake server stop being airquake. And if you want airquake, sorry, there is HAWX. Harsh, but some of what I saw made me border to tears. Things like separating A2A and A2G in the same mission and other things that make zero sense - and then people complain about how missions didn't proceed...

 

It's like someone gave you a an afterburning jet engine but you just strapped it to a Cub and was surprised it didn't go supersonic... :P

 

But, again, I'd suggest people wait until features are announced before making judgements. I don't know when they'll be announced (they have to be "in iron" first, obviously), but before that has transpired this just strikes me as silly.

 

EDIT: Just to be clear - in no part of this do I specifically target you, Grimes, I'm just giving a general comment.

[Case]

Moa posted a statistical analysis of missile useage over thousands of shots and shoot-downs.

Really? Got a link? :music_whistling:

[EtherealN]

lol... :D

[Speed]

The reasons for them missing don't matter as much as long as they force similar tactics to be used as in RL and the numbers more or less match up. The former is okay-ish, the latter works out as well, so you don't have much to complain about here IMHO (but again, that's not to say that more could be done with missiles - just not along the lines that you're thinking probably).

 

Well, just because the overall statistics match up doesn't mean it's OK- say someone finds a sure fire, near-100% way to trick missiles in some part of their flight regime that would never work in real life. Say 2 in 10 people use this exploit. The other 8 out of 10 folks suck or use more realistic tactics. Your overall missiles fired to kills ratio might still match up to reality, but competitive play is badly broken.

 

Not saying that this represents reality, I'm just saying you can't use statistics alone, and pointing out what seems like a flaw in your thinking. Missile performance needs to be realistic for the game to be realistic and not some degree of "broken". Implement random missile failures if that's what it takes to be realistic, but don't make the missiles unrealistically susceptible to some kind of evasion tactic to compensate for some lack in another area.

 

Maybe it's already been asked, but does anyone have any idea if ED will/might provide a stand-alone FC3 install? Or are they contractually prohibited from this?

Edited April 25, 2012 by Speed

[GGTharos]

I'm just saying you can't use statistics alone, and pointing out what seems like a flaw in your thinking

 

Now read the rest of what I wrote (it's in the same sentence) and point out the flaw in yours ;)

[rattler]

Would ED/TFC be interested in 3rd party input? Sure would free up resources. i know it is not just that simple but the plan is sound, re- FSX/x-Plane. Those Companies are out there now doing work for other Flight Sims.. What would happen if DCS or even FC3 were aloud in the mix of Current Flight Sims.? This is just a question, I have no idea if this would be possible or realistic for ED/TFC. I just know it does work, if done right. Too be perfectly clear, not referring to Community Mods but actual Companies who's lively hood rest on producing either new aircraft, scenery, terrain, weather, etc, etc.

[GGTharos]

I think that for the moment, the best thing to do is look at what's coming (ie. the latest roadmap provided by ED) and see what that looks/feels like to you.

 

I'm sure things will get a lot more clear in the future.

 

Would ED/TFC be interested in 3rd party input? Sure would free up resources. i know it is not just that simple but the plan is sound, re- FSX/x-Plane.

[EtherealN]

Would ED/TFC be interested in 3rd party input?

 

From the FAQ:

 

Q: How is the P-51 supposed to fit into DCS? This makes no sense to me.

A: DCS is an open simulation environment, not confined to any one era, level of fidelity, or 1st party development. In the future ED and 3rd parties may add all sorts of different units ranging from gliders to X-51s.

 

;)

[aap_flanker]

From the FAQ:

 

Q: How is the P-51 supposed to fit into DCS? This makes no sense to me.

A: DCS is an open simulation environment, not confined to any one era, level of fidelity, or 1st party development. In the future ED and 3rd parties may add all sorts of different units ranging from gliders to X-51s.

 

;)

 

 

 

:thumbup::pilotfly::joystick:

[Sanch0]

Moa posted a statistical analysis of missile useage over thousands of shots and shoot-downs. The statistics agreed reasonably with the ones for the real world in terms of hit/miss ratios.

Negative. Case did it ;)

[GGTharos]

Ah, that's right, it was indeed Case.

[Krebs20]

Can I get a link to that post. Sounds interesting.

[SESova]

The problem is that games are not done for the military air force lovers.

 

Producers doing games for the "gamers".The people who playing games for fun.Thay play it for some time,and than chose some other game.That is 50% castumers of all games.Thay want instant fun.If producer do high % of realism and thay have to spend few months to learn how to fly,thay want by that kind of game.

 

Next 50% players is consisted of 5% true military airfoce lovers who bying games like this and want high % of realism,and 45% others why more-les like military air foce and play for some time,using pirates versions,and interested for finding bugs in the game,to use them to become aces of the sky.

 

With so small market,and such small comunity,we maby never get the combat flight simulation with high % of realism.We can only hoppe that some important parts of the game will be done good,and we can focus on it to create some kine realistic environment.

Said,but true.

[GGTharos]

What about A-10C?

 

The real deal that you picked up on correctly is this: A lot of people are not interested in realistic complications inherent to aircraft and air warfare.

 

However, without these people you would also not have high fidelity sims like DCS - in other words, the (presumably) larger number of sales from something like FC help pave the way for more advanced flight sims. That isn't to say that DCS modules are expected to be non-profitable ... it just means that producing high fidelity aircraft alone might not be the best way to keep a company healthy in the simulation business.

 

It's better to reach out to a wider audience. As you can see, ED is trying to appeal both to the casual flight simmer, and the hard-core flight simmer. I think they're doing ok so far. It just takes time.

 

With so small market,and such small comunity,we maby never get the combat flight simulation with high % of realism.