Jump to content

FC4 feature requests


Recommended Posts

I don't think ED will add clickable things to FC3 and not sure they want to change the code setup they have now (Nav etc) for these existing modules and future FC4 modules and just reusing as much of the existing code base. Reason being is just to keep the entry cost down as much as they can. Any NEW features could change the price point with all the extra development time involved.

 

-

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really not a fc style plane fan but here is my idea:

 

FC4 Heavy Pack

 

* Awacs planes

* Tanker Planes

* Cargo Planes

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64D

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i7 9700K / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 2x 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we make sure absolutely no FC3 fan ever buys it and the franchise hopefully dies, good idea.

 

lol i would buy it. i also bought fc3

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64D

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i7 9700K / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 2x 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // MS FFB2 - TM Warthog - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's going to be an FC4, please can you guys introduce a 4th Gen Russian multirole fighter like a Su-30/34/35 or a MiG-29K/MiG-31 since the hope of getting a DCS level one is 0 right now.

 

I LOVE YOU MAN!!

This is indeed what we need, we have too too too many blue aicrafts.....if no russian jets will be introduced we are only going to have f8vs f14 vs f15 vs mirage.....

Please someone talk to Putin and ask his permission for the benefit of humanity, he will certainly approve!!:lol::thumbup:

  • CPU : Intel i7 8700k@5.0ghz cooled by Noctua NH-D15 / Motherboard:Asorck Z370 Taichi / RAM: 32GB GSkill TridentZ @3600mhz / SSD: 500GB Nvme Samsung 970 evo+1 TB Sabrent Nvme M2 / GPU:Asus Strix OC 2080TI / Monitor: LG 34KG950F Ultrawide / Trackir 5 proclip/ VIRPIL CM2 BASE + CM2 GRIP + F148 GRIP + 200M EXTENSION /VKB T-Rudder MKIV rudder /Case: Fractal Design R6 Define black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think ED will add clickable things to FC3 and not sure they want to change the code setup they have now (Nav etc) for these existing modules and future FC4 modules and just reusing as much of the existing code base.

-

I agree for the most part, but the partial clickability has a powerful argument - VR. At the moment using clickable planes is easier in VR compared to FC3 ones. That can't be right, and with VR userbase bound to expand drastically over the next few years, it may make sense to address partial clickability early in FC4 development.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree for the most part, but the partial clickability has a powerful argument - VR. At the moment using clickable planes is easier in VR compared to FC3 ones. That can't be right, and with VR userbase bound to expand drastically over the next few years, it may make sense to address partial clickability early in FC4 development.

 

Most will still use some sort of hotas controls if half serious or will get them at some point. I'm using CH stick and throttle with modifier button at the moment, upgrade very soon hopefully.

 

That's 24 buttons + 24 buttons with modifier just on the Stick.

 

Throttle: 4 buttons, three 4-way hat switches and one 8-way + mini joystick. About another 20 + 20 buttons as (4 ways only) with modifier.

 

That's 88 commands you can bind, I can cover all the needed FC3 commands and this is easy setup in DCS by assigning one of the buttons as a modifier to any hotas.

 

When VR gloves becomes a thing, ED could add a popup button console in sim perhaps, if some want to hit a button while in sim. This would be the quick and easy way to do it. I try and limit even mouse use when in VR, I try to bind as much as possible for the A-10 to Hotas such as landing gear and flaps so I don't have to find the mouse etc. You can of course use the look and click, been trying it, not sure if it's really my thing, we need some type of VR gloves.

 

-


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with "innovating" FC3, to continue with your metaphor, what the OP suggests is to turn the eight track tape into a 16 track tape rather than concentrate on the CD player.

 

FC3 modules don't need updating, people use FC3 perfectly fine and these modules are subject to less breakages than the complex ones, release on release. Making them more into complex module defeats the point of them being simplistic and narrows the gap between modules. PFM's were great for FC3, a real gift, but I'm not so sure this wasn't for the benefit of everyone being on the same level and part of a wider goal.

 

Summary of the OP's points:

 

  • Wants realistic radio with tunable frequencies
  • Wants to use navigation aids in the cockpit albeit in some "cycle mode"
  • Wants to select local air pressure for the altimeter

Tune-able frequencies for FC3. If you want it, there's Simple Radio. Tune all you want and get effects and radio enhancements. For free.

 

 

Navigation aid to cycle up and down. I don't know when the last time folks checked the beacons.lua but for Caucasus it is One thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Six lines long. Heaven help cycling through the wrong end of that for simplicity.

Then the OP says the current method is too simple. But the feature exists in capable full modules. Ironic.

 

 

 

Local Air pressure deviations. Which part of this fits with the FC3 playerbase or product? What type of sim enthusiast complains his airport can't give him QFE on his F-15 then chooses FC3 over an F-5? Most the FC3 players won't even know the difference between QFE and QNH. Of those that do, great news for them, and remind them there are modules that they can adjust for pressure locally in the full modules.

 

 

 

Solving the flight plans as editable mid mission for Clients would solve way more problems for the entire consumer base and has been asked for for many years now.

 

 

Anyway, you've seen how ED work with things, what they change and what they go back to. If they can pull these changes into their dev schedule I'd be very happy for you guys, I really would. Best of luck to all of you!

 

Slow down. Stop.

 

First off, go read my original post. Nowhere did I say anything about tunable radios. Period.

 

 

You seem to be throwing a fit over simple feature requests that does not require a lot to be implemented. The "beacon mode" I have suggested is merely an extension that would work exactly like the current waypoint system, just that you choose between beacons, not waypoints.

 

 

Secondly, have you realized that FC3 aircraft are used by a multitude of players. They are the most used aircraft in for example RedFlag Reality, which is the most realistic PVP online event in DCS. In addition to this most FC3 aircraft already have adjustable pressure setting. Even the keys are already in the F-15C and A-10A - no-one just bothered to make them do anything.

 

 

You seem to suggest that I suggested a paradigm shift to FC-aircraft. This is simply not true. I suggested a small and in my (and at least my group/squadron members) opinion some important additions to expand current systems to accommodate more realistic scenarios.

 

The only new keys required for me suggestions are the two keys to rotate the course knob. All others can be done perfectly with the current keys.

 

 

 

 

I really do not understand your attitude toward this - on the other hand you call for "DCS realism only", but when I call for small additions to make the FC3 aircraft operate more realistically you revert to "FC-aircraft should be kept dumb, don't mix FC and DCS". Fact is, you can't separate them. If we are ever getting a DCS F-15C it would be made on top of the current FC-module. Making FC aircraft able to operate alongside all other aircraft is the key to keeping MP as realistic as possible without excluding those who want to fly FC-aircraft.

 

I am fully aware my suggestions are not 100% realistic systems wise, but they allow for the pilot to operate in the air environment in a realistic fashion.

 

And regarding the F-10 map... using it is not realism. Realism is using the onboard systems, and onboard map and the kneeboard. The need to use the F-10 map just tells me that the FC aircraft are too simple - but by my suggestions, and possible improvements to the kneeboard you would not need the F-10 map other than to plan your flight.

 

And before you say "use filters so the F-10 map doesn't show anything regarded as 'cheating'" - that defeats the point. The F-10 map is useless for FC aircraft if you can't see your position or see your waypoints in there. If you don't have a real GPS/INS map onboard you shouldn't be able to use it via a F-10 map view either.

 

And the aircraft do not need a lot to be usable without the F-10 map.

 

 

 

 

Besides, ED has said that they have different groups of coders for different aircraft. At this point I would imagine tweaking FC3 would be used to introduce new programmers the same way ED has said they do when creating WW2 modules.

 

Have you realised there are quite a lot of aircraft in DCS already? And a lot of 3rd parties making them? Adding 3 freatures to FC3 diverts about as much work away from other modules as having a worker fall ill for a week or two. You won't even know it ever happened.

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet


Edited by MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to add to the end: ED (see the original post) stated they will be building an FC4 - regardless of what you seem to want. ED will not remove FC3, so why try to separate them from the rest of the gameplay? If we are getting FC4 anyway I might as well suggest things that make the pack even more usable amongst all the fine DCS modules.


Edited by MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Navigation in FC3 aircrafts when there's no waypoints is overtly complex compared to full fidelity modules because of missing navigation features. I don't see any problems if FC3 pilots would get some help in this regard if it's possible to do something about it.

 

FC3 should be providing all the basic functionality for ~90% realistic employment with minimum systems complexity. If you can't find the airfield and land the plane in soup or at night because the TACAN/ILS station selection system is incomprehensible means the plane is missing features that would enable some basic functionality for combat employment ie. night and bad weather operations.

DCS Finland: Suomalainen DCS yhteisö -- Finnish DCS community

--------------------------------------------------

SF Squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Navigation in FC3 aircrafts when there's no waypoints is overtly complex compared to full fidelity modules because of missing navigation features. I don't see any problems if FC3 pilots would get some help in this regard if it's possible to do something about it.

 

FC3 should be providing all the basic functionality for ~90% realistic employment with minimum systems complexity. If you can't find the airfield and land the plane in soup or at night because the TACAN/ILS station selection system is incomprehensible means the plane is missing features that would enable some basic functionality for combat employment ie. night and bad weather operations.

 

All airports is nav possible, check the "Quick Airfield information" in my signature. In the F-15C you must use the heading and distance to decide which heading is which airport and then you can easily make out the airport list. In the Russian aircrafts the airport number is visible and should correspond to the ID in the table. It's very basic info and I would love for more navigational functions as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All airports is nav possible, check the "Quick Airfield information" in my signature. In the F-15C you must use the heading and distance to decide which heading is which airport and then you can easily make out the airport list. In the Russian aircrafts the airport number is visible and should correspond to the ID in the table. It's very basic info and I would love for more navigational functions as well.

 

It will take you ages to determine which airfield is which on MP-servers with no waypoints if you lose your way (and F-10 map is unavailable). True, it is possible (and works well in the russian aircraft), but cumbersome, and the landing-mode points to the initial approach fix on the F-15, until you are on it, at which point it will show "ILS".

 

Point is, it is cumbersome and time consuming - when in reality it would be quite simple an straightforward if said features were in place.

 

 

 

At the very least I would like to see some actual indicator which landing is which in the F-15 (you already see them in A-10A, and as you pointed out as an index in the russian aircraft) + the ability to set altimeter pressure setting.

 

I always wondered why the altimeter pressure setting is omitted in some FC3 aircraft, but not all... like they just forgot to add it...

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will take you ages to determine which airfield is which on MP-servers with no waypoints if you lose your way (and F-10 map is unavailable). True, it is possible (and works well in the russian aircraft), but cumbersome, and the landing-mode points to the initial approach fix on the F-15, until you are on it, at which point it will show "ILS".

 

Point is, it is cumbersome and time consuming - when in reality it would be quite simple an straightforward if said features were in place.

 

 

 

At the very least I would like to see some actual indicator which landing is which in the F-15 (you already see them in A-10A, and as you pointed out as an index in the russian aircraft) + the ability to set altimeter pressure setting.

 

I always wondered why the altimeter pressure setting is omitted in some FC3 aircraft, but not all... like they just forgot to add it...

 

You have lot to learn obviously. You select next and previous airfields with the touch of a button.

I can relocate to any map point and know that I'm there just by using the airports as navigation beacons and it will take seconds to calculate using the F10 MAP. I did it in FC 1.1.2B in complete darkness and I'm sure I can do it again.


Edited by HiJack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have lot to learn obviously. You select next and previous airfields with the touch of a button.

I can relocate to any map point and know that I'm there just by using the airports as navigation beacons and it will take seconds to calculate using the F10 MAP. I did it in FC 1.1.2B in complete darkness and I'm sure I can do it again.

 

Alright. How fast/effective are you at this if a) after a lengthy fight you are in IFR and unaware of your position, b) there are no waypoints available in the mission for you and c) the F-10 map does not show your position?

 

I am not saying it can't be done, I am saying it is made more difficult by oversimplified systems. In a real aircraft you should always be able to know by looking at your instruments at which point/beacon your navigation suite is pointing towards. This is not the case in the F-15C we have. As you point out one needs to use the F-10 map which is external to the aircraft.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

DCS Finland | SF squadron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the F-15C you must use the heading and distance to decide which heading is which airport and then you can easily make out the airport list.

By "easily" you mean checking the list of 21 courses most of which can be two numbers because they change with the current wind direction, right? :)


Edited by draconus

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like to see a FC4 module for a number of reasons:

 

1) Having more aircraft with PFM-level flight models but somewhat simplified system modelling is a great way to introduce more people in to DCS, which is something I'm sure we'd all like to see. More players, more revenue for ED which in turn would allow them to develop more cool toys for us all to play with.

 

2) This has been discussed ad nauseum, but FC is for now the only way that we'll get anything Russian that's more modern than a MiG-23 era aircraft. Personally I think this is a real shame, but ultimately ED is a Russian company who have to comply with Russian laws on military hardware. My point is, maybe the legal situation would be less complex for FC-level aircraft.

 

3) FC could offer a way to model more historical aircraft for which insufficient data is available to model them to a DCS module level.

 

So, what would I like to see in FC4?

 

1) I think there's a good case to be made for the Su-27S to be bumped up to a Su-27SM. This would offer a modest degree of multi-role capability without getting any secret or ultras-modern gear like BARS radar.

 

2) I'd like to see realism parity across the current range of FC aircraft. By realism parity, I mean things like a moving map for the F-15C (which the real thing has), adjustable pressure altitude for all aircraft. Similarly all FC aircraft should enjoy PFMs.

 

3) Personally I'd like to see the introduction of tactical strike aircraft. The F-18 will ably fulfil this role so for variety I'd like to see an Su-24SM2 and Panavia Tornado GR1 (a GR4 would be awesome, but probably not going to happen).

 

4) Surprise / dream option: FC-level EF-2000.

System Spec: Cooler Master Cosmos C700P Black Edition case. | AMD 5950X CPU | MSI RTX-3090 GPU | 32GB HyperX Predator PC4000 RAM | | TM Warthog stick & throttle | TrackIR 5 | Samsung 980 Pro NVMe 4 SSD 1TB (boot) | Samsung 870 QVO SSD 4TB (games) | Windows 10 Pro 64-bit.

 

Personal wish list: DCS: Su-27SM & DCS: Avro Vulcan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'd like to see a FC4 module for a number of reasons:

 

1) Having more aircraft with PFM-level flight models but somewhat simplified system modelling is a great way to introduce more people in to DCS, which is something I'm sure we'd all like to see. More players, more revenue for ED which in turn would allow them to develop more cool toys for us all to play with.

 

2) This has been discussed ad nauseum, but FC is for now the only way that we'll get anything Russian that's more modern than a MiG-23 era aircraft. Personally I think this is a real shame, but ultimately ED is a Russian company who have to comply with Russian laws on military hardware. My point is, maybe the legal situation would be less complex for FC-level aircraft.

 

3) FC could offer a way to model more historical aircraft for which insufficient data is available to model them to a DCS module level.

 

So, what would I like to see in FC4?

 

1) I think there's a good case to be made for the Su-27S to be bumped up to a Su-27SM. This would offer a modest degree of multi-role capability without getting any secret or ultras-modern gear like BARS radar.

 

2) I'd like to see realism parity across the current range of FC aircraft. By realism parity, I mean things like a moving map for the F-15C (which the real thing has), adjustable pressure altitude for all aircraft. Similarly all FC aircraft should enjoy PFMs.

 

3) Personally I'd like to see the introduction of tactical strike aircraft. The F-18 will ably fulfil this role so for variety I'd like to see an Su-24SM2 and Panavia Tornado GR1 (a GR4 would be awesome, but probably not going to happen).

 

4) Surprise / dream option: FC-level EF-2000.

 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "easily" you mean checking the list of 21 courses most of which can be two numbers because they change with the current wind direction, right? :)

Yes wind can cause a bit of different headings on the F-15C but once you have identified ONE airport you know where you are on the list. The list never changes, it is always the same. So usually I find a new airport in a few seconds. Did you see my quick airfield information? The list there never changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes wind can cause a bit of different headings on the F-15C but once you have identified ONE airport you know where you are on the list. The list never changes, it is always the same. So usually I find a new airport in a few seconds. Did you see my quick airfield information? The list there never changes.

I have my own list with just the headings. You could update yours with alternate headings and add here and there one more digit to differentiate ie. Anapa from Novorossiysk. My point was that it is a workaround, it's not convenient, it's ridiculous :)

🖥️ i3-10100F 3.6-4.3GHz, 32GB DDR4 2666, GTX970 4GB, SSD SATA3   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B   🚢 Supercarrier    🌍 NTTR, PG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my own list with just the headings. You could update yours with alternate headings and add here and there one more digit to differentiate ie. Anapa from Novorossiysk. My point was that it is a workaround, it's not convenient, it's ridiculous :)

 

No, I think it works as it is but thanks for your insights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello MikeMikeJuliet!

The only thing I'm saying is I disagree with your proposals. There's no feeling, it's not personal. Along the way in life, you will find that people don't all share the same wishes and feelings about things. Rest assured, I am not "throwing a fit" as you so nicely put it. :thumbup:

 

At every stage you are asking for more realism, that's a consistent message. My consistent message is that I don't wish for scope creep in FC3/4/5/6 and we can both make assumptions on developer resources, but the one thing I know for a fact, is that it takes a long time to develop anything in DCS and we cannot be cavalier about that or what it's affect may be, especially calling them "simple". It's that experience of how long things take that I am entirely basing my thoughts, I can't undo that. Ten years of history is a lot of waiting time for new features, Hornet was proposed and discussed at the back of the A-10C release all those years ago.

 

DCS quite clearly wants to put more time into Flaming Cliffs, in the main, because it's more simple to produce the aircraft at that level and a shorter dev cycle means a larger profit margin, which builds into staffing and all the other modules. And lengthening that dev time, backporting new features to another ... 6 aircraft is not as "simple" as you suggest, and "tweaking FC3" as you put it, is condescending to the effort level involved.

 

You u can rest assured that you aren't the only person that wants more from FC3. The next person will have another three items on their wishlist that suit them too.

 

Please don't continue to infer that I should not disagree with your suggestions. I have the same right to disagree as you have to propose. The purpose of a forum is to discuss, of which you have already heard helpful alternatives to some of your needs. Please continue proposing and don't be upset if not everyone agrees.

Slow down. Stop.

 

First off, go read my original post. Nowhere did I say anything about tunable radios. Period.

 

 

You seem to be throwing a fit over simple feature requests that does not require a lot to be implemented. The "beacon mode" I have suggested is merely an extension that would work exactly like the current waypoint system, just that you choose between beacons, not waypoints.

 

 

Secondly, have you realized that FC3 aircraft are used by a multitude of players. They are the most used aircraft in for example RedFlag Reality, which is the most realistic PVP online event in DCS. In addition to this most FC3 aircraft already have adjustable pressure setting. Even the keys are already in the F-15C and A-10A - no-one just bothered to make them do anything.

 

 

You seem to suggest that I suggested a paradigm shift to FC-aircraft. This is simply not true. I suggested a small and in my (and at least my group/squadron members) opinion some important additions to expand current systems to accommodate more realistic scenarios.

 

The only new keys required for me suggestions are the two keys to rotate the course knob. All others can be done perfectly with the current keys.

 

 

 

 

I really do not understand your attitude toward this - on the other hand you call for "DCS realism only", but when I call for small additions to make the FC3 aircraft operate more realistically you revert to "FC-aircraft should be kept dumb, don't mix FC and DCS". Fact is, you can't separate them. If we are ever getting a DCS F-15C it would be made on top of the current FC-module. Making FC aircraft able to operate alongside all other aircraft is the key to keeping MP as realistic as possible without excluding those who want to fly FC-aircraft.

 

I am fully aware my suggestions are not 100% realistic systems wise, but they allow for the pilot to operate in the air environment in a realistic fashion.

 

And regarding the F-10 map... using it is not realism. Realism is using the onboard systems, and onboard map and the kneeboard. The need to use the F-10 map just tells me that the FC aircraft are too simple - but by my suggestions, and possible improvements to the kneeboard you would not need the F-10 map other than to plan your flight.

 

And before you say "use filters so the F-10 map doesn't show anything regarded as 'cheating'" - that defeats the point. The F-10 map is useless for FC aircraft if you can't see your position or see your waypoints in there. If you don't have a real GPS/INS map onboard you shouldn't be able to use it via a F-10 map view either.

 

And the aircraft do not need a lot to be usable without the F-10 map.

 

 

 

 

Besides, ED has said that they have different groups of coders for different aircraft. At this point I would imagine tweaking FC3 would be used to introduce new programmers the same way ED has said they do when creating WW2 modules.

 

Have you realised there are quite a lot of aircraft in DCS already? And a lot of 3rd parties making them? Adding 3 freatures to FC3 diverts about as much work away from other modules as having a worker fall ill for a week or two. You won't even know it ever happened.

 

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...