Which full sim modules you'd like in FC3?

I can't get friends to even consider this game, and here is why:

 

"Want to play an awesome flight sim where you fly an A10c?"

 

"Sounds cool, is it easy to learn?"

Well there is your problem - "an awesome flight sim" is never going to be easy to learn :)

It sounds like your friends(like most people) don't really have an interest in this sort of thing and therefore aren't willing to put any effort into it, but you are trying to get them to play it anyway....thats always going to be a dead end regardless of whether its FC3 or DCS.

Besides, there are eight FC3 level aircraft and they are IMO even the most interesting types in the sim, so its not like you and your friends are left with nothing unless ten more are modified from DCS as the OP suggests.

Moreover, if you read my last post again, you will see that I suggested FC3 being used as a way of implementing new aircraft types that cannot be made for DCS.

I suggested FC3 being used as a way of implementing new aircraft types that cannot be made for DCS.

In an ideal world - yes. But in a real world, resources needed for AFM, 3D+texturing, systems development at FC3 level are very significant. Adapting a hardcore module to FC3 is much faster/cheaper than developing from scratch, there is no doubt about that. (my reply from the F-14 thread)

In an ideal world - yes. But in a real world, resources needed for AFM, 3D+texturing, systems development at FC3 level are very significant. Adapting a hardcore module to FC3 is much faster/cheaper than developing from scratch, there is no doubt about that. (my reply from the F-14 thread)

AFM/PFM is not a FC3 feature - it is in fact very much a DCS attribute, that ED has decided to port over to FC3 aircraft one by one(the MiG-29 doesn't have it yet). Same actually goes for the full 6 DOF cockpits - again really DCS features ported over to FC3 and, I assume, partly in order to lay the ground for upgrading them to full DCS level at some point.

Secondly, I don't think you understand what I am talking about - my suggestion has nothing to do with what is "faster/cheaper", but with what is possible. Many of the more modern aircraft types that people would like to see in the sim just aren't possible to make to DCS level, but might be to a lower "game-play" level of systems aka FC3. In other words it might enable us to have something that we would otherwise never see in DCS and I personally find that a lot more interesting than simplified versions of what we already have.

I can't get friends to even consider this game, and here is why:

...

"You just asked me to read a steven king length instruction book, **** that."

Your friends are dummies! Believe me I share your pain, but don't try to make it ED's problem.

But I don't like any of the other sims, I like DCS. So my only option is to take my ball and go home?

No, by all means hang out here and plead with ED to change the game to suit you.

AFM/PFM is not a FC3 feature - it is in fact very much a DCS attribute, that ED has decided to port over to FC3 aircraft one by one(the MiG-29 doesn't have it yet).

 

Secondly, I don't think you understand what I am talking about - my suggestion has nothing to do with what is "faster/cheaper", but with what is possible.

Su-25 was the very first AFM module with advanced damage modelling to boot, all the way back in 2006 when there was no DCS, but only LockOn:Modern Air Combat: Flaming Cliffs (long name:)). An Petrovich, the inventor of AFM at ED, then started working on the Ka-50 before leaving the company to create (fully AFM) WW1 birds in Rise of Flight.

And "Possible" is good, but feasible is better :) I'd love completely new planes in FC3 too though.

But for now, if F/A-18 replaced the game mode by the good old FC, that would be great too:

:thumbup:

import cold and dark Ka50 as coldKa50

import "everthing up to and including APU is started" state as apu_Ka50

 

display coldKa50 %FC3 player appears in cold and dark pit of ka50

 

if player presses "Shift+L":

display apu_Ka50 %all the avionics and apu are insta started FC3 style

 

if player presses "Ctrl+Home":

continue with autostart win+Home sequence %this way time is saved on clicking initial switches and waiting for alignment, but player gets to see the cool rotor spool up

(etc)

Wow looks very professional! Send to Wags for implementation right away!

Okay, this is not a personal attack, but I'm going to be as blunt as I know how: your suggestion is laughably, almost childishly simplistic. You keep insisting how easy, really trivially easy your idea would be to implement but you simply don't know the first thing of what's involved.

From the beginning you've said you wanted an "FC3" version of the full modules. This is probably attainable, but nowhere near as simple, easy, fast or cheap as you are imagining. Simple systems, simple radar, simple propulsion model. Basically you were suggesting merging the art assets and FM of the full module with an FC3 style SSM. It just isn't that simple but it doesn't matter BECAUSE:

As I guessed before, FC3 is not what you want at all. What you are actually suggesting is the full module with some kind of simple, optional control scheme that would allow you to use the full capabilities of the module, but with easier controls. And then... sell that as a separate module? This makes no sense for ED to produce or try to sell, and makes your "implementation" even more far-fetched.

You've written hundreds of words of vague descriptions of how you think this might work, that somehow address none of the actual problems with your idea. Others in this thread have spelled out more clearly than me why your idea is a non-starter, but I can see you're listening very selectively. Really though, if you would have spent this time in the sim and the manual on your tablet, you could have learned a new module by now. Honestly I'm baffled as to why you don't just go play a different game.

Thanks Katmandu for starting an interesting discussion.:thumbup:

your suggestion is laughably, almost childishly simplistic. You keep insisting how easy, really trivially easy your idea would be to implement but you simply don't know the first thing of what's involved.

The post linked in OP is not actual code, it is psuedocode with comments (after %). Go through specific lines of that pseudocode that you find childlishly simplistic.

I did not say that writing this extension was "trivial", I only said that this kind of program is much-much easier and cheaper compared to developing an FC3 module from scratch.

Simple systems, simple radar, simple propulsion model. Basically you were suggesting merging the art assets and FM of the full module with an FC3 style SSM.

Not at all, the sensors, propulsion,suspension physics, flight model, damage model, weapons would stay exactly the same as they were in the full sim. 100% the same!

Yeah. I know. That's what I was talking about when I said:

As I guessed before, FC3 is not what you want at all. What you are actually suggesting is the full module with some kind of simple, optional control scheme that would allow you to use the full capabilities of the module, but with easier controls. And then... sell that as a separate module? This makes no sense for ED to produce or try to sell, and makes your "implementation" even more far-fetched.

full module with some kind of simple, optional control scheme that would allow you to use the full capabilities of the module, but with easier controls. And then... sell that as a separate module? This makes no sense for ED to produce or try to sell, and makes your "implementation" even more far-fetched.

The thing is, this hybrid module would behave in an identical fashion to an FC3 one, even though it is completely different underneath. Thus, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck - it is a duck. But inside it is not a duck, it is a complex beautiful swan :) But it's a duck :)

So if it looks, has controls and has difficulty like FC3 you can sell it like FC3 (or bundle as DCS-lite, FC3 - whatever- with full sim module).

There are other offerings out there that are simply better at what you want.

Why are you tormenting yourself with DCS? It’s full of bugs, bad optimization, few planes and worst of all elitists whose idea of entertainment is entirely different than yours.

What makes you think I'm tormenting myself? I love DCS, even with the bugs, bad optimization, the few planes and the elitists. Thats the beauty of a brilliantly designed product. If it's a good product that people enjoy, they'll still buy it. DCS is a great product. Why is it you want to push me out of DCS and make me go play something else. Am I not supposed to be able to play this game because I'd prefer an FC3 model? I get the feeling that's what you're suggesting.

Your friends are dummies! Believe me I share your pain, but don't try to make it ED's problem.

 

 

 

No, by all means hang out here and plead with ED to change the game to suit you.

I didn't ask them to change anything. I responded to a poll. I don't think they should take away anything. I'd buy simple versions of the aircraft if they were available. If that's an issue, make the servers have an option to not allow the mixing of FC3 style aircraft and the clickable cockpits. The admin of the server can make that decision. Just suggesting that results in people saying you should go play war thunder, dcs isn't something you would like, stop tormenting yourself... Ridiculous

Su-25 was the very first AFM module with advanced damage modelling to boot, all the way back in 2006 when there was no DCS, but only LockOn:Modern Air Combat: Flaming Cliffs (long name:)). An Petrovich, the inventor of AFM at ED, then started working on the Ka-50 before leaving the company to create (fully AFM) WW1 birds in Rise of Flight.

I know - I was on the test team for both "Flaming Cliffs" and "Blackshark" :) .

But the fact is that all the fighter aircraft ported over from Lock-on, had neither AFM or 6DOF cockpits in FCx until recently.

What makes you think I'm tormenting myself? I love DCS, even with the bugs, bad optimization, the few planes and the elitists. Thats the beauty of a brilliantly designed product. If it's a good product that people enjoy, they'll still buy it. DCS is a great product. Why is it you want to push me out of DCS and make me go play something else. Am I not supposed to be able to play this game because I'd prefer an FC3 model? I get the feeling that's what you're suggesting.

Everyone can play whatever they like of course but it’s like owning a Ferrari. Wonderful product, beautiful and can be enjoyed in many ways even as a living room decoration. Someone has to remind people though it’s meant to be driven and driven fast above all else.

FC3 models

I think there should be both "Worlds" easy to learn models and real models...because to became a pilot you have start with simple models first.

I think there should be both "Worlds" easy to learn models and real models...because to became a pilot you have start with simple models first.

Its a simulation. With a 10 minute tutorial you can be flying several modules. Youtube is your friend.

Frankly speaking I see zero reasons for this topic. :doh::doh::doh:

Firstly, ED had clearly communicated there will be no more FC modules - only full fidelity ones.

Second, at the very start author closes the discussion with calling those that are agains the idea "elitist", also not givning any "none" option in the pool.

Third is the basic failure to understand that the difference between the full fidelity module and FC ones is not the clickable cockpit. Or is it and programming the clickable switches takes 2-4 years?

F16C seems too complex to have it simplified Enough for FC3 i think.

With F16C youd need ot throw in A2G radar modes, Targeting Pod Operation, Moving Map Navigiation and other stuff. I think there are too many features that if dumbed down would offer a too much lacking experience of a multi-mission plane. Your looking at either too dumbed down a plane, Or a Simplified aircraft that still complex enough to operate that its ends up being Halfway there to a full fidelity module.

I personally think Something like FC3 version F14A or M2000 are more feasible because they are A2A oriented aircraft that have Secondary attack option that revolve primarily around Unguided munitions.

Either way I doubt any of these poll options will become reality as ED has stated in the past They will no longer create new FC3 style aircraft, and focus entirely On Study Simulation level of modules.

None would be my vote. There are enough FC3 level aircraft for people to get into DCS and move on to more advanced modules. If a person wants more FC3 level aircraft, I suggest war thunder.

This

As the "simplification" for FC3 might allow the introduction of some aircraft that are currently not viable as a full fidelity, then I wonder how viable a Typhoon would be. Would be a good alternative to the usual F15 / Su27.

As the "simplification" for FC3 might allow the introduction of some aircraft that are currently not viable as a full fidelity, then I wonder how viable a Typhoon would be. Would be a good alternative to the usual F15 / Su27.

Simplified typhoon with simplified meteors? I’d like to see that and forget it right away. Bad idea

lol... actually, I would love to see an FC level F-16, which will never get fully modeled...

ahhh, that will give me such joy :lol:

..Third is the basic failure to understand that the difference between the full fidelity module and FC ones is not the clickable cockpit.

Actually it is to a large extend. With the introduction of updated external models, 6DOF cockpits and especially PFM for FC3 aircraft, advanced systems(ASM) and damage modelling are the most significant differences remaining between FC3 and a "full fidelity module".

Or is it and programming the clickable switches takes 2-4 years?

Clicking switches will do nothing unless all the associated systems/functions they activate are implemented - researching, programming, testing and debugging those could easily take 2-4 years.

I don't see what everyone has against FC3 level aircraft. I mean, ED's obviously not going to make any more, they even said so, this is just a wish/idea thread. And, honestly, who doesn't like winding down after some A-10C flight? Besides, it's the only chance we have to get an official (as in, non-mod) advanced Russian (or even European) aircraft. Nobody's making you buy them, even if they did exist.

F16C seems too complex to have it simplified Enough for FC3 i think.

 

With F16C youd need ot throw in A2G radar modes, Targeting Pod Operation, Moving Map Navigiation and other stuff.

I do not see the problem personally. Yes, FC3 F16 (F/A-18C) would be more complex than FC3 F15 by definition, but their FC3 iterations would still be considerably easier to pick up and come back to than the the full sim versions - which is the whole point of this thread.

The F-16C (F/A-18C) FC3fication algo :) could run something like this:

(a) Start up - Shift+L, Ctrl+home similar to my Ka-50 example

(b) Basic automation (FC3 player completely spared)- all on take off:

Master arm, laser arm, maverick boot up, TGP boot up

G-limiter auto set depending on current plane weight

CBU cluster bomb - set height to 700ft

1. Air to air modes/procedures :

Same as current FC3 craft (range, antenna up/down left/right; TWS/RWS; pulse (for hot/cold air targets)); BVR, Vertical Scan and Helmet Sight modes (the others may be omitted).

2. Air to Ground Radar:

same buttons that control a2a radar above would control range,snowplow, GM (stationary targets), GMT(moving targets), Norm to DBS (beam width=radar picture resolution). At its most basic it's "slew the target reticle, lock the target, fire" - just like a2a:)

3. TGP:

Once again, controlled by the same keys as a2a stuff.

Replace norm and wide discrete zoom levels + continuous zoom with continuous zoom only throughout the range. %replace here means augment with high level function like in Ka-50 example

TV and White hot modes only, leave out Black hot.

Activate N/M automatically on start of TGP.

At its most basic it's "slew the target reticle, lock the target, fire" again.

4.Moving map:

same keys as a2a stuff

Functionality limited to creating new waypoints, selecting existing waypoints (automatically becoming SPI) and autocreation of waypoints from JTAC transmissions (e.g. if JTAC transmission is shown on screen & TAD is SOI & player presses key "X": automatically input the coords into CDU and display this point on the moving map)

5. Countermeasures:

Same as FC3, no complex programs, one button for chaff, one for flares and one for both.

General points:

The cursor always becomes SPI if moved.

Still have Coolie hat/DMS to switch between each screen (sensor of interest SOI).

Maybe all sensors could always be slaved to the reticle on currently selected screen if it (the reticle) is moved.

Automatically activate maverick lock if locked on target on TGP or radar. (to avoid having to do the "TGP>lock>select as SPI>slave all>switch to Mav display>confirm lock> fire" routine, here it would be "TGP>lock>fire").

Do you honestly expect those who paid $80 for the Harrier or Hornet (saying after pre-purchase phase) to lose their money to a more simplified $10/$15 module?

I do not see how people who wanted a fully clickable F/A-18 "loose their money" if others get a cheaper but also more simplified F/A-18.

And, there are two ways of profiting: via separate FC3 module OR via "FC3 mode" replacing current "game mode" in full sim modules. (need to know actual sales numbers here, so the sale strategy is not up to us).

I'd be happy with either as, the way it is at the moment, I will never buy some of the modules in my list not because of the price, but because I don't have the time. Obviously, if I am interested in FC3 part of the full sim module only, I would more likely to pick up that full sim+FC3 bundle during sale, if I am interested in the full sim as well, I'd be more happy with the full price.

Also, some FC3 modules like the F-16 and F/A-18 should cost more than the 15$ we currently pay for FC3 Su-33/F-15C as the former are more complex with more sensors (a2g radar, TGP) and weapons (HARMs, mavericks, guided bombs etc).

I don't see what everyone has against FC3 level aircraft.

This is a subject that keeps coming up, and I for one have voiced my opinion on the matter a few times already. Basically it comes down to this:

If you only fly an aircraft in DCS in order to "blow stuff up", sure FC3 will work for you.

If you're into the "full experience" of an aircraft (to whichever degree it is practically possible), FC3 won't work for you:

- You can't set QFE in a FC3 module;

- You can't tune into TACAN/NDB stations;

- You can't use the radio properly;

- ...

In short, you don't get the immersion of being inside an actual aircraft, something a *simulator* is supposed to simulate, especially one as detailed as DCS.

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 in the eyes of die-hard aviation enthousiasts (I'm doing my best not to sound condescending towards the FC3-fanbase since it is not my intention to look down on anyone - different people have different priorities, that's all).

DCS has evolved into something that's - to me - a good substitute for the real thing: medical issues kept me from signing up with the Air Force and flying jets for a living. I am considered "too old" now to join the military, even if I would pass the medical checkups, but flying full fidelity modules in DCS, watching YouTube videos on aviation technology/engineering is a splendid way to indulge in a subject that has fascinated me for decades.