Full Fidelity Is a Trap & It's Holding Back DCS

[@Enigma89]

By demanding that planes become more realistic, we make the game less realistic because so many resources are getting soaked up on individual planes. Stop focusing on the tree and take a step back to see the forest. It's sparse, we need more planes and setting a new standard among future modules could be a really good thing.

[@profe3807]

BTW I think it would be possible to have FC3 fidelity aircraft with clicky cockpits. I think Redkod is doing a great job with the the FC3 mod and I think for a third party dev it wouldn't be too much work to make flippy switches for FC3 level fidelity modules.

[@tamasratkai1130]

The planes are more "realistic" yet the theater are not. Without electronic warfare, the modern era is not real. It's just incomplete. A Top Gun version of realism... So i don't see why we need more realitic plane, when the theater we use it, has huge holes. I know ED working on it. It's fine. But the difference between module makers made it "challenging". The mirage 2000 radar is awesome, detailed. Then you use it against, say f/a-18 or jf-17. The rwr-s has even greater difference.

[@bbmatthews2002]

FC3 is fantastic. Using the example of the A6, as reported, it is promised as an AI model first before becoming a FF module. Using your FC4, FC5 examples, I would immediately buy an FC4 as shown and likely your FC5 example. As DCS grows, is it not likely that over time (a decade I figure) that many planes shown would continually develop to FF or be so optioned in a future world to be FF or mid-F modules. Honestly, what does DCS look like 10 years from now when we have global world, Intel i13 chips 20TB SSD, and a nVidia 8090i GPU? That said, you expand the population of players with more FC3 planes, drive interest, and generate revenue for more reinvestment. All the while as software tools improve and the potential for jumps in fidelity (more clickable cockpits) become easier to implement. Presumably. Great vid. Thanks.

[@jasonforsyth5015]

There's already a game with low fidelity planes, I believe it's called War thunder. To me the difference between DCS and war thunder is that DCS is always chasing the more realistic feel. As an end user, is it more realistic? Don't know, I lift boxes for a living but the learning curve is what I've come to enjoy about it.

[@OzDeaDMeaT]

How is it being made less realistic by adding more realistic content?

[@RobertBerrier]

also, I do agree that improving "side systems" like ATC, JTAC, Mission editor, other radio comms, etc. Would add a lot more to the experience for all planes.

[@0Ignition0]

and assets, buildings, ground units, ships and aircrafts (AI)

[@Mightymoose02]

Agree!

[@markjh2005]

Could not agree more, I really like that ED put som much effort into releasing aircraft with high fidelity, but it would be good if they could take a look at DCS World and enhance some the "side systems" like you mentioned.

[@RobertBerrier]

@@0Ignition0 ow yes..mote buildings and airport fill

[@Snugggg]

really agree. ED should focus on core assets and functionality of the game/sim and leave the FF to the 3rd party devs. DCS is hard (relative to other games) and improving accessibility of the core gameplay would get more players in which would help us all long term.

[@Skipper0303]

I think the biggest problem is that modules are developed as single aircraft. For example, the F4U won’t be able to fight a playable Zero for some time. We get this specific eras classic aircraft but usually the counterparts take some time to be developed.

[@mikeserds2333]

Kinda. I personally have no issues with fighting nonlore accurate scearios. As long as the planes are full fidelity i dont mind fighting airplanes of the same side.

[@scottgoldstein10]

Between two peer level pilots, a zero is nowhere near a match for a corsair though, I think itd be more engaging, even though less historically accurate, to fly corsairs against the current axis planes in the game.

[@trainknut]

@@scottgoldstein10 You say that, but it should be a similar relationship with the P-51 and BF109, yet it isn't.

[@scottgoldstein10]

@@trainknut A D series P51 and a 109 K4 are damn near equals

[@trainknut]

@@scottgoldstein10 okay but a 109 G6 and a P-51D-15? Realistically the P-51 should have every advantage, yet the fights I see tend to be fairly evenly matched.

[@asandor83]

I think the biggest challenge here is the fact that different players use DCS in very different way. On the DCAF server we play high-realism scenarios in a bluefor coalition. That means we all train as part of a squadron flying a single airframe (there are a few squadrons - F15,F16,F18,Harrier) so switching airframes is rare. This means we do value fidelity over having lots of planes available. On the other hand redfor is always AI so again we don't need those to be flyable at all. I'm not saying this is the way DCS needs to be played, just showing that in this scenario a few high fidelity planes are more valuable than lots of medium fidelity ones. I believe that having players who play the game in such very different ways must be a massive challenge for ED.

[@Xam06]

I totally agree, there are a lot of different ways to play DCS and more FC3 styled packs would help to add more diversity to make more players happy. And I don't think it would harm your playing style as long as new full fidelity planes are developed

[@Enigma89]

Playing against AI only in DCS is negative training IMHO

[@franckzecchin2573]

⁠@@Enigma89 I think exactly the opposite. In PvP you have pilots flying alone with no defined objectives other than shooting the first enemy plane they encounter, always in daylight with good weather conditions and of course no failures. This cannot be further from what happens in the real world. I read some books written by military pilots telling about their experience in combat and there is a lot to learn from this. Maybe playing coop missions against AI in a scenario based on real events can be seen as a bit boring compared to the excitement of PvP but it is a hundred times closer to the real deal.

[@lefty59th18]

​@@Enigma89That's a very biased opinion, it's a product. No one should tell anyone how to use it, especially based on personal opinion. I've made this mistake, learned the hard way.

[@ferce889]

who cares about your honest opinion XD youre just some dude who made a server. your shit isnt gold@@Enigma89

[@ivellos]

I DO believe we need a new FC4 to populate some eras of the game. The FC3 module helps so many Full Fidelity aircrafts shine

[@BlindxSide]

Exactly. Even though FC3 isnt full fidelity, the game would be much lesser without it. A FC4 would only add more value and gameplay to the game.

[@Lightning_Mike]

@@BlindxSide Even if it's not full fidelity, it's well above and beyond any computer game out there. Closest one is SF2, and even that falls short.

[@bronco5334]

I don't think we do. What the sim needs isn't more FC3-level aircraft, it needs a free asset expansion to add more AI aircraft for WW2, Vietnam era, Iran-Iraq war era, and modern 1990s-modern China. What we need are tools to make mission creation easier (like a strike package auto-generator that would put together a strike package automatically and assign them all waypoints at the same time and automatically set them appropriate weapons loads and put them all on the same strike frequencies), or a dynamic campaign, to make it easier to get into fully fleshed-out realistic combat scenarios. We could really use an upgrade to the AI algorithms used by the AI-controlled IADS, making them use better tactics and networking (search radars cuing SAM acquisition radars so the SAMs can ambush aircraft, for example- and the SAM batteries being forced to go independent if the supporting search radars are destroyed). We need actual modeling of Offensive Electronic Warfare (EA-6, EF-111, EF-18G, Tornado ECS, and the like) actually degrading enemy radar and communications over an entire area. We need support for large quantities of units in the game simultaneously without bogging down performance. The game feels dead because the only air defenses are the ones the mission creator hand places specifically into that mission file, and the only ground forces are those that the mission creator specifically places (generally only as targets for the player). There needs to be automation to generate and place entire UNITS of grounds forces, contesting a FLOT. There should be entire brigades, if not divisions or corps, fighting on the front line, with multiple batteries of artillery exchanging fire. There should be dozens, if not hundreds of SAMs distributed across the battlefield. Right now, we get a company or two of ground forces, usually static, and the only SAMs are those in the target area and very occasionally along the player's expected ingress and egress routes. But as soon as you extend away from the mission target, the world is dead and empty. Hopefully the dynamic campaign engine Eagle Dynamics has promised will provide these things.

[@ivellos]

@@bronco5334 Tools to make mission creation easier, a dynamic campaign and support for large number of units without performance loss I agree 100% we need it. I was just talking about new aircraft modules, since that is the specific topic of the video. In this case, I think another Flaming Cliffs pack wouldn't hurt anyone, wouldn't harm the development of FF modules and would enrich the game overall, both for new and experienced players and for single and multiplayer.

[@daniel-it2lw]

i would rather a full separate fc4 game tbh, with less bullshit in the plane and more focus on the amount of playable planes. and more focus on flight, not sitting on the runway setting the radio and codes haha

[@whenindoubt]

I really enjoy learning involved, high-fidelity plane systems. That's the primary draw of DCS to me right now, and why I think it's special -- medium-fidelity modules give me only a bit of this, and it's limited/recycled. I don't currently care so much about airframe diversity because what I like using and learning are the systems, and if those are standardized, new modules aren't that interesting. I would probably play BMS instead mostly if DCS had 500 medium-fidelity modules but no full-fidelity. That said, I can imagine caring more about airframe diversity if the gameplay loop made force composition more important, which in my mind comes from a good dynamic campaign with a meaningful simulation of ground forces, economy, and logistics. I would love to exist in a world where there's an in-game reason for a player to choose a medium-fidelity Growler over a full-fidelity Hornet, or even one variant of Fulcrum over another. Or for a player to fly roundtrips in a tanker or cargo aircraft to resupply a forward airstrip, or for a CAS mission to support an infantry assault of an airstrip or a base. There are coarse approximations to these features in DCS right now, but it's really nowhere close. This kind of map/campaign dynamics would make it both far more compelling to me to play the game on a regular basis (now that I've learned all of my high-fidelity modules) and make me much more interested in having a lot more airframes to fit to dynamic, meaningful mission profiles, rather than random objective spawns on a tug-of-war repeating ad infinitum. I don't think I have to convince you of the importance of the gameplay loop, but the point for me is that without a good one, it's more compelling to me to have fun pressing buttons in involved systems that do cool things in detail than have more role variation.

[@nooneno12]

High fidelity modules and fc modules are not exclusive nor compete. If a high fidelity mig-29 variant comes out people will buy it for high fidelity reasons, fc3 mig-29 will not canabilize the sales of the high fidelity version. Introducing modern fc type packs would be compatible with the high fidelity modules flying side by side.

[@slowhornet4802]

I think the point that every aircraft and even sub versions of them should have a reason to be used is excellent. I think the same is true for many of the systems which are modelled in all those aircraft. A lot of switches are there but do nothing in terms of gameplay. E.g. cabin temperature: what is the gameplay impact? Would be cool if cockpit windows start freezing (JF-17 has this implemented AFAIK), or pilot performance would go down if too cold or too hot. IFF: Who turns it ever off in DCS? In real life it is done in some scenarios to reduce emissions. Navigation: that was a challenge in the pre GPS era. You had to update the INS with a visual or radar fix. Even though some modules have this capability modelled, I cannot recall even a single situation where I had to do that. And another issue is that some modules may have implemented this, and others not. This would give the latter ones an unfair advantage (since lowering the workload). And for multiplayer servers it would be great if there were GPS jammers. Knock them out and only then use of GPS ammunition would make sense. Recce: Enigma's server has it implemented, but this should be a feature of DCS out of the box. Photo and electronic recce, the latter is possible with Viggen only (and using an external tool only). Comms: would be cool if there is a less true to life but better for gameplay implementation: E.g. encryption is relative weak (e.g. only a 2-digit code). This would allow a patient team member of the opposing team to check out all settings in order to break the comm code. Or maybe there is even a Combined Arms vehicle that would allow to breal the code in a minigame. This might force the other side to switch comms on a regular basis. And yes, this would not prevent people from using out of DCS comm tools like Discord, and even would require a proper in game voice chat. ECM: would be great to have a Prowler where somebody would have to adjust ECM based on the radar frequency and channels the enemy is using. GCI: there should be a radar screen with maybe a low resolution ground overlay, such that there is a rough understanding where opponents and friendlies are. Not a magic F10 map which shows exact positions as soon as somebody spotted an opponent. Radar channels: F-15E now forces people in multiplayer to select different radar channels since otherwise the radar would also see returns from other F-15E radars. Terrain following radar: in real life these can get confused if e.g. one F-111's TFR picks up signals from another F-111's TFR. Or picking up signals from opponent's AAA / SAM radars (happened in real life when F-111 were attacking targets in Libya) Fuel: maybe there should be a global modifier which could force all aircraft to burn fuel more quickly? That way people would not fly extended periods of time in AB, and AAR would be more a necessity on some of the smaller maps. In turn the AAR could be made easier (e.g. flying close to the tanker is sufficient). Yes, less realistic, but from a gameplay perspective it might make more sense. Example from the past for a great flight sim where many features had a meaning: DI Tornado: Brilliant mission planner, different ground targets which had a significant impact: knock out comm nodes and you got better recce information. Knock out airbase with interceptors and in the next round no interceptors were flying. Knock out a chokepoint and enemy could not advance as quickly. Knock out AWACS and enemy's interceptors were less efficient. Attack airfield with 6 Tornados and it made a different if the attack was well planned: attack from different directions, all attacking within a short time frame such that AAA and SAMs could not focus on one aircraft / one direction, or being lazy and have all Tornados flying in from the same direction, which resulted in much higher loss rate. Clear the path with ALARMs in one mission to have fewer SAMs and AAA in the next mission... Early in the campaign you had to fly low and fast, later (after clearing enough SAMS) you could got to medium altitude and use LGBs. Bad weather? Great, IR missiles lost track when you were flying in clouds. DOS simulators F-29/F-117 and later Jane's Fighters Anthology had stealtho-meters. Maybe not realistic, but you could see that closing a bomb bay reduces your RCS. You had to fly differently in case a ground radar was doppler (try to beam) versus non-Doppler (fly towards it since frontal RCS was lowest). Just a final word: DCS is amazing, and I fly more HF than LF modules. But I would love to see more mid-level fidelity and much more gameplay relevant mechanics to be implemented.

[@HighAspect]

How does playing BMS help ? It is focused on gameplay so by ED focusing more on gameplay it would make DCS better. BMS flight models aren’t nearly as good as DCS

[@HighAspect]

@@nooneno12agree 100%

[@thatshortkid1277]

FC3 is great for when you just wanna sit down and play and not go through startups and checklists for 45 minutes I’d still choose my F16 or F15E but the FC3 SU-25 holds a special place in my heart it’s fun, durable, and simple

[@wraith444]

I'd be open to more relaxed fidelity modules, but honestly really what DCS needs right now IMHO are improvements to the core gameplay. AI, weather, ATC... So much of the really captivating gameplay options out there are only available because of creative ways community members have worked around the limitations of the sim. More planes (full fidelity or otherwise) will always be nice, but until the world around them is fleshed out they really just won't reach their potential.

[@totoryf4422]

Personally, I installed DCS and invested time and money in it EXCLUSIVELY for the full-fidelity modules, even though they take much more time to create by module makers, I think that a FF airframe is much more rewarding and complex than low-fidelity modules. In my opinion, the only reason I would buy FC3 is for other aircraft mods. Because I would dedicate much less time to FC3 aircraft due to the inherent simplicity. But it's still a very good video as always!

[@FJFuentesCO]

Same with me. Don't start DCS to play a game, I turn it on to spend time learning the systems of a chosen aircraft. Turning it on, turning it off, learning procedures, etc.

[@totoryf4422]

@@FJFuentesCO And also having the satisfaction of starting to have muscle memory because you start doing the same procedures

[@BlindxSide]

While full-fidelity is more complex, this complexity is not necessary for gameplay. Of all the full-fidelity modules I own, all the "complexities" have simply been relegated to keybinds, making them about as complex as an FC3 plane in the end.

[@totoryf4422]

@@BlindxSide Yes but even though some buttons must be bound to a button, I find that clicking buttons in the cockpit increases immersion to a much greater extent than a FC3 module

[@PLHarpoon]

100% agree with this. There's a reason why Il2 is collecting dust on my hard drive. I play DCS by learning the aircraft and all the correct procedures I can find for that aircraft. I usually pick one module and commit to it until I get bored, then pick another one etc. So yeah, I would not want any of the current module makers to drop making full fidelity aircraft. On the other hand there are lots of teams making lower-fidelity modules for X-plane or MSFS. Perhaps ED could allow some of them to make FC3-level modules for DCS. There would have to be some standards set, like for example the flight model and sensors needs to be 80-90% accurate. On the other hand I totally understand ED's reluctance to do this - setting standards is one thing, enforcing them is another.

[@Nynyso]

My opinion is that ED should step down as a module maker and just start to make the core more polished and feature complete, while the teams can crack down on making the best module they can. ED should also invite the teams to make mid tier fidelity plane packs but they should do that by adding more teams inside the project.

[@Mr66D]

I can't be the only one who thinks a FC3-level Su-24 would make a *superb* addition to the cold war server. And to elaborate, that mid-fidelity might be the only way of fleshing out REDFOR in anything like the modern era.

[@Enigma89]

100%

[@krzysztofseremak2201]

I don't think so - it was specialised, quite sophisticated strike aircraft, relying on navigation suite, radar, weapon systems all the time. Simplified Su-24 would be a lot less appealing than simplified Su-25, as in case of Su-24 "yanking the stick" and looking around with an eyeball would have zero value, Su-24 was all about systems, simplified, deprived this sophisticated systems, would be pointless.

[@Enigma89]

@@krzysztofseremak2201 Here is the issue, the Su-24 is still in service in Russia, so it's not possible and not coming to the game due to full fidelity requirements. So the next question is, would you accept a mid-fidelity one as the only viable option?

[@krzysztofseremak2201]

@@Enigma89 No. I think we should be playing to the strengths. Not chosing to model aircrafts in unattractive/unfitting way. Modeling Su-24, relying solely on its systems, without this systems, would be just stupid or unreasonable, like armed to the teeth F-35 in civilian simulator, able to only look at xternal views. Or like modeling Hornet, which has three MFDs, as FC3 - it would be completely pointless as in FC3 practically can't use MFDs. We should choose naturally attractive aircrafts in given circumstances and limitations. Especially as noone said we will or should have every single aircraft modeled in DCS as flayable.

[@rhysgoodman7628]

@@krzysztofseremak2201 you and Enigma both make fair points on the Su-24. I think the Su-24 is pretty much completely off limits for the reasons you stated. It relies heavily on its avionics, which are unable to be simulated properly. Simulating the startup procedure of the Su-24 would not be nearly as much of a problem as simulating the radar or weapon computer(s). I would rather have a FF Su-17 than FC Su-24. But at the same time, some aircraft, like the Su-27, can only be made as FC.

[@algotler]

There is a place and audience for every flavor. For me personally the whole point in DCS is to be as close as possible to the actual aircraft (without being KIA) and plains that are not aiming at this are fillers at most. I never would invest time in learning mods like F-22 for that reason. Having said that, models that strive to "guesstimate" the reality as an end-goal, have their place in the digital universe as well and are a lot of fun in a different way (just like the space sims forest).

[@marvinmartiani1337]

Cause Nato vs Nato is so much fun. There were a lot of VERY serious online players and communities (mostly BS's BF) that were (have) been praying for MAC to get released. If you go in any way past oogling the 3D models and some light single player, the "depth" of realism falls of sharply due to the lake of modules to flesh out scenarios

[@karlhungus545]

You are in the tiny, vocal minority. Catering to the tiny niche kills games. I'm guessing you also play in VR (another tiny niche) and a lot of multiplayer (also small niche)? I have 14 modules and FC3, and having the easier planes to fly (mostly helos actually) is what really keeps me coming back. Most people (with kids, jobs, other interests, etc) don't spend hours and hours every week playing this. I don't even have my PC turned on for 90% of the spring and summer, and then find it a chore to come back to the game in the full having to re-learn everything.

[@dareonanderson5388]

@@karlhungus545war thunder sounds like a better game for you

[@rolandrandmaa1898]

@@dareonanderson5388 yeah, IL2 Bos is too a simpler and contains a lot of planes plus theaters. I prefer DCS Hi-Fi planes.

[@karlhungus545]

@dareonanderson5388 LOL...having a life is nothing to be ashamed of 🙄🤣 You should try it...

[@broworm1]

For me personally full-fid is where it's at. Though i started out with the Su-25t & FCIII pack myself until i came to grips with the laws of physics and craved for more. I see with my friends they really like DCS but can't dedicate as much time as would be required to learn al the planes they think are cool. 'FC4' could be just what DCS needs for an increase in player numbers, and I would never knock someone for preferring to fly the F-15C over the F-15E. It's just not for me, I have the drive and the discipline to learn new FF modules, and the knowledge retention that I can usually cold-start whatever I haven't flown in a year. FF all the way!

[@canconservative8976]

the FF modules are really a great cognitive exercise!... challenge for the mind.

[@SiGeHa]

You my fine gentleman or fine Lady are speaking facts

[@isaiahaguilera7710]

I agree, I feel like the whole “it’s a StUdy SiM, keep the FC planes out” is just nerds just Gate Keeping their hobby.

[@thomasgilles8183]

One point for FC3 in my opinion is that the planes are "easy" to use. You don't have to print the manual, or remember the full startup list, just a few clicks and boom there you go flying. For someone who has little free time, this is a major advantage. When I play with FC3 after two weeks without touching DCS, I remember most of the key bindings and I can find the rest easily. When I start the harrier or the A10C after a week, I don't remember most of the things and I have to spend hours re-learning stuff before actually enjoying the game. It's fun, but very frustrating when you can't allocate hours per week to DCS

[@tommaxwell429]

I didn't experience this. I was out of simming for about a year and when I came back to DCS, I was able to start and takeoff every plane I own within about 10 minutes of review. However, mastering all of the systems in the complex planes is a lifelong endeavor for me.

[@michalkrw]

Funny thing, Redk0d's clickable mod for FC3 makes these aircraft even easier to operate. Instead of remembering some obscure keyboard combination or multiple HOTAS layers to change bomb settings, you can just click the switch in the cockpit. FC3 is easy, because these aircraft are relatively simple, single-task airframes in real life,. For 4th gen multirole or modern glass cockpit airplane, the "FC3" formula wouldn't work so well.

[@kneecaps2000]

They are different games really. Room for both to exist.

[@tommaxwell429]

@@kneecaps2000 I'm not sure ED would call DCS a game. I seem to recall them talking about working with Govs to develop it as a full-fledged training simulator. On the other hand, one can autostart, set flaps, and be flying with just a few keystrokes in the complex planes as well. You don't have to know every system inside and out to enjoy the modules. There is a place for casual flyers, its fun just to fly the F16 around the Caucauses map at treetop level, but a casual flyer isn't going to need all of the systems that a person flying multiplayer complex sorties is going to need. I would suggest that those are more about learning tactics, the enemy, and team flying than learning the systems. One can go out and fly the training missions/single player missions without knowing the entire aircraft. I guess if they want to develop more FC3 aircraft, that's fine. but, I'm betting that most players won't. I's too frustrating for me! I like my switches to switch, my buttons to button, and my levers to pull and twist. Like the OP says, they have limited resources. I'd rather they finish and beef up the planes we have, rather than focusing on new ones. If one can't have fun flying what we already have, then perhaps we should reexamine our definitions of fun. Pick one plane and get good at it. Learn the systems and the capabilities well and then go have fun flying missions. I agree trying to learn 40 modules and retain it all is a daunting task reserved for those who do it for a living, i.e. the DCS KZbinr's. But few of us are in the position to fly 8-12 hours per day. I'd suggest learning one modern complex aircraft like the F18 or F16 and one warbird like the P-51 or Spitfire, get a couple of maps, and go for it. More fun than life should allow. IMO what we are talking about here is the difference between flying and module collectors. I guess there is room for both, but even the full-timers seem to favor one or two aircraft over the others.

[@blackfalco33]

Ooh finally someone Who understand. I agree with everything you said. I Dont have ti find myself doing a second job Just to play a game 🤣

[@gungriffen]

You want DCS to remove the one thing that makes DCS different (and superior) to any other Simulator ever made? I think the video you should have made is, "Why IL2 needs to move into modern aircraft."

[@172ndairwing4]

Good video. Here’s my response- the advantage of DCS is delivering a truly realistic flight experience. For most of us it’s as close as we’ll ever get to flying a combat fighter jet in a real air force.Hell, it’s realistic enough that real life military pilots relive their high speed days from the comfort of their living rooms. Maintainers, support people and families who always saw combat aviation at a distance have an opportunity via DCS to see what aviators do. That’s an impactful capability. Look at the stories around the F-15E module ,and what experts like Colonel ‘Starbaby’ Pietrucha share about aviation because of that modules fidelity. DCS is not Ace Combat or War Thunder, and it shouldn’t try to be. It shouldn’t try to include every air vehicle built, and it shouldn’t try to be everything to everyone. It should continue to deliver what they’re good at- high fidelity recreations of aircraft. On that topic, we shouldn’t close without discussing RedFor. Obviously the Russian legal environment is a major obstacle- but government policies change. Putin cannot govern Russia forever. One day someone else will be in charge, and when that day comes perhaps things will be different & DCS can include more comprehensive RedFor assets. Until then, it’s unfair to hold DCS or it’s developers responsible for a legal situation they can’t control.

[@whippingstar]

DCS shouldn't be an arcade flight sim. But Growling SIdewinder, Hoggit Georgia at War, and ECW are consistantly the most populated servers. After that, you have a long, long list of PvE servers with around 10 players, and then a massive list of servers with a bot and 2-3 (I assume) live people. As with most games, I'm sure the majority of people play single player PvE. But even then, I would be very surprised if DCS' core audience is the kind of player that lives for going through every item on every checklist every single time they take off.

[@leminh111a]

I think this video is not trying to make a point of making DCS become Ace Combat or War Thunder. A better example would be to make DCS more like Falcon 4 BMS, or even Falcon 4.0, where there is a clear era, a clear theater, persistent battlefield, clever AI with realistic strategy and tactics. Just look at how Falcon BMS does the jammer, it has directional jammer, and affecting the radar lock of the enemy, and aircrafts without jammer are in severe disadvantage (Mig-29A). No more flying high and fast like a madman just to sling missiles and RTB, you have clear objective to do, to cooperate now, even in single player. This is how deep and dynamic the gameplay can be if we don't hard on about a module should be as realistic as possible. Even with the F4 Phantom, personally I think there are still a lot of classified info about it that we will never be able to see (Combat Tree, how the navy early warning radar can point to the sea surface to use its reflection to detect targets, etc.). So what we can really confident about full fidelity of a fighter jet would just be some procedural steps, not the "tactics", because the relevent systems are just too classified.

[@chrisburn7178]

​​@@leminh111aYou are absolutely right about a "clear era and theatre, persistent battle" etc. It shows in WW2 as well. My guess would be that many players are gagging to (for instance) run escort missions for 8th AF bombing raids into Europe, taking off from Boxted, Raydon, Duxford etc., as it's one of the busiest and most fascinating parts of the air war, and we have most of the aircraft already, yet neither of the maps have East Anglia or any of Germany, so we're reduced to weird quasi-historical missions to the French coast. Paradoxically, we have the maps for the Battle of Britain, but not the aircraft. So although the planes are great, there's no sense of being involved in anything special.

[@Enigma89]

@@leminh111a You get it

[@splashfreelance2376]

Medium fidelity no longer means less-realistic flight models, just less realistic procedures and subsystems. And yes, Putin will be gone but i wouldn't hold my breath for any Ruzzian government to lose their paranoia. It's kinda baked into the Ruzzian way of government, or at least it has been for hundreds of years. There's no motivation for them to lighten up in this area, even if/when they make steps to have a more grown up society. And Enigma is not talking about dropping FF modules, he's talking about people, probably not even ED, spending less than 10 years to bring a plane or two into the sim to flesh out some of the many missing areas.

[@dunbar555]

DCS is a study sim. I like it that way. that doesnt mean i dont enjoy Il2

[@ghostb9339]

100% with you on that. I don’t want DCS W to become another Warthunder. I love digging inside all the HMCS settings, I feel deep pleasure and sense of achievement not in high score in pvp battles but in understanding how this module works under the hood.

[@iNcog_AoE]

Study sim? Lol missiles are modeled worse than war thunder. ir missiles keep lock through clouds. Most radars that aren't Razbam made are also modeled poorly. F1 radar overperforms when it comes to look down shoot down. The sabre flight model over performs and its bullets are too slow. Dcs isn't a full study sim. Dcs is a cockpit clicker game and a museum. I also prefer full fidelity but they can't even do it right. SAM behavior is too simplistic. Spotting is unrealistically bad. Damage models are bad. This is a combat flight sim this is not msfs

[@deekamikaze]

​​@@iNcog_AoER missiles do not maintain locks through clouds, in war thunder you can be flying directly away from a radar missile and dump a single chaff and it'll act like a flare and the missile will go straight after that. You're completely wrong on this one and this is a big reason why I left war thunder in the first place. It's an arcade game focused on gameplay and not realism. The flight models are pretty good and they act a lot better than MSFS.

[@iNcog_AoE]

@@deekamikaze I literally play pvp on a fox2 based server every day. IR missiles overperform in dcs. WT actually models missiles better than DCS does

[@Fatallydisorganized]

@@iNcog_AoE Long-wave infrared sensors used on missiles can easily see through clouds. Short wave infrared like a civilian-accessible thermal camera is heavily degraded by the weather. You are patently wrong. Older missiles might be true however this is not correct for missiles like the AIM-L and above and the R-73.

[@basskiller296]

You make very good points, I originally came to DCS for the dogfights, now I invest 80% of my game play in staring procedures and all other aspects of a flight. I guess you are right that DCS is like a digital museum, and I’m loving every single minute, it is a great way to learn aviation history, test different aircraft engineering design and systems, and feel how the pilots felt and perform their jobs, I only fly in VR so be a competitive gamer is no my main goal, for me is all about the immersion and personal satisfaction of been in the “Danger Zone”

[@tommaxwell429]

Start of the mission hot and bypass that 10 minutes of start/warmup.

[@StoneCoolds]

VR is how you are competitive, flat mode is mostly for youtubers since VR is very shaky for videos

[@zblazek2]

@@StoneCoolds I don't agree. I tried VR and IR Track and in VR it is much, much more difficult to look around you in a dog fight to keep visual contact with the target. Well, it is realistic. However with TrackIR you can just slightly move your head to look everywhere and that makes you more competitive.

[@triangleenjoyer]

The existence of FC3 is the cheesy way the wonderful A4 community mod can exist.

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

Explain? The A-4 is a full fidelity module. Maybe it wasn't at first. But it is now. Even ED showed it off in their 2023 and beyond video. It should be made official and included as a free aircraft. It would be a great hook.

[@triangleenjoyer]

Since it isn't an official 3rd party module, there are certain things that the team can't do. (...Due to some things only being possible with access to the official SDK.) The changes you are thinking of are the flight model changes.

[@michalkrw]

@@triangleenjoyer It's because these assets are already in core game, not because they're not full fidelity. If an A-10C was in the core game and open for edits, you would probably see even better mods.

[@triangleenjoyer]

Something I found in the FAQ "Q: Can I use radio functions? - We are unable to implement fully functioning radios, as we do not have access to DCS Software Development Kit (SDK). The SDK is only available to official 3rd-party DCS developers, so the likelihood this functionality can be added in the future is slim. Other mods with functional radios tend to piggy-back on FC3 modules, changing only animation arguments, and not module functionality. The A-4E-C is a wholly original module, so we can't add radios unless ED decides to open the functionality to the list of commonly accessible functions to modders."

[@triangleenjoyer]

@@arron4749 yep, I agree. It doesn't use FC3.

[@tangobenign-ran-1869]

You answered your own question with that IL-2 meme. If I wanted a less fidelity model, I'd play IL-2 or WarThunder. The clicky full fidelity of DCS makes turning on the plane feel like an accomplishment- let alone the grind to being good at the airframe.

[@HighAspect]

Clickibility isn’t to me what makes it HF - it’s the more realistic systems

[@Enigma89]

IL-2 is IL-2 because it has a cohesive and thematic plane choice not because it's not clicky clicky.

[@Wolfhound_81]

@@HighAspect combo of both for me. But I haven't seen many fully clickable aircraft with badly designed systems. Even in civil fs, most bad cheapo modules are both bad in systems and limited clickability

[@control_the_pet_population]

I think there is a pretty large gap between "I'll play War Thunder" and any given plane from Flaming Cliffs 3. Let's not get silly here. It's a balance as far as I'm concerned. I don't think you can drop to anything 'less than' the fidelity of FC3 stuff... but I think the game could benefit from a decent chunk of $40 lower fidelity options sitting next to the $80 pseudo study models. Dont' get me wrong, I 100% respect the guys that want to do nothing but pour 120 hours into learning the backseat of a F-15E... but I think there is a potentially * huge * untapped market for something way more involved / hardcore than War Thunder but less then "no bro, you need to read the 850 page Chuck's Guide, freakin noob'.

[@HighAspect]

@@control_the_pet_population spot on. Heck I’d love an updated F-15C or F-15A and I don’t need everything the E has

[@kaistraka7153]

The fidelity of modules is what makes DCS different from other sims. There are plenty of other sims and games to play if one prefers quantity. A mix of FF and FC3 is perfect to introduce players into the larger scale of DCS, but the full fidelity focus is what makes DCS unique. It would be best to keep DCS as a fidelity focused sim instead of converting it into another 'game' style simulator. Although the idea of more FC3 packs is interesting.

[@ShadowGJ]

What other sims? As a modern flight simulator, DCS has no competition.

[@augiehicks4588]

@@ShadowGJBMS exists.

[@BlindxSide]

@@augiehicks4588 BMS is literally only about the F-16.

[@augiehicks4588]

@@BlindxSide That’s incorrect. There are multiple other airframes in BMS and they’re currently working on uncoupling the avionics to create other full fidelity modules. The F-15C is already in progress. That’s not even to mention that BMS has a far better AI system and dynamic campaign which DCS can’t seem to implement.

[@startrekmike]

@@ShadowGJ As a modern flight simulator in general, DCS has competition from FS2020. You are right that it has no current competition as a modern combat flight simulator. That being said. it doesn't really matter that there is no currently active competition. DCS's focus on fidelity is what gives it its individual identity in the grand scheme of combat flight sim history. It is a natural progression from stuff like the more detailed Janes titles (like the Longbow series, F-15, and F/A-18) and Falcon 4.0. It doesn't need current competition to justify its design focus. It just needs a market that wants it and despite what Enigma might want everyone here to believe, they have that market and that market is happy with it.

[@NicollasAlexandre]

I don't think DCS will change, most of the existing players are deeply involved with the "study level" aspect that it will be a huge pushback if a new FC4 or a mid-fidelity module would appear. You can see on most PVE servers, most people spend their time on F16/F18 dropping guided bombs from 30k ft or launching AMRAAMs at AI. Nothing wrong with that but their focus is on operating the plane efficiently and not so much on the action and challenges the game can offer. My hopes are that another sim would pick this gap between DCS and the way more gamified Warthunder. Where you would have a good but not overwhelming level of realism but also allow the players to do interesting and challenging things.

[@slowhornet4802]

Anyone remember Jane's Navy Fighters / Fighters Anthology? Lot's of different aircraft with non-clickable cockpits but flight models that made every aircraft feel different. Different radars in terms of ranges and tracking capabilities, stealtho-meter (!), energy envelopes which dynamically changed based on g-load and which could be compared to the current opponent live.... it was immersive and lots of fun. I really like DCS's study level aircraft, but at the same time I wish the game would focus more on other aspects than "fidelity" if fidelity is defined as "clickable cockpits with tons of systems". Like some of the old sims did... Jane's Navy fighters, DI Tornado, F-29, or the really excellent Jet Pilot (Amiga), where you could fly F-104's, BAC Lightning, and Mig-21. The latter one simulated GCI (you could jump to the GCI radar screen), pretty challenging flight model, and some details you would not have expected back then (like leaving the runway or taxi ways got the jet stuck).

[@vincent-wu7bw]

Ummm, iL2?🤔

[@NicollasAlexandre]

@@vincent-wu7bw IL2 is a great example of this working for WW2, I personally think of DCS in a more modern timeframe Ideal era for me would be between Enigma and Tempest servers

[@NixodCreations]

It's a bit of survival bias there I feel, everyone in the game right now is focused on what the game is right now. You can't see the latent demand; all the people that would play but decided not to because full fidelity is unappealing to them for whatever reason.

[@ericlyrode8724]

Only if ED makes Modern Air Combat a thing. That thing is basically fc standard. No clue when it will come but it's coming, before any competitor can come up with a new sim.

[@somecallmetim42]

I love the full fidelity models and although I started with the FC3 aircraft I exclusively fly full fidelity models these days. However I do agree that adding more basic flight model aircraft would be very welcome. Adding more basic models would greatly benefit the WWII era especially as it's just too lacking in different aircraft to fight against at the moment to be worth playing. I'd be happy if they just added some more AI only aircraft for WWII.

[@keepwalking6041]

there is no development of the game, you need depth of the game mechanics, ..like CAP responding to HQ that orders things as they see bigger picture, vectoring, re-vectoring, decision making, logistics that demands and allows movement, and offensives, defensives, or urges retreat, withdrawals.. we are eons from this.. so its a museum piece, you can observe the plane, click the buttons, basically learn to fly the plane.. and then put it on a shelf. wow, waste of time, no gameplay sadly.

[@Iamtheskidoostig]

As someone still learning combat aircraft, FC3 is the best bang for your buck and can help expand the user base.

[@charlesbukowski9836]

@@keepwalking6041 1000%..…..plus no at least semi modern red fighters...SU 27 platform or 29....just give them the next tier BVR weapon system....add the second mfd....give it a 90s radar etc etc...ED is good enough to whip something up..,.or maybe not

[@charlesbukowski9836]

@@keepwalking6041 what I also noticed as far as the 16 crowd, is that the hardcore 16 pilots are flying that other 16 sim ....I have cancer so I am foggy right now with meds....can't think of the name

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

​@charlesbukowski9836 And immediately get thrown in prison. Why don't you guys get this. They have been told by the Russian government that all aircraft that have a type currently in service are off limits. Even the Mig-29A got canned. Maybe if the Russian government collapses, we might get something, but that is a big might. Same gose for China. Deal with it.

[@koen7906]

I think less fidelity as a whole would not be good. Many people play DCS because of the full fidelity and getting as close to real as they can get. However, I think releasing modules quicker as a FC3 type module, and then building it into a full fidelity module, would be awesome (charging half price for the FC3 for example and the other half as an upgrade down the road). That could see 3x the modules released per year I’d hope l, and I the long run they still all be full fidelity.

[@ACG_Jaydog]

Coldwar aircraft = less fidelity. And less fidelity coldwar aircraft is what is filling up servers. I mean, Enigma Cold War Server is almost full, everyday. There really isn't much keybinding and clicking in F5, F86, A4, Viggen etc. Almost everything can be put on the stick and hotas.

[@ayylmao9697]

​@ACG_Jaydog every aircraft there has a click able cockpit which is exactly the opposite of FC3. those aircraft are full fidelity

[@ACG_Jaydog]

@ayylmao9697 The Su25 and A-10A are not clickable on ECW. In all, how much clicking is really occurring on the F-5? After engine start, there isn't much actual clicking going on. That's a reality

[@ayylmao9697]

​@ACG_Jaydog you didn't mention the A-10A or Su-25. You mentioned specifically the A-4, F-86 and Viggen and F-5. Of which all 4 have clickable cockpits and are most definitely not low fidelity aircraft like FC3

[@koen7906]

@@ACG_Jaydog This is true, 99% of my actions in ECW are HOTAS bound, except for the startup switches. So even with aircraft like the viggen (that have clicking to do for weapon systems), I'm still only using HOTAS. The Flightmodel is what is most important for PVP. For PVE, I guess the fidelity is more important to many.

[@Eric-nk4ft]

I would love to see more FC3 type aircraft. They’re just easy to jump into and fun to fly. Due to their less complex systems there can be more of them made and they can be made more easily.

[@blackfalco33]

Agree!!! i dont understand all of these Wannabe pilots out here...they have lots of time to waste for sure....🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@bigbluechopper24]

I like the idea full fidelity modules and enjoy clicking the switches etc on some modules. But also enjoy simplicity of FC3 planes for just having fun and not worrying about learning systems and ensuring I'm using them 100% correctly. Would welcome more modules like the MIG-29 that aren't full fidelity but have PFM.

[@Saber-ut8ri]

Hot take, but understandable. I would love some more warbirds that aren’t full fidelity

[@bryanbishop2377]

You are entitled to your opinion, but High Fidelity is what DCS is all about. I very much appreciate their attention to that end. Other companies can bring you the lesser experience you desire.

[@Northorne]

This is the foremost reason I play IL2 -- sure, the flight model could be a little better but ultimately I get to focus on what matters most to me, BFM and ACM, or ground attack, if you're in to that sort of thing. I started playing DCS in the LOMAC days and have accumulated plenty of full fidelity aircraft; at a certain point I knew how to use all of them, now I forgotten how to use most. As a result I default back to the FC3 aircraft and Korean era stuff (F86, Mig 15, etc)

[@tankermottind]

Despite having much less fidelity than DCS, Il-2 Great Battles has a similar problem compared to Il-2 1946. If you look at some of the Il-2 1946 streamers like Fishyyy, you will see absolutely *huge* battles with hundreds of moving parts, full-scale fleet engagements, apocalyptic Allied bombing raids on German cities, major combined arms offensives. In Il-2 Great Battles the most you can get is a skirmish between four or so flights of aircraft, with a few units trundling around on the ground. And it counts in number of planes too--I bought Il-2 1946 for about $40, and it came with at least a hundred planes, many of which are quite obscure. I bought Battle of Stalingrad for around the same price several years ago and got eight. I had the distinct feeling of being ripped off. To me it's especially annoying because I am much more into the stick-and-rudder aspect of combat flying. Clicky-clicky is great for MSFS but when I play combat sims I gravitate towards Flying Circus because the planes hardly have any systems at all. You fly the plane, try not to crash it, and try to hit the enemy when you shoot. There's not a whole lot else to them.

[@Watchmetry-nn9xe]

this is why i still love IL-2. I also love that it is a lot more user friendly for beginners, especially the UI markers.

[@nateweter4012]

I adore IL-2 for its fleshed out Eastern Front campaigns. They did a fantastic job of that. My issue with it, is that it’s in desperate need of a terrain/ground texture overhaul. It’s rocking ground textures and assets from its development in 2012-2014. They did a fantastic job updating the weather/sky enviornment. I just hope they do the same with the ground.

[@comradesascha3734]

Sadly one area IL2 is less user friendly is in finding bindings, DCS you can hit the button on your keyboard or stick and get to it straight away, I hope they can improve that

[@Taipan303]

I love a good full fidelity simple aircraft (F86, Huey, A4). No amount of FC3 packs would make me choose over FF - they all still need to be mastered in combat and too many is impossible for me to find the time. Learning switches/procs is easy, becoming a master in battle is something different that requires many hours of experience and applies equally to all FC3 modules as well (excluding maybe the variations Su27/33, MiG-29ags). Once you do have some level of mastery, the little things that are missing from FC3 become annoying (like no discrete on/off bindings, everything is a Toggle and most are missing cockpit indicators or animations). Having to go to external view to see if your lights are on is immersion breaking.

[@clayblaze1327]

I wanted to do a ground strike in the su33 the other day and there was no ripple function for the bombs and thus I just resorted to using the f18 as you can easily set this up if you know how, that is my biggest problem with fc3, you just don’t have the flexibility and depth of FF

[@Taipan303]

@@clayblaze1327 yeah you miss these things and they seem basic after a while so it's jarring when they're missing. A10A and Su25 can do ripple by the way.

[@Enigma89]

@@clayblaze1327 The Su-33 lets you use a salvo mode not ripple. So you can drop 4 pylons at once instead of 2.

[@HighAspect]

The irony here is redkod has shown all these FC3 had the hooks for clickable animations and yet ED choose to just stop development on it . Ie he fixed the taxi light animation. It’s more imo how ED shut down FC3 and then spends 4 years focused on just the Hornet

[@dubmeisterxd2133]

I have been wanting this for years. not only would this improve the number of aircraft available, it could also even out the unbalance between red and blu in the modern era. aircraft like the mig-29m and su-30 could be modeled to enough of a degree of accuracy without necessarily being unrealistic, meaning the modern combat servers wouldn't just be f16 vs f14 over and over again. A future FC4 module could have the SU-24 and MiG-31 with a simplified crew AI similar to the Mi-24, performing only the functions necessary for gameplay, while still remaining realistic enough without being fully clickable. My pick for a potential FC4 roster would be a more modern fulcrum and flanker, as well as the fencer. The foxhound does seem a little difficult to faithfully represent without access to classified information, but I think those three aircraft would really give red a much needed hand. For blu, I think they could add a later model of the SEPECAT jaguar. This would give an easily accessible supersonic strike aircraft to blu. Just my thoughts

[@splashfreelance2376]

Wonderful take. I fly FC3 regularly for fun, and some of my favourite planes are the ones in between mid-fidelity and full. Stuff like the A4, the better VSN mods and the Bronco. They currently have a less than complete feature set but have enough to fly, to get a feel for how they were used and even some of the flight models are top drawer. Plus a basic level of clickability puts them a step above FC3 for immersion. It may be impossible to create full fidelity planes for some iconic planes for various reasons - stupid Ruzzian paranoia, a lack of real world data or existing examples to build from etc. But it would be wonderful to have them in DCS. And when I want the OCD button press extravaganza, there are more than enough full fidelity planes to scratch this itch. Such a great video. I never thought about it, but it's absolutely right. For me, I'd love to have some warbird stuff that we are probably never gonna get - Yak 9, P-38, Tempest etc. Plus, of course, the Soviet cold war planes to flesh out the redfor side between the Mig-21 and the Flankers. Not to mention the side hustle of transport and other support planes. A flyable DC-3, even perhaps some bombers - B-52, Flying Fortress, Landcaster. If we're not wed to the full fidelity concept, 4 engine heavies become a lot easier to make and to fly with a single pilot.

[@xTheUnderscorex]

So instead of the museum, they should focus on fleshing out the gift shop?

[@IdahoBookworm]

I have the FC3 F-15 and I never understood the backlash against FC3. To me, if it flies realistically and the systems work in a realistic way, the diminished depth of switchology and the inability to click inside the cockpit don't bother me. But then I'm not your typical DCS player, I guess. I don't care at all about switchology, or about playing - as one IRL fighter pilot I know called it - "Digital Checklist Simulator." I just want to get airborne and fly and fight as quickly as possible. Interesting, both IRL fighter pilots I've often flown with have a similarly dismissive attitude towards the checklists and procedures. One is known to take off straight across the apron and taxiway. They did that for their day job; they don't play DCS for that but for the flying and fighting. That makes me feel a bit better about not wanting to pretend to flick switches in my pretend-to-be-a-fighter-pilot fantasy.

[@gyrro6377]

I fly mainly warbirds. In my opinion, having them full fidelity is relatively pointless. Personally, it's probably once in a blue moon that I actually interact with the cockpit via mouse. Everything important I need is bound. And I use a GAMEPAD of all things. I've even managed to have a relatively good experience using a gamepad for the A-10C. Everything important is bound. I feel like ED straying away from the way FC3 planes were modeled was a big mistake on their part. Yeah you can charge more money per individual module, but as you said, the sense of scale is completely lost. Imagine if they stuck with the FC3 method. Can you imagine how many aircraft we would have flyable today? I've been playing since 2013. All these years could've been filled with so much more content from ED and Third Parties.

[@kypdurron62]

You fly a WW2 plane. You simply don't understand fidelity.

[@kurtz0317]

Personally I love the FC3 planes and enjoy PVP the most. I can't be bothered spending 15 minutes to start up a plane and get into the action, let alone the amount of hours it takes to get proficient in actually learning a FF module. At this age, my time is limited and I have other responsibilities better spent than reading 300+ page manuals. With FC3 I'm off the runway quick, not to mention the keybinds largely remain the same across all the FC3 modules so flying multiple aircraft is simple and fun and doesn't affect my muscle memory. I can spend an hour on DCS and feel fulfilled with multiple sorties. For those who do enjoy the learning process and experience of FF, I completely get it. There's multiple ways to enjoy this simulator and that's the beauty of DCS. I own quite a few FF modules and enjoy playing them more in single-player campaigns - but ultimately my work takes me away from this sim for weeks at a time and returning to try and relearn a module is too time consuming, so I find myself jumping into FC3 mods more and more just to have some fun with friends for a bit. I agree that we need more simplified-fidelity modules, still with pro flight modules (that's what I think matters most, how realistic they fly compared to their real-life counterparts) in order to draw in more players and to have a more diverse selection for those like me who just want to jump in and have fun within a couple of minutes, and who swap between multiple aircraft often.

[@benbenbeartrax]

Single aircraft, full fidelity seems to have worked for sims like Falcon 4, or some of the Jane's series. It probably depends on whether your center of gameplay is the aircraft or the environment. In Battlefield the center is certainly the environment, in Grand Tourismo is maybe a balance between the car(s) and the environment, but in many flight sims (just think of the civil sims) the center seems to be the aircraft. And DCS' full fidelity aircraft serve this role very well, I think.

[@Sombre____]

The meaning of existence of DCS is all about realistic. I don't see the point to play the game without a full cliquable cockpit.

[@Enigma89]

I hate to break this to you. DCS is a mix of full and mid-fidelity modules, FC3 already exists.

[@nath-hh2ff]

I play DCS because of modules like the P47, the Mirage f1, and probably the upcoming Mig 17. Im really not a fan of FC3. Its just my preference. I get more satisfaction out of troubleshooting system failures on the P47 than anything else i do in DCS. So id rather have a full fidelity plane than 12 FC3. Not saying im right and anyone else is wrong just my option.

[@Andre-rc9xc]

I totally agree.

[@heremyjogan]

I'm on board with an FC3 expansion. I started this game in 2016 with the SU-27 and F-15C on keyboard and mouse only. I think more FC3 aircraft of different eras would lower the learning curve for a lot of players and encourage them to play in more scenarios.

[@markdonovan220]

I suppose the question is would it take away from the game if the planes were less realistic it was the The realism and the high fidelity of the planes. It got me into DCS world in the first place and I imagine there's probably a lot of people in the same boat. So for planes to be less detailed and have less fidelity could be less appealing

[@audunskilbrei8279]

I'd pick 1 FF module over a thousand FC3 planes. This is why I like DCS. There's games like IL2, War thunder, MSFS for that stuff.

[@Enigma89]

In a multiplayer environment do you find value that other players play mid-fidelity modules like a Su-27?

[@audunskilbrei8279]

@@Enigma89 Makes no difference to me what others are flying. I just have zero interest in flying FC3 level planes. This game doesn't need more planes. You could argue that it is missing some red force planes(FF) but what it really needs is a Dynamic Campaign and a more user friendly mission editor so idiots like me can make cool missions.

[@hiei5040]

What DCS needs more than ANYTHING else , is a Dynamic SP Campaign / AND / OR , a story mode ( detailed campaign with cutscenes etc..)

[@NickyDekker89]

I def think another FC3 like pack for DCS would be a great and smart thing to do for ED.

[@LockDCS]

Counterpoints: A WHOLE lot of new modules got announced by mostly new devs about a full year ago. This increases the throughput and number of aircraft coming. Additionally, a significant number of newer more complicated aircraft are already released. Arguably at this point the majority of the aircraft that need simulated are at least systems wise not AS complicated so should be easier to get into the game. Plus, once the F-4E and eventually the A-6E get into the game I can't think of any other aircraft I would want to come in. I think we already have a great selection to chose from. I'm pretty happy with the aircraft coming in at the level they are and at the level of realism. I don't know at this point if any more realism will help though unless it's to simulate some well known quark in a system and adds fun challenge. I would be happy if both graphics and fidelity cap off here at this point and they use the frame works they have to build more modules at that level, improve older ones to the current standard, and get game performance and stability up. Now if we are going to talk about Maps, well... I'd love a sorta FC3 Map pack of maps using pre-existing basic structures and maybe a few new ones to make a map pack of sorts of fictional areas.

[@Steven-cf1ty]

We have an atrociously limited selection, having two more blue cold war jets won't even bring the roster on to par with Strike Fighters 2 despite the full game including all dlcs of SF2 costing less than two modules in DCS.

[@hresvelgr7193]

@@Steven-cf1ty Because DCS modules are comparable to SF2...

[@Steven-cf1ty]

@@hresvelgr7193 yeah they're not because DCS doesn't have a dynamic campaign and the sorties are mostly spent on tedium to facilitate the fact you paid $70 to click some buttons in one plane instead of doing ground attacks or air supremacy missions in a number of theaters.

[@hresvelgr7193]

@@Steven-cf1ty Bud you can literally go out and play multiple different types of dynamic campaign in DCS today. None of them are first party yet many of them are excellent. I don’t know where you play where sorties are mostly spent on tedium but it doesn’t sound very good. Everything you describe is already out there. You just have to find that. DCS modules are far better then anything SF2 has and using that platform you can have way better experiences

[@Steven-cf1ty]

@@hresvelgr7193 if you have to use a janky mod that runs poorly to get something resembling a basic campaign system, that's not a point in favor of DCS. And tell me what you spent your time doing in DCS if it's not messing around with cockpit buttons and how that is drastically hindered if you can't click every little button in the cockpit with your mouse. DCS simps need to stop saying "go play other games" because there are no other games, the closest we got is modded Falcon 4 but that brings up the problems with how modders can't do the same things actual game devs can. DCS is inferior to SF2, you just have the mind of a child and like the shiny buttons and don't care about gameplay

[@RammslYT]

I’d love a mix of both. There are huge gaps in eras and tech that could be filled with FC3esque planes. I know people want their clickable cockpits, but as a VR user, I basically bind as much shit as I can to NOT have to look around and click stuff. The Viggen is very tricky for me to fly in VR. I can’t bind the keypad, LS/SKU-B10 or whatever, the weapon dials, mode dials, etc, so I have to try clicking that shit while flying at treetop level. I flew the Su-27 a bunch in GS and it was perfect for me. I had literally everything I needed bound to my HOTAS.

[@grifnizzle7197]

Interesting. I have almost the opposite point of view: Clicky pits are a life saver for VR. HOTAS buttons are a finite resource, and stabbing for arcane dark magic keystrokes to summon my TACAN in the blind is not a great experience. Clicky clicky all the way for me

[@RammslYT]

@@grifnizzle7197 it mostly depends on the module for me. The Viggen is just the most difficult off the top of my head.

[@jared9191]

The new players issue is the biggest, it's extremely hard to talk people into jumping into a full fidelity model. People usually start with FC aircraft, and everyone would benefit from a new FC style module.

[@tommaxwell429]

I jumped in with the training planes. I was so disappointed in the trying to learn the keybindings for the SU25T. I really enjoyed learning the P51T because of realism. IL-2 provides a more game like atmosphere and easier to fly planes for the most casual gameplayers.

[@mikeg2092]

​@tommaxwell429 I recommend the A4 mod you everyone before they get a FF module.

[@tommaxwell429]

@@mikeg2092 My opinion is these stripped down modules teach bad habits, like having to remember keystrokes or not learn functions and aircraft at all. When one starts out with the SU25T and then moves to the SU25, it is like having to learn/know two different aircraft. Just learn it from the beginning like real pilots do in A school. Then add the other systems after you learn the basic aircraft. Learning to start, taxi, takeoff, and land an F18 or F16 is no harder than learning to start, taxi, takeoff, and land any of the training aircraft. It's learning to use all of the systems that takes time. Heck, many of the same cheats are available to the full model aircraft as are available to the watered down aircraft like startup and shutdown. With five key binds - startup, flaps auto, master arm, air guns, shutdown - you can be dogfighting all day long.

[@bringdownvevo]

The issue is the game is bland. Nobody wants to play a game where you just click cockpits

[@tommaxwell429]

@@bringdownvevo Thats what real life fighter pilots say. Many go their entire careers without ever a real life engagement. The game is bland only when people choose not to get engaged in the activities. Also maybe it’s not supposed to be an entertaining game like mario brothers or grand theft auto or cyber punk. It is flight simulator intended to give the sensation of real life fighter piloting and engagements. If you find DCS boring, then I don’t know what to say. Perhaps it’s not the simulator for you. Just what could they do to make it more exciting and fun for you besides dummy down the operational and flight models? Do you own MSFS? If so, what is your take on it? For me the fun in all of these simulators is mastering the systems and procedures. Do you do much multiplayer, formation flight, or single player missions?

[@BasictoFinal]

I am skeptical of the premise that producing more FC3 style aircraft would actually lead to the DCS World (Forest) getting fleshed out. I think what you’re describing is actually moving to a separate trap. However, I can agree with what I perceived to be one of your root complaints that the world in DCS World needs to be prioritized more in development.

[@zach_K]

I enjoy the full fidelity and the learning curve for each aircraft. However I do believe that DCS/ED could make newer FC-packs that could be semi-fidelity to test out and let us (the consumer/players) pick which aircraft we want in a full fidelity module

[@RiznNuke]

I would love to see new modules released as "mid-fidelity" first and then be offered a full fidelity upgrade at a later time. Don't know if it's economically viable or not, but this is how I would like to see it done.

[@Sevyns762]

This is a hard no from me (been with DCS since BS 2 days), but a great ad for war thunder or other games. Removing the high-fidelity component would certainly make me quit playing (what would be the point?). Not everyone wants to play war thunder or sit in turning fights for hours online. Some do, and that's cool - you do you. FC3 and the 'high fidelity' modules cater to different audiences. The hype loop you describe is accurate, and I've talked about that for years (same reason I don't have the F-15E) however the solution isn't turning DCS into a different product. The overall platform needs more features (better ATC, better AI, more realistic, dynamic campaigns, and configurable weather systems) not different models that all feel the same. Where fatigue sets in is after mastery of the new plane (like you said), but that's because the core engine needs more not because the planes are too complex (or not numerous - look at how many modules are out there).

[@Enigma89]

I think the core engine stuff has been talked to death already and I have weighed in an incredible amount on it. The only thing I will say is that I don't think every module has to be full fidelity. A C-47 can add rich flavor to missions, be player controllable, and not be full fidelity.

[@Sevyns762]

​@@Enigma89 I hear ya - the full fidelity modules cater to different audiences IMO. I don't think adding more FC3-style planes is inherently bad (and can certainly see the upside), but a total shift of product development away from full fidelity entirely isn't the move. I think the best example I can think of is the F14; I fly the hornet (alot...) but I always go back to the F14 because of how well it's modelled. I'll take my hornet missions and try to make them work in the tomcat just because it's so fun to fly and the systems modeling is incredible. If the 2 were on-par fidelity wise (EG FC3-style) personally I wouldn't fly the tomcat anywhere near as much.

[@Hornet135]

Why do half the comments equate not “full fidelity” to War Thunder?

[@Sevyns762]

@@Hornet135 Great brand recognition ;)

[@Mustang242Sqn]

I love full fidelity and I love understanding new systems, BUT as I head into middle-age I have less free time, so it is in fact a barrier to enjoyment due to the time investment required. I almost hate to admit it but I really enjoyed flying a campaign in the FC3 F-15C. It took me back to the kinds of fun I had with Amiga and 1990's PC sims. Clickable switches in FC3 aircraft would be nice, but the point is that I was able to jump in and play without too much 'training time'. Compare that to many full-fidelity aircraft, where I didn't yet manage to learn half the systems let alone consider myself proficient enough to start a campaign with them! They are on the "to do one day" list - when I retire, probably... With DCS, MSFS and other interests all vying for my time, I do have to admit that the pursuit for sim realism is holding back my own enjoyment in, not just DCS's growth for itself. Great video :)

[@WhereNerdyisCool]

Some good points and I totally agree with the hype process you mentioned. We saw it for the F-18, F-16, Tomcat and now F-15E. I've been hoping to see more cold war birds and thanks to the FC module, we get some interesting mashups for the F-104 , A-4 and some others. I feel like there's a pretty wide scope out there. Some want WW2 birds, some want Modern era. I'm surprised we don't have the F-117 or even some ability for guys to fly the C-130 or KC-135s. Many of the MSFS guys like flying big jets and wouldn't an AC-130 be nice?

[@bryanmyers9977]

Low Fidelity as an initial fast release then increasingly high Fidelity as paid upgrades over time seems to make a lot of sense to me. You could do an initial cheap release and then earn money on upgrades over time, With the final product being about as expensive as a HiFi module is right now. Details would have to be worked out of course but I don't see anything that is unsurpassable. Personally I won't touch anything that is low Fidelity because I fly in VR and I don't want to grope around the keyboard.

[@monstered99]

If I wanted to play a game that focuses more on quantity and a universal simplified portrayal of aircraft, I would play War Thunder sim mode. For me, DCS is great because I can learn the ins and outs of one machine. Two planes in DCS may have the same performance and even armament, but because of the ability to control all their systems the experience is completely different. Adding more models of lower quality is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should not affect the work put into the more advanced ones

[@Enigma89]

That's fine but just know you run the risk of operating that plane in a sterile environment and it may not have any contemporary planes to play with. If that's your jam go for it. The point of this video is to offer the thought that maybe some holes, not all, can be shored up by FC3 type planes

[@agamemnonn1]

@@Enigma89 you've brought that up in a previous video, regarding how ED should focus on the Cold War due to more data on aircraft being available. You are right on that one as well. One of the complaints is a lack of REDFOR aircraft in modern day servers and scenarios. Modern day is at the risk of getting stale because of that.

[@Steven-cf1ty]

The way you describe why you like high fidelity modules, I wouldn't use terms like "advanced ones" when in reality it's just that you like clickable, pretty cockpits instead of meaningful gameplay and authentic flight simulation.

[@kstxevolution9642]

i'd pick a new FC pack just for more redfor planes, fuck clicking cockpit buttons, i want the flight dynamics and systems to be realistic

[@upyr1]

A while back ED was talking about a product called Modern Air Combat, which is its own product but for all intents and purposes was basically flaming cliffs 4. I haven't heard about it for a while, but my MAC wish list was the following. first, MAC should have some exclusive modules either becuse we don't have enough information for a FF module or a developer lacks the resources to develop one. Next, there should be online compatibility as well as a way to share missions.

[@un_controlled]

I love the full fidelity aspect of DCS. It's one of the main reasons I play it. If you want more planes and less fidelity, I think you should just play War Thunder. I truly enjoy the difficulty of learning a new module and learning to use it effectively.

[@rolandrandmaa1898]

Digital Combat Simulator....not Digital combat game. I have zero interest about mid fi modules, even for free.

[@optimal9094]

Enigma's point is rather the fact that too much of the limited dev resources are consumed by making said planes. It is not only the PVP community that suffers - we don't have nearly enough campaigns (and many of them are compromised in terms of aircraft and scenarios) and Caucasus map sorely needs a 'remaster'. In other words, we have a great simulation with fantastic planes already, but the rest of is empty. More new planes won't change that unfortunately.

[@mro9466]

​@rolandrandmaa1898 newsflash: a commercial simulator is a game. It's not a military grade simulator, we dont have access to all the nice classified data or the billions of $ in software development to have the whole package in this lifetime. Spending 10 years making one module is useless if it doesn't ship with the corresponding maps, assets, enemy AI, ground units, missions, careers etc Just look at the i16, it's an awesome simulation of the polikarpov i16 ... and that's it, nothing to do besides "LEarNing tHe SyStemS"

[@rolandrandmaa1898]

@@mro9466 You can Learn and.....FLY Polikarpov, Christen Eagle, Yak53 and feel yourself good. FC sells currently for 24EUR on steam. So we just want different things. And you got a decent game with a lot shit to blow up. But i like the feel and experience of piloting close to real fighter plane.And if i am able to blow some shit up with it, i get ton of more satisfaction, compared to simplified plane.

[@spiral83]

@@optimal9094 while i ageee and think dcs should make the environment better, the answer is not to flood us with 300 mid level modules. Improve ATC, EW warfare and dynamic things? Sure. Make dcs into wt? No

[@jujum4243]

The fidelity of the module is the reason why I love DCS. It's immersive to have an aircraft that is as close to reality as the fun allows. Being able to click on buttons and only configure the most important keys. If your goal is only PvP, it's normal to overlook it.

[@meow1990_2]

My main concern about FC3-level planes is the absence of clickable cockpits. I don't need to be able to click every single circuit breaker, but it's a no-go for me to have to pres a gazillion keybindings when I could just point my mouse and click instead

[@simisg2121]

Okay, but aren’t most of the essential controls binded to your Hotas? So what difference does it really make?

[@meow1990_2]

@@simisg2121 I like to be able to click click click

[@simisg2121]

@@meow1990_2 then just say that instead of saying a gazillion keybinds, your point just made no sense that’s all.

[@meow1990_2]

@@simisg2121 one click saves you a keybinding A gazillion clicks save you a gazillion keybinding -ancient Chinese philosopher

[@videomaniac108]

I guess it depends on what you want out of the game/sim. For some people, it is more important to have something that isn't so demanding in learning how to operate and that is reasonably realistic and fun to fly. Others, including myself, want as realistic a sim as possible, deriving our satisfaction in mastering the details of a realistic flying/combat experience. Since there are easier sims that don't have such a steep learning curve, then I think the former category of player is adequately served and the others who prefer the more complex and realistic sims can enjoy what DCS focuses on.

[@bazej1080]

FC3 simplified module is 60-70% of the work and only some 20% of the revenue. Still needs most time consuming elements like 3d model, cockpit model, FM etc. just like FF module. Small hint - VR hands operating the cockpit are right around the corner. E.g. VTOL VR uses them extensively already. With that implemented there will be huge difference between interactive cockpit and simplified non-interactive one. It's a lot easier to remember specific switch with specific label, shape, place in the cockpit - than some 50-70 purely abstract keyboard shortcuts like "Alt+Shift+I" only to operate systems in completely unrealistic way and unintuitive logic.

[@docogg50]

I believe they should remain focused on the full fidelity stuff and continuously work to improve it, however, there are such gaps in what’s available due to Eastern aircraft being stricter on what constitutes State secrets. If we want to get more Red Air, they’re going to need to look into doing more FC style stuff. I think they should have some sort of parity between BLUFOR and OPFOR releases. I’m excited for the Corsair, but it’s gonna’ be a bit out of place without some Imperial Japanese planes to interact with.

[@AXEMAN_-ld2vo]

I think that we should have the option of having “full fidelity” or not! I have the F-16, and the F-14, but my favorite aircraft in DCS is the FC3 F-15c. I work a full time job plus overtime, so I really don’t have enough time to learn all the details of the “full fidelity” modules!

[@MiaReiFilms]

full fidelity is what makes dcs what it is, and third party studios aren't taking up ED's development resources as far as I'm aware. I think we'd be better off if ED stopped working on modules entirely. No full fidelity, no FC4, just core mechanics. I'd rather have a dynamic campaign sooner than have another ED jet (which aren't as good as most of the third party modules anyway)

[@rhysgoodman7628]

You’ve definitely made good points, and gave me something to think about. On one hand, I really, really enjoy full-fidelity, and I would rather have a FF F-106 than an FC F-106. At the same time, I believe that modern, more secretive aircraft would be better as FC, as opposed to being impossible as FF.

[@Snugggg]

would still love F-117 and F-14D as mid fidelity if that is all thats possible by law.

[@rhysgoodman7628]

@@Snugggg F-14D minus IRST would be fine with me. Although the IRST is awesome and extremely powerful.

[@rasse30]

I think FC3 is a great option and if we had more of them I would purchase those over one full fidelity for sure

[@rebellord_gfg]

First off here is my bias, I’m a Pilot. The only reason I bought DCS is FF mig-21. I wanted to see how these aircraft actually functioned and how pilots actually flew these into combat. The only module I plan to buy in the future is FF mig-23. I don’t want to be flying FF while others are playing war thunder in DCS. If that means a smaller player base so be it. That makes the DCS community higher quality and closer together. I’d take 3 more FF modules than 200 arcade plans.

[@DrZirta]

There's lots of very polarised opinions here, usually along the lines of "I would rather have X high fidelities instead of Y low fidelities!!!!!!!!"... But those people have completely missed Enigma's point. Enigma is not suggesting that we all out stop doing high fidelity aircraft, but rather that adding mid fidelity aircraft will fill a lot of gameplay blindspots, and could even shortcut high-fidelity development for select aircraft. No one's taking away your candy and replacing it with salad, Enigma's suggesting a buffet where there's more options but some are more deluxe than others. You're wouldn't be losing high fidelities, current or future. If you went to Warthunder or IL-2 and said "Hey, we're thinking of developing a handful of fully clickable aircraft - it'll take 8 years but you won't lose what you have", do you think the community would respond with the same hostility?

[@Phoenix-mi9bb]

Very well articulated, I think of it like this. DCS is the ocean, the people who want to swim further out & go deep love the full fidelity everything & are hardcore swimmers BUT the reality is the majority of people swim somewhere near the beach & some just dip their toe in & spend the same amount of money & have a great time. There is a balance to be had here for sure.

[@Flyboy_Gospel]

I find myself playing IL-2 great Battles more than DCS recently. The module developers have done some amazing stuff in DCS. I agree that more mid fidelity modules would be great. Another thing is that there are some people getting priced out of playing DCS because of the system requirements needed to get the best experience, i.e. GPU prices. How wild is it that a dev made an option for you to select how many cores are used just for the radar. This is where I think more cold war era aircraft would be a benefit. We have enough planes packed with MFD's, I don't think we need anymore.

[@faequeenapril6921]

Yeah, I cant fly the modern jets because my hotas doesnt have enough hat switches for them so I had to go towards the cold war era of aircraft. The hotas systems that have all the hats you need are really expensive and not many people can afford that. I'm running the thrustmaster TWCS throttle and the Defender Cobra stick so when I got the harrier, A-10C I struggled to fly those because I still had to have some of the functions relegated to the keyboard and that doesnt add to my immersion.

[@Flyboy_Gospel]

@@faequeenapril6921 I get it. I am fortunate enough to have a HOTAS Warthog bug even then, its sometimes difficult to have enough bindings

[@Acrophobia2]

@@faequeenapril6921just assign them to your keyboard. It feels natural after you get good at it!

[@RealDarko]

I really agree with you and tought about the matter for a long time, thanks for vocing this up in such an important channel, DCS is becoming more a click festival than a real combat simulator, and that's demonstrated by the lack of ED updates on things like Sniper AAA/Infantry or the promised holy dynamic campaign. Adding more and more Full fidelity planes and neglecting the FC3 product line is a gross error as is keeping the people away of flying and makes less and less planes available. I hope a studio sees that way and decide to add a new FC line product, I for sure will change one more FC product for 1 full fidelity, even for two.

[@hiei5040]

Once again we arrive at the core problem , some believe DCS is game. Others (Myself Included) believe it's a study level sim. Now, the only question that matters is how ED appeases both groups. Personally I see there being 2 solutions A) ED makes a separate title with more "game-like" experiences, Infantry, combined arms , perhaps a story mode with cutscenes B) Approach it similar to Warthunder with varying levels of SIM accuracy ( Arcade, Real, Sim ) because if you view DCS as a game , then OFC gameplay > realism. So maybe instead of trying to compromise to appease both camps , they can diversify to have multiple offerings

[@LiveseyMD]

As someone who tries to enter the game I would think about helping newcomers to start. Some quality of life stuff like standardized key layout for most popular HOTAS models, so in tutorial you'll be immediately able to use your setup and not trying to find unmapped switch in a long list of bindings. As for the planes topics - release mid-fidelity modules will be good thing. Again, you could upgrade the plane to be full fidelity later for additional payment.

[@realcrispyrobochicken]

I admit that I have never tried the FC3 modules, but after this video I will surely give them a try. I play DCS 90% of the time in singleplayer - so for me more important than high fidelity is a good campaign. I am talking "Raven One" or "Fear The Bones" level of quality. I would looooove to see an actual dynamic campaign directly build in DCS. But right now the default Comm-System and AI is very limited and breaks immersion for me. That is why all the good campaigns don't even use it but script everything by hand. And if the campaign is a thriller, then I really do not care if the radar is 100% true to life or if I can really press every button in the cockpit. high fidelity campaign > high fidelity aircract

[@TheSisi37]

I think both worlds can exist, FF modules shouldnt be a stop for lower fidelity modules to come out. At the end of the day, more devs would help, would bring more low fidelity without stopping FF devs. I personally wouldn't play DCS at all if it wasnt for FF modules. But as you mentioned, users are the issue, because on top of demanding FF modules, they will complain about the time it takes to release them or the stat they are released in etc, putting pressure on devs to release the perfect module.

[@Enigma89]

They can co-exist (they already do) and they should continue to co-exist.

[@FMhazard]

When they can sell new FC3 style modules for $60 then they will make them.

[@مراد-ش8ط]

I fly in DCS for Full Fidelity if that is lost I will not fly in it anymore...

[@Hornet135]

Can’t lose what you never had.

[@Lecog]

Very much agree with your point. Less perfectionism, more variety, IL2 GB and IL2 1946 are evidence of this approach working. If IL2 1946 can make 200+ planes work on 1 control scheme in an ancient engine while still being faithful enough to be a beloved flight sim held dear to many old time flyers, DCS can use FC3 to include planes they can't FF, like many of Russias aircraft.

[@Vegas416]

Arguably my favorite part of DCS is having to learn an aircraft from top to bottom. You really get a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when you’re able to work targeting pods and weapons, restart engines after damage, start up and shut down. The joy that DCS brings for me comes in the challenge and need to learn something new and foreign to me. While we may be learning to launch the same AIM-120 C5 and drop the same GBU-12 sometimes, look back at the work you put in to get to that point. Think about what you learned and how you can apply those things to other modules. Appreciate the often complex procedures and nuances associated with new modules and know that you’ve accomplished something in a game that offers something that so many don’t: a chance to learn. Dumbing DCS down (and I don’t mean that in a derogatory way) really takes away its main gimmick. FC3 is fun and easy to get into, but FC3 is not sustainable for most people because they’re able to learn it so fast, which was the case for me. If we got more Flaming Cliffs packs, consumers would run the same cycle: learn once, apply to all, get bored flying something that doesn’t quite feel as different as you’d expect.

[@lukasvanniekerk4723]

Agreed, I think especially for logistics gameplay we can do with lower fedility airframes like the C130 and C160. Also the Antonov and Ilyushin. Not to mention Hello's like the Super Puma etc.

[@case.98]

i would so love a FC4 pacific module with the high fidelity F4U module coming out simultaneously

[@Foxhawk]

Truer words never spoken! Signed, FC3 Enjoyer

[@BlueSkiesVinny]

I would take 1 full fidelity module over any number of half baked FC3 type modules any day of the week! This is the reason i play DCS. MSFS has TONS of low fidelity aircraft, and as such, you need to really research and sort through all the garbage to find the gems. Even though i hate the DCS early acces model, i can purchase a DCS module knowing that it is going to be the most "realistic" and faithful recreation of that particular aircraft. I do, however agree that the gameplay environment needs much more focus, and i hope that ED makes that change soon! However, i dont believe more arcadey aircraft is the answer, otherwise id just go play warthunder. Edit: To add, id have no problem at all with them adding more FC3 type aircraft, I just wouldn't fly them, but I don't think that would be a detriment to DCS.

[@nashcar20]

The sole reason that DCS WW2 isn't going well is the lack of aircraft diversity and limits on mission complexity as a result. Packs (like FC3) of past and present "low-fidelity" aircraft would result in people flocking to the game. It's the reason I joined DCS, but thankfully not the only reason I stayed.

[@ChestyMcGee]

if there ever was a new competitor to DCS, eg from micropose, or if that NOR project went public, i would want these competitors to pivot to exactly what you describe here: give us a forest rather than a few trees. i don't think there's any point in a competitor focusing on full fidelity single aircraft - they simply won't be able to catch-up with dcs in that regard now. if someone came out tomorrow with an operation desert storm game, for example, with fc3-style aircraft, a dynamic campaign etc, i'd put 800hrs into it. i gave up on dcs years ago now and basically only follow it through trailers and hoggit

[@Drovek451]

Hell, the second Tiny Combat Arena starts filling up with usable planes it will be amazing.

[@ChestyMcGee]

@@Drovek451 yeah sadly i am still a sucker for graphics but tiny combat arena does seem like pretty much the closest thing now... which is quite amazing considering it's solodev right (now funded by micropose?). a small team under micropose could probably make something similar with half decent graphics too

[@Drovek451]

@@ChestyMcGee yeah, still solodev as far as I'm aware, with Microprose publishing. The current focus was on getting systems working before content, and I really would love some more development resources thrown to this project to speed it up.

[@SpypilotSR-71]

No way! DCS World is an art museum for enthusiasts. We want to study our dream airplanes down to the last rivet. Why? Because that is what a simulator is supposed to do.

[@SpypilotSR-71]

Then again, the FC3 aircraft don’t require a NASA computer to run. I hate being wrong.

[@ThePhantomRocket]

even better, you can always release midfidelity planes en-masse and update them to full fidelity at a later date over time

[@standish92k]

Did you watch? He said exactly that.

[@ThePhantomRocket]

@@standish92k no it was 3am and i went to bed. also this was 5 months ago wtf

[@docogg50]

@@ThePhantomRocketit just came across my feed today….it’s 4am for me and 8 months later, lol

[@cianw10]

I don't have much time to play games generally and so FC3 is much easier for me to jump in and play. I've bought a couple full fidelity modules and played them for a couple weeks then lost steam and never really tocuhed them since, I just don't have the time to do hours of homework just to be able to play (though I know a lot of people really enjoy taking that time to learn a FF module). I think making new modules semi-fidelity to start and then bulding FF from that would be a great thing for the community and would increase sales for ED. For example with IL-2, I've bought every expansion and several collector planes because I love flying different planes, and they all work pretty similar and have similar mappings so at a basic level, once you're good to go with one plane you can jump in another without much difficulty. If ED released FC3 variants of the FF modules, I would probably buy most of them right off the bat. It also makes things much more accessible for newer players. What ED has done with the Sabre/Mig15 is a great start, I just hope they continue in the same way.

[@MarvinBoydCo]

I’m in agreement there are tons of planes not modeled or won’t be because of secrets still held or the plane being in active service. By having them as FC3 planes, those components held close to the chest by the us military could stay that way and instead get a simplified version of it. VTOL VR in my opinion strikes a good balance of fidelity and gameplay when it comes to systems and it’s become considered the gateway to DCS. Something like that would bring more aircraft to the table

[@mrl8459]

As a working person who doesn’t have time to learn every little nuance of planes I appreciate the FC3 planes way more! Could care less spending time clicking buttons just to start the damn thing, give me the awesome visuals and flight model and I’m good. Keep up the great videos! We need a competitor to DCS.

[@cyberpunkalphamale]

Said this years ago and got banned from several DCS discords.

[@Mirknir]

What's the point of full module fidelity modules when Air AI's can barely fight or land, ground AIs have no fear and snipe you in the head from 20 km, ATC are confused, my Mk84 dropping at 10m from a fuel truck won't destroy it and my pilot can sustain 9g forever. I think we need same fidelity game instead of full fidelity modules and low fidelity everything else. This was painfully obvious to me when I started playing helicopters :)

[@RW-zn8vy]

All things they are working on also most times when ai are destroying people like that is because they are doing something wrong for example if you are flying an Apache into a hot zone.

[@razgriz25thinf]

Personally I do prefer the full fidelity stuff because I like to feel like I'm operating the aircraft as close to how it would've worked IRL. But, and it's a big but, the simple truth is that there's a ton of planes we will never be able to get in full fidelity. Mid-fidelity should be the method used to add planes with classified information, just to get them in the game at all. Mid-fidelity could also be a method to get more unicorn style planes in the game, like the F-20 Tigershark. Imagine a full FC style pack of nothing but experimental planes! Mid-fidelity is definitely something that needs to be explored more.

[@linecraftman3907]

In my opinion the difference between FC3 and FF is the means to reach a capability on the aircraft being a couple buttons vs a dozen switches. From outside it doesn't really make a difference so FF and FC3 pilots can nicely coexist. I'm also seeing a lot of resistance to more FC3 modules in response to your video and I believe it's because each new FF aircraft have attracted more FF people,more FF pilots cause a demand for more FF aircraft. But despite the demand for FC3, there's no supply so even the pilots which prefer fc3 become FF pilots. In conclusion, i agree that there's an unbalanced focus on FF modules despite additional FC3 modules not really hurting anyone

[@histella3824]

I love full fidelity but i agree there coudl be more planes like the fc3 planes just to, as u said it, to fill gaps or/and more diversity

[@jamster226]

I like the full fidelity, the autistic attention to detail and realism you get in some of thr newer ones is fantastic. I really dont feel dcs is let down by a lack of aircraft, id fsr rwther the aircraft we have at their current fidelitys than twice as many lower quality modules. That said, they desperately need to update the environment you use the modules in, the lack of campaigns and missions is a real killer and the ground AI in particular is laughably awful.

[@xenozombie6200]

I love the Viper, but I think I agree with everything you said here. That timeline for the Corsair is unreal. Never considered it like that before.

[@RedTail1-1]

My biggest problem is I only just got into DCS this year. I’m 36 years old and my health is not good, and getting worse. DCS has been out for over 15 years and what it currently provides is just an absolute joke for how long it has existed. I don’t have 5-10 years to wait for a single module. By the time aircraft I want to fly are added to DCS, who knows if I’ll even still be alive? I love the MiG-23, but honestly since Razbam is making it we aren’t going to see anything for at least 5 years and then it will just be WIP stuff. Not just because it’s Razbam but because they just released EA 15E and are going to be focused on that for the next 2-3 years. ED and 3rd Parties don’t have enough people working on things, and take too long working on what they do. They don’t care about releasing things in an acceptable amount of time. They have the mindset of, we have the team we have and things will get done when they get done. Instead of, set a concrete timeline and do what you need to do to make it happen. Hire more people, crack down on those working when they are slacking, acquire the resources needed. The way ED runs things is just pathetic and from a business standpoint they fail hard with a D- the only reason they haven’t completely sunk is due to the community, mods, and nothing else providing what DCS provides. If something else were to come along that offered the same, or better, DCS would quickly die off. I hear BMS is becoming that, although I haven’t checked it out(I thought it was literally just an F-16 simulator)