Why is FC3 a DCS: product now?

[buedi]

HI everyone,

 

I don´t want to troll FC3 Users here. I´ve just seen that at least in SteamDB FC3 was renamed to DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3. It now has the DCS: prefix.

Up to today I always thought that when a product has the DCS: prefix, that this is an indication for the buyer that this is a DCS level Product with AFM (some FC3 planes have it now, I know) and a fully clickable Cockpit. It was easy to distinguish the deeply simulated products from the less detailed products. This is not possible anymore with the naming at the moment.

 

Was I wrong with my assumption in the past (I´m sure I´ve also read it several times here in the forums) or did ED change the naming schema for their products?

 

 

Kind regards!

[Justo Swank]

I was quite confused as well. Apparently they are dishing out some updates for FC3.

 

 

New Key Features for the Flaming Cliffs Series:

 

• No longer is an installation Lock On: Modern Air Combat required!

• A DCS World module that is compatible with all other DCS titles.

• New Advanced Flights Models (AFM) for the A-10A and Su-25. New AFM for the Su-27 and F-15C coming soon!

• New 6 degrees of freedom (6DOF) cockpit and model for the F-15C, A-10A, Su-27, Su-25 and Su-33. New MiG-29 cockpit coming soon!

• New campaigns and single player missions.

• Improved flight dynamics for air-to-air missiles.

• Updated and improved HUDs and other cockpit systems.

• Resource Manager that adds logistics control to missions.

• Expanded theatre of operations map into eastern Georgia.

• Countless other improvements in the areas of the mission editor, special effects, new models, improved terrain detail and AI.

[Valinor]

No, you are right, BUT this way FC3 is at 100% a product of ED, they don't have to use the Lock On name anymore who is owned by Ubisoft, and they can now distribute it on Steam also.

[buedi]

That change in the naming (DCS: not being an indicator anymore of what simulation level you get) will make me cautious when another "DCS:" module will be released in Beta and not being feature comlete. You then can´t be 100% sure that this will end up to be an Aircraft what we (or at least me) were used to expect when it´s done.

 

I have no problem with that. It´s EDs decision of course, I´ll just be a bit more cautious now and do more research before buying a module (DCS: modules were a no-brainer for me, and I got them all). :)

[Flagrum]

See it this way:

"DCS: <aircraft>" = Hi-Fi Studysim

"DCS: <somestuff>" = read product description

 

i.e. "DCS: A-10C Warthog" vs. "DCS: Combined Arms" or "DCS: Flaming Cliffs"

 

:D

[Napa]

As a marketing professional, from a marketing perspective this was a wrong move by ED and it would not be acceptable if ED was under the umbrella of a corp e.g. Ubisoft or any other. But now things are different. Some things from a marketing perspective may come out wrong and wobbly but the overall quality of the product can overcome these problems.

[G00dnight]

FC3 has always been a DCS title it was only a previous arrangement that they had to use LO in tile and LOMAC as a prerequisite. this has now changed so I presume they have bought out the rights to the name.

As for DCS fidelity we already had su25t as the free aircraft bundled with DCSW that is low fidelity but still a great product to get people interested and then move up to A10C, BS2 & P51.

I wellcome the latest DCS news as I think it means that the company is doing well and that has to be good for all of us.

It annoys me when a company does something for its customers and all people do is moan at them Oh they are only doing it to upset me or I wanted it this way coz I wouldn't have had to buy this or that, Just think that the only reason why they where in a position to do it is because we bought all the modules, If we don't buy they can't make new modules.

There are modules I don't like or really want but I have them anyway & have even been suprised to enjoy.

 

@ innerloop. If they were under that umbrella we would all be playing an airborne BF4 clone with a maximum of 4 players. so if thats what you want you know where to go.

Edited January 25, 2014 by G00dnight

[buedi]

It annoys me when a company does something for its customers and all people do is moan at them[...]

 

It annoys me when someone asks a question in a forum and all people do is not reading the question and complaining that everyone´s complaining blahblah...

Please read my first post. I was clearly asking a question, wasn´t I? There´s a question mark, not an exclamation mark.

 

All I wanted to know is if there was a change or if what I read here several times was just an assumption that the DCS: prefix means something special.

 

Peace everyone... :pilotfly:

[Brisse]

It simply means that you don't need the original Lock On to install Flaming Cliffs 3. Thats all there is too it...

[Napa]

@ innerloop. If they were under that umbrella we would all be playing an airborne BF4 clone with a maximum of 4 players. so if thats what you want you know where to go.

 

Did I say that? God forbid! :noexpression:

 

I iterated that ED marketed DCS in that fashion at the beginning in 2008 when Ka-50 was released and now it's being marketed in this fashion. But since then a million things changed. DCS World was born and things turned out differently.

[Pepec9124]

DCS World - Does it ring any bells ?

[Raven68]

Man whats with all of the nitpicking these days. Why are you people here instead of enjoy this awesome sim?

 

 

You're all over it Cpt. Pecan!!:thumbup: Who else is offering simulation on this level? Enjoy what we have folks!

Edited January 25, 2014 by Raven68

[Dombl]

I suppose it could be entirely possible they could not name it just "Flaming Cliffs" or "Flaming Cliffs 3" because that would end up too similar to the names of the other titles.

Trademark laws are quite a thorny hedge to run through from what I've read.

[Exorcet]

I just thought, Lock On belongs to Ubi is part of the Ubi agreement. So now it's not Lock On anymore. DCS just means it installs into DCSW. That's my take.

[G00dnight]

Buedi yes you did ask a question it was right after the paragraph of crap about dcs doing summat you don't seem to approve of or have I got that wrong as well.

[golfsierra2]

FC3 has always been a DCS title it was only a previous arrangement that they had to use LO in tile and LOMAC as a prerequisite. this has now changed so I presume they have bought out the rights to the name.

 

I don't think so. More likely than throwing money after Ubisoft for an outdated game, DCS 1.2.7 finally created the bridge/adaptation for FC3, which allows an installation purely based on software components owned by ED. To me, a software workaround was implemented in DCS 1.2.7 to legally omit the Ubisoft-owned Lock-On installation.

[Steel Jaw]

That change in the naming (DCS: not being an indicator anymore of what simulation level you get) will make me cautious when another "DCS:" module will be released in Beta and not being feature comlete. You then can´t be 100% sure that this will end up to be an Aircraft what we (or at least me) were used to expect when it´s done.

 

I have no problem with that. It´s EDs decision of course, I´ll just be a bit more cautious now and do more research before buying a module (DCS: modules were a no-brainer for me, and I got them all). :)

 

Agreed.

[Fishbreath]

DCS: Flaming Cliffs <number or airplane name> is simplified modeling.

DCS: <airplane name> is full cockpit systems modeling.

 

That's the pattern so far, anyway.

[Frostie]

It's not that hard really, that is if you are one of those many shoppers that actually look at the description of what they're buying, just look for the mention of detailed avionics, AFM and clickable pit if that is what you're after.

 

DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3

Introduction

DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 (FC3) is the next evolution of the Flaming Cliffs series. FC3 features the F-15C, A-10A, Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29A, MiG-29S and Su-25. FC3 aircraft provide an easy learning curve for new players and focuses on a broad range of aircraft rather than a detailed single aircraft.

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/flaming_cliffs_3/

 

 

Also the naming is pretty simple to understand:

 

 

 

DCS:[aircraft] = leading edge DCS study simulation

• DCS: Ka-50 BlackShark

  
  

• DCS: A-10C Warthog

  
  

• DCS: P-51D Mustang

  
  

• DCS: UH-1H Huey

  
  

• DCS: Mi-8MTV2

  
  

 

DCS:[other product] = a simpler but still high quality DCS simulation

• DCS: World

  
  

• DCS: Combined Arms

  
  

• DCS: Flaming Cliffs

  
  

• A-10A DCS: Flaming Cliffs

  
  

• Su-25 DCS: Flaming Cliffs

  
  

FC3 is not of inferior quality, it is just not as detailed as a DCS:[aircraft], but still a quality DCS product, why shouldn't it be branded so.

[lunaticfringe]

FC3 is not of inferior quality, it is just not as detailed as a DCS:[aircraft], but still a quality DCS product, why shouldn't it be branded so.

 

Because reading comprehension is hard.

[XtraChrisP]

I don't know where the potential confusion lies. It's not like we're getting bombarded by modules; hi fidelity or otherwise. Five minutes of research should be enough to tell you whether DCS this or DCS that is on the A-10C level or the FC3 level.

[Maulkin]

Buedi yes you did ask a question it was right after the paragraph of crap about dcs doing summat you don't seem to approve of or have I got that wrong as well.

 

I think that you got that wrong as well. It appeared to me that the original poster posted a question followed by what he thought was the organization of the naming conventions and establishing what he believe was a new baseline and then asking for confirmation.

 

I think people have been a bit quick to jump on him thinking he was complaining. I think what set everyone off was "This is not possible anymore with the naming at the moment." which looks like complaining but I think what he is trying to say is 'how will new people coming to the sim not get confused?'.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Maulkin

[Darkwolf]

It was easy to distinguish the deeply simulated products from the less detailed products. This is not possible anymore with the naming at the moment.

 

You can simply read description of what you are about to buy.

[buedi]

I think that you got that wrong as well. It appeared to me that the original poster posted a question followed by what he thought was the organization of the naming conventions and establishing what he believe was a new baseline and then asking for confirmation.

 

Thank you so much Maulkin. This is exactly what I meant. I´m glad you stepped in, because I had no Idea what to do here anymore because I was clearly misunderstood. I´m not a native speaker and sometimes maybe I use too many words to describe what I mean, which may be confusing for some people. It can be a bit difficult to nail it in one sentence sometimes, when your vocabulary is not as extensive as the one of others.

 

:)

[Maulkin]

You can simply read description of what you are about to buy.

 

That is true the first paragraph says:

 

"FC3 aircraft provide an easy learning curve for new players and focuses on a broad range of aircraft rather than a detailed single aircraft. "

 

But that is not explicit and someone new to the DCS series might think that a clickable cockpit would be available, for example.