DCS needs to understand future is more war thunderish that dcs-ish.. so more module, less intensive clicking of cockpit but realistic comms to coordinate ground forces, artillery, squadrons, battalions.. this is future for dcs.. if they keep being stuck of ultra simulating clicking cockpit its over for dcs sadly.
@@keepwalking6041 I disagree. I’ll never play Warthunder. There is always a market for the higher end simulators. Look at what MSFS has going on for the civilian side. Years of being in the flight sim genre and a new release on the way. Microprose is also getting back into making hardcore flight sims with the next generation of Falcon, although it may not be just F-16s so we’ll have to wait for details on that. The future isn’t just War Thunder style of play. DCS could become irrelevant in the genre if they don’t keep up with competitive challenges from other hard core sims that are on the distant horizon. There will always be a folks looking for both styles. Easy mode and the more intensive real side of sim flying. I seriously doubt people are making full realistic simpits for War Thunder like they do for Falcon BMS and DCS.
Yes, Cliffs Su25 then into the F15C and progressed into the F-5 then I jumped head first into the the Blackshark and harrier and F18C P47 and P51 I love it all but I have been impatiently waiting for a full Vietnam and Korea map and online campaigns there’s something so cool about dodging flak in a A6, A7, F4 or sky raider
yes it was my first module too, then got the rest of FC3 later on special, the good thing about the FC3 planes is it was loads easier to fly them with a cheap flightstick before I went full hog and got a HOTAS for the HDef modules
Full fidelity models are only expensive if you buy them normally. Every module I have bought has been on sale for a substantial discount. But I do agree that FC3 aircraft are a good economic way for new comers to get started. Then as they get more experience they can buy the FF modules that really interest them the most for them to invest time to learn to operate them.
“the bug bites you” … it started for me with a 386 CPU (with math co-processor), 4 meg of RAM and a DOS flight game called LHX. Next added was a Gravis 2 button joystick … and … there was no turning back after that! 😂 An expansion of FC3 is a good thing: draw in new players to single and MP, then once the appetite has been “wetted” there exists a whole stable full fidelity A/C to really dive into the deep end.
Super carrier gets a lot of love. It would be nice if some of that translates over to air bases. I’d love to have a carrier level crew chief and ground crew for us folks that use the A-10, F-16, and F-15E. As a USAF vet, I have no interest in carrier operations and would like to see some love for air base operations.
Extending the module to include animated and interactive ground crew at land bases, plus tow vehicles, animated electrical/huffer/starter carts, and actual decent ATC would go a long way to overcoming my feelings that ED ripped me off with Supercarrier.
@@bronco5334 I didn’t get the Super Carrier as I’ve got no interest in it. Im an Air Force vet and I stick with the jets that don’t land on carriers. The sad thing is, there are a lot more air bases on maps than carriers. They should have been making stuff for air base ground operations long ago. With no interest in the carrier, it would really get me torqued off if I had to get the super carrier to put crew chiefs and such on air bases.
@@evoman44 In the super carrier? Not at all. The USAF flew from land bases during Vietnam and that is what I would do. Zero interest in a carrier and always will be for modern jets. The only carrier that I would want would be WW2 carriers for the Battle of Midway and such. When the Corsair is complete and releases and the Marianas map gets the WW2 overhaul that has been promised… then I’ll be interested in a carrier. Only the WW2 version. I will never have an interest in the Super Carrier module.
The Mustang and Hornet were my first clickable cockpit aircraft in DCS and I tried revisiting FC3 and couldn't get into it. But this should help the War Thunder enthusiasts enjoy more DCS.
For me F86 / Mig-15 duo was the entry point to DCS, while learning realistic flight model after years spent on Ace Combat and HAWX. Great, simple jets for newcomers.
This explains where FC2024 came from. Seems reasonable "Dear all, I’ve been keeping an eye on this discussion and one of the points I see raised repeatedly is that we changed our mind about new FC3 aircraft. We did indeed. We’ve been developing several existing DCS-level aircraft with a much shallower learning curve to serve as the foundation to a new IP focused on a more relaxed flight game. Over the past months though, we’ve concluded that now is not the time to create a new IP that is separate from DCS. We’ve announced this today and the change in plans. Rather than dig in our heels on a previous decision, we’ve decided it makes more sense to roll most of these aircraft into a new iteration of the FC series. We understand that the FC series is not for everyone, but rather focused on new players and those looking for a more relaxed game with a much shallower learning curve. For now, we’ve shelved MAC, but it is not dead. There is great potential in such a product, but it would need to take a different path from what we originally planned to be successful." - Wags
I thought they were simply adding the existing modules into FC3. As you said, making the Mig 15 non-clickable hardly changes much. If anything it makes it slightly less convenient. Big fan of the FC3 in general though, DCS needs levels of complexity to choose from for different kinds of players.
Like everyone else, my first DCS purchase was FC3. That lasted about 10 minutes and bought the Tomcat. Haven’t looked back since. Although I'm glad the MiG-29 is coming, I'd have preferred a Full Fidelity Su-27.
Same here. I had bought the FC3 F-15C and after flying it for a few times briefly it felt a bit too basic for my ambitions. I felt I needed to move up to a more functional FF aircraft. Bought the F-86 next which was a great FF trainer. Then I got the Viggen which was another great next step that increased the complexity just enough. It actually fits my level like a glove. Then I just had to have the F-14 Tomcat when it released and that has been my main jet since.
I'm so excited for the Chinook and would love if they would post some news on the C-130, that's been silent since announcement years ago which makes it hard to stay hyped
Pricklyhedgehog72, thank you so much for this video! I believe that, with this update of the supercarrier, we will make an important step forward in realism for those who love the F18 Hornet like me. I've been waiting for it for a long time and I can't wait. I just hope it arrives soon because after this announcement it would be really frustrating to see a new delay in the release... Have a nice day and ... Flight Navy
During my units missions I'll usually hop on the LSO platform as soon as I get shutdown and ground power back on for radios. Looking forward to PriFly just to have extra functionality and also because having visual aids for the airspace around the carrier should help a human divvy up holding altitudes in the marshal stack during CASE III, aswell as monitor approaches or re-entries after bolters.
The C-130 will be amazing. I got to chat with a pilot and look over the cockpit and sit in the seats. He went over all roles of each seat, so it will be interesting to see if the simulation matches up. With my pictures, I'll have something to compare the model to.
I was going to ask about that F4U-1D Corsair. It seems like it died, as well as Mag3. 😢. …as well as the WWII USS Intrepid carrier. I wish these developers would produce 60-day progress updates on their modules. Just relative progress percentages in each category of flight model, exterior 3D model, systems coding, textures, and bug testing. Even if their report would be “no significant progress.” At least we would know they’re still in it. And include any photos and comments they wish to include…maybe even explanation of trouble-spots or sticking points they’ve run into. …and including ED development progress. But maybe through a liaison… like PH72!! 🙂. Or someone like Wags. …or maybe someone like me. Just to update a non-comment, locked page in the respective module sections in the DCS forum. With, perhaps, a corresponding “progress discussion” page in each module section. Otherwise, these announcements get battered and cluttered with angry, negative comments and it’s difficult to see just the progress reports.
I like the idea of having low fidelity planes like Flaming Cliffs but it'd be nice if it was more red aircraft or other aircraft that really expand and increase the diversity of battlefield assets. I'd take a low fidelity Predator drone or P-8 Poseidon or maybe an AC-130 or something.
As someone who none of my friends play DCS I’m actually really excited about the low fi modules. They’re not my cup of tea but I’ve got 4 or 5 buddies that are really interested in picking one up when I explained FC3 to them. If it brings people to the game I’m for it.
MSFS is fun for a while, especially if you fly with friends. But all you can do is those boring missions and formation or bush flying! Also the planes you bought wont show up for the others if they don't own them. Same counts for the scenery. It's cool to test new planes/choppers or look at a cool scenery once - But then without any reason for them anyway you lose interest pretty quickly. Communicatios are also very sterile, so even with all those players in multiplayer all over the world you need the XBox Chat and you need the others to have it on as well to even find players you want to fly with. This actually is a very bad way to set up multiplayer. Not mentioning the horrendous server problems they have and disconnects hurting flying together or even loading the scenery. All this Microsoft Sim is good for is for Airline Gamers or occasional Bush Pilots having their fun. But not being able to interact with the enviroment outside of "Missions" is a fast track to boredom. So I will now stay with DCS and not go trying to buy stuff for MSFS, because you never get a complete aircraft that simulates almost everything like the High Fidelity Modules in DCS do. Except the cool Choppers like the Alouette or the Lama. I am for example a big fan of the old game Gunship 2000 and can now work on my dream to make a Gunship 2020 Server with the Apache, Kiowa, Blackhawk and Chinook, making Missions with all kinds of Mods and Audio Files, making it immersive and being creative. It is as if the Operation Flashpoint/ARMA kind of editing is soon completely possible in DCS and that gives me the reason to forget about Microsofts Free Flight Simulator, that has good optics but bad replayability. The modules are expensive, but look at the MS stuff - 30$ and upward for a good one. While I just bought the Kiowa, which is such a good Module that I can't stand not playing with it. Also the Iraq and Afghanistan (and don't get me wrong - Those were some bad illegal wars) will shine with the Choppers and I cannot wait to make missions and to fly in them. I give it to MS - they made a great game for Sightseeing, but if you have seen all the interesting places you have no reason to go there again.
Still not sure how you make the F-86 easier…but ok. Between the F-4, learning the Gazelle, KOLA map and the new campaigns for the F/A-18, I’ve got plenty to keep me busy; so doesn’t matter to me what aircraft they add
I wonder if after the C-130J, that developer or another could do the An-12, 4-engine turboprop transport…or at least as an AI aircraft. I wonder how many customers there might be for that?
I admit, I have Flaming Cliffs, but I have no intention to buy the 2024 version. I do have an F-86 and an F-5 which are more my like. With all the issues DCS has, why they are expanding something that very few serious flight simmers actually fly, the only reason is simply trying to recoup the costs of their failed MAC program. I do wish they would speed up finalizing the F-18 and F-16, they have milked a lot of money by dragging this out. The RazBam thing; until I see something indicating some progress, it is indeed dead. Why did the F-4U go dark? Haven't heard anything for sometime, and I thought it was fairly close to release.
Simpler simulation is truly the gateway into more complex flight sims, but that is covered by War Thunder and the likes from where players can "graduate'. The thing that gives purpose, connects the dots between modules, maps and things like the supercarrier are the campaigns, not necessarily dynamic, just simple old fashioned ones that are really in short supply unless you fly a Hornet. I am currently playing through the First In Weasel Over Syria and it truly makes the game alive, it is best gaming experience I had in the past 3-5 years for sure. As for MSFS 2024, 2020 is still so broken that seriously doubt they can roll out the new one that feels feature complete.
The only thing War Thunder covers is breaking the morale of the people who play it. I was reluctant to try DCS and hoped War Thunder got better but my dissatisfaction with Gaijin grew to the point I just gave up.
Speaking of Supercarrier…. I wish DCS would also develop, down the line, a similar module named, “DCS: Task Force”. A WWII/Korea era version of Supercarrier, but for straight-deck carriers and all-gun surface ships. I’d envision this to include Yorktown and Essex-class carriers in 1944-45 configurations, as well as battleships, heavy and light cruisers, and destroyers. It would have a Bridge view where the carrier could be “Conned”. It would also have a CIC room with high-fidelity radar displays and an automated plotting board to direct flights of both player-led and AI-led carrier aircraft. This would allow vectoring of aircraft to intercept incoming enemy aircraft in a more realistic presentation than the F10 map. It might also have a flight deck and hangar deck plotting board to direct the spotting and reporting of aircraft on the carrier. GFCS…It would also have one or more Mk33 or Mk37 gun director positions from which the 5-inch antiaircraft guns could be aimed together…this would include a simulation of the U.S. Navy analog GFCS computer (to some degree) with fire control radar which was common to most of the carriers, battleships, cruisers and destroyers of the time. Additionally, Mk51 gunsight directors for the twin and quad 40mm mounts also common to all these ships. And hand-aimed 20mm individual single and twin mounts. Every position could be “manned” by a player or else automatically performed by AI…so that taking control of one gun doesn’t “down” all the other guns on the ship, as currently happens with the Samuel Chase in DCS. The F4U and F6F would fit right into this. Other modules of torpedo-bombers and scout-dive-bombers to follow, hopefully…at least as AI. As well as AI WWII IJN aircraft and ships.
That is actually a very good idea. Doing a sim-lite 1940s-1950s naval module could be a relatively easy win, and attract whole untapped markets. Maybe it would be more accurately described as sim-generic; where a realistic interface that isn't specific to a given ship is used for multiple ships. The old "Destroyer Command" game worked pretty much this way; you don't really need exact copies of the exact bridge layout for every ship. I think you could go beyond just the AA battery for the ships, too. It wouldn't be all *that* difficult to put in a main gun director station (and then put the fire control computer interface in at the bottom of the screen, so the player can operate both functions, kind of like how Silent Hunter puts the TDC interface in as part of the periscope position). Even add a generic torpedo attack computer station. Then players could engage in surface actions, in addition to just defending the ship from air attack. I think DCS is in a *much* better* position to do a naval warfare module than it is to do a land warfare module. Land modules are hamstrung by insufficiently detailed terrain (no micro-terrain for infantry or tanks to hide behind) and by poor ground AI (bad pathfinding, unrealistically adept at spotting, and unrealistically accurate gunnery), so it's little wonder that Combined Arms never gained any real popularity. But a naval module would avoid a lot of these pitfalls: there's no need for highly detailed small-scale terrain or fancy pathfinding AI for naval vessels operating on the open sea. But we really need at least one Japanese fighter and at least one Japanese and American dive bomber or torpedo bomber before it would *really* work well.
@@dannyd7714 Yes, I forgot. Enterprise is coming with Hellcat! Great! I hope they make it in 1944 configuration to match the 1944 Intrepid. Thinking on that, though, the (maybe) issue with Enterprise (Yorktown class) is that for a Battle of Midway mission, June of ‘42, I believe all the ships had optically directed 5” and 1.1” guns, not the twin and quad 40mm mounts directed by an essentially LCOS gunsight director. In 1944, only Enterprise was left and armed with quad-40mm mounts with the Mk51 LCOS directors, and possibly radar-equipped directors for the 5” with proximity fuse shells. I think for DCS it would be best just to focus on 1944 configurations for all ships. We don’t have to be 100% historically accurate, as DCS is a bit of a sandbox simulation where we can design our own time-period missions. Or even create “Final Countdown”-style missions with the Nimitz Supercarrier and F-14’s (and eventually A-7E’s and A-6E’s) vs IJN assets.
@@bronco5334 Thanks! I agree with your comments, too. Yes, main battery directors, too. As well as, eventually, subsurface warfare, employing the sonar, rack and K-gun launched depth charges and Hedgehog projectors of Fletcher, Sumner and Gearing class destroyers. Initially I was speaking of fast-carrier task forces or task groups. But eventually, slow task groups, too…such as the slow “old” battleship task groups and amphibious and replenishment task groups…including the slow escort carriers and destroyer escorts. All of these would be perfect for Pacific Theatre maps.
Clarify…FC2024 will still have non-clickable cockpits in the F-15C and A-10A, same as before? The added F-86F, MiG-15bis and F-5E will have clickable cockpits, but maybe simple one-button engine starts with automated electrical systems with a simple battery on and worry-free hydraulic system, no oxygen switch to worry about? Is that how it will be, or we don’t know? So from the multiplayer point of view, the F-5E will perform the same, for example, just that the pilot doesn’t need to know so much about the plane? So, it seems… If you already have FC3 and the separate, full F-5E, F-86F and MiG-15bis modules, you would gain nothing but simplification by getting FC2024, right? But it’s not meant for you. And since those modules are pretty much fully developed, no big deal, right? The full modules will still remain available, right? Maybe even at half-price for those who purchased FC2024? I don’t see an issue with it, then…at least as far as I can see. However, if they’ve simplified the flight model so that the performance is modified, then that would create a problem for MP, wouldn’t it?
They've also said the Flaming Cliffs upgraded aircraft was something already being worked on for another project and so making them an upgrade wasn't a strain on their other projects. I never caught what the other project was, but I'm guessing it was upgrades to A.I. craft that just needed some additional features for players to control.
I have to admit I was concerned over the Halfghanistan module until I listened to a podcast with Wags. I find DCS quite lacking in the PR department and depend on Wags to swoop in and smooth everything out. Maybe they should just let Wags do it.
I think this is a solid use for assets they've already created - if we look at the complexity of development from the outside, it looks like there's three bog areas - flight model, internal and external graphics, and systems. Of these, it seems like the systems are the things that take the longest and from the perspective of the casual player or the video creator is the least useful - so why not get more content in the game? IL-2 puts out a new set of planes every year and a half and charges a fortune comparatively for the special planes, and that seems like a win-win for revenue and content - if we could get a flyable mig 23 or su17 to balance out some redfor, even in simplified form, it would open up a lot of possibilities. Also, if they could work something out with the A4 guys to get it in game by default, I feel like that would be quite helpful, because then you'd have a fully clickable plane that could actually do something, which would hopefully entice more full fidelity purchases. For some reason, even with the more casual fliers I play with, there's a reluctance to do the two week trial thing
i have the full fidelity modules of these but would still buy fc2024 on the off chance that such would allow modders the option of using the cockpits of these for mod craft
The F-86 was my first FF module I bought years ago and it was a great starter FF trainer as it's a very simple aircraft as is. The F-5 would had been a great next level FF trainer to move up to had it been available at the time. Even the Air Force used the T-38 Talon which the F-5 is based on as the first jet students got to train in before moving up.
@@evoman44 Yeah, it was the first full module I bought following FC3 for the very reasons you stated there. The F-5 is a great pick for learning the flight aspects no doubt
Lokking forward to the CH-47F, but It's an intresting point, over FC24, as we all aware of issues between ED a d Razban, due to the complexity of aircraft modules, time it takes to develop, and the store spike od cash flow on new Module release. ED have to do something to try to inject cash all year round and making chargible upgrades seems to be the easiest foe ED to implement. So it's a good idea, the issue is, FC3 doesn't give old DCS flyers any depth. I personally never enjoy FC3, even tough I have it. For me Fc2024 will need partly clickible and switch animation within the cock pit, my be not the other clever subsystems need modeling, like feul systems, electrics bus systems.....etc. I'm torn on FC24, but want to support ED and due to what the DCS user base expects, in release of aircraft, being able for ED to churn out the volume of aircraft which you see in the likes of MSFS2020 or Xplane(1-10 releases per month), is not going to be possible?
I think FC4 is uselles , and the time and resources spend on Boss in SC the same, DCS is a flight sim , why dont they simulate the guys in the kitchen..18000 meals a day is something,ED better take care of older modules like L39 to bring up to date and take care of the 2 years bugs...
The choices are very redundant. ED should have been expanding Flaming Cliffs for the past decade and a half, with a variety of aircraft. Lord knows there are enough out there to draw from.
getting hooked into the "hobby"....over the last year, I bought a new flight seat pro setup, an Odyssey Ark 55", an F-18 MIPS panel, an apache collective and grip, an apache TEDAC, a STECS throttle AND a virpil T-50CM...on top of my 13900k/64gb ram/4090/msi z790. its not a hobby; its a boat. its a goddamned boat that sits in my garage all day long waiting for me to take it out on the lake 99% of the time. I throw $$$ at this thing hoping itll fly itself one day while I sip on spicy beers on the side knowing full well that this aint no tesla, its a fucking boat. I call it either "The Divorce Papers" or "The Money Pit".
@@l8knight845 its a tv and not a monitor. Samsung advertised it as a monitor, but its an ordeal to keep connected to the computer...but once you're past the ordeal the picture is actually really amazing. I got it on sale on amazon for like 2k, but thats probably because sales are pretty poor for this monitor. Needs 2 people to set it up, but I love the picture and the refresh rate is really good. Only complaints is that its a TV and comes with a bunch of BS like netflix televisions.
I won't buy the new FC3 planes, as I have the FF versions, but I hope some texture improvements come along with the new planes that will also go to the FF versions.
A thought, Razbam related, nobody has spoken about all the Campaigns we have bought for Razbam aircraft, if the planes die, so do the campaigns. This is a lot of money to throw away is there any kind of DCS user group? pressure needs to be bought to bear on both parties in this dispute, as customers we stand to lose a LOT of money. I mentioned this here, because Prickly is clearly impartial, others are working agendas.
The number of people who fly, outside of enigmas server, the 86, 15bis or F5 in DCS I can count on one hand. Soviet era aircraft should have been a bigger choice. Su-17, MiG-23/27 or WWII birds. Hell even other nations aircraft like a Jaguar. ED just went for the lowest hanging fruit.
Ain’t gonna lie it feels like ED is trying to get funds for something behind the curtains which makes me believe Razbam. Show me the last time we had this many releases, look at the state ED wanted Orbx to release Kola in. It really seems like they need money fast.
Others have made that observation. Perhaps it's true, but I suspect it's more to do with bottlenecked projects coinciding with the Phantom II delay. The PolyChop guys wanted their module out ASAP and didn't want to delay it and accepted the release was on the heels of the Phantom.
I recommend reading a good editorial write up over on the Stormbirds website on the same subject. The author does a a good job explaining things a bit more.
From a numpty point of view - if I already own the Saber, Tiger and Mig, do I gain anything with the FC2024 upgrade, for a "more casual" game, vs ignoring the clickable cockpit in the full fidelity module and using only keyboard shortcuts and auto start?
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 Its kinda tempting to get them while on offer though - FOMO at play! if a few less buttons to click then especially VR its handy.....though at the same time, I've still never touched the Mig and the Sabre yet, only the Tiger which I enjoy :)
Oh no...more airplanes to help new comers to the sim! The tragedy! Get over yourselves gatekeepers.(Not you PH I'm talking to the haters in the comments)
Why you can't choose between LFFM and HFFM is beyond me... I can't find a SINGLE decent explanation of Key-binging; I love the A-4 Skyhawk, i decided to try it out, i went and got a Logitech 3d ''Extreme pro'' but trying to work out how to set up the differential braking (invert braking, is greyed out, also brakes are either off or on...), along with trying to work out trim ( i press trim, say roll, and i can't get it to stop rolling, and i don't know why). Yeah, the A-4 (following an old key-binding video) went from brakes, to 3 braking options, and there's no explanation of what they do, or the difference, it's madding... I went from using an xbox controller (quiet easy to use, ; I did a cold start, took-off, flew around, landed, then took off and landed on a carrier first go...), to not even being able to even use braking to line up to take off from a runway, with the 3d extreme pro..., so why would i spent 300 Dollars+ for a HOTAS? ( the winwing cheap version is looking good...
It could just be that it's because the A-4 is still limited because it's a mod and not an official module. I have not had any issues key binding any of my FF modules to my cheap $60 hotas.
Glad to see and can’t wait to fly all I play is fc3 I go outside and live life not sit in front of a monitor I can’t with a clean conscious piss my life away playing a child’s game on a nice day but you do you
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 I will re-phrase that, I am wondering is there anything extra in FC2024 that will enhance, the Mods in future. If you have any inside info on that
Could this be in preparation to a Vietnam map? It would enable players that do not want to invest in full fidelity to enjoy such map to the fullest. Although Sinai could serve the same offcourse.
I think the reason for the muted reaction on FC2024 is it expands the game to new players but people watching the video aren't new players. Still, If low fidelity modules is their thing, there's some serious gaps in the DCS lineup that ED should investigate, MiG23, MiG25, Mirage 3.
I think the muted reaction is because people are questioning exactly how ED is adding any value by simplifying modules that were already extremely simple. How exactly do you simplify the F-86 or MiG-15? They already have auto-start hotkeys, and their operation is very much a simple stick-and-rudder type of flying. So... how have they been simplified? Has the flight model been modified to make it less prone to stalls or spins, or otherwise more forgiving? Does it give you an arcade-type "radar" (which you already have with F10)? Do they include a live minimap so players don't have to learn how to use the HSI to navigate? (which again, is already in the game with the F10 map) Do they give them the kind of "shoot here" aim assist icons like in War Thunder (fundamentally giving CCIP and LCOS to aircraft that shouldn't have them)? I really can't conceptualize what they could possibly simplify about these aircraft, without going full-on arcade. And if that's the case, I won't play on any server in which they appear (and I imagine I am not alone in this)
