Jump to content

MAC (Modern Air Combat) Discussion


LCUChap2016
 Share

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I am happy that ED changed their mind (again) and will not make a seperate/standalone product

 

Agreed, but MAC will have to be maintained and cared for way better than FC3 at the moment.

 

Apart from the lack of modernized red aircraft you already mentioned, there are many bugs that have not been adressed in FC3 for a long time since it got kind of abandoned. Apart from stuff like flanker F2F not working in multiplayer, things like broken waypoints on the Su-27, radar strength on SPO15/F15 RWR being broken (F-18 and JF-17 radar way more powerful than a tomcats) dont seem to be of any priority.

 

While a modernized version would be better, a little wish i have is for the existing MiG-29A and S to get some sort of modelling of their GCI datalinks. The things are supposed to be guided around as chess pieces by GCI, who is supposed to be able to control their radars and even control the aircraft to an extent. It would be fitting since Razbams MiG-23 will have it too. Plus, if some tools for combined arms GCI are added, it would really revolutionize the multiplayer experience and make these soviet versions of the fulcrum viable in at least a 90s environment.


Edited by Max1mus

When ED reworks russian missiles:
 


(April 2021 update)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 think it makes a great deal of sense really, the only people really drawn to those planes in the flightsim community have very little understanding or appreciate for truly breathtaking marvels of engineering such as the Teen series fighters (how many times have we heard the "oh but muh cobra" routine before) and clearly they don't value things like advanced system modeling or multi-role capability otherwise they would've had them years ago, ED just knows its audience's taste very well.

 

 

 

Seems to me ED is on the money, why give them more when they're already amazed with the plane being able to take off and and land? Those FC3 planes are only really cheap thrills for some and training wheels for those getting into study sims

 

 

Agreed, but MAC will have to be maintained and cared for way better than FC3 at the moment.

 

Apart from the lack of modernized red aircraft you already mentioned, there are many bugs that have not been adressed in FC3 for a long time since it got kind of abandoned. Apart from stuff like flanker F2F not working in multiplayer, things like broken waypoints on the Su-27, radar strength on SPO15/F15 RWR being broken (F-18 and JF-17 radar way more powerful than a tomcats) dont seem to be of any priority.

 

While a modernized version would be better, a little wish i have is for the existing MiG-29A and S to get some sort of modelling of their GCI datalinks. The things are supposed to be guided around as chess pieces by GCI, who is supposed to be able to control their radars and even control the aircraft to an extent. It would be fitting since Razbams MiG-23 will have it too. Plus, if some tools for combined arms GCI are added, it would really revolutionize the multiplayer experience and make these soviet versions of the fulcrum viable in at least a 90s environment.

 

 

I don't see why an airplane only good for airshows needs all that :D


Edited by TaxDollarsAtWork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I like that MAC is like the Flaming Cliffs series, easy to pick up and go for it. It is not a real problem that you can't clickety click cockpit,..."

 

Oh yes it is, if you want to fly it in VR. The cockpits even of the old FC3 modules need an upgrade to be clickable, I think. It doesn't make sense to use the keyboard in VR. And it's not always possible to map all the functions reasoned to a HOTAS system.

 

Never understood what's the problem if only some of the buttons and switches are functional in the FC3 planes, cause not all systems are simulated.

 

For beginners, there still is the option to use the keyboard only. I know many simulations where only a few buttons in the pit are working and you could easily see which of them are without any function, while hover the cursor over the switch. If nothing happens to indicate a function, it simply has no function.


Edited by Viper1970

System: Ryzen 9 3900XT / 64GB DDR4 / 2TB M2 SSD / Geforce RTX 3090 / HP Reverb G2

DCS - Modules - 1.jpg

DCS - Modules - 2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes it is, if you want to fly it in VR. The cockpits even of the old FC3 modules need an upgrade to be clickable, I think. It doesn't make sense to use the keyboard in VR. And it's not always possible to map all the functions reasoned to a HOTAS system.

Completely agree! FC3 in VR is an insane pain in the HOTAS!

A full fidelity's aircraft is actually easier to operate than an FC3 aircraft in VR, for me, that is.

To get all the desired functionality's on one HOTAS is taking some "creative" programing and "memorization" :joystick: :wallbash: . However, to have even an "80's REDFOR" option, we don't have much of a choice.

 

From my understanding of the below interview by Growling Sidewinder and Nick Gray, MAC is still to be a standalone product. He goes in great detail about MAC and DCS. To me this is a higher quality and a more professional interview than the other, that is, in my personal opinion anyway. Weird that it doesn't seem to get as much attention (maybe because it is more professional? :huh:).

 

 


Edited by DigitalEngine

CPU = Intel i7-6700K

Motherboard = ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero Alpha, w/ the Intel Z170 Chipset,

RAM = 64 Gigs of Ripjaws V F4-3400C16Q.

GPU = Zotac GTX980ti Amp Extreme

Hard-drive = Samsung V-NAD SSD 950 PRO M.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everytime someone from ED speaks about MAC, whether it's a DCS add-on or a standalone seems to be getting flipped around :P

 

Personally, I'd rather hope it'll be a separate entitiy. But I guess we'll eventually find out one of these days.

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DigitalEngine

 

Thank's for the link to this interview. Much more informative as the other one. Don't like it if people always get cut off during they try to explain something.

System: Ryzen 9 3900XT / 64GB DDR4 / 2TB M2 SSD / Geforce RTX 3090 / HP Reverb G2

DCS - Modules - 1.jpg

DCS - Modules - 2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since MAC won’t be a study level sim, any chance of including super modern jets such as F-35B/C or F-22?

PC: 9900K/3090, 11700K/2080Ti, 8700K/1080.

Joystick bases: TMWx2, VPC WarBRD, MT50CM2, VKB GFII, FSSB R3L

Joystick grips: TM (Warthog, F/A-18C), Realsimulator (F-16SGRH, F-18CGRH), VKB (Kosmosima LH, MCG, MCG Pro), VPC MongoosT50-CM2

Throttles: TMWx2, Winwing Super Taurus, Logitech Throttle Quadrant, Realsimulator RS Linear Throttle (soon)

VR: HTC Vive/Pro/Pro 2, Oculus Rift/Quest 2, Valve Index

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since MAC won’t be a study level sim, any chance of including super modern jets such as F-35B/C or F-22?

 

Pretty sure MAC aircraft will still have a Professional Flight Model, and getting that data for F-35/22 and such is highly unlikely.

 

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600MHz CL16 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 960Pro NVMe 1TB | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2 base/grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

My in-game DCS settings (PD 1.0 SteamSS 76%):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I allways ask in videos that ED relased about DCS

what's going on with MAC or when we can have

some video/information about it and allways someone

from ED dev team anwsers me that game will be shown

when it's ready but bruh i duno what the hell actualy is

hapening with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Has there been ANY word or news about MAC at this point? It feels as though it's been put on the backburner and sitting there.:noexpression:

DCS status:

Online

 

 

Case:NZXT S340 Mid Tower;Motherboard:MSi 970 Gaming DDR3 ATX;CPU:AMD FX-8350 8-Core Unlocked with Hyper 212 Evo heatsink;Memory:Crucial Ballistix 16GB DDR3;Hard Drive:Samsung 640GB;SSD: Crucial 256GB;Sound:Asus Xonar DGX; Power: EVGA 600W B1 80+;OS:Windows 10 64-bit; GPU: MSI Radeon RX 570 8GB 256-bit

 

 

Modules: Flaming Cliffs 3, P-51D, Combined Arms, Black Shark 2, A-10C 2, WW2 Assets, F/A-18C, F-16C Viper

 

Maps: Persian Gulf, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been ANY word or news about MAC at this point? It feels as though it's been put on the backburner and sitting there.:noexpression:

 

 

In software development there's often nothing to show for months and years. The code is changing, but that isn't easily shown, nor is it worth showing because most people wouldn't understand what is being shown.

 

 

It's a bit like asking an electrical engineer to show a circuit diagram on some minute system and how it's evolved thru iteration over the last 3 months. Not really that exciting in terms of marketing a product.

  • Like 1

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

Cockpit Spectator Mode

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been ANY word or news about MAC at this point? It feels as though it's been put on the backburner and sitting there.:noexpression:
Yes there were, not long ago. A few interviews with various ED's people appeared during pandemic quarantines and after, I believe all of them mentioned or were asked about MAC and they told things.

 

 

If something, I don't get why anybody using DCS would care about MAC after they explained what will and won't be. It's a game for beginners, still featuring PFMs and all, but without advance systems FC3 alike and fitted for console controls or keyboard and mouse. No more.

 

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this illusory target audience of people who are 'not ready for dcs' will never play mac because their pride and vanity will never allow them to suffer what they will see as the indignity of a downgrade

 

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

SigDCSNew.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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

 

I dont think mac is for me, but i can certainly see a niche it can readily fill

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] DCS: The most expensive free game you'll ever play

 

 

 

Modules: All of them

System:

 

I9-9900k, ROG Maximus , 32gb ram, RTX2070 Founder's Edition, t16000,hotas, pedals & cougar MFD, HP Reverb 1.2, HTC VIVE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

 

Agreed, but MAC will have to be maintained and cared for way better than FC3 at the moment.

 

Apart from the lack of modernized red aircraft you already mentioned, there are many bugs that have not been adressed in FC3 for a long time since it got kind of abandoned.

 

That's technically right, but without context that makes it sound as if the neglect is due to carelessness, but we *all* know it's intentionally low priority. There were large discussion before, when MAC was a hot topic, whether FC3 will continue as it is or be morphed into something else or even be deprecated.

 

There's more ideas I could throw out right now, but it's late for bed now and I don't like to keep too much WIP posts around that I never finish.

 

 

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It's 2021 and you're already late if you didn't read today's newsletter 🤣🤣🤣 .

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I expect quite the opposite, given the large gaming culture out there, I see MAC potentially more popular, much more so, but I have been expressing concern this may overshadow DCS and the whole full-fidelity community because of the buzz around MAC, the amount of MAC support/issues/content/fixes/maintenance to take care off may result in resources having to be taken off DCS as well, perhaps.

 

But I have many other suggestions and ideas, possibilities, just need to find the time to write them down.

 

 

On 8/4/2020 at 5:31 PM, Nipil said:

It seems to me that ED doesn't really understand what it itself wants MAC to be. They tell that it's going to be a standalone product, than they talk about module for DCS. And since it's being developed so long, I can't really believe it's just about simplifying already existing planes to the FC3 level. It wouldn't take as much time.

 

On 8/6/2020 at 3:42 PM, LCUChap2016 said:

Agreed. The conflicting reports accompanied by radio silence kind of tells me the developers are not very sure what MAC is supposed to be. Considering how long it has been in development (we are approaching two years) I also agree this is more than just FC3 planes being brought down in complexity.

 

Sure would be nice if we could get an official update on the progress from Wags or anyone else higher up on the food chain. Nobody seems to know what's going on.

 

That's actually a good thing, means things are still being negotiated and it's not prematurely set in stone. That's the time for the community to discuss about ideas and suggestions.


Edited by Worrazen

1st.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus ROG Strix X-570E - CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 - RAM: 64 GB - SSD: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 1TB NVMe

2nd.: PC Specs: Win10P 2004 (20H1), 1440p@75"32 - MB: Asus P9X79 - CPU: Intel i7 3820 - RAM: 32GB - GPU: AMD Radeon RX480 8GB - SSD Samsung 870 EVO 250GB (DCS), Input: Saitek Cyborg X/FLY5

Modules: A-10C I/II, F/A-18C, Mig-21Bis, M-2000C, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, P-47, FC3, SC, CA, WW2AP, CE2.

Terrains: NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf, Syria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2020 at 8:12 PM, NRG-Vampire said:

 

Secretly I hope too...to get few experimental and 5th gen aircrafts :bounce:

 

8si3r6elgyh01.jpg


I really think this is the way ED should go with MAC.
 

Aircraft, and helicopters, that are too modern and classified to make as full fidelity DCS modules. Maybe even experimental stuff. It could be a lot of fun.


Edited by Mogster
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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