Jump to content

FC3 but for WW2


TXGrunt
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would like to add this idea to the bucket of wishes.

How about a Flaming Cliffs 3 type bundle but for WW2. You would get a handful of WW2 aircraft (Ju87, BF109 E7 or 4, Hurricane, Typhoon, P-36, etc.). They would all have the same simplicity of the FC3 aircraft. You would also get a few campaigns/missions. This would be a great way to get more folks over to DCS IMHO. This might also appeal to the IL-2 crowd. Best of all, fill the skies with more WW2 aircraft. 

Again, this is only a wish. I'd be curious to know what everyone else's thoughts are? Has this been wished for before?

  • Like 1

i7 4770k OC 4.6Ghz // 24GB RAM // GTX 980ti // Asus Hero VI MB // 500GB SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest with you, the idea is very good to me. I've known DCS since LOMAC, started playing it with that. If i got myself into it at that time, it was because to me that was the only Simulator consisting of "recent" jets you could use in a combat manner.

As of today, if i were to fly WWII, i probably wouldn't choose DCS unfortunately as like i said just above, DCS is to me for jets, i'm not very interested in props (And i'm probably missing out, because i know ED has done amazing recreation of the few WWII props !).

BUT, if i was able to buy an WWII FC3 style package to get a foot in the WWII side of DCS, that would probably do it for me !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TXGrunt said:

I'd be curious to know what everyone else's thoughts are?

WW2 planes are easy enough to learn that there is no point for simplified version? Why? because its much easier to just flip the switch with mouse rather to remember where i blinded that switch to the keyboard. If you want simplicity then you have il-2 or WT, what's the point of having two the same simplified simulators i don't get it, i see no point in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the idea is straightforward enough, I believe in this regard we are confusing cause and effect. All the FC3 planes are former LOMAC planes, they pre-existed DCS, and where superseded by the hi-fidelity cockpit planes from (then new) DCS. So ED did the smart thing and adapted the lo-fidelity LOMAC planes to run in the DCS world, and sell them at an attractive bundle price, leveraging their old products. Very smart, and we all got a great bundle in the process.

Looking forward, however, there's nothing to base a 'Flaming Cliffs of Dover' WW2 type bundle on: the lo-fi WWII planes don't exist. I think it highly unlikely that ED can crank out five or more planes with good enough flight model to compete as playable planes in DCS in a short while. I'm not saying it can't be done, and I'm interested to see what the (eternally) forthcoming MAC has to offer (although the "M" in MAC may preclude warbirds). But FC was leveraging old products. I don't see a similar opportunity for ED here. Not that I wouldn't buy that bundle if it came out. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of ignoring such possibilities, few people play this simulator. All products available for purchase should have a simple FC3 style option. Not everyone needs and most of the time to learn 400 or 600 page manuals. People want to have fun with their favorite fighter or tank or helicopter, and ED could reach a lot more people if people could buy full fidelity module FC3 style version at half price.

 

That’s why there’s a 50% discount on their products every 3 months, instead of giving even more people a chance and not excluding other people who want to have fun with this elitism.

Could a $ 30 F 16CM fly with it more easily and not take a lot of time to learn 400 or 600 pages! In reality, the human brain cannot keep that much knowledge up to date if it wants to play something else effectively! An example is that you could fly versions of the F16 that are less modern or even with the Super Hornet, or create solutions that are not tied to the full fidelity module.

 

You can see with your own eyes that there is a demand for FC3 style products and most of all Russian modern Flanker and Fulcrum could finally come to DCS World!

$ 30 would be the perfect balance for FC3 style products and DCS World would be a big step financially and ED could still make full fidelity modules for those who need it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

Because of ignoring such possibilities, few people play this simulator. All products available for purchase should have a simple FC3 style option.

Maybe. It sounds interesting, but you would have to define what 'FC3 style' means. Those (FC3) planes still utilize ED's pro flight model. They don't have a clickable cockpit. Is that what you mean? They have a more-or-less unified control schema, since they are all legacy planes from ED's 2000's era "LOMAC" product. And they model fewer systems (I assume, I have no proof here) and/or in lesser complexity than full-bore hi fidelity planes. But what exactly, in your mind, is an FC3 style - or put differently: what goal are we trying to achieve with that? Once we agree on that I think we can have an interesting discussion.

It may also be worth to point out (because it is not obvious, at least not initially) that DCS provides a casual 'game flight mode'. It's very well suited for people to get into the game and learn the sights. I know, because I I did.

1 hour ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

Not everyone needs and most of the time to learn 400 or 600 page manuals.

Definitely agree. That being said, DCS's particular niche is 'study flight sim', that's their strongest aspect. People choose their poison, not the other way around. Many of those who come to DCS usually find complexity the feature, not the bug. Many of us like reading about procedures and can't get enough of arcane tables, figures and statistics. (And, I suspect, they positively love it when a particular number in a sub-table n table of index k doesn't match game performance - and they can b*tch about it on these forums 🙂 ). So while we can say 'not everyone likes', we could probably still say 'true, but the majority here does': those who like reading these docs make up a major part of the core of ED's customer base. It would be difficult (and financially dangerous) for ED to deviate from their established base. But they should regularly re-evaluate this point, I agree.

1 hour ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

ED could reach a lot more people if people could buy full fidelity module FC3 style version at half price.

The problem here is often that these models are still developed at full cost. So if ED went in, and grafted a new play mode on all their planes, the total development cost would go up (add a new flight mode). How can they recoup that cost when they sell the result at less than before? Also, how would you imagine that this works when you want to upgrade to 'full' flight mode? Do you have to purchase that option (now, that does sound interesting)? How would a 'simple' mode plane influence the game's balance when dogfighting the same plane that is flown 'complex'? How can we ensure that neither has an unfair advantage? If we can't that would bifurcate the (still too small) on-line community along the complex/simplified model line.

 

1 hour ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

That’s why there’s a 50% discount on their products every 3 months, instead of giving even more people a chance and not excluding other people who want to have fun with this elitism.

That's a pretty broad unproven assertion that also moved into uncomfortably accusatory territory. I'm not entirely sure you and I fully understand the business decisions made by ED, and painting me and others as an elitist doesn't help. Let's not go there.

 

1 hour ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

You can see with your own eyes that there is a demand for FC3 style products and most of all Russian modern Flanker and Fulcrum could finally come to DCS World!

It's one thing to see demand. It's quite another to actually fill it. The average time spent developing a module for DCS is measured in years. The average cost to implement is accordingly. There are no short-cuts for developing what may be termed 'FC3' style planes, because they will still have to meet the existing customers' expectation (high fidelity), and ED can't simply re-use old models to produce lo-fi versions as they did with FC3. 

That being said, ED has for a long (really long) time been announcing what you seem to be after: a low-fidelity version of DCS called "Modern Air Combat" (MAC), which takes the FC3 planes, plus some select others (F5E and <I forgot>), and packages them in what appears to be 'lo-fi DCS'. Unfortunately, the entire package is unclear to me, and ED seems unable to make much progress on that product (it seems stuck since 2018), which may be an indication of what their market research says about their customers. But let's wait and see what comes of that.


Edited by cfrag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

It's one thing to see demand. It's quite another to actually fill it. The average time spent developing a module for DCS is measured in years. The average cost to implement is accordingly. There are no short-cuts for developing what may be termed 'FC3' style planes, because they will still have to meet the existing customers' expectation (high fidelity), and ED can't simply re-use old models to produce lo-fi versions as they did with FC3. 

That being said, ED has for a long (really long) time been announcing what you seem to be after: a low-fidelity version of DCS called "Modern Air Combat" (MAC), which takes the FC3 planes, plus some select others (F5E and <I forgot>), and packages them in what appears to be 'lo-fi DCS'. Unfortunately, the entire package is unclear to me, and ED seems unable to make much progress on that product (it seems stuck since 2018), which may be an indication of what their market research says about their customers. But let's wait and see what comes of that.

the point to MAC is to fill the demand. Sadly I don't think we'll be able to get modern RedFor fighters in MAC. However I would love it if Eagle did war birds and vintage jets in MAC. 


Edited by upyr1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

That may be true, but Modern Air Combat is a project Eagle is working on which has simplified versions of everything 

 

MAC may well be a simplified version of DCS, however it doesn't really have any competition.  There are several "arcade" jet games around, but nothing that is more of a sim for jets.

WW2 is quite different, with IL2 and CLOD.

  • Like 1

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a great idea - been thinking about it for awhile as well.

I loved the FC3 pack - great value for money & easier for me to get into tackling the intimidating task of flying in DCS

WWII does not have enough aircraft & would provide competition for IL2 as a starter pack.

I know it takes such a long time to create each aircraft with Eagle Dynamics standards - but if they did do simpler cockpits etc, will be faster to create & attract more players - who maybe intimidated by current all the bells & whistles to fly - like I was.

Would love a BOB pack, where they could create some new aircraft, but also use existing models of Spit IX & Me-109K to derive earlier versions e.g. Spit Mk I,II or V & Me-109E or F, by using existing external model & cockpits with small modifications & easier flying dynamics.

Can also added more AI variants from existing AI or Modules, like Boston bomber from A-20, Ju-88C & G to oppose Mosquito, P-47B, P-51B,c. Surely faster & more cost effective than starting from scratch? 

I love WWII & DCS, but it is not a cheap game - I have spent over $600 on all my modules already. DCS can't compete with the content IL2 puts out, as it specializes in WWII, while DCS covers WWII to Modern (late Cold War) period. I would love to buy more WWII content with my limited funds, but it costs dearly, as does IL2 - but you get more bang for your buck there.

The difference is DCS is such a better game with the integration of assets  & its sheer beauty. Plus it allows Mods (although begrudgingly, by the feel of it) The Mods cover a huge amount of content & it is thanks to the Mod community that I play DCS WWII. But Mods can also be intimidating for new players & you need cost effective official content to attract new player to DCS WWII  


Edited by ggrewe
Added content
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Maybe. It sounds interesting, but you would have to define what 'FC3 style' means. Those (FC3) planes still utilize ED's pro flight model. They don't have a clickable cockpit. Is that what you mean? They have a more-or-less unified control schema, since they are all legacy planes from ED's 2000's era "LOMAC" product. And they model fewer systems (I assume, I have no proof here) and/or in lesser complexity than full-bore hi fidelity planes. But what exactly, in your mind, is an FC3 style - or put differently: what goal are we trying to achieve with that? Once we agree on that I think we can have an interesting discussion.

It may also be worth to point out (because it is not obvious, at least not initially) that DCS provides a casual 'game flight mode'. It's very well suited for people to get into the game and learn the sights. I know, because I I did.

 

I mean exactly how FC3 works, PFM, simplified avionics. Once you learn FC3 you will know 90% of how it works. especially VR users would enjoy it as well. Think of a simpler F 14 where there is no back seat, only the menu is available and Jester will do whatever you ask and in the meantime you will fly with it!

1280px-Cockpit_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-3

Same as a MiG 31 version. The back seat doesn’t have to be done, just add the F 14 Jester menu. There is nothing secret about this cockpit, and if there is anything secret, check out the secret Su 27 that has been flying in DCS World for years. If the Su 27 can fly the MiG 31 why not?

 

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

The problem here is often that these models are still developed at full cost. So if ED went in, and grafted a new play mode on all their planes, the total development cost would go up (add a new flight mode). How can they recoup that cost when they sell the result at less than before? Also, how would you imagine that this works when you want to upgrade to 'full' flight mode? Do you have to purchase that option (now, that does sound interesting)? How would a 'simple' mode plane influence the game's balance when dogfighting the same plane that is flown 'complex'? How can we ensure that neither has an unfair advantage? If we can't that would bifurcate the (still too small) on-line community along the complex/simplified model line.

 

Development starts and the two concepts, full fidelity and FC3 style, can be developed together. I didn’t write that only the cheap ones would be sold, but that in addition to full fidelity and choose whatever you wanted.

 

I have several buddies who don't enjoy the simulator because of the complexity. You could get buyers who would choose simplicity with an incredible flight model and real weapons!

 

ED could first make a simplified version to learn the basics and systems on how to fly. This is easier to do and takes less time and during this time we would be supporting the ED with the money. I think it’s better than pre-ordering and you shouldn’t have to pay for a semi-finished product. Ready for the full fidelity version, customers could purchase the full fidelity version for $ 60 to $ 80. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice years of our lives to wait, there will be more joy, more satisfied customers!

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

It's one thing to see demand. It's quite another to actually fill it. The average time spent developing a module for DCS is measured in years. The average cost to implement is accordingly. There are no short-cuts for developing what may be termed 'FC3' style planes, because they will still have to meet the existing customers' expectation (high fidelity), and ED can't simply re-use old models to produce lo-fi versions as they did with FC3. 

 

You exclude people who would be content with a simplified version of full fidelity. I want to fly an F14 but I feel like seeing this many switches I know I don’t want to learn. However, if you had a simplified version and I would run to buy instant, but it just remains a dream!

 

 

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

That may be true, but Modern Air Combat is a project Eagle is working on which has simplified versions of everything 

You will not receive any F 16 or FA 18 or F 14. Another fox skin is pulled off the FC3 which is further simplified with a mouse and keyboard. FC3 is the best balance between simplicity and full fidelity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

 

MAC may well be a simplified version of DCS, however it doesn't really have any competition.  There are several "arcade" jet games around, but nothing that is more of a sim for jets.

WW2 is quite different, with IL2 and CLOD.

War Thunder uses the MiG 23 and the Su 27 and MiG 29 will be available for free soon. Since when does the MAC compete? DCS World FC3 style full fidelity modules would have no competitor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

War Thunder uses the MiG 23 and the Su 27 and MiG 29 will be available for free soon. Since when does the MAC compete? DCS World FC3 style full fidelity modules would have no competitor!

Exactly my point.  WT is an arcade game.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

I mean exactly how FC3 works, PFM, simplified avionics. Once you learn FC3 you will know 90% of how it works. especially VR users would enjoy it as well. Think of a simpler F 14 where there is no back seat, only the menu is available and Jester will do whatever you ask and in the meantime you will fly with it!

I recommend we leave VR out of this - a VR Hornet (fully complexity) is much easier to operate than a LoFi Flanker, simply because working the avionics is so much easier in VR (that being said, DCS is the killer app for VR - nothing comes close, not even Alyx nor Elite)

I think I understand the gist of what you are looking for, and believe that we have a study case: A-10A (FC) versus A-10C (full fidelity). The important aspect (for me) is that the complex-version plane must have no serious dis-/advantages versus players flying the lo-fi one in multiplayer. A-10A and C are nicely balanced in this respect, with the A-10C of course having a much larger selection of weapons (APKWS, self-lasing, LGB) and of course navigation and HMD. But they handle near-identical (with the important caveat that I've never dogfighted (sp? dogfought?) a Hog against another Hog). So yes, I think I get the basic idea. From the user standpoint, they are two different products, so that also seems financially sound (two separate purchases, with possible upgrade path for future products?). Also, the 10C is a real sales proposition versus the A, since although you can fly it if you can fly the A, you have only covered 20% (the old 80/20 split 🙂 ) - of the C's true functional depth. 

I don't know if they can be developed synergistically (how much common stuff they can share - how many assets does the current 10C share with A?), but let's say they can share 1/3 (33%) of all assets (code, visuals, audio). I'm also highly interested in seeing how ED went about this for MAC (I went back - MAC includes the high-fi Sabre, Tiger, Albatross, Mig-15, 19 and Mig-21) so we'll have some more instances to compare. If/when it comes out. If/when these formerly complex planes are re-released as lo-fi. At that point, ED will also have a baseline to establish the price tag for a "lo-fi conversion" and can determine the financial viability of combined lo/hi fi releases (make no mistake: I'll buy them all, as I love flying the A-10A at least as much as the C). I'm sure they also see the potential of attracting more customers. I'm also sure that the current situation is not a coincidence, and that the delays in MAC (it was scheduled for release in Fall 2018) may have something to do with current customer demand and ED's resulting product planning/prioritization.


Edited by cfrag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I'm also sure that the current situation is not a coincidence, and that the delays in MAC (it was scheduled for release in Fall 2018) may have something to do with current customer demand and ED's resulting product planning/prioritization.

What we already know it is delayed becuase of much bigger scope that what was planned in the beginning. They make whole new game out of it.

🖥️ 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

20 minutes ago, draconus said:

What we already know it is delayed becuase of much bigger scope that what was planned in the beginning. They make whole new game out of it.

That's good to know - let's hope they don't "StarCitizen" the product. Significantly changing the scope of a title after announcing a release date and releasing marketing material makes my skin crawl. Here's four fingers crossed (and two toes) for a successful launch in the future 🙂 

[Ed: I'm referring to SC's excessive feature / scope creep, NOT the funding model]


Edited by cfrag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Int3rc3pt0r said:

MAC will also be arcade but not free, so there is no competition with free to play War Thunder.

 

Sorry, I don't agree.

DCS MAC will will have accurate FM.

WT at it's best has dubious FM and seems to mainly be played by people in 3rd person mode using a mouse.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a stickler for super high-fidelity WWII modules, though I own several. Though I insist on HF in jets.

 

But the closer for DCS warbirds - as opposed to other WWII sims -  is the glorious DCS map selection to fly them over. Makes all the difference.

Some of the planes, but all of the maps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2021 at 5:19 AM, Int3rc3pt0r said:

Here is a forum topic that is doomed to death because FC3 style is not allowed in DCS World. See how many people have hoped to make a dream come true. We would pay for it!

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245641-su-30mkk-full-fid-or-fc3-version/page/5/#comment-4554860

  There are already games that do that, are focused on it, and do it better.

 

I really don't get the mentality of everything needing to be identical. If you want simplified WWII planes, there's literally a myriad of choices going back decades. DCS does one thing that's actually unique, and it's what 95% of the population are here for. All of this marketing nonsense and ''think of the moneies11!!1!!'' is pointless. If they really wanted to focus on money they'd get out of flight sims altogether and go do something actually profitable.


Edited by Mars Exulte
  • Like 2
Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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