Jump to content

Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3?


Katmandu

Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3?  

380 members have voted

  1. 1. Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3?

    • F/A-18
      41
    • F-16C
      83
    • F-14
      42
    • The Harrier/AV-8B
      26
    • Ka-50
      23
    • Mirage-2000
      28
    • F-4E Phantom
      49
    • AJS-37 Viggen
      21
    • Mig-21
      29
    • Mi-24 Hind
      38


Recommended Posts

Every time FC3 topic shows up it pisses me off because I like F-15C. I own that module and only that. So I have no option to go "higher" than FC3 because there is none! There is even no plan (neither ED nor 3rd party) to make full quality module. And I am all into full quality modules and stand for ED that there should not be any more FC3.

So what do I get to do? I will probably still fly FC3 F-15C, maybe try some older F-14B when it arrives, have no feelings for any other aircrafts.

If you're into the "full experience" of an aircraft (to whichever degree it is practically possible), FC3 won't work for you
There is one thing in FC3 that makes it fully fledged simulator - it's PFM - the most important thing in a sim and it's damn good. So my immersion is not killed by stuff like no clicking or the radio. I get the same responses from ATC as you do :) And I'm not only flying to "blow stuff up".

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

FC3 was the logical step after the simulators of the '90s, but since then technology has evolved, more resources have become available, teams have grown, ... and thus FC3 has become obsolete
Falcon 4 was "simulator of the 90's" ;) Thus LOMAC and FC1 were design choices, not constraints of technology. FC1's Su-25 gave birth to AFM, which to me personally was a more important and bigger evolutionary step in flight sims than full clickability originally offered by Falcon (more on AFM below:)).

 

stand for ED that there should not be any more FC3.

So do I btw! I also think that with the difficulties and costs of making AFM(which in turn often includes fly-by-wire AP - as in F-15C and Su27/33), DM, systems and 3d modelling it does not make sense to stop short of creating a full sim module. So there should not be any more FC3 exclusive modules imho. There may be exceptions - as to nearly any rule - but the general rule should be thus, I completely agree.

 

There is one thing in FC3 that makes it fully fledged simulator - it's PFM - the most important thing in a sim and it's damn good. So my immersion is not killed by stuff like no clicking or the radio. I get the same responses from ATC as you do :) And I'm not only flying to "blow stuff up".
Yep, many people get so hung up on operating the plane that they forget about actual flying. If somebody thinks that he has learnt the "lowly FC3" F-15C, he may try duelling with some local "Experten" :P (same plane, fuel load, weapons) and learn the hard way that the actual flying is the hard part - managing optimum AoA, speed, climb, trajectory... I've seen people lose 10-0 in "same plane guns only" duels :D
Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand that ED is not making any more FC3 modules, and I'm fine with that; I can also sort of understand people not wanting any more FC3 (I myself don't have any "full" modules), but FC3 is still one of the best flight sims out there, and with PFM either on the way or already there for all the aircraft, the only thing they're lacking is a clickable cockpit, and that seems like it would distract from combat. After all, isn't it a combat flight sim? Anyways, just my opinion, trying to defend FC3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand that ED is not making any more FC3 modules, and I'm fine with that; I can also sort of understand people not wanting any more FC3 (I myself don't have any "full" modules), but FC3 is still one of the best flight sims out there, and with PFM either on the way or already there for all the aircraft, the only thing they're lacking is a clickable cockpit, and that seems like it would distract from combat. After all, isn't it a combat flight sim? Anyways, just my opinion, trying to defend FC3.

It's sad to some extend that poeple bring down the differene betwen FC and full fidelity modules just to clickable cockpit. Kind of shows lack of respect and understanding to the hard work that devs are doing to research and implement fully simulated modules. It seems that those tousands of work that goes to implement different systems and sensors are not really recognized.

Clickable cockpit is only a top of the iceberg. The whole aspect of Advanced Systems Modeling is missing in FC3. We're talking thinkgs like radar, radios, navigation systems.

- How can you navigate without TACAN, ADF and other navigation equipment?

- How do you react to changing situation, enter a mark points, new coordinates of the targets? How do you exectue any CAS, COIN mission properly under such conditions?

- How do you navigate in multiplayer without possibility to create the flight plan? How about IMC flight without pre-loaded flight plan?

- How to you want to communicate correctly without a simulated radio equipment?

- Does a proper radar simulation not matter at all for you (I'm not talking about the screens but the sensors)? You're fine with a simplified, super all seeing radar target acquistion alghoritms?

- How do you run a systems check prior to takeoff?

- Doesn't a systems demage modeling matter to you? How do you work out about any failure and apply any emergency procedure?

- How do you manage your countermeasures?

- do you think that any of DLC campaigns for A-10C would be possible with the FC version of A-10?

Should I go further. There is a whole world of systems and aviation that is missing or just implemented in extreamly simplified way in FC. Whatever you say and however pro you're with combat tactics in F-15, FC is arcade comparing to the full fidelity modules.

F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you say and however pro you're with combat tactics in F-15, FC is arcade comparing to the full fidelity modules.

No, it's not. You've got same PFM, same weapon models, same enemies. You may click or push more buttons to get more response from the game but nothing is different on the combat arena. It's subjective to feel immersion. It's either flight model or advanced systems or both and I really want full quality but have no such option in the F-15C case.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad to .... modules.

 

Most people are in this game to blow sh!t up or play airquake. A lot of stuff they don’t know and a lot they don’t care to know. The really sad thing is most can’t even appreciate the hard work and love going in to the full fidelity modules.

 

No, it's not. You've got same PFM, same weapon models, same enemies. You may click or push more buttons to get more response from the game but nothing is different on the combat arena. It's subjective to feel immersion. It's either flight model or advanced systems or both and I really want full quality but have no such option in the F-15C case.

 

Proves my point exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. You've got same PFM, same weapon models, same enemies. You may click or push more buttons to get more response from the game but nothing is different on the combat arena. It's subjective to feel immersion. It's either flight model or advanced systems or both and I really want full quality but have no such option in the F-15C case.

As far as you have a mission with two fighters starting in mid air heading straight on each other than maybe yes. Everything more complex beyound that are totally two different words. But I guess we're talking about a sturdy sim that is reflecting all of the apsects of flight, not only pushing the fire button.

F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion ALL aircraft should have a Flamming cliffs equivalent simply to be able to fly all the modules we own. All too often I avoid flying most of what I own because I simply have forgotten how to fly the damn thing. With flamming cliffs AC, I don't have this problem as I can map all the controls the same way on my hotas.

MODUALS OWNED       AH-64D APACHE, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Mi-24,Gazelle, FC3, A-10C, A-10CII, Mirage 2000C, F-14 TOMCAT, F/A-18C HORNET, F-16C VIPER, AV-8B/NA, F-15 E, F-4 Phantom, MiG-21Bis, L-39, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, MiG-19, F-86, MiG-15Bis, Spitfire IX, Bf-109K, Fw-190D, P-51D, CA, SYRIA, NEVADA, NORMANDY, PERSIAN GULF, MARIANA ISLANDS,SUPER CARRIER, WORLD WAR II ASSETS PACK, HAWK T1

SYSTEM SPECS            AMD  7600X 4.7 Ghz CPU , MSI RX 6750 12 gig GPU ,32 gig ram on Win11 64bit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Does a proper radar simulation not matter at all for you (I'm not talking about the screens but the sensors)? You're fine with a simplified, super all seeing radar target acquistion alghoritms?

Exactly!

 

DCS level, DCS FC level they are all have the same foundations.

No they don't: look at the F-5E, Viggen, MiG-21, and the upcoming F-14A/B and F/A-18C.

You're correct about the Mirage though.

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they don't: look at the F-5E, Viggen, MiG-21, and the upcoming F-14A/B and F/A-18C.

You're correct about the Mirage though.

 

With regards to air to air radars, where applicable they all suffer from range vs power, doppler notch, terrain, radar altitude, contact altitude, ecm, prf effects, elevation, azimuth etc. all to varying degrees based on the radar type.

The weather and terrain effects that you see in the MiG21 are because of the generation of radar, modern radars will filter this out on their VDU.

There are no special features within the radars in DCS aircraft that would make an F-15 radar VDU display a contact any differently by effects from a contact having differing aspects and situations the radar carrier is at, this of course with the exception of maybe memory tracks and other extra features that could only improve the radar.

It's pretty clear that they all work to the same structure, how it is displayed is obviously going to be different based on which aircraft you're modelling.

"[51☭] FROSTIE" #55

51st PVO "BISONS"

Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10

https://100kiap.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad to some extend that poeple bring down the differene betwen FC and full fidelity modules just to clickable cockpit. Kind of shows lack of respect and understanding to the hard work that devs are doing to research and implement fully simulated modules. It seems that those tousands of work that goes to implement different systems and sensors are not really recognized.

Clickable cockpit is only a top of the iceberg. The whole aspect of Advanced Systems Modeling is missing in FC3. We're talking thinkgs like radar, radios, navigation systems.

Valid point for comparing current scratch built FC3 and full sim modules. Only partially valid if comparing scratch built full sim and subsequent FC3 conversion.

 

- How can you navigate without TACAN, ADF and other navigation equipment?
FC3 conversion may either loose this functionality altogether or have its algo automatically input TACAN settings for final destination airfield and/or fuel tanker if present in a mission. Then FC3 player would switch to TACAN like he currently switches to ILS.

 

- How do you react to changing situation, enter a mark points, new coordinates of the targets? How do you exectue any CAS, COIN mission properly under such conditions?

See my F-16/F-18 "FC3fication" post. (https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3454878&postcount=77) Partial functionality would be kept in FC3 and player would be able to react to JTAC for example.

 

 

- How do you navigate in multiplayer without possibility to create the flight plan? How about IMC flight without pre-loaded flight plan?

See F-16/F-18 "FC3fication" post- some simple waypoint creation would be possible in FC3 version of full sim, but yes, full sim would have a lot more precision and tools here.

 

- How to you want to communicate correctly without a simulated radio equipment?

Simple radios only for FC3.

- Does a proper radar simulation not matter at all for you (I'm not talking about the screens but the sensors)? You're fine with a simplified, super all seeing radar target acquistion alghoritms?

See my Ka-50 and F-16 suggested FC3fication. Sensors in FC3fied module would operate in an identical manner to full sim

- How do you run a systems check prior to takeoff?

Impossible in FC3fied module.

- Doesn't a systems demage modeling matter to you? How do you work out about any failure and apply any emergency procedure?

DM would be identical but if shot up in a FC3fied aircraft, it would either limp back to the base, or you eject.

- How do you manage your countermeasures?

Like in FC3 - Chaff, flares, both. No programs for timing and serial releases.

- do you think that any of DLC campaigns for A-10C would be possible with the FC version of A-10?

Of the 3 A-10C Campaigns that I have flown, most missions would be possible if A10C was FC3fied. A couple of missions would not be possible - those that involve editing existing waypoints for example.

Whatever you say and however pro you're with combat tactics in F-15, FC is arcade comparing to the full fidelity modules.

If the said scale has only full sim and FC3 - yes, FC3 would be arcade. If the scale was also to include Ace Combat, Hawx, Strike Fighters etc - FC3 would not be at that end of the spectrum, it would rightly be classed as a simulator.

 

And once again, the thread is not proposing to replace, abandon or ban full sim modules! In fact I said it myself that, with all the costs and difficulties involved, it may not make sense to make exclusive FC3 modules from scratch. FC3fication implies having a full module as its starting base, with all the benefits that research and development of a full sim brings.


Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Katmandu if I use your Ka50 idea why not just auto start, then all you need to do is master arm on, laser on, shkval on, select weapon, fiddle with shkval parameters, designate and shoot, pretty much SU25T.

 

You also need to wait for several minutes for INU/GPS to align if I am not mistaken. Shift+L and ctrl+home would be quicker and yet still more immersive than fast forwarding time. Once in the air, yep, outside a few switches, Ka-50 is pretty much Su-25T with rotors. Although... :)

 

Still, you do need to manage the fuel pumps on longer missions (simple high level algo would sort it out quite easily, although of course human operator would be better at fuel managing) and countermeasures have their own programmable panel. And there is no select weapon button, you have switches for "inner" and "outer" pylons (not as obvious as having a "select weapons" in controls options). And Datalink panel needs learning (once again a simple algo would automatically add new targets to Abris screen). And little things like turning on de-icer and dust protection... Individually all procedures are no rocket science, but it all adds up to those infamous 600page manuals :)

 

I think delving into a full sim like Ka-50 (never mind A-10C or F/A-18C) is a psychological thing. You do not know in advance that you only need to "master arm on, laser on, shkval on, select weapon". You have to learn the "which panel does what", "which functions are essential", "which functions could be ignored", "which abbreviation means what" stuff first. So you still have to start learning the full module, read instructions, guides, and then, by about the time you've learnt it, it dawns on you that it is not that hard after all. Until you go away for a while, forget most of it and have to start again :)

 

Having an FC3 mode gets rid of such a fear factor, and makes learning procedures truly quick, while still leaving plenty on the plate to enjoy and providing a stepping stone to a full sim.


Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LMAO, well played sir ^^^^^^^^^^^^

i9 9900K @ 5.1Ghz - ASUS Maximus Hero XI - 32GB 4266 DDR4 RAM - ASUS RTX 2080Ti - 1 TB NVME - NZXT Kraken 62 Watercooling System - Thrustmaster Warthog Hotas (Virpil Base) - MFG Crosswind Pedals - Pimax 5K+

VFA-25 Fist Of The Fleet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that they all work to the same structure, how it is displayed is obviously going to be different based on which aircraft you're modelling.

The Viggen and MiG-21 have radars that simulate actual radar beams (this has been confirmed), and it looks like the F-5 uses the same principles (otherwise you wouldn't see ground clutter on the radar scope).

The other aircraft do not: they have "all-seeing" capabilities 360 degrees around them, that filter out targets if they are not within the range/azimuth/elevation of the radar's antenna (this has also been confirmed). This is why for example you can be locked up by AI aircraft flying at 20,000ft while you're stationary in a hangar, or why AI MiG-21/23s (which obviously do not have a look-down radar) can lock you up even when they're flying thousands of feet above you.

 

These 2 approaches are vastly different. For more details, I'd suggest reading Wags' posts about the upcoming radar changes. ED made those for the F/A-18C, and they will eventually be used by other modules as well and hopefully by AI in DCS, but Heatblur/Leatherneck have been doing that for a while now.

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@katmandu: Maybe you haven't got the point that the "Game Mode" is implemented within DCS World for all aircrafts. Everything you are suggesting takes extra time do develop. They are not doing a full sim module and spending more time to develop a game mode for it. The game mode is already within the DCS world platform.

 

All you are suggesting is taking time away from new things which will evolve the product further, that's the whole point. The best option i could see would be to form a third party exclusively for fc3 modules.

Specs:WIN10, I7-4790K, ASUS RANGER VII, 16GB G.Skill DDR3, GEFORCE 1080, NVME SSD, SSD, VIRPIL T-50 THROTTLE, K-51 COLLECTIVE, MS FFB2 (CH COMBATSTICK MOD), MFG CROSSWINDS, JETPAD, RIFT S

Modules:A10C, AH-64D, AJS-37, AV8B, BF109K4, CA, F/A18C, F14, F5EII, F86F, FC3, FW190A8, FW190D9, KA50, L39, M2000C, MI8TV2, MI24P, MIG15BIS, MIG19P, MIG21BIS, MIRAGE F1, P51D, SA342, SPITFIRE, UH1H, NORMANDY, PERSIAN GULF, CHANNEL, SYRIA
 
Thrustmaster TWCS Afterburner Detent
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=223776
 
My Frankenwinder ffb2 stick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@katmandu: Maybe you haven't got the point that the "Game Mode" is implemented within DCS World for all aircrafts. Everything you are suggesting takes extra time do develop. They are not doing a full sim module and spending more time to develop a game mode for it. The game mode is already within the DCS world platform.

 

All you are suggesting is taking time away from new things which will evolve the product further, that's the whole point. The best option i could see would be to form a third party exclusively for fc3 modules.

 

Game mode takes time to develop too, e.g. simplified FM for Fw-190 will not be the same as simplified FM for F/A-18 :) Plus you need high level code for linking sim sensors to to "game" ones etc etc... How can they NOT spend time to create game mode for every new module?

 

At the end of the day, thinking in absolute terms like "takes time" is not the way to go. Creating AFM takes time, as does creating SFM, as does making a screenshot. Writing high level code to implement FC3 control scheme to an existing full sim "will take time", but this time will be minuscule compared to somebody making an FC3 plane from scratch. See my Ka-50 psuedocode, the actual code would not be a that much more involved, as essentially one is writing a macro with an odd function like "if radar_altitude > 0: activate x-y-z". Probably easier than making a game mode as well as FMs do not need tweaking for FC3.

 

All you are suggesting is taking time away from new things which will evolve the product further, that's the whole point.

1. Wring a macro like code for a FC3 control scheme would unlikely involve the same people who develop AFM or 3d modelling et al, so ED/Razbam/Heatblur would not grind to a halt while this control scheme is being written.

2. It would bring extra revenue and extra customers. Extra revenue would mean extra finance for squashing bugs in current modules and developing new ones (modules and bugs :)).

 

Without FC3 versions, I will NEVER EVER buy some of the modules in my poll simply because I have not got the time (sale or not, these devs will not see my money unfortunately). 1-2 hours of playtime per week is hard to reconcile with learning (and keeping learnt) several high fidelity modules.


Edited by Katmandu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they don't. The coalition is fed to the sim, it filters it. I made a periscope in the water and it shows up as a ship. Same when we had the late activation bug, invisible things appear as dots on the radar scope.

It would be silly to model raytracing, you just model the filtering. Fooled enough people.

 

The Viggen and MiG-21 have radars that simulate actual radar beams (this has been confirmed), and it looks like the F-5 uses the same principles (otherwise you wouldn't see ground clutter on the radar scope).

The other aircraft do not: they have "all-seeing" capabilities 360 degrees around them, that filter out targets if they are not within the range/azimuth/elevation of the radar's antenna (this has also been confirmed). This is why for example you can be locked up by AI aircraft flying at 20,000ft while you're stationary in a hangar, or why AI MiG-21/23s (which obviously do not have a look-down radar) can lock you up even when they're flying thousands of feet above you.

 

These 2 approaches are vastly different. For more details, I'd suggest reading Wags' posts about the upcoming radar changes. ED made those for the F/A-18C, and they will eventually be used by other modules as well and hopefully by AI in DCS, but Heatblur/Leatherneck have been doing that for a while now.

___________________________________________________________________________

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be silly to model raytracing

Yet that is exactly what the MiG-21, Viggen, F-14 and F/A-18 are doing, and what will be expanded to DCS as a whole.

But I'm done argueing. Believe what you want to believe...

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

A. FC4 with four more aircraft

Flying Legends pack with 8 -12 aircraft …. ?

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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