Feet or meters ?

It's a glass cockpit aircraft, unit conversion should be achievable through software alone.

Just FYI you can use the F2 view infobar while in the cockpit, so if DCS is set to metric, you can get metric units.

I think a having a unit conversion option for instruments is reasonable, especially in a glass cockpit.

The a-10c hud has a metric option via the in-game hud setup, it is pretty usefull.

I think a having a unit conversion option for instruments is reasonable, especially in a glass cockpit.

It's not, if it's not a feature in the real aircraft. We have so many other aircraft that are imperial or metric only and it works just fine...

It's not, if it's not a feature in the real aircraft.

I think it is despite that. Having the unit conversion option doesn't prevent you from using the aircraft as it is in reality, similarly to label options and the already mentioned worked around to using the infobar in the cockpit. There has already been much talk about using the JF-17 as a red fighter in situations where it might not actually operate in reality. It's part of a the nature of simulators, represent a hypothetical situation realistically.

We have so many other aircraft that are imperial or metric only and it works just fine...

It's not like having the conversion would cause any problems.

The biggest problem still is that you can't switch units in the sim, to get correct values from the map if you switched to the other side of units. But we have a gazillion of different coords displays to choose from where only 2 or 3 are really useful...

I'd bet it's all SI units under the hood to begin with, as no engineer in their right mind would touch imperial, then converted to imperial in the UI layer to please the pilots.

I highly doubt that as all the input data for weather, planning etc. would be imperial as well. In order to use metric internally, they'd need to go imperial -> metric -> imperial again. The computer doesn't have a preference between imperial and metric :P

I highly doubt that as all the input data for weather, planning etc. would be imperial as well. In order to use metric internally, they'd need to go imperial -> metric -> imperial again. The computer doesn't have a preference between imperial and metric :P

It's inconceivable that engineers in metric-land would do calculations in imperial units. Plenty of input data is probably in SI units anyways. The computer doesn't care, but it doesn't get to decide.

If it's not all SI units under the hood we can expect it to crash and burn mars climate orbiter style.

If it's not all SI units under the hood we can expect it to crash and burn mars climate orbiter style.

Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and the Space Shuttle all used a mix of systems under the hood.

As someone who has almost exclusively flown metric jets and learned on metric jets in sim, you get used to imperial pretty fast.

The conversions are pretty simple, and it is an international standard. Mach number can be used in a pinch between red fighters its not a huge deal, and been dealing with it for awhile as Tomcat is used as redfor interceptor.

I find these discussions over whether displaying meters is realistic or not as a reason for not implementing it, rather asinine. We're playing a sim where you can reload an entire aircraft in under a minute, repair it in under 4, and fly a JF-17 in the Caucasus, Nevada, or the Persian Gulf, theaters where it never operated in. Yet nobody's complaining about these highly unrealistic things, but when it comes to representing the same distance two different ways, we have 9 pages of people going back and forth about it. Frankly, this is just bikeshedding and people throwing around the word "realistic" as a blanket excuse to justify whatever they're arguing for.

I don't care about what's "realistic". We're not talking about the aircraft's performance, weapons damage, or other things that have a real impact on how the aircraft performs. We're simply asking for a toggle to switch between two different units of measurement that has no bearing on the aircraft's abilities aside from making it easier for the user to parse distances. If you want ultimate "realism", then keep it in Imperial, but for those of us who primarily fly Russian aircraft and/or are used to distances measured in km (even the official JF-17 quick start guide lists distances in km), it would be extremely useful to see distances in a format that we're familiar with. If you have to justify it somehow under whatever selective definition of "realism" you prescribe to, just pretend it's a Russian export variant.

For me personally, anyone who starts their arguement claiming they do not care about realism is already in a wrong place.

If anyone plays driving simulator games, they will know that cars in there also have their speedometer modeled realistically on their dashboard however they provide the option to switch between kph or mph for the overlay at the bottom of the screen.

Is it possible to set up the status bar to be displayed at the bottom of the cockpit view? Like the one we get in external views. Additionally, is there a way to change the feet and meters on that bar? This would definatley help with this whole arguement since people just want to know the values in certain format and they dont care for realism in that regard so having a status bar at the bottom should be acceptable.

I care about realism where it matters. I don't care about "realism" when it's used as a blanket excuse to not implement something that doesn't affect gameplay, could plausibly be done in real life, and is only converting from one unit to another. It's like saying all cockpit translations should not exist if the real-life aircraft didn't have one in that language.

Hence why I put "realistic" and "realism" in quotes, because people don't want what's most realistic bar none, they just want certain things to be realistic while giving a pass for other things. If someone's ok with the 1-minute reloads, 4-minute repair times, and operating aircraft in areas that they've never flown in before, then why is it not ok to want a simple unit conversion that plausibly could be done to a fictional export aircraft?

Because 1-minute reloads, 4-minute repair times and theatres it never operated in doesn't touch the realism of the hardware itself, which should be uncomprising and as high as possible. And thus no unrealistic avionics.

It's a glass cockpit, there's nothing unrealistic or implausible about giving it a fictional firmware update that multiplies all the speeds and distances by 1.852. Arguing that only the hardware matters is silly; by that logic, it's also ok to have in-air rearming, instant in-air repairs, fly on a foreign planet, and shoot down UFOs because none of those "touch the realism of the hardware itself".

This is what I mean by a selective definition of "realism". People are ok with cockpit translations, fictitious liveries, Bitchin' Betty voiceovers by someone's kid at Deka, unrealistic loadouts, taking off with no ATC clearance, highly unrealistic AMRAAM behavior, arcade-level ground damage, the omniscient F10 map, missiles that track through obstacles, unrealistic FLIR imagery, no proximity fuzes, resolution-dependent spotting abilities, and a host of other highly unrealistic things that have a major impact on gameplay. But when it comes to converting one measurement unit to another, something that has absolutely no effect on "the hardware" aside from displaying the same thing in a different format, suddenly it's "but muh realism!". It's nothing but bikeshedding, going around in circles for 10 pages talking about whether it's realistic or not to literally do a multiplication operation on a computer, when much more serious realism issues out there are given a free pass.

In the end, all I want is the ability to toggle between nautical miles and km, even if the aircraft does not have this feature in real life. Just as people use labels, enable infinite weapons, turn on invincibility, and use cockpit translations, none of which are realistic, I want to be able to switch to km. If you don't like it because it interferes with your personal definition of "realism", then keep it on Imperial and you'll get that "as realistic as possible" cockpit that you want. But trying to block us from having the option to switch it to km is really just gatekeeping. We all make concessions on which parts of the game we're willing to compromise for the sake of gameplay and which parts we demand 100% realism from, I just happen to make one more concession than you.

true.

I understand both sides here and if DEKA does too they might give us such a solution as an option. Think both sides wouldn't quit playing DCS with or without that.

This thread's longing for a final statement from DEKA devs about their decision concerning the feet - meters question.

 

In the end, all I want is the ability to toggle between nautical miles and km, even if the aircraft does not have this feature in real life. Just as people use labels, enable infinite weapons, turn on invincibility, and use cockpit translations, none of which are realistic, I want to be able to switch to km. If you don't like it because it interferes with your personal definition of "realism", then keep it on Imperial and you'll get that "as realistic as possible" cockpit that you want. But trying to block us from having the option to switch it to km is really just gatekeeping. We all make concessions on which parts of the game we're willing to compromise for the sake of gameplay and which parts we demand 100% realism from, I just happen to make one more concession than you.

Ok, and all I am hoping is the devs don't make that concession. Also, just for the record - where possible I take original cockpits (my cyrillic is actually improving!), authentic liveries and so on and so on. Since it doesn't take away from my experience, I wouldn't work myself up over it, though, so when the devs say "eh, let's do it": good for you, and more power to you!

Ok, and all I am hoping is the devs don't make that concession.

And i am hoping otherwise.

What is your problem , nobody ask you to use meter, and for realsim don't forget to fly only in pakistan with paskitani liveries (no fictional). and ask DEKA/ED to remove Jf-17 from other coutries (US, Russia, France, China,...), you will be a happy man.

If you're going to quote me, at least quote me in the entirety instead of trying to belittle me by quoting one sentence. I wrote two posts and multiple paragraphs explaining why I put "realistic" and "realism" in quotes, but I guess reading comprehension is a chronic issue in your country.

It's not just feet to meters, it's also nautical miles to km and knots to km/h (1.852 conversion). When I'm trying to keep eyes on a bandit in a dogfight while keeping a certain AoA and watching my speed and altitude, the last thing I want to be doing is mentally multiplying my speed by 1.8 and my altitude by 3 every time I look at the HUD.

If you're going to continue on with "but it's not realistic!", then I also expect you to demand that Deka remove the unrealistic Bitchin' Betty, the fictional PLAAF skin (which by the way would use metric because that's what China uses), and the Block 2 features so that we don't have the hybrid "Block 1.5" aircraft that we have now, and also show me proof that you've never used a cockpit translation and have always kept the avionics language on native.

I'll repeat it again since some people didn't seem to understand the first time around: doing a unit conversion on a glass cockpit is just about the most innocuous and plausible change that can be done and affects literally nobody except those that are interested in it, yet we have multiple people here whose jimmies are rustled because it's "not realistic" while ignoring the huge stampeding herd of elephants in the room. We're not asking to replace the cockpit with metric only, we're asking for the option to switch to one. If you don't like that, then don't use it. We all make concessions on realism for gameplay purposes and some of us are willing to make this concession to see numbers in a format that we're more used to. But getting triggered because you don't want a toggle added into the game that affects you in exactly zero ways if you don't use it, is just being an elitist gatekeeper.

It's a glass cockpit, there's nothing unrealistic or implausible about giving it a fictional firmware update that multiplies all the speeds and distances by 1.852. Arguing that only the hardware matters is silly; by that logic, it's also ok to have in-air rearming, instant in-air repairs, fly on a foreign planet, and shoot down UFOs because none of those "touch the realism of the hardware itself".

 

This is what I mean by a selective definition of "realism". People are ok with cockpit translations, fictitious liveries, Bitchin' Betty voiceovers by someone's kid at Deka, unrealistic loadouts, taking off with no ATC clearance, highly unrealistic AMRAAM behavior, arcade-level ground damage, the omniscient F10 map, missiles that track through obstacles, unrealistic FLIR imagery, no proximity fuzes, resolution-dependent spotting abilities, and a host of other highly unrealistic things that have a major impact on gameplay. But when it comes to converting one measurement unit to another, something that has absolutely no effect on "the hardware" aside from displaying the same thing in a different format, suddenly it's "but muh realism!". It's nothing but bikeshedding, going around in circles for 10 pages talking about whether it's realistic or not to literally do a multiplication operation on a computer, when much more serious realism issues out there are given a free pass.

 

In the end, all I want is the ability to toggle between nautical miles and km, even if the aircraft does not have this feature in real life. Just as people use labels, enable infinite weapons, turn on invincibility, and use cockpit translations, none of which are realistic, I want to be able to switch to km. If you don't like it because it interferes with your personal definition of "realism", then keep it on Imperial and you'll get that "as realistic as possible" cockpit that you want. But trying to block us from having the option to switch it to km is really just gatekeeping. We all make concessions on which parts of the game we're willing to compromise for the sake of gameplay and which parts we demand 100% realism from, I just happen to make one more concession than you.

A lot of the examples you cited of unrealistic behavior in DCS are not provided with important, highly relevant context. When you talk about the damage model, FLIR realism, weapon behavior, and even the spotting issue, you are not talking about options that are provided to the player in order to increase or decrease the realism based on taste, you are talking about flaws in the sim that ED is actively looking to solve or is already in the process of solving via updates to vastly outdated elements.

When DCS does provide realism changing options, it is usually to make things easier without clashing too hard with the underlying immersion effort. Changing the cockpit language for a module doesn't really do anything beyond changing some textures but changing how the plane displays information to you (units of measure for example) would require quite a bit more work and would not be trivial. What's more, it would also create a ripple effect of issues. For example. A manual, checklist, or even Chuck's guides would be more difficult to understand if you change your units of measure. Suddenly the player using the guides would have to do those conversions that you are looking to avoid anyway since all that material would be written for the native units of the aircraft and not your personal preference.

Communication would be another issue. So you are tooling along in your JF-17 that you have set to display non-standard units of measure. Now everyone else has to do the conversions you are looking to avoid because any information to your wing-mates would be in a format they are not using themselves. Either way, someone will have to get needlessly inconvenienced in that situation.

Again. Changing cockpit textures to a different language may be unrealistic but it doesn't really introduce these kinds of larger issues. What's more. These issues may not impact you SPECIFICALLY but if such a option were introduced to DCS modules across the board, it would be a issue for others and a constant one at that.

The larger issue here is that when we remove issues that ED is actively fixing via updates or bug fixes from your list, we are left with things that don't really have a larger impact on others (be it other players online or even those creating/writing guides and manuals). There may be a option for invincibility, infinite ammo, or even the sound of the warning voice but those are either client side only (and have no larger impact on how information is communicated) or are things that can be turned on or off depending on who is making the mission and why.

I don't begrudge you your desire for different units of measure because people do have the ability to choose their own vision of DCS's "realism" via options. That said, such a option would introduce difficulties that would be more inconvenient than simply dealing with reading the information displayed by default and going with that. Those inconveniences might not impact you as a specific individual but that doesn't make them less of a larger concern and any less important than your own desires.

To be blunt. I fly a lot of different aircraft in a a handful of different sims and some of them are going to display information differently from others. Learning to adjust to that (which doesn't really require that you do conversions in your head more often than not) is kinda part of the deal and not such a big deal at that. I know that sounds dismissive and I am sorry for that but it is part of the hobby. Learning to adjust to different aircraft, their quirks, and their behaviors is part of the experience and how they display information factors into that.

I don't really like doing quote wars because it pretends that someone's argument can be broken down into individual sentences that each can be rebuffed, but since you covered a lot of stuff, I'll do it here to clarify which statements I'm responding to.

but changing how the plane displays information to you (units of measure for example) would require quite a bit more work and would not be trivial

Changing the unit of measure on an analog cockpit would require a bit of work. Changing the unit of measure on a glass cockpit is literally just multiplying the number by a certain value, then displaying that, so it is indeed trivial.

Your example of not being able to follow a guide or manual falls too deeply into the realm of what-if-isms (crafting hypothetical what-if scenarios that are extremely unlikely). Anyone who deliberately changes their units is also going to be cognizant that they'll have to adapt to whatever guide they're reading, and this is a problem that already exists as-is; the quick start guide lists all distances in km while the aircraft uses nautical miles. On top of that, the A-10C allows the option to convert from Imperial to metric and despite it being out for 8 years now, I've never seen anyone complain that they were confused by it.

Likewise, your point about communication falls under the same fallacy. We already have this issue even without the JF-17; servers usually give distances in nautical miles, which is unhelpful for Russian aircraft, and you can only pick nautical miles or kilometers for the F10 map regardless of which aircraft you're flying. If someone gives a distance/speed in meters, everyone using Imperial has to do the conversion anyway, and vice versa. And with a wingman, I would think that having voice chat and saying a brief 5-second sentence ("Hey, I'm using metric, you want me to switch to Imperial?") would clear it right up. I would say that not having metric as an option presents an even bigger problem with strict BLUFOR vs REDFOR scenarios, as the JF-17 would be the only aircraft on the red side that doesn't display distances in metric.

In short, the situations you brought up are not realistic, and would only be issues if people were unthinking robots incapable of independent thought.

Changing cockpit textures to a different language may be unrealistic but it doesn't really introduce these kinds of larger issues.

It would be the exact same issue. If I'm using a Russian cockpit but the guide I'm using is text-only and says to flip some switch in English, I won't be able to find the switch. If my wingman tells me to press an English button but I'm using a Chinese cockpit, I likewise won't know what he's talking about. If the manual says to look for a certain Cyrillic character on the HUD but I'm using an English cockpit mod, I won't know which character to look for.

we are left with things that don't really have a larger impact on others

This really highlights what I'm trying to get at. Allowing us to toggle the unit of measure is something that doesn't have an impact on others. You're trying to say that it would make reference materials harder to understand and online communications harder, but they're either non-issues or are problems that already exist without the JF-17.

Learning to adjust to different aircraft, their quirks, and their behaviors is part of the experience and how they display information factors into that.

Yes, but there's an opportunity here to change that. BLUFOR aircraft all use Imperial so nobody is really asking for unit conversions, but the JF-17 is widely viewed as a REDFOR aircraft and it would be great if it used metric to match. On top of that, the glass cockpit means that no new textures or modeling needs to be done, and internally DCS uses metric, so all Deka has to do is not multiply by a conversion factor, then add in a toggle for it.

You say that it would be trivial for a glass cockpit equipped module like the JF-17 but have you thought it through entirely? Having a option to change the units would not only effect how you as the player get information. It would also (no doubt) require additional work to make sure that all the weapons, sensors, and even the flight model don't get impacted by any connections there may be. It could be a simple job but it could just as easily be a rather tricky one that would require more development time than is really worthwhile at this stage (for such a minor option).

As far as my examples, I think that perhaps I should have been more specific. It is indeed true that some aircraft in DCS (MiG's for example) use metric units and that would require some degree of conversation on end or the other when it comes to mixed flights (JF-17's operating with MiG-19's for example). That said, if you have a few random people who are flying JF-17's in a flight together online and one of them is using metric while the others left it default, then you have a potentially large communication disconnect that would require someone to do some conversions either way.

As far as your points about reference manuals and how language selection would have a impact, I can't really agree. The manuals that come with the modules and Chuck's guides all use pictures of the controls themselves or at least a diagram showing the general location. From there, it is simply a matter of using tooltips (worst case scenario). For example, I use the english option for the Mirage but I have no trouble using the Mirage's manual or Chuck's guide even though they reference the French cockpit.

Moreover. cockpit language options don't tend to change actual instrument or HUD displays. It only really tends to impact the text labels near the physical controls themselves and not much else.

The last thing you bring up is how the JF-17 is widely viewed as a REDFOR aircraft. That is indeed the case but that doesn't make it a correct view on a technical level. Nor should it impact anything beyond what the mission designer chooses to do with the module.

At the end of the day, we are debating over a very, very minor thing in the grand scheme of DCS issues. Deka could decide to add such a option and if that ends up being the case, I will be happy that you are happy. Still, such a option wouldn't really do much and could potentially take a lot of effort on Deka's part of implement. Nothing to do with DCS coding is simple or trivial so it really comes down to how objectively worthwhile and meaningful a option would be and I gotta be bluntly honest, I can't say that I can see where such a option would be objectively worthwhile on a wide enough scale to be meaningful. If anything, it would sit firmly in a niche desire category and if it happens, cool. If not, life goes on.

Allowing the Flanker to toggle between imperial and metric also would affect me in exactly zero ways because I would never use imperial in it, and yet I don't think it should be done despite there being Flankers out there in the real world using imperial units. Even though I'm just a dumb American who likes imperial, I'm perfectly capable of using the Flanker in metric and it helps the immersion to be thinking in the same system most of the actual pilots would be.

This is a simulation of the JF-17. The JF-17 uses imperial units. No JF-17 uses metric units. We don't need to make it more complicated than that and cater to peoples' laziness because they don't want to learn something new.

There's a fictional PLAAF livery. China uses metric. If you feel that we shouldn't have metric because the real JF-17 doesn't, then by equal logic we should demand that Deka remove the fictional PLAAF livery because it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it wouldn't be using Imperial. But if you're ok with having that livery, you'll also have to justify why you don't think it's ok to also have a metric option to use with that livery.

Also, I already went over this: I don't care that the JF-17 in real life uses imperial units. The real JF-17 also does not use some random girl's voice or Chinese for its Bitchin' Betty, it doesn't have a PLAAF livery, and the JF-17 we have in-game now doesn't exist in real life (it's a Block 1 with some Block 2 features). But if you're ok with all of that and yet can't get over the idea of having the option of selecting metric, you really have to ask yourself what realism you're referring to, because you can't just selectively apply it to things you care about while giving a pass to the things you don't. If you're going to argue for absolute realism as a reason for not adding metric, then I also expect you to argue just as adamantly for Deka to remove the other things as well since they're equally unrealistic.

And let's not use "laziness" as justification because it's subjective and makes you sound like an old grandpa who walked uphills both ways in snow. I don't want to multiply the airspeed by 1.8 and the altitude by 3 every time I look at the HUD when I'm trying to keep tally on a bandit while watching my AoA, checking that my weapons are ready, and manipulating my radar all at the same time. I don't want to do this conversion every time I want to share some simple information with my REDFOR buddies when they're using km, my map is using km, the AWACS is using km, but only my aircraft isn't. Yeah, anyone can get good at anything if they do it often enough, but do you memorize the relationship between altitude and speed and mentally calculate mach numbers on the fly, or do you just look at your HUD and read it off directly? I could give a dozen more examples of "just do it in your head, it's not that hard", but let's be honest here, just because we can, doesn't mean we want to.

In any case, I think I've said all that I've needed to say so I'll vacate this thread and let you guys duke it out. If after these many words you're still not convinced one way or the other, then there's nothing additional that can be said to sway you. I will leave you with this though: as you've said, adding in a unit conversion option would affect you in absolutely zero ways because you would never use it, yet you're still against adding it in the first place due to "realism" reasons. If the end result makes absolutely no difference to you, and you still get to keep your realistic avionics while listening to an unrealistic Bitchin' Betty sitting in an unrealistic JF-17 configuration with a fictional livery, then why do you feel such a strong burning urge to dictate how others should play, if it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever?

There's a fictional PLAAF livery. China uses metric. If you feel that we shouldn't have metric because the real JF-17 doesn't, then by equal logic we should demand that Deka remove the fictional PLAAF livery because it doesn't exist, and even if it did, it wouldn't be using Imperial. But if you're ok with having that livery, you'll also have to justify why you don't think it's ok to also have a metric option to use with that livery.

 

Also, I already went over this: I don't care that the JF-17 in real life uses imperial units. The real JF-17 also does not use some random girl's voice or Chinese for its Bitchin' Betty, it doesn't have a PLAAF livery, and the JF-17 we have in-game now doesn't exist in real life (it's a Block 1 with some Block 2 features). But if you're ok with all of that and yet can't get over the idea of having the option of selecting metric, you really have to ask yourself what realism you're referring to, because you can't just selectively apply it to things you care about while giving a pass to the things you don't. If you're going to argue for absolute realism as a reason for not adding metric, then I also expect you to argue just as adamantly for Deka to remove the other things as well since they're equally unrealistic.

 

And let's not use "laziness" as justification because it's subjective and makes you sound like an old grandpa who walked uphills both ways in snow. I don't want to multiply the airspeed by 1.8 and the altitude by 3 every time I look at the HUD when I'm trying to keep tally on a bandit while watching my AoA, checking that my weapons are ready, and manipulating my radar all at the same time. I don't want to do this conversion every time I want to share some simple information with my REDFOR buddies when they're using km, my map is using km, the AWACS is using km, but only my aircraft isn't. Yeah, anyone can get good at anything if they do it often enough, but do you memorize the relationship between altitude and speed and mentally calculate mach numbers on the fly, or do you just look at your HUD and read it off directly? I could give a dozen more examples of "just do it in your head, it's not that hard", but let's be honest here, just because we can, doesn't mean we want to.

 

In any case, I think I've said all that I've needed to say so I'll vacate this thread and let you guys duke it out. If after these many words you're still not convinced one way or the other, then there's nothing additional that can be said to sway you. I will leave you with this though: as you've said, adding in a unit conversion option would affect you in absolutely zero ways because you would never use it, yet you're still against adding it in the first place due to "realism" reasons. If the end result makes absolutely no difference to you, and you still get to keep your realistic avionics while listening to an unrealistic Bitchin' Betty sitting in an unrealistic JF-17 configuration with a fictional livery, then why do you feel such a strong burning urge to dictate how others should play, if it has absolutely no effect on you whatsoever?

OT but it probably does exist. Right now it is Block 1 hardware with software upgrades such as DL radio function and SMS allowing increased payload weight and options. We have block 1 landing gear lights and oxygen and only two radios. If anyone can show that block 1s have never received a software update.....

On topic, It’s been pages and pages of essays. We are obviously not going to convince each other with mere words. As a fatalist I suggest either enjoy the module as it is, or if metric is a 100% deal breaker don’t buy it unless Deka comes out with metric. Deka is in complete control of this situation, I think everything that could possibly be said has been said on the user end