Enforced Graphics settings for Multiplayer

[sirrah]

9 hours ago, draconus said:

I don't care for the OP wish but, yeah, I don't get how modern games still allow turning off the shadows. Managing the quality and quantity for performance, ok, but turning off altogether is reversing years of computer graphics development. If you can run DCS, you can run with simple shadows too.

There are already things you can't turn off in settings like clouds, fog, min. of 30% trees visibility or collision with objects and ground.

As someone with a "low-ish end" VR pc, enforcing higher graphics settings (such as shadows) would mean I couldn't join those servers (properly populated servers are already scarce).

 

Honestly, when I saw this thread title I thought it was meant a joke.. I mean, sure, this is a wish list, you are free to wish whatever you want of course and no offence meant mate, but you can't be serious about forcing people to use high gfx settings, are you? Not that I think that any server owner would embrace this idea, but let's for arguement sake assume they would, that would mean that DCS PVP would only be available to those with high end (€2500+) systems?

 

I said it before on this forum, imho people should start and let go that extreme urge for balanced PVP in DCS. It will never be balanced and there will always be stuff to complain about when you get shot down... I mean:

• First some folks started battering on people who use VR (they stick their heads through the canopy OMG!1!!)..
• Now you want to force everyone to use high resolutions, full shadows and what not..
• Next.. He's using a €1000,- hotas set and I'm using a €500,- set, that ain't fair! Boohoo!
• Next.. He attacked me with a Viper while I was flying a Hornet
• Next.. He attacked me from cover of mountains, whereas I was flying oversees
• Next.. >place your excuse here<

 

Let's skip all the future discussions and force PVP servers to setup missions with:

• Mouse and keyboard use only
• 4K flatscreen only
• Graphics ultra only
• Map with water only and no wind
• Single aircraft type only (with same skins)
• Players start at exactly the same time, altitude, speed, etc.
• etc.

See where I'm getting at?

Edited April 12, 2023 by sirrah

[Mr_Blastman]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

If winning means that much to you, you may want to re-evaluate what you are doing, or restrict your play group to like-minded people.

If winning at all costs did not matter so much to folks then they would not be against servers having an option to enforce certain settings to create a level battlefield experience for all players.

 

But it does.  That's why they get upset.  Because someone might take their magic trick away that hands them a crutch to lean on.

Pathetic, really.  I saw the same arguments years ago in competitive StarCraft regarding macros.  So many whined that they couldn't have macros banned, that they gave no advantages and everything was fine.  Except the reality was the exact opposite.  Same held true in competitive Quake, Team Fortress, even TF2.  So spare me the excuses, everyone.   I have seen them all.

 

I honestly wasn't aware that cloud shadows, etc. could be turned off to such a degree until Youtube randomly recommended the original video in my feed.  Never crossed my mind.  But here we are.  I think such settings are great for single player, but it would be nice if a server that wanted to enforce settings could.  Folks would know right away this is the case, and if the server pop suffers as a result, well, then that is the case.

 

There's nothing wrong with the option if ED were to implement.

 

I think everyone can agree one of the glaring issues with DCS has always been target spotting.  Face it--it's pretty crummy.  Visibility is harsh and always has been, all the way back to LOMAC days.  They have never addressed this like other sims have and may never do so.  That's why folks play around with settings to turn off stuff to make spotting easier.

 

But make no mistake, giving one player magic night vision goggles while the rest fumble around in a dark room doesn't make for a sporting environment to play in.  An admin could enforce this, should they choose.  That's what having this option is about.

[cfrag]

11 minutes ago, Mr_Blastman said:

If winning at all costs did not matter so much to folks then they would not be against servers having an option to enforce certain settings to create a level battlefield experience for all players.

Let me be frank: It seems to me that you have an issue with losing some engagements, attribute this to other people cheating, and now clamor for a third party to provide a magic bullet so you can be vindicated.

I don't think it's worth the strong emotions you have invested in this already. I suggest you ask yourself why this issue bothers you so much, and then let it go. We are here to have fun. There is no enforceable server option 'players have fun'. That is up to you. 

[Cab]

51 minutes ago, Mr_Blastman said:

If winning at all costs did not matter so much to folks then they would not be against servers having an option to enforce certain settings to create a level battlefield experience for all players.

 

But it does.  That's why they get upset.  Because someone might take their magic trick away that hands them a crutch to lean on.

Pathetic, really.  I saw the same arguments years ago in competitive StarCraft regarding macros.  So many whined that they couldn't have macros banned, that they gave no advantages and everything was fine.  Except the reality was the exact opposite.  Same held true in competitive Quake, Team Fortress, even TF2.  So spare me the excuses, everyone.   I have seen them all.

 

I honestly wasn't aware that cloud shadows, etc. could be turned off to such a degree until Youtube randomly recommended the original video in my feed.  Never crossed my mind.  But here we are.  I think such settings are great for single player, but it would be nice if a server that wanted to enforce settings could.  Folks would know right away this is the case, and if the server pop suffers as a result, well, then that is the case.

 

There's nothing wrong with the option if ED were to implement.

 

I think everyone can agree one of the glaring issues with DCS has always been target spotting.  Face it--it's pretty crummy.  Visibility is harsh and always has been, all the way back to LOMAC days.  They have never addressed this like other sims have and may never do so.  That's why folks play around with settings to turn off stuff to make spotting easier.

 

But make no mistake, giving one player magic night vision goggles while the rest fumble around in a dark room doesn't make for a sporting environment to play in.  An admin could enforce this, should they choose.  That's what having this option is about.

There can be no true competitive play in DCS in its current state. There are way too many exploits available to players to make it work, not to mention the out-right cheats the really clever ones come up with.

[Minhal]

I support OP in his wish to have server options for graphical minimum settings everyone has to stick to when joining the server.

ED is caring for competitive play, they put changes in different lua files, like the autostart sequence, on the "breaks IC" list. Same with graphical mods like Bartheks textures, which break IC. Saying ED does not intend DCS to be competitive is nonsense, sorry. ED is even advertising and sponsoring competitive tournaments like SATAC.

Technically, on join the client settings could be checked vs. the required ones and pop up a window stating the settings that need to be changed. Working similar to missing mods if you try to join such servers. "To join, your A setting needs to be B. Your C setting needs to be D". At this point everyone is free to to either change the settings accordingly or join another server.

[BIGNEWY]

People, please be nice to each other when giving feedback. 

We are looking at this discussion, we have also seen the video. 

At this time I have no input to give officially. 

---------------------------

From a personal point of view enforcing graphics settings in general multiplayer is not a good idea, the settings are there for people who run lower end systems to tweak so they can play and enjoy with everyone else. 

I could see an enforced setting working however for competitive matches, but it would have to within reason ( settings to medium for example ). IC is there to stop some of the major cheats, and we have done a lot of work with IC, but cheats are out there sadly. 

 

[Minhal]

10 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

People, please be nice to each other when giving feedback. 

We are looking at this discussion, we have also seen the video. 

At this time I have no input to give officially. 

---------------------------

From a personal point of view enforcing graphics settings in general multiplayer is not a good idea, the settings are there for people who run lower end systems to tweak so they can play and enjoy with everyone else. 

I could see an enforced setting working however for competitive matches, but it would have to within reason ( settings to medium for example ). IC is there to stop some of the major cheats, and we have done a lot of work with IC, but cheats are out there sadly. 

 

Thanks for chiming in and letting us know ED recognized the topic

For your personal thoughts about general multiplayer: i think it would be no problem as there is a wide range of servers out there, so very low spec people will always have their niche. In PvE for example you have servers with lots of ground units and heavy scripting. Players with low specs definitely have issues there and will probably pick servers with lower unit count. I feel the same for graphical minimums on PvP servers. Probably not all servers which offer PvP would enforce such settings but likely the most active and busy only, there will always be room for everyone somewhere. Also please keep in mind these minimum requirements would not equal "all max" but be in a range most users probably use already. The bar should just be high enough, which is above the bare possible minimum settings some folks delibarately set to gain an advantage.

Cheers for your time!

[Furiz]

Bottom line is that any kind of enforcing will leave some people out, that's not what we want. After all they are not cheating and anyone can set any graphic setting they want.

[Minhal]

1 minute ago, Furiz said:

Bottom line is that any kind of enforcing will leave some people out, that's not what we want. After all they are not cheating and anyone can set any graphic setting they want.

In the end it should be up to the server owners to decide which rules are to be followed on their turf. They are usually the ones paying the bills, they are doing all the admin work, keep missions up to date, promote their servers, do community building, and all that jazz. Their house, their rules. (Agreed, if a server is funded by donations, the donators should probably have a say too). This rule setting is already done by asking for a certain behaviour in the briefing and restricting what can be restricted currently via mission design. Minimum graphics settings would just be another layer of options.

The great thing about DCS is, that everyone can run a server themselves and set the rules.

[Furiz]

9 minutes ago, Minhal said:

In the end it should be up to the server owners to decide which rules are to be followed on their turf. They are usually the ones paying the bills, they are doing all the admin work, keep missions up to date, promote their servers, do community building, and all that jazz. Their house, their rules. (Agreed, if a server is funded by donations, the donators should probably have a say too). This rule setting is already done by asking for a certain behaviour in the briefing and restricting what can be restricted currently via mission design. Minimum graphics settings would just be another layer of options.

The great thing about DCS is, that everyone can run a server themselves and set the rules.

No, you got it all wrong, its not about their house their rules, no1 is breaking their rules. Behaviour rules are one thing, behaviour can be adjusted by everyone, its that easy. Don't team kill on my server - done. No swearing - done.

But buy 1000€ graphics card is not done easy or even possible at all for everyone. There are huge differences in income around the world and computer parts prices are nearly the same globally.

So don't try to make this the same as behaviour rules, cause its not the same.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Furiz

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Minhal said:

i think it would be no problem as there is a wide range of servers out there

There’s really not. There are only about 3-4 well populated PvP servers. So like it or not whatever settings those servers choose to run is effectively forced on the entire game. The problem in asking for so many different mp options, and there are enough already, is that there aren’t enough servers to support all these choices.  

[cfrag]

14 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

is that there aren’t enough servers to support all these choices.

I tend to disagree, but only because I have a slightly different viewpoint: There are more than enough servers today. There are way too few on-line players. If there were more players online, more servers would come ("if they come, we will build them" - with apologies to "Field of Dreams"). As it is right now, most servers have next to no players, and there is very little incentive to run one except for enthusiasts (to spell it out: all except a handful of DCS dedicated servers can't be monetized because too little player engagement. If that changes, so will the server landscape). 

I submit, it's currently unlikely to fragment the server landscape further (e.g. with the upcoming two new maps Sinai and Normy 2): there will still exactly the same lamentably small number of players around - they don't go away. They'll flock to the server that best suits their need. So most server owners run only those maps that are popular: they want their servers to be popular. Same goes for server options. If you run an unpopular option, your server gets mercilessly abandoned by the few people who frequented it. So developing an unpopular server option has null impact on the server landscape - it simply won't be used. It's mostly sunk cost that could be better used for other, more popular features (for example - just to poke you - AAR helpers )

I hope that ED intensify their efforts to make their great DCS a more broadly accepted on-line game, so more people come to on-line play. Broader acceptance and greater appeal can translate into more servers and therefore a broader server selection. The more the merrier, so to speak. This particular wish-list item may not contribute an option that makes a server more popular (restrictive options seldom do), but other options might. There have been great suggestions how DCS could open up further to on-line play or better internet integration (integrated friend finder, discovery of missions submitted by other players, submitting missions from ME). So here's to hoping for a bright DCS MP future.

[SharpeXB]

43 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I tend to disagree, but only because I have a slightly different viewpoint: There are more than enough servers today. There are way too few on-line players. If there were more players online, more servers would come ("if they come, we will build them" - with apologies to "Field of Dreams"). As it is right now, most servers have next to no players, and there is very little incentive to run one except for enthusiasts (to spell it out: all except a handful of DCS dedicated servers can't be monetized because too little player engagement. If that changes, so will the server landscape). 

I submit, it's currently unlikely to fragment the server landscape further (e.g. with the upcoming two new maps Sinai and Normy 2): there will still exactly the same lamentably small number of players around - they don't go away. They'll flock to the server that best suits their need. So most server owners run only those maps that are popular: they want their servers to be popular. Same goes for server options. If you run an unpopular option, your server gets mercilessly abandoned by the few people who frequented it. So developing an unpopular server option has null impact on the server landscape - it simply won't be used. It's mostly sunk cost that could be better used for other, more popular features (for example - just to poke you - AAR helpers )

I hope that ED intensify their efforts to make their great DCS a more broadly accepted on-line game, so more people come to on-line play. Broader acceptance and greater appeal can translate into more servers and therefore a broader server selection. The more the merrier, so to speak. This particular wish-list item may not contribute an option that makes a server more popular (restrictive options seldom do), but other options might. There have been great suggestions how DCS could open up further to on-line play or better internet integration (integrated friend finder, discovery of missions submitted by other players, submitting missions from ME). So here's to hoping for a bright DCS MP future.

This type of game will just never be highly attended online. That’s just due to its very nature. So given that, if you’re looking for a specific scenario like PvP modern non-airquake (ie Growling Sidewinder) your choices are Blue Flag Modern, Blue Flag 80s and DDCS. That’s it. WWII is almost entirely vacant. Enigma Cold War is well attended. Anything else has maybe 2-3 players on it since players will gravitate to the full servers. 

[cfrag]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Anything else has maybe 2-3 players on it since players will gravitate to the full servers. 

Agreed. So how can this be improved?

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Agreed. So how can this be improved?

It can’t due to the nature of this game. This sim requires you to stay connected and play online for quite a long time. You can’t pause it or play in short sessions the way you can play an FPS game for example. Then there’s the complexity of the sim itself and the hardware required and so on. So this will always be a niche game, especially online. 

[cfrag]

Hmmm. While I agree that the challenges are there, and they seem daunting, I refuse to assume a defeatist stance. Maybe the way DCS is today is geared towards long engagements. That being said, not all missions have to be that way: the Rescue servers, for example, allow for short, 10-15 minute missions -- or longer, more elaborate flights, it's up to you. Certainly, that's not everyone cup of tea, but it's a good example that some out-of-the-box thinking, coupled with mission design ingenuity and the will to try something new can change the needle.

Upcoming modules like the Herc can foster new types of supply mission that, due to the short distances in most maps, can help to bring 15-20 minute missions for more casual players, similar to the rescue missions. Again, not for everyone, but every step, no matter how small, counts. Good ideas, even if initially laughed at, can advance DCS. We don't necessarily all need large, deep and highly accurate mission profiles. At least not for every mission: missions structured like Foothold can do wonders to engage people in shorter, self-assigned and more casual mission profiles that can make DCS much more popular while still avoiding arcade feelings.

I flatter myself that I am a bit more optimistic, and I am willing to enthusiastically try new things. With some luck, it makes DCS better and everyone more happy.

[Why485]

6 hours ago, Mr_Blastman said:

I think everyone can agree one of the glaring issues with DCS has always been target spotting.  Face it--it's pretty crummy.  Visibility is harsh and always has been, all the way back to LOMAC days.  They have never addressed this like other sims have and may never do so.  That's why folks play around with settings to turn off stuff to make spotting easier.

Seems to me the better and more universal solution to your problem would be improvements to spotting and visibility.

[upyr1]

As long as it is optional and players are warned. I would be fine with the feature. There are two reasons people will turn down their graphics the first is they don't have a powerful computer the other is to take advantage of graphics glitches. 

[SharpeXB]

13 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Hmmm. While I agree that the challenges are there, and they seem daunting, I refuse to assume a defeatist stance. Maybe the way DCS is today is geared towards long engagements. That being said, not all missions have to be that way: the Rescue servers, for example, allow for short, 10-15 minute missions -- or longer, more elaborate flights, it's up to you. Certainly, that's not everyone cup of tea, but it's a good example that some out-of-the-box thinking, coupled with mission design ingenuity and the will to try something new can change the needle.

Upcoming modules like the Herc can foster new types of supply mission that, due to the short distances in most maps, can help to bring 15-20 minute missions for more casual players, similar to the rescue missions. Again, not for everyone, but every step, no matter how small, counts. Good ideas, even if initially laughed at, can advance DCS. We don't necessarily all need large, deep and highly accurate mission profiles. At least not for every mission: missions structured like Foothold can do wonders to engage people in shorter, self-assigned and more casual mission profiles that can make DCS much more popular while still avoiding arcade feelings.

I flatter myself that I am a bit more optimistic, and I am willing to enthusiastically try new things. With some luck, it makes DCS better and everyone more happy.

It’s certainly possible to create air-spawn action servers in DCS. I don’t think most people buy a sim like this for that type of gameplay. And even that requires more attention than the live-die-repeat cycle of a fast paced shooter game. 
Actually having quick action air start is problematic for modern BVR because you’d need to respawn perhaps 100 miles or more away from the enemy.

[cfrag]

47 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Actually having quick action air start is problematic for modern BVR because you’d need to respawn perhaps 100 miles or more away from the enemy.

Perhaps. That's why I said I like some "out-of-the-box" thinking. BVR air start is problematic for you and me only under some premises. It poses no problem for me when I'm flying a helo rescue mission. DCS isn't all about modern fighters engaging each other. It's also that, and a lot more. I'm happy to shoot some approaches on a carrier for half an hour one evening, then fly a few fire-fighting missions in the Mi-8 the next day, and perhaps a 2 hour mission on the week-end with my group doing some cold war stuff (I love the Tiger). Let's do other things than just more of the same. For me it's not the Bug all the way, all the time. I switch it up, and have some fun doing that. Then again, other people like to stay focused - you appear someone to revel in mastery of a single craft. As long as you have fun, that's pretty much the best you can do. Other people, including me, are different. That's the great advantage of DCS: variety. And it's a great chance to attract people - people who are different from you and I.

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, cfrag said:

DCS isn't all about modern fighters engaging each other

Right. Look at all the ground attack modules for example. You can’t really put those into an air quake environment and they’re a big part of DCS. The appealing mission design for those IMO are the full mission dynamic war type servers like Blue Flag or DDCS. I like those personally. And they actually draw a good number of players. But again DCS won’t have thousands of people online doing those things due the obvious restraints. DCS won’t have numbers online like big online games unless you dumbed it down to be just like those which at some level isn’t even possible. 

[upyr1]

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Right. Look at all the ground attack modules for example. You can’t really put those into an air quake environment and they’re a big part of DCS. The appealing mission design for those IMO are the full mission dynamic war type servers like Blue Flag or DDCS. I like those personally. And they actually draw a good number of players. But again DCS won’t have thousands of people online doing those things due the obvious restraints. DCS won’t have numbers online like big online games unless you dumbed it down to be just like those which at some level isn’t even possible. 

This is why I keep asking for naval and land modules. The only way to expand the dcs user base is to cover other aspects of mil Sims. 

[Mr_Blastman]

4 hours ago, Why485 said:

Seems to me the better and more universal solution to your problem would be improvements to spotting and visibility.

This would be ideal but I do not think that would be an easy solution to implement by ED at all.  They would have to not only come up with an acceptable dot system, but also refactor all LOD models of every object in the game, likely at a minimum.  Very time consuming and an expensive use of resources.

 

And that still would not solve the contrast issue of a plane against a dark, shadow enshrouded landscape, versus another player seeing that entire landscape brightly and clearly lit without shadows.  DCS with core rendering has a contrast issue where objects tend to blend into one another.

 

We need a middle ground here that is easy to implement and requires minimal resources from ED.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Mr_Blastman

[Mars Exulte]

6 hours ago, cfrag said:

Agreed. So how can this be improved?

 It can't. Just the nature of flight sims in general and DCS in particular. It's the nerdiest end of the nerd spectrum and we are grossly outnumbered. It's no different over there at War Thunder, a much simpler game. It's a smallish population in general, although it dwarfs this one, and the bulk of it is in the arcade section. The realistic and simulation side of the community was basically the same few hundred people and we mostly all kinda got to recognise each other.

DCS is like that times 50. The massive time commitment required to operate most the aircraft to a useful level means 90% of people literally can't play, or just offline because they're enthusiasts. Everyone in DCS is an enthusiast, but of them, only a few have the time to be online a significant amount. DCS total online population is only a few hundred active people, with another few hundred to thousand infrequent.

Nothing about that is ever going to change. DCS is small and will remain so. Go try to get a few of your friends to play. Note how basically all of them will remark it's cool, but then not actually be interested in doing it themselves. It is what it is.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Mr_Blastman said:

We need a middle ground here that is easy to implement and requires minimal resources from ED.

That middle ground would mean forcing the moving cloud shadows on for everyone. I think that’s probably too much of a performance hit especially for VR.