Thoughts on MAC after flying new MiG-29

So the new FM on the Fulcrum makes the it feel much more alive, and it got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

There really needs to be more FC3/MAC aircraft in DCS, especially ones that are 2nd and early 3rd gen fighters. Do i really need a fully clickable Sabre or Fagot? Clicking all the switches for the MiG-21 to start her up is fun, but is it necessary? Once you are flying, at least for me, I rarely click anything except for the gear position lock. I have mapped the other necessary functions to the HOTAS. Same with the F5. I usually auto start it anyway. I’m ASSuMEing (sp) that’s why these modules were chosen for inclusion in the MAC package. I’m arguing for more, new, modules of the same era to be made MAC style.

Basically choose any one of these and fly it FC3/4/MAC style with a PFM:

1 Like

Change my mind.

No. We’ve collectively had this discussion like ten times, we all know where we stand, there’s no use getting worked up about it again. Glad you like the MiG, shame they can’t DCS it.

4 Likes

Do I have to? :slight_smile:

For the sake of argument, and the fact I missed the last 10 times it came up, here goes:

While it is nice to have more airframes, the missing bit of the ‘simple system model’ aircraft is that people that like complex systems are now getting precious dev hours spent on exactly the thing they don’t want.

The worse case scenario is these pretend aircraft are just vaguely correctly visually shaped things that operate nothing like the real thing. There is no point in them because if you can press ‘I’ to make the radar work and lock a target (or bind it to a handy HOTAS button) then it makes a mockery of doing a gen 1 or gen 2 aircraft that did not work like that at all. Just like putting a fake top-down map in an aircraft showing the enemy position is a gamification for people that don’t even want a radar and something simpler, having complex aviation and weapon systems reduced to single key presses makes a joke of semi-realistic ACM. If you don’t work the real systems then it is not a real fagot or real sabre, just something that from outside view looks a bit like it.

In summary, the systems maketh the simulation, and knocking out visually pleasing aircraft shapes quickly just so they exist is just wasting everyone’s time.

How’d I do? :slight_smile:

Personally, despite all that above, I am cool with more MAC stuff. As the Harrier and Hornet are proving, it takes a huge amount of time and effort to model stuff deeply, and we all aren’t getting any younger. The more the merrier I guess…

6 Likes

I think that we get prejudiced one way or the other, depending on what type of aircraft you fly more often and whether you fly VR or not. I just spent 1.5 hours in the Hornet in VR, then jumped over to BOS in VR and flew a P-39L mission. I hadn’t done that in a while and had forgotten my HOTAS mappings. The Airacobra pit is done so well that it’s hard not to want to click all of those switches. However, If I flew it more often, I probably would have most everything mapped and wouldn’t think much about it.

The F-15C is another matter. I’d really love to have a clickable pit done to Hornet detail in that a/c. The Sabre is so simple I don’t miss it. Anyway, I guess if I had my druthers, I’d prefer a clickable pit. But not having one doesn’t ruin my day. Not being able to kill things does.

1 Like

I’m with you guys on the systems aspect. The depth on the A10C is staggering. I guess it just doesn’t bother me so much to push “I” or “O” to turn the radar on rather than right click a knob twice to “OPR”, so long as the radar itself is believable. I’m fairly certain the F-15C radar is no where near realistic, but it’s believable enough.

I’m also out on any arcadey stuff like maps and what not.

1 Like

Having come down from my high of playing the final Bug mini-campaign mission and all the frustrating times I had to retry it because R-60Ms always hit me while my Sidewinders barely dented Fulcrums and my Sparrows missed 90% of the time…

I’m not opposed to having more airframes, even at FC/MAC level detail. The issue is how, exactly, do we make sure it stays firmly in the territory of “sim” and not “game”? Is the Fulcrum supposed to be able to laugh off two Sidewinder hits and then turn around and shoot down my Bug with a single R-60M to the nose that instantly blows off my wings and PK’s my pilot? I mean, I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the R-60M has limited frontal aspect capability and a fairly small warhead. I’m also pretty sure a single Sidewinder should be fairly lethal when it hits a Fulcrum, if at the very least forcing him to get out of the fight. That’s kinda the rub, in that solid data tends to say “yes, that’s probable” versus a guess. I don’t mind a guess per se, but you kinda leave things open to interpretation when you do that. I remember that a lot from the IL2 days, and that was with aircraft that weren’t classified – and a lot of guessing on the part of the Russian aircraft, since data was still a mess.

It’s all kinda moot though because ED has said “no” to more dedicated FC-level aircraft.

You’re right they have said no more “new” FC3, just arguing for the fenceposts sake. Too be fair about your fulcrum example, the AI flies all the aircraft with a simple flight and damage model. So they are always like that regardless of module. That’s why dogfighting AI can be so difficult because they don’t follow the same physics we do.

I mean, I’m the same, but building some new FC3 level aircraft isn’t a matter of if you use keyboard shortcuts or a mouse to click in a cockpit - it’s the simplification of the systems that matter. I don’t really care if the cockpit is clickable, just that the additional (and arguably fringe) systems are still there or not. It makes a real difference to how to use the aircraft, and if things like hydraulics, temperature modelling, ECM etc all get simplified out then we lose something in terms of fidelity that impacts the game.

MAC is an unusual one because they are lobotomies in that they are taking a full module and cutting it down for delivery as an entry SKU market. Going the other way and building something new simple and then trying to add the brain in as an afterthought is the bit I am less keen on, or rather I’d rather the aim for fidelity was there from the start, even if the full model gets the electrode treatment for packaging later on.

1 Like

Right, but there will be people on either side of the fence that can and will complain endlessly about that, thinking that someone shot them down online only because from their perspective the other side’s aircraft/weapons are overmodeled and need to be nerfed for X reasons. For what DCS does, the only way to get those folks to pipe down is to trot out real data… Which may or may not work, but data is data and it’s kinda hard to argue with it. FC aircraft don’t have a lot of real data to back up certain capabilities like radar, which can make or break the scene. It’s one of the key questions I asked in the Capabilities Gap thread, because we have to ask the question of whether or not an FC level aircraft and weapon was made more fair or was prone to favorable/unfavorable bias compared to an aircraft built to available data.

1 Like

For me clickable cockpit is the beter option as I dont need to map everything and even after some pause from flying the thing I can find the apropriate controls in cockpit.

So imo to see MAC stuf with clickable cockpits will be cool :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Eagle Dynamics agrees with you, that is why none of those things you mention are actually simplified in the current FC3 models.

Check out this post from 2014 on the ED Forums in which Wags explains what the Professional Flight Model means

Almost all FC3 planes currently have PFM and thus also

Only the OPERATION of those systems important for flight characteristics is simplified, not the underlying simulation and their behaviour.
A good comparison would be having a robot that flicks the three switches for you when you say “air to air mode” and then the robot goes Master Arm, AIM-7 selected, Radar on.
But the actual plane simulation is still there

EDIT: of course things like nav systems are not simulated, this is only done for the systems that are relevant for flight

2 Likes

I was able to try both the MiG-29A and MiG-29S last night. With my stock greased Warthog stick, the nose seems to be a bit unstable in pitch axis. At 750 kph, if I pull as little as a 2 G turn and release the stick, I get about 3 oscillations before settling. I can dial some of that out putting a curve on my control axis. Is that pretty much what is to be expected? Thanks.

Apparently the real MiG 29 is very pitch happy, tail strikes on take off, etc. I also noticed it has extreme rudder authority at high speed, to the point of sheering off the vertical stabilizers. I think I remember reading about this being accurate with the Flanker as well, so it maybe realistic. Pretty sure they are still tuning it though. I think the stick deflection/g limit/AoA limit whichever it has is being worked as well.

Regardless, the MiG feels much more fun to fly now. The SFM “on rails” feeling is why I avoided it for so long.

4 Likes

OT: I highly recommend anyone interested in the Fulcrum and the former USSR read this book, if you can find a copy:

2 Likes

Is it fiction?

1 Like

No, Zuyev was the real deal. The book is more about life in the USSR, but it does delve into some of the Fulcrum’s capabilities and what made it unique from the Flogger.

3 Likes

Wow! Yeah I should have Googled it. Thanks! :smiley:

1 Like

Wow what a story! I’m ordering that book right now! Thanks for sharing that! Even the wiki article was thrilling :+1::+1:

1 Like

At the risk of derailing the thread even further, here’s a 1993 60 Minutes segment on Zuyev:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_glEQuvurFQ

2 Likes