Realism - wasted effort?

…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.

Indeed. Put rather more succinctly than I managed.

for me personally this high fidelity is a big part of the appeal. obviously there are many features that you would not need/notice/use on a regualr basis, but i still find joy in learning and sometimes re-learning these details, even if they are not essential for the kind of "gameplay" i usually look for in DCS.

also - as mentioned previously - when you really learn a module, you quickly notice how many little things are not simulated at all. so in some way ED already does compromises when deciding on what is essential for a study level experience...

Test and checks can be very important

 

If the mission designer desires it he can add failures to any single player mission.

There you go. It is a simulator first.

Just a noob perspective here. I'm sure they don't prioritize a lot of smaller details ahead of more important systems, but little details might be simple to implement. Some larger systems probably take a whole lot more effort, so we might be lacking some more important features while at the same time seeing little details that are trivial to insert.

All these details add richness though. I think they all contribute to their competitive edge. They shouldn't overlook anything, but I don't mind if they prioritize little things toward the bottom or give them to their new programmers to get their feet wet.

There you go. It is a simulator first.

Too bad the feature doesn't actually work when you want to properly simulate things… :P

Sorry, but if you ask the devs to scrap realism for more modules in shorter time, then DCS is just not for you.

This.

Test and checks can be very important

 

If the mission designer desires it he can add failures to any single player mission.

I really hope ED will implement them for MP at some point. It's really annoying that this feature is limited to SP atm :(

^^^ I don't believe I asked anyone to 'scrap' realism, and fortunately do not need either of you to tell me whether or not DCS is for me. I have been simming since the late 80's and flying IRL since 1993. I am perfectly capable of deciding that for myself thank you.

Like it or not you each of you represent only one customer, just like I do. None of us are the 'voice of the community'.

It seems the OP is not asking for less realism but more. He wants random failures when doing tests and I have to agree with him. In that other F-16 sim you can have failures during start up and it does add more realism to it.

Maybe ED should rethink about adding failures and what should be done when you get one. I know they can be added to missions but how about all the time? They could add a switch to have a choice if we want them or not.

Just one more thing that says DCS is better than the rest.

It seems the OP is not asking for less realism but more. He wants random failures when doing tests and I have to agree with him. In that other F-16 sim you can have failures during start up and it does add more realism to it.

 

Maybe ED should rethink about adding failures and what should be done when you get one. I know they can be added to missions but how about all the time? They could add a switch to have a choice if we want them or not.

 

Just one more thing that says DCS is better than the rest.

Choice possibly...

You can have faults if you do something wrong, like that other sim.

We will be answering many more questions here tho....That's another reason for the full-fidelity? Many like to discuss the systems here, I was in the A-10C reading / learning about something the other day. This is also a selling point. People like to get involved and learn new things here and in MP. I just started playing around with moose again after sometime, now that is one big rabbit hole to go down lol.:cry:

Its the little failures and confusing events that make this game amazing. THAT is DCS.

Last night i flew a mission from Beslan to Batumi. I rushed my startup, so my IAMs were worthless. Inclement conditions and no JTAC prevented fighting.

During the 2 hour flight to Batumi, over the mountains, i had a strange sounding alarm. Then my Positive rate indicator died and read 0. I had to work the problem. Until i realized my speed was 320 knots (in an A10). Thats excessive for stable flight at 10,000.

It was the Pitot heat switch. My Pitot had frozen over. Icing. When i turned on the Pitot Heat in 30 seconds the speed reading spiked to 400 then back down to normal speeds and my altitude shot way up. My altitude was off by 7000 feet.

Thats reality. That made the flight exciting. I play with random mechanical problems turned on. I play with birds turned to MAX. (ive heard you can get a bird strike). I bone up my startup alot. Sometimes i cant even get off the ground. I play with a vulnerable pilot (1 crash and your locked out of the profile)

That IS DCS

Its the little failures and confusing events that make this game amazing. THAT is DCS.

Nah, that's just you bungling your cold start (deliberately or not). You'd see the exact same issues in any number of flight sims, so it has nothing to do with DCS.

More to the point, while DCS nominally supports all kinds of failures, they're far from realistically handled and they are simply unavailable when flying under the most realistic circumstances. There are things that can go wrong, but the simulation of their going wrong is highly conditional and often wholly unrealistic even when those conditions apply — the game simply doesn't allow for full realism at any point, even if you wanted to and even setting aside the many things that should be able to go wrong but which aren't even there.

As much as the “realism” flag is the go-to thing to raise and wave around, both ED and the users (the latter more than the former, admittedly) it is very commonly tossed around without being warranted. Does DCS offer a nice level of realism? Sure. Is it as profound and all-encompassing and guiding as is often claimed? Not even close. It's trivial to look around on these forums and find things reported as “bugs” on the assumption that system X is absolutely modelled to perfection, when in reality, it's not a bug at all — the system simply isn't simulated.

Conversely, there's the whole “doctrine = capability” row that arises any time a new plane is added with (or without) limitations that people expect. Some things are added, and that's unrealistic according to one faction. Other things are withheld, and that's unrealistic according to another. At the end of the day, the realism argument just turns out to be almost complete bunk. The notion that realism somehow infuses or is the defining characteristic of DCS is equally bunk.

That is not a bad thing.

Nah, that's just you bungling your cold start (deliberately or not). You'd see the exact same issues in any number of flight sims, so it has nothing to do with DCS.

 

More to the point, while DCS nominally supports all kinds of failures, they're far from realistically handled and they are simply unavailable when flying under the most realistic circumstances. There are things that can go wrong, but the simulation of their going wrong is highly conditional and often wholly unrealistic even when those conditions apply — the game simply doesn't allow for full realism at any point, even if you wanted to and even setting aside the many things that should be able to go wrong but which aren't even there.

 

As much as the “realism” flag is the go-to thing to raise and wave around, both ED and the users (the latter more than the former, admittedly) it is very commonly tossed around without being warranted. Does DCS offer a nice level of realism? Sure. Is it as profound and all-encompassing and guiding as is often claimed? Not even close. It's trivial to look around on these forums and find things reported as “bugs” on the assumption that system X is absolutely modelled to perfection, when in reality, it's not a bug at all — the system simply isn't simulated.

 

Conversely, there's the whole “doctrine = capability” row that arises any time a new plane is added with (or without) limitations that people expect. Some things are added, and that's unrealistic according to one faction. Other things are withheld, and that's unrealistic according to another. At the end of the day, the realism argument just turns out to be almost complete bunk. The notion that realism somehow infuses or is the defining characteristic of DCS is equally bunk.

 

That is not a bad thing.

Please list all the commercial combat sims that are more realistic than DCS?

Please list all the commercial combat sims that are more realistic than DCS?

If you have to qualify the category that much, then you already know that it's not nearly as unique as you want to and that you're essentially trying to engage in intentional sampling bias.

We are also not allowed to discuss other sims, but suffice to say, the issues he listed can be encountered in any of the big-name flight sims on the market, as well as some of of the more in-depth niche ones.

Sorry, but if you ask the devs to scrap realism for more modules in shorter time, then DCS is just not for you.

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.

I don't mind all the full fidelity checklist monkey stuff as long as I can skip it as needed.

I build my MP missions with everything hot started. That's the way we trained in the real world.

Once you proved you could run through the start checks once, the remainder of the sim periods were hot aircraft, holding short of the runway.

For servers that force the cold start I have a VoiceAttack macro that runs the entire pre and post start procedure at the push of a button. This is again analogous to my real world experience where I would flirt with the FBO girls while the other pilot did the walk around, cranked the APU and prepped the jet for the flight.

I know I won't be flying on any random failure servers if it ever becomes a thing.

I also won't invest any time into aerial refueling. None of the maps are large enough to warrant EVER doing it and if they were, a new airplane is 3 clicks away.

I am glad ED models all that stuff because it does enhance the simulation of the combat ops to be required to know how to work the systems and have them respond in realistic ways to switchology but I have no desire to practice checklists, pre-flight procedures, taxying or emergency procedures.

What we have now is the best of both worlds. Plenty for the folks who enjoy flipping switches to do but enough flexibility to skip the stuff you wish you could skip in a real airplane.

Skipping would just remind me it's a game and kill immersion.

I'll continue to do every step modeled and hope all future planes aren't dumbed down. If I live long enough to see them finished.

If I live long enough to see them finished.

That, good Sir, is kind of the point of this thread.

I’d rather have a “dumbed down” USN F-4J in two years (or 3 or 4) as I described above, than wait ten years for the “realistic” one. If that is not in line with your interest, you can choose to pass.

If we step back a little and see the bigger picture, ED is building a more full-fidelity sim / combat sim across the board.

If you want to have these emergency's with a close call missile fragmentation? Or a few bullets here and there, then these connected systems need to be modeled to some good extent.

ED is working on new damage / ballistic modeling (Ground and Air eventually) that will account for fragmentation on an electrical system or pneumatic or bleed air system. What will this effect etc.

On a business side, this also go's hand in hand with the other business model so ED can still do all this stuff in the first place and why ED holds this niche and can still do this depth of modeling.

So, I'm unsure if ED could even pullback here at all, unless you want the damage modeling very very faked? fragmentation hit around here and at this angle, then do this and damage to this system. Instead of, fragmentation went through here and hit this bleed air line / electrical line / computer / radar and set off these faults / chain of faults.

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.

If we step back a little and see the bigger picture, ED is buildingIf a more full-fidelity sim / combat sim across the board.

 

If you want to have these emergency's with a close call missile fragmentation? Or a few bullets here and there, then these connected systems need to be modeled to some good extent.

 

ED is working on new damage / ballistic modeling (Ground and Air eventually) that will account for fragmentation on an electrical system or pneumatic or bleed air system. What will this effect etc.

 

On a business side, this also go's hand in hand with the other business model so ED can still do all this stuff in the first place and why ED holds this niche and can still do this depth of modeling.

 

So, I'm unsure if ED could even pullback here at all, unless you want the damage modeling very very faked? fragmentation hit around here and at this angle, then do this and damage to this system. Instead of, fragmentation went through here and hit this bleed air line / electrical line / computer / radar and set off these faults / chain of faults.

Personally, depending on what I am doing I can live without that level of detail with regard to damage modeling, as long as it doesn't hinder the experience of other players in multiplayer. If that can't be done then I vote for the full fidelity models.

BUT I could more than live with, and enjoy flying, a less-than full fidelity F-4, A-4, F-104, F-8, Super Etendard, F-106, (no F-102, thank you), and so on, and so on, and so on. If it is good enough for the Flaming Cliffs planes it should be good enough for these. And if there is also a market for full-fidelity versions, we can have those as well (sometime far, far into the future, though).

phew! it might turn out to be a godsent that MAC is going to be standalone!

phew! it might turn out to be a godsent that MAC is going to be standalone!

There you go.

And while you're at, go all the way for realism and get rid of:

Auto start

exporting screens

the glide slope thingy in the F-14

Trimmer mode in the helos

Auto-rudder and takeoff mode in the P-51

Not requiring INS alignment

custom liveries

And all of the Flaming Cliffs aircraft.

Other wise on it's banishment to MAC.

Heavens no.

If i wanted pretty planes, with fast dumbed down play, id buy an XBOX or one of a dozen other flight games. Or id buy the FC models.

This is Digital Combat Simulators. Not Digital Combat Sorta-Simulators.

Whether you want a game now or if you say DCS isnt really "realism" :doh:

They make a pretty damn good game, and I hope they continue to put the game craft first instead of their players wishes.

You know we have examples of what happens when media studios start messing with the formula.. or listening to their players.. or trying to make them happy instead of doing what they are good at. Lucasarts, Bioware, DC, Star Trek, EA, SEGA

No Thank You. Ill take DCS as it is.

Heavens no.

 

If i wanted pretty planes, with fast dumbed down play, id buy an XBOX or one of a dozen other flight games. Or id buy the FC models.

 

This is Digital Combat Simulators. Not Digital Combat Sorta-Simulators.

 

Whether you want a game now or if you say DCS isnt really "realism" :doh:

 

They make a pretty damn good game, and I hope they continue to put the game craft first instead of their players wishes.

 

You know we have examples of what happens when media studios start messing with the formula.. or listening to their players.. or trying to make them happy instead of doing what they are good at. Lucasarts, Bioware, DC, Star Trek, EA, SEGA

 

No Thank You. Ill take DCS as it is.

And yet, DCS as it is does include the FC models. Some people buy them and some people don't. And when people do buy them it doesn't affect you at all. So why do you care?

Also, if the only two choices were Xbox quality and DCS as-is (with the FC aircraft, remember) I choose DCS hands down. I am just not convinced that offering different levels of aircraft fidelity is a bad trade off for more aircraft types.

If you don't want the so-called "dumb down" aircraft as I described them with clickable cockpits, realistic flight models, and realistic weapons performance, then don't buy them. At the very least they would provide far more realism than the FC aircraft at zero cost to your own experience. So, again, why to you care?

If you can explain to me how that would hurt DCS, I am eager to learn. I just don't see it that it would.

That, good Sir, is kind of the point of this thread.

 

I’d rather have a “dumbed down” USN F-4J in two years (or 3 or 4) as I described above, than wait ten years for the “realistic” one. If that is not in line with your interest, you can choose to pass.

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.