DCS F-35A

I just want the landing gear to work :(

10 years ago it would be considered one of the hardcore. Now people considered it's semi arcade? lol

 

Many of the great sims in 90s would be arcade games now then.

10 years ago we didn't had the current technology, so a accurate simulation wasn't really possible (not for a vdeogamer at least). Today the "problem" is no more a technical matter, but it's a commercial decision.

No matter what you think: press a single button to turn on a jet engine and another for full throttle taking off 4 seconds later for me is arcade. I did not chosen to invest my time into this crap, I've chosen DCS to have a full simulation (where possible)... otherwise I would go play battlefield.

Again: i'm not saying that arcades are fun.. they are (for the mass), but I want a simulator not a point and click shooter.

From my read he said the opposite?

What I got was that it angers him that people are complaining about possible realism compromises regarding the F-35 module although most of them will not use the majority of those features that they request.

IMHO, the potential paying customers have the right to demand whatever they seem proper and to use the software in any way they see fit. So, e.g. you might appreciate that some feature is properly simulated (e.g. Ka-50 ABRIS) although you're probably not going to use it much on your occasional flights.

Now, if this perceived elitism was not the point he was trying to make, then I apologize for getting it wrong, but reading it again and again, I get the same (wrong) impression.

What I want to express is the delusion of seeing (not you apparently) lot's of young guns in the cockpit and without even knowing the position of the wheel brakes, they want to shoot and kill.

Ask them to land with 5 knots of crosswind and 1.5 NM of visibility and they will crash it. Ask them to insert a new markpoint and broadcast it and there- Radio silence.

 

Not everyone is a pilot, it takes dedication and study.

Rightfully some of us just want to have fun, sometimes me too. With two kids all I have is 2 hours per week.

 

What enrages me is that, here in the forums, so many of these gamers piss on perfectly reasonable projects because they're not just 100% realistic.

Still one week <.<

komemiute:

 

I'm not getting into an online pissing contest with you about who's a pilot and who's not. I'm not. I took ground school a decade ago and passed the test but couldn't afford flight lessons (it was an elective in college). I wanted to be in the Air Force but decided against it. I'm not a pilot at all. And I fly it mostly like a game although I try to use the A-10C correctly in so far as I have the knowledge and ability to do so.

 

It's just like my other hobby which happens to be shooting. I love shooting guns and I shoot a lot. Shooting long range doesn't make me a sniper because actual sniping involves a lot of boredom and a lot of discomfort. More than just shooting long range. But if I got on a game forum about Sniper Elite V2 or sniping in ARMA or something like that and started getting elitist about how most of the people doing it don't know how the Coriolis Effect works, don't know the actual trajectory of a 7.62 X 51 bullet, can't make a wind call, don't know how to range a target as a spotter, and don't want to sit around for 3 hours in the game waiting on a target...I'd probably get booted from the forum. The only difference is that those aren't study sims so your point still stands, some.

 

I actually agree with you a bit. People should NOT piss on a project just because they don't like it or it isn't 100% realistic. So I definitely agree with you on that. I also noticed (after my initial response to you) that your point could be taken either way. I don't think I'm the only one who picked the wrong way but that is another reason I hate the internet. It's just hard to see certain perspectives.

 

Anyway, it appears that you're telling people to slow down on judging a module that may not be as realistic as A-10C. That I also agree with. I'd like as much realism as possible even if I never use it. I'll probably never use every bit of realism in A-10C. It's not that I don't want to, it's just that I have other things to worry about and in the meantime I'll just learn what I can.

 

I think my main caution is against elitism. It drives people away and kills conversations. That clearly is not your intent and I think most of what I saw as elitism was actually a misunderstanding, but the caution remains. A lot of us see our time in the sim and our money that we spent on controls and we start feeling good about ourselves and that can be a problem.

 

Thanks.

If you felt like you had to write this I have to step down a tone.

First and foremost with the "pissing" quote: I'm not trying to tell who is a pilot from who isn't.

For I cannot. I don't even know were to put myself. I wish I was a pilot but it takes too much. Time and skills.

It's a hobby for me too, and as I said there's little time.

My point is with that little time I just want to increase my proficiency. Why?

Here...

The whole point of playing DCS instead of the more immediately gratifying HAWX, or any other simpler game, is the immersion.

Many people want immersion when in a simulation. I read this a lot, not just about DCS but Rise of Flight and BMS and on and on. This since the dawn of (videogame) time.

It's natural. It has to be, or it would be hard to justify ourselves with all the money (me included) we spent on this. This applies to ANY hobby people take seriously. But I don't want to digress.

Sometimes I can pass as an elitist but follow me on this:

Big Part of the FUN in DCS is in MP. People interacting and opposing each other.

We can all agree SP is a bit... septic. For all the good reasons, anyway.

1+1 = We want immersion in MP too. Still with me?

When you are assigned a wingman that can fire 6 MAVs but can't keep station, belches in the mike, stray away and get shot down by some Manpads and has no idea if his/hers ECM & subsystems are On or Off, it kills your immersion and I(personally) have a bad time.

Bad time, of the little I have.

This is probably what other people feel too.

No one knows everything, and it's right to make mistakes but also to LEARN from them.

Or from people who know their stuff.

As I stated I don't have much free time, so I try to split it up between honing my skills and employ them in MP.

What's the point of having a 100% true module when all that people learn is just how to fire the cannon and drop some Guided Munitions? FC3 is more than enough for that.

Yes maybe there's an hint of elitism here, but it's hard to believe that ALL the posters that just want the real deal would go the whole 9 yards to learn the module 100%-

I do not mean that every DCS user must spend 40 hours at week just studying manuals and procedures.

But again, just act their skill, if not their age.

The symbology of the F35 may be different from the real plane...

Big deal, not. How would anyone know which one is not as per plane?

All a module should do is what DCS A10 does, give us a believable approximation (= simulation) of a plane.

If people can't be bothered to learn a realistic sim, they are still entitled to buy it, if so they like.

Maybe they're a bit less entitled to crap and spit on random people's work...

That's my whole point probably...

10 years ago we didn't had the current technology, so a accurate simulation wasn't really possible (not for a vdeogamer at least). Today the "problem" is no more a technical matter, but it's a commercial decision.

 

No matter what you think: press a single button to turn on a jet engine and another for full throttle taking off 4 seconds later for me is arcade. I did not chosen to invest my time into this crap, I've chosen DCS to have a full simulation (where possible)... otherwise I would go play battlefield.

 

Again: i'm not saying that arcades are fun.. they are (for the mass), but I want a simulator not a point and click shooter.

Why do people think in binary? It's either DCS A-10C lvl, or its a stupid hawx arcade. Just for start, there are systems not implemented corectly in the DCS A-10C, can you name even one of them? And if, how did you found out it is not implemented correctly? And does the wrongly implemented system affects your experience? Hell, isn't A-10C a piece of HAWX arcade, because it doesn't implement IFF and most of JDAM functionality?...

The truth is, 99% of users cannot do it even for Falcon 4, that has a lot more 'wrongly' implemented systems. Does it degrate the sim experience? No.

You have no way of telling how the DCS F-35A experience will be. And you'll have no way of telling what systems are done right, and what systems are done wrong, because you don't know how those system operate IRL. And just because a system isn't fully implemented doesn't mean that system will be HAWX lvl.

As for the last part, that's what modern avionics try to achieve.

10 years ago we didn't had the current technology, so a accurate simulation wasn't really possible (not for a vdeogamer at least). Today the "problem" is no more a technical matter, but it's a commercial decision.

We're in the exact same spot we were in 10 years ago. The technical barrier has only moved a little.

No matter what you think: press a single button to turn on a jet engine and another for full throttle taking off 4 seconds later for me is arcade.

That doesn't make the module any less of a simulation, or FC3 for that matter. Both are, no matter how you feel about them. FC3 just happens to be less accurate than A-10. We don't know where F-35 will land.

I did not chosen to invest my time into this crap, I've chosen DCS to have a full simulation (where possible)... otherwise I would go play battlefield.

Battlefield is a different subject entirely. And it would be nice to know how you'd conclude you can even compare it to the F-35 when there is little information about the module.

Again: i'm not saying that arcades are fun.. they are (for the mass), but I want a simulator not a point and click shooter.

Well, they're making a simulator.

What I got was that it angers him that people are complaining about possible realism compromises regarding the F-35 module although most of them will not use the majority of those features that they request.

 

IMHO, the potential paying customers have the right to demand whatever they seem proper and to use the software in any way they see fit. So, e.g. you might appreciate that some feature is properly simulated (e.g. Ka-50 ABRIS) although you're probably not going to use it much on your occasional flights.

 

Now, if this perceived elitism was not the point he was trying to make, then I apologize for getting it wrong, but reading it again and again, I get the same (wrong) impression.

I guess I summed it up here...

If people can't be bothered to learn a realistic sim, they are still entitled to buy it, if so they like.

Maybe they're a bit less entitled to crap and spit on random people's work...

That's my whole point probably...

It's not the fact that people are not going to use all of the features, even in RL not EVERY system is USED in every sortie.

It's just those that mark this module as ARCADE or pointless unless 100% of the systems are replicated, or even insult the maker or worse.

It's just those that mark this module as ARCADE or pointless unless 100% of the systems are replicated, or even insult the maker or worse.

I guess some people might be expressing their skepticism about how complex this module can be given that it will simulate the F-35 and that it comes from a new (unproven?) developer especially when it bears the DCS moniker. There are certain standards set up by the DCS modules so far and there's only so much forthcoming information from the developers and until that changes the speculation is one of the few remaining options and this is a discussion forum (and a moderated one).

I don't see why you're branding those people as "gamers" on the basis of some of your experiences in MP. What is the connection between them, anyway? Even if some of them are the same persons, they still have the right to express their opinion just as you have, no matter how serious they are about it, wouldn't you agree? :)

I'm a skeptic...but I'm still going to check out the kickstart campaign when it launchs.

I guess some people might be expressing their skepticism about how complex this module can be given that it will simulate the F-35 and that it comes from a new (unproven?) developer while at the same time it bears the DCS moniker. There are certain standards set up by the DCS modules so far and there's only so much forthcoming information from the developers and until that changes the speculation is one of the few remaining options and this is a discussion forum (and a moderated one).

Absolutely true about skepticism.

I never mentioned or insulted ANYONE that expressed well formed skepticism.

Bashers and naysayers are another pair of sleeves.

I don't see why you're branding those people as "gamers" on the basis of some of your experiences in MP. What is the connection between them, anyway?

We are all gamers.

And in complete truth we are all elitists of some sort or we would never have anyone mentioning HAWX or FC3 as a lower step.

We like to see ourselves as someone above Ace Combat players, without necessarily skipping those games...

God, there's great users who made AIP for DCS, who hold lessons to spread the knowledge and those who go to the point of complete reskin of the models to get closer to reality.

In a way this is Elitism.

We are an elite, in our own little (DCS) world. Nothing to be ashamed.

That's what justifies us when we spend $$$ in Hardware or hours in the tweaking of an TrackIR profile or a weapon delivery...

What's wrong with that? Nothing.

But while I hold my own when it comes to computers and Servers, I know next to nothing when it comes to surgery.

So I can be skeptical of this new method of removing brain clot, but I'd never bash a surgeon for trying something new.

I'm a skeptic...but I'm still going to check out the kickstart campaign when it launchs.

Agreed. I am really curious what the goal number is going to be.

Absolutely true about skepticism. I never mentioned or insulted ANYONE that expressed well formed skepticism. Bashers and naysayers are another pair of sleeves.

That's the whole point. You don't mention anyone specifically, but give vague generalized statements about "them". Who are bashers and naysayers? When exactly someone stops being a skeptic and becomes a naysayer here?

We are all gamers. And in complete truth we are all elitists of some sort or we would never have anyone mentioning HAWX or FC3 as a lower step. We like to see ourselves as someone above Ace Combat players, without necessarily skipping those games...

You used the expression: "so many of these gamers piss on perfectly reasonable projects". And again, you're generalizing by expressing what you think as shared by everyone else here.

But, anyway, it's gotten way OT a long time ago..

Ditto, but damn I really want to play with this cockpit:

Kinda gives me that Jane's F/A-18 vibe there (didn't really study the Super Hornet cockpit so I won't reference that directly).

(on a more personal note, somehow I could never get into liking that - old school cockpits FTW)..

Ditto, but damn I really want to play with this cockpit:

 

ABSOLUTELY! :thumbup:

Dissecting posts does nobody's good.

You're right OT and pointless.

Peace.

If you felt like you had to write this I have to step down a tone.

First and foremost with the "pissing" quote: I'm not trying to tell who is a pilot from who isn't.

For I cannot. I don't even know were to put myself. I wish I was a pilot but it takes too much. Time and skills.

 

Many people want immersion when in a simulation. I read this a lot, not just about DCS but Rise of Flight and BMS and on and on. This since the dawn of (videogame) time.

 

 

1+1 = We want immersion in MP too. Still with me?

When you are assigned a wingman that can fire 6 MAVs but can't keep station, belches in the mike, stray away and get shot down by some Manpads and has no idea if his/hers ECM & subsystems are On or Off, it kills your immersion and I(personally) have a bad time.

Bad time, of the little I have.

 

As I stated I don't have much free time, so I try to split it up between honing my skills and employ them in MP.

No worries and I hope I haven't come across as argumentative. I didn't intend it that way. This dialogue has helped me understand your point and I think I get it now. I can see the multiplayer being very annoying. I don't play multiplayer except with a friend of mine in co-op missions, one because I don't enjoy playing with people I don't know (sometimes it is fine but too often I find myself in servers with people who forgot they were new to the game once too) and because I don't feel qualified enough yet to go fly with other people. But yes, I can see that being a bit annoying especially when you get stepped on every time you try to communicate, or their radio communications are so far removed from being brief and concise and informative that they might as well not say anything (another reason I just use a Ventrillo server and only fly with my friend so far).

Also, I have two kids as well and I know what you mean by limited time. That makes it all the more frustrating when what little time you can spend playing isn't as enjoyable as you intended.

I've got no problems with people wanting to just jump in and fly. I wish that people would use some consideration and try their best NOT to get in other people's way though. And I can certainly understand the people who are somewhere in between a new flyer and an ace and don't use large portions of the systems (that's me - toward the bottom end of that). I would say that if your knowledge is limited but you can get the plane off the ground without taxiing into someone else, and you can communicate halfway decently with good information in a somewhat concise format, and you can employ guided weapons with any degree of reliability...then you can fly with real people in a server. You don't need to know how to fly a traffic pattern necessarily. You don't need to know how to refuel in mid-air. You don't necessarily need to know how to get the ground crew to rearm you (but it's handy). You really don't even need to know how to mess with the CDU (also handy). So there is a lot that people don't need to know before they can get online and have fun, they just have to realize their knowledge is limited and use it as a good place to learn from other people, and they need to be respectful. I think that may be the solid, "in between" ground.

Happy flying man and I'll leave you alone now.

We're in the exact same spot we were in 10 years ago. The technical barrier has only moved a little.

A LITTLE? ...no need to waste more forum space to reply to you, I've got what type of "user" you are. Bye bye. ;)

A LITTLE? ...no need to waste more forum space to reply to you, I've got what type of "user" you are. Bye bye. ;)

Yes, because for one thing we're not yet running unsteady CFD on the aircraft as it flies. And that's only the aero side of things. In relation to "the real thing" there is plenty to look forward to in the coming years/decades/centuries.

Things have improved, but to say that the technical barrier is gone is either ignorant or dishonest.

Yes, because for one thing we're not yet running unsteady CFD on the aircraft as it flies. And that's only the aero side of things. In relation to "the real thing" there is plenty to look forward to in the coming years/decades/centuries.

You clearly don't understand how the computational power has improved in 10 years, and how this directly links to the simulators. I'm not here to teach it to you, there's plenty of books out there, and you missed 10 years of them.

but to say that the technical barrier is gone

The technical barrier is gone? Where did you read it? It's not that inventing words and phrases would make your argument better. Again: bye bye. ;)

You clearly don't understand how the computational power has improved in 10 years, and how this directly links to the simulators. I'm not here to teach it to you, there's plenty of books out there, and you missed 10 years of them.

So are we using CFD in sims or not? Or is it that when you get damaged, your aero force coefficients just change to preset numbers? Or that a section of the wing/fuselage that is probably a different size than the area of damage has all its values changed, probably with numbers an order of magnitude less accurate than those for the pristine flight model?

I'd be willing to be there are a few technical barriers involved in improving those things I just listed.

The technical barrier is gone? Where did you read it? It's not that inventing words and phrases would make your argument better. Again: bye bye. ;)

It was said here:

10 years ago we didn't had the current technology, so a accurate simulation wasn't really possible (not for a vdeogamer at least). Today the "problem" is no more a technical matter, but it's a commercial decision.

A LITTLE? ...no need to waste more forum space to reply to you, I've got what type of "user" you are. Bye bye. ;)

It's not that inventing words and phrases would make your argument better. Again: bye bye. ;)

Bud, I think you'd better chill out and change the tone you use with others, if you cannot stand that other people have different opinions, stay away from internet forums

Return to topic, please.

That's the whole point. You don't mention anyone specifically, but give vague generalized statements about "them". Who are bashers and naysayers? When exactly someone stops being a skeptic and becomes a naysayer here?

 

 

 

You used the expression: "so many of these gamers piss on perfectly reasonable projects". And again, you're generalizing by expressing what you think as shared by everyone else here.

 

But, anyway, it's gotten way OT a long time ago..

 

 

 

 

Kinda gives me that Jane's F/A-18 vibe there (didn't really study the Super Hornet cockpit so I won't reference that directly).

 

(on a more personal note, somehow I could never get into liking that - old school cockpits FTW)..

Ditto, but damn I really want to play with this cockpit:

 

A little OT but The SuperHornet will soon get a nice upgrade with Touch screen cockpit