IFR black out, rolling deck, civil airplanes (and 4K virtual reality)

[strikor]

Hi guys,

 

First of all, huge thanks to the developer's community (for the top quality sims and updates) and to the users (that make these forums alive every day). I have a ton of ideas to improve this sim, today I focus on 3 of them: 1 easy-kill, 1 medium and 1 long-term:

 

- easy kill: the option to have pure IFR navigation by blacking out external views. I know you can simulate it with pitch dark weather / night time, but in some situations it's easier to have an easy switch (for example to focus on some sections of the flight). This is what they do at Whiting Field.

 

- medium kill: rolling deck: effect of waves on carrier decks (good timing of the launches + messing ILS alignements during landings). Pretty sure someone already came up with this idea, it's a basic need for naval ops.

 

- long-term: developing civil airplanes and port existing map addons from MSFS. Obvious rationale: huge market (largest # users), MSFS is outdated (graphics and options) and there is no replacement in view (I don't believe it's a product too mature), tankers and AWACS are a cross-product easily includable on DCS (for the C on DCS), once you implement round world's mapping you can use low-def maps for letting users cruise around w/o much caring for map resolution (while waiting for high res maps to come out), and you can develop your corporate client side of the business. Of course, the big thing would be to be able to port existing high quality addons (flight models and cockpit) into DCS. I have no clue how hard this would be.

 

An additional point which is beyond your direct reach, yet it's highly synergetic with the DCS market: have you talked / lobbied Oculus to get 4K def on their products? I have the DK2 and 1080p is a huge disappointment (I mean HUD reading, not even talking about spotting anything outside the cockpit).

 

Thanks,

Strikor

Edited December 29, 2014 by strikor

[brindle]

I agree with the 'disappointment' of Oculus DK2/1080p. I have the DK2 set aside, while returning to my TrackIR. I'd be flying much more if the higher-def was fixed. I know Oculus is just the developers edition, so I'll need to be patient - loved the 'buzz' I got from the DK2 and the hi-G turns but the HUD reading needs tweaked.

[Rongor]

I have no clue how hard this would be.

I certainly don't think you have a clue of most of the stuff you posted.

 

-There might be some synergetic potential with OR, but calling it "highly synergetic with the DCS market" goes way beyond the present impact which OR has on any market. DK stands for "developer kit" by the way.

 

-"port existing map addons from MSFS" and "port existing high quality addons (flight models and cockpit) into DCS" is completely naive.

1. They aren't allowed to do that since they didn't own any rights or licenses regarding any MSFS content.

2. There are very rare MSFS addons of high quality (in a DCS aspect)

3. MSFS content is based on a basic program created in the 80s, the approach to simulate flying was completely different then. Todays computers in fact can calculate flight models while you steer them, back then in MSFS they couldn't do that. Those "flight models" in MSFS where nothing else then some tables with data which MSFS read to pretend some flight behavior matching the current flight attitude and circumstances.

4. We don't know how or when ED will implement a fully globe, so it is way too early to suggest how to fill this globe with scenery.

5. MSFS does in fact have a "replacement", it is the genuine successor Prepar3d of Lockheed-Martin, you can fin info on this sim here in this forum section

 

I understand your idea of rolling decks. But I absolutely can't follow you when you declare this a "basic need". I say this isn't even a need at all. "Basic" would mean us having a carrier and a DCS module to conduct carrier ops from this carrier, these 2 are the absolute basic needs. Everything else might be nice to have but is certainly not required to commence carrier operations within DCS World.

 

I don't know Whiting Field. So I am not able to understand the importance of this fact being mentioned by you.

 

I apologize if my reply may be perceived rude. It wasn't meant offensive, just wanted to state facts with the same intensity of heart as you did in your OP.

[strikor]

I certainly don't think you have a clue of most of the stuff you posted.

 

-There might be some synergetic potential with OR, but calling it "highly synergetic with the DCS market" goes way beyond the present impact which OR has on any market. DK stands for "developer kit" by the way.

 

-"port existing map addons from MSFS" and "port existing high quality addons (flight models and cockpit) into DCS" is completely naive.

1. They aren't allowed to do that since they didn't own any rights or licenses regarding any MSFS content.

2. There are very rare MSFS addons of high quality (in a DCS aspect)

3. MSFS content is based on a basic program created in the 80s, the approach to simulate flying was completely different then. Todays computers in fact can calculate flight models while you steer them, back then in MSFS they couldn't do that. Those "flight models" in MSFS where nothing else then some tables with data which MSFS read to pretend some flight behavior matching the current flight attitude and circumstances.

4. We don't know how or when ED will implement a fully globe, so it is way too early to suggest how to fill this globe with scenery.

5. MSFS does in fact have a "replacement", it is the genuine successor Prepar3d of Lockheed-Martin, you can fin info on this sim here in this forum section

 

I understand your idea of rolling decks. But I absolutely can't follow you when you declare this a "basic need". I say this isn't even a need at all. "Basic" would mean us having a carrier and a DCS module to conduct carrier ops from this carrier, these 2 are the absolute basic needs. Everything else might be nice to have but is certainly not required to commence carrier operations within DCS World.

 

I don't know Whiting Field. So I am not able to understand the importance of this fact being mentioned by you.

 

I apologize if my reply may be perceived rude. It wasn't meant offensive, just wanted to state facts with the same intensity of heart as you did in your OP.

 

Disclaimer / Spoiler: I am no software developer, not with ED, I have had fun on sims for 15 years without the need for ultra-realistic-800-page tutorial-SIMULATION, and like most of us on these forums I know 1 or 2 things about user experience in sims.

 

Your tone put aside, let's go to the essential:

 

Oculus: sure one that gets a DK2 knows that DK means Developer Kit, thanks for the tip anyway, my point is that the consumer version is rumoured to be 1080p, the same resolution than the DK, hence the relevance of talking of DK2 resolution.

 

Whiting Field: 1 of the 2 US Navy flight schools, candidates go through basic IFR ground training on a cockpit w/o any outside visuals. Pretty much a benchmark when developing a sim.

 

Rolling decks: a "basic need" for any F18 sim, way more important for instance than fully modelling pellets of cluster bombs in the A10. From a commercial perspective, goes w/o saying that a carrier is a "zero-day need" for F18s. From a modelling perspective, it's damn easy to do introduce a rolling factor (like heading and speed), I am not talking of modelling waves to create a rolling movement of the 3d carrier model, that would be an overkill for a flight simulator such as DCS.

 

MSFS porting civilian airplanes:

1) By its very nature, an OP coming from an outsider (me) is always ignorant of the technicalities of software development. It doesn't bother me a second: user experience, content is what sells and that's on that I am focusing when pointing to reducing development cycle (i.e. keeping user rates) and increasing the library of units (be it AI or user-controlled).

2) I was pointing to the elephant in the room that there's a huge market potential just by getting 3d models and basic functionalities of MSFS civilian quality add-ons on a first phase (like FC3 was for the current Su-27). Of course licences would have to be bought, yet my point is that it's a quick way of adding content and opening DCS to a larger (and corporate) market. I assume this is a positive for the survival of DCS.

3) Of course most MSFS add-ons are not A10 quality (aside e.g. Airbus and Boeing series), still for some it would be surely better than most units we have had for so many years in FC3 (e.g. Su27, F15), and which gathered a ton of users. And yes, hardcore simmers and professionals can always use the existing DCS realistic models in the meantime, everyone would be happy in a single platform. This is not a problem unless you are talking of putting 2 users head to head with fighters of different build complexity which would be a disadvantage for the matching (as it is already the case between some current models). On my idea, this is not a problem because I was talking of porting civilian airplanes, they will never be a problem for any (simple or complex) fighter.

4) I can go further (or back sort of): on a first phase, let's have simply a huge AI civilian library with ATC interaction, no need to have user-controlled civil airplanes. It simply adds to immersion.

5) Globe projection is a huge buck potential for ED just by licensing it to developers, surely it can be a priority if they have teams interested in doing it (and users).

 

Prepar3d is much more than and probably too complex to be the sucessor of MSFS on the category of home computer sim. Lockheed advertises it as ultra realistic multi platform (sea, air, land units) targeting professionals (rescue teams, pilots...). I am may be wrong on this, after all their air units may very well suit MSFS hardcore users.

Edited December 30, 2014 by strikor

[Rongor]

Prepar3d is much more than and probably too complex to be the sucessor of MSFS on the category of home computer sim. Lockheed advertises it as ultra realistic multi platform (sea, air, land units) targeting professionals (rescue teams, pilots...). I am may be wrong on this, after all their air units may very well suit MSFS hardcore users.

 

And again your very much problem is that you put a lot of assumptions on the base of guess.

Obviously you never even touched Prepar3d but surprisingly that doesn't prevent you judging it and even abuse your nonexistent knowledge about this definite MSFS successor to support some other wild guesses you deliver.

Everybody capable of starting up a plane in MSFS can do so instantly in Prepar3d. There is nothing "too complex" in Prepar3D. It doesn't even feature rolling decks.;)

 

Btw, I didn't know yet the US Navy flight schools being a benchmark for sim developing, thanks for this amazing discovery that sounds so unbelievable I just don't manage to believe it.

 

Still very nice of you that you come up with some marketing/developing ideas regarding 3rd party (MSFS and OR) content. I would have expected ED being a company considering strategies like these on their own. Thankfully you now told them what they just couldn't figure out yet by themselves.

 

I will cease to reply this thread now, this is just far too deep into a world purely made up by someone's own imaginations.

 

Good luck with these fantasies though:doh:

 

Happy new year!

[GGTharos]

Right, so, to give another perspective ...

 

Whiting Field: 1 of the 2 US Navy flight schools, candidates go through basic IFR ground training on a cockpit w/o any outside visuals. Pretty much a benchmark when developing a sim.

 

No, it isn't. Who cares about IFR anyway? Most people who play combat flight sims want to see the boom booms, not their instruments.

IFR is hard, and the vast majority of people neither want nor need it. To put another way, down goes this feature's priority rank.

 

Rolling decks: a "basic need" for any F18 sim, way more important for instance than fully modelling pellets of cluster bombs in the A10.

 

Again, no. People find a rolling deck a novelty, but what they really care about is actually the cluster bombs. And the resulting boom booms.

Priority rank for rolling decks down.

 

From a commercial perspective, goes w/o saying that a carrier is a "zero-day need" for F18s. From a modelling perspective, it's damn easy to do introduce a rolling factor (like heading and speed), I am not talking of modelling waves to create a rolling movement of the 3d carrier model, that would be an overkill for a flight simulator such as DCS.

 

DCS can do all that. Again - priorities.

 

MSFS porting civilian airplanes:

 

DCS doesn't offer any of the navigation capability that makes MSFS, well, MSFS. That may be ok if you're flying certain aircraft, not so much with others.

 

"But but ED could develop-" yes, they could. They're developing an F-18 instead. It has afterburners and boom booms, and can navigate on its own in all weather conditions.

 

Priorities. ATC or better radar simulation? Guess what DCS fans want more? (Well, a certain large proportion of fighter-jet loving fans).

 

Prepar3d is much more than and probably too complex to be the sucessor of MSFS on the category of home computer sim. Lockheed advertises it as ultra realistic multi platform (sea, air, land units) targeting professionals (rescue teams, pilots...). I am may be wrong on this, after all their air units may very well suit MSFS hardcore users.

 

Yes, you're wrong on this. You can already do a bunch of these scenarios in DCS. Could they be better done? Always. What will be done? That's up to priorities.

 

And frankly, my 120's and APG-63 fuzed with TEWS working very well is, to me, preferable than the stuff you suggested. Not that I don't see the value and I wouldn't complain if ED started implementing such things, but: I just don't care, I don't need it for the Air to Air mission.

[Rotareneg]

The ships do roll already, there's even a Blackshark mission where you have to deliver a package to a frigate in bad weather while it's bobbing all over the place.

[GGTharos]

I'm just presenting another perspective. Like I said, I wouldn't complain if ED implemented all those things either. After all it would probably lead to the expansion of combat theatres as well - make them much larger, require the use of more strategic and tactical deployments etc. :)

 

As for weather, you can 'feel' weather in DCS with dynamic weather, but it doesn't seem to mesh well with some things so few people use it.

 

Well, I agree with you, but I think you're underestimating environment factor of flight simulation. Yes, it's most important to have properly simulated flight dynamics, systems, weapon deployment, but if you do not have nice external world to "communicate" with, many of your nice aircraft systems are unusable.

 

For example, you have detailed radio equipment in A-10C, but with dumb ATC and dumber AI aircraft, you cannot utilize full potential of that equipment.

 

You have very nice "PFM" for most of DCS aircraft, but with rudimentary weather engine in DCS, aircraft flies like "on rails". IRL you can feel weather, in DCS there's almost no weather.

 

Well, if all that people expect is boom booms, let's dumb DCS to the HAWX/ACE Combat level.

[Darkwolf]

Despite I would side with the OP opinions, GGtharos clearly explained the current situation. :smartass:

 

 

Regarding IFR - I don't see where a "black switch" is needed.

 

First - Easy way - You can just set fog to 30 centimeter.

Second - Realistic way - Just NOT look thru the windows - You pan your view down to the instrument and fly without lifting the head.

 

This is one of my favorite exercice. :)

[strikor]

And again your very much problem is that you put a lot of assumptions on the base of guess.

Obviously you never even touched Prepar3d but surprisingly that doesn't prevent you judging it and even abuse your nonexistent knowledge about this definite MSFS successor to support some other wild guesses you deliver.

Everybody capable of starting up a plane in MSFS can do so instantly in Prepar3d. There is nothing "too complex" in Prepar3D. It doesn't even feature rolling decks.;)

 

Btw, I didn't know yet the US Navy flight schools being a benchmark for sim developing, thanks for this amazing discovery that sounds so unbelievable I just don't manage to believe it.

 

Still very nice of you that you come up with some marketing/developing ideas regarding 3rd party (MSFS and OR) content. I would have expected ED being a company considering strategies like these on their own. Thankfully you now told them what they just couldn't figure out yet by themselves.

 

I will cease to reply this thread now, this is just far too deep into a world purely made up by someone's own imaginations.

 

Good luck with these fantasies though:doh:

 

Happy new year!

 

Thanks for pointing me out the delusion on using MSFS as a shortcut to getting civilian airplanes in DCS. As mentioned, I am not a developer, so it may very well be irrealistic. Nonetheless, from a commercial perspective, I am still convinced that they would be a great addition to this sim for immersion and larger market (no matter which way developers come up to build it).

 

I will have a better look at Prepar3d. I didn't purchase it indeed. If doesn't have rolling decks, then it's missing a very challenging yet a crucial element of the naval ops curriculum that I was looking for in DCS.

 

On Whiting Field, I simply explained to you why the US Navy flight school is a benchmark for learning to fly (since you commented on it w/o knowing its existence). I did not say it was a benchmark to create a simulator, again I am an end user, not a developer, I don't really care about how to build the simulator.

Seems natural for me that IFR would be a well-developed feature in a simulator where there is so much detail elsewhere.

 

The first thing I did in my OP was to truly congratulate all developers for their work in DCS. I am an end user so my angle is always incomplete. Yet, on the idea of adding civilian airplanes, I didn't find it on the forums as being part of or decided to be excluded from the development roadmap, hence their inclusion in a wishlist. Tell me where to find and I will be happy to check it out.

 

Happy 2015 to you

[strikor]

Right, so, to give another perspective ...

 

 

 

No, it isn't. Who cares about IFR anyway? Most people who play combat flight sims want to see the boom booms, not their instruments.

IFR is hard, and the vast majority of people neither want nor need it. To put another way, down goes this feature's priority rank.

 

 

 

Again, no. People find a rolling deck a novelty, but what they really care about is actually the cluster bombs. And the resulting boom booms.

Priority rank for rolling decks down.

 

 

 

DCS can do all that. Again - priorities.

 

 

 

DCS doesn't offer any of the navigation capability that makes MSFS, well, MSFS. That may be ok if you're flying certain aircraft, not so much with others.

 

"But but ED could develop-" yes, they could. They're developing an F-18 instead. It has afterburners and boom booms, and can navigate on its own in all weather conditions.

 

Priorities. ATC or better radar simulation? Guess what DCS fans want more? (Well, a certain large proportion of fighter-jet loving fans).

 

 

 

Yes, you're wrong on this. You can already do a bunch of these scenarios in DCS. Could they be better done? Always. What will be done? That's up to priorities.

 

And frankly, my 120's and APG-63 fuzed with TEWS working very well is, to me, preferable than the stuff you suggested. Not that I don't see the value and I wouldn't complain if ED started implementing such things, but: I just don't care, I don't need it for the Air to Air mission.

 

 

Thanks for the comments.

 

On the boom boom, I thought that DCS was moving away from it with the A10C and the recent improvements on the flight models of the FC3 airplanes having set up the tone.

Boom boom gameplay is surely something that DCS should be able to cater to a large audience but only w/o alienating the more hardcore community.

 

On IFR and rolling decks, I disagree, a lot of people would care (at least as a learning experience rather using it everyday). It should be a well-developed feature of such detailed simulator, especially with a detailed F18 coming out. Just leave the option to simplify it / switch it off if the user wishes so.

 

On priorities, ground-radar wins over ATC indeed. Not to say that an improved ATC shouldn't be added (ATC / AWACS controlled by user, like in MSFS). Again, I am no developer, so can't tell how development resource-consuming it would be.

[strikor]

Despite I would side with the OP opinions, GGtharos clearly explained the current situation. :smartass:

 

 

Regarding IFR - I don't see where a "black switch" is needed.

 

First - Easy way - You can just set fog to 30 centimeter.

Second - Realistic way - Just NOT look thru the windows - You pan your view down to the instrument and fly without lifting the head.

 

This is one of my favorite exercice. :)

 

 

Thanks! It's a favorite too ! The 2nd option is easier in case I mess up and want to avoid crashing / restarting the mission.

[smnwrx]

I understand what you are saying here, I know when I fly FSX/P3d I think, man it would be great if this plane had the feel/complexity of a DCS aircraft, and when Im not flying combat in DCS I think, it would be great to fly this mustang through the Alps. I also understand that presently it is not possible to have it all on one platform. DCS is a combat simulator and should focus on improving the combat simulation aspect of aviation.

 

One issue with IFR in DCS is that IFR in combat is not flown like it is in civilian planes. IE airways, charted approaches and departures. Many combat plane do not even have the equipment necessary to locate GPS fixes and and fly RNAV approaches. Preplanned routes and altitudes flown at with precise timing is what keeps traffic deconflicted, along with AWACS assistance. With all that said I agree that the controllers comms should be improved in due time.

 

At a forward deployed location the SOP for departures may be a max performance climb to avoid shoulder launched missiles and small arms. I can almost garentee you won't find that on any Jepp chart here in the states :)

Edited December 31, 2014 by smnwrx

[GGTharos]

On the boom boom, I thought that DCS was moving away from it with the A10C and the recent improvements on the flight models of the FC3 airplanes having set up the tone.

Boom boom gameplay is surely something that DCS should be able to cater to a large audience but only w/o alienating the more hardcore community.

 

Hi, my response to you for this is, with emphasis mine:

 

DCS = Digital Combat Simulation

 

That's not to say other things can't be done of course ;)

 

On IFR and rolling decks, I disagree, a lot of people would care (at least as a learning experience rather using it everyday). It should be a well-developed feature of such detailed simulator, especially with a detailed F18 coming out. Just leave the option to simplify it / switch it off if the user wishes so.

 

They'll turn it off, like they turn off other features (turbulence, bird collisions). So, why spend time developing it?

 

On priorities, ground-radar wins over ATC indeed. Not to say that an improved ATC shouldn't be added (ATC / AWACS controlled by user, like in MSFS). Again, I am no developer, so can't tell how development resource-consuming it would be.

 

Everyone wants better ATC (... and AWACS, and AR controller, and wingmen, etc).

 

But military ATC isn't like Civvy ATC either. I doubt anyone would be fussed if you get 5 pairs of aircraft coming in on different vectors with varying altitudes and speeds, as long as they de-conflict themselves.

[strikor]

Hi, my response to you for this is, with emphasis mine:

 

DCS = Digital Combat Simulation

 

That's not to say other things can't be done of course ;)

 

 

 

They'll turn it off, like they turn off other features (turbulence, bird collisions). So, why spend time developing it?

 

 

 

Everyone wants better ATC (... and AWACS, and AR controller, and wingmen, etc).

 

But military ATC isn't like Civvy ATC either. I doubt anyone would be fussed if you get 5 pairs of aircraft coming in on different vectors with varying altitudes and speeds, as long as they de-conflict themselves.

 

Yep, I am probably expecting too much from DCS and should probably go to a real school for the pure flying elements, and use DCS for an approximation of combat elements.

 

I've just realized that not maxing out turbulence and bird collisions in DCS never came to my mind...

 

I was initially talking about civilian ATC and aircrafts that I wished to have in DCS (even if both are AI-controlled). I agree that ATC is not a priority / makes no sense in DCS w/o civilian airplanes.