not planned I want to see more low-fidelity aircraft, and here’s why

Meh. The only reason I fly DCS is for the complexity, fidelity and challenge of the modules. Otherwise, there are a tonne of other games out there with dynamic campaigns, far more variety in vehicles, etc.

The one and only thing DCS actually has going for it is the quality of the modules.

You've dreamed to be a pilot.

you can't afford to buy for yourself a real collection of real famous aircraft.

Anyway you should probably won't be allowed to fly them.

so, what are the option ?

an accurate simulator with aircraft modelised with all his realife systems for 4 years by talented developpers for each each modules

probably, the best of what can be cold "accurate" in Sim world and PC in 2018

and virtually, begin to collect those top noch famous aircraft

with a top rewarding aspect to master it, clean, land it clean perform it clean

having fun the whole way of a step learning you can do with the real manual.

I would buy all Hifi module one more time if needed, and didn't regret any of them, just for that top level quality.

Regarding FC3 :

for hi fi modules, there is a time , you will bind on your Hotas and other peripherical, always the same way no matter the hifi Module. and finally using clickable cockpit not very often. This point is beginning to be more and more important with VR. you will use clickable cockpit if you forgot to bind something 'important"

So FC3 with decent ( excelent PFM) flight model for some like SU27, once binded as you used to, is not so far from HI FI modules. only some avionics systems INS, complete start up procedure will lack a bit...

My 2c ...

Once get away from a cold start (and you can always use Win+Home to bypass this), the higher fidelity aircraft can actually be *easier* to learn to fly than the FC3 a/c (or rather, advanced systems vs simple systems modeling). Why? Because instead of always needing to look up keyboard commands, 90% of what you need 90% of the time is all right there in the cockpit in front of you often labeled very clearly. If we can just get cheat keyboard commands (like the cold start) for the remaining 10/10, then we can actually use the high-fidelity a/c *as* entry-level a/c for those who want it?

So, I COMPLETELY agree with the spirit of the OP: we need aircraft with a lower learning/time-investment threshold to recruit as well as keep around existing people who may not have the time/free headspace to learn complex a/c however much they might like to. I just think we can achieve that goal through advanced systems modeled aircraft with a bunch of cheat keys to get these folks over the hump for procedures that might require multiple switches/presses like startup. E.g., a single "jettison fuel tanks" or "BVR" mode command that sets everything up for a newbie.

Personally I am tired of dev's dumbing down games, they have become extremely boring, and attract the type of gamers you would not want to introduce to your family or your dog. The only game I play anymore is DCS because it's still challenging in many ways, also the community is pretty intelligent, although community is not what it used to be, but it's still ok.

 

The other worry is that if ED decided to make dumbed down versions, I have feeling the high fidelity ones would suffer. That's my two cents on the subject.

Maybe it's all about my 40 yo, but all the other games I still try to play have bexome incredibly boring after I have tried a full fidelity dcs module. So I agree. If you want something easier you can play fc3, an fc4 has been announced, so you should be ok. But please, no 5th gen fighters in dcs since they can not be simulated accurately and also fc3 Planes, even if simplified, are quite accurate in their combat and Flight performance

It's kinda useless knowledge to know aircraft by heart. It will not make us certified to fly a real one.

The core point and the beauty of dcs is not to fly the real One, but to theoretically know how to do It, and to have the chance to simulate It in your room. If you don't like this, then play Arma or war thunder.

Just my two words about VR, since I play only with oculus. I find very difficult to play fc3 since I cannot bind everything on hotas and I Need a lot of voice commands to learn by Heart. With full fidelity I bind hotas to hotas and use mouse for all the rest. Almost no Need of voice commands. I've watched at the captoglove video. This is obviously interesting only for full fidelity. Not totally against fc4, I started play dcs with fc3, can be good for new players, but after a-10c I'm not interested in buying it.

The one and only thing DCS actually has going for it is the quality of the modules.

Are you forgetting that it's arguably the best looking flight sim around?

Just my opinion, which may or may not represent many others. I'm an amateur pilot, and a professional air traffic controller. I also work many hours, have kids and a very busy life. I just don't have the time or resources to learn and remain proficient in the "high" fidelity aircraft. But thankfully the FC3 type aircraft with PFM and simple cockpits relieves me of that issue. In those aircraft everything goes back to the basics. Managing energy, using your combat systems to make plans. Cranking, 9-3 lining, understanding basic airmanship, functionality of the pulse-doppler effect, understanding basics of proportional navigation ect ect.... All the same things that makes one a good pilot in "low"fidelity aircraft are the same things that make you a good pilot in a "high" fidelity aircraft. The difference is one person spent alot more time remember checklists and procedures and the other did not. Personally already have to remember plenty of those and don't wish to continue it in my little free time.

What I'd really love to see is newer versions of the redfor aircraft IE, newer Su-27s and Mig-29s. I know I know, they want to but they have issues, but I really hope they keep pushing.

Another thing I’d like to see, desperately so, is for aircraft developers to build in and/or retrofit ‘easy modes’ into high fidelity aircraft modules - kind of like what ED did with the Ka-50. This would make each aircraft released available and attractive to both study-simmers and Sunday simmers, increasing profits and thereby driving the creation of more content for the game as a whole. There’s nothing wrong with that, is there?

Sounds like MAC to me. But I have to be honest. When I first heard Wags talk about another part in the line of Flaming Cliffs, I was totally hoping for some new planes actually. Planes that may be too complex to make full DCS grade modules of. Planes that have data classified where it still would be possible to create a simple module of.

But then it just turned out that they're going to give us FC grade versions of some DCS grade modules that I have already and I'm just wondering if there's a reason for me to buy that pack if it's not just supporting ED.

Even though I prefer the hifi DCS grade modules I definately wouldn't mind new FC grade ones, it just broaden the spectrum and embiggens the awesomeness of DCS as well plus as you already pointed out, it would make it more attractive for newcomers. I guess especially that is the reason for the new FC grade versions of DCS modules in MAC as well: New guys come and start out with DCS, so they'll be recommended to get MAC. Then they'll have the chance to upgrade some of their modules to DCS grade if they're interested and I guess that's an easier step than switching over to a completely different module. So they'd learn how to fly and operate the Hornet first, then get the DCS module to do all the fancy stuff operating the DDIs an AMPCD etc themselves later.

Are you forgetting that it's arguably the best looking flight sim around?

I think that title still goes to XP11...

For now. ;)

ED is apparently going this way with the latest announcement of Modern Air Combat.

But it is a bit sad. We are seeing that everywhere: produce mediocre products so you can sell more!

I think there is enough choice in the flight sim community for mediocre products to avoid suggesting that this behavior should also contaminate this one.

If you want easy to fly, and stick to DCS, why not use the arcade mode?

To OP: Sure whatever, but I would like to see those prehistoric AI models updated first :p

ED is apparently going this way with the latest announcement of Modern Air Combat.

But it is a bit sad. We are seeing that everywhere: produce mediocre products so you can sell more!

I think there is enough choice in the flight sim community for mediocre products to avoid suggesting that this behavior should also contaminate this one.

If you want easy to fly, and stick to DCS, why not use the arcade mode?

Actually if ED stays true to it's roots and doesn't follow suit of the western model, that's a good thing, because the funds gained from more popular modules help recover the "lack" in the high-end modules, which means continued development of the highest end and maybe even more on top.

Why lack as in "lack", well, when you put more effort into something you expect more of a reward, it's not a lack from real world, it's just this case of reality, but it's a lack from the developer's perspective, but in real life with things like this it's the other way around, more hardcore it is the lesser audience unfortunately, it simply requires a different kind of mindset to overcome that, it's something that has to be figured out, they don't teach the average economists that so their advices shouldn't be taken as if they're written in stone, solutions are out there, just need to find them.

It's only a problem in the usual entertainment companies, where they don't apply this method, they simply don't have an emotional-philosophical horse in the race, it's all about money so they switch away and go into only-popular products.

Just my opinion, which may or may not represent many others. I'm an amateur pilot, and a professional air traffic controller. I also work many hours, have kids and a very busy life. I just don't have the time or resources to learn and remain proficient in the "high" fidelity aircraft. But thankfully the FC3 type aircraft with PFM and simple cockpits relieves me of that issue. In those aircraft everything goes back to the basics. Managing energy, using your combat systems to make plans. Cranking, 9-3 lining, understanding basic airmanship, functionality of the pulse-doppler effect, understanding basics of proportional navigation ect ect.... All the same things that makes one a good pilot in "low"fidelity aircraft are the same things that make you a good pilot in a "high" fidelity aircraft. The difference is one person spent alot more time remember checklists and procedures and the other did not. Personally already have to remember plenty of those and don't wish to continue it in my little free time.

 

What I'd really love to see is newer versions of the redfor aircraft IE, newer Su-27s and Mig-29s. I know I know, they want to but they have issues, but I really hope they keep pushing.

I agree that most full fidelity modules take time to learn. Even real military pilots have to take time to get qualified in able to fly a different jet than what they were flying before. I have found it is best to just pick one high fidelity module and stick with it once you find the right one for you. In my case its has been the Viggen. I have become so familiar with it now that I hardly have to think of how to operate it. I would like to fly other new aircraft like the F-18 but I know I don't have the time to realistically devote to learning a new airplane. But when the F-14 comes out I will defiantly have sufficient interest to get qualified in a new aircraft. :lol:

Nice to hear some opinions, guys!

 

 

Thanks! I also love the F/A-18, and I fully intend to buy the Hornet pack once I save up the money for it. Probably one of the few aircraft, aside from the Black Shark and upcoming Tomcat, that I really want to take on the task of learning to the full extent.

 

The one thing I recommend you do if you want to save on future module purchases is to switch to the stand alone version of DCS. They have way more sales going on through out the year. All of the modules I have bought have been through a sale. :smilewink:

On 8/15/2018 at 6:59 PM, Kazansky222 said:

Just my opinion, which may or may not represent many others. I'm an amateur pilot, and a professional air traffic controller. I also work many hours, have kids and a very busy life. I just don't have the time or resources to learn and remain proficient in the "high" fidelity aircraft. But thankfully the FC3 type aircraft with PFM and simple cockpits relieves me of that issue. In those aircraft everything goes back to the basics. Managing energy, using your combat systems to make plans. Cranking, 9-3 lining, understanding basic airmanship, functionality of the pulse-doppler effect, understanding basics of proportional navigation ect ect.... All the same things that makes one a good pilot in "low"fidelity aircraft are the same things that make you a good pilot in a "high" fidelity aircraft. The difference is one person spent alot more time remember checklists and procedures and the other did not. Personally already have to remember plenty of those and don't wish to continue it in my little free time.

 

What I'd really love to see is newer versions of the redfor aircraft IE, newer Su-27s and Mig-29s. I know I know, they want to but they have issues, but I really hope they keep pushing.

Completely agree with you. I don't have any interest in waiting 10 minutes for INS to align, or precision mouse clicking tiny switches in the cockpit that don't directly relate to flying or combat. I want to practice FLYING, not systems management. How to read my radar screen and do BVR combat. How to nail landings. How to dogfight. How to evade missiles. How to fly formation.

I can appreciate the high fidelity aircrafts and all the work that goes into them, but I'd really love to see more low fidelity models (not at the sacrifice of high fidelity ones of course). Give new players an easier way into DCS, and more casual / Sunday simmers an option other than cosplaying Maverick every night of the week.

Necro thread

This type of module is now planned to be Modern Air Combat (MAC) as far as I know. 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Necro thread

This type of module is now planned to be Modern Air Combat (MAC) as far as I know. 

 

Pretty sure MAC is no more, we haven't had any updates for like... over 2 years lol. They're focusing on DCS, and from what I've seen looking around, they have no intentions of making any more low fidelity modules. Very big missed opportunity imo. We need a middle ground between Ace Combat and high fidelity DCS modules, and none exists other than FC3.

I understand your sentiment and i also like simpler aircrafts, but absolutely not purposely simplified, unrealistic, gamey 20 y.o. low fidelity FC3 standard. It would take all the fun out of DCS and make it closer to WT.

That's why i would like to see the full fidelity A-10A - way simpler and easier to learn and remember than the A-10C.

Full fidelity F-16A - way simpler than F-16C.

Full fidelity F-15A/C - way simpler than F-15E.

Or other full fidelity simple Cold War era aircrafts like MiG-29, Su-25, Su-17, MiG-23, MiG-25, A-1, AH-1 Cobra etc.

Basically 1-2 afternoons and you already know how to operate them in full fidelity and you can focus on having fun. And you will not forget how to use them after not flying for a few weeks.

In short, simpler aircrafts yes - but absolutely not lower fidelity, gamey, old FC3 standard.

39 minutes ago, DinkleDorph said:

We need a middle ground between Ace Combat and high fidelity DCS modules

Do we really? Honestly I find the full fidelity modules easier to use since they have clickable cockpits. A low fidelity modules still comes with a 100 page manual that’s too much for the console gamer types. 

5 minutes ago, bies said:

but absolutely not purposely simplified, unrealistic, gamey 20 y.o. low fidelity FC3 standard

FC3 isn’t necessarily “gamey” those modules still use advanced flight models, missiles and such. They aren’t “20 years old”

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

FC3 isn’t necessarily “gamey” those modules still use advanced flight models, missiles and such. They aren’t “20 years old”

Yes, FM are good, when avionics is mostly year 2003 Lock On: Modern Air Combat with few cosmetic changes.

1 hour ago, DinkleDorph said:

Pretty sure MAC is no more, we haven't had any updates for like... over 2 years lol.

False

51 minutes ago, bies said:

I understand your sentiment and i also like simpler aircrafts, but absolutely not purposely simplified, unrealistic, gamey 20 y.o. low fidelity FC3 standard. It would take all the fun out of DCS and make it closer to WT.

That's why i would like to see the full fidelity A-10A - way simpler and easier to learn and remember than the A-10C.

Full fidelity F-16A - way simpler than F-16C.

Full fidelity F-15A/C - way simpler than F-15E.

Or other full fidelity simple Cold War era aircrafts like MiG-29, Su-25, Su-17, MiG-23, MiG-25, A-1, AH-1 Cobra etc.

Basically 1-2 afternoons and you already know how to operate them in full fidelity and you can focus on having fun. And you will not forget how to use them after not flying for a few weeks.

In short, simpler aircrafts yes - but absolutely not lower fidelity, gamey, old FC3 standard.

The FC3 PFMs are definitely not 20 years old.

the Flight Models 20 years ago were Pre AFM, on Rails.

Every FC3 Aircraft has had an External Model Revamp, Professional Flight Model Made, and 3D Cockpit Models Made in the last 8 years.

So the 20 Year old statement is false.

Also, I seriously doubt Any DCS Aircraft you'd be able to study in 2 Afternoons.

11 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Also, I seriously doubt Any DCS Aircraft you'd be able to study in 2 Afternoons.

I've managed F-5E in one afternoon, together with friends. Dogfighting in MP, attacking ground targets, navigating, manually starting and overall having fun the very next day.

Similar with UH-1, similar with MiG-21bis, similar with MiG-15bis, similar with F-86 Sabre (not using radio rangefinder the first day here), similar with Mi-8 (without manual startup here), similar with basically every WW2 warbird (except for slightly more complicated P-47 with turbosupercharger).

Clickable cockpits made them way more enjoyable and way esier to remember than FC3 ~40 random keyboard shortcuts.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Do we really? Honestly I find the full fidelity modules easier to use since they have clickable cockpits. A low fidelity modules still comes with a 100 page manual that’s too much for the console gamer types. 

FC3 isn’t necessarily “gamey” those modules still use advanced flight models, missiles and such. They aren’t “20 years old”

Full fidelity is harder to use, yes, and far more tedious. FC3 has far less systems to deal with. Only the necessary ones remain (radar, flaps, gear, weapons, etc.), and none of the lame stuff (stores selection, aligning INS, adjusting ADI, selecting fuel flow sources). I find it very immersion breaking to have to precision click tiny switches in the cockpit all the time while keeping my head absolutely still so my head tracking doesn't move and make me click the wrong thing. I'm not interested in dealing with fuel balancing issues or running through checklists in my head for cold starts. Trying to fire rockets during a mission in the F5-E, but not being able to because the select jettison switch was set to "select position" instead of "off".

I want everything great about DCS minus the distracting 'systems'. I can't go back to full fidelity after trying the FC3 planes. They've been so much fun because I can focus on the parts of military aviation I love.

9 minutes ago, DinkleDorph said:

I can't go back to full fidelity after trying the FC3 planes.

Well then you’re probably out of luck here because afaik they won’t be making more of these for DCS. Only for MAC. 

10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well then you’re probably out of luck here because afaik they won’t be making more of these for DCS…

Yes, ED has moved on to bigger things. Lowly FC3 is on life support and waiting for the plug to be pulled…unfortunately.