Making DCS more accessible to new players.

[PL_Harpoon]

Let's not turn another potentially helpful topic into a pointless argument.

 

 

Let's start again by finding things we can agree upon.

 

 

a. Are currently available materials sufficient to learn everything in DCS?

 

Yes.

 

 

b. Can you teach yourself to fly an aircraft just by reading a manual, watching videos and using current tutorial missions?

Of course.

 

 

c. Does DCS have a steep learning curve?

Absolutely.

 

 

d. Can the learning process be improved?

Sure.

 

 

How about a discussion on how best to improve the learning experience for new players so they don't leave after just a few attempts?

[Bearskin]

Let's not turn another potentially helpful topic into a pointless argument.

 

 

That ship sailed about 18 pages ago.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with the setup as it is.

Edited July 17, 2020 by Bearskin

[Pikey]

That ship sailed about 18 pages ago.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with the setup as it is.

 

Indeed (about the ship sailing) it became a personal and subjective mission by one person to justify why they couldnt achieve what they wanted at the time, disguised by a general call to find what was best for everyone (which no one could agree on) and as it got more subjective it became pointless.

 

There's a bunch of things that could be improved, just not a single silver bullet and in so many pages I never saw anything practical come out of this.

 

Centralising guides might be OK. But you can have "death by guides".

I have the same issue to solve in MOOSE scripting.

"I got confused by all the material, there is too much" is a statement that I hear a lot. So we did a guide, that finds all the guides. Too much? Isn't that what this forum is about? Isn't that the general sentiment coming from this thread? It will always be, too much for some, not enough for others, but as I have consistently said, its not the availability of the material that keeps player playing, it is the desire and motivation. If you dont want to look, you will not find. And that is not an excuse, be you Dustman or fighter pilot.

[SmirkingGerbil]

 

 

Is it? Prove it. Live stream your mom mastering the F14 doing built in tutorials. Let see it.

 

 

Uhhh, my mom has never been all that interested in aircraft, flying them, much less learning about them in a study level sim.

 

DCS from the ground up, was never meant to cater to people like my mom, nor should it.

 

However, she does like the vids I post blowing stuff up!

[OPEC]

In the end it's called a study sim for a reason. You can not expect to sit down an evening afte a few beers and master a complex machine like the A-10 or F-14/16/18. Not talking about a simple take off, that could be done in minutes, but to really understand the machine and know all your procedures without having to look them up every time - thats a challange. And i think thats what makes DCS so interesting. If you wanna just blow stuff up - play f.... Ace combat and be happy with 80 AMRAAMs.

 

Oh - And there are so many great videos, tutorials, guides - You can even use the real flight manual. Yes, it takes time, but god is it rewarding.

 

Besides - You can almost turn DCS into an acarde game so where the poit of this hole exersice here?

Edited July 17, 2020 by OPEC

[Pikey]

Uhhh, my mom has never been all that interested in aircraft, flying them, much less learning about them in a study level sim.

 

DCS from the ground up, was never meant to cater to people like my mom, nor should it.

 

However, she does like the vids I post blowing stuff up!

 

Exactly. You have to want to play DCS. You dont try to make people that dont want to play something, think they want to play it, when the reality is they will quickly grow bored because it needs effort. I know you can sell bottled air these days, but that's not my job or desire. But I'm pretty sure my mother would have read the manual, had she had any inclination. So I guess my mother would have made a better pilot. She certainly woudlnt have been disappointed...

 

That's what all these videos and marketing do. Invite people with no idea of what DCS really is into the sim, gives them a feeling that its all dramatic beautiful blow things up stuff.

 

I strongly believe that the OP is confused on what type of person should be playing DCS and is trying to convert the wrong audience. I'm a consumer, I'm sold, I enjoy the product. I want to interface with like minded people that enjoy the product in the same way. I dont want to listen to people that aren't interested about the same things. Last of all, I dont want to think of ways to make a disinterested and uncommitted customer into an interested, hungry one. I said as much. I said I didnt want to force people to want DCS, they make the worst type of learners. So I was called out on being a terrible instructor. I'd not perpetuate the madness, if it werent for the fact that letting this go un challenged is being dishonest.

 

Seeing Mover upload videos of DCS where he fumbles with controls and gets frustrated, is horrible to me. It's fake. The OP wants to put that on DCS as the problem. The irony is that the helper friend "Ray" who sets it all up for him is trying to get him interested and he is just not! VGertigo cannot see what's going on. He thinks it's all DCS' fault. So he started a thread because he got so polarised he cannot come back.

 

I'd put it to Vertigo that he had more fun in this thread getting attention than in DCS. That's the person that's convinced themself DCS is at fault.

 

And the kinds of people that stick around with DCS, I find are super interesting human beings, that like being challenged, love learning, are positive and determined and have other great qualities. So bravo, you folks that read the manual. Take a look around yourself and choose who you want to learn DCS with. It could be my Mother and Mover, the likely pair that really need more DCS in their lives, or it could be me, someone that is geniunely interested, doesnt hold other people at fault for their own lack of knowledge, doesnt lay blame on inanimate objects for not teaching them correctly and knows that everything he doesnt know, is only a few keypresses away.

[SmirkingGerbil]

Exactly. You have to want to play DCS. You dont try to make people that dont want to play something, think they want to play it, when the reality is they will quickly grow bored because it needs effort. I know you can sell bottled air these days, but that's not my job or desire. But I'm pretty sure my mother would have read the manual, had she had any inclination. So I guess my mother would have made a better pilot. She certainly woudlnt have been disappointed...

 

That's what all these videos and marketing do. Invite people with no idea of what DCS really is into the sim, gives them a feeling that its all dramatic beautiful blow things up stuff.

 

I strongly believe that the OP is confused on what type of person should be playing DCS and is trying to convert the wrong audience. I'm a consumer, I'm sold, I enjoy the product. I want to interface with like minded people that enjoy the product in the same way. I dont want to listen to people that aren't interested about the same things. Last of all, I dont want to think of ways to make a disinterested and uncommitted customer into an interested, hungry one. I said as much. I said I didnt want to force people to want DCS, they make the worst type of learners. So I was called out on being a terrible instructor. I'd not perpetuate the madness, if it werent for the fact that letting this go un challenged is being dishonest.

 

Seeing Mover upload videos of DCS where he fumbles with controls and gets frustrated, is horrible to me. It's fake. The OP wants to put that on DCS as the problem. The irony is that the helper friend "Ray" who sets it all up for him is trying to get him interested and he is just not! VGertigo cannot see what's going on. He thinks it's all DCS' fault. So he started a thread because he got so polarised he cannot come back.

 

I'd put it to Vertigo that he had more fun in this thread getting attention than in DCS. That's the person that's convinced themself DCS is at fault.

 

And the kinds of people that stick around with DCS, I find are super interesting human beings, that like being challenged, love learning, are positive and determined and have other great qualities. So bravo, you folks that read the manual. Take a look around yourself and choose who you want to learn DCS with. It could be my Mother and Mover, the likely pair that really need more DCS in their lives, or it could be me, someone that is geniunely interested, doesnt hold other people at fault for their own lack of knowledge, doesnt lay blame on inanimate objects for not teaching them correctly and knows that everything he doesnt know, is only a few keypresses away.

 

Well said sir. Truly, ironic and sad in a way. All the effort put into the failings of DCS, yet reaching out to folks, posting questions, etc. could have lead to a much better experience for the OP. Possibly even an interest by a content creator in addressing a "weakness", with new content.

 

Instead pages and pages of how DCS failed, and why.

 

Meanwhile, looking forward to end of day. I will go home, fly a mission I created in ME with the P-47, roll in from 9K feet with a full bomb load, deploy dive brakes, pull back on throttle to reduce torque steer, cut those bombs loose at 3K feet at about the 40 mil sight mark and peel off glancing out the back of my canopy watching 3 large explosions eliminate an 88 AA site.

 

Never gets old!

[Bearskin]

Some Vertigo quotes I stumbled upon whilst reading a different thread.

 

"without spending half their monthly salary"

 

"the already tiny inflow of new players"

 

"if you wonder why they keep having those 50% sales.. its usually a pretty good sign that they arent selling enough"

 

"I desperately want to fly combat jets with the Fs2020 terrain, graphics and weather engine"

 

"ED should try do the same. They definitely have some unique knowledge and experience, but making terrain and weather engines is not one of them".

 

"and give them more financial incentive to do what users want most, which may not be yet another new plane or map, but improving the content we already have".

 

"But its quite expensive for someone just getting in to it, who may give up after a few hours of training, or finds out he doesnt like the game or doesnt like a particular module. And for anyone comparing it to FS2020 which gives them a dozen high fidelity planes and the entire world map, including their home town and local airport in glorious detail vs 1 or 3 planes and a tiny little map of a region they never even heard of and cant pronounce".

 

 

So you think the training is not up to par, you think the modules and terrains are too expensive, not very well made and too small. You think ED have no knowledge and experience of making terrain and weather engines, you think ED is in it just for the money and not to be proud of what they have accomplished, you say they are a boutique flight sim company...…. I could go on but I think everyone gets it, best thing to do mate is get back under your bridge.

[Scat VII]

First post here, I registered on this forum to ask some help a while ago. Several days later I still could not post. How do you expect new players to seek help here when you dont allow them to post?

 

So I read a few threads, and found this one, as the title and first post raised a valid concern that I share. I did not read it all, as this discussion seems to have been derailed and became very unpleasant.

 

I am a (furloughed) A320 pilot and TRI. I'm also a member of a syndicate that operates a T-6 Texan, a TF-51D Mustang and a Fuga Magister. I own and use Prepar3d commercially and for leisure. A few months ago, my nephew talked me in to trying DCS while we were all grounded and in lock down, so I bought a few plane modules, maps and campaigns.

 

The simulator itself is good, I enjoy flying it despite some shortcomings. But the documentation and training tools are disappointing. The manuals are reference manuals rather than instruction manuals. They explain neither the basics of the game, nor any concepts related to combat or military aviation. The best way I can describe it: it feels like learning to drive or race a car by reading the manual in your car's glove box. It explains in detail all the functions of the infotainment center, but it won't tell you how to operate the clutch, or how to approach an apex. The manuals dont explain anything that in real life is taught by human instructors.

 

The in game training missions dont fill that gap either. While helpful in learning systems and procedures for a particular plane, they teach only that, they are very linear and only teach the mechanics which should be easy to learn from a better structured manual.

 

Ive relied on my nephew to help me get started and to solve issues that have been raised in this thread. Figuring out what controls to map and which ones I need, understanding some basic concepts and terminology and discover features that are otherwise hidden. The lack of meaningful help is even worse if you manage to progress far enough to try some combat missions. Since there was really nothing in the game, I bought the Nevada test and training range module and BFM campaigns, expecting to get some tutorials and interactive training, an introduction in to ACM, BVR tactics, sams, radar and all the things I'm not familiar with. Or at least manuals that covered those topics. What I got is a very detailed simulation of the red flag training environment and its procedures, but not the much more important part of red flag: the instruction and instructors. Tips, hints, help and debriefings. Its therefore useless to me, as I am unable to progress and I'm getting no useful training.

 

I would surely have paid for a module that provides some structured combat training. I thought I already had. I can not see why it would be hard to implement a basic training curriculum into this game that is inspired by real airforce training programs.

[SharpeXB]

The manuals are reference manuals rather than instruction manuals. They explain neither the basics of the game, nor any concepts related to combat or military aviation. The best way I can describe it: it feels like learning to drive or race a car by reading the manual in your car's glove box.

The benefit of a game being a “simulator” is that you can turn to all the real world information and instruction and all of that will work in the sim. And the amount of that available is endless. I took up racing sims for example and realized of course I didn’t know anything about it at all. So I found a video series by a professional driving coach. That was an amazing resource and help.

One important thing to realize is that ED can’t devote its limited resources towards just duplicating information which already is provided elsewhere. They can’t for example, make a guide on how to conduct dive bombing or flying formation when an instant search on YouTube will turn up WWII training films with the perfect instruction on this.

 

I would surely have paid for a module that provides some structured combat training. I thought I already had. I can not see why it would be hard to implement a basic training curriculum into this game that is inspired by real airforce training programs.

Check out Maple Flag Missions. They have exactly this.

https://tlaschuk.github.io/home

The A-10C for example, does in fact have the full USAF qualification course available here and as official DLC for the sim. See my signature bar :thumbup: This is very hardcore and maybe not for beginners. But if you are up for a challenge this is it.

[Bearskin]

Stick with it scat, if you are prepared to put in some time and are willing to read and watch a few youtube videos then I am sure being a furloughed pilot you will be flying and bombing in no time.

[Mars Exulte]

Regarding ''air combat basics'' etc, it's not reinventing the wheel. Seriously, do some research yourself. The ingame manuals ARE reference manuals. To find out more about practical usage of concepts, BFM, etc, why do THEY need to write an extended work on a topic covered infinite number of times by other very thorough sources? Anything you read from real world will have practical application.

[Scat VII]

The information is out there argument doesnt work for me. If the information is so ubiquitous, then it shouldnt be hard to include a selection of it, or even just reference that information.

 

DCS is not like Prepar3d. To me, prerar3d is a tool that helps me get better at a job that I already know. Prepar3d simulates a reality that we already know, or simulates it for students while they are being taught by instructors. Thats why its a sim and not a game. It wouldnt be a very good game for someone who has no flight training.

 

DCS, no matter how realistic it may seem, isnt a training tool. Unless you are in the military, it simulates a reality that its users do not know, have not, will not and can not be professionally trained for. DCS provides non combat pilots with a thrill, giving them an experience of what it would be like. Thats why its a game. Just like Microsoft Flight is a game, allowing non pilots to experience the thrill of what it would be like to be a pilot. Providing that experience to a non pilot requires built-in training and tutorials to teach them what they need to know, or it wouldnt be any good as a game.

 

I could even compare it to our own foundation or similar ones like migflug. We dont provide vintage or jet fighter flights or simulated combat to train actual fighter pilots. We sell an experience to people who will never be military pilots, but who want to experience what it would be like. Its therefore upon us to provide those customers with whatever knowledge and training they require to allow them to enjoy that experience. We cant just say: the information is all out there, we just provide the planes. The training is integral to the experience.

 

Anyway, that is how I see it. Having read a little further in to this thread, I am flabbergasted by the venom and attempted character assassination of new pilots raising essentially the same issue. I have no interest in this, or even in partaking in a community where this is allowed to happen, so this will be my last post here.

[SmirkingGerbil]

The information is out there argument doesnt work for me. If the information is so ubiquitous, then it shouldnt be hard to include a selection of it, or even just reference that information.

 

DCS is not like Prepar3d. To me, prerar3d is a tool that helps me get better at a job that I already know. Prepar3d simulates a reality that we already know, or simulates it for students while they are being taught by instructors. Thats why its a sim and not a game. It wouldnt be a very good game for someone who has no flight training.

 

DCS, no matter how realistic it may seem, isnt a training tool. Unless you are in the military, it simulates a reality that its users do not know, have not, will not and can not be professionally trained for. DCS provides non combat pilots with a thrill, giving them an experience of what it would be like. Thats why its a game. Just like Microsoft Flight is a game, allowing non pilots to experience the thrill of what it would be like to be a pilot. Providing that experience to a non pilot requires built-in training and tutorials to teach them what they need to know, or it wouldnt be any good as a game.

 

I could even compare it to our own foundation or similar ones like migflug. We dont provide vintage or jet fighter flights or simulated combat to train actual fighter pilots. We sell an experience to people who will never be military pilots, but who want to experience what it would be like. Its therefore upon us to provide those customers with whatever knowledge and training they require to allow them to enjoy that experience. We cant just say: the information is all out there, we just provide the planes. The training is integral to the experience.

 

Anyway, that is how I see it. Having read a little further in to this thread, I am flabbergasted by the venom and attempted character assassination of new pilots raising essentially the same issue. I have no interest in this, or even in partaking in a community where this is allowed to happen, so this will be my last post here.

 

 

You raise some good points, honestly better than the OP IMHO. DCS (as admitted by some of the most ardent defenders) has some holes in it for entry level seeking folks.

 

However, I am "flabbergasted" by how folks who point out these shortcoming seem to always focus on how difficult it is to get that initial starting point information.

 

Started "flying" in 2011, the KA-50. Talk about a tough module to take on for your first aircraft. The difference between 2011 DCS and 2020 DCS content wise is night and day.

 

Yet, from 2011 - 2012 I was able to find all the information not in the manual (yes, I referenced the manual) I needed, it wasn't that difficult to fill in the gaps.

 

2020 DCS has so much content available now, through dozens upon dozens of content creators as compared to 2011/12 it is mind boggling. I am flabbergasted that new users keep insisting it is difficult to find this information.

 

There is some kind of disconnect here. Honestly, I am at a loss as to why there is such a chasm between those who navigate and pick up on DCS and manage to amalgamate the information, and those who have difficulty - or maybe they don't have difficulty, but they don't like HOW they have to amalgamate and synthesize it?

[Bearskin]

Doesn't make sense to me either, we have one person who seems to dislike every aspect of the game and the company, and assassinates them as much as he can, any chance he can, then suspiciously a new user posts 2 posts with exactly the same argument about the training doesn't wait for any help, spits his dummy and leaves.

 

 

I have spent hours and hours looking at manuals and videos, as I am sure have most people here who want to master the aircrafts of their choice.

 

 

As for the difficult "mapping controls" watch the training videos, wait till the instructor says press for example left CNTRL L, pause the game, go to control settings, press left CNTRL L see what is highlighted, bind to a switch on your HOTAS which is comfortable for you. job done.

[Wolf359]

Personally, I think the problem is in the expectation. I see a LOT of folks referring to DCS as a game. THAT's the problem. DCS is a simulator; not a game.

[PL_Harpoon]

Personally, I think the problem is in the expectation. I see a LOT of folks referring to DCS as a game. THAT's the problem. DCS is a simulator; not a game.

 

 

That's because DCS is a game. It is a software developed for entertainment purposes. Just as Scat have said, it's not a training tool for real pilots.

Doesn't mean it's not a simulator though. These are not mutually exclusive terms.

 

 

Now, going back on topic...

Regardless of what exactly Vertigo says, or how negative he is about ED and DCS, it is true that the sim would benefit from being more approachable to new users, including those who don't even know the basics.

[unlikely_spider]

Personally, I think the problem is in the expectation. I see a LOT of folks referring to DCS as a game. THAT's the problem. DCS is a simulator; not a game.

To be fair, even ED refers to DCS as a game.

[Pikey]

I think it's terribly sad Scat VII also agrees that they found something missing, and just like the OP cannot provide any example of what. Then states he wants to abandon the thread after providing vague opinions.

If people care about the topic, stay and get to the detail. Like many, I once started with Blackshark in 2008. I must have been lost (but I do not recall it) despite knowing Falcon3 and BMS and IL2 and all the sims. I am trying to recall why I was apparently different from these people. I dont remember doing anything immensely different. I read the manual, quite a few times. I went on the forums and saw some useful autopilot posts. There werent any good YT videos back then to be fair. I practiced. It was hard, I got better. What am I missing?

I cannot say what DCS needs, I dont think it needs any more documentation, it has enough. The surrounding military topics also are documented, well enough. I want to hear from new people what they actually think would improve how fast they learned (not what they think it's missing generally) I have a good reason for that, because I do run new user things and I might learn something about content. But nothing in this thrread convinces me it would be any use.

“The information is out there argument doesnt work for me. If the information is so ubiquitous, then it shouldnt be hard to include a selection of it, or even just reference that information.”

It's difficult to understand how a counter argument for 'I found enough information' is, 'I cannot'. Both people have an equal footing. Yet one is failing? What exactly doesnt' "work for you"? I dont believe people are failing to find information, I believe they are refusing to look. Of course that is an opinion, but based on how easy Google is to use, what else is logicial? Only some people have this issue. People want to change the sim rather than their expectations of what they think it should be. But no one actually can say how their expectation was, just that it was ... short. It's amazing. Every single time. "Should have been better", "how"? "change topic, its everyone elses fault.", and then listing impractical things like, "more documentation" when we know people dont read it and don't want to. Indexed information? Google is an index. Information in the game? You mean content? Training content, it's provided per module. What one is lacking? Thats valid! say it, which one. Any specifics? Put the feedback in the right forum. Generic information to DCS? getting closer, expand the free game, give me more for less. I've heard this one before. Binding tutorials? Now we get closer...

“DCS is not like Prepar3d. To me, prerar3d is a tool that helps me get better at a job that I already know. Prepar3d simulates a reality that we already know, or simulates it for students while they are being taught by instructors. Thats why its a sim and not a game. It wouldnt be a very good game for someone who has no flight training.”

No, training does not define what is a simulation. It's either a sim with some training or a sim with no training. Also, its comparing apples to oranges. Labels dont work. DCS is DCS.

“DCS, no matter how realistic it may seem, isnt a training tool. Unless you are in the military, it simulates a reality that its users do not know, have not, will not and can not be professionally trained for. DCS provides non combat pilots with a thrill, giving them an experience of what it would be like. Thats why its a game. Just like Microsoft Flight is a game, allowing non pilots to experience the thrill of what it would be like to be a pilot. Providing that experience to a non pilot requires built-in training and tutorials to teach them what they need to know, or it wouldnt be any good as a game.”

This is entirely subjective opinion and the proof is again in the differences in peoples approaches to learning. The argument that DCS is not what it is, because it doesn’t train, is absurd. What you are saying here is that to YOU, DCS is not what it should be. There is no connection to what level of “training” a commercial product must have before it is validated that it is a sim. None. We hear all the time that DCS should be something else. Why should it be something else? It's the same thing, yet I can use it and get enjoyment for a decade and others can't. That isnt a problem with DCS then.

“I could even compare it to our own foundation or similar ones like migflug. [...SNIP] “

I don’t see the value in comparisons of things that are not remotely similar. A combat flight experience dwelling on the visceral feelings of aerial combat is almost the exact opposite of DCS which is process and learning driven, very visual, done from a stationary chair. Your experiences of each will be vastly different.

“Anyway, that is how I see it. Having read a little further in to this thread, I am flabbergasted by the venom and attempted character assassination of new pilots raising essentially the same issue. I have no interest in this, or even in partaking in a community where this is allowed to happen, so this will be my last post here.”

I don’t think you read back on what the OP had said in another thread to get the full context on the reaction. There is an expectation that these complex modules come with complete fighter pilot courses, that’s not happening, but the part of this that still has a heartbeat is in the smoothness of the keybinding experience, the lesson format per each module (which I assure you has come on leaps and bounds, you most likely don’t own the P-47). It’s a heavy drop, as a new player, but no amount of documentation or resources seems to help, it requires a fundamental rethink of UI and game design and that is not budgeted for in the free model. Not that this is our problem, it’s just what it is, people assume a free game should be a AAA game. It’s not. It’s free. Sugar free, salt free, and definitely fat free.

 

This is frustrating thread. I believe in its reason, I believe improvements can be made, but every time someone joins there is nothing new offered. The things that have been mentioned, like more documentation, or indexing it better, is a complete waste of time in the format suggested. There is an overwhelming number of comparisons to "other civilian sims" that provide training on the general aviation side. This is a free sim. It's massively cut down from those because the model dives deeply into individual planes, not into general aviation. It has hugely different focus on topics, making far more effort in detail and flight model than generalistic items. People are judging DCS against existing software and any idiot can tell they are not the same, not least of which, the aforementioned software has relaunch itself every few years to earn more money, whereas your A-10C ten years ago, I'd argue how cool ten years of free updates to the base sim is.

[SharpeXB]

The information is out there argument doesnt work for me. If the information is so ubiquitous, then it shouldnt be hard to include a selection of it, or even just reference that information.

You should realize that the sheer volume this information precludes easy incorporation into the sim. A simple Amazon search of “air combat tactics” turns up one of the best sources

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599/ref=sr_1_1?crid=NHH0TTU1TM4K&dchild=1&keywords=air+combat+tactics&qid=1595173070&s=books&sprefix=Air+combat+tactics+%2Caps%2C185&sr=1-1

 

DCS is not like Pre*****d

Welcome to the Forum. You should first familiarize yourself with the rules, particularly 1.15

[Mars Exulte]

You should realize that the sheer volume this information precludes easy incorporation into the sim. A simple Amazon search of “air combat tactics” turns up one of the best sources

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fighter-Combat-Maneuvering-Robert-Shaw/dp/0870210599/ref=sr_1_1?crid=NHH0TTU1TM4K&dchild=1&keywords=air+combat+tactics&qid=1595173070&s=books&sprefix=Air+combat+tactics+%2Caps%2C185&sr=1-1

 

I have that, and read it, btw. Excellent material. Not all relevant for BVR fighting, but definitely teaches many basics of air combat concepts.

 

 

@Pikey

I think you hit the issue, btw. There's plenty of material, plenty of resources, but people don't want to have to read it or look for it. They want it all handed to them, and then would likely still complain "it's too much, it's not presented right". There's no getting around the complexity of the topic, and I think the folks griping about this stuff are not truly inclined to "get it" in the first place. They assume because they can't wrap their head around it, that it's DCS' fault somehow, but it's really just a matter of aptitude and inclination/desire which they lack, one or both.

Edited July 19, 2020 by zhukov032186

[PL_Harpoon]

Ok, if this thread is to be of any help we need to backtrack a bit (20 pages or so perhaps :P ).

 

 

From what I've read here there are three main problems with DCS.

 

 

1. The sim itself (as a program) is difficult to understand.

2. The sim does not teach new players how to fly the aircraft.

3. The sim does not teach enough advanced techniques.

 

 

Now,

 

no. 1 could be the result of the complexity of the program itself or a bad UX (user experience) design. Probably a bit of both. The most commonly stated problem is control bindings. How could this be improved? Hard to say but in my opinion the best solution would be if every aircraft had default bindings for every major joystick/hotas system available with a layout in a printable form (like a PDF file). That way, you could just start the game and immediately jump into the cockpit. Then, when you're already hooked up, you can still change/adjust the controls however you like.

 

 

 

no. 2 is a bit more tricky. In my opinion the best thing for DCS would be to make one of the trainers (probably L-39 as it's a ED module) a free module with a fully comprehensive tutorial missions and manual focused purely on teaching the player to fly. Only further tutorials should include systems like navigation, weapons or even manual startup.

Another thing is that every aircraft needs to have every implemented system explained in an interactive tutorial - see Razbam's Harrier totorials - in my opinion they should be held as a gold standard for every other module in DCS.

 

 

 

no. 3 is in my opinion the most difficult to address. The good thing is that most players seeking that information are already beyond points 1 and 2 and generally should be willing to spend more time reading/watching videos. On the other hand I agree that there's simply too much information (and it's too complex) to include it in some form of interactive training.

Also I agree that it would be too much work for ED to write/record all that stuff by themselves. However, they should be able to at least gather the most important information available in video form and create a page within the game containing links to those videos. The good thing about this community is that we are willing to help others and I'm sure that creators of those videos would be delighted if their work could be included in the game.

 

 

At least these would be a step in the right direction.

[SharpeXB]

1. The sim itself (as a program) is difficult to understand.

It’s not any more difficult to understand than any other PC game. I can’t fathom why people have trouble with simple control binding. They should just stick with consoles if that the case.

 

2. The sim does not teach new players how to fly the aircraft.

Yes it does. And the free aircraft are plenty well suited to practice with. ED shouldn’t give away more complex modules for free.

 

3. The sim does not teach enough advanced techniques.

There’s this thing called Google.

[Vertigo72]

Stop derailing this thread. If you are not interested in discussing how DCS could be improved for new users then DONT. Why do you keep posting? If you think its unnecessary or impossible, you made that point, I do not care. If you only want to question our motivation, our abilities or post ad homs, 20 pages of BS is enough. Unsubscribe from this thread and take it elsewhere.

 

The most commonly stated problem is control bindings.

 

The main issue with control bindings is knowing what you have to bind. As you learn things, you constantly have to rethink and change your control bindings and unlearn the muscle memory you only just started learning. If you dont know what PAL or uncaging is, you cant know you better reserve a button for that. A very simple solution is providing a top 10 or 20 bindings you are most likely to want to bind, ideally grouped in a way that is suitable to use with modifiers, particularly for those with joystick with limited buttons.

 

2. The sim does not teach new players how to fly the aircraft.

 

This is pie in the sky. As long as experienced (sim) pilots struggle learning the game, catering for people with no flight experience seems a bit pointless. What would be useful and simple to implement is one training mission for every module that gives an intro in to that module's performance and flight model. A quick overview of things like best turning speeds, best climb speeds (/AoA), stall and spin recovery,... and go over some of its peculiarities, for instance in the tomcat how to handle adverse yaw at low speeds and roll reversal.

 

3. The sim does not teach enough advanced techniques.

 

Including videos would be a massive improvement. But still missing the best part of having a simulator where you can simulate and learn by doing. Very simple example, the most basic thing of dogfighting: flying the correct speed/AoA. How hard would it be to have a mission to teach a pilot about the effects of speed on turning radius and turn rate and the difference between them. Have some flying boxes arranged in a tight turn and challenge the pilot to fly though them and thus maintain a certain turn radius, or showing on screen turn rate and challenging them to achieve and maintain a certain high turn rate and letting him experience the effect of speed and AoA while doing it. give the pilot a score or measure the time it takes to fly through a box twice, so he can train to get better and have a little mini game thats both fun and instructional.

 

Or take yoyo's, its one thing to read about a high yoyo, most people totally unfamiliar with ACM will not understand. Looking at a 2D picture tells them nothing. If you see it done in a video, you will get a better idea. But imagine a training mission where you have a target, and you are guided through flying boxes. A first time just pulling a high G turn and overshooting the target, and a second time with identical starting positions you are guided through a high or low yoyo, and THEN you will understand. How to do it, and why to do it. That is so much more effective than either books or video's, its so much more interactive and rewarding and really not that hard to implement. And its not just BFM. WW2 veterans will need little help with that, but they will want to learn about radar, how to defeat missiles and sams, and all these things can be taught in training missions.

 

The only problem is that every module will be different and would require its own training missions even for BFM, which makes no sense. Thats why its a good idea to include an appropriate trainer, like the F5. Even if that trainer is only made available for those missions and no where else, or if its a training version with no real ammo, only simulated weapons.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Vertigo72

[PL_Harpoon]

It’s not any more difficult to understand than any other PC game.

No, it's not. In what other game you spend the first 20 minutes in the options menu? That'd drive anyone away.

Yes it does. And the free aircraft are plenty well suited to practice with. ED shouldn’t give away more complex modules for free.

Again, no. Neither of the two has any tutorials on the principles of flight for example. Also, it's not even in the manuals. There's absolutely no way you can learn to fly the aircraft in DCS without using external materials.

 

 

There’s this thing called Google.

I'm proposing a simple solution to make the learning experience easier. If you can't say why it wouldn't there's no point for you in saying anything.

 

If you're trying to say that there's no need for improvements then

1st. You've already said that. Multiple times.

2nd. The fact that other people are specifically saying they have problems getting into DCS is the proof you're wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main issue with control bindings is knowing what you have to bind. [...] A very simple solution is providing a top 10 or 20 bindings you are most likely to want to bind...

That's also a good idea. If you combine the two you'd have controls already set up from the start if you just want to start flying and a list of the most important bindings in a separate tab if you want to change them.

 

Another good solution would be to have those 10-20 controls explained in simple 1-2 sentence descriptions so you know why they're important. I'm still standing by the necessity for a printable layout cause returning to options every time you forgot what button X does is a chore.

 

 

As long as experienced (sim) pilots struggle learning the game, catering for people with no flight experience seems a bit pointless....

That's why it's point no. 2, not 1 :)

And there's lots of benefits of doing it. I know that I wouldn't even touch DCS if I didn't learn to fly in other sims and I'm sure there's plenty of other people who go (and stay) elsewhere because of that.

 

 

 

Including videos would be a massive improvement. But still missing the best part of having a simulator where you can simulate and learn by doing... (we need more training videos)

By "more advanced" I meant things like tactics missile evasion techniques, advanced BVR, proper comms etc. Things that are by definition too dynamic to teach through a training mission.

 

Things that apply to every aircraft, like turn radius vs turn rate, energy management, AOA, the turn rate vs speed etc. should be (IMHO) part of training missions mentioned in pt. 2.

 

 

 

 

Also, one more thing. Let's make it pt.

 

4. The manuals should be available from the game menu. I'm not saying that the game should have a built-in pdf reader (although that would be awesome) but even simple links to those files would be a huge step up.