PC Pilot Article Updates Fans on the Status of MAC


#1

It would appear that the most recent issue of PC Pilot has an interview with Matt Wagner about the status of Modern Air Combat, and clears up some of the information surrounding this new title.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=228251

Although I don’t have direct access to the article, it would appear to those who have read it that the new title is going to be completely separate and apart from the main DCS World client, a totally different .exe. However, one thing that is still sort of muddled is the status of those owners of FC3 and how it will integrate into their user interface. The new product will have its own GUI, its own folders, and be pretty much separate and apart from DCS. There is also some indication that the maps within the game will be on the smaller side.

Some questions still seem to be asked about its MP integration with DCS:W, and it there are conflicting reports about whether or not MAC aircraft and DSC:W aircraft will be occupying the same space on servers. I sort of doubt it considering the lengths the developers are going to in order to state categorically that these will be two completely different titles.

Should be interesting if you’re into this sort of thing.


#2

Sounds like they’ve shifted from MAC being part of DCS to its own unique title. Perhaps trying to put distance between “hardcore” DCS and casual?


#3

Some previous chat on that article here, plus some info from @NineLine on what he sees MAC as so far: DCS World Newsletter - 28 December 2018

MAC probably deserves its own topic for sure.


#4

This sounds as plausible as any other reason. The reaction to the announcement of MAC was…mixed. This seems like a good way to keep the various factions happy.


#5

Now I feel dumb for starting a duplicate thread.


#6

But it’s all good, we need a dedicated MAC topic. I had hoped that MAC would drag the FC3 modules all into the new DRM system but it seems that is still a ways off yet.


#7

Yeah, it looks more like DCS turned MAC into a standalone product, which really isn’t the worst idea they’ve ever had, but I’d like to be rid of that Starforce nonsense once and for all.


#8

That’s pretty much it for me. It’s the only reason I haven’t bought FC3, the A-10C, Ka-50, UH-1, etc. yet.


#9

Well…I have mixed feelings about a separate title. First, that it means a lot more space used to have both.

Instead of MAC serving as a DCS:W gateway, it will be more like when TK took his SF PC stuff and ported it over to mobile.

While the idea of a having a single title with common maps and planes (so missions made for it apply to everyone without “I don’t have that plane!” “I’m waiting for a sale to buy that map” MP issues) is appealing especially if there is a solid code base that means you don’t have some people on beta and some on stable, and this release breaks the MiG-21 but fixes the Hornet radar, on the other hand it could conceivably cannibalize DCSW sales.

For the last decade DCS has had the market to itself. Creating your own competition sounds…risky.


#10

For what it’s worth, after initial activation I’ve had absolutely zero issues with Starforce interfering with anything. I don’t rebuild my machine alot… but I did buy A-10C a million years ago and had hardly looked at it in that time. I dug out my old login for DCS when Hornet came out and there was my Hog key. Installed without issue and enjoying since. Great mature module.


#11

I’m hoping that the mechanics are that MAC will be standalone that can also augment DCS. So someone can buy MAC and run it separately without DCS (weird but OK), but if desired it will also work with DCS by adding the FC/MAC level aircraft to it.

I could potentially see MAC as being the place for more streamlined versions of DCS modules with a common control interface and a more survey sim layout… But why do that when DCS already supports it?

By all rights, the modern version of Starforce is just a phone-home server check and not a corrupt driver that effs your system up like it did to me in '08. As I’ve stated before, my problem has more to do with the fact that the owners of StarForce denied and obfuscated legitimate users who reported problems with their DRM. They never owned up to that or apologized for their very unprofessional behavior, and as such I do not want one cent of my money going toward those people.


#12

Million dollar question. I guess its because the game interface and points system and smaller maps (the “game” so to speak) for DCS: World of Thunder is different than DCS World.

Also I don’t think we will see any kind of FC3 addition with this. Adding the F5/Mig21/F86/Mig15 to the FC3 pack would sort of defeat the purpose of purchasing DCS World of Thunder. When the project was first announced, it seemed like this is what they were planning, but it seems less likely to me now. Why sell two packs, with the same planes for two different .exes?

I could see them getting rid of the FC3 pack as a new purchase, selling the FC3 aircraft as individuals for DCS World (already done), and then having the bundle available only in MAC Thunder.

Generally speaking, I would think announcing a new major product line for a company should generate hype/excitement for the product. I’m more confused than anything.


#13

I can only think that a lot of this is a result of some mid-development change where they shifted from doing FC4 to something completely different. Thing is, ED has made several points about MAC being restricted in certain ways for single player, then even more restricted in multiplayer, but single player is pretty weak for DCS as a whole. Even if you add a dynamic campaign, it doesn’t change the fact that the AI is incredibly wonky, for example.

I think that a lot is being lost in translation here.


#14

As I’ve stated before, my problem has more to do with the fact that the owners of StarForce denied and obfuscated legitimate users who reported problems with their DRM. They never owned up to that or apologized for their very unprofessional behavior, and as such I do not want one cent of my money going toward those people.

“Your $50 optical drive died? Please spend a thousand dollars to fly here and prove it to us and then we will refund you the $50.”


#15

Yep, there’s a special place in Hell for those guys.


#16

The Starforce drivers fiasco still stands tall in the annals of worst customer service responses. I remember mine had the write function permanently disabled after installing the first Flaming Cliffs (I think it was called Lock-On Gold at the time). Never worked right after that.

I am trying to maintain some excitement because I haven’t been combat flight simming in more than a year. After I uninstalled SF2, there wasn’t much left. CAP2 is entering its third year of being in an unfinished state despite looking amazing when you fly it. Aside from practicing take offs and landings aboard an LHA, there isn’t much to do there. I keep hoping I’ll see an update, but we can’t even get changelogs from Ed Scio anymore.


#17

I’ve yet to try CAP2 but much of what I’ve seen doesn’t give me much hope. I know folks have their issues with the DCS Harrier, but thus far it’s been one of the highlights of the DCS experience for me.

On the whole, what I’m waiting for in DCS is what can they do to make the game more than just a button pusher, procedures sim. The right scenario can make all the difference in the world, but a little bit more is needed to drive home the point. What I’m reading about MAC doesn’t seem to be the right direction, but I don’t have access to all of ED’s marketing research and data either.