Announcing Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3

[Eddie]

Well actually FC is, to most people, about fighters. And with that in mind there are 3 Russian aircraft compare to only one US aircraft.

 

Then there is also the fact, that as previously mentioned, DCS Mig-21 is on the way but there is no NATO counterpart going to appear in the near future.

 

Put simply, the favouritism is only in your head. And the Ka-50 example is just as valid as your viewpoint. For everyone like you there is another person wishing for more NATO aircraft, and eventually everyone will get their wish, it'll just take a long time and a lot of work.

[EtherealN]

1)

To play FC2, i need:

Lockon + FC1 + FC2

 

FC1 is not required for FC2, only LOMAC.

 

To play FC3, i need:

DCSWorld(free) + Lockon + FC3

 

Correct.

 

2)

Also, when i installed FC2 just before it said i had 0 activations remaining. Aren't these supposed to replenish over time?

 

No, the system switched to a new, replenishing, version with A-10C. This applies to A-10C, BS2, P-51D, CA, FC3. But not to FC1, FC2 and BS1.

[EtherealN]

Nikola, no.

 

What I am telling you is that if there were no FC3 being developed, there wouldn't have been missile AFM. Since, as I'm sure you understand, this is of limited relevance for A-10C, BS2 and P-51D.

 

It might still have been developed at some later point, indeed that is likely, but there's a question mark on when that would have happened.

 

Also, note that FC and DCS are separate product series. The details in the press release apply primarily to indicate the differences and news introduced with FC3 to the FC/LOMAC series of products.

 

Regarding "Ubi Lock on" and copy-paste; LOMAC is only required for install. FC3 does not integrate into LOMAC. All it does is check if you have it, which is required to satisfy legal obligations to Ubisoft for the LOMAC IP.

[Exorcet]

Why would you give F-15 (very ugly plane to fly if u ask me) any different treatment then other planes in a series? give it AFM as some RU planes have it, but by the looks of it (new 3d model, cockpit, SP missions, campaign) it favors some very narrow base of US fanboys that enjoys F-15

 

Is this supposed to be an unbiased post?

 

Im still failing to get it right:

 

So basically, FC3 is a "AFM weapon pack" that gives us better missiles in order to kill other aircraft easier? Imagine DCS F-16 is released: if I do not own FC3, ill be able to use only crappy SFM missiles, while fight against FC3 F-15C with super nice AFM missiles? Pay to win?

 

And if I own booth DCS f-16 and FC3, would I be able to chose what missiles I want to use: SFM or AFM ones?

 

Please explain how its going to work.

Everyone has AFM missiles, but no one gets to use them without buying a DCS module. FC3 isn't any different from DCS:Whatever. Buy FC3, get SFM fighters in DCSW. Buy DCS:Whatever, get to fly Whatever in DCSW.

 

One important thing though is that FC3, as opposed to other modules, benefits from AFM missiles. Ka-50, A-10C, Su-25, P-51 do not. There was not reason to develop AFM missiles for current DCSW modules. FC3 made AFM missiles a viable project, and allowed ED to give AFM missiles enough priority to work on them. AFM missiles would have had to wait for DCS Fighter before being implemented if it was not for FC3.

 

 

 

But still, you have to install UBI Lock On first? So there is at least one copy/paste element in whole FC3.

LOMAC and FC code have nothing to do which each other. LOMAC just needs to be installed prior to installing FC.

 

And if there is some little piece of copy pasted code, surely that's not a big deal if there is tons of new code. Your software company recycles code when possible doesn't it? Coding is complex and expensive. If people threw everything out every time they wanted to add stuff, nothing would get done.

 

 

 

The only difference?

Yes. It's not that it isn't a big deal in terms of work, we all know it is. But how much of the FC3 aircraft upgrades list applies to all planes? 80%?

If you think 3d model and cockpit for F-15 is not big deal, why you do not want to give it for free?

Do you mean why don't I ask for it for free? I'm not really interested in the cockpit. I'm paying $40 for other stuff. It's basically free as far as I'm concerned. For others, it may or may not be important.

Or, if its not so big deal, why you even bother to make it?

Ill answer to you, someone put great amount of time to make that model and cockpit, its absolutely beautiful and its definitely not the same fidelity as "the other" FC3 aircraft.

 

It is the same simulation fidelity as every other plane. All FC planes have simplified systems and static cockpits.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Exorcet

[EtherealN]

I'd like everyone to pay some mind to their tone when posting. If you have not already done so, please take some time to reacquaint yourself with the forum rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

[chokko]

FC1 is not required for FC2, only LOMAC.

 

 

thankyou.

 

Will aircraft in FC3 have an axis (or two) for wheel brake?

Would be nice to be able to bind it in game (not use saitek s/w etc) and not be purely on or off.

[EtherealN]

Unfortunately it is not my place to comment on features beyond what has already been made official.

[Cali]

Why would you give F-15 (very ugly plane to fly if u ask me) any different treatment then other planes in a series? give it AFM as some RU planes have it, but by the looks of it (new 3d model, cockpit, SP missions, campaign) it favors some very narrow base of US fanboys that enjoys F-15

 

You are so wrong it's not even funny. You don't see the bigger picture and don't know what Ed's plans are. Only if some of you people complaining about things knew what's going on. As mentioned before 1 US jet compared to 3 Russian jets. The F-15 wasn't the only jet to get some love, we don't know what "other improvements" have been made.

[houdini382]

Thanks ED for all these years of happiness after the fall of Jane's Simulations. I still have faith that you guys, one day, before I die (or my wife kills me, lol) will release DCS AH64-D Apache, just like in the good old Jane's days.

 

Keep up the good work and count on me for the purchase.

 

Houd.

[Raven68]

I love the fact that everything is coming to one playground now. No more ground pound missions ONLY with A-10C, BS2 and SU-25T(Unless make a mission of that choice of course). We are now getting a complete battlefield with the addition of A2A aircraft. If you love multiplayer you will soon see a lot of FC2 players migrate to FC3 thus being rolled into the world. FC2 will be a thing of the past with very limited online play anyway.

 

Bear in mind that this is a very small market and if you don't support and it dies off who or what developers do you have to turn to for air combat simulation and with this level of fidelity?? ED you have my 100% support. Keep the community alive!!:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[G-Lock91]

Exactly. :)

 

Thing is, ED could in theory hire a bunch of extra people with the relevant skillsets; but what then after these are done? They'll be without work and have to be laid off again, which is not fair to them.

 

Is seasonal work not an option?

[EtherealN]

Well, the thing there is that you'd still look at a lot of inefficiency; even if you get someone that is qualified in the type of work, they will at first require a bit of time to learn all the production tools, in-house standards etcetera etcetera. This means taking existing staff time to teach the new guy(s).

 

Compare for example the modders that work with DCS; they start off having to learn how everything works with LOM, EDM, the relevant LUA conventions etcetera etcetera. Except now, we're looking at people doing this learning on paid time, "hogging" productive staff time to learn this, and it becomes a potential problem.

 

If all software (or at least game) developers used the same tools, the same formats, and the same conventions, then this would be a lot easier. But since games are different, this is not likely to happen - and this might even be a good thing: imagine if everyone used the same game engine for a given type of game; this might seriously restrict innovation.

 

I bet there are solutions to this, but as always those solutions have to make it through the test of the accountants - remember that in this line of business, you pay first and then (hopefully) make your money back once you have released a product. Hiring and training a whole bunch of people to work for a year costs money - and you don't even start seeing revenue from it until it's all done. This makes it highly different from for example seasonal jobs in crop harvesting, servicing tourists at ski resorts or summer vacation areas etcetera - in those cases you can (usually) start seeing revenue immediately.

 

EDIT: All of that said: I have pretty much zero insight in the economics of Eagle Dynamics, so this is just me speculating as best I can, but I believe I have good foundations for these speculations. ED is of course in this to make money, so it would be silly to think that they'd make decisions that would on-purpose make them earn less money. :P What might happen though is that they might see something that could potentially earn them a lot of money, but would also incur a great financial risk. For example:

 

Case one:

Spend $8 000 000 developing a game.

Sell $10 000 000 worth of copies.

$2 000 000 profit. (Minus any relevant financing costs, inflation during the time the capital was working etcetera.)

 

Case two, doing that "extra":

Spend $12 000 000 developing a game.

Sell $11 000 000 worth of copies.

$1 000 000 loss. (Made even worse by relevant financing costs and inflation.)

 

Always ways of making a product attractive to more customers, but you need to be careful that you don't end up spending so much in development that you turn a loss in spite of getting those extra sales. I saw a lot of game devs go under to this problem way back when I was working as a gaming journalist, and many totally excellent games that failed to make any profit because they just took too much time and money to develop.

 

EDIT2: Though, if we are to discuss the finances of software development, we might want to split that out to a new thread. Let me know if you want to, it's an interesting subject. :)

Edited September 3, 2012 by EtherealN

[leafer]

Color me crass but I can't seem to find contact information for lockon.co.uk. :dunno:

 

I want to order Lock On, but I need to know if they'll ship to my country AND if they could send only the CD to cut shipping cost.

[G-Lock91]

Thanks EtherealN. I appreciate your patience. Answering the same q's over and over on this forum has to be cutting a nerve.

[EtherealN]

leafer, please see this one: http://www.fighter-collection.com/flightsimshop-world.html

 

I'm fairly sure they deliver worldwide. Not sure about whether it's possible to repack though.

I can try to see if I can find someone that knows how things are with lockon.co.uk, but I might need reminding for that.

 

G-Lock91, it's not so bad. You get used to it after a couple years. :P

[cypher_142]

Here is an issue i Have, and has me tossing up whether to buy it or not.

 

- We have Iris making an F-15 E model fidelity unknown but has a click-able cockpit.

 

- Seing the amount of work that has gone into the F-15C model ( which looks amazing BTW), it is looking more feasible that ED will release the F-15C as there new Fighter module ( Purely Speculation). If that happens than i will be somewhat upset with my FC3 purchase as frankly it wont get used, Its seems to be a matter of wait and see what happens i think.

[Airbuster]

Well to tell you the truth I'm not really that excited with F-15C, getting all the love in FC3.

 

I expected more.

 

It's not the pricetag that bothers me, I don't buy Flight Sims that often, so I don't care about that much.

 

It's just that I'll hate to fly lowpoly fighter planes with semi 3d cockpits in 2012 by a commercial product.

 

The Eagle looks great though, congrats on that ED!

 

Each cockpit at this level takes about a year, so it is not feasible to do more than just the Eagle.

 

Wags, what about this cockpit?

 

 

AFAIK this was a WIP cockpit for use in DCS: A-10A before they got the green light to make the fully fledged A-10C.

But still, this would be a nice inclusion into FC3 if it was finalized (unlikely).

At least as a 3D model, it looks pretty finished to me.

[blackbelter]

Here is an issue i Have, and has me tossing up whether to buy it or not.

 

- We have Iris making an F-15 E model fidelity unknown but has a click-able cockpit.

 

- Seing the amount of work that has gone into the F-15C model ( which looks amazing BTW), it is looking more feasible that ED will release the F-15C as there new Fighter module ( Purely Speculation). If that happens than i will be somewhat upset with my FC3 purchase as frankly it wont get used, Its seems to be a matter of wait and see what happens i think.

 

I think you touched the central reason why people are complaining about FC3 now... In a word: balance.

 

In the world of DCS, balance does not simply amount to developing one aircraft for each side -- assuming we put as two sides against each other the USSR and the NATO. Do you call making a USSR helicopter and a NATO attacker a balance between the two sides? I personally would not. To make one helicopter for each side would be balance; to make a good attacker for one side, and improve SAM on the other side would be balance.

 

What's more important, do you call giving Su25T/Shark AFM, and simultaneously giving F15C/E AFM as well as other improved features balance? I personally would not. IMHO, the real exciting balance in DCS would be improving fast moving fighters at the same rate. But that's not happening so far... With F15C gaining its exciting new features, and F15E in its development, we don't see Su27, which is the real balancing force against F15, getting any new development, apart from those FC3 features, which are shared by F15C.

 

Other projects under development have the same issue. P51D is awesome. But against what, apart from itself? Mig21 is nice to have, too. But against what? F15?

 

So it's time to reconsider what balance really means... Just my opinion, by the way.

 

I criticize ED products because I love them. Albeit having some issues, they are still the best in their genre. Keep going ED! And looking forward to new announcements.

[92nd-MajorBug]

If that happens than i will be somewhat upset with my FC3 purchase as frankly it wont get used, Its seems to be a matter of wait and see what happens i think.

That's only speculation there, but ... a lot of hard work has gone into making such a beautiful 3D cockpit for the F-15, just to see it used in a sim where you can't even click anything ... I wouldn't be surprised to see the exact same cockpit used in some future DCS module ;)

[Pyroflash]

I think you touched the central reason why people are complaining about FC3 now... In a word: balance.

 

In the world of DCS, balance does not simply amount to developing one aircraft for each side -- assuming we put as two sides against each other the USSR and the NATO. Do you call making a USSR helicopter and a NATO attacker a balance between the two sides? I personally would not. To make one helicopter for each side would be balance; to make a good attacker for one side, and improve SAM on the other side would be balance.

 

What's more important, do you call giving Su25T/Shark AFM, and simultaneously giving F15C/E AFM as well as other improved features balance? I personally would not. IMHO, the real exciting balance in DCS would be improving fast moving fighters at the same rate. But that's not happening so far... With F15C gaining its exciting new features, and F15E in its development, we don't see Su27, which is the real balancing force against F15, getting any new development, apart from those FC3 features, which are shared by F15C.

 

Other projects under development have the same issue. P51D is awesome. But against what, apart from itself? Mig21 is nice to have, too. But against what? F15?

 

So it's time to reconsider what balance really means... Just my opinion, by the way.

 

I criticize ED products because I love them. Albeit having some issues, they are still the best in their genre. Keep going ED! And looking forward to new announcements.

 

Technically to have balance, all you need to do is to put the same aircraft on opposite teams.

 

And the F-15C is NOT getting an AFM in FC3. I don't know where you read this, but it simply isn't true. And if it was, would you still criticize it? People will make what they want to make, and ED products have never been about balance. If (or most probably when) ED compiles enough information on modern CIS aircraft to make a decent sim of it, then they will probably do so, but in the meantime there is plenty of information abounding about many western airframes. ED devs made the Ka-50 because they had contacts within Kamov OKB. The thing that made A-10C largely possible was cooperation with the USAF, and Fairchild/M7/Elbit.

 

What is that saying? "The show must go on". Also, now that we have 3rd parties, nothing is stopping you or anyone else from attempting to make more Russian aircraft much like Beczl is trying to do.

 

Possibly a more important point though, war doesn't have a balance. The ideological balance to the F-15C might be the Su-27, but that doesn't make it the F-15C's equal. They are each their own aircraft.

[Slayer]

Hopefully they will just do a cdkey check or insert the disk check for lockon...what a pain to reinstall that old thing with it's very old starforce version that I don't want corrupting my Windows 7.

[EtherealN]

Hopefully they will just do a cdkey check or insert the disk check for lockon...what a pain to reinstall that old thing with it's very old starforce version that I don't want corrupting my Windows 7.

 

LOMAC does not have Starforce. You are thinking about the DL version of FC1, which is not required.

And all you need is to have LOMAC installed when you install FC3.

[Slayer]

LOMAC does not have Starforce. You are thinking about the DL version of FC1, which is not required.

And all you need is to have LOMAC installed when you install FC3.

 

Going off memory and I may be incorrect because it has been a while but I went through this with FC2.....

 

I have Lockon gold which had 2 disks the original LOMAC and flaming cliffs cd. it does have starforce on it and that version of starforce is completely incompatible with 64 bit anything. It will crash your computer and you have to do system restore because it won't boot anymore.

 

Not a lot of people have this "version" but I'm one of the unfortunate ones. If I remember correctly this was the same batch that got recalled because the starforce ruined the CDs or some such.

 

Seems like someone told me this when I had FC2 install problems before and told me there was no such version of CD's like this.

 

edit: I prob shouldn't have started this here, Ill open a seperate thread should this be an issue when FC3 comes

Edited September 3, 2012 by Slayer

[EtherealN]

Sounds to me like you actually installed the FC1 portion - which might have it. (I never used the disc version myself.) FC1 does install into LOMAC, and thus it's DRM ends up in LOMAC.

 

For FC3, as with FC2, this is not required. 100% vanilla LOMAC is fine. All it does is ask your computer "hey, you have any version of LOMAC installed?"

 

Though I've never used Lock On Gold, not sure it was released in my country, but I'm fairly sure the LOMAC disc in it is a "standard" LOMAC disc, while the FC1 disc introduces Starforce. Might be wrong though.

 

The recall in question was because the CD's themselves were broken, nothing to do with Starforce. (It was a bad print run that wasn't detected by the printer, basically.)

[Slayer]

Ok thanks for clarifying that. Hopefully there are no BSOD in my future. I've probably one ever seen 2 the whole time I've had Windows 7.