Disable autostart sequence in a mission

[Zeagle]

I see it as another option, much like a password or weather. Both of those knock out most of the gamer types on initial contact. I also sprinkle in wake turbulence and the requirement to monitor guard. That usually starts all kinds of hand wringing, gnashing of teeth, and arm flailing from those same types.

[cfrag]

26 minutes ago, Zeagle said:

As a pilot, I find it laughable that people cannot be bothered to do a short startup procedure.

As a pilot I couldn't give a rat's ass what other people do in their cockpit to enjoy DCS, and there are (many) days where I'm happy to skip start-up entirely (hot-start when available, or autostart for a coffee). Thank god we aren't made to also attend pre-briefs, do METAR and W&B, nor file flight-plans, so skipping over start-up is entirely in line with those other QoL improvements for this game.  

[Zeagle]

I forgot bird strikes and random failures. I also add those in. 

[cfrag]

29 minutes ago, Zeagle said:

That usually starts all kinds of hand wringing, gnashing of teeth, and arm flailing from those same types

That's an entirely viable gating function for your server's population. Those types who like your particular set of rules will enjoy it, and are delighted to find like-minded people on your server; everyone else will be happy to find their entertainment elsewhere, on servers with a different gating function. Neither playstyle is better; they are just different, and it makes sense to pre-select your population to increase cohesion within your community.

Personally, if I prefer a more casual flying style - and don't think it's better or worse than others. That's the beauty of DCS: different experiences for different people  

Edited September 17, 2022 by cfrag

[Zeagle]

And night ops. I do those too. 

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, shagrat said:

I can't.

Ok I know it’s bending the rules here so here’s some hints

The major civ flight sim “X” made a failed arcade spin-off in 2012

The biggest selling WWII eastern front combat flight sim morphed into a console version in 2009. 

A racing sim title that saw sim version “2” go to arcade release “3”

 

And looking at the Hornet you can see the  “use it or lose it effect” right here. There is only one cold start mission included with the module. If the devs see that something isn’t being used, why incorporate it?

Edited September 17, 2022 by SharpeXB

[shagrat]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb SharpeXB:

Ok I know it’s bending the rules here so here’s some hints

The major civ flight sim “X” made a failed arcade spin-off in 2012

The biggest selling WWII eastern front combat flight sim morphed into a console version in 2009. 

A racing sim title that saw sim version “2” go to arcade release “3”

 

And looking at the Hornet you can see the  “use it or lose it effect” right here. There is only one cold start mission included with the module. If the devs see that something isn’t being used, why incorporate it?

 

I can guarantee, the missing cold starts in the included missions, have nothing(!) to do with what you think.

It's as I said before, the missions require to start/get airborne in a certain time, to play out as deigned. The trainings, very obviously focus on the aspect of training a particular task or weapon type, not in training a complete mission.

I personally do cold start all the time, as I am way faster than with autostart, about 99% of the players I know, do the same... What we regularly do is, after disconnects, taxi warping fails etc. use hotstart slots or autostart to don't go crazy. But that's getting rare, as DCS netcode is pretty stable since quite some time.

As for the games, these were designed as spin-offs or separate/new games.

Not changed.

If a company decides to stop investing into development intense simulation software and produce "chicken shoot 7", I am pretty sure it is not because a couple customers did not use every feature of the former product.

And if you read closely what Nick & Co. said about the motivation and why they do what they do, you will realize it does not remotely matter to them if people do puristic cold starts or hot starts.

People that put a dangling(!) air-refresher tree in the cabin of a KAMAZ truck that isn't even remotely visible from any plane attacking said truck, just because they can and want(!) to do this kind of detail, don't care about the usage of a feature.

If that would be a valid concern, we would have seen "balanced" gameplay, perks, respawn points, etc. a long time ago.

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, shagrat said:

I can guarantee, the missing cold starts in the included missions, have nothing(!) to do with what you think.

It's as I said before, the missions require to start/get airborne in a certain time, to play out as deigned. The trainings, very obviously focus on the aspect of training a particular task or weapon type, not in training a complete mission.

What other reason could there be? And these aren’t the training missions, for example the included campaign is all hot starts. All other campaigns I’ve seen are cold. 

[Mars Exulte]

6 hours ago, shagrat said:

People that put a dangling(!) air-refresher tree in the cabin of a KAMAZ truck that isn't even remotely visible from any plane attacking said truck, just because they can and want(!) to do this kind of detail, don't care about the usage of a feature.

 Is this hyperbole or did they really do that? I've never examined the trucks that closely lol

[shagrat]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Mars Exulte:

 Is this hyperbole or did they really do that? I've never examined the trucks that closely lol

They actually did! ...and an Ak-47 on the passenger seat.

[shagrat]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb SharpeXB:

What other reason could there be? And these aren’t the training missions, for example the included campaign is all hot starts. All other campaigns I’ve seen are cold. 

"Rising Squall" isn't... And funny enough, though I am not really fond of this kind of gameplay, I really enjoyed the couple missions. Lot's of nostalgia and so much 80ies/90ies vibes.

But I know what you mean and "Rising Squall" is of course a very special exception.

For people new to DCS the included trainings, missions and campaigns are usually the first point of contact after trying a Quickstart "Free flight" mission. Especially with the 14-days trial options and over a dozen modules it is paramount to give newbies something to do AND enjoy, apart from multiplayer, as still a majority isn't doing multiplayer a lot or at all 

Thus it is important to not "weed" out customers before they even had a chance to get airborne and see a major part of what DCS missions are like. That's the hand holding part, where you can actually start into DCS without multiple years experience in other hardcore flight simulators, or a professional aviation/military background.

The other issue is, that the mission designer sets a start time for the mission that influences time of daylight available/reaching the target in twilight, darkness or after dawn etc. that's influenced by the mission start time and take off/time to target. The aircraft starting and setting up CAP, CAS, maybe SEAD, have a TOT defined in the flight plan (waypoints) and this difficult concert (unlike MP where you can simply ask your buddies flying SEAD to wait at the tanker or whatever) the mission designer needs to ensure the player is in the target area in a certain time window. If the player manages startup very quick, he ends up waiting for his T/O time, or if he just starts and ignores this detail, he is early to the party. If he takes longer, he will fall behind the schedule and may arrive on target after dawn and faces overwhelming odds, his CAP is refueling or RTB etc.

So many mission ensure the planned outcome and kinda "balance" the environment, by making sure you can take off in time to have the mission work as intended.

It's certainly not to ensure players don't do cold starts... The stuff coming with the modules is by design more accessible. The paid campaigns in cooperation with ex-military pilots, that try recreation of real world procedures, realistic scenarios and advertise as sporting most realistic procedures including radio operations, navigation etc. is a different thing. That's where the customer decides "Rising Squall" vs. "Zone 5" based on his preference, same as with the game settings.

The important part is, that ED is very clear about their own stance. They want(!) to create realistic and as complete as possible (restrictions, classified stuff, public available material) military flight simulations and not compete with "casual flight games". This isn't driven by customer demands, but what they and the 3rd party developers want and can create. That's why module choices sometimes seem detached from the customer wishlist and despite a constant request for better "balancing" we still have faithfully created aircraft and weapon systems that try to resemble their real world counterparts as best as possible, instead of a class matching system with simplified performance parameters to even the playing field...

 

[Zeagle]

5 hours ago, shagrat said:

They actually did! ...and an Ak-47 on the passenger seat.

I have seen the Ak47. I will have to go look for the air freshener.

[Exorcet]

21 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The major civ flight sim “X” made a failed arcade spin-off in 2012

And Flight went on to be terribly unpopular and was followed up by a true FSX successor, MSFS 2020.

21 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The biggest selling WWII eastern front combat flight sim morphed into a console version in 2009.

2 years later, IL-2 went back to PC, and then 2 years after that remained on PC. They made a MAC for consoles one time, what is the big deal?

21 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

A racing sim title that saw sim version “2” go to arcade release “3”

Not sure what this one is, but I know Forza Motorsport spun off into Horizon which seemed to have a new sequel every month. This didn't kill Motorsport which is developing its latest iteration to satisfy sim drivers.

21 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

 

And looking at the Hornet you can see the  “use it or lose it effect” right here. There is only one cold start mission included with the module. If the devs see that something isn’t being used, why incorporate it?

 

First of all what proof is there that something isn't being used? DCS isn't just Hornet campaigns. Every mission that I've uploaded to the DCS user files is cold start except for one dealing with the Supercarrier because at the time I made it there were some issues with placing aircraft on the deck. Autostart is no thread to cold start. It's a simple option for those who wish to use it, and those that do use it don't suddenly become taxiway kamikazes for no reason.

[AG-51_Sabot]

I'm all for letting the mission builder determine if he/she/it want's everyone to cold start or have the Autostart enabled. It won't make a difference on the multiplayer servers except for those hawking around the airfield for an easy kill.

[Zeagle]

In a properly designed multiplayer scenario, there won't be any hawking around the airfield looking for an easy kill. Unless maybe in a parachute.

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, shagrat said:

"Rising Squall" isn't... And funny enough, though I am not really fond of this kind of gameplay, I really enjoyed the couple missions. Lot's of nostalgia and so much 80ies/90ies vibes.

But I know what you mean and "Rising Squall" is of course a very special exception.

For people new to DCS the included trainings, missions and campaigns are usually the first point of contact after trying a Quickstart "Free flight" mission. Especially with the 14-days trial options and over a dozen modules it is paramount to give newbies something to do AND enjoy, apart from multiplayer, as still a majority isn't doing multiplayer a lot or at all 

Thus it is important to not "weed" out customers before they even had a chance to get airborne and see a major part of what DCS missions are like. That's the hand holding part, where you can actually start into DCS without multiple years experience in other hardcore flight simulators, or a professional aviation/military background.

The other issue is, that the mission designer sets a start time for the mission that influences time of daylight available/reaching the target in twilight, darkness or after dawn etc. that's influenced by the mission start time and take off/time to target. The aircraft starting and setting up CAP, CAS, maybe SEAD, have a TOT defined in the flight plan (waypoints) and this difficult concert (unlike MP where you can simply ask your buddies flying SEAD to wait at the tanker or whatever) the mission designer needs to ensure the player is in the target area in a certain time window. If the player manages startup very quick, he ends up waiting for his T/O time, or if he just starts and ignores this detail, he is early to the party. If he takes longer, he will fall behind the schedule and may arrive on target after dawn and faces overwhelming odds, his CAP is refueling or RTB etc.

So many mission ensure the planned outcome and kinda "balance" the environment, by making sure you can take off in time to have the mission work as intended.

It's certainly not to ensure players don't do cold starts... The stuff coming with the modules is by design more accessible. The paid campaigns in cooperation with ex-military pilots, that try recreation of real world procedures, realistic scenarios and advertise as sporting most realistic procedures including radio operations, navigation etc. is a different thing. That's where the customer decides "Rising Squall" vs. "Zone 5" based on his preference, same as with the game settings.

The important part is, that ED is very clear about their own stance. They want(!) to create realistic and as complete as possible (restrictions, classified stuff, public available material) military flight simulations and not compete with "casual flight games". This isn't driven by customer demands, but what they and the 3rd party developers want and can create. That's why module choices sometimes seem detached from the customer wishlist and despite a constant request for better "balancing" we still have faithfully created aircraft and weapon systems that try to resemble their real world counterparts as best as possible, instead of a class matching system with simplified performance parameters to even the playing field...

When I referred the included missions I mentioned that this wasn’t about the training or practice missions. For example the included campaign Task Force Challenger is all hot starts. Sure it might be extra work in the ME but it’s obviously capable of allowing for cold starts as there are so many other missions and campaigns in DCS which feature that. 

[shagrat]

vor einer Stunde schrieb AG-51_Sabot:

I'm all for letting the mission builder determine if he/she/it want's everyone to cold start or have the Autostart enabled. It won't make a difference on the multiplayer servers except for those hawking around the airfield for an easy kill.

Not even this, because autostart isn't faster than a manual cold start, if you at least know what you are doing. The cold versus hot start is already a decision made by the mission builder (he can force all slots cold, hot, ready on runway or even a mix of slots, for example add hot starts for respawns, if he sees a need for it).

As I said, I can't see a real benefit for a denial option for autostarts, other than a way to micromanage other players and worst case drive them away, but if this is a popular request and an option, ok. Though a waste of development time, in my eyes.

[shagrat]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb SharpeXB:

When I referred the included missions I mentioned that this wasn’t about the training or practice missions. For example the included campaign Task Force Challenger is all hot starts. Sure it might be extra work in the ME but it’s obviously capable of allowing for cold starts as there are so many other missions and campaigns in DCS which feature that. 

I explained the reasons in the post you cited. The great thing about the included campaigns is, you can simply copy those to your Saved Games/User/DCS World/Missions/Campaigns folder and then set the player aircraft to "Start from ramp cold" in the Mission Editor.

The argument was, if missions don't use cold start, ED will start to remove cold starts  ( "use it or lose it" )... Though I don't really understand how this would work, as you need to remove the switchology AND system modelling on so many levels, that is basically the core of every DCS module. Given the influx of FC3 level modules during the last 15 years, I doubt there is trend to "simplify" the system modeling on any level. Looking at the modules delivered, in development or announced it looks like we get more detailed and in depth flight, system and cockpit modeling, more multicrew, more weapon systems, more integration of Datalink, IFF, complex comms and even things like briefing room on the carrier etc. so the trend is definitely "more realism" than less.

Thus I don't think your "use it or lose it" message of doom holds any merit... 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, shagrat said:

Thus I don't think your "use it or lose it" message of doom holds any merit... 

Well we will see what happens if MAC ever becomes reality. Perhaps it will draw away 90% of DCS players who can then have similar realism without all the difficulty. Maybe MAC isn’t such a good idea…

Back to the OP. Certainly people in multiplayer want to play with or against others of similar skill and gameplay style. I can hardly think of a better filter to accomplish that than to require manual starts. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by SharpeXB

[Exorcet]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Back to the OP. Certainly people in multiplayer want to play with or against others of similar skill and gameplay style. I can hardly think of a better filter to accomplish that than to require manual starts. 

 

Starting the plane has literally nothing to do with skill though. F-16 pilots don't automatically win against F-15's because they have more buttons to press.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

Starting the plane has literally nothing to do with skill though. F-16 pilots don't automatically win against F-15's because they have more buttons to press.

Again, I can hardly think of a better skill/realism/difficulty setting than forcing manual starts. It would certainly act as a filter for gameplay style and player types. And filtering players is really important in MP
If it was possible to do it would be a great idea. And it probably is possible to a certain degree, the start procedure is more than just keystrokes that can be spit out by a macro since part of this involves the aircraft knowing it’s location to enter gps or to know whether it’s on land or the boat. Some interface with the game itself must be necessary and that part could possibly be controlled. 
And it would add an actual gameplay reason to learn the startup. Giving players a reason to learn something is the best training tool after all. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by SharpeXB

[shagrat]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb SharpeXB:

Well we will see what happens if MAC ever becomes reality. Perhaps it will draw away 90% of DCS players who can then have similar realism without all the difficulty. Maybe MAC isn’t such a good idea…

Back to the OP. Certainly people in multiplayer want to play with or against others of similar skill and gameplay style. I can hardly think of a better filter to accomplish that than to require manual starts. 

 

Best option to achieve this in my opinion is a Discord to get to know each other and use a private server.

I would try communicating agreed upon rules. I don't know how many casual players would actually join a server where you do a briefing, everybody else goes through startup manually and taxies , while they still wait for alignment, but honestly, if this is really a problem and you get lots of air-quakers, this could indeed discourage even more. Still from my point of view locking the server is maybe a better solution.

Or what Zeagle said: crank the realism options up to full. Though I think birdstrikes without birds are not for me and the random failures can be very frustrating, as not every module had them, yet, and if you are the poor sod that's in the only module getting hit by failures that make you abort mission and divert... Maybe fun once or twice in a row, but it gets old pretty quick.

 

[shagrat]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb SharpeXB:

And it would add an actual gameplay reason to learn the startup. Giving players a reason to learn something is the best training tool after all. 

Maybe, but I guess it still won't work as a way to change a mindset. People that look for casual game style, or air-quake won't see a benefit to learn the startup procedure, same as they won't bother to understand the aircraft systems or learn navigation, beyond what's necessary to shoot stuff.

The other group that is interested in aviation, wants to understand the aircraft, learn how it is done in real life and enjoy the study part of study-sim, won't need filters or controls, but help and support while learning. That's where the hand holding and DCS' multiplayer community shines. If there is someone who wants to learn he can with the training and reading, asking, but also join a dedicated group that will help induce him into DCS just fine and he'll quickly learn (and understand why) taxiway take-offs are a no-no unless explicitly ordered.

As for the rest, they usually don't stick around long.

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, shagrat said:

Best option to achieve this in my opinion is a Discord to get to know each other and use a private server.

You don’t need to discuss rules if they’re just enforced by the game. Nobody discusses any other rules, like labels etc. 

2 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's where the hand holding and DCS' multiplayer community shines. If there is someone who wants to learn he can with the training and reading, asking, but also join a dedicated group that will help induce him into DCS

Training servers would be a great place to enforce the manual start, learn by doing

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Again, I can hardly think of a better skill/realism/difficulty setting than forcing manual starts. It would certainly act as a filter for gameplay style and player types. And filtering players is really important in MP

If my goal was to bring together like minded players, an autostart ban wouldn't even cross my mind as being useful. For one thing, you wouldn't even be able to tell if it was active or not, just like it's not possible to tell FC3 aircraft from full fidelity ones when you're not flying them.

Things that might actually have an impact would be enforcing check in with human ATC/Command and Control, having players fly together as actual flights with a defined goal, having rules of engagement, etc. Those things would at least shape the nature of the server and give some kind of indication of the intended experience. A server that just bans autostarts on the other hand just leaves one wondering "what's the point?".

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And it would add an actual gameplay reason to learn the startup. Giving players a reason to learn something is the best training tool after all.

If people don't want to learn they'll just find another server. Forcing players to deal with something they have no interest in is a sure fire way to get them to hate it and possibly ask for its removal. Learning is best when it comes naturally. I honestly feel that trying to find the subset of people that you agree with will work out better than trying to make people conform to what you want.