Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3? - ED Forums
 


Notices

View Poll Results: Pick as many as you'd like!
F/A-18 39 31.71%
F-16C 81 65.85%
F-14 40 32.52%
The Harrier/AV-8B 25 20.33%
Ka-50 21 17.07%
Mirage-2000 26 21.14%
F-4E Phantom 48 39.02%
AJS-37 Viggen 20 16.26%
Mig-21 28 22.76%
Mi-24 Hind 36 29.27%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 123. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-06-2018, 10:01 PM   #1
Katmandu
Member
 
Katmandu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 732
Default Which full sim modules you'd like as additional FC3 versions?

First things first, this topic is only for those who enjoy FC3, not for the "elitists" who call FC3 "arcade", "pointless now that there are clickable modules" and other such lark. If you like the philosophy behind FC3 (sort of IL2 for modern air combat), which of the current and upcoming modules would you like to see get an FC3 version?

For example, do you want to fly Ka-50, but do not want to spend the time necessary to learn its systems? Or, have you learnt the Ka-50 2years ago, but forgotten everything and and can't make yourself start all over again? Vote here to have Ka-50 have a Su-25T like implementation and make it into "like riding a bicycle" forget-proof version. Same hardcore physics and weapons, just simplified procedures (FC3 level).


N.B. I do hugely enjoy both the fully clickable modules and the FC3 craft. One thing I personally would like changed in DCS is the replacement of the "game" parts of a fully clickable module (like "Ka-50 game" or "A-10C game" with FC3 counterparts). For one, it would make easier to come back to a DCS module after being away from it for a while, when relearning its systems may not be as appealing as the first time round. But there are lots of reasons for FC3's existence of course, summed up by one RL Airbus pilot as "FC3/IL2 is for times when I'd like to fly and not work)

The economics are important of course, but I'd be happy to buy my "full fat" modules with an included FC3 version, or a standalone FC3 plane.


EDIT: An example algorithm on how to condense a full sim module to FC3 (pseudocode for FC3ing the full sim Ka-50): https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...4&postcount=40 and (EDIT_3) similar thing for a more complex multi function jet like F/A-18C or F-16C https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...8&postcount=77

EDIT2: Some common concerns and possible answers:
Concern 1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pikey View Post
You can't develop a full module then just remove parts and call it FC3.

Imagine a "simplified version" of the F-14 radar. It would have to be reinvented.
Answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katmandu View Post
Not at all, the sensors, propulsion,suspension physics, flight model, damage model, weapons... all the systems would stay exactly the same as they were in the full sim. 100% the same! The thing that is changing is the control of the sensors, engines and other systems - like in my pseudocode example with the Ka-50.
Concern 2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dillio View Post
What you want is a full module with some kind of simple, optional control scheme that would allow you to use the full capabilities of the module, but with easier controls. And then... sell that as a separate module? This makes no sense for ED to produce or try to sell, and makes your "implementation" even more far-fetched.
Answer:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katmandu View Post
The thing is, this hybrid module would behave in an identical fashion to an FC3 one, even though it is completely different underneath. Thus, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck - it is a duck. But inside it is not a duck, it is a complex beautiful swan But it's a duck

So if it looks, has controls and has difficulty like FC3 you can sell it like FC3 (or bundle as DCS-lite, FC3 - whatever- with full sim module).
Concern 3:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HWasp View Post
Instead of making simplified versions of modules already made for a higher standard, it would be much better to have other interesting planes as new FC3 level modules.
Answer:
Quote:
In an ideal world - yes. But in a real world AFM, 3D+texturing, systems development at FC3 level are very significant. Adapting a hardcore module to FC3 is much faster/cheaper than developing from scratch, there is no doubt about that.

Last edited by Katmandu; 05-02-2018 at 12:35 AM.
Katmandu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2018, 10:23 PM   #2
probad
Senior Member
 
probad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,841
Default

trying to purge disagreements by creating a new thread and artificially generating support by only encouraging positive responses is not a convincing argument.
__________________
hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL
probad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2018, 10:28 PM   #3
Katmandu
Member
 
Katmandu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 732
Default

Probad, lets be progood The F14 thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.p...57#post3444857 was aimed at F-14 devs/crowd only, this is a general FC3 discussion.
Katmandu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2018, 11:58 PM   #4
Rudel_chw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Antofagasta, Chile
Posts: 2,282
Default

Seems the alternative "None" is missing from the Poll, it would give a less biased result.
__________________
For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra
For Gaming: 27" Monitor - Ryzen 1500X - 16 GB DDR4 2400 - MSI GTX970 - SSD 384 GB - HDD 8 TB - Windows 8.1 Pro - Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1
Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 128 GB
Rudel_chw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 01:51 AM   #5
toutenglisse
Member
 
toutenglisse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: French Alps
Posts: 380
Default

As long as "cheat buttons" for startup procedure and fast forward (for shortening procedure in SP^^) exist, I'd say none.
I would find more attractive to have FC3 modules coming full fidelity (but still with the cheat buttons !!)
__________________
Hardware : I7 7700K - Z270 gaming M5 - 32GB ( 4x8 ) ddr4 3200Mhz - 1080Ti gaming X - SSD M2 - TM Twcs / TM Rgt yaw pedals / MS sidewinder FF2 - Oculus Rift CV1.
toutenglisse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 03:51 AM   #6
Gladman
Senior Member
 
Gladman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Kitscoty, AB
Posts: 1,231
Default

None would be my vote. There are enough FC3 level aircraft for people to get into DCS and move on to more advanced modules. If a person wants more FC3 level aircraft, I suggest war thunder.
__________________
i9 9900K @ 4.9Ghz - ASUS Maximus Hero XI - 32GB 4266 DDR4 RAM - ASUS RTX 2080Ti - 1 TB NVME - NZXT Kraken 62 Watercooling System - Thrustmaster Warthog Hotas - MFG Crosswind Pedals - Oculus Rift!!!
VFA-25 Fist Of The Fleet
http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic99190_2.gif
Gladman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 04:55 AM   #7
PeaceSells
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: getSelfCoordinates()
Posts: 540
Default

None.

Don't get me wrong, I love FC3 and I fly it a lot. But the high fidelity aircraft is the step forward, not the other way around. AFAIK, ED's evolution went from Flaming Cliffs to the high fidelity modules. Not to mention it wouldn't make sense to make the same aircraft twice, one high-fidelity and one FC3.

Also, you should really include the "none" option in your pool. The result you will get will mean nothing without the "none" option.
__________________
My DCS modding videos:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...vOUdZRNh3y3Un3

Modules I own so far:
Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map
PeaceSells is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 09:54 AM   #8
Katmandu
Member
 
Katmandu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladman View Post
None would be my vote. There are enough FC3 level aircraft for people to get into DCS and move on to more advanced modules. If a person wants more FC3 level aircraft, I suggest war thunder.
"None" is the answer for the "elitists" whom I've discussed in the OP. If you feel that FC3 is "War Thunder" and that FC3 is surplus to requirements - that is fine, but the premise of the FC3 forum's very existence is that there are other people who value it for what it is. I mean, seriously? Since when did WT have AFM, radar pulse repetition freq/doppler effects and the like? Not to mention huge maps and single player/coop campaigns.

We have thousands of views in the mods section in threads that discuss making models of e.g.F/A-18, Su-30, Pakfa, Tornado, F-16 - all with existing FMs from the current FC3 craft, most even keep the default F15/Su27 cockpit...

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceSells View Post
Don't get me wrong, I love FC3 and I fly it a lot. But the high fidelity aircraft is the step forward, not the other way around. AFAIK, ED's evolution went from Flaming Cliffs to the high fidelity modules.
This poll is not about making any steps - forward or backward. Clickable modules will continue to exist, as will the FC3 ones. Ka-50 was a definite step forward in simulation, and the evolution is undeniable. But I am not proposing to replace the current Ka-50 fully clickable version with an FC3 one.

What I am proposing is to replace the "Ka-50 game" arcade part (with 360deg all seeing "radar" and simplified flight physics) of the Ka-50 module with an FC3 one. Same with A-10C, same with the upcoming F/A-18. And same with the other full sim modules that do not have "game" modes right now.

Quote:
Not to mention it wouldn't make sense to make the same aircraft twice, one high-fidelity and one FC3
You do not need to make it twice, FC3 mode keeps the AFM and radar/shkval/Lightning pod implementation, it keeps all the physics and simplifies only some of the avionics.

Last edited by Katmandu; 04-07-2018 at 10:01 AM.
Katmandu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 09:59 AM   #9
Katmandu
Member
 
Katmandu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 732
Default

The kind of people this poll is aimed at:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VZ_342 View Post
It takes actual military pilots years to achieve a practical level of skill...knowing this I can't imagine getting the entire inventory of DCS in the hopes of learning them all...which is one of the reasons I'd like to see an FC3 version of all aircraft, so they can be experienced without re-learning entire cockpit switch settings:
or

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harnis View Post
Hey everyone,

So i'm considering getting DCS Blackshark, and the thing is, I am not necessarily interested in the full sim study level just yet, since I don't have the time to devote to one single aircraft. I like flying a bunch of them, so FC3 level sim is plenty for me. I was just wanting to confirm that DCS Blackshark can be set to be at approximately FC3 level of sim/simplicity. I know the DCS sims have the whole "game" and "sim" controls, I was just wondering about approximately what level of sim the two settings are.

Sim is obviously full sim study with all the buttons and detailed startup procedures and avionics and everything.

Is "game" at approximately FC3 level?

Thanks
etc

Last edited by Katmandu; 04-07-2018 at 10:06 AM.
Katmandu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2018, 11:42 AM   #10
Rudel_chw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Antofagasta, Chile
Posts: 2,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katmandu View Post
"None" is the answer for the "elitists" whom I've discussed in the OP.
Elitist is a rather derogatory term ... My view is that there seem to be two types of DCS' users, those that view it as a simulation , that allows them to sit on a virtual aircraft and learn all of its systems and weapons use; and those that view it as a game about airplanes and dont mind to learn a plane using procedures that are much simplified versions of the real thing.

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. That said, I do enjoy some of the FC3 modules, like the Su-33, so I wouldnt mind if ED upgrades the MiG-29 with a better flight model

Best regards
__________________
For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra
For Gaming: 27" Monitor - Ryzen 1500X - 16 GB DDR4 2400 - MSI GTX970 - SSD 384 GB - HDD 8 TB - Windows 8.1 Pro - Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1
Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 128 GB
Rudel_chw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:39 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.