about the Strike Eagle...

[Flyby]

OK, I did a search and the F15E has been brought up plenty of times already. I'm just taking a turn at it too. ;) After reading the article in the link, I could not help but wonder if DCS will produce a two-seat strike fighter, and maybe even a tanker (AI, as in LO/FC). I know DCS likes to have the nth degree of knowledge about a given project, but a simple flight of fancy with some components or systems might not be too out of line. Would it? Read the article in the link, and you'll see the F15K variation of the Strike Eagle, electronics suites. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/

So a little imagination would not be a bad thing. After all, a few years back there were several F22 sims on the market, and don't forget the EF2000 series too. Great fun, and a little guess work to boot.

 

Anyway, drool over the idea of flying deep strikes in a multi-seat strike fighter in multiplayer (with yer bud in there with ya). Refuel on ingress, refuel on egress. Maybe fight your way in. Maybe fight your way out. The main thing is get there, pound the target then get out.

 

Hey Matt, it's ok if you guys dream a little. Dream us up a nice strike fighter as an addon.

Flyby out

Edited February 27, 2009 by Flyby
explosive diarrhea! gotta go!!!!

[EtherealN]

No.

No.

No.

No.

 

First of all, survey simming is something they have already done, and getting a two-seat jet isn't important enough to re-do it. Secondly, if they introduce survey elements into DCS they will have absolutely annihilated a brand that they have spent a lot of effort to build.

 

That said, if they were to find sufficient resources to make a study of the Tornado or Tomcat or, for that matter, two-seat Eagle, I'd be game for that. I would warn however that it is much more likely that they would get information for the F14 or Tornado than a top-line modern product like the F15K.

 

Edit: As a side-thought though, you could always look at starting up a team to create an F15E or F15K mod to LockOn...

[JDski]

Ef2000. I remember how 3dfx cards made that game run so smooth.

That was a cool game. Kind of a dark eerie atmosphere.

[Flyby]

EtherealN, "no no no no" but then you add: "That said, if they were to find sufficient resources to make a study of the Tornado or Tomcat or, for that matter, two-seat Eagle, I'd be game for that. I would warn however that it is much more likely that they would get information for the F14 or Tornado than a top-line modern product like the F15K." :huh: Jane's F15 Strike Eagle was a study sim, iirc. I'm not talking survey sims here. Although by the time DCS adds more planes/choppers to it's field the sim might appear to be a "survey" sim of sorts at first glance. Also, as I stated, maybe DCS could use a bit of "license" in fleshing out the electronic systems; do an approximation of what they suspect to be the true capabilities of those systems. Things can always be patched subsequent to the release.

 

"First of all, survey simming is something they have already done, and getting a two-seat jet isn't important enough to re-do it. Secondly, if they introduce survey elements into DCS they will have absolutely annihilated a brand that they have spent a lot of effort to build." IIRC DCS plans to release a dual-occupancy aircraft that can be occupied in a multiplayer setting. If that's true, then any two-place aircraft could be modeled (provided DCS has sufficient information to do it to it's standards.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just pointing out a few things from my perspective. I'm the first to admit I don't know the mindset of DCS. I'm just a hopeful guy.

 

JDski, I still have a DOS version of EF2000 somewhere. I recall paying $240.00 for a 3d Voodoo card many years ago. It had all of 2megs of memory, iirc.:D

Flyby out

[Dark-Light]

If they start implementing aircraft that they do not have comprehensive data for, this series is doomed. By using 'artistic license' or approximations, they lose the main draw (at least in my opinion) of the sim.

[sobek]

Also, as I stated, maybe DCS could use a bit of "license" in fleshing out the electronic systems; do an approximation of what they suspect to be the true capabilities of those systems. Things can always be patched subsequent to the release.

 

That is exactly what ED stated that they will NOT do, and this is what sets this sim apart from others. Why do you guys insist on planes for which guesswork would be necessary? It would negate the one part of this sim that is truly outstanding.

 

If they start implementing aircraft that they do not have comprehensive data for, this series is doomed. By using 'artistic license' or approximations, they lose the main draw (at least in my opinion) of the sim.

 

+6 :thumbup: IMHO exactly to the point.

Edited February 27, 2009 by sobek

[Flyby]

If they start implementing aircraft that they do not have comprehensive data for, this series is doomed. By using 'artistic license' or approximations, they lose the main draw (at least in my opinion) of the sim.

Well artistic license didn't stop Janes F/A 18, or F15E and those were fairly successful sims that are still being played today. Such license didn't stop LOMAC/FC from being enjoyed either. Sure there are performance issues that aren't "quite there". Ever read the complaints about Oleg's FMs in IL2? Oh and let's not forget Jane's Apache LongBow: still has a following and being played.

So, one might suspect that too much artistic license might lead to a less popular result and jeopardize the "main draw" of the sim. But with artistic license, done in moderation, the main draw can be preserved (as demonstrated by the sims I've mentioned here). Maybe I should have referred to it as technically artistic license? That might imply an intelligent extrapolation of capabilities based on varied and verifiable knowns(?). That's been done. Perhaps DCS can do that too. (at least in my opinion) No. I am not a purist.

Flyby out

Edited February 27, 2009 by Flyby

[sobek]

The premise for this sim was that only AC should be modeled on which sufficient data is readily available. Now that ED established this standard, you think they are going to throw it over board after 2 or so modules? Why can't you look over the fact that your favourite AC might not be in the sim for a long time, or not at all, and enjoy what you can have?

 

Although there are many aircraft i liked better when i learned about this sim, in the course of playing the game i came to appreciate the BS for it's merits and shortcomings.

 

While the sims you mentioned where all good in their own right, they focused on different things. It's like you get a nice banana and keep on talking to it because you want it to be a piece of ham, will the banana give a toss? Guesswork is not what this sim is about, what you talk about is a mixture of LockOn and DCS and would be a disappointment to the many simmers that appreciate the level of detail. Why can't you do the same?

[EtherealN]

Well FlyBy, the following didn't quite sound like you are talking about a study implementation:

 

but a simple flight of fancy with some components or systems might not be too out of line. Would it?

[...]

So a little imagination would not be a bad thing.

[...]

Hey Matt, it's ok if you guys dream a little. Dream us up a nice strike fighter as an addon.

 

If you do mean that they should do it if they get enough data to do a faithful study of the F15E or F15K, then I'm all game. Also, you should note that it was not the two-seater issue I was objecting to, it was the survey sim nature of "dreaming" a bit and having a "flight of fancy" with implementing a simulation of an aircraft.

 

Thos also does appear to be what you actually are talking about, when you say things like:

 

I'm not talking survey sims here. Although by the time DCS adds more planes/choppers to it's field the sim might appear to be a "survey" sim of sorts at first glance. Also, as I stated, maybe DCS could use a bit of "license" in fleshing out the electronic systems

 

Yes, you ARE talking about survey sims here. You are explicitly saying that a simulation series the whole point of which is it's fidelity to the real thing should use "a bit of license" in it's avionics implementation. THAT IS A SURVEY SIM. And that is what LOMAC was. It absolutely is not what the DCS brand is being built to be, and would destroy the brand.

 

And since you wonder, the mindset of DCS is that it is a study simulator. The difference being that it simulates things faithfully. It doesn't guess, it doesn't approximate, and it doesn't do things "just for fun". It simulates the real thing using real data from the real thing. That is the defining difference between a study and a survey simulator.

 

You further state that such license didn't stop LOMAC from being enjoyed, and while this is true you should realize that we already have LOMAC. So, we already have a quality survey simulator that can even be modded. What we do not have is a faithful study simulator, beyond Falcon 4's derivatives and now DCS. Do what you are asking for and the whole point with DCS is destroyed and our one newly released* study simulator is basically in the bin.

 

Finally, I am seeing a lot of talk about popularity and fun in your posts. Well, the basic mindset of ED in creating DCS is "as real as it gets on a personal computer". In the days of Janes F15E Strike Eagle (a game I believe Wags was involved in, btw) the limits for what you could do were quite different and what qualified as a study simulator in the minds of the consumer was correspondingly different

 

* And "newly released" in this context means "In the last 10 years"!

Edited February 27, 2009 by EtherealN

[slowhand]

fun in the back seat...

 

just another peanut from the can....i remember microprose had an f15 strike eagle sim it was II or III that had front seat /back seat setup tht was cool as ice....would love to see the next gen....2 seat AH60 or fixed wing.....cus talk'n the talk is cool about.. THERE I WAS... but when you add the fact tht your bud was in the back seat screaming like a lil girl is great..it made for some great fly'n...anyway would love to see something like that come down the pipe....5x5

[Flyby]

EtherealN,

How to reconcile? A study sim implies a simulation with one craft being the only human-operable, like the Falcon series. A survey sim implies several craft available as human-operable, as in the IL2 series.

"Yes, you ARE talking about survey sims here. You are explicitly saying that a simulation series the whole point of which is it's fidelity to the real thing should use "a bit of license" in it's avionics implementation. THAT IS A SURVEY SIM. And that is what LOMAC was. It absolutely is not what the DCS brand is being built to be, and would destroy the brand."

 

OK. So when DCS releases the A10, it will be a stand-alone? Are study sims all stand-alone simulations? If so, are all survey sims necessarily less advanced in model fidelity than study sims?

"The difference being that it simulates things faithfully. It doesn't guess, it doesn't approximate, and it doesn't do things "just for fun". It simulates the real thing using real data from the real thing. That is the defining difference between a study and a survey simulator." I don't believe DCS or anyone else can produce a sim to that standard for use on a desktop pc. I only have to look at pictures of the damage models to appreciate that. I don't think it's all based on data either. Some of it must be artistic license. Oh sure a lot of real data was available for Black Shark. Credit where credit is due, obviously. But in the interest of "game play"...well nothing is 100% So if I believe that, and I do, it's just a matter of degree by which real data and artistic license coexist in a simulation; thus dividing the study from the survey (by degrees). So there may be (has to be) some approximating. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. For the record, I was not implying that it was OK to do things just for fun when estimating the elctronic capabilites of any give two-seater multi-role plane. We are talking about DCS, after all. I dare say they may have the resources to make an educated guess about sytems capabilites that would not be too far off the mark, and provide decent game play. Maybe not so much with newer tech, but the Strike Eagle has been around for a year or two now.

Other than these minor points, I concede to your views.

Flyby out

[GGTharos]

There is no reconciliation.

There will be no 'artistic license'.

No military manuals (and other resources), no plane.

 

That, as far as I know, is the way things will go with modules released by ED.

As 'for gameplay' ... your abris doesn't talk to the PVI800...though for 'gameplay reasons' that would have been much more fun, no? ;)

 

About the only thing you'll see 'artistic license' on is probably the electronic battlefield, as well as weapons performance in some cases, or specific parts thereof that are classified. No such 'artistic license' however will be taken in general.

 

Lastly, ED will be releasing modules based on work executed for military contracts, as this makes the most sense - I believe Wags alluded to such in one of his interviews. That means if you want an F-15E, get the USAF to contract ED for an F-15E sim ;)

Edited February 27, 2009 by GGTharos

[Dark-Light]

I am interested in knowing the main differences between the ED simulators made for commercial use, and those made under military contracts. I am taking a guess that it has something to do with targeting, yield of devices, and electronics suites?

[GGTharos]

The differences are very minor, but that's all I can tell you. When I say minor, I mean you count'em on the fingers of one hand.

 

It's essentially the same stuff.

 

EDIT: Actually, AFAIK we're getting more than what the ANG did. Subsystems, AFM, 6-DOF pit, a whole bunch of other things as well (Everything is AFAIK, is 'LO standard' for the DTS). The most important thing to realize is that military contracts = transfer of knowledge that enables ED to bring to YOU a high-fidelity aircraft simulation that shows you 'how stuff really...and I mean REALLY works' with small exceptions (as mentioned before, ECM/ECCM is highly classified) - the way the aircraft is operated, the way it flies, the way navigation and weapons systems are operated. More explicitly, it is also my assumption that thanks to their military ties, ED can poll actual pilots of those aircraft to refine and ensure behavior is as realistic as possible given the limitations of computers, FM model, etc.

 

You are basically getting something that is a very new standard in air combat simulation: DCS puts the 'flight' part into 'COMBAT FLIGHT SIMULATION' so you can experience what a real pilot experiences in that aircraft. That's my story and I'm sticking to it :)

Edited February 27, 2009 by GGTharos

[RedTiger]

I think that a good rule of thumb is to ask "can ED make a sim that military clients could use to actually train pilots?". If the answer is no, then it cannot be made into a DCS module. Imagine how a compromise on realism would effect military training. There cannot be any compromises.

[t-stoff]

I always wanted a BS/Falcon 4 study sim but in a F-4 phantom II vietnam/cold war era. Course as a future addon, MIG23/27 or a more basic MIG-21. For me, Strike Fighters series are not enough.

Pros:

- All data is well known and well documented with no opsec restrictions

- no complicated digital systems to code

- theres a huge community of F-4 / vietnam / cold war fans

- could be naval and land based, covering both worlds.

- 2 seat with the possibility of a multiplayer backseater/pilot

- Hundreds of different types of mission could be preformed

- with no super-flight-does-it-all-computer, all NAV would have to be manual, with help of maps, bombing, air-to-air etc.

- modders could create campaigns based on virtual or a real scenarios, such as gulf war wild weasel missions...

 

well, I will keep dreamin' : )

[GGTharos]

Again ... if someone has a contract to offer to ED ... ;)

 

Otherwise, I think eventually there'll be 3rd party add-on tools. So all is not lost.

[EtherealN]

A study sim implies a simulation with one craft being the only human-operable, like the Falcon series.

 

Note that there are more playables than the F-16 in the Falcon series, even without touching products that actually carried a different name. It only "implies" a single craft due to the fact that a massive attention to detail is expended wherefore it is usually impractical if not economically suicidal for the developer to create more than one flyable in each product.

 

The "study sim" definition only implies singular flyables by tradition and practical concerns, it doesn't preclude multiples. In fact, one of the genious things with DCS is that ED is creating a framework where they can make multiple study-quality simulations work together, and (hopefully) not commit economic suicide in the process.

 

The solution to making DCS better is to make more studies for it. Not to dilute it into survey status, and ED has a method to do this. Fortunately, this method does not include guesswork and artistic license. A game like HAWX can legitimately claim artistic license because it doesn't claim to be anything but a game.

 

DCS is a "Digital Combat Simulator" that takes the "Simulator" bit extremely seriously.

 

OK. So when DCS releases the A10, it will be a stand-alone? Are study sims all stand-alone simulations? If so, are all survey sims necessarily less advanced in model fidelity than study sims?

 

No.*

No.

Yes.

 

To answer your questions from the horses' mouth, so to speak, allow me to quote a few bits from the FAQ, which you can find here: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/index.php?end_pos=718&scr=default&lang=en

 

There's further FAQ's on this forum that answers the questions you have posed. But anyhow;

 

Q: While is it good that Eagle strives to make very detailed vehicle simulations, how about developing some additional vehicles at a lesser detail level that you may not have complete data for

A: Given our equal focus on military-grade simulations for non-entertainment purposes, we now only pursue projects that we have ample data for such that we can demo to the military as representative of what we can do for them. Guess work is not an option. While no synthetic simulation will ever be 100% accurate given the constraints of the PC platform, we strive to be as close to that as we can. Knowingly making educated guesses is again not an option (see point 1). This level of detail is one of the primary hallmarks of the new DCS line of products and just one thing that separates it from the Lock On line and other PC-based helicopter sims. We realize that this restricts us to the number of aircraft we can model, but even with the aircraft we have good data for, we will be busy for at least the next decade.

 

Q: How will multiplayer compatibility be ensured between players with different DCS modules?

A: The base DCS simulation environment will be continually upgraded and improved with release of new modules. However, as each new DCS base version is released, all DCS users can upgrade to the same base version to ensure compatibility. The only difference between players would be the selection of what aircraft would be player-controllable versus AI-controlled according to which modules were purchased.

 

I don't believe DCS or anyone else can produce a sim to that standard for use on a desktop pc.

 

It's good enough for actual militaries who contract ED for software running the same basic engine, on the same hardware.

 

As for your talk of how there MUST have been some guesswork involved, that is an argument from personal incredulity and well, a fallacy. ED has worked with Kamov, the people who built the real thing, they have worked with people who fly the real thing for a living, and they have worked with people who maintain these things.

 

Is it therefore perfect and error free? Hell no. But a crucial element is in the quoted bits of the FAQ above: "Knowingly making educated guesses is again not an option"

 

*EDIT: Actually partially incorrect. From my understanding A10 and all the other modules WILL be stand-alone in the sense that you don't have to have DCS: Black Shark to use DCS: A10. However, if I only have DCS: Black Shark and you only have DCS: A10 we will still be running the same engine and we will be able to play against or with each other, since the older module will get updated to the newer one's standard in software.

Edited February 27, 2009 by EtherealN

[Flyby]

"There is no reconciliation.

There will be no 'artistic license'.

No military manuals (and other resources), no plane"

OK. Sounds simple enough to me.

 

"About the only thing you'll see 'artistic license' on is probably the electronic battlefield, as well as weapons performance in some cases, or specific parts thereof that are classified. No such 'artistic license' however will be taken in general."

What?! Bbbbut you just said...:huh: So electronic battlefield, weapons performance, or specific parts thereof that are classified could, in fact see some artistic license? But not generally speaking? Can I assume this infers a one-way street in the sense that what is known but cannot be shared may in fact be generally represented, but not accurately enough to violate a classified rating? If that's the case, I'm good. :smilewink: (I guess I'm wrong about this)

 

Sounds to me like "artistic license" if used in the context of broad strokes is a no-no. But, what the hell. I'll petition the DOD to loan me a copy of the Strike Eagle manuals, and get back to ya. ;)

I understand. No contract. No plane. But I am in sympathy with T-stoff. I have my hopes and wishes. Not looking for a fight or parsing of meanings here, guys. DCS's pathway is OK by me. I have acceptance. But nothing is 100% absolute in the simming world. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.

Flyby out

Edited February 27, 2009 by Flyby

[EtherealN]

On your first paragraph, pretty much. There's also some considerations where omitting something that is unknown would make any combat flight simulator impossible. For example, it is most likely entirely impossible to make a simulator of a modern fighter jet without generalising or omitting ECM/ECCM. So in those cases you basically have the choice of not doing a product or omitting critical elements of the product or generalising some components performance and thereby get a product that is as close as the law permits.

 

Other elements will have to be generalized simply due to computer capabilities and development constraints, which is some of the reasons why the ground AI in Black Shark isn't quite as advanced as it could be or the damage modelling for ground units. Other products, like Steel Beasts, which is a study of armored warfare, would use much more detail on the ground units than a flight simulator can.

 

Key is, you only back out on realism when you absolutely have to, when the alternative is to not release a product at all.

 

And this plays into aircraft selection when they make new modules as well - when the aim is faithful studies it makes a lot more sense to make simulations of aircraft and systems where you do have full documentation and sources in the industry than one where you know you will have to make guesses, no matter how educated.

[FADM Stern GNSF]

If I am given the option to fly a new F15 or maybe a Mirage, built based on "guess work" or "creative licence", I would flush it an play F4. There are tons of flight games out there that are simi-realistic-sort-of. BS seems to be setting the stage by making "as real as you can get", and I think most would agree thats what they should stick to doing.

 

Funny how many go on about how this and that feature isnt exactly super realistic, then turn around and ask for stuff thats a complete contradiction (like the RWR or A_A missles).

 

Come one now, there are tons of games out there like that, I want what BS is striving for

[EtherealN]

At least some of those discussions HAVE given us an RWR. The Rant Warning Receiver. :D

[Mugatu]

I find that one a bit over the top, even with a manual there's no way they could implement all the features of something like a Tiger or modern jet.

 

EDs just limiting the growth potential of the DCS series, people will argue about flight models etc no matter what data they have.

 

There is no reconciliation.

There will be no 'artistic license'.

No military manuals (and other resources), no plane.

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. ED WILL NOT implement a Tiger or a modern jet unless they have a military contract to do so.

 

With that contract come the data. And that's all there is to it.

[EtherealN]

Well Mugatu, that is the practical thing about ED having military clients. To give the military the products they want, they need to be given that hard-to-get information. When they then know how those systems work and perform, it becomes a lot easier to make a true-to-life simulation for entertainment.