"Downgraded" Documentation Requirements for modules

[dcn]

10小时前，Devil 505说：

It will only help people go "Ok, I am buying a quality product that will still be bad ass, but it will be somewhere between FC3 standards and the Hornet.

I don't know why so many people think DCS F-35 is better than FC3...FC3 is still based on solid documents,while DCS F-35...

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

34 minutes ago, dcn said:

I don't know why so many people think DCS F-35 is better than FC3...FC3 is still based on solid documents,while DCS F-35...

Because, it vexes you.

[Devil 505]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

the Commanche

Dear god what a great call!!!!! I was around as a young kid when Boeing started working this.  The exhaust system was phenomenal to prevent heat signatures.  They ran it through the tail boom and it was dispersed downward after passing through a bunch of baffle like slats similar to a suppressor.  The internal stores along with detachable pylons made it a very versatile platform.  I saw one of its flight tests and god did that thing fly fast and smooth.  I still feel this would have hands down smoked the Apache if it had not been so expensive. 

 

Tell me this is not one sexy A** B***H

[NineLine]

8 hours ago, Pipe said:

ED needs to do this for Redfor

“You must think in Russian”

We are already talking to Mr Eastwood

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

12 hours ago, Pipe said:

ED needs to do this for Redfor

“You must think in Russian”

NOW, we're talkin'.

[=475FG= Dawger]

Why no X-wings or TIE fighters?

I’d love a BG Viper. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

On 1/17/2025 at 10:53 AM, Zebra1-1 said:

Yeh, none of the classified stuff into DCS World. There are already F-35 and F-22 mods in DCS. A $4000 computer for trainee pilots to practice landings, take offs, formation, BFM, flight routines etc. etc. is much better than tying up a $3 million sim to do the same stuff when those sims can be better utilized for the classified trainings.

You got that backwards. The $4000 PC is better for practicing highly classified touchscreen operations while the serious simulation hardware is better suited for getting to know the basic flight characteristics. 

[Cab]

59 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Why no X-wings or TIE fighters?

I’d love a BG Viper. 

Actually, a spinoff game called Digital Space Combat Simulator, built to the same standards as DCS, would be an immense hit, I think. I’d buy it in a second.

[LucShep]

I didn't read all the pages of this thread (sorry) but, the thing where I get a "bad vibe" with the F-35 announcement goes beyond the debatable fidelity of it.
It's also the context in which the module is going to be placed. 

I understand DCS needs to be profitable, and that this is obviously aimed at a certain crowd (younger userbase, I suppose), perhaps aimed at newcomers (maybe the casual type getting into more in-depth sims) who only wants or knows about the "newest, most modern stuff". The F-35 may make sense in this context.

But then, and this is what makes me wonder about the module... 
DCS has been, for many years now, mocked for being a "cockpit simulator for nerds" but it is, most of all and in essence, a combat flight simulator that takes itself pretty serious. 
In a combat, there are two sides. And if you've chosen a "protagonist", you must also have its respective "antagonist". 
I mean, doing an F-35 and knowing there'll be no modern REDFOR counterpart module (J-20, Su-57, etc, not counting the missing 4th gen ones) makes it all kind of, I don't know, miss the point?

Personally, I'm a bit suprised ED went for a "full-fidelity" 5th gen aircraft, for which I don't think there's much unclassified information to make such module all that credible. 
I also have zilch interest (zero, nada, niente) in the F-35 (or any 5th gen fighter, for that matter) but, most of all, I'm actually disapointed seeing that ED went for the wrong "Lightning" as an FF module. 
Instead, I think the current userbase would've been thrilled with announcements for a Lockheed P-38 Lightning (WWII warbird) or an English Electric Lightning (CW era jet fighter, early 1960s), either of which would fit the current content better, and do have a LOT more documentation to make them feasable (and far less controversial) as DCS module(s).

Edited January 19 by LucShep

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

Actually, a spinoff game called Digital Space Combat Simulator, built to the same standards as DCS, would be an immense hit, I think. I’d buy it in a second.

Think of the map revenue stream. $10 per cubic parsec and pretty easy to generate. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, Cab said:

Actually, a spinoff game called Digital Space Combat Simulator, built to the same standards as DCS, would be an immense hit, I think. I’d buy it in a second.

Maybe, maybe not. If you modeled realistic physics and distances it would be pretty dull. 

Missile ranges are essentially infinite in empty space. Close to a gravity well, the trajectory calculations get interesting but none of that would be visible to the player.

 

Edited January 19 by =475FG= Dawger

[Dragon1-1]

In the end, I see the F-35 as a way for ED to pay for core dev. Presumably, lowered standards will only apply to aircraft that they know will make them a ton of dough, but are too classified. Also, the F-35 shouldn't be very difficult to develop compared to a modern module, all its systems are hidden behind a touchscreen UI and all aerodynamics behind the elaborate FBW. Plus, it'll help develop the tech for other aircraft, maybe even an FF Stinkbug at some point down the line.

19 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Maybe, maybe not. If you modeled realistic physics and distances it would be pretty dull. 

Missile ranges are essentially infinite in empty space. Close to a gravity well, the trajectory calculations get interesting but none of that would be visible to the player.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/476530/Children_of_a_Dead_Earth/

It's pretty awesome, actually, far from boring. No fighters, though (there are gun drones), the ships are quite large. Very grounded in physics, too, though it has its limitations (and bugs). Interestingly, it turns out ranges are far from infinite, and in fact, a thousand kilometers is quite a long distance to begin a gun and laser engagement in space. The gameplay is supposedly completely emergent, and you can make your own ships and ship components. It's been out of active dev for quite some time, but what is there is really cool (it even has a campaign).

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

In the end, I see the F-35 as a way for ED to pay for core dev. Presumably, lowered standards will only apply to aircraft that they know will make them a ton of dough, but are too classified. Also, the F-35 shouldn't be very difficult to develop compared to a modern module, all its systems are hidden behind a touchscreen UI and all aerodynamics behind the elaborate FBW. Plus, it'll help develop the tech for other aircraft, maybe even an FF Stinkbug at some point down the line.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/476530/Children_of_a_Dead_Earth/

It's pretty awesome, actually, far from boring. No fighters, though (there are gun drones), the ships are quite large. Very grounded in physics, too, though it has its limitations (and bugs). Interestingly, it turns out ranges are far from infinite, and in fact, a thousand kilometers is quite a long distance to begin a gun and laser engagement in space. The gameplay is supposedly completely emergent, and you can make your own ships and ship components. It's been out of active dev for quite some time, but what is there is really cool (it even has a campaign).

It is in the Solar system, so lots of competing gravity wells to move things around. It does look interesting, more interesting than Gen 5 fighters, in any case. 
 

Thanks for posting that

[Cab]

4 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Maybe, maybe not. If you modeled realistic physics and distances it would be pretty dull. 

Missile ranges are essentially infinite in empty space. Close to a gravity well, the trajectory calculations get interesting but none of that would be visible to the player.

 

I would assume it would have the fantasy physics of the fantasy world that it’s in. The ships would behave as they do in the movies, but look as good as the latest modules do in DCS.

[Dragon1-1]

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1222730/STAR_WARS_Squadrons/

Amazing visuals, VR, HOTAS support, but flight physics from Star Wars. Pretty great characters and a cool singleplayer campaign, too. Sadly, it's made by EA, and it's out of active dev. We definitely need more of those on the market. In fact, if ED were to use DCS engine for a licensed BSG sim, using physics similar to FC3 and even simpler controls, I think it'd have some appeal.

[LucShep]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1222730/STAR_WARS_Squadrons/

Amazing visuals, VR, HOTAS support, but flight physics from Star Wars. Pretty great characters and a cool singleplayer campaign, too. Sadly, it's made by EA, and it's out of active dev. We definitely need more of those on the market. In fact, if ED were to use DCS engine for a licensed BSG sim, using physics similar to FC3 and even simpler controls, I think it'd have some appeal.

Well, that is quite good. But then there's quite good and FREE (and speaking of BSG....).

https://diaspora.hard-light.net/

Made by people who really care and ask for nothing in trade.  HOTAS + Head-Tracking ready too.
 

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, I know about it, but it's not quite DCS-level graphics, Diaspora was made a while ago. Plus, while there is a VR build of the engine they use, it's still somewhat experimental, and it's not nearly as immersive as Squadrons is (2D menus only, the engine its built upon sucks in that regard, not that DCS is any better here). It's a good entry for a freeware game, though.

[ThePops]

IMO "lack of documentation" is just a way of saying this or that module is of low interest or low priority for ED to make, for one reason or the other. I would think economic priorities are high on the list. Third party developers are free to make whatever they want, but this doesn't change the economic reality.

It's like a puzzle where you don't have all the pieces. You can always recreate a missing piece from scratch, fill in the blanks by digging around in obscure documentations in libraries at far away places, often written in a different language. Get hold of old books and pictures from sources that you first have to find and so on. Interpolate, apply some basic physics etc. It's very much doable, but it requires lots and lots of recourses compared to having all the pieces from the start. This is what archeology is all about for instance. In principle it's exactly the same as recreating an old aircraft, but recreating an extinct animal from a few pieces of bones is of course a thousand times more difficult. An oddball aircraft that few will buy, and at the same time has poor availability documentation, is not a good start. Someone has to pay for all the "missing pieces". That's what it mostly is about IMO.

I also think there's a tendency to mix reality/fidelity with the feeling of accomplishment of "operating" a complex machine. This feeling doesn't really change all that much even if it's just a digital replica. The steep learning curve feels real, even if nothing is real in the digital replica. Just think about it for a few seconds. Cockpit familiarization is very much about muscle memory. You fingers, your eyes, your back bone knows where the buttons and switches are and how to operate them. This cannot be recreated without a 1:1 physical cockpit replica. Hence, in a Level D commercial simulator a 100% physical correct cockpit is a hard requirement (as well as certain minimum requirements for visuals, sound, movement and so on).

DCS is a game and ED is a commercial entity. That's the reality. It's a seriously cool game though, especially for us nerds interesting in "older" military aviation tech, but it's still a game.

I have no idea what the documentation requirements for modules are. I'm not sure if such a "hard standard" even exists. I mean, something obviously exists, but that something is nothing even close to the requirements of a Level D commercial simulator, not even a Level A, the lowest level. When it comes to basic aviation stuff (avionics and the corresponding ground equipment and ATC), DCS mostly completely off. Basic stuff that has been correct in X-Plane and MSFS for decades already (ATC for less time though). Anyway, I don't see how the F-35 will change anything. ED obviously has to do a harder job than for the F-5 for instance, but a whole bunch of people will gladly pay for it. All is good IMO.  

[Dragon1-1]

7 hours ago, ThePops said:

Basic stuff that has been correct in X-Plane and MSFS for decades already (ATC for less time though).

What basic stuff would that be? Sure, ATC is primitive (it follows a basic rendition of the Russian military procedure), but most people who flew those aircraft IRL are saying the avionics are pretty accurate. It's of course less than Level A, seeing as a three axis motion platform is already part of that requirement. For what it's worth, some people do fly with one, and the craziest rigs I've seen exceed Level D specs (I'm pretty sure at least one person made one that can fully invert). Making a physical cockpit replica is quite involved, but it's been done, we have a whole subforum for this. ED does have to accommodate rigs that are just a stick and a throttle on a desk, but if you build your physical controls to match the real aircraft (again, been done), you can get the right feel. While there are requirements for visuals, older pro-level flight sims can't hold a candle to DCS in that department.

FYI, DCS does model ground effect, mach effects and some (not all) icing, which Level C excludes. Dynamics wise, public documentation like E-M charts is matched as closely as possible, because if they don't, people will look at the charts and complain that their favorite jet is getting shafted in MP dogfights. Sound is a bit of a weak point for DCS, especially 3rd parties, definitely not Level D frequency matched sounds (wish they gave this part more attention). Worth noting, the "meat and potatoes" of DCS is none of that, it's the combat systems, and this is the part that's most challenging to simulate.

Documentation is required to make the switchology correct, particularly for MFD-heavy aircraft. For the F-35, it's possible ED already has that. It's also required to make the jet fly like its real counterpart. Unlike with earlier modules, ED does not have that data, because the F-35's actual performance is fairly closely guarded. This is what they're trying to divine with CFD and available public data.

[ThePops]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

What basic stuff would that be?

That depends very much on the time period. X-Plane and MSFS as civilian sims have always been current. You just download the latest AIRAC and charts from somewhere and all the avionics and procedures for every aircraft at every airport for every flight will be correct. The military got their own in addition, and now country also is a variable. These things have changed dramatically over the years as technology and procedures have advanced. These military procedures have never been made available to the public like AIRAC/AIP AFAIK.

In a civilian sim this is very much what it's all about. A high fidelity Boeing/Airbus in a high fidelity airspace. The airspace and procedures are literally 100% correct, always. What about DCS? You push the correct buttons in the correct order to start up the aircraft, but from there on you fly in a pure fantasy environment. Ground radar was very much necessary for any operation at all for instance. It was a huge complex system. It still is, but very different from the 70s and 80s since aircraft has become much more autonomous in the last 10-20 years (also civilian aircraft). But, where are the ground radar operators in DCS?

If all that was modelled and worked, would it make a better sim? It for sure would be much more realistic, but more fun? Perhaps, perhaps not. Dynamic campaigns are probably related to this. Is dynamic campaigns a good thing? I don't know. It smells very much pure game for it to be fun IMO.

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, ThePops said:

You push the correct buttons in the correct order to start up the aircraft, but from there on you fly in a pure fantasy environment.

The thing is, you might notice there are not very many instances where combat aircraft are being flown and employed, particularly across the full spectrum of their missions. This is a good thing, just about any realistic scenarios where combat aircraft get to do combat, is something we'd rather not see happen IRL. Besides, for multiple reasons, you can't just load up an ongoing war and fly a mission in it (you could do it with past wars, if we had the assets). A "high fidelity airspace" for a Boeing 737 is something that happens on a daily basis. For an F-16, depending on what your unit is doing, you may not even fly every day. So we need fantasy scenarios to properly explore just what those planes can do. An F-14 defending the fleet from a large scale airstrike is fun to fly, but you'd probably rather not see it play out IRL, seeing as this is the kind of thing that would precede a nuclear exchange. Of course, there's also the fact the F-14 isn't even flying anymore.

Also worth noting, unlike civilian flights, pretty much every military flight worth simulating is different. There are many people on levels of planning involved, and the specific are, more often than not, completely unique. As such, any specific scenario being "fantasy" is not really a problem, because unless you use DCS to recreate a historical scenario exactly, you can simulate any of the possible missions in a given theater for a given set of aircraft and ground forces. Dynamic campaign will help with that part, too.

4 hours ago, ThePops said:

But, where are the ground radar operators in DCS?

Ground radar is poorly implemented in DCS, but we have AWACS, which had replaced ground based radar stations in many instances ever since it became a thing. IADS in general is something that does need improvement in DCS, you can currently simulate it, but it takes an awful lot of effort and scripting, which breaks on every other update for some strange reason. This is purely a technical issue, though. There's even a dedicated IADS script, but I haven't tried it.

4 hours ago, ThePops said:

It for sure would be much more realistic, but more fun? 

We have several realistic Red Flag campaigns aiming to recreate how those exercises run, and Reflected's campaigns pay a lot of attention to realism. They're both realistic and fun, and they actually teach you to be a better pilot. DCS is, ultimately a platform, for a realistic experience you need to (painstakingly) add all the logic and events that apply outside of just flying. Military procedures for specific airport and aircraft, or even specific exercises such as Red Flag, are typically not classified information, and though they can be hard to get. If you want to, say, fly a departure and arrival out of and back to Nellis AFB the same way Phantom jocks did them back in Vietnam era, you can (now we only need a Vietnam map...). Even procedures for standardized training sorties are available if you look for them. In fact, learning the real procedures is usually a good idea.

There are improvements incoming, such as dynamic campaign, AI improvements and so on. Yes, DCS could do more, including tools to create a more realistic combat environment without having to resort to complex, brittle scripting. However, by properly using what is already in DCS, you can make stuff like Speed and Angels, for instance.

[ThePops]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

for a realistic experience you need to (painstakingly) add all the logic and events that apply outside of just flying

Well, as pointed out, this "just flying" isn't very realistic in DCS. It's a lot more involved than following a route or just goof around and looking at F10. That's were ATC, (ground)radars and charts come in. With humans as ATC/radar it can be done very realistic I think, but it's a job better done by AI in general.

Anyway, we are diverging from topic. My point was simply that I don't think any degrading of documentation requirements for modules is going on, whatever that actually means. Changing perhaps? I don't know. ED has been at it for a long time now, and it's reasonable to assume that they know much more than anyone of us what actually is important regarding "fidelity". More often than not, people just want to goof around for instance, and then this has to be fun. Then "fidelity" becomes 95% nice graphics combined with believable physics, not necessarily super accurate physics. Not every single module in DCS needs to be a museum piece with the usual museum piece discussions. There are lots of other aspects.

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, ThePops said:

Well, as pointed out, this "just flying" isn't very realistic in DCS. It's a lot more involved than following a route or just goof around and looking at F10. That's were ATC, (ground)radars and charts come in. With humans as ATC/radar it can be done very realistic I think, but it's a job better done by AI in general.

But you can do this. You can have ground radar talk to you in SP, you can have ATC, and you can use real charts and procedures appropriate for a given country in a given era. Again, try one of Reflected campaigns. He gives you range rules, departure procedures, realistic comms, what have you. DCS allows you to ignore this, indeed, it takes a lot of effort to set up a mission like this, but all the tools for this are available. ED provides the physics and the graphics, as well as some terrains and aircraft. They also provide ME, which allows you to set up the rest. ATC is scripted in Reflected's missions, but it only breaks if you fool around instead of following the instructions.

FYI, there was a time when fighters were taken for what could only be described as joyrides. It was mostly WWII era shenanigans and it ended soon after, much to the pilots' displeasure. There's also a matter of unusual tactical circumstances. If your airbase is being bombed, you're not going to be looking at SIDs charts when you're taking off to stop this from happening. Indeed, if your aircraft is capable of that, you may be taking off from a taxiway, or even a road leading to the base (or, in case of the Harrier, vertially). DCS allows you to simulate all sorts of rare situations, and you can do what any real military pilot would in this case: chuck the book back into the locker, and adapt to the situation. The strength of DCS is that it allows you to set up such missions, as well as by the book operations.

[ThePops]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Reflected's missions

Perhaps I will give it a go  But, this wasn't my point at all however. I know where to go for high fidelity and accurate airspace/ATC if that's what I feel like doing an evening. I don't even need to simulate it. My point was simply that it's a lot more to "fidelity" than pushing virtual buttons to start up an aircraft. Perhaps the F-35 will offer a different kind of fidelity? I mean, it's very far from being a museum piece, so something ought to be different? In 2-3 years we will find out I guess.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, ThePops said:

My point was simply that it's a lot more to "fidelity" than pushing virtual buttons to start up an aircraft. 

I know, but my point was that as long as ED gets the button pushing part right, campaign creators will give us the rest. Seriously, give campaigns a try. You might have plenty of experience flying real SIDs, STARs and working with real ATC, but how many times do you get to fly a legendary carrier fighter in a realistic military exercise?  Speed and Angels is the RAG training, and then Zone 5 is essentially a TOPGUN course, both quite compressed (although in practice, you'll spend quite a bit of time practicing to pass each scenario), and only held back by some DCS AI quirks. In both cases, the guys voicing the instructors are played by people who were instructors IRL, and they know a thing or two about how things worked back then.

While I guess you could do the same with the F-35, I'm afraid it'll simply leave all potential opponents in the dust. In the F-14, you have to work for your kills, and even winning a fight against AI feels good. The Phoenix is not an AMRAAM, but it's got some tricks up its sleeve, so you can beat more modern jets if your BVR game is good. The F-35 will just blow things out of the sky with little opportunity for them to fight back. I'm sure campaign creators will find some way to challenge the players, but it's a flying iPad, not the jet from Top Gun.

Edited February 5 by Dragon1-1