Jump to content

FC4 feature requests


Recommended Posts

Hello.

 

Regarding this post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3465510&postcount=1

Now that there is an FC4-pack in the horizon, I would like to propose improvements to

the existing system.

 

In my experience (and in the experience of my flight group) FC3 aircrafts' systems modeling

have in particular two shortcomings that really hamper the usefulness of FC3 aircraft.

In particular the Navigation systems of all the aircraft are simplified so much that instead

of making gameplay easier it actually makes gameplay more difficult.

 

I propose the following: Add TACAN (western aircraft) and RSBN (or VORDME, eastern aircraft) mode to the NAV master mode. To keep this simple, regard the beacons in the same way as waypoints. So in stead of tuning in a correct frequency, only have the ability to cycle through the beacons with "next" and "previous" keys. This would add a ton to the navigation capabilities of the aircraft by reducing the need to have waypoints on every usable airfield, or to try to circumvent this by using landing-modes to determine an airfield.

 

In addition to this, add the ability to change the course to the beacons. This could remain as it is for waypoints - after all, it is simpler for new users to have the correct course always visible to any waypoint. By adding such a feature to the aforementioned beacon-mode players would be able to navigate any landscape with the ease that you can with the real aircraft without the need to pre-design routes in the Mission Editor with waypoints.

 

Most FC3 aircraft have, but not all, the ability to see which waypoint, airfield etc is selected. This is particularly annoying with the F-15C, where you need to determine toward which airfield you are heading by looking at distances and bearings only - such a design desicion really emphasizes the use of F-10 map, which is no in my opinion realistic at all. Even if it was not exactly like in the real aircraft, I would dearly want to see the airfield name on the F-15C HUD. This is one of those things that is way too difficult to use due to the systems "simplicity".

 

Finally - all FC aircraft must have a player-controllable pressure setting for the altimeter. Some aircraft have this feature, others don't and I do not see why. If one wants to fly anything more realistic with dynamic weather (and thus changing pressure), or use, say QNH and STD, then a controllable pressure setting is a must.

 

 

 

These features would add a lot of gameplay value without the need to design the actual systems and without the need to make the aircraft too complex for beginners. I do hope these suggestion bring about conversation and possibly even support.

 

 

Eagle Dynamics - please consider my suggestions. These would add a lot of value to the already very convenient Module-pack.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's going to be an FC4, please can you guys introduce a 4th Gen Russian multirole fighter like a Su-30/34/35 or a MiG-29K/MiG-31 since the hope of getting a DCS level one is 0 right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello.

 

Regarding this post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3465510&postcount=1

Now that there is an FC4-pack in the horizon, I would like to propose improvements to

the existing system.

 

In my experience (and in the experience of my flight group) FC3 aircrafts' systems modeling

have in particular two shortcomings that really hamper the usefulness of FC3 aircraft.

In particular the Navigation systems of all the aircraft are simplified so much that instead

of making gameplay easier it actually makes gameplay more difficult.

 

I propose the following: Add TACAN (western aircraft) and RSBN (or VORDME, eastern aircraft) mode to the NAV master mode. To keep this simple, regard the beacons in the same way as waypoints. So in stead of tuning in a correct frequency, only have the ability to cycle through the beacons with "next" and "previous" keys. This would add a ton to the navigation capabilities of the aircraft by reducing the need to have waypoints on every usable airfield, or to try to circumvent this by using landing-modes to determine an airfield.

 

In addition to this, add the ability to change the course to the beacons. This could remain as it is for waypoints - after all, it is simpler for new users to have the correct course always visible to any waypoint. By adding such a feature to the aforementioned beacon-mode players would be able to navigate any landscape with the ease that you can with the real aircraft without the need to pre-design routes in the Mission Editor with waypoints.

 

Most FC3 aircraft have, but not all, the ability to see which waypoint, airfield etc is selected. This is particularly annoying with the F-15C, where you need to determine toward which airfield you are heading by looking at distances and bearings only - such a design desicion really emphasizes the use of F-10 map, which is no in my opinion realistic at all. Even if it was not exactly like in the real aircraft, I would dearly want to see the airfield name on the F-15C HUD. This is one of those things that is way too difficult to use due to the systems "simplicity".

 

Finally - all FC aircraft must have a player-controllable pressure setting for the altimeter. Some aircraft have this feature, others don't and I do not see why. If one wants to fly anything more realistic with dynamic weather (and thus changing pressure), or use, say QNH and STD, then a controllable pressure setting is a must.

 

 

 

These features would add a lot of gameplay value without the need to design the actual systems and without the need to make the aircraft too complex for beginners. I do hope these suggestion bring about conversation and possibly even support.

 

 

Eagle Dynamics - please consider my suggestions. These would add a lot of value to the already very convenient Module-pack.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

 

Aside from the ability to see which airfield you have selected in Nav mode, I actually think these suggestions DO NOT add much gameplay value. But that is just my 2 cents. The number of key presses you need to memorize in FC3 is already pushing the limits since there are no clickable pits. I think adding a bunch of extra Navigation and altimeter related key presses would just further complicate aircraft usage.

 

Short version: Systems depth needs to remain appropriate for a game that utilizes key presses vs clickable pits.


Edited by malibu43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the ability to see which airfield you have selected in Nav mode, I actually think these suggestions DO NOT add much gameplay value. But that is just my 2 cents. The number of key presses you need to memorize in FC3 is already pushing the limits since there are no clickable pits. I think adding a bunch of extra Navigation and altimeter related key presses would just further complicate aircraft usage.

 

Short version: Systems depth needs to remain appropriate for a game that utilizes key presses vs clickable pits.

 

In actuality there would only be two additional buttons, since all FC3 aircraft already have next and previous waypoint buttons (that could also be used for the beacon mode), the new Nav submode could simply be switched to by the same "1" key, and all FC3 aircraft already have a "increase altimeter pressure setting" and "decrease altimeter pressure setting" (which are just not used in A-10A and F-15C for some reason).

 

So only "turn course knob clockwise" and "turn course knob counterclockwise" would need to be added.

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had not seen Ninelines post before. Really surprised about the FC4 news and intrigued to see where they go with it.

I am absolutely delighted about the interest in the de haviland Mosquito. It was truly wonderful.

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think adding the airport names in the F-15 should not be done. Don't just go add things that aren't even in the plane simply for gameplay reasons. Also remembering the key's in FC are not that bad. 80% is on the HOTAS anyway. And all planes have basically the same key configuration, with some minor differences. So adding a couple more key's would not be a problem at all.

 

What i would like to see:

 

1. Add some more animations in the cockpit for buttons/switches. Like the switch you see animated in the SU-27 for wheel steering unlock.

2. Make a limited amount of buttons/switches clickable. Doesn't have to be much, just some important ones.

3. Add a simple MFD dispplay. With some basic buttons/switches to switch trough it, or have it that you can just map that function to your joystick/keyboard without any clickable switches.

4. Simple controllable radio's even if we have to do it with key bindings.

5. Some love.

 

I hope the FC4 package will include, 1 Russian modern jet with FC4 level air to ground capability, 1 jet that's not Russian or American, one bomber/strike aircraft for red and blue side. Or maybe a FC4 level chopper for the rotor heads if that's practical in the first place.

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Add some more animations in the cockpit for buttons/switches. Like the switch you see animated in the SU-27 for wheel steering unlock.

+1, although not top priority

2. Make a limited amount of buttons/switches clickable. Doesn't have to be much, just some important ones.

+1 Memorising shortcuts should be optional - you may use the keyboard shortcut if you want, or you could click the corresponding button in the pit. Other buttons in the pit would remain "dead".

With the ongoing VR revolution this makes complete sense as keyboards are not really usable in VR.

3. Add a simple MFD dispplay. With some basic buttons/switches to switch trough it, or have it that you can just map that function to your joystick/keyboard without any clickable switches.

Not sure what you meant here...

4. Simple controllable radio's even if we have to do it with key bindings.

-1 sorry:) Simple radios only in FC imho.

5. Some love.

:D
Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think adding the airport names in the F-15 should not be done. Don't just go add things that aren't even in the plane simply for gameplay reasons. Also remembering the key's in FC are not that bad. 80% is on the HOTAS anyway. And all planes have basically the same key configuration, with some minor differences. So adding a couple more key's would not be a problem at all.

 

What i would like to see:

 

1. Add some more animations in the cockpit for buttons/switches. Like the switch you see animated in the SU-27 for wheel steering unlock.

2. Make a limited amount of buttons/switches clickable. Doesn't have to be much, just some important ones.

3. Add a simple MFD dispplay. With some basic buttons/switches to switch trough it, or have it that you can just map that function to your joystick/keyboard without any clickable switches.

4. Simple controllable radio's even if we have to do it with key bindings.

5. Some love.

 

I hope the FC4 package will include, 1 Russian modern jet with FC4 level air to ground capability, 1 jet that's not Russian or American, one bomber/strike aircraft for red and blue side. Or maybe a FC4 level chopper for the rotor heads if that's practical in the first place.

 

While I agree with the sentiment of not making game'y additions to the aircraft, I do feel that such a way would be the most practical. I believe this because I do not see ED adding clickable features to FC3 aircraft. In addition if we take the F-15, the only way to know which TACAN would be selected for example is to animate a TACAN channel selector. While realistic, you would then have to have the MFD pages created to be able to know which airfield's approach mode is selected to match... this quickly snowballs into a lot of work needed to be done to the modules.

 

My approach, while not 100% realistic, would require minimal effort (increasing likelyhood of us actually getting said features). After all we already have waypoint information on the HUD, so having the ability to show APP mode airfield identifier/name (like in the A-10A) and in the aforementioned beacon mode the TACAN channel would not be intrusive nor immersion breaking.

 

In fact HUD symbology and information displayed there changes in aircraft through their lifespan as improvements are made. So the F-15C HUD we have now is not the only F-15C HUD there is/could be. I am not suggesting that we go wildly out there, not at all. But the data block is already there so...

 

In the end ED's main focus rightly is and should be in other things instead of FC-aircraft, so I am approaching the subject from a minimal effort, maximal gain perspective.

 

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet


Edited by MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to handle Nav for FC3/4 would be a new NAVIGATION DATA option in the ground crew screen.

 

This option allows us to create and load waypoints by clicking on a map and hit "load Nav data to aircraft" or something. When landing and refuel/rearm we can create new waypoints if needed.

 

Basic and solid. Perfect for Flaming Cliffs aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to handle Nav for FC3/4 would be a new NAVIGATION DATA option in the ground crew screen.

 

This option allows us to create and load waypoints by clicking on a map and hit "load Nav data to aircraft" or something. When landing and refuel/rearm we can create new waypoints if needed.

 

Basic and solid. Perfect for Flaming Cliffs aircraft.

 

Why limit that to FC3 aircraft? IRL pilots don't typically create routes or waypoints in the cockpit - they make them on a computer and load onto the cartridge that goes into the aircraft. Option to create and edit is there in case you need it, not for everyday flight planning.

 

I want to see such a feature in general, not just for FC3...

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see adding nav beacon tuning as fitting with Flaming Cliffs, there's an existing F10 map and a ruler which acts as a far superior and more accurate GPS type device for players to use, so it's adding a layer of complexity, which generates a layer of difficulty, for which there is an established simpler solution.

 

The server settings being off for F10 ownship and including FC3 aircraft is down to the mission designer. If they don't want to help FC3 players that's up to them.

 

The actual best fit solution is to be able to edit flight plans in cockpit via the F10 map, which would suit all aircraft in so many ways.

 

All i'm hearing is people asking for more avionics on a simple avionics designed product, it's the continuous warcry of the internet age, we want more for less.

 

FC4 is important to generate revenue for investment into full modules and for short development cycles and to fill airframes needed more quickly than can currently be achieved. I understand it's place, I wish it well, I own it and do not play any of it but the moment people start going backwards and re-engineering the FC3 product line, we are in a world of pain.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see adding nav beacon tuning as fitting with Flaming Cliffs, there's an existing F10 map and a ruler which acts as a far superior and more accurate GPS type device for players to use, so it's adding a layer of complexity, which generates a layer of difficulty, for which there is an established simpler solution.

 

The server settings being off for F10 ownship and including FC3 aircraft is down to the mission designer. If they don't want to help FC3 players that's up to them.

 

The actual best fit solution is to be able to edit flight plans in cockpit via the F10 map, which would suit all aircraft in so many ways.

 

All i'm hearing is people asking for more avionics on a simple avionics designed product, it's the continuous warcry of the internet age, we want more for less.

 

FC4 is important to generate revenue for investment into full modules and for short development cycles and to fill airframes needed more quickly than can currently be achieved. I understand it's place, I wish it well, I own it and do not play any of it but the moment people start going backwards and re-engineering the FC3 product line, we are in a world of pain.

 

It's not a layer of extra difficulty. It's basically the same how the poster explained in the SU-27 Flanker. In the Flanker all airfields have a beacon and you can go trough them. A lot of times i'm already using that for navigation instead of the F-10 map and the normal waypoint navigation. Also a extra layer of avionics doesn't have to be more difficult. Unless you think it's difficult to remember 4 or 5 more key presses.

Go in close, and when you think you are too close, go in closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see adding nav beacon tuning as fitting with Flaming Cliffs, there's an existing F10 map and a ruler which acts as a far superior and more accurate GPS type device for players to use, so it's adding a layer of complexity, which generates a layer of difficulty, for which there is an established simpler solution.

 

The server settings being off for F10 ownship and including FC3 aircraft is down to the mission designer. If they don't want to help FC3 players that's up to them.

 

The actual best fit solution is to be able to edit flight plans in cockpit via the F10 map, which would suit all aircraft in so many ways.

 

All i'm hearing is people asking for more avionics on a simple avionics designed product, it's the continuous warcry of the internet age, we want more for less.

 

FC4 is important to generate revenue for investment into full modules and for short development cycles and to fill airframes needed more quickly than can currently be achieved. I understand it's place, I wish it well, I own it and do not play any of it but the moment people start going backwards and re-engineering the FC3 product line, we are in a world of pain.

Since you don't fly any of them please stay out of the discussion/wish list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the best way to handle Nav for FC3/4 would be a new NAVIGATION DATA option in the ground crew screen.

 

This option allows us to create and load waypoints by clicking on a map and hit "load Nav data to aircraft" or something. When landing and refuel/rearm we can create new waypoints if needed.

 

Basic and solid. Perfect for Flaming Cliffs aircraft.

 

Sounds good to me!

By default we could have TACAN set to the final destination in the flight plan so that players did not have to mess with this every single flight, useful in single player for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@HiJack

His thoughts are just as valid as anybody else's, yo

 

@Buzzles

Actually, the number we're likely to get as full modules is fairly small, and will take 10+ years to get them on top of it. FC4 isn't really nudging out "future projects", as much as simply supplementary funding for ones already planned.

 

We're not going to get large, full scale replicas of multiple variants of the same aircraft, in most cases, and some are unachievable due to licensing/security complications, others will never be simply because there isn't time in the day to do all of them anyway. FC provides a limited supplement to fill in some of those gaps. Personally, I'd prefer if FC was done away with and all aircraft were full modules, but I recognise that's not entirely realistic from a marketing standpoint, and would vastly reduce the availability of future aircraft. Not producing it gains little, but costs a great deal of revenue and potentially narrows the availability of future full modules as result. Consider it a necessary evil, if you will.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a chance, because it affects me if they pull dev time off full fidelity modules to add these features that are scope creep and conflicting.

 

I'm absolutely 100% against this proposition, FC3 is very successful and doesn't need it's formulae changed.

Since you don't fly any of them please stay out of the discussion/wish list.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a chance, because it affects me if they pull dev time off full fidelity modules to add these features that are scope creep and conflicting.

 

I'm absolutely 100% against this proposition, FC3 is very successful and doesn't need it's formulae changed.

 

I'm glad you're not making important decisions then, otherwise we'd still be using eight track tapes and DOS4GW graphics engine. "The cassette player is perfectly serviceable, and Doom was revolutionary in its day. CD drives and 3d engines are scope creep and draw resources from the anniversary release of Sweet Home Alabama and new WADs."

 

While the specific features suggested are debatable, no, it is not essential that there be NO INNOVATION OR IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER. That's just a ridiculous attitude to take. Especially since FC aircraft do indeed need updating, thus... ED UPDATING THEM, jeez. You've got PFMs and expanded functionality already, including additional radar modes. It's not going to remain static. Accept it.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with "innovating" FC3, to continue with your metaphor, what the OP suggests is to turn the eight track tape into a 16 track tape rather than concentrate on the CD player.

 

FC3 modules don't need updating, people use FC3 perfectly fine and these modules are subject to less breakages than the complex ones, release on release. Making them more into complex module defeats the point of them being simplistic and narrows the gap between modules. PFM's were great for FC3, a real gift, but I'm not so sure this wasn't for the benefit of everyone being on the same level and part of a wider goal.

 

Summary of the OP's points:

 

  • Wants realistic radio with tunable frequencies
  • Wants to use navigation aids in the cockpit albeit in some "cycle mode"
  • Wants to select local air pressure for the altimeter

Tune-able frequencies for FC3. If you want it, there's Simple Radio. Tune all you want and get effects and radio enhancements. For free.

 

 

Navigation aid to cycle up and down. I don't know when the last time folks checked the beacons.lua but for Caucasus it is One thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Six lines long. Heaven help cycling through the wrong end of that for simplicity.

Then the OP says the current method is too simple. But the feature exists in capable full modules. Ironic.

 

 

 

Local Air pressure deviations. Which part of this fits with the FC3 playerbase or product? What type of sim enthusiast complains his airport can't give him QFE on his F-15 then chooses FC3 over an F-5? Most the FC3 players won't even know the difference between QFE and QNH. Of those that do, great news for them, and remind them there are modules that they can adjust for pressure locally in the full modules.

 

 

 

Solving the flight plans as editable mid mission for Clients would solve way more problems for the entire consumer base and has been asked for for many years now.

 

 

Anyway, you've seen how ED work with things, what they change and what they go back to. If they can pull these changes into their dev schedule I'd be very happy for you guys, I really would. Best of luck to all of you!

 

 

 

I'm glad you're not making important decisions then, otherwise we'd still be using eight track tapes and DOS4GW graphics engine. "The cassette player is perfectly serviceable, and Doom was revolutionary in its day. CD drives and 3d engines are scope creep and draw resources from the anniversary release of Sweet Home Alabama and new WADs."

 

While the specific features suggested are debatable, no, it is not essential that there be NO INNOVATION OR IMPROVEMENT WHATSOEVER. That's just a ridiculous attitude to take. Especially since FC aircraft do indeed need updating, thus... ED UPDATING THEM, jeez. You've got PFMs and expanded functionality already, including additional radar modes. It's not going to remain static. Accept it.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...