Repvez Posted June 12, 2021 Share Posted June 12, 2021 1 hour ago, GGTharos said: Quote Because they are FC3 aircraft. Lower fidelity but you get a bunch of them for a certain price. Yes I know, but the FC3 was the beginning, so there was not opportunity to do the full clickable cockpit because of the games development state that time. By now they can upgrade them as they did the others , and they also updated the 3D exterior model and the cabin also, so there could have been a occasion to upgrade them and sell them separate. So if somebody want to fly with clickable they can buy them separate and somebody not there is the FC3 as it is. Quote Nothing is almost 100%. Not even close - and the fact that you didn't realize this should maybe tell you about how much secret stuff is really being modeled and how much you don't know. That is what I mean , if it is not 100% accurate or made from the manual just mimic the real one, but the whole thing was figoure out by the developer it should not cause any problem. because there is only the input (switch set on ) and the result (light bulb on ) will be the only match the original real one but between them just fiction. But even such way is give a bigger immersive to use than now. And as it we have a MiG 29 right now, so they won't do the other one with full clickable version. that is why would be nice the all modul would be the same level. Quote Whatever a country wishes to say is secret, they can say so and anyone violating that is subject to imprisonment etc, and even if not this, doing something without permission can make the company look bad and then it might lose contracts or cooperative sources. I totally agree with that, but if they just use the open source data there is no violence. Or they just use the same way than the others or just put some thing like the common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudel_chw Posted June 12, 2021 Share Posted June 12, 2021 (edited) You seem to believe that the only difference between an FC3 aircraft and a study module is the clickable cockpit. It's not, the FC3 aircrafts have a very rudimentary system's simulation, a simplified radar, a non-existing radio, a simplified navigation, etc. The FC3 aircrafts came straight from Lock-On from a systems perspective, ED has updated only their flight model, but the aircraft systems stayed the same. Edited June 12, 2021 by Rudel_chw 1 For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia RTX2080 - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repvez Posted June 12, 2021 Share Posted June 12, 2021 (edited) No I don't think so, but everything is already exist in the game which they can use it that the cockpits can be upgraded . The things which are missing from the FC3 we can find it in different modul , because the radar , the radio , the RWS an the others are working the same principles. The only differences would be the different place and switches in the cockpit but they do the same (change the channel, adjust the volume, turn on the systems) As I mentioned, they just mimic the functions of the real aircraft. And most of the case the Russian aircraft use the same devices too independent the type of aircraft. just need some tuning for them . What would be so difficult that the MIG29 get the same function from the MIG21 or the upcoming mig23 with some adjustantions? That is why would be nice if the DCS have the same base skeletons for every aircraft. same jet engine module but adjustable for every aircraft, same radar principles etc.. It is allowed to make modding much easier or new aircraft for the 3rd party studios. because all would be the same detail of level. there wouldn't be a big difference between the modules. they can focus more on the 3d model. Edited June 12, 2021 by Repvez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudel_chw Posted June 12, 2021 Share Posted June 12, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Repvez said: What would be so difficult that the MIG29 get the same function from the MIG21 or the upcoming mig23 with some adjustantions? Well, as the MiG-29 is made by Eagle Dynamics, while the MiG-21 is from Magnitude and the MiG-23 is from Razbam, that could be a hardship to integrate components from all of them. I'd love to have a full-fidelity MiG-29 or Su-27 ... but having a mix-up that only mimics the systems is not really my thing and would probably not purchase it. I want a real study aircraft, not an FC3-derived approximation. Edited June 12, 2021 by Rudel_chw 2 For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia RTX2080 - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted June 12, 2021 Share Posted June 12, 2021 2 hours ago, Repvez said: No I don't think so, but everything is already exist in the game which they can use it that the cockpits can be upgraded . The things which are missing from the FC3 we can find it in different modul , because the radar , the radio , the RWS an the others are working the same principles. And yet, these new modules have different issues with those same systems, which makes you wonder how much commonality there is in the code (or alternatively, the commonality is the problem) - FC3 does exactly what you propose and ED does not wish to add clickable cockpits to those as it is a differentiator between products. 2 hours ago, Repvez said: What would be so difficult that the MIG29 get the same function from the MIG21 or the upcoming mig23 with some adjustantions? If it's 'not so difficult' why don't you start work on an FF MiG-29 module? 2 hours ago, Repvez said: That is why would be nice if the DCS have the same base skeletons for every aircraft. same jet engine module but adjustable for every aircraft, same radar principles etc.. It is allowed to make modding much easier or new aircraft for the 3rd party studios. because all would be the same detail of level. there wouldn't be a big difference between the modules. they can focus more on the 3d model. Yeah, that's FC3 already. And here's a real answer about a lot of things here: Money. Western modules sell a lot more to begin with. Likewise, you saying that something is 'open source' and you believe that something is 'open source' because it is on the internet means precisely nothing in the world of document classification. Not only it could cause real legal trouble, but even if it doesn't, companies that ED would like to work with might not want to work with someone who doesn't respect document classification, regardless of the fact that it might be all over the internet. 1 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repvez Posted June 13, 2021 Share Posted June 13, 2021 12 hours ago, GGTharos said: Quote And yet, these new modules have different issues with those same systems, which makes you wonder how much commonality there is in the code (or alternatively, the commonality is the problem) - FC3 does exactly what you propose and ED does not wish to add clickable cockpits to those as it is a differentiator between products. Yes, this is the problem, that every modul use different method for same purpose. so it cause more space and more difficulties to eliminate bugs and make patch. I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that the unifiedity would be simplicity, it should be use the same principles but different adjustment to match every kind of aircraft. I mean, every aircraft has kompresszor, combustor chamber, turbine, control surfaces, same purpose devices ,these could be the unified base thing like a skeleton , but every aircraft could be different data for them , different compressor ratio, different temperature etc. every people has same skeleton but there is no two same people in the world either. Quote If it's 'not so difficult' why don't you start work on an FF MiG-29 module? I wish, but I can't programming, and I don't have support to do that. Quote And here's a real answer about a lot of things here: Money. Western modules sell a lot more to begin with. Likewise, you saying that something is 'open source' and you believe that something is 'open source' because it is on the internet means precisely nothing in the world of document classification. Not only it could cause real legal trouble, but even if it doesn't, companies that ED would like to work with might not want to work with someone who doesn't respect document classification, regardless of the fact that it might be all over the internet. Yes as always everything says about the money. the open source doesn't mean it cost nothing, or illegal, but you can buy books or manuals from library or stores to get the info what you need without the restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconus Posted June 13, 2021 Share Posted June 13, 2021 12 hours ago, Repvez said: I wish, but I can't programming, and I don't have support to do that. Yet you act like you know what you're talking about and still think it's kind of easy. It's far from that both from development point as it is with license and documentation. DCS has high model standards and full fidelity study sim is not some arcade game where you just put different 3D model and change few parameters around. It takes years even if they have some part of the code modular and common. Your idea isn't the first one, we want all that aircraft in full fidelity, even devs want that but somehow it's not happening beside talks about modeling 29A. You think no one wants to simulate such icons like The Eagle or The Flanker? btw: DCS started as Ka-50 and A-10C full fidelity sims. FC3 came way later. 1 Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060 Rift S T16000M TWCS TFRP FC3 F-14A/B F-15E CA SC NTTR PG Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudel_chw Posted June 13, 2021 Share Posted June 13, 2021 22 minutes ago, draconus said: FC3 came way later. Actually, FC3 is just a re-packaging of the aircrafts of the Lock-On simulator of 2003. This repackaging was called Flamming Cliffs 2.0 that appeared on 2009, before the A-10C but after the Blackshark. On 2013 ED improved the package and renamed it Flamming Cliffs 3 or FC3 for short. So, FC3 actually has older origins than any other DCS module. For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600 - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia RTX2080 - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconus Posted June 13, 2021 Share Posted June 13, 2021 33 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said: So, FC3 actually has older origins than any other DCS module I know and it doesn't matter. DCS title started with hifi modules and then added this simplified systems aircraft pack to liven up the World. Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060 Rift S T16000M TWCS TFRP FC3 F-14A/B F-15E CA SC NTTR PG Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 Apart from having non-clickable cockpit, are the systems at the same level of other ASM planes? VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants -- this is how I fly. We do not fly at treetop height, we fly between trees(TM) YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc9BDi-STaqgWsjNiHbW0fA My simple missions: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/284071-vr-flight-guy-in-pj-pants-simple-missions/ The contents of DCS World are so overwhelming to me: so many things to try, so many things to revisit. For now, whining about new products being late does not make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconus Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 9 minutes ago, VFGiPJP said: Apart from having non-clickable cockpit, are the systems at the same level of other ASM planes? No, the systems are simplified. Any specifics you want to ask? The aircraft has most of what's needed to fly, fight and operate but some systems are either automatic or out of our control. 1 Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060 Rift S T16000M TWCS TFRP FC3 F-14A/B F-15E CA SC NTTR PG Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 Radar? Weapon systems? VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants -- this is how I fly. We do not fly at treetop height, we fly between trees(TM) YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc9BDi-STaqgWsjNiHbW0fA My simple missions: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/284071-vr-flight-guy-in-pj-pants-simple-missions/ The contents of DCS World are so overwhelming to me: so many things to try, so many things to revisit. For now, whining about new products being late does not make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconus Posted July 6, 2021 Share Posted July 6, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, VFGiPJP said: Radar? Weapon systems? Long story short... RWR a bit optimistic - too precise. Radars are mostly correct on their capabilities, how they look like in the cockpit and interaction but depending on the aircraft they can be inaccurate (ie. F-15C has weaker radar detection, russian radars have different operation modes flow, HUDs may differ a bit, missing some symbology), they react too fast (ie. instant locks) or missing some modes of operation. They do however simulate LOS, antenna search pattern movement, direction/angles coverage, different PRF, doppler filters, ground clutter, ECM (SPJ and noise jam) effects (very simple - range dependent)... IRST is rather OP compared to RL. A2A is mostly correct. A2G weaponry lacks advanced control like fuses or programming. TV systems lock too easy on the targets, no real contrast detection. This what people usually have a gripe with and notice in the forums. This may sound bad but really it's not - you can find lots of similar inaccuracies or bugs in full fidelity modules too. Edited July 6, 2021 by draconus 3 Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060 Rift S T16000M TWCS TFRP FC3 F-14A/B F-15E CA SC NTTR PG Syria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasserfall Posted December 25, 2021 Share Posted December 25, 2021 I think ED has all the information needed to do a full Su27 module but restricted to Russian law to do so. Intel Core i5-9600K, Gigabyte Z390 AORUS PRO, 16GB Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro, Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 WINDFORCE 8G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmptohocah Posted March 22, 2022 Share Posted March 22, 2022 (edited) On 12/25/2021 at 12:06 PM, wasserfall said: I think ED has all the information needed to do a full Su27 module but restricted to Russian law to do so. Highly controversal topic, I would say. As someone previosly mentioned, we already have the Ka-50 and Mi-24. Also real manuals were used to tune the MiG-29 performance. I wonder what was used to do the same for the Su-27. Edited March 22, 2022 by Cmptohocah Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan54 Posted February 5, 2023 Share Posted February 5, 2023 (edited) Hello, I want to increase mirrors quallity in FC3, I found this way: nullnull canI reset 0 to 1 or 100 for this? checked, 1 and 100 not increase quallity.. Edited February 5, 2023 by Logan54 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pineapple Posted November 8, 2023 Share Posted November 8, 2023 Why FC3 aircraft can't contact use in-game JTACs? We have the code 1113 that works and can be used with scripted FACs or with buddy lasing from players, so it seems that ED is okay with lasing from an external source. It sounds stupid that it isn't possible with the in-game method Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts