What has happend to the military sim market.

[GGTharos]

He has some interesting points, but there's no demise.

 

I think this guy has nailed it on the head.

[GGTharos]

Military trainers require guaranteed performance. The reason you can strip the graphics is that real military peeps get real training, in real planes/tanks. In flight sims, or tank sims that are for entertainment, visual fidelity becomes more important since it is a huge, huge part of the real deal, and we, unlike the military peeps, don't get to have 'the real deal' to train in.

 

I agree with you that the graphics don't have to be photo-realistic; look at real military training Sims, used by militaries, to train future soldiers: they're not. I roll my eyes a bit at the crowd who has to stuff every single possible graphical fidelity mod into DCS, and then bitches that they don't get 60 FPS - go have a look at Steel Beasts to see what acceptable graphics are for real military training.

[SkateZilla]

On a Side note, Hardware Prices can impact gaming sales.:

 

in the Early 1990's even for most Sims like TopGun:FAW, Janes Combat Sims, Jet Fighter, Falcon 3.0 etc.

 

All you usually needed was a 32 MB of EDO Ram, 2 MB VESA Compatible Video Card, a 2 or 4 Axis Stick, a Sound blaster, and a mouse. and you were all set!.

 

All of which in the mid 90s were about $300 together, due to Generic/Clone Brand SoundBlaster Cards being about $20 a pop, 2-8MB VESA VGA Cards for AGP,PCI or ISA being about $50 a pop. 32MB of EDO ram being about $80 for 2x 16MB SIMMs, and pretty much any store bought DIY case w/ 200 Watt PSU and Cheap mainboard+CPU combo deal.

 

All in Shop prices from a local store, before online stores became the mainstay.

 

I Know, I was like 13 when I built a PC with Similar specs using my Allowance money.

The most expensive part being a VooDoo3 GFX Card.

 

Fast Forward to Today, to get decent performance you need alot more stuff to be feel ready:

2GB GPU (About $130 for Decent Perf.),

4+ Core CPU (About $80-120),

8 GB of Ram (Approaching $90 - $100 For Decent Perf.)

Mainboard ($80ish)

Any Hotas ($50 for a cheapie to $400+ for a Serious Unit)

1080P Screen ($100-$300)

That doesnt Count Sound Cards (as most people are happy with onboard AC'97), Multiple screens, headsets, track ir, etc etc.

 

I can tell you one thing, the price of some of the Parts in my PC have more than doubled in the 2 years since I built it, DDR3 RAM and GPU being the main 2.

 

My GPU was $479 on launch day, it dropped to about $249 just before R9-s were launched, due to R9 shortages and mining, my GPU is still an active SKU selling for $569. My New GPU is Retailing for $599 still, and was as low as $379 weeks before it was discontinued and brought back. My 16GB Ram Kit Inflated from 75.99 to Over $159.99 and that wasnt even a top performance kit.

 

Shoot the VALUE Tier RAM I purchased for a Budget build for my brother went from $24 for 4 GB to $69.99 for the same exact model.

 

Point here is, when PC Parts Inflate, PC Game Sales Suffer, The Simulation Part of that Suffer's even more due to the requirement of decent hardware.

 

As Component Prices Rise, People start to slimline their PC Purchases, people that arent Simmers are Happy with their $200 Walmart Special that can prolly only play angry birds. and there fore they dont even consider more complicated simulations.

 

 

 

 

 

Now ...if only my Webcam saw my face and imprinted as the reflection on the canopy glass, flight sims would get crazy sales!

Edited February 17, 2014 by SkateZilla

[Djent33]

If you are an aviator at heart, you gonna come to things you want to fly and it’s as simple as that, the hardware part doesn’t make you fly a plane.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Djent33

[Pilotasso]

On a Side note, Hardware Prices can impact gaming sales.:

 

in the Early 1990's even for most Sims like TopGun:FAW, Janes Combat Sims, Jet Fighter, Falcon 3.0 etc.

 

All you usually needed was a 32 MB of EDO Ram, 2 MB VESA Compatible Video Card, a 2 or 4 Axis Stick, a Sound blaster, and a mouse. and you were all set!.

 

All of which in the mid 90s were about $300 together, due to Generic/Clone Brand SoundBlaster Cards being about $20 a pop, 2-8MB VESA VGA Cards for AGP,PCI or ISA being about $50 a pop. 32MB of EDO ram being about $80 for 2x 16MB SIMMs, and pretty much any store bought DIY case w/ 200 Watt PSU and Cheap mainboard+CPU combo deal.

 

All in Shop prices from a local store, before online stores became the mainstay.

 

I Know, I was like 13 when I built a PC with Similar specs using my Allowance money.

The most expensive part being a VooDoo3 GFX Card.

 

Fast Forward to Today, to get decent performance you need alot more stuff to be feel ready:

2GB GPU (About $130 for Decent Perf.),

4+ Core CPU (About $80-120),

8 GB of Ram (Approaching $90 - $100 For Decent Perf.)

Mainboard ($80ish)

Any Hotas ($50 for a cheapie to $400+ for a Serious Unit)

1080P Screen ($100-$300)

That doesnt Count Sound Cards (as most people are happy with onboard AC'97), Multiple screens, headsets, track ir, etc etc.

 

I can tell you one thing, the price of some of the Parts in my PC have more than doubled in the 2 years since I built it, DDR3 RAM and GPU being the main 2.

 

My GPU was $479 on launch day, it dropped to about $249 just before R9-s were launched, due to R9 shortages and mining, my GPU is still an active SKU selling for $569. My New GPU is Retailing for $599 still, and was as low as $379 weeks before it was discontinued and brought back. My 16GB Ram Kit Inflated from 75.99 to Over $159.99 and that wasnt even a top performance kit.

 

Shoot the VALUE Tier RAM I purchased for a Budget build for my brother went from $24 for 4 GB to $69.99 for the same exact model.

 

Point here is, when PC Parts Inflate, PC Game Sales Suffer, The Simulation Part of that Suffer's even more due to the requirement of decent hardware.

 

As Component Prices Rise, People start to slimline their PC Purchases, people that arent Simmers are Happy with their $200 Walmart Special that can prolly only play angry birds. and there fore they dont even consider more complicated simulations.

 

 

 

 

 

Now ...if only my Webcam saw my face and imprinted as the reflection on the canopy glass, flight sims would get crazy sales!

 

Zilla, the problem you describe stems from the fact you have a lot more choice today, namely upwards to the high end of the spectrum. You can still buy hardware worth 300$ that gets you running the SIM perfectly but you wont be happy knowing that you could get better for exponentially more money. :D

[SkateZilla]

show me a $300 system that runs DCS or FSX... lol

[Speed]

Actually Skatezilla, my experiences have been EXACTLY the opposite. To me, computers last longer and cost much less than they did 15, 20 years ago.

 

I just ordered a brand new system with an i7 4820, GTX 760, 480 GB SSD, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, etc. It "only" set me back about $1600. It's to replace the $1300 desktop I bought five years ago. The five year-old system it's replacing still functions, and it can still run the latest games, albeit at reduced settings.

 

I contrast this with the system I got in 1999, which was probably around the same relative quality, at that time, as this system is now. My 550 MHz 1999 computer only lasted me about 3.5 years and cost me over $2500. At the end of that 3.5 years, it was too slow and obsolete to run the latest games. Just think about how much $2500 in 1999 is in TODAY's dollars. $4000? $4500? I just got a similar relative-quality system, that will probably last me longer, for only $1600!

 

Imagine... could you have used a computer that was a "hot" system in 1992 to play the latest games released in 1997?! Of course not!

 

So I completely disagree with the assertion that computers have gotten more expensive; if anything they have gotten much cheaper.

[Pilotasso]

My fathers first 286 system was worth the equivalent of 3500 Euros back in 1989 (you could buy cars cheaper than PC's). And it was just the mainstream model (there were no custom machines back then).

Edited February 17, 2014 by Pilotasso

[cichlidfan]

I agree with Speed. I still have the paperwork for a 1994 486-66 purchase (around $4K) and when it was replaced most of the components were dumpster food.

[Pilotasso]

show me a $300 system that runs DCS or FSX... lol

 

My sisters complete rig runs FSX and it cost only 400$. If you buy the cheapest MOBO, RAM and PC case you can buy a decent CPU and a 1GB GFX...that is if your willing to play on a 19" TFT screen that doesn't go further at 1920X1080 and then you don't need top notch hardware anyway.

 

heres' an example of the build I got her:

 

COOLERMASTER K350 35 Euro

ASUS H81M-E LGA1150 55 Euro

INTEL CORE I3 4130 3.4GHZ 107 Euro

4GB GSKILL RIPJAW X DDR3 1600MHZ 38 Euro

WD BLUE 500GB SATA III 49 Euro

EVGA GTX650 TI 1GB GDDR5 135 Euro

 

 

And please note that your probably find even cheaper in dollars in the US (we get 23% VAT here these days).

 

Yeah Im cheap. :D

 

This is a complete PC tower, but in your post you mentioned 300$ worth of upgrades, for just an upgrade for 300$ I could get a better GFX and squeeze in a joystick in there far more capable than anything you could buy back then for the same price.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Pilotasso

[SkateZilla]

Actually Skatezilla, my experiences have been EXACTLY the opposite. To me, computers last longer and cost much less than they did 15, 20 years ago.

 

.

 

 

Well Yeah 1995 to 2005 I was upgrading CPU, Mobo, Ram and GPU every 4 or 5 months. and doing complete rebuilds every 18 or so months.

[Djent33]

Not once did you dunk it in oil tank.

[Vedexent]

Military trainers require guaranteed performance. The reason you can strip the graphics is that real military peeps get real training, in real planes/tanks. In flight sims, or tank sims that are for entertainment, visual fidelity becomes more important since it is a huge, huge part of the real deal, and we, unlike the military peeps, don't get to have 'the real deal' to train in.

 

I don't think we're going to agree here. I think that the basic way that Human psychology processes the environment leads to us not needing, processing, or remembering, 100% of the visual cues around us.

 

In short, we don't need photo-realism to understand the situation, so if your purpose is primarily simulation over gaming, you tend to sacrifice the graphics - or put limited resources and time into perfecting the simulation rather than the graphics.

 

I sort of agree that if we can have photo-realistic graphics without losing accuracy, lets do it. I like eye-candy as much as the next guy - but I have no illusions that the candy is the steak. If I can have both, great. If I have to give up one of those, I'll sacrifice the pretty graphics before the accuracy, because to me, the simulation is the point, not the pictures.

 

That's just me. People like me, seem to be in the minority. That doesn't make me - or people like me - "better" or "more hardcore", just different and in the minority.

 

I still stick by my guns though that if you are willing to sacrifice the accuracy for the pictures - the steak for the candy - then you're more interested in a game, not a simulation. Again, that's just people's tastes - but we have military themed games up the wazoo, and done with better production values that ED seems to be willing or capable of bringing to the table. Fire up DCS and then play some Crysis 3, and you'll see what I mean.

 

DCS as a high quality graphics game, rather than a medium level graphics simulator probably wouldn't survive against War Thunder, or World of Planes, simply because it doesn't have the financial power of a major gaming publisher behind it.

 

DCS's cachet in the gaming/Sim world is its complexity, and its fidelity. Lose that, and you probably lose the thing that makes it stand out in the Gaming/Sim world - only to see it vanish.

[GGTharos]

I don't think we're going to agree here.

 

That's fine, it isn't relevant.

 

In short, we don't need photo-realism to understand the situation, so if your purpose is primarily simulation over gaming, you tend to sacrifice the graphics - or put limited resources and time into perfecting the simulation rather than the graphics.

 

I'll sacrifice the pretty graphics before the accuracy, because to me, the simulation is the point, not the pictures.

 

The graphics are part of the simulation, unless you want an instrument trainer.

 

That's just me. People like me, seem to be in the minority. That doesn't make me - or people like me - "better" or "more hardcore", just different and in the minority.

 

Oh my, hardcore switch flipping for the masses :)

 

Fire up DCS and then play some Crysis 3, and you'll see what I mean.

 

All I'll see is that Crysis can stick a lot more detail into a much smaller map, because ... it's a much smaller map.

 

DCS's cachet in the gaming/Sim world is its complexity, and its fidelity. Lose that, and you probably lose the thing that makes it stand out in the Gaming/Sim world - only to see it vanish.

 

Graphics are part of the flight experience and required for good fidelity of flight simulation, unless by flight simulation you mean instrument simulation.

[Vedexent]

*shrugs* If you need photo-realism to be able to immerse yourself in the scene, then IMO that says more about your ability to visualize situations than anything about simulations in general.

[GGTharos]

And here I thought it said something about how one might define 'simulation'.

 

*shrugs* If you need photo-realism to be able to immerse yourself in the scene, then IMO that says more about your ability to visualize situations than anything about simulations in general.

[docfu]

I was just about to ask if there was a way to revert DCS to a simple flat-shaded polygon-only mode when I remembered I just posted this:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=120798

 

SweetFX->Gaussian Blur->Sketch Mode

 

[ATTACH]94506[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]94507[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]94508[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]94509[/ATTACH]

 

Oddly, Is there a polygon mode available?

[Speed]

Graphics or "photo-realism" are only important to a simulation where they intersect with the goals of the simulation. A simulation is supposed to model a real-life process as accurately as possible. Let us confine ourselves to relatively modern combat simulations. Where in real-life is photo-realism important in combat simulating combat situations?

 

The answer is, when you're trying to use some kind of image processing (be it in the human brain or otherwise) to identify targets in a cluttered environment. For example, try simulating jungle warfare on a flat, green plane or even, DCS! Even from a helicopter's perspective, DCS is still insufficient graphically. For example, in Vietnam, scout aircraft would fly low and slow over the jungle, looking for truck tracks, trails through the grass, odd shapes in the jungle, reflections, etc.

 

Even when using an infrared or visible light EO system on ground targets IRL, you still have to be very good about picking out targets. A hot rock can be hard to pick out from a tank, or even, a human body. A human can walk under a tree and hide. Automatic target identification and recognition algorithms, tracking algorithms, and the human and eye all have a difficult time finding and recognizing targets in a cluttered environment. That's why we have camouflage, to make that task even HARDER.

 

So if you're trying to build a combat simulation of something where in real life, target identification in cluttered environments (i.e., the ground) is important, then photo-realism is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to having a realistic simulation.

 

Let's take a different example to show where "photo-realism" is unimportant to the simulation. Say you're trying to simulate a fast, high-flying, modern multi-role fighter. As long as you stay away from CAS or interdiction missions, then graphics are relatively unimportant. You're firing at blips on a radar screen. Your typical ground targets are big buildings. Rarely, you might get close enough to another aircraft to be able to tell its shape and visually identify it. You can pretty realistically model combat in a modern multi-role fighter using graphics from Falcon 3 or Flanker 1, though if you go up to Falcon 4 or Janes F-15 level graphics, the job gets a bit easier. You do need to accurately model the cockpit, which those games did not do so well. But DCS level graphics are certainly not required for a realistic multi-role fighter.

 

BUT... DCS is NOT a simulation. It is a game. There is an important distinction- a game is intended for entertainment purposes. A simulation is intended to model a real-life process, and entertainment is NOT a factor. As I said earlier, graphics only matter in a SIMULATION when they intersect with what needs to be simulated. However, a GAME is intended to be fun. Thus, graphics are very important to a GAME, as it allows you to more easily immerse yourself in the virtual world and derive entertainment out of it. That's where much of the fun factor comes from in many games- being able to pretend at some level that you're really there in the game. Anything that makes that leap easier, such as better graphics, makes the game better.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Speed

[Buzpilot]

BUT... DCS is NOT a simulation. It is a game. There is an important distinction- a game is intended for entertainment purposes. A simulation is intended to model a real-life process, and entertainment is NOT a factor. As I said earlier, graphics only matter in a SIMULATION when they intersect with what needs to be simulated. However, a GAME is intended to be fun. Thus, graphics are very important to a GAME, as it allows you to more easily immerse yourself in the virtual world and derive entertainment out of it. That's where much of the fun factor comes from in many games- being able to pretend at some level that you're really there in the game. Anything that makes that leap easier, such as better graphics, makes the game better.

 

DCS > Digital Combat Simulator ?

 

I know there's a arkade mode, but i thought in the long run, this 'game' is trying to be a simulator, within reasonable restrictions, to let medium rated computers to join too.

[GGTharos]

What you're trying to simulate is a radar and missiles. What flight simulation is about is simulating the actual flying experience (IMHO of course), and for that, you pretty much need to get the visual environment right, because regardless of the BVR aspect, you WILL navigate every maneuver visually when given the chance, assuming you want to simulate this stuff properly instead of just being stuck in the HuD reading headings.

 

What's the difference between VFR and IFR? One of those doesn't require a whole lot of investment in visual quality (... until you need to land).

 

Let's take a different example to show where "photo-realism" is unimportant to the simulation. Say you're trying to simulate a fast, high-flying, modern multi-role fighter. As long as you stay away from CAS or interdiction missions, then graphics are relatively unimportant.

[Speed]

DCS > Digital Combat Simulator ?

 

I know there's a arkade mode, but i thought in the long run, this 'game' is trying to be a simulator, within reasonable restrictions, to let medium rated computers to join too.

 

Simulator- not intended for entertainment purposes.

Game- intended for entertainment purposes.

 

99.9% of the people who buy DCS do so for entertainment purposes. Thus, it is a game, and graphics are important as they increase the amount of fun that people have in DCS.

 

If people were buying DCS to learn how to operate an aircraft, they wouldn't care nearly so much about graphics, unless it was critical to what they were trying to simulate. In most cases, it is not.

[NineLine]

DCS > Digital Combat Simulator ?

 

I know there's a arkade mode, but i thought in the long run, this 'game' is trying to be a simulator, within reasonable restrictions, to let medium rated computers to join too.

 

I'd have to agree, I think calling it a game isnt right, but I understand how we get hung up on labels, specially in the flight sim world... Give the average Call of Duty user the A-10C, and they wont call this a 'game', but there has been comments that DCS is equal to or better than some commercial simulators out there in the military and such... so I am comfortable calling it a simulation.

[NineLine]

Simulator- not intended for entertainment purposes.

Game- intended for entertainment purposes.

 

sim·u·la·tor

ˈsimyəˌlātər/Submit

noun

noun: simulator; plural noun: simulators

1.

a machine with a similar set of controls designed to provide a realistic imitation of the operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or other complex system, used for training purposes.

a program enabling a computer to execute programs written for a different operating system.

noun: simulator program; plural noun: simulator programs

 

I dont see anything saying that a simulator cant be entertainment... or be used for entertainment purposes. The fact that the A-10C has roots in an actual military simulation, I think helps push it towards the definition of simulation.

[cichlidfan]

I dont see anything saying that a simulator cant be entertainment... or be used for entertainment purposes.

 

Except for the Prepar3d license. :P

[NineLine]

Except for the Prepar3d license. :P

 

Well iRacing was supposed to be a training tool for drivers when it was first brought about... but that has evolved a lot as well :)