Guess what! Easy AAR!

I think the "less hardcore" could be handled with settings within DCS.

DCS already has a “game mode”. The trouble with that is you’re paying $80 and you wouldn’t get your money’s worth in that mode. A player who wants something like that would be better off with Ace Combat or something.

ED needs a soft core product to entice new players into sims, I have a hard time imagining DCS being someone’s very first flight sim.

DCS already has a “game mode”.

It does? They sure do a good job hiding it then. Never even heard of it. So i doubt any prospective buyers know about it.

The trouble with that is you’re paying $80 and you wouldn’t get your money’s worth in that mode.

yep, that is a challenge. I dont think its the game mode though, whatever it does, its gonna be the lack of choice in planes for that money. Its really simple, if you get 1 plane for 70 dollar or 8 for 50, what do you think most will do?

A player who wants something like that would be better off with Ace Combat or something.

Nah. ace combat has nothing to do with flight sims, it just vaguely looks like one, its an arcade game.

I think the obvious target is that other more popular WW2 sim as well as even microsoft simmers. You need something that appeals to them, realistic enough to make you believe you are actually in a sim, but not requiring reading thick books just to get airborne or get any sense of achievement. I see no reason why WW2 simmers would not want to try their hand at more modern jets, or even why a non trivial amount of civilian simmers wouldnt want to fly fast jets. Even "demilitarized " ones. And once they do that, hey, I bet some will like to pull that trigger too.

Good thing to learn Air to Air Refueling. You play simulator, right?:pilotfly:

Maybe a step at a time could be allowed for a some players?

Or is it a good that by your logic the GAME mode would be deleted from DCS, as well all the labels, invulnerability, unlimited weapons, easy targeting, easy radio, all laser code adjustments etc etc?

You play the simulator, right?

This wish in the original post is not about anything that would be ruining anyones experiences that want to fly with current air refueling modeling. It is exactly like the easy radio or external views etc!

It is just to ease some people experience in one point of the missions!

They can go flying the missions that requires air refueling after take-off or middle of the mission, without going banal with fuel management, aerodynamics, weapons management etc etc.

Seriously people, IT IS NOT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND!

NO ONE IS FORCING THE EASY AAR MODE ON YOU!

I have a hard time imagining DCS being someone’s very first flight sim.

You would be very surprised then.....

So better start imagining more how people buy DCS as their first flight simulator....

Same way as they buy to X-plane. Or they even go to IL-2. Or they buy to Microsoft Flight.

Heck, people go for even to space simulators for first time like Elite Dangerous and Star Citizens.

Even the Kerbal Space Program is recommended by NASA for kids to learn about space missions etc. And some of KSP players are young!

This is why I like the DCS, you have exactly that Game mode that you can put a 5 year old kid flying without much challenges, they learn very quickly do lots of fancy stuff in it. Far faster to learn than you likely would ever imagine.

First of all, personally I have nothing against having both options, but I can imagine that some of our community members are concerned that adding more and more "easy"/"game" modes would eventually move DCS in a more arcadish direction for the masses.

If these same people you talk about, would have DCS future in their hearts, they would welcome those things gladly with open arms. Because flight simulation market is niche. And we need more players who get to it, as there are lots of those who are interested about modern combat. So much that even ED does the MAC as own completely separate product instead as "Flaming Cliffs 4.0" (that I hoped for).

I had multiple people ready to be a gift receivers for the MAC. But it ended right on the moment when ED announced that it will be standalone product and incompatible with DCS World.

ED needs at some point improve more of the GAME mode in DCS World, to add some new easier modes to it, as well like adding new easy modes to SIM mode. Just like this AAR idea, it is very seriously needed to grow the potential customer base. This is something that we need to simply accept, that there needs to be multiplayer servers for GAME mode and for SIM mode. And then we need the HARD CORE version that is 100% as much realism as possible for those who really want simulation/realism. Where you don't have any hand holding, you have heavy penalties from fooling around with aircrafts costing millions etc.

I have to admit I was a bit disappointed when ED announced the new MAC game. I much rather saw them invest all their resources in improving and fixing DCS (but I'm probably short sighted and I do realise that ED needs to make money to be able to provide us this wonderful sim)

Have you thought about that maybe the MAC is part of the ED process to improve the whole core technology in DCS World as well? As development goes often both ways....

Like have you thought if ED is developing a new graphics, terrain and AI engines first for MAC, as they don't have any history to carry on first? And then they can start porting the existing modules to it and get DCS World finally going for that?

They have possibilities to test and try new things without touching DCS World at all!

You would be very surprised then.....

 

So better start imagining more how people buy DCS as their first flight simulator....

Same way as they buy to X-plane. Or they even go to IL-2. Or they buy to Microsoft Flight.

IRL, people dont learn to fly on F18s. They learn it in gliders or cessna's or similar. If you are really new to flight sims, it makes complete sense to pick xplane or MS flight over DCS for a lot of reasons, but the plane models is also one of them.

But what if had a Cessna 172? Seriously. Maybe that should be the free module, not the TF51. And maybe some light twin engine civilian plane as paying module, something small/slow enough that map size isnt too much of an issue. It could even be fun in missions. Fly a covert mission transporting a VIP or fleeing a country in your stolen cessna, and dont get killed. Or be in a green team, killing greens counts as teamkills for both red and blue. Just like in most conflicts civilians are not intentionally shot at. And thats one thrill MS flight wont give you, the chance of getting shot down.

IRL, people dont learn to fly on F18s. They learn it in gliders or cessna's or similar. If you are really new to flight sims, it makes complete sense to pick xplane or MS flight over DCS for a lot of reasons, but the plane models is also one of them.

 

But what if had a Cessna 172? Seriously. Maybe that should be the free module, not the TF51. And maybe some light twin engine civilian plane as paying module, something small/slow enough that map size isnt too much of an issue. It could even be fun in missions. Fly a covert mission transporting a VIP or fleeing a country in your stolen cessna, and dont get killed. Or be in a green team, killing greens counts as teamkills for both red and blue. Just like in most conflicts civilians are not intentionally shot at. And thats one thrill MS flight wont give you, the chance of getting shot down.

This is precisely why DCS needs to add a better free aircraft that is more ideal at training new pilots. Something like the T-34 Mentor is what the Navy used for a long time to train new pilots. Then the T-2 Buckeye was the intermediate step up which has been replaced by the T-45. But as I had mentioned before in a different threat the T-2 would probably be the most ideal and realistic to get added for free since it is an older and simpler aircraft. Plus by it having a tail hook it would better prepare new pilots to land on aircraft carriers. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=265902

This is something that we need to simply accept, that there needs to be multiplayer servers for GAME mode and for SIM mode.

There’s nothing stopping anyone from making a game mode server now. Except it would likely be unpopulated. I don’t think many DCS players use game mode. Obviously enough use it to justify ED including it though. I still can’t see why anyone would pay $80 for an F-16 and use it in game mode.

This is precisely why DCS needs to add a better free aircraft that is more ideal at training new pilots. Something like the T-34 Mentor is what the Navy used for a long time to train new pilots.

It may be a great trainer, but I dont see the mass market appeal for a sim. The only people who know it, are in to military flying anyhow. A cessna is something everyone recognizes, and anyone who may have any aspiration to ever fly IRL is likely to fly.

If it where up to me, Id also offer all combat planes and helicopters for free. Just demilitarized. No weapons, no radar. Maybe no online play. I dont think it would meaningfully hurt sales, I cant imagine anyone who is in to DCS now would settle for that. But it might make it worth for others to actually try DCS, spend the time needed to learning to fly a plane. And then want more.

IRL, people dont learn to fly on F18s. They learn it in gliders or cessna's or similar.

Yes, but they do so because of risks and money. Apart from immersion by going rookie path there is no reason to learn anything other in the sim that you wouldn't fly later. Btw: even civilians don't start in gliders.

immersion by going rookie path there is no reason to learn anything other in the sim that you wouldn't fly later.

There are plenty of reasons actually. Those trainers are much more forgiving, easier to learn, easier to land, and allow students to focus on the basics. You learn faster in them than you would in a high performance plane, .

Test pilots are also required to fly on as many completely different plane types as possible, because it increases your skills in ways you can not by flying just 1 type. And simple planes teaches you skills and helps you understand flight in ways a modern fly by wire jet can not. Just like you want kids to learn to drive in a family saloon and not a Lamborghini, and you want to learn how to race in a cart, not a formula 1. its not just because those are cheaper. They are better tools to learn.

Which is particularly true for gliders btw; you say "even civilians" dont train in gliders, many do, but also many airforces do. Not just because its cheaper, but you actually learn things in gliders like how to conserve energy and the importance of coordinated turns that do help you in combat. Gliding skills also allowed the captain of Air Canada Flight 143 to land his 767 with no engines, not many other pilots are trained in slip manœuvres to adjust your glide slope. Its definitely not part of 767 type rating. I also highly doubt Flight 447 crash would have happened if their pilots had any gliding experience, or more cessna hours.

IRL, people dont learn to fly on F18s. They learn it in gliders or cessna's or similar. If you are really new to flight sims, it makes complete sense to pick xplane or MS flight over DCS for a lot of reasons, but the plane models is also one of them.[/Quote]

 

Welcome Yak-52, L-39 and your chosen.....

 

All from the primary to basic and advanced.

 

But what if had a Cessna 172? Seriously. Maybe that should be the free module, not the TF51.[/Quote]

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=162399

 

And maybe some light twin engine civilian plane as paying module, something small/slow enough that map size isnt too much of an issue. It could even be fun in missions. Fly a covert mission transporting a VIP or fleeing a country in your stolen cessna, and dont get killed. Or be in a green team, killing greens counts as teamkills for both red and blue. Just like in most conflicts civilians are not intentionally shot at. And thats one thrill MS flight wont give you, the chance of getting shot down.

 

You can do that with L-39 or Yak-52 or similar.

 

IMHO we need some small cargo and passenger aircrafts. Twin engine ones with 7-9 passenger seats, capable carry 1500 kg or so.

 

An-32 or C-123 or HC-144 are big ones, but would be nice in DCS.

But we need as well targets for COIN, like beechcraft 18 or An-28 and An-2.

 

But nothing in DCS denies now from learning to fly. Nothing. It has game modes, it allows to sit as passenger in track etc. And it is a simulator, not a real life where making an error kills you.

 

DCS is great for first experience, there is no need for others.

 

Where it lacks are the ground procedures, airport procedures and such that would be required, but we are talking about knowing how to fly (controls for pitch, roll, rudder etc, how to gain altitude, speed, slow down etc).

There’s nothing stopping anyone from making a game mode server now. Except it would likely be unpopulated. I don’t think many DCS players use game mode. Obviously enough use it to justify ED including it though. I still can’t see why anyone would pay $80 for an F-16 and use it in game mode.

For same reason as someone buys a series of other arcade flight games for a console....

To have fun.

This is why FC3 is great package. And why MAC would have been nice as "FC4" in DCS instead standalone, but it will sell...

Game mode is not meant to be final mode to fly, but begin.

DCS is great for first experience, there is no need for others.

Im talking about appeal. There is nothing wrong with a Yak 52 as trainer (provided you can get an english cockpit). Its just unfamiliar and appeals to no one outside a small niche. And its 40 euro with no "growth path". Add to that you can only fly it in Caucasus, which hardly anyone could locate on a world map, without spending more money, you cant fly in any place you are likely to be familiar with, and its kinda hard to see anyone looking in to getting in to flighsims going that route over xplane.

Where it lacks are the ground procedures, airport procedures and such that would be required, but we are talking about knowing how to fly (controls for pitch, roll, rudder etc, how to gain altitude, speed, slow down etc).

Its not enough that DCS would be suitable, because I agree, it is. But it also needs to be "marketable". Go to DCS website with the mindset of a flightsim noob with no skills. Does that look the right choice for a first sim? Not to me. Then start counting what it costs to get a few planes and places to fly, and those customers are gone forever.

So I get why they want a separate product to appeal to "flight sim noobs". I just think it could be the same product, with different models, different marketing and different pricing structure. By all means give it its own name if need be, but make it fully compatible with DCSW.

Its not enough that DCS would be suitable, because I agree, it is. But it also needs to be "marketable". Go to DCS website with the mindset of a flightsim noob with no skills. Does that look the right choice for a first sim? Not to me. Then start counting what it costs to get a few planes and places to fly, and those customers are gone forever.

Free Caucasus with Su-25T and TF-51 are more than enough to get you started and decide if you're into it. If you happen to like the aircraft (one for ground pounding and the other for GA) it's actually mind blowing that you have all this for FREE - I mean endless possiblities with campaigns, missions, MP, ME, whole Caucasus map (with seasons, day/night, wheather), all DCSW units available as AI or human in MP - you can play for years and you even get tech support.

Im talking about appeal. There is nothing wrong with a Yak 52 as trainer (provided you can get an english cockpit). Its just unfamiliar and appeals to no one outside a small niche. And its 40 euro with no "growth path". Add to that you can only fly it in Caucasus, which hardly anyone could locate on a world map, without spending more money, you cant fly in any place you are likely to be familiar with, and its kinda hard to see anyone looking in to getting in to flighsims going that route over xplane.[/Quote]

 

Okay, you just gave all reasons for ED to stop their business....

 

 

Its not enough that DCS would be suitable, because I agree, it is. But it also needs to be "marketable". Go to DCS website with the mindset of a flightsim noob with no skills. Does that look the right choice for a first sim? Not to me. Then start counting what it costs to get a few planes and places to fly, and those customers are gone forever.[/Quote]

 

Go to look example MSFS and it is same thing, hundreds of dollars for planes, sceneries, extra content etc. And doesn't even look easy to setup.

 

DCS is actually very easy setup and to be flying with two free aircrafts.

 

So I get why they want a separate product to appeal to "flight sim noobs". I just think it could be the same product, with different models, different marketing and different pricing structure. By all means give it its own name if need be, but make it fully compatible with DCSW.

 

Exactly. DCS: MAC should be a thing... Get people invest for a few good fighters and nice simple cockpit to operate. When skills grow, they can by individual ones.

Okay, you just gave all reasons for ED to stop their business....

no, but I do think they should rethink their business.

Go to look example MSFS and it is same thing, hundreds of dollars for planes, sceneries, extra content etc. And doesn't even look easy to setup.

Not sure which ms sim you are referring to. But flight simulator X wasnt free and I looked it up, it came with 18 planes (24 in the deluxe edition) and 24 thousand airports across the planet and thanks to a public SDK, tons of downloadable free content as well as commercial addons. It was widely successful. 14 years later it still isnt quite dead.

Microsoft flight was free, came with 1 free plane and 1 smal region and a DLC market place for everything else, no public SDK and thus no user generated content and it flopped. Dead as a doornail just a year later. There may be other reasons, but I bet those mattered.

FS2020 will come with the entire world, and so far 14 planes ranging from a cessna 152 to a boeing 747. And a public SDK. And it wont be only for those reasons, but I bet its not gonna flop.

DCS now uses a model that is pretty much exactly like MS flight. The FS2020 approach may not be feasible, but I think the condor / FSX business model would be, and be better suited to it. A non-free base game with a good selection of planes, additional paying addon plane modules (in condor's case, often 3d modeled by the community with the devs doing the rigging and creating the flight model) and a free landscape development toolkit that allows anyone to make sceneries. Which is a lot of work, and some sell them commercially others dont mind doing that to create their favorite flying area. We saw that with FSX. We see it with condor, a community much smaller than DCS. But the result is 100+ free landscapes covering much of the globe, some of them quick and dirty others multi year efforts by small teams and made with stunning attention to detail, and that in turns makes the sim more valuable. and it allows the entire development team (all 2 of them) to focus their time on the things the community can not make, and is happy to pay for.

Exactly. DCS: MAC should be a thing... Get people invest for a few good fighters and nice simple cockpit to operate. When skills grow, they can by individual ones.

Only if that doesnt mean ditching MAC and switching to DCS. It should be the same sim and interoperable. Very much like FC3.

I think you derailed the topic a "little bit" here. :P

I did, didnt I.

Then again, I think everything that can be said about easy AAR has been said, so we widened the scope of the discussion to making DCS more accessible noob friendly.

I did, didnt I.

 

Then again, I think everything that can be said about easy AAR has been said, so we widened the scope of the discussion to making DCS more noob friendly.

I think the better word and the whole point of this thread is not noob friendly but "more accessible". It's not only about new players and their steep learning curves, but also just as important, accessible to normal people with normal lives who work, have families, friends, who can't dedicate so much effort and time to learn, practice and keep proficiency, and money, to spend on video games' hardware.

Just want to agree here, I am not that interested in AAR to practice it and in some cases, not that interested in carrier landing. I like the mission in the middle!

Get within 10 meters of the fueller and press "x" and it ports you onto the tanker until you let go, a bit like the way you attach to the catapult.

Get within 300 meters of the carrier and fairly lines up, press "x" and it lands you.

Get within 300 meters of the carrier and fairly lines up, press "x" and it lands you.

At least with the tomcat you can have that. Just bind "x" to ACLS. Not sure if or when that is coming to the F18

Sorry if I sound rude, but my advice is, that if someone can't do AAR or carrier landing, and is not willing to learn it:

Simply don't do AAR and don't do carrier ops. Have fun with everything else.

I get it, that lots of people don't have the free time to learn and practice, but then, why fly a 2 hour long boring mission with AAR?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people playing the game their own way, my problem is that there are 1000 more important things I'd like ED to work on instead...

In some ways we do have easy air to air refueling. The elimination of the fear of death is a big one. On the other hand we don't have certain sensory inputs: our bodies do not experience our "plane" moving around and we don't have the same depth perception looking at a screen versus a 3D environment. I applaud those who can achieve a "hookup" every time. Some of us though are getting on in years and/or just don't have the necessary coordination for the required intricate moves no matter how much we practice. And there are those who just don't have the time to practice this one skill but still want more than an arcade experience. If we can't refuel in the air we lose the whole fuel management experience because the only other option is unlimited fuel. It seems to me that an option for refueling with no oscillation of plane and basket could be made available for newer or less coordinated pilots. I have noticed when I hook up to the catapult that if my plane is not perfectly aligned it magically aligns itself. No one expects me to make a U turn and try again. When learning something like skiing you are not just shoved done the expert slope the first time out. You work up to it. Of course there are about 1000 things the programmers need to work on that are as important or more important than an easier option to refueling.

Sorry if I sound rude, but my advice is, that if someone can't do AAR or carrier landing, and is not willing to learn it:

 

Simply don't do AAR and don't do carrier ops. Have fun with everything else.

 

I get it, that lots of people don't have the free time to learn and practice, but then, why fly a 2 hour long boring mission with AAR?[/Quote]

Because people are interested about the 2h mission, not very specific part of it that can ruin it.

 

One might like idea to fly long strike mission from carrier to carrier, with two air refueling, without wanted to even risk to lose all because their weak skills in landing or air refueling in bad weather. But they have spent already so much time to learn all other phases and master them, that they are still in progress to learn those two new things.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people playing the game their own way, my problem is that there are 1000 more important things I'd like ED to work on instead...

 

With that attitude you never get anything done, because there is always some better things to be done.

 

Air refueling is major part of many long time missions or even normal ones. But not between all others.

We have all kind assisting things to begin, but we get to drop them while we learn.

 

One can train a lot refueling or landing, and never be so great as they are in everything else. So why not assist them in those areas where they need help for some reasons?