Regarding DMT specifically? Because the targeting pod is way, way better. The only reason he mentioned the DMT was to explain the bump.
1 Like
As someone with limited play time (3 kids 12 and under plus 2 companies to run), I still enjoy flying the DCS Spit, Mustang, and Flying Iron Spit way more than in IL2 GB series. That isnāt to say that I donāt have fun in GB, I just have more satisfaction knowing the correct way to operate the more complex offerings and meeting whatever challenges that full fidelity experience entails. Way more satisfying coming back over the Channel having to manage fuel and a complex engine.
And two aircraft that I thought that I knew well, the Huey and Tomcat, turned out to be complete surprises when trying to get through Reflectedās campaigns. Yeah, way way more satisfying flying those two the right way and under duress.
Falling in to bed afterward exhausted but with a smile on my face.
Reading books about the challenges operating these war machines over long distances and hostile territory. Campaigns really enhance oneās appreciation for the challenges that brave men and women faced daily.
Canāt wait for the HB Phantom. Give me as much of the experience as possible, the complexity, adverse yaw, smoky fuel-sucking engines, analog gauges, surly GIB, annoying MiG-17s and 21s, SAMs, and 37mm. Make me ā ā ā ā ā . It will be worth it all.
8 Likes
As I wrote in the comments, I can not stand non-clickable cockpits in VR. I guess Iām the problem 
Iād be perfectly happy with simplified systems, so long as the less-commonly-used controls are clickable in the cockpit. The gear handle is a great example. I use it twice per flight (on a good flight, often only once 
). Radar standby and nav lights would be other good examples. Make them clickable, and give the aircraft modern PFM (or similar) and graphical quality up to a similar level as the newer FF modules and Iām all in 
1 Like
In that case I am also a problem 
1 Like
Yes, most of us like high fidelity and some of us prefer mid fidelity, at least sometimes.
But Enigmaās point is that we should not compare 1 mid-fi Phantom to 1 hi-fi Phantom module. Because the hi-fi is taking much more effort to make. 10 times or more is not a weird guess. That last bit of ultra fidelity radar and systems simulation is very very difficult.
So the question is: how many mid-fi modules is 1 Heatblur quality Phantom worth?
(For sake of argument, consider systems simulated at Flaming Cliffs level but with some clickable switches in cockpit so you donāt have to bind gear etc, and with the high quality flight model like FC3)
A Flaming Cliffs-like pack with 8 Vietnam aircraft?
F-4
F-104
F-105
F-8
A-6
MiG-17
MiG-21F
MiG-25
Or perhaps if we add another 8?
F-100
F-111
A-1
A-5
B-1
MiG-23
MiG-27
Tu-22
For me, 16 mid-fi planes beats 1 ultra-fi plane. I guess itās about 10:1 for me.
As Enigma says, if we keep demanding and praising higher and higher fidelity, we will likely never see a list like this make it into DCS, because thereās not enough resources for it. Whereas at mid-fi, it could be done with the amount of work that is now being put into a single F-4E: 5 or 6 years.
So it is āimportantā (I mean this is still just a game so 
) that we discuss this instead of going into less and less planes with higher and higher fidelity territory.
Otherwise, we may never get a full multiplayer Vietnam War or even any Su-35 in DCS
4 Likes
How many mid-fi planes beats 1 ultra-fidelity module?
- 8 (1 FC3 size bundle)
- 16 (2 bundles)
- 24 (3 bundles)
- 40 (5 bundles)
- 80 (10 bundles)
- Infinite: I donāt want any mid-fi planes, would rather have 1 ultra-fi plane than all historic scenarios at mid-fi
0 voters
OMG, I just realized what would be possible with helicoptersā¦ All of them, at mid-level systems simulation and full DCS quality flight modelsā¦
MH-53J, CH-53E, CH-53K, OH-6, BO-105, Mi-4, Mi-6, Mi-26, Mi-28, Tigre, AH-1G/S/Z, UH-1N/Y, Cougar. ā¦
And thatās just 2 bundles of 8
3 Likes
I had a very emotional response to this post.
Not to be dismissive of others but finally a post that read like the opinion of someone that understood the video Enigma made.
Thanks @Freak and yeah, bang on the money thatās the real issue.
As fragmented as DCS can be with its strange pattern of high fildelity models- a big pack of mid fidelity ones not aimed at be a substitute to the DCS-level modules would do wonders to be a collating experience to the World part of DCS World.
5 Likes
I know what you mean and understand what @komemiute is trying to point out.
but this following point of view āpeople are praising higher fidelity thats why we are getting it from EDā could be misleading imo.
lets have look at MSFS or XP etc third party dev structure.
here 3party has opened door to deliver low through mid to high level of fidelity.
but how about DCS? why there are no FC3 level modules developed by 3party? only mods?
why we have no info about MAC and the way the 3party will work in that ecosystem?
plus how about the mods? arent these mods the way to get almost anything flyable with less fidelity? really dont know much about these mods as I dont download them.
1 Like
And the answer is as varied as there are flightsimmersā¦ No offense, but I canāt answer that poll. Itās not that simple to me.
Especially since we must consider theā¦ecosystem, for the lack of a better word.
In DCS, as has been stated, we see fragmentation between modules of different fidelity. The problem with hifi modules is that everything else must be of the same level of fidelity. I donāt want to be stuck in a extremely complicated airplane if the AI or multiplayer opponent has a more forgiving flightmodel or systems to operate, as they will have an edge.
In IL-2 GB, or the Thirdwire sims, everything is equal in fidelity, so you wonāt encounter this issue.
So, I guess I expect DCS to be committed to hifi modules, but Iām totally happy with lower fidelity in other sims.
4 Likes
Oh boy do I have news for youā¦
1 Like
With partially clickable cockpits, modern flight models and modern graphics? Iād go as low as six low-fi in a pack to one full fidelity.
But I suppose I am asking for more than you get with an āIL-2 battle of Xā pack (minus the terrain - but definitely in terms of the aircraft), so thereās that?
2 Likes
but this is actually the problem of DCS ecosystem. SP or MP.
in SP the AI had or still has an edge as they used or are still using different FM.
according to latest development this is being addressed.
in MP this same applies to PVE servers.
on PVP servers there are servers where FC3 modules fly against FF modules.
I am assuming that the none clickable cockpit isnt the only difference between FC and FF modules.
1 Like
If, by that, you mean that it is already occuring, I can comfort you with the fact that I know Iām just saying that I donāt want that kind of fragmentation. Since DCS has started on the path of full/high fidelity, I want them to continue with this.
But thatās my mind speaking.
1 Like
Yes, that is what Iām saying.
2 Likes
surely that. and we are all happy that they are addressing it.
but I would advocate for having all levels of system fidelity in one ecosystem.
wont be really happy if after MAC release they āextractā FC3 modules from DCSW.
1 Like
No, there is no easy solution.
Letās say Iām allowed to dream a little and that MAC would get not only new ālightā modules, but also ālightā versions of all older modules, I think MAC would have a lot more users than DCS.
But that would also fragment the userbase.
I just donāt buy the argument that people wanting HIFI are their own enemy because of the required development resources. The heart wants what the heart wants.
And maybe, in the end, the current mix and fragmentation is the best we can hope for?
1 Like
some journalist work from 2021 regarding FC and the future
It has been over 8 years since Eagle Dynamics has released any aircraft that is not full-fidelity, so they have shown that that is not their focus when it comes to DCS:World anymore. And from todayās [sometime in 2021] poll on our twitter, it seems like at least half of our voters (thank you all for participating, even if only over 50 of you did prior to publication) prefer only flying full-fidelity in DCS, with a certain percentage liking both FC3 and Full-fidelity aircraft.
plus M.A.C. latest news
1 Like
Yeah, not much info about the development of MAC. And the issue is much more complex than just clickable vs. non-clickable cockpits. At least it is to me. VTOL VR has clickable cockpits but is rather light in terms of system fidelity. Very entertaining and challenging though.
Anyway, there is no fidelity standard besides as close as we can make it, so itās hard to juggle multiple levels of fidelity in the same sim.
In that respect, a single dev sim like VTOL VR has the edge as the guy writing the code sets the standard. 
1 Like
I canāt answer the poll either. And perhaps I didnāt understand enigmaās piece as well as I thought but, if not, I am no clearer now. I donāt care to have any more flying machines. That itch was scratched at last with the Harrier. I wanāt Vietnam, Midway, the Flaklands, etc. Not maps. Full experiences. From hooch to coffee to Loach. A dozen century jets is as desirable as a hundred McNuggets.
OK I canāt stop there. Iāll keep ranting. Super-carrier! THAT was an experience. Maybe it was easy to produce. Maybe it was as hard as an accurate ground radar. Donāt know. Not my wheelhouse. But seeing skittles made the sim seem alive again. There was a world. āMotherā really was mother.
3 Likes
and here interesting comment from @NineLine dated May 2022.
maybe he could chime in and post some fresh update
We donāt really have a firm statement on how it will all work. MAC will be where FC lives on, whether that means that if MAC gets new aircraft that we dont have in DCS will be able to be used in DCS or other solutions, I simple do not know right now. As far as DCS is concerned, we have no plans for adding more low-fidelity aircraft that I am aware of, meaning they will all be full fidelity, clickable, fully modeled, etc. This means I know of no plans to do a FC4, MAC will be the direction of further development of FC type aircraft.
2 Likes