Making DCS more accessible to new players.

Im putting this in a separate thread rather than continuing in the AAR thread, as its a different topic, and one I think is more important. How do you make DCS more noob friendly.

Im seeing this through my own lens as a noob who got started in the F14 (and crucified for being a noob with the wrong attitude and not reading the right manual). Indeed, the F14 may not be the ideal first module, if a C101 or F5E had been available to me, I might have started there, but given the current business model, you can not expect a noob who doesnt even know he will like DCS, to buy several modules just to make his learning experience easier, especially when what he really wants to learn is fly the F14 (or whatever their favorite plane that draws them in). Comparing my own onboarding experience with my brother, who was lucky enough to have me on teamspeak, I see a ton of room for improving new user experience.

The information is (mostly) out there, but "RTFM" is not a good answer to every question especially when the information is spread between various lengthy manuals, training missions, youtube video's, hidden in key binding menus or even requires other sources. When you are new to DCS, and you start with zero knowledge, this is simply overwhelming. The challenge is not reducing the amount of information required, Im not arguing to make the sim simpler. Game mode is an even worse answer than RTFM. The real challenge and opportunity is getting bite sized information to the noob, step by step, the information that he needs, when he needs it.

Let me clarify one thing first; I dont believe DCS should teach us how to fly. If one day it can, fantastic, but realistically, people drawn to DCS will have other RL or sim experience and enough stick skills to cope with DCS flight models. They may botch landings and struggle to maintain formation, AAR may be a distant dream, but at least they will have the basic skills needed to learn to fly DCS planes by doing it, and without needing simplifications to the flightmodel or needing any instruction on what flaps are for, how to make coordinated turns or avoiding stalls. People who need those things, should probably start with another sim, and DCS should at least provide a more suitable training plane. Game mode is not the answer. I dont believe its the difficulty of flying that is stopping people from playing DCS, its (almost) everything else.

The scope of DCS is so wide, that its not realistic to cover everything there is to cover in easy manageable chunks by a personal trainer, and at some point I think its completely fine to say, if you want to learn the details of how to operate this radar and its 27 different modes, then read this book, or watch this 2 hour tutorial. But I do think its crucial this doesnt happen before a noob accomplished anything, he needs his hand held long enough to make him feel its doable and worthwhile and for long enough to get some enjoyment and satisfaction and even sense of accomplishment. I want to bet a majority of people who tried DCS gave up long before they reached that point. I know I did several times before I finally persisted and learned the F14 and I know for fact my brother would have uninstalled DCS if it hadnt been for my help.

Now you will tell me modules already have training missions that help a noob with each step. Thats usually true. However these missions have two major flaws: they do not provide some generic information that every DCS player eventually learns, but a noob does not yet know and at least for the F14 they tend to go in to far, far greater detail than is appropriate for someone who downloaded DCS 10 minutes ago. If you just bought the tomcat, are you eager to learn the steps required to get in the air, or do you really want to first memorize how to test the fire extinguisher and what the correct reading is for the emergency hydraulic pressure? Maybe the latter is appropriate IRL. But this is a game, and you need to keep players engaged even as they learn. And even IRL when I took students up in a glider, I got them in the air holding the stick ASAP long before I bored them to death with preflight check procedures, airspace regulations, cross country theory or aerodynamics. They will need to learn all that and a lot more at some point, RL doesnt have a "game mode", but you do need to get them excited first and give them a sense of accomplishment. You need to make sure they feel its worth the effort, as its hobby after all (or in this case, a game), not a job and it shouldnt feel as one.

To make this more concrete, what I wish was in DCS when I got started; a virtual instructor, with voice over, that would act like a buddy talking you through it for the first time. Pretty much exactly what I did myself to my brother. What took me weeks or months to figure out, he got from me in minutes or hours. So what would I have wanted from this buddy?

Cold start; yes of course you can select hot start or even airstart, but skipping the entire startup procedure is a monumental loss of immersion. Even a newbie wants to see his jet come alive and maintain the illusion of realism. He wants to get at least an idea of what some of the buttons and systems do before being catapulted in the sky. So this buddy would teach me the bare minimum steps of a cold start procedure, and skip or automatically do for me the more complicated or less crucial steps. Or better yet, ask me if I want to learn that part now, or later. In the F14 this is already somewhat mitigated by jester doing many of the hard things like INS alignment, but even for the pilot the startup procedure could be divided in a few sections, preflight checks, starting engines, turning on and configuring flight and weapon and comms systems, fuel and armament, and for each step I could chose to learn it or skip it/automatically do it, like windows+home does. Something btw, I didnt learn about until 6 months later; but I would prefer windows+home would be more like a checklist/guided startup rather than an automatic one and if its automatic, ideally this would apply to only sections of the procedure.

A newbie shouldnt have to wait for INS alignment. INS should be pre-aligned or he should be able to skip it. He is going to crash often and may want to train his start procedure every flight, but also forcing him to waste several minutes looking at an indicator moving slowly to the right, even when he just crashed on take off, is a bridge too far. If you are going to say "time acceleration", fine, offline that is a solution, but then tell him (how) he can do that. AFAIK, no training mission does. Tell him while he is waiting for alignment.

This "buddy" would also explain to me the comms menu and the logic behind it. That stuff is obvious to all of you, but it isnt to a newbie and I did more than once close my canopy before contacting ground crew, as no one told me not to. Also how it integrates with the onboard radios for comms with atc/tankers/awacs. Easy comms hides most of that complexity, and hiding that may be appropriate early on, Im not sure, but it still needs to be explained or like me, months later you suddenly find yourself unable to contact awacs or ATC and you are clueless why. Even today I dont understand why some items in comms menu are sometimes black and what, if anything, that means. Here is a simple suggestion, add the frequencies to the comms menu and use colors to indicate if you are broadcasting on that frequency, regardless if it is because you tuned your radio to that frequency or because its done automatically for you when select that awacs or atc..

Buddy would have told me there is a kneeboard and how to use it (and he would have added a cheat sheet startup checklist/procedure to it). You dont want to know how long it took me to discover ...

Buddy would explain how to use the F10 map and ATC and how to taxi and navigate the airfield, or in the case of a carrier, how/where to line up and how to hook up. Simple stuff, but its not in any training AFAIK (not talking SC here), I dont even find it explained in the manual. Its also not obvious that connecting ground air supply can only be done via a communication menu and connecting a launch bar can only be done with a keybind. (edit: there is a carrier take off training mission. Either thats relatively new or I somehow missed it when I was doing my training, but looks like this one is solved)

From there on on, at least for the F14, I think the other training missions are fine. Maybe if I go over them again I wil find stuff to critique, but by and large those where helpful and I had no problems with them and they taught me what I wanted to learn. It would be nice if they where more integrated though, so after having taken off in a training mission, my buddy would ask me, do you want to just fly around to get acquainted with the jet, or if I would you like to learn to navigate, or land, or do AA or AG.. and skip to the appropriate training, that would be great for immersion, but hardly essential.

Then some other things that only come in to play later, but that I wish someone had told me earlier or that I wouldnt have learned without youtube; setting up the radio's (and tacan and datalink) in combination with the mission briefing or kneeboard or in some cases F10 map, and even the integration with SRS (really hope that gets integrated in to DCS). But also using the radio. And with that I mean, the lingo. BRA, bandit/bogey, magic, nails, (buddy)spike, mudspike , bogey dope and dozens of other terms you may not even remember not knowing what they meant, but ask any xplane pilot. Or my brother.

Situational awareness. Yeah, I know, thats a tough one and no single lesson is going to teach you this, but even though I was lucky enough to have jester do the radar and talk or yell to me, I could have used a little more hand holding understanding datalink both conceptually and in practice. Same for interpreting the RWR. Many may not even know what an RWR is, let alone figure out if that "15" is a mig 15, F-15 or Sa-15? I just checked, even the manual doesnt really explain this and its kind of important.

I would have liked to see some introduction in to various weapons. For my own weapons at least I could consult the manual, but some extra info in game in the armament menu would be helpful (especially for something like the Su25!) and I would also have liked some information on opposing weapons Im likely to encounter. To be explained why some planes will spike me and others may not, why for some missiles you get a missile launch warning and others you dont. I would have liked an introduction in to most common sams, their RWR representation and a basic notion of how lethal they are at what range/altitude, if they are IR or radar guided and what I can do to avoid or counter them. The encyclopedia is pretty useless for this. Unless you revert to youtube, the only realistic way to learn is getting shot down a few 100 times and finding a pattern.

Anyway, thats all for now. Im sure others will have their own ideas.

Cold start; yes of course you can select hot start or even airstart, but skipping the entire startup procedure is a monumental loss of immersion.

I know what you mean. I think you could ask in F-14B subforum for a Quick Cold Start Training mission without bit checks, however, asking for a F-14 cold start training not including INS allignment (at least the fast one on the carrier using SHA) is a no-no.

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#stored-heading-alignment

I mean you can go full AB and take off from taxiway or even carrier (because it's possible IRL) but no training mission should be teaching you that.

Many may not even know what an RWR is, let alone figure out if that "15" is a mig 15, F-15 or Sa-15? I just checked, even the manual doesnt really explain this and its kind of important.

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/cockpit.html#ecm-warning-lights

Luckily Mig-15 does not have a radar :)

In newer RWR's there are additional symbols telling what kind of threat it is.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e80/Slysiqs%20Western%20RWR.png

I know what you mean. I think you could ask in F-14B subforum for a Quick Cold Start Training mission without bit checks, however, asking for a F-14 cold start training not including INS allignment (at least the fast one on the carrier using SHA) is a no-no.

Because people forgot what its like being a noob. Its one thing you do not want this if you prepare for a 2 hour mission. Its quite another to demand a noob wait just as long while preparing for what may well be a 1 minute mission. Its not teaching him anything, its just punishing him. Trust me, noobs need encouragement far more than they need even more punishment.

http://www.heatblur.se/F-14Manual/general.html#stored-heading-alignment

Im aware. But I still feel noobs early in their career should be able to bypass this in missions that dont have it enabled (and as I recall, most built-in missions dont). And even when its enabled IMO it still takes unnecessarily long. All it does is ensure he will learn slower or wants to skip straight to hot start which makes it more realistic, how? Its almost like imposing a 15 minute wait to simulate putting on your flight gear and strapping in or 2 day break after ejecting to simulate your hospital visit. Feel free to do that yourself, but dont chase new players away by also imposing it on them because its more realistic.

Nobody punish new pilots - they have all the tools to use if they don't want to wait. You startup and taxi - no wait needed - just keep in mind it comes with price - you won't have some weapons working or navigation. How come hotstart or airstart is not an option and immersion killer while the need to do proper INS allignment is so tormenting? It's 2 minutes where you sit as a pilot and set up the aircraft anyway, doing also proper comms. What's next? Engine spools are too long? The targets are too far away from carrier? I didn't forgot how it's like to be new - I just read and learned how it's properly done and didn't ask for training wheels.

didn't ask for training wheels.

I started this thread precisely to discuss how we can provide new pilots with better training wheels, as I would like to see more people eventually learn to ride this bike. Its telling you consistently oppose any ideas that might help them. Just because you learned it by riding your unicycle of a mountain without a helmet doesnt mean everyone should.

Jumping into the F-14 module, as your initial experience, shouldn't be the metric by how you consider making DCS more "noob" friendly. Buying several modules as you mention, is not required, as you get two free ones to start. The F-14 is arguably one of the more complex modules in the DCS stable.

My questions to you (to understand why an easier path wasn't apparent), would be why didn't you try the free airplanes that come with DCS World first? From a "noob" perspective, I would like to understand your thoughts or experiences (good/negative) with the following:

1.) Did DCS make it clear that free, and simpler aircraft were available to get your feet wet? Was this information handy or no?

2.) Should DCS push the "free aircraft" as the initial first step for new users, and supplement that with better training experiences around those aircraft?

3.) Were you aware of these two free aircraft and the simpler flight model? If yes, why did you go straight to the F-14, if no, would it have mattered to you had you known?

4.) Was it that you saw the F-14, and this is what attracted you to DCS, so you took this path either knowing of the free models, or not, due to a desire to experience such an air frame?

Were you aware of these two free aircraft and the simpler flight model?

Whoa, you're talking about Su-25T AFM?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/#1512209

It's considered quite high fidelity. Just a notch below the PFM which is provided in TF-51.

Whoa, you're talking about Su-25T AFM?

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/#1512209

It's considered quite high fidelity. Just a notch below the PFM which is provided in TF-51.

Switch to "Arcade Mode". I am not saying DCS is easy. I read the OP's lengthy treaty on his first few times with the free aircraft in another post. I am curious since even with these he was "frustrated" since there was no familiarity with the avionics.

This is DCS after all, I am curious about his initial reactions to the two free aircraft. Since he also states he has "years" of experience in other flight sims. Why was DCS such a struggle? Just curious as to how that introduction could be made better for new users.

Besides, instead of asking for changes to DCS, just flip back and forth like I do. Want to jump in and fly, not worry about bindings, PFM, all the immersion that makes DCS what it is, then fly the "other" title for easy mode fly and gun.

Then when you have gotten your fill of "easy mode", come back here and learn to master all the intricacies. I am still confused why folks ask for certain things to be changed in DCS (including reducing time involved), when for $40.00 you can get one module in the "other" title and fly your brains out and not be bothered with all the things that make DCS . . . well, DCS.

Well, I'm not sure what to say. This is a pretty lengthy and detailed account of how the DCS experience can be for new guys. It was refreshing for me to read as I'm deep into DCS for almost 10 years now and might indeed take a lot for granted which actually is not for new guys.

I'm not sure what to think of it though. DCS is complex and that's what many people (including me) love about it. It already provides a lot of options for new players to get acquainted with it, more than there were when I learned the A-10C as my first DCS module 10 years ago. Things like training missions where not a thing back then, so it has improved already.

A virtual buddy would be nice, no doubt about it, but it's difficult to develop and I would rather see the development ressources spent on other things.

What I definitely don't want to see are arcade features like INS skipping or a responsive comms menu that shows you the correct frequencies and modes. That's what game mode and easy comms are there for.

I agree "quick start training missions" could be added, where you don't have to go through all the various system tests, but the INS alignment is an essential part of the startup, just like engine startup.

So, as I said, I'm not quiet sure yet what to think of this thread. I see your issue and I can even understand it. I also agree that documentation and training missions could be improved, but I don't want anything substantially change about the complexity of DCS, because that's what makes me love this game.

Maybe MAC might solve this issue, as it is being developed for this very reason: To give new people a more accessible environment than DCS does.

1.) Did DCS make it clear that free, and simpler aircraft were available to get your feet wet? Was this information handy or no?

Sure. I had been installing and kicking the tires of DCS for brief stints for years before I decided to get serious and get the tomcat.

What stopped me earlier was the TF51 being civilian, provided no real challenge or fun and its kinda hard to see why I would want to fly that with no weapons, no opponents, no challenges vs flying a P51 in that other sim.

The Su25 isnt my kind of plane; the russian cockpit and voices certainly didnt help encourage me to try to figure things out, and it seemed rather hard to master for something I didnt really have affinity with.

I assumed some of the other modules might work for me, but again for ww2 planes its difficult to justify spending the money when you already own a more complete and popular ww2 sim thats actually great online.

As for the jets, until the F14 there wasnt one that really pressed the right buttons for me. I was drawn to some, like the cold war stuff the mig21 and the viggen, but not sure I would like them enough to warrant to cost (in money and time).

2.) Should DCS push the "free aircraft" as the initial first step for new users, and supplement that with better training experiences around those aircraft?

I dont know the answer to that. Free planes allow you to experience the sim, in that I think its invaluable. But I think the current selection risks being more off-putting than encouraging, for reasons mentioned above. I think DCS would be better off by replacing the TF51 with a cessna 172. I mean that. You are unlikely to lure or convince many IL2 players when you give them a single demilitarized version of a plane they have flown for a decade, might as well try to lure in xplane or potential xplane pilots instead. And complete noobs who will find the cessna a lot easier to learn in than a TF51. As for the Su25, I think something like the F5 would be the perfect replacement, but at least an english cockpit and voices would help not putting people off.

3.) Were you aware of these two free aircraft and the simpler flight model? If yes, why did you go straight to the F-14, if no, would it have mattered to you had you known?

Flight model isnt the problem. I dont want or need simpler flight models. A tomcat may be somewhat harder to fly than fly-by-wire jets but Id still consider it easy compared to most warbirds or a sopwith camel in RoF. Being able to fly and mastering are two different things, but as long as Im able to do the first, the other will follow.

And yes, I knew it was a complex module. What drew me to it, is that I love the plane, its fast and capable but not a flying ipad. It looked stunning, carrier ops, versatility and perhaps most importantly, the dual seat capability.

4.) Was it that you saw the F-14, and this is what attracted you to DCS, so you took this path either knowing of the free models, or not, due to a desire to experience such an air frame?

Not sure I get the question, but I guess I already answered it?

Sure. I had been installing and kicking the tires of DCS for brief stints for years before I decided to get serious and get the tomcat.

 

What stopped me earlier was the TF51 being civilian, provided no real challenge or fun and its kinda hard to see why I would want to fly that with no weapons, no opponents, no challenges vs flying a P51 in that other sim.

 

The Su25 isnt my kind of plane; the russian cockpit and voices certainly didnt help encourage me to try to figure things out, and it seemed rather hard to master for something I didnt really have affinity with.

 

I assumed some of the other modules might work for me, but again for ww2 planes its difficult to justify spending the money when you already own a more complete and popular ww2 sim thats actually great online.

 

As for the jets, until the F14 there wasnt one that really pressed the right buttons for me. I was drawn to some, like the cold war stuff the mig21 and the viggen, but not sure I would like them enough to warrant to cost (in money and time).

 

 

 

I dont know the answer to that. Free planes allow you to experience the sim, in that I think its invaluable. But I think the current selection risks being more off-putting than encouraging, for reasons mentioned above. I think DCS would be better off by replacing the TF51 with a cessna 172. I mean that. You are unlikely to lure or convince many IL2 players when you give them a single demilitarized version of a plane they have flown for a decade, might as well try to lure in xplane or potential xplane pilots instead. And complete noobs who will find the cessna a lot easier to learn in than a TF51. As for the Su25, I think something like the F5 would be the perfect replacement, but at least an english cockpit and voices would help not putting people off.

 

 

 

Flight model isnt the problem. I dont want or need simpler flight models. A tomcat may be somewhat harder to fly than fly-by-wire jets but Id still consider it easy compared to most warbirds or a sopwith camel in RoF.

 

And yes, I knew it was complex module. What drew me it, is that I love the plane, it looked stunning, carrier ops, versatility and perhaps most importantly, the dual seat capability.

 

 

 

Not sure I get the question, but I guess I already answered it?

Thanks for your answers, and honestly I think you are on to something with the TF-51.

Put some guns on it, let new players at least experience the thrill of combat, at least from a WWII perspective, with the "free" module. I think that would go a long way towards keeping people intrigued and interested before they made the "big leap".

I can relate to some of your issues. I also read the AAR post after you created this one, since it was referenced. Like others I am torn, as I wish DCS to succeed and grow, but not to sacrifice what makes DCS so unique. Maybe my fears are overblown?

My experience was quite different, I actually began playing in 2011 with the Steam Version, and registered here finally in 2013. I started with the KA-50, talk about overwhelming. Of course then I wasn't using a TM Thrustmaster, just a simple joystick and a keyboard. However, I did manage to learn to fly it, and get a lot of enjoyment out of the KA-50 with that setup, and yes I had to lurk in forums to fill in the blanks.

However, learning to fly the KA-50, deep diving in forum topics, digging around on the Internet and yes "Reading the Manual" are what got me to that point. I will admit, DCS is not for the faint of heart.

Then I bought the A-10C, and it took two attempts about 3 years apart to get good enough to enjoy. Yes I used You Tube a lot, and of course I "Read the Manual". The A-10C is pure joy, and worth the time.

I guess that is really what it comes down to, after reading your posts here and in the AAR thread, is the time commitment, and yes, it is steep.

However, I guess it is what it is worth to you. To master a difficult simulation or just enjoy the aircraft without the time commitment. I don't have the answer in that regard. I have a demanding job, and I am an amateur Triathlete (racing for 20+ years), and I guess it all comes down to allocation. Triathlon, like DCS, requires enormous time, to get the most enjoyment out of it. I am not sure how DCS can keep folks hooked during that initial phase of bewilderment and sense of being overwhelmed.

I only mention Triathlon, because after certain distances over the Half Iron distance, without the time and discipline involved you will probably have a really bad day. There are no "easy guides" for how to get into the sport, and without an investment in gear, training, time etc. Lots of research too, and of course, plenty of You Tube! Basically, I experienced the same sort of deep dive and time that is required from Tri, as it is in DCS in order to enjoy it to the fullest.

I just stuck in there, and I am glad I did. Other than a better introduction overall, and a focus on new user "bootstrapping" I am not really sure how to ease someone into DCS.

Should've link that for the whole story:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4407997&postcount=271

Simpler sims already exist for people who want to get their feet wet. Removing complexity will NOT ''help people learn''... how you figure not learning something helps you learn it is beyond me. If somebody can't be bothered to learn, then they by definition should not play a game that requires learning. That's just common sense.

And the free aircraft are no worse than any other. The systems on the Su-25T are more detailed than most the FC3 planes, and the flight model is just one step down from the current standard, it is not significant. If people are just starting out they should start there, and invest the tiny bit of effort required.

Anybody buying ''world's most detailed *blank*'' reading the description, looking at cockpit photos, or *gasp* watching online videos should 100% know what they're getting into. And there are already tons of options, like hot starts, etc, to ''save time''. I really don't get people trying to hammer square pegs into round holes. If DCS is ''too much'' then maybe... like.... play something else?

oh its you again with another meme idea

clones of you exist in every game community and this sequence has played out countless times each time culminating in things going downhill because you know who lowering the entry bar caters to? more bar lowerers. the slippery slope is a fallacy until it isn't. you're a subversive who seeks to promote the recruitment of more like you. you're repulsive to people who actually choose to invest, and exactly the reason they escape to high entry barrier games in the first place.

i guess at least 'reforming dcs' keeps you off our streets 'reforming society'

I started writing a guide on how to approach a module and it was too much work.

I dont think there is any way past

familiarisation with cockpit > bindings > familiarisation with the handling >bindings > All the Lessons in order > cold cockpit startup test > Combat >third bindings review > iterate.

If you go off piste, fine, but everything has an order. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. All comes before Devastate, annihilate and liberate. Just people get it wrong. You cannot do any combat until you can fly, that's all there is to it. To fly, you need to be able to startup, fly to specific place, come back and land. For multiplayer, add in communicate and you are set.

Maybe there are some things in there to drop in via experience, like binding comms, kneeboard and familiar keys but I'm somewhat jaded with learning aircraft ever since the Mirage 2000, every week you had a new feature and a changed process and eventually it gets hard to unlearn and relearn. The F-18 and F-16 taught me to not study BVR first for bindings, since close dogfighting modes need to be fastest and most natural on your HOTAS.

This isnt about DCS as much as how to approach a complex task that requires many hours work. There are some things that can be done better, but honestly, not that much, most of the effort has to come from yourself.

I started this thread precisely to discuss how we can provide new pilots with better training wheels, as I would like to see more people eventually learn to ride this bike. Its telling you consistently oppose any ideas that might help them. Just because you learned it by riding your unicycle of a mountain without a helmet doesnt mean everyone should.

How to improve situation is as I stated in the AAR thread:

1) Add to main menu a new menu item "Flight Manuals" that has DCS and all aircrafts manuals listed as link, so you open the PDF file stored in your computer.

2) Have basic 2-3 minute video in the main menu for "HOW TO" for the most common basic things. Like how to use the menu. What are the training missions. How to configure controls generally etc. That could be a own small video thumbnail at the corner that you can close with "Don't show anymore".

3) Make good training tutorials with a good and clear English. I don't now remember what module developers are praised for that, as they had split each section well to own small interactive tutorials so you can train each section separately. Sorry, I do not want to listen a heavy Russian accented English spoken, just like I don't want it in the others to be "for immersion". It is completely different thing when ATC, wingmen etc has the radio effects and such. But not in the tutorials.

4) Explain the typical common process how to start learning about DCS World and different aircrafts. Like have an official link to this ED forum, have a links to each module sub-forum and studios websites in the icons.

5) The official encyclopedia needs rework, new graphics to explain visually something, to present the units and such. Have the basic ideas of the military and aviation overall there. Like "what does lift or stall mean?" to all the way to more advanced like "what does pK and F-pole mean?" etc.

I started writing a guide on how to approach a module and it was too much work.

I decided same thing long time ago, as it would require too much content to get any more advanced than the main menu basic functions. Eventually you just are going to repeat the work that developers does for their manuals.

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. All comes before Devastate, annihilate and liberate.

That is beautifully said.... Need to steal that....

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. All comes before Devastate, annihilate and liberate.

Best synopsis ever.

:thumbup:

You know home plate is at the end. :)

Thanks for your answers, and honestly I think you are on to something with the TF-51.

 

Put some guns on it, let new players at least experience the thrill of combat, at least from a WWII perspective, with the "free" module. I think that would go a long way towards keeping people intrigued and interested before they made the "big leap".

Even a free P51 with guns is a difficult "sell" compared to the competition. There is no contemporary map (included), online is pretty dead and its not like the DCS version is so superior. It might draw some players with no (combat) sim experience, but would it have convinced me to switch? No.

I would rather see DCS include a bunch of cold war or even modern jets, but have those be demilitarized versions. That could attract WW2 simmers and civilian simmers alike. It would be helpful for DCS players to figure out what to buy. And once players invested enough time to learn the module and crave the weapons, the step to opening their wallets is a lot smaller than when looking at screenshots on steam and trying to find out if its any good or their thing.

I wish DCS to succeed and grow, but not to sacrifice what makes DCS so unique. Maybe my fears are overblown?

I find this fascinating. What are you afraid of and what makes dcs unique? Is it the realism or the fact its hard to learn? Pretty much everyone who has responded so far, here and in other threads reacts in similar terms: dont make it "easier". Despite the big bold font I used in the OP saying I dont want it to be any less realistic (*). Some clearly even dont want it be easier to learn, as if the realism comes from the fact you have to google harder to find the info. I dont get this mindset. Its like they are not protective of the realism or scope of the game, but protective of the niche status and are worried that too many people might learn their unique skills? Like a magicians circle protecting their magic tricks?

(*) INS alignment aside. But people who insist newbies playing offline learning the basics should be forced to spend 8 minutes staring at their screen before every take off, I find it hard to care about that opinion, and if anything it proves my above point they must want to make it hard to learn.

Even a free P51 with guns is a difficult "sell" compared to the competition. There is no contemporary map (included), online is pretty dead and its not like the DCS version is so superior. It might draw some players with no (combat) sim experience, but would it have convinced me to switch? No.

 

I would rather see DCS include a bunch of cold war or even modern jets, but have those be demilitarized versions. That could attract WW2 simmers and civilian simmers alike. It would be helpful for DCS players to figure out what to buy. And once players invested enough time to learn the module and crave the weapons, the step to opening their wallets is a lot smaller than when looking at screenshots on steam and trying to find out if its any good or their thing.

 

 

 

I find this fascinating. What are you afraid of and what makes dcs unique? Is it the realism or the fact its hard to learn? Pretty much everyone who has responded so far, here and in other threads reacts in similar terms: dont make it "easier". Despite the big bold font I used in the OP saying I dont want it to be any less realistic (*). Some clearly even dont want it be easier to learn, as if the realism comes from the fact you have to google harder to find the info. I dont get this mindset. Its like they are not protective of the realism or scope of the game, but protective of the niche status and are worried that too many people might learn their unique skills? Like a magicians circle protecting their magic tricks?

 

(*) INS alignment aside. But people who insist newbies playing offline learning the basics should be forced to spend 8 minutes staring at their screen before every take off, I find it hard to care about that opinion, and if anything it proves my above point they must want to make it hard to learn.

As far as a "free P-51" and the "other sim", for me there is no contest. I fly the WWII warbirds in DCS for the complete immersion. As an original kickstarter for the WWII warbirds that started under another group, and ED/DCS saved: the Anton, and now the P-47 (which I waited anxiously for) after 6 years are Bar None! Superior to anything in the other sim. I played the other Sim since first titles many years ago, and continue to do so under the latest titles that releases "Battle" maps. Also purchase the premium maps, or the "premium" planes to fly them. While I enjoy them in the other title for simplicity, and run and gun - there is absolutely no comparison, or thrill, or immersive equivalent learning all the details of the P-47 and how to operate it with actual action/reactions occurring due to various settings with the throttle quadrant which is fully mapped to my TM HOTAS. Two completely different animals, own them both. Honestly I don't understand the resistance to using one game, and enjoying it for what it offers, and enjoying DCS for it is without pitching for "changes" that reduce the complexity and immersion.

Which leads me to your next observation "What are you so afraid of . . . "

Over the years, I have witnessed two titles specifically that started out as catering to the "realism" crowd. One of them became wildly successful. Enjoys a large global user participation, and creates some very stunning visuals. The one in particular was a armor sim, and focused on actual data from real vehicles, and released them based on those specifications. Meaning there was no real "balancing" and every nation's fans had a line they liked and used the strengths or weakness to be effective in combat. Played that game for years, especially during a hiatus with the A-10C.

Then with a surge in popularity, inevitably the posts started, slow at first, but then the squeaky wheels became more and more vocal. Dominating every topic regarding "balance", "ease of use", "play-ability". At first the devs stood firm and emphatically stated things like "If you don't like the play style then learn to use it, we will not change them!"

Then the "wish lists" for additions that you could turn off and on, that literally changed the shape and outline, and different reticles etc. After about two or three years of a lot of "input" by a small but vocal community, the devs did a 180, and the changes came.

1.) Endless "Balancing" or "Nerfing" of certain lines.

2.) Historical performance was "fudged" to help certain weaker vehicles.

3.) Original vehicles that had survived "Balancing" and "Nerfing" soon became noncompetitive.

4.) Then the maps made for brawl fests, and catered to premium play started.

They literally lost a good chunk of players in certain regions, income became a problem, and dev projects that were of high interest by all kinds of players languished or died. They lost thousands of players by some estimates, but of course when you have globally many more than that they absorbed it, but the game emptied out of the "realism types". I uninstalled it 3 years ago, and haven't looked back. Perusing the forums now and again confirms the "old players" worst fears - pure fantasy and geared toward the new next "Premium release".

DCS is unique, it stands alone as an immersive platform. I have literally seen games changed due to the never ending chorus of "make this easier", "we want this feature - even though it didn't exist!" - as always some obscure reference no matter how sketchy for some prototype was used as justification.

So back to the original theme. DCS becoming easier to enter, sure. Easier to learn, sure. Adding switches or modes that allow online "Air Quake" easy mode to become a serious possibility - no. If you want that, play the other sims, there are plenty. Not saying that to be a jerk, it is what I actually do.

I do Quake mode for run and gun in the other sim.

I do DCS to learn every button, dial, startup sequence, menu, profile, lever, button, flap, brake, toggle, light, fusing, Height of Function nuance there is - give me more - don't change the core immersion.

I found my way through DCS as it stands, many have, it didn't stand in the way. Could the introduction be better yes, but changing things to make AAR "easier" is that slippery slope scenario. Found my way through the KA-50 in 2011/2012 and DCS is much better now than then.

Besides, learning the Mission Editor will open up a whole new world for using your new aircraft in ways that are just as interesting as "the other title"

End of diatribe! :megalol:

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. All comes before Devastate, annihilate and liberate.

 

Best synopsis ever.

 

:thumbup:

Heh, agreed, I'm writing that one down.

What you are all saying is you don't want people who can't or won't invest the time before "getting into the action." That is really sad. I see no reason why DCS can't have a "quick action" mode and an "Extreme High Fidelity" mode. Why does it have to be one or the other? Doesn't make economic sense, but that is what the developers have chosen.

What you are all saying is you don't want people who can't or won't invest the time before "getting into the action." That is really sad. I see no reason why DCS can't have a "quick action" mode and an "Extreme High Fidelity" mode. Why does it have to be one or the other? Doesn't make economic sense, but that is what the developers have chosen.

DCS literally has "Instant Action" and "Arcade" mode. See attachment.

Also, Mission Editor coupled with "Game" Settings can create any scenario you wish without all the realism or difficulty.

What you are all saying is you don't want people who can't or won't invest the time before "getting into the action." That is really sad. I see no reason why DCS can't have a "quick action" mode and an "Extreme High Fidelity" mode. Why does it have to be one or the other? Doesn't make economic sense, but that is what the developers have chosen.

Oh, no, you decide when and where the simulation begins and you choose the quality of modeling. It's all there. What will happen when the new pilot jumps into action without seting up controls and knowing the aircraft first? Right, katastrofa.