Forestall Historical Accuracy

[Northstar98]

24 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

I can see what you are saying but I don't think Heatblur should focus on said assets.

I didn't really say they should focus on them, but it would be nice to have to go with it. HB should be focusing on their current offerings and what they have planned before tackling something else IMO.

24 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

And like I said, SAM systems are much higher on the list of priorities than naval assets and ships, unless you want to primarily do anti-ship operations.

I agree, SAM systems should be placed higher in priority to adding more ships, but it wasn't priority I was addressing.

My point was that there's more to it than just the basics of function and looks.

24 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

I'm just happy to have the Forrestal, hopefully sooner rather than later Saratoga and an A-6 and KA-6 AI.

As am I (though a bit bummed on the SC stuff, though that's already been discussed).

But hopefully, in the future, I'd like to have suitable escorts for it, in the same way as I'd want suitable aircraft for whatever aircraft carrier.

I'm not too interested in representing an exact historical scenario, in an ideal world sure, but what I am interested in is ships that are era consistent.

24 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Again, DCS is primarily a combat flight simulator not a virtual battlespace sim like say CMO etc. 

I'm not trying to turn DCS into anything else, and while I would love an asset pool, sensor fidelity and certain other things (like how sides are handled) as rich as C:MO, I realise that probably isn't going to happen.

But the better analogy would be say, SF2, specifically SF2:NA, still a combat flight simulator (though much more on the lite-sim side), but unlike DCS there's more effort put into having assets that fit with each other, even if the scenario is hypothetical.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Northstar98

[TLTeo]

On 10/12/2021 at 7:37 AM, Northstar98 said:

where feasible

This is the part that nobody seems to be understanding. There was an interview a while ago with Nick Grey, where he stated that the cost of an AI asset (so 3d model, texturing, and simple coding) was like ~50k for each iirc - and that was for trucks. Let's make that 100k for things with more complex systems like ships, and 150k for aircraft.

People are asking for dozens and dozens of these things, so that adds up to several million dollars worth of cost (and that's without factoring in the time it would take). It is -not- feasible to do them all, not even remotely close. Obsessing over historical accuracy is like obsessing over the fact that every EM sensor in DCS doesn't calculate ray tracing and radiative transfer through the atmosphere. There simply comes a point where you need some stand-in, whether that be in the physics or assets implemented.

Edited October 18, 2021 by TLTeo

[Tank50us]

11 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

This is the part that nobody seems to be understanding. There was an interview a while ago with Nick Grey, where he stated that the cost of an AI asset (so 3d model, texturing, and simple coding) was like ~50k for each iirc - and that was for trucks. Let's make that 100k for things with more complex systems like ships, and 150k for aircraft.

People are asking for dozens and dozens of these things, so that adds up to several million dollars worth of cost (and that's without factoring in the time it would take). It is -not- feasible to do them all, not even remotely close. Obsessing over historical accuracy is like obsessing over the fact that every EM sensor in DCS doesn't calculate ray tracing and radiative transfer through the atmosphere. There simply comes a point where you need some stand-in, whether that be in the physics or assets implemented.

 

I wasn't really fussing over historical accuracy with this post. My group for example is a PMC, and we'll be using the Forrestal to represent a conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier which is more feasible for us to own. But, for the sake of doing historically accurate scenarios or period accurate secarios, I was wondering what would be required to pull that off.

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, TLTeo said:

People are asking for dozens and dozens of these things, so that adds up to several million. It is -not- feasible to do them all.

And who's asking for it all? Better, who's expecting for there to be all?

I mean, here, you're almost making it out to be that any asset is infeasible.

And I don't think you can justify doubling the price for something like a ship, the 3D model is more complicated sure, but you said "complex systems": pretty much all ships in DCS have totally generic systems that are no more advanced than the most simplest, the framework is already there so defining a RADAR system is super easy.

But sometimes they don't even do that, they sometimes just copy and paste from each other (the Kuznetsov and Nimitz have the exact same surface search RADAR modelled), copy and pasted from a ground unit (the Mk92 CAS, and AN/SPY-1 are copied straight from the AN/MPQ-53 from the Patriot, the 3R95 copied from the SA-15, the 3P87 from the SA-19) or aren't modelled at all (like the 2 primary air-search RADARs of the Nimitz-class, the AN/SPS-48 and -49).

12 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Obsessing over historical accuracy is like obsessing over the fact that every EM sensor in DCS doesn't calculate ray tracing and radiative transfer through the atmosphere.

Is it though?

Having super duper advanced physics simulations also has performance concerns, something that is not a concern for just having assets that fit together (again, look at WW2, the era that does, exactly that).

12 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

There simply comes a point where you need some stand-in, whether that be in the physics or assets implemented.

Yes, I understand that, I'm not expecting every USN ship that was in service during the mid 80s... At the very most I'd ask for 4, one in each category.

[TLTeo]

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And who's asking for it all? Better, who's expecting for there to be all?

Multiple people in the community want different assets, just have a look at the Wishlist section. There are demands for Korea era stuff, Vietnam, Desert Storm, modern stuff...it all adds up.

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I mean, here, you're almost making it out to be that any asset is infeasible.

No, I'm saying that any one consistent group of assets from a well defined era is near infeasible because that still involves a massive amount of money. It's not coincidence that the only such asset pack we have is highly controversial because it's not free.

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And I don't think you can justify doubling the price for something like a ship, the 3D model is more complicated sure, but you said "complex systems": pretty much all ships in DCS have totally generic systems that are no more advanced than the most simplest, the framework is already there so defining a RADAR system is super easy.

But sometimes they don't even do that, they sometimes just copy and paste from each other (the Kuznetsov and Nimitz have the exact same surface search RADAR modelled), copy and pasted from a ground unit (the Mk92 CAS, and AN/SPY-1 are copied straight from the AN/MPQ-53 from the Patriot, the 3R95 copied from the SA-15, the 3P87 from the SA-19) or aren't modelled at all (like the 2 primary air-search RADARs of the Nimitz-class, the AN/SPS-48 and -49).

Sure, let's not double the price for ships then (although I suspect it's still much more expensive to do a ship than it is to update the model of a truck, which is what cost 50k). We're still looking at millions.

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Having super duper advanced physics simulations also has performance concerns, something that is not a concern for just having assets that fit together (again, look at WW2, the era that does, exactly that).

And my point is that monetary concerns are just as big of a deal as performance concerns, and that all of these hyper specific wishlist threads ignore that.

19 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, I understand that, I'm not expecting every USN ship that was in service during the mid 80s... At the very most I'd ask for 4, one in each category.

Multiply "just a few assets from this era/setting" by the number of theaters/eras that people want more assets in, and you're either a) left with an immense amounts of assets and money required, b) if you select fewer assets for the sake of not bankrupting ED, you're left with....their current pace of adding assets or c) you focus everything you have on one era that some people like and piss off a bunch of the community because you're ignoring this other cool era.

Edited October 18, 2021 by TLTeo

[MBot]

1 hour ago, Airhunter said:

And like I said, SAM systems are much higher on the list of priorities than naval assets and ships, unless you want to primarily do anti-ship operations.

But that is the point, isn't it? Ships are the SAM systems in the naval environment. And DCS currently makes a rather spartan job at represeting different ships with different air defense capabilities.

For DCS I am interested in ships primary in how they interact with the player flying an aircraft, either serving as target or by the air defense they put up. I agree that ASuW and ASW have no role in DCS and are much better served in other games. But I very much care about ships that affect my expierience in the cockpit.

As a naval buff I would of course enjoy to see all possible classes of ships but that clearly is not realistic to expect from DCS. What I would like to see though is a smart selection of key ship classes that support our flyable aircraft in a meaningfull manner. This includes a high-low mix of capabilies for more diverse gameplay. For example for the Viggen I thought it would have been nice to have the second-line ships of the Soviet Baltic fleet which the Viggen would historcially have faced as targets and/or escorts.

For the Tomcat I am interested in the CVBG escorts because they form the backbone of the carrier's defense (and also soak up a certain amount of inbound fire). Their performance has a direct overall impact on my primary mission in the aircraft's cockpit (defending the carrier). As I already mentioned, I primary look at pre-AEGIS scenarios (because AEGIS is so powerful that it makes fleet defense uninteresting from the cockpit's point of view), so the Tico and the Burke are unfortunately a no-go. Luckily, an all Perry escort screen is an ok-ish compromise in terms of air defense for the Cold War (e.g. overall amount of Standard SAM missile guidance channels available to the CVBG), so I can live with it. Still for the fidelity of the simulation it would be nice to see the differences in AAW capabilities that exist in the CVBG, such as the ASW ships that only have Sea Sparrow and/or Phalanx (Knox, Spruance) or the dedicated AAW cruisers with multiple missile guidance channels and Standard-ER SAMs. If I could pick just one ship to go with a Cold War carrier I would select a Leahy-class guided missile cruiser (among the most numerous AAW carrier escorts). If I had a second pick, I would select the Spruance-class DD for the low-end in air defense (most numerous ASW carrier escorts).

Once we will get the A-6E, of course the focus will be on the major units of the Soviet surface fleet and their escorts, which were primary mission targets for the Intruder.

If it is up to HB to create those ships or someone else I cannot say. I feel that we must be grateful that HB is offering the Forrestal at all.

Perhaps a way to improve the situation would be to tone back on the very high level of detail of ground units/ships in general, which I think is just overkill. I know that some will not agree with this, but I would much rather have multiple ship classes which I can actually put to good use in missions than one extremely detailed ship to take nice up-close screenshots (carriers have some more leeway due to the up close nature we see from the cockpit).

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Multiple people in the community want different assets, just have a look at the Wishlist section. There are demands for Korea era stuff, Vietnam, Desert Storm, modern stuff...it all adds up.

Good thing nobody here is asking for everything in the wishlist thread to be implemented - I fully expect that some wishes won't be considered at all, some might but ultimately end nowhere, and some will be seriosuly considered and implemented, it's all a matter of feasibility and priority.

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

No, I'm saying that any one consistent group of assets from a well defined era is near infeasible because that still involves a massive amount of money. It's not coincidence that the only such asset pack we have is highly controversial because it's not free.

There's still the base game, which covers the late Cold War and a bit into post USSR for REDFOR quite well, it just lacks a more appropriate map and modules.

And yes, I'm okay with paying for assets, nowhere have I asked for these for free.

And the main concern with the assets pack being paid is the implementation in multiplayer, in that you need to own the pack for them to be visible, so non-owners can't play in the same mission. If that wasn't a problem, I imagine the controversy would be much less prevalent.

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Sure, let's not double the price for ships then (although I suspect it's still much more expensive to do a ship than it is to update the model of a truck, which is what cost 50k). We're still looking at millions.

4 ships (at most) millions plural?

Even if I grant you 100k per ship, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that 4x100k << millions.

And yes, I'm not factoring every other wishlist thread out there, because none of them are contigent for this in the slightest. I'm just trying to make a case for these, given that we are going to get the Forrestal, we're going to get aircraft that will fit on it, we have suitable maps for it (or at least for other ships in the class), the only thing missing is the escorts.

Compare that to say, DCS Vietnam:

• No map (and it would be a very difficult map to make)
• No modules
• Basically no/very few BLUFOR assets
• Some REDFOR assets

There's much more work involved.

For the Forrestal, I'd even take a Knox or a Spruance and a Belknap, all 3 would be perfect, the Belknap is more of a must (SM-2ER), the Spruance would have Sea Sparrow, and the Knox for the timeframe would just have Phalanx.

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

And my point is that monetary concerns are just as big of a deal as performance concerns, and that all of these hyper specific wishlist threads ignore that.

Well, then the concern is what ideas get canned and which get considered.

All I'm trying to do is provide a case for these, it's not contigent on the myriad of other specific wishlist threads - they're as good as irrelevant.

3 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Multiply "just a few assets from this era/setting" by the number of theaters/eras that people want more assets in, and you're either a) left with an immense amounts of assets and money required, b) if you select fewer assets for the sake of not bankrupting ED, you're left with....their current pace of adding assets or c) you focus everything you have on one era that some people like and piss off a bunch of the community because you're ignoring this other cool era.

I'll take b.) please, but the priority should, IMO be:

• Aircraft
• Weapons
• Land-based air defences
• Tanks, IFVs, APCs, Artillery, military trucks
• Warships
• Other ground units (mostly support units, fuel trucks etc)
• Static objects
• Civilian/non-military assets

And again, what part of this wish is contigent on anything else apart from this?

Edited October 18, 2021 by Northstar98

[Harlikwin]

My 2 cents on this

First I find the whole price point of 50-100k per AI asset to be absurd. Maybe nick misspoke, but it shouldn't anywhere near that, you are basically paying for a 3D model, the code at this point for naval assets is so primitive and generic its more or less a copy paste while changing some values. I mean we have mods/mod packs with a ton of these ships already from the community, but they aren't used online much due to the way DCS deals or rather doesn't deal with mods. 

Secondly on the whole ship thing.

The main thing that needs to get modeled is their role as floating SAM/AA forts, no one cares about anything else in DCS, which is fine. That being said, ED has done a fairly poor job with naval assets to date. They really need to do better in terms of modeling the fact each ship will have multiple radars that do different things and will have a seperate EW signature. The second thing they need to do better with is ship interactions with ASM's, for example "decoys" and then the downstream damage models to enable realistic mission kills on surface assets. 

Getting to the period specificity, they just realistically need to look at which escorts had the longest lifespan and then use those. For the US, an easy example would be the Knox Class Frigate, produced in the 60's served out through the 90's. Boom 1 ship covers the bulk the of the cold war, and yeah you might have to do an "early" or "late model". But you can recycle most of the 3D part of the model if you do that. Same thing with an Adams Class DD (60's-90s), maybe add in a Spruance for later scenarios. And maybe like a Belknap for a Cruiser again 60's through the 90's.  

And really these ships are a critical need for "Earlier" cold war scenarios for the most part because there is a HUGE difference capability wise between the pre-Aegis assets and the later Aegis/phased array radar SM-2 assets we currently have. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Uxi]

14 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

F18C's were a thing in 91... 

Ah yeah, it appears so. I was looking at the general program and see a couple lost in Desert Storm and recent years before and after.  Know what proportion the operational squadrons were of each variant?

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Uxi said:

Ah yeah, it appears so. I was looking at the general program and see a couple lost in Desert Storm and recent years before and after.  Know what proportion the operational squadrons were of each variant?

 

The early Cs were flying in the very late 80s, like 87-88 iirc. I dont know fleetwise how rapid the transition from A to Cs was. But I imagine by the late 90s it was all Cs. 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Airhunter]

Yeah just check that website I posted above, tons of C's (low lot however) in the late 80's.

[Uxi]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

 

The early Cs were flying in the very late 80s, like 87-88 iirc. I dont know fleetwise how rapid the transition from A to Cs was. But I imagine by the late 90s it was all Cs. 

 

Right. Forrestal was done in 1992, though. 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Uxi said:

Right. Forrestal was done in 1992, though. 

It flew 2 squadrons of C's during the gulf war in 91 IIRC.

[Quid]

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

It flew 2 squadrons of C's during the gulf war in 91 IIRC.

I'm not sure that's correct; Forrestal didn't participate directly in ODS, but she did participate in Operation Southern Watch (her last fleet deployment).  She embarked with 2x F/A-18A squadrons, VFA-132 and VFA-137.  Gonavy.jp has the bureau numbers; they're comprised of A models from production lot 8 (Blocks 18 and 19).  Saratoga, however, did deploy to ODS and did have 2x F/A-18C squadrons embarked (VFA-81 and VFA-83), comprised of production lot 10 aircraft (Blocks 23-25).  So a Forrestal-Class carrier did participate in ODS with F/A-18Cs, it just wasn't Forrestal herself.

[Paladin1cd]

I know it isn’t this bad, but it’s almost funny as a mission maker. It’s frustrating. So I can have a WWII Essex carrier, the F14 module, the Su-33 but shouldn’t be frustrated that most of them don’t work together? Because that’s how it feels so,times with the mashup lol. I wish ED would have focused on a specific timeframe first and then expanded. It is painful making some concessions on what assets to use.

That said, I love how modders in the community help to make up for it. I think it would be awesome to have the modders be more integrated and have more adjustments made along the lines of the ME limitations that were included last update that allow players to better decide what they want to simulate, so I see movement that’s encouraging and I can’t see anything else’s on the market even close to what we have. 

[redcoat22]

2 hours ago, Paladin1cd said:

I know it isn’t this bad, but it’s almost funny as a mission maker. It’s frustrating. So I can have a WWII Essex carrier, the F14 module, the Su-33 but shouldn’t be

I think it’s the biggest misstep in an otherwise amazing ecosystem.  Paywall assets and maps, hodgepodge theatres and airframes…. Such a great sim with serious handicaps.  Charge more for the planes and make the assets and maps free to grow the online community.

[Slant]

10 hours ago, Paladin1cd said:

I know it isn’t this bad, but it’s almost funny as a mission maker. It’s frustrating. So I can have a WWII Essex carrier, the F14 module, the Su-33 but shouldn’t be frustrated that most of them don’t work together? Because that’s how it feels so,times with the mashup lol. I wish ED would have focused on a specific timeframe first and then expanded. It is painful making some concessions on what assets to use.

That said, I love how modders in the community help to make up for it. I think it would be awesome to have the modders be more integrated and have more adjustments made along the lines of the ME limitations that were included last update that allow players to better decide what they want to simulate, so I see movement that’s encouraging and I can’t see anything else’s on the market even close to what we have. 

Mods in Arma create a huge bucketload of problems while providing a metric ton of assets. It's a pro/con situation. And given that DCS is already pretty sizeable, I would assume adding another few Gigs of mods to your daily patch cycle is not going to be super popular. In addition to mods habitually fubaring Arma.

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Slant said:

In addition to mods habitually fubaring Arma.

Oh I have seen this first hand... like people just riding along in the back of a truck, and suddenly finding the secret eject button as the vehicle in question goes over a bump....

[Baco]

My view is that assets packs should be payed addons. ED should concentrate on making a good sdk for assets and getting more 3er parties on it. and have cheap but varied assets packs. On line community? minute, except basically Squads and each squad can customize which addons it need so ro wants to enforce.

In that manner at least you have the option of having good and varied assets.. the free thingy just leaves everybody without new assets.

Nobody works for free except modders.

Averuy othe rgenere has a new DLC every few months and loads of payed addons.. sports game you have to pay full price every year... why whould Flightsims be any different..

You buy the assets of the specific era you want and everybody is happy. you dont have to buy all, only the ones you use. I did not buy the Hind nor Apache, I dont FLY helos.... I am not moaning about its price, let those who want helicopters have the opportunity of buying them...

let us who want assets the opportunity of buying them (and have a chance of someone making those assets)

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Baco

[Slant]

1 hour ago, Baco said:

My view is that assets packs should be payed addons. ED should concentrate on making a good sdk for assets and getting more 3er parties on it. and have cheap but varied assets packs. On line community? minute, except basically Squads and each squad can customize which addons it need so ro wants to enforce.

In that manner at least you have the option of having good and varied assets.. the free thingy just leaves everybody without new assets.

Nobody works for free except modders.

Averuy othe rgenere has a new DLC every few months and loads of payed addons.. sports game you have to pay full price every year... why whould Flightsims be any different..

You buy the assets of the specific era you want and everybody is happy. you dont have to buy all, only the ones you use. I did not buy the Hind nor Apache, I dont FLY helos.... I am not moaning about its price, let those who want helicopters have the opportunity of buying them...

let us who want assets the opportunity of buying them (and have a chance of someone making those assets)

 

 

 

Not a big fan of the bullshit they pull in other genres, specifically sport games. No, thanks. I'm willing to pay for stuff, but only to a reasonable amount. And remember that there are units in DCS (much like in Arma) that have organised group play. All of them would need to synchronise the content they use, essentially forcing their members to buy stuff if the unit agrees to get it. This is real world money decisions that are going to put a strain on the communities. It's already a big decision to invest 80 bucks into a module and basically 50 bucks per map that the group wants to play (so, all of them). We should think carefully before casually suggesting to ED to take money for assets like that.

[Uxi]

Mod community with an SDK and open API for asset packs would be the best way to get lots of minute details and probably the only way for specific era coordination like Vietnam or Korean War, etc. 

People geek out on textures, antennae,  etc.  Look at the livery subforums and contests.  

[Baco]

3 hours ago, Slant said:

 

Not a big fan of the bullshit they pull in other genres, specifically sport games. No, thanks. I'm willing to pay for stuff, but only to a reasonable amount. And remember that there are units in DCS (much like in Arma) that have organised group play. All of them would need to synchronise the content they use, essentially forcing their members to buy stuff if the unit agrees to get it. This is real world money decisions that are going to put a strain on the communities. It's already a big decision to invest 80 bucks into a module and basically 50 bucks per map that the group wants to play (so, all of them). We should think carefully before casually suggesting to ED to take money for assets like that.

I do agree with you and I am in such a group. South american squad with soaring dollar prices... and yes we do need to decide witch module and maps to play. But its either that or no assets. Insist in a perfect world yes would be nice, in the real world: No money=No production.

And those countries and systems that give things away for free end up with bad quality and insufficient assets... 

 

DCS already does incredible things for the love of the genere (hardcore, realistic and  accurate combat flight sim).. Every other single company has closed its doors.. you seem to forget that.

 

On the Other hand, yes maybe a Certain Standard for Mods to be included in a special segment with a dedicated SDK would be grand and indeed it would solve the "assets content" problem.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Baco

[BIGNEWY]

Please stick to the topics title "Forestall Historical Accuracy" otherwise we will just get way off topic

thank you