Well that sucks then. Guess we’ll still be using the Black Sea for the foreseeable future then.
I’m a casual combat flight simmer at this point. I have many gaming interests that include Arma 3, battlefield games, rocket league, r6 siege, assassin’s creed, etc. Plus i have other hobby/interests, not to mention working for a living. If DCS would be my primary computer entertainment, I would probably commit more to modules. I have A-10C and BS2, which I have barely used, mostly due to lack of motivation to tackle it. I’ve flown with FC3 quite a bit more.
I can see myself getting more involved with flying with MAC, plus buying Nevada and the Persian Gulf. Hopefully the quick mission editor will be better.
I get that probably 90% of people here prefer hardcore sims, but there needs to be some middle ground between War Thunder and full fidelity modules, in a modern setting.
I guess I’m a flight noob. I still like flying around in Arma 3 in a helo or jet blowing stuff up.
Actualy I am realy looking forward to this simplified lineup F86, F5, MiG15, MiG21.
The apeal in my case is the simplicity of these simplified modules.
F86 and MiG15 you will just startup with ‘E’ and you are good to go dofighting.
The same with F5 and MiG21 plus the misiles. With 21 I am wondering how they will implement simplified SARH misiles. I would be ok without them in MAC version.
Because for me F15, Su27, MiG29… are ‘too complicated’ for simplified aircrafts. I also want to see them all rather full fidelity modules than these FC versions.
I mean there is some capability of aircrafts where my preferences goes from simplified to full fidelity I guess it is wo/SARH misiles and w/SARH etc.
Even if it were just a rebrand of the unfathomably oddly named “flamin cliffs” Modern Air Combat would have a raison d’etre.
Understanding the branding/rebranding of the Flaming Cliffs line goes back to the old pre-LOMAC days. Back then, SSI still published the Flanker series, and ED was looking to expand the brand beyond the Su-27/33. The title was preliminarily called Flanker: Attack, and ED had a contest to come up with a better name. Lock On was the winner of that contest, and Lock On: Modern Air Combat was born.
Then Ubisoft came into the picture and purchased SSI. Ubi then owned the Lock On trademark, which is why when ED began doing development independent of Ubisoft, they rebranded it Flaming Cliffs and you still needed LOMAC to install the FC products. This was even true for FC3; even though DCS World was its own ecosystem, you needed to have LOMAC in your registry to install FC3.
As of a few years ago (3 I think), ED is no longer beholden to Ubi for the LOMAC intellectual property. You may have noticed in DCS World that the FC3 Theme no longer says “Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3” but rather just says “Flaming Cliffs 3,” and you no longer need LOMAC to install FC3 into DCS World. I’m sure Ubi still owns the Lock On trademark (unlike copyrights, trademarks don’t expire), but you can’t trademark a term like “Modern Air Combat” which exists in the public domain. Hence, MAC instead of FC3.
@HomeFries that is a great explanation of the name… I knew some of those things but hadn’t connected the dots yet.
I think most people on the forums would, probably even the developers, if it were just a 50/50 choice. The thing is, dumbing down is supposedly sooo much easier than upping the complexity that it does not really detract from the big projects. I can also imagine that the staff that creates the dumbing-down-API is not the same as the complex systems/ flight modeling experts.
I know it’s hard to believe, but yes, dumbing down is significantly easier than doing more complexity.
And, see, for me, DCS is the ONLY outfit I’d want doing this, especially after dealing with the personalities behind the development of the SF series.
Was admiring the F-22 and wishing there was a modern sim featuring. I know that classified info prohibits a detailed module, but would there be a chance for Modern Air Combat? Would so love to fly an F-22 and F-35 with a believable flight model and realistically logical operations. Barring DCS, is there anything out there featuring either of these birds? I know Total Air War is out there, but it is so old!
Well, there is a FSX/P3D F-35A/B/C, reviewed here: https://www.mudspike.com/dino-cattaneos-f-35-abc/
For DCS, ED has repeatedly stated there will be no more FC level modules. There might be a mod or two but I find myself doubting that. Doing a F-35 or F-22 in DCS would be a pretty massive undertaking and given that it’d be mostly guesswork, ED would never sign off on a license for it, let alone LockMart.
Thanks, I’ll check out the review.
I guess I’m confused. I thought that Modern Air Combat was a FC level module…
Right, it is – just of existing FC aircraft and a few high fidelity modules watered down. It’s basically moving FC3 ahead to the new DRM scheme and ditching Starforce, as well as bringing the aircraft to 2.5 standard. The addition of MiG-15, MiG-21, F-86, and F-5 are just to sweeten the deal.
ED isn’t going to add a, say, F-4 unless it already exists as a high fidelity module and they’re making MAC2.
Ah, got it!
That freeware F-35 looks pretty dang good! It’s been a long time since I’ve looked at FSX and have yet to try P3D. Do either of those allow shooting?
I believe the TACPAC does but it might be for P3D only. I’ve never messed with FSX or P3D as their focus is primarily civil aviation, but stuff like TACPAC is supposed to enable weapons usage. Keep in mind that the F-35 addon in question has moved onto payware for the latest versions and I believe TACPAC is also payware.
Also, if you want another old sim/game, F-22 Lightning 3 is available from Steam:
In the recent podcast here…
…it sounds like MAC is now a completely separate product. Wags also stressed how it isn’t really targeted at DCS users, as more a fun/casual thing.
I listened to that yesterday, sounds like a fairly risky proposition. He said it wasn’t targeted at the established DCS player base, so are you going after War Thunder? Just seems like a tall order considering how established the other games in the market are.
I was excited when FC4/MAC/DCS Thunder was initially announced because I thought it would be adding more aircraft in the FC3/IL2 manner. Now I’m not really interested.
And honestly the scope of what MAC is has changed so much since the initial announcement, it wouldnt surprise to me to see it change again before its all said and done.
MAC is basically the old Jane’s Sims with better graphics and fidelity. How many of got hooked with those back in the day? I wouldn’t be surprised if sales for MAC do better than DCS products honestly.
I have to disagree, because the old Jane’s sims often had a lot more immersion going on. I don’t mean to slight ED/DCS/MAC, but they’re very much focused on systems simulation, which can be fun in the right context… But it’s nowhere near the fun of made-up stuff we saw in the Jane’s titles. Now, maybe I’m wrong and ED plans to make MAC in this way, with heaps of mission and single player content to keep the adrenaline going, but so far they’ve been coming up short in that regard.
Both the MiG-29 and the Su-33 have been excellent additions to my library and I enjoy them a lot for the quick, simple spin they add to DCS, so I wish ED would plan to do more like that, but if the plan is to make MAC a kind of DCS-War-Thunder with it, I don’t think it will be quite what we’re looking for. On the other hand, make it like a Jane’s USAF or ATF and yeah, that could work.
That’s a fair point, and at the moment DCS really hasn’t prioritized the non-systems aspect of the game. Slapping some fancy briefing screens and basically a single player storyline in wouldn’t be that hard to do. Dynamic campaign, yadda yadda, I know, but a good branching campaign would be much simpler and easy to do. Besides most of my favorite gaming memories from that era are from branching campaigns.
So I’ll agree that right now MAC looks to be half of the old Janes sim’s, and if DCS can bring in the the other half they’ll have a winner.