Realism - wasted effort?

Why do people keep bringing up this kind of nonsensical argument? Is it just to demonstrate they have no interest in reading the thread or participate in the discussion going on?

Because there are bunch of people who bring up this discussion in simulator, where business model is based on realism and as accurate modeling of systems as possible.

What is realistic about a test which never fails? It is still just 'lets pretend'.

IRL most of the time these test don't fail thanks to amazing job of ground crew members. As someone said earlier - this sim is not for you (and no, I'm not sending you to play Shitthunder) just learn how it suppose to be played :)

Checklist give it a lot more of realism. You treat your plane well after 10 mins of INS aligning and going through the checklist. You then don't wanna go for a airquake situation firing spamram rain on multiply targets. You feel the value of the machine that you fly for hard earned taxpayers' money. I'm almost forty, I don't have much time to sim anymore but when I find the time window for it, I do my best to simulate every aspect of behavior regarding being a jet fighter officer. Messing around on the sky has stopped being funny anymore.

It's called Role Play and it will come with time, thrust me ;)

S! Pedro's over and out.

Because there are bunch of people who bring up this discussion in simulator, where business model is based on realism and as accurate modeling of systems as possible.

That doesn't make the argument any less nonsensical — if anything, that just makes it more so. Where else than in a game about realism and accurate modelling is the discussion of balance between pointless and relevant levels of detail worth having?

Asking a program designed for immersion.. to be less immersive.. is non-sensical.

I use the the IFFVV Bit menu, to change my CCIP parameters.

Losing generators at 1o,oooft and have to spool up an APU, manage a fire, wait for a BIT bootup so the HUD is available IS immersion.

Rushing to get aloft with incoming forces and having to wait for INS/EGI to align, is immersion.

Taking off without it, and dealing with the consequences, is immersion.

Hell, i use the fuse panel to kill the master alarm, when i have serious failure.

Im trying to learn my CDU in and out.

Hard landing in winter with Anti-Skid off.. thats fun.

etc etc etc

Managing flight systems, while maintaining flight, while under adverse combat, environmental and damaged conditions.. is why we are here.

Distilling the character out of the game is why we care Cab. Especially when there is an arcade mode already available

ON A SIMILAR POINT.. im looking to buy my first expansion and id like to know what you guys favorite jets are. (my budget wont allow for the f16-f14 or the f18 though)

So far.. the jet ive watched the most on is the Viggen, compressor stalls, automatic throttling systems, glide weapons. i mean come on. I also have Harrier-chub. But im open to all suggestions.

whats YOUR favorite module and why

That doesn't make the argument any less nonsensical — if anything, that just makes it more so. Where else than in a game about realism and accurate modelling is the discussion of balance between pointless and relevant levels of detail worth having?

Nonsensical is to want from a simulator which main selling point is accurate simulation of all systems to be a bit less realistic. Personally I would like DCS to be a bit more realistic so I can use RL manuals more.

Nonsensical is to want from a simulator which main selling point is accurate simulation of all systems to be a bit less realistic.

Good thing that no-one is asking for that, then.

Good thing that no-one is asking for that, then.

But users are asking exactly for that.

But users are asking exactly for that.

I think you might be posting in the wrong thread, then. You're complaining about a discussion that is supposedly happening somewhere else.

Good thing that no-one is asking for that, then.

That's literally what the op wants. To trim his/her deemed ''unnecessary realism'' from the game. Oh at the guy saying ''it's all just pretend if it doesn't work'' etc... IT'S ALL JUST PRETEND. Or perhaps you were under the imoression the vroom sounds were from a real jet being remotely controlled?

Repeaté : the purpose of the game is nut and bolt minute detail. Missing features are just that, missing, not typically deliberate ommissions. In many cases the missing features are on the great To-Do list. So, yes, irrelevant thread is still irrelevant.

That's literally what the op wants. To trim his/her deemed ''unnecessary realism'' from the game. Oh at the guy saying ''it's all just pretend if it doesn't work'' etc... IT'S ALL JUST PRETEND. Or perhaps you were under the imoression the vroom sounds were from a real jet being remotely controlled?

 

Repeaté : the purpose of the game is nut and bolt minute detail. Missing features are just that, missing, not typically deliberate ommissions. In many cases the missing features are on the great To-Do list. So, yes, irrelevant thread is still irrelevant.

It's literally not. Perhaps English isn't your first language, or perhaps you struggle with comprehension but I simply asked whether it would not make more sense to prioritise realism in other areas. Not for it to be reduced. Plenty of other respondents can see that, but somehow you can't?

I think you are just looking for an argument. You do seem quite an angry person.

That's literally what the op wants.

It's explicitly not what he wants. You really need to re-read the op, and most likely the rest of the thread.

At no point has anyone in this thread asked that anything be made less realistic. Indeed, the main thrust is that things should be made more realistic, either because it's included at all or because less effort is wasted on things that (unrealistically) make zero difference. If you've concluded from this that there is a desire for less realism, you've seriously confused what pretty much everyone has been saying.

It's explicitly not what he wants. You really need to re-read the op, and most likely the rest of the thread.

 

 

At no point has anyone in this thread asked that anything be made less realistic. Indeed, the main thrust is that things should be made more realistic, either because it's included at all or because less effort is wasted on things that (unrealistically) make zero difference. If you've concluded from this that there is a desire for less realism, you've seriously confused what pretty much everyone has been saying.

I doubt him re-reading the OP will change anything.

It’s in his signature: He’s got a Legendary Trollsword and he’s not afraid to use it.:thumbup:

''Prioritise realism in other areas'' ie ''trim things you deem unnecessary''. So yes, my assessment is spot on. Yes, it is unrealistic some things are not fully functional/mostly aesthetic. No, I do not think they should be ignored/skipped over. Yes, I think they should be expanded so they are more functional/relevant. Yes, ED have generally expressed an interest in doing exactly that.

I think you are just looking for an argument. You do seem quite an angry person.

Not at all, his weapon is the harsh truth. You've been answered multiple times in this thread but you still seem not satisfied enough and then we have 18 pages of "yes, but..." or arguing about what is that thread really about. Time to let go and move on.

TL;DR: ED direction is toward more features and better simulated. Dev time is not wasted on anything and omitting smaller, less important stuff will not significantly shorten dev time and can only result in a lower quality product which would turn away customers. Some missing bits are planned and are based off the works already done which may seem unfinished or not functional atm.

Not at all, his weapon is the harsh truth. You've been answered multiple times in this thread but you still seem not satisfied enough and then we have 18 pages of "yes, but..." or arguing about what is that thread really about. Time to let go and move on.

 

 

TL;DR: ED direction is toward more features and better simulated. Dev time is not wasted on anything and omitting smaller, less important stuff will not significantly shorten dev time and can only result in a lower quality product which would turn away customers. Some missing bits are planned and are based off the works already done which may seem unfinished or not functional atm.

It's called a forum. It is literally a place for discussion and the exchange of ideas. Nobody is forced to either read it, or reply to it.

Prioritizing a list of requirements does not imply any are unnecessary. It recognizes that that there are more requirements than resources to complete them in a timely manner, and orders them in such a way as to achieve a desired outcome. People with the same goals can disagree with the priorities without disagreeing on the desired outcome.

I think I'll give an example hopefully in "the spirit" of this thread... perhaps as a check of my understanding of the argument.

In the F/A-18C we have detailed systems checks such as the flight control exerciser, fire test, lights test with minute details such as standard failure codes, needing time for the audio tape to rewind etc....

But I've tried to create a mission to practice Case 2 approaches to the Carrier (minimum weather for visual landing circuits) which is defined as 1,000ft Ceiling and 5 miles visibility. In the mission editor there's only one cloud layer available, you can't change it's cloud type, and when I set a 1,000' Overcast layer, I broke out at 800'.

There's an option for "fog," but the visibility is only available in feet, and the maximum value is 19,685ft. This converts to 3.7sm. So either I have to remove the fog layer and have unlimited visibility under the (modified) cloud deck, or I have to conduct landings with illegal visibility.

And yet when generators come on line in the Hornet, the correct erroneous warning lights and "Roll Left" sound based on computer system logic. There's a disconnect here between core simulator realism, and module realism.

I'm fairly sure the developers understand the limitations of the core engine, and the difference has reached a point where the user base has become very vocal.

Am I understanding the "realism...wasted effort" concept correctly?

I think I'll give an example hopefully in "the spirit" of this thread... perhaps as a check of my understanding of the argument.

 

In the F/A-18C we have detailed systems checks such as the flight control exerciser, fire test, lights test with minute details such as standard failure codes, needing time for the audio tape to rewind etc....

 

But I've tried to create a mission to practice Case 2 approaches to the Carrier (minimum weather for visual landing circuits) which is defined as 1,000ft Ceiling and 5 miles visibility. In the mission editor there's only one cloud layer available, you can't change it's cloud type, and when I set a 1,000' Overcast layer, I broke out at 800'.

There's an option for "fog," but the visibility is only available in feet, and the maximum value is 19,685ft. This converts to 3.7sm. So either I have to remove the fog layer and have unlimited visibility under the (modified) cloud deck, or I have to conduct landings with illegal visibility.

 

And yet when generators come on line in the Hornet, the correct erroneous warning lights and "Roll Left" sound based on computer system logic. There's a disconnect here between core simulator realism, and module realism.

 

I'm fairly sure the developers understand the limitations of the core engine, and the difference has reached a point where the user base has become very vocal.

 

Am I understanding the "realism...wasted effort" concept correctly?

Probably. They would consider those Hornet details irrelevant in the face of the poor weather simulation, an arguably more important facet of a flight sim (we can all agree on that, I'm sure). My viewpoint is that this observation is irrelevant, because they are actively developing said weather system, which is supposedly to debut by year's end/shortly afterward. In other words, the noted deficiency is being addressed in the fifteen year old core game it's just not happening as quickly as they think it should.

As we do not really know how complex the end product will be or what it entails and what roadblocks they possibly ran into, my view is that requesting a feature is fine, but whining about ''priorities and blah blah'' is not. If they're actively working on it, and supposedly 50% of personnel are working on the core game features, then that's as much as you can expect.

It takes however long it takes at that point, and whining, or more money, or forum polls, won't make it happen faster. And many/most of these perceived and acknowledged deficiencies ARE being worked on supposedly, so it's just a matter of time.

Lastly, as much as people like to complain and act like it's the end of the world, none of these issues are really THAT big of a deal. The game functions just fine even if some of it is subpar by modern standards.

People forget they haven't been idle the last few years. The new engine launched what, just barely two years ago? That is a big project. They are overhauling the CPU processing aspect with Vulkan since then, another big project, both time consuming and personnel intensive I'm sure, and arguably a higher priority than clouds. AI is being actively developed, receiving the first alterations just weeks ago. Etc etc

It's not like thungs aren't being done. It's just that their pet peeves aren't addressed yet, and they foolishly assume the guy coding the BIT test lights on the Hornet is the same guy responsible for making the clouds SO CLEARLY ED's priorities are screwed up. It's just the typical forum whining that takes place constantly.

I will agree with Lace saying this is a forum and they're well within their rights to talk about it until they're blue in the face, just like we can argue with them about the validity of their ideas. It's what this thing is for, and we've all apparently got time to kill, so why not? =)

Probably. They would consider those Hornet details irrelevant in the face of the poor weather simulation, an arguably more important facet of a flight sim (we can all agree on that, I'm sure). My viewpoint is that this observation is irrelevant, because they are actively developing said weather system, which is supposedly to debut by year's end/shortly afterward. In other words, the noted deficiency is being addressed in the fifteen year old core game it's just not happening as quickly as they think it should.

 

As we do not really know how complex the end product will be or what it entails and what roadblocks they possibly ran into, my view is that requesting a feature is fine, but whining about ''priorities and blah blah'' is not. If they're actively working on it, and supposedly 50% of personnel are working on the core game features, then that's as much as you can expect.

 

It takes however long it takes at that point, and whining, or more money, or forum polls, won't make it happen faster. And many/most of these perceived and acknowledged deficiencies ARE being worked on supposedly, so it's just a matter of time.

 

Lastly, as much as people like to complain and act like it's the end of the world, none of these issues are really THAT big of a deal. The game functions just fine even if some of it is subpar by modern standards.

 

People forget they haven't been idle the last few years. The new engine launched what, just barely two years ago? That is a big project. They are overhauling the CPU processing aspect with Vulkan since then, another big project, both time consuming and personnel intensive I'm sure, and arguably a higher priority than clouds. AI is being actively developed, receiving the first alterations just weeks ago. Etc etc

 

It's not like thungs aren't being done. It's just that their pet peeves aren't addressed yet, and they foolishly assume the guy coding the BIT test lights on the Hornet is the same guy responsible for making the clouds SO CLEARLY ED's priorities are screwed up. It's just the typical forum whining that takes place constantly.

 

I will agree with Lace saying this is a forum and they're well within their rights to talk about it until they're blue in the face, just like we can argue with them about the validity of their ideas. It's what this thing is for, and we've all apparently got time to kill, so why not? =)

Whining? Really? Is that the way you perceive it? Are you trying to be insulting or does it come naturally?

Either way makes no difference to me on a forum, but I hope for your sake you have better sense when you're dealing with people face-to-face.

Good luck, buddy.

Old, whiny guy, out.

You won't get better clouds if they stop modelling aircraft systems in detail. The two have nothing to do with each other. Simple as that.

If they start cutting module development time all you're gonna see is new early access aircraft coming sooner. That's it, that's all you're gonna get.

My point is all these systems need time to implement and test, and while they appear to add realism to the module, are they not just window dressing? Do those searching for the ultimate realism in their modules actually fly realistic missions? Do they ever spend six-hours patrolling a kill box as a two ship without encountering the enemy? Do they spend an hour on the ground from their step time to engine start to taxi to takeoff?

When ED/3rd party is developing an module, it is far more easier to dig in to the specifications, documentation etc and then start implementing them. As it is like you would be translating a one book to a different language.

BUT, you will always then in such actions (translation, that is what they do from documents and specifications to computer simulation) that you are changing something. A direct translation is such, that you need to understand the original language, their culture, their daily life etc, so you can understand what some saying or behavior means. While good translator doesn't do direct translation but will read the text, comprehend its meaning and then exchange it to corresponding in the new language, so readers of the translated version will comprehend the jokes, the stories, the memes etc etc and the story as the original author meant it, will stay in the flow.

That same thing is what the developers are doing, they can not simulate every single thing out there, as there is already a complex limitations. BUT, if translators would simply remove some of the chapters, key parts of the chapters or even complete characters, they can cause more trouble in the story. And so on if the developers would skip some of the key features then they will generate problems in the future if, and when, those becomes required. The developers can already implement the logic of something, but not activate it. So just leave it in the code for the future. Already half-done work with some code is easier in future then for future programmer to check and understand what was meant to be done and possibly activate it or just rewrite it.

Like today we are getting more news about new damage model. And that actually requires that 3D modelers has made all the required components inside the 3D model, the engine blocks, the armored windshield, the fuel pipes, critical shafts etc etc. As while they do not need to be perfectly added there, their location and existence helps a lot when they want to implement the advanced damage model where each bullet penetration is calculated to their impact point and effect.

And now, if you have left in first place from implementing the warning/system check logic, you are in trouble. You are required to redo all that is related to those systems, to those warning/check systems, to their logic etc.

One should go and check out example that C-101 does, they really invest to these failures!

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125532

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232333

And all that is what makes the simulator far more interesting.

The sad part is that DCS is as well for those virtual pilots who are not interested about the small details. They do not care about navigation, formation flying, proper handling etc. And they are not even limited by the reality like G forces etc. You can find those people everywhere really. As they want to have just fun. If they want to fly aircraft inverted 2 meters from the landing strip, they do it. Even when no real pilot would ever even consider such a maneuver.

BUT, if someone is serious about their module, they very sure go to implement all the failure systems, possibilities for those failures etc. And if someone is very serious about their virtual flying, they will learn the correct ways like calibrate their INS system on each start, even if it takes 5-7 minutes. As for such people, the immersion comes with the penalties and difficulties and challenges etc. But their enjoyful flight is ruined if there are fools on the server (multiplayer is very small proportion of the whole DCS customer base!) that just ruin these dedicated peoples fun by crashing to them, landing without permission or with friendly fire etc, it is not fault of the developers or these dedicated virtual pilots but those fools who "just want to have fun". And that is more about the server owner problem that they need to fix.

Like for such situations I have stated my wish to ED that they enable a Hard Core feature in servers, where ED account is linked to the server. And each server can have 1-5 (chosen by server admin) virtual pilots per ED account. And if the pilot dies, he is KIA. If pilot ejects, there are time penalties when they get back to plane. If the pilot is lost in action behind enemy lines, that pilot is MIA. And each penalty in server has penalty for time limits on server like you don't get the new aircraft to fly for 12 hours or so. You don't get latest new missiles (like limited to AIM-7F instead allowing AIM-120B) or rearming/refueling etc becomes slower. Such idea point is that those who want to be serious, they can enter to HC server, where every death and ejection etc matters a lot. So you don't go to air quake, you don't fool around in taxiing or when landing. You don't shoot friendlies as you get grounded for 24 hours by doing so. If your virtual pilot ejects, you need to wait that SAR helicopter comes and picks it up and returns it to base, and that can take hours based where you were.

And what does all that benefit to HC fans? Your virtual pilots on that server (1-5) gains experience and gets up in the rank. Based flight hours and completed sorties and of course confirmed kills. So pilots flying the CAP without meeting enemy gets hours, helicopter pilot transporting troops gets hours and points from support. etc. And more you put hours and such, better your virtual pilot becomes with features like withstanding higher G-force better, that is big benefit in dog fight. They get better weapons and more of them, as they can "buy those" with points. They get more demanding sorties etc.

But it all can end in that virtual pilot that rank has been raised and invested hours to it, by simply dying in stupid way. And that means that every virtual pilot would be there really serious about every possibility of the damage, or not returning to base with aircraft intact.

So you get that warning lamp in the start-up check? Be ready to request a repair. You get that gear retraction fault after take-off? Prepare to perform the correct emergency landing procedures.

You do not perform correct landing pattern etc? You get penalized for that!

So want to easily grow those points etc? You would fly happily those 1-2 hour CAP boxes etc. You are for the HC server, you do those things that matters.

And these things do not work if everything is just silent, as you should be able listen the radio chatter around you by correct frequencies etc. And that is the great thing ED is just currently doing with their VoIP system. And that should mean that you can listen ground units combat if you have frequency and you can decode the encryption etc. So you can be flying above the combat area without really doing anything else than patrolling and following troops movement over radio and visually even.

So like an old-school RPG type progression of different characteristics? Interesting concept.

I have never played MP as I imagine it to be exactly as you describe, i.e. people just out to spoil each other's day, which I guess is a shame as it has the potential to add so much more immersion with some like-minded 'professional' fliers.

As for circuit procedures, well I need follow those in real life, so in DCS I may be guilty of the occasional run and break at 50ft and M1+ :music_whistling: but generally I try to do things properly.

I think as much realism as possible is a great thing with one caveat. Given the choice of a functioning “test switch” or every time I flip that test switch I get kicked off a server or DCS crashes and a reboot is in order my priority is the system first. Obviously a noob but it would seem the biggest difference between “being an actual Pilot” or a “Sim Pilot” is the reality of failures of the operating system/base program, not a bit failure in the aircraft.

I would just like focus on 1. Make program itself work as close to perfect as reasonable,(system crashes, glitches, server kicks 2. Fix existing functions on modules that are wonky (ie landing lights that work on all modules weather ect.) 3. Bring existing models up to full function. (Radars, weapons ect). 4. New planes, campaigns and terrains.

In the end, the user can and should be able to choose if they want to be “Uber vicarious pilot” or “Mr. game guy”

Thats the beauty of being human.

Happy Thanksgiving for those who celebrate, and to the rest, have a great weekend!!

I enjoy flying with and against humans on a dynamic combined arms server (DDCS). Sure, there are good and bad days, but for me DDCS is the pinnacle of DCS immersion and fun.

As for realism, I'm afraid many elitists equate realism with cockpit switchology. I could be rude and say go fly MSFS if you're so obsessed with pushing buttons, but I will not.

DCS is COMBAT flight simulator, yet the combat part seems to get far less attention then switchology. We have some obscure test procedure yet core combat has been neglected to the point of being ridiculous, eg: missiles going for chaff/flare from 20km away, ridiculous and inconsistent ECM (some modules are even immune to ecm), radars picking up targets through obstacles, "roll the dice" flare effect calculation...

I can be a COMBAT flightsim enthusiast and not give a crap if auxilary fuse for backup waste disposal power indicator lamp test circuit is modelled or not. Immersion does not equal switchology but instead it is a sum of many things of which switchology is only a part.