DCS FC3 Questions & Answers Thread

[Rudel_chw]

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

[Repvez]

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

[Rudel_chw]

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

[GGTharos]

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.

[Repvez]

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.

 

[draconus]

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.

[Rudel_chw]

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.

[draconus]

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.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Apart from having non-clickable cockpit, are the systems at the same level of other ASM planes?

[draconus]

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.

[VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants]

Radar? Weapon systems?

[draconus]

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

[wasserfall]

I think ED has all the information needed to do a full Su27 module but restricted to Russian law to do so.

 

[Cmptohocah]

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

[Logan54]

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

[Pineapple]

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

[Granny]

Anyone know a good way to tune radios in the Flaming Cliffs aircraft?  I fly on a VR headset so tuning radios via keyboard is problematic, and in FC the cockpit is not mouse clickable.  I have SRS but I don't if I can tune radios with it. When I toggle on the SRS radio controls, they appear on my desk top, not in the VR goggles, so that's not much better. 

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Granny said:

Anyone know a good way to tune radios in the Flaming Cliffs aircraft?

FC aircraft have easy comms by default. They hear all comms directed to them and transmit using the comms menu.

[GGTharos]

4 hours ago, Granny said:

Anyone know a good way to tune radios in the Flaming Cliffs aircraft?  I fly on a VR headset so tuning radios via keyboard is problematic, and in FC the cockpit is not mouse clickable.  I have SRS but I don't if I can tune radios with it. When I toggle on the SRS radio controls, they appear on my desk top, not in the VR goggles, so that's not much better. 

SRS works well with FC3 but you can't tune any radios with it - that is, the only input you have with FC3 with respect to AI etc, is to basically limit the radio calls to yourself or to hear them all.

SRS WILL tune you to the correct SRS frequencies for you to speak to other people, and I would recommend to make your life easy that you set up pre-defined channels and have a channel/comms plan.  This way you can go up/down channels as desired, and you'll also see the frequency for the channel displayed on screen.

 

So basically, SRS to DCS interaction in terms of gameplay is pretty much none for FC3, but SRS to SRS works exactly as you would expect a radio to work.

Edited July 29, 2024 by GGTharos

[Recluse]

On 7/29/2024 at 10:11 AM, Granny said:

Anyone know a good way to tune radios in the Flaming Cliffs aircraft?  I fly on a VR headset so tuning radios via keyboard is problematic, and in FC the cockpit is not mouse clickable.  I have SRS but I don't if I can tune radios with it. When I toggle on the SRS radio controls, they appear on my desk top, not in the VR goggles, so that's not much better. 

That's interesting. I definitely see the SRS overlay in my VR headset (Quest 2). Also, though I haven't played with it much, the DCS VOIP system allows you to add a radio to the FC3 aircraft for use with VOIP. If I recall correctly (and maybe not) , the DCS VOIP interface is tunable with mouse, while SRS requires keybinds. Makes it a bit more suitable for VR.  As mentioned above, no need to TUNE radios for interaction with AI, only for use in Multiplayer with other SRS/VOIP users.

Edited August 1, 2024 by Recluse

[Beirut]

I'm having no success installing skins on the FC Mig-15. Are the FF Mig-15 skins not compatible?

 

Also, what is the exact file name for the Mig-15 folder? I'm using MiG-15bis_FC. Is that right?

 

Thank you.

[Rudel_chw]

49 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I'm having no success installing skins on the FC Mig-15. Are the FF Mig-15 skins not compatible?

 

Yes, they are the same skins fortunately.

 

49 minutes ago, Beirut said:

Also, what is the exact file name for the Mig-15 folder? I'm using MiG-15bis_FC. Is that right?

 

No, it uses the exact same folder as the Full Fidelity Mig-15:  "MiG-15bis"

[Beirut]

Just now, Rudel_chw said:

 

Yes, they are the same skins fortunately.

 

 

No, it uses the exact same folder as the Full Fidelity Mig-15:  "MiG-15bis"

 

I tried that at first to no success, but I must have done something wrong. I'll try again.

 

Thank you. 

[Rudel_chw]

17 minutes ago, Beirut said:

I tried that at first to no success, but I must have done something wrong. I'll try again.

 

It works on my DCS, like this:

 

 

[Beirut]

1 minute ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

It works on my DCS, like this:

 

 

 

One post from you and it worked right away. 

 

Thank you again.