Jump to content

Question about AV8B and other planes, realism vs realistic


insego

Recommended Posts

I've been flying sims for many years. Starting with F19 on a Commodore 128 and currently DCS World. From RAZBAM I own both the Mirage 2000 and the Harrier. I have a family so don't have much time to fly and when I do it's mostly singleplayer. I still have lots of fun. Compared to the flightsims from my youth, I'm grateful for all the features and realism that's available today in DCS.

 

Because I'm interested in al aspects of DCS, I do follow discussions on forums and websites about DCS. These include the beta/multiplayer issues and, recently, the threads and post from Prowler about the move out of Early Access for the Harrier.

It's very clear there are a lot of very demanding DCS customers/fans. I do understand everyone has the desire to receive a study level sim that's an exact replica of the real plane. I also see a developer that's saying they'll keep supporting and improving the aircraft. This is followed by both positive and negative reactions.

 

I'm wondering, how realistic is it to expect such an exact replica for $69.99 or $79.99?

Are some shortcuts or unimplemented features allowed? Which ones?


Edited by insego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean in reality all the planes are missing systems, and many of the systems are heavily abstracted. At best you are paying for "realistic-ish" behavior modeled.

 

The issues with the harrier is that it doesn't really meet most of those standards set by ED or other 3rd parties in terms of systems modeling. The Gfx are nice, but stuff like the ARBS/DMT modeling is pretty bad.

 

Or basic stuff like the Vrest page not really working.


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to put forward some modules that I feel represent good ways to handle the standard we expect from DCS as a whole, it would be the A-10C, the F-14B, and the JF-17.

 

The A-10C is a obvious one. it is quite complete and while there are bugs and some performance inconsistencies, it has a massive amount of obvious systems depth and what is changed due to classification/secrecy issues makes sense and isn't obfuscated from the player.

 

The F-14B acts as a good part of the standard because you could see the effort Heatblur put into research and getting all the data/SME support they could possibly get. They came into the process with a clear goal to model a specific set of aircraft with specific characteristics and did not deviate. On top of that, the F-14B (while only part of a larger upcoming package) released in a nearly complete state. The functionality it was missing was consistently talked about and those who wished to know more were never dismissed. Even now, the Tomcat is receiving obvious support from Heatblur.

 

The JF-17 is on this list simply because it is a good example of a developer handling a aircraft that is still somewhat mired in secrecy issues in a open, straightfoward way. We know that some aspects of that module are kinda guesswork but Deka went out of their way to make sure that they still felt right to the player. What's more. Like Heatblur before them, Deka are very good about putting in "place-holder" features that are actually functional while they wait for ED to come in and fill the gaps with core functionality.

 

What both Deka and Heatblur have in common is responsiveness when major DCS updates break functionality. When ED recently changed the ground radar EXP functionality, Deka already had their own "place-holder" setup that was broken. Instead of complaining about it and refusing to work on it until some unspecified time, Deka got with ED and worked out a fix very quickly.

 

While all these different modules have varying degrees of realism and systems fidelity, they all feel consistent to the player overall and are properly supported without major fuss. This is the standard that I think a DCS player should reasonably be encouraged to expect and if a third party isn't meeting that standard, they are going to stand out and get a lot of attention they may not want as a result even if a subset of their customers think the aircraft is "still fun to fly".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean in reality all the planes are missing systems, and many...

If I were to put forward some modules...

Thank you both for these replies and making this clearer. At first I thought the difference in modelling had something to do with the difference in age between those planes, but the A10 came before and set a high standard.

 

I'm wondering, is there room for another subset/category between FC3 and those high standards?

 

How does the current Mirage 2000 compare to those high standards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both for these replies and making this clearer. At first I thought the difference in modelling had something to do with the difference in age between those planes, but the A10 came before and set a high standard.

 

I'm wondering, is there room for another subset/category between FC3 and those high standards?

 

How does the current Mirage 2000 compare to those high standards?

 

 

The Mirage generally meets the standard but that was most certainly not the case until the French AdA actively got involved in the project and provided data and feedback. Keep in mind, the Mirage came out in 2015 and the AdA informed overhaul didn't happen until 2018. That gap in time is important since before 2018, the Mirage module was in a pretty bad place in terms of meeting the existing DCS standard for attention to detail and the impression of realism.

 

As I have said in the other thread. I think the big lesson that should be taken away from this controversy is that ED needs to put in place some tighter standards when it comes to third party module approval. Perhaps even a full outline of what data/documentation a third party has/can realistically get access to during the project, what SME's they can secure, and what their overall "feature complete" product will look like in terms of overall fidelity. That might help maintain a standard while still giving some wiggle room on a case by case basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to put forward some modules that I feel represent good ways to handle the standard we expect from DCS as a whole, it would be the A-10C, the F-14B, and the JF-17.

 

The A-10C is a obvious one. it is quite complete and while there are bugs and some performance inconsistencies, it has a massive amount of obvious systems depth and what is changed due to classification/secrecy issues makes sense and isn't obfuscated from the player.

 

The F-14B acts as a good part of the standard because you could see the effort Heatblur put into research and getting all the data/SME support they could possibly get. They came into the process with a clear goal to model a specific set of aircraft with specific characteristics and did not deviate. On top of that, the F-14B (while only part of a larger upcoming package) released in a nearly complete state. The functionality it was missing was consistently talked about and those who wished to know more were never dismissed. Even now, the Tomcat is receiving obvious support from Heatblur.

 

The JF-17 is on this list simply because it is a good example of a developer handling a aircraft that is still somewhat mired in secrecy issues in a open, straightfoward way. We know that some aspects of that module are kinda guesswork but Deka went out of their way to make sure that they still felt right to the player. What's more. Like Heatblur before them, Deka are very good about putting in "place-holder" features that are actually functional while they wait for ED to come in and fill the gaps with core functionality.

 

What both Deka and Heatblur have in common is responsiveness when major DCS updates break functionality. When ED recently changed the ground radar EXP functionality, Deka already had their own "place-holder" setup that was broken. Instead of complaining about it and refusing to work on it until some unspecified time, Deka got with ED and worked out a fix very quickly.

 

While all these different modules have varying degrees of realism and systems fidelity, they all feel consistent to the player overall and are properly supported without major fuss. This is the standard that I think a DCS player should reasonably be encouraged to expect and if a third party isn't meeting that standard, they are going to stand out and get a lot of attention they may not want as a result even if a subset of their customers think the aircraft is "still fun to fly".

 

 

Very well said sir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both for these replies and making this clearer. At first I thought the difference in modelling had something to do with the difference in age between those planes, but the A10 came before and set a high standard.

 

I'm wondering, is there room for another subset/category between FC3 and those high standards?

 

How does the current Mirage 2000 compare to those high standards?

 

Of course there are differences between newest modules and modules developed 10 years ago. While DCS A-10C is very robust and works really well, it is lower fidelity than let's say DCS F-14B. Imo, A-10C's and K-50's level of simulation is not acceptable anymore because prices has gone way up.

 

DCS A-10C and K-50 are in fact between FC3 and modern DCS modules.

 

Now, what level of abstraction is required for a video game? It depends what do you want to achieve. Lets take INS for an example:

You can just pull position and attitude variables from core engine, add couple of switches and a timer for alignment and consider it a complete system - 1 day job. Then your customers say, well it's kinda fake, alignment time does not account for latitude, alignment works even while aircraft is moving... You decide to respond, add a few constraints for alignment to work and add simple dependency between align time and latitude - 10 days job. Customers are happy for some time but eventually someone starts to complain how your INS is magical, it knows aircraft's position and attitude perfectly, it never fails... So you decide to google it a little bit, you find good data about INS drift and simply affect your perfect position with ins drift model. Additionally, you add some degraded modes in case of damage or failure - 100 days job. Then customers complain it's still too fake. You decide to scrap all that code and write a proper integrator - no more faking it with taking exact object position from core engine - 1 year job. Everyone's really happy but then someone asks you why the device doesn't react to frequency, current and voltage transients and why drift is not dependent on bearings wear and tear state. At that moment you need to stop and decide whether you want to spend next 5 years developing electron level simulation and material based wear and tear which will increase level of fidelity by 0.001% and turn your product into slide show simulator or accept barrage of insults that your product is "not a real simulator".

 

In development things quickly spiral out of control and you need to know where to stop.

 

Tom Scott has a somewhat related video:


Edited by =4c=Nikola

Do not expect fairness.

The times of chivalry and fair competition are long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulation is not same thing as emulation. Idea of simulation is to skip many parts required and get a results that are expected. Idea of emulation is to model all the correct parts and their functions, to reach result that is expected.

 

Example IFF systems. Top military secrets, but all can find out the idea and features of the IFF systems very easily. A IFF system is like a blackbox, you know that when input is given, an expected output is received. But to actually know what really is done specifically and how, that becomes the secret.

 

In DCS we could very well simulate IFF systems very expected manners, with the faults, errors, mistakes and procedures etc, so well that it is like a real thing, especially for those who has not used real ones. But we couldn't emulate at all the IFF system as it is secret. And frankly it is not required at all to simulate IFF.

 

We could very well make the IFF system work in the modules same way as rearming is. You set the 3 digit code in with few modifiers and you get working secret system for multiplayer and different nations etc. It would be user inputted so mistakes can happen, causing the common flaws and errors in whole system. The systems to have kill switches for data after landing and codes to be rested etc so mistakes would happen.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulation is not same thing as emulation. Idea of simulation is to skip many parts required and get a results that are expected. Idea of emulation is to model all the correct parts and their functions, to reach result that is expected.

 

Example IFF systems. Top military secrets, but all can find out the idea and features of the IFF systems very easily. A IFF system is like a blackbox, you know that when input is given, an expected output is received. But to actually know what really is done specifically and how, that becomes the secret.

 

In DCS we could very well simulate IFF systems very expected manners, with the faults, errors, mistakes and procedures etc, so well that it is like a real thing, especially for those who has not used real ones. But we couldn't emulate at all the IFF system as it is secret. And frankly it is not required at all to simulate IFF.

 

We could very well make the IFF system work in the modules same way as rearming is. You set the 3 digit code in with few modifiers and you get working secret system for multiplayer and different nations etc. It would be user inputted so mistakes can happen, causing the common flaws and errors in whole system. The systems to have kill switches for data after landing and codes to be rested etc so mistakes would happen.

 

Yeah pretty much this.

 

While I'd love for Raz or ED to EMULATE the whole ARBS system (doable IMO), I'm perfectly happy with a "simulated" system that makes me (the VR pilot) have to consider making attacks in the same way "real pilots" had to do them due to the limitations of the system. Which isn't currently the case.

 

I even pointed out to Raz how to "fake" what the ARBS should work like. I.e. have some "magic cumulative track angle number" that the system would sum track angles/time to to get a "solution". Is it "emulating how it works?" F-no. Does it "simulate" the fact you don't have magical instant solutions, yes, you have to fly a "real" profile to generate adequate track rates, yup, it does, and while its not perfect its "good enough" IMO. And worlds better than the "magic" bs we have now.

 

Could ED build a general system for angle rate ranging for others to use? Yup... And thats probably the best solution, but I'll settle for something that replicates the limitations of the system and forces people to use sort-of realistic tactics and flight profiles.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulation is not same thing as emulation. Idea of simulation is to skip many parts required and get a results that are expected. Idea of emulation is to model all the correct parts and their functions, to reach result that is expected.

 

Example IFF systems. Top military secrets, but all can find out the idea and features of the IFF systems very easily. A IFF system is like a blackbox, you know that when input is given, an expected output is received. But to actually know what really is done specifically and how, that becomes the secret.

 

In DCS we could very well simulate IFF systems very expected manners, with the faults, errors, mistakes and procedures etc, so well that it is like a real thing, especially for those who has not used real ones. But we couldn't emulate at all the IFF system as it is secret. And frankly it is not required at all to simulate IFF.

 

We could very well make the IFF system work in the modules same way as rearming is. You set the 3 digit code in with few modifiers and you get working secret system for multiplayer and different nations etc. It would be user inputted so mistakes can happen, causing the common flaws and errors in whole system. The systems to have kill switches for data after landing and codes to be rested etc so mistakes would happen.

 

 

I've always looked at this 180 degrees the opposite...

 

Take for example A2G Radar:

The sim engine knows where the player's jet is located and it also knows everything around the jet. The terrain, the objects, coast lines, rivers, etc.

To simply generate a display in the cockpit using all the known 1s and 0s is probably not all that difficult. In my mind, this would be "Emulating" A2G radar where you can present the player with a general picture of what is in front of the jet.

 

Now on top of the above, throw in all the vagaries of period-specific electronics, weather, operator error, false echoes, side lobes, "birdies", etc. and NOW you're starting to get into "Simulating" A2G Radar which includes all the imperfections and limitations of an overall system.

 

I suppose it's just semantics, but that's how I've always approached the concepts of Emulation Vs Simulation.

 

 

Just to take it to DCS specifics:

The A-10C is closer to simulation while the Flaming Cliffs F-15 can only emulate what the Eagle can do.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

http://www.476vfightergroup.com/content.php

High Quality Aviation Photography For Personal Enjoyment And Editorial Use.

www.crosswindimages.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the insights in creating a DCS plane, especially the parts about emulation vs simulation. What's interesting to me is that it is sort of subjective if components are modelled/simulated correctly (good enough). Even being able to do things 'the same way "real pilots"' do them, leaves room for discussion.

 

How can a developer deal with this?

(Besides communicating vigorously with all users about implementations and limitations.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can a developer deal with this?

(Besides communicating vigorously with all users about implementations and limitations.)

 

Unfortunately I don't think you can get around it without being honest and transparent about these things up front.

 

Heatblur has gone to great lengths with their "dev diaries" about things like the depth of the F-14's INS modeling or Viggen radar simulation. ED has also done this in the distant past when they began advertising the Ka-50 and made short videos on things like the effects of wind on individual rotors (both FM and the model), bullet ricochet, and others. These things help dispel confusion about what to expect when you use the module.

 

Many people, myself included, wouldn't mind all that much if certain parts of the game aren't fully simulated. I find it a little silly that AG radar got as much attention as it did considering how little an impact it actually has on gameplay or real world usage.

 

Much like GBUs in the game have highly abstracted flight models that "fake" their real apparent behavior, I imagine a lot of the ARBS functionality, or even the IR hotspot detector, could be similarly faked, and as long as it was clear to the user how it was faked and what functionality to expect out of it (the fewer apparent differences to how it ought to work, the better), there would be little cause for complaint beyond a feature request.

 

Would it draw some criticism for not being "full fidelity"? Sure. Depending on the system in question this could be a bigger deal to some people than others.

 

But would it clear the air and help reduce the number of messages on discord asking when it will get "added" or "fixed," put a dam on reporting bugs for things that won't be added or haven't yet been added, and better inform the customer about what they're getting when they press the Buy button? Also yes.

 

Being intentionally vague or uncommunicative about things, or trying to cleverly code them to give the appearance of correct behavior while claiming it is high fidelity, or hiding what you can and can't do through obfuscation or dishonest reasons doesn't help anyone.


Edited by ChickenSim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Much like GBUs in the game have highly abstracted flight models that "fake" their real apparent behavior, I imagine a lot of the ARBS functionality, or even the IR hotspot detector, could be similarly faked, and as long as it was clear to the user how it was faked and what functionality to expect out of it (the fewer apparent differences to how it ought to work, the better), there would be little cause for complaint beyond a feature request.

 

Yeah, mainly users/customers are looking for "is the behavior realistic-ish". I.e. I need to push buttons ABC to do the thing. I mean I'd love for everything to be as "real as possible" but I also get that this isn't really possible for most things.

 

In the context of systems like the ARBS, I have no problem with "fake ish" as long as it models the limitations of the real thing and more importantly forces you to use it in a realistic way, which the current model doesn't even begin to do since its perfect and magic from 20 miles out. I even told Razbam an idea "how-to-fake" it, and others have told them similar ideas with things like the hotspot detector.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it really boils down to, is people need to stop counting rivets and just play the damn game. DCS doesn't qualify you for a fighter pilot career or grant you a rating on the featured jets, and it never will. It's a nerd fantasy, pure and simple, and people need to accept that and get on with it, instead of being rancorous with devs that the video game is *gasp* a video game.

 

Fun fact: most real simulators in use by military and commercial users are NOT hi fidelity. They are procedural trainers in almost all cases. Thus the reference recently made by ED staff that military clients are less demanding than the DCS community.

 

I started to say ''if you approach DCS the same way as any other game'' then I realised Starcraft, SWTOR, or any other game for that matter, have equally aggressive communities about perceived flaws... I guess that's gamers for you. They don't get out much )

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if a system emulates its real conunterpart you can say you are succesfully simulating procedures ;)

 

And i believe thats is what every DCS player aspires to.

 

But yes every now and then you get the rivet counter and dirves everybody nuts, instead of trying to simulate procedures it wants to perpetrate them LOL....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it really boils down to, is people need to stop counting rivets and just play the damn game. DCS doesn't qualify you for a fighter pilot career or grant you a rating on the featured jets, and it never will. It's a nerd fantasy, pure and simple, and people need to accept that and get on with it, instead of being rancorous with devs that the video game is *gasp* a video game.

This is ridiculous! With your reasoning we wouldn't have study-level simulators at all & play half-baked modules. If you missed it people are here exactly for this reason: As real as it gets, full-fidelity, study-level simulators.

If you want to "play", there is WT, IL2 etc.

i7 8700k@4.7, 1080ti, DDR4 32GB, 2x SSD , HD 2TB, W10, ASUS 27", TrackIr5, TMWH, X-56, GProR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun fact: most real simulators in use by military and commercial users are NOT hi fidelity. They are procedural trainers in almost all cases. Thus the reference recently made by ED staff that military clients are less demanding than the DCS community.

When I heard the interview, I thought this was an odd statement. This sounds like a good explanation. :-)

 

This is ridiculous! With your reasoning we wouldn't have study-level simulators at all & play half-baked modules. If you missed it people are here exactly for this reason: As real as it gets, full-fidelity, study-level simulators.

May I ask about your opinion on the questions and answers of the previous posts in this thread? In particular the part about emulation vs simulation and the same procedures as "real pilots". What would be good enough?


Edited by insego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread makes an interesting point. Sometimes too much information is not a good thing. Back in the 90's with F-19 Strike Fighter and Falcon series, simmers enjoyed the hell out of those sims because they gave the user the belief they were really flying the aircraft. Today, we have access to all this information to prove and disprove every little thing, and while the average person considers themselves to be fairly intelligent (myself included) I often find the way people leverage their new found access to endless amount of information is in fact not very intelligent. Hence they ruin something for themselves that is a perfectly enjoyable experience by over obsessing on 'facts' that if they didn't know in the first place, wouldn't cause the issue! I'm all for as realistic a representation as possible but not at the cost of gameply or fun, long story short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I heard the interview, I thought this was an odd statement. This sounds like a good explanation. :-)

May I ask about your opinion on the questions and answers of the previous posts in this thread? In particular the part about emulation vs simulation and the same procedures as "real pilots". What would be good enough?

The systems has to be study-level, simple as that. That means follow related checklists, procedures, manuals etc.(includes everything from a warning-light to emergencies, FM etc). NATOPS compatible. A10C, F-14, Mi-8, have adequate "study-level" detail, to name a few.

 

There is the "other civilian" sim where PMDG (boeings), FSlabs(A320), Majestic(Q400), exists. They are so detailed system-wise, that you can follow FCOM almost to the letter, including emergencies. And easily use them for your RL Type-rating, LPC/OPC checks training. Many RL pilots have/are using them, including me. The system depth is just astonishing.

 

I don't see why this can't be the standard in DCS, minus the "secret" weapon stuff.

i7 8700k@4.7, 1080ti, DDR4 32GB, 2x SSD , HD 2TB, W10, ASUS 27", TrackIr5, TMWH, X-56, GProR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread makes an interesting point. Sometimes too much information is not a good thing. Back in the 90's with F-19 Strike Fighter and Falcon series, simmers enjoyed the hell out of those sims because they gave the user the belief they were really flying the aircraft. Today, we have access to all this information to prove and disprove every little thing, and while the average person considers themselves to be fairly intelligent (myself included) I often find the way people leverage their new found access to endless amount of information is in fact not very intelligent. Hence they ruin something for themselves that is a perfectly enjoyable experience by over obsessing on 'facts' that if they didn't know in the first place, wouldn't cause the issue! I'm all for as realistic a representation as possible but not at the cost of gameply or fun, long story short.

Ok, talking about realism and F-19 is a bit.....:D

But for the rest.... couldn‘t say it in a better way. I totally agree! :thumbup:

I miss the times when not every single person had access to NATOPS and other AFMs etc in order to doubt every single knob, switch and button, just because they think it‘s not a game but a piece of training software for the preperation to fly the real thing one day.

And at the end they don‘t only ruin it for themselves but also for the others by complaining about every little thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, talking about realism and F-19 is a bit.....:D

But for the rest.... couldn‘t say it in a better way. I totally agree! :thumbup:

I miss the times when not every single person had access to NATOPS and other AFMs etc in order to doubt every single knob, switch and button, just because they think it‘s not a game but a piece of training software for the preperation to fly the real thing one day.

And at the end they don‘t only ruin it for themselves but also for the others by complaining about every little thing.

 

Yeah no:doh:. If you want to go play F19 flight sim, or whatever there is war thunder, ace combat and probably many other "games" you can go play. That's not why I play DCS, nor I imagine many other people.

 

There is a world of difference between some nitpicky detail you pull out of a manual, and actually modeling the main systems which is often incomplete or totally done wrong. DCS over the years has set the standard on the level of detail they include on these systems and sims. And the harrier is falling short of that mark in terms of overall systems modeling on many systems, systems that are decently well documented not "sekrit", and that's the point of contention that has been brought up again and again in the community.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Some of you do not factor in that sometimes our military partners may not want us to model a system a particular way. Being on google does not always mean a developer can use it.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The important thing for me is that you get the desired effect, and the player isn't left grasping for answers as to why something isn't working the way they thought it should work. Some kind of feedback loop is necessary.

 

Without an up-front manual or clear explanation of how the systems are intended to work, players only really have two options: the source documents or exhaustive trial and error. Both of those options are going to produce a ton of bug reports and complaints, either because something doesn't match the source documents or they have no way of knowing whether issues they're coming across are anomalies or things actually aren't working properly.

 

If the explanation players are given for how something is supposed to work doesn't match the experience players have when actually playing, then there's a clear issue with the feedback loop.

 

This has little to do with rivet-counting, although there are plenty of people out there who appreciate attention to detail. It's about managing expectations, and ensuring that the way you say something will work actually does when people go do it. What happens behind the curtain matters very little if you can accomplish that.

 

If you don't want users to go to the source documents to clarify whether something is accurate or not and complain when it isn't, stop making the source documents their primary source of information for how to play the game; construct your module, manual, and tutorials based on your design document (if one exists in the first place) rather than those source materials; and stop dishonestly claiming vague levels of fidelity that don't hold up to basic scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An equal part to this experience is not just the module but all your interfaces and your display. When I invested in the HOTAS WARHOG Throttle and Stick combined with getting a TrackIR and a 40" 4K display it brought the simulation to a new level.

Many people out there have built mock cockpits so there simulation even with a crappy module is better then mine with the best module.

 

PS: Harrier sucks but I still have fun flying it from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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