Realism - wasted effort?

At this point in time I wish more attention on realism on environment rather than modules.

 

The level on modules is very high but they fly in a sterile world.

Agreed 100%

This is the most lacking part of DCS right now.

I would like more realism in the training flights, if I make a mistake the instructor just sits there and lets me fly on and on and on. I have had real flying lessons and when I made a mistake the instructor would tell me and what to do correctly.

The whole thread is about questioning why 'realism' seems so important in some areas of the game, but is completely ignored in others.

Because the core of the game is fifteen years old or so, and not all parts of it have advanced at a similar rate. Clouds, ECM, IFF, SAM behavior, AI, missile physics, radio functionality, radar simulation, dynamic campaigns, etc, are all examples of things that are dated or sub-par. These are mostly also all things that are being actively developed as we speak. People rant about how "unrealistic" some parts are, neglecting the fact that said development is taking place, because they're impatient and it's not happening on their schedule, or because they believe they're some sort of subject matter expert on coding so clearly only incompetence or greed could explain the situation, etc etc.

So, yeah, it's all pointless debate. Many of the "holes" in the system are slowly being filled (a lot has happened over just the last two years, whether people conveniently forget that or not) and much of the whining around here is just stereotypical gamer mentality.

Because the core of the game is fifteen years old or so, and not all parts of it have advanced at a similar rate. Clouds, ECM, IFF, SAM behavior, AI, missile physics, radio functionality, radar simulation, dynamic campaigns, etc, are all examples of things that are dated or sub-par. These are mostly also all things that are being actively developed as we speak. People rant about how "unrealistic" some parts are, neglecting the fact that said development is taking place, because they're impatient and it's not happening on their schedule, or because they believe they're some sort of subject matter expert on coding so clearly only incompetence or greed could explain the situation, etc etc.

 

 

So, yeah, it's all pointless debate. Many of the "holes" in the system are slowly being filled (a lot has happened over just the last two years, whether people conveniently forget that or not) and much of the whining around here is just stereotypical gamer mentality.

Probably more like stereotypical flight simmer mentality... lol.

Let's forget for a moment what we want and focus on what is probably going on.

FC3 was a good decision back then. DCS got populated, started to be a bigger pack with more purpose and options to choose from. It got improved and even got AFM/PFM for all modules eventually over the years. But with time and more and more FF modules it become more and more of a problem. It's not where ED wants to go clearly with DCS. So they make MAC and probably move all FC3 aircraft there. So no money paid prevents this really. But it's not that easy. Many fly FC3 not because of it's simplicity but because it's the only way to get into modern russian birds (or even that Eagle). Simply removing it from DCS would be a huge loss and no FF versions gonna happen in years to come. How to solve this?

Because the core of the game is fifteen years old or so, and not all parts of it have advanced at a similar rate. Clouds, ECM, IFF, SAM behavior, AI, missile physics, radio functionality, radar simulation, dynamic campaigns, etc, are all examples of things that are dated or sub-par. These are mostly also all things that are being actively developed as we speak. People rant about how "unrealistic" some parts are, neglecting the fact that said development is taking place, because they're impatient and it's not happening on their schedule, or because they believe they're some sort of subject matter expert on coding so clearly only incompetence or greed could explain the situation, etc etc.

 

 

So, yeah, it's all pointless debate. Many of the "holes" in the system are slowly being filled (a lot has happened over just the last two years, whether people conveniently forget that or not) and much of the whining around here is just stereotypical gamer mentality.

Kids :music_whistling:

Let's forget for a moment what we want and focus on what is probably going on.

 

FC3 was a good decision back then. DCS got populated, started to be a bigger pack with more purpose and options to choose from. It got improved and even got AFM/PFM for all modules eventually over the years. But with time and more and more FF modules it become more and more of a problem. It's not where ED wants to go clearly with DCS. So they make MAC and probably move all FC3 aircraft there. So no money paid prevents this really. But it's not that easy. Many fly FC3 not because of it's simplicity but because it's the only way to get into modern russian birds (or even that Eagle). Simply removing it from DCS would be a huge loss and no FF versions gonna happen in years to come. How to solve this?

At the beginning FC3 will remain on DCS, a huge discount will be offered to FC3 users in order to upgrade to MAC, maybe MAC will be both a standalone game and an FC3 module, or you will be able to choose if upgrade to standalone MAC or keep dcs FC3 module. Then, maybe after a while or with future versions, FC3 will stop its development or will be removed from dcs and simplified modules development will be exclusively on MAC.

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

Yeah, if he had some cred like being a former military pilot or even a commercial pilot I might pay attention, but frankly, I can't judge. I agree things are probably quirky and not on the money, but I'm happy somebody is actively working to make something this detailed. The energy spent on this kind of criticism would best be directed toward bug reports.

At this point in time I wish more attention on realism on environment rather than modules.

 

The level on modules is very high but they fly in a sterile world.

Personally, I don't get that feeling, but I'm new and haven't created a campaign yet. I really like the way it works so far, actually. Lots of opportunity for talented campaign editors to make some good missions and possibly some income. IMO you probably will never want to play a mission more than once or twice once you learn a plane. It's like a newspaper. Read it and throw it away. In real life, you only get to do a mission once.

Is it sterile because it seems the same all the time? Do you play the same mission again and again? Perhaps the cure is just lots of fresh, new missions.

I seriously doubt that the "dynamic campaign" so many people are craving will actually deliver what they expect. I forecast that it will also eventually seem self-same and predictable in a dynamic kind of way. The missions are where creativity of an author can come into play. Clearly there is infinite room for new twists, and we're getting new equipment all the time, so I predict things will only get better.

I would like more realism in the training flights, if I make a mistake the instructor just sits there and lets me fly on and on and on. I have had real flying lessons and when I made a mistake the instructor would tell me and what to do correctly.

Indeed, the tutorial aspect seems really lacking from what I've seen as a noob. You really, really need to want to learn the software and have all the gear. There are personalities that this DCS is perfect for, but I think the difficulty and frustration level does narrow the audience.

I could go on about this, but yeah. Could be much more inviting and helpful for learners. The positive feedback cycle should be shorter and less frustrating.

There's two reasons for a nope from me.

Firstly, the checks on these redundant items are quite a key part of DCS's level. That level is often benchmarked against the real start up checklists and real documentation which is often available. That is one of the more core parts of the sim that seems to stick and ring bells with the customers here, and I say that from reading so many threads where someone quotes a process from a doc.

Secondly, and more of a follow up question which is very difficult to answer, is, what IS the actual dev effort to create a simple BIT test that returns the same items repeatedly. If it is one of those that never changes because the damage/failure doesn't happen at least from the startup point of view?

Consider it as potentially a very simple system, for now, given the lack of damage modelling ... for now, and then pick a random wish list item and value that in man days of dev effort and then do some napkin math on it and see if what you give up truly does still meet expectation.

I just considered the wish list items I have entered over the years and I know them to be very complex affairs. I do not see a parity with sacrificing a genuine startup procedure with any one of these, in terms of real tangible gain for the masses, no matter how I spin it around. But that is my feeling on this, based on having a firm coding background both professionally and in my leisure, and over two decades of simming as a primary hobby. There maybe a list of specifics that could meet your expectations OP, it is quite probable.

I've come from the point of view that I really dislike putting effort into "throwaway disposable content" as you've intimated, and I set about making any mission I've done in the past few years as re playable and impossible for me, the creator, to know the outcome well enough. That is all within the capability of the core product, but requires a lot of effort. However, there are many many sandbox servers out there to pick from on some fine multiplayer servers that will cater for folks that can see through the linear existing campaign types for DLC purchase.

Myself, I know the effort in these is not about the actual mission but the voice and literature content that goes along side them. I still have never and will never purchase any because I produce my own for multiplayer of a completely different style and much prefer my own content and play online in a different way to the Single player market audience.

It's already out there, but it takes a lot of digging to find the right place and 'mission'.

Personally, I don't get that feeling, but I'm new and haven't created a campaign yet. I really like the way it works so far, actually. Lots of opportunity for talented campaign editors to make some good missions and possibly some income. IMO you probably will never want to play a mission more than once or twice once you learn a plane. It's like a newspaper. Read it and throw it away. In real life, you only get to do a mission once.

 

Is it sterile because it seems the same all the time? Do you play the same mission again and again? Perhaps the cure is just lots of fresh, new missions.

 

I seriously doubt that the "dynamic campaign" so many people are craving will actually deliver what they expect. I forecast that it will also eventually seem self-same and predictable in a dynamic kind of way. The missions are where creativity of an author can come into play. Clearly there is infinite room for new twists, and we're getting new equipment all the time, so I predict things will only get better.

Because the core of the game is fifteen years old or so, and not all parts of it have advanced at a similar rate. Clouds, ECM, IFF, SAM behavior, AI, missile physics, radio functionality, radar simulation, dynamic campaigns, etc, are all examples of things that are dated or sub-par. These are mostly also all things that are being actively developed as we speak. People rant about how "unrealistic" some parts are, neglecting the fact that said development is taking place, because they're impatient and it's not happening on their schedule, or because they believe they're some sort of subject matter expert on coding so clearly only incompetence or greed could explain the situation, etc etc.

So maybe ED should prioritise these items over the fluff, since it is the WX, ECM, IFF, IR (hilariously bad ATC comms, invisible ground crew, poor lighting) etc. You know, the sort of things which dictates tactics and mission success, never mind 'immersion'? I am aware it is 15 years old. I still have a LOMAC CD in the loft somewhere at home. That much is painfully obvious to anyone playing today. In some areas the game is still recognisably the same. ED have made some great advances in those 15 years, but stood completely still in some areas. Yes we need to be patient but how long is too long? Is 15 years not enough to get some decent improvements in these elements?

This thread clearly demonstrates that there are many who agree with me.

You keep talking about other simulators - name one which is a direct competitor to DCS and I'd happily buy it? But there isn't. DCS is clearly a monopoly and that is not healthy for either ED or their customers. At the moment the choice is their way or not at all.

I'm of two minds on this question. First of all - I think Lace asks a very valid question in his OP. Certainly worthy of discussion.

On the one hand - so far, the level of detail found in DCS is what has drawn me in and kept me addicted to flying DCS aircraft. Especially as I think back to a previous life and I see a system or something that works just like the real thing. It gives me a chuckle factor but it also adds to the immersion factor. I personally would NOT want to water down DCS or where the dev team is going or trying to achieve.

OTOH - there is something to be said for prioritization. For instance, the A-10C module is incredibly mature in terms of systems - but the cockpit is practically unusable in VR, which is the only way I fly DCS. So some earlier work on getting that "VR-able" would have been nice. As a result, I've given up on the A-10C until the new cockpit is out. In the Hornet, there seems to be a few very basic things that are not implemented correctly or at all - such as the various fuzing options for the weapons. For example, for a MK-82 AIR (MK-82YT) - to use the Free Fall (Low Drag) option - you would select Nose fuze only. But if you wanted the High drag option, you would select either N/T (both) or tail only. I believe in DCS, you still can only use the nose fuze. Maybe there is something unique about the Hornet that I'm not aware of as I've never actually flown it. But in most USAF fighters, that's how the fuzing mech works. So its little things like that that are annoyingly wrong.

I personally have no issues with BITs that always pass - I WISH that had been the case IRL. There's nothing more frustrating that to have to call a MX Redball when you're already running late for takeoff. And then to have to step to a spare and start all over again. I have nothing against going through the motions with the checklists in DCS. Its fun to run them knowing the sim works just like (or very closely) to the real thing. If/when I get bored - I will just skip them. But my OCD nature when it comes to real aviation probably wouldn't let me. Haha. It would be a very bad habit to pick up.

So I think the Reader's Digest version is: YES, we want as close to 100% realism as possible - even down to the minutest detail. And YES we want the most important stuff prioritized that relates to actual employment of the system as well as max enjoyment of the sim.

Discussion about this system, or that system. Some are real, some are useless, some are partially implemented etc.

The irony being that all the nuances that make DCS - DCS, exist at all to be debated about as a flight simulator, are what make this title so engaging.

I have other flight sims, notable ones, I come back to this one, useless test screens and all, for a reason. Remove those "place holders", then DCS might as well become just another flight title, among many, with no defining claim or uniqueness. Since surely, this entire thread, is about the things that are what make DCS unique - love them or hate them.

The only way development will speed up is by having a growing market. By continuing to be a small and niche market, development of full-fidelity modules will take time.

I like the complex full fidelity sim, if I wanted a aircraft arcade game I'd played Ace Combat

This thread is amazing.

Trying to say that the OP should just go play FC is pretty dumb. He obviously was talking about a level of development far beyond FC, but just leaving out some details that a super small percentage of users get any benefit from.

Don't get me wrong... I don't agree. I think they should be modeled at the level they are.

But seriously... No reason to be extreme and call what he's talking about an "arcade game". I mean seriously. If you took out BIT tests background programming and made them just go thorugh and pass visually and they could never fail... 99.9% of people playing the game wouldn't notice. Even the ones saying (me included) that they SHOULD be modeled. I mean seriously... Go grab 1000 SP missions and then count how many have random BIT test failures enabled...

So get off your high horses and think like adults for a minute :)... and be kind to people even if you disagree with them :).

But seriously... No reason to be extreme and call what he's talking about an "arcade game".

Quite. The moment you see those two words being brought up, you know the argument is inherently, fundamentally feeble and at best nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction, most commonly to not actually having read the proposal in question.

There's a reason why that kind of rhetoric is classified as an informal fallacy, after all… :D

Taking away the tests is not the answer for a lot of us. The answer is to put in some failures. Especially, if it's a pilot error but some random failures would be good too.

I agree. And I think the failures should be always on. And the likely-hood of failure should be as realistic as possible. So basically they should almost never happen.

But... Because they almost never happen I can completely understand the OP's point that it might be "inefficient" use of development time. But it's all good... ultimately it probably doesn't really delay the process that much. I'd bet that there's a .LUA for each plane that defines the failure modes and probably doesn't take too entirely long to make. Researching the possibilities though... That probably takes a while.

Also... I'm COMPLETELY in agreement that I'd rather have dev time applied to things like in-game VOIP, better weather, realistic ATC, ground crews... You know... All of those things that ALL OF US will get use of... EVERY time.

It's just amazing how some people see things is all. I'm not talking about people that disagree either... As I agree with the people who would rather have the failures :)... but holy COW... The world view and approach to adult discourse...

TLDR; Would you rather have fewer full-fidelity modules, or more modules at a slightly lower level of non-essential detail?

Fewer, full-fidelity, modules.

I'm perfectly happy if ED releases no new content for the next 2 years while they flesh out the current modules and core DCS engine/AI assets.:thumbup:

Fewer, full-fidelity, modules.

I'm perfectly happy if ED releases no new content for the next 2 years while they flesh out the current modules and core DCS engine/AI assets.:thumbup:

+1:thumbup:

Unfortunately, mi-24 Is already in the pipeline...

Taking away the tests is not the answer for a lot of us. The answer is to put in some failures. Especially, if it's a pilot error but some random failures would be good too.

well right now any mission maker CAN introduce random failures, even pinpoint specific systems. So yes, You could have failures.

The good thing of DCS is that you can go as real as it gets, yes including scraping a mission.

Yeah a lot people in this thread have been arguing a strawman, nothing that the OP said. Myself I love all the small tiny systems, and most of what I have tested actually works / has a purpose. Now if you ask about dev. priority, I can agree this stuff can come last. But I think most of these small systems are really not that difficult to code and take up probably a minimal amount of devtime compared to all the other things we are looking for.

People have noted the truly dull failure system in DCS, and I think the answer is not less feature but more. Expand on the failure system(s), make them fun! Make or give server admin/modders tools to create persistent airframes over sessions. I realize there is a real challenge in there, especially since every other DCS airframe is a total loss. :3 But I see a lot of potential here.

Generally there also should be better ways of starting/identifying specific and random failures, there should be different categories (if even only for gameplay sake). Like 'fatal', 'irreversible/permanent', 'fixable' etc. alone for training sake could be cool. Also there could very well be a setting that announces on trigger & walks you through, if a failure(or even damage) hits you. That way there could be 1) a helpful system for players in distress 2) a guide/tool for new player to learn how to deal with emergency procedures.

Have to agree with OP, there is alot of wasted effort in these things, the most of which you will not see or need. If they are intent on introducing realism, then failures need to be implemented to the same detail or else its just a waste of time. This kind of swings back around to the scripted feel of DCS, as if anything does happen whether in the ground or air, you can just reload the mission and there are no consequences.