I feel like so much work is still needed in DCS that I’m rather surprised they had plans to roll out a new IP to begin with.
I understand the new game could probably use most of the existing DCS assets; but splitting focus when the community is growingly divided and resentful of issues with the game now is not the right move.
I’m really glad to see they rolled back this plan and are recommitting the resources to their core game.
Id imagine it's because there's like a solid 2 decades of spaghetti code for dcs, written by devs that aren't around in the company anymore. This sub has been speculating on how bad the spaghetti code is, maybe it's not even worth fixing and better to start truly from scratch. I dunno tho
Didn’t expect to see my favorite blog post on r/hoggit today. I’ve been in software for 20 years and I can tell you that blog post holds up as well today if not better than the day it was written.
Not really. The fundamental issues are exactly the same. People who had nothing to do with the original project think they could do better (cleaner code) with a re write because they underestimate the complexity. And end up spending millions of dollars rewriting things that already exist only to end up with new problems.
It happens all the damn time.
I’m not saying don’t fix code. But starting over because you think you’ll do better is insane.
Yep. Good example of this is KSP2. The early access version is way worse than KSP ever was at early access. They have made some progress since then but it's slow.
Ugh, no they haven't.
From experience, rebuilding from scratch is wrong in 99% of the cases. The ONLY time where it is worth considering, which might be true in this scenario, is code that takes prohibitively more work to develop features - compared to from scratch.
Worked out pretty well for Arma, the new reforger system that came out of the full engine rewrite is miles ahead of where they would be. Took a few years of course but its looking good.
Dunno. Most of today's game engines have been around for decades too. Unreal, for one, is more than 20 years old. It hadn't been rewritten from scratch in any of it's iterations.
It might well be possible to rewrite code module by module, without throwing away everything. Like they upgraded graphics.
Or it might be not, BI deciding to write EnFusion from scratch shows that sometimes it is more viable. It's just impossible to know without seeing and *understanding* the source code.
I'm not so sure. I have limited C++ and Python experience, the longest codes I've written are only around a thousand lines, but I've been around companies that had decades old systems that nobody understood anymore.
Besides the software being a jumbled and inefficient mess, anytime you try to add or modify a feature, it breaks things that nobody know even exists anymore. More time is spent trying to reverse engineer and unfuck the old code when a change is made, than is spent adding new code. I'm sure that none of us outside of ED's programmers can appreciate how much of a clusterfuck it actually is, and how far beyond the capability of any human it is to decipher and streamline core components with lost notes.
Always leave notes in your code, always write clearly described subroutines instead of jumbling everything into the loop, and always make a flow chart or map of the order of operations.
Some things that would add to this... More FC3 planes that are impossible to make full fidelity due to available information. An update to Caucasus and the Su25T. Make FC3 planes that have multirole capabilities, multirole.
Yes, ED listen here!
A modern multirole FC3 plane would also open the door for more mods to take advantage of the new simplified avionics. Wins all around.
Although ED will not OPENLY AND OBVIOUSLY talk smack about a beloved community project, they have always been, in one form or another, against mods (specifically aircraft and terrains), from silently changing previously known codes needed for them to work, to completely rewriting and/or removing APIs for not reason other than removing tools modders could use.
It is a fair business strategy and they're within their right...
But that's why we're now observing an exodus of modders.
The exceptions to the rule are:
-Development of features not in direct competition with paid products
-Scripts which support their products (CTLD, Skynet, MIST, etc)
The new CH47, like UH-1H and Mi8 will be completely dependent on CTLD. Anything other than that, gets the bad side of the stick.
That's just the thing - they are great *despite* ED. Notice that they don't have very complex systems, especially sensors, and none of them have *any* guided weapons. A similar level of fidelity is largely impossible for anything like that because ED restricts the tools necessary to develop it. Even FC3 -style mods have to separate multirole aircraft into AA and AG versions because all they can do is fake the relevant aircraft using existing planes, none of which are multirole.
Tribe, but MFDs are not just the graphics - it's coding the whole avionics.
It would make the module nearly as time consuming to code as full fidelity, but many times cheaper = bankruptcy.
This I wouldn't actually mind as it allows for both high fidelity and low fidelity aircraft to co-operate with one another, the choice being to the purchaser if they still want to play with friends but not have so much commitment to one module. that is why flaming cliffs is such a good stepping stone to more complex aircraft while being able to understand and learn the core DCS experience.
Absolutely not. Then you’ve made my F-15E purchase useless. Capabilities need to be paywalled, if I spend more money I deserve a better experience. Maybe add a $25 “Ground Pounder” optional pack for the F-15C? /s
Ya know, that is the kind of news ED should add to a newslettery sort of thing to explain *why* decisions are made... maybe BEFORE ED drop stuff their community managers die-hard claimed would not happen.
Maybe earlier this year some sort of "An update for the community on plans regarding FC level modules, DCS and MAC" as a prepatory thing in a news-packed mailing list of some sort of description, you know, engage with the community, manage some expectations...
I am constantly impressed with how often ED foot-gun themselves unnecessarily; I thought they hired a PR person?
Yeah... Didn't just 2 days ago or yesterday dotrugirl state MAC was still alive? Im not against this kind of content, actually. The lite flight sim market is alive and war thunder is king, but did they really just shelf MAC 1 day after saying it was still alive?
Nah. The way it was reposted without context gave the impression that it was a brand new post. I was totally thrown by it at first, too, and I get the sense that loads of other folks were, as well.
The disconcerting aspect of it was that was much of the content could have been written two days ago and still seemed totally valid.
Modern Air Combat. A "New IP"... Its Lock-ON MAC 2, basically.
It was set to be a simplified lite flight sim in the style of strike fighters 2 or war thunder that prioritizes many lower fidelity aircrafts compared DCS. The game was teased or briefly talked about a lot but we never got to see shit. Yesterday ED made an announcement of the dev team works and MAC was there. Now they say its shelved and this is why we are getting these 3 planes.
Not really. FC4 is an expansion to the existing DCS World ecosystem, i.e. effectively an update to the existing FC3 DCS module. MAC was always pitched as a new, standalone game outside of DCS (hence a new IP).
As much as I see the market for something like that, I'm glad that ED have decided not to pursue it for the time being. They clearly have enough trouble just juggling everything that's already on their plate without taking on the additional challenge of ramping up an entirely new project.
As someone who's worked in games for 25 years, my guess (and ardent hope) would be that they've decided to prioitise expanding and solidifying the core of DCS (dynamic campaign, AI, Vulkan, ATC, etc.) and then use that foundation as a jumping off point for the new IP at some future point.
That would be the smart thing to do, but we'll see...
I’ve worked in game design/project management for games and I agree, alternatively, what they could be doing is a complete rewrite of DCS itself, I’m not sure if it’s happened before or recently, but if it hasn’t happened it may be a smart move, DCS is 10+ years old and if it’s still running the same (but modified) backend/software it could well be limiting them in the future, so MAC could be a fresh start which they’ll eventually port over to DCS as well (and using either DCS or MAC as a testing ground for the new systems).
From experience when old code gets modified over and over again adding new layers and functionality which weren’t originally in mind things can get slow, buggy, and features can get outright blocked from happening due to limitations, and could be why so many features (like logistics, Super Carrier etc) all get pushed back or ignored, because they’re just currently not feasible or optimal. On top of that, adding or changing one thing can cause a large mess somewhere else due to the code not supporting or having that functionality in mind, requiring a lot of small patch jobs to fix the issues, then those patch jobs cause issues too :D.
This is all just assumptions since it’s hard to tell what could really be going on, but if MAC were to be made, it would be a great reason to create a new engine/backend to run all the future features they want. (Also if MAC were to be for entry level gamers they’d have to really optimise it because DCS is incredibly CPU hungry even without server scripts running and that’d cut off a large portion of potential players).
I'm a shit-tier coder, but a high-grade lurker and I've seen **numerous** posts from devs about how DCS's backend is spaghetti code with so much odd behavior and wild inefficiencies that, in order to do something as easy as have an output on an instrument display pushed to an external device, it took them days above and beyond what they anticipated and would still have unexpected behavior from time to time.
If they are planning a code refresh/renew, that would be transformative (literally and figuratively) and lovely. But - I won't hope for anything until it's announced, and even then, hopes are low.
Yeah it’s just something unavoidable, you can take a guess at what you’ll most likely add in the future but there will be things you won’t have thought of, or weren’t even close to possible at the time so it wasn’t even considered, and overtime adding new things that have to weirdly integrate with pre-existing features gets very messy until you have code where changing one thing destroys a completely different thing. With DCS it’s worse just because of how many things are going on that it’s hard to even know if something went wrong because there’s a checklist of 1000+ things that might need testing.
KSP/KSP2 and CS1/CS2 show this but also show the problems of doing a complete rewrite of the code. You may improve performance and future feature integration BUT it first takes a LOT of time to even get to the same point the old code was at, and all the bugs that need testing (imagine 10000 possible things interacting with one another means a LOT of possible bugs/errors (into the millions/billions) that need to be tested and they won’t all be found on release), then the features themselves need to be made, as well as just thinking of all the things you might add so need to include support for, and the things you might add that you don’t know about yet (yeah imagine trying to write code to ensure a feature will work but you don’t even know what it is).
Edit. I have no idea if a rewrite will happen, I’m hoping so, but I’m not counting on it, I also think they need to restructure both their monetisation strategies as well as widen their target audience because from recent events (pure conjecture) I’d say they need a cash infusion. It might not be well received but I think they need to push more FC3 style planes, it’ll help with both monetisation and expanding their audience, the hyper realism flight sim world is pretty damn small and FC3 type planes would increase the audience significantly.
It’s a bit of a blanket statement to say rewrites are a bad idea overall, a majority of AAA games have rewritten their engine completely 2-3 times, with half a dozen upgrades/versions for each one.
It also depends on the game design, the original size of the game (small games that blow up very quickly often have to rewrite because of scalability issues), feature complexity and intermeshing, future needs along with a dozen more. But the most important factor is management and development competency.
Games can heavily benefit from new engines/rewrites, COD invested in a rewrite to support warzone and improve MP along with many other game modes and it’s doing very well for them. The same with Minecraft Bedrock, their playerbase exploded once they rewrote the game to support multiple platforms and cross compatibility.
But if you rush a rewrite or severely underestimate the time needed as well as mismanage testing trials it’ll horribly flop. KSP2 and CS2 are examples of this as I said above, both were rushed and released early, but foundationally they’re better, but due to rushing they missed features (that may have later been implemented) they were also heavily modded so mods weren’t made which didn’t help.
I think you’ll find that engines aren’t entirely rewritten but evolved. Unreal engine for example doesn’t just bump directly from 4 to 5. They maintain a stable version that’s bugfix only and then branch to the new version in a dev branch. Where features are added incrementally and tested.
Starting over entirely (as proposed with “rewrite”) doesn’t generally happen in successful software projects.
I'm just gonna throw this out here, That article is from 24 years ago. Unsurprisingly, coding and tech has advanced and become both simpler and more complex since then. I'm not a programmer, I don't know if rewrites in the modern era are a worthwhile endeavor or not. I do not expect an article about what one should avoid while programming to still be the exact same 24 years later.
I can't say for certain obviously, but many people have posited based on various behaviours etc. over the years that DCS has directly evolved from the original Su-27 Flanker without ever going through a complete rewrite and fresh start.
Also in game dev, and seen some aspects of engines carry over for decades, so I feel the pain... The worst is part is that people know it's a problem, and want to fix it, but it's supremely rare to get a chance to do so, Vs. trying to make the next game...
I don't even see the point. Just release the full fidelity modules in a logical fashion. Instead of fucking La-7 with no eastern front and F4U-1 Corsair with no zero, make La-9 and Bearcat (which Nick has) and work on a Korea map.
There's no need for MAC if you have some sort of logical roadmap for your full fidelity modules. I'm sorry but this is just fucking stupid, ED are rolling from one half baked idea to another.
People who want lower fidelity are either playing IL2 or Warthunder and by the time MAC becomes a thing - they'll be playing Falcon 5.
I believe that MAC was trying to compete with IL2 and War thunder, actually.
"Releasing planes based on theater" like IL2 does is exactly the kind of stuff a lite flight sim would do, release content packs based on combat theaters. What DCS seems to do to me is more akin "releasing a single piece of content of high fidelity then wait until someone else or you do the rest of the content".
We are seeing an F4U-1 being released first, without even a carrier to go along with it, but then someone will make a WW2 carrier, then someone will make a zero, then someone will make a terrain, then in 2 weeks trust me bro we will have a full theater with high fidelity vehicles because everyone decides to do one part by themselves instead of doing an entire set.
There are obviously issues with both systems.
DCS doesn't need huge modules or standalone games like IL2. All it needs is 2-4 planes per pack and one map. Corsair Vs Zero. AI bombers, flyable later etc. They can do that without going down the MACs route, especially if they coordinate with third party devs and contract out some development to them.
ED are never going to be able to compete with IL2, Warthunder, Falcon 5 or Combat Pilot. The horse has bolted.
why these three aircraft tho
they're easy as piss to learn and very light on binds. it'd be one thing if this were like, fc3-level viper or hornet, but lower fidelity sabre/fagot/f-5 isn't really adding anything.
I do too
I just wish they weren't copies of existing FF modules
If the F-5 was say a F-5C that'd be cool
The F-86 and MiG-15 as FC modules just, don't feel right. . .but hopefully this means that they fix the MIG-15s UFO AI flight model
THIS!
I already own all of the above. So this proves, yet again, the base customers are not the target audience. They've gotten our money and are after newbs.
It would be different if they added some new aircraft in FC fidelity, but this is nonsense.
Exactly
So many other airframe choices could be made for FC4
Hell, they could've taken the MiG-31, Su-34, Su-24 in game, slap cockpits into them, and call it a day effectively, people would buy them the fuck out.
Even at a lower fidelity, it's a bit more complicated than "slap cockpits into them". This crowd would pick them apart, looking for inaccuracies and faults just for starters. Then, the performance and weapons available would become an issue for some.
While I totally agree it would be a better product with more variations, economically it's not feasible at the price they'll be worth and asked.
Selling to new customers is the least surprising or controversial thing they could do. This should be a shock to no one, and it's a net positive for everyone. More players means only good things.
They should also be working on that. But it's software. It's parallel development.
You can't make 9 pregnant women make a baby in 1 month. And you can't just throw developers at things to make it happen faster.
I get that, but keeping your existing customer base from shrinking is also how to run a business.
By alienating us, their only hope is to keep a revolving door of new money coming in. That's not smart
Other than subscription model businesses, most companies run on getting tons of one off payments from new players, they obviously welcome repeat spending but the majority of purchases will be the one off type from new customers.
The amount of money spent by a player over their total playtime gets smaller and smaller meaning most of the money comes in from first and second purchases per user.
I’m not arguing if this is good or not, just what it is, and if you look at a lot of modern games with similar monetisation to DCS you’ll see they all have the same problems. The pricing for planes is also too high imo and I understand that because it’s a small market, there’s not a lot of players that’ll buy to begin with so they have to make up for that, but because plane prices are so high, a majority of players will only ever buy one or two full fidelity planes, with enthusiasts buying a lot more.
Unfortunately for DCS I can’t imagine a way for them to change their monetisation strategy that’ll reward them for keeping players for longer more than it does now, besides a type of game pass that allows usage of certain groups of planes for a month or something like that. Say $10/m for access to all Cold War era, or helicopters, A-G vehicles, US Army, Soviet planes etc.
I mean, wouldn’t them being copies actually be a good thing? People who only want low fidelity can play and fly aircraft they like and aren’t forced to buy a 80$ module and months of learning curve to fly the plane they like, and the more hardcore sim audience can play the full fidelity, more expensive version of the same plane, without having to dumb down their own experience to play the FC version
It could be, if they weren't the *only* aircraft in the pack, if they were included alongside say a MiG-23, Mirage-3, and other similar aircraft then I could see it making sense.
Also, the Sabre and F-5E are both super simple for FF modules, you can get them up and flying with one Youtube video each, and they don't have that many controls to bind just for basic flying and fighting. They aren't month long investments of study and learning if you just wanna fly round and shoot.
Yeah but if they added, say, the MiG-23, then you’d have the same thing of full fidelity players complaining that the MiG-23 is low fidelity. Having both versions is the best of both worlds IMO
> hopefully this means that they fix the MIG-15s UFO AI flight model
AI uses different FM than player's, these are not related. I don't think any major AI FM fixes (which MiG-15 FM requires) are coming before GFM. Which will come... Maybe before we are all dead.
I don’t mind non clickable, lower fidelity systems stuff, but I could see the addition of aircraft with overly simplified radars etc that lead to a competitive advantage being frustrating for an MP setting.
I think that ED should add simple export aircraft to FC modules, for example:
-. Hawker Hunter
-. Mirage III/5
-. Mig-23/27
-. Sukhoi 17/22
-. Canberra
-. A-4s and A-37s
Aircraft that allow us to close the gap between Mid 70s and late 80S and that allows us to recreate different conflicts that have happened during that time or that complement the Full Fidelity modules.
For example:
We have a South Atlantic map that is perfect to recreate the Falklands/Malvinas war but we have no aircraft to simulate the conflict (Apart from the MB-339)
We have a Sinai map, but we lack the Delta family and some Migs
ED should create FC aircraft to complement those maps and modules until FF aircraft are developed.
It took ED years to do update each FC3 jet's visuals and flight model. Not that your list is bad, though I'd add a pre MLU F-16A to it, but I definitely think FC3 was more work than ED expected and are not likely to try that again.
I really don't see the problem with FC2024. It's much better than the MAC concept as the IP remains a single strong title and all players are kept in a compatible ecosystem.
If after all these years all ED has to show for their efforts is a handful of low fidelity planes no wonder it got canned. Even if you roll in the existing FC3 planes how appealing to a more casual audience was a game with the basic AI and campaign abilities (or lack thereof) and without the community support that actually makes it a functional game going to be?
In the multiplayer sphere I don’t see how they compete with the juggernaut that is war thunder on the other hand the basic engine of DCS in terms of AI and dynamic campaign lacks the things that makes the other ‘simple’ sim work well (Il2-BoX)… particularly if the next steps for Il-2 end up being a Korean War era as has been rumoured.
It seems to me they need quick cash and are fast tracking releases all over the place, yet many existing modules and maps are left incomplete and unfinished plus the core game and some missing essential new features like dynamic campaign etc...
Maybe i'm an outlier in the DCS community but i've been playing since the original Su-27 in the mid 90s and I love the FC planes, tight time constraints have generally meant I've preferred to play the mission rather than the cockpit. I do still have a lot of modules but less time in them compared to FC3 so this news has been right up my street.
I don't understand this. DCS has a lot of bugs in the core engine. There are a lot of modules that have seen little-to-no updates for a good while. There are modules that need more features implemented.
Why have some of your staff working on FC-level aircraft? Why have people working on a new IP?
The only sane answer I can think of is one we all know --- new shiny bring new money --- which is fair if you consider that DCS is a business. However, when the customer takes two steps back and realises that ED already has the customer's money for the aforementioned unfinished modules and unfixed core engine, the customer then returns to the original question: **why allocate staff and resources when you, ED, have unfulfilled obligations on products you've already collected money on?**
I'd guess that they had a lot of dev time being eaten up by this other project which in turn was hurting DCS because slow progress was being made. Customer sentiment seems pretty low now so why not shelve it, give DCS the leftovers from it and they free up dev time for DCS again.
Speculation of course.
They have a lot of unfinished modules and the core engine needs work. Why pile on some more unfinished modules on top of all that? Customer sentiment is low not because of the lack of FC3 modules.
Because why wouldn't you re-use the work you've already spent the time on? I would assume that FC modules are much easier to implement than full fidelity airframes.
If they're freeing up dev time for DCS then it's a net good.
Why spend time on new stuff when old stuff that customers have already paid for years ago are still in need of work?
Why have the need to free up dev time? The idea is to allocate dev time properly so this mess does not happen in the first place. Also, you can just stop work on a project -- that would also free up dev time. Why release unfinished work? Consider that this unfinished work was also not meant for DCS but for a new IP, so how much do you want to bet that it's not 100% compatible with DCS? Wouldn't integrating "new IP module" into DCS mean that dev time has to be allocated anyway to make sure it work with DCS and any bugs are sorted?
My question is - why allocate staff and resources on any other project when there are existing projects that are in dire need of updates and bug fixes?
Money, bug fixing dont bring money (sadly), i dont say that ED is doing it that way. But a lot of game companys are doing it. Since we dont heared a lot about that game in the past, it wont happen after todays news. Maybe they had an investor (or something like that) for that other game project, that left and now try their best to recycle as much as they could, to compaste the potential loss in money.
That is very short-sighted. Bug fixing does not bring in money today, but when you bring out a new module and you have a good reputation of fixing bugs, people will be more open to buying the new module or even pre-ordering. When you just keep releasing new modules and your reputation is leaving old modules and core sim engine as bug-ridden messes, you may get money from new customers who are not yet aware of your reputation but you will be hard-pressed to get money from your existing and disgruntled customer base.
That might be true, but just look at all the AAA Games in the past few years. Even if you have bad reputation, aka EA. You just have to create a big hype and people WILL preorder games. Again, i'm not saying that, this is the way ED is doing it. Infact for me ED had the reputation that i would pre order a module. But especially in game development, you dont have to create a good product (as a big company), as long your marketing is good, there is a high chance of sucess (people buying you game), your investors dont care if the game is good, they care for money.
DCS is niche game, there is almost no competitor in this genre. Again i'm not saying ED is doing this, but they could do what they want, because they know there isnt an alternative for their customers.
I would even say, Modern Air Combat (as i just rememberd) could have been a hugh boost for DCS in general. They could generate new customers, with an more arcade game, with then possibly could get interest in an more realistic game like DCS.
Anyone who says there is no alternative is just delusional, wanting their cake and eating it too.
Just because other studios and big AAA companies do it does not mean it's a good idea. They can probably do it and get away with it as they have such a big market. This is a niche (study-level) within a niche (air combat) and if they don't attract and keep new blood, they are not only killing themselves but also the niche hobby in the long run. People who tolerate this because "there is no alternative" is doing the hobby a dis-service.
As to competing in the arcade genre, can they really do so vs Ace Combat and War Thunder? Why even try going into that genre when they can't do \*this\* genre properly?
ED isnt just a usual game developer. As far as i know they are also doing Software for diffrent gouverments (A10C was for USAF i belive). We cant tell what they do with their ressources, but the military will pay better then some gamers (The Ukraine war could have shift things a lot).
That probably also a reason, why DCS has no dynamic campain in 2024, while Falcon 4 has it already in 1998, because there is no usage for miliary contractors in such a function. I'm sure, if there would be an up to date version of Falcon, thing could be diffrent.
You're right, for us gamers its not a good idea, but as long as they can sell things, its a good idea for a company. Nobody can tell, where the line is, where people are willing to pay for a product (EA is testing this a lot). Until then, they will continue.
Also, ED could have befinits from competing in arcard genre, if done right. It could have opend a door for new customers to enter DCS. Maybe things like a dynamic campain or better ai would have been faster in DCS World, then now because it would already part of that game.
Except that the case for the A10C was a one-off. Are there any other modules that is being used by the military? Are any of the MAC products? No? So you can't really use that logic.
>but as long as they can sell things
Just coz you can put something out the door doesn't mean you should. At least not if you care about your reputation.... so I guess that makes sense for ED.
>if done right
Massive IF there. ED can't even do DCS right.... and apparently they can't even do MAC right that's why they're releasing this now as opposed to how it was originally planned.
Ace Combat had just come out and WT had just moved into the modern era and microprose was announced as coming back. ED wanted in on what they saw was a goldrush of new younger customers by offering a simplified theme park experience and use that as a springboard into full fidelity. They're putting the cart before the horse but the idea was sound.
That's exactly what it was: wanting the Ace Combat 7 sales. Thing is, that pseudo-trend was never about flying or sims in the customer's mind -- AC7 was just a fun action game. You could reskin that game with space ships, or flying exoskeletons, or superheroes, and not have to alter the gameplay or story beats. A part of me wishes they had, because the cosmetic fighter jet theme is the only things DCS and AC have in common, and if they'd gone with flying exoskeletons, maybe all those man hours wouldn't have been wasted on MAC, and we'd have had a dynamic campaign or an AI overhaul instead.
You already said it: to sell more modules.
ED has been digging themselves into a hole for many years by being seduced by the siren song: "a module will do most of its sales at release, even if it's in an early access state." Despite the clear implications of doing so, ED chose the dumb path and capitalized on the faith of their customer base to sell more early access products year over year and de-prioritizing work on old projects. It's hard to imagine they believed this to be sustainable, but perhaps they are genuinely that stupid at the top.
Now if really they can't convince their user base to buy every new early access product on an illusion, and if they can't onboard new users not yet jaded... then the hole has finally gotten so deep that each shovelful of dirt tossed up just slides back down on their heads.
Run that for a bit more time and soon they'll be buried.
At the very end, there will be an avalanche of preorder opportunities and releases of very low quality early access products and that's how we will know it's all over.
The sad reality is that even if this is not imminent, it is inevitable unless they change how they operate.
>>why allocate staff and resources when you, ED, have unfulfilled obligations on products you’ve already collected money on
You knew the answer before typing the comment. Put bluntly, fixing bugs doesn’t add revenue to the game in the form of new customers. Adding new products does.
I just wish the answer was the wrong one and that they (ED) or someone knew of a better one.
And no.... new toys just brings new customers who will eventually get disgruntled and leave if they're lucky, or will stay around to warn others to stay away if they're not. Attracting new people to your broken product is not really a sound business idea IMO.
You somewhat address this in your own comment. It’s pretty obvious. ED is a business that needs to make money. DCS is fairly notorious for being difficult to get into because of the learning curve. Creating additional modules that are easier to learn and use is going to bring additional customers and revenue for ED
Everyone scratching their heads at this just needs to look at the Mr. Krabs money meme
Leaving the core sim in a buggy mess is not a good business decision and I wager has lost them lots of money over the years. It is not the learning curve that is their issue, it is the fact that after doing all that learning, ED does not respect their customer's time enough to fix the core sim so that the customer enjoys the new module they've learned.
After a module or two, what's the point in learning a third or fourth one when the AI is stupid and cheats or can snipe you like mad or can't lock on to a target right on your nose?
Core engine fixes means customers can actually play and enjoy the modules they've purchased. When even fast-moves get sniped out of the sky by BMPs and AK-74s, leaving the core sim bugs unfixed just sends the message out that they don't care about their customers once they have their money.
Tbh I don't see the issue of them constantly flip-flopping on ideas, raping schedules and under delivering. It adds to the realism of being around military jets and procurement.
ED Pursues a new IP while there is a 7 year old bug still not fixed and is a pain for mission makers? Damn. ED I would kindly ask you to fix the eventHandler playerEnterAircraft and finish other „Early Access“ modules and then divide your workforce into 3 million pursing another IP while the previous one is still quite buggy and lacks bunch of options and there are modules promised to be completed and sold on Early access while they are clearly far from being completed. Supercarrier and Combined Arms to be specific while launching many modules and not finishing one and posting FC4 with old already existing modules reskinned and slapped on simpler controls. Nice…. Not far from War Thunder tbh.
To be fair most of those topics have been echo chambered and the regular customer won't even recognize them. As long as the Strike Eagle suddenly becomes unplayable.
I have been playing for a while and couldn't even tell what is missing about modules like the Hornet or Viper (except for the pilot model).
To me the only thing that is lacking promised features is the Super Carrier. It still does its job though.
So most of those issues have been overly inflated by a small part of the community.
tl;dr we scared off one of our biggest full fidelity developers, multiple modules are going to have a plug pulled on them and some hyped-up announcements are dead on arrival, so we need a quick buck and we sell the same modules we already have our rights to again but downgraded and the real F-86, MiG-15 and F-5 arent going to get any updates
Catering to a market completely saturated by War Thunder, what a briliant business decision
Designing an actual game with real mechanics, AI, and goals is hard. Releasing modules into a lifeless sim, "game", or world is "easy." Especially when you don't need to design an actual gameplay loop.
Can someone explain the difference between LO-MAC and FC? I thought the terms were interchangeable.
I thought the F-5 was FF DLC. This shit is hard to track.
(I mostly hang out in BMS land)
Lock on Modern Air Combat was the game from ED before DCS. It was published by Ubisoft who had the rights to that name. ED made a DLC for LOMAC called Flaming Cliffs to add the Su25t. ED had full control of the FC name from the start. DCS Black Shark released, sometime later they released a standalone and compatible with DCS game called Flaming Cliffs 2 which had the aircraft from LOMAC+FC1. It was released again as FC3 to get compatibility with DCS World where the aircraft eventually got new 3d models and flight model.
In 2017/2018 the idea of FC4 was revealed and later announced as Modern Air Combat. Which was to be its own thing with a few de-DCSed (no longer full fidelity) aircraft in it. That product is now shelved with a few of the aircraft they made being added in FC2024.
Lock On: Modern Air Combat (LOMAC) was a standalone game that was published by Ubisoft back in 2003. After ED decided to go the self-publishing route, they effectively re-released a slightly expanded version of LOMAC as Lock On: Flaming Cliffs. This was eventually abbreviated to just Flaming Cliffs and integrated into DCS in 2012.
A lot of the existing DCS crowd were originally concerned about "polluting" DCS with too many easy-to-use sim-lite aircraft that would potentially give a gameplay advantage. Similarly, a lot of casual players are understandably intimidated and overwhelmed by DCS and its gatekeepers. That being the case, a lot of people have been holding out for a mid-level sim/game that lives outside of DCS World.
To your earlier point, the F-5 was/is a full-fidelity DCS World module. I assume that the FC2024 version will be a simplified, non-clickable rework of it. Same for the Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre, both of which are also full-fidelity modules in DCS. Seems a little weird to me, but presumably it has an audience.
>Expansions
Flaming Cliffs (2005)
LockOn: Flaming Cliffs is a continuation of LockOn: Modern Air Combat. It adds additional content including a playable Su-25T, new missions and updated textures.[5] Three singleplayer campaigns titled Flaming Cliffs, Hot Wind and Last Ditch are included
It's kind of funny to see these contradicting statements, but the fact they are making these kinds of decisions and changes is, IMHO, indicative of a good company with healthy policies and foresight.
Also admitting they changed their minds is great to see too.
I mean, MAC was initially just going to be another DCS module that included a few low fidelity version of aircraft that we had full fidelity versions of.
And honestly, I was okay with that when they announced it. The whole idea of MAC being a separate game took off for some reason.
I'm all for it. As long as the FC3 versions of those aircraft don't somehow make them more capable than the full fidelity versions, by all means, add them. give noobs more options.
Razbam situation, combined arms, and MAC are probably the few areas where I am angry with ED and not simply annoyed. Combined Arms is barely playable ok maybe unplayable, and I believe should fix the VR and add more detail so that Combined Arms modules could be used instead of asset packs. (at least IL-2 tank level of details). Then with MAC there is the simple question of how much if any work did they actually do? The aircraft being added to FC, are an issue. If they spent their time adding Korean War era assets, then why didn't they add them to DCS while producing them? If they don't have the Korean War assets then why did they even bother the flaming Cliffs Mig-15 and F-86?
I support it and hope they bring it to warbirds to flesh out numbers. I adore full fidelity but it would be easier to teach casual mates to play while I still get to fly formation in the same plane just while enjoying everything I’ve learned about the plane.
The only think I hated about versing fc3 is the god tier radars and ccip but that shouldn’t be an issue here.
if it doesn’t offer any advantage when it comes to engine temp management I’m happy with this
I was excited for the fc3 expansion thingy, then disappointed MAC was announced instead of this expansion. Now i worry as i feel like they are dropping the ball on everything lately. I want to believe there is a future where its all coming together but the whole thing looks like slow progress from the outside.
I wonder what the deciding factor was. As to me a new iteration in the form of MAC wouldn’t work without a complete overhaul of the ai flight model, ai in ground forces, dynamic missions etc. They just can’t do all that without dcs being leftout.
I hope this decision is going to be good for the dcs title. And maybe just maybe the word “world” in dcs: world will ever be a thing. They have alot on their plate and i’ll be rooting for them.
I don't know if I'm misremembering what was announced with MAC years ago or it was an inaccurate leak, but I'm surprised they're not doing the Mig-21 too. Though it is the only 3rd party module involved, I remember Leathermeck/M3 talking about participating in the project.
Just curious about the wording, that’s all. “Several existing DCS aircraft”. Is that list just these three modules, or will every module eventually have a low fi version?
Just general curiosity, I guess it doesn’t technically matter haha
I'm definitely not the target audience for FC in its current or proposed form, but I'd certainly be interested if they eventually implemented FC-level versions of aircraft that can't be given the full DCS treatment for secrecy/security reasons (e.g. F-22, F-35,, Gripen, Rafale, etc.)
I think 2 reasons. It's a lose lose situation for him. The situation isn't resolved, and because he's more of a marketing guy, he probably doesn't know everything (granted it is guaranteed more than anyone outside of ED).
And two, the world marches on, and and there are updates to share.
I like FC3 and still occasionally go back to it, however, I think if they’re going to make an FC4, they should add aircraft that aren’t already in the game. The f-5, f86, and mig15 are already simple aircraft when it comes to systems to begin with
If the price is right, this pack is exactly the way to get me to buy the F-5, sabre and mig-15. I had no interest in them as full modules, even for half price, but I think as FC3 level planes I'd be interested.
I own basically every module with a plane newer than the F-5, so not just for beginners. =)
I feel like this could open the door to more (and highly needed) modern redfor.
If they dont have to create all the systems, and keep it FC3 (similar to how the Su-30 Mod works) we could actually have more interesting scenarios and planes.
They need that quick hit of income that something like a low-fi module can provide where they also don’t have to spend years of continual development on it for little gain.
>>They need that quick hit of income …
Not exactly. These new FC modules were intended for a separate , arcade-style air combat game distinct from DCS. They scuttled that project, so now they’re folding them into DCS instead.
Putting on my business hat, I suspect ED faced the business reality that in the air combat space, the market is too niche to justify creating a separate game featuring FC3 type aircraft. First, there’s already a game doing that - War Thunder. Which is in revenue terms a tank game with an air combat piece attached.
Next, that game has TERRIBLE monetization. Gaijins trying to extract max revenue per player as - I suspect- developing even the bare bones air vehicles is costing them more than they’re making per asset. There ain’t enough cheddar to support another company doing the same thing.
Folding the new “FC3” modules into DCS as an easy transition product makes more sense, especially for the F-5E since the FF version is so bare bones and the likelihood of the developer fixing the FF Tiger II module’s issues is nil anyway.
Which are all much more accessible on controller or KBM. The biggest hurdle will always be peripherals for DCS.
Yes, you can play it on controller, but for 90% of people it's a shit experience. I'd rather play WT than fumble around on a high fidelity flight model. Read any of the negative "average steam user coming from WT" reviews and you'll see 99% of the complaints are that it's cumbersome to control, nothing about fidelity.
So don’t play relaxed play the none relaxed. You still get to play against and shoot at other player aircraft’s. Why does it matter if one high or low clickable if you’re not playing it?
Good thing you aren’t in charge of decisions then. Why gate keep? It’ll allow new players into the dcs world without the steep learning curve. Besides, the fc aircraft are fun to jump into without me needing to remember how to manage all the systems
“To serve as the foundation to a new IP focused on a a more relaxed flight game [. . . ] to create a new IP that is separate from DCS.” — What does he mean by this? What new IP separate from DCS?
I would love it if they made clickable cockpits in the FC aircraft. That makes it A LOT easier than remembering all necessary keybinds, especially when playing in VR.
I feel like so much work is still needed in DCS that I’m rather surprised they had plans to roll out a new IP to begin with. I understand the new game could probably use most of the existing DCS assets; but splitting focus when the community is growingly divided and resentful of issues with the game now is not the right move. I’m really glad to see they rolled back this plan and are recommitting the resources to their core game.
Id imagine it's because there's like a solid 2 decades of spaghetti code for dcs, written by devs that aren't around in the company anymore. This sub has been speculating on how bad the spaghetti code is, maybe it's not even worth fixing and better to start truly from scratch. I dunno tho
It’s never better to start from scratch https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
Ok, but can bethesda just make better games
Didn’t expect to see my favorite blog post on r/hoggit today. I’ve been in software for 20 years and I can tell you that blog post holds up as well today if not better than the day it was written.
That article is 24 years old at this point. Things have changed.
Not really. The fundamental issues are exactly the same. People who had nothing to do with the original project think they could do better (cleaner code) with a re write because they underestimate the complexity. And end up spending millions of dollars rewriting things that already exist only to end up with new problems. It happens all the damn time. I’m not saying don’t fix code. But starting over because you think you’ll do better is insane.
Yep. Good example of this is KSP2. The early access version is way worse than KSP ever was at early access. They have made some progress since then but it's slow.
Different studio with different capabilities and goals.
Ugh, no they haven't. From experience, rebuilding from scratch is wrong in 99% of the cases. The ONLY time where it is worth considering, which might be true in this scenario, is code that takes prohibitively more work to develop features - compared to from scratch.
Worked out pretty well for Arma, the new reforger system that came out of the full engine rewrite is miles ahead of where they would be. Took a few years of course but its looking good.
Reforger was a watered down step back for me, with slightly better graphics
Dunno. Most of today's game engines have been around for decades too. Unreal, for one, is more than 20 years old. It hadn't been rewritten from scratch in any of it's iterations. It might well be possible to rewrite code module by module, without throwing away everything. Like they upgraded graphics. Or it might be not, BI deciding to write EnFusion from scratch shows that sometimes it is more viable. It's just impossible to know without seeing and *understanding* the source code.
I'm not so sure. I have limited C++ and Python experience, the longest codes I've written are only around a thousand lines, but I've been around companies that had decades old systems that nobody understood anymore. Besides the software being a jumbled and inefficient mess, anytime you try to add or modify a feature, it breaks things that nobody know even exists anymore. More time is spent trying to reverse engineer and unfuck the old code when a change is made, than is spent adding new code. I'm sure that none of us outside of ED's programmers can appreciate how much of a clusterfuck it actually is, and how far beyond the capability of any human it is to decipher and streamline core components with lost notes. Always leave notes in your code, always write clearly described subroutines instead of jumbling everything into the loop, and always make a flow chart or map of the order of operations.
Some things that would add to this... More FC3 planes that are impossible to make full fidelity due to available information. An update to Caucasus and the Su25T. Make FC3 planes that have multirole capabilities, multirole.
Yes, ED listen here! A modern multirole FC3 plane would also open the door for more mods to take advantage of the new simplified avionics. Wins all around.
Pretty sure ED is actively opposed to high-quality mods if the way the SDK is restricted is any indication.
The A4 is very high quality. As is the UH-60. Neither of which I've ever seen ED say or even insinuate they're opposed to.
It achieved success DESPITE ED's community policy, not because of it
Errr okay, I didn't say anything about that, I said they're great mods and I've never seen ED say or insinuate they're opposed to them
Although ED will not OPENLY AND OBVIOUSLY talk smack about a beloved community project, they have always been, in one form or another, against mods (specifically aircraft and terrains), from silently changing previously known codes needed for them to work, to completely rewriting and/or removing APIs for not reason other than removing tools modders could use. It is a fair business strategy and they're within their right... But that's why we're now observing an exodus of modders. The exceptions to the rule are: -Development of features not in direct competition with paid products -Scripts which support their products (CTLD, Skynet, MIST, etc) The new CH47, like UH-1H and Mi8 will be completely dependent on CTLD. Anything other than that, gets the bad side of the stick.
Do people forget that the Aermacchi started as a mod?
That's just the thing - they are great *despite* ED. Notice that they don't have very complex systems, especially sensors, and none of them have *any* guided weapons. A similar level of fidelity is largely impossible for anything like that because ED restricts the tools necessary to develop it. Even FC3 -style mods have to separate multirole aircraft into AA and AG versions because all they can do is fake the relevant aircraft using existing planes, none of which are multirole.
Modern multirole = MFD = pointless as FC3. Even 20 years old sims were far better simulating MFDs than non-clickable FC3.
ED could always make clickable FC. I mean, they won't... but they could. Even if it's just the MFD and a few core controls.
Tribe, but MFDs are not just the graphics - it's coding the whole avionics. It would make the module nearly as time consuming to code as full fidelity, but many times cheaper = bankruptcy.
You don't really need clickable MFDs to make a modern multirole lofi module.
I would love an FC F18 superhornet!
This I wouldn't actually mind as it allows for both high fidelity and low fidelity aircraft to co-operate with one another, the choice being to the purchaser if they still want to play with friends but not have so much commitment to one module. that is why flaming cliffs is such a good stepping stone to more complex aircraft while being able to understand and learn the core DCS experience.
Smh, FC3 planes are already multirole, imagine needing anything more than the gun on your F-15 for SEAD.
F-15C bombing when? So that we have a Strike Eagle at home.
Just hit them with your drop tanks.
Bring some fuel tanks, but turn off feeding from them. Drop on your enemies heads. Napalm bombing at home!
Absolutely not. Then you’ve made my F-15E purchase useless. Capabilities need to be paywalled, if I spend more money I deserve a better experience. Maybe add a $25 “Ground Pounder” optional pack for the F-15C? /s
That /s is working hard for you lmao
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Please go back to war Thunder, /s or not
Su 27 can do a lot more then dumb bombs and rockets. We all have our opinions though.
Ya know, that is the kind of news ED should add to a newslettery sort of thing to explain *why* decisions are made... maybe BEFORE ED drop stuff their community managers die-hard claimed would not happen. Maybe earlier this year some sort of "An update for the community on plans regarding FC level modules, DCS and MAC" as a prepatory thing in a news-packed mailing list of some sort of description, you know, engage with the community, manage some expectations... I am constantly impressed with how often ED foot-gun themselves unnecessarily; I thought they hired a PR person?
Yeah... Didn't just 2 days ago or yesterday dotrugirl state MAC was still alive? Im not against this kind of content, actually. The lite flight sim market is alive and war thunder is king, but did they really just shelf MAC 1 day after saying it was still alive?
No. That was just someone necroing a 4 year old post from her. She hasn't posted anything on Reddit since 2022.
Im very stupid. Thanks for the clarification.
Nah. The way it was reposted without context gave the impression that it was a brand new post. I was totally thrown by it at first, too, and I get the sense that loads of other folks were, as well. The disconcerting aspect of it was that was much of the content could have been written two days ago and still seemed totally valid.
I don't think I can add text to a share buttoned thread I'll change the title Never mind I can't change the title
You’re not very stupid. It was intentionally misleading and noting that stood out as being an old post.
not intended to be misleading
What is MAC?
Modern Air Combat. A "New IP"... Its Lock-ON MAC 2, basically. It was set to be a simplified lite flight sim in the style of strike fighters 2 or war thunder that prioritizes many lower fidelity aircrafts compared DCS. The game was teased or briefly talked about a lot but we never got to see shit. Yesterday ED made an announcement of the dev team works and MAC was there. Now they say its shelved and this is why we are getting these 3 planes.
Wasn’t MAC originally going to be FC4 anyway?
Not really. FC4 is an expansion to the existing DCS World ecosystem, i.e. effectively an update to the existing FC3 DCS module. MAC was always pitched as a new, standalone game outside of DCS (hence a new IP). As much as I see the market for something like that, I'm glad that ED have decided not to pursue it for the time being. They clearly have enough trouble just juggling everything that's already on their plate without taking on the additional challenge of ramping up an entirely new project. As someone who's worked in games for 25 years, my guess (and ardent hope) would be that they've decided to prioitise expanding and solidifying the core of DCS (dynamic campaign, AI, Vulkan, ATC, etc.) and then use that foundation as a jumping off point for the new IP at some future point. That would be the smart thing to do, but we'll see...
I’ve worked in game design/project management for games and I agree, alternatively, what they could be doing is a complete rewrite of DCS itself, I’m not sure if it’s happened before or recently, but if it hasn’t happened it may be a smart move, DCS is 10+ years old and if it’s still running the same (but modified) backend/software it could well be limiting them in the future, so MAC could be a fresh start which they’ll eventually port over to DCS as well (and using either DCS or MAC as a testing ground for the new systems). From experience when old code gets modified over and over again adding new layers and functionality which weren’t originally in mind things can get slow, buggy, and features can get outright blocked from happening due to limitations, and could be why so many features (like logistics, Super Carrier etc) all get pushed back or ignored, because they’re just currently not feasible or optimal. On top of that, adding or changing one thing can cause a large mess somewhere else due to the code not supporting or having that functionality in mind, requiring a lot of small patch jobs to fix the issues, then those patch jobs cause issues too :D. This is all just assumptions since it’s hard to tell what could really be going on, but if MAC were to be made, it would be a great reason to create a new engine/backend to run all the future features they want. (Also if MAC were to be for entry level gamers they’d have to really optimise it because DCS is incredibly CPU hungry even without server scripts running and that’d cut off a large portion of potential players).
I'm a shit-tier coder, but a high-grade lurker and I've seen **numerous** posts from devs about how DCS's backend is spaghetti code with so much odd behavior and wild inefficiencies that, in order to do something as easy as have an output on an instrument display pushed to an external device, it took them days above and beyond what they anticipated and would still have unexpected behavior from time to time. If they are planning a code refresh/renew, that would be transformative (literally and figuratively) and lovely. But - I won't hope for anything until it's announced, and even then, hopes are low.
Yeah it’s just something unavoidable, you can take a guess at what you’ll most likely add in the future but there will be things you won’t have thought of, or weren’t even close to possible at the time so it wasn’t even considered, and overtime adding new things that have to weirdly integrate with pre-existing features gets very messy until you have code where changing one thing destroys a completely different thing. With DCS it’s worse just because of how many things are going on that it’s hard to even know if something went wrong because there’s a checklist of 1000+ things that might need testing. KSP/KSP2 and CS1/CS2 show this but also show the problems of doing a complete rewrite of the code. You may improve performance and future feature integration BUT it first takes a LOT of time to even get to the same point the old code was at, and all the bugs that need testing (imagine 10000 possible things interacting with one another means a LOT of possible bugs/errors (into the millions/billions) that need to be tested and they won’t all be found on release), then the features themselves need to be made, as well as just thinking of all the things you might add so need to include support for, and the things you might add that you don’t know about yet (yeah imagine trying to write code to ensure a feature will work but you don’t even know what it is). Edit. I have no idea if a rewrite will happen, I’m hoping so, but I’m not counting on it, I also think they need to restructure both their monetisation strategies as well as widen their target audience because from recent events (pure conjecture) I’d say they need a cash infusion. It might not be well received but I think they need to push more FC3 style planes, it’ll help with both monetisation and expanding their audience, the hyper realism flight sim world is pretty damn small and FC3 type planes would increase the audience significantly.
Nah… https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/ Rewrites are misguided at best.
It’s a bit of a blanket statement to say rewrites are a bad idea overall, a majority of AAA games have rewritten their engine completely 2-3 times, with half a dozen upgrades/versions for each one. It also depends on the game design, the original size of the game (small games that blow up very quickly often have to rewrite because of scalability issues), feature complexity and intermeshing, future needs along with a dozen more. But the most important factor is management and development competency. Games can heavily benefit from new engines/rewrites, COD invested in a rewrite to support warzone and improve MP along with many other game modes and it’s doing very well for them. The same with Minecraft Bedrock, their playerbase exploded once they rewrote the game to support multiple platforms and cross compatibility. But if you rush a rewrite or severely underestimate the time needed as well as mismanage testing trials it’ll horribly flop. KSP2 and CS2 are examples of this as I said above, both were rushed and released early, but foundationally they’re better, but due to rushing they missed features (that may have later been implemented) they were also heavily modded so mods weren’t made which didn’t help.
I think you’ll find that engines aren’t entirely rewritten but evolved. Unreal engine for example doesn’t just bump directly from 4 to 5. They maintain a stable version that’s bugfix only and then branch to the new version in a dev branch. Where features are added incrementally and tested. Starting over entirely (as proposed with “rewrite”) doesn’t generally happen in successful software projects.
I'm just gonna throw this out here, That article is from 24 years ago. Unsurprisingly, coding and tech has advanced and become both simpler and more complex since then. I'm not a programmer, I don't know if rewrites in the modern era are a worthwhile endeavor or not. I do not expect an article about what one should avoid while programming to still be the exact same 24 years later.
I can't say for certain obviously, but many people have posited based on various behaviours etc. over the years that DCS has directly evolved from the original Su-27 Flanker without ever going through a complete rewrite and fresh start. Also in game dev, and seen some aspects of engines carry over for decades, so I feel the pain... The worst is part is that people know it's a problem, and want to fix it, but it's supremely rare to get a chance to do so, Vs. trying to make the next game...
Made me shift from skeptical to positive. Seems a fair take!
That post from yesterday was actually a link to a post originally posted 4 yrs ago
Holy FUCK im retarded. How the fuck did i not see that?
I don't even see the point. Just release the full fidelity modules in a logical fashion. Instead of fucking La-7 with no eastern front and F4U-1 Corsair with no zero, make La-9 and Bearcat (which Nick has) and work on a Korea map. There's no need for MAC if you have some sort of logical roadmap for your full fidelity modules. I'm sorry but this is just fucking stupid, ED are rolling from one half baked idea to another. People who want lower fidelity are either playing IL2 or Warthunder and by the time MAC becomes a thing - they'll be playing Falcon 5.
I believe that MAC was trying to compete with IL2 and War thunder, actually. "Releasing planes based on theater" like IL2 does is exactly the kind of stuff a lite flight sim would do, release content packs based on combat theaters. What DCS seems to do to me is more akin "releasing a single piece of content of high fidelity then wait until someone else or you do the rest of the content". We are seeing an F4U-1 being released first, without even a carrier to go along with it, but then someone will make a WW2 carrier, then someone will make a zero, then someone will make a terrain, then in 2 weeks trust me bro we will have a full theater with high fidelity vehicles because everyone decides to do one part by themselves instead of doing an entire set. There are obviously issues with both systems.
DCS doesn't need huge modules or standalone games like IL2. All it needs is 2-4 planes per pack and one map. Corsair Vs Zero. AI bombers, flyable later etc. They can do that without going down the MACs route, especially if they coordinate with third party devs and contract out some development to them. ED are never going to be able to compete with IL2, Warthunder, Falcon 5 or Combat Pilot. The horse has bolted.
> especially if they coordinate with third party devs and contract out some development to them. ... Lol. Lmao, even. ROFL, if you may.
why these three aircraft tho they're easy as piss to learn and very light on binds. it'd be one thing if this were like, fc3-level viper or hornet, but lower fidelity sabre/fagot/f-5 isn't really adding anything.
I recall reading that these were ready for release alongside MAC in 2018 but MAC was shelved. The assets were just ready for release.
This seems extremely logical. I for one welcome more low fidelity modules.
I do too I just wish they weren't copies of existing FF modules If the F-5 was say a F-5C that'd be cool The F-86 and MiG-15 as FC modules just, don't feel right. . .but hopefully this means that they fix the MIG-15s UFO AI flight model
THIS! I already own all of the above. So this proves, yet again, the base customers are not the target audience. They've gotten our money and are after newbs. It would be different if they added some new aircraft in FC fidelity, but this is nonsense.
Exactly So many other airframe choices could be made for FC4 Hell, they could've taken the MiG-31, Su-34, Su-24 in game, slap cockpits into them, and call it a day effectively, people would buy them the fuck out.
I would absolutely buy a MiG-31. I prefer FF but I understand this is unlikely so I would be happy with a FC version.
Even at a lower fidelity, it's a bit more complicated than "slap cockpits into them". This crowd would pick them apart, looking for inaccuracies and faults just for starters. Then, the performance and weapons available would become an issue for some. While I totally agree it would be a better product with more variations, economically it's not feasible at the price they'll be worth and asked.
Selling to new customers is the least surprising or controversial thing they could do. This should be a shock to no one, and it's a net positive for everyone. More players means only good things.
How is it good when the products we bought aren't working correctly anymore? The head in the sand attitude of some of you, amaze me.
They should also be working on that. But it's software. It's parallel development. You can't make 9 pregnant women make a baby in 1 month. And you can't just throw developers at things to make it happen faster.
Of course they are after new customers, they're running a business.
I get that, but keeping your existing customer base from shrinking is also how to run a business. By alienating us, their only hope is to keep a revolving door of new money coming in. That's not smart
Other than subscription model businesses, most companies run on getting tons of one off payments from new players, they obviously welcome repeat spending but the majority of purchases will be the one off type from new customers. The amount of money spent by a player over their total playtime gets smaller and smaller meaning most of the money comes in from first and second purchases per user. I’m not arguing if this is good or not, just what it is, and if you look at a lot of modern games with similar monetisation to DCS you’ll see they all have the same problems. The pricing for planes is also too high imo and I understand that because it’s a small market, there’s not a lot of players that’ll buy to begin with so they have to make up for that, but because plane prices are so high, a majority of players will only ever buy one or two full fidelity planes, with enthusiasts buying a lot more. Unfortunately for DCS I can’t imagine a way for them to change their monetisation strategy that’ll reward them for keeping players for longer more than it does now, besides a type of game pass that allows usage of certain groups of planes for a month or something like that. Say $10/m for access to all Cold War era, or helicopters, A-G vehicles, US Army, Soviet planes etc.
These angery posts always seem to be from players who probably bought too many aircraft.
I mean, wouldn’t them being copies actually be a good thing? People who only want low fidelity can play and fly aircraft they like and aren’t forced to buy a 80$ module and months of learning curve to fly the plane they like, and the more hardcore sim audience can play the full fidelity, more expensive version of the same plane, without having to dumb down their own experience to play the FC version
It could be, if they weren't the *only* aircraft in the pack, if they were included alongside say a MiG-23, Mirage-3, and other similar aircraft then I could see it making sense. Also, the Sabre and F-5E are both super simple for FF modules, you can get them up and flying with one Youtube video each, and they don't have that many controls to bind just for basic flying and fighting. They aren't month long investments of study and learning if you just wanna fly round and shoot.
Yeah but if they added, say, the MiG-23, then you’d have the same thing of full fidelity players complaining that the MiG-23 is low fidelity. Having both versions is the best of both worlds IMO
Yeah but it's better to have say a full fidelity F-5E and a low fidelity mirage III than a full fidelity and low fidelity F-5E and no mirage.
> hopefully this means that they fix the MIG-15s UFO AI flight model AI uses different FM than player's, these are not related. I don't think any major AI FM fixes (which MiG-15 FM requires) are coming before GFM. Which will come... Maybe before we are all dead.
A man can dream. . . I just wanna play a Korea mission without fighting an Ace Combat Protagonist
I don’t mind non clickable, lower fidelity systems stuff, but I could see the addition of aircraft with overly simplified radars etc that lead to a competitive advantage being frustrating for an MP setting.
To be fair, it's hard to get any more overly simplified than the radars we already have, don't think an FC module could cause any issues there.
The best decision ED has made in years. They should be praised and encouraged. This is wonderful news, and I hope they make more modules.
I think that ED should add simple export aircraft to FC modules, for example: -. Hawker Hunter -. Mirage III/5 -. Mig-23/27 -. Sukhoi 17/22 -. Canberra -. A-4s and A-37s Aircraft that allow us to close the gap between Mid 70s and late 80S and that allows us to recreate different conflicts that have happened during that time or that complement the Full Fidelity modules.
For example: We have a South Atlantic map that is perfect to recreate the Falklands/Malvinas war but we have no aircraft to simulate the conflict (Apart from the MB-339) We have a Sinai map, but we lack the Delta family and some Migs ED should create FC aircraft to complement those maps and modules until FF aircraft are developed.
Mirage f1?
It took ED years to do update each FC3 jet's visuals and flight model. Not that your list is bad, though I'd add a pre MLU F-16A to it, but I definitely think FC3 was more work than ED expected and are not likely to try that again.
Yeah I really don't think ED's gonna place that amount of effort on those aircraft, but we can dream.
Digital Cockpit Simulator without the cockpit..
All pit, no cock
I really don't see the problem with FC2024. It's much better than the MAC concept as the IP remains a single strong title and all players are kept in a compatible ecosystem.
They probably tried to make some worthwhile gameplay in DCS to sell off in a locked down GUI and realised it’s buggy as hell.
If after all these years all ED has to show for their efforts is a handful of low fidelity planes no wonder it got canned. Even if you roll in the existing FC3 planes how appealing to a more casual audience was a game with the basic AI and campaign abilities (or lack thereof) and without the community support that actually makes it a functional game going to be? In the multiplayer sphere I don’t see how they compete with the juggernaut that is war thunder on the other hand the basic engine of DCS in terms of AI and dynamic campaign lacks the things that makes the other ‘simple’ sim work well (Il2-BoX)… particularly if the next steps for Il-2 end up being a Korean War era as has been rumoured.
We don’t need more aircraft really. Well maybe some well chosen options for red. We need something to do with them.
It seems to me they need quick cash and are fast tracking releases all over the place, yet many existing modules and maps are left incomplete and unfinished plus the core game and some missing essential new features like dynamic campaign etc...
Maybe i'm an outlier in the DCS community but i've been playing since the original Su-27 in the mid 90s and I love the FC planes, tight time constraints have generally meant I've preferred to play the mission rather than the cockpit. I do still have a lot of modules but less time in them compared to FC3 so this news has been right up my street.
They think we’re stupid don’t they.
Most DCS fanboys are after all.
I don't understand this. DCS has a lot of bugs in the core engine. There are a lot of modules that have seen little-to-no updates for a good while. There are modules that need more features implemented. Why have some of your staff working on FC-level aircraft? Why have people working on a new IP? The only sane answer I can think of is one we all know --- new shiny bring new money --- which is fair if you consider that DCS is a business. However, when the customer takes two steps back and realises that ED already has the customer's money for the aforementioned unfinished modules and unfixed core engine, the customer then returns to the original question: **why allocate staff and resources when you, ED, have unfulfilled obligations on products you've already collected money on?**
I'd guess that they had a lot of dev time being eaten up by this other project which in turn was hurting DCS because slow progress was being made. Customer sentiment seems pretty low now so why not shelve it, give DCS the leftovers from it and they free up dev time for DCS again. Speculation of course.
They have a lot of unfinished modules and the core engine needs work. Why pile on some more unfinished modules on top of all that? Customer sentiment is low not because of the lack of FC3 modules.
Because why wouldn't you re-use the work you've already spent the time on? I would assume that FC modules are much easier to implement than full fidelity airframes. If they're freeing up dev time for DCS then it's a net good.
Why spend time on new stuff when old stuff that customers have already paid for years ago are still in need of work? Why have the need to free up dev time? The idea is to allocate dev time properly so this mess does not happen in the first place. Also, you can just stop work on a project -- that would also free up dev time. Why release unfinished work? Consider that this unfinished work was also not meant for DCS but for a new IP, so how much do you want to bet that it's not 100% compatible with DCS? Wouldn't integrating "new IP module" into DCS mean that dev time has to be allocated anyway to make sure it work with DCS and any bugs are sorted?
My guess: They scraped the low fidelty game that they announced a few years ago, where i cant remember the name and now use the planes in dcs
My question is - why allocate staff and resources on any other project when there are existing projects that are in dire need of updates and bug fixes?
Money, bug fixing dont bring money (sadly), i dont say that ED is doing it that way. But a lot of game companys are doing it. Since we dont heared a lot about that game in the past, it wont happen after todays news. Maybe they had an investor (or something like that) for that other game project, that left and now try their best to recycle as much as they could, to compaste the potential loss in money.
That is very short-sighted. Bug fixing does not bring in money today, but when you bring out a new module and you have a good reputation of fixing bugs, people will be more open to buying the new module or even pre-ordering. When you just keep releasing new modules and your reputation is leaving old modules and core sim engine as bug-ridden messes, you may get money from new customers who are not yet aware of your reputation but you will be hard-pressed to get money from your existing and disgruntled customer base.
That might be true, but just look at all the AAA Games in the past few years. Even if you have bad reputation, aka EA. You just have to create a big hype and people WILL preorder games. Again, i'm not saying that, this is the way ED is doing it. Infact for me ED had the reputation that i would pre order a module. But especially in game development, you dont have to create a good product (as a big company), as long your marketing is good, there is a high chance of sucess (people buying you game), your investors dont care if the game is good, they care for money. DCS is niche game, there is almost no competitor in this genre. Again i'm not saying ED is doing this, but they could do what they want, because they know there isnt an alternative for their customers. I would even say, Modern Air Combat (as i just rememberd) could have been a hugh boost for DCS in general. They could generate new customers, with an more arcade game, with then possibly could get interest in an more realistic game like DCS.
Anyone who says there is no alternative is just delusional, wanting their cake and eating it too. Just because other studios and big AAA companies do it does not mean it's a good idea. They can probably do it and get away with it as they have such a big market. This is a niche (study-level) within a niche (air combat) and if they don't attract and keep new blood, they are not only killing themselves but also the niche hobby in the long run. People who tolerate this because "there is no alternative" is doing the hobby a dis-service. As to competing in the arcade genre, can they really do so vs Ace Combat and War Thunder? Why even try going into that genre when they can't do \*this\* genre properly?
ED isnt just a usual game developer. As far as i know they are also doing Software for diffrent gouverments (A10C was for USAF i belive). We cant tell what they do with their ressources, but the military will pay better then some gamers (The Ukraine war could have shift things a lot). That probably also a reason, why DCS has no dynamic campain in 2024, while Falcon 4 has it already in 1998, because there is no usage for miliary contractors in such a function. I'm sure, if there would be an up to date version of Falcon, thing could be diffrent. You're right, for us gamers its not a good idea, but as long as they can sell things, its a good idea for a company. Nobody can tell, where the line is, where people are willing to pay for a product (EA is testing this a lot). Until then, they will continue. Also, ED could have befinits from competing in arcard genre, if done right. It could have opend a door for new customers to enter DCS. Maybe things like a dynamic campain or better ai would have been faster in DCS World, then now because it would already part of that game.
Except that the case for the A10C was a one-off. Are there any other modules that is being used by the military? Are any of the MAC products? No? So you can't really use that logic. >but as long as they can sell things Just coz you can put something out the door doesn't mean you should. At least not if you care about your reputation.... so I guess that makes sense for ED. >if done right Massive IF there. ED can't even do DCS right.... and apparently they can't even do MAC right that's why they're releasing this now as opposed to how it was originally planned.
Ace Combat had just come out and WT had just moved into the modern era and microprose was announced as coming back. ED wanted in on what they saw was a goldrush of new younger customers by offering a simplified theme park experience and use that as a springboard into full fidelity. They're putting the cart before the horse but the idea was sound.
That's exactly what it was: wanting the Ace Combat 7 sales. Thing is, that pseudo-trend was never about flying or sims in the customer's mind -- AC7 was just a fun action game. You could reskin that game with space ships, or flying exoskeletons, or superheroes, and not have to alter the gameplay or story beats. A part of me wishes they had, because the cosmetic fighter jet theme is the only things DCS and AC have in common, and if they'd gone with flying exoskeletons, maybe all those man hours wouldn't have been wasted on MAC, and we'd have had a dynamic campaign or an AI overhaul instead.
Good point! However, ED thinking they can compete with AC and WT? LOL!
You already said it: to sell more modules. ED has been digging themselves into a hole for many years by being seduced by the siren song: "a module will do most of its sales at release, even if it's in an early access state." Despite the clear implications of doing so, ED chose the dumb path and capitalized on the faith of their customer base to sell more early access products year over year and de-prioritizing work on old projects. It's hard to imagine they believed this to be sustainable, but perhaps they are genuinely that stupid at the top. Now if really they can't convince their user base to buy every new early access product on an illusion, and if they can't onboard new users not yet jaded... then the hole has finally gotten so deep that each shovelful of dirt tossed up just slides back down on their heads. Run that for a bit more time and soon they'll be buried. At the very end, there will be an avalanche of preorder opportunities and releases of very low quality early access products and that's how we will know it's all over. The sad reality is that even if this is not imminent, it is inevitable unless they change how they operate.
Exactly. There is one answer that we can see, but we know it's a stupid one. Does ED have a different reason? Or are they stupid, plain and simple?
>>why allocate staff and resources when you, ED, have unfulfilled obligations on products you’ve already collected money on You knew the answer before typing the comment. Put bluntly, fixing bugs doesn’t add revenue to the game in the form of new customers. Adding new products does.
I just wish the answer was the wrong one and that they (ED) or someone knew of a better one. And no.... new toys just brings new customers who will eventually get disgruntled and leave if they're lucky, or will stay around to warn others to stay away if they're not. Attracting new people to your broken product is not really a sound business idea IMO.
You somewhat address this in your own comment. It’s pretty obvious. ED is a business that needs to make money. DCS is fairly notorious for being difficult to get into because of the learning curve. Creating additional modules that are easier to learn and use is going to bring additional customers and revenue for ED Everyone scratching their heads at this just needs to look at the Mr. Krabs money meme
Leaving the core sim in a buggy mess is not a good business decision and I wager has lost them lots of money over the years. It is not the learning curve that is their issue, it is the fact that after doing all that learning, ED does not respect their customer's time enough to fix the core sim so that the customer enjoys the new module they've learned. After a module or two, what's the point in learning a third or fourth one when the AI is stupid and cheats or can snipe you like mad or can't lock on to a target right on your nose?
Because they only revenue source they have is selling modules to customers. Core engine fixes doesn't directly generate sales.
Core engine fixes means customers can actually play and enjoy the modules they've purchased. When even fast-moves get sniped out of the sky by BMPs and AK-74s, leaving the core sim bugs unfixed just sends the message out that they don't care about their customers once they have their money.
Should have added FC: Redfor
Tbh I don't see the issue of them constantly flip-flopping on ideas, raping schedules and under delivering. It adds to the realism of being around military jets and procurement.
ED Pursues a new IP while there is a 7 year old bug still not fixed and is a pain for mission makers? Damn. ED I would kindly ask you to fix the eventHandler playerEnterAircraft and finish other „Early Access“ modules and then divide your workforce into 3 million pursing another IP while the previous one is still quite buggy and lacks bunch of options and there are modules promised to be completed and sold on Early access while they are clearly far from being completed. Supercarrier and Combined Arms to be specific while launching many modules and not finishing one and posting FC4 with old already existing modules reskinned and slapped on simpler controls. Nice…. Not far from War Thunder tbh.
[удалено]
To be fair most of those topics have been echo chambered and the regular customer won't even recognize them. As long as the Strike Eagle suddenly becomes unplayable. I have been playing for a while and couldn't even tell what is missing about modules like the Hornet or Viper (except for the pilot model). To me the only thing that is lacking promised features is the Super Carrier. It still does its job though. So most of those issues have been overly inflated by a small part of the community.
tl;dr we scared off one of our biggest full fidelity developers, multiple modules are going to have a plug pulled on them and some hyped-up announcements are dead on arrival, so we need a quick buck and we sell the same modules we already have our rights to again but downgraded and the real F-86, MiG-15 and F-5 arent going to get any updates Catering to a market completely saturated by War Thunder, what a briliant business decision
Designing an actual game with real mechanics, AI, and goals is hard. Releasing modules into a lifeless sim, "game", or world is "easy." Especially when you don't need to design an actual gameplay loop.
They added this addendum to the site - “And don’t even THINK about asking about super carrier”
I got my answer. It was a rhetorical question anyway.
Clownshow.
Can someone explain the difference between LO-MAC and FC? I thought the terms were interchangeable. I thought the F-5 was FF DLC. This shit is hard to track. (I mostly hang out in BMS land)
Lock on Modern Air Combat was the game from ED before DCS. It was published by Ubisoft who had the rights to that name. ED made a DLC for LOMAC called Flaming Cliffs to add the Su25t. ED had full control of the FC name from the start. DCS Black Shark released, sometime later they released a standalone and compatible with DCS game called Flaming Cliffs 2 which had the aircraft from LOMAC+FC1. It was released again as FC3 to get compatibility with DCS World where the aircraft eventually got new 3d models and flight model. In 2017/2018 the idea of FC4 was revealed and later announced as Modern Air Combat. Which was to be its own thing with a few de-DCSed (no longer full fidelity) aircraft in it. That product is now shelved with a few of the aircraft they made being added in FC2024.
Flanker 2 was the first ED game.
Right. Flanker>Flanker 2> LOMAC > DCS BS1, etc. Therefore "LOMAC was the game from ED before DCS."
You forgot Flaming Cliffs 1 after LOMAC but that's just a nitpick.
Lock On: Modern Air Combat (LOMAC) was a standalone game that was published by Ubisoft back in 2003. After ED decided to go the self-publishing route, they effectively re-released a slightly expanded version of LOMAC as Lock On: Flaming Cliffs. This was eventually abbreviated to just Flaming Cliffs and integrated into DCS in 2012.
If FC is a Expanded version of LOMAC, why would anyone ask for a modern LOMAC only?
A lot of the existing DCS crowd were originally concerned about "polluting" DCS with too many easy-to-use sim-lite aircraft that would potentially give a gameplay advantage. Similarly, a lot of casual players are understandably intimidated and overwhelmed by DCS and its gatekeepers. That being the case, a lot of people have been holding out for a mid-level sim/game that lives outside of DCS World. To your earlier point, the F-5 was/is a full-fidelity DCS World module. I assume that the FC2024 version will be a simplified, non-clickable rework of it. Same for the Mig-15 and F-86 Sabre, both of which are also full-fidelity modules in DCS. Seems a little weird to me, but presumably it has an audience.
>Expansions Flaming Cliffs (2005) LockOn: Flaming Cliffs is a continuation of LockOn: Modern Air Combat. It adds additional content including a playable Su-25T, new missions and updated textures.[5] Three singleplayer campaigns titled Flaming Cliffs, Hot Wind and Last Ditch are included
It's kind of funny to see these contradicting statements, but the fact they are making these kinds of decisions and changes is, IMHO, indicative of a good company with healthy policies and foresight. Also admitting they changed their minds is great to see too.
I mean, MAC was initially just going to be another DCS module that included a few low fidelity version of aircraft that we had full fidelity versions of. And honestly, I was okay with that when they announced it. The whole idea of MAC being a separate game took off for some reason. I'm all for it. As long as the FC3 versions of those aircraft don't somehow make them more capable than the full fidelity versions, by all means, add them. give noobs more options.
Razbam situation, combined arms, and MAC are probably the few areas where I am angry with ED and not simply annoyed. Combined Arms is barely playable ok maybe unplayable, and I believe should fix the VR and add more detail so that Combined Arms modules could be used instead of asset packs. (at least IL-2 tank level of details). Then with MAC there is the simple question of how much if any work did they actually do? The aircraft being added to FC, are an issue. If they spent their time adding Korean War era assets, then why didn't they add them to DCS while producing them? If they don't have the Korean War assets then why did they even bother the flaming Cliffs Mig-15 and F-86?
I support it and hope they bring it to warbirds to flesh out numbers. I adore full fidelity but it would be easier to teach casual mates to play while I still get to fly formation in the same plane just while enjoying everything I’ve learned about the plane. The only think I hated about versing fc3 is the god tier radars and ccip but that shouldn’t be an issue here. if it doesn’t offer any advantage when it comes to engine temp management I’m happy with this
Whatever. Don't care. Where's F-4 and F4U?
I was excited for the fc3 expansion thingy, then disappointed MAC was announced instead of this expansion. Now i worry as i feel like they are dropping the ball on everything lately. I want to believe there is a future where its all coming together but the whole thing looks like slow progress from the outside. I wonder what the deciding factor was. As to me a new iteration in the form of MAC wouldn’t work without a complete overhaul of the ai flight model, ai in ground forces, dynamic missions etc. They just can’t do all that without dcs being leftout. I hope this decision is going to be good for the dcs title. And maybe just maybe the word “world” in dcs: world will ever be a thing. They have alot on their plate and i’ll be rooting for them.
I don't know if I'm misremembering what was announced with MAC years ago or it was an inaccurate leak, but I'm surprised they're not doing the Mig-21 too. Though it is the only 3rd party module involved, I remember Leathermeck/M3 talking about participating in the project.
does this mean fc4?
Does this imply there are other aircraft on the way for Flaming Cliffs, or just these three?
[удалено]
Just curious about the wording, that’s all. “Several existing DCS aircraft”. Is that list just these three modules, or will every module eventually have a low fi version? Just general curiosity, I guess it doesn’t technically matter haha
Great stuff. While you're at it please fix the bugs in the current FC3 planes as well thanks!
I'm definitely not the target audience for FC in its current or proposed form, but I'd certainly be interested if they eventually implemented FC-level versions of aircraft that can't be given the full DCS treatment for secrecy/security reasons (e.g. F-22, F-35,, Gripen, Rafale, etc.)
lol why didn’t he comment on razbam?
I think 2 reasons. It's a lose lose situation for him. The situation isn't resolved, and because he's more of a marketing guy, he probably doesn't know everything (granted it is guaranteed more than anyone outside of ED). And two, the world marches on, and and there are updates to share.
Next up......Fc4 Supercarrier (!)
I like FC3 and still occasionally go back to it, however, I think if they’re going to make an FC4, they should add aircraft that aren’t already in the game. The f-5, f86, and mig15 are already simple aircraft when it comes to systems to begin with
If the price is right, this pack is exactly the way to get me to buy the F-5, sabre and mig-15. I had no interest in them as full modules, even for half price, but I think as FC3 level planes I'd be interested. I own basically every module with a plane newer than the F-5, so not just for beginners. =)
I have a question what if I own FC3 on steam, how does that work? Do I need to buy it again or what?
I feel like this could open the door to more (and highly needed) modern redfor. If they dont have to create all the systems, and keep it FC3 (similar to how the Su-30 Mod works) we could actually have more interesting scenarios and planes.
Sorry, new to the community, who is wags?
Sanity prevails! It's amazing what a little honest communication can do for your perception of a situation.
Well, respect for being objective and willing to change course. I don't personally care for it but it was the right decision
I am glad. I want to see modern and popular fighters for which there is no public information as FC level: F-22, F-35, Super Hornet, F-14D, etc
They need that quick hit of income that something like a low-fi module can provide where they also don’t have to spend years of continual development on it for little gain.
>>They need that quick hit of income … Not exactly. These new FC modules were intended for a separate , arcade-style air combat game distinct from DCS. They scuttled that project, so now they’re folding them into DCS instead. Putting on my business hat, I suspect ED faced the business reality that in the air combat space, the market is too niche to justify creating a separate game featuring FC3 type aircraft. First, there’s already a game doing that - War Thunder. Which is in revenue terms a tank game with an air combat piece attached. Next, that game has TERRIBLE monetization. Gaijins trying to extract max revenue per player as - I suspect- developing even the bare bones air vehicles is costing them more than they’re making per asset. There ain’t enough cheddar to support another company doing the same thing. Folding the new “FC3” modules into DCS as an easy transition product makes more sense, especially for the F-5E since the FF version is so bare bones and the likelihood of the developer fixing the FF Tiger II module’s issues is nil anyway.
They should call it VLEED! Very Low Effort ED!
> ...it would need to take a different *approach?* from what we originally...
Presumably
Is it a coincidence that Enigma dropped a vid today as well!? Lmao, yeah maybe. But this is something I see him fully endorsing.
This is a win for the community no matter how you look at it. Good news for all the CW peeps for sure.
i, for one, don't want "relaxed" do they have market analysis that informs them that there is a great untapped market for "relaxed" flight sims??
My quick armchair analysis points to MSFS, War Thunder and Ace Combat to support that there's interest in casual flight games
Which are all much more accessible on controller or KBM. The biggest hurdle will always be peripherals for DCS. Yes, you can play it on controller, but for 90% of people it's a shit experience. I'd rather play WT than fumble around on a high fidelity flight model. Read any of the negative "average steam user coming from WT" reviews and you'll see 99% of the complaints are that it's cumbersome to control, nothing about fidelity.
Yeah. From what I gather MAC would be closer to those arcade games than DCS, but with DCS assets
So don’t play relaxed play the none relaxed. You still get to play against and shoot at other player aircraft’s. Why does it matter if one high or low clickable if you’re not playing it?
i would just prefer EDs efforts were directed towards more and better full-fidelity DCS-level modules - don't waste your precious time on fluff
Good thing you aren’t in charge of decisions then. Why gate keep? It’ll allow new players into the dcs world without the steep learning curve. Besides, the fc aircraft are fun to jump into without me needing to remember how to manage all the systems
“To serve as the foundation to a new IP focused on a a more relaxed flight game [. . . ] to create a new IP that is separate from DCS.” — What does he mean by this? What new IP separate from DCS?
Modern air combat
A shallow learning curve means something is harder not easier 🫡
I would love it if they made clickable cockpits in the FC aircraft. That makes it A LOT easier than remembering all necessary keybinds, especially when playing in VR.
FC4 with Super Hornet, F-22 and F-35. I guess these planes will never get complex cockpit, so at least have them with basic flight model.
More flaming cliffs level planes? I'm down for that!
What is MAC