Realism - wasted effort?

[naizarak]

the problem is ED considers DCS to be a simulator when it's actually a videogame. would make things a lot easier for everyone if they were more pragmatic about it

[draconus]

the problem is ED considers DCS to be a simulator when it's actually a videogame. would make things a lot easier for everyone if they were more pragmatic about it

Please, educate yourself:

 

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

Combat flight simulators are simulation video games (similar to amateur flight simulation software) used to simulate military aircraft and their operations.

[Hawkeye_UK]

Prolonged EA access doesn't mean we should sacrifice systems implementation to a halfway house between FF and FC3.

 

I actually don't understand the perspective of this thread. DCS is a simulation, aka the title and by definition gives it away - it should be a model of a real activity as close to the original activity as possible.

 

Pointless thread IMO.

[Tippis]

Please, educate yourself:

 

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

It would probably help if the article doesn't immediately state that they're video games… ;)

[=475FG= Dawger]

I would never fly a "simulator" that forced random failures on me.

 

I do not know why people think that is fun.

 

Nothing made real world flying more miserable than dealing with a broken airplane.

[Lace]

 

I actually don't understand the perspective of this thread. DCS is a simulation, aka the title and by definition gives it away - it should be a model of a real activity as close to the original activity as possible.

 

Pointless thread IMO.

 

 

 

The point is that people cite the minutiae as evidence of the 'realism' of the simulator, and conveniently ignore the glaring inaccuracies in other aspects of it. The default answer always seems to be that 'they are working on it'. Should dynamic weather, or decent ATC, AI, lighting models, weapon blast effects, turbulence in clouds, etc etc not be prioritised a little higher than a few systems and switches which a lot of players will just skip past anyway? Are they not required from a 'realism' sense too?

 

 

Some posters have understood this point (whether they agreed or not), others have clearly not.

[twistking]

The point is that people cite the minutiae as evidence of the 'realism' of the simulator, and conveniently ignore the glaring inaccuracies in other aspects of it. The default answer always seems to be that 'they are working on it'. Should dynamic weather, or decent ATC, AI, lighting models, weapon blast effects, turbulence in clouds, etc etc not be prioritised a little higher than a few systems and switches which a lot of players will just skip past anyway? Are they not required from a 'realism' sense too?

 

Some posters have understood this point (whether they agreed or not), others have clearly not.

 

come on, you don't need to be a programmer to see, that there is a fundamental difference between programming some curcuit breaker logic, compared to substantial core changes of the whole program.

 

those core changes are long overdue and i don't want to defend the absent of some of those, but those "minutiae" of aircraft system modelling stand no comparison to these. it's apples and oranges really.

and it's not only complexity, those things get done by completely different teams, one would assume.

[randomTOTEN]

conveniently ignore the glaring inaccuracies in other aspects of it.

That's not even remotely true.

 

I'll also push back against the assumption by most people in this thread that system test = failure required. A good test is a good test, and if you want the experience of operating the aircraft, then running these preflight tests is part of the experience IMVHO.

 

Do you look at the oil pressure and exhaust temperature during engine starting? You will never have a hot start or a busted oil supply line/blocked filter if you disable "system failures." The real guy sitting in the seat looks at those instruments during start, why do you want a realistic airplane but won't do the same? Failures are an added layer of the simulation, just as a functioning lubrication and fuel control systems are. The absence of failure doesn't mean those systems aren't modeled, and you can't observe and interact with their function during such a simple procedure as an engine start.

 

I run a fire test before an engine start. That test is either "scripted" with no systems modeling, or it's actually running a test on the modeled system. Overwhelmingly the system actually works, and the test function is just one aspect of it's design. It will also detect fires if you take damage or mishandle the simulation. If you follow the proper procedures, it will extinguish detected fires within it's limitations. Doesn't really make sense to model the entire fire detection/extinguishing system, except for the test circuit, so that users won't feel the impulse to spend time running a test which the actual pilot performs when sitting in the actual aircraft.

 

Should the developers skip the entire fire detection/extinguishing system, or only just it's test function?? :lol: I propose that there's little to no relationship between having a functioning system test, and some imposed failure of equipment which it may detect.

 

When you run the EPU test in the F-16C, the bleed system sends engine air to the EPU, which spins up and supplies electrical power. Should they delete the EPU entirely, the bleed system, and part of the electrical system because you don't think this test is important?

 

It seems the combat flight simulation community tends to divide into two groups. Those for who the simulation is the primary appeal, and those for whom the combat is the primary appeal. I tend to lean toward the simulator side, and that shapes my approach to DCS. It's not clearly black and white, and many consumers exist on the spectrum. For some, preflight tests are a core feature of their module (waiting on the PFLD and OBOGS test for the F-16C over here), while for others they aren't relevant to their game experience. They want to start up, take off, and start shooting.

[randomTOTEN]

It's pointless to have a button/switch modeled, which, when depressed, lights up all signal lights inside cockpit, while no light bulb failure is simulated.

Not in the least.

That switch exists in the cockpit. That's what it does, checks the bulbs. All those bulbs already have electrical supply coded to them when their respective systems were programmed. They all have "dark" and "illuminated" textures already.

 

What do you want, to remove that switch entirely from the cockpit? Should it become a "dummy switch?" The real pilot may be required to check those bulbs during start up. Should we downgrade the experience of being a pilot in these machines because the failure simulation doesn't extend to light bulbs?

 

Is this the experience we should have for future modules? "we only model the bare minimum required to get it airborne, and the bare minimum required to kill a target." I fully understand that there are users that operate this way. Many of us don't.

[Capn kamikaze]

Got to agree, the fact is that a flight sim that is open to the public is either going to be one of the following things...

 

Based on old aircraft only.

 

Compromised anyway.

 

Anything that tries to do modern stuff is going to be missing bits and/or intentionally inaccurate in certain areas to protect secrets.

 

So accepting that fact, you have to ask yourself, is having bits of a sim that 0.01% of the user base will get any benefit from worth spending much time on actually simulating.

 

IMO it's entirely reasonable to have a plane that's 90-95% accurate, or reasonably accurate, and therefore have many more aircraft available, rather than one or two that are 99.9% accurate, when that extra accuracy is because of bits that next to no one uses, especially when you consider that that extra accuracy may in many cases not even be usable because of other factors in the sim, like environmental factors, and reliance on systems external to the plane in question that it IRL relies upon that are not simulated or if they are they are inaccurate themselves.

 

DCS at the end of the day is, like any other simulation of modern military hardware, an approximation, a very good one, but an approximation none the less.

 

So people screaming "but muh realism", and trying to write off people looking at this issue from a more reasonable perspective by telling them to "go play war thunder", try to be more reasonable.

[Lace]

 

It seems the combat flight simulation community tends to divide into two groups. Those for who the simulation is the primary appeal, and those for whom the combat is the primary appeal. I tend to lean toward the simulator side, and that shapes my approach to DCS. It's not clearly black and white, and many consumers exist on the spectrum. For some, preflight tests are a core feature of their module (waiting on the PFLD and OBOGS test for the F-16C over here), while for others they aren't relevant to their game experience. They want to start up, take off, and start shooting.

 

This is a good point and one of which perhaps I am guilty of overlooking. If I want to fly I can go out and fly an aeroplane. If I want to dogfight or bomb stuff, well that's a little harder to achieve as a civilian.

 

For me the realism comes from the planning and execution of an objective-driven mission, not ticking boxes in a checklist. It's hard to maintain the illusion when you fly through could with barely a shudder from the airframe, the infantry on the target are unscathed despite being stood bolt upright less than 50m from a MK84, your wingman flies into a mountainside in VMC and when returning home the ATC clears you to land and then another flight takes off over your head while you are still on the runway. At that point the last thing I'm bothered about is ensuring the exhaust nozzle is in the correct position for engine shut down to make it easier for the (non-existant) ground crew to inspect it.

 

But as with most aspects of life there are more things which unite us than divide us, and with all its flaws DCS is still the only decent option for a modern combat flight simulator.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Lace

[twistking]

[...]Let me tell you what's pointless: It's pointless to have a button/switch modeled, which, when depressed, lights up all signal lights inside cockpit, while no light bulb failure is simulated.

Not in the least.

That switch exists in the cockpit. That's what it does, checks the bulbs. All those bulbs already have electrical supply coded to them when their respective systems were programmed. They all have "dark" and "illuminated" textures already.

 

I think that's a good example and i agree with randomTOTEN. First of all it is mere minutes of work to programm those small details, compared to all the complex underlying system simulation, which is needed anyway.

Those light are already rigged for logic and graphics, so it's no big deal to add such a feature.

Secondly, for me it is not pointless. I enjoy those features, because in the end a little bit of the appeal of flight simming is the fantasy of being a pilot - it's just that different people enjoy different things.

Do you use the ejection seat, when you're going down? Look, you don't have to, because death is not simulated in DCS (you are free to "play again, aren't you").

So, it's always a little bit pretending... even if we're all adults!

[randomTOTEN]

The real pilot has reasonable expectation that some bulb can fail and that's the only reason why he operates that switch. Otherwise, he would never touch it, it would not be part of a procedure, constructor would never install that switch. He does it not because of "experience" but because of functionality.

 

Experience of being a pilot is expecting an equipment failure, otherwise it's just a "button pressing simulator".

This isn't true at all. And you still haven't explained what should be done in lieu of having a functioning test switch in the aircraft.

 

The test switch exists to identify a functioning bulb, not a failed bulb. When a pilot actuates the test switch, they don't have a "reasonable expectation that some bulb can fail," they have a "reasonable expectation that every bulb will illuminate."

 

In the real aircraft bulb failures can happen, systems failures can occur, and the real aircraft builder put that switch in the real cockpit, so that the real pilot can use it to diagnose a real system failure. To ensure the pilot has that tool available, the real operator creates real procedures which require the real pilot to test that switch.

 

It's part of the experience, even if some users want to skip it, even if the failures aren't.

[randomTOTEN]

You still haven't explained what is to be done in lieu of a functioning test switch in the aircraft.

[nighthawk2174]

It's simple and obvious.

2. Do not code complicated systems that no one can use because there are no relevant failures.

 

agreed

[randomTOTEN]

I can use it if I press the button and the lights light up.

That's me using it.

If they don't light up when I press it then the test switch is broken (or the airplane is cold).

 

To clarify, here are the possible aircraft we're looking at:

 

1. Bulb failure not simulated, but lights test simulated.

2. Bulb failure not simulated, and light test not simulated.

 

If it had the option I would take #1 over #2. I understand that some would take #2, and think #1 is unnecessary detail. We approach the simulation from different perspectives.

Edited November 20, 2019 by randomTOTEN

[Tom Kazansky]

What does it tell you when you hear Wags' voice while he does a start-up video from cold and dark in a new plane?

 

 

You want a ED with less commitment to details?

 

 

Will never happen (outside of MAC) imho.

 

 

Would it make things faster and easier? Yes.

 

 

 

Would it make the ED guys happy and proud? No way! My opinion of course.

[MacEwan]

 

1. Add relevant failures.

or

2. Do not code complicated systems that no one can use because there are no relevant failures.

 

Agreed.

 

 

It's hard to maintain the illusion when you fly through could with barely a shudder from the airframe, the infantry on the target are unscathed despite being stood bolt upright less than 50m from a MK84, your wingman flies into a mountainside in VMC and when returning home the ATC clears you to land and then another flight takes off over your head while you are still on the runway. At that point the last thing I'm bothered about is ensuring the exhaust nozzle is in the correct position for engine shut down to make it easier for the (non-existant) ground crew to inspect it.

 

And agreed.

[draconus]

DCS is constantly evolving towards more reality, details and better simulation. Meanwhile good thing is coming - MAC - so plenty of pilots can fly there in their never-failing aircraft without unnecessary equipment modeled and they can even pay for it! I don't see a problem here. Case closed.

 

What? You wanted clicky cockpit in MAC? What for? You're not thinking you're a real pilot sitting in real aircraft just because you can click master arm, are you?

[randomTOTEN]

Theoretically, FC/MAC aircraft should save a lot of development time by eliminating clickable cockpits altogether. Simplified systems with no tests, but you still might have failures.

Call it a straw man if you want.. but it is the "extreme end" of the position. Just like "tests for the sake of tests" is the other extreme.

 

 

Twistking made an excellent point, which I believe deserves repeating over and over!

Do you use the ejection seat, when you're going down? Look, you don't have to, because death is not simulated in DCS

Having an aircraft which includes a working ejection seat is completely useless in a desktop flight simulator. There's zero reason to spend a single line coding it, or a single frame animating it.

 

 

 

So, do you eject in DCS? Why?

[Quadg]

So, do you eject in DCS? Why?

 

in for a penny? then you are in for a pound..

I eject simply because I can..

[Mars Exulte]

Ugh. This retarded thread is still going?

 

They're moving toward MORE simulation, not less. Missing stuff will be added with time, not existing stuff omitted.

 

There is a separate product for people who don't want the minute details in development in parallel.

 

If as some say, like with the bit test, it ''doesn't do anything'' then it probably also didn't take much time to do, so bitching about it is just being anal retentive. A more intelligent response is requesting those things ACTUALLY function, not skip them because you don't use them or ''nobody really uses this minor detail stuff''. A lot of people also use quickstarts, so lets just have an ''on'' button, only nerds do the whole routine, and it interferes with AirQuake and mashin' da spacebah fer WAAAAGH

[Lace]

Ugh. This retarded thread is still going?

 

 

I'm pleased to report it is :)

[metzger]

If something can be modeled better let it be modeled, no matter to what degree it is functional. I like to do light tests and startups as per original checklists just to experience and be familiar how they do it irl,since I will likely never have the chance to start an A-10 irl. This is part of the reason I choose to play this simulator. I also enjoyed to read the manuals, at least the older ones A-10, Ka-50, Mi-8 where they explain the systems in more details even if they are not modeled that deeply, then perform the checks as per flight manual. I hope the new modules will also have the manuals updated to that level.

This is the study part of the simulator, we are not all for "join some public MP and do as many frags/kills/points you can".

[Kid18120]

It all comes down to a very simple thing:

It's a matter of choice.

The devs model "useless systems" because there's people who'll choose to use them.

They also provide easier-to-access modules (FC/MAC) for those who couldn't care less about startup procedures, systems mechanization and such.