Realism versus fun - Page 10 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2020, 07:28 PM   #91
MacEwan
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 334
Default

I mean, this whole thing is pretty simple.

1. Everything should be modeled as realistically as possible
2. Restrictions should be left to the mission designers
MacEwan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2020, 02:41 PM   #92
Banzaiib
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 728
Default

"Realism AND fun"


there... i fixed that for you.
Banzaiib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2020, 04:39 AM   #93
statrekmike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Providence RI
Posts: 591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokoyami View Post
TL;DR - none of us (myself included) are qualified to actually fly any of the modules we fly in game. No amount of coding (that can actually be accomplished for $79) is going to make any of us a “real” pilot. We should stop demanding these excellent developers overcome (through coding) whatever mental baggage we’re carrying on the topic. No, seriously. Read on -

My answer will be a highly unpopular one: this question (unfortunately) has a lot more to do with why people answer the way they do, versus anything to with the underlying game, or module. There is a certain subset of users who spend far more time gaming these forums than they do in game. They are very vocal and it’s obvious they (wrongly) think their very loud voice on these forums is a direct line to the developers, who they think are hinging on their every word. If ED takes these forum warriors at face value it’s bad for everyone involved, especially ED. Forum warriors only represent a tiny fraction of the user base and what motivates them and their comments are often completely toxic to the overall game and community. Again, the loudest here are representative of only a tiny subset of those playing. Most of ED’s players are busy playing - most in single player. I have some experience in the real world with helicopters. Hundreds of hours flown as a CE on Blackhawk helicopters in the mid to late nineties. Lots and lots of experience with check lists and bold faced items. Truthfully, as a CE there aren’t any bold faced items for YOU in the Blackhawk but, I assure you I’ve been there and done that and in real life bold faced items aren’t fun. Exciting, yes. But exciting like excited before a root canal, not “fun”.

That brings me to my last point - fun. Circuit breakers are real life, and they ain’t any fun. Been there, done that, have multiple T-shirts. It’s not fun and has exactly zero to do with the actual fun part - doing the mission. In other forums people are asking for insanely complicated coding so that a sub system appears to pass a BIT check, or worse yet - fail one!? Where’s the fun in that? I can tell you, for a fact, in real life a BIT failure as a 12 ship cranks IS NOT any fun. Again, been there, done that, no fun. It sucks. Those advocating for that level of detail will ruin the game for 95% of the player base by focusing on esoteric minutia that only people trying to fill a internal void advocate for.

The key is this: model things in a convincing way, not (always) the literal way it is in the aircraft. 99,9% of the user base won’t know the difference and the .01% that does shouldn’t be listened to (as far as coding decisions are made) at all. That .01% isn’t playing the game, they are playing the forums as their version of the game. The rest of us are playing the game. Developers should spend their time coding the game in a convincing and deep way, but only if that’s in service of fun. Modeling things like circuit breaker pulling as part of troubleshooting a failure? Total waste of time. 99% will never use what you coded and the 1% who do will bitch endlessly here about how incomplete the system is, no matter how far down the rabbit hole the developer goes.

Disclaimer: No, I don’t think everyone but me is like what I describe. We are all guilty to a certain extent. If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. This is just a simple observation from a guy who’s been playing sims for a long, long, long time and has noticed certain trends on simulation forums. What I describe isn’t a “problem”. Just something to consider as everyone noodles through the various opinions. I’m honestly and truly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. This is just my opinion and it’s equally (my wife would say more) worthless as anyone else’s.

ETA - thinking some more about this - I think those that find faults and failures entertaining don’t realize how failure prone these aircraft are. How many hours are spent fixing and maintaining and yet mission scrubs still occur with more frequency than most realize. In game, shit works 100% of the time unless I ask for failures. I can even specify what, when and how often. Real life isn’t like that. Real life is a 0100 final brief, followed by nod (NVGs) draw, weapons draw, ammo draw, com sec data fill cart, humping all that shit across an improvised flight line + all your hooo-ahh flight gear (yes, it is sexy and yes, chicks DO dig it), preflight, comm fill, weapons mount and troubleshoot, squaring away whatever we’re taking with us, 0300 APU crank, 0310 flight commo check, 0315 group commo check, 0320 battle net commo check, 0345 engine crank and the goddamn #2 fails it’s HIT and you watch everyone else hover taxi out to formation and then on with the mission. Next up? Download the weapons, the Ammo, the fly away gear, the tools we take with us, the nods, the comm fill(s) - hump all that shit back across the flight line, sign it all back in, make sure you didn’t lose or forget something (trust me, you did) and then go wake up the engine shop for a nice, long, blistering hot day of sexy engine troubleshooting. No. Hell no. No. Not any more. No. Never again. No. (Lol).

I can see where you are personally coming from but you should also be willing to consider that there are indeed players who do enjoy the option for system failures (perhaps as a way to add tension during a mission or to make a trip back to base more interesting). Having systems that are simulated finely enough to support full bit tests are systems that are simulated enough for interesting failures. That is the big reason why many of us want those circuit breakers and bit tests that you don't personally care about, we want those systems to be there so we can interact with them on either a gameplay level or a mission design level. You don't have to ever interact with them if you don't want to but don't be so quick to dismiss those that do.
statrekmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2020, 04:20 PM   #94
Tokoyami
Junior Member
 
Tokoyami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 39
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by statrekmike View Post
I can see where you are personally coming from but you should also be willing to consider that there are indeed players who do enjoy the option for system failures (perhaps as a way to add tension during a mission or to make a trip back to base more interesting). Having systems that are simulated finely enough to support full bit tests are systems that are simulated enough for interesting failures. That is the big reason why many of us want those circuit breakers and bit tests that you don't personally care about, we want those systems to be there so we can interact with them on either a gameplay level or a mission design level. You don't have to ever interact with them if you don't want to but don't be so quick to dismiss those that do.
Yess sir, points well taken.

My comments were with the entire player base in mind, not the tiny fraction of the player base that interacts on forums - of which I am just as guilty as anyone else here. I am not blameless or without sin. My overall point was to expose what I believe are toxic influences that get far more credence than they should, and why, here on the forums. I don’t dismiss or minimize the why a customer wants a certain feature, but rather how large of an audience the super mil-sim crowd actually is. It’s tiny. Most flight simmers want convincing and real feeling, without the reality of.....well.....real life. In real life we struggle with things like OR rates - struggling to keep enough airframes viable for their intended missions. Not just airworthy - almost all are - but mission capable. A lot of airframes are flying around out there for training with various equipment in op and go through the motions “notionally”. Basically, I think what drives a lot of the people DEMANDING really deep system modeling isn’t for fun, isn’t what people are actually clamoring for And doesn’t serve the overall game for the vast majority of players. When companies cater to this tiny subset of forum users the user base dries up, the game languishes and ultimately software publishers steer clear of the space as impossible to please and very, very niche.

Want to hear absolute hearsay in these parts? Falcon 4.0 is what killed the mass appeal of flight sims. As the bar for realism was raised higher and higher, more and more players began to leave the space. The game went from being an accessible, very deep game to a niche, boutique product with a rather vocal and nasty fan base. THAT’s what killed the flight sim market space. In the 1990’s there were things like computer stores than had actual game sections. Flight sims were VERY popular. The fans have never gone away. The industry decided it was a niche market (again, driven by very loud, very vocal online voices) with intensely high expectations, requires capital to be spent (HOTAS, etc) and frankly, there are a lot,of other markets to spend time in - that actually make money.

We’ve done it to ourselves. There’s only one ED because that’s all the market will bear - we’re that small of a sub fraction of a fraction. The endless drive for deeper and more complex systems is what killed the flight sim industry. I’m not saying we shouldn’t ask for deep and convincing systems; we should. I am saying there’s deep, and then there’s absurd.

ETA - proof? JF-17. It’s complicated, but easily the most user friendly presentation of the battlefield. The onboard systems make threat detections and most importantly situational awareness EASY. That’s why players love the aircraft. Any modern aircraft will sell in droves for these reasons. The airframe sells the boxes, what it’s like to “fly” is what keeps customers. Deep and rewarding is where it’s at. Not rivet counts on tail sections that people notice isn’t like the real thing. Hope that makes sense. Only a very small subsection of players cares about things like accurately modeled failure procedures and spending time coding for the 2% is at the detriment to the other 98% who want a deep, rich and most importantly FUN experience. I’m not trying to insult those who like to take it to the next level. We can disagree and still be wingmen.

Last edited by Tokoyami; 08-05-2020 at 01:22 AM.
Tokoyami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 08:00 AM   #95
statrekmike
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Providence RI
Posts: 591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokoyami View Post
Yess sir, points well taken.

My comments were with the entire player base in mind, not the tiny fraction of the player base that interacts on forums - of which I am just as guilty as anyone else here. I am not blameless or without sin. My overall point was to expose what I believe are toxic influences that get far more credence than they should, and why, here on the forums. I don’t dismiss or minimize the why a customer wants a certain feature, but rather how large of an audience the super mil-sim crowd actually is. It’s tiny. Most flight simmers want convincing and real feeling, without the reality of.....well.....real life. In real life we struggle with things like OR rates - struggling to keep enough airframes viable for their intended missions. Not just airworthy - almost all are - but mission capable. A lot of airframes are flying around out there for training with various equipment in op and go through the motions “notionally”. Basically, I think what drives a lot of the people DEMANDING really deep system modeling isn’t for fun, isn’t what people are actually clamoring for And doesn’t serve the overall game for the vast majority of players. When companies cater to this tiny subset of forum users the user base dries up, the game languishes and ultimately software publishers steer clear of the space as impossible to please and very, very niche.

Want to hear absolute hearsay in these parts? Falcon 4.0 is what killed the mass appeal of flight sims. As the bar for realism was raised higher and higher, more and more players began to leave the space. The game went from being an accessible, very deep game to a niche, boutique product with a rather vocal and nasty fan base. THAT’s what killed the flight sim market space. In the 1990’s there were things like computer stores than had actual game sections. Flight sims were VERY popular. The fans have never gone away. The industry decided it was a niche market (again, driven by very loud, very vocal online voices) with intensely high expectations, requires capital to be spent (HOTAS, etc) and frankly, there are a lot,of other markets to spend time in - that actually make money.

We’ve done it to ourselves. There’s only one ED because that’s all the market will bear - we’re that small of a sub fraction of a fraction. The endless drive for deeper and more complex systems is what killed the flight sim industry. I’m not saying we should ask for deep and convincing systems. We should. I’m not saying we should understand reality and stop our demands where the fun stops. Barring that, I’m sorry, those who are really interested in circuit breaker pulling are a very vocal and very small subset of this who might want to pay for the game.

ETA - proof? JF-17. It’s complicated, but easily the most user friendly presentation of the battlefield. The onboard systems make threat detections and most importantly situational awareness EASY. That’s why players love the aircraft. Any modern aircraft will sell in droves for these reasons. The airframe sells the boxes, what it’s like to “fly” is what keeps customers. Deep and rewarding is where it’s at. Not rivet counts on tail sections that people notice isn’t like the real thing. Hope that makes sense. Only a very small subsection of players cares about things like accurately modeled failure procedures and spending time coding for the 2% is at the detriment to the other 98% who want deep,,rich and most important FUN experience.

I don't really think it is a "either/or" scenario. Additionally. I don't think either of us have any true, substantiated insight into what the rather silent majority of DCS players wants out of the sim. We can only really speak for ourselves and perhaps the trends we see in the very vocal minority that exists on the forums and in the somewhat larger subset of DCS players that engage with the community online in other areas.

Here is the thing about my general preference towards "rivet counter" levels of detail (like circuit breakers). I like having it as a option. Obviously not everyone will (like yourself) but at the same time, you also are often not required to even interact with those deeper levels of simulation. Sometimes they are simply not essential unless the mission maker specifically requires it. Sometimes you even have options you can change that remove those deeper levels as a significant factor. Heck, in pretty much every module we have now, your average player probably only learns and interacts with thirty-five to forty percent of the system functionality and is perfectly happy with just that. The extra functionality is still there. They just understand that they don't have to interact with it.

So with all that said. When you are quite likely never required to even interact with those circuit breakers and other "rivet counter" features. Why decry their presence for others that do go that deep? DCS may be complex but it seldom puts a lot of pressure on players to engage with EVERYTHING on offer system-wise.

Finally. I hate to break it to you but even if DCS modules were to suddenly get rid of all the more complex system interactions, the sim would still not have much mass market appeal. Flight sims were big back in the day because the PC gaming market was smaller and generally older. The gaming audience is much younger on average now and several orders of magnitude larger. Obviously genres that target older, more financially stable gamers will fall by the wayside in the mass market. DCS being complex isn't what keeps it from being a mass market game, DCS being a combat flight sim in general is. The addition or subtraction of some of the more in-depth system interactions won't change that.

To piggy back on your claim about Falcon 4 being the death knell of flight sims. Did you consider the larger context? By the time Falcon 4 came out, the flight sim genre was already on life support. The PC gaming audience was getting larger and younger. Suddenly shooters and multiplayer focused games like MMO's and the like became a lot more lucrative to publishers. Even less realistic survey sims like some of the Jane's stuff was probably not seen as worthwhile compared to more lucrative, safer bets like multiplayer shooters and MMO's.

It wasn't that the flight sim audience left because the genre got too complex. It was that bigger audiences with different, simpler demands became the focus of publishers.
statrekmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 03:15 PM   #96
Sierra99
Beta Tester
 
Sierra99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 2,335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanne118 View Post
My point was more that sometimes realism should take a backseat, as sheer realism can be detrimental to being interesting / engaging / fun. As such developers could sway from realism somewhat to get a more interesting and engaging (fun) module experience.
No. Realism should NOT take a backseat. This is a simulator...not a game. If I want to fly fighters with lots of unrealistic Bombs and Missiles and gadgets there are numerous games available out there to meet this requirement. There is a reason I dont fly those games.

The other players.

If the realism of this game is offputting to some...so be it. In many cases they are the same people who will run into you flying formation you didnt ask for and laugh when they crash...meanwhile they have weasted the time you had to sit down and fly before going to work.

No thanks. DCS needs to be kept as realistic as possible.
__________________

Primary Computer
ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

-={TAC}=-DCS Server
Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.
Sierra99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2020, 04:00 PM   #97
QuiGon
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 14,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierra99 View Post
No. Realism should NOT take a backseat. This is a simulator...not a game. If I want to fly fighters with lots of unrealistic Bombs and Missiles and gadgets there are numerous games available out there to meet this requirement. There is a reason I dont fly those games.

The other players.

If the realism of this game is offputting to some...so be it. In many cases they are the same people who will run into you flying formation you didnt ask for and laugh when they crash...meanwhile they have weasted the time you had to sit down and fly before going to work.

No thanks. DCS needs to be kept as realistic as possible.
Amen to that
__________________
Intel i7-4790K @ 4x4GHz + 16 GB DDR3 + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

QuiGon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2020, 07:06 PM   #98
Gierasimov
Senior Member
 
Gierasimov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DCS World
Posts: 1,540
Thumbs up This 100%

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierra99 View Post
(....)

DCS needs to be kept as realistic as possible.
Exactly the words I wanted to post.
Fortunately, ED thinks alike.
Gierasimov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 08:55 AM   #99
shagrat
ED Translator
 
shagrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 11,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by statrekmike View Post
I don't really think it is a "either/or" scenario. Additionally. I don't think either of us have any true, substantiated insight into what the rather silent majority of DCS players wants out of the sim. We can only really speak for ourselves and perhaps the trends we see in the very vocal minority that exists on the forums and in the somewhat larger subset of DCS players that engage with the community online in other areas.



Here is the thing about my general preference towards "rivet counter" levels of detail (like circuit breakers). I like having it as a option. Obviously not everyone will (like yourself) but at the same time, you also are often not required to even interact with those deeper levels of simulation. Sometimes they are simply not essential unless the mission maker specifically requires it. Sometimes you even have options you can change that remove those deeper levels as a significant factor. Heck, in pretty much every module we have now, your average player probably only learns and interacts with thirty-five to forty percent of the system functionality and is perfectly happy with just that. The extra functionality is still there. They just understand that they don't have to interact with it.



So with all that said. When you are quite likely never required to even interact with those circuit breakers and other "rivet counter" features. Why decry their presence for others that do go that deep? DCS may be complex but it seldom puts a lot of pressure on players to engage with EVERYTHING on offer system-wise.



Finally. I hate to break it to you but even if DCS modules were to suddenly get rid of all the more complex system interactions, the sim would still not have much mass market appeal. Flight sims were big back in the day because the PC gaming market was smaller and generally older. The gaming audience is much younger on average now and several orders of magnitude larger. Obviously genres that target older, more financially stable gamers will fall by the wayside in the mass market. DCS being complex isn't what keeps it from being a mass market game, DCS being a combat flight sim in general is. The addition or subtraction of some of the more in-depth system interactions won't change that.



To piggy back on your claim about Falcon 4 being the death knell of flight sims. Did you consider the larger context? By the time Falcon 4 came out, the flight sim genre was already on life support. The PC gaming audience was getting larger and younger. Suddenly shooters and multiplayer focused games like MMO's and the like became a lot more lucrative to publishers. Even less realistic survey sims like some of the Jane's stuff was probably not seen as worthwhile compared to more lucrative, safer bets like multiplayer shooters and MMO's.



It wasn't that the flight sim audience left because the genre got too complex. It was that bigger audiences with different, simpler demands became the focus of publishers.
Let's put it that way. We need the option (!) to have it as detailed and realistic as possible, while at the same time enable newcomers to just enjoy the sim and enable them to go the way step by step.
The question is, what should be the focus of the developer?
For me it is Flight Model, systems and functionality first and "rivet number accuracy" and "each and every circuit breaker" second. When the first part is done and ready, you can fix the details... though especially with systems, BIT and circuit breakers it's a more integrated part with lots of interdependencies.
__________________
Shagrat

- Flying Sims since 1984 -
Win 10 | i5 7600K@4.0GHz | 32GB | GeForce GTX 1080 8GB - Acer XB280HK 28" 4k | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | TM HOTAS Warthog custom extension | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | TM Cougar MFDs |a hand made UFC | AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)
shagrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2020, 04:33 PM   #100
Mr. Big.”Biggs”
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gierasimov View Post
Exactly the words I wanted to post.
Fortunately, ED thinks alike.
I would agree. That said ED, please remove all keyboard and mouse binds as these baby’s don’t fly by no keyboard jockeys. Also, please disable the feature that allows you to look out through a tv instead of a cockpit window.
Finally, program it to only work with a real hotas setup (readily available from government sources) not the pretend toys like the Warthog.
Oh and since I’m a real pilot please get rid of my job and pay my rent as I can’t park an F-14 in my den and my office is 20 miles away from the nearest runway. I only have 20 min to arrive, preplan, inspect,file a flight plan, fly to the caucuses and back. Gotta be realistic don’t ya know....
You guys don’t want realism, you want to keep it difficult so you can continue to convince yourself that your more than a gamer and somehow better than everyone else.
Sad
__________________
I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.
Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Last edited by Mr. Big.”Biggs”; 08-03-2020 at 04:37 PM.
Mr. Big.”Biggs” is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:36 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.