PC Pilot Article on MAC

PC Pilot has an extensive article detailing MAC with an interview with Wags.

 

https://pocketmags.com/ca/pc-pilot-magazine

thanks NineLine, could you please post a correct link for the interview? the link you've provided only point at homepage and I can't find the interview itself.

edit: I've sorted it out myself, unfortunatelly the interview is not free as we have to purchase the magazine, correct link is this one

https://pcpilot.keypublishing.com/2018/12/20/31737/

Thanks !:thumbup:

Goa,

PC Pilot is a magazine that you can buy in stores, or via the pocketmags link that Nineline provided. There is no link to the article itself.

Goa,

PC Pilot is a magazine that you can buy in stores, or via the pocketmags link that Nineline provided. There is no link to the article itself.

yes I've figured it out as per my above post, hopefully someone who purchased it can post a summarize of the interview, It would be quite intersting to read Wag's interviw on Mac expecially now that new MAC feature have been announced but so far few info about it is available :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

First, i think if you are interested, get a digital (or print) copy of the issue, the digital copy is $4.

For those that just are not able to, here is a summary:

* There was a decent amount of discussion around the targeted audience and the reasons why, such as those that want a jump in and fly game that can be done without a lot of costly hardware (and hopefully as a gateway drug to DCS:W *my 2-cents*).

* It will be a separate product and not part of DCS World, but existing FC3 owners will get a good discount offer.

* We already have the lists of the aircraft and maps and know about them.

* There is a bit of discussion about the online support and having the dedicated server with a target of supporting 60 players, i am not sure if that number has been shared on the forums or not.

These topics and some others like training and combat missions types are talked about, and while there are some 'generally new things' talked about, i don't think any would be new to those that follow existing DCS news closely.

The only thing that 'might' be new is that Matt talked about a common "SOS" or Simulation Operating System that will be the basis for DCS World, MAC, and "future products" as well but no other details.

That said, i would say to take a look at the magazine in general or at least this issue (#119).

You can get the digital issue for $4 and read the full article, or subscribe and support the publication which personally i think is important for a niche genre like ours. It's a lot of work to put together something like this on a regular basis. Those that are able to, should try and support it if they feel the content is worth it.

Mods: Delete, edit, correct as appropriate

If it's not going to be part of DCS World, I hope the improved developments like that new Kuznetsov and other assets we've seen screens of still find their way into DCS World.

"It will be a separate product..." ?

Are you sure about that ? So far it has been stated the opposite

If it's not going to be part of DCS World, I hope the improved developments like that new Kuznetsov and other assets we've seen screens of still find their way into DCS World.

the way it was described, this "Simulation Operating System" (SOS) will use a comment set of assets for both products (DCS:W and MAC), but again i suggest reading the article.

well honestly, based on the rest of the article it may actually make sense, however it has to be done right, or else you are correct it could lead to a number of issues.

i think the goal is to make DCS world contain all full fidelity study level modules with the expected high degree of accuracy in systems and the flight model. Then MAC will be a separate product using the same engine and many of the same assets. As i mentioned, it was noted in the article that there may be additional products as well. So if that is the case you have to figure there is a plan for a number of them and how they will fit in with their business model.

It could be a good thing if done well or it could get mess if its not managed well and things are left to hang all over.. something we already see in places today.

If MAC can draw in a larger audience and serve to really expand the customer base then it may allow ED the financial ability to do more.. but i think i am far enough into the land of speculation and talking about things i dont know enough about. We will have to wait and see how ED does it. I hope it works and brings in a lot of users for MAC and gives DCS:W more exposure and more customers as well. It will could be good for business :-)

…. but again i suggest reading the article.

I did, decent read. Looks like another avenue to sell maps, and possibly planes down the road and CA on a smaller scale. They are a company and do need a steady, consistent revenue stream, I hope MAC's good one for them.

I'm guessing the dedicated server is one of the bigger technical holdups for it's release, since they will have separate communities. (DCS:W/MAC). Ded Servers will be key to any sort of leaderboarding/"points"/whatever.

yea i think the dedicated server will be a big part of this as well. it's important for DCS:W, but will be critical for the success of MAC to have a stable and reliable multiplayer environment, especially as it will start to compete (at least in part) with products like WoWP, IL-2, War Thunder, etc. That audience will quickly dump a "game" that does not give a reliable online/MP gaming experience.

I hope they are very successful with it though.

I plan on buying it to support the team, and to have some "light" air combat at the same time. I already own all the modules and some multiple copies so don't really need it but will be fun.

From what NineLine said, DCSW and MAC will be MP compatible.

I doubt highly that the HW requirements are any different from DCSW, apart from the sophisticated Controller maybe.

Easier on the Pilot? yes, think so.

Easier for the HW? no, I doubt it for now.

so MAC users wont be able to join DCS multiplayer servers?

Easier for the HW? no, I doubt it for now.

My guess is, it will have Vulkan support. No way the current engine is easy on hardware. :smartass:

That was my hope too, MAC and Vulkan arrive same time

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I plan on buying it to support the team, and to have some "light" air combat at the same time. I already own all the modules and some multiple copies so don't really need it but will be fun.

What he said! :thumbup:

I already own all the planes so no point buying this especially if it's not compatible with DCS World.

I dont feel good about what I read there. I hope there will be no game fraction/spliting, as it most probably be a nightfall of DCS as we know it today. If it will be just a successor to FC3 then it will end ok. I dont think it can end anygood otherway. Greedy will win in the end and thus the more simple game always win against the hardcore one. Just experience from crapoid AAA titles against India/startups these days.

I would really like to know from devs how it is mentioned with the MAC separation from DCS. It really worries me.

I dont feel good about what I read there. I hope there will be no game fraction/spliting, as it most probably be a nightfall of DCS as we know it today. If it will be just a successor to FC3 then it will end ok. I dont think it can end anygood otherway. Greedy will win in the end and thus the more simple game always win against the hardcore one. Just experience from crapoid AAA titles against India/startups these days.

 

I would really like to know from devs how it is mentioned with the MAC separation from DCS. It really worries me.

I think I would actually welcome a spliting between the FC3 arcade players and the DCS hardcore simmers, but I don't see this happening, as MAC and DCS will be MP combatible if I understood correctly.

I think I would actually welcome a spliting between the FC3 arcade players and the DCS hardcore simmers, but I don't see this happening, as MAC and DCS will be MP combatible if I understood correctly.

This part of the problem. As far as you are concerned, FC is "arcade".

It's nothing of the sort. I fly both and enjoy both just as much (just for the record) but calling FC "arcade" is just ridiculous and seems to be an attempt to make different classes of player, with an insulting swipe at those flying FC (i.e. 'lower class' simmers).

imho such talk is just childish and tbh I'm completely sick of it. Not just with DCS World, it's the same with other sims. "Mine's better/harder/requires more intelligence than yours". Here's some news for you - they are all games, for entertainment. I know that's really hard for those with large egoes to accept, but it's fact.

Have a nice day.

I really don't believe in the MAC/DCS MP split scenario. FC3 is a great welcome mat for the DCS penthouse. So are the free Caucasus map and Su-25T. And MAC should be no different as it will become the most publically visible module in the whole series.

Example:

I built up a nice 15 people campaign over Caucasus last year. Everyone was flying ASM aircraft except a friend of mine, who rejoined the A-10C fellows with his A-10A. After a few missions, he bought the A-10C and he flew it the rest of the campaign. He now owns the M-2000C, the Gazelle, the PG map, the Hornet...

This part of the problem. As far as you are concerned, FC is "arcade".

 

It's nothing of the sort. I fly both and enjoy both just as much (just for the record) but calling FC "arcade" is just ridiculous and seems to be an attempt to make different classes of player, with an insulting swipe at those flying FC (i.e. 'lower class' simmers).

 

imho such talk is just childish and tbh I'm completely sick of it. Not just with DCS World, it's the same with other sims. "Mine's better/harder/requires more intelligence than yours". Here's some news for you - they are all games, for entertainment. I know that's really hard for those with large egoes to accept, but it's fact.

 

Have a nice day.

It was not my intention to insult anyone nor did I say anything is better or worse than the other. I said that FC is a more arcade like game than DCS which it is, as you don't have to learn and understand all the aircrafts systems to actually use them. Now whether that is something good or bad is something that everyone has to decide for themselves.

What I don't like is if those type of games getting mixed up, so if MAC would actually split those apart, then that's something I would actually welcome, so that there are distinguished games for every type of player instead of the mashup we have now.

It was not my intention to insult anyone nor did I say anything is better or worse than the other. I said that FC is a more arcade like game than DCS which it is, as you don't have to learn and understand all the aircrafts systems to actually use them. Now whether that is something good or bad is something that everyone has to decide for themselves.

Please, educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_flight_simulation_game#Survey

because you actually slap in the face all the virtual pilots with your "arcade" insult. Those pilots of FC3 I'm talking about that fly with the same or better professional flight model than in other hifi modules. They choose FC3 because there is no better way to fly these aircraft at the moment.

I had the possibility to try the F/A-18C and it was 3 clicks to start the engines then another 3 buttons to launch... but I guess some prefer to click the buttons instead of flying and then brag about it.

He said he didn't mean to give insult so please don't take it where it wasn't meant.

I had originally stated that MAC would have more of an arcade style gaming mode so i apologize for any insult, non was meant. I has said that because in the article it was stated that MAC would have something like the current FC3 level but then options to increase the simplification so it could be enjoyed by someone with just a KB and mouse like WoWP (im SURE it won't be the same, im just saying it would move closer towards something like that).

Additional regardless of wikipedia, im sure you know many here use the term 'arcadish' in this community to refer to highly simplified games, sims, or modes so while you might be right understand there is a context to the conversation in this thread and such... no one is trying to imply personal insult.

Lets see if we can move the discussion back to the products, good or bad.