Jump to content

Modern flyable Red Aviation in Combined Arms (modernized Fulcrum and Flanker family)


Recommended Posts

The only way there is to have "sensitive" aircraft in the game is to have them in Combined Arms(CA) format. That would be so sick if ED would add few of modernized Red birds this way. No docks required, just publicly available performance  data from manufacturer, plus videos of working MFDs and HUD that are all over youtube. Plus hundreds of Cockpit pictures. With nonclickable cockpit and sometimes simle flight model. Playable ground units in CA are not even Low Fidelity and still have their place and purpose in gameplay. And fun to play too.Imagine if ED made airplane modules for CA and sold them for the price of FC3 modules! I`d buy them all. And i know there are many many guys that would gladly give their cash for those birds. There are few dozen of thousands of buyers  craving for each of those many modern jets you can give them this way. There is a ton of cash to be made this way that could be spent on creating other FF modules.

ED already has a lot of non flyable AI "sensitive" jets that would be right at home in CA as flyable modules. Withought any procecution from government. Man the planes we could have then! J-11B,J-15, Various Russian multirole Flankers and Fulcrums.( even Mig-35 and Su-35) Mig-31, gen 4++, gen 5 -man list goes on and on. There are so many possibilities that CA brings to the table as a  product.  Many  of desired jet versions have allready most of the elements present in DCS. (airframes, weapons simple and pro flight models) The only missing parts are the cockpits which in many cases could be a bit remodelled from existing ones in case of Flankers and Fulcrums. 100 percent legit and viable solution to this everlasting problem. 
Hope devs will give it a good thought and will make it happen. 
 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the biggest issue with creating a module isn't so much possible government action when ED uses classified data; they can use publicly available information or make up their own right now. The issue is effort - effort to create and effort to maintain.

 

1 hour ago, musolo said:

The only missing parts are the cockpits which in many cases could be a bit remodelled from existing ones in case of Flankers and Fulcrums. 

 

The only missing parts are 99% of the effort that is missing. MFD and HUD aren't ornamental pieces of the cockpit, they are pretty much 90% of our interaction. Having an otuside model and a performance table is 1% of what is required to make a module. Sure, if you want to fight a Raptor with a Mig-35, both in mock/fantasy cockpits - have at it; I believe that for most of these there are already user mods available. They introduce balance issues, yes, but it's your choice to do this. I'm not sure what you are looking for; perhaps the ephermal M.A.C. may fit your bill?

 

 


Edited by cfrag
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I believe the biggest issue with creating a module isn't so much possible government action when ED uses classified data; they can use publicly available information or make up their own right now. The issue is effort - effort to create and effort to maintain.

 

 

The only missing parts are 99% of the effort that is missing. MFD and HUD aren't ornamental pieces of the cockpit, they are pretty much 90% of our interaction. Having an otuside model and a performance table is 1% of what is required to make a module. Sure, if you want to fight a Raptor in a Mig-35, both in mock cockpits - have at it; I believe that for most of these there are already user mods available. They introduce balance issues, yes, but it's your choice to do this. I'm not sure what you are looking for; perhaps the ephermal M.A.C. may fit your bill?

 

 

 

Do you play Combined Arms(CA)? have you noticed level of Fidelity of those playable ground units? And yet they contribute to gameplay regardless. Your demands for fully recreated  functionality of the cockpits are kinda out of Combined Arms domain. That`s why nobody in any government will ever give a damn about them being played there. And yet same simplified approach for jets would they be they included    will produce much higher detailed interior nonetheless. With same attention to all the knobs , buttons MFD screens and their symbology.   It would be most detailed and High Fidelity module in CA. Highest standart compared to anything that`s there atm. So what exactly is the issue here. It`s CA after all. That`s what makes it possible to even hope for those jets. Given there is no way on earth you`ll ever get them otherwise. You feel me?

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, musolo said:

Do you play Combined Arms(CA)? have you noticed level of Fidelity of those playable ground units? And yet they contribute to gameplay regardless. Your demands for fully recreated  functionality of the cockpits are kinda out of Combined Arms domain. That`s why nobody in any government will ever give a damn about them being played there. And yet same simplified approach for jets would they be they included    will produce much higher detailed interior nonetheless. With same attention to all the knobs , buttons MFD screens and their symbology.   It would be most detailed and High Fidelity module in CA. Highest standart compared to anything that`s there atm. So what exactly is the issue here. It`s CA after all. That`s what makes it possible to even hope for those jets. Given there is no way on earth you`ll ever get them otherwise. You feel me?

 

I believe I feel you. I also believe that you seriously under-estimate the amount of effort that is required to do what you propose. I own CA, and can't use it (I'm a VR user, CA doesn't work with VR). I have nothing against your idea. I just don't think it's feasible for reasons concerning cold, hard cash - or rather: lack thereof. Development is expensive. Government action is a non-issue (as long as your dev doesn't get caught at the border with a document that you probably better had emailed). 

 


Edited by cfrag
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have to be totally fictional and made up, so what would be even the point? Flying generic fictional F-22 or Su-35 with all the avionics and systems completely unrealistic and made up to shoot generic missiles at each other?

It would have absolutely nothing to do with what this planes do IRL.

 

DCS is for now flight simulator, ground and sea assets are obviously and understandably simplyfied.

 

To be honest seeing utterly unrealistic made up "modern" aircrafts in DCS is the very last thing I would like to see.


Edited by bies
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

No plans by ED to add other Russian Aircrafts to FC3 o DCS yet by new Russian Secret Rules, infact FC3 will be supressed by "incoming"  MAC (Modern Air Combat).

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2021 at 7:13 AM, musolo said:

The only way there is to have "sensitive" aircraft in the game is to have them in Combined Arms(CA) format.

 

Combined Arms has nothing to do with aircraft modules, it's separate to them.

 

Do you mean FC3 style? Because if you do, ED has no plans to add more AFAIK and FC3 was basically LOMAC:FC2 ported to DCS and upgraded. 

 

Quote

That would be so sick if ED would add few of modernized Red birds this way. No docks required, just publicly available performance  data from manufacturer, plus videos of working MFDs and HUD that are all over youtube. Plus hundreds of Cockpit pictures. With nonclickable cockpit and sometimes simle flight model.

 

So something completely made up?

 

And even FC3 surpasses simple flight models - you're proposing something completely orthogonal to DCS' own stated goals - it would be much more suited to MAC, but by your proposal you're more looking for Ace Combat.

 

Quote

Playable ground units in CA are not even Low Fidelity and still have their place and purpose in gameplay. And fun to play too.

 

Granted, but then DCS is much more of a flight simulator than a vehicle simulator. And a few years back they were looking at giving a full fidelity tank module (which I think was an Abrams) - didn't come to anything though.

 

Besides from what I can see people want to improve the fidelity of CA, not keep it as is - many are disappointed with it in its current state and there are proposals or plans to replace it (though not much details).

 

Here's one proposal from a third party.

 

Quote

Imagine if ED made airplane modules for CA and sold them for the price of FC3 modules! I`d buy them all. And i know there are many many guys that would gladly give their cash for those birds.

 

Again, CA has basically nothing to do with aircraft, there are no CA aircraft modules. And as far as aircraft go in CA they play more like a strategy game (if you're even able to do that).

 

Quote

ED already has a lot of non flyable AI "sensitive" jets that would be right at home in CA as flyable modules.

 

Which are AI only for the very reason as to why they can't offer playable aircraft.

 

And examples? I'm not even sure what variant of the Su-30 we have is and I wouldn't be surprised if it was something made up.

 

Quote

Withought any procecution from government.

 

They are protected, that's why they are only AI...

 

Quote

Man the planes we could have then! J-11B,J-15, Various Russian multirole Flankers and Fulcrums.( even Mig-35 and Su-35) Mig-31, gen 4++, gen 5 -man list goes on and on. There are so many possibilities that CA brings to the table as a  product.  Many  of desired jet versions have allready most of the elements present in DCS. (airframes, weapons simple and pro flight models)

 

Yes, and all would be completely made up. Hell even the early 80s MiG-29 9.12 that is planned isn't completely confirmed AFAIK, they're still looking whether or not they can actually do it.

 

Quote

The only missing parts are the cockpits which in many cases could be a bit remodelled from existing ones in case of Flankers and Fulcrums. 100 percent legit and viable solution to this everlasting problem. 
Hope devs will give it a good thought and will make it happen. 

 

Yeah, no - what you're after is Ace Combat. AFAIK there are no plans to add more simplified aircraft to DCS, FC3 was basically just a LOMAC FC2 port anyway that was upgraded. By all indications it looks like DCS is moving away from simplified aircraft, which is why since FC3 there have been no additional playable aircraft that are simplified.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 5

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

MAC/Flaming Cliffs would make more sense than CA.

 

Otherwise the whole ''simplified aircraft'' thing is kind of up in the air. On one hand ED is making MAC, on the other they say they don't want to make simplified aircraft anymore, and then there's debate as to whether MAC will be part of DCS or a wholly separate product (most likely will be separate).

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on any simplified aircraft at all for DCS, as it is most likely going to be focused exclusively on hi-fi aircraft with MAC as a separate product for people interested in simpler experiences.

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

MAC/Flaming Cliffs would make more sense than CA.

 

Otherwise the whole ''simplified aircraft'' thing is kind of up in the air. On one hand ED is making MAC, on the other they say they don't want to make simplified aircraft anymore, and then there's debate as to whether MAC will be part of DCS or a wholly separate product (most likely will be separate).

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on any simplified aircraft at all for DCS, as it is most likely going to be focused exclusively on hi-fi aircraft with MAC as a separate product for people interested in simpler experiences.

 

From my understanding MAC will be a separate product - essentially being comparable to a LOMAC successor but keeping the fidelity where it is.

 

But even here, the OP wants to go even more simplified than what FC3 currently is.

  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

...

 

1) CA is indeed a separate product with lesser fidelity units that didn`t require complete documentation to be implemented in it. That`s the whole point. To expand on this approach.  Concenrated at ground units obviously atm. But it is a commander`s enviroment too. With ability to play ground units if you wish to that is. And there is nothing wrong in expanding it`s playable units list. Be that aviation or navy.  And i ment exactly what i wrote. Not what you wish to see. But we`ll get back to that in a moment. 

 

2) What part of "  publicly available performance  data from manufacturer, plus videos of working MFDs and HUD that are all over youtube. Plus hundreds of Cockpit pictures" strikes you as "completely made up" ? MAC unfortunalely will have FF planes simlified to FC3 fidelity plus FC3 itself. And that`s it. It`s sole purpose is to flatten learning curve for lazy part of the noobs that are to come to ED ecosystem.  And Ace Combat that you so predictably mentioned is just another extreme end of the spectrum with FF planes being at it`s opposite end. Which gives you an idea of a golden middle between those two. That would appeal to a bigger midcore audience.

 

3) Sure DCS is more flight oriented in it`s  playable branch. But DCS stands for Digital _COMBAT_ Simulator. Hence DCS and not DFS) And if anything adding more units will only contribute to this  "ethos" if you will.  Be they air, sea or ground units, playable or not. As for CA - sure there are people who don`t like many things about it. But isn`t that true for FC3 and many of the FF modules too? So people who dont like stuff are allways a factor that doesn`t stop developers from doing their work.

 

4) Sure CA has nothing to do with <<playable>> aviation as of yet. But all AI planes are present, so your statement is kinda streched here too. And here me out again - as a solution to the absence of modern playable jets it is a perfect place to add them coz of its lesser "study level" implementation. CA is it`s own separate niche in this regard that allows for playable modern aviation. Which obviously is in very high demand and obviously can`t be implemented in FC3 and MAC let alone  FF modules.

 

5) Exactly man! Those sensitive jets are only Ai in FC3 cos they can`t be implemented there same way exising molules were made. No docks, legal procecuion - classyfied in one word. And that`s where CA comes into play. Examples are Mig 31, Su-34, Su-25TM, and Su-30 that yo mentioned. You said you wouldn`t be surprised if it was something made up. Well there are many more things "made up" by ED in a most thorrough and  scrutinized manner that ED is known for and they constantly improving on all of those things. That`s why all the fluctuation of many parameters in various departments of DCS.

 

6) They are protected yes. That`s why the only existing ED product that allows for them to exist id CA. I feel myself repeating a lot coz your statements often do,sorry.

 

7) Again your "completely made up" argument that doesn`t stand here. And Mig thet you`re talking about needs a lot of variables mentioned above to be established to be implemented. And  giving it as an example to CA situation is out of the scope of this topic don`t you think? 

 

8 ) And no i`m not alking about Ace Combat. Have you played it? or wached gampay, campaign walkthrough perhps?  On a different difficulty levels even? If you did then why would you throw it in like that. Its the ultimate arcade on the console for God`s sake man comon!) You can`t be seriously talking about equal sign between it and CA playables. There are no plans for adding simplified LF fidelity aircraft in FC3 for sure. Coz all the jazz involved and the price of FC3 module doesn`t make economical sence to go through all this trouble. Approach taken in CA on the other hand is quite the opposite. A golden opportunity to have such shortage of goods in the times of total abundance. 

 

 


 

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

I believe I feel you. I also believe that you seriously under-estimate the amount of effort that is required to do what you propose. I own CA, and can't use it (I'm a VR user, CA doesn't work with VR). I have nothing against your idea. I just don't think it's feasible for reasons concerning cold, hard cash - or rather: lack thereof. Development is expensive. Government action is a non-issue (as long as your dev doesn't get caught at the border with a document that you probably better had emailed). 

 

 

I`m a 3d genealist myself and that gives me more or less approximate estimation quantifying it.  And yes it would take couple hundreds of man hours for modeling, unwrapping, texturing  rigging and animating rigged geomery. Plus another couple hundred hours of MFD,s and HUD UI. drawing and animating. Given half ot the cockpit interior is allready made and can be used there. And perhaps same amount of time for coding. that totals to 600 man hours put into such module give or take couple of hundreds more. it is still orders of magnitude less than Full Fidelity module development would take. And at the third/quarter of the price of FF module and at least ten times cheaper to produce it is still very economically attractive undertaking. Considering the acute shortage and high demand all that amounts to a very bright future for those jets as a separate Combat Arms niche products. 

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strap yourselves in folks, it's a long one.

 

On 3/25/2021 at 4:17 PM, musolo said:

1) CA is indeed a separate product with lesser fidelity units that didn`t require complete documentation to be implemented in it. That`s the whole point.

 

Which is also one of its main criticisms! CA offering overly simplified ground units is one of the main things people take issue with and want improved.

 

Quote

To expand on this approach.  Concenrated at ground units obviously atm. But it is a commander`s enviroment too.

 

Yes, exclusively focused on the ground - when did that have anything to do with adding lower fidelity aircraft again?

 

I mean come on, it's called Combined Arms and here's is its product description:

 

Quote

DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy.

 

Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang.

 

See anything there about adding low fidelity aircraft? Because I don't.

 

Just that it expands the ground aspect (just not very well), the thing it talks about as far as aircraft go is AFAC capability - that's it. 

 

I don't know, this whole "it should be done for CA" is just bamboozling to me. There's nothing about CA offering stuff that is simplified - again, that's a main criticism of it - it's just how it ended up and many are disappointed with that.

 

Quote

And there is nothing wrong in expanding it`s playable units list. Be that aviation or navy.

 

CA didn't provide any playable aircraft. You seem to think CA is something orthogonal to what it actually is.

 

Quote

2) What part of "  publicly available performance  data from manufacturer, plus videos of working MFDs and HUD that are all over youtube. Plus hundreds of Cockpit pictures" strikes you as "completely made up" ? MAC unfortunalely will have FF planes simlified to FC3 fidelity plus FC3 itself.

 

The part where the easy majority of aircraft handling and systems is not available publicly (prove me wrong) so you'd have to make them up? That part?

 

You even mentioned simplified flight modelling, something even FC3 surpasses... 

 

I also think there might be more to it than just a picture found on the internet. Unless you want an aircraft that just looks realistic, but how it functions and behaves is approximated - i.e more made up.

 

Do we even know what modes are available for the MFDs? Do we even know what information they display, especially in combat orientated modes? Do we know the capabilities of the RADAR? (not that DCS even facilitates phased-array RADARs, or how they work in the first place).

 

So far the only thing we've got a concrete foundation for is what it looks like.

 

Quote

And that`s it. It`s sole purpose is to flatten learning curve for lazy part of the noobs that are to come to ED ecosystem.

 

So, something already fulfilled by FC3?

 

And DCS is supposed to offer something as realistic as possible? We can go on for ages about where they fall over on (trust me I do it), but that is the stated goal.

 

So given that, doesn't all of this completely fly in the face of that?

 

Quote

And Ace Combat that you so predictably mentioned is just another extreme end of the spectrum with FF planes being at it`s opposite end. Which gives you an idea of a golden middle between those two. That would appeal to a bigger midcore audience.

 

If it's going to have everything simplified apart from looks, as you seem to be implying - what difference would there be? 

 

At best it's FC3 (which again, no plans to expand the list of simplified aircraft available - again it was an upgrade of essentially a port from LOMAC:FC2, and at worse we've essentially got SF2 - something I like but a different ethos to DCS, one being a lite simulator which is much more arcade-like, the other explicitly going for maximum realism, study sim aircraft.

 

And like I said, as far as DCS goes the clear stated goal is to offer something as realistic as feasibly possible, which lends itself to full-fidelity, study-sim, which is why we haven't seen any official simplified aircraft past FC3 and they've all been full-fidelity study-sim aircraft. Pretty much everything here detracts from that, and that's probably why ED has no plans to expand this.

 

Quote

3) Sure DCS is more flight oriented in it`s  playable branch. But DCS stands for Digital _COMBAT_ Simulator. Hence DCS and not DFS)

 

Well there's a running joke that DCS should stand for digital cockpit simulator - and if you go digging through the scripts I kinda get an impression why. Fortunately there are plans to improve various aspects.

 

But also, your proposal doesn't expand the other elements at all, it's just adding modern REDFOR aircraft that will almost certainly be more simplified than FC3... It's not much more of an expansion over adding just AI aircraft.

 

Would I love for it to expand? Abso-freaking-lutely! At the expense of fidelity and realism? No. The entire problem with existing aspects of DCS (especially land and sea) is a lack of fidelity - something that isn't solved by just adding units and definitely not solved by going backwards.

 

Quote

And if anything adding more units will only contribute to this  "ethos" if you will.  Be they air, sea or ground units, playable or not.

 

Well now we're going more and more generic. I would love to see more assets - but super modern playable REDFOR assets are not feasible as anything more than AI aircraft - whereby the only thing in common with its IRL counterpart is looks and payload (and sometimes we don't even have that). In which case I'm kinda failing to see the point... It has been stated over and over again, and ED have no plans to add more playable aircraft to the level of fidelity provided by FC3 (let alone less).

 

I mean the MiG-29 9.12 from 1982 is still only a soft-confirm - something they are looking to see if they can do it.

 

Adding new units but going backwards on their fidelity isn't much over a 0 sum affair in my opinion. Worse is that the very criticisms about the sea and land aspect is the lack of fidelity.

 

Quote

As for CA - sure there are people who don`t like many things about it. But isn`t that true for FC3 and many of the FF modules too?

 

The issues associated with CA relating here are a lack of fidelity (among others) something that absolutely doesn't apply to FF modules behind individual aspects (such as damage models, IFF and EW). I kinda get the impression you're twisting what I'm saying here - though that might be my fault.

 

In both cases people want the fidelity improved, they certainly don't seem to want to go backwards, not to stay stagnant and certainly not to have new units but go backwards in fidelity compared to what we have currently - and ED seem to agree.

 

Quote

So people who dont like stuff are allways a factor that doesn`t stop developers from doing their work.

 

You're completely missing the point - people want CA improved so it's higher fidelity and more realistic and better in keeping with DCS' stated goals - most interested in CA do not want it to stay the same and just add more units.

 

Quote

4) Sure CA has nothing to do with <<playable>> aviation as of yet. But all AI planes are present, so your statement is kinda streched here too.

 

I... What?

 

What do the AI aircraft have to do with CA? 

 

Quote

And here me out again - as a solution to the absence of modern playable jets it is a perfect place to add them coz of its lesser "study level" implementation.

 

So, contradictory to ED's plans? Contrary to DCS' stated goal of what it's at least attempting to offer?

 

Quote

CA is it`s own separate niche in this regard that allows for playable modern aviation.

 

It really isn't - again CA has nothing to do with the rest of aircraft in DCS.

 

And once again, the simplified nature of CA is one of the main criticisms of it.

 

Quote

Which obviously is in very high demand and obviously can`t be implemented in FC3 and MAC let alone  FF modules.

 

So why do you think it's feasible here? Unless you're straight up making stuff up or making an aircraft that has little in common with it's real life counterpart? Potentially removing some of the advantages it would have in the first place (looking at you phased array RADARs), which is the point of having these aircraft in the first place.

 

Quote

5) Exactly man! Those sensitive jets are only Ai in FC3 cos they can`t be implemented there same way exising molules were made. No docks, legal procecuion - classyfied in one word.

 

And, wait for it, in a non playable state, with a made up simplified flight model! Hell, even the AI flight model for FF modules is totally borked - look at the F-5E-3.

 

Quote

And that`s where CA comes into play. Examples are Mig 31, Su-34, Su-25TM, and Su-30 that yo mentioned.

 

You really need to get CA out of your head - let me repeat - it has nothing to do with playable aircraft modules.

 

What you're after is more FC3 aircraft but even more simplified.

 

Quote

You said you wouldn`t be surprised if it was something made up. Well there are many more things "made up" by ED in a most thorrough and  scrutinized manner that ED is known for and they constantly improving on all of those things. That`s why all the fluctuation of many parameters in various departments of DCS.

 

Yes, but when it comes to aircraft we usually have enough to make something viable - it should be pretty clear that here we don't.

 

Quote

7) Again your "completely made up" argument that doesn`t stand here.

 

If it's simplified to the point where it's less in common with the real thing (which simplification inevitably does), then it becomes more and more a fictional aircraft, requiring more and more be made up.

 

I mean have fun simulating the Su-35S' phased array RADAR, just to name one.

 

Quote

And Mig thet you`re talking about needs a lot of variables mentioned above to be established to be implemented. And  giving it as an example to CA situation is out of the scope of this topic don`t you think?

 

Well, it's more whether or not they can get hold of everything they need to make it a viable aircraft.

 

And again, no idea why you insist on this CA thing, there's nothing about CA that should suggest "necessarily low fidelity" that's just how it ended up as. It was just supposed to expand the ground warfare element, and offer combined arms functionality - y'know what CA stands for? It just doesn't do an exactly great job of it.

 

Here's the first 2 paragraphs about the product description:

 

Quote

DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy.

 

Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang.

 

The only thing related to aircraft is AFAC - that's it.

 

You're after FC3 with what sounds like even less fidelity...

 

Quote

There are no plans for adding simplified LF fidelity aircraft in FC3 for sure.

 

So why do you think there's any plans for adding more simplified aircraft at all? Why the hell would they make simplified aircraft for the Combined Arms module - which is supposed to expand the ground aspect (though again, not very well).

 

Quote

Coz all the jazz involved and the price of FC3 module doesn`t make economical sence to go through all this trouble.

 

How do you apply one thing to FC3 but then abandon it for yours? They buy and large have the same things apply - just your proposal goes with even more simplification...

 

Quote

Approach taken in CA on the other hand is quite the opposite.

 

What!?

 


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

MAC/Flaming Cliffs would make more sense than CA.

 

Otherwise the whole ''simplified aircraft'' thing is kind of up in the air. On one hand ED is making MAC, on the other they say they don't want to make simplified aircraft anymore, and then there's debate as to whether MAC will be part of DCS or a wholly separate product (most likely will be separate).

 

I wouldn't hold my breath on any simplified aircraft at all for DCS, as it is most likely going to be focused exclusively on hi-fi aircraft with MAC as a separate product for people interested in simpler experiences.

Modern red air is the reason I hope that mac can connect to a dcs server. Even if it is marketed as a separate product this would be a good feature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

You don`t want CA to expand the way it is right now  i get it. Fine - just don`t buy whatever you don`t like.  And i do the same. I mean that`s what we all do here. We buy and fly what we like.

As for your AI arguments i have a question. Would it make any  difference to you if you got splashed by Ace level AI that bypass any of the clicking and instruments manipulations  human would have to do or me sitting in its flyable variant? 


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, musolo said:

You don`t want CA to expand the way it is right now  i get it.

 

The only problem I see with your idea, is that it would be better with MAC and not combined arms.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, musolo said:

Me too man but let`s face  it`s not gonna happen.

 

It might happen with MAC, the idea with the whole game is to be good enough. So I think it would all come down to how much the community wants it. I do want it, I also want to see MAC :Vietnam 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2021 at 6:17 PM, musolo said:

You don`t want CA to expand the way it is right now  i get it.

 

I'm not convinced personally.

 

CA has nothing to do with adding any aircraft at all - again it's whole premise was to expand on the ground aspect (it just didn't do it very well).

 

You seem to be just saying "well CA is low fidelity, so these low fidelity modules should be a part of CA" which is just really confusing to me; it's not fitting nor is it in scope for CA at all, nor does it make sense to be so. Once again, the low fidelity of CA is a major criticism of it and not something people invested in it are particularly happy with.

 

Again here's what CA is advertised as being:

 

Quote

DCS: Combined Arms gives you control of ground forces during the battle. Use the Command Map to move ground forces, set artillery fire missions, and control the ground battle. Assume the role of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) in multiplayer and designate targets for player-controlled close air support aircraft, or directly control armor vehicles or air defense weapons and engage the enemy.

 

Play DCS: Combined Arms as a real time strategy game, a first person armor warfare game, or direct the ground battle from the cockpit of a DCS aircraft like the A-10C Warthog, Ka-50 Black Shark, or P-51D Mustang.

 

It should be pretty clear what the point of it is - to expand the ground aspect of DCS. There's not even anything there about providing simplified units (and nothing about aircraft at all aside from AFAC roles) it just ended up that way, and is again a major criticism of it and a source of disappointment in it.

 

Most people I'm aware of who are invested with CA want an improvement to the fidelity, not for it to stay the same. I doubt many see it as an excuse to add playable aircraft that are even more simplified than FC3.

 

Quote

Fine - just don`t buy whatever you don`t like.  And i do the same. I mean that`s what we all do here. We buy and fly what we like.

 

Yes, I agree, but I've already bought CA, so not really sure where this is coming from.

 

Quote

As for your AI arguments i have a question. Would it make any  difference to you if you got splashed by Ace level AI that bypass any of the clicking and instruments manipulations  human would have to do or me sitting in its flyable variant? 

 

I don't care what I get splashed by, I couldn't care less about competitive multiplayer and recently I've been flying the Hip in completely non-combat settings.

 

The AI in DCS, usually has all the proficiency of a chunky fart, to point that BFM/ACM in SP is probably negative training.

 

But that's not my point anyway nor is it really relevant anyway - ED hasn't added any new simplified aircraft since FC3 (which again, is essentially a LOMAC: FC2 port that was upgraded for DCS) and they have no plans to do so, it also isn't in keeping with DCS' own stated goals (though yes, of course we can debate for ages how well their achieved right now).

 

Again, DCS is supposed to offer something as realistic as feasibly possible and we should be going to achieve that - this on the other hand seems to me to doing the opposite, possibly even to the extent where the advantage of these aircraft in the first place gets reduced down.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, musolo said:

Me too man but let`s face  it`s not gonna happen.

  What you're talking about in general isn't going to happen either, to the extent this whole thread is largely pointless.

 

As for CA being ''even more dumbed down than FC3'' that's not the longterm goal for CA either. See several recent proposals to EXPAND AND IMPROVE Combined Arms' simulation aspects. The game as a whole is literally going the exact opposite direction of what you're requesting.

 

As previously mentioned, MAC is in development, and does utilise simplified aircraft, but that is still in the works and may very well end up a completely separate product. If it does, then that will be the place to request such aircraft, even so, they're not going to go BACKWARDS overall. This isn't a survey level game, and it's unreasonable to expect it ever will be.

 

 This sort of thing is about as sensible as asking for enhanced gardening physics. It's literally the wrong genre.

  • Like 2
Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

  What you're talking about in general isn't going to happen either, to the extent this whole thread is largely pointless.

 

As for CA being ''even more dumbed down than FC3'' that's not the longterm goal for CA either. See several recent proposals to EXPAND AND IMPROVE Combined Arms' simulation aspects. The game as a whole is literally going the exact opposite direction of what you're requesting.

 

As previously mentioned, MAC is in development, and does utilise simplified aircraft, but that is still in the works and may very well end up a completely separate product. If it does, then that will be the place to request such aircraft, even so, they're not going to go BACKWARDS overall. This isn't a survey level game, and it's unreasonable to expect it ever will be.

 

 This sort of thing is about as sensible as asking for enhanced gardening physics. It's literally the wrong genre.

I'm one of the folks who wants to see Combined Arms improved. As I stated before in the thread this would be better for MAC. The MAC modeling is supposed to be flaming cliffs level 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Few things to  remind so that we won`t keep making false assumptions

 

26 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

"I'm one of the folks who wants to see Combined Arms improved. As I stated before in the thread this would be better for MAC. The MAC modeling is supposed to be flaming cliffs level"

Let`s make one thing clear here. Every single module in MAC is developed with access to the docks to begin with. It`s there to  just simplify and minimize pilot`s workload of the FF modules to FC3 level.  So developement of the new modules for MAC will happen based on the availibility of the docks. No docks - no MAC module.


Edited by musolo

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, upyr1 said:

It might happen with MAC, the idea with the whole game is to be good enough. So I think it would all come down to how much the community wants it. I do want it, I also want to see MAC :Vietnam 

Due that docks factor nothing classified will be in MAC. As for cold war era modules there isn`t any issuie of classified nature to  get in the way. So no problem there. 

 

 

 

 

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  What you're talking about in general isn't going to happen either, to the extent this whole thread is largely pointless.

 

As for CA being ''even more dumbed down than FC3'' that's not the longterm goal for CA either. See several recent proposals to EXPAND AND IMPROVE Combined Arms' simulation aspects. The game as a whole is literally going the exact opposite direction of what you're requesting.

 

As previously mentioned, MAC is in development, and does utilise simplified aircraft, but that is still in the works and may very well end up a completely separate product. If it does, then that will be the place to request such aircraft, even so, they're not going to go BACKWARDS overall. This isn't a survey level game, and it's unreasonable to expect it ever will be.

 

 This sort of thing is about as sensible as asking for enhanced gardening physics. It's literally the wrong genre.

Well the game isn`t going any direction now nor my way neither your way. And again i remind you of single main condition for ny playable module for MAC is the presence of docks. And for that reason there is no way we`ll ever see anything in MAC that doesn`t exist in DCS.

----RED FLAG---- DCS Server. Discord: https://discord.gg/2PjQ52V

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...