Making DCS more accessible to new players.

[Vertigo72]

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.

 

Agreed.

 

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.

 

If one day DCS can also cater for those with no flight experience, then so much the better, but no one learns to fly in a fast twin engine jet (or a tail dragging war bird) and quite frankly, there are much better sims to teach you the basics of how to fly.

 

Id start by catering for the (my guess) >95% of people coming in to DCS who have enough prior stick experience. If you can keep them onboard, then sure, why not try to cater for those remaining 5%, but I think its a lot harder to interactively learn someone the basics of flying than the other things we have discussed. If someone cant fly, you cant just make a mission that will teach him, you may need to "grab the stick" or take control of the rudder on take off, so he doesnt crash all the time, and for instance teach him to control pitch and speed without having to worry about maintaining wings level.

 

It wouldnt even make sense to provide that sort of basic training, if you are going to then throw them in the deep end of the pool let them figure out dogfighting or evading sams with no further guidance.

 

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.

 

Why is that too difficult? Why cant you have a mission with a sam site and be taught how to use terrain masking to get from A to B without dying. Why cant you have a mission where you get shot at from long range and you learn and can practice how to evade/dodge/notch and use counter measures? You can even do these easily with the current mission editor.

 

Again the only real issue is doing that for every module by every third party, which doesnt make sense and isnt going to happen. ED needs to take care of that with a set of common training missions. I suppose you could even do it with Su25 if need be. Certainly when it comes to avoiding or evading sams, its less than ideal to teach BFM.

 

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.

 

Okay if that is what you mean by "learning to fly". I dont think many cessna citation pilots know much about energy management or how to maximize sustained turn rate. But I wouldnt say they cant fly.

 

There are two things here: the concepts, which are fairly universal and can be taught on any plane; and how it applies to a specific plane/module. Maintaining optimal turn rate or energy management in a tomcat is different from an I-16. I think they should both be taught, but if you where taught the concepts in a generic common trainer, adapting that to a new module should be quick and easy, and just an intro in to the flight characteristics of the plane is probably enough. And that is something I do think is more than reasonable to demand module developers supply.

 

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.

 

Ideally you wouldnt even need the manual. Until then, sure. And like I said earlier, you should have a more interactive ingame help function. If I ctrl+click that AFCS panel, I should be able to get a little popup reminding me what those switches do, what if any controls are bound to them, and/or providing a link to the section of the manual explaining it in detail. But even better than that would be the option to jump to a training mission that actually teaches it.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Vertigo72

[Baldrick33]

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.

One of the big challenges is that unlike many games with clear goals and objectives, DCS can be many things to many people.

 

I tend to see DCS as a gateway to flying combat aircraft of multiple eras and taking that to whatever level of complexity I wish in terms of flying and combat. Personally I don't expect to move up the levels complexity without quite some level of investment of time and I have had no difficulty finding the material. That said I have spread myself thin over multiple modules to do any more than scratch the surface in any one. That has been my choice, many may say that is the wrong approach but I have had a lot of fun so who is to say what is right?

 

There will always be anecdotal evidence of people who have quit for various reasons, I would argue time pressures from life in general probably top the list. People I have shown my race and flight sim setup to think it is great but they say they would never have time to devote to it, these are time consuming hobbies and many already have that leisure time filled.

 

Sure if there was more in sim instruction it shouldn't be a bad thing but I stand by my previous comments I am not sure they are a good value use of resources when there is ample third party material.

[Vertigo72]

I am not sure they are a good value use of resources when there is ample third party material.

 

You can not know that as long as you havent:

1) identified or even acknowledged the problems

2) proposed solutions

3) evaluated the required effort to implement those solutions.

 

But people in this thread keep being stuck at step 1. Again please, if you have nothing to contribute, then dont, Im so sick of hearing we dont need it, RTFM. We heard you the first 124 times.

 

But many of the things being suggested so far require no development time AT ALL. Literally. You dont even need developers to implement training missions. Those tools exist. The missions themselves could be community sourced. All ED need to do is make a list and ask and select the best training missions and include them. They would be wise to supply an appropriate plane but those also already exist. And if they wanted to, they could package it as an actual training module and sell it. And to do it right that may need a little bit of dev time, but I find it very hard to see how that would be a worse use of their time than improving submarine warfare.

[PL_Harpoon]

no one learns to fly in a fast twin engine jet (or a tail dragging war bird) and quite frankly, there are much better sims to teach you the basics of how to fly.

I'm not sure. There are many people who learned to fly with Falcon 4.0 or other sims from that era. That's because those sims included (either in the manual, training videos or missions) materials for those without any prior knowledge.

Just look at this sim from 1997:

 

 

 

 

Id start by catering for the (my guess) >95% of people coming in to DCS who have enough prior stick experience.

 

 

 

I don't know where you've got that number from but doesn't matter, even it it were true, have you thought about why people choose other sims to learn flying instead of DCS?

 

Also, why would ED develop a training jet if they weren't interested in teaching new players how to fly?

 

All we need now is to make it available to everyone with detailed training missions (and a manual) and DCS could become a go-to place for people interested in learning virtual flying.

 

 

 

As for the arguments that we already have a TF-51 - I think it's a great plane but IMHO it could be too difficult for new players where L-39 or F5 are much more forgiving and easier to learn.

 

 

 

 

Why is that too difficult?

Because when it comes to tactics, for example, there are no golden rules, where if you obey them you'll be fine and if you don't you're screwed. I think it's much better to give users access to the most relevant information and let them apply this knowledge in the actual missions.

A "virtual instructor" could be helpful here, but creating such a system would eat up all the resources ED has and it's not even sure it would be good enough to not be more of a nuisance then help.

In my opinion if we're to suggest improvements to ED, that they can actually implement, we should stick with the ones that are feasible.

 

 

Okay if that is what you mean by "learning to fly". I dont think many cessna citation pilots know much about energy management or how to maximize sustained turn rate. But I wouldnt say they cant fly.

Well, it is "basic" stuff for a combat pilot and this is a combat sim after all.

 

 

 

There are two things here: the concepts, which are fairly universal and can be taught on any plane; and how it applies to a specific plane/module...

Agreed. If you understand the concepts it is quite easy to apply it to any aircraft.

 

 

 

Ideally you wouldnt even need the manual.

 

 

 

That is when I don't agree. There's a lot of information in the manuals that you don't need in an interactive form, for ex. how does the hydraulic system work or what does the ASYM LIMITER does in the F-14.

 

Obviously, theoretically you could do that in a tutorial mission but it just wouldn't be feasible.

 

 

And like I said earlier, you should have a more interactive ingame help function. If I ctrl+click that AFCS panel, I should be able to get a little popup reminding me what those switches do, what if any controls are bound to them, and/or providing a link to the section of the manual explaining it in detail. But even better than that would be the option to jump to a training mission that actually teaches it.

 

 

The idea itself is not that bad. How to implement it without spending months on development is another thing. I think a small text explaining the function of a specific switch would be a step in the right direction (not to mention that it would save you a lot of time from going back and forth between the game and a manual).

[PL_Harpoon]

Sure if there was more in sim instruction it shouldn't be a bad thing but I stand by my previous comments I am not sure they are a good value use of resources when there is ample third party material.

 

That's the biggest concern for me.

"Would it pay off to spend so much time creating all those training material?"

 

It's a really difficult question to answer because as you've said, all we have is anecdotal evidence and no real data.

 

Anyway, I believe it would and frankly, as a user, not a developer, it's not my problem to solve cause it's not my decision to make. All I (or all of us, really) can do is to say what I think.

[Baldrick33]

You can not know that as long as you havent:

1) identified or even acknowledged the problems

2) proposed solutions

3) evaluated the required effort to implement those solutions.

I have given you my perspective as a relatively new player. There is shed loads of systems and acronyms I am still clueless about though when I have the inclination I have found access to the information I need pretty easy to find.

 

I would perhaps have liked some explanation of the comms terms explained to me as they were delivered the first time rather than having to search for their meaning.

 

The point being I am a new player and haven't been put off, in fact it is the depth and complexity that has attracted me whilst being able to quickly get to fly a bunch of planes and helicopters at a jump in and fly level knowing there is years of learning at whatever pace I choose.

 

For example landing the Huey on the oil rig has provided an enjoyable challenge for me as a new player without needing to learn anything more than the basic controls, just plenty of practice at getting a feel for the aircraft - one of the huge benefits of simulators is you can learn the hard way!

 

My view is that the instant action aspect of DCS and training missions has been enough to get me hooked and my own experience is it has proven suitably accessible.

 

I have found your position confusing between accessibility for genuine new players (like me) and experienced combat flight simmers and real world pilots looking to access what I would consider advanced and complex aspects and getting put off if they haven't a virtual instructor to hold their hand.

 

I would just expect that those moving to a more advanced level in DCS competency would have the motivation to seek out the information and the hand holding requirement would be at the genuine entry level.

[SharpeXB]

The main issue with control bindings is knowing what you have to bind.

What’s so difficult about following these instructions? These are the commands you need to bind to your stick.

[Vertigo72]

 

 

Nice find :). Though Im not sure a 3 minute expose will have taught many to fly. If they had no knowledge of flying at all, I think trial and error will have taught them instead.

 

I don't know where you've got that number from but doesn't matter, even it it were true, have you thought about why people choose other sims to learn flying instead of DCS?

 

Because they are sensible? Because you probably want to learn on a slow, forgiving, tricycle airplane with no more complicated controls and instruments than needed? Because other sims do have built in lessons?

 

Compare your F18 expose with this lesson:

 

Which is almost as old as that F18 sim. But fully interactive, voice over, with partial instructor control... Its really good actually. Can you replicate that in DCS 20 years later? Yeah, but its not going to be trivial, its much more than just creating a mission, and it requires an appropriate plane and Im unconvinced there is a big audience for it.

 

Also, why would ED develop a training jet if they weren't interested in teaching new players how to fly?

 

Because on a training jet you can learn how to fly faster jets, navigate/ILS, and get introduced to combat? That is what they are used for IRL. Airforce pilots first learn to fly in single engine piston planes, they dont learn about coordinated turns or how to fly a pattern in a L-39 or T-38. By the time they even get to fly those, they are already better pilots than most pilots I know.

 

As for the arguments that we already have a TF-51 - I think it's a great plane but IMHO it could be too difficult for new players where L-39 or F5 are much more forgiving and easier to learn.

 

Completely agree. Its not a plane to learn to fly in. But you could use the TF51 for BFM. It would actually be harder than in the F5, but its better than not being taught.

 

Because when it comes to tactics, for example, there are no golden rules, where if you obey them you'll be fine and if you don't you're screwed.

 

You need to be taught basic concepts. You dont need to be taught golden rules. You could say the same for anything, like landing. You can teach someone how to land, but one tutorial wont give him a "golden rule" how to land a heavy plane with heavy crosswind on a runway that has a crater in it. Ot doesnt teach you to do a dead stick landing or landing with a missing wingtip. So why bother, just let them figure out how to land by themselves ?

 

Having BFM training misions and intro's in to defensive flying and sams etc wont make them an ace. It wont prepare them for every eventuality. It will give them a basis. In a way that is more efficient and more fun than getting shot down 400x and figuring everything out by trial and error. Or reading books.

 

I think it's much better to give users access to the most relevant information and let them apply this knowledge in the actual missions.

 

So flying a mission 400x before they teach themselves that just pulling on the stick as hard as possible or pulling max Gs isnt always the best way to get a firing solution ? To notice a pattern that its better to dive than to climb when under long range missile attack. That some sams can be overflown at high altitude and for other sams that is suicide? That flying at a 90 degree angle to the missile sometimes helps for some reason. That chaff doesnt help much against IR guided missiles and using afterburner even less. I mean sure, eventually they will figure it out. That is if they have not long rage-quit in frustration.

 

A "virtual instructor" could be helpful here, but creating such a system would eat up all the resources ED has and it's not even sure it would be good enough to not be more of a nuisance then help.

 

Actually, no, thats not even where I think it could be useful. Where it might be useful is in using plane systems and game control interactions (cold start, comms, catapult,). And that would not be all that hard to implement, in fact, you might even do much of that that with the existing mission editor tools already if there are triggers for detecting the status of plane systems.

 

But lets shelve that for now, I shouldnt have brought it up, my point was trying to show the things I would have liked to be taught, not so much suggesting HOW it should be taught. If its achieved with training missions that works for me too. If its in a logical user manual, thats still better than it is now.

 

In my opinion if we're to suggest improvements to ED, that they can actually implement, we should stick with the ones that are feasible.

 

Agreed. And thats why i think making an interactive basic flight training for non pilots like the one I linked, with a suitable beginner plane just doesnt strike me as good balance of effort/result compared to providing boatloads more of generic combat training missions that teach basic concepts that are unfamiliar to anyone coming from civilian or ww2 sims.

 

That is when I don't agree. There's a lot of information in the manuals that you don't need in an interactive form, for ex. how does the hydraulic system work or what does the ASYM LIMITER does in the F-14.

 

The ASYM limiter switch can be explained in a bubble text. And frankly, you dont really need to know about it. How the hydraulics work isnt something you really need to know either. You could become a DCS ace and have no clue how either works. So you dont "need" the manual for that. Im not saying one shouldnt be supplied or its not worth reading. But I would try to minimize the need to delve in to the manual just to advance to the point where you can complete missions.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Vertigo72

[SharpeXB]

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

Every PC game has an Options menu to go through. And all of what this does is explained in the manual. I don’t see your point.

[PL_Harpoon]

Every PC game has an Options menu to go through. And all of what this does is explained in the manual. I don’t see your point.

There you go.

 

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

 

In every normal game, even more complex ones (with lots of controls), you can just install it, fire it up and start playing. Not the case with DCS.

[SharpeXB]

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.

If a third party wants to make a “Principals of Flight” campaign using one of the free aircraft that’s totally doable. But I don’t think it would receive much attention in DCS because players here already know this or it can be found in other sources.

[SharpeXB]

In every normal game, even more complex ones (with lots of controls), you can just install it, fire it up and start playing. Not the case with DCS.

No you can’t do this in any other PC game. Every PC game has graphic options, controls, features etc. You’re thinking about console games where indeed you can just plop down on your couch and start playing. DCS can never be this simple.

[PL_Harpoon]

No you can’t do this in any other PC game. Every PC game has graphic options, controls, features etc. You’re thinking about console games where indeed you can just plop down on your couch and start playing. DCS can never be this simple.

 

 

You keep missing the point. No normal modern game requires you to spend this much time in the options menu before you can play. Doesn't matter if it's PC or console.

In today's time it is expected of game developers to design their games in that way. That's also why manuals are an obsolete thing nowadays.

[SharpeXB]

You keep missing the point. No normal modern game requires you to spend this much time in the options menu before you can play. Doesn't matter if it's PC or console.

In today's time it is expected of game developers to design their games in that way. That's also why manuals are an obsolete thing nowadays.

This can never be the case for a game as complex as DCS. This game could never dispense with manuals or dumb down all its game options. You’re trying to market DCS to people who just don’t have the aptitude or desire to play it.

[Bearskin]

Well done vertigo, you have finally found someone to pick up a pitchfork and join you on your witch hunt.

[SmirkingGerbil]

 

Quote: PL_Harpoon

 

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.

 

Ideally you wouldnt even need the manual. Until then, sure. And like I said earlier, you should have a more interactive ingame help function. If I ctrl+click that AFCS panel, I should be able to get a little popup reminding me what those switches do, what if any controls are bound to them, and/or providing a link to the section of the manual explaining it in detail. But even better than that would be the option to jump to a training mission that actually teaches it.

 

 

Bold, my emphasis, but there you have it. "Ideally you wouldn't even need the manual".

 

The entire gist of this thread.

 

I suggest that OP ask for a sticky, submit to the community for developers and content creators to create this GUI/Video driven interactive environment. Work with ED team, and content creators to develop this environment. I look forward to the first few efforts, curious as to which topic they will cover first?

Edited July 20, 2020 by SmirkingGerbil
clarification

[Home Fries]

Here's $.02 from someone who has been flight simming since 1982, went through both US Navy and Air Force flight training curricula, and still fights the steep learning curve while trying to get people into DCS:

 

The OP makes a lot of excellent points. One can argue that study sims require study and that realism shouldn't be compromised to lower the entry bar. These are also valid points, yet straw-man arguments as the OP never suggested this compromise. The OP said that he thinks that the training should be more accessible, logical, and yes, even providing a quicker sense of accomplishment. This is all reasonable to engage people and keep them engaged. The study will come after the hook, as people whose interest is maintained will put in the effort, and people who cannot stay interested would go elsewhere anyway.

 

Training curricula in sims have always been difficult, and the most effective training has been on older sims where the systems were abstracted and flight models less complex. The last really good, approachable in-game training I can recall is Rod Machado's flight school in MSFS9. Just about everything else has been too superficial, too inflexible, or too difficult for a newbie to approach. Honestly, I think the Falcon 4.0 training missions (where you had to open the book and read the steps) were some of the best, not because you needed the book open, but because once you had the steps down you could just run the mission and practice practice practice without having to go through any voiceovers again. That said, I was a winged NFO when Falcon 4 came out and I never went through the cold start because the instructions were unclear and it was difficult to find just the right place to click to advance the sequence.

 

Now I'll touch on the differences between US Navy and US Air Force training, as this is germane to the subject. While both services require a lot of study and self-motivation to make it through, the Air Force walks you through, nurtures you, and builds you up to the check ride so the check ride is easier than the training flights leading up to it. If you mess up in the simulator, the instructor can reset to a point just prior to your mistake and you can learn from it in real-time. You are expected to study hard, and when you are tested you are expected to know the material as if it is second nature.

 

The Navy, on the other hand, throws you the books, gives you a couple weeks of ground school, then expects you to study and be ready for your flight. The book provides the minimum, and you are expected to find information through any means possible (e.g. "gouge" from more senior students). There are a series of simulator hops to make sure you are safe in the cockpit before flying (and another set of sims during instrument phase). Otherwise, every brief is a pop quiz, every flight is essentially a check ride, and what you read in the book is a basis for what the instructor teaches in the air, albeit usually under a manufactured stress environment. This process is designed more to weed people out, and the shock between studying the procedures in the manual and actually executing them in the air for the first time can be very unsettling.

 

So what we have in DCS is more akin to Navy training than Air Force. You're given the book, an unforgiving environment, a few training missions (fewer if the module is EA), and you're expected to find "gouge" on Youtube, Chucks Guides, or other people who are more experienced with DCS. Simply put, what the OP is asking for is something more akin to Air Force training, where you have a schedule, building blocks with expectations, and a progression that will take you from basic airmanship to system competence (mastery comes much later). I agree with the OP: I would love to see a natural progression where mistakes are expected and the consequences are not as punitive.

 

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't give Baltic Dragon some serious credit for his training missions. The AV-8B missions are all outstanding, and they are the closest thing I've seen to the FS9 lessons I alluded to earlier. You can go through the full walkthrough and still choose abbreviated missions that train the same things (allowing you to practice without the voice overs), or allow you to practice the same things in more challenging environments. Additionally, the Mirage 2000C campaign that provides familiarity training in the first missions is a brilliant step that helps people swim in the pool starting in the shallow end. Baltic Dragon's example should influence a template to ease the learning curve to newbies.

Edited July 20, 2020 by Home Fries

[PL_Harpoon]

Though Im not sure a 3 minute expose will have taught many to fly. [...]

 

Compare your F18 expose with this lesson:

 

Which is almost as old as that F18 sim....

 

 

True. This is much better if you want to learn flying. I was just making a point that (at least in a sim) it can be achieved with a combat jet.

After all, I've been flying sims for around 20 years and haven't touched civilian planes until just a few years ago.

 

 

Airforce pilots first learn to fly in single engine piston planes, they dont learn about coordinated turns or how to fly a pattern in a L-39 or T-38.

 

 

Which doesn't mean they couldn't.

 

Anyway, I think we can safely drop this topic as I think DCS has a chance to become a great platform to learn flying and you think otherwise. It just becomes a matter of different opinions.

 

 

 

You need to be taught basic concepts. You dont need to be taught golden rules. You could say the same for anything, like landing...

 

 

I get your point, and I agree that having to die multiple times just so you can finally "get it" will only lead to frustration.

Actually I said that for the more advanced things DCS should at least point you to the relevant information. You wouldn't need to try missile evasion 400x times before you figure out what to do.

All you had to do is to go to a "manual" section in the game, find "missile evasion" and read/watch the videos on it.

 

 

As to why I think it's difficult to convey some topics in an interactive form let's take the F-pole as an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FVhCYrTFY.

You could turn the first 2 minutes of that video into a tutorial mission. That would still leave you clueless as to what actually happened without the next 10 minutes of explanation.

 

...my point was trying to show the things I would have liked to be taught, not so much suggesting HOW it should be taught. If its achieved with training missions that works for me too. If its in a logical user manual, thats still better than it is now.

That's good to know. After all, as long as we're moving in the right direction we should keep going. And TBH, I thing ED are. Just look at Wag's great tutorial videos. If only there was a way to reach them directly from the game. That'd be another small step in the right direction. Turning them into training missions would be another etc.

 

How the hydraulics work isnt something you really need to know either. You could become a DCS ace and have no clue how either works. So you dont "need" the manual for that. Im not saying one shouldnt be supplied or its not worth reading. But I would try to minimize the need to delve in to the manual just to advance to the point where you can complete missions.

Ok. I still don't fully agree as sometimes you just need to take in a lot of information and I'd rather take it in written form where it can also be quickly accessed. After all, even when you have an instructor IRL you still need to soak up a lot of information from a manual.

I do agree with you, however, that whenever something can be taught interactively, it should (or "it'd be great if it were").

[PL_Harpoon]

This can never be the case for a game as complex as DCS. This game could never dispense with manuals or dumb down all its game options. You’re trying to market DCS to people who just don’t have the aptitude or desire to play it.

I'm not asking for the removal of manuals. In fact if you read my posts you'll find that I'm actually advocating for them.

4. The manuals should be available from the game menu.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also not asking for dumbed down options. Again, you either didn't read or misunderstood my posts.

The most commonly stated problem is control bindings [...] 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'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.

How is any of that dumbing down the options?

[SharpeXB]

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.

Fine idea but the problem is that too many people don’t grasp that fact that they need to read and study them. They are best used outside of the game itself for example on an iPad to have handy while you’re practicing. I don’t know about most people but I don’t read the manual when the game is running all the time so using it within DCS isn’t actually useful.

[PL_Harpoon]

Fine idea but the problem is that too many people don’t grasp that fact that they need to read and study them. They are best used outside of the game itself for example on an iPad to have handy while you’re practicing. I don’t know about most people but I don’t read the manual when the game is running all the time so using it within DCS isn’t actually useful.

Could be true, but they'd still be much more accessible then keeping them hidden inside multiple folders.

[Pikey]

It's fairly frustrating to see folks with no idea about where the game is going, how it works, its technical limitations, its development course over the last ten years, come in, blame the game, and suggest enhancements without thinking through any of what they say. I suppose not everyone has been a part of this journey. If you find yourself polarised by this topic, that you must have more help, my first sugegstion would be go join a community and interact with their training syllabus, there are countless startups that would like to help. If you care about the reason, read on.

 

Part of the issue with DCS entry is it's different marketing style to standalone "single release" software. In DCS, The base game is free and the investment is in new DLC. A portion of revenue updates the base game but it's not all funneled back, it's still a business. The A-10C product came before DCS:World and there hasn't been any fundamental differences in UI until the single executable .exe. Part of the reason is because every update had to support the last. The sim was always in a state of development. This applied through major revisions. Most other software is Done, patched, then End of Lifed. DCS, is seriously old. Now ED are pinned to supporting dozens of DLC on this platform, every update is even slower and more cautious for fear of breaking anything, which still happens.

 

A lot of folks are talking as if you can slap this stuff in there without much thought to how the game works or is marketed. With a free core, you have the TF-51 full modelled and a Jet from the LOMAC days of FC3 modelling. There isn't a free modern fully simulated jet. It's crazy to some people. Yet, it all began with even less and has continued to evolve.

 

So here's the thing, with a free game, the DLC then has to pick up the first entry to DCS using "Lessons". They are constrained to the mechanics the core game gives them. Cockpit arguments, lighting up parts of the cockpit, the text and audio trigger based lessons. It's not great, the engine is very old now. There can be no "common tutorials" A WW2 plane and a Russian non clickable FC3 jet from ten years hence, is no way to onbboard new players. This is recognised.

 

None of the advanced topics of air combat that the OP is talking about seem to refer to the TF-51. In fact, I doubt people interested in Jets will even see TF-51 before jumping in. And the FC3 legacy that the sim came from is being slowly diverged into MAC and DCSW. Right now there is no bridge properly constructed between FC3 and DCS World. You can quite literally see the difference between game and sim when you look at the FC3 keybindings and the full sims. This has been discussed ad infinitum over the years. ED have been aware for many years, going back to diverging DCSW and FC3 and the inception of MAC. There has not been one original thought in this thread. Not one. And trying to tell you guys is hard work.

 

Bottom line. It's not the right time. Post MAC release there will be a feeder game which WILL be marketed with more effort for beginners so they can see what the game could be like as a full sim. Right now, trying to shoehorn it into DCSW which is just an organic growth of mess from the decade old 'dont need a manual' game, is pointless. MAC is where all this effort will be, it's already run way over time because ED no doubt realised they had to fill this void inbetween the game and the sim. Because its been discussed. Actually they said that too, I think it was Nick Grey on Reddit.

 

If you are having problems with the way the game presents the simulation side and introduces the concepts, you have likely not been here when it was LOMAC, likely are unaware of the FC3 brand, its divergence, its complexity level and thus, DCS:World's origins and the reason for all growing apart from sims where you could access more easily. But sorry, it is what it is, it wont get fixed fast, the changes will come, by design (and even developer/programme leader comments) into the MAC product. If you have no experience of combat sims, your choices are: go fill in the gaps yourself, or wait, until they finish the product that you should be playing. It should have much more friendly entry into this world. It's ED's solution to this, and its been scheduled for years.

 

On the side of existing changes, and just to show, again, ED are aware of this, they overhauled the keybindings UI a few times now, they tried to automate some of this, they spend a lot of time on keeping it OK, but it has to meet a broad range of needs, one of them is the beloved cockpit builder community who require everything bound. Another is, there are simply too many peripherals to do bindings for and no one will keep the default anyway.

 

And another thing is the refinement, even through the restriction of the game engine. The UI does not have a good power to create binding demos, however, on their most recent product, the P-47D, ED upped their game again by providing Lesson 1 in the air, and it went through the switches and told you which ones you should bind. As I said before, this is gold standard from now on, it was a much more effective introduction. If you didnt see this on the product you picked up, it doesn't help, but then you also have an incomplete view of how things are.

 

All the remaining sentiment in this thread is simply missplaced until MAC is done, i'm sorry you were not aware of why this is so weird looking as a commercial product. It's grown, it's changed, its over a decade old, it's audience are avid readers and it's not a simple game to pick up. But I maintain, these types of people who require instant gratification and have heavy requirements for impact and ease of use are not best suited to DCS and will remain disappointed as no tutorial will ever satisfy the gap between combat flight simulation technical detail and basic aviation. MAC is comign for you guys, hang in there.

[PL_Harpoon]

@Pikey

You bring up a lot of valid points.

 

However...

As a user you shouldn't really care why things are the way they are or what's the software history.

If a new user downloads DCS and gets immediately confused they'd most likely uninstall and don't look back. Not because of the complexity of the simulation, but because of the unfriendliness of the software itself or lack of available training materials.

 

Imagine you're learning to drive. Would you rather go to a driving school that gives you all the materials, provides you with an instructor and guides you through the process or one where they give you your car's manual and say you can find everything else on the internet?

 

Also, just because this is all known by ED doesn't mean there's no point in discussing it. We can all agree that DCS is constantly improving, also in making it more accessible to new users but why should we stop coming out with our own ideas how to do it? As a software developer I'd love to receive so much feedback, even if it is repetitive (which also means something).

 

Lastly, I think you seem to mistake accessibility with simplification. No one in this thread is asking for DCS to be simplified.

I suggest you read HomeFry's post to better understand what we're asking for.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4427658&postcount=217

[SmirkingGerbil]

It's fairly frustrating to see folks with no idea about where the game is going, how it works, its technical limitations, its development course over the last ten years, come in, blame the game, and suggest enhancements without thinking through any of what they say.

 

. . .

 

MAC is comign for you guys, hang in there.

 

Great summary.

 

Been dinking around since 2011, all these years, I still get hours and hours of enjoyment out of DCS while other titles fade, and end up in the dust bin.

 

I understand what the OP is asking for, as you mention, anyone that has been here any length of time understands ED is working its way to many of these things. They have addressed these very issues openly, and often.

 

Having flown and played many many titles (FPS, role playing, strategy etc.) DCS is the only one to still be installed and still have legs after all this time to keep my attention.

 

I guess I am too emotional in response to these threads - but having personally been part of the initial Kickstarter dust-up and ED wading in and saving it while taking a financial hit, has endeared this company to me. I hope the OP gets what he thinks we need, hate to lose folks from the DCS family with such a cloud of negativity. It really is a wonderful community and product.

[Wolf359]

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

 

I understand what you guys are saying. I view a game as something to be played, gaining points/experience in order to level up, become stronger in the environment, thereby achieving new levels and progressing to defeat the pre-programmed obstacles and win. Yeah, DCS has game modes in some of its modules, but overall, it feels more like a simulator. After all, the clickable modules are referred to as "study-level".

 

But that's just splitting hairs.