Jump to content

Modern Air combat


ebabil

Recommended Posts

I'm totally ok with MAC as it is, although i would love some little additions to current aircraft like updated PBR texture on cockpits (already announced), NVG for those who have it (come on! Thats simple ED) and/or some more weapons like aim9x on the F15 or PGM in the mig29s/su27 to balance somehow the multirole capacity of the red side (even though not totally realistic cause it was only done to some export version).

 

That would have little development time but a great acceptance to the already existing FC3 community.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So far the changes in the FC3 birds were focused on making them more realistic rather than less (HUD repeater in the MiG, etc.) and I hope it stays that way. Putting fictional weapons on them for "balance" will only split the study/survey module communities further apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be easier for us to understand what MAC is about by presenting the differences (limitations) compared to DCS.

 

It's straight forward and totally obvious to me what MAC is all about as a product. I have read some absolutely idiotic posts recently especially ones on Youtube commenting on what is ED doing etc. This product is a DCS survey module and an upgrade to FC3 for people that don't want (or don't have the time) to spend months on how to start an engine up in a Mig21 OR it can be seem as a good introduction to DCS where new and old players with the said desires and/or restrictions can have some fun right from the start...what on Earth is difficult to understand !

 

Mizzy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with simplified aircraft, just would have been nice to have it be with new additions instead of just selling the same dull stuff that's been sold for years.

 

This package is not aimed at you or for the most part the DCS community. It appears to me to be an 'introduction' module for 'new' customers and or older plays with little time on their hands but can have a bit of fun. MAC is obviously not got you in mind for it's marketing pitch. No disrespect but it's obvious what the product is and what it's aims are.

 

Mizzy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he was asking if there would be discounts for users that own multiple individual FC Aircraft. ... A-10A and A-10C are 2 different Modules, that comparison doesnt Apply ... L-39ZA is Part of the L-39 Module, ...

 

Here's his full post, for context; specifying "full fidelity".

I'm definitely interested in this. I like a lot of the aircraft in DCS, but I just don't have the time to learn all of their full-fidelity cockpits.

 

I am curious how much of a discount we'll get by having FC3, what will be the pricing of MAC, and I wonder how ED will deal with people who already have some of the planes as full-fidelity modules (for example: a discount on MAC for each owned module?)

 

The current Albatros module contains both the L-39C (trainer) and the L-39ZA (light attack). I think it's important to understand exactly what we are, and are not, getting with MAC. The other additional aircraft only have one version in their respective hi-fi modules.

Wayne Saint

Gander, Newfoundland, Canada

"Do Unto Others BEFORE They Do Unto You..."

Apache, Comanche, Falcon, Hind, Intruder, Lightning II

Nighthawk, Rafale, Raptor, Strike Eagle, Tornado, Typhoon

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's his full post, for context; specifying "full fidelity".

 

 

The current Albatros module contains both the L-39C (trainer) and the L-39ZA (light attack). I think it's important to understand exactly what we are, and are not, getting with MAC. The other additional aircraft only have one version in their respective hi-fi modules.

 

MAC is only getting the ZA

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with simplified aircraft, just would have been nice to have it be with new additions instead of just selling the same dull stuff that's been sold for years.

 

I don't mind the modules being the same as the full fidelity ones, as long as they are interesting. An F-18 or F-16 or something similar would be ideal. A trainer really isn't that interesting to anyone outside of the cockpit clicker crowd. And seeing that it, along with the MIG-15 and F-86 are already fairly simple as is I can't see the difference between the medium and high fidelity being that notable.

 

Or variants of aircraft that can't be done in a full fidelity module due to lack of information but can be done close enough in FC/MAC. Example would be an Mirage 2000-5F or -5.

 

Not a great lineup for MAC (outside of the planes already in FC3), but I suppose it is better than nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I don't mind the modules being the same as the full fidelity ones, as long as they are interesting. An F-18 or F-16 or something similar would be ideal. A trainer really isn't that interesting to anyone outside of the cockpit clicker crowd. And seeing that it, along with the MIG-15 and F-86 are already fairly simple as is I can't see the difference between the medium and high fidelity being that notable.

 

Or variants of aircraft that can't be done in a full fidelity module due to lack of information but can be done close enough in FC/MAC. Example would be an Mirage 2000-5F or -5.

 

Not a great lineup for MAC (outside of the planes already in FC3), but I suppose it is better than nothing.

 

I have seen many point to the Hornet, or even the F-16, and simply put, these are cornerstone releases for DCS, for the Hornet, or Viper to be released anything less than full fidelity, would be a shame, maybe down the road, after they are available, and fully complete, maybe look at it then, but I think most of us are here for the high fidelity stuff. MAC is meant for people to have more options, and bring in new people intimidated by what DCS is.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen many point to the Hornet, or even the F-16, and simply put, these are cornerstone releases for DCS, for the Hornet, or Viper to be released anything less than full fidelity, would be a shame, maybe down the road, after they are available, and fully complete, maybe look at it then, but I think most of us are here for the high fidelity stuff. MAC is meant for people to have more options, and bring in new people intimidated by what DCS is.

 

Understood. Can we please have a fully simulated MiG-29K? :music_whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the changes in the FC3 birds were focused on making them more realistic rather than less (HUD repeater in the MiG, etc.) and I hope it stays that way. Putting fictional weapons on them for "balance" will only split the study/survey module communities further apart.

 

Sorry but what I'm asking is not putting fictional weapons, rather adding realistic configuration of existing weapons in planes that can carry them; simply that because the cold war finished and lack of funds arised such integration was not done in time.

 

But lets simplify things, we already have fictional loadouts. Am i wrong or the KA50 is no more than a prototype which never entered operational service (And i mean being active in a fighting squadron)?. Don't we also have a Harrier that is able to launch AGM122 ARM when this weapong never entered in active service?

 

If you take all that into consideration, and as far as i know there is no splitted community because of that, what harm could it make to add some very light and subtle multirole capability to the mig29s and Su27, be it by introducing a mig29k or a modernised fictional SU27, so the red side has a low fidelity fast mover with limited SEAD and limited precision attack capabilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but what I'm asking is not putting fictional weapons, rather adding realistic configuration of existing weapons in planes that can carry them; simply that because the cold war finished and lack of funds arised such integration was not done in time.

The early MiG-29 and Su-27 variants that we have in the game never carried any PGMs. There's no way to realistically "add PGM capability" to either of these jets without building entirely new versions of them with entirely new avionics and systems (think Su-25 vs Su-25T level differences at least). There's much more to it than just "integrating" a new weapon system. Looking at how ED approaches this project (in a minimum-effort way) this is not going to happen.

 

The alternative is what.. to add a fictional HUD mode? "Pretend" there's a laser designator somewhere on the jet (where?) or that the IPV can display the imagery from the Kh-29T? That's the sort of sci-fi approach that'll get those jets banned from MP servers.

 

Am i wrong or the KA50 is no more than a prototype which never entered operational service (And i mean being active in a fighting squadron)?

The Ka-50 in our configuration existed. How much service it saw is irrelevant, it is a recreation of an existing, documented aircraft.

 

Don't we also have a Harrier that is able to launch AGM122 ARM when this weapong never entered in active service?

AGM-122 was in active service, it is simply no longer used (stocks have been depleted). Again - existing, documented.

 

We have fictional loadouts in other planes (MiG-21 for example), which I refuse to use, but that doesn't justify making things even worse.

 

and as far as i know there is no splitted community because of that

I know people who barely tolerate FC3 planes now because there's no alternative. Those people will not include MAC versions of aircraft which have full fidelity versions in their games.

 

I want a red fast attack jet (preferably in full fidelity) as much the next guy, but not like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally ok with MAC as it is, although i would love some little additions to current aircraft like updated PBR texture on cockpits (already announced), NVG for those who have it (come on! Thats simple ED) and/or some more weapons like aim9x on the F15 or PGM in the mig29s/su27 to balance somehow the multirole capacity of the red side (even though not totally realistic cause it was only done to some export version).

 

That would have little development time but a great acceptance to the already existing FC3 community.

No, no, no, not acceptable. 9X is year 2003 - our F-15C is from 90s. And what balance you're talking about?! Fight same aircrafts w/same payload vs each other - there you have it.

🖥️ 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

The early MiG-29 and Su-27 variants that we have in the game never carried any PGMs. There's no way to realistically "add PGM capability" to either of these jets without building entirely new versions of them with entirely new avionics and systems (think Su-25 vs Su-25T level differences at least). There's much more to it than just "integrating" a new weapon system. Looking at how ED approaches this project (in a minimum-effort way) this is not going to happen.

 

The alternative is what.. to add a fictional HUD mode? "Pretend" there's a laser designator somewhere on the jet (where?) or that the IPV can display the imagery from the Kh-29T? That's the sort of sci-fi approach that'll get those jets banned from MP servers.

 

I know the early variant we have never had that, that is why like a brilliant idea simulating one that do have that possibility without creating a new plane, we have a good example with J11. R77 capable still being the same plane. Very used in multiplayer and a nice addition to the red side (which i ever hardly flight btw). Up to which point is tat realistic? As far as i know china did nott receive RVV-AE until at least 2005 but we have it in game.

 

So what if this J11 or the Su27 is able to carry an KH58 but only fired in Self defense mode? No need for new avionics. And the KH29T? Is so hard to pretend that Su27 can employ this weapon through the MFD? I quite sure that this exist, just not at operational level, just like the KA50 or the AGM122. I will later look some information on how many SU27 where able to use AG weapons around 2000s, we might be surprised.

 

Don't get me wrong I like realism, I would love to see something like a SU30MKI simulated so we do have PGM capability but i also dont want ED to spend resources away from their roadmap, thats why i'm asking for little adaptations on the current fleet, without going to far.

 

Regarding the AIM9x for example, is up to missiion designer to decide which year we are fighting in. If we are in 2010 then we have r77 flankers and aim9x eagles in the server. We are fighting in 1991? ok so just sparrows and R27s. That is as realistic as you want it to make it.

 

The Ka-50 in our configuration existed. How much service it saw is irrelevant, it is a recreation of an existing, documented aircraft.

 

 

AGM-122 was in active service, it is simply no longer used (stocks have been depleted). Again - existing, documented.

 

Following the same argument, Su27 or mig29s carrying PGM existed, they would be a recreation of an existing modernisation programme (That was probably finished somewhere around 2000 up to 2016).

 

We have fictional loadouts in other planes (MiG-21 for example), which I refuse to use, but that doesn't justify making things even worse.

 

 

I know people who barely tolerate FC3 planes now because there's no alternative. Those people will not include MAC versions of aircraft which have full fidelity versions in their games.

 

I want a red fast attack jet (preferably in full fidelity) as much the next guy, but not like this.

 

Fair enough, but remember that has been stated many times that any modern russian thing is not gonna happen for political security reasons, what i'm asking for is the closest we can get, which is similar to what we already have BTW. FC3 is not a close representation of anything. The F15c and Su27 are miles away of the real counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no, no, not acceptable. 9X is year 2003 - our F-15C is from 90s. And what balance you're talking about?! Fight same aircrafts w/same payload vs each other - there you have it.
I'm referring to balance in multirole/mission capabilities, nothing else. I dont want artificial balance of dissimilar planes (e.g. f15 vs su27).

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debate and Discussion is great, but lets keep it on topic of MODERN AIR COMBAT Release,

 

And not Debate over capabilities of Air-frames via Upgrade Programs etc.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it already mentioned that how you can buy the MAC?

- ALL IN BUNDLE

- All individually

- Downgraded versions from Clickable modules with special prices

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like Flaming Cliffs 3 now.

- Complete bundle with all planes.

- Single plane

 

Plus "Flaming Cliffs 3 owners can purchase the MAC pack at a great discount."; quoted from the official post.

 

And "Purchase MAC aircraft individually or as a pack at a reduced price."; just as FC3 costs less than the sum of its individual plane modules.


Edited by Saintan

Wayne Saint

Gander, Newfoundland, Canada

"Do Unto Others BEFORE They Do Unto You..."

Apache, Comanche, Falcon, Hind, Intruder, Lightning II

Nighthawk, Rafale, Raptor, Strike Eagle, Tornado, Typhoon

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood. Can we please have a fully simulated MiG-29K? :music_whistling:

 

 

No no no - we need that Su-25T as a full fidelity module! :thumbup:

 

Wht we don't seem to include the Su-25T as FC3, just because it comes free with DCS World is unknown to me - afaic I always include it in FC3 in my mind.

 

PS - I'll definitely be buying this, as I like FC3 planes for various reasons - the main one being quick testing of missions, PC performance (i.e. terrain mods and options adjustments) etc.


Edited by Brixmis

Kneeboard Guides

Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question on missions compatibility and availability for MAC: I assume FC3 aircrafts will have the same SP missions and campaigns as they do now. What about those FCfied modules? Will they have the missions updated for compatibility and their lowered capabilities? Will they be able to run the missions already designed for corresponding FF modules despite not being able to hear radio comms or follow some orders?

🖥️ 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

After the player take control in the aircraft then in the name F10/map view can show the fidelity taken by this player. The use of the MAC units should be off possible in general by the mission option, never aircraft by aircraft...

 

Do not leave this option to the mission builder, aircraft by aircraft. Will be a disaster in terms of flexibility and discrimination...

 

I strongly disagree: you should not force a behaviour to meet your idea by altering the simulator code, while the issue you describe is in the head of the mission builder. Some other might write your opposite: to separate strongly MAC airframes from DCS FF airframes to do not allow "easy players" to be in the same environment as "hardcore simmers".

 

IMHO you should never consider a "restriction" or "forcing" a behaviour when you give instruments to the mission builders: cause them would always try (and often get) to do what they need.

 

Cause as a mission builder I want to be able to allow full fidelity or low fidelity or both, and not be "forced" in any direction. The mission editor it's an instrument: the more freedom you allow to designer, the more you will get from them.

ChromiumDis.png

Author of DSMC, mod to enable scenario persistency and save updated miz file

Stable version & site: https://dsmcfordcs.wordpress.com/

Openbeta: https://github.com/Chromium18/DSMC

 

The thing is, helicopters are different from planes. An airplane by it's nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces in opposition to each other, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying; immediately and disastrously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Cause as a mission builder I want to be able to allow full fidelity or low fidelity or both, and not be "forced" in any direction. The mission editor it's an instrument: the more freedom you allow to designer, the more you will get from them.

 

+1

Wayne Saint

Gander, Newfoundland, Canada

"Do Unto Others BEFORE They Do Unto You..."

Apache, Comanche, Falcon, Hind, Intruder, Lightning II

Nighthawk, Rafale, Raptor, Strike Eagle, Tornado, Typhoon

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen many point to the Hornet, or even the F-16, and simply put, these are cornerstone releases for DCS, for the Hornet, or Viper to be released anything less than full fidelity, would be a shame, maybe down the road, after they are available, and fully complete, maybe look at it then, but I think most of us are here for the high fidelity stuff. MAC is meant for people to have more options, and bring in new people intimidated by what DCS is.

 

If we have to wait longer for a medium fidelity then I'd happily wait longer to.

 

Personally I don't have the time or desire for a lot of high fidelity aircraft, so if MAC is all that is available for my demographic going forward I'd get that and maybe the F-18 or F-16 (probably not both). Essentially, not much of a gain.

 

Personally I'd be happy if a 3rd party joined and made similar aircraft like FC3/MAC, but with more interesting aircraft. Won't really take away from ED or any other current 3rd party. One can always dream! :D

 

The early MiG-29 and Su-27 variants that we have in the game never carried any PGMs. There's no way to realistically "add PGM capability" to either of these jets without building entirely new versions of them with entirely new avionics and systems (think Su-25 vs Su-25T level differences at least).

 

I'd pay for modern versions of those aircraft at FC3 level.

 

Give me a Su-27SM2 and MIG-29SMT. Or better yet, Su-35 and MIG-35 / MIG-29K. Or Mirage 2000-5. I'd buy a package with all three. Not feasible to give them in a free update because of all the work required, but it can be "MAC 2" and I'd buy it.


Edited by Flogger23m
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the AFM/PFM for the Mig29 ship with MAC? What about the FC3 version? Will the FC3 Mig29 get the upgraded FM at the same time?

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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