Realism - wasted effort?

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.

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.

I gave up asking for a full-fidelity F-15. Although, i'd still love to have one.

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.

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.

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.

…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.

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?

 

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.

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.

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.

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?

The problem is coding systems like tests or mostly unimportant gauges took only tiny fraction of time necessery to finish the product.

Most of the time is taken by coding and fine tuning flight model and coding avionics, radar, weapon systems etc.

If they would just skip this rarely usefull things they would save close to zero time and lose the study sim status. Big risk - small reward.

Look at early access modules - they have all this tests, switches and gauges working already at the start, because this was the simplest and quickest thing to do.

Than they take more than a year to finish coding crucial and essential systems like radars, avionics, weapon and fine tuning flight model.

Omiting the part you discribed will not decrease the time needed to finish the module by any significant factor.

Only real mean to significantly decrese the time of module developement would be to omit crucial combat systems, radars, weapon, avionics - like they did in FC - but this would break the backbone and the purpose of the DCS. If you would like to have the developement time decreased you would have to accept looking for targets using very simplified radar without many modes, shooting at them very simplified weapon etc.

And if you were simmer pre '90s remember sims of those days, most of them simulate only one plane and people were happy, now we have many and we want more and more? I can treat i.e. F/A-18 module as whole simulator.

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?

FC3 modules are massively simplified but not unrealistic.

I do not see a middle earth territory for something in between MAC and full.

If it was up to me, with MAC as a standalone game I'll remove FC3 and game mode from DCS, in order to clearly differentiate the two:

1) MAC, a more generalist AAA title flight simulator, a sort of modern era il-2, with non clickable planes and the chance to activate game mode and other helps - just like il-2 (maybe other models and maps could be added in the future to expand the experience)

2) dcs world, a study-level platform only for full study clickable modules (if they remove su-25t from dcs adding it to mac it could be replaced by another clickable module - a free one? Or you could leave the t/f-51 alone to serve as an appetizer for the more combat-capable payware modules).

In this setting I'll gladly buy MAC - even if I do not play FC3 anymore - because sometimes I could like something easier and more relaxed than full experience and could find it in something other than il-2, that is made from ED (and has their flight models!)

The problem is coding systems like tests or mostly unimportant gauges took only tiny fraction of time necessery to finish the product.

Most of the time is taken by coding and fine tuning flight model and coding avionics, radar, weapon systems etc.

 

If they would just skip this rarely usefull things they would save close to zero time and lose the study sim status. Big risk - small reward.

 

Look at early access modules - they have all this tests, switches and gauges working already at the start, because this was the simplest and quickest thing to do.

Than they take more than a year to finish coding crucial and essential systems like radars, avionics, weapon and fine tuning flight model.

 

Omiting the part you discribed will not decrease the time needed to finish the module by any significant factor.

 

Only real mean to significantly decrese the time of module developement would be to omit crucial combat systems, radars, weapon, avionics - like they did in FC - but this would break the backbone and the purpose of the DCS. If you would like to have the developement time decreased you would have to accept looking for targets using very simplified radar without many modes, shooting at them very simplified weapon etc.

 

And if you were simmer pre '90s remember sims of those days, most of them simulate only one plane and people were happy, now we have many and we want more and more? I can treat i.e. F/A-18 module as whole simulator.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: There's nothing else to say (and yes, I remember pre-90s sims and again yes, f/a-18 IS a whole simulator, far better than anyone we used in the 90s).

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.

 

 

 

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.

If that's the case with MAC then I wouldn't want it. Thanks for the info.:thumbup:

The only reason I brought up the A-4 is to point out how popular it appears to be and that there might be a market for less study-level sims in DCS. Some people here seem to be convinced that anything less than full-fidelity, study-level sims would some how hurt DCS and damage the brand. I just don't happen to agree.

In fact, I wonder about DCS growth if all modules going forward cost $70-$80. What is the harm if a third-party dev wants to offer a product with reduced realism that can run in DCS without negatively affecting other players the what is the harm? Maybe consider them a stepping stone between MAC and the full-fidelity modules.

Now if there are technical reasons for not adding them to DCS, then fine, case closed. No harm done. It was, after all, just a question.

Sorry, but I don't think the OP is asking to "scrap realism". I read that he is only talking about rolling back the level of detail on the more mundane systems as a trade off for getting new aircraft faster.

 

To my way of thinking that would mean Flaming Cliff level aircraft, but with interactive cockpits, professional flight models, and realistic weapon parameters, but simpler underlying code. I assume that such modules would be simpler to produce, but offer no advantage against our F/A-18's, F-16's, F-14's. And as a bonus the simplified aircraft offerings would in no way prevent the introduction of more complex and complete modules by any dev that sees a market for them.

 

Sounds like a win-win to me.

That is exaclty what I said. You reduce realism to get aircraft faster. If you want that, DCS is the wrong platform for you. Simple as that.

To be honest, I am disgusted, that for every realistic feature a module offers, there is one who wants to have it either removed or an arcade mode to make it easier and this thread, or the idea of it, is the exact representation of that and a line of thought with great potential of ruining the essence of what DCS is.

TLDR; Would you rather have fewer full-fidelity modules, or more modules at a slightly lower level of non-essential detail?

Higher-fidelity modules produced at a steadier pace, definitely. If I had an itch for lower fidelity I know where to go, but detail and realism is DCS' domain.

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?

Yeah, actually, it IS stupid, because the debate is pointless as the topic was already long settled. Simplified aircraft are going into a separate product called MAC. DCS core will remain focused on high fidelity aircraft. FC3 remains in DCS because people already paid for it (they are holdovers from 15 years ago). It's not that hard to understand.

People who want more numerous and more simple aircraft can go play any of the other flight sims out there, or the DCS branded MAC when it releases. So. Pointless thread is pointless, and the armchair consumer relations/business finance advisory is dead in the water.

That is exaclty what I said. You reduce realism to get aircraft faster. If you want that, DCS is the wrong platform for you. Simple as that.

 

To be honest, I am disgusted, that for every realistic feature a module offers, there is one who wants to have it either removed or an arcade mode to make it easier and this thread, or the idea of it, is the exact representation of that and a line of thought with great potential of ruining the essence of what DCS is.

Nobody is threatening to take away your toy, just simply suggesting that some of the 'fluff' be removed in the name of faster module development. It might be workable, or it might not, but it is neither yours nor my decision to make. We already see a variation in 'realism' levels within the existing module range on offer. Nobody wants to see DCS turn into World of Warplanes!

Higher-fidelity modules produced at a steadier pace, definitely. If I had an itch for lower fidelity I know where to go, but detail and realism is DCS' domain.

The ideal scenario for sure, but in the real world programmers time is limited and as is often pointed out on these forums, ED is a small company making a niche product.

That is exaclty what I said. You reduce realism to get aircraft faster. If you want that, DCS is the wrong platform for you. Simple as that.

 

To be honest, I am disgusted, that for every realistic feature a module offers, there is one who wants to have it either removed or an arcade mode to make it easier and this thread, or the idea of it, is the exact representation of that and a line of thought with great potential of ruining the essence of what DCS is.

To be honest, I don't think you are keeping up with this thread. No one here is suggesting anything be removed or adding an arcade mode. At this point you and others like you are just being confrontational.

As to the self-righteousness of telling someone you don't know that DCS isn't for them, "Simple as that"; I am speechless.

That is exaclty what I said. You reduce realism to get aircraft faster. If you want that, DCS is the wrong platform for you. Simple as that.

It really isn't. You see, DCS can (and does and will in the future) cater perfectly to both avenues — it's a platform for both. It's not as simple as one or the other unless you overlook roughly half of the game.

To be honest, I am disgusted, that for every realistic feature a module offers, there is one who wants to have it either removed or an arcade mode to make it easier

No-one has suggested anything of the kind. And funny thing: even if a simplified version was added, it would in no way whatsoever “ruin” DCS. If it did, DCS would already be ruined since that has been implemented for every single module ever released. And yet, we're all still here.

There is never too much realism for DCS. Little details that sounds like something you will never use but that are actually implemented are actually making my day and the reason why I am not flying on anything else. This is the DNA of this sim.

No problem with full fidelity modules, I love them and crave them, and personally no longer fly the FC aircraft which is a bit of a shame as I love some of the Russian aircraft particularly the MIg-29 but not being able to operate cockpit systems when I can jump in an F-18 and do all that and more means I'm always going to go for the F18. I do feel there is a market for DCS to tap into with FC level aircraft and I can completely understand there reasoning for it and the new MAC sim, but it wont be for me.

Having said all of that, I do sometimes think back to some of the sims that got me into flight sims in the 90s, EF2000 for example, they managed to get a licence to sim that aircraft probably because the systems were not modelled very accurately? I don't know for sure, but if that's the case, and with the people working for ED and obviously they have some very smart developers, could they not produce some sims for some of these highly classified aircraft using some educated guess work, we will of course be informed that no its not like the real thing but with the limited information we have we assume the systems would work like this, and I would at least want to see it have an interactive cockpit, I think that's the standard we've come to expect now, I would accept that, i'm sure EF2000 wasn't very realistic but sure as hell I enjoyed that game.

I think that some great sims could be produced, the FMs could be very realistic, systems not so much so, but with some interactive avionics, it would be a step up from FC but not up to the level of the A-10C probably more like a game but a game using educated guess work, there was a famous developer in the 90s that made loads of sims a bit like this, yeah they were more like games but we all loved them didn't we, of course I would not want that to detract from the fully realistic modules ED are committing too. I guess it could depend on how ED grow as a developer because it seems to me at the moment they have a lot on their plate.

At this point in time I wish more attention on realism on environment rather than modules.

The level on modules is very high but they fly in a sterile world.

At this point in time I wish more attention on realism on environment rather than modules.

 

The level on modules is very high but they fly in a sterile world.

Maybe we have simulation, but the game element is missing. I agree adding function to other factors in the sim would greatly enhance the existing modules.