Jump to content

Four Additional Flaming Cliffs Aircraft


Vampyre

Recommended Posts

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 ;-) – 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.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207133

 

 

So, with the ED CEO talking of having four more Flaming Cliffs aircraft added to the mix I thought it would be interesting to figure out exactly what types would fit into the simpleton modeling that is the Flaming Cliffs aircraft.

 

The limitations of the FC3 planes are thus (let me know if I missed anything as I'm sure I have):

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.

 

My first thoughts were of the lack of Soviet hardware in game. The lack of Soviet opposition aircraft is a glaring omission that is getting more and more obvious as DCS grows. Several Soviet jets would fit into the above listed limitations.

 

MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD

MiG-23BN

MiG-27/D/M/K/L

MiG-25PD

Su-15TM

Su-17M/M2/M3/M4

 

Keeping to the more modern-ish (late 70's and beyond) types and excluding planes most don't even know exist, several other jets would fit into the above listed limitations.

 

 

Mirage IIIC

Mirage F1A

Mirage F1C

BAC Lightning

AMX A-1

F-5A Freedom Fighter

F-104A/C/S Starfighter

F-15A Eagle

 

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head at this moment.

 

My personal opinion is that any plane that does make it into the FC4 lineup, as it is being called, is a shame as it will in all likelihood never be made into a full fidelity DCS module.


Edited by Vampyre

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 365
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FC4 planes need to appeal to a broader audience so no AMX, BAC, Su-15/17, F-15A etc.

 

FC planes with AFM require a lot of research to make and stopping short of making a full module may not make sense - unless "delicate" regulations, like in Nick Gray's response about modern Russian craft. Mig-23/27 are old enough to be declassified probably and if that's the case I'd rather see them as full modules (with optional FC control scheme :D). Same with Century fighters.

 

Therefore, there are two ways in which FC4 can take shape:

Option 1 would be conversions from full sim modules united into a single standalone and then we could have Mig-23/27, F/A-18C, F-16C, F-4E/F-14 (ED-Belsimtek collaborating with Heatblur - I'm allowed to dream:)).

The other would be creation of unique planes that are too "delicate" to be made into full sim and then we could see something like F-35, F-22, Pak-Fa, EF2000/Rafale. Possibly Mig-25/31 but it would be a boring module as gameplay would be all beyond visual range and eject if somebody got close.

 

Both have their pluses, I personally hope for FC controls to be included with every full sim anyway, so unique "delicate" planes would be great. On the other hand, if full modules do not get FC options, I'd rather have option 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood Nick’s FC4 statement in a way that the additional 4 might also be entry drug versions of warbirds to boost interest in DCS WW2 on an IL2 level.

Spitfire, P-51, Me109, and some early Yak may be a sweet package in that sense.

Or maybe new types that don’t exist as modules yet.

 

Not that I personally would wan’t FC4 to add stuff to that era, just saying that I read that possibility between the lines...

 

My personal favorite additions to FC4 would be 70/80ies Cold War stuff.

If I think through what’s not yet likely or confirmed in 3rd party or study-sim development and has no ground radar, I’d love to see:

- MiG-23

- MiG-27 (Red really lacking a fast ground pounder with at least laser capability)

- Jaguar (the West even more so)

- F-16A


Edited by Shadoga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I got that wrong... - he was talking about a dedicated WW2 Flying Legends package and apart from that a new FC4 version package with 4 new types fitting more or less into FC and not warbirds.

 

Even better so for my taste.


Edited by Shadoga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the same about FC4. I humbly think these airframes should be in the same ballpark as the existing set. For reference, FC3:

 

F-15C

Mig-29A, Mig-29G, Mig-29S

Su-27, J-11

Su-33

A-10A

Su-25T (Su-25 free)

 

So actually what is missed in FC3 is not what you say, lack of Soviet hardware, that statement is correct overall when you look at the full modules. The marketing design isn't deliberately forcing people to do one or the other, this is true, but there are definitely fans of "either/or", in two camps as well as those that mix them up. I would say that these two products are going to diverge, not converge. The FC4 new aircraft should be far more logically fitting with the first four and complement DCSW with far ranging appeal.

 

The only conceptual problem I can see is that they most probably do not want to have full modules of the simplified modules, because, from a marketing sense it would hamper the sales of either the full or "FC" version to sell them separately as different things, plus it would infuriate the people buying the £10 version when they see the features on the £40 version and cause mayhem on the forums with crying etc.

 

So what does that mean? Well I think if ED wanted to do an F-16 full module, they wouldn't want to duplicate and make an F-16C in FC4. But I think an F-16A would be an ideal fit, a nice steam gauge set on a multi role for FC3. Then an F-16C full module on a later block becomes way different enough.

 

Mig-23 as you say is a popular idea. Will it make FC4? Well unlikely if it's going to be able to be a full module. As we already know, Mig-23 is a 'reserved' aircraft to be done by someone in some way. It might already be on the cards for FC4, we do not know yet. Strong candidate for either.

 

Mig-27, Mig-25, Mig-31 have interesting possibilities in FC4. It all depends if we are never able to get the full module, and if they add interesting and valuable differentiators to be marketed - R-27, R-40 missiles, speed etc.

 

What about two helicopters in a simplified module? No one thought of that yet? Something like Longbow, that has classified elements might really work well in FC4 as a simplified element. Problem is if a full Flight Model will enjoy widespread success for helicopters, so I think not, but who knows.

 

Then there is non US/Soviet. A late British Tornado F3, any of a huge list of Mirages, Dekka Ironworks may do one module as Chinese again to fill out their inventory.

 

Of course they may expand on their attack aircraft. Tornado GR1, Jaguar, F-111 and Su-24 have good and interesting fits and synergies as a pair.

 

I'd like to think that what we see in FC4 will be a little more diverse and interesting than one would expect and still conform to a game that stands on it's own and can be used to complement the existing full modules without too much breaking of the full simulators in a Multiplayer server.

 

Here's my fantasy lineup with my marketing head on:

F-16A --complements the proposed D version in development, much wanted

A-4(M?) -- hear me out*

Tornado GR1 -- Britain, German, Italy, Saudi interest

Mig-23ML/UB -- Wide export, fits many countries, much forum demand

 

Regarding A-4, It's being done by community A-4E, but I feel that the lineup satisfies so many different countries and audiences and it's such an important attack plane needed for future carrier ops that it has simply got to exist in DCS somewhere. It's got extensive export, Israel, Australia, far East and South America and seen a lot of combat. I don't want to talk about where the current A-4E project is, but the airframe on it's own, has to reach DCSW. The dedicated marine variant with IFF as the M may compete better with the current FC3 design.

___________________________________________________________________________

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about two helicopters in a simplified module? No one thought of that yet? Something like Longbow, that has classified elements might really work well in FC4 as a simplified element. Problem is if a full Flight Model will enjoy widespread success for helicopters, so I think not, but who knows.

 

I hope not, that is one module I would love to see fully developed in DCS.

 

It is better to invest time and effort on 1 clickable aircraft than in 4 FC3. Change my mind!

 

It's just a marketing thing as to were DCS is at and where it needs to be now the engine is getting there and hope soon? vulkan api and more maps etc. We need? DCS needs more assets to flush out the sim and maps with aircraft for the consumer market.

 

It doesn't bother me with WW2 aircraft so much, not a lot to bind to a stick for VR or to just hit on a key board, as long as the FM is good and fair to full modules.

 

Same with FC aircraft, just don't do all the good one's that should become full modules, like say...the Apache.;) After all those gunship Apache/Havoc games, this needs to be a full module right....

 

-

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is better to invest time and effort on 1 clickable aircraft than in 4 FC3. Change my mind!

No, I don't want to. I can sleep and live and sim well without any missionary efforts.

 

I have no doubt there is interest, place and economic reason for more FC-level modules in DCS World.

 

The HiFi modules are numerous and their future expansion is well underway.

I believe an expansion of FC-level fleet and addition of same level warbirds are wise moves for the future of DCS.

 

There definitely are loads of simmers who love to spend time on an FC-level game, proven by the success of LOMAC & IL2 before BlackShark extended the brand to include HiFi modules.

 

FC-level is the valuable heritage of DCS, and continuously integrating that with hardcore HiFi simming is mandatory - because for the future, nothing is more important than high and growing numbers of players/customers.

 

Back in the first decades of the hobby, we had more companies, more different approaches to milflightsimming and thus more products, each in their own worlds and with their own fan communities. Some liked the Falcon series more, some the Jane's, some Flanker, some DI or DiD or Microprose products and some Novalogic.

 

Now, if we translate the Falcon3/4 and Jane's F-15/-18/Longbow into today's HiFi modules and on the other end of the spectrum Novalogic's F-16/MiG-29 into today's FC3, the huge improvement over the past is the chance to have them all in the same franchise, the same sim, the same community, the same artificial world.

DCS offers the chance to include IL2-fans into it's WW2 branch and to bring in F4/BMS fanboys once a HiFi F16C/D is out, etc.

 

As long as a possible future monopolist market position isn't abused, this is the way to go for a community of gaming military aviation fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would support a simplified helicopter module. You can click on stuff in the P-51 trainer, you can learn weapon deployment in the Su-25T and if that is not enough to attract your attention to DCS World. try this rotary wing with support for multicrew for two users in the same cockpit. Would be one strategy to lure more into our world.

 

I (still) enjoy the FC3 modules and they fit well along with the full fidelity modules.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't like the hyper-detailed systems modelling... I prefer being able to fly a variety of aircraft using HOTAS (without having to remember the breaker switch sequence). I like both, but I really prefer the FC way of doing things.

 

I'm hoping for a Tornado or a Jaguar... and a Su-22 or maybe a Su-24...

 

Nice mud-movers that we're unlikely to get any time soon otherwise.

 

I suspect the F-16 though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

1.We are unlikely to ever see any of these craft fully modelled.

2. Of all the devs in the world I would trust ED - with all of their wealth of experience and know how - to model these craft on the available info and fill the gaps where this info is not available. Nobody could do this job better.

3. This would bring in the new blood, no doubt about it. Yeah, I love Tornados as well, but come on :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

1.We are unlikely to ever see any of these craft fully modelled.

2. Of all the devs in the world I would trust ED - with all of their wealth of experience and know how - to model these craft on the available info and fill the gaps where this info is not available. Nobody could do this job better.

3. This would bring in the new blood, no doubt about it. Yeah, I love Tornados as well, but come on :)

 

Having given it some thought, I agree with the above.

Reasons:

- ww2 stuff would be interesting, but being fair, they're not that complex anyway from a systems perspective, so you might aswell give us full clickable

- Personally, I love the idea of some 60s/70s aircraft, e.g. the Su25, Mig23, Lightning, Phantom etc. I'm conscious however that like some of us here, I'm old and grey. I would guess that the prospect of new "bleeding edge" aircraft would be far more appealing and saleable to persons with little or no exposure to DCS, and being fair, that would be good for all of us, as it would increase general player numbers and therefore funding for the modules that the more hardcore amongst us want.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having given it some thought, I agree with the above.

Reasons:

- ww2 stuff would be interesting, but being fair, they're not that complex anyway from a systems perspective, so you might aswell give us full clickable

- Personally, I love the idea of some 60s/70s aircraft, e.g. the Su25, Mig23, Lightning, Phantom etc. I'm conscious however that like some of us here, I'm old and grey. I would guess that the prospect of new "bleeding edge" aircraft would be far more appealing and saleable to persons with little or no exposure to DCS, and being fair, that would be good for all of us, as it would increase general player numbers and therefore funding for the modules that the more hardcore amongst us want.

 

I think the "bleeding edge" aircraft are probably out of the question with regards to Flaming Cliffs level aircraft due to the limitations of the Flaming Cliffs modeling itself... which is why I did not include them in the original post. Most of them have well known capabilities and sensors that simply can't be modeled in any sort of realistic manner. There has been no indication of a revamp of the systems modeling of Flaming Cliffs modeling that suggests new capabilities will be added with regards to the simplified systems. Things like ground radar modes, advanced datalinks, modern helmet mounted sights, targeting pods and stealth all have not been done.

I think that an FC4 release is less about drawing new players and more about adding content that otherwise cannot be done to DCS module standards due to limitations that are external to DCS:World itself. Making popular aircraft that cannot be modeled in a realistic manner due to obvious missing features would be a more significant departure from the DCS:World vision than FC3 is now.

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things like ground radar modes, advanced datalinks, modern helmet mounted sights, targeting pods and stealth all have not been done.

 

We do have this in DCS :P

Screen_180428_225811.png

Ground radar will be done very soon for F/A-18C, helmet sights and datalinks are already there with Su-27 and soon F/A-18C. All aspects -from stealth to datalinks could be improved of course, but some foundation is there already for all of the above.

 

Thinking about LockOn Modern air Combat and what it brought to the table -those were 5 absolutely legendary craft (the only exception being Su-25, with all due respect to this sweet bird:))

FC1-FC3 were only adding extra polish to the existing craft.

 

F-16 (any block and variant) would certainly belong in that group, but then (if we are not talking about reusing full sim F/A-18, F-14, Mig-21 and F-4 for this FC package) almost no other plane would be able to match the status and pulling power of the existing FC3 planeset and such FC4 would feel like a downgrade (not talking about the combat performance)... With the exception of the "bleeding edge" craft above :)

 

Yes, having F-22, EF2000 and PAK-FA would feel almost weird, but when Lock on was released, its craft were pretty "bleeding edge" too. And info was missing and gaps had to be filled (and gaps are still filled in DCS to this day, in all sorts of currently modelled systems in FC3 and beyond)... It's doable and I know that ED could absolutely nail this, blow it out of the water, hit it out of the park, etc etc

One recent example of what ED has in its arsenal nowadays is the "simulated wind tunnel" that they've used to fill gaps in info on P-47... Just saying :)


Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have this in DCS :P

 

 

Ground radar will be done very soon for F/A-18C, helmet sights and datalinks are already there with Su-27 and soon F/A-18C. All aspects -from stealth to datalinks could be improved of course, but some foundation is there already for all of the above.

 

Thinking about LockOn Modern air Combat and what it brought to the table -those were 5 absolutely legendary craft (the only exception being Su-25, with all due respect to this sweet bird:))

FC1-FC3 were only adding extra polish to the existing craft.

 

F-16 (any block and variant) would certainly belong in that group, but then (if we are not talking about reusing full sim F/A-18, F-14, Mig-21 and F-4 for this FC package) almost no other plane would be able to match the status and pulling power of the existing FC3 planeset and such FC4 would feel like a downgrade (not talking about the combat performance)... With the exception of the "bleeding edge" craft above :)

 

Yes, having F-22, EF2000 and PAK-FA would feel almost weird, but when Lock on was released, its craft were pretty "bleeding edge" too. And info was missing and gaps had to be filled (and gaps are still filled in DCS to this day, in all sorts of currently modelled systems in FC3 and beyond)... It's doable and I know that ED could absolutely nail this, blow it out of the water, hit it out of the park, etc etc

One recent example of what ED has in its arsenal nowadays is the "simulated wind tunnel" that they've used to fill gaps in info on P-47... Just saying :)

 

Do you even understand the limitations of the FC3 types? I do and I understand also that there is no indication that any of the new technology ED has developed recently for its DCS modules can be easily ported into a Flaming Cliffs aircraft with a simplified systems model that was never designed for it in the first place. I'm basing my aircraft type speculation in this thread off of publically known limitations of FC3 planes. There is a real reason that ED has backtracked on their statement that there would be no more FC3 types developed and I don't think it is because they want to do a group of four "bleeding edge" jets without a significant revamp of the Flaming Cliffs modeling. The DCS modules are developed in a modular nature which gives the ability to port significant portions of one aircraft to another. The Flaming Cliffs planes are built from the ground up within a set architecture that is much older technology and makes it much harder to port technology without revamping the structure and how they are built. I know you personally want the latest and greatest planes you can get but unless ED develops a way to incorporate the new technology, or a downgraded version of the new tech itself for their Flaming Cliffs aircraft, they will not be realistic in any way.

 

As for the F-117, it has never been an Flaming Cliffs aircraft, only AI. It's what would be referred to as window dressing... for looks only. The modeling of RCS in DCS is so very simple that it is useless to use as a viable defense within the game engine. You will have the same RCS no matter what you do with it. It doesn't take into account for things like the radio antennas and navigation lights that pop out from the airframe for use or an opened or closed bomb bay. You need to understand the limitations of these modules to really get a clue as to what they are making.

 

There is no indication yet that there will be significant changes to how the simple planes are modeled and I suspect ED will remain silent on the subject for quite some time.

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FistofZen is just ranting about... who knows what. Regarding "Russian" aircraft, it could be nearly anything, maybe he doesn't like FC and wants a "full" Russian aircraft, or maybe he's a holdout for the camp that thinks Russian aircraft are SUPER TOP SECRET and can't be done (which has recently been stated to be incorrect by ED themselves)

 

Regardless, if there are indeed to be new FC aircraft, ideally they should be, imo, tastes of something new. Perhaps some "simple" larger craft, like F-111s or Su-24s... Or as others noted, a couple simplified combat helicopters that might not otherwise be available, such as Apaches or Havocs, Tigers, etc.

 

Personally, I think whatever they do should be a deviation from the current US/Rus centric setup and do some less commonly seen European/Asian aircraft.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mention F-111, Su-24, Tornado, A-6 and alikes because their A/G radar and other ground targeting and navigation capabilities would somewhat be wasted if possibly left out completely or extremely dumbed down on FC-level.

But then again, Digital Integration's Tornado's A/G radar and TFF autopilot of the early nineties was on some sort of FC-level... - and great fun, especially with it's great close to reallife mission planning tool!

 

But it sure would be nice to have at least one new entry to the FC-fleet with multiplayer-twinseater capability.


Edited by Shadoga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vampyre

Remember that AFM was also an experiment that started in FC, why not experiment more with the other stuff for FC4. Safe is boring :) And like you say, once radars based on ray tracing are developed for F/A-18 full sim, why not reuse the code module for FC4? You still have the same radar controls as in FC4, but the sensor is more AFMish, no- ARMish (Advanced Radar Modelling:)) ED did not give indications that they intend to do so, but they als did not indicate the opposite. Indeed, AFM for FC3 is as good as it gets in DCS, better than some of the (non ED) fully clickable modules in fact, so FC4 should also not be some "any old rubbish will suffice" kind of attempt :)

 

The F-117 reference was tongue in cheek. Radar Cross Section model can be simple and still effective, quite realistic and fun. At the end of the day it is either small or large - depending on the angle at which the plane is seen by the radar. Of course there are many more nuances, but like with SFM it is best to start with something that works, reasonably realistic and then the model can be enriched further. Even this kind of approach would be unprecedented as stealth is not modelled anywhere.

 

Anyway, my main point is that I hope FC4 doesn't drop the bar and treats us and the public at large to another plane set of legendary megastars. Su-17 et al would be underwhelming :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know nearly enough about the working of A2G radar to even theorise or have an opinion. I'm ashamed to admit this, but the full extent of my "modern warfare" experience was Jane's Fighter's Anthology. I've been almost exclusively a WWII guy until I came here a year and half ago :) Somehow, I don't think they'd have to try very hard to do better than "press right bracket to cycle through the little squares" lol

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even understand the limitations of the FC3 types? I do and I understand also that there is no indication that any of the new technology ED has developed recently for its DCS modules can be easily ported into a Flaming Cliffs aircraft with a simplified systems model that was never designed for it in the first place.

 

I don't believe this is true.

Things like radar detection models, ground radar, ECM, & AI co-pilots can all be ported to FC3 aircraft.

 

True all the original FC3 aircraft shared a common Radar model with discrete parameters, but new FC3 modules are not bound to this limitation any more than any 2 other modules have to use the same target pod.

 

FC3 is about the depth of the human interface modelling, not about the fidelity of the underlying system modelling - which is why we now have PFM & AGHM in most of the FC3 aircraft, but not all.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207133

 

 

So, with the ED CEO talking of having four more Flaming Cliffs aircraft added to the mix I thought it would be interesting to figure out exactly what types would fit into the simpleton modeling that is the Flaming Cliffs aircraft.

 

The limitations of the FC3 planes are thus (let me know if I missed anything as I'm sure I have):

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.

 

My first thoughts were of the lack of Soviet hardware in game. The lack of Soviet opposition aircraft is a glaring omission that is getting more and more obvious as DCS grows. Several Soviet jets would fit into the above listed limitations.

 

MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD

MiG-23BN

MiG-27/D/M/K/L

MiG-25PD

Su-15TM

Su-17M/M2/M3/M4

 

Keeping to the more modern-ish (late 70's and beyond) types and excluding planes most don't even know exist, several other jets would fit into the above listed limitations.

 

 

Mirage IIIC

Mirage F1A

Mirage F1C

BAC Lightning

AMX A-1

F-5A Freedom Fighter

F-104A/C/S Starfighter

F-15A Eagle

 

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head at this moment.

 

My personal opinion is that any plane that does make it into the FC4 lineup, as it is being called, is a shame as it will in all likelihood never be made into a full fidelity DCS module.

 

About that list, Mirage III has into the RAZBAM plans and Mirage F-1 on Aviodev plans. Mig-23 has actually "reserved" by ED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vampyre

Remember that AFM was also an experiment that started in FC, why not experiment more with the other stuff for FC4. Safe is boring :) And like you say, once radars based on ray tracing are developed for F/A-18 full sim, why not reuse the code module for FC4? You still have the same radar controls as in FC4, but the sensor is more AFMish, no- ARMish (Advanced Radar Modelling:)) ED did not give indications that they intend to do so, but they als did not indicate the opposite. Indeed, AFM for FC3 is as good as it gets in DCS, better than some of the (non ED) fully clickable modules in fact, so FC4 should also not be some "any old rubbish will suffice" kind of attempt :)

 

The experiment on AFM was with the Su-25T in the original Flaming Cliffs prior to DCS. The upgrading of the FC3 planes to the FM standard of the Su-25T was necessary as they were not good examples to showcase DCS:World with. The flight models of the Flaming Cliffs planes are not relevant to the discussion.

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.

 

 

I don't believe this is true.

Things like radar detection models, ground radar, ECM, & AI co-pilots can all be ported to FC3 aircraft.

 

True all the original FC3 aircraft shared a common Radar model with discrete parameters, but new FC3 modules are not bound to this limitation any more than any 2 other modules have to use the same target pod.

 

FC3 is about the depth of the human interface modelling, not about the fidelity of the underlying system modelling - which is why we now have PFM & AGHM in most of the FC3 aircraft, but not all.

 

Can you please direct me to where ED have published this. I'd very much like to read it because it would be evidence I need to form a more accurate assessment.

I think it is much more likely they are using Flaming Cliffs fidelity aircraft to skirt around Russian laws preventing Russian planes from being full fledged DCS modules rather than to bring ultra modern Su-57's and F-22's to DCS. I do think it would be humorous if they decided to do four different types of F-16 in FC4 to try to give everyone the version they wanted.

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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