FC3 BETA first impressions wanted

[Ironhand]

I think what some people here do not get, is the fact that for some of us here, simulation needs to be as realistic as possible,...

While I wish I had the time for in depth simulations, I don't anymore. And this arguement has been going on ages. I'm still waiting for the day when a simulation simulates death by uninstalling the software and refusing to reinstall it. You died. What do you need it for? :) That's when I'll know that we've arrived. That would certainly change people's approach to it, too.

 

 

Rich

[GGTharos]

I think what some people here do not get, is the fact that for some of us here, simulation needs to be as realistic as possible, and once you get into that, there is no going back to the "press E for engine startup" thing.

 

Yes there is, and it's easy to do so, too. It comes with the realization that knowing how to operate systems is secondary to aviating and building SA.

 

A real pilot has to push buttons and have a ton of knowledge to be able to fly the jet.

Every commercial pilot should be a fighter pilot then! Simple, right?

 

Simple radio management requires setting up frequencies and using the proper channel, not just pressing "/". It's not about boasting that someone is able to play a game that is just harder to learn, it's about knowing how the real plane works in and out.

Big deal. In RL you pre-set your radios and flip channels as required. It's almost like pressing "/".

 

FC3 might be fun (FC2 was and it's basically the same game), but the simulation level is simplified and that is a deal-breaker for someone who has been there and played it and moved on to something more challenging (like reading 700+ pages of a manual to be able to take off).

You don't need 700+ pages of manual to take off. Knowing how to turn on your engines etc etc has nothing to do with take-off. They are two completely separated pieces of knowledge ... about the only different systems operation difference between FC and DCS A-10C for example, is that in DCS you have to operate the front gear steering engage/disengage switch.

 

The rest is same for both: Knowing when to rotate, how to handle your climb-out, etc etc.

 

I'm not trying to say that knowing how to operate your aircraft is to be dissed ... what I am saying is that operation is just a small part of combat aviation, and it's all tending towards more and more automation too.

 

Want to know how a modern fighter radar works like? Turn on 'Easy radar' in FC. No, I am absolutely not kidding. Yes, the real thing does a little more, and might have a few more constraints. Same goes for your A-10C's RWR and ECM suite as compared to the real thing.

 

Simulation is what you get out of it. To some people, pushing buttons is important. You'll never be able to take on someone whose focus is on the combat aviation part instead, and he treats the button-pushing part as what it is: Just systems operation. Mastery of an aircraft is one thing, and it's something you cannot accomplish just by operating systems. Mastery of aerial combat requires mastery of systems, flight and teamwork and mutual support.

 

The easiest part of all that is the systems.

Edited November 15, 2012 by GGTharos

[deltahawk2008]

Interesting comments. I always felt that the Lomac series did a good job of capturing the essence of the thing, without the switchology of F4, etc. That said I can also appreciate the immersion level going up a bar with switchology. My two cents.

[EtherealN]

Here's a simple parallell from "my reality":

 

How do you become a good glider pilot?

Obviously, learning your aircraft is good - you absolutely need to know the envelope, you need to know your optimum glide speeds as well as your optimal thermal transfer speeds. You need to know your "putter" if you use one to log your flight for later analysis. You need to know it's quirks such that you can plan your cirquits properly when thermalling, waving or hanging.

 

But guess what: the one thing that gets you to fly championships is ALL happening outside of the aircraft. It's your understanding of what is going on around you, and you making the right decisions towards exploiting it, that gets you trophies.

 

Now move this to combat aviation, and simulation thereof, and the same idea holds true. It doesn't matter the tiniest bit if you know what every button in your cockpit does if you don't understand what is going on around you - and learning a pit is just mechanics. Anyone can do it. But not everyone can take the chaotic mess that is an aerial battlefield, internalise it, and use it towards achieving a specific objective.

[Sting57]

I've never heard a RL pilot boast about how cool it was to ramp start and program all the radio frequencies!!!!

 

Of course, RL pilots find all that stuff frustrating and an divergence to what their real job is, An Aviation Strategist/Tactician. This is exactly why newer aircraft remove all this switches and automate as much of the basic stuff as possible (just look at the very sparse F35 pit as an example).

 

I have been pushing buttons in BMS for 13 years and love it. I must say though, I believe DCS World (loving the F15C) captures what a RL pilot loves to do.

[Crescendo]

One of the problems here is that people have different definitions of what constitutes 'hardcore' in relation to combat flight simulators. Some people think that hardcore is mostly about the complexity of button pushing and systems operation, while others think that hardcore is actually using your aircraft to fight effectively in a dynamic combat environment. You might call these different positions 'switch flippers' and 'tacticians'.

 

I am of the tactician viewpoint. This is because switch flipping is merely a pre-requisite hurdle to flying a combat aircraft, not the purpose in and of itself. As someone said above, fighter pilots don't boast about memorising which button does what, because learning the aircraft's systems by rote is one of the first and most basic steps in a pilot's training. The goal is to make switch flipping as transparent as possible so that the pilot may focus on the most important and difficult aspect of combat aviation: flying the aircraft in coordination with wingmen to complete the mission. Anything else is just a distraction, which is why aircraft designers try to make the instruments, avionics, and controls as simple as possible.

 

In short: hardcore is not about flipping switches. Hardcore is how you train and fight, and how you employ your aircraft to keep yourself and your buddies alive to complete the mission.

 

Frankly, anyone who places a disproportionate amount of importance on switch flipping is ultimately taking a very shallow view of what it means to be a fighter pilot. I accept that some people may derive their enjoyment from mastering switch flipping, but I politely suggest that such a person would perhaps be better served by a civillian flight simulator. If this is too harsh, said person should at least recalibrate their definition of what it means to be 'hardcore' by considering the context — this is a combat simulator after all.

 

The implication of all this is simple: I guarantee that flying a 'basic' FC3 aircraft can be just as hardcore as any DCS aircraft. This will be proven time and time again in combat records when tactician-minded FC3 pilots face off against switch flipping DCS pilots. No doubt switch flippers will be resistant to this idea and will try to claim moral superiority by citing their switch flipping complexity, but as previously stated, this is a shallow and false complexity that completely misses the point.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Crescendo
Grammar.

[Keyholebud]

One of the problems here is that people have different definitions of what constitutes 'hardcore' in relation to combat flight simulators. Some people think that hardcore is mostly about the complexity of button pushing and systems operation, while others think that hardcore is actually using your aircraft to fight effectively in a dynamic combat environment. You might call these different positions 'switch flippers' and 'tacticians'.

 

I am of the tactician viewpoint. This is because switch flipping is merely a pre-requisite hurdle to flying a combat aircraft, not the purpose in and of itself. As someone said above, fighter pilots don't boast about memorising which button does what, because learning the aircraft's systems by rote is one of the first and most basic steps in a pilot's training. The goal is to make switch flipping as transparent as possible so that the pilot may focus on the most important and difficult aspect of combat aviation: flying the aircraft in coordination with wingmen to complete the mission. Anything else is just a distraction, which is why aircraft designers try to make the instruments, avionics, and controls as simple as possible.

 

In short: hardcore is not about flipping switches. Hardcore is how you train and fight, and how you employ your aircraft to keep yourself and your buddies alive to complete the mission.

 

Frankly, anyone who places a disproportionate amount of importance on switch flipping is ultimately taking a very shallow view of what it means to be a fighter pilot. I accept that some people may derive their enjoyment from mastering switch flipping, but I politely suggest that such a person would perhaps be better served by a civillian flight simulator. If this is too harsh, said person should at least recalibrate their definition of what it means to be 'hardcore' by considering the context — this is a combat simulator after all.

 

The implication of all this is simple: I guarantee that flying a 'basic' FC3 aircraft can be just as hardcore as any DCS aircraft. This will be proven time and time again in combat records when tactician-minded FC3 pilots face off against switch flipping DCS pilots. No doubt switch flippers will be resistant to this idea and will try to claim moral superiority by citing their switch flipping complexity, but as previously stated, this is a shallow and false complexity that completely misses the point.

 

 

RAWRYREE!!!!

[Steel Jaw]

The rest is same for both: Knowing when to rotate, how to handle your climb-out, etc etc.

 

Meh...IIRC the scripted take off in FC2/3 rotates for you, you need do nothing but hold the centerline.

[hotshotmike1001]

Mig 29 Radar???

 

Does it work??

 

i cannot seem to find away to turn it on so i can spot targets

[diveplane]

just installed it the f15 is beautiful inside

 

...

[Kuky]

Mig 29 Radar???

 

Does it work??

 

i cannot seem to find away to turn it on so i can spot targets

29 radar works fine

[Exorcet]

Mig 29 Radar???

 

Does it work??

 

i cannot seem to find away to turn it on so i can spot targets

It's very short ranged, and in general not so great compared to Flanker and Eagle. It's turn on like all other radars.

[RotoFly]

Here we go - a quick play-through of the F-15C instant action mission, given your fondness for the Eagle as related:

 

F15C vs 2 x SU27 and 2 x Tu-22

 

Splash 1 SU-27 @ 1.15

Splash 1 Tu-22 @ 1.50

Splash 1 Tu-22 @ 2.05

Splash 1 SU-27 @ 3.10

 

 

Wr15pvi1-0M&hd=1

 

 

Good Fun - give it a go, you'll see :)

 

 

questions

 

the player in video or pilot f15 c vs player or vs game ? auto pilot

[PFunk]

 

Want to know how a modern fighter radar works like? Turn on 'Easy radar' in FC. No, I am absolutely not kidding. Yes, the real thing does a little more, and might have a few more constraints. Same goes for your A-10C's RWR and ECM suite as compared to the real thing.

 

Simulation is what you get out of it. To some people, pushing buttons is important. You'll never be able to take on someone whose focus is on the combat aviation part instead, and he treats the button-pushing part as what it is: Just systems operation.

 

The easiest part of all that is the systems.

 

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

 

I have long wondered if this is true, I being one of those guys who uses the easy avionics. I have a wife, kids, and two jobs. I simply do not have time to devote to learning a myriad of button sequences, getting killed on step 7 of 65. That's not really fun.

 

"Well, who plays these things for FUN?"

 

I cannot begin to explain how absolutely awesome A-10C's simplified avionics are. I wish that all of the weapons could be easily deployable using the simplified systems, but I take what I can get. I wish the FC3 aircraft used it, but I know they need LOMAC for basic architecture, so I understand why they use the original's version.

 

And it's not like the developmental process is a zero-sum game. Hardcore avionics don't suffer because resources are used to develop simplified avionics to bring in casual users as customers. At the end of the day, we want lots of people buying DCS World if we want this to be successful and give us the game we want.

 

This series has the potential to be all things to all people. I encourage that.

[159th_Viper]

questions

 

Single Player F15 Instant Action mission.

[RIPTIDE]

I don't have time to write a comprehensive analysis but, bugs aside, I do like FC3. The AFM has brought about an interesting new dynamic.

[tflash]

I very much like to play my FC2 missions in FC3. Only a few adjustments are needed, and you can use much more complex logic in the mission editor.

 

Flying through DCS World is exciting, since the terrain has more incidence and the dynamic weather certainly adds to it.

[asparagin]

Now move this to combat aviation, and simulation thereof, and the same idea holds true. It doesn't matter the tiniest bit if you know what every button in your cockpit does if you don't understand what is going on around you - and learning a pit is just mechanics. Anyone can do it. But not everyone can take the chaotic mess that is an aerial battlefield, internalise it, and use it towards achieving a specific objective.

 

Not directed to your reply only EtherealN, but in general to this hardcore definition discussion:

pushing buttons is one thing, which I don't care so much about, I mean yeah I used to start the A-10 from ramp, most of the fun is still flying and hitting targets. One thing that got omitted in this discussion is that the difference between DCS flyables like the A-10C and FC flyables is not only the knobs pushing. I've even seen some of the 3-rd party devs "bragging" on how their product has a bunch of knobs like this only would fulfill the "DCS standards".

 

So, here comes what has been forgotten: it is the fidelity. Missing fidelity in the radar operation modes, missing HUD symbology regarding 120 launch parameters. These are all features that really help in the "chaotic mess of the aerial battlefield", really add to the situational awareness but are lacking.

[GGTharos]

I can always count on you to try and throw a wrench into my explantion Mower! But not this time. NO! THIS. IS. SPARTAAAAAAA!

 

... ahem :D

 

Right, naturally there are issues that that FC may just be able to get away from because, well, it's FC. However my point is that broadly speaking the TO/Landing happens more or less the same way in both. It isn't a problem for me to control the A-10C with an asymmetric loadout vs. an FC bird. Yes, there is more effort required on the A-10C, and yes, these are details that can be important in a dogfight or emergency, etc. But by and large, really, the whole idea of turn on plane and take off is just a means to travel from point A to point B, whereby you apply your skills to make your virtual enemy not want to fight you any longer.

 

Don't misunderstand: I think the AFM is wonderful, I always did, same with avionics fidelity. I just think it isn't fair to diss the FC birds; for all their shortcomings (real or imagined), they really do fill a necessary role and they do it acceptably well IMHO.

 

Meh...IIRC the scripted take off in FC2/3 rotates for you, you need do nothing but hold the centerline.

[Essah]

 

Don't misunderstand: I think the AFM is wonderful, I always did, same with avionics fidelity. I just think it isn't fair to diss the FC birds; for all their shortcomings (real or imagined), they really do fill a necessary role and they do it acceptably well IMHO.

 

I agree 90%. The last 10% is the lack of of a TAD/HSD in the F-15 making it hard to locate the A-10's you're escorting.

 

but Since I came from FC2 I wasn't exactly expecting to see it either so I'm happy with FC3, I think most people have to large expectation of a simple repolish of a many years old game built as a sample sim

[tflash]

Well, I'm swapping A-10A and A-10C in the same missions and I must say the only real difference I notice is the A-10C having better sensors in the guise of Litening II.

But then agian I always fly "safe", well within the envelope.

[Rakutenshi]

I've just recently gotten FC3 working due to a payment glitch that wasn't (ticket submitted, they can take their time on sorting it out), and while I was honestly expecting a little more 'warthog' from it, I'm not disappointed. If you try to do an unrestricted takeoff in an A-10 it just kind of looks at you funny. Take an Eagle or a Flanker with a light load and you can stand them on their tails and grab sky like it's going out of style. Having access to more planes for more roles is always a good thing, and if I have the desire to play in the pit, I can always jump in an A-10C or Ka-50.

 

I only wish the Su-27/33 could mount more Air to Ground weapons. I remember playing with the Kh-31s and 25s in Flanker 1.0 and they were great fun. Also the thought of launching the big Russian anti-ship missiles, like the Moskit and Kingbolt does fill me with a certain amount of lust.

[ralch]

For me, it is definitely worth of a PC upgrade

 

As I was writing in here, the graphics are amazing when most settings maxed...

 

By the way, at that level, my PC can only hit about 30fps so I was wondering, what GPU series (NVidia GTX 690, 680 or AMD 7970) it's most optimized for this game?? (There are some games that are even developed with a specific card in mind. For example HAWX 2 was designed for the Nvidias of that era).

 

So what do you say, Nvidia or AMD Radeon?

[GorT]

As I was writing in here, the graphics are amazing when most settings maxed...

 

By the way, at that level, my PC can only hit about 30fps so I was wondering, what GPU series (NVidia GTX 690, 680 or AMD 7970) it's most optimized for this game?? (There are some games that are even developed with a specific card in mind. For example HAWX 2 was designed for the Nvidias of that era).

 

So what do you say, Nvidia or AMD Radeon?

 

My personal choice has been Nvidia. Now if you are going to play with massive three screen setup then, Radeon Iffinity might be the way to go. Otherwise Nvidia all the way.