Opinions requested

[dmatsch]

If this thread catches on, I would hope ED would choose to pay attention...

 

May I please ask everyone's opinion on what they think is the single-most game-breaking bug, feature or omission that they would like to see ED fix as a matter of priority.  The ONE thing that takes your enjoyment out of DCS and makes you say to yourself, "oh, god, not again".

 

I, for one think the game's AI is the most immersive-breaking pain of the whole simulation.  So much user time and effort is taken just getting computer-controlled flights to do what you ask them that it takes away from the actual flight experience of the simulation. 

 

DCS is more like a "simulator of a flight simulator" where the actual game is making the software actually work correctly. 

 

 

[RedeyeStorm]

Anything to do with AI, including ATC.

[Flia]

I agree. AI and ATC.

[twistking]

i think my personal pet peeve are still the inconsistencies and issues with night lighting.

it's probably not the biggest problem of dcs, since you can completely avoid it by not playing at night, but it's still my "favorite" fudamental issue at the moment.

 

i'm mostly concerned with aircraft external lights visibility being too low, AI not using ext. lights apart from certain actions, inconsistencies of rendering of ext. lights bewteen different aircrafts and even LODs of same aircraft, missing MP-sync of some smaller ext. light settings on some modules, visibility of city light being too low, visibility of airport lights being too low and general inconsistencies of city and aiport lights between different map modules...

 

my main frustration with the night lighting is that it's a whole bucket of smaller issues. each individually not big enough to call "unplayable", but in total they just want to make you keep playing at daytime only: Daylight Combat Simualtor, as other have called it before me...

Edited August 20, 2021 by twistking

[5ephir0th]

There was already a poll recently on main forum about this but i don’t know where it go… 

 

As i said on that poll my priority is performance, the first thing that takes me out of inmersión is the stutter caused by the bad performance of the engine.

 

The more hardware resources used to enhance others areas like the IA the worst performance of the engine.
 

 

[dmatsch]

3 hours ago, twistking said:

i think my personal pet peeve are still the inconsistencies and issues with night lighting.

it's probably not the biggest problem of dcs, since you can completely avoid it by not playing at night, but it's still my "favorite" fudamental issue at the moment.

 

 

I completely forgot about that.  I got so used to ignoring night missions.  I would categorize this as "moderately unplayable" as opposed to "I cannot fly this sim as intended" like AI issues.

3 hours ago, 5ephir0th said:

There was already a poll recently on main forum about this but i don’t know where it go… 
 

 

 

perhaps the more user input on this, the better.  ED can't just keep selling incomplete modules without fixing the core sim*.

 

*I understand that fixes are on the roadmap:  There are bugs and game-breakers that have been "on the map" for a decade now while new revenue-generators have been released on a six-month cycle.

[dmatsch]

everyone. including ED, please excuse any frustration on my part read into this thread.  I have exactly one day per week (if I'm lucky) to spend no more than a few hours flying DCS.  This is barely enough time for flight training, let alone ONE single extended mission.  

 

Please don't say "go MP" for training/realistic flights.  I don't have the skills as of yet, or schedule.

 

I've been finding that I spend most of this *precious* time off of work fiddling with the ME trying to get SP canned, user, and home-grown missions behaving in any sort of semblance of reality.  I actually only get to fly about 1/3 the time as time spent on ME fiddling, LUA scripts, triggers, etc.  

 

I usually give up in frustration about 1.5 hours into the SIM (Load mission --> fly 5-10 min, AI borked --> back to ME --> fiddle AI --> fly 20 min to find AI borked --> back to ME, scripts, triggers, twiddling --> fly 10 min realize that didn't work --> give up and fly one of my generic free-fly's that have NO AI --> 20 minutes later give up in boredom.  Day off over.  Weeeeee, that was fun!)

 

I'm saying this now, jump on me later:  The only way to get DCS to perform realistically, consistently and intelligently is with one and only one player flight and some static objects.

 

Please, please, please --- Eagle Dynamics.  Fix.Your.Core.Sim.

Edited August 20, 2021 by dmatsch

[tosmonaute]

Yes AI and ATC comms please ED...

[SharpeXB]

The biggest thing missing from DCS? A Dynamic Campaign! Something you can do with the aircraft besides quick missions or canned scripted campaigns. 

[upyr1]

The lack of cold war assets.  

With the early cold war-(1945- 1953) we have the F-86, F-51, and MiG-15 and a bunch of blue for assets from the World War II asset pack. 

We need Red For assets as well as some more post war assets for both sides. With the F4u in the works, I'd love to see an SCB-27 Essex or midway carrier battlegroup  as well the Soviet Navy)

In the mid-cold war (1954 to 1970) we have the Mig-19 but we don't have much in the way of contemporary assets for both sides. Since we have the F-8 Crusader in the pipes I would really like to see some 1960s naval assets (I'd like like the Clemenceau carrier battlegroup and either an scb-125 Essex and/or midway carrier battlegroup and the BB-62 New Jersey)

Though with the Marianas we'll probably need some pacific theater assets and more WW II assets. 

Next, I'd like the option to pre load troops and equipment on vehicles 

[MAXsenna]

Good points from all of you, but most "frustrating/game breaking" would be AI and ATC for me too.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Callsign112]

+1 for anything AI including ground stuff. To the OP, can you not get AI aircraft to fight with in some of the instant action missions? If your short on time, this might be a good way to keep the practice up.

 

Creating something in the mission editor can be a real challenge, so in my case it sometimes takes me multiple reworks before I have something even close to what I wanted. Good luck.

[SparxOne]

13 hours ago, dmatsch said:

I, for one think the game's AI is the most immersive-breaking pain of the whole simulation.

 

Opinions ? Say no more, you've said it already my man. Main point would be the AI to be massively updated/improved, and in all senses, not just the AI aircrafts doing their things, i mean literally the AI from ground units to air units and everything that would make the missions/wars feel much more interesting and challenging tactically.

 

2nd point if i may  The addition of the dynamic campaign, yes yes, we all know it's in the works, but i hope and dream that the AI will somehow be updated/improved by the time this DC comes out to the wide public ! Otherwise i'm scared of how things will happen in said DC  

 

Let me ramble a little more here because it's always good to let your heart talk hehe  I would love to see DCS evolve in a way that ground warfare becomes a common thing as you're flying, seeing battle groups on the ground moving towards objectives, engaging other battle groups or defensive groups protecting an objective, literally anything that would make the ground way more alive than the ever so static one we've been too used to see throughout 95% of servers, missions etc. 

Literally whenever i take off, the only thing that needs attention from my part is of coarse ennemy planes that roam their navigations charts or are tasked to engage you (But are usually no more than a Turkey shoot). But the moment you wanna do some A2G, it's really just a matter of finding those static units shown on the map, at your steerpoints or whatever and doing passes on them with whatever weapon you have, it gets really boring after a while, to the point that i tend to stop flying because i'm not finding it fun/immersive/challenging anymore. I want something dynamic from ground to air ! Yes the dynamic campaign should answer that, i just hope it will meet the expectations and solve the massive replayability problem i've had over the years.

Would the AI solve or at least help in all i've said ? Hopeflly yes as it would allow AI units to be way more unpredictable, way more tactically smart and just way more interesting all around.

[Northstar98]

This is really a difficult one.

The most game-breaking issues I would say is a contest between:

1. The AI (including ATC), especially when you compare it to the other sim, though the AI also relates to number 2.
2. Various elements that make DCS more 'Digital Cockpit Simulator' than Digital Combat Simulator, but this is incredibly broad, concerning plenty of different aspects (including the AI):
   • Damage modelling (getting there with WWII, though even there, you've still got graphical representation, the structural physics that we see in the other sim, and detached parts retaining proper physics and collision models, again like the other WW2 sim). Ships and ground vehicles are still in a very lacklustre state.
   • Weapon effects modelling, especially concerning fragmentation (which doesn't exist in DCS), you've also got things like modelling the different effects of HEAT, HESH, HE/HEF ammunition, though it ties into the above.
   • Sensor modelling (incredibly basic for anything that isn't a player module, and even then there's issues), I could talk about so many things here:
     • RADARs outside of player modules are incredibly basic (just being a scan volume and update rate essentially) - it doesn't even differentiate between 2D and 3D RADARs.
     • Nothing about the beam is actually modelled (sidelobes, frequency, PRF, resolution etc). This also ties into RWRs and ARMs, the latter should home-in on the actual emitter/antenna not just the centroid of the unit with the offending RADAR, it's not so bad for vehicles (in most cases), but it's very bad for ships.
     • Some RADARs are just copies of a different RADAR set (often a completely different one) with a different 3D model, examples being the SNR-75 (uses the SNR-125), the AN/MPQ-55 (uses the AN/MPQ-50) and the AN/SPY-1 (uses the AN/MPQ-53).
     • Plenty of sensors just straight up aren't defined at all (the AN/SPS-48E NTU and AN/SPS-49(V)5 NTU for the Supercarrier aren't defined at all, neither are any of the RADARs of the Kuznetsov (aside from FCRs which are just taken off of ground vehicles (despite the naval systems being different).
     • IR is no different to TV, just using a different texture set (which sometimes makes very little sense), there is a major FLIR rework coming but not sure on what precisely it'll do.
     • Simplified IFF.
   • EW - most of our ECM systems are DECM systems, but only the Hornet has any kind of DECM technique actually simulated (track breaking), though the Hornet is using the wrong jammer (should be using the AN/ALQ-126B, not the AN/ALQ-165), other aircraft are approximated as noise jammers (an OECM technique), and some are inconsistent, even with the same jammer (for instance the L-005 works as a noise jammer against the Hornet and the F-15, but works as a slow multiple-target repeater against the Mirage 2000).
   • Im sure I've missed stuff, watch this space.
3. The fact that DCS is a mile-wide but an inch deep, see this thread and here's my extensive breakdown. The long story short is that I wish developers would've agreed on a particular era, get it fleshed out (at least to the state of WWII in the near future), then move onto something else.

As for missing features:

1. A drastic rethink to how we set up coalitions and units, personally there's none better than C:MANO's system, and when I get round to it, I'll make a wishlist for it (though there are several wishlist threads about coalitions already).
2. A dynamic campaign (though plenty needs to be fixed first, namely the AI).
3. Improved IFF, to the tune of the other sim.
4. A transition to a spherical coordinate system with maps that fit on the surface of a sphere.
5. A TDK available to modders, allowing users to create their own terrains.
6. A 3D mission editor.
7. A drastic change to how things are named (here's my attempt with the ground and naval units).

This isn't comprehensive by any means but I've tried to highlight what I think are the biggest issues.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
spelling

[Tippis]

4 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

As for missing features:

 

2. A dynamic campaign (though plenty needs to be fixed first, namely the AI).

 

This isn't comprehensive by any means but I've tried to highlight what I think are the biggest issues.

It's a good breakdown in general, and I'd just like to add some expanded opinion on this one in particular.

 

DCS definitely needs some more dynamics. The problem is that we need to define what that actually means, because odds are that the term “dynamic campaign” evokes the image of the-game-that-must-not-be-mentioned, and that is a very different beast. There's “dynamic” campaign, and then there's “ongoing” campaign, for the lack of a better term. That other game has the latter (which just so happen to create dynamism through its underlying world sim).

 

Unless pretty much the entire game — from terrain format to scripting to mission-making to basic such as how units are even defined and instanced in the game to just how the entire world works — is rewritten from scratch, that kind of ongoing campaign simply cannot be done in DCS. The game doesn't support it. What DCS can have is a very literal sense of the phrase “dynamic campaign”: it can have the exact same campaign structure it has now, with individual and self-contained, single-sortie missions, except they will be generated based on some set of end-state parameters rather than created pre-baked by a mission designer.

 

And to my mind, that is one of the most significant limitations holding DCS back: simply how its world works as far as the scale — not just size, but length of time and number of units it supports. Like you say, it's a bit more of a cockpit simulator than a combat one. It can simulate a fight, but not an actual conflict. As long as that limitation is in (and it's doubtful that we'll ever get around that unless ED abandons DCS and makes DCS Mk II), campaigns will always be… lacklustre, and the “dynamics” just reduce the workload for mission makers.

[dmatsch]

On 8/20/2021 at 12:02 PM, SharpeXB said:

The biggest thing missing from DCS? A Dynamic Campaign! Something you can do with the aircraft besides quick missions or canned scripted campaigns. 

 

 

Any dynamic campaigns (like Liberation) are and will be borked because of the atrocious AI.   Liberation IS an effective start, though

[GGTharos]

I don't care as much about ATC, AI needs to learn to fly individually and in formation  and it needs to know and be able to be told how to execute specific maneuvers (ie sustain a turn at 315 kts with a slice back).  They need to understand AORs.

 

Then proper AWACS detection and retention of tracks, classifying groups without cheating ABC proper reporting of these facts. 

 

The ATC.

 

Similar treatment for ground and naval AI.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, dmatsch said:

Any dynamic campaigns (like Liberation) are and will be borked because of the atrocious AI.

That’s true. One goes hand in hand with the other

[Furiz]

I have to say AI, and we need more European modern jets, Russian modern jets, any modern except US.

 

When SU25 AI guns you down in pitch black with no radar no DL or HMD... damn....

Edited August 22, 2021 by Furiz

[Northstar98]

23 hours ago, Tippis said:

DCS definitely needs some more dynamics. The problem is that we need to define what that actually means, because odds are that the term “dynamic campaign” evokes the image of the-game-that-must-not-be-mentioned, and that is a very different beast. There's “dynamic” campaign, and then there's “ongoing” campaign, for the lack of a better term. That other game has the latter (which just so happen to create dynamism through its underlying world sim).

 

That's true, and yes when I refer to dynamic campaign something like that other sim is the most desireable.

 

Though even so, having subsequent missions be dynamically affected by previous missions would be a step up to what we have now, which you go on to explain.

 

23 hours ago, Tippis said:

Unless pretty much the entire game — from terrain format to scripting to mission-making to basic such as how units are even defined and instanced in the game to just how the entire world works — is rewritten from scratch, that kind of ongoing campaign simply cannot be done in DCS. The game doesn't support it. What DCS can have is a very literal sense of the phrase “dynamic campaign”: it can have the exact same campaign structure it has now, with individual and self-contained, single-sortie missions, except they will be generated based on some set of end-state parameters rather than created pre-baked by a mission designer.

 

Absolutely, and it's kinda a shame. I'd say that this also applies for several other items too.

 

23 hours ago, Tippis said:

And to my mind, that is one of the most significant limitations holding DCS back: simply how its world works as far as the scale — not just size, but length of time and number of units it supports. Like you say, it's a bit more of a cockpit simulator than a combat one. It can simulate a fight, but not an actual conflict. As long as that limitation is in (and it's doubtful that we'll ever get around that unless ED abandons DCS and makes DCS Mk II), campaigns will always be… lacklustre, and the “dynamics” just reduce the workload for mission makers.

 

Agreed.