What is with the puritanical elitism?

[Malefic Rage]

Edit: I really wish I'd picked a better title.

 

Prompted by a recent DCS user's Facebook comment I read regarding the aborted F-35 project, I wanted to comment on something I've come across numerous times now. The user stated that they would rather not see modern aircraft developed for DCS. Their desire is based on the notion that modern aircraft cannot be modeled to the degree of quasi-perfect fidelity that can be achieved with WWII and Cold War aircraft as approximating classified systems somehow diminishes the simulations purity.

 

I really don't understand that notion since I have always inferred that the primary focus of the Digital Combat Simulator was the simulation of modern aerial combat (particularly generations 4 and 4.5), especially considering the types of aircraft, ground units, avionics systems and weapons included and modeled with the software. So long as the sim provides an accurate representation of its subject then it is irrelevant (to myself at least) whether some background calculation that has little bearing on the quality of the user experience is calculated to the twenty-third decimal place or simply approximated sufficiently. For myself the primary attraction is the ability to experience an authentic application of modern military aviation technology rather than fixate on past generations.

 

I understand not attempting to model aircraft such as the F-35A in a study sim since the degree of information classification prevents even an estimation of it's capabilities, but not the notion that anything that cannot be simulated with God-like perfection is somehow unacceptable and should be relegated to the ignorant peasants.

 

As an aside, I'm not knocking the development of the WWII modules or the people anticipating them, rather this puritanism I've been seeing. I'm curious about other people's opinions on the issue. I suppose my question to people is "What degree of approximation is suitable for a study sim? Should accuracy be nothing short of perfection or is approximation acceptable so long as the user experience is authentically represented?"

Edited August 7, 2016 by Malefic Rage
Added comment.

[Buzzles]

I really don't understand that notion since I have always inferred that the primary focus of the Digital Combat Simulator was the simulation of modern aerial combat

 

You'd be wrong then:

 

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.

 

As an aside, DCS stands out due to the depth of modelling, both flight model and systems, which is better than the vast majority of sims available.

 

Cost of this fidelity is the information required. It's not "God-like" precision in calculations as you've stated and seem to be fixated on being behind it, but simply the level required to do "accurate representation of its subject" as you put it.

 

The bar for accurate representation is quite high. The few FC3 airplanes (and C101) that are still using SFM offer a noticably poorer flying experience compared to the AFM and later airplane.

To produce those AFM's quite a lot of data is required.

 

The second catch is that a lot of the older planes have that information available as a lot of test data and manufacturing data becomes unclassified over time.

[Ktulu2]

My problem is that you say nothing about the quality of the approximation, and the way you talk about the F-35, it seems to me you are talking about guesses instead of approximation, which is VERY different!

 

With an approximation, you can give a maximum and minimal value for something (i.e. the thrust of a plane). With a guess, which would be what the F-35 would have been for many things, there's no way to prove whether you are right or wrong and by what error margin.

[Silver_Dragon]

Digital Combat Simulator was the simulation of modern aerial combat (particularly generations 4 and 4.5), especially considering the types of aircraft, ground units, avionics systems and weapons included and modelled with the software.

 

bad assumption. The actual modules and IA units covered from WW2, Korea, Vietnam, all cold war to late 90s and early 2000 and actually has not 4.5 aircraft modelled as modules. You miss Combined Arms ground module.

 

On 2012, release of unified version, DCS: W was present Ka-50, A-10C, Combined Arms and P-51D (WW-2 to actual era), late was expanded to other middle eras.

 

The primary end road to the old F-35 project was the no founded KickStarted. Without them, was very difficult get Kinney founds to start the F-35 project.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Silver_Dragon

[Malefic Rage]

DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units.

 

That's fair. I was concentrating on LOMAC so yes, the base DCS product is not platform-specific.

 

As an aside, DCS stands out due to the depth of modelling, both flight model and systems, which is better than the vast majority of sims available.

 

Cost of this fidelity is the information required. It's not "God-like" precision in calculations as you've stated and seem to be fixated on being behind it, but simply the level required to do "accurate representation of its subject" as you put it.

 

What I argue is that 100% fidelity is not required for accurate representation. As the saying goes... if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck then it's a duck. Whether the full functioning of the internal organs are simulated or simply approximated with an algorithm doesn't matter as long as the behavior, interaction and subsequent consequences emulate the real-world equivalent.

[Malefic Rage]

My problem is that you say nothing about the quality of the approximation, and the way you talk about the F-35, it seems to me you are talking about guesses instead of approximation, which is VERY different!

 

With an approximation, you can give a maximum and minimal value for something (i.e. the thrust of a plane). With a guess, which would be what the F-35 would have been for many things, there's no way to prove whether you are right or wrong and by what error margin.

 

As I said in the first post I understand not selecting a very new aircraft such as the F-35 since it is impossible to simulate with any accuracy whatsoever. It would be purely guesswork and could not be considered a study sim

 

With respect to the term 'approximation', I'll clarify my intention - I mean enough data to estimate a solution that represents the real-world equivalent.

 

For example, I doubt every bit of the data desirable for the upcoming F/A18-C is unclassified, take the A-10C's IFF system which was not included. This did not prevent the developer from creating an excellent and highly-detailed representation of the A-10C and I'm sure the same will apply for the F/A-10C

 

Edit: As an aside I want to clarify that this applies to a consumer-grade study sim, not an industry/customer specific project such as with a military client where the precision is critical (and the data is available to the developer).

Edited August 6, 2016 by Malefic Rage

[wilbur81]

What I argue is that 100% fidelity is not required for accurate representation. As the saying goes... if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck then it's a duck. Whether the full functioning of the internal organs are simulated or simply approximated with an algorithm doesn't matter as long as the behavior, interaction and subsequent consequences emulate the real-world equivalent.

 

I agree 100%.... which is one of the reasons I so enjoy the F-15C.

[cichlidfan]

For example, I doubt every bit of the data desirable for the upcoming F/A18-C is unclassified, take the A-10C's IFF system which was not included. This did not prevent the developer from creating an excellent and highly-detailed representation of the A-10C and I'm sure the same will apply for the F/A-10C

 

The IFF system in the A-10C is not a good example since an approximation was not created, it was left out entirely.

[Malefic Rage]

The IFF system in the A-10C is not a good example since an approximation was not created, it was left out entirely.

 

I understand your point there, with respect to IFF what I remember (very, very, vaguely) I think ED was asked not to implement that system at all.

 

I mentioned IFF since removal of a complete system did not detract from the user experience or quality of the product as a whole.

[Mtnbiker1998]

I voted for the "Any approximation is fine as long as it isn't completely fabricated" Option, mainly because I feel any other option would have disqualified FC3 level aircraft, which are something I think DCS should do more of. The relative simplicity of them makes them great for newcomers to the sim, aswell as the lower price tag. Not to mention it allows for DCS to expand more quickly in more directions, which will attract more players.

 

I know ED has said they don't plan to make any more FC3 level aircraft, but why? 100% realism, as much as we may crave it, is not always possible, and I'd rather see an FC3 level aircraft in DCS than not see it at all.

 

It's 2 in the morning, why am I trying to write an essay? G'night gentlemen. :sleep:

[Ktulu2]

Well, I disagree that FC3 is a reference. The planes are rigged with so many problems (due to simplification) that is truly gets frustrating at times. While I agree its a good start, to this I reply that any DCS-level module can be played in game mode.

Also, the margin of error between 100% fidelity and the 5% accurate FC3 is pretty big too.

[Silver_Dragon]

That's fair. I was concentrating on LOMAC so yes, the base DCS product is not platform-specific.

 

Pardon? the "base" of DCS producs was not LOMAC, was the Flaming Cliffs map with a rework Su-25T plus Ka-50, A-10C, P-51D and Combined Arms modules (Release DCS: World on may-june 2012). The "old" and deprecated "LOMAC" was rebuild and reform on a new product (New F-15C interior and exterior and great quantity of improvements) on FC-3 after DCS: World release (April 2013).

 

What I argue is that 100% fidelity is not required for accurate representation. As the saying goes... if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck then it's a duck. Whether the full functioning of the internal organs are simulated or simply approximated with an algorithm doesn't matter as long as the behavior, interaction and subsequent consequences emulate the real-world equivalent.

 

Can you explain as none 3rd party or ED has build new "LOMAC" (FC) aircrafts to DCS: W on the last 3 years after FC-3 release and all move all develop to "hardcore" modules?

Edited August 7, 2016 by Silver_Dragon

[WinterH]

That puritanism is what DCS stands for compared to many other sims that have been, or are around.

 

F-35 for DCS = LOL in my mind. If it eventually gets developed and sates people's fantasies (which is the only thing it could be), more power to them, but I'd neither buy it, nor fly in same environment with it. It would be in face of all other meticulously done modules, which, even with their numerous issues and digressions from real thing, are still done with a focus on recreation based on declassified first hand documentation.

 

F-35 is just barely enterin Initial Operational Capability level of service.

 

DCS being "primarily a representation of [put favorite era here], and should focus on that" is a fallacy that has been debunked multiple times, a mere look at official product definition page would reflect that.

 

4.5 gen is pushing it, and I'm sure, for exapmle, Typhoon will have lots of redaction, even though it is done by direct contact with aircraft and RAF. 5th gen is just dreaming, and asking for much more guesstimation based products than actual data.

 

All these being said, I don't necessarily have issues with newer aircraft. Some people want 4th gen planes, and more power to them! And they're getting them too! Though, even Mirage 2000C isn't exactly made on actual documentation unless I'm wrong. And it's one of the earliest versions... go figure about the later ones... I myself am also interested in having some 4th gens (have the Mirage, doesn't do it for me personally), like Hornet. While I would love some Su-30SM or MKI, or Su-35, I just don't see them happening realistically. Same goes for Rafale...

 

Having said that, in addition to FC3 birds and Mirage 2000, we already have following 4th gen combat aircraft already upcoming, or in pipeline to be developed :

- F/A-18C, possibly early access some time this year.

- F-14A & F-14B

- Eurofighter Typhoon

- F-15E Strike Eagle

 

Due to decreasing likeliness of usable, accessible, and reliable information on them, 4th gen will probably always be less numerous on DCS than older aircraft. But we still have multiple of them coming up, and I expect at least two, and may be all of those modules will be done to a satisfactory degree of quality / realism.

 

Also, for the "we already have FC fighters" argument, yeah, we have those, and they have proper flight models that are built upon flight manual charts and pilot inputs. Their systems / sensors, while simplified, perform accordingly to their real life counterpart as well. So this argument doesn't lend itself as a plus for inclusion of more modern platforms that would be guess works rather than DCS level simulation.

 

DCS, indeed represents an "elitism" for me, and it is a good thing ;). At least when it comes to systems, payload, and flight performance realism. I'm not too much into rivet counting, but very much into features I've counted in previous sentence, and DCS represents unrelenting focus on those, even if it will never achieve %100 accuracy level, it will often achieve %100 focus on those. Later gen fantasy fighters usually mean throwing that focus out of the window.

Edited August 7, 2016 by WinterH
forgot strike eagle among currently in dev 4th gens.

[Malefic Rage]

Pardon? the "base" of DCS producs was not LOMAC, was the Flaming Cliffs map with a rework Su-25T plus Ka-50, A-10C, P-51D and Combined Arms modules (Release DCS: World on may-june 2012). The "old" and deprecated "LOMAC" was rebuild and reform on a new product (New F-15C interior and exterior and great quantity of improvements) on FC-3 after DCS: World release (April 2013).

 

I said I was concentrating on LOMAC when I said that DCS was predominantly an aircraft simulator. I did not claim it was part of the new DCS product. I also conceded that point was incorrect. Don't fabricate.

 

Can you explain as none 3rd party or ED has build new "LOMAC" (FC) aircrafts to DCS: W on the last 3 years after FC-3 release and all move all develop to "hardcore" modules?

 

I'm not even sure what you are trying to argue here. I think my statement was clear enough. LOMAC was closer to a survey sim rather than a study sim. AFAIK ED converted the FC aircraft to the DCS system so that users who had purchased Flaming Cliffs could use their aircraft in DCS. I never at any point suggested that lower fidelity aircraft should be developed. Again, don't fabricate. My point is that if the simulation produces an accurate representation, simplification/abstraction/approximation of the internal calculations are perfectly acceptable. If every conceivable system, component and physics calculation to were done to an infinitesimal level you would eventually have to simulate the entire universe.

Edited August 7, 2016 by BIGNEWY
1.2 Forum members must treat other with respect and tolerance.

[NeilWillis]

I thin the puritanical comment was a little beyond the pale, and utterly inappropriate.

 

Also, your last posting, was to say the least going beyond the acceptable - don't suggest anyone changes their underwear simply because they take issue with your stance. You asked for a debate, and now have one, so please keep it civilised.

 

As for the direction DCS World is taking regarding which modules to release, it is simply down to factors like licencing agreements, access to a high proportion of data for the original, and access to real world pilots. The F35 is hardly likely to become a reality in DCS World for a very long time to come. It is a front line aircraft (or soon will be), and as such, we are very very unlikely to be granted access to systems specifics, flight envelope, and weapons systems data. It is just a fact, not really something worth debating.

 

If you are not convinced, try doing a search, and seeing just how many times this subject has been brought up. Bottom line is that there simply isn't the available data, and even with sufficient, I'd suggest that obtaining a licence to reproduce the intellectual property is never going to happen this decade - and probably well beyond.

 

It's not about being puritanical, it is just about getting things right. It is also about crossing the legal i's and t's, and frankly you are dreaming if you think such a modern jet is in the slightest bit practical as a subject for simulation.

 

Sure, there could be an utterly unreliable, unrealistic fabrication, but what exactly is the point of that? If that is what you seek, then I suggest you are asking a lot of DCS World, and something the producers are very uinlikely to welcome.

 

As for what was available when DCS World first appeared, what relevance has that to what standards are being applied going forwards? All the original aircraft have been getting updated flight models, 3d models, and in the future, we are led to believe the systems modelling will be updated to fully clickable cockpits and far more accurate functionality.

 

Why would we want to step back to so called study sim standards, which are neither studies nor simulations, but simply stepping stones to far more accurate and in-depth stuff that we can now expect.

 

So should we lower the standards currently being achieved in order to let you have a totally inaccurate, totally fabricated F-35? Give us one good reason to allow you to fly a fantasy against technologically inferior, but accurate aircraft?

 

In a word, it is pointless even suggesting that this is the right way to go.

[Malefic Rage]

I'm going to clarify. I have no expectation that ED or a third party would implement a 5th generation aircraft such as the F-35. I specifically stated

 

"I understand not attempting to model aircraft such as the F-35A in a study sim since the degree of information classification prevents even an estimation of it's capabilities"

 

The only relevance to the F-35 in my argument is the fact that my observation began from a response on a post regarding the cancelled project.

 

I don't think I can make that any clearer.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Malefic Rage

[Art-J]

It was clear to me after the first page You're not advocating the F-35 or similar modern A/C projects (I don't know how it was unclear to Neil to be honest), but that actually makes somewhat unclear what the point of this poll is anyway?

 

People seem to be enjoying current study modules, even with no IFF / simplified IFF, simplified missiles FM, radar & ECM algorythms, because they know there's no way around that without relevant licensing and access to classified data. At the same time they're not shy to demand removal of completely fabricated aspects (i.e. CCIP functionality in MiG-21's gunsight). Others are eagerly anticipating VEAO's Typhoon, even though they're fully aware only some systems of it will be fully functional.

 

So it's always been about option number two for more modern planes, with maybe option number four for WWII/Korea types (no classified data whatsoever and only data availability itself being limiting factor).

[Malefic Rage]

Hi Art-J. Thanks for your response. I actually agree with you. The poll was an afterthought to writing the post so I admit I've mushed together something that should have been separate. Taking out personal frustrations from the argument, what I really want to know is whether or not people in the DCS user community believe that a degree of imperfection and/or interpretation is acceptable in a study sim to be able to implement aircraft such as the F/A-18C or Typhoon tranche 1, or possibly even the F/A-18E (which is what I mean by modern aircraft, not cutting-edge such as Gen 5). The impression that I have is that some (be no means all) people believe that this should not be so which I disagree with so I wanted to know what others think.

[Silver_Dragon]

I said I was concentrating on LOMAC when I said that DCS was predominantly an aircraft simulator. I did not claim it was part of the new DCS product. I also conceded that point was incorrect. Don't fabricate.

 

You continue "claim" something not real. DCS never was part of LOMAC, LOMAC was a defunct product with ED recover the distribution licence from Ubi to continue alone with a new simulator and a new scope. Only a "module" remember that times.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_On:_Modern_Air_Combat

 

The actual DCS: W born on 2008 with the release of Ka-50 module

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Combat_Simulator

 

Meanwhile LOMAC was a predominately aircraft simulator, actually DCS: W has something different, and the community expected that can continue change on the future.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Silver_Dragon

[NeilWillis]

As the OP stated that this came about as a result of a post regarding the F-35, I naturally assumed that the reason the debate was entered into was to question the thinking behind a lack of interest in the F-35, whether or not the OP was advocating or not, the desire for one.

 

As we are already in the throes of getting an F/A-18C and a Typhoon, I'd say that the question of whether or not some fudging has to occur is also rather moot. However, in as far as is humanly possible to replicate the prototype, every measure is being taken to faithfully render the systems, weaponry, and flight modelling of the original.

 

There are areas where it is not possible - mostly for reasons of security - to reproduce everything, and that applies to the A-10C, and will definitely apply to the F/A-18C and Typhoon too.

 

So naturally, there has to be some economy of truth, it is frankly unavoidable.

 

The real question should be where do we draw the line? Clearly, ultra modern stuff is beyond the realms of feasibility for the simple reason that there is a real, and understandable dearth of information.

 

Adding a poll really doesn't add anything to an already heavily debated subject. I also felt the criteria chosen were somewhat spurious, as was the entire premise for the question given that a) we're not going to see the F-35, and also b) that the other examples quoted are already well advanced projects.

 

Finally, how can we possibly decide what is or isn't a faithful rendering of any module unless we have personally operated the real thing in a combat environment? If we can't know what is or isn't accurate, what basis do we have to enter into any debate on the subject apart from hearsay, guess work, or by hanging on the flimsiest of evidence indirectly provided by people who do know them inside out.

[SUNTSAG]

As the OP stated that this came about as a result of a post regarding the F-35, I naturally assumed that the reason the debate was entered into was to question the thinking behind a lack of interest in the F-35, whether or not the OP was advocating or not, the desire for one.

 

As we are already in the throes of getting an F/A-18C and a Typhoon, I'd say that the question of whether or not some fudging has to occur is also rather moot. However, in as far as is humanly possible to replicate the prototype, every measure is being taken to faithfully render the systems, weaponry, and flight modelling of the original.

 

There are areas where it is not possible - mostly for reasons of security - to reproduce everything, and that applies to the A-10C, and will definitely apply to the F/A-18C and Typhoon too.

 

So naturally, there has to be some economy of truth, it is frankly unavoidable.

 

The real question should be where do we draw the line? Clearly, ultra modern stuff is beyond the realms of feasibility for the simple reason that there is a real, and understandable dearth of information.

 

Adding a poll really doesn't add anything to an already heavily debated subject. I also felt the criteria chosen were somewhat spurious, as was the entire premise for the question given that a) we're not going to see the F-35, and also b) that the other examples quoted are already well advanced projects.

 

Finally, how can we possibly decide what is or isn't a faithful rendering of any module unless we have personally operated the real thing in a combat environment? If we can't know what is or isn't accurate, what basis do we have to enter into any debate on the subject apart from hearsay, guess work, or by hanging on the flimsiest of evidence indirectly provided by people who do know them inside out.

 

Wow just WOW!!!!!!! not only do you make an assumption incorrectly regarding the OPs original intentions regarding the post.... you then proceed to berate him for that false assumption!! Your attention is then drawn to this and you fail to apologise for your actions now that is beyond the pale sir........arrogance personified.

[Aginor]

My problem with your poll - and the reason why I don't intend to choose an option there - is that people could probably argue that option #2 is true for an FC3 aircraft, which IMO it isn't.

 

Furthermore one could argue that option #4 isn't true either, for none of the aircraft available right now, not even the A-10C.

 

So sorry, no vote.

 

 

As for the discussion: FC3 is a complete no-go for me now. Are those planes fun to fly for me? Yeah, they are. Sometimes. Rarely.

 

For me #2 means: (almost) All procedures in the real world manual work in the sim, with very little exceptions.

Approximating an IFF or even a radar system is OK, but only as long as it still is fulfilling all known parameters and modes of operation. (yes I am aware that's not true for the A-10C either). Not every knob or switch has to be there. But most of them.

And workload is a crucial point. All FC3 planes fail miserably in representing that even remotely.

Take the M2000C as an example: At its current stage it is approximately at the absolute minimum of what I expect from a module for DCSW. For my personal taste there are still too many clickable buttons and functions missing to really enjoy it, but it is almost there.

 

You will never get that much info on a F-35, maybe not even for a Super Hornet or a recent F-15C, so the approximation level of that one would have to be something like the Dino Cattaneo F-25 for FSX. Great for FSX, but not suitable for DCSW. That's also a reason why I am a bit sceptic about VEAO's Typhoon project. I just can't imagine they can pull it off without a lot of guesswork.

[Silver_Dragon]

. That's also a reason why I am a bit sceptic about VEAO's Typhoon project. I just can't imagine they can pull it off without a lot of guesswork.

 

The VEAO Typhoon has actualy project undo military contract with the RAF, similar to the A-10C trainer desktop to the ANG. VEAO talk about them they has only autorize to build a Trench Block Ib and the final quality has unknown.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144730

Q: Given the above, how is VEAO going to create an authentic replication of the real aircraft?

 

A: VEAO has contacts within the UK military and is in the process of developing a military version of the Typhoon module. The team subsequently has the access to the information and data needed to create an authentic model of the aircraft. The public version that will be released as a certified 3rd party add-on module for DCS World will be based on this military version. However, it will be a deducted/-de-classified version of it.

[Malefic Rage]

My problem with your poll - and the reason why I don't intend to choose an option there - is that people could probably argue that option #2 is true for an FC3 aircraft, which IMO it isn't.

 

Furthermore one could argue that option #4 isn't true either, for none of the aircraft available right now, not even the A-10C.

 

So sorry, no vote.

 

Fair enough. With respect to approximation I was thinking of something that achieved the fidelity of the more thoroughly modeled aircraft such as the A-10C or KA-50. I understand what you mean by it being too open to individual interpretation. I actually tried to collate options 3 and 4 after creating the poll but couldn't work out how (if it is even possible).

 

 

As for the discussion: FC3 is a complete no-go for me now. Are those planes fun to fly for me? Yeah, they are. Sometimes. Rarely.

 

For me #2 means: (almost) All procedures in the real world manual work in the sim, with very little exceptions.

Approximating an IFF or even a radar system is OK, but only as long as it still is fulfilling all known parameters and modes of operation. (yes I am aware that's not true for the A-10C either). Not every knob or switch has to be there. But most of them.

And workload is a crucial point. All FC3 planes fail miserably in representing that even remotely.

 

That is actually what I had in mind but have done a poor job elaborating upon. The complex modelling of cockpit systems is what I enjoy most about the A-10C and KA-50 (the two modules I own). That's what I had in mind when saying 'approximate' for an authentic experience.

[tob.s]

i dont get it - if someone would release an DCS-xwing it still could be great - theres no need for realism to make a sim complex and challenging, i guess one could have a blast in it. Of course it wouldnt be balanced to the other modules, but is hunting a bf109 in a mirage2000 more balanced ? If you only want highest possible realisn, u simply dont buy it - it would i no way affect the other modules and or water down their realism. As Dcs is basicly a pc-game made for entertainment an not for militaty training ( i know ed does so too ) there will always be some classification on planes that are/were in service recently ( even the training sims dont have all features) - to me this is totally fine as i have no way to tell whats 100% real and whats guesswork - as long as u aint one of the engineers who actually developed some of those systems u cant either. Of course the goal of any simulation is to be as close to the real thing as possible, and dcs is top notch when it comes to fidelity, but its also made for entertainment. So if a thing is reasonable realistic ( eg. if one system is classified, but there are sufficient infos on other similar systems ) it think its a pitty to leave it out course of some missing details.