Realism - wasted effort? - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-16-2019, 07:46 AM   #1
Lace
Junior Member
 
Lace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: EGNT/LFMA
Posts: 91
Default Realism - wasted effort?

There seems to be a great effort by ED and their 3rd-parties for the ultimate realism in systems modelling which is laudable and is clearly what a part of the DCS community crave. But we also see on a daily basis wishlists for this module and that module, which given the current rate of development would take about 100 years to accomplish.


So my point is this - do ED and the developers spend too much time on unnecessary realism. We have BIT tests which never fail (I presume), and if they did then what? Do you scrub the mission in the name of realism? Jump into the spare aircraft? In the Viper for instance we have a trim disconnect test (is a runaway trim situation planned to be modeled?). Check the EPU fuel level (will it ever not be 95-102%). My point is all these systems need time to implement and test, and while they appear to add realism to the module, are they not just window dressing? Do those searching for the ultimate realism in their modules actually fly realistic missions? Do they ever spend six-hours patrolling a kill box as a two ship without encountering the enemy? Do they spend an hour on the ground from their step time to engine start to taxi to takeoff?



I'm not saying there shouldn't be full-fidelity modules, but is there perhaps room for a half-way compromise between FF and FC3 type modules. i.e PFM with clickable cockpits and high-fidelity flight and weapons systems, but without the 100% functionality of systems which, lets be honest, for a recreational simulator/game are of little value?


TLDR; Would you rather have fewer full-fidelity modules, or more modules at a slightly lower level of non-essential detail?
__________________
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.
Lace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:02 AM   #2
Emmy
Senior Member
 
Emmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,822
Default

Can’t speak to the efficacy of running checklists covering every single real-world system (Lord knows I’ve skipped one or two from time to time) but as for operational realism, yes, I have flown A-10C missions of 3 to 3.5 hours and returned to base with the same ordinance I left with.

We’re blessed with very talented mission makers in our group and sometimes the enemy just isn’t where they were initially reported, or you can’t reach them because they are under too dense an anti-air umbrella so you’ll need SEAD/DEAD help or red air moves in on the AO and you need to head to safety, or your lead/wingman gets zapped (requiring an RTB by regulation)

So yes, there are groups that operate “by the book” and the fun lies in sharing an Op with your buddies and getting back Code 1.
__________________
http://www.476vfightergroup.com/content.php
High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use.
www.crosswindimages.com
Emmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:10 AM   #3
Lace
Junior Member
 
Lace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: EGNT/LFMA
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy View Post
Can’t speak to the efficacy of running checklists covering every single real-world system (Lord knows I’ve skipped one or two from time to time) but as for operational realism, yes, I have flown A-10C missions of 3 to 3.5 hours and returned to base with the same ordinance I left with.

We’re blessed with very talented mission makers in our group and sometimes the enemy just isn’t where they were initially reported, or you can’t reach them because they are under too dense an anti-air umbrella so you’ll need SEAD/DEAD help or red air moves in on the AO and you need to head to safety, or your lead/wingman gets zapped (requiring an RTB by regulation)

So yes, there are groups that operate “by the book” and the fun lies in sharing an Op with your buddies and getting back Code 1.

Thats just it. Like you I appreciate 'realistic' missions, and like you will run an abridged checklist for the non-essential items. But if people are missing these type of items anyway, why waste valuable programming hours modelling them in the first place? A player could just as conceivably say 'BIT check complete' or 'MPO check complete' as part of their startup if they want, especially if it isn't modeled to fail any of these checks. The whole game is just 'lets pretend' anyway isn't it?
__________________
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.
Lace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:16 AM   #4
Emmy
Senior Member
 
Emmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,822
Default

You’re asking ED to nerf one of their (for better or worse) core tenets and honestly, I don’t see that happening any time soon.

I guess it’s better to have “X” and not need it than it is to need “X” and not have it?

Personally, I prefer to learn all the nuts & bolts because then I can develop a flow for startup that works for me.

For those who don’t want to get neck deep, there’s FCS and the upcoming MAC.
__________________
http://www.476vfightergroup.com/content.php
High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use.
www.crosswindimages.com
Emmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:17 AM   #5
OttoPus
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy View Post
Can’t speak to the efficacy of running checklists covering every single real-world system (Lord knows I’ve skipped one or two from time to time) but as for operational realism, yes, I have flown A-10C missions of 3 to 3.5 hours and returned to base with the same ordinance I left with.

We’re blessed with very talented mission makers in our group and sometimes the enemy just isn’t where they were initially reported, or you can’t reach them because they are under too dense an anti-air umbrella so you’ll need SEAD/DEAD help or red air moves in on the AO and you need to head to safety, or your lead/wingman gets zapped (requiring an RTB by regulation)

So yes, there are groups that operate “by the book” and the fun lies in sharing an Op with your buddies and getting back Code 1.
This applies to my experience too (I only fly online with an organized squadron though, I'd never fly 4 hours by my self).
OttoPus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:22 AM   #6
Lace
Junior Member
 
Lace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: EGNT/LFMA
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy View Post
You’re asking ED to nerf one of their (for better or worse) core tenets and honestly, I don’t see that happening any time soon.

I guess it’s better to have “X” and not need it than it is to need “X” and not have it?

Personally, I prefer to learn all the nuts & bolts because then I can develop a flow for startup that works for me.

I agree to an extent, but at what cost to module development time?
__________________
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.
Lace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:26 AM   #7
Emmy
Senior Member
 
Emmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,822
Default

Honestly, I don’t know.

I’m really not one to sweat module development. If I have “gripes” they’re usually directed more at the overall sim experience vis a vis the core game (and the occasional “Yeah, you fixed B but you broke A, C and D”)
__________________
http://www.476vfightergroup.com/content.php
High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use.
www.crosswindimages.com
Emmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:30 AM   #8
Jonne
Member
 
Jonne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 251
Default

Sorry, but if you ask the devs to scrap realism for more modules in shorter time, then DCS is just not for you.
__________________
Jonne is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:42 AM   #9
David OC
Senior Member
 
David OC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lace View Post
I agree to an extent, but at what cost to module development time?
Most of what ED has now and 3rd parties are building is what you would call modular code base to change and use for ..........X

ED is even moving into using new tech to simulate how real radars work.
I.E somethings need to be more inaccurate to be accurate. (Looking at you F-15)

This also aligns with their other business / deep system building / cost spread too.

Most of the aircraft that are full-fidelity are built out of passion, some dev's would go even deeper than what some are now if they could.

MAC is the transition War Th etc --> MAC ---> DCS

I sit in the middle here as do others I guess....

Learn and do it all proper..ish, setup a few missions etc.

Multiplayer. Skip all checklist and know enough, get in air and shoot things down with friends. Sling load cargo to build convoy's. Drive a tank and blowup enemy farps for fun. FC3 and full-fidelity.

I like learning how things work and the idea behind the work flow to use the systems / combat systems.
__________________

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB
| ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides
to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link



Last edited by David OC; 11-16-2019 at 08:48 AM.
David OC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2019, 08:43 AM   #10
draconus
DCS Ground Crew
 
draconus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,728
Default

Hopefully the dev time will take less time in the future if the modular build tech is done right. Currently the simulation starts with the pilot in the cockpit - be it cold, hot or even in the air already. It's not about simulating the life of a pilot, so you can change the planes, pilots and theatres however you want. Some systems or switches are still simplified and even omitted so we're not there yet in terms of realism. What people do with it all is not your concern. Btw: there is some simulation of failures - random as an option or mission invoked. I hope it will be improved in time.

TL;DR: 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.
__________________
G4560/16GB/GTX970/SSD/Win7.64, 22"FullHD, T16000M HOTAS, customTiR
NTTR, FC3, F-14B

Last edited by draconus; 11-16-2019 at 08:46 AM.
draconus 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 06:32 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.