Realism - wasted effort?

DCS shouldn't be compromising in any cockpit function. The way forward is to make all the tests actually work and actually include failures. I agree with the posters who want failures to be properly simulated. IMO, anything else is moving backwards.

 

DCS is supposed to be an aircraft study sim. To that end, if a module that's 95% accurate can become 99% accurate, it should. That's the reason they have dedicated teams for modules and teams working on the core sim etc.

Your post doesn't make any sense.

 

People who care about "experience" want dummy systems.

 

.

 

How did you end up with this conclusion if I may ask ? Does any one said "hey don't make this to work I want it to be dummy". or something similar ?

 

It is what it is now, if they can simulate bulb failure then good, if not then we can still do light test with or without real purpose ? You can also use win+home for startup, it's your choice but what is the problem of having a light test button if someone want to spent 1.5 seconds to press it while waiting for INS to align anyway ?

People here explained me that they want "experience of being a pilot" even if underlying system is not simulated to full extent.

 

As I already wrote, light test was just an example. Nothing wrong with having it in the game.

 

I already gave more complex example, which will i copy here:

Modeling INS position update in the GNSS assisted INS. State vector will never deteriorate to that extent that position update is required because GNSS equipment cannot fail. There is almost no one ever used that function because it's not part of normal operation like a light test, and you can't trigger the aircraft state where such procedure would be required.

 

"even if underlying system is not simulated to full extent."

 

"People who care about "experience" want dummy systems."

 

There is slight difference between the above imho. So in your opinion it should be either fully modeled or not have it at all or if it doesn't have any real purpose in the sim it should be removed or.. sorry I have no idea what you are complaining about :)

This is just discussion. We can disagree, but it's ridiculous to send people to play something else just because they disagree with you.

 

But that's what's MAC is going to be for - exactly that.

I'm not complying. Not every thread on this forum is complaint.

 

This is just discussion. We can disagree, but it's ridiculous to send people to play something else just because they disagree with you.

 

My opinion is that it's maybe not in our best interest to always pursue maximum realism given it takes very long time to develop. Things like light tests or ejection seat (as someone suggested here) are not that complex to be omitted, but as I pointed out, there are some systems that are very complicated to model and offer very little in return. Looking at A-10C HARS for example, or Ka-50 back panel which are mostly not modeled, ED agrees with me.

 

Now you are the one who wants dummy systems or no system at all :)

 

Well, you like it or not, Some of us "pursue maximum realism" so if some system can be modeled partially it is still better than not to have it at all. KA-50 is quite old module already not the best example, as you can see, they are adding more and more dept with time, IFF is one example, INS drift will come as well. More complex damage model is coming which might include some more depth system failures.. God knows what else they are preparing and working on. I hope they will never start dropping stuff just because some people find no purpose of it in the way they use the sim.

But that's what's MAC is going to be for - exactly that.

 

 

As the person who started this thread I can assure you that MAC holds no interest. If ED are aiming it at me then they have failed.

 

 

MAC is not a replacement for DCS for any sort of serious player.

Also, we aren't privy to who else ED attracts with their skill set of creating highly realistic simulations for military aircraft, but I always assume they're also aiming at government agencies and government contractors who would want this high level of system modeling for their own use cases when deciding to go with ED for their in-house simulations.

 

Of course, we - the simulation enthusiasts - only get the near approximation of these systems, where certain functions are not available for our consumer versions.

 

That said, ED's passion (and ability) for simulated realism is certainly not a wasted effort, but clearly wasted on some around here it seems...

Some of us "pursue maximum realism"

 

 

Do you wear a flying suit when playing? When was your last ECG? Are you fit to fly? We all draw the line somewhere at what we consider 'realism'.

 

 

How's this for realism - next time you are killed in DCS, delete it from your computer and never play it again. See how differently you would approach flying operations then. That would be maximum realism.

For me realism is not wasted effort. This is the only game I am interested in about 2 years and I have still fun there. If there weren’t be so accurate system model I wouldn’t play it so long. Accurate system model also make more realistic procedures and tactics development in virtual squadrons. I get to great level of proficiency in tactics thanks to DCS. If you do not understand it and you think system modeling is wasted effort, than DCS isn’t game for you.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All i know is that when another world war kicks off, i am gonna be in a damn good position...to jump in a variety of jet fighters and pursue...a perfect carrier landing!:huh: :D

Do you wear a flying suit when playing? When was your last ECG? Are you fit to fly? We all draw the line somewhere at what we consider 'realism'.

 

 

How's this for realism - next time you are killed in DCS, delete it from your computer and never play it again. See how differently you would approach flying operations then. That would be maximum realism.

 

I will answer you just for fun, even tho I am sure you also realize how "cool" your comment was :)

 

 

"Do you wear a flying suit when playing?" --> No, I don't have one but I would love to :)

 

"When was your last ECG?" --> Few months back, I do regular medical checks every year just for the sake of it, may be not pilots standarts, but realistic enough ;)

 

"Are you fit to fly?" --> I fly regularly as a passenger in the airliners, so yeah I am fit enough :)

 

"next time you are killed in DCS, delete it from your computer and never play it again. See how differently you would approach flying operations then. That would be maximum realism" --> Ah you got me here, I have no answer, I will open a thread in the wishlist section to ask ED to delete my account if I got shot down. This will also make the ejection seat to have purpose no ? You are genius, I should have thought about this earlier!

I will answer you just for fun, even tho I am sure you also realize how "cool" your comment was :)

 

 

"Do you wear a flying suit when playing?" --> No, I don't have one but I would love to :)

 

"When was your last ECG?" --> Few months back, I do regular medical checks every year just for the sake of it, may be not pilots standarts, but realistic enough ;)

 

"Are you fit to fly?" --> I fly regularly as a passenger in the airliners, so yeah I am fit enough :)

 

"next time you are killed in DCS, delete it from your computer and never play it again. See how differently you would approach flying operations then. That would be maximum realism" --> Ah you got me here, I have no answer, I will open a thread in the wishlist section to ask ED to delete my account if I got shot down. This will also make the ejection seat to have purpose no ? You are genius, I should have thought about this earlier!

 

If you want one flysuit I can provide you one :megalol: I have one spare

Do you wear a flying suit when playing? When was your last ECG? Are you fit to fly? We all draw the line somewhere at what we consider 'realism'.

 

 

How's this for realism - next time you are killed in DCS, delete it from your computer and never play it again. See how differently you would approach flying operations then. That would be maximum realism.

 

I wear a flying suit all day in work and sometimes when playing DCS. I think you can also adapt HGU helmet for computer headphones. NVG is unfortunately incompatible with todays monitors. You have to use projectors.

 

I did medical 2 months back. Argued with doctors that they make the letters bigger. Get better result from eye doctor

 

Some guys I knew have full Ka-50 cockpit made in home. I do not know how about the ejection seat and parachute.

 

I fly to not to get killed in DCS.

 

Man did you try Warthunder? I think that will be ideal game for you.

You're still sitting in a chair at 0 KIAS, 0 FT/M AGL, and at 1G. Even if you're wearing a suit, even if you're medically fit, even if you uninstalled the game after your first crash.

It will never be a perfect replication of the realty if sitting in one of these machines in flight.

You're still sitting in a chair at 0 KIAS, 0 FT/M AGL, and at 1G. Even if you're wearing a suit, even if you're medically fit, even if you uninstalled the game after your first crash.

It will never be a perfect replication of the realty if sitting in one of these machines in flight.

 

But it is close enough. You do not have the acceleration feeling yet but that is all. It is not as important as you think.

I believe if you have same controls for your airframe it is very precise simulation. For Mi-8 I would say it is better simulation of flight model in standard contitions is more precise than flight model of profesional full mission simulator and very close to real one.

Our full motion simulators just last year got a realistic stall buffet, that's been modeled in DCS and high quality FSX addons for over a decade.

It's incredibly nice.

 

I would imagine enduring 5G's in a turn fight is pretty important as you're trying to work HOTAS controls and move your head to look at your target. In our straight and level world it might not be important, but I don't think that's true for maneuvering combat aircraft.

 

I think none of this is any justification why I can't do a lights test, or have an INS+GPS, despite a lack of failures.

 

I'm also not opposed to more Flaming Cliffs aircraft (**coughcoughMIG25coughcough**)

 

I think none of this is any justification why I can't do a lights test, or have an INS+GPS, despite a lack of failures.

 

 

Exactly!

I’ve been reading this thread with interest. The reality is that we need it all—MAC, FC3, and incredibly detailed aircraft. Without them, ED doesn’t survive. DCS needs to be both fish and fowl. And I trust the ED crew to know where they need to focus their efforts even when I don’t like where that leaves me.

How's this for realism - next time you are killed in DCS, delete it from your computer and never play it again. See how differently you would approach flying operations then. That would be maximum realism.

 

Why wasting time on a product you don't even grasp definition of? Yes, you failed to understand what simulation is. You know, if we had enough time, money and could fly IRL these machines we would certainly not sit in front of a PC.

This reminds me of the Gran-Turismo fans back in the day who cited the fact that it modelled tyre-wall deformation for 'ultimate realism', yet conveniently overlooked the fact that you could bounce off a barrier at 150+mph and continue driving as if nothing happened.

 

I put 1000s of hours into the various iterations of that game, but none of it made me a racing driver.

 

I have 1000s of hours on flight simulators, but none of that made me a fighter pilot.

 

We are all guilty of playing lets-pretend. After all, that is why we are here on an internet forum, as grown men discussing (arguing about) a computer game and which factors should be prioritised in the name of realism. The fact is ED still do it way better than anyone else, but some people seem really defensive over any criticism of it.

 

I think this thread is going in circles now. I am going to finish up at work and go fly a (virtual) Block 50 Viper instead of continuing to flog this particular dead horse.

 

Wherever you get your particular kicks from DCS enjoy!:thumbup:

My time to be a fighter pilot is long gone. I would have tried when I was younger but my vision would have held me back. This is my only chance to be a fighter pilot and being as realistic as possible helps my immersion. I don't consider doing all the test as a waste of time. Even without failures.

 

I've done and still do a lot of things dangerous enough to take my life. I enjoy the challenge. DCS is my chance you get away from real life and enjoy what i've only dreamed of all my life.

This reminds me of the Gran-Turismo fans back in the day who cited the fact that it modelled tyre-wall deformation for 'ultimate realism', yet conveniently overlooked the fact that you could bounce off a barrier at 150+mph and continue driving as if nothing happened.

 

I put 1000s of hours into the various iterations of that game, but none of it made me a racing driver.

 

I have 1000s of hours on flight simulators, but none of that made me a fighter pilot.

 

We are all guilty of playing lets-pretend. After all, that is why we are here on an internet forum, as grown men discussing (arguing about) a computer game and which factors should be prioritised in the name of realism. The fact is ED still do it way better than anyone else, but some people seem really defensive over any criticism of it.

 

I think this thread is going in circles now. I am going to finish up at work and go fly a (virtual) Block 50 Viper instead of continuing to flog this particular dead horse.

 

Wherever you get your particular kicks from DCS enjoy!:thumbup:

 

Youre right it won't make you a fighter pilot but if you are fighter pilot, DCS makes you better fighter pilot if you use it right.

 

Same applies for heli guys. If you use use it right way it will make you better pilot and mission commander.

instead of continuing to flog this particular dead horse

you're the OP of this thread Lance, this dead horse is yours.

This reminds me of the Gran-Turismo fans back in the day who cited the fact that it modelled tyre-wall deformation for 'ultimate realism', yet conveniently overlooked the fact that you could bounce off a barrier at 150+mph and continue driving as if nothing happened.

If I'm not mistaken it sounds like you have certain expectations of what should and should not be recreated in a desktop simulation, and if those expectations aren't met then that's a problem for everybody. You crash into walls at 150mph and expect the game to punish you realistically. No sense deforming the tires of a soon to be destroyed race car.

Yet other users perhaps very rarely crash into walls at 150mph. For them perhaps the impact itself is a punishment. They may brush against the walls more often, but the majority of their time is spent on track. They would rather see in depth tire physics of the tires they use to avoid the walls. They utilize the simulation in a different way than you, focus on different aspects of the experience, and except different results from their different inputs. In both cases it seems the developers intend to create software for different values than what you might have, in line with some of their other users expectations.

Edited November 21, 2019 by randomTOTEN

Man did you try Warthunder? I think that will be ideal game for you.

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?

 

 

I think none of this is any justification why I can't do a lights test, or have an INS+GPS, despite a lack of failures.

Same goes for this one… no-one has ever said or suggested that anything of the kind.

this thread is not a deep and meaningful discussion

its not even about realism, its mostly impatience at the slow speed of development.

 

its 17 pages of the child in the back of the car going "are we there yet?" and fighting with the other kids.

lots of helpful advice telling mommy how to drive faster.

guess what kids.. mommy don't need your help.. its her car..

we are here just for the ride.

if you don't like it you can get out and walk..