Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3?

I think we have been answered on FC3... Or should i say FC4 aircraft.

 

Q. Will we see survey modules again like FC3 for the casual simmer and especially 'The Century Series' Surely classic air frames are a market seller :wink: – Mizzy

 

A. FC4 with four more aircraft

Flying Legends pack with 8 -12 aircraft …. ?

Century fighters are a big deal and a period I absolutely love, but not priority no.1 at the moment.

 

Very bad idea to turn century fighters into fc type modules. They are prime candidates for full fidelity modules since data is publicly available and systems are not so hard to recreate.

Considering SA2 and other period assets are coming we can set a true 50s -70s air war scenario that a lot of people are asking and is bound to turn some heads.

I think we have been answered on FC3... Or should i say FC4 aircraft.

 

Q. Will we see survey modules again like FC3 for the casual simmer and especially 'The Century Series' Surely classic air frames are a market seller :wink: – Mizzy

 

A. FC4 with four more aircraft

Flying Legends pack with 8 -12 aircraft …. ?

Century fighters are a big deal and a period I absolutely love, but not priority no.1 at the moment.

 

Awesome news! https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3465510&postcount=1

Both in terms of direct implications (FC4 sounds great!) and possible side effects concerning the likes of this thread (no more "no more FC" :D) .

I have just read through this thread and I am not quite getting the why people think that this is an either/or style situation?

 

I cant really see why both FC3 level aircraft and the more complex high fidelity modules cant co-exist, especially as they already have done so in DCS for years now.

 

ED have recently revealed that they are interested in developing more FC style products (in FC4) and Combined Arms also has simplified armoured warfare aspect to it, so the whole philosophy of a simpler level of simulation is not foreign to the company.

 

It seems to me that there are several advantages for widening the number of FC3 level aircraft that could potentially benefit everyone in the long run.

 

I dont think FC3 level aircraft threatens the high fidelity aircraft but actually benefits them. If FC3 level versions of various modules got released for about $10-$20 I am sure these would sell to a wider (i.e. larger) audience thereby increasing the customer base of ED.

 

The benefit here is that some of those new customers will end up upgrading the aircraft they like the most to the more expensive high fidelity versions, thereby gaining ED sales of high fidelity modules of about $60 a piece they would never have had otherwise.

 

Of course it also means they can sell more maps, campaigns, etc as well :)

 

From a business perspective it just makes sense to have a strategy that grows the company, which is why I think they are developing FC4 so that new customers have a route in to DCS.

 

The A-10 aircraft is already an example of this as it exists in FC3 (as the A-10A) but also has a high fidelity version (the A-10C), I would be fascinated to know how many FC3 customer upgraded to the A-10C module...

i upgraded from the FC3 A-10A to the DCS A-10C

but not because it was clickable. i upgraded because it was more modern and had more capabilities. i would never bought a DCS A-10A, because it would have been basically the same aircraft but the A-10C was different enough. if there are new FC3 aircrafts i would rather have different aircrafts and not FC3 versions of a DCS module

 

so i vote for none

 

but interestingly you forgot to add the option. strange

Edited May 13, 2018 by 1stBEAST

No need to vote for "none" as "none" is what you already have, you can go ahead and enjoy it this very evening :) You will also be able to continue to enjoy "none" even if FC difficulty option becomes a thing - so again, no need for the active voting position imo.

 

Plus,

with only 10 slots max for the votes I ran out of slots before I could mention A-10C, Mig-15, Sabre, Gazelle, etc.

Thus, the question was not "yes or no?", but "which aircraft?".

 

Funnily enough A-10A was/is my least favourite craft in FC as it is too lacking compared to the A-10C and too slow compared to Su-25. At the time when I was playing the A-10C, the ground units AI was such that e.g. BMP2's were scoring guaranteed hits from 1.3 Miles making TGPless strikes a bit of a chore. FC3 A-10C would have gotten a lot more play time as there was a time when I completely forgot its full real procedures and did not have time to relearn (I still haven't).

Edited May 13, 2018 by Katmandu

You missed AH-64 Apache as an option

 

Why AH-64 in FC4? Since I don't think we will see any AH-64 full fidelity sim before 2030 anyway. If ever...

Edited May 13, 2018 by KeyCat

You missed AH-64 Apache as an option

 

Why AH-64 in FC4? Since I don't think we will see any AH-64 full fidelity sim before 2030 anyway. If ever...

 

Lets hope the Apache never comes to FC4. Rather no Apache then a FC3 one. That beast should be a fully clickable module in my opinion.

Lets hope the Apache never comes to FC4. Rather no Apache then a FC3 one. That beast should be a fully clickable module in my opinion.

 

Read my last line ;)

 

I rather take a FC4 level AH-64 Apache than none at all! Of course if a AH-64 full fidelity module is planned and released as EA before we hit 2020 I'm all for it.

 

But as I said, I highly doubt we will see one before 2030 if ever and by then I may be 6 feet under :)

Edited May 13, 2018 by KeyCat

You missed AH-64 Apache as an option

Deliberate miss on my part, the poll was all about REusing full sim modules for FC optional control scheme. So my list was made from the already available and officially announced full sim modules. Was not meant to be one of those pie-in-the-sky "which craft would like in FC/DCS?" threads.

 

Full sim Apache (Eurofighter, F-22, etc etc etc etc) with an FC optional scheme would be mega of course and I've think the Apache is among the reserved modules for ED :thumbup: But nothing official yet...

 

 

Lets hope the Apache never comes to FC4. Rather no Apache then a FC3 one. That beast should be a fully clickable module in my opinion.

No such issue for this thread, Apache would need to be fully modelled/clickable to be FCfied. Exclusive FC4 craft talk is in the other thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207312 :)
Edited May 13, 2018 by Katmandu

I'm not sure I follow... I never used them, but aren't they basically an external 3d model of a Harrier for example with Su-25 cockpit, sensors and AFM?

So...

If one was after an FC level Harrier and had a choice between full Harrier's sim conversion (Harrier cockpit, sensors, tailor made AFM with VTOL) and a Su-25 with an external Harrier 3d model - nobody would choose the latter, right? :D

 

 

We already have mods for this, why would we need a full fidelity module converted to FC3? VSN mods would rather serve that purpose.

We already have mods for this, why would we need a full fidelity module converted to FC3? VSN mods would rather serve that purpose.

 

Because People still like to fly the aircraft with the correct and authentic cockpit and appearance as well as a accurate PFM,

 

And not a Western Fighter w/ a Russian Cockpit and vise versa with copy/paste systems, and a limited flight model.

 

These "Make Flyable Mods" are no where near authentic, in cockpit, flight model or systems.

 

End of Story.

I'd go with none, since I would prefer new content for players rather than rehashed content.

I'd go with none, since I would prefer new content for players rather than rehashed content.

Good news for you :

"none" is what you already have, you can go ahead and enjoy it this very evening :) You will also be able to continue to enjoy "none" even if FC difficulty option becomes a thing

:)

I don’t see an advantage to having 3rd parties or ED redo these modules as FC style modules when users could simply rebind their controls on their own.

 

Most of these modern aircraft are already “simple”

 

My M2000 module, for instance, has a hotas setup that is nearly identical to my FC3 F15C setup. If I were to use auto start, the only “extra” thing I would need to do is to click is the master arm button. The plane has a lot more capability than the FC F15, but you don’t have to mess with the INS computer or TACAN (etc) if you don’t want to.

 

And hell, how do you make the MiG21 more simplistic? Disable radar filters and IFF interrogation? Just select your pylon and fire your weapon!

 

If you really want these modules more “Flaming Cliffs” like you could rebind the controls and share them or even use a 3rd party app to make macros.

 

I’ve never tried to work on an endeavor like that myself because everyone has a different HOTAS setup. I’ll walk people through control setup, but I don’t like to tell people what keyboard and joystick buttons to bind because it needs to be ergonomic for the individual pilot.

 

In general, I always suggest trying to make control schemes similar between modules. It makes it easier to learn multiple airframes.

 

I find there is some anxiety associated with the full sim modules, but most of them aren’t that complicated to get started with. I personally think they are easier than Flaming Cliffs planes, because if you forget a keybind you can always use your mouse and click the button in the cockpit.

 

But, if it’s a project you are really passionate about, go ahead and make a FC like control scheme.

 

(If it’s a price issue... wait for a sale. They have one every quarter.)

If you really want these modules more “Flaming Cliffs” like you could rebind the controls and share them or even use a 3rd party app to make macros.

Yep, i thought about this, but 1) ED are doing this job anyway and 2) Macros by themsleves would be a half measure (have a look at my pseudocode examples in the OP).

 

One also needs some "if-then" functionality, input through some DCS API and so on. E.g. you can't just forget about TACAN, FC player still needs to navigate to tanker or back to base; similar with JTAC coords input into CDU and so on.

 

And hell, how do you make the MiG21 more simplistic?

That's what I was talking about before :) I'm sure that Mig-21 is a pretty simple aircraft, but to appreciate that one needs to learn which panel does what which switches are vital, which can be mostly ignored - one needs to learn the module. And then it dawns that it is not that hard after all. Untill you go away for a while, forget everything and start anew:D

Then it starts to look daunting again

 

Been there, done that with my Ka50, A10C and Falcon :)

Edited May 28, 2018 by Katmandu

none!!!

If these modules are already full fidelity I dont get the reason to make them fc3 standards...rather I'd would like some of the FC3 module to become FULL fidelity siuch as the mig29 , su33,su27....

lol @ the air quake ''multiplayer'' fans

 

I see the value of reusing codebase for simplified modules, certainly it's easier than starting scratch. If indeed they're doing FC versions of ASM aircraft... then I really don't care what they do. I only have FC3 to gain access to planes not otherwise available, so I won't be buying it unless it has something new.

Sorry to be an elitist, but I would not like to see EDs and third party's already stretched resources put into simplifying modules.

lol this Katmandu guy just doesn't give up

Yep, i thought about this, but 1) ED are doing this job anyway and 2) Macros by themsleves would be a half measure (have a look at my pseudocode examples in the OP).

 

One also needs some "if-then" functionality, input through some DCS API and so on. E.g. you can't just forget about TACAN, FC player still needs to navigate to tanker or back to base; similar with JTAC coords input into CDU and so on.

 

That's what I was talking about before :) I'm sure that Mig-21 is a pretty simple aircraft, but to appreciate that one needs to learn which panel does what which switches are vital, which can be mostly ignored - one needs to learn the module. And then it dawns that it is not that hard after all. Untill you go away for a while, forget everything and start anew:D

Then it starts to look daunting

Been there, done that with my Ka50, A10C and Falcon :)

 

It definitely looks daunting, but it’s just looks. You can change the cockpit language and in the end you can use auto start, bind almost the same number of controls as a FC module and never touch the cockpit again... until you want to learn more.

 

And as Heatblur mentioned with the F14, piloting is more simplistic than FC aircraft because of the RIO taking a good portion of the workload.

 

I agree that FC modules could use more functionality like datalink, moving map, TACAN, etc, but there isn’t much to be gained from changing these already full fidelity modules to a FC format. It’s better to put guides out there and show people that these modern birds aren’t that hard to learn :thumbup:

 

The problem with FC modules is you have to remember the huge number of key combos, and you can’t just click on the cockpit if you forget something. Adding TACAN or CDU functions could be tough since you’re adding even more key commands to the mix. It’s easier to click on an OSB button.

 

It seems like ED announced some new “FC4” modules for the future, so we’ll see what those add.

On looking at the poll options, should it really be limited to existing modules? I think I understand the reasoning, that it's because the bulk of the work is there, at least for models and so on, yet I cannot help but feel that perhaps for FC something different should come to the flight-line, something that would normally be overlooked due to lack of granular detail that'd warrant the simpler flight model and yet could also complement the higher fidelity models too; say a flyable S-3B with buddy refuelling, torpedoes, bombs, rockets and ECM.

It definitely looks daunting, but it’s just looks. You can change the cockpit language and in the end you can use auto start, bind almost the same number of controls as a FC module and never touch the cockpit again... until you want to learn more.

 

And as Heatblur mentioned with the F14, piloting is more simplistic than FC aircraft because of the RIO taking a good portion of the workload.

I've used similar arguments to convince somebody to get Ka-50 :P https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1847963&postcount=12

I look forward to the F-14, will probably learn the full sim too as I love the plane, but also hope for an FC style crutch for later.

there isn’t much to be gained from changing these already full fidelity modules to a FC format. It’s better to put guides out there and show people that these modern birds aren’t that hard to learn :thumbup:

 

Learning is not a one way street, people forget too.

 

I'm all for more guides, butter tutorials, interactive training missions and that, but at the end of the day time spent in DCS is always a constraint. For example having only 2 hours per week with occasional fortnight breaks is a big factor regardless of quality of tuition. Having 10 hours per week but 5 full sim modules in the hangar is similarly constraining.

 

The problem with FC modules is you have to remember the huge number of key combos, and you can’t just click on the cockpit if you forget something.

most of the key combos are shared between modules - e.g. radar operation in both American and Russian fighters, same keys can also be set to slew,zoom and lock Shkval in Su-25; 1..8 keys for nav and weapon modes work in ALL FC planes and so on.

 

I do agree that clickability is sometimes helpful, hope FC4 will give us an option of clicking OR using shortcut.

I'd like to see a variety of FC3 level planes, but I'm mostly interested in modern aircraft:

 

F-16C, A+, E

F-18A/C or E

Su-27SM2 or Su-35

MIG-35

Eurofighter

Rafale

Mirage 2000-5 or -9

JAS-39

 

I'm more interested in newer air frames. The only high fidelity aircraft I'd absolutely love to have at FC3 level is the F-18 and more or less confirmed F-16. Harrier would be great but until ground vehicle accuracy is fixed I have little interest in low speed attack aircraft. F-14 and F-4E sound great, but they're two seaters and micromanaging an AI backseater will be too cumbersome.

 

As I belong to the simulation type, I'd rather see ED and its 3rd parties work on study modules, rather than see them invest effort on new FC3 ones

 

And there are many of us who would rather see more FC3 type modules. I especially view the WWII and trainer aircraft to be complete wastes of time even if I like to fly around in the P-51 every now and then.

 

I can always stoop down and say "fly IL-2" or "fly Falcon 4" but there is no need to be offended by someone else's opinion.

 

There are limitations with full fidelity aircraft, such as inability to model interesting air frames such as a modern Mirage 2000-5 or -9, the long and risky development times and more. A third party studio can come along and build FC3 level modern fighters and I'd be very happy. We'd have everything from WWII, high fidelity, medium fidelity to helicopters and trainers in a single game.

 

Higher fidelity aircraft also take a long time to develop, which hurts development of the core engine. You can have the most realistic systems and avionics but if AIM-120s still fall out of the sky within 7 miles and a BMP-2 can regularly blow MIG-29s out of the sky the realism is greatly compromised. I'd rather have ED focus on FC3 level aircraft so they can spare more programmers to focus on missile physics and ground vehicle accuracy and other things that really need fixing. Clearly ED is spread too thin as is right now.

 

Two thumbs down from me.

It's wasted effort and attracts the wrong type of audience. Those who want simple aircraft have many other options both inside of DCS world and out.

Too much time is spent indulging people with a lack of patience these days.

 

Contrary to popular belief , FC3 is still a flight sim and not a WWII MMO like War Thunder. ;) To suggest they are the same is quite frankly insulting to the amount of work ED has put into FC3.

 

The options inside of DCS are great, but I've been playing the same few aircraft for over a decade now. I'd like something new. I cannot think of a single game similar to FC3 in terms of realism or mission editor. Can you please point me to it? For full fidelity switch flipping flight simulators there actually are other alternatives, such as Falcon or FSX. So using that is an arrangement point falls flat.

 

The lack of patience comment is fairly insulting. A lot of people are more interested in a variety of different aircraft and/or don't have as much spare time as they'd like. Would you consider someone who opts for a simpler trainer or WWII plane module as someone who lacks patience and are therefore the wrong audience?

 

None. Sorry but the biggest problem would be that it would somehow unbalance the Multiplayer part.

 

Real life isn't balanced. The irony of asking for maximum realism yet balance is interesting to say the least. :)

 

There are a lot of players out there who would use any advantage they can get and if you have other modules with simplified avionics, people who actually learned the plane are in a disadvantage. I just pick the mig21 for instance because i fly it alot and on multiplayer there were a couple of stress-related situations where i couldn't fire my missile because i just forgot to open the cover switch for the weapon release button.

 

The parts in bold don't make any sense. If you actually learned the plane you wouldn't have forgotten to open the cover switch.

 

The actual differences, once in the air, are minimal. One just requires you to use the very unrealistic mouse to click around the cockpit a few extra times, but that should all have been done before getting into combat.

 

If you are not interested in learning a plane than you really should look for a game where everything is simplified.

 

Some of us are more interested in the combat. We're looking for enough realism to learn use real world tactics, some realistic avionics, realistic flight models, payloads, ect. But not everyone wants to learn every single function the aircraft has.

 

If you can point me to a flight sim similar to FC3 I'd be happy to know about it. But you can't, because there is none. :doh:

You already have FC3 modules. Use them! Or learn the full-fidelity modules, of which some are as simple as FC3 if you use fast-start.

 

I've used those aircraft for over a decade. Why not continue using the KA-50 and A-10C? Because you'd like to fly new aircraft? Same reason why many of us want more FC3 aircraft. The "simple" full fidelity modules tend to be older, uninteresting modules such as trainers or WWII planes.

 

If not, there's plenty of other games for you out there.

 

Again with this argument. What games are you referring to?

 

This is a subject that keeps coming up, and I for one have voiced my opinion on the matter a few times already. Basically it comes down to this:

 

If you only fly an aircraft in DCS in order to "blow stuff up", sure FC3 will work for you.

If you're into the "full experience" of an aircraft (to whichever degree it is practically possible), FC3 won't work for you:

- You can't set QFE in a FC3 module;

- You can't tune into TACAN/NDB stations;

- You can't use the radio properly;

- ...

 

In short, you don't get the immersion of being inside an actual aircraft, something a *simulator* is supposed to simulate, especially one as detailed as DCS.

 

FC3 was the logical step after the simulators of the '90s, but since then technology has evolved, more resources have become available, teams have grown, ... and thus FC3 has become obsolete in the eyes of die-hard aviation enthousiasts (I'm doing my best not to sound condescending towards the FC3-fanbase since it is not my intention to look down on anyone - different people have different priorities, that's all).

 

DCS has evolved into something that's - to me - a good substitute for the real thing: medical issues kept me from signing up with the Air Force and flying jets for a living. I am considered "too old" now to join the military, even if I would pass the medical checkups, but flying full fidelity modules in DCS, watching YouTube videos on aviation technology/engineering is a splendid way to indulge in a subject that has fascinated me for decades.

 

A nice, fairly level headed response. I can certainly understand your reason for wanting full fidelity modules. However, FC3 certainly is a simulator and is massively immersive. It isn't the most realistic simulator by far, but it provides a great middle ground experience. Not everyone wants to pretend they're a fighter pilot, but would like some way to connect to their hobby of combat aviation. We don't want to simulate the hours of briefings, pre-flight checks, medical examinations and whatnot which would be required of a real fighter pilot. FC3 is a great way to do this. We can relatively quickly experience different air frames, experience their pros and cons, and switch between them easily while still retaining realistic combat parameters.

 

I respect and understand your position and am thankful you could respond without resulting to insults. :)

 

 

This post wasn't to offend anyone, and if I have I apologize. I am just pointing out the irony, poor arguments used, the common trend of "stop liking what I don't like" this has become common as well as the insults towards those who prefer other modules.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Flogger23m

Let's not lose sight of the fact that FC3 is currently the only method we have of flying 3rd or early 4th gen Russian military aircraft, at least fixed wing. I suspect a lot of the long-time "Flanker" / DCS fans were drawn to this sim precisely because it featured things like the Su-27 / 33, or Su-25, which at the time were simply not available elsewhere, whereas there was very much a time when cookie-cutter F-16 and F-18 sims were numerous.

 

I'm very glad that we have the F/A-18C to DCS standard and will in the future be getting the F-16C Bk.50 to a similar standard, but let's not dismiss the very significant portion of the fan base who enjoy red air. FC3 is their (our) only route to getting that experience for now, and likely for the foreseeable future.