Jump to content

Realism versus fun


Nanne118

Recommended Posts

Maybe I can add a little bit to the discussion, and alleviate some miss-perception.

 

Stinger was fielded on KW through the "E" version - that is FIM-92 RMP Blk I.

 

Blk II did not exist in the time that ATAS hardware was removed from 58Ds in the 2003-2005 timeframe.

 

Had the requirement still existed through 2017, I'm sure the Blk II could have been integrated, but as stated above it did not exist in those days.

 

In the same vein, the GAU-19B was tested and qualified on the KW, but never fielded.

 

Whether that affects the argument about balance; I'll leave it up to you guys to discuss.

 

In terms of pure "fielded systems only" realism, I think this answers that aspect.

Well, in that case I'm actually glad that PC doesn't implement the Blk II, although because of RL authenticity, not because of balancing. I made my previous statemnts on the assumption that Blk II was fielded with the Kiowa, as Borchi said he believed it was fielded.

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, in that case I'm actually glad that PC doesn't implement the Blk II, although because of RL authenticity, not because of balancing. I made my previous statemnts on the assumption that Blk II was fielded with the Kiowa, as Borchi said he believed it was fielded.

 

Wikipedia might not always be the most-trustworthy site on the interwebz, but it says:

 

Stinger—RMP Block II: This variant was a planned developed based on the E version. The improvements included an imaging infrared seeker head from the AIM-9X. With this modification, the detection distance and the resistance to jamming was to be greatly increased. Changes to the airframe would furthermore enable a significant increase in range. Although the missile reached the testing phase, the program was dropped in 2002 for budgetary reasons.

 

I guess that the model meant by "Stinger block II". If that's correct, the thing never even made it anywhere near operational.

dcsdashie-hb-ed.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia might not always be the most-trustworthy site on the interwebz, but it says:

 

I guess that the model meant by "Stinger block II". If that's correct, the thing never even made it anywhere near operational.

Thanks, I hadn't checked wiki. In that case I'm really glad we don't get the Blk. II. :thumbup:

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I hadn't checked wiki. In that case I'm really glad we don't get the Blk. II. :thumbup:

 

If that's true... then it further emphasises the irrelevence of ''balance'' and ''community angst'', unless of course the ''angst'' was related to a ''feature'' that ''probably shouldn't be there'' in which case the angst is indeed... justified.

 

We have come full circle, it seems, in more ways than one.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Id rather know what I am trying to fly represents the feedback of an actual pilot in the target air frame than consider what might have been. Fun sims can be achieved in games the whole point of DCS is to represent how it actually feels to fly. the target air frame.

Hornet, Super Carrier, Warthog & (II), Mustang, Spitfire, Albatross, Sabre, Combined Arms, FC3, Nevada, Gulf, Normandy, Syria AH-6J

i9 10900K @ 5.0GHz, Gigabyte Z490 Vision G, Cooler Master ML120L, Gigabyte RTX3080 OC Gaming 10Gb, 64GB RAM, Reverb G2 @ 2480x2428, TM Warthog, Saitek pedals & throttle, DIY collective, TrackIR4, Cougar MFDs, vx3276-2k

Combat Wombat's Airfield & Enroute Maps and Planning Tools

 

cw1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

about the block 2, it is not going to happen.

 

My reason to not give the community a block 2 is based on the behavior of people in the community. What my heart wants does not matter, but I do not want any discussion later on from people that think they know more abput the weaponsystems then our SMEs and start thier hate war on us.

This makes me very sad. I want to be clear. I don't care about Stinger block II or whatever weapon. I also don't pvp much, or fly jets at 200ft. I'm sad for another reason.

 

What I care about is developers changing their products based on what the PvP community think, because of one communities backlash, caused by something the developer made themselves, then improved upon later.

 

I arrive here looking forward to a product, to listen to the developer talking about reasoning that is driving that product, based on a lot of negativity and feeling I have not taken part of and do not understand. That is not the direction I want to hear from a developer making a simulation, it gives me a feeling that I cannot trust the direction of their product.

 

What am I learning?

 

  • The product is not made for me because it's made for a pvp community.
  • The product is not from your heart.
  • You dont care about simulation, just what the PvP community wants

How do I know the FM isn't made for the PvP community, being lightweight and lacking inertia to avoid complaint? Presumably by little light hands that can't move those stiff warthog sticks... How do I know the avionics aren't simplified for the PvP community, maybe we avoid a 15 minute alignment before bedtime? Anything else that we should know about that is important to the PvP'rs?

 

Seems this product is not for simulation enthusiasts.

___________________________________________________________________________

SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING *

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you read too much in to that message by Sven / Borchi to be honest Pikey. It might have been poorly phrased but know that the block II was never going to be implemented. I think but can't say for sure, that Sven wanted to point out that implementing a very powerful air to air missile on a helicopter is something Polychop would not hear the end of. But in the end, what was implemented in real life will be implemented in to the module... and the block II was never fielded.

 

Sven has a point though, you can never satisfy everyone. We will always receive some, or a lot of flack. When you implement something it will piss off the people who don't want it in there and vise versa. And as a customer you have every right to complain. But don't forget, those guys do their best and make very long days to make a module a reality. Sometimes the hateful comments actually do get to them and in the end, I wouldn't be surprised it would influence their decisions.

 

Edit: about the only OH-58D Kiowa Warrior feature interesting for pvp would actually be the Stinger... which is going to be a block I.. I can tell you the bird does not exactly shine as a dogfighter.


Edited by Polychop Simulations

Community Manager Account



DrummerNL

[TABLE]

[/TABLE]

Discord - Facebook - Gazelle sitreps

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not technically true. This is a Long-Held secret; once a pilot achieved 3000 hours, he was initiated into the Inner Circle of Code Holders. A sacrifice to the Sky Marshall was made by slaughtering a goat, and the inductee was given the secret maintenance codes to unlock "Super Turbo Mode". With these codes we could outfly an F16.

 

True Story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not technically true. This is a Long-Held secret; once a pilot achieved 3000 hours, he was initiated into the Inner Circle of Code Holders. A sacrifice to the Sky Marshall was made by slaughtering a goat, and the inductee was given the secret maintenance codes to unlock "Super Turbo Mode". With these codes we could outfly an F16.

 

True Story.

I guess it was those pilots who then participated in the J-CATCH program and murdered those fixed wing jockeys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH

During the two-week exercise, the helicopters proved devastating to the fixed-wing aircraft. In most cases the fighter pilots had no idea they were being "attacked" until they returned to base for debriefing. This led to a series of claims and counter-claims, so for the second week the helicopter pilots were instructed to follow Air Force procedure and call out "guns-guns-guns" when "firing". The kill ratio in favour of the helicopters climbed even higher during this period. Over the entire two-week period, the outcome was a 5-to-1 ratio in favour of the helicopters.
So yeah, true story indeed :D

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes me very sad. I want to be clear. I don't care about Stinger block II or whatever weapon. I also don't pvp much, or fly jets at 200ft. I'm sad for another reason.

 

What I care about is developers changing their products based on what the PvP community think, because of one communities backlash, caused by something the developer made themselves, then improved upon later.

 

I arrive here looking forward to a product, to listen to the developer talking about reasoning that is driving that product, based on a lot of negativity and feeling I have not taken part of and do not understand. That is not the direction I want to hear from a developer making a simulation, it gives me a feeling that I cannot trust the direction of their product.

 

What am I learning?

 

  • The product is not made for me because it's made for a pvp community.
  • The product is not from your heart.
  • You dont care about simulation, just what the PvP community wants

How do I know the FM isn't made for the PvP community, being lightweight and lacking inertia to avoid complaint? Presumably by little light hands that can't move those stiff warthog sticks... How do I know the avionics aren't simplified for the PvP community, maybe we avoid a 15 minute alignment before bedtime? Anything else that we should know about that is important to the PvP'rs?

 

Seems this product is not for simulation enthusiasts.

 

That's sums it up pretty well.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you read too much in to that message by Sven / Borchi to be honest Pikey. It might have been poorly phrased but know that the block II was never going to be implemented. I think but can't say for sure, that Sven wanted to point out that implementing a very powerful air to air missile on a helicopter is something Polychop would not hear the end of. But in the end, what was implemented in real life will be implemented in to the module... and the block II was never fielded.

 

Sven has a point though, you can never satisfy everyone. We will always receive some, or a lot of flack. When you implement something it will piss off the people who don't want it in there and vise versa. And as a customer you have every right to complain. But don't forget, those guys do their best and make very long days to make a module a reality. Sometimes the hateful comments actually do get to them and in the end, I wouldn't be surprised it would influence their decisions.

 

Edit: about the only OH-58D Kiowa Warrior feature interesting for pvp would actually be the Stinger... which is going to be a block I.. I can tell you the bird does not exactly shine as a dogfighter.

It isn't exactly about "why" or "what" weapon we get exactly. The whole problem is to cater for some obscure PvP balance/pre-empt complains.

The "you can never please everyone" is actually not that difficult. DCS from the start opted for the adjustability of settings from arcade to hardcore full-real simulation. It is actually a part of the marketing for the DCS series... so everybody "complaining" that XYZ should not be available "because realism" aka "I don't want others to have an advantage in PvP" try to trick you developers into removing options they don't like for their personal style of gaming, instead of using DCS options to set rules, limits and design a mission with the required limitations. The consequence is ALL other customers, from campaign builders, Singleplayer, PvE MP groups to Tournament creators suffer the loss of options for creative mission building, setting interesting environments.

I am a strong believer of the DCS credo (...)"DCS World is fundamentally a deep, authentic and realistic simulation designed also to offer a more relaxed gameplay to suit the user and his particular level of experience and training. The ambition is to hand hold users from novice pilot all the way to the most advanced and sophisticated operator of such complex weapons systems as the A-10C Warthog or the F/A-18C Hornet. The only next step is the real thing!"(...)"Both hardcore realistic and casual gameplay modes and options available."(...)

So why not give EVERYONE the options to choose their preferred experience?

If we would really care about realism, how often were A-10Cs, F/A-18Cs, US aircraft carriers or OH-58Ds etc. engaged in Combat or even training exercises in the Caucasus region? Or Su-27, Ka-50 and Su-25 participating in life weapon firing over Nevada?

So for "full realism" should we forcefully limit aircraft to the timeperiod and region they were actually fielded? Or is a bit flexibility and fictional scenarios with aircraft and weapons doing "what if"-scenarios not that bad at all?

Nobody here wants laser death rays, or mock switchology and fake weapons never designed for a specific module, but flexibility with the loadout, as well as with the map and time period is what DCS is all about.

And my personal wish for the OH-58D Kiowa is the introduction of Hydra rockets with flechette warhead and the option to mix different warheads in the pod...

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points but it is essentially a non issue for the Kiowa. There is no balancing involved. One of the biggest reasons to stick with fielded weapons and systems only, instead of adding experimental weapons and systems is that no or very few SME’s could provide feedback on them, directly related to the use of those weapons on the platform at hand. One thing we try to refrain from is using guesswork. In the end I personally don’t think the end user, whether this is someone playing singleplayer, campaign builder, PvE or PvP multiplayer, would feel limited by design choices. Everything that was on the Kiowa will be there on the DCS equivalents.

 

Edit: As far as mixing different rocket warheads (zones), that has been implemented already.


Edited by Polychop Simulations

Community Manager Account



DrummerNL

[TABLE]

[/TABLE]

Discord - Facebook - Gazelle sitreps

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points but it is essentially a non issue for the Kiowa. There is no balancing involved. One of the biggest reasons to stick with fielded weapons and systems only, instead of adding experimental weapons and systems is that no or very few SME’s could provide feedback on them, directly related to the use of those weapons on the platform at hand. One thing we try to refrain from is using guesswork.

And that's absolutly fine, I even welcome that! :thumbup:

 

At least for me that was just a missunderstanding as I thought the Blk II was actually fielded with the Kiowa, which apparently wasn't the case. And even if it was the case, then I still wouldn't want you to do guesswork to implement systems you don't have any documentation or SME feedback for. :)

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Polychop-Simulations and other readers,

 

I opened this topic because I wanted to ask what sort of approach you would like to take regarding realism versus enjoyability. I think previously you folks have caught a lot of flak regarding realism, some perhaps deserved, some not so deserved.

 

TL;DR - none of us (myself included) are qualified to actually fly any of the modules we fly in game. No amount of coding (that can actually be accomplished for $79) is going to make any of us a “real” pilot. We should stop demanding these excellent developers overcome (through coding) whatever mental baggage we’re carrying on the topic. No, seriously. Read on -

 

My answer will be a highly unpopular one: this question (unfortunately) has a lot more to do with why people answer the way they do, versus anything to with the underlying game, or module. There is a certain subset of users who spend far more time gaming these forums than they do in game. They are very vocal and it’s obvious they (wrongly) think their very loud voice on these forums is a direct line to the developers, who they think are hinging on their every word. If ED takes these forum warriors at face value it’s bad for everyone involved, especially ED. Forum warriors only represent a tiny fraction of the user base and what motivates them and their comments are often completely toxic to the overall game and community. Again, the loudest here are representative of only a tiny subset of those playing. Most of ED’s players are busy playing - most in single player. I have some experience in the real world with helicopters. Hundreds of hours flown as a CE on Blackhawk helicopters in the mid to late nineties. Lots and lots of experience with check lists and bold faced items. Truthfully, as a CE there aren’t any bold faced items for YOU in the Blackhawk but, I assure you I’ve been there and done that and in real life bold faced items aren’t fun. Exciting, yes. But exciting like excited before a root canal, not “fun”.

 

That brings me to my last point - fun. Circuit breakers are real life, and they ain’t any fun. Been there, done that, have multiple T-shirts. It’s not fun and has exactly zero to do with the actual fun part - doing the mission. In other forums people are asking for insanely complicated coding so that a sub system appears to pass a BIT check, or worse yet - fail one!? Where’s the fun in that? I can tell you, for a fact, in real life a BIT failure as a 12 ship cranks IS NOT any fun. Again, been there, done that, no fun. It sucks. Those advocating for that level of detail will ruin the game for 95% of the player base by focusing on esoteric minutia that only people trying to fill a internal void advocate for.

 

The key is this: model things in a convincing way, not (always) the literal way it is in the aircraft. 99,9% of the user base won’t know the difference and the .01% that does shouldn’t be listened to (as far as coding decisions are made) at all. That .01% isn’t playing the game, they are playing the forums as their version of the game. The rest of us are playing the game. Developers should spend their time coding the game in a convincing and deep way, but only if that’s in service of fun. Modeling things like circuit breaker pulling as part of troubleshooting a failure? Total waste of time. 99% will never use what you coded and the 1% who do will bitch endlessly here about how incomplete the system is, no matter how far down the rabbit hole the developer goes.

 

Disclaimer: No, I don’t think everyone but me is like what I describe. We are all guilty to a certain extent. If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. This is just a simple observation from a guy who’s been playing sims for a long, long, long time and has noticed certain trends on simulation forums. What I describe isn’t a “problem”. Just something to consider as everyone noodles through the various opinions. I’m honestly and truly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. This is just my opinion and it’s equally (my wife would say more) worthless as anyone else’s.

 

ETA - thinking some more about this - I think those that find faults and failures entertaining don’t realize how failure prone these aircraft are. How many hours are spent fixing and maintaining and yet mission scrubs still occur with more frequency than most realize. In game, shit works 100% of the time unless I ask for failures. I can even specify what, when and how often. Real life isn’t like that. Real life is a 0100 final brief, followed by nod (NVGs) draw, weapons draw, ammo draw, com sec data fill cart, humping all that shit across an improvised flight line + all your hooo-ahh flight gear (yes, it is sexy and yes, chicks DO dig it), preflight, comm fill, weapons mount and troubleshoot, squaring away whatever we’re taking with us, 0300 APU crank, 0310 flight commo check, 0315 group commo check, 0320 battle net commo check, 0345 engine crank and the goddamn #2 fails it’s HIT and you watch everyone else hover taxi out to formation and then on with the mission. Next up? Download the weapons, the Ammo, the fly away gear, the tools we take with us, the nods, the comm fill(s) - hump all that shit back across the flight line, sign it all back in, make sure you didn’t lose or forget something (trust me, you did) and then go wake up the engine shop for a nice, long, blistering hot day of sexy engine troubleshooting. No. Hell no. No. Not any more. No. Never again. No. (Lol).


Edited by Tokoyami
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing we try to refrain from is using guesswork. In the end I personally don’t think the end user, whether this is someone playing singleplayer, campaign builder, PvE or PvP multiplayer, would feel limited by design choices. Everything that was on the Kiowa will be there on the DCS equivalents.

 

Edit: As far as mixing different rocket warheads (zones), that has been implemented already.

 

That's good news and exactly along the line I was thinking. Guesswork and mock up controls are a no-no.

I would enjoy a bit versatility of loadout choices, but nothing that is made up and I would not mind a Stinger (any version) for self defense, especially, as AI air cover isn't the most reliable thing in DCS...

The point Tokoyami made is quite interesting. Who would actually enjoy starting a game with all(!) the realism from 45 min of preps and startup to be kicked from the mission, because of a system failure?

Yes, you would have this one "awe inspiring moment of realization", that even "those failures" are simulated... and then re-spawn anyway instead of just listening to your wingmen having a cool mission without you?

If you see the value to do it, or have the time, go for it, but have the option to choose for those with a family and a life beside DCS.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL;DR - none of us (myself included) are qualified to actually fly any of the modules we fly in game. No amount of coding (that can actually be accomplished for $79) is going to make any of us a “real” pilot. We should stop demanding these excellent developers overcome (through coding) whatever mental baggage we’re carrying on the topic. No, seriously. Read on -

 

My answer will be a highly unpopular one: this question (unfortunately) has a lot more to do with why people answer the way they do, versus anything to with the underlying game, or module. There is a certain subset of users who spend far more time gaming these forums than they do in game. They are very vocal and it’s obvious they (wrongly) think their very loud voice on these forums is a direct line to the developers, who they think are hinging on their every word. If ED takes these forum warriors at face value it’s bad for everyone involved, especially ED. Forum warriors only represent a tiny fraction of the user base and what motivates them and their comments are often completely toxic to the overall game and community. Again, the loudest here are representative of only a tiny subset of those playing. Most of ED’s players are busy playing - most in single player. I have some experience in the real world with helicopters. Hundreds of hours flown as a CE on Blackhawk helicopters in the mid to late nineties. Lots and lots of experience with check lists and bold faced items. Truthfully, as a CE there aren’t any bold faced items for YOU in the Blackhawk but, I assure you I’ve been there and done that and in real life bold faced items aren’t fun. Exciting, yes. But exciting like excited before a root canal, not “fun”.

 

That brings me to my last point - fun. Circuit breakers are real life, and they ain’t any fun. Been there, done that, have multiple T-shirts. It’s not fun and has exactly zero to do with the actual fun part - doing the mission. In other forums people are asking for insanely complicated coding so that a sub system appears to pass a BIT check, or worse yet - fail one!? Where’s the fun in that? I can tell you, for a fact, in real life a BIT failure as a 12 ship cranks IS NOT any fun. Again, been there, done that, no fun. It sucks. Those advocating for that level of detail will ruin the game for 95% of the player base by focusing on esoteric minutia that only people trying to fill a internal void advocate for.

 

The key is this: model things in a convincing way, not (always) the literal way it is in the aircraft. 99,9% of the user base won’t know the difference and the .01% that does shouldn’t be listened to (as far as coding decisions are made) at all. That .01% isn’t playing the game, they are playing the forums as their version of the game. The rest of us are playing the game. Developers should spend their time coding the game in a convincing and deep way, but only if that’s in service of fun. Modeling things like circuit breaker pulling as part of troubleshooting a failure? Total waste of time. 99% will never use what you coded and the 1% who do will bitch endlessly here about how incomplete the system is, no matter how far down the rabbit hole the developer goes.

 

Disclaimer: No, I don’t think everyone but me is like what I describe. We are all guilty to a certain extent. If the shoe fits wear it, if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. This is just a simple observation from a guy who’s been playing sims for a long, long, long time and has noticed certain trends on simulation forums. What I describe isn’t a “problem”. Just something to consider as everyone noodles through the various opinions. I’m honestly and truly not trying to pick a fight with anyone. This is just my opinion and it’s equally (my wife would say more) worthless as anyone else’s.

 

ETA - thinking some more about this - I think those that find faults and failures entertaining don’t realize how failure prone these aircraft are. How many hours are spent fixing and maintaining and yet mission scrubs still occur with more frequency than most realize. In game, shit works 100% of the time unless I ask for failures. I can even specify what, when and how often. Real life isn’t like that. Real life is a 0100 final brief, followed by nod (NVGs) draw, weapons draw, ammo draw, com sec data fill cart, humping all that shit across an improvised flight line + all your hooo-ahh flight gear (yes, it is sexy and yes, chicks DO dig it), preflight, comm fill, weapons mount and troubleshoot, squaring away whatever we’re taking with us, 0300 APU crank, 0310 flight commo check, 0315 group commo check, 0320 battle net commo check, 0345 engine crank and the goddamn #2 fails it’s HIT and you watch everyone else hover taxi out to formation and then on with the mission. Next up? Download the weapons, the Ammo, the fly away gear, the tools we take with us, the nods, the comm fill(s) - hump all that shit back across the flight line, sign it all back in, make sure you didn’t lose or forget something (trust me, you did) and then go wake up the engine shop for a nice, long, blistering hot day of sexy engine troubleshooting. No. Hell no. No. Not any more. No. Never again. No. (Lol).

 

 

I can see where you are personally coming from but you should also be willing to consider that there are indeed players who do enjoy the option for system failures (perhaps as a way to add tension during a mission or to make a trip back to base more interesting). Having systems that are simulated finely enough to support full bit tests are systems that are simulated enough for interesting failures. That is the big reason why many of us want those circuit breakers and bit tests that you don't personally care about, we want those systems to be there so we can interact with them on either a gameplay level or a mission design level. You don't have to ever interact with them if you don't want to but don't be so quick to dismiss those that do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where you are personally coming from but you should also be willing to consider that there are indeed players who do enjoy the option for system failures (perhaps as a way to add tension during a mission or to make a trip back to base more interesting). Having systems that are simulated finely enough to support full bit tests are systems that are simulated enough for interesting failures. That is the big reason why many of us want those circuit breakers and bit tests that you don't personally care about, we want those systems to be there so we can interact with them on either a gameplay level or a mission design level. You don't have to ever interact with them if you don't want to but don't be so quick to dismiss those that do.

 

Yess sir, points well taken.

 

My comments were with the entire player base in mind, not the tiny fraction of the player base that interacts on forums - of which I am just as guilty as anyone else here. I am not blameless or without sin. My overall point was to expose what I believe are toxic influences that get far more credence than they should, and why, here on the forums. I don’t dismiss or minimize the why a customer wants a certain feature, but rather how large of an audience the super mil-sim crowd actually is. It’s tiny. Most flight simmers want convincing and real feeling, without the reality of.....well.....real life. In real life we struggle with things like OR rates - struggling to keep enough airframes viable for their intended missions. Not just airworthy - almost all are - but mission capable. A lot of airframes are flying around out there for training with various equipment in op and go through the motions “notionally”. Basically, I think what drives a lot of the people DEMANDING really deep system modeling isn’t for fun, isn’t what people are actually clamoring for And doesn’t serve the overall game for the vast majority of players. When companies cater to this tiny subset of forum users the user base dries up, the game languishes and ultimately software publishers steer clear of the space as impossible to please and very, very niche.

 

Want to hear absolute hearsay in these parts? Falcon 4.0 is what killed the mass appeal of flight sims. As the bar for realism was raised higher and higher, more and more players began to leave the space. The game went from being an accessible, very deep game to a niche, boutique product with a rather vocal and nasty fan base. THAT’s what killed the flight sim market space. In the 1990’s there were things like computer stores than had actual game sections. Flight sims were VERY popular. The fans have never gone away. The industry decided it was a niche market (again, driven by very loud, very vocal online voices) with intensely high expectations, requires capital to be spent (HOTAS, etc) and frankly, there are a lot,of other markets to spend time in - that actually make money.

 

We’ve done it to ourselves. There’s only one ED because that’s all the market will bear - we’re that small of a sub fraction of a fraction. The endless drive for deeper and more complex systems is what killed the flight sim industry. I’m not saying we shouldn’t ask for deep and convincing systems; we should. I am saying there’s deep, and then there’s absurd.

 

ETA - proof? JF-17. It’s complicated, but easily the most user friendly presentation of the battlefield. The onboard systems make threat detections and most importantly situational awareness EASY. That’s why players love the aircraft. Any modern aircraft will sell in droves for these reasons. The airframe sells the boxes, what it’s like to “fly” is what keeps customers. Deep and rewarding is where it’s at. Not rivet counts on tail sections that people notice isn’t like the real thing. Hope that makes sense. Only a very small subsection of players cares about things like accurately modeled failure procedures and spending time coding for the 2% is at the detriment to the other 98% who want a deep, rich and most importantly FUN experience. I’m not trying to insult those who like to take it to the next level. We can disagree and still be wingmen.


Edited by Tokoyami
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yess sir, points well taken.

 

My comments were with the entire player base in mind, not the tiny fraction of the player base that interacts on forums - of which I am just as guilty as anyone else here. I am not blameless or without sin. My overall point was to expose what I believe are toxic influences that get far more credence than they should, and why, here on the forums. I don’t dismiss or minimize the why a customer wants a certain feature, but rather how large of an audience the super mil-sim crowd actually is. It’s tiny. Most flight simmers want convincing and real feeling, without the reality of.....well.....real life. In real life we struggle with things like OR rates - struggling to keep enough airframes viable for their intended missions. Not just airworthy - almost all are - but mission capable. A lot of airframes are flying around out there for training with various equipment in op and go through the motions “notionally”. Basically, I think what drives a lot of the people DEMANDING really deep system modeling isn’t for fun, isn’t what people are actually clamoring for And doesn’t serve the overall game for the vast majority of players. When companies cater to this tiny subset of forum users the user base dries up, the game languishes and ultimately software publishers steer clear of the space as impossible to please and very, very niche.

 

Want to hear absolute hearsay in these parts? Falcon 4.0 is what killed the mass appeal of flight sims. As the bar for realism was raised higher and higher, more and more players began to leave the space. The game went from being an accessible, very deep game to a niche, boutique product with a rather vocal and nasty fan base. THAT’s what killed the flight sim market space. In the 1990’s there were things like computer stores than had actual game sections. Flight sims were VERY popular. The fans have never gone away. The industry decided it was a niche market (again, driven by very loud, very vocal online voices) with intensely high expectations, requires capital to be spent (HOTAS, etc) and frankly, there are a lot,of other markets to spend time in - that actually make money.

 

We’ve done it to ourselves. There’s only one ED because that’s all the market will bear - we’re that small of a sub fraction of a fraction. The endless drive for deeper and more complex systems is what killed the flight sim industry. I’m not saying we should ask for deep and convincing systems. We should. I’m not saying we should understand reality and stop our demands where the fun stops. Barring that, I’m sorry, those who are really interested in circuit breaker pulling are a very vocal and very small subset of this who might want to pay for the game.

 

ETA - proof? JF-17. It’s complicated, but easily the most user friendly presentation of the battlefield. The onboard systems make threat detections and most importantly situational awareness EASY. That’s why players love the aircraft. Any modern aircraft will sell in droves for these reasons. The airframe sells the boxes, what it’s like to “fly” is what keeps customers. Deep and rewarding is where it’s at. Not rivet counts on tail sections that people notice isn’t like the real thing. Hope that makes sense. Only a very small subsection of players cares about things like accurately modeled failure procedures and spending time coding for the 2% is at the detriment to the other 98% who want deep,,rich and most important FUN experience.

 

 

I don't really think it is a "either/or" scenario. Additionally. I don't think either of us have any true, substantiated insight into what the rather silent majority of DCS players wants out of the sim. We can only really speak for ourselves and perhaps the trends we see in the very vocal minority that exists on the forums and in the somewhat larger subset of DCS players that engage with the community online in other areas.

 

Here is the thing about my general preference towards "rivet counter" levels of detail (like circuit breakers). I like having it as a option. Obviously not everyone will (like yourself) but at the same time, you also are often not required to even interact with those deeper levels of simulation. Sometimes they are simply not essential unless the mission maker specifically requires it. Sometimes you even have options you can change that remove those deeper levels as a significant factor. Heck, in pretty much every module we have now, your average player probably only learns and interacts with thirty-five to forty percent of the system functionality and is perfectly happy with just that. The extra functionality is still there. They just understand that they don't have to interact with it.

 

So with all that said. When you are quite likely never required to even interact with those circuit breakers and other "rivet counter" features. Why decry their presence for others that do go that deep? DCS may be complex but it seldom puts a lot of pressure on players to engage with EVERYTHING on offer system-wise.

 

Finally. I hate to break it to you but even if DCS modules were to suddenly get rid of all the more complex system interactions, the sim would still not have much mass market appeal. Flight sims were big back in the day because the PC gaming market was smaller and generally older. The gaming audience is much younger on average now and several orders of magnitude larger. Obviously genres that target older, more financially stable gamers will fall by the wayside in the mass market. DCS being complex isn't what keeps it from being a mass market game, DCS being a combat flight sim in general is. The addition or subtraction of some of the more in-depth system interactions won't change that.

 

To piggy back on your claim about Falcon 4 being the death knell of flight sims. Did you consider the larger context? By the time Falcon 4 came out, the flight sim genre was already on life support. The PC gaming audience was getting larger and younger. Suddenly shooters and multiplayer focused games like MMO's and the like became a lot more lucrative to publishers. Even less realistic survey sims like some of the Jane's stuff was probably not seen as worthwhile compared to more lucrative, safer bets like multiplayer shooters and MMO's.

 

It wasn't that the flight sim audience left because the genre got too complex. It was that bigger audiences with different, simpler demands became the focus of publishers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was more that sometimes realism should take a backseat, as sheer realism can be detrimental to being interesting / engaging / fun. As such developers could sway from realism somewhat to get a more interesting and engaging (fun) module experience.

 

No. Realism should NOT take a backseat. This is a simulator...not a game. If I want to fly fighters with lots of unrealistic Bombs and Missiles and gadgets there are numerous games available out there to meet this requirement. There is a reason I dont fly those games.

 

The other players.

 

If the realism of this game is offputting to some...so be it. In many cases they are the same people who will run into you flying formation you didnt ask for and laugh when they crash...meanwhile they have weasted the time you had to sit down and fly before going to work.

 

No thanks. DCS needs to be kept as realistic as possible.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Primary Computer

ASUS Z390-P, i7-9700K CPU @ 5.0Ghz, 32GB Patriot Viper Steel DDR4 @ 3200Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce 1070 Ti AMP Extreme, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 NVMe drives (1Tb & 500 Gb), Windows 10 Professional, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, Thrustmaster Warthog Stick, Thrustmaster Cougar Throttle, Cougar MFDs x3, Saitek Combat Rudder Pedals and TrackIR 5.

 

-={TAC}=-DCS Server

Gigabyte GA-Z68XP-UD3, i7-3770K CPU @ 3.90GHz, 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws DDR3 @ 1600Mhz, ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 970.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Realism should NOT take a backseat. This is a simulator...not a game. If I want to fly fighters with lots of unrealistic Bombs and Missiles and gadgets there are numerous games available out there to meet this requirement. There is a reason I dont fly those games.

 

The other players.

 

If the realism of this game is offputting to some...so be it. In many cases they are the same people who will run into you flying formation you didnt ask for and laugh when they crash...meanwhile they have weasted the time you had to sit down and fly before going to work.

 

No thanks. DCS needs to be kept as realistic as possible.

Amen to that

Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit

 

DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing!

 

Tornado3 small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This 100%

 

(....)

 

DCS needs to be kept as realistic as possible.

 

Exactly the words I wanted to post.

Fortunately, ED thinks alike.

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think it is a "either/or" scenario. Additionally. I don't think either of us have any true, substantiated insight into what the rather silent majority of DCS players wants out of the sim. We can only really speak for ourselves and perhaps the trends we see in the very vocal minority that exists on the forums and in the somewhat larger subset of DCS players that engage with the community online in other areas.

 

 

 

Here is the thing about my general preference towards "rivet counter" levels of detail (like circuit breakers). I like having it as a option. Obviously not everyone will (like yourself) but at the same time, you also are often not required to even interact with those deeper levels of simulation. Sometimes they are simply not essential unless the mission maker specifically requires it. Sometimes you even have options you can change that remove those deeper levels as a significant factor. Heck, in pretty much every module we have now, your average player probably only learns and interacts with thirty-five to forty percent of the system functionality and is perfectly happy with just that. The extra functionality is still there. They just understand that they don't have to interact with it.

 

 

 

So with all that said. When you are quite likely never required to even interact with those circuit breakers and other "rivet counter" features. Why decry their presence for others that do go that deep? DCS may be complex but it seldom puts a lot of pressure on players to engage with EVERYTHING on offer system-wise.

 

 

 

Finally. I hate to break it to you but even if DCS modules were to suddenly get rid of all the more complex system interactions, the sim would still not have much mass market appeal. Flight sims were big back in the day because the PC gaming market was smaller and generally older. The gaming audience is much younger on average now and several orders of magnitude larger. Obviously genres that target older, more financially stable gamers will fall by the wayside in the mass market. DCS being complex isn't what keeps it from being a mass market game, DCS being a combat flight sim in general is. The addition or subtraction of some of the more in-depth system interactions won't change that.

 

 

 

To piggy back on your claim about Falcon 4 being the death knell of flight sims. Did you consider the larger context? By the time Falcon 4 came out, the flight sim genre was already on life support. The PC gaming audience was getting larger and younger. Suddenly shooters and multiplayer focused games like MMO's and the like became a lot more lucrative to publishers. Even less realistic survey sims like some of the Jane's stuff was probably not seen as worthwhile compared to more lucrative, safer bets like multiplayer shooters and MMO's.

 

 

 

It wasn't that the flight sim audience left because the genre got too complex. It was that bigger audiences with different, simpler demands became the focus of publishers.

Let's put it that way. We need the option (!) to have it as detailed and realistic as possible, while at the same time enable newcomers to just enjoy the sim and enable them to go the way step by step.

The question is, what should be the focus of the developer?

For me it is Flight Model, systems and functionality first and "rivet number accuracy" and "each and every circuit breaker" second. When the first part is done and ready, you can fix the details... though especially with systems, BIT and circuit breakers it's a more integrated part with lots of interdependencies.

Shagrat

 

- Flying Sims since 1984 -:pilotfly:

Win 10 | i5 10600K@4.1GHz | 64GB | GeForce RTX 3090 - Asus VG34VQL1B  | TrackIR5 | Simshaker & Jetseat | VIRPIL CM 50 Stick & Throttle | VPC Rotor TCS Plus/Apache64 Grip | MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals | WW Top Gun MIP | a hand made AHCP | 2x Elgato StreamDeck (Buttons galore)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly the words I wanted to post.

Fortunately, ED thinks alike.

 

I would agree. That said ED, please remove all keyboard and mouse binds as these baby’s don’t fly by no keyboard jockeys. Also, please disable the feature that allows you to look out through a tv instead of a cockpit window.

Finally, program it to only work with a real hotas setup (readily available from government sources) not the pretend toys like the Warthog.

Oh and since I’m a real pilot please get rid of my job and pay my rent as I can’t park an F-14 in my den and my office is 20 miles away from the nearest runway. I only have 20 min to arrive, preplan, inspect,file a flight plan, fly to the caucuses and back. Gotta be realistic don’t ya know....

You guys don’t want realism, you want to keep it difficult so you can continue to convince yourself that your more than a gamer and somehow better than everyone else.

Sad


Edited by Mr. Big.”Biggs”

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...