Four Additional Flaming Cliffs Aircraft

[Mars Exulte]

Outturn, but not outrun, baby =) I imagine those eight foot tall engines are easy to home on, though

Edited May 4, 2018 by zhukov032186

[WZNGT]

The problem of DCS is that the lack of references to make modern AFM(EFM)/ASM modules. FC3 was somehow an exception. The rule of "no FC level, must all AFM(EFM)" seems to be not so solid anymore? In this situation I would like to see more modern planes rather than those MiG-23s, they are not even likely to be still classified.

Some are mentioning F-16, but that is on the full simulated module to-do list already so... maybe not in FC4.

 

So my list will be:

A-6E

F-2A

SU-34

J-10A (Deka got a model in-progress already)

 

PS: Maybe add too much Flankers(27SM/30/35) isn't quite welcomed by the community, but I think extend the models that have close relatives in the current DCS will be relatively easier than making new modules. e.g. Deka's J-11A - Su-27S, F-15J - F-15C and perhaps J-7F or the older MiG-21/J-7 versions?

Edited May 4, 2018 by WZNGT

[HiJack]

We need more carrier based aircrafts. I wote for the MiG-29K.

[KeyCat]

... my point was that nearly all servers have a mix of FC3 and high fidelity aircraft, and that's more than likely to continue like so with FC4 (you don't play a lot of multiplayer, do you?)

 

Nothing prevents you to set up your own server and not include FCx planes in your missions.

[carss]

Just my thoughts for FC4 aircraft if possible.......

 

Mig-29K (carrier ops)

Su-30M2 or Su-30SM(if possible and with online multicockpit mode and TVC for the SM)

F-16A(FC3 while F-16C full fidelity)

SAAB Gripen A or Rafale F-1 (just for one European that can't make it to full fidelity)

[ebabil]

looks amazing

[Mars Exulte]

The problem of DCS is that the lack of references to make modern AFM(EFM)/ASM modules. FC3 was somehow an exception. The rule of "no FC level, must all AFM(EFM)" seems to be not so solid anymore? In this situation I would like to see more modern planes rather than those MiG-23s, they are not even likely to be still classified.

Some are mentioning F-16, but that is on the full simulated module to-do list already so... maybe not in FC4.

 

So my list will be:

A-6E

F-2A

SU-34

J-10A (Deka got a model in-progress already)

 

PS: Maybe add too much Flankers(27SM/30/35) isn't quite welcomed by the community, but I think extend the models that have close relatives in the current DCS will be relatively easier than making new modules. e.g. Deka's J-11A - Su-27S, F-15J - F-15C and perhaps J-7F or the older MiG-21/J-7 versions?

 

''FC3 level'' is related to the interface you use, i.e simplified to only critical systems related to weapon and navigation, and an absence of fully interactive cockpits (because most of it doesn't do anything).

 

It has nothing do with the flight models, which is what you listed. All the FC3 aircraft have received or are in the process of receiving, flight model updates. Once the MiG-29 receives its update, most of them will be PFM, with the Su-25s and A-10A being AFMs. As for tge systems themselds, there is nithing to prevent them from using advanced systems like new radar models etc, you just won't interact with them at the same level of complexity as you would in a fully simulated aircraft.

[PeaceSells]

Nothing prevents you to set up your own server and not include FCx planes in your missions.

 

Each post from you guys makes me wonder if you even play multiplayer...

 

Yes, there are multiple things preventing that.... I'm not a scripter/mission designer, I can't spend the time setting up (and maintaining) these cool dynamic missions that run on the good servers. I don't have a computer that's available to stay on and running DCS all day, I don't have a computer with specs enough to have a mission with a good amount of units in it, a good amount of clients on it, neither I have the necessary bandwidth for a good amount of clients on it.

[Avimimus]

https://www.facebook.com/219508958071000/photos/rpp.219508958071000/1831542806867599/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/219508958071000/photos/rpp.219508958071000/1831542850200928/?type=3&theater

 

Seeing pictures of a new Su-34 AI model makes me beg for an FC3 level plane of it.

 

That is gorgeous!

 

I wonder if the rear-facing radar could be modelled as part of the RWR suite?

[Katmandu]

No but we know that they had good documentation to work with from the outset

The question is how good does it have to be. Is this good for F-35 (looks pretty good)? http://highorder.berkeley.edu/proceedings/aiaa-appliedaero-2007/paper0035.pdf

How about this? https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2015-0551

 

F-22 has even more info out there, e.g. and unlike with the F-35, F-22's airfoil is known... Plus ED's own experience in filling gaps and new R&D tech like the simulated wind tunnel.

 

 

Then keep the A(original version), add the K(most capable and versatile) and then chuck out the G(same as A really) and the S(adds little) for all I care :)

The question is about filling the 4 FC4 plane slots, not deleting FC3 planes :) I'd agree for 29K to replace the G and S btw.

 

Katmandu - this is getting stupid. You are constantly giving the impression that it doesn't matter whether you have 95%, 40% or 3% of the required information available.

The 95% figure came out of the blue in this thread, you certainly did not build your argument up towards it. And my point is that if DCS final product (model of a plane, radar or missile) is “good enough” then it did not matter if input parameters were “near perfect” or “good enough”.

 

Would a F-35 AFM based on fluid dynamics modelling, EOTS based on Lightning pod and a "general" AESA radar model really offend FC4 target market sensibilities? My argument is: probably not! Plus, DCS constantly shows that its models can be (and are) continuously enriched.

 

 

The VVS didn't get the RVV-AE, but they have(now) aircraft capable of deploying it - so do other nations. All versions of the R-77/RVV-AE are using the 9B-1348 seeker.

 

They by-passed the RVV-AE and went for the modernised RVV-SD(domestic version of it) instead.

And how is this reflected in DCS modelling? Do we have a "95%" accurate R-77? Although, at the end of the day, missile talk may not be relevant as e.g. F-22 could use the 120C we have already (with all of its assumptions).

Yes, there are multiple things preventing that....

Write in multiplayer missions thread, if there are problems with unrealistic-boring-unbalanced-etc plane sets, argue your point to them. All better than a blanket ban affecting the vast majority who never go to those servers.

 

That is gorgeous!

Some more :thumbup:

 

[Mars Exulte]

Ok, Kat, those pictures sold me. I have a perfect solution...

 

We definitely need more than four new planes :p

[PeaceSells]

All better than a blanket ban affecting the vast majority who never go to those servers.

 

That's the only valid argument I see, why should singleplayer aircraft be limited because of multiplayer? Specially because singleplayer users vastly outnumbers multilplayer users...

 

But IMO there's an even bigger reason why 5th gen or 4.5 gen fighters shouldn't come to DCS as low fidelity planes... It's against the niche of DCS. Can a fighter like that be implemented as a low fidelity plane? Sure, I was flying F-22's in sims back in the nineties, there are low fidelity 5th gen fighters in several games out there.

 

But there are no sims, other than DCS and BMS, that have high fidelity 4th gen (and also all other generation numbers) aircraft. That's what DCS sells, that's DCS's "trademark" and that's why most of us are here... You can transform it in your default arcade playground, yes, that will attract players, but don't forget there are much better arcade playgrounds out there, with better performance, fluidity, ease of operation etc. So I would recommend ED sticking to what they're good at.

 

And I would recommend players that also like these playgrounds (myself included) playing each game for what they are good at, and not trying to transform one into the other...

 

Plus the multiplayer issues.

[Avimimus]

True perhaps. However...

 

...there are no medium detail high fidelity jet sims (other than Flaming Cliffs).

 

DCS started out with high fidelity (for the time) but lower detailed systems modelling (Flanker, Lomac, Flaming Cliffs) - that is what I like. I don't think I should have to choose between an arcade game and a switchology simulator.

 

If simplified systems are too easy on the player - then program in time delays to simulate all the key presses - but don't take away 4th generation aircraft or accessibility from those of us who like these things!

[KeyCat]

Each post from you guys makes me wonder if you even play multiplayer...

 

Short answer. YES!

 

Yes, there are multiple things preventing that.... I'm not a scripter/mission designer, I can't spend the time setting up (and maintaining) these cool dynamic missions that run on the good servers. I don't have a computer that's available to stay on and running DCS all day, I don't have a computer with specs enough to have a mission with a good amount of units in it, a good amount of clients on it, neither I have the necessary bandwidth for a good amount of clients on it.

 

That's not the games fault or am I missing something?

 

You have the option to learn designing missions as well as put time away for having a server etc. etc.

 

IMO take it or leave it.

Edited May 5, 2018 by KeyCat

[PeaceSells]

That's not the games fault or am I missing something?

 

You're right, that's not the game's fault, but yes, you are missing something...

[Weta43]

Perhaps the nay-sayer are missing something too.

 

Specifically that their complaining is pointless.

 

E.D. didn't say "we're going to run a poll, and if enough people whine about the idea, we'll decide against it"

 

They said their business model suggested four more FC3 aircraft were a good way to maximize return on investment.

 

It's all very well people complaining about resources being misused, or the 'unfairness' of allowing FC3 aircraft onto servers with full fidelity aircraft (which is an indication of how little the understand FC3 aircraft, because yes the interface is both simpler, but at the same time it limits access to advantageous RL features & so makes the aircraft less effective), but the reality is E.D. have looked at their business, and decided that this is the best way for them to increase the revenue and appeal of DCS.

 

If they can just get past their (often elitist) prejudices, People wanting PFM/ASM modules should be happy.

 

The more sustainable E.D.'s business is, the more resources they have to iron out bugs and add features.

 

Everyone wins.

 

Rather than crying "no, don't do it !", their time would be better spent making productive suggestions and arguments regarding what aircraft might be popular / useful in DCS.world

Edited May 5, 2018 by Weta43

[PeaceSells]

Perhaps the nay-sayer are missing something too.

 

Specifically that their complaining is pointless.

 

E.D. didn't say "we're going to run a poll, and if enough people whine about the idea, we'll decide against it"

 

This is a forum, isn't it? Of course we are not here to take decisions for ED. I don't really understand your post, you don't want to hear contrary oppinions?

[Woogey]

With China coming online, I am guessing that two of the new aircraft will be the:

 

J-10 (already released)

J-15 with Liaoning

 

I also am going out on a limb here, but I theorize that maybe some previously cancelled full fidelity modules might just show up at an FC4 level. Namely:

 

A-7E and the T-2C

 

However, it is possible that ED could make the new S-3 model into an FC4 module.......

 

Lastly there is a very good possibility that they will give us the original single seat Mig-29K and the Navalized Frogfoot variant.

 

-Woog

[Weta43]

This is a forum, isn't it? Of course we are not here to take decisions for ED. I don't really understand your post, you don't want to hear contrary oppinions?

 

It is a Forum, and anyone can post anything they like (S.T. the rules :) )

 

To me - "Please don't add 5th generation FC3 aircraft" is a reasonable request ( - though that said, part of the point of 5th Gen fighters is to make them as simple as FC aircraft to fly in combat IRL... To that extent they're probably more 'reasonable' candidates for FC modelling - in that switchology is a lower part of the pilot's workload - than G3 aircraft).

 

Don't make any more FC level aircraft less so.

I just don't see anything productive in discussions around the general idea of additional FC4 aircraft when they're already announced, and they are appreciated by a large part of the community:

 

Some of the previous posts in this and other threads make me feel like the parents have home one night and announce to their 5 kids:

 

"Listen kids, I got an extra week's paid leave as a bonus, and as a special surprise we're all going to Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. We've booked the flights and the hotel, and we want you to tell us which rides you'd really like so we can do the rides you'd most like"

 

2 of the kids go "Great, we're so excited"

 

2 of the kids go "maybe I'm a bit old for that, but the other three will love it and I'm sure I'll have a great time hanging out with all the family"

 

And the Tweeny says

"I don't want to go to stinking Magic Kingdom ! What - do you think I'm a KID ???

Magic Kingdom sucks !!!

No one cool would go to Magic Kingdom !!!

Why are you wasting your leave and my time taking us there, when we could go spend six days riding rollercoaster at Six Flags Magic Mountain ? YES I KNOW it will make everyone else vomit, BUT I WANT TO GO TO SIX FLAGS"

 

Everyone can have an opinion, and everyone can express it.

 

Some people's come from a place that also consider others.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Weta43

[PeaceSells]

^^ I would love to see 5th gen fighters in DCS as high fidelity, if that was possible. As FC level, nope, don't want to see that at all.

 

Don't get me wrong, what got me hooked to DCS was the free Su-25T (FC level), which was my first experience. From there I bought Ka-50, FC3, Huey and A-10C (and I still haven't dedicated enough time to learn the A-10C). I fly FC3 a lot, it's probably the module I fly the most - due to several reasons, not because I consider it the best, but I do love it.

 

But do I want to see more FC aircraft of any gen? No, as many others I would like to see DCS become this arena of varied realistic simulators, where you can fly against other people. DCS is the only one I know on this path.

 

So, is it possible to survive off making high fidelity sims? I don't know, I guess that's the million dollar question since the commercial failure of Falcon 4.0. With DCS I thought that somebody finally had found a way, but this FC4 thing suggests that it's probably only a partial way, you do still have to mix stuff to make it work...

 

About your example of the family travel, maybe it's a personal thing but I didn't get that vibe at all reading these threads.

Edited May 6, 2018 by PeaceSells

[Weta43]

I think I got wound up in other threads & vented here...

 

RE the 5th Gen FC4 thing...

 

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the FC label is about the degree of simplification of the interaction between the pilot and the aircraft's systems, not about the fidelity of the aircraft's FM & systems performance.

 

You don't get to make sh*t up just because it's an FC aircraft.

 

So...

 

Lets say E.D. somehow gets enough actual information to be able to create a realistic PFM - including engine performance, fuel consumption, reaction to damage, etc. etc. ('cause I can't see them doing planes with anything else from here on).

 

They also get enough info to put together a realistic representation of RCS & IR signatures & it's ECM capabilities.

 

& to finish it off they get gifted by the US as a bit of PR a credible description of the Radar's capabilities and the HMD / sensor fusion / data linking capabilities.

 

Would I mind if that then became an FC4 aircraft that you turned the radar on by hitting 'I' and waiting 1.5 seconds, or that you cycled through the radar modes by hitting key 'n' ?

 

No.

 

Why not ?

2 reasons:

 

1/ Because as I said before, everything about a 5th Gen fighter is designed to make the button pushing go away, and leave the pilot to just fly and fight, so 'FC 5th Gen fighter' is probably not taking as much license as 'FC 3rd Gen fighter' anyway.

 

& (mainly)

 

2/ Given that a RL pilot trains to the point where accessing the features of his aircraft is unconscious, then as long as the simplification doesn't add capability - and for almost everything on the FC3 aircraft the simplifications make things 'simpler' but remove access to useful features - why does it matter if the user uses a mouse or hits a key to access a feature ?

 

Selecting the correct radar mode or entering a route into a nav system are things a pilot has to do.

 

Having to try to remember how to access a particular radar mode or programme a route into a nav system is not a realistic part of being a fighter pilot. They have a full time job staying current with that & if they don't know how to do it, they don't get to fly.

 

Most of the FC pilots are accepting that they have some other full time job & struggle to remain current with the 'switchology' of a complex aircraft.

 

So - if you make access simpler, but don't add any capabilities that the real aircraft doesn't have - in fact you remove some of those capabilities in the interests of 'simplification', how is it a problem that FC aircraft fly alongside full depth modules ?

 

Edit - perhaps the person who wins should be the person that uses the capabilities of their aircraft best, not the one that spent the most time memorising the manual.

Edited May 6, 2018 by Weta43

[KeyCat]

You're right, that's not the game's fault, but yes, you are missing something...

 

Not the first time ;)

 

Care to enlighten me?

[PeaceSells]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the FC label is about the degree of simplification of the interaction between the pilot and the aircraft's systems, not about the fidelity of the aircraft's FM & systems performance.

 

You don't get to make sh*t up just because it's an FC aircraft.

 

The point is all this simplification makes it much easier to operate, ideally it shouldn't be mixed with high fidelity modules. I know the world isn't perfect, so concessions must be made. But giving it, besides unrealistic easiness of operation, superior capabilities, is a combination that doesn't yeld a healthy mix. It goes without saying...

 

2 reasons:

 

1/ Because as I said before, everything about a 5th Gen fighter is designed to make the button pushing go away, and leave the pilot to just fly and fight, so 'FC 5th Gen fighter' is probably not taking as much license as 'FC 3rd Gen fighter' anyway.

 

We don't know how much simpler to operate is this aircraft when we don't have the info to make it high fidelity. I doubt it's "FC level" simple, specially the non-western 5th gen aircraft.

 

2/ Given that a RL pilot trains to the point where accessing the features of his aircraft is unconscious, then as long as the simplification doesn't add capability - and for almost everything on the FC3 aircraft the simplifications make things 'simpler' but remove access to useful features - why does it matter if the user uses a mouse or hits a key to access a feature ?

 

Selecting the correct radar mode or entering a route into a nav system are things a pilot has to do.

 

Having to try to remember how to access a particular radar mode or programme a route into a nav system is not a realistic part of being a fighter pilot. They have a full time job staying current with that & if they don't know how to do it, they don't get to fly.

 

Most of the FC pilots are accepting that they have some other full time job & struggle to remain current with the 'switchology' of a complex aircraft.

 

So - if you make access simpler, but don't add any capabilities that the real aircraft doesn't have - in fact you remove some of those capabilities in the interests of 'simplification', how is it a problem that FC aircraft fly alongside full depth modules ?

 

Edit - perhaps the person who wins should be the person that uses the capabilities of their aircraft best, not the one that spent the most time memorising the manual.

 

People do dedicate A LOT of time into hobbies. Simming is a hobby that takes a lot of free time, it's just how it is. Real pilots do it for a living, virtual pilots do it for a hobby, the difference is that one isn't risking millions of dollars of equipment and their own lives (and other's). Therefore one can train in limitless ways for limitless hours. And you can't use the capabilities of the aircraft the best if you don't know the manual.

 

I understand the need to simplify the system for people that don't spend that much time on simming, but saying that "it's more realistic to operate a simplified system because IRL pilots already have everything memorized and I don't" is a distorted logic. Sorry, but it's not more realistic by a LOOOONG SHOT. And there's really no need to come up with these types of justifications... You can just say it's simplified to attract the casual mainstream player and increase revenue, and that's all right.

[Avimimus]

It isn't necessarily hugely less realistic though (I think that was the original point?)

[Weta43]

It was.