The Future of DCS: More Detail or Broader Scope?

Recent DCS news and events have set me to wonder....

I've been around PC flight sims for several decades. I guess you could say I've been more or less involved with DCS since being a beta tester on the original Flanker 1.5. I remember back to flight sims on the Apple II and MSDOS.

During the early Flanker days, we all fantasized about something like what exists now with DCS World. In many ways, this is a fantastic achievement and the dedication of the community is impressive.

Thinking back, some milestones in my enjoyment of flight sims include:

1. My first simulated combat in Strike Eagle on the Apple II

2. Cool graphics of Falcon on the Amiga

3. My first PvP ladder matches in Flanker

4. The immersion of the war in Falcon 4.

5. Modeling the whole world more or less in MS Flight Sim.

6. Getting to fly a variety of high fidelity aircraft in DCS

7. RIFT

Over these many years, there has been a trend of increasing detail and fidelity in terms of the following:

A. Aircraft Systems / Flight Modeling

B. Graphical Detail

C. Simulation of the Aerospace / Combat Environment

The detail of the interface between the pilot and the aircraft systems and flight modeling in DCS World are fantastic. The graphical detail is also wonderful. To me, it is DCS World’s aircraft systems and flight modeling that make it beat anything short of a commercial full motion simulator. The graphics are also good, but what about the simulation of the aerospace/ combat environment? DCS maps are highly detailed, but does the extreme map/external model detail come at the cost of a bigger experience?

For example, I was at the Boise airport a few weeks ago. The ramp was full of A-10s. A few of the ‘hogs were on the ground frequency requesting permission to load live ordnance. There were three transient F/A-18s being refueled in front the FBO, and there was a flight of Blackhawks passing overhead. Fire fighting aircraft were operating from the other side of the field, all of this during the 30 minutes or so while we picked up our PAX, and this was in Boise, which is not exactly the world’s busiest place.

I thought this was pretty cool, and wonder if DCS needs to offer more immersion? I thought the feeling of immersion in Falcon 4 during the campaign was awesome. When did F4 come out, was it almost 20 years ago?

I also wonder why the entire world modeled to some degree of detail? It’s 2017 and the sandbox is still small. It would be awesome to be able to operate our modules outside Nevada, the SoH, and Normandy. I know, these areas aren’t really THAT small if you’re on the ground, but they are for jets. Civilian jets can do NYC to LAX in 4 hours. How cool would it be to be able to fly to any airport in the world with an adequate runway? So many mission possibilities… For example, why can’t we fly our F-15Cs from the Westfield Barnes to P-67 to enforce a TFR, or stop in Portland ME and return with a couple boxes of live lobster in the back? Cool with me if we left the 3D lobster to the imagination, but I do think modeling the whole world combined with the strong points of DCS systems and flight modeling would greatly expand the user base. Maybe poach a bunch of the noncombat simmers in the process.

The DCS community has an almost religious obsession with accuracy and details. This is great, but it makes me wonder which more greatly compromises fidelity, the lack of detail or the lack of scope? Could more of DCS with less detail actually be better if it modeled more of the environment? Not just in terms of more of the world, but also more aircraft, more of the system.

I’m sure ED faces numerous questions of the future of its development, like questions of whether or not to open source and/or appeal to external vendors for more than aircraft, where the community fits in, whether to adopt DX12, server, network, multiprocess/thread, etc? I don’t really follow much on these things, but I do get the feeling that as the scope of DCS expands so will the user base and participation of external developers for more than just aircraft.

I think DCS should continue to do what it does so well in modelling aircraft and systems in detail while trying to expand the scope of the environment these aircraft operate in, including the AI stable of aircraft, ATC, weather, aerodromes, etc.

Ps. It would also be cool to be able to use apps such as ForeFlight along with DCS world like you can in the other sims. There’s nothing unrealistic about taking an iPad along in a P-51 in 2017.

I think they should charge for the game engine and focus on that. It's by far the most important thing. Once that is stable they need to focus on sea and land.

Leave Aircraft and maybe maps to third parties for a while once 2.5 is stable Whilst working on land and sea environments to release 3.0 with a complete environment.

In my opinion it's less a problem with scope, more a problem with focus. If you step back for a minute and look at what DCS has to offer after 15-something years of development since early Lock On days, you can't help but scratch your head. It's hard to imagine a more diverse and disconnected mix of aircraft and terrain in a single game.

I admit it's cool to fly aircraft from different era in a single simulator, but I have the impression that ED has their resources spread so thin, that they struggle to finish anything. The recent newsletter is a good example, some 3d artists work on trains in the Nevada, other painstakingly model Dubai docks and skyscrapers, other have to finish the promised assets for the WWII game, while at the same time about 1/3rd of AI aircraft models still remember first Lock On game, we're soon going to get proper carrier ops and so far the only quality AI model of an aircraft from Carrier Air Wing apart from the Hornet itself is an E2 Hawkeye.

I've sort of wondered about that, too. If ED was more open with the code base would it get improved faster? If they focused on the code base and were more open with their SDK, would that achieve both goals?

Yup that's something that has been irritating me as well: why bother with those immensely detailed WW2 ground units if most AI aircraft have 2 and a half polygons and 256x256 textures...

I'm all for more detailed ground units but to me the priority should be to fix the air units first. Not only the detail of AI, but also damage models etc...

This is a question that will get X amount of starkly contrasting opinions per X amount of posters.

Why am I on DCS?

Main reasons for me are:

- What some people perceive as a "lack of focus": Aircraft from all over the world and all over the eras. That is part of the attraction for me, and a big one at that. If DCS said "we'll do / authorize only '90s aircraft from now on", or '40s, or '50s etc. I'd probably leave it for good from that point on.

- Uncompromising focus on realism of the modeled products when it comes to flight modeling, systems and weapons modeling, and by extension damage modeling too. I am under no illusions to suggest that there is, or will be a module that ticks all these boxes at a %100 level. But the focus and intention is this, and at least a good bit of developers want to follow these ethos.

So with combining these two, the DCS has become the ultimate sandbox that I've always dreamed of in more than two decades of flight sim flying. That is why I still applaud ED's vision, and why I still stick with it even with its numerous issues. Take away either of these two, DCS is not DCS anymore.

Now, there are however, areas where I agree much less fidelity would not only be good, but actually better than current approach: the AI units, specifically their looks. I am not happy with WW2 assets thing, but that is discussed and done, and I already did contribute my part to its discussion. But it does relate to what I want to tell here, so shortly: AI units does not need to be so meticulously done to make their development expensive, nor should they be "expensive" on our PC resources. I would prefer AI units to be kept to a much lesser detail, so they can be put into the missions in hundreds without the fear of choking the simulation.

Now for the maps... I am among the people who just don't care almost at all about the maps. I don't have any, nor do I intent to get any soon, or perhaps at all. But this one is contentious to say the least. There is benefit to either approach: huge but low detail, and small but high detail. But honestly, I don't see ED going "whole world" route, and I honestly doubt DCS would handle that well as it is.

One final thing, something I've said here before, but it bears repeating: part of the problem is that, back in ye olden days, there were so many different simulation products catering to very different tastes/needs. Today, when it comes to combat capable jets, the only commercial and up to date simulation title is DCS, and people expect it to be many different things because of that.

DCS is a sandbox of study sims of various aircraft, with combat capability, but also with an additional focus on visual aspect of things, especially lately with maps too. This definition will have requirements that will be mutually exclusive with one for something like Strike Fighters, Il-2 series etc.

I feel they focus more on releasing more content than fixing waht´s allready released as early acces.

My hope is that tehy at some point wil make some kind of consolidation update, which fixes all (well the majority) of the known bugs, where some are rather old. And alos focuses on optimising the various maps.

As much as I look forward to the F/A-18 and other announced 3rd party modules , these are worth nothing if they will be operated on an unstable and badly optimised platform like the current DCS World 2.

Also I think that early acces now has become too early for many modules - especially considering the long time it seemingly takes to get the modules into a release version state.

For me DCS has become a shelf sim. I selvdome fly it and only starts it after a new update has been released in the hope that something major has been fixed.

I don´t know about ED's priorites also counting the 3rd party modules, but personally I would like to see the following being focused on:

-Merge of DCS 1.5 and 2.0 inorder not having two different versions to keep up to date

-Fixing the extreme resource hogging issues in DCS 2.0 - Even with my hardware, DCS should run much more fluid, considering that the graphics in DCS 2.0 aren´t that great comapred to the hardware demands.

-Fixing of very old issues, like bad damge modelling, heli operations and weapons effectiveness.

-Finishing some very old early acces modules, like the SA342 Gazelle, M2000C etc.

I ahve always been among the first to buy new modules, but with the presentstat of DCS Worls I don´t think I will do that for the F/A-18 or other upcomming modules, simply because it waste of money and time for me personally the way DCS worls performs right now. This also inclused the Straight of Hormus, caus e we simply risc to see the same slow fixing likje we see with the Normandy map, and that kind of frustration I rather live without.

IMHO ED should focus more for the AI and mission generations and the mission editor itself for next couple years.

The mapping tools should be available to developers so they can easily just grab the geological data from example Google/NASA services (Free to use) and generate the terrain area. Then get all kind automations to build terrain elements from trees to roads, tracks with already known data like Open Street Map project offers. And finally just place a random buildings to inplace of the known buildings in the mapping data.

All the data out there is mostly free and available that shows all the fields locations, forest locations and types, even smaller rocks, all the roads, tracks etc etc. The tools itself should already exist (as there are some already) that would just import that data and output a DCS objects to such places.

Even just random generation of the terrain should be possible, as not all maps need to be based to real world locations and places but could be totally random and fictional locations. Maps like 150x300km areas for helicopters and ground troops are not a problem in size. Even for ground troops map areas like 50x50km would be enough.

Then we really need a multi-divided AI that communicates more realistic manner. Not a single AI that tries to run everything but multiple ones where each one is own individual and trying just to work things out as best as they can.

And that would open up the system to build a simple and working dynamic campaign or dynamic mission generation without simple "head on!" like now it is.

But ED should really focus to improve the combat part of the DCS. Like some level of simulation of the radars. Even getting a IFF system to work in the basic known concept instead "No, we don't do it because it is so secret!" and start adding a fluid physics and acoustic simulations to simulate radars and line of sight etc in simple manner (would be far better than what we have now!).

Graphics, Cockpit simulations etc are great. But I don't enjoy to fly a single aircraft and dream to be good because I can blow a couple unfair positioned ground unit or a idiotic AI air pilot, or even consider a usual multiplayer to be anywhere near realistic combat flying.

DCS is a sandbox of study sims of various aircraft, with combat capability, but also with an additional focus on visual aspect of things, especially lately with maps too. This definition will have requirements that will be mutually exclusive with one for something like Strike Fighters, Il-2 series etc.

Ah yes, the ultimate "DCS is a sandbox" argument, so we can throw whatever we have into the mix and call it a day. Unfortunately, DCS is a big box with a thin layer of sand inside and ED seemingly trying to expand it from all four corners simultaneously. We have WWII sim that barely deserves an "alpha" prefix and is a mix of aircraft that don't even fit into Normandy '44 period it tries to simulate. Two Korean jets with absolutely no AI airplanes, ground units or terrain from that period to accompany them. A few later aircraft designs from various 3rd parties, mostly unfinished. And the main theatre build around '90s - early 2000's scenarios of first Flanker and Lock On games, sustained mostly by A-10 and Ka-50 study sims backed with a fleet of low fidelity FC planes, that won't be upgraded in the foreseeable future.

It may work out in the end, after another several years of development, when al the pieces that ED is currently working on will be properly implemented in the core sim. That is, if ED doesn't run out of the money first.

Ah yes, the ultimate "DCS is a sandbox" argument, so we can throw whatever we have into the mix and call it a day. Unfortunately, DCS is a big box with a thin layer of sand inside and ED seemingly trying to expand it from all four corners simultaneously. We have WWII sim that barely deserves an "alpha" prefix and is a mix of aircraft that don't even fit into Normandy '44 period it tries to simulate. Two Korean jets with absolutely no AI airplanes, ground units or terrain from that period to accompany them. A few later aircraft designs from various 3rd parties, mostly unfinished. And the main theatre build around '90s - early 2000's scenarios of first Flanker and Lock On games, sustained mostly by A-10 and Ka-50 study sims backed with a fleet of low fidelity FC planes, that won't be upgraded in the foreseeable future.

 

It may work out in the end, after another several years of development, when al the pieces that ED is currently working on will be properly implemented in the core sim. That is, if ED doesn't run out of the money first.

Good summary of the situation.

I think priority should be:

1) DCS 2.5

2) Strait of Hormuz

3) F/A-18

4) Carrier Ops

5) Korea (modern day)

6) SOH campaign for all relevant aircraft

7) Afghanistan

I would disagree with the notion that the damage modeling is at all comparable to the rest of the detail of this sim. I am confident that this will improve but it seems strange that this sim has been around as long as it has without the damage model being more complete.

That having been said, DCS is the only sim that I fly and I am very satisfied with all that it offers in the various aircraft and maps. It is getting better and better all the time!!

I'd say once 2.5 is out focus on details and bug fixes, like ATC, carriers, weapon guidance, AI, etc.

Of course there will be the map guys and Aircraft guys and they should just start on new projects.

Bering strait pls!!!!!

Regarding the OP's main point of focus vs breadth, I'm of the opinion that with the 3rd parties on board, a focus by them will result in a breadth for us.

I also think once ED finish dealing with the backlog from DCS:WWII, which is currently just the Me262 and the P-47 left, they'll be able to focus resources into other places.

Regarding what ED should get up to in the features/bugs area, I'm just going to say that from my experience of developing a platform for clients (SaaS), there can be big stretches where a lot of invisible work is done under the covers in prep for new features that the clients simply don't see until it's ready. I suspect there's much more going on than ED shout about. Unfortunately, this often seems to clients as if nothing is being done, bugs aren't quashed etc...

Regarding what ED should get up to in the features/bugs area, I'm just going to say that from my experience of developing a platform for clients (SaaS), there can be big stretches where a lot of invisible work is done under the covers in prep for new features that the clients simply don't see until it's ready. I suspect there's much more going on than ED shout about. Unfortunately, this often seems to clients as if nothing is being done, bugs aren't quashed etc...

i can corroborate this experience.

backseat developers can go take a hike and code their own wares.

I also think once ED finish dealing with the backlog from DCS:WWII, which is currently just the Me262 and the P-47 left, they'll be able to focus resources into other places.

Ahem, the backlog from DCS:WWII is more like:

-fix the graphic issues of WWII planes in PBR renderer

-new Mustang version appropriate to ETO

-new damage model

-better AI

-get the Spitfire out of beta

-finish the assets pack

-get the Normandy out of alpha (requires 2.5)

-P-47

-Me-262 (maybe?)

And that's not even half of the stuff that ED claims to be working on right now or plans for the "nearest" future.

Remember Yo-Yo talk about a pilot-able twin bomber follow on WW2, and surely more "pilot-able" aircrafts.

The Assets pack continue update and expanded with more and more WW2 units (very difficult put a "finish line" into them).

The Me262 are actually on research / early stage. And the WW2 team has "exclusive" (old RRG Studios team).

Wags talk on a near interview about a "WW2" tank modules, none confirmed, but very interesting if can reach them to improve CA and / or "real" hardcore module tanks (M4 Sherman / Phanter tank). Other point talk about "export" the new DM to vehicles.

The Sea environment can be get more updates (some planned ships as german submarines and ships has torpedoes as main weapons).

and a long etc.

There are some areas that I would really like to see ED focus on. Areas like AI (the actual logic and the units themselves including damage model, etc) and coalition command and control.

DCS has faults, but sometimes I wonder if people expect too much. It is a working simulation, so I guess it does ultimately deliver what is advertised. There's a lot more that could be added, but deciding priorities is a task in itself. While I might want better AI before anything, there are other people that want a certain aircraft above all. There are still others that just want a new map that represents a historical theater.

I would like to see ED concentrate on the core engine and let loose the SDK for 3rd parties etc. Look at what some of the modding community can accomplish with the basic tools. Now, imagine if you will, that developers who usually create for other sim platforms got on board.. just think of the aircraft and terrains that could (possibly) be opened up for us.

Unfortunately I feel ED is a bit of a 'closed door' company and, other than the newsletters, we will never actually know what the plan is for the DCS platform.

I would like to see ED concentrate on the core engine and let loose the SDK for 3rd parties etc. Look at what some of the modding community can accomplish with the basic tools. Now, imagine if you will, that developers who usually create for other sim platforms got on board.. just think of the aircraft and terrains that could (possibly) be opened up

+1

I would disagree with the notion that the damage modeling is at all comparable to the rest of the detail of this sim. I am confident that this will improve but it seems strange that this sim has been around as long as it has without the damage model being more complete.

That is the reason why I do not like to fly A-10 because it is so damn vulnerable to every ground fire that is directed at you.

90% change that first hit that comes at me either kills the displays and/or either engine.

95% change that first hit destroys the Counter-Measurement system so chaff and flare are gone.

It is like flying a aircraft made from the paper and is never supposedly meant to be used against anything that can fire at you with any caliber, so every gun run is like suicide.

Now comparing that to Su-25, it is like another level beast. Still easy to get engines damaged or hydraulics gone, but at least it is more like a "tank" compared if you would really be flying with a Cessna or some other non-armored aircraft over battlefield.

I would like to see ED concentrate on the core engine and let loose the SDK for 3rd parties etc. Look at what some of the modding community can accomplish with the basic tools. Now, imagine if you will, that developers who usually create for other sim platforms got on board.. just think of the aircraft and terrains that could (possibly) be opened up for us.

 

Unfortunately I feel ED is a bit of a 'closed door' company and, other than the newsletters, we will never actually know what the plan is for the DCS platform.

It is always to edged sword.

Learn from the history like what happened to PC when IBM decided to release everything else in first PC than the BIOS. It took just couple years from Compaq to reverse engineer the PC BIOS and no one anymore needed to license BIOS from IBM to get hardware and software compatibility. It was free personal computer platform that IBM build up and defined the standards. Suddenly market was full of "PC-compatible" and "PC-clone" hardware and software and IBM couldn't control the 80% market share it had with PC on personal computer market.

Or how about Apple. When Steve Jobs got kicked out from Apple, John Sculley with his vision got Apple board to open Apple hardware to others and by licensing SystemOS to other OEM. Market got filled with Mac-clones with SystemOS and it was total mess, it was not helping Apple to really go from hardware company to software company as it started to lose even more of the control.

And when Steve Jobs was hired back, his first actions as CEO was stop licensing SystemOS to others. Quickly new versions were released to fill the agreements and then kill them with versions that weren't in the agreements and this way Jobs got SystemOS back to the Apple control as the hardware, rest is history...

Nothing works well if there ain't standards and teamwork. Competition and such just destroy everything and leaves everyone than very minor people (who are controlling the chaos of competition) to benefit from it.

So if ED will ever open the SDK etc, it needs to be so well defined that modders and community members are required to provide quality like ED is now doing with their partners with agreements and such.

So basically little bit like Steam Workshop for many games, where you can either enjoy from the publisher game as is, or then go and install officially allowed mods and go to random direction as you like.

But easily it becomes like Steam Workshop, where most of the content is just "Hey, I loved to do this five barrel pump-shotgun to this game!" and it looks like someone just managed to learn how to do 3D.

The problem is as well that ED seems to require a 3Ds Max, instead accepting to use more popular and open tools like Blender.

Like think if we could have something even like the X-Plane 10 has with the plane builder? Even so simple tool requires time and effort put to 3D models, but oh boy doesn't those just allow to make nice things to that simulator!

Like think if we could "easily" (compared to full fidelity modules) a SFM + weapons like FC3 has?

Would it be better?

I think that the mapping at least could benefit a lot from it, or ground vehicles etc.

If I may cast my penny in the pond......all of the above comments are (some more than others) true and noteworthy. I myself am a RL Airman with experience on a few different platforms in more than one way. I turn to aviation simming to get a kick out of what I actually do/wanna do in RL but with the no serious worries (getting killed, immense planning etc). Having said that to have, as far as possible, realism in terms of immersion (tricking your mind that this is actually happening and getting a sense of real satisfaction) is an absolute MUST......otherwise why bother?

eg.

Huey........Vietnam and all that goes with (no brainer)

Sabre.......Korea

Mi8..........Afghanistan (along with others we need)

Then......some aircraft that would really be easy to fit in multiple arenas....

Blackhawk (various)

F16

Apache

Mi24

So I guess i am trying to say that environment+platform+specific detail and actions (loading troops, dropping napalm etc) is what brings it all together for big boys to really daydream.

I hope it makes sense for someone out there........

If I may cast my penny in the pond......all of the above comments are (some more than others) true and noteworthy. I myself am a RL Airman with experience on a few different platforms in more than one way. I turn to aviation simming to get a kick out of what I actually do/wanna do in RL but with the no serious worries (getting killed, immense planning etc). Having said that to have, as far as possible, realism in terms of immersion (tricking your mind that this is actually happening and getting a sense of real satisfaction) is an absolute MUST......otherwise why bother?

eg.

Huey........Vietnam and all that goes with (no brainer)

Sabre.......Korea

Mi8..........Afghanistan (along with others we need)

 

Then......some aircraft that would really be easy to fit in multiple arenas....

Blackhawk (various)

F16

Apache

Mi24

 

So I guess i am trying to say that environment+platform+specific detail and actions (loading troops, dropping napalm etc) is what brings it all together for big boys to really daydream.

 

I hope it makes sense for someone out there........

It makes perfect sense!

I would like to see ED concentrate on the core engine and let loose the SDK for 3rd parties etc. Look at what some of the modding community can accomplish with the basic tools. Now, imagine if you will, that developers who usually create for other sim platforms got on board.. just think of the aircraft and terrains that could (possibly) be opened up for us.

 

Unfortunately I feel ED is a bit of a 'closed door' company and, other than the newsletters, we will never actually know what the plan is for the DCS platform.

+1

ED indeed lacks human resource to fully achieve their ambitions. Focuse on the engine developing and let 3rd parties do the modelling, and share the profit with them. Why not?

*Note This is not Official, just my Opinion on aspects of the matter

I believe we had a similar discussion on the DCS Modding Discord Channel regarding 3rd party Agreements and SDKs.

For Example, Right now, There's Likely a Few good reasons the SDK is Limited.

I Cant Say for certain what those reasons are, but I can Speculate Based on Experience.

1. Support.

if ED Released the Entire SDK Publicly to everyone, they'd have a flood of support request by users that do not have the experience in 3DS, LUA, or Coding asking for help w'/ SDK Functions etc etc.

I don't believe ED has the manpower to be everyone's tutors.

2. DCS Roadmap

If You had access to the SDK today, You'd be developing content for at least 3 different Versions of DCS (1.5.7, 2.1.1, and Future Versions),

This has already been proven to be a large task for some developer groups, to keep up with the core changes across the Current 1.5.7 to 2.1.1 to Future 2.5.

3D Wise Alone, you'd be producing Art for 2 Different Rendering and Lighting Engines.

3. Content Quality Control / Liability

While the 3D Aspect and general mods can be done without the SDK, more advanced modules cannot. Even without the SDK, there are several mods of questionable quality and origins.

I can tell you that I've deleted quite a few mods from both the forums and the website user files for violating I.P. of another's work or EULA of the source 3D model. As for "quality" I'm not here to put down anyone's work, anything is possible in DCS. But anything produced w/ a License Agreement would have to be a certain level 3D Art, UI Art, Coding and Functionality wise.

IMHO, In the Years to come, once DCS World is more Unified/Stable (ie After 2.5, and All 3 Branches run the same GFX, Terrain, Lighting Engines etc). Maybe ED would look at this again.

It would be nice to have 2 Different License Agreement Types for the SDK:

-Professional/Commercial License Agreement.

For Teams and Companies that Intend to Sell their Content through E.D.

-Basic/Community License Agreement.

For Community Teams that intent to distribute their products for free.

Both would have access to the SDK and Product Protection,

However the Basic License Agreement would not allow the product to be sold, and would not allow the Team/Group Access to Developer Builds etc,

nor offer any type of Full Support in regards to SDK Functions etc (outside of any provided help files).