Flaming Cliffs 3

[Sov13t]

FC has been very nice glue for the community so far.

 

Point, Set, Match, Game over... case closed.

[GGTharos]

I don't entirely agree; specifically, I'm sort of 'meh' about shooting at the same type of aircraft I'm flying. You've seen me advocate not putting the same types of aircraft on both sides. You can't do that AND be popular very easily though, so most don't do it this way.

 

And although I'm biased towards one side, others are biased towards the other (they don't want to be shooting up flankers in their flanker) and I totally get where they're coming from. I want my traditional opponent, not another one of whatever I'm flying :)

 

But once we got a DCS-(Multirole)Fighter we won't need too much glue anymore I'd guess. ;)

 

Except for those, who deny flying anything else than a russian aircraft... :doh:

[Laud]

Well, that is a valid point I hadn't in mind.

 

This also rises the point, that fighter AI will need some serious improvement, to make A-A-Combat with DCS fun.

 

I don't entirely agree; specifically, I'm sort of 'meh' about shooting at the same type of aircraft I'm flying. You've seen me advocate not putting the same types of aircraft on both sides. You can't do that AND be popular very easily though, so most don't do it this way.

 

And although I'm biased towards one side, others are biased towards the other (they don't want to be shooting up flankers in their flanker) and I totally get where they're coming from. I want my traditional opponent, not another one of whatever I'm flying :)

[golfsierra2]

Well, that is a valid point I hadn't in mind.

 

This also rises the point, that fighter AI will need some serious improvement, to make A-A-Combat with DCS fun.

 

IMHO, you get the most fun out of FC/DCS by not flying against AI opponents. They are nice for training, but the real kick is to fight against a human opponent, with all his/her skills and unpredictability.

[Boberro]

Well, that is a valid point I hadn't in mind.

 

This also rises the point, that fighter AI will need some serious improvement, to make A-A-Combat with DCS fun.

Or make either 2 modules at once or make FC 4 :D

[104th_Crunch]

Or make either 2 modules at once or make FC 4 :D

 

and wait twice as long... not!

[asparagin]

This also rises the point, that fighter AI will need some serious improvement, to make A-A-Combat with DCS fun.

 

Oh yes!

[HiJack]

Release of FC3 (or something similar) is of course completely up to ED but if they want to attract new unskilled players to the DCS series FC3 would be a very easy jump for a newcomer. Well you say, they can fly in the current FC2, can’t they? Yes of course they can but will you all guys be in FC2? No you will not! So the newcomer plays around in FC2 single player and can’t find any useful server with serious players, just one pawn king killing him all the time, he will definitely not be a returning player. Now what would it take to introduce a “rookie” slot on a very good DCS server flying an F-15 or MiG-29 or A-10A from FC3? It cannot be that complicated, can it? I guess that the new player will be much more interested in keeping up practicing and maybe starting this as a hobby when joining TS3 with you all! The new player may already have decided that he will spend hours upon hours learning one aircraft and all its functions, but I guess this will be very few new players. So if ED wants new players to join Microsoft Flight and stay there and out of reach for DCS, they may take that decision.

 

If I were ED I would produce a FC3 (or similar) with multiplayer capabilities in to DCS (and keep it that way throughout the series) and present the FC3 “package” as the quick way in to serious flying, no complicated cockpits but all the fireworks. It will take some marketing skills but in my mind it will definitely interest a larger group of new players than an advanced learning SIM of F/A-18 or F-16.

 

But then again, will any of us really survive the age of the consoles? :protest:

 

So they should really be introducing a cloud based flight sim ;) (Flying around in it like HAWKS :P )

 

(HJ)

[combatace]

IMHO, you get the most fun out of FC/DCS by not flying against AI opponents. They are nice for training, but the real kick is to fight against a human opponent, with all his/her skills and unpredictability.

 

Thats true but the only problem I have seen with humans is, they either run like hell when fired upon or in F-15 spam 3 to 4 Aim-120s.. People talk of realism but both this tricks are useless in real life.

[EtherealN]

Release of FC3 (or something similar) is of course completely up to ED but if they want to attract new unskilled players

 

"Unskilled" in which way?

 

95% of the people that know all the ins and outs of the A-10C CDU don't have the faintest clue how to work effectively as a combat unit. Being anal-retentive about switchology does NOT make you a "skilled" warfighter. ;)

[HiJack]

"Unskilled" in which way?

 

95% of the people that know all the ins and outs of the A-10C CDU don't have the faintest clue how to work effectively as a combat unit. Being anal-retentive about switchology does NOT make you a "skilled" warfighter. ;)

Unskilled in terms of flight sim.

[Laud]

95% of the people that know all the ins and outs of the A-10C CDU don't have the faintest clue how to work effectively as a combat unit. Being anal-retentive about switchology does NOT make you a "skilled" warfighter. ;)

 

Not knowing how to operate your aircraft and your systems will not make you an effective warfighter either...

 

 

DCS and FC2 both have their highly skilled pilots and squadrons, knowing how to fly AND to fight.

 

And for me personally (in the first line a fighter pilot) I like the DCS A-10, because the complex functionality adds a lot to the immersion and by that to the whole experience. So I'll keep flying DCS A-10 until there'll be a fighter.

 

And I really don't care, whether there will be a compatible FC3 or not...

[GGTharos]

And among those, you'll run into the 5% who'll kick your lights out in A2A while you're cursing them for thinking they're doing exactly that :D

 

That's the whole thing with human opponents. Yes, many are as predictable as the AI, but if you're proactive, that predictability helps you win. And then you get those unpredictable things which give you all the fun experiences. You don't get that with AI.

 

Thats true but the only problem I have seen with humans is, they either run like hell when fired upon or in F-15 spam 3 to 4 Aim-120s.. People talk of realism but both this tricks are useless in real life.

[golfsierra2]

And then you get those unpredictable things which give you all the fun experiences. You don't get that with AI.

 

Yup !

[Viper101]

I think an FC3 has definitely been an option but the only problem is ED doesn't know what to call the combined pack, since Gold and Platinum have already been taken. Time to go check out the periodic table for attractive names.:book:

 

:D

[Nate--IRL--]

I think an FC3 has definitely been an option but the only problem is ED doesn't know what to call the combined pack, since Gold and Platinum have already been taken. Time to go check out the periodic table for attractive names.:book:

 

:D

 

Lock On:- Titanium? Has a nice ring to it don't you think? :)

 

Nate

[Viper101]

Titanium

 

Platinum is more valuable though:smartass:

 

Hah, the only fear I have of this is turning Flaming Cliffs into the next Pokemon color series.:megalol:

[EtherealN]

Not knowing how to operate your aircraft and your systems will not make you an effective warfighter either...

 

...which was totally what I said, wasn't it? ;)

 

 

DCS and FC2 both have their highly skilled pilots and squadrons, knowing how to fly AND to fight.

 

Individual squadrons were not the topic of discussion. ;)

 

What I was objecting to was the notion that a possible FC3 would be something to attract "unskilled players". Learning how to fly a "simple" FC2 aircraft effectively as part of a team takes a LOT more skill and training than learning how to flip switches in A-10C. That's my point.

 

Obviously, having both at the same time is preferable, but not possible right now.

 

People need to get over this notion that FC somehow takes less "skill" to play. It takes less "skill" to fly and fire missiles, sure. But you still need to apply good training to do it well, and the specific training required doesn't give a hoot about whether you flipped 10 switches or just pressed a button on your X52.

[digitaljjd]

One of the few is right. FC has been very nice glue for the community so far.

 

It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together does it? I don't doubt that as I have FC2, FC and LOMAC, and I can see the potential for a larger multiplayer online experience. All I'm saying is, I'm ready for something new, à la DCS. It doesn't matter what flavor, be it hornet or tomcat or eagle to savor...be it falcon or viper they both taste the same, as surely as spooky and spectre share an airframe. I'd rather have a ten thousand foot view from Nevada and a new fighter jet, then a Flaming Cliffs 3 in the LOMAC quartet. Wow, I think somebody put something extra in my coffee. It is an excellent series...I don't know, I might consider it. How can you have parts 1, 2, and 3, without 4?

[golfsierra2]

People need to get over this notion that FC somehow takes less "skill" to play. It takes less "skill" to fly and fire missiles, sure. But you still need to apply good training to do it well, and the specific training required doesn't give a hoot about whether you flipped 10 switches or just pressed a button on your X52.

 

Which is fine with me and I think with most of the people on this forum as well. It's true that when a newcomer joines a FC2 server and gets shot down two weeks in a row will be frustrated. But that is OK, because he either works hard on his skills or he turns away from the simulation ad enjoys a standard ego-shooter sim instead.

 

I'm convinced, that all the people here, who have gone the long road from Flanker / Lock-On to FC1 and FC2, will stay with the sim, because they know what they have.

[Rhen]

That right there is the essence of the argument.

 

LockOn does not adequately model Real World capabilities and limitations of weapons, radars, ECM, ECCM. Imperative to be added to that list is probably the most important aspect - the Flight Model. DCS at present does as far as circumstances permit and continues to improve upon said modelling with every reiteration.

 

If LockOn had to be tweaked to bring it up to DCS standards in relating to Flight Model, Weapons, Radars, ECM etc etc then we'll have DCS - Realistically we all know that's not gonna happen......to LockOn, that is.

 

The argument of Hard-Core vs Non-Hardcore therefore does not stem from the fact that there are more buttons to press et al, but rather the fact that with DCS it takes 100% of effort/2 minutes to attend to a specific goal, whereas in LockOn it takes 50%/1 minute to attend to the very same goal.

 

Taking the extremely simplified example as above one can understand why DCS users will be a wee bit irritated at a LockOn users who rely on the inherent 'simpleness' of the LockOn Flight Model/Weapons model etc etc to obtain an advantage, be it in time, effort or otherwise, in a mission - Therein lies the problem, albeit one easily solved by server-specific missions.

 

Sorry for the late reaction to your post, but I rarely visit here much anymore... :noexpression: At any rate, your retort that in DCS it takes all your concentration to do some task, which shows its "hard-core"ness is still rather short-sighted.

 

I agree 100% that it takes -you- 100% effort to perform some task while trying to fly the jet, etc. However, you fail to realize that REAL pilots don't usually get task saturated by doing things that they've trained for and practiced many times, so as to build those habit patterns and thusly are able to actually fly, chew gum, lock a target, continue visual lookout, and talk on the radio, all without appearing to have a helmet fire going on at the same time.

 

You should also agree, that it takes the generic, well-trained, real life combat pilot, a lot less than 100% effort to perform tasks that take the average simmer to the end of his wits. Granted, it takes 100% effort for any real pilot to do certain tasks AND maintain SA AND wrangle his/her wingmen AND avoid surface-to-air threats AND coordinate on two different radios at the same time. We all get maxed out from time-to-time.

 

However, with proper training, habit patterns, threat study, brevity, experience, etc. that task saturation point becomes something experienced with less frequency for a real pilot than your standard sim pilot.

 

I had SUPT, IFF, F-15 B-course, Continuation training, a couple of Cope Thunders, a few Red Flags, and FWS. My level of task saturation is probably modeled well by a FC2 aircraft and all its simplicity. If you didn't have to flick all those pretty switches and worry about doing all your procedures correctly in your hog, then you'd probably have the same level of task saturation that an experienced hog pilot would have.

 

Hard core is how you fly and fight, and train. It's possible to do hard core even in a simple sim such as FC2. It's made harder by inaccuracies inherent in the design, but it's still possible to approximate MODERN AIR COMBAT, despite these inaccuracies and balanced game play paradigms built into the program.

[Laud]

People need to get over this notion that FC somehow takes less "skill" to play. It takes less "skill" to fly and fire missiles, sure. But you still need to apply good training to do it well, and the specific training required doesn't give a hoot about whether you flipped 10 switches or just pressed a button on your X52.

 

But the difference is not only the switch-flipping. Saying that would over-simplify the point. The difference from FC2 to DCS is the combination of the system depth and the AFM and the resulting limits you have to consider before acting. Also a lot of you seem to be 90% focused on killing something or somebody. I enjoy the possibility of coming closer to a real combat pilots work with 70% flying the aircraft, navigate, manage your systems and 30% weapon employment. This is the reason why I have never touched FC2 again since the BETA-Release of the A-10C. It's because of the overall experience and the possibilitie to use a lot (really a lot!) RL documents and procedures.

 

Looking at A-A combat exclusively, the pvp part will most likely not be sufficiently compensated by the AI. That's something I agree with completely. But everything else is so much more fun with a DCS aircraft compared to a FC2 aircraft.

 

I hope you get my point now, as I felt a bit misunderstood, reading your answers to my previous post.

[GGTharos]

But the difference is not only the switch-flipping. Saying that would over-simplify the point. The difference from FC2 to DCS is the combination of the system depth and the AFM and the resulting limits you have to consider before acting. Also a lot of you seem to be 90% focused on killing something or somebody. I enjoy the possibility of coming closer to a real combat pilots work with 70% flying the aircraft, navigate, manage your systems and 30% weapon employment. This is the reason why I have never touched FC2 again since the BETA-Release of the A-10C. It's because of the overall experience and the possibilitie to use a lot (really a lot!) RL documents and procedures.

 

Looking at A-A combat exclusively, the pvp part will most likely not be sufficiently compensated by the AI. That's something I agree with completely. But everything else is so much more fun with a DCS aircraft compared to a FC2 aircraft.

 

I hope you get my point now, as I felt a bit misunderstood, reading your answers to my previous post.

 

In PvP the only thing that matters is blowing up/killing things. All that navigational hoo-hah in your plane is there for exactly one purpose: To make aircraft operation 10% and weapons employment 90%. You basically got it backwards. You might pine for the old nostalgic days of 'zomg this is how you really had to fly' but real pilots - real combat pilots at least - don't want any of of that. They don't want to think about their engines stalling if they move the throttle too fast, they don't want to think about over-g'ing, exceeding the AoA limit, or fighting adverse yaw. They don't want /any/ of this. They want to be able to fight the plane, not worrying flying the plane while fighting. Don't believe me? Look at the latest aircraft designs around the world ... military and civilian alike.

 

And exactly for that reason, FC2 is an adequate A2A simulator.

 

I -do- agree that what you mentioned puts the 'flight' into Combat Flight Simulation however, and I welcome it :)

[159th_Viper]

....At any rate, your retort that in DCS it takes all your concentration to do some task, which shows its "hard-core"ness is still rather short-sighted....

 

You misunderstood my post - I expressly stated that the circumstances being referred to is an 'extremely simplified example'. Be that as it may, let's for the purposes of healthy debate take the following scenario:

 

DCS:F15 vs FC2/3:F15

 

Taking for granted that the ficticious F15 is modelled to/exceeds the standard of modelling of the A10C at present, Pilot A (DCS) vs Pilot B (FC2) in the typical Death-Match scenario we see on servers at present:

 

Are you saying that Pilot B is on an equal footing with Pilot A insofar as gameplay is concerned if we assume 2 Virtual Pilots of a similar skill-set? In other words, FC2/3 pilot has no advantage whatsoever over the DCS pilot?

 

Let's face it - at the end of the day that's what it's all about for the majority of players. As such any comparison to DCS:A10C and FC2/3 is short-sighted......it's the Fast-Jets that matter.

[Cali]

Excellent post Rhen, wish I could rep you more. Hopefully the "Hardcore" guys will finally understand this.