MAC (Modern Air Combat) Discussion

If MAC helps secure ED's future, and thereby enabling them to produce even more modules, maps and features for DCS, then who are we to complain.

I was interested about MAC as it was then yet presented as "flaming cliffs 4", a module package to DCS World.

I was interested to buy couple of them to friends and even myself. But once I heard that it got changed to be a standalone, no.... Not anymore.

I would love to see a Su-25A or Su-27S as clickable module, but same way love to see a harrier or F-5 as non-clikcable for friends who has just a basic stick with 12 buttons etc.

So now the time schedule what ever it is, can stay what ever it is....

If they can be integrated to DCSW, great! Even if standalone separately!

I am more negative about AI flight modeling than non-clickable cockpits for anything, as one can't fly against AI without them having extra power and better turning radius and all the time eyes at their backs.

But I see now MAC as a side hobby. A side product. And I hope I am totally, totally wrong.

Correct

If MAC helps secure ED's future, and thereby enabling them to produce even more modules, maps and features for DCS, then who are we to complain.

Yes, exactly. On top of that MAC is aimed to be a great product, or as Wags said, even 3A product. I honestly don't see how its development could mean other products, namely DCS and its modules being neglected.

Many people say they don't like the idea of MAC being another game

I say say this - if you don't like it, fine. Walk away and keep doing what you doing, why does is it bother you at all? Like if it was up to our decisions anyways.

I don't like WW2 portion of DCS.. so what...

Yes, exactly. On top of that MAC is aimed to be a great product, or as Wags said, even 3A product. I honestly don't see how its development could mean other products, namely DCS and its modules being neglected.

That's what I'm talking about, because it usually goes like that in the gaming industry, it's no surprise people have reservations and they should, if DCS and MAC have that special relationship (while on the outside a lack thereof, product/customer-type separation) which was envisioned and the kind of formula that is developed is respected (for example by not putting MAC on a pedestal over DCS World, etc.) all ED needs to keep doing is finetuining this coexistance formula which is a rare business model in the gaming industry (but we're not in the gaming industry :)) and communicating with the community and if we're all passionate about this stuff then it should be no big deal for ED as long as they keep on the path (ofcourse this doesn't always work for everything), it will simply take time for people and here's the main point, there's no reason to panic once , some processes take their time and trying to shorten/force them may have a negative side-effect, something has to be the status quo for some time for people to realize as they compare the events, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, vs the rest, the experience has to play out for some time, the people need to have that in mind in that they give things a chance by not jumping to conclusion and you know that's why air crash investigations take several years to do right, imagine how game reviews would differ if they were 20 times as long as they usually are with a scientific approach.

On the other hand even if people don't respond as good to all the reassurances and updates regarding MAC, ED should not feel like the plan failed and that it has to drastically change something ... some time has to pass after MAC release to see things are going, but everyone on both sides should keep always keep an eye on the behavior of the customers that come to MAC to keep the circus down, how demanding or unreasonable will they be, etc.

There's more ED can do, including the DCS Community, training some scenarios and prepare for them, for example if they get demanding they shouldn't be left out thinking they'll going to get an update in 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, some things should be set and said at the beginning, DCS World is the prime full-version and you won't ever get things anywhere near in MAC, these key points it's good for them to know ahead so there's no unnecessary crash when they get hyped up for nothing, and if they just leave and don't play anymore then this is the key point ED should not bow down against, that ED would try to chase them back in by giving them some gimmicks, no, they may come back, may take long, certain percentage only plays on gimmicks and vapor, avoid chasing those, there is a percentage that may sporadically or occasionally play, that's better than nothing, it may take several years of them coming and leaving for months, coming and leaving for months, before they might even attempt DCS World.

Here is the description from ED's YouTube Video on MAC back last summer:

"MAC is a module of DCS World and not a separate product."

It still says that even today. https://youtu.be/yNWXWOWspYQ

And how existing FC3 owners will get a discount, etc.

But now, I read some comments in this thread that say the exact opposite = standalone.

Did ED just flip a complete 180 turn and change their mind? Or did those people get it wrong somehow? I am confused.

I was very likely going to buy it, and maybe for my brother too, to get him started flying in MP with our gang. But if it is going to be standalone, then I guess that will never happen.

Can't imagine that ED cuts the community into pieces. Why should they do that? Even new MAC users should profit a lot from existing DCS structures.

But now, I read some comments in this thread that say the exact opposite = standalone.

Did ED just flip a complete 180 turn and change their mind? Or did those people get it wrong somehow? I am confused.

"Everything is subject to change".

True and valid

Here is the description from ED's YouTube Video on MAC back last summer:

"MAC is a module of DCS World and not a separate product."

It still says that even today. https://youtu.be/yNWXWOWspYQ

"Everything is subject to change".

Since the release of this video, there were additional updates and mentions of how MAC scope expanded to be a AAA game. Wags said once or twice it is aimed to be a separate product.

The confusion was related to the vision of the product that changed significantly from what I understood from all the communications.

I think we should still treat that with Everything is subject to change attitude, as always.

Can't imagine that ED cuts the community into pieces. Why should they do that? Even new MAC users should profit a lot from existing DCS structures.

But the whole point is that it's not suppose to be something established DCS World player should think about.

If you are here why would you be looking forward for that so much ... unless you just want to review it. Save up for full fidelity modules, it's worth it in the long run, I bought them at special and took months to properly start playing (but that's because I purposelly go slow to not get spoiled with everything in beginning), it's just a different environment where things work different.

Those aircraft that are in MAC but not in FC3 are most likely much more lower fidelity versions of the high-fidelity ones, right?. So if you already have F/A-18C why would you need the MAC version, for example.

However, this creates this redundancy in lower fidelity stuff, I said in the past I would simply deprecate FC3 and move people over to MAC (upgrade auto or special big discount code) and MAC can be sort of spiritual successor of FC3 and you could imagine it as a FC4 if you will ...

But I'm not sure if that's going to work, because MAC could be even lower more dumbed down ...err simplified version of everything, so you are probably correct the middle ground between MAC and DCS Full Fidelity would then be kinda shortcoming and I guess FC4 is what would be needed to fill that if that's what they want to do, so you could stay where you are and not bother with MAC, and FC4 could be everything MAC is but with the extra simplificaton cut out and properly better than FC3 and that might do the trick. Also the aircraft level of simulation should be consistent if they're part of the package, at least at release, so you know what you're getting not sure where Su-25T and other base and free and non-high-fidelity standalone aircraft fit into, I'd like it to be some kind of a proper table with levels of fidelity where aircraft officially fall into, just roughly ofcourse.

But the whole point is that it's not suppose to be something established DCS World player should think about.

that's what I thought, too. but with rumors that MAC could be a stand alone product, even established DCS players are affected.

personally I don't think that it makes sense to bring MAC as stand alone and I don't believe those rumors.

I also don't think ED creates "low fidelity versions" of existing modules. doesn't make sense either.

IMHO MAC will just be a more attractive product for new people that are interested in DCS World. An advanced FC3 with more clickable planes. And certainly at a higher price than FC3. Which is o.k..

Everything is fine as long as it won't get a new stand alone version of DCS World.

Rumors?

that's what I thought, too. but with rumors that MAC could be a stand alone product, even established DCS players are affected.

 

personally I don't think that it makes sense to bring MAC as stand alone and I don't believe those rumors.

Everything is fine as long as it won't get a new stand alone version of DCS World.

Here: Interview with ED Executive Producer Matt Wagner --

 

Q: Is it going to integrate with DCS as it stands now? Is it gonna be standalone? (...)

 

A: It is a sepearate product, it is not a part of DCS World.(...)

(...) It is really not designed for our current DCS users.

Source:

https://alert5podcast.podbean.com/e/scramble-04-matt-wags-wagner/

about 46 minutes into the podcast.

Thanks for that podcast link.

So standalone now, really? Well, then RIP my planned purchases.

And no way I could recommend MAC to any friends or family now. If I did, it would sound something like this:

"Hey there is this awesome flight sim called DCS World, that me and a bunch of friends on our Discord regularly fly together online, make custom missions, teach each other, recommend modules, and have a blast. I know you're not too sure, but come on give it a try! BUT: as a noob using the intended intro software (MAC), YOU need to just go off to fly it all by yourself, and I can't even help you learn it because I ain't gonna buy it only for that. AND if you ever get to the point where you now want to step up to DCS and actually fly WITH the rest of us, then guess what? You have to start over, and re-purchase the "DCS version" of those same planes you just learned. Your previous investment is now useless."

Way better off just recommending the existing FC3 planes to them instead, so at least we can fly together while learning and afterwards.

ED: Why not leave it up to individual server admins to decide if MAC planes can be included or not? I don't see how this new flip-flop strategy of exclusion helps build the DCS community. Lots of your existing customers are just like me, convincing people to try DCS, and spending tons of time and effort to help your newest customers learn to fly online. And the shared experience is much more enjoyable (cough, addictive) than being alone. IMO, making MAC as a standalone (instead of a DCS module) is just going to disable / discourage us from continuing that community-building effort. Also, I still enjoy FC3 planes a lot today, despite also owning many other modules now too - and I would be pissed if I couldn't fly them with my friends. With the utmost respect, I ask you to please reconsider.

Isn’t it possible for it be standalone but still compatible with DCS MP? I know they intended for a MAC planes inclusion to depend on the host. I wonder if it will only be for the Caucuses since the other maps on MAC are “smaller” versions.

I don't mind ED creating another game at all. Exactly same as I don't mind other software developers making more than one product.

My friend once said to me, that he won't play with me as even FC planes are too complicated for him. He is old but has a thing for military aviation just like me, so MAC will be a game we will spend time together in. Then he will go do something else and I will spend time in DCS. Nothing wrong with MAC. Attitude here in this post is rather disappointing and not the game.

Attitude here in this post is rather disappointing and not the game.

@Me? I really can't help how you feel about my opinion, but that just seems like unnecessarily divisive language. Was not trying to offend.

I assume that MAC will still be a nice quality product in any case. IMO, DCS really does need a simplified entry-level tool like that in order to expand from being stuck in a niche market of advanced users. More customers is good for ED and good for me, mainly because I do enjoy DCS online with other people. Which is why I was originally so enthusiastic when they announced it last year, as a DCS module that "is fully compatible with DCS World online! There are no limits to content.".

Well, like you said, things can change. And of course, it's not my decision.

But if the new software is not to be connected with DCS now, then the communities will not really be connected either. DCS online might even get smaller, and our little Discord group would definitely get split. It would be much better if they were connected, since it's not like they are two totally different games (or competitors). And yes, that is a major change from the original concept announced last year, which is very disappointing to me.

Just sharing my view, not trying to impose it on anyone else, or dismiss their opinions.

No, not you. This thread generally, I was not aiming at anyone's personal views or opinions.

Stand alone? I'm not part of the target group. I'm outa here.

Ty Gierasimov for the info

But if the new software is not to be connected with DCS now, then the communities will not really be connected either. DCS online might even get smaller

I think they made the right choice, many people is scared by DCS ... so being a separate game can bring more new users.

And some of those users, if they like it and want to go the next step, they'll come to DCS.

Even if MAC would be a module of DCS, we would be separated, people with MAC probably will play on servers with labels, etc etc.

Since MAC will include MiG-15 and the Sabre, I wonder if the high fidelity versions of these aircraft are going to get an graphic overhaul for the cockpit.

This is my understanding also. MAC3 is a standalone game addressed to those new comers who are overwhelmed by DCS complexity. It will not be integrated in the DCS World, and I think this is a fair approach.

is this absolutely true from DCS, or just talk? Will FC4, Mac, be part of DCS or it's own? I am disappointed if it is separate!

:huh:

@Me? I really can't help how you feel about my opinion, but that just seems like unnecessarily divisive language. Was not trying to offend.

 

I assume that MAC will still be a nice quality product in any case. IMO, DCS really does need a simplified entry-level tool like that in order to expand from being stuck in a niche market of advanced users. More customers is good for ED and good for me, mainly because I do enjoy DCS online with other people. Which is why I was originally so enthusiastic when they announced it last year, as a DCS module that "is fully compatible with DCS World online! There are no limits to content.".

 

Well, like you said, things can change. And of course, it's not my decision.

 

But if the new software is not to be connected with DCS now, then the communities will not really be connected either. DCS online might even get smaller, and our little Discord group would definitely get split. It would be much better if they were connected, since it's not like they are two totally different games (or competitors). And yes, that is a major change from the original concept announced last year, which is very disappointing to me.

 

Just sharing my view, not trying to impose it on anyone else, or dismiss their opinions.

But you need to understand first that you have an outsider viewpoint. You assume "DCS is stuck in a niche", if the developers and community thinks that way is right and doesn't need changing that that would be an invalid assertion, and if what we're talking about here is a standalone game (MAC) which is intended for the market you're talking about, so if MAC fills that void how is it DCS's problem of community being split? If it is so designed then from DCS's point of view MAC does not exist, and vice versa, DCS is just sitting there minding it's own business, so when standalone MAC releases it's only up to your call what perception of DCS you make out and I wouldn't be jumping to conclusion blaming either one of them based on that perception when comparing them, they're split exactly for the purpose so they are not compared against, you can compare it on a feature type level just in terms of what offers what but the usual mainstream comparisons are actually biased always toward this idea one-in-all, the whole entertainment/social industry is obsessed with this one-solution-for-all idea, many of these review sites on anything don't get that they may be biased from the get go because they always search for the ultimate-perfect-best-choice, and there is no such thing, it's all split into sectors, you can only objectively compare multiple examples within exactly the same field, scope, purpose, and none of that is taking account the capabilities and resources that were even available, or happened to allocated, other real-life factors which is a ball of 1000x factors and circumstances, as well as emotional attachement (motivation) of the people that made it, a reviewer is truly just looking at the peak of the mountain which is what matters to the end-user, that is however a 100% objective product review, scientifically correct it may be, but it's really artificial, not human, and could even be part of the reason why in everything out there some parts of the community are exceptionally tough, not necessairly completely wrong, but just rough.

I'm not sure how big the split is technically as not full details were released, but it will be treated as a separate game install that's what I understood and I think that's better in the long run, will it be better for DCS, that's another story, but, will people flock to MAC that were in DCS all the time, probably not, initially to check it out maybe.

The people that will stay with MAC longer or forever are the people who were never really truly DCS fans or couldn't get themselfs past the first huge wall of ice when being first introduced to it. Others forced themselfs to be with DCS while waiting for something like MAC. Not defending DCS just saying I think the reasons are probably more elsewhere first than DCS. Maybe the people don't really know what they want at first and once offered many choices they finally decide their place, so you might have been a MAC fan since beginning but it just didn't happen to exist before.

Practically, when reality comes in, resources, than that may have an impact on changing that relationship, if there's a lot of people that wouldn't agree with this separation then I guess it could have an impact later on, I'm not sure what the problem would be right now. The multiplayer compatability, sure if it's possible why not but it may not be philosophically correct due to being just incompatible in terms of fairness, no result would be valid in such a scenario, unless some kind of limited cooperation where applicable.

But if you were a MAC fan and not a DCS fan then why would you need DCS anyway. Because people want to fly together? You can't really approach this issue from a server admin/moderator standpoint where the whole point of the management is to increase in size and keep everyone happy, you can't just combine and morph incompatible products/ideas in order to inflate the number of a particular community, which seems to be this obsession out there, as if people are playing civilization in real-life building their communities.

As games become more real and more expansive in everyday life, more social, it seems to be the case that people are literally building their own cottages and castles withing the gaming ecosystem.

Gaming may have become too social, you don't really need to have a big popular server to succeed in life, the tech giants have created this idea of success in life meaning a huge amount of followers, don't take that bait, normal numbers should keep you happy, you don't have to prove to your friends, yourself, who's going to have more likes, more karma points.

EDIT: BTW I just offered a viewpoint, I'm nowhere near that of a DCS guru myself either.

Will they release MAC, anymore ?

Will they release MAC, anymore ?

----I suspect it. There is no need to expect the MAC, after all we have FC3 and all the other modules

----I suspect it. There is no need to expect the MAC, after all we have FC3 and all the other modules

We had FC3 and all the other modules when they announced MAC. So why would those things being in existence change whether or not MAC happens? MAC builds on FC3 by including content from other modules...

I think it's still happening. Just no updates in a while...

I think this has been silently cancelled. We’re almost a year past the announced release date... and nothing but crickets. This is never a good sign.