FC 3 worth the money?

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

I have played Lock on in the past and have seen FC3 in a lokal store, is it worth the money and time?

 

Im not interested in single modules ... I just want a nice Jetsimulation. The FM of Lockon was scripted, how is it in FC3?

 

Are there mods out for it? Or is it a closed sim?

[jeanba 1,920]

I don't think so

As far as I remember, FC3 is "Lock-on" in the DCS world environment

[Platinum Rogue 48]

It's not a huge amount of money and you do get a lot of content, also the flight models are very different from LOMAC. I'd say it's worth a punt.

[jeanba 1,920]

Actually, I had mine at 12$, which is changing a lot

[+EricJ 4,242]

I still enjoy some aircraft at the FC3 level, the A-10A, Su-25T and that's about it. So it's worth the money in my opinion as well.

[+streakeagle 871]

You can't go wrong with FC3 unless you want to click on buttons. The flight models are as good as they can be. I own LOMAC, FC, FC2, and FC3. I never played them very much because of the simple flight models. FC3 goes on sale online for $12 very frequently. Just the F-15C or Su-27S is worth that price. I am waiting for the MiG-29 and Su-33 to be brought up to the same standard. Not only are the flight models (and underlying systems) modeled as well as possible, but the aircraft have new 3-d cockpits, too. So, if you liked everything but the flight models in LOMAC/FC/FC2, FC3 is for you. 

[MigBuster 2,884]

Very good IMO........even the basic Su-25 is a good challenge.

Edited March 21, 2016 by MigBuster

[+streakeagle 871]

I used to consider Strike Fighters better than LOMAC/FC. You could fly the stock F-15A and A-10A in WOE (later and much better SF2E) and compare every aspect to the LOMAC F-15C and A-10A. LOMAC had much prettier graphics for the terrain. But SF had more accurate/better looking 3d models of the aircraft and drew shadows better. SF won flight modeling hands down. Unfortunately, the dogfighting AI was broken around the time of WOE, but by SF2, the AI was fixed and overall modeling of radar, ecm, terrain masking, missile performance were all in SF's favor for realism, playability, and fun. But years later with DCS:FC3 in the picture, almost everything has flipped in favor of FC3. There is simply no comparison on the graphics now. FC3's flight models are not only more detailed than SF's, but have been heavily calibrated to match pilot manual chart performance, something SF never really did out of the box. FC3 still has a few holes, which SF2 may be comparable if not better in overcoming. The FC3 AI is still far from perfect and so is SFs, hard to say which one is better, I think it comes down to personal taste. Air to air missile performance use to be as or more scripted than aircraft performance, now FC3 is in the middle of tuning much more detailed missile flight models that are comparable if not superior to what SF had all along. SF actually took a step back, dumbing down their reliability issues to satisfy customers complaining they couldn't hit anything with missiles. As DCS missiles progress, they are becoming more and more realistic. SF2 missiles can easily be tuned to behave any way you want and aren't too bad other than a little to accurate out of the box. For reference, the DCS MiG-21bis Atoll missiles (both radar and irm) seem to be more reliable and effective than the F-15A AIM-7F and AIM-9J missiles in SF2. But DCS is constantly improving and SF2 is static aside from user mods. Both sims suffer issues from damage modeling. DCS appears to use less detailed modeling for AI aircraft, and some are flying tanks. Many always complained that SFP1/SF2 aircraft went down way too easy. I don't know if DCS is ever going to address this, SF2 problems can be solved by modding the aircraft ini files... adding armor to systems/components as necessary to replicate individual strengths/weaknesses. But I have to say, the visual differences and superior flight modeling, particularly at the edge of the envelope (including landings), makes FC3 far superior to SF2E--aside from the much more limited flyable and even AI plane set... and even more limited choice of maps to fly ;)

Edited March 21, 2016 by streakeagle

[+SkateZilla 49]

FC2 -> FC3 Notable Changes, several others unlisted, but these are the Meat.

1. DX11 vs DX8 and 9c

2. MP Compatible w/ DCSW Modules vs MP Compatible with only FC2

3. New 6DoF 3D Cockpits for F-15C, A-10A, Su-33, Su-27, Su-25A, MiG-29s vs old LOM 3D Cockpits w/ Limited View/Modeling

4. PFMs for F-15C, Su-27, Su-25, A-10A, w/ Mig-29 and Su-33 PFM's On the Way vs Old SFM For All FC3 Except Su-25T
5. New 3d External models for F-15C, A-10A, Su-27, Su-33, Su-25, w/ MiG-29 on the Way vs Older Low Poly Models.

6. Extended map into Eastern Georgia / Southern RUS and NTTR vs Old Black Sea Map Only.

7. Several Updated AI 3D Models for Ships, Aircraft and Ground Objects
8. Improved Graphical Effects Over FC2, Even more so since the Move to DX11

9. Improved Mission Editor, Mission Triggers/Functions and Resource Management systems

10. New Campaigns for FC3 Aircraft (even more since move to 1.2.16+ and Campaign DLC System Integrated)
11. Improved Ocean Dynamics and Weather System vs FC2 (even more so w/ the move to 1.5/2.0 and DX11)

12. Improved Low level graphics detail on terrain vs DX8/9c of FC2, even more so w/ move to DX11

13. Improved AI
14. Integrated Fast Mission Editor
15. Expanded Radio Communications
16. Improved Avionics for Su-27, Su-33, MiG-29
 

Edited March 21, 2016 by SkateZilla

[Boresight 51]

+ 1 on it's worth the money.

 

Most things have been said already, and for me:

 

Su-27 and F-15 "Professional Flight Models", are outstanding, very realistic indeed.

 

(Stopped flying LOMAC some 10 years ago, as I felt MiG-29 flight model was somewhat inaccurate, i.e. it was easier to dogfight against a Mirage 2000 flying with the F-15 or Su-27, than the MiG-29).

 

Though the Su-27 is much more realistic as already stated now in FC3.

 

In FC3 there's what I think you call " 6 DOF " in cockpit view now, which I believe didn't exist in LOMAC at first.

The terrain / scenario graphics are outstanding too.

 

Also must keep in mind the necessity of a "good" PC, because with the latest graphic quality improvements, it's going to need some processing power.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Boresight

[X8X8X 0]

Sounds great! ​I'll pick it up on the next steam sale.

Are there any rumors about FC4 (trying not to get any started, just asking)?

 

Best regards,

X8X8X

[MigBuster 2,884]

Everything I have seen would suggest no more FC3 type aircraft.............but things can change.

.

[jeanba 1,920]

It's my feeling too

And actually, I am not a big fan of very high accuracy.

Sometimes, "middle level" simulation is good too (somewhere between SF2 and F4)

[X8X8X 0]

Another question:
​The official release (not beta) of DCS 2.0 will be free, I suppose. Will FC3 work in this environment as well? Which maps will be included? Nevada or Georgia, or even both of them?

Thanks.

 

Best regards,

X8X8X

[MigBuster 2,884]

DCS 2.0 is currently at Alpha release as I understand it.

 

All I know is that DCS 2.0 will become the de facto version sometime in the future instead of the 1.5 we are on now..........and when that happens I expect all the maps and Modules to be available and work together.....but as ever keep an eye out for news.

[X8X8X 0]

oh, well. Thanks.

I just realised the F-15 and the Su-27 can also be bought separately on steam, may get one of those (just having to decide which one now if FC3 won't be on sale anytime soon).

 

Best regards,

Brett