MAC (Modern Air Combat) Discussion

[Mr.Camel]

I hope MAC will start this year. Also a lot of hopes about graph optimization.

What is the best way to follow the news about this product?

Edited February 12, 2021 by Mr.Camel

[LucShep]

 

 

On 10/13/2020 at 6:18 PM, NineLine said:

 

You might be overthinking it, there are many people that are more into FC level aircraft, and the options to have quick and easy modern combat will have an appeal to many.

 

People short of time and patience are more abundant than you might think. And it's certainly not a slight on them prefer the ease of access.

 

On 10/13/2020 at 7:54 PM, ngreenaway said:

 

The continued success of il2 supports this. Some people want to enjoy flight simming without a few months of study to use systems effectively...i mean, that mastery is rewarding but if youre long on responsibilities and commitments but short on time, the idea of a lengthy flight session may not be feasible. I sometimes go a few weeks because i cant budget an hour or two in one sitting to get a basic flying session in. Some of the esoterica we've come to expect in a dcs module represents perishable skills in some cases even to the RL pilots...even more so to the average joe with plenty of other things competing for what may be the most valuable commodity of all: time

 

 

Yep, especially time is a big convenience that not everybody has, to commit into ultra hardcore sims, as DCS indeed is.

 

For instances, take myself as an example.

Ever since a kid that military aircraft are interesting to me, be it WW2 or Cold War era based. I grew watching documentaries, reading about them, building kits, etc. 

A bit like I also was (and am) into motorcycles and cars.

 

I'm what you'd see as in the middle ground if considering a userbase spectrum - I'm not an ultra hardcore aviation enthusiast, yet I utterly loath the basic juvenile arcade stuff (such as certain console based titles).

 

I've been into combat flight sims/games on PC for over two decades, have tried pretty much every single one available since the late 90s to this day.

I love DCS, got the high-fidelity modules that interest me, it absolutely delivers a great simulation for any of them.

The thing is, an hi-fi module is not something you can pick-up-and-go with confidence, for any given mission, in an hour or two, on day one. It can take months to get there.

Reading long manuals, watching tutorials, lots of practice, trial and error, memorizing, is all part of the package.

While I agree that is what makes the DCS experience, and as rewarding as that challenge is (it is!), I'm constantly made myself aware that I'm just scratching the surface, and the complexity does feel a bit too much sometimes.

 

Lately, with more work and real life issues to tackle, I find myself spending time on FC3 when firing up DCS (mostly Su-25 and A-10A), when I do have amazing hi-fi modules.

Sometimes, I just want to take a mission, enter the battle zone, lose myself in the immersion, and not have to worry so much about things.

Years ago, and among a few other good titles, I used to run LOMAC, later FC2. They always seemed ok for that.

 

There is room for middle-ground simulation-games, and there used be some really good ones. Unfortunately, even with modding, all are completely old and outdated.

Noone is commercialy pursuing them anymore, not actively. 

Today it's either on the extreme ends of spectrum. You only have ultra-complex hardcore or, otherwise, the ridiculous flashy arcade garbage. It's either black or white, there are no shades of grey.

I think ED should consider this as an oportunity, for a userbase that may be a lot bigger than most suspect.

Personally, I support the idea behind MAC, and I'm eager to see how it is once it's out and available.

Edited February 14, 2021 by LucShep

[upyr1]

On 4/22/2019 at 2:39 PM, aleader said:

Clickable cockpits on 4 planes?

 

I read somehwere that 4 of the included MAC planes will be fully clickable cockpits (the Migs and F86 for sure). Is this true? Also, I own FC3 on Steam. Will that be taken into consideration for the 'considerable discount' for FC3 owners, or do you have to have bought it direct from ED? Or will it be released as it's own separate game on Steam too?

 

Having played lots of FC3 (and A10C/Ka50), I don't think this will be 'another Ace Combat' if they keep the same fidelity and PFM from FC3. I don't think that people that say that have ever played (or have any idea about) the Ace Combat series. VERY arcade gameplay.

I hope they do have some clickable cockpits on more than 4 planes, obviously not as complex as DCS mods but at least give players the option to clock for landing gear and flaps since that would work better for VR>

[upyr1]

On 4/11/2019 at 9:06 AM, Wags said:

As we noted in a rather recent newsletter, we decided to greatly expand MAC to make it a AAA product. This in turn significantly moved back out production time line. Once we have a confident release date, we will be pleased to announce it then.

 

For now, suffice to say that much of the company is focused on MAC and making steady progress. When there is news to share, we certainly will.

 

Thanks

I understand the logic behind making them separate products, since they have different audiences. However I just hope that there is enough shared code that we can share missions, campaigns, go online together, and more importantly share assets packs and maps.

[upyr1]

On 7/25/2019 at 2:45 AM, beppe_goodoldrebel said:

I dont think so, community is already splitted between PvP multiplayer and "MILSIM" players.

 

Many play FC3 and full modules for PvP gameplay that needs stability and a "balance" which the actual DCS base cant give them.

Some of them are also complaining about some aircraft are OP or nerfed but they are just wanting to get thing as close as possible to RL.

 

 

Imagine give them a game which uses a stable DCS release with a balanced gameplay, dedicated servers , different maps ,etc.

That's their Christmas!

 

 

The idea of MAC and DCS using different maps is just insane, I see no reason for doing that what so ever. They should use the same maps as that would by default increase the possible revenue a developer could make from a map and result in us getting more theaters.  Having dedicated servers would be nice but I still want the possibility of cross platform PVP and mission. 

 

On 7/25/2019 at 2:45 AM, beppe_goodoldrebel said:

 

On the other hand DCS World can then move to have a better ATC , Dynamic Campaign , new Weather system,etc with the possible new income from selling MAC.

 

It's a WIN/WIN situation if they get it right.

 

 

The dynamic campaign would be another asset which both could and should share, weather might be as well.

[upyr1]

On 8/10/2020 at 10:09 AM, Max1mus said:

I dont like how ED is focusing on the beginner friendlyness of MAC and entirely ignoring the fact that it will be the only way to have modern planes on the red side in DCS.

 

I have no clue how dynamic campaigns are going to work and be "balanced" as ED says they want them to be, when one side has avionics and missiles that were put into service 15, in most cases 20-25 years later than what the other has.

 

MAC must be used as a platform for the modules that are too difficult to make in full fidelity, yet absolutely necessairy additions for the simulator environment. Or else forget authentically recreating anything that has happened after the 90s and involved major powers (like Syria 2015) in DCS.

 

I've been saying this since MAC was first announced. That any aircraft that the community might like that can't be done as a DCS mod needs to be given to MAC. They say I can't have my Thud because there isn't enough information left because Fairchild was a bunch of pyros, give me a MAC Thud. Vladimir Vladimirovich says we can't have a Su-35 , MiG-31 or MiG-29M then make it a MAC.  As it stands right now I won't buy MAC unless my nephews are interested but if I if there are modules that won't show up in DCS then I will buy MAC. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by upyr1

[Peter5on]

The question is how to do it right? We can go As Kombat style with simple flight models some story and new consoles, or go WT with mouse control and a some more realism something like FC3 But on consoles and pc with flight models that have some boundaries to help new players. To get new casual players you need to have visuals and DCS certainly have that and after Top Gun 2 there will be a big jump with sellings F-18 probably and other flight sims, so it would be nice to have MAC ready after that.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Peter5on said:

The question is how to do it right? We can go As Kombat style with simple flight models some story and new consoles, or go WT with mouse control and a some more realism something like FC3 But on consoles and pc with flight models that have some boundaries to help new players. To get new casual players you need to have visuals and DCS certainly have that and after Top Gun 2 there will be a big jump with sellings F-18 probably and other flight sims, so it would be nice to have MAC ready after that.

I think the best way to go would be flaming cliffs, it would be a good rung between WT and DCS

[Mizzy]

DCS is in desperate need of a 'casual sim player' mode and FC3 is well out of date for this. I am really looking forward to MAC because this mode is my mode of play, I'm not a serious study type person and even now in semi retirement, I don't really want to spend months learning the F18 as good as it is (I have the module). So yes, I believe there is a strong market place for a sim mode that is in between WT and high fidelity DCS modules.

 

Mizzy

[BIGNEWY]

As soon as we can share more news we will, the team are hard at work on MAC. 

 

It is going to be a lot of fun, and I am looking forward to seeing everyone's reaction once delivered

[Mizzy]

On 5/17/2021 at 10:34 AM, BIGNEWY said:

As soon as we can share more news we will, the team are hard at work on MAC. 

 

It is going to be a lot of fun, and I am looking forward to seeing everyone's reaction once delivered

How do I get on the testing team LOL

[Peter5on]

Some updates from Chizh regarding MAC.

MAC will feature 4 new non-clickable aircraft: F-86, MiG-15, L-39ZA, F-5E.
MAC will have no helicopters
No support for consoles
Main focus is on online with different modes
FC3 / FC3 modules will remain for current DCS owners

 

Whats worry me is that without F-22, F-35, F-16, F-18, Mirrage, Harrier, Rafale, Eurofighter, Mig-21, Su-35, Su-57 ect. its gonna be hard to compete with AS Kombat, no support for consoles is not good financial decision. And WT is getting more and more advanced planes, have helicopters and its free...

[Enigma89]

There was a discussion on the ED/DCS discord that I wanted to bring over to the forums.

 

So as I understand it Eagle Dynamics is trying to make MAC which will try to siphon players who are ready to graduate from War Thunder. The idea is that MAC will be training wheels/kids table for people before they transition over to DCS. The focus on MAC will be multiplayer and have several different multiplayer modes. The text that was being passed around MAC on Discord was the following:

 

"Some updates from Chizh regarding MAC. MAC will feature 4 new non-clickable aircraft: F-86, MiG-15, L-39ZA, F-5E. MAC will have no helicopters No support for consoles Main focus is on online with different modes FC3 / FC3 modules will remain for current DCS owner"

 

The thing that sticks out to me like a sore thumb is the obvious hole at the end of the conversion funnel. Think of the customer journey from capture to retention. 

 

The pool of customers is people ready to graduate from War Thunder.

Their entry point is MAC and it's a nice step up from WT because there is supposed to be a focus on MP in MAC.

The conversion happens when they go from MAC to DCS.

The retention is that the land at DCS, enjoy their experience and begin to buy more modules.

 

The hole at the end of the conversion funnel is the obvious lack of multiplayer support in DCS. How do you expect players who rae used to play multiplayer in games that are primarily focused on multiplayer to play DCS that has pretty lackluster multiplayer support? There even isn't any parity between the planes in a lot of the eras, which results in ace combat like planesets being organized where you have F-16s, F-15s and F-18s shooting at each other to make up for the REDFOR gaps.

 

 

Am I missing something here?

 

[Mars Exulte]

Sounds like you missed the dynamic campaign engine being created for both offline and online play. Effectively is being created as two AI ''generals'' conducting a campaign against each other RTS style, with dynamically generated ''objectives/missions'' for players to fulfill.

 

I believe it's in closed testing right now, supposed to release sometime later this year or early next afaik, though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[Enigma89]

11 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

Sounds like you missed the dynamic campaign engine being created for both offline and online play. Effectively is being created as two AI ''generals'' conducting a campaign against each other RTS style, with dynamically generated ''objectives/missions'' for players to fulfill.

 

I believe it's in closed testing right now, supposed to release sometime later this year or early next afaik, though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I am eagerly awaiting the dynamic campaign engine. I think it will be the most interesting addition on DCS in several years (or maybe even ever?). With that said, there are major gaps in coverage in playable aircraft which puts a very big burden on mission editors to try to make online balanced. As you can probably tell by the most popular servers in multiplayer, they end up moving AIM-120C capable planes per side which breaks down into a pretty arcade-y scenario between the plane sets.

 

The gaps in the plane sets are one of the largest problems for the viability of this game in multiplayer IMO.

 

 

[Mars Exulte]

4 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

which puts a very big burden on mission editors to try to make online balanced.

  Well, the whole point of it being dynamic will be to reduce that workload bit

 

4 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

As you can probably tell by the most popular servers in multiplayer

  That... doesn't really matter as much as it sounds. Some of the most popular servers in Arma are those idiotic Life and/or zombue servers which are hardly representative of the game itself much.

 

4 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

which breaks down into a pretty arcade-y scenario between the plane sets

  Endless PvP deathmatches with only tangential organisation ARE arcadey. It's true this is a partial weakness... structuring a server's entire gameplay in such a way as to really dial in on is not a great idea... but people like to killwhore, so you get what you get.

 

A really dynamic environment, being orchestrated in semi-logical fashion with impactful objectives, dynamic logically organised ADS, etc would go a loooong way toward mitigating some of this. It's hard to fly around spamming raams at every radar contact when you actually have to concern yourself with other threats, too.

 

4 minutes ago, Enigma89 said:

The gaps in the plane sets are one of the largest problems for the viability of this game in multiplayer IMO.

  On DM/TDM  style servers, yeah, it's a bit of a problem. Less so on guns only servers. Much less on something even remotely approaching a real battlespace. If they actually improve the AI and its ability to organise and behave intelligently then not everything has to gravitate toward duels.

 

  If a server focuses on simplistic PVP deathmatching, then DCS has the same issues every other online game has : namely that people will develop and hyper emphasise whatever the current ''meta'' is.

[TLTeo]

On 5/19/2021 at 2:55 PM, Peter5on said:

And WT is getting more and more advanced planes, have helicopters and its free

War Thunder also has an incredibly predatory business model, and next to no support or development to improve the quality of the gameplay (which is kind of important for an arcade game). Saying "WT is free so it's more appealing" is misleading - getting those (relatively) modern jets either requires spending much, much more money than DCS full fidelity modules cost, or hours and hours of grinding.

Edited May 21, 2021 by TLTeo

[1MajorKoenig]

Am 20.5.2021 um 20:53 schrieb Enigma89:

F-86, MiG-15, L-39ZA, F-5E.

Sorry if these are stupid questions but I just stumbled across this announcement.

 

How I read it this is supposed to be an easier DCS - however the selection of planes is somewhat surprising if you name the game “Modern”? 
 

Shouldn’t be the planes all fit into the same era or at least be viable in it? 
 

Maybe I haven’t fully understood what MAC is supposed to be yet... 

 

Regardless - I am always happy if devs work on flight sim stuff - rare enough these days 

[Peter5on]

You will have F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29 + F-86, MiG-15, L-39ZA, F-5E. That's alright let it be but L-39ZA???

 

I see that no other 3rd party want to take part with MAC and we don't even have F-16, F-18...

 

You know what, I think they should scrap this project, it's just a waste of time, better to focus on what we have in DCS rather than something like this.

 

It would be better to release  Flaming Cliffs 4 with Mig-29K, Su-35, F-22 for DCS rather than splitting the community, wasting time on 2 separate products.

[WinterH]

I remember that originally MiG-21Bis was supposed to be part of it too, and maybe also C-101? They would make a pair with L-39 and F-5 nicely. But it looks like they're not in the plans anymore?

Since online play seems to be the main thing in MAC, perhaps they may be thinking of some "progression", more plainly known as grind, and start with trainers/light combat aircraft first.

22 hours ago, Peter5on said:

It would be better to release  Flaming Cliffs 4 with Mig-29K, Su-35, F-22 for DCS

Yeah... uuhhh... NO lol.

 

So far over the years we've had contradictory info regarding MAC, at some point it seemed to be basically FC4 and would go into DCS, then it seemed to be a new standalone title, then back into DCS, right now it seems it will be standalone title with focus on online PvP and more quick action than a lot more involved process of learning a single DCS aircraft.

[kontiuka]

On 5/23/2021 at 6:55 AM, WinterH said:

I remember that originally MiG-21Bis was supposed to be part of it too, and maybe also C-101? They would make a pair with L-39 and F-5 nicely. But it looks like they're not in the plans anymore?

I don't remember the C-101 ever being mentioned for MAC.  Not that I've followed this too closely.  Love the C-101 but they'd have to give it an afterburner or something for it to be any fun in an arcade setting.

[WinterH]

27 minutes ago, kontiuka said:

Love the C-101 but they'd have to give it an afterburner or something for it to be any fun in an arcade setting.

Not disagreeing, but then L-39 is in, so...

We don't know if everything will be fully arcade, they may be going for something with arcade game modes, but realistic flight characteristics and simplified systems etc.

I personally would loved if this was also a singleplayer friendly mid-level sim, as I'm less and less able to put in the time to DCS to properly git gud and enjoy full fidelity aircraft I love. But online shooty-shooty fest isn't something I am personally looking for. We'll see what it is when it comes.

[Worrazen]

Tho was there ever any word of DCS's intent to be a staple multiplayer experience. Who says it has to be? Doesn't have to be, and there is no pressure to twist the gameplay in that favor.

 

I'm glad MAC is happening, so that exactly those kinds of mindsets have a place of their own and leave DCS alone. Other "sims" are nothing like DCS and those players brinding those attitudes here and trying to create multiplayer experiences that are inappropriate for DCS has the potential to be and why not when almost everything else is not it.

 

I understand that in a simulator you can use it to simulate what could happen, if it happened in real life, but in reality things, as we said so many times, are not balanced at all, countries don't commit all their forces to a fight at the beginning, they may have limited goals, they may even keep things secret for very long, or they may not want to use some of the known tech and it just plays, none of that is accounted for in most games, they're just arenas where gear and machinery gets thrown in.

We are litterally talking about a kindergarden level here, comparing it to a training academy and then the real deal, we need to remind ourselfs of that. In reality complaining about why reality isn't like kindergarden isn't going to work, it may work virtually but then there goes the SIM part.

 

/late night rant

Edited May 29, 2021 by Worrazen

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 5/17/2021 at 5:34 AM, BIGNEWY said:

As soon as we can share more news we will, the team are hard at work on MAC. 

 

It is going to be a lot of fun, and I am looking forward to seeing everyone's reaction once delivered

Will MAC Allow Peer to Peer and Fighter to Fighter Contact sharing between clients in MP (with the Flanker family)

 

Will radar detection bugs be addressed with the Su-27/33 J-11 & F-15C?

[LCUChap2016]

I see there's still a lot of discussion on Modern Air Combat.  While I am looking forward to seeing it happen, I am not optimistic that it will be this year.  It's already June and if there were plans to release it in Q3 of 2021, I think there would be more information forthcoming from the development team.  It sounds like the team may have bitten off more than they could legitimately chew or there is significant problems with trying to integrate all of this into one package.

 

I sincerely hope that MAC is still going to happen, but at the moment, things do not look promising.