4 Likes
rrrrawr! she hawt!
1 Like
5 Likes
Ah, yes, Barneyās Hot/Crazy Index.
This has probably been answered, but Iām asking anyway: is this a module of DCS or is it a separate title? I see that FC3 owners get a discount, so I presume itās a module within DCS.
- MAC has not be a stand-alone game, the use the DCS interface.
From Chizh, horribly mangled by Google. I think that means itās a module.
Thank you. I figured that was the case, wanted to be sure.
I canāt help but notice that after 15 years we have lost the LO (Lock On) giving us simply, MAC
Next time maybe weāll loose the āMā, which honestly would be appropriate.
After that we could loose the āCā. āAirā has a nice ring.
I donāt wish to ā ā ā ā on a good idea. But there is nothing new with the rebranding. Why not instead just sell the simplified planes and smaller maps at a lower price which befits the lower man-hours needed to create them. If potential players really are that dense, then having yet another product that works within the DCS universe wonāt make things any clearer for them. How about just saying that we have the worldās greatest combat flight simulator engine and within its universe we offer both simplified models and study models? That should get the idea across just fine. This affinity for multiple brands may be regional. Because we see it in the Battle of Wherever series as well. I am just glad that I am already intimately familiar with both companies. Because if I were coming at this fresh, I think I would be more confused than sold.
Also, like most players, I fly both clickable and simplified. I prefer the clickable stuff because it fires off a few more dusty synopses in my tired old brain. And they are actually easier in VR than the non-clickable models. Plus, I just F-ing LOVE watching a complex machine come alive, regardless whether it is real or virtual. But I will happily fly an FC plane if thatās what the mission calls for.
Donāt they already do this? You can buy the Su-33 for 15 bucks and itās part of FC3. Not so much the maps, though.
1 Like
They do. I donāt know why I am complaining, really. The MAC concept just seems like a solution looking for a problem. It requires nothing of me so I shouldnāt care. In the past this is where I would have said, āMaybe before they do this they should first fix that.ā But the game is better than it has ever been so I have no counter other than to wonder why?
I think itās just a way to stir up renewed interest. Instead of another iteration of FC, now itās MAC! Throw in a couple of different aircraft for good measure and it can be considered distinct from FC.
1 Like
Keep in mind that it is bundling the maps as single player versions and adding simplified down versions of F-86, Mig-15, Mig-21, and F-5E to the other simplefied down line up. It will also have improved Keyboard/Mouse control.
This is aimed exactly at the SF2 / War thunder crowd. One purchase and you get a simplified single player experience. While I myself canāt imagine the appeal of a simplified F-5E, it is apparently what many wanted.
While I am one who can occasionally struggle with module complexity and have no problem with a sim of this type being made, ironically I just wish literally anyone else besides DCS was making this. I would so much rather they spend the time upgrading the FC aircraft to full complexity than dumb down the full ones to this.
If someone else made the spiritual successor to SF2 from scratch we wouldnāt debate the merits of ED doing it for infinite amount of forum real estate and instead would discuss the possibly new ideas that they might introduce. We will see.
2 Likes
I read it as smaller segments of existing maps, not single player specific ones? In which case theyād probably get a lot of use in multiplayer as Iām sure most folks donāt do long treks to and fro the target area.
The smaller maps are specifically excluded from multiplayer. You canāt use them in a server.
Well that sucks then. Guess weāll still be using the Black Sea for the foreseeable future then.
Iām a casual combat flight simmer at this point. I have many gaming interests that include Arma 3, battlefield games, rocket league, r6 siege, assassinās 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. Iāve 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 Iām a flight noob. I still like flying around in Arma 3 in a helo or jet blowing stuff up.
2 Likes
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 āEā 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, MiG29ā¦ are ātoo complicatedā 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.
1 Like
Even if it were just a rebrand of the unfathomably oddly named āflamin cliffsā Modern Air Combat would have a raison dāetre.
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 āLock On: Flaming Cliffs 3ā but rather just says āFlaming Cliffs 3,ā and you no longer need LOMAC to install FC3 into DCS World. Iām sure Ubi still owns the Lock On trademark (unlike copyrights, trademarks donāt expire), but you canāt trademark a term like āModern Air Combatā which exists in the public domain. Hence, MAC instead of FC3.
3 Likes
@HomeFries that is a great explanation of the nameā¦ I knew some of those things but hadnāt 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.
1 Like
I know itās hard to believe, but yes, dumbing down is significantly easier than doing more complexity. 