Realism - wasted effort? - Page 6 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-17-2019, 12:37 AM   #51
MegOhm_SD
Senior Member
 
MegOhm_SD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: NC-USA
Posts: 1,405
Default

I am all in for the realism aspect and would not want that changed.

Some will go all in, some will not.

We choose what parts we want to dig into, which may not be everything that is available.
__________________

Thing is....Zuckerberg is definitely an Alien... Some Kind of Grey Hybrid

Cooler Master HAF XB EVO Test Bench, ASUS P8Z77-V, i7-3770K @ 4.6GHz, Noctua AC, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, EVGA 1080TI 11GB, 2 Samsung 840 Pro 540GB SSDs Raid 0, 1TB HDD, EVGA SuperNOVA 1300W PS, G930 Wireless SS Headset, TrackIR5/Wireless Proclip, TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, 65" Samsung 4k 8 Series, Oculus S, Win 10
MegOhm_SD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 12:45 AM   #52
Cab
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzzU View Post
Yes, I understand that. However, I would never buy any of the incomplete planes. I'm sure i'm not alone. That's lost money for ED.

To be honest. All I want is a completely done Viper and i'm happy. I'm patient but the older I get the harder it is for me to fly modern fighter jets. Not to fly. That's easy but to learn and remember all the systems.
No argument from me on that.

I'm older too, and I like to think of myself as patient. But I really, really want the F-4 and F-8.

For the record, I prefer the full fidelity aircraft, too. I do own Flaming Cliffs, but these days exclusively fly the Hornet, Tomcat, and Fighting Falcon (I refuse to give into the AF pukes). And I am about to start learning the Warthog. AND if someone offered a full fidelity F-15C, I'd buy that, too (pre-purchase, no less) despite owning the FC version.

Put it this way. Given the choice between a full fidelity F-4 and a less-than full fidelity version, I'd choose the former. But right now I am not confident I will ever get the chance to buy either. And I see the OP's original suggestion as a workable trade off that compromises nothing. If I'm wrong about that I'll change my opinion.
Cab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 12:50 AM   #53
BuzzU
Senior Member
 
BuzzU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,473
Default

I gave up asking for a full-fidelity F-15. Although, i'd still love to have one.
__________________
Buzz
BuzzU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 01:04 AM   #54
nessuno0505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,385
Default

I own fc3. I've started with fc3. When we'll have Mac we'll have more fc3 level aircrafts and I think if other simplified planes will be added to Mac in the future, well, why not?

But since I've tried a full fidelity module with a-10c and ka-50 I do not fly fc3 anymore. I've fallen in love with dcs thanks to full fidelity modules. I do not own all of them. Sometimes the crave for something new hits and I buy a new full fidelity module. But the more I add to my collection, the more I realize I do not have mastery on all of them, and they would deserve more dedication. I like to dream of a full fidelity tornado ids or f-104, but at the end I think we do not need more modules. We need more dcs world core features and the awareness that learn to master one or two full fidelity modules is funnier and more rewarding than owning all of them but knowing them only superficially.
nessuno0505 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 01:14 AM   #55
Cab
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nessuno0505 View Post
I own fc3. I've started with fc3. When we'll have Mac we'll have more fc3 level aircrafts and I think if other simplified planes will be added to Mac in the future, well, why not?

But since I've tried a full fidelity module with a-10c and ka-50 I do not fly fc3 anymore. I've fallen in love with dcs thanks to full fidelity modules. I do not own all of them. Sometimes the crave for something new hits and I buy a new full fidelity module. But the more I add to my collection, the more I realize I do not have mastery on all of them, and they would deserve more dedication. I like to dream of a full fidelity tornado ids or f-104, but at the end I think we do not need more modules. We need more dcs world core features and the awareness that learn to master one or two full fidelity modules is funnier and more rewarding than owning all of them but knowing them only superficially.
Again, no argument there.

I have no problem buying MAC if I can fly some favorite planes not available in DCS, as long as they have an interactive cockpit.

As for DCS, I didn't really envision Eagle Dynamics taking time to make such planes. I was thinking along the lines of third party devs. Hell, how many people have written they want the Community A-4 officially in DCS? I don't think that mod meets the high standard demanded by many in this thread, but damn if it isn't fun to fly and fight.
Cab is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 02:08 AM   #56
Harker
DCS Ground Crew
 
Harker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: France
Posts: 1,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by draconus View Post
I want even fuller quality modules whatever time it takes. Of course I'd rather simulate a memorable mission than a boring one. Nothing wrong in that.
I'm of the same mind. I take the time to go through the checklists because I enjoy the process and the "make-believe". And I flew a 2-hour CAP recently that involved a single intercept, without firing any weapons and I enjoyed the mission. Of course there is an element of make-believe, there has to be. This is just software, after all.
__________________
Z370 Aorus Gaming 7, i7-8700k, RTX2080Ti FTW3 Ultra, Corsair Vengeance 32GB DDR4, 960 Pro 512 GB, 970 Evo Plus 1TB, WD Gold 6TB, Seasonic Prime Platinum 1300W, Acer Predator XB271HK|Hornet grip on T-50 base, Warthog side-stick, Warthog throttle, TPR pedals, 3 MFDs, MT desk mounts, TrackIR|
F/A-18C, F-16C, JF-17, AV-8B, A-10C, M-2000C, F-14, BS2, UH-1H, P-51D, Sptifire, FC3, Caucasus, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf
Harker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 03:31 AM   #57
zhukov032186
Senior Member
 
zhukov032186's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 2,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippis View Post
…it's also worth pointing out that DCS still skips over huge swaths of systems and settings (as well as adding in things that simply shouldn't be there), so it is quite obvious that minute attention to detail isn't the whole point and the selling point. Rather, it's enough attention to detail to satisfy the needs of [customer], which may at times result in seemingly rather eccentric priorities as far as what should go in and what should not.
As though it's a game with limited capability and budget? Or that some features are currently non-existent and require deeper additions requiring more than adding a few lines of code (ECM, advanced SAM behavior, etc etc)? Those same ''missing features'' are in at least some cases, currently being developed. But if you want that anal attention to detail it ain't gonna happen overnight.

So no, just because everything is 100% simulated to the satisfaction of every human encyclopedia here does not necessitate the entire process being discarded. I'm not ''deliberately misunderstanding'' anything. I think the whole driving concept behind threads like this is stupid.
__________________
Zhukov attacks *FORUM USER* with Legendary Trollsword!
*FORUM USER* Constitution save roll.... Fail!
*FORUM USER* afflicted with ''Hurt Feelz'', -1 Concentration for two rounds
zhukov032186 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 09:08 AM   #58
Lace
Junior Member
 
Lace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: EGNT/LFMA
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhukov032186 View Post
I think the whole driving concept behind threads like this is stupid.



Good for you, but just because you think it is stupid, that doesn't necessarily make it so.


Since FC3 aircraft are a) massively simplified and unrealistic, and b) already part of DCS, then surely a few more modules pitched somewhere half-way between the FF and FC modules would neither dilute the hardcore simmers experience, nor compete directly with the FF modules, but simply add a bit more choice to a fairly limiting (and often historically homeless) selection of modules.


Will the current FC3 modules be removed from DCS when MAC is released? If not then why not if ultimate realism is the goal?
__________________
Laptop Pilot. Aorus X7 V7, i7 7820HK o/c to 4.3GHz, 4k 17.3", 32GB DDR4, 1070Ti 8GB. CH Products controls (XBox360 when traveling). Rift S.

2.5, NTTR, PG, CA, FC3, A-10C, MiG-21, F-86, M-2000C, Harrier, Viggen, Yak-52, Spitfire, Gazelle, Mi-8 & F16. Wishlist: Jaguar, F117 and F111. C:MO & XP11. PPL(A) IRL.

Last edited by Lace; 11-17-2019 at 09:10 AM.
Lace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 10:43 AM   #59
nessuno0505
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,385
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cab View Post

I have no problem buying MAC, as long as they have an interactive cockpit.
MAC does not have an interactive cockpit and I think it cannot have one. I explain why IMHO: let's take the su-27: there's a button to disengage the dumpers in order to perform cobra maneuver. That button is animated but not clickable. Why not do it clickable? It's an easy task and I could agree. However, in MAC planes there's a command to switch weapon, or to select the cannon. Maybe in the real plane there is not a switch to perform this actions, but you have to go through a routine clicking here and there. So, what button should you make clickable to do such things in the su-27? An arbitrary button just to please people who ask for a clickable MAC? Or all the needed buttons - thus transforming a MAC module in a full study one? There's a reason why MAC is not clickable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cab View Post
how many people have written they want the Community A-4 officially in DCS? I don't think that mod meets the high standard demanded by many in this thread, but damn if it isn't fun to fly and fight.
If A-4 developers decided to go official, they wolud have access to the developers kit and the A-4 could become better and closer to official modules. If they do not want to do so they have their reasons. Noone prevent you to download and enjoy a mod, but if you want to become official you have to meet certain standards. This is the way ED has quality checks on 3rd party modules, and I think it's a good way.
nessuno0505 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2019, 10:46 AM   #60
Coxy_99
Veteran
 
Coxy_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 3,532
Default

Well to original OP you ask for realism go to options and set random system failures, Then hope when you skip a bit test it does not break, Its like me turning up for work not checking my truck over and a wheel falls off.
__________________

100☭ Discord: https://discord.gg/EGrVBHt
Teamspeak: 100kiap.teamspeak3.com
Website: https://100kiap.org/
Coxy_99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.