Jump to content

Mission Planner - Being Prepared or Cheating?


Horns

Recommended Posts

DCS's visibility settings for units needs some work. You either get too much info, or not enough. Something that I've done for mission planning is making units hidden and then putting static objects on the map purely for briefing purposes. This allows for a good looking mission planner and keeps the list of enemies in the mission briefing from being overly precise, but then you have the issue of the F10 map in the mission being blank. The F10 view isn't truly realistic, but DCS does not provide much in the way of battlefield intelligence and communication. I like to have F10 units be visible to sort of simulate allied communication and coordination.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mission designer controls what information the players have available.

 

I used to create training missions with specific ''lessons'' in mind, to punish sloppy flying and encourage initiative. In my experience, a large percentage of players cannot function without having their hands held, and are likely to rage quit if you give them little/bad intel, this mor designers opt for lots of ''extra'' info.

 

You'd think something like DCS would weed out those types, but there are a surprising number of 'dirty casuals' even here lol

 

 

Additionally, in real life you have a much higher degree of coordination with C&C. The way the game works is a tool to make up for the game's numerous shortcomings. Case and point, disable all aides in game, and a Su-25 is forced to navigate by landmarks,unlike GPS equipped aircraft. In RL they just stick a Gorman on the dash, and boom. GPS. So we have the F10 map.

 

 

At end of day, it's just a game. It can't be 100% realistic, and if they tried to make it 100% realistic it wouldn't be any fun. Not that some of this doesn't need work. But it'll never be perfect.


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd think something like DCS would weed out those types, but there are a surprising number of 'dirty casuals' even here lol

 

Of course, with the amount of mission designers that cater to that audience, that number is not surprising at all.

 

Additionally, in real life you have a much higher degree of coordination with C&C. The way the game works is a tool to make up for the game's numerous shortcomings. Case and point, disable all aides in game, and a Su-25 is forced to navigate by landmarks,unlike GPS equipped aircraft. In RL they just stick a Gorman on the dash, and boom. GPS. So we have the F10 map.

 

IRL you'd get enemies much better coordinated and smarter than DCS AI.

 

And DCS Su-25 does have it's own navigation system, no need for GPS or F10. Unless you use the F10 purely as a map, without showing your positon in it. That simulates a better kneeboard map, and that I find realistic.

 

At end of day, it's just a game. It can't be 100% realistic, and if they tried to make it 100% realistic it wouldn't be any fun.

 

Depends on your concept of fun... flying the real aircraft IRL would be fun for many people here, but I guess not for the arcade gamers...

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS's visibility settings for units needs some work. You either get too much info, or not enough. Something that I've done for mission planning is making units hidden and then putting static objects on the map purely for briefing purposes. This allows for a good looking mission planner and keeps the list of enemies in the mission briefing from being overly precise...

 

That's a good idea, IMO.

 

...but then you have the issue of the F10 map in the mission being blank. The F10 view isn't truly realistic, but DCS does not provide much in the way of battlefield intelligence and communication. I like to have F10 units be visible to sort of simulate allied communication and coordination.

 

You do get calls regarding enemy's positions... In battle, DCS doesn't give you massive amounts of intel, but you also don't have massive amounts of things going on in a DCS battlefield. It's very simple with very poor enemy AI.

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the new map marker feature to consider.

 

You can add (or remove) a mark on the map using the mission editor (MARK TO ALL/COUNTRY/COALITION/GROUP) and include a text message.

 

"Convoy sighted travelling East" etc. etc. This still requires the player to do some searching on their own while pointing them in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can now, that's what I'm saying. Check the ME, you can add/remove them just like any other trigger.

 

As another option, you can also include visible trigger zones of a user-defined radius, which will show up in the mission planner map view.

NzpfPen.jpg

 

Much of this thread sounds like "features I think should be in DCS" but in reality, most of the features are there and the point is "I don't like lazy mission design." ;)


Edited by feefifofum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also place those. MARK TO ALL, MARK TO COALITION, or MARK TO GROUP are now built-in ME triggers! :)

You assign each mark a number, a location based on a trigger zone, and can add whatever text you want. The timestamp will be included. You can use the REMOVE MARK trigger with the number you set when you created the mark to delete it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do get calls regarding enemy's positions... In battle, DCS doesn't give you massive amounts of intel, but you also don't have massive amounts of things going on in a DCS battlefield. It's very simple with very poor enemy AI.

 

Friendly AI is the same though. They can take very advantageous situations and throw them away. They don't cooperate with the player very much, and if you're in an aircraft with limited SA, like the F-5, it can be difficult to keep track of what the AI is doing. If they were real pilots you could communicate and work with them.

 

For that matter your own wingman can be a hassle at times, they'll often respond "unable" to a command because they don't see any enemy, even if you do. At that point they end up doing nothing until they're shot at a lot of the time. At times you can end up feeling like you're flying alone even if you're surrounded by friendlies.

 

I guess you can argue either way, but I feel like using the F10 map gives more realistic results than not given the current state of the sim.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And DCS Su-25 does have it's own navigation system, no need for GPS or F10.

 

 

 

Depends on your concept of fun... flying the real aircraft IRL would be fun for many people here, but I guess not for the arcade gamers...

 

It has a very limited pre-progammed waypoint system and airbase beacons. I know what it has, I can and do fly blind with it. You're missing the point.

 

Regarding fun, again, you're missing the point. Most people here would like flying the real things, yes... THESE AREN'T THE REAL THINGS. They're in many cases close approximations, but they lack simple capabilities... like being able to actually speak to the aircraft and bases around you and ask ridiculously simple questions, because the AI are incapable of doing so.

 

It ISN'T real. The "Game Mechanics" and things like F10 are there to fill in for the reality that you getting information from an AI AWAC or GCI is an exercise is futility, as one example.

 

I was able to work toward disabling that stuff, the more REAL people I had with me but if you're offline (or playing with more casual gamers), disabling the "gamier" aspects makes things inordinately more difficult, not because of skill or anything else, but because you are literally the only thinking being present and your aircraft may or may not be missing capabilities present in the real one.

 

The point I'm making is using them is not "cheating". They're there as a tool to make up for the game's very real shortcomings.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're there as a tool to make up for the game's very real shortcomings.

 

I agree 100% with you that it serves to make up for the game serious limitations.

 

BUT...

 

The real problem with that is that it inevitably overcompensates and makes one of the most important aspects of combat (situational awareness) excessively simple and easy. The truth is that, if the AI can't provide you with the necessary info on the field, it's ALWAYS going to be unrealistic, no matter if you use F10 or not. One way you have unrealistic lack of info and the other way you have unrealistic access to info. Imagine you're a real pilot and, every time you want to know what info your side has on the field, a map with simple enemy icons pop up in your mind. That's not fun, IMO.

 

You can come up with all sorts of crutches to compensate lack of realistic comms, but, if the game lacks a minimally realistic form of military comms, there's just no way around the fact that it isn't realistic and will never be, no matter what crutch you come up with.

 

(btw, that's why DCS isn't seen by the community as a military simulator, it's an aircraft physics emulator)

 

I particularly prefer, since I know it's not going to be realistic anyway, have the joy of search out the aircraft window, use the aircraft pods and MFDs (if available) and try to pay attention to the limited radio calls, instead of searching the F10 map for 2-dimensional cartoonish enemy icons. Even if this will result in me failing the mission... as you said, it isn't real...

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I understand what you mean :) I try to avoid most of that stuff too by sticking to simpler scenarios I make myself that avoid most of that. One of these days when my freetime opens up more, or I at least get a more reliable schedule, I'll rejoin a clan. Having 20+ real people online, including a GCI helps a lot with that sort of stuff :)

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can come up with all sorts of crutches to compensate lack of realistic comms, but, if the game lacks a minimally realistic form of military comms, there's just no way around the fact that it isn't realistic and will never be, no matter what crutch you come up with.

 

(btw, that's why DCS isn't seen by the community as a military simulator, it's an aircraft physics emulator)

 

 

First, the "community" you refer to, is who exactly?

Second, there is a reason, military grade simulators, do not use "AI"-Game style communication.

 

When the ANG used the A-10C "game" to do procedural training, my guess is, they used real headsets and did actually talk to trainers and operators.

 

In some older videos they show a nice training with a simulated JTAC training, using real comms. It is how this kind of "game" is currently supposed to be used.

I am not aware of a technology that even with huge cpu clusters could replicate a real life human counterpart on the comms.

 

Even Alexa, Cortana, Siri and "OkGoogle" can for the most part only search databases and select appropriate answers to identified keywords or combinations thereof.

 

I hope we get a better way of communication and display of information between the human player and the AI, yet it is not a problem that has been solved, already. There are more immersive ways, and more dynamic ways to give information to the players, but all lack the natural communication you have between two humans.

 

That is why Multiplayer is so popular for many DCS players.


Edited by shagrat

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the ANG used the A-10C "game" to do procedural training, my guess is, they used real headsets and did actually talk to trainers and operators.

 

In some older videos they show a nice training with a simulated JTAC training, using real comms. It is how this kind of "game" is currently supposed to be used.

 

I wouldn't say that DCS is more multiplayer oriented. While I don't have any numbers, I'm pretty sure that the number of buyers that play multiplayer is much smaller than the number of singleplayers. On top of that, DCS releases new paid campaigns regularly.

 

Actual military using simulators are another story. The sim is there to provide accurate depiction of the aircraft itself, all the rest (JTAC operators, AWACS operators, airfield operators, etc.) they already have and don't need to be simulated by the software.

 

I guess even human if players can join ATC or AWACS operators (is that possible in DCS?), how many are getting into DCS to do that?

 

I am not aware of a technology that even with huge cpu clusters could replicate a real life human counterpart on the comms.

 

Even Alexa, Cortana, Siri and "OkGoogle" can for the most part only search databases and select appropriate answers to identified keywords or combinations thereof.

 

It has nothing to do with replicating real life human communications. It's just standard procedures (simple military procedures, airfield procedures, etc.) that should be in the game and they aren't. It doesn't even qualify as AI, but DCS doesn't have it.

 

DCS AI is light years behind even old generation AIs, there's no way to compare it with Google and others mentioned...

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that DCS is more multiplayer oriented. While I don't have any numbers, I'm pretty sure that the number of buyers that play multiplayer is much smaller than the number of singleplayers. On top of that, DCS releases new paid campaigns regularly.

 

Actual military using simulators are another story. The sim is there to provide accurate depiction of the aircraft itself, all the rest (JTAC operators, AWACS operators, airfield operators, etc.) they already have and don't need to be simulated by the software.

 

I guess even human if players can join ATC or AWACS operators (is that possible in DCS?), how many are getting into DCS to do that?

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with replicating real life human communications. It's just standard procedures (simple military procedures, airfield procedures, etc.) that should be in the game and they aren't. It doesn't even qualify as AI, but DCS doesn't have it.

 

DCS AI is light years behind even old generation AIs, there's no way to compare it with Google and others mentioned...

I meant there is a difference between gamers and military. The original DCS series was a sideline of a military development, afaik.

 

I did not say there are more Multiplayer users. Just that the original military focus may not required a complex "game" system, as the military only required the realistic environment, as comms were handled by the trainees and operators anyway.

 

My guess is, when DCS A-10C was adapted for the public market, ED simply added the LockOn/Flaming Cliffs game parts to the "game".

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant there is a difference between gamers and military. The original DCS series was a sideline of a military development, afaik.

 

I did not say there are more Multiplayer users. Just that the original military focus may not required a complex "game" system, as the military only required the realistic environment, as comms were handled by the trainees and operators anyway.

 

My guess is, when DCS A-10C was adapted for the public market, ED simply added the LockOn/Flaming Cliffs game parts to the "game".

 

Yes, that's what I understand too. I guess that's why the aircraft is so high fidelity, etc. but AI and operations not so much. Don't get me wrong, I do regard DCS as a high quality sim, one of the best I've seen, maybe the best, tied with very few others.

My DCS modding videos:

 

Modules I own so far:

Black Shark 2, FC3, UH-1H, M-2000C, A-10C, MiG-21, Gazelle, Nevada map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...