Four Additional Flaming Cliffs Aircraft

"Flaming Cliffs" is a brand name, dude. Nothing more, nothing less. Even if it's true that FC3 aircraft have certain hard coded limitations, that is completely irrelevant to any future modules released. Whatever they do with their fourth iteration is not tied to previous generations. What's my source? Common sense...

They can start completely new modules, and just not take them as far as they typically do for a study-level simulation and incorporate whatever features they do or don't want to. Or they could use the previous release as a rubber stamp template... but they don't HAVE to.

"Flaming Cliffs" is a brand name, dude. Nothing more, nothing less. Even if it's true that FC3 aircraft have certain hard coded limitations, that is completely irrelevant to any future modules released. Whatever they do with their fourth iteration is not tied to previous generations. What's my source? Common sense...

 

They can start completely new modules, and just not take them as far as they typically do for a study-level simulation and incorporate whatever features they do or don't want to. Or they could use the previous release as a rubber stamp template... but they don't HAVE to.

Alright bro, with common sense being so uncommon these days let me explain it to you. Flaming Cliffs is a brand name for a simpler product based around older tech. ED have said nothing about revamping the title or the way the software works. You assume it will be totally different from what is currently available without any available evidence. That is not common sense, that is wishful thinking at best. Until ED comes out and actually states that things in FC4 are going to be different from FC3 one has to fall back on what is known for certain. What is known for certain is that they will be based on the Flaming Cliffs series of simpler releases.

If you haven't figured it out yet, my logic is fact based. With this thread I wanted to put together a reasonable list of possible candidate aircraft for FC4 using what is known from solid information... not wishful thinking and supposition. I was hoping for someone to maybe come forward with some fact based insight and knowledge to help tighten the list of possible candidates down. My thoughts were that this is a way around certain unfortunate laws in Russia to bring in additional opfor aircraft that would not be possible otherwise. The older Russian planes I mentioned are great candidates in that the tech is already there and will not have to be substantially modified. Another good theory is that it could be used to bring in highly classified new planes. The hang up with that is the lack of available capability with the systems of the current FC3 release. Could I be wrong about what is possible? Certainly. But at this point in time all of the evidence I have seen does not indicate any leaps in technology will be applied to any additional simplified releases.

If FC3 was capable of accepting modular design features of the DCS modules then why doesn't the F-15C have a datalink yet? Why is it missing radar modes? Why do you think the F-15C doesn't have a Helmet mounted sight like the FC3 MiG-29's and Su-27/33's?

Because E.D. don't want those aircraft to use those systems.

Leaving aside that with future FC3 aircraft they can code whatever they want, your questions about radar and data-link simply confirm my argument.

Taking radar as an example. F-15's had TWS launch on multiple targets, MiG-29 didn't. Then they did. Now so does the J-11. They just changed the user interface to expose existing capabilities.

There used not to be any choice of PRF. Now there is.

If they port all the new radar detection and ECM code to FC3, the radar code might support having the system warm up, BIT, sit on standby etc etc, but in FC3 you'll push one key to turn it on, and it will be active immediately (Warm-up time = 0, the standby mode is not available)

With common sense being so uncommon these days let me explain it to you. Flaming Cliffs is not a brand name for a simpler product based around older tech, it's a brand name indicating simpler user interfaces and a gentler/lower learning curve.

FC3 is about an approach to operation, not to what's happening under the hood. Simple as that.

E.D. can apply any of the tech they've already developed for other modules & apply it to FC3 aircraft as they see fit, revealing or hiding features also as they see fit.

Despite your failing to see it, the PFM is an obvious demonstration of this.

All FC3 aircraft had SFM & Simple Ground Handling.

E.D. changed this to PFM and AGH for FC3 aircraft, and added some additional controls to deal with this (NWS), but the player still doesn't have to worry about activating hydraulic systems, turning on fuel supplies or deciding where the ASB switch should be set. Any of which could be available, but isn't simply because they're FC3 aircraft.

I never said anything about that it WILL be different, only that it CAN be. Your list of ''limitations'' is what I'm referring to. They're arbitrary based on FC3 which is a decade old product focused on single seat twin engine aircraft... Simplified systems or not, those 'limitations' don't mean much in a new project.

The systems are where the Flaming Cliffs aircraft falter. You misread what I wrote as I said there is no evidence that the systems modeling from the modular designed DCS modules, Radar ray tracing as you point out, can be easily ported to a Flaming Cliffs module. Flaming Cliffs aircraft have a certain architecture, constants if you will, that they are tethered to. Ask yourself this, If FC3 was capable of accepting modular design features of the DCS modules then why doesn't the F-15C have a datalink yet? Why is it missing radar modes? Why do you think the F-15C doesn't have a Helmet mounted sight like the FC3 MiG-29's and Su-27/33's? The answer is that it couldn't be done realistically. DCS is touted as the most realistic combat flight simulator available to the public. If significant features are missing, it will be noticed. ED have also not said anything about updating the existing Flaming Cliffs aircraft systems which leads me to believe that it would be difficult if not impossible to do. Until evidence exists that they can and will be changing the core of how the systems of FC3 works you have to assume the status quo will be maintained. That means they will have to pick aircraft for FC4 that will fit within the architecture of the Flaming Cliffs planes. Anything else is wishful thinking.

 

The known limitations are:

 

Single seat.

Two or less engines.

An onboard or podded fixed forward looking TV, IR and/or Laser.

Air to Air Radar (without A/G modes) that can automatically declutter itself.

Extremely simplified datalink.

Simplified flight controls logic.

This is all wrong. FC3 is just a name. There is no hardcoded limitation to what can be done. Its just a name given for a particular level of systems modelling and initially, flight model. That definition has changed over the years with extra radar modes (PRF) and PFM added etc.

Alright bro, with common sense being so uncommon these days let me explain it to you....

Common sense dictates that just as FC2 was different than FC1, and FC3 was different than FC2 then so will FC4 be different to FC3. What makes a module an "FC" module may or may not change depending on what ED decide to do with it. Theres a difference between design choice and design limitation.

FC3 is about an approach to operation, not to what's happening under the hood. Simple as that.

 

E.D. can apply any of the tech they've already developed for other modules & apply it to FC3 aircraft as they see fit, revealing or hiding features also as they see fit.

^ This.

Thinking about megastar planeset, maybe Su-34 could also rub shoulders with the elites and join the FC4. Gorgeous, relevant to the outsiders of this forum, sufficiently different from Su-27 in terms of aesthetics and function to be interesting to owners of FC3, plus fewer gaps to fill compared to PAK-FA :)

Flaming Cliffs is not a brand name for a simpler product based around older tech, it's a brand name indicating simpler user interfaces and a gentler/lower learning curve.

 

FC3 is about an approach to operation, not to what's happening under the hood. Simple as that.

 

E.D. can apply any of the tech they've already developed for other modules & apply it to FC3 aircraft as they see fit, revealing or hiding features also as they see fit.

 

All FC3 aircraft had SFM & Simple Ground Handling.

E.D. changed this to PFM and AGH for FC3 aircraft, and added some additional controls to deal with this (NWS), but the player still doesn't have to worry about activating hydraulic systems, turning on fuel supplies or deciding where the ASB switch should be set. Any of which could be available, but isn't simply because they're FC3 aircraft.

Very well put sir, couldn't have said it any better! :thumbup:

The more I think about it, the better the "F-22 vs PAK-FA vs EF2000 vs F-35" is beginning to sound.

What has everybody with the "PAK-FA" term? It´s just the name of the program, not the plane. You also talk about the F-22 and not about the ATF (Advanced Tactical Fighter) program. So either call the plane T-50 (prototype designation) or Su-57 (VVS designation).

Thanks:music_whistling:

I only hope they don't have the idea of bringing gen 4.5 or gen 5 fighters as Flaming Cliffs modules. Having more powerful aircraft that, on top of that, are simplified for easiness of player operation, mixed with realistic 4th and 3rd gen full fidelity aircraft would be just lame.

I hope they bring India MiG-29K to the FC4. Could make good sparing partner for The Hornet :D

I hope they bring India MiG-29K to the FC4. Could make good sparing partner for The Hornet :D

Why only Indian? :thumbup: The Russian Navy also bought some 29K to replace some of the Su-33. I would like to see a carrier based MiG-29 :D

ED will make what they think will give a good ROI. I expect iconic planes that will not cause any confusion with existing or highly sought study sim modules. The F-16A seems a prime candidate. It leaves open the option of a full F-16C module and is certainly an iconic plane. Additional Chinese aircraft are also a very real possibility. Some of them have been heavily exported to the Persian Gulf region. :music_whistling:

I tend to agree that I'd prefer to see 1) aircraft that fit into the current FC3 time frame (mid 80's through 90's) and 2) more "iconic" aircraft, vs specialty, unique, or obscure aircraft.

I quickly created a list of potential aircraft that I though might fit well. I acknowledge that a few of these (2 seat dedicated attack planes) might start to be a little too specialized or less well known. But hey, it's my list!

Tornado (UK or German variant(s))

F-16A

MiG-21 (PFM?, not sure which variant beside Bis)

MiG-23MLD

F-14D

F-15E

F-111F

A-6E

F-4F/K/M

No more non-clickable aircrafts please.

I hope that ED honor their previous statement and forget about the FC type aircraft.. When FC3 was made it have sense.. there aren't full fidelity fighters coming.. was a fast and cheap way to put them in the sim. But later they rework the cockpits.. and later they make PFM's for them..

As themselves explained the making of a PFM is very expensive.. so probably ED is making a lot more profit for any other module than from FC3 after all the updates.

As i posted before in another topic i would love to see several changes in the FC4 module.

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 display. 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.

I would not like to see different variations of other already created or future full fidelity modules. Also having the Apache as a FC4 module would be a great loss if that means that there is little to no possibility t have it as a fully modeled module.

As much as i love the F-22 Raptor and would really like to try a FC4 level T-50 or F-35, i would rather save them for FC5 or 6. These planes would be to much of a game changer in the SIM.

There is one plane i suspect that will be in FC4, and that is the F/A-18E/F. But that is pure speculation from my part.

I hope that ED honor their previous statement and forget about the FC type aircraft.. When FC3 was made it have sense.. there aren't full fidelity fighters coming.. was a fast and cheap way to put them in the sim. But later they rework the cockpits.. and later they make PFM's for them..

 

As themselves explained the making of a PFM is very expensive.. so probably ED is making a lot more profit for any other module than from FC3 after all the updates.

FC3 was not made because it was a fast and cheap way to put jets in the sim because full modules were taking too long. FC3 is the evolution of LOMAC which is where this whole thing started.

And I can't back it up with real hard data, but anecdotally (based on informal polls in forums and posts/responses in forums), I believe FC3 is actually the most successful of the products currently offered in DCS. So your statement that ED "makes more profit" from other modules vs FC3 is at best a guess, and is not supported by the somewhat anecdotal evidence I've seen.

Indeed. Considering sales information is not available to us, any particular claim to profitability or not is pure conjecture.

"so probably ED is making a lot more profit"

Translation into layman's terms "I have no idea or supporting evidence, but I'm going to pull this out of my butt and throw it out there anyway" :) The general consensus has been for some time that ED DOES make more money off FC than the other modules, though again, that's unverifiable.

@Malibu

No, it wasn't made for that, but it's highly likely the reason it was incorporated into DCS World alongside full modules was because at the time there were only a handful of modules. Incorporating them into DCS World provided additional revenue stream by avoiding wasting assets, and also fleshed out the roster of available aircraft in-game.

That said, if they're going to coexist alongside the other modules, it's kind of a given they can't continue using 15 year old flight models and systems. They have to be updated to some extent to maintain functionality with the other modules. While it's expensive and time consuming, it's a project they've done on the side over a period of several years. I doubt it's stretched their resources that much. Going forward, AFM/PFM are the baseline, so updating a half dozen aircraft is not that big of a deal.

As much as i love the F-22 Raptor and would really like to try a FC4 level T-50 or F-35, i would rather save them for FC5 or 6. These planes would be to much of a game changer in the SIM.

What do you think will be different by the time we get to FC5? Neither of these craft will ever be fully modelled so the "problem" of them being overpowered compared to the rest of the planes will persist in FC5, FC6 or FC10.

Imho this is only a problem as much as FC3 F-15C/J-11/Mig-29S are a problem to a fully clickable Mig-21, Mig-15, F-5, Viggen and soon to be out F-4... Different generations and all that. Server rules will save us, just like they do now. In single player the issue is nonexistent and even in multiplayer very limited slots for gen4.5/5 planes (reflecting their scarcity) could lead to interesting team play. Or just keep them to separate servers etc.

FC3 was not made because it was a fast and cheap way to put jets in the sim because full modules were taking too long. FC3 is the evolution of LOMAC which is where this whole thing started.

Well the whole thing started with Flanker(Su-27 and Su-33), then Lock-on(F-15C, A-10A, Su-25, MiG-29/G, S) then Flaming Cliffs(Su-25T) as an add-on to Lock-on. When DCS was introduced(with Black Shark), the the intention was to keep Lock-on/FC alive running in parallel with DCS until full DCS fighter modules could be made. But it soon became clear that having to simultaneously support two different sim worlds was going to be cumbersome, so the Lock-on/FC aircraft were integrated into the DCS environment(with FC2). FC3 is just a further integration to fit the current modular concept.

And I can't back it up with real hard data, but anecdotally (based on informal polls in forums and posts/responses in forums), I believe FC3 is actually the most successful of the products currently offered in DCS. So your statement that ED "makes more profit" from other modules vs FC3 is at best a guess, and is not supported by the somewhat anecdotal evidence I've seen.

IIRC Matt once said, in a passing comment, that the decision to continue FC and make updates to its entries was in recognition that it was still among the best selling products....or something to that effect. Whether this still holds true I don't know, but I don't believe they would stick with FC and apply updates such as PFM and 6DOF cockpits, if it was bad business :) .

What do you think will be different by the time we get to FC5? Neither of these craft will ever be fully modelled so the "problem" of them being overpowered compared to the rest of the planes will persist in FC5, FC6 or FC10.

 

Imho this is only a problem as much as FC3 F-15C/J-11/Mig-29S are a problem to a fully clickable Mig-21, Mig-15, F-5, Viggen and soon to be out F-4... Different generations and all that. Server rules will save us, just like they do now. In single player the issue is nonexistent and even in multiplayer very limited slots for gen4.5/5 planes (reflecting their scarcity) could lead to interesting team play. Or just keep them to separate servers etc.

That may be, but there is also the question of how far you are prepared to go in terms of "guesstimated" features - there is quite a leap from making a reasonably realistic modern/modernised 4th generation fighter to a 5th gen. one.

That may be, but there is also the question of how far you are prepared to go in terms of "guesstimated" features - there is quite a leap from making a reasonably realistic modern/modernised 4th generation fighter to a 5th gen. one.

Yep, that question - unlike the fear of overpowered FC4 planes - is a good one.

Open source info can provide with geometry for simulated wind tunnels (that ED is now using), but not(?) code for the fly-by-wire systems. So the leading question is: did ED have access to F-15C, Su-27 and Su-33 fly-by-wire algorithms for their PFM models?

Missiles too - how much bigger are the gaps in knowledge on the newest gen missiles vs current gaps on the still classified AIM120, R77 etc?

So the size of the leap - or even if it is a leap - would depend on answers to questions like these.

Well there is a little more to 5th gen than just flight performance/FCS and the latest versions of AAMs :) . Even so, there is open source information on flight performance(charts) and the inner workings of flight control systems for aircraft like the F-15C, Su-27 and MiG-29 - I doubt you would be able to find anything like that for the F-22, F-35 or Su-57 :)

Anyway, the real sticking point is always going to be the onboard systems - these can be hard enough to do(even in simplified form) for new multirole- or upgraded versions of the current 4th gen FC3 aircraft. But at least we have a pretty good idea of what they contain and some information on their general specs - the same cannot be said for 5th gen aircraft.

Missiles too - how much bigger are the gaps in knowledge on the newest gen missiles vs current gaps on still classified AIM120, R77 etc?

Quite a bit actually - e.g. you can find specifications for the 9B-1348 seeker of the R-77/RVV-AE, while we don't even know exactly which seeker the RVV-SD has :)

^^ please don't tell me ED is going to bring FC aircraft that are more powerful then the full fidelity ones...

^^ please don't tell me ED is going to bring FC aircraft that are more powerful then the full fidelity ones...

I'll be circle strafing your $80 F-18 in a mouse operated, $10 F-22 before the year is out. Just get ready for it :)