DCS takes the simulations too literally to be fun or practical.

[gotit]

DCS is taking the simulation approach too literally to be fun or practical.

There is a lot of discussion about the learning curve, whether it's right or wrong. It appears that there are a lot of devoted people who have gotten really, really drawn into this world. The setups are incredible, with seats, controls, VR gear, all of it. Probably these setups required thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of commitment. With total respect.

I bought the P-48 module. I bought a Gladiator NXT stick. I'm down for some technical learning and it's very rewarding for me to gain some deeper appreciation for the challenges that WWII pilots dealt with. Never would I have imagined just how difficult or dangerous these machines were to operate, for those young men. 

The simulation is so incredibly accurate and detailed. Just the simple act of taxiing to the runway on a taildragger wheel can take hours and days, weeks of practice. If you are dive bombing a practice target, you have to keyboard the correct combination of strokes simply to throw the compression flaps cover switch, before you can throw the switch itself with another complex combination of keyboard strokes, all within seconds of your death. There are training modules. The one for basic flight handling places you in a plane that is completely untrimmed. The voice calmly says, "Keep your wings level," while your plane is wildly spinning out of control because the simulation put you in a plane so poorly trimmed that there is no possible way any pilot could have ever achieved that altitude with such trimming. 

I have invested countless hours over a period of months, learning how to program the controls of the Gladiator NXT to the available commands. My latest challenge is figuring out a way to tailor the axis curves for the propeller rpm, manifod pressure, and boost throttles, such that they will all synchronize to the appropriate levels while adjusting this dial on the hotas. I think whoever wrote the manual for the hotas did not speak English as a first language. I may need to hire a computer scientist professional consultant to simply get the hotas to operate the plane's throttle in a manner that works.

I respect the incredible accuracy with which DCS has built these simulations. If the goal of these simulations was to provide a historical reference document on how these machines were operated, then I think DCS has done a remarkable job.  History buffs could enter the simulation, click around with a mouse and gain a truly profound appreciation of how these planes worked.

But if the goal is to replicate the actual experience of flying one of these plane for fun and excitement, I think the DCS approach of hyperliteralism  is a complete failure. Why?

For one, you are not in a plane. The software can't replicate the actual G forces on your body. Think of driving a real car, or riding in a roller coaster, versus watching that experience on a TV.  Not the same.

The throttle, prop and boost controls in this plane were all designed to physically fit in the pilot's left hand. He could feel it, with his hand.

He could feel the plane responding with his body.

The trim controls were big knobs, not keyboard strokes.

The switches were physical, tactile to the hand.

The pilots were not flying these planes with a computer keyboard. If they were, probably none of them would have survived.

In other words, I am saying that the entire notion of simulating aircraft flight with this level of hyper-literalsim is a false promise.

Yes, I am saying that it's probably harder to control these simulated planes with a hotas and keyobard, than it was to operate the real thing.

The stakes are lower, yes. Nobody is going to die while playing DCS.

But it's like trying to play a simulated guitar through a keyboard. Playing a guitar is hard, yes. It takes years of practice. But playing a guitar through keyboard strokes would be impossible, not the same thing.

"To play a G note at a moment that will provide an expression of bluesy contrast to a song in a major key, hit left alt shift control k, and if the guitar has become slighly warmer in your hands, then the metal of the strings will have less tension as a result of thermal expansion and they will need to be tuned up slightly, so hit right shift left control right windows left alt number pad 7."

I play guitar and I don't think like this when playing. The instrument is in my hands and it essentially disappears. The sound makes an instant connection to my mind. There are no keyboard simulation strokes. It would simply not be possible to make a computer simulation of this experience. The very notion would be doomed to failure. It will never, ever be the same thing.

You can't make a computer simulation for sex either.  "To enter the woman, press right alt left shift left windows num pad 6..." Jesus.

I believe DCS seems confused over its fundamental purpose. No matter how technically accurate the simulation, the very notion of simulating the experience of these planes will never be the same as flying the plane. So the question becomes, what is the purpose of this exercise. Is it about historical documentation, or having fun and unwinding after a long workday.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by gotit

[DD_Fenrir]

The greater question is then... why are you even here?

Surely this an issue with all high fidelity simulations?

You're not finding it fun? Ok. Different stokes for different folks.

You don't get to tell me what I find fun - correction - what I find edifying.

The challenge brings me back to DCS repeatedly; the lack of true physiological effects is simply an inherent issue to the platform. This is entertainment software for a PC platform. It comes with the territory.

You can fire the same issue at sub-sims; 1st person shooters; driving sims; any number of entertainment genres where physicality is a missing element.

DCS allows me - within the restrictions of the platform - to simulate flying combat aircraft I could never even afford to climb aboard in real life. The lack of physiological effects is just the compromise that comes with the affordability.

You accept that and enjoy the other elements.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by DD_Fenrir

[gotit]

"DCS allows me - within the restrictions of the platform - to simulate flying combat aircraft I could never even afford to climb aboard in real life."

I agree. I feel the same way.

My premise is that the company's devotion to hyperliteralism results a massive and unnecessary barrier of entry into the the fact that we're playing a video game for fun.

I guess for me, it's just too much work.

Edited April 19, 2022 by gotit

[Nevyn]

If they didn't do it the way they do, I for one would have lost interest years ago.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Nevyn

[SteelPig]

What you criticize is the reason why I am here. 

A few times you are talking about fun, and you do it as a opposite of the current approach of DCS. And that's a thing I've seen many times before. The main question is: What IS fun for you? For me? For other ones?
It is not an either/or. What you describe is the source of what I consider fun in DCS.

Everyone knows a simulation will always lack some things. But we don't take them as an excuse. We take them as a challenge. And many succeeded

Edited April 19, 2022 by SteelPig

[Slippery Pete]

You can always go back to wherever you came from. 

[chromium]

1 ora fa, SteelPig ha scritto:

What you criticize is the reason why I am here. 

A few times you are talking about fun, and you do it as a opposite of the current approach of DCS. And that's a thing I've seen many times before. The main question is: What IS fun for you? For me? For other ones?
It is not an either/or. What you describe is the source of what I consider fun in DCS.

Everyone knows a simulation will always lack some things. But we don't take them as an excuse. We take them as a challenge. And many succeeded

 

this. 

But, also, remember that you can use it in game mode also! That might help a lot in finding the sweet spot you're looking for between sim and game.

[Rudel_chw]

3 hours ago, gotit said:

The throttle, prop and boost controls in this plane were all designed to physically fit in the pilot's left hand. He could feel it, with his hand.

He could feel the plane responding with his body.

The trim controls were big knobs, not keyboard strokes.

The switches were physical, tactile to the hand.

The pilots were not flying these planes with a computer keyboard.

I agree that mastering DCS is really hard and it takes a long time to learn, but flying with mostly keyboard strokes is not the way to go, you really need a proper Hotas and at least a headtracking device if a VR headset is not affordable. I use an economical headtracker and it not only gives added immersion, but it frees a Hat on your joystick, that you can use to simulate the trimming wheels of the aircraft. 
 

I have setup my Hotas like on the figure below, at the time I didn’t had rudder pedals so I used a Hotas thumbwheel to control the rudder .. it was kind of unrealistic but it worked while I saved money to purchase proper rudder pedals. I also make use of a button modifier, S3 on my hotas, to duplicate the amount of controls that I can assign .. on red are the modified commands.

 

so, I hope you can inspire you to give DCS another chance, but I fully agree with you: the keyboard is not realistic nor fun.

[BIGNEWY]

2 hours ago, gotit said:

"DCS allows me - within the restrictions of the platform - to simulate flying combat aircraft I could never even afford to climb aboard in real life."

I agree. I feel the same way.

My premise is that the company's devotion to hyperliteralism results a massive and unnecessary barrier of entry into the the fact that we're playing a video game for fun.

I guess for me, it's just too much work. It doesn't have to be this damned difficult.

We have the flaming cliffs aircraft which are much easier to use, but DCS is by nature a sand box and can be played as you wish to. 

You can set air start, or hot start for example, you can use auto start cheats for starting engines. The point I am making is if you want to play a particular way create the mission as you want them to be.

In the future we will have MAC ( modern air combat ) which will be focused on more game style of play for fast action, maybe this is more what you are looking for. 

 

I on the other had enjoy the complexity of real world scenarios, 2 hour flight to drop one bomb is what I am looking for

[draconus]

3 hours ago, gotit said:

I guess for me, it's just too much work. It doesn't have to be this damned difficult.

If you wanted to become an ace in 5 minutes that's not a good place to start. There are easier and instant gratitude solutions out there. That you "bought the P-48 module" tells so much about you from the start. You started well acknowledging that there are many options for more immersion but then you keep on repeating about the troubles with keyboard shortcuts that are actually rarely used by anyone proficient in DCS. That it's not a real thing is obvious, right? That you don't feel it - that's lack of your hardware - there is plenty to make it better:

- display: more monitors, projector domes, VR

- controls: both HOTAS and rudder pedal controls

- cockpit: either additional physical panels or whole sim pit or using your hand and fingers touching virtual switches in VR with haptic gloves

- more feedback: FFB stick, simshaker/jetseat/buttkicker

- full motion seat

...the list goes on but you don't need all this to have fun. Too real for you? I say there are many things of both aircraft, pilot and the world that are not simulated here - some are very important but yet still missing and wanted by many. I want it even more real, more challenge and more complex - this is fun for me. But if you want - you can start instant action mission and start firing your gun in 5 seconds. No one forces you to learn the aircraft, read the manual, practice flying or the procedures.

How would you feel if I went to guitar forum and say "I guess for me, it's just too much work. It doesn't have to be this damned difficult"?

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by draconus

[Hiob]

Clickable Cockpits?

I mean, yes memorizing and using a s**t ton of keyboard commands is hard and very impractical, but that's why I find the clickable cockpits so compelling.

I'd rather learn the cockpit layout (which is not too complex in a warbird), than any keyboard commands. Just flip the flipping switch!

I tend to only bind the stuff to my hotas, that actually happens to be on the hotas in the real aircraft - which is not much in a warbird. Everything else I use the mouse and clickable cockpit for. Yes I need to let go either of the stick or throttle for that, but - well - so did the real guys too.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Hiob

[EagleEye.DCS]

Everyone feel the difficulty with high fidelity, it is common issue.

The question is, which fun are you looking for? Everyone has their own fun. The title is clear, "DCS = Digital Combat Simulator", quite clearly on the web page ttps://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/world/

 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by EagleEye.DCS

[Dragon1-1]

If you want low barrier to entry, go with FC3 modules.  Or that other WWII sim. DCS is what it is, it's a great simulation, but currently a rather poor game (how many other games boot you to the main menu after each mission in a campaign?). People here generally don't come for the "game" part, which suffers from bad UI, dumb AI and limited interactions with environment, such as ATC (this is all supposed to be improved at some point, but no concrete timeline). They come for peerless aircraft simulation, complete with clickable cockpits and high fidelity flight modeling.

[peachmonkey]

going in to the weeds here... I feel I will lose some of you here..    

like any computer game out there it is to stimulate your imagination. The older you get the whole fantasy machine in your head changes the requirements for its operation. Those "requirements" are in this case known to you only and it is you who consciously and subliminally sets them based on your life long experience sprinkled with the expectations of dopamine generation during the whole "fun" portion of the interaction with the game. And on top of it, just like in the real world interactions with objects/light, your brain is really good at filling in the gaps within the presented simulated "reality" in order to deliver the immersion that you desperately seek. During this trade-off/filling the gaps game you can make conscious adjustments, i.e. force yourself to accept the obvious discrepancies within the presented simulation. Sometimes it's very easy, and sometimes it's very hard and/or impossible. But the main key here is that extremely subjective and it is YOU who are fully in charge of it. Hence the questions you raised are addressed to you for the most part.

Personally, ever since I got in to computer gaming in the late 80's and with the advent of the cockpit based flight simulators I longed for the full scope interactivity with the buttons presented on the screen as it was one of the most important immersion factors necessary for me to experience the elusive immersion of the powered unadulterated hard-core flight (I'm in to WWII stuff up to my eyeballs). IL2 offered enough for it to be my focus for 5 years, but not anymore. Now it's either DCS warbirds or go home.

[Abburo]

@gotit

DCS standards are just not for you, but as you can see there is another player base seeking exactly what you don't like. Some brains can adapts easily than others to all those kind of things (no pun intended, just facts).

The best option for you is either to play FC3 modules or change the simulation/ gaming platform to something that would suits you.. check Arma3 for example. 

I would also thank you for your comment because is a truly and hearty statement that could help people making their decision to onboard DCS or not !

Edited April 19, 2022 by Abburo

[draconus]

28 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

DCS is what it is, it's a great simulation, but currently a rather poor game...

And yet most players are SP type and there are multitude of great campaigns and missions with pro voice acting and cool stories, some offer more relaxed play and some are painfully realistic.

[MAXsenna]

I guess you didn't watch the video where Terminus flies the Apache with he's drums.
I'm sure you can do the same with your guitar!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[SteelPig]

20 minutes ago, ApacheLongbow said:

 

At the same time, although I'm not against this most fidelity simulation possible, I do believe that there is a need for accessibility as an option, with simplified mechanics that make things easier for those not always "fit".

Overall, I am one of those who share the opinion that there needs to be a balance between full fidelity and usability, but most of all, a balance of features between full fidelity cockpits and better DCS World.

 

 

 

 

No. Not in DCS. Cause that's not what DCS want's to be. To say it should sacrifice a bit of what it wants to be for better accessibility is going to a concert for classical music and ask the piano guy for some hard rock. 

In the end, everyone knows what DCS is and what it wants to be. And if this doesn't fit for someone, than: Sorry, but not all has to change for you. 

[Indianajon]

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make? The difficulty of it and the 'simulation' aspects are the exact reasons why I love this game. I love the fact that it has taken me years to reach the stage I am at, that when I think back on where I was and where I am now there is an element of pride. Combined with immersive campaigns like reflected Simulations it becomes, as you suggest, a real insight of past experiences. 

You don't need add ons to play this but you can buy them. If you don't like using keyboards then purchase some axis instead. Honeycomb make relatively cheap options. 

Short of building a full cockpit I'm not sure what would satisfy you? But, YouTube channels like the warthog project have shown, dcs is agile enough in its design to accommodate. The only limitations on this for you is how much you want to invest but I expect you will find yourself very much in the minority wanting to dumb this game down.

There are countless dumbed down 'fun' flying games out there, only dcs gets my attention though and it's purely because it tries it's best to be a 'simulation'. It's not perfect, but it's the best that is out there by a long shot.

[SteelPig]

11 minutes ago, ApacheLongbow said:

I'm glad it's not up to you to decide.

And I don't. Eagle dynamics did. And they wrote their decision down. And now some guys come to the concert and want different music. 


 

[Rudel_chw]

3 minutes ago, ApacheLongbow said:

I've been playing this song here all along, since 2009.

 

Yet your user account is from barely last month?

[BIGNEWY]

Play nice people. 

Everyone has an opinion, its ok to have one. 

DCS is a sandbox to do with as you wish.  

[rcjonessnp175]

Don’t like realism go somewhere else and find entertainment.  For allot of us growing up as kids first discovering those flight sims and just deep diving into them and the realism it lit a fire in us,  did for me.  Dcs is exactly that, now as a old fart post career it’s great to have a realistic combat flight sim in life again.  Enjoy the struggle and enjoy the hard work it pays off,  this is something the modern society has lost touched with in my opinion, that’s a deep rabbit hole….  Grumpy rant complete 

  Ya I’ve been around since the begging too which doesn’t reflect in forum join date time.  Blackshark and then Dcs have always drawn me as it’s a realistic combat sandbox I can do whatever with.  Want simpler things in dcs well many above have explained many ways of keeping it simple stupid.

 

Look at all the YouTubers for example, you have the hardcore realism folks with virtual units and then you have groups of friends just screwing around having fun in dcs.  It’s all in the sim already you just have to find it and exploit it.

Edited April 19, 2022 by rcjonessnp175

[unlikely_spider]

3 minutes ago, rcjonessnp175 said:

Enjoy the struggle and enjoy the hard work it pays off,  this is something the modern society has lost touched with in my opinion

I agree, at least from a narrow gaming perspective. Too many games have arrows, minimaps, aim assist, and generally hand hold you throughout the whole thing. And if you want a flying experience that does that, there are plenty of other choices.

Hopefully the success of Elden Ring shows that people are still hungry for difficult single player experiences. I think DCS is in the same vein. The reward from performing your first good carrier landing, AAR, or pinpoint guided bomb on a target from 20k feet, is much greater than it would be if everything in this sim were gamified and arcadey.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

And yet most players are SP type and there are multitude of great campaigns and missions with pro voice acting and cool stories, some offer more relaxed play and some are painfully realistic.

They do, but the "game experience" could really be better. I wasn't talking about writing or anything with the missions themselves, since that varies by campaign, anyway, and for most part doesn't rely on ED (although they did make a few good campaigns, mostly Russian ones). Even in the best campaigns, AI is still dumb, UI is still bad and non-scripted comms are still sparse. A skilled mission maker can compensate, but it's not possible to teach AI how to dogfight properly, for instance. Also, a less clunky UI would really be appreciated.

There's a lot of good things about DCS, but mission presentation isn't one of these. The great campaigns are great despite it, but DCS could learn these things from other games. Even if we don't go all fancy with walking around the rec room talking to people, Wing Commander (or, for youngsters out there, SW: Squadrons) style, some way to get additional story material in besides the briefings and in-mission comms would be appreciated.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Dragon1-1