DCS World and FC3

[Mugenjin]

Su-15? :D

 

YES, please 8)

[DiCE81]

SU-35 is in service, SU-37 is Development ceased. SU-27, SU-33 and SU-35 :joystick::pilotfly::thumbup:

[Capnsully]

Totally agree. Love the newer Su's! Although frankly, DCS and those shadows will make Anything look cool.

[aap_flanker]

Hinting, no. Personal wish for a Developer to concentrate on a Russian Fast-Mover, hell yeah!

 

:)

 

 

+1!!!

 

For those who disagree.... Just look at this photo and tell me that you dislike this silhouette!

 

 

[GGTharos]

I like it ... in my sights. :D

[Sceptre]

PLEASE improve the MiG-29 model!!! As that is my favourite plane!

 

And I am also curious if they will take out the A-10A because we have an A-10C with clickable switches.

 

OR.... maybe we can click a few switches in FC3??????? OMG this would be awesome.:P:joystick:

[Mustang]

A-10A is still featured in current DCSW, complete with a nice new 3d model :) it's likely to stay and feature in FC3.

[whitehot]

any chances the base su-25 would be the sm version? that would be awesome, those birds performed quite well against georgia in 2008 from what i read, better than the georgian ones for sure

[whitehot]

Su-15? :D

 

I'd like the su-9/11 more. Also a yak-28. And a fiddler. I'd give up anything for a fiddler.:helpsmilie:

[blkspade]

I am somewhat confused about how the lomac and beyond legal situation exists, or continuing to exist. I get that Ubi owns the name Lock ON, in reference to a flight simulation game and the "code". I say "code" as it seems to pertain to the assets, and not core engine. Not even all the assets, but the user interact-able ones. I don't believe Ubi has exclusive licencing to use the likenesses of these aircraft from their respective builders or governments (think EA's NFL exclusivity, which prevents any other Dev/PUB from making an NFL game). I don't even think they even being products of a government entity. Ubi doesn't own those planes, the tax payers do. :smilewink:

 

Now what makes up these "assets"? Graphic models, skins, code for the flight models (SFM). To give another example of assets from other games I'll use iD's Quake 3 Arena and OpenArena. iD chose to open source the Q3A engine, which is the rendering, user input, netcode and format for models and textures. That excludes the Assets which are the models and skins for Characters and Weapons, Maps (don't think one could license the reproduction of an actual country-side) and sounds. So OpenArea exist as a free alternative to Q3A, with from scratch Assets, that plays and feels like Q3A but looks different. Heck even at least one of the Maps closely mirrors one of the original.

 

Enter DCS: BS1, which has 0 obligations Ubi, yet bears some resemblance Lock ON on some minor levels. Its core engine spawns FC2, so that part is out of the way. It's still preceded by the name Lock ON, so that will have to be dropped. If its down to the Flaming Cliffs portion since 1 was a direct addition to Lomac so Ubi can claim it as well, then why not drop that name too. The flight sim market as a whole probably isn't large enough to worry about consumer confusion, let alone having to worry about people familiar with the lineage or not having problems with playing FC3 by another name.

 

That leaves the flyables and would almost certainly mean they exist largely in the same fashion as they did in the original LOMAC code. Since models and skins that exist as AI aircraft/weapons or map in DCS aren't bound to LOMAC and thus Ubi, we've got cockpits and flight models to look at. Cockpits need fixed/update anyway and is the more trivial of the two (Users are doing this as it is). The one thing people get smacked down for suggesting is a reworking of the FM for the flyables. 25T level AFM all flyables? Gone would be the connection to Ubi, fans rejoice. Two birds, one awesome stone.

[Weltensegler]

don't worry, this is the last FC.

And it will please the ones who need it until we soon have all those planes way more advanced in DCS done by 3rd party devs.

[PeterP]

One funny note:

I only bought FC because of the flight model of the Su-25T some many moons ago...

 

... now I get it for free !

[KaspeR32]

One funny note:

I only bought FC because of the flight model of the Su-25T some many moons ago...

 

... now I get it for free !

 

 

 

Same here, if FC3 doesn't offer any kind of AFM for another plane, i won't be getting it.

 

I will have SU-25T, A-10C, BS2, and DCS: Fighter Next in DCS:World. Anything with an SFM wont be making the cut. Depending on what people say about Beczl's MiG, (some kind of AFM and better textures) I might add that to the list as well.

[JABO2009]

Same here, if FC3 doesn't offer any kind of AFM for another plane, i won't be getting it.

 

I will have SU-25T, A-10C, BS2, and DCS: Fighter Next in DCS:World. Anything with an SFM wont be making the cut. Depending on what people say about Beczl's MiG, (some kind of AFM and better textures) I might add that to the list as well.

 

hey guys,

 

as Im a great fan of Lock On, since the Flaming Cliffs Add Ons came out, I basically agree here on the AFM idea. Yes, FC 3 should at least include the AFM model of the A10C and maybe add another new AFM to another plane,

 

BUT !!! : No endless Clickology on FC3 cockpits please ! few basic clicks would nice to have,(though not really a must have)

 

I think many FC 2 fans like the idea of simply jumping into a jet, start the engines, setting flaps, take off and ENJOY flyin' and the eyecandy graphics! not clicking throug a say 8 minutes start up process for all the systems and engine !

 

 

the Module Concept of DCS makes it possible for all the different simmers demand to have both: the hardcore simmers will go for the DCS single plane/heli modules like A10C and BS2 , Mig21 bis etc.

 

but pls dont do this to FC3 !

I like what ED and all the 3P devs are doing, the complexity is amazing and wounderful, but for FC3 no !

 

to sum it up:

 

1.) FC3 should feature new high res 3Dmodels of all the main planes (there is so much stuff which can be taken from FC2 mods (combatace's 3d Suchois pls!) which partially already have been taken into the DCSW basic module like high res runways )

 

btw: (pls someone finally do a nice Mig 29 and F16 3D MODEL !!! this is missing for such a long time now and even still missing in DCS ! -> where are the Viper and Fulcrum fans here ?)

 

2.) FC3 should guarante compability to the other DCSW modules

( I know this was already announced)

 

3.) FC3 should ideally add the DCS A10C AFM to the FC3 A10A and A10C , but once again, not add the complex cockpit and systems there...

 

4.) the possiblity to set the pilot skill as "Player" for the non-featured aircraft in the editor should be possible without any modding ;-)))

 

5.) That being said: do we have any more info on possible release quarter of FC3 ? is there a realistic chance to have it still in 2012?

 

feedback and comments on my thoughts very much appreciated !

 

cheers

 

Tom

 

LOFC2.0

DCSW

 

Win7 64

 

Intel i5-2500k

Track IR4 w. Track Clip Pro

ATI HD 6500

Edited July 3, 2012 by JABO2009

[MegOhm_SD]

Gee Tom...just map the auto start and auto stop option in controls...

 

Or make a mission where you start engines on....

 

Those options exist already in A10C/P51/BS2...

 

and I would think they would in FC3...

[KiwiPete]

FC3 = "simplified" franchise while DCS = "Advanced"?...hmmm... maybe.

I brought FC2 and have hardly touched it due to it's too two dementional cockpit. I'm investing my time into DCS at the moment - I'd like to see more complexity in FC3 (or fast movers in DCS) and would be willing to spend money/effort if it provides the same fidelity as the DCS range. I guess they have thier reasons for continuing both product ranges.

Can't wait to compare FC 3 with DCS range...Good luck on getting what you want - happy flying!

[winchesterdelta1]

FC3 = "simplified" franchise while DCS = "Advanced"?...hmmm... maybe.

I brought FC2 and have hardly touched it due to it's too two dementional cockpit. I'm investing my time into DCS at the moment - I'd like to see more complexity in FC3 (or fast movers in DCS) and would be willing to spend money/effort if it provides the same fidelity as the DCS range. I guess they have thier reasons for continuing both product ranges.

Can't wait to compare FC 3 with DCS range...Good luck on getting what you want - happy flying!

 

 

Why do you want to compare FC3 with DCS? FC3 will be lower fidelity just like FC2 only better if i understood right.

[JABO2009]

Why do you want to compare FC3 with DCS? FC3 will be lower fidelity just like FC2 only better if i understood right.

 

fully agreed, comparing these two makes no sense.

 

both will share the eye candy graphics of the DCS World and thats it I guess,

 

FC3 will satisfiy the jump in and fly users, while DCS add ons will satisfy the hardcore simmers

 

perfect supplementation !

[HiJack]

FC3 = FC2++ in DCS World environement. Same flyables (or hopfully one more) but yes it's "jump in and fight" get killed and go to bed. Not all simmers have the time to put in to learn all switches and stuff on DCS aircrafts. It's also a good starting plattform for a newbe ;)

 

 

Can not compare with DCS modelled aircraft.

 

(HJ)

[Milene]

Why would i reinstall lockon just to make it possible to install FC3 into DCS world? This doesnt make sense at all tbh.

 

I dont want Lockon i want FC3 thats all...

[Nate--IRL--]

Why would i reinstall lockon just to make it possible to install FC3 into DCS world? This doesnt make sense at all tbh.

 

I dont want Lockon i want FC3 thats all...

 

Unfortunately UBI, the owners of the Lock On product and name, force this silly restriction. If ED could do away with the requirement for Lock On they would.

 

Nate

[Inseckt]

This is le me just wildly and unmoderated thinking:

 

As I understand this new DCS concept, 3rd party developers have the opportunity to create both "DCS" - level or "FC1/2/3" - level fidelity aircraft. Further, it was stated that a certain naming convention would separate the two product types in a easily recognizable manner, or something thereabout. So my point is, wouldn't it make sense to release each FC3 aircraft individually? Give all the aircrafts a slight boost like "improved" SFM and some cockpit upgrades (haven't played the LO-series since FC1 so this may already be implemented without me knowing). The sum of the price for all aircraft would be greater than the originally planned price for FC3, so that the dividing of the product wouldn't hurt potential income, but; you could sell a FC3 "package" that included all aircraft for a better price than one-by-one. This would:

 

on the negative:

 

a) Increase the workload regarding finishing tasks. (ie testing more installers, separating documentation and so on...)

 

b) Someone only wants F-15. In this modular release, the ED income is less because he pays less than entire FC3 would cost.

 

on the positive:

 

c) Increase the income for ED. Despite point b) It would be more people who wanted several aircraft and thus paid more...

 

d) This is my main reason why I would like to see this: The entire DCSW concept would be more consistant. Ie the structure would now look like this (in my head):

 

DCSW:

DCS: A-10C by ED

DCS: KA-50 by ED

DCS: F-15E by IRIS

DCS: Mig-21Bis By Bezcel(?)

[...]

 

FC: F-15C by ED

FC: SU-25T by ED

FC: Su-27 by ED

FC: F-22A By IRIS

[...]

 

Other: CA by ED

Other: Nevada By ED

Other: Map X by Y

[...]

 

e) I'm no legal expert, and I think it was already discussed in this very thread, but this approach would perhaps not need the LO brand anymore?

Edited July 4, 2012 by Inseckt

[31st ff iceman]

when will realese FC3 ???

and the Patch for download version from BS2

[KaspeR32]

when will realese FC3 ???

and the Patch for download version from BS2

 

You mean the upgrade version of BS2? And why even bother asking that question, if you read the forums at all you'd realize that they will not give out dates of releases. :P

[joey45]

when will realese FC3 ???

and the Patch for download version from BS2

 

By the position of the Sun and it being Cancer. Now if you add the Moon and Venus you will get the answer....

 

 

when it's done