Making DCS more accessible to new players.

Those 8 hours included.

You dont even recognize the irony! You said I would frighten noobs by pointing out things that IMO should be improved in DCS tutorials and in particular based on my F14 experience, and you do that while saying you spent 8 hours research to prepare flying a piston plane.

Well, I dont have the P47 but let me re-assure all the noobs reading this thread (no one does, but hey, lets pretend) that they should not be scared by YOUR post, given that I spent ~0 hours researching the 109, I havent even looked at the manual yet, did zero training missions and I had no problems starting it, taxiing it, taking off, shooting some stuff and making a half decent landing.

Im sure I can learn for years, I havent exactly mastered it, but getting started with it was trivial if you are already familiar with DCS (!) and if you have any ww2 sim experience.

I think your idea of what constitutes 'getting started' sounds much more like 'being proficient'.

really. which of all the examples I have listed so far would you consider to be about being proficient rather than getting started? Learning that there is a lwin+home shortcut to autostart a dark&cold plane in a mission ? What tacan is? Setting up radios so you can actually contact ATC or awacs? ? learning why that awacs dude keeps scraping his throat in capital letters (BRA) or what half the comms menu actually means? Is that truly advanced stuff or is stuff that is so trivial to you, and to 99% of posters here, you hadnt even considered that an IL2 or xplane pilot may not know it?

If you've gone through a training mission, whatever it might be, such as how to drop a bomb, and by the end of it you can do that, the mission did what it was supposed to.

Did I not explicitly say those training missions are actually completely fine (at least for the F14), that I had no problems following them and learning what they where supposed to teach me? Yeah, I did say that. They are great. Lets not fix what isnt broken.

More blame the customer.

You can’t help people who won’t put in any of their own effort. ED can’t send a personal tutor to every player to hold their hand.

FSX sold over 20 million copies, overwhelmingly to non pilots, by helping them to learn to fly rather than throwing a book at them. By making something that would otherwise be inaccessible to "inept" quitter customers, accessible and fun. Your mom would have been able to follow the FSX tutorials and eventually learn to fly.

I’ve done the training flights in FSX and they were kinda silly and simplistic. DCS does a much better job with the interactive missions.

After 11 pages you still don’t have anything worthwhile to suggest. It takes years for ED or 3rd party vendors to develop these modules, they already include everything that’s feasible to help teach players.

The flying school and virtual instructor products for these other sims are actually 3rd party add-ons. If a 3rd Party figured it would be profitable to make something like this for DCS they are free to do so. I don’t think any of us want ED diverting resources in the sim to cater to players who won’t put in the effort to learn though.

So the missions are fine, they just don't cover every topic you want to see covered? I'd say that's a valid point, but not what you asked for in the first place.

One important fact to keep in mind is that many of these modules including the F-14 are still in Early Access. New players should understand this and it’s explained in the store. That means there may be things which are incomplete or not implemented yet. So even if there was going to be a Virtual Instructor for the aircraft that likely wouldn’t be possible until the module is complete.

And the continual upgrade of even completed modules would make it very difficult keeping the virtual instructor up to date.

I wouldn’t want to see ED divert resources towards a virtual instructor. There are so many more important improvements coming for the sim. Nor would I want to see Third Party vendors delaying the completion of their products to include one.

You dont even recognize the irony! You said I would frighten noobs by pointing out things that IMO should be improved in DCS tutorials and in particular based on my F14 experience, and you do that while saying you spent 8 hours research to prepare flying a piston plane.

 

Well, I dont have the P47 but let me re-assure all the noobs reading this thread (no one does, but hey, lets pretend) that they should not be scared by YOUR post, given that I spent ~0 hours researching the 109, I havent even looked at the manual yet, did zero training missions and I had no problems starting it, taxiing it, taking off, shooting some stuff and making a half decent landing.

 

Im sure I can learn for years, I havent exactly mastered it, but getting started with it was trivial if you are already familiar with DCS (!) and if you have any ww2 sim experience.

What can I say? I am dumb. Been flying sims since the 80's. Microprose, IL series, Microsoft, Falcon series, Gunship 2000 (loved it!) etc. Yes, after all that DCS still takes time and effort for me.

I mean, you flew the 109 so easily, and I an experienced DCS user, struggled to fully understand how the exhaust back pressure feed from the turbo-supercharger nozzle box, interacts with the Aneroid chamber of the hydraulically modulated waste-gate modulator using oil pressure in the P-47.

I look forward to your future contributions then, in regards to easing that type of learning curve in DCS. Us slow plodders could use the help.

 

. . .

 

The flying school and virtual instructor products for these other sims are actually 3rd party add-ons. If a 3rd Party figured it would be profitable to make something like this for DCS they are free to do so. I don’t think any of us want ED diverting resources in the sim to cater to players who won’t put in the

effort to learn though.

That is a pretty darn good point, and potentially a market for anyone interested in "improving" that side of DCS, and who has the motivation, skills, and desire.

So the missions are fine, they just don't cover every topic you want to see covered? I'd say that's a valid point, but not what you asked for in the first place.

Indeed the training missions dont cover a lot of things, in particular (usually really BASIC) things that arent module specific. Im sure if you have flown any other DCS module for a year, especially from the same era, that following the training modules for the F14 is perfectly adequate to get you started. These missions are however, not adequate or even always appropriate to get a DCS newbie started.

And yes, that is what i asked in the first place, its what this whole thread is about. It doesnt matter to me if you solve this problem with an improved "buddy" or if you include a common jet trainer where you learn the basics of the game and comms and nav and some intro in to modern warfare, or if all modules should have missions explaining all those things, but there is, to put it mildly, room for improvement.

And its not impossible. I dont even think its particularly hard.

I suggest to move this thread to the Wishlist. Add something useful to make a point and be done with it. This is getting nowhere otherwise.

One important fact to keep in mind is that many of these modules including the F-14 are still in Early Access.

Irrelevant. The F14 almost certainly will not, and the TF51 or Su25 training missions do not explain any of the stuff I have brought up so far, much less the stuff I havent talked about.

I wouldn’t want to see ED divert resources towards a virtual instructor.

It doesnt matter how you implement it. Whether its additional training missions or a virtual instructor or otherwise. Most of it could be done on a different trainer aircraft. I dont think the Su25 or TF51 are particularly suitable, something like a T38 or C101 and Yak 52 would make a ton more sense as jet/prop trainers , but if need be, you could use the current included modules and make generic training missions based on those explaining the stuff every DCS pilot should know. Just make sure your newbie knows about them and doesnt skip straight to the "basic" training mission of his preferred and purchased module because he is not interested in learning how to shoot tv guided missiles from a plane with a russian hud.

There are so many more important improvements coming for the sim.

Ah yeah the common theme here, lets not waste developers time on things that could allow ED to sell DCS to a wider audience or increase retention rates. That would be wasteful. They should only be focused on providing eternal free updates to the game core and modules you care about. And for draconus they should make stuff even harder to learn to ensure only the most worthy, dedicated and motivated noobs stick around. That will made DCS better for all of us.

I suggest to move this thread to the Wishlist. Add something useful to make a point and be done with it. This is getting nowhere otherwise.

Either that or close it as Vertigo has lost the plot completely, he is just arguing now for arguing's sake, it is getting embarrassing.

learning is the HOW and the WHY.

DCS is the place for the HOW.

you have to study the WHY on your own time.

you don't do it in the simulator, unless you are being taught online by someone else.

i actually enjoy learning the WHY all on my own. study is best enjoyed alone.

silence in the library!

Have you still not figured out Im not asking this for *me* ?

This is hilarious. Really... You in fact are asking for this for yourself. I’ve never seen anyone complain so much about this. Face it. DCS is just over your head. It’s not for everyone.

Nobody else wants ED to waste resources catering to people who simply aren’t smart enough or willing to try and put any effort into the sim. You want them to baby you and hold your hand through literally every aspect of the game, even control mapping which everyone familiar with PC games knows how to do.

And your “suggestion” just isn’t feasible or achievable given the resources that ED or 3rd parties have. Again it takes years to finish these modules and the extra work required to make training material suitable for 10 year old kids who can’t read isn’t necessary.

And its not impossible. I dont even think its particularly hard.

Nothing is impossible. Just impractical and unprofitable. Even the written manuals are hard to justify the cost for in some games because they have to be translated into so many languages and there is such a volume of community information and media (YouTube) why should the developer spend the effort?

Whether operating the aircraft or just playing DCS itself. There are literally tons of videos and tutorials and entire channels online devoted to this sim. So any effort by ED to duplicate that is just a redundant effort.

Indeed the training missions dont cover a lot of things, in particular (usually really BASIC) things that arent module specific. Im sure if you have flown any other DCS module for a year, especially from the same era, that following the training modules for the F14 is perfectly adequate to get you started. These missions are however, not adequate or even always appropriate to get a DCS newbie started.

 

And yes, that is what i asked in the first place, its what this whole thread is about. It doesnt matter to me if you solve this problem with an improved "buddy" or if you include a common jet trainer where you learn the basics of the game and comms and nav and some intro in to modern warfare, or if all modules should have missions explaining all those things, but there is, to put it mildly, room for improvement.

 

And its not impossible. I dont even think its particularly hard.

The fact we've taken 12 pages to get somewhere suggests you weren't as clear as you think you were.

A shame, as I think the lack of depth of training you've brought up is worthy of discussion, but undermined by you rubbing people up the wrong way.

or if all modules should have missions explaining all those things,

The M-2000C campaign works a lot of training into the storyline. It’s pretty well done. You are meant to go there from the tutorial missions.

Yeah, blame the customer! Always a genius business strategy. They have the wrong attitude. Maybe ED should pick its customers more carefully? Maybe an entry exam before you are allowed to pay and play? I mean, you cant just let any real life F18 pilot play your game, some are clearly unworthy.

If someone doesn't want to learn how the aircraft and peripherals are bound, you are saying this is the programmes fault and not the customer and they shoudlnt expect to be frustrated.

Now I know you are a lunatic. But you are consistent.

Someone stuck their head out of a train window and lost their head. Their familly tried to blame the signage wasn't strongly worded enough. The more we encourage this type of lack of responsibility for ones own actions, the more people will lose their heads. I'm not taking any more part in your insanity. Good luck with all the things you want to do, you will need luck by the way.

The fact we've taken 12 pages to get somewhere suggests you weren't as clear as you think you were.

Perhaps. But given that Im just rephrasing the exact same issues I brought up in the first post, I think it has more to do with the fact people react to a title without properly reading a (admittedly rather long or longwinded) post and assume its just another noob too lazy to learn and wanting to turn DCS in to warhammer. Even my anticipation of that and the bolded text did not prevent that. Something I also completely expected.

12 pages and you might be about the first person to acknowledge there are indeed things missing that could be improved and that it is worth discussing. Does that say more about me or everyone else?

ndermined by you rubbing people up the wrong way.

Yeah. I guess no one was rubbing me the wrong way. I dont lack thick skin, but its depressing to see the way people here think they have to defend their game. Its also incredibly counter productive. But I dont care if I convince draconus, or what SharpeXB thinks; Ill just hope someone in a position to actually do something about it (and a financial interest in doing so) reads this and finds it useful. If not, tough luck.

Ill just hope someone in a position to actually do something about it (and a financial interest in doing so) reads this and finds it useful. If not, tough luck.

I very much doubt anyone can afford to make an AI virtual instructor for DCS and all it’s modules. Nobody here I think wants EDs resources spent on it that’s for sure. We would rather have this:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=262525

And this

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4287187&postcount=1

Yeah. I guess no one was rubbing me the wrong way. I dont lack thick skin, but its depressing to see the way people here think they have to defend their game. Its also incredibly counter productive.

It really is a niche market and I don't believe that is any kind of self fulfilling prophesy. IMHO the only way such enthusiast products can survive is for a thriving enthusiast community to provide the helping hand you describe which they do in abundance.

In my view it isn't about defence of ED but a counter voice to say we don't think that would be a great use of limited developer resources when it is something the enthusiast community can do and do well. No one voice gets to decide what is productive or counter productive for ED, we simply have opinions.

Great post! Thanks Pac-Man. Much more helpful than just saying "Read the manual" or "The documentation is all in one place" because the best aggregated information comes from a multitude of sources and you've kindly put that together in one place...

Thank you!

I think the biggest challenge to learning something like DCS is everyone learns differently. We retain information differently so it's hard to come up with a one stop shop. I'll post this thread here again in case anyone is interested. Guys please give feedback. I will absolutely devote some time to this. Tell me what it needs and I'll do my best to make it work out. :)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4414035#post4414035

For starter, sorry, but I didn't read the entire topic. Too many lengthy posts for my millennial attention span :P

Anyway, from my perspective it all depends on the individual but in my opinion the best way to introduce new players is a good set of ineractive tutorials within the game at different difficulty levels.

For example:

Beginner - basic flight, taking off, landing, traffic patterns, etc.

Intermediate - navigation, bad weather, basic radar and weapon operations

Expert - advanced weapons/procedures, AAR, advanced radar, etc.

And I'm talking about tutorials that explain everything along the way WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT, instead of just saying "fly at x speed and y altitude and keep z deg AOA". Right now none of the aircraft available seems to have it.

Right now in-game tutorials are really poor unless you already know 80% of what should be done with the only exception being Razbam's excellent Harrier tutorials.

I have actually started to write down the whole list of possible DCS improvements that hopefully would satisfy new users (or just Vertigo), all these hints, tips, explanations and tags everywhere, new tutorials and knowledge base ingame, automated controls setup... but then it got so long that it would mean huge undertaking for no real profit or invitation value. It would make DCS look like a console title, possibly disgusting or ridiculous for any serious simmer. All those things that one can learn anywhere and anyhow else would make it look like trying to copy the Internet or builtin Google search. We even have wiki pages. I deleted the list before completion because I don't think anyone would want or need it all. There is a room for improvement but devs already know what they have to know.

I've got proposition for you, Vertigo. Why don't you stop wasting your and our time on useless threads and go and actually help new users instead if you really care for them. Answer in this subforum, go to main DCS 2.5, go to bugs/general question, go to other threads to share the knowledge. This will be something productive for a change.

From a more customer, more sales perspective there are many things ED could do to reach a wider market.

DCS is pretty well known, its not obscure in the sim world. But reaching a wider market doesnt help much if you cant retain the people you reach, which is where I see the biggest problem.

ED have been doing quite a few things that -to me- seem ill advised if not even reeking of desperation, trying to reach a wider market. Things like game mode that completely solves the wrong problem, or combined arms as if that was going to lure in Battlefield or WoT players? Im genuinely worried what they will do with MAC. If they do that wrong, like making it a dumbed down independent / separate game and with no growth path in to DCS, it may well end up killing DCS as it could suck up most of the remaining newbies who then stay on their separate island.

If they spend those resources on "DCS top gun edition", adding a pilot career mode with an appropriate trainer like a F5/T38 and much better in-game training, I think that would have been 10x more effective. And probably much easier to do. But hey, Im just basing that on an insignificant sample size of 3 and 1 aeroclub, I can only say what I see.

IMHO the only way such enthusiast products can survive is for a thriving enthusiast community to provide the helping hand you describe which they do in abundance...

 

... when it is something the enthusiast community can do and do well.

I disagree. If you expect potential or actual customers to turn to fora and ask questions even in the early stages of the game, you probably already lost 50% of your market. Not the motivated ones, or the ones who like reading natops or books on military aviation or thick manuals. Not the ones who are still around, posting in threads like this. But tons of others who will stay with IL2 or RoF or whatever other sim, and that i dont think ED can afford to lose.

In my view it isn't about defence of ED but a counter voice to say we don't think that would be a great use of limited developer resources

Well, thats a bit self serving isnt it? The community quite clearly wants the devs to focus their time on delivering all the stuff they crave. Mostly stuff in the base game, so they want the devs to do unpaid work, and keep doing that in perpetuity because when you even mention the S word or you get a longer trash thread than this one. That doesnt mean its not in ED interest, and frankly, in ALL our longer term interest.

Anyway, from my perspective it all depends on the individual but in my opinion the best way to introduce new players is a good set of ineractive tutorials within the game at different difficulty levels.

 

 

For example:

Beginner - basic flight, taking off, landing, traffic patterns, etc.

 

Intermediate - navigation, bad weather, basic radar and weapon operations

Expert - advanced weapons/procedures, AAR, advanced radar, etc.

You know what I’m going to say right... wait for it...

READ THE #@$&ING MANUAL!

It’s all in there! Taking off, landing, flying patterns, navigation, combat employment, AAR

And it’s already in the interactive tutorials!

And there are hundreds of YouTube videos on this stuff!

:doh:

Hey I got it! This is who we’ve been looking for in DCS right here... Your Virtual Assistant!

“Hi there, I’m Zippy. Can’t fire that AGM-65? Did you forget to switch the master arm to On?”